diff --git "a/text_defense/202.IMDB10K/imdb10k.train.dat" "b/text_defense/202.IMDB10K/imdb10k.train.dat"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/text_defense/202.IMDB10K/imdb10k.train.dat"
@@ -0,0 +1,7000 @@
+One of the other reviewers has mentioned that after watching just 1 Oz episode you'll be hooked. They are right, as this is exactly what happened with me.The first thing that struck me about Oz was its brutality and unflinching scenes of violence, which set in right from the word GO. Trust me, this is not a show for the faint hearted or timid. This show pulls no punches with regards to drugs, sex or violence. Its is hardcore, in the classic use of the word.It is called OZ as that is the nickname given to the Oswald Maximum Security State Penitentary. It focuses mainly on Emerald City, an experimental section of the prison where all the cells have glass fronts and face inwards, so privacy is not high on the agenda. Em City is home to many..Aryans, Muslims, gangstas, Latinos, Christians, Italians, Irish and more....so scuffles, death stares, dodgy dealings and shady agreements are never far away.I would say the main appeal of the show is due to the fact that it goes where other shows wouldn't dare. Forget pretty pictures painted for mainstream audiences, forget charm, forget romance...OZ doesn't mess around. The first episode I ever saw struck me as so nasty it was surreal, I couldn't say I was ready for it, but as I watched more, I developed a taste for Oz, and got accustomed to the high levels of graphic violence. Not just violence, but injustice (crooked guards who'll be sold out for a nickel, inmates who'll kill on order and get away with it, well mannered, middle class inmates being turned into prison bitches due to their lack of street skills or prison experience) Watching Oz, you may become comfortable with what is uncomfortable viewing....thats if you can get in touch with your darker side.$LABEL$ 1
+A wonderful little production. The filming technique is very unassuming- very old-time-BBC fashion and gives a comforting, and sometimes discomforting, sense of realism to the entire piece. The actors are extremely well chosen- Michael Sheen not only "has got all the polari" but he has all the voices down pat too! You can truly see the seamless editing guided by the references to Williams' diary entries, not only is it well worth the watching but it is a terrificly written and performed piece. A masterful production about one of the great master's of comedy and his life. The realism really comes home with the little things: the fantasy of the guard which, rather than use the traditional 'dream' techniques remains solid then disappears. It plays on our knowledge and our senses, particularly with the scenes concerning Orton and Halliwell and the sets (particularly of their flat with Halliwell's murals decorating every surface) are terribly well done.$LABEL$ 1
+I thought this was a wonderful way to spend time on a too hot summer weekend, sitting in the air conditioned theater and watching a light-hearted comedy. The plot is simplistic, but the dialogue is witty and the characters are likable (even the well bread suspected serial killer). While some may be disappointed when they realize this is not Match Point 2: Risk Addiction, I thought it was proof that Woody Allen is still fully in control of the style many of us have grown to love.This was the most I'd laughed at one of Woody's comedies in years (dare I say a decade?). While I've never been impressed with Scarlet Johanson, in this she managed to tone down her "sexy" image and jumped right into a average, but spirited young woman.This may not be the crown jewel of his career, but it was wittier than "Devil Wears Prada" and more interesting than "Superman" a great comedy to go see with friends.$LABEL$ 1
+Basically there's a family where a little boy (Jake) thinks there's a zombie in his closet & his parents are fighting all the time.This movie is slower than a soap opera... and suddenly, Jake decides to become Rambo and kill the zombie.OK, first of all when you're going to make a film you must Decide if its a thriller or a drama! As a drama the movie is watchable. Parents are divorcing & arguing like in real life. And then we have Jake with his closet which totally ruins all the film! I expected to see a BOOGEYMAN similar movie, and instead i watched a drama with some meaningless thriller spots.3 out of 10 just for the well playing parents & descent dialogs. As for the shots with Jake: just ignore them.$LABEL$ 0
+Petter Mattei's "Love in the Time of Money" is a visually stunning film to watch. Mr. Mattei offers us a vivid portrait about human relations. This is a movie that seems to be telling us what money, power and success do to people in the different situations we encounter. This being a variation on the Arthur Schnitzler's play about the same theme, the director transfers the action to the present time New York where all these different characters meet and connect. Each one is connected in one way, or another to the next person, but no one seems to know the previous point of contact. Stylishly, the film has a sophisticated luxurious look. We are taken to see how these people live and the world they live in their own habitat.The only thing one gets out of all these souls in the picture is the different stages of loneliness each one inhabits. A big city is not exactly the best place in which human relations find sincere fulfillment, as one discerns is the case with most of the people we encounter.The acting is good under Mr. Mattei's direction. Steve Buscemi, Rosario Dawson, Carol Kane, Michael Imperioli, Adrian Grenier, and the rest of the talented cast, make these characters come alive.We wish Mr. Mattei good luck and await anxiously for his next work.$LABEL$ 1
+Probably my all-time favorite movie, a story of selflessness, sacrifice and dedication to a noble cause, but it's not preachy or boring. It just never gets old, despite my having seen it some 15 or more times in the last 25 years. Paul Lukas' performance brings tears to my eyes, and Bette Davis, in one of her very few truly sympathetic roles, is a delight. The kids are, as grandma says, more like "dressed-up midgets" than children, but that only makes them more fun to watch. And the mother's slow awakening to what's happening in the world and under her own roof is believable and startling. If I had a dozen thumbs, they'd all be "up" for this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+I sure would like to see a resurrection of a up dated Seahunt series with the tech they have today it would bring back the kid excitement in me.I grew up on black and white TV and Seahunt with Gunsmoke were my hero's every week.You have my vote for a comeback of a new sea hunt.We need a change of pace in TV and this would work for a world of under water adventure.Oh by the way thank you for an outlet like this to view many viewpoints about TV and the many movies.So any ole way I believe I've got what I wanna say.Would be nice to read some more plus points about sea hunt.If my rhymes would be 10 lines would you let me submit,or leave me out to be in doubt and have me to quit,If this is so then I must go so lets do it.$LABEL$ 1
+This show was an amazing, fresh & innovative idea in the 70's when it first aired. The first 7 or 8 years were brilliant, but things dropped off after that. By 1990, the show was not really funny anymore, and it's continued its decline further to the complete waste of time it is today.It's truly disgraceful how far this show has fallen. The writing is painfully bad, the performances are almost as bad - if not for the mildly entertaining respite of the guest-hosts, this show probably wouldn't still be on the air. I find it so hard to believe that the same creator that hand-selected the original cast also chose the band of hacks that followed. How can one recognize such brilliance and then see fit to replace it with such mediocrity? I felt I must give 2 stars out of respect for the original cast that made this show such a huge success. As it is now, the show is just awful. I can't believe it's still on the air.$LABEL$ 0
+Encouraged by the positive comments about this film on here I was looking forward to watching this film. Bad mistake. I've seen 950+ films and this is truly one of the worst of them - it's awful in almost every way: editing, pacing, storyline, 'acting,' soundtrack (the film's only song - a lame country tune - is played no less than four times). The film looks cheap and nasty and is boring in the extreme. Rarely have I been so happy to see the end credits of a film. The only thing that prevents me giving this a 1-score is Harvey Keitel - while this is far from his best performance he at least seems to be making a bit of an effort. One for Keitel obsessives only.$LABEL$ 0
+If you like original gut wrenching laughter you will like this movie. If you are young or old then you will love this movie, hell even my mom liked it.Great Camp!!!$LABEL$ 1
+Phil the Alien is one of those quirky films where the humour is based around the oddness of everything rather than actual punchlines.At first it was very odd and pretty funny but as the movie progressed I didn't find the jokes or oddness funny anymore.Its a low budget film (thats never a problem in itself), there were some pretty interesting characters, but eventually I just lost interest.I imagine this film would appeal to a stoner who is currently partaking.For something similar but better try "Brother from another planet"$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie when I was about 12 when it came out. I recall the scariest scene was the big bird eating men dangling helplessly from parachutes right out of the air. The horror. The horror.As a young kid going to these cheesy B films on Saturday afternoons, I still was tired of the formula for these monster type movies that usually included the hero, a beautiful woman who might be the daughter of a professor and a happy resolution when the monster died in the end. I didn't care much for the romantic angle as a 12 year old and the predictable plots. I love them now for the unintentional humor.But, about a year or so later, I saw Psycho when it came out and I loved that the star, Janet Leigh, was bumped off early in the film. I sat up and took notice at that point. Since screenwriters are making up the story, make it up to be as scary as possible and not from a well-worn formula. There are no rules.$LABEL$ 0
+So im not a big fan of Boll's work but then again not many are. I enjoyed his movie Postal (maybe im the only one). Boll apparently bought the rights to use Far Cry long ago even before the game itself was even finsished. People who have enjoyed killing mercs and infiltrating secret research labs located on a tropical island should be warned, that this is not Far Cry... This is something Mr Boll have schemed together along with his legion of schmucks.. Feeling loneley on the set Mr Boll invites three of his countrymen to play with. These players go by the names of Til Schweiger, Udo Kier and Ralf Moeller.Three names that actually have made them selfs pretty big in the movie biz. So the tale goes like this, Jack Carver played by Til Schweiger (yes Carver is German all hail the bratwurst eating dudes!!) However I find that Tils acting in this movie is pretty badass.. People have complained about how he's not really staying true to the whole Carver agenda but we only saw carver in a first person perspective so we don't really know what he looked like when he was kicking a**.. However, the storyline in this film is beyond demented. We see the evil mad scientist Dr. Krieger played by Udo Kier, making Genetically-Mutated-soldiers or GMS as they are called. Performing his top-secret research on an island that reminds me of "SPOILER" Vancouver for some reason. Thats right no palm trees here. Instead we got some nice rich lumberjack-woods. We haven't even gone FAR before I started to CRY (mehehe) I cannot go on any more.. If you wanna stay true to Bolls shenanigans then go and see this movie you will not be disappointed it delivers the true Boll experience, meaning most of it will suck.There are some things worth mentioning that would imply that Boll did a good work on some areas of the film such as some nice boat and fighting scenes. Until the whole cromed/albino GMS squad enters the scene and everything just makes me laugh.. The movie Far Cry reeks of scheisse (that's poop for you simpletons) from a fa,r if you wanna take a wiff go ahead.. BTW Carver gets a very annoying sidekick who makes you wanna shoot him the first three minutes he's on screen.$LABEL$ 0
+The cast played Shakespeare.Shakespeare lost.I appreciate that this is trying to bring Shakespeare to the masses, but why ruin something so good.Is it because 'The Scottish Play' is my favorite Shakespeare? I do not know. What I do know is that a certain Rev Bowdler (hence bowdlerization) tried to do something similar in the Victorian era.In other words, you cannot improve perfection.I have no more to write but as I have to write at least ten lines of text (and English composition was never my forte I will just have to keep going and say that this movie, as the saying goes, just does not cut it.$LABEL$ 0
+This a fantastic movie of three prisoners who become famous. One of the actors is george clooney and I'm not a fan but this roll is not bad. Another good thing about the movie is the soundtrack (The man of constant sorrow). I recommand this movie to everybody. Greetings Bart$LABEL$ 1
+Kind of drawn in by the erotic scenes, only to realize this was one of the most amateurish and unbelievable bits of film I've ever seen. Sort of like a high school film project. What was Rosanna Arquette thinking?? And what was with all those stock characters in that bizarre supposed Midwest town? Pretty hard to get involved with this one. No lessons to be learned from it, no brilliant insights, just stilted and quite ridiculous (but lots of skin, if that intrigues you) videotaped nonsense....What was with the bisexual relationship, out of nowhere, after all the heterosexual encounters. And what was with that absurd dance, with everybody playing their stereotyped roles? Give this one a pass, it's like a million other miles of bad, wasted film, money that could have been spent on starving children or Aids in Africa.....$LABEL$ 0
+Some films just simply should not be remade. This is one of them. In and of itself it is not a bad film. But it fails to capture the flavor and the terror of the 1963 film of the same title. Liam Neeson was excellent as he always is, and most of the cast holds up, with the exception of Owen Wilson, who just did not bring the right feel to the character of Luke. But the major fault with this version is that it strayed too far from the Shirley Jackson story in it's attempts to be grandiose and lost some of the thrill of the earlier film in a trade off for snazzier special effects. Again I will say that in and of itself it is not a bad film. But you will enjoy the friction of terror in the older version much more.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie made it into one of my top 10 most awful movies. Horrible. There wasn't a continuous minute where there wasn't a fight with one monster or another. There was no chance for any character development, they were too busy running from one sword fight to another. I had no emotional attachment (except to the big bad machine that wanted to destroy them) Scenes were blatantly stolen from other movies, LOTR, Star Wars and Matrix. Examples>The ghost scene at the end was stolen from the final scene of the old Star Wars with Yoda, Obee One and Vader. >The spider machine in the beginning was exactly like Frodo being attacked by the spider in Return of the Kings. (Elijah Wood is the victim in both films) and wait......it hypnotizes (stings) its victim and wraps them up.....uh hello????>And the whole machine vs. humans theme WAS the Matrix..or Terminator.....There are more examples but why waste the time? And will someone tell me what was with the Nazi's?!?! Nazi's???? There was a juvenile story line rushed to a juvenile conclusion. The movie could not decide if it was a children's movie or an adult movie and wasn't much of either. Just awful. A real disappointment to say the least. Save your money.$LABEL$ 0
+I remember this film,it was the first film i had watched at the cinema the picture was dark in places i was very nervous it was back in 74/75 my Dad took me my brother & sister to Newbury cinema in Newbury Berkshire England. I recall the tigers and the lots of snow in the film also the appearance of Grizzly Adams actor Dan Haggery i think one of the tigers gets shot and dies. If anyone knows where to find this on DVD etc please let me know.The cinema now has been turned in a fitness club which is a very big shame as the nearest cinema now is 20 miles away, would love to hear from others who have seen this film or any other like it.$LABEL$ 1
+An awful film! It must have been up against some real stinkers to be nominated for the Golden Globe. They've taken the story of the first famous female Renaissance painter and mangled it beyond recognition. My complaint is not that they've taken liberties with the facts; if the story were good, that would perfectly fine. But it's simply bizarre -- by all accounts the true story of this artist would have made for a far better film, so why did they come up with this dishwater-dull script? I suppose there weren't enough naked people in the factual version. It's hurriedly capped off in the end with a summary of the artist's life -- we could have saved ourselves a couple of hours if they'd favored the rest of the film with same brevity.$LABEL$ 0
+After the success of Die Hard and it's sequels it's no surprise really that in the 1990s, a glut of 'Die Hard on a .....' movies cashed in on the wrong guy, wrong place, wrong time concept. That is what they did with Cliffhanger, Die Hard on a mountain just in time to rescue Sly 'Stop or My Mom Will Shoot' Stallone's career.Cliffhanger is one big nit-pickers dream, especially to those who are expert at mountain climbing, base-jumping, aviation, facial expressions, acting skills. All in all it's full of excuses to dismiss the film as one overblown pile of junk. Stallone even managed to get out-acted by a horse! However, if you an forget all the nonsense, it's actually a very lovable and undeniably entertaining romp that delivers as plenty of thrills, and unintentionally, plenty of laughs.You've got to love John Lithgows sneery evilness, his tick every box band of baddies, and best of all, the permanently harassed and hapless 'turncoat' agent, Rex Linn as Travers.He may of been Henry in 'Portrait of a Serial Killer' but Michael Rooker is noteworthy for a cringe-worthy performance as Hal, he insists on constantly shrieking in painful disbelief at his captors 'that man never hurt anybody' And whilst he surely can't be, it really does look like Ralph Waite's Frank character is grinning as the girl plummets to her death.Mention too must go to former 'London's Burning' actor Craig Fairbrass as the Brit bad guy, who comes a cropper whilst using Hal as a Human Football, yes, you can't help enjoy that bit, Hal needed a good kicking.So forget your better judgement, who cares if 'that could never happen', lower your acting expectations, turn up the volume and enjoy! And if you're looking for Qaulen, he's the one wearing the helicopter.$LABEL$ 1
+I had the terrible misfortune of having to view this "b-movie" in it's entirety.All I have to say is--- save your time and money!!! This has got to be the worst b-movie of all time, it shouldn't even be called a b-movie, more like an f-movie! Because it fails in all aspects that make a good movie: the story is not interesting at all, all of the actors are paper-thin and not at all believable, it has bad direction and the action sequences are so fake it's almost funny.......almost.The movie is just packed full of crappy one-liners that no respectable person could find amusing in the least little bit.This movie is supposed to be geared towards men, but all the women in it are SO utterly unattractive, especially that old wrinkled thing that comes in towards the end. They try to appear sexy in those weird, horrible costumes and they fail miserably!!!Even some of the most ridiculous b-movies will still give you some laughs, but this is just too painful to watch!!$LABEL$ 0
+What an absolutely stunning movie, if you have 2.5 hrs to kill, watch it, you won't regret it, it's too much fun! Rajnikanth carries the movie on his shoulders and although there isn't anything more other than him, I still liked it. The music by A.R.Rehman takes time to grow on you but after you heard it a few times, you really start liking it.$LABEL$ 1
+First of all, let's get a few things straight here: a) I AM an anime fan- always has been as a matter of fact (I used to watch Speed Racer all the time in Preschool). b) I DO like several B-Movies because they're hilarious. c) I like the Godzilla movies- a lot.Moving on, when the movie first comes on, it seems like it's going to be your usual B-movie, down to the crappy FX, but all a sudden- BOOM! the anime comes on! This is when the movie goes WWWAAAAAYYYYY downhill.The animation is VERY bad & cheap, even worse than what I remember from SPEED RACER, for crissakes! In fact, it's so cheap, one of the few scenes from the movie I "vividly" remember is when a bunch of kids run out of a school... & it's the same kids over & over again! The FX are terrible, too; the dinosaurs look worse than Godzilla. In addition, the transition to live action to animation is unorganized, the dialogue & voices(especially the English dub that I viewed) was horrid & I was begging my dad to take the tape out of the DVD/ VHS player; The only thing that kept me surviving was cracking out jokes & comments like the robots & Joel/Mike on MST3K (you pick the season). Honestly, this is the only way to barely enjoy this movie & survive it at the same time.Heck, I'm planning to show this to another fellow otaku pal of mine on Halloween for a B-Movie night. Because it's stupid, pretty painful to watch & unintentionally hilarious at the same time, I'm giving this movie a 3/10, an improvement from the 0.5/10 I was originally going to give it.(According to my grading scale: 3/10 means Pretty much both boring & bad. As fun as counting to three unless you find a way to make fun of it, then it will become as fun as counting to 15.)$LABEL$ 0
+This was the worst movie I saw at WorldFest and it also received the least amount of applause afterwards! I can only think it is receiving such recognition based on the amount of known actors in the film. It's great to see J.Beals but she's only in the movie for a few minutes. M.Parker is a much better actress than the part allowed for. The rest of the acting is hard to judge because the movie is so ridiculous and predictable. The main character is totally unsympathetic and therefore a bore to watch. There is no real emotional depth to the story. A movie revolving about an actor who can't get work doesn't feel very original to me. Nor does the development of the cop. It feels like one of many straight-to-video movies I saw back in the 90s ... And not even a good one in those standards.$LABEL$ 0
+The Karen Carpenter Story shows a little more about singer Karen Carpenter's complex life. Though it fails in giving accurate facts, and details.Cynthia Gibb (portrays Karen) was not a fine election. She is a good actress , but plays a very naive and sort of dumb Karen Carpenter. I think that the role needed a stronger character. Someone with a stronger personality.Louise Fletcher role as Agnes Carpenter is terrific, she does a great job as Karen's mother.It has great songs, which could have been included in a soundtrack album. Unfortunately they weren't, though this movie was on the top of the ratings in USA and other several countries$LABEL$ 1
+"The Cell" is an exotic masterpiece, a dizzying trip into not only the vast mind of a serial killer, but also into one of a very talented director. This is conclusive evidence of what can be achieved if human beings unleash their uninhibited imaginations. This is boldness at work, pushing aside thoughts to fall into formulas and cliches and creating something truly magnificent. This is the best movie of the year to date.I've read numerous complaints about this film, anywhere from all style and no substance to poorly cast characters and bad acting. To negatively criticize this film is to miss the point. This movie may be a landmark, a tradition where future movies will hopefully follow. "The Cell" has just opened the door to another world of imagination. So can we slam the door in its face and tell it and its director Tarsem Singh that we don't want any more? Personally, I would more than welcome another movie by Tarsem, and would love to see someone try to challenge him.We've all heard talk about going inside the mind of a serial killer, and yes, I do agree that the "genre" is a bit overworked. The 90s were full of movies trying to depict what makes serial killers tick; some of them worked, but most failed. But "The Cell" does not blaze down the same trail, we are given a new twist, we are physically transported into the mind and presented with nothing less than a fascinating journey of the most mysterious subject matter ever studied.I like how the movie does not bog us down with too much scientific jargon trying to explain how Jennifer Lopez actually gets to enter the brain of another. Instead, she just lies down on a laboratory table and is wrapped with what looks like really long Twizzlers and jaunted into another entity. "The Cell" wants to let you "see" what it's all about and not "how" it's all about, and I guess that's what some people don't like. True, I do like explanations with my movies, but when a movie ventures onto new ground you must let it do what it desires and simply take it in.I noticed how the film was very dark when it showed reality, maybe to contrast the bright visuals when inside the brain of another. Nonetheless, the set design was simply astonishing. I wouldn't be surprised if this film took home a few Oscars in cinematography, best costumes, best director and the like. If it were up to me it'd at least get nominated for best picture.I've noticed that I've kind of been repeating myself. Not because there's nothing else to say, but because I can't stress enough how fantastic I thought "The Cell" was. If you walk into the movie with a very open mind and to have it taken over with wonders and an eye-popping feast then you are assured a good time. I guess this film was just a little too much for some people, writing it off as "weird" or "crazy". I am very much into psychology and the imagination of the human mind, so it was right down my alley. Leaving the theater, I heard one audience member say "Whoever made that movie sure did a lot of good drugs." If so, I want what he was smoking.**** (out of 4)$LABEL$ 1
+This film tried to be too many things all at once: stinging political satire, Hollywood blockbuster, sappy romantic comedy, family values promo... the list goes on and on. It failed miserably at all of them, but there was enough interest to keep me from turning it off until the end.Although I appreciate the spirit behind WAR, INC., it depresses me to see such a clumsy effort, especially when it will be taken by its targets to reflect the lack of the existence of a serious critique, rather than simply the poor writing, direction, and production of this particular film.There is a critique to be made about the corporatization of war. But poking fun at it in this way diminishes the true atrocity of what is happening. Reminds me a bit of THREE KINGS, which similarly trivializes a genuine cause for concern.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was so frustrating. Everything seemed energetic and I was totally prepared to have a good time. I at least thought I'd be able to stand it. But, I was wrong. First, the weird looping? It was like watching "America's Funniest Home Videos". The damn parents. I hated them so much. The stereo-typical Latino family? I need to speak with the person responsible for this. We need to have a talk. That little girl who was always hanging on someone? I just hated her and had to mention it. Now, the final scene transcends, I must say. It's so gloriously bad and full of badness that it is a movie of its own. What crappy dancing. Horrible and beautiful at once.$LABEL$ 0
+'War movie' is a Hollywood genre that has been done and redone so many times that clichéd dialogue, rehashed plot and over-the-top action sequences seem unavoidable for any conflict dealing with large-scale combat. Once in a while, however, a war movie comes along that goes against the grain and brings a truly original and compelling story to life on the silver screen. The Civil War-era "Cold Mountain," starring Jude Law, Nicole Kidman and Renée Zellweger is such a film.Then again, calling Cold Mountain" a war movie is not entirely accurate. True enough, the film opens with a (quite literally) quick-and-dirty battle sequence that puts "Glory" director Edward Zwick shame. However, "Cold Mountain" is not so much about the Civil War itself as it is about the period and the people of the times. The story centers around disgruntled Confederate soldier Inman, played by Jude Law, who becomes disgusted with the gruesome war and homesick for the beautiful hamlet of Cold Mountain, North Carolina and the equally beautiful southern belle he left behind, Ada Monroe, played by Nicole Kidman. At first glance, this setup appears formulaic as the romantic interest back home gives the audience enough sympathy to root for the reluctant soldier's tribulations on the battlefield. Indeed, the earlier segments of the film are relatively unimpressive and even somewhat contrived."Cold Mountain" soon takes a drastic turn, though, as the intrepid hero Inman turns out to be a deserter (incidentally saving the audience from the potentially confusing scenario of wanting to root for the Confederates) and begins a long odyssey homeward. Meanwhile, back at the farm, Ada's cultured ways prove of little use in the fields; soon she is transformed into something of a wilderbeast. Coming to Ada's rescue is the course, tough-as-nails Ruby Thewes, played by Renée Zellweger, who helps Ada put the farm back together and, perhaps more importantly, cope with the loneliness and isolation the war seems to have brought upon Ada.Within these two settings, a vivid, compelling and, at times, very disturbing portrait of the war-torn South unfolds. The characters with whom Inman and Ada interact are surprisingly complex, enhanced by wonderful performances of Brendan Gleeson as Ruby's deadbeat father, Ray Winstone as an unrepentant southern "lawman," and Natalie Portman as a deeply troubled and isolated young mother. All have been greatly affected and changed by "the war of Northern aggression," mostly for the worse. The dark, pervading anti-war message, accented by an effective, haunting score and chillingly beautiful shots of Virginia and North Carolina, is communicated to the audience not so much by gruesome battle scenes as by the scarred land and traumatized people for which the war was fought. Though the weapons and tactics of war itself have changed much in the past century, it's hellish effect on the land is timelessly relevant.Director Anthony Minghella manages to maintain this gloomy mood for most of the film, but the atmosphere is unfortunately denigrated by a rather tepid climax that does little justice to the wonderfully formed characters. The love story between Inman and Ada is awkwardly tacked onto the beginning and end of the film, though the inherently distant, abstracted and even absurd nature of their relationship in a way fits the dismal nature of the rest of the plot.Make no mistake, "Cold Mountain" has neither the traits of a feel-good romance nor an inspiring war drama. It is a unique vision of an era that is sure not only to entertain but also to truly absorb the audience into the lives of a people torn apart by a war and entirely desperate to be rid of its terrible repercussions altogether.$LABEL$ 1
+Taut and organically gripping, Edward Dmytryk's Crossfire is a distinctive suspense thriller, an unlikely "message" movie using the look and devices of the noir cycle.Bivouacked in Washington, DC, a company of soldiers cope with their restlessness by hanging out in bars. Three of them end up at a stranger's apartment where Robert Ryan, drunk and belligerent, beats their host (Sam Levene) to death because he happens to be Jewish. Police detective Robert Young investigates with the help of Robert Mitchum, who's assigned to Ryan's outfit. Suspicion falls on the second of the three (George Cooper), who has vanished. Ryan slays the third buddy (Steve Brodie) to insure his silence before Young closes in.Abetted by a superior script by John Paxton, Dmytryk draws precise performances from his three starring Bobs. Ryan, naturally, does his prototypical Angry White Male (and to the hilt), while Mitchum underplays with his characteristic alert nonchalance (his role, however, is not central); Young may never have been better. Gloria Grahame gives her first fully-fledged rendition of the smart-mouthed, vulnerable tramp, and, as a sad sack who's leeched into her life, Paul Kelly haunts us in a small, peripheral role that he makes memorable.The politically engaged Dmytryk perhaps inevitably succumbs to sermonizing, but it's pretty much confined to Young's reminiscence of how his Irish grandfather died at the hands of bigots a century earlier (thus, incidentally, stretching chronology to the limit). At least there's no attempt to render an explanation, however glib, of why Ryan hates Jews (and hillbillies and...).Curiously, Crossfire survives even the major change wrought upon it -- the novel it's based on (Richard Brooks' The Brick Foxhole) dealt with a gay-bashing murder. But homosexuality in 1947 was still Beyond The Pale. News of the Holocaust had, however, begun to emerge from the ashes of Europe, so Hollywood felt emboldened to register its protest against anti-Semitism (the studios always quaked at the prospect of offending any potential ticket buyer).But while the change from homophobia to anti-Semitism works in general, the specifics don't fit so smoothly. The victim's chatting up a lonesome, drunk young soldier then inviting him back home looks odd, even though (or especially since) there's a girlfriend in tow. It raises the question whether this scenario was retained inadvertently or left in as a discreet tip-off to the original engine generating Ryan's murderous rage.$LABEL$ 1
+"Ardh Satya" is one of the finest film ever made in Indian Cinema. Directed by the great director Govind Nihalani, this one is the most successful Hard Hitting Parallel Cinema which also turned out to be a Commercial Success. Even today, Ardh Satya is an inspiration for all leading directors of India.The film tells the Real-life Scenario of Mumbai Police of the 70s. Unlike any Police of other cities in India, Mumbai Police encompasses a Different system altogether. Govind Nihalani creates a very practical Outlay with real life approach of Mumbai Police Environment.Amongst various Police officers & colleagues, the film describes the story of Anand Velankar, a young hot-blooded Cop coming from a poor family. His father is a harsh Police Constable. Anand himself suffers from his father's ideologies & incidences of his father's Atrocities on his mother. Anand's approach towards immediate action against crime, is an inert craving for his own Job satisfaction. The film is here revolved in a Plot wherein Anand's constant efforts against crime are trampled by his seniors.This leads to frustrations, as he cannot achieve the desired Job-satisfaction. Resulting from the frustrations, his anger is expressed in excessive violence in the remand rooms & bars, also turning him to an alcoholic.The Spirit within him is still alive, as he constantly fights the system. He is aware of the system of the Metro, where the Police & Politicians are a inertly associated by far end. His compromise towards unethical practice is negative. Finally he gets suspended.The Direction is a master piece & thoroughly hard core. One of the best memorable scenes is when Anand breaks in the Underworld gangster Rama Shetty's house to arrest him, followed by short conversation which is fantastic. At many scenes, the film has Hair-raising moments.The Practical approach of Script is a major Punch. Alcoholism, Corruption, Political Influence, Courage, Deceptions all are integral part of Mumbai police even today. Those aspects are dealt brilliantly.Finally, the films belongs to the One man show, Om Puri portraying Anand Velankar traversing through all his emotions absolutely brilliantly.$LABEL$ 1
+My first exposure to the Templarios & not a good one. I was excited to find this title among the offerings from Anchor Bay Video, which has brought us other cult classics such as "Spider Baby". The print quality is excellent, but this alone can't hide the fact that the film is deadly dull. There's a thrilling opening sequence in which the villagers exact a terrible revenge on the Templars (& set the whole thing in motion), but everything else in the movie is slow, ponderous &, ultimately, unfulfilling. Adding insult to injury: the movie was dubbed, not subtitled, as promised on the video jacket.$LABEL$ 0
+One of the most significant quotes from the entire film is pronounced halfway through by the protagonist, the mafia middle-man Titta Di Girolamo, a physically non-descript, middle-aged man originally from Salerno in Southern Italy. When we're introduced to him at the start of the film, he's been living a non-life in an elegant but sterile hotel in the Italian-speaking Canton of Switzerland for the last ten years, conducting a business we are only gradually introduced to. While this pivotal yet apparently unremarkable scene takes place employees of the the Swiss bank who normally count Di Girolamo's cash tell him that 10,000 dollars are missing from his usual suitcase full of tightly stacked banknotes. At the news, he quietly but icily threatens his coaxing bank manager of wanting to close down his account. Meanwhile he tells us, the spectators, that when you bluff, you have to bluff right through to the end without fear of being caught out or appearing ridiculous. He says: you can't bluff for a while and then halfway through, tell the truth. Having eventually done this - bluffed only halfway through and told the truth, and having accepted the consequences of life and ultimately, love - is exactly the reason behind the beginning of Titta Di Girolamo's troubles. This initially unsympathetic character, a scowling, taciturn, curt man on the verge of 50, a man who won't even reply in kind to chambermaids and waitresses who say hello and goodbye, becomes at one point someone the spectator cares deeply about. At one point in his non-life, Titta decides to feel concern about appearing "ridiculous". The first half of the film may be described as "slow" by some. It does indeed reveal Di Girolamo's days and nights in that hotel at an oddly disjoined, deliberate pace, revealing seemingly mundane and irrelevant details. However, scenes that may have seemed unnecessary reveal just how essential they are as this masterfully constructed and innovative film unfolds before your eyes. The existence of Titta Di Girolamo - the man with no imagination, identity or life, the unsympathetic character you unexpectedly end up loving and feeling for when you least thought you would - is also conveyed with elegantly edited sequences and very interesting use of music (one theme by the Scottish band Boards of Canada especially stood out). Never was the contrast between the way Hollywood and Italy treat mobsters more at odds than since the release of films such as Le Conseguenze dell'Amore or L'Imbalsamatore. Another interesting element was the way in which the film made use of the protagonist's insomnia. Not unlike The Machinist (and in a far more explicit way, the Al Pacino film Insomnia), Le Conseguenze dell'Amore uses this condition to symbolise a deeper emotional malaise that's been rammed so deep into the obscurity of the unconscious, it's almost impossible to pin-point its cause (if indeed there is one). The young and sympathetic hotel waitress Sofia (played by Olivia Magnani, grand-daughter of the legendary Anna) and the memory of Titta's best friend, a man whom he hasn't seen in 20 years, unexpectedly provide a tiny window onto life that Titta eventually (though tentatively at first) accepts to look through again. Though it's never explicitly spelt out, the spectator KNOWS that to a man like Titta, accepting The Consequences of Love will have unimaginable consequences. A film without a single scene of sex or violence, a film that unfolds in its own time and concedes nothing to the spectator's expectations, Le Conseguenze dell'Amore is a fine representative of that small, quiet, discreet Renaissance that has been taking place in Italian cinema since the decline of Cinecittà during the second half of the 70s. The world is waiting for Italy to produce more Il Postino-like fare, more La Vita è Bella-style films... neglecting to explore fine creations like Le Conseguenze dell'Amore, L'Imbalsamatore and others. Your loss, world.$LABEL$ 1
+I watched this film not really expecting much, I got it in a pack of 5 films, all of which were pretty terrible in their own way for under a fiver so what could I expect? and you know what I was right, they were all terrible, this movie has a few (and a few is stretching it) interesting points, the occasional camcorder view is a nice touch, the drummer is very like a drummer, i.e damned annoying and, well thats about it actually, the problem is that its just so boring, in what I can only assume was an attempt to build tension, a whole lot of nothing happens and when it does its utterly tedious (I had my thumb on the fast forward button, ready to press for most of the movie, but gave it a go) and seriously is the lead singer of the band that great looking, coz they don't half mention how beautiful he is a hell of a lot, I thought he looked a bit like a meercat, all this and I haven't even mentioned the killer, I'm not even gonna go into it, its just not worth explaining. Anyway as far as I'm concerned Star and London are just about the only reason to watch this and with the exception of London (who was actually quite funny) it wasn't because of their acting talent, I've certainly seen a lot worse, but I've also seen a lot better. Best avoid unless your bored of watching paint dry.$LABEL$ 0
+I bought this film at Blockbuster for $3.00, because it sounded interesting (a bit Ranma-esque, with the idea of someone dragging around a skeleton), because there was a cute girl in a mini-skirt on the back, and because there was a Restricted Viewing sticker on it. I thought it was going to be a sweet or at least sincere coming of age story with a weird indie edge. I was 100% wrong.Having watched it, I have to wonder how it got the restricted sticker, since there is hardly any foul language, little violence, and the closest thing to nudity (Honestly! I don't usually go around hoping for it!) is when the girl is in her nightgown and you see her panties (you see her panties a lot in this movie, because no matter what, she's wearing a miniskirt of some sort). Even the anti-religious humor is tame (and lame, caricatured, insincere, derivative, unoriginal, and worst of all not funny in the slightest--it would be better just to listen to Ray Stevens' "Would Jesus Wear a Rolex on His Television Show"). This would barely qualify as PG-13 (it is Not Rated), but Blockbuster refuses to let anyone under the age of 17 rent this--as if it was pornographic. Any little kid could go in there and rent the edited version of Requiem for a Dream, but they insist that Zack and Reba is worse.It is, but not in that way.In a way, this worries me--the only thing left that could offend people is the idea of the suicide at the beginning. If anybody needs to see movies with honestly portrayed suicides (not this one, but better ones like The Virgin Suicides), it's teenagers. If both of those movies were rated R purely because of the suicide aspect, then I have little chance of turning a story I've been writing into a PG-13 movie (the main characters are eleven and a half and twelve). Suicide is one of the top three leading causes of death in teenagers (I think it's number 2), so chances are that most teens have been or will be affected by it.Just say no to this movie, though. 2/10.$LABEL$ 0
+The plot is about the death of little children. Hopper is the one who has to investigate the killings. During the movie it appears that he has some troubles with his daughter. In the end the serial killer get caught. That's it. But before you find out who dunnit, you have to see some terrible acting by all of the actors. It is unbelievable how bad these actors are, including Hopper. I could go on like this but that to much of a waste of my time. Just don't watch the movie. I've warned you.$LABEL$ 0
+Ever watched a movie that lost the plot? Well, this didn't even really have one to begin with.Where to begin? The achingly tedious scenes of our heroine sitting around the house with actually no sense of menace or even foreboding created even during the apparently constant thunderstorms (that are strangely never actually heard in the house-great double glazing)? The house that is apparently only a few miles from a town yet is several hours walk away(?) or the third girl who serves no purpose to the plot except to provide a surprisingly quick gory murder just as the tedium becomes unbearable? Or even the beginning which suggests a spate of 20+ killings throughout the area even though it is apparent the killer never ventures far from the house? Or the bizarre ritual with the salt & pepper that pretty much sums up most of the films inherent lack of direction.Add a lead actress who can't act but at least is willing to do some completely irrelevant nude shower scenes and this video is truly nasty, but not in the way you hope.Given a following simply for being banned in the UK in the 80's (mostly because of a final surprisingly over extended murder) it offers nothing but curiosity value- and one classic 'daft' murder (don't worry-its telegraphed at least ten minutes before).After a walk in the woods our victim comes to a rather steep upward slope which they obviously struggle up. Halfway through they see a figure at the top dressed in black and brandishing a large scythe. What do they do? Slide down and run like the rest of us? No, of course not- they struggle to the top and stand conveniently nice and upright in front of the murder weapon.It really IS only a movie as they say..$LABEL$ 0
+Okay, so this series kind of takes the route of 'here we go again!' Week in, week out David Morse's character helps out his ride who is in a bit of a pickle - but what's wrong with that!? David Morse is one of the greatest character actors out there, and certainly the coolest, and to have him in a series created by David Koepp - a great writer - is heaven!!Due to the lack of love for this show by many, I can't see it going to a season series - but you never know? The amount of rubbish that has made it beyond that baffles me - let's hope something good can make it past a first series!!!$LABEL$ 1
+After sitting through this pile of dung, my husband and I wondered whether it was actually the product of an experiment to see whether a computer program could produce a movie. It was that listless and formulaic. But the U.S. propaganda thrown in your face throughout the film proves--disappointingly--that it's the work of humans. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but quotes like, "We have to steal the Declaration of Independence to protect it" seem like ways to justify actions like the invasion of Iraq, etc. The fact that Nicholas Cage spews lines like, "I would never use the Declaration of Independence as a bargaining chip" with a straight face made me and my husband wonder whether the entire cast took Valium before shooting each scene. The "reasoning" behind each plot turn and new "clue" is truly ridiculous and impossible to follow. And there's also a bonus side plot of misogyny, with Dr. Whatever-Her-Name-Was being chided by all involved for "never shutting up." She's clearly in the movie only for looks, but they felt the need to slap a "Dr." title on her character to give her some gravity. At one point, Cage's character says, "Don't you ever shut up?" and the camera pans to her looking poutily down at her hands, like she's a child. Truly grotesque. The only benefit to this movie was that it's so astonishingly bad, you do get a few laughs out of it. The really scary thing is that a majority of the people watching the movie with us seemed to enjoy it. Creepy....$LABEL$ 0
+It had all the clichés of movies of this type and no substance. The plot went nowhere and at the end of the movie I felt like a sucker for watching it. The production was good; however, the script and acting were B-movie quality. The casting was poor because there were good actors mixed in with crumby actors. The good actors didn't hold their own nor did they lift up the others. This movie is not worthy of more words, but I will say more to meet the minimum requirement of ten lines. James Wood and Cuba Gooding, Jr. play caricatures of themselves in other movies. If you are looking for mindless entertainment, I still wouldn't recommend this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is based on the book, "A Many Splendored Thing" by Han Suyin and tackles issues of race relations between Asians and Whites, a topic that comes from Han's personal experiences as an Eurasian growing up in China. That background, and the beautiful Hong Kong settings, gives this love story a unique and rather daring atmosphere for its time.Other than that, the story is a stereotypical romance with a memorable song that is perhaps more remembered than the movie itself. The beautiful Jennifer Jones looks the part and gives a wonderful, Oscar nominated performance as a doctor of mixed breed during the advent of Communism in mainland China. William Holden never looked better playing a romantic lead as a journalist covering war torn regions in the world. The acting is top notch, and the chemistry between the two lovers provides for some genuine moments of silver screen affection sure to melt the hearts of those who are romantically inclined.The cinematography really brings out fifty's Hong Kong, especially the hilltop overlooking the harbor where the two lovers spend their most intimate moments. The ending is a real tear-jerker. Some may consider sentimental romances passé, but, for those who enjoy classic Hollywood love stories, this is a shining example.$LABEL$ 1
+Of all the films I have seen, this one, The Rage, has got to be one of the worst yet. The direction, LOGIC, continuity, changes in plot-script and dialog made me cry out in pain. "How could ANYONE come up with something so crappy"? Gary Busey is know for his "B" movies, but this is a sure "W" movie. (W=waste).Take for example: about two dozen FBI & local law officers surround a trailer house with a jeep wagoneer. Inside the jeep is MA and is "confused" as to why all the cops are about. Within seconds a huge gun battle ensues, MA being killed straight off. The cops blast away at the jeep with gary and company blasting away at them. The cops fall like dominoes and the jeep with Gary drives around in circles and are not hit by one single bullet/pellet. MA is killed and gary seems to not to have noticed-damn that guy is tough. Truly a miracle, not since the six-shooter held 300 bullets has there been such a miracle.$LABEL$ 0
+I had heard good things about "States of Grace" and came in with an open mind. I thought that "God's Army" was okay, and I thought that maybe Dutcher had improved and matured as a filmmaker. The film began with some shaky acting, and I thought, "well, maybe it will get better." Unfortunately, it never did. The picture starts out by introducing two elders -- Mormon missionaries -- and it seems that the audience will get to know them and grow to care about them. Instead, the story degenerates into a highly improbable series of unfortunate events highlighting blatant disobedience by the missionaries (something that undeniably exists, but rarely on the level that Dutcher portrays) and it becomes almost laughable.Dutcher's only success in this movie is his successful alienation of his target audience. By unrealistically and inaccurately portraying the lives of Mormon missionaries, Dutcher accomplishes nothing more than angering his predominantly Mormon audience. The film in no way reflects reality. Missions are nothing like what Dutcher shows (having served a Mormon mission myself I can attest to this fact) and gang life in California certainly contains much more explicit language than the occasional mild vulgarity.The conclusion, which I'm assuming was supposed to touch the audience and inspire them to believe that forgiveness is available to all, was both unbelievable (c'mon, the entire mission gathers to see this elder sent home -- and the mom and the girl are standing right next to each other!) and cheesy. Next time, Dutcher, try making a movie that SOMEONE can identify with.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie struck home for me. Being 29, I remember the '80's and my father working in a factory. I figured, if I worked hard too, if I had pride and never gave up I too could have the American Dream, the house, a few kids, a car all to call my own. I've noted however, without a degree in something (unlike my father that quit at ninth grade) and a keen sense of greed and laziness, you can't get anywhere.I would like to know if anyone has this movie on DVD or VHS. it's made for TV, and I just saw it an hour ago. Ic an't find it anywhere! I'd love to show this to my friends, my pseudo friends, family and other relatives, see what they think and remind them that once upon a time, Americans WOULD work for the sake of feeling honor and that we had pride in what we accomplished!! I think the feeling is still there, but in a heavy downward spiral with so many things being made overseas...$LABEL$ 1
+As a disclaimer, I've seen the movie 5-6 times in the last 15 years, and I only just saw the musical this week. This allowed me to judge the movie without being tainted by what was or wasn't in the musical (however, it tainted me when I watched the musical :) ) I actually believe Michael Douglas worked quite well in that role, along with Kasey. I think her 'Let me dance for you scene' is one of the best parts of the movie, a worthwhile addition compared to the musical. The dancers and singing in the movie are much superior to the musical, as well as the cast which is at least 10 times bigger (easier to do in the movie of course). The decors, lighting, dancing, and singing are also much superior in the movie, which should be expected, and was indeed delivered. The songs that were in common with the musical are better done in the movie, the new ones are quite good ones, and the whole movie just delivers more than the musical in my opinion, especially compared to a musical which has few decors. The one bad point on the movie is the obvious cuts between the actors talking, and dubbed singers during the singing portions for some of the characters, but their dancing is impeccable, and the end product was more enjoyable than the musical$LABEL$ 1
+Protocol is an implausible movie whose only saving grace is that it stars Goldie Hawn along with a good cast of supporting actors. The story revolves around a ditzy cocktail waitress who becomes famous after inadvertently saving the life of an Arab dignitary. The story goes downhill halfway through the movie and Goldie's charm just doesn't save this movie. Unless you are a Goldie Hawn fan don't go out of your way to see this film.$LABEL$ 0
+How this film could be classified as Drama, I have no idea. If I were John Voight and Mary Steenburgen, I would be trying to erase this from my CV. It was as historically accurate as Xena and Hercules. Abraham and Moses got melded into Noah. Lot, Abraham's nephew, Lot, turns up thousands of years before he would have been born. Canaanites wandered the earth...really? What were the scriptwriters thinking? Was it just ignorance ("I remember something about Noah and animals, and Lot and Canaanites and all that stuff from Sunday School") or were they trying to offend the maximum number of people on the planet as possible- from Christians, Jews and Muslims, to historians, archaeologists, geologists, psychologists, linguists ...as a matter of fact, did anyone not get offended? Anyone who had even a modicum of taste would have winced at this one!$LABEL$ 0
+Preston Sturgis' THE POWER AND THE GLORY was unseen by the public for nearly twenty or thirty years until the late 1990s when it resurfaced and even showed up on television. In the meantime it had gained in notoriety because Pauline Kael's THE CITIZEN KANE BOOK had suggested that the Herman Mankiewicz - Orson Welles screenplay for KANE was based on Sturgis' screenplay here. As is mentioned in the beginning of this thread for the film on the IMDb web site, Kael overstated her case.There are about six narrators who take turns dealing with the life of Charles Foster Kane: the newsreel (representing Ralston - the Henry Luce clone), Thatcher's memoirs, Bernstein, Jed Leland, Susan Alexander Kane, and Raymond the butler. Each has his or her different slant on Kane, reflecting their faith or disappointment or hatred of the man. And of course each also reveals his or her own failings when they are telling their version of Kane's story. This method also leads to frequent overlapping re-tellings of the same incident.This is not the situation in THE POWER AND THE GLORY. Yes, like KANE it is about a legendary business leader - here it is Tom Garner (Spencer Tracy), a man who rose from the bottom to being head of the most successful railroad system in the country. But there are only two narrators - they are Garner's right hand man Henry (Ralph Morgan) and his wife (Sarah Padden). This restricts the nearly three dimensional view we get at times of Kane in Garner. Henry, when he narrates, is talking about his boss and friend, whom he respected and loved. His wife is like the voice of the skeptical public - she sees only the flaws in Henry.Typical example: Although he worked his way up, Tom becomes more and more anti-labor in his later years. Unions are troublemakers, and he does not care to be slowed down by their shenanigans. Henry describes Tom's confrontation with the Union in a major walk-out, and how it preoccupied him to the detriment of his home life. But Henry's wife reminds him how Tom used scabs and violence to end the strike (apparently blowing up the Union's headquarters - killing many people). So we have two views of the man but one is pure white and one is pure black.I'm not really knocking THE POWER AND THE GLORY for not duplicating KANE's success (few films do - including all of Orson Welles' other films), but I am aware that the story is presented well enough to hold one's interest to the end. And thanks to the performances of Tracy and Colleen Moore as his wife Sally, the tragedy of the worldly success of the pair is fully brought home.When they marry, Tom wants to do well (in part) to give his wife and their family the benefits he never had. But in America great business success comes at a cost. Tom gets deeply involved with running the railroad empire (he expands it and improves it constantly). But it takes him away from home too much, and he loses touch with Sally. And he also notices Eve (Helen Vinson), the younger woman who becomes his mistress. When Sally learns of his unfaithful behavior it destroys her.Similarly Tom too gets a full shock (which makes him a martyr in the eyes of Henry). Eve marries Tom, and presents him with a son - but it turns out to be Eve's son by Tom's son Tom Jr. (Philip Trent). The discovery of this incestuous cuckolding causes Tom to shoot himself.The film is not a total success - the action jumps at times unconvincingly. Yet it does make the business seem real (note the scene when Tom tells his Board of Directors about his plans to purchase a small rival train line, and he discusses the use of debentures for financing the plans). Sturgis came from a wealthy background, so he could bring in this type of detail. So on the whole it is a first rate film. No CITIZEN KANE perhaps, but of interest to movie lovers as an attempt at business realism with social commentary in Depression America.$LABEL$ 1
+Average (and surprisingly tame) Fulci giallo which means it's still quite bad by normal standards, but redeemed by its solid build-up and some nice touches such as a neat time twist on the issues of visions and clairvoyance.The genre's well-known weaknesses are in full gear: banal dialogue, wooden acting, illogical plot points. And the finale goes on much too long, while the denouement proves to be a rather lame or shall I say: limp affair.Fulci's ironic handling of giallo norms is amusing, though. Yellow clues wherever you look.3 out of 10 limping killers$LABEL$ 0
+Return to the 36th Chamber is one of those classic Kung-Fu movies which Shaw produces back in the 70s and 80s, whose genre is equivalent to the spaghetti westerns of Hollywood, and the protagonist Gordon Liu, the counterpart to the western's Clint Eastwood. Digitally remastered and a new print made for the Fantastic Film Fest, this is "Presented in Shaw Scope", just like the good old days.This film is a simple story of good versus evil, told in 3 acts, which more or less sums up the narrative of martial arts films in that era.Act One sets up the premise. Workers in a dye-mill of a small village are unhappy with their lot, having their wages cut by 20% by incoming manchu gangsters. They can't do much about their exploitation because none of them are martial arts skilled to take on the gangsters, and their boss. At first they had a minor success in getting Liu to impersonate a highly skilled Shaolin monk (one of the best comedy sequences), but their rouse got exposed when they pushed the limit of credibility by impersonating one too many times.Act Two shows the protagonist wanting to get back at the mob. However, without real martial arts, he embarks on a journey to Shaolin Temple, to try and infiltrate and learn martial arts on the sly. After some slapstick moments, he finally gets accepted by the abbot (whom he impersonated!) but is disappointed at the teaching methods - kinda like Mr Miyagi's style in Karate Kid, but instead of painting fences, he gets to erect scaffoldings all around the temple. Nothing can keep a good man down, and he unwittingly builds strength, endurance and learns kung-fu the unorthodox way.Act Three is where the fight fest begins. With cheesy sound effects, each obvious non-contact on film is given the maximum impact treatment. But it is rather refreshing watching the fight scenes here, with its wide angled shots to highlight clarity and detail between the sparring partners, and the use of slow-motion only to showcase stunts in different angles. You may find the speed of fights a tad too slow, with some pause in between moves, but with Yuen Wo Ping and his style being used ad-nausem in Hollywood flicks, they sure don't make fight scenes like they used to! Return to the 36th chamber gets a repeat screening on Monday, so, if you're game for a nostalgic trip down memory lane, what are you waiting for?$LABEL$ 1
+***SPOILERS*** All too, in real life as well as in the movies, familiar story that happens to many young men who are put in a war zone with a gun, or rifle, in their hands. The case of young and innocent, in never handling or firing a gun, Jimmy Davis, Franchot Tone, has been repeated thousands of times over the centuries when men, like Jimmy Davis, are forced to take up arms for their country.Jimmy who at first wanted to be kicked out of the US Army but was encouraged to stay, by being belted in the mouth, by his good friend Fred P. Willis, Spencer Tracy, ended up on the front lines in France. With Jimmy's unit pinned down by a German machine gun nest he single handedly put it out of commission picking off some half dozen German soldiers from the safety of a nearby church steeple. It was when Jimmy gunned down the last surviving German, who raised his arms in surrender, that an artillery shell hit the steeple seriously wounding him.Recovering from his wounds at an Army hospital Jimmy fell in love with US Army volunteer nurse Rose Duffy, Gladys George. Rose was really in love with Jimmy's good friend the happy go lucky Fred despite his obnoxious antics towards her. It's when Fred was lost during the fighting on the Western Front that Rose, thinking that he was killed, fell in love and later married Jimmy. When Fred unexpectedly showed up in the French town where Jimmy, now fully recovered from his wounds, was stationed at things got very sticky for both him and Rose who had already accepted Jimmy's proposal of marriage to her!With WWI over and Jimmy marrying Rose left Fred, who's still in love with her, a bitter and resentful young man. It was almost by accident that Fred ran into Jimmy on the streets of New York City and discovered to his shock and surprise that he completely changed from the meek and non-violent person that he knew before he was sent to war on the European Western Front. Smug and sure of himself, and his ability to shoot a gun, Jimmy had become a top mobster in New York City's underworld! Not only that but as Fred later found out his wife Rose had no idea what Jimmy was really involved in with Jimmy telling her that he works as a law abiding and inoffensive insurance adjuster.Jimmy's life of crime came full circle when Rose, after she found out about his secret life, ratted him out to the police to prevent him from executing a "Valentine Day" like massacre, with his gang members dressed as cops, of his rival mobsters. While on trial Jimmy came to his senses and admitted his guilt willing to face the music and then, after his three year sentence is up, get his life back together. ***SPOILER ALERT*** Hearing rumors from fellow convicts that Rose and his best friend Fred were having an affair behind his back Jimmy broke out of prison ending up a fugitive from the law. It's at Fred's circus, where he works as both manger and barker, that Jimmy in seeing that Rose as well as Fred were true to him that he, like at his trial, had a sudden change of heart. But the thought of going back to prison, with at least another ten years added on to his sentence, was just too much for Jimmy! It was then that Jimmy decided to end it all by letting the police who by then tracked him down do the job, that he himself didn't have the heart to do, for him!$LABEL$ 1
+Bela Lugosi appeared in several of these low budget chillers for Monogram Studios in the 1940's and The Corpse Vanishes is one of the better ones.Bela plays a mad scientist who kidnaps young brides and kills them and then extracts fluid from their bodies so he can keep his ageing wife looking young. After a reporter and a doctor stay the night at his home and discover he is responsible for the brides' deaths, the following morning they report these murders to the police and the mad scientist is shot and drops dead shortly afterwards.You have got almost everything in this movie: the scientist's assistants consist of an old hag, a hunchback and dwarf (her sons), a thunderstorm and spooky passages in Bela's house. Bela and his wife find they sleep better in coffins rather than beds in the movie.The Corpse Vanishes is worth a look, especially for Bela Lugosi fans. Great fun.Rating: 3 stars out of 5.$LABEL$ 1
+I cannot believe I enjoyed this as much as I did. The anthology stories were better than par, but the linking story and its surprise ending hooked me. Alot of familiar faces will keep you asking yourself "where I have I seen them before?" Forget the running time listed on New Line's tape, this ain't no 103 minutes, according to my VCR timer and IMDB. Space Maggot douses the campfire in his own special way and hikes this an 8.$LABEL$ 1
+The 33 percent of the nations nitwits that still support W. Bush would do well to see this movie, which shows the aftermath of the French revolution and the terror of 1794 as strikingly similar to the post 9/11 socio-political landscape. Maybe then they could stop worrying about saving face and take the a**-whupping they deserve. It's really a shame that when a politician ruins the country, those who voted for him can't be denied the right to ever vote again. They've clearly shown they have no sense of character.What really stands out in this movie is the ambiguity of a character as hopelessly doctrinaire as Robespierre; a haunted empty man who simplistic reductive ideology can't help him elucidate the boundaries between safety and totalitarianism. Execution and murder. Self-defense and patriotism. His legalistic litmus tests aggravate the hopeless situation he's helped create. Sound like any belligerent, overprivileged, retarded Yale cheerleaders you know of? Wojciech Pszoniak blows the slovenly Deparidieu off the screen. As sympathetic as Robespierres plight is, it's comforting to know that shortly after the film ends he'll have his jaw shot off and be sent to the guillotine.$LABEL$ 0
+As someone has already mentioned on this board, it's very difficult to make a fake documentary. It requires tremendous skill, pacing, patience, directorial 'distance,' a plausible premise, a narrative 'flow,' and REALLY believable acting (aka GREAT acting). Such is not the case with 'Love Machine'. It starts to show its faux hand about the 20-minute mark (with 60 minutes left to watch), and the viewer starts to realize that he or she is being taken in. It's downhill from there.Director Gordon Eriksen simply peaked too soon. But to be fair to Eriksen, his problems started early: as he explains in the extras, he began wanting to do a REAL doc, couldn't get funding, and settled for a cheaper way of making his film.The premise -- people who have secret lives by posting themselves on a porn website -- was perhaps more interesting in 1997-98, when the film was made. Eriksen does a lot of tricky stuff -- a pushy 'host,' hand-held cameras, zooms, grainy blacks and whites -- all, I guess, to elicit a sense of authenticity, but it just doesn't work. The film is confusing and forced, but what ultimately brings it down is the believability of the actors and the pretty awful dialogue.$LABEL$ 0
+The Hills Have Eyes II is what you would expect it to be and nothing more. Of course it's not going to be an Oscar nominated film, it's just pure entertainment which you can just lose yourself in for 90 minutes.The plot is basically about a group of National Guard trainees who find themselves battling against the notorious mutated hillbillies on their last day of training in the desert. It's just them fighting back throughout the whole film, which includes a lot of violence (which is basically the whole film) as blood and guts are constantly flying around throughout the whole thing, and also yet another graphic rape scene which is pointlessly thrown in to shock the audience.I'd give the Hills Have Eyes II 4 out of 10 for pure entertainment, and that only. Although even then I found myself looking at my watch more and more as the film went on, as it began to drag due to the fact it continued to try and shock the audience with graphic gore and the occasional jump scene just to make sure the audience stays awake. The Hills Have Eyes II is just decent entertainment, something to pass time if you're bored, and nothing else.4/10$LABEL$ 0
+I laughed all the way through this rotten movie. It's so unbelievable. A woman leaves her husband after many years of marriage, has a breakdown in front of a real estate office. What happens? The office manager comes outside and offers her a job!!! Hilarious! Next thing you know the two women are going at it. Yep, they're lesbians! Nothing rings true in this "Lifetime for Women with nothing better to do" movie. Clunky dialogue like "I don't want to spend the rest of my life feeling like I had a chance to be happy and didn't take it" doesn't help. There's a wealthy, distant mother who disapproves of her daughter's new relationship. A sassy black maid - unbelievable that in the year 2003, a film gets made in which there's a sassy black maid. Hattie McDaniel must be turning in her grave. The woman has a husband who freaks out and wants custody of the snotty teenage kids. Sheesh! No cliche is left unturned.$LABEL$ 0
+NO SPOILERS!!After Hitchcock's successful first American film, Rebecca based upon Daphne DuMarier's lush novel of gothic romance and intrigue, he returned to some of the more familiar themes of his early British period - mistaken identity and espionage. As the U.S. settled into World War II and the large scale 'war effort' of civilians building planes, weaponry and other necessary militia, the booming film entertainment business began turning out paranoid and often jingoistic thrillers with war time themes. These thrillers often involved networks of deceptive and skilled operators at work in the shadows among the good, law abiding citizens. Knowing the director was at home in this espionage genre, producer Jack Skirball approached Hitchcock about directing a property he owned that dealt with corruption, war-time sabotage and a helpless hero thrust into a vortex of coincidence and mistaken identity. The darker elements of the narrative and the sharp wit of literary maven Dorothy Parker (during her brief stint in Hollywood before returning to her bohemian roots in NYC) who co-authored the script were a perfect match for Hitchcock's sensibilities.This often neglected film tells the story of the unfortunate 25 year old Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) who, while at work at a Los Angeles Airplane Factory, meets new employee Frank Frye (Norman Lloydd) and moments later is framed for committing sabotage. Fleeing the authorities who don't believe his far-fetched story he meets several characters on his way to Soda City Utah and finally New York City. These memorable characters include a circus caravan with a car full of helpful 'freaks' and a popular billboard model Patricia Martin (Priscilla Lane) who, during the worst crisis of his life as well as national security, he falls madly in love with! Of course in the land of Hitchcock, Patricia, kidnapped by the supposed saboteur Barry, falls for her captor thus adding romantic tension to the mix.In good form for this outing, Hitchcock brews a national network of demure old ladies, average Joes, and respectable businessmen who double as secret agent terrorists that harbor criminals, pull guns and detonate bombs to keep things moving. It's a terrific plot that takes its time moving forward and once ignited, culminates in one of Hitchcock's more memorable finales. Look for incredibly life like NYC tourist attractions (all of which were recreated by art directors in Hollywood due to the war-time 'shooting ban' on public attractions). While Saboteur may not be one of Hitchcock's most well known films, it's a popular b-movie that is certainly solid and engaging with plenty of clever plot twists and as usual - terrific Hitchcock villains. Remember to look for Hitchcock's cameo appearance outside a drug store in the second half of the film. Hitchcock's original cameo idea that was shot (him fighting in sign language with his 'deaf' wife) was axed by the Bureau of Standards and Practices who were afraid of offending the deaf!$LABEL$ 1
+I just watched The Dresser this evening, having only seen it once before, about a dozen years ago.It's not a "big" movie, and doesn't try to make a big splash, but my God, the brilliance of the two leads leaves me just about speechless. Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are nothing less than amazing in this movie.The Dresser is the story of Sir, an aging Shakespearean actor (Finney), and his dresser Norman (Courtenay), sort of a valet, putting on a production of King Lear during the blitz of London in World War II. These are two men, each dependent upon the other: Sir is almost helpless without the aid of Norman to cajole, wheedle, and bully him into getting onstage for his 227th performance of Lear. And Norman lives his life vicariously through Sir; without Sir to need him, he is nothing, or thinks he is, anyway.This is a character-driven film; the plot is secondary to the interaction of the characters, and as such, it requires actors of the highest caliber to bring it to life. Finney, only 47 years old, is completely believable as a very old, very sick, petulant, bullying, but brilliant stage actor. He hisses and fumes at his fellow actors even when they're taking their bows! And Courtenay is no less convincing as the mincing dresser, who must sometimes act more as a mother than as a valet to his elderly employer. Employer is really the wrong term to use, though. For although, technically their relationship is that of employer and employee, most of the time Sir and Norman act like nothing so much as an old married couple.Yes, there are others in the cast of this movie, but there is no question that the true stars are Finney, Courtenay, and the marvelous script by Ronald Harwood. That is not to say that there aren't other fine performances, most notably Eileen Atkins as the long-suffering stage manager Madge. There is a wonderful scene where Sir and Madge talk about old desires, old regrets, and what might have been.Although it doesn't get talked about these days, it is worth remembering that The Dresser was nominated for five Academy Awards: Best Actor nominations for both Finney and Courtenay, Best Picture, Best Director (Peter Yates), and Best Adapted Screenplay.I had remembered this as being a good movie, but I wasn't prepared to be as completely mesmerized as I was from beginning to end. If you want to see an example of what great acting is all about, and be hugely entertained all the while, then I encourage you to see The Dresser.$LABEL$ 1
+What happened? What we have here is basically a solid and plausible premise and with a decent and talented cast, but somewhere the movie loses it. Actually, it never really got going. There was a little excitement when we find out that Angie is not really pregnant, then find out that she is after all, but that was it. Steve Martin, who is a very talented person and usually brings a lot to a movie, was dreadful and his entire character was not even close to being important to this movie, other than to make it longer. I really would have liked to see more interactions between the main characters, Kate and Angie, and maybe try not for a pure comedy, which unfortunately it was not, but maybe a drama with comedic elements. I think if the movie did this it could have been very funny since both actresses are quite funny in their own ways and sitting here I can think of numerous scenarios that would have been a riot.$LABEL$ 0
+I've just watched Fingersmith, and I'm stunned to see the 8/10 average rating for the show.Not only was the plot was difficult to follow, but it seems character development was randomly applied.The actors were adequate, but in the process of attempting to create twists and turns, their characters are rendered entirely one dimensional. Once this happens, the story really falls flat and becomes tedious.And just in case anyone didn't see the predictable lesbian undertones from miles way, this is hammered home in the most banal terms at the end of the film.The end scene is disappointing and phoned in, and anyone who sat back and went "Ohhh, so they were carpet munchers all along!", must have been out for the evening.Two stars for the tonsil hockey in the earlier scene which was at least a bit raunchy, none for the rest of it...$LABEL$ 0
+So let's begin!)))The movie itself is as original as Cronenberg's movies would usually appear...My intention to see it was certainly JJL being one of my favourite actresses. She is as lovely as usual, this cutie!I would not say it was my favourite movie of hers. Still it's quite interesting and entertaining to follow. The rest of the cast is not extremely impressive but it is not some kind of a miscast star array. ;)Recommend with confidence!))))$LABEL$ 1
+Besides being boring, the scenes were oppressive and dark. The movie tried to portray some kind of moral, but fell flat with its message. What were the redeeming qualities?? On top of that, I don't think it could make librarians look any more unglamorous than it did.$LABEL$ 0
+An unmarried woman named Stella (Bette Midler) gets pregnant by a wealthy man (Stephen Collins). He offers to marry her out of a sense of obligation but she turns him down flat and decides to raise the kid on her own. Things go OK until the child named Jenny (Trini Alvarado) becomes a teenager and things gradually (and predictably) become worse.I've seen both the silent version and sound version of "Stella Dallas". Neither one affected me much (and I cry easily) but they were well-made if dated. Trying to remake this in 1990 was just a stupid idea. I guess Midler had enough power after the incomprehensible success of "Beaches" to get this made. This (predictably) bombed. The story is laughable and dated by today's standards. Even though Midler and Alvarado give good performances this film really drags and I was bored silly by the end. Stephen Collins and Marsha Mason (both good actors) don't help in supporting roles. Flimsy and dull. Really--who thought this would work? See the 1937 Stanwyck version instead. I give this a 1.$LABEL$ 0
+DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is one of Fulci's earlier (and honestly, in terms of story-line, better...) films - and although not the typical "bloodbath" that Fulci is known for - this is still a very unique and enjoyable film.The story surrounds a small town where a series of child murders are occurring. Some of the colorful characters involved in the investigations - either as suspects, or those "helping" the investigation (or in some cases both) - include the towns police force, a small-time reporter, a beautiful and rich ex-drug addict, a young priest and his mother, An old man who practices witchcraft and his female protégé, a mentally handicapped townsman, and a deaf/mute little girl. All of these people are interwoven into the plot to create several twists and turns, until the actual killer is revealed...DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is neither a "classical" giallo or a typical Fulci gore film. Although it does contain elements of both - it is more of an old-fashioned murder mystery, with darker subject matter and a few scenes of graphic violence (although nothing nearly as strong as some of Fulci's later works). This is a well written film with lots of twists that kept me guessing up until the end. Recommended for giallo/murder-mystery fans, or anyone looking to check out some of Fulci's non-splatter films - but don't despair, DON'T TORTURE still has more than it's fair share of violence and sleaze. Some may be put off by the subject of the child killings, and one main female character has a strange habit of hitting on very young boys, which is also kind of disconcerting - but if that type of material doesn't bother you, then definitely give this one a look. 8.5/10$LABEL$ 1
+Busty beauty Stacie Randall plays PVC clad, bad-ass bitch Alexandra, the faithful acolyte of Faust, an evil entity trapped in hell. Determined to free her master, the malevolent minx breaks into a warehouse to steal a magical gem vital to her success; but whilst conducting a satanic ritual to summon Faust, the silly mare accidentally enters the pentagram she has drawn on the floor, which results in the loss of the gem and the release of two diminutive, troll-like creatures called Lite and Dark.Now Alexandra must find a replacement gem, which isn't going to be easy: the only other stone that will do the trick is worn around the neck of her ex-lover, police detective Jonathan Graves (Peter Liapis), who is investigating the warehouse robbery and who knows only too well what evil Alexandra is capable of. Meanwhile, wise-cracking inter-dimensional half-pints Lite and Dark get into all sorts of zany trouble as they try to find a way back home.In the warped movie world of Jim Wynorski, all females are big-breasted babes with the fashion sense of a cheap hooker. Ghoulies IV is no exception: every woman in this film—whether she be a police captain, a curator of antiquities, or a mental patient in an asylum—is hot, hot, hot and wears not a lot, and it's this fact that makes this otherwise totally unwatchable piece of STV crap just about bearable.But be warned, even though the presence of semi-naked, quality crumpet makes the going slightly easier, there is still plenty about this film to warrant it being labelled as an ordeal: the acting is wooden and the dialogue is painful; the black humour (as the DVD blurb describes it) is about as funny as a knee to the knackers, with the comedic banter of Lite and Dark being particularly cringe-worthy; and the special effects are bargain basement, consisting of rubbery creatures and visual effects that would have looked dated ten years earlier.3/10 solely for the high bimbo quotient.$LABEL$ 0
+I really like Salman Kahn so I was really disappointed when I seen this movie. It didn't have much of a plot and what they did have was not that appealing. Salman however did look good in the movie looked young and refreshed but was worth the price of this DVD. The music was not bad it was quite nice. Usually Indian movies are at least two to three hours long but this was a very short movie for an Indian film. The American actress that played in the movie is from the television hit series Heroes, Ali Larter. Her acting had a lot to be desired. However she did look good in the Indian dresses that she wore. All the movie had not a lot to be desired and I hope Salman does a lot better on his next movie. Thank you.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm not sure why the producers needed to trade on the name of a somewhat successful movie franchise because the title suggests that it is a sequel to the first three movies..which it is not. Even though Marques Houston did appear in "HP3", he played a totally different character (he was, eight years older) in this film. Okay...so Reid and Martin weren't the most talented and couldn't carry a film all by themselves..but to trade on the HP franchise seems to me that there could have made some sort of reference (albeit minor) to the earlier movies. I'm sure everyone who wanted to see it was "hoodwinked"--into thinking that they were seeing a sequel--not a totally different film with a familiar name. And I'm sorry...Kym Whitley is not funny, and could not hold a candle to the late Robin Harris, Ketty Lester, or DC Curry in the earlier films. Although Meagen Good and Mari Morrow are a substantial visual diversion...I have to give this a THUMBS DOWN!! Just naming the film "Down to the Last Minute" would have been OK. Furthermore, the Hudlin brothers (who produced the first three movies) were not involved in the making of this film.$LABEL$ 0
+This film laboured along with some of the most predictable story lines and shallow characters ever seen. The writer obviously bought the playbook "How to write a space disaster movie" and followed it play by play. In particular, the stereo-typical use of astronauts talking to their loved ones from outer space - putting on a brave show in the face of disaster - has been done time and time again.Max Q appears to have been written in the hope that the producers would throw $50 million at the project. But, judging by the latter half of the film which contained numerous lame attempts at special effects, the producers could only muster $50 thousand. To learn that the film was nominated for a "Special Visual Effects" Emmy has me absolutely gob-smacked.I think a handful of high school students with a pass in Media Studies could have created more believable effects!And the plot holes are too numerous to mention. But I will pick one out as an example. Now, I'm no NASA expert, but surely it's highly implausible that a worker attached to the shuttle simulator would suddenly hold a position of power in the control room when things start to go pear-shaped with the program. Surely there is someone more experienced at Mission Control who the Program Director would call on rather than a twenty-nine year old who has not been in the control room before.The only saving grace for this film is the work of Bill Campbell. He manages to make a good attempt at salvaging something out of the train wreck that is this script.I give this film 2 out of 10, with the above-average work of Bill Campbell in the lead role saving it from a lower mark.$LABEL$ 0
+Caddyshack Two is a good movie by itself but compared to the original it cant stack up. Robert Stack is a horrible replacement for Ted Knight and Jackie Mason, while funny just cant compete with Rodney Dangerfield. Ty Webb is funny, being the only character from the original. Most of the other characters in the movie lack the punch of the original (Henry Wilcoxon for example) except for the hystericly funny lawyer Peter Blunt, being played by Randy Quaid. Every line he says reminds me of the originals humor, especially the scene at his office (I don't go in for law suits or motions. I find out where you live and come to your house and beat down your door with a f***ing baseball bat, make a bonfire with the chippindale,maybe roast that golden retriever (arff arff arff) then eat it. And then I'm comin' upstairs junior, and I'm grabbing you by your brooks brothers pjs, and cramming your brand new BMW up your tight a**! Do we have an understanding?). Offsetting his small role however, is Dan Acroyd, who is obviously no replacement for Bill Murray. His voice is beyond irritating and everything he does isnt even funny, its just stupid. Overall Caddyshack II is a good movie, but in comparison to the awesome original it just cant cut it.$LABEL$ 0
+Honestly - this short film sucks. the dummy used in the necro scene is pretty well made but still phony enough looking to ruin the viewing experience. the Unearthed DVD is crisp and clear and I haven't made up my mind if this helps or hinders it. If the film was a little grainy it might have added some "creepiness factor" to what was going on. I have no idea why this film has so much hype surrounding it other than the subject matter - but to be honest the necrophilia scenes in films like NEKROMANTIK and VISITOR Q among others, are more shocking than in AFTERMATH. All this talk about the film being about loneliness and all other manner of deep philosophy is bull****. This is an expensive, beautifully filmed turd. It's not that shocking, it's not that disgusting. if you insist on viewing it - rent it. I give it a 3 for the fact that not many people make explicit movies about necrophilia (there should definitely be a bigger selection for us sickos ;) - the filming is good and it does have some "gore" (if watching a rubbery looking doll get cut open is considered gore...) but other than that - absolutely nothing going for this over-hyped mess. On the other hand - GENESIS - Cerda's "sequel" to AFTERMATH (now available as a "double feature" released by Unearthed films) is an absolute masterpiece of a short film, really showing what a good director Cerda really is when given the right material. Although I don't care for AFTERMATH at all, GENESIS is so well made that I will forgive Cerda and Definitely keep an eye out for him in the future...$LABEL$ 0
+I thought that Mukhsin has been wonderfully written. Its not just about entertainment. There's tonnes of subtle messages that i think Yasmin was trying to bring across. And yes, it might be confusing to some of you(especially if you didn't watch Sepet and/or Gubra for 76 times).I bet u noticed how they use characters from the two movies before right? Its really ironic how the characters relate. Like the bossy neighbour is that prostitute from Gubra. And the chick at the snooker pad turns out to be the religious and wife of the pious man in the future. And i absolutely love the voice-overs. Its crude yet awakeningly fresh. Like, when they took a shot of the Rumah Tumpangan Gamin signboard, then there was suddenly Mukhsin's voice saying 'Bismillahhirrahmannirrahim..' (the scene when he climbed the tree).It captured Malaysian's attitude(and in some mild way, sniggering at how pathetic it is) portrayed in the character. For example, even the kids can be really sharp tongued(complete with the shrill annoying voice) and simply bad mouth ppl all movie long. And how you can be such a busybody and talk about ppl, when ur own life isn't sorted out. All i can say is, this movie totally reached my expectation if not exceeded it. It kept me glued to the screen, i couldn't even take my eyes off it. Not even to make out in the cinema. Ha ha.$LABEL$ 1
+I am not a golf fan by any means. On May 26 about 10:30 PM the movie started with a scene in the late 1800's. Old movies I like but not golf however, within the first scene a young boy (Harry Vardon) is awaken by the voices of men. He goes outside to inquire what they are doing and is told they are going to build a golf something... So , then I turned the television off but something stirred me and it was back on. The movie is excellent. We then see this young boy now a man; professional golf player who is haunted with visions from his childhood. Then we meet the true focus of the movie Francis and the decisions he makes for golf. You meet his mother and father who want to protect him from the class thing that is so obvious during the period. Then there is little Eddie Lowery his caddy with encouraging words and little pushes that are instrumental in Francis winning. Don't want to give away too much . I was up until 2 A.M. This is super please see the movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Upon viewing Tobe Hooper's gem, Crocodile, in 2000, I developed a great interest in the college/crocodile niche of the exploitation/monster genre. I look forward to a wayward producer to follow up with several sequels to these delightful bonbons of camp goodness. If only Ed Wood could bring his subtle sense of flair and dignity to these remarkable scripts. With Ed writing the scripts, and a room full of monkees creating crocodile special effects on a computer, all we'd need would be a cast of crocky fodder with Russ Meyer breasts and Ren Hoek pectoral implants.While Tobe Hooper's crocky opus referenced his own movies, Blood Surf chose to dish out a bunch of aging themes from the chum bucket of other movies. See if you can look past the Revenge of the Nerds sequel sets to find the allusions/homages?/rip-offs to Jaws, Temple of Doom, Indiana Jones' Last Crusade, The Convent, Godzilla 2000, and any James Bond movie. Also, try to find the ready-for-tv fade where the editor gave up on making sense of the stock.I was disappointed the crock didn't get to try out its sotto voce tenor with a soliloquy on environmentalism...or crocky appreciation, but the quasi-Captain Ahab of the story does get his tour de force speach. Perhaps, in the coming years, we'll see a crock galloping off after a shootout into a golden sunset. Or hopefully, a monkey will flush a crocky down the toilet of an international space station for midgets and enjoy the exploitative waltz of zero-G monkey/midget/crocodile bloodshed.All-in-all, the lack of a whammy bar in the surf music irked me.$LABEL$ 0
+It tries to be the epic adventure of the century. And with a cast like Shô Kasugi, Christopher Lee and John-Rhys Davies it really is the perfect B-adventure of all time. It's actually is a pretty fun, swashbuckling adventure that, even with it's flaws, captures your interest. It must have felt as the biggest movie ever for the people who made it. Even if it's made in the 90s, it doesn't have a modern feel. It more has the same feeling that a old Errol Flynn movie had. Big adventure movie are again the big thing in Hollywood but I'm afraid that the feeling in them will never be the same as these old movies had. This on the other hand, just has the real feeling. You just can't hate it. I think it's an okay adventure movie. And I really love the soundtrack. Damn, I want the theme song.$LABEL$ 1
+The Last Hard Men finds James Coburn an outlaw doing a long sentence breaking free from a chain gang. Do he and his friends head for the Mexican border from jail and safety. No they don't because Coburn has a mission of revenge. To kill the peace officer who brought him in and in the process killed his woman.That peace officer is Charlton Heston who is now retired and he knows what Coburn is after. As he explains it to his daughter, Barbara Hershey, Coburn was holed up in a shack and was involved in a Waco like standoff. His Indian woman was killed in the hail of bullets fired. It's not something he's proud of, she was a collateral casualty in a manhunt.Lest we feel sorry for Coburn he lets us know full well what an evil man he truly is. Heston is his usual stalwart hero, but the acting honors in The Last Hard Men go to James Coburn. He blows everyone else off the screen when he's on. Coburn gets the bright idea of making sure Heston trails him by kidnapping Hershey and taking her to an Indian reservation where the white authorities can't touch him. He knows that Heston has to make it personal then.Coburn's gang includes, Morgan Paull, Thalmus Rasulala, John Quade, Larry Wilcox, and Jorge Rivero. Heston has Chris Mitchum along who is his son-in-law to be.The Last Hard Men is one nasty and brutal western. Andrew McLaglen directed it and I'm thinking it may have been a project originally intended for Sam Peckinpaugh. It sure shows a lot of his influence with the liberal use of slow motion to accentuate the violence. Of which there is a lot. For a little Peckinpaugh lite, The Last Hard Men is your film.$LABEL$ 1
+Maybe it was the title, or the trailer (certainly not the interview on the DVD, which is with the director as he keeps saying "hi, kids" into the camera like a buffoon), but I had expectations for Entrails of a Virgin to be at least a bit of sleazy fun with some good sex scenes and brutal, bloody killings by a weird Japanese penetrator. Turns out it's way too sleazy for its own good, or bad, or whatever. There's a problem- and one can see this also in the Italian sexploitation flick Porno Holocaust, similar to this in many respects- in not having balance to the sex and violence. Too much sex and it will turn into a prototypical porno, and not even with much production quality in comparison with most professional porno movies! And with the killing scenes, there has to be at least a little tack, and maybe just a smidgen of ingenuity, in creating the creature/killer/whatever. Entrails of a Virgin has neither. It's safe to say it's a pretty soulless movie, even if isn't one of the very worst ever made- it's there just for horn-dog Japanese fetishists to get off on girls in trouble and men who have all their brains in their 'other' heads.In this case, we're given a photo team where the guys are taking some shots of some girls, nothing too salacious, and then by way of a dense fog they stay off at some house one night and are picked off one by one by "A Murderer" as he's credited. First off, the director Kazuo 'Gaira' Komizu decides he has to put in a quota of random sex scenes early on- we get spliced in (or phoned in, take your pick) clips of one of the photographers having sex with one or more of the girls elsewhere. It looks like it's from another movie. Then once settled into the house, there's a 'wrestling' scene that's poorly choreographed and shot (yeah, we really need to see him 'all' there), and then on to the rape and killings. First the rape, by the photographers, who promise the girls some jobs for their time. Then the Murderer, who like D'Amato's creature is simply covered in mud and given a stupid facial, and who for an unknown reason kills the men and/or rapes the women one by one.Now, the latter of those, taken by themselves, should be considered the highlights of the movie. This is like saying, however, that the croûtons are the best part of a wretchedly tasting salad. An eye-gouging scene, a spike thrown like an Olympic event (that scene, actually, is kind of cool), and finally the entrailing of the overly sex-crazed girl, whose inconsequential name I can't remember. Even *this* becomes disappointing just by not being correct to the title! On top of this, the sex scenes, which become tedious through 'Gaira' and his indulgence in long-takes-without-cutaways where everything by the Japanese censors is blurred anyway, are dubbed over by the actors (you'd think that they seem to be enjoying themselves enough, hence the need to let them 'speak' for themselves). But the overall feeling from Entrails of a Virgin is that of a lumpy one, where it's just there to be gawked at and without a shred of suspense or true horror (watch as the last girl left alive, the virgin of the picture, tries to stop the murderer from getting to her, which lasts five minutes as she keeps throwing sticks at him!) You just want it to be done with, for the 'I hate women' mantra to ease up or be rid altogether.$LABEL$ 0
+The few scenes that actually attempt a depiction of revolutionary struggle resemble a hirsute Boy Scout troop meandering tentatively between swimming holes. When Sharif or, please God, Palance try their hand at fiery oratory, they sound like Kurtz swallowing a bug. The displays of strategic brilliance incorporate a map of Cuba replete with smiling fishies in the ocean, and a positively Vaudevillian hypothesis on how the Bay of Pigs came to pass. What does that leave us with? One comical dentistry scene; a surfeit of uppity Hollywood peasants who address the camera as though it were a moving train; and, just for kicks, a passel of homoeroticism that is not limited to Castro's manic and unremitting cigar-fellatio. Never trust a Medved, but even a busted clock is right twice a day: this is a HISTORICALLY awful movie.$LABEL$ 0
+This film took me by surprise. I make it a habit of finding out as little as possible about films before attending because trailers and reviews provide spoiler after spoiler. All I knew upon entering the theater is that it was a documentary about a long married couple and that IMDb readers gave it a 7.8, Rotten Tomatoes users ranked it at 7.9 and the critics averaged an amazing 8.2! If anything, they UNDERRATED this little gem.Filmmaker Doug Block decided to record his parents "for posterity" and at the beginning of the film we are treated to the requisite interviews with his parents, outspoken mother Mina, and less than forthcoming dad, Mike. I immediately found this couple interesting and had no idea where the filmmaker (Mike & Mina's son Doug) was going to take us. As a matter of fact, I doubt that Doug himself knew where he was going with this!Life takes unexpected twists and turns and this beautifully expressive film follows the journey. It is difficult to verbalize just how moved I was with this story and the unique way in which it was told. Absolutely riveting from beginning to end and it really is a must-see even if you aren't a fan of the documentary genre. This film will make you think of your own life and might even evoke memories that you thought were long forgotten. "51 Birch Street" is one of those rare filmgoing experiences that makes a deep impression and never leaves you. The best news of all is that HBO had a hand in the production so instead of playing to a limited art house audience, eventually, millions of people will have a chance to view this incredible piece of work. BRAVO!!!!!!!!$LABEL$ 1
+Stephen Hawkings is a genius. He is the king of geniuses. Watching this movie makes me feel dumb. But it's a great movie. Not highly entertaining, but very very intriguing. The movie centers around wheelchair bound Stephen Hawkings, a man who makes Einstein look average, and his theories and scientific discoveries about the universe, time, the galaxy, and black holes. Everyone at sometime or another during a really intense high comes to a moment when they think they'v got the universe and the cosmos figured out and they swear as soon as they sober up they'll write it all down. Well here is a man who actually held that feeling for more then six hours. Here is a man who despite suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease has become the greatest mind the world has yet seen. Watch this and listen in on how he has formulated theories on black holes. Awesome. You won't be the same after you see it.$LABEL$ 1
+The story is about a psychic woman, Tory, who returns to her hometown and begins reliving her traumatic childhood past (the death of her childhood friend and abusive father). Tory discovers that her friend was just the first in a string of murders that are still occurring. Can her psychic powers help solve the crimes and stop the continuing murders? You really don't need to find out because, Oh My God! This was so so so so bad! I know all the Nora Roberts fans will flock to this movie and give it tons of 10's. Then the rest of us will see an IMDb score of 6 and actually think this movie is worth watching. But do not be fooled. The ending was predictable, the acting TERRIBLE (don't even get me started about the southern accents *y'all*) and the story was trite. Just remember....you were warned!$LABEL$ 0
+Oh God, I must have seen this when I was only 11 or twelve, (don't ask how) I may have been young, but I wasn't stupid. Anyone could see that this is a bad movie, nasty, gross, unscary and very silly. I've seen more impressive effects at Disneyland, I've seen better performances at a school play, And I've seen more convincing crocodiles at the zoo, where they do nothing but sit in the water, ignoring the children tapping on the glass.The story is set in northern Australia. A handful of ambitious young people, are trying out a new water sport, surfing in shark filled waters. It soon becomes evident that something more dangerous is in the water. After they learn what, they get the help of a grizzly middle aged fisherman, who wants to kill the animal to avenge the eating of his family.I think I have seen every crocodile film made in the last fifteen years, the best of which is Lake Placid, and the worse of which is its sequel. Blood Surf would have to be the second worst croc flick I think, with Primeval and Crocodile tailing closely behind.The Australian Saltwater Crododile is one of the most dangerous creatures out there, resulting in more than a hundred injuries or deaths every year. Movies like Blood Surf however ruin not only the ferocious image of such a creature, but a good hour and a half of the viewer's life. Unless you really want to see it, avoid Blood Surf.$LABEL$ 0
+"Fate" leads Walter Sparrow to come in possession of a mysterious novel that has eerie similarities and connections to his life, all based around the number 23. As the story unfolds in real life and fiction, Sparrow must figure out his connection to the book and how the story will eventually end.The Number 23 offers an intriguing premise that is undone by a weak execution. The film just failed on many different levels which is pretty disappointing because it held so much potential. The screenplay was probably the worst part about it. It was filled with silly sequences and laughable dialog that just killed the mood of the movie. It seemed like the screenwriter had a good idea, he just didn't know how to develop it to stretch over a ninety minute running time. The second half of the film was running low on ideas, the twist was pretty obvious and the ending was awful.Joel Schumacher is responsible for one of the worst movies ever and he did redeem himself a little with Phone Booth and a few other films but The Number 23 reminds me that he's still capable of making a stinker. He has the movie drenched in style but he just can't get a good focus. He moves the film at a clunky and slow pace. He switches from reality to what's actually happening in the book which quickly got annoying. The actual book in the film that's titled "The Number 23" is an awful detective story and the audience gets stuck listening to Carrey narrate it which just bored me to tears. When Carrey is finally done with book, we get stuck watching him run around trying to solve the mystery. At this point, the audience has lost interest and there is no real tension. We impatiently wait for the movie to reach it's horrible ending and unconvincing explanation before celebrating that film has finally finished.The acting was mostly average and pretty forgettable. Jim Carrey was clearly just sleepwalking through his performance and he didn't even seem to be trying. He was either completely over the top in some scenes or just very wooden. His narration was a complete bore to listen to and he put no life inside his character. Virginia Madsen did the best she could with a limited role but she needs to pick better scripts. Logan Lerman was pretty bland as was Danny Huston. Overall, The Number 23 was an awful thriller that offered more laughs than suspense or thrills. Rating 3/10$LABEL$ 0
+We brought this film as a joke for a friend, and could of been our worst joke to play. The film is barely watchable, and the acting is dire. The worst child actor ever used and Hasslehoff giving a substandard performance. The plot is disgraceful and at points we was so bored we was wondering what the hell was going on. It tries to be gruesome in places but is just laughable.Just terrible$LABEL$ 0
+This was probably the worst movie i have ever seen in my life!! It was stupid there was no plot and the special affects were ridiculous!! And i have never seen such bad acting in my life! The only good part about the movie were all the hot guys(especially Drew Fuller). I don't know what these people were thinking when they made this movie!! I didn't even want to finish the whole thing because you get to this point in the movie where the guys are all in bed touching themselves. I mean it was like some kind of sick and twisted kiddy porn! I would advise anyone who has heard of this movie and was interested in seeing it to just forget about it and find another movie to watch! I was very disappointed!! The whole movie was a complete waste of time in my opinion.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a typical Steele novel production in that two people who have undergone some sort of tragedy manage to get together despite the odds. I wouldn't call this a spoiler because anyone who has read a Steele novel knows how they ALL end. If you don't want to know much about the plot, don't keep reading.Gilbert's character, Ophelia, is a woman of French decent who has lost her husband and son in an accident. Gilbert needs to stop doing films where she is required to have an accent because she, otherwise a good actress, cannot realistically pull off any kind of accent. Brad Johnson, also an excellent actor, is Matt, who is recovering from a rather nasty divorce. He is gentle, convincing and compelling in this role.The two meet on the beach through her daughter, Pip, and initially, Ophelia accuses Matt of being a child molester just because he talked art with the kid. All of them become friends after this episode and then the couple falls in love.The chemistry between the two leads is not great, even though the talent of these two people is not, in my opinion, a question. They did the best they could with a predictable plot and a script that borders on stereotypical. Two people meet, tragedy, bigger tragedy, a secret is revealed, another tragedy, and then they get together. I wish there was more to it than that, but there it is in a nutshell.I wanted mindless entertainment, and I got it with this. In regard to the genre of romantic films, this one fails to be memorable. "A Secret Affair" with Janine Turner is far superior (not a Steele book), as are some of Steele's earlier books turned into film.$LABEL$ 0
+Oh noes one of these attack of the Japanese ghost girl movies... i don't even remember how many i've seen. maybe it sells... but not to me. not scary at all. the japanese horror movies are have been very similar since the first one of these... also the pulling of the kid. i have seen that pulled under scene so many times in so many horror movies. cellphone scene is also nothing new... the dramaticness of the guy getting hit by a train kinda sucked... i mean it lacked all dramaticness... OK this is for kids 14-16 who listen to japanese rock and think they are so unique... we'll let me tell you. there's a million of you =D this is one of them. 3/10 i've seen worse but you won't be missing anything by NOT seeing this!$LABEL$ 0
+Nicholas Walker is Paul, the local town Reverand who's married to Martha (Ally Sheedy), but also is a habitual womanizer and decides to fake his own death to run away with his current affair, Veronica (Dara Tomanovich). However in so doing, he gets a bout of amnesia (hence the name of the film). Sally Kirkland is also on hand as a crazy old coot who pines for the good Reverand in a shades of "Misery" type of way. It's sad to see a pretty good cast wasted like this. Not the least bit John Savage in a horridly forgettable role as a shoddy private investigator. In a film billed as a 'black comedy', one has to bring BOTH elements into said movie. While this does bring the former in spades, it sadly contains none of the latter. Furthermore you can't emphasize with any of the characters and as thus, have absolutely no vested interest in them. Technically not an all-together bad movie just an extremely forgettable one.Eye Candy: Dara Tomanovich gets topless; Sally Kirkland also shows some skin My Grade: C- Where I saw it: Showtime Showcase$LABEL$ 0
+Hollywood movie industry is the laziest one in the entire world. It only needs a single hit to flood theaters with the same old crap re-invented over and over again. Take superheroes for example, for each X-Man and Spiderman, there are Daredevil, Elektra, Ghost Rider and Hulk. Japanese horror remakes are even worst. It only took The Ring, which was pitch-perfect (mostly because of Mr. Gore Verbinsky), to bring a ton of look-alike creepy-woman based horrors, e.g. The Ring 2, The Eye, Dark Water (which was fine, but pointless), and the grudges.The first Grudge wasn't entirely bad. It was scary most of the way, which is what one could expect from it. Plus, the plot had some brains mixing narratives. Grudge 2 is exactly like the previous; this could be a good thing, but hey, what boy Men in Black II? Was it a nice thing to xerox the entire screenplay and just change the villain? For the Grudge 2, the critic goes the same way.Tired scares, bad acting (except for Amber Tamblyn), and clichés all over the place. Three stories take place, on different places and time. There is Aubrey (Tamblyn) investigating what drove her sister Karen (Sarah Michelle Gellar) to death; Allison (Arielle Kebbel) who is taken by colleagues to visit the house where the incident depicted in the first movie took place; and finally, an American family that witness strange stuff happening on the apartment next door. Glad to say (and I mean it) that everything is tied up at the end, but one must not rely on the end to make a good picture, when everything else is simply tiresome and dull.The chills are all over there, a girl alone in the lockers, someone who shouldn't enter a house, others that dig too deep. Meanwhile, ghosts keep killing and killing and killing, which seems even more deadlier than ten world wars or the Ebola epidemic. Hey, doesn't that seem just like another bad Japanese remake, something called Pulse? Yeah, day after day it's getting easier to hold a grudge... against Hollywood bullshits.$LABEL$ 0
+"Down Periscope" has been in our library since it first arrived in VHS. Since then, we have acquired the DVD and a digital from Cinema Now.It is a quirky flick that does not go militarily overboard as either pro or con. It is first and foremost a comedy and as a vehicle for the main characters, I am quite surprised that a sequel has never been offered.The movie has gained a following that borders on a cult obsession, even among the very young. I became aware of this while visiting the USS Drum in Mobile, Alabama in 2002. A group of Cub Scouts, my grandson among them, had all taken up the roles from the movie and planned to relive it during their overnighter on board.It is a fun romp that makes you proud both of our Navy and Hollywood... which is rare company.Thanks to Kelsey Grammar, Lauren Holly and Rob Schneider for making what could have been an otherwise unremarkable movie, such great entertainment!$LABEL$ 1
+If you came here, it's because you've already seen this film and were curious what others had to say about it.I feel for you, I *really* do. And I profusely apologize as a Canadian (because that's what we do) that this film ever had to cross your eyes, if only for a moment. I hear there is no cure for the retinal bleeding reported out of every dozen cases.I, like everyone else, rented this movie believing it to be some stupid B-movie ripoff of Blade. I thought, "sure I could use a good laugh at a stupid movie." I'll give the creators of this film ONE positive comment about their 'creation': Thanks for removing the REC XX/XX/XX from the bottom right-hand corner of the screen. I can see how that would have been a distraction from seeing this movie.And for the record, I *saw* the movie, but did not watch it. The dialogue was incoherent and most of the scenes took place in my grandmother's trailer, I swear to God.You know what? I'm not writing anymore about this. It's just too painful.$LABEL$ 0
+Deanna Durbin, Nan Grey and Barbara Read are "Three Smart Girls" in this Universal film from 1936, which introduces Deanna Durbin to film audiences. It also stars Ray Milland, Mischa Auer, Charles Winninger, John King, Binnie Barnes and Alice Brady. It's a sweet story about three young women, now living in Switzerland with their divorced mother, who hear their father (Winninger) is marrying again. Not having seen him in 10 years and knowing their mother still loves him, they board a ship to America, with the help of the housekeeper/nanny, determined to stop the wedding. Realizing that the intended, called "Precious" (Barnes) is nothing but a gold-digger aided and abetted by her mother (Brady), they arrange for her to be introduced to a wealthy Count. This is arranged by their father's accountant (King). The man he chooses is a full-time drunk (Auer), but the girls mistake him for an actual wealthy count (Milland). What a mess.This is a delightful film, not cloying or overly sugary at all, with some nice performances, particularly by Auer, Milland, Barnes and Brady. The young women are pretty and all do good work. The emphasis, of course, is on young Durbin, who is a natural actress and a beautifully-trained singer. In fact, her voice as a youngster is much more even than it would be as an adult - she has no trouble with the high notes, as she did later on because she put too much weight in the middle voice. She sings a delightful "Il Bacio" in a police station.One of the nicest things about the film is to see the father, played by Charles Winninger, not want his children around - until he sees them and gets to know them. Barnes as the gold-digger isn't all that young, but the girls' mother looks way up there, so the inference probably was the older man seeking his youth with a younger, more glamorous woman. In fact, he finds the youth he was seeking in his daughters.Universal gives Durbin the big star buildup here - she has the final shot in the movie. Ray Milland at this point was still paying his dues, and it will probably be a surprise even to film fans how young and attractive he is.Very entertaining and of course, this led to a sequel and big stardom for Deanna.$LABEL$ 1
+If anyone is wondering why no one makes movies like they used to, with conversation, character and a simple theme of friendship struggling to evolve into something new, better and different, those folks need to take in this film and see top notch writing, directing, and acting that melds into a wonderful evening of observation on how things used to be in Italy and England. Other days, other times funneled into a terrific comedy of entertainment, made in 1992 with Alfred Molina, Joan Plowright, Polly Walker, Josie Lawrence, Jim Broadbent, Miranda Richardson, and Michael Kitchens in the major roles. Under the brush stroke direction of Mike Newell, these actors accomplish vividly memorable performances that are photographed with a sublimely subtle painter's eye. Reminiscent of the theatrical bedroom farce of the turn of the century, this film might be called a friendship farce that becomes a worthwhile experience in the growth of the romantic nature within each character, and the viewer, too. An artistic telegram on the importance of caring about those around us.$LABEL$ 1
+I watched this series out of curiosity,wanting to see if they could possibly and with ALL this modern technology,out do Cecil B. DeMille's classic epic of 1956, starring Charleton Heston,Yul Brenner and Sir Cedric Hardwicke. Of course, I was let down. Yes, they had all the Biblical characters correct, but they didn't give us any of the spectacular theatrical scenes, that held your interest throughout the first movie. If you going to have a mini-series, you have to have some "rivoting" scenes, the "Burning bush", Parting the "RED Sea",drowning "Pharohs Armies", "building Sethi's Pyramids", could have been done with todays' technology on the scale of blockbuster movies such as "Lord of the Rings" or the Matrix. Obviously, they didn't want to leave a LASTING impression of "faith and sacrifice", which is much needed in these trouble times.$LABEL$ 0
+Daniel Day-Lewis is the most versatile actor alive. English aristocratic snob in A Room With a View, passionate Irish thief in In the Name of the Father, an impudent, violent butcher in Gangs of New York (in a performance ten times stronger than Adrian Brody's in the Pianist) and as the outrageous Cristy Brown with cerebral palsy in My Left Foot (just to name a few). His roles all influence eachother, but each is seperate, and utterly unique. He changes completely, with each character he takes on. And I'm beginning to believe that he can act as anything. Anything.As Cristy Brown he is stunning. He does not ridicule the character, and he does not pity the character. A difficult achievement. And Cristy Brown comes to life. A smart man. An outrageous man. Human.This movie, despite small scene-transition faults and the like, is an inspiration. Yes, it's predictable. But is it stupidly sentimental? No. I laughed. I cried. Not a single moment of cheese. Proof that this isn't a Hollywood movie.My favourite scene is the scene in the restaurant, when Cristy is discussing painters with Eileen, Peter and her friends. Here's where Daniel Day-Lewis reaches an acting climax. "I'll kick you in the only part of your anatomy that's animated." "Wheel out the cripple!" And his performance never slows down, never falters, and is beautiful. Simply. He has a lot of screen time here. I watch it again again, and I never get tired of Cristy's perspicacious eyes, twitching and guttural speeches.A must-see. Fo sho, yo!$LABEL$ 1
+My guess would be this was originally going to be at least two parts, and thus at least a quarter longer, because otherwise how can one explain its confused, abbreviated storyline. I was never completely lost, but I was often partially lost and usually unclear on character motivation. The movie feels as though joining plot points were dropped to squeeze it into its time slot.If it were longer, it might make more sense, but it still wouldn't be much good. The movie's most interesting idea is of the war between Zeus and Hera as being a war between the male and female, but the movie drops the ball on this, making Hera's followers fairly horrible while not being clear on what Zeus' followers do or believe. The movie is also interesting because you don't see the gods and there's no real certainty that they exist. So it's got a couple of intriguing ideas, but it doesn't do anything useful with them.Bad dialog, cardboard characters, and one interesting scene involving Hercules and his three antagonistic sons. Not unwatchable but also not worth watching.$LABEL$ 0
+Well, I like to watch bad horror B-Movies, cause I think it's interesting to see stupidity and unability of creators to shoot seriously good movie. (I always compare this movies to - for example - some Spielberg's works and again-and-again don't understand the huge difference in what I see.) I like Ed Wood's movies cause it's so inept it's very funny. But people!!! "The Chilling" is not funny and is not even "interesting". It's EXTREMELY BORING horror movie without ANYTHING what makes even bad movies watchable. There's no acting, no screenplay, no direction, no thrills and not even blood. It's extremely inept amateurish film. It's definitely the WORST movie I had ever seen (and I had seen a lot of "worst movies" - believe me). I warned you !!! 1/10$LABEL$ 0
+This IS the worst movie I have ever seen, as well as, the worst that I will probably EVER see. I see no need to rehash what all the others have said previously, just be forewarned...This IS NOT one of those bad movies you think you want to watch because you want to be able to make fun of it, its just plain BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD.This movie is the equivalent to having a "pet rock" as your friend. You wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait for something to happen. Unfortunately, it never does. At least with a pet rock you knew what you were getting into. Lion's Gate completely deceives on this bombshell... No...this is a disaster. After watching this film, you would swear George W. Bush had his hands all over the making of this film... yes its that idiotic.Stay away, unless of course you just want to watch the worst movie of all time. Its probably how Lion's Gate figured it would make some money off this piece of tripe.$LABEL$ 0
+I have been a Mario fan for as long as I can remember, I have very fond memories of playing Super Mario World as a kid, this game has brought back many of those memories while adding something new. Super Mario Galaxy is the latest installment in the amazing Mario franchise. There is much very different about this game from any other Mario before it, while still keeping intact the greatest elements of Mario, the first noticeable difference is that the story takes place in space.The story begins much like any other Mario game, Mario receives a letter from Princess Peach inviting him to a celebration at her castle in the Mushroom Kingdom. Upon arriving at Peach's castle Mario finds Bowser and his son (Bowser Jr.) attacking the castle with their airships. Bowser kidnaps Princess Peach and then lifts her castle up into space. In the midst of the castle being lifted into space Mario falls off and lands on an unknown planet. Mario is found by a talking star named Luma and is taken back to the Luma's home, a floating space station, here Mario meets many other Lumas and also meets their leader, a woman named Rosalina. Rosalina tells Mario that Bowser has taken away the space station's Power Stars and scattered them across the universe, it is up to Mario to help the Lumas find them and save Peach, thus the adventure begins.The way you play the game is by flying from the space station to other galaxies, each galaxy consists of multiple planets that Mario travels amongst in levels via these shooting stars to retrieve the Power Stars. Mario can at many times walk all the way around planets without losing gravity, some planets are small and others are big, many planets are similar to classic Mario environments. The best thing about the game are the controls, all of the stuff like jumping and such is still the same, but the wiimote is used in many unique ways in this game. You shake the remote Mario will perform a spin that is used as the primary attack in the game, and it will as well activate the shooting stars. You can also point the remote at the screen and use the pointer to fire star bits at enemies or objects in the environment. Then there is the graphics, these are by far the best graphics on the Wii, it is just so hard to describe how great this game looks, you could probably almost say it looks as good as some 360 games.My only minor gripes is that the going upside down effect takes some getting used to, and also the story is pretty weak. The worst part is that you lose all of your lives when you turn off the game, no matter how many you had when you last quit you restart at 4 lives. Still these minor problems aside it's a superb game that is highly entertaining and is very challenging. This is the type of game that we've been waiting for on the Wii.A perfect 10 out of 10!$LABEL$ 1
+This short film that inspired the soon-to-be full length feature - Spatula Madness - is a hilarious piece that contends against similar cartoons yielding multiple writers. The short film stars Edward the Spatula who after being fired from his job, joins in the fight against the evil spoons. This premise allows for some funny content near the beginning, but is barely present for the remainder of the feature. This film's 15-minute running time is absorbed by some odd-ball comedy and a small musical number. Unfortunately not much else lies below it. The plot that is set up doesn't really have time to show. But it's surely follows it plot better than many high-budget Hollywood films. This film is worth watching at least a few times. Take it for what it is, and don't expect a deep story.$LABEL$ 1
+Okay, last night, August 18th, 2004, I had the distinct displeasure of meeting Mr. Van Bebble at a showing of the film The Manson Family at the Three Penny in Chicago as part of the Chicago Underground Film Festival. Here's what I have to say about it. First of all, the film is an obvious rip off of every Kenneth Anger, Roman Polanski, Oliver Stone and Terry Gilliam movie I've ever seen. Second of all, in a short Q & A session after the show Mr. Van Bebble immediately stated that he never made any contact with the actual Manson Family members or Charlie himself, calling them liars and saying he wanted nothing to do with them, that the film was based on his (Van Bebble's) take on the trial having seen it all from his living room on TV and in the news (and I'm assuming from the Autobiography and the book Helter Skelter which were directly mimicked through the narrative). So I had second dibs on questions, I asked if he was trying to present the outsider, Mtv, sex drugs and rock 'n roll version and not necessarily the true story. This question obviously pissed off the by now sloshed director who started shouting "f*** you, shut the f*** up, this is the truth! All those other movies are bullsh**!"Well anyway, I didn't even think about how ridiculous this was until the next day when I read the tagline for the film, "You've heard the laws side of the story...now hear the story as it is told by the Manson Family." Excuse me, if this guy has never even spoken to the family and considers them to be liars that he doesn't want to have anything to do with, how in God's name can he tell the story for them!? This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard! The film was obviously catered to the sex drugs and rock 'n roll audience that it had no trouble in attracting to the small, dimly lit theatre, and was even more obviously spawned by the sex drugs and rock 'n roll mind of a man who couldn't even watch his own film without getting up every ten minutes to go get more beer or to shout some sort of Rocky Horroresque call line to the actors on screen. This film accomplishes little more than warping the public's image of actual events (which helped shape the state of America and much of the world today) into some sort of Slasher/Comic Book/Porno/Rape fantasy dreamed up by an obviously shallow individual.The film was definitely very impressive to look at. The soundtrack was refreshing as it contained actual samples of Charlie's work with the Family off of his Lie album. The editing was nice and choppy to simulate the nauseating uncertainty of most modern music videos. All in all this film would have made a much better addition to the catalogues at Mtv than to the Underground Film Festival or for that matter the minds of any intellectual observers. I felt like I was at a midnight Rocky Horror viewing the way the audience was dressed and behaving (probably the best part of the experience). The cast was very good with the exception of Charlie who resembled some sort of stoned Dungeons and Dragons enthusiast more than the actual role he was portraying. The descriptions the film gave of him as full of energy, throwing ten things at you and being very physical about it all the while did not match at all the slow, lethargic, and chubby representation that was actually presented.All in all the film basically explains itself as Sadie (or maybe it was Linda) declares at the end, "You can write a bunch of bullsh** books or make a bunch of bullsh** movies...etc. etc." Case in point. Even the disclaimer "Based on a True Story" is a dead giveaway, signalling that somewhere beneath this psychedelic garbage heap lay the foundation of an actual story with content that will make and has made a difference in the world. All you have to do is a little bit of alchemy to separate the truth from the the crap, or actually, maybe you could just avoid it all together and go read a book instead.All I can say is this, when the film ended I got a free beer so I'm glad I went, but not so glad I spent fifteen dollars on my ticket to be told to shut the f*** up for asking the director a question. Peace.$LABEL$ 0
+I bought this game on an impulse buy from walmart. I am glad I did. It was very entertaining listening to Sean Connery and playing the game. I thought the graphics were the best I have ever seen in a movie/game remake. The bonus levels were very hard! The sniper one I think was too hard, it made me so frustrated I didn't play the game for a week and a half. There were too many people shooting at you with nothing to hide behind or life to handle it. The only thing I might change was the upgrade system. I didn't notice any difference from un-upgraded equipment to the upgraded, such as buying an armor upgrade didn't seem to make the armor stronger or more filling on my life meter. I really liked the Q copter. I think the developers did a good job.$LABEL$ 1
+No, this hilariously horrible 70's made-for-TV horror clinker isn't about a deadly demonically possessed dessert cake. Still, this exceptionally awful, yet undeniably amusing and thus enjoyable cathode ray refuse reaches a breathtaking apex of absolute, unremitting silliness and atrociousness that's quite tasty in a so-execrable-it's-downright-awesome sort of way. Richard Crenna, looking haggard and possibly inebriated, and Yvette Mimieux, who acts as if she never got over the brutal rape she endured in "Jackson County Jail," sluggishly portray a disgustingly nice and respectable suburbanite couple whose quaint, dull, sleepy small town existence gets ripped asunder when the cute German Shepard they take in as the family pet turns out to be some ancient lethal evil spirit. Pretty soon Mimieux and her two repellently cutesy kids Kim Richards and Ike Eisenmann (the psychic alien moppets from the Disney "Witch Mountain" pictures) are worshiping a crude crayon drawing of the nasty, ugly canine entity in the den. Boy, now doesn't that sound really scary and disturbing? Well, scary and disturbing this laughably ludicrous claptrap sure ain't, but it sure is funny, thanks to Curtis ("Night Tide") Harrington's hopelessly weak direction, cartoonish (not so) special effects, an almost painfully risible'n'ridiculous plot, and a game cast that struggles valiantly with the absurd story (besides the leads, both Martine Beswicke and R.G. Armstrong briefly pop up as members of a Satanic cult and Victor Jory has a nice cameo as a helpful Native American shaman). Favorite scene: the malicious Mephestophelion mutt puts the whammy on Crenna, practically forcing him to stick his hand into a wildly spinning lawnmower blade. While stuck-up snobby fright film fans may hold their noses at the perfectly putrid stench of this admittedly smelly schlock, devout TV trash lovers should deem this endearingly abominable offal the boob tube equivalent to Alpo.$LABEL$ 1
+It is easy to tell early in this movie exactly what will happen, and who will die. It is about 4 women and a man who on a vacation. This was made during the end of the ultra Nazi seventies, when blonde women were supposedly ultra American survivors and brunettes were all deserving of death.This movie, like the others of that era, contrives to bring this about, and the viewer knows this. There is no mystery or suspense. The people squabble, but everything is so predictable for the prejudices of the time, it is laughable.The five people happen upon two savage young characters, and go nuts. Everyone is nuts, so that the director-writer team can justify their Nazi propaganda.For some reason, the guy is attracted to the blonde, who is really not much to look at, and ignores a super hot looking brunette that any heterosexual man would go nuts over. One must remember that in the seventies, movies were meant to appeal to women and not men.Totally crap and totally depressing.$LABEL$ 0
+Marion Davies stars in this remarkable comedy "Show People" released by MGM in 1928. Davies plays a hick from Savannah, Georgia, who arrives in Hollywood with her father (Dell Henderson). The jalopy they arrive in is a hoot - as is Davies outrageous southern costume. Davies lands a job in slapstick comedy, not what she wants, but it brings her success. She meets fellow slapstick star William Haines, who is immediately smitten with her. Well, Davies then gets a job at a more prestigious studio ("High Art Studios") and lands a job in stuffy period pieces. A handsome but fake actor (Andre Telefair) shows her the ropes of how to be the typical pretentious Hollywood star. Davies abandons her slapstick friend and father for the good life, but of course learns that is not who she really is. Marion Davies is wonderful throughout, as she - outrageously - runs the gamut of emotions required of a "serious" actress. William Haines is his usual wonderful comedic self, and there are cameos by Charles Chaplin, John Gilbert, and other famous stars of the day, including the director of the film, King Vidor. This is a silent film with a few "sound effects" as sound pictures were just coming into their own. A treasure of a film.$LABEL$ 1
+The performance of every actor and actress (in the film) are excellently NATURAL which is what movie acting should be; and the directing skill is so brilliantly handled on every details that I am never tired of seeing it over and over again. However, I am rather surprised to see that this film is not included in some of the actors' and director, Attenborough's credits that puzzles me: aren't they proud of making a claim that they have made such excellent, long lasting film for the audience? I am hoping I would get some answers to my puzzles from some one (possibly one of the "knowledgeable" personnel (insider) of the film.$LABEL$ 1
+While Star Trek the Motion Picture was mostly boring, Star Trek The Final Frontier is plain bad. In this terrible sequel, the crew is on shore leave when they get a distress signal from the Federation that ambassadors representing Earth, Romulus and Kronos (the Klingon home world) have been kidnapped by a renegade Vulcan bent on his quest to attain a starship to venture into the great barrier. There, he hopes to find God. Using mysticism and bad writing, he persuades many of the senior officers of the Enterprise to betray Kirk and get a hold of the ship. They do reach the inside of the great barrier and find a planet where they do meet a god-like alien. This one is so bad it is hard to figure out where to begin. At the core is a good idea that is never really developed. The plot goes nowhere instead of where no man has gone before. It is almost like the writers had no idea how to end this fiasco. The action scenes don't have the suspense of Wrath of Kahn, the philosophy is boring, and the humor is stale. Now I will focus most of my anger on William Shatner. When he takes the director's chair, the ego gets bigger. Most of the focus is on him, Spock, and McCoy, but does not give the others enough to do. Moreover, whereas Shatner is usually guilty of over-acting in previous movies and television spots, he is just plain bad in this one. Now Kirk is reckless, a practical jokers, and silly. One of the worst scenes involves the three leaders singing the song, "Row Row Row your Boat" in a round by a campfire. In any case, this is the worst of the Star Trek franchise. I should have given it three out of ten instead of five.$LABEL$ 0
+Despite later claims, this early-talkie melodrama has very little in common with "Citizen Kane": It's a biopic of a ruthless but human fictional plutocrat, told in flashback but hopping around time. The scriptwriter, Preston Sturges, shows none of his later gift for sparkling dialog, and none of the myriad cinematic innovations of "Kane" are evident. Still, it's very watchable, with a young Spencer Tracy (his old-man makeup makes him look just like, well, an old Spencer Tracy) showing depth and authority, and Colleen Moore -- a little past her prime, and not physically well matched -- playing a multifaceted woman-behind-the-man. There's also Helen Vinson as one of the most treacherous femmes fatales in movie history, sending the final third into ecstatic soap-opera reverberations. The surviving print is jumpy and has missing audio snippets, and there are some plot holes left open (how would she know whose son it was if she's sleeping with both of them?), and the music is awfully hokey. For all that, I was quite fascinated.$LABEL$ 1
+This is the best version (so far) that you will see and the most true to the Bronte work. Dalton is a little tough to imagine as Rochester who Jane Eyre declared "not handsome". But his acting overcomes this and Zelah Clark, pretty as she is, is also a complete and believable Jane Eyre. This production is a lengthy watch but well worth it. Nearly direct quotes from the book are in the script and if you want the very first true 'romance' in literature, this is the way to see it. I own every copy of this movie and have read and re-read the original. The filming may seem a little dated now but there will never be another like this.$LABEL$ 1
+Apparently, the people that wrote the back of the box did not bother to watch this so-called "movie." They described "blindingly choreographed intrigue and violence." I saw no "intrigue." I instead saw a miserable attempt at dialogue in a supposed kung fu movie. I saw no "violence." At least, I saw nothing which could cause me to suspend my disbelief as to what could possibly hurt a man with "impervious" skin--but here I am perhaps revealing too much of the "plot." Furthermore, as a viewer of many and sundry films (some of which include the occasional kung fu movie), I can authoritatively say that this piece of celluloid is unwatchable. Whatever you may choose to do, I will always remain Correct, Jonathan Tanner  P.S. I was not blinded by the choreography.$LABEL$ 0
+I liked Boyle's performance, but that's about the only positive thing I can say. Everything was overdone to the point of absurdity. Most of the actors spoke like you would expect your 9-year-old nephew to speak if he were pretending to be a jaded, stone-hearted cop, or an ultra-evil villain. The raspy voice-overs seemed amateurish to me. I could go buy a cheap synthesizer and crank out better opening music. And what's with the whole 1984ish police torture stuff? It was totally superfluous and had nothing to do with the actual events of the story. Cox added a lot of things, in fact, that he apparently thought would be really cool, but had nothing to do with the story. That's a big disappointment because one of the things that makes Borges' stories so good is his minimalism -- they are tightly bound, with no superfluous details. This movie is just the opposite. I stopped watching after the scene where Lonnrot is questioning the guy from the Yidische Zaitung, or thereabouts. I wasted $4 renting this, but at least I can get some satisfaction from writing this review and hopefully saving others from making the same mistake.$LABEL$ 0
+It's terrific when a funny movie doesn't make smile you. What a pity!! This film is very boring and so long. It's simply painfull. The story is staggering without goal and no fun.You feel better when it's finished.$LABEL$ 0
+So well made, no CGI crap. Has anyone else been on the "Jumping Crocs" tour of Darwin's Adelaide River before? Black Water was WAY realistic; Rogue was a bit cringeworthy.Thought the blonde chick was excellent in it - haven't really seen her before. And the other chick is a babe, she is always excellent. V. suspenseful - I would compare it to Jaws over any other man eating animal flick. Got the hole Aussie thing down pat without going OTT with struths and crikeys, as well. Loved it!$LABEL$ 1
+The Assignment is an outstanding thriller with several plot twists driven by character, rather than star turns, the need to stage special effects, obligatory romance, and endless car chases. However, there is a car chase in here, and a dandy it is. Aidan Quinn is wonderful as both the terrorist and the naval officer "recruited" to eliminate him. It is rare that a second or third tier actor, such as Quinn, is given an important starring role like this that carries a film. Usually, such a role is given to an A-list actor with box office draw, which is probably why I never heard of this film before I saw it. Donald Sutherland is great as the morally ambiguous, somewhat creepy at times, agent that recruits Quinn. Ben Kingsley is fine also as the Israeli agent. The plot is very complex and there are multiple story lines, which converge in gradual fashion toward the end, and not all at once as we're used to seeing. The paranoia and claustrophobia of these type of thrillers is captured and portrayed with both moral ambiguity and frightening intensity. The locations are convincing and effective. The soundtrack is nothing special, but rarely do we get all of the above mentioned qualities these days, without dumb and/or meaningless plot developments; unconvincing star turns; loud, annoying, music video type soundtracks; a villain that hams it up; and repeatedly a cast, costumes, and plot that cater mostly to an audience under 25. This is an outstanding thriller, which most assuredly did not get its just due upon its release. ***1/2 of 4 stars.$LABEL$ 1
+this is one of the finest movies i have ever seen....the stark scenery...the isolation...the ignorant bigoted people hiding behind their religion...a backdrop for some wordliness and sophistication...the acting is completely natural...but for me as a"foodie' the best is the actual choosing and preparation of the feast..i have spent time in paris and know the cuisine well...whether or not the cafe anglais really exists i don't know but i do know of similar establishments and babette's menu and choice of wines are authentic...and of course the end where despite themselves the perfect meal mellows them back to friendship is the only ending there could be..this is a 10 out of 10 film and should be seen by anyone with enough brain and taste to understand it$LABEL$ 1
+Set in the 1794, the second year of the French republic formed after the execution of Louis XVI, this film portrays the power struggle between the revolutionary leaders Danton (Gerard Depardieu, at his finest) and Robespierre (a commanding performance by the Polish actor Wojciech Pszoniak). The moderate revolutionary Danton has returned to Paris from his country seat where he has been since being deposed as leader of the Committee of Public Safety in the previous year by Robespierre. He is opposed to "The Reign Of Terror" which has resulted in the executions of thousands of citizens, mainly by guillotine, who are thought to be opposed to the Revolution. Danton is confident of the support of the ordinary people and tries to persuade Robespierre to curb the bloodletting. But Robespierre and the Committee are afraid that the popularity of Danton will lead to them being overthrown, and put Danton and his supporters on trial for being traitors. This was the first French language film made by Andrzej Wajda after he had arrived in France from Poland. His Polish film company was closed down by the government due to his support for the Solidarity trade union, which had opposed the Polish government in the late seventies and early eighties. His previous film "Man Of Iron" (1981) had dealt with the Solidarity union and its leader Lech Walesa, and it is easy to draw comparisons between the relationship of Walesa and the Polish leader General Jaruselski, and that between Danton and Robespierre. Danton/Walesa are the voice of reason opposed to Robespierre/Jaruselski who continue dictatorial rule despite having lost the support of the people they claim to represent. The film is based on the Polish play "The Danton Affair" written by Stanislawa Przybyszewska in the 1930s, and on its release the film was criticised by some for being static and theatrical. But what the film does is to concentrate on the behind-the-scenes meetings of the Committees and the scenes in the National Assembly and the courtroom rather than the activities on the streets of Paris.$LABEL$ 1
+Usually I'm a bit of a fan of the bad eighties & early nineties film featuring now has beens...but this film is so incredibly terrible that it was a real endurance test to sit through. Guys dressing up as girls has been done to death - but never so pathetically. Corey Haim's performance was abysmal as usual, Nicole Eggert was not much better. This has no redeeming qualities, even if you are a number #1 fan of an actor/actress in this piece of trash - stay away!$LABEL$ 0
+I have now seen quite a few films by Pedro Almodóvar, but this would have to be the most disappointing so far. This film seemed to lack the zaniness that is usually everywhere in his films, and the story just never got me interested. Many Almodóvar regulars appear in this film, so it's not like there was a lack of on-screen talent, but this film just seemed more serious than his other films. If there was a comedic edge to this movie, I certainly couldn't find it, and it made for one surprisingly weak movie.$LABEL$ 0
+I greatly enjoyed Margaret Atwood's novel 'The Robber Bride', and I was thrilled to see there was a movie version. A woman frames a cop boyfriend for her own murder, and his buddy, an ex-cop journalist, tries to clear his name by checking up on the dead woman's crazy female friends. It's fortunate that the movie script fixes Ms. Atwood's clumsy plotting by focusing on the story of these two men, victims of scheming women...Heh. Okay, you got me. If these guys are mentioned in the book, and I'm pretty sure they're entirely made up for the movie, I'll eat the dust cover of my hardback copy. Apparently, the three main female characters of the novel aren't enough to carry the movie. Zenia's manipulations aren't interesting unless we see them happen to a man, and a man's life is screwed up. Roz, Charis, and Toni tell their stories -- to a man. Because it's not important if a man doesn't hear them.I liked the characters in the book. It hurts to see them pushed off to the side for a man's story. I normally do not look for feminist angles on media, and I tried to enjoy the movie as is. If I hadn't read the book, I might have enjoyed the movie a lot more. So if you like the cop and the ex-cop, and you want to read more about them, you're out of luck. Read the novel, if you want to enjoy luscious prose and characterization subtly layered through a plot. It's the same plot: the movie excavated it, ironed it, and sprinkled it with male angst. It's like Zenia's revenge on Margaret Atwood.$LABEL$ 0
+this movie gets a 10 because there is a lot of gore in it.who cares about the plot or the acting.this is an Italian horror movie people so you know you can't expect much from the acting or the plot.everybody knows fulci took footage from other movies and added it to this one.since i never seen any of the movies that he took footage from it didn't matter to me.the Italian godfather of gore out done himself with this movie.this is one of the goriest Italian movies you will ever see.no gore hound should be without this movie in their horror movie collection.buy this movie no matter what it is a horehounds dream come true.$LABEL$ 1
+Ingrid Bergman, playing dentist Walter Matthau's faithful receptionist who harbors a little crush on her boss, is absolutely wonderful in this film. She handles the witty repartee in the script with aplomb and steals a terrific scene where she and Goldie Hawn talk in a record booth (Ingrid's monologue is a front, but her face tells you she believes in it with all her heart). Matthau is an odd choice for the leading man (he's too old for Goldie Hawn and too unrefined for Bergman, not to mention too unfocused to be a dentist), but I liked the way he tries hard to please Goldie and stumbles around trying to free himself from a lie. Hawn (who won a Supporting Oscar) is just as fresh and bubbly as she is today. This bedroom farce isn't terribly sophisticated (and faintly reminds one of "Any Wednesday" besides), but it's a welcome relief from the noisy, teen-oriented comedies they turn out today. "Cactus Flower" is a lovely sigh! *** from ****$LABEL$ 1
+"A bored television director is introduced to the black arts and astral projection by his girlfriend. Learning the ability to separate his spirit from his body, the man finds a renewed interest in his life and a sense of wellbeing. Unfortunately, the man discovers while he is sleeping, his spirit leaves his body and his uncontrolled body roams the streets in a murderous rampage," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.The synopsis isn't entirely correct, as it turns out.Anyway, the movie opens with a dizzying "out-of-body" example of handsome director Winston Rekert (as Paul Sharpe)'s newly discovered "astral body" experience; it also foreshadows an upcoming dogfight. Young Andrew Bednarski (as Matthew Sharpe), being a kid, draws pictures of "The Blue Man", as his murder spree begins. Handsome detective John Novak (as Stewart Kaufman) discovers the victims are connected to Mr. Rekert. Mr. Novak's investigation leads to the supernatural; a prime example of which is Karen Black (as Janus), with whom Rekert fears he is falling in love.Several in the cast perform well; but, "The Blue Man" winds up tying itself up in a knot. Aka "Eternal Evil", its unsatisfying story tries to be far too clever for its own good.$LABEL$ 0
+Ah yes the 1980s , a time of Reaganomics and Sly , Chuck and a host of other action stars hiding in a remote jungle blowing away commies . At the time I couldn`t believe how movies like RAMBO , MISSING IN ACTION and UNCOMMON VALOR ( And who can forget the ridiculous RED DAWN ? ) made money at the box office , they`re turgid action crap fests with a rather off putting right wing agenda and they have dated very badly . TROMA`S WAR is a tongue in cheek take on these type of movies but you`ve got to ask yourself did they need spoofing in the first place ? Of course not . TROMA`S WAR lacks any sort of sophistication - though it does make the point that there`s no real difference between right wing tyrants and left wing ones - and sometimes feels more like a grade z movie than a send up . Maybe it is ?$LABEL$ 0
+This tale based on two Edgar Allen Poe pieces ("The Fall of the House of Usher", "Dance of Death" (poem) ) is actually quite creepy from beginning to end. It is similar to some of the old black-and-white movies about people that meet in an old decrepit house (for example, "The Cat and the Canary", "The Old Dark House", "Night of Terror" and so on). Boris Karloff plays a demented inventor of life-size dolls that terrorize the guests. He dies early in the film (or does he ? ) and the residents of the house are subjected to a number of terrifying experiences. I won't go into too much detail here, but it is definitely a must-see for fans of old dark house mysteries.Watch it with plenty of popcorn and soda in a darkened room.Dan Basinger 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+I am so happy and surprised that there is so much interest in this movie! Jack Frost was my introduction into the films produced and distributed by A-pix entertainment, and without exception, everything this company deals with is pure crap! First, and this is very important, never ever watch this movie sober! Why would you? Unlike many other entertaingly bad movies, this one I feel was made intentionally bad. I just can't get over how fake the snowman is, which is why its always shown only briefly, the way it moves is the best! This movie is Waaaaaaaaaaay better than the Michael Keaton piece of crap, becuz that was made too be a good movie, and that version is as bad as this.$LABEL$ 0
+"Revolt of the Zombies" proves that having the same director revamp and recycle an idea doesn't necessarily make lightning strike twice.The Halperin brothers, responsible for the horror classic "White Zombie", made this trite piece of garbage a mere few years later to cash in on its popularity and even recycled close-ups of Lugosi's eyes from that previous film. There was a court battle with the "White Zombie" film's rights owners, who didn't want the Halperins to be able to use the word 'zombie' in this title. That word was the only thing that could help this film, because, as everyone knows, bad films can make much more money simply by having the word 'Zombie' appear in the title. Knowing what Victor Halperin was capable of a few years before only makes this uninteresting film more insulting. It seems he never directed another horror film after this debacle. The zombies here seem not to be true walking dead, but simply hypnotism victims.Wanna create a mind-controlled army of zombies? Be ready to crack a few eggs, including your own.THE LAME PLOT: Man falls in love with scheming woman who plays with his heart and becomes engaged to him only to make his friend, whom she loves, jealous. This sends man into a spiral of madness in which he tries using zombie mind-control techniques to change things to his advantage in an attempt to win over a woman who isn't worth spit.This includes one of the most blatantly obvious plot developments I've ever seen. You'd have to be blind or stupid not to see the ending coming. The acting isn't even good. This movie makes the racially insensitive "King of the Zombies" (which appeared on the same double bill DVD I bought) seems like an atmospheric horror masterpiece by comparison and reminds us that not every black and white film is a classic. It makes the atomic age sci-fi alien zombie cheese fest "Invisible Invaders" seem like a serious drama. This is one big ball of cheese so ridiculously melodramatic it could probably make many a Korean film fan twitch (South Korean films are often known for their use of melodrama). The credits list the ironically named company Favorite Films. I'm not sure whose favorite film this would be, but they're obviously an idiot.Not recommended for fans of: zombies, romance, or classic films.$LABEL$ 0
+The complaints are valid, to me the biggest problem is that this soap opera is too aimed for women. I am okay with these night time soaps, like Grey's Anatomy, or Ugly Betty, or West Wing, because there are stories that are interesting even with the given that they will never end. However, when the idea parallels the daytime soaps aimed at just putting hunky men (Taye Diggs, Tim Daly, and Chris Lowell) into sexual tension and romps, and numerous ridiculous difficult situations in a so-called little hospital, it seems like General Hospital...or a female counterpart to Baywatch. That was what men wanted and they had it, so if this is what women want so be it, but the idea that this is a high brow show (or something men will watch) is unrealistic.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was one of the best movies that I have seen this year. I didn't see any cameos in the movie, but it is still pretty good. It is similar to Anchorman in the humor department, but I think this is a better put together movie. It actually has a point. If you are going to see a whole bunch of T&A you will be disappointed. Just a well put together movie!!!! If you have nothing to do for the day or you need a lot of humor, you will find this to be a really good movie. I definitely think that Ebert and Roeper's review of this movie is right on. I mean, I don't really like Ebert on most movies, but this is the movie that I will agree about. The movie contains a good enough story that it is actually believable that these type of people are out there. There is definitely something to be said about how they treat virginity in this movie. Yea, sure, you get laughed at when it is found out about, but it still suggests that you wait. Steve did a wonderful job of portraying the person that he did in this movie and yet, it is still funny.$LABEL$ 1
+I remember seeing this film in the mid 80's thought it a well paced and well acted piece. I now work quite often in Berkeley Square and the had to get a copy of DVD to remind myself how little the area has changed, although my office is newish it just 30 seconds away from "the bank". Even Jack Barclays car dealership is still there selling Bentleys and Rolls Royces.It's look like the DVD is due a Region 2 release soon. The region 1 copy I is very poor quality. Let's hope they've cleaned it up.Only the slightly dodgy escape sequence from the court spoils what would otherwise be a great film but I guess is in line with the caper tag the film goes with.$LABEL$ 1
+Two hours ago I was watching this brilliant movie which overwhelmed me with its imprisoning photography. It is quite understandable how it won the prize of Best Camera in Cannes 2000. Close ups predominated it. Close ups of walls, humans and of many other things. The warm colored lighting (which is also usually by the director) gave the movie a warm atmosphere. Only two persons are principally to be seen in most of it. An interesting music and especially three songs or themes accompanied the movie nearly all the time. Each one of these themes represented a certain atmosphere during the whole movie. Silence and slow movements characterize the movie. Some scenes were extended moments or a serious of close-ups. Not only Tony Leung deserves a prize for his superb acting since Maggie Cheung was also so brilliant. I wonder how many dresses she was wearing in the different scenes. The story was also connected somehow with the history of Hong Kong and the region the 1960s. This prevented me from understanding some details of the it especially at the end. In short I would recommend the fans of artistic movies to watch it in the cinema.$LABEL$ 1
+Luckily for Bill Murray this is such a light-weight project since he pretty much has to carry it. Meatballs is the story of low-rent Camp Northstar and how its counselors deal with the campers as well as one another. Then there is much made of their wealthy rivals from across the lake named Camp Mohawk which culminates in a two-day Olympiad competition. Above it all is Bill Murray clowning around and making a pretty memorable film debut.The film is sprinkled with medium-sized laughs, chuckles, and more than a few guffaws along the way. The biggest laughs come from the pranks played on the nerdy camp director. Three of them involve the counselors moving his bed outside in various locations while he's sleeping. Morty, or "Micky" as everyone calls him, wakes up along the side of a road, strung up in some trees several feet above the ground, and finally floating on a raft in the middle of the lake! There are also some funny moments involving the counselors hitting on one another, but this is a PG rated film with little in the way of raunchiness.The film takes a serious note involving a shy camper named Rudy who is played by Chris Makepeace. Of course it's up to Murray to teach the kid how to open up, and give him the confidence he needs to run a marathon during the Olympiad. The sentimentality of Rudy's situation seems tacked on to a great degree. Notice how when Murray first sees the kid sitting alone in the grass after getting off the bus he tells him, "you must be the short depressed kid we ordered." Makes you wonder if that line was really in the script or Murray was just ad-libbing while the cameras were rolling. In other words, Murray might as well have said to Makepeace, "you must be that actor we hired to play the stereotypical lonely kid you see in most summer camp films who doesn't fit in." But before it's all over, Murray's performance makes this plot device more than bearable. He really seems to have some good chemistry with Makepeace.The film culminates with the games between the two rival camps. Very little of the events we are shown are even slightly believable, but "it just doesn't matter". This is a pretty good film on many levels. Don't let the absurd 5.6 rating this film is currently getting scare you off. Murray will keep you laughing throughout. Just be warned..... avoid the sequels!!!! Especially the one with Corey Feldman!! 8 of 10 stars.The Hound.$LABEL$ 1
+"The Danish Bladerunner" is boldly stated on the box. Are you kidding me?! This film is a complete drag. When I'm thirsty and go for a soda in the kitchen, I usually pause the vcr, so I won't miss anything. Not this time. I actually found myself looking long and hard in the fridge, just so I wouldn't have to go back. Why the hell is there not ONE sciencefiction-scriptwriter out there who has the vaguest clue about how computers work? It's mindboggling. One of the premises of film, is that our hero (who's a hacker), has a little computerassistant to help him (the Microsoft Office paperclip finally caught on in the future). When he loses the assistant in the movie, he's helpless and can't get into any computers. HE'S A HACKER! It's like saying, that you can't drive your car, if you don't have your lucky "driving-cap" on. I won't even go into the lightning-effect when he recieves electroshock...$LABEL$ 0
+This movie shows a clip of live animal mutilation of an animal getting hacked by a machete and getting its skin ripped off. I know these horrible things happen in the world, but Im watching movies based on the fact that what Im watching is not actually happening on the screen. These live animal clips are not meant to be in movies, they are meant to show people that belong to certain organizations to help the horrible things that humans to do other species.This should be banned and destroyed. I have also contacted Netflix and other resources to collaborate getting this movie off the market!!This movie should be removed from the public. The person who made this movie needs psychological help.$LABEL$ 0
+Anyone who thinks Kool Moe Dee, Carol Alt, and Corey Feldman comprise a list of good actors must be smoking something I'd love to try sometime. Where to begin: lousy soundtrack, hammy acting, "action" in places. This is the typical amateurishly written hack fodder that washed-up has-been and never-was's love to star in. I actually felt embarrassed for the "stars" in this "film". The only thespian missing to top this turd was Gary Coleman, who if he would have been in the movie, would have made it at least somewhat howlingly bad, rather than just plain bad.There was one part in the film where Carol Alt screamed, "DO YOU THINK I'M AN IDIOT?!?" Yes, Carol, I do, your agent does, and PLEASE for the love of all that is decent and holy... GO AWAY and stop degrading yourself like this! This film is something Anna Nicole Smith would take part in.I would tell you what the plot was, but that would be one more sentence fragment to this article, plus my mind drifted many times during the movie anyway, so I barely paid attention.$LABEL$ 0
+This film could have been a decent re-make, and gosh knows it tried (or Ms. English tried). Assembling talented actors together with a successful & experienced writer/director should be a formula for a decent film. But Ms. English's experience - according to her IMDb bio - is exclusively limited to television work, and it is glaringly obvious throughout this film.I am surprised that none of the reviews I have read mention what I found most unlikeable about this film, and what kept it from reaching even a portion of its potential: it looked and felt like it was made for television. To give some credit to Ms. English, many of the jokes that simply did NOT work on a movie screen would have been terrific on TV (and maybe a laugh track would have helped). So much of the camera usage and the lighting would have played out fine on TV but looked awkward or odd on a big screen. If the whole film had been chopped up into a mini-series or a sit-com, I think it could have worked. But this is cinema and sadly Ms. English's talents didn't translate. I cringed at so many different points in my embarrassment for the actors & the writers that I felt like I came out of the theater half shriveled! Meg Ryan is her usual perky, cute self (except for the awful plastic surgery she has had on her face), but where did she have a chance to use her talent?! She has made films where she doesn't recreate her stereo-typed role and done them well... but not here. Annette Bening seemed to simply go through the motions - such a great talent and yet such a poor performance! I enjoyed the other women characters but they were more caricature than substance, and it was sad to see. What worked in this film in the 1930s doesn't translate to the 2000s, and no one helped Ms. English get the changes & updates or subtleties right. If only she (as writer, director AND producer) had reached out for some assistance, I think it could have been good. But it was not.It's so frustrating to go to a movie that has good stars and a good writer or director and come away feeling it was a waste of everyone's time & money! This New Yorker cartoon I saw yesterday is appropriate: A few movie execs are having a meeting & the caption reads: "Let's remake a classic with worse everything!"$LABEL$ 0
+I find it very intriguing that Lee Radziwill, Jackie Kennedy's sister and the cousin of these women, would encourage the Maysles' to make "Big Edie" and "Little Edie" the subject of a film. They certainly could be considered the "skeletons" in the family closet. The extra features on the DVD include several contemporary fashion designers crediting some of their ideas to these oddball women. I'd say that anyone interested in fashion would find the discussion by these designers fascinating. (i.e. "Are they nuts? Or am I missing something?"). This movie is hard to come by. Netflix does not have it. Facets does, though.$LABEL$ 1
+C'mon guys some previous reviewers have nearly written a novel commenting on this episode. It's just an old 60's TV show ! This episode of Star Trek is notable because of the most serious babe (Yeoman Barrow's) ever used on Star Trek and the fact that it was filmed in a real outdoor location. Unlike the TNG and Voyager series which were totally confined to sound stages.This use of an outdoor location (and babe) gives proper depth and an almost film like quality to a quite ordinary episode of this now dated and very familiar show.Except a few notable exceptions i.e "The city on the edge of forever" , "assignment Earth" and "Tomorrow is Yesterday" The old series of Star Trek needs to be seriously moth-balled and put out of it's boring misery. Half a dozen good episodes from 79 is quite a poor batting average.This is typical of the boring stuff Gene Roddenberry produced back then actually, contrary to popular belief where some people worshiped the ground he walked on, he actually made a LOT of rubbish! He doesn't deserve to be spoken of in the same breath as Irwin Allen for example.Just look at the set of the bridge of the Enterprise from a modern point of view. They used wobbly plywood for the floor, cafeteria chairs with plastic backs and cheap cardboard above the instrument panels. You can clearly see the folds in the paper ! Every expense spared or what !$LABEL$ 0
+I just watched this movie on it's premier night out of curiosity and sheer nostalgia. I liked (not loved) "Mork & Mindy" as a kid, mostly for Robin William's zany energetic performance. This movie made me remember why. Was the original show great? Not really, but Robin certainly was. Which brings me to this movie.I was pleasantly surprised, expecting nothing more than a paint by numbers chronological retelling of the show (which in a way it was). But, of course, the real focus was on Robin. It was interesting to see Robin's journey from struggling street jester to national t.v star, and how such a drastic difference affected him and his long suffering wife. And my hat is off to star Chris Diamantopoulos as he portrayed Mr. Williams with integrity, sensitivity, and heart; not just a cute impression, although it was even dead-on. (On an unrelated note, I noticed that Robin's struggles were in some ways similar to Andy Kaufman, who was under-appreciated by network t.v. and held back creatively, but that's the "Taxi" behind the scenes biopic.)All in all, this was a very enjoyable flick, in which I felt I got to know a little more of the man behind the Orkan. The acting was solid by all- never melodramatic like I suspected- and the story moved along well. Performances that were particularly good were by those who played Garry Marshall and John Belushi (the scene in which Belushi heckles Robin was a hoot!). Not a great masterpiece by any means (I would have liked to have seen a tad more about Pam Dawber), but definitely watchable, especially for those Robin Williams and "Mork & Mindy" fans out there. Nanoo, nanoo!$LABEL$ 1
+I caught this film on AZN on cable. It sounded like it would be a good film, a Japanese "Green Card". I can't say I've ever disliked an Asian film, quite the contrary. Some of the most incredible horror films of all time are Japanese and Korean, and I am a HUGE fan of John Woo's Hong Kong films. I an not adverse to a light hearted films, like Tampopo or Chung King Express (two of my favourites), so I thought I would like this. Well, I would rather slit my wrists and drink my own blood than watch this laborious, badly acted film ever again.I think the director Steven Okazaki must have spiked the water with Quaalude, because no one in this film had a personality. And when any of the characters DID try to act, as opposed to mumbling a line or two, their performance came across as forced and incredibly fake. I honestly did not think that anyone had ever acted before...the ONLY person who sounded genuine was Brenda Aoki.. I find it amazing that this is promoted as a comedy, because I didn't laugh once. Even MORE surprising is that CBS morning news called this "a refreshing breath of comedy". It was neither refreshing, nor a breath of comedy. And the ending was very predictable, the previous reviewer must be an idiot to think such things.AVOID this film unless you want to see a boring predictable plot line and wooden acting. I actually think that "Spike of Bensonhurst" is a better acted film than this...and I walked out half way through that film!$LABEL$ 0
+Before I begin, let me get something off my chest: I'm a huge fan of John Eyres' first film PROJECT: SHADOWCHASER. The film, a B-grade cross of both THE TERMINATOR & DIE HARD, may not be the work of a cinematic genius, but is a hugely entertaining action film that became a cult hit (& spawned two sequels & a spin off).Judge and Jury begins with Joseph Meeker, a convicted killer who was sent to Death Row following his capture after the so-called "Bloody Shootout" (which seems like a poor name for a killing spree – Meeker kills three people while trying to rob a convenience store), being led to the electric chair. There is an amusing scene where Meeker talks to the priest about living for sex but meeting his one true love (who was killed during the shootout), expressing his revenge for the person who killed her – Michael Silvano, a washed-up football star who spends his days watching his son Alex practicing football with his high school team (and ends up harassing his son's coach). But once executed, Meeker returns as a revenant (or as Kelly Perine calls "a hamburger without the fries"), whose sole aim is to get his revenge, which basically means making Silvano's life a misery.Let me point out the fact that Judge and Jury is not a true horror film. It is a supernatural action film, with Meeker chasing Silvano, using his ability to change form (which amounts to David Keith dressing up as everything from an Elvis impersonator, a French chef (with an accent as bad as his moustache), a drag queen, a clown & a stand-up comedian), a shotgun which fires explosive rounds & an invulnerability to death (although that doesn't stop Martin Kove from shooting Keith with a Desert Eagle), to pay Silvano back for killing Meeker's wife.Director John Eyres does not seem interested in characterisations, instead focusing solely on action scenes, which the film has plenty of. But that is the film's main flaw, since there's nothing to connect the action scenes together. The acting is surprisingly good, with Keith delivering the best performance, supported ably by Kove, as well as Paul Koslo, who plays the washed-up cop quite well. Kelly Perine is annoying as the cabbie who tries to help but makes the situation worse.$LABEL$ 0
+Ye Lou's film Purple Butterfly pits a secret organization (Purple Butterfly) against the Japanese forces in war torn Shanghai. Ding Hui (Zhang Ziyi) and her ex-lover Hidehiko Itami (Toru Nakamura) find themselves on opposite sides of the conflict after a chance meeting.I agree with the reviewer from Paris. The film substitutes a convoluted, semi-historical conflict for a plot, without giving the audience a single reason to care about the characters or their causes. The sudden time shifting doesn't help matters as it appears completely unwarranted and pointless. Normally I don't mind dark movies, but the absence of light, the bone-jarringly shaky camera footage, and the generally bad film-making techniques really make this a tough film to watch and stay interested in. I also agree with the viewer from Georgia that this film "has a chaotic editing style and claustrophobic cinematography", but I don't think that helps the movie. The backdrop to the film is one of the most potent events of the 20th Century, and I don't believe you can do it any justice by editing it as if it were a Michael Bay film. The overly melodramatic moments don't add to its watchability.The actors are all suitably melancholy. Zhang Ziyi once again shows that she has an exceptionally limited acting range as she spends the entire movie doing what she seems to do best in all her films, brooding and looking generally annoyed. However, at least she adds some variety to this role by chainsmoking and engaging in the worst love-making scene since Michael Biehn and Linda Hamilton in The Terminator.All in all, a very disappointing film, especially seeing as how it comes from the director of Suzhou He. 2/10$LABEL$ 0
+After hearing about George Orwell's prophetic masterpiece for all of my life, I'm now 37, but never having read the book, I am totally confused as to what I've just seen.I am very familiar with the concepts covered in the novel, as i'm sure most are, but only through hearsay and quotes. Without this limited knowledge this film would have been a complete mystery, and even with it I'm still no more educated about the story of 1984 than I was before I watched it.On the plus side...The cinematography is amazing, Hurt & Burton deliver fine performances and the overall feel of the movie is wonderfully grim and desolate. The prostitute scene was a fantastically dark piece of film making.Now for the down sides, and there are plenty...There is a war going on, (at least as far as the propaganda is concerned), but why & with who? Nothing is explained. There are a couple of names bandied about (Eurasia etc), but they mean nothing without explanation.Who is Winston? what does he do? where does he come from? where does he work? why is he changing news reports? why isn't he on the front line? Why doesn't he eat the food in the canteen? What is that drink he's drinking through the entire film? Why is he so weak & ill? Why isn't he brainwashed like the rest of them? What's the deal with his mother & sister? What happened to his father? A little back story would have been nice, no scrub that, essential for those like myself that haven't read the book. Without it, this is just a confusing and hard to follow art-house movie that constantly keeps you guessing at what is actually going on.The soundtrack was dis-jointed and badly edited and the constant chatter from the Big Brother screens swamps the dialogue in places making it even harder to work out whats going on. I accept that this may have been an artistic choice but it's very annoying all the same.Also, I know this has been mentioned before, but why all the nudity? It just seemed totally gratuitous and felt like it had been thrown in there to make up for the lack of any plot coverage.I personally can't abide the way Hollywood feels it has to explain story lines word for word these days. We are not all brainwashed simpletons, but this is a few steps too far the other way. I can only imagine that it totally relies on the fact that you've read the book because if this film really is the 'literal translation' that I've seen many people say, I would find it very hard to understand why 1984 is hailed as the classic it is.There's no denying that it was light years ahead of it's time and has pretty much predicted every change in our society to date, (maybe this has been a sort of bible to the powers that be?), but many sci-fi novelists have done the same without leaving gaping holes in the storyline.I guess I have to do what I should have done from the start and buy a copy of the book if i'm to make any sense out of this.All in all, very disappointed in something I've waited for years to watch.$LABEL$ 0
+This cute animated short features two comic icons - Betty Boop and Henry.Henry is the bald, slightly portly boy from the comics who never speaks.Well here he does speak!He wants to get a puppy from Betty Boop's pet store, and when he is left to mind the store - some hilarious hijinks ensue.Betty sings a song about pets, Henry gets in a battle with birds and a monkey, but everything works out in the end.$LABEL$ 1
+I just got back from this free screening, and this "Osama Witch Project" is the hands-down worst film I've seen this year, worse than even "Catwoman" - which had the decency to at least pass itself off as fiction.In "September Tapes," a "film crew" of "documentary journalists" heads to Afghanistan - despite being thoroughly unprepared for the trip, the conditions and, oh yeah, the psychotic and ridiculous vendetta of their filmmaker leader to avenge his wife's death on Sept. 11 - to track down Osama bin Laden.They "made" eight tapes on their journey, which now "document" their travels and, of course, their attempts to kill the terrorist leader. (The eight tapes, thankfully, all end at points significant in the narrative, which is convenient for a "documentary.")The psychotic, idiotic protagonist - who is given to long, significant speeches that he probably learned watching "MacGyver" - cares nothing for his own life or the life of his innocent crew as he gets them further and further into danger through a series of completely dumb mishaps. I don't know why he didn't just wear a sign on his back that said "Shoot me."The crew's translator, supposedly their sensible voice-of-reason, does little more than whine and gets baffled as the idiot hero leads them into doom. You wish they'd brought along someone on their trip to call them all morons.Around "Tape 4," I began rooting for the terrorists to shoot the film crew.$LABEL$ 0
+I remember seeing this film in the theater in 1984 when I was 6 years-old (you do the math). I absolutely loved it. I was Tarzan for the 2 weeks after seeing it (climbing the furniture, jumping around making monkey sounds). It started a fascination with Tarzan and monkeys, but oddly enough a longer lasting love for Christopher Lambert (keep in mind that I saw Highlander very shortly after this). 1984 was the last time I saw that film, until about a month ago. It happened to be on cable as I was getting ready for bed at 3:30 am and even though it was late and I was tired and I had to be at work at 9:00 am, I stayed up to watch this movie that I loved as a kid. Upon viewing it I realized that it was not that great of a film and even odder then that, that Andie MacDowell's voice was dubbed by someone else. Ian Holme was of course solid as usual, and surprisingly the monkey suits still kind of held up, but what was most surprising was how good Lambert was as Tarzan. He was great! The depth he managed to capture in so few lines, his primal body language and most importantly his ability to bring this character through its extremely large ark, were just amazing.As I stated earlier I am Lambert fan, but I'm used to Highlander, The Hunted and Fortress. In this film he was really quite good and it is a shame that he never got a chance to portray a character with such depth again.So to make a short story way too long, I was a little disappointed that the film was not that good, but I was glad to see that Lambert was good and I do not regret staying up until 6:00am to see it.$LABEL$ 1
+A family is traveling through the mid West. There's widower Ben (Charles Bateman), his girlfriend Nicky (Ahna Capri) and Ben's little daughter K.T. (Geri Reischl). Then hit a town named Hillsboro where everyone acts more than a little strangely. Their car breaks down and they're forced to stay. They soon find out a witches coven has a spell over the town and is up to incredible evil.The story is not that good. People just figure things out of nothing and they just happen to find out where the witches are at the end. Also there are a lot of loopholes left dangling at the end. The acting is pretty poor too. Bateman and Capri are bland and everybody else is about the same. Only old pros Strother Martin and L.Q. Jones give good performances. Still this movie does work. It forgoes blood and gore (there's some but this is PG) and manges to work with some very creepy visuals and atmosphere. The acting hampers a lot of it but it still works. Martin especially chews the scenery in his role. I can't explain exactly why I (sort of) like this movie but it did work on me. It's a quiet kind of horror that isn't made anymore. Hardly a masterwork but this deserves to be rediscovered. A 7.$LABEL$ 1
+Francis Ford Coppola wrote and directed this stunningly personal story of a married woman's flight from her husband--and the reality that perhaps the youthful glee and excitement of her younger years are behind her. We learn little about this woman's marriage except that she has been feeling her independence slipping away as of late; she's also recently learned she's pregnant, which has further complicated her heart (she doesn't want to be a complacent wifey, despite the maternal way she speaks to her husband over the phone). She meets two men on her journey: a former college football hero who--after an accident during a game--has been left with permanent brain damage, and a sexy, strutting motorcycle cop who has a great deal of trouble in his own life. The clear, clean landscapes (as photographed by the very talented Wilmer Butler) are astutely realized, as are the characters. Shirley Knight, James Caan, and Robert Duvall each deliver strong, gripping performances, most especially since these are not very likable people in conventional terms. Some scenes (such as Knight's first call home from a pay-phone, or her first night alone with Caan where they play 'Simon Says') are almost too intimate to watch. Coppola toys with reality, turning the jagged memories of his characters into scrapbooks we've been made privy to. He allows scenes to play out, yet the editing is quite nimble and the film is never allowed to get too heavy (there are at least two or three very frisky moments). It's a heady endeavor--so much so that the picture was still being shown at festivals nearly five years later. Some may shun Coppola's unapologetic twisting of events in order to underline the finale with bitter irony, however the forcefulness and drive behind the picture nearly obliterate its shortcomings. *** from ****$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was not very well directed. they almost totally disregarded the book.I guess they were trying 2 save time. the only upside 2 me was that the actor who played finny was cute. Some of the dialog between the main characters appeared a little gay which was not the case in the book. Major parts of the book were once again chopped out.You lost the over all effect it was not as haunting as the book and left me lacking severely. Also the strong language although it was brief was very unnecessary. Also i was surprised ( not pleasantly) by a new character that was no where in the book.One of my favorite characters (leper) was poorly interpreted and portrayed. He seemed more sinister in the movie than the real leper was in the book. Over all disappointing.$LABEL$ 0
+The buzz for this film has always been about the fabulous graphics that make Kevin Bacon disappear. Sadly, they stopped there. They should have continued to make the script disappear, then the silly set, and finally every visible element of this film. Because, there's nothing else there to show.Gary Thompson and Andrew Marlowe are listed as the writing credits for this film. I don't really think they exist. I think they bought this script at "Scripts-R-Us", where you buy a standard blank "Monster Movie" script and just fill in the blanks. There's a monster stalking us. Let's split up. (They actually "let's split up" in this movie). Hit Alien/Giant-bug/Monster/Invisible-man with crowbar. Not dead yet. Burn Huge-rabbit/Shark/Invisible-man in unsurvivable fire. Not dead yet. You know, the standard stuff. Even the minimum number of elements that were specific to an invisible man movie (IR glasses, spraying with something like paint) were handled badly. What is sad is that there were lots of possibilities for this to be a fascinating movie. They psychological issues for the subject, the deterioration of the mind due to the process, treating an invisible subject, and many other ideas were touched on for usually less than 2 seconds and would have been far more interesting. Had there been any desire to save Kevin Bacon in the end, it would have been a much better movie. All in all, it stunk.I would mention some of the incredibly stupid elements of the ending of the movie, but I don't want to do any spoilers. Suffice it to say that these characters are so stupid they don't think about pulling the plug on a machine rather than...$LABEL$ 0
+A young girl becomes a war-time marine's pen-pal, and when he visits at war's end expecting someone a bit more "available," comic complications ensue. All ultimately works out well, naturally, but not before everyone involved has thoroughly chewed the scenery. Errol Flynn's dead-on impression of Humphrey Bogart from "Casablanca" is a highlight, as are various send-ups of his own swashbuckling image (the "jumping" scene in the kitchen with Forrest Tucker is a riot). It is Tucker, though, who "tucks" the movie under his arm, lowers his head and barrels over the goal line. He demonstrates the comic flair more fully developed twenty years later in "F-Troop" and imparts a liveliness and energy that Flynn repeatedly plays off to raise his own performance. Eleanor Parker does a fine job as the woman being pursued, and little Patti Brady charms as Tucker's actual pen-pal friend. A fine, lightweight "coming home" comedy in a genteel setting that children and romantics of all ages should find entertaining.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is a perfect adaptation of the English Flick Unfaithful. Ashmit plays the role of Richard Gere, Emran that of Olivier and Malikka the perfect cheating wife role of Lane.They have changed the second half of the film to adapt for the Indian masses. Even then the movie has got the full traces of Unfaithful, though it couldn't catch up with the original. It was a cheap soft porn of the Bollywood lovers, where Mallika showed a lot more skin than anyone dared to show. Emran did more roles like this and was even nicknamed the serial killer. In the future if the Indian Directors plan to remake a English movie then they have to look into the feasibility of the plot with the Indian Censors. Though the film bombed at the box office, the actors got the undue recognition. In future the directors should be a little more careful in remaking a Oscar nominated film. All said, this is not a family film, so take the extra caution while watching it at home with family.$LABEL$ 0
+Robert Altman's downbeat, new-fangled western from Edmund Naughton's book "McCabe" was overlooked at the time of its release but in the past years has garnered a sterling critical following. Aside from a completely convincing boom-town scenario, the characters here don't merit much interest, and the picture looks (intentionally) brackish and unappealing. Bearded Warren Beatty plays a turn-of-the-century entrepreneur who settles in struggling community on the outskirts of nowhere and helps organize the first brothel; once the profits start coming in, Beatty is naturally menaced by city toughs who want part of the action. Altman creates a solemn, wintry atmosphere for the movie which gives the audience a certain sense of time and place, but the action in this sorry little town is limited--most of the story being made up of vignettes--and Altman's pacing is deliberately slow. There's hardly a statement being made (just the opposite, in fact) and the languid actors stare at each other without much on their minds. It's a self-defeating picture, and yet, in an Altman-quirky way, it wears defeat proudly. ** from ****$LABEL$ 0
+What seemed at first just another introverted French flick offering no more than baleful sentiment became for me, on second viewing, a genuinely insightful and quite satisfying presentation.Spoiler of sorts follows.Poor Cedric; he apparently didn't know what hit him. Poor audience; we were at first caught up in what seemed a really beautiful and romantic story only to be led back and forth into the dark reality of mismatch. These two guys just didn't belong together from their first ambiguous encounter. As much as Mathieu and Cedric were sexually attracted to each other, the absence of a deeper emotional tie made it impossible for Mathieu, an intellectual being, to find fulfillment in sharing life with someone whose sensibilities were more attuned to carnival festivities and romps on the beach.On a purely technical note, I loved the camera action in this film. Subtitles were totally unnecessary, even though my French is "presque rien." I could watch it again without the annoying English translation and enjoy it even more. This was a polished, very professionally made motion picture. Though many scenes seem superfluous, I rate it nine out of ten.$LABEL$ 1
+I don't think I've ever gave something a 1/10 rating, but this one easily gets the denomination. I find it hard just to sit through one of his jokes. It's not just that the jokes are so bad, but combine that with the fact that Carson Daily has zero charisma, can't set up or finish a punchline, and you've got a late night comedy recipe that will really turn your stomach.I have watched the show, never in its entirety, but many times still. It just creeps up on me after Conan. I usually watch a minute or two just to see if Carson daily is still the worst talk show host ever.Actually if you ever do see him interviewing a guest, it's just that, an interview. I feel so sorry every time he has a guest on and their confused smiles try to mask their body language that's screaming, "get me the hell away from this freak!" I do recommend watching the show, not for a laugh, but to ponder, how he got on the air and what he's still doing there. Watch as much as you can, I think you will find its complete awkwardness...interesting.$LABEL$ 0
+In the standard view, this is a purely awful movie. However, it rates a near perfect score on the unintentional comedy scale. I can think of few actual comedies that make me laugh as hard as I did watching this movie. Andy Griffith's ghost dressed in Native American garb dancing sends me into hysterics everytime. I wouldn't waste the gas or energy driving to the video store to rent it, but if you happen to be laying on the couch at 3 in the morning and it comes on TV, check it out.$LABEL$ 0
+From the film's first shot - Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet wandering reading through a field at dawn, thus invoking all the clichés cinema has developed to address the phenomenon of the strong-minded rebellious female character in period drama - I knew I was in for something to make me want to kill myself.Joe Wright seemed not only to have not read the book, but to be under the regrettable misapprehension that what he was filming was not in fact Jane Austen's subtle, nuanced comedy of manners conducted through sparkling, delicate social interaction in eighteenth century English drawing-rooms, but a sort of U-certificate Wuthering Heights. Thus we were treated to every scene between Elizabeth and Darcy taking place outside for no apparent reason, in inappropriately rugged scenery and often in the pouring rain. Not to mention that Jane Austen, and in particular P & P, is not about passion, sexual tension or love. It's about different strategies of negotiating the stultification of eighteenth century society. Which was completely ignored, so that the Bennets' house was a rambunctious, chaotic place where everybody shouts at once, runs around, leaves their underwear on chairs, and pigs wander happily through the house; the society balls become rowdy country dances one step away from a Matrix Reloaded style dance-orgy; and everybody says exactly what they think without the slightest regard for propriety.The genius of Jane Austen lies in exploring the void created by a society in which nobody says what they think or mean because of an overwhelming regard for propriety, and the tragic predicaments of her characters arise from misunderstandings and miscommunications enabled by that speechless gap. So both the brilliance of Jane Austen and the very factor that allows her plots - particularly in this film - to function was completely erased. Subtlety in general was nowhere int his film, sacrificed in favour of an overwrought drama which jarred entirely with the material and the performances.It was so obviously trying to be a *serious* film. The humour - which IS Pride & Prejudice, both Austen's methodology and her appeal - was almost entirely suppressed in favour of all this po-faced melodrama, and when it was allowed in, was handled so clumsily. Pride & Prejudice is a serious narrative which makes serious points, yes, but those serious points and weightier themes are not just intertwined with the humour, they are embedded in it. You can't lose Jane Austen's technique, leaving only the bare bones of the story, and expect the themes to remain. Not even when you replace her techniques with your own heavy-handed mystical-numinous fauxbrow cinematography.Elizabeth Bennett is supposed to be a woman, an adult, mature and sensible and clear-sighted. Keira Knightley played the first half of the film like an empty-headed giggling schoolgirl, and the second half like an empty-headed schoolgirl who thinks she is a tragic heroine. Elizabeth's wit, her combative verbal exchanges, her quintessential characteristic of being able to see and laugh at everybody's follies including her own, her strength and composure, and her fantastic clear-sightedness were completely lost and replaced with ... what? A lot of giggling and staring into the distance? Rather than being able to keep her head when all about her were losing theirs, she started to cry and scream at the slightest provocation - and not genuinely raging, either; no, these were petulant hissy fits. And where the great strength of Austen's Elizabeth (at least in Austen's eyes) was her ability to retain integrity and observance while remaining within the boundaries of society and sustaining impeachable propriety, Knightley's Elizabeth had no regard whatsoever for convention. Furthermore, she seemed to think that wandering around barefoot in the mud in the eighteenth century version of overalls established her beyond doubt as spirited and strong-minded, and therefore nothing in the character as written or the performance had to sustain it. An astonishingly unsubtle and bland performance. In which quest for blandness and weakness, she was ably matched by Matthew Macfayden.Donald Sutherland as Mr Bennet seemed weak, ineffectual and permanently befuddled without the wicked sense of humour and ironic detachment at the expense of human relationships that makes Mr Bennet so fascinating and tragic. His special bond with Lizzie, as the only two sensible people in a world of fools, was completely lost, not least because both of them were fools in a world of fools, and that completely deprived the end of the film of emotional impact. Mr Bingley was no longer amiable and well-meaning to the point of folly, but was played as a complete retard for cheap laughs, and the woman who was playing Jane was so wildly inconsistent that she may as well not have tried to do anything with the character at all. The script veered wildly between verbatim chunks of Jane Austen - delivered with remarkable clumsiness - and totally contemporaneous language which would not be out of place in a modern day romantic comedy.Just get the BBC adaptation on DVD and save yourself the heartache.$LABEL$ 0
+I've always enjoyed films that depict life as it is. Life sometimes has boring patches, no real plot, and not necessarily a happy ending. "A River Runs Through It" is the perfect name for this film (and Norman Maclean's novel). Life ebbs and flows like a river, and it has it's rough spots, but it is a wonderful trip.Robert Redford brings a lot to the film. His narration has a friendly feel that fits the picture perfectly. As a director, he is restrained and calm, and captures some incredibly beautiful scenes. As for the acting, Craig Sheffer and Brad Pitt work surprising well as brothers. I don't know quite how to describe Tom Skerritt and Brenda Blethyn's performances, except that they truly feel real. "A River Runs Through It" is a wonderful film.8.6 out of 10$LABEL$ 1
+The story is very trustworthy and powerful. The technical side of the movie is quite fine.. even the directing of it. The main problem is with the castings, that turned that movie into almost another local and regular cliché with a great lack of impact and even greater lack of impression. Beside the small role of the father, Rafael (played impressively by Asi Dayan), all other actors were unfortunately not in their best. The role of the elder Blind girl, played by Taly Sharon, was fresh but without any intensity as the leading role. therefore the figure she acted had become mild and low profile. There were moments and episodes that looked more like a rehearsal then a real movie. But after all it's a good point to begin from and to make big improvements in the future.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was not so much promoted here in Greece,even though it got good actors , great script and rather good photograph was not a so called "blockbuster" movie in my Country. The movie itself is very powerful,it's about the hard time that a newcomer had to go through when he returns in his home-village after been released from a 5yo prison time(drugs) The end is rather sad.... Mourikis is trying to keep up with his part and he handles it pretty well... Lambropoulou is great and very sexy in a strange way and of course Hatzisavvas is for one more time close to excellency... 7 out of 10 because very few Greek movies can make such an impression!$LABEL$ 1
+MYSTERY MEN has got to be THE stupidest film I've ever seen, but what a film! I thought it was fabulous, excellent and impressive. It was funny, well-done and nice to see ridiculous Super Heroes for a change! And being able to pull it off! This was great! I'll definitely watch it again!$LABEL$ 1
+You know that mouthwash commercial where the guy has a mouth full of Listerine or whatever it is and he's trying really hard to keep from spitting it up into the sink? That's a great metaphor for this movie. I kept watching, even though it was really difficult. But keeping mouthwash in your mouth will leave you with a minty fresh feeling. This movie left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I should have spit it out when I had the chance.The premise is corny enough to be fun. For the first time in like a thousand years, Gargoyles have returned to Romania, and all of the priests who knew how to fight and kill these things are long dead. It's up to Michael Pare and some other secret agents to get to the bottom of things before the Gargoyles run amok. Unfortunately, the premise is completely lost in bad dialog and less than enthusiastic acting on the part of the human leads. The best acting is done by the CG Gargoyles.In the end, this movie feels like a poor man's Van Helsing. If you check your brain at the door, this might get you through a dreary Monday night. I gave it 3 out of 10 stars.$LABEL$ 0
+I can't believe it that was the worst movie i have ever seen in my life. i laughed a couple of times. ( probably because of how stupid it was ) If someone paid me to see that movie again i wouldn't. the plot was so horrible , it made no sense , and the acting was so bad that i couldn't even tell if they were trying. that movie was terrible rating: F$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of a rarity of movies, where instead of a bowl of popcorn one should watch it with a bottle of vodka. To be completely honest we are a group of people who actually know the man, Mo Ogrodnik, and decided to drink ourselves stupid to this film.The cinematic aspect of Wolfgang Something's photography seems to have left out both close-ups and breasts. Mo and Wolfgang's collaborative effort revealed the passion of the two actresses, plastic peens holding passion. There's also beetle banging. As Violet would have put it: "This (plastic peen) goes up your butt". The rat porn and subsequent rat smashing is awesome. Alright. So if you are still reading, let us explain who we are. Mo Ogrodnik teaches at NYU and we are a group of her students, who, finishing a film class with her, decided to get poop- faced and watch here directorial debut. She also wrote Uptown Girls. I can't tell you how much that's been hammered into our skulls. So this movie is quite the experience. At the very bottom of this post will be a drinking game we created for this movie. About 13 minutes into this game, none of us could see straight. The sheer amount of Dido's in the first thirty minutes created enough reasons to drink to pacify an elephant.There was something secretly pleasurable about seeing two underage girls hit on a Kurt Cobain lookalike with absolutely no context, save for his mysterious scene at the convenience store where he was oh-so-naturally reading a local newspaper. Because that's what we all do. The heart-shaped glasses were delightfully derivative of Lolita. And something about that provocative scene of the nude chin-up boy suggests the director's history of homosexual pornographic experiments. We wish we were kidding.Enough intellectual contemplation. ON TO THE DRINKING GAME! This will ensure that the viewing experience is a positive one. It's very simple, and very likely to send at least one member of your party to immediate care.The Mo Ogrodnik/Ripe Drinking Game: 1. Every time you see anything related to pornography, take a drink. 2. Every time you see auteur Mo Ogrodnik's name appear, take a drink. 3. Sex. 4. (plastic peen) require two drinks. 5. Any time somebody points a gun at another character, take a drink. -At this point you will probably need to refill/pee pee any remaining sobriety from your body.- 6. Any time there is blood (INCLUDING "LADY BLOOD"), please take a sip! 7. The underused hula-hoop girl requires one drink per second. 8. Gratuitous use of the "magic black man" requires one drink. 9. If you can't figure out the through-line, KEEP DRINKING, Beyotch. 10. Whenever you are able to predict a line, take a drink. Trust us. It's easy. That's it, internet! Keep drinking, and try not to get riped.-Hawaiian Smirnoff Punch, Jr.$LABEL$ 0
+Even though I'm quite young, The Beatles are my ABSOLUTELY FAVOURITE band! I never had the chance to hear their music as it was releases but have loved them since I can remember.It's the sort of film that is worth trying the once. I can see why it wasn't released in the cinema but it is certainly a great film to put on the TV. I was flicking through my TV guide and happened to see this film, it didn't much details except something like, 'John Lennon and Paul McCartney meet after The Beatles have broken up, Jared Harris Stars'. I'd never heard of him (he played John) or Aiden Quinn who played Paul. However they are certainly underestimated actors!The film had a slow start but as it developed, I could see how well Quinn but especially Harris played their characters. As a huge fan, I sort of know what the real Lennon and McCartney are like. The script was brilliant and Harris got Lennon's accent, personality and mannerisms spot on! Quinn played McCartney quite well but sometimes went into his Irish accent. THe make-up artists made them look excellent.THIS PARAGRAPH MAY BE COUNTED AS A *SPOILER*:As I mentioned before, it got off to a slow start but soon developed and became quite an emotional film. I found the bit in the park a total waste of time and quite out of character for both of the musicians. As for Lennon's rude line in the Italian restaurant, totally unnecessary. The ending was very poignant and brings a tear to my eye whenever I watch it.It is quite different from the other biographical films I've seen where it's about how The Beatles got together and became famous, and those never really did the characters that well. E.g. 'Backbeat'.In conclusion, I would say, if you're a Beatles or John Lennon or Paul McCartney fan, give it a chance you may have pleasent surprise. At only about 95 minutes long, it's worth waiting for the film to develop.If anyone does know whether the meeting of 1976 really did happen please send it to the 'comments page' for this film, I'd be very interested.$LABEL$ 1
+An American Werewolf in London had some funny parts, but this one isn't so good. The computer werewolves are just awful: the perspective is all off, it's like seeing them through a distorting mirror. The writers step on the throat of many of their gags. American boy says to Parisian girl, "Is there a cafe' around here?" Instead of just leaving it at that, they have to have the girl sigh and respond, "This is Paris."$LABEL$ 0
+Originally I was a Tenacious D fan of their first album and naturally listened to a few tracks off The P.O.D. and was rather disappointed. After watching the movie, my view was changed. The movie is pretty funny from beginning to the end and found my self engaged in it even though it was really was a stupid storyline because of the attitudes that KG and Jaybles portray in the movie. Much more entertaining and enjoyable than movies I have seen in the theaters lately. ex. Saw III (dull and dragging), Casino Royale (way to homo-erotic) which in prior installments I have really enjoyed If you enjoyed Borat, you will enjoy the tale of The Greatest Band on Earth$LABEL$ 1
+This is just one more of those hideous films that you find on Lifetime TV which portray the abhorrent behavior of some disgusting woman in an empathetic manner. Along with other such nasty films as "The Burning Bed," "Enough," or "Monster," this film takes a disgusting criminal and attempts to show the viewer why she's not such a bad person after all. Give us a break! Here's my question to the filmmakers: If LeTourneau were a man, and Vili were a 12 year old girl, would you have made a picture sympathizing and empathizing with this person? Answer: Hell no.Imagine switching the genders in this film, and then you'll see just why myself and others here consider this a worthless piece of garbage. Were the genders switched, there would be no attempt to empathize with the criminal. Instead, we'd likely be treated to a portrayal of a monstrous and hideous man preying upon a young girl, his lascivious behavior landing him in prison, and his brainwashed victim suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. The only reason LeTourneau does not receive the same treatment in this film is by virtue of her sex.Let's call a spade a spade. LeTourneau is a pedophile. Plain and simple. No ifs, ands or buts. She's a criminal who belongs in prison, and deserves our derision and contempt, but certainly not our pity or empathy.$LABEL$ 0
+The premise of this movie was decent enough, but with sub par acting, it was just bland and dull.SPOILERS The film does not work because of the nature of the death, it was accidental, so although it was a murder it wasn't like the guy set out to do it. Also through some flashbacks there is a secret that is revealed that sort of makes the events like justice to a degree. There is no emotion in this film. The first 20 minutes or so is just this woman calling her sister, and hearing her message. It was dull and boring.With some polishing, and better acting it could have been pretty good.$LABEL$ 0
+The Lives of the Saints starts off with an atmospheric vision of London as a bustling city of busy, quaint streets and sunshine. I was hoping it would maintain this atmosphere, but it gets bogged down in a story that goes pretty much nowhere.Othello works for big, fat Mr. Karva, his crime-boss step-dad (at least I think that is what he is supposed to be because it's never really defined, but he does drop kittens into deep fat friers, so trust me, he's a prick) doing scrappy little errands while his skanky girlfriend gives daddy hand-jobs. One of his colleagues is Runner, a black dude who is always dashing from A to B. Until the day he comes across almost mute homeless child who grants him his wish of being able to stop running. Runner dumps the lost boy in Othello's flat, where he promptly starts granting more wishes. Keen to have some of his own desires fulfilled, Karva has the boy kidnapped. But he isn't sure of what would really bring him happiness. Is it the innocence of being a child again or is it another hand-job? Either way, I don't want to see the little boy grant him the second.It just takes ages to get going and there are loads of repetitive scenes. The ending tries to be shocking but since there's hardly any back-story on investment in any of these characters it only serves as a release for the bored audience.Writer Tony Grisoni, a favourite of Terry Gilliam, tries to blend in some kind of religious allegory which ends up being pretentious as all hell, ironically. If he gave us something more accessible or at least had better explanations for the characters suddenly acting all weird then it would have been a more enjoyable film. As it is, we are introduced to a bunch of annoying loudmouths who then miraculously seem to develop intelligence when confronted by the mysterious boy. Who's origins are never revealed. That's just plain irritating! Aside from sporadic moments of atmosphere and a moody score, this film has little to recommend.$LABEL$ 0
+I can't emphasize it enough, do *NOT* get this movie for the kids.For that matter, you'd best spare the adults from it as well.All right, perhaps I'm overexaggerating a little. This isn't the worst kids' movie... no, let me rephrase that. This isn't the worst movie made by dissilusioned adults FOR dissilusioned adults and somehow marketed towards kids (that would be "Jack", which I've been meaning to review / gut like a fish).Adults won't learn anything surprising (well, if you must, fast-forward to just before the end credits for a Educational Bit about an Interesting Cosmic Phenominon). We don't usually end up doing as adults what we wanted to do as kids as reality tends to get in the way. Well, duh, I could have told you that (so can four years of college at an art school, but I degress).I have no idea what the heck kids could possibly get out of this movie. Most likely it will only upset them (we get to watch the moment when Russ was traumatized at eight years old). There's a better movie, "Kiki's Delivery Service", that has essentially the same message but handles it litely instead of drilling it into your head. And the adults will like it too!By the way, there is a moment in the movie made with amature MST3K-ers in mind, if they think of that OTHER Bruce Willis movie with a sad little kid in it.$LABEL$ 0
+Is nothing else on TV? Are you really bored? Well, then watch Phat Beach. However, don't rent it and definitely DO NOT buy it. That would be a big mistake.I watched this on TV and found myself laughing at certain points. I did not laugh long and I did not laugh hard. However, there were subtle jokes and comments I laughed at. If you are looking for an extremely funny "hood" movie then watch Friday. If you are looking for a powerful emotional movie (something that this movie tries at..kind of) watch something like hoop dreams or Jason's Lyric. If you are lookin for some good black "booty" go watch a Dominique Simone porn flick, because the nudity in this movie is nearly non-existent. However, if you have nothing better to do and this is on cable, go ahead and watch it. You will be slightly amused.***3 out of 10***$LABEL$ 0
+The Elegant Documentary -Don't watch this movie ... if you're an egotistical know-all student of physics. This much less than one percent (miniscule fraction) of the population may find that this show just tells them what they have already learned and already know.Do watch this movie! - If you're one of the massive majority of people that fall into the greater than 99% of the population that does not study or already have a sound knowledge of the theories of physics including Relativity, Quantum, String and M-theory.What a brilliantly architected documentary. Starting with some helpful historical background you will be lead step by elegant step into a Universe of pure magic - and dimensions beyond. I have always had a huge appreciation of Mathematics. This movie can easily give you an insight into what an exquisitely beautiful language mathematics is without making you feel like you're about to fail the grade.The show is repetitive at times as the original format was a mini-series split over three shows. It therefore makes sense to give us polite little reminders of the principles being presented. I found this immensely helpful as it kept reminding me of the multitude of questions and possible answers that make up this amazing tapestry of our very existence.We are all (and everything around us) is vibrational-energy with a natural tendency towards harmony. This movie may blow your mind - or at least help you realize that the universe is far far bigger than that which we see around us (even with the Hubble Telescope) and far far smaller than the protons and neutrons within the atoms we learned about in high-school. M-theory holds many magnificent magnitudes of 'possibility'.It just seemed so appropriate that all of this elegance should by it's very nature move (by admission by the many brilliant scientists presenting) out of the realm of Science and into the realm of Philisophy.You do not have to be religious at all to feel like this movie brought you one step closer to God.Bravo Brian Greene. Well done indeed.P.S. If you're interested in feeling even more comfortable and at home in your place in the Universe and would like some more insight into the 'possibilities' Quantum mechanics blended with Spirituality (of all things) can bring then I highly recommend that you also watch "What the Bleep!? - Down the Rabbit Hole". Yes I know they make a few silly mistakes by suggesting a Shaman may not be able to see a boat if he hasn't seen one before (my eyes process light reflections just fine - I see things everyday that I've never seen before) and brain cells are cells in the body that actually don't divide. But if you can get over these little hurdles and put down the things you don't like and hang on to those that you do - there is a lot to like about this film.Then watch "The Secret" (2006 documentary about The Law of Attraction - search for IMDb title "tt0846789"). This information just might change your life profoundly - forever. If you search deeper you might even find the Universe is talking to us with thought (if you'll listen) - and some are - and that is truly incredible. There is a modern day Jesus/Mohammad/Buddha (those, among others, that history suggests have communicated with the non-physical) alive today and she lives in Texas. I know some of you know what I'm talking about.I do not consider myself religious by any traditional definition but I have never felt more at home or as comfortable in the Universe as I do now.$LABEL$ 1
+In 1993, with the success of the first season of Batman: The Animated Series, Warner Brothers commissioned the team responsible for the hit-show with producing a feature-length movie, originally slated for Direct-To-Video, but bumped up to theatrical status. It would become known as Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. Ten years after Phantasm, we have had an additional three feature-films released from the boys at the WB, Sub-Zero, Return of the Joker, and now, Mystery of the Batwoman joins the family.The plot is basic and in many ways similar to Mask of the Phantasm: A new female vigilante modeling herself after Batman has begun targeting operations run by Gotham mob boss Rupert Thorne and Oswald Cobblepot AKA The Penguin. Now, Batman must attempt to unravel the mystery of the Batwoman before she crosses the line.The animation is the sleeker, futuristic style that was utilized for Batman: The Animated Series' fifth and sixth seasons (AKA The New Batman Adventures). , it's quite nicely done, and just as sleek as Return of the Joker's animation. There is also some use of CGI, but it's minor compared to the overabundance of it in Sub-Zero. The music was alright. Different and exotic and similar to the Justice League score, although the points in the score when the old animated Batman theme comes up will be sure to send waves of nostalgia through the older fans' rodent-shaped hearts.Kevin Conroy, as always, does a wonderful job as Bruce Wayne and Batman. It's also great to have the old Batman: The Animated Series alumni back; that includes Bob Hastings (Commissioner Gordon), Robert Costanzo (Detective Bullock), Tara Strong (Barbara Gordon/Batgirl; her cameo hints at the romantic-relationship between her and Bruce that was mentioned in Batman Beyond), and Efrem Zimbalist Jr.(Alfred).Villains were also great - especially given that Rupert Thorne, the old mob boss from the original series, appears for the first time since the fourth season.Overall, while not quite reaching the standard set by Mask of the Phantasm ten years ago, MOTB carries on the torch quite nicely for the animated Batman films. And if you have the DVD and are a hardcore fan, you will love the five-minute short Chase Me.$LABEL$ 1
+I think this movie was supposed to be shocking. But the only way in which it is indeed shocking is how shocking badly it's been made ...and simply is. It's one-and-a-half hour of torment. Even more so for the viewer than for the characters in the movie (the five girls).Sure the main characters get their bloody piece in a bad way, which is basically fine, since it's a horror-movie. And I (usually) like horror-movies. I've no problem with violence in these type of movies per se. However all the violence in this film serves no end whatsoever. It's no spectacle other than that it's simply grotesque. It's so lame it even gets boring, and really quick too.The worst thing (if the above wasn't bad enough for ya) about this movie is that they've tried to copy the Blair Whitch Project, by filming with cheap hand-held-cameras. But (again, this too) serves no end whatsoever. In the "Blair Which", sure enough, there's an explanation, namely they are their with a camera looking for the blair witch. In this film, there's no other explanation than: "Hey ya'll we wanted this to LOOK LIKE the Blair Whitch!!" The sound in the movie is also something to get depressed about. The girls are screaming so hysterically that many a time you can't make out what they're saying. Also, no effort has been made to make anything any better, sound-wise or other wise.Than finally, there's the soundtrack, which is just as bad as the rest, and varies from cheap euro-house to the worst grungy hard-rock...My advise: Don't watch this under ANY circumstances.$LABEL$ 0
+Why can't a movie be rated a zero? Or even a negative number? Some movies such as "Plan Nine From Outer Space" are so bad they're fun to watch. THIS IS NOT ONE. "The Dungeon of Horror" might be the worst movie I've ever seen (some of anyway. I HAD to fast forward through a lot of it!). Fortunately for the indiscretions of my youth and senility of my advancing age, there may be worse movies I've seen, but thankfully, I can't remember them. The sets appeared to be made with cardboard and finished with cans of spray paint. The special effects looked like a fifth grader's C+ diorama set in a shoebox. The movie contained unforgivable gaffs such as when the Marquis shoots and kills his servant. He then immediately gets into a scuffle with his escaping victim, who takes his flintlock and shoots him with it, without the gun having been reloaded! This movie was so bad my DVD copy only had name credits. I guess no company or studio wanted to be incriminated. Though I guess when you film in your garage and make sets out of cardboard boxes a studio isn't needed. This movie definitely ranks in my cellar of all time worst movies with such horrible sacrileges as "The Manipulator", the worst movie I have ever seen with an actual (one time) Hollywood leading man-Mickey Rooney. The only time I would recommend watching "The Dungeon of Harrow" (or "The Manipulator" for that matter) would be if someone were to pay you. (I'm kind of cheap) I'd have to have $7 or $8 bucks for "Dungeon" and at least ten for "Manipulator". phil-the never out of the can cinematographer$LABEL$ 0
+This movie took me by surprise. The opening credit sequence features nicely done animation. After that, we're plunged into a semi-cheesy production, betraying its low budget. The characters, typical American teens, are introduced slowly, with more personal detail than is usually found in movies like this. By the time the shlitz hits the fan, we know each one of the characters, and either like or hate them according to their distinct personalities. It's a slow uphill set-up, kind of like the ride up a slope of a really tall roller coaster. Thankfully, once the action kicks in, it's full blown old school HORROR! Steve Johnson's make-up effects are awesome. Equal in quality to much bigger budgeted films. And the scares are jolting. Kevin Tenney delivers his best movie ever, with heart-stopping surprises and creepy suspenseful set-ups. The tongue-in-cheek, sometimes cheesy, humor marks this film as pure 80s horror, as opposed to the sullen tone of earlier genre fare like "Night of the Living Dead" or "Hills Have Eyes." But for true horror fans, this one is worth checking out. Play it as the first entry on a double bill with the 1999 remake of "House on the Haunted Hill." The set-up and character dynamics are so similar that you really have to wonder what film they were actually remaking?$LABEL$ 1
+Though I'd heard that "Cama de Gato" was the worst Brazilian movie of the decade, I watched it giving it a chance; after all, first-time director/producer/writer Alexandre Stockler managed to make his debut feature (shot in video) for just US$ 4,000 and -- though it looks even cheaper -- I can't begin to imagine all he went through to finally get it exhibited in theaters with no big sponsors or production companies behind it (then as I watched it I realized why). But whatever chances you're ready to give to "Cama de Gato", they shrink to zero within 10 minutes: it's an unbelievably preposterous, verbose, ideologically fanatical and technically catastrophic attempt to portray Brazilian upper-middle class youth as a bunch of spoiled neo-Nazis hooked on bad sex, drugs and violence (and they're made to look like closeted gays too), made with no visible trace of talent, imagination, expertise or notion of structure. Visually and aurally, it recalls the worst amateur stuff you can find on YouTube -- only here it lasts NINETY TWO (count'em) minutes of unrelenting hysteria and clumsiness, and it's not even funny-bad.We've all seen the story before: bored young guys want to have fun, go partying, take drugs and everything goes wrong -- there's gang-rape, spanking, murder, the accidental death (falling down the staircase!!) of the mother of one of the boys, culminating with the boys deciding to burn the corpses of the girl and the mother in a garbage landfill. Moral and literal garbage, get it? The film is heavily influenced by Larry Clark (especially "Kids" and "Bully"), but Clark's films -- though also moralist and sexploitative -- are high-class masterworks compared to this crap.I don't think there was ever such monomaniacal drive in a filmmaker to stick his ideas down the audience's throat: Stockler grabs us by the collar and tries to force his non-stop moralist rant into our brains by repetition and exhaustion -- you DO get numb-minded with so much babbling, yelling, inept direction, shaky camera and terrible acting going on. Stockler doesn't care a bit about technique (the quality of the images, framing, sound recording, soundtrack songs, dialog, sets, editing, etc is uniformly appalling), but he's a narcissistic control-freak: he anticipates the criticisms he's bound to get by adding subtitles with smartie/cutie comments, and by making the protagonists comment at one point how far-fetched and phony it all is (I could relate to THAT). Despite his megalomaniac ambitions, Stockler seems incapable of giving us a minimum of visual or narrative structure -- he can't even decide if he wants gritty realism (hand-held video camera etc) or stylization (repetition of scenes, use of alternate takes, etc). Damn, he can't even decide WHERE to put his camera (there's use of subjective camera for the THREE leads)! The dialog features some of the most stupefyingly banal verbosity ever; the plot exists simply to justify the director's profound hatred for his characters and what they stand for. All you see is a filmmaker being hateful, preachy, condemning, moralizing without the benefit of a minimum of talent (or technique) to go with it.It's very disappointing to find Caio Blat in this mess. Certainly one of the most promising young film actors in Brazil, with his sleepy-eyed puppy dog looks and emotional edge that often recall Sal Mineo's, Blat can be highly effective under good direction (as in "Carandiru", "Lavoura Arcaica", "Proibido Proibir"). Here, he's told to go over the top and he has to play with some of the most embarrassingly under-equipped "actors" in recent memory. He also enters the risky realm of graphic sexploitation scenes (so goddawful they look rather like web-cam porn).The film opens and ends with real interviews with "typical" (?) middle-class youth -- Stockler wants us to take those interviews as "proof" of what he's trying to preach in fiction. But he blatantly despises and makes fun of his interviewees, selecting a highlight of abject, racist, sexist, stupid statements (which only shows assholes exist everywhere). Stockler wants to prove that Brazilian middle-class youths are ALL present or future fascists BECAUSE they're middle-class and enjoy recreational drugs (is he saying all neo-fascists are on drugs?? Or that drugs potentialize fascist behavior?? I couldn't tell). With its dogmatic self-righteousness, headache-inducing technique and mind-bending boredom, "Cama de Gato" is bad for a 1,000 reasons but, above all, it's harmful in a very insidious manner: it gives detractors of Brazilian cinema a powerful case of argument. "Cama de Gato" is best unwatched, unmentioned, buried and forgotten.$LABEL$ 0
+An unforgettable masterpiece from the creator of The Secret of Nimh and The Land Before Time, this was a very touching bittersweet cartoon. I remember this very well from my childhood, it was funny and sad and very beautiful. Well it starts out a bit dark, a dog who escaped the pound, and gets killed by an old friend, ends up in Heaven, and comes back. But it becomes sweet when he befriends an orphaned girl who can talk to animals. Some scenes were a bit scary contrary to other cartoons, like the dream sequence of Charlie, but everything else was okay,and the songs were fair. A memorable role of Burt Reynolds and Dom DeLuise, I just love that guy, ahehehe. And Judith Barsi of Jaws The Revenge, may God rest her soul, poor girl, she didn't deserve to die, but she is in Heaven now, all good people go to Heaven. Overall this is a very good animated movie, a Don Bluth classic enough to put anime and Disney to shame. Recommended for the whole family. And know this, if you have the original video of this, you'll find after the movie, Dom DeLuise has a very important and special message, gotta love that guy, ahehehe.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was a failure as a comedy and a film in general. It was a very slow paced movie that seemed to be trying to convey a message, but the message was a cliché, hopeless mess to begin with. This movie falls on shameless environmental point, even making a self-righteous point of destroying an SUV and promoting Animal Planet.In sitting through this, I couldn't help but notice that Steve Carell got no more than a single truly funny line. The only thing that could hypothetically mark this as a comedy is the pitiful attempt to give comic relief lines to Wanda Sykes. Her character gets frequent, cringe-worthy lines where they absolutely do not fit.Far from the brilliance of Bruce Almighty, Evan Almighty blows its whole record-breaking budget on special effect plot devices that turn out to barely advance the plot. The movie spends the first half building up to the construction of Evan's ark, but by the end, we learn that the ark was completely meaningless, and the whole plot was a just a vessel for the stupid gags and even stupider messages. The movie concludes when we learn that the whole ark, flood, and animal gathering was just a weak political statement by none other than God. Yes, God was trying to influence politics.$LABEL$ 0
+It is so gratifying to see one great piece of art converted into another without distortion or contrivance. I had no guess as to how such an extraordinary piece of literature could be recreated as a film worth seeing. If you loved Bulgakov's book you would be, understandably, afraid of seeing some misguided interpretation done more for the sake of an art-film project than for actually bringing the story's deeper meaning to the screen. There are a couple examples of this with the Master and Margarita. As complex and far-fetched as the story is, the movie leaves out nothing. It is as if the filmmaker read Bulgakov's work the same way an orchestral conductor reads a score--with not a note missed. Why can't we find such talent here in the U.S. ? So now my favorite book and movie have the same title.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is very violent, yet exciting with original dialog and cool characters. It has one of the most moving stories and is very true to life. The movie start off with action star Leo Fong as a down and out cop who is approaching the end of his career, when he stumbles on to a big case that involves corruption, black mail and murder. This is where the killings start. From start finish Fong delivers in this must see action caper. This movie also co-stars Richard Roundtree.I really enjoyed this film as a child but as I got older I realized that this film is pretty cheesy and not very good. I would not recommend this film and the action is very, very bad.$LABEL$ 0
+The day has finally come for me to witness the perpetuation of Azumi's fate as an assassin, fruition of her character and the ultimate attempt to draw me deeper into the world she rampaged through so mercilessly during the first saga.That's as poetical as I'll get when talking about Azumi 2: Death or Love, because when I cringed over the heavy sentimentality of House of Flying Daggers and complained about the credibility of Aya Ueto portraying a blood-driven assassin, after watching Azumi 2 I started to appreciate the previously mentioned shortcomings more than ever before.Not only does the determination of each assassin feels sluggish and uninspiring but also many important elements are omitted from the entire experience. In Azumi 1 we saw the assassins use various stealth tactics (which is their number one priority) as well as logic to make easy work of their marks with swift executions and quicker abilities to escape. But I won't hold that against this movie too much since the story is slightly tweaked this time around and many more obstacles are planted in Azumi's way to prevent her from reaching the warlord and displaying any signs of charisma. By the way, Chiaki is foolishly shelved for the most part of the film and is basically playing a toned down version of Go Go, minus the cool weapon and sense of menace.This brings me to the final blow which is the action, simply disguised in the title as the 'Death' side of the epic. In the first half of the film we see the debut of many promising adversaries with flashy looks and even flashier weapons. To no one's surprise they meet their end one way or another but the film falls short when each of them start dying too fast and too easily. In Azumi 1, the young assassins were mostly overpowering the opposition with quick but somewhat satisfying battles and the final showdown between Azumi and Bijomaru in comparison to the fights in Azumi 2 was at least climaxed and worthwhile. Some interesting effects were introduced but they were unable to achieve innovation due to the shortness of each encounter. I am in no way knocking down the conventional style of samurai films with their quick and realistic battles but characters in both Azumi films were so imaginative and straight out of anime that the rules could have been broken and the action should have been further enriched.The romance side of Azumi is there to fill in time between the fight scenes and unfortunately at the end it serves no purpose nor provides a much needed resolution.As a fan with an open mind for wide variety of movies and animation, I won't lie and I'll admit to my neutrality and unimpressiveness towards the first Azumi film, but I'll step right up and say that after watching Azumi 2, the original was made to look like a flawless masterpiece. For what it's worth, Azumi 2: Death or Love could have gone straight to video, with its invisibly richer budget and a failed potential to add or even expand on the bumpy journey of desperate assassins, doing their best to restore the peace, with an unwavering courage to die trying.$LABEL$ 0
+This has to be the worst piece of garbage I've seen in a while.Heath Ledger is a heartthrob? He looked deformed. I wish I'd known that he and Naomi Watts are an item in real life because I spent 2 of the longest hours of my life wondering what she saw in him. Orlando Bloom is a heartthrob? With the scraggly beard and deer-in-the-headlights look about him, I can't say I agree.Rachel Griffiths was her usual fabulous self, but Geoffrey Rush looked as if he couldn't wait to get off the set. I'm supposed to feel sorry for bankrobbers and murderers? This is a far cry from Butch Cassidy, which actually WAS an entertaining film. This was trite, cliche-ridden and boring. We only stayed because we were convinced it would get better. It didn't.The last 10-15 minutes or so were unintentionally hilarious. Heath and his gang are holed up in a frontier hotel, and women and children are dying because of their presence. That's not funny. But it was funny when they walked out of the hotel with the armor on, because all we could think of was the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I kept waiting for them to say "I'll bite yer leg off!" We were howling with laughter, as were several other warped members of the audience. When we left, pretty much everyone was talking about what a waste of time this film was.I may not have paid cash to see this disaster (sneak preview), but it certainly wasn't free. It cost me 2 hours of my life that I will never get back.$LABEL$ 0
+A very ordinary made-for-tv product, "Tyson" attempts to be a serious biopic while stretching the moments of angst for effect, fast forwarding through the esoterics of the corrupt sport of boxing, and muddling the sensationalistic stuff which is the only thing which makes Tyson even remotely interesting. A lukewarm watch at best which more likely to appeal to the general public than to boxing fans.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm sure deep in the recesses of Jack Blacks mind the character of Nacho Libre is absolutely hilarious but no it isn't. You can tell ol Jacks having a whale of a time hammin it up playing a smarmy, slimy Mexican friar with dreams of becoming a wrestler but this movie is a total misfire in just about every single department.I just sat there through most of the movie thinking "Is this supposed to be funny" and "This is the guy from Tenacious D right?". The truth is this film has NOTHING to offer. AT ALL! It's a lousy script with crappy characters and really naff acting and direction. You'll watch endless moments where you think something funny is surely about to happen but it just doesn't. I was bored stupid about 10 minutes in but though it would surely pick up. It didn't. 90 minutes later I'd barely managed to stave off an aneurism it was that painful.It's like, remember years ago when you'd see anything with your fave actor in it, even some of their really early pap from before they were famous, and you'd be really embarrassed that said actor was actually in such a load of plop. Yeah it's like that.I've enjoyed some of Jack Black's earlier movies like Shallow Hall and I'm really looking forward to seeing Pick of Destiny but come on man. If you do this to us again Jack I'm gonna have to come round there and hammer your kneecaps or something. At the least give you a serious talking to.I know it's a cliché but this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen and for so many reasons....$LABEL$ 0
+I haven't read the Anne Rice novel that this movie was based on, but who knows, maybe reading the book is cheaper than renting QUEEN OF THE DAMNED and is probably better for your health. It isn't that this movie is necessarily bad for your health, but a book can be very relaxing and certainly exercises the active part of your brain more so than this movie. You can count the number of pages by Anne Rice that I've read on one hand, but after seeing this movie and Interview with a Vampire, I get the feeling that she writes really good novels. The plots for both movies hint at a whole sea of deep and interwoven vampire history.Still, Stuart Townsend's voice-over narration gets a heck of a lot more annoying than Brad Pitt's vampire narrative ever did, and you can tell that QUEEN OF THE DAMNED's limited production resources barely give enough flesh to the Anne Rice storyline. While Interview decided to go with lace and elegance, QUEEN relies on low budget special effects that try really hard to be taken seriously. One can see that the original novel had potential as a movie and that the production team focused its attention in the wrong places. The costumes and rock & roll stage could have been replaced with more blood and an eerier soundtrack.However, I'll give credit where credit is due. The soundtrack is excellent. Korn and Disturbed had me down with the sickness bobbing my noggin like Butthead.The film opens with a very cool Goth-rock zoom & splice montage, but after the first ten minutes or so, the directing degenerates quickly. It's as if the movie was so long that the director realized that there wasn't enough time and enough money to do an Anne Rice novel justice. What results are some mediocre vampire scenes and plenty of cheesy special effects. Unfortunately, QUEEN OF THE DAMNED fails to do the genre justice just as its John Carpenter counterparts fail to impress. Where are the yellow contacts? Where's the pale blue make-up? Scene after scene, I shook my head reminiscing about the days of Salem's Lot and Fright Night when low budget was done right.There are redeeming qualities though that save this movie from being garbage. Props to Aaliyah, and may her soul forever rest in peace. She might have become a renowned actress, had her life not been taken from us so prematurely, for she did give this movie a decent performance with plenty of nice belly dancing. Did I mention that the soundtrack was good? Let's see, what else can I say? It wasn't too long. The Anne Rice novel could have easily been a three hour movie if an ambitious director like Francis Ford Coppola got his hands on it. There are a few twists and turns here and there in the plot. But all in all it was a legitimate rock and roll addition to the slew of second-rate vampire movies out there. The director of this movie went on to direct a new Battlestar Galactica mini series if that tells you anything.JYJimboduck-dot-com$LABEL$ 1
+While I count myself as a fan of the Babylon 5 television series, the original movie that introduced the series was a weak start. Although many of the elements that would later mature and become much more compelling in the series are there, the pace of The Gathering is slow, the makeup somewhat inadequate, and the plot confusing. Worse, the characterization in the premiere episode is poor. Although the ratings chart shows that many fans are willing to overlook these problems, I remember The Gathering almost turned me off off what soon grew into a spectacular series.$LABEL$ 0
+Leonard Maltin gave this film a dreaded BOMB rating in his 1995 Movie and Video Guide. What film was he looking at? Kid Vengeance or God's Gun are bombs. This film is a delight. It is fantastic. It is literate. It is well mounted. It is beautiful photographed, making a brilliant use of colors. Right from the opening scene the film grabs your attention and tips you off that this film is a well-done satire of the whole Spaghetti Western genre. The film is played for laughs from the beginning to the end with homages to Douglas Fairbanks, 77 Sunset Strip, and the famous showdown in the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Edd Byrnes, George Hilton, and Gilbert Roland work brilliantly together to make the satire work. It is too bad Mr. Maltin rated this film so poorly as it is undeserved. One can only guess as to his reason. I suspect that he missed the point of the movie entirely and was expecting something more serious than this film is meant to be. Kudos belong to everyone involved in this project. This film is a little gem waiting to be discovered by people who care about literate movies and appreciate satire.$LABEL$ 1
+I don't believe there has ever been a more evil or wicked television program to air in the United States as The 700 Club. They are today's equivalent to the Ku Klux Klan of the 20th century. Their hatred of all that is good and sweet and human and pure is beyond all ability to understand. Their daily constant attacks upon millions and millions of Americans, as well as billions of humans the world over, who don't happen to share their bigoted, cruel, monstrous, and utterly insane view of humanity is beyond anything television has ever seen. The lies they spout and the ridiculous lies they try to pass off as truth, such as the idea of "life after death" or "god" or "sin" or "the devil" is so preposterous that they actually seem mentally ill, so lost are they in their fantasy. Sane people know that religion is a drug and shouldn't let themselves get addicted to that type of fantasy. However, The 700 Club is in a class by itself. They are truly a cult. While I believe in freedom of speech, they way they spread hatred, lies, disinformation, and such fantastic ideas is beyond all limits. I hope that one day the American Psychiatric Association will finally take up the study of those people who delude themselves in this way, people who let themselves sink so deeply into the fantasy land of religion that they no longer have any real concept of reality at all. Treatment for such afflicted individuals is sorely needed in this country, as so many people have completely lost their minds to the fantasy of religion. The 700 Club though, is even more horrible as it rises to the legal definition of 'cult' but due to The 700 Club's vast wealth (conned daily from the millions of Americans locked in their deceitful grip) they are above the law in this country. For those of you who have seen the movie "The Matrix" you know that movie was a metaphor for religion on earth: the evil ones who are at the top of each of the religions who drain the ones they have trapped and cruelly abuse for their own selfish purposes, and those millions who are held in a death sleep and slowly being drained of their life force represent those many people who belong to religions and who have lost all ability to perceive what is really going on around them.In less civil times, the good townsfolk would have run such monsters as those associated with The 700 Club out of town with torches and pitchforks. But in today's world where people have lost all choice in their choices of television that is presented to them, we have no way to rid ourselves of the 700 Club plague. The television ratings system and the "V" chip on TV's should also have a rating called "R" for religion, so that rational people and concerned parents could easily screen such vile intellectual and brutal emotional rape, such as presented by The 700 Club every day all over our country, from themselves and their children.$LABEL$ 0
+If you wish to see Shakespeare's masterpiece in its entirety, I suggest you find this BBC version. Indeed it is overlong at four and a half hours but Jacoby's performance as Hamlet and Patrick Stewart's as Claudius are well worth the effort.It never ceases to amaze me how clear "Hamlet" is when you see it in its length and order as set down by the Bard. Every film version of "Hamlet" has tinkered with its structure. Olivier concentrated on Hamlet's indecision, Gibson on his passions. Jacoby is able to pull all of these aspects of Hamlet's character together with the aid of Shakespeare's full script.Why does Hamlet not kill Claudius immediately? Hamlet says "I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious..." Hamlet is extremely upset, not only for his father's death (and suspected murder), or his mother's marriage to his uncle, but also, and mostly, because Claudius has usurped the throne belonging to Hamlet. He is furious at his mother for marrying Claudius (marriages between royal kin is not unknown; done for political reasons) but that her marriage solidified Claudius' claim to the throne before he could return from Wittenburg to claim it for himself. He is, therefore, impotent to do anything about it. And this is true even after he hears his father's ghost cry vengeance. He cannot simply kill the King or he will lose the throne in doing so. He must "out" the King's secret and here is the tragedy! At the moment Hamlet is successful in displaying Claudius' guilt in public, he has opportunity to kill him and does not. WHY? He wants it ALL! He wants revenge, the throne AND the damnation of Claudius' soul in hell. Hamlet OVERREACHES himself in classic tragic form. His own HUBRIS is his undoing. He kills Polonius thinking it is Claudius and the rest of the play spirals down to the final deaths of Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Ophelia, Laertes, Gertrude, Claudius and Hamlet himself.$LABEL$ 1
+The Golden Door is the story of a Sicilian family's journey from the Old World (Italy) to the New World (America). Salvatore, a middle-aged man who hopes for a more fruitful life, persuades his family to leave their homeland behind in Sicily, take the arduous journey across the raging seas, and inhabit a land whose rivers supposedly flow with milk. In short, they believe that by risking everything for the New World their dreams of prosperity will be fulfilled. The imagery of the New World is optimistic, clever and highly imaginative. Silver coins rain from heaven upon Salvatore as he anticipates how prosperous he'll be in the New World; carrots and onions twice the size of human beings are shown being harvested to suggest wealth and health, and rivers of milk are swam in and flow through the minds of those who anticipate what the New World will yield. All of this imagery is surrealistically interwoven with the characters and helps nicely compliment the gritty realism that the story unfolds to the audience. The contrast between this imagery versus the dark reality of the Sicilian people helps provide hope while they're aboard the ship to the New World.The voyage to the New World is shot almost in complete darkness, especially when the seas tempests roar and nearly kill the people within. The dark reality I referred to is the Old World and the journey itself to the New World. The Old World is depicted as somewhat destitute and primitive. This is shown as Salvatore scrambles together to sell what few possessions he has left (donkeys, goats and rabbits) in order to obtain the appropriate clothing he needs to enter the New World. I thought it was rather interesting that these people believed they had to conform to a certain dress code in order to be accepted in the New World; it was almost suggesting that people had to fit a particular stereotype or mold in order to be recognized as morally fit. The most powerful image in the film was when the ship is leaving their homeland and setting sail for the New World. This shot shows an overhead view of a crowd of people who slowly seem to separate from one another, depicting the separation between the Old and New Worlds. This shot also suggested that the people were being torn away from all that was once familiar, wanted to divorce from their previous dark living conditions and were desirous to enter a world that held more promise.As later contrasted to how the New World visually looks, the Old World seems dark and bleak as compared to the bright yet foggy New World. I thought it was particularly interesting that the Statue of Liberty is never shown through the fog at Ellis Island, but is remained hidden. I think this was an intentional directing choice that seemed to negate the purpose of what the Statue of Liberty stands for: "Give me your poor, your tired, your hungry" seemed like a joke in regards to what these people had to go through when arriving at the New World. Once they arrived in the Americas, they had to go through rather humiliating tests (i.e. delousing, mathematics, puzzles, etc.) in order to prove themselves as fit for the New World. These tests completely changed the perspectives of the Sicilian people. In particular, Salvatore's mother had the most difficult time subjecting herself to the rules and laws of the New World, feeling more violated than treated with respect. Where their dreams once provided hope and optimism for what the New World would provide, the reality of what the New World required was disparaging and rude. Salvatore doesn't change much other than his attitude towards what he felt the New World would be like versus what the New World actually was seemed disappointing to him. This attitude was shared by mostly everyone who voyaged with him. Their character arcs deal more with a cherished dream being greatly upset and a dark reality that had to be accepted.The film seems to make a strong commentary on preparing oneself to enter a heavenly and civilized society. Cleanliness, marriage and intelligence are prerequisites. Adhering to these rules is to prevent disease, immoral behavior and stupidity from dominating. Perhaps this is a commentary on how America has learned from the failings of other nations and so was purposefully established to secure that these plagues did not infest and destruct. Though the rules seemed rigid, they were there to protect and help the people flourish.$LABEL$ 1
+Nifty little episode played mainly for laughs, but with clever dollop of suspense. Somehow a Martian has snuck aboard a broken-down bus on its way to nowhere, but which passenger is it, (talk about your illegal immigrants!). All-star supporting cast, from wild-eyed Jack Elam (hamming it up shamelessly), to sexy Jean Willes (if she's the Martian, then I say let's open the borders!), to cruel-faced John Hoyt (the most obvious suspect), along with familiar faces John Archer and Barney Phillips (and a nice turn from Bill Kendis as the bus driver). Makes for a very entertaining half-hour even if the action is confined to a single set.$LABEL$ 1
+I had before a feeling of mislike for all Russian films. But, after seeing this film I haven´t. This is a unique masterpiece made by the best director ever lived in the USSR. He knows the art of film making, and can use it very well. If you find this movie: buy or copy it!$LABEL$ 1
+I watched mask in the 80's and it's currently showing on Fox Kids in the UK (very late at night). I remember thinking that it was kinda cool back in the day and had a couple of the toys too but watching it now bores me to tears. I never realised before of how tedious and bland this cartoon show really was. It's just plain awful! It is no where near in the same league as The Transformers, He-man or Thundercats and was very quickly forgot by nearly everyone once it stopped being made. I only watch it on Fox Kids because Ulysses 31 comes on straight after it (that's if mask doesn't put me to sleep first). One of the lesser 80's cartoons that i hope to completely forget about again once it finishes airing on Fox Kids!$LABEL$ 0
+Phantasm ....Class. Phantasm II.....awesome. Phantasm III.....erm.....terrible.Even though i would love to stick up for this film, i quite simply can't. The movie seems to have "sold out". First bad signs come when the video has trailers for other films at the start (something the others did not). Also too many pointless characters, prime examples the kid (who is a crack shot, funny initially but soon you want him dead), the woman who uses karate to fight off the balls (erm not gonna work, or rather shouldn't) and the blooming zombies (what the hell are they doing there, there no link to them in the other Phatasms). Also there is a severe lack of midgets running about.The only good bits are the cracking start and, of course, Reggie B.(Possible SPOILER coming Up)To me this film seems like a filler between II and IV as extra characters just leave at the end so can continue with main 4 in IV.Overall very, VERY disappointing. 3 / 10$LABEL$ 0
+Ludicrous. Angelic 9-year-old Annakin turns into whiny brat 19-year-old Annakin, who somehow seems appealing to Amidala, 5 years his senior. Now 22-year-old Jedi warrior hero Annakin has a couple of bad dreams, and so takes to slaughtering children, his friends, and the entire framework of his existence because a crazy old man convinced him a) his precious wife might really die, and b) only he can prevent this. Ludicrosity squared.I think the people who like this movie are not paying attention. The story is ridiculous. The characters are unbelievable (literally, not the perverted sense of "fantastic", "wonderful", etc.).Obi-wan Kenobi was the wise and kind anchor for the entire series, but in the climax, he hacks off Annakin's legs, lets him burn in the lava, and leaves him to suffer. Doesn't anyone think that's a little out of character? Not to mention it was pretty stupid to take a chance on him living, as it turns out.I was expecting at least a story that showed consistent characters with plausible motivations. None of that here. The story could have been written by a 10 year old.Oh yeah, the CGI is pretty cool.$LABEL$ 0
+Scotty (Grant Cramer, who would go on to star in the great B-movie "Killer Klowns from outer space") agrees to help three middle-aged guys learn how to 'dialog' the ladies in this bad '80's comedy. Not bad as in '80's lingo, which meant good. Bad as in bad. With no likable characters, including, but not limited to, a kid who's the freakiest looking guy since "Friday the 13th part 2"' a girl who leads men on and then goes into hissy fits when they want to touch her, and the token fat slob, because after all what would an '80's sex comedy be without a fat slob?? Well this one has two. This movie is pretty much the bottom of the barrel of '80's sex comedies. And then came the sequel thus deepening said proverbial barrel.My Grade:D- Eye Candy: too numerous to count, you even see the freaky looking kid imagined with boobs at on point, think "Bachlor Party" but not as funny, and VERY disturbing.Where I saw it: Comcast Moviepass$LABEL$ 0
+If you keep rigid historical perspective out of it, this film is actually quite entertaining. It's got action, adventure and romance, and one of the premiere casting match-ups of the era with Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland in the lead roles. As evident on this board, the picture doesn't pass muster with purists who look for one hundred percent accuracy in their story telling. To get beyond that, one need only put aside the history book, and enjoy the story as if it were a work of fiction. I know, I know, that's hard to do when you consider Custer's Last Stand at the Little Big Horn and it's prominence in the history of post Civil War America. So I guess there's an unresolved quandary with the picture, no matter how you look at it.There's a lot to take in here though for the picture's two hour plus run time. Custer's arrival at West Point is probably the first head scratcher, riding up as he does in full military regalia. The practical joke by Sharp (Arthur Kennedy) putting him up in the Major's headquarters probably should have gotten them both in trouble.Ironically, a lot of scenes in this military film play for comedy, as in Custer's first meeting with Libby Bacon, and subsequent encounters that include tea reader Callie (Hattie McDaniel). I hadn't noticed it before in other films, but McDaniel reminded me an awful lot of another favorite character actor of mine from the Forties, Mantan Moreland. So much so that in one scene it looked like it might have been Moreland hamming it up in a dress. With that in mind, the owl scene was a hoot too.As for Flynn, it's interesting to note that a year earlier, he portrayed J.E.B. Stuart opposite Ronald Reagan's depiction of General Custer in "Santa Fe Trail", both vying for the attention of none other than Olivia de Havilland. In that film, Reagan put none of the arrogance and flamboyance into the character of Custer that history remembers, while in Flynn's portrayal here it's more than evident. But it doesn't come close to that of Richard Mulligan's take on the military hero in 1970's "Little Big Man". Let's just say that one was a bit over the top.The better take away the picture had for me was the manner in which Custer persevered to maintain his good name and not gamble it away on a risky business venture. That and his loyalty to the men he led in battle along with the discipline he developed over the course of the story. Most poignant was that final confrontation with arch rival Sharp just before riding into the Little Big Horn, in which he declared that hell or glory was entirely dependent on one's point of view. Earlier, a similar remark might have given us the best insight of all into Custer's character, when he stated - "You take glory with you when it's your time to go".$LABEL$ 1
+The film quickly gets to a major chase scene with ever increasing destruction. The first really bad thing is the guy hijacking Steven Seagal would have been beaten to pulp by Seagal's driving, but that probably would have ended the whole premise for the movie.It seems like they decided to make all kinds of changes in the movie plot, so just plan to enjoy the action, and do not expect a coherent plot. Turn any sense of logic you may have, it will reduce your chance of getting a headache.I does give me some hope that Steven Seagal is trying to move back towards the type of characters he portrayed in his more popular movies.$LABEL$ 0
+Interesting and short television movie describes some of the machinations surrounding Jay Leno's replacing Carson as host of the Tonight Show. Film is currently very topical given the public drama surrounding Conan O'Brien and Jay Leno.The film does a good job of sparking viewers' interest in the events and showing some of the concerns of the stakeholders, particularly of the NBC executives. The portrayal of Ovitz was particularly compelling and interesting, I thought.Still, many of the characters were only very briefly limned or touched upon, and some of the acting seemed perfunctory. Nevertheless, an interesting story.$LABEL$ 0
+Any film about WWII made during WWII by a British production company has no latter-day peer in my opinion, respectfully. The confluence of so many things near and dear to my heart are in At Dawn We Dive: as a descendant of Admiral Horatio Nelson and student of all aspects of World War Two and particularly naval warfare, I favor depictions of subs and action in the North Atlantic and especially those which include the German side of things. For those unacquainted with target priorities, an attack on an enemy warship is the greatest event that a submarine can hope to encounter and such a rare opportunity would develop surprisingly similarly to what we see here. The pacing is deliberate and typical of the works coming out of the Ealing, Rank and British-Gaumont studios back in the day: frankly I prefer its quieter, more cerebral approach for its humanity and realism that engages far better than any over-produced Hollywood movie ever could. This reminds me of Powell and Pressburger's The 49th Parallel thanks to the powerfully persuasive Eric Portman, a favorite of mine. John Mills receives second billing and a smaller font in the titles, so this is clearly meant to be Mr. Portman's film but the whole cast shines. As for the title sequence, am I the only one who is utterly charmed by Gainsborough Production's lovely pre-CGI Gainsborough Girl?$LABEL$ 1
+A brilliant horror film. Utterly gruesome and very scary too. The Thing is a remake from John Carpenter, but please, do not let that put you off this film. It is simply brilliant. The start of the film has the alien's spacecraft hurtling towards the Earth centuries before mankind walked the planet with an explosion that unleashes the film's title in amazing shining white and blue stating 'THE THING'. One of the best opening credits for a horror film ever.The cast of actors who play the twelve man science team are a joy to behold and the locations for the setting of their Station in Antartica is visually impressive on DVD widescreen. It must have been great in the cinema. I regret not seeing this on the big screen.Kurt Russell is excellent as Macready, the helicopter pilot who reluctantly becomes the leader of the men trying to combat a lethal shape changing monstrosity that has infiltrated their base. All the actors in this are really good and create terrific scenes of paranoia and tension as to who the thing has infected. My favourite scene in the whole film has to be when Macready tests everyone thats still alive for infection, it is tense, scary and finally spectacular. I love it because its funny as well.Special mention must go to Rob Bottin for his truly amazing make up effects and shape changing designs of the alien itself. If he didn't get an Oscar for best visual effects at the time then he damn well should have. This is also debatable as to whether this is John Carpenter's greatest film...its certainly a gruesome masterpiece.Wait for a cold winter night. Get some Budweiser from the fridge. Sit down and watch The Thing, a horror masterpiece of flame throwing heroes fighting shape changing towers of gore and slime.Utterly brilliant.Ten Out Of Ten.$LABEL$ 1
+I absolutely love this film. Everything about it. It almost felt like watching me and my friends on screen. The way this movie was filmed was a pure masterpiece, very original and creative. I related to these characters and even had the same thoughts as some. I'm really glad I ran across this movie. If only there were more genius' like justin out there!$LABEL$ 1
+No one can say I wasn't warned as I have read the reviews (both user & external), but like most of us attracted to horror movies... curiosity got this cat. (Come on, we all scream at the people in the movie not to go into the dark room, but you know that's horror aficionados are always dying to know what's in there even if we know it'll be bad).The bottom line is that this movie left me angry. Not because it pretends to be real (who cares...gimmicks are allowed), or because the actors and dialogue are so lame (is this an unusual event in horror movies?) or even because the movie is so bad (and I am being polite here). What really got me mad is that the film is not only a rip off of BWP, but also a half-hearted lazy rip off at that.I don't believe in sacred cows and if they thought they could outdo BWP then kudos to them, but they didn't even try. The movie was made with little effort or care and that is the most unforgivable sin in horror (or any) movie!$LABEL$ 0
+A new way to enjoy Goldsworthy's work, Rivers and Tides allows fans to see his work in motion. Watching Goldsworthy build his pieces, one develops an appreciation for every stone, leaf, and thorn that he uses. Goldsworthy describes how the flow of life, the rivers, and the tides inspires and affects his work. Although, I was happy the film covered the majority of Goldsworthy's pieces (no snowballs), I do feel it was a bit long. The film makers did a wonderful job of bringing Goldsworthy's work to life, and created a beautiful film that was a joy to watch.$LABEL$ 1
+If you liked William Hickey in "Prizzi's Honor", he resurrects his character, as Don Anthony in "Mob Boss". This is a very weak "Godfather" satire with few laughs. Stuart Whitman looks perplexed as to what he's doing in this schlock-fest? Morgan Fairchild's performance is one of the better efforts in the movie, and that alone is not a good sign for sure. Eddie Deezen vacillates between "Three Stooges" slapstick and a bad Woody Allen imitation. Fatally flawed, "Mob Boss" is so derivative that boredom quickly overcomes comedy and the film drags on with car chases, hidden weapons in a restaurant bathroom, and numerous other nonsense. - MERK$LABEL$ 0
+I have seen most, if not all of the Laurel & Hardy classic films. I have always enjoyed there comical stupidly, even after watching it over and over again. This new film attempts to bring back the classic with two new actors who resemble both Laurel & Hardy, however fails miserably for various reasons. One of which is how out of place their cloths are (still early 20th century) however are both portrayed in the 90's setting. Some of the former dialogue was brought back, however it also fails miserably to come close to the classic series. This film could very well be the worst film I have ever seen and should be pulled off the shelf and locked away forever. The real Laurel & Hardy are surly spinning in their graves at such a bad imitation.$LABEL$ 0
+I just started watching The Show around July. I found it by mistake, I was channel surfing during a Vacation. It is a great show, I just wish it wasn't on so late at night. It's on at 12:30 AM. As a working person it makes it hard to watch all the time.I read some comments. I did not agree with the late one about not growing up in the 60's and not believing that this stuff can happen.I grew up in the 60's. I'm Hispanic and I had a "White" boyfriend plus we had black friends in High School. I believe people get along because of their interests and personalities and it has nothing to do with being a certain race or color.I can't wait till the show goes on DVD so I can buy it. This way I can see it from the beginning.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is well cast, often silly and always funny. Lemmon and Matthau work their tag team magic to perfection. Brent Spiner is just a riot as the egotistical tyrant of a cruise director. From the first "hare krishna" to the last "you ought pay him fifty bucks for calling you two studs", I thought this was a totally entertaining fun comedy$LABEL$ 1
+I have just given a 10 for Thieves Highway, I mention this for two reasons one to prove I'm not a git who only gives bad reviews but 2 because the theme of the film has the same thread namely the falling in love with a woman of the night.We all know pretty Woman is a chick flick but you can't avoid them all, they'll eventually get you. Pretty Woman for me does two things, two terrible horrible ghastly things, firstly it portrays prostitution as a career more akin to that of a dancer, you know with absolutely great friends, leg warmers lots of giggling, borrowing each others make up. You see in the reality of Pretty Woman the prostitute and this is a street walker Prostitute we're talking about here, has a great life, she's healthy happy with only the occasional whimper to explain her predicament. My feeling is this 'happy Hooker' type protagonist is a lot more palatable than an even nearly realistic character, which for me begs the question if you make a movie about a type of person but are too chicken scared to adorn that player with the characteristics familiar to that role then why do it? If I make a film about a chef but don't want him to cook or talk about food or wear a white hat then why make a film about a chef in the first place? By bailing out and turning the hooker into a respectable dancer type the story misses the point completely and consequently never indulges in any of the moral or social questions that it could have, what a cop out, really really lame. Secondly, 'Pretty Woman' insults romance itself, Edward Lewis played by Richard Gere has no clue how to seduce or romance this 'lady' that is without his plastic friend, yep don't leave home without it, especially if you are a moron in a suit who has no imagination. 8 out of 10 of his romantic moments involve splashing cash in one way or another, even when he first meets her it's the Lotus Esprit turbo that does all the work, necklaces here diamonds there limos over there, money money money, where's the charm? where's the charisma, don't mention that attempt at the piano please.Girls who like this film will also be girls who like shopping more than most. Guys who like this film will not even have realized that old Eddy has less charm than a calculator, as they probably don't either so it wont have registered. More importantly anyone who likes this film will hate 'Thieves Highway' a wonderful story of which part is based on the same subject.I'll finish on a song:Pretty woman hangin round the street Pretty woman, the kind I like to treat Pretty woman, I don't believe you You're not the truth No one could spend as much as you MercyPretty woman, wont you pardon me Pretty woman, I couldn't help but see Pretty woman, and you look lovely as can be do you lack imagination just like mePretty woman, shop a while Pretty woman, talk a while Pretty woman, sell your smile to me Pretty woman, yeah, yeah, yeah Pretty woman, look my way Pretty woman, say you'll stay with me..and I'll pay you..I'll treat you right$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was terrible. The plot was terrible and unbelievable. I cannot recommend this movie. Where did this movie come from? This movie was not funny and wasted the talent of some great actors and actresses including: Gary Sinise, Kathy Bates, Joey Lauren Adams, and Jennifer Tilly.$LABEL$ 0
+I strongly dislike this show. I mean, like, basically everyone at that school is perfect, and rich, and I doubt a boarding school would look as cool as that. And why do they suddenly allow girls into the school? Isn't that just a little weird? anyways, Jamie Lynn spears CANNOT act. She always has the same facial expression, which really annoys me. She is basically emotionless, and all the guys seem to like her.and shouldn't chase tell her he likes her? its not that hard! really! None of this show is real life, and she isn't "a girl like me" because majority of the regular girls do NOT go to boarding school, do not have designer clothes, and do NOT live by the beach.fake fake fake.$LABEL$ 0
+Normally I don't like series at all. They're all to predictable and they tend to become boring and dull very fast.These series however, are well played, the story follows through all episodes and even if you miss one, the story will still be catching your mind.The episodes are all filmed on a hospital and takes you further and further in to the mysteries of dark and old secrets that lies just beneath the surface of the mighty hospital.$LABEL$ 1
+holy Sh*t this was god awful. i sat in the theater for for an hour and ten minutes and i thought i was going to gouge out my eyes much in the manor Oedipus Rex. dear god. this movie deserves no more credit than anything done by a middle school film buff. please save your money, this movie can offer you nothing. unless you enjoy sideshows and sleeping in movie theaters. you know, h3ll, bring your girlfriend and make things interesting. you will be the only ones there anyway. F@ck this slide show. Ye Be Warned.I recommend not watching this.hello.how are you?I'm pretty good.enjoying this day?I am.this comment was one-hundred times more fun than pretending to watch this daym movie. this is sad.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is without a doubt a perfect 10/10.. for all you people out there who are rating this film low grades because it has no "good plot" or anything like that, thats ridiculous, saying that a Jackie Chan movie is bad because of its plot is like saying a porn movie is bad because it has no plot! you watch Jackie Chan FOR THE FIGHT SCENES, for the action its not so much concentrated on a good story or anything like that, if you look at how he makes movies and compare it to other American films from that era and even later you will realize that Jackie Chan's movies had over the top fights scenes and not really good plots while American movies had good plots but shitty action scenes compared to what Jackie Chan was doing at the time. Porn is watched for the porn, Jackie Chan is watched for the ACTION, i think you people are rating it bad because there's no plot because you think thats how a smart movie critic would rate a good movie but the way i see it is a good movie is a movie that can keep me entertained. Sure the middle of the movie was boring, VERY BORING, but put it this way the rest which is all action scenes and stunts very much do pay for all of that. This did change the way how American action movies were created, they have even stollen scenes from this movie. If you want a true man, a true entertainer then watch this movie and many more of Jackie Chan's, hes pure in everyway. He literally makes American movies look like a walk in the park, and even in TODAYS movies. American movies rely so much on special effects and safety wires and stunt doubles and so much more. Police Story and many other Jackie Chan films are pieces of work of a true entertainer who just goes all out and is very talented in what he can do. a masterpiece$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this at the London Film Festival last night, apparently the shorter version. James McNally's summary of the content of the film is very good. Nossiter very deftly blends his investigation of the wine business into wider concerns about globalisation, homogenisation, the effect of the mass media, the power of capital and the need for diversity.The film is shot on hand-held DV which some might find offputting, but which does enable Nossiter to catch people off guard on a number of occasions which probably would not have been possible using more conventional equipment.Despite the sprawling feel of the film, the editing is very sharp, not only giving us a parade of the world's dogs, but also undercutting a number of interviewees' comments with somewhat contradictory visual images, and giving others sufficient rope to hang themselves. To a degree this evoked Michael Moore's recent work (although Nossiter operates in a more subtle way), but probably the roots of the film go back to Marcel Ophuls' "The Sorrow and the Pity", both in the way the film is constructed and in the emergence of 'salt of the earth' French peasants as the stars. De Montille pere et fils were present at the LFF screening and answered questions afterwards. We do indeed all need a little disorder - bravo Hubert!Overall an excellent film with implications that go way beyond the world of wine into the way we construct ourselves as people, and organise our world.$LABEL$ 1
+I can't believe this movie managed to get such a relatively high rating of 6! It is barely watchable and unbelievably boring, certainly one of the worst films I have seen in a long, long time.In a no-budget way, it reminded me of Star Wars Episodes I and II for the sheer impression that you are watching a total creative train wreck.This film should be avoided at all costs. It's one of those "festival films" that only please the pseudo-intellectuals because they are so badly made those people think it makes it "different", therefore good.Bad film-making is not "different", it's just bad film-making.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie really woke me up, like it wakes up the main male character of this bravely different movie from his life slumber.This guy John (Ben Chaplin) leads his mediocre safe life of a bank teller in a small provincial English town, until the stunningly gorgeous, wild, girl-to-die-for Nadia (Nicole Kidman), ordered by email from Russia, enters his life to become his beloved wife, by Johns plan. However a glitch turns up - Nadia does not speak a word of Johns language. Although calm and emotionless on the outside, John becomes so interested in beautiful Nadia that instead of using the full refund policy of the matching service, he buys her a dictionary to start the communication process.What happens henceforth in the plot really shakes poor John from his slumber of a decently-paid safe-feeling clerk into a decision-making decently thinking action figure, giving the viewer a subliminal message "you would have probably acted likewise".Kidman, Cassel & Kassovitz make a great team acting Russians and they are almost indistinguishable from the real thing, "almost" only due to the slight accent present in their Russian dialogues, however slight enough to amaze a native Russian by the hard work done to get the words sound right. Nicole Kidman proves her talent once again by playing a character quite different from the previous roles, at least from the cultural background.The pace of the film is fast and captivating, and you certainly are not ready to quit watching when the end titles appear, you rather feel that you're in the middle of the plot, and are left with a desire to see the sequel as soon as it comes out.My advice is to go out and get this film immediately and watch it and enjoy. To sum it up, it has an unusual plot, great acting, and ideas below the surface. Like the idea of the "rude awakening" from the artificial safe routine life of a wheel in a Society's machine, the life which members of the Fight Club were so keen to quit and the machine of which Pink Floyd sings ("Welcome to the machine!"). I bet that in the end, John was rather off with Sophia on their way to the unknown than not having met her at all.Thank you, writers, for the great story, and everyone else for this great movie! Please make a sequel! And you can stage it whereever and name the location whatever, because the authenticity of the place is irrelevant to the 99.9999 percent of the potential viewers, I am sure of it.$LABEL$ 1
+Ed Wood rides again. The fact that this movie was made should give any youngaspiring film maker hope. Any screenplay you might have thought of using toline a litterbox or a birdcage should now not seem that bad. Do not watch this movie unless you have a healthy stash of Tylenol or Rolaids. Watching thismovie made me realize that Boa vs. Python was not that bad after all. It probably would have been better to do this movie in Claymation as at least that way no actor would have had to take credit for being in this film. It is understandable why this director has so many aliases. There is a bright side to watching this movie in that if you can get someone to bring you a bag of chips, then you can eat your way out of the cocoon of cheese that surrounds you enabling you tomake your toward your TV set's cocoon of cheese that surrounds it.$LABEL$ 0
+This sports a nice, deep cast but for a thriller you better deliver more than name actors and talk. The first third of this movie was nothing but talk, and more talk. Most of that was a bunch of women bitching about everything to each other. The first five listed actors in here are women so that verifies that it's really a "chick flick" and little else. This probably plays on the Lifetime network.There was a quick murder scene and then more talk. By halfway through, they had lost me. By the way, Sally Field looked about 15 years old in here.$LABEL$ 0
+I think this movie has got it all. It has really cool music that I can never get out of my head. It has cool looking characters. IS REALLY funny(you know, the kind that you'll crack up on the ground and you'll keep saying the funny parts over every day for three weeks).Despite the bad acting, bad cgi, and bad story(about cops going after a robot), its really cool. Its one of those movies you and all of your family can watch, get together, eat pizza, laugh like crazy, and watch it two more times.There are so many funny parts, like when Kurt was trying to get Edison's attention and gave him the finger, and then threw a paint ball gun at him so they could play paint ball. On that part, I kept saying "Remember, Remember?"to my cousins who saw it and showed them what happened. There was also a really funny part when Edision ran into the room and Kurt was there(just before they fought) and Kurt was talking about his "Strange dream" and how he was "Superman". I LOVED that part, although it has been a while since I saw it, so I don't remember that part. Everything the actors said were funny, like how Kurt says, "I worship you, like a GOD!" to the robot.Although there was some bad things, in all it was a GREAT movie. Man, I can't stop laughing. I wish I had that movie. );$LABEL$ 1
+Howard (Kevin Kline) teaches English at the high school in a small Indiana city. He is finally getting married to Emily (Joan Cusack), much to his parents delight. The town is abuzz, too, because one of its own, Cameron (Matt Dillon) has been nominated for an acting Oscar. Everyone, including Howard and Emily, is watching the Academy Awards on television as Cameron is declared the winner! In his acceptance speech, Cameron announces that he was able to fulfill his role as a gay military man, in part, because of lessons he learned from a gay teacher he had in high school. You guessed it, its Howard! But, Howard has never "come out"; in fact, he believes he is straight! With the whole town, and members of the media, waiting and observing the happenings, will Howard and Emily go ahead and get married? Or, is Howard truly gay and realize he can not go through with the ceremony? This is a wonderful, funny, and humane film about a gay man and his situation. As the man-who-did-not-realize-he-was-gay, Kline is excellent and touching. The rest of the cast is equally fine, with Cusack a stitch as the mixed-up fiancé and Dillon, Bob Newhart, Debbie Reynolds, Tom Selleck, and others on hand to delight the audience as well. The costumes are very nice and the setting in the lovely Indiana heartland is beautiful. Then, too, the script, the direction, and the production are very, very nice. But, the insightful, humorous, and the thoughtful look at the gay population is the film's best asset, no doubt. For those who would be offended by a gay-themed film, yes, just skip over this one. But, for everyone who wants to laugh heartily, and gain a better understanding of the gay situation at the same time, this is definitely the best film out there.$LABEL$ 1
+When the opening shot is U.S. Marines seriously disrespecting the U.S. flag, a movie has a tough road ahead, but unfortunately it was downhill from there. There is a military adviser credited, who is also apparently a retired U.S. Marine, making it even more baffling that this incredible breach of protocol, and law, went unnoticed. Even more baffling is the way they simply glossed over how a Marine is reported KIA, then buried, in very short order, without the slightest explanation of how they identified the body, or if there even was a body. The U.S. government is still finding the missing from WWII, and it takes months to identify the remains. Military shot down remain MIA for months or years and are only declared KIA when the remains have been positively identified, or after years of red tape. Here we are expected to believe that it happens within a matter of days or weeks. Maybe this happens in Denmark, but not in the U.S. Clearly none of the people involved ever had the slightest involvement with, or respect for, the U.S. military.Beyond that, there are a number of other utterly laughable moments when characters come up with zingers out of nowhere. There must have been some really extended meetings between auteur and actors as they struggled to find their motivation for such hogwash. Having a script that worked might have helped, but this one seems to have been made up on the spot, working from Cliffs Notes. There's no way to know if the script was this awful originally, or if it was the auteur, or the middle-management kids at the studio who bear responsibility. Either way, this is an awful movie that should have never been made.$LABEL$ 0
+We usually think of the British as the experts at rendering great adventure from the Imperial age, with the likes of The Four Feathers (1939) and Zulu, simply because the Imperial age was, for the most part, British. Here, in The Wind and the Lion, we see a wonderful rendering of America's own Imperial age.America's projection of power under Teddy Roosevelt is the backdrop for this conventional tale of the kidnapped damsel who, despite her gentility, is smitten by the rough, manly nobility of her captor, who in turn is disarmed by her beauty and scorn. (Politically correct prigs eager to see some slight of "native" peoples or cultures can rest assured, that the way Arabs and Muslims are depicted here is far more flattering than the way their modern counterparts depict themselves on the current world stage.) What makes this story different are the terrific production values - faultless photography, composition and editing - the terrific casting - the underappreciated Brian Keith playing a bully Teddy - and vivid history.Though The Wind and the Lion is told largely through the eyes of the son, every member of the family can identify with one of the characters, whether it be Sean Connery's noble brigand, Candace Bergen's feisty heroine, John Huston's wily John Hay or Steve Kanaly's spiffy, radiant, ruthless can-do lieutenant, Roosevelt's "Big Stick". There is a transcendent scene at the end, when the little boy is symbolically swept away by the dashing Moor on his white steed. This is high adventure at its best.$LABEL$ 1
+I had been looking forward to seeing Dreamgirls for quite a while...what with all it's raving reviews, nominations and media attention. And I must say, the first quarter of the movie was good! It really portrayed the black music scene back then. However, as the movie wore on, me and my whole family were bored out of our wits. The singing just kept coming, one after the other. I mean seriously, just one more music number and it would have broke even with RENT.Furthermore, I noticed hardly any character development in any of the characters; I just didn't care what happened to them! Even when Eddie Murphy's character died of a drug overdose, I knew I should have been sad, but I just couldn't feel any emotion for that character. The characters were given a flimsy background about singing in their childhood and whatnot, but there personalities were not revealed enough to draw me in.Finally, the conflict was simply not significant enough to make the viewer care, which goes along with the lack of character development. This movie reminded me of a copy-cat movie based on Ray, Chicago, and Rent (Ray and Chicago were wonderful movies in my opinion). Overall I think this movie would best suit someone who doesn't really care about an overall story, yet would enjoy two hours of entertaining and fun singing performances.$LABEL$ 0
+One of Starewicz's longest and strangest short films follows a toy dog in search of an orange after becoming animated by the tear of the mother of a girl who longs for an orange. The dog comes upon an orange after falling out of the back of a car on his way to be sold, but at night must protect the orange when he comes enters a devilish nightclub featuring many bizarre and scary characters. With the help of a stuffed cat, the dog gets the orange back to the little girl and she is saved from a terrible scurvy death. The Mascot features new techniques I have not yet seen in Starewicz's films. The addition of sync sound and a mixture of live action with the stop-motion animation makes for a new twist on Starewicz's old style of puppetry. Live scenes of moving cars and people's feet walking by as a puppet sits on the concrete sidewalk is impressive and fresh. The honking of cars and cries of street vendors is noteworthy due to the fact that small studio shifts to sound were costly and Starewicz's utilization of the new technology seems like old hat. New puppet characters in this film are frightening contributions to the devil's club scene. Twigss and newspaper shreds come to life. Skeletons of dead birds lay eggs which hatch skeleton chicks. Characters come flying in from all over on pats and pans and rocking horses. A new editing technique uses quick zooms which are accomplished through editing to speed up the pace of what before might have been a slow scene. Overall, Starewicz is able to update his style of film-making to meet the demands of a new audience making this film one of the best examples of his work.$LABEL$ 1
+Nice character development in a pretty cool milieu. Being a male, I'm probably not qualified to totally understand it, but they do a nice job of establishing the restrictive Victorian environment from the start. It isn't as bleak as it really was and the treatment of women was probably even harsher. What makes this go is a wonderful chemistry among the principal characters. Each has their own "thing" that they contend with. Once they come out of the rain and break out of the spider webs, they begin to interact and slowly lose their sense of suspicion. What I enjoyed about this movie is that it didn't go for cheap comedy when it could have. It didn't try to pound a lesson into us. The people who seem utterly without merit are really nicely developed human beings who get to see the light. I did have a little trouble with the Alfred Molina character having such an epiphany so quickly, but, within this world, it needed to happen. Good acting all around with something positive taking place in the lives of some pretty good people.$LABEL$ 1
+Prussic gas, a murderer donning a red clansman suit and hood wielding a white whip, and the murders of college school girls at the hands of paid convicts enlisted by a mysterious mastermind who keeps his face hidden within an office containing aquariums of turtles and fish. The inspectors at Scotland Yard, Higgins(IJoachim Fuchsberger)and his superior Sir John(Siegfried Schürenberg)certainly have their hands full with this case. It all seems to center around student Ann Portland(Uschi Glas), who, when she turns 21, is to inherit a great deal of wealth. The girls who are targeted share a room with Ann, but the reason for their murders remains a mystery SY's finest must figure out. The staff of the girls' dormitory all seem to be hiding something and certain members of the faculty are falling prey to the killer in the red monk robe disguise, talented enough to precisely strangle the necks of those attacked with the whip. Two prisoners are commissioned by a mystery man to use the newly created toxic gas created by a scientist murdered at the beginning of the film during what was supposed to be a monetary exchange for his creation. It's a clever scheme where a driver, Greaves(Günter Meisner)meets the convicts(..who hide in a barrel)who are assisted by a corrupt prison guard. Taken blindfolded to the secret room of the mastermind, he gives them orders on who to kill and how. Uncovering this operation is a top priority for Higgins and Sir John for it will lead them to the truth they seek in regards to the murders and why they are happening. Under suspicion are girls' dormitory headmistress, her author brother, a sweaty, incredibly nervous chemistry teacher, a snooping gardener, and the Bannister. Some are red herrings until they are disposed of, throwing the viewer for a loop each time until the real mastermind is discovered. The ending features multiple twists. Out of the Krimi films I've seen, THE COLLEGE GIRL MURDERS is the closest to a giallo with it's colorful killer, a convoluted plot yielding lots of surprises and potential suspects, & sordid shenanigans between adults and the college girls at the dormitory. I think you can also see the influence of James Bond on this particular Krimi film with the villain mastermind's secret hideout with an alligator pit(..which isn't used), the fake bible/water pistol, when opened, fires the gas into the face of startled victims, the Greaves' Royles Royce which has latches that cause flaps to darken the windows without revealing the passenger in the back seat, and the peep holes used to spy on the girls in their rooms and while swimming. Many might consider Sir John a liability due to his bumbling, buffoonish behavior and how he often undermines Higgins' abilities to get at the truth(..perhaps poking fun at know-it-all British inspectors who harm a case more than solve it)..I felt he was used as comedy relief, particularly with his attempts at psychoanalyzing suspects and potential victims, often misunderstanding what are told to him. Higgins, using the skills adopted over his years as an investigator, instead follows the clues/facts, often avoiding Sir John as much as possible. Capable direction by the reliable Alfred Vohrer who keeps the pace humming at a nice speed, and the screenplay is full of interesting characters and lurid content..the fact that so many of the adults surrounding the dormitory are suspect, any of them might be the one wielding the whip or calling the shots behind those murdered girls' executions. I'd say this may be one of the best(..if not the best)examples of the Krimi genre, for it keeps you guessing, always one more ace up it's sleeve..the revelations unearthed at the very end are quite eye-opening(..and, you even get a literal unmasking of the real mastermind pulling the strings to top it all off).$LABEL$ 1
+I was very lucky to see this film as part of the Melbourne International Film Festival 2005 only a few days ago. I must admit that I am very partial to movies that focus on human relations and especially the ones which concentrate on the tragic side of life. I also love the majority of Scandinavian cinematic offerings, there is often a particular deep quality in the way the story unfolds and the characters are drawn. Character building in this film is extraordinary in its details and its depth. This is despite the fact that we do encounter quite a number of characters all with very particular personal situations and locations within their community. The audience at the end of the screening was very silent and pensive. I am still playing some of those scenes in my mind and I am still amazed at their power and meaningfulness.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is really bad. Most of it looks like it was filmed either in a park or a basement. There's a giant spider but all we see of it is one leg. There are some worms that live in a cave that are just cheap sock puppets with cardboard teeth. And the plot is a bunch of post-apocalyptic mumbo jumbo that makes no sense at all. The whole thing is just laughable.$LABEL$ 0
+I think this is one hell of a movie...........We can see Steven fighting around with his martial art stuff again and like in all Segal movies there's a message in it, without the message it would be one of many action/fighting movies but the message is what makes segal movies great and special.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this movie in the theater, and was thoroughly impressed by it. Then again, that was when Claire Danes was a good actress, not the foolish, arrogant, Hollywood-ized bitch she is today. Anyway, this film really struck me as one of the more raw, realistic, beautiful friendship films. How far would you really go for your best friend? I was moved to tears at the end, and still tear up when I watch it now (I own it). I remember as soon as I left the theater, I called my best friend and sobbed to her how much I loved her. This is a great film to watch with your best girlfriend. However be prepared for the almost certain conversation afterward where she turns to you and asks if you'd do something like that for her....$LABEL$ 1
+I've seen this film literally over 100 times...it's absolutely jam-packed with entertainment!!! Powers Boothe gives a stellar performance. As a fan of actors such as William Shatner (Impulse, 1974) and Ron Liebmann (Up The Academy, 1981)I never thought an actor could capture the "intensity" like Shatner and Liebmann in those roles, until I saw Boothe as Jim Jones! As far as I'm concerned, Powers Boothe IS Jim Jones...this film captures his best performance!!!$LABEL$ 1
+The three main characters are all hopeless, and yet you only feel sorry for one of them: Ernesto, hopelessly devoted to Mercedes. This was part of the frustration: screaming at Mercedes to get a clue and ditch the no-good Harry, to no avail.Then there's the satisfaction: Steve Buscemi has a great part as a transvestite, and Harvey Keitel's moving story of his indignity playing a gorilla for a cheap TV movie is incredible. When you least expect it, Quentin Tarintino is doing half a monologue, and Anthony Quinn turns Ernesto into a wealthy man.Time and again great moments appear in the story, but in the end it's hard to know what to feel about this movie. It doesn't have a happy ending, or even a complete one, but it somehow feels right.This movie is strange, but then so am I; no wonder I liked it.$LABEL$ 1
+Reese Witherspoon first outing on the big screen was a memorable one. She appears like a fresh scrubbed face "tween" slight and stringy, but undeniably Reese.I have always liked her as an actor, and had no idea she started this young with her career, go figure. I actually gained some respect for Reese to know who she was so early on. I say that because whenever I have watched her perform, the characters thus far, in each portrayal she also seemed to have her own persona that lived with that character, quite nicely in fact.Anyway, my first film experience with Reese was the Little Red Riding Hood parody Reese did with Kiefer Sutherland, somehow I assumed that was her first time up "at bat" Not so, well done Reese$LABEL$ 1
+This game ranks above all so far. I had the honor of playing mine on PS2 so the graphics were really good. The voice acting was above standard. The difficulty level is just right. Wesker has to be the best characters in the RE series in my opinion. The story amazed me and took many different twist that I wasn't expecting. The only rating this game deserves is great.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is not worth anything. I mean, if you want to watch this kind of stuff, flip to Hollywood movies! This totally is a disgrace to the Bollywood name. Neal N Nikki seriously sucked! Never watch this movie. As for the actors, it appears the acting genes skipped a generation. Tanisha couldn't have worn less and Uday Chopra obviously was just picked because he was the director's spoiled son. (All of that Halla Re was amazingly stupid) The songs are eh, and I hope the director did not spend to much money on it...... Bottom line, I hated the movie. Do not let your kids watch it, and if you have it in your house it is a stupid movie so discard it! Buy the CD, if you must. (As I said, the songs are eh.) At least it is better then the movie.$LABEL$ 0
+This is yet another western about a greedy cattle baron looking to push out small ranchers and farmers. It's certainly all been done before and since. But The Violent Men is something special.What makes it special is Barbara Stanwyck playing the role of vixen as she often did in her later films. She's married to the crippled Edward G. Robinson who's the cattle baron here, but Robinson is crippled and there is some hint that his injuries may have left him impotent. No matter to Barbara, whose needs are being met by her brother-in-law Brian Keith. That doesn't sit well with either Dianne Foster who is Robinson and Stanwyck's daughter, nor with Lita Milan who is Keith's Mexican girl friend.The infidelity subplot almost takes over the film, but Glenn Ford as the stalwart small rancher who is a Civil War veteran come west for his health manages to hold his own here. He's every inch the quiet western hero who people make the mistake of pushing once too often. I almost expect those famous words from Wild Bill Elliott to come out of Ford's mouth, "I'm a peaceable man." Would have been very applicable in The Vioilent Men.The Fifties was the age of the adult western, themes were entering into horse operas that hadn't been explored before. The following year Glenn Ford would do another western, Jubal, one of his best which also explores infidelity as a plot component.There's enough traditional western stuff in The Violent Men and plenty for those who are addicted to soap operas as well.$LABEL$ 1
+Apparently, The Mutilation Man is about a guy who wanders the land performing shows of self-mutilation as a way of coping with his abusive childhood. I use the word 'apparently' because without listening to a director Andy Copp's commentary (which I didn't have available to me) or reading up on the film prior to watching, viewers won't have a clue what it is about.Gorehounds and fans of extreme movies may be lured into watching The Mutilation Man with the promise of some harsh scenes of splatter and unsettling real-life footage, but unless they're also fond of pretentious, headache-inducing, experimental art-house cinema, they'll find this one a real chore to sit through.82 minutes of ugly imagery accompanied by dis-chordant sound, terrible music and incomprehensible dialogue, this mind-numbingly awful drivel is the perfect way to test one's sanity: if you've still got all your marbles, you'll switch this rubbish off and watch something decent instead (I watched the whole thing, but am well aware that I'm completely barking!).$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was absolutely pathetic. A pitiful screenplay and lack of any story just left me watching three losers drool over bikini babes. At times I felt like I was watching an episode of Beavis and Butthead. I couldn't even sit through the whole movie. Emran Hashmi disappoints, and Hrshitta Bhatt is not impressive at all. Celina Jaitley was not bad. The only worthwhile part of the film is the spoof on Anu Malik and his obsession of shayaris. It was pretty hilarious. The songs "Sini Ne" and its remix version were really good. You can always count on Emran lip-locking and lip-synching a chartbuster. All in all, it seems Emran doesn't have a good script from the Bhatts to back him up this time.$LABEL$ 0
+I Feel the Niiiiiight Heat! I feel your HEEAAAAAAAAAART-beat! Something ain't right!" Theme song written by B.J. Cook from Skylark- David Foster's old band and wife. She also wrote the memorable theme from CBC's "Airwaves." OH Night Heat! What a program! Well-written, well-acted and totally classic. Crime solvers and a good team and a dash of humour at the end. I'd like to think this is really what detectives do/did. Giambone was a real favourite! On a Canadian tip, I learned EVERY Canadian actor's name and style from guest spots done on Night Heat. Everyone passed through the Night Heat set and like Law & Order, it was story-driven so you could just watch and enjoy without a lot of character melodrama.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie fails miserably on every level. I have an idea, let's take everyone involved in this movie and ship them into a hot zone in the middle east. Maybe if we're lucky they'll all be shot and killed and we won't have to ever have our time wasted by them again. Did I mention that I have never been so bitter about a cinematic pile of crap in my entire life? My god, I can't think of anything I've ever seen that was this bad. I'd rather watch Ishtar 25 times in a row than sit through 10 minutes of this sorry excuse for a film. If I ever happen to meet anyone who was involved in this film, I'll spit in their face and then beat them senseless. That's my two cents.$LABEL$ 0
+Yes i'll say before i start commenting, this movie is incredibly underrated.Sharon Stone is great in her role of Catherine Trammell as is Morrissey as Dr glass. He is an analyst sent in to evaluate her after the death of a sports star. Glass is drawn into a seductive game that Trammel uses to manipulate his mind.The acting was good (apart from Thewlis)Stone really has a talent with this role. She's slick, naughty and seductive and doesn't look a day older than she did in the first.She really impressed me(like in Casino). Morrisey was also good. He showed much vunerablitity in a role that needed it. Thewlis however was lame. He ruined his character and was over-the-top the whole way. He really sucked.Overall, this movie not as good the first but Stone is a hoot to watch. Just ignore Thewlis.$LABEL$ 1
+Based on a Edgar Rice Burroughs novel, AT THE EARTH'S CORE provides little more than means to escape and give your brain a rest. A Victorian scientist Dr. Abner Perry(Peter Cushing)invents a giant burrowing machine, which he and his American partner(Doug McClure)use to corkscrew their way deep into the earth to explore what mysteries it may hold. They soon discover a lost world of subhuman creatures having conflict with prehistoric monsters.Cushing comes across as an absent minded professor to the point of being annoying. Instead of being a bold adventurer, he comes across effeminate. On the other hand McClure overacted enough to make himself also laughable. Caroline Munro plays the pretty Princess Dia that refuses to leave her world near the center of the earth. Also in the cast are: Godfrey James, Cy Grant and Michael Crane.$LABEL$ 0
+I have seen this film at least 100 times and I am still excited by it, the acting is perfect and the romance between Joe and Jean keeps me on the edge of my seat, plus I still think Bryan Brown is the tops. Brilliant Film.$LABEL$ 1
+This show makes absolutely no sense. Every week, two ladies go to an estate to do some gardening, and every week without fail, they somehow stumble upon a murder. Because everyone who owns a big house with a large garden is involved in a murder, right? But even if they did somehow happen to stumble upon murder after murder, wouldn't the smart thing to do be to tell the police? You know, the people who can actually do something about it... But every week, these two fools go around, polluting evidence, committing crimes of their own, and, in some cases, causing more murders. Once they do miraculously solve the murders, there is no way the murderer could ever be convicted. All the evidence has been sabotaged. And you'd think people who are covering up murders would think not to hire these two, wouldn't you? Yay! We've solved the murder! Now like every other week, let's go and confront the murderer ourselves and, with no back-up, tell them that we know about it. There is no way we could get ourselves into any danger, is there? Rosemary and Thyme is one of the worst shows on television, and certainly the most ridiculous.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was so bad it was funny! For awhile there I thought I was actually watching a parody of a bad movie (a la "For Your Consideration"). The "cliffhanger" scene at the end had me laughing until my insides hurt. The script was dreadful enough, but coupled with Sean Young's terrible acting -- especially while she explains the entire plot in great detail (complete with flashbacks) while dangling off a cliff -- makes it a truly classically bad movie worth watching! In fact the fakey shots in this scene reminded me of an Ed Wood movie. I still can't believe how this thing got made. First of all, how did such a bad script get the green light? How did star actors get attached? Were they at low points in their careers? Questions, questions.$LABEL$ 0
+Meryl Streep is such a genius. Well, at least as an actress. I know she's been made fun of for doing a lot of roles with accents, but she nails the accent every time. Her performance as Lindy Chamberlain was inspiring. Mrs. Chamberlain, as portrayed here, was not particularly likable, nor all that smart. But that just makes Streep's work all the more remarkable. I think she is worth all 10 or so of her Oscar nominations. About the film, well, there were a couple of interesting things. I don't know much about Australia, but the theme of religious bigotry among the general public played a big part in the story. I had largely missed this when I first saw the film some years ago, but it came through loud and clear yesterday. And it seems the Australian press is just as accomplished at misery-inducing pursuit and overkill as their American colleagues. A pretty good film. A bit different. Grade: B$LABEL$ 1
+'Airport 4' is basically a slopped together mess for Universal Studios to try and work a new twist - the Concorde supersonic airliner - into their 'disaster-in-the-sky' formula.Bogged down with unintentional humor, the best of which is when George Kennedy sticks his hand out of Concorde's window at supersonic speed to fire a flare gun at a heat-seeking missile following the aircraft's flight path, and the simple fact that these dumb passengers keep re-boarding the same plane to continue their flight despite all the problems in the air. Many stars in this one including Robert Wagner, Sylvia Kristel, Alain Delon, and Martha Raye as a nervous passenger. Not really related to the other 'Airport' films.$LABEL$ 0
+Supposedly a "social commentary" on racism and prison conditions in the rural South of the 1970's, "Nightmare" is full of bad Southern stereotypes, complete with phoney accents. Not only would it be offensive to the sensibilities of most American Southerners, this tawdry piece of work comes off as just a thinly-disguised "babe in prison" movie--especially in its uncut original version. Nevertheless, acting is generally above average and the late Chuck Connors, in particular, does a good job of making viewers hate him--even though he looks somewhat uncomfortable in several scenes. There's also a change-of-pace role for the late Robert Reed, who appears as the lecherous warden, and Tina Louise (previously Ginger of "Gilligan's Island") made a rather believable sadistic prison guard. My grade: D. $LABEL$ 0
+OK, I bought this film from Woolworths for my friend for a joke present on his birthday, because the front cover had a sexual innuendo in it.But we decided it to watch it anyway. Just for hilarity purposes.And I'm sorry, but this has got to be, one of THE worst films in history.It began off alright, and we thought "Ok this might actually be OK". But after about 10 minutes, we were sadly mistaken.It began when the "mysterious paint baller" turned out to be the most obvious character, the Scouser/Australian (I say that because he had an accent which couldn't be identified), who's acting might I just say, was abysmal.Then it got to the end, and by that time, we had all lost the will to live. The paint ball finals.The only thing I did like about this plot is that they didn't actually win, but annoyingly enough they won by default.And I know this has nothing to do with it, but the name the team were given was just awful. Critical Damage. I mean they could of picked a more awesome name, like "The Destroyers of the Anti-Christ" or something. Or that's what the film should of been called anyway.$LABEL$ 0
+Insignificant and low-brained (haha!) 80's horror like there are thirteen in a dozen, yet it can be considered amusing if you watch it in the right state of mind. The special effects are tacky, the acting atrocious and the screenplay seems to miss a couple of essential paragraphs! "The Brain" takes place in a typical quiet-American town setting, where every adolescent works in the same diner and where the cool-kid in high school flushes cherry bombs down the toilet. It is here that a TV-guru named Dr. Blake and his adorable pet-brain begin their quest for nation-wide mind controlling. Under the label of "independent thinkers", a giant cheesy brain sends out waves through television sets and forces innocent viewers to kill! How cool is that? Now, it's up to the Meadowvale teen-rebel to save the world! The funniest thing about the plot is that it never explains where Dr. Blake and his monstrous brain actually come from. There are obvious references towards extraterrestrial life but that's about it. Meh, who needs a background in a movie like this, really? There's not that much bloodshed unfortunately and the "evil" brain looks like an over-sized sock-puppet. The only more or less interesting element for horror buffs is taking a look at the cast and crew who made this movie. Director Ed Hunt and writer Barry Pearson are the same men who made "Bloody Birthday" (guilty pleasure of mine) and "Plague". Both those are much better movies and they wisely decided to resign the film industry. The most familiar face in the cast unquestionably is the great David Gale, whom horror fans will worship forever for his role in Re-Animator. A girl named Christine Kossak provides the nudity-factor and she's obviously a great talent… She has exactly 3 movies on her repertoire of which THIS is her "masterpiece". In her debut, she was credited as 'runaway model' and in "3 men and a baby", her character is referred to as 'one of Jack's girls'. I really wonder how she feels about her career as an actress…$LABEL$ 0
+Does anyone remember the alternative comedy show THE COMIC STRIP PRESENTS . One edition featured Charles Bronson ( Robbie Coltrane ) being interviewed about his new movie GLC :" It's about a man , an ordinary man whose wife and family gets wiped out by creeps and I have to hunt them down and kill them in a sadistic and graphic manner " " And after GLC what next for Bronson ? " " We're using a new angle . My family don't get wiped out but I go after creeps just the same " This accurately describes THE EVIL THAT MEN DO . It's a Bronson vigilante thriller where his motivation isn't down to a blood feud but this leads to credibility becoming strained Bronson is a retired hit-man who isn't giving up his retirement for anything until someone shows him a video tape featuring interviews with the victims of " The Doctor " , not the legendary time traveler but a infamous expert on torture . It's never really explained why The Doctor is so infamous since any police state has a myriad of these sadists nor is it explained why The Doctor and his sister have ridiculous English accents As you may guess it's a lazily written movie and incidents happening because the screenwriter needs things to happen to further the plot no matter how unlikely they are like one of the bad guys getting invited to a threesome so he can be killed or things being revealed like The Doctor's sister being a lesbian so some T&A can be included In many ways it's like one of those nasty Chuck Norris vehicles that were being released at the same time , but the most disappointing thing is that the director is also the same man who made ICE COLD IN ALEX and THE GUNS OF NAVERONE two very well regarded war dramas that are often shown on Sunday afternoons . Believe me this movie won't be shown until well after the watershed$LABEL$ 0
+Well, here's another terrific example of awkward 70's film-making! The rudimentary premise of "What's the matter with Helen?" is quite shocking and disturbing, but it's presented in such a stylish and sophisticated fashion! In the hands of any other movie crew, this certainly would have become a nasty and gritty exploitation tale, but with director Curtis Harrington ("Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?") and scriptwriter Henry Farrell ("Hush…Hush…Sweet Charlotte") in charge, it became a beautiful and almost enchanting mixture of themes and genres. The basic plot of the film is definitely horrific, but there's a lot more to experience, like love stories, a swinging 1930's atmosphere and a whole lot of singing and tap-dancing! The setting is unquestionably what makes this movie so unique. We're literally catapulted back to the 1930's, with a sublime depiction of that era's music, religion, theatrical business and wardrobes. Following the long and exhausting trial that sentenced their sons to life-imprisonment for murder, Adelle (Debbie Reynolds) and Helen (Shelley Winters) flee to California and attempt to start a new life running a dance school for young talented girls. Particularly Adelle adapts herself perfectly to the new environment, as she falls in love with a local millionaire, but poor old Helen continues to sink in a downwards spiral of insanity and paranoia. She only listens to the ramblings of a radio-evangelist, fears that she will be punished for the crimes her son committed and slowly develops violent tendencies. The script, although not entirely without flaws, is well written and the film is adequately paced. There's never a dull moment in "What's the matter with Helen", although the singing, tap-dancing and tango sequences are quite extended and much unrelated to the actual plot. But the atmosphere is continuously ominous and the film definitely benefices from the terrific acting performance of Shelley Winters. She's downright scary as the unpredictable and introvert lady who's about to snap any second and, especially during the last ten minutes or so, she looks more petrifying than all the Freddy Kruegers, Jason Voorhees' and Michael Myers' combined! There are several terrific supportive characters who are, sadly, a little underdeveloped and robbed from their potential, like Michéal MacLiammóir as the cocky elocution teacher, Agnes Moorehead as the creepy priestess and Timothy Carey as the obtrusive visitor to the ladies' house. There are a couple of surprisingly gruesome scenes and moments of genuine shock to enjoy for the Grand Guignol fanatics among us, but particularly the set pieces and costume designs (even nominated for an Oscar!) are breathtaking.$LABEL$ 1
+Resnais, wow! The genius who brought us Hiroshima Mon Amour takes on the challenge of making a 1930s French musical in vibrant colour. The opening voice-over with old, embellished inter-titles was a nice touch. Then the camera aperture opens (like the old hand crankers) on a black & white placard. The camera backs off (or rather, up), suddenly showing us the surprisingly brilliant colours of an elegant table set for a tea party. This is all in the first 60 seconds.Then the music starts. A rather banal and forgettable diddy featuring an unconvincing chorus of 3 girls blabbering some nonsense which has no relevance to the film (and yes, I speak French, so I can't blame it on the subtitles). Those characters whiz out the door and are replaced by more people who break into an even more forgettable song. Then they leave, and finally Audrey Tautou appears and we hear our first appreciable dialogue 15 minutes into the film.I'm not sure what Resnais intended by starting off with such a yawning waste of time & musical cacophony. But the effect on the viewer is to make you want to hurl skittles at the screen and storm out. I endured.It didn't get much better. I'll tell you why. There is absolutely no familiarity with any of the characters. We don't even see their faces half the time (as Resnais seems too intent on showing off the expensive scenery to care about the actual people in front of the camera). People flit on & off stage like moths around a lamp, and we the audience are unable to focus on any particular person or plot. It's as if you were to take every episode of the Brady Bunch and cram it into a 2 hour movie. With bad songs.The only thing that kept me watching as long as I did (1 hour) was that I was looking at the camera techniques, lighting and scenery which were all, I admit, excellent. But is that enough to hold your attention for 2 hours? Not me. Maybe tomorrow I'll try watching the end. Aw, who am I kidding. I have more important things to do. I'm sure you do, too. Skip this.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie in the middle of the night, when I was flipping through the channels and there was nothing else on to watch. It's one of those films where you stop to see what it is - just for a moment! - but realize after twenty minutes or so that you just can't turn it off, no matter how bad it is. One of those movies that is somewhere in between being so bad it's good and so bad it's, well, just plain BAD, it's worth seeing just to experience the confusion of realizing that it's both! Great middle-of-the-night fare, if only for the fabulous tennis drag. Don't even bother asking yourself why nobody can tell that Chad Lowe is so obviously male, because logic does not apply.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie takes the plot behind the sci-fi flick "Doppelganger" (an astronaut from our Earth crashing on a 'counter-Earth' on the opposite side of the Sun, and the Cold War totalitarian vibes on that world) and tries to turn it into a pilot for a TV series. However, the whole thing sank without a trace, and TV is probably better off for it.Everyone here is perfectly adequate in a 'made for TV' way. Cameron Mitchell turns in his usual solid performance. So does Glenn Corbett (who seems to be a kind of poor man's John Saxon) who plays the rugged individualist whose very existence poses a threat to the foundation of the 'World Order' on counter Earth.But the low budget and low energy and inconsistent script and the lack of any real imagination in the set designs and cinematography keep this Sci-Fi adventure firmly tethered on the launch pad.I'll give one example: in the original template for this pilot, ("Doppleganger"), the astronauts lose control of their landing vehicle in a thunderstorm, and crash their ship in a truly appalling sequence (it was obvious that their ship was never going to fly again). Then the two astronauts stagger helplessly from the smoking remains of their vehicle in the middle of howling rains and winds, only to be smacked down and overcome by faceless men yelling through loudspeakers.In "Stranded in Space", the astronauts are sitting in their seats when buzzers sound, things start shaking, and the camera blurs into a blackout (and as a friend pointed out, it was pretty obvious that the actors were simply shaking themselves on their seats, the director wasn't even shaking the camera or the set). I've seen episodes of "The Twilight Zone" and "The Outer Limits" that took more effort to establish mood and setting than this made-for-TV mediocrity.And that, in essence, is what's wrong with "Stranded In Space". No budget, no time, no imagination...just making the token gestures and hoping the sci-fi Fan Boys' imagination and enthusiasm will fill in the rest. Sorry, guys, it didn't work. I'm sure that everyone here just finished their work on this one and walked away, and never thought of it again, except as a listing on their C.V. And that's what you, the viewer will do. You'll remember, if pressed, that you once watched a TV movie called "Stranded In Space", but it made no lasting impression on you, and you can't recall too much about it.$LABEL$ 0
+Black comedy isn't always an easy sell. Every now and then you get a black comedy that is hugely successful, like Fargo, for example. But usually they don't often find big audiences. People seem to either set their minds for comedy, or for serious mayhem. There doesn't seem to be a big market for a good mixture of both. Throw Momma From the Train was a fairly decent hit, yet few people seem to remember much about it in this day and age. Danny DeVito just about hit this one all the way out of the park back in 1987.DeVito plays an odd mamma's boy named Owen looking to rid himself of his outrageously overbearing and unpleasant mother whom he still lives with. The mother is played by Anne Ramsey, who passed away shortly after this was released, and she is quite a caricature. She is loud, ugly, rude, and overbearing. Though Owen hardly seems like he could take care of himself, he wants desperately to have his mother offed. He fantasizes about it in some truly weird scenes, but he clearly doesn't have the guts to actually do it himself. That's where Billy Crystal comes in. Crystal plays Larry Donner, Owen's creative writing teacher at a nearby community college. Larry is a paranoid would-be intellectual novelist who claims his ex-wife stole his novel and made millions off it. He is currently trying to write a new one, but cannot even come up with a decent first sentence. "The night was...." Owen hears Larry wish his ex-wife were dead during an outburst at the school cafeteria. And borrowing the idea from Strangers on a Train, Owen decides to travel to Hawai'i and murder Larry's ex-wife. Once it appears he has done so, he expects Larry to return the favor and kill his mother. The resulting action is often quite funny, and even poignant. It's certainly never dull and often full of surprises.The acting is exceptional, even if Ramsey was a bit over the top. Crystal is as good as he can be, and DeVito has always been undervalued as a performer. The film relies on quite a bit of physical comedy which usually works, often painfully so. The film makes use of some truly innovative editing techniques in some scenes, and the off-beat tone is truly refreshing. I have often been critical of the late 1980s as being a time of artistic malaise and down right lazy film-making. Throw Momma From the Train takes chances. Both in how its characters are drawn as well as its general plot. How many comedies revolve around a son having his mother murdered? The film isn't too long, and it is chock full of laughs. Writers are apt to find it more interesting than the general public, but it can still be enjoyed by just about anyone. 9 of 10 stars.The Hound.$LABEL$ 1
+Back in 1994, I had a really lengthy vacation around the Fourth of July - something like 17 days off in a row what with two weeks paid vacation, weekends and the holiday itself. I stayed in town during that time, hanging out at my parents' house a lot.I didn't have a TV in my apartment so I used to watch my parents' tube. I had just finished watching a segment of the X Files when a program came on called Personal FX. I was hooked instantly. I had always been fascinated with items in our home that had come from my parents' family homes and through inheritances from relatives' estates, and often wondered about their history, value, etc.After my long vacation, I used to go to my folks' house on my lunch-hours just to catch Personal FX.I can remember one episode during which co-host Claire Carter announced that the New York apartment in which the series was filmed was being renovated and that once said renovations were complete that Personl FX would return to the air.It never did! Personal FX was the first -and best - of the collectible shows. And it vanished from the air! Almost fifteen years later, I'm still sore.Way to go, FX.$LABEL$ 1
+Paul Verhoeven's predecessor to his breakout hit 'Basic Instinct' is a stylish and shocking neo-noir thriller. Verhoeven has become known for making somewhat sleazy trash films, both in his native Holland and in America and this film is one of the reasons why. The Fourth Man follows the strange story of Gerard Reve (played by Jeroen Krabbé); a gay, alcoholic and slightly mad writer who goes to Vlissingen to give a talk on the stories he writes. While there, he meets the seductive Christine Halsslag (Renée Soutendijk) who takes him back to her house where he discovers a handsome picture of one of her lovers and proclaims that he will meet him, even if it kills him.Paul Verhoeven twists the truth many times in this film, and that ensures that you never quite know where you are with it. Many of the occurrences in The Fourth Man could be what they appear to be, but they could easily be interpreted as something else entirely and this keeps the audience on the edge of their seats for the duration, and also makes the film work as this narrative is what it thrives on. Paul Verhoeven is not a filmmaker that feels he has to restrain himself, and that is one of things I like best about him. This film features a very shocking scene that made me feel ill for hours afterwards (and that doesn't happen very often!). I wont spoil it because it needs the surprise element to work...but you'll see what I mean when you see the film (make sure you get the uncut version!). There is also a number of other macabre scenes that are less shocking than the one I've mentioned, but are lovely nonetheless; a man gets eaten by lions, another one has a pipe sent through his skull, a boat is smashed in half...lovely.The acting in The Fourth Man isn't anything to write home about, but it's solid throughout. Jeroen Krabbé holds the audience's attention and looks the part as the drunken writer. It is Renée Soutendijk that impresses the most, though, as the femme fatale at the centre of the tale. Her performance is what Sharon Stone would imitate nine years later with Basic Instinct, but the original fatale did it best. Paul Verhoeven's direction is solid throughout as he directs our attention through numerous points of view, all of which help to create the mystery of the story. Verhoeven has gone on to make some rubbish, but he obviously has talent and it's a shame that he doesn't put it to better use. Of all the Verhoeven films I've seen, this is the best and although it might be difficult to come across; trust me, it's worth the effort.$LABEL$ 1
+I accept that most 50's horror aren't scary by today's standards, but what the hell is this? When you see a title like this you expect to see blood and a blood thirsty beast. Instead we get no blood at all and a beast who either wants to take over the world or live in peace on Earth....yeah which is what the people wanted.The overall story is fine with the astronaut coming back to life and being one with the beast....but the title really kills the movie. Night of the Beast would have made the fans more happy because there really isn't any blood to speak of.I like how the 50's movies had endings that left room for a sequel but wisely never made one. This movie isn't the worst i've ever seen but its almost up there.2 out of 10$LABEL$ 0
+Demon Wind is about as much fun as breaking your legs. It is definitely an awful example of a film. So awful in fact that I don't even consider it a movie. I describe it more as a thing ... a monstrous thing. A thing that must be stopped at all costs. My friends and I first discovered this ... thing buried under a big box of video tapes at my friend's house. It was a late night and we had nothing better to do so we decided to watch some cheesy horror movies (we unfortunately picked this one.) Well, during the 90 minutes that this thing played we ended up laughing so hard that we almost threw up. The thing is literally pointless in every sense of the word. It's just a cheap, poorly done rip-off of Evil Dead. The whole "story" seems to be nothing more than some guy wanting to knock off his friends by inviting them to an abandoned house and letting demons rip them to pieces. I have a bet that the writers were actually writing the story while it was being filmed. I've seen bad horror movies before (Manos, Troll 2, HOBGOBLINS!!!) (shudder) I would have to say that Demon Wind could definitely contend with any and all of these films on terms of sheer stupidity. Watch it only if you enjoy laughing at stupid films.Fun fact: This film is like a cockroach on steroids! Much like the ouija board, every time we try to get rid of it, it always seems to mysteriously reappear. Kind of scary huh?$LABEL$ 0
+There is a difference between a "film," and a "movie." A film, regardless of quality, is ready for public consumption. A movie is what a group of friends gets together to make over the course of a weekend with a camcorder. In my time as a viewer, I have seen may examples of both.On September 19, I attended a screening of writer/director Jon Satejowski's "Donnybrook." Now having read the script and having seen two different cuts (a rough cut and the "finished" product) of this piece, I can safely say it is a movie. And a student movie, at that. It is, for lack of a better word, competent, which is to say, the director knew how to push record on a camera and capture moving images. The visuals are, for the most part, static and unimpressive, and dialog scenes are reduced to mostly long shots, with little to no close up shots to allow the audience to establish a relationship with the characters. I understand that this is a modestly budgeted film, but some visual flair would have been appreciated, and it would have gone a long way toward keeping the audience interested.Granted, there have been independent pictures that have shown that limited camera work can be over come with well a well written, engrossing story and some sharp dialog. Steven Soderbergh's "sex, lies, and videotape" comes immediately to mind. This movie, however, has neither. The main story is weak and unfocused. If the main plot is Davie trying to mend his relationship with his father, then I feel this movie misses the point. What I got out of it is that Davie's main aspiration is to "change the face of rock 'n' roll." However, we see very little activity on his part to show this. While there is one dream sequence at the beginning, and an impromptu performance of his at the end, all we seem to get are scenes of Davie listening to music or casually strumming a guitar. We are simply told that Davie has played a lot of gigs, but we never see him in full rock out mode. Next time, SHOW don't TELL the audience. Anyone who has taken a creative writing class knows this. Also, Davie doesn't look like someone that would have been big in the glam rock era of the 1970's; he looks like he'd be more comfortable in the early days of rock 'n' roll, posing as James Dean's less talented brother. In the meantime, the rest of the movies events seem to happen at random to rather cliché characters, and story threads, that have little or nothing to do with the slim main story, are brought up and abandoned with alarming frequency (i.e. the subplot involving Terry's father). If I want to see a film with this kind of haphazard construction, I will consider watching "Napolean Dynamite" again, a film I could barely make it through the first time.As for the above mentioned dialog scenes, I guess I should mention that they are few and extremely far between. Is it too much to ask for characters who do speak? I don't think it is. When the characters do speak, it is in short, choppy sentences; collections of oh so insightful questions, angered grunts or wildly over-the-top outbursts. These characters simply do not behave like normal, rational people. Working with material like this, it is easy to understand why there is only one good performance in the film, Al Hudson's, and that's just because he's doing a poor imitation of Sam Elliott for his time on screen. A good director, or at least one who is ready for the challenge of a feature director, would have been able to spot these problems and get the writer and camera people to correct them. However, with Satejowski being so close to the material, he simply doesn't see them, or, if he does, he is unwilling to take the necessary steps to fix them because it'll hurt his creative vision. Being unable or unwilling to deal with criticism in a constructive manner, is the mark of a self-indulgent, misguided fool. Just ask Rob Schneider. In the end, we are left with a poor, high-school-set, knock-off of Zach Braff's amazing "Garden State" combined with the equally amazing "Velvet Goldmine," two films far more worthy of your time.Now before any of the cast or crew come out of the word work to take me to task for this review, allow me to offer this. The best I can do is compliment Mr. Satejowski for having the ambition to make a film of his own and to put it out there for an audience to see. However, the hopes that this movie will be picked up and distributed are simply deluded visions of grandeur. This is a student movie, nothing more, nothing less. If the movie holds any promise (and let's face it, at this point, it isn't going to come from the acting, writing, or directing), it is this: If, IF, the people associated with this film are willing, then, please, learn from this movie, file it away, and use the lessons learned on your next attempt; don't attack your critics, or have friend or family do it for you. If you are able to do this, maybe the next one will be worthy of distribution, worthy of being called a "film."I am your audience, and I am willing to watch.$LABEL$ 0
+please re-watch all 3 series and do not go see this movie, the trailer is completely misleading and the 3 weakest characters in the series stretch a badly thought out 25min TV episode into the most painful 2hrs of my life, truly an awful film. tubbs and edward are in it for a few mins, micky has 1 line, and her lipp just reels out the same tired old puns, also mr briss's accent just changes about 5 times in the film tons of badly acted extras, and really a few laughs that they seem to recycle for 2 hrs i honestly feel this series has been completely ruined by this god-awful piece of crap..........batman and robin all is forgiven$LABEL$ 0
+Finally! An Iranian film that is not made by Majidi, Kiarostami or the Makhmalbafs. This is a non-documentary, an entertaining black comedy with subversive young girls subtly kicking the 'system' in its ass. It's all about football and its funny, its really funny. The director says "The places are real, the event is real, and so are the characters and the extras. This is why I purposely chose not to use professional actors, as their presence would have introduced a notion of falseness." The non-actors will have you rooting for them straightaway unless a. your heart is made of stone b. you are blind. Excellently scripted, the film challenges patriarchal authority with an almost absurd freshness. It has won the Jury Grand Prize, Berlin, 2006. Dear reader, it's near-perfect. WHERE, where can I get hold of it?$LABEL$ 1
+Sometimes you just have to have patients when watching indie horror. If you can just toe-tap your way through the slow-paced early scenes, sometimes a real gem will present itself... This (unfortunately) was not the case with "Satan's Whip".Written and directed by Jason Maran, "Satan's Whip" attempts to drag us along on a boring snore-fest of a film, with no real pay off at the end. I'm guessing that the black & white (and blue) cinematography must have been for a reason, however it is never explained why the majority of the blood is blue, and I found this increasingly annoying as the film went on. The story in itself is not that bad, and actually had some originality and decent content but the acting is simply pathetic. This, combined with the slow-pacing and lack of any real (red) gore made "Satan's Whip" one to forget quite quickly. I will give it a "4" rating for some witty dialog that made me chuckle, but alas that could not save this boring waste of my time.$LABEL$ 0
+Tainted look at kibbutz lifeThis film is less a cultural story about a boy's life in a kibbutz, but the deliberate demonization of kibbutz life in general. In the first two minutes of the movie, the milk man in charge of the cows rapes one of his calves. And it's all downhill from there in terms of the characters representing typical "kibbutznikim." Besides the two main characters, a clinically depressed woman and her young son, every one else in the kibbutz is a gross caricature of well…evil. The story centers on how the kibbutz, like some sort of cult, slowly drags the mother and son deeper into despair and what inevitably follows. There is no happiness, no joy, no laughter in this kibbutz. Every character/situation represents a different horrific human vice like misogyny, hypocrisy, violence, cultism, repression etc. For example, while the protagonist is a strikingly handsome European looking 12 year old boy – his older brother is a typical kibbutz youth complete with his "jewish" physical appearance and brutish personality. He cares more about screwing foreign volunteers than the health of his dying mother. He treats these volunteers like trash. After his little brother pleads of him to visit his dying mother whom he hasn't seen in a long time due to his military service, he orders, Quote – "Linda, go take shower and I cum in two minutes." There is one other "good" character in this movie – a European foreigner who plays the mother's boyfriend. When the animal rapist tries to hit the mother's son, the boyfriend defends him by breaking the rapist's arm. He is summarily kicked out of the kibbutz then for "violent" behavior against one of the kibbutz members. More hypocrisy: The indescribably annoying French woman who plays the school teacher preaches that sex cannot happen before age 18, or without love and gives an account of the actual act that's supposed to be humorous for the audience, but is really just stupid. She of course is screwing the head of the kibbutz in the fields who then in turn screws the little boy's mom when her mental health takes a turn for the worse. The film portrays the kibbutz like some sort of cult. Children get yanked out of their beds in the middle of the night and taken to some ritual where they swear allegiance in the fields overseen by the kibbutz elders. The mother apparently can't "escape" the kibbutz, although in reality, anyone was/is always free to come and go as they choose. It's a mystery how the boy's father died, but you can rest assured, the kibbutz "drove him to it" and his surviving parents are another pair of heartless, wretched characters that weigh down on the mother and her son. That's the gist of this movie. One dimensional characters, over dramatization, dry performances, and an insidious message that keeps trying to hammer itself into the audience's head – that kibbutz life was degrading, miserable and even deadly for those who didn't "fit in." I feel sorry for the guy who made this film – obviously he had a bad experience growing up in a kibbutz. But I feel as though he took a few kernels of truth regarding kibbutz life and turned them into huge atomic stereotyped bombs.$LABEL$ 0
+(When will I ever learn-?) The ecstatic reviewer on NPR made me think this turkey was another Citizen Kane. Please allow me to vent my spleen...I will admit: the setting, presumably New York City, has never been so downright ugly and unappealing. I am reminded that the 70's was a bad decade for men's fashion and automobiles. And all the smoking-! If the plan was to cheapen the characters, it succeeded.For a film to work (at least, in my simple estimation), there has to be at least ONE sympathetic character. Only Ned Beaty came close, and I could not wait for him to finish off Nicky. If a stray shot had struck Mikey, well, it may have elicited a shrug of indifference at the most.I can't remember when I detested a film as strongly. I suppose I'm a rube who doesn't dig "art" flicks. Oh, well.$LABEL$ 0
+"Lost", "24", "Carnivale", "Desperate Housewifes"...the list goes on and on. These, and a bunch of other high-quality, shows proves that we're in the middle of a golden age in television history. "Lost" is pure genius. Incredible layers of personal, and psychologically viable, stories, underscored by sublime cinematography (incredible to use this word, when describing a TV-show), a killer score, great performances and editing. Anyone who isn't hooked on this, are missing one of the most important creative expressions in television ever. It may have its problems, when watching only one episode a week, but the DVD format is actually an incredible way to watch this. Hope they keep it up (as I'm sure they do).$LABEL$ 1
+Clifton Webb is one of my favorites. However, Mister Scoutmaster is not one of his best. His patented curmudgeon role seems forced and even unpleasant rather than funny. The film itself is overflowing with mawkish sentimentality. In addition, the viewer is presented with numerous ham-handed references to religious faith and U.S. patriotism that come off as over-reverent rather than genuine. Clifton Webb does his best with a poor script. Edmund Gwenn plays yet another jovial clergyman and is given nothing to do. The child actor lead is played by a talentless child who displays a flat affect throughout the entire film. His sole claim to fame as a performer evidently is a bullfrog-like low voice unusual for someone of his age. However, once you've heard it, you've heard it and you don't need to hear it again. Unfortunately, he is in the majority of the film's scenes. I find this child so irritating that I fast forward whenever he shows up. Since he has a lot of scenes in this film, this means that I fast forward through a lot of the film. There were and are so many talented child actors; it's a pity this film doesn't have any of them in it. Still, Clifton Webb in the traditional broad-brimmed hat and shorts is a sight worth seeing.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a must-see documentary movie for anyone who fears that modern youth has lost its taste for real-life adventure and its sense of morality. Darius Goes West is an amazing roller-coaster of a story. We live the lives of Darius and the crew as they embark on the journey of a lifetime. Darius has Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, a disease which affects all the muscles in his body. He is confined to a wheelchair, and needs round-the-clock attention. So how could this crew of young friends possibly manage to take him on a 6,000 mile round-trip to the West Coast and back? Watch the movie and experience the ups and downs of this great adventure - laugh and cry with the crew as they cope with unimaginable challenges along the way, and enjoy the final triumph when they arrive back three weeks later in their home town to a rapturous reception and some great surprises!$LABEL$ 1
+The message of a world on the brink of war is disregarded by the masses; the mythical city of Everytown in 1940 represents England in general, but it could just as well stand for any nation of the world. When war finally does arrive, it's ravages continue not for another five years, but until 1966 at which time Everytown is completely destroyed. Adding to the desolation and toll on humanity is the "wandering sickness", a pestilence that continues for another four years."Things to Come" balances both a fatalistic and futuristic world view, where science holds out a hope for a revived civilization. The "Wings Over the World" concept plays out a bit corny, though it's spokesman Cabal (Raymond Massey) is unwavering in his mission and dedicated to his cause. If he fails, others will follow. This message is continually reinforced throughout the film, brought home convincingly in Massey's end of movie speech. Man's insatiable need to test the limits of knowledge and achievement requires an "all the universe or nothing" mindset.The film's imagery of automation and machinery in the second half is reminiscent of the great silent film "Metropolis". As Everytown is rebuilt and transformed by the year 2036, the spectacle of the city's rebirth strikes a resonant chord, as architecture of modern cities of today suggest the movie's eerily prophetic vision is coming to fruition. Where the movie gets it wrong by sixty seven years though is man's first mission to the moon, but in 1936, a hundred year timetable probably seemed more legitimate than 1969."Things to Come" is one of those rarities in film, a picture that makes you think. Which side will you come down on, the forces for advancement in the face of uncertainty or maintain the status quo? It's not a comfortable question, as both choices offer inherent dangers and unknowable outcomes. Those who choose to be bystanders risk being swept away by forces beyond their control.$LABEL$ 1
+Fulci... Does this man brings one of the goriest and weirdest movies ever made? Answer: yes! Cat in the Brain, also known as Nightmare Concert is Fulci's last masterpiece. Yes it is, no matter what some people will say about it. There are few facts why this movie is one of the best Fulci's movies.Fulci make a fun of himself and his movies with this one. Lead roll in this movie is no other then Fulci himself, who plays... well horror-splatter-gore director, who thinks he is slowly going insane. It's filled with black humor which unlike in the most of the modern horror movies works here. Being Fulci flick, you need to know it's gory. How much? Well pretty much. I always loved gore in the movies and I never get enough of it, but Cat in the Brain actually stopped my thirst for gore, and believe me, it's a hard to archive. Even the Braindead didn't stop it. CITB is all about gore. Almost every scene revolves about Fulci, who after being hypnotized by *khmmm* evil psychiatrists is seeing all kinds of horrors for everything that happens to him or everything he sees. Some of the scenes involves him accidentally dropping the whiskey, and instead of that he sees rotten corpse lying on the floor, which starts to spit some ooze from it's wounds. Forget the Beyond or Zombie 2, this IS the goriest Fulci movie! Now I like how Fulci manage to apply all those comic parts in the gorefest movie. He is such a brilliant director. Some funny moments and lines happens from time to time, like one where Fulci says "making gore movies is kind of a sickness" Ending is very good considering that Fulci (and most of the Italian horror masters) is know for making ending with no sense or many plot holes. If you are fun of the Fulci, make sure you check it out. If you have a weak stomach, avoid this and repeat "Its only a movie" ps. some of the gore scenes within this movie: Chainsaw dismemberment (full), tongue torn out, eyeballs torn out, maggot infested corpses, zombies, decapitations, face being putted in boiling water, stabs in the shower (to head), throat slit, many parts of the body and organs being toast aside, hammer smashed face...$LABEL$ 1
+What an incomprehensible mess of a movie. Something about a cop who extracts bullets from himself after he gets shot and keeps them in a glass jar in his bathroom (and from the size of the jar he's been shot about fifty times by now) and a top secret tank guarded by five or six incompetent soldiers who for some reason drive it into Mexico. Whether they were sent there intentionally or just got really really lost is never made clear. And you'll never hear another screenplay feature the word "butthorn" either. Gary Busey tries out the Mel Gibson role from "Lethal Weapon" and while Busey is a serviceable actor the screenplay damns the whole movie to mediocrity. William Smith does another turn as a Russian soldier, the same character he played in "Red Dawn" a few years earlier. After playing biker heavies for most of the 70s it was sort of nice to see him expand his range playing Communist heavies. Sadly he'll probably always be remembered best as the guy who Clint Eastwood whupped in "Every Which Way You Can."$LABEL$ 0
+I love to watch this movie a lot because of all the scary scenes about the raptors. I like raptors because they are scary. My favorite parts are the ones where the raptor looks behind the pillar because it reminds me of a scene from the Friday the 13th movie with the girl who eats the banana.I really love to watch a lot of this movie because the computer graphics seem a little fake but it's okay because once you get into the movie you hardly even notice what is going on and I think it's got a good ending even though I didn't really understand what was going on on my first couple viewings I figured it out over time and that's the important part. The other important part is how scary the dinosaurs can be if you're watching it the first time.THIS IS BEST MOVIE.$LABEL$ 1
+WARNING: REVIEW CONTAINS MILD SPOILERSA couple of years back I managed to see the first five films in this franchise, and was planning to do an overview of the whole Elm St. series. However, just two years on and I find I can't remember enough about them in order to do it – I guess they couldn't have made much of an impression. From what I do recall, some of the sequels – Dream Warriors in particular – weren't as bad as is often made out, though even the original was no classic. Generally, the predictability of the premise (if people fall asleep they get murdered in their dreams) doesn't lend itself to narrative tension. But while I cannot recall much of the first five films, I do know they never plumbed the depths of Freddy's Dead.An indication of how sick of Freddy the public was at this point can be judged by the fact that the film was promoted solely on the character's demise. The fact that the movie's conclusion is not even hidden, but in fact the entire purpose for the film's being goes to illustrate how vacant, soulless and cynical this venture was.Taking the morally questionable idea of having a child molester as the charismatic villain, Robert Englund's in-no-way-scary interpretation booms with laughter. I always thought Freddy's mockery of the teenage victims was less aimed at the characters than at the teenage audience that could ever watch this tripe. It's like Englund's crying out "we know this is garbage – but you're paying to see it, so who's the one laughing?" And I'm sure victims of child abuse would be disheartened to see such an insensitive depiction of their plight. Was Freddy's appearance in the films always so rudimentary? All he gets to do here is a few "haaaaaaaaaaaaaarr – har – har – hars" and that's it. If this was the only Elm St. film you'd ever seen you wouldn't get to know the character at all. Even as the character pre-death in a flashback Englund plays him as a boo-hiss pantomime villain with a slop of Transatlantic (ie. overstated, misplaced and not at all funny) irony.Acting is almost universally poor. Just look at how many times Breckin Meyer overacts with his hand gestures and body language. Only Kananga himself, Yaphet Kotto, keeps his dignity. And when Roseanne, Tom Arnold and Alice Cooper show up, you can almost visibly see the film sinking further into the mire. The script, too, is absolutely lousy, almost wholly without merit. Carlos (Ricky Dean Logan) opens a road map, upon which the Noel Coward-like Freddy has wittily written "you're f**ked". When prompted for the map, Carlos responds "well the map says we're f**ked". Who wrote the screenplay, Oscar Wilde?Or how about the scene where Carlos is tortured by Freddy, his hearing enhanced to painful levels? So Freddy torments him by threatening to drop a pin – a potentially fatal sound, given that all sounds are magnified. Oddly, the fact that Carlos shouts at the top of his voice for him not to drop it seems to have no effect. "Nice hearing from you, Carlos", quips Freddy, hoping some better lines will come along. It's also worth noting that dream sleep doesn't occur instaneously, so being knocked unconscious wouldn't allow instant access into Freddy's world. Though as part of the narrative contains a human computer game and a 3-D finale plot logic isn't that high on the list of requirements.The teenagers heading the cast this time are really the most obnoxious, dislikeable group in the whole series. Tracy (Lezlie Deane) is the only one who gets to greet Freddy with "shut the f**k up, man" and a kick in the scallops. And was incongruous pop music always part of the ingredients? Freddy's Dead. No laughs. No scares. No interest. No fun.$LABEL$ 0
+Some comments here on IMDb have likened Dog Bite Dog to the classic Cat III films of the 90s, but although it is undoubtedly brutal, violent and very downbeat, this film from Pou-Soi Cheang isn't really sleazy, lurid or sensationalist enough to earn that comparison. However, it still packs a punch that makes it worth a watch, particularly if gritty, hard-edged action is your thing.Edison Chen plays Pang, a Cambodian hit-man who travels to Hong Kong to assassinate the wife of a judge; Sam Lee is Wai, the ruthless cop who is determined to track him down, whatever the cost. With Wai closing in on his target, Pang will stop at nothing to ensure his escape—until he meets Yue, a pretty illegal immigrant who needs his help to escape her life of abuse.A relentlessly harsh drama with great cinematography, amazing sound design, a haunting score, and solid performances from Chen and Lee (as well as newcomer Pei Pei as Pang's love interest), Dog Bite Dog is one for fans of hard-hitting Asian hyper-violence (think along the lines of Chan-wook Park's Vengeance trilogy). Stabbings, shootings, merciless beatings: all happen regularly in this film and are caught unflinchingly by director Cheang.Of course, this is the kind of tale that is destined to have an unhappy ending for all involved, and sure enough, pretty much everyone in this film dies (rather nasty deaths). Unfortunately, there is a fine line between tragedy and (unintentional) comedy, and in its final moments, Dog Bite Dog crosses it: in a laughably over-dramatic final scene, Pang and Wai are locked in battle as a pregnant Yue looks on. Eventually, after all three have suffered severe stab wounds during the fracas, a wounded Pang performs a DIY Ceasarean on (a now dead) Yue, delivering their baby moments before he himself dies.Whilst this film might not be a 'classic' slice of Hong Kong excess, with its deliriously OTT action and stylish visuals, it's still worth seeking out.$LABEL$ 1
+I watched this movie for the hot guy--and even he sucked! He was the worst one--well, okay, I have to give props to that freaky police officer rapist guy too, he was even worse. The guy wasn't that cute in the end, he had the most terrible accent, and he was the most definite definition of hicksville idiot that can't stand up to his mom for the one he "loves" there's ever been. Overall, and if this makes any sense to you, when I go to pick up movies at the video store, I think to myself as I read the back of a movie that looks so/so, "Well, at least it can't be worse than Carolina Moon." The most terrible movie, and the most terrible writing, acting, plot--everything in it made my gag reflexes want to do back flips. It was THE most horrid movie I will ever see, with Gabriela way up there too. I hated it, and trust me, if there was any number under 1 IMDb had for rating, I'd choose that in a heartbeat.$LABEL$ 0
+Absolute must see documentary for anyone interested in getting to the bottom of this story. Told with unflinching eye and with gripping style. If you think conspiracy theories are for paranoid disturbed people, this could change your mind. Something for you feds too: A good model for government coverups! If you like your news all tidy and easy to consume this is not for you.$LABEL$ 1
+I have decided to not believe what famous movie critics say. Even though this movie did not get the best comments, this movie made my day. It got me thinking. What a false world this is.What do you do when your most loved ones deceive you. It's said that no matter how often you feed milk to a snake, it can never be loyal and will bite when given a chance. Same way some people are such that they are never grateful. This movie is about how selfish people can be and how everyone is ultimately just thinking about oneself and working for oneself. A brother dies inadvertently at the hands of a gangster. The surviving brother decides to take revenge. Through this process, we learn about the futility of this world. Nothing is real and no one is loyal to anyone.Amitabh gave the performance of his life. The new actor Aryan gave a good performance. The actress who played the wife of Amitabh stole the show. Her role was small but she portrayed her role so diligently that one is moved by her performance. Chawla had really great face expressions but her role was very limited and was not given a chance to fully express herself.A great movie by Raj Kumar Santoshi. His movies always give some message to the audience. His movies are like novels of Nanak Singh (a Punjabi novelist who's novels always had a purpose and targeted a social evil) because they have a real message for the audience. They are entertaining as well as lesson-giving.$LABEL$ 1
+After a very scary, crude opening which gives you that creepy "Chainsaw massacre"-feeling, everything falls apart.SPOILER ALERT: As soon as the two FBI-officers start jabbing, you know they are the real killers. Anyone who have seen enough of these "fooled-ya"-movies can figure this out.This movie is mader with one thing in mind: To depict brutal murders. Why, then, is not the little girl tortured and murdered as well? Will this be next for us movie-goers? The torture and abuse of children? Whats wrong with you people? Lynch is truly has a disgusting, ugly mind.$LABEL$ 0
+I can't say much about this film. I think it speaks for itself (as do the current ratings on here). I rented this about two years ago and I totally regretted it. I even /tried/ to like it by watching it twice, but I just couldn't. I can safely say that I have absolutely no desire to see this waste of time ever, ever again. And I'm not one to trash a movie, but I truly believe this was awful. It wasn't even funny in the slightest. The only bits I enjoyed were the few scenes with Christopher Walken in them. I think this film ruined both Jack Black and Ben Stiller for me. All I can think of when I see one of their films now-a-days is this terrible movie, and it reminds me not to waste my money. Amy Poehler is so very annoying, too.Overall, well, I think you get my point. The stars are for Walken, by the way.$LABEL$ 0
+I am not so old that I can't remember laughing at Bobcat Goldthwait a couple times. But some where in all his years of drug abuse he lost his sense of humor as well as his brain cells.From the moment this film opens you can have no sympathy nor empathy for the female lead. Neither will you find anything remotely funny after hearing the opening line. Goldthwait obviously hates himself so much that he needs to degrade in order to feel better- even if it is his own imaginary characters he degrades. If you ever saw Shakes the Clown you know how unfunny Bobcat was 15 years ago...this movie is worse. It was not even funny by accident It is sad, pathetic and a total waste of time. May Goldthwaits' hands be rendered paralyzed so he can not write another script. Strike his tongue so he can not dictate another unfunny scene. He is sad and pathetic and needs to make room for a new talent dying to get into Hollywood$LABEL$ 0
+In New Orleans, an illegal immigrant feels sick and leaves a poker game while winning the smalltime criminal Blackie (Walter Jack Palance). He is chased by Blackie and his men Raymond Fitch (Zero Mostel) and Poldi (Guy Thomajan), killed by Blackie and his body is dumped in the sea. During the autopsy, the family man Lieutenant Commander Dr. Clinton Reed (Richard Widmark) of the U.S. Public Health Service finds that the dead man had pneumonic plague caused by rats and he needs to find who had any type of contact with the man within forty-eight hours to avoid an epidemic. The City Mayor assigns the skeptical Captain Tom Warren (Paul Douglas) to help Dr. Clint to find the killers that are infected with the plague and inoculate them."Panic in the Streets" discloses a simple story, but it is still effective and with a great villain. The engaging plot has not become dated after fifty-seven years. Jack Palance performs a despicable scum in his debut, and the camera work while he tries to escape with Zero Mostel is still very impressive. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "Pânico nas Ruas" ("Panic in the Streets")$LABEL$ 1
+The box is why I originally picked up this movie and the back is why I rented it. But I soon learned that I had been duped. I had thought this movie would be something like a Road Trip/Eurotrip/American Pie deal. But I was wrong. This movie is one of the dumbest I've seen in a long time. The unrated version teases you in to watching but will completely disappoint you. The acting was terrible and sound effects just gaudy. It appeared very low budget with the entire setting taking place in the same building. Go out and get Eurotrip or Road Trip instead. I can't believe National Lampoon put its name on this. DON'T BUY IT, DON'T RENT IT. Don't waste 2 hours of your life on this.$LABEL$ 0
+There have been many documentaries that I have seen in which it appeared that the law was on the wrong side of the fence - The Thin Blue Line and Paradise Lost come to mind first and foremost. But this is the first film that had me seething with anger after I saw it. It seems blatantly clear to me from the evidence presented in this film that what happened at Waco was at the very least an unprofessional and sloppy mess on the part of the FBI and AFI, and at the very worst an act of murder. Like most people, when the siege at Waco was occurring I assumed that David Koresh was a completely evil madman who was leading a violent cult. After seeing this, I think that Koresh was more likely a slightly unbalanced and confused guy who inadvertently caught the attention of the U.S. government through his eccentric actions. Sure, there were lots of weapons at the Branch Davidian compound. But none of it was illegal. It was absolutely heartbreaking to see the video footage of the people inside the compound, all of them seeming to be very nice and harmless. And it was angering to see the callous testimony of the men in charge of the government forces on the Waco site, the clueless testimony of Janet Reno, and the partisan defense of the attack on Waco, a defense led by a few of the committee Democrats. Standing out most in my mind was NY representative and current U.S. senator from NY Charles Schumer. I voted for the man when I lived in NY state - I'm a Democrat, pretty left-leaning too. After seeing his actions on this committee, I wish I could go back in time and vote for D'Amato instead! For anyone remotely interested in the government, this is a very crucial film, a must see. I even think this should be shown in classes - it's that important.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this movie last night and thought it was decent. It has it's moments I guess you would say. Some of the scenes with the special ops forces were cool, and some of the location shots were very authentic. I won't be putting this movie in my DVD collection but it is fair enough to recommend for renting. I guess nothing set the movie at another level compared to others of the same genre. The action is good, the acting is decent, the women are extremely seductive and exotic in my opinion, and the story is pretty interesting. 7 out of ten$LABEL$ 1
+Yes, I call this a perfect movie. Not one boring second, a fantastic cast of mostly little known actresses and actors, a great array of characters who are all well defined and who all have understandable motives I could sympathize with, perfect lighting, crisp black and white photography, a fitting soundtrack, an intelligent and harmonious set design and a story that is engaging and works. It's one of those prime quality pictures on which all the pride of Hollywood should rest, the mark everyone should endeavor to reach.Barbara Stanwyck is simply stunning. There was nothing this actress couldn't do, and she always went easy on the melodramatic side. No hysterical outbursts with this lady - I always thought she was a better actress than screen goddesses like Bette Davis or Joan Crawford, and this movie confirmed my opinion. Always as tough as nails and at the same time conveying true sentiments. It is fair to add that she also got many good parts during her long career, and this one is by far the least interesting.The title fits this movie very well. It is about desires, human desires I think everyone can understand. Actually, no one seems to be scheming in this movie, all characters act on impulse, everybody wants to be happy without hurting anybody else. The sad fact that this more often than not leads to complications makes for the dramatic content into which I will not go here.I liked what this movie has to say about youth, about maturing and about the necessity to compromise. The movie I associate most with this one is Alfred Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt, it creates a similar atmosphere of idealized and at the same time caricatured Small Town America. The story has a certain similarity with Fritz Lang's considerably harsher movie Clash by Night, made one year earlier, where Stanywck stars in a similar part. I can also recommend it.$LABEL$ 1
+I would like to know if anyone know how I can get a copy of the movie, "That's the way of the World". It's been about 30 years since I've seen this movie, and I would like to see it again. Earth Wind & Fire transcend the nation globally with their inspirational music and themes. It was unfortunate that this group didn't take off like their counterparts in the early 70's, but as previously stated, racial tension existed in the United States which prohibited equalized exposure for the African American musical groups. It is good to see that Earth Wind & Fire continuing their success. I would like to add this movie to my collection. Someone please help me if possible. Thank you for your attention. Milton Shaw$LABEL$ 1
+I saw the movie "Hoot" and then I immediately decided to comment it. The truth is that NATURE needs protection from us because we are the dominant specie of this planet. Some people think that if they have money, they can do whatever they want to, which probably is like, but if they think about the future more then they think about themselves they would do something useful! This movie is not just about kids, this movie is showing us that the kids are usually the ones that care more about it then the adults do. When I was twelve, I saw some waterlilies and I knew they are protected by law and didn't even dare to touch them not fearing of the law, but fearing that I might harm them actually. (I am currently 15) What so ever, the acting was great, the 3 main characters are well interpreted and we all have to learn from them. I hope you all think about what you saw in that movie!!! and Enjoy!$LABEL$ 1
+I had some reservations about this movie, I figured it would be the usual bill of fare --- a formula movie about Christmas. Being in the middle of a heat wave in late June, we decided to give it a shot anyway, maybe we would see some snow.This movie turned out to be one laugh after another. Ben Affleck was believable in his character, but the real star of this one is James Gandofini. He delivered his lines with a real wit about him and made a great "dad".If you want to have an enjoyable couple of hours, definitely check this one out.$LABEL$ 1
+When I first saw this film around 6 months ago, I considered it interesting, but little more. But it stuck with me. That interest grew and grew, and I wondered whether my initial boredom and response had more to do with the actual VHS quality rather than the film itself. I purchased the Criterion DVD box set, and it turns out that I was right the second time. Alexander Nevsky is a great film. It is rousing, and I'm sure it succeeded in its main aim: propaganda against the Germans.That is the most common criticism against this film, and against Eisenstein, that it is merely propagandist and nothing else. It's untrue. He is an amazing film artist, one of the most important whoever lived. By now, the world is far enough beyond Joseph Stalin to be able to watch Eisenstein's films as art.$LABEL$ 1
+Focus is another great movie starring William H. Macy. I first discovered Macy in Fargo and I've seen a few of his films and he hasn't yet deceived me. Macy is the archetypal "nice guy with something to hide". In Focus, he plays the role of Lawrence Newman, a loyal and hard-working stiff, who harbours his handicapped mother at home. The scene is set after World War II, at the height of McCarthyism. Newman is the head of Human Resources for a company which is basically, anti-Semite. After he accidentally hires a woman of Jewish descent, he is asked to buy a pair of glasses, to improve his failing eyesight.Unbelievably, the simple act of buying glasses has great repercussions on his life and that of Gertrude Hart, his wife (played by a great Laura Dern). As the film unravels, Newman will begin to see a whole different world, where being Jewish is akin to being an animal.The movie is disturbing in the way it shows that being racist was something fairly normal. The chilling thought is that in some places, it probably still is.$LABEL$ 1
+In "Brave New Girl," Holly comes from a small town in Texas, sings "The Yellow Rose of Texas" at a local competition, and gets admitted to a prestigious arts college in Philadelphia. From there the movie grows into a colorful story of friendship and loyalty. I loved this movie. It was full of great singing and acting and characters that kept it moving at a very nice pace. The acting was, of course, wonderful. Virginia Madsen and Lindsey Haun were outstanding, as well as Nick Roth The camera work was really done well and I was very pleased with the end (It seems a sequel could be in the making). Kudos to the director and all others that participated on this production. Quite a gem in the film archives.$LABEL$ 1
+Despite a totally misleading advertising campaign, this flick turns out to be an irritatingly clichéd, sub-par haunted house flick with a totally implausible ending. Clue #1 for all considering seeing this turkey: Sam Raimi didn't direct it. Although commercials for the movie play up his involvement, in truth he is one of four producers. It's too bad that someone as talented as Raimi has allowed his name to be used in conjunction with such a poor movie. I don't think he would ever have directed something like this; that task was left to the Pang Brothers.The screenplay for this film seems to have been cobbled together from numerous other "horror" films, so you'll find absolutely zero original content in "The Messengers." What we get are a scene here and there that was plucked straight out of "Pulse," a couple that could have come from "The Birds," one or two from "The Others," etc. Nearly every scene, almost every line of dialogue, is one that has been lifted from any number of other movies. The whole thing makes for such a predictable movie that almost anyone will be able to figure out the "surprise ending" long before it comes.Right about here would be a good time to point out that the advertising campaign, centered on the idea that only children can see ghosts, has nothing to do with this movie. In fact, everyone can see the ghosts. The teenage daughter and mother characters certainly see them, even quite early in the movie. I'm sure that whomever was in charge of marketing came up with this campaign because the film needed a unique angle to have any box office appeal, which otherwise is entirely absent. Now you know, so don't be fooled! Perhaps what this movie lacks most of all is anything resembling chemistry between the actors. It simply isn't there. All of the interactions come across as awkwardly stilted. Coupled with the hackneyed story and ridiculous plot holes (just what is a guy who murdered his whole family doing still lurking around the small town where the murder happened, anyhow? Didn't anyone think to maybe arrest him?), it all adds up to a profoundly unsatisfying ghost flick that only manages to surprise anyone over the age of ten with cheap shots: loud noises, visual flashes, and anything short of a sheeted figure jumping out of a closet and yelling "Boo!" All we get for our buck this time around is yet another poorly-made film about spirits attempting to warn people away from a house. If there's any message that "The Messengers" delivers, it's "Don't waste your time on this movie."$LABEL$ 0
+This movie sucks ass. Something about a heatwave in some European country, complete trash. There's nothing going for this movie whatsoever. maybe 30 seconds of sex but that's it. There is a very annoying chick who hitches rides with people and really pisses me off. This movie is complete rash and you shouldn't subject yourself to watching it. I regret it it's very boring. I would rate it zero but i can't. No body in their right mind should see this. i'm sure you'll regret it completely i did. How could they think up something this bad. Even Mystery men was better. MYSTERY MEN. That sucks. That movie wasn't worth being made. complete waste of time. The characters in this are very hard to understand and i good very very very bored.$LABEL$ 0
+I was looking forward to The Guardian, but when I walked into the theater I wasn't really in the mood for it at that particular time. It's kind of like the Olive Garden - I like it, but I have to be in the right mindset to thoroughly enjoy it.I'm not exactly sure what was dampening my spirit. The trailers looked good, but the water theme was giving me bad flashbacks to the last Kevin Costner movie that dealt with the subject - Waterworld. Plus, despite the promise Ashton Kutcher showed in The Butterfly Effect, I'm still not completely sold on him. Something about the guy just annoys me. Probably has to do with his simian features.It took approximately two minutes for my fears to subside and for my hesitancies to slip away. The movie immediately throws us into the midst of a tense rescue mission, and I was gripped tighter than Kenny Rogers' orange face lift. My concerns briefly bristled at Kutcher's initial appearance due to the fact that too much effort was made to paint him as ridiculously cool and rebellious. Sunglasses, a tough guy toothpick in his mouth, and sportin' a smirk that'd make George Clooney proud? Yeah, we get it. I was totally ready to hate him.But then he had to go and deliver a fairly strong performance and force me to soften my jabs. Darn you, ape man! Efficiently mixing tense, exciting rescue scenes, drama, humor, and solid acting, The Guardian is easily a film that I dare say the majority of audiences will enjoy. You can quibble about its clichés, predictability, and rare moments of overcooked sappiness, but none of that takes away from the entertainment value.I had a bad feeling that the pace would slow too much when Costner started training the young guys, but on the contrary, the training sessions just might be the most interesting aspect of the film. Coast Guard Rescue Swimmers are heroes whose stories have never really been portrayed on the big screen, so I feel the inside look at what they go through and how tough it is to make it is very informative and a great way to introduce audiences to this under-appreciated group.Do you have what it takes to be a rescue swimmer? Just think about it -you get to go on dangerous missions in cold, dark, rough water, and then you must fight disorientation, exhaustion, hypothermia, and a lack of oxygen all while trying to help stranded, panicked people who are depending on you for their survival. And if all that isn't bad enough, sometimes you can't save everybody so you have to make the tough decision of who lives and who dies.Man, who wants all that responsibility? Not me! I had no idea what it was really like for these guys, and who would have thought I'd have an Ashton Kutcher/Kevin Costner movie to thank for the education? Not only does The Guardian do a great job of paying tribute to this rare breed of hero, but lucky for us it also does a good job of entertaining its paying customers.THE GIST Moviegoers wanting an inside look at what it's like to embark on a daring rescue mission in the middle of the ocean might want to give The Guardian a chance. I saw it for free, but had I paid I would've felt I had gotten my money's worth.$LABEL$ 1
+Going into see Seven Pounds i wasn't clearly sure what to think because the previews left to much open to grasp what the movie was really about. So within the first 20 min or so you are completely lost in the plot, have no idea what is going on and you think Tim, who claims to be Ben, is just a big asshole. All of this comes to an end when the "twist",so to speak, is unraveled at the very last minute of the movie. Basically Tim (will smith) was troubled and haunted by a big accident he made causing the end of seven peoples lives. By this he decides to scope out seven new people who are in need of help badly who he in turns gives his life to.The acting of this film is great, as i feel will smith no matter what part he seems to impress. Rosario Dawson, to me, this is one of her better movies, aside from eagle eye which i think is up there to. She has been in some bad some good but she does deliver in this film. Other actors, such as woody Harrelson, have very small roles and not a big enough role to grasp the character. Although the casting of the film was still good.This movie was definitely not what i expected and certainly a lot slower pace in which i hoped. The movie, however, was still pretty good. Nothing is revealed until the last 5 min of the movie and everything falls into place. Up until then it just seems like a pointless love story. Final thought seven pounds=seven Stars.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw Brother's Shadow at the Tribeca Film Festival and loved it! Judd Hirsch and Scott Cohen are great as father and son. The film follows Scott Cohen from parole in Alaska back to his family in Brooklyn. He shows up there because his brother has died, and he embarks on a journey to slowly repair his estranged relationships with his brother's wife and child and his father who has never forgiven him for being the black sheep of the family. The story takes us deep into the hearts and minds of this family and allows you to more deeply understand the complexity of their lives. Also, the imagery of the woodworking business and the Brooklyn backdrop sets the tone for this rich and revealing family portrait.$LABEL$ 1
+"Mararía" really disappointed me. I can't consider it as a bad movie, but the development just seemed too rushed and non-believable for it to evoke any emotions. Dr. Fermín displays some unprecedented bizarre behaviour out of a passion that one can't really understand where it was born from. I mean, how many times does he ever have a conversation with Mararía?? Maybe once? Also, Mararía never appeared to be a real character, instead more like a film stereotype that just needed to be in the movie (...or else another title was needed?). Some of the best acting came from a role that wasn't really important to the story, that of Marcial, the sub-intelligent yet humble drunkard. Of course, the scenery, the cultural tidbits of the Canary Islands, and other "wow" moments were interesting, but the movie fell short of a documentary (in case this was its real intention), and most importantly, as a solid drama.$LABEL$ 0
+Serum is about a crazy doctor that finds a serum that is supposed to cure all diseases through the power of the mind. Instead it creates some kind of monster that needs to eat human flesh and brains. The mad doc creates some zombies out of cadavers and has some problems. There is a very long lead into all the action with many scenes getting you acquainted with the characters. The mad doctor's nephew gets into a car accident and the mad doc tries to use his new serum on the boy. The results are not good. This is a class C film with OK acting but some troubles directing and some continuity errors. There isn't much zombie action in this one and the effects, while adequate, are nothing special. You can fast forward through the slow parts and get some enjoyment out of the action scenes. Watch out for some nudity and bad language.$LABEL$ 0
+witty. funny. intelligent. awesome. i was flipping channels late one night years ago. came across this and a wildfire started. i was staying up late every night and taping it for everyone i know. a few. like 3 people out of the almost 100 people i made watch this didn't think it was as awesome as i did. the others were laughing out loud so hard they were crying and thanking me at the same time. please do yourself a favor. run don't walk. watch this and enjoy. intelligence and humor. it's a win-win situation. i wish i could have afternoon tea with him and meet the truly rare comedian that we as a society need more of....sanechaos.$LABEL$ 1
+It's a unique film, as it gives us our only chance to see the young Noel Coward in all his ironic glory. Because he seems so reserved & detached he's perfect for the role of an unloved cad who matter-of-factly uses all those around him. However in the deadly serious (no pun intended) last act, when Coward must make like the Flying Dutchman, he's much less comfortable.But his way with an epigram is peerless, and Hecht & Macarthur have given him some gems (Macarthur, really -- he was the wit of the pair).The film is superbly lighted by the great Lee Garmes, but has little camera movement aside from a storm sequence. Hecht and Macarthutr cared about one thing -- getting their dialogue on screen. (NOTE: H&M themselves have blink-and-you'll-miss-'em cameos as bums in the flophouse scene).The most notable supporting player is the one and only Alexander Woolcott, notorious Broadway columnist and close friend of both Macarthur and Coward, who appears as one of the bitchy authors always kept waiting in the reception room of publisher Coward.Curious that Woolcott would agree to do a film that clearly lampoons the legendary Algonquin Round Table, of which he was a founder, and Macarthur something of an auxiliary member.The Scoundrel actually won an Oscar for best story, though that victory is probably due more to Coward's imposing presence than any brilliance in the plot. It's Coward, Woolcott, and the dialogue you remember...$LABEL$ 1
+This is definitely a "must see" film. The excellent Director Alain Chabat (also acting as Ceasar) has managed to capture the very essence of the "Adventures of Astérix" (the French comic books it's based upon) and to create a fantastically modern and intelligent comedy, which is also an homage to the world of animated films. This movie is so funny, so full of jokes (both visual and spoken) that it might take you two or three screenings before you notice them all, between your bursts of laughter. The only drawback is that a non-French audience (or at least a non-French speaking audience) might not get all the "private jokes". There are so many dialogues impossible to translate, so many situations directly related either to the comic books or to the French way of life, that the fun might be lessened. However, it's still totally worth seeing for the beautiful picture, the amazing stunts, the music, the totally crazy atmosphere and the excellent acting. All actors are great, but the film would not be the same without Jamel Debouze, Gérard Darmon and Edouard Baer. And please don't EVER compare this magnificent film to the terrible previous one based on the same comic books : "Astérix et Obélix Contre César" and directed by Claude Zidi.$LABEL$ 1
+I thought this movie was stunning, with completely outstanding performances by Valentina Cervi (Artemisia Gentileschi).Cervi portrays Artemisia so beautifully, with tentative yet confidant mannerisms, her hands mapping out an idea before moving her models into place. The passion to which Artemisia gives to her art is just spectacular to watch.Although not each character was overtly beautiful, this made the film more realistic as the facial hair and clothing was perfect for that point in time.Overall i thought this film was fantastic.$LABEL$ 1
+I consider myself a bit of a connoisseur of boxing movies and as such there is only one thing that prevents me from calling "Gentleman Jim" the best boxing movie ever made. That is the Robert Wise/Paul Newman flick "Somebody Up There Likes Me." That movie might be number 1, but "Gentleman Jim" is a close number 2.The movie doesn't just chronicle the rise of James J. Corbett, it also shows the sport of boxing at a crucial time of transition. In the late 1800s boxing was moving away from the brutal days of bare-knuckle rules to the more "gentlemanly" days of the gloved, Marquis of Queensbury rules. And the sport was moving away from the days when it was an illegal spectacle and towards a time of acceptance and respectability."Gentleman Jim" is not a realistic look at those days. It is romanticized and, yes, even a bit hokey at times. But always delightfully so. Errol Flynn is perfect as the "Gentleman" Jim who really isn't a "gentleman" at all but merely a fast talker from a working class family. Alexis Smith is quite ravishing as the upper class woman with whom he has a love/hate relationship (and we all know it is, of course, love that will win that match in the end).At the end of "Gentleman Jim" the great John L Sullivan (whose famous line was NOT "I can lick any man in the world" of course...romanticism again) hands over his belt to Corbett. This is truly one of the best scenes in any sports move ever made. Realistic? No. But wonderful. Hey, if you want realism watch "Raging Bull" instead. That is a much more realistic boxing movie. But "Gentleman Jim" is a lot more fun.$LABEL$ 1
+That this movie has been stapled to the wall of a chapel as proof that God is truly dead. Am I the only one that really saw (rather sleptwalked) through this "film"? This is the only movie I've ever seen in the theater that I regret not walking out on and demanding my money back -- it was just that dull. And I even saw "Highlander 2: The Quickening" at the local cinema. From beginning to end, Gibson and Downey have absolutely no chemistry as two unlikelies, cast together by circumstance, who eventually work together as best buddies. The action (what little there is) is goofy and as dull as the skullbone of the writer. Thank whatever deity is chortling down at us as it observes our "cinema" that there's no chance for an "Air America 2."$LABEL$ 0
+Well, there's no real plot to speak of, it's just an excuse to show some scenes of extreme violence and gratuitous sex (which can sometimes be fun, too, but it's not in this case). What else can I say about this...? The action, when happening, is inventive and there's a cool scene where two characters are falling from a skyscraper (one that has to be several miles high), but overall there's not much to recommend "Kite". Watch it if you want, but you're not missing much if you skip this one...$LABEL$ 0
+This is the best film the Derek couple has ever made and if you think this is a recommendation then you haven't seen any of the others. There are the usual ingredients: it is just as poorly acted as their other efforts, we can watch Bo disrobing or auditioning for wet T-shirt contests quite frequently, the story is just laughably idiotic, and the film takes itself much too seriously. And then: Orang Utans in Africa?But it has a few things going for it. Bo looks great, the production values (sets, costumes, etc.) are quite good, and this greatly enhances its camp value. In a strange way it is actually quite funny, simply because it tries to be serious and fails so badly.$LABEL$ 0
+Some people drift through life, moving from one thing or one person to the next without batting an eye; others latch on to a cause, another person or a principle and remain adamant, committed to whatever it is-- and figuratively or literally they give their word and stand by it. But we're all different, `Made of different clay,' as one of the characters in this film puts it, which is what makes life so interesting. Some people are just plain crazy, though-- and maybe that's the way you have to be to live among the masses. Who knows? Who knows what it takes to make things-- life-- work? Writer/director Lisa Krueger takes a shot at it, using a light approach to examine that thin line between being committed-- and how one `gets' committed-- and obsession, in `Committed,' starring Heather Graham as a young woman who is adamant, committed, obsessive and maybe just a little bit crazy, too. Her name is Joline, and this is her story.	Admittedly, Joline has always been a committed person; in work, relationships, in life in general. She's a woman of her word who sticks by it no matter what. And when she marries Carl (Luke Wilson), it's forever. The only problem is, someone forgot to tell Carl-- and 597 days into the marriage, he's gone; off to `find' himself and figure it all out. When Joline realizes he's not coming back, she refuses to give up on him, or their marriage. Maybe it's because of that `clay' she's made of. Regardless, she leaves their home in New York City and sets off to find him, which she does-- in El Paso, Texas, of all places. But once she knows where he is, she keeps her distance, giving him his `space' and not even letting him know she's there. She considers Carl as being in a `spiritual coma,' and it's her job to keep a `spiritual vigil' over him until he comes to his senses. And while she watches and waits, her life is anything but dull, as she encounters a young woman named Carmen (Patricia Velazquez), a waitress at one of the local eateries; Carmen's `Grampy,' (Alfonso Arau), who is something of a mystic; T-Bo (Mark Ruffalo), a truck driver who has issues concerning Carl; and Neil (Goran Visnjic) an artist who makes pinatas and takes a fancy to her. For Joline, it's a journey of discovery, during which she learns a lot about Carl, but even more about herself.	There's a touch of humor, a touch of romance, and some insights into human nature in this quirky film that is more about characterization and character than plot. And Krueger presents it all extremely well, delivering a film that is engaging and entertaining. Her characters are very real people, with all the wants, needs and imperfections that make up the human condition; a rich and eclectic bunch through which she tells her story. We see it from Joline's point-of-view, as Krueger makes us privy to Joline's thoughts and therefore her motivations, which puts a decided perspective on the events as they unfold. That, along with the deliberate pace she sets that allows you to soak up the atmosphere and the ambiance she creates, makes for a very effective piece of storytelling. There's an underlying seriousness to this subject matter, but Krueger chooses to avoid anything heavy-handed or too deep and concentrates instead on the natural humor that evolves from the people and situations that Joline encounters. And the result is a well textured, affecting and upbeat look at that thing we call life.	Heather Graham takes hold of this role from the first frame of the film to make Joline a character totally of her own creation. She immerses herself in the part and gives a performance that is convincing and believable, adding the little personal traits and nuance that makes all the difference between a portrayal that is a mere representation of a person, and one that is real. And for this film to work, it was imperative that Joline be viable and believable-- and Graham succeeds on all fronts. Her screen presence has never been more alluring, and her vibrant personality or even just the way she uses her eyes, is enough to draw you in entirely. it's all a part of the character she creates; there's an appeal to Joline that exudes from her entire countenance, who she is inside and out. She's a likable, agreeable person, and because you've shared her innermost thoughts, you know who she is. It's a good job all the way around, beginning with the way the character was written, to the way Graham brings her so vibrantly to life.	As Carmen, Patricia Velazquez is totally engaging, as well. Her performance is very natural and straightforward, and she uses her instincts to effectively create her character. She has a charismatic presence, but is less than flamboyant, and it gives her an aspect that is attractively down-to-earth. She is refreshingly open and up-front; you get the impression that Carmen is not one to hold anything back, but is totally honest on all fronts, and that, too, is part of her appeal. And, as with Joline, this character is well written, and Velazquez brings her convincingly to life.	Overall, there is a number of notable performances that are the heart and soul of this film, including those of Luke Wilson, Casey Affleck (as Joline's brother, Jay), Goran Visnjic, Alfonso Arau and especially Mark Ruffalo as T-Bo, who, with very little actual screen time, manages to create a memorable character.	The supporting cast includes Kim Dickens (Jenny), Clea Du Vall (Mimi), Summer Phoenix (Meg), Art Alexakis (New York Car Thief), Dylan Baker (Carl's Editor), and Mary Kay Place (Psychiatrist). A film that says something about the value of stepping back to consider The Big Picture-- reflecting upon who we are, where we're going and what we really need-- `Committed' is an enjoyable experience; a ride definitely worth taking. 8/10.$LABEL$ 1
+Ho-hum. An inventor's(Horst Buchholz)deadly biological weapon is in danger of falling into the wrong hands. Unknowingly his son(Luke Perry)has been working on the antedote all along. Enter CIA agent Olivia d'Abo and the cat-and-mouse car chases and gunfire begins. Also in the cast are:Tom Conti, Hendrick Haese and an aging Roger Moore. Moore seems to haggardly move through this mess definitely not one of his better efforts. Perry fans will be accepting. d'Abo is wrong for the role, but nice to look at.$LABEL$ 0
+Note to self. Never ever ever again watch a serious movie with Charlie Sheen in it. Great comedian, horrible seal. This movie makes Navy SEALS look like a reckless group of rangers when, in fact, they are the most elite form of military in the world. Charlie Sheen helps destroy the Navy SEAL reputation. Thank you for making such an incredibly select group of individuals look awful in one of the worst action movies I have ever seen. This is a great story which could be made into an amazing action movie, but why Charlie Sheen? There are possibilities for a very passionate story here, but Sheen decides to wreck them with "funny" comments.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is stupid. There's no getting around it. But so is Dumb and Dumber. Mind you, Dumb and Dumber is significantly more funny than this. However, I for one love seeing stupid movies (Tail Sting) and laughing with a group of good friends over how bad it is. Call me callous, but see this movie, and you'll find that the only way you can laugh at it is if you laugh at it instead of with it.$LABEL$ 0
+I was looking forward to this so much, being a big fan of the book. However, when it came out I remember thinking it was one of the biggest wastes of money and time I've ever spent at the cinema.In principle, the acting, the sets and the music were excellent, and are the main reason why I'm rating this a 4.In this version, Sara is a little too self-sacrificing for my taste. There is no way she would have deliberately lied to Miss Minchin just to stop her punishing the other girls; in the book she makes a point of describing lies as "not just wicked, but vulgar." There's also far too much of a Disneyfied ending for me; Sara's father coming back from the dead and all of them trotting off into the Indian sunset. While the book does have a happy (and critics might say equally improbable) ending, it doesn't leave you thinking, "Oh puh-leeze."About the only things true to the book were:1. Sara's father being a soldier 2. The lines between Sara and her father ("Are you learning me by heart?"/"No. I know you by heart. You are inside my heart.") 3. Sara's friendship with Becky, and her 'adopting' Lottie (although this last one wasn't developed as much as it could have been) 4. The changing of her room by adding various luxury items. That part was brilliantly done. 5. The basic core - a rich girl being flung into poverty suddenly - is there, but that's about all that is.People might say that this adaptation is more for the younger audience. Possibly. All I can say to that is I have two cousins - aged 7 and 12 respectively - who were big fans of this film until they read the book.If all you want is a 'feel-good' family film, then this delivers. If you're looking for a film that actually tells the story of A Little Princess (in fact, if you've read the book) don't waste time with this one. It's such a shame; with a cast like this, if they'd stuck to at least the basic story it could have been fantastic.Am I harping on about 'read the book' this and 'read the book' that a little too much? Very probably. But if someone attempts to adapt a book - especially such a classic - into a movie, then they should at least have done the same thing. Preferably more than once.$LABEL$ 0
+as always this is an inaccurate picture of the homeless. TV told a lot of lies about panhandlers in the early 1990s and made everyone look bad, and claimed we all made over $100 a day when $20-40 a day was much closer to reality. when someone drove by where i held up a sign offering to work, and offered me work, i actually went and took the work if i was physically able.and if i would been offered the $100,000 id damned sure invested in in apt prepaid for at least 2 years, and kept most in the bank and still left myself $10-20000 for NL $1-2 and $2-5 cash games at the casinos. i usually always win and could win decent if i just had a bankroll. instead i win about $1000 a month is all playing in always minimum buying in due to not wanting to risk losing it all. i was only homeless cause i didn't wanna risk spending all my money and going broke, sometimes i had over $1000-2000 in my sock while i slept outside. anyone wanting to talk contact sevencard2003 on yahoo messenger.i admit i was different than most homeless people though, due to the fact i never drank smoke or took drugs. im no longer homeless, am now in govt housing for $177 a month and getting SSI and spend most of my time winning at online poker. mom and sunflower diversified worked hard to get me SSI. glad my days of hiding in under the stage in the convention center of the casino at night sleeping, worrying about getting caught by security are finally over. had this TV crew picked me theyd been over a lot sooner. its a shame how they don't better select who they pick.$LABEL$ 0
+i really in enjoyed watching this movie. like most of the people that watched it. i wasn't sure that i was getting. Whoopi Goldberg is a very funny comedian and she has done a lot of funny movies; i.e. sister act.however this was not really comedy. it is a drama with comedic moments. so if your looking for a laugh riot then keep looking.this movie is about a black family moving up from a nice neighborhood in the city to an upper middle class neighborhood. i would say more but it think it would spoil the movie. this movie does not just deal with race relations between whites and blacks, but also about relations with in the black community. i do think that it is worth a chance. if your not really interested in see another movie about race relations then this movie isn't for you$LABEL$ 1
+Having been a Marine, I can tell you that the D.I. is as accurate a portrayal to date depicting Marine Corp boot camp and how boys are turned into men. Jack Webb is excellent as Sgt.Jim Moore, a tough, but fair drill instructor in Paris Island North Carolina. The film centers on one recruit who doesn't seem to "get with the program." A more recent film, Full Metal Jacket, also shows life in basic training and is well worth viewing.$LABEL$ 1
+Every high praise word fell way short before the height of this movie. This movie is the true example of how a psychological horror movie should be.The plot seems to be a bit confusing at first viewing but it will definitely explain a bit about what's going on and you really want to view it for the second time. But after second viewing you will start to join the pieces together and then you will know how amazing a movie can be.A word of advice for slasher flick fans stay away from this movie. This is not your dumb ass teenage slasher movie, in which you just switch off your brain and sit in front of the screen just to see big b**bs and lots of blood.If you want to heighten the psychological horror factor of this movie then watch it all alone with a great home theater system that supports Dolby Digital or DTS 5.1ch, without any of your ill mannered friends that crack jokes on a really tense situation. And don't forget to switch the light off.My points on different aspects:-Direction = 9/10 Acting = 8/10 Atmosphere = 10/10 Sound Effect = 9/10Total = 9/10$LABEL$ 1
+Ken Burns' "Baseball" is a decent documentary... it presents a clear origin of the game, a great depiction of baseball's early years and heroes. There's plenty in this movie for any baseball fan... that said, the film has several glaring flaws.18 hours is simply too long for the human attention span. It's clear that Burns stretched his film out to fit his "nine inning" concept. It's not even a tight 18 hours... the pace on every segment is slow, almost morose... the music always nostalgic and wistful. Isn't baseball ever exciting and fun? Why is every player and their accomplishments presented in the form of a tragedy? Talking head after talking head turn every pitch into an emotional heartbreak, yakking about baseball as a metaphor, baseball as Americana, the psychology and theology of baseball... enough! This is syrupy, mawkish drivel. Billy Crystal is here to sell us all the Yankee hokum he's sold us before. Ken Burns uses the National Anthem as the series' theme song, and manages to play "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" so many times you might vomit. We get it, dude.Clearly Burns is a neo-Hollywood faux-liberal, so he spends probably a third of the film on the Negro leagues... these segments are spent chastising whites of yesterday for not being as open-minded as Kenny is today. For shame! He chides baseball for being segregated in the thirties and forties but fails to realize that America was segregated in those times! Burns falls head over heels in love with Buck O'Neil, a former negro-league player, and drools over every piece of footage in which the elderly O'Neil waxes poetic about his playing days. Nonsense...Burns would have been better off with an adult to help him edit his creation down. "Baseball" winds up as mushy, gushy, civil-rights propaganda disguised as Americana. Its clear that Burns is not a baseball fan... otherwise he would know we watch games laughing and cheering, not weeping and reciting soliloquies... are you listening, Mr. Burns? There's no crying in baseball.$LABEL$ 0
+"Quitting" may be as much about exiting a pre-ordained identity as about drug withdrawal. As a rural guy coming to Beijing, class and success must have struck this young artist face on as an appeal to separate from his roots and far surpass his peasant parents' acting success. Troubles arise, however, when the new man is too new, when it demands too big a departure from family, history, nature, and personal identity. The ensuing splits, and confusion between the imaginary and the real and the dissonance between the ordinary and the heroic are the stuff of a gut check on the one hand or a complete escape from self on the other. Hongshen slips into the latter and his long and lonely road back to self can be grim.But what an exceptionally convincing particularity, honesty, and sensuousness director Zhang Yang, and his actors, bring to this journey. No clichés, no stereotypes, no rigid gender roles, no requisite sex, romance or violence scenes, no requisite street language and, to boot, no assumed money to float character acts and whims. Hongshen Jia is in his mid-twenties. He's a talented actor, impressionable, vain, idealistic, and perhaps emotionally starved. The perfect recipe for his enablers. Soon he's the "cool" actor, idolized by youth. "He was hot in the early nineties." "He always had to be the most fashionable." He needs extremes, and goes in for heavy metal, adopts earrings and a scarf. His acting means the arts, friends--and roles, But not the kind that offer any personal challenge or input. And his self-criticism, dulled by the immediacy of success, opens the doors to an irrational self-doubt, self-hatred-- "I didn't know how to act" "I felt like a phony"--and to readily available drugs to counter them. He says "I had to get high to do what director wanted." So, his shallow identity as an actor becomes, via drugs, an escape from identity. Hongshen's disengagement from drugs and his false life is very gradual, intermittent--and doggedly his own. Solitude, space, meditative thinking, speech refusal, replace therapy. The abstract is out. And a great deal of his change occurs outdoors---not in idealized locations but mainly on green patches under the freeways, bridges, and high-rises of Beijing. The physicality is almost romantic, but is not. The bike rides to Ritan Park, the long spontaneous walks, the drenching sun and rain, grassy picnics, the sky patterns and kites that absorb his musing are very specific. He drifts in order to arrive, all the while picking up cues to a more real and realistic identity. "I started to open up" he says of this period in retrospect. And the contact seems to start with his lanky body which projects a kind of dancer's positioning (clumsy, graceful, humorous, telling) in a current circumstance. If mind or spirit is lacking, his legs can compel him to walk all night. Central to his comeback is the rejection of set roles. To punctuate his end to acting and his determination to a new identity, he smashes his videos and TV, and bangs his head till bloody against his "John Lennon Forever" poster. He has let down his iconic anti-establishment artist---but he's the only viable guide he knows. He even imagines himself as John's son (Yoko Ono), and adopts his "Mother Mary" as an intercessor in his "hour of darkness" and "time of trouble." (the wrenching, shaking pain in the park--hallucinatory and skitzoid ordeals) "Music is so much more real than acting" he says. And speaks of Lennon's influence as "showing me a new way." In the mental institute, the life-saving apples (resistance, nourishment) reflect Lennon's presence, as does Hongshen's need to re-hang his hero's poster in his redecorated room.If Lennon's influence is spiriting, Hongshen's father's influence is grounding. Although father and son are both actors and users (drugs and drink), it is Fegsen's differences from his son that underwrites his change. For the father is more secure in himself: he accepts that he's Chinese, a peasant in a line of peasants, a rural theater director. And he exercises control over both his habit and his emotions. It's this recognizable identity that drives Hongshen to treat him like a sounding board, sometimes with anger and rage, sometimes with humor (the blue jeans, Beatles) and passivity. In his most crazed, and violent exchange with his father in which he accuses him of being a liar, and a fake, he exposes more of himself than his father: "all the acts I acted before were bullshit... life is bullshit." And to Hongshen's emphatic "you are NOT my father," he softly replies, "why can't a peasant be your father?" Under these two teachers and with much additional help from his mother, sister, friends, inmates at the rehab inst., he makes some tangible connection to a real (not whole) self. As the long term drug effects recede, so does his old identity. Indebtedness replaces pride, trust distrust. Integrity banishes his black cloud. All his edges soften. "You are just a human being" he repeats endlessly after being released from the strap-down incurred for refusing medicine. Back home, lard peasant soap is fine with him now. And his once "rare and true friendships" begin again as is so evident in the back to poignant back-to-back fence scene with his musician buddy. Hongshen says of this movie: "it's a good chance to think about my life." And I might add, become a New Actor, one bound to art and life. Like Lennon, he has gained success without a loss of identity.$LABEL$ 1
+I have watched this movie countless times, and never failed to be charmed by it's homely simplicity, sincerity and goodness. Great characterizations by all of the cast, and the lovely little steam trains that play a such an important supporting role.I confess I fell in love with Roberta in 1970, and she still touches me today. Shown on TV in New Zealand on Christmas day, the nicest present I could have had.$LABEL$ 1
+If only I had read the review by Alex Sander (sic) on here rather than looking at the rating of over 6 from a select choice of the ignorant viewing public I would not have seen this desecration. Alien was a fantastic, dramatic and well made horror/sci-fi. Predator was a great sci-fi/action mess-about. I do really have only myself to blame though as I saw 'Alien versus Predator'. It too has an average grading of over 6 stars from the connoisseurs of film that frequent this site.STOP READING NOW IF YOU HAVE ANY FEAR OF THIS EVER SO SUSPENSE RIDDEN PLOT BEING RUINED FOR YOU.Right from the beginning this film was ridiculous. No explanation was offered for the Predator ship overrun/not overrun by Aliens. OK so maybe they were again going to throw aliens down to Earth to hunt them and something went wrong but how did this result in an Alien/Predator hybrid and why did the rest of the crew not realise sooner despite their great technology? The start was actually the most coherent and interesting part of the film because we had some idea of who was who or what was what and perhaps why. From then on it gets really ridiculous. I always leave my disbelief strictly suspended above the door of the screen before entering and collect it on the way out. I couldn't here.A father and son are hunting in the woods. The damaged ship crash lands to (from the view given) I would calculate at the very least 10 odd miles away through thick woodland. The man and boy track there alone and find the ship and get face hugged. Even at this point you feel very little for them mainly because the face huggers are almost comical rather than scary in their movement and actions and the father seems like such an irresponsible, dumb redneck muppet.An edgy, thriller-type scenario is introduced with an ex-con returning to the town near the crash site to be met by his somewhat emotionless, dull now cop friend from the bus. When I say introduced I mean a feeble attempt with crap actors and no feeling is played out. A slasher/horror element is then introduced with a sexy girl and the usual supposedly nerdy or somehow undesirable cute guy who gets beaten up by the over protective, crazy, nasty Jock type (American sportsman not a Scottish man). Oh the cute/not cute boy is the ex-con's brother by the way. Yes they're clever these director brothers whose name I will research in order to avoid any other shite they put out again. Then a modern role reversal oh so boring attempt at PC, Ripley credential type character introduction comes with a female soldier returning home to her husband and child.Guess what happens next? I won't tell you much more about the actual (smiles sadly to himself about the demise of storytelling in the large majority of recent films) plot just in case you have got this far and are not the brightest star in the Alien-ridden universe.The Predator is stupid for the reasons stated by the previous poster whose post I read too late. The Aliens are boring. The Predator-Alien is ridiculous. The action is at times exploitative, gratuitous, disgusting nonsense. The hospital scene with the pregnant mothers?!?! Oh I was shocked alright. Shocked at how low some people will go to get what? A scare? Some shock? To titillate the perverse? What? If you really wanted to shock, titillate and scare people who are not pregnant or expecting fathers or who have no souls why not just have the Alien/Predator shagging the saucy women and teenage girls rather than killing them? The characters have no depth and neither does the plot. It's filmed and paced badly. It's acted by disinterested people not that I can blame them. It further tarnishes two rather interesting and good sets of sci-fi characters. This film was rubbish and if you gain enjoyment from it I really have to worry about you. If you haven't seen it then well please make your own decision.PS Did I even mention the way that trained soldiers are all killed in about 20 seconds while amateur civilians survive throughout?$LABEL$ 0
+Even though I saw this film when I was very young, I already knew the story of Wild the Thief-Taker and Shepherd who famously escaped from Newgate prison.Apart from the liberty taken right at the end, the film more or less faithfully follows the true story. The temptation to bend the facts which is the hallmark of so many so-called historical films is resisted in this film and the film makers must be praised for that.Of the performances, There is scarcely a poor performance, and Tommy Steele is ideally cast. Also good is Stanley Baker as the Thief-Taker and Alan Badel is good as always.Because the film sticks to the facts, it makes it suitable to be watched by all the family.$LABEL$ 1
+Gone is the wonderful campiness of the original. In place is a c-grade action no-brainer, wich is not all bad, but pales in comparison to the original. All the meaningless sex and violence is gone, and replaced with crappy jokes and unexplained plot pointers. See it, but don't expect the thrills of the first.$LABEL$ 0
+Although most Americans have little knowledge of his work other than Star Wars, Alec Guinness produced an amazing body of work--particularly in the 1940s-1950s--ranging from dramas to quirky comedies. I particularly love his comedies, as they are so well-done and seem so natural and real on the screen--far different from the usual fare from Hollywood.This being said, this was the film that sparked my interest in these movies. It's plot was so odd and cute that it is very unlikely the film would have been made anywhere--except for Ealing Studios--which had a particular fondness for "little" films like this one.Guinness is a nerdy little scientist that works for a textile company. He wants to experiment in order to create a synthetic fabric that is indestructible, though he is not working for the company as a researcher but for janitorial work! So, he tends to sneak into labs (either during the day if no one suspects or at night) and try his hand at inventing. Repeatedly, he is caught (such as after he blew up the lab) and given the boot until one day he actually succeeds! Then, despite the importance of the discovery, he sets off a completely unanticipated chain of events--and then the fun begins.The film is a wonderful satire that pokes fun at industry, unions, the government and people in general.$LABEL$ 1
+Victor McLaglen's performance is one of the finest in film history.I think we can all feel for "Gypo" because we've all struggled with what is right and what isn't and been wrong. This was one of the first art-house pictures to be released by a major American movie studio (RKO Radio Pictures).Joseph H. August's cinematography is at its very best here. However, August's stunning portion was mostly overlooked; he didn't receive the Oscar nomination he rightly deserved.This is a psychological drama, with thought, philosophy, sadness, all conveyed with as little words as possible.$LABEL$ 1
+How do you take a cast of experienced, well-known actors, and put together such a stupid movie? Nimrod Antel has the answer: Armored. Six co-workers at an armored car business decide to steal a large shipment of cash themselves. But, just as they get to first base with their plans, everything unravels quickly. With a plot like this, you'd think it couldn't be too bad, at least for an action movie. However, in the first 40 minutes or more of this movie we see what appear to be 6 normal, everyday kind of guys. They joke, they laugh, have a few drinks together, etc. Then, we suddenly learn they're planning to rob their own business. The hero Ty, (Columbus Short), is sucked into the scheme because of the cold, cruel world, even though he's a decorated veteran, nice guy, and reliable employee. Oh my, oh my! Then in the last 40 minutes of the film, these former regular guys nearly all turn into money-crazed psychos, willing to butcher each other for cash. In the last scenes Mike, (Matt Dillon), goes on a suicidal rampage for no other reason than to kill his former friend. The viewer has no hint before this ending that these men are this ruthless and bloodthirsty. It's utterly unbelievable and "B movie" is almost too kind for this sort of cheesy plot. I would say don't waste your time--too bad no one gave Laurence Fishburne, Jean Reno or Fred Ward the same advice before making this picture.$LABEL$ 0
+The sexploitation movie era of the late sixties and early seventies began with the allowance of gratuitous nudity in mainstream films and ended with the legalization of hardcore porn. It's peak years were between 1968 and 1972. One of the most loved and talented actresses of the era was Monica Gayle, who had a small but fanatic cult of followers. She was actually able to act, unlike many who filled the lead roles of these flicks, and her subsequent credits proved it. And her seemingly deliberate fade into obscurity right when her career was taking off only heightens her mystique.Gary Graver, the director, was also a talent; probably too talented for the sexploitation genre, and his skill, combined with Monica Gayle's screen presence, makes Sandra, the Making of a Woman, a pleasantly enjoyable experience. The film never drags and you won't have your finger pressed on the fast-forward button.$LABEL$ 1
+What a surprisingly good movie this one turned out to be. This is the type of film that I've been looking for ages. Particularly important for me was the fantastic-looking Chicago, which I still keep thinking about. The back cover doesn't do this film justice, it's superb, and in my top-5 for sure.$LABEL$ 1
+I did not expect much from this film, but boy-o-boy, I did not expect the movie to be this bad. Chris Rock is not showing a good act here, you can't get the feeling that his caracter is real, I think the movie would have been a bit better if it's drama or romantic scenes would have been a less part of the movie and more/better humor was involved. The movie is like the film makers were having a bad hangover making it. In the "making of" they don't show a single smile. This is a very bad film! I gave it three out of ten because of few smiles it gave me, but I did never laugh!$LABEL$ 0
+I cant believe there are people out there that did not like this movie! I thought it was the funniest movie i had ever seen. It my have been b/c i am Mel Brooks biggest fan... I know almost all the words and get very discouraged when they censor them, when it is played on a Family Channel. :) this is one of my favorite movies, so i dont know why any one would disagree! thanks Kristina$LABEL$ 1
+Flynn, known mostly for his swashbuckling roles (and his bedroom antics!) takes a different tack with this film and it works beautifully. Playing real-life boxing champ Jim Corbett, Flynn turns on the charm full blast as he makes his way from a stifled San Francisco bank teller to a celebrated pugilist, all the while setting one eye on society deb Smith. He and best pal Carson attend an illegal bare-knuckle fight and are arrested along with scores of other men (and a dog!) including a prominent judge. The next day, he gets a chance, via Smith, to gain entrance to the judge's private club. He uses this opportunity to weasel his way into the good graces of its exclusive members and land a spot as the club's resident boxer. His unusually adept skill in the sport soon has him taking on all comers, up to and including the world champion John L. Sullivan (Bond.) Flynn is downright magical here. He is the epitome of charm, charisma and appeal in this role. He looks terrific (especially in a hangover scene with his hair mussed and wearing a white union suit) and does virtually all of his own stuntwork (impressively!) His line delivery is delicious and he is credible and sympathetic and at the same time duplicitous and rascally. Smith exudes class and taste from every pore and is a good match for Flynn. At this stage, he needed a female costar who could stand up to his advances and reputation (he was undergoing statutory rape charges at the time) and she does so admirably. She is repulsed by his freshness and cavalier attitude, yet can hardly help but fall under his enchanting spell. Bond is incredibly burly, brawny and towering, yet tender when the script calls for it. Amusing support is provided by a young and ebullient Carson. Frawley is his dependably cantankerous self as Flynn's manager. The rest of the cast is excellent as well including Flynn's rambunctious family and an assortment of stuffy Nob Hill types. The whole thing is beautifully appointed and securely directed. A few of the sets are amazingly presented. Some of Smith's gowns border on the garish, but she suits the upswept hairstyles very well. It's a terrific glimpse into the earliest days of championship boxing, but it's also so much more. Some of it (like the character traits shown by Flynn) is enhanced or exaggerated for entertainment purposes, but a lot of it is authentic (like the methods and costumes shown in the fight scenes.) One line is particularly memorable: "I believe you like me more than I like you, but it's entirely possible that I love you more than you love me." It's classic romantic dialogue (and there are more than a few zingers sprinkled throughout the script as well.)$LABEL$ 1
+Often laugh out loud funny play on sex, family, and the classes in Beverly Hills milks more laughs out of the zip code than it's seen since the days of Granny and Jed Clampett. Plot centers on two chauffers who've bet on which one of them can bed his employer (both single or soon to be single ladies, quite sexy -- Bisset and Woronov) first. If Manuel wins, his friend will pay off his debt to a violent asian street gang -- if he loses, he must play bottom man to his friend! Lots of raunchy dialogue, fairly sick physical humour, etc. But a lot of the comedy is just beneath the surface. Bartel is memorable as a very sensual oder member of the family who ends up taking his sexy, teenaged niece on a year long "missionary trip" to Africa.Hilarious fun.$LABEL$ 1
+Thought provoking, humbling depiction of the human tragedies of war. A small, but altruistic view of one family's interactions with the enemy during the civil war in Kentucky. This movie lessens the "glamor" of war; showing it's effect on not only the soldier but the entire family unit.A lot of today's movies show war as an opportunity to highlight the "hero's" and other glamorous features of war, but very little attempts to show the true effect war actually takes on a community. This movie attempts this through a retelling of a person's memory of those days. This movie is stated to be loose translation of an actual events, when in reality, this movie is probably a factual reality of hundreds, perhaps thousands of "actual events" during the civil war. I highly recommend those interested in our civil war to watch this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Or anyone else have noticed the fact that first bunch of episodes are inspired too much by 90's flicks?I mean seriously wife who is trying get someone else to murder his rich husband so she can claim his assets. Med students who are temporarily stopping their hearts to reach memories that are lost; Flatliners. Bunch of college bodies getting together again to reminisce on the old days but are not fully comfortable because they did something in the past, Very Bad Things? Groundhog day is one of my all time favorite movies. Sadly enough the writing staff behind his turd is bunch of lazy bastards who can not come up with their original scripts.Noble idea totally fubarred in it's execution.$LABEL$ 0
+elvira mistress of the dark is one of my fav movies, it has every thing you would want in a film, like great one liners, sexy star and a Outrageous story! if you have not seen it, you are missing out on one of the greatest films made. i can't wait till her new movie comes out!$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this movie on the Hallmark Channel and thought it was wonderful, especially since it was based on a true man. Pierce Brosnan was very good as the loner English man who took on the persona of the half breed Grey Owl. The photography was beautiful.This movie made me do more research into this character Archie Belaney known simple as Grey Owl. I want to read as much as I can about him. At the time I did not know Richard Attenborough had directed it. But I am not surprised. I like all his movies whether he is acting or directing. I gave it the highest rating. However, I would have liked to have seen more in the movie about WHY he took on this persona as it only showed the two aunts who raised him and his room in their house.You can't go wrong with this movie if you are like me and enjoy a beautiful story without hearing foul language and contrived special effects every few minutes.$LABEL$ 1
+Despite having an absolutely horrid script (more about that later), this film is still vaguely watchable just because it stars two excellent actors, Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda. Aside from one or two REAL stinkers, I'd probably watch just about anything with them in the film, as I am a huge fan of Hollywood's golden age of the 1930s and 40s. However, no matter how much I love their films, I just can't recommend this film.The movie begins with Fonda and Stanwyck on vacation at some ski resort. The two haven't yet met, but the film begins loudly and obnoxiously with a scene in which Fonda horribly yodels while skiing. It was done so unsubtly and made my teeth grind but I stuck it out--especially when Fonda fell into a snow bank and this stopped the yodeling!! In hindsight, perhaps I should have just turned it off then! Fonda is knocked out in the fall and Barbara goes for help. Back at the ski lodge, he seems okay but fortunately she is ALSO a doctor and has him x-rayed and nurses him back to health. He, in turn, becomes infatuated with her and proposes to her. Despite hardly knowing each other, they marry and so far the film seems like a sweet but very slight romantic comedy.Once home, however, all isn't rosy as she jumps right back into her job as a family doctor and he begins exhibiting signs that he is a controlling and potentially dangerous man due to his jealousy. The film plays it all for laughs, but frankly Fonda's behaviors were really creepy--spying on her and her male patients, attacking or threatening ANY man she treats, tripping a patient who already has a back injury and stomping into a surprise party and insisting that everyone there (men and women) are out to steal away his wife. He comes off as a combination of a sociopath and paranoid schizophrenic, but it's all supposed to be for laughs. Considering that he seems like a dangerous nut, you would think that Stanwyck would file for an annulment along with a restraining order! But, oddly, she gets mad but just can't stay mad at Fonda because he's so........? I can't think of the right word--'creepy' is all that comes to mind!!! Later, out of the blue, multi-millionaire Fonda gets a job working the counter at a department store. Then, through magical thinking, he and Babs seem to assume his hostility and violent jealousy is all a thing of the past--so a job apparently cures anger and suspicions. When this job falls through, the film ends with Fonda buying his own hospital, giving Barbara a job there and they live happily ever after. They don't go any further with the story, but I assume based on Fonda's character that he then spent most of his time as hospital administrator beating up all the male patients.The first portion at the ski lodge and the next did NOT fit well together, nor did the final "Horatio Alger" inspired section where the rich boy made good in the business world. They were like three separate plots but despite this, the most serious problem with the film was its seeming to excuse away domestic violence and delusional jealousy! What a creepy little film! Thank goodness neither Fonda nor Stanwyck are known for this yechy film but for all their other lovely films.$LABEL$ 0
+I find the critique of many IMDb users a little harsh and in many cases find that they crit the movie from a very professional viewpoint and not that of the guy on the street that wants to sit and watch something just to GET AWAY from it all.In this case however I have to say it was BAD. I am a SciFi junkie and there was NOTHING in this movie that grabbed me for even one second.There was no proper storyline. I may be an idiot but I still do not know where the GOVERNMENT was that was so worried about these pieces.The pathetic attempt by the main character to put together these 3 pieces is scary. Half the time the two pieces were already in place and he simply had to add the third. A 3 year old kid would have been able to put them together.This movie was BAD.Dominic$LABEL$ 0
+I was debating between this movie and 2012 but chose Inglourious Basterds due to it's amazingly high IMDb rating. I must say now, what a disappointment. I expected a certain amount of gratuitous violence, but I also expected a lot of witty dialog. I got a huge dosage of the former, but not nearly enough of the latter. I felt shortchanged. The ratio between violence to plot is very important and I think this movie gets it totally wrong. And the plot? It's that believable or really all that entertaining either. Save your time and money. I can't believe what this rating says for the gory and violent tastes of the modern masses.$LABEL$ 0
+Bend it like Beckham is packed with intriguing scenes yet has an overall predictable stroy line. It is about a girl called Jess who is trying to achieve her life long dream to become a famous soccer player and finally gets the chance when offered a position on a local team. there are so many boundaries and limits that she faces which hold her back yet she is still determined and strives. i would recommend it for anyone who likes a nice light movie and wants to get inspired by what people can achieve. The song choices are really good, 'hush my child, just move on up...to your destination and you make boundaries and complications.' Anyway hope that was at help to your needs in a review. Bend it like Beckham great flick$LABEL$ 1
+Directed by Diane Keaton and adapted from a book by Franz Lidz. A young mother Selma Lidz(Andie MacDowell)is battling a very serious illness and her self proclaimed inventor husband Sid(John Tururro)is a little lacking in the emotions department. Unhappy with the new home situation, their sensitive son Steven(Nathan Watt)decides he wants to stay with his two eccentric uncles Danny(Michael Richards)and Melvin(Lou Cutell)until his mom is well. Steven seems to be happier and even takes interest in his strange uncle's living habits; he even decides he wants to change his name to Franz. Set in the early 60's, this drama is a bit comedic...change that to zany. Not being a MacDowell fan, UNSTRUNG HEROES assures my attitude; albeit I enjoyed the film and it is not a total waste.$LABEL$ 0
+Perhaps the most gripping and intelligent of crooked cop movies is Otto Preminger's 'Where the Sidewalks Ends,' from a really excellent script by Ben Hecht based on the novel 'Night Cry' by Frank Rosenberg...Dana Andrews is the honest, tough New York policeman, always in trouble with his superiors because he likes his own strong-arm methods as much as he detests crooks... When he hit someone, his knuckles hurt... And the man he wants to hit is a smooth villain (Gary Merrill) who points up the title. 'Why are you always trying to push me in the gutter?' he asks Andrews. 'I have as much right on the sidewalk as you.'Dana Andrew's obsession and neurosis are implanted in his hidden, painful discovery that he is the son of a thief... His deep hatred of criminals led him to use their own illegal methods to destroy them, and the pursuit of justice became spoiled in private vendetta...By a twist of irony unique to the film itself, Dana Andrews and Gene Tierney of 'Laura' are united once more, and Andrews now seems to be playing the same detective a few years later, but no longer the romantic, beaten down by his job, by the cheap crooks... This time, he goes too far, and accidentally kills a suspect... The killing is accidental, the victim worthless, yet it is a crime that he knows can break him or send him to jail...Using his knowledge of police procedure, he covers up his part in the crime, plants false clues, and tries to implicate a gang leader, but cannot avoid investigating the case himself... The double tension of following the larger case through to its conclusion without implicating himself in the murder, is beautifully maintained and the final solution is both logical, satisfying, and in no way a compromise...The film is one of the best detective films of the 50's, with curious moral values, also one of Preminger's best... Preminger uses a powerful storytelling technique, projecting pretentious camera angles and peculiar touches of the bizarre in order to externalize his suspense in realism...$LABEL$ 1
+In sum, overlong and filled with more subplots than swiss cheese has holes! The director and co-writer says he wanted to mix genres - in this case drama and comedy. Well, at least here, these two mix like vinegar and oil. To boot, the comedy is not very funny and juvenile. Additionally, the film is not really realistic. Liberties are taken regarding the legal system in committing French Citizens against their will and the apparent ease of absconding with drugs in French Hospitals. I watched this film on my big screen TV at home and found myself shouting at the film to move on. Eventually toward the end I fast forwarded the final long speech one of the main characters makes to his ex-lover's son. By that time I was worn out by the preposterous confused plot that deals with a dead lover, marriage of convenience and a nutty ex-lover. At times the plot diverts to the families of the two main characters and then reverts back to one of them - either Ismael or primarily Nora. To the detriment of the audience, viewpoints keep changing from Nora and Ismael, her ex-lover confined against his will in a psychiatric hospital. There probably are two potentially interesting films here neither of which are well developed. The epilogue does not really wrap up many of the sub-plots and seems to want the viewer to believe Nora somehow will find happiness although given her circumstances in real life the chances are equivalent to a snow ball's chance in hell. The actors do their best and are appealing, but this is not enough to overcome all the glaring faults of poor writing, editing and lack of focus.$LABEL$ 0
+Incomprehensibly dreadful mishmash of the probably most notorious of all Roman emperors who went insane, leaving infamous party orgies and ruthless killings in his path... I know there are several versions of this, and this is based on the 102 min' one that I watched - but I can't fathom how that possibly can make any difference to lift the rest of this movie out of the muck!I'd heard for long about the alleged "shocking" content of sex/nudity (which honestly there isn't much of here at all - and boring when there is) and blood, but beware - it's the technical production amateurishness that well and truly shocks here: Everything looks plain and simply like a junior film school flunk project! Camera-work is hopelessly inept, full of strange zooms, failed framing and confusing pans (to and from what mostly looks like a huge theater stage!) complete with a grainy, cheapish photo quality. Lighting and color schemes are terrible and uneven - is it day or night? Are they in- or outside? Have they changed scenes? Who is, or is meant to be in the shot? Editing is the final sin here, making a confusing mess of everything with randomly jumpy cutaways, continuity flaws and random transitions that destroy any chance of momentum, story progression - and involvement. There is potentially interesting dialog and an equally interesting true historical story... but these faults distract so much it's tragic.A story with SO many possibilities to be great is just one gargantuan, burnt (and Fellini-like) turkey that's only good for a few gobble-laughs and Peter O'Toole, who makes a most memorable Tiberius. Oh yes, which brings us to the big-name actors. I'd like to line them all up one by one and just ask: Who did you get free access to bonk in the orgies to be a part of this? There, I've wasted enough lines on one of the truly worst films of all time - period!1 out of 10 from Ozjeppe$LABEL$ 0
+Did anyone edit this film? Or was it only the DVD release that had huge thirty second gaps between scenes? It's OK though, I fell asleep watching it the first time. Then I fell asleep the second time and the third time. The plot is actually not the worst I've seen, but it's close. The acting is not the worst I've seen either...but it's close. The production .... well, I can honestly say that it was the worst I had ever seen in my life! Not trying to be spiteful, but Unhinged could have used some more production.Please don't think I'm a hater of horror films, or even that I didn't enjoy this film. I just felt I was laughing at the film much more than I felt I was laughing along with it. The gruesome moments were not too poorly done, but could have been done better even with a shoestring budget.Characters seemed awkwardly developed, or ignored all together, twist ending was pretty bad, and the exposition took forever without exposing much.I'd recommend avoiding this movie.1/10$LABEL$ 0
+Riding high on the success of "Rebel Without a Cause", came a tidal wave of 'teen' movies. Arguably this is one of the best. A very young McArthur excels here as the not really too troubled teen. The story concentrates more on perceptions of delinquency, than any traumatic occurrence. The supporting cast is memorable, Frankenheimer directs like an old pro. Just a story of a young man that finds others take his actions much too seriously.$LABEL$ 1
+Most of the comments on this movie are positive so I thought I would try and redress the balance. I came out of this movie wondering what was going on. I now know and still consider it to be a poor movie. I intially discounted a dream sequence as that seemed too obvious. I was glad that I had a free ticket to the movie or I would have asked for my money back. Movie reviewers and critics love this movie, which only confirms to me that most of them would rather sound intelligent than review how an audience may enjoy a film. The 8+ rating this movie has is so misleading. In 20 years time this film will not compare to true greats such as The Godfather. The film does have fine performances from both the leads but that isn't enough to save the film. (nor are the lesbian scenes!)$LABEL$ 0
+Pepe le Moko, played by Charles Boyer, is some sort of international criminal mastermind wanted in countries throughout Europe, and to stay free he holes himself up in the Casbah, a mysterious part of Algiers where even the police are reluctant to go, until a senior officer is sent from Paris to capture le Moko once and for all. For le Moko, although the Casbah allows him to remain out of police custody, it also becomes a sort of prison at the same time - a place he can't leave, because the moment he does, he knows he'll be arrested.Boyer's performance was good, and I can understand why he was nominated for an Oscar. He captures the essence of such a character - a perfect combination of very dangerous and yet very classy at the same time. The movie itself, unfortunately, was quite a letdown. A number of parts of the story seemed inconsistent, of which I'll mention two. First was the idea that the police wouldn't enter the Casbah. That was stated pretty clearly at the beginning of the film by the local commander, and yet repeated references in the movie suggest that in fact the police did enter the Casbah fairly regularly. So, neither the suggestion by Commissioner Janvier that the police wouldn't enter, nor the statement by Inspector Slimane (also a decent performance by Joseph Calleia) that they could get into the Casbah but not out seemed to make much sense. I also found it difficult to believe that le Moko - hardened criminal mastermind that he was - could be so quickly swept off his feet by Gaby (Hedy Lamarr) to the point where he entertains the local populace by singing love songs and then leaves the Casbah to find her, essentially giving himself up. I understand the irony of the final few scenes, of course, as Pepe leaves the freedom of his prison (the Casbah) only to find real freedom in his capture (because he's shot and killed by the police.) I just found it impossible to believe that someone like le Moko would fall into such a trap.This is worth watching for Boyer, and to a lesser extent Calleia, but the story is disappointing and inconsistent. 3/10$LABEL$ 0
+Man with the Screaming Brain certainly isn't a perfect movie, but I'm pretty sure it was never meant to be anything more than a star vehicle for Bruce Campbell, meaning it works as kind of a summary of his entire career: slapstick, sarcasm, cheese, action, and happy endings. Campbell is, as a writer, uneven--there are lots of things in the story that don't make a great deal of sense (why does the robot suddenly have breasts merely because a female brain has been implanted into it?), and some of the scenes feel like retreads of other, better incarnations (the scene in the restaurant, where Yegor and William battle for control of William's body, is straight out of Evil Dead II). There are, however, lots of little touches and non-sequiturs that feel rather brilliant, such as when William is in the height of his panic and screams at a statue, "What are you looking at?!" The movie looks like a Sci-Fi Channel original, probably because it was. The acting is actually pretty good. I particularly enjoyed Tamara Gorski as Tatoya; she was ruthless and cunning, yes, but seemed to have a tragic air about her in certain moments that the story never explored. Ted Raimi handled the standard "bumbling assistant" role admirably enough, and Bruce is funny as the arrogant, sardonic, condescending American jerk. (Now that he's writing his own films, you'd think he'd give himself a role that he hasn't been typecast in already.) Man with the Screaming Brain is a bizarre, nonsensical B-movie that ought to be enjoyable for anybody who can avoid taking a cinematic experience too seriously.$LABEL$ 1
+You should never ever even consider to watch this movie! It is absolutely awful! This isn't an overstatement!! It is so unbelievable and exaggerated, it gets boring. It is just a movie where they have taken stories and plots from several movies and put it together in one. They writer hasn't been able to pull it off in a good way.If you'd like to see pretty girls in bikinis and no brain this might be the movie for you, but still, you should plug your ears and just watch. It's not worth listening:p There are so many great movies out there, and if I could choose one, this would be the last movie I would pick. But all in all, it's your choice!!! Enjoy!$LABEL$ 0
+Tell the truth I’m a bit stun to see all these positive review by so many people, which is also the main reason why I actually decide to see this movie. And after having seen it, I was really a disappointed, and this comes from the guy that loves this genre of movie.I’m surprise at this movie all completely – it is like a kid’s movie with nudity for absolutely no reason and it all involve little children cursing and swearing. I’m not at all righteous but this has really gone too far in my account.Synopsis: The story about two guys got send to the big brother program for their reckless behavior. There they met up with one kids with boobs obsession and the other is a medieval freak.Just the name it self is not really connected with the story at all. They are not being a role model and or do anything but to serve their time for what they have done. The story is very predictable (though expected) and the humor is lame. And haven’t we already seen the same characters (play by Mc Lovin’) in so many other movies (like Sasquatch Gang?). I think I laugh thrice and almost fell a sleep.Well the casting was alright after all he is the one that produce the screenplay. And the acting is so-so as expected when you’re watching this type of movie. And the direction, what do one expect? This is the same guy who brought us Wet Hot American Summer, and that movie also sucks. But somehow he always managed to bring in some star to attract his horrendous movie.Anyway I felt not total riff off but a completely waste of time. Only the naked scenes seem to be the best part in the movie. Can’t really see any point why I should recommend this to anyone.Pros: Elizabeth Bank? Two topless scenes.Cons: Not funny, dreadful story, nudity and kids do not mix together.Rating: 3.5/10 (Grade: F)$LABEL$ 0
+This film held my interest enough to watch it several times. The plot has holes, but the lead performers make it work.Catherine Mary Stewart (Julia Kerbridge), does a great job as a woman of 37 who has sacrificed everything else to become a physician. She worked years to earn the money to go to medical school. She is performing brilliantly in her residency and is just about to take her board exam and realize her dream.Meanwhile, Julia's sister and brother-in-law are murdered and as the nearest living relative she is compelled to take in her niece Amanda (Arlen Aguayo-Stewart) to avoid having her become a ward of the state. Amanda is about 7 years old from her appearance. Amanda is so traumatized from her parent's murder that she has become mute. Needless to say, Julia's 16-hour days get longer caring for Amanda.Rob Lowe plays Kevin Finney, a charming neighbor man in their apartment building who works his way into the lives of Julia and Amanda. He is always there with a trick or a joke to help Amanda deal with her distress. Amanda really starts to warm up to Kevin as the film progresses, perhaps more than to her aunt. Julia starts to rely on Kevin to take some of the load of caring for Amanda as she attempts to handle her case load and prepare for her board examination. Kevin is always there whenever some crisis erupts for Julia.The chemistry between Rob and Catherine Mary was great. You keep watching to see them get together before the end of the film. The chemistry between Rob and Arlen was good as well. Arlen managed to convey quite a lot without the benefit of words. The plot had Julia and Amanda gradually warming up to each other. You can see them working out a relationship as the film progresses.We discover that Julia's sister and brother-in-law (the Meyers) were involved in industrial espionage. They stole an extremely valuable prototype microchip from their employer. They had three associates who intended to share the proceeds of the theft. Julia discovers that the Meyers were planning to skip the country under assumed identities. The plot is unclear whether the Meyers intended to double cross their associates or were themselves double crossed.In any case the Meyers are murdered in their home by 2 of their former associates. The killers make no attempt to extract the location of the microchip from the Meyers before killing them. The killers search the home and fail to find their prize. They leave a living witness to their crime, Amanda. The killers then spend the remainder of the film making clumsy attempts to extract the microchip from Julia and Amanda who have no idea where the prize is located. Eventually, the killers kidnap Amanda in hopes she knows something about the microchip's location.Eventually Julia discovers the truth about Kevin. He is an investigator hired to recover the stolen microchip. After some rough moments in the relationship they manage to rescue Amanda and dispatch the bad guys. The predictable ending has the three forming a family and moving happily into a future together.What struck me about the plot were major holes. Kevin moves into the same apartment building as Julia and Amanda the day after the murder of the Meyers. How does he know that the microchip is not already in the hands of the killers? The killers blithely leave fingerprints at the murder scene, with no concern for concealing their identity. The killer that pretends to be a psychiatrist is revealed to Amanda by the remnants of red paint from the murder scene on his shoe soles. He was not shown in the murder scene at the start of the film. There are other weaknesses along these lines too numerous to mention.The film could have been a lot better if the script had been refined more before filming. Filling in the plot holes would have added little expense and greatly improved the effort.$LABEL$ 1
+Like the previous poster, I am from northern Vermont, and I was inclined to like this film. However, not since "Red Zone Cuba" have I seen such a confusing plot. The things the people to bootleg make no sense. Two of the gang paddle across the border send a second party across in a car. Uhm, why? Then they meet two others, and drive up at night in to the bad guy's hideout in a luxury Packard. --Wouldn't just two people in a flatbed truck make more sense? Then, parked outside the garage that holds the targeted hooch, the four fall asleep! When they waken in the morning and and start hauling the whiskey out, of course they're spotted and shot at, losing some of their precious cargo in the process. Then two of the smugglers put the whiskey in a boat and float it over the border. Again, why? I am told by someone whose great uncle really did smuggle in the area, all one needed was to drive a vehicle that could outrun than the U.S. Canada Border Patrol, which back then had a fraction of the resources it has now. And don't get me started on the last half hour, which made no sense whatsoever.The only good thing I can say about the film is that Kris Kristopherson has actually grown some charisma with the years.$LABEL$ 0
+MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS. This movie was the worst movie ever. I couldn't even watch it all it was so bad. This film is actually worse than scarecrow slayer which is saying a whole lot. This was worse than terror toons which at least terror toons was funny at times. Not even the gore in the film was good. The shootings were fake and the acting was worse. Please do yourself a favor and skip this one. If you see it at the rental store then run the other way. There is nothing good about this film at all. If you want to see a good scarecrow movie then watch Night of the scarecrow or pumpkin head. If you want to see an OK new cheesy movie then watch Scarecrow. I rate this movie a 0.2 out of 10. That's how horrible this film really is. THE WORST MOVIE EVER.$LABEL$ 0
+Watched this last night and was bowled over by the heartfelt story line, the excellent character development, and the good karmic vibe emanating from the acting and movie as a whole.Without giving away too much of the plot, it begins with an ordinary joe who commutes to his office job every day who becomes inspired to take dance lessons. Along the way the protagonist and the assorted characters he meets in his quest to be smooth on the dance floor learn lessons about others and about themselves. The story has a prologue about what dancing in Japan symbolizes sociologically, so it isn't exactly as simple to learn to dance in Japan as it is here in the U.S. The film is lighthearted; you'll laugh out loud at some of the sight gags. Yet it is also dignified in a way hard to describe. All of the film's characters are taken seriously, as they are, and none are diminished because of their "imperfections."I've been thinking about taking social dance classes with some friends. It just so happened a friend lent me the video on learning to dance. Is this synchronous or what? I think so because now I'm really geeked to give it a try. Watch this wonderful family film (small children might not get it, but teens certainly would) and smile at the genuine caring you see shown in it time and again.Why they would make a remake of Shall We Dance is a mystery, as it is perfect as-is.$LABEL$ 1
+Recap: Something mysteriously dense that transmits radio signals is discovered in the ice of Antarctica. The mysterious block is dug out and brought to a research station on Antarctica. Julian Rome, a former SETI-worker, is brought in to decipher the message. Problem is that one of the researchers is a old girlfriend of his, and the situation quickly turns awkward, especially since the other female researchers practically throw themselves at him. And the block of ice with the thing inside is melting unnaturally quickly. Soon the object is in the open. The mystery continues though as the object generates a huge amount of electricity. It is decided to open the object, but just before that is done, Julian decodes the signal. "Do not open". But too late, and the object explodes as it is finally breached, and two things unleashed on earth. The first is an alien, that had been dormant in the object, and the other is a virus that instantly kills the research staff. And Washington, that is suspiciously updated on this historic event, decides that those things can not be unleashed upon the earth. So a Russian nuclear submarine, carrying nuclear weapons is sent to Antarctica.Comments: The movie holds a few surprises. One is Carl Lewis who surprisingly puts in a good acting performance, and the other is that the special effects that are beautiful, well worked through and a lot better than expected. Unfortunately the story holds a lot of surprises of its own, and this time not in a good way. Actually it is so full of plot holes that sometimes the movies seem to consist of almost randomly connected scenes. It is never really explained why Washington know so much, why Washington is able to command Russian submarines, why the object is in the Antarctic and has woken up now. It is really puzzling that the alien pod is transmitting in understandable English. Some might want to explain this with that the alien had been to Earth before and knew the language (and obviously chose English, why?). But then it is very confusing why the nice aliens that apparently want to save the Earth from the virus, send their "Do not open" message encoded! And finally the end is as open as an end can be.The movie is a little entertaining but too much energy (from me) must be diverted to fill in the voids in the plot. Therefore the total impression of the movie is not too good.3/10$LABEL$ 0
+This movie features Charlie Spradling dancing in a strip club. Beyond that, it features a truly bad script with dull, unrealistic dialogue. That it got as many positive votes suggests some people may be joking.$LABEL$ 0
+Had I checked IMDb BEFORE renting this DVD from Netflix, I'd have a couple of hours of my life back. I'm frankly suspicious when I see that a film's director also wrote it. In this case, according to the credits, the same guy was "writter and director" - unfortunately, an indication of the overall quality of this production. There were a few interesting moments (e.g., Judy Tenuta's scene reminded of her early comedy routines touting Judy-ism) which led me to rate this two stars rather than one. Those moments, however, were few and far between ... and I almost did not get to see them because the opening sequence was nearly incomprehensible to me, not to mention reprehensible in its violence. I admit I went back to watch that part again to see if I had missed something that would help me figure it out once I'd seen the whole thing. Nope, though I at least recognized who the characters were who would turn out to be important later. The "spinning camera" technique was overused and essentially pointless. I found myself talking to the TV screen: "What?!?" or "For goodness sake, get ON with it!" Not recommended.$LABEL$ 0
+The endless bounds of our inhumanity to our own kind never fails to stun me. This truly astonishing story of a horrifically abused and largely unheard-of population is compelling, well-documented and enraging. As an American, I am constantly humiliated by my country's behaviour and this is just another in our long catalogue of international debasement. We suck. This is probably the first John Pilger documentary I've seen, but it immediately made me want to see what else he's done. My only complaint, and the reason I gave this film only 8 out of 10, is that Pilger shows us this travesty and the appalling collaboration of the US and UK governments, demands that we viewers/citizens are complicit in our own inaction...but makes no suggestion of how to help. I don't know about Britain, but America's made it nearly impossible for the citizenry to take part in their government's doings. A gesture in the right direction might help these islanders' cause.$LABEL$ 1
+This flick is so bad its beyond belief.Even for an independent low budget film...it just, well, sucks.I can't even believe even Troma would put out such crap.I have been a fan of some Troma flicks for years(Toxic Avenger,Squeeze Play,Rockabilly Vampire to name a few).But LLoyd, come on,this goes way beyond the boundaries of any taste.It features some of the worst acting imaginable.I think it would have been possible to find unemployed street people who could have been as good...oh,wait, that is what they did.I mean it,these characters have negative charisma.With any luck, the producer and director of this film will have a huge karmic debt because of this atrocity.As will the special effects people.But beyond the terrible acting and the horrid special effects,the dialogue is absolutely traumatic to the ears.The script is full of plot holes the size of Alaska, and there are severe continuity problems.The worst part however, is that it not entertaining in even the smallest way.And this is the most unforgivable sin in film making.But, don't take my word for it.Go out and waste four bucks renting it.Just don't say I didn't warn you.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a very memorable spaghetti western. It has a great storyline, interesting characters, and some very good acting, especially from Rosalba Neri. Her role as the evil villainess in this film is truly classic. She steals every scene she is in, and expresses so much with her face and eyes, even when she's not speaking. Her performance is very believable. She manages to be quite mesmerizing without being over the top (not that there's anything wrong with being over the top). Mark Damon is surprisingly good in this movie too.The music score is excellent, and the theme song is the kind that will be playing in your head constantly for days after seeing the movie, whether you want it to or not. There are a couple of parts that are very amusing. I especially like the part where Rosalba Neri undresses in front of the parrot. There's also lots of slick gun-play that's very well done.I would probably have given this movie 8 or 9 stars if it wasn't for two things. The first being a silly bar room brawl that occurs about 25 minutes into the film. This is one of the most ridiculous looking fights I have ever seen in a movie. It is very poorly choreographed, and looks more like a dance number from a bad musical than any kind of a real fight. One might be able to overlook this if it were a Terence Hill/Bud Spencer comedy, but this is a more serious western, and the brawl really needed to be more realistic. The other thing that annoyed me about this movie was Yuma's cowardly Mexican sidekick. I guess he was supposed to be comic relief or something, but the character was just plain stupid and unnecessary in a movie like this, and he wasn't at all funny. All I can say is where is Tuco when you need him? All that having been said, let me assure everyone reading this that Johnny Yuma is a classic spaghetti western despite the faults I have mentioned, and all fans of the genre need to see this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+The plot: Michael Linnett Connors has done everything in films but direct, and is looking for his 1st big chance. He discovers Molly in a play and at once knows she will be a big film star. He signs her to a contract with the stipulation that he must direct. The producer agrees and their big time careers are under way. What follows is a recreation of the silent film era and early sound movies with great emphasis on comedy. And, oh yes, there's romance, and a little sadness too. The performances by Don Ameche and Alice Fay are top notch. The music is a real plus too with some old familiar tunes heard. Lots of DVD extras as well in this restored version released in 2008. It must be emphasized that this movie is a story 1st, not just a tribute to silent films. Later years would bring similar films such as, Singin' in the Rain(1952) & Dick Van Dyke-Carl Reiner's, The Comic(1969). What is special about this film, though, is recreating silent movies in 1939. We see portions of them as the cinema audience would in that bygone era(although some sound effects are included)in glorious b&w, while the rest of the movie is in pristine color. One of the greatest in the silent era, Buster Keaton, who at this point was on an uphill climb, is used superbly in 2 silent film recreated scenes and he is on the top of his game! It is said that he had some input on his scenes as well. But the real reason to watch the movie, if your a motion picture history fan, is that beyond everything else, Hollywood Cavalcade is Mack Sennett's film legacy. It doesn't take a genius to realize this movie is a "positive" reworking of Mack Sennett's and Mabel Normand's life. The character Michael "Linnett" Connors is Mack Sennett, whose real name was Michael Sinnott. And Molly, of course is Mabel. Sennett had the pie throwings, the bathing beauties and Keystone Cops. He worked with Buster Keaton, Ben Turpin(cameo), Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle(body double) and fell in love with his leading lady. Not only all that, but Sennett was technical adviser for this film and appears in it as well. As most film viewers today prefer sound features, those who were associated with short subjects and silents are left out to pasture. As Mack Sennett fell into that category, it is fortunate that there is Hollywood Cavalcade! Sennett was of course very instrumental in the evolution of comedy in movies. His career started in 1908 as an actor, then writer, director & producer. He semi retired in 1935 with about 500 films to his credit. He had worked with the best, such as Charlie Chaplin, Gloria Swanson, Bing Crosby, W.C. Fields, Keaton, Harry Langdon, Arbuckle, and even Roy Rogers(in Way Up Thar).As film comedy is an extremely difficult path to continue for an entire career, Mack played it wise & did only selective work for the next 25 years. In 1931 he had receive an academy award in the short subject category, and another in 1937 for a lifetime of work. In the 1940's his presence was still felt, e.g. Here Come the Co-Eds(1945)where a recreation of the oyster soup scene used in Mack's Wandering Willies(1926)is done. In 1947, The Road to Hollywood, used some of Sennett's Crosby films. 2 years later brought some nostalgia with the film Down Memory Lane in which he participated. With his knack of always associating with the right people, a guest role with the eternally popular Lawrence Welk & his radio show came about later in the year. 1950 brought a re-release of his greatest triumph, Tillie's Punctured Romance(1914) with sound. In 1952 he was honored on TV's, This Is Your Life, then his autobiography, The King of Comedy(1954), which is a great companion piece to Hollywood Cavalcade, was published. 1955 brought a more concrete association with Abbott & Costello, as he had a cameo in A&C Meet the Keystone Kops. Finally in 1957, another tribute with the compilation film, The Golden Age of Comedy. So when you watch Hollywood Cavalcade it is the legacy of a motion picture pioneer. In the film at the banquet scene the camera pans over the guests at a long table. As we get to the silver haired Mack, he alone turns his head to the camera as if to say, "here I am!". When he rises to give a speech a short while later, he is at his most subdued, underplaying the words given him as if to mentally convey, "I know my influence on comedy will never end, but will people forget Mack Sennett the individual. Maybe this movie will help."$LABEL$ 1
+It got to be a running joke around Bonanza about how fatal it was for any women to get involved with any Cartwright men. After all Ben Cartwright was three times a widower with a son by each marriage. And any woman who got involved with Adam, Hoss, and Little Joe were going to end up dying because we couldn't get rid of the formula of the widower and the three sons that started this classic TV western.Perhaps if Bonanza were being done today the writers would have had revolving women characters who came in and out of the lives of the Cartwrights. People have relationships, some go good, some not so good, it's just life. And we're less demanding of our heroes today so if a relationship with one of them goes south we don't have to kill the character off to keep the survivor's nobility intact. But that's if Bonanza were done today.But we were still expecting a lot from our western heroes and Bonanza though it took a while to take hold and a change of viewing time from NBC certainly helped, the secret of Bonanza's success was the noble patriarch Ben Cartwright and his stalwart sons. Ben Cartwright was THE ideal TV Dad in any genre you want to name. His whole life was spent in the hard work of building that immense Ponderosa spread for his three children. The kids were all different in personality, but all came together in a pinch.The Cartwrights became and still are an American institution. I daresay more people cared about this family than the Kennedys. Just the popularity that Bonanza has in syndication testifies to that. Pernell Roberts as oldest son Adam was written out of the show. Rumor has it he didn't care for the noble Cartwright characters which he felt bordered on sanctimonious. Perhaps if it were done now, he'd have liked it better in the way I describe.This was just the beginning for Michael Landon, how many people get three hit TV shows to their credit. Landon also has Highway to Heaven and Little House On the Prarie where he had creative control. Little Joe was the youngest, most hot headed, but the most romantic of the Cartwrights. When Roberts left. the show kept going with the two younger sons, but when big Dan Blocker left, the heart went out of Bonanza. Other characters had been added on by that time, David Canary, Tim Matheson, and Ben Cartwright adopted young Mitch Vogel. But big, loyal, but a little thick Hoss was easily the most lovable of the Cartwrights. His sudden demise after surgery left too big a hole in that family.So the Cartwrights of the Ponderosa have passed into history. I got a real taste of how America took the Cartwrights to heart when I visited the real Virginia City. It doesn't look anything like what you see in Bonanza. But near Lake Tahoe, just about where you see the Ponderosa on the map at the opening credits, is the Cartwright home, the set maintained and open as a tourist attraction. Like 21 Baker Street for Sherlock Holmes fans, the ranchhouse and the Cartwrights are real.And if they weren't real, they should have been.$LABEL$ 1
+Years ago, when DARLING LILI played on TV, it was always the pan and scan version, which I hated and decided to wait and see the film in its proper widescreen format. So when I saw an inexpensive DVD of this Julie Andrews/Blake Edwards opus, I decided to purchase and watch it once and for all.Boy, what a terrible film. It's so bad and on so many levels that I really do not know where to start in describing where and when it goes so horribly wrong. Looking at it now, it's obvious to any fans of movies that Blake Edwards created this star vehicle for his wife simply because so many other directors had struck gold with Andrews in musicals (MARY POPPINS, SOUND OF MUSIC, THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE, etc) but also because Andrews was snubbed from starring in projects made famous on stage by Julie herself (CAMELOT, MY FAIR LADY, etc) because Hollywood thought she wasn't sexy or glamorous enough. So Blake created this stillborn effort, to showcase his wife in a bizarre concoction of spy story/war movie/romance/slapstick comedy/musical. DARLING LILI suffers from multiple personalities, never knowing who or what it is. Some specific scenes are good or effective but as a whole, it just doesn't work at all to a point of it being very embarrassing.Mind you, the version on the DVD is the "director's cut", or in this case, "let's salvage whatever we can" from this notorious box office flop. In releasing the DVD, Edwards cut 19 scenes (19!!!!!!!!) from the original bloated theatrical version into this more streamlined and yet remarkably ineffective version. The film moves along with no idea of what it is. We are 25 minutes into it and we still don't know what's going on or why we're watching what's going. What kind of spy is Lili? How powerful is she? Was she ever responsible for someone's death? Instead we watch a thoroughly bored looking Rock Hudson trying to woo a thoroughly bored looking Julie Andrews. Things aren't helped much with the inexplicable reason why the two fall in love. Why does Julie fall for Hudson? Why him and not other men she got involved with? There should have been one of her ex hanging around, trying to win her back or trying to decipher her secret. This would have given us some much needed contrast to the muddled action. It would also have given us some impetuous to the sluggish proceedings. There's no catalyst in this story.One only has to look at the cut scenes to clearly see that Edwards and the writer just came up with ideas inspired by Andrews' (and Edwards') previous successes. The best (or worst) example is the scene when Andrews and Hudson follows a group of children who sing in the middle of a forest. Edwards channeling SOUND OF MUSIC. It's no wonder he removed it from the DVD. Back in 1970, that scene might have worked on a certain level but today, that moment reeks of desperation. There are other plot elements directly inspired by Andrews/Edwards other films. The endless scenes of dogfights is inspired by the much better MODERN MILLIE. The musical moment "I'll give you three guesses" was created just to make fun of Julie's MARY POPPINS persona, which is turned "raunchy" with Julie doing a striptease in the act. The ending, bird's eye view of Julie running towards Hudson's plane, is another "wink" at SOUND OF MUSIC.The whole thing is confusing. Julie plays a singer, born from a German father and British mother, who lives in England but sings her (English) songs in Paris. You never know exactly where the story takes place. Some moments are just badly edited. Like when Julie and her "uncle" are on horseback. They talk and talk and then Julie suddenly sprints off in mid-sentence. I'm like "what happened here?"The comedy bits are unfunny and cringe-worthy. Every scene with the French police are pathetic. Where's Peter Sellers when you really need him. The action is stupid beyond belief. When Julie and her "uncle" are on their way to Germany on that train, Hudson's squadron shoots rounds of bullets at the train, almost killing Lili in the process. Brilliant. What's also funny about that scene is the two leave on the train in the middle of the night but Hudson and his squadron reach the train even though they fly off the next morning. That's one slow moving train there. The musical moments. The beginning is the best part of the entire film (and the reason I gave this film 3 stars) but it's effect is diminished considerably because it's repeated at the end. Speaking of redundant, did we really need to see a can-can dance, Crepe Suzette stripping scene and Julie stripping too? The "Girl in no man's land" is OK even if it's bleeding obvious, but that moment just doesn't make any sense whatsoever because Lili sings it to a group of injured soldiers at a French hospital, making me wonder: how many soldiers there were injured indirectly by the result of her spying?The whole project is listless and without energy. The romance is 100% unbelievable. Rock Hudson is way too old and tired looking (check out the museum scene). Julie looks dazed, like she's on Valium. But what really kills this ill-conceived project is Julie playing a German spy. Edwards desperately wanted to dispel the Mary Poppins syndrome afflicting his wife and believed that playing a traitor was a good career decision. As much as I like Julie, she's no Greta Garbo, who pulled it off so beautifully in MATA HARI. Funny enough, even if Julie plays a German spy, she still comes across as cloying and cute.How bad is DARLING LILI? Even after 37 years since its release, Blake Edwards felt he still needed to work on it for its DVD release.$LABEL$ 0
+This series, made for Televisión Española (TVE) is basically a series of chapters in the life of an ordinary family in 1968, primarily as seen through the eyes of the youngest son.Based on a background of historical events, such as the May 1968 student uprising in France, the decaying Franco regime, the war in Viet-Nam, the rise of imperialism, and others specifically related to Spanish life at that particular moment, one might regard this series as a simple compilation of characteristic foibles which make themselves so apparent in this kind of entertainment.Generally treated in a lightweight vein though not lacking in certain moments which might be called dramatic, the series would seem to be aimed at people of around fifty who can rember those times, as, it should be stated, anyone younger either chooses to ignore such happenings or is busily occupied in other things.The best thing that can be said of this series is Ana Duato's rôle as mother of three children: she plays the part of the total housewife of the times really well, manifesting that peculiar Spanish penchant, especially noticeable among women, of letting all her thinking and her doings be carried forward by the impetus of her heart, without any resorting to the use of the brain. As we say in Spain, common sense is one of the least common senses. Imanol Arias offers very little, apart from not being his usual stereotyped hard policeman as in other television series. Indeed, as an actor, he should not be trusted in anything which is not a TV series. His resources are too limited; however, his part as father of the working-class household is not at all bad.Not really recommendable for other audiences, even Spanish-speakers in Latin America: the themes are all too parochially related to a specific spot in contemporary Spanish history, such that if the viewer was not living here at that time he will miss most of the references. It is even probable that certain situations which cause a few Spanish smiles would not mean anything to other viewers.$LABEL$ 0
+I want the 99 minutes of my life back that was wasted on this pathetic excuse for a movie. The acting was horrific! I used to be a fan of Cameron Diaz and Vincent D'Onofrio. I will never look at them the same again. Keanu Reeves and Dan Aykroyd were not a surprise. Everyone knows they never could act. Thankfully, only Dan attempted an accent. His accent was a disaster as expected. I think he was either confused about the location of the film or had never actually spoken to anyone from Minnesota. I hope this review helps anyone who is undecided about what to do with their precious time. The only reason I was able to sit through the whole movie was because I was stuck somewhere without anything better to watch or read.$LABEL$ 0
+One of my favorite movies which has been overlooked by too many movie goers, an observation which mystifies me. Not only directed by the acclaimed Ang Lee,it had many young actors who were to become major stars, e.g., Tobey Maguire (before Spiderman), Skeet Ulrich (before Jericho), Jonathan Rhys Meyers (before Tudors), James Caviezel, Simon Baker, Mark Ruffalo, Jeffrey Wright, Tom Wilkinson, and Jewel. All of the acting was superb and each of the actors mentioned gave memorable performances, especially Meyers who portrayed an evil villain who killed for the sake of killing.When the biographies and accomplishments of the director ( even when he won an academy award) and the actors are listed, this film is usually omitted from their past performances. I discovered the film on DVD by accident and it became one of my most often watched films. However, it is seldom every seen on cable. I look forward to reading what others suggest are the reasons this film is not well known.$LABEL$ 1
+It's nice to see a romantic comedy that does not have the prissy man lead, this has solid acting from both male leads and also from the female lead and although the story is a little long and a little cliché you cant help but like it.I think the story was a little rushed at the end, but extending that would have made the story even longer. Superior to other romantic comedies such as 100 days with Mr arrogant, and possibly tied with my tutor friend.It would make an interesting introduction to Korean cinema, not as great as My sassy girl, but still good.$LABEL$ 1
+Of all the movies of the seventies, none captured to truest essence of the good versus evil battle as did the Sentinel. I mean, yes, there were movies like the Exorcist, and other ones; but none of them captured the human element of the protagonist like this one. If you have time, check this one out. You may not be able to get past the dated devices as such, but this is a story worth getting into.Then there are all the stars and soon-to-be stars. My absolute favorites were Eli Wallach, Sylvia Miles, and Burgess Meredith. Then there are the subtle clues that lead to what's going on too. Pay close attention. I had to watch it four times to catch on to all the smaller weird statements like 'black and white cat, black and white cake'. Plus, the books are really good as well. I'm just sorry that they're not going to turn the second book into a film. It's so scary that it would outdo this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+This is apparently the second remake of this film, having been filmed before in 1911 and 1918. And, in so many ways it reminds me of the later film, A YANK AT OXFORD. Both films concern a conceited blow-hard who arrives at one of the top schools in the world and both, ultimately, show the blow-hard slowly learning about teamwork and decency. In this film, William Haines is "Tom Brown" and his main rival, "Bob" is played by Frances X. Bushman. And, in a supporting role is Jack Pickford--always remembered as the brother of Mary. Of these three, Pickford comes off the best, as the sympathetic loser who becomes Tom's pal--he actually has a few decent scenes as well as a dramatic moment just before the Big Game! All the standard clichés are there and the movie, because it was done so many times before and since, offers few surprises. However, it is pleasant film and is enjoyable viewing.In my opinion, for a better silent college film, try Harold Lloyd's THE FRESHMAN--it's football scenes are frankly more exciting and Harold is far more likable and sympathetic than the annoying Tom Brown. THE FRESHMAN is probably the best college picture you can find from the era. Another reason why BROWN AT HARVARD is a lesser picture is that William Haines played essentially the same unlikable and bombastic character with the same plot again and again and again (such as in WESTPOINT and THE SMART SET, among others)--and if you've seen one of these films, you've seen them all. Well made, but certainly NOT original! And, because it is just a rehash of his other films, anyone giving the film a score of 10 is STRONGLY advised to see these other films.4/25/08==I just checked and saw this this small film was the highest rated film on IMDb from the 1920!! Talk about over-rated! There are dozens and dozens of better films--how this film got to be #1 is anyone's guess.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie illustrates like no other the state of the Australian film industry and everything that's holding it back.Awesome talent, outstanding performances (particularly by Victoria Hill), but a let down in practically every other way.An "adaptation" of sorts, it brought nothing new to Macbeth (no, setting it in present-day Australia is not enough), and essentially, completely failed to justify its existence, apart from (let's face it, completely unnecessarily) paying homage to the original work. If there's one body of work that has been done (and done and done and done), it's Shakespeare's. So any adaptation, if it's not to be a self-indulgent and pointless exercise, needs to at least bring some new interpretation to the work.And that's what this Macbeth fails to do. As it was done, this film has no contemporary relevance whatsoever. It's the same piece that we have seen countless (too many!) times before. Except with guns and in different outfits.Apart from the fundamental blunder (no other way to put it) of keeping the original Shakespearian dialogue, one of the more cringeful moments of the movie is the prolonged and incredibly boring slow motion shoot out towards the end, during which I completely tuned out, even though I was looking at the screen. I never thought I had a short attention span, but there you go.I suppose the movie succeeds on its own, very limited terms. But as Australia continues to produce world-class acting talent, its movie-makers need to stop being proud of succeeding on limited terms, and actually set high enough standards to show that they respect for the kind of acting talent they work with.A shame. An absolute shame.$LABEL$ 0
+Owen loves his Mamma...only he'd love her better six feet under in this dark, laugh-out-loud comedy that both stars and is directed by Danny DeVito, with admirable assists from Billy Crystal and Anne Ramsey in the title role."Throw Momma From The Train" is a terrific comedy, even if it isn't a great film. It's too shallow in parts, and the ending feels less organic than tacked on. But it's a gut-splitting ride most of the way, with Crystal and DeVito employing great screen chemistry while working their own separate comic takes on the essence of being a struggling writer (DeVito is avid but untalented; Crystal is blocked and bitter).Crystal's Professor Donner believes his ex-wife stole his book (the unfortunately titled "Hot Fire") and can't write more than the opening line of his next book, which doesn't come easy. He teaches a creative writing class of budding mediocrities, including a middle-aged woman who writes Tom Clancy-type fiction but doesn't know what that thing is the submarine captain speaks through; and an upholstery salesman who wants to write the story of his life. Mr. Pinsky is probably the funniest character for laughs-per-minutes-on-screen, an ascot-wearing weirdo who sees literature as an excuse to write his opus: "100 Girls I'd Like To Pork."Then there's DeVito's Owen Lift, who calls himself Professor Donner's "star pupil" even though the teacher won't read his work in class. Owen is a somewhat unusual character to star in a movie, a man-child in his late 30s who lives with his overbearing mother, Anne Ramsey, who calls him "lardass" and other endearing sentiments. In any other movie, we'd be asked to feel sorry for Owen, but "Throw Momma From The Train" piles life's cruelties onto this sad sack for laughs and expects us to go along. That's one big reason why this film probably loses a lot of people.For those of us who enjoy the humor of this character, even identifying with him, and take the rest of what we see here as a lark, it's not as big a stretch to go along with the bigger gambit this comedy takes, asking us to watch in amusement while Owen enlists Professor Donner's help in a plan to kill his mother. Actually, he first goes to Hawaii to kill Donner's hated ex, then tells the professor it's his turn to kill Mrs. Lift, "swapping murders" as seen in Hitchcock's "Strangers On A Train."As a director, DeVito not only complements his actors' performances with scene-setting that places the accent on dialogue, he makes some bold visual statements, throwing in bits of amusing unreality to keep the audience on its toes (and away from taking things too seriously.)Also helping matters is writer Stu Silver, who keeps the laughs coming with his quotable patter. "You got rats the size of Oldsmobiles here." "She's not a woman...She's the Terminator." "One little murder and I'm Jack the Ripper." Those are all Crystal's words, but some of the funniest lines, which work only in context but absolutely kill, are DeVito's and Ramsey's. Apparently Silver never wrote another screenplay after this, according to the IMDb, and that's a shame, because he had real talent for it.The best scene in this movie, when Crystal meets Ramsey, was actually used in its entirety as a theatrical 'coming attraction' presentation, the only time I've seen a movie promoted that way. Owen introduces the professor to his mother as 'Cousin Patty,' and when Momma says he doesn't have a Cousin Patty, panicky Owen loses it. 'You lied to me,' he yells out, slamming the professor's forehead with a pan.Of course, in reality the professor wouldn't groan out something witty from the floor, but 'Throw Momma From The Train' works effectively at such moments, when playing its Looney Tunes vibe for all its worth. DeVito hasn't disappeared from films, of course, but it's a mystery why he hasn't really followed up on the directorial promise of this movie. Maybe it's because, as 'Throw Momma From The Train's lack of mainstream success shows, his kind of vision isn't to everyone's tastes. That's too bad for those of us who can watch this over and over, and like it.$LABEL$ 1
+A Compelling Thriller!!, 10 December 2005 Author:littlehammer16787 from United StatesJust CauseStarring:Sean Connery,Laurence Fishburne, and Blair Underwood.A liberal,though good-hearted Harvard law professor Paul Armstrong is convoked to the Flordia Everglades by unjustly convicted black guy Bobby Earl.Confessing that sadistic,cold-hearted cops vilifyied and beat him to a pulp to get the confession of a gruesome murder of an eleven year old girl. As he digs further and further into the mysterious case he realizes that Bobby Earl is a victim of discrimination.That the black police detective Lt.Tanny Brown of the small community is corrupt and villainously mean. When the infamous,psychotic serial killer Blair Sullivan is introduced.He discovers that he knows the location of the murder weapon that butchered the little girl.When Armstrong finds that there are lucid coincidences of Sullivan's road trip through the small town and the letter he personally wrote. Bobby Earl gets a re-trial.Is unfettered from prison and eludes his horrific punishment. All seems swimmingly well until an unexpected phone call from serial killer Sullivan comes into focus.Armstrong discovers a lurid double killing which happens to be Sullivan's parents.Whom he immensely detests.Sullivan divulges to Armstrong the truth of Joanie Shriver's heinous murder and why he was brought here.It turns out that Bobby Earl is a psychopathic murderer and he really did rape and kill Joanie Shriver.He just merely struck a bargain with fiendish psycho Sullivan. To get loose so he could kill again for revenge.Upon Armstrong's beautiful wife and daughter.Now Sullivan is executed to his death. Armstrong and tough good guy Brown chase the malevolent villain to the Everglades in order to thwart him.When they arrive Armstrong learns that the psychotic sicko Bobby Earl plans to kill his wife and daughter for a former rape trial that inevitably made him endure agonizing pain and castration.But good,virtuous cop Brown emerges and thwarts the brutal baddie.Is stabbed and eaten by ruthless,man-eating alligators.Paul Armstrong,Tanny Brown,his wife,and daughter survive and live happily ever after. A good thriller that works.Delivers both mystery and subterfuge.How reluctant blacks are hazed by racist lawmen.Sentenced to unfair penalties.Even though sometimes the wrongfully convicted innocent, friendly black man may in truth be the vicious baddie. Sean Connery is great as the oblivious,holier than thou hero.Laurence Fishburne is watchably amazing as the mean,arrogant,but good guy cop. Underwood and Harris are over the top and invigorating as the malevolent psychos.Capeshaw is okay.Ruby Dee is great as the tenacious grandmother.The rest of the cast is wonderful as well.$LABEL$ 1
+Filmfour are going to have to do a lot better than this little snot of a film if they're going to get the right sort of reputation for themselves.This film is set in Glasgow (although only a couple of secondary characters have anything approaching a Scottish accent). The premise, about people who's lives are going nowhere, who all meet up in the same cafe in the early hours of the morning as they have night jobs, COULD have made for a really funny, insightful, quirky, cultish film. Instead we have a group of self-obsessed saddos and a plot which has been so done to bits I'm suprised it hasn't been banned. X and Y are friends. X is sleeping with Z. Y sleeps with Z as well. Oh you figure it out.A total waste of time. Painful dialogue - it sounded like something that a group of 16 year olds would have written for a GCSE drama project. The female character was completely superfluous - just written in as a token female in the hope that women would be cajoled into seeing it.If you're the sort of thicko lad who laughs at beer adverts and can usually be found wandering round in packs shouting on Saturday nights in nondescript town centres then you will love this film and find it "a right laff". Everyone else, run, don't walk away from this sorry little misfit.And one question, when the group left the "boring" seaside town (Saltcoats incidentally although they changed the name on the film), to go back to Glasgow, WHY did they do it via the Forton motorway services at LANCASTER which is in England?$LABEL$ 0
+Doctor Mordrid is one of those rare films that is completely under the radar, but is totally worthwhile. It really reminds me of the old serials from the 30s and 40s. Which is why I'd have loved to see follow-up movies... but judging by the rest of Full Moon's output there simply weren't enough tits to satisfy the typical audience. Unfortunately, thanks to a completely superfluous sacrifice scene there two too many for a family audience - which is unfortunate, because without em' this could have been a Harry Potter-style magicfest that kids would have eaten up. Both Jeffrey Combs and Yvette Nipar are great - I wasn't sure if Ms. Nipar hadn't wandered off an A-list picture onto this film, she was very believable. No, seriously! Anyway - it's a shame they didn't have the bucks to license Dr. Strange, because I think this could have been a total kiddie phenom.$LABEL$ 1
+A truly muddled incomprehensible mess. Most things in the film look more or less like 1987, but then there are futuristic things just thrown in, like the policeman's ray gun. And that car! The director seemed to be in love with colored lights. The only really notable performance was the girl who played Valerie, but since there was no cast listing, I don't know which actress that was. This one is worth missing. Grade: F$LABEL$ 0
+It doesn't happen very often, but occasionally one man can make a difference -- a big difference.George Crile's 2003 best seller, CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR, is a fascinating and eye-opening account of the most unlikely "difference maker" imaginable. A relatively obscure Congressman from the Second District of Texas, "Good Time Charlie" was known more for his libertine lifestyle than his libertarian legislation. Likable and licentious (even for a politician), Charlie Wilson served his constituency well since the good folks of Lufkin only really wanted two things, their guns and to be left alone. It's Easy Street replete with his bevy of beltway beauties known, appropriately enough, as Charlie's Angels.When asked why his entire office staff was composed of attractive, young aides his response is a classic, "You can teach 'em to type, but you can't teach 'em to grow tits." No argument there.But even the most rakish rapscallion has a conscience lurking somewhere underneath, and for Charlie Wilson the unimaginable atrocities being committed in Afghanistan moved him to muster his entire political savvy toward funding the utter, humiliating defeat of the Russian military and, possibly, to even help hasten the end of the Cold War as a result. Fat chance, huh?Under the skillful direction of Mike Nichols and a smart, snappy screenplay by Adam Sorkin, CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR is a sparkling, sophisticated satire that chronicles the behind-the- scene machinations of three colorful characters comprising "Charlie's Team."The on-screen "Team," is composed of three marvelous actors with four (4) Academy Awards and nine (9) nominations between them. Charlie is beautifully portrayed by Tom Hanks in a solid, slightly understated fashion that is among his best work in years. He's aided, abetted and abedded by Joanne Herring, a wealthy Houston socialite played by the still-slinky Julia Roberts. Hey, why else have the bikini scene than to let the world know this? By all accounts Ms. Roberts looks good and holds her own, but the screenplay never gives us even a hint why Kabul and country is so important to her character. Maybe the two Afghan hounds usually by her side know -- but we as an audience never do. As for the third member of the "Team," Philip Seymour Hoffman steals every scene he appears in as Gust Aurakotos, a smart, street- wise (i.e. non Ivy League graduate) CIA malcontent who knows the score -- both in the Agency's boardroom and in Wilson's bedroom.For the Mujahideen to succeed, the most important assistance the U.S. can provide is the ability to shoot down the dreaded MI-21 helicopter gunships which rule the skies. This takes money, lots of money, and eventually "Charlie's Team" covertly coerces those in Congress to fund the effort to the tune of $1 billion dollars for advanced weaponry to arm the Afghan rebels. This includes top-of-the-line, state-of-the-art anti-aircraft and anti-tank rockets as well as other highly sophisticated killing devices. Nasty, nasty stuff.That this kind of multi-billion dollar illicit activity can and does take place behind Congressional doors is truly alarming. Every American should see this movie or read this book because it reveals a truly frightening aspect of the business-as-usual political scene rarely seen outside the walls of our very own government. Oh momma, I wish it weren't so...Even though the initial outcome for "Team Charlie" was an unqualified success, the unimaginable, unanticipated final result is that these sophisticated weapons are now used against our troops by the Taliban and others. Since the funding was entirely "covert," the young generation in this part of the world has no idea the fall of Soviet oppression and the end to Russian barbarity was the direct result of American intervention. Yes, once the Russkies left, so did our aid -- zip for schools, zip for infrastructure, zip on maintaining meaningful relationships with the Afghan people. As a result, the overall consequence is an unmitigated disaster -- it's like the forerunner to "Mission Accomplished."As Nichol's film so pointedly points out, "The ball you've set in motion can keep bouncing even after you've lost interest in it." Mike Krzyzewski knows this, Eva Longoria Parker knows this, little Lateesha in Lafayette knows this, but the typical American politician doesn't. So we go from good guys to bad guys because we couldn't let the world know we were the good guys. Talk about a Catch-22 (another Mike Nichols film).Perhaps Charlie Wilson said it best, "We f&%ked up the end game."Again.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm a big fan of surrealist art, but this film by Bunuel (with some ideas from Dali) left me cold. Bunuel had a life-long grudge against the Catholic church and delighted in trying to offend Catholics in fairly silly ways. This is one of the silliest; almost like what you'd expect from a smart-aleck 18-year-old in film class. The last few minutes of the movie, which have nothing to do with anything else, are a final nose-thumbing at religion.If you read the "scholars" regarding this slow-paced, occasionally amusing film, it's all about how the church and society are guilty of sexual repression. If that is indeed the point, then Bunuel expresses it in the most roundabout fashion possible. The central male character is a nasty brute who loves kicking dogs and knocking blind men down in the street, and who mentally turns billboard ads into strange sexual fantasies. Is this behavior the church's fault (for interrupting his lovemaking), or is he just a jerk? I vote for the latter. I think Bunuel must have had a lot of personal hangups and chose the Catholics as the ones to blame.There are a few moments where you might cry, "Aha! surrealism!": a cow in a bed, a giraffe falling out a window (a poor model), a man shredding a feather pillow, a woman flushing a toilet while we watch pictures of seething lava (or a mud pit...hard to tell in B/W). The rest is forgettable self-indulgence. Unfortunately, Bunuel was still chasing the same bogey-men through the rest of his career (Viridiana, Discreet Charm...). If you're interested in seeing surrealism on the screen, check out Jean Cocteau's early work.$LABEL$ 0
+This ludicrous film offers the standard 1970's "hippie mentality" in a nut shell and bores us in the process. Its an attempt to rationalize absurd marriages of young, innocent women with old age sex fiends and wash ups. A naive young hippy played by the waif-like ( Kay Lenz ) hitch hikes and sleeps with all the wrong guys, and then one day she meets the ridiculous (Holden), already in old age, hard liquor drinking and washed up as an actor, and she decides that she is in "love" with him. If you think that is superficial, the whole film encapsulates such scenes. She keeps saying how much she "loves" him and she only met him, it wears thin and really quick. I couldn't help but laugh throughout the film. Its obvious she's just using him as a meal ticket but the director is immature enough to think we are going to buy that there is actually any love taking place. A disgusting scene is where the two are naked and having sex, I had to fast forward it because it almost inspired me to vomit. A corny offering of music from the 70's is also spread through the film. Avoid this if you can. Grade D.$LABEL$ 0
+This film was pretty good. I am not too big a fan of baseball, but this is a movie that was made to help understand the meaning of love, determination, heart, etc.Danny Glover, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Brenda Fricker, Christopher Lloyd, Tony Danza, and Milton Davis Jr. are brought in with a variety of talented actors and understanding of the sport. The plot was believable, and I love the message. William Dear and the guys put together a great movie.Most sports films revolve around true stories or events, and they often do not work well. But this film hits a 10 on the perfectness scale, even though there were a few minor mistakes here and there.10/10$LABEL$ 1
+For his first ever debut this film has some riveting and chilling moments. In the best horror film fashion the pit of your stomach tightens every moment during this film. The ending is superb. The makers of Blaire Witch obviously watched this film it's ending wasn't an end but a beginning of the end. A great movie and only a piece of Japan's great as far as scare factor a perfect score it makes you think and scared out of your mind.$LABEL$ 1
+This film contain far too much meaningless violence. Too much shooting and blood. The acting seems very unrealistic and is generally poor. The only reason to see this film is if you like very old cars.$LABEL$ 0
+Pathetic attempt to use science to justify new age religion/philosophy. The two have nothing to do with each other and much of what is said about Quantum Physics in this mess is just plain wrong.Examples? Quantum theory supports the ideas in eastern religions that reality is an illusion. How? Well, in the world of the subatomic, you can never definitely predict a particles location at a specific time. You can only give the odds of it being precisely at one spot at one time. Also, the act of observation seems to affect the event. Solid particles can pass through barriers. All of this, so far, is accurate. But then they assert that that means that if you believed sincerely enough that you could walk through a wall, you could indeed do it. This is complete poppycock. Instead, the theory asserts that at our level, it is possible for you to walk through a wall, but it is merely by chance and has nothing to do with belief. Also you'd have to keep walking into the wall for eternity to ever have even the remotest chance of passing through the wall, the odds are so astronomically against it.This is but one example of how they misrepresent the science. But much more annoying is the narrative involving an unhappy photographer, played by Marlee Maitlan. About halfway through the picture it becomes so confused as to be incomprehensible. Something to do with negative thoughts leading to addiction and self-hate. There may be some truth to that, but Quantum physics has nothing to do with it.Plus, string theory is the hot new thing in physics nowadays. Instead of wasting your time with this dreck, I suggest you rent The Elegant Universe, an amazing series done for NOVA on PBS that gives you a history of physics from Newton and gravity to Ed Witten and M Theory in only 3 hour-long episodes. Quantum mechanics is explained there quite well if you want to know it without the fog of metaphysical appropriation.$LABEL$ 0
+I was truly looking forward to this title. It sounded and looked fun. The idea of someone making a cheesy 50s monster movie could have been worth a few laughs, but instead this title only bores. First off, there is almost no Froggg in the entire movie which is the biggest disappointment. I have to sit through 75+ minutes of lame drama and dialog to get a few glimpses of the Froggg humping a bare breasted chick. Why? On top of that the film lacks any sort of fun plot. I mean give me something thats a bit more interesting than just a bunch of talking heads. I wanted to see some hot chicks search for the creature in the swamp, I wanted to see some cuties dragged off to his lair in desperate need of rescue (Creature from the Black Lagoon stuff), I wanted to see a few goofy action scenes of the Froggg going on a killing spree, or it maybe escaping a silly trap. Something exciting! Geez, have fun with it, be creative! Who wants to sit through endless and tiring dialog scenes in a creature flick? My advice to the filmmakers: Keep going, your concepts are good, but your execution needs to be a lot more inspired. Have some fun with the creature, put the humor in the action and most important...put more creature in a creature movie!!!$LABEL$ 0
+One of my sisters friends lent me this game, and it is too damn hard! It carries the appearance of a kids game, but you have to learn how to do tons of intricate moves that require you to twist and turn your hands into all sorts of awkward positions, and you have to search seemingly endless levels for 100 notes, to improve your 'score'! You also have to find these impossibly hidden jigsaw puzzle pieces, that require you to do almost impossible tasks to get them! AND I AM ONLY UP TO STAGE THREE!!!!! Maybe if you have no life nad can stay home all the time you might get some enjoyment out of this, but otherwise keep away! AND IT IS DEFINATELY NOT RECOMMENDED FOR KIDS - THEY WILL PULL THEIR HAIR OUT WITHIN THE HOUR!$LABEL$ 0
+Chuck Jones's 'Rabbit Seasoning', the second in the much beloved hunting trilogy, is often considered to be the best of the three. While I find it almost impossible to choose between this trio of fantastic cartoons, I would have to concede that 'Rabbit Seasoning' is the most finely honed script. Here, the emphasis is placed on language as Bugs and Daffy run through a series of complex dialogues in the grand tradition of Abbot and Costello's 'Who's on next' routine. As a long term Daffy fan, I have always been delighted by the hunting trilogy because it is consistently Daffy who gets all the best lines (the famous "Pronoun trouble" being one of the all time classics) and does most of the work. Bugs plays the role of cool manipulator while Elmer, as always, is the befuddled dupe. Part of what makes the hunting trilogy so much fun is that Daffy and Elmer pose so little threat to Bugs that he is basically just kicking back and having some easy laughs. Elmer falls into every trap that is laid for him but it is poor old Daffy who comes off worst, being shot in the face again and again, his beak ending up in more and more ridiculous positions. It all builds to the inevitable climactic declaration "You're despicable". As intricate an example of Chuck Jones's impeccable timing as you'll come across, 'Rabbit Seasoning' is a true classic.$LABEL$ 1
+A lovely little B picture with all the usual Joe Lewis touches.... people ripping up pillows and auras of lurking fear. Also, alas, an ending that comes out of nowhere, because, apparently, the auteur has lost interest in the movie, or perhaps because as a B picture it has to fit into a slot.$LABEL$ 1
+"Crossfire" is a justifiably famous 1947 noir that's a murder mystery with a strong message. It stars Robert Young, Robert Mitchum, Robert Ryan, Sam Levene, and Gloria Grahame, and is strongly directed by Edward Dmytryk. We witness the murder in shadow at the beginning, and for the rest of the film, Young, as the detective, Finlay, in charge of the case, seeks to figure out which of three soldiers is responsible for the death, and just as important, why. The victim, Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene) is someone the soldiers meet in a bar; they go up to his apartment to continue their visit, and Samuels winds up dead.I don't know about 1947, but seeing "Crossfire" today, one knows who did it and why the minute we see the suspects. I don't suppose it was so apparent back then, as these actors were just getting started. Nevertheless, the film packs a big punch with its powerful acting, good direction, violence, and unsparing anti-Semite language.The characterizations are vivid, including that of Gloria Grahame in a smallish role - she's a woman who meets Mitchell (George Cooper), one of the suspect soldiers, in a bar and can provide him with an alibi. The big performance in the film belongs to Robert Ryan, but everyone is excellent. Robert Young especially is effective as a tough but intelligent police detective. Mitchum is very likable as a soldier trying to help his confused friend Mitchell, a lonely man unsure if he still has feelings for his wife.Truly excellent, and a must see.$LABEL$ 1
+AWWWW, I just love this movie to bits. Me and my cousins enjoy this movie a lot and I am just such a HUGE FAN!!! I hope they bring the TV series out on DVD soon. Come to mention it, I have not see the TV show in a LONG time. Such geart times! Where I come from Australia The Chipmunk Adventure is only known by people in their late teens and adult years which is kinda sad because the young kids don't know what there missing.The songs in this film are ace the ones I love the most Boys/girls of rock n'roll, Diamond Dolls and the song that ls sure to make you want to cry My Mother.This film is sure to excite both young and old GET THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE TODAY!!! 10 out of 10, such an excellent movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Skippy from "Family Ties" plays Eddie, a wussy 'metal' nerd who gets picked on. When his favorite wussy 'metal' singer, Sammi Curr, dies, he throws a hissy fit tearing down all the posters on his bedroom wall. But when he later gets an unreleased record that holds the spirit of his dead 'metal' idol. He first gets sucked into ideas of revenge, but then he doesn't want to take it as far as Sammi does. Which isn't really that far as his main victims only seem to go to the hospital. This movie is utterly laughable and has about as much to do with real metal as say, "Rock Star". OK, maybe a tad more than that piece of junk, but you get my point. And how ANYone can root for a guy played by Skippy from "Family Ties" I haven't a clue. The cameo by Gene Simmons is OK, and Ozzy Osbourne reaches coherency, I applaud him for that, but otherwise skip this one.My Grade: D Eye Candy:Elise Richards gets topless, an a topless extra at a pool party$LABEL$ 0
+Of course I would have to give this film 10 out of 10 as my uncle was the main screenplay writer of Once upon a Crime. Rodolfo Sonego wrote screenplays for over 50 years living in Italy. He was a great story teller and someone suggested that he put his stories into writing. So Rodolfo Sonego did. If you check out his biography, you can see the number of movies that have been made in Italy. Alberto Sordie was the main actor that starred in his stories. My uncle visited Australia and my town, in 1968 to check out locations for "A girl in Australia" and created a great movie about a proxy bride after the second world war. You can see his humor in all his movies. I found a copy of this movie on DVD recently. GREAT$LABEL$ 1
+Goldeneye will always go down as one of thee most legendary games in VG history. Their is no doubt about that. But this game, although quite different, could quite possibly be the modern-day Bond champ, of its time.This was not a bond game based on material from another medium. This was a completely new; scripted game. Which even had its own theme song! (wouldnt be bond without it, haha!) Gameplay was excellent, and if you're a fan of the bond games or films alike, you'll enjoy it.Unlike some/most games, these cast members portrayed their characters themselves, as opposed to fictional creations for the game. Which gives it that more cinematic feel. With a very 'bond'-able storyline, you feel like you're in the game as much as you get lost in a movie.Enjoyable in all aspects, from start to finish. Even after beating the game there's still plenty more to be done. With the ranking system and unlockables to be achieved, as well as its multi-player missions, this is a stand-out game. Despite being quite old now, in video game years. It's still a good game that you can pick up & play whenever you feel the need to get a little more Bond in your life. Even now just thinking about it, I've got the theme song stuck in my head. Such a great cast and well-written storyline.The story comes to life on the screen, almost as if the actors were their in front of you, and is every bit as entertaining as the game itself. Superbly done, in true bond fashion. Which can only be named Awesome, Completely Awesome.I've gotta go throw this game on now. If you haven't played it yet, you're missing out!$LABEL$ 1
+Helena Bonham Carter is the center of this movie. She plays her role almost immobile in a wheelchair but still brings across her traditional intensity. Kenneth Branagh was tolerable. The movie itself was good not exceptional. If you are a Helena Bonham Carter fan it is worth seeing.$LABEL$ 1
+I commented on this when it first debuted and gave it a "thumbs in the middle" review, remarking that I'd give it the benefit of the doubt beyond just the first episode. I've seen a total of six episodes now up to this point in June 2006. And as a lifelong Batman fanatic, I can say without hesitation: this show is utter crap.Everything's wrong with it. Everything. Getting past just the lousy animation and design, the stories are ridiculously convoluted and with no character development or apparent interest by the writers of this dreck to give any substance to any stories.And for God's sake...is it just me, or is the Joker in EVERY EPISODE?? Is Gotham that much of a revolving-door justice system? Or, again, is it just a complete lack of interest in the writers to put any effort into other villains (see "no character development", above).And to make matters worse, every single Joker tale is the same 3-part formula.1) Joker gasses people.2) Joker sets out to gas the whole city.3) Batman saves the day.Pfeh.There was one episode I saw that wasn't a Joker story. The title escapes me, but the villain was that nefarious Cluemaster...the "Think Thank Thunk" episode with the quiz show. That was the single-worst Batman story I've ever seen, heard or read. Yes, worse than "I've Got Batman in My Basement." I can't really say what I feel this show is because it's probably against the ToS, but it starts with "B" and rhymes with "fastardization". Thank goodness for the existence of the Timm/Dini/etc. era of Bat-entertainment, back from the Fox and Kids WB days. Stuff that good, and I should have known this, just couldn't possibly have lasted forever, unfortunately.$LABEL$ 0
+Just because someone is under the age of 10 does not mean they are stupid. If your child likes this film you'd better have him/her tested. I am continually amazed at how so many people can be involved in something that turns out so bad. This "film" is a showcase for digital wizardry AND NOTHING ELSE. The writing is horrid. I can't remember when I've heard such bad dialogue. The songs are beyond wretched. The acting is sub-par but then the actors were not given much. Who decided to employ Joey Fatone? He cannot sing and he is ugly as sin.The worst thing is the obviousness of it all. It is as if the writers went out of their way to make it all as stupid as possible. Great children's movies are wicked, smart and full of wit - films like Shrek and Toy Story in recent years, Willie Wonka and The Witches to mention two of the past. But in the continual dumbing-down of American more are flocking to dreck like Finding Nemo (yes, that's right), the recent Charlie & The Chocolate Factory and eye-crossing trash like Red Riding Hood.$LABEL$ 0
+"Hey Babu Riba" is a film about a young woman, Mariana (nicknamed "Esther" after a famous American movie star), and four young men, Glenn, Sacha, Kicha, and Pop, all perhaps 15-17 years old in 1953 Belgrade, Yugoslavia. The five are committed friends and crazy about jazz, blue jeans, or anything American it seems.The very close relationship of the teenagers is poignant, and ultimately a sacrifice is willingly made to try to help one of the group who has fallen on unexpected difficulties. In the wake of changing communist politics, they go their separate ways and reunite in 1985 (the year before the film was made).I enjoyed the film with some reservations. The subtitles for one thing were difficult. Especially in the beginning, there were a number of dialogues which had no subtitles at all. Perhaps the conversational pace required it, but I couldn't always both read the text and absorb the scene, which caused me to not always understand which character was involved. I watched the movie (a video from our public library) with a friend, and neither of us really understood part of the story about acquiring streptomycin for a sick relative.This Yugoslavian coming of age film effectively conveyed the teenagers' sense of invulnerability, idealism, and strong and loyal bonds to each other. There is a main flashforward, and it was intriguing, keeping me guessing until the end as to who these characters were vis-a-vis the 1953 cast, and what had actually happened.I would rate it 7 out of 10, and would like to see other films by the director, Jovan Acin (1941-1991).$LABEL$ 1
+After a snowstorm, the roads are blocked and the highway patrolman Jason (Adam Beach) comes to the diner of his friend Fritz (Jurgen Prochnow) and advises his clients that they will only be able to follow their trips on the next day. Among the weird strangers, Jason meets his former sweetheart Nancy (Rose McGowan), who has just left her husband in Los Angeles. Along the night, without any communication with his base, Jason faces distressful and suspicious situations with the clients, and finds some corpses, indicating that among them there is a killer."The Last Stop" could be an average thriller, but the screenplay is simply awful. Most of the characters are despicable persons and the motives of the surprising serial killer are never disclosed, and the viewers have no further explanation why the killer decided to kill the guests. My vote is four.Title (Brazil): "Encurralados" ("Trapped")$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was a fairly entertaining comedy about Murphy's Law being applied to home ownership and construction. If a film like this was being made today no doubt the family would be dysfunctional. Since it was set in the 'simpler' forties, we get what is supposed to be a typical family of the era. Grant of course perfectly blends the comedic and dramatic elements and he works with a more than competent supporting cast highlighted by Loy and Douglas. Their shenanigans make for a solid ninety minutes of entertainment, 7/10.$LABEL$ 1
+What can you say about the film White Fire. Amazing? Fantastic? Disturbing? Hilarious? These words are not big enough to describe the event which is White Fire. From wobbly, garbled beginning to profound end, this movie will entertain throughout.Our movie begins in the woods of a country somewhere in the world. A family is hiding from unmarked soldiers in costume shop uniforms. When the father separates from the mother and their childen, you get a real sense of what kind of movie you're about to watch. Father makes sure to roll down hills in his all white outfit, and is polite as he gets people's attention before he shoots them, but alas, dad is burned alive in what looks like a very unsupervised, unsafe stunt. Meanwhile, mom and the kids are running down a beach with an armed soldier trailing about 5 feet behind them. He too gives a stern warning before action in the form of a bizarre "HALT!", and then promptly wastes the mother. This action sequence sets up the happy childhood of our heroes Bo and Ingred.So now we fast forward about 20 years (30 if you're honest about the hero's age) to beautiful Turkey, where Bo and Ingred have settled as professional thieves, or diamond prospectors, or something. Ingred works at a diamond mine where she helps herself to the goods, while Bo (masterfully played by the dynamic Robert Ginty) drives around the desert in his denim outfits. Bo and Ingrid have an interesting relationship. They don't seem to have any friends other than each other, and they spend all of their time together. That coupled with the fact that Bo has expressed his desire to sleep with his sister as evidenced in lines such as "you know its a shame you're my sister" he says to her while she's stark naked, make for a very dynamic duo. Bo is then crushed when Ingrid is killed, as he wanders the beaches of Turkey with his ceremonial pink grief scarf. A renewal of hope occurs when Bo finds a girl who looks like Ingrid, and gives her plastic surgery to make her look exactly like Ingrid. This opens the door for Bo to have sex with his sister without it being technically wrong. Bo is a real fan of ethical grey areas, and he is overjoyed with his new love.So anyway, there's a lot of fun action scenes, ridiculous violence, great acting, impossible to follow plot-lines, Fred "the hammer" Williamson (for some reason), and a big chunk of dirty ice which is supposed to be a giant diamond (which later explodes). All of these things are great, but the Bo and Ingrid relationship is what makes this movie special....really special. So I heartily encourage everyone to behold the majesty that is White Fire. You may be glad you did..or not.$LABEL$ 1
+I am so disappointed. This movie left me feeling jipped out of my time and mental energy. Here was the quintessential Woody Allen film all over again: the neurotic upper-class Manhattanites debating whether or not they will cheat on their spouses. Woody, I've seen these characters already, I've seen the storyline from you ten times already. Where did your creativity go??? You need to open your eyes and look around you. The world has changed dramatically since Annie Hall - and you need to change along with it.There are far more interesting and funny scenarios to which you can apply your brand of angst and neuroticism - why not try them out instead of rehashing the same old slop over and over and over again.When I hear that Woody Allen has a new project coming out, it does nothing for me - because now I've come to expect his old standby: the couple who are growing tired of each other and end up cheating. Depressing and same old, same old.If Woody wants to win his fans back, then he has to understand that our sense of humor and intelligence has to be stimulated - not insulted.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is all ultra-lightweight fluff, predictable from beginning to end. As a Don Knotts vehicle, "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" was much better, with Knott's character there not nearly as incompetent or ignorant. His performance there was toned down, with none of his trademark goggle-eyed stare, although that may have something to do with him being replaced for most of the movie by a cartoon fish. Knotts made a living of playing the likable imbecile, much as Bob Denver did. Neither really seemed to be able to break out to other types of roles, assuming they were simply typecast. It was probably because of the slouch, the wild stare and the high-pitched voice. John Ritter, whom Knotts worked with in "Three's Company," was able to transcend his genre, branching out successfully into dramatic roles like "The Dreamer of Oz," but the closest Knotts ever got was a small role in "Pleasantville." Even Leslie Nielsen was a bad fit here, uncomfortably neither straight dramatic actor as he was at the time nor deadpan comedic actor as he later became in "Airplane!" and "Police Squad."There's also no way the then-43 year-old Knotts could pass for a 35 year-old, as his character insisted he was. It was as ludicrously unbelievable as Tom Hanks at 38 playing the college-age Forrest Gump.The film was clearly made on a shoestring budget, very much looking like a hastily-filmed TV episode. It's especially evident in the "exterior" scenes of the "town" where Roy goes after he's fired. It's unlikely even a pre-schooler would be fooled by the Mayberry-like soundstage artificiality.Even viewing this strictly as a children's movie, it's very disappointing. It's not because it lacks action or special effects, although it does. The pace is much too slow, the situations repetitive. How many times can you watch Roy getting onto a bus? A comedy for kids should at least sometimes be madcap, with breakneck gags, otherwise you risk boring them (and any adults in the theater as well). Movies, even kid's movies, have improved quite a bit in the intervening decades. Even many contemporary comedies were better filmed and written. Disney's "The Love Bug," for instance, at least had some interesting race action.$LABEL$ 0
+If you are interested in learning more about this sort of thing happening in modern civilization, there is an excellent book called "Outlaw Seas" or "The Outlaw Sea", and it describes, in story after story, how these things do happen. The lawlessness of the high seas is a reality for a number of reasons. One, many of the world's freighters are of questionable registry (nationality) and it's difficult to impossible to enforce international laws when the ships owners don't have an office in a real country. Two, many ship lines employ crews from dirt poor third world countries. The crews are often (like illegal immigrant workers) threatened and bullied into complying with questionable or illegal practices. Three, there is often a language barrier, not only between the officers and the crew, but also between the crew members themselves. The crew are rewarded for their compliance and their silence. Four, once committing an illegal act, the ships are able to hide in plain sight with little more than a fresh coat of paint. Anyway, it's fascinating reading.Horrifying story, excellent movie. Does anyone else notice how HBO seems to make the best and most important movies? Hollywood has trouble releasing enough Oscar worthy movies in any given year, so that several of the top 5 contenders usually come from Britain. Jerry Bruckheimer = the end of quality cinema.I loved the thoroughly evil performance by Sean Pertwee. I also, as usual, loved Omar Epps.$LABEL$ 1
+Gamers: DR is not a fancy made movie, it's more like amateur video. Horrible magic effect, really fake fireball, terribly made dungeon, castle, village...... sword, axe, shield, robe, plate..... okok... everything. You will need about 10 minutes to adjust your expecting on visual, then you will get 105 minutes of fun.I'm from Hongkong and it's really hard to find RPers, none of my friends play RPG and I always fancy to be one of the character in the world of D&D. Watching Gamers: DR just show me what would it be like to be a gamer. You see rule books, dices, game set, etc etc etc; You hear terms like "fighter", "wizard", "hit point", "level", "character", "flaming hand", "Chaotic Evil".What RPG fancy me is that it let you do anything u want to, not bonded by software RPG. Gamers: DR provide the same element, you wont know what happen next and it probably just make you laugh to dead. The movie goes both gamers's real life as well as in the D&D world. You will hear the gamer cast the dice when the character in game take action, which make you feel you really participle in the game.I don't want to spoil anything, but in short, Gamers: DR is a must watch movie for RPG lovers. For people never play RPG game, I'm sure you still get many fun from it.$LABEL$ 1
+In all honesty, I haven't seen this film for many years, but the few times I have tend to make parts of it stick in my memory, as anyone who has seen it will understand. I first saw it as a child at a YMCA Halloween party in the early Sixties, and it scared the hell out of us kids, in a fun way. I remember feeling genuine anxiety about the unknown thing lurking in the maze. I can't risk giving away the ending, except to say that it was surprising, to say the least. I remember vaguely the entire audience of young boys letting out a big scared holler, followed by laughter when the terrible secret was revealed. The ending has been seen by most viewers as one of the greatest unintentionally funny climaxes to a movie in film history, and yet oddly moving, in a way. You have to see it for yourself, which is not easy these days. I don't know if it's available on home video or not, but it would still make a great Halloween feature for both kids and adults.$LABEL$ 0
+This is the only thing I will be able to look back on from the year 2006 and say now that rocked. It rocked hard, and yet it also rocked tasty. Mr.MEATLOAF added a nice little touch to this dish of a film before the opening credits even rolled. Now that tells you something, this filmed rocked even before it STARTED! Now I don't want to give to much away or be a "spoiler" but this movie ROCKED! If you have heard the new album and thought to yourself "this seems a bit substandard Tenacious material,it is like I a merely playing badminton with Satan, what gives?" Then this movie will elevate your appreciation for the music and you will marvel at this steamy satanic masterpiece. For those who would want it better do not know what they want,because better would no longer be the D. This movie is the D period.!So venture if you dare to the local viewing theater if you to want to have your socks rocked.$LABEL$ 1
+You'd think you're in for some serious sightseeing when the premise of the movie takes place primarily between two characters as they travel 3000 miles or so from France to Saudi Arabia, going through most of Europe - Italy, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Turkey, before arriving in the Middle East. But this is not a tour, and there are no stopovers for soaking in the sights.Reda's father is in his twilight years, and wishes to do the Haj. However, since walking and taking the mule is out of the question, he chooses to travel to Mecca by car. He can't drive, and therefore enlists the help of Reda, to his son's protest, to get him there in their broken down vehicle.But Reda doesn't see the point of having him go along, when his dad could opt for the plane. He resents the idea of having put his personal life on hold for this pilgrimage he couldn't understand. And hence, we set off in this arduous journey with father and son, being not the best of pals.The beauty of this movie is to witness the development of the father and son pair, the challenges they face, the weird people they meet, having to duke it out in varied weather conditions, and alternating rest stops between motels and sleeping in the car. We see an obvious generation gap in them trying to communicate to each other, the father trying to impose on his son, and the son trying to assert himself as an adult, but circumstances we see, reveal that Reda is quite a fish out of water. Through the many encounters, they actually team up quite well despite their differences.It's perhaps quite apt to have this film released here last week to coincide with Hari Raya Haji, and having the opportunity to watch our protagonists join the other pilgrims in their Haj. The final scene in Mecca is truly a sight to behold, and you too would feel the claustrophobia and fear as Reda tries to hunt down his dad amongst the thousands of people congregating. The sights of Europe were perhaps deliberately not dwelled upon, so as to build up the anticipation of and focus on the final destination.It certainly rang home the thought of telling and showing loved ones how much you appreciate them for who they are. Don't miss this, and yes, book early - I was pleasantly surprised that this evening's session was still a full house.$LABEL$ 1
+I watched this movie based on the good reviews here, and I won't make that mistake again.The first couple minutes shows that a group of people have been brought together by some tragedy, but you don't see what it is. Flashback 12-hours and we get to see the boring lives of each of these people, which in the end are totally meaningless to what is about to happen. When the ending is finally reveled, you realize that you just wasted an hour of your life waiting for a big payoff that doesn't happen and means nothing to what you have been watching. The only connection these people have is that they have all had a "bad day"--but even that continuity gets lost in the boredom.If this was supposed to be a "Crash" clone, it's a complete failure.$LABEL$ 0
+A great Bugs Bunny cartoon from the earlier years has Bugs as a performer in an window display at a local department store. After he's done for the day the manager comes in to tell him that he'll be transferring soon. Bugs is happy to oblige into he figures out that the new job is in taxidermy...and that taxidermy has to do with stuffing animals. Animals like say, a certain rabbit. This causes a battle of wits between the rascally rabbit and his now former employer. I found this short to be delightful and definitely one of the better ones of the early 1940's. It still remains as funny nearly 60+ years later. This animated short can be seen on Disc 1 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2.My Grade: A-$LABEL$ 1
+I firmly believe that the best Oscar ceremony in recent years was in 2003 for two reasons: 1 ) Host Steve Martin was at his most wittiest: " I saw the teamsters help Michael Moore into the trunk of his limo " and " I'll better not mention the gay mafia in case I wake up with a poodle's head in my bed " 2 ) Surprise winners: No one had Adrien Brody down for best actor ( Genuine applause ) or Roman Polanski for best director ( Genuine jeers and boos ) but they won Last year's award ceremony wasn't too bad but there was little in the way of surprises and I was happy to see RETURN OF THE KING sweep the awards even if it wasn't the best in the trilogy ( FELLOWSHIP was much better )but what let the BBC coverage down was Jonathan Ross getting a few of his sycophantic mates round and pretending they were hilarious when they were anything but . So when I heard Sky were doing the coverage for British TV I was expecting Barry Norman and Mark Kermode to be doing the links , but instead we ended up with Jamie Theakston and Sharon Osbourne ! Oh gawd if British TV are desperate for film critics ( Obviously they are ) I'm sure both Bob The Moo and Theo Robertson will happily fly over to LA to give their honest opinions on the winners and losers Chris Rock wasn't too bad , but he's no Steve Martin while the location seemed to resemble a sports hall with seats put in ! Not much of a glitzy arena in my opinion . The main problem I had with the ceremony was the format with the " minor " Oscars handed out to the winners who were sitting in their seats ! There's no such thing as a " minor " Oscar and just because the award is for Best Animated Short or Best Costume Design they're as well deserved as Best Picture or Best Director . All the winners should be allowed to march up to the podium . What a bunch of arrogant snobs the Academy are becoming and I quite agree with the comments that this format is disgraceful and if it wasn't for the surprises this could possibly have been the worst ceremony in history . As for the awards themselves Best Supporting Actress - Cate Blanchett . No great surprise for a competitive category Best Supporting Actor - Morgan Freeman . No real complaints since Freeman is one of America's greatest living character actors Best Actor - Jamie Foxx . Most predictable award of the night . Yawn Best Actress - Hilary Swank . Major surprise since everyone thought Annette Benning was going to win simply down to academy politics but Swank did deserve it and gave the best speech of the night Best Director - Clint Eastwood . Major surprise since everyone thought Scorsese was going to get the award simply because he'd never won one . Actually I'm glad about this because if he didn't deserve it for TAXI DRIVER , RAGING BULL or GOODFELLAS he didn't deserve it for THE AVIATOR Best Film - MILLION DOLLAR BABY . Again another major surprise since everyone thought the academy would split the awards for best director and best picture while I thought the Hollywood friendly plot of THE AVIATOR would have made it a dead cert for Best Picture while MDB's controversial subject matter would have turned a lot of voters off What these awards perhaps illustrate is that this year the voters have decided to ignore Oscar politics and genuinely give out awards to people who deserve it something they haven't done in the past , I mean A BEAUTIFUL MIND beating THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING for gawd's sake ! And long may the academy vote with their heads instead of their hearts$LABEL$ 0
+While in a plane, flicking through the large choice of movies, I came across Live! almost accidentally. oh boy! what a choice.I remembered vaguely seeing the trailer over a year ago and completely forgot about it expecting no more than another cheesy nonsense movie about a stupid reality show. Now I can easily say this has been a hell of a ride. I don't remember last time I have been so excited, terrified. Not sure if it was the high altitude playing with my senses, but the suspense grow gradually through the movie until reaching a climax where you can't turn away from the screen, literally sitting on the edge of your seat and biting the remaining nails you've got.You will first go through a personal moral assessment of where you stand about the righteousness of the show. You will drift from thinking "how come the human being can be so vicious" to "why not after all?".Ask yourself would you do it. Then learn about the contestants, their motives and start guessing. You will then watch contestant pulling the trigger one by one and get excited even though you know the first candidate is safe.Good acting, good directing, with a movie experience that reminds you those old movies where you knew what would happen in the next scene but still were craving for more.*Spoilers* couple of things i would have changed:- the casting of the contestants. i have really been moved by the farmer and we should have had a bit more like him. The idea of a rich writer who wants to be famous is a bit stupid, it felt like you didn't care about some of the contestants. Although this might have been done on purpose, i think the audience should have been able to associate with the majority of the contestants. - game rules, a big glitch :what happens if the 5th contestants doesn't die when he pulls the trigger. do you seriously think the last standing guy will pull the trigger and execute himself!!! they should have given a chance to all contestants to live, ie: if 5th is a blank too, then no one dies.interestingly I haven't been bothered too much by this bad points cause i really had a good time. just wish i had some popcorn with me!$LABEL$ 1
+Ah, another movie with motorcycles, hell's angels posse and Steve A-Lame-o as the not-so-cool car driver. This movie does not rely on story but lots of drinking, pot smoking, and lots of moronic acts. Steve's rendition of a dying cat during his "I love what I know" serenade had me vomiting for hours. Bike chick Linda (rrrr) makes out with everyone! Fats did the best acting since he just grunts and makes sounds. I also dare you to try to make out what Banjo is saying. "You messin' wit private stock." This is scriptwriting folks.I liked the ending. What better place to have the climax than a lighthouse! You have to see this to detest it.DIE Jeter, DIE!!!$LABEL$ 0
+A rating of "1" does not begin to express how dull, depressing and relentlessly bad this movie is.$LABEL$ 0
+I feel dumber after watching the first 20 min,luckily i walked out and saved the rest of my brain, people should watch better films and take notes on why they are rated highly,not because of the budget of the film or the special effects, just simply good acting and getting simple things right,and MOst importantly--not being LAME--, but i guess this was produced for those Sheeple without taste and not a clue of what is ''A good Movie''don't be scared of rating films low,save your under-appreciated high scores for ''once in a life time movies''. Keep in mind that many use IMDb for trusted reviews and opinions,don't spoil the broth by sugarcoating turds Peace & love$LABEL$ 0
+The most self-indulgent movie I have every had the misfortune torent. Unwatchable. Much of the movie is obviously improvised,and not well. It looks like Toback took the first take ofeverything. The movie gets good for a couple of minutes whenRobert Downey Jr. shows up, then goes to hell again realquickly.$LABEL$ 0
+This has got to be the worst movie I haver ever seen Nielson in. This movie just does not have what he needs to be funny. I think the reasons that the Naked Gun and the like movies is that they did not require Nielson to be funny. He just played the roles as straight as he could while all of the comedy that went on was mostly visual. But when you put him in a movie where he has to be funny, he isn't. The movie had only one good part, and this may be considered a spoiler by some, and that the beginning credits were animated. If the whole movie had been animated, it might have been good. I had no intention of seeing this movie when I saw the ads for it, and the only reason I did see it was because the tickets were given to me by someone who won them in a radio contest. This is the first and probably only movie I have ever walked out on. On a scale of 1-10 I give this movie a score of -100.$LABEL$ 0
+I like Ghost stories. Good ghost stories of bumps in the night, voices that cannot be explained. Now I've see many of them. As special efx have a ever more grip on todays films, some times to find a real gem , you gotta turn the clock back to the time when the writers and directors really had to use their heads to create really good ghost stories. Now this one, very rare , pilot episode for the TV series Ghost Story called " The New House " was one of the most scariest films I ever saw. It was on once in 1972,...I was only 9,..but nothing since then even compared to it. With all the remake going on in Hollywood, some one should do this one " as is " with no more special efx than the original. This episode was down right creepy as hell. I'm lucky to find it finally on DVD today and very rare and hard to find. The only other 2 Ghost Stories to even come close was the ORIGINAL " The Haunting " and George C. Scott in " The Changling " . Wish someone would do more ghost stories like these.$LABEL$ 1
+Okay, I've watched this movie twice now, I have researched it heavily on the net, I have asked several people on there opinions. I have even gone to the length of reading the original Sheridan Lafanu Classic 'Carmilla', a book that this movie is supposed to be based on. I feel that the best way to review this movie is to describe a game to play whilst watching it. As the plot of the movie doesn't seem to make any sense at all, here is the plot of the book.Laura lives in a castle in Syberia with her Father, Mr De Lafontaine. They carry on with their lives blissfully and peacefully. One day they get a letter from the 'General' a man who has made it his mission in life to avenge his daughters death. He makes claims of supernatural powers being at work, and explains that he will visit them soon. Meanwhile, a chance encounter with a strange woman results in the Lafontaines looking after her Daughter, Carmilla, for several months. Soon Laura starts to be overwhelmed by strange dreams, and begins to come down with a strange illness. Who is this mysterious Carmilla? And just what has she to do with Laura's condition, and the General?I have invented this game and would like as many people as possible to play it, and let me know what their results are. I even have a catchy name, and would have a jingle too, but I can't be bothered with that. It's called the "this movie doesn't make any sense" game.All you have to do is, whilst watching the movie, try to come up with a complete plot that explains what is happening. I mean complete, all questions answered, everything makes sense, absolutely complete.It will have to answer such questions as ... * Why can vampires walk around in day light?* Why are they all lesbians?* Why is a girl called Bob? and why does she shoot herself?* When is the movie a dream and when is it real?* Why does killing zombies appear to be an accepted part of life that doesn't make anyone bat an eyelid?* Why does Travis Fontaine spot and run down a zombie without slowing down whilst driving his car, yet when faced with a woman with an obvious hostage in the back of her car, accept the excuse that she is a zombie too?* And why does he then let a girl, which he later openly reveals that he knows is the head vampire, drive with him in his car?* And then let her drive off, alone with his daughter in a stolen car?What the hell is the asylum scene all about?* What the hell is the green goo all about?* Why does the head vampire suddenly start dressing like a nurse?* Why are there never any vampires fighting Zombies?* What is the significance of the necklace? what is it made of? why does it kill vampires? and how does Jenna know that?In fact sod it, it's just as much fun trying to come up with as many questions about this movie too.I have my plot, and I have to admit it is not quite there, but it is a pretty good effort.In Conclusion'Vampires vs Zombies' has no moment in it where there are actually Vampires fighting Zombies. Everyone in the movie seems to know exactly what is going on, yet they seem very reluctant to let the audience in on this. And somehow it is based on a classic 19th century horror novel. How? Why? What the hell is going on?$LABEL$ 0
+This would've been a *great* silent film. The acting really is good, at least in a Look Ma, I'm Doing Really Big Acting! sort of way.Everything is HUGE. Every line is PROFOUND! Every scene is SHATTERED BY HUMAN TRAGEDY!Mostly, I felt like gagging. Yet, like any train wreck, I couldn't tear my eyes away. This dialogue might've worked on the stage, although I doubt it. On the screen, it was cluttered, haphazard, hackneyed and pretty much every other stereotypical negative adjective you can come up with to describe a really bad dramatic work.If you enjoy your melodrama in huge, heaping doses, you *might* enjoy the movie. Be prepared to wait, however. For all that melodrama, this thing sure plods along at its own pace.This script must've sounded a lot different when the actors involved were reading it to themselves. It simply doesn't work once they get around to delivering it in front of the camera.IMDB does us a great disservice, at times, when it uses its goofy computer-controlled "weighted score". Curse of the Starving Class deserves less than a 1.Character-driven fiction is great, but when you develop your characters by simply pushing them through hoops with no plausible explanation for their maturation or evolution, it isn't character development! Your characters must have a motivation. Being drunk for a while and waking up in a field is *not* character development. That's a plot contrivance.Stay away from this movie. Or at the very least, watch it muted. Perhaps you'll get some amusement from all the arm-waving the characters do.Oh, and word to the wise -- to prove that this is truly an artsy film, you see James Woods in all his dangly male "look-at-me, I'm-the-figurative-and-literal-representation-of-the-naked-vulnerability-of- man" glory.Don't say you weren't warned.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie starts with the main character lying in a coma in a hospital ward, attended by two orderlies. The unconscious main character is heard in a voice over, saying that the orderlies are gay. The orderlies kiss. I watched this in a DVD version and I have the suspicion that this is supposed to be funny – it said „comedy" on the DVD case, after all and it goes on like that. Had I seen this in a movie theater I probably would have heard part of the audience roar with laughter, because it is so funny – and because they are supposed to sit in a comedy. While it is fascinating to think about what it is funny and what isn't, this movie unfortunately only delivers arguments about what isn't.Brilliant brains can MAKE anything funny, people like Ernst Lubitsch, Billy Wilder or Mel Brooks have proved that fact. But you have to know the „mechanics", I suppose. Director and co-scriptwriter Dani Levy does not bother about those mechanics, he thinks that certain things simply ARE funny, the fact that two orderlies are gay and kiss over a man in a coma, for example. Do not get me wrong, some people can MAKE that funny, Dani Levy can't, not for me, anyway.The main problem I have with this movie is that I can't see a reason behind the way the main characters behave. I could not understand why the two brothers, one an orthodox Jew from West Germany one a third class carbon copy of Fast Eddie Felson from former East Germany so strongly disliked each other. They are both rather bland characters. Their children are boring apart from the fact that they are sexually attracted to each other (well, one is a lesbian now but raises the daughter she has with her cousin). But even these incestuous relationships – if anything they are embarrassing - just come through as an excuse because the scriptwriters could not come up with anything better.The acting is not bad, Udo Semel I actually came to like quite a lot although he reminded me more of ex chancellor Helmut Kohl (a lighter version) than of a venerable Orthodox Jew. The direction in itself is not really bad either, but maybe Levy should stick to directing movies, leaving the scriptwriting to someone else. Now I heard he did a comedy about Hitler. Oi, Vai!$LABEL$ 0
+This story about three women is a very sensitive study about: Muriël (Charlotte Van Den Eynde) the youngest, Laura (Els Dottermans) who is about 37 and Martha (Frieda Pittors) the oldest who is the mother of Muriël. They live together in the same building. They have different expectations of life. The vital Laura wants a child. Muriël comes from a village and wants to change her life in Brussels. Martha dreams about her youth when she was a young girl. In fact nothing happens in this movie so you wait for something - for instances an accident - which could dramatize this story. As times goes on, you discover that the director Dorothée Van Den Berghe only wants to develop a psychological portrait of the three women and nothing more. This movie is disappointing because you expect the women to learn from their experiences which is not the case, so one is left with a feeling of emptiness.$LABEL$ 0
+First and foremost, I loved the novel by Ray Bradbury. It's the kind of horror that gets under your skin and sticks with you later. It was one of his best books, with, you know, Fahrenheit 451 and Dandelion Wine. I as just hoping that this movie would be all right. It had lots of chances, with a great cast, like Jason Robards and Jonathn Pryce. And Bradbury even wrote the script himself. And on top of all that, it has PAM GRIER!How could it fail?There may be spoilers within.First of all, it was dumbed down. Much of the horror from the book was lost as Bradbury must have been forced to keep the violence to a minimum. All the visuals from the book...gone. Everything that made you squirm...gone.And then there's the acting. Like a lot of movies that Disney threw out in the 80s, the kids in this movie cannot act. And, this bugged me a lot, neither of them looked 13 but 9 or 10. Their strong friendship wasn't addressed. It was more like they were acquaintaces. You'd think Jason Robards and Jonathan Pryce could pull this off in their roles of Mr. Halloway and Mr. Dark. But here it's like they just don't care. All they want to do is somehow pay off some mortgage or something. This is far from being some of their best performances. Pam Grier was fine as the witch, but the charecter of the Dust Witch herself wasn't well pulled off. She's a lot less evil and doesn't have the presence as she did in the book. And everything that was left out of the book. The ballon night chase, the marking of Jim's house, the real death of Mr. Dark, what happened to Mr. Coogan on the merry-go-round, the fate of the lightening rod salesman, the real death of the witch, and oh so much more. And the special effects were bad, even for the 80s. The merry-go-round of doom for one thing with the superimposed horses going around wasn't really creepy, and that weird green mist that really had nothing to do with anything. I could keep going about how this movie ripped apart the original novel, but it makes blood boil. Don't see this movie but read the book. It's a classic of Bradbury.$LABEL$ 0
+This film is so old I never realized how young looking Ray Milland looked in 1936, I remember him playing in a great film, "Lost Weekend". Ray plays the role of Michael Stuart, who is a very rich banker. There are three girls in this picture who are not very happy about their father and mother separating and they find out their father is going to get married to a young blonde who is a gold digger only looking for a rich sugar daddy. They hire a man to pose as a very rich Count, his name is Count Ariszted, (Misha Auer) who is drunk all the time and is penniless and gives plenty of comic laughs throughout the picture. Deanna Durbin, (Penny Craig) surprised everyone when she was booked in a police station and told the chief of police that she was an opera star and then Penny starts singing with the most fantastic soprano voice I have every heard, the entire police department and convicts started applauding, which was a very entertaining and enjoyable scene from this film. This is Deanna Durbin's first film debut and she became an instant success over night and went on to become a great movie star with Universal Studios after leaving MGM.$LABEL$ 1
+I had eagerly awaited the first screening of this film ever since it was given to me on DVD at Christmas. Having reserved a special slot for it last night, I sat down to watch it with my daughter (aged 17 and a Film Studies student), with chocolates of course, in eager anticipation. We love Jane Austin.After just the first two minutes we knew we were sunk. The shaky camera shots and angles, general poor cinematography, direction and wooden performances had already left us feeling flat and dissatisfied. Despondent, we viewed on.Anne, played by Sally Hawkins, looked oddly and with no particular purpose, directly at the camera on several occasions, breaking our hard-won 'fantasy of the moment' and engaging us directly in an almost 'I'll find you' stalking fashion.Poor Rupert Penry-Jones, who played Captain Wentworth, did his best with the script and direction, bless him. I hope they paid him well, however, as he was practically drowned on one occasion by a huge wave which predictably breached the seawall, drenching him and his co-actor. They were nearly swept out to sea. Health and Safety would have had a field day! Poor Rupert was left spitting out sea water in order to deliver his line. Presumably there was not enough money left in the kitty for a re-shoot of this scene. Anyone with any sense would have not attempted it on such a day in the first place.Other than Mr. Penry-Jones, Alice Krige gave the only convincing performance as Lady Russell but her efforts were soon counterbalanced by those of Anthony Head's unconvincing portrayal of annoying Sir Walter Elliott.Towards the long-awaited end of the film, Captain Wentworth appeared to oddly grace Anne with a visit every two seconds having taken great pains to avoid her for the majority of the movie. It was as if he had developed a memory impediment which caused him to forget his very reason for being. In contrast, Anne ran, hyper-ventilating, from pillar to post in search of the good Captain who, in the meantime, had managed to call upon almost the entirety of Bath we are told, in the course of only three or four minutes, without even having worked up a sweat.We experienced none of Anne's charms crossing the screen. Indeed, we were left wondering what charismatic Captain Wentworth had ever seen in plain, spineless, opinion-less Anne and why someone, anyone, did not tell mean, winging Sir Walter to just shut the heck up.The crucial kiss, normally our favourite girlie moment, was painfully drawn out. As they moved in closer, Anne kept opening and closing her mouth which had the effect on screen of making her look as if she were chewing gum before lips finally met. Eww! The most enjoyable thing about last night was the chocolates and the half hour exchange of views between mother and daughter on just how bad the film had been.What a pity to ruin such an enchanting and engaging story, filmed in some of England's finest scenery.Sorry Jane.$LABEL$ 0
+If you like Sci-Fi, Monsters, and Ancient Legends, then you will love this movie!! The Special Effects are by far the best I have seen since Juarassic Park hit the big screen years ago. While the acting may have been a little less than desirable, the story line and effects adequately compensated for it.I wish now I had seen this at the movies on a theater screen instead of our 42 inch big screen TV.If you like non-stop action, awesome visuals, and taste for myth and lore....you have to see this movie!!$LABEL$ 1
+A rather silly little film you just may love.Although rather corny and cliché at times, it nonetheless works and makes for good clean fun. Five teams are engaged on a scavenger hunt and battle each other and their wits to win the all night contest - just for the sheer joy "knowing yours is the best team."Notable for several screen debuts including David Naughton's first film role after his Dr. Pepper "Be a Pepper" commercials and before his major 1981 hit "American Werewolf in London". Also features Paul Ruebens in what I believe is his first Pee Wee Herman-esquire roll a year before he became known for it. And last but not least, Mr. Spin City and Alex Keaton himself, Michael J. Fox gets his first film role here. Fans will remember Stephen Furst as Flounder in Animal House. Outside of that, no names, but all funny characters.Doubt it has ever made it to DVD, but there are still probably some VHS copies floating around and you might even catch on a late, late show sometime. If you do, is worth your watch. You may hate it, but it may also become a quirky little movie you come to love.$LABEL$ 1
+This is an OK adaptation of the breath taking book of Dan Brown. I can't say it is novel or very good but they made a movie that you can enjoy. Given the excellent story, the result could have been better though. The movie is pretty long but at the end I was feeling like some things were missing. Sound effects and sound tracks were very good. Acting was well done but the character development phase was very weak. For people who didn't read the book, things may look happening too quickly. From my point of view, instead of trying to put as much as stuff from the book, they could have tried to do the important scenes more proper. What makes the book very good was all the puzzle like story combined with the excellent portrait of Vatican. You see neither of it in the movie. Too much rush and using the time not in a good way, these are main problems of the movie. So, it is worth watching but could have been done better.$LABEL$ 1
+I never fell asleep during a movie. Never. This movie did the impossible.While many people claim the superiority of Japanese horror films over their American counterparts, this movie was a lesson in over abundance. As in, the movie was 30 minutes too long. It would have helped if the movie had a little more movement in the plot and the camera work, but instead, all we got were awkward silences and a lot of slow movement. The acting was absolutely terrible, bordering on bad student film levels while everyone struggled to ad-lib something called a script. Did these people even get any direction? Were they coaxed to be boring and dull? Either therory wouldn't surprise me.What was even worse was the rather unscary make-up involved with the creatures from the other side. Either way, they all stunk. Don't watch this film. That's all I can say (unless you're an insomniac).$LABEL$ 0
+What can I say? Not as bad as many here have made it out to be. The only reason I even watched this film that I had previously never heard of before, was strictly for IAN McSHANE.I was not disappointed in the least. IAN McSHANE was absolutely brilliant and brings an amazing subtlety to his role. He's always great to watch and for my money... an extremely underused actor.As for the rest of the film.... Every other actor in the movie delivered strong, solid performances. These people certainly weren't being paid huge amounts of cash for their participation (as this was a fairly low budget film) but this did not mean that any of them "mailed" their appearances in. Everyone was convincing and compelling with the parts given to them.I was even pleasantly surprised at ADRIAN PAUL's performance though I must admit I have only ever seen him in the HIGHLANDER Television series before this movie.The plot was well paced and the storyline intriguing and much like real life, not everything ends up tied in a nice neat little package for you at the end of the film. Anybody who expected a clear-cut, by-the-numbers, connect the dots "conclusion" or "answer" at the end of the movie... CLEARLY wasn't watching the film closely enough! This film is not going to tell you what the "meaning of life" is! The idea is that after seeing the film, you might go and discuss the unanswered questions with your friends over a coffee. I certainly did.No car chases... No explosions... No bar room brawls.... (sounds pretty dull, huh?) But the reality is that I was completely absorbed by the film and it's just a well written little piece with an interesting hook and solid character performances by all parties involved.****** WARNING...****** If you're the kind of person who dislikes movies that dangle an enormous "question" as the central engine of the story and then end the movie without answering that particular question directly...YOU MIGHT NOT ENJOY THIS FILM.$LABEL$ 1
+Originally harped as a sequel to "The Slumber Party Massacre" series, this film falls flat on it's face with a new title. First off, if you are going to include the word "massacre" in your film's title, you better deliver. This one certainly does not. There is no gore, no on screen murders and no chainsaw, as the box art would lead you to believe. Instead, we get a paper thin, overdone plot about a group of cheerleaders who get stranded in an abandoned cabin on the way to a football game, only to be offed one by one. Again, this film could have been OK if the gore quotient was upped a bit. Why directors, especially those doing direct-to-video flicks, are afraid to show ANY gore is beyond me. Now, I am not a huge fan of excessive gore, but come on...why else would anyone rent a movie called "Cheerleader Massacre??" Besides that problem, the film suffers from a shot-on-a-home-video-camera cheapness. It looks cheap, sounds cheap, and the actors aren't all that good. It tries to throw us off track to who the killer may be, but even that fails. The ending ends up being a ridiculous mess. Folks, if you run across this film, walk away and go find the original "Slumber Party Massacre." 2 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+A killer, cannibal rapist is killed by a crazed cop on the scene of his latest murder. At his grave a cult have gathered with plans to resurrect him by peeing onto the grave. This of course works and he awakes ripping the guys penis off and he is back into his old killing ways with an all new zombie look. The two cops one of who is going a little crazy about the scum of the city and has a drug problem, are back on the case. Two of the original cult member also tries to stop the killer by resurrecting some other kind of dead thing. Thinking they have filed they leave but out from the grave comes a plastic baby doll that was used in the original resurrection. Sounds a bit confusing really but no its just rubbish.The acting is terrible and one of the cops is the same guy that plays Dr Vincent van Gore in the faces of gore series and he is just as terrible as the annoying cop in this film. The other cop just about struggles to get his terrible lines out. Now I'm all for low budget cinema but this film is just terrible. If it wasn't for the very easy on the eye ladies and their nakedness I would probably have fallen asleep. There is a bit of gore but it's never more than some animal guts placed on the stomach of the victims. The zombie makeup on the other hand looks great and his foot long penis that he uses to rape his victims with is kind of funny at times. There is also a half decent scene where the killer falls in love with a sex doll. The doll with the chipmunks voice is the stupidest thing I have ever seen in a film. It is just a plastic toy on a fishing line.The ending is extremely bad. You would expect the killer to put up much more of a fight than he does. God knows how they made enough money to make a sequel. 4/10$LABEL$ 0
+Days of Heaven is one of the most painfully boring and pointless films I have ever seen. In no way, shape, or form would I recommend it to anyone...unless you're trying to put your kids to sleep or, God forbid, give someone an aneurysm. If I could go back in time and do one thing, I would set fire to the reels before they were sent to theaters. Why? Days of Heaven's plot is simple, but extremely vague. Long sequences devoid of dialogue compose much of the film. The characters are too shallow and ridiculously stupid to relate with. The climax of the story does not touch you: by this time your brain has worked so hard to figure out the plot and the array of hidden metaphors that your ability to think is gone. The only things working are your eyes, and unfortunately, your ears, who must listen to the sound of Linda, the little girl in the story, who talks like a man. I am now dumber for seeing this movie. Don't let it happen to you.$LABEL$ 0
+In 1929, director Walt Disney and animator Ub Iwerks changed the face of animation with the release of the very first installment of their "Silly Symphonies" series, "The Skeleton Dance". Iwerks and Disney had been collaborating together since the early 20s, in Disney's "Laugh-O-Gram" cartoon series; however, their friendship suffered a tremendous blow when Iwerks accepted an offer by a competitor to leave Disney and start his own animation studio. That was the birth of Celebrity Productions, where Iwerks continued developing his style and technique (and where he created the character of Flip the Frog). While his work kept the same high quality, it wasn't really popular and by 1936 the studio was closed. Later that year, Iwerks was hired by Columbia Pictures, and Iwerks decided to return to his old skeletons for another dance, this time in color.1937's "Skeleton Frolics" is essentially, a remake of the 1929 classic "The Skeleton Dance", the movie that borough him fame and fortune. Like that short film, it is set on an abandoned graveyard, where at midnight the creatures of the night come alive and begin to play. The dead rise from their coffins, ready for the show that's about to begin, as a group of skeletons has formed an orchestra, and begin to play a happy tune. Now, it's not easy to be a musician made of just bones, as some of the orchestra members have problems with their body parts, however, the band manages to put a good show and another group of skeletons begin to dance. A lovely couple of them faces the same problems that troubled the orchestra: it's hard to dance with loose body parts. Everything ends at dawn, and just when the sun is about to rise again, the skeletons run towards their graves.Directed and animated by Ub Iwerks himself, "Skeleton Frolics" follows faithfully the pattern set by "The Skeleton Dance" years before, although with a crucial difference: Iwerks did the whole film in Technicolor. The bright tonalities allowed Iwerks to create a more visually appealing film, and also to use the many new techniques he had been practicing since leaving Disney, creating even better effects of depth and dynamism than those he conceived before. It is certainly a more experimental film than "The Skeleton Dance", although sadly, this doesn't mean it's necessarily a better film. For starters, the film is practically identical to the one he did with Disney, with the only differences being the music (more on that later) and the color effects. It looks beautiful, no doubt about it, but it definitely feels kind of unoriginal after all.However, it is not the unoriginality of the concept what truly hurts the film (after all, Iwerks executes it in a wonderful way), but the fact that the musical melody created by Joe DeNat for the film is pretty uninteresting and lacks the charming elegance and whimsical fun of the one done by Carl W. Stalling for "The Skeleton Dance". In other words, while DeNat's tune is effective and appropriate for the theme, it's easy to forget about it rapidly while Stalling's song has a unique personality that makes it unforgettable. Being a musical film, this is of high importance, and so the mediocrity of the music brings down Iwerk's flawless work of animation. Personally, I think that with a better musical accompaniment, "Skeleton Frolics" would be remembered as fondly as "The Skeleton Dance despite not being as groundbreaking, as it's still a fun film to watch.It's kind of sad that most of the work Iwerks did after leaving Disney is now forgotten due to his poor success, however, it must be said that if Iwerks lacked the popularity of Disney or Fleischer (Disney's main rival), he did not lack the quality of those companies' films. It was probably just a case of bad luck what made the man who gave life to Disney's mouse for the first time to face failure out of Disney. Despite its shortcomings, "Skeleton Frolics" is a very funny and visually breathtaking film, that while not exactly the most original and fresh film (one just can't help but thinking of "The Skeleton Dance" while watching it), it definitely reminds us that Iwerk's skeletons are still here to haunt us, and inspire us.8/10$LABEL$ 1
+Yes, indeed, it could have been a good movie. A love biangle, (sorry for the poetical license, but is not a triangle!) an interesting story, unfortunately badly told. The image is sometimes weird, sometimes OK, the picture looks crowded and narrow-sighted. The sound needs more attention (it usually does in Romanian movies), the light and color filters are sometimes badly chosen. The soundtrack is short and is not helping the action. About the acting... sorry but the best actress is the landlady. The others are acting immaturely and cannot convince the viewer. The acting is poetical when it should be realistic, and realistic when it should be poetical. It's a picture for adults, told by the children. Bother only if extremely curious.$LABEL$ 0
+You wear only the best Italian suits from Armani, hand stitched and fitted to your exact measurements. Your automobile is the finest that German engineering has to offer, and is equipped with as many gadgets as horses under the hood. You're a member of the finest polo clubs, frequently dine at restaurants such as Spago, and are always accompanied by at least two of the most beautiful women in the world. Your pocket watch doubles as a nuclear explosive, while your trusty pen can also be used as a semi-automatic .22 caliber gun. You snow ski in the Alps, go deep sea diving in the Caribbean, sky dive over the Andes, and all the while your hair is never, ever, out of place. You are Bond, James Bond, the world's most renown spy, favorite son of the good Queen, bad boy of the British SS, and perhaps the most desired man in the world. The character of James Bond was created by Ian Fleming, and is the movie industry's longest lasting icon, being the subject of over fifteen films spanning over four decades. The latest man to play the role is Pierce Brosnan, who took over the role of James Bond from Timothy Dalton in 1996, and made his 007 debut in Goldeneye.This is the setting for the first major title developed by a third party on the Nintendo 64. Goldeneye, developed by Rare for Nintendo, has been on the market for some time. Its continued dominance in the sales charts is just one testament to how good this game is, and no review library would be complete without it.Let's face it -- most of the time movie-licensed games are flops. Although the two seem like a good mix, the results, for the most part, have been horrendous. Games like Cliffhanger, True Lies, Lethal Weapon, and not to mention all the Star Trek flops, are ammunition enough against this mix. And for the record I am not a fan of movie licensed games, especially if I've seen the movie. At least that's how I used to think. In the case of Goldeneye, I had more reservations than normal. While not a bad movie, Goldeneye the film didn't have that much appeal to it, and I don't rank it in the top ten amongst Bond movies. As a game, however, let's just say it's a completely different story.The game is a first-person shooter, and in order to be successful, you'll need at least as much brains as brawn. For those who have seen the movie, which I imagine is most of you reading this, the story is very consistent and follows the path of the movie with little variation. A plot to control the world's most dangerous satellite, Goldeneye, has begun in the USSR, and in the process a beautiful woman has been captured. Your missions will be many, the danger extreme. You will have to rely on your wits and experience to get you through the most grueling missions the world has ever known. M will brief you as soon as you're ready. Good day, James.$LABEL$ 1
+This is an excellent film about the characters in a adult swimming class, their problems, relationships and interactions with each other. It should have managed a wider distribution as it's much better than similar films from major studios out at the same time.The swimming instructor is an almost-Olympian, reduced to teaching adults basic lessons, and often the target of horndogging from his female students. He attempts, more or less, to fend them off, with varying results.The students characters are mainstream U.S.A; teachers, policemen, college students and retired people, all of whom haven't learned to swim for some reason. The movie covers their relationships, including friends, relatives and romantic conquests as they go through the class. Several subplots provide amusing fodder, including a teacher going through a divorce, some high school students making a documentary, and a girl who is only in the class to meet guys.This is a good date movie, or just one to watch when you're in the mood for a romantic drama with overtones of reality.$LABEL$ 1
+This mostly routine fact-based TV drama gets a boost from the fine performance by Cole. This is the story of a highly trained military man, unhappy with his wife and children, fakes his demise and runs off with the other woman. To support her in the manner in which she is accustomed he robs banks. Predictable, but not a bad watch.$LABEL$ 1
+I watched Six of a Kind for W.C. Fields - he's only in it for around 10 minutes and has one long scene, the infamous pool sequence he made famous in vaudeville, and several other great moments. The reamaining 55 minutes are also delightful, thankfully, mostly due to the hilarious Charlie Ruggles as the bumbling banker J. Pinkham Whinney. He is everyone's foil. He stutters and stumbles about to our pleasure. Also, his comedy partner, Mary Boland plays his wife, Flora. Joining in the proceedings are George Burns and Gracie Allen. Boland is particularly funny near the beginning and near the end, but Gracie and Ruggles use up most of the picture. Gracie's funny, quite, but she can also get tiring. And poor George Burns has absolutely nothing to do except repeat Gracie all the time. I don't remember laughing at him once (although he has one great scene with Ruggles, where Ruggles tries desperately to get George to take Gracie and leave him and his wife alone for a while, and one with Fields, where he asks Fields to sell him a sweater; that bit is exclusively Fields', though). The situation is constantly funny: the Whinneys are going to drive to California, but to help them with expenses, George and Gracie are recruited. 8/10.$LABEL$ 1
+EDMUND LOWE (who reminds me somewhat of Warren William), heads the nice cast of an interesting little mystery that moves at a brisk pace and runs just a little over an hour.Douglas Walton plays the unlucky jockey who appears to be intent on his own demise (hypnotism, anyone?), and the suspects include a good number of the supporting cast--everyone from Virginia Bruce, Kent Smith, Frieda Inescourt, Gene Lockhart, Jessie Ralph, Benita Hume, Rosalind Ivan and H.B. Warner. As an added bonus, there's Nat Pendleton as a dimwit detective--and furthermore, get a load of that art deco set decoration for the fancy interiors of a wealthy home. Must have been a set that was used in many a subsequent film.On the plus side, the mystery is not so complicated that anyone can follow the plot with reasonable assurance of not being too baffled. It's all suddenly clear to detective Philo Vance--and then he has a final confrontation with the murderer that gives the film a nifty five minutes of unmitigated suspense.Nicely done and passes the time in an entertaining manner.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is lame and not funny at all. The plot doesn't even make sense. Some scientist who works on the fringes of science opens a doorway to another dimension (maybe hell???) and his daughter gets sucked through it or something, then one day for no apparent reason she comes back and now she has big breasts and wears a skimpy outfit (I guess the demons in the other dimension made it for her?) The main character is a guy who wants to marry his girlfriend but she is gay so obviously she's more interested in her new girlfriend, and they stumble upon this witch spell book (they want to be witches or something???) and the evil spell ends up getting read again which is how the evil demon comes to earth which only the bikini top girl and the spurned guy in love can stop apparently. There is topless scenes for no reason and a guy in it who my boyfriend says is a well known wrestler but his part is completely unnecessary, obviously they made something up just to put him in it because then maybe wrestling fans will actually watch this pointless movie. I'm sure the topless girls doesn't hurt there either. The extra features on the DVD were even more confusing than the rest of the movie, I thought it might help explain what was going on but it actually just made things more confusing. Who are these people and what are they doing? Basically this is a go-camping-to-make-out-then-fight-a-monster movie but there are a bunch of things (like the other dimension and book seller) than make it confusing. I didn't like the movie but it was only like five bucks so big deal. I don't recommend watching it though it was just too stupid, I can't think of any part of the movie that was good.$LABEL$ 0
+Although I was hoping that I'd like it a little more, this was still certainly an impressive film. There were great performances by all the leads, and the story, while not what I'd call chilling, was still effective and it kept me interested. For me, the best part of this film was the look of the picture, for it always looked cold and damp and it just really seemed to suit the film well. I also thought that the low budget suited this movie, for I don't think that a crisp picture and clear sound would have worked as well in a film this grim. All things considered, it fell a little short of my expectations, but I'm still very glad that I finally sat down to watch this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Imagine this: a high school. Except it's boarding school, and the kids don't have parents around. Oh, and it's in Malibu. And the kids are all thin, white, and gorgeous, with the exceptional token minority or fat kid to play the "weird" outcast. And there aren't any reasonable rules, like how they have co-habitation, nuclear weapons in their dorms, coffee stands, a sushi bar, and a complimentary laptop per student.Here's the story: A girl, Zoey Brooks, attends PCA, a formerly all-boys school. Absolutely perfect in every possible way, she is smart, pretty, thin, athletic, creative, and everything a perfectionist wants to be. Almost all the boys in school want her, and every girl wants to be her friend. She's the one everyone comes to for advice, the one who saves the day with a simplistic plan, and is just wonderful. Too bad none of this makes her likable.Are we supposed to believe that if we don't even come close to Zoey's perfection, we're bad people? In the show, nothing's her fault, and if anyone contradicts her, they're portrayed as the bad guy(Logan). He may be a jerk, but at least he has some kind of brain that thinks for himself instead of simply agreeing with the princess every time.Her loyal group of blind followers are: Chase, the average dumb ass that has a secret crush on her, Michael, the token black guy (and the only decent actor on the set), Lola, a wannabe actress and anorexic, snobby airhead, Quinn, the smart but clueless girl when it comes to teen stuff, and Logan, the rich jerk who has a soft side. Yeah, this show basically spews out stereotypes.What ticks me off, though, is that they all try to pretend they're normal kids. They complain that Logan gets too much money while they have to work themselves, even though they already go to a too-good-to-be-true boarding school and have relatively nice things that many teenagers can't afford. They drink coffee and eat sushi on a regular basis, hardly have homework, and suntan almost every day. Wow, they have it hard! Any other problems? I'm too good-looking, rich, and stress-free! I guess Zoey 101 (what's the 101 for, anyway?) is Nick's attempt at trying to portray teens realistically. Except they caught a glimpse of reality, didn't like it, and decided to give the kids lives like the asses on The Hills.But hey, at least the set's pretty.$LABEL$ 0
+I had been amazed by director Antal's Kontroll back in 2003. His first American project, Vacancy, was less impressive but a decent start. Armored is his second feature and while the visual signature is recognizable, the film never rises above the level of a B movie. It's a shame because the main premise has all the ingredients for twists and turns and the ensemble cast featuring many quality actors should be able to deliver. Antal could have made a great heist film but instead goes for an action flick. Then again he could have shot a cool action flick but it doesn't really deliver in that department either. What you are left with is one implausible situation after another, a group of poorly sketched characters bicker and fight over a sum of money. If you look past the sharp cinematography, cast and the tight music score, you're left with what could have been a below average direct-to-video featuring Van Damme or Seagal. This was probably the most disappointing movie for me in quite some time.$LABEL$ 0
+First of all, the reason I'm giving this film 2 stars instead of 1 is because at least Peter Falk gave his usual fantastic performance as Lieutenant Columbo. He alone can get 10 stars for trying to save this otherwise utterly worthless attempt at making a movie.I was initially all fired up at reading one poster's comment that Andrew Stevens in this movie gave "the performance of his career." To me, it was the abysmal performance by Stevens that absolutely ruined this movie, and so I was all prepared to hurl all sorts of insults at the person who made the aforementioned comment. Then I thought to myself, what else has Stevens done? So I checked and, you know, that person was absolutely right. In the 17 years since this Columbo movie was made, apparently every one of the 33 projects that Stevens has been in since then has been utter crap, so it is doubtful that anybody has even seen the rest of his career.If you like Columbo, see every other of the 69 titles before watching this one. Do yourself a favor and save the worst for last.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie must be in line for the most boring movie in years. Not even woody Harrison can save this movie from sinking to the bottom.The murder in this movie are supposed to be the point of interest in this movie but is not, nothing is of any interest. The cast are not to bad but the script are just plain awful , I just sat in utter amazement during this movie, thinking how on earth can anyone find this movie entertaining The producers of this movie were very clever. They made a boring movie but hid it well with the names of good actors and actresses on their cast. People will go to the blockbuster and probably see this movie and think, Woody Harrison ,Kristin Scott Thomas and Willem Dafoe this must be good and rent this movie.(boy are they in for a horrible time)If you like getting ripped off go and rent this movie, some people actually did enjoyed this movie but I like to watch a movie with meaning$LABEL$ 0
+Down at the Movie Gallery, I saw a flick I just had to see. It looked like a fun low-budget horror/action/western that I could get into. Yeah, I knew it would suck, but I rented it anyway hoping for laughs. Only a few laughs were to be found. This was an extremely stupid movie. It begins with a bounty hunter, our protagonist, who is possibly the weakest main character in the history of film. He looks/acts like he could take on Chuck Norris, but he can't. His dialogue sucks too. Anyway, he goes into a village, shoots some zombies. You could tell they tried to make this longer by putting in these boring scenes where he takes 3-5 minutes to reload or watch some zombies. At least the zombies look cool. So anyway, some people get shot, some zombies die, and in the end, everyone is dead except our main character, who should have died at the beginning when he was shot down by four people.$LABEL$ 0
+i am finally seeing the El Padrino movie, from what I can see it is an incredible film, and lots of action Damian Chapa is good director, But I must admit I love his acting the Best.Also I saw the behind the scenes it was edited by some lady named kinga, she needs to go back to school and learn how to edit.However the film El Padrino is a pure 10 action epic. Why cant most people who direct put together films that keep you wondering what the plot is? I am so happy to see someone I know to be a real great actor become a great director also.I am one of those people who love to see artists make it.B.S.$LABEL$ 1
+I thrive on cinema....but there is a limit. A NAME isn't enough to make A MOVIE!. The beginning of the movie puts us in a mood to expect the unseen yet. But we remain hungry ( or angry..) till the end . Things are getting so confused that I admit that I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE END or was there an end to this nonesense. The opportunity to make an outstanding movie was there but the target was totally missed. Next...$LABEL$ 0
+Michael Callan plays a smarmy photographer who seems, nonetheless, to be regarded as a perfect "catch" by any woman that runs across him; could this have anything to do with the fact that he also co-produced the film? He's a "hero" whom it's very difficult to empathize with, so the movie is in trouble right from the start. However, it's troubles don't end there. It has the production values of a TV-movie (check out that head made of clay or something, near the end), and the ending cheats in a way that I can't reveal, in case anyone wants to see the movie (highly unlikely). Let's just say that the killer knows more than we were let to know he knows. (*1/2)$LABEL$ 0
+I was drawn to "Friends" by the soundtrack scored by a very young and yet to be famous Elton John whom I had see in a club in nearby Houston. I had no idea of the emotions and impact the movie would make. Recently I was brought back to the movie by a song that Heart did called "Seasons", then I found the Elton John song "Friends" thinking it was the same song...it's been 35 years of so. Anyway, the flood of the emotions of "Friends" came back like seeing an old photograph of your first real love. I have more recall of the way the movie hit me than I do of the actual details of the production, plot, etc. so forgive me for a rather poor review. I remember taking a couple of special friends on a date to see the movie and them being as moved and teary-eyed at the end as I was. I'm both anxious and nervous to find a copy and see it now. So many movies which seemed so important to me back then (i.e. "The Graduate" "Easy Rider") now just seem silly and I don't want this to fall into the same category. But, I will find it and if it turns out silly, then at least I'll be able to turn my wife onto a great...no..outstanding soundtrack. When we met, we went through this with "Last Tango in Paris". The youngsters I work with (I'm 56) respect my opinions but it's hard to explain the feelings of the sixties and the movies and songs that reflect such strong feelings but seem a little "aged" now. I just can't figure out if the the aging process is the movies... or me. "Friends" is a very special, sensitive and wonderful movie. It will bring back a lot of special feelings I'm sure. By all means, rent or buy a copy... Indies were not near the strong genre then that they are today.$LABEL$ 1
+During the Clete Roberts preface, I was beginning to think this was an Ed Wood production, however, what rolls out here is some pretty hard hitting stuff. The story of crime and corruption in a Southern town is told using a cast culled from Hollywood's Poverty Row, and this makes the movie all the more realistic. There are no punches pulled here, and at times the film is reminiscent of "The Well"(1951). The Black and White texture gives a newsreel-like quality. For certain, younger viewers will be reminded of "The Blair Witch Project" but this one IS based on REAL events!$LABEL$ 1
+I decided to watch this one because it's been nominated for Oscar this year. I guess as many folks here I really wanted to like this movie, but ended up bored and disappointed. First scene was OK but the whole rest of the movie in "shaky hands" camera mode is really annoying.i guess the main reason for making such a movie and nominating it for Oscar is this:American "military machine" (people, who makes money on war) urgently need an excuse or justification of war in Iraq by bungling up something (sort of) patriotic.why these "heroic" efforts of director and the main character to _inspire_ the audience with an idea of "loving-war-like-a-drug"?.. Oh, please, come on! what a bore! watch this to get an idea of how low the movie academy can fall...$LABEL$ 0
+Mom should really be given a different title to distinguish it from all the other movies out there called Mom or with the word Mom in the title.This is a vastly superior zombie movie to so much of the rubbish that gets churned out time after time and all end up much the same as every other zombie movie out there.It is so different and refreshing it almost defies categorisation.The kind old lady who takes in a creepy lodger, who just happens to be a flesh eater, who then infects the old lady who also turns into a flesh eating zombie, or ghoul, quite which exactly is not defined.There is pathos in the story as her son realises what she has become and while at first horrified, attempts to help her by supplying 'food'. (I shall say no more about that, for fear of inserting a spoiler!) It is one of those 'quiet' movies as opposed to guns blasting, explosions raging, car chases, etc boring etc that makes so many movies all the same rubbish, but still with enough gory moments to satisfy horror fans, whilst also inserting sadness into the story, along with nice touches of humour as opposed to downright silliness of some so-called 'horror' movies.There is a particularly nice atmospheric shot at the beginning of the film, where the old lady is sitting alone in her room with only her Christmas tree for company and looks so 'innocent', but, what she becomes!! Oh my! A gem of a movie and even if not your thing, should at least be viewed if only once by any true horror fan.$LABEL$ 1
+Empire of Passion starts out deceptively - that is, if you're immediately expecting it to be a horror movie. It's like a riff on James M. Cain's The Postman Always Rings Twice, at first: Seki (Kazuko Yoshiyuki) is a mother of two and a dutiful, hard-working wife to rickshaw driver Gisaburo (Takahiro Tamura). But when he's not around, and she's at home with the baby, the feisty and aimless young man Toyoji (Tatsuya Fuji) comes around to bring some goodies for Seki... and a little extra. They're soon sleeping together, but after he does something to her (let's just say a "shave"), he knows that he'll find out, and immediately proposes that they kill Gisaburo. They drink him up, strangle him, and then toss him down a well. Naturally, this will come back to haunt them - but that it's literally, at least to them (at first super-terrified Seki and then only later on skeptical Toyoji), changes gears into the 'Kaidan', a Japanese ghost story.This is a film where the horror comes not simply out of "oh, ghost, ah", but out of the total dread that builds for the characters. In a way there's the mechanics of a film-noir at work throughout, if only loosely translated by way of a 19th century Japanese village as opposed to an American city or small town (i.e. the snooping cop, the "evidence" found possibly by another, word getting around, suspicions aroused, etc). It's compelling because Seiko actually was against the plan from the start, manipulated by the lustful but ill-prepared Toyoji, and her reactions to Gisaburo's re-appearances are staggering to her. Take the one that comes closest to poetry: Gisaburo's ghost, pale-blue face and mostly silent, chilling stare, motions for Seiko to get on the rickshaw. She does, reluctantly, and he pushes her around on a road she doesn't know, in the wee hours before dawn, surrounded by smoke. Most Japanese ghost stories wish to heavens they could get this harrowingly atmospheric.While it starts to veer into hysterics towards the end, there's so much here that director Oshima gets right in making this a distinctive work. After hitting it huge in the international cinema world with In the Realm of the Senses (which, ironically, got banned in his own country), he made something that, he claimed, was even *more* daring that 'Senses'. Maybe he was right; Empire of Passion has less graphic sexual content by far than its predecessor (also starring Tatsuya Fuji, a magnificently physical actor with an immense lot of range), but its daring lies in crafting a world of dread. You can believe in ghosts in this story, but you also have to believe how far down to their own personal hells these two would-be lovebirds will go. The snooping detective or the gossiping townspeople are the least of their worries: the fate of their very souls is at stake.And Oshima takes what in other hands could be merely juicy pulp (sadly, it wouldn't surprise me if an American remake was already in the works) and crafts shot after gorgeous shot, with repetition working its way into the mis-en-scene (i.e. the shots of Seiko and Toyoji walking on that road, the camera at a dutch angle, the world tilted and surrounding them in a grim blue hue) as well as some affecting movements that will stay with me long after I finish typing this (i.e. Toyoji throwing the leaves by one hand into the well in slow motion, or how Seiko's nude body is revealed after she becomes blind). It's daring lies in connecting on a level of the spirit- not to be confused with the spiritual, though there may be something with that as well- about life and death's connections to one another, inextricably. It's a classic waiting to be discovered.$LABEL$ 1
+I am not a big music video fan. I think music videos take away personal feelings about a particular song.. Any song. In other words , creative thinking goes out the window. Likewise, Personal feelings aside about MJ, toss aside. This was the best music video of alltime. Simply wonderful. It was a movie. Yes folks it was. Brilliant! You had awesome acting, awesome choreography, and awesome singing. This was spectacular. Simply a plot line of a beautiful young lady dating a man , but was he a man or something sinister. Vincent Price did his thing adding to the song and video. MJ was MJ , enough said about that. This song was to video , what Jaguars are for cars. Top of the line, PERFECTO. What was even better about this was ,that we got the real MJ without the thousand facelifts. Though ironically enough, there was more than enough makeup and costumes to go around. Folks go to Youtube. Take 14 mins. out of your life and see for yourself what a wonderful work of art this particular video really is.$LABEL$ 1
+Oh, my goodness. I would have never thought it was possible for me to see a thriller worse than Domestic Disturbance this soon, but here it is. Armed with rotten plot, terrible editing, stilted acting, and headache-inducing 'style' (sorry, I have no other words for it), Sanctimony is the kind of movie that almost forces you to re-evaluate an entire genre; that is, this film is so bad that even the thrillers I condemned as complete failures now seem a little better.Now, not only Sanctimony is a terrible film in itself, it also succeeds in the difficult task of ripping off better movies and do a pathetic job with it. Right from the main titles -- nothing but a blatant attempt to reproduce the ones from Se7en -- I was under the impression that something didn't smell quite right. As soon as the movie started with a series of corny, wanna-be hip quick-cuts full of gory images and bombastic colors, I knew where that smell was coming from.It turns out that two policemen, or rather policeman Jim Renart (Michael Paré) and policewoman Dorothy Smith (Jennifer Rubin), are investigating on a murder spree in Vancouver. A serial killer, known as "Monkey Killer" (what a menacing, chilling nickname, uh?) for his working methods, has killed quite a lot of people. You see, this nut apparently works following the proverb "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" and cuts eyes, ears, and tongues out of his victims. So far, six eyes, six ears, and three tongues. In very ingenious fashion, Renart and Smith figure out that the Monkey Killer is probably going to kill other three people... well, because he probably wants to complete the number 666. So suddenly the film focuses on Tom Gerrick (Casper Van Dien), a young, successful, good-looking businessman, with a dreadful temper. And that's where the rip-off of American Psycho kicks in.So we follow the life of the two police officers and the young psychopath, none of which is interesting in the least, until they finally meet. Along the way to that, a disco where Renart barely misses Gerrick unintentionally offers us one of the funniest scenes in recent memory: Renart goes in the back of the disco club, because... well, just because the script tells us it's a suspect place; then, with one single punch in the stomach, Renard gets rid of a big guard who blocks the path, and the guard is never heard of again? Does this scene strike anyone else as completely unrealistic?Anyway, after another murder, Gerrick turns in as a witness, but Smith and especially Renart immediately suspect he might be the killer. In typical Basic Instinct fashion, Smith gets some dates with the young businessman, under the assumption that she might discover his true identity.I won't spoil the ending but it is, quite simply, an embarrassment; there are contradictions, some plot holes, issues that never get resolved, and especially there is one last scene where a brutal mass murder, supposed to be shocking and sad, comes off as such laughably overdone and nonsensical that I frankly can't imagine how anyone could not laugh at it.At 87 minutes, Sanctimony is really pushing it. You never care about one single character, because they are all so flat (not to mention boring) that you know exactly who is who the first time you meet them. You are never pulled into the story, because the scenes are connected through weak plot devices when not downright unnecessary and out of place. The acting ranges from average (Van Dien) to downright atrocious (Rubin, and most of the supporting cast); the music is abysmal generic techno, and the photography is one of the worst I have ever seen. Of course, like every fiasco of the genre, we are provided with a little bit of gratuitous nudity.3/10$LABEL$ 0
+The Man With a Golden Arm was one of a trio of great films around that same time that dealt with drug addiction. The other two were Monkey On My Back and A Hatful of Rain. But I think of the three this one is the best.Maybe if Otto Preminger had shot the thing in the real Chicago instead of those obvious studio sets the film might have been better yet. Who knows, maybe Preminger couldn't get enough money to pay for the location. It's the only flaw I find in the film.Frank Sinatra is a heroin addicted card dealer who was busted for covering for his boss Robert Strauss when the game was raided. He took the cure while in jail and wants a new life as a jazz drummer. But a whole lot of people are conspiring against him.First Bob Strauss who wants him back dealing, especially because a couple of heavyweight gamblers are in town. He uses a few underhanded methods to get Sinatra's services back. Secondly Darren McGavin is the local dope dealer who wants Sinatra good and hooked as a customer again. And finally Eleanor Parker his clinging wife who's working a con game to beat all, just to keep him around.Frank Sinatra got a nomination for Best Actor for this film, but lost to Ernest Borgnine in Marty. Sinatra might have won for this one if he hadn't won for From Here to Eternity in the Supporting Actor category a few years back and that Marty was such an acclaimed film in that year. His scenes going through withdrawal locked up in Kim Novak's apartment will leave you shaken.Eleanor Parker does not get enough credit for her role. She's really something as the crazy scheming wife who wants Sinatra tied to her no matter what the cost. If she had not been nominated that same year for Interrupted Melody, she might have been nominated for this. 1955 marked the high point of her career. Darren McGavin got his first real notice as the very serpentine drug peddler. His performance is guaranteed to make your flesh crawl.Elmer Bernstein contributed a great jazz score to accentuate the general dinginess of the bleak Chicago neighborhood the characters live in. Not a place you'd want to bring up your family.$LABEL$ 1
+This film was basically set up for failure by the studio. One, Anne Rice (author of the book) offered to write the screen play but was refused by the studio. Two, they tried to stuff 2 in depth novels in to a 2hour movie.I maintain the only way for these two books -Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned- to work in a live action form would be through a mini-series. First off the the Vampire Lestat alone takes place from the 1700's to the 1980's and has a plethora of character vital to the plot understanding of the main character, Lestat. The entire book Vampire Lestat sets up the events of the second part Queen of the Damned. Without that full understanding the premise of a movie is destroyed.Lestat was not cruel and vicious to all, he was not wanting to go along with Akasha's plans, Marius did not make Lestat, Lestat did not love Jesse or make her, Lestat could not go remain unscathed by the light, Marius was not after David nor the other way around, every character was completely represented wrong, BASICALLY same names different story.If they wanted to make a vampire movie, fine. Even if you wanted to be inspired by these novels, fine. But don't piggie back into the theaters off the success of Rice's great novels and characters just to destroy what her loyal readers have come to love.If you haven't read the books you won't understand the film really, if you have read the books you will be insulted. That being said, I am such a huge fan I had to see the movie knowing full well this was going to be the case and still went for it. Catch 22, must see it, will hate it.$LABEL$ 0
+Have previously enjoyed Wesley Snipes in several action flicks and I had expected a lot more, even from a score of 5.8 IMDb, the movie fails to entertain and even though the story is thin and unoriginal, the acting is most unfortunately thinner and goes to mimic a "worst case scenario" of playing "strong" feelings accompanied by some bad acting... Don't waist your time this movie ísnt entertaining, if you wanna cry it might suffice though, even though your tears will be wept due to seeing Wesley Snipes in the tragic action film wannabe comedy...I give this 2/10 it really was awful, if you wanna see a decent movie go see shooter or rent it, its all the good things this movie isn't.$LABEL$ 0
+An intense thriller about a mute movie make-up artist who witnesses a snuff film being made when she is working late in the studio one night. After she tries to get away from the murder scene, she realizes she is in for more than she bargained for when the entire mafia is out to kill her for being a witness. This movie leaves you on the edge of your seat.$LABEL$ 1
+Don't listen to most of these people. ill give you a better review of this movie which me and my friend love! Its about Jill Johnson, played by Camilla Belle, who babysits at the Mendrakis' house and someone breaks in. if you're wondering how he got in the house, he went through the garage most likely. so anyway, don't listen to, "the worst acting". it has amazing acting. with a great story. I think that there are 2 benefits that Jill has. 1. shes a fast runner and is on the track team. 2.she got out alive! lol.it is a cool movie and quite scary. check it out, you will be happy with this masterpiece. don't listen to the other people on the site. its very good. trust me, i am good at reviewing movies. I'm a future movie critic. i totally want to buy this movie. and you will too when you see it. it is amazingly awesome.$LABEL$ 1
+What a frustrating movie. A small Southern town is overflowing with possibilities for exploring the complexities of interpersonal relationships and dark underbellies hidden beneath placid surfaces, as anyone who has read anything by Carson McCullers already knows. This does none of that. Instead, the writers settled for cutesy twinkles, cheap warm fuzzies and banal melodrama. The thing looks like a made-for-TV movie, and was directed with no particular distinction, but it's hard to imagine what anyone could have done to make this material interesting.The most frustrating aspect, though, is the fact that there are a lot of extremely competent and appealing actors in this cast, all trying gamely to make the best of things and do what they can with this--well, there's no other word for it--drivel. A tragic waste of talent, in particular that of the great Stockard Channing.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie starred a totally forgotten star from the 1930s, Jack Pearl (radio's "Baron Munchausen") as well as Jimmy Durante. However, 7-1/2 decades later, it's being billed as a Three Stooges film because they are the only ones in the film who the average person would recognize today. Film fanatics will also recognize the wonderful Edna May Oliver as well as Zazu Pitts.As for the Stooges, this is a film from there very early days--before MGM had any idea what to do with the team. At this point, they were known as "Ted Healy and his Stooges" as Healy was the front man. Fortunately for the Stooges, they soon left this nasty and rather untalented man (read up on him--you'll see what I mean) and the rest is history. Within a year, they were making very successful shorts for Columbia and executives at MGM were soon kicking themselves for losing the team. This sort of thing was a common occurrence at MGM, a great studio which had no idea what to do with comedy (such as the films of Buster Keaton, Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello and others). In fact, up until they left for Columbia, MGM put them in a wide variety of odd film roles--including acting with Clark Gable and Joan Crawford in DANCING LADY. And, oddly, in this film they didn't act as a team--they just did various supporting roles, such as Larry playing the piano!This particular film begins with Pearl and Durante lost in the African jungle. When they are rescued and brought home, all sense of structure to the film falls apart and the film becomes almost like a variety show--punctuated by scenes with the leads here and there. As for Pearl, I could really see why he never made a successful transition to films, as he has the personality of a slug (but slightly less welcome). As for Durante, I never knew what the public saw in him--as least as far as his films are concerned--he was loud and...loud! He apparently took time off from helping MGM to ruin Buster Keaton's career to make this film. Together, Pearl and Durante rely on lots of verbal humor(?) and Vaudeville-style routines that tend to fall rather flat.In this film, the Stooges they didn't yet have the right chemistry. Seeing Healy doing the job that Moe did in their later films is odd. What they did in the film was pretty good, but because all the segments were short, they came on and off camera too quickly to allow them to really get into their routines. Stooges fans might be very frustrated at this, though die-hard fans may want to see this so that they can complete their life-long goal of seeing everything Stooge--even the rotten Joe DeRita and Joe Besser films (oh, and did they got bad after the deaths of Shemp and Curly).Overall, the film is rather dull and disappointing. However, there are a couple interesting things to look for in the mess. At about the 13 minute mark, you will see a brief scene where a tour guide on a bus is singing. Look carefully, as this is Walter Brennan in a role you'd certainly never expect! Another unusual thing to look for in the film is the "Clean as a Whistle" song starting at about 22 minutes into the film. This song and dance number is clearly an example of a so-called "Pre-Code" scene that never would have been allowed in films after 1934 (when the Production Code was strengthened). Despite the word "Clean" in the title, it's a very titillating number with naked women showing lots of flesh--enough to stimulate but not enough to really show anything! It's quite shocking when seen today, though such excesses were pretty common in the early 1930s. Finally, at the 63 minute mark, see Jimmy Durante set race relations back a few decades. See the film, you'll see that I mean!$LABEL$ 0
+When Carol (Vanessa Hidalgo) starts looking into her brother's death, she begins to suspect something more sinister than "natural causes". The closer she gets to the truth, the more of a threat she becomes to her sister-in-law, Fiona (Helga Line), and the rest of the local Satanists. They'll do whatever is necessary to put a stop her nosy ways.If you're into sleazy, Satanic-themed movies, Black Candles has a lot to offer. The movie is filled with plenty of nudity and ritualistic soft-core sex. One scene in particular involving a young woman and a goat must be seen to be believed. Unfortunately, all the sleaze in the world can't save Black Candles. Most of the movie is a total bore. Other than the one scene I've already mentioned, the numerous sex scenes aren't shocking and certainly aren't sexy. The acting is spotty at best. Even genre favorite Helga Line gives a disappointing performance. The plot really doesn't matter. Its main function seems to be to hold the string of dull sex scenes together. I'm only familiar with one other movie directed by Jose Ramon Larraz. Compared with his Daughters of Darkness that masterfully mixes eroticism and horror, Black Candles comes off as amateurish. 3/10 is about the best I can do.$LABEL$ 0
+One of the more intelligent serial killer movies in recent history. ZODIAC KILLER offers an imaginative take on the background and history of one of the most notorious serial killers. The filmmakers create an unexpectedly good insight into the pathology of this mysterious killer, and anyone who remembers Zodiac will be intrigued. Others will want to discover more about this enigmatic criminal. Unlike many serial killers, Zodiac was not insane at all but very methodical and a self-promoter. The director here plays viewer expectations and pulls it off. The film is constructed as a murder mystery, or a "cold case"-style thriller. It is an intelligent investigative/procedural-style horror film that will put-off gore-hounds in search of cheap thrills.Some people dislike any movie that is shot on video. This attitude is very old-style and provincial. It is an attitude and view of movies that puts technical issues above entertainment value or artistic value. These attitudes are on the way out. ZODIAC KILLER is a low-budget film, no doubt, but discerning viewers will look beyond that and find a carefully-crafted gem.$LABEL$ 1
+I've read the other reviews and found some to be comparison of movie v real life (eg what it takes to get into music school), Britney Bashing, etc, etc. so let's focus on the movie and the message.I have rated this movie 7 out of 10 for the age range 8 to 14 years, and for a family movie. For the average adult male.... 2 out of 10.I like pop/rock music, i'm 45. I know of Britney Spears but never realised she actually sang Stronger until i read the credits and these reviews. I didn't recognise her poster on the wall so I was not worried about any 'self promotion'.I watch movies to be entertained. i don't care about casting, lighting, producers, directors, etc. What is the movie and does it entertain me.I watched this movie for the message. The world's greatest epidemic is low self-esteem (which is a whole other story) so watched with the message in mind, as that is an area of interest. The movie is light, bright and breezy, great for kids. I found the Texan twang began to fade throughout the movie and of course there are only so many ways to convey the give up/don't give up message, so yeh, it was a bit predictable. Great message though...should be more of them.This movie is a great family movie, but for a bloke watching by himself, get Hannibal.$LABEL$ 1
+I like this movie because it is a fine work of cinema, made by people who care enough to make it art and not just home movies. It is filled with Super-surfer Greg Noll's home movies, and a boatload of amateur video from others who align themselves with his 50-year passion. Nevertheless, it has been expanded to the degree that it approaches aesthetic glory. It is filled with artistic talent, and athletic talent, however trivial you might think surfing to be athletic. Surfers are not astronauts nor test-pilots. Nor are they surgeons(perhaps) or Ph.d's(again, perhaps). It believes in the quest of the surfer. It believes in the beauty of human goofiness. It believes in the great gift of peace, which comes from the cessation of war. Surfers celebrate the cessation of war on the north beach of an Hawaiian island attacked by Japanese zeroes fifteen years before. It celebrates the down-time of a country which fought a cold war-instead of a hot-war - with the Russian socialists. Surfing is the ultimate narcissism. It is dangerous, but only slightly historical. I suspect Alexander the Great would not be celebrated for his surfing technique. He had to go out and conquer a few dozen countries to get the favorable press he has received. This movie has no military heroes. It has no guns. The only beach-head surfers conquer has a beer-stand and and a surfboard shop. This is not a problem. Peace is not desperate. It is the joy of exhalation.$LABEL$ 1
+I had a hard time staying awake for the two hour opening episode. It was dumbed down to such an extent, I doubt if I learned a single thing. The graphics were rudimentary. Any small idea was repeated ad nauseum. Contrast this to the Cosmos series hosted by Carl Sagan. That had a good musical theme. There was NO music coming from these infernal 10-dimensional Strings.$LABEL$ 0
+Although the plot of this film is a bit far-fetched, it is worth seeing just for the performances of Michaels Caine and Gambon. The latter delivers a truly wonderful Dublin accent. Caine hams it up...which is exactly what the character he is playing should do. Entertaining and fun, this is a hour and a half of easy watching.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was so badly written, directed and acted that it beggars belief. It should be remade with a better script, director and casting service. The worst problem is the acting. You have Jennifer Beals on the one hand who is polished, professional and totally believable, and on the other hand, Ri'chard, who is woefully miscast and just jarring in this particular piece. Peter Gallagher and Jenny Levine are just awful as the slave owning (and keeping) couple, although both normally do fine work. The actors (and director) should not have attempted to do accents at all--they are inconsistent and unbelievable. Much better to have concentrated on doing a good job in actual English. The casting is ludicrous. Why have children of an "African" merchant (thus less socially desirable to the gens de couleur society ) been cast with very pale skinned actors, while the supposedly socially desirable Marcel, has pronounced African features, including an obviously dyed blond "fro"? It's as if the casting directors cannot be bothered to read the script they are casting and to chose appropriate actors from a large pool of extremely talented and physically diverse actors of color. It's just so weird! This could be a great movie and should be re-made, but with people who respect the material and can choose appropriate and skilled actors. There are plenty of good actors out there, and it would be fun to see how Jennifer Beals, Daniel Sunjata and Gloria Reuben would do with an appropriate cast, good script and decent direction.$LABEL$ 0
+When I was a younger(oh about 2)I watched Barney for the first time, and liked it. BUT, back then I didn't exactly have a brain, either. And now I look back and see what a horrible show "Barney" really is: First of all, EVERYTHING on that show is creepy. Barney, the main character, is a horrendous 9-foot tall talking, purple dinosaur that teaches 13-year-olds about "imagination...."(*shudders*) B.J.(I know what your thinking about his name.)Is a smaller yet creepier yellow dinosaur that is put in to be "supposudly" cool. But in fact, he is the exact opposite. After watching a few episodes with B.J. dumbly trudging in with his slightly turned back cap, and making a few no-so-funny jokes, I wanted to scream. Baby Bop-oh-oh-god!(*vomits*)oh-oh-OH-anyway Baby Bop is the worst idea of a character EVER. She is a green triceratops(it's a dinosaur) that carries a yellow blanket. Her remarks of "hee-hee-hee" and Barney's praises cries of 'super-deeee-doooper", make it hard to sit through each episode, as the Seventh graders learn about shapes and manners.And that, my friend, is what makes this show truly horrible.$LABEL$ 0
+Steve McQueen has certainly a lot of loyal fans out there. He certainly was a charismatic fellow, one of the most charismatic the big screen ever knew. But even McQueen can't save this turkey of a film, shot with what looks like a brownie camera in the actual locations in St. Louis.McQueen's a new kid with no criminal record brought into the planning of a bank heist by one of the other gang. There's more than a broad hint that there's a gay relationship going on between young Steve and David Clarke. He's not liked at all by the other heist members, mainly because of his lack of criminal resume. Steve also has a girl friend in Molly McCarthy and she suspects something afoot, especially when he starts hanging around with Crahan Denton and James Dukas as well as Clarke, all pretty rough characters. That would certainly get my suspicions aroused.The Great St. Louis Bank Robbery had two directors Charles Guggenheim and John Stix. Guggenheim did mostly documentaries and Stix didn't do much of anything. One of those two jokers decided Steve's performance was best served by doing a bad Marlon Brando imitation. This film may go down as the worst ever done by Steve McQueen. I'm willing to bet that Dick Powell and Four Star Productions had already signed him for Wanted Dead or Alive because I can't believe they would have if they saw this.Or they would have seen something the public would have overlooked except for the dressing for this turkey.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a bad film, as its central message is very muddled and the plot seems like it was the result of merging several disparate scripts. As a result, it often makes absolutely no sense at all and certainly is not a film Miss Dunne or Mr. Huston should have been proud of making. However, the film IS worth watching if you are a fan of "Pre-Code" films because it features an amazingly sleazy plot that strongly says that nice girls DO put out--even if they aren't married and even if their partner IS!! The film begins with Miss Dunne as a social worker assisting troops heading to Europe for WWI. In the process, she meets a scalawag (Bruce Cabot) who eventually convinces her to sleep with him. She becomes pregnant and he then goes on to the next unsuspecting woman. However, Miss Dunne does NOT want him back, as she realizes he's not worth it, but later her baby dies at child birth. While all these very controversial plot elements are used, they are always alluded to--almost like they wanted the adults in the audience to know but hoped that if they phrase it or film it in just the right way, kids in the audience will be clueless (after all, films were not rated and kids might attend any film at this time).Surprisingly, this entire plot involving a stillborn baby and Cabot ends about 1/4 of the way through the film and is never mentioned again or alluded to. It was as if they filmed part of a movie and abandoned it--tacking it on to still another film. In this second phase of the film, Miss Dunne unexpectedly begins working at a women's prison (though we actually never really get to see her doing anything there). What we do see are countless horrible scenes of severe abuse and torture that were probably designed to titillate. And, as a result of all this violence, Miss Dunne goes on a crusade to clean up the prison and becomes a reformer and famous writer.But then, out of the blue, another type of film emerges and the women's prison reform business goes by the wayside. Dunne meets a judge (Walter Huston) who is married but he desperately wants her. Now throughout the film, Dunne is portrayed as a very good girl--even though she did have unmarried sex with Cabot (she was more or less tricked into it). But now, single Irene, who is a tireless reformer and good lady begins sleeping with a married man. He tells her that he and his wife are estranged and are married in name only, but she never thinks to investigate if this is true, and with his assurance, off flies her clothes and they are in the baby making business! BUT, while she's pregnant with his love child, he's indicted for being a crooked judge. He assures her he's innocent, but he's convicted and it sure sounds like he's a scoundrel--using inside information from people that have come before his bench in order to amass a fortune. Then, in the final moments of the film, Miss Dunne tries in vain to get him freed and vows to wait with the child until Huston is released. The film then ends.So, we basically have three separate films AND a bizarre early 30s idea of what a nice girl should be like. I gathered that she should be a strong-minded working girl who instantly becomes an idiot in her personal relationships! This really undoes all the positives about Dunne's character and it's really hard to imagine anyone liking the film. A strong women's rights advocate might easily be offended at how weak-minded and needy she was and religious people might see her as totally amoral or at least morally suspect! With a decent re-write, this could have been a good film or at least interesting as a lewd and salacious film, but it couldn't make up its mind WHAT it wanted to be and was just another dull Pre-Code film.$LABEL$ 0
+I caught this movie on the Sci-Fi channel recently. It actually turned out to be pretty decent as far as B-list horror/suspense films go. Two guys (one naive and one loud mouthed a**) take a road trip to stop a wedding but have the worst possible luck when a maniac in a freaky, make-shift tank/truck hybrid decides to play cat-and-mouse with them. Things are further complicated when they pick up a ridiculously whorish hitchhiker. What makes this film unique is that the combination of comedy and terror actually work in this movie, unlike so many others. The two guys are likable enough and there are some good chase/suspense scenes. Nice pacing and comic timing make this movie more than passable for the horror/slasher buff. Definitely worth checking out.$LABEL$ 1
+(Very mild spoilers; a basic plot outline, no real details) IF you go into this movie with sufficiently low expectations. I saw this film at a free screening a few days ago in Maryland, and the only reason I agreed to go...was because it was free. I expected a few chuckles, but as I have never been a huge fan of Tenacious D, not much more then that.The first ten minutes of the film are hilarious, as we are given a look at Jack Black's humble Christian origins in a Midwest American town. The film then takes us years into the future, to the first meeting between JB and Kyle Gass, the second half of Tenacious D. We see the formation of the band and the genesis of its name. Finally, as the title suggests, the second half of the film details their quest to obtain the fabled "Pick of Destiny." Again, the beginning of the film was laugh out loud funny, and most of the movie at least kept a smile on my face. That said, there were times it felt a bit long; it's only 100 minutes, but it still felt like it should have been a bit shorter. The story is every bit as absurd as it sounds, and this is not a film you see if you want a real plot. Which is fine, except it means that many of the jokes are very hit or miss...and when they miss, they miss bad. Same thing with the songs; it is a musical, but many of the songs lost their appeal after the first minute or so...then kept going anyway.I will say that the R-rating really saved this movie from bombing; The D's humor simply couldn't work without cussing, sex, and drug references. But unless you're a real fan of the band, or at the very least know you appreciate their style of comedy, I would recommend you save yourself some money and rent. "Pick" will make you giggle a bit...but is it worth 9 bucks? I don't think so. I was tempted to rate it a 6, but since I do think that many would enjoy it enough to justify seeing it in theatres, a 7 seems more appropriate. Just be sure it's your style.$LABEL$ 1
+I shall begin with a disclaimer: This movie is NOT recommended for anyone who lack interest or have never played FF7 the game before watching. The movie relies on the audience's knowledge of each character in the game to convey story plot elements. And it does so very subtly. Do your homework before watching this wonderful piece of CG film and I promise it'll be that much better.With that in mind, this film has some of the most spectacular CG sequences I have ever witnessed. The whole experience felt like an extra long FMV sequence from the game, on steroids. Yeah. The attention to detail in each scene, especially in the heavy action oriented ones, is so impeccable it left me with a sense of awe.I believe the soundtrack is simplified so as to help the audience focus on the animation quality more than the music. Again, for those who are familiar with the FF7 story and background, the music should not surprise anyone (although the timing and placement of each soundtrack from the original accompany each scene and mood to the point where the music simply enhances the animation).Once again, I myself having only played through FF7 once, thoroughly enjoyed this piece of art from Square Enix. And that is the feel in most scenes, choreographed and organized. Like a dance.In short, if you enjoyed the music or the game Final Fantasy 7, this film will blow you out of the water. If you're in the unfortunate majority who has not experienced the goodness known as FF7 on Playstation or PC, doing so before watching the movie will allow for an exponentially greater experience.Finally, I just want to make a note of the quality in animating this film. Characters move with fluidity. Each scene background comes to life and tells its own story. For those who criticize the thinness and dependency of the story plot, I urge you to reexamine the animation. Facial reactions, subtle clues that bring about another level of entertainment above the typical narration method of story plot delivery.Square Enix and the great Tetsuya Nomura has set a new bar for quality animation and storytelling. Advent Children has ushered in a new era for CG animations, allowing the subtleties that lie in each character to speak volumes in and of themselves.Thanks Square Enix. The wait was well worth it.$LABEL$ 1
+This is quite possibly one of the worst movies ever made. Everything about it--acting, directing, script, cinematography--is dreadful. The alien (a human in sparkly suit) claims to be from a nearby universe; one assumes the scriptwriter meant "galaxy" but didn't bother to get a dictionary to check his terms. A better title for the film would be "It Came From the Planet of Plot Contrivances." The plot is excessively silly and nearly nonexistent. The humans are all given magical MacGuffins that conform to a tortuous series of unlikely restrictions just to move the bare plot. Any thought to the passage of time is ignored. Now it's a couple days after meeting the alien, then BAM! all of a sudden there's only a couple hours left until zero hour. Do yourself a favor and miss this movie. You will make yourself stupider for having watched it. The ending is particularly silly, and should have been accompanied by someone going "Ta-Da!!!!" as the scriptwriter just pulls something random out of his butt. I think the real alien plot is that this movie sucks so bad you'll get cancer watching it. If you can watch the last 10 minutes without crapping yourself ("enemies of freedom"--honestly) laughing, you're retarded.$LABEL$ 0
+If you really really REALLY enjoy movies featuring ants building dirt-mirrors, eating non-ants, and conquering the world with a voice-over narrative, then this is the movie for you. Basically, a couple of scientists working out of a bio-dome communicate with highly intelligent ants (the most intelligent actors in this film) in an attempt to try to thwart their plans of conquest and extermination. Throughout the movie the two scientists (and a girl they rescued from the ants) use everything at their disposal (computers, green dye, and horrid acting), but to no avail. I guess they just couldn't afford any pesticides because the movie would be over too quickly.The title of the movie "Phase IV" is something of a mystery. This is not a spoiler, but "Phase I" starts right after the opening credits whereas you don't reach "Phase IV" until the end credits roll. Apparently the director knew the movie would be tedious to get through and so placed Phases 1 - 3 throughout the movie as a kind of progress report: "Hang in there buddy! Only 1 more phase until final credits!" As a MST3K episode, this one wasn't very good for two reasons: 1) This one is from the Season 0 on KTMA when they were first starting out so the riffing is not as good as in later seasons; and 2) This movie is so bad not even J&TB can lighten it up. There are one or two Gamera references as they had just finished riffing 5 Gamera movies.The movie does have a trick/surprise ending, but I was so glad to reach the end the effect was lost on me.$LABEL$ 0
+Joseph Brady and Clarence Doolittle are two sailors, who have a four-day shore leave in Hollywood.Joe knows everything about girls and can't wait to see Lola, while Clarence is shyer and needs some advice from his buddy on how to meet girls.They then run into a little boy, Donald Martin, who has ran away in order to join the navy.They take him home and meet his beautiful aunt Susan, who wants to be a singer.Clarence wants Susie to be his girl, but his shyness gets in the way.But he doesn't feel shy with a waitress, who comes from Brooklyn, like he does.Soon Joe notices he's in love with Susie.The boys are in a fix when they lie to Susie on meeting with a big time music producer they don't even know.As they are in a fix with their feelings.George Sidney's Anchors Aweigh (1945) is a great musical comedy.Gene Kelly is top-notch, once again, in his singing and dancing routines.Frank Sinatra is terrific as the shy guy from Brooklyn.Shy isn't the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Frank Sinatra, but he plays his part well.Kathryn Grayson is fantastic as Susan Abbott.We sadly lost this gifted actress and operatic soprano singer last month at the age of 88.The 9-year old Dean Stockwell does amazing job as the little fellow wanting to become a sailor.Jose Iturbi does great job performing himself.It's magic what he does with the piano.Edgar Kennedy plays Chief of police station.Sara Berner is the voice of Jerry Mouse.There's a lot of great stuff in this movie and some fantastic singing and dancing numbers.Just look at Kelly and Sinatra performing "We Hate to Leave".It's so energetic."If You Knew Susie (Like I Know Susie)" is quite funny.It's a nice moment when Frank sings Brahms' Lullaby to little Dean Stockwell.It's lovely to listen to Grayson singing the tango "Jealousy" .The most memorable sequence is the one that takes into the animated fantasy world, and there Gene sings and dances with Jerry Mouse.Also Tom Cat is seen there as the butler.They originally asked Mickey Mouse but he refused.The movie was nominated for five Oscars but Georgie Stoll got one for Original Music Score.Anchors Aweigh is some high class entertainment.$LABEL$ 1
+From director Barbet Schroder (Reversal of Fortune), I think I saw a bit of this in my Media Studies class, and I recognised the leading actress, so I tried it, despite the rating by the critics. Basically cool kid Richard Haywood (Half Nelson's Ryan Gosling) and Justin Pendleton (Bully's Michael Pitt) team up to murder a random girl to challenge themselves and see if they can get away with it without the police finding them. Investigating the murder is homicide detective Cassie 'The Hyena' Mayweather (Sandra Bullock) with new partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin), who are pretty baffled by the evidence found on the scene, e.g. non-relating hairs. The plan doesn't seem to be completely going well because Cassie and Sam do quite quickly have Richard or Justin as suspects, it is just a question of if they can sway them away. Also starring Agnes Bruckner as Lisa Mills, Chris Penn as Ray Feathers, R.D. Call as Captain Rod Cody and Tom Verica as Asst. D.A. Al Swanson. I can see now the same concept as Sir Alfred Hitchcock's Rope with the murdering for a challenge thing, but this film does it in a very silly way, and not even a reasonably good Bullock can save it from being dull and predictable. Adequate!$LABEL$ 0
+Things to Come is an early Sci-Fi film that shows an imagined world, or "Everytown" through 100 years. You can break it up into about 4 different scenes or parts. The film spans from 1940 to 2036 and is mainly about how this ruler or the "Boss" wanted to get the capability to fly in airplanes again, after Everytown was bombed and war broke out.This film only has about 3 faults: it's audio is muddy and video had some quirks, the characters aren't deep at all, and the overall plot isn't altogether solid. The plot is lacking something that I can't put my finger on... it just seems a little "fluffy." But if you love sci-fi and are interested in what H.G. Wells though might happened in the next hundred years, this is a must see. It's worth seeing just to learn of what everyone was fearing: a long, drawn-out war, because they were just about to go to war with Germany, and there was a threat of biological weapons and everything.Things to Come is a pretty good movie that most people need to see once.$LABEL$ 1
+Weak,stale, tired, cliched; wants to be Basic Instinct, but misses opportunity after opportunity for fresh perspectives, new insights. Insipid, trite, grotesque, and without the possibly-redeeming value of brevity; oh, wait...it was only 90 minutes long...it must have just *seemed* a lot longer! I'd rather clean bus station toilets with my toothbrush than have to sit through this again. I'm expressing an opinion here: I guess this means I didn't like it.$LABEL$ 0
+One word can describe this movie and that is weird. I recorded this movie one day because it was a Japanese animation and it was old so I thought it would be interesting. Well it was, the movie is about a young boy who travels the universe to get a metal body so he can seek revenge. On the way he meets very colorful characters and must ultimately decide if he wants the body or not. Very strange, if you are a fan of animation/science-fiction you might want to check this out.$LABEL$ 1
+While i was the video store i was browsing through the one dollar rentals and came upon this little gem. I don't know what it was about it but i just had a gut instic about it and wow was i ever right.The story centers around two girls who have just survived a school shooting. One of the girls is Alicia a teenage reble who is the only witness for the full attack and another is Deanna another survivor who survived a bullet to the head by some miracle. Thrown together by fate, they slowly begin a painful and beautiful display of healing and moving on.I just hate it when amazing movies fall through the cracks. Because wow what a performance by Busy Phillips and Erkia Christensen not to mention the rest of the cast! My only complaint is that the DVD was sorely lacking in special features. Oh and some of the jump cuts in the movie were kind of jarring. But all in all a excellent movie.$LABEL$ 1
+this film is quite simply one of the worst films ever made and is a damning indictment on not only the British film industry but the talentless hacks at work today. Not only did the film get mainstream distribution it also features a good cast of British actors, so what went wrong? i don't know and simply i don't care enough to engage with the debate because the film was so terrible it deserves no thought at all. be warned and stay the hell away from this rubbish. but apparently i need to write ten lines of text in this review so i might as well detail the plot. A nob of a man is setup by his evil friend and co-worker out of his father's company and thus leads to an encounter with the Russian mafia and dodgy accents and stupid, very stupid plot twists/devices. i should have asked for my money back but was perhaps still in shock from the experience. if you want a good crime film watch the usual suspects or the godfather, what about lock, stock.... thats the peak of the contemporary British crime film.....$LABEL$ 0
+I'll not comment a lot, what's to??? Stereotype characters, absolute ignorance about Colombia's reality, awful mise en scene, poor color choice, NOT funny (it supposed to be a comedy and they expect that you will laugh because some distend music it's beside the nonsense scenes), Very poor actors direction (if you see somewhere those people, I mean the interpreters, you'll know they are at least good, but seeing this so call film, it is impossible to guess it), you get tired of the music... this "comedy" has no rhythm, the only good rhythm in it, it's the rap sing in the final credits....pathetic, doesn't it? etc...etc... It has been a long time I haven't seen a movie so bad!!$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is a riot. I cannot remember the last time I had such a great time at the movies. I've seen a few good comedies in my time and usually they are pretty funny. But this one is wall to wall great lines. I think Best in Show is the last movie that I laughed so hard and so much in. The movie was non-stop until the end when they did the 5 minutes of sentimental plot clean up. Other than that it's a constant barrage of one liners and goofy situations. I'd like to see it again before it leaves the theater because this is like the Zucker movies where you don't get all the jokes the first time around. You have to see it two or three times to get it all in.As far as the actual film goes, it could have used a better edit, it's choppy at times but we have to be forgiving for that. All the characters are great. It's not like an Adam Sandler movie where he tries to be funny and everyone else suffers around him and is the butt of the joke. I think I will remember all the main characters for years to come because they are all so likable. No victims in this movie. Also, thank God they got a 45 year old actress to play his girlfriend. Catherine Keener plays her and she is a sweetheart in this film. You just wish that women like her really existed. She's not a "10" like some of the other leading ladies but somehow her smile is warmer than Julia Roberts overdone overbite.If you see the trailer for this film you may not think too highly of it. I assure you, the trailer does not do it justice. They do not give away all the good jokes. Just some of the mediocre ones.Oh and one more thing. I hope critics put this on their top ten list. Many of them complain that comedies don't get the recognition they deserve and then at the end of the year they don't put it on their list. This means you Ebert!!!$LABEL$ 1
+A fey story of a Martian attempt to colonize Earth. (Things must be pretty bad back on Mars.) Two state troopers investigate the scene of a reported UFO crash. Whatever landed is buried under the ice at Tracy's Pond but there are footsteps in the snow leading to a nearby diner.The diner has had no customers since eleven o'clock that morning. Now there are a handful of bus passengers sitting around waiting for permission to cross a structurally weak bridge. The bus driver insists that six passengers were aboard the bus, although he didn't notice who they were. The problem is that there are now SEVEN people waiting for the journey to be resumed. One of them is an alien, but which one? All of them are suspect. There's the crazy old man (Jack Elam), of course, who seems to exercise a sub rosa wit. There's a blustering businessman who must get to Boston (John Hoyt). A young couple on their honeymoon. (Execrable performance by the husband, Ron Kipling.) Except for the couples, nobody has noticed anyone else. And even the couples are suspicious of each other. Bride to newly minted husband: "I could have sworn you had a mole on your chin." The story continues in a sprightly but slightly spooky way -- the phone rings for no reason, the lights go on and off, the juke box turns itself on -- and none of it is to be taken seriously.It's a thoroughly enjoyable ensemble play and the climactic revelation is worth a chuckle. There is no discernible "depth" to it. It's not a moral message about pod people masquerading as normal citizens. It's not a warning of any kind, just a fairy tale that diverts and amuses.I always enjoy it when it's on. It's especially interesting to see John Hoyt as the irritable and impatient businessman, knowing that in 1954 he was the Roman Senator who masterminded the assassination of Julius Caesar in MGM's version of Shakespeare's play. And here he is -- with three arms.Oops.$LABEL$ 1
+It's rare that I feel a need to write a review on this site, but this film is very deserving because of how poorly it was created, and how bias its product was.I felt a distinct attempt on the part of the film-makers to display the Palestinian family as boorish and untrustworthy. We hear them discuss the sadness that they feel from oppression, yet the film is shot and arranged in a way that we feel the politically oppressed population is the Jewish Israeli population. We see no evidence that parallels the position of the Palestinian teenager. We only hear from other Palestinians in prison. I understand restrictions are in place, but the political nature of the restrictions are designed to prevent peace.I came out of the film feeling that the mother of the victim was selfish in her mourning and completely closed minded due to her side of the fence, so to speak. She continued to be unwilling to see the hurt of the bomber's parents, and her angry and closed-minded words caused the final meeting to spiral out of control. It is more realistic, in my mind, to see the Israeli mindset to be a root of the problem; ignored pleas for understanding and freedom, ignored requests for acknowledgment for the process by which the Jewish population acquired the land.I have given this a two because of these selfish weaknesses of the mother, which normally would be admirable in a documentary, however in the light of the lack of impartiality, it all seems exploitative. Also for the poor edits, lack of background in the actual instance, and finally the lack of proper representation of the Palestinian side. Ultimately, it is a poor documentary and a poor film. I acknowledge this is partially the result of the political situation, but am obliged to note the flaws in direction regardless of the heart-wrenching and sad subject matter.$LABEL$ 0
+Relentless like one of those loud action movies. The entire cast seems to be on speed. I didn't quite get the director's intentions if any. I wonder if she's ever seen a Stanley Donen, Vincent Minnelli or even a George Sidney musical. Structure, please! This is one hell of a mess and I loved Abba. The costumes the unflattering photography - unflattering towards the actors but loving towards the locations) The one thing that makes the whole thing bearable is the sight of Meryl Streep making a fool of herself. No chemistry with her friends (Christine Baranski and Julie Walters) think of Streep with Lily Tomlyn in the Altman film and you'll understand what I was hoping for. I was embarrassed in particular by Pierce Brosnam and Colin Firth. The audience, however, seemed to enjoy it so it probably it's just me.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie does a great job of explaining the problems that we faced and the fears that we had before we put man into space. As a history of space flight, it is still used today in classrooms that can get one of the rare prints of it. Disney has shown it on "Vault Disney" and I wish they would do so again.$LABEL$ 1
+In an alternate 1950s, where an outbreak of the undead (caused by a mysterious 'space-dust') has been contained through the use of special electronic collars, a young loner, Timmy, finds a friend in Fido (Billy Connelly), his family's recently acquired domesticated zombie.Fido quickly becomes a surrogate father to Timmy, whose real dad is unable to adequately express his love for his son (or for his hot-to-trot wife, played by the gorgeous Carrie-Anne Moss) having been psychologically scarred as a child (when he was forced to shoot his own father, who tried to eat him!).Timmy runs into a spot of bother, however, when his putrid pal's collar goes on the blink, and he attacks and kills an elderly neighbour. With the authorities on Fido's trail, trouble brewing with a pair of local bullies, and his mother forming a bond with their undead house-help, will Timmy be able to hold on to his new found friend?A refreshing take on the whole zombie schtick, Fido is a thoroughly entertaining, deliciously dark comedy that should appeal to anyone with a slightly twisted sense of humour. Taking the Romero zombie-verse and transplanting it into 1950s small town America is a stroke of genius, and the result is simply one of the most original films to tackle the whole 'reanimated dead' theme that I have seen.Connelly's Fido is a cinematic zombie worthy of inclusion in the Undead Movie Hall of Fame, along with Day Of The Dead's Bub, and Return Of The Living Dead's Tarman; it is not often I feel empathy for a walking corpse, but The Big Yin's performance is so fine that I actually found myself rooting for the big blue bag of pus! The rest of the cast also give commendable performances, with young K'Sun Ray (as Timmy) and Ms.Moss deserving special mentions—Ray, because, for one so young, he puts in a particularly assured turn, and Moss because she is so bloody yummy!This is the third zombie film that I have watched this week (the others being the somewhat disappointing Planet Terror and the rather fun Flight Of The Living Dead), and, to my surprise, it is also the best. Director Andrew Currie has given fans of the genre something truly original to treasure and is a talent to be watched in the future.8.5 out of 10, rounded up to 9 for IMDb.$LABEL$ 1
+An extremely down-to-earth, well made and acted "Rodeo" Western. No gussied up stars needed here as all cast members were regular people telling a real life story about a rodeo hustler and his entourage in the 60's and 70's West. But hats off particularly to Slim Pickens for giving what I think was his signature performance, especially given the fact that he had been a rodeo clown in real life. His role went far beyond the mere clown role as he deeply dealt with all the "ups and downs" of the hard-nosed rodeo life and the psychological devastation that so frequently surrounds such a life style. He and Mr. Coburn teamed up extremely well as partners, not only on the circuit itself, but also in the real world outside the corral. Also, check out Anne Archer as Coburn's Native American love interest in the latter part of the movie. Must have been one of her first roles. Not as flashy, perhaps, as "Junior Bonner", but equally heart rendering and impacting in its portrayal. Thanks to the Encore Western Channel for showing this true grit of an under-rated movie from time to time.$LABEL$ 1
+Despite some reviews being distinctly Luke-warm, I found the story totally engrossing and even if some critics have described the love story as 'Mills and Boon', so what? It is good to see a warm, touching story of real love in these cynical times. Many in the audience were sniffing and surreptitiously dabbing their eyes. You really believe that the young Victoria and Albert are passionately fond of each other, even though, for political reasons, it was an arranged marriage. I did feel though that Sir John Conroy, who was desperate to control the young Queen, is perhaps played too like a pantomime villain. As it is rumoured that he was in fact, the real father of Victoria (as a result of an affair with her mother The Duchess of Kent) it would have been interesting to explore this theory. Emily Blunt is totally convincing as the young Princess, trapped in the stifling palace with courtiers and politicians out to manipulate her. She brilliantly portrays the strength of character and determination that eventually made Victoria a great Queen of England, which prospered as never before, under her long reign. I believe word of mouth recommendations will ensure great success for this most enjoyable and wonderful looking movie.$LABEL$ 1
+"American Nightmare" is officially tied, in my opinion, with "It's Pat!" for the WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME.Seven friends (oddly resembling the K-Mart version of the cast of "Friends") gather in a coffee shop to listen to American Nightmare, a pirate radio show. It's hosted by a guy with a beard. That's the most exciting aspect of his show.Chandler, Monica, Joey, and... oh wait, I mean, Wayne, Jessie, and the rest of the bad one-liner spouting gang all take turns revealing their biggest fears to the bearded DJ. Unbeknownst to them, a crazed nurse/serial killer is listening...Crazy Nurse then proceeds to torture Ross and Rachel and... wait, sorry again... by making their fears come to life. These fears include such stunners as "voodoo" and being gone down on by old ladies with dentures.No. Really.This movie was, in a word, rotten. Crazy Nurse's killing spree lacks motivation, there's nothing to make the viewer "jump," the ending blows, and--again--voodoo?If you have absolutely no regard for your loved ones, rent "American Nightmare" with them.If you care for your loved ones--even a little bit--go to your local Blockbuster, rent all of the copies of "American Nightmare" and hide them in your freezer.$LABEL$ 0
+First off, I have to say that I loved the book Animal Farm. I read it with my 9th grade class, and it was great. We also decided that watching the movie would be beneficial. The movie was so disappointing to me. The movie cuts out some characters, and misses a lot of the main points of the book. It skips around a lot, and doesn't explain anything in detail. If someone was watching this movie without having first read the book, they would be confused. The most disappointing thing in this movie to me, was the ending. The ending in the book was the most powerful, and in the movie, they changed it! It was supposed to be the pigs and men in an alliance and sort of "melting" together, but instead, the movie made it seem like the animals were going to rebel against the pigs. To sum up, I don't think that this movie captured the real meaning that Orwell portrayed in his book.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was extremely boring. I only laughed a few times. I decided to rent it when I noticed William Shatner's name on the cover. It's all about this little kid who gets picked on all the time by his classmates. When wandering the streets looking for old ladies to assist, he meets a prostitute. She takes him to a club called the Playground, where he befriends several pimps. When mayor Tony Gold (Shatner) decides to take over the pimp business, Lil' Pimp must lay down for his homies.The animation isn't very good in this. It looks like it was made with Macromedia, which I'm sure it was. It doesn't suck, it's just the sort of choppy flash animation that people have gotten used to over recent years. The humor in this is not very good, I didn't think any of it was funny.$LABEL$ 0
+I was disgusted by this movie. No it wasn't because of the graphic sex scenes, it was because it ruined the image of Artemisia Gentileschi. This movie does not hold much truth about her and her art. It shows one piece of art work that she did (Judith Beheading Holofernese) but shows that being entered as testimony in the rape trial when she did not paint her first Judith for a year after the trial.I don't know if you understood this from the movie, probably not, Tassi was not a noble character. He RAPED Artemisia. It was not love, it was rape. He did not claim to accept false charges of rape to stop her from suffering while she was tortured. According to the rape transcripts he continued to claim that he never carnally knew Artemisia (aka had sex with) while she states over and over again "It's true".I encourage all of you people to go out and find about the real Artemisia and see what she is really about. Don't base all of your knowledge on this fictional movie. I encourage you to do some research, Artemisia really does have interesting story behind her and some amazing art work.Don't see the movie, but find out the true story of Artemisia.$LABEL$ 0
+Such a joyous world has been created for us in Pixar's A Bug's Life; we're immersed in a universe which could only be documented this enjoyably on film, but more precisely a universe which could only be documented through the world of animation. For those who have forgotten what a plentiful and exuberant world animation can offer – when it's in the right hands that is – A Bug's Life is a warm reminder. We walk out of the film with an equally-warm feeling, and a sense of satisfaction derivative of only high-calibre film productions.It is only Pixar's second animated feature. The sub-group of Disney made their spectacular debut and perhaps entirely inadvertent mark on the film world three years prior in 1995, with their landmark movie Toy Story. It was a movie which defied convention, re-invented and breathed new life into animation and defined a whole new level of excellence. Now, they return with their sophomore effort which, to be honest, draws a creeping sense of cynicism in us all prior to seeing the film.After all, it's a film about ants. Well, all walks of the insect and bug world are covered in A Bug's Life, but it is the ant which is the focal point in this film, as humans are the focal point in dramas, romances and so on. How can such an insignificant species of animal such as an ant act as the protagonist of a movie, let alone provide the entire premise of a feature film? Surely they jest. However, we forget that in Toy Story, a bunch of toy-box items were able to become the grandest, most inspiring and lovable bunch of animated heroes and villains ever concocted. The guys at Pixar manage to pull off the same feat, and manage to turn a bunch of dirty and miniscule bugs into the most endearing and pleasant gang of vermin you'll probably ever encounter.Not only are they all entirely amiable and likable – there isn't an unpleasant character in sight; even the villains are riveting characters – but they're colourful, they're eclectic, and they're idiosyncratic. And the array of characters is also gargantuan for lack of a better term, only adding the rich layers of distinctiveness already plastered onto A Bug's Life from the beginning. We shall start with our main character, and our hero. His name is Flik (David Foley), and his character is rather generic to say the least. Out of the thousands of faithful and obedient worker ants residing on the lush, beautiful Ant Island, he is the one considered the 'black sheep' of the clan, as seen in the opening moments of the movie when he inadvertently destroys the season's harvest with his antics.The problem arises in the fact that the ants' harvest is for a bunch of greedy grasshoppers led by Hopper (Kevin Spacey), who are eager to continue to assert their wrath and autocracy amongst the puny little ants; when they show up to Ant Island for their annual banquet and see that their offering is gone, they go insane, for lack of a better term. Hopper offers a proposition to save the ants from total extinction at his pack's hands; however, it's a negotiation which is simply impossible to fulfil. The cogs and clockwork in Flik's mind run at full steam now despite his guilt and shame, and he offers to leave Ant Island in search of some mighty bug warriors who can come to the colony's rescue and fight off Hopper and the grasshoppers.If you think about it, A Bug's Life bears some heavy resemblance to the plot line's of Akira Kurosawa's classic Seven Samurai, or the American remake The Magnificent Seven, in which a village of hapless but good-hearted folk are threatened by malevolent and wicked enemies – one lone village-dweller goes in search for help in the big city, finds it and returns to the colony to drive off evil. In A Bug's Life, the help comes in the form of a down-and-out circus troupe who is mistakenly perceived by Flik as warriors in a bar-room brawl.Much amusement comes out of these scenes, and much amusement comes out of these circus troupe bugs. Among them are an erudite stick insect (David Hyde Pierce), a side-splitting obese German caterpillar by the name of Heimlich and a quasi-femme fatale ladybug who's in fact a gritty and masculine ladybug (Dennis Hopper). It's exceedingly enjoyable watching these bugs on-screen, as it is watching the bugs and the insects interact on-screen, as is the entire movie collectively.As I've said, much amusement and mirth comes out of their characters and joyous interactions with one another, which give way to a bevy of hilarious lines, wonderfully suspenseful and riveting situations and overall a dazzling movie. What makes A Bug's Life even better is that the film isn't restricted simply to children as many may perceive it to be, although children would indeed find more entertainment out of this film – the clichéd kid-friendly situations are a bit more abundant than we'd like. However, it's easy to ignore this fault, and it's incredulously easy to enjoy this film.Although A Bug's Life may not reach the dizzying and landmark standards set by its predecessor, this is still a superb movie, and the start of something promising here. Pixar have proved that they're not just a one-hit wonder, but instead a much-gifted and talented group of film artists in Hollywood. They raise the bar endlessly, and when someone always manages to top their standards, it's only always by themselves. What more is there to say about A Bug's Life other than: see it; it's not quite the best which we've seen from the folks at Emeryville, California, but this beats out the lot of its year – and I'll be damned if this isn't the best animated feature of 1998.8.5/10$LABEL$ 1
+What an empty and lack lustre rendition of the classic novel. I do wish people would stop messing about with classics when they clearly have no idea of the real intention or point of the original. This version is no different. I felt that the Ralph Fiennes version is much worse though as the casting of Juliette brioche as Kathy has got to be the worst casting decision EVER...anyway back to this version. It aims to make the story relevant to a contemporary setting and in a musical style. It succeeds in both but high art it is nit. Throwaway viewing for a rainy day maybe...The direction was average and the editing abysmal. Worse than the old Quincy. Deepak Verma does a great turn as Hindley and is in fact one of Britains wasted talents. The part of Heath was played with great charm and belief and I think that the casting is the strongest point of this project. Although a more talented director would have made better use of the facilities he had. Its clear that he was a director for hire and didn't instill the project with the passion that it deserved.$LABEL$ 0
+My Father The Hero used to be my favorite movie when I was Younger. It's about Andre, a divorced french man who wants to take his beautiful daughter (katharine heigl} on a vacation, hoping to get a little closer to her. But of course, Nicole isn't that easy to get along with, she just started puberty, i'm guessing. She is angry and hurt that her father was never there for her and decides to give him a hard time. One day at the beach, Nicole meets handsome Ben, and she makes up a wild story about her and her dad. The whole island gets involved and the movie turns into a hilarious wild entertaining movie. I would give My Father The Hero 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+It is surprising that a production like this gets made these days, especially for television. Considering the strong sexual themes and explicit lovemaking scenes, not to mention lesbianism, this has been given superb treatment and direction.The sets and costumes are flawless, the direction is stylish and the characters are likeable. There is a fair amount of humor but it has surprisingly dark interludes. The protagonist is really a tragic figure, but not devoid of happiness. Also, this production avoids the mistake most films/shows make when dealing with homosexuality/lesbianism. The characters are very human. It seems that to allow people to be comfortable with watching gays and lesbians on TV and movies most shows fill it full of cliches and make the characters obsessed with being gay. Not so with this. In Tipping the Velvet, the protagonist is hardly aware of what being lesbian means!The BBC have made some wonderful productions in the past, and this adventurous period piece only confirms their standard of excellence on all fronts.$LABEL$ 1
+I just don't get some of the big premises of this episode - that Miranda is so remarkable, and that there's anything so ugly it would make you insane. Someone here made the remark that maybe it's the frequency of the light waves or something rather than it being ugliness. Miranda is just a jerk. The episode is slow, inconsistent and way too talky. I also don't quite understand why Kolos is an ambassador - why doesn't the Federation just leave the damn Medusans be? There's one part I do like, when Kolos is speaking through Spock about the loneliness of the human experience. Overall, I love TOS and even at its lamest, I'll always tune in. This episode though - mmm, I wouldn't purchase it except for a used copy under $3.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of my all time favorite movies and I would recommend it to anyone. On my list of favorite movies (mental list, mind) the only ones on par with it are movies such as The Lord of the Rings series, Spirited Away and Fly Away Home.I can really relate to the main character Jess. At the start of the movie she's a shy girl with a slightly odd background who has a lot more friends who are boys than that are girls. She really sucks you into her life. I also certainly can't fault any of the protagonist's acting, or anyone else's in the film.The soccer was interesting to watch even for someone like me who has no idea of the rules. The movie is never boring. The romance is really cute and didn't make me blush tooooo hard! One thing that really made it though was the Indian factor. Jess' parents are Indian and there are many colourful Indian conventions throughout the film providing a very interesting cultural insight as well as everything else. The Indian people are also hilarious! Essentially this is a coming of age film about choosing the path you want and fighting for it.Feel good comedies are becoming my favorite movie genre thanks to this film. They're funny, they're refreshing and they make you feel good! ^_~$LABEL$ 1
+I know that you've already entered this in film festivals (or at least I think you have, I may just be making that up) but I think this should get "best animated short film" in every one. Bravo. I can't wait for the full film. I realize that you may not hear this often enough because of the bizarre nature of your animations, but hear it now and accept it as the truth. Kudos, my friend. Okay, now I'm just trying to get ten lines of text... Though I still mean it. And here comes yet another -SHOE!- and I cannot stop here yet. This is extremely annoying and yet at the same time I have nothing better to do. In fact, I'll probably watch all of your movies in yet another spasmodic "Jason Steele Marathon." I do have a lot of those.-R$LABEL$ 1
+This is probably the first entry in the "Lance O'Leary/Nurse Keat" detective series; in subsequent O'Leary films, he was played by much younger actors than Guy Kibbee.A group of relatives (all played by well-known character actors) gathers in an old house (on a rainy nite, of course!) to speak to a wealthy relative, who goes into a coma.While they wait for him to recover, all sorts of mysterious goings-on happen, including a couple of murders.A creepy film; worth seeing!$LABEL$ 0
+This animation has a very simple and straightforward good vs. evil plot and is all about action. What sets it apart from other animation is how well the human movements are animated. It was really beautiful seeing the fleeing woman running around on the screen from left to right and look around, her movements were done so well. Why don't they use this rotoscopic technique more these days? It's quite effective.Fire and Ice, in it's prehistoric setting and scarcely dressed women, was clearly devoted to showing the beautiful damsel in distress in various sexy ways, her voluptuous body serving as pure eyecandy. Some may hate this and regard it as yet another moronic male sexual fantasy, others (including plenty of women) will adore it's esthetic quality. I for sure did not mind! Bakshi just loves animating lushious, voluptuous babes, as can also be seen in Cool World, and I don't think he has to apoligize since it's pretty much animation for adults. But I had also enjoyed this animation as a child and I never forgot it.This one was just special, so different from the standard Disney or Anime fare, and for that reason alone well worth the watch since it's possibly Bakshi's finest. For those who like animations with lushious women: try Space Adventure Cobra as well.I give Fire and Ice 8 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+My ratings: Acting - 3/10 Suspense - 2/10 Character Attachment - 1/10 Plot - 2/10 Character Development - 2/10 Overall - 2/10This show sucks very much officially. For me, CSI Miami is the best, CSI NY 2nd and CSI 100th. I don't know, in the other CSIs you get into the episode you're watching. But in this one, you just can't get into the episode, no matter how much you try, so in my opinion, this show is not worth watching. I know people have different opinions, and I respect that, but for me, this CSI ain't good enough. So if you like suspense, real acting/performance, good plot, direction, character development/attachment and you an overall good show, I suggest you to watch CSI Miami.$LABEL$ 0
+I am not a Faulkner fan (which is considered sacrilegious, especially since I grew up near the author's hometown); however, I think this is an excellent movie. On par with the quality of the movie "To Kill a Mocking Bird". If you haven't seen it, buy it anyway. It's well worth having in your permanent collection. TCM recently played the movie as a part of the Race on Film series. I wish they'd play it more often. Very moving.On a side note, the folks from Oxford, Mississippi, will also enjoy seeing the footage of the town square as it was back in the 1940's. The Courthouse, City Hall, etc.: They're all on screen. I never knew the movie was filmed there until I noticed the familiarity of the buildings. When I saw the arch in the front of City Hall, I began to get suspicious. Look closely at the pennants on Chick's wall: You'll see two for Ole Miss !$LABEL$ 1
+Chinese Ghost Story III is a totally superfluous sequel to two excellent fantasy films. The film delivers the spell-casting special effects that one can expect, but fails painfully on all other fronts. The actors all play extremely silly caricatures. You have to be still in diapers to find their slapstick humor even remotely funny. The plot is predictable, and the development is sometimes erratic and often slow. Towards the end, the movie begins to resemble old Godzilla films, including shabby larger-than-life special effects and a (well, yet another) ghost with a Godzilla head. Maybe I would have grinned if I was expecting camp.It is astonishing to see what trash fantasy fans have to put up with - in this case because somebody thought they could squeeze a little extra money out of a successful formula. They won't be able to do it again: the cash cow is now dead as a dodo.$LABEL$ 0
+I can't stand most reality shows and this one is worst than the one with Paris Hilton, and sure it's his company. But "you're fired" or "you're hired", for how many seasons now? After watching the show I wouldn't want to work for the guy with his ego and all and I think watching paint dry has more entertainment valve.I'd love to hear just one person get up and say "Donald I quit and take some of your money and buy a decent hairdo". I see he's even trying to buy fame in the wrestling WWE. I hope he gets hurt so I don't have to see his pathetic face anymore. It must be sad to want fame so bad and have no talent and make an ass of yourself trying to buy it. I'd give this show a negative mark if I could but it gets a 1 and it doesn't deserve that.$LABEL$ 0
+If I had known this movie was filmed in the exasperating and quease-inducing Dogme 95 style, I would never have rented it. Nevertheless, I took a dramamine for the seasickness and gave it a shot. I lasted a very, very, very long forty minutes before giving up. It's just boring, pretentious twaddle.The last French movie I saw was "Romance" and it too was pretty dismal, but at least the camera was steady and not breathing down the necks of the characters all the time. I am baffled at the continuing popularity of Dogme 95 overseas -- it'll catch on in America about the same time as the next big outbreak of leprosy. (It's called Dogme 95 because that's the average number of times the actors are poked in the eye by the camera.)$LABEL$ 0
+The story and the show were good, but it was really depressing and I hate depressing movies. Ri'Chard is great. He really put on a top notch performance, and the girl who played his sister was really awesome and gorgeous. Seriously, I thought she was Carmen Electra until I saw the IMDb profile. I can't say anything bad about Peter Galleghar. He's one of my favorite actors. I love Anne Rice. I'm currently reading the Vampire Chronicles, but I'm glad I saw the movie before reading the book. This is a little too"real" for me. I prefer Lestat and Louis's witty little tiffs to the struggles of slaves. Eartha Kitt was so creepy and after her character did what she did The movie was ruined for me; I could barely stand to watch the rest of the show. (sorry for the ambiguity, but I don't want to give anything away) Sorry, but it's just not my type of show.$LABEL$ 0
+First, let me just comment on what I liked about the movie. The special effects were fantastic, and very rarely did I feel like I was watching a video game. There, that is the last nice thing I have to say about this film. In fact, I would just like everyone reading this to take note that I can't even put into words how hard it was for me to write this review without swearing. I have innumerable complaints about the film, but four major complaints jump to mind. My first major complaint has to do with the incredible cheesiness of the "plot twist" (if you can call it that since most people probably saw it coming a mile away) where Lois's 5 year-old son turns out to be the super-powered child of Superman. When the crying super-child throws a piano at Lex's henchman to save his mother, I almost got up and left the theater. Singer could have made a much better Superman movie without resorting to cheap gimmicks like a seemingly fragile but latently super-powered illegitimate child. It's been 5 days since I saw the movie and I still want to vomit. My next major complaint has to do with the fact that Superman lifts a continent made out of kryptonite up into outer space. It doesn't take comic book guy from the Simpsons to point out what's wrong with that. I don't know how many comic books Brian Singer has read, but when Superman is exposed to even a small amount of kryptonite he barely has the strength to stay on his feet. Whoever had the idea to have him fly a large island made out of his greatest weakness into space has no business being associated with any Superman-related projects ever again. The concept is as ridiculous as making a Dracula movie where the title character has a stake through his heart and still manages to fly a spaceship made out of garlic into the sun. Why not just have Superman eat kryptonite? He can eat it and then brush his teeth with it, and then go to sleep in kryptonite pajamas. That's not any more absurd then having him hoist a continent of kryptonite into space and then fall powerless through the atmosphere without burning up in re-entry or splattering all over central park when he hits the ground. My third major complaint has to do with the fact that Singer slaps movie-goers across the face with religious symbolism the entire movie. I have to take issue with his characterization of Superman as the only son of a God-like Jor-el sent to Earth to be a savior. Jor-el wasn't all-wise, he was just a scientist. And he didn't send his son to earth to be a savior, he threw him in a rocket and hurriedly fired it into space because his planet was about to explode. I'll buy the Christ allegory if Brian Singer can show me the part in the Bible where God sends Christ to Earth because Heaven was about to explode, and then radioactive pieces of Heaven become Christ's primary weakness. Furthermore, the "crucifixion" scene where Luthor stabs Superman in the side with a kryptonite "spear" just makes me want to slam my face into a brick until I'm too brain-dead to notice the brazenly obvious and inappropriate symbolism that will be tainting the man of steel for the foreseeable future. They might as well rename this movie "Superman Returns: the Passion of the Christ."And speaking of Luthor, my last major complaint has to do with Singer's depiction of Lex Luthor. Lex Luthor is a shrewd, cold-hearted business tycoon who is more apt to run for President (which he does in the comics) than try to destroy the world. The man wants money and power; he wants to be in charge, not wreck everything. Yet the Luthor we see Superman Returns, as well as all the previous Superman movies, is a wacky theatrical dunce who comes up with zany schemes to destroy the world. If Singer had the slightest loyalty to the characters instead of the (quite awful) previous Superman movies, this film might not be such an unbearable travesty. Maybe Singer's next project can be a Batman movie where he focuses on the interpretation of Batman from 1960s TV show. ZAM! WHAP! POW!!To summarize, I don't know what I hate more, the movie itself or the fact that so many people seem to be giving it good reviews. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you don't hate this movie then your opinion is wrong. I sincerely encourage anyone who reads this not to see this movie if you haven't already. Don't see it, don't buy it when it comes out on DVD, don't rent it...basically don't contribute any money towards it in any way. This movie does not deserve to make any money. In fact, I think that for every person that sees this movie, Bryan Singer should be fined 45 billion dollars. If you're a Superman fan and you really want to see this movie, just bend over and have someone kick you in the balls and you'll get the same experience without having to waste 2 hours of your time.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the best TV productions of a musical ever. I have heard the Merman cast album, the Angela Lansbury album, I have seen Tyne Daly live, and I've seen the Rosalind Russell movie countless times. I think Bette is if not the best, then tied with the best. She captures not just the bravura, but also the pathos of Mama Rose. I was never a Natalie Wood fan, so I really enjoyed Cynthia Gibb, in what is arguably her best role. Everything from the costumes to the sets to the supporting performances is wonderful. The three strippers, led by the always-dependable Christine Ebersole are hard to top. There was supposed to be a TV production of Mame a few years back, with Cher, but I think Bette would be the best bet (pun intended) for Auntie Mame.$LABEL$ 1
+I am sorry to say that this film is indeed bad. It reminds me of a c-grade porn movie with one major difference: no porn.The story and dialogue needs a complete overhaul. Maybe then the bad acting would not have been as noticeable. At the very least, the pacing should have been picked up.While I accept that this had a low budget and the director did a good job visually given what little resources he had, he should have spent more time on the story or better yet, get someone else to write it. Many of the action scenes were just pointless.It was a complete waste of my time.$LABEL$ 0
+Is it a perfect movie? No. It is a weird adaptation from a sci-fi book and it features vampires from space, naked beauties and the British army efficiency.When I first saw this movie I was rather young and all I can remember is the feeling of awe for the movie and Mathilda May. Actually, if it weren't for this gorgeous lady being naked the whole movie, I probably wouldn't have rated it so high, but given her sheer magnificence, I am now actually considering voting it up!Lucky for me I got reminded of the movie and watched it again now. Imagine Raiders of the Lost Ark or Poltergeist special effects splattered unto a rather decent sci-fi story, but with completely over the top performances. I still enjoyed the movie tremendously (as well as Mathilda May), but it was a mixture of nostalgia, comparing with the crap movies they make today and actually wanting more when it ended.Bottom line: if you are a sci-fi fan you are not allowed to miss this movie. Oh, and did I mention Mathilda May is young, beautiful and naked?$LABEL$ 1
+Overall I was rather impressed with the pilot. The initial first fifteen minutes were worrying, as it did feel the creators were trying to create a science fiction version of The O.C but this fear is rectified when a terrorist incident occurs and from here the show steps into themes and situations that I very rarely see television tackle.BSG dealt with themes such as monotheism, existentialism, reality, death and terrorism but they were primarily subtext, there for the viewer to contemplate on or ignore if they so choose. Here on the other hand these subjects are the focus of the show and I personally found myself evoking such works as Ghost In The Shell and The Matrix as reference points while watching and being surprised by how well the themes were being discussed. I think if you are a fan of the two I just mentioned or other films/television shows, which deal with the subjects I referenced, I think you will find at least something here.In terms of a starting point to explain how the situation we know in BSG came about I believe they handled it in a very interesting way, I especially liked how they explained where the Cylon's belief in one God came from and the creation of Caprica had just enough advanced and contemporary technology thrown in to make it appear in the future but not completely alien to us as viewers.The only real weak points I noticed were the relationship between the Greystone parents and the actress who plays 'Lacy Rand'. While I like Eric Stoltz and Paula Malcomson individually, together their scenes seemed to lack chemistry, at this point it could simply be down to developing their characters, but this is something I think needs work. I also found Magda Apanowicz to be unconvincing in her role. This again could be down to experience and time needed to develop, but throughout the episode her acting appeared forced and not completely confident.Based on the pilot I greatly look forward to seeing where 'Caprica' goes in the future and hopefully it will touch the greatness that BSG once did.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm the type of guy who loves hood movies from New Jack City to Baby Boy to Killa Season, from the b grade to the Hollywood. but this movie was something different. i am no hater and this movie was kinda enjoyable. but some bits were just weird. well the acting wasn't to good, compared to Silkk The Shockers performance in Hot Boyz (quite good) and Ice-T in new Jack and SVU (great). the scene where Corrupt (Ice-T) kills the wanna be Jamaican dude he says something and lights himself on fire burning both Ice-T and the other dude, this kills the Jamaican, however Ice-T is unharmed, very similar to Ice's other movie Urban Menace (which stars both of these actors) were Snoops character is supernatural, however after this there is nothing suggested that Corrupt is like a demon. When MJ (Silkk) gets stabbed at first he struggling but after that he fights normally and was stabbed in the thigh-WITH OUT BLOOD. and when MJ confesses killing a cop cos the cop was beating up his friend Benny was weird, Benny isn't introduced in this movie and the scene isn't in the film. it does hold weight to the fact why Corrupt wants to kill MJ but is still makes u scratch your head. wen Jody writes a letter to Miss Jones character explaining what happened to them afterwords doesn't mention what happen 2 other main characters MJ and Lisa. the film did show the horror and poverty of the ghetto-which plagues the lives of Latinos and Blacks word wide-was a good part of the film, even though the clip of the projects was re-used thousands of times. and the scene where Miles kills the Latino brother by crashing his bike at full speed (not wearing a helmet) and running into my Latino brothers car would of killed him. the movie was similar to the film Urban Menace and half the actors were in both of these movies as well as the production team. it was OK tho. but me being from poverty i love hood films, however if u don't love em like i do Don't WATCH IT. only thing saving me from walking out is it reminded me of the first movie i made which was made with 100 dollars, and my love of the genre.Nathaniel Purez$LABEL$ 0
+I am a huge fan of the Farcry Game, HUGE fan. It still holds a place in my top-10 games list of all time! The story line was new, fresh... A truly brilliant foundation to base a movie on... or so i thought...Farcry the Movie is no less than another directors attempt at cashing in on a successful game franchise (see Doom: The Movie, and many more...).The Video Game begins as the player (Jack Carver) awakes in a sea side cave after been shot off his boat by an RPG from an unknown soldier. Jack then finds a communication device where (Harlan Doyle) guides him across islands, shipwrecks, jungles, installations and VOLCANOES, to find his (lady friend?) (Valerie Constantine), all the wile battling mutated super soldiers, and genetically enhanced animals.The Movie plays out very, very differently: 1: There's a needless 30 mins (1/3 of the movie) of "backstory" before we even get to the 'boat blowing up' scene. 2: Jack then walks onto the beach, kills some goons, then drives off... Nothing like the game... 3: There is no communicator with Doyle on the other end... 4: The 'Modified Soldiers' look like albinos with singlets on... And there was no mutated 'monkey-like' creatures jumping out of the bushes. A part of the Farcry game i enjoyed allot... 5: There is no sun filled beach scenes, no aircraft carrier, no communications stations on huge cliffs, LITTLE reference to any in-game contents (characters/items/vehicles), in fact no attempt to follow the story line at all. 6: The climactic Volcano scene from the game is replaced with an old industrial building. 7: There's an Ending scene... where everyone (except Krieger) live happily ever after... WHAT THE!I recommend avoiding this movie at all costs! If you are a Gamer, you will HATE this movie will all your soul. It is a movie clearly intended for males, so girls, stay away... So if your a male, 12-29 years of age, have never played Farcry, and are not disgusted by directors attempts at porting books/games to the cinema... then this is for you...$LABEL$ 0
+one of the best ensemble acted films I've ever seen. There isn't much to the plot, but the acting- incredible. You see the characters change ever so subtly, undr the influence of the rented villa in Italy, and love. And happiness. The film casts a mesmerizing spell on you, much as the villa does on all the women. Truly "enchanted".$LABEL$ 1
+I haven't seen this movie in about 5 years, but it still haunts me. When asked about my favorite films, this is the one that I seem to always mention first. There are certain films (works of art like this film, "Dark City", and "Breaking the Waves") that seem to touch a place within you, a place so protected and hidden and yet so sensitive, that they make a lifelong impression on the viewer, not unlike a life-changing event, such as the ending of a serious relationship or the death of a friend... This film "shook" me when I first saw it. It left me with an emotional hangover that lasted for several days.$LABEL$ 1
+Today, I wrote this review in anger at Uwe Boll and Hollywood.Hollywood has produced movies based on one of the darkest days of our nation. 911 changed everything. It changed our perception of security. It changed our understanding of the evil of man and humanity. Most importantly and devastatingly , it changed our world.However, I can't not stress how utterly repulsed, disillusioned, and angry I am at the careless, blatant ignorance of Hollywood seeking to make a lucrative profit out of death and destruction. This film and those like it are bound to cause controversy amid word-of-mouth among moviegoers and critics alike; most surely to be echoed by the mainstream press. Hollywood has sunk to a new low. Even lower than the low-down bastards who perpetrated the most barbaric acts of savagery and unrelenting cruelty. Behind it all is Uwe Boll. I am very angry at this movie. How dare they disrespect the memories of families of those lost? How dare they mock the lives of the brave men and women who risked their lives to save those trapped in the doomed towers on that fateful day of infamy?!?!? How dare they try to satirize and at the same time capitalize on a national tragedy in the mist of a mourning and weary post-911 world?!?!?! How...dare...they? To those who have the gall to even think of seeing this morally appalling travesty, I say this with a heavy heart with all my strength: Remember. Think back to that day and ask yourself whether or not you are a sane and moral person. Think back to that day, ask yourself whether or not this film is a disgrace and dishonor to the lives lost on that day. Think back to that day of the outcry of families of loved ones. Think back to that day of the lives lost on those two planes. Think back to the further carnage it caused following the attacks.Ask yourself if you have a soul.Think. Remember. Respect the memories of the lives lost on 911 by not seeing this film at all.$LABEL$ 0
+You cannot deny that we have an affinity for speed. That's why movies like Fast and the Furious, Dhoom, Rempit get made to play to the satisfaction of audiences, especially local ones. We live on a tiny island, and I cannot fathom why, for the relative efficiency of the public transportation system, most of us want to get into debt by owning a set of wheels which come with 100% tax when they reach our shores, and the myriad of taxes and bills to pay when operating one. Not only that, the high end sports cars were once quipped by a prominent politician up north that they will never reach fourth gear, lest they reach the sea.And these movies are relatively easy to make. Hot wheels and hot chicks always go down well together in targeting the required demographic. For once, those plunging necklines exposing uncanny buxom and short skirts accentuating legs two meters long, can't compete with the attention given to those beautiful curves that exotic cars possess in movies such as these. Of course there are amongst us (ahem) those that go for the sexists portrayal of women as mere sexual objects (otherwise explain why motor shows come with truckloads of models, and movies such as these cannot do without a leggy model in a frame), however, they don't warrant the kind of collective orgasmic sighs whenever the four wheelers come on screen, even when they do exactly nothing and have their gears into Park. The guy sitting beside me, I swear he wet his pants every time his dream car(s) appear, and creamed his pants even more when he hears those growling engine moans.So there we have it, the fan boys who turned up in droves just to watch which of the latest cool cars get featured in the movie. With the Fast and the Furious franchise, the Japanese models like the Evos and the Skylines take centerstage, as does the GT. Here, the Ford GT takes on an incredibly drool-worthy facade modification, that even I'm impressed, alongside the latest models like the Ferrari Enzos, Porshe Carerra GTs, Koenigsegg CCXs, and every car out there that has wings for doors. But seriously, my heart goes out to the cars each time they're mercilessly wrecked just for entertainment. I mean, this are perfectly fine, high performance models that are at the apex of motoring, but yet because whoever financed the movie had millions to blow, they do so because they can,There's no story in Redline, just excuses to put together a movie full of beauties (the cars that is) that can rip down the tarmac in probably the most boring fashion possible, and with the usual shots of pedals (always the accelerator, mind you, tapping the brake pedal is tantamount to blasphemy, and earn you no respect), steering wheels, gear shifts (always shifting up and not down), all these while having the actors make pretend that they're the baddest asses with an engine, snarling and giving each other dirty looks. Not a very tall order for an actor, and that's why we get the most woeful performances ever, with lines that seem to be written by elementary schoolkids.The heroine (yes, it made a statement that girls can drive) Natasha (a very plasticky looking Nadia Bjorlin) is one of those million dollar finds - a girl with model looks who don't mind getting down on fours and immersed in oil, who has racing pedigree within her, and performs with a rock band singing songs with lyrics that are just plain laughable (every line had to do with cars, and when singing about love, just had to string those innuendos like shifting gear shafts, lubricants and going for rides). Introduced against her wishes to illegal racing by a gangsta called Infamous (Eddie Griffin), she gets drawn into family squabbles involving a Leo DiCaprio lookalike Iraq war veteran, and some sleazy lecherous looking rich uncle. Everything else, well like I said, just serves as an excuse for the movie to go from race to race.And it's almost always the same, as there's very limited to what you can do to heighten tension between race cars, especially when you know the race is rigged (for narrative reasons) and can see the race outcome a mile away from the finishing line. While Fast and Furious had quite charismatic actors, and I will put my head on the chopping block by naming Paul Walker, Sun Kang, and of course, the star it created - Vin Diesel, Redline had none, just pretty faces with lots of air unfortunately. It looks like a TV movie in its treatment from the get go, with a very insipid opening sequence where it's one man, one car, and a 105 minutes race against time to get to Vegas.If not for the cars, then this movie seriously is a piece of junk, with bad acting, bad lines and bad action. Strictly for the car fans, or those who like their movies with countless of bevy beauties who pimp their bodies without any speaking lines.$LABEL$ 0
+Im the type of person who always goes 2 to horror section when I'm picking a film, so i picked five across the eyes, i was disgusted with this film and thought there was no story line and no point that you could enjoy it,it made my skin crawl to think that people like to watch films that just encourage violence for the hell of it it was low budget and very rubbish! i think i could of done better myself. i think that it was the worst film i have ever seen in my life and you should not bother to watch it the actors were rubbish the camera was awful the picture was bad and the sound was not up to scratch, i think it was a little bit like a cheep rip of off the baler which project and it has not worked at all it was foul.$LABEL$ 0
+Seven Ups has been compared to Bullitt for the chase scene, but does not come anywhere near matching Bullitt. Bullitt has a beginning that builds builds builds. When McQueen leaves the seedy hotel, gets into his Mustang, which is parked under the Embarcadero Freeway (now torn down) and notices the Charger sitting nearbye, you know you are about to see something spectacular. From that moment on, when McQueen starts that car, begins the best car chase sequence ever filmed. Adding to it is a terrific Lalo Schriffin If I remember correctly sound track. This goes on for a long time before you actually hear the first tires squealing. That shot of McQueen's Mustang suddenly appearing in Bill Hickman's rear view mirror is unmatched for visual impact. Hickman's look of surprise and double take really adds to the effect. Then of course, San Francisco is unmatched for the setting of cars racing up and down hills and around bends. Also, Bullitt being filmed in the 60s when cars were still "Hot" (Mustang GT and Dodge Charger) made for a better set of wheels then two boring, smog device laden Pontiacs in the 1970s Seven Ups. Bill Hickman was the driver of the bad guy car in both movies. I saw him sitting at an insider movie preview once on the Univeral lot when I was doing movie reviews for a paper. They gave it a good try in Seven Ups though with the chase scene. Seven ups had a few "jumps" over little hills, (Yawn) but of course they were not San Francisco hills. The Seven Ups chase, where they are actually going fast, is longer than the go fast sequence in Bullitt. But the scene of a single shotgun blast totally blowing the hood OFF of Roy Schieders Pontiac is the height of absurdity. Strictly Hollywood, I would say, except that it was filmed in New York.$LABEL$ 1
+Have you ever heard the saying that people "telegraph their intentions?" Well in this movie, the characters' actions do more than telegraph future plans -- they show up at your house drunk and buffet you about the head. This could be forgiven if the setting had been used better, or if the characters were more charismatic or nuanced. Embeth Davidtz's character is not mysterious, just wooden, and Kenneth Branagh doesn't succeed in conveying the brash charm his character probably was written to have.The bottom line: obvious plot, one-note performances, unlikeable characters, and grotesque "Southern" accents employed by British actors.$LABEL$ 0
+"Night of the Living Homeless" was a fairly strong finish to the first half of Season 11. Obviously a parody of various zombie movies, most notably Dawn of the Dead, this episode parallels the homeless with the living dead, as creatures who feed and thrive off of spare change rather than brains.Kyle is blamed for the sudden mass outbreak of homeless people when he, out of the goodness of his heart, gives a $20 to a homeless man in front of his house. More homeless people begin to infiltrate South Park, until the town is completely overrun with them. This is a very strong Randy Marsh episode, as he assumes the role of the shotgun-wielding leader of the adults who take refuge on the roof of the Park County Community Center. But before Randy makes it to the community center, he is accosted by hundreds of homeless people while hilariously screaming "I don't have any change!!" Unfortunately, the refugees end up losing Gerald Broflofski to the homeless, when he tries to escape by catching a bus out of town, and unwittingly tosses away all his change for the bus to distract the homeless people. Then he becomes one of them, asking everyone for change.The boys attempt to find out why there are so many homeless people in South Park, and find a man who is a director of homeless studies. They find out that the nearby city of Evergreen used to have a similar problem with the homeless, so they escape to Evergreen to find out what they did to solve the problem. Unfortunately, homeless people break into the man's house, and he attempts to take the easy way out by shooting himself. However, he fails several times, as he shoots himself in the jaw, in the eye, in the chest, in the neck, in the shoulder, screaming horribly until he finally dies. This scene may have been funnier had a similar scene not happened in "Fantastic Easter Special" two weeks ago.Meanwhile, a member of the refugees discovers that due to the homeless problem, the property values have nosedived, thus the bank has foreclosed on his house, making him homeless. Randy immediately turns on him, holding the gun to the man's head. When the man finally begs the others for a few bucks to help him out, Randy pulls the trigger.In Evergreen, the boys find out that the citizens of the town sent the homeless to South Park, and that the passing of homeless from town to town happens all over the country. The boys modify a bus that leads the homeless out of South Park and takes them all the way to Santa Monica, California.The zombie movie parallels and the great Randy Marsh lines make this one definitely re-watchable. 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+I'm not sure who decides what category a movie fits into, but this movie is NOT a horror movie. As for the story, it was fairly interesting, but rather slow. I was especially disappointed with the ending though.**spoiler**Tell me why on Earth does she run over to her uncle's(?) home without at least calling the detective or the police first? She knows exactly what's going on at that point, plus she has a video tape as proof. Instead, she runs over there and starts going nuts and saying "I know everything, I have proof! You didn't expect proof, did you?!" Then she acts surprised when her uncle stands up and starts walking over to her as if he's going to harm her. Well DUH! Of course he's going to harm you idiot, you just told him you know everything and have proof to expose everything. What a dumb ending.$LABEL$ 0
+I gave this a 1. There are so many plot twists that you can never be sure to root for. Total mayhem. Everyone gets killed or nearly so. I am tired of cross hairs and changing views. I cannot give the plot away. Convoluted and insane. If I had paid to see this I would demand my money back. I wish reviews were more honest.$LABEL$ 0
+Not an easy film to like at first with both the lead characters quite unlikeable but luckily the heart and soul of the film is Paula Sage's touching performance which drives the film into uncharted waters and transcends the rather awkward storyline. This gives the film a feeling of real truth and makes you think you've seen something special.(7/10)$LABEL$ 1
+I read the book before seeing the movie, and the film is one of the best adaptations out there. Very true and faithful to the book. Sean Penn and Sarandon are amazing. Robbins is a talented filmaker and I wish he would add more to his repetoire. He made the film very haunting and intentionally slow-paced to add depth. An especially brilliant bit of filmaking was the reflection of the victims appearing in the glass of the execution room at the very end.$LABEL$ 1
+DOCTEUR PETIOT, starring Michel Serrault, is a brutal story about a brutal man. A doctor who heals the sick in occupied France, even if their ability to compensate is not there. Yet, he preys on the weakest amidst the populace. The imagery and cinematography are superb, and lend an additional macabre feeling to this complex story. He is the perfect psychopath. Seductive and altruistic, intelligent and caring, calculating and murderous. A movie certain not to be forgotten soon by the viewer. Kudos to Mr. Serrault, for his chilling portrayal.$LABEL$ 1
+I just got this video used and I was watching it last night. The acting started out extremely bad (hey------hey------twister) but got very good soon after wards. The tornadoes looked extremely fake, and many of the CGI effects were very dodgy, but the scene with the house cracking apart and the contents inside being blown around and sucked out were extremely well done, and just about on par with movies like Twister. The scenes of devastation were also extremely well done too. The story was very well written, and it's refreshing to see a movie like this stray away from the same old "disaster formulas" movies of this genre seems to have been stuck in for 30 years.While this movie had a very weird mix of FX and acting quality, this merits an A in my book.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is really vile. It plays on the urban paranoia of the 70s/80s and puts it into a school context. I'm not saying that urban crime wasn't a problem for a lot of people or that schools weren't/aren't problem areas but this vile piece of exploitation takes the biscuit. Violence is beyond anything realistically imaginable but in this case it's not a case of social issues but a white, upper-middle class student uses it to turn himself into the crime kingpin of his local high schoiol. And of course he knows how to play the system. Does that sound familiar. Yes. This turd is pure violent exploitation, a really nasty piece of work. It's disturbing brutality dressed up as a social comment. This belongs in the same category as trash like Exterminator, Death Wish 2-5 and so on and so on. The only remarkable thing is that Michael Fox was so broke at the time that he had to do stuff like this.$LABEL$ 0
+What a horrible, horrible film. The worst collection of cliches I have seen in a long time. Not that I saw much. I left the theatre screaming after about 40 minutes in search of a stiff drink to soothe my nerves. Meryl Streep was awful as usual. How many hurt and tortured expressions can 1 person have? Aidan Quinn's talents were - as so often - totally wasted. And who told Gloria Estefan she could act? Trying to be polically correct this movie still enforces racial stereotypes. (Brave inexperienced lonely music teacher teaches underprivilegded kids violin in poor neighbourhood school). The kids weren't even cute! Just written in to suit the appalling script. Aaargh! Wes Craven really made me cringe for once. real horror this one!$LABEL$ 0
+Motocrossed was fun, but it wasn't that great. I guess I just didn't understand a lot of the Motocross racing "lingo" (and there was A LOT of that in the film)! The plot wasn't what I expected from the Disney Channel previews, so that could account for some of my disappointment.$LABEL$ 0
+Sixth escapade for Freddy Krueger in which he has finally managed to kill off virtually every youth in Springwood; now he wants to broaden his horizons and (**SPOILER**) needs a family member in order to do it.A failure as a horror movie because it simply ain't scary at all. Works better as a dark, macabre black comedy, to tell you the truth. Freddy Krueger has now been stripped of all of his ability to chill this viewer. (Too many wisecracks, that's for sure.) The actors aren't interesting (save Robert Englund, as always, and an obviously slumming Yaphet Kotto) and there are simply far too many visual effects. The finale is OK but doesn't provide as many sparks as I think one might hope.In adding a new twist to the familiar dream killer's story, it provides Englund the opportunity to do more non-makeup scenes than ever before.There are cameos worth noting: a joint cameo by then-couple Roseanne and Tom Arnold that is devoid of entertainment value, an appropriate appearance by veteran shock-rocker Alice Cooper, and a funny cameo by Johnny Depp that also sort of acknowledges the pop icon that he had become.Film debut of Breckin Meyer, who plays Spencer.One of the best things about it is the replaying of key scenes from earlier entries during the closing credits.4/10$LABEL$ 0
+OK, I'm Italian but there aren't so many Italian film like this. I think that the plot is very good for 3/4 of the film but the final is too simple, too predictable. But it's the only little mistake. The Consequences of Love in my opinion have great sequences in particular at the beginning and great soundtrack. I'd like very much the lighting work on it. The best thing on it is a great, great actor. You know, if your name were Al Pacino now everybody would have still been talking about this performance. But it's only a great theater Italian actor called Toni Servillo. Yes, someone tell me this film and this kind of performance it's too slow, it's so boring, so many silences, but i think that this components its fantastic, its the right way for describing the love story between a very talented young girl, the grand-daughter of the Italian actress Anna Magnani, Olivia and the old mysterious man Toni. One of my favorite Italian films.$LABEL$ 1
+If you only see one Ernest movie in your life, make it this one! This is by far the best in the series, with its nonstop laughs and clever humor that is suitable for all ages. The other "Ernest" flicks were good too, but most people tend to get tired of him quickly (not ME, however.).In this movie, Ernest P. Whorrel is assigned jury duty for a murder case. The murderer, Nash, just happens to look EXACTLY like our bumbling hero Ernest. Mr. Nash finds this a good opportunity to escape from jail by knocking him out switching identities with him, and so we get to see how Ernest reacts in the slammer.A great flick! If you haven't already seen it, watch it!$LABEL$ 1
+An idiotic dentist finds out that his wife has been unfaithful. So, no new story lines here. However, the authors managed to create a stupid, disgusting film. If you enjoy watching kids vomiting, or seeing a dentist imagining that he is pulling all his wife's teeth out in a bloody horror-type, go see (or rent) the film. If not, move on to something else (MY FAIR LADY, anyone?)$LABEL$ 0
+The first Cube movie was an art movie. It set up a world in which all the major archetypes of mankind were represented, and showed how they struggled to make sense of a hostile world that they couldn't understand. It was, on the non-literal level, a "man vs. cruel nature" plot, where the individual who represented innocence and goodness came through in the end, triumphing to face a new, indefinable world beyond man's petty squabbles; a world where there were no more struggle, but peace. I rated Cube a 10 out of 10, and it's a movie that was never meant to have any sequels.The second movie, Hypercube was a massive disappointment. Some of the ideas were kind of cool, but in the context of the original movie, both the story and the setting made no sense and had no meaning. Still, for being fairly entertaining, I rated it a 5 out of 10.The third movie, Cube Zero, while ignoring the second, plays like a vastly inferior commercial B-movie rehash of the first, sans the symbolism. There is no "homage" or "tribute" here; there is only ripping off. The same kind of plot, with some elements idiotically altered (like having letters instead of prime numbers between the cubes - an idea which shows more clearly than anything else that this is a rip-off with absolutely no originality and nothing to say).That we see something from "behind the scenes" means nothing, because the watchers are just part of the Big Bad Experiment, the architects of which we hear nothing of. And, in this movie, those who get through to the exit (like Kazan did at the end of the first movie) are just killed - where the *bleep* is the sense in that?! That's just flippin' stupid. I'm glad I didn't pay to see this.The production values and acting in Cube Zero are not too bad, but the story and the ideas are so utterly devoid of any inspiration that this movie can only get from me a rating of 3 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+I have just watched this movie on DVD late this morning and was so disappointed that even thought it was a good joke for the audience. In other words - the creators planed to make comedy not drama. Howsoever, at the end I realized that Mr. Tony Giglio was earnest about this movie. It's a pity because: the dialogue is ridiculous, the acting is poor and lifeless, the story is a fishy tale! Poor Ryan Phillippe - despite of his efforts his character in the movie remains probably his worst performance! What to say for Jason Statham - lack of all kinds of skills to develop the role which is an imaginary fiction... For this reasons I vote: 3/10$LABEL$ 0
+I believe Shakespeare explained what I just read beautifully. Me thinks he (the lady) doth protest too much. The whole thing sounded to me as if the author was trying to convince himself! He sites profane literature (writings from the same time period but not connected with the bible) a number of times however I can think of at least three references off the top of my head which lend historical accuracy to events contained in the bible. Anyone can skew data & prove anything they like but it doesn't make it true. Customs change, word definitions change over time (look at English & German where it is very obviously a common root) nothing stays the same, it's always growing and changing. The bible has many different translations but the King James version is the one I've found to be the best when it comes to any kind of research. In the King James version you will notice there are certain words written in italics. These words have been added by the translators and can be dropped & the mean of the entire verse changes. Writings from around the time of Christ were written without spaces, without punctuation, without paragraphs & without numeric verses. These writings look like one long word & the translators added all of the above. For example how would you read this: GODISNOWHERE do you read it as God is nowhere or do you read it as God is now here? Same string of letters two entirely different meanings. This is why many biblical researchers use a 'Lexicon' to assist them in translation as it provides a word for word translation from the original Arabic, Greek or Hebrew depending on the language in which the scripture was originally written. It's also interesting to note that when translated into symbolic logic you can prove God exists but you can not prove He doesn't exist! In the end I just love listening to people who think they are so smart that they are qualified to judge the almighty. Talk about ego! Putting soapbox away, God Bless Maegi$LABEL$ 0
+"I presume you are here for damage to your mental circuitry." - VALMike Nelson made me watch this...he mentioned it in his book, "Movie Megacheese." I asked myself, "Why would Mike Nelson steer me wrong?" I now know why the bots never trusted Mike Nelson.The music is by John Williams, which is probably part of his payment to the Devil. In fact, I'm sure anyone who worked on this movie is probably in league with ol' Slewfoot, or is now cursed, from the Executive Director down to the guy who ran the catering truck outside the studio. Don't watch...for the love of God...don't watch!!! Not even making a copy and showing someone else will un-curse you...I'm doomed now, I understand this. I accept this. But save yourself...$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was Flippin Awful....I wanted those hours of my life back. For god's sake, -stay far away from this awful crumb ball movie at all costs. Its not worth mentioning the title, but the ratings on this movie are pretty generous for a vomit scum movie like this. And where do I begin? The dumb A** kids in the movie.....The zero plot or story?...the garden-variety college/frat boy-esquire scenes of towel slapping? Or the VERY bad acted, teen angst innuendo? $$$#@%@! My god, It NEVER ended!.....I remember thinking I would have rather kissed the movie theater floor, then sit through this one again.But what do you expect? Most people with the brain power to look up reviews, are not going to be the target audience here at all- so GO SEE Pirites 2 again, or the Jet Lee one, -If your debating to yourself. Look, This movie will just cost you your soul, your money, your energy, and your brain cells. HEED THE WARNING.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a movie that i can watch over and over and never ever get tired of it, it has lot's of laughs, guns, action, crime,, good one liners, and a decent plot, with an over the top, Donald Sutherland in a rather comedic role as an Assasain. Tia Carerra looks as hot as she ever did and can act too, Thomas Ian Griffin is great in this as the lead character "Max" a DEA agent Diane is the FBI agent, played by Carerra, and John Lithgow from Frazier on TV, plays the bad guy,, "Livingston". The plot centers around Max and Diane trying to capture Livingston while they fight and argue with each other about who gets the money for the respective agencies, throw into the mix the Assassain Sutherland, who pretty much has all the good one liners, this is the perfect crime caper, there is the usual love story,, but played very differently than you would think by Carerra and Griffith. You also have the Russian mafia, Italian Mafia, and Chineese Mafia here thrown into the mix,, the film is shot in Boston,, where you have some great shots , and locals,, great photography and music in this film, this movie is just the epitome of a crime comedy,, it has everything that one could ever want. Check out Sutherland's toilet in a particular scene,, very unusual. this film is a riot and will make you laugh real hard 10 plus for me.$LABEL$ 1
+If you like to see animals being skinned alive, their heads smashed, dogs throats being crushed my men stomping on them, then this one is for you! But if you are somewhat normal, and don't need to see real footage of animal cruelty, pass this one up. This movie tries to shock the viewer, and it sure does.With the animal snuff at the beginning, and the killing of babies in the movie (fake at least)its was enough to make myself turn it off.I've seen movies like this before that show slaughterhouse footage (BTK movie) and this kind of footage should not be allowed in a horror movie.We watch gore and horror because we know its just make-up, and special effects, so we shouldn't sit down to watch a movie and see the real killing of animals, its not what we rented the movie for.If anything, there should be a large warning label put on these types of garbage movies so people won;t be surprised by it. As a very hardcore horror fan, this one turned my stomach. The entire movie cast and crew need their heads checked.$LABEL$ 0
+Another Spanish movie about the 1936 Civil War. This time we're told about the story of Carol (lovely played by débutant Clara Lago), a little girl which comes to live to a little Spanish village from New York. It is such an initiating trip, and soon she'll find about the injustices of the human race, their stupid fights and conflicts, their contradictions.Imanol Uribe makes his best film since "Días Contados" (1994) with such a sober pulse, a beautiful photography, and a nice script. He tries not to take part in the conflict, he just shows us some facts and let us decide (ok, the facts are explicit enough to make us decide in which band are we in) and he takes a huge advantage of the presence and the freshness of the young starring couple: Clara Lago and Juan José Ballesta.A well cared production.My rate: 7/10$LABEL$ 1
+A response to previous comments made by residents of the region where this motion picture was lensed: One person suggested that the closing and destruction of the Ocean View Amusement Park led to a downturn in the surrounding neighborhoods. This is simply not true. Prior to the construction of Interstate 64, which bypasses the Ocean View area, the primary route for traffic went through the heart of Ocean View. Once the interstate was completed, Ocean View rapidly became a ghost town with businesses closing up and an increase in crime. This led to a huge reduction in revenues for the park, which also faced new competition from nearby Busch Gardens in Williamsburg. Meanwhile, in the past few years, the City of Norfolk has done a remarkable job of fostering redevelopment so that the area has become a sought-after location for construction of high-end housing.It has also been said that the destruction footage of the roller coaster was used in the film "Rollercoaster". This is also untrue. Footage was shot of two coaster cars careening off the ride for that film, but the actual explosions and collapse are exclusive to "Death of Ocean View Park".As to the film itself, the storyline of a "supernatural" force in the water adjacent to the park was certainly silly, but somewhat typical for B-grade movies of the time. With the cast involved, there should be no surprise that the scenery was gnawed in almost every scene by the primary actors. I don't believe this film was intended to be another "Citizen Kane"; I believe Playboy was experimenting with a new non-nude format to determine if this was an area for the company to expand into (apparently not!). A strange force in the water causing strange events in an old amusement park probably sounded good at the conference table, but proved unmanageable in execution. The roller coaster and the rest of the park was destined for the wrecking ball anyway; "let's come up with a weird way to justify an explosive demise!".For the casual movie viewer, this would be a "see once and forget about it" film (except for Diana Canova fans); but for the thousands of people who live in the region and have fond memories of the park, this movie is like a "walk down memory lane" for footage of the park as well as old footage of downtown Norfolk, the first "Harborfest", and Old Dominion University. Even a limited release of this film on DVD would be welcome.$LABEL$ 0
+I was expecting a lot from Mr.Amitabh Bachan's role of SARKAR, but am disappointed. Being a Ram Gopal Verma's direction i was not ready for this kind of a movie. Sarkar is supposed to be a strong character, but the movie shows that Amitabh is too dependent on others power rather than his. There is a movie in Tamil called Nayakan based on the theme of GOD FATHER and Kamala Hassan has played the lead. The movie is well directed and the power till the end remains in the hands of Kamala Hassan, not his son. Amitabh Bachan seems to be too helpless in the movie and he just accepts everything instead of changing things. The movie fails to show the strong impact of God Father.$LABEL$ 0
+A trio of buddies, sergeants all in the British Army, carouse & brawl their way across Imperial India. Intensely loyal to each other, they meet their greatest & most deadly challenge when they encounter the resurgence of a hideous cult & its demented, implacable guru. Now they must rely on the lowliest servant of the regiment, the water carrier GUNGA DIN, to save scores of the Queen's soldiers from certain massacre.Based more on The Three Musketeers than Kipling's classic poem, this is a wonderful adventure epic - a worthy entry in Hollywood's Golden Year of 1939. Filled with suspense & humor, while keeping the romantic interludes to the barest minimum, it grips the interest of the viewer and holds it right up to the (sentimental) conclusion.It is practically fruitless to discuss the performance nuances of the three stars, Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen & Douglas Fairbanks Jr., as they are really all thirds of a single organism - inseparable and, to all intents & purposes, indistinguishable. However, this diminishes nothing of the great fun in simply watching them have a glorious time.(It's interesting to note, parenthetically, that McLaglen boasted of a distinguished World War One military career; Fairbanks would have a sterling record in World War Two - mostly in clandestine affairs & earning himself no fewer than 4 honorary knighthoods after the conflict; while Grant reportedly worked undercover for British Intelligence, keeping an eye on Hollywood Nazi sympathizers.)The real acting laurels here should go to Sam Jaffe, heartbreaking in the title role. He infuses the humble man with radiant dignity & enormous courage, making the last line of Kipling's poem ring true. He is unforgettable.Montague Love is properly stalwart as the regimental major, whilst Eduardo Ciannelli is Evil Incarnate as the Thuggee guru. The rest of the cast, Joan Fontaine, Robert Coote, Lumsden Hare, are effective but have little to do. Movie mavens will recognize Cecil Kellaway in the tiny role of Miss Fontaine's father.The film picks its villains well. The demonic Thuggee cult, worshipers of the hideous, blood-soaked Kali, Hindu goddess of destruction, was the bane of Indian life for 6 centuries, ritualistically strangling up to 30,000 victims a year. In 1840 the British military, in cooperation with a number of princely states, succeeded in ultimately suppressing the religion. Henceforth it would remain the stuff of novels & nightmares.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie pretty much sucked. I'm in the Army and the soldiers depicted in this movie are horrible. If your in the Military and you see this movie you'll laugh and be upset the entire movie because of the way they acted as a squad. It was ridiculous. They acted like a bunch of normal people with Army uniforms on not knowing what to do. It was a pretty gory movie I'd have to say the least. There was a couple scenes where they try to make you jump. I'd recommend seeing it if you are bored and want to see a violent, gory movie. It will be a better movie also if your not in the Military. I also would have to say I liked the first one better than this one.$LABEL$ 0
+If you watched Pulp Fiction don't see this movie. This movie is NOT funny. This is the worst parody movie ever. This is a poor attempt of parody films.The cast is bad. The film is bad. This is one of the worst pictures ever made.I do not recommend Plump Fiction. I prefer the original Pulp Fiction by the great Quentin Tarantino. This is one of the worst parody films ever made.Plump Fiction is not a good movie. It is not funny. It is so dumb and vulgar.$LABEL$ 0
+I went to see "Passion of Mind" because I usually get a kick out of the genre of alternate reality romances, i.e. "Sliding Doors," "Me, Myself, I," etc. But this was the worst one I've ever seen! I had to force myself to sit through it. I didn't even stay through the credits which is unheard of for me.The magical realism was completely missing because Demi Moore was grim and the lovers she was two-timing were guys who usually play villains, though each was kind of sexy and appealing.There was actually a psychological explanation provided for the dual lives, with a distasteful frisson of The Elektra Complex; maybe the magic shouldn't be explained for this genre to work.(originally written 5/28/2000)$LABEL$ 0
+I thought that ROTJ was clearly the best out of the three Star Wars movies. I find it surprising that ROTJ is considered the weakest installment in the Trilogy by many who have voted. To me it seemed like ROTJ was the best because it had the most profound plot, the most suspense, surprises, most emotional,(especially the ending) and definitely the most episodic movie. I personally like the Empire Strikes Back a lot also but I think it is slightly less good than than ROTJ since it was slower-moving, was not as episodic, and I just did not feel as much suspense or emotion as I did with the third movie.It also seems like to me that after reading these surprising reviews that the reasons people cited for ROTJ being an inferior film to the other two are just plain ludicrous and are insignificant reasons compared to the sheer excellence of the film as a whole. I have heard many strange reasons such as: a) Because Yoda died b) Because Bobba Fett died c) Because small Ewoks defeated a band of stormtroopers d) Because Darth Vader was revealedI would like to debunk each of these reasons because I believe that they miss the point completely. First off, WHO CARES if Bobba Fett died??? If George Lucas wanted him to die then he wanted him to die. Don't get me wrong I am fan of Bobba Fett but he made a few cameo appearances and it was not Lucas' intention to make him a central character in the films that Star Wars fans made him out to be. His name was not even mentioned anywhere in the movie... You had to go to the credits to find out Bobba Fett's name!!! Judging ROTJ because a minor character died is a bit much I think... Secondly, many fans did not like Yoda dying. Sure, it was a momentous period in the movie. I was not happy to see him die either but it makes the movie more realistic. All the good guys can't stay alive in a realistic movie, you know. Otherwise if ALL the good guys lived and ALL the bad guys died this movie would have been tantamount to a cheesy Saturday morning cartoon. Another aspect to this point about people not liking Yoda's death.. Well, nobody complained when Darth Vader struck down Obi Wan Kenobi in A New Hope. (Many consider A New Hope to be the best of the Trilogy) Why was Obi Wan's death okay but Yoda's not... hmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Another reason I just can not believe was even stated was because people found cute Ewoks overpowering stormtroopers to be impossible. That is utterly ridiculous!! I can not believe this one!! First off, the Ewoks are in their native planet Endor so they are cognizant of their home terrain since they live there. If you watch the movie carefully many of the tactics the Ewoks used in defeating the stormtroopers was through excellent use of their home field advantage. (Since you lived in the forest all your life I hope you would have learned to use it to your advantage) They had swinging vines, ropes, logs set up to trip those walkers, and other traps. The stormtroopers were highly disadvantaged because they were outnumbered and not aware of the advantages of the forest. The only thing they had was their blasters. To add, it was not like the Ewoks were battling the stormtroopers themselves, they were heavily assisted by the band of rebels in that conquest. I thought that if the stormtroopers were to have defeated a combination of the Star Wars heros, the band of rebels, as well as the huge clan of Ewoks with great familiarity of their home terrain, that would have been a great upset. Lastly, if this scene was still unbelievable to you.. How about in Empire Strikes Back or in A New Hope where there were SEVERAL scenes of a group consisting of just Han Solo, Chewbacca, and the Princess, being shot at by like ten stormtroopers and all their blasters missed while the heros were in full view!! And not only that, the heroes , of course, always hit the Stormtroopers with their blasters. The troopers must have VERY, VERY bad aim then! At least in Empire Strikes Back, the Battle of Endor was much more believable since you had two armies pitted each other not 3 heroes against a legion of stormtroopers. Don't believe me? Check out the battle at Cloud City when our heroes were escaping Lando's base. Or when our heros were rescuing Princess Leia and being shot at (somehow they missed)as Han Solo and Luke were trying to exit the Death Star.The last reason that I care to discuss (others are just too plain ridiculous for me to spend my time here.) is that people did not like Darth Vader being revealed! Well, in many ways that was a major part of the plot in the movie. Luke was trying to find whether or not Darth Vader was his father, Annakin Skywalker. It would have been disappointing if the movie had ended without Luke getting to see his father's face because it made it complete. By Annakin's revelation it symbolized the transition Darth Vader underwent from being possessed by the dark side (in his helmet) and to the good person he was Annakin Skywalker (by removing the helmet). The point is that Annakin died converted to the light side again and that is what the meaning of the helmet removal scene was about. In fact, that's is what I would have done in that scene too if I were Luke's father...Isn't that what you would have done if you wanted to see your son with your own eyes before you died and not in a mechanized helmet?On another note, I think a subconscious or conscious expectation among most people is that the sequel MUST be worse (even if it is better) that preceding movies is another reason that ROTJ does not get as many accolades as it deserves. I never go into a film with that deception in mind, I always try to go into a film with the attitude that "Well, it might be better or worse that the original .. But I can not know for sure.. Let's see." That way I go with an open mind and do not dupe myself into thinking that a clearly superior film is not as good as it really was.I am not sure who criticizes these movies but, I have asked many college students and adults about which is their favorite Star Wars movie and they all tell me (except for one person that said that A New Hope was their favorite) that it is ROTJ. I believe that the results on these polls are appalling and quite misleading.Bottom line, the Return of the Jedi was the best of the Trilogy. This movie was the only one of the three that kept me riveted all throughout its 135 minutes. There was not a moment of boredom because each scene was either suspenseful, exciting, surprising, or all of the above. For example, the emotional light saber battle between Luke and his father in ROTJ was better than the one in the Empire Strikes Back any day!!!Finally, I hope people go see the Phantom Menace with an open mind because if fans start looking for nitpicky, insignificant details (or see it as "just another sequel") to trash the movie such as "This movie stinks because Luke is not in it!" then this meritorious film will become another spectacular movie that will be the subject of derision like ROTJ suffered unfortunately.$LABEL$ 1
+Crossfire remains one of the best Hollywood message movies because, unlike the admirably intentioned Gentleman's Agreement, which it beat to theatres by a few months, it chooses to send its message via the form an excellent noir thriller rather than have an outraged star constantly saying "It's because I'm Jewish, isn't it?" It's much easier to get the message that hate is like a loaded gun across when the dead bodies are actual rather than metaphorical. Somewhat shamefully, the brief featurette on the Warners' DVD doesn't mention that novelist Richard Brooks disowned the film over the shift from a homophobic murder to an anti-Semitic one, but it's interesting to note that while the victim is killed primarily because he is Jewish, there's little doubt in Sam Levene's performance that the character is in fact also gay – not a mincing caricature, but there's definitely a two lost souls aspect to his scenes with George Cooper's confused soldier. There's not much of a mystery to who the murderer is: even though the killing is carried out in classic noir shadows, the body language of the killer is instantly recognisable, but then the film has its characters drift to the same conclusion before the halfway point: the tension comes from proving it and saving the fall guy.There's an element of Ealing Films to the gang of soldiers teaming together to get their buddy out of a fix (you could almost see that aspect as a blueprint for Hue and Cry), but the atmosphere is pure RKO noir. Set over one long sweltering night, the film has a great look filled with deep dark blacks and shadows born as much out of economy as style (it cut back on lighting time and allowed director Edward Dmytryk more time to work with the actors) and the excellent cast make the most of the fine script: a laid-back but quietly charismatic Robert Mitchum, Robert Young's Maigret-like detective, Gloria Grahame's tramp and the perpetually creepy Paul Kelly as her compulsive liar admirer, a guy who tries on stories the way other people try on ties. But the lasting impression is of Robert Ryan's excellent performance as a guy who could do with a good leaving alone as he does his best to help the wrongly accused man all the way to death row. A big surprise hit in 1946, as a reward, Dmytryk and producer Adrian Scott found themselves investigated by the HUAC, which itself had a notable tendency to target Jews. So much for crusading…$LABEL$ 1
+This movie basically is a very well made production and gives a good impression of a war situation and its effects on those involved. It's always interesting to see the story from the 'other' side for a change. This movie concentrates on a group of German soldiers who after fighting in the North Africa campaign are send to Stalingrad, Russia, where one of the most notorious and bloodiest battles of WW II is being fought.It's interesting to see the other side of this battle, since we mainly just always see the Germans simply as the 'villains'. In this movie those 'villains' are given an humane face and voice and it sort of makes you realize that the only true enemy in war is war itself and not necessarily those who you're fighting against. At first it's kind of hard to concentrate on the movie because you always just have in the back of your mind that the German's are the evil villains. But of course you get accustomed to it quickly and you soon adapt the Germans as the main characters of the movie and you even start to care -and be interested in them.The way this story is told isn't however the best. It's hard to keep track of the story at times, as it jumps from the one sequence and location to the other. The movie isn't always logic in its storytelling and features a bit too many sequences that remain too vague. It also is most of the time pretty hard to keep the characters apart and see who is who. It doesn't always makes this movie an easy on to watch but than again on the other hand, there are plenty enough sequences and moments present in this movie to make it worthwhile and an interesting one, just not the most coherent one around. In that regard Hollywood movies are always better than European movies.The production values are high and features some good looking sets and locations, though the movie wasn't even shot in Russia itself. It helps to create a good war time situation atmosphere.The character are mostly interesting although perhaps a tad bit formulaic. But I don't know, for some reason formulaic characters always work out fine in war movies and strenghtens the drama and realism. It also helps that they're being played by well cast actors. All of the actors aren't the best known actors around (Thomas Kretschmann was also at the time still a fairly unknown actor) but each of them fit their role well and gives its characters an unique face and personality.All in all not the best or most consistent WW II drama around but definitely worth a look, due to its original approach of the German side of the battle of Stalingrad and its good production values.7/10$LABEL$ 1
+So I rented this from Netflix because somebody gave me Roger Ebert's book "I hated, hated, hated this movie" and he gave this one a rare zero-star rating in the book and said at the end of his original review "Mad Dog Time should be cut up to provide free ukulele picks for the poor". So I figured from Ebert saying that I would see if it was really as bad as he said it was. I know most society says not to listen to critics and to judge for yourself but I could not express how much I hated this piece of junk like Ebert did and never since Ebert's review of Rob Reiner's "North" where he said he hated that movie ten times had I ever heard such a brilliant hatred movie review. Here we have Richard Dreyfuss as a gangster which I don't think it would be terrible to see Dreyfuss as a gangster if the screenplay for this movie were written well. But above all the other things that were awful about this "movie" I can certainly tell you the script was not written well at all. While the movie starts off with Jeff Goldblum saying that he enjoyed watching Dreyfuss's girlfriend while Dreyfuss was at a criminal hospital the movie starts off with some decent dialog after the opening credits. But after that first 4 or 5 minutes the other 85 minutes just consists of dumb characters talking pointless garbage for 30 seconds then someone gets shot. Then there are a whole bunch of jokes about Dreyfuss being mentally ill. Haha. Not funny. Then we get an unpleasant and unfunny scene parodying Frank Sinatra's "My Way" sang by Gabriel Byrne apparently to insult Dreyfuss. Of course because the screenplay was written on the level of a sixth grader Dreyfuss shoots Byrne over five times and Byrne just will not die. Are we as the audience supposed to even care or find that mildly funny? I can certainly tell you I did not care or find that funny. Not only am I disappointed in Dreyfuss (who I admire much as an actor) for producing and starring in this tripe but I am also extremely disappointed in Jeff Goldblum because this was released the same year that "Independence Day" was the top grossing film of the year and ultimately one of the most successful films in history. Did Goldblum feel that "Independence Day" would be a flop and then just take the next role that was offered to him to make some money if "Independence Day" were a bomb? What did an Oscar winner and the star of two of the biggest money making films in history find remotely enjoyable about this? The opening sequence of "Mad Dog Time" says that the movie is set on another planet. I only wish now that I have wasted 93 minutes watching this trash that it would have stayed and opened in theaters on the planet where it supposedly takes place so that way everyone on this planet would never here of this ridiculous waste of 93 minutes out of my life that I will never get back. Ebert saying the movie should have been cut up is not good enough I am afraid. Every copy of "Mad Dog Time" should have gasoline poured all over it and be lit on fire. I have yet to top a worst movie I have ever seen because this one has won it's honor as the worst movie ever.$LABEL$ 0
+What a boring film! To sum it all up, its was basically just Nana Patekar beating up his daughter-in-law Karisma Kapoor, while she tried to flee from the village, with her son. Can someone say BORING??? The concept wasn't too bad, but it was poorly executed. The Canadian locales, and some of the village scenes were nicely shot. However, overall the cinematography came up short. The story could have been great, but the movie just seemed to drag on. There is only so much stupidity a person can take, let alone three bloody hours of it.The best part of the whole movie was the song "Ishq Kamina", and that was only five minutes long. Other than that, this movie was a piece of crap.$LABEL$ 0
+{rant start} I didn't want to believe them at first, but I guess this is what people are talking about when they say South Korean cinema has peaked and may even be going downhill. After the surprisingly fun and moving monster movie "Gwoemul" (aka "The Host") of 2006-- which actually succeeded in making a sharp satire out of a B-movie genre-- successive Korean blockbusters have become more and more generic, even though their budgets (mainly spent on special effects) have become more and more fantastic. Do South Korean movie-makers really want to squander all the audience and investor goodwill, which their industry has built up since the 1999 break-out film "Shiri/Swiri", by making a whole series of big budget mediocre movies like mainland China did? {rant end}The only "reason" I can fathom for making this movie is to dupe the investors into financing the most detailed and fluid digital animation of a Korean/ East Asian-styled dragon I have seen to date, for the final scenes. Now if they had introduced that dragon at the beginning and given it more personality and purpose like in the 1996 "Dragonheart", the movie might have had a few more redeeming qualities other than having lots of digitally animated dragons. Remember "Dungeons & Dragons" in 2000? Hasn't anyone learnt that the trick is not how MUCH special effects you use, but how WELL you use it? I hope there are more (and better) Korean legends they can use, because they have just killed a lot of international interest in Korean dragon legends with the way they filmed this one.In short, I agree with all the negative reviews gone before and wonder how Koreans felt about having their folk anthem "Arirang" being played at the very end. As a creature feature, I would have given it at least 5 stars out of 10 if the special effects or action sequences had been worth it, but I've seen many video games with better camera work and scripting (just less dragons).$LABEL$ 0
+As a native Chinese, I can not accept this kind of idea that some people must die for a 'better world'. I said 'better world' because it is a lie that Chinese people have been indoctrinated for thousand years! I guess most western audience may don't know Qin Shihuang(means the first emperor), the king in this film is the most notorious tyrant in ancient China. The Tianxia(Chinese word was spoken by the king, means 'the land and the people') spoken from his mouth is totally lie. From then on, one after another, all the king in ancient china spoke the same thing but very few of them did as what they said.Another fact is, Qin Shihuang's empire only lasted about twenty years before it was destroyed by people.Well, I do like the beautiful scenes of this movie, but it can not make me accept the idea that people should die for a tyrant.$LABEL$ 0
+This had a great cast with big-name stars like Tyrone Power, Henry Fonda, Randolph Scott, Nancy Kelly, Henry Hull and Brian Donlevey and a bunch more lesser-but-known names with shorter roles. It also had Technicolor, one of the few movies made with it in 1939.Now the bad news.......regrettably, I can't say much positive for the story. It portrayed the James boys in a totally positive light....and Hollywood has done that ever since. Why these criminals are always shown to be the "good guys" is beyond me. This film glamorizes them and made their enemies - the railroad people - into vicious human beings. The latter was exaggerated so much it was preposterous. Well, that's the film world for you: evil is good; good is bad.Hey Hollywood: here's a news flash - The James boys were criminals! Really - look it up!$LABEL$ 0
+I remember watching this series avidly, every Saturday evening. It was the highlight of the week. I loved everything about it, the location, the costumes, the actors and the wonderful music by Clannad (I still have their Legend album). I loved the way they solved the problem of Michael Praed leaving by creating another Robin, this time the Earl of Huntingdon. I believe there were legends of several Robins in medieval times. Another thing I loved was the fact that it was filled with young actors, I'm sure Robin and his men would have young, after all people didn't live that long in those days. Other Robins always look too old (Kevin Costner with his ridiculous accent looked like Robin's granddad). The only sad thing was the ending, it's a shame they couldn't at least have done a one off special to tie up all the loose ends and give it a happier ending.$LABEL$ 1
+I don't normally write reviews, but this "film" was special. I couldn't turn it off. I don't believe I've ever seen a worse movie, but there I sat, watching. It was like a horrible car wreck with blood flowing all over the highway. It was disgusting, but I couldn't turn away. Where do I start? The movie seems to think it's a sports thriller, but it's so utterly ridiculous, it can only be a comedy, but it's not funny, not even in a dumb/silly way. It's like watching your cousins try to act out a skit on family get-togethers. It's painful to watch, but at least it's only for a minute or two. Second String went on for over an hour. Whoever was involved with making this movie should not work again. The writing, directing, acting, and everything was just terrible. The problem is I can't describe how bad it was; you just had to see it. And I'm sure this will NEVER be shown again, so unless you saw it, you're out of luck. I mean it was almost worth seeing just for the fact that it gave me some appreciation for every other "bad" film I've seen over my lifetime. And for every film I see in the future that I can't stand, I will think to myself, well, at least it wasn't bad as the Second String.$LABEL$ 0
+Few would argue that master animation director Hayao Miyazaki is one of the few to hold this ability.(No. Too many are focused on John Lassiter's "amazing" ability to steal other movies plots, turn them into pretty puppet shows and then be lauded as a genius . . . but i digress.)Miyazaki has given us film after film that deals with important mature issues (usually ecologically themed), and has an intelligent script that even the most jaded viewer who would normally despise any film that was animated could thoroughly enjoy if given the chance. Still, Miyazaki (almost) never forgets who will undoubtedly be in the audience of these movies- children.That said, I am at a loss to think of another filmmaker with this ability. Where else are you going to have a film where a three year old (my nephew Link) will sit still throughout the move, enthralled, a 7 year old (my niece Amber) loving it all her own (and able to appreciate the "star power" of Frankie Jonas and Noah Cyrus, a 12 year old (my nephew Aaron) who's review was "of course it was good! Everything Miyazaki-san does is good!," a 32 year old animation fan brought to tears by the powerful directing and gorgeous animation (er, that would be me), and a 58 year old woman (my mother) able to connect with the mother characters (and I'm betting the older charas too) and loving the "cuteness" of the child characters.And that is what I respect most about Miyazaki-san. He seems to speak to his audience in a completely different way than the average filmmaker. On the surface, "Ponyo" could be seen as a simple story about a little fish-girl who gets a taste of the human world and wants to join it and the friend she makes there, a little boy names Soske (somewhat like "The Little Mermaid"), but there is an entire different level at play here. True to form, Miyazaki populates his film with intensely strong female characters Ponyo's Mother, Soske's mother, the older ladies in a nursing home are all genuine characters with minds of their own and extremely strong willed.But the girl who takes the cake is Ponyo herself. Once she decides that she likes the human world, she simply uses her own will to achieve her dreams. Her father is trying to keep her innocent, and keep her a magical fish, but young Ponyo knows what she wants and becomes human out of simply her own determination. Once human, she teams up with her friend, Soske, whom she loves very much (although maybe not as much as ham). Soske is asked to be the man of the house (at age five) when his mother Lisa decides she has to help the people at the rest home where she works during a typhoon that has been inadvertently caused by Ponyo on her quest to become human. Frankie Jonas (yes. He's related to the Jonas brothers. Can we just get past that please?) gives, perhaps, the best performance in the film as young Soske (which is good since he has the most lines). His character is also strong willed, but also very respectful and friendly- characteristics you're not likely to find in a child character on THIS side of the Pacific.In the end, Ponyo's father, Fujimoto must cope with his daughter's decision and his estranges wife's wishes to allow her to be human. He hopes that Ponyo and Soske will "remember him fondly." And once again, Miyazaki REFUSES to allow a character to become the stereotypical "bad guy." Although Miyazaki has (for some reason) received some criticism for this, it is, honestly, what makes his movies magical and yet relatable. No one in real life is completely a "bad person." All humans are various shades of gray. And that is exactly what Miyazaki does with his characters. And then there's the animation itself. In a time when CGI would certainly have helped with the copious amounts of effects shots in this film, especially the water, Miyazaki has chosen to incorporate NO CGI whatsoever. Certainly the hand drawn animation was colored by digital means, but every film in this was hand-drawn and I, for one, was extremely grateful for that. The character animation was extremely fluid, and there even appeared to be some lip-sync going on (quite unusual for an anime film). The backgrounds seemed to be rendered with colored pencil and had an effect all its own on the audience. This is what animation used to look like- and what it SHOULD look like. In the end, I found Ponyo to be thoroughly enjoyable. Certainly not Miyazaki's best (in my opinion, that honor is still held by Kiki's Delivery Service), but still a 10-star fun movie for the ENTIRE family.$LABEL$ 1
+Attractive Marjorie(Farrah Fawcett)lives in fear after being accosted by a lone biker. She is mortally shaken with the fact her attacker knows her address. As expected, Joe(James Russo), the attacker forces his way into Marjorie's home and subjects her to humiliating terror. Bruised and bloody, Marjorie manages to get an upper hand on her attacker, knocking the living daylights out of the jerk and renders him helpless thanks to wasp spray in his eyes and throat. Hog tied and battered himself, Joe tries to explain himself to Marjorie's roommates(Diana Scarwid and Alfrie Woodard) when they get home. There is almost a hint of mercy, but it is not coming from Marjorie. Should she continue to render her own punishment? Violence, sexual abuse and rough language makes for an R rating. Fawcett really gets away from the ditsy roles that would forever stain her career. Kudos to director Robert M. Young.$LABEL$ 1
+I find it sad that just because Edward Norton did not want to be in the film or have anything to do with it, people automatically think the movie sucks without even watching it or giving it a chance. I really hope Norton did not do this. He is a fine actor and all but he scared people away from a decent movie.I found it entertaining. It wasn't mind blowing or anything with crazy special effects, but it was not a bad. It was fun to watch. But yea, definitely not a bad/horrible movie.7/10$LABEL$ 1
+I watched this movie on TV last night, hoping for a realistic account of what could happen if there were an outbreak of some highly transmittable disease. I was disappointed, and I think the movie was garbage. It did not seem real to me. Some of the acting was awful, in particular that of the doctor. She was about the worst I've seen. The whole thing played like a CNN 'worst case scenario'. Even the obligatory disaster movie human relations bits didn't seem sincere. I have seen some disaster movies, in particular those weather ones, which are actually so bad they are amusing. This one is almost as bad, but it is not even amusing, it is tedious and boring.Don't bother with this one.$LABEL$ 0
+For those out there that like to think of themselves as reasonably intelligent human beings, who love film, have good attention to detail and enjoy indie movies with funny, smartly written dialogue then this is a film for you.For those with a poor attention span, high expectations and no brains.. well.. um.. you may get bored and find things dragging at times.This is a charming, modest and well paced movie with the actors bestowing a real sense of depth and warmth to their roles. I chuckled to myself pretty much the whole way through..This film is a little gem.$LABEL$ 1
+THE GREAT CARUSO was the biggest hit in the world in 1951 and broke all box office records at Radio City Music Hall in a year when most "movergoers" were stay-at-homes watching their new 7" Motorola televisions. Almost all recent box office figures are false --- because they fail to adjust inflation. Obviously today's $10 movies will dominate. In 1951 it cost 90c to $1.60 at Radio City; 44c to 75c first run at Loew's Palace in Washington DC, or 35c to 50c in neighborhood runs. What counts is the number of people responding to the picture, not unadjusted box office "media spin." The genius of THE GREAT CARUSO was that the filmmakers took most of the actual life of Enrico Caruso (really not a great story anyway) and threw it in the trash. Instead, 90% of the movie's focus was on the music. Thus MGM gave us the best living opera singer MARIO LANZA doing the music of the best-ever historic opera singer ENRICO CARUSO. The result was a wonderful movie. Too bad LANZA would throw his life and career away on overeating. Too fat to play THE STUDENT PRINCE, Edmund Purdom took his place --- with Lanza's voice dubbed in, and with the formerly handsome and not-fat Lanza pictured in the advertising. If you want to see THE GREAT CARUSO, it's almost always on eBay for $2.00 or less. Don't be put off by the low price, as it reflects only the easy availability of copies, not the quality of the movie.$LABEL$ 1
+I attended an advance screening of this film not sure of what to expect from Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher; both have delivered less than memorable performances & films. While the underlying "general" storyline is somewhat familiar, this film was excellent. Both Costner and Kutcher delivered powerful performances playing extremely well off each other. The human frailties and strengths of their respective characters were incredibly played by both; the scene when Costner confronts Kutcher with the personal reasons why Kutcher joined the Coast Guard rescue elite was the film's most unforgettable emotional moment. The "specific" storyline was an education in itself depicting the personal sacrifice and demanding physical training the elite Coast Guard rescuers must go through in preparation of their only job & responsibility...to save lives at sea. The special effects of the rescue scenes were extremely realistic and "wowing"...I haven't seen such angry seas since "The Perfect Storm". Co-star Clancy Brown (HBO's "Carnivale" - great to see him again) played the captain of the Coast Guard's Kodiak, Alaska base in a strong, convincing role as a leader with the prerequisite and necessary ice water in his veins. The film wonderfully, and finally, gives long overdue exposure and respect to the Coast Guard; it had the audience applauding at the end.$LABEL$ 1
+1) I am not weapon expert, but even i can see difference between U.S. army riffles in WWI and WWII. In movie we can see privates, armed with "M1 Garand" (invented in year 1932!), not authentic "1903 Springfield" (aka "Silent Death"), who privates use until WWII. Difference - M1 can load 1,5 times more ammunition and 3 times more fire rate! M1 was semi - automatic, Springfield requires reloading after every shot. Little difference?! 2) German army uniforms has borrowed from 1940 Year too. Especially - helmets. German helmets until end of WWI have significant pike on top, we cannot see even one in movie. And if we make little additional search in archives - how much truthful is this "True Story"? I am surprised, how much "truthful" can be film directors in a pursuit of cheap propagation.$LABEL$ 0
+Do you ever wonder what is the worst movie ever made? Stop wondering. I'm telling you, Michael is it!It is not "heartwarming," "entertaining," or "Travolta at his best." It just sucks. If I had kids, I would let them watch Deep Throat before Michael!A sold-out John Travolta, a washed-up and balding William Hurt, and an about to die any time now Jean Stapleton highlight this turd of a film.But wait...you'll get to hear Andie McDowell sing! Yeah. Hollywood really s**t all over us with this one!$LABEL$ 0
+The film began with Wheeler sneaking into the apartment of his girlfriend. Her aunt (Edna May Oliver--a person too talented for this film) didn't like Wheeler--a sentiment I can easily relate to. The aunt decided to take this bland young lady abroad to get her away from Wheeler. They left and Wheeler invested in a revolution in a small mythical kingdom because they promised to make him their king. At about the same time, Woolsey was in the same small mythical kingdom and he was made king. So when Wheeler arrived, it was up to the boys to fight it out, but they refused because they are already friends--which greatly disappointed the people, as killing and replacing kings is a national pastime.I am a huge fan of comedy from the Golden Age of Hollywood--the silent era through the 1940s. I have seen and reviewed hundreds, if not thousands of these films and yet despite my love and appreciation for these films I have never been able to understand the appeal of Wheeler and Woolsey--the only comedy team that might be as bad as the Ritz Brothers! Despite being very successful in their short careers in Hollywood (cut short due to the early death of Robert Woolsey), I can't help but notice that practically every other successful team did the same basic ideas but much better. For example, there were many elements of this film reminiscent of the Marx Brother's film, DUCK SOUP, yet CRACKED NUTS never made me laugh and DUCK SOUP was a silly and highly enjoyable romp. At times, Woolsey talked a bit like Groucho, but his jokes never have punchlines that even remotely are funny! In fact, he just seemed to prattle pointlessly. His only funny quality was that he looked goofy--surely not enough reason to put him on film. Additionally, Wheeler had the comedic appeal of a piece of cheese--a piece of cheese that sang very poorly! A missed opportunity was the old Vaudeville routine later popularized by Abbott and Costello as "who's on first" which was done in this film but it lacked any spark of wit or timing. In fact, soon after they started their spiel, they just ended the routine--so prematurely that you are left frustrated. I knew that "who's on first" had been around for many years and used by many teams, but I really wanted to see Wheeler and Woolsey give it a fair shot and give it their own twist.Once again, I have found yet another sub-par film by this duo. While I must admit that I liked a few of their films mildly (such as SILLY BILLIES and THE RAINMAKERS--which I actually gave 6's to on IMDb), this one was a major endurance test to complete--something that I find happens all too often when I view the films of Wheeler and Woolsey. Where was all the humor?!$LABEL$ 0
+I was really hoping that this would be a funny show, given all the hype and the clever preview clips. And talk about hype, I even heard an interview with the show's creator on the BBC World Today - a show that is broadcast all over the world.Unfortunately, this show doesn't even come close to delivering. All of the jokes are obvious - the kind that sound kind of funny the first time you hear them but after that seem lame - and they are not given any new treatment or twist. All of the characters are one-dimensional. The acting is - well - mediocre (I'm being nice). It's the classic CBC recipe - one that always fails.If you're Muslim I think you would have to be stupid to believe any of the white characters, and if you're white you'd probably be offended a little by the fact that almost all of the white characters are portrayed as either bigoted, ignorant, or both. Not that making fun of white people is a problem - most of the better comedies are rooted in that. It's only a problem when it isn't funny - as in this show.Canada is bursting with funny people - so many that we export them to Hollywood on a regular basis. So how come the producers of this show couldn't find any?$LABEL$ 0
+First of all "Mexican werewolf in Texas" is not a werewolf movie. This title is bullcrap. The story is actually about a Chupacabra that kills all the local villagers in the little town of Furlough in Texas. I suppose the distributors renamed the original title so that it would make some extra bucks or something. And I guess it actually works because that's the reason why I bought this piece of crap, it sounded so stupid. Anyway the movie isn't any good. Actually it's bloody awful. But I didn't expect anything else when I bought it. It's a low budget horror movie with a Chupacabra monster. If you enjoy low budget horror with bad dialog, actors and some gore then you should check into this movie. But I must warn you, this movie is really baaaaaaad.This movie has some of the worst acting I have ever seen. The actors try to hard and t it gets completely ridiculous. They almost never say a line in a normal way. They always have this completely wrong tone about just everything they say. It's so stupid it almost looks like a freakin parody. It's like they shot each scene only one single time and were happy about it. The worst of them all is the blond girl which is supposed to play a bimbo. She's the worst of them all. I have never seen an actor as bad as her (And I've seen Pteradactyl). Even when her boyfriend dies she can't stop being a bimbo about it. I hate her.Some of the shots in this movie were actually quite good. The ones that where shot in the daytime are all pretty decent for a low budget project. But most of the movie is shot in the night when the Chupacabra strikes and the lighting is way too dark. The gore scenes are few and short, but really grizzly and violent. The effects are pretty hilarious really, but that's the way I like it. The Chupacabra looks pretty messed up, and it's easy to see that it's a guy in suit.Overall this movie should only be watched by extreme fans of low budget flicks and it's very important to not watch this alone because you will probably be bored to death. I recommend watching this flick with your friends and some beer.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is so God-awful that it was literally a chore to watch. I wanted to eject it from my vcr and throw it across the room, but kept thinking (foolishly) that it would eventually get funny and then everything would be all right. "You lose, we win, yay!" This movie should be required viewing for anyone who even once entertained the thought that Jackie Mason was funny. After that, beat them ove the head with this movie until the tape cracks. And if you're even considering renting this turd (or worse yet, have!) I have one thing to ask of you: didn't you even look at the cover? I mean, with crap like this you can tell with just a glance how bad it is! "Oy vey!" This movie sucked.$LABEL$ 0
+The symbolic use of objects, form editing, the position of characters in the scene... these were all used with such joyous abandon by Hitchcock that you can really see what a fertile genius he had. The way the wife moves from one corner of the ring to the other as the fight progresses, the editing when the wedding ring is placed on her finger... while these may seem a bit obvious by todays standards, in the silent era they spoke volumes about the story without a word being spoken. Even the title has a least four meanings that I can see; the boxing ring, the wedding ring, the bracelet the lover buys, and the love triangle at the heart of the story.$LABEL$ 1
+I found this movie to be very good in all areas. The acting was brilliant from all characters, especially Ms.Stone and Morissey. Tramell's Character just gets smarter and more psychologically twisted by the minute. The plot is interesting even though, this movie is more for the mind playing between the main characters and how Catherine continues her writing with new ways and twists for her novels. The setting was also fabulous and the whole atmosphere of the movie was that mysterious,thriller like masterpiece. Go see this film now , it deserves better than what it got from the audience ,which was misled by some faulty terrible reviews about the movie(Before it even started).....You won't regret it,if you go see it...$LABEL$ 1
+Rather like Paul Newman and Steve McQueen with their racing car movies this has all the appearance of a "jollies" project for Robert Redford, as he gets to ski up hill and down dale in the Alpine sunshine.The story is as light as powdered snow with Redford's small-town boy David Chappellet (what kind of lead name is that?) who with his eyes on the prize of Olympic glory, gets up the nose of, in no particular order, his coach, father and team-mates. Women are a mere side-show in his insular world as evidenced by a fairly distasteful pick-up scene with an old girlfriend in his hometown and then his selfishly petulant pursuit of, heavens above, a free-thinking, independent woman, played by Camilla Sparv. The ski-ing sequences are fine with some good stunt-work involving numerous bumps and scrapes on the piste but their effectiveness is dimmed by our subsequent familiarity with top TV coverage of skiing events down to the present day. Plus I'm not convinced that the Winter Olympics has the same mass identification with the general public as the summer games so that when Redford eventually wins his gold medal in the final reel, I couldn't really be that excited for him one way or another.Of the actors, Redford, best profile forward, doesn't need to do much and indeed doesn't, while Gene Hackman does better with equally meagre material. Ms Sparv does well as the chief female interest well who treats Redford the way he's doubtless treated every other woman in his chauvinistic way.In truth though, there's a lack of dramatic tension throughout for which the action sequences don't fully compensate and you don't care a fig for any of the leading characters. One of those films where the actors probably enjoyed making it more than the viewers did watching it.$LABEL$ 0
+I would recommend this film to anyone who is searching for a relaxing, fun-filled, thought-provoking movie. The absence of sex, vulgarities and violence made for a most pleasant evening. I especially enjoyed the Buffalo scene, but that's probably because I live a short distance from there. Even so, this film could have been produced in any city; it's the theme that's so important here. I'm just grateful that Manna From Heaven dropped down on us. Try it...you'll like it!$LABEL$ 1
+This is an art film that was either made in 1969 or 1972 (the National Film Preservation Foundation says 1969 and IMDb says 1972). Regardless of the exact date, the film definitely appears to be very indicative of this general time period--with some camera-work and pop art stylings that are pure late 60s-early 70s.The film consists of three simple images that are distorted using different weird camera tricks. These distorted images are accompanied by music and there is absolutely no dialog or plot of any sort. This was obviously intended as almost like a form of performance art, and like most performance art, it's interesting at first but quickly becomes tiresome. The film, to put it even more bluntly, is a total bore and would appeal to no one but perhaps those who made the film, their family and friends and perhaps a few people just too hip and "with it" to be understood by us mortals.$LABEL$ 0
+I read the book and saw the movie. Both excellent. The movie is diamond among coals during this era. Liebman and Selby dominate the screen and communicate the intensity of their characters without flaw. This film should have made them stars. Shame on the studio for not putting everything they had behind this film. It could have easily been a franchise. Release on DVD is a must and a worthy remake would revive this film. Look for it in your TV guide and if you see it listed, no matter how late, watch it. You won't be disappointed. Do yourself another favor - read the book (same title). It'll blow you away. Times have changed dramatically since those days, or at least we like to think they have.$LABEL$ 1
+A drifter looking for a job is mistaken for a hit man in a small Wyoming town, leading to all kinds of complications. Cage is perfectly cast as the unlucky schmuck hoping to make a quick buck and get out of town but finding he can't escape the title town. Hopper does what he does best, playing a psycho known as "Lyle from Dallas," the real hit man. Walsh as a crooked sheriff and Boyle as a femme fatale round out the fine cast. The script by brothers John and Rick Dahl contains delicious twists and turns, and John's direction creates a terrific "neo noir" atmosphere. Witty and very entertaining, it sucks the viewer in from the start and never lets up.$LABEL$ 1
+I really liked this movie. I have seen several Gene Kelly flicks and this is one of his best. I would actually put it above his more famous American in Paris. Sometimes it seems the story gets lost in Gene Kelly movies to the wonderful dance and song numbers, but not in this movie. It is definitely worth renting.$LABEL$ 1
+Although promoted as one of the most sincere Turkish films with an amateur cast, Ice-cream, I Scream is more like a caricature of sincerity.The plot opens with the dream of Ali, a traveling ice-cream salesman in a Western Anatolia town, in which he sees himself becoming successful using the same marketing methods of big ice-cream companies. He dreams of playing in his product's TV commercial with beautiful models in bikinis, dancing around him. As his dream turns into a nightmare, he wakes up with a big erection next to his gargantuan wife, who rejects to make sex with him for 6 years with no apparent reason. Is it because he is not successful in his job? Apparently, because he says he was selling better in the old days when there was no pressure from global ice-cream companies. But this is what he says; we actually don't see him suffer that much: he still sells good, traveling the neighboring villages while his apprentice stays at the shop, selling ice-cream to the people in the town. Ali blames big companies for using sweetening and coloring agents while he is using real "sahlep" (powdered roots of mountain orchids). Ali buys a motorbike with a bank loan to be a traveling vendor, and gives ads to a local TV channel which prefers to broadcast even the news bulletin in local dialect. His wife is not fond of his ways of doing business, they always quarrel, and Ali threatens her that he may do very bad things in a moment of frenzy.In a very successful day, his lousy bike is stolen by the misbehaving little boys of the town. In search of his stolen bike, Ali goes to the police, blames the big companies for the theft, but, of course, nobody takes him seriously. Annoyed by the nagging of his wife, Ali goes to a tavern and becomes drunk. One of his friends at his table, a wannabe socialist of the town, gives a didactic speech and criticizes globalism, and with no real connection, jumps to the subject of global freezing. Ali returns home and decides to kill himself with poison. His wife wakes up and prevents him. An old neighbor takes him to a night walk and advises him about life. According to him, Ali can even sell hot sahlep drink if the world faces with global freezing. When he returns home, suddenly we see that his wife understood his value, treating him like a hero and praising his manhood. Meanwhile, the thief boys got sick eating too much ice-cream. They confess to the doctor that they stole Ali's bike. Ali forgives them and there comes the happy end.Although the plot may look promising in a way, it's the story-telling which makes this film insincere and cheesy. First, the director doesn't show much of an effort to tell the story visually; everything is based on dialogs. And the dialogs never stop to show us that cinema is actually a visual art. Even Ali's troubles are not convincing because we don't see it, we just understand it from his words. The director markets his film as a righteous fight of Ali against big ice-cream companies, but there is nothing in the film about big companies. We don't see their pressure enough. The film actually ridicules Ali for believing that big companies are behind the theft. And when his motorbike is found, it solves every problem: Ali becomes a happy and powerful husband. Not a real criticism of globalism.Second, the film is cheesy because of the crude humor. Maybe the people of that part of Turkey is cursing so much and making so many vulgar jokes in their daily life, but vulgar language and crude humor are not enough to make a film funny. I may have accepted it if they were both vulgar and "clever" but they are not clever jokes at all, they are just cheesy. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe American people may like oriental version of American Pie style humor. But American Pie never had any claim to be a nominee for the Oscars, or to have a political message! If you think that you can laugh by just seeing a man's big erection in his shorts (and we had to endure this joke twice!) or an old villager woman saying "f**k you," then you may find this film funny.$LABEL$ 0
+Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are the most famous comedy duo in history, and deservedly so, so I am happy to see any of their films. Ollie is recovering from a broken leg in hospital, and with nothing else to do, Stan decides to visit him, and take him some boiled eggs and nuts, instead of candy. Chaos begins with Stan curiously pulling Ollie's leg cast string, and manages to push The Doctor (Billy Gilbert) out the window, clinging on to it, getting Ollie strung up to the ceiling. When the situation calms down, Stan gets Ollie's clothes, as the Doctor wants them both to leave, and he also manages to sit on a syringe, accidentally left by the nurse, filled with a sleeping drug, which comes into effect while he is driving (which you can tell is done with a car in front of a large screen. Filled with some likable slapstick and not too bad (although repetitive and a little predictable) classic comedy, it isn't great, but it's a black and white film worth looking at. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were number 7 on The Comedians' Comedian. Okay!$LABEL$ 0
+OK I have to admit that I quite enjoyed House of the Dead despite its well documented failings. This however was the worst film I have seen since Demons at the Door. Compared to DATD the effects are vastly superior. However the plot is weak, the acting reminiscent of everyone's favourite, the porn film, and the decisions and actions of the "characters" consistently verge on the moronic. I feel like trying out Uwe Boll's latest cinematic outings just to get some sense of perspective over HOTD2. I am not suggesting that he is really the cure, more a case of a different disease, but when your senses have been insulted in such an abhorrent manner the only way is up. OK there it is. I have managed the ten line minimum and shall waste no more of our time on the waste of celluloid that is House of the dead 2.$LABEL$ 0
+I was -Unlike most of the reviewers- not born in the 80's. I was born on may 14th 1994. Despite this, my life was very much in the style of the 80's. When other kids had playstations, I was playing Zelda on my NES etc. Now, this movie holds a special place in my heart already despite me being only 15 years old at the time of writing this review. I, because of my 80's style early Childhood, watched many TV shows and saw Many movies that other kids didn't see, and this movie was one of those, and one of the greatest too.It starts off in the Los Angeles home of Alvin Seville, Simon Seville, Theodore Seville and David Seville. David, the Chipmunk's adoptive father, is in a rush to get to the airport as he is going on a business trip around Europe. His taxi is almost there and The Chipmunks help him pack. While they are talking, Alvin expresses his will to come with Dave and to see the world (Even though, technically Dave is only going to Europe, so to Alvin, apparently only America and Europe qualify as ''The World''). David is leaving the Chipmunks in the care of Miss Miller, much to the displeasure of the boys. Soon Dave is off to the airport and the Chipmunks are left at home with Miss Miller. Later, at a local Café the Chipmunks are playing a game of ''Around the World in 30 days'' against the Chipettes(Brittany, Jeanette and Eleanore). After losing the game to Brittany after having his Hot air Balloon eaten out of the sky by a crocodile, Alvin get's in an argument with Brittany about who would really win a race around the world. Two diamond smugglers sitting at a nearby table, Klaus and Claudia Furschtien overhear their argument and, needing a safe way of transporting their diamonds over the world, decide to fool the children into delivering them for them. They set up a race around the world, where each team will have to deposit a doll in their own likeness (Secretely filled with diamonds) at drop offs around the world and receive a doll in the opposing team's likeness (secretely filled with the payment for the diamonds) to ''varify that they were there''. The winning team would then receive a 100.000 dollar reward. They do this because they believe that Jamal (An Interpol agent who has been hot on their heels for some times now) would never suspect them because they are just kids (However, this seems to be redundant, because on their travels, the kids do not have to go through any security checks and are never even questioned about the dolls, I suspect that neither would Klaus or Claudia if they had taken the diamonds there personally.) And so begins a great adventure. This film is a classic and I see no reason why anyone would not like it. It features great animation and top-notch voice acting, not to mention the Kick-ass music (Pardon my french :P). My favorite song is without a shred of doubt ''The Girls and Boys of Rock and Roll'' An amazing rock song that cannot be topped. It's also my favorite moment in the film. Other notable songs include ''Getting Lucky''(Kind of Suggestive for a kid's film eh?) and ''My Mother'' as well as ''Wooly Bully'' and ''Off to see the world'' Not to mention the main theme of the movie heard during the opening credits performed by the Royal London Philharmonic Orchestra. The scene with ''My mother'' still brings a tear to my eye. In relation to the song ''Getting Lucky'' I first didn't think anything of it, but when I grew older and learned about life, it became clear that that song was a little bit suggestive. That song, along with the fact that the animators insist on the audience knowing the color of the Chipettes panties. This is especially apparent in the scene in Egypt when the Chipettes are being chased by the Arabian Prince's men, when Eleanor leans over the side of the hot air balloon basket and her skirt defies gravity completely. While this does nothing to draw from the overall quality of the film, it's one of those unexplained things like why nobody in the world seems to mind that there are 4-feet tall Chipmunks walking around and speaking in incredibly high-pitched voices and treat them just like they would any human child. Anyway, A bit after that scene, the Chipettes discover the diamonds in the dolls and decide to go find the Chipmunks and get home. The Direction of Janice Karman perfects this movie as she and her husband, Ross Bagdasarian Jr. know the characters better than anyone. They even do the voices of the Chipmunks and the Chipettes. Ross doing the voices for Alvin and Simon (as well as Dave) and Janice doing the voices for All the Chipettes and Theodore. Speaking of male characters that are voiced by female voice actresses, Nancy Cartwright (The voice of Bart Simpson) makes an appearance in this movie. She plays the part of the Arabian Prince, a very small, but important role. The ending is of course, a happy one. The Crooks have been caught, the loose ends tied and The film ends when the Children, Dave and Miss Miller are driving into the sunset, Alvin complaining about not having gotten his 100.000 dollar reward for winning the race, which annoys Dave until he finally yells ''ALVIN!'' and the screen fades to blackClassic ending, by the way. I hope you found my review of this movie useful, and if you haven't seen this flick, give it a watch, It's worth the money. This Nostalgic classic from the 80's gets a solid 10 out of 10. ''Headin' for the top, Don't you know! we never stop believing now''$LABEL$ 1
+Just when I thought I would finish a whole year without giving a single movie a "Bomb" rating, a friend brought this notorious turd to my house last night. I feared the worst knowing its reputation, and it was as God-awful as I'd anticipated. This is a Mexican-made mess, dubbed into English, and produced by K. Gordon Murray. It's got terrible sets and effects, and features a rather frightening Santa who doesn't operate at the North Pole, but instead from a cloud in outer space, and who doesn't have little elves helping him make his toys but rather all different groups of children from practically every country there is. The opening sequence, where St. Nick chuckles heartily as he observes monitors showing all these kiddies working hard while singing terrible holiday songs in a variety of languages, seems to go on forever, and with no story. Obviously, THIS Santa Claus doesn't observe the child labor laws!Eventually we get some nasty and slinky red-suited apprentice of the devil himself traveling from hell to Earth, just to make little kids naughty and turn Santa's Christmas Eve rounds into a nightmare. Watching this movie is a trippy and twisted experience, and it's bound to frighten little children and turn them off Santa Claus and the holidays forever. Oddly, the name of Jesus Christ is mentioned often in this Christmas film, which somehow makes it all the creepier in the context of all the bizarre things that are going on. This easily makes my personal list of the "Worst Movie I've Ever Seen", but I'm sure that's nothing unique.$LABEL$ 0
+As is often the case when you attempt to take a 400 plus page book and cram it into a two hour film, a lot is lost. Here director John Madden (Shakespeare in Love) takes on an extremely ambitious project and almost pulls it off. What we get is a charming and emotionally compelling film that seems somehow incomplete.There is much about this film that is wonderful and fantastic. The cinematography by John Toll (Cinematographer for Braveheart and Legends of the Fall, winning Oscars for both) is splendid. Working with Madden, the choices for locations on the Greek island of Kefallonia are superb and the visual images that come from photographing these majestic locations in varying light are lush and beautiful. Madden also uses numerous Greek actors as the townspeople, giving the town an authentic feel. The soundtrack is also terrific and the mandolin passages and vocals by the Italian soldiers are marvelous.Madden does an excellent job of bringing us the Italian occupation and the romance, which take up the greater part of the film. There are numerous sweet and funny moments throughout this segment. However, by the time the serious battle drama is ready to unfold, there isn't much film left in the reel and this component is extremely rushed and abbreviated. While the battle scenes are well done, subsequent to the battle it is obvious that increasingly greater compromises are being made to keep the film from running too long. By the time we reach the post war scenes, the treatment is merely skeletal. Another negative is that the DVD is particularly sparse on features.Nicholas Cage is charming in the romantic lead as the sentimental Captain who seems to have joined the army to sing rather than fight. When fight he must, Cage switches gears seamlessly into a man of fierce principle and resolve and somehow remains believable in both personas.Penelope Cruz, whom the camera loves, gives an uninspired performance as Pelagia. In part this is because Cage so dominates the screen, but Cruz just seems too placid in a part that should be emotionally torrential and dynamic. She allows the character to be objectified as Corelli's love interest rather than establishing her as a powerful character in her own right.John Hurt gives a fantastic performance as the wise old doctor, who knows as much about human nature as medicine. However, Christian Bale seems a bit overwrought and stiff as Pelagia's fiancé.I rated this film an 8/10. Despite some drawbacks, this is a touching film that is well worth seeing. The photography alone is worth the price of admission.$LABEL$ 1
+My father grew grew up watching George Reeves as Superman and when I was a little kid he had episodes on VHS and let me view them including this movie (passing them down in the family if you will), and I loved it.Clark Kent and Lois Lane get sent to a small town with and oil mine and from the mine emerge mole men radioactive and targeted by the town assumed to be deadly and it's up to Superman to stop this mayhem.It's just so wonderful and fun to view. The old style special effects and sound - the crew pulled off such a beauty with such little technology. George Reeves was my hero when I was a little kid, and I'm 16 now, it just goes to show how timeless and classic these adventures are.$LABEL$ 1
+This unpretentious Horror film is probably destined to become a cult classic. Much much better than 90% of the Scream rip-offs out there! I even hope they come up with a sequel!$LABEL$ 1
+I read the book before watching the movie and it left me emotionally drained but I felt that it truly transported me to Afghanistan, a culture I know very little about. I had great hopes for this movie and it did not disappoint. I watched this with someone who didn't read the book and he also enjoyed it. They had to shorten some things in the movie but it was a well acted and well shot film. It leaves you thinking about the movie long after it is over. You feel for the characters and their plights. I highly recommend this movie to those who like emotionally draining drama and want to experience Afghani culture. There are some disturbing scenes not suitable for children to watch. It is a heavy drama depicting the horrors of life under a restrictive regime.$LABEL$ 1
+Years ago, Sara, a young girl witnessed her parents being murdered, now as an adult she suffers from various mental ailments (did I mention she has an imaginary friend?) This film lulls the viewer, not into a sense of tension, mind you, but rather a sense of sleepiness. Deathly boring, I found it hard to sit through as I could feel my eyelids growing heavier and heavier with each endless minute of mindless prattle and supposed 'mystery'. Is Sara going crazy? or is it the paranormal? A better question would be, Who cares? And the answer to that, no one. No one at all. Skip this film, save yourself some time better suited to do other more worthwhile tasks.My Grade: D-$LABEL$ 0
+In short if you want to watch Burt Reynolds best films than this one must be included. If you don't like Burt you may still like this. If you love Burt this may become one of your favorite movies of all time! Being from Atlanta it does hit home but it's also nice to see a cop/action/drama that takes place somewhere other than NY City, Chicago, Miami, or LA. The film is funny at points with & good plot & good performances from a great supporting cast (every character is real & the bad guys are not so one sided they are really well thought out)A nice offbeat romance in the 2nd half & it has some good old fashion shootouts & fistfights (no CGI thank God REAL ACTION!)If Clint Eastwood did his best impression of a Burt Reynolds movie with "Every Which Way But Loose" & "Any Which Way You Can" then Burt responded with his best Clint type flick with this, & it comes off great!$LABEL$ 1
+I have watched Love Jones over thirty times. It is one of the rare films that depict a love story about people who happen to be African-Americans. The dialogue was realistically written, and delivered with honesty. It was so nice to see a film where the story line centered on young professional African-Americans. This is virtually an untapped market. Love Jones was visually captivating as well. The chemistry between Lorenz Tate and Nia Long will bring memories of past and present love. The feeling of the film is jazz and blues, and brings to mine the sensuality of a warm creamy hot chocolate with a splash of Kahlua and Butterscotch. If you hadn't guessed, I loved it!$LABEL$ 1
+The basic genre is a thriller intercut with an uncomfortable menage-a-trois. Fellowes has tried to make a lot more out of this, using the lies of the title in order to bring about all manner of small twists, invariably designed to surprise the characters more than the audience.It's really rather messy though. Fellowes doesn't seem interested presenting the thriller elements in a fashion that will keep us seat-edged. Rather his focus is on the moral predicaments themselves.The dialogue is inconsistent, stagey here, vernacular there and with the constant surprise of realism undone by the occasional cliché-landmine. Though there is no fussing over the locations so that the actors can get on with existing in their space the dreadful score can't create a further dimension and often works against the emotional momentum of given set pieces. There's also a very prosaic, dare I say it British feel to the filming. I didn't want to see a document of two successful middle class people caught in an extraordinary situation, I wanted to see some sort of artful recounting of the story.Finally it is, in fact, the story which lets the rest down. Just as the elements of suspense are rather flat so the story is an asymmetric sum of subplots of different shapes and sizes, woven as a vehicle for character examination. Wilkinson and Watson support this meta-essay with good performances and John Warnaby's ebullient colleague Simon to Wilkinson is a welcome foil for much of the brow-furrowing.I'm disappointed; not that it's bad, but that it could have been much better. 3/10$LABEL$ 0
+This is absolutely the best movie I have ever watched. At the age of 12 I was up late and ran across the movie. It was on the USA channel, Gilbert Godfrey's Up All Night. I will never forget. At the time my friends and I were really struggling with different issues, some sexual. You know 12 is a very rough and weird age. It seems you are stuck in between being a little girl, and being a young lady. This movie really helped to answer a lot of questions for me. I now have a daughter that is 12. Have been searching for a couple years for this movie. If it ever does come out on DVD I would be the first to buy. Would recommend for any parent to watch this with their child when they reach that very rough and difficult age.$LABEL$ 1
+Holes is an awesome movie. I love it a lot and it's one of my favorite films. It's one of the few flicks produced by Disney that isn't cheesy. Holes is generally a very cool motion picture. I wish Disney would make more pictures like it. Holes is indeed a rare breed of Disney flicker shows that is cool. Don't get the wrong idea, I don't mean to bad mouth Disney but most of it's stuff is aimed towards kids and THAT'S OKAY. Children deserve to have their entertainment too. But Disney has been guilty of trying to appeal to the teen audience and they usually fail. But not with Holes. It's the type of movie anyone of any age can watch and enjoy and not once think it's corny. Really, it's the kind of movie that even a lot of young hoods might enjoy since there are characters in it that they can relate to.Holes does a good job of being a mix of good family entertainment but not being too cheesy and living a little on the edge. I hope Disney takes more risks and makes more edgy flicks like this.$LABEL$ 1
+I cannot hate on the show. When the old (and better) tech TV had to hit the bricks, the channel was reformatted and new shows stepped in. "Attack of the Show" is the replacement for the Screen Savers, with 3 co-hosts in the beginning. They were Kevin Rose, Kevin Pereira and Sarah Lane. Brendan Moran came to be something of a co-host as well, but he mostly did prerecorded pieces for the show. Kevin Rose decided to leave the show, and eventually there was a contest to see who would be the third host, but that didn't pan out for some reason.Eventually (I just learned this from this very IMDb messageboard) Sarah Lane and Brendan Moran moved on because (hey, this is what I read) the two got married. That was a big secret to me! Now there is a new female co-host, the not-as-hot (my opinion) Olivia Munn. She's hiding something in those tops she wears, while Sarah Lane had a perfect body and she wasn't afraid to show it.AHEM! Sorry."Attack of the Show" deals with everything young people want to know about. It's music, movies, comic books, the internet and television. This is what's great about the show. If you don't want to bother with scouring the net or waste time watching MTV, you can get all you want on AOTS. Some segments and bits they do are funny. They have regular guests and contributors who are in the industry, as well as guests who range from insignificant internet stars to actual big names.Even though the hosts aren't as geek as I'd like them to be, I still have found "Attack of the Show" to be entertaining, even with its latest lineup.$LABEL$ 1
+Worst DCOM I have seen. Ever. Well, maybe not as bad as Smart House. This was just bad. The acting and story was fine, but the effects SUCKED!They were so fake! The only good fight scene was between the brother and Shen. That was probably the only scene in which I was excited.Overall, I found this movie very boring and the film kind of ended suddenly. I will give it a four for Brenda Song who is a very funny actress and that one fight scene.4/10$LABEL$ 0
+its awful i cant believe that one of the greatest nonsenses in the world can be a blockbuster and the favorite movie of millions of people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a movie which has no story,again shahrukh khan has been appeared on the screen with nothing new the same as usual he is trying to make you cry by start scrambling his head for thousands of times,i think this is to much,pretty zinta spouse to act the character of a Pakistani girl i didn't know that there is enough facilities in Pakistan for the Pakistani girls to do so many plastic surgeries on their face and also there are enough make up facilities??!! and also i didn't know that an Indian can cross the March's between both countries,go to Pakistan and start dancing and singing may be Pakistani soldier's were sleeping!!!!!!!!!$LABEL$ 0
+Some people may call "Cooley High" the same sort of thing as "American Graffiti", but I wouldn't. For starters, in "AG", everyone was white, whereas in "CH" they're all black. Moreover, this one has a Motown soundtrack. Specifically, the movie focuses on several working-class African-American students in 1964 Chicago and their antics. The movie deals mainly with home life and relationships. In their apartments, we see that there's never any dad around. But these young men always know how to live life to the fullest.One thing that really distinguishes this movie from most other portrayals of black people is that the teenagers in this movie are portrayed as very responsible, worrying about missing school. Two really funny scenes are the gorilla scene, and the one white guy in the movie. But overall, the main star is the soundtrack. It is truly one of the best soundtracks in movie history (we even have it on vinyl here at home). A classic in the real sense of the word.$LABEL$ 1
+So wonderful, so quirky, so romantic, so Italian. The film is so feather -light you float off into its refracted reality and you never want to return to the humdrum again. A kitchen sink world of bakeries, and hairdressers, and plumbing, but one that shimmers with a soft luminescence. Should the credit go to the screenplay or the direction? Take your pick -- they're both faultless. Let me get back to that New York City that lies just beyond the looking glass.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is, quite simply, brilliant. The cinematography is good, the acting superb and the story absolutely breathtaking. This is the story of Donald Woods, a white South African who thought himself a liberal until he found out the reality of apartheid. Kevin Kline is completely convincing - so much so that when Donald Woods himself appeared on TV some years later, I recognised him from Kline's portrayal. Denzel Washington also turns in a masterful performance, as ever.I urge you to watch this. It is long, but it is worth your patience because it tells such an incredible story. Remember, folks, this really happened.$LABEL$ 1
+I have recently seen this production on DVD. It is the first time I have seen it since it was originally broadcast in 1983 and it was just as good as I remembered. At first as was worried it would seem old fashioned and I suppose it is a little dated and very wordy as the BBC serials were back then. (I miss those wonderful costume dramas that seemed to be always on Sunday afternoons back then) But that aside it is as near perfect as it could have been. I am a bit of a "Jane Eyre" purist as it is my favourite book and have never seen another production that is a faithful to the book as this one. I have recently re-read the book as well and some of the dialogue is just spot on. Reading the scene near the end where Rochester questions Jane about what St John was like I noticed their words were exactly reproduced on screen by Dalton and Clarke and done perfectly. All the other productions that have been done all seem lacking in some way, some even leave out the "Rivers" family and their connection to Jane altogether. I also think this is the only production to include the "Gypsy" scene done correctly.The casting is perfect, Zelah Clarke is like Jane is described in the book "small plain and dark" and I disagree that she looked too old. Timothy Dalton may be a little too handsome but he is absolutely perfect as Rochester, portraying every aspect of his character just right and acting his socks off! I agree with other comment that he even appears quite scary at time, like in the scene when he turns around slowly at the church when the wedding is interrupted, his expression is fantastically frightening. But then in another favourite scene his joy is wonderful to see when Jane runs down the stairs and into his arms the morning after they declare their love for one another. A love that is wonderfully portrayed and totally believable. Oh to be loved by a man like that! There were a couple of scenes that were strangely missing however, like when Jane climbs in to bed with the dying Helen and also when Rochester takes Jane shopping for her wedding things (I thought that one was in it but maybe my memory is playing tricks).Finally if you never see another production of Jane Eyre - you simply most see this one it is simply perfection!$LABEL$ 1
+In a time of bad, if not plain awful, comedies, King of Queens is more than just a breath of fresh air, it's a complete oxygen tank! It is in my opinion one of the 5 best comedy shows of all times. Nothing has been this good since Married with Children. Kevin James and Jerry Stiller are comic geniuses! And believe me, it takes a lot to make me label someone as comic genius. These guys truly understand what is funny. I could watch ten episodes of Seinfeld and wouldn't get half the laughs from seeing KOQ just once. Other funny people in this show are Carrie, Janet Heffernan, Spence and Doug Pruzan (Carrie's boss). I'm so happy they managed to get so many seasons from this gem. The show has been a hilarious winner in a time of mostly comic losers. Check it out if you haven't!!$LABEL$ 1
+PREY Aspect ratio: 1.37:1Sound format: MonoA lesbian couple (Sally Faulkner and Glory Annan) living in a remote country house are driven apart by the arrival of a young man (Barry Stokes) who turns out to be a flesh-eating alien, the vanguard of a massive invasion...Despite its shoestring budget and leaden pacing, Norman J. Warren's follow-up to SATAN'S SLAVE (1976) amounts to a great deal more than the sum of its meager parts, thanks to a surprisingly complex script by Max Cuff (apparently, his only writing credit): Faulkner and Annan indulge an obsessive relationship whilst living in isolated splendor within the English countryside (rendered alternately beautiful and ominous by Derek V. Browne's eye-catching cinematography), though Annan's discovery of bloodstained clothing in an upstairs room marks one (or both) of these doe-eyed lovelies as psychologically disturbed, which may explain the absence of their respective families, some of whom appear to have lived in the house at one time or another and 'left' under mysterious circumstances. Stokes' unexpected arrival throws the relationship into disarray, partly because Faulkner has a pathological hatred of men and partly because Annan is attracted to him, creating tensions which result in a climactic whirlwind of violence. There's an extraordinary, multi-layered sequence in which Faulkner attempts to 'emasculate' their clueless visitor by dressing him in women's clothing, though Stokes' alien mentality allows him to rise above the intended mockery.In the early scenes, at least, the relationship between Faulkner and Annan is depicted with uncommon grace and dignity, but this heartfelt sapphic liaison quickly devolves into crowd-pleasing episodes of sex and pulchritude, culminating in an explosion of horror when Annan allows herself to be ravished by Stokes following a violent argument with Faulkner. The closing sequences are (quite literally) gut-wrenching, especially Annan's final scene, which appears to have been clipped for censorship reasons in 1977 and never fully restored (what remains is still pretty vivid, so brace yourselves!). Excellent performances by the three leads, bolstered by Warren's unobtrusive direction, which takes full advantage of the stunning woodland locations, thereby compensating for the film's budgetary shortcomings. Originally released in the US as ALIEN PREY.$LABEL$ 0
+The tourist season has just ended on a remote island off the coast of Scotland, winter is beginning to set in and the inhabitants, both humans and sheep alike are settling down to much quieter times ahead. Michael Gaffikin (James Warwick) a former paratrooper in the British Army, is the local dentist, he's not an islander by birth and as such his relationship with local artist and cartographer Fiona Patterson (Celia Imrie) is always being viewed with a little suspicion, not maliciously, but just out of the protective instincts the tight knit community have for their kin. The islands serenity is broken when Gaffikin out for a solitary round of golf finds the headless remains of a brutally slain woman. He immediately reports his gruesome find to Insp Inskip(Maurice Roëves) at the islands police station, Inskip arranges for delivery of the remains to local GP, Dr Goudry, for closer inspection. A quick search for the killer proves fruitless, as does a search for a missing local woman. Over dinner that night with Michael Gaffikin, Fiona realises that the dead woman might be Sheila Anderson, a woman from the mainland, who lives on the island through the winter months. A quick search at her home Dove Cottage reveals the missing remains of her body, her home proving to be the murder scene, but why did the killer drag her torso over a mile into the woods? Suspicion immediately falls on the one stranger left on the island, one Colonel Howard (Jonathan Newth)who also happened be the last person to see her alive as they came across on the last ferry together.Goudry asks Gaffikin for some dental expertise on the victims body, it reveals that she had been torn apart my somebody or something with great strength, one set of teeth marks on the body seem to point at a human killer, another points to that of an unknown animal of some kind. A sheep is found mutilated and then a Canadian ornithologist is found slain. With a heavy fog rolling in, the island is cut off from the mainland and any possibility of help, the radio also doesn't work, seemingly being blocked and the phone lines have been cut. Reports of UFO's and the sighting of a camouflaged soldier are compounded by the finding of an odd looking craft hidden behind rocks on the beach. Inskip is confused and refuses to listen to anything but the facts and laughs off Gaffikin's idea that aliens might be involved, but a rise in radioactive levels on the island, has him doubting himself.The Nightmare Man is based on the novel, Child of the Vodyanoi by David Wiltshire, it is here adapted by Dr Who and Blake's 7 scriptwriter Robert Holmes and directed by Douglas Camfield who also had directing experience on both Sci/Fi classics and the film benefits from having such experienced genre experts on board. The Nightmare Man though is on the whole, a succinctly better crafted piece, that builds its plot alongside solid character development, even down to the minor characters, time is given to giving them all a firm background. The island setting is perhaps a genre cliché that has been used over and over, but its one that I enjoy very much, the remoteness, the sense of being under siege with no way out always add to the atmosphere and here it is given an extra oomph by having an impenetrable fog close in to hamper all efforts. In many genre efforts of this kind it is very easy for proceedings to get silly and for the plot to resort to melodrama, but credit to Camfield, he holds it all together with the emphasis being on believability at all times. There is an authenticity about proceedings, the characters even speaking Gaelic at times to further this point. If there is one negative about the killer its that, we are given his/her/its POV for the killings, an acceptable cliché on its own, but when seen through a red filter and a fish eye lens, it just screams of overkill and dates the film just a little. Still though you will be hard pressed to guess the outcome or the identity or for that matter the species of the killer, given the clues presented, but it's a fun and very well acted piece. The local Scottish cast are exceptional, the local bobbies Roeves and Cosmo in particular spar well off each other and are a delight to behold. Imrie, never one i've taken to in other works, is also pretty good and displays hew womanly physique as if she were in a Hammer production. The outlandish, maybe even preposterous ending may irk some viewers, it disappointed me in some ways, but taking into account when it was made, its an understandable and acceptable addendum that if you think about it, is even more terrifying.$LABEL$ 1
+This review also contains a spoiler of the first movie -- so if you haven't seen either movie and want to but don't want the spoilers, please don't read this review!While this movie is supposed to be about Christian and Kathryn meeting for the first time, the movie is a poor copy of the first Cruel Intentions. The actors that they had portray Ryan Phillippe's Christian and Sarah Michelle Gellar's Kathryn are very poor substitutes indeed. Neither can pull off the smarmy, snooty rich-kid attitude that the original actors did. It's absolutely appalling that some of the dialog was verbatim -- not so much between Christian and Kathryn, but if you listen closely enough you'll recognize it. There are also inconsistencies in the plot - if this were truly the first meeting of Christian and Kathryn, then why is it that Christian fell in love with a girl at the end of the movie? He supposedly was supposed to be in love for the first time in the original movie (with Reese Witherspoon's character).Also, the tie-in with the photography/"You could be a model" comment at the end was totally lame and didn't add anything at all. Overall, this movie was a waste of time. I can't believe they made a Cruel Intentions 3.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is ridiculous. It's attempting to be a comedy but the screenplay is horrible. The whole movie is done in low light and you cant grasp the fact that it's a comedy. Truly is bad cinematography. You really have to sit there and watch it to realize there's a few jokes here and there going on but either way they're all inside jokes amongst themselves. This is more like a wannabe drama flick that went bad. It really is a very pointless movie.Their expressions reveal nothing but dismay and disaster which turns out that way anyway. Unless you want to be bored out of your ass, I suggest you stay away from this gag of a movie.$LABEL$ 0
+In dramatising Wilde's novel, John Osborne has condensed events, eliminated a number of characters, and generally implied rather than shown Dorian's essential wickedness. If you want a more explicit rendering, see the 1945 film. Wilde and Robert Louis Stevenson lived in about the same time frame, but were certainly vastly different men and writers. This story really treats of a theme similar to Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", but note that Wilde chose to treat his story as fantasy, whereas RLS took the scientific route. Both the protagonists are men in whom good wars with evil, with evil winning in the end.The actors in this BBC movie, take a different route, too, from those in the 1945 film. John Gielgud says all the same caustic and cynical quips as George Sanders, in his role really projecting Wilde himself, but with a subtle difference. You'll suspect that Sanders really believed what he was saying, but Gielgud may be saying what is expected of him rather than what he sincerely believes. Peter Firth, too, shows the two sides of his character in restrained fashion, but then we don't get to see as many of his escapades as Hurd Hatfield had a chance to display.It's a very good production, with the dramatisation reflecting the essentials of the novel, if not all of its ramifications.$LABEL$ 1
+It starts out like a very serious social commentary which quickly makes one think of other Clark movies like Kids, Bully, etc. But then just as quickly, it unravels into a direction-less mess. Who is the main character? Is this a serious film or some Gregg Araki-esquire over the top goofy film? Is this a skate documentary with moments of dialog inserted? I have no clue. I found myself watching the clock and wonder when this turd was going to end. I kept thinking there would be some big shocker culmination which never came. I cut a good 20 minutes out of the movie by fast forwarding through the pointless skate scenes. Yes, it illustrates the changing landscape between the have's have not's. I got it way back in the beginning. Kids and Bully was done in such a way that I actually felt like I was observing the realities of that group of friends. Wassup felt very staged, poorly constructed and ever worse acting. Teenage Caveman, which Larry didn't write but did direct, was terrible. But at least it felt like it was suppose to be a terrible movie that didn't take itself seriously. Wassup Rockers was just plain bad.$LABEL$ 0
+This is my first Deepa Mehta film. I saw the film on TV in its Hindi version with its "Sita" character presented as Nita. I also note that it is Radha who underwent the allegorical trial by fire in the film and not Nita/Sita. Yet what I loved about the film was its screenplay by Ms Mehta, not her direction. The characters, big and small, were well-developed and seemed quixotic towards the end--somewhat like the end of Mazursky's "An Unmarried Woman." They are brave women surrounded by cardboard men. And one cardboard man (Ashok) seems to come alive in the last shot we see of him---carrying his invalid mother Biji. He seems to finally take on a future responsibility beyond celibacy and adherance to religion. Ms Mehta seems to fumble as a director (however, compared to most Indian mainstream cinema she would seem to be brilliant) as she cannot use her script to go beyond the microscopic joint family she is presenting except presenting a glimpse of the Chinese micro-minority in the social milieu of India. She even dedicates the film to her mother and daughter (not her father!) Yet her Radha reminesces of halcyon days with both her parents in a mustard field. Compare her to Mrinal Sen, Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Muzaffar Ali and she is dwarfed by these giants--given her competent Canadian production team and financial resources! Mehta's film of two bisexual ladies in an Indian middle-class household may be sacrilege to some, but merely captures the atrophy of middle-class homes that does not seem to aspire for something better than its immediate survival in a limited social space. Kannada, Malayalam, and Bengali films have touched parallel themes in India but did not have the publicity that surrounded this film and therefore have not been seen by a wide segment of knowledgeable cinemagoers.Ms Das, Ms Azmi, Mr Jafri and Mr Kharbanda are credible but not outstanding. Ms Azmi is a talented actress who gave superb performances under good directors (Mrinal Sen's "Khandar", Gautam Ghose's "Paar", Benegal's "Ankur") a brilliance notably absent in this film. Ms Das sparkled due to her screen presence rather than her acting capability. All in all, the film's strength remains in the structure of the screenplay which is above average in terms of international cinema. I am sure Ms Mehta can hone her writing talents in her future screenplays.$LABEL$ 1
+All the way though i was thinking to myself "Oh god why!" At the very beginning i thought "Right it might be average," but the acting and plot on most parts was atrocious.Every part in it was so predictable, even though the first movie seemed to bare a large resemblance to the ring, it was a half decent movie, but this just seemed to take all the good things about the first and made them terrible. Some bits made everyone in the audience wet themselves, Eg. The part were Geller falls off the building had me in stitches. My girlfriend had to keep telling me to quiet down i was kept commenting on what was bound to happen next, and more times than less i was right.Why does going into the house make her come after you, it doesn't make sense. It was a poor excuse for a lot of killings, and no really depth was seen at all.You can see everything coming, which just left you feeling that there was no point in watching. Oh shes behind her ... didn't see that one coming *yawns*.Surely these people must have thought to... oh i don't know, carry a knife round or at least try and fight back, instead of being eaten but someone hair? At best during the movie i was very mildly scared (and i mean mildly), i was just crying out for the credits, as they rolled i exhaled a short "Oh thank god." If you haven't already, don't waste your' time and money on this; pointless, plot less, sorry excuse for a sequel!$LABEL$ 0
+At 2:37, a high school student commits suicide. Not shown who has taken their lives or reasons known, time skips back to the start of the day. From here we follow six separate students; Marcus, Melody, Luke, Steven, Sarah and Sean. Each student is struggling with their own moral dilemmas, all reaching boiling point, hitting to an end for one.After losing a friend to suicide, and surviving his own suicide attempt, writer/director Murali K. Thalluri has created a revetting drama focusing on teen life and the horrible act of suicide. Suicide has been a topic that has been kept in the shadows, 2:37 is Thalluri's attempt to bring it to light. If you have been touched by the act of suicide or anyone who has, 2:37 becomes all the harder to view.With heavy and hard subject matter, Thalluri also tackles everyday teenage life crisis's. Sex, pregnancy, sexual identity, bullying, friendship, Thalluri manages and shows them in an extremely realistic manner. The factor on Thalluri's talent is his subtlety. He respect his subject and the problems that everyone will have suffered through at sometime. It verges near documentary at times, it has such a painful realism; the interviews with each character spliced through the film only heightens this.2:37 has a distinctive similarity to Gus Van Sants film Elephant. While the core of each film is different, both tackle teen life. Like Sant, Thalluri utilizes long tracking shots, with time skipping back and forth, to show each characters interaction from different perspectives. A defining point to Elephant was its ethereal ambiance. With spare conversation, little development of characters, and the long tracking shots, Sant created a haunting and mesmerizing atmosphere to a coming dread. While there resides this dread in 2:37, the emotional connection to the characters reaches a higher level Sant couldn't reach. As time goes by, each characters fragility creeps out, dragging you along their emotional roller-coaster.The real hit in this film comes with the inevitable suicide, foretold at the very beginning. The hard part about this scene is the complete intrusion and discomfort we have as an audience watching someones life end in a gruesome fashion. Though many films that have shown suicide, gloss over the act or romanticizes the act. Thalluri shows the pain and agony involved with this act and that its not the best solution. With unknowns in the leads and their first major roles; Teresa Palmereach, Frank Sweet, Joel Mackenzie, Marni Spillane, Charles Baird and Sam Harris all show immense talent and promising acting careers.Compelling and revetting, 2:37 is an absolutely unmissable film.$LABEL$ 1
+The quote above just about says it all for "Slipstream". I should have bailed out of this film after the first half hour, but decided I ought to be fair and give it a chance. I won't watch it again, so if anyone with the temerity to do so can get back to me with the number of clichéd lines in the movie, I'm sure it will set a record.Some otherwise fine and talented actors got mixed up with this clunker; Mark Hamill portrays a futuristic bounty hunter and Bill Paxton is his quarry. Paxton's character has hijacked Hamill's prisoner, an android taking his name from the poet Byron (Bob Peck). Tasker (Hamill) shoots Owens (Paxton) with a dart containing a tracking device so he and his companion Belitski (Kitty Aldridge) can keep tabs on the pair. The real question though is why didn't he just fire the device at Byron thereby cutting out the middleman.If you enjoy scene after disjointed scene with tedious characterization and artsy fartsy pretense, then I suppose you'll find something of interest here. But you can't convince me that the film makes sense on any level. Scenes of a futuristic Stone Age make way for high society snobbery, but the pinnacle of poor taste is reached when Paxton's character is displayed following a night of revelry with hickeys all over his torso. If anyone thinks there's some hidden meaning here, you're really stretching.Patiently waiting for the frame proclaiming "The End" to come into view, alas, even that was denied. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then so is understanding; this movie had neither. Yet there was a single redeeming feature as the closing credits began their run - an awesome view of a half dozen hot air balloons. Apparently the film was keeping them afloat.$LABEL$ 0
+Director Edward Sedgwick, an old hand at visual comedy, successfully leads this Hal Roach road show which tenders a fast-moving and adroit scenario and excellent casting, employing a large number of Roach's reliable performers. Although the film was originally plotted as a vehicle for Patsy Kelly, sunny Jack Haley stars as Joe Jenkins, a young Kansan who sells his auto repair business and journeys to Hollywood, where he attempts to wangle a screen role for the girl he loves, star-struck Cecilia (Rosina Lawrence). Sedgwick, who prefers using the entire M-G-M studio as his set, does so here as Cecilia, always ready for an audition, is treated by a would-be paramour, cinema star Rinaldo Lopez (Mischa Auer), to behind-the-scenes action of, naturally, a musical comedy, featuring Broadway headliner Lyda Roberti. Laurel and Hardy provide several enjoyable interludes, including their well-known skit involving a tiny harmonica, and we watch fine turns by such as Joyce Compton, Russell Hicks and Walter Long. On balance, one must hand the bays to Mischa Auer, who clearly steals the picture as an emotional movie star, a role which he largely creates, and to the director for his clever closing homage to Busby Berkeley's filmic spectacles.$LABEL$ 1
+The jokes are obvious, the gags are corny, and the characters are walking characatures - but I couldn't stop from laughing at his highly entertaining movie. No matter how many times I see it, I still get a kick out of this one, and I recommend it highly for all lovers of mindless entertainment. It contains many quotable moments, and some of the best sight-gags I've seen to this day. If you've had a bad week and you need a chuckle, rent this one on your way home Friday night to give your weekend a good start.$LABEL$ 1
+These slasher pics are past their sell by date, but this one is good fun.The valentine cards themselves are witty, and well thought out.The film has one Peach of a line... "He's no Angel...." when he in fact IS Angel!!! Watching Buffy reruns will never be the same!The cast is a sizzling display of young talent, but the story does not give them enough real depth. Denise Richards on the DVD extras seemed to think the girls on set bonded well together and this would give the feeling that you empathised with their characters. Sorry but NO!The direction is very good, managing to show very little actual gore, and relying on your imaginations implied threat. Much can be said also for the similar manner in which Miss Richards and Heigel do not remove their clothes...:-(Essentially, the main directorial plus, lies within the "borrowing" of various other ideas from previous slasher flicks. Psycho's shower scene is tributed, along with Halloween's "masking". Murdering someone hiding in a bodybag though is a pretty original one as far as I know!!!Light viewing, not very scary but a few good jump moments. If it was a choice between The Hole and this though, choose The Hole. Slasher movies have had their day, and this is just another slasher. A very good slasher, but nothing groundbreaking!!!$LABEL$ 1
+The only reason I gave this episode of "Masters of Horror" a 2 instead of a 1 is because the two lead actors are good, and it wasn't shot on VHS. The story, the dialog, and the plot are ridiculous. Talking / Driving zombies who come back to vote and sway the political tide against the war! Give me a break! What next, zombies who come back to go skydiving? Maybe zombies who come back to host QVC shows? I never supported the Iraq war, but I do support the courage and sacrifice of the men and women of our armed forces; and "Homecoming" was disrespectful in that it mocks the TRUE horror of war. With zombies being mass produced in today's market... this is the SPAM of zombie-related entertainment. How "Homecoming" made it onto "Masters of Horror" is beyond me.$LABEL$ 0
+Like most, I thought 'another crocodile movie'. So far we've had Primeval and Rogue in the last 12 months, what can they do that's new? Where both those films were about action and violence, this one's about fear and tension.The performances aren't Oscar-worthy when there's nothing going on, but in times of distress or terror, these people suffer so much it's like torture. There are holes in the plot and maybe crocs don't really behave like this as others have pointed out, but the fear is so effective it's a stretch to say you'll enjoy this movie. It'll leave you feeling as uncomfortable as The Passion of the Christ.$LABEL$ 1
+There are a couple of prior comments here which opine about this flick's abundance of clichés throughout -- and I agree completely, both with regard to the characters AND the dialog.I'd read about Elizabeth Berkly's awful performance in the equally-awful "Showgirls," which I've never seen - and her performance here, while not awful, is barely up to the standards of Lifetime's worse fare. There was not a hint of depth to her character, but then there probably shouldn't have been. If so, it would have placed the film completely out-of-balance, since there wasn't a hint of depth or charisma - not a trace - in any one character, performer, or portrayal.The principal's handling of Liz's initial complaint after her tutee had kissed her in the hall was laughable. Her husband's initial reaction and advice were likewise (Forrest Gump, attacking Jenny's boyfriend in his car provided a more realistic, intelligent action, and, hell, he was mentally-challenged).The smarmy, unctuous lawyer (excuse the redundancy) father of the lying student actually performed something probably worthy of praise in his performance: he was both laughable and thoroughly annoying at the same time, no mean feat. Her attorney was more of an insensitive nerd, also not unknown in the profession.Finally (and frankly, I rather enjoyed this part), the police were such a collection of insensitive oafs, that you'd rather depend upon Barney Fife, without Andy, to handle all law enforcement and investigation in your community. I know that most real-like cops fall a bit short of the sharpness, intelligence and empathy of the level displayed by most characters on the "Law and Order" series', and the like -- but dolts of this level seem to be a staple on "Lifetime."Finally, I found a kind of "story within a story" fascination with Josh's concoction of his being the "victim" of his teacher. This scripted performance within the story was even worse than his overall performance in the main story. This was something of an achievement, like going from "F" to "F-minus."This whole lame situation should have been resolved - in real life - in about 15 minutes, following a realistic meeting between teacher and school authorities, with husband involved. But then that would have precluded the contrived drama following, and left an hour's blank film in the camera. But the writer(s) here, proved with their ending, they could do even worse. When the situation was finally "resolved" and "righted," this was accomplished in all of about 45 seconds, with no indication of what measures might have been forthcoming in any "real world" context for the perpetrator and his parents, or whether they might have been able to find some sort of path toward redemption.This one's a 2* presentation; the second "*" because it does have some mild "fascination."$LABEL$ 0
+If you haven't seen this yet, you really should, on DVD. I can't believe how much I enjoyed it! It is amazingly realistic and believable. True, much of it is speculated, and I would have liked to have known more about what was speculative and what were proven facts (there aren't many of them), but it handles everything quite well with a "Cruel Mother Nature" theme. It will remind you of the nature programs that you've seen on Animal Planet and the Discovery Channel, only the animals here are Dinosaurs. They act natural; they eat, kill, mate, play, and fight for survival. You will actually find yourself rooting for some of them and against others.For the most part, the effects are excellent. At times they will look a little too much like CGI's, but then you will see them in a different angle that makes them look more realistic. In some cases, you will actually be convinced that you've seen a dinosaur. My favorites were the Coelophysis, the raptors, the diplodocus, the iguanadons, the allosaurus and the arctic bipeds. I was most disappointed with the T-Rex, however, which looked a little too computer generated at times.In any case, you should definitely see this production. It is educational, well made, and very entertaining. For what it is, its an A!$LABEL$ 1
+Why is it that Canada can turn out decent to good movies in every genre, other then action? I caught Dragon Hunt on TV the other day and it was like a train wreck. I just could not change the channel, it's sheer stupidity sapped my willpower. Its pretty telling that the cast IMDb "credits" with this monstrosity apparently never worked again.Bad acting, bad writing, bad narration, bad music, bad hair, bad cinematography. It just goes on and on. The movie really has nothing to recommend it. If you're looking for bad action films to enjoy by laughing out, there are a tonne of other films that won't require you to scorch out your retinas afterwards.I hope this film didn't get money from the government for financing, otherwise I'm never paying taxes again.$LABEL$ 0
+Ab Tak Chhappan is a fictitious story surrounding a police department in Mumbai, India. Sadhu Agashe is a hard working, hard-edged cop heading up a plain clothed crime squad who makes a name for himself by killing dangerous criminals in staged police encounters rather than locking them up in prison. His loyal officers obey him without question but a rift forms when one of his officers, Imtiaz, becomes frustrated by Sadhu's high ranking status and is secretly competing with him for criminal kills and status. A new recruit is also pushed into the fraternity and Imtiaz is angry when Sadhu allows him to take the lead on his first case. Further change comes in the form of a new police commissioner who disapproves of Sadhu's tactics and everyone gets caught up in internal politics.I was surprised to see such a well directed action thriller coming from India. The camera work is excellent, the story is well told and the tension is high when the drama unfolds. The acting, pace and political subterfuge convinces the viewer that they are a fly on the wall witnessing the blood, sweat and tears from a close up and personal view and that the events are based on reality which is no doubt why we are told that it is not at the beginning of the film although it is likely that the director, Shimit Amin, has taken liberties with factual accounts. Nevertheless, Ab Tak Chhappan is an extremely polished piece of film-making.$LABEL$ 1
+Let's keep it simple: My two kids were glued to this movie. It has its flaws from an adult perspective, but buy some jelly-worms and just enjoy it. And the Pepsi girl was excellent!And Kimberly Williams was pretty gosh-darned hot, although she's not in the film very much, so don't get too excited there.Not that's it's really a bad thing, but it is the kind of movie you watch just once. Don't buy the DVD.Enjoy!Did I mention Kimberly Williams? (That was for the dads.)$LABEL$ 1
+It was 1 a.m. in the morning and I had nothing else to do. Don't judge me... please.We're back in time during the Spanish settlements. A group have made their way onto an island. It doesn't take too long before they encounter a large "reptile", which gobbles up their horse. Soon they're captured by the natives and in order to gain freedom they must kill the "reptile gods." THE CG sucks; it reminds me of the CG of early console video games. The encounters were lame. The only positive thing I have to say about this was the hottie native running around in a skimpy outfit. Otherwise it's just a middling effort.$LABEL$ 0
+Lackawanna Blues is and excellent movie. The casting was perfect. Every actor and actress was perfectly suited for the role they played. Their chemistry together was amazing. The acting was superb. I felt as if i knew the characters. I could almost 'feel' them. They reminded me of people that I knew as a child growing up in the 50's and 60's. Oh, the memories!! My personal belief is that this movie should have been on the big screen for all to see. I have watched this movie so many times, that I can almost recite the lines as the characters are saying them. I can't even list my favorite part, because I have SO MANY favorite parts. Thank you for bringing back a part of my youth that I never see in this day and age...and that is Black people loving each other, looking out for each other, respecting each other, caring about each other, and doing all we can to help each other. Gotta go now. I have to go watch it again.$LABEL$ 1
+Saturday June 3, 6:30pm The NeptuneMonday June 5, 4:30pm The NeptuneFew celebrations of ethnic and cultural identity succeed as mightily as Carlos Saura's brilliant interpretation of Isaac Albeniz' masterpiece Iberia Suite. At the approach of its centennial, Saura drew together an unprecedented wealth of talent from the Spanish performing arts community to create this quintessential love song to their homeland. The twelve "impressions" of the suite are presented without narrative in stark surroundings, allowing the power of each performance to explode before Saura's camera. Creative use of large flats and mirrors, moved throughout the set, combined with screens, shadows, fire, rain and rear projection add glorious dramatic effects to the varied selections of song, dance and instrumental performance. Photographs of Albeniz reappear throughout the program, connecting the passion of the music to its great creator. Saura encompasses all Spaniards on his stage from the beautiful elegance of elderly flamenco dancers in traditional costume to children joyously dancing with their instructors.$LABEL$ 1
+As most people I am tired of the by the numbers clichéd movies that Hollywood makes. There seems to be no creativity in Hollywood. Companies only want to spend money on remakes are sequels that have an audience built in.This movie is a welcome change. It could be classified as romantic comedy for it's genre but don't let that turn you off this movie. This is a very original movie which is not like most things Hollywood produces.If you are reading this, you already know the basic plot so I will not bother going over that. The only movies that come to mind to compare this to are "Interstate 60" and "Art of Travel" which are little known gems that take a different path than most of the Hollywood garbage.This is well worth seeing if you are tired of watching more of the same.Dean$LABEL$ 1
+Many of the reviews and comments I have read about this movie say that this is a rather stale film and performance by Clara Bow. Although the story-line was rather typical of Clara's later silents, I still find it somewhat heart-stirring and incredibly fun. Clara plays a happy-go-lucky Hawaiian girl who will stop at nothing to win the man she loves...never mind that this man is married! Clara's lack of modesty was shocking in the day, but I believe it lends to the sweetness and general fun of the movie. Though definitely not a brilliant story-line (quite typical, actually), this movie is a nice showcase of Clara's ability to make the audience laugh.$LABEL$ 1
+As the number of Video Nasties I've yet to see dwindles, this little pile of garbage popped up on my "to rent" list when I saw it was available.The premise involves a fashion model or something being kidnapped and taken into the jungle to be held for ransom by a motley crew of idiots. Some other goof gets hired to bring her back and is given a sack of money to use as a bargaining chip, though if he returns with the girl and all the money, he gets a significant cut. He's brought a helicopter and pilot with him and, wow, that pilot is one of the worst actors EVER! Granted, they are all totally terrible and the dubbing will make you cry blood. After stealing away into the jungle, we learn that nearby is a cannibal cult whose flesheating earthbound god wanders the woods like a human King Kong looking for tribeswomen to ravage and devour. Now, this fellow is just a naked guy with some of the worst makeup ever, ping-pong balls for eyes and that's pretty much it. His growls and groans are an everpresent feature on the soundtrack, and I found myself muting much of those scenes.Oh, did I forget to mention the almost constant nudity? This is probably the main reason this film was banned, though there is one specific scene, about one second long, where the god attacks a girl and pulls her guts out, but it's not a redeeming factor for gore fans. Also, Jess Franco goes beyond the usual T and A and shows lengthy close-ups of female genitals, and, sadly, male as well. So, if you want "fair" in terms of exploitation, you got it.I can't recommend this trash to anyone. It's not even the good bad movie. It's just atrociously padded trash that only a Video Nasty fan will probably view and even then, if you are making your way through the list, leave this for the very last. If you watch it first, you may get the notion that this is the norm for the list, which is certainly not true.$LABEL$ 0
+I rented this thinking it would be pretty good just by the cover of the movie case. Judge and Jury started out pretty good killer chasing the man who killed his wife on a bike with a cool gun, but this movie got progressively stupider as it went on. David Keith is awesome actor especially when he plays a role like this too bad the movie was a piece of crap it really wasted his talent. Judge and Jury was well plain dumb I gave it a 3 should have gave it a 2, I gave it an extra star just because David Keith's gun was cool.$LABEL$ 0
+I found out about this film because Jewish Ben Chaplin from Game On was in it. Game On is a funny British sitcom and apparently he left because he wanted to break into Hollywood and star in this film. He failed thank God.The film is a very simple romantic comedy with Janeane Garofalo playing an ugly woman who uses her neighbour Uma Thurman to date Ben Chaplin because she thinks Ben Chaplin won't like her because she's ugly. The film is just bad for so many reasons. The plot is unbelievably predictable from the overtly slapstick bits to the serious mushy bits: ugh just that montage where all three of them are having fun and then the photograph bit. Those two scenes made me cringe! Janeane's character is sickeningly arrogant (and guessing from her role as stand-up "comedienne" and arch-feminist is in real life too). She claims that the film is "anti-feminist" when in fact it's just realistic. Men more often than not go for looks over personality. It's interesting to note her hypocrisy too. She'd been a feminist and "comedienne" for years before taking this role and then suddenly decides afterwards that the film was bad. I imagine she hated the idea and script of this film before it was released but she made sure she kept that quiet so she could get paid for this travesty of a film. I mean come on! She acted in it for Heaven's sake! What this film was really was anti-men if anything. It portrays men as stupid animals whose brains are in their groins with the men doing stupid things to attract the attention of Uma Thurman's character Noelle.There are other bad things about this film too like Ben Chaplin's character being the British man every American girl finds cute and Jamie Foxx being the token black best friend of Chaplin and of course Foxx had to try and mimic his accent a few times for good measure. Is that the best the script writers could come up with? Blimey they've never done that before except with every Hugh Grant and Dudley Moore film ever made. There's also a truly awful phone sex scene which is just grotesque and proves how cheap the film is. The other comments on here all say how Janeane Garofalo isn't ugly but is actually beautiful. Erm was I watching the same film as they were? She's certainly no looker and the only good thing about this film was that she was rightly cast as the ugly one. Although having said that, I fail to see the appeal of Uma Thurman as well: she's lanky and gaunt looking.I guarantee three things about this film if you've never watched it:You will know what the ending will be;You will find the phone sex scene painfully embarrassing and;You will be bored after ten minutes.Watch at your own peril.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie has everything typical horror movies lack. Although some things are far fetched we are dealing with quality snow man engineers. The only preview i can reveal is that i cant wait for Jackzilla. Dare i say oscar winner. This is a perfect date movie. I advise all men for a nice romantic surprise see this movie with that special person.$LABEL$ 1
+Having just seen Walt Disney's The Skeleton Dance on the Saturday Morning Blog as linked from YouTube, I used those same sources to watch a remake done in Technicolor for the Columbia cartoon unit and animated by the same man-Ub Iwerks. The colors, compared to the earlier black and white, are really used imaginatively here and many of the new gags-like when one of the skeletal band players hits a wrong note constantly or when one loses his head and takes another one's off or when one dances with the other with part of that other gone-are just as funny as the previous short. It does get a little repetitious near the end. Still, Skeleton Frolics is well worth seeing for any animation buff who wants to compare this with the earlier Silly Symphony.$LABEL$ 1
+The cast of this film contain some of New Zealander's better actors, many of who I have seen in fabulous roles, this film however fills me with a deep shame just to be from the same country as them. The fake American accents are the first clue that things are about to go spectacularly wrong. As another review rather astutely noted the luxury cruise ship is in fact an old car ferry, decorated with a few of the multi colour flags stolen from a used car lot. Most of the cast appear to be from the (great) long running New Zealand soap Shortland Street. It's as if this movie was dreamt up at a Shortland Street cast Christmas party, the result of too many gins, and possibly a bit of salmonella. Imagine "Under Siege" meets "The Love Boat", staged by your local primary school and directed by an autistic and you get the idea.If you are an actor, I recommend you see this film, as a study on how to destroy your carer.$LABEL$ 0
+Emily Watson and Tom Wilkinson together - what a treat! With Rupert Everett and Linda Bassett rounding off the supporting roles to the foursome of lies and intrigue. Yet at the heart of it all, each character maintains a streak of decency - moral conscience held up in spite of obvious contradictions. "Contradictions are the source of all movement and of all life." How true these words are. Watson's Anne Manning is at the core of this intrigue - she's the central conscience that the other three latched on. She is the decency undeterred. The circumstances of lies are to each its own: one to defend one's professional name; one to hold back due to family/partner pressure; one simply don't want to face the consequence; one ironically can't believe the truth and lies to save friendship. These are all precarious situations. There lies the intrigue - fascinating to watch how each tackles truth and lies. Contradictions, indeed. In spite of the seeming dishonor, decency and heart remain strong. The treatment of the subject involved and how each of the character behaves are masterfully delivered simple with clarity. It's not sensational or complex as another film "Where the Truth Lies" 2005. Credits due to Fellowes' writing and the nuanced performances of both Watson and Wilkinson. There is warmth somehow that comes through the seemingly boldface or frustratingly hidden lies. Beneath it all, human frailty not excluded, they meant well. And following along with the story, the turn of events provided satisfaction and smiles to how the two Manning's seem to have grown and matured in their relationship. You might say there's no obvious action drama or thrilling scenes in "Separate Lies," yet the intrigue is there and it will hold your attention. The deserving production efforts include cinematography by Tony Pierce-Roberts (a veteran to the Merchant-Ivory films) and music by Stanislas Syrewicz, with mood and tone reminiscent of composer Zbignew Priesner (of filmmaker Krzysztof Kieslowski's Trois Couleurs, especially: Bleu 1993.) This is a British film you just might not want to miss. Emily Watson (Anne, the wife): Breaking the Waves 1996 debut; Hilary and Jackie 1998; The Luzhin Defence 2000; Gosford Park 2001; Punch-Drunk Love, Red Dragon, Equilibrium in 2002. Tom Wilkinson (James, the husband): The Full Monty 1997; The Governess, Rush Hour (as villain) in 1998; In the Bedroom 2001, Normal (HBO cable movie) 2003, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 2004, recently as Father Moore in: The Exorcism of Emily Rose 2005 opposite Laura Linney. Rupert Everett (Bill): He is simply delightful in "My Best Friend's Wedding" 1997 opposite Julia Roberts and marvelous in "An Ideal Husband" 1999 d: Oliver Parker, an Oscar Wilde play. Recently as Sherlock Holmes with Ian Hart as Dr. Watson, in PBS Mystery: Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stockings 2004 TV. Linda Bassett (Maggie): she was very effective as Ella Khan opposite Om Puri in "East is East" 1999.$LABEL$ 1
+I am amazed with some of the reviews of this film. The only place that seems to tell the truth is RottenTomatoes.com. This film is awful. The plot is extremely lazy. It is not scary either. People out there who think that because it stars Sarah Michelle Geller it is somehow like The Grudge should forget about it. This film is more like Dark Water, except it is even more predictable and slow moving than it. I was extremely disappointed with this film. It didn't scare me nor interest me either. Let's face it , this type of plot has been flogged to death at this stage e.g. the dead trying to contact the living - Dragonfly, What Lies Beneath, Ghost Story, Dark Water, Darkness, The Changeling etc.etc. It seems to me that the only ones writing original horror films nowadays are the Japanese and the Koreans. The films that are coming out of Hollywood, like this, are cynical exercises in money making without a shred of respect for the viewer. They're just being churned out$LABEL$ 0
+Angela (Sandra Bullock) is a computer expert but, being shy and somewhat of a recluse, she does all of her work from the confines of her condo. Just as she is about to take a vacation in Mexico, a co-worker sends her a computer disc with disturbing information on it. Angela agrees to meet with her fellow employee but he mysteriously dies in a plane crash. Angela heads to Mexico but takes the disc with her. While she is sunning on the beach, a terrific looking gentleman named Jack (Jeremy Northam) makes overtures to her. She falls for them and the two end up on a boat to Cozumel. However, Jack works for the folks who generated the secret information on the disc and he is out to get it. Even after Angela escapes from his clutches and lands back in the USA, Jack makes things difficult. He changes Angela's identity on every computer across the nation, making her lose her condo, her bank account, everything. Can Angela, a computer whiz, beat Jack at his own game? This very exciting movie has many assets. First, Bullock and Northam are two very beautiful, interesting actors and their presence adds immediate captivation. The script is very clever and sure in its knowledge of the capabilities of computers and their relevance in today's world. The costumes, sets, production, and direction of the movie are also quite wonderful. And, despite how it sounds, there is a great deal of exciting action as Angela goes on the run to defeat her enemy. If you love thrillers without unnecessary bloodshed or violence, this is a great choice. It delivers twists and turns with great frequency, making it possible for the viewer to "net" a very good evening of entertainment.$LABEL$ 1
+I rented the DVD in a video store, as an alternative to reading the report. But it's pretty much just more terror-tainment.While the film may present some info from the report in the drama, you're taking the word of the producers - there's no reference to the commission report anywhere in the film. Not one.The acting, all around, is pretty bad - pretty much all of the stereotypes of 'hot shot' bitchy foul mouthed government agents, each thinking they know more than everyone else. There may be some truth to it, but it really has a bad Hollywood stereotype smell to it.IMDb's user community ratings & comments tend to be more right than wrong, and I have started to glance at the ratings before renting whenever I can.I wish I had on this one.$LABEL$ 0
+Look, this is a low budget horror film that suffers from all of the problems that go with low budget movies. But you must see this just to watch Lisa Erickson as Julie. She is SMOKIN' hot and a great little actress to boot! These types of horror movies often unearth a rare gem and The Power gave us Lisa Erickson! Nothing I enjoy more than sitting down in my studio apartment with a Coke and putting in this film. My friends Bob, Bill and Dennis agree.. Lisa is not only brilliant, she is a hottie. The movie itself often plods along and the rest of the actors are not very helpful in that regard. But as soon as Lisa hits the screen, things really start hopping. The others are clearly not in her league. This is not the Exorcist but as I said, if you want to see a fun little movie with a hot little actress, this is the one to see!$LABEL$ 1
+It wasn't until I looked at the trivia section that I found out that the original producer/star of this movie Tyrone Power died during its making . This no doubt explains why everyone on screen seems to have their minds on other things , a symptom of which appears in a very early scene involving a battle that can only be described as pathetic . You know when you've been painting a wall until you're completely bored ? Well that's the sort of expression the combatants have on their face when they're swinging their swords in a highly unconvincing manner The plot centres on Soloman the King of Israel having an affair with the Queen of Sheeba and his people not being happy about it . You can't really blame them since there's few things more beautiful in the world than those Israeli moteks , though the Israeli women here all seem to look like Cherie Blair ! Modern day Israel is also very cosmopolitan with the majority of Israelis being born outside the country but would this have been true a couple of thousand years ago where everyone speaks in European and American accents After much talking and a dance sequence that has to be seen to be believed ( And no that's not praise ) we have a climax where the heavily outnumbered Israelis have to defend themselves against a massed Egyptian army who can't read a map otherwise they would have known there was a canyon in front of them . This is what I don't get - Even though their blinded by the sun the Egyptians spend ten minutes charging towards the Israelis never ever realising they're charging towards a gaping ravine ! Isn't this somewhat illogical ? It's also something of a revealing error since the horses , chariots and men falling into the canyon are obviously miniature figures Anyway the film ends with Soloman killing his treacherous brother and praising God for his victory . But who needs Moshe Dayan , Arik Sharon or God when you've got an idiotic enemy who can't see a ravine in front of him or waves a sword like he paints a wall ?$LABEL$ 0
+I am a huge Woody Allen fan and so when I saw that this was playing at the cinema I couldn't help myself. I wanted to see how Allen would follow up his magnificent film Match Point seeing as this is another one of his films shot in G.B. (which is unique among Allen's work) along with what seems to be his new muse Scarlett Johanson. Scoop is much lighter than MP and the humor is Scoop's most enjoyable aspect. The plot revolves around Johanson's character (a journalism student) who gets a tip on a hot story from beyond the grave. She falls in love with a suspected serial killer (Jackman) and she must decide whether the truth is worth finding. Oh and all of this is done with the help of a bumbling magician turned detective played by Allen.I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed Johanson's performance but I am a bit bias, I could watch a three hour film with Johanson in ever frame and remain enchanted. She plays a ditsy, yappy, bumbling sweetheart that is kind of a variation in a sense of Allen's stereotypical neurosis stricken character. She adds appropriate body language for comic effect. Needless to say almost anyone who sees this will find Johanson's character sickeningly cute and that is a plus.Allen is Allen... He is still playing the same character much like Chaplin and his Little Tramp character. Something that occur in this film makes me wonder if I will see the neurotic little hypochondriac again however. He is not in the cast of his next picture and has been spending more time exclusively behind the camera as of late...Jackman is also enjoyable as the suave, millionaire murder suspect. I cannot say that Jackman does anything in particular to make the role his but he suits his character none the less.In terms of the plot I cannot help but feel that this is fresh... In fact it stinks of Curse of the Jade Scorpion. Johanson and Allen are more detective-like than anything. However I must applaud Allen on his ending because it is a bit more clever than your typical unoutstanding Hollywood version of this film. Instead of everything being black and white, things are painted in shades of gray. Being entirely innocent has nothing to do with it nor does unequivocal guilt. Though the plot seemed old Woody still has a knack for one liners. I did find his allusions to his last film interesting... Come for the humor, laugh and be merry.Needless to say if you enjoy Allen's work watch it. If not watch something else...$LABEL$ 1
+I rented this film because of my interest in American history, and especially the somewhat weird story of the Mormons. This movie attempts to make some sense out of how Joseph Smith could turn his "vision" into a major world religion. It first focuses on the troubles the Mormons had in their settlement at Navuoo, Illinois. It portrays the trial of Joseph Smith. Within the course of that trial, Brigham Young stands up to tell of his conversion to Mormonism, and of his belief in the spiritual message of Smith. Then Smith is assassinated, and Young must deal with his own doubts about whether he has been chosen to lead the Mormons to a new land. Despite his grave doubts, he perseveres, and finally has a vision (that Utah is the place for his colony) that gives him confidence in the rightness of his leadership. Later, as crops are destroyed by crickets, he again doubts that he has truly been chosen--however, a miracle occurs, which cements his place in history.I found the performances to be moving, and the story to be convincing and interesting. I would love to know whether Mormons believe that this is an accurate portrayal. Polygamy is a part of the story, but the reasons why this is central to LDS are not raised. The issue is not emphasized.I'm sure people stay away from this movie because of its religious subject-matter, but it has a great cast and will hold your interest throughout.$LABEL$ 1
+1983's "Frightmare" is an odd little film. The director seems to be trying to combine the atmosphere of classic '30s/'40s style horror movies with the shock factor of the then-exploding '80s slasher genre. It isn't totally successful (mostly due to very obvious budgetary restraints, and the less-than-professional caliber of its cast of young actors) but it still has its moments, mostly due to the classy performance (classier than the movie deserves) by the late German actor Ferdinand Mayne, who plays an aging old time horror movie star (ala Vincent Price) named "Conrad Ratzoff." At the beginning of the movie we meet the has-been horror star as he's shooting a commercial for dentures and we quickly learn that ol' Conrad is a bit of a hoity-toity, prima donna jerk-off. Just when you think he couldn't be any more un-likable, the commercial director berates Conrad for blowing a take for the umpteenth time and the old goat pushes him off a balcony to his death. Nice, huh? Conrad then visits some fans at a college campus horror movie club, unfortunately he suffers a heart attack in the middle of his speech to them and eventually ends up back at his mansion waiting to die. Still feisty even at Death's door, he manages to do away with a despised business associate by smothering him with a pillow before he finally kicks the bucket himself. Conrad is then laid to rest in true Hollywood style in a high tech neon tomb with video screens above the casket, which will play personal video messages from Conrad himself for visitors who enter to pay their respects.It is at this point that the kids from the college Horror Movie Society decide to pay Conrad's grave an after hours visit, breaking into the tomb and taking his body back home with them for an all night party. (Not exactly my idea of fun, but hey, these are characters in an '80s horror film. Logic has no place here.) The college kids spend the evening having dinner with Conrad's body seated in a place of honor, posing for photos with it and even dancing around the room with it, before parking Conrad and his coffin in the attic, planning to return him to his crypt in the morning. In the meantime, Mrs. Ratzoff, distraught over the theft of her husband's body, has called in a psychic friend to try and "reach" Conrad through a seance. You can pretty much figure out the rest from here. Since Conrad wasn't a very nice guy in life, it's not much of a stretch to assume that he won't be any friendlier in death. Psychic Lady makes contact with Conrad and he re-awakens in predictably ticked off fashion, then spends the rest of the movie strolling around the corridors of the students' ridiculously huge house, picking off the young grave robbers one by one. This is where the movie falls apart. Endless scenes of teens wandering around empty hallways saying "Hello? Is anyone there?" are intercut with occasional bursts of violence (we do get a pretty gnarly decapitation scene, which is the highlight of the movie) before the last two survivors finally figure out (WAY later than any semi-intelligent people would have figured out the same thing...but again, we're in an '80s horror film!) that the only way to stop the mayhem is to get Conrad's body back to its crypt where it belongs. The sluggish pacing is padded out with a lot of weird lighting and dry ice fog effects backed by a soundtrack made up almost entirely of sound effects rather than music(thunder, moans and groans, howls, etc.) that becomes severely annoying after a while.I can't really recommend "Frightmare" to anyone who didn't grow up watching cheap movies like this on late night cable back in the '80s. "Modern Horror" fans will doubtlessly find "Frightmare" incredibly slow moving and goofy. If you came of age in that magical decade, however, you may get a blast of nostalgia from "Frightmare." Fans of Jeffrey ("Re-Animator") Combs may also want to check it out, as the future Dr. West appears in an early role here as one of the unlucky film students.I will advise the reader to avoid the version of this film on the EastWestDVD label (paired with Roy Ward's "Vault of Horror" and sold at dollar stores) because the print quality is terrible. I'm told the film has gotten a deluxe release via the fine folks at Troma, which seems appropriate. If you're a Troma kind of person then "Frightmare" will be right up your alley.$LABEL$ 0
+People watch movies for a variety of different reasons. This movie didn't have the big budget, there's no special effects, no car chases and there's no explosions. Actually reality doesn't have much of these either. At least not in my life. This is a very real movie about very real people, none of them perfect in any way but together they are put into a situation where they learn to explore and accept what is different and that in turn makes order out of chaos. I am not prepared to limit the possibility of parapsychology, since I'm neither an expert nor use the full extent of my own brain.So watch this movie for the characters. It is brim-full of a whole cast of wonderful quirky folk. Within the first three minutes Kiefer Sutherland enacts Detective Michael Hayden's life superbly and he keeps developing the character throughout the movie. Excellent acting, very believable. Henry Czerny could not have been cast better and the rapport between his 'Harvey' and Kiefer's 'Mickey' enhances the oppositeness of their characters.I thoroughly enjoyed the cranky landlady, 'Mrs Ramsay', I'm sure she and my mother-in-law are good friends!!!There's a host more of these wonderful characters but space is limited here so watch the movie and enjoy them.$LABEL$ 1
+I think that you can not imagine how these people really work...!! Before I came to the studios to watch the guys work there, I actually thought quite the same as you do. But since I saw and did the work the guys on that TV-show have to do, I have to say that they really do deserve respect for what they are doing all day long. That really is no easy work. And also the actors, which in your eyes may be terribly bad, are really great people and a lot of them really can act! I don't think that the material given to them can really show that, as I think this material isn't very good. But THEY are truly good! So I don't think that you, before you haven't seen these guys doing there work, can judge over them! And I shouldn't have judged over them as well before I met them, but I did and am now terribly ashamed of it. So please, do not allow yourself to judge over these great people unless you haven't seen them doing there job.$LABEL$ 0
+As usual, I am making a mad dash to see the movies I haven't watched yet in anticipation of the Oscars. I was really looking forward to seeing this movie as it seemed to be right up my alley. I can not for the life of me understand why this movie has gotten the buzz it has. There is no story!! A group of guys meander around Iraq. One day they are here diffusing a bomb. Tomorrow they are tooling around the countryside, by themselves no less and start taking sniper fire. No wait here they are back in Bagdad. There is no cohesive story at all. The three main characters are so overly characterized that they are mere caricatures. By that I mean, we have the sweet kid who is afraid of dying. We have the hardened military man who is practical and just wants to get back safe. And then we have the daredevil cowboy who doesn't follow the rules but has a soft spot for the precocious little Iraqi boy trying to sell soldiers DVDs. What do you think is going to happen??? Well, do you think the cowboy soldier who doesn't follow rules is going to get the sweet kid injured with his renegade ways?? Why yes! Do you think the Iraqi kid that cowboy soldier has a soft spot for is going to get killed and make him go crazy? Why yes! There is no story here. The script is juvenile and predictable! The camera is shaken around a lot to make it look "artsy". And for all of you who think this is such a great war picture, go rent "Full Metal Jacket", "Deerhunter" or "Platoon". Don't waste time or money on this boring movie!$LABEL$ 0
+A group of friends break down in the middle of nowhere (one had a flat tire, the other's Jeep mysteriously won't start). One of them takes the tire to a run down service station and that is the last anyone sees of him. When the remaining foursome go in search of their friend, they come across nice Mr. Slaussen who offers to help fix the jeep and offers cool drinks and refuge from the heat in his equally run down, hermit-like house, which happens to be occupied by very realistic looking mannequins. He goes with the one guy in the bunch out to work on the car and leaves the 3 girls in the house. Before he goes he warns them not to leave and go up to the house behind his shack; he warns them about "Davy", his brother who is lurking about and isn't all there. Of course, one of them decides to venture out in search of a working phone and is never seen again. Is it Slaussen? Is it Davy? The mannequins?? Tourist Trap has the usual horror requirements (jiggly big boobed girl, goody two shoes girl, curiosity getting the better of people and never working out!), but it stands apart from the rest of the 70's genre in it's twist of an ending. I started to feel sorry for Slaussen (Chuck Conners is a terrific, creepy, over-the-top performance)at a point in the film, and you almost see the character of Molly doing the same. This is a gem if you can find it; I had taped it off of cable when I was younger, and walking through a used video store I spotted a VHS copy that was totally overpriced, but well worth it. Fans of Tanya Roberts won't be disappointed either. Best part of the film for me was the scene with the soup (and crackers!!)I gave it a 7 because some of the movie was and still is hard to explain.$LABEL$ 1
+Most Lorne Michaels films seem to fail because they're essentially just extended versions of skits that barely managed to make people laugh in five-minute segments. "Tommy Boy" is a character right from "SNL" - a big fat lovable (in their opinion) goof who doesn't know anything.David Spade gets the Thankless Overwhelmed Everyman role. He's paired with the Annoying Overweight Slob and they endure Miserable Misfortunes as they travel cross country to Save Daddy's Business.The plot, for starters, is really faulty. The whole premise - daddy dies and rich stupid son has to save the family biz - can be traced back to just about any movie you want. Like any SNL style film it is reduced to a simple motivation - empty, shallow; just a reason to see a fat guy and a thin guy be "funny" together.The movie's biggest "influence" is the 1987 comedy classic "Planes, Trains & Automobiles." That movie is great because the plot isn't stale and recycled. It's basic, yeah - a guy traveling home for Thanksgiving gets stuck with a slob. But it's real, dammit. It makes all the difference. The characters are real, the situations are far more real. "Tommy Boy" is pure slapstick and its ridiculous situations undermine the characters - we feel nothing for them, and we don't care about what's happening on-screen. "PTA" walked the careful line between outrageous and utterly believable and relate-able - "Tommy Boy" is simply absurd, with jokes like a simple deer-in-the-headlights turning into a crash turning into a struggle with a dead deer that really isn't dead, then awakens and wrecks their car.The whole wrecked car thing is stolen completely from "PTA" and it's eerie how much stuff in this film actually does resemble the Steve Martin/John Candy movie.Farley is simply way too obnoxious to find likable - I've never enjoyed watching him in any movies and this hasn't changed my mind. Spade's given very little to do, serving as the movie's most thankless character.Dan Aykroyd is wasted as the Evil Baddie who plans to destroy Daddy's Business. The ending is a joke, and not in a "har-har funny" way. More like a "oh god are they serious?!" way.Some people dig it, that's cool. But I just can't get into it, nor do I appreciate all the stuff it "borrows" from - not just counting "PT&A" - without any credit whatsoever.$LABEL$ 0
+Having read during many years about how great this film was, how it established Ruiz among the french critics (specially the snobbish Cahiers crowd), when I finally watched it about a year ago, I found it pretty disappointing (but then, I guess my expectations were sky-high). Shot in saturated black and white, this deliberately cerebral film (made for TV, and mercifully, only an hour long) is told in the form of a conversation between an art connoisseur and an off-screen narrator as they ponder through a series of paintings (which are shown in the style of tableaux vivants) and try to find if they hold some clues about a hidden political crime. (The awful Kate Beckinsale film Uncovered has a similar argument). Borgesian is a word I read a lot in reviews about this movie, but I would say almost any Borges story is more interesting than this film.$LABEL$ 0
+Many teenage sex comedy movies come and go without much fanfare, however, every so often a movie might come along thats honest, funny, entertaining AND memorable. The Last American Virgin is a special movie that has found its place and has stood the test of time blending all four ingredients. This film follows three friends (Gary, Rick and David "The Big Apple") misadventures into the world of first-time sex and true love. Along the way they learn hard lessons and the value of true friendship. We follow hopeless romantic Gary (The main character) on his quest to win over the girl of his dreams which leads him down an uncertain road with a surprise twist at it's ending. If you haven't been lucky enough to see this movie yet, by all means take a look...sprinkled with many memorable 80s songs throughout the movie to keep things moving at an even pace. L.A.V. truly is an original film, a rarity among films of it's genre.$LABEL$ 1
+I loved this show from it's first airing, and I always looked forward to watching each episode every week. The plot, characters, writing, special affects were outstanding! Then the sci-fi channel screwed up yet again and canceled a very entertaining, well written show. I say bring it back, I know all of the actors would come back. I would suggest buying the DVD's, I am. I hope the sci-fi channels executives get word of these comments, and realize that they need to be more involved with their viewers. I only watch one show on that channel now, (Ghost Hunters), but I am fairly sure that shortly they will cancel that too.$LABEL$ 1
+I didn't know what to except so I think it was a lot better not having excepted much. Don't get my wrong its not a bad short film. Tess Nanavati is a relatively new directer and writer so I think she deserves a lot of kudos for making this film. You can tell that it has been an act of love for her. The acting (outside of Dominic) is a little cheesy and the quality of film is not great either but for a really low budget film its good. There was times when the story line gets convoluted and there are parts that drag on, though I don't feel it greatly detracts for one's ability to understand the film. If you love Dominic Monaghan as much as I do, I say go for it. The gag reel was fun, I won't spoil it but there is a particular scene that makes buying the DVD worth it just so you can watch it over and over. If you like the film then check out The Pink Mirror, a film also done by Jagged Edge. I know fans of Dominic will enjoy this little piece of heaven.$LABEL$ 1
+Did the first travesty actually make money? This is another sequel (along the lines of ANOTHER STAKEOUT) that no one asked for. But we've received it anyway. The sequel is like its predecessor, completely brain-dead. It's also pretty disgusting (remember the dinner scene?) To think I almost felt sorry for Ritter, Yasbeck, and Warden. Did they need the money that much?$LABEL$ 0
+I was never so bored in my life. Hours of pretentious, self-obsessed heroin-addicted basket cases lounging around whining about their problems. It's like watching lizards molt. Even the sex scenes will induce a serious case of narcolepsy. If you have insomnia, rent this.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is awesome on so many levels... and none of them are the level that it was intended to be awesome on.Just remember this: When you're watching Shaun of the Dead and other recent zombie movies... be they good or bad... THIS is the formula that they are using. THIS is what makes zombie movies so great.And what makes it BETTER than great is the story behind the movie. A simple web search will provide you with everything you need to know.All in all, it doesn't linger. There's never a point where you think to yourself "c'mon, get on with it"... it moves quick and corners nicely. This is the sporty, little Italian number of zombie flicks.So awful, it's wonderful! If your tongue spends an ample amount of time in your cheek... rent it, buy it, love it.As a great trivia note: If you're watching it on DVD, you'll notice that there is sound effects during the menu screen, underneath the musical score... Well... that's because that music was lifted straight from the trailer... which is probably the only working print of that music that still exists which is long enough to loop.$LABEL$ 1
+The Ladies Man is laugh out loud funny, with a great diverse cast as well as having some very stupid but excellent scenes (including the funniest love song ever written).Ferrell is his usual quality self in a brilliant side role.Tim Meadows plays an idiot surprisingly well and has written himself some of the funniest lines you'll find in any comedy out there.It is definitely worth a purchase as watching it every 6 months or so will lead to you still laughing as hard as you did first time round.I am distraught to think at the time of writing this that it has a meagre 4.7 /10 and i urge you to vote! And remember kids- "Theres more motion in the ocean"$LABEL$ 1
+when i first heard about this movie i thought it would be like The Duchess(2008), but when i saw the first 30 minutes of The Young Victoria i knew this wouldn't just be a solid movie. Almost everything in this movie is great, the costumes are really amazing and the settings are also beautifully shot.The only thing that really let me down are the performances. Emily Blunt(The Devil Wears Prada) is the star of the film, bringing Victoria to life and with this movie she shows that she is a great actress and maybe picking a first Oscar nomination for her performance. Rupert Friend is almost bland as Prince Albert but he has great chemistry with Emily Blunt. Paul Bettany is also solid as Lord Melbourne although i expected more of him. Jim Broadbent and Miranda Richardson both have supporting roles but are forgettable.To me the film feels like unfinished. Maybe that the screenwriters changed too many things in the script, i don't know but that's how i feel about the movie.But overall it's a great movie about the early years of Victoria with a Great performance from Emily Blunt.$LABEL$ 1
+A flying saucer manned (literally) by a crew of about 20 male space explorers travels hundreds of millions of light years from earth to check in on a colony founded some 25 years ago on a 'forbidden planet.' What they find is a robot more advanced than anything imaginable on earth, a beautiful and totally socially inept young woman, and her father, a hermit philologist haunted by more than the demons of the ancient civilization he has immersed himself in.On the surface, this story is a pulp scifi murder mystery. Some compare it to Shakespeare's Tempest, but this is a stretch, and, in some ways, an insult to the scifi genre. Stripped of what makes it a scifi film, sure, its The Tempest, but how many hundreds of films can you say something similar about? Underneath, this is a cautionary tale about progress and technology and the social evolution necessary for its appropriate and safe use. Yet the film still proceeds with all the hopefulness for our future that we have come to expect from shows like Star Trek.Anne Francis is not the only reason why this film is best described as beautiful. The special effects, and even the aesthetics of the backdrops are powerful enough to make the uninspired directing and uneven acting almost unnoticeable. If it were not for the goofy retro-art-deco-ness of 1950s sci-fi props, you might think you were watching a 1960s piece.This is a classic of that very special sub-genre of sci fi I like to call 1950s sci-fi, and, though not, in my opinion, the best it is certainly a must see for anybody interested in sci-fi film and special effects. The clever plot, now rendered trite by its reuse in six or seven episodes of Star Trek, Lost in Space, and even Farscape, is worth paying attention to, and will sustain the interest of most scifi fans. Trekkers will be particularly interested in the various aspects of the film which seem to have inspired themes of Star Trek's original series aired about 12 years later, though they may find themselves disappointed by the (relatively mild) 1950s sexism and the lack of any kind of racial integration. While I do not mean to nitpick, the lack of social progress manifest in this film was the one major problem I had with it. Some will probably see this film simply to catch a glimpse of young, good-looking Leslie Nielsen in one of his first starring roles. Unfortunately, Nielsen's performance is only average, and at times down-right poor (especially at the climax of the film). Walter Pigeon, though quite excellent in other films, over-acts his role as well. Ms Francis, Earl Holliman, and the amazing Robby the Robot are the stand-out actors in this crowd, though on the whole the character actors filling in the ensemble do a good job. The problems with the featured performances, I think, are as much the fault of the director and the editor, as anything. Though they certainly got most of the film quite right.$LABEL$ 1
+I just saw this film on DVD last night, and decided to check out the reviews this morning. It seems that "I, Robot" has polarized the critical viewing community here on IMDb (and given rise to a lot of insults and name-calling, too).I find this somewhat surprising, as this film is not great (or even good), but neither is it terrible (or even really bad). What this film really is, is...depressing. Depressing that the US film-goer population is so ready to lap up insipid, clichéd re-heats, and acclaim them as spectacular new works. This film as "retread" written all over it, from the plot line (an uneasy mix of Asimov and modern-day uber-action) to Smith's character (a smart-mouthed cynic with a backbone of titanium), to the special effects (that borrowed from Matrix and a few others)."I, Robot" is, sadly, quite possibly the perfect action movie for today's audience: superficial plot, insipidly snappy dialog, and lots and lots of adrenaline. Smith is mediocre, but we already knew that (he seems to be Hollywood's latest unsuccessful attempt to create a black Bruce Willis). The story has lots of holes in it, of all sizes, but I don't think most people drawn to this film are critically-minded enough to notice. Perhaps a blockbuster by today's standards, but very B-movie compared to true winners.$LABEL$ 0
+This was a fine example of how an interesting film can be made without using big stars and big effects. Just tell a true story about the struggles of two African American women over a turbulent century.This movie challenges us all to look at our own personal prejudices and see that people are people, not white, black, etc.Good movie with a good message.$LABEL$ 1
+I have bought the complete season of Surface. watched it in 3 days! I was so captured by the the plot, theories and basically everything about this show. The actor who plays Miles is great. Mile's sister, mother and father acted like real life family would. You could connect on so many levels it's fascinating.I find animals are so wonderful, you can almost connect with them as a parent is to a child. It would be something if a creature of this sort of nature truly exists.Am sadden, that Surface is not having a second season or at least four more shows. I have so many questions that need to be answered and hopefully maybe they will create more or maybe in a book.Love the show very much. For those who haven't watched Surface, if you like sci-fi you need to watch this!!!!!!!!!!!!!$LABEL$ 1
+This must have been one of the worst movies I have ever seen.I have to disagree with another commenter, who said the special effects were okay. I found them pretty bad: it just wasn't realistic and they were so fake that it just distracted from the actual story.Maybe that distraction is the reason that I did not fully understand the story. The archaeologists are looking for "the set". They do not bother to tell what set, or what is so special about it. That also makes it unclear why they search for it in California, while the intro of the movie takes place in ancient Egypt.If you're shooting a movie that takes place in the desert, take the effort to actually go to the desert. The beginning - the ancient ceremony - looks like it was shot inside a studio instead of a desert.The action-level was constant throughout the movie, no ups and downs, no climax. It made the movie look short, and that's certainly a pro for this particular movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Liam Neeson portrays the Scottish legend Robert Roy Macgregor from the early 18th century. He is a true actor. He captivates the audience with his charisma as he does in all his roles. Jessica Lange is excellent as his wife Mary. Mary is such a beautiful woman. It's her love that makes Rob Roy the legend, but it's his passion that makes her love undying. They need each other. Tim Roth as the evil Cunningham is perfect; in one way or another, upon watching the movie, you will find Cunningham disgusting. The Scotland scenery is beautiful. The environment and conditions of the times are depicted quite well. If you like history, romance, passion and love, you'll enjoy Rob Roy. There is violence and blood, but it's unavoidable in telling this story as it should be told; no gratuitous violence. And you do have to listen carefully if you're not used to a Scottish accent. One important point that makes this movie so good is that no one actor or actress is glamorized; they get dirty and actually look unattractive in various scenes. It's their skill as actors that attracts you, they don't rely on marquee names, popularity or sex symbol appeal. This is something special.$LABEL$ 1
+When i watch this movie i too get excited when seen bed scenes of miss world. She has beautiful and charming body. When cute lady do bed scenes and show her fully nude body... i think male have hard to resist....i think its time for cute girls like hrishita bhatt also do nude scenes. At least no one wants to c nude body of ugly women like Seema biswas to c in bandit queen.I concur with what mallicka.b has said. The movie is portrayed in a way which appears to be a kind of vilification on the original content. Emotions aren't conveyed properly. I guess a couple of not-so-good performances also contributed to its mediocrity. In my view, Tabu would have been a much better choice for such a role instead of Aishwarya Rai. In some of her scenes, she looks a bit lusty, which is not ultimately what the movie should have portrayed. I also noticed a bit of over-acting in some of her scenes. I'm a bitter critic of Aishwarya Rai :) Can't help it; sorry for that. 'Raincoat' was a good movie by Rituparno Ghosh. And I saw Choker Bali after seeing Raincoat; I was not at all impressed$LABEL$ 1
+They've shown i twice in a very short time now here in Sweden and I am so very tired of it. The bad acting isn't enough... The story itself is so boring and the effects hardly exists. I love the original from 1953 so I recommend you to go and rent that one instead. Because this one is such a bore.$LABEL$ 0
+Having seen Carlo Lizzani's documentary on Luchino Visconti, I was bound to higher expectations before watching this film made three years later by Adam Low. But the viewer like me did get dissatisfied... I faced a need for critical opinion, which I generally don't like giving due to the fact there are no documentaries that will satisfy every viewer. There are also no documentaries that will examine a theme totally. But when I read the reviews already written on this title, I also felt a bit confused. People sometimes don't know what to criticize. Therefore, to be clear, I'll divide this film into two major parts that differ considerably: the former one about Visconti before his director's career and latter one about Visconti the director. The aristocratic background, all the hobbies, the wealth that young Luchino experienced and enjoyed are clearly presented. His effort in horse racing is mentioned as well as his relation with his mother so much disturbed after his parents' divorce. We also get a very accurate idea of where Luchino was brought up as a real count of Milano: in riches galore, with nannies, cooks with access to everything, in TRUE ARISTOCRACY. For instance, his father's splendid villa at Grazzano and other marvelous villas prove that. There is also an emphasis on Visconti's crucial visit in Paris in the 1930s where he met eminent people ("left wingers") who later had impact on his style and message in art. That clearly explains the idea of a communist with the aristocratic upbringing (a contrast at first sight). However, the part about his director's career, which started with OSSESSIONE during WWII and ended with INNOCENTE just before the director's death in 1976, is poorly executed. His movies are not discussed well. Why? Because there are very few people who really have something to say. Franco Zeffirelli, the director, remembers the works on LA TERRA TREMA and that is all right. There are also some interviews with Franco Rosi. But later, such movies like IL GATTOPARDO, LA CADUTA DEI REI, LA MORTE A VENEZIA or LUDWIG are mostly discussed by Helmut Berger. Although I liked the actor in the role of Ludwig, I did not like the interviews of his. Moreover, some thoughts he reveals are not accurate to entail in such a documentary... There is no mention of significant works of Visconti like CONVERSATION PIECE, there are no interviews with eminent cast Burt Lancaster. A mention about Silvana Mangano and Romy Schneider should also be made. There is one footage interview with Maria Callas that appears to be interesting but that is only a short bit. Franco Zeffirelli, though I appreciate him as a director, makes fun of it all rather than says something really precious. For instance, he mentions the event how Visconti separated from him after years of service. Therefore, I say: simplified and unsatisfactory. What I find a strong point here are footage interviews with Visconti himself. As a result, we may get his own opinion about his works. For instance, I very much appreciate the words he says about death regarding it as a normal chapter of life and as natural as birth itself. He also discusses his health problems after the stroke while filming LUDWIG.I believe it is better to see LUCHINO VISCONTI (1999) by Carlo Lizzani than this doc. Although it is shorter and condensed as a whole, you will get a better idea of the director. Visconti would be furious about that and the fury of his usually turned people's emotions and viewpoints into stone... 4/10$LABEL$ 0
+Time is precious. This film isn't. I must learn to ignore critics who rave about small films like Fargo and this complete waste of time.The theater was packed and everyone left with the same reaction: Is this the film the critics are raving about? What a piece of crap!The hook of this film is the upwardly mobile black daughter seeking out and finding her white trash family. Get it?The acting is superb.The production (lighting, sets, editing, sound) is about 2 steps above a 60 minutes story. The characters are shallow and unintelligent. I was insulted by the fact that these people could not figure out about each other what was blatantly obvious to the audience; the audience was murmuring to the movie screen what the characters should say next.I have had more fun doing the laundry.$LABEL$ 0
+worst. movie. ever made. EVER. I have no words to say about it.. other then it truly had no point, no plot, no... anything. sheer crap!!! I don't know how everyone in the movie didn't shoot them shelves after watching it.... .... .... ... .. I love vampire flicks and mysteries, and alternate abstract outside the box films, and.... this was non of those. I mean what the crap!!! I cant even tell you what the film was about cuz I still don't know, and I just wasted an hour and ahalf of my life watching it... bottom line.. I think the maker of this film just wants everyone to do drugs. thats the only thing I got from this film. please don't watch this... I mean for a " sultry sensual vampire flick" there wasn't even the to be expected nudity you'd get from a vamp flick. anyway back to my point.... this movie blows. go set yourself on fire instead.... .. ..$LABEL$ 0
+Savage Island (2003) is a lame movie. It's more like a home video shot with very minimal lighting and horrid acting. Not only that the storyline and script was wretched. I don't know why this movie was made. I have seen a lot of flicks in my time and the ones I really hate are movies that make me angry. This one made my blood boil. The situations were inane at best. If I made a movie like this it would have been a short. Really because those backwood "idjits" wouldn't have been in the picture.Don't be fooled by the cover on the D.V.D. I am an avid watcher of bad cinema. But this movie is virtually unwatchable. I don't mind movies being shot on D.V. but if you're going to do that make the movie enjoyable, not some tired retread of superior horror films (sans Wrong Turn).I have to not recommend this waste of disk. If you come across this one in the rental store pass on by.Movies that make yours truly angry get an automatic 1.$LABEL$ 0
+I have to say this is my favorite movie of all time. I have seen it well over 100 times (actually had to buy a new copy as a result of overwatching) It is what the eighties was like and what a romantic story with a few morals thrown in. I highly recommend to anyone wanting to relive the high schools days again. Buy a copy now it is a classic!!!!$LABEL$ 1
+I saw it at the Legacy Theater in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building in Salt Lake City this morning. I'm going to assume that one's level of enjoyment during this movie will largely be based on one's level of acceptance of Joseph's story.However, that aside it was very well made, well acted, and had a nice score. If you get to Salt Lake City, it is a must to see it in the Legacy Theater. I have never been in a nicer theater as far as picture quality, sound quality and ambiance in my entire life...I wonder if the Church would let me watch Batman Begins there! Being that I'm LDS and regard Joseph as a prophet, I was touched in several places and was brought to tears quite a few times...which I presume is expected since they handed out tissues BEFORE the movie started! Anyway, I'm told that this film is available in several LDS Visitor Centers around the globe, if you have 70 minutes check it out because whether you believe Joseph Smith or not, he tells a fascinating story.$LABEL$ 1
+Adenoid Hynkel, a lowly soldier in World War One, rises in subsequent years to become the ruthless dictator of Toumania. He creates an aggressive, antisemitic war machine and cultivates a little toothbrush moustache. Sound like anyone you know?From the safety of Hollywood, Chaplin uses this soapbox to exhort Europe to take up arms and defy Hitler and Mussolini. Given that the United States in 1940 had more than a year of neutrality ahead of it, and no strong desire to embroil itself in Europe's civil strife (remember, it was Hitler who declared war on the USA, not the other way round) it is surprising that Chaplin was allowed to distribute this immoderate polemic.The story involves on the one hand the the vulgar and repellant Hynkel and the reign of terror over which he ineptly presides, and life in the jewish ghetto where every single person is friendly, humane, brave, etc., etc, Chaplin is Hynkel, and he also plays The Jewish Barber, the little hero of the ghetto (The Tramp in all but name). Needless to say, Chaplin writes, directs, stars, composes the music and does the catering.In 1940 the full truth was not yet known about the Third Reich, and Chaplin can be forgiven for having something less than perfect historical foresight, but even by the standards of the day he gets Hitler badly wrong. A comedian and a sentimentalist, Chaplin tries to ridicule Hitler by making Hynkel silly and hapless. All this does is to humanise him. When Hynkel the not-very-warlike soldier fools around with the big gun and the upside-down aeroplane, he becomes endearing rather than despicable. As dictator, he inspects his subordinates' technical innovations which don't work (the parachute hat, the bulletproof uniform etc.) and these passages are meant to make us think that the real-life Nazis are incompetent and can be swept aside. In fact, Hynkel's regime is made cute and likeable by its bumbling bodgery.In truth, Chaplin's day had already passed when he made this ill-considered polemic. At heart, he was still a dinosaur of the silent screen (check out the humour, with gags like staggering up and down the street semi-conscious, or the pantomime of the coins in the puddings). The hero Schultz is meant to represent a yardstick of European decency against which Hynkel can be judged, but Schultz looks more like a character from operetta than a Nazi. Is it in any way believable that a Schultz figure (if such had existed) would say to the Fuehrer's face, "your cause is doomed to failure because it's built upon the stupid, ruthless persecution of innocent people"? And how does Schultz come to be in the cellars of the jewish ghetto? If he is the object of an exhaustive manhunt, why does he persist in wearing his Ruritanian uniform? Chaplin did not yet know the full horrors of Auschwitz-Birkenau or Treblinka, but the Nazi concentration camp which he offers us is hopelessly out of kilter with the grim spirit of the age. As usual, Chaplin thinks in terms of 'silent' comedy set-pieces, loosely pegged onto the narrative clothes line. There is the knockabout scrapping with the stormtroopers, shaving a man to the accompaniment of Brahms, and the globe ballet (watch for the segment filmed in reverse).Paulette Goddard is the unremittingly perfect Hannah. Just as the people of the ghetto are impossibly nice, and the jewish haven in Osterlich is ridiculously idyllic, so Hannah is quite literally too good to be true. Brave, defiant, resourceful, hardworking and (of course) beautiful, she is the canary of judaism in the ghetto cage. "Gee, ain't I cute?" she asks, after the Barber gives her a make-over. Too cute by far, is the answer. She doesn't come close to ringing true, because Chaplin has made her a caricature. The 'wouldn't it be wonderful?' speech which Chaplin puts into her mouth is typical of the author - too wordy, too emotionally cloying.Jack Oakie is great as Napaloni, the fascist dictator of Bacteria. He brings a whiff of much-needed comic brio to the proceedings, but the film's underlying weakness remains. If Napaloni is silly and ineffective, how can we fear him? And anyway, the stuttering stop-start of the back-projected train is a fine Chaplinesque example of a gag that is persisted with far beyond its comic worth.And where did the Jewish Barber acquire that immaculate Hynkel uniform?$LABEL$ 0
+"Milo" is yet another answer to a question nobody ever asked.Do we really need more slashers?I for one think we already have more than enough.I guess the professional tall guys overcharged so in this one we deal with a murderous kid that's also a zombie or a ghost when he feels like it.A long time ago,he drowned but that didn't bother him and he still kills people("Friday the 13th",what's that?).One day,his survivors have a big reunion and as a surprise twist,Milo comes to pay them a visit.Through some really bad shots that show everything except the murders the cast is thinned out till only the final girl is left to find out Milo's dull,I mean dark secret.She and her friends have been dying to know.Once discovered,Milo goes on yet another murderous rampage(isn't it his bedtime yet?) and the girl,well she screams a lot.The acting is not even bottom of the barrel,the barrel refuses to be associated with it.Milo can be one creepy bastard from time to time I give him that,but some movies just can't be saved without a great script or gratuitous nudity.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the best horror / suspense films that Hollywood has made in years or maybe even decades.Even though in my opinion this movie was predictable in parts, it has everything that a good film in this genre should had CHILL, THRILLS, AND yes a lot of GORE!! HOUSE OF WAX SURE DELIVERS!!! In parts it was sort of far-fetched,the acting was not that great,but my overhaul rating for HOUSE OF WAX is an eight out of ten......if you enjoy being at the edge of your seats, this is just the right movie for you,I have to admit,it was sort of neat seeing the whole town made out of wax...... I myself enjoy these museums, but after seeing this film I will now look at them in a whole new different way!$LABEL$ 1
+Never saw the original movie in the series...I only hope it was a much better movie than this or the sequel made in the 1980's as if it is not how were these two terrible sequels even justified. This movie had a really good lead in when they were advertising it to be shown on one of those old independent stations that are a thing of the past now. Anyways it looked like it would be a pretty good scary movie. It was, however, a movie that would make some Walt Disney movies look dark. Really, this movie was just a bunch of light fluff with virtually no boggy creek creature to be seen. The only real sighting is near the end when you see its shape during a very heavy rainstorm, other than that there is virtually no sign of the creature which was really disappointing as a kid. The story is basically the old evil hunters must kill anything they see and are after the boggy creek creature and kids are out to help it or just some random hairy guy in the woods that likes to pull random boats through the water. Not really worth watching I would however like to see the original, granted the maker of that would make the also bad boggy creature of the 80's, but he also made a very good slasher movie in the 70's "The Town the Dreaded Sundown".$LABEL$ 0
+Created in 1928, and originally named Mortimer before Walt Disney changed his name (because his wife convinced him), Mickey Mouse has become the staple of the Disney brand. I always thought this cartoon was the first ever cartoon to feature Mickey, it is in fact his third, but it doesn't matter, for a six minute animated short it is enjoyable. The story sees Mickey piloting a steamboat until Captain Pete takes him off the bridge, stopping to pick up cargo, and Minnie Mouse missing the boat. Being lifted on she drops her music sheets and a goat eats them, Mickey helps her crank it's tail and play the tune, and getting some other animals to be percussion, until Pete comes along again to stop him, making Mickey peel potatoes. Mickey Mouse was number 53 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, and he was number 31 on The 100 Greatest Cartoons. Very good!$LABEL$ 1
+Highly regarded at release, but since rather neglected. Immense importance in the history of performing arts. A classic use of embedded plots. One of my favourite films. Why hasn't the soundtrack been re-released?$LABEL$ 1
+The perfect murder is foiled when a wife(played by Mary Ellen Trainor, once the wife to director Robert Zemeckis, who helmed this episode), who murders her husband with a poker, has the misfortune of receiving a visitor as she is about to move the body outside..an escaped insane madman dressed in a Santa Claus suit(played by a deviously hideous Larry Drake). She fends for her life while trying to find a way of hiding her husband's corpse. She decides to use an ax, once she downs the Santa killer who misses several chances to chop off the woman's head, to frame the killer for her husband's murder. Santa killer locks her in a closet and pursues the woman's daughter as she tries desperate to free herself to save the child.This episode of TALES FROM THE CRYPT just recycles tired material involving the old "Santa kills" theme while also adding the oft-used(add nauseum)woman-murders-her-husband-for-a-man-she's-been-cheating-with routine. It's essentially Trainor trying to find a way to avoid being caught with a dead body she kills while also keeping a safe distance from a maniac. There's nothing refreshing or new about this plot which pretty much goes through the motions. Not one of the show's highlights.$LABEL$ 0
+The IMDb plot summary in no way describes the essence of this film. It should have read 'Be prepared to be catapulted back to the prison of the 3rd pew from the back of your family's church at 8 years old, listening to the preacher drone on about God's will while all you can think of is getting back home to your Lego'.It starts off well intentioned, building intrigue by planting some real and surreal clues such as Renny's 'how did the cut on my thumb heal so fast?' moment. It then slowly morphs into a Christian jamboree, sacrificing its plot completely in a wash of evangelistic-induced babble. I believe I counted the use of the word 'pray' about 53 times in a five minute span near the end. After the 31st, I tried to twist the context of the word to its synonym, 'prey'. Sadly, this little mind game of mine made the film at least bearable for the last 20 minutes. Plus it made me laugh whenever a character would say 'prayer' ('preyer' to me) as it became totally zany. Indeed, even my Catholic wife sunk in her chair from boredom, almost to the point of ending up on the floor.For all the salivating Christians who ranked this film 8-10 stars, I suggest sticking with your theology-reinforcing safety standards like Circle Square, The Ten Commandments, anything from Narnia, Jesus Christ Superstar and the like. Stay away from more cerebrally challenging subject matter in films such as Jesus Camp, The God Who Wasn't There, What Would Jesus Buy, or the soon-to-be released Religulous.Maybe Robert Whitlow's book is better.$LABEL$ 0
+TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY is possibly the best movie of all of Mary Pickford's films. At two hours, it was quite long for a 1922 silent film yet continues to hold your interest some 80 years after it was filmed. Mary gives one of her finest performances at times the role seems like a "greatest hits" performance with bits of Mary the innocent, Mary the little devil, Mary the little mother, Mary the spitfire, Mary the romantic heroine, etc. characteristics that often were used throughout a single film in the past. The movie is surprisingly frank about one supporting character's illegitimate child for 1922 and at one point our Little Mary is thought the unwed mother in question! If the Academy Awards had been around in 1922, no doubt the Best Actress Oscar for the year would have been Mary's.$LABEL$ 1
+I first saw this movie when I was about 10 years old. My mom bought it at our local Kmart because it was on sale for $5 on VHS. She thought that it would be a nice Christmas movie for me and my brothers to watch. This movie, however, scared the hell out of me. You may be asking yourself, how could a movie about Santa Clause scare anyone? The plot of the movie revolves around Satan sending one his minions, Pitch, to earth in an attempt to kill Santa and ruin Christmas. That's right, Satan sends a demon up from hell to kill Santa Clause. Pitch stalks Santa throughout Christmas eve in an attempt to trap him on earth when the sun rises on Christmas day, for if Santa doesn't make it back to his home in space, he turns to powder. Don't get me wrong, the movie is funny and fairly entertaining, however, the image of demons and devils dancing in the depths of hell (which occurs at the beginning of the movie) is just downright creepy.$LABEL$ 0
+Although there are some snippets in this 4-part documentary hinting at the necessity for recreational drug law reform, these are not very well-developed, in contrast to the many snippets from those who feel that the drugs that happen to currently be illegal are a scourge for which the only imaginable solution is incarceration of even those who are guilty even of mere possession of such drugs.Although this program, as a whole, leaves the viewer with the impression that the drug war is largely a futile exercise and a waste of money, and for that it deserves some praise, almost nothing in this documentary addresses the very real problems that total war against those who merely possess illegal drugs obviously causes and contributes to--very real problems that most drug warriors themselves would tell you, if asked, they think the drug war is designed to solve. For example, while many minutes are spent on the surge in violence associated with the rising popularity of crack cocaine in the 80's, at no point does this program even hint that the very laws designed to suppress crack cocaine make it impossible for drug sellers to enforce their contracts and business arrangements in courts of law, forcing them to resort to violence to stay in business. But instead of seeing the laws as an important cause of the violence, the drugs themselves seem to take the brunt of the blame. Inexplicably, alcohol prohibition, the violence that ensued, and the subsequent reversal of prohibition, is totally ignored by this program.This program will help to perpetuate ridiculous stereotypes of drug users, and it is these that are the primary force in driving the very expensive and very problematic drug war. The possibility of incorporating drugs other than alcohol into a happy and successful life is not really touched on. Use of any drug in excess is probably going to cause personal problems, but not all users do their drugs in excess, just like not all alcohol users are alcoholics.If you want a point of view from someone who believes that adults have a moral right not to be incarcerated and have their lives ruined by the criminal justice system just for using drugs that the government, for mostly very arbitrary political reasons rather than reasons based on sound social policy and legitimate science, has decided to totally prohibit, whose users it has decided to not-so-metaphorically wage war against, just forget about it. None of that is in here.On the other hand, this is hardly in the category of anti-drug propaganda. It is mostly an interesting neutrally-presented history of drugs in 20th century United States like marijuana, LSD, heroin, cocaine, MDMA, and Oxycontin. But there is a significant element of various people's points of view with regard to drug laws, and most (but not all) of that is not very thoughtful or well-informed and slanted in favor of the drug warrior mentality, especially with respect to drugs other than marijuana. The criminal justice system, along with its often harsh life-ruining penalties, is obviously not the only answer or the most appropriate answer to every single social problem, but unfortunately there's an epidemic in this nation of an as-yet unnamed disease whose primary symptoms are a lack of imagination with respect to social policy when it comes to certain drugs, a lack of compassion for fellow humans, a prejudice against people who use the drugs that are not governmentally-approved, perhaps a vested interest in the growth of the prison/policing industry, and a horrid apathy with regard to human dignity. It's morally wrong to kidnap or incarcerate people unless you have a very damn good reason for doing so, and the mere possession of an arbitrarily selected group of drugs is clearly not such a reason. This is really the primary issue when it comes to drugs, yet this program ignores it.So, in sum, the parts of this program that neutrally present history without feeding stereotypes of drug users that are at the heart of the drug war mentality are pretty good and interesting and entertaining. But when it comes to presenting a rational non-radical point of view with regard to drug policy, and giving the viewer examples not only of people with drug problems but also the many people who successfully incorporate drugs into happy and successful lives, it's pretty disappointing.$LABEL$ 0
+Considering this film was released 8 years before I was born, I don't feel too bad for over-looking it for such a long time. Back in January of 98 though, I attended the Second Annual Quentin Tarantino film fest held in Austin,Texas. The particular theme of films this night was "Neglected 70's Crime Films" and boy was her right. "The Gravy Train(or The Dion Brothers, as it appeared this print)" was an absolute gem. Wonderful performances, quirky characters, smart plot, hilarious comedy, and just an all around great time. Rarely do you see a Crime film that is so entertaining and fresh. Margot Kidder in one of her earliest film appearances is extremely sexy as well. I hope some cable network gets a hold of this film and allows many more to see it. In the meantime, go to an indie video store and hope they have it.$LABEL$ 1
+The movie was actually a romantic drama based on three sisters who had desires to become a famous girl group. In their endeavors, the oldest sister meets a drug dealer and street hustler called Satin, whom Sister goes after because she believes he is the "big time" who will give her everything she ever thought she wanted out of life. Though he could be accused of killing her, he really kills only her spirit and will to live, after which she becomes a drug addict and ultimately dies from an overdose. The story isn't about the street life or the Italian mobster who tries to buy Stix off, then threatens him, it's about how love can overcome even the worst tragedies in life as portrayed in song and style and the character that was the life in the times for young women trying to be "discovered" back then.$LABEL$ 1
+First, I realize that a "1" rating is supposed to be reserved for the worst of the worst. This movie gets that from me because, as one reviewer points out, it's not bad in a self-aware, over-the-top sort of way that might allow it to have some comic or cult value. It simply misses its mark on every count. **Contains possible spoilers** The dialog is completely disingenuous. The continuity is so deliberate it's painful. Daniel just finishes speaking of his lost love, and with his final word the flamenco dancers start. The mock-shock of what's her name (see? I don't even remember her character's name, let alone the name of the forgettable actress) when her husband (the Baldwin) first tells her that her friend is the bad guy. The car and the motorcycle chases did all the right things. Vegetable carts gone flying. Cars crashing into each other. Motorcycles going down the stairs. People nearly being hit, but remarkably, no one is. Oh, that's right... except for the one guy who has been stabbed several times, is obviously stumbling along the curb with knife wounds, and an approaching car apparently didn't notice him there. Hmmm. It's becoming more and more remarkable to me that movies like this can be made. There is so much pressure in the film industry to make money, you'd think that someone in Hollywood would think of making good films worth seeing. Now there's a novel idea. My suggestion: don't see this film. Don't rent the DVD. Don't watch it on cable. There are lots of other things you could be doing that will leave you feeling more satisfied.$LABEL$ 0
+Picture the scene where a bunch of scriptwriters sit around a table and one says "lets have a black woman approach an unsuspecting member of the public (also black) in the street and ask him if he is black, then walk away". The other writers fall about laughing hysterically until one suggests they repeat it in every episode. More laughter. Now if you think the premise is funny, and the show contains many such types of situation, you will enjoy this show. For the rest, use your zapper and find something more entertaining like watching paint dry. Those that have written glowing reports of this show should either get out more or be forced to watch television comedies that are really funny. Another example of the humor in the show, a girl tries to get out of paying at a supermarket checkout by trying to hypnotise the cashier. Marginally funny the first time but why repeat it over and over in different shows with different cashiers? I could give other examples but these just might be treated as spoilers, divulging why this comedy just is not funny at all.$LABEL$ 0
+The year 2005 saw no fewer than 3 filmed productions of H. G. Wells' great novel, "War of the Worlds". This is perhaps the least well-known and very probably the best of them. No other version of WotW has ever attempted not only to present the story very much as Wells wrote it, but also to create the atmosphere of the time in which it was supposed to take place: the last year of the 19th Century, 1900 … using Wells' original setting, in and near Woking, England.IMDb seems unfriendly to what they regard as "spoilers". That might apply with some films, where the ending might actually be a surprise, but with regard to one of the most famous novels in the world, it seems positively silly. I have no sympathy for people who have neglected to read one of the seminal works in English literature, so let's get right to the chase. The aliens are destroyed through catching an Earth disease, against which they have no immunity. If that's a spoiler, so be it; after a book and 3 other films (including the 1953 classic), you ought to know how this ends.This film, which follows Wells' plot in the main, is also very cleverly presented – in a way that might put many viewers off due to their ignorance of late 19th/early 20th Century photography. Although filmed in a widescreen aspect, the film goes to some lengths to give an impression of contemporaneity. The general coloration of skin and clothes display a sepia tint often found in old photographs (rather than black). Colors are often reminiscent of hand-tinting. At other times, colors are washed out. These variations are typical of early films, which didn't use standardized celluloid stock and therefore presented a good many changes in print quality, even going from black/white to sepia/white to blue/white to reddish/white and so on – as you'll see on occasion here. The special effects are deliberately retrograde, of a sort seen even as late as the 1920s – and yet the Martians and their machines are very much as Wells described them and have a more nearly realistic "feel". Some of effects are really awkward – such as the destruction of Big Ben. The acting is often more in the style of that period than ours. Some aspects of Victorian dress may appear odd, particularly the use of pomade or brilliantine on head and facial hair.This film is the only one that follows with some closeness Wells' original narrative – as has been noted. Viewers may find it informative to note plot details that appear here that are occasionally retained in other versions of the story. Wells' description of the Martians – a giant head mounted on numerous tentacles – is effectively portrayed. When the Martian machines appear, about an hour into the film, they too give a good impression of how Wells described them. Both Wells and this film do an excellent job of portraying the progress of the Martians from the limited perspective (primarily) of rural England – plus a few scenes in London (involving the Narrator's brother). The director is unable to resist showing the destruction of a major landmark (Big Ben), but at least doesn't dwell unduly on the devastation of London.The victory of the Martians is hardly a surprise, despite the destruction by cannon of some of their machines. The Narrator, traveling about to seek escape, sees much of what Wells terms "the rout of Mankind". He encounters a curate endowed with the Victorian affliction of a much too precious and nervous personality. They eventually find themselves on the very edge of a Martian nest, where they discover an awful fact: the Martians are shown to be vampires who consume their prey alive in a very effective scene. Wells adds that after eating they set up "a prolonged and cheerful hooting". The Narrator finally is obliged to beat senseless the increasingly hysterical curate – who revives just as the Martians drag him off to the larder (cheers from the gallery; British curates are so often utterly insufferable).This film lasts almost 3 hours, going through Wells' story in welcome detail. It's about time the author got his due – in a compelling presentation that builds in dramatic impact. A word about the acting: Don't expect award-winning performances. They're not bad, however, the actors are earnest and they grow on you. Most of them, however, have had very abbreviated film careers, often only in this film. The Narrator is played by hunky Anthony Piana, in his 2nd film. The Curate is John Kaufman – also in his 2nd film as an actor but who has had more experience directing. The Brother ("Henderson") is played with some conviction by W. Bernard Bauman in his first film. The Artilleryman, the only other sizable part, is played by James Lathrop in his first film.This is overall a splendid film, portraying for the first time the War of the Worlds as Wells wrote it. Despite its slight defects, it is far and away better than any of its hyped-up competitors. If you want to see H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds – and not some wholly distorted version of it – see this film!$LABEL$ 1
+Of the elements that make this the best at this point, I have to say #1 is Christine McIntire. Shemp's scene when poisoned and her reaction are truly magnificent. I imagine that, as one poster suggested, Christine was trying to hold back laughter during that scene, but it actually made her seem even more deliciously evil, to be smiling at Shemp's possibly dying.Another character who helps this stand out is the Goon. His look was a great cross between horrific and comedic goof-ball. Hardly a character I would choose to meet in a dark alley or, for that matter anywhere. I would have preferred a bit of true whodunit mystery in this, but hey, when a short is this good, who's going to complain. Not I.$LABEL$ 1
+Okay this is stupid,they say their not making another Nightmare film,that this is the "last" one...And what do they do?They go on making another one,not that the next one (part7) was BAD,but why do they play us. Anyway this movie made no sense what-so ever,it was extremelly dull,the characters were highly one dimensional,Freddy was another joker,which is very stupid for such a good series.The plot is very,very bad,and this is even worse than part 2 and 5. I didnt get the movie,its a stupid tale in 3-d,pointless!Id say. I hated this film so much i still rmember all the parts i didnt like which was basically the whole film.This is SO different than the prequels,it tries,and tries,but this one tried the hardest,and got slapped back on the face.Again there were hadly any death scenes,although they were different,they sucked bigtime. How can they have gone this far?Didnt they see they made the biggest mistakes at parts 2 and 5?Yet they make this?Its all bout the money,DO NOT SEE THIS SAD EXCUSE FOR A NIGHTMARE SERIES.I GAVE A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET SIX (6) 3 out of 10.GOOD POINTS OF MOVIE: Had potential with plot.BAD POINTS OF FILM: Terrible acting/lack of deaths/Too funny to be classified as horror/very confusing.$LABEL$ 0
+Everyone, my name may sound weird, but there was nothing else! Any way, I haven't seen anything like this before so it was crazy! Of course that's a good thing. It is a humorously interesting movie and my absolute all time favourite thing is how they intertwine other things into one! Like chicken little,, the fish pretending to be King Kong and Runt the pig saying, "Twas beauty who killed the beast", War of the worlds scene and more. Walt Disney company has NOT lost his touch maybe not for this one. Also, how they made it like they were watching a movie and it was like a home cinema. However some parts don't fit. Like in the original lion king, weren't Timon and Pumbaa with Simba when he beat Scar? In this movie, they are not! they were fighting the hyenas backstage. Ther's more, the reason being why Pumbaa isn't so confident is because he was pushed away by the other animals and also, it's just Timon, Timon, Timon. Anybody realise that only Timonn's story was told, whereas pumbaa only had flashbacks?But apart from that , IT"S GREAT!$LABEL$ 1
+Finally was there released a good Modesty Blaise movie, which not only tells a story, but actually tells the "real" story. I admit that it is a bad movie if you expect an action thriller, but if you stop in your track and remove all your expectations. Then you will notice that it is a story that comes very close to the original made by Peter O'Donnell. You have a cover story just to tell about how Modesty became the magnificent person which she is. It is not a movie to attract new fans, but a movie to tell the real tale. Some things could have been better, but when you cannot forget the awful movie from '66 then is this a magnificent movie. So are you a fan then sit down relax and just enjoy that the real story is there with a cover story just to make Modesty tell her story.$LABEL$ 1
+By now, the game's stale, right?The jokes have been done. Its all over. The creative genius which drove this game for the first two games was gone, after all.Wrong.The game is still intact, the jokes are here, folks. Sure, they're all rehash, but so was Monkey Island 2. And 1, for that matter.The difficulty is well placed, somewhere between the slightly easy 1 and the ridiculously hard 2. The ship fighting sub-game is badly innappropriate, in the tradition of sub-games. And this game has the best joke of the whole series. When asked for your membership card to an exclusive beach, always select "You don't need to see my identification." Its worth the price of the game by itself.$LABEL$ 1
+I decided to watch this movie because I'd not seen Carol Lombard before in any movie. I'm sorry it had to be this one because, quite frankly, this is a dog – and even with Jimmy Stewart and Charles Coburn, both of whom were great actors.The problem with the film is simple: it tries to put too much, too quickly, in to a story about a young lawyer (John Manson played by Stewart) who marries Jane (played by Lombard) within an hour of meeting her. What's that cliché? Marry in haste, repent at leisure... In short, the story is a series of episodes that show the couples' worsening financial status, their troubles with John's live-in mother, their struggles to pay the bills, John's diminished status at the office, the arrival of their baby son, John Jnr (unexpected and causing additional friction at home with mother), the couples' angst about their marriage, the baby's sickness which worsens, thus necessitating an heroic flight by a lone pilot (in a fierce storm) to bring a special serum to save the child, and finally John being accepted as a junior partner at the law firm.How many more clichéd situations could the writers include? Maybe Mother dying soon after? There wasn't much comedy; the drama was lacklustre, at best; the dialog was painful to hear. Only the acting of the four main players was adequate.This was the period at the end of the Great Depression with the USA coming out of its long downturn – during which many people experienced all of the events portrayed in the movie.So, it made sense for Selznick to reaffirm good ol' home spun American values of family, relationships, heroism, perseverance, and initiative – all against the backdrop of the "average" American family. Who better to use than Jimmy Stewart and Carol Lombard? And, it should be noted that the film was released in early 1939; so, it was planned in 1938 – soon after the USA began to get production going for the coming World War II. Hence, this sort of film was a great booster for the general public, at that time, many of who would soon have to join England in war. As many here would know, Hollywood and Washington formed an uneasy alliance before, during and after the war.However, I'm glad I saw it – as a piece of disguised socio-political propaganda. But, I'll have to see other Lombard films to gain a better appreciation of her acting range.As another reviewer noted: see this one just to say that you've seen all of Stewart's movies; otherwise, don't bother.$LABEL$ 0
+Unfortunately the only spoiler in this review is that there's nothing to spoil about that movie.Even if B. Mattei had never done any master piece he use to do his job with a bit of humor and craziness that made him a fun Eurotrash director. But for the last 10 years he seemed to have lost it.This film is just empty, nothing at all to wake us up from the deep sleep you sink into after the first 10 min.No sex, no blood(it's suppose to be about snuff?),no actors, no dialogs, just as bad as an 90'T.V film.It's even worse than his last cannibals and zombies epics.So Rest in peace Bruno, you will stay in our minds forever anyway, thanks to such unforgettable gems as:Zombi 3, Robowar,Rats, l'altro inferno,Virus, Cruel jaws and few others.So except if you want to see B Mattei possessed by jess Franco's spirit's new film, pass on this one.But if you don't know this nice artisan's career track down his old films and have fun.$LABEL$ 0
+I Enjoyed Watching This Well Acted Movie Very Much!It Was Well Acted,Particularly By Actress Helen Hunt And Actors Steven Weber And Jeff Fahey.It Was A Very Interesting Movie,Filled With Drama And Suspense,From The Beginning To The Very End.I Reccomend That Everyone Take The Time To Watch This Made For Television Movie,It Is Excellent And Has Great Acting!!$LABEL$ 1
+Hypothetical situations abound, one-time director Harry Ralston gives us the ultimate post-apocalyptic glimpse with the world dead, left in the streets, in the stores, and throughout the landscape, sans in the middle of a forgotten desert. One lone survivor, attempting to rekindle his sanity, takes food from the city to his bungalow in this desert. All alone, he hopes for more, but with nobody around, he is left with white underwear, and a passion for a local Indian tribe – until the discovery of a camera which opens up new doors and breaks the barriers of human co-existence. Alan, a man of the book, is left on Earth after an unknown disaster. Thinking he is alone, he begins living life his way – until, Jeri Ryan, appears (like she would in any dream) out of the woods, disheveled, and unhappy to find the final man alive to be ... well ... like Alan. Anyway, they try to co-exist, fail, get drunk, and before creating the ultimate dystopia, they run into Redneck Raphael (played by newcomer – Dan Montgomery Jr). Bonds are torn, confusion sets in, a couple becomes a third wheel, and the battle between physically inept nerd vs. brainless jock. Even with nobody left on the planet, it becomes a truth that even the darkest of human nature will arise.Using a variable film technique, Ralston gives us a mediocre story based loosely on another film entitled "The Quiet Earth" (which I will be viewing next) oddly which he never gives any credit towards. With a borrowed story, I guess he does a decent job of reinterpreting it. His punch seems to be lacking at the beginning while Ralston tries to find his stride, borrowing yet again from other film director's techniques to attempt to find his own. He opens the film interestingly enough, but fails to answer any direct answers. Sure, the final days have arrived, but could there be a concise answer as to "how" or better yet "why" these select few survived. A spookier beginning would have led us stronger into a comical film. The juxtaposition would have been like "Shawn of the Dead", but instead left us feeling like we were watching a "made-for-TV" program. Listening to the audio commentary, I have respect for Ralston because he worked diligently to get this film made, and his passion nearly sells the film, but you could tell from his interaction with the cast that he wasn't as happy with his overall final product. There were mistakes, ones that he pointed out and others that he was ashamed to point out. While this does make for decent independent film-making, it sometimes feels cheap, and in Ralston's case, it was the latter.I must admit, David Arnott's portrayal of Alan hooked me. He played that wimpy, school nerd, adult role very well. He was funny to both watch and listen to, and thus he became sympathetic to the viewer. He was a key player in keeping the film together, alas, I cannot say the same for the rest. This was Dan Montgomery's first film, and it was obvious – I mean – really really obvious. There were scenes in which I thought the cue card was about to come out and read the lines for him, perhaps even giving us a more realistic performance, but alas, it wasn't the case. Then there was Jeri Ryan. She pulled into her character near the end of the film, which to me, was the culmination of the entire piece of art. She goes from estranged unknown to bitter cranky insane girlfriend by the end. Confused? Again, she fell into her character by the end, giving us just a glimpse of what she could have probably done as her acting matured. Even as the commentary progressed, all that she contributed was a laugh, giggle, or "ohhh, look at that color" moment. While her beauty may sell tickets, one may want to consider knowledge to be just as beautiful. This was her first film, so can I be too harsh? Overall, this film felt like it was missing something. I though the idea was strong – the premise that even with only a peppering of people remaining on the Earth the evil of human nature still exists. Jealousy cannot be killed by bacteria or bombs (maybe because it is consumed by zinc?) and we as a race will always want what we cannot have. Ralston is not a surprising director, his techniques are flawed and pre-used, but he does know how to make a low-budget comedy. I think our idea of "funny" is different, so that is why I couldn't find myself laughing at many of the bits he found "hysterical". His actors provided the level of acting needed for this film, which was lower than average. His film was loose, meaning that there were elements never quite explained or tackled (i.e. anything with wings survived?!?), which overall harmed the intensity of the film. This was a comedy, but it could have been much darker and much much funnier. For those thinking that Roger Avery was a huge element to this film, as we learn from their commentary, all he was there for was money – the was in essence, the bank for "The Last Man". Don't get your hopes up for any classic Avery moments.Don't expect more from Ralston – and that is how I will end it.Grade: ** out of *****$LABEL$ 0
+I must admit, I was expecting something quite different from my first viewing of 'Cut' last night, though was delighted with the unexpected Australian horror gem. I am a true horror fan as true as they come, and found 'Cut' to not only be the best of the genre Australia has ever produced, but one of the great parody/comedy films of late.My only concern is that mainstream audiences may not pick up on a lot of the comedic elements - the film was not overly clever in it's application but made me laugh at every turn trying to fit in EVERY possible cliche of the horror genre they could. I am certain this was intended as humour....hoping this was intended as humour.And of course, there was the gore.The use of the 'customised' garden shears was brilliance - besides the expected stabs and slashes. In short, there was a huge amount of variety and creativity in the many violent deaths, enough to please even the skeptics of this films worth.The appearance of both Kylie Minogue (short that her appearance was) and Molly Ringwald was just another reason to see the film - both performances were fantastic, as well as Simon Bossell ('The Castle') in a brilliant role as the jokey technician.All in all, I think this movie is one of the best horror products of the last couple or years, as well as a beautiful satire/parody - toungue-in-cheek till the very end.Loved it. Go see it!$LABEL$ 1
+I am so happy not to live in an American small town. Because whenever I'm shown some small town in the States it is populated with all kinds of monsters among whom flesh hungry zombies, evil aliens and sinister ghosts are most harmless. In this movie a former doctor, who's just done time for an accidental killing of his wife in a car crash, directs his steps to the nearest small town - he must have never in his life seen a flick about any small towns - which happens to be the Purgatory Flats. And, of course, as soon as he arrives there all the hell breaks loose. He meets a blond chick who out of all creatures most resembles a cow both in facial expressions and in brain functioning and at once falls in love with her. But there is a tiny handicap, she is already married to a very small-time drug dealer who in a minute gets himself shot pitifully not dead. To know what has come out of all this you should watch the movie for yourself. I'll just tell you that it's slightly reminiscent of U Turn by Oliver Stone but is a way down in all artistic properties.$LABEL$ 1
+Like anyone else who bought this, I was duped by the "20 pieces of extreme gore" and "banned in 20 countries" or whatever it says in the box. I have to admit I am a huge gore fan and I am always amazed when films can lay it on thick and look convincing doing it. Tom Savini, Rick Baker and Greg Cannom are some of the best in the business. The revolutionized make-up effects in the 80's. Today, you don't need them as everything is done on computer. But computers cannot compare to the visual wizardry that these three men could conjure up. But I digress.Watching fantastically gory films like Fulci's Gates to Hell or even Savini's crowning achievement, Friday the 13th the Final Chapter, you can appreciate all that goes into making a terrifically gory film. You can't tell the difference between reality and magic.I can't imagine another reason why anyone would see Cannibal Ferox but the gore that is ostensibly omnipotent in this film. If that is the reason you seek this film, then you are wasting your money. As many other reviewers in here have noted, most of the gore is an aftermath. You don't see the torture, or the bloodshed as it happens, you see whatever it looks like afterwords.The gore? Well, it's here, but not as much as one would hope, or expect. A man does get castrated and a women does get hanged by her breasts, but other then those two scenes, and one involving a scalping; there is nothing really much else to this film. The scenes of gore even in these three mentioned, are still pretty tame in comparison to what you were hoping for. Maybe it's just me and my sick and twisted experience in the horror and gore genre, but I was expecting a bit more. Call me sick or twisted, but isn't that the only reason people are watching this film in the first place? I honestly found myself bored in a lot of places.Cannibal Ferox is just another film that tries to capitalize on a craze of a superior film. While Cannibal Holocaust is not exactly a great film, it is much better than this tripe. If you go out of your way to buy this for $20.00, you will feel cheated.3/10$LABEL$ 0
+I always felt that Ms. Merkerson had never gotten a role fitting her skills. Familiar to millions as the Lt. on Law and Order, she has been seen in a number of theatrical releases, always in a supporting role. HBO's Lackawanna Blues changes that and allows this talented actress to shine as Nanny, successful entrepreneur in a world changing from segregation to integration. But the story is really about the colorful array of characters that she and her adopted son meet in a boarding house in Lackawanna, New York, a suburb of Buffalo.The story could be set in any major African-American community of the 50's and 60's from Atlanta's Sweet Auburn to New York's Harlem. But the segregation-integration angle is only a subtle undercurrent in the colorful lives of the folks at Nanny's boarding house. The story revolves around Nanny's relationships with all kinds of people, played by some of the best actors in the business (I purposely did not say black actors--this ensemble is a stunning array of talent who happen to be black, except for Jimmy Smits, of course) I recommend this film as a fun and colorful look at a bygone day.$LABEL$ 1
+This will not likely be voted best comedy of the year, a few too many coincidences and plot holes. However we are talking about a movie where a hit-man and a white bread salesman become buddies so a few vagaries shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. Brosnan is excellent in this role, gone is the wooden James Bond (a role he was wasted in). If he can maintain this kind of quality I hope he continues to make comedies. Greg Kinnear is also excellent as Brosnan's straight man. I've read a few negative comments in here about Hope Davis but I thought she was quite good as a mousy housewife with a dark side buried deep within. There are lots of good chuckles as Brosnan sleazes his way through and a few scenes where I nearly died laughing. My father (a consultant) nearly lost it when Julian describes himself as a "facilitator". Much like "Grosse Pointe Blank", another hit-man comedy, the humour can be very dark. If you are in to that be prepared to enjoy yourself.$LABEL$ 1
+As a casual listener of the Rolling Stones, I thought this might be interesting. Not so, as this film is very 'of its age', in the 1960's. To me (someone born in the 1980's) this just looks to me as hippy purist propaganda crap, but I am sure this film was not made for me, but people who were active during th '60's. I expected drugs galore with th Stones, I was disappointed, it actually showed real life, hard work in the studio, So much so I felt as if I was working with them to get to a conclusion of this god awful film. I have not seen any of the directors other films, but I suspect they follow a similar style of directing, sort of 'amatuerish' which gave a feeling like the TV show Eurotrash, badly directed, tackily put together and lacking in real entertainment value. My only good opinion of this is that I didn't waste money on it, it came free with a Sunday paper.$LABEL$ 0
+Watch the Original with the same title from 1944! This made for TV movie, is just god-awful! Although it does use (as far as I can tell) almost the same dialog, it just doesn't work! Is it the acting, the poor directing? OK so it's made for TV, but why watch a bad copy, when you can get your hands on the superb original? Especially as you'll be spoiled to the plot and won't enjoy the original as much, as if you've watched it first! There are a few things that are different from the original (it's shorter for once), but all are for the worse! The actors playing the parts here, just don't fit the bill! You just don't believe them and who could top Edward G. Robinsons performance from the original? If you want, only watch it after you've seen the original and even then you'll be very brave, if you watch it through! It's almost sacrilege!$LABEL$ 0
+Director Don Siegel really impressed me with this film. It is starkly shot, graphic without being visually graphic, well-acted by all concerned, and covers some of the most taboo issues of any day in a workmanlike, almost expected normalcy hitherto not seen in any other film by this reviewer. I didn't know what to expect sitting down to watch this: a civil war movie or some kind of 70's soft-core peddling with Eastwood descending on a school for girls in the South. But really is is neither of those things but rather and examination, exploration, and descent into the soul of men and women - a dark commentary on what is at the core of the civilized. as one reviewer previously noted, none - none - of the characters are likable by the film's end and yet each one is interesting, complex, and enigmatic. Eastwood plays Cpl. McBurney, a Union soldier found by young Pamelyn Ferdin(you'll recognize that voice as soon as you hear it), a girl at a school for manners headed by Geraldine Page amidst the chaos that was the Civil War - particularly in the South. Soon, Page, teacher Elizabeth Hartman, lovely, young seductress Carol, and even Ferdin(Amy)have emotional/sexual ties to Eastwood - each having their own needs and secrets and problems. Eastwood is not a nice man. he plays the girls off of each other always trying to get the sexual advantage. In the unfolding we get some real interesting things revealed from latent lesbianism to incest. The Beguiled, for me, is a masterpiece that far exceeded my expectations on every creative front. This might be(except for Invasion of the Body Snatchers) Siegel's best film. It certainly is one of Eastwood's best REAL performances. page is always so very good and Hartman, Fe5rdin, et al excellent. the Gothic manse set for the school is effectively claustrophobic. Some of the sexual-laced scenes disturbing. And what happens to Eastwood is a leg up on much of the competition for creepy, eerie, demented film.$LABEL$ 1
+Anyone who lived through the ages of Revenge of the Nerds and Girlpower will appreciate this film. It is one of those films that delivers everything you want in a "spring break movie" PLUS it makes fun of the college film genre. It's funny, it's got a cast to die for (Amy Pohler! Rachel Dratch!, Sophie Monk!, Parker Posey! Jane Lynch! Amber Tamblyn! Missi Pyle!) and its guaranteed to make you laugh out loud. Writer/ actor Rachel Dratch is a comic genius and Sophie Monk is such a great villain. Wilson Phillips! OMG! (I'm just repeating myself now...) It will live on with girls who like Miranda July but feel like eating ice cream and pretending they're dumb.$LABEL$ 1
+Arguably the finest serial ever made(no argument here thus far) about Earthman Flash Gordon, Professor Zarkov, and beautiful Dale Arden traveling in a rocket ship to another universe to save the planet. Along the way, in spellbinding, spectacular, and action-packed chapters Flash and his friends along with new found friends such as Prince Barin, Prince Thun, and the awesome King Vultan pool their resources together to fight the evils and armies of the merciless Ming of Mongo and the jealous treachery of his daughter Priness Aura(now she's a car!). This serial is not just a cut above most serials in terms of plot, acting, and budget - it is miles ahead in these areas. Produced by Universal Studios it has many former sets at its disposable like the laboratory set from The Bride of Frankenstein and the Opera House from The Phantom of the Opera just to name a few. The production values across the board are advanced, in my most humble opinion, for 1936. The costumes worn by many of these strange men and women are really creative and first-rate. We get hawk-men, shark men, lion men, high priests, creatures like dragons, octasacks, orangapoids, and tigrons(oh my!)and many, many other fantastic things. Are all of them believable and first-rate special effects? No way. But for 1936 most are very impressive. The musical score is awesome and the chapter beginnings are well-written, lengthy enough to revitalize viewer memories of the former chapter, and expertly scored. Director Frederick Stephani does a great job piecing everything together wonderfully and creating a worthy film for Alex Raymond's phenom comic strip. Lastly, the acting is pretty good in this serial. All too often serials have either no names with no talent surrounding one or two former talents - here most everyone has some ability. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a Shakespeare troupe by any means, but Buster Crabbe does a workmanlike, likable job as Flash. He is ably aided by Jean Arden, Priscella Lawson, and the rest of the cast in general with two performers standing out. But before I get to those two let me add as another reviewer noted, it must have been amazing for this serial to get by the Hayes Office. I see more flesh on Flash and on Jean Rogers and Priscella Lawson than in movies decades later. The shorts Crabbe(and unfortunately for all of us Professor Zarkov((Frank Shannon)) wears are about as form-fitting a pair of shorts guys can wear. The girls are wearing mid drifts throughout and are absolutely beautiful Jean Rogers may have limited acting talent but she is a blonde bombshell. Lawson is also very sultry and sensuous and beautiful. But for me the two actors that make the serial are Charles Middleton as Ming: officious, sardonic, merciless, and fun. Middleton is a class act. Jack "Tiny" Lipson plays King Vultan: boisterous, rousing, hilarious - a symbol for pure joy in life and the every essence of hedonism. Lipson steals each and every scene he is in. The plot meanders here, there, and everywhere - but Flash Gordon is the penultimate serial, space opera, and the basis for loads of science fiction to follow. Excellent!$LABEL$ 1
+I have to say that the events of 9/11 didn't hit me until I saw this documentary. It took me a year to come to grips with the devastation. I was the one who was changing the station on the radio and channel on TV if there was any talk about the towers. I was sick of hearing about it. When this was aired on TV a year and a day later, I was bawling my eyes out. It was the first time I had cried since the attack. I highly recommend this documentary. I am watching it now on TV, 5 years later, and I am still crying over the tragedies. The fact that this contains one of the only video shots of the first plane hitting the tower is amazing. It was an accident, and look where it got them. These two brothers make me want to have been there to help.$LABEL$ 1
+Perfect movies are rare. Even my favorite films tend to have flaws - Rear Window looks a little stagey at times, Chris Elliot's character in Groundhog Day doesn't work, the music score in Best Years of Our Lives is too cheesy, the beginning of Nights of Cabiria is a little too slow - but this film is perfectly executed from start to finish. The script is brilliant, the acting is superb all around (although Reese Witherspoon and Sam Waterston are amazing, the whole cast shines), the directing and the photography are inspired, and the music score is touching without being intrusive (like some Miramax scores that are too manipulative). Every sad moment is truly moving, every light moment makes me smile. This truly is one of the best films I have ever seen and I wish there were more films like it. I am glad that Reese Witherspoon has gone on to stardom after this film, but I am sorry to see that her recent movies are so much more escapist and silly than this serious film which is about real people, real feelings and real problems. Brilliant! A must-see.$LABEL$ 1
+This has to be one of the 5 worst movies ever made. The plot looked intriguing like that of Passenger 57. But with the latter movie it somehow worked a lot better. The plot has been worked out in the worst possible way. Just a few of the awful moments in the movie, A flight attendant is standing in the opened doorway of a flying 747 and trying to close the door without being sucked out by the 250 mile per hour winds?!? Thereafter the lands the aircraft from a few miles out starting at 8000 feet, thats impossible even for 747 pilots with thousands of hour experience. When on the runway (perfectly straight of course) she is instructed to pull on the flaps, HUH!! Come on flaps are there to ensure lift at low speeds, when on the runway you use thrust reverse on the engines and give maximum power! I can go on and on about little and mostly big mistakes in the movie, but then my reply would become the size of the English dictionary. This is a movie you want to miss, take my word for it!$LABEL$ 0
+regardless of what anyone says, its a b-movie, and the effects are poorly done.. if you're a vampire fanatic, I suppose it would be OK, not 10 out of 10, you others here cant sincerely mean that?. we are to view this as a movie, not read it as a book, so the effects and characters are important, as well as the story. The story are good, but it doesn't carry the film, no wonder it has a low rating over all. I write this because I chose to see this movie when I saw some good reviews here on IMDb, but got severely disappointed. don't get me wrong, I thought the blade movies was awesome, and loved the underworld movies, but this characters aren't close. the make up on the vampires is poorly done, and the effects are worse. this sucks. I might not have gotten so disappointed if I had not read reviews here that told me how great it was. the reviewers must have had something to do with the production company or something, seriously, if you think this is awesome, you don't care about acting or make up. this is better as a book. 3 out of 10 for an OK story..$LABEL$ 0
+I want very much to believe that the above quote (specifically, the English subtitle translation), which was actually written, not spoken, in a rejection letter a publisher sends to the protagonist, was meant to be self-referential in a tongue-in-cheek manner. But if so, director Leos Carax apparently neglected to inform the actors of the true nature of the film. They are all so dreadfully earnest in their portrayals that I have to conclude Carax actually takes himself seriously here, or else has so much disdain for everyone, especially the viewing audience, that he can't be bothered letting anyone in on the joke.Some auteurs are able to get away with making oblique, bizarre films because they do so with élan and unique personal style (e.g., David Lynch and Alejandro Jodorowsky). Others use a subtler approach while still weaving surreal elements into the fabric of the story (e.g., Krzysztof Kieslowski, and David Cronenberg's later, less bizarre works). In Pola X, Carax throws a disjointed mess at the viewer and then dares him to find fault with it. Well, here it is: the pacing is erratic and choppy, in particular continuity is often dispensed with; superfluous characters abound (e.g., the Gypsy mother and child); most of the performances are overwrought; the lighting is often poor, particularly in the oft-discussed sex scene; unconnected scenes are thrust into the film for no discernible reason; and the list goes on.Not to be completely negative, it should be noted that there were some uplifting exceptions. I liked the musical score, even the cacophonous industrial-techno music being played in the sprawling, abandoned complex to which the main characters retreat in the second half of the film (perhaps a reference to Andy Warhol's 'Factory' of the '60s?). Much of the photography of the countryside was beautiful, an obvious attempt at contrast with the grimy city settings. And, even well into middle-age, Cathering Deneuve shows that she still has 'it'. Her performance was also the only one among the major characters that didn't sink into bathos.There was an earlier time when I would regard such films as "Pola X" more charitably. Experimentation is admirable, even when the experiment doesn't work. But Carax tries nothing new here; the film is a pastiche of elements borrowed from countless earlier films, and after several decades of movie-viewing and literally thousands of films later, I simply no longer have the patience for this kind of unoriginal, poorly crafted tripe. At this early moment in the 21st century, one is left asking: With the exception of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, are there *any* directors in France who know how to make a watchable movie anymore? Rating: 3/10.$LABEL$ 0
+It's hard to praise this film much. The CGI for the dragon was well done, but lacked proper modelling for light and shadow. Also, the same footage is used endlessly of the dragon stomping through corridors which becomes slightly tedious.I was amazed to see "Marcus Aurelius" in the acting credits, wondering what an ex-Emperor of the Roman Empire was doing acting in this film! Like "Whoopie Goldberg" it must be an alias, and can one blame him for using one if he appears in this stinker.The story might been interesting, but the acting is flat, and direction is tedious. If you MUST watch this film, go around to your friend's house and get drunk while doing so - then it'll be enjoyable.$LABEL$ 0
+I remember going to see the movie in the summer of '78 with my parents, and being pretty into it at the time. Of course, I was seven at the time.Right before the Jackson movies came out, my wife and I rented this movie since she had never seen it and I was feeling nostalgic.Ralph Bakshi ran out of money about mid-way through the animation process for this movie, and was forced to drastically cut corners on this production. Since this movie was done primarily with rotoscoping, the animation technique for people on a budget, this is saying something. Much of this movie is animation only in the very loosest sense of the word. There are some scenes which are very obviously just people standing in front of a screen, with maybe some animation effects superimposed on top of them.Because of budget constraints, the movie -- already a compression of "The Fellowship of the Rings" and part of "The Two Towers" -- was pared down even more. What you get is sort of like a film-strip version of the Cliff Notes of the books.Its not all bad, though, the animation brings a warmth to it, that I found lacking in the Jackson movies. Its nice to imagine what it could have been like with decent funding.This movie is also noteworthy for having the sequel which never came. Several years later, a half-hearted half-hour long TV special was aired, which was meant to wrap things up. All I will say about that is that it was a musical.$LABEL$ 0
+Just finished watching 2FTM. The trailers intrigued me so much I actually went to see it on opening weekend, something I never do. Needless to say I was very disappointed. The story has so much potential and it's frustrating to see it get screwed up. I really feel the problem with the movie was the directing and Matthew McConaughey. First off I am not a MM hater, I thought he was awesome in both Reign of Fire and Lone Star. I enjoyed his performance in those movies without having to see him with his shirt off 3-4 times. Yes we all get it that he a good-looking guy with a nice body, but I think most people knew this 10 years ago when he came on the scene in A Time to Kill. Showing him with his shirt off pumping iron like a sweaty madman 3-4 times in the movie is totally unnecessary. I think one time would have been sufficient. It wouldn't surprise me if they threw those unnecessary scenes in so girlfriends and wives would be willing to tag along with their significant other, no woman wants to see a movie about sports gambling, unless......Enough about that, let's get into his role. I feel his acting was very forced and he didn't seem very comfortable. I know his character was supposed to be this charming southerner, but his lines were corny and cheesy. It was almost like he was referencing Days and Confused lines a few times! In short, I didn't like his character even though I was supposed to. The accent, his shirt off, corny pick up lines, weak sales pitches. His character was just too much of a tool, as Brandon or Jonathan. Pacino and Assante were great, but that' no surprise. Piven is fun to watch as Arie....oooops I mean Jerry. I just feel this movie was very commercial and put together poorly. It's insulting that they could take a great story, and throw in crap ingredients to try and make it a box office success. 1. Cool story that appeals to the male man 2. Hunky Hollywood actor for female women (make sure he has numerous scenes with shirt off lifting weights) 3. Al Pacino with 4 great speech scenes, and 25 great one liners 3. Every character shall be dressed in thousand dollars suites and have an extremely dark tan 4. Jeremy Piven to play the same character he did in Entourage and Old School 4. Throw in Armand Assante to seal the deal 5. Plot, good writing, character development, and intelligent casting are unnecessaryThis will be good enough for most people, but not me! Anybody who disagrees with me, ask your self this. Would this movie be much better if: A. Directed by Sodeberg B. DeCaprio or Ed Norton as Brandon instead of MMI will probably be part of the minority in thinking this movie sucks. I realized this when the woman next to me started crying during the ridiculous ending scene of Pacino shedding a fake tear while embracing Russo. The financial success of this movie will ensure one thing. The movie going public gets what the movie going public wants, big budget crapola.$LABEL$ 0
+I was watching the sci-fi channel when this steaming pile of crap came on. While not as bad as Wynorski's "Curse of the Komodo", this still sucks...BAD. Wynorski uses the same island as in "Curse of the Komodo", as well as the same actors and house. The effects are top notch (suprising) but thats about it........I don't know what else to say about this movie.......oh yeah! As in "Curse of the Komodo", the government gets involved and decides to bomb the island! Also....when i saw this part i laughed hysterically...A KOMANBRA!!! (part man, komodo AND cobra!). Overall this movie is utter crap even on bad movie standards. Just remember if Jim Wynorski had anything to do with a movie....steer clear....to avoid from falling asleep keep repeating "It's almost over..it's almost over...". 0 out of 5.$LABEL$ 0
+I only heard about Driving Lessons through the ITV adverts, and to be honest, I didn't know how much I would like it. I switched on the TV last night and was totally surprised. Driving Lessons is a modest, simple film which draws you in right from the start. Rupert Grint plays the part of socially awkward teenager Ben brilliantly. He's definitely one to look out for in the future. Dame Eve Walton is played by the fabulous Julie Walters. I loved the simple plot and the way the actors portrayed their characters with great sensitivity. The highlight of the film, for me was Evie's rather colourful poem. It shows how friendships can form between the most unlikely pairs. In my opinion, watching Driving Lessons is a great way to spend 2 hours. The scenery was also striking, especially the countryside. Anyone who can call this sparkling comedy forgettable, I strongly disagree with$LABEL$ 1
+For Greta Garbo's first talking picture, MGM wisely chose Eugene O'Neill's Pultizer Prize winning 1921 play ANNA Christie. Also wisely, the producers backed Garbo up with not one but two members of the Original Broadway Cast (George Marion as Anna's father, Chris, and James T. Mack as Johnny the Priest - transmuted to "Johnny the Harp" for films so as not to offend). This little change is interesting. Like too many films accused (by those who want MOVIES to be MOVIES and ignore their origins) of being "little more than filmed stage plays," the problem is not the play but the movie makers who wouldn't be more faithful to the property. By diluting a great cinematic stage work so it wouldn't offend anyone, or opening it up because they COULD, too many lose the very qualities which made the piece worth filming in the first place. Fortunately, the respect the studio had for both O'Neill and Garbo allowed ANNA Christie to survive the normally destructive process admirably in Frances Marion's generally sensitive screen adaptation. Wonder of wonders, Marion even allows the POINT of the scene where Garbo's Anna reveals her past on "the farm" to the man she badly wants to marry and the father who sent her there in tact! What the League of Decency must have thought of that! The source play's greatest problem has always been that Chris's friend Marthy tends to walk away with the first act and then disappears from the last two so that Anna can take stage - the two sides of the genuinely good woman men don't always recognize. The perfectly cast Marie Dressler (who had cut her teeth on the Broadway stage as well before going to Hollywood) is the perfect balance for Garbo's Anna in this area as well and the fast moving film at only 90 minutes, doesn't allow us too much time to miss her - one of the few benefits from atmosphere being shown rather than eloquently described in the original - AND screenwriter Marion is wise enough to stray from O'Neill to bring Dressler back for a touching scene two thirds of the way through the film that will remind many of Julie Laverne's second act appearance in SHOW BOAT. Anna and Marthy's early scene together on screen (16 minutes into the film) taking each other's measure and setting up all the tension of the rest of the story is among the most affecting scenes in the entire piece. Not to be missed. ANNA Christie is great tragic play and a good film drama. It's hard to imagine that a latter day remake, which would almost certainly lose the grit and atmosphere of this 1930 remake (it was first filmed without sound in 1923 - also with George Marion's original Broadway Chris) could improve on this excellent filming. The internal scenes hew closest to the play, but the exteriors shouldn't be missed by anyone with an eye to atmosphere. While the background screen work is not to modern technical standards, the backgrounds give a better glimpse than most films of the era of the actual world in which the screen play is set (especially in the New York harbor).Nearly all Garbo's naturalistic performances of the sound era have held up superbly (only the too often parodied death scene from CAMILLE, 7 years later, will occasionally draw snickers because of the heavy handed direction and the parodies), but this ANNA Christie, together with the variety of her 1932 films, MATA HARI and GRAND HOTEL, and the sublime Lubitsch touch on her 1939 comedy, NINOTCHKA ("Garbo laughs!"), surely stand as her best.O'Neill fans who are taken with this play at the edge of his lauded "sea plays," should track down the fine World War II shaped film released in the year before the U.S. entered the conflict, THE LONG VOYAGE HOME (1940). It is almost as skillfully drawn from those sea plays as this one is from ANNA Christie, and features a youngish John Wayne in one of his rare non-Westerns supporting a fine cast of veteran actors showing him the way.$LABEL$ 1
+Let me set the scene. It is the school holidays and there is absolutely nothing at the movies. I am with my friend deciding what to see. We look for a movie that is starting soon and "The Grinch" comes up. We buy tickets not knowing what to expect. What we got was a roller coaster of fun.Jim Carrey (who may I add is my No.1 actor in the whole world) was absolutely magnificent as the Grinch in this Ron Howard's best movie (next to Apollo 13). The way that this movie was made, the scenery, the actors, the props and the music was just amazing. It really brought this childhood movie to life.The story is based upon the story of the grinch. As we all know the Grinch is a horrible person who just can't stand christmas. He lives high above whoville and has never mingled well with the townfolk. But one little girl is going to change The Grinch's look on life and on others in a drastic way.Cindy Lou Who (played by adorable new actress Taylor Momsem) meets the Grinch as finds the kind part of him straight away. She attempts to break the barrier and to help the Grinch move in and mingle with the towns people.All up this movie is a barrel of laughs for the whole family both kids and parents. A SOLID 10/10. Well done Jim.$LABEL$ 1
+As a long-time fan of all the Star Trek series,I found this a disappointing episode, and I wonder if the liberal use of "flashbacks" featuring Will Riker's exploits, both positive (and largely romantic) and negative (lots of pain, and a crewmate's death)was a money-saving device, as were many of their "bottle shows" (episodes in which all scenes take place on the Enterprise). Diana Muldaur(who also appeared at least twice on the original series) deserved a better final appearance than this for her character, Dr. Kate Pulaski. Loyal viewers (in the Star Trek world, is there any other kind?) also were shortchanged. This was the last episode of second season; thus, the season ended "not with a bang" but with "a whimper."$LABEL$ 0
+This TV-series was one of the ones I loved when I was a kid. Even though I see it now through the pink-shaded glasses of nostalgia, I can still tell it was a quality show, very educational but still funny. I have not seen the original French version, only the Swedish. I have no idea how good the dubbing was, it was too long ago to remember.The premise of the show was to show you how the body works. I swear, school still hasn't taught me half of what I know from this show. It also tied in other things, like what happens if you eat unhealthy food and don't exercise, with nice examples within the body. Who wants to have another bar of chocolate when you know miniature virus tanks can invade you? :D The cartoon looked nice, very kids friendly of course, but done with care. Cells, viruses, electric signals in the brain, antibodies and everything else are represented by smiling cartoon figures, looking pretty much how you'd expect what they should look like in the animated body.This, and the series about history(especially the environmentally scary finale) were key parts of my childhood. I'm so happy I found them here.$LABEL$ 1
+Fans of the HBO series "Tales From the Crypt" are going to love this MOH episode. Those who know the basic archetypal stories that most of the classic EC comics were based on, will recognize this one right off the bat.Underrated indie favorite Martin Donovan (also an excellent writer - co-author of the screenplays for APARTMENT ZERO and DEATH BECOMES HER) is the kind of guy whose everyman good looks can go either way. He could play a really nice if misunderstood guy-next-door, or he can play the same role with a creepy undertone of corrosive sleaziness. In the case of RIGHT TO DIE, he takes the latter approach, and it definitely works.Donovan is a doctor who has recently had an affair with his slutty office receptionist (Robin Sydney), much to the displeasure of his inconsolable, unforgiving spouse, Abbey (Julia Anderson). When the two of them get involved in a terrible car accident while returning from an unsuccessful weekend of "making up," and she's horribly burned in a fire, he's reluctant to pull the plug on her, not without some enthusiastic nudging from his even sleazier lawyer and best buddy (Corbin Bernsen, looking the worse for wear these days.) But Abbey's never been one to give up without a fight, and that's where the EC-theme of the episode comes in. Cuckolded husbands - and wives - have always been the genre's favorite subject matter for some spooky (and OOKY) supernatural shenanigans, and this case is definitely no exception. If anything, the ramped-up quotient of sex and gore must have Bill Gaines cackling with glee in his mausoleum somewhere.And that's not to mention that John Esposito's original script does give the adultery angle just a slight twist. You don't realize as you're watching that you only know half the story, until close to the end...(think WHAT LIES BENEATH with more guts and gazongas, and you're there.)Not a bad effort, but not the best of the lot, either. At least Rob Schmidt does display touches of flair here and there with the direction, especially in a scene that makes cell phone picture messaging into a truly horrifying experience indeed! As with most MOH episodes, this one is following a prevalent theme this season of flaying and dismemberment, so the extremely squeamish need not apply.$LABEL$ 1
+Dirty War is absolutely one of the best political, government, and well written T.V. Drama's in the 25 years.The acting is superb, the writing is spectacular.Diry War reveals the true side of why we are not ready to respond to a Nuclear, Biological, and Radiological Terrorist Attack here on American soil.Dirty War should be made into a major motion picture - It's that good! I highly recommend this great drama to everyone who desire to know the truth.This T.V. drama reveals how British Intelligence (MI5 & MI6) attempt to expose a terrorist plot and conspiracy to destroy innocent victims -because of England's involvement in the Iraq War.The scenes of different parts of London, England are also spectacular.Dirty War is a must see!!!$LABEL$ 1
+Some may go for a film like this but I most assuredly did not. A college professor, David Norwell, suddenly gets a yen for adoption. He pretty much takes the first child offered, a bad choice named Adam. As it turns out Adam doesn't have both oars in the water which, almost immediately, causes untold stress and turmoil for Dr. Norwell. This sob story drolly played out with one problem after another, all centered around Adam's inabilities and seizures. Why Norwell wanted to complicate his life with an unknown factor like an adoptive child was never explained. Along the way the good doctor managed to attract a wifey to share in all the hell the little one was dishing out. Personally, I think both of them were one beer short of a sixpack. Bypass this yawner.$LABEL$ 0
+This is the Who at their most powerful. Although before the masterwork Who's Next, which would provide anthems like Baba O'reily and Wont Get Fooled Again. This film shows the group in transition from mod rockers to one of the biggest live bands of the 70's.Daltrey shows what being a front-man is all about, Entwistle steady as ever. Moon is great, check out the ongoing conversation with the drum tech, and see him playing "side saddle" whilst having a bass drum head replaced!Townsend even looks like he's enjoying himself occasionally!Considering they took to the stage at 2am no one in the crowd was asleep! There are not many bands these days could produce a set as tight as this and it is difficult to imagine any of the bands of today producing a concert that in 36 years time will be be enjoyed as much as this one.$LABEL$ 1
+This filmmaker wanted to make a movie without having a story to tell -- and did so. Really awful jumble of unlikely/unexplained coincidences and unidentifiable plot line, all without character or clear motivation.We get cliché snapshots instead of characters. One in particular is the diminutive and beautiful crime boss, who projects an overdone "tough guy" persona and casts a cartoonish shadow of intimidation over the actual tough guys who have been brought in to work for her. Nothing much startling to look at in the film except for one shot when the boys hit the road and one of them carries a tiny suitcase (as in, the smallest from a complete American Tourister set) in a bright, sky blue, without explanation or apology. Otherwise it's standard visually -- one other exception is a compelling shot of a beautiful bridge in CT.$LABEL$ 0
+They filmed this movie out on long Island, where I grew up. My brother and his girlfriend were extras in this movie. Apparently there is some party scene where they are all drinking beer, (which they told me was colored water, tasted disgusting, and was very hard to keep swallowing over and over again, especially in the funnel scenes). Yet none of us ever heard of the movie being released anywhere in any form. It never came out in the theaters (obviously) and it, as far as I knew, was never released on video, and I'm sure wasn't released on DVD. Yet it looks like it was seen by some people, albeit it probably very few. So there must be something. I would absolutely love to purchase this for my brother, yet there is no way I can find it anywhere. Does anybody know anything about when/where/how this movie could be purchased? And which format that would be?$LABEL$ 1
+That's how Burt Reynolds describes this film, which happens to be his best ever. He plays Tom Sharky, a vice detective who's on the trail of an international mobster (Vittorio Gassman) and the man he's financing to be the next governor of Georgia (Earl Holliman). In the novel by William Diehl, the story is more complex because the guy's running for president. This is a very long movie that feels more like three hours instead of two. The filming in downtown Atlanta and the Peachtree Plaza hotel sets the mood just right for the story. Reynolds doesn't do much laughing in this one compared to his comedy films. He's very serious here, especially in the beginning of the movie because he gets demoted for a dope bust that goes wrong. At times though, the movie plays more like a voyeuristic drama than a crime film with Burt trying to get close to the mobster's woman. Only towards the end of the film does the violence get cranked up that leads to the bang bang climax. Just like the great jazz score in DIRTY HARRY by Lalo Schifrin, Sharky's Machine features an excellent urban jazz soundtrack with many guest stars including Chet Baker, Julie London, Flora Purim & Buddy De Franco, The Manhattan Transfer, Doc Severinson, Sarah Vaughan and Joe Williams. Al Capps handles the score with magic. This movie has become one of the best crime dramas ever. Check it out.Score, 8 out of 10 Stars$LABEL$ 1
+Human Traffic is a view into an average weekend for a group of friends, it is a fly-on-the-wall view into their lives (and minds) which will show you how this group of friends relate to each other. There are many moments in that every one can relate to, Like being out of you skull at parties and talking complete rubbish to strangers. The characters are all people that you can relate to and they are believable in the roles that they play in the movie. The situations that they are in are all situations that we all have found ourselves in, and that is where this film succeeds. The topics of sex and drugs are handled superbly as to no get in the way of the characters relationships with each other. The story to the film is not all that, but that is not a criticism. This is a film about people. This is a well written film, with a sound track to die for. D.J's Pete Tong has put together an superb selection of tracks for this file which all goes to make this one of the best films that I have seen in 1999. After watching this film I felt like I had been out partying all weekend. Fantastic Movie! Jo Brand as the voice of reality - Need I say more!$LABEL$ 1
+This early Biograph short was so much fun to watch. The second on disc one of D.W. Griffith's "Years of Discovery" DVD set (highly recommended) it features three excellent performances by the main leads, and interesting to see Henry B. Walthall (The Little Colonel, Birth of a Nation) as a campy musician giving a Countess the eye (and other things).The Countess' husband goes berserk at his wife's betrayal and has her walled into a little room with her paramour. It's kind of incredible that they wouldn't hear the wall going up, but hey, maybe the wine had something to do with it. Here Mr. Johnson (father of silent player Raymond Hackett) gesticulates wildly and this adds to the melodrama, but in an unexpectedly comical way. The best moment comes at the end. As the lady passes out from shock and fear, once she realizes she's doomed, Henry picks up his instrument and "fans" it over her. The way he did it was so unexpected and in a strange way kind of sexy, and I just lost it, and laughed my head off. The expression on his face! From that moment I was charmed by Henry B. Walthall.$LABEL$ 1
+Baba - Rajinikanth will never forget this name in his life. This is the movie which caused his downfall. It was released with much hype but crashed badly and laid to severe financial losses for its producers and distributors. Rajinikanth had to personally repay them for the losses incurred. Soon after its release, he tried venturing into politics but failed miserably. Its a very bad movie with horrible acting, bad-quality makeup and pathetic screenplay. Throughout the movie, Rajinikanth looks like a person suffering from some disease. I'm one of the unfortunate souls who saw Baba, first day first show in theatre. The audiences were so bored that most of them left the theatre before the intermission. Sorry, I'll not recommend this one to anyone.$LABEL$ 0
+Written by Oliver Stone and directed by Brian De Palma, SCARFACE paints a picture not easily forgotten. Al Pacino turns in a stunning performance as Tony Montana, a Cuban refugee than becomes a powerful player in the drug world as he ruthlessly runs his self made kingdom of crime in Florida. This gangster flick is harsh, violent, loud, gross, unpleasant and must hold the record for uttering the word "f--k" the most number of times. Almost three hours long, and yes it can get repulsive. A stout hearted constitution keeps you in your seat cheering for the demise of a ruthless crime lord.Also playing interesting characters are Michelle Pfeiffer, Steven Bauer, Robert Loggia, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, F. Murray Abraham and Angel Salazar. Pacino proves to be one of the greatest of his generation. He manages to bring reality to his character that leaves a strong impression. This will not be a movie for everyone for you leave thinking you walked away from a disaster. Is that powerful enough for you? Crime does not pay for long!$LABEL$ 1
+First, the CGI in this movie was horrible. I watched it during a marathon of bad movies on the SciFi channel. At the end when the owner of the park gets killed, it's probably one of the worst examples of CGI I have even seen. Even Night of the Living Dead had better animation.That said, the movie had almost no plot. Why were they on that island in particular? Well, it wasn't stated in the movie. And, why would the people keep coming into the cat's area? Makes no sense.One thing that stood out in this movie was moderately good acting. In what could be called a "B made for TV movie" movie, the acting was very good. Parry Shen stood out in particular.If you have absolutely nothing to do on a Saturday, watch this movie. It may be good for some memorable quotes.$LABEL$ 0
+I enjoyed it. There you go, I said it again. I even bought this movie on DVD and enjoyed it a couple of more times. Call me old fashioned but I prefer movies like this to garbage like Die Hard 4 which hold up the box office and get critical acclaim just because you have some old guy saving America. Van Damme moves well for a guy of his age(47 I think), delivering kicks that reminds one of Kickboxer. If you like old school action and and explosions, this is the movie to watch. This is one of Van Damme's best works.Van Damme and Steven Seagal movies get released theatrically where I live so I never miss a chance to watch our old school action stars on the big screen.$LABEL$ 1
+What a waste of talent. A very poor, semi-coherent, script cripples this film. Rather unimaginative direction, too. Some VERY faint echoes of _Fargo_ here, but it just doesn't come off.$LABEL$ 0
+Although it strays away from the book a little, you can't help but love the atmospheric music and settings.The scenes in Bath are just how they should be. Although if you have watched it as many times as I have you notice that the background people are the same in each scene, but that aside, I like the scene where they are in the Hot Baths, but did the men and women really bathe together like that? You could see all the men perched around the outside leering at the women. It also seemed strange that they all had their hats on, but perhaps this was the style at the time. The ballroom scenes were very nice, the dancing and the outfits looked beautiful. I especially liked Catherine's dress in the first ballroom scene.Northanger Abbey looked suitably imposing, but I enjoyed the Bath scenes better.Schlesinger gives a good but not exceptional performance as Catherine Morland. Googie Withers gives the best performance as Mrs Allen I feel.Ugh Peter Firth as Mr Tilney, he just talks a load of rubbish, and is not a clergyman as he should be, it's hard to think of him being in love with Catherine, but then the book never really gave that impression either.General Tilney is played reasonably well by Hardy, and Stuart also gives a sort of good performance as Isabella. Ingrid Lacey did not give a good performance as Elinor Tilney. As for John Thorpe, well he gives the impression of a seedy and lustful man, perhaps not the character portrayed in the book, but I quite like it.I can handle scenes being cut from a book adaptation, but when new scenes and characters are added it usually annoys me. The marchioness! I hate her. She is not part of the Northanger story and neither is her cartwheeling page boy.some of the script is peculiar. When Catherine is asking Elinor Tilney about her Mothers death she asks "I suppose you saw the body? How did it appear?" What a silly thing to say! Elinor's calm response is stupid too.anyway please tell me if you agree or disagree with me$LABEL$ 1
+Mario Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has written a definitive 120-page point-by-point, line-by-line refutation of this mendacious film, which should be titled A CONVENIENT LIE. The website address where his debunking report, which is titled "A SKEPTIC'S GUIDE TO AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH" can be found at is :www.cei.org. A shorter 10-page version can be found at: www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf Once you read those demolitions, you'll realize that alleged "global warming" is no more real or dangerous than the Y2K scare of 1999, which Gore also endorsed, as he did the pseudo-scientific film THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, which was based on a book written by alleged UFO abductee Whitley Strieber. As James "The Amazing" Randi does to psychics, and Philip Klass does to UFOs, and Gerald Posner does to JFK conspir-idiocy theories, so does Mario Lewis does to Al Gore's movie and the whole "global warming" scam.$LABEL$ 0
+A lovely little film about the introduction of motion pictures to China. Captures the amazement of film's first audiences pretty much as it's described to have been worldwide, and uses actual Lumiere films for most of the actualities. I don't agree with other people about bad acting on the British fellow's part - I thought he was fine, but the Chinese lead really stole the show. In any case, I found myself with a smile on my face through most of the movie. People who fear subtitles might note that a lot of the film is in English (which for some reason is given subtitles as well as the Chinese on the DVD).$LABEL$ 1
+Sigh. I'm baffled when I see a short like this get attention and assignments and whatnot. I saw this film at a festival before the filmmaker got any attention and forgot about it immediately afterwards. It was mildly annoying to see it swiping the Grinch Who Stole Christmas heart gag along with the narration, the set design seen many times before, the whole weak Tim Burton-ish style, and the story that goes nowhere. And we got the "joke" about shooting the crows with the 45 the first time, alright?But I guess what's really unacceptable is that it even swipes its basic concept from a comic book circa 1999 called LENORE, THE CUTE LITTLE DEAD GIRL by Roman Dirge! As any quick internet search will reveal. I mean, what is this? This is what they base a Hollywood contract on and opens doors in Canada for a filmmaker? "Give your head a shake" as Don Cherry might say.$LABEL$ 0
+Cute idea... salesgirl Linda Smith (Yolande Donlan) inherits a teeny tiny little county of Lampidorra. That country, which wasn't even in North America, was made the 49th state... (of course, there were only 48 states at the time, since this was made in 1952...) Linda travels to the country she has inherited, and we follow her along as she tries to figure out what to do with this strange country and its even quirkier people. At one point, she sings a song that she claims is from her people the Navajo, and it gets ever-more sillier from there.... although Yolande Donlan's heavy lipstick and omni-present smile never get ruffled or shmeared. There are other songs scattered through-out as the citizens sing to welcome their new princess. Filmed in a glorious British version of technicolor, or some such equivalent, about the only big name here is Dirk Bogarde as British subject Tony Craig, cheese vendor. Bogarde made a big splash in the UK film industry after serving in the war, and was even knighted by QE II. Craig and "the new princess" keep bumping into each other, and their adventures become more intertwined as Lampidorra's financial problems worsen... Fun little farce....along the lines of Marx Brothers film. Also note that Donlan later married Val Guest, the writer and director of our little project, and stayed married for 50 years! Guest was better known for writing and directing his sci-fi flicks, in both the UK & the US.$LABEL$ 1
+Back in 1982 a little film called MAKING LOVE shocked audiences with its frank and open depiction of a romantic love story that just happened to be about two men.I have been waiting for years for a good, old-fashioned romance between two men; LATTER DAYS is all that and more.Yes, it is soapy, melodramatic, cliché-ridden, and quite corny. That is what makes it so wonderful. There is nothing like a good romantic movie, and this movie is romantic in the best sense of the word.As to the issue of religion, sorry folks, but these things do happen and are happening to gay people even now. It is not just the Mormon church that rejects its gay members. Gay people in every religion have faced harsh judgment and rejection.I loved this movie. It has a perfect blend of a fantasy-romance grounded in the reality of the day-to-day lives of the characters. If I could give it more than ten stars I would. Good love stories never go out of style; great love stories like LATTER DAYS are unforgettable.It's about time!$LABEL$ 1
+The concept of having Laurel & Hardy this time in the role of chimney sweepers works out surprisingly hilarious. It guarantees some funny situations and silly antics, from especially Stan Laurel of course as usual.The movie also has a subplot with a nutty professor who is working on a rejuvenation formula. It doesn't really sound like a logical mix of story lines and incoherent but both plot lines blend in perfectly toward the memorable ending. It's still a bit weird but its funny nevertheless, so it works for the movie.The supporting cast of the movie is surprising good. Sam Adams is great as the stereotypical butler and Lucien Littlefield goes deliciously over-the-top as the nutty professor.The movie is filled with some excellent timed and hilarious constructed sequences, which are all quite predictable but become hilarious to watch nevertheless thanks to the way they are all executed. It all helps to make "Dirty Work" to be one of the better Laurel & Hardy shorts.8/10$LABEL$ 1
+This movie came as a huge disappointment. The anime series ended with a relatively stupid plot twist and the rushed introduction of a pretty lame villain, but I expected Shamballa to tie up all the loose ends. Unfortunately, it didn't. It added more plot holes than it resolved, and confused more than it clarified. The animation and voice acting were great, but with an idiotic plot, dull setting (most of the movie doesn't even take place in dull WWII Earth rather than the Alchemy world), and disappointing ending (Ed is useless for the rest of his days in a world with no alchemy, and he ditches Winry?), it was altogether pretty lackluster. Do yourself a favor-- disregard the last half of the anime as well as this movie, and read the manga.$LABEL$ 0
+Maybe I loved this movie so much in part because I've been feeling down in the dumps and it's such a lovely little fairytale. Whatever the reason, I thought it was pitch perfect. Great, intelligent story, beautiful effects, excellent acting (especially De Niro, who is awesome). This movie made me happier than I've been for a while.It is a very funny and clever movie. The running joke of the kingdom's history of prince savagery and the aftermath, the way indulging in magic effects the witch and dozens of smart little touches all kept me enthralled. That's much of what makes it so good; it's an elaborate, special-effects-laden movie with more story than most fairytale movies, yet there is an incredible attention to small things.I feel like just going ahead and watching it all over again.$LABEL$ 1
+I was surprised that " Forgiving the Franklins " did not generate more buzz at this years Sundance Film Festival. There were times that the laughter at the screening I saw was so loud that you could barely hear the movie. The movie has some excellent acting and a story that really makes one examine broader issues . You know little issues like Religion, sex and the truth. Lots of comedy's seem to rely on the same old corny contrived situations, many leave you thinking " I know they ripped this off from some sitcom " .This film takes off on its own unique direction . I really think that Jay Floyd did a fantastic job with a tight budget on this film.$LABEL$ 1
+They must issue this plot outline to all wannabe filmmakers arriving at the Hollywood bus station. They then fill in the blanks and set their story in whatever hick town or urban ghetto from which they just arrived. You know exactly what this movie is about from the opening shot, four young boys playing in grainy slow motion, accompanied by voice over narration. Next stop after the bus station must be to buy stock footage of four young boys playing in grainy slow motion. Once they're grown, it's easy to spot the writer/director among the four. He's the quiet, contemplative, long-haired one who is never seen without his composition book tucked in his pants. This means that his superb writing talent will be his ticket from Hickville to Hollywood. Only there's no writing, or directing talent on display here. And if you still can't figure out which one he is, here's a hint: The auteur and his character have the same middle name. It took over an hour to figure out that these twenty-something men were supposed to still be in high school. What looked like a prison was apparently a high school, the warden turned out to be the principal. Once more, the poor, misunderstood rebel can pound everyone in the movie into the pavement, murder and pillage, but is powerless to stand up to his alcoholic father. How about hitting back, kid, like you do everyone else? Numerous fist fight scenes for no apparent purpose. Howlingly bad dialogue. Many scenes badly out of focus. Cartoon characters keep popping up as bit players and extras, drawing unintentional laughs from the premiere audience. Overacting in the extreme. And if you don't quite get the self-important speeches, or the slow-motion scenes, just listen to the overbearing music. It will clue you in and what you're supposed to feel. Poor Marisa Ryan must be racking up lots of frequent flier mileage as she travels around the country working in these amateur regional films. The biggest sin is that the audience is supposed to feel sympathy for kids who gun down old ladies, run over puppies chained to a tree, rob and steal, all the while complaining about their sad, sorry lives. But if only we could get out of this hick town and go to college. Yeah, that's the ticket. Why is it that every twenty-something filmmaker believes that his life so far is so important, so interesting, that the world can't wait to see it onscreen? If this movie is as autobiographical as it seems, then the auteur better be looking over his shoulder for policemen bearing fugitive warrants.$LABEL$ 0
+I watched this movie so that you don't have to! I have great respect for Kris Kristofferson, but what was he thinking? He did this for scale? At least the film's title practices truth in advertising, since people and objects routinely disappear throughout the film, adding to the confusion. Kristofferson mentions this in his commentary that even he wasn't sure if Genevieve Bujold's character really existed. This does not bode well for the viewer being able to follow the story!The "making of" feature was far more interesting than the movie itself. It explores the difficulty cobbling together funding for an indie, even as the film is being shot.To it's credit, this movie is visually pleasing and doesn't in any way look like a movie made with just slightly over 1M. Too bad the money wasn't spent on a better project.$LABEL$ 0
+Just saw this movie on opening night. I read some other user comments which convinced me to go see it... I must say, I was not impressed. I'm so unimpressed that I feel the need to write this comment to spare some of you people some money.First of all "The Messengers" is very predictable, and just not much of a thriller. It might be scary for someone under 13, but it really did nothing for me. The climax was laughable and most of the audience left before the movie's resolution.Furthermore the acting seemed a little superficial. Some of the emotional arguments between the family were less convincing than the sub-par suspense scenes.If you've seen previews for this movie, then you've seen most of the best parts and have a strong understanding of the plot. This movie is not worth seeing in the theaters.$LABEL$ 0
+I went to see this movie (actually I went to see Family Portraits, which contains Cutting Moments + 2 other short films by Douglas Buck) at the Mar del Plata festival (Argentina)... I just couldn't watch it! I had to cover my eyes after the 1st half of Cutting Moments and take a peek every once in a while. By the time it was over, my stomach was upside down and I felt light headed. I just HAD to leave the cinema a few minutes after the 2nd short begun (BTW, of course I was not the only one who left the room). It was WAAAAY too violent and disgusting for me! I am impressed by the many brave people who actually loved it. I just don't get how you can love that kind of movies! The shocking and bloody and horrible images I saw got really stuck in my head for like two days!! I also try to analyze the story (my boyfriend did see the whole thing and told me about it) and I just don't think it makes any sense. I mean, that amount of violence and stuff, makes no other sense than to try to shock people. And that's not a good enough reason, I think. There's absolutely nothing in this movie that I can say "Well, at least 'x' thing about it was good". But well, I guess I will never understand that kind of films.$LABEL$ 0
+A well-made run-of-the-mill movie with a tragic ending. Pluses: The way the story moves - begins with Soorya struggling to live followed by a long flashback about why he's there. The Music. A disinterested look at the life of policemen. Minuses: The violence and the gore, but I guess they add to the realistic effects. Still, having people's heads chopped off and sent in boxes and sacks could have been avoided.No complaints - 7/10$LABEL$ 1
+I don't understand the positive comments made about this film. It is cheap and nasty on all levels and I cannot understand how it ever got made.Cartoon characters abound - Sue's foul-mouthed, alcoholic, layabout, Irish father being a prime example. None of the characters are remotely sympathetic - except, briefly, for Sue's Asian boyfriend but even he then turns out to be capable of domestic violence! As desperately unattractive as they both are, I've no idea why either Rita and/or Sue would throw themselves at a consummate creep like Bob - but given that they do, why should I be expected to care what happens to them? So many reviews keep carping on about how "realistic" it is. If that is true, it is a sad reflection on society but no reason to put it on film.I didn't like the film at all.$LABEL$ 0
+Steven what have you done you have hit an all new low. It is weird since Steven's last film shadow man was directed by the same director who did this trash. Shadow man was good this was diabolically bad so bad it wasn't even funny Steven is hardly in the movie and feels like he is in a cameo appearance and when he is in the film he is dubbed half the time anyway. As for the action well let's just say the wizard of oz had more action than this trash there is hardly any action in the film and when it does finally arrive it is boring depressing badly shot so called action scenes. Seagal hardly kills anyone unlike his over films where he goes one man army ie under siege 1 and 2 and exit wounds. the plot is so confusing with so many plot holes that it doesn't make scenes sometimes. flight of fury better be good what a shame i wasted 5 pounds on this garbage 0 out of ten better luck next time$LABEL$ 0
+A call-girl witnesses a murder and becomes the killer's next target. Director Brian De Palma is really on a pretentious roll here: his camera swoops around corners in a museum (after lingering a long time over a painting of an ape), divvies up into split screen for arty purposes, practically gives away his plot with a sequence (again in split screen) where two characters are both watching a TV program about transsexuals, and stages his (first) finale during a thunderous rainstorm. "Dressed To Kill" is exhausting, primarily because it asks us to swallow so much and gives back nothing substantial. Much of the acting (with the exception of young Keith Gordon) is mediocre and the (second) finale is a rip-off of De Palma's own "Carrie"--not to mention "Psycho". The explanation of the dirty deeds plays like a spoof of Hitchcock, not an homage. Stylish in a steely cold way, the end results are distinctly half-baked. ** from ****$LABEL$ 0
+*Flat SPOILERS* Five med students, Nelson (Kiefer Sutherland), David Labraccio (Kevin Bacon), Rachel Mannus (Julia Roberts), Joe Hurley (William Baldwin) & Randy Steckle (Oliver Platt) decide to attempt an experiment; dying for exactly 5 minutes (it is the maximum amount of time somebody can do this before being risk of brain damage).Almost everyone does this experiment, Randy being the lone exception, but they begin to have unwelcome visitors; David sees a little black girl shouting crude insults to him, Joe sees all the women he has had sex with (and which he videotaped) asking him why from the TV Screen, Rachel relives her father's suicide and Nelson faces a little boy with murderous intentions.Why are they here? And how will they get rid of them? This tense and interesting movie, set in an hallucinated city and into a Gothic Med School, is quite the experience, both for the story and the characters, played by then-budding stars such as Kiefer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, Oliver Platt, Kevin Bacon and William Baldwin.The director is Joel Schumacher, who had already worked with Sutherland in 'Lost Boys', and this second cooperation is even better than the first.A must for psychological-thriller-horror buds and metaphor lovers (this story is about forgiveness and righting of past wrongs), this is one of the minor classics from the '80s that get respect even today, like the mention by Rebecca Gayheart in 'Scream 2' or the Tru Calling episode which used the movie's premise.Flatliners: 9/10.$LABEL$ 1
+One of my favorite shows back in the '70s. As I recall it went to air on Friday (or possibly Saturday)night on the Nine Network (?) here in Australia. Darren McGavin and Simon Oakland were great together.Each episode usually reached a climax with Kolchack having to engage in hand to hand combat with some sort of supernatural opponent. To their credit, the writers made a concerted effort to get away from the usual round of vampires and ghosts as much as possible.I remember one episode in which the adversary was the spirit of an ancient Indian Chief which/who 'came back' as a massive electrical current which started to kill people in a city hospital. The final showdown saw Kolchack trying to short circuit the 'power beast' amidst an explosion of sparks and billowing flames. Oh well .... you had to be there at the time but it was an interesting idea.McGavin always packed a lot of energy and enthusiasm into his roles and this was one of his best.Definitely deserves a place in TV's "Hall of Fame". To quote Tony Vincenzo .... 'Kolchack you are ON IT '... Or, in the case of the Hall of Fame,'IN it' !$LABEL$ 1
+I think my summary says it all. This MTV-ish answer to the classic Candid Camera TV show features a Gen X (or is that Gen Y) type putting in false choppers and wearing various hats and wigs and glasses, and setting people up in fairly outlandish although often not very interesting situations. Example: Kennedy has a guy invite his parents to his "wedding." Kennedy is the bride, done up in a full bridal gown and long wig. The "joke" is that the parents immediately understand their son is marrying a man who claims to no longer have his "bits and pieces." Problem is, this schtick goes on way too long, obviously to fill out time. And Kennedy is about as funny as a dead cod lying in the sun. Candid Camera would have run three or four scenarios in the time it took Kennedy to get through this one, running around, constantly asking "Do I look fat?" I recognize the show was not made for me. It was made for 12-year-old pinheads who think JACKASS is the height of comedy today. So let them laugh. Thank God the show was short-lived.$LABEL$ 0
+Frownland is like one of those intensely embarrassing situations where you end up laughing out loud at exactly the wrong time; and just at the moment you realize you shouldn't be laughing, you've already reached the pinnacle of voice resoundness; and as you look around you at the ghostly white faces with their gaping wide-open mouths and glazen eyes, you feel a piercing ache beginning in the pit of your stomach and suddenly rushing up your throat and... well, you get the point.But for all its unpleasantness and punches in the face, Frownland, really is a remarkable piece of work that, after viewing the inarticulate mess of a main character and all his pathetic troubles and mishaps, makes you want to scratch your own eyes out and at the same time, you feel sickenly sorry for him.It would have been a lot easier for me to simply walk out of Ronald Bronstein's film, but for some insane reason, I felt an unwavering determination to stay the course and experience all the grainy irritation the film has to offer. If someone sets you on fire, you typically want to put it out: Stop! Drop! And Roll! But with this film, you want to watch the flame slowly engulf your entire body. You endure the pain--perhaps out of spite, or some unknown masochistic curiosity I can't even begin to attempt to explain.Unfortunately, mainstream cinema will never let this film come to a theater near you. But if you get a chance to catch it, prepare yourself: bring a doggie bag.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this movie while surfing through infomercials and late-night 80's sitcoms on tv one night at 2 in the morning. I must say, I didn't expect much, and I didn't get much. Although Rose McGowan is hot, her performance and the performance of the rest of the cast was not Oscar-worthy, to say the least. This movie has its ups and downs, and does have a nice couple of twists at the end, but in all honesty it was awful. Not even a typical slasher movie. No gore, no sex, no nudity, no real violence. Just bad acting. I'd give it a 3 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+I first saw this film when I was about 8 years old on TV in the UK (where it was called "Laupta: The Flying Island"). I absolutely loved it, and was heartbroken when it was repeated a while later and I missed it. I was enchanted by the story and characters, but most of all by the haunting and beautiful music. It would have been the original English dubbed version which I saw - sometimes erroneously referred to as the "Streamline Dub" (the dub was actually by Ghibli themselves and only distributed by Streamline) which is sadly unavailable except as part of a ridiculously expensive laser disc box-set.Unfortunately I feel that the release has been partly spoiled by Disney. The voice acting is OK but the dialogue doesn't have the same raw energy that the "streamline" dub or the original Japanese had, and I think James Van Der Beek sounds too old to play the lead. They have made some pointless alterations, such as changing the main character's name from "Pazu" to "Patzu", and added some dialogue. But worst of all I feel that they have ruined many scenes with intrusive music - the opening scene of the airships for example was originally silent but has been spoiled thanks to Disney's moronic requirement that there be music playing whenever anyone is not speaking, which I find annoying in many Disney films.This film still blows away most recent animated films, and I cannot recommend it highly enough. The plot is simple yet captivating and the film shows a flair which is sadly missing from most modern mass-market, homogenized animation.$LABEL$ 1
+This film can't make up its mind whether its message is "humans are evil and bad and animals are sweet and blameless" or "don't ever go in the water again." A fisherman (Nolan) is out to nab a killer whale, a very bad thing, but when he accidentally (ACCIDENTALLY mark you) hits a pregnant cow instead of her mate, the cow -- and I use the word in all senses -- who is obviously a sick psycho-bitch and the canonical villain of the piece -- throws herself against the propellers trying to chew herself to bits in the most distressing and hideous not to mention ineffectual method of killing herself. (I doubt it was her first.) When her unborn fetus aborts from her hideous self-inflicted wounds, her mate goes mental with revenge and swears to hurt, kill and mutilate every human who even so much as talks to Nolan. Obviously as among humans, total psychos date other total psychos.The film reeks of half-thought out anti-human message, "the poor poor whale!! the evil men must suffer and die!" and yet, it does not succeed in demonizing Nolan at all. It's true that when he set out his motives were selfish and cruel, but at the first squeal of the first whale he grows a heart and, as the film progresses, he grows more and more compassionate to the whale's pain until it seems he will walk out on the ice and give himself to the whale, just to make it feel a little better.The films final journey, in which Nolan follows the whale on a bizarre journey to the north, reminds me of Melville's eerie man-whale connection, and for a moment hinted at a truly interesting conclusion, where these two husbands might connect, understand even respect each other in their own grief, for Nolan lost his wife and unborn child also to an accident. It's clear Nolan respects the whale and feels for its loss. However, it never goes there. The whale-character has no compassion or respect for anyone.The final scene loses this focus and becomes Jaws-like where the sea-monster finally kills everybody and Nolan and no-doubt through an oversight, fails to chomp up the whale-hugger (tho he made a good snap for her head a little earlier.) I love animals, and I detest whaling, and what is more I love orca whales, but if this film's goal was to make me feel that the whale was the victim and that people are evil and detestable it completely failed. Nolan shows compassion and growth, and feels for others, and all the whale thinks about is killing and maiming.The only message one can walk away with is "If you see an orca whale, ever, anywhere, run the other way cause if you step on his FIN the wrong way, he will hunt you to the ends of the earth destroying everything around you."$LABEL$ 0
+Why, o' WHY! ...did I pick this one up? Well... i needed a no-brainer in the summer heat, and the cover looked cool.Of course I should've known better. This is a really, really bad movie. And it gets embarasing when the makers know it's bad, and try cover it up by adding some sexy/beautiful women, and some sex-scenes to it. Well, folks... it does'nt cut it, does it!If you WOULD like a cool movie about a big reptile that is actually very, very good, well-played and funny: go rent Lake Placid! (that is an order)$LABEL$ 0
+Only a very small child could overlook the absurdities in this bomb; the first difficulty faced by the submarine "Seaview" is what appear to be chunks of--rock? falling down through the water and crashing into its hull. But it's not rock, they're under the North Pole--it is ICE! Everybody, except possibly hitherto mentioned small children (and even some of them) know that ICE FLOATS.Then, disaster strikes--that darn VAN ALLEN RADIATION BELT around the Earth catches fire! No one knows how this happened, we are told, which is understandable, because it is utterly impossible for radiation to "catch fire", and even if it could, there is NO AIR IN SPACE for it to burn.There is literally no good reason to overlook science concepts basic to 2nd grade school textbooks when making a film; however, Irwin Allen manages to do it again and again; perhaps we are meant to focus on the "people" instead, which is pretty easy, as they are CARDBOARD.The cast tries very hard not to look embarrassed in this ridiculous sub-kiddie romp, much like later episodes of his "Lost in Space" TV series, the concept of which was swiped outright from writer Ib Melchior and then rushed into production.The sub looks pretty good, though, which is why this one gets a "2".$LABEL$ 0
+Our teacher showed us this movie in first grade. I haven't seen it since. I just watched the trailer though. Does this look like a first grade movie to you? I don't think so. I was so horrified by this movie, I could barely watch it. It was mainly the scene with Shirley McClain cutting that little girl in half, and then there was the boy with ketchup! I was freaked out by this film. Now today, being 20, I probably would not feel that way. I just wanted to share my experience and opinion that maybe small children shouldn't see this movie, even though it's PG. Be aware of the possible outcomes of showing this to kids. I don't even remember what it was about, once was enough!$LABEL$ 0
+A plot that fizzled and reeked of irreconcilable differences in opinions constituted a judgmental havoc with one side pro-life and the other a destroyer of a demon's seed. The horror was left out and replaced with an overall dull effect quite possibly meant to be horrific, but, instead demonstrated an ill dose of beliefs which ridiculed each other to death, despite the title itself. Being a fan of Masters of Horror since the beginning, this ridiculous plot twist with it's sordid depictions crashed apart like a spindly old rocking chair after being sat upon. I view this episode as being thrown together from the get go, never really taking off anywhere other than to see it through for what its worth and relieved when it finally came to "The End"..$LABEL$ 0
+Scott Menville is not Casey Kasem. That is the first, most important, and most disturbing thing about this attempt at re-imagining Scooby-Doo and company.Shaggy's voice is squeaky and does not sound anything like he has ever sounded in any of the previous incarnations of the Scooby shows. They've also changed the outfit and the classic mode of walking from the original.I'm not sure what they're on about yet with the villain angle, but it surely isn't following the formula used in any of the previous Scooby shows.And the animation style is very bizarre and distorted. I like it, but it's not real Scooby-Doo type animation. But the weird animation used for other WB shows grew on me; this might, too.It's worth a glance at -- once -- if you can handle the lack of proper Shaggy voice. That right there is enough to jar one out of enjoying the show properly. Besides, I am trying not to be an inflexible, nitpicking fan. Evolve or die, as the saying goes. We'll see how it looks after two more episodes -- by then I'll have formed a much more solid opinion.$LABEL$ 0
+I often wonder how movies like this even get made, and the most shocking part is that people actually pay to watch them.With Aksar it appears as though the director made up the story as he went along, adding twists and turns when he liked, no matter how ludicrous they were. The script was non existent with inane dialogs such as "Jo Sheena Roy pehenti hai, wahee fashion hota hai" and "Yeh Versace hai Madam" (yeah right).Every one of the characters was shallow and underdeveloped. Acting was awful. Constumes (lycra for Udita and awful suits for a stocky Emran), locales (the numerous houses that were used for interiors did not even vaguely resemble a Victorian mansion), screenplay etc etc, just one word- rubbish.For those people who love Hashmi and his movies, watch it. As for me, I'll never get those two and a half hours back. The only redeeming factor was some of the music which was decent.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is an amazing comedy.. the script is too funny.. if u watch it more than once you will enjoy it more. Though the comedy at times is silly but it really makes u laugh!! Salman Khan and Aamir Khan have given justice to their roles. After 1994 i have not come across any hindi movie which was as funny as this.$LABEL$ 1
+Even this early in his career, Capra was quite accomplished with his camera-work and his timing. This is a thin story -- and quite predictable at times -- but he gets very good performances out of his cast and has some rather intricate camera moves that involve the viewer intimately. The first part looks like a Cinderella story, though anyone with brains can see that the bottom will fall out of that -- the rich 'prince' will lose his fortune.Nonetheless, because of his good cast and fast pace, it's easy to get caught up in the clichés. Then the movie does become more original, as the married couple have to find a way to make a living. The ending is very predictable but satisfying. I also want to compliment the title-writing: very witty and fun.$LABEL$ 1
+Uwe Boll slips back in his film-making skills once again to offer up a scifi horror tale of mercenaries and reporters taking on super soldiers on a remote island. An okay cast headed by the excellent Udo Keir is cast adrift by Boll who makes the worst of script that should have worked. The mad scientist being investigated by a reporter has been done to death but this script is amusing enough that the plot should have worked, additionally the effects and super soldier design with their dead lifeless eyes have some degree of creepiness, however Boll somehow manages to film everything in an off handed way. Its as if he couldn't be bothered to actually figure out what would work and instead rattled off stock camera placements and walked away. Additionally the assembly of scenes has no spark or life, I'm guessing that Boll only shot one or two takes and just used what he had. It really stinks. Clearly Boll is in one of his periodic retrograde films where anything he's ever learned about film gets flushed. The last film he made that was this bad was Seed a serial killer movie that is one of the worst films I've ever seen. This isn't that bad, but it is close simply because it should have been better. Then again Udo Keir is good enough that he does make watching his scenes worth the effort and make this a an almost so bad its good film. I'd take a pass unless it's late at night and you're catching it on cable.$LABEL$ 0
+This video is so hilariously funny, it makes everything elseby Eddie Murphy seem very disappointing (even Beverly Hills Cop and The Nutty Professor, which just goes to show you how good this really is). To be honest, I don't think that I've everlaughed at something as much as this, including Naked Gun and the rarely seen Bargearse. This show is amazing, although it must be said that it is certainly filled with the word beginning with F that is four letters long (plus its extended version beginning with M) but it didn't bother me. See it, the funniest thing I've ever seen and probably the funniest you ever have too.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is dreadful. It has absolutely zero laughs. Hebrew Hammer (Adam Goldberg) sets out to save Hannukah from Evil Santa (Andy Dick). Perhaps a promising enough basis for a plot, in actual fact the film does not progress beyond this premise. While there are some (far and few) nice touches and the plot is relatively coherent, it is laboured, hackneyed and ultimately, mindlessly boring. This despite the fact that Goldberg, Dick and Greer (Hammer's client/love interest) all have quite considerable screen presence. Despite being played for what might be described as whacky over-the-top gags, this film is consistently middle-class middle-of-the-road muck. DO NOT waste 85 minutes of your life on this. (note- the music was good..!)$LABEL$ 0
+It's amazing that such a cliche-ridden yuppie angst film actually got made in the first place. The characters are so weak, and the acting so uninspired, that it's impossible to care about any of them-- especially Brooke Shields. The temptation to fast forward through the slow parts is almost irresistible. If you like this genre, you'd be better off renting "Singles," or "Bodies, Rest & Motion."$LABEL$ 0
+I never watched the 'Next Action Hero' show, and until reading the other comments here, did not know that this movie was the 'prize' from that competition. I was just flipping channels and came across this, and found myself watching, dare eagerly, all the way to the end.Yes, the plot's been done (The Most Dangerous Game, etc.) but I was hoping for, and almost received, the 'gotcha' - how the protagonist was going to beat the hunter in the end. I think the high-tech was overdone (GPS's) and gave me cold-sweat flashbacks of Night Rider, but it nevertheless was not too overdone.The basic problem I had with this movie was the degree of SOD (Suspension of Disbelief) that was required of the viewer. Do we really think that someone flying in a helicopter could lob countless incendiary grenades at a public bridge and NO COPS show up to investigate? Could a limousine do countless donuts in a Las Vegas intersection and NO COPS show up? Pleeease. Way too much of that type of thing - fun to watch, but keep it at least plausible, thank you very much.The final solution was good, but the ending was disappointing, with the after taste of a bad Star Trek episode. At least now I understand why the acting was so cheesy - except for Zane, who doesn't get near as much work as he deserves IMHO - they were winners from a reality show.Knock me out.$LABEL$ 1
+I am a big fan of old horror movies, and since I am middle aged, old to me is a movie made before 1970 with most being made in the 1920's to 1960's period. I am not a big fan of more modern horror movies, with one exception being Creepshow 1, which I thought was great. I could reminisce about the stories there but I really really enjoyed the monster in the box story with Hal Holbrook, and also the one about the really clean guy was a great ending. All the stories were great though. So why did I like them so much? The characters had some decent development, the lines were very plain about who was good and who was bad, the horror bits were heightened with a close up of a face aghast with fear, and the funny bits were really funny! This sequel is either greatly lacking of these elements or they are totally absent! I am writing this only having watched it partially because the movie was a complete waste of time and I turned it off to do other things like write movie reviews on IMDb.com, lol. When George Kennedy and an old Dorothy Lamoure get top billing it's telling you something.....4 of 10. Also, Romero's expertise is hard to find here, they must had told him to tone it down to a PG standard (I don't know what this was rated at but it looks PG to me), and that's not a good thing for a movie with nothing else going on. It's shown on the Encore cable channel if your dieing (yuck yuck) to see it.$LABEL$ 0
+I just wanted to say that. I love Gheorghe Muresan, so I automatically loved this movie. Everything else about it was so-so... Billy Crystal is a good actor, even if he is annoying. But the thing that made this movie was- at least, for a basketball fan- seeing Gheorghe Muresan act.$LABEL$ 1
+I thought that this movie was incredible. I absolutely loved it, even though my brothers didn't that much. The special effects were outstanding, and this movie is about my favorite sport; golf. The only thing that was disappointing about this amazing movie is that it is hard to watch two times or more in a row. This movie just absolutely tops everything else I have ever seen. It was everything I would expect out of a movie. I just loved it. Also, it was pretty kid-friendly. This movie helped me realize that when you put your mind to it, anything is possible. I would give it a pure 10/10! It was better than The Legend of Baggar Vants, and the two Pirates of the Caribbean movies combined. Absolutely amazing. Loved it.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a funny film and I like it a lot. Cary Elwes plays Robin Hood to a tee. This is, of course, the usual good vs evil with Robin against the evil Sheriff of Nottingham. The humor is sort of in your face stuff for the most part, but still works well. A comedy for a night when you don't want to have to think much, it's well worth a rent!$LABEL$ 1
+Some here have commented that this is the WORST Elvis movie ever made. Well, they are only partly right. For me, this IS THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE PERIOD! I have never seen anything so basely crude, and insulting, and vile, and against human nature as this film. A true embarrassment to the Motion Picture Industry, this isn't even so Bad, its good. There is no campy trashy fun to be had here like in some of Elvis' other bad movies like Clambake. This one is so rotten to sit through its painful. Pure Garbage. Native Americans should sue for their poor clichéd and stereotypical treatment here. Actually, perhaps ALL Human Beings should sue for the crime and disservice this movie does to the species as a whole 0 Stars, seriously. Grade: F$LABEL$ 0
+First of all yes I'm white, so I try to tread lightly in the ever delicate subject of race... anyway... White People Hating Black people = BAD but Black People Hating White people = OK (because apparently we deserved it!!). where do i start? i wish i had something good to say about this movie aside unintended comedy scenes: the infamous scene were Ice Cube and co. get in a fight with some really big, really strong, really really angry and scary looking Neo-Nazis and win!!! the neo-Nazi where twice the size :), and the chase! the chase is priceless... This is NOT a movie about race, tolerance and understanding, it doesn't deliver... this is a racist movie that re-affirm all the cliché stereotypes, the white wimpy guy who gets manhandled by his black roommate automatically transform in a skinhead...cmon simply awful I do regret ever seeing it.Save your time and the dreadful experience of a poorly written ,poorly acted, dull and clearly biased picture, if you are into the subject, go and Rent American History X, now thats a movie$LABEL$ 0
+Donald Pleasance and Peter Cushing united in one horror film; that always sounds like a terrific plan. Two of the most versatile cult actors of their generation, who previously already starred together in terrific genre outings like "The Flesh and the Fiends" and "From Beyond the Grave", pairing up in a mid-70's satanic themed exploitation flick. How can this possibly go wrong? Well, unfortunately, it can. To my deepest regret "Land of the Minotaur" can hardly even be called mediocre, and that in spite of the cast, the exotic setting, the appealing title and the potentially great sounding premise. In a remote little area in Greece, more particularly near an archaeological site, multiple tourists vanish because Baron Peter Cushing and his docile followers keep feeding them to a fire-breathing Minotaur statue. Cushing, who never looked more bored and uninterested in any role he played before, owns a giant medieval castle and apparently in Greek this means you also own the complementary archaeological ruins and an underground network of caverns. That is of course quite handy if your hobby is the kidnapping of random campers and amateur archaeologists. When three of his young friends also mysteriously disappear in the same area, Father Roch - the priest of a couple of towns before) - decides to investigate. "Land of the Minotaur" is a boring and extremely slow-paced horror effort that never really undertakes any major attempts to generate a satanic atmosphere and doesn't bother to elaborate on all the potentially fascinating elements and pagan trivia details. The titular Minotaur, for example, is an intriguing creature of Greek mythology with the head of a bull and the body of a person, but for some inexplicable reason the script never deepens out the significance. Instead, the film focuses on tedious and overly talkative sequences and loud inappropriate music altered with experimental noises. The only reason to even consider giving this major disappointment of a film a chance is because of Donald Pleasance. His portrayal of rude, bossy and old-fashioned priest who criticizes everything that represents modern youth is powerful and reliable as always.$LABEL$ 0
+The three shorts included on this compilation issued in 1959 are timeless Chaplin classics, nothing wrong with them and nothing to criticize either. Chaplin's score for these films and the framework added as bridging sections between the shorts are also well done. The problem with this compilation is a minor one, yet annoying. The shorts have been stretch-printed to fit the 24 frame p.s. speed of contemporary films whereas the shorts themselves where shot at 20 frames p.s. This results is jerky motion that doesn't look very attractive, and yet this was an excusable solution given the limitations of optical printing technology at the time, it's just not excusable that the current DVD version is unrestored, the films look dirty as they did in 1959 and are still stretch printed. There are separate restored versions of these classics available, even on DVD, and it would not be a problem to restore the image, but alas this has not been done.A minor quibble has taken up a lot of space in my article, but I say again a minor quibble, it should not detract all that much from the experience although it detracted one point from my rating. The shorts are still worth '10'.$LABEL$ 1
+1979's Tourist Trap is a clever, unique B thriller that stands out as one of the best of it's kind.Travellers stop at a lonely wax museum where the owner's mannequins are a little too life-like for comfort.While the film has hints of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Tourist Trap is mainly a creepy psychological thriller worthy of The Twilight Zone. Director David Schmoeller gives this movie an atmosphere of darkness and mystery, that reaches nightmarish proportions. Also, Schmoelloer adds the occasional touch of comic relief to the bizarre happenings.Venteran actor Chuck Connors is the best of the film's decent cast. Pino Donaggio's music score is excellent, having both lyrical and solemn themes that are perfect to the movie. A number of the film's sequences are quite memorable.For horror and thriller fans alike, Tourist Trap is an unforgettable must-see film.*** 1/2 out of ****$LABEL$ 1
+Years ago I saw The Godfather and it made a lasting impression on me, the atmosphere of the movie was first class, the acting memorable and the storyline a classic. Recently I bought the Trilogy and after watching Part 1 again I looked eagerly to viewing Part 2...... I was so pleased to realize early on into Part 2 that here was a fitting follow on to the great Godfather movie, again everything was just about perfect and I could not wait to see Godfather III ........ WRONG!, I wish I'd stopped at II. The storyline was not good, it seemed to me like a story made up just to have a story, the characters were weak especially the daughter. Pacino's protege was a weak character that would have been eaten alive in Godfather 1 or 2. Then scenes such as, Corleone being invested with all the trappings of the Catholic Church with full choir, the assassin on horseback riding away into the sunset, the unseen helicopter machine gunning of the meeting (where the 'goodies' get away and everyone else is shot),daughter and 1st cousin rolling bits of pasta across a board, the pathetic shooting on the steps ..... Corleone stuffing sweets down him with orange juice for diabetes (a man of his intelligence and guile isn't ready for an emergency?)... NO it was not good and with the best will in the world I wont be able to watch it again. But I'll watch 1 & 2 many times down the years.$LABEL$ 0
+This little two-person movie is actually much bigger than it looks. It has so many layers. I've watched it over and over, and always pick up on something new. I am amazed at the depth of the acting, and I feel if this movie had gotten wider release that there would be no question that Alan Rickman is a major star$LABEL$ 1
+UK newspaper reviews seem to have concentrated on the fact that the reviewers tend to know Toby Young, the journalist on whose real-life experiences this movie is based. The key word here is "based". How To Lose Friends is a fictitious romcom.Sidney Young joins a prestigious gossip magazine in New York, where he proceeds to make gaffe after gaffe before finally Getting It Right and Making It. This involves him selling out, and the movie has some serious points to make about journalistic integrity. However, they are not overdone: the main substance remains a comedy which centres around Sidney's misadventures. The script has its cake and eats it in that Sidney is a stupid, well-meaning buffoon at the same time as being a smart, moderately obnoxious skilled writer. This contradiction is never that much of an issue, because Simon Pegg (as Sidney) projects likability too well.Jeff Bridges underplays Sidney's editor a little too effectively, and Kirsten Dunst is rather anonymous as the conflicted eventual object of Sidney's affections And, with regard to Megan Fox (who plays an airhead bimbo starlet), I can say only this: just say the word, Miss Fox, and I will leave my wife, sell all my belongings, and buy myself a plane ticket in order to take my place at your side as your consort. Of course, given that I'm a fat 56-year-old English accountant, you might not find my offer too enticing, but it's there on the table anyway. Given how short her career has been so far, one might think it is a little too soon for Megan Fox to take on a role which mercilessly lampoons the sort of actress she might be thought to become: however, she does it sweetly, with some skill, and extremely sexily. This girl will go far.There is stalwart support from a variety of seasoned performers - Miriam Margolyes and Bill Paterson from the UK, Gillian Anderson and Danny Huston from the US.There are several laugh-out-loud moments, and I smiled most of the way through. As ever, the F-word makes appearances when it really doesn't need to, although at least a couple of these are very funny.$LABEL$ 1
+Alien Hunter: 5 out of 10: Is it me or does every movie that starts in Roswell, New Mexico suck. Take Alien mixed with The Thing, mixed with Contact, mixed with of all things On the Beach, The Andromeda Strain, the classroom scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark and a throw in a little Stargate to boot. Derivative doesn't even begin to describe this movie. Of course with nothing original plot wise they amp up the gore and sex right? Nope gore is a blink and you miss it affair and sex is all tease. (James Spader causally mentions he needs a shower and the delectable Leslie Stefanson asks to join him…. he turns her down. AGGH!) In fact if a movie ever needed a shower scene to liven things up this is it. I mean if your going to have impossibly good-looking women in white bathing suits wandering around an Antarctica research base why not go for broke.With about 30 seconds of actual thrill in the entire movie Alien Hunter is remarkable serious and slow going for a sci-fi adventure. Needed a much better plot twist to liven it up and by the way the Alien itself is a horribly clichéd artifice and has virtually no screen time for someone who shares half the title. I also inquired during viewing what is with the Children of the Corn in space motif. (Note that since Jason of Friday the 13th fame, Pinhead from Hellraiser and that Leprechaun have all traveled to space to slay nubile teenagers why not the cornfield?) The characters in the cornfield dress like Logan's Run extras and I was just waiting for the stalks to come alive and attack them.That however would have been exciting and apparently against this movies covenant. The acting is mostly fine as Spader reprises his Stargate role while Stefanson and Janine Eser model the latest in Antarctic beachwear. John Lynch however read the whole script and acts the like the insane bad guy well before the story would indicate it.Alien Hunter is a disappointing derivative slog that makes me pine for a proper Children of The Corn in Space movie.$LABEL$ 0
+I have a hard time putting into words just how wonderful this was. Once in a while you see a film that just sticks with you. "You Are Alone" is that movie (for me). The film is constantly in my head and in my heart. I replay the scenes mentally every day and analyze them and go through the emotions all over again, as if I am seeing it for the first time.There is nothing I did not like about the movie. Amazing soundtrack!!! The ending was perfect. Very emotionally stirring!!! It was compelling and riveting.I adored Jessica Bohl and her performance was the greatest I have ever witnessed. I admired Brittany's strength (what a strong woman).The tag line is "When your darkest moments come to life". We never know what we are capable of doing. Everyone says oh I would never do that, when really we have no idea what we would do in a situation. We are very capable of anything and this movies delves straight into that subject. The honesty of the movie may be my absolute favorite part.Thank you Gorman Becherd for a perfect piece of art!!!!$LABEL$ 1
+I love this young people trapped in a house of horrors movie. Not just because I'm a huge Linnea Quigley-Jill Terashita fan, but because it is a lot of fun and actually scary at times.The special effects are awesome, especially Linnea's scene with the lipstick and towards the end when almost everyone is dead and possessed.Plenty of nudity provided by Linnea and Jill, plenty of humor, cool soundtrack, high body count, etc...By the way, if you have never seen this one, try and buy/watch the Unrated version which has more gore and some scenes the rated version is missing.$LABEL$ 1
+i saw the film and i got screwed, because the film was foolish and boring. i thought ram gopal varma will justify his work but unfortunately he failed and the whole film got spoiled and they spoiled "sholay". the cast and crew was bad. the whole theater slept while watching the movie some people ran away in the middle. amithab bachan's acting is poor, i thought this movie will be greatest hit of the year but this film will be the greatest flop of the year,sure. nobody did justice to their work, including Ajay devagan. this film don't deserve any audiences. i bet that this film will flop. "FINALLY THIS MOVIE SUCKS"$LABEL$ 0
+Lorna Green(Janine Reynaud)is a performance artist for wealthy intellectuals at a local club. She falls prey to her fantasies as the promise of romantic interludes turn into murder as she kills those who believe that sex is on the horizon. It's quite possible that, through a form of hypnotic suggestion, someone(..a possible task master pulling her strings like a puppet)is guiding Lorna into killing those she comes across in secluded places just when it appears that love-making is about to begin. After the murders within her fantasies are committed, Lorna awakens bewildered, often clueless as to if what she was privy to within her dreams ever took place in reality.If someone asked me how to describe this particular work from Franco, I'd say it's elegant & difficult. By now, you've probably read other user comments befuddled by what this film is about, since a large portion of it takes place within the surreal atmosphere of a dream. Franco mentioned in an interview that he was heavily influenced by Godard early in his career, as far as film-making style, and so deciding to abandon a clear narrative structure in favor of trying to create a whole different type of viewing experience. And, as you read from the reaction of the user comments here..some like this decision, others find the style labouring, dull, and bewildering. I'll be the first to admit that the film is over my head, but even Franco himself, when quizzed by critics who watched "Succubus", admitted that he didn't even understand the film and he directed it! Some might say that "Succubus" was merely a precursor to his more admired work, "Venus in Furs", considered his masterwork by Franco-faithful, because it also adopts the surreal, dreamlike structure where the protagonist doesn't truly know whether he/she is experiencing something real or imagined. In a sense, like the protagonist, we are experiencing the same type of confusion..certainly, "Succubus" is unconventional film-making where we aren't given the keys to what is exactly going on. And, a great deal of the elusive dialogue doesn't help matters. "Succubus" is also populated by beatnik types and "poet-speak", Corman's film, "A Bucket of Blood" poked fun at. My personal favorite scene teases at a possible lesbian interlude between Lorna and a woman she meets at a posh party..quite a bizarre fantasy sequence where mannequins are used rather unusually. Great locations and jazz score..I liked this film myself, although I can understand why it does receive a negative reaction. Loved that one scene at the posh party with Lorna, a wee bit drunk, writhing on the floor in a gorgeous evening gown as others attending the shindig(..equally wasted)rush her in an embrace of kisses.$LABEL$ 1
+This outing of Knotts includes one of his best sidekicks ever, Frank Welker. Welker makes the film. Knotts and Welker compete for the laughs and both receive plenty. Knotts works for a small "no where" town where the city is being run by some of the most ignorant officials. When things go wrong the city fathers, allow Knotts to take the fall. Frank Welker's character befriends Knotts and together they stumble together to clear up the mess and Knott's good name. This film shows the usual Knott's scared to death character that made him famous for years on television and film. This may have been Knotts' last good outing. When you have an extra 90 minutes, get a good old fashioned laugh a great icon, Don Knotts.$LABEL$ 1
+Emma is a horribly flawed film based on Jane Austens classic novel. I have not read the book so I really didn't know that much about the plot, and yet I still predicted nearly the entire plot. There were also many scenes that frustrated me because of the bad writing or directing. The film is though for some reason very entertaining and I loved it. Of course there were all the scenes I disliked but the majority was well acted and funny. Gwyneth Paltrow gives one of her best performances as the heroine in Emma. The film also stars Toni Collette(Who has okay but has been much better) Ewan Mecgreger(Who has also been better but he is still very good here) Alan Cumming(Who I have never really been impressed with and is pretty much the same here) and Jeremy Northam(Who's performance is rather wooden at first look but actually fairly subtle, even if that was not what it needed) There have been much better adaptations of Jane Austen books but this one is still very entertaining and worth watching.$LABEL$ 1
+Why do I hate this? Let me list the ways:I have nothing against Mary Pickford but a 32 year old woman playing a 12 year old is just stupid.There's a fight scene in which kids are throwing bricks at each other and it's considered funny---and it goes on for 15 minutes Strange how none of the kids are even remotely hurtThe title cards contain plenty of racial and ethnic slursFor a "family" film the fights were WAY too violent (loved it when Pickford was punching it out with a little boy!) and the humor was just stupid Seriously, 40 minutes in I gave up and turned it off. The slurs, racism and little kids throwing bricks at each other got to me. Also there was no plot that I could see. The only thing worth seeing in this film was William Haines who was a top leading man in the silent era.Just painful. Avoid.$LABEL$ 0
+Thank God this wasn't based on a true story, because what a story it is. Populated by despicable characters whose depravity knows no bounds, Before The Devil is a mesmerizing, jaw-dropping excursion into perversion which would be laughable (and sometimes is, even with - or perhaps because of - the sickeningly tragic undercurrent of human dysfunction throughout) if it weren't carried out with such magnificent, overwhelming conviction by its stars. The excellent script by Kelly Masterson and superb direction by none other than Sidney Lumet doesn't hurt either.The main dysfunction here is of a family nature, with the two majorly screwed up brothers (brilliant portrayals from Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke) deciding to rob their own parents' jewelry store, an attempt that goes pathetically awry.The story is told with time-shifts (which are noted on screen, such as: "Charlie: Two Days Before The Robbery", so no one should be confused); some people have said they didn't like this device but I thought it worked perfectly, adding to the skeweredness of the whole affair, considering that the two brothers in question are hardly playing with full decks - between them you couldn't make a decent poker hand to save your life. Throw in these cheesy extra tidbits: one of the brothers is a drug addict, married to Gina (Marisa Tomei, also excellent), who is having an affair with the other brother, toss in some monumental sibling rivalry, along with the fact that said drug addict brother hates his father (a wrenching performance from Albert Finney), who has apparently caused him serious past pain, and you've got a Shakespearean/Greek tragedy on your hands. Proceed with caution.$LABEL$ 1
+If you want just about everything you want to know about WWII from multiple perspectives, this DVD delivers, you WILL learn new things guaranteed, so much so that you won't need any other documentary's on the subject. Get this, watch it, learn from it. Good for school use as well. As a bonus, watch this with Tora tora tora, saving private ryan, patton, band of brothers, a bridge too far, the longest day and other WWII epics along with this to make your knowledge of WWII even more complete. Sir Laurence Oliver's voice adds to the overall atmosphere of each episode in this 26 part series. Seriously you won't find a better WWII documentary set on the subject. PERFECT 10!!!$LABEL$ 1
+The movie was gripping from start to finish and its b/w photography of the American heartland is stunning. We feel we are right there with them as they cross the big sky country and then into Mexico and back to America again. Near the end of the movie, the reflection of the rain on Robert Blake looks like small rivers of sweat and tears rolling down his face. In the end, we follow them up the stairway to their final moment. The two criminals, performed by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson, as Perry Smith and Dick Hickock could be seen on any street in any town. Hickock is a smiling boy next door and Smith, the guy with stars in his eyes from the wrong side of town. This point is made in the movie and it always surprises us that criminals are no different in appearance than anyone else. Evil, even the most vile, is part of the human condition. These two delusional men kill an entire family, looking for a safe that isn't there. Once on the run, they start writing bad cheques, carving out a trail for the authorities.There are many fine supporting actors. I like John Forsyth as the detective on the case, Alvin Dewey. Also, Will Geer shines in a brief but excellent scene as the prosecuting attorney.I have often wanted to see this movie all the way through, having only caught it in short snatches; I did finally get to it after buying the DVD. The result is the finest classic crime movie I have ever seen.Don't miss this brilliant movie. To me, this is what great film-making is all about.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a great show with total freshness and innovation. That usual chair (couch for a woman) host, that mandatory band playing monotonous tunes, the same old jokes, the same pattern copied from the days of Nebuchadnezzer ....probably the pattern of Johnny Carson, copied by one and all, Latterman, Leno, Conan... Daly, this show does not seem to have any of these.I fell in love with this show within the first 10 minutes and I am going to stick to it. Though it's too early to say that, this show seems to be devoid of any intellectual pretension most talk shows try so hard to project, and I hope that that is what would make this show different from all the rest. I hope that this show will last long!Returning back after months, I still love this show, and I love his self-deprecating humor (For example, his affirmation that only pothead loners would be home to watch his show at Saturday midnight and thus, the jokes are funny only to the stoned guys) which, however, does not involve the usual monkeying of Conan O'Brien, for example (I know it's a cardinal sin to be repelled by O'Brien's antics; but I do really dislike his style and repetitiveness). I again watched it the other night with Tom Arnold in it. Ferensen's spoof of Trading Spouses (and Nanny 911 in an earlier episode) are hilarious. Idiot paparazzi are fun, especially when a security guard cautions them against taking people's pictures, and (if I am not mistaken) they start taking his pictures shouting "Gary Coleman".Added on 16th April, 2007: Coming back once again, I am left confused by the neighbor and her dog. I cannot decide if it is a joke or a real thing. Either way, it was funny as hell.I do not expect Spike Feresten to read these pages, but maybe he does. He is crazier than a bunch of monkeys and so, I would better write down my suggestion here for him: I would like him to do a full 30 minute show with Crazy Gideon, the star of late night TV commercial. I would like Crazy Gideon to have an interview in Spike's talk show, sing a song (and play guitar), do a skit in the line of SNL, and also to answer questions from the audience regarding his potential mayorship of Los Angeles (I know, Crazy Gideon may not be aware of this, but there are websites detailing why he would be the perfect candidate for the post of the mayor of LA).God willing!Returning back on 14th July, 2007: Someone wrote here that the people who praised Spike's talkshow must be bribed by Spike. I confess that Spike really bribed me, but I must also confess that Rockefeller named me in his will and last night I had sex with Cindy Crowford.$LABEL$ 1
+It's all about getting what you want when you want it. And the message of Bluebeard's Eighth WIfe is to be careful what you wish for, until what you wish for wishes for you.Most men have heard the stories about what happens when your sexual frustration isn't relieved and a certain part of your anatomy turning blue. Misogynistic pirates aside, Cooper plays a very wealthy man who is very accustomed to getting what he wants whenever he wants it, learning only too late that it wasn't what he expected and never learning his lesson until he runs into the feisty Claudette Colbert. Through a twisted (in soul and in practice) business deal, he ends up marring/buying her with the intent of bedding her, but she will have none of it (literally) and frustrates him at every turn, and corner, and room, and tourist attraction.The film has definite French sensibilities which means it has strong double-entendres and boudoir humor for the day and a sharp edge you're not accustomed to (and may not enjoy seeing) in either Cooper or Colbert. The whole reason I watched the film was because they are "likable" actors, and the whole point of this movie is that they're unlikable people, or at least likable people who have developed unlikable traits to protect themselves, they think, from the world. If you can accept it on its own terms you'll find satisfaction in this witty and sophisticated film...and satisfaction, as we said, is what it's all about. Such a movie with such a cast only comes around, after all, once in a...ummm...blue moon.$LABEL$ 1
+Now i have read some negative reviews for this show on this website and quite frankly I'm appalled. For anyone to even think that the Sopranos is not Television then i'm afraid i don't know what the world has come to. Let me tell u something. I started watching many T.V shows like Lost, Prison Break, Dexter, Deadwood and even Invasion. But all of those shows lost their touch after the first season, especially Lost and Prison Break which i refuse to watch because the companies took 2 genius ideas and butchered them by making more than one season. Then we have The Sopranos. I can honestly say that this is the only television series that i have ever watched where i have been enthralled in all of its season, and more importantly all of its episodes. There is no department that this show doesn't excel in. Acting- Nothing short of superb. James Gandolfini is one of my favourite actors and i feel that his acting is absolutely stunning in every episode, after i heard that HBO wanted Ray Liotta to play Tony i felt that it would've been the better choice, however after watching the first few episodes, i knew that HBO had done a great job in casting James as Tony. The raw emotion he displays is superb. Then we have everyone else, Edie Falco, Michael Imperioli, Lorraine Bracco, Dominic Chianese (whom i remembered as Johnny Ola in the Godfather Part 2) and my personal two favourite characters Tony Sirico and Steve Van Zandt Paulie 'Walnuts' Gualtieri and Silvio Dante. All of these actors perform to the best quality, and all giving an excellent performance in each episode. Then we have the story, never have i been so sucked into a T.V show before. The story is nothing short of excellent. Each episode is directed superbly and the Score of this show is just fantastic. I feel that The Sopranos is one show that i can watch again and again and never get bored of. Its got everything from hilarious humour to brutal violence, but nonetheless it is and will always be the best thing to ever grace the Television, and I challenge anyone to find a real flaw in the show. Not just say its too violent, or they feel that the character of Tony is immoral, i mean it is a mafia show at the end of the day, i don't think that the characters are going to be very honest or loyal to God. I implore everyone to watch this show because believe me, you'll be hooked from the very first episode, i was and i have even gotten a few friends who had firstly refused to watch the show, hooked on it. Trust me when i say that this show is a Godsend compared to the crap that comes on T.V. After you've watched the first season, you'll inevitably agree with me when i once again say that this show dominates Television, and no T.V show current or future will ever upstage the marvel that is The Sopranos.$LABEL$ 1
+I'd give this a negative rating if I could. I went into this movie not expecting much, but I had an open mind. The whole thing is stupid! The snakes are obviously fake and the first two things they bite are a boob and a guys johnson. Oh how original; if I were a 12 year old boy I might laugh at that. I have no idea how this movie became so popular. Seriously,the worst thing I've ever seen. I wasn't entertained, it wasn't funny,I wasn't even bored! I wasn't anything. It wasn't even so bad it was good, it's just bad. Ridiculous actually. Please do not waste your money on this movie. Don't even rent this movie. No clue how it's getting such a high rating.$LABEL$ 0
+Most people are totally unaware that this movie exists. Fox, which paid Judge to make it, has kept it in the can for quite awhile and then spent nothing to promote it. I guess that made many people think it was one of the garbage movies being flushed in late summer. Well, I am here to tell you that this is a funny and rather frightening look at a future that is not that hard to believe. Basically, Judge puts forward the notion that the stupid are outbreeding the smart by a wide margin. Then these stupid are getting more stupid, by basically spending all of their time watching TV and having sex, which produces more stupid people. By 2500, a person of average intelligence today, will appear to be a genius, that talks "all faggy." Seriously, is this really that hard to believe. Oh sure, this future is painfully funny and ridiculously stupid, but still plausible. Luke Wilson is great as the time traveling army guy, hopelessly trying to get back to a more comfortable time. Where this story will gain its cult status is with the numerous funny one-liners, like "can we family style her" and "hey man, I'm 'bating here!" This is a funny movie and a rather sharp social commentary on an American society that seems to be fatuated with self pleasure, comfort and stupidity, and I guarantee you that I will be buying this on DVD the first day it comes out and watching it over and over.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a great, ridiculous horror movie that captures the essence of the mid to late 80s' obsession with how evil metal music supposedly was. I can remember being freaked out by metal teens when I was a kid. It doesn't help that I found a desecrated grave in my hometown's graveyard when I was ten. Turns out this weird metal kid had dug up some old bodies and used their bones in some weird sacrifice to satan. So maybe stuff like deterred me from metal for awhile, but I love it now, as a 24 year old.I bought this DVD used for 6 bucks and I expected it to suck due to the lame cover, but to my surprise, it ruled. It is all about the extreme demonic power of metal. And you gotta love a scene where a guitar shoots lazers and vaporizes headbangers in the crowd. This movie is awesome, if you love 80s metal and bad movies, this one's for you. 9/10!$LABEL$ 1
+While not quite as good as A Murder is Announced, which was not only delightful but almost surpassed the book, this is an excellent adaptation. And you know what, it is a huge improvement on the Geraldine McEwan version. Now I don't take pride in bad mouthing the Geraldine McEwan adaptations, two or three of them were surprisingly good, but others started off well but ruined by either a poor script, a confusing final solution or both. The Geraldine McEwan version suffered from a plodding pace, and both of the above problems, and I would consider second worst of the ITV adaptations, worst being Sittaford Mystery, which even on its own merits turned out dull and confusing. This adaptation of the book Nemesis is a huge improvement, it not only respects the book, despite a few liberties, but it pretty much rectifies the problems the ITV version had. Despite the added character of Lionel coming across as rather irritating, more to do with how he was written than how he was acted, and one or two moments of sluggish pacing, this is solid as an adaptation of a decent book. It is beautifully filmed, with nice photography and period detail, and the music as always is excellent. The performances are wonderful this time around, and make the most of an in general well-done script, with Joan Hickson brilliant as always as Miss Marple, and solid turns from Liz Fraser, Helen Cherry, Joanna Hole and Anna Cropper. Margaret Tyzack is outstanding though in a chilling and moving performance as Clothilde. Overall, well worth watching, better than the recent version in pretty much all departments. 9/10 Bethany Cox$LABEL$ 1
+Good Lord, what were they THINKING??!!!!!! Here is your spoiler warning, even though I don't think it'll really matter. You won't be seeing this piece of trash anyway.A group of handpuppets go chasing after a group of really stupid people, who go on a really stupid hunt for them to try and kill them, and the puppets complicate things by letting them live out their really stupid fantasies. In other words, the whole thing is really stupid.You KNOW it has to be bad when even Mike and the Bots can't save something!! And they didn't! I know, some of their lines were funny, like what to add to the sign "HIT" and the hand comments, but, geez, this was pretty dang sad.All I can say is DO NOT WATCH THIS PIECE O CRUD. IT IS NOT WORTH YOUR EYES.$LABEL$ 0
+I had heard (and read) so many good things about Weeds that I was looking forward to getting hooked on another great cable Series (like Entourage, Sopranos or Mad Men) but that slowly eroded away with each episode I watched from Season One. (didn't make it past the first six episodes) The writing was unoriginal, contrived and the portrayal of Blacks embarrassing. The dialog felt forced, like the writers are trying way too hard to be clever and hip . It was a rare moment when I actually emitted an audible laugh.The characters never developed enough for me to care about them, they were selfish and unappealing. I absolutely HATED the addition of the Brother-in-law (who should have been hauled away on To Catch A Predator) and the removal of the Hodes' daughter Quinn from the cast by sending her to boarding school in Mexico was so unoriginal and cliché, I had to conclude the writers were testing the viewer's loyalty.Episode after episode I liked the characters less and couldn't get past many of the technical flaws in the story line.Add to that I heard that Season Two wasn't as good, so I lost all motivation to continue to watch this play out.If you're a fan of good casting and writing, I suspect this show will be a challenge for you to like, unless of course you're stoned and then all bets are off.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is among my favorite foreign films, some of the others are Amilee and My Life As a Dog. The similarities with those movies as with so many great foreign films, is that it takes a mundane slice of life and transforms it into a profound heartfelt lesson. In Japan, a man who is bored with his mundane life and the rut of his married life, sees a beautiful Japanese woman staring out the window of a dance studio. In the instant that it takes his train to pass, he is enthralled by her. But is it only by her beauty, by her faraway glance, or a connection that they will both discover that they share? Shall We Dance has memorable wonderful characters who have to deal with painful realities by transcending them through the world of dance. Breaking traditional moulds and stereo types of Japanese society, they risk all for happiness and find that joy is not too far away. It is one of those movies that is so magical and meaningful and, in itself, transcends the mundane by showing the true magic and miracle that life can be.$LABEL$ 1
+As if the film were not of value in itself, this is an excellent way to get an overview of the novel as a preface to reading it. In the summer of 1968 I saw the film in NYC; that fall in graduate school, I read the book for the first time. Some of the pleasure in reading the novel was my memory of the scrupulously detailed film. And for better or worse--and I've now read and taught the novel for over three decades--Milo O'Shea is still Leopold Bloom.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is a lyrical and romantic memoir told through the eyes an eleven year old boy living in a rural Cuban town the year of the Castro revolution. It is an obviously genuine worthy labor of love. The names CUBA LIBRE and CUBAN BLOOD are merely attempts to wrongly market this as an action film. DREAMING OF JULIA makes much more sense. It has more in common with European cinema than with RAMBO and the revolution is merely an inconvenience to people's daily lives and pursuits. That fact alone makes the film more honest than most works dealing with this time period in Cuban history.The excessive use of the voice-over narrator does undermine the story but the film makes up for it with unqualified clips from Hollywood films that say so much more visually than the narrator could.The comparisons to CINEMA PARADISO and are fair game as the film does wax melancholy about movies, but there is an underlying pain at the loss of a lifestyle that surpasses lost love. The revolution, like the film JULIE, never seems to have an ending.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw ZP when it was first released and found it a major disappointment. Its script seemed forced and arch and too fakey '60s. It's politics too upfront and ridiculous. And let's face it, I was still under a love-spell known as BLOWUP : and I still haven't completely shaken it. Now the "love" is twisted up with all sorts of nostalgia it evokes and, oh well . . . Good Luck to me!But time marches on and time has been kind to ZP and time has been a teacher to me. I revisit this film about every ten years and it just gets better and better with age. And ZP is it's own "experience"and is only really linked to BLOWUP through its creator, the late,great Mr. Antonioni.Twelve years ago, I had the great good fortune to see an absolutely pristine print, projected at its correct size (immense), restored by an Italian government cultural agency who knows a good work of art when they see it and knows the importance of keeping such a thing of beauty in good shape. To this day I remember the gasp from the audience when the first shot of Death Valley appeared. It was like a thousand volt visual shock Antonioni had intentionally delivered to wake us up to a new level of awareness. And indeed what follows from that point is an entirely different sort of "place".What is astonishing to me is how this film is coming into its own.I remember the second time around seeing it --- the early 80s --- I had begun to feel affection towards the film as a whole and towards Daria and Mark in particular. Whereas, before these two seemed like a smart-alecky shadow version of Zefferelli's Olivia and Leonard (read: Romeo and Juliet)they now were engaging me --- particularly The Girl in her insistent slo-motion-ality. She-took-her-time . . . To Live. Everything, EVERYTHING dies around her.Upon exciting the theater the daylight of Reality quickly began to erase my new found "enjoyment". The encroaching shoulder-padded, big haired 80s whispered "But that's a hippie fantasy --- let it go"The force of Antonioni's vision had, I had realised, already worked itself inside of me the FIRST time around so I answered "80s" with an "Uh-Huh" and guarded my "love" secretly, possessively and jealously.But, this, then is what good art does it lives inside of you, and, if you wish it has its way and "loves" you back: secretly, jealously, and possessively. And you get "changed".Was thrilled to see that Turner Classic Movies had decided to show ZP in its March lineup. Undoubtedly, ZP must be seen on a gigantic screen so that it can truly take you into its constructed environment. But, hey, sometimes even a glimpse of the Beloved in a newspaper photo is no better than no glimpse at all.Today reality hit, ZP has been withdrawn mysteriously and replaced with the whiney antics of ALICE'S RESTAURANT.So, it is still too "difficult", too "disturbing", too "what"?Maybe it's that, as with all good art, it Lives while everything dies around it. Peace.$LABEL$ 1
+Very strange but occasionally elegant exploitation movie with no real story, but benefiting from its stunningly ravishing lead actress and a handful of nice, gruesome make-up effects. Daniella is a beautiful twenty-something girl, carrying with her the trauma of being raped at the age of 13. Nightmares and hallucinations lead her further into believing she's the reincarnation of a female ancestor who was said to be a werewolf. She kills her brother-in-law during a nightly encounter and gets submitted in a hospital. She escapes again, however, and randomly devours more men whilst on the run for police detectives, doctors and relatives. It's all pretty to look at and listen too (really great soundtrack), but the absence of plot and continuity become irritating quite fast. Luckily enough, leading lady Annik Borel rarely ever wears clothes and she fills up the boring moments by dancing naked around a fire. The film is too long, too weird and too forgettable. The biggest surprise comes at the end, when suddenly and out of the blue, director Rino Di Silvestro tries to make us believe that his movie was based on true facts. Yeah, right...$LABEL$ 0
+This is an interesting, hard to find movie from the early 70's starring Jan Michael Vincent as a young man who doesn't make the cut as a marine. Dressed in 'baby blue' outfits to humiliate them as they are sent home, the failed recruits are sent packing. Vincent stops at a bar and runs into a very young Richard Gere who has just returned from a tour in the Pacific as a hard-core Marine 'Raider'. Gere's character is already jaded and contemplating desertion, and he takes advantage of Vincent's innocence, stealing his 'baby blue' uniform after getting him drunk and beating him in an alleyway. Vincent's character, whose name is Marion, takes Gere's outfit and is suddenly transformed into a Marine 'Raider'. Marion hitch-hikes his way into Wyoming and stops at a little Norman Rockwell-like little town. In the local café he meets Rose Hudkins, who immediately catches his eye. Staying with Hudkins parents, Marion attracts all sorts of attention from the towns folks. Mr Hudkins suspects Marion and wonders how a Marine 'Raider' could still be so innocent. The story also brings up the Japanese Internment Camps, as the towns folks go 'hunting' 3 escapees. Marion is shot accidentally during this hunt. But there's still a happy ending, which befuddled me a bit. I would have preferred a little more drama! Anyway, this captures JMV at the peak of his 70's performances. BUSTER AND BILLIE, BABY BLUE MARINE and WHITE LINE FEVER in the mid-70's were amazingly good JMV performances. He was both an action star and a heart-throb all at the same time!!! He made a lot of quality movies during his career, and continued to do so up into the mid 80's with the great TV show Airwolf. He does a very good job in this as 'Hedge', quietly observing the way people treat him (in his uniform) as he travels across the country. He must have performed some of the stunt work as well- there is a harrowing river scene at the end of the movie-and it looks like he's the guy getting tossed down the river to me! But really, at the height of his popularity, this movie could have done so much more with JMV's talent and his looks. Innocence can only be so interesting. Evil, as explored in "Buster and Billie", is much more dramatic! Anyway, Glynnis O'Connor is delightful as Rose. The whole look of the movie is like a Norman Rockwell painting. The outdoor scenes are gorgeous - must have been filmed in Canada.$LABEL$ 1
+Johnny and June Carter Cash financed this film which is a traditional rendering of the Gospel stories. The music is great, you get a real feel of what the world of Jesus looked like (I've been there too), and June gets into the part of Mary Magdalene with a passion. Cash's narration is good too.But....1. The actor who played Jesus was miscast. 2. There is no edge to the story like Cash puts in some of his faith based music. 3. Because it is uncompelling, I doubt we'll see this ever widely distributed again.I'd love to buy the CD.Tom Paine Texas, USA$LABEL$ 1
+Jäniksen vuosi is one of Jarva's most political movies. It takes stance strongly against modern day society's authority status in the life of the common man, and how it has estranged men from the nature completely. It challenges the whole concept of freedom and wealth in our welfare society.Vatanen (Antti Litja) - smothered buy the concrete jungle with all its rules and regulations - tries to rattle the chains of the society by escaping it all in to the wilderness of northern Finland - only to realize that the concept of a 'free country' isn't all that unambiguous, in other words, the society has the common man by the balls.Still the thing that makes Jäniksen vuosi so exceptional - besides the visual and humouristic brilliance - is how it seems to illustrate the whole political atmosphere in Finland in the 70's, as well as the whole identity of Finland as a nation. Vatanen is like an archetype of a classical finn in his solitudeness and social distantness. Since nature has always played such an important role in the national identity of us Finns, the whole idea of that being slowly taken away by the modern society makes Jäniksen vuosi emotionally exceptionally moving.$LABEL$ 1
+I love Jamie Foxx.And I enjoy 99% of all movies I see.And I walked out of this one.Now, I admit, it may have had something to do with the two middle-aged white women in the back of theatre who laughed at every little thing ("Oh no, Jamie's knocking on a door! HEE HEE HEE!"), but... this was just so incredibly annoying. There could be no sustained camera shot, and no camera shot from a conventional angle... everything had to be in-your-face, loud, and annoying.The bad guy tried to be smooth and Malkovich-like, but at this point, it's just old and tired. He brought nothing new or interesting. From all the characters, too many lines you saw coming, too many you've heard before, and too many "tough guy" lines... and I don't mind that sort of thing, really, as long as there's a bit of originality to it. In fact, pretty much the entire supporting cast just sucked.I love Jamie Foxx, and I think he's really funny, and I thought he was funny in this movie... but not nearly funny enough for me to endure everything else. This movie needed less shoot-em-up, less annoying camera shots, more emotion, more feeling, and more Jamie Foxx. I gave it a 2.$LABEL$ 0
+After seeing Dick Tracy in the 6.99$ bin at Future Shop I decided to give it a go with no previous knowledge and being a big fan of Mafia and Crime movies. I was very surprised to see a very fun, smart entertaining movie with solid performances throughout. The movie moves along well, it has of course another solid performance from Warren Beatty, but the real standouts of the film are Al Pacino and Madonna. I was happy to find out that Pacino was nominated for his performance as an over the top gangster trying to take down the city. Madonna was great as the damsel in distress, she really impressed me and added depth to her performance. If you go in with the attitude of wanting to watch a fun, smart movie with great acting and a solid script then give Dick Tracy a try. I don't think you will be disappointed. And Watch for the cameos from Paul Sorvino, James Caan, Kathy Bates and Dustin Hoffman among others.$LABEL$ 1
+Send them to the freezer. This is the solution two butchers find after they discover the popularity of selling human flesh. An incredible story with humor and possible allegories that make it much more than a horror film. The complex characters defy superficial classification and make the story intriguing and worthwhile - if you can stand it. Definitely a dark film but also a bit redemptive.$LABEL$ 1
+Wow! I picked this off the rental shelf because I loved Robert Carlyle and Jonny Lee Miller in 'Trainspotting.' This is a phenomenal movie; it has action, romance, suspense, intrigue and wit. When I wasn't laughing, I was at the edge of my seat. This is definitely a film I would recommend to people with an appreciation for intelligent dialogue and a fresh perspective of the 18th century. This film has everything to keep ME happy!$LABEL$ 1
+I don't know why some people criticise that show so much.It is a great, funny show - probably not the right material for mainstream prime-time, but still...The family dynamics are funny, and all in all the same you see in most comedy shows. The supporting characters are absolutely hilarious. The plots of the individual episodes and the frequent Siegfried & Roy jibes are only just above average, but ever so often you have sub-plots or one-liners that make you roll on the floor laughing.This show was well worth the 8 Pounds I paid for it.rating: 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+Mexican Werewolf in Texas is set in the small border town of Furlough where Anna (Erika Fay) lives, her best friend is Rosie (Martine Hughes) & she has a Mexican boyfriend named Miguel (Gabriel Gutierrez) who are determined to track a beast down that has been terrorising the town, killing livestock & several residents including some of their friends. Local Mexican legends speak of the Chupacabra, an evil creature from myth & legend. Erm, I'm struggling now because not that much else actually happens...Written & directed by Scott Maginnis I won't beat about the bush here & simply say that Mexican Werewolf in Texas is awful, period. The script only ever mentions the word Werewolf once & the rest of the time it's referred to a Chupacabra, in fact I suspect this wasn't really conceived as a Werewolf flick at all. The 'Werewolf' creature looks mostly hairless & more like some vicious dog, there is no reference to anybody changing during the full moon & it actually attacks during the day on a couple of occasions, there is no transformation scene & at the end when it is killed it doesn't change back into anyone either. To be honest apart from the title there's nothing here to indicate a Werewolf film at all & even then the title is just a rip-off of the highly popular An American Werewolf in London (1981). This is the type of home made crap that I personally think is killing the horror genre, how long has it been since there was a true low budget horror classic like Dawn of the Dead (1978), The Evil Dead (1981), Halloween (1978) or Friday the 13th (1980) which were all made on shoe string budgets, maybe The Blair Witch Project (1999) but that's it in recent years & crap like Mexican Werewolf in Texas has absolutely no chance of ever being considered a classic. The character's are awful & things just happen around them, the dialogue is rubbish, the pacing is terrible, the story sucks & virtually sent me to sleep & as a whole this film is just crap, I'm sorry but I don't know how else to describe it.Director Maginnis does nothing to make this watchable, there's the annoying hand held camera type cinematography which could easily give someone a headache & quick 'blink & you'll miss something' editing which just annoys & irritates in equal measure. It's not scary, there's no nudity, there's no tension or atmosphere & the special effects are awful. The monster really does look poor & it's no wonder Maginnis keeps it in the shadows or cuts his scenes so quickly you never get a good look at it. There's virtually no colour to the picture either, it's either almost pitch black or over saturated desert sand oranges which makes the thing an eye sore as well. The gore consists of some fake guts (blink & you'll miss them!), a few bloody wounds & a severed arm, big deal.With a supposed budget of about $300,000 I admit the budget was low but I simply refuse to accept that for making such a rubbish film, there are plenty of low budget horror flicks that make their meagre budgets go far. The whole thing has the look of a home movie, it has no style & is throughly bland & dull to look at. The acting sucks too although you probably already knew that.Mexican Werewolf in Texas will probably con a few people into renting/buying/watching it because they might mistakenly think it's a sequel to John Landis' classic which it most certainly isn't & it isn't even a proper Werewolf flick either. Don't be fooled this is awful & I'm fed up of having to waste time/money on home made amateur crap like this.$LABEL$ 0
+I found this to be a surprisingly light-handed touch at a 1950's culture-clash movie. John Wayne would hardly be one's first choice as a cultural attache, being about as diplomatic with his good intentions as a bull-run in Harrods. But this time he was left to play a part that was far more passive than his usual bluff persona, and he accomplished his task with style. The Duke was a guy who really could act well. His facial expressions and body language could be extremely subtle.Despite his considerable presence both as an actor and in terms of screen time, he failed to dominate this movie. Many of his good intentions came a cropper. He had authority over nobody, and the intermittent narrative was provided by the titular geisha to whom he was the barbarian.The story of American attempts to curry favour with an isolationist Japan was one of political intrigue rather than swashbuckling or hell-for-leather battles. I cannot comment on the accuracy of its research but the strangeness of the Oriental culture to western sensibilities was demonstrated well. There was a great deal of minutely-choreographed ceremony entailing what looked to this observer like authentic costume and props. The set pieces were complex and detailed. A lot of money and thought had been applied to it.The fractured romance between Wayne and his geisha added a little extra element, and stopped the movie becoming just a political or flag-waving effort. Script was good without being too wordy. There was a great deal of Japanese dialogue, but the lengthy periods of translation didn't interfere with the narrative. It was nice to see plenty of genuine orientals on the set. Whether or not they were Japanese, I couldn't say. But anyway they looked the part. At least the leads were not played by cross-dressing Caucasians, unlike other efforts such as 'Blood Alley' (yes, I know they were Chinese) 'The Inn Of The Sixth Happiness' or even 'The King And I'.Frankly, I enjoyed this more than any of those other movies. The script was better for a start. I never liked the songs in 'The King And I', and wasn't impressed by the heavy-laden anti-communist subtext of 'Blood Alley'. I confess to never having seen this work before and found it compared very favourably to many of The Duke's more popular outings.Recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+I was so glad I came across this short film. I'm always so disappointed that short films are hard to come across, so when I saw this and saw that it was nominated for the Live Action Short Film at the Academy Awards, I was so pleased that I actually had a film that I was rooting for.The plot is pretty simple, the director, writer, and star Nacho Vigalondo tried coming up with a reason people would suddenly break out into a song and dance number like they do in movie musicals. The result is extremely entertaining and the song is actually really catchy.It's a well made short film, well edited and the actors all do a great job. And the last shot of the film is perfect.I highly recommend this film.$LABEL$ 1
+I thought before starting with these movie that it might be a good one, but when i started with it i found it really awful. They said movie is being made in Afghanistan but i think 95% of the movie is shot in India. you can see Indian made cars. you can see lars drinking bisleri(an Indian water brand), Hindi written on the road, you can also see temples in Afghanistan *hahah* its really funny and many more stuff which proves its not shot in Afghanistan. I think one should not waste his/her time watching this movie.. pure time waste.. i would recommend to do something else instead of watching this movie or may be might heart is better idea but don't watch this waste of time$LABEL$ 0
+Truly appalling waste of space. Me and my friend tried to watch this film to its conclusion but had to switch it off about 30 minutes from the end. And i can count the films I have switched off before the end on one hand.The script and direction are leaden and deeply uninspiring. I wouldn't be surprised if they found the script in a pile of cast off scripts from 1983. For example the irritating scroat threatening the real estate guy from his house phone. I mean seriously. The police would be beating his door down in minutes. The scenes and events just wash by you like turds in a river. It is difficult to understand the actual thrust of the film. The narrative flicks between characters in a seemingly random manner breaking up the pathetic attempts at building the characters. Oh and what "characters" they are. The protagonist played by Rourke is dreadful. He could have just sent a cardboard cut out of himself and stayed in bed. After 60 or so minutes of the film I had built absolutely zero attachment to this character. He is neither sympathetic nor hateful. Just a disfigured dummy from a shop window blundering through every single scene. His motivation is impossible to discern from his generally mumbled and emotionless delivery. Is he happy? Is he sad? Angry? No idea. Just those same dead eyes staring out at you from a disfigured chunk of flesh. And the native American theme is just awful and pointless.The good guys are at best unlikeable. A dull white collar stereotype and a simpering neurotic ex-wife stereotype. Cue archetypal wife with shotgun face off with bad guy, "you aren't going to shoot me" that is both tiresomely unoriginal and annoying.The richie nix character seems interesting at first but soon descends into an irritating one sided psycho character. Which seems at odds with the seeming intention of making the bad guys in some way sympathetic or at least realistically motivated.Roasario Dawsons character starts with some promise but soon descends into a sickening and childlike parody of the gangsters chick scenes from Jackie Brown. You really want me to believe her character was SO attracted to Rourke's? Or worse she is just a floozy who sleeps with anything that moves? Realistic female characters FTW! In summary a complete mess of a film. Hopeless characterisations and performances. A leaden and hackneyed script along with uninspired direction. And ultimately extremely dull. Its not even comedy bad either. Laughing at Rourkes haggard face gets pretty old after sitting through the first 15 turgid minutes of the film.$LABEL$ 0
+In this movie, Chávez supporters (either venezuelan and not-venezuelan) just lie about a dramatic situation in our country. They did not say that the conflict started because of Chávez announcement firing a lot of PDVSA best workers just for political issues.They did not say anything about more than 96 TV interruptions transmitted by Chávez during only 3 days in "CADENA NACIONAL" (a kind of confiscation o private TV signals). Each one with about 20 minutes of duration.They did not tell us anything about The quiting announcement made by General en Jefe Lucas Rincon Romero, Inspector General of the army forces, who is a traditional supporter of Chávez. Even now, in despite of his announcement, he is the Ministro de Interior y Justicia. After Chávez return he occuped the Charge of Ministro del Defensa (equals to Defense Secretary in US).They did not say anything about Chávez orders about shooting against a pacifical people concentration who was claiming for elections.They did not say anything about the people in this concentration that were killed by Chávez Supporters (either civilians and Military official forces).They present some facts in a wrong order, in order to lie.They did not say anything about venezuelan civilian society thats are even now claiming for an elections in order to solve the crisis and Chávez actions in order to avoid the elections.That's why i tell you.... This movie is just a lot of lies or a big lie.$LABEL$ 0
+One could wish that an idea as good as the "invisible man" would work better and be more carefully handled in the age of fantastic special effects, but this is not the case. The story, the characters and, finally the entire last 20 minutes of the film are about as fresh as a mad-scientist flick from the early 50's. There are some great moments, mostly due to the amazing special effects and to the very idea of an invisible man stalking the streets. But alas, soon we're back in the cramped confinement of the underground lab, which means that the rest of the film is not only predictable, but schematic.There has been a great many remakes of old films or TV shows over the past 10 years, and some of them have their charms. But it's becoming clearer and clearer for each film that the idea of putting ol' classics under the noses of eager madmen like Verhoeven (who does have his moments) is a very bad one. It is obvious that the money is the key issue here: the time and energy put into the script is nowhere near enough, and as a result, "Hollow Man" is seriously undermined with clichés, sappy characters, predictability and lack of any depth whatsoever.However, the one thing that actually impressed me, beside the special effects, was the swearing. When making this kind of film, modern producers are very keen on allowing kids to see them. Therefore, the language (and, sometimes, the violence and sex) is very toned down. When the whole world blows up, the good guys go "Oh darn!" and "Oh my God". "Hollow Man" gratefully discards that kind of hypocrisy and the characters are at liberty to say what comes most natural to them. I'm not saying that the most natural response to something gone wrong is to swear - but it makes it more believable if SOMEONE actually swears. I think we can thank Verhoeven for that.$LABEL$ 0
+OK, so it owes Pulp Fiction, but in my opinion has it's own voice and identity mainly because of the music-video direction style, sketch-like narrative and great performances. Thomas Jane delivers great (the drug-dealer show-down is extraordinary), Aaron Eckhart likewise. James LeGros has a short and effervescent appearance-great humor-"they got the Wong house". The Porzikova interrogation and rape scene is memorable, as is Mickey Rourke's cameo appearance-"take a peak".Great Hollywood popcorn B-production with strong performances of A-level aspirants and renegades(Rourke).Well, take a peak, it's worth.$LABEL$ 1
+As far as I know the real guy that the main actor is playing saw his performance and said it was an outstanding portrayal, I'd agree with him. This is a fantastic film about a quite gifted boy/man with a special body part helping him. Oscar and BAFTA winning, and Golden Globe nominated Daniel Day-Lewis plays Christy Browna crippled man with cerebral palsy who spends most of his life on the floor, in a wheelchair and carried by his family. He has a special left foot though, he can write with it, paint with it and hold things with it. He learns to speak later in the film, it is very good for a guy like him. Also starring Home Alone 2's Oscar winning, and Golden Globe nominated Brenda Fricker as Mrs. Brown and BAFTA winning Ray McAnally as Mr. Brown. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Director for Jim Sheridan, Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium and Best Picture, it was nominated the BAFTAs for Best Film, Best Make Up Artist and Best Adapted Screenplay. Daniel Day-Lewis was number 85 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, he was number 20 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, he was number 9 on Britain's Finest Actors, and he was number 15 on The World's Greatest Actor, and the film was number 28 on The 50 Greatest British Films. Outstanding!$LABEL$ 1
+All I ever heard while being raised was equality of the sexes, and here we have a film that not only exemplifies imbalance, but continues through with a whole concept that one sex is better. All the while watching I was hoping for that redeeming quality to make the viewer feel as though there is hope for the future, and there wasn't. I'll admit to not finishing the film, I had to turn it off at the part where the old man whore told the genetic man Adam that it was ok to be a whore and get, and I quote, "More tail than any man in the past time." I know not finishing it is a bad review on myself, but it is the responsibility of the writer and crew to develope a story that will keep a viewer interested, and they failed. This film betrays all true female nature qualities of the mother figure and the need for balance. Instead it exemplifies what America ran by lesbian natzis would be like,and I'm not against lesbians. Thank you Mr. Director! Someone please give me a redeeming quality... wait I have it! There's no sequel!$LABEL$ 0
+I do regret that I have bought this series. I expected more action, more objective picture and more consistency. This is just a pure propaganda series, very dark, without any charm, or romanticism, it is just boredom itself. I find the actors work quite weak as well. O'Donnell might seem charming as Robin (with Batman), but in this picture he lacks any charm. Probably while he becomes older, he is loosing his childish charm but does not gain any charm of a grown up. It comes as no surprise, that it was not shown in a lot of countries and is being sold in the UK for 40% of the recommended price and was not even released in the Netherlands.$LABEL$ 0
+The story has been told before. A deadly disease is spreading around... But the extra in this film is Peter Weller, his interpretation of Muller on the run is real. He is indeed a desperate person just going home to see his child. This person could be working next to you.$LABEL$ 1
+This film was very well advertised. I am an avid movie goer and have seen previews for this movie for months. While I was somewhat skeptical of how funny this movie would actually be, my friends thought it was going to be great and hyped me up about it. Then I went and saw it, I was sunk down in my seat almost asleep until I remembered that I had paid for this movie. I made myself laugh at most of the stuff in the movie just so i wouldnt feel bad and destroy the good mood I was in, plus I wanted to get my monies worth out of the movie! I always go into a movie with an open mind, not trying to go into them with too many expectations, but this movie was not that funny. Now it wasnt the worst movie I've ever seen, but it is definitely worth waiting for HBO. If you havent seen many previews for the movie or you like very slow and corny comedies you may enjoy it, but for true comedy fans Id say pass. Maybe even check out The Kings of Comedy again. Something told me to go see Meet the Parents instead!!!$LABEL$ 0
+As far as I know this was my first experience with Icelandic movies. It's such a relief to see something else than your regular Hollywood motion picture. Too bad that movies like this one have a small chance of succeeding in the big world. I can only hope that people watch this by accident, by recommendation or other...Because it's really worth while. I left the cinema feeling really sad. I couldn't get the tragic destiny's of the characters out of my head. And it impressed me even more when I thought of the complexity of the film. Not only was it a tragic story, it had excellent comic reliefs and a very good soundtrack.If you have the opportunity, watch it! It's really thought provoking and made me ponder a lot.$LABEL$ 1
+Very typical Almodóvar of the time and, in its own way, no less funny than many of his later works. And why is that? There is nothing to be provoked or shocked about, and I guess any such effect is more coincidental than intentional. No, the great humor stems from an underlying, almost surreal, absurdity that is woven into the scenery: The characters' nearly complete lack of taboo. It's the same kind of 'comic suspense' you find in his later works, though you'll find it in a more rough version here. He's building up for masterpieces to come, but is not yet there.The sole reviewer who commented on this movie before I did, claimed that it had to be a "very select" group of people who'd find this movie hilarious. I do.$LABEL$ 1
+Once again, Doctor Who delivers the goods by the bucket load. It has humour ("You're just making it up as you go along!" "Yup, but I do it brilliantly"), action, monsters (in this case still more kick-ass cybermen), tragedy and scare tactics. In short, just what the doctor ordered (pun intended). The way that the emotions move from one to the other is done so well that there is no feeling of "get on with it". So, chalk up 3 out of the last 4 episodes that have made you laugh, then made you cry, and made you go "eek".In terms of character development, this is clearly the clincher for Noel Clarke's Mickey (and Ricky). Being one of the Doctor's companions, you know that he will do the right thing, and may even suspect the manner that he does it. However, it is still an emotional wrench when he confirms his future path.While "The rise of the Cybermen" had more of the sinister build up to terror, "The Age of Steel" is an all out blast. Like "Alien" compared to "Aliens" - both true classics, but in different ways. Can the series keep it up at this level? Let's hope so.$LABEL$ 1
+A Brother's Promise is a wonderful family film. This is a biography of Dan Jansen, a champion Olympic speed skater. The movie depicts this athlete's life from a young age through full adulthood. The love and support of the family members is evident throughout. How Dan and the rest of his family handle winning and losing races is a life lesson for all of us. The commitment and determination of Dan's coach and his teammates, shows what it takes to make a real team. How Dan and his family deal with a devastating illness of a loved one is depicted without undo sentiment or sugarcoating. The faith of the family is shown in basic terms and is obviously a major part of their lives. This is a powerful family film which can be meaningful for a person of any age.$LABEL$ 1
+Well...now that I know where Rob Zombie stole the title for his "House of 1,000 Corpses" crapfest, I can now rest in peace. Nothing about the somnambulant performances or trite script would raise the dead in "The House of Seven Corpses," but a groovie ghoulie comes up from his plot (ha!) anyway, to kill the bloody amateurs making a low-rent horror flick in his former abode! In Hell House (sorry, I don't remember the actual name of the residence), a bunch of mysterious, unexplained deaths took place long ago; some, like arthritic Lurch stand-in John Carradine (whose small role provides the film's only worthwhile moments), attribute it to the supernatural; bellowing film director John Ireland dismisses it as superstitious hokum. The result comes across like "Satan's School for Girls" (catchy title; made-for-TV production values; intriguing plot) crossed with "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things" (low-rent movie about low-rent movie makers who wake the dead); trouble is, it's nowhere near as entertaining or fun. "The House of Seven Corpses" is dead at frame one, and spends the rest of its 89 minutes going through rigor mortis, dragging us along for every aching second...$LABEL$ 0
+Director Sidney Lumet has made some masterpieces,like Network,Dog Day Afternoon or Serpico.But,he was not having too much luck on his most recent works.Gloria (1999) was pathetic and Find Me Guilty was an interesting,but failed experiment.Now,Lumet brings his best film in decades and,by my point of view,a true masterpiece:Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.I think this film is like a rebirth for Lumet.This movie has an excellent story which,deeply,has many layers.Also,I think the ending of the movie is perfect.The performances are brilliant.Philip Seymour Hoffman brings,as usual,a magnificent performance and he's,no doubt,one of the best actors of our days.Ethan Hawke is also an excellent actor but he's underrated by my point of view.His performance in here is great.The rest of the cast is also excellent(specially,the great Albert Finney) but these two actors bring monumental performances which were sadly ignored by the pathetic Oscars.The film has a good level of intensity,in part thanks to the performances and,in part,thanks to the brilliant screenplay.Before the Devil Knows You're Dead is a real masterpiece with perfect direction,a great screenplay and excellent performances.We need more movies like this.$LABEL$ 1
+I took my 14 year old to see this movie. We left after 15 or 20 minutes. It was absolutely awful! This movie should be rated R at the least. I am not that strict with movies but, this was just too much. It was a waste of money. I thought it would contain some comedy and I knew the comedy would probably be crude but, this was WAY beyond crude. I was sitting there watching and reading (a certain subtitle at the beginning of the movie was what really got me) and I could not believe how crudely sexual it was. I could not believe that it would be OK for a 13 year old to read and see this content. I don't understand how the rating system works.??$LABEL$ 0
+I loved this film. I thought it would be easy to watch, and easy to forget. I ran out after watching this to buy the DVD, obv not easily forgotten!The script is brilliant, and the casting couldn't be more perfect. Each character has their moment, and I laughed hard throughout this film, comedic timing was spot-on.$LABEL$ 1
+It's not easy to find Judas Kiss on VHS (it's not available on DVD), but I wanted to add this rather obscure movie to my Alan Rickman movie collection.I can't understand how the talented Mr. Rickman gets into these mediocre films? Judas Kiss boasts several wonderful actors, an interesting plot and intriguing twists, but its strange visual wanderings and chopping editing ruined what might have been a great crime drama. Many scenes seem to be missing vital information to explain the character's actions: Why was our hero immediately suspicious of his bosses? Why did he mistrust the detective he replaced? There were times when I honestly couldn't tell if the director meant Judas Kiss to be a legitimate crime drama or a campy spoof. Why else would he toss in a topless/alien/lesbian porno scene in the first two minutes (that little surprise certainly made me scramble for the remote since my kids were playing nearby!)? Did he purposely instruct his two distinguished English actors (Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson) to use such awful New Orlean's accents? As an Alan Freak, I confess that I still thought Mr. Rickman was sexy: in a rumpled, weary, "take-him-home-and-tuck-him-in" sort of way.Judas Kiss isn't a great movie, but it does have some intriguing moments, but I don't recommend it unless you're trying to immerse yourself in Alan Rickman.$LABEL$ 0
+First of all, I should point out that I really enjoyed watching this documentary. Not only it had great music in it, but the shots and the editing were also wonderful. However, all these positive things about the film does not change the fact that it plays to the orientalist "East meets West" cliché that bothers many Turks like myself. Okay, this film tells the story of traditional and contemporary Turkish music in a very stylish manner which is a good thing, something that would show ignorant Europeans and Americans that this country is not just about murdering Armenians and Kurds. However, the problematic of the film is that it looks at what it defines as "east" from the eyes of the "west". I mean, like one jazz musician says in the film, maybe there is no east and west, maybe it is just a myth, a lie created by the ruling leaders of "western" countries in order to keep fear and hostility alive so that they could continue ruling the world and "keep the cash flowing"? Why don't you think about that?$LABEL$ 1
+STMD! is not a terrible movie, but it IS quite forgettable. The lighting is intentionally poor in many scenes and unintentionally poor in all the rest, so you are likely to come out of a viewing with a headache or eye-strain. Special effects are imaginative, but obvious. The gratuitous nudity essential for teen slasher flicks is there, of course, along with the archetypical teenagers, but the whole movie just doesn't gel. What was needed was some snappier dialogue and more tongue-in-cheek humor.I can't really recommend that you use your time watching this movie. I often give a nod to a movie based on just a scene or two that demonstrates imagination or humor, but these are sadly lacking in this film.$LABEL$ 0
+First off, I have no idea how this movie made it to the big screen. Its not even the low budget SCI-Fi channel movie, its just awful. Me and my friend who love action movies, Independence day, Jurassic Park, LotR, etc. went to see this movie expecting this movie to me a Transformers with dragons, mindless entertainment. All we got was a mindless hour and a half. The CG was not as bad as I was expecting, but the plot is so awful along with the acting, it made up for it. Its basically a Chinese legged of dragons returning every 500 years...Sounds like a good remake of Rain of Fire? No, The plot tries to be deeper than it should be leaving not only plot holes, but with magic, and a very small actual war between dragons(rather big snakes) it just gets ridiculous. The director attempted to add a bit of humor in the movie which fail. Me and my friend laughed through the whole thing(along with all 5 of the audience), and cant believed we spent money on this. The short trailer on TV makes up for most of the action while crap makes up the rest. I've seen a lot of B movies like Reptilian, The Cave, Spider, and others, but i have to say if you want a non stop laugh for an hour, watch this.Story: 1/10 CG: 5/10 Acting:3/10I don't drink...but it would have helped before watching this movie$LABEL$ 0
+i am not exactly how sure the accuracy is with this movie, but i can tell you that i was thoroughly entertained by this movie. the character of gust,played perfectly by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, was one of the most unique, yet entertaining characters in recent memory. this movie informed,yet managed to avoid preaching to the audience. it made me laugh, made me sad, made me feel alive, and glad to be spending the time to watch the movie. it takes no time to understand what is going on, and takes you on a roller coaster ride of genuine, human emotion. i thought i knew my history, apparently i didn't know it at all! i give this move 9 out of 10, and recommend it for all adults, and young adults, and the young at heart, just not the young. but as soon as they are allowed to see "r" rated movies, make it a priority.$LABEL$ 1
+I must have seen this a dozen times over the years. I was about fifteen when I first saw it in B & W on the local PBS station.I bought a DVD set for the children to see, and am making them watch it. They don't teach history in School, and this explains the most critical event of the 20th Century. It expands their critical thinking.Impartially, with the participants on all sides explaining in their own words what they did and why, it details what lead up to the war and the actual war.Buy it for your children, along with Alistair Cooke's America. Watch it with them, and make them understand. You'll be so glad you did.$LABEL$ 1
+Steven Seagal's films of late have not exactly been good, but this is by far the worst since The Patriot. The plot makes no sense what so ever; it is never clear in what the relationships between the characters are, who works for who or who is double crossing who. The film is completely disjointed, each scene seems to confuse the story further rather than carry it forward. Even the action sequences are uninspired and hard to follow. Most of the blame must lie at the director's feet for not even understanding the basics of film making, but Seagal does not get off lightly, as one of the producers of this film, he must also share the blame. Oh, and I haven't even mentioned how awful the acting is, even by Seagal standards. Even as straight to video fodder, this is not worth a view even for Seagal fans. Give it a wide berth!$LABEL$ 0
+and I for one think that is a good thing. I've just never been a Rosalind Russell fan although the original was my favorite RR movie. But I love Bette and was thrilled to hear she was making this.As for the rest of the production, I think it was slightly less than the original movie. One of my favorite minor characters in the original was Mazeppa with her scratchy fingernails-on-the-blackboard voice belting out "HEY! It takes a lot more than no talent to be a strippah!" and although I missed it, I was glad to see the producers had the guts not to do a carbon copy.I also liked the fact there are large portions of this movie which were filmed as if you are looking at a stage, it gives a feeling that you are in the theatre, not just at the movies.I think the other thing I liked about this production was that there seemed to be slightly less repetition of the song "Let me entertain you", which becomes completely annoying after about the 5th time you hear it.$LABEL$ 1
+So real and surreal, all in one. I remember feeling like Tessa. Heck, I remember being Tessa. This was a beautiful vignette of a relationship ending. I especially liked the protesters tangent. It is nice to see symbolism in a movie without being smacked over the head with it. If you get the chance to see this, take it. It is well worth the 30 minutes.$LABEL$ 1
+Thank God I watched this at a friend's place and did not pay for it. The plot is horribly transparent and the whole movie felt like an episode of a TV show. If you have any knowledge of computers or electronics, watch out. You will feel feel like the movie is an insult to your intelligence. Also, actress turned Much Music VJ Amanda Walsh displays the worst acting I have ever seen, excluding porn. She's lucky that Matt Lanter is actually decent. He's the one that carries the movie. I hate that I wasted nearly two hours of my life watching this movie! It's a shame that they got to call it a sequel, because I was a fan of the original, which was actually pretty good.$LABEL$ 0
+A friend lent me this DVD, which he got from the director at a festival, I think. I went in warned that some of the technical aspects of the movie were a bit shaky and that the writing was good but not great. So maybe that colored my judgment but I have to admit that I liked this movie.The standouts where the actors. Youssef Kerkor was really good as Ernie, the main character, kind of pathetic in a likable way. Adam Jones (who also directed) and Justin Lane were excellent as the roommates who drive Ernie mad. The Bill character (Justin Lane), who spends a lot of the film dressed like a panda, was by far my favorite; he seemed the least one-dimensional, and reminded me of an old college roommate so much I called the guy after watching the DVD. Really kind of lovable, and very funny. Some of the other acting was good, some was so-so, but none of it was bad. I also really liked the vigilante duo. Ridiculous and funny.I'm giving this one high marks, even though it has some issues, because you can tell when you watch it that these people cared, and decided to make their movie their way. Well done to Adam Jones and crew.$LABEL$ 1
+Shawshank, Godfather, Pulp Fiction... all good films. Great films. But nothing, and I mean nothing lives up to the greatest Christmas movie of all, Santa Claus.The film is so great and has so many messages, I cried while watching it. Seriously, this is one of those movies you need to watch 10 times. When we see Pitch get told he will have to eat ice cream, we see the sadness in his eyes, and we feel the deep sorrow, and then we wonder... what is so bad about this ice cream? Is it implying that we as humans are treating ice cream as good when all it does is make us evil? Think movie makes you think.This movie has the best rendition of Santa Claus ever. Unlike other Santas, he is a normal person. We see him imprisoning children and spying on kids dreams, and we wonder; is the Santa we believe in really that good? Also, this Santa actually mentions Christ, the whole meaning behind Christmas.You owe yourself to watch this cinematic masterpiece. We should just stop making movies and air nothing but this epic 24/7. Whether it's Christmas or not, this movie gets a 500/10. Whoever says this movie is bad is an ignorant fool.$LABEL$ 1
+I really cant think of anything good to say about this film...not a single thing. The script is a nightmare.. the writer blurs the line between chemical and biological traits and doesnt seem to understand the difference. You'd think they would at least get a technical advisor. The performances were bad by most of the cast... although I dont really blame them.. the material really stinks. The editing was equally bad.. I'll just stop now.. its all bad 2/10$LABEL$ 0
+Cinema's greatest period started in post-War Europe with Italy's Neo-Realist movement. During the next 2 or 3 decades that followed, France's New Wavers caught everyone's attention, and there was always Bergman up there on his desolate Scandinavian island somewhere, making bitter masterpieces. But in 1971, Luchino Visconti brought the art-form to full circle, geographically speaking, with his miraculous work *Death in Venice*, which might as well be called *The Death of Europoean Cinema*. After the Sixties wound down, so did the great European filmmakers, who, with some exceptions, generally grew exhausted and passed the torch to a new American generation of Movie Brats (Coppola, Scorsese, & Co.). This movie absolutely feels like a grand summing-up, not just of Visconti's particular obsessions, but of the general attempt of European filmmakers to achieve the aesthetic ideal in movies. And rest assured, you will find no sterner task-master than the Visconti revealed here. He's not playing to the crowd, folks: either you get behind him and follow along, or you get left behind. The pacing is a challenge: slow, but never without emotional weight. "Incidents" are few and far between, but each seems loaded with symbolic significance in a sturm-und-drang cosmos.We will probably never be in such rarefied company again, in terms of the movies: one of the century's great writers who inspired the tale (Thomas Mann), one of the greatest filmmakers directing it (Visconti), one of the greatest actors in the lead role (Dirk Bogarde), and swelling almost ceaselessly in the background, Gustav Mahler's 5th Symphony. Taking full advantage of Mahler's ability to inspire Romanticism in even the most cynical breast, Visconti changes the main character, Aschenbach, into a decrepit composer from his original persona as a writer, even making Bogarde up to LOOK like Mahler (geeky mustache, specs, shaggy hair, duck-like walk). Bogarde, by the way, delivers what is probably greatest performance of an actor in the history of movies: it's a largely silent performance, and the actor has to deliver reams of meaning in a gesture or a glance -- a difficult trick without mugging like Chaplin or merely acting like an animated corpse.Cinema just doesn't get better than this. I'll ignore the complaints from the Ritalin-addicts out there who say that it's too slow, but even the more legitimate gripe concerning some of Aschenbach's flashbacks with that antagonistic friend of his is misplaced. The flashbacks fit neatly within the movie's thematic concerns (i.e., which is the better path to aesthetic perfection: passion or discipline?), and the suddenness and shrillness of these interruptions serve to prevent sleepiness among the viewers. (Of course, some viewers will sleep through this movie, anyway.) A nonstop stream of Mahler and beautiful, dying Venice would be nothing more than a pretty picture; but this movie is actually about something. And what it's mostly about is suffering: Romantic (capital R) suffering, in particular. As a suffering Romantic himself, Visconti knew whereof he spoke.[SPOILER . . . I guess] If for nothing else, see *Death in Venice* for its portentous opening credits . . . and for its unforgettable ending, with Bogarde's jet-black hair-dye dripping off of his sweaty, dying head and onto his chalk-white face. Meanwhile, off in the distance, young Tadzio, the object of Bogarde's dying desire, stands in the ocean and points toward the horizon like a Michelangelo sculpture. The climatic sequence sums up with agonizing economy everything that the movie is about: love, lust, beauty, loss, the ending of a life set against the beginning of another life, and cold death in the midst of warm, sunny beauty. *Death in Venice* is a miraculous work of art. [DVD tip: as with the simultaneously released Visconti masterpiece *The Damned*, I recommend that you turn the English subtitles ON while watching this movie. It's ostensibly in English, but the DVD's sound seems muddy and there's a lot of Italian spoken during the film, anyway.] $LABEL$ 1
+This is a stereotype plot. A young fighter tries to enter a competition when he is not ready and is not selected to represent his fighting school. This leads to separation from the fighting school and naturally he finds a strange new master to teach him to fight.The fights are not of high standards. They are way too "simple" in a way that 1+1 is simple to every adult. The fighter has trained and enters the ring, but does not do what he trained and gets an ass kicking. The coach yells do this and do that with no success. And after some more of this ridiculous beating he suddenly does what he is told and hits his opponent once. This results in a turning point in the fight, although our hero has been taking a beating of his life up until that point. Think about the Rocky movies and you'll have a good point of reference of how much beating he really takes. The fights are also shot poorly.There final thing that screws this film up is the stupid romance. Cheesy music and awkward moments are not what I call entertainment.These guys really could have made some quality entertainment, but the director wasn't up to the task. Or the other crew in my opinion. Maybe they had a small budget, I don't know, but what matters in the end is that this movie is bad and deserves the rating of 3 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+This production was quite a surprise for me. I absolutely love obscure early 30s movies, but I wasn't prepared for the last 25 minutes of this story. If, by any chance, you're not convinced in the first half, hang in there for the finale. Of course, you must look at the blatant racism as being purely topical. A fascinating viewing experience, but I think THE CAT'S PAW is not available on video/DVD yet. Watch your PBS listings!$LABEL$ 1
+It isn't TOO bad, but ultimately it lacks the quality that the Australian series has.The jokes are few and far between, the actors are attractive (they shouldn't be), the film makers think far too much about the cinematography (it's supposed to look like a home video) and it's just like a serious version of Kath and Kim... it's stupid.It's too normal to be Kath and Kim. Kath and Kim are supposed to be two curvy, middle-aged women who think they are hot and wear ridiculous clothes. There are no "Look at me Kimmy!" jokes. The fat friend of Kim is not fat at all and she's not even slightly stupid. She's a stereotypical black/Latino chick.It's just not as stupid or funny as the Australian series. It doesn't compare. Nothing is the same. I admit, this show is pretty funny at times, but it is NOT anything like the Aussie series. I was looking forward to an American take on a bogan family. They failed. It's supposed to be REALLY stupid and hilarious, but the actors don't act stupid! To me, this is just a typical American TV show. It's a let down if you want it to be anything like the Aussie show.2 Stars because it is an OKAY show, just nothing like what it should be.$LABEL$ 0
+From the decrepit ranks of the already over-saturated 'Hillybilly Horror' sub-genre comes this woeful tale of a vacationing family terrorized by inbred rednecks. Sound familiar? Well it most definitely should to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the horror genre. There is absolutely new here. The film seems content to recycle all thee old worn out clichés (deformed hicks, a peaceful family turned gun-toting killers when push comes to show, the rebellious daughter, the one 'freak' who's good at heart, etcetera...), but does even that half-heartedly enough to make this an utter waste of time. This is forgettable dreck, but humorously enough lead J.D. Hart once starred in a movie called "Films that Suck" earlier in his career, quite an ironic omen indeed.My Grade: D-$LABEL$ 0
+As a huge baseball fan, my scrutiny of this film is how realistic it appears. Dennis Quaid had all of the right moves and stances of a major league pitcher. It is a fantastic true story told with just a little too much "Disney" for my taste.$LABEL$ 1
+This film takes you on one family's impossible journey, and makes you feel every step of their odyssey. Beautifully acted and photographed, heartbreakingly real. Its last line, with its wistful hope, is one of the more powerful in memory.$LABEL$ 1
+Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! I can not stand Ben stiller anymore. How this man is allowed to still make movies is beyond me. I can't understand how this happens if I performed at work the way he acts in a movie I'd get fired and I own the company.....I would have to fire myself. GOD! This movie was just a plain, steaming, stinking pile of POO, that needs to be vapoorized if that were possible. Something else I have to say the guideline about 10 lines of text in a comment is idiotic. What is wrong with just saying a few things about a movie? I will never understand why sites will require a short novel written when sometimes a brief comment is all that is necessary.$LABEL$ 0
+This show is great for many reasons..The father and mother can communicate with their kids this day in age. Its so great to see a real family instead of some stuffy overacting family. I watched this one time and became hooked.It so great to see a black family on TV worth watching. This show left too soon but on its way out it dealt with pregnancy, sexy, drugs, bad dates,death etc .The best thing about the show was that it dealt with it in a real humorous sort of way. Great show for the family ..I cant tell you how many times I have sat up watched this show late at night sometimes and laughed my head off. Great pg 13 rated show.I loved everybit of this show.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is where the Batman franchise ought to have stopped. Though I will concede that the ideas behind "Batman Forever" were excellent and could have been easily realised by a competent director, as it turned out this was not to be the case.Apparently Warner Brothers executives were disappointed with how dark this second Batman film from Tim Burton turned out. Apart from the idiocy of expecting anything else from Burton, and the conservative cowardice of their subsequent decision to turn the franchise into an homage to the Sixties TV series, I fail to understand how "Batman Returns" can be considered at all disappointing.True, it is not quite the equal of the first film - though it repairs all the minor deficiencies of style found in "Batman," a weaker script that splits the antagonism between not just two but three characters invites unflattering comparisons to the masterful pairing of Keaton and Jack Nicholson as the Joker in the first film. Yet for all this it remains a gorgeously dark film, true to the way the Batman was always meant to be, and highly satisfying.Michael Keaton returns as the Batman and his alter ego Bruce Wayne, tangling with nouveau riche tycoon Max Schreck (Christopher Walken, named in honour of the 1920s German silent actor), his partner-in-crime Oswald Cobblepot, the Penguin (Danny DeVito in brilliant makeup reminiscent of Laurence Olivier's "Richard III"), and Selina Kyle, the Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer), whom Wayne romances both as himself and as the Batman. The four principals turn in excellent performances, especially Walken and DeVito, while together Keaton and Pfeiffer explore the darker side of double identities.There are some intriguing concepts in this film. About the only weakness I can really point out is a certain limpness to the script in some places, which I think is due mostly to the way this film is a four-cornered fight. There simply isn't enough time to properly explore what's going on.Nevertheless, this is a damn good film. I highly recommend watching this in conjunction with the first, and then weeping for how good the series could have been had it continued under Burton and Keaton.$LABEL$ 1
+The Quick and the Undead is, finally, the first movie to actually render its own storyline null and void. It is, essentially, one gigantic plot hole.Aside from that, the acting was quite bad, character motivations nonexistent or unbelievable and there wasn't a single character worth hanging our hat on. The most interesting cast member (who had great potential to be a dark horse protagonist) got snuffed halfway through the proceedings.What the Quick and the Undead DOES serve as is an excellent example of how to do good color-timing. It looked excellent, when you take into account budget considerations.Unfortunately, it plays out like a guy got his hands on a hundred grand and watched a few westerns (most notably The Good, The Bad and The Ugly) and then just threw a bunch of elements haphazardly into a movie... "you know, they have movies where characters do THIS! Does it fit here? No, but who cares! They do it in other movies so I should do it here!" Maybe a good view for burgeoning cinematographers and colorists (first-year film-schoolers). Otherwise, a must-miss.$LABEL$ 0
+I was stunned by this film. Afterwards, I didn't even want to see any films for a long time- any other film would be so unsatisfying by comparison.For many, it may be the worst of Antonioni- very slow, without an engaging conventional story line, microscopic examinations of human emotions and interactions- and the worst of Wenders- verbose, confused transcendentalism. It is composed of short distinct episodes linked by Wenders' typical meandering hero's stream of consciousness, so it doesn't produce the temporary oblivion of escapist cinema.But for fans, the worst is the best and the disjointed story line is sketching a single poetic image that stretches across the film. Wenders and Antonioni create a discourse between their segments that seeks out the heart of things.$LABEL$ 1
+Am I the only person who thinks that the entire Forensics and Scenes Of Crime community in the USA must detest this almighty slap in their faces. A rookie cop is first to a crime scene where her back up is so slow to respond that she has time to send the kid who found the body to the local store to buy a disposable camera. By the time he returns (still no senior cops, SOCOs or other assistance for the lovely Jolie - this is New York isn't it??) it has started raining and she gets to work photographing the evidence, only after she'd stood in front of an Amtrak to stop it disturbing the scene.I want to know the name of that camera as the photographs were so incredibly detailed that no amount of zooming in distorted the images!! The horror continues:- not in the film itself (pretty ordinary I'm afraid) but in the Lincoln Rhyme character as played by Mr Washington. This man is a highly dedicated Forensic Crime Scene Examiner with years of experience who, instead of the highly trained but invisible local Crime Scene Examiners, entrusts the work to an untrained cop, a rookie cop, who proceeds to find the very obviously placed clues and move them before photographing them thus contaminating every item and making DNA profiling well nigh impossible. Now that was a bright idea eh? I know one should be able to suspend disbelief to a degree but those who say this film is intelligent must have entirely disengaged their ability to think in order to find this film believable.I have given this film 4/10 for the superb acting of Denzel Washington and for Miss Jolie's lips which are the only items requiring my disbelief to be suspended!$LABEL$ 0
+The one of the most remarkable sci-fi movies of the millennium. Not only a movie but an incredible future vision, this movie establishes a new standard of s/f movies. hail and kill!$LABEL$ 1
+This is the second Hitchcock film to appear on the list and the second Hitchcock film I've seen in full, the first was Rope, which I really enjoyed. With Saboteur Hitchcock was more room to roam free, whereas Rope took place all in one room. I didn't enjoy this one as much as Rope but that's not saying this is a bad film, it just seems like an average flick that could have been something more.It seems like a film Hitchcock would make as a break in between his more serious ones. As a thriller, I feel it fails to really get my on the edge of my seat or engaged with the lead character who is running around the States. The climax of the film feels like a miss opportunity to really amp up the tension. The sound design is almost non existent. You can hear their dialogue and a bit of the environment around them, but the important things are missing, the stitches ripping apart from the sleeve, the need of music to amp of the tension, all missing. Intentional no doubt, yet it lacks the emotional punch one would want from such a scene. Then it ends abruptly leaving you empty inside.The film doesn't feel like it should either, they are almost globe trotting from place to place, yet it feels more confined. The script itself is very average and seems to go about the more obtuse ways to get the plot moving.The performances are there, but nothing amazing. Everyone plays their parts to scripted words on the page. The relationship between the two leads is weak and needed more work. The one stand out is Otto Kruger, who has that rich, ego, evil persona down pat.In the end, I wanted more from this one. I understand it's one of Hitchcock's least exciting films, but I did have a good time watching it. I can recommend it, just not enthusiastically.$LABEL$ 1
+It is always difficult to bring a 450 pages book down to a three hours film. I read the book before, and I found the BBC production dealing with this difficulty in the best way possible. The qualities of the book haven't been lost: the dense and lively depiction of a fingersmith patchwork family in London in the 1860s, the cold and obscene cruelty in which Maud is brought up, the characterization of different social groups by different ways of speaking, the unexpected and surprising twists of the story, the way the film makes the spectators look different at the same scenes when they are told first from Sue's point of view then from Maud's one. The main actors do very good, and especially the growing love between the two women is convincingly developed, with a first culmination in a very tender love scene between the two and finally forgiving all the evil they were ready to do and did to each other, because they still love each other.For each of her books the author, Sarah Waters, has thoroughly investigated what life was like in British 19th century. While in Tipping the Velvet it was the world of the vaudeville theaters and the beginning of social movements, in Affinity the dreadful reality of women penitentiaries and the fashionable evocation of spirits, in Fingersmith she depicts the public ceremony of hanging people in London and the inhuman treatment of persons supposed or declared disturbed in asylums based on the reading of sources and scientific research. This is very well transferred to the film so that the corresponding scenes show a high grade of historic truth. I highly recommend this film production because it offers three hours of colorful Victorian atmosphere, vivid emotions, and suspense.$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of my all time favorite cheap, corny, vampire B movies. Calvin Klein underwear model...oh, I mean, Stefan the Good Vampire, returns to Transylvania to ascend the throne of Vampiric Royalty, but Manicure-impaired and eternally drooling half brother Radu has other plans. Having killed their father the Vampire King, Radu now sets his sights on Stefan, Stefan's new mortal girlfriend Michelle and her two pretty friends, and the all-powerful Bloodstone.Okay, the scenery is beautiful, and it should be as it was shot on location in Transyl-fricken-vania for gosh sakes. The actresses are no great shakes and Stefan the Heroic Vampire is about as charming as a refrigerated fireplace poker, but who cares? There's only one reason to watch this movie, and his name is RADU! He's a physical homage to Nosferatu and he has the best lines in the movie, all spoken in the raspy voice of a man who smokes ten packs of cigarettes a day. The cemetery festival scene is one of the best scenes in the film, as Radu slowly approaches the camera and reveals his grinning, slobbering face for the world to see. I found myself cheering him on as he collected victims and taunted his perfect brother. But maybe I'm just a sicko. Questionable taste in men aside, I highly recommend this film to vampire enthusiasts. It's original, it's fun, and Radu is one of the best vampires I've seen in a long time...much more fun than the stiff, tragic, whining Undead brats that endlessly grace the horror screens these days. Radu enjoys his sadism and never apologizes. He's what a vampire should be.$LABEL$ 1
+Let me first off say that I am a believer of ghosts, and I do indeed know they exist. I have had enough experiences with them to know they are there.What I hate is the people who bring the Bible and Religion into all of this. People forget there is more than one "Bible", thousands of religions and beliefs, and different ways to interpret what is said in the Bible. Not everyone believes in God, and not everyone believes in stereo-typical religion. Religion does not make everything fact, one of the things I should mention in the Bible that many do not know is that even the most rampant Bible thumper is breaking the very rules written within....you are supposed to never wear more than one fabric at one time, slavery is OK, and you may murder your neighbor under certain circumstances. None of this, "Oh that was the Old testament, and now we have the New Testament." If the Bible is the word of God, and cannot be changed..there should be no changes, or versions. Religion is full of misinterpretations, mixed facts, and people who so blindly follow it that there, "Is no other way." The excuses these said blind followers use are either pathetic, or they themselves cannot explain the discrepancies properly, and instead use excuses handed down to them from either their Pastor or teacher. But anyhow, onto the review. I am a decent fan of "Ghost Hunters" and when I heard this show was coming soon, I was pretty excited and thought it had some potential. As much as I like watching "Ghost Hunters", I do not like some of their members, and I do not like the way they can dismiss a place as being haunted, yet cannot explain anything that is going on. Just because your investigation equipment does not pick it up, does not mean the camera filming the show did not. I am glad they are skeptical, but it's like they do not understand that just because you did not get anything on your recorder and film does not make the place haunted or not. If Ghosts were that easy to capture, it would be known as a fact, not a belief. It's more of a "right place at the right time" kind of thing, as well as if there is something there, what makes you think it's going to "perform" for you? This show is kind of silly. It's usually boring, and there is lots of talk, lots of psychics, yet hardly anything happens. The main guy's filtered narration is usually either boring to listen to, or is basically not needed.Also, the reliance on psychics is too abundant, as I believe VERY few of them are actually gifted. Silvia Brown is one I definitely believe in, but most are sometimes hard to believe.I really wanted to like this show, but of the few I have seen I have yet to be terribly impressed.$LABEL$ 0
+For a long time, 'The Menagerie' was my favorite 'Star Trek' episode though in recent years it has been eclipsed by 'City on the Edge of Forever.' What I used to prefer about 'Menagerie' was that it's more hard-core Star Trek with this fascinating back-story to the then-current Trek storyline. I still think it's fairly ingenious the way Gene Roddenberry incorporated the original pilot into a two-part episode. Though the 'new' part of the story is largely an excuse for Kirk and a few others (and us) to watch the pilot, the idea of Spock being court-martialed is a clever one. You can poke holes in the plot if you want. For instance, given the Talosians' mind-control abilities and Captain Pike's condition, why is it even necessary to physically bring Pike back to their planet? And there are other confusing questions about Pike and Commodore Mendez... best to not think too hard about the details and just enjoy ST's only two-parter.$LABEL$ 1
+Coen Brothers-wannabe from writer-director Paul Chart relies far too much on ideas lifted from other (better) movies, yet does manage to create a creepy atmosphere that keeps one watching. Robert Forster cuts loose as never before playing a psychopathic psychiatrist (ha ha) who goes on a killing spree in the desert. The film is unusual, but in its attempt to keep one step ahead of the audience, it becomes alienating and off-putting (with a role for Amanda Plummer that is downright humiliating). An admittedly bravura finale, many quirky bits of business--and Forster looking great in the nude--make this a curiosity item, nothing more. Veteran movie-director Irvin Kershner produced, and maybe should directed as well (could Paul Chart be a pseudonym?). *1/2 from ****$LABEL$ 0
+When it was released this film caused a sensation. I watched it and was thrilled. Beautiful, usually young, naked women filmed in the classy style we knew so well from director Hamiltons photography. His photographs never become porn and the same is true for this movie. Today I saw it again and was bitterly disappointed. The soft core in extremely slow paced scenes, all filmed with some Vaseline on the lenses, actually is all there is. There is no real story, the characters remain beautiful and beautifully filmed bodies, but they are not real creatures with a soul. Actually nothing happens. It is like Hamilton is photographing using moving pictures rather than stills. And this gets so boring after a while. I even didn't watch the whole thing the second time, for I fell vast asleep. That is all that remains of this masterpiece: it is a very good sleeping pill. And you will never become addicted to it!Back then 7 out of 10, now 3 out of 10$LABEL$ 0
+Largely forgettable tale in which mercenary Kerman & employer Agren travel into the jungle in search of Agren's missing sister.Despite its connection to the cannibal movie family, this film is more of an extreme version of Rene Cardona's "Guyana - Crime of the Century". Lenzi clearly aims to exploit the (at that time) topical Jonestown massacre, by depicting a rogue, self righteous zealot with a penchant for bigamy and just a hint of megalomania (played with ruthless intensity by Ivan Rassimov) leading his motley crew flock into self inflicted oblivion. With sister in toe, Kerman & Agren attempt to stop the rot, but after several failed coups, they end up fleeing into the "Green Inferno", only to run afoul the locals and their notorious appetites.One in a string of excessive gore fests that emerged in the late seventies/early eighties, where every new addition seemed to engage in a one-upmanship contest with its predecessor, by attempting to contrive the most gory and graphic display ever brought to motion pictures. This inferior instalment employs all the motifs and gimmicks of the others, but with much less success.Was it the so called "Amazonian natives" who looked like they were Bollywood rejects (this film was made on location in Sri Lanka), or the inept "decapitation" and "castration" scenes that seriously diminished the authenticity that was apparent in "Cannibal Holocaust"? You can decide. Without spoiling the conclusion, it appeared as though Lenzi put more emphasis in his shock and awe climax than in the basic requirement for a cohesive ending, where all loose ends are resolved. Most unsatisfying.As with the others, where the extent of the graphic depictions of violence toward humans is limited (thankfully), the filmmakers have spared no extreme in inflicting the worst possible cruelty on hapless animals in their pursuit of the most sadistic shocks. Unfortunately, the only thing shocking about this film is that it rates a mention among others of the ilk, that deal with the subject matter more convincingly.If there are any redeemable features at all, Kerman is an affable if somewhat one-dimensional leading man, and his bevy of scantily clad co-stars (Agren, Lai and Senatore) provide some visual respite from the relentless slayings.$LABEL$ 0
+Get Smart should be titled Get Stupid. There is not one funny line or gag in the entire film. This film is so bad it makes the Austin Powers films look Shakespearean. A few more films like this and Steve Carell can kiss his career goodbye. As for Anne Hathaway, what is she doing in this film? She's a good actress but is just plain terrible.The writing is pathetically lame. There is not one funny, clever, or witty line. There is not one good sight gag.The directing is terrible. Comedy relies on timing. Someone should tell the director that. Every line that is supposed to be funny (and isn't) is delivered with absolutely the worst sense of comic timing I've ever seen.0 stars$LABEL$ 0
+Herculis Puaro is, in general, a well established 'hero' we know well from books and movies. This movie or this story don't work and i felt its not Agatha's mistake. The cast isn't good, the actors are over exaggerating and making foolish gestures, the costumes are so clean and tidy that everything (even Arab clothes) look fake and for the serious spectator who thinks twice this movie can be seen as a comedy instead of mystery drama. The actor playing Herculis Puaro is doing a nice job but nothing fantastic. The scenes are, as said before, perfect and looking fake. The story is not very enchanting although a mystery of murder but who cares about the death of a loony and vicious blond 45+ woman in the iraqi desert?! The 'victim' is not likable.$LABEL$ 0
+How can so many blundering decisions can be made. All that waste of resources!Its an idiotic story to begin with but theres no need to make it worse.A loose interpretation? Are you kidding! it diminishes my regard for Voight and Coburn.I hope they were paid well.$LABEL$ 0
+This was by far the worst movie I've ever seen. And thats compared to Alexander, Fortress 2 and The new world.I should go back to blockbuster and ask for my money back along with compensation as it was a truly traumatic experience. For the first ten minutes i was changing the zoom on my widescreen TV because the actors seemed to be out of screen. I didn't think it was possible to make such a bad film in this day and age, i was wrong. While typing this message, I've thought of a good reason to buy this movie. A joke present at Xmas. I'm blaming the Mrs for this one as she picked it, thanks babe.Be warned.......A true shocker all round!!!!!!$LABEL$ 0
+If you've read Mother Night and enjoyed it so much (as I did) that you just have to see the movie, understand that you have to understand a fundamental element of Vonngut's writing - that beyond his story lies Vonnegut himself, and that you can't put a human mind on the screen. His whit and humor just cannot be transcribed by a screenplay or even the best acting performance. I believe that this movie exceeds in asking the key questions that Vonnegut poses in his book, but those frequent cynical moments of satire found on the page are not found on the screen. Does this mean that the movie misses the mark? Of course not. In my opinion, the movie succeeds because it does not try to recreate the experience of reading the book (this is not a medium for those too lazy to turn a page). It succeeds because it takes the fundamental elements of a story created by one of America's true artistic treasures and presents it in a a framework without pretense. I've seen other movie versions of Vonnegut books where the director obviously tries to channel Vonnegut's genius and loses grip on his own craft. I would not place this movie as one of the best I've seen, but it stands on its own legs as one well worth watching. By taking Vonnegut's "voice" out of the movie's narration or trying to insert it however it can, Mother Night tells his story brilliantly, and preserves the story's fundamental lessons without confusion, distraction, or disappointment.$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of the worst movies, I've ever seen. Not only, that it is a comedy, which isn't funny, but it's also very badly made with an over the top direction full of unnecessary split screens and other effects.The two "heroes" with their fantasy language are just annoying and it confused me quite a lot, that they touched each others genitals all the time. But the worst of all that nonsense is the cheap attempt to give that movie some appeal, by referring to German history and to show sensitive aspects of the "heroes", which finds its climax in showing how Erkan and Stefan cure a mentally ill woman with their "joyful" lifestyle (!). But I hadn't expect anything better by director Michael "Bully" Herbig, who also made two not funny TV-shows, a not funny western movie and a nearly not funny SF-comedy movie. But Erkan and Stefan had been- just a little- better in some of their stand-up programs. For me the only good thing about the movie is Alexandra Neldel, who is very beautiful to me.$LABEL$ 0
+I sat through this on TV hoping because of the names in it that it would be worth the time...but dear Gussie, whoever thought this script was worth producing? The basic idea is excellent but the execution is appallingly bad, with a constantly illogical sequence of scenes, an ending that is almost laughably melodramatic and poor Rock Hudson wanders through this with an understandably confused look on his slightly sagging face. Looks like a bad B movie from the 40's...$LABEL$ 0
+A number of contributors have mentioned the age difference between Stewart and Novak. She was 25 and he was 50 when this movie was released. I think that the difference didn't matter for a suspense drama like Vertigo, but it does matter for a romantic comedy. We can easily understand, that is, why his character would be attracted to hers, but it's less clear why hers would be attracted to his.Still, the movie works as a light romantic fantasy. The scene where she stares at him across the cat's head, with her dark painted-on eyebrows flaring and the sounds of her humming and the cat purring, is true magic. It's a little jarring, therefore, when the scene shifts to the top of the Flatiron Building, and we see the age difference very sharply. As he embraces her, she reaches up to run her fingers through his hair, but stops that motion and just brushes her fingertips lightly against his toupee.$LABEL$ 1
+Family problems abound in real life and that is what this movie is about. Love can hold the members together through out the ordeals and trials and that is what this movie is about. One man, Daddy, has the maturity and fortitude to sustain the family in the face of adversity. The kids grow up,one all be it, in the hard way, to realize that no matter how old they or a parent is, the parent still loves their children and are willing to provide them a cushion when they fall. ALL the actors portraying their characters did outstanding performances. Yes, I shed a tear along the way knowing I had had similar experiences both as a young adult and later as a parent. This true to life is one which every young adult, and parent, would do well to see, although some will not realize it until they too are parents. A must see for those who care about their families.$LABEL$ 1
+The only conceivable flaw of this film is it's title!! Please stop comparing it to the first! I did in my previous review only to separate it from the first. If you haven't seen the movie and are curious, TOTALLY forget about the first and invent a different name for this. There is nothing alike and has a mood all its own. This is a great exponent of screwy mid-80s comedy. I seriously doubt such big names in this cast did the movie because they were broke or even wanted to remake the first. Anybody who ever wanted to give a kick to the snobbish aristocracy should love this little opus. I maintain, the only reason this is in the IMDB bottom 100 is because of its title. I usually hate movies like these (i.e. adam sandler, will farrell, farrelly bros....), but this movie just keeps me laughing hysterically. I dunno, maybe it's like a bad relationship I can't get out of or just a ridiculous guilty pleasure. Either way, this is the single most underrated movie of the 80s behind 'The Stunt Man.'Robert Stack- WE LOVE YOU!!! (1919-2003)$LABEL$ 1
+Salva and his pal Bigardo have been at the margin of the law during most of their lives. We see them panhandling in a car of the underground, where their pitch to get donations is so lame, no one gives them anything! Salva, who is a hardened petty criminal doesn't even have any redeeming qualities, that is, until he discovers a reality show on television that gives him the idea of what to do next. Religion and show business prove to be a winning combination, something that Salva capitalizes on.He and Bigardo have been in jail after the accidental death of a priest that was critical of the duo. Salva shows he is a natural for the reality show. He transforms himself into a Christ-like figure who is an instant success in the program. Espe, who is a no-nonsense woman who is show's producer, can't escape from the way Salva pays her unusual attention. Ultimately, Salva is the victim of his own success in the end.Jordi Molla, whose first directorial job this movie is, had some success in the way the film satirizes the role of television. Spain, which was vulnerable to these types of programs, has seen its share of the bizarre, which is what the director felt is an assault on the viewing public and wanted to set his story from the point of view of the people that are making a fortune out of the naive audience.The ensemble cast has some good moments in the film. Mr. Molla, like any actor who decides to direct his first feature, would have been more effective concentrating on the picture in front of the camera. Candela Pena, a good actress, is one of the best reasons for watching the movie. Juan Carlos Villedo, David Gimenez Cacho, Franco Francescoantonio, Florinda Chico and the rest responded well to the new director.$LABEL$ 1
+These kinda movies just don't get the credit they deserve. This is my 2nd all time favorite movie, (Stand By Me being 1st.) The reason I watched this movie was because Wil Wheaton was in it and he is my most favorite person in the whole world and I think he done an amazing job in this movie and so did Sean Astin. I just watched it last night actually and it just amazed me. Everything in the movie is very exceptional. The script, the acting, the screenplay. I was on the edge of my seat 80% of the time, and if my mom wasn't in the room I would have absolutely balled whenever Joey Trotta (Wil Wheaton) died. I did not see that coming!! At all!! I was real surprised when I heard that it wasn't real popular back in the 90's. I was born a few years after it came out so, of course, I didn't go see it in the theaters, but im sure I would have if I would have been alive. If any of my friends watched this, they would be like, "uhh okay?" but thats just cause their not cool enough to appreciate work like this. If you haven't seen this movie, or are wanting to watch something that is the bomb, this is the movie for you to watch.$LABEL$ 1
+As a big-time Prince fan of the last three to four years, I really can't believe I've only just got round to watching "Purple Rain". The brand new 2-disc anniversary Special Edition led me to buy it. Wow, I was really looking forward to watching it, but I wasn't prepared for just how electric it actually is. Prince's musical performances throughout the movie are nothing short of astounding - he REALLY has the moves in this one. I am very familiar (from repeated listens) with the classic "Purple Rain" album and all its songs, but to see them in the context of the movie completely alters your perception of the tunes and lyrics - like COMPUTER BLUE, THE BEAUTIFUL ONES, WHEN DOVES CRY and PURPLE RAIN itself. There is something indescribably hypnotising about the scenes where Prince and The Revolution perform. The closing songs BABY I'M A STAR and I WOULD DIE FOR U show how much energy and sheer talent Prince was brimming with in his mid-20s (he's overflowing!), it blew me away. It even makes Michael Jackson seem inanimate even in his peak years.Prince shows you how to win the girl of your dreams - drive her to a lake, make her jump in, then drive off - absolutely hilarious stuff in hindsight.Some of the scenes are very 1980s and unintentionally hilarious but this adds to the film's overall charm. Morris Day is the coolest cat on the block (and hilarious), and when his group The Time perform THE BIRD you get to see Morris Day and Jerome Benton light up the stage Minneapolis funk style - I love their dancing in this bit, and how Benton provides Morris with a mirror mid-performance.I already can't wait to watch it again, I really can't! Extras are terrific - particularly seeing a young Eddie Murphy pre-Beverly Hills Cop admit he is a "Prince groupie".$LABEL$ 1
+A good ol' boy film is almost required to have moonshine, car chases, a storyline that has a vague resemblance to "plot" and at least one very pretty country gal, barefoot with short shorts and a low top. The pretty gal is here (dressed in designer jeans)-- but the redneck prerequisites stop there. Jimmy Dean is a natural as a sausage spokesman but as a tough guy former sheriff, he comes up way short. Big John is big, but he isn't convincing with the "bad" part of his moniker. Bug-eyed Jack Elam is a hoot as always and Bo Hopkins has been playing this same part for decades; Ned Beatty also does his part in a small role... but there is no STORY. It smells more like an episode of In The Heat Of The Night than a feature film. Cornball cornpone with easily predictable sentiment. Perhaps the most glaring problem with this movie is Charlie Daniels singing the theme. You know the one; it was made famous by... Jimmy Dean.$LABEL$ 0
+After several extremely well ratings to the point of SUPERB, I was extremely pleased with the film. The film was dark, moving, the anger, the pain, the guilt and a very extremely convincing demon.I had initially expected to see many special effects, and like a lover's caress, it blew me away with the subtlety and the rightness of it. Brian, I am again blown away with your artistry with the telling of the story and your care of the special effects. You will go a long way, my friend. I will definitely be the president of your fan club.Eric Etebari, the best actor award, was the number one choice. You made Jr. Lopez look like a child compared to Kasadya. :) Overall, the acting, story line, the high quality filming and awesome effects, it was fantastic. I just wish it were longer. I am looking forward to The Dreamless with extremely high expectations.$LABEL$ 1
+But it is kinda hilarious, at least if you grew up on Weird Al, like I did. It's a mockumentary about his life and career, beginning with superstardom and going back to trace the origins. It's uneven in places, but some of the segments are still very funny, particularly when he goes to Japan. Although it's not quite as emotionally textured as Lost in Translation, and he doesn't find love however fleeting, he does capture in a bottle the absolutely bizarre cultural melange that is Tokyo street life.Perhaps Weird Al isn't recognized as the insightful cultural commentator that he is; perhaps a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. Still, this is a funny movie.$LABEL$ 1
+One of the two Best Films of the year. A well filmed, well written, well put together film with an outstanding cast. Lau Ching Wan and his friends (Dayo Wong Chi Wa, Anthony Wong Chau Sun, Francis Ng Chun Yu, Jordan Chan Siu Chun, Cheung Man Tat) had great chemistry before the film and their friendship shows in their performances. Theresa Lee plays her comedic role well (Though much like a female version of Michael Wong, her gag seems to be the foreign born Chinese surrounded by native HKers.), and I found myself cheering for innovative explosive scenes, something I haven't done since 1. the fan boys took over alt.asian-movies and 2. John woo's Hardboiled. Sure the ending was expected, but I feel better cheering for cops than a bunch of young gang members. Highly enjoyable.$LABEL$ 1
+I managed to see this at the New York International Film Festival in November 2005 with my boyfriend. We were both quite impressed with the complexity of the plot and found it to be emotionally moving. It was very well directed with strong imagery. The visual effects were amazing - especially for a short. It had an original fantasy approach to a very real and serious topic: This film is about a young girl who is visited by a demon offering to help her situation with her abusive father. There is also a surprise twist at the end which caught me off guard. This leans towards the Gothic feel. I would love to see this as a full feature film. -- Carrie$LABEL$ 1
+Why else would he do this to me?Not that I expect Dean Cain to produce hit movies. Or even decent movies. I saw Lois and Clark, I am aware of just how... "good" Dean Cain is.Obviously this is gonna be a cheesey flick, and each cheesey flick has its own special way to make you scratch your head. I will not call these spoilers as you can't really spoil this movie any more than it already is.To begin with... why is that a fake helicopter? I mean... why?How come that one scientist is from Chicago and that other scientist is from LA and neither one could be any more eastern european if they tried? How hard would it have been to get either an american actor, or just change that lame state sheet the movie provides us with to say those people aren't american?Why are there 2 occasions when the movie gives us a slug line? We get helipad-day and then mess hall-day later on. And then that's it, who cares about the timeline. To be honest, who cared about it even when they mentioned it, but I guess that's beside the point.Does a movie really get better if you are able to view it through multiple split screens? The answer is no.That dragon sure can walk down that hall..over..and over...and over....and over...Who on earth was responsible for one of the worst endings in film history? It was straight out of scooby doo. Oh, the dragon's dead now...say, wanna get dinner? Sure, but not at some Chinese place....with Dragon in the name!! AH HA HA HA!! HA HA HA!! HAHA HA! I used to be Superman! AHA HA HA! HA HA!fade to blackmy god, it made me cringe it was so stupid.But never fear..even though the whole building exploded...and no one was left alive..for some reason there's a second untouched, unmanned lab that survived pretty well, so they can make a sequel. Hurray for us all.$LABEL$ 0
+Minimal script, minimal character development, minimal steady camera. Maximum stretched scenes, maximum headache inducing jerky zooms, maximum characters walking around in the woods doing nothing. Up until the time flashes on the screen of 12:01pm, you can fast forward and miss nothing, since there are three hunters who we know nothing about doing nothing. To be fair, the movie does have some string music that was interesting, so perhaps a music video would have been the way to go with this. Unfortunately that was not to be, and what should have been a twenty minute short is stretched beyond belief. Forget about "Trigger Man", I know I am trying to. - MERK$LABEL$ 0
+A wonderful film ahead of its time,I think so, In the eighty's it was all about winning, Greed is Good ? Remember that one ? I have seen this film more that 20 times, To me this is a real desert island film, I keep watching because there is always something more to learn about these flawed characters that I just love, Jessica Tandy, and Hume Cronin, are simply wonderful,Also Beverly D'angelo, Beau Bridges come in at a close second, don't get me wrong there are many more great performance's in this film, and it is also the way it is written that made it for me, and I hope you, a film that you will want to see over and over, I think TV shows like "Northen Exposure", and now "Earl" owe a lot to this film. but remember it is not a Tom Cruise film.$LABEL$ 1
+it got switched off before the opening credits had even finished appearing. The first joke was just so appallingly lame and dreadfully acted that it had to go. You shouldn't really decide to watch this based on my review or not. I saw so little of it I shouldn't even really be commenting but suddenly it all became clear why the video shop guy was sniggering at us paying money to see it.Couldn't they have just made Earnest does Dallas?$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the more unromantic movies I have ever seen.Casting: Richard Gere is just too old looking for romantic lead roles anymore. Diane looks a bit eager to please and frowning as usual but she seems unconvinced by the romance herself. Supporting cast not too memorable.Story: The medical drama he has to deal with is unconvincing and is not interesting. The story is weak - not enough happens to make a movie about. There is nothing new to say or no new way to say it here. The setting is a little bleak and the house it is set in is unattractive. NOT destined to be a great one to remember.$LABEL$ 0
+(Only light spoilers in here)Stealing Sinatra is a half-slapstick comedy about dimwit kidnappers, dimwit victims, and a few other side-stories thrown in to eat up some time.You will see some poor performances all around in this movie. The drama is forced, and the humor makes no sense. Whether you're watching the kidnappers threaten the victim who won't shut up, or a victim's father responding to the criminal's death threat with "Care for some tea?", none of it is believable. This quite comfortably fits into the "wannabe movie" category.You will also be listening to a repetitive goofy music track throughout pretty much the entire movie. It's quite unprofessional, and adds nothing. It's really just a sad attempt at making an achingly unfunny movie seem somewhat witty.However, if you're able to look past all of this and suspend a lot of disbelief, you might be entertained by the adequate storyline.I voted 4/10.$LABEL$ 0
+Yes, this is one of THOSE movies, so terrible, so insipid, so trite, that you will not be able to stop laughing. I have watched comedies, good comedies, and laughed less than my wife and I laughed at this movie. The other comments give the idea well enough. The characters are so unpleasant you cheer the rats on, the effects are so poorly done you wonder whose elementary school art class was in charge, the acting-- oh the acting-- talk about tired dialogue and embarrassing pauses.But the rat, yes, the big rat. Why we didn't get to see the rat until the end rather surprised me. Often the 'big one' isn't shown until the end because the budget is limited and good effects chew up so much money. I surmise, however, that in this case the big rat was hidden until the end because the filmmakers were ashamed that the best they had was a guy running around dressed up like a woodchuck with third-world dentistry.The most sublime part of the whole movie is the elevator scene. After figuring out that the rats couldn't stand loud noise (migraines from the bad acting?), the main dude rigs up a fire alarm to send the rats into a frenzy. If you've ever wanting to see a pair of rats waltz while blood squirts out of their heads like a geyser, this film is for you. Really, you need to rent it and see for yourself.But not for more than 99¢, OK?$LABEL$ 0
+Well where do I begin my story?? I went to this movie tonight with a few friends not knowing more than the Actors that were in it, and that it was supposed to be a horror movie.Well I figured out within the first 20 minutes, what a poor decision I had made going out seeing this movie. The Plot was crap, and so was the script. The lines were horrible to the point that people in the audience were laughing hysterically.The cast couldn't have been more plastic looking. Even some of the scenes seemed like they should have been made much quicker...like they dragged on for no particular reason. Very poor editing.All in all this movie was a giant waste of time and money. Boo.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of my favorites. Betty White and Leslie Neilson sparkle in this romantic comedy. One is a business executive who re-evaluates life based on the expectation of her death within a year. The other is a playboy who has tired of gold-digging young women and seeks a relationship with a vital, mature woman. If you've got silver in your hair and/or romance in your heart, microwave the popcorn, curl up with your honey, and prepare yourself for a treat.$LABEL$ 1
+Following directly from where the story left off in part one, the second half which sets about telling the inevitable downfall and much more grim side of the man's legacy is exactly as such. In direct contrast to the first feature, part two represents a shift from Che the pride and glory of a revolutionised country, to Che—struggling liberator of a country to which he has no previous ties. The change of setting isn't just aesthetic; from the autumn and spring greys of the woodlands comes a change of tone and heart to the feature, replacing the optimism of the predecessor with a cynical, battered and bruised reality aligned to an all new struggle. Yet, as Che would go on to say himself—such a struggle is best told exactly as that—a struggle. While Part One certainly helped document that initial surge to power that the revolutionary guerrilla acquired through just that, Part Two takes a much more refined, callous and bleak segment of Che's life and ambition, and gives it an assertive portrayal that is both poignant and tragic in a tangible, easy to grasp manner.While the movie's tone in some regards does stray off and differ quite drastically from Part One however, there still remains that same documented approach taken a month ago that avoids melodrama and fabrication as much as possible. This somewhat distant, cold approach to telling Che's story and struggle will no doubt turn some viewers off; indeed, I still remain reserved about whether or not the feature itself should have been named after one man—if anything, the entirety of Che, taken as a whole, delivers a tale that goes beyond mere biography and instead documents a man's struggle alongside those who helped carry him along the way. By no means does Soderbergh try to paint a humanistic portrait here akin to what Hirschbiegel did with Der Untergang half a decade ago (excuse the ironic contrast); Che is a slow moving, reserved and meditative approach to telling a history lesson that just happens to be narrated by the one man who –arguably- conducted the whole thing.Yet by moving from the lush green landscapes of Cuba and retreating to the bleak, decaying backdrop of Bolivia for Part Two, the story does inevitably take on a distinctly contrasting tone that doesn't feel too disjointed from its predecessor, but does enough to give it its own reference points. Here, the basic structure of Part One is echoed back—there's the initial struggle, the battles, the fallen comrades and the recruiting of those to replace them, all the while we see some glimpses of the man behind the movement. Yet, as anyone with the vaguest idea of the actual history behind the feature will know, Part Two is destined to end on a much more underwhelming, and disquieting note. This difference, in combination with the similarities to Part One, make a compelling and memorable whole; by all means, both could be digested one their own (and kudos to Soderbergh for achieving as such) and enjoyed as they are, but taken as one statement, Che delivers exactly what it sets out to achieve.Indeed, everything that made Part One the treat that it was one month prior is still evident here from the subtle yet engrossing performances from the central cast to the slow building, realistically structured combat scenes—the drama inherent to the characters on screen is just as vague and indiscernible, but with a feature such as this, Part Two once again proves that avoiding such elements don't necessarily hurt a film when there is enough plot and reflection on other elements to keep the viewer engaged. In fact, upon writing this review I was at odds as to whether or not to simply add a paragraph or two to my initial review for Part One, and title the review as a whole, yet I felt that to do so would only serve to disillusion those who may sit down to watch the entirety of both films consecutively.With that said, I cannot rightfully decree whether or not Che holds up to the task of engaging an audience for its sprawling four hour plus runtime, but upon viewing both segments I can at least attest to each part's ability to do just that. With a reflective, intricate screenplay combined with endlessly mesmerising photography and nuanced performances that do justice to the movie's characters without drawing attention to themselves, Che Part Two is every bit as compelling and rewarding as its predecessor, but this time with a tragic but uplifting, reaffirming conclusion fit for the history pages of film.- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)$LABEL$ 1
+Sometimes it's hard to be a pirate...............but by golly Miss Jean Peters has a lot of fun trying - and it shows,particularly during her first spot of friendly swordplay with Blackbeard (Mr Thomas Gomez - eminently hissable)when the sheer joy of performing is plain on her face. With fifty years of hindsight Feminists seem intent on grabbing this movie as some sort of an anthem for the empowerment of women in a male - dominated society but I have serious doubts that either M.Tourneur or Miss Peters had any such concept in their heads at the time. It was an exciting,entertaining family film with absolutely no pretensions,hidden meanings or alternative agenda.It was fun. M.Louis Jourdan is both winsome and treacherous as her love interest. Mr Herbert Chapman is wise and philosophical as the wise and philosophical doctor.Mr James Robertson Justice is just a tad unbelievable as the bosun. But it is Miss Peters who stays in the memory.Wilfully adolescent,illiterate,tough but vulnerable,wonderfully agile,and ultimately,courageous,she is everybody's idea of a lady pirate. There was a definite window of opportunity for her in feisty costume roles - that she did not choose to seize it is a matter of some regret.$LABEL$ 1
+I had never seen a film by John Cassavetes up until two years ago, when I first saw THE KILLING OF A Chinese BOOKIE in a Berlin cinema, which I found interesting, to put it diplomatically, but not so special, I instantly wanted to see more of his work. Since then, I tried - with an emphasis on tried - watching his other work, SHADOWS in particular. I must admit, it took me a a while before I actually enjoyed the film. At first the unpolished, raw and improvised way Cassavetes it was shot, put me off somewhat and I thought of it as an original - absolutely - but flawed and dated experiment. But now, upon reviewing, these little imperfections make it look so fresh, even today.Shot on a minimal budget of $40,000 with a skeleton six person crew, SHADOWS offers an observation of the tensions and lives of three siblings in an African-American family in which two of the three siblings, Ben (Ben Carruthers) and Lelia (Lelia Goldoni), are light-skinned and able to pass for white. Cassavetes demanded that the actors retain their real names to reflect the actual conflicts within the group but saw the film as being concerned with human problems as opposed imply to racial ones. Cassavetes shot the film in ten minute takes and jagged editing, a reaction against 'seamless' Hollywood production values. Cassavetes main inspiration - at least in the cinematic style the film was shot - were the Italian neo-realists whilst also professing admiration for Welles' pioneering spirit. The use of amateurs and improvisation might resemble some of the Italian neo-realist directors, but with his bebop score by Charles Mingus ans Shafi Hadi, the film feels very different, very American, unlike anything made before really. The song with the feathered girls, "I feel like a lolly-pop" (or something) feels like light years back to me, ancient history. But no matter how dated it might look, it still makes a delightful time capsule of late Fifties New York today. I think it's this is one of the first films made aspiring filmmakers realize they could shoot an independent film, without Hollywood, improvised and without a real budget. Seymour Cassel, who acted and was involved in SHADOWS, claims it was Jules Dassin's THE NAKED CITY (1948) that was the first and inspired them all, but I think this was the one that really opened the eyes of aspiring independent American filmmakers.Camera Obscura --- 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+Based on an actual story, John Boorman shows the struggle of an American doctor, whose husband and son were murdered and she was continually plagued with her loss. A holiday to Burma with her sister seemed like a good idea to get away from it all, but when her passport was stolen in Rangoon, she could not leave the country with her sister, and was forced to stay back until she could get I.D. papers from the American embassy. To fill in a day before she could fly out, she took a trip into the countryside with a tour guide. "I tried finding something in those stone statues, but nothing stirred in me. I was stone myself." Suddenly all hell broke loose and she was caught in a political revolt. Just when it looked like she had escaped and safely boarded a train, she saw her tour guide get beaten and shot. In a split second she decided to jump from the moving train and try to rescue him, with no thought of herself. Continually her life was in danger. Here is a woman who demonstrated spontaneous, selfless charity, risking her life to save another. Patricia Arquette is beautiful, and not just to look at; she has a beautiful heart. This is an unforgettable story. "We are taught that suffering is the one promise that life always keeps."$LABEL$ 1
+This PM Entertainment production is laced with enough bullets to make John Woo say, "Enough already!" Of course, it isn't nearly as beautiful as Woo can deliver but it gets the exploitive job done in 90 minutes. Eric Phillips (Don Wilson) is an undercover cop in the near future. When his wife is framed for murdering the Governor by a team using a look-a-like cyborg, it is up to Eric to clear her name. Wilson gets to pull Van Damme duty as he plays the heroic lead and his evil cyborg doppelganger. Why the Academy failed to take notice is beyond me. Being a PM production, there are tons of car chases, exploding cars (4 in the first 5 minutes!) and shoot outs. I particularly liked the van that flips in midair before it even comes close to touching an exploding truck. My other favorite bit involved a neighborhood girl coming over to perfect her karate in Don's simulator. It is merely a chance to show off some cheapo LAWNMOWER MAN effects circa 1995.$LABEL$ 1
+SHALLOW GRAVE begins with either a tribute or a rip off of the shower scene in PSYCHO. (I'm leaning toward rip off.) After that it gets worse and then surprisingly gets better, almost to the point of being original. Bad acting and amateurish directing bog down a fairly interesting little story, but the film already surpasses many in the "Yankee comes down South to get killed by a bunch of rednecks" genre because it is actually shot in the South.A group of college girls head to Ft. Lauderdale for summer vacation and are waylaid in Georgia by a flat tire after getting off the main road. (Note to Yankees: stay on the highway when you go to Florida.) Sue Ellen (Lisa Stahl) has to pee so she heads into the woods. When she finally finds a good spot to do her business she witnesses the local sheriff (Tony March) strangle his mistress (Merry Rozelle) to death. (Note to Yankees: do not wander off into the woods when in the South; not because you might witness a murder, but you may run across a marijuana plantation.) This is the point where the story, not the movie, actually comes close to being good.While Tony March will never have to practice his Oscar speech, his Sheriff Dean becomes a creepy facsimile of a normal guy torn by what he has done and what he must do. Tom Law is likable as Deputy Scott and is as authentic a Southern deputy as I've seen since Walton Goggins (Deputy Steve Naish) in HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES.A few scenes in the movie are worth the mention. The girls stop at a BBQ in South Carolina and display their racism when a big black guy checks them out. Sue Ellen runs into a barn to hide behind some hay bales and in a shockingly realistic moment a large snake is hiding in the hay with her.And in the strangest scene, Sheriff Dean makes like he's about to rape Patty (Carol Cadby) and tells her to take off her clothes. Dean has turned the radio up to drown out the noise of what he's about to do. The preacher on the radio needs to go back and read his Bible. His sermon is about how Jezebel is saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. I feel sorry for this preacher's flock. Jezebel was in the Old Testament a few thousand years before Christ was born and by no means is she one of the five people you are going to meet in Heaven.$LABEL$ 0
+Although this film has had a lot of praise, I personally found it boring. There are some nice Brasilian sunsets and the characters are believable, but the story of how they interrelate, even if very unusual by our standards, is not interesting enough to sustain a movie this long. The central woman takes up with one man after another in a close knit way and putting the interests of her children first. As the tolerance of the various men is stretched, we see their characters develop. The story unfolds with dignity and aided by excellent acting. It is a rare glimpse into the Brasilian hinterland, far from the city, but hardly exciting enough to keep one's eyes open for.$LABEL$ 0
+No mention if Ann Rivers Siddons adapted the material for "The House Next Door" from her 1970s novel of the same title, or someone else did it. This Lifetime-like movie was directed by Canadian director Jeff Woolnough. Having read the book a long time ago, we decided to take a chance when the film showed on a cable version of what was clearly a movie made for television. You know that when the critical moments precede the commercials, which of course, one can't find in this version we watched.The film's star is Lara Flynn Boyle who sports a new look that threw this viewer a curve because of the cosmetic transformation this actress has gone through. From the new eyebrows to other parts of her body, Ms. Boyle is hardly recognizable as Col Kennedy, the character at the center of the mystery. This was not one of the actress better moments in front of the camera. That goes for the rest of the mainly Canadian actors that deserved better.The film has a feeling of a cross between "Desperate Houswives" with "The Stepford Wives" and other better known features, combined with a mild dose of creepiness. The best thing about the movie was the house which serves as the setting.$LABEL$ 0
+Meticulously constructed and perfectly played, To The Ends Of The Earth is a simply astonishing voyage out of our reality and into another age.Based on William Golding's trilogy, these three 90-minute films chronicle the journey towards both Australia and experience of youthful aristocrat Edmund Talbot (Benedict Cumberbatch) aboard an aging man o' war in the early 19th century as he heads for a Government position Down Under.Among the crew and hopeful emigrants sharing his passage are a tempestuous, bullying captain (Jared Harris), a politically radical philosopher (Sam Neill), a canny 1st lieutenant who's worked his way up from the bottom (Jamie Sives) and, fleetingly, the first brush of love in the form of a beautiful young woman (Joanne Page) whose ship literally passes in the night.Quite aside from the astonishing degree of physical historic accuracy, director David Attwood and screenwriters Tony Basgallop and Leigh Jackson have a canny eye and ear for the manners and stiff etiquette of an earlier time, crafting a totally convincing microcosm of the Napoleonic era.Shipboard life is one brutal, monotonous round of seasickness, squalor and danger after another and as Edmund becomes entangled in the loves, hopes and miseries of his fellow passengers he experiences a delirious whirl of life's hardships, Man's inhumanities and his noblest sentiments.Those who enjoyed Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World or Patrick O'Brian's series of novels on which it was based will love this – for everyone else, it's a whole new world to discover.$LABEL$ 1
+Wow. This is really not that good. I would like to agree with the others in that at least the acting is good... it is, but it is nothing special.The movie is so precictable and i for one am sick of receiving culture info through movies.*/****$LABEL$ 0
+I have to point out, before you read this review, that in no way, is this a statement against Iranian people ... if you really want to read something into it, than hopefully you see, that I'm against politicians in general ... but if you're looking to be offended ... I can't help you!Not in Iran as this movie is banned there (see IMDb trivia for this movie). Which is a shame, because the movie is great. Would it not be for "Grbavica", this movie would have won at the International Film Festival in Berlin.Rightfully so (it was the runner-up, or second place if you will). Why? Because it is a movie about oppression. It's not even that this is a complete women issue. It is about the government trying to keep the people down. An analogy so clear that the government felt the need to ban the movie. But by banning it nothing is resolved and/or can they make this movie disappear! Another reviewer had a great summary line: "Comedy about a tragedy", that sums it up pretty well!$LABEL$ 1
+I know little or nothing about astronomy, but nevertheless; I was, at first, a little sceptical about the plot of this movie. It follows three children that were all born during a solar eclipse and so have no emotion, and thus (naturally) become ruthless serial killers. The plot does sound ridiculous at first, but once you realise that a solar eclipse blocks out Saturn and, as you know, Saturn is the emotion planet, it all falls into place; makes complete sense and it's then that you know you aren't simply watching another silly 80's slasher with a pea brain plot. Thank god for that! Seriously, though, Bloody Birthday is based on a ridiculous premise, but it more than makes up for that with it's originality. Having a bunch of kids going round slaughtering people may not be the most ingenious masterstroke ever seen in cinema, but when given the choice between this and another dull Friday the 13th clone - I know what I'd choose.Also helping the film out of the hole that some people would think it's silly plot dug it into is the fact that it's extremely entertaining. Many slashers become formulaic far too quickly and the audience ends up watching simply to see some gore. This film, however, keeps itself going with some great creepy performances from the kids (which harks back to creepy kid classics such as Village of the Damned), a constant stream of sick humour and a small, but impressive for the type of film, dose of suspense and tension. One thing that I liked a lot about this movie was the vast array of weaponry. There's nothing worse than a slasher where the killer uses the same weapon over and over again (cough Halloween cough), but that's not the case here as Bloody Birthday finds room for everything from skipping ropes to bow and arrows. There wasn't any room for a chainsaw, which is a huge shame, but I suppose not every film can have a chainsaw in it.$LABEL$ 1
+After many, many years I saw again this beautiful love story, thinking about how would I, half a century after, react to a film which made so many girls cry and sigh at that time, when I was just an male adolescent trying to understand women's behaviors, in a small city in Brazil.This time, however, what caught my attention in the film was something very different, namely the insistence with which the physician Dr. Han Suyin (Jennifer Jones) makes clear to the journalist Mark Elliott (William Holden) her special ethically condition as an Eurasian. In fact, she is constantly putting emphasis on this point in their relationship, repeating she is willing to assume her love for him and carry it on in a "occidental way", provided that, by doing so, she is not betraying her Chinese side. Its seems to the spectator that Suyin is eagerly making efforts to establish a very subtle conciliation between those two unstable and opposite aspects of her culture, for they will immediately engage in overt conflict in her mind at a minimum failure in her attempts to control them.Therefore, Suyin's attitudes always leave poor Elliott – a determined, brave and extremely practical man – anxious and perplexed, without knowing how much importance to give to her words. For him, whose love for her is plain and simple, the situation is totally clear: if we love each other, let us make a couple and begin immediately a life together. "Not so fast", is what she seems, verbally and non-verbally, to answer him all the time.In fact, Suyin's Chinese portion would never allow her such a level of pragmatism. And, as she goes on and on reinforcing this much aimed equilibrium between those two worlds inside herself, she also frequently signals to him that also a very peculiar trait of Chinese culture is deeply rooted in her mind, namely the constant "raids" on the real world by invisible beings from an spiritual or non-physical world. For Suyin is always alerting Elliott about how dangerous is life, not because of any objective and concrete threat (as would be the perpetuation of the English colonialism or the eminence of a Japanese invasion), but due to the threats of plenty of cruel and harmful gods and other mystical and mythical beings over the poor, fearful and vulnerable human beings.In fact, it looks like a whole bunch of Chinese deities are permanently on the watch to make people's life totally miserable. Because of that, mothers must dress their precious male babies in girls clothes, so that they are not taken away by jealous gods; everyone should always be ready to make loud noises to send the clouds away, in order to avoid their covering the sight of the moon; peasants are advised that they should shout loudly "The rice is bad! The rice is bad!" to protect their crops from being stolen by deities; and, in a funeral, it is recommended that the dead's family be isolated from the other people by curtains, so that the gods don't take advantage of their sorrow and fragility.In other words, Suyin introduces us to a culture in which the supernatural has a real existence, as if a rather disturbing pantheon of malign and sadistic gods are always on the verge of negatively interfering with the most banal acts in anyone's daily life.As the story takes place in Hong Kong in 1949, it should be clear that China really was, at that time, almost a semi-feudal society, while the country from which Elliott had come from was not yet dominated by the fierce capitalism that, launched by the USA after the first oil shock in 1973, took charge of the whole world. Therefore, at least in one aspect, both sides of Suyin's Eurasian personality were still much more innocent than they would be today.A lot of History came into being since those old days. As to China, the main fact is that, after several phases of a communist regime, the country finally reached, in the last two decades, the condition of a very aggressive economy much more properly described as State capitalism. And, what happened to that old spirituality that so much enthralled Suyin in Hong Kong, in 1949, and with which she used to impress so much an impassioned Elliott, under that tree on the hill behind the hospital? It is gone, completely gone! In brief, if that story took place today, Elliott would not find it necessary to go to China to propose to Suyin in the presence of the Third Uncle and her entire family. In fact, both men would now be incomparably closer to one another, in their huge pragmatism, talking business as usual!$LABEL$ 1
+First and foremost I would like to say, that before i watched this film i considered myself an accepting individual. Someone that cared about others, appreciated others, found no/barely any judgment against other people, and this film has (i think) changed my life or viewpoint dramatically. When i watched it, I didn't know particularly what it was about, i knew it was about some type of forbidden relationship, but other then that I was clueless, and as I began to see what was taking place between these two wonderfully depicted characters, i was in shock, disbelief, confusion and surprise. The first time i watched it, i was blind. Blind to their love, to their intimacy, to their connection, to their pureness as human beings, to their relationship. I watched it a second time, because i finally figured out how hypocritical I was being, saying to myself and others, "Oh i accept all types of people, and try not to judge them" while still judging this wonderful and amazingly insightful story, because of my fear I suppose. The second time I watched this film, I opened those eyes of mine that had stayed closed the first time, and really looked, not at the type of taboo relationship part that I'd heard about all my life, but simply at two human beings in love. And I loved it, i loved the storyline, i loved the slightly broken yet strong individual people in the film, i loved the sharing of feelings, and i loved the strong bonds created. It is a really eye opening, beautifully done film that made me cry at times, and I hope that people who read this and are going to watch the film eventually, remember that everyone deserves love, no matter what shape or form it is presented in....$LABEL$ 1
+"ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ"! If IMDb would allow one-word reviews, that's what mine would be. This film was originally intended only for kids and it would seem to be very tough going for adults or older kids to watch the film. The singing, the story, everything is dull and washed out--just like this public domain print. Like other comedy team films with roots in traditional kids stories (such as the awful SNOW WHITE AND THE THREE STOOGES and the overrated BABES IN TOYLAND), this movie has limited appeal and just doesn't age well. Now that I think about it, I seriously doubt that many kids nowadays would even find this film enjoyable! So my advice is DON'T watch this film. If you MUST watch an Abbott and Costello film, almost any other one of their films (except for A&C GO TO MARS) would be an improvement.$LABEL$ 0
+Once in a while, a movie will sweep along that stuns you, draws you in, awes you, and, in the end, leaves you with a renewed belief in the human race from the artistry form. This is not it. This is an action movie that lacks convincing action. It stinks. Rent something else.$LABEL$ 0
+Hard to imagine this film is based on a true story, and how Christy managed to accomplish the miracle is so heart-stirring. Daniel Day-Lewis is a chameleon, really hard to imagine how much effort he had done to create this disabled character. Watching him on screen is a shocking and breathtaking experience.The movie is not so pessimistic as I thought before, the story is kinda bright and intriguing. Christy is not despised by the normals, his life is also colorful and delightful, although we can be aware of the loneliness and the painful fetter through his eyes.One important factor of Christy's success is his mother's support which seems to be more touching, and the unknown actress Brenda Fricker also deserves her Oscar award for this role, this fat little middle-aged woman uses her all to make Christy's dream come true. So lucky for Christy!And Hugh O'Conor is also excellent as young Christy, what a performance for a child! The love story of Christy is very well-done, trustful. Christy wants love and nothing can derive him of the right to love, his crush on the beautiful Dr. Eileen Cole (surprisingly played by Fiona Shaw, I am deeply impressed with her role in Harry Potter series, the loathsome Aunt Petunia, so her appearance in this role is really beyond my mind, but anyway, any woman has her own youth...) is paranoiac and offensive, I do have sympathy for him, love is a two-edged sword, happiness and agony are just next to each other.Btw, Jim Sheridan's works are all good (IN America, THE BOXER etc.) except GET RICH OR DIE Trying', god knows why he chose to direct that crap! Really a career taint for him, what a pity!$LABEL$ 1
+I'm stunned that the reviewers @ IMDb gave this TV film as a high a rating as they did. It's an innocuous, sweet, uncomplicated cliché' of a film that had two big names from the past in it (both of whom did a decent job), but this film reeks of the low budget work we can see any day of week on the lesser cable channels. I like a good romance as well as anyone, but as my wife and I were watching this--and before we saw the rating-we said, "There are people who are going to rate this film too highly simply because there's nothing in it to challenge their brains, their faith, their comfort level or their cultural preferences. It's possible to make a good film like that (and Away from Her is an example), but this was amateur hour. There are some quite good films rated much lower than this one. Truly, another in a long line of woefully inadequate holiday films. Watch The Family Stone. It's miles ahead of this schlock.$LABEL$ 0
+Do a title search on Randolph Scott and TRAIL STREET is the one film missing from the list you've seen. One of 4 films Scott made at RKO during his prime (1947) the others are always easy to get. Liberal, Kansas is just southwest of Dodge City and is a powder-keg about to explode between the trail-riders who drive the longhorns into Trail Street, the town's main street, and the sod-busters who feed our bellies. It'll take a strong man like Bat Masterson to step between the two groups and bring the town to order. More I won't say, except that Scott movies usually have just one pretty girl and this one has three. RANDOLPH SCOTT always played men you could look up to for their sense of honor, courage, level-headedness and willingness to do the right thing. Fifty years ago parents could send their kids to a Scott movie with confidence they'd learn positive values. ROBERT RYAN co-stars in this film, playing a good guy for a change. In real life, RYAN was one of the many WORLD WAR II HEROS who starred in America's movies. How sad what we get these days. George Clooney teaches our young that we ought sympathize with suicide bombers, while Steven Spielberg teaches there is no moral difference between the Olympic athletes murdered in 1972 in Munich and the Palestinian terrorists who killed them. Hollywood 2005 derives their moral compass from too much cocaine and too much commitment to the wacky left. I wonder how all this plays out in Liberal, Kansas. Liberal, after all, was not a dirty word 150 years ago when the city was named.$LABEL$ 1
+I went to see this one with much expectation. Quite unfortunately the dialogue is utterly stupid and overall the movie is far from inspiring awe or interest. Even a child can see the missing logic to character's behaviors. Today's kids need creative stories which would inspire them, which would make them 'daydream' about the events. That's precisely what happened with movies like E.T. and Star Wars a decade ago. (How many kids imagined about becoming Jedi Knights and igniting their own lightsabers?) Seriously don't waste your time & money on this one.$LABEL$ 0
+*Sigh* Leave it to us Finns to take a stupid idea, blow it out of proportion and try to market it as cool. Lordi is a mediocre band at best, and a single gimmick will get you only so far.To all you marketing idiots out there: this is the reason for the inherent minority complex that is often encountered when Finland tries to export something.Lordi isn't scary. Lordi is lame. Lordi is OVER.I want to apologize to the rest of the world for this plastic-faced idiocy. Sure, they won the Eurovision.No, wait - they won the Eurovision. That's it. I rest my case.$LABEL$ 0
+After the highs of darkplace it was never conceivable that Holness and Adobye would be able to create anything half as good as garth marengi. Yet i think that man to man in its own right is as good a show (on the good episodes) as darkplace. i cant argue that 2 of the episodes really are'nt that good but the other 4 certainly make up for it. if i had to pick 2 great episodes id go for formula4 driver Steve Pising (pronounced Pissing) and the great Garth Marengi. to already have a bit of understanding of the programme is a real plus as Dean Learner makes many inside jokes but even if you have'nt seen much Dean id recommend this as some of the rants he launches into are genius ie. His argument with Def Lepord over their name. All in All a great show which just misses full marks because of the couple of less funny episodes.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this movie in a theater while on vacation in Pablo CO. I had just quit my biomedical engineering job at a hospital. I consider the script to be a exaggeration of the real type of stuff that goes on in hospitals. The idiots that put it down on production value don't get the point and probably have never been hospitalized. And never worked in one for sure. Billy Jack (same era) was very poorly produced but had a significant social comment and was a very good movie with a real social message.I have ever since been looking for this movie this is the first site I have found where it get mentioned.$LABEL$ 1
+I caught this on television one day when I was young and loved it. In the 1970's, there were a bunch of lame comedies that tried too hard to be be funny so it this was a nice surprise. It's one of the best comedies of the 1970's and the definitive summer camp comedy thanks to Murrary's excellent comedic performance, which still stands as one of his greatest. This is the film that really got Ivan Reitman noticed as a director. Reitman proves with this movie that he is one of the most talented comedy directors of all time. While this film is hilarious and MEATBALLS 2 is so bad that it's fun, MEATBALLS 3 and MEATBALLS 4 are absolutely dreadful. Recommended for those who enjoyed STRIPES and GHOSTBUSTERS.$LABEL$ 1
+The film's design seems to be the alpha and omega of some of the major issues in this country (U.S.). We see relationships all over at the university setting for the film. Befittingly, the obvious of student v.s. teacher is present. But what the film adds to its value is its other relationships: male v.s. female, white v.s. black, and the individual v.s. society. But most important of all and in direct relation to all of the other relationships is the individual v.s. himself. I was amazed at how bilateral a point of view the director gave to showing the race relations on campus. Most films typically show the injustices of one side while showing the suffering of the other. This film showed the injustices and suffering of both sides. It did not attempt to show how either was right, although I would say the skin heads were shown a much crueler and vindictive (quite obvious towards the end). The film also discusses sex and rape. It is ironically this injustice that in some ways brings the two races together, for a time. Lawrence Fishburne does an over-the-top performance as the sagacious Profesor Phipps. He crumbles the idea of race favortism and instead shows the parallelism of the lazy and down-trodden with the industrious and positive. Other stars that make this film are Omar Epps, Ice Cube, and Jennifer Connelly. Michael Rapaport gives an excellent portrayal of a confused youth with misplaced anger who is looking for acceptance. Tyra Banks make her film debut and proves supermodels can act.Higher Learning gets its name in showing college as more than going to class and getting a piece of paper. In fact, I would say the film is almost a satire in showing students interactions with each other, rather than some dry book, as the real education at a university. It is a life-learning process, not a textual one. I think you'll find "Higher Learning" is apropos to the important issues at many universities and even life in general. 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+Is rich, ailing Elizabeth Taylor courting the Angel of Death on her island fortress in the Mediterranean, or is she just overreacting--or more precisely, overacting--as usual? Actually, both are applicable in director Joseph Losey's wandering, meandering mess called "Boom", appropriately titled since tempers in the lush, luxurious setting are nearly ready to explode. Richard Burton climbs Taylor's mountain uninvited; she dresses him in a samurai's robe complete with saber. Though great-looking in widescreen, the picture is otherwise quite deadly, a failure even Liz 'n Dick-philes should shun (the stars' collective "what the hell!" attitude to their late-'60s film careers reached an ego-mad nadir here). Pointless, confused, and maddening, "Boom" is a catastrophe--although screenwriter Tennessee Williams, who adapted his own unsuccessful play "The Milk Train Doesn't Stop Here Anymore", was said to be quite fond of it! * from ****$LABEL$ 0
+i can't even describe it. it's the worst movie i've ever seen (i'm being a nice guy when i call it movie).Just another big-budget-made-to-someone-who-doesn't-like-to-think-much.It's not even scary. It's revolting when there are great movies that never reach the big screen and then comes this..."thing" to trick movie fans. I guess big producers make whatever they want.Just get a big producer, hot chicks (allthough horrible actresses) and a ton of horror movie clichés and cook it for a week or so, and you'll get "The Nun".And I thought Bad Boys 2 was horrible!!!!$LABEL$ 0
+The screenplay is the worst part of this film, as it lurches from one premise to the next, missing all the important bits that would have made a number of different stories possible. (This film is confusing, because the audience doesn't know what the story is.) I had no problem with the low-production values and the acting wasn't great, but this is telly, so it was fine. I don't mind if some scenes looked like they were done in one take. But having such a non-sensical screenplay is completely unnecessary. Did any executive actually read it before forking out the cash? Avoid this at all costs.The prologue in particular was so poorly written, it needed a voice-over to fill in all the details that had been left out. The prologue was rushed, it wasn't clear what was happening, ie. The Russian Revolution was reduced to "Some riots are happening in Petersburg", with the next scene being soldiers arresting them. I know the basic history of the Revolution, so I could fill in the details, "those pesky Communists". The prologue is best ignored.This could have been a thoughtful study of a person who is confused about who she is. It sets up this premise in the asylum. It could then have her struggling to identify herself for the rest of the film. No. Gone. The film assumes she is who she says she is (even though there is still no empirical evidence.) It sets up a melodramatic romance, a love so strong, it'll believe anything she says. Okay, a soppy romance. No, because it makes no sense. The love interest seems like a crazed (and incidentally, sleazy) lunatic, bursting out in wild gestures. This also doesn't work, because the film stupidly decides to tell the truth in the monologue at the end. They never got married and she returned to America. The love story collapses. Despite there being plenty of love scenes, I was never convinced of the reason that they were in love. I find rom-com romances more convincing, despite there only being one or two scenes which establish that they've even spent any time with each other.It could have been a thriller-type thing where the film assumes she is who she says she is, and she struggles to prove her identity. No, the court case is summed up rather than dealt with. The bizarre voice over comes back, again to fill in the details of a better film.The funniest thing to consider is what really happened. Anna Anderson was a loony who went to America and married another loony and they did crazy things together. Throughout her life, she had bouts of lunatic behaviour. None of this in the film either. There's a really annoying character in the asylum who crops up from nowhere and announces herself as a 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Next/'Twelve Monkeys'-type informant. Thankfully, she vanishes, having brought nothing to the story.$LABEL$ 0
+Lady and the tramp ii: scamp's adventure i think is a good movie but i think the first lady and the tramp movie is better because it is the original and i would think that the original movies compared to the sequeals is better. Lady and the tramp ii takes off after the original, but this time it's junior's turn, Lady and Tramp's youngster (scamp) always hates been treated with the things that has to be done with him, following the rules in the house, taking baths all the time and taking things nice and easy, scamp gets angry and runs away with a pack of dogs that are left off the loose. Scamp meets another dog called Angel, they both get along fine and do the things scamp's mother and father did, having an italian meal (Spagetthi and Meatballs etc:)Afterwards, Scamp realises that he is loved by his family especial his pal, which is the baby, scamp comes back and Angel is joined in the family. I give this movie 10 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+Wow, what's this on the video rental store's shelf in front of me? Nothing other than a questionable "sequel" to 8MM. It wasn't a very good sequel to a movie that had a very definitive end and an abundance of emotional depth far greater than this movie.Basically, from the plot outline verbatim, an American diplomat, David Huxley, and his fiancée, Tish Harrington, venture into the sordid underworld of sex and pornography in Budapest, Hungary to find out who is blackmailing them with a porno video taken of them with a prostitute, Risa. The entire story is based around the various characters who make up these various sex clubs and strip joints throughout the city. The mystery is solved when, in the end, Tish finds out that the ransom money for the video and (essentially later on in the story) her fiancée which came out of her trust fund money is basically going back to her future husband as the story unfolds til the bitter end.I didn't like how this had nothing to do with the original 8MM at all. The only thing close to the original is the type of thriller that it was, the fact that David ends up with some kind of bondage contraption over him to keep him prisoner looks like the kinky world of the first film, and the fact that the entire movie has sex emblazoned throughout almost every key scene. Otherwise, its a totally different movie. It made for a lousy love story, even before the end is known, which makes the ending more of a possibility because I didn't believe the words coming out of David's mouth the whole time. But we were warned that he was a liar about most things that might get him in trouble.There were ridiculous nude scenes in most of the "shocking" moments of the film, which were trying to stir emotions in the audience to cheer for Tish to figure out the plot so she can leave this "hellish" sex debauchery. I counted at least 11 ridiculously filmed sequences when there was nothing but sex to be shown. Even the menu screen on the DVD is nothing but film with naked women on it to make the DVD seem totally provocative.David was no heroic person throughout the film. You could guess he was the main problem long before the end. The actors who played each role were all new to me, which might explain how they got so many of them to strip down to gain acting "respect." There were plot holes (How did David and Richard finally impress Tish's father by getting the lease they wanted when David was so wrapped up in this damn investigation to try and find a prostitute?) There were cheesy technology moments (like the talking email program dressed up like a bondage queen), and a gay brother character which did nothing but show how the director was trying to get a Joaquin Phoenix knockoff to play this character. The tag line featured on this profile for this video is complete BS, too, because it wasn't even about a last breath. Nobody really dies. But they did have a good car crash sequence that came out of nowhere...but that was a good 10 seconds long out of an hour and 3/4 long movie.Go rent (and maybe buy) the original. It's one of Joel Schumacher's better and more original films. It has everything better about it from this film. I wouldn't recommend seeing this unless you want to compare apples to oranges.$LABEL$ 0
+Ok, honestly I dont see why everybody thinks this is so great. Its really not. There were two good things that came out of this movie 1. Jack's performance, he was very good I can tip my hat for him. 2. Danny's performance, he was good. No other then that it got pretty stupid. And, what was Stanley Kubrick thinking drafting Shelly as the Wendy? She was so bad. She looked the same every time she got scared. The problem with this movie was the ending. I would have had more respect for it if Kubrick would have ended it differently. And, the over all movie was just stupid. The problem with the movie is that the book was so much better. So dont see the movie read the book and you will be much better off. 3/10.$LABEL$ 0
+This episode had potential. The basic premise of a woman living next door to an empty apartment (but a phone that constantly rings) is somewhat interesting. And when she explores the noise, there is genuine tension and fear. But stupid script writing ruins any promise the episode had.First of all, the woman readily admits to seeing things that would send most of us running in the other direction (e.g. "It's funny that the door slammed shut even though there is no wind;" "This door has serious damage to it that wasn't here a minute ago;" "The door opened by itself, without me touching it;" etc.). Given these supernatural phenomena, plus the fact that a woman committed suicide in the room, wouldn't she take some precaution before entering it? Maybe she could investigate in the day time. Or maybe she could investigate the apartment with somebody else. Or maybe she could TURN ON THE LIGHTS!!! Also, while in the haunted apartment, she decides to make numerous phone calls to the operator and gets into an argument over who has the power to disconnect the phone, and then they begin discussing the details of the suicide. JUST UNPLUG THE PHONE! The phone company doesn't need to be involved. Walk up to the phone and unplug it. Case closed.Finally, showing the phone scamper across the floor like it's alive was just comical. If the director wanted the woman to get strangled by the phone card, he could've done it in a way that didn't look cartoony. Brave Little Toaster anyone?$LABEL$ 0
+The quality of this movie is simply unmatched by any baseball title of its time. Pam Dixon branches out in the film industry to recruit blue-chip prospects and make this work of art a must-see. Academy Award winners Brenda Fricker (Home Alone: Lost in New York, A Time to Kill), Ben Johnson (The Last Picture Show, Red Dawn), and Adrien Brody (The Pianist, The Village) amplify the atmosphere of the movie, drawing in an anxious audience. However, the dramatic performances are neutralized by quirky radio broadcaster Jay O. Sanders (JFK, The Day After Tomorrow).The story is centralized around a foster child, up-and-coming actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Brick, The Lookout). Sidekick Milton Davis Jr. delivers a tear-jerking performance as the longtime friend who never knew his parents. The two don't have much, but what they do have: Angels' baseball, and what they are seeking: identity. That's when 4-time Emmy Nominee Danny Glover (Lethal Weapon, Predator 2) comes in to save the day as frustrated Angels Manager, George Knox. In relation, all characters in the story seem to have the same mission: search within themselves to find out who they really are.Depressed over the fact that Roger (JGL) is separated from his father, he wishes to God for reunification if the Angels can take the pennant. Odds are astronomical, but 3-time Emmy winner Christopher Lloyd (Back to the Future, My Favorite Martian) comes in as the omniscient overseer to work a little magic (pun). Before you know it, Al (Lloyd) is sitting with Roger in the stands, snacking on cracker jacks, and causing some of baseball's biggest boners! Dorothy Kingsley and George Wells' (DK Oscar Nominee GW Oscar Winner) 1951 screenplay is done justice under the finger of mastermind William Dear (nominated in Directors Guild of America). He includes a touching side story centered around pitcher Mel Clark, played by Tony Danza (4-time Golden Globe nominee, Emmy nominee), who in relation to all other cast members is just trying to find his place in a confused Anaheim. Clark has been dubbed a wash-up, a once big-name in Cinci, but he has something to prove to Manager Knox.Spoiling this nail-biting plot would simply be the equivalent to committing adultery in the 18th century. This one is a diamond in the rough, and it will keep you on the edge of the seat until all come to peace. Did I mention a cameo by Matthew McConaughey (A Time to Kill, We Are Marshall) for all you ladies out there?$LABEL$ 1
+I kept watching it because it seemed like the plot was going somewhere. When it ambiguously got there I was very disappointed. I'm going to tell you what really happened in the next sentence. But maybe I won't. Maybe I'll just imply something will happen. The writers lacked any imagination. This is not even a "B" movie - it's a made for TV "B" movie.$LABEL$ 0
+The movie itself made me want to go and call someone so they could enjoy it too. It was extremely funny. Angelena Jolie was wonderful as Juliet. The parents are hilarious.They are caterers as well as enemies.The kids play the parts of Romeo and Juliet in the church play.They fall in love and their parents try to keep them apart.(Spoiler Ahead. I think) They sneak off after a party and do it. Surprisingly they still want to get married in the end of the movie. If you don't like stereotypes and the defilement of classic literature don't watch. If you don't mind those you will have a blast watching this one.$LABEL$ 1
+If somebody wants to make a really, REALLY bad movie, "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" really sets a yardstick by which to measure the depth of badness.Start with the pseudo-Chewbacca that follows around the main character ... Some poor schmuck in a baggy white "furry" costume that looks as if it was stitched together from discarded pieces of carpeting. Work your way slowly, painfully, through more not-so-special effects that thoroughly deny the viewer from suspension of disbelief. Add a garden gnome (just for the heck of it).On second thought, skip this movie entirely and find something else to do for an hour and a half.$LABEL$ 0
+A film for mature, educated audiences...I saw "Random Hearts" in an advance screening shortly before its North American release. This romantic drama was quite a treat. I'm sure this story will not be everyone's cup of tea, especially considering the film's darkly downbeat premise. But the pic has some very uplifting strong points in its favor.All-time Box Office Draw Harrison Ford ("Star Wars," "Raiders of the Lost Ark," "The Fugitive," "Air Force One," "Patriot Games") is at the top of his game as the harried and desperate Internal Affairs officer, Dutch. Ford's very subdued, nuanced performance shows quite the range he can achieve with class and determination in bringing the audience into his world of loss & betrayal. This is the perfect complex role and very different type of film for Harrison Ford to grace the screen with between his action blockbusters. Next year Harrison Ford returns to action, first for director Robert Zemeckis ("Forrest Gump," "Back To The Future") in his summer 2000 thriller, "What Lies Beneath," and reportedly later in the year in the film adaptation of Tom Clancy's "The Sum Of All Fears." 'Fears' will be Harrison Ford's third outing as CIA operative Jack Ryan.Director Sydney Pollack ("Out of Africa," "The Firm," "Tootsie") has a supporting role in this feature as a political advisor to Scott-Thomas' congresswoman. It's a very sharp & energetic portrayal for Pollack. Not only is Sydney Pollack a gifted director, he is also one of the most believable, natural and charming actors around (see "Eyes Wide Shut" as well).Kristin Scott-Thomas ("The English Patient," "The Horse Whisperer") shows that you don't necessarily have to be eccentric or worldly to be considered sexy. This is one of her better films, and she gives a tremendously crafted and mellowed performance that works well opposite Ford's quiet-man toughness.The subplots work wonderfully, especially the subplot involving Ford's character's investigation into police corruption. Look for a chilling & effective turn by "Heat" actor, Dennis Haysbert, who plays Detective George Beaufort, the obstacle to overcome in Dutch's investigation into police corruption.The rest of the supporting cast is a wonderful delight. Charles S. Dutton (whose long overdue for a film leading role) goes to show that he is one of the best character-actors around, and Bonnie Hunt, who I find extremely solid in this production, steals most of her scenes with that wonderful, charming smile as Wendy Judd.The technical side of Pollack's thriller is top notched. From Dave Grusin's (Pollack's "The Firm") perfectly surreal-feeling jazzy score, to Philippe Rousselot ("A River Runs Through It") crisp photography, to the sharp editing that keeps the film feeling fresh, despite the film's unfortunate downer premise.I highly recommend this film to anyone who enjoys a good yarn of mystery, well-paced plot, character-driven stories, and romance all rolled into one. This is a terrific story about betrayal & forgiveness. It also features one of the most surprising, yet poignant, and certain to be controversial endings for a Harrison Ford film in recent times. "Random Hearts" is definitely one of the better films of the year.(***1/2 out of ****) or (8.5 out of 10.0)$LABEL$ 1
+For all of the Has-Beens or Never Was's or for the curious, this film is for you....Ever played a sport, or wondered what it felt like after the lights went down and the crowd left..this film explores that and more.Robin Williams(Jack Dundee) is a small town assistant banker in Taft CA., whose life has been plagued, by a miscue in a BIG rival high school football game 13 years ago, when he dropped the pass that would have won over Bakersfield, their Arch-Rival, that takes great pleasure in pounding the Taft Rockets, season after season . Kurt Russell(Reno Hightower) was the Quarterback in that famous game, and is the local legend, that now is a van repair specialist, whose life is fading into lethargy, like the town of Taft itself.Williams gets an idea to remake history, by replaying the GAME ! He meets with skeptical resistance, so he goes on a one man terror spree, and literally paints the town , orange, yellow and black , to raise the ire of the residents to recreate THE game . After succeeding, the players from that 1972 team reunite, and try to get in shape to practice, which is hysterical . The game is on , Bakesfield is loaded with all of the high tech gadgets, game strategies, and sophisticated training routines . Taft is drawing plays in the mud, with sticks, stones, and bottle caps, what a riot ! Does Taft overcome the odds, does Robin Willians purge the demons from his bowels, does Kurt Russell rise from lethargy, watch "The Best of Times" for one of the BEST viewing experiences ever!One of Robin Williams best UNDERSTATED performances, the chemistry between Robin and Russell is magic . And who is Kid Lester ???Holly Palance and Pamela Reed give memorable performances as the wives of Williams and Russell. Succeeds on Many Levels. A 10 !$LABEL$ 1
+This movie has to be one of the most boring and stupid movies that Perrugorria have done. It looks like a commercial from beginning to end. The ¨director¨spent the whole time on a tripod, it doesn't have pace, rhythm. It's illogical. what a mess. You can tell what's gonna happen since the first 15 minutes, and the ending...Wow------spoiler-------Jesus Christ, how the hell Perrugorria got shot? Are you serious? Worst scene of someone getting shot ever!------end of spoiler-----Bad directing, bad script, bad acting...Really bad overall. I wouldn't recommend this movie at all. It's a waste of money and time.$LABEL$ 0
+I first remember bumping into this zaniness from the Zucker brothers and Jim Abrahams, back in the early days at Comedy Central. Back in those days (the 90's) their programming consisted of Benny Hill reruns and the original MST3k, complete with bearded host.Capt. Frank Drebin (played by the stone-faced, dead-pan filibuster, Leslie Nielson) is a process created first from the amalgamation of various stereotypical police television show protagonists (think Dragnet meets Starsky & Hutch the Show), boiled in a flask full of well-known police television show plots and scenarios. This is distilled, 3 times to produce the most pure policeman every made. Forget about Simon Pegg in Hot Fuzz (for now. save it for later). Frank Drebin is clueless at most times, a terrible driver, a terrible shot, macho yet sensitive and vulnerable. He is a master of the police investigative methodology (a.k.a - ask Johnny the Leathery Old Shoe-Shine Boy). This does not make him a bad cop. Cops get lucky also. Capt Drebin (notice he's a Captain here) has perfected it. Along with his partner, Nordberg, and the rest of force, perfectly parody the police drama over the course of 6 golden episodes.The show is a treasure trove of hilarious dialog and quotable quote-ables. Most of the sight gags are a bit dated and silly. The magic never came from the sight gags,however. At its core was a nonsensical and straight-faced conversation and activities in the foreground, with crazy things occurring in the background. The movies can best be described as 90 minute compilations of the best gags from this series. Think of Monty Python's And Now For Something Completely Different.....If you liked Airplane 1 & 2, Naked Gun 1,2,3, or Top Secret, then you will definitely enjoy this. I always liked the series better than the movies, even though I saw the movies first. Why? 2 words : No O.J.$LABEL$ 1
+A guy desperate for action attempts to hit on a gorgeous girl in a bus. She refuses him, but when he runs after someone who tries to steal her purse they get together anyway. And there it starts - a relation that is slightly tainted by the fact that she is a jealous and neurotic superhero. It can't be a secret that things between them are going to be problematic.In short, a story that could promise to grow out into a cool film. And IMO, it succeeds at being a nice film. It's no masterpiece, but it had me in tears from laughing on more than one occasion - the two lead characters twirl around each other in a crazy love fest that is, even with the superhero thing going, believable.So. Thin story, but worked out really funny and thus worthy of cinema time.7 out of 10 broken hearts$LABEL$ 1
+i think it is great one of my favourite films as a kid and who said there songs were unforgettable they were mint i can still remember them now WORD FOR WORD the film remains a favourite with my family and my younger cousins are now addicted to it too they even know the songs this film is great and a enjoyable film for kids it has a moral lesson so don't say its not good because it shows how lying gets you nowhere ill leave with a parting comment: this film is amazing love me xxx P.s i would like the soundtrack but i cant and yes the animation is good the jokes are humorous and the action never stops.This film will go down in children's film history and in my opinion one of the only remaining safe films to show children.$LABEL$ 1
+The film someone had to make.Waco: The Rules of Engagement dissects the evidence behind the standoff in Waco, Texas that led to the destruction of the Branch Davidian homestead and the alleged government cover-up.The first thing you need to know about this film: you will see brief but disturbing photos of the victims bodies. This is not done for shock value, but to illustrate points about the way they died, as if you were present at the coroner's inquest.The second thing you should know about this film: at two and a quarter hours, it's pretty ponderous - especially if you already followed the events closely at the time. If you are unaware of any of the events other than what was reported in the mass media, or if the only side of the story you are familiar with is the official government report, this may be essential viewing. If, on the other hand you want a more concise (albeit unapologetically one sided) version of events, you should see "Waco: The Big Lie".In summary, this is pretty much the definitive documentary about this tragic event, and is very sobering, but as a work of film-making, could test your patience, especially if you have a short attention span. And it's at times superfluous for those who watched the CSPAN hearings and the 60 Minutes reports.Perhaps someday someone will make a documentary that covers some of the stranger aspects of this story, such as the bizarre chain of events that led up to the ATF raid or the psychological warfare tactics the FBI used blasting rock music at the sect, and their charismatic leaders (all rock musicians themselves) picking up their instruments and turning their massive amplifiers outward to blast their own music right back at them.$LABEL$ 1
+What a good movie! At last a picture revealing a unknown side of rock: illusions of fame. Well-known Rockers are getting old and forgotten, not the music. And with a good sense of humour. Have you ever danced on Bill Haley's Rock Around the Clock?Anyway, Still Crazy is probably the best movie about rock n'roll I have ever seen. Far much better than Spinal Tap for instance. Why? Because in Still Crazy, people are mature. They have a different point of view about rock, about love and about life. They want to catch up with their crazy youth they miss so much. Beyond the story itself, we see characters with their own personality, weaknesses and dreams. Like anyone of us.Spend a good time watching this (listen to the awesome soundtrack! )and finally thinking of your own future.Bye!$LABEL$ 1
+Had it with the one who raised you since when you were young? You just want her gone from your life? That woman is your mother. You should respect her, you should honor her, whether she's in sick or well. But that in times, it can be aggravating. Especially when she becomes very overbearing. That's how Owen(Danny DeVito) had to deal with in "Throw Momma Fron The Train". His Momma(Anne Ramsey, 1929-88), is one of the worst. He trying his best to be a writer, and she is everything but grateful. Calls him a "clumsy poop", a "larda$$", and "fat" and "stupid". For his friend, Larry Donner(Billy Crystal) he has his own woman problems, his ex-wife. She trying to discredit him. So what did Owen do? Push her overboard. What does he do? Help return the favor, get rid of Mrs. Lift! In the kitchen scene, I liked it where Owen called Larry, "Cousin Patty". And Momma said, "You don't have a Cousin Patty!" and Owen shouts "You Lied To Me!" and El Cabongs Larry with the frying pan. Then comes the fun part when they where on the train and try to kill Momma Lift. That is thwarted, and she kicks Larry off the train. Well, everything back to normal, the ex-wife lives, but Momma kicked the bucket on her own. Maybe she should have seen the errors of her domineering ways. A fun movie it is, and the cast is great. A classic! 5 stars!$LABEL$ 1
+Yes, it is a bit cheesy. But it's suspenseful and entertaining, and one of my favorites; there are some excellent actors in the film, and they do a commendable job given the limitations of plot and characters. It's interesting to see David Soul in a 'bad guy' role; I thought he was quite believable--and rather chilling--as the ever-more-paranoid CO. Robert Conrad is a long-time favorite--I think he brings his character to life very well; and Sam Waterston has been star quality in everything of his I've watched--movies or TV. I watch this movie every so often but our tape (a VHS TV copy I got) is such poor quality it's difficult to fully enjoy it. This is a movie I think they should put out on DVD; maybe it wouldn't be universally sought after, but I'm sure there are lots of people like me out there who like this sort of film so there WOULD be a market for a DVD version. I'll keep hoping!$LABEL$ 1
+So it isn't an epic, but for people experiencing anything similar(sibling suicide) it might be an interesting way of therapy. Animaginative narrative and some fine acting makes it time wellspent. For some reason, it hasn't really caught on in the audience,something I do believe is a result of the main theme. Why did shecommit suicide? Clearly, this is hardly something that USmoviegoers will flock to, had it been an European production itprobably would have reached its audience in a much greaterextent. It is however, a movie that although the realism tainted by ashimmering romanticized glow, gives the viewer a whole heartedimpression.$LABEL$ 1
+I absolutely loved this film! I was hesitant to watch it at first because I thought it would be too painful. I remember how hard it was when John was shot. However, watching the "Two of Us" took me back to a happier time when he was still alive and there was hope and possibility. I think that the writer did an amazing job depicting what "might have been." Aidan Quinn was adorable as Paul and met the challenge head on. I was impressed with his accent and mannerisms. Jared Harris is also very talented and was quite believable as John. My favorite parts were the scene in the park and the rooftop scene - which was so poignant. The film left me with both sadness and satisfaction, both of which I feel are appropriate, given the circumstances.$LABEL$ 1
+Previous reviewer Claudio Carvalho gave a much better recap of the film's plot details than I could. What I recall mostly is that it was just so beautiful, in every sense - emotionally, visually, editorially - just gorgeous.If you like movies that are wonderful to look at, and also have emotional content to which that beauty is relevant, I think you will be glad to have seen this extraordinary and unusual work of art.On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give it about an 8.75. The only reason I shy away from 9 is that it is a mood piece. If you are in the mood for a really artistic, very romantic film, then it's a 10. I definitely think it's a must-see, but none of us can be in that mood all the time, so, overall, 8.75.$LABEL$ 1
+Great premise, poor execution. Cast of great actors is watered down into a poorly written, poorly directed, poorly edited, waste of film. Only redeeming quality is the numerous shots of the food.Joan Chen, Mercedes Ruehl, Kyra Sedgwick, and Alfre Woodard should fire their agents.$LABEL$ 0
+Have to agree that this movie and it's talented director do not receive the plaudits they deserve. Here's hoping that the DVD will do very well and bring both to the attention of a wider audience. The actors gave excellent performances and the plot is excellent. Perhaps overall the movie is a little long but May Miles Thomas seems to enjoy her actors when they are giving strong performances and therefore sometimes holds them in longer close ups than necessary. Good for the actors I am sure but sometimes as the audience you are ready to move on so to speak with the plot. May Miles Thomas deserves more recognition from the Film business as one of our foremost digital movie directors,$LABEL$ 1
+I had two reasons for watching this swashbuckler when it aired on Danish television yesterday. First of all, I wanted to see Gina Lollobrigida - and here I wasn't disappointed. She looked gorgeous. Second of all, through reading about the film I had gotten the impression that it featured absurd humor not unlike that which can be found in Philippe de Broca's films. On this account, however, I was sadly disappointed. I found the jokes predictable (apart from a few witty remarks on the topic of war) and the characters completely one-dimensional. Also, the action scenes were done in a strangely mechanical and uninspired fashion, with no sense of drama at all. I kept watching until the end, but I got bored very quickly and just sat there, waiting for the scenes with Lollobrigida.$LABEL$ 0
+This film is an abomination of all that is worthy in film making. The lead actor surprises his audience by not actually acting at all. We have to watch almost two hours of his bland soulless face. The jokes are all lame I never laughed once it was Saturday night there were 5 of us having a beer all up for a laugh and then we put this on and you could feel all the warmth and colour being drained from the room. The film ended and the mood was ruined so we all went our separate ways, ruined the night ! OK so pros and cons. Pros beautiful setting in Hawaii, looks good on bluray. Cons worst acting ever; you can tell everyone concerned is just thinking about payday. Predictable poor plot. Zero character development. Forced jokes which fall flat. Many shots of the guys penis which to be fair acts better than him and has more charisma. May all makers of this film hang their heads in shame and hold their flaccid manhoods cheap.$LABEL$ 0
+This was my first Gaspar Noe movie I've watched and I have to say I was shocked. I don't mind gore in generally, but this isn't even gore , it's real butchering. For some of you a couple of scenes may be impossible to see and I mean really disgusting. Leaving aside these aspects, the main ideas revealed here and the dialog are quite brilliant. When you are given a strong argument against bringing a new life into the world and the manner in which it is given, you can't stop and take a minute to think about it. The actors did their job well, representing general masks of a handpick few people found at the bottom of a diseased society. The movie is full of metaphors, but I'll let you figure them out. Don't watch it if you want to have a lite, relaxing time. I recommend this movie to all those of you who want something to think about or simply watch something different of what you find in your average cinema.$LABEL$ 1
+I agree with BigAlC - this movie actually prepared me for a lot of the cultural differences and practices before I went to live in Japan for a year in 1993. Tom Selleck does a fantastic job here, as always, and the movie is greatly humorous and educational. I'm a big fan of Tom Selleck's, and he blesses this part with his usual charm and charisma to this part, bringing the film to life in a way I can't imagine any other actor being able to pull off. This film featured some first-rate Japanese actors, and it was highly entertaining to watch them as they interacted with Selleck - I can imagine the fun he had during the actual filming of the movie - Japan's an awesome place to go, whether you want to party, sight-see or just try to take everything in.$LABEL$ 1
+I laughed so hard during this movie my face hurt. Ben Affleck was hilarious and reminded me of a pretty boy Jack Black in this role. Gandolfini gives his typical A performance. The entire cast is funny, the story pretty good and the comic moments awesome. I went into this movie not expecting much so perhaps that is why I was so surprised to come out of the flick thoroughly pleased and facially exhausted. I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys comedy, can identify with loneliness during the holidays and/or putting up with the relatives. The best part to this film (to me anyway) were the subtle bits of humor that caught me completely off guard and had me laughing long after the rest of the audience had stopped. Namely, the scene involving the lighting of the Christmas tree. Go see it and have a good laugh!$LABEL$ 1
+Although I lived in Australia in 1975, I moved overseas not long after, fed up with constant industrial unrest, the general worship of mediocrity - unless one is a sportsman! - and the complacency of so many Australians who chose to ignore the breakneck pace of change taking place in countries to their north. Consequently I missed The Dismissal, along with many other Australian-made TV dramas of the '80s and '90s, such as the superb Janus and Phoenix series, which I have since seen, along with Wildside.To me the filmed story of The Dismissal is fair and, as far as I am aware, accurate. However, as to public "outrage" it only shows one side of the picture, not how families were riven by the controversy. I know, as my two brothers would not speak to me for months afterward. But the commentary is, in my view, very one-sided throughout. The inescapable fact is that, notwithstanding fiery expressions of rage from a substantial proportion of the community, the Australian electorate chose - and chose decisively - in favour of Fraser, as they did again two years later. This apart, a historically accurate and superbly well acted docudrama.$LABEL$ 1
+I may be a good old boy from Virginia in the Confederate States of America, but this man does it for me. That mustache gets me riled up. I remember when I first saw a video of his. That girl he beat was amazing. The depth of his acting when they cut to his weathered facade was a new level of masculinity. It reminds me of the granite sculptures of our Mt. Rushmore. If I could ask him one question, it would be,"If you were a hot-dog, would you eat yourself?" Will Orhan be doing a reunion tour? Take note from the greats like Gordon Lightfoot, true music from the heart never fades away. Vive La John Denver. Gracias my friend, O.F.F.L. (Orhan Fan For Life)$LABEL$ 1
+I never want to see this movie again!Not only is it dreadfully bad, but I can't stand seeing my hero Stan Laurel looking so old and sick.Mostly I can't stand watching this terrible movie!Frankly, there is no reason to watch this awful film. The plot is just plain stupid. The actors that surround Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are really really bad and Laurel and Hardy have been funnier in any of their earlier films! I warn you don't watch it, the images will haunt you for a long while to come!$LABEL$ 0
+The problem is the role of the characters in the film. Man to Man shows a British anthropologist kidnapping two pygmies and taking them to Scotland and then realising that they are not animals or subhumans but actually equal to himself. The problem is the role of the pygmies in the film - two people who are kidnapped, treated like animals, and yet given such a shallow, stereotypical role within the film... The kidnapper (british anthropologist) ends up being the hero of the film because he 'manages' to relate to the pygmies... No notion of how the two hostages feel, of their point of view, of their ordeal... I find it is a shallow film, with a one sided fundamentally racist view... it never manages to move away from the 'white mans' view$LABEL$ 0
+Life Begins - and ends - in a typical 1930's maternity / recovery ward, where we view 48 hours in the lives of several high risk pregnant women, played by Loretta Young, Glenda Farrell, Clara Blandick (Aunty Em???), Vivienne Osborne, Dorothy Tree, and Gloria Shea, as they await to give birth. While the film features plot devices which seem far fetched today when maternity wards are much more controlled and restricted, it does offer us a look back in time to see what giving birth in a typical city hospital in 1932 was like for our grandmothers and great-grandmothers. I found the film fascinating and exceptionally moving.Oddly enough, the most outstanding performance in this film comes from a male cast member, young Eric Linden as Jed Sutton, Grace's (Loretta Young) husband. What an actor! As a first time father, Jed is distraught and uneasy with hospital staff who seem to brush off his concerns about his wife as they might brush crumbs off a cafeteria table. I felt his every concern keenly. I'd like to see more of this actor's work. He had a very emotional voice, which was used to unforgettable effect in Gone With The Wind. In that film Eric played the young soldier whose leg was amputated without anesthesia, who screamed "Don't cut! Don't cut!" as Scarlett fled the hospital in horror. Chilling! Another great performance is from Aline MacMahon, who plays Miss Bowers, the nurse. Her character is a salt of the earth type, the kind of nurse we all hope to get for our hospital stays, who breaks the hospital rules constantly in order to show a more humane side of the medical profession.Loretta Young did another superb acting job here as well, a very authentic and deeply felt performance as Grace. My, she is great in these precodes, I've really grown to appreciate her more as an actress the last few months.Glenda Farrell played her role of a shrill unwed mother a little over the top for my taste (didn't anyone know back in 1932 that swigging brandy from a hot water bottle might be hazardous to unborn babies' health?) but her character redeems herself in the end.Also in the cast was an uncredited Gilbert Roland, silent movie star, as a grieving Italian husband. His screen time was brief, but notable.Life Begins is a must-see precode, try to catch it sometime on TCM, but remember to bring a few hankies to cry into. 9 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a great film. Touching and strong. The direction is without question breathless. Good work to the team. I feel so sorry for Marlene, By the grace of God go you or I$LABEL$ 1
+I think the manuscript of this movie was written on the piece of toilet-paper. No respect whatsoever to many important details which intrinsically make the movie. For example, the names of some Serbian terrorists (that I remember) are Caradan Maldic, Ivanic Loyvek and Leo Hasse. What kind of names are that? Certainly not Serbian! By the way, Caradan Maldic!!! What a name, I laughed for days thinking about it. Probably an implication on Karadzic and Mladic. Secondly, there have never been any cases of terrorism done by Serbians. A journalist like the main character ought to have known that. Thirdly, the actors playing Serbian terrorists are not even Serbs nor do they speak Serbo-croatian. All this aside, this movie is solidly acted but the story is paper-thin and full of holes. At times it makes no sense whatsoever!!!$LABEL$ 0
+*Criticism does mention spoilers*I rarely make user comments, but this is one movie I have no problem slandering. This movie stinks, and its mediocre of rating of 6 and a half stars is probably too high for such pulp. The Bone Collector is not at all the same calibre of film that Silence of the Lambs or Seven were, despite what its ad claims. This is a perfect example of how not to make a thriller. The pace of this movie was extremely slow- I actually left for about 10 minutes half-way through and came back at the exact scene with the exact same character with absolutely no progression (I refer to you the part where Angelina Jolie's character debates Denzel about cutting off a corpse' hands). The movie is not at all scary, but tries to compensate this with a love-subplot albeit sexy Angelina Jolie's character and Denzel Washington's. Of course, what you get is something comparable to that of the mentor-student relationship as seen in the brillian epic Silence of the Lambs with Hannibal Lecter and Starling, however, even this lacks all effectiveness and I was personally routing for the villain to kill Denzel off so as to avoid hackneyed giggles between the two. With such a crappy movie, I was half-expecting a plot-twist or some sort of spectacular situation to occur at the end to give the movie some credit- things that mediocre movies like Arlington Road and Scream pulled off. Anybody with a 4th grade education can see the ending how will be resolved ( a situation which mimicks Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window). The cliche of having the killer explain his motives was uninspired enough, but the reason was so ridiculous and stupid it had me spewing latte over the screen. Esoterically speaking, I even think the murderer's intention was completely lost as Denzel happily recovers from his loss over the proverbial 'chess game' and gets with his pet project, Angelina.If you are a fan of movies with original ideas and genuinely dynamic concepts (like I am), you will not appreciate this film. If you have not attended a single movie in your life and would like to catch-up on every single Hollywood cliche ever borne (the late-night knock on the window from somebody else but the murderer, the ridiculous serial-killer to prime investigator relationship, the horrible 'woman trying to get by in an all-male dominated workforce aka SOTL) , see this movie....but even then its too slow-paced and you'd be bored.$LABEL$ 0
+Possible Spoilers, Perhaps. I must say that "Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" is one of the worst movies ever made. First of all, the movie was made during the height of Disney's sequel rampage. It was created around the same time as "The Little Mermaid II," "The Jungle Book II," and "Peter Pan II," all of which were disservices to their original film classics. (Disney also made "The Hunchback of Notre Dame II" and "Atlantis II," but I'm going to drop that topic because their original movies were never really classics in the first place.") Let me go ahead and say that I am an avid supporter of good Disney films, and I absolutely adore the original Disney "Cinderella." The sequel to "Cinderella," however, was a waste of time. The character of Cinderella in the sequel was so very unlike the original girl that I grew up watching. In the original, Cinderella was kind and loving. The new Cinderella had very out-of-character moments with current-era phrasing like, "I'm going to do this banquet my way!" Let me also tell you that new Cinderella (as I have affectionately named her) says, "Ewww!" That is the anti-Cinderella. I try to find the best in people, but in the sequel, Anastasia, one of the stepsisters, is good! What the heck? Why? They made it all out to be like Lady Tremaine and Drizella are just horrible family members for poor little Anastasia. My question to the world: did the people at Disney watch the original "Cinderella" when making this sequel? Well, it surely doesn't seem so. If I remember correctly, Anastasia was just as abusive to Cinderella as Drizella and Lady Tremaine. I am all for redemption and forgiveness, but there was no point of redemption for Anastasia in this movie. In the first one, Anastasia was evil. In the second one, she is good. One just can't leave a story like this. I hope Disney realizes that this movie, among other movies, is shaming Walt Disney's name. Perhaps now that Michael Eisner is gone, things will start shaping up around the House of Mouse.$LABEL$ 0
+Hopefully the score has changed by now due to my brilliant and stunning review which persuades all of you to go and watch the film thereby creating an instant chorus of "8"s, this movie's true score.As mentioned before Chris Rock is The King! Previous to going to see this movie I wasn't that over the top about him but now I'm banging on the doors of Chris Rock's website begging him to take me on as his protege. This film is truly funny, if you don't find this movie funny you REALLY need therapy and it's humour which targets all areas of society including race(predictably), class division, love, wealth, employment, dreams, stand up comedy... the list goes on.There was one slight disappointment for me however. This was that in going into this film I didn't realise that it was actually a remake of "Heaven Can Wait" another quite good movie made in 1971 with Warren Beatty. As such I was quite surprised when I watched this movie and suddenly the plot began to unravel to be distinctly similar to an older movie I had watched on TV a few weeks ago.. Regardless this movie is in my opinion the better version out of the two of them simply because of the different areas it covers and the fact that Chris Rock is funnier than Warren Beatty any second of any day of any week of any year of any...you get the picture.Well to the actual plot of the film.Don't spoil the experience for yourself! Don't read the plot! Just go and watch a movie because there have been two reviews on IMDb so far that have raved mad about it, go see it because it is the funniest thing you would have seen in a long time, go and see it because it's a cinema experience that doesn't leave you grumbling ad nauseum at the cost of cinema tickets. Go see it because it is a good movie!$LABEL$ 1
+Formula movie about the illegitimate son of a rich Chilenian who stands to inherit a fortune and gets mixed up in the affairs of bad guys and falls in love with a beautiful female lawyer (Vargas). It looks very much like a TV movie, not really exciting. The only reason I bothered to see it was because Valentina Vargas was in it. No real surprises here, though it is nice to see Vargas. Great looking Chilenian landscapes on display but Malcolm McDowell's part is very small and doesn't add much to the movie. Michael Ironside plays as usual a bad guy but this is not one of his most memorable parts. The chase scenes are standard fare.$LABEL$ 0
+Whatever rating I give BOOM is only because of the superb location photography of Sardinia and Rome. Otherwise, this is only for hardcore addicts of ELIZABETH TAYLOR (her downward phase), and RICHARD BURTON (his miscasting phase). Tennessee Williams wrote "The Milk Train Doesn't Stop Here Anymore" and is supposed to be very fond of this adaptation of his play--but apparently, he was the only one. Taylor reportedly hated it and Burton needed the money.Whatever, it amounts to a hill of beans with Taylor posturing and fuming in her shrill manner, exploding at the servants and exchanging bad baby-talk with no less than NOEL COWARD who seems to be a visitor from another film when he finally appears.It's so campy that among Taylor fans it's probably considered a "must see" kind of thing. But if you can sit through this one without a drink in your hand, you're way ahead of me. Sadly, this is the film that signified the end of Taylor being taken seriously as a film actress, even after winning two Oscars. For Burton, it was equally disastrous and the critics called it a BOMB. Judge for yourself if you dare.$LABEL$ 0
+VIVA LA BAM This "Jackass" spin off focuses on the (obviously scripted) adventures of Bam Margera and his pals (Johnny Knoxville, Brandon Dicamillo, etc). This show, while it has its fair share of gross-out comedy and crazy stunts, focuses mainly on Bam's torturing of his parents.I'm sorry to say this, Bam, but... you're in no way as cool as you think you are. This ego tripped show is not only painfully unfunny (and yes, I liked Jackass), but also narcissistic beyond belief. The overly stylized intro ends with Bam coolly explaining that he's going to do "whatever the f***" he wants to. How about you do something that is actually funny? I liked "Jackass" for what it was worth. The camera-work was horrible - any idiot could have made a better show with a camcorder in their parents' garage - but at least the show moved at a steady pace and never felt boring between the crazy, dangerous or simply disgusting stunts the pals performed.Not so with "Viva la Bam". We follow our hero around as he plays pranks on his friends and tortures his relatives, but never does it feel like anything else than really lame and scripted comedy. The stunts and pranks are mildly entertaining, but presented in such a tedious and dull fashion that they can barely make you smile."Viva la Bam" is a poor spin-off of that does little good but feed Margera's already too big ego. I don't recommend this lame and unimaginative show to anyone.$LABEL$ 0
+I had never heard of Larry Fessenden before but judging by this effort into writing and directing, he should keep his day job as a journeyman actor. Like many others on here, I don't know how to categorize this film, it wasn't scary or spooky so can't be called a horror, the plot was so wafer thin it can't be a drama, there was no suspense so it can't be a thriller, its just a bad film that you should only see if you were a fan of the Blair witch project. People who liked this film used words, like "ambiguity" and complex and subtle but they were reading into something that wasn't there. Like the Blair witch, people got scared because people assumed they should be scared and bought into some guff that it was terrifying. This movie actually started off well with the family "meeting" the locals after hitting a deer. It looked like being a modern day deliverance but then for the next 45 minutes, (well over half the film), nothing happened, the family potted about their holiday home which was all very nice and dandy but not the slightest bit entertaining. It was obvious the locals would be involved in some way at some stage but Essendon clearly has no idea how to build suspense in a movie. Finally, when something does happen, its not even clear how the father was shot, how he dies, (the nurse said his liver was only grazed), and all the time this wendigo spirit apparently tracks down the apparent shooter in a very clumsy way with 3rd grade special effects. The film is called Wendigo but no attempt is made to explain it in any clear way, the film ends all muddled and leaves you very unsatisfied, i would have bailed out with 15 minutes to go but I wanted to see if this movie could redeem itself. It didn't.$LABEL$ 0
+Schlocky '70s horror films...ya gotta love 'em. In contrast to today's boring slasher flicks, these K-tel specials actually do something scary and do not resort to a tired formula.This is a B movie about the making of a B movie...that went horribly wrong. Faith Domergue (This Island Earth) stars as an over-the-hill, B movie queen making a movie about a series of grisly murders that befell a family in their home. Her boyfriend/director, who looks and acts like Gordon Jump with an attitude, is filming on location and on a tight schedule. The Ken doll co-star discovers a book of Tibetian chants that they work into the script to add "realism". Unfortunately, "realism" is something they could have done without.John Carradine, having long since given up looking for the 17th gland (The Unearthly), now eeks out a humble existence as the caretaker for the estate. He goes about his daily work, but always seems to run afoul of the director.The horror builds slowly; a dead cat here, John Carradine entering a grave there, finally culminating in seven, yes seven murders. (At least there's truth in advertising.) It's just sad that the ghoul didn't understand that there was a movie being made above him. How was poor Faith to know that those darn Tibetian chants would actually work? Face it, you just can't go around tugging on Satan's coat and expect him to take it lying down.Sterno says perform an autopsy on The House of Seven Corpses.$LABEL$ 0
+I suppose for 1961 this film was supposed to be " cool " , but looking back now ( 45 years ) it's charm was just as silly as it's entertainment value ! Granted , the special effects do well on T.V. with the Series that started in 1964 , but for the BIG screen ?? I once had a fish tank that was equally as exciting ! I must agree about the Octopus scene near the end where it attached itself to the Seaview. Obviously not well staged...or trained ! Overall , it's pretty bad acting with shoddy special effects and I still do recommend it - for fun laughs sake. This was probably one of Irwin Allen's Biggest films and I think he thought a lot of it . Barabara Eden went on to play " Genie " on T.V. Micheal Ansara was her Husband . Now that is a cool part about this film ! I always enjoyed seeing real life Husband and Wife teams star in the same movie . Neat !$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the finest films to come out of Hong Kong's 'New Wave' that began with Tsui Hark's "ZU: Warriors of Magic Mountain". Tsui set a tone for the New Wave's approach to the martial arts film that pretty much all the directors of the New Wave (Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung, Wong Jing, Ching Siu Tung, etc.) accepted from then on as a given; namely, the approach to such films thenceforth would need more than a touch of irony, if not outright comedy. "Burning Paradise" put a stop to all that, and with a vengeance.It's not that there isn't humor here; but it is a purely human humor, as with the aged Buddhist priest at the beginning who somehow manages a quick feel of the nubile young prostitute while hiding in a bundle of straw. But this is just as humans are, not even Buddhist priests can be saints all the time.When irony is at last introduced into the film, it is the nastiest possible, emanating from the 'abbot' of Red Lotus Temple, who is a study in pure nihilism such as has never been recorded on film before. He is the very incarnation of Milton's Satan from "Paradise Lost": "Better to rule in Hell than serve in heaven!" And if he can't get to Satan's hell soon enough, he'll turn the world around him into a living hell he can rule.That's the motif underscoring the brutal violence of much of the imagery here: It's not that the Abbot just wants to kill people; he wants them to despair, to feel utterly hopeless, to accept his nihilism as all-encompassing reality. Thus there's a definite sense pervading the Red Temple scenes that there just might not be any other reality outside of the Temple itself - it has become all there is to the universe, and the Abbot, claiming mastery of infinite power, is in charge.Of course, fortunately, the film doesn't end there. Though there are losses, the human will to be just ordinarily human at last prevails. (If you want to know how, see the film!) Yet there is no doubt that, in viewing this film, we visit hell. Hopefully, we do not witness our own afterlives; but we certainly feel chastened by the experience - and somehow better for it over all.$LABEL$ 1
+Now I don't hate cheap movies. I just don't see why you should waste any money for a movie you could shoot with your dad's camcorder. If I rent a movie, I want it to be a MOVIE, not a bunch of people thinking it would be a good idea to waste some MiniDV - Tapes.Maybe I hate this one so much because the guy in the video store said it was great, and it wasn't. Maybe I hate it because it's cheap, has the dumbest plot EVER, the most unrealistic characters EVER and the really, really, really WORST SHOWDOWN in the history of films EVER. Even Tom Savini can't save this.Seriously, this one is a complete waste of time.$LABEL$ 0
+A fabulous book about a fox and his family who does what foxs do. that being stealing from farms and killing prey. until a trio of farmers decide they've had enough of this fox and try in various ways to have the problem "solved". They are of course "out foxed" at every turn and while the trio are camped out at the fox hole the family perform raids against the three farmers land.The"film" version ,and I use the term film very loosely, is more of a god awful pastiche of American heist movies particularly the Oceans movies. They they even have George clooney as Mr fox to to add to the insult and manage to miss the point of the story quite completely. So kudos to them .They'll make lots of money and destroy another classic Roald Dahl children book.$LABEL$ 0
+As soon as it hits a screen, it destroys all intelligent life forms around ! But on behalf of its producers I must say it doesn't fall into any known movie category, it deserves a brand new denomination of its own ! It's a "Neurological drama" ! It saddens and depresses every single neuron inside a person's brain.It's the closest thing one will ever get to a stroke without actually suffering one. It drives you speechless, all you members go numb, your mouth falls open and remains so, and the most strange symptom of all is that you get yourself wishing to go blind and deaf.No small feat for such a sort of a "movie".The only word that comes to my mind just having finished my ordeal is OUTRAGE !!!!!!$LABEL$ 0
+For a film made in Senegal, based, I guess loosely on Carmen, the book, by Prosper Merimee, this film doesn't achieve a mere resemblance of the story that has been made famous as an opera and as other films.Ms. Gai as the Karmen of the title is very good to look at. Her fiery dancing smolders the screen, as is the case with her torrid love scene at the beginning of the film.This is a Karmen that aims to please to all genders, but a real Carmen, she is not!We would like to see Ms. Gai in other films in which her talent is better used than here.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a very noir kind of episode. It begins with Jim returning from a weekend trip with a new girlfriend, the recently divorced Karen Mills (Pat Delaney--daughter in law of John Huston, who knew a few things about noir film) and her daughter. When they arrive, Karen goes in the house while Jim picks up her daughter from the back seat and carries her up to her room. He then discovers Karen has disappeared without a trace. Of course he calls Dennis and when the police arrive, they see no sign of Karen, but find her next door neighbor murdered in the bushes. So of course that makes Jim an immediate suspect.This is a great little mystery and the first half of the story is shown by Rocky asking Jim to go over the story once again. Rocky suggests that by Jim telling him the story he might remember a little detail that he didn't think was important at the time, but now might lead to a clue as to what happened. It's a really well written scene and completes the transition of the Rocky character from a grifter to a concerned parent. It also goes a long way to show that Rocky isn't just some clueless old man either. As he says "You come to me because I'm your father. And I'm smarter than you!" This is one of those times where we see where Jim got his smarts.This episode also features an appearance by hottie Lara Parker, who played Angelique in the "Dark Shadows" series and went on to play Laura Banner, Bruce's wife in the "Incredible Hulk" series a few years later. She looks terrific here.This episode also marks the first mention of the Minette crime family, a name that would keep popping up on the Rockford Files almost whenever they needed a mob family. This time, its Vincent Minette who Rockford helps apprehend.Lt. Diehl (Tom Atkins) makes his first appearance on the series and Dennis is quietly demoted from a police lieutenant that he was on the earlier season one episodes to a police Sargent. I guess they figured it would be better to have Dennis less powerful and add some conflict between Jim and the police. Frankly, they were right, though I prefer the later Lt. Chapman to Lt. Diehl. Not a lot of the typical "Rockford" humor in this episode, but a good mystery with a lot of heart.$LABEL$ 1
+The Royal Rumble has traditionally been one of my favourite events, and i've been a wrestling fan for a good few years now. The other shows may have better matches, but i've always found the actual rumble match to be full of excitement.I'm not going to reveal the winners of any match as i don't see it as fair to ruin the results on a review. I will comment on the quality of them though.We have the standard 4 matches, and then the big rumble event. Two from Smackdown and two from Raw.Shawn Michaels and Edge open up for Raw. This proves to be a good match from two talented guys. This is a match i'd recommend watching. It's hard to sum up without giving away the winner.Next we have the usual Undertaker against some big nasty monster, be whoever it is. Giant Gonzales, Yokozuna, Kamala... well this time it's Heidenreich. Its also a casket match. Typical Undertaker fare. Watch if you're a fan. I have to admit i am, purely for the entertainment factor. It can hardly be regarded as a classic wrestling match.The next two matches are the title matches. For once Smackdown manages to upstage Raw. Their title match is pretty thrilling and enjoyable, but with a anti-climax and let down to end it. Raw's match is a pretty dull and boring affair, which is a pity as i'm a fan of both guys involved.Now to the main reason i love the event, the rumble. It's a pretty good one this year. Coming up to the event we all had a pretty good idea of who might win, and it may not prove a big surprise, but hey, its very enjoyable. There are the usual diverse ways of people being eliminated. There is the token guy who doesn't make it to the ring, the entrant who is ridiculous and we all want to see vanquished, and someone gets eliminated by a previously eliminated combatant. It has its usual highs and lows, and i loved the ending, in particular the Vince McMahon entrance.I'd recommend this show. Not the WWE on top form, but its still good. Add it to your collection.$LABEL$ 1
+I remember this in a similar vein to the Young Ones. We'd stumble back from the pub and watch this or tape it and then spend weeks replaying the lines to each other.We called one of our mates "Zipmole Watkins" after the brilliant episode in which Daniel Peacock has a bit of 'restyling' on his nose by the Back Street Abortionist.Lots of great lines "Remember at 5:30 in the morning you can only get white bread from a brown man. Take it easy guy!" - Gandhi as a local shopkeeper.Tony woodcock was definitely on there in the episode they were teaching Ralph (Daniel Peacock) to be a barman "It's no good Amanda I'll never make it as a bar man" Helen Lederer teaches him to ask people about the match "See the match last night? I thought Woodcock played well" After a string of failed conversations the curly haired Arsenal star was sitting at the bar: "See the match last night?" "Yeah. I thought I played well"We still do odd stupid lines now - "Reg and Ralph..... or....... Ralph and Reg. Reg, Reg... Reg Reg Reg Reg"Lots of very surreal silly moments and very surreal songs from the Flatlets - The Back Street Abortionist a personal favourite with the great ending line - "And he'll mark your packages 'Return To Sender"Good old Danny Peacock - you added a lot to some young drinkers' evenings sir.**Update - I found a couple of episodes on tape - I'm going to upload the Gandhi sketch to Youtube **$LABEL$ 1
+Destined to be a classic before it was even conceptualized. This game deserves all the recognition it deserves. At a time when first-person shooters like Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament are garnering all the attention of computer gamers, graphic adventures are a dying breed. With great pun and humour, The Curse of Monkey Island is a game that people of all age groups would enjoy. Life can only improve after playing The Curse of Monkey Island. *prediction* the sequel Escape from Monkey Island is already destined to be a classic too. I guarantee it.$LABEL$ 1
+Stephane Audran is the eponymous heroine of this beautifully measured study of a small Danish community towards the end of the last century. Two beautiful and musically talented sisters give-up their own prospects of happiness and marriage in order to look-after their ageing father. One day, a French woman, Babette, comes to work for them. After some years she wins the lottery and is determined to do something for the sisters who have taken her in. Her solution is to prepare an exquisite and sumptuous feast, which changes the lives of all those invited. This is a film about human and cultural interaction, reflected in the changing language of the dialogue from Danish to French, and especially between the dutiful sobriety of Protestant northern Europe and the sensuousness of the Catholic south. It is also about human needs, and how warmth and kindness can be expressed and stimulated through the cultivation of the senses. A profoundly uplifting film.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was way over-hyped. A lot of the viewers, who thought this was "amazing" must have been into the old school movies, cause the whole movie is set in the past. At first I thought the movie was just showing something from the past, so I was expecting that faded dreamy like lighting on the characters to pass, but it just going. Basically this was a movie trying to mix the future with the past, and the 2 don't mix very well in this movie, even with special effects. You could actually see the blue screen the actors were working with. There are too many movies out there that do exactly what this movie did, so there is no reason for critics to hype this movie up saying "it's the greatest movie ever done". It's just crap on a stick. It also didn't help that the story line was sooo crappy. I don't understand why Hollywood agreed to have this movie produced, and I also don't understand how actors/actresses in this movie are willing to be in a movie like this. It's almost as though everybody read the script and forgot to read the fine print..."It will all be done on a computer". This was a movie that should have been on a movie network, because nothing about this movie was revolutionary. I'm very upset with myself for paying money to see this. Whatever you do, don't waste your time and money on this movie today or tomorrow.$LABEL$ 0
+It is incredible that there were two films with the same story released in 2005. This one came out a day before that other one with Tom Cruise. Didn't they do that with Truman Capote the same year, and the Zodiac killer last year? Interesting.Writer/Director David Michael Latt didn't have Steven Spielberg's budget and C. Thomas Howell is not Tom Cruise. This is a pale imitation of the blockbuster that grossed $588 million worldwide.The action was minimal and most of the time we were treated to the whining of Rhett Giles, who played a pastor that was giving up on his god.Gary Busey was creepy as an army LT.$LABEL$ 0
+I dunno sometimes...you try and try and try to be charitable towards all the B thru Z grade movies out there, but once in a while a particular movie just tests your patience until you want to slap everyone involved. "Bat People" (which I saw under the title "It Lives By Night") is just such a movie. You can't watch this without thinking that it really should have been an episode on "Night Gallery", and not one of the better ones, either. The movie has something to do with a doctor who gets bitten by a bat and consequently starts to morph into a Were-Bat who drinks human blood. (Actually, you'd think if he was turning into a real bat, he'd be eating mosquitoes by the gallon bucket, but because this is a cheap, lurid horror movie, blood's the word.) In spite of the fact that he has grand-mal seizures at the drop of a hat, and black-out episodes almost every night, his friend and fellow physician, Dr. Mustache Aspen-Extreme, insists that he's just having an 'allergic reaction' to the rabies shots. Meanwhile, the world's most obnoxious and stereotyped county sheriff suspects the doc of being responsible for the brutal murder and exsanguination of several local girls (and one wino). Also meanwhile, the doctor's wife decides that denial IS a river in Egypt and alternately patronizes him and nags him to distraction. It's not so much that the acting is bad - you can tell that the actors are making professional level choices, and are trying to bring some juice and life to the script, even the guy who plays the sheriff. (Okay, it IS pretty bad, but it's bad in a clichéd, wooden, professional way). It's just that everything about the acting, the way the scenes are paced, the costumes, the dialog, the script and the story line in general sets your teeth on edge and makes you want to, well, slap everyone involved.I think the movie had an outside chance at being a spooky, unsettling little cult favorite, BUT:1)The director needed to beat Michael Pataki, an experienced character actor, with a chair until Pataki agreed to ACT, and not just channel Dennis Weaver. 2)He also needed to find a script that made a little more sense with regard to the whole "Bat Bites Human, Who Then Turns Into A Bat" scenario. 3) He also needed the actor who played the doctor to find a little more physically believable bit of stage business for his 'episodes', instead of resorting to "Man Has A Seizure" page from the Little Golden Book of Clichéd Acting Mannerisms. 4) He needed to rework the whole 'wife' character, make her both more intelligent, less shrill and waaaaay more observant. I would never voluntarily watch this film again, except with the help of Mike and the Bots. It's bad, but it isn't bad in a silly, humorous or interesting way. Still better than "Battlefield Earth" or "Waterworld", though.$LABEL$ 0
+Big Fat Liar is what you get when you combine terrific writing, great production, and an emphasis on clever ideas over adolescent pap. The two stars work great together, and--what can I say? Amanda Bynes shines. Putting "Irkel" and Lee Majors in the film were brilliant touches. Watch this film with your kids. If you don't laugh throughout it, you must not have been paying attention.$LABEL$ 1
+Tim Robbins and John Cusack are two actors I have appreciated throughout their careers, and that was the only reason for choosing to watch this movie. Well, all I can say is I totally regretted it! These two great actors humiliate themselves all the way through by performing a number of irrelevant, unimaginative and kitch to the extreme (not that this is bad on its own)sketches that are supposed to make people laugh, but fail to do so. The only reason I can think is that the director was their friend, and they decided to support his movie by starring in it-I can't think of anything else because this movie is SO cheap! Fortunately Tim Robbins and John Cusack haven't disappointed me ever since. I would recommend you to avoid this film, unless you want your opinion about the two actors spoiled.$LABEL$ 0
+On watching this film, I was amazed at how media perception can mould a persons opinion of a celebrity. Karen Carpenter was a carefree, but very unconfident young lady, whose wonderful voice helped her and her brother Richard to soar the charts with wonderful songs. As with all celebrities of today, they were often criticised about their music as well as their looks, styles, etc. THis had a huge effect on Karen who raged a battle against her eating and drastically lost weight, which eventually caused her death. This heart felt film was not initially something which I would have thought of watching. But on starting to view it, then I was hooked. In the same way that the Tina Turner story does, then this film enlightens you and allows you to see into the young performers life. The acting was superb and even after nearly 20 years after it was made, then the directional and the dialogue are still entertaining.I would recommend this to anyone who hasn't yet watched it. It is amazingly accurate and emotionally charged.$LABEL$ 1
+Nothing is sacred. Just ask Ernie Fosselius. These days, everybody has a video camera, and a movie is hardly out before the spoofs start flying, quickly written and shot, and often posted directly to the internet. Spoofs are hot these days, and we go out of our way to make sure filmmakers don't get off on their own self-importance. 25 years ago, when the first Star Wars was made, it was a different world. Filmmaking was the playground of a select few and spoofs were very rare. Then God gave us Hardware Wars. It was shot to look cheap (or was it just cheap?) and the audio was obviously recorded after the fact. Does that take away from the experience? HECK NO! That's what makes it so great! It was raw and unpolished, and hit relentlessly on some of the more pretentious moments of the original movie. From Fluke Starbucker waving around a flashlight instead of a lightsaber (I did that when I was young!) to Chewchilla the Wookie Monster, to Auggie Ben Doggie's "nah, just a little headache" remark, this film short is as much a part of the phenomenon as any of the actual Star Wars films. Rent it. Buy it. Borrow it from a friend. And may the Farce be with you. Always.$LABEL$ 1
+I hated it. I hate self-aware pretentious inanity that masquerades as art. This film is either stupidly inane or inanely stupid. After the first half hour, I fastfowarded through the DVD version, and saw the same juvenile shennanigans over and over and over. I became angered that I had spent hard-earned money for sophomoric clap-trap. Tinting drivel in sepia or blue does not make something a movie, let alone art.$LABEL$ 0
+I usually try to be professional and constructive when I criticize movies, but my GOD!!! This was THE worst movie I have ever seen. Bad acting, bad effects, bad script, bad everything! The plot follows a group of teen cliche's on their way to a rave (that takes place in broad daylight) at a remote island. However, when the group arrives, all they find is an empty dance floor and bloody clothes. Determined to find out what happened to the rest of the party-goers, the clan set's off on a mission through a zombie-infested forest. During this crusade, they are aided by a police chick and a sea captain that just happens to have the right number of weapons to give to each of the kids. They also meet up with Jonathan Cherry and some other survivors. Basically the rest of the movie is a collection of poorly directed action sequences including a far too long shootout outside of the "house of the dead." This fight came complete with cheesy Hollywood violence, redundant clips from the HOTD video game, and sloppy matrix-esque camera rotations. One of the character's even volunteers to sacrifice himself to save the others. Why? Not because he was noble and brave, but because part of his face got scarred by acid a zombie spat on him after he continued to beat the creature long after it had been disabled! I'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy?!?To sum it all up, there is absolutely no point in seeing this movie unless you want to see for yourself just how terrible it is. The theater I was in was more dead than the zombies on the screen, and I'm sure the money I wasted seeing this piece of sh*t could easily cover the costs it took to make it. GRADE: F$LABEL$ 0
+If you like me is going to see this in a film history class or something like that at your school, try to convince your teacher to see something else. believe me, anything is better than this movie. it is slow paced, confusing, boring, poorly constructed, gory, gringy, do I need to go on? It's message is good, but I have seen them been handled better in several other films. The acting isn't even any good. This movie is just even more awkward, as it start off as being funny (not intensional though)because of it's surreal story, than at the end, just becomes uncomfortable to watch.I honestly feel like 1 hour and 40 minutes of my life has been robbed. Why would anyone want to watch a girls describe a threesome for 10 minutes, than watch them drive through a traffic jam for 20 minutes, listen to a hippie who can make sheep appear, witness a sort of rape, than see the female lead role eat her husband.Honestly this movie deserves nothing but a 1/10. And if your not happy with my preview,seriously I'm an open minded guy and I like movies that protest through symbolism, but this movie was just awful. make any excuse you can, to avoid this film.$LABEL$ 0
+This is like a zoology textbook, given that its depiction of animals is so accurate. However, here are a few details that appear to have been slightly modified during the transition to film:- Handgun bullets never hit giant Komodo dragons. It doesn't matter how many times you shoot at the Komodo, bullets just won't go near it.- The best way to avoid being eaten by a giant Cobra, or a giant Komodo dragon, is just to stand there. The exception to this rule is if you've been told to stay very still, in which case you should run off, until the Komodo is right next to you, and then you should stand there, expecting defeat.- Minutes of choppy slow motion footage behind the credits really makes for enjoyable watching.- $5,000 is a memory enhancement tool, and an ample substitute for losing your boating license/getting arrested.- Members of elite army units don't see giant Komodo dragons coming until they are within one metre of the over-sized beings. Maybe the computer-generated nature of these dragons has something to do with it.- When filming a news story aiming on exposing illegal animal testing, a reporter and a cameraman with one camera is all the gear and personnel you will need; sound gear, a second camera, microphones etc are all superfluous.- When you hear a loud animal scream, and one person has a gun, he should take it out and point it at the nearest person.- When you take a gun out, the sound of the safety being taken off will be made, even if your finger is nowhere near the safety- Reporters agree to go half-way around the world in order to expose something - without having the faintest idea what they're exposing. Background research and vague knowledge are out of fashion in modern journalism.- Handguns hold at least 52 bullets in one clip, and then more than that in the next clip. Despite that, those with guns claim that they will need more ammo.- Expensive cameras (also, remember that the reporter only has one camera) are regularly left behind without even a moment's hesitation or regret. These cameras amazingly manage to make their way back to the reporter all by themselves.- The blonde girl really is the stupid one.- The same girl that says not to go into a house because a Komodo dragon can easily run right through it, thus making it unsafe, takes a team into a building made of the same material for protection - and nobody says a word about it.- High-tech facilities look like simple offices with high school chemistry sets.- Genetically-modified snakes grow from normal size to 100 feet long in a matter of a day, but don't grow at all in the weeks either side.- The military routinely destroys entire islands when people don't meet contact deadlines.- Men with guns don't necessarily change the direction they're shooting when their target is no longer right in front of them. Instead, they just keep shooting into the air.- The better looking you are, the greater your chance of surviving giant creatures.- Women's intuition is reliable enough to change even the most stubborn of minds.- Any time you're being hunted by giant creatures is a great time to hit on girls half your age.- Animal noises are an appropriate masking noise for 'swearing' at the same volume.- Old Israeli and Russian planes are regularly used by the US Military.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is awful, I can't even be bothered to write a review on this garbage! All i will say it is one of the most boring films I've ever seen.And the acting is very bad. The boy who plays the main character really annoys me, he's got the same expression on his face through out the movie. I just want to slap him! Basically 80% of the movie is slow motion shots of skateboarders, weird music, and utter sh*t..Apparently I've got to write at least 10 lines of text to submit this comment, so I'll use up a few more lines by saying the lead character has got one of those faces you just want to slap!Meh i give up..THIS MOVIE SUCKS !!!!$LABEL$ 0
+Why do movie makers always go against the author's work? I mean, yes, things have to be condensed for the sake of viewer interest, but look at Anne of Green Gables. They did a wonderful job of combining important events into a cohesive whole that was simply delightful. I can't believe that they chose to combine three novels together for Anne of Avonlea into such a dreadful mess. Look at all they missed out on by doing that . . . Paul Irving, little Elizabeth, the widows, Windy Poplars . . . and Anne's college years, for heaven's sake!!! Wouldn't it have been delightful to meet Priscilla and all the rest of the Redmond gang? Kevin Sullivan should have taken things one movie at a time, instead of jumbling them all together and combining characters and events the way he did. This movie was good, if you leave the novels out of it!! But L.M. Montgomery's beautiful work is something that should not be denied. This movie was a let down after seeing the successful way he brough Anne of Green Gables to life.$LABEL$ 0
+I can't believe that those praising this movie herein aren't thinking of some other film. I was prepared for the possibility that this would be awful, but the script (or lack thereof) makes for a film that's also pointless. On the plus side, the general level of craft on the part of the actors and technical crew is quite competent, but when you've got a sow's ear to work with you can't make a silk purse. Ben G fans should stick with just about any other movie he's been in. Dorothy S fans should stick to Galaxina. Peter B fans should stick to Last Picture Show and Target. Fans of cheap laughs at the expense of those who seem to be asking for it should stick to Peter B's amazingly awful book, Killing of the Unicorn.$LABEL$ 0
+This film really used its locations well with some amazing shots, dark and disturbing the film moves very slowly, but constantly keeps you watching. Modern Love worked well in the Gold Coast Film Fantastic program this year offering audiences a glimpse at an Australian Cinema that is usually neglected. Most importantly it is refreshing to see Australian cinema not taking on the cliché Aussie characters and story lines we have seen done to death over the years. This film would compliment any festival and will open debate after its screenings. The performances and characters are well developed, and the cinematography is fantastic. An interesting exploration into family relationships, and environments.$LABEL$ 1
+Strangely enough this movie never made it to the big screen in Denmark, so I had to wait for the video release. My expectations where high but they where in no way disappointed. As always with Ang Lee there is fantastic acting, an intelligent and thrilling plot that has you guessing right till the end and superb filming. Along with Unforgiven this is easily one of the two best westerns of the 90`s.People who expect something along the line of Mel Gibson in The Patriot(corny) or Braveheart(acceptable) will be sourly disappointed, all others who appreciate the above mentioned qualities will have a fantastic time watching it. 9 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is so bad - dialogues, story, actors and actresses - everything! - that it's hard to imagine that we'll see a worse movie this year or in the following years. "Love's Brother" (set in Australia among Italian immigrants) has nothing but shallow clichés about Italian culture to offer, and it is quite telling that even the Italians from and in Italy speak ENGLISH in the film. The message of the film - ugly people have to marry ugly people, beautiful people have to marry beautiful people - is truly discomforting. Giovanni Ribisi is quite good in films like 'Suburbia' or 'Lost in Translation', but here his pseudo-Italian accent is hard to bear. See this film at your own risk. Trash as trash can!$LABEL$ 0
+I don't leave IMDb comments about films but this.... this film was bad. very bad. I fast forwarded through most of it, stopping where I hoped the acting had improved since the last scene, only to continue with the fast forwards. Formula plot -- once the obvious murderers were discounted, there was only the one left. And that was in the first five minutes. Scene by scene it felt as though I'd already read the script before because there were no surprises, no mystery. The Tori character... bad bad acting. A true waste of time on DVD and a definite 'let's go to bed early' option if it's the only thing on television. If you watch this film, you will find yourself realising you'll never be able to get back the time you've just wasted.$LABEL$ 0
+In Nordestina, a village in the middle of nowhere in Pernambuco, Antônio (Gustavo Falcão) is the youngest son of his mother, who had uninterruptedly cried for five years. When he is a young man, he falls in love for Karina (Mariana Ximenes), a seventeen years old teenager that dreams to see the world and becomes an actress. Antônio promises Karina to bring the world to Nordestina, and once in Rio de Janeiro, he participates of a sensationalist television show and promises to travel to the fifty years ahead in the future or die for love with a deadly machine he had invented. Fifty years later, Antônio (Paulo Autran) tries to fix what was wrong in his travel."A Máquina" is one of the best Brazilian movies I have recently seen. The refreshing and original story is a poetic and magic fable of love that will certainly thrill the most skeptical and tough viewer, in a unique romance. The direction is excellent; the screenplay is awesome; the cinematography and colors are magnificent; the cast leaded by Gustavo Falcão, the icon Paulo Autran and Mariana Ximenes is fantastic, with marvelous lines; the soundtrack has some beautiful Brazilian songs highlighting Geraldo Azevedo and Rento Rocha's "Dia Branco". If this movie is distributed overseas, please thrust me and rent it or buy the DVD because I bet you will love the story that will bring you into tears. My vote is nine.Title (Brazil): "A Máquina – O Combustível é o Amor" ("The Machine – The Fuel is Love")$LABEL$ 1
+"I like cheap perfume better; it doesn't last as long..." - Ralph Meeker's convict character (Lawson) tells this to Barbara Stanwyck's Helen character, after he gets a whiff of the perfume that she picked out w/her husband in Tijuana...! This line cracked me up, and also seemed like a metaphor for this film - that cheap is better than expensive, because a cheap perfume-loving man who has a way with a 2 x 4 is a better man to have around in the long run! I agree with some of the other comments posted about Helen's attraction to Lawson. Even though her narration states that she wants Lawson to be put away, she did seem attracted to his fiery nature, and that passion he stirred up in her wouldn't likely wash away with the tide!$LABEL$ 1
+I am a huge fan of Harald Zwart, and I just knew that I had to see this movie, even though I can't say I'm a soccer fan. But watching this just filled my heart with joy, and I had a great time in the movies watching it.Bjørn Fast Nagell does a tremendous job directing this movie, and even though you notice the main characters are new at acting, they grow with the movie and makes it what it is. Even though it is supposed to be a soccer movie, there is surprisingly little soccer in it. The whole idea is to show the six guys making up the word N O R W A Y on their trip to the World Cup in soccer playing in Germany this year. If you're only gonna see one Norwegian movie this year, this is the one..$LABEL$ 1
+Based on the best-selling novel "The Dismissal", The Missing Star, the latest film by acclaimed Italian director Gianni Amelio, is the story of the growing friendship between an older Italian maintenance man and a young interpreter he hires in Shanghai to be his guide through China. Vincenzo Buonovolonta is the Maintenance Manager at a steel mill in Italy that has been shut down and the blast furnace sold to China. When Vincenzo (Sergio Castellitto) discovers that a control unit in the furnace is defective and potentially dangerous, he travels to China to find the steel mill where the part has been sold in hopes of preventing a fatal accident.The film, of course, is about the journey not the destination to use a familiar cliché and, on that journey, we are privy to an engaging look at China with all its immense beauty and complexity, via the outstanding cinematography by Luca Bigazzi. The film takes us to Shanghai, Wuhan, Chongquing, Baotou, and a trip along the Yangstze River showing us coastal areas that are scheduled to be flooded when the Three Gorges Dam is fully operative, a Chinese mega-project that has resulted in the displacement of 1.2 million people. The trip brings the travelers face to face with poverty, overcrowded housing, and children left to fend for themselves.The film revolves around the relationship between Vincenzo and translator Liu Hua (Tai Ling) who first meet in Italy where his impatience with her translations at a dinner meeting causes her to lose her job. When he tracks her down in Shanghai she is working at a library and resistant to Vincenzo's approach. Looking at his offer to help him in his travels in China as little more than a well paying job, she reluctantly agrees to accompany him. Their relationship, however, grows as they move from city to city, her interpretive skills much in evidence to help the bewildered Vincenzo who does not own a cell phone.As they slowly open up to each other, they expose each other's vulnerability and the film delves into their past and present life and how they arrived at their present situation. We meet Liu's son (Lin Wang) at the home of her grandmother. In China's one child policy, he is one of the unwanted children who have been "hidden" since the father of the boy abandoned the family. Although the meeting between Vincenzo and the boy is casual, their relationship becomes central to how the story plays out.Castellitto is an excellent actor (though one longs for a younger Enrico Lo Verso in this role). However, he is emotionally distant throughout the film, his expression rarely changing from a far away hangdog expression. Though Tai Ling brings a great deal of presence to the role, her relationship with the much older Vincenzo never seemed real to me and the ending seemed to exist only in a reality known as the movies. Though Amelio is one of my favorite directors, coming on the heels of the brilliant Keys to the House, Missing Star is a disappointment.$LABEL$ 1
+This is sad this movie is the tops this should at least be in the top 250 movies here. This is still the best Action movie ever done. The action movies of today are badly done The actors and action directors do not no how to do it fighting and stunts properly. only some no how to do it mostly from Hong Kong like Jackie Chan. The stunts are so clever and wild i do not think we will see the likes of ever. The start where Chan and his team go down the hill car chase through the hill town is just amazing. The end fight stunts are for me the best fight stunts ever put to film. The end stunt sliding down the pole crashing through the glass Jackie was badly hurt.$LABEL$ 1
+I found it very very difficulty to watch this after the initial 5 minutes of the film. I managed to stomach 45-50 minutes before switching it off in disgust and watching Monster House instead (which, by the way, is great fun).The story has massive holes in it. The plot line is hugely over stated and dull, the acting is awful, especially from Justin TImberlake who should really stick to what he is good at (looking daft and singing like a castrato). Morgan Freeman looked incredibly uncomfortable, especially when made to dance around to rock music for no apparent reason half way through the film after him and Timberlake meet. Freeman and Timberlake's characters seem to be supposed to have some sort of father/son relationship of sorts or something, which simply isn't evident at all apart from the fact that; though Freeman's character seems to have nothing but contempt for the ignorant and rather stupid character of Timberlake, he never the less pulls out all the stops to help him uncover a completely ridiculous cover up.It would take some incredible suspension of disbelief to give any credit to the story line, which is simply absurd and blown out of all proportion.Don't watch this film, it is a pure waste of time.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is a real low budget production, yet I will not say anything more on that as it already has been covered. I give this movie a low rating for the story alone, but I met the director the night I saw the film and he gave me an additional reason to dislike the movie. He asked me how I enjoyed it and I told him that it was not easy to like. My main objection was the lack of foundation for the relationship between the two main characters, I was never convinced that they were close. I also told him that the scene where the main characters were presented as children becoming friends was too late in the film.He told me that the flashback scenes were not in the original script. That they were added because he felt like I did that the two main characters did not appear close. He went on to explain that these scenes were not filmed to his satisfaction as they were out of money. I agree that they did not do much for the film.Another fact about the movie, that I was not aware of, is the actor who had the lead wrote the script based on his own personal experience. This is usually a bad move as some writers do not take into consideration the emotional reaction the viewer. The story is so close to home that the writer make too many assumption as to the audience's reaction to his own tragedy. And the story is tragic. However, it did not work for me as I never cared for any of the characters, least of all the lead. What was presented were two evil people out to make a buck by any means, regardless who gets hurt. When Ms. Young's character decides to give up he evil ways, it appears that she does so because she is ineffective, not because she knows she is doing wrong. If the movie has a message then I suspect that only the writer is aware of it.$LABEL$ 0
+I watch this movie without big expectations, I think everyone should do. It's a great Tv-serie and of course we couldn't compare it with Gone With the wind, but it's still nice to watch. It's also weird to see a different Scarlett. Joanne Whalley don't play Scarlett with passion and fire like Vivien Leigh, but I believe that Scarlett is changed when she became older. Don't expect to much of this just watch but don't watch like: I think this would be horrible.$LABEL$ 1
+What a fun filled, sexy movie! They certainly don't make them like this anymore. 4 sexy au pairs arrive in London and have all sorts of sexual misadventures. The tone is oddly innocent, as the considerable nudity evolves out of stock farcical situations, rather than any overt sexual desire on the part of the characters. It is only when the actresses accidentally lose their clothes that the male characters become rampant. Richard O' Sullivan literally gets 'Randi'(sic). The film certainly betrays the origins of the softcore feature as lying in the nudie cuties and naturism films of the old school. My special interest in 'Au Pair Girls' is that I am a huge fan of Gabrielle Drake. If any actress has ever looked better naked (she's slim but wonderfully curvy), or clothed, come to that (I've loved her since the original run of UFO - who else could carry off a purple wig!), I'll eat my hat.$LABEL$ 1
+Jackass Number Two is easily the most hilarious film of 2006, beating the also hilarious Clerks II. It is one of the best sequels in recent memory, beating Jackass The Movie in every way. Now, this film may be the funniest, but it is also the most offensive, appalling, and utterly disgusting. You will find yourself feeling sick several times throughout the film. I'm completely serious when I say don't eat anything before watching or during this film, because chances are that it will literally come back to haunt you. Keep the drinking to a minimum as well. You've been warned, because, just like the tagline says, it will make you beg for mercy.Jackass Number Two follows the crazy men from the hit show Jackass, Johnny Knoxville, Bam Margera, Ryan Dunn, Steve-O, Chris 'Party Boy' Pontius, Preston Lacy, Ehren McGhehey, Dave England, Brandon DiCamillo, and Jason 'Wee Man' Acuna (Chris 'Raab Himself' Raab is absent) as they perform the most outrageous, life-threatening, and revolting stunts imaginable. I'm not going to tell what the stunts are, but I will warn you that any scene with an animal will be sickening or psychologically frightening, and that one cast member (once again, not telling) will flirt with death several times in the film.What makes Jackass Number Two so entertaining is not the stunts themselves, but how the cast reacts to them and to doing them. To put it simple, if they loved doing it and had a blast, you will too (this goes for 99% of the stunts). All the stunts are very original, and 90% of them are never-before-seen. You will witness a few recycled ones, but they're amped up. You wouldn't think directing really factors into a movie like this, but it does; Jeff Tremaine's direction makes the movie so much funnier, because he provides guidance for the gang in their comedic timing, which is simply brilliant on his part. He could have just sat back and slept throughout filming (actually, you'll see in the film that he did sleep through some filming), but he went out there and helped these crazy guys make the stunts as funny as he could. I give Mr. Tremaine two thumbs up for that. Another great thing about Jackass is its bonanza of celebrity cameos, and this time they include BMX legend Mat Hoffman, skateboard god Tony Hawk, director/actor Jay Chandrasekhar (Super Troopers & Beerfest), actor Luke Wilson, Miami Dolphins star Jason Taylor, and director/actor Mike Judge (Office Space). The scenes with Hoffman, Taylor, and Chandrasekhar are among the funniest in the film, as it's even funnier to see these men as a part of the film.Jackass Number Two is one of the most politically incorrect, morally degrading, and just plain wrong movies of all time, if not the most. Despite this, it is so original and so hilarious that you won't care about that. You'll be gasping for air, laughing so hard you'll be crying, and jumping out of your seat laughing throughout the entire film. Due to the explicit and potentially disturbing graphic content of this film, no one under 18 should watch this film. You've been warned. I hope you enjoy Jackass Number Two as much as I did.10/10 --spy$LABEL$ 1
+Turn your backs away or you're gonna get in big trouble out of MY BOYFRIEND'S BACK! Only a happy ending can bloom your innocence that is full of gloom and doom at the very moment you're watching this. It's safe to say that the entire movie falls apart, with a sarcastic approach and tribute to zombie shows that defy nonsense to the max. We get a name like "Johnny" every so often, and this "Johnny" has nowhere to go. There isn't a specific reason to why our "dead corpse" crawls out of his grave just to survive until prom night, so that renders the movie totally useless. Without a feeling of sorrow, his mother is convinced to tell the doctor that he's dead. Johnny takes a bite out of Eddie's arm afterwards. The viewer is asked a tough question: Why does the movie have to be this cornball? There is an answer. Any resemblance to all persons living or dead is purely coincidental. "Living" is a coincidence. "Dead" has nothing in common with the movie. Show this one to your girlfriend and she'll skip the senior prom, turning your life into a deserted ruin. Blah!!!$LABEL$ 0
+I remember the events of this movie, the ill fated cruise of Donald Crowhurst in 1968, in the Golden Globe single handed around the world yacht race. I was a 13 year old, living in England. The previous year Francis Chichester (later Sir Francis; he was knighted for his exploits) had completed the first solo circumnavigation of the globe. I remember it mostly because we were given time off school to watch his return (on a grainy black and white TV!) and then his knighting by the Queen. It provoked a huge outpouring of patriotic fervor in the UK. It all seems so quaint now. Chichester became a national hero, but he had stopped half way, in Australia, to re-fit his yacht, so the next logical step for yachtsmen was to attempt the journey without stopping.It's important to remember that this was a world pre-GPS, when communications on land were still pretty erratic, never mind in the middle of the ocean. Now with GPS receivers that fit on a key chain and calculate a position within a metre anywhere on earth, it's hard to recall a time when you could go to sea and quite literally, vanish. As Donald Crowhurst did. A number of yachtsmen signed up (all men back then), including mystery man, Crowhurst. Essentially a weekend sailor, Crowhurst had not been a spectacular success in any previous enterprise, including careers in the British Army, the Air Force and as an electronics entrepreneur selling navigation aids. He wanted to do something big with his life, and he saw the five thousand pound first prize (well over $100,000 in today's money) and the ensuing publicity as a means of kick starting his business. He signed a deal with a sponsor that proved more watertight than his boat, and which meant failure would bankrupt him, and soon found himself a popular figure with journalists as he prepared for the race. Now the Brits always love the idea of the gutsy amateur taking on the 'pros'. (Think Eddie the Eagle losing endless Olympic ski jump competitions, and the amateur riders who regularly start the Grand National horse race.) The public queued up to see him set off, but his boat wasn't really ready, and even as he started (the last competitor to leave the UK) Crowhurst must have known he didn't seriously have a chance. But too much was riding on him to quit.In the wonderful archive footage we see doubt written all over his poor wife's face. Left behind with their 4 children, she is interviewed movingly throughout the film, together with one of Crowhurst's sons. She was in a no-win situation. Had she attempted to stop him, she would have been considered a spoiler, but afterward she was riven with doubt, as to whether she could have saved his life by stopping him. Faced with the certain truth that his boat was leaking and would never make it through the southern oceans, and unable to turn around and face ridicule, bankruptcy and ignominy, Crowhurst devised a plan to cheat. Laid up offshore Argentina and Brazil, out of radio contact, he waited for the leaders to round Cape Horn and start back up the Atlantic, thinking he could sneak in at the end of the line and pretend he had sailed all the way around the globe. He elaborately falsified his logs, and made 16mm films and audio recordings to back up his plan. But as one after another the other competitors dropped out, he realized that in fact he would come in 2nd and his logs would be scrutinized. Unable to face certain detection, his journal suggests he lost his grip on reality and eventually committed suicide. His yacht was found. He never was. This beautifully edited film also follows the journey of Bernard Moitessier, an experienced and enigmatic French sailor, who was in second place and certain of the fastest journey prize, when he abruptly left the race, unable to deal with the clamour and publicity he knew he would face, and sailed into the wide blue yonder, eventually pulling up some 10 months later in Tahiti. Having spent some seven years working at sea myself, (albeit on very different ships to these) I well understand the pull of the ocean. Standing on deck, seeing water in every direction to the horizon, knowing there's a couple of miles of water below you, nothing between you and oblivion but a thin metal hull, without easy access to TV or radio (even nowadays on most working ships, you feel pretty isolated), it's possible to truly escape from the responsibilities of everyday life for a while. There is some thoughtful analysis of what drives people to attempt this kind of very long, lonely journey and the effect it has on the human mind. Most people would think that attempting to raise 4 children is adventure enough, but much is made of the need for self discovery in the hardships at sea, the search for self. I strongly suspect that Robin Knox Johnston, the ex navy guy who won the race (and many since) probably knew pretty well who he was before he set off, which was why he succeeded not just in winning the race but also retaining his sanity en route. Those who went searching for something profound within themselves, may not have entirely liked what they found. The marvelous archive footage of Britain in the late 60s is almost reason enough to watch this, (did it really look quite that bad? I don't remember it looking quite so dowdy, but perhaps we blot out the worst aspects of the past?) but overall, it is an excellently well made and engrossing movie. Highly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+"Ally McBeal" was a decent enough show, but it was very overrated. The characters become boring after a while and the jokes begin to fall short.I think it chose an appropriate point in time to leave - it was starting to outstay its welcome.$LABEL$ 0
+Bad, ambient sound. Lots of shuffling. Loooong pointless scenes. Eg: guy sees interesting woman in lobby. Manages to stay there and watch her under the guise of waiting for the building supervisor to get a package. Says nothing. Stares creepily. More shuffling and other irritating ambient noise. Wait. Wait. Wait. Guy says nothing. Woman looks frightened or at least slightly disturbed about it and rightly so. Manager comes back with package. Guy goes up to the apartment with the package.Another example: the guy and his host sit around watching bad TV. More ambient noise and shuffling. Wait wait wait wait. Guy wanders off to bed. If you can stand to sit through any more of this movie, you get to watch them watch TV again later.If you want a story, any dialogue, entertainment, or a well crafted film, look elsewhere.$LABEL$ 0
+Okay so I love Aidan Quinn's acting even with a bad script. This is not the case in The Assignment. As other viewers have said, this was a movie I stumbled upon on cable and got so into it I didn't want it to end. Take one Cuban American Navy Ofc.(Quinn)who is an upright, uptight soldier and family man. Add a crazed agent(Donald Sutherland) who is looking for the worlds most notorious terrorist and add a Ben Kingsley and you have "The Assignment". Sutherland is a witness of the most notorious terrorist Carlos actions in a cafe on a lovely day where he is so profoundly rocked at this mans evil that his sole reason to live is to get this man as long as he draws breath.Take one soldier on a pass in Israel who is a dead ringer for this man and is beaten and held by Kingsley until they realize they have a plan. By taking on Carlos by being him, or being forever responsible for never helping rid the world of him, makes for a very heavy assignment and guilt trip. By not helping his country he is bound as a man and his military duty to chose wisely. So the training begins. Lets say Carlos training is right up there with the academy of arts and holocausts. When I say this intense and wonderfully casted,scripted and executed film rates the best, I am not understating it. All three actors could save almost any script..together this is a movie to be seen from frame one to credits. I am not into terrorism or movies about it but I got hooked! Bravo again to Aidan Quinn who for once plays a heavy that could hold up to any actor including Gary Oldman. Thats a compliment. Rent it and get lots of popcorn. Oh did I mention the sex?? It works better than "Last Tango!"and its educational.$LABEL$ 1
+You remember the Spice Girls movie and how bad it was (besides the songs), well their manager Simon Fuller (also this band's manager) makes the same error putting S Club (another of my favourite bands) in their own film. S Club: Tina Barrett, Jon Lee, Bradley Mcintosh, Jo O'Meara, Hannah Spearritt and Rachel Stevens (what happened to the seventh member, Paul Cattermole?) basically ask their boss for a break, they go on, and while there they see themselves on TV! Three of them swap, and vice versa, half discover they are clones made by a greedy scientist, and the other half just get themselves in trouble. Also starring Gareth Gates as a clone of himself. This film may have more of a plot than Spice Girls' film did, but besides the songs "Bring It All Back", "Don't Stop Movin'" and "Never Had A Dream Come True" this is no goo reason to see this film. Not too long after the band split for good. Adequate!$LABEL$ 0
+I saw SEA OF DUST as part of a NYC screening audience several years ago. I enjoyed the film at that time, so I was a little confused by some of the amendments that had been made since. Perhaps it's my memory, but there seemed to be chunks of exposition missing from the version that was shown at the Rhode Island Film Festival. I'm really not sure which version I prefer, but I can honestly say that I found something to appreciate it both.Let me begin by warning everyone that this is not a popcorn movie. Although it's been promoted as a Hammer Films tribute, people expecting a showdown between Van Helsing and Dracula are going to be sorely disappointed. There's some cleavage, but no nudity (a staple of the British production house's later movies). And while SEA OF DUST is filled with gorgeous eye candy (it really is shot like a sixties film), and features Hammer starlet Ingrid Pitt, it's not like any of the company's pictures in tone or execution. This film is very dark, very confusing, and (at times) very funny. I don't remember the earlier version being quite as nutty as this one, but that's not a bad thing (especially the showdown in the Black Forest that plays like a Three Stooges short). And some of Ms Pitt's rantings are quite entertaining. It's like somebody wound her up and turned her loose.The uniqueness of this film doesn't lie with the borrowed details, though. It's in the ideas. As an occasional Sci Fi Channel viewer, I've regularly taken the network to task for its one-note variations on a theme (CGI monster kills, then gets destroyed). SEA OF DUST is so full of ideas that you start to trip over them after a while.But don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining. If anything, I applaud these guys for making such an enterprising low-budget picture and for having the courage to pack it with so many concepts. It's not going to be a picnic for people who hate to think at the movies (you know who you are). But for the rest of us, those of us who are tired of the formula of modern horror films, the predictability, the lack of respect for the audience, this may just be your ticket.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a good time to say how good I think of this site: it gives me the opportunity to feedback all the frustration I lived for two hours, awaiting for something to happens, for something to be said, to be shown, to be insinuated subtly, for a symbol, an idea, whatever. No, just long, endless violins, alternated by a tired piano. Tired voices, tired actors and bored characters and situations. Boring is the long death of the mind, and this movie is, from that point of view, a public enemy. How many thousands of live hours will be still stolen to another thousands of innocent spectators. I don't claim for my money back, just for my time and the time of persons I invited to watch this thing... oh God !$LABEL$ 0
+I'm a Christian. I have always been skeptical about movies made by Christians, however. As a rule, they are "know-nothings" when it comes to movie production. I admire TBN for trying to present God and Jesus in a positive and honest way on the screen. However, they did a hideous job of it. The acting was horrible, and unless one is familiar with the Bible in some fashion, one COULD NOT have understood what the movie was trying to get across. Not only was the movie terribly made, but the people who made it even had some facts wrong. However, in this "critique", those facts are irrelevent and too deep to delve into. In short, the Omega Code is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen, and I would not recommend it to anyone, except for comic relief from the every day grind.$LABEL$ 0
+Having finally caught up with this "masterpiece," it strikes me that it must have seemed terribly clever, in its day. It's French, arty, under-played to the point of agony, and ultimately downbeat. But viewed from the vantage of 37 years in the future, it's also just a bit vacuous, pretentious and unsatisfying.Others have summarized the story, but I don't think anyone has pointed out the dramatic flaw at the heart of this film: the lead characters, Corey and Vogel, really don't deserve what they get. They play square within their code, never harm anyone who didn't ask for it, and show great courage and initiative. Moreover, Corey in particular is victimized by his former gangland 'friend,' who stole his girl and who repeatedly tries to have him killed, apparently just because he (Corey) dared to 'borrow' a few thousand francs. These are guys who really ought to be due for a break! Instead, things go far worse for them than they really need to, within the logic of the story.One might contend that this is the whole point: that the real villains never get caught; that they collude with the police as needed, sell out their friends, and always come out on top. But that's not shown either. Corey's old gangster friend is not shown colluding with the police. Nor is he shown gloating over his victory. In fact, after materializing several times when he's needed, he's nowhere to be seen at the conclusion, leaving a dramatic tension (his feud with Corey) entirely unresolved!Nonetheless, I'd say this film is well worth seeing for its beautiful photography, its slow, deliberate pacing, its great deadpan performances, its elaborate heist sequence, and its encapsulation of the art-film style of the late 1960s.$LABEL$ 1
+Thoughtless, ignorant, ill-conceived, career-killing (where is the talented Angela Jones now?), deeply unfunny garbage. It's no wonder Reb Braddock hasn't directed anything else since - anyone who has a chance to make his first film on his own rules, based on his own script, with the help of Quentin Tarantino himself, and creates something like THIS, anyone who feels that THIS was a story worth telling to the world, doesn't deserve a second break. Under the circumstances, the performances are good - the actors do what they're told to do, and they do it well. It's just that they shouldn't have done it in the first place. 0 out of 4.$LABEL$ 0
+Jim Carrey is one of the funniest and most gifted comedians in film today. With his hyperactive spontaneity and his rubber face he can just go crazy, and we love him for it. He has the ability to make mediocre comedies (ala Ace Ventura), and turn them into decent comedic outings. Or, in the case of 'Liar Liar', make them some of the most hilarious contemporary comedies around. Carrey has also proven himself capable of tackling dramas. He was excellent in both 'Man on the Moon' and 'The Truman Show.' The guy is remarkable.Then comes 'Bruce Almighty,' an ideal vehicle for Carrey, and a premise that should have worked; Carrey, after complaining about God and how his life stinks, is enabled with God's powers. However, the script is pure recycled garbage. Now, no matter how bad a script is, Carrey's improvisation alone sometimes makes an unfunny scene funny. The problem is that there are very few opportunities for Carrey to be unleashed because so much of the comedy relies on silly special effects, only some of which are amusing. Carrey is rarely able to improvise because he has to work around the special effects. The writers apparently thought that all these special effects and superpower sequences were funny, because the rest of the movie is simply filler giving Carrey nothing else to work with besides a whiny character who is absolutely humorless. He seems more like a 5-year yearning for our attention, wanting the viewer to find what he is doing funny, when it's really just annoying.I have always enjoyed Jennifer Aniston on 'Friends' and she was superb in last year's 'The Good Girl.' She too has a gift for comedy, but with the script as linear as it is, she is simply given the part of the bitter girlfriend. She comes across as nagging, grumpy, and there is no chemistry between the two stars.'Bruce Almighty' should have been a comedy that works. But it doesn't even have the guts to tackle the subject matter that it's making fun of; religion. A few minor giggles (his internet is Yehweh), but instead it's just turned into a comedic superpower comedy. Not to mention that it's tone shifts from silly to heavy-handed, and even black comedy at times. The movie fails on nearly every level. That's not to see it is entirely devoid of laughs, but it's close. Any movie that feels the need to incorporate scenes of a dog peeing to get it's laughs has problems. But hey, if you find pee jokes funny, go for it.$LABEL$ 0
+Shameless Screen Entertainment is a relatively new and British (I think) DVD-label, specializing in smutty and excessively violent cult movies – mostly Italian ones - from the glorious eras when everything was possible, namely from the late 60's up until the mid-80's. The label's selection feels like a crossover between the oeuvres of "Mondo Macabro" and "No Shame" (they probably even borrowed the name of the latter) and they already released some really rare sick Italian puppies like "Ratman", "My Dear Killer", "Killer Nun", "Phantom of Death" and "Torso". "The Frightened Woman" was completely unknown to me, but since fellow reviewers from around here, whose opinions I hugely value, described it as one of the greatest and most mesmerizing psychedelic euro-sexploitation movies of its era, I didn't hesitate to pick it up. This is a very weird film and probably not suitable for about 99% of the average cinema-loving audiences. If you're part of that remaining 1%, however, you're in for a really unique treat. The style, atmosphere and content are similar to Jess Franco's "Succubus" and Massimo Dallamano's "Venus in Furs", yet they're both widely considered as classics whereas "The Frightened Woman" is virtually unknown. It's all a matter of profiling and good marketing, I guess. The story revolves on a literally filthy rich doctor (he lives in a gigantic secluded mansion, owns multiple old-timer cars and has a very impressive collection of artsy relics including a life-size mannequin doll replica of himself) with a bizarre and slightly offbeat attitude towards women. He considers them a threat for the survival of the male race and thus spends his days kidnapping, humiliating and sexually abusing random he picks up from the street. Dr. Sayer then abducts the ambitious journalist Maria with the intention to completely crush her female spirit, but he slowly falls for her. Just he starts to believe in actual love, she strikes back with a vengeance. This really isn't for everyone, but if you can appreciate moody & sinisterly sexy ambiances, bizarre scenery toys and psychedelic touches that seem utterly implausible and surreal, you can consider this one a top recommendation. It's slow, stylishly sleazy and totally bonkers… Shameless Entertainment, all right!$LABEL$ 1
+The key scene in Rodrigo Garcia's "Nine Lives" comes when Sissy Spacek, hidden away in a hotel room where she is carrying on an affair with Aiden Quinn, find a nature documentary on television, at which point Quinn notes the contrivance of such things--disparate footage is edited into one scene, predators and preys are thrown together in order to capture the moment--all to force connections where none actually exist. Characters in the nine shorts that make up this film occasionally spill over into each others stories, but none of them ever seem to really connect. A woman preparing for a violent confrontation with her abusive father is later seen working in a hospital room where another woman is preparing for a mastectomy. A man who runs into an old girlfriend in a supermarket and sees how his life should have been later hosts, with his current wife, a dinner party for an unhappy couple. Garcia arranges some of his characters in front of each other, but none of the subsequent stories ever really build on what came before.Garcia's first film, the wonderful, overlooked "Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her," also had a short-story structure and overlapping characters, but there were fewer of them and they had a lot more room to breathe and grow. The gimmicky premise of "Nine Lives," that each of its nine stories is told in a single, unbroken take in real time, never allows the film to build up any real dramatic tension or momentum. It's also a fairly visually ugly movie. Interior shots are often murky and hard to watch, while other scenes--particularly one where a girl walks back and forth between rooms to talk to her uncommunicative parents--are rendered annoying by the camera-work. Given that this is Garcia's third film and that he has a respectable history of directing for television, the direction in this film is rather surprisingly amateurish. Like fellow filmmaker-child-of-a-great-writer Rebecca Miller, Garcia (son of Gabriel Garcia Marquez) is focused on the writing and character aspects of his films often to the detriment of the film-making ones.Individual scenes are touching and even affecting. I did like Jason Issacs kissing Robin Wright Penn's pregnant belly. And Joe Mantegna whispering lovingly to his wife as she slips into pre-surgery sedation. And Sissy Spacek stealing a few happy moments away from her life with Aiden Quinn before brought back to it with a phone call from her daughter. But the film (unlike "Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her") feels more like an exercise than actual drama. We are just watching people act.$LABEL$ 0
+MINOR PLOT SPOILERS AHEAD!!!How did such talented actors get involved in such mindless retreadeddrivel? Robert DeNiro plays a Dumb Hollywood version of the standardviolence prone tough cop (i.e., he beats up the bad guys and rolls hiseyes at cops who prefer to stick by the book), and Eddie Murphy plays anot so tough cop who would rather be an actor (i.e., he screams out,"Freeze, police!" and has his "tough look" down pat). Naturally, theyare partnered when Bobby's loose cannon tactics get him in hot waterwith the media and he is essentially blackmailed into starring in a"Cops"-like reality show. Take a breath, cuz that's as funny as itgets.No energy was put into the script - it feels like a pale retread ofevery copy buddy movie tossed into a blender with "15 Minutes" starring,yes, DeNiro himself as, pretty much the character he is playing here. The jokes fall flat, the action feels listless, and no one seems to behaving a good time. It's dead on the screen.Please don't waste your time. Even if you have an overwheming affinityfor one of the actors - avoid it and do them a favor. Becauze if thismakes money, these kinda of scripts will be deeemed perfectly acceptablefor actors of their quality.And to Mr. DeNiro. You used to make serious films. I remember them -they were good. You were nominated for awards for them - remember howmuch fun that was? Now after "Analyze This" (which was good), "Meet theParents" (which was also good), and "The Adventures of Rocky andBullwinkle" (which was NOT good), I think we need to see you parodyingyourself less, and BEING yourself more. "Casino" feels like a long timeago. And no, I don't count "15 Minutes" as serious Bobby. Anyone whotook that media satire seriously must get their weekly world news$LABEL$ 0
+I can't really see how anyone can have any interest whatsoever in seeing this movie. A woman meets a man, he wants to play games, she too, but only until she realise what she's missing. She leaves, and that's it really. It took 9 1/2 weeks before Elizabeth (Kim Basinger) left John (Mickey Rourke). She should have left him after 30 minutes and ended our misery.$LABEL$ 0
+A major disappointment. This was one of the best UK crime drama / detective shows from the 90's which developed the fascinating title character played by Scotland's Robbie Coltrane. However this one-off has little to add and perhaps suffers from an inevitable let down due to raised expectations when a favored show returns after a long hiatus. Coltrane isn't really given much to do, much more attention is spent on the uninteresting killer, and in what he has to act in, he seems uninvolved, almost bored. The ex-soldier's story is written by the books and the attempt to update us on Coltrane's family life seems lightweight. Perhaps if the writers had a whole series in front of them instead of just this one two-hour show they would have written this with much more depth. As is, skip this and watch the old Cracker from the 90's which is far far superior.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie only because Sophie Marceau. However, her acting abilities it's no enough to salve this movie. Almost all cast don't play their character well, exception for Sophie and Frederic. The plot could give a rise a better movie if the right pieces was in the right places. I saw several good french movies but this one i don't like.$LABEL$ 0
+OK, how's this for original- this mean, rich old geezer leaves his estate to his adult children, all of them ungrateful losers, and two creepy servants, provided they spend the week in his spooky old house. What happens that night will surprise only those who haven't seen a movie or television show before. After a string of murders in which the victims look like they're bleeding restaurant ketchup, we have a painfully obvious twist ending. The cast is lead by some once respectable actors must have been desperate for their paychecks. There are also a few second-tier actors who were rising at the time but long forgotten now. As a result, the film generates all the drama and mystery of an episode of "Matlock." I will give credit where it's due- the closing scene is clever and amusing, if you're still awake.$LABEL$ 0
+L'Auberge Espagnole is full of energy, and it's honest, realistic, and refreshing. Not a comedy or drama but more a slice of life movie about this particular group of very interesting but still normal young people who share an apartment in Barcelona for one year. Beautifully photographed with a nice soundtrack. If you're older, this movie should bring back a flood of good memories. If you're young, learn by this example.$LABEL$ 1
+Make sure you make this delightful comedy part of your holiday season! If you admire Dennis Morgan or Barbara Stanwyck, this film is a fun one to watch. They really work well together as you would see in this movie. The whole cast was very entertaining. Since I'm a Dennis Morgan fan, this film was a real treat! But...everyone can enjoy it! Recommended!$LABEL$ 1
+" Så som i himmelen " .. as above so below.. that very special point where Divine and Human meet. I ADORE this film ! A gem. YES amazing grace !I was so deeply moved by its very HUMAN quality. I laughed and cried through a whole register , indeed several octaves of emotions.Mikael Nyqvist ís BRILLIANT as Daniel , a first rate passionate performance, charismatic and powerful. His inner light and exceptional talent shines through in every scene, every interaction ,in every meeting. I was totally mesmerised, enchanted and caught up the story, which is our collective story, the story of life itself.The film was also so inclusive of many archetypes, messiah, wounded child ,magical child, artist, teacher, priest, abuser, abused, victim, bully, divine fool - ALL the characters so real and true to life - all awakened great fondness and compassion in me. It is a real treat to see such a thought provoking yet thoroughly enjoyable, entertaining film. Oh ..mustn't forget the heavenly choir of angels and breathtakingly beautiful sound. THANK YOU ALL - This Swedish film will surely captivate people world-wide. BRILLIANT !$LABEL$ 1
+At the height of the 'Celebrity Big Brother' racism row in 2007 ( involving Shilpa Shetty and the late Jade Goody ), I condemned on an internet forum those 'C.B.B.' fans who praised the show, after years of bashing 'racist' '70's sitcoms such as 'Curry & Chips' & 'Love Thy Neighbour'. I thought they were being hypocritical, and said so. 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum' was then thrown into the argument, with some pointing out it had starred an English actor blacked-up. Well, yes, but Michael Bates had lived in India as a boy, and spoke Urdu fluently. The show's detractors overlook the reality he brought to his performance as bearer 'Rangi Ram'. The noted Indian character actor, Renu Setna, said in a 1995 documentary 'Perry & Croft: The Sitcoms' that he was upset when he heard Bates had landed the role, but added: "No Indian actor could have played that role as well as Bates.". Indeed.'Mum' was Perry and Croft's companion show to 'Dad's Army'; also set in wartime, the sedate English town of Walmington-On-Sea had been replaced by the hot, steamy jungles of India, in particularly a place called Deolali, where an army concert party puts on shows for the troops, among them Bombadier Solomons ( George Layton, his first sitcom role since 'Doctor In Charge' ), camp Gunner 'Gloria' Beaumont ( Melvyn Hayes ), diminutive Gunner 'Lofty' Sugden, 'Lah de-dah' Gunner Graham ( John Clegg ), and Gunner Parkins ( the late Christopher Mitchell ). Presiding over this gang of misfits was the bellicose Sergeant-Major Williams ( the brilliant Windsor Davies ), who regarded them all as 'poofs'. His frustration at not being able to lead his men up the jungle to engage the enemy in combat made him bitter and bullying ( though he was nice to Parkins, whom he thought was his illegitimate son! ). Then there was ever-so English Colonel Reynolds ( Donald Hewlett ) and dimwitted Captain Ashwood ( Michael Knowles ). Rangi was like a wise old sage, beginning each show by talking to the camera and closing them by quoting obscure Hindu proverbs. He loved being bearer so much he came to regard himself as practically British. His friends were the tea-making Char Wallah ( the late Dino Shafeek, who went on to 'Mind Your Language' ) and the rope pulling Punka Wallah ( Babar Bhatti ). So real Indians featured in the show - another point its detractors ignore. Shafeek also provided what was described on the credits as 'vocal interruptions' ( similar to the '40's songs used as incidental music on 'Dad's Army' ). Each edition closed with him warbling 'Land Of Hope & Glory' only to be silenced by a 'Shut Up!' from Williams. The excellent opening theme was penned by Jimmy Perry and Derek Taverner.Though never quite equalling 'Dad's Army' in the public's affections, 'Mum' nevertheless was popular enough to run for a total of eight seasons. In 1975, Davies and Estelle topped the charts with a cover version of that old chestnut 'Whispering Grass'. They then recorded an entire album of old chestnuts, entitled ( what else? ) 'Sing Lofty!'.The show hit crisis point three years later when Bates died of cancer. Rather than recast the role of 'Rangi', the writers just let him be quietly forgotten. When George Layton left, the character of 'Gloria' took his place as 'Bombadier', providing another source of comedy.The last edition in 1981 saw the soldiers leave India by boat for Blighty, the Char Wallah watching them go with great sadness ( as did viewers ).Repeats have been few and far between ( mainly on U.K. Gold ) all because of its so-called 'dodgy' reputation. This is strange. For one thing, the show was not specifically about racism. If a white man blacked-up is so wrong, why does David Lean's 1984 film 'A Passage to India' still get shown on television? ( it featured Alec Guinness as an Indian, and won two Oscars! ). It was derived from Jimmy Perry's own experiences. Some characters were based on real people ( the Sergeant-Major really did refer to his men as 'poofs' ). I take the view that if you are going to put history on television, get it right. Sanitizing the past, no matter how unsavoury it might seem to modern audiences, is fundamentally dishonest. 'Mum' was both funny and truthful, and viewers saw this. Thank heavens for D.V.D.'s I say. Time to stop this review. As Williams would say: "I'll have no gossiping in this jungle!"$LABEL$ 1
+I am from Texas, and live very close to Plano where the actual deaths occurred, so I might be a bit biased in saying that "Wasted" is a film that you just can't get out of your head.Stahl, Phoenix, and Paul all play their characters very realistically. You truly believe that they are everyday high school students who just happen to be heroin addicts. The drug content is handled very graphically as well - although everything that happens in the film serves a purpose, and each moment the characters spiral further downward is heartbreaking. I definitely recommend this film to anyone. Once you watch it, it sticks with you!$LABEL$ 1
+Mukhsin is a beautiful movie about a first love story. Everyone probably has one, and this is writer-director Yasmin Ahmad's story of hers, with a boy called Mukhsin. We know that her movies have been semi-autobiographical of sorts, having scenes drawn upon her personal experiences, and it is indeed this sharing and translating of these emotions to the big screen, that has her films always exude a warm sincerity and honesty. Mukhsin is no different, and probably the most polished ad confident work to date (though I must add, as a personal bias, that Sepet still has a special place in my heart).Our favourite family is back - Pak Atan, Mak Inom, Orked and Kak Yam, though this time, we go back to when Orked is age 10. The characters are all younger from the movies we've journeyed with them, from Rabun to Gubra, and here, Sharifah Amani's sisters Sharifah Aryana and Sharifah Aleya take on the roles of Orked and Mak Inom respectively, which perhaps accounted for their excellent chemistry together on screen, nevermind that their not playing sibling roles. The only constant it seems is Kak Yam, played by Adibah Noor, and even Pak Atan has hair on his head! Through Mukshin the movie, we come full circle with the characters, and the world that Yasmin has introduced us to. We come to learn of and understand the family a little bit more, set in the days when they're still living in their kampung (revisited back in Rabun), where Orked attends a Chinese school, and packs some serious combination of punches (and you wonder about that burst of energy in Gubra, well, she had it in her since young!). The perennial tomboy and doted child of the family, she prefers playing with the boys in games, rather than mindless "masak-masak" with the girls, and favourite outings include going with the family to football matches.The arrival of a boy called Mukhsin (Mohd Syafie Naswip) to the village provides a cool peer for Orked to hang out and do stuff with - cycling through the villages, climbing trees, flying kites. And as what is desired to be explored, the crossing of that line between friendship and romance, both beautiful emotions.Mukhsin does have its cheeky moments which liven up the story, and bring about laughter, because some of the incidents, we would have experienced it ourselves, and sometimes serve as a throwback to our own recollection of childhood. In short, those scenes screamed "fun"! We observe the life in a typical kampung, where some neighbours are very nice, while others, the nosy parkers and rumour mongers, spreading ill gossip stemming from envy. There are 2 additional family dynamics seen, one from an immediate neighbour, and the other from Mukhsin's own, both of which serve as adequate subplots, and contrast to Orked's own.As always, Yasmin's movies are filled with excellent music, and for Mukhsin, it has something special, the song "Hujan" as penned by her father, as well as "Ne Me Quitte Pas", aptly used in the movie Given that the Yasmin's movies to date have been centred around the same characters, the beauty of it is that you can watch them as stand alone, or when watched and pieced together, makes a compelling family drama dealing with separate themes and universal issues like interracial romance, love, and forgiveness. Fans will definitely see the many links in Mukhsin back to the earlier movies, while new audiences will surely be curious to find out certain whys and significance of recurring characters or events, like that pudgy boy who steals glances at Orked.And speaking of whys, parts of Mukhsin too is curiously open, which probably is distinctive of Yasmin's style, or deliberately left as such. I thought that as a story about childhood, recollected from memory, then there are details which will be left out for sure. And subtly, I felt that Mukhsin exhibited this perfectly, with not so detailed details, and the focus on what can be remembered in significant episodes between the two.Another highly recommended movie, and a rare one that I feel is suitable for all ages - bring along your kid brother or sister!$LABEL$ 1
+The film is partly a thriller and partly a public-service announcement when seeing the events through the perspectives of politicians, terrorists and of course victims. In this smart drama lessons are given about contamination and surviving chaos while meantime the backstage look at the way crisis is managed prompts viewers to distrust guardians and to be scared by assailants. The film, originally aired on BBC, gets to arouse effectively doubts on official prepareparedness. Performances are proper, understated though never terrific. The flick is just a beginning, a provocative start leading to a larger discussion but it gets to work in my opinion, giving the right thrills and causing the audience to reason and to ask itself questions.$LABEL$ 1
+This could have been great. The voice-overs are exactly right and fit the characters to a T. One small problem though; the look of the characters, mostly the supporting or guest characters look exactly the same. The same bored look on every face only with minor changes such as hairlines or weight size. It looks kind of odd to see a really big guest star's voice coming out of a lifeless form like the characters here. If I am not mistaken Kathy Griffin did a voice-over for this show and it looked too odd to be funny.There is a few other problems, one being the family plot. The Simpsons did it much better where you could actually buy most of the situations the characters got themselves into. Here we get too much annoying diversions, like someone having a weird fantasy and then we are supposed to find that funny but for some reason the delivery is a bit off. As you can probably tell it is hard for me to put a finger on exactly what is wrong with this show because it basically nothing more than a clone of the Simpsons or even more "Married with Children".If I should point a finger on what is totally wrong with this it probably is it's repetitiveness. Peter Griffin is not really a bright character but neither are any of the others. Lois should have been named Lois Lame because she is sort of one-dimensional. Seth Green as the kind of retarded son is the best thing about this show and that is the most stereotypical part on the show.So what more can I say. There isn't exactly anything wrong with this show but in the long run you have to admit that it takes a lot of work to do what the Simpsons has done for almost two decades.$LABEL$ 0
+A good documentary reviewing the background behind our societies oil addiction, the problem concerning our present energy usage and finally discusses the effects of the coming energy deficit originating from the peak oil production problem.This movie should be educated to all students as part of their education. Show it to your children, parents, relatives and friends. They will thank you eventually.After reviewing the contents of this documentary and comparing its mentioned sources I would say that the facts in this movie are well scientifically supported.$LABEL$ 1
+Not the best plot in the world, but the comedy in this movie rules. Kelsey Grammar is wonderful in this movie. Another funny guy is Rob Schneider who will make you crack up with his segments with Ken Hudson Campbell who plays Buckman. Lauren Holly plays probably the more serious character in the cast as Lt. Lake. Bruce Dern is a great actor in this movie, playing probably the most serious character in the movie. The actor i liked the most was Toby Huss as Nitro, all the electric shots his character takes in the movie is hilarious.Plot is a little uneven, about Lt. Commander Tom Dodge, who for years has wanted to Command his own sub. When he finally gets the chance, instead of a brand new sub, he gets a rusty WWII Diesel Sub, the Stingray. His crew isn't any better, misfits of the U.S. Navy. He is then put in a series of War Games, that shows how an old Diesel Engine can handle itself against the current Nuclear Navy. Things still don't get any better when he finds out his dive officer is actually a female officer, to see how Women do on actual Subs. To get the commander position he wants, he has to win the War Games, and blow up a Dummy Ship.The movie fairs quite well, in fact i laughed non-stop when i saw this movie in theaters. I loved when they were in silence and Buckman farts, and everyones reaction to the smell is hilarious.Overall, 9 out of 10, this movie is just plain fun to watch, it nice to have a movie like this, i hate movies that try to be 100% serious.$LABEL$ 1
+What a surprise; two outstanding performances by the lead actresses in this film. This is the best work Busy Phillips has ever done and the best from Erika Christensen since Traffic. This film certainly should be in Oscar contention. See this movie!$LABEL$ 1
+Felt it was very balanced in showing what Jehovahs Witnesses have done in protecting American freedoms. It also showed the strong faith of two families who were first generation witnesses. I also appreciated how it showed how by becoming a Jehovahs Witness affects non-witness family members and how hard it is for them to accept the fact that they don't celebrate holidays, the sad part is that non-witness families do not think of having their witness family over for family dinners/visits or give them gifts at any other times but for holidays or birthdays. When it comes to medical care the witnesses want and expect a high standard of medical care, what people forget is that blood transfusions allow for sloppy medical care and surgeries whereas bloodless treatments causes the medical team to be highly skilled and trained, which would you prefer to treat your loved ones? I highly recommend this video!$LABEL$ 1
+A proof that it's not necessary for a movie to have a deep many-layered story and other sophisticated elements to be a good movie. Even if the story could be expanded in many directions, especially in more sociological way (people lust for money) it seems that it's perfect just the way it is. Through many sudden changes it takes the spectator to the end without any unnecessary complications and without letting the spectator taking the eyes of the screen. But the acting for me isn't so good. With the exception of Lindsey McKeon the others were average or even worst. In some scenes they just empty-stared in front of themselves. For exception of Lindsey which was more convincing. It's a really simple movie for just laying back and enjoying. 7/10$LABEL$ 1
+I also saw this at the cinema in the 80s and have never forgotten it, even though I have never seen it again anywhere. I don't know whether if I did see it now it would seem dated, but remembering the storyline and comparing it to some of the terrible modern films I've seen on Zone Horror I should think it would stand up very well.I can still remember his coffin sliding out and opening up and all the dead bodies becoming reanimated, and the blue lightning. Having seen hundreds of horror movies and still remembering this one, it must be good.$LABEL$ 1
+The film "Chaos" takes its name from Gleick's 1988 pop science explanation of chaos theory. What does the book or anything related to the content of the book have to do with the plot of the movie "Chaos"? Nothing. The film makers seem to have skimmed the book (obviously without understanding a thing about it) looking for a "theme" to united the series of mundane action sequences that overlie the flimsy string of events that acts in place of a plot in the film. In this respect, the movie "Choas" resembles the Canadian effort "Cube," in which prime numbers function as a device to mystify the audience so that the ridiculousness of the plot will not be noticed: in "Cube" a bunch of prime numbers are tossed in so that viewers will attribute their lack of understanding to lack of knowledge about primes: the same approach is taken in "Chaos": disconnected extracts from Gleick's books are thrown in make the doings of the bad guy in the film seem fiendishly clever. This, of course, is an insultingly condescending treatment of the audience, and any literate viewer of "Chaos" who can stand to sit through the entire film will end up bewildered. How could a film so bad be made? Rewritten as a novel, the story in "Chaos" would probably not even make it past a literary agent's secretary's desk. How could (at least) hundreds of thousands (and probably millions) of dollars have been thrown away on what can only be considered a waste of time for everyone except those who took home money from the film? Regarding what's in the movie, every performance is phoned in. Save for technical glitches, it would be astonishing if more than one take was used for any one scene. The story is uniformly senseless: the last time I saw a story to disconnected it was the production of a literal eight-year-old. Among other massive shortcomings are the following: The bad guy leaves hints for the police to follow. He has no reason whatsoever for leaving such hints. Police officers do not carry or use radios. Dupes of the bad guy have no reason to act in concert with the bad guy. Let me strongly recommend that no one watch this film. If there is any other movie you like (or even simply do not hate) watch that instead.$LABEL$ 0
+I rented this movie with my friend for a good laugh. We actually got laughed at by the clerk at the video store because of our questionable movie tastes. Unfortunately, I don't remember the first half of the movie because all I did was stare at the giant metal braces Jane wore. and I didn't hear anything either due to the incomprehensible lisp. The other thing that was able to grasp my attention besides her metal mouth was her questionable fashion sense. This movie was made in 2005 but it seems like the wardrobe people jumped all the way back to 2000 for the clothes. If you remember the days when Aaron Carter was considered a "popstar" and you like high waisted jeans, ankle socks and knee length skirts, then this little trip down memory lane is perfect for you.$LABEL$ 0
+Silent historical drama based on the story of Anne Boleyn, newly arrived lady-in-waiting to the Queen who catches the lustful eye of Henry VIII, bad-tempered King of England who loves to feast, drink, hunt, be entertained by his court jester, watch jousts, and chase around after young beauties who jump out of cakes and assorted attractive females around the castle. Well, he's soon annulled his marriage, married Anne, and telling her it is her holy duty to produce a male heir. She fails on that score and he soon has his eye on yet another lady-in-waiting. Meanwhile, Anne spends pretty much the entire film looking hesitant, perturbed, or downright ready to burst into tears. She just doesn't come across as a happy camper (or is it just bad acting?!).This film is a solid piece of entertainment, with an absorbing story that held my interest for two hours - plus I enjoyed seeing the very lavish medieval costuming featured here on a gorgeous sepia tinted print. Emil Jannings is quite striking and memorable in his well-done portrayal of King Henry the Eighth - he really seemed like he WAS Henry the Eighth. I am not so sure about the performance given by the actress who plays Anne, seemed a bit over the top. The DVD of this film features an appropriate, nicely done piano score that perfectly suits this story. Quite a good film.$LABEL$ 1
+As a camera operator, I couldn't help but admire the great look that this picture achieved. The performances were excellent, as was the story. Just when I thought this film was about to slow down, it didn't. Heart-pounding tension, great pacing through editing, and a score that knows when to be quiet all come together here under competent and capable direction. The camera was always in the right place. Love that.$LABEL$ 1
+I just saw this movie at a sneak preview and all I can say is..."What did I just watch????" And I mean that in a good and bad way.The plot is really simple. Stiller and Black play friends/neighbors. Stiller is the focused, hardworker while Black is a dreamer. Black invents this idea to create a spray that erases poo. The idea becomes very popular, and Black becomes very rich. The extravagant lifestyle that Black gains and the fact that he still tries to be best friends with Stiller causes Stiller to become crazy with envy.As I said, the plot is simple. Everything else is plain odd. The direction is odd, with a weird rotating opening shot to out-of-nowhere sped up sequences. The dialouge and the acting is very odd; odd in a rambling sort of way. And the sound track is the oddest thing in the movie, from the weird "Envy" song that keeps on reappearing to the scene where you think you're going to hear a classic 80's song but suddenly it's in Japanese.So, the true question is this...is odd funny? That depends purely on the individual. I was cracking up at the shear unwavering weirdness of the movie. After the screening I heard people call it horribly unfunny and glad that it was free. Strangely, I understood their point. There are no jokes whatsoever, so if you aren't hooked by the uniqueness of it all, you will hate this movie. Absolutely hate it.This movie is destined to lose a lot of money at the box office and become a DVD cult classic. If you can laugh at a movie with no real jokes, like Cable Guy or Punch Drunk Love, then I suggest you see it. If you don't, run away from this movie. It'll only make you mad.$LABEL$ 1
+Duchess is a pretty white cat who lives with her three kittens in her wealthy owner's mansion in Paris. When the evil butler hears that the rich old lady is leaving everything in her will to the cats first, the butler is angered, because he wants to get everything first. So he puts them to sleep and abandons them off the side of the road. When the cats wake up, they start on a long trek home. A street wise cat named Thomas O'Malley meets up with them and offers to help them. When Edgar sees them arriving home, he is furious, and starts to mail them to Timbucktu. But Thomas' friends arrive to help save the day. The wealthy lady decides to leave her home for every alley cat in Paris.This is a charming film. The songs, including "Everybody Wants to be a Cat", are lively and upbeat. The voice cast is excellent, with Eva Gabor(who would later play Miss Bianca in Disney's THE RESCUERS films) as Duchess, Phil Harris(Baloo in THE JUNGLE BOOK, Little John in ROBIN HOOD) as Thomas, giving interesting personalities to their characters. Supposedly Walt Disney, before he died in 1966, gave the go-ahead to this film. Recommended for Disney fans or cat lovers everywhere! 10/10.$LABEL$ 1
+Slipknot is a hardcore rock band from Des Moines, Iowa. Nine band members who all wear customized boilersuits, and personalized, homemade masks (eg. #6's clown mask, #0's various gasmasks, #8's tattered + torn crashtest dummie mask with dreadlocks). The music itself seems to walk the finelines between sane and otherwise, yet is performed so brilliantly and psychotic."Welcome To Our Neighborhood" sounds rather a generic title, but the footage itself is something else. Interviews with the band, soundbites from their latest, selftitled album, 2 live performances, and one banned-by-MTV music video (a brilliant homage to the classic Kubrick film "The Shining"), the movie clocks in at not even half-an-hour, but is certainly worth it. It is perfect for introducing any metal/hardcore fan to Slipknot.$LABEL$ 1
+The review on the main page admits that the movie is horrible but that you should forgive it because it is nicely violent. No you shouldn't. There are spoilers at the end of this review but how I can "spoil" this rotten movie I have no idea. Even if you are a die hard Alien/Pred fan like I am wait for the DVD. It isn't worth a 3.99 rental either but you'll be much less inclined to truly hate this film if you pay that than 12 bucks or better per person plus concession purchases at a theater.In the theater I watched AVPr there were exactly two laughs, both by a girl sitting next to me. Other than that there was total silence throughout. No ooohs, or "that was bad ass!", nothing. Imagine being a patient on an operating table and just being given the anesthetic. Now you know what you'll feel like in the theater after the opening scene of AVPr.What was the budget on this movie? Like War of the Worlds, MI 3, and other f/x driven movies the director seems far more involved in what the CGI people can come up with than developing characters or a plot. Spielberg has tried and failed at this several times, usually with Tom Cruise. Sure the movies make money but should they? War of the Worlds and Minority Report had the budget to pay for a decent script, Tom Cruise et al, and SS himself but were still awful. I'm sure AVP wasted 90% of their budget on CG and had no choice but to hire any actor that would say yes even though the casting agent would have done better by going to the supermarket and picking actors at random.There is no tension developed in any scene so we are never close to being surprised. Who cares who gets killed? We didn't know any of them, we all know what happens when the lil aliens make their corporeal exit, we all know the blood is acid. In Alien, Aliens, 3, Resurrection, and even AVP the directors make use of the fact that the Aliens can think, can hide and can lay traps. This director decided that the Ridley Scott, James Cameron, and others were idiots for developing characters you actually want to see either live or get killed. In this installment you will never care who lives or dies, not a kid, a parent, a pregnant woman. The characters serve only one purpose in this movie, to die. The opening scenes establish the fact that the movie is going to be a predictable joke. The character development scenes mix clichés, bad humor, and bad acting and numb the viewer to the point where we really don't care if they get killed so long as they die in never before seen ways. But they don't. The director tried to make something different from those who preceded him in the Alien franchise but only succeeded in discarding the good parts of the first films, the human protagonists, and stealing the rest from other recent sci-fi films.There is not one original use of the either the Alien or Pred characters. The Pred actually has little trouble killing Aliens by the dozen even though the last movie led us to believe that Pred revered the Aliens as such a deadly foe that they used the killing of one as Rite of Passage. The AlienPred is never really developed as a fearsome creature. Its ability to inject parasites into a host is ripped from several different movies most recently probably was Hellboy where Samiel's dismembered tongue injected eggs into Hellboy or Doom where the mutated creatures would leave their tongues behind after they speared a victim's throat.Simply put we aren't given reason to care about anything in this movie. There is violence but it doesn't shock or surprise and is nothing that hasn't been seen in any of a hundred slasher flicks. The CG is OK and both species of alien are made to look and move as they have in movies past. But since the characters are never developed and the acting is so bad we kind of hope that they all die. The little girl was probably the best actor of the bunch but sadly we aren't made to care whether or not kids, women, or anyone else lives or dies. We just want the movie to end. Eventually it does but not before another stolen plot line from Resident Evil 2 has a nuke aim Gunnison's way to wipe out the "infection". And not before yet another stupid scene that is supposed to open the door for further sequels but does it? In a movie filled with bad scenes the worst may have been saved for last.Sorry for the repetition but everything bears repeating: bad script, no plot, unoriginal action scenes, uninspired direction, abysmal acting, decent f/x that were wasted because of the many flaws.I don't mind going to an indie film and being disappointed. The actors and directors and crew are probably getting their careers going and working on a shoestring budget. For a movie with this type of budget and hype I feel cheated along with disappointed. This movie is a painfully boring waste of time from the opening scene to closing credits. Sad to say that a preview of Hellboy 2 was the best part of AVPr and HB2 didn't even look that good.$LABEL$ 0
+The movie plot seems to have been constructed from a disjointed dream. There is not enough realism to hold the viewer's interest. The Vermont Farm scene was a failed opportunity to show the way farms were set up and farm families lived which would have been interesting and entertaining. There was little if no research into the whiskey bootlegging trade of the period. The costumes of the Canadians looked like something from the French Revolution, totally unbelievable. The fiddle playing was good and of the time period but Chris's motions while supposedly playing were unbelievable. The owl's appearance was a never explained mystery and the train disappearing into thin air was too much. I couldn't understand how a live trout got frozen into the ice and why two men in the wilderness without food would release the trout, a good food source.$LABEL$ 0
+It's 2005, my friends...a time of amazing special effects and an age of technology. So, why can't we see a movie that's a little more thought out than this cheesy low-budget film. I've seen a lot of low-budget movies that rock my socks off, but this one...it's almost as if it's trying to be horrible. Just...don't...watch it. I can look past lack of special effects and computer generated scenes if the acting itself was at least good. I feel like a small child produced this entire movie. There's not even an original plot line. Vampire Assassins, in itself is one big plot hole with an attempt to mock itself. Can someone tell me if, perhaps, this was designed as a comedy movie and I just didn't know it? It makes me wonder, what does the sequel have in store for us who so loved the first installment?$LABEL$ 0
+Even with a cast that boasts such generally reliable names as Val Kilmer and Lisa Kudrow, Wonderland fails to yield any sense of depth to this film. It barely brushes the surface of the incidents that happened on that July night in 1981. Kilmer just goes through the motions as John Holmes and Kudrow and Kate Bosworth are both hopefully miscast in the other two lead roles; as Holmes's wife and underage girlfriend, respectively. The rest of the cast has such small roles that it's impossible to get any dimensions from them. The film also stars Carrie Fisher, Ted Levine, Franky G, MC Gainey, Dylan McDermott and a cameo from Paris Hilton.$LABEL$ 0
+In the colonies we're not all that familiar with Arthur Askey, so I nearly skipped this film (which had its TCM preview recently) on account of the negative comments here on his appearance in "Ghost Train" -- which I expected to be thoroughly annoying. Instead I was pleasantly surprised to find myself laughing audibly. The physical aspects of Askey's comedy and his timing when delivering a line suggest what you'd get if Charlie Chaplin and Woody Allen had a baby. There is no comparing him to Bud Abbott or any of the other usual purveyors of comic relief who turn up in films of this genre. One can feel, moreover, the thread connecting Askey to British comedy 30 years later; at least it is clear from an American point of view that he has more in common with the Monty Python troupe than with any of his counterparts over here. As for the rest of the film -- the more movies you've seen, the more likely you'll guess at the ending, but it is still quite entertaining and atmospheric and worth waiting for its next appearance.$LABEL$ 1
+Probably New Zealands worst Movie ever madeThe Jokes They are not funny. Used from other movies & just plain corny The acting Is bad even though there is a great castThe story is Uninteresting & Boring Has more cheese then pizza huts cheese lovers pizza kind of like the acting Has been do 1,000 times beforeI watched this when it came on TV but was so boring could only stand 30 minutes of it. This movie sucksDo not watch it, Watch paint dry instead$LABEL$ 0
+Like the other comments says, this might be surprise to those who haven't seen the work of Jeunet & Caro or Emir Kusturica. But have you already seen Delicatessen, there is nothing new it this film. I thought Delicatessen was great when it came out, but this film just arrive too late to be of any interest. I don't think it's a worse film than Delicatessen but it's a bore to see it now, like it probably would be to watch Delicatessen again. There is really no point to the film, nothing that really matter or stays with you. There may be a distant similarity to the films of Kusturica, but he's really in a different league, so you should rather go see his films than waste your time on Tuvalu.$LABEL$ 0
+To put it simply, The Fan was a disappointment. It felt like as if I was watching Taxi Driver, except Taxi Driver was much better than this. It seemed like the filmmakers wanted us to root for Robert Deniro's character 100 percent. This approach didn't work.$LABEL$ 0
+The opening scene keeps me from rating at absolute zero. I wish the entire movie was as gritty and real as the intro.In order to enjoy some movies, a lot can be forgiven,(hand guns with 60 shots, hero's with super human powers, all women are gorgeous AND half naked) but Puuuuleeese this "Assault On My Intelligence 13" is so far fetched that I'm surprised the cast showed up for a second day of filming.Firstly, how did these guys get to be cops? Based on stupidity I guess. How do the main female characters justify being half naked in the middle of winter in Detroit or wherever the heck they are. As a matter of fact no character reacts to the elements whatsoever in this movie. No windows, no electricity(which miraculously returns unexplained)during the storm of the century and they are all comfy as bugs in a rug. What technology exists which disables all cell phones, radios, and brain function. This must be the same power which causes Maria Bella to walk from her disabled car knee deep in snow with no coat and hardly any dress.$LABEL$ 0
+In this day and age in which just about every other news story involves discussions of waterboarding, images of Abu Ghraib, or tales of forced detentions at Guantanamo Bay, Gavin Hood's "Rendition" is about as up-to-the-minute and timely a movie as is ever likely to come out of the entertainment mills of mainstream Hollywood. It's not, by any stretch of the imagination, a perfect film, but neither does it merit the caterwauling opprobrium it has received at the hands of critics from all across the ideological and political spectrum.The term "rendition" refers to the ability of the CIA to arrest any individuals it suspects of terrorist dealings, then to whisk them away in secret to a foreign country to interrogate and torture them for an indefinite period of time, all without due process of law. Anwar El-Ibrahimi is an Egyptian man who has been living for twenty years in the United States. He has an American wife, a young son and a new baby on the way. He seems a very unlikely candidate for a terrorist, yet one day, without warning or explanation, Anwar is seized and taken to an undisclosed location where he is subjected to brutal torture until he admits his involvement with a terrorist organization that Anwar claims to know nothing about.On the negative side, "Rendition" falters occasionally in its storytelling abilities, often biting off a little more than it can chew in terms of both plot and character. The ostensible focal point is Douglas Freeman, a rookie CIA agent who is brought in to observe Anwar's "interrogation" at the hands of Egyptian officials. The problem is that, as conceived by writer Kelley Sane and enacted by Jake Gyllenhaal, Freeman seems too much of a naïve "boy scout" to make for a very plausible agent, and he isn't given the screen time he needs to develop fully as a character. We know little about him at the beginning and even less, it seems, at the end. He "goes through the motions," but we learn precious little about the man within. Thus, without a strong center of gravity to hold it all together, the film occasionally feels as if it is coming apart at the seams, with story elements flying off in all directions. A similar problem occurs with Anwar's distraught wife, played by Reese Witherspoon, a woman we never get to know much about apart from what we can see on the surface. Gyllenhaal and Witherspoon have both proved themselves to be fine actors under other circumstances, but here they are hemmed in by a restrictive screenplay that rarely lets them go beyond a single recurring note in their performances.What makes "Rendition" an ultimately powerful film, however, is the extreme seriousness of the subject matter and the way in which two concurrently running plot lines elegantly dovetail into one another in the movie's closing stretches. It may make for a slightly more contrived story than perhaps we might have liked on this subject, but, hey, this is Hollywood after all, and the film has to pay SOME deference to mass audience expectations if it is to get itself green lighted, let alone see the light of day as a completed project.Two of the supporting performances are particularly compelling in the film: Omar Metwally who makes palpable the terror of a man caught in a real life Kafkaesque nightmare from which he cannot awaken, and Yigal Naor who makes a surprisingly complex character out of the chief interrogator/torturer. Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin and Peter Sarsgaard also make their marks in smaller roles. Special mention should also be made of the warm and richly hued cinematography of Dion Beebe.Does the movie oversimplify the issues? Probably. Does it stack the deck in favor of the torture victim and against the evil government forces? Most definitely. (One wonders how the movie would have played if Anwar really WERE a terrorist). Yet, the movie has the guts to tread on controversial ground. It isn't afraid to raise dicey questions or risk the disapproval of some for the political stances it takes. It openly ponders the issue of just how DOES a nation hold fast to its hard-won principle of "civil liberties for all" in the face of terrorism and fear. And just how much courage does it take for people of good will to finally stand up and say "enough is enough," even at the risk of being branded terrorist-appeasing and unpatriotic by those in power? (The movie also does not, in any way, deny the reality of extreme Islamic terrorism).Thus, to reject "Rendition" out of hand would be to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. "Rendition" may not be perfect, but it IS good, and it has something of importance to say about the world in which we now live. And that alone makes it very much worth seeing.$LABEL$ 1
+I've never laughed and giggled so much in my life! The first half kept me in stitches; the last half made me come completely unglued! I think I giggled for 15 minutes after the tape was over.His timing and delivery for his stories is almost unequaled. And though he talks fast, you catch every joke. Which is probably why my "laugh center" was so overwhelmed; it took an extra 15 minutes to laugh at everything.$LABEL$ 1
+The storyplot was okay by itself, but the film felt very bubbly and fake. It also had the worst ending. They were probably going for a surprise ending, but all it did was leave me the question of what the whole point of the story was. All other teen movies are better than this one.$LABEL$ 0
+My comment is mainly a comment on the first commentator (the extra on the film) and his unhappy assessment of the film. I think his perspective indicates why an extra is an extra and a director is a director. The film was sweet, the acting sufficient, the experience of watching it a nice diversion from a busy work week. It wasn't "The Hours" (acting), or "The Matrix" (Special Effects), or even "The Color Purple" (Direction). Most movies won't be. But it also wasn't the crap fest that "vinny..." would lead you to believe. Sorry guy, just my 2 cents.As to the movie itself, it was in the end very gay affirming (+ #1). It showed a world full of diverse and less than perfect people--you know, just like ours (+ #2)! It opened a door on one culture without excluding other cultures (+ #3). And I liked the music (+ #4).$LABEL$ 1
+The DVD version released by Crash Cinema was very poorly done. The mastering engineer must have been either drunk, asleep or not even in the room while it was being done. It looks like it was mastered from about a tenth generation copy and about halfway through the film, the audio synchronization disappears. The dialog is about 10 or 15 seconds behind the audio. If you're thinking about purchasing this DVD, please save your money. I remember seeing this film at the theater back in 1973. Also, the VHS copy of this film under the title of "When Taekwondo Strikes" looks better than the DVD, but the remaining several minutes of the movie are "missing". Where is the original camera negative?$LABEL$ 0
+Ahh, nuthin' like cheesy, explopitative, semi-porn, masquerading as horror...This one stars Jaqueline Lovell(sometimes Sara St. James), the nubile starlet also seen in "Femalien", "The Erotic House of Wax", and that family favorite "Nude Bowling Party". She is now a fixture in Surrender Cinema's line-up of talentless cuties starring in pointless, soft-porn exploitation flicks. "Head of the Family" actually tries to be a real moovie. A con-man and a tramp try to get said-tramp's husband off-ed. They turn to a large-brained evil genius in a wheelchair, and his family of moronic misfits, who uses mind control to send out zombies to do his nefarious bidding. Said-genius has a giant head, hence the clever title of the film: that's about the extent of the film's humor. But basically, it's an excuse to show off the ample talents of Lovell and Dianne Colazzo (Ernestina). Laced with some of the wierdest dialogue can be herd (what the heck is "plowing oats", anycow??), and just plain stupid, this titular thriller will moost likey appeal to the breast-cownters of Drive-In Theater, but no one else. The MooCow says avoid the devoid, unless yer looking for a rent on cheesy T&A/horror night. :=8P$LABEL$ 0
+i happen to love this show. Its a refreshing take on some older sci-fi feels and styles. they aren't afraid to shoot, and when they do people tend to die. Far too many show's are afraid of this and end up just pointing the guns and then having it be a standoff. Farscape also comes complete with a large amount of heartwarming characters. They all grow on you till the point where it confuses you to hear them discuss taking some of the animatronic ones out of their box's to make the mini-series. From beginning to end farscape leaves you with a feeling of hope, and dispair, as new and unexpected things happen and then people live and die, surprising you every time. Worth a watch even if you don't have the time.$LABEL$ 1
+Wow, i'm a huge Henry VIII/Tudor era fan and, well, this was .... interesting. The only one I watched was the Catherine of Aragon one. And wow...just wow. I've seen bad acting before, but this reached new heights. When the actress who played Catherine was umm.. crying? she wails and screams and i have to admit i rewinded many times... many, many times .... funny, funny stuff. The only person who even showed any slight sliver of talent was the actress playing Anne Boleyn (i might be prejudiced though, i do have a slight obsession with Anne Boleyn, she was a really facinating woman, read up on her, it's worth it!) Also, i have read a lot about the Tudor time period and i think that the characters weren't very acurately displayed, they were all very stereotypical. Only see this movie if you are prepared to see a very important time period, and the important lives of those involved turned into a laughing stock.$LABEL$ 0
+It is hard to believe that anyone could take such a great book and and make such a terrible movie.Imagine King Kong being recast as an organ grinder's monkey and Fay Wray's part being played by a young boy. How about Elton John as Rambo!!!!.This movie is even worse than the TV remake of The Night of the Hunter.By using the title Watchers and Dean Koontz's name the makers of this movie should be sued for fraud by readers of the book who expected a reasonably accurate adaptation of the book.Read the book, I have never talked to anyone who didn't like it. Another good book is The Winner by David Baldachi.$LABEL$ 0
+Must have to agree with the other reviewer. This has got to be the WORST movie, let alone western I have ever seen. Terrible acting, dialogue that was unimaginative and pathetic (let alone completely inappropriate for supposedly being in the 1800s), and oh, did I mention a battery pack prominently displayed on the back of one of the characters? I was waiting for the boom mike to fall in the middle of a scene. And the ending? The least I can say is that it was consistent with the rest of the movie...completely awful. And yes, it did contain every cliché in the book from the slow walk down the empty dusty road to the laughable "let's remember when" shots when a main character dies. Luckily I saw this on free TV. Don't waste your time.$LABEL$ 0
+In KPAX Softley brushes on the subtleties of Eastern Religious Mores from the small archetypes embedded all over the film to the actual purpose of Prot. Spacey (Prot) assumes a predominantly didactic role throughout the entire film - it is as if the statements he makes embody general truths about a culture of peace which is strongly promulgated in Buddhism and Hinduism. It can be said that Prot is the eye of the storm - the world is in disarray and is 'bright' and the false veil of reality is what everyone else sees, but Prot sees truth - he sees the minute - and appreciates it and at some points fears it as he transcends his social construction of reality and becomes more humanly.The film is particularly detailed, therefore I would recommend that you watch it at least twice to see how Softley interjects nuances. Listen carefully to the narratives at the beginning and end as they truly touch on concepts not commonly presented in western philosophies.9 of out 10 rating - Superb - with nominal room for improvement.$LABEL$ 1
+After 15 minutes watching the movie I was asking myself what to do: leave the theater, sleep or try to keep watching the movie to see if there was anything worth. I finally watched the movie: what a waste of time. Maybe I am not a 5 years old kid anymore!$LABEL$ 0
+I thought Rachel York was fantastic as "Lucy." I have seen her in "Kiss Me, Kate" and "Victor/Victoria," as well, and in each of these performances she has developed very different, and very real, characterizations. She is a chameleon who can play (and sing) anything!I am very surprised at how many negative reviews appear here regarding Rachel's performance in "Lucy." Even some bonafide TV and entertainment critics seem to have missed the point of her portrayal. So many people have focused on the fact that Rachel doesn't really look like Lucy. My response to that is, "So what?" I wasn't looking for a superficial impersonation of Lucy. I wanted to know more about the real woman behind the clown. And Rachel certainly gave us that, in great depth. I also didn't want to see someone simply "doing" classic Lucy routines. Therefore I was very pleased with the decision by the producers and director to have Rachel portray Lucy in rehearsal for the most memorable of these skits - Vitameatavegamin and The Candy Factory. (It seems that some of the reviewers didn't realize that these two scenes were meant to be rehearsal sequences and not the actual skits). This approach, I thought, gave an innovative twist to sketches that so many of us know by heart. I also thought Rachel was terrifically fresh and funny in these scenes. And she absolutely nailed the routines that were recreated - the Professor and the Grape Stomping, in particular. There was one moment in the Grape scene where the corner of Rachel's mouth had the exact little upturn that I remember Lucy having. I couldn't believe she was able to capture that - and so naturally.I wonder if many of the folks who criticized the performance were expecting to see the Lucille Ball of "I Love Lucy" throughout the entire movie. After all, those of us who came to know her only through TV would not have any idea what Lucy was really like in her early movie years. I think Rachel showed a natural progression in the character that was brilliant. She planted all the right seeds for us to see the clown just waiting to emerge, given the right set of circumstances. Lucy didn't fit the mold of the old studio system. In her frustrated attempts to become the stereotypical movie star of that era, she kept repressing what would prove to be her ultimate gifts.I believe that Rachel deftly captured the comedy, drama, wit, sadness, anger, passion, love, ambition, loyalty, sexiness, self absorption, childishness, and stoicism all rolled into one complex American icon. And she did it with an authenticity and freshness that was totally endearing. "Lucy" was a star turn for Rachel York. I hope it brings a flood of great roles her way in the future. I also hope it brings her an Emmy.$LABEL$ 1
+I have to say the first I watched this film was about 6 years ago, and I actually enjoyed it then. I bought the DVD recently, and upon a second viewing I wondered why I liked it. The acting was awful, and as usual we have the stereo-typical clansmen in their fake costumes. The acting was awful at best. Tim Roth did an OK job as did Liam Neeson, but I've no idea what Jessica Lange was thinking.The plot line was good, but the execution was just poor. I'm tired of seeing Scotland portrayed like this in the films. Braveheart was even worse though, which is this films only saving grace. But seriously, people didn't speak like that in those days, why do all the actors have to have Glaswegian accents? Just another film to try and capture the essence of already tired and annoying stereotypes. I notice the only people on here who say this film is good are the Americans, and to be honest I can see why they'd like it, I know they have an infatuation for men in Kilts. However, if you are thinking of buying the DVD, I'd say spend your money on something else, like a better film.$LABEL$ 0
+I want Céline and Jessie go further in their relationship, I want to tell them that they were made for each other, that in a lot of moment in the film we want they to die for each other. Their story is what we ever wanted and probably most of us never reached. This is about love but not stupid things like in "notting hills" or those kind of movie. This is life and i did believe in them, i did believe they were falling... This was so clever and touching. I have just finished to view it a minute ago and i m still there... I want to go to Vienna. I want to see them as soon as possible again.I have to say i was now becoming misanthropist and felt like if love was just a fake, a concept, but with this movie i realized that maybe somewhere, somehow and some when, something could really happen.I'm french and didn't know very well July Delpy despite Kieslowski "three colors : white"... Now i have to see her other works because she looks like an angel and got a perfect acting.i saw "before sunset" (the sequel in Paris) a few days before i saw "before sunrise" and their is no matter. They are both masterpieces. proof that you don't need to impress the eyes with technology to get pure feelings. I'm sorry for my English which i m trying to best.Franck in France$LABEL$ 1
+Lovely Candace Bergen as the widow Perdicaris are kidnapped and held for ransom by the Sheik Raisuli played by one dashing Sean Connery. The incident comes during 1904 as Theodore Roosevelt runs for election to the presidency in his own right. Needing a good example to show off the muscular foreign policy of the United States, Brian Keith as Roosevelt issues a stunning declaration to the Sultan of Morocco, "Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead."But in this adaptation of that incident the famous declaration is the only true thing about this story. The Perdicaris in question was in reality one Ion Perdicaris who was a Greek immigrant and dilettante playboy. In fact Perdicaris gave up his American citizenship years ago and was back as a Greek national. Never mind that though, his predicament was serviceable enough at the time.The damsel in distress makes better screen material though so it's a widow woman and her two kids that are in harm's way here. Of course as presented here the incident is also used by some of our European powers to get their foothold into Morocco. The intrigues get far beyond one brigand's demand for ransom.The Wind and the Lion is hardly history. But it is an enjoyable film and Sean Connery is always fun to watch. Brian Keith also fits my conception of Theodore Roosevelt and the scenes in the Roosevelt White House do ring true to all the stories told. John Huston plays the ever patient Secretary of State John Hay who Roosevelt had inherited from his predecessor William McKinley.But kids don't use this film to skip reading a history assignment on the Theodore Roosevelt era.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is pathetic in every way possible. Bad acting, horrible script (was there one?), terrible editing, lousy cinematography, cheap humor. Just plain horrible.I had seen 'The Wishmaster' a couple weeks before this movie and I thought it was a dead-ringer for worst movie of the year. Then, I saw 'The Pest' and suddenly 'The Wishmaster' didn't seem so bad at all.Bad Bad Bad. Excruciatingly bad.$LABEL$ 0
+...Or better yet, watch Fandango if you want to see a really intelligent and funny male college age road flick. Rolling Kansas sounded promising (in fact the program guide gave it 2.5 out of 4 stars which usually means it's fairly watchable) but I pretty much fast-forwarded through it. Usually road trip movies have great music, but I can't even recall whether there was music. The only high point was a small role with Rip Torn as a wise old hitchhiker/guru. Otherwise the jokes and timing missed all along the way. The four main characters are unknown actors and I don't remember seeing any of them in another movie. (Oh, yeah, I see that Thos. Hayden Church was in it, but he's in everything, good, bad or indifferent). This movie is about as funny as watching someone else stoned when you're not.$LABEL$ 0
+Sharky's Machine is easily one of Burt Reynolds best efforts. It also stands as one of the best contemporary crime dramas. Erotic and violent, the movie distinguishes itself by setting the story in Atlanta, and delivering a chaotic detective case, to you(the viewer), on a silver platter. Dedicated and determined, Sharky must stop the murder of Dominoe, a lovely lady of the night, who's clientel is anything but ordinary. Before long, Sharky's crimefighting Machine uncovers a conspiracy of the highest order, which threatens to corrupt the inner body of Atlanta. As a resident of Metro Atlanta, I recall the excitement in town during the movie's production. Sharky's Machine goes to great lengths to give an accurate portrayal of Atlanta. Twenty years removed and 2,000,000-more people later, the film stands the test of time. Trust me, Atlanta has not changed. One of the highlights of the picture is Dar Robinson's daring stunt(a classic, symbolic ending). It was even featured on That's Incredible, ABC's reality show of the period. It's just too bad that Hollywood does not make enough films like this one. Kick back, each your popcorn, and watch sterling silver cinema action.$LABEL$ 1
+Winchester '73 is a great story, and that's what I like about it. It's not your everyday western--it uses a rifle, which passes hands from various characters--as a mechanism for telling the story about these people. Rock Hudson plays an indian chief, Jimmy Stewart plays a great leading man with heart and strength, and Shelly Winters plays a gal who has to cope with the realities of her husband and the wild west. It's important to note for those politically correct types--they kill a lot of indians in this movie without remorse. By today's standards, it's still pretty violent. But it's a great story and worth watching. Enjoy!$LABEL$ 1
+Peak Practice was a British drama series about a GP surgery in Cardale — a small fictional town in the Derbyshire Peak District — and the doctors who worked there. It ran on ITV from 1993 to 2002, and was one of their most successful series at the time. It originally starred Kevin Whately as Dr Jack Kerruish, Amanda Burton as Dr Beth Glover, and Simon Shepherd as Dr Will Preston, though the roster of doctors would change many times over the course of the series.The series was axed in 2002 and ended on a literal cliffhanger when two of the series main characters plunged off a cliff. Viewers wrote to ITV in their thousands and a petition for one last episode was set up by website Peak Practice Online. However, all pleas were unsuccessful and ITV said they would not make any more episodes.Peak Practice was replaced by Sweet Medicine, another medical series set in Derbyshire. It lasted a few episodes before it was dropped from the schedules.Cardale was based on the Derbyshire village of Crich, and the series was filmed there and at other nearby Derbyshire towns and villages, most notably Matlock and Ashover. After the end of this programme, ITV attempted to launch a follow-up series called Sweet Medicine, which extended the stories of different characters from the original show.$LABEL$ 1
+Maria Braun is an extraordinary woman presented fully and very credibly, despite being so obtuse as to border on implausibility. She will do everything to make her marriage work, including shameless opportunism and sexual manipulation. And thus beneath the vicey exterior, she reveals a rather sweet value system. The film suffers from an abrupt and unexpected ending which afterwards feels wholly inadequate, with the convenience familiar from ending your school creative writing exercise with 'and then I woke up'. It is also book-ended at the other end with the most eccentric title sequence I've ever seen, but don't let any of that put you off.$LABEL$ 1
+This quasi J-horror film followed a young woman as she returns to her childhood village on the island of Shikoku to sell the family house and meet up with old friends. She finds that one, the daughter of the village priestess, drowned several years earlier. She and Fumiko (another childhood friend) then learn that Sayori's mother is trying to bring her back to life with black magic. Already the bonds between the dead and living are getting weak and the friends and villagers are seeing ghosts. Nothing was exceptional or even very good about this movie. Unlike stellar J-horror films, the suspense doesn't really build, the result doesn't seem overly threatening and the ending borders on the absurd.This movie is like plain white rice cooked a little too long so that it is bordering on mushy. Sometimes you get this at poor Asian restaurants or cook your own white rice a little too long. You end up eating it, because you need it with the meal, because what is Chinese or Japanese food without rice, but it almost ruins the meal because of the gluey, gooey tastelessness of it all. 3/10 http://blog.myspace.com/locoformovies$LABEL$ 0
+This dreadful film assembles every Asian stereotype you can imagine into one hideous package. Money grubbing, devious Japanese business men send goofy but loveable policeman Pat Morita to recover industrial secrets in Detroit. Here he encounters a down at heel Jay Leno, who promptly refers to a murder victim as a Jap and calls Morita Tojo. It's all downhill from there.$LABEL$ 0
+"Gypsy" is possibly the greatest musical ever written, so it's too bad that it's film version was such a disappointment. To make up for that, we have this re-make which, if not flawless, is an enjoyable and well done adaption of the musical. The script is completely accurate, all the songs included, and the staging remains close to the original Jerome Robbins' staging. Bette Midler is a deft choice for Rose, her singing and personality Merman-esquire, and her acting splendid. Peter Reigert is a fine Herby, if not a great singer, and Cynthia Gibb is a straight forward, natural Louise. In truth, a live taping of the 1989 revival with Tyne Daly might have been a better idea, if only because "Gypsy" is simply more exciting on stage, But this film is a fine translation of a great musical.$LABEL$ 1
+Unless you are mentally ill or the most die hard segal fan you will tire of this horrendous excuse for a film in under 5 minutes.The Plot - Even for a Seagal film, the plot is just stupid. I mean its not just bad, its barely coherent.The Acting - Unbelievably wooden. Literally seen better acting in porno's. Ironically this film tries to cash in on this audience which a 'lesbian love scene' which is utterly cringe-worthy.Special Effects - wouldn't look out of place in a 60's sword and sorcery flick.Unless you suffer from insomnia and have exhausted all other cures, don't make the same mistake as i did and buy this DVD, as you will be asking for that hour and a half of your life back.$LABEL$ 0
+When I first saw it 9 years ago, when I was 9. I thought it stunk. I'm 18 now and I still think it stinks. I mean geez no Special effects or anything, it was boring and kinda anti-climatic. My cousin watched once and George Takai (Sulu) kept talking about how it was supposed to be so much better, but they kept cutting to the budget. It would have been a great episode, but it was a terrible movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Saw a screener of this before last year's Award season, didn't really know why they gave them out after the voting had ended, but whatever, maybe for exposure, at the least, but the movie was a convoluted mess. Sure, some parts were funny in a black humor kind of way, but none of the characters felt very real to me at all. There was not one person that I could connect with, and I think that is where it failed for me. Sure, the plot is somewhat interesting and very subversive towards Scientology, WOW! What a grand idea...let's see if that already hasn't been mined to the point of futility. The whole ordeal feels fake, from the lighting, the casting, the screenplay to the horrible visual effects(which is supposed to be intentional, I can tell, and so can everyone else, no one is laughing with you though). Anyways, I hope it makes it out for sale on DVD at least, I wouldn't want a project that a lot of people obviously put a lot of effort into get completely unnoticed. But it's tripe either way. Boring tripe at that.$LABEL$ 0
+Read Eric's review again. He perfectly described my own feeling for this film so more eloquently than I ever could. I'm only writing here to further encourage you to look for and see it.I saw it many years ago on TV, the IFC I think. It is such a unique film I hesitate to make comparisons. It was filmed in northern Mexico, somewhere in the relentless badlands of Coahuila/Zacatecas/San Luis Potosi. This isn't the Sedona-like Durango,Mexico (of the John Wayne films) but a truly stark and wild place. I have to find the novel now to check on the original location of the story. Like the location, this movie is strange and wild and wonderful and weird and absolutely not for everyone. It is the kind of production that almost motivates me to study film.I hadn't actually forgotten this movie, it is indelible. Yet, over the years, I had forgotten of its existence. I know nobody who has seen it, had never read of it, nor seen any reference to it. Erendira is such an unusual name, I'd even forgotten the title. Well, I'll be looking to buy a copy now.**I have since the above posting become a huge fan of Gabriel Garcia Marquez and so regret not having read him before.Relative to MsMyth's comment below; the movie was filmed in Mexico but the author is Colombian and was not commenting on Mexico or Mexican history in any way, although Marquez now lives in Mexico for "political" reasons. This story is universal. I am still trying desperately to find a copy of this film for my library. Liked the movie? You have to read the story and then everything else Garcia Marquz wrote. And, by the way, the original location in the story was Colombia.$LABEL$ 1
+This is an immoral and reprehensible piece of garbage, that no doubt wants to be a Friday the 13th (1980) clone. The poster for this movie makes it look like there's going to be some sort of a cross between Jason and Freddy, which is likely to attract movie-goers. There is NOTHING good or entertaining about this movie about this movie. It just makes me sad, just thinking that some people are going to stumble upon Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers (1988) on video or DVD, and waste their time with this sad, cynical, depressing movie.Angela Baker (Pamela Springsteen) is a camp counselor at Camp Rolling Hills, who hopes that the other campers are as nice as she is, and that they stay out of trouble. Meanwhile, the other campers are realizing that people are disappearing one by one, with Angela making up the excuse that she had to send them home. Could Angela be the killer, who was once a man, who underwent a sex change operation years earlier? Who knows? Who cares?The 1980s was home to a lot of movies that made the cross between the Mad Slasher and Dead Teenager genres, in which a mad killer goes berserk. Some have a plot, some don't, but they're all about as bad as this one. Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers is 80 minutes of teenagers being introduced and then being stabbed, strangled, impaled, chopped up, burned alive, and mutilated. That's all this movie is. It is just mindless, bloody violence.Watching this movie, I was reminded of the Friday the 13th movies, in which the message for its viewers was that the primary function of teenagers is to be hacked to death. The filmmakers of Sleepaway Camp II have every right to be ashamed of themselves. Imagine the sick message that this movie offers for its teen viewers: "The world is a totally evil place," this movie tells you, " and it'll kill you. It doesn't matter what your dreams or your hopes are. It doesn't matter if you have a new boyfriend, or a new girlfriend. It doesn't matter what you think, what you do or what your plans for the future are. You can forget those plans, because you're just going to wind up dead." And the sickest thing is--and by not giving too much away--the movie simply sets up room for a sequel. Well, why not? They've probably and already taken the bucket to the cesspool by making three or four of these movies. I missed out on the original Sleepaway Camp (1983), and, after watching its first sequel, I will hopefully stay away from the other sequels, as well as the original. And for parents, if you know kids who actually LIKE this movie, do not let them date your children.$LABEL$ 0
+This is the worst movie that I have ever seen. At first i thought that it was going to be good because I'm interested in the bermuda triangle, but instead it was terrible. All it did was offer a bunch of lame explinations that didn't make sense (if time moves differently there how come the woman didn't age, and her son aged rapidly), and have a horrible sappy ending. Next time the guys who made this go to Bermuda they should take all copies of this movie with them. Please everyone vote for this movie so it can get on the worst movie list.$LABEL$ 0
+Lame rip-off of THE QUATERMASS XPERIMENT (1955): the first half is deadly dull, even dreary - but the latter stages improve considerably with the scenes involving the rampaging 'monster'. In the accompanying featurette (a rather dry affair at a mere 9 minutes, when compared to the ones created for the other titles in Criterion's "Monsters & Madmen" set), director Day - who admits to not being a fan of the sci-fi genre - tries to justify the film's shortcomings by saying that he had a zero-budget to work with (where all the outer space scenes were composed of stock footage!)...and I'd have been inclined to be more lenient with the film had I not recently watched CALTIKI, THE IMMORTAL MONSTER (1959) - a similar (and similarly threadbare) but far more stylish venture from Italy! Bill Edwards as the cocky but unlucky astronaut - obsessed with achieving the titular feat - is positively boring at first, but he eventually manages to garner audience sympathy when his physical features are deformed and the character develops a taste for blood! Marshall Thompson as his commanding officer and elder brother is O.K. as a leaner Glenn Ford type; he had previously starred in FIEND WITHOUT A FACE (1958), another (and more successful) Richard Gordon-produced sci-fi which, incidentally, is also available on DVD through Criterion. Italian starlet Marla Landi, struggling with the English language, makes for an inadequate female lead; even her input in the featurette proves to be of little lasting value! The Audio Commentary is yet another enjoyable Tom Weaver/Richard Gordon track where, among many things, the fact that FIRST MAN INTO SPACE was intended as a double-feature with CORRIDORS OF BLOOD (1958) is brought up - but it was eventually put out as a standalone release, so as to exploit the topical news value of the current space race; it's also mentioned that the monster dialogue was actually dubbed by Bonar Colleano (who, tragically, died in a traffic accident prior to the film's release!). Weaver even recalls a couple of anecdotes from the time when he was involved in the production of the DVD featurette shot by, of all people, ex-cult-ish film-maker Norman J. Warren: Landi, who by then had become a lady of title, was still ready to help out in carrying the equipment necessary to film the interview down several flights of stairs!; Edwards was supposed to have contributed to the featurette but, once in London, he proved reluctant to co-operate with Weaver - eventually, the latter learned that the actor had been recently diagnosed with cancer and, in fact, he died in 2002!$LABEL$ 0
+(This has been edited for space)Chan-wook Park's new film is a complex film that is not easy to classify. Nominally a horror movie, the central character is a vampire, the film actually has elements of comedy, theology, melodrama, cultural invasion (and its analog of viral invasion of a body), romance and few other things as well. It's a film that has almost too much on its mind. The film takes its own matters and mixes them with classic European literature, in this case Emile Zola's "Thérèse Raquin". It's an odd mix that doesn't always gel, but none the less has an incredible power. Here it is almost 24 hours since I saw the film at Lincoln Center (with a post film discussion by the director) and I find my cage is increasingly rattled. Its not so much what happens is bothersome, its more that its wide reaching story and its themes ring a lot of bells in retrospect.The plot of the film has a will loved priest deciding that the best way to help mankind is to volunteer for a medical experiment to find a cure for a terrible disease. Infected with the disease he eventually succumbs and dies, but because of a transfusion of vampiric blood (its not explained) he actually survives. Hailed as a miracle worker the priest returns to the hospital where he had been ministering to the sick. Unfortunately all is not well. The priest finds that he needs blood to survive. He also finds that he has all of the typical problems of a vampire, and its no not possible for him to go out during the day. Things become even more complicated when he becomes reacquainted with a childhood friend and his family. The priest, some of his animal passions awakened becomes taken with the wife of his friend. From there it all goes sideways.An ever changing film, this is a story that spins through a variety of genres as it tells the very human story of a man who finds that his life has been radically altered by a chance event and finds that he is no longer who he thought he was. It's a film that you have to stay with to the end because the film is forever evolving into something else. Its also a film that has a great deal on its mind and the themes its playing with are constantly being explored in a variety of waysThe film has enough going on that one could, and people probably will, write books discussing the film.The two of the strongest parts of the film are its vampiric elements and its romance The vampire part of the tale is brilliant. There is something about how it lays out the ground rules and the nature of the "affliction" that makes such perfect sense that it kind of pushes the old vampire ideas aside. Sitting in the theater last night I found myself amazed at how impressed how well it worked. I think the fact that it played more or less straight is what is so earth shaking. Here is a vampire who just wants to have a normal life. It's contrasted with what happens later, it makes clear that living an existence of hunting humans really isn't going to work. Its not the dark world of Twilight or Lost Boys, rather its something else. I personally think that the film changes the playing field from a hip cool idea or dream into something more real and tangible. (The sequence where the powers kick in is just way cool) The romance is also wonderfully handled. Sure the sex scenes are steamy and well done, but it's the other stuff, the looks, the talk, the gestures outside of the sex that makes this special. I love the looks, the quiet stares as the forbidden couple look at each other hungering for each other and unable to act, the disappointment and heartbreak of betrayal both real and suspected, and the mad passion of possible consummation. This is one of the great screen romances of all time. It perfectly captures the feeling and emotion of deep passionate love (and lust). If you've ever loved deeply I'm guessing you'll find some part of your hear on screen, I know I did. The statement "I just wanted to spend eternity with you" has a sad poignancy to it. It's both a statement of what was the intention as well as the depth of emotion. The tragic romance will break your heart. I won't lie to you and say that the film is perfect and great. Its not, as good as the pieces are and almost all of them are great (especially the actors who I have unjustly failed to hail as amazing) the whole doesn't always come together. The various genres, thematic elements and tones occasionally grate against each other. Frequently I was wondering where the film was going. I hung in there even though the film seemed to be wandering about aimlessly.I liked the film a great deal. I loved the pieces more than the film as a whole. Its been pinging around in my head since I saw it, and I'm guessing that it will do so for several days more. Like or love is irrelevant since this is a film that really should be seen since it has so much going on that it will provide you with enough material to think and talk about for days afterward. One of the meatiest and most filling films of the year.$LABEL$ 1
+The idea behind this movie was great. The story of a little girl facing abuse (both emotional and physical) and trying to deal with it and survive. What makes the movie fall apart is the terrible use of voice overs and the corny dialog. The actors have to point out the most obvious things over and over again. Also, there is very tedious, almost funny, overuse of metaphors in the voice overs. The high point is the acting of the little girl. Nice try, but this one's a stinker.$LABEL$ 0
+I watch them all.It's not better than the amazing ones (_Strictly Ballroom_, _Shall we dance?_ (Japanese version), but it's completely respectable and pleasingly different in parts.I am an English teacher and I find some of the ignorance about language in some of these reviews rather upsetting. For example: the "name should scream don't watch. 'How she move.' Since when can movie titles ignore grammar?" There is nothing inherently incorrect about Caribbean English grammar. It's just not Canadian standard English grammar. Comments about the dialogue seem off to me. I put on the subtitles because I'm a Canadian standard English speaker, so I just AUTOMATICALLY assumed that I would have trouble understanding all of it. It wasn't all that difficult and it gave a distinctly different flavour as the other step movies I have seen were so American.I loved that this movie was set in Toronto and, in fact, wish it was even more clearly set there. I loved that the heroine was so atypically cast. I enjoyed the stepping routines. I liked the driven Mum character. I felt that many of the issues in the movie were addressed more subtly than is characteristic of dance movies.In summary, if you tend to like dance movies, then this is a decent one. If you have superiority issues about the grammar of the English standard you grew up speaking, your narrow mind may have difficulty enjoying this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Dear God! I kept waiting for this movie to "get started"... then I waited for it to redeem itself... and when it did neither, I just sat there, dumbfounded that: 1) it could possibly be this bad, and 2) that I had just wasted a couple of hours on just sheer stupidity. I had faith that Drew couldn't possibly have made this bad of a movie... and boy, did I ever lose my faith! Don't bother with this one! Drew tried, but the movie was poorly written, poorly acted, and just poorly conceived! I can't believe a script this bad ever got funded! It had a million chances to actually do something with the idea, (the word "concept" is too big for this movie to even qualify for!) and it STILL didn't go anyplace! Its just pitiful! Where the other reviewer got the idea that it wasn't the worst, baffles me! Because believe me, if it got any worse I'd have slit my wrists before finishing it!$LABEL$ 0
+First, let me start off by saying this film SOUNDED very interesting: A serial killer copycatting the works of Edgar Allan Poe (who is one of my writers of all time). Sounds cool, right? Yeah, definitely not. Probably the worst film I've ever seen. Ever. And that's not an exaggeration. I've seen a lot of very, very bad movies. This one takes the cake. And I was even prepared for a bad movie before going into it.Perhaps the writer should've studied some law enforcement procedure: If you have the name of the killer, his entire life's history, a criminal record, and HIS ADDRESS, where is the first place you should look? Hmm. . . possibly. . . his house? What?! NO! That's a preposterous idea, Anthony! How could you suggest something so obvious and level-headed rather than going to a bowling alley? *spoilers end* Honestly, sometimes I can forgive a movie if the writing is good but the acting is bad, or vice versa. . . but this just had everything wrong with it you could possibly find.I think my biggest pet peeve was how the police/FBI acted.For example: Black FBI Agent: "Okay, endangered female, just sit here in this car in an empty parking lot while I go inside and look around the potential crime scene where a serial killer is supposed to be. Sound good to you?" Moronic Female FBI Agent: "Yeah, sounds a-okay to me. Go right ahead. I'll be sure to not focus on my surroundings or at least check the perimeter." Black FBI Agent: "Excellent, that's what I would do!" Honestly, if you want to be in law enforcement, rent this movie so you can learn how not to act. . . or if you're a human and want to learn the same.0.5/10: A half-point just for getting a film produced and in stores. Congrats.-AP3-$LABEL$ 0
+Billy Crystal co-wrote, co-produced and stars in this extremely safe and comfy comedy-drama about fathers and sons, adult irresponsibility, and growing old. Billy plays a heart surgeon who has a heart attack (ha ha) which causes him to seek out his estranged father (Alan King), a movie-extra who fancies himself a big star. The script is sub-Neil Simon nonsense with one-liners galore, a flat, inexpressive direction by Henry Winkler (stuck in sitcom mode), and family-conflict at the ready. Crystal and King try their best, but King is over-eager and frequently over-the-top. JoBeth Williams has another one of her thankless roles, but manages to bring her innate, down-home class to the proverbial girlfriend character. It's a comedy, I guess, but one that blinks back the tears...shamefully. ** from ****$LABEL$ 0
+I went to see this on the strength of Albert Finney alone. He's one of my favorite actors and he rarely fails to deliver. I'm not sure if the plot is interesting or just silly: it's about a little boy who is about to be born, but as his mother goes into labor, he refuses to come out! This sends God and the whole human being factory into a crisis and Albert Finney is called out of purgatory to try and convince the boy to change his mind and decide to want to be born. So Finney takes the unborn boy for an adventure in the Big Apple in hopes of showing him all the reasons he should want to live.Despite the ridiculousness of the plot, I could have accepted it if the director had not tried to turn this into your typical Hollywood sentimental moralistic message film. Directorially, the film was rendered unbearable by a horrible soundtrack of the stock sentimental music that Hollywood directors seem incapable of resisting.He further butchered the somewhat unconventional story by giving away its hand at every moment. Whatever twists and turns were in store in the plot were completely given away by the way the story unraveled. It was as if the director assumed the audience is just a bunch of idiots who cannot see the obvious hints coming from a mile away.Even Finney in his performance, though satisfactory, seemed a bit awkward and out of place; and the little boy with curly locks, though he was supposed to be cute, was in fact rather dull. Bridget Fonda seemed intent on trying to duplicate Demi Moore's performance in 'Ghost', shedding tears at a moment's notice.I understand that the film has been unsuccessful thus far at getting distribution in the U.S., which surprises me as I think it has the box office potential to be a modest hit, appealing to both kids and sentimental adults. As far as the quality goes, it's not an awful film, it's just not very good. (4 out of 10)$LABEL$ 0
+An astronaut gets lost in deep space and finds himself traveling through unknown territory on board of a living spaceship accompanied by a group of alien-outlaws. This incredible plotted and enjoyable TV-installment comes along as a positive birth-fantasy. The individual characters, in conflict at the beginning of the series, have to learn to get along with each other and evolve into a powerful group at last. Most of the action takes place inside the womb of Moia, the living space-ship (who even gets pregnant and gives birth to another ship!). While science-fiction-stories are usually interested in negative birth-fantasies (watch the 'Alien'-movies for example, especially the fourth part 'Resurrection') this comes as a surprise. Also enjoyable is the absence of military hierarchy on board of the ship and the positive attitude towards sex and the human (and alien) body. One of the female characters who is actually a plant experiences 'photogasms' while being exposed to sunlight. The crew even has to go to the toilet. Wouldn't that be impossible in 'Star Trek'?$LABEL$ 1
+This is a film that can make you want to see it again. I especially, liked the way it ended. I did not see the end coming, but when Laws was not blown away the first time, one suspects he will be back again.The story is gripping and could have been more psychological, but I understand the story needed to capture the viewer and the action was necessary for that.Hard to believe Michael Jr. could be so apparently unmoved as his younger brother and mother as blown away. But, I can appreciate the scene play couldn't really take our attention there because it had a greater story to tell.Some have complained about Hanks as a gangster. I believe that isn't justified. If his character had been any harder, he would not have cared if his son pulled a trigger or not.Eight Stars for this one. Although it was released in 2002, I just saw it for the first time yesterday on DVD.$LABEL$ 1
+I have been wanting to see this since my French teacher recommend it to me over forty years ago. Perhaps the long wait was worth it, since the Criterion Collection DVD restoration is impressive.In its outline this movie follows the time-worn script: a quartet of men diligently plot a difficult heist of a bank vault, the heist takes place, a small seemingly insignificant event leads to the ultimate demise of all. Even though the heist footage is transfixing, it occurs rather early and is ultimately not at the core of the film. This film separates itself from the typical heist movie by giving us insights into the personalities of the characters and their motivations - its plays as much as a drama as it does a thriller. Relationships play a big role and a kidnapping is tacked on, giving us two movies for the price of one.John Servais plays the idea man Tony le Stéphanois (always referred to as "le Stéphanois") with such world-weariness that he could have just stepped out of a Camus novel. Tony has just recently gotten out of jail and resists re-entering the life of crime until he has a highly unpleasant interaction with his ex-lover (who has taken up with another man) where, as punishment, he physically whips her with a belt. Thankfully that scene occurs off camera, but you are not likely to forget it. After that sobering event, since there seems little hope of reviving that relationship, Tony meets with two of his old partners in crime, Jo and Mario, and decides to join them in one last big heist. They enlist the services of Cesar, an Italian safe cracker - played by director Dassin himself - and we are off to the heist.The heist goes off without a hitch. But Cesar's womanizing bent is a personality trait that turns out to be fatal for all concerned. However, we can understand his attraction to the nightclub singer he has fallen for, since there is a brilliant set piece where she performs a sexy and cinematically inspired nightclub act - it has to be one of the most memorable scenes from any noir film.It is established early on that Tony has a close relationship with Jo and his family; in fact Jo's son refers to him as uncle. I think it is partly to help Jo's family that Tony agrees to the heist. The ending scenes, where Tony saves the life of Jo's kidnapped son, partially redeems his more brutal and amoral actions. But only partially.$LABEL$ 1
+A CBS radio program entitled "We the People" assists in finding an American home for Vienna refugee Charles Coburn (as Karl Braun), a skilled surgeon and pool hustler. He arrives with beautiful daughter Sigrid Gurie (as Leni), who is "studying" to become a nurse. Relocated to a small, dusty Midwestern village, they are welcomed at the station by burly John Wayne (as John Phillips) and his uncle Spencer Charters (as 'Nunk' Atterbury), a veterinarian. Ms. Gurie is unhappy in the dustbowl, and wants to leave. Immediately. But, the prospect of romance with Mr. Wayne might change her mind...God answers the citizens' many prayers for rain, but it may not be enough to save the farming town. The entire town is advised to relocate to Oregon. Wayne wants to stay and tough it out. Coburn receives an invitation to work at a top clinic. And, Gurie learns her fiancé, presumed dead, will be arriving to claim her as his wife. She feels duty-bound to accept; but, he has a dark secret... This film does not flatter Wayne, who seems way out of his element. Being paired with Gurie, promoted as another Garbo, doesn't help. They do have a cute scene in Wayne's car ("Jalopy, an Italian car").**** Three Faces West (7/3/40) Bernard Vorhaus ~ John Wayne, Sigrid Gurie, Charles Coburn, Spencer Charters$LABEL$ 0
+I have not read the book that this was based upon/inspired by. This being some of(the others are film roles) the last work of John Ritter(RIP), one hopes that it is hilarious. And it is. Almost every time he's present in this, as a matter of fact. Most of the cast, supporting as well as regular, play off each other well, and the material tends to be great. He plays Paul Hennessy, the father of three teenagers: Rory, the typical guy of that age, Kerry, the depressive middle-child who fights for causes and awareness, and Bridget, the fashion-loving, popular ditz. Sagal makes a return to being the female lead in a sit-com, and her character is far removed from Peggy Bundy. The show changed somewhat after Mr. Three's Company passed on, and for a while, they couldn't seem to make up their minds if they wanted to go for getting laughs, or being poignant and making sure to be respectful. One can wonder how or why it lasted for so long after that: It could still be quite good, some of the additions were fortunate(if you like David Spade, most of his part consists of him doing his schtick) and had stuff to say. My personal favorite episode is in the last season. The humor is a nice mix of "dumb person" jokes(mainly related to the high-schoolers), silliness, dark comedy and crude material. This dealt with sex and other adult topics, but never in a graphic manner. The language is mild, and, on occasion, moderately strong. I recommend this to any fan of those who made it. 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+Brilliant thriller, deserving far more fame, Mitchum and Ryan are awesome in their starring roles, as is the entire supporting cast. A truly gripping film noir featuring some wonderfully images and some great dialogue, at the heart of it all is a strong message of tolerance and understanding. Based on a novel concerning homophobia, this movie attacks post-war anti-emitism, and all intolerance and hatred, with considerable power. Though parts may seem a little preachy to modern audiences, it still has the power to shock, and works very well as a thriller in its own right. A credit to all involved.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this movie a fews years ago and was literally swept away by it. So charming and so very romantic. David Duchovny and Ms. Driver have chemistry that is so hot, you will need to take off a layer of clothing. The supporting cast is 100% top notch. Just watching Caroll O'Connor and Robert Loggia play off one another is pure poetry. Bonnie Hunt and Jim Bellushi and a wonderful team and some of the films most charming moments are when they are on the screen. Like Jim Belushi screaming at his children to go to sleep "FOREVER!" or him dancing in the kitchen. This film made we wish I knew people like that in my own life. Not to mention, what woman does not want David Duchovny for a boyfriend?$LABEL$ 1
+I just watched this movie on Bravo! and it was absolutely horrible. It has the plot of a Shannon Tweed movie without the nudity. The premise was interesting enough, a winning lottery ticket in a secluded area and people who have reasons why they want the money. The characters were trite as were the observations on human nature and greed.For a movie called Class Warfare it had very little to do with class differences other than the first 20 minutes and the predictable ending. This movie could have done a lot better if there had been more characters with motivations to get the ticket and was a "who done it?"The acting wasn't fantastic but it's hard to seem believable with such a terrible script. Lindsey McKeon is very cute and I'd like to see what she could do in a better production with a better script. She's probably the only reason why I sat through the whole movie.$LABEL$ 0
+How nice to have a movie the entire family can watch together. Josie Bissett and Rob Estes (who are married in real life) play a couple who marry in Las Vegas on a whim and then not only have to break the news to their kids but then have to try to meld their respective households (each has two boys and two girls)into a cohesive family unit. What transpires when the group, which includes four teenagers, two preteens and two younger children, makes one wonder at first if there can ever be true happiness for Carrie and Jim. The fights between the kids (and one little love affair between two of them) make one wonder if everyone will ever be able to get along. More interesting than the Brady Bunch, what this is a totally enjoyable way to spend a couple hours. Recommended as a feel good movie for all ages.$LABEL$ 1
+As a fan of Henriksen (I liked him in the "Millennium" series) and of course Lorenzo "Renegade" Lamas, I had expected at least SOMETHING from this film. Sadly, the plot is predictable, the acting is bad and the computergraphics used for most stunts don't work out. Sometimes it even looks like they've captured some shots from Microsoft Flight Simulator.The cinematography sucks as well. Unnecessary funky camerawork in the beginning only detracts (from the cheesy dialogue) and gives the film a cheap, made-for-video-look. It works in hiphop-movies and Jet Li movies, but seems out of place in this flick.I would have liked this film 10 years ago. I was 11 then.$LABEL$ 0
+In theory, films should be a form of entertainment. While this excludes documentaries and other experimental forms of film-making; most movies, specially genre films, must not only tell it's story or message, they must entertain their target audience in some way. All this just to say that in my opinion a bad movie is not a movie with low production values or low-budget, a bad movie is one that is boring."Hellborn" or "Asylum of the Damned" as is known in the U.S., is a bad movie simply because it is just not involving, and irremediably boring and tiresome. While it has a very good premise, it is just poorly developed and the mediocre acting doesn't make things better. On another hands the film probably could had been a fine or even classic B-movie, but here it is just a bad attempt at film-making.Director Philip J. Jones tells the tale of James Bishop (Matt Stasi), a young psychiatry resident, who just got his dream job at St. Andrew Mental Hospital; but the old asylum seems to hide a secret. After the mysterious death of some patients and the constant rumors of satanic practices, James decides to find out what is going on; only to find the incredulity of his boss, Dr. McCort (Bruce Payne), who believes that Bishop is going as insane as his patients.While the premise is quite interesting, the execution of the film leaves a lot to be desired. In an attempt of making a supernatural psychological thriller, Jones goes for the easy way out and makes a movie filled with every cliché of the genre. Of course, there are lots of great movies that are also filled with clichés; but in "Hellborn" every single one is wasted and turned into a cheap jump scare to keep things moving, resulting in a boring and predictable storyline.The acting is quite mediocre for the most part, with one big exception: Bruce Payne gives a top-notch performance that makes the movie look unworthy of such good acting. Matt Stasi is very weak as the lead character and the rest of the cast make forgettable performances.Despite all this flaws, one thing has to be written about "Hellborn"; it has a visual look very good for the budget and very similar to modern day big-budget Hollywod "horror" productions. Also, the make-up and prosthetics are done very nicely and the designs for the main antagonist are quite good. Sadly, the rest of the Special Effects are awful and outdated, making a huge contrast with the make-up & prosthetics."Hellborn" is a movie with a few good things outnumbered by its serious flaws with terrible results. Hardcore horror or b-movie fans may be interested by its premise but it is a boring and tiresome experience. 3/10$LABEL$ 0
+Bela Lugosi is an evil botanist who sends brides poisoned orchids on their wedding day, steals the body in his fake ambulance/hearse and takes it home for his midget assistant to extract the glandular juices in order to keep Bela's wife eternally young. Some second rate actors playing detectives try to solve the terrible, terrible mystery. Bela Lugosi hams it up nicely, but you can tell he needed the money. This film is thoroughly awful, and most of the actors would have been better off sticking to waiting tables, but the plot is wonderfully ridiculous. Tell anyone what happens in it and they tend to laugh quite a lot and demand to see the film. I got the DVD in a discount store 2 for £1, which I think is a pretty accurate valuation, anyone paying more for this would be out of their mind.$LABEL$ 0
+What the hell was this? I'll admit there were some scenes that caught my eye such as the 23 bullshit where the protagonist sees or calculates the number 23 everywhere he goes, but that was pretty much the movie in a nutshell?! For crying out loud this was supposed to be a suspense movie and being labeled as a psychological thriller I would have expected it to have at least some catastrophic effect on the mind but instead what did we get? We just got something as shitty as an animal control guy finding himself in the middle of a mid-life crisis and his journey to redemption. Kinda like an old-man flick if you ask me. I probably should have just rented Wild Hogs, it wouldn't have made a difference. I mean who are we kidding, they should have made someone else the killer of that girl. By juxtaposing Sparrow with the protagonist of that book The number 23 they were pretty much giving out the movie to the viewers by hinting that he was the killer all along. How would that have shaken our heads? Shame on all of you voters who chose to show some generosity towards this wretched piece of work you call a movie and kudos to most of the critics who concurred with my reaction.$LABEL$ 0
+I have to say that this miniseries was the best interpretation of the beloved novel "Jane Eyre". Both Dalton and Clarke are very believable as Rochester and Jane. I've seen other versions, but none compare to this one. The best one for me. I could never imagine anyone else playing these characters ever again. The last time I saw this one was in 1984 when I was only 13. At that time, I was a bookworm and I had just read Charlotte Bronte's novel. I was completely enchanted by this miniseries and I remember not missing any of the episodes. I'd like to see it again because it's so good. :-)$LABEL$ 1
+doesn't mean this movie is good. i was really frustrated by it on many levels. it's kind of the tip of the hat to bukowski. hey, i've read that guy in college--let's see what matt dillon does with him. and i like matt dillon. i thought he came close to looking a little like hank, but mostly just the ruddy cheeks. i have to care about a character, though, and there just wasn't much here to care about. i think time might be cruel to bukowski, and that bothers me a lot, because the writing was solid in a sort of post counter culture time. hard to sit through, scenes that went nowhere, and a soundtrack that made me want to vomit. i ask for very little, got less.$LABEL$ 0
+My roommate and I have another friend that works at a local Blockbuster Video. He finds truly awful movies for us and tells us about them. One of them was a "Christmas Horror" film starring former professional wrestler Bill Goldberg as a killer Satna Claus. We didn't watch it immediately, but we didn't think there could be anything worse. Apparently, we were wrong. We were shown this slasher film "starring" Ken Shamrock versus a murderous scarecrow. At first we thought Ken would actually BE the killer scarecrow, and that's why we wanted to watch, but he wasn't, and that made the movie even worse. What absolutely RUINED the movie was the teen drama. If you want to save your brain cells from trying to escape from your head, NEVER EVER WATCH THIS MOVIE.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie seemed like it was put together very quickly in both plot and graphics. My two daughters were ready to go 30 minutes before the end of the movie which rarely happens when we go to the theaters. This was a Nickelodeon Production and it would have been better if they had released it on the t.v. station. The animation itself in some parts was o.k. but the plot was horrible. A classic tale of a son trying to fulfill a fathers expectations is used in a lot of kids movies, but the animation or graphics need to be really good to keep a childs attention. This was not the case with this film. There were also awkward elements between the lead male character and the lead female character that the plot could have done without.$LABEL$ 0
+This review is for the extended cut of this movie.I first watched Dragon Lord when I bought it on DVD many years ago. I always liked this movie and you can read some of the more positive reviews of it to get the general idea.That being said. I've always found the storyline a bit confusing. The movie is, after all, a love story. And it always seemed strange to me that a love story should end with a 20 minute fight scene.Well, in the extended version this is no longer so. The old "original" version begins off with a huge barrel-climb/rugby-like sequence which is the new ending sequence in the extended version. The opening sequence is Dragon(Jackie Chan) hanging around his house and pretending to be training and reciting whenever his father is around.Other sequenced have also been shift or prolonged in the extended cut and the story makes a lot more sense when you watch it. The pacing is also better and overall it just works better. It feels more like a love story and doesn't leave you asking questions about why it ends so drastically and dramatically as the regular version does.I suggest everyone who is a Hong-Kong cinema, or just plain Jackie Chan fanatic to get a hold of the extended version and watch the movie the way it was originally intended.(Or at least that's how I think it was intended. Why else would they make it and rearrange some of the scenes) When I was done watching it, I felt like I had watched a completely new Jackie Chan movie although most of the sequences were the same.$LABEL$ 1
+Detective Tony Rome (Frank Sinatra) returns to the screen after his self titled debut, this time it's a film that's played for erm…laughs. While on a diving trip, Rome finds the body of a blonde beauty at the bottom of the sea, her feet as you might expect, encased in cement. Rome immediately on the case after being hired by man mountain Waldo Gronsky. Rome finds himself immediately at risk as he has to investigate some mafia types, who turn the tables on him and he is himself found to be the main suspect, he must now go on the run and hope to solve the case alone. The portly Sinatra tries hard to sell us the lame jokes and make us believe he is a good detective, oh and not to mention being sexually attractive to the foxy Raquel Welch, but he fails miserably, in this ham fisted vanity project. The frankly laughable denouement that surrounds every female is quite astounding, every woman in the film is a dither head, who likes bending over is front of the camera, Director Douglas of course obliges in zooming in on the cracks of their asses each time as they flex their posterior muscles. There's even a ridiculously campy gay character that beggars belief, this was a film made by "real men" for "real men" to reaffirm their own flagging sexuality, it's a shameful shambles.$LABEL$ 0
+Having been interested in Akhenaton for many years I was surprised to learn about this film via E-bay and bought a copy on DVD for 99p. I enjoyed the film, the twists and turns in the plot and that the file was mainly about the main character Sinuhe makes it more of a "family saga" rather than an action film. The costumes and attention to detail was remarkable for its time (1955). The back projection during the chariot ride now looks clumsy. My main interest was in the character of Akhenaton and his monotheistic religion. In this film he was portrayed as being "Jesus" like in his refusal to go to war with the Hittites even through they were invading Egypt and in his closing speech about the futility of materiality and political power. Initially one makes a connection between Sinuhe, who was cast adrift in the river Nile in a reed basket, and the Old Testament Moses. But this connection is not carried no doubt this will be fully explored in a new film wherein a Moses like character carries Akhenaton's monotheistic religion out to the wider world, if such a film will ever be politically possible to make. It is universally accepted that were women are concerned we man are stupid creatures but the relationship or lack of one between Sinuhe and Merit, the character played by Jean Simmons is hard to accept. And that Sinuhe, an educated physician, would be so smitten by Nefer the Babylonian "femme fatal" to the extent of giving her his adopted parents house and Tomb is not really believable, neither that his parents would even have a tomb. In real life Nefer (Nefertitti) was the wife of Akhenaton. And although Horemheb did become Pharaoh it was after a few others including Tutankhamen , who was the son of Akhenaton.But of course this is just nit picking and the film is enjoyable to watch and that it is about Akhenaton and his monotheistic religion is a big bonus. Maybe following "The De Vinci Code" book and film this film be re-made with the central secret being the foundation of our current monotheism! I wait in great anticipation of such a film, there are already numerous books on the subject.$LABEL$ 1
+This is an hilarious movie. One of the very best things about it is the quality of the performance by each actor. From the largest role to the smallest, each character is vivid, unforgettable and so understandable. It can also make you laugh so hard your health will improve.$LABEL$ 1
+Amicus made close to a good half dozen of these horror anthologies in the 70's, and this, from leading horror scribe Robert Bloch, is one of their best efforts. There are four stories, all worthwhile, but two -- "Sweets For The Sweet" and "Method For Murder" -- distinguish themselves as highly effective journeys into fear.In "Sweets", Christopher Lee plays an impatient widower whose lovely daughter (Chloe Franks) becomes resentful of his neglect and brutish intolerance, so she sculpts a voodoo doll with which she expresses her distaste for his methods. Franks is a beautiful figure of mischievous evil and delivers one of the greatest child performances in a horror film since Martin Stephens in "The Innocents". This installment is directed with great subtlety and the final outrage, occurring off-screen, is a moment of purest horror."Method of Murder" is about a horror novelist (Denholm Elliott) who is menaced by one of his own creations, the creepy Dominic. This episode is striking for its simplicity and stark terror. Dominic may or may not be real, so director Peter Duffell has a great time playing with our expectations. The brief shots of Dominic reflected in a pond or seen as a fleeting phantasm in a meadow are truly haunting.The original poster art, featuring a skeletal figure clasping a tray holding Peter Cushing's severed head, was a rich enticement for punters fixed on fear.$LABEL$ 1
+Let's start from this point: This is not a movie intended for the common audience. Utterly bizarre, somehow incomprehensible, totally unpredictable, it just keep you stoned watching at the screen trying to figure out what will happen next. If that by itself doesn't make you agree it is an excellent movie, then go back to your "family" movies and forget about MOTORAMA. It has material to be considered a cult movie, it can be placed in the same category with movies that win awards in Cannes or other intellectual film festivals, but, sadly, Hollywood already let if fall in oblivion, simply because it is not commercial. The performance of young Jordan Christopher Michael may not be Oscar material, but he gives the right touch to the story. Even the genre is difficult to describe; it is not a comedy in the proper sense, you don't know if you are supposed to laugh at the strange situations in which Gus gets involved. It is more like an impossible adventure that some kids may wish to have, but don't let them watch it either... it is not a movie for kids. So, if you like Disney movies or are looking for a "Home Alone" style, this one is definitively not for you. But if you enjoy reading Edgar Alan Poe or the works of Tim Burton, then you will like Motorama. So, jump in your red Mustang, get a tattoo spelling "Tora" and cruise Strangeland with Gus. I'd like that...$LABEL$ 1
+This is the worst movie I have ever seen. The story line is a joke, the effects are terrible, the cinematography doesn't fit the tone of the movie, the dialogue is cheesy, and the actors do a good job at screwing up the rest. People just don't act that way in real life situations. My question is: Who would fund such crap?The movie starts where some miners fall down a mine shaft after a fireman fails to save them. Next we join some bikers in a forest who ride around doing stunts on their bikes. One guy falls and breaks his leg or something. The fireman arrives to help them. Meanwhile, somebody starts a fire. Some more bike stunts. Bla bla bla.I wasted my time.Do not watch this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+The somewhat-belligerent brother of a suicide finds that he and his mother grieve in much the same way (by acting out) but that Dad is morose and blaming himself. Writer-director Dan Harris gives us a dysfunctional family torn at the seams, characters with question marks hanging over them, and then lays all the story-points out in the most obvious terms: Suicide! Secrets! Gay shame! Family sickness! Ultimately aiming to wrap things up with a tidy bow, Harris wants to make sure we don't miss a trick, initially giving us thoughtful material to ponder but then spelling everything out in an elementary, sentimental fashion. Sigourney Weaver's bemused performance as the family matriarch is dryly disengaged and she's a joy--that is, until Harris gives her a make-over (complete with sensible new hairstyle). It's the cinematic equivalent of a condescending pat on the head. ** from ****$LABEL$ 0
+I haven't had a chance to view the previous film, but from what I've read on other posts it was supposedly worse than this one, although I doubt that is possible. I'm a huge fan of the "Zombie" genre, and I am fascinated by the psychological aspects of viewing creatures, that for all intents and purposes are human, as an atrocity that is only worth shooting in the head. That said, HOTD 2 takes the "Zombie" movie to an all new low.Without giving any big spoilers (which I really should do just so you won't bother wasting your time actually watching this movie) I would like to express my utter contempt for the way the writers of this film portray our countries Special Forces. Gomer Pile could have probably survived longer than the "Spec Ops" soldiers in this film. For crying out loud they should have called them the Special Education Forces instead. If you are going to write a script where you send in an elite team to deal with an outbreak of zombies, at least have the soldiers be smarter than the walking corpses. I understand that you have to kill off some or most of the team, but you can find better ways to do it than having them set down their machine guns and walk over to lay a tender hand on the shoulder of the drooling crazy person rocking back and forth in the corner of the dark creepy basement.The writers actually try to take the whole zombie thing to a more high-tech level by making it a virus that they are searching for a vaccine for, and the idea has merit, if it wasn't stuck in the middle of such a ridiculous display of wayward film making. I mean come on, zombie films aren't exactly "high art", and the viewer expects some tongue-in-cheek cheesiness along with the gore and thrills, but HOTD 2 is the type of cheese that makes you turn the channel in disgust and awe of the sheer stupidity of the characters. If you are a zombie movie fan like me, please do yourself a favor and stay away from this one.$LABEL$ 0
+My husband and I just got done watching this movie. I was not expecting it to be this good! I was really astonished at how great the story line was. I'm usually very good at figuring out twisty plots...but this one had me. I loved it! I'm going to have to watch it again before I take it back. I might even have to buy it. :)$LABEL$ 1
+How did Mike Hammer live - in a penthouse with a GOLF BAG stashed in the corner next to a big screen cathode ray tube TV and a snazzy fireplace? Nah, he'd knock back a bottle of rye and twenty unfiltered Camels on the couch or floor of his fly-specked office or in the stink of a lousy downtown LA flop house, wiping the dried red crust and oil smeared mud off his face, that's how. Spillane wrote trash paperbacks, for sure, but how do you make it worse? Give some desperate scheming producer a blank check because he thinks any Film Noir titled crap will sell at the box office, add some over-the-hill hot tomatoes and just generally screw-up the story-line by some retard, drugged out screen writer, that's how!$LABEL$ 0
+Last year, I fell in love with the Tim Burton's version of Sweeney Todd so I wanted to check out the other versions of this musical and I found this one at the library. Though I think Burton's is best, probably because I like film a lot better than theater, this is still a great production of the story. I haven't seen any of the other versions but I am trying to get my hands on them.After seeing Johnny Depp as Todd, it's hard for me to imagine anyone else in the role, but George Hearn does a fantastic job. Angela Lansbury is great, as always and all of the singing is fantastic. I found myself singing along. This is a play you won't want to miss, but try and see it before you see the film version so you won't have a biased view like me.$LABEL$ 1
+I was very impressed with what Eddie Monroe was able to accomplish in regards to its overall affect on me. I say this because I know this independent film had a limited budget/resources, but despite this, it comes across as a convincing and well crafted piece of work.Enjoyable from start to finish with several relatively unknown actors which I can't help but believe will make a big noise in the industry in years to come, Eddie Monroe didn't fail to keep my interest engaged and my emotional meter dancing. It's a well scripted story with a startling ending despite my effort to not be taken off guard.Many of the cast names listed for this film are names to look out for in the future. Someone told me that Paul Regina recently passed, and if this is true it's a real tragedy since his stoic performance in Eddie Monroe is remarkable.Kudos to Fred Carpenter who has truly pulled out a winner with this one!$LABEL$ 1
+This is a very unusual film in that the star with the top billing doesn't appear literally until half way in. Nevertheless I was engaged by the hook of the Phantom Lady. Curtis, though competent as the falsely accused Scott Henderson, looks a little tough to be be sympathetic towards (perhaps he should have shaved his moustache) and his behavior when he first comes home should have convinced the cops at least to some degree of his innocence. While another commentator had a problem with Franchot Tone as Jack Marlowe I found his portrayal of the character to be impressively complex. He is no stock villain. Superb character actor Elisha Cook Jr. is again in top form as the 'little man with big ambitions.' His drumming in the musical numbers added a welcome touch of eroticism. This movie however is carried by the very capable and comely Ella Raines as the devoted would be lover of Henderson, Carol Richmond. She definitely has talent and her screen presence is in the tradition of Lauren Bacall. This is the first of her work I have seen and I am definitely inclined to see her other roles. The rest of the supporting cast is also more than competent. All in all a very satisfying film noir mystery which when viewed today fully conveys the dark and complex urban world it is intended to. Recommended, 8/10.$LABEL$ 1
+Wasted is just that, a waste of time. MTV is churning out made for TV movies at quite a clip nowadays. A friend of mine recommended this and i rented it, needless to say i will not be pursuing anymore recomendations from her anytime soon. This movie shows the rollercoaster of drug use. The problem is, you really don't care about any of the characters due to lack of believabilty and their own self discipline. This movie is in a word, annoying to watch, from the terrible camera angles to the quality of dialogue and pacing. The 'digital' format tries for realism, but comes up distracting. If you want a true scope on drug use watch Requiem for a Dream.$LABEL$ 0
+I really think I should make my case and have every(horror and or cult)movie-buff go and see this movie...I did!It-is-excellent: Very atmospheric and unsettling and scary...Incridible how they could make such a gem of a film with the very low(read-"no"!)-budget they had....Synopsis taken from website: "One morning, an old man wanders out into the woods in search of his runaway cat. He finds instead a child without parents and a murder with no corpse..."On this website(IMDb) there is no trailer, but I will leave a link here to the site of the movie itself where there IS a trailer which is quite unsettling so please go and check it out...www.softfordigging.com$LABEL$ 1
+I first saw Enchanted April about five years ago. I loved it so much that my husband surprised me with a copy the following Christmas. It's about two women who decide to rent a castle in Italy for the month of April, leaving their humdrum lives behind them. They are very sad women at the outset of the film, and you can't help but root them on as they plan this get-away with two other women they invite along to share the expenses. This is perhaps the most feel good movie I have ever seen. It' pure and simple, with no car chases, no animosities and no deaths. It was made with care and in very good taste. You cannot help but smile all through it -- except when you're crying happy tears!$LABEL$ 1
+I'm a 53 year-old college professor. I went with my wife and 12 year old daughter. We all enjoyed the movie. The film is original, witty, fast-paced and totally charming. The plot was easy enough for a 10 year old to follow, but twisty enough to keep an adult interested. I thought Emma Roberts did a superb job and the rest of the cast was just fine. My only criticism is that the Los Angeles sets were not as interesting as they should have been. They were functional, but nothing stood out. On the other hand, make-up, costume, lighting, cinematography, editing and directing were excellent. Altogether, I thought it was a totally enjoyable experience. I am disappointed that the professional critics (almost all adult males) savagely attacked the film. Apparently, they have something against films that portray strong, intelligent and independent young women. Their writings reveal more about their own sexist natures than anything about this wonderful family film. I recommend it strongly to every child and every parent.$LABEL$ 1
+In my Lit. class we've just finished the book, Hatchet, and this movie is nothing like the book. (1) Brian never ate worms in the book. (2) He didn't know the pilot's name. (3) His mom was cheating on his father in a station wagon not in the woods where anyone could see. (4) The man the mother is cheating with doesn't have black hair, he has blonde. Now for the unrealistic parts of the movie: (1) A thirteen year old can't punch his fist through a window in one punch. And for the acting, the kid who played Brian was a horrible actor. However, I do believe that the scenery was impressive, though I highly doubt the director even read the book.This movie is good if you have not read the book Hatchet, by Gary Paulsen, but if you have, then begin a complaint letter to the director.$LABEL$ 0
+This show has to be my favorite out of all the 80's horror TV shows. Like Tales from the Darkside, also from the same creators, this show is a rare gem. If you agree with me, PLEASE sign this petition I started, to get the word out for Monsters and get it out on DVD. Here is the petition address: www.petitiononline.com/19784444/petition.html Some of my favorite episodes would have to be Glim glim, and Rain Dance. I also loved the opening intro with the monster family. That used to creep me out! One of the things I would have to ask the DVD creators to include would be the organ sound heard right before where the commercial break would be. I don't know if any of you remember that part but that's one of the main things that brings back memories to me. I mean, come on! War of the Worlds the TV series already has been released on DVD, so I say Monsters, and also Tales from the Darkside, and Friday the 13th the series should be released too! We the fans need to speak our minds! We need this awesome show on DVD so PLEASE spread the word!!!$LABEL$ 1
+This is going to be the most useless comment I have ever put down, but yet I must do it to warn you about the atrocity to cinema that "Freddy's Dead" is. It is not only the very worst chapter of the Nightmare series, but is right up there with the worst horror sequel of all time! It was boring, pointless, and nearly death free. The horrible 3-D ending and over-the-top CORNY kills are enough to drive this "film" into the ground. However, it doesn't stop there, just add bad acting, a terrible script, and a number of cheesy cameos and you've got yourself this heaping pile of guano! It's no wonder why Freddy, as always played by Robert Englund, has made two postmortem appearances. I would too if I went out like that. This is a strictly fans only movie, don't stare at our shame.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the movies of Dev Anand who gave great yet distinct movies to Hindi movie industries such as Jewel thief and guide. The story is short (if you ask me what is the story), plot is simple- a brother seeks for his lost sister. Sister has joined the hippies who smoke from pot and chant Hare Rama hare Krishna. Yet the movie portrays few of the significant events that the world experienced in 70's.Hippie culture, their submission to drugs, freedom ,escaping duty, family, and adopting anything new such as eastern (which was new for whites) religion. They have been handled perfectly. Zeenat gave her best and Dev as usual was remarkable. Songs are the best used (unlike they are abused for the sake of having songs) in this movie. They have not been spoiled.One perfect example is 'Dekho o deewano...Ram ka naam badnam na karo'. Each word in the song is very philosophical and meaningful. The end is tragic but that is not the essence of the movie. Overall Devji who does believe in making different movies has been successful in showing what he wanted to show here. A must see to experience hippie culture and beautiful Nepal of 70's.$LABEL$ 1
+As an aging rocker, this movie mentions Heep and Quo - my 2 favourite bands ever - but with the incredible cast (everyone) - and the fantastic storyline - I just love this piece of creative genius. I cannot recommend it more highly - and Mick Jones added so much (Foreigner lead and primary songwriter along with the greatest rock singer ever - Lou Gramm) - I have watched this great work more than 10 times- Bill Nighy - what a voice - and Jimmy Nail - talent oozes from every pore - then Astrid.... and Karen..... what more could an aging rocker ask for!! 10/10 - bloody brilliant.Alastair, Perth, Western Oz, Originally from Windsor, England.$LABEL$ 1
+Winchester 73 gets credit from many critics for bringing back the western after WWII. Director Anthony Mann must get a lot of credit for his excellent direction. Jimmy Stewart does an excellent job, but I think Stephen McNalley and John McIntire steal the movie with their portrayal of two bad guys involved in a high stakes poker game with the treasured Winchester 73 going to the winner. This is a good script with several stories going on at the same time. Look for the first appearance of Rock Hudson as Young Bull. Thank God, with in a few years, we would begin to let Indians play themselves in western films. The film is in black and white and was shot in Tucson Arizona. I would not put Winchester 73 in the category of Stagecoach, High Noon or Shane, but it gets an above average recommendation from me..$LABEL$ 1
+I am sad to say that I disagree with other people on this Columbo episode. Death Lends a Hand is frankly kind of a boring Columbo to me. After a few times, I get bored and changed the channel. I still love Robert Culp and Patricia Crowley and Ray Milland in their roles but the story was weaker in this episode than in the others. First, Robert Culp plays an investigator for Ray Milland's character. He hires him to investigate his young pretty wife played by Patricia Crowley to see if she is having an affair. In return, Culp's character blackmails the cheating wife who plans to expose his scheme to her husband ruining his career. Out of anger, Culp kills her by striking her in the face and setting the up the body elsewhere. I don't know. Maybe I just didn't care for this one at all. Of course, Columbo gets him in the end. It's just the question of how.$LABEL$ 1
+Prison is not often brought up during conversations about the best eighties horror films, and there's a good reason for that because it's not one of the best...but as you delve past the classic films that the decade had to offer, this is certainly among the best of the lesser known/smaller films. The film does have some connection to blockbusters; for a start it's an early directorial effort for Renny Harlin; the capable director behind a number of action films including Die Hard 2, Cliffhanger and Deep Blue Sea; and secondly we have an early role for Lord of the Rings star Viggo Mortensen. The film is not exactly original but the plot line is interesting. We focus on a prison that has been reopened after a number of years. This was the prison where a man named Charles Forsyth was sent to the electric chair after being framed by the prison's governor. Naturally, the spirit of the dead man is not resting in peace; and when the old execution room is reopened, the spirit of the dead convict escapes for vengeance.The film is not exactly The Shawshank Redemption, but it does take care to build up its various characters and while the main point of the film is always the horror, the prison drama behind it all does make for an interesting base. This is a good job too because other than the basic premise, the film doesn't really have a 'plot' to go from and we solely rely on the interaction between the characters to keep things interesting. The horror featured in the film is at times grotesque but it's never over the top, which might actually be the reason why this film is seldom remembered, being released in a decade of excess. The murders themselves are rather good and imaginative, however, and provide some major highlights. As the film goes on, we start to delve more into the back-story of the vengeful convict's ghost and while it's fairly interesting, some things about it don't make sense and it drags the film down a little. Still, everything boils down to an exciting climax and overall I have to say that Prison is a film well worth tracking down.$LABEL$ 1
+Butch the peacemaker? Evidently. After the violent beginning with Spike, Tom and Jerry all swinging away at each other, Butch calls a halt and wants to know why. It's a good question."Cats can get along with dogs, can't they?" he asks Tom, who nods his head in agreement. "Mice can get along with cats, right?" Jerry nods "no," and then sees that isn't the right answer.They go inside and Butch draws up a "Peace Treaty" (complete with professional artwork!). Most of the rest, and the bulk of the cartoon, is the three of them being extremely nice to one another What a refreshing change-of-pace. I found it fun to watch. I can a million of these cartoons in which every beats each other over the head.Anyway, you knew the peace wasn't going to last. A big piece of steak spells the death of the "peace treaty" but en route it was nice change and still had some of usual Tom & Jerry clever humor.$LABEL$ 1
+like in so many movies of the past, you would think Hollywood would learn this by now, makes for a very disappointing movie, not to mention, make sure the kidnapped victim is alive first before paying the ransom.Maybe this film wants to remind of these basic facts in case it should ever happen to one of us. Why the long walk in the woods and can a city guy really go through the woods without getting lost? Just an opportunity for some sentimental dialog that was meaningless in the end.I had to listen to part of the director's comments in the special features section, from the great moves that Redford has made in the past, (Sneakers for one) surprised he agreed to star in such a film. The director's comments and reasons were weak.The best parts of this movie was the scenery, can't wait for spring to come.$LABEL$ 0
+I really wanted to write a title for this review that didn't come off as corny or gushing but still described my feelings for this show. I can see now that it is not possible. "American Family" is one of the best shows I have ever had the pleasure of watching on television. Several reviewers here on IMDb have mentioned the word "beautiful" when describing this show. Never has a word been more fitting. The cinematography for this show is stunning. Every scene and shot looks like a masterpiece. The lighting, camera moves, scene composition and colors...I have to keep reminding myself that I'm watching a TV Show and not a Motion Picture masterpiece. The score by Lee Holdridge and Nathan Wang brings tears to my eyes. And most importantly, the acting by the all around amazing cast is honest and sincere. I do not feel like I am watching performances...I feel like I'm watching real life. If only real life could be this beautiful."American Family" has indeed raised the bar for quality entertainment on Television. I highly recommend this show to anyone who is willing to watch it. I could easily chide CBS for passing on this show, but I have to say that it doesn't matter to me who airs it. I'm just glad it's out there for everyone to see. So I do thank PBS for not allowing this show to disappear into nothingness.I have to give special recognition to the way each season's finale ended. The first one was pure creative brilliance and it moved me to tears. I was waiting to see if season two would also end in a creative way, and sure enough it did. Again, tears.My thanks to all of those involved. You really have made a special piece of art with this show, and I sincerely mean that. It is a shame that we only got two seasons, but a miracle we got anything at all.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this film at a special screening. At first I thought the movie would be like a typical Amanda Bynes movie, but I was wrong. The movie is based on the Shakespeares book "The Twelth Night" This movie tells the story of a girl who lives to play soccer. Well when the girls team is cut she has to go to great lengths to get on the guys team at a different school to get revenge on the egotistical guys team at her old school. On her way she gets caught up in a long tangled web of love, lies, and deception. This movie is this years Mean Girls. I think it shows some great new actors abilities and there are defiantly some big stars to be featured in this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this kung fu movie when I was a kid, and I thought it was so cool! Now I am 26 years old, and my friend has it on DVD!!!We got a case of brew, and watched this classic! It lost NONE of it's original kung fu coolness! If you are a fan of kung fu/karate movies, this is a must see... the DVD is available. I believe this movie is also called "Pick Your Poison".Watch it soon!$LABEL$ 1
+...And there were quite a few of these. I do not like this cartoon as much as many others, partly because it was made in its period. I much prefer cartoons with Daffy and Bugs which are fifteen or so years before-hand. Many people will like this, particularly people who always find violence funny, cartoon or not.The basic plot is a pretty well known one for Looney Tunes: Elmer goes out hunting, Daffy leads him to Bugs and Daffy ends up being shot instead. Also inserted are quite clever and highly entertaining jokes (some do not enhance the episode), ugly shooting and animation which is slightly mediocre. The plot is mainly geared by jokes - each joke keeps the episode going. This way of plot-going is not all that unusual in Looney Tunes (of course if you are pretty much a Looney Tunes boffin - or an eager one - like me, then you'll know this already).For people who love everything about Looney Tunes and Daffy Duck and like the sound of what I have said about it, enjoy "Rabbit Seasoning"!7 and a half out of ten.$LABEL$ 1
+Others have commented on the somewhat strange video arrangements. I think they were trying to capture what you'd be looking at when attending a live performance. The feet, the faces, the overall view. Unfortunately, it falls a bit short. But, having said that, watching Colin Dunne is nevertheless gratifying. It's an interesting contrast to Michael Flatley in the original video. The progression of the show is evident, changes from the original Dublin production are evident."Trading Taps" is the highlight of the video, in my opinion. Tarik Winston is unbelievable, as is his partner in the piece.I think the audio was better in this version than the original video production (1995). In Dolby 5.1 on DVD it's excellent.Despite the flawed videography, it's a must-own for Riverdance fans.$LABEL$ 1
+When I saw this in the cinema, I remember wincing at the bad acting about a minute or two into the first scene, then immediately telling myself "no, this has to get better". It didn't. The performances are pretty uniformly teak 'n pine and no, there is NO sexual chemistry in this film whatsoever, just the awkward posturings of a reasonably comely, discreetly talentless actress who seems born to grace the cover of "Interviú" and not much else besides. If the scriptwriter thought that making Mérimée a character was a stunningly original creative ploy he perhaps ought to get out more. And Aranda, if he'd given the matter a bit more thought, would have realised that the story of Carmen is just CRYING OUT for a thoughtful, iconoclastic, parodic deconstruction, not this leave-your-brains-at-the-turnstile affair of ersatz passion and comic-book dialogue. This is contemporary Spanish cinema at its worst.$LABEL$ 0
+De Palma's technique had hit its high maturity by the time of this film, which is a wonderful showcase of his classic techniques, though unfortunately, as with many of the films written by De Palma himself, the story serves the meta more than the interests of putting forth an emotionally compelling tale. The story opens with a CRAZY scene in which Angie Dickinson masturbates in a shower while she looks at her husband. She is then grabbed and raped while he husband stands obliviously near—-and the whole thing is revealed to be Angie's fantasy as he husband is pumping mindlessly away at her in bed. She has a short scene with her son, a dead ringer for Harry Potter, which concludes with a joke that "she'll tell grandma that he is playing with his peter." She then goes to her therapy session, where she complains about her dead marriage, before attempting to seduce her therapist, Michael Caine. He refuses, and she is hurt and feeling unattractive and unfulfilled.Then begins a bravura 22-minute nearly wordless sequence that is perhaps the highlight of the film. Among the many things De Palma gleaned from Hitchcock is the understanding of film as a purely visual medium of telling stories… and in typical De Palma fashion, he turns this into a way to show off his formidable skill. The problem, for me, is that in this instance one begins to feel that scenes are being needlessly protracted simply to further show off the director's skill. The sequence begins with Angie at an art museum. She watches strangers, all involved in sexual or family activities, then begins to get turned on to a man sitting next to her. De Palma very skillfully tells an extremely complicated narrative without a single word about Angie's attraction, embarrassment, retreating, and finally finding and submitting to the stranger in the back of a taxi cab, all set to a wonderfully lush score by Pino Donaggio, who also scored Carrie.In the second part of the sequence Angie has slept with the guy, and gets up to return to her husband. Again De Palma crams a ton of narrative in without a word of dialogue uttered, as Angie realizes that she doesn't have her panties, that her husband is already home and no doubt wondering where she is, that she has probably contracted a venereal disease, and that she has lost her engagement ring somewhere in the shuffle. It's all very admirable, but one begins to feel a little strung along as we are forced to do things like take a long elevator ride down from the seventh floor, then up again, almost in real time....Spoilers from here on out! When Angie reaches the seventh floor again, she is killed by a big woman with blond hair. The woman hacks away at her until she reaches the ground floor, when the door opens and Nancy Allen sees her there. There is a wonderful slow-motion sequence as Nancy reaches into the elevator, Angie reaches up toward her, and the killer's blade is held poised to slash Nancy's hands. Then follow some electrifying shots as Nancy looks up and sees the killer in the elevators convex mirror. It's all good, and by the time we have some dialogue again, you think; "Woah, that was just 22 straight minutes of purely visual narrative!" Or maybe you don't, but I do.A younger Dennis Franz has a great part as a sleazy and tough New York detective who would rather that everyone else do his work for him. He Interviews Michael Caine, making the outrageous implication (though it passes as commonplace) that Angie WANTED to be killed. Angie's son is there as well, and he hooks up with Nancy, and they set about to spy on Caine's therapist and find out who the killer is.Once again there is a strong tie to a Hitchcock film, in this case Psycho (just as Obsession is a re-working of Vertigo). You have a woman who we are supposed to understand is secretly a slut, who gets killed in the first 30 minutes in an enclosed space, in this case an elevator rather than a shower. Then the relatives of the deceased conduct an investigation, which reveals that the killer is a man who dresses as a woman to kill. De Palma even throws in a doctor at the end who explains the psychology of the whole thing. It is very interesting, but at the same time a viewer can begin to feel a bit jerked around, and that is my primary reservation about this film. It is definitely essential viewing and showcases some of De Palma's greatest setpieces, but that feeling that the story is running a solid third behind the need for De Palma to show off and his somewhat unseemly sexual fantasies makes it hard to look back on this one with whole-hearted affection.--- Check out other reviews on my website of bad and cheesy movies, Cinema de Merde, cinemademerde.com$LABEL$ 1
+Having read many of the comments here, I'm surprised that no one has recognized this as basically an overlong remake of a Twilight Zone episode from 1960 called "Mirror Image," starring Vera Miles. Rod Serling did a much better job of creating an effective spooky tale in 24 minutes than Sean Ellis did in 88 minutes with this tedious snooze. A short piece can be effective with a mysterious and unexplained ending, but in a feature film, there should be a bit more substance and the story should make sense. Sadly, substance and sense are two things missing from "The Broken." Yes, it has some moments, but they are not enough to justify your time. Some further observations: although this is clearly a contemporary story, not one character in the movie has a cellphone! And even though a car accident is the event that gets the story going, there is never any reference to an insurance company, to the person who was driving the other car, or to the police who would have been required to do a report. My advice: skip this bore and watch the original instead!$LABEL$ 0
+Just got around to seeing Monster Man yesterday. It had been a long wait and after lots of anticipation and build up, I'm glad to say that it came through and met my expectations on every level. True, you really can't expect too much from hearing the plot rundown, but after reading some of the reviews for it, I was ecstatic. I mean, what trash fan wouldn't want to see a gore flick about a deranged inbred hick mowing people down with his make-shift monster truck? I went in expecting a cross between Road Trip and The Hills Have Eyes and got so much more. This was a horror comedy that actually worked. The film makers got it right when it came to making you squirm and making you howl with laughter at the same time. Kudos to Michael Davis for going all out with the gore and pushing the envelope with the sickass humor. Let me list just a few reasons why I love this movie so much: First off is the story. It's been done to death in so many other flicks. A college guy gets wind that his childhood crush is getting married. He, being the 25 year old virgin that he is, hops in his Vista Cruiser and decides to take the road trip to confess his love, hoping that she will fall head over hills and all that good jive. Hidden in the backseat of his station wagon, is good buddy Harley. Harley is the loudmouth, former friend, who laughs and talks just like Jack Black in High Fidelity. You can't help but like the guy, but if he was your friend in real life, you'd have to keep a whiffle ball bat handy(laugh all you want, but have you ever been hit with one?) to keep him in check. So, he's a little on the obnoxious side, to say the least, but you can tell that he's a loyal friend, deep down...Anyway, they're on the road and when they stop in a bar, they aggravate the locals. Now they're being stalked by a leatherface clone in a monster truck. That's it. Yeah, along the way they pick up a gorgeous hitchhiker but I'm too lazy and hungover to go into that right now... so just watch the damn movie.Second thing I love was the humor. This one had some of the sickest laughs of any movie since Cabin Fever. Just how messed up is it? Well, I won't even go into the whole cat scene and as for the "corpse burrito" thing, I'll leave that to your virgin eyes as well. The bar full of amputees was somewhat disturbing and that guy who looked like John Turturro bothered me too. Harley, although a totally obnoxious frat-boy type, can really sling off the one liners. Love the clogs, by the way. I need a new pair..The GORE. This one pours it on heavy. While the first hour plays out as a demented road comedy, the last third is all about blood and guts. If the movie hadn't kept such a light tone throughout, it would have been a little disturbing, but seeing how it was all played for laughs, there is no way possible that you will be bothered by it. If you're still in your seat by the time it comes, you'll probably see the humor in it too, but seriously, there were buckets and buckets of the red stuff. There was a big plot turn that I DIDN'T see coming and when the credits rolled, I was completely satisfied. I had gotten exactly what I came for and I'm really glad that I bought it. Much like Cabin Fever, it's going to get a lot of replay.The Look of the movie was outstanding. There was this deliberately cheap look that made the whole thing scream late 80s and I loved the exaggerated colors. It's obvious that Monster Man was done on a relatively low budget, but much like Cabin Fever (sorry I keep comparing the two) it actually works in the movie's favor. Cabin Fever was an ode to the 70s greats, this was the 80s answer to that. So take that for what it's worth. No CGI here. This is what we all needed. I'm not exactly sure why it didn't get a theatrical release because this is everything that Jeepers Creepers SHOULD have been. Thank god for Lions Gate.$LABEL$ 1
+I was very moved by the story and because I am going through something similar with my own parents, I really connected. It is so easy to forget that someone whose body is failing was once vibrant and passionate. And then there's the mistakes they made and have to live with. I loved Ellen Burstyn's performance and who is Christine Horne? She's fantastic! A real find. There is probably the most erotic scene I've ever seen in a film, yet nothing was shown - it was just so beautifully done. Overall the look and feel of the film was stunning, a real emotional journey. Cole Hauser is very very good in this picture, he humanizes a man spiraling downwards. I liked the way the filmmaker approached this woman's life, never sentimental, never too much - just enough to hook us in, but not enough to bog down.$LABEL$ 1
+I have a 19-month old and got really tired of watching Care Bears all the time. Rooney is a great dancer, who cares if he is gay. This guy must have been a cheerleader or something.Beats Barney, cant get the songs out of my head....must...stop singing........Doodlebops songs........NOW.Must have 10 lines of text so I must continue.....what about when the say all the Canadian stuff like OOOUT Aboooot. Whacky Canadians.....Jazmine is rhyming too much, she must be Dutch.Knock knock, who's there, Dee Dee, super HottieBus driver Bob cannot dance, take lessons from Rooney$LABEL$ 1
+What great locations. A visual challenge to all those who put their eye behind the lens.This little jewel is an amazing account of what you can shoot in just 16 days. Good going folks!. I can not wait to see what your next feature will be. I'll be with you all the way.$LABEL$ 1
+The Earth is destined to be no more thanks to Father Pergado and a bunch of Nuns. Christopher Lee (who has since said that he was duped in to appearing in this by his producers who told him loads of great actors were involved) is Father Pergado and gets to do his usual serious and scary routine. The cast are not too bad, though most have now retired from acting. The film has terrible sound effects (mainly created from pressing keys on an old computer it seems) and it ridiculously pondering at times - showing a scene of the sky, for instance, for what feels like hours at a time. Despite this the story is pretty humorous in a world-is-doomed sort of way and the production is adequate. Interestingly one scene features Albert Band and wife Jackie; Meda Band; Writer Frank Ray Perilli and Charles Band's assistant Bennah Burton. Despite its plodding nature I genuinely wanted to see how it all worked out and thus quite liked it.$LABEL$ 0
+Well, where do I start...As one of the other reviewers said, you know you're in for a real treat when you see the opening shot - minutes and minutes of film time spent on a guy standing on a travelator.I won't repeat Rubin's excellent summary of the story. What I would like to say, though, is that this film gripped me more than any film I can remember. I sat open-mouthed, and on the edge of my seat all the way through. The camera work, sound track and *fantastic* performances (particularly that of Tony Servillo) draw you to the screen and won't let you look away.It's Italian, so of course everyone looks fantastic, but it is by no means merely an exercise in cool style. This is a film with lots to say about luck, loss and love.Go and see it.$LABEL$ 1
+Begotten is one of the most unique films I've ever seen. It is more, to me, a study of sound, light and dark, and movement than a real story. The type of thing you see as a video instillation at the museum of modern art than a film enjoyed at the local theater. I'm not going to try to interpret the images of the mother nature, the beasts in cloaks, the twisted and tortured body of her "child". Some things just defy interpretation.$LABEL$ 1
+Although this was a low budget film and clearly last minute, it holds a certain charm that is difficult to pinpoint. I tend to believe it is the scriptwriter- Grant Morris (see Dead Dog), who, despite the warped plot line injected a fantastic slice of humour, sorely missing in many of today's box office hits. Definitely a must see for a Sunday afternoon laughfest. Speaking as a true single girl, and very sceptical this film did not inspire me particularly, but did ignite a small flame of hope for a lovelife. Not my lovelife, so much as my slightly crazy neighbour's lovelife who lets her hamster sleep in her bed with her. She may find someone.$LABEL$ 1
+Darr is a great movie! Shahrukh plays an obsessed lover who will do almost anything to win over his lady which in this case is Juhi Chawla. Little does Juhi know in the film that Shahrukh has a MAJOR crush on her and is constantly stalking her. I have to admit, some of the things he did in this movie were pretty creepy... like the threatening phone calls. Never in my life will I forget the line, "I love you K..k..k..Kiran!"It's just too bad that Shahrukh and Juhi weren't exactly "together" in the film. But Juhi and Sunny do make a fairly good couple in the movie. Though Shahrukh's role was pretty psychotic, I still think he did a great job of playing it and can't possibly imagine anyone else doing that role. No wonder he got an award for Darr in 94'!Juhi... what can I say??? She looks especially amazing in this film! It's not that she doesn't always look amazing in her other films, but Darr did give the public a wonderful image of her!As for the music... it was excellent! Especially "Jaadu Teri Nazar," one of my all time favorite songs. I also thought "Tu Mere Samne" was quite nice also.A must see for everyone! Overall Darr deserves a 9/10!$LABEL$ 1
+It would be a shame if Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Duval ever see this movie as they will probably be associated with it in years to come. "Oh yeah", the public will say, "'Comanche Moon', that's the mini series about the Texas Rangers and the Comanche Indians that starred Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Duval. It was a real stinker and probably the worst movie they were ever in. I think it was a comedy but a not very funny comedy. I really don't understand why they agreed to be in it". That would be such an injustice as the original "Lonesome Dove" was a true western classic and this turkey is a real bomb and Jones and Duval will be remembered for it.$LABEL$ 0
+I love this movie. The cast were all terrific in the portrayal of their various characters. Judith Ivey did so well portraying a weak, fearful, dependent, who was passive aggressive in her complaining and self-involved character, that it was a relief to see the character's metamorphosis. Blythe Danner was equally appealing in her role as a somewhat judgmental Jewish mother, devoted wife, and loving sister. Jonathon Silmerman, Bob Dishy, Stacey Glick, and Lisa Walz performed their roles equally well.If you enjoy movies that relate to going through challenging times without loosing your sense of humor and hope, you will love this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of the unusual cases in which a movie and the novel on which it is based are both great. Maybe this is because Gorris' takes Nabokov's initial ideas and gives them a different interpretation. The final consequence is a point of view over Luzhin which dignifies him more than the Nabokov's one.The only thing in the movie which I don't like is the influence of Valentinov's on Luzhin's destiny. I can't imagine Nabokov creating a person like Valentinov and giving him so great influence on novel's argument.$LABEL$ 1
+Not to be confused with the Resse Witherspoon high school film of the same name, this is a stylised look at Hong Kong's triad gangs. Called election because a new leader or 'chairman' is elected by ancient traditions every two years. Two candidates are up for the position and through ego, bribes and past track record the race is tense to say the least. Expertly directed to introduce you to an expansive cast without ever being confusing the story twists and turns before revealing itself in all its brutal glory. The Asian godfather this is not, but it is an enjoyable thriller in a gangster genre that will leave you on the edge of your seat and wincing at the violence. Subtitled volume 1 I think its safe to say there will other instalments as we go deeper into the murky world of the triads and all their feuding and underhand business deals. Either way this is a good start and if there are no sequels a great film in its own right.$LABEL$ 1
+A SHIRLEY TEMPLE Short Subject.It can get mighty rough at Buttermilk Pete's Cafe when the local contingency of diaper-clad WAR BABIES come in for their midday milk break.This primitive little film - a spoof of military movies - provides a few chuckles, but little else: tiny tots talking tough can begin to pall in a short time. Shirley Temple, playing a duplicitous hip-swinging French miss, hasn't much to do in this pre-celebrity performance. Highlight: the real signs of toddler temper when a few of the infants unexpectedly get well & truly soaked with milk.Often overlooked or neglected today, the one and two-reel short subjects were useful to the Studios as important training grounds for new or burgeoning talents, both in front & behind the camera. The dynamics for creating a successful short subject was completely different from that of a feature length film, something akin to writing a topnotch short story rather than a novel. Economical to produce in terms of both budget & schedule and capable of portraying a wide range of material, short subjects were the perfect complement to the Studios' feature films.$LABEL$ 1
+I liked this movie a lot. It really intrigued me how Deanna and Alicia became friends over such a tragedy. Alicia was just a troubled soul and Deanna was so happy just to see someone after being shot. My only complaint was that in the beginning it was kind of slow and it took awhile to get to the basis of things. Other than that it was great.$LABEL$ 1
+I felt obliged to watch this movie all the way through, since I had found it in a bargain bin and bought it for my own, but I came close many times to turning it off and just writing off the money I had paid for it. If you are a fan of gore and sadism, this movie is OK. If there is one thing that the makers of this film know, it is the creative use of fake blood and body parts for a sickening effect. If that doesn't thrill you, then stay away.This movie is shot on a home video camera, with grade school props and terrible actors. It's dubbed from German, but even allowing for that, the sound is awful. This film is about as budget as budget gets, except for the aforementioned special effects. If they had spent a little more money on actors and a real script instead of blood and guts, the film might have been a little more enjoyable.The story is about three men that land on an island inhabited by an army of tin-masked sadists. They are captured, and the rest of the movie is about their attempt to escape. I call this a story in the loosest sense, since it is really a series of scenes of torture and combat strung together by inane obscenity-filled dialog.There is nothing whatsoever redeeming about this movie, unless you like mindless gore. Consider yourself warned.$LABEL$ 0
+It's pretty evident that many of your nights were spent alone. If you watched 5 minutes of the actual show instead of watching the commercial you would have seen one of the greatest television shows in Canadian history being made. Too bad you would have been watching it alone. Probably the reason you hate it... no game. Keys to the VIP is hilarious, light and funny. Guys are going to eat this show up. My game is tight and I can hardly wait to get on this show. The chicks were HOOOOOT and the clubs kicked ass. I'll be watching every week. It makes me wonder why more great shows like this one aren't being made. Now it's clear that the talent in Canada has the ability to produce American quality television.$LABEL$ 1
+George Saunders is a forger who steals a rare copy of Hamlet, killing a guard in the process. Months later an associate of his is selling forgeries of the book for great sums of money. One of the forgeries is sold to a man working for the Nazi's. Not happy at being taken the Nazi front man insists on getting his money back, at the same time an investigator working for one of the other swindled clients shows up. The middle woman in an effort to keep herself safe begins to play all sides against each other and sets up a meeting at the New York public library between various parties, however as people begin to die, the library is locked down and more murders (and perhaps some rare book larceny) seem to be close to happening. Complex murder mystery is a good little thriller with a great cast (Saunders is joined by Richard Denning and a cast of solid supporting players) If there is a flaw the film is almost too complicated with plots with in plots and everyone pretty much out for themselves. The layers of theft, forgery, murder and war time intrigue (this was 1942) are almost too many for the brief 70 minute running time. Still its an enjoyable little film with a darkness and sense of inescapable doom for some of the characters that clearly marks this as one of the first film noirs. Until Denning shows up we're down among some charming thieves, whom we like, perhaps even more than the hero, but its clear from word and deed this is not going to have a completely happy ending, and they know it, even if they fight it. A good little film that's worth searching out.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a movie about a black man buying a airline company and turning the company into a African-centric over the top airliner. They even portray the owner as not only being in control of the airline, but also controlling part of the air terminal at the airport. One day this guy wins $100 million dollars a the next time you see him, he is walking all over the airport acting like the owner of the airport. Everyone calls this movie a parody, but nothing about this movie shouts parody! This movie is a flop and will forever be in the $4.95 bin at Wal-Mart.I can't even come to terms to why MGM would waste 16 million dollars on this movie. This movie doesn't even warrant straight-to-video status. The writers (one black and one white) should be blackballed from Hollywood forever. Not only do they over-stereotype blacks, they portray them as ignorant human beings. I would be ashamed of going to a movie that constantly humiliates me. Don't waste your time at the video store, wal-mart, pay-per-view, or on a Sunday afternoon when the movie is shown on TBS.$LABEL$ 0
+I've noticed how all the other reviews of this film mention how "wholesome" and "entertaining" it is. These people need to get out of the house more often. I don't know why they're shilling for this vapid, insipid, brainless piece of fluff. Pat Boone has absolutely no acting talent whatsoever, and his ineptness is exceeded only by that of his co-star Pamela Austin, a former model (yet one more reason to outlaw the insidious practice of inflicting talentless models on an unsuspecting moveiegoing public, a foul habit that unfortunately persists to this day). A good supporting cast (Terry-Thomas, Edward Everett Hortyon, among others) tries hard to make some sense out of this, but to no avail. I noticed that two directors shared credit, although "credit" isn't the word I would use (neither is "director"). As for "wholesome entertainment," there are plenty of those types of movies available without torturing your loved ones by forcing them to sit through this. Find one of those films, and skip this one.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was an excellent acted, excellent directed and overall had an excellent story. Ive had real life experiance with a boy like 'Radio'. At the football program in my town, weve had a mentally challenged boy every year practice, travel, and have fun with the football team. This movie is really true and i can identify with it 100%. A boy like 'Radio' just needs to feel like they belong to something; they need to feel like their life is worth living. Thats how 'Radio' feels and thats why that type of program is set up at my high school. This is a very touching movie that im glad has been brought to the big screen. My dad and I loved it and i will always remember this for being a movie that tells a riveting story of the goodness and kindness of man!$LABEL$ 1
+Cheap, amateurish, unimaginative, exploitative... but don't think it'll have redeeming amusement value. About as unentertaining, uninstructive and just plain dull as a film can be.$LABEL$ 0
+The cars in this movie are awesome. The acting in this movie is awful. The plot and driving scenes don't make much sense and are equally bad. If you get really bothered by movies where someone shifts and suddenly goes ridiculously faster, save yourself the trouble and money. Good movie for racing fans? Well, there is a part where they make the mistake of referring to a NASCAR driver as a rally car driver. If you can't tell the difference, go watch it, you'll have a blast. It really comes down to this, there are really really really nice cars in this movie, they are driven horribly and are completely unrealistic. The acting is horrible mainly because of the extremely bad plot. If you want to see hot girls, turn on mtv or vh1 instead. I am disappointed that such nice cars would be represented in such a bad movie. If the class of the cars were to match that of the movie, they should be racing with rusted bicycles.$LABEL$ 0
+Who doesn't have unresolved issues with parents? And which parents don't have unresolved issues with each other?I know, that sounds heavy. But this is played for laughs in the movie, making both the comedy better and the drama better. I've always like Paul Reiser and Peter Falk, and although I was a bit concerned that their star qualities might be too big for a small movie, I was enchanted from the very first scene.Especially entertaining were the discoveries that the son makes about his father as a person. And Peter Falk's monologue about being a hard-working, sacrificing father and husband was the perfect balancing point. Without that scene being acted so well, the movie would have seemed far less nuanced, and the character far less interesting.Nicely done, Paul and Peter!$LABEL$ 1
+Good animation, nice character design, and a light-hearted story make Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu enjoyable to watch.After my first viewing, I thought that this anime was pretty good, but but was much better on for a second watch.This is because it is done out of chronological order, and once you re watch it in correct order you notice connections you didn't see before. (OR it may be that you see a second meaning to some events you didn't notice before) You may want to read the original novels (not manga) by Tanigawa Nagaru before/after seeing this. The anime is very good at visualizing every detail in the stories it shows.However, there are some short stories from the book that are not animated, but are referenced to.(bamboo w/ wishes attached shown in episode 14) Overall, this anime is actually very good once after brief analyzation of the plot (reading the book improves upon it as well). It is a nice break from the shounen-jump anime that seem to be taking over.$LABEL$ 1
+A film like Crossfire puts another film that spreads around its social consciousness- i.e. the recent film Crash- almost to shame. Not necessarily because either one puts forth its message of intolerance-is-rotten more significantly (although I'd wager Crash throws the hammer down much more thickly in comparison with this), but because of how the storytelling and contrivances never get much in the way like with Crash. Maybe it's not really necessary to compare the two, as Crossfire is in its core all deep into the film-noir vein like its going out of style. It was interesting actually to see what the director Edward Dmytryk said on the DVD interview, where he mentioned that the budget for the photography was significantly lower (on purpose) so that more could be spent on the actors, and the schedule went through at a very brisk, quick pace. But then what comes off then as being incredible about the picture is that you would think looking at many of the lighting set-ups that it took a lot to do. Just for a small scene, like when Robert Mitchum's Keeely first goes in for questioning under the Captain Robert Young- the contrasts of shadows seamlessly in the room is exquisite. That there are many other lighting set-ups that go even further with so little marks this as something essential in the realm of just the look of the noir period. Just take a look at a shot of characters on a stairwell, the bars silhouetted against them, and see what I mean.But back to the substance part of the film- it's really a story that consists of a murder mystery, but one that we as the audience don't take long to figure on the answer. It's then more about something else then in the mind and soul of a killer that wouldn't be found in a common crime picture then, as there are really no 'criminals' for the most part in the film. There's a very calculated risk with this then that characters could be too thin just to prop up the (worthwhile) message against anti-semitism. But Dmytryk's direction of his top-shelf cast, along with a really terrific script by John Paxton fleshes out the characters, least of which for what they should have to not seem too thin alongside the message. And what would a noir be then without some attitude to go along with it? Mitchum helps that along, even in scenes like between him and Young where its very much based in the situation of the story's moment (i.e. a detail in the plot), by injecting a little sly wit into some of the dialog. It may already be there in the lines, but he helps make the character with a good edge for his scenes.Then there's also Robert Ryan, who excels at Montgomery as a man who you know you don't like much at first, just through his b.s. demeanor, but you're not totally sure about either. Then once it starts to come clearer- ironically through a subjective view-point of the suspect Mitchell (George Cooper) at the apartment of the soon-to-be-deceased Samuels- his performance becomes a great balancing act of being full of crap and also rather frightening in his blind-way. It's a good performance when also countered with Cooper, who has actual personal issues that he faces and comes forward with regret and humility. It's really after the film ends that one thinks about a lot of this, however, and while you're watching the film it's more about getting into the dialog and the flow of the scenes, and in the sometimes stark, overpowering camera moves on the actors, so the message is in a way secondary. Not that it isn't an important one, especially for the time period (coming right off of WW2), but years later its seeing the actors, even the ones that don't get the big marquee status like Gloria Grahame as Ginny (the femme fatale of the picture, if it could've had time for one which it doesn't) and William Phipps as Leroy (the "hick"), working off one another that sticks much strongly in the compacted screenplay.Dmytryk is also very wise in choosing to limit the musical score is powerful too, as for very long stretches we hear nothing, and mostly when it does come up it's incidental to the character's surroundings. He could've just as easily gone with added musical notes on some dramatic scenes for emphasis, most specifically the opening audience-grabber into the film. By sticking clear of that, and getting the right attitudes and nuance in camera and cast, it uplifts standards in genre material to a very fine, memorable level. My favorite scene would probably go to Finley's story about an Irish immigrant he tells to Leroy, where all such elements come into place well. It might not come in very high at the top of my favorite noirs- and I'd still throw-down Murder My Sweet as the director's masterpiece in this kind of picture- but it's assuredly higher in quality than something of the B-level too.$LABEL$ 1
+Warning Spoilers following. Superb recreation of the base in Antarctica where the real events of the film took place. Other than that, libelous!, scandalous! Filmed in Canada; presumably by a largely Canadian crew and cast. I caught the last half of this film recently on Global television here in Canada. Nothing much to say other than how thoroughly appalled I was at what a blatant piece of American historical revisionist propaganda it is; and starring Susan Sarandon of all people! I can only assume that Canadian born director Roger Spottiswoode was coerced to make the USAF the heroes of the film when in fact the real rescuers where a small private airline based in Calgary; Kenn Borek Air.$LABEL$ 0
+The club scenes in this film are extremely believable, Tim Curry is in his most venal mode, and there are enough drugs and violence here for two movies, maybe even three. What more do you require from an evening's entertainment? Pump up the volume.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie makes me think the others I've seen with Combs were an accident. The plot had more holes than I think I've ever seen in a movie purporting to be something more than a "b" movie. The acting was so laughable that not even the memories of Combs' past campy triumphs were enough to save it. Considering the script I have to imagine that there was not enough money in the budget for things like continuity and original ideas. I am thoroughly upset that I paid Blockbuster prices for this trash. The fact that it was made for television was something that would have helped me avoid this atrocity and frankly something that movies this poor should be required to warn you of. Avoid this movie no matter what.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this film purely based on the fact that it was on the DPP Video Nasty list, and while I'm glad I saw it because it's now 'another Video Nasty down' - on its own merits, Andy Milligan's film really isn't worth bothering with. There are, of course, far worse films on the infamous list; but that doesn't make the pain of viewing this one any easier. The film was obviously shot on an extremely low budget, and that has translated into the script; as Blood Rites works on an idea often seen in horror cinema, and doesn't do anything new with it. Basically, the plot centres on three couples who find themselves at a house awaiting the results of a will. It's not long before they start getting picked off...blah blah blah. For most of the film, nothing happens; and then when we finally get down to the scenes that justify the movie being banned, they're so amateurish and silly that they're impossible to take seriously on any level. It's a very good thing that this movie doesn't have a very long running time as otherwise it could have been used as a particularly nasty method of torture. It all boils down to a fittingly tedious ending, which also succeeds in being a non-event of epic proportions. Apparently, this movie is still banned here in the UK; but somehow I doubt it's because of its shock value. Basically, Blood Rites isn't worth seeing and I personally can see no reason to recommend it. Unless, of course, you've made it your business to see everything on the Video Nasty list...$LABEL$ 0
+15 Park Avenue, well the name mystifies initially being an address from New York and film being set in Kolkata. However as the story unfolds, one realize the thin line that director tries to walk between Relationships, Social Cause and of course the world of Schizophrenia. I would say Aparna Sen is one director who has so much more to say and has so less time at disposal. Well no doubt she has managed to make a good movie. In a way she makes us realize that probably each one of us is looking for our own '15 Park Avenue'. Its an unending search within each of one of us...The powerhouse performance from Shabana Azmi is a treat to watch. Her screen presence brings whole lot of life into the scene. Indeed it was surprising to see her in such a powerful act after long because I expected it to be all the way Konkona Sen's terrain. Shabana makes you feel skin deep of an elder sister who is running the whole show for a rather unfortunate family and during this time she almost forgets to live her own life. She burdens all her ambitions and desires with ailing 18 year younger sister ( who is more like a daughter to her ) and an aging mother played by veteran Waheeda Rehman. As for the leading actress from Guide ( that's how I can recall her instantly ) there is hardly anything to say except few lines and tear drops here and there. Ever dependable Rahul Bose plays another pivotal role in the film, he shows the emotions of a middle age man with repent on his face to near perfection. This man really amazes me with the variety of work he has done. From a musician in Jhankar Beats to a liberal Muslim in Mr. & Mrs. Iyer and so many others…. He is one versatile I really wish if he had some more shots in the first part of the movie as well. The cameo in the movie is by Shefali Shah (remember Satya and Monsoon Wedding). She looks really beautiful and depicts the role of a mother of 2 kids with real ease. She gives you a glimpse of today's Indian woman who is modern in approach but still conventional when it comes to her husband's prior relationships. The focus of camera has been Meethi, portrayed by Konkona. She and her schizophrenic world constitute the nucleus of 15 Park Avenue. She has really worked hard for the character but there are times when she is not able to relate with the audience. The fateful accident of her life tries to rope in sympathy and it has been only partially successful. The movie tries to address quite a few things in one go starting from the unique world of a disabled person to the unequal status of a female even in today's modern India and also the twisted relationships in a tattered family. And I believe Aparna has succeeded to certain extent. The helplessness of Meethi while she works as a journalist in a rural eastern state really gives us all a naked picture of the country we are so proud of. Well after I finished 15 Park Avenue, there was a sense of unquenched thirst within me. I wanted more out of this movie to drench me emotionally. It has been a commendable effort on the part of director except few hiccups. Must watch for all those who like to see a different cinema, something with a strong purpose.$LABEL$ 1
+I was Stan in the movie "Dreams Come True". Stan was the friend that worked at the factory with the main character and ended getting his arm smashed in the machinery and got carried out screaming (where was the ambulance?) The acting in this movie was for the most part pretty poor with mostly local actors from the Fox Valley, Wisconsin. I saw the movie on the big screen. It played 2 nights in 3 theaters and was something special to see yourself on the big screen. I may be bias, but overall, I enjoyed it. Also the soundtrack was the band Spooner, who later became Garbage. My brother, Steve Charlton was also in the movie. He played Swenson the man who comes to the door on crutches to talk with the police.$LABEL$ 0
+The movie starts good, it has a thing going for it. About 1/3 into the movie things go downhill. Carrey starts obsessing about the number 23 because he sees it everywhere. So what? Thats no reason to go nuts and start writing stuff all over your body and on walls.The acting by whoever is playing his son is bad. From the get-go, as soon as he hears of his fathers obsession, he jumps on the bandwagon and is hysterical about it. Totally unbelievable. I hope I never see this kid in another movie again.Its a waste of time watching this movie. Grab another. Boring piece of ... well. The number is killing him? Give me a break. I won't spoil the ending for you, but let's just say it is equally disappointing.3 / 10.$LABEL$ 0
+Lion King 1 1/2 is a very fun and addictive sequel. Don't expect the production values of a theatrical release, but do expect the highest quality of direct to video release.It is set up as Timon & Pumba begin watching the original Lion King in a darkened theater and abruptly switch tracks and begin narrating their own story. This is done with frequent comedic interruptions. For example, during one particular tense moment a home shopping commercial pops on and a chagrined Pumba realizes he has sat on the remote. These little moments pepper the movie, and whether you find them entertaining or not will greatly depend on your sense of humor. If you are particularly bothered by movies that deliberately remind the viewer is watching a movie, than this may not be your cup of tea.Animation is the best they've invested in the Disney DTV line, and is integrated almost seamlessly with the original material. The newer, independent material uses a lot of the artistic style of the original. The voice talents are all well performed, though I couldn't help thinking of Marge Simpson every time I heard Julie Kavner.Many of the jokes in the movie will be well recognized by viewers as recycled over the generations, but are presented more with the familiarity of comfortable quirks of old friends than annoyingly repetitive.The music has made me realize how much I enjoyed and miss a good musical integrated with a Disney feature. The toe-tapping opening feature of 'Dig A Tunnel' is well choreographed and hilarious. Timon and Pumba's take on the Lion King's opening sequence and their introduction to paradise are also amusing. The only problem was the reprise of the 'Dig A Tunnel' at the end of the movie, switching its lyrics and tune from defeatist to uplifting.Story line is pretty well done, and the integration of new plot elements is done almost perfectly, though the final bit during the hyena chased stretched the storyline credibility a little. The new story doesn't seem to handle saccharine or emotionally charged moments to well, and does better when it is resorting to full comedy. Overall, worth purchasing. If you like all the bonus features that come with a typical 2-disc set, then go for it. For the penny pincher who still is willing to invest on a good flick, wait until it drops four or more dollars and go rent it right away. Damion Crowley.$LABEL$ 1
+When this was released, I thought this was one of the most profane films ever made. However, thanks to Martin Scorcese and a few other filmmakers like him, there have been mainline films worse, language-wise, than this....but this is a pretty brutal assault on one's ears. Hey, I can take a lot of it, but this got ridiculous. In the first six minutes alone, I heard a half-dozen usage's of the Lord's name in vain plus an untold number of f-words. I wonder how many people walked out of the theater watching this in 1990? I couldn't have been the only one.Not surprisingly, some of the feature actors included Jennifer Jason-Leigh, Burt Young, Jerry Orbach and Rikki Lake. Since this film, Stephen Lang seems to have improved his image, at least playing the Godly "Stonewall" Jackson in "Gods and Generals." Lang's role here is just the opposite: perhaps the worst trashy person in the film and a character who falls in love with a transvestite by the end of the film.Depressing, gloomy, semi-pornographic, repulsive: these are just a few of the adjectives people used - even some Liberal critics - in describing this story, which is painted even worse in the novel. Of course, some of the better-known critics, all extreme Libs, praised the movie. However, they were the only ones. Most critics were disgusted, as well almost all of the paying public. It's unbelievable that anyone could praise filth and garbage like this.Trust me on this: there are no good, likable characters in this entire movie. This is a mean, sick film: one of the worst of the "modern era." That is, unless you enjoy seeing child abuse, drug abuse, teen prostitutes, on and on - two straight hours of nothing but atrocities and just plain evil people. No thanks.$LABEL$ 0
+I'd give this film a 1/10. This film is devoid of common cinematic substance and concentrates way too much upon the current "skin trend" in Bollywood movies. I'd definitely not recommend teenagers to watch this movie. What really makes me feel dejected is how could such an impressive banner like Yash Chopra Films ever succumb to such an awful production? They have perhaps forgotten to keep in view that there is a larger audience than "adult" audience too, which when exposed to these sort of gross movies,may wreck their growing mind set and succumb to things devoid of sense and recognition.On the whole, films must not only be entertaining, but also must comprise of some sense as well. Certainly, this film is an immense disappointment to Yash Chopra fans, especially me myself. I am really disappointed over the plot, acting and everything else. Why can't people put in some substance that can be cherished after confronted with in the films, at least for once throughout the film? The point is clear. I'd like to put my opinion in short: "Horrible - Disappointment - Lot of Adult Material - Lack of sensible "substance" - Lack of normal psyche - Worthless - Could grab a Cornetto or a Temptations chocolate instead"$LABEL$ 0
+I was so surprised when I saw this film so much underrated... I understand why some of you dislike this movie. Its pace is slow, a characteristic of Japanese films. Nevertheless, if you are absorbed in the film like me, you will find this not a problem at all.I must say this is the best comedy I have ever seen. "Shall We Dansu?" is often considered a masterpiece of Japanese comedies. It is very different from Hollywood ones, e.g. Austin Powers or Scary Movies, in which a gag is guaranteed in every couple of minutes. Rather, it is light-hearted, a movie that makes you feel good.I love the movie because it makes me feel "real". The plot is straightforward yet pleasing. I was so delighted seeing that Sugiyama (the main role) has found the meaning of life in dancing. Before I watched the film I was slightly depressed due to heavy schoolwork. I felt lost. However, this film made me think of the bright side of life. I believed I was in the same boat of Sugiyama; if he could find himself in his hobby, why couldn't I? It reminded me of "exploring my own future" and discovering the happiness in my daily life.It is important to note that the actors are not professional dancers. While some of you may find the dancing scenes not as perfect as you expect, I kinda like it as it makes me feel that the characters are really "alive", learning to dance as the film goes on.Over all, this film is encouraging and heart-warming. As a comedy, it does its job perfectly. It definitely deserves 10 stars.And yes Aoki is funny :-D$LABEL$ 1
+I was greatly disappointed by the quality of this documentary. The content is poorly produced, very poor quality video and, especially awful audio. There's extremely little about how Bruce Haack produced his music and virtually no examples of direct connection to later and contemporary electronic music. The interviews of people who knew Bruce Haack are ad-hoc mostly inarticulate mumbo-jumbo. Too much yak and not enough Haack. Although I have a serious personal interest in electronic music and have a higher than average attention span, even for slow and/or difficult subject matter, I fell asleep while watching this documentary and had to review it to see the parts I slept through. If you watch this, make sure that you are set up, before viewing, like Alex in A Clockwork Orange. Bruce Haack deserves much better than this. Shame on the producer and director.$LABEL$ 0
+I've tried to reconcile why so many bad reviews of this film, while the vast majority of reviews are given a rating of between 7 and 10. The reason may be this film is kind of hard to describe in a positive review, although a few have done that quite nicely already. This film is confusing, depressing, and doesn't have a happy ending. I still gave Pola X a rating of 10, because it is basically for me literature and art combined on film. That is really my favorite kind of filmmaking. I've only seen two of Carax's films: this one and Mauvis Sang. As with this film, I'm being somewhat pretentious when I call this one of Carax's best films- but I am. Carax has a minimalist style. If that type of film does not appeal to you and is boring, then it would be best not to watch this. But Pola X was less minimalist than Mauvis Sang, so it had quite a lot of intensity for a thriller- at least for my taste. I found it quite interesting and absorbing. The two lead roles did an excellent job acting. (I mean the lead and the young woman he thought was his half sister.) Catherine D. is always great, but her role was not very large or significant in the story. But everyone did a fine job. I thought the cult stuff was great. It may have not been very believable, but that is due to its being rather abstract. There is a lot going on between the lines in this film. This is a very Freudian psycho-thriller.$LABEL$ 1
+WARNING: SPOILER,SPOILER,SPOILER!!!!This is written for filmgoers who may have walked away from "Mood for Love" perplexed and confused about paths the main characters choose in life. From reading other comments and reviews it seems that many viewers and critics missed some very important details which may have prevented them from enjoying this delightful tease of a movie.We are so use to seeing blatant SEX in narrations that we forget that there was a time when filmakers would suggest the "dirty deed" by simply showing the slack-mouthed couples ride off in a sleigh or haywagon only to return into the next scene with a bulging gut or a fat toddler stuck to the hip..."Meet your child".The director chose the same nostalgic approach in telling the story of Mr Chow and Mrs Chan. Last warning...SPOILER SPOILER SPOILERMr Chow fools Mrs Chan into showing her real emotions when they rehearse his departure forever. Next scene: Mrs Chan leans her head on Mr Chow in the taxi and says "I do not want to go home tonight". Translation: "Let's Do It"Why then did the couple just not do the modern thing of dumping their cheating spouses,get a divorce,raise their love child and live happily ever after? The answer is that this whole story takes place in Hong Kong during the Sixties. A bastard would live in a bleak life of shame if he were the child of an adulteress;whereas,a "legitimate" child could live a tragic but noble/honest life if his mother chose to raise him away from his cheating "father"-the invisible Mr Chan. In short,Mr Chow and Mrs Chan sacrifices their relationship for the future of their child.That is why Mr Chow,upon learning that Mrs Chan lives alone with a little boy gives a knowing smile and ends his dreams of making Mrs Chan his Mrs Chow. He then,also realizes why Mrs Chan went to all the way to Singapore to be with him,only to reconsiders at the last momment and leave..,choosing to never see him again.(But not before taking some unnamed keepsake) Mr Chow lives with this wonderful secret with no one to tell. No one,except for a crumbling temple wall and of course we the viewer,...but only if we listen carefuly.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a great film with an amazing cast. Crispen Glover is at his freakiest . His guitar solo is amazing. Also watch out for a cameo by William Burroughs. Truly a cult classic. This is on my top ten list. Don't miss this twisted film.$LABEL$ 1
+Maya is a woman without any interests. She just dreams her life away and wonders, why she does not feel fulfilled. This could be an interesting topic. That would need a good story, a nice setting and good dialogues. It doesn't have any of these. This movie is totally boring. There are only lengths and no climaxes.The only climax is Shahrukh Khan. But although I am a huge fan of his, I couldn't stand this movie. Even he can't make this movie exiting. The movie is not as bad as "King Uncle" and if you're an Art-house fan or like it slow, you might maybe like it. It's not funny, it's not interesting, it's not catching. My recommendation: Don't watch it.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a bad movie. Not one of the funny bad ones either. This is a lousy bad one. It was actually painful to watch. The direction was awful,with lots of jumping around and the green and yellow hues used throughout the movie makes the characters look sickly. Keira Knightly was not convincing as a tough chick at all,and I cannot believe Lucy Liu and Mickey Rourke signed on for this criminal waste of celluloid. The script was terrible and the acting was like fingernails across a chalkboard. If you haven't seen it,don't. You are not missing anything and will only waste two hours of your life watching this drivel .I have seen bad movies before and even enjoyed them due to their faults. This one is just a waste of time.$LABEL$ 0
+This is an excellent movie and I wish that they would put it out on DVD for people to purchase. It is difficult to try to catch it on TV all the time. As you do not know when one of the stations will decide to air it. Can someone tell me what file company make it so I can write to them and see if they will release it to the public? I only caught the last hour and a half yesterday and I only got to see it once last year. My sisters and I are all looking for it in every store that sells any videos. John Denver is an excellent singer and actor and the plot line is great. They put out some much older movies and I think that is great but there are quite a few that they have not put out and I think if we could contact the producers and voice our requests we might get some of them put out on DVD.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is simply not worth the time or money spent. Full of clichés and a plot that makes absolutely no sense ! I cant believe that so many people have given this awful movie a 10. My guess is they are stooges of the movie maker. If I could give this movie a zero, I would. Too bad IMDb doesn't allow that. The only reason I watched it because I went with a friend who really wanted to see it. Whats sad is that I never had great expectations from this movie to begin with and yet I felt short changed. Take my word, don't waste your $8 on this piece of trash. The only entertainment I got out of the movie was making fun of the directors name. In all, highly NOT RECOMMENDED !$LABEL$ 0
+putting aside the "i'm so sure"s and "totally gnarly"s this is one of the sweetest and lifelike romances portrayed on film. deborah foreman (where is she now?) as julie and nicolas cage as randy are as classic as romeo and juliet, tony and maria, jake and samantha... you can't help but fall in love with them. plus the soundtrack - the plimsouls, sparks, the furs, the flirts, and of course, modern english - is also outstanding. for fans of films about young love, i'd equally recommend the recent film all the real girls by david gordon green.$LABEL$ 1
+It started out with an interesting premise. I always like Civil War stuff and ancient secret societies. The more the film progressed, the more I realized that this was a B movie at best. In the latter half, it quickly became a C movie, then D, then F, then "I wish that this wasn't a rental so that I could put it in the microwave!" I can't say that the acting in all cases was awful, just most. The writing, however... I never read the book. Maybe the book is well written. The screenplay was written by a 10 year old. It was ridiculously shallow, the dialog drab and uninteresting, the characters about as interesting as a 5 pound bag of fertilizer. I really hated this movie, as did my wife. I am a Christian and I have no problem with movies that promote or support Christianity. This movie did a great disservice to the cause. Awful, terrible, worthless. If you liked it, I strongly recommend Superman 4.$LABEL$ 0
+A film that is so much a 30's Warners film in an era when each studio had a particular look and style to their output, unlike today where simply getting audiences is the object.Curitz was one of the quintessential Warners house directors working with tight economy and great efficiency whilst creating quality, working methods that were very much the requirements of a director at Warners, a studio that was one of the "big five" majors in this era producing quality films for their large chains of theatres.Even though we have a setting of the upper classes on Long Island there is the generic Warners style embedded here with a narrative that could have been "torn from the headlines". Another example is the when the photographers comment on the girls legs early in the film and she comments that "They're not the trophies" gives the film a more working mans, down to earth feel, for these were the audiences that Warners were targeting in the great depression. (ironically Columbia and Universal were the two minors under these five majors until the 50's when their involvement in television changed their fortunes - they would have made something like this very cheaply and without the polish and great talent) Curtiz has created from an excellent script a film that moves along at a rapid pace whilst keeping the viewer with great camera angles and swift editing.Thank heavens there is no soppy love interest sub-plot so the fun can just keep rolling along.$LABEL$ 1
+I got this DVD well over 2 years ago and only decided to watch it yesterday. I don't know why it took me so long as I do like the Inspector Gadget show and even the new Gadget and the Gadgetinis. While it may have a bright color pallet and all the technical sophistication of a modern animated movie, there are some old things missing that bog this Gadget right down the toilet.First of all the classic Inspector Gadget theme song and music is completely absent. The composer tries to compromise by doing a score that sounds similar but it's still just no good enough. The Gadget-mobile is now a talking car, not a car that can turn into a van. Plus it looks a lot cuter and rounder instead of being plain cool. Penny no longer has her computer book and she and Brain hardly make an appearance at all.The plot is non-existent. There's something about a transformation formula and Doctor Claw using for some never revealed evil but that's all I got. What the deal was with the short/giant Italian guy I will never know. It had nothing to do with anything.And if the title is anything to go by, his last case is wrapped up in no way whatsoever. And he stays on the force so why it's called 'last case' is a mystery also.I wasn't impressed at all. This is an affront to a great animated show that is strangely absent on DVD, but don't let that prompt you into buying whatever Inspector Gadget DVDs you can. I sold this mere seconds after finally watching it. No kid will like or appreciate this and no fan of the old show with tolerate it.$LABEL$ 0
+This episode of Buffy was one of my personal favorites. Also number three of Joss' personal favorites as well. The episode featured very little dialogue and despite that the good folks at the Emmy's decided it merited a nomination. Unfortunately it didn't win. When Hush first premiered it received about 6 million viewers, which was the highest rated episode of season four. That should tell you something. Even though there was very little talking it managed to intrigue people enough to tune in. Those gentlemen characters (who were played my mimes) were some of the scariest creatures the show has produced (or any network TV show I've seen). Nothing is creepier then a bunch of silver teethed men coming at you with a scalpel while smiling away. I think that despite the lack of dialogue the actors did a fantastic job on the episode.$LABEL$ 1
+Bulletproof is quite clearly a disposable film. The kind where bullet riddled good guys and bad guys are splatted everywhere, so much so that you really aren't supposed to see them as human. The yawns between the lines from Wayans and Sandler are extensive indeed. They try hard but , alas and alack, persona itself does not a good film make. Jimmy Caan plays a nifty villain but he's always had that redneck edge at the ready. My favorite's scene is the repeated clips of a TV ad in which Caan reveals the virtues of America can be shown to the world by having 2 cars in every garage. Aside from that it's a buddy movie with guns for brains. Pass on this one.$LABEL$ 0
+I think this movie was made as good as it could have been. With only 4 months and a 52000$ budget - I'm surprised this wasn't worse. If you are not to care about the CG or special effects, this movie is great.Okay, the movie is not that well made (I'm sure it could have been but, you try to do better in only 4 months) but the story is good and the movie is rather exciting.DOn't trust me when I say that this movie is good, cause I also find the 1933 King Kong to be good.I must confess that I didn't watch the complete movie either... I might have fast forwarded some minutes here and there...$LABEL$ 1
+I gave this 4 stars because it has a lot of interesting themes many here have already mentioned. From the domestic violence, to sexuality and many of the taboos therein. Outside of the gore I really would not call this horror so much as I would science fiction.It's bleak, depressing and hopeless. While I don't mind a less than cheery ending, I'm really very tired of the "humans suck" cliché that's central to every movie. I know you can't get a liberal arts degree today without bowing to the alter of self-hatred as a member of the human race, but how's 'bout as a writer/director we pretend we are different than everyone else in the pack and notice that the ALIENS KILLING THE HUMAN RACE are evil! Right now, if you are reading this and believe that humanity deserves to die, just go out, find a lake and swim 'til your arms are tired. This way you won't be around to direct the next film or write the next book telling me I deserve to die for being alive. It's silly, not thoughtful, and boring.$LABEL$ 0
+One of my all time favourite films, ever. Just beautiful, full of human emotion, wit, humour, intelligence. The story grows, as does the lesson of life, just a wonderful film in so many ways.The cast are also fantasic..... a great selection of the finest British talent around. I loved them all for every diverse element brought into the film.Italy has to be one of the most romantic places to form a story such as this, - everything about this film works. I love it :)$LABEL$ 1
+This is a really mediocre film in the vein of "Buckaroo Banzai." The cast runs around like "Mad Max" wannabes, and they seem to be sharing a joke that they do not want to share with the audience. Wheeler-Nicholson is one of the those guilty pleasure actresses you are delighted to stumble across in films, but she isn't worth the price of rental. Space Maggot starts an electrical fire, and burns a vote of 4.$LABEL$ 0
+being a high school student,i have to take a health class. this year, the topic is drugs. we learn about the harm they can cause a person. from what we talk about, i still believe and know that drugs can really mess a person up. anyway, my teacher wanted us to watch this. naturally, we groan and start to sleep, but like the rest of my class, i actually did enjoy this movie. it was totally real, and not sugar coated at all. the characters were amazing and believable. even the plot was outstandingly realistic and believable. what i liked about this movie mainly was how it got the point of the effect's drugs can take on an abuser, and the consequences the person has to deal with. everyone reassures themselves that nothing bad will happen to them. well lets get serious. anything can happen in a small town, even to your best friend, like Sam and Chris. this movie shows it. a person can really learn a lot from watching this. it was pretty effective.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is good for entertainment purposes, but it is not historically reliable. If you are looking for a movie and thinking to yourself `Oh I want to learn more about Custer's life and his last stand', do not rent `They Died with Their Boots On'. But, if you would like to watch a movie for the enjoyment of an older western film, with a little bit of romance and just for a good story, this is a fun movie to watch.The story starts out with Custer's (Errol Flynn) first day at West Point. Everyone loves his charming personality which allows him to get away with most everything. The movie follows his career from West Point and his many battles, including his battle in the Civil War. The movie ends with his last stand at Little Big Horn. In between the battle scenes, he finds love and marriage with Libby (Olivia De Havilland).Errol Flynn portrays the arrogant, but suave George Armstrong Custer well. Olivia De Havilland plays the cute, sweet Libby very well, especially in the flirting scene that Custer and Libby first meet. Their chemistry on screen made you believe in their romance. The acting in general was impressive, especially the comedic role ( although stereotypical) of Callie played by Hattie McDaniel. Her character will definitely make you laugh.The heroic war music brought out the excitement of the battle scenes. The beautiful costumes set the tone of the era. The script, at times, was corny, although the movie was still enjoyable to watch. The director's portrayal of Custer was as a hero and history shows this is debatable. Some will watch this movie and see Custer as a hero. Others will watch this movie and learn hate him.I give it a thumbs up for this 1942 western film.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie has made me upset! When I think of Cat in the hat. Im thinking of cat in the hat books. You know, the one from a few years back that parents read to thier children. Well, I though that this movie would be a lot like that! But much to my suprise was nothing like the books! Insted it is more like young adult humor movie. In one part cat is talking to a gardening tool (hoe) cat talks to it like it is his hoe (agin adult humor). the naming of his car I all so though was a little untastful for a kids movie. under the rating you'll find: mild cude humor and some double-entendres. I think in short this means adult humor. I wish I could return this movie! wal-mart said they wouldn't because the movie has been opened. If you are thinking about buying this I suggest that maybe rent before you buy.$LABEL$ 0
+Mickey Rourke hunts Diane Lane in Elmore Leonard's Killshot It is not like Mickey Rourke ever really disappeared. He has had a steady string of appearances before he burst back on the scene. He was memorable in: Domino, Sin City, Man on Fire, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, and Get Carter. But in his powerful dramatic performance in The Wrestler (2008), we see a full blown presentation of the character only hinted at in Get Carter. Whenever we get to know him, Rourke remains a cool, but sleazy, muscle bound slim ball.This is an Elmore Leonard story, and production. Leonard wrote such notable movies as taunt western thriller 3:10 to Yuma, Be Cool, Jackie Brown, Get Shorty, 52 Pick-Up, and Joe Kidd. This means that we get tough guys, some good, some not so good.It also means we get tight, realistic plots with characters doing what is best for them in each situation, weaving complications into violent conclusions. Killshot is no different. Tough, slim ball killer Rourke stalks unhappily married witness Lane. Think History of Violence meets No Country for Old Men. It is not as intense, bloody or gory as those two, but it is almost as good. If you like those two, including David Croneberg's equally wonderful Eastern Promises, you will like Killshot also.Director John Madden has not done a lot of movies. His last few were enjoyable, if not successful: Proof, Captain Corelli's Mandolin and Shakespeare in Love.Diana Lane hasn't had a powerful movie role since she and Richard Gere gave incredible performances in Unfaithful. Lately she is charming and appealing in romantic stories such as Nights in Rodanthe, Must Love Dogs, and Under the Tuscan Sun. Here she is right on mark, balancing her sexy appeal with reserved tension.This is a small part for Rosario Dawson. Yet Dawson does a good job with it. You see a lot more of Lane, including an underwear scene to rival Sigourney Weaver in Aliens and Nicole Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut.While you are in the crime drama section, also pick up Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang, and Gone Baby Gone, and Before the Devil Knows Your Dead. The last has wonderful performances by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Marisa Tomei and Albert Finney.Killshot flopped at the box office. More is our luck. It is certainly worth a 3-4 dollar rental, if you like this genre. 6/20/2009$LABEL$ 0
+"Müllers Büro" is a movie which many will watch and enjoy until the end, while others will stop watching it within five minutes. It is a parody of detective movies with all the twists and turns; the action takes place only at night in the dark corners of a city which resembles Batman's Gotham City (look carefully at the streets, buildings, the police car chasing the criminals, etc.). It is also a parody of musicals with its really funny characters such as Müller's secretary and Vitasek's (the actor playing Müller's assistant) lover who do their best to sing, albeit not very successfully.The spaces occupied by the characters have their own presence in the film such as the decadent Blue Box (there is a real club with this name in Vienna) where one can see a sailor hitting on a girl in the background, Müller's apartment with the black paint smeared on the walls and the dirty kitchen, Müller's bureau with the sweet picture of his assistant, etc.The humorous moments in the movie are many and include "flat in the face" type of humor such as Müller farting in his assistant's face, the prostitute charging Müller extra for orgasm, the ridiculous outfits of the female thugs of Montana, etc.A legendary film from the 80's especially for those interested in Austrian or German-speaking cinema.$LABEL$ 1
+Peter Sollett has created an endearing portrait about real people living in poverty in the Lower East Side of New York, or Loisaida, as it's known by the locals.Mr. Sollett's heart is in the right place as he examines this dysfunctional family, that is typical of the different 'inner cities' of the country. Mr. Sollett accentuates the positive in the story he presents. These are basically good kids, the children of parents that have left them and whose grandmother has taken under her wing. Instead of presenting his characters as losers, Mr. Sollett shows a positive side they all have. These kids are not into drugs, or are stealing because they are poor. Had this story been done by Hollywood we would have seen a parade of stereotypes, instead of children that are struggling, but deep down inside, they are not defeated.Victor Rasuk, as Victor Vargas, was a revelation. He is a natural. So is July Marte. Her character shows us a no nonsense girl who will not be fooled or driven to do anything she doesn't want to do. Altagracia Guzman, as the grandmother is excellent. She conveys her frustration at not being able to steer her grandchildren into the things she believes in and that are so important to her. All in all, this was an excellent picture thanks to Peter Sollett.$LABEL$ 1
+The long list of "big" names in this flick (including the ubiquitous John Mills) didn't bowl me over to the extent that I couldn't judge the film on its actual merits. It is FULL of stereotypes, caricatures, and standard, set scenes, from the humble air-ace hero to the loud-mouthed yank flyer. The music track was such that at one point, about an hour before the end, I thought the film was over: loud, rising crescendo, grand flourish and finish then silence, but then the movie continued! I found no real storyline, haphazard writing, but smartly-pressed uniforms and the pretty Jean Simmons (pre-nose job) with a rousing little ditty. I cannot say that this picture has any of the ingredients which make a film great. I found it maudlin, mawkish and minor.$LABEL$ 0
+I love the Jurassic Park movies, they are three of my all time favorite movies.And I hate this game, if there was one game I wish I never own for the Super Nintendo was this one.How can a game based on a classic movie be just too awful? And to make it worst, I was scare of this game when I was a kid.How dumb was that but then again I was a kid when this game was first out.The game play in this game is just odd. One minute it's a action game and then it's a shooter. What in the world is wrong with making up your mind when making a video game.The Sound in the game is just terrible to listen.The music is just too sick to listen to.The Controllers in the game don't work most of the time.Jurassic Park the game is just a waste of time and money and won't be a classic.Avoid at all cost$LABEL$ 0
+utterly useless... having been there, done that with the subject matter i have to say this captures the clubbing atmosphere in absolutely no respect. It may have done so had the characters not just been mouthpieces for incredibly dire, unrealistic drivel. So many cringe-worthy scenes that would put The Office to shame (not a compliment to this film). It also may have helped to have some semblance of a story, a point, a message, a commentary, anything. Seriously, Kevin & Perry Go Large had more to say on the subject than this film (term used very loosely in this case). There should be minus numbers reserved for films like this. -10 (extra turd)$LABEL$ 0
+Wild Rebels is fun in a bad way, but also frustrating due to the actual good, or at least workable, elements in the story. It deals with a race car driver (Steve Alaimo) who gets mixed up in a group of bikers called Satan's Angels, who hang around a lot until they decide to rob a bank. Meanwhile Alaimo also gets recruited by the cops to report back to them what the Angels are up to and where they'll rob next. It's not even that the film is really too 'dated', though it does of course carry the significantly crude and stupid music in the film (from the band on stage in one scene, to Alaimo "performing" if you could call that drek that, to the regular generic score). It's just that there's not more care taken by the filmmaker into putting a little more logic, direction, and better actors for the parts. As it is I didn't have a major disliking towards the film, as I did with the Hellcats, but it almost left me a little indifferent to it all, too. What could come through as being unpredictable only comes through with stupid things like the name of the Florida town ('Citrusville' ho-ho). So it's not completely un-worthy then of its Mystery Science Theater 3000 status as of late. The commentary is good on the movie, even if once or twice I almost wanted to hear what the characters on screen were saying in case it might have some worth. Wild Rebels might be more of a good time if you've got a six-pack and low expectations, but as it is I wouldn't watch it again.$LABEL$ 0
+I`ve seen this movie twice, both times on Cinemax. The first time in it`s unrated version which is soft-core porn at it`s best and the second time in a trimmed down (cut all the sex and most of the nudity out) version which was entertaining in a typical beach movie sort of way. The unrated version has a tremendous sex scene with Nikki Fritz, a dude and a bottle of oil which is out of this world (no pun intended). Unfortunately, in the trimmed version that scene is almost completely chopped out, as are all the other sex scenes. Rated or unrated it is still fun to watch all the siblings of bigger stars (Stallone, Sheen, Travolta, etc;) trying to act. We also get appearances by B-queen Linnea Quigley and Burt Ward (Robin from the old Batman series).$LABEL$ 1
+If this is someone's "favorite" movie, they need some serious help. There is nothing funny or clever about this crapfest. I haven't seen the original movie this is the remake of (some 1950s film), but it simply has to be better than this newer bastardization.A major gets kicked out of the military for being a fringe element, and winds up teaching children at an ROTC school. Unfortunately, the major is Daman Wayans... so the children are in for a world of annoying, humorless asininity. Can Wayans whip these losers into shape? Can they get him to become a little more human? The film bombs as most Wayans films do, with only a few sparkling moments. William Hickey gets about one minute of screen time, fair too little. This charming old man (known best to me as a "Tales from the Crypt" actor, known best to you as Uncle Louis from "Christmas Vacation") shines every moment he's on screen, which isn't much here.Bam Bam Bigelow also makes an appearance as a biker, which fits him perfectly. I wouldn't mind slightly more Bam Bam, but I think he carried the role of "biker" about as far as it could be carried for a military film.And then there's the attractive teacher, who someone falls for Major Payne even though he treats the kids poorly, has no social skills and is simply impossible to convert into someone you would want to spend time with. She must either be incredibly stupid or incredibly desperate. I'm not sure which (though it would seem "stupid" since the movie makes it clear she gets out of the house often enough).Wayans had one shining moment: a dance sequence where he performs a series of moves (including a very nice "robot"), and with the help of music from 2 Live Crew. This scene was enjoyable but hardly made up for anything else that made this film dog spittle.Seriously, avoid this film. If you want to see a film a bout a loser who helps loser kids become heroes, rent or buy "Ernest Goes to Camp". At least he's a lovable loser, and actually funny. Maybe if Major Payne had fought a badger I'd feel better, but he didn't. Forget Payne, forget Wayans... you can do so much better.$LABEL$ 0
+I concur with the other users comment. Hard to believe that this movie actually came out in 1994 because it screams mid 80's. I think it is dubbed because the sound and the picture don't always match up. If anyone can truly say this is a good movie, they need to be locked up. It is so sad how money has so much power over people that they will do anything to get it. I feel I lost intelligence from watching this. I used to have a little respect for Chuck Norris before I watched this but now I just feel bad. I bought this as part of a 3 movie pack for $9.99 and I can honestly say I would have been better off literally throwing the money away. Forgive me Jesus.$LABEL$ 0
+I have just recently purchased collection one of this awesome series and even after just watching three episodes, I still am mesmerized by sleek styling of the animation and the slow, yet thoughtful actions of the story-telling. I am still a fan.....with some minor pains.Though this installment into the Gundam saga is very cool and has what the previous series had-a stylish satiric way of telling about the wrongs of war and not letting go of the need to have control or power over everything(sound familiar?), I have to say that this one gets a bit too mellow-dramatic on continuing to explain the lives of the main characters and their incessant need to belly-ache about every thing that happens and what they need to do to stop the OZ group from succeeding in their plans(especially the character called Wufei...I mean he whines more than an American character on a soap opera. Get a counselor,will ya?)Besides for the over-exaggerated drama(I think that mostly comes from the dubbing of the English voice actors), this series is still very exciting and will still captivate me once again. I mean it can always be worse. It could be like the recent installment, SEED......eeeewwww, talk about mellow-dramatic....I'll chat about that one later.$LABEL$ 1
+I've seen my share of Woody Allen's movies, and while they're not always great, you can usually be sure you're going to be entertained. Probably the last really good ones were Bullets Over Broadway ('94) and Mighty Aphrodite ('95) - since then the ones I've seen have been patchy but watchable. And so when I was invited to see the new Woody Allen movie Melinda and Melinda, which I wasn't even aware had been released yet, I went along happily. I hadn't really heard much about it so I hoped I would be pleasantly surprised.What I got was definitely the worst Woody Allen movie I've seen. The premise is over-explained, the cast is terrible, the script is slow and lifeless. Too many scenes said nothing and yet were stretched out, I assume to fill out what would have otherwise become a 15 minute short film.I don't mind the concept behind this film - two directors discuss how a simple situation could be interpreted as a comedy or a tragedy, and obviously the film proceeds to show us that, by playing out both scenarios. The problem is neither of these 'two films' are any good at all. The comedy isn't funny and the tragedy isn't very tragic. It seems like Allen came up with a good idea but then ran out of steam, or time, to actually complete the film.The general level of acting is notably bad also - Will Ferrell is the only one who brings anything to the table, and it's basically a Woody Allen impression. Previously good actors like Chloe Sevigny just come off as annoying, and the worst of the bunch is Radha Mitchell as Melinda (which is a shame, because her character is in nearly every scene!).To be fair to the actors, the script they are working with is lacking if not non-existent. Definitely a long way from the Allen we know and love from classics like Manhattan or Annie Hall.$LABEL$ 0
+Although the premise of the movie involves a major "coincidence," the actors all do a creditable job and look great bringing the story to life. I found myself rooting for the characters played by Mary Tyler Moore and Christine Lahti, empathizing with both, and wanting them to reconcile. Sam Waterston and Ted Danson are fine in their roles as well, doing a decent job with the stereotypical buddy relationship. While the story tends to leap through time, occasionally leaving the audience perhaps a little hungry for missing detail, it still flows and avoids any real confusion. This interesting storyline has all the elements for a good "chick flick."$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this movie, and the play, and I have to add that this was the most touching story that I had ever seen. Until I saw this movie I was unaware of how awful life was and probably still is for the South African children and adults that were and are living in that era. It brought tears to my eyes and much sadness to my heart that any human being should have to struggle like that just to stay alive, And to bring the children right out of that area and teach them to act and preform and turn them loose to tell their own story is simply amazing. This simply surpass a five star, I rate it a ten. Thank You Mr. Mbongeni Ngema for such a astonishing story. Although it has been 12 years since this story has been told, it is still one that lays heavy in my heart.If there is a VHS, or DVD out there on the play, Please notify me ASAP.Thank You. PS There was nothing wrong with the kids wanting to bring awareness of their problems and conditions to the attention of other countries in hopes that some one would have a heart and offer assistance.$LABEL$ 1
+And nothing wrong in that! Heartily endorse the comments of boblipton and Snow Leopard.I'm thrilled to find this movie is available on US DVD - I've only ever seen it through once - I persuaded the Goethe Institute here in London to show it in their Conrad Veidt season some years ago - and long to see it again.Barrymore is resplendent when engaged, as in this movie, possibly because of the prick of having a renowned German actor as a foil. And Veidt is such a wonderful scene stealer (doesn't he pick his nose at one point?) This is one of the seminal films to connect 'Dr Jekyll' with '20th Century', 'Grand Hotel' or 'Midnight'; and 'The Cabinet of Dr Caligari' or 'The Student of Prague' with 'The Spy in Bladk', 'Contraband' and 'Casablanca'.See it!$LABEL$ 1
+I've seen this amusing little 'brit flick'many times. The only problem is Its currently unavailable on video or DVD. I'ts certainly a contender for a DVD release. The much missed Richard Jordan plays 'pinky' an Ex-pat American, whose Just been released from prison,he finds himself A job as an Electrician in a bank, it all goes well until he finds Himself Embroiled in a bank heist with his ex cronies, David Niven Plays the mastermind Ivan, Its an enjoyable little romp, hopefully studio canal or anchor bay, will come to the Rescue. Look out for john Rhys Davies Before he struck it big with 'shogun' Raiders of the lost Ark 'Lord Of The Rings' In a small role as a barrister,$LABEL$ 1
+I'm not sure this film could ever match the first one, even if it starred the original seven (notwithstanding the fact that four were killed). It just doesn't have the spark and chemistry. All the actors seem tired and look as if they are just going through the motions to get their paychecks.It's interesting how Yul Brynner is "magnificent" in the original film but stiff and unconvincing in this sequel. Yet when he stars in Westworld and Futureworld in the 1970s his character (in the same matching black pants, shirt and hat) evokes the same mystery and presence of the 1960 film's Chris Adams.There's nothing in this 1966 flick to make it worth watching, even on cable.$LABEL$ 0
+Beautiful film, pure Cassavetes style. Gena Rowland gives a stunning performance of a declining actress, dealing with success, aging, loneliness...and alcoholism. She tries to escape her own subconscious ghosts, embodied by the death spectre of a young girl. Acceptance of oneself, of human condition, though its overall difficulties, is the real purpose of the film. The parallel between the theatrical sequences and the film itself are puzzling: it's like if the stage became a way out for the Heroin. If all american movies could only be that top-quality, dealing with human relations on an adult level, not trying to infantilize and standardize feelings... One of the best dramas ever. 10/10.$LABEL$ 1
+The 20th animated Disney classic is often criticized by many people as "mediocre" or poor in quality, but it is a great movie.Too bad that "The Aristocats" doesn't get the deserved credit. I personally see it as one of my favorite Disney classics.Despite being extremely underrated, it is one of the funniest Disney classics. It is full of hilarious (some of them, hysterical) moments.Edgar, the greedy butler, is the villain of the movie but he is a perfect comic relief. He's one of my favorite Disney villains because he is so funny.Every scene with Edgar and the hound dogs Napoleon and Lafayette chasing him are among the most hilarious you'll ever see, especially the one when Edgar drives his motorcycle into the river and around the bridge, with the dogs chasing him. That is hysterical!But the classic humor doesn't just come from Edgar or the hound dogs. Other characters have their moments as well.About the quality subject, it isn't perfect, but remains on a high level. Even after Walt Disney's death those artists knew how to keep faithful to Walt's spirit and "The Aristocats" is one of those examples. They don't make them like this nowadays!As usual, legendary Disney actors voice the characters. In this case, we have Phil Harris, Sterling Holloway, Paul Winchell, Eva Gabor and Pat Buttram.The characters are cool in general: Thomas O'Malley, Duchess and her 3 kittens, the mouse Roquefort, the alley cats, the English geese, the hound dogs and the horse. The human characters are included as well: the eccentric and kind retired Opera singer Madame Adelaide Bonfamille, the comic Madame's old lawyer Georges Hautecourt and Edgar himself!About the soundtrack, it has some nice and catchy songs such as Thomas O'Malley's theme (but I can't remember its name), "Everybody Wants to be a Cat" and "The Aristocats" (sung by Maurice Chevalier), for example.This movie takes place in Paris (France), in the year of 1910. Above all, this is a joyful, nice and very pleasant movie. A timeless classic which is often underestimated and forgotten, but very worthy.This should definitely be on Top 250.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm not going to say that this movie is horrible, because I have seen worse, but it's not even halfway decent. The plot is very confusing. I couldn't really figure out what was happening and where things were going. When the movie was over, I was left scratching my head. I watched through to the end of the credits to see if they had something after them that may clear things up, but once the credits were over, that was it. I felt like I was jarred from one weak plot point to another throughout the whole movie, with little or no transition between the two. Character development is very shallow. I couldn't figure out when somebody was angry or had a grudge against someone. I couldn't tell if half of the characters were just supposed to be drunk, stoned, mentally challenged or they just had a bad actor to portray them. This film seems to be based around stereotypes (to it's credit, they are hard to avoid using when you are making a film about a singer in a rock band), which SHOULD make character development easier, since so many other films have already illustrated the suffering of an abused child, or the trials of a heroin addict trying to come clean. Stereotypes are easy to depict, which would explain why so many bad films tend to overuse stereotypical characters. This film, on the other hand, uses stereotypical characters left and right, but then tries to keep them as incomprehensible as possible.Another problem with the characters is that they seemed to be dismissed with no explanation. I guess that's OK because so little time was spent developing the characters that I really didn't get a chance to know any of them, so I never really missed any of them.And last but not least was Sadie's singing. It's awful. The music backing her up is not prize winner, but it is usually drowned out by the screeches that are released from Sadie's vocal cords. I swear that there's one point in the movie where she sings a song for at least 10 minutes. I seriously thought I was going to have to turn it off during this howl-a-thon.As a whole, this movie is confusing. Characters are ill-developed, Georgia's acting is wooden and stiff, Sadie's character is yanked from one bad situation to another, with no back story or explanation. The music was unbearable, and I can think of no good reasons to see this film unless you have a thirst for cinematic pain.$LABEL$ 0
+Appalling, shallow, materialistic nonsense. How women (and gay men?) can enjoy this rubbish is beyond me. No self-respecting man would ever want to be with one of these neurotic gold diggers. What is even more concerning is that so many reviewers say they relate to the women on the show. If that is the future of women, Lord help us all. Showing your independence and being respected as equals with men should not be about spreading your legs every three seconds with a different man. I think this demeans women and does not do them justice. But this review is no rant against women. Fans of this show say it is "hilarious" and "rivoting" but every time I have watched this show I have just struggled to stay awake. Despite the narrative of the reporter woman, at no point in this show is there even anything close to something that could be considered a rational thought. So, it's not entertaining, and it's not informative, so why would you bother watching it? One out of ten stars.$LABEL$ 0
+A throwback to the "old fashioned" Westerns of the 30s and 40s (such as DODGE CITY), DALLAS has a number of things going for it: Gary Cooper at his coolest, blazing Technicolor photography by Ernest Haller (GONE WITH THE WIND) and a pulse-pounding Max Steiner (KING KONG, GWTW, DODGE CITY et al.) score. In addition, there is a masquerade, mistaken identity, a faked death and more hair-breath escapes than a Republic serial. As always, Cooper defines what it is to be a man under pressure. Forget the 50s angst Western... this is pure entertainment!$LABEL$ 1
+We sat through this movie thinking why is this or that scene in the movie, what does this have to do with the plot? We hoped that by the end everything would be slightly more clear. It was not to be.I think the director in a fit of pique threw the script up in the air and then some minor (and vengeful) underling reassembled it randomly with no regard to the scene being filmed (possibly with scissors and glue-stick).The film's motifs include: Communism bad? Nihilism bad? Poor parenting bad? Threesomes bad? TV bad? Coherent scripting bad? Deconstructionism good? It's really not clear.Finally, no German water taxi would EVER have an unchained staircase that would let passengers fall in to the water. The abundant quantity of "achtung" signs everywhere is testament to this fact.$LABEL$ 0
+On the back burner for years (so it was reported) this television reunion of two of the most beloved characters in sitcom history started off badly - and went straight downhill from there. Mary Richards (Mary Tyler Moore) and her best friend Rhoda Morgenstern (Valerie Harper) meet in New York after a long estrangement and catch up on each other's lives. What a novel concept! But, sad to relate, nothing worth talking about (let alone making a movie about) has happened to either of them in the intervening years. So, instead, the script contents itself with throwing out one hoary old plot device after another (most having to do with older women in the workplace), while completely missing the quirky charm and sophistication that made the original show a winner. The supporting cast is instantly forgettable, the humor is nonexistent, and the chemistry which Moore and Harper once had together is gone. Moore allegedly stalled this project for years, waiting for "just the right script" before committing herself. If this was the one she considered "right", what on earth were the ones she turned down like? It's not the age of the characters that does this in (for time inevitably marches on), but the almost complete lack of imagination coupled with a blatant disregard for the elements that made the series work. At one time this was intended as a pilot but, all to obviously, it failed to generate any interest among potential sponsors. Or for that matter, among potential audiences. Quickly and mercifully forgotten, the film is a travesty and an insult to a classic.$LABEL$ 0
+**Could be considered some mild spoilers, but no more than in anyone else's review of this film.**I knew that nothing could conceivably live up to the absolute brilliance of the original "Carrie," which was more of a film about social criticism than it was about setting the gym on fire. Carrie White was "victim" epitomized, and her story conveyed the helplessness that the truly exploited must feel.Whoever conceived the "Rachel" character for "The Rage" must have completely missed the subtleties of "Carrie." For the audience to genuinely share the victim's rage, s/he must be a sympathetic character-- a true outcast who is more a victim of circumstance than of his/her own vices. Rachel is entirely too unpleasant to convey any sort of the emotional depth and connection of Sissy Spacek's "Carrie." And she looks and acts like she should be right along-side the 'attractive and popular brigade' that she ends up torching. She, like the rest of them, has a soul that is every bit as corrupt, whereas Carrie was a complete innocent.It just doesn't work. There's no satisfaction in seeing the pretty children-- not even the "Home Improvement" boy-- getting offed in this movie's climactic scene. And it's so unnecessarily gory! There was no actual bloodshed seen in the burning gym! And there is one person in particular that this movie should NOT have had the audacity to kill off... but I won't say who it is. If you've seen the original "Carrie," it's the sort of character who dies unjustly.At least they DID create the connection to Carrie appropriately; it's explained as it should have been. But that, and the arm tattoo, which was done rather nicely, is just about the only thing this movie has going for it.Yet another hideous "Scream" knock-off, and it taints the reputation of one of the most compelling films ever made. Rating: 1 out of 10. I wasn't expecting much, but I was still horribly disappointed. An unsympathetic character, a series of irritating pop-culture references thrown in for no good reason, and an ending scene that pales in comparison to "Carrie"'s gravestone shocker.$LABEL$ 0
+Better than average World War II-era "who-dun-it" featuring Warner Baxter as a former gangster who suffered amnesia and has been reborn as a psychiatrist now known as Robert Ordway who helps both the police and criminals who want to go straight. Crime Doctor's Courage is the fourth in the series of ten and also involves a victim who might have some mental problems. The link to "courage" is not particularly clear.This entry revolves around the death of fortune hunter Gordon Carson whose two previous wives have under mysterious circumstances and who in turn dies in a locked room under conditions that resemble suicide but Dr. Ordway labels murder. Hillary Brooke plays the part of widow Kathleen Carson who is involved with Anthony Caruso - a mysterious Spanish dancer whose act includes his sister that disappears on stage. As a mystery novelist, Jerome Cowan is a good supporting actor as is Lloyd Corrigan as an aficionado in crime.Spooky houses with creaking doors, caskets in the cellar, and suspects that are never seen in daylight add to the air of suspense. The set for the dance sequence is quite elaborate and the ballet music very good. Direction, production design, and photography stand out. The exterior shots and costumes suggest more affluence rather than normally found in the average "B" detective thriller.Strongly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+I had high hopes for this movie. The theater monologue is great and Nic Balthazar is a very interesting man, with a lot of experience and knowledge when it comes to movies. I am a fan of a lot of Belgian movies, but this movie is bad. It's completely unbelievable that actors who are 34 are suddenly playing the roles of teenagers. The "linguistic games" were hideous and over the top. Nothing about the film seemed real to me. The ending was way too deus ex machina for me.I am very disappointed and think I wasted an hour and a half of my life.$LABEL$ 0
+I am not a big fan of Rajnikant in the first place, but Baba was a huge disappointment. In between an awful storyline, the action and songs were only mediocre. The storyline becomes very preachy. Instead of running for office like NTR or MGR, Rajni almost appeared to be running as Tamil Nadu's next big guru. My wife tells me that since this film came out, Rajni swore off doing any more movies!We were lucky initially to have bought Babu (an oldie by Sivajiganeshan) online by accident when trying to buy this one....that was a great film, which made up for having bought this dud...except it makes Baba look even worse by comparison!Bryan$LABEL$ 0
+Truly a disgusting, vile film, with only a small amount of real humour.The character of the father in particular is vulgar in the extreme (intentionally so, obviously), and portrayed in the most pathetic, seedy manner.My wife and I found this film horribly upsetting, with absolutely no redeeming features at all. Frankly, I wish I had never seen it.I consider this British effort to be a sick and gross embarrassment.Those who enjoyed this film have an ability I totally lack: that of rejoicing in a display of deep depravity and squalor.The producers should be ashamed of themselves.$LABEL$ 0
+Obabakoak is a bunch of short stories with an only common point: the little Vasque town of Obaba. In this film, the director tries to explain some of these stories by using a young reporter as a continuum. The result is a strange film, as it has any main character (the movie spends about 20 min. to each tale) other than the town of Obaba. Any story is really well explained and the fact is that they result very boring. It was by far the best film of the year in Spain, but, well, that's not saying too much. The only good thing of the film is the precious scenarios. It is filmed in a very precious valley and it is more enjoyable to spend the time watching the scenario rather than being aware of the story.$LABEL$ 0
+The entire civilized world by now knows that this is where Emil Sitka says his immortal "Hold hands, you lovebirds." But Shemp Howard, Professor of Music, steals the show. Watch him tutoring Dee Green as she fractures the "Voices of Spring." Watch Shemp as he shaves by a mirror suspended from the ceiling by a string. Watch him as he gets walloped by Christine McIntyre. Watch him, and you will laugh and learn. Moe is no slouch either. Watch him as he attempts to induce a woman to sit on a bear trap. Larry, as usual, is the Zen master of reaction. All in all, one of the very best Stooge shorts. You won't find one weak moment.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm a huge fan of war movies, and, as a Vietnam combat vet, have some experience with the technical details. I worked with the bomb guys more than once and have nothing but respect for them. Other vets, and Iraq vets in particular, have summarized the inaccuracies in this movie very well. Poetic license is one thing, but this movie is a complete fantasy, and fails badly because of it. No bomb disposal unit, or any unit, would ever have tolerated this rogue operator for more than 5 minutes. Military units prize conformity and discipline for a reason;it saves lives. The opening scene particularly annoyed me. The guy with the cell phone would have been shot immediately. Yelling, "Stop dialing" is not an effective deterrent. It got worse from there. The scenes with the sniper were particularly egregious. As others have noted, your average EOD guy doesn't know jack about being a sniper, and to think any Arab sniper is that good really stretches the imagination. Kidnapping an Arab businessman for some form of personal revenge just wouldn't happen. Somebody might shoot him, but this kind of risk-taking is limited to the movies. I could go on, but, as I said, others have pointed these things out in detail. This is not a good movie, and if it wins any awards at all, it's a further reflection of why "La La land" is so named.$LABEL$ 0
+All right, here's the deal: if you're easily offended then you might want to stay far, far away from this one. There are some painfully funny moments in the movie, but I probably blushed about as much as I laughed. Actually, I probably blushed MORE than I laughed. And if I wasn't literally blushing on the outside, then I was blushing on the inside. If there is absolutely nothing in this movie that embarrasses you then you simply have no shame. Whether that's a badge of honor or not is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.I will not deny that I laughed quite a bit, but this is a movie that I simply cannot give a blanket recommendation due to its subject matter. If I were to say, "This movie is hilarious, go check it out!" and some sweet, little old church-going lady heads to the theater and has a heart-attack during one of the graphically explicit sex situations, well, that's just something I don't need on my conscience.So how raunchy is it? Hmm, try about 100 times worse than The Wedding Crashers. Honestly. My mom would've walked out during the first scene. I feel it's my duty to at least warn you of what to expect.There is some cleverly intelligent comedy here, but that's what I come to expect from the man (Judd Apatow) who had a hand in both Freaks and Geeks and Undeclared. I'm all for making fun of Michael McDonald; the only man whose hair and beard are white enough to give Kenny Rogers a run for his money. Paul Rudd proclaiming, "If I hear Ya Mo Be There one more time I'll Ya Mo burn this place down," is hilarious, but it's one of those things that the majority of the audience won't appreciate.And when we see a quick 3-second flashback of Steve Carrell singing along to Cameo's Word Up, I laughed for a good two minutes after the joke was over, whereas most everybody chuckled and then forgot about it.Strangely enough, despite the raunch, there's an admirable moral to the story. The movie doesn't portray Carrell as some freaky loser just because he's a virgin. He's really portrayed as a likable, admirable character. Sure, he's a little weird. After all, he has a framed Asia poster, "more videogames than an Asian kid," and a toy collection that features the Million Dollar Man's BOSS, but we're never led to believe that there's actually anything wrong with the fact that he's a virgin. As odd as it may seem, there's a bit of an "it's OK to wait" message.But man, oh man, please be warned that this pushes its R rating about as far as it can go. That was certainly Apatow's intention. According to him, he just let some of the guys (particularly Rogen and Malco) improv and talk the way they normally talk, all in an effort to find lots of new ways to be dirty. If you can handle that or talk that way yourself, then you'll love the movie.I'm not a big fan of excessive profanity and sex jokes. I find that subtle, clever humor is much more entertaining than about 200 uses of the f-word or fratboy sex discussions. But that's me. Like I said, there are some absolutely hysterical moments here, but you have to ask yourself if they're worth sitting through one of the most vulgar movies you're likely to ever see at the theater. I just don't know how interested most women will be in what's discussed by men while playing poker. Honestly ladies, you might not want to know. If you've ever been curious why some girls think guys are gross, well, this gives you a good idea.There you go - my humble, honest take on what to expect. Be that your guide. It definitely should not be seen with your Sunday School class, mama, grandmama, any family members of the opposite sex, children of any age, or anybody who is easily offended by excessive profanity or explicit sex discussion. If you'd see it with any of the above then you apparently do not have any concept of what it means to be uncomfortable.$LABEL$ 1
+Saw this a couple times on the Sundance Channel several years ago and received a nice cinematic jolt to the system. A semi-surreal yet hard edged take on modern media culture (or the lack of it), focusing on some seriously wacked, way-beyond-the-Hollywood-fringe dwellers. It had an amusing early performance from Mark Ruffalo, and some memorable cinematography from the DP who did the Polish Brothers movies. There was a savage umcompromising humor and a weirdly original feel to it that definitely set it apart. This film had cult classic written all over it, and I'm surprised it's not yet out on DVD. Hopefully soon.$LABEL$ 1
+If you liked the first two films, then I'm sorry to say you're not going to like this one. This is the really rubbish and unnecessary straight to video, probably TV made sequel. The still idiotic but nice scientist Wayne Szalinski (Rick Moranis) is still living with his family and he has his own company, Szalinski Inc. Unfortunately his wife wants to get rid of a statue, Wayne is so stupid he shrinks his statue and himself with his brother. Then he shrinks his wife and sister-in-law too. Now the adults have to find a way to get the kids of the house to get them bigger. Pretty much a repeat of the other two with only one or two new things, e.g. a toy car roller coaster, swimming in dip, etc. Pretty poor!$LABEL$ 0
+There was nothing remotely funny about this movie. It makes fun of various sports movies and clichés but nothing about it is remotely funny. Most of the movies they parody doesn't even fit in with the film and are really only their so they can be in it. Non The main actor was well cast in it but that's really the only good thing about this film. Also the various cameos in it were kind of cool to see but i have no idea why they would waste their time being in this piece of garbage. Thank goodness I only spent $4 on it as this is not something worth spending money on. ONly watch if you have absolutely nothing to do or just want to waste an hour and 30 minutes.$LABEL$ 0
+I love this film, it is excellent and so funny, Ben is FIT and i wouldn't mind meeting him on holiday!! I rate this film a 10 because its gr8 and i hope they never re make it because it would never be the same. Funny bit is wen Andre is looking at the moon,and he shouts at Nicole to 'come outside and look at the moon' that bit always makes me laugh and never gets old. Another thing is Nicole looks a lot older then 14... but shes a gr8 actress. But i need help with something Does n e 1 no the name of the song played at the end wen Nicole and Andre are dancing??? Its really bugging me because i want 2 no what it is because its a nice song!!$LABEL$ 1
+Darling Lili is a mixture of Perfection and Magic! The Stars; Julie Andrews & Rock Hudson could not have done a better attempt if they tried. It's full of all the magic that a young lady wishes for and it makes it seem as if it can all really happen to you. The brilliance of the Director; Blake Edwards is shown to be at his best. He was truly capturing the woman he loved on screen!The blend of each song, went perfectly with the moment in the film. The Film opened with Julie Andrews singing Whistling Away In The Dark and closed with the same Song by Andrews.For A Film Of This Excellence To Have Been Such A Failure When It Was Released, Is A Total Shock...As It Is: "Inspirational...Purely....Inspirational!" ~One Of Andrews Most Memorable Lines In This Film!$LABEL$ 1
+Good grief! While I still maintain that Manos: The Hands of Fate is the worst piece of mental torture available, Hobgoblins came awfully close. This...this...thing insults the audience at every opportunity.At least films like Space Mutiny and Future War can be enjoyed on mst3k, this one was a struggle to get through. I was literally writhing on the couch in anguish. This thing managed to embarrass me - alone!Even if you are a die-hard MST3K fan and have made it your mission to see every single experiment, think twice about seeing this one.It's that bad.$LABEL$ 0
+If you haven't figured out what is going to happen in this film in the first five minutes then give it a couple more minutes. Lilia is a widow. She has been left on the shelf for too long and she wants to burst out. She has a teenage daughter which only highlights that she is not getting any younger. While checking up on her daughter she discovers a world she never dared...the cabaret, where she can belly dance in skimpy sequined outfits while men throw money at her. The film is very misogamist. It's portrayal of men is dismal. Which is rather odd as Lilia stoops to jiggle around for them, not for money, but just for the hell of it. When she succeeds in arousing them it makes her feel like a woman again. She does not wish to connect with them but she is addicted to the attention. The other dancers all are mostly aging women who look like men in drag and realize their time in the spotlight is short-lived. Not short enough I say. She does find romance, however brief , with you guessed it....No surprises here we didn't see coming. Though the ending is good you realize that it could have ended no other way. Maybe this film just isn't targeting my demographic- 30 Male$LABEL$ 0
+First of all. I do not look down on Americans. I know lots of people that are intelligent people from the USA. But this Movie is so utterly bad, that i just had to comment on it.First of all...Movies are mostly far from the truth. This movie is no exception. Lots of scene's are so incredibly false. For example the departure of the 2 space ships. You see them drop off the full tanks in space. Just a small distance from each other. Remember what caused the space shuttle to explode in the past ? Just a tinsy winsy part that came off. In here it is just common to drop fuel tanks that are as big if not bigger then the whole ship. What idiot would let 2 spaceships lift up and do that at the same time ??? Second of it is that the Russian station is a piece of (s)crap. I hate to bring this up to you, but astronauts nowadays go to Russia. Since their equipment is much more reliable then NASA's. The Space Shuttle is retired. And NASA uses it just to pay off the bills. And there is no better alternative for it. And the list of whoppers goes on and on. This is truly an insult to people that do take space travel serious. And i know half as much as these guys do. But the most annoying part ( read: the whole movie ) is the Propaganda and patriot crap that u get choked with. MY GOD !!!! I thought i was looking at a CNN business commercial for like an hour. The actors solve their petty problems by shooting at each other, giving the middle finger to everyone they come face to face with, start up fights, ignore the police, etc, etc... But when it comes to their love for their country and sacrificing their lives, suddenly everyone stands in line to commit suicide for it ( bomb detonator ) ?? Maybe i lack the feeling of being a true "Patriot", that can sing the national anthem backwards in Swahili. Whilst riding with George Bush behind the steering wheel of a golf cart, driving in circles until the battery is empty. But this movie was too much for me too handle. And when i finally got hold and pulled the flag pole and fabric of the American flag out of my hiney. I realised that i was glad this movie was finally done. I do not know why so much good actors participated in this narrow minded, stereotyping, propaganda movie. But i pity them. This represents a country where you can get away with murder if you have money or power. As long as "Uncle Sam" thinks you are a good patriot. Where everyone is happy as long as it is another country that has been devastated, no one cares.$LABEL$ 0
+The sort of "little" film which studios used to excel at but seldom make anymore. Sort of a "soul" version of the more well-known "The Last Of The Blonde Bombshells". Ian McShane is excellent as a DJ and aficionado of soul music who becomes obsessed with the idea of re-uniting the members of a classic soul group, and the film follows his exploits as well as those of the group members; a cast which includes such genuine musical talent as Isaac Hayes, as well as acting stalwarts Taurean Blacque, Derrick O'Connor and Antonio Fargas. Not meant to be an epic by any means, this is nonetheless a chunk of solid gold.$LABEL$ 1
+I do not like Himesh Reshamiya. I do not like his singing too. But his songs are a craze in India, especially among commoners. Now when he ventured to become an actor – that was a big joke! What guts he has to reap as much as he can in his prime time. I did never want to see this movie. But one thing changed it. The movie becoming a super-duper hit! After 2 weeks, Aap Ka Saroor has raked box office collection of 14 crores – compared to Apne that has collected 7 crores in the same 2 weeks. If I can sit through Apne and Rajnikant's absurd Sivaji – I should give this movie also a try to understand what stuff this movie has got that made it such a big hit? The story is about the real life singer Himesh Reshamiya (HR) who has gone to Germany for a concert and falls in love with Riya (Hansika Motwani). A German lawyer Ruby (Mallika Sherawat) loves Himesh. Now Himesh is arrested for a murder. The mission of Himesh (in last 40 minutes) after he runs away from jail is to prove himself innocent and find the real murderer.Let me say that Himesh has nothing in him to become a hero. He tries hard but fails miserably. He is pathetic. I was thinking what could have made the movie click so much? Let me find something positive.First, the saving grace of the movie is the script till the point Himesh runs away from the jail. (But after that the movie nose dives into unbearable stupid limits) Second, the songs of the movie are good, catchy, crowd puller numbers. Third, Mallika Sherawat – she looks gorgeous and acts well too, as the second lady. I can imagine fans of Mallika coming to see the movie just for her. Fourth, the cinematography of the movie is pleasing – especially the German locales, are a treat to watch for the eye. Fifth, the major portion of the story is a love story between Himesh and Riya – with clichéd dialogues that would probably connect to young crowd. Sixth, the Director Prashant Chadha has done a decent job in covering the pathetic acting skills of Himesh as much as possible with shots that don't need Himesh to act much.The heroine Hansika Motwani looks like a small budget film heroine. Raj Babbar is wasted in a small role. Overall the movie is a below average.I was thinking throughout the movie – what if the same movie script was done with Salmaan as the main lead. I think it would have had been a much better affair. May be then I would have given the movie 6 out of 10. But now… (Stars 4.5 out of 10)$LABEL$ 0
+Even for a tired movie model as the nature vs. man cycle that prevailed so predominantly in the 1970s, ants falls miserably short of being even somewhat effective(though entertaining for reasons it was not intending). It is sooooo preposterous. Apparently these ants that are bulldozed near an inn have been eating poisonous waste for decades and have now adapted by emitting poisonous bites - hundreds of these bites being fatal. Watching actors of some notoriety clumsily fall amidst tiny black specks is painfully funny in a not-so-good-but very-bad way. So many scenes just look ludicrous: a boy trying to fall in a dumpster whilst being attacked, Suzanne Sommers crying out in horror while lounging in bed, Robert Foxworth and Lynda George breathing through pieces of wallpaper, Bernie Casey faking a gam leg, and the list goes on and on. The peril shown ranges from ants crawling from a drain to black lines of ants all over the walls. The cast for the film is not bad on paper, but none of these actors seem to believe in the material. Poor Myrna Loy has to sit in a wheelchair through this horror. I hope she found a good use for the money, for it is obvious that was the ONLY reason a woman of her pedigree would be in this nonsense. Although it is quite a bad film, it is watchable - once for me, and does have many of those seventies bad film qualities - start-studded actors embarrassing themselves, that made-for-TV feel, and the dreaded creatures of nature reeking vengeance on man. This time man must push his hand into a pile of ants to be affected. Really quite dreadful.$LABEL$ 0
+Ghillie a remake of the Telugu "okkadu' is thankfully a clarified version of the original. It packs the same punch and Dharani true to his cinematic brilliance delivers it with style and panache. A flagging Vijay's career with the entry of the likes of Surya and Vikram on the fray, got the much needed uplift with this movie. This might well prove to be the best movie Vijay has ever been on, considering the choices he has been making since then. The hard-working actor seems to have lost his bearing what with talented new entrants being accepted both by the industry and public alike.The tightly snug script, which runs at, a neck-break speed revolves around Velu, a willful youngster aspiring to make a mark in the game of Kabaddi( a popular game among boys in India). The events following the chance encounter with Muthupandi, his rescue of the girl in distress and how he juggles with the aspirations of his friends and his own forms the fulcrum and end of the movie. Vijay fits as a 'T' into the role and essays a subdued and believable portrayal of the boy next door.Trisha has more than a stereotyped Tamil heroine mantle to play. The role is far more complex than just a girl in trouble. With limited dialog's, Trisha exploits her occasional muted expressions and subtle vulnerability to add color to the role. This is a classic case of a cover page girl coming-of-age to become a professional actress. Trisha became my personal favorite after this movie.The movie ends on predictable lines, although one has to credit the Director for keeping the audience guessing on many things including Trisha's change in decision to leave the country. Prakash Raj deserves a word of praise for providing the perfect counter-weight for Vijay's role. His almost indomitable stature in the role of a villain and the apparent chinks in the hero's armor form a perfect ploy for keeping the audience guessing.Overall this is a great movie that deserves at least a single viewing. I give it a clear 8 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+The only reason I give it a 2 is that filmography is so stylized these days such that it has at least something to comment on.This film is asinine. It's like so many other 21st century grind house fodder. The gore is gratuitous and simply revolting. I didn't care about any of the characters, but I did care that some cretin bothered to pen this crap: I'd complain about the money I spent, but my date and I wisely left after 40 minutes and went to an adjoining theater to watch the adventurous and entertaining "Live Free or Die Hard," which probably got a much higher rating from me simply because I endured the utter poop of "Captivity" for 40 minutes.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a big step down after the surprisingly enjoyable original. This sequel isn't nearly as fun as part one, and it instead spends too much time on plot development. Tim Thomerson is still the best thing about this series, but his wisecracking is toned down in this entry. The performances are all adequate, but this time the script lets us down. The action is merely routine and the plot is only mildly interesting, so I need lots of silly laughs in order to stay entertained during a "Trancers" movie. Unfortunately, the laughs are few and far between, and so, this film is watchable at best.$LABEL$ 0
+A Vow to Cherish is a wonderful movie. It's based on a novel of the same title, which was equally good, though different from the film. Really made you think about how you'd respond if you were in the shoes of the characters. Recommended for anyone who has ever loved a parent, spouse, or family member--in other words, EVERYONE!Though the production isn't quite Hollywood quality--no big special effects--still, the values and ideals portrayed more than make up for it. And the cast did a wonderful job of capturing the emotional connections between family members, and the devastation that occurs when one of them becomes ill.You don't want to miss this!$LABEL$ 1
+The title suggests that this movie is a sequel to "An American werewolf in London". None of the characters from the previous movie return and aren't even mentioned in this movie by name. So as a sequel, AAwiP fails, one would say.I dare to say the opposite.An American werewolf in Paris is a charming, effective horror movie. It's one of the better werewolf films I have seen in a long time too. And I have seen quite my share, such as An American werewolf in London, The Howling, Wolfen, The Wolfman and the Underworld trilogy.The story tells of three Americans visiting Paris on a vacation. At the top of the Eifel Tower one of them saves a woman trying to commit suicide. What starts out as a romantic relationship slowly turns into a nightmare when the dark secrets that lurk in the city are revealed...I really liked the acting in this film. Especially the two stars of the movie: the woman who tried to commit suicide and the guy who saves her. They have good chemistry together. But the other two Americans also play their roles nicely. I didn't really find anything annoying about the acting, so thumbs up for that! The effects on the werewolves are nice. It doesn't look too cheap or fake to me. Of course, the opinions are divided about this subject. But let's just say that I wasn't disappointed.There's also a good amount of humor in this movie. There are some really funny scenes you will probably remember for a long time.So, to sum it up, An American werewolf in Paris might not be a direct sequel to it's predecessor, but it's still an enjoyable movie. Perfect for fans of werewolves! 7 out of 10 stars!$LABEL$ 1
+please, future writers, producers, directors - learn from this movie!never before have i seen such a bold and original tale created for the big movie screen. bold, because the script constantly made a step so many fantasy movies safely avoided - a step to something new, creative and daring. just when you think 'oh, i've seen this before' or 'i am sure this is what will happen now' - StarDust would make an unexpected twist and involve you more and more into the story.the actors are great - even the smallest part is performed with such talent it fills me with awe for the creators of this movie. Robert De Niro is gorgeous and performs with such energy that he simply steals the show in each scene he's in. Michelle Pfeiffer is the perfect witch, and Claire Danes a wonderful choice for the innocent and loving 'star', Yvaine. Other big names make outstanding roles. I had the filling everyone is trying to give his best for this movie. But once again, the story by Neil Gaiman, all the little things he 'invented' for this universe - simply outstanding.I watched this movie at a pre-screening today, a day before the official release, and do hope it will have huge success. There is so much humor, but also tense moments as well as lovely tender scenes. The look in the eyes of Yvaine, the 'frivolities' of Captain Shakespeare, the passion of Lamia the witch - impressive, unforgettableFor me this is the number one entertaining movie of 2007, watch it and enjoy it11/10 - Outstandingpeace and love$LABEL$ 1
+Once again, we are fortunate to see a gorgeous opening scene where the artists' work has been fully restored and we see this old-time grocery store on a street corner with the snow gently falling. Inside are the rich colors of all the merchandise, from produce to canned and boxed goods to medicine to candy, etc.In essence, this is a story of those goods "coming to life," such as the animals on the labels of items, or a pie, or even a pack of cigarettes.The whole "show" is narrated by "Jack Bunny," a Jack Benny impersonator, with music from conductor Leopold Stokowski, who was in so many Looney Tunes animated shorts I have lost count. A lot of the humor is topical, so it pays to know who "Little Egypt" and other characters. The Busby Berkeley-type "aqua" number with bathing suited-sardines coming out of the can, and the tomato can-can dance were both clever! All of the above, and more, was in the first half of this slightly longer-than-normal length cartoon. The second half was about a King Kong-type which escapes from the "Animal Crackers" box and terrorizes everyone. That part was not much, and ended on a somewhat stupid note. So..... an "A" for the first half, a "D" for the second, making it about a C-plus or B-minus overall.$LABEL$ 1
+Henry Fool surprised me. I didn't expect it to entertain and amuse as well, or as strongly, as it did. Fay Grim continues to surprise in that it provides solid continuation to a story that seems not to need it. Once the viewer watches the first 20 minutes of the movie, however, it becomes blindingly aware that this is one of the BEST sequels to brilliant indie film. At least as good as Ginger Snaps Back, if not better.I am a little disappointed that Jeff Goldblum's part is so small, but I'm happy he is a part of this short run. He is convincing and delightful as Agent Fulbright. Also a delight is Liam Aiken who quite aptly portrays Ned Grim, the son of Fay and Henry.This movie is a pleasure for so many reasons. I am pleased, for example, to discover that Henry isn't really the loser he seems (by the end of Fool), and to further discover that he is, in fact, a genius...well, that really is a lovely stroke of the pen.I am hoping they do a third...like the end of the trilogy. It seems to be missing. They should entitle it Ned Fool Grim and it should be Liam looking for his father, to validate the awesome change in his mother, and the sense of near-genius he himself feels welling inside him. Assuming, of course, that Fay continues withholding many of the most important facts from her son, concerning his father. It feels like it needs to be done. I'd buy it.Even with more action, this is still not an action flick. It is more drama and intrigue...a mystery, of sorts. I'll watch it often.It rates an 8.3/10 from...the Fiend :.$LABEL$ 1
+So tell me - what serious boozer drinks Budweiser? How many suicidally-obsessed drinkers house a fully stocked and barely touched range of drinks in their lonely motel room that a millionaire playboy's bachelor-pad bar would be proud to boast? And what kind of an alcoholic tends to drink with the bottle held about 8 inches from his hungry mouth so that the contents generally spill all over his face? Not to mention wasting good whisky by dousing your girlfriend's tits with it, just so the cinema audience can get a good eyeful of Elisabeth Shue's assets.Cage seems to be portraying the most attention-seeking look-at-me alcoholic ever to have graced the screen while Shue looks more like a Berkely preppy slumming it for a summer than some seasoned street-walker. She is humiliated and subjugated as often as possible in this revolting movie with beatings, skin lacerations, anal rape and graphic verbal abuse - all of it completely implausible and included apparently only to convey a sense of her horribly demeaned state and offer the male viewers an astonishingly clichéd sentimental sexual fantasy of the 'tart-with-a-heart'.Still - I did watch it to the end, by which time I was actually laughing out loud as Shue's tough street hooker chopped carrots in the kitchen wanly, pathetically smiling while Cage - all eyes popping and shaking like like a man operating a road drill in an earthquake - grimaced and mugged his way through the final half-hour...$LABEL$ 0
+at first I had the reaction a lot of people left with after seeing this: that shots of fat people sunbathing, etc were cheap shots in a way. OK so he's doing diane arbus meets. . . whatever. . . but it wasn't long before I realized that this wasn't being done in a dehumanizing way, as the images unfold I felt that the problem was entirely the audience's: we are conditioned by Hollywood and also movies from just about everywhere actually to feel that to watch people above a certain age behave in a sexual way is something unseemly, something that ought not to be shown. if this were all the film offered it would be a great deal. however, the story of the woman with the abusive boyfriend and his drunk friend really hits like a ton of bricks: very eloquent storytelling, incredible performances, and to think the scene was improvised. that blonde guy is a genius actor. finally I want to contradict those who say this film is all about how pathetic all these people are. the old man who is on the make with the woman who finally dances for him is completely an a OK character that breaks that mold, so don't oversimplify the film by overlooking him. yes his dog gets killed. this ain't a rosy picture of the world but it's not . . . completely hopeless. anyway I felt really grateful to the filmmaker for making such a beautiful film all in all. I wouldn't say each of the threads were as strong as the strongest, but I say this movie basically kicks ass and would highly recommend it. . .$LABEL$ 1
+One of my absolute favorite childhood films. The Chipmunk adventure packs incredible fun geared for young and old alike. The animation is lively and colorful and the film itself boasts some of the best songs ever put in an animated feature. Who could forget the dynamic "Boys/Girls of Rock n' Roll", the exciting "Diamond Dolls", and the heartrending "My Mother"? This should be considered a nostalgic classic animated gem from the eighties. It's too bad they don't make them like this anymore. Most animated films today resort to violence, crude humor, or sentimental mush... except of course the folks from Pixar.BOTTOM LINE: An amazing and unforgettable adventure for all ages.$LABEL$ 1
+It's this sort of movie that you try and imitate. By attempting to realise something... then flying through the air almost immediately. I'd like to do that and I know you would too!Great stuff!$LABEL$ 1
+A lot of people give this movie a lot of crap, and all of it's really undeserved. People give this movie a hard time either because it's such a sick subject or they harp on some technical aspect of the movie no one else observes when they watch it. If, just by looking at the cover, you think this movie will make you uncomfortable...DON'T WATCH IT! However, you'd be missing out on one of the better cinematic experiences of the late 1990's, despite what anyone else says.Dee Snider is wonderful here as Captain Howdy, the depths of insanity he plumbs to play this character has to be beyond words, and is much farther than any one of us would have to be willing to go. The acting here is wonderful. The film itself beautifully shot. The subject may be a bit too much for many to swallow, but it's still well worth your time. If you haven't seen this movie, check it out.$LABEL$ 1
+Today I found "They All Laughed" on VHS on sale in a rental. It was a really old and very used VHS, I had no information about this movie, but I liked the references listed on its cover: the names of Peter Bogdanovich, Audrey Hepburn, John Ritter and specially Dorothy Stratten attracted me, the price was very low and I decided to risk and buy it. I searched IMDb, and the User Rating of 6.0 was an excellent reference. I looked in "Mick Martin & Marsha Porter Video & DVD Guide 2003" and – wow – four stars! So, I decided that I could not waste more time and immediately see it. Indeed, I have just finished watching "They All Laughed" and I found it a very boring overrated movie. The characters are badly developed, and I spent lots of minutes to understand their roles in the story. The plot is supposed to be funny (private eyes who fall in love for the women they are chasing), but I have not laughed along the whole story. The coincidences, in a huge city like New York, are ridiculous. Ben Gazarra as an attractive and very seductive man, with the women falling for him as if her were a Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderas or George Clooney, is quite ridiculous. In the end, the greater attractions certainly are the presence of the Playboy centerfold and playmate of the year Dorothy Stratten, murdered by her husband pretty after the release of this movie, and whose life was showed in "Star 80" and "Death of a Centerfold: The Dorothy Stratten Story"; the amazing beauty of the sexy Patti Hansen, the future Mrs. Keith Richards; the always wonderful, even being fifty-two years old, Audrey Hepburn; and the song "Amigo", from Roberto Carlos. Although I do not like him, Roberto Carlos has been the most popular Brazilian singer since the end of the 60's and is called by his fans as "The King". I will keep this movie in my collection only because of these attractions (manly Dorothy Stratten). My vote is four.Title (Brazil): "Muito Riso e Muita Alegria" ("Many Laughs and Lots of Happiness")$LABEL$ 0
+It amazes me that someone would actually consider spending some money on a movie like this. Really. Let's forget for a second that the plot doesn't even give a single hint of originality... Most of the movies today are based on other movies' stories, so a "simple" lack of originality is not that big a deal. But I can hardly believe that none of the guys involved in the movie had never even got on a plane before shooting this. Because, let's be honest, that would be the only excuse to come up with something so ridiculous. To be sincere I think a 6-years-old child with a fake camera could have come up with something technically much more believable. Some examples following.The scene that really drove me crazy is when the engines turn off when they regain control of the plane. When they have to turn them on again the guy on the radio says something like "Ok, push the 1 and 2 buttons on the dashboard". Now, those are not buttons. They should not be pushed, they should actually be pulled up and toward the pilot. That's something only plane-addicted would know, you say? Wrong. The next scene you can see their fingers pushing the "buttons"... And of course the so called "buttons" don't move at all! Not even a single millimeter! (And note that I haven't even mentioned the fact that aircraft engines are not like cars engine, that you just turn the key and the magic happens... You have to do quite a complicated procedure to turn them on...) Come on guys! You could have faked the movements at least!! Not to mention the hilarious final impact, where the plane crashes against every single thing along the runway (Light poles along the runway? What where they thinking?!)... And the wings don't even get ripped off! It happened to me too, once... Except the plane was made of Lego! What about the flight attendant? She's actually so skilled that she perfectly knows where the "aux 1" and "aux 2" fuses are, in the middle of the wires behind the cockpit. Should we mention, then, the guy that can drive an ambulance _and_ fly a plane behind the ambulance using his computer? And how did he turn the other airplane engines on?Really, I could go on hours with this stuff. This is the dumbest movie I've ever come across, and I'm including garbage like Alone In The Dark and other stuff in the list. Want to do yourself a favor? Don't watch it.$LABEL$ 0
+Cedric Klapisch's movie L'AUBERGE ESPAGNOLE is easy, breezy charm wrapped in nostalgia for our younger years and attractive youths. At its core, it's the feature-length presentation of the long-running MTV reality soap opera known as "The Real World" in which, as its motto goes: "This is the 'true story' of seven strangers picked to live in a house and have their lives taped... so watch what happens when people stop being polite and start getting real." This is exactly what happens -- minus the cameras planted at every minuscule corner of the house in Barcelona, Spain, where Xavier (Romain Duris) comes to stay, having to learn Spanish to fill into his job's requirements. An outsider in many ways, he slowly forms a camaraderie with his house-mates who come from all corners of Europe except America... this is a movie in which the only American shown is an unlikable character with whom Wendy (the adorable Kelly Reilly) is having an affair with ("Only for sex," she confesses, since she has her own boyfriend who makes a late but dazed appearance.). Throughout his stay there, he tries to maintain a long-distance relationship with his girlfriend played by Audrey Tautou while he begins a tentative flirtation with the wife of the owner of the Spanish house where he is staying at and gets some advice from a lesbian house-mate (Cecile de France) as to how to seduce a woman. A sweet little feature that presents a moment in time that twenty-somethings will never see again, L'AUBERGE ESPAGNOLE is forgettable fun containing within itself the threshold into the "real world" experienced through Xavier's eyes.$LABEL$ 1
+Hitchcock would be proud of this movie. Even when nothing happens, it is suspenseful. Director David Lynch overuses a few cheap thrill tricks here and there, but he intersperses them with other cinematographic techniques to keep it from becoming obtuse.Altogether surreal, this movie is like waking up and remembering most of a dream but not enough to make it sensible. I am still trying to figure it all out and will probably have to see it again to catch things I missed and which may help me understand it better. It is a very detailed plot that very slowly comes together, so you must be patient and pay attention. Get your bathroom trip out of the way before it starts. And yet, the plot is overshadowed by the theme, the mood, the character development, and the filming techniques.The dual roles of the main actress, Naomi Watts, showcase her enormous talent. That is, when I could get my eyes off of her co-star. What an acting pair.Lynch surprises throughout the movie with unusual camera angles, the length/timing of editing cuts, jumping back and forth between scenes. Combined with smart use of music and sounds, it all helps to build suspense in our minds, doubtless a major objective of the director. Well, he kept me on the edge of my seat, even had me talking to the actors to be careful here, and not be so naive there. You know, the kind of stuff you want to smack your kids for doing at the movies.$LABEL$ 1
+i am working at a video store so i got to see this one for free- thank god, had i paid for it my review would be less forgiving.well, the major idea of the film (geeky girl takes bloody revenge) isn't all that original, there are several parallels to "carrie" (playing a mean practical joke on a loser, except for one nice girl that is actually sorry for her, tamaras and carries bad family background). i still think it's a fun idea for trashy teen horror flick unfortunately they didn't take much advantage of the potentials that are here and rather put an emphasis on all the wrong things.what worked: i liked the actress that played tamara. she looked great (when she was hot) and her catty lines were fun ("Sean can't come to the phone. he's f**king patrick!").what didn't work: the whole wicca thing was silly. i generally prefer rational explanations (she could have ploted the whole thing with her teacher or one of the boys to get her revenge). there were a lot of logical wholes and the gore looked really bad (when the boy is cutting of his ear and his tongue- please!!!)the whole idea wasn't bound for Oscar buzz, but i just think they wasted the comedic and the suspenseful potential they had. it was bearable but far from good!$LABEL$ 0
+Yes, this bizarre feature was written by John Sayles. Shot in Toronto, it's yet another '80s era feature about the dangers of the urban jungle, where the police fear to go and the homeless and the criminal classes are the only inhabitants. Into this mix comes the myth of Wild Thing, a feral young man raised by a bag lady after his parents were murdered by a dirty cop on the take (Maury Chaykin) and Chopper, the local crime lord (Robert Davi). Stir in the local do-gooders (priest Sean Hewitt and clueless social worker Kathleen Quinlan), and you have a recipe for some rather unexciting action sequences. Davi is the standout amongst the cast, and cinematographer Rene Verzier does a pretty good job. Otherwise this is a rather lumpen action pic that won't satisfy action fans and will leaves Sayles' admirers slack-jawed.$LABEL$ 0
+Absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The acting, the dialog, the manuscript, the sound, the lighting, the plot line. I actually can't say anything positive about this, although I enjoy Swedish movies. The fighting scenes are so ridiculous that it's impossible to take it seriously. And when the lead character just happens to loose his shirt, while dodging bullets in a strip bar, I'm not sure if it's supposed to be a joke, or if someone really thinks these are ingredients in a good film?! Regina Lund is the only half descent actor, but she disappears in a flood of laughable pronunciations and unbelievable reactions. It leaves you horrified that someone actually spent time and money on something like this...$LABEL$ 0
+"Plots With A View" of 2002 is a delightful little comedy like only the British could do it. The film's sense of humor is both mildly morbid and black and yet very lovable and sometimes very slapstick-ish. It's the only film by director Nick Hurran I've seen so far, and while I am not intending to watch any of his other films at the moment (I'm not a big fan of romantic comedies), this one is highly enjoyable and very funny. The film takes place in a little town in Wales, where Betty Rhys-Jones (Brenda Blethyn) is married to the town's drunken and adulterous major (Robert Pugh). The local mortician Boris (Alfred Molina) has been desperately in love with Betty since their childhood, but has always been too shy to confess his love to her. Apart from being desperately in love, Boris has some other problems, as the eccentric American mortician Frank Featherbed (Christopher Walken) has opened a funeral flourishing business in the same town... The film's odd, very British wit should amuse everybody with a sense of humor, and the story sometimes becomes quite bizarre. Also, "Plots With A View" profits from a wonderful cast. Brenda Bethlyn, who has already proved herself to be a funny lady in 2000's "Saving Grace", plays the lead, and she is once again very funny, and very lovable in her role. Alfred Molina, who plays her shy admirer, delivers a great performance as always, and Robert Pugh fits perfectly in the role of Betty's sleazy husband. Beautiful Naomi Watts is also great as the husband's 'secretary', I'm becoming a bigger fan with every film I see her in. The greatest role, however, is played by the incomparable Christopher Walken (one of my favorite actors). Walken is brilliant as he always is in the role of the eccentric Mortician who arranges funerals that are quite unorthodox. Overall, "Plots With A View" is a vastly entertaining little British Comedy that I highly recommend!$LABEL$ 1
+I like many others saw this as a child and I loved it and it horrified me up until adulthood, I have been trying to find this movie and even been searching for it to play again on TV someday, since it originally played on USA networks. Does Anyone know where to buy this movie, or does anyone have it and would be willing to make a copy for me? Also does anyone know if there is a chance for it to be played on TV again? Maybe all of us fans should write a station in hopes of them airing it again. I don't think they did a good job of promoting this movie in the past because no one really knows about, people only know of the Stepford wives and Stepford husband movies. No one is familiar with the fact that there was a children version. Maybe they should also do a re-make of it since they seem to be doing that a lot lately with a lot of my favorite old thriller/horror flicks. Well if anyone has any input Please I Beg Of You write me with information. Thanks Taira tcampo23@aol.com$LABEL$ 1
+I am an actor,producer, director and what i am about to say are facts. This project was the worst film in movie making history. From producer to director and the edit of this so called film is a joke and i mean a BIG joke. Why would Blockbuster released such crap? I take my work very serious and this film is an insult to my profession. Was the director trying to make a bad movie? I don't think so. I seen bad Zombie movies, but this takes the cake the Coffie and everything on the damn table. THIS MOVIE SUCKS!!! I really hate to talk bad about other filmmakers because i am one myself, but please consider in taking up a different profession. I respect the fact that you completed a movie, but i have to ask you " WERE YOU SMOKING CRACK ", I mean the makeup on your girls, the scary Zombies, what were you thinking. To the whole nation, if i could have voted Zero i would have. WORST FILM IN MOVIE MAKING HISTORY!!!$LABEL$ 0
+Good movies are original, some leave a message or touch you in a certain way, but sometimes you're not in the mood for that. I wanted something simple, no thinking just plain action when I watched this one. It started of good and was quite entertaining, so why a bad review. Well in the end the movie lost it's credibility. The storyline wasn't that cheesy at all, the action was not too special but overall good, acting was OK, so more than enough to satisfy my needs. But all got ruined because things happened that were over the top, and it left me with a bad feeling. They should have put a little more effort in making everything credible and would have gotten a 7 in the "no thinking just plain action" category. So in conclusion if you know you'll get irritated because things are happening that seem completely illogical: don't watch! otherwise I'd say go ahead...$LABEL$ 0
+Its incredible to me that the best rendition of this amazing story remains a cartoon made by Walt Disney in the 1940s, but its true. Here another clumsy attempt sputters confuses and alienates would be viewers with admirable effectiveness while successfully antagonizing those of us who have actually read the story. Irving's original work is short by any measure and making a feature length film is bound to be a challenge. One can either completely rewrite the story a la Tim Burton which is a discussion for another time, or pad the bust-line of the old girl with unintended detail. The latter is what is attempted here, and if I may say, pitifully so. Unimaginative and thoroughly modern new facets to character personalities such as religious zealotry in Crane or wanderlust in good old Bram Bones ruin the story's intent and betray a severe lack of talent by the filmmakers. By the time the tale's famous climax approached, I had completely lost interest. Its the kind of film where you expect to see a stagehand smoking in the background.$LABEL$ 0
+What a drawn out painful experience.That's over two hours of my life I will never get back.This Film Festival Director's delight - is awash with overuse of the long slow shot....however - that's not the only thing that makes a script.Avoid this movie at all costs.$LABEL$ 0
+Well, I have not much to say about this film except that it was a truly wonderful film. Natalie Portman is absolutely fantastic as the daughter in this lovely mother-daughter relationship film. Beautiful film.$LABEL$ 1
+Ladies and Gentlemen, may we present the worst of all Disney remakes. Although the name of this movie is "That Darn Cat", it should have been "That Darn Teen" or "FBI Agent". The cat didn't get any real good scenes, Ricci's character was more annoying than funny, Doug E. Doug didn't get any good lines, even Dean Jones's cameo role couldn't save this movie! The only really good characters were the town's only two auto mechanics, but their scenes were only brief. In all, I'd say that if you are considering watching this movie, go get something more intelligent like a Barney video.$LABEL$ 0
+saw this movie and totally loved it the characters are great . it is definitely my kind of movie you do not get bored in this movie i love independent films they are so much more rewarding. my husband and i really enjoyed Jay's style. if you are an open minded person who loves thought provoking films and loves conversation after it's over you will love this film. it is definitely thought provoking.the film definitely will step on some toes but who cares those people will probably not go to see this movie. it is amazing to see the characters evolve . Jay Floyd has really captured both sides of the table. Applause applause Jay i hope you are working on another movie.$LABEL$ 1
+I waited for this movie to play in great anticipation. Assuming it would be more accurately portrayed like the movie, "The Christmas Box" based on the book by Richard Paul Evans. I sent out many emails to friends and family asking them to please watch this show, hoping they would better understand a tiny amount of my "new" life. After seeing this movie I was so disappointed. As a mother who lost her only child in November 2003 and REALLY knowing the pain, I had hoped that this movie would shed light to parents who "think" they understand the grief a parent goes through who has lost a child. This movie was a very light hearted movie and the silliness of Diane Keaton was a slap in the face to parents who have buried a child. It was VERY unrealistic from start to stop. I had a few calls after the movie, each call the same, "That was so off the mark and made it appear that in a short time you are back on the road and listening to songs on the radio and life is back" What a bunch of bull! It is clear that the director and Keaton have never lost a child because neither would have EVER made the movie to be so off the mark. I guess that's Hollywood.$LABEL$ 0
+Have you ever wondered what would happen if a couple of characters from Beverly Hills 90210 were thrown into a Thai jail?If so, this is your movie. This is Midnight Express for the MTV crowd. That would be ok, but the story was poorly executed. Contrived plot twists, poor dialogue and unresolved issues abound. This slight film did not earn the right to be as cryptic as it ends up being. Potential spoiler and impossibly preposterous plot line-the faux tension filled moment when the hotel employee discovers the girls do not have a room there and is about to kick them out. (This moment is innappropriately played with the same solemnity and gravity as the moment when they are arrested at gunpoint). Later the same hotel employee is somehow found-and Bangkok is a big city, mind you, Ive been there- and testifies against the girls, as if a couple of free Mai Tais warrant 40 years in prison. C'mon. Rent Another Day in Paradise instead.$LABEL$ 0
+Since there have been so many reviews of this fine film I will write in a list form and attempt to address issues that have not been discussed.1. Dana Andrews was 38 during the filming of this movie. His character according to the screenplay was in his mid 20s. Andrews, a highly underrated actor, did brilliantly play a character who was supposed to be much younger. 2. Fredric March like all GREAT actors needs at times to be restrained by the director to avoid over-the-top acting. He was mugging for the cameras when he was drunk on the night after his arrival and also the next morning when he was checking out his hang over in his mirror. 3. Dana Andrews was superb as he was in "Laura," "The Ox-Bowl Incident," "A Walk in the Sun," "The Purple Heart" and many other films. Why did Fredric March win the Academy Award and why was Dana Andrews not even nominated for his outstanding performance? 4. Harold Russell gave the best performance I have ever seen by a non actor. 5. I realize this was the 1940s but Dana Andrews seemed to have no romantic interest in his exceptionally attractive wife (Virginia Mayo).6. Ray Teal, who played the right wing bigot, years later became famous for portraying the sheriff on "Bonanza."7. The professor from the south wrote that the film was slow moving, boring and poorly acted. The professor more than likely is uninformed about classic films. The beauty and significance of these ageless classics is that they are slow moving character studies that avoid profanity, excessive violence and gratuitous sex.***I was surprised that zero out of 3 people found my review useful.$LABEL$ 1
+Alien was excellent. Many writers tried to copy it. They all did a bad job (or almost). But Dead Space is the worst Alien copy. Because of the bad actors, the bad special effects, the BAD scenario and other bad stuff (it would take about 3 pages to tell everything that is bad in this film. The movie wasn't very long and this is a very good thing (the only one). You cannot laugh because it is too serious...that is a bad thing because, in almost each B-series sci-fi film, you can laugh during the whole time. It can be terrific sometimes, but instead of watching this stupidity, just watch Alien or Event Horizon...these are much better!!! I give it 1 out of 5.$LABEL$ 0
+OK, this doesn't compare to the explosive tempo of the first part's opening sequence; nor to its visual shock value; nor, for that matter, to the melancholic suspense of the second installment. No, it's surprisingly and refreshingly different (apart, of course, from the two main actors). The tongue-in-cheek futuristic scenario drives the characters towards each other across genres and languages with an almost gravitational force. The moment of impact-conclusion is your choice of: a)Shakespearean metaphor of life and humanity in a cartoon costume; b)sublimation of violence into homo-erotics; c)humorous detonation of an impossible buildup. Everything up to then is even less unequivocal.Highly recommended to indiscriminate movie buffs who don't mind following foie gras with a hot dog; caution to those with more refined palates.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was a masterpiece of human emotions and experience. I think that a lot of people get caught up in Leland's apparent mental illness as the storyline, but I was drawn into the relationships of many of the characters and what they reveal about the force of human emotions. Much of the message of the movie is that we never know the good without the bad, which is a little cliché, but what makes this movie so good and so original is that it very eloquently portrays the crushing and devastating force that the bad can have, whether you see the bad everywhere like Leland, or are experiencing the utter helplessness of unrequited love or a relationship that just isn't going to work no matter how bad you want it to. This movie captures how helpless relationships and emotions can make you feel better than any movie I've seen, and it is as depressing a movie as it is good.$LABEL$ 1
+The man who gave us Splash, Cocoon and Parenthood gave us this incoherent muddle of cliched characters, poor plotting, you've-got-to-be-kidding dialogue and melodramatic acting? I guess everybody has a bad day at the office now and then. He's allowed.$LABEL$ 0
+There's hardly anything at all to recommend this movie. Chase Masterson is always nice to look at and actually can act, though her role in this clunker is a waste. Unfortunately the rest of the cast ranges from bad to mediocre. In a lot of films like this someone will shine through the material and you make a note of them for future reference. No such luck here. Creature Unknown" a clichéd monster-on-the-loose flick with the kids getting knocked off one after the other. The monster is a man in a rubber suit which hearkens back to the days of Paul Blaisdell. So bad it's good! The rest of the show is just so bad it's bad. A little humor might have made this more palatable, but everyone plays the deadly dull material straight up. There is a twist or two at the end, but by then you won't care anymore.$LABEL$ 0
+Now here is a film that if made in Australia would have easily been a comedy. Sadly and annoyingly, here it is, flaccid and cheesy and overbaked from Lala land. How did the di-erector get it so wrong? Well, mainly by being serious about a job so hilariously startling that nobody in their right mind could take seriously. Unless of course they were a nerdy lonely gay cliché (but somehow cute)...or is that cliché piled upon cliché. No value in the story that almost seems like a prequel to Gus Van Sant's GERRY..... and with a title like THE FLUFFER how is it all such a lead weight? Well this auteur must have soooooo mad that he didn't get to Burt and BOOGIE first that he had to make his own. Convoluted and undeveloped apart from the 'unrequited love's a bore' theme left over from a faded Streisand lyric, we have only moody beefcake and TV serial level storyline left. The un necessary fourth act of this overlong turgid drama is truly terrible as the film wanders off like the Gerries into to desert and gets stuck there. In Oz in the late 90s some 20 somethings made a similar but actually hilarious film called MONEYSHOT. Originally filmed as THE VENUS FACTORY it too suffered from an auteur more awful than Orson so they re-filmed half of it, got a ruthless TV editor to chop it up and down down to 72 minutes and hey-presto..comedy, tonight! A lesson there in when bad films turn good by lightening up. I guess THE FLUFFER stiffed on release and after seeing it not perform, I can understand why.$LABEL$ 0
+My interest in Dorothy Stratten caused me to purchase this video. Although it had great actors/actresses, there were just too many subplots going on to retain interest. Plus it just wasn't that interesting. Dialogue was stiff and confusing and the story just flipped around too much to be believable. I was pretty disappointed in what I believe was one of Audrey Hepburn's last movies. I'll always love John Ritter best in slapstick. He was just too pathetic here.$LABEL$ 0
+The first hour or so of the movie was mostly boring to say the least. However it improved afterwards as the Valentine Party commenced. Apart from the twist as to the identity of the killer in the very end, the hot bath murder scene was one of the few relatively memorable aspects of this movie. The scene at the garden with Kate was well shot and so was the very last scene (the 'twist'). In those scenes, there was some genuine suspense and thrills and the hot bath murder scene had a nasty (the way slashers should be) edge to it. The earlier murders are frustratingly devoid of gore.$LABEL$ 1
+I feel as though I know these people and have known people similar to them. These days, though, people are discouraged from showing such passion about anything especially love and loneliness. It has a slow beginning, but then look out! If you love romantic comedies, but would like to see one that had some basis in reality for a change {or at least did have back in the 70's}, then you should see this movie!$LABEL$ 1
+Like a twisty country road, "Tough Luck" takes the viewer for a ride. There is nothing wrong with plot curves, as long as believability doesn't fly out the window. Unfortunately in the end the film does challenge an audience's belief tolerance. Nevertheless, it is easy to forgive this fault due to the superior acting, character development, and wonderful carnival atmosphere. Do not expect to like any of the characters. Armand Asante, Norman Redus, and Dagmara Dominczyk, play shady con-artists, not exactly the type of person easily admired. The double crosses come fast and furious, and the final cross is a bit of a stretch. Recommended. - MERK$LABEL$ 1
+Has aged really well - still thrilling and suspenseful today. Certainly one of Hitch's best movies. Beautifully shot, with a great premise for suspense, sex-appeal provided by beautiful Ruth Roman. Because of the great premise, you feel like you have to watch it to the end. If you find yourself losing faith in Hitch and doubting his title as the Master of Suspense, i recommend this nice little movie as an antidote. 5 out of 5.$LABEL$ 1
+They should have named this movie ...Blonde women that needed to get their roots colored. Also the main character, geeze, the too tight sweaters. The giggling. Thought the guy did a good job though. I keep hoping we'll find a good 8 star Christmas movie to watch this week. The dart throwing. Had to laugh at that too. We've still got 3 more on the DVR to watch, maybe we'll get lucky. Oh yeah, I figured the guy out pretty quickly and nailed it when he picked up the flowers and then drove out with his cousin. I told my daughter they were on their way to the cemetery. And how stupid was it that the two gals followed them there spying on them? Creepy.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the best movies. It is one of my favorites. A movie with good acting. The story is very sensitive and touching. Good camera work also.The names of the actresses and actors are not at the top of the American Star list. However, they give equal or better performances than the top of the list.It is such a pleasure to see a movie about true love, romance, friendship without having to endure watching someone having to kick-box their way to save the world.If you don't like this movie then you have no heart or feelings. Then go watch a sports movie. There is no killing or horror here. See the movie. It is a must. TH$LABEL$ 1
+"Bell Book and Candle" was shown recently on cable. Not having seen it for a while, we decided to take another look at this comedy. Based on the James Van Druten's Broadway hit, which was a vehicle for Rex Harrison and Lilli Palmer in the early fifties, the film was adapted for the screen by Daniel Taradash. The film was directed by Richard Quine, who turned the play into a delightful comedy.Evidently, judging by some of the comments submitted by IMDb, the big issue seems to be the pairing of the two stars, who had collaborated on "Vertigo", released the same year. Movie audiences didn't think anything about the age difference when this film was released. In fact, most of the aging male stars of that period were always involved with much younger women.The film set in Manhattan during Christmas is a delightful comedy that has enchanted viewers. Kim Novak was at the height of her beauty as it's clear the camera adored her no matter what was she playing. As the witch that becomes human, her Gillian is charming. James Stewart, who plays the publisher Shep' Henderson, is also seen at his best. Mr. Stewart was an excellent comedy actor who shows in here why he was at the top.In supporting roles the wonderful Elsa Lanchester, playing Queenie, is a welcome addition to any movie, as she proves here. Jack Lemmon's Nicky Holroyd, the brother of Gillian, is also good. Ernie Kovacs is also seen as the writer Sidney Radlitch.This is an excellent way to spend a winter night at home watching "Bell Book and Candle".$LABEL$ 1
+It is very hard to come up with new information about JFK Jr. and this fine movie had very little of it, but it was a joy to watch. The casting was very good and the script, while somewhat like a documentary, was also good. My only complaint was that it wasn't long enough. Perhaps a two-part movie could have told us more about his "pre-George" days and his relationships with his mother, sister, and other relatives. Some of the material in the book, "American Son," by Richard Blow would have enhanced the movie a lot. WTBS should be applauded for producing such an entertaining movie.$LABEL$ 1
+This entire movie is worth watching just for the magnificent final moment - its the best ending of any movie I've ever seen. Perfect, beautiful, funny, simply wonderful.I found this movie delightful, even with it's French taking-itself-too-seriously deep meanings thing going on. I loved it - it's a great love story. And I loved the way Algerians were woven in - and by the way, the music during the final credits is great. I want the CD!$LABEL$ 1
+Granted, this seems like a good idea. Steve Martin, Goldie Hawn, and John Cleese in a Neil Simon comedy. Where can you go wrong? Watch the movie, and you'll find out.In truth, Martin, the lead, is mis-cast. He's not doing the great slapstick he's known for, from movies like "The Jerk", but instead plays a sort of in-between character that doesn't work. Hawn, with no one to play off of, is terrible. Cleese is the only even partially funny member.To top it off, the plot is pretty stupid. I can't say how much of it may have been changed, but the characters seem to lack the slightest bit of common sense. They blunder through New York, not doing anything right, and unfortuneatly, nothing funny. Not only is the whole premise completely unbelievable, it seems to give the message that people who don't live in New York aren't very bright, a theme repeated throughout the movie.In summation, instead of seeing this, go rent the original "Odd Couple" again.$LABEL$ 0
+Halloween 666 (1995) The producer's cut review!Halloween 666 starts of with a recap of the horrific ending to Part five. If you thought the last chapter was dark, this one will really blow your mind. A mysterious "Man in Black" has raided the Haddonfield Police Department freeing Micheal Myers. In the process poor Jamie Lloyd was abducted by strange cultists. What they want with her? Who knows, but let's just say her long suffering will end soon. Doctor Loomis is back spending the rest of his twilight years trying to stop Michael Myers from killing any more innocents (good luck). A friend of Loomis, Doctor Wynn comes back after a four sequel hiatus to help the good doctor. Another old face from part one guest stars as well.This dark and dreary sequel was dismantled during the post production editing. For some reason the distributors felt that the final product wasn't worth the average horror film watcher's time. So they decide to dumb it down. Then after having the film sit on the shelf for several months it laid an egg at the box office. No matter what they did to the film, they made it worse. They should have left well enough alone. Hey, the film company knows better than the filmmakers now....don't they?Producer's Cut :Highly recommended Released version: Not recommended$LABEL$ 1
+Definitely a "must see" for all fans of film noir.Thanks to a fine script and crisp, razor sharp direction a top cast comes together and works like a well oiled clock to produce a crackerjack psychological thriller.Wonderful characterizations articulate the movie's powerful message of racial and religious tolerance. It's difficult and almost unjust to single out any one particular performance because there isn't a weak link in the entire company but Robert Ryan as the hateful and violent white supremacist is truly spine chilling.Making this film in the 1940s would have taken a lot of courage. Now,all these years later, at a time when contemporary movies are dominated by a ridiculous over abundance of foul language, bare breasts, crummy acting and deafening soundtracks it's refreshing to get back to the basics of quality film making with a viewing treat like "Crossfire".Another low budget gem from the Hollywood archives .$LABEL$ 1
+I rented this movie on the merits of what the trailer showed, and of course Sir Anthony Hopkins.If Jackson Pollack teamed up with David Lynch, and Timothy Leary to make a movie, this would be the end result. I don't think I've seen a movie like it that made an LSD trip look like an episode of Sesame Street.It's a bunch of set pieces where the characters flash in and out of reality, or various realities, and the film doesn't culminate into anything until the last 5 minutes, where all of a sudden it makes sense. I wrote a scathing review on my movie review blog that essentially gives everything away, and I won't do that here. It's a well acted piece of cinema, and the soundtrack was written by Sir Anthony Hopkins, and let me say this, if there's one redeeming feature to this film, it's the music. It fits perfectly. Some of the dialogue is unbelievably good, and unbelievably bad all at the same time.I enjoyed parts of this movie, I truly did, and once you get to the end of it, you'll actually figure out what's truly going on. It's unfortunate that you have to wade through 2 hours of crazy to get to a salient point, which minimizes the effect of the entire movie.I give it a 3 out of 10 for the simple fact that the real problem with this film isn't the acting, it's everything.$LABEL$ 0
+If you are a traveller, if there is a fire burning into your heart, if you'd call "home" every place on earth, but none of them can give you enough, if you are always looking for the next thing and if you believe the other part of your soul is somewhere out there, see this movie and you'll find out a little, but wonderful, piece of life sitting next to you.$LABEL$ 1
+What are Forest Whitaker and Clifton Collins Jr. doing in this? Light It Up is a ridiculously melodramatic piece on problems in low income area schools. While the topic is one that needs to be addressed, the film uses every cliche in the genre and comes off as a textbook popcorn flick. The characters are cutouts from the inner city version of The Breakfast Club or even The Faculty. Watch this with your children when they turn 13 or 14. With them, it could be an outlet for a lesson on current social problems. For anyone older, it will be nothing more than something to watch and spit on at 4 in the morning, as I did recently on Bravo. Matter of fact, what was this doing on Bravo?$LABEL$ 0
+There are plenty of comments already posted saying exactly how I felt about this film so Ill keep it short."The Grinch" I thought was marvellous - Jim Carrey is a truly talented, physical comedian as well as being a versatile clever actor (in my opinion). Mike Myers on the other hand gets his laughs by being annoying. I used to like him very much in his "Waynes World" and "So I Married an Axe Murderer" days - but Ive never been fond of Austin Powers and "the Cat In The Hat" has just finished me off. This film was horrible - the gags were horrible! inappropriate for children not only in adult content but in the fact that some of them were so dated they havent amused anyone for 50 years! The plot was messy, messy, messy! Its a shame really because the children were very likeable as was "Mom". They probably could have picked a better villain than Alec Baldwin - but he could have pulled it off if it weren't for Myers ugly, revolting over-acted portrayal of the Cat.I mean - did Myers even glance at a script? Was one written? The other actors seemed to have one - but the Cat just seemed to be winging it!On the other hand I would like to mention that the sets and props were marvellous!!! But unfortunately they cant save this film.Poor Dr Seuss - the man was a genius! Dont ruin his reputation by adapting his work in a such a lazy, messy way!!!1/10$LABEL$ 0
+I'm surprised about the many female voters who even give this film better marks. My thought about this film was that the target audience is adult and male. Whipped and tortured women, merciless revenge and a high body count are typical ingredients, introduced into film history by the spaghetti subgenre. The opening and the hand-smashing are DJANGO rip-offs. THE SHOOTER however lacks the style of e.g. DJANGO. Score, acting and cinematography are mediocre at best but if you look for the above mentioned ingredients you are in the right place here. And the actors don't have an Italian accent.4 / 10.$LABEL$ 0
+Matthau and Lemmon are at their very best in this one - everyone else in the movie are also great. The Dialogue is excellent and very, very witty - and the scene where Lemmon's character attempts to clear out his sinuses in a restaurant have me rolling on the floor with laughter every time I see it. Anyone who happened to see the not so great sequel should not be turned away from the original. I recommend this wonderful movie to everyone - I just love it. And the fact the Jack Lemmon plays his character so straight forward with tragic overtones only adds to the hilariousness in my opinion. These two great guys made a string of movies together, but this one is the best - no doubt.$LABEL$ 1
+This is an incredible film. I can't remember the last time I saw a Swedish movie this layered. It's funny, it's tragic, it's compelling, and most of all it's a slice of Swedish small town life. It crushes the clichés, and dwells deeper. It makes you feel connected, not only to the main characters, but to all the characters.Big city girl tracing back to her roots, her small hometown, to celebrate her father's 70th birthday, crossing paths with people she hasn't met in several years. Although the story itself isn't unique, it offers a fresh approach. The center of the story is the relationship between three sisters (on different stages in life), who aren't very close. Or at least don't realize how close they are.One key reason that makes it so easy to connect to the people in this film is the immaculate cast. First, I'm more than pleased about the fact that there are absolutely no so-called 'A-list' Swedish actors in this film. Usually there is a handful of actors that has the ability to find their way into almost every major production in Sweden. This time the production company managed to keep it real by casting actors who actually seem to love their profession. Sofia Helin is probably the first Swedish actress since Eva Röse to prove that you don't need words to convey an emotion.The writing is also very appealing. The dialogue is more than believable, and compared with other Swedish films from the past year or two, it's ahead by miles. Maria Blom controls everything from the beginning, and if you didn't know, you would never guess that this is her first time writing AND directing a feature length film. I can't wait for her next one.Once you start watching this, you really want to see it through.$LABEL$ 1
+Just how bad? Well, compared to this movie, Cannibal Holocaust is Citizen Kane. There's the stilted acting, the atrocious dialogue, the half baked plot and like its companion piece way too much in the way of on screen animal slaughter that was actually done. Unlike Holocaust, Ferox is a straight forward movie. It doesn't pretend to be a pseudo documentary. In some ways that helps the production in that the film is very sharp and crisp compared to Holocaust's graininess. Unfortunately, we are once again given a group of people who are morally reprehensible. They torture the natives and essentially bring everything that they get upon themselves. There's really nothing in this film that makes it worth your while. I was fairly lenient with my review of Holocaust due to some actual attempt at a statement and style, but in Ferox's case there is no reason to watch this unless you solely get off on blood and gore.$LABEL$ 0
+Some of the secondary actors try, really hard. And camera shots in the desert are quite lovely. Otherwise, this film is horrible.William Shatner's character, Harvey, is an amateur screenwriter. He's also a psychopath, a man who quite literally escapes from a mental institution. Is the point of this film that amateur screenwriters are psychopaths? Harvey will do anything to get his script read and turned into a movie, even if that means taking a film crew hostage. Do amateur screenwriters ... grovel? Maybe they do.The film's setup is way too long. We don't get to the point of the story until well into the second half. The first half darts and flits among assorted characters."Shoot Or Be Shot" is touted as a comedy, but I found it totally not funny. Dialogue contains no subtext. None of the characters are believable as real people. They're all stick figures that perform "action" in a way that resembles cartoon characters. Indeed, the film is basically a cartoon for adults: silly, inane, birdbrained.I can understand why some actors are in this film. They need the money or the exposure. But what are insiders Shatner and Harry Hamlin doing here? Maybe Shatner wants more comedy roles. Is this the best he can do? Is Hamlin that desperate for money? He used to be a respected actor. What happened?Even though the story is supposed to be a satire, it comes across more as a put-down of amateur screenwriters. Maybe that wasn't the intent. But that's certainly how the film can be interpreted. As such, the script was very, very poorly written.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is simply bad. First of all the story is just weird and it's not good written. It leaves you with questions when you're finished. Sometimes that's OK, but not in this case.The acting is nothing to write home about. The adults does a OK job, but the kids, taken in consideration they are kids, does not a good job. I thought the lead role, Ian Costello as Mickey, was worst. Well, to be honest I'm not sure that was the lead role. Never quite figured who this movie was about. Mickey or Pete.There were some shots that stood out, but over all there were nothing exiting about the cinematography. The sound, however, was better. There was a nice score. A little adventure kind of score, though this didn't look like an adventure film to me. It had some elements of an adventure film, but it was more of a drama. However, it was hard to tell who this film was meant for. Children? Hardly. There is too much language and violence for that. Adults? I don't know. It had to many elements of a children's movie in it. It was like a adult movie in a children movie wrapping.The story was just weird. I don't have much of an idea of what it really was about. You was thrown right in to it without knowing anything, but there were all the time references to something you felt you should know. The fact that the children's parents were dead for instance and that Mickey blamed Pete for it. You expected to get to know what happened , but you never got.All together this movie was bad and a waste of time. There was no drive in it. Nothing to really move the story forward. This is not what you spend your Saturday night on.$LABEL$ 0
+Though not Hal Hartley's best work (my personal favorite is "Surviving Desire"), there is still much to like about this movie, especially for fans of Hartley's dialogues. Even to audiences new to Hartley, I would definitely recommend this movie over the sophomoric "Dogma." This movie is more intelligent, truer to its source material (the Bible), and more fun than any of the other pre-millennium apocalypse movies. This movie is actually part of the French "2000 As Seen By." (2000 Par Vu) series; as such, it is perhaps even a lower-budget film than Hartley's other works. While the need for simple scenes shot with digital camera is understandable in this context, the main problem with this movie is the unfortunate overuse of the blurry/jittery effect. I'd be happy to never see this effect used in a movie again; especially at the beginning, it almost makes the movie unwatchable. But overlook this flaw, and you'll be treated to a fine film. Especially notable is Magdalena (played by P.J. Harvey) relating how Jesus saved her from being stoned to death; a short scene I found surprisingly moving. (Despite the fact that it was NOT Mary Magdalene that this happened to; the woman in the Bible was unnamed.)$LABEL$ 1
+I bought this (it was only $3, ok?) under the title "Grey Matter". The novelty of seeing Sherriff Roscoe in a non-DukesOfHazzard role intrigued me. As the other reviewers warned, it's a pretty boring tale of a top secret government experiment gone awry.And yes, there are plenty of establishing shots, especially of a house with a pool in front of it. Some of the characters and interiors are so nondescript I guess the filmmakers worried we might forget who is who, so they keep tipping us off by first showing the outside of the buildings. It's actually kinda funny. After awhile the pool shot feels like a tv channel's station identification logo, reminding us that we are watching "Grey Matter".I also enjoyed two bouts of name-calling. At one point an angry test subject taunts somebody in charge by calling her a "Scientific b*tch!". It's just a very inadequate insult. Several scenes later a different subject lets off steam by muttering about that "scientific b**tard!". It just sounded very awkward to me.Someday this movie will disappear forever. Another decade from now it will likely be impossible to find any copies of it. Almost like it never happened.$LABEL$ 0
+There is a bit of trivia which should be pointed out about a scene early in the movie where Homer watches the attempt of December 6, 1957 (at least that was the video used on the TV he was watching) which showed the Vangard launch attempt, which failed.He is next shown reading or dictating a letter to Dr. Von Braun offering condolences about the failure.Von Braun was at Marshall space flight center in Huntsville working for the Army. The Vanguard project was by the early Nasa team which was at what soon became Goddard Space flight center.The army rushed the Jupiter-C, which was essentially a US made V2 technology, but worked to launch a satellite in response to Russia's success with Sputnik.This error may have actually been made by Homer, because of the notoriety of Von Braun, but his team didn't have their attempt fail. In fact the underlying Redstone was flying from 52 and was the first US man rated booster, used for Shepard's sub orbital flight, as well as Grissom's.This is why this sort of movie is so good, as it hopefully will inspire people to read up and spot these bits of trivia, and in the process see what has been done, and be inspired to do more.$LABEL$ 1
+I enjoyed this movie very much. Kristy Swanson Omar epps, and Ice Cube were all great in it. The movie dealt with many issues, and I didn't know if I was going to like it, but Singelton did a terrific job of creating characters that you really cared about.$LABEL$ 1
+52-Pick Up never got the respect it should have. It works on many levels, and has a complicated but followable plot. The actors involved give some of their finest performances. Ann-Margret, Roy Scheider, and John Glover are perfectly cast and provide deep character portrayals. Notable too are Vanity, who should have parlayed this into a serious acting career given the unexpected ability she shows, and Kelly Preston, who's character will haunt you for a few days. Anyone who likes action combined with a gritty complicated story will enjoy this.$LABEL$ 1
+Teenage Exorcist is one of those God-awful films to video that makes the viewer give up any expectations of decent entertainment for low brow sexual antics, adolescent humour, and empty writing. This film delivers exactly what its was trying to deliver. It is about a girl moving into a house where a Baron de Sade(hmmm) once lived and finally being drawn to him through her own inner demon. Her sister and brother-in-law, along with an Irish priest, her boyfriend, and a pizza delivery boy, try to save her and exorcise her demon. Well, not much here in way of horror or suspense. In fact, one line from the film pretty much sums up what to expect. Mike(the girl's brother-in-law) has tied her(the name is Diane by the way and she is played by Brinke Stevens) up after trying to chainsaw her sister. He removes a gag from her mouth and says something like, "This won't be the last gag we see tonight." Indeed, it was not. The special effects are cheesy and poorly crafted, and the film makes use of this by playing on its comedic appeal. Some of the lines and situations are funny. Robert Quarry, old Count Yorga himself, really steals his scenes as an Irish priest. He hams it up wailing Biblical verses and crooning Irish songs. You know you are in trouble, however, when Eddie Deezen gets top billing. Deezen does his schtick and has a couple nice moments as well, but the material is just too threadbare than to be anything more than teenage sophomoric time filler. Michael Berryman, from The Hills Have Eyes, also has a brief but interesting cameo in the film. As for the other thespians, well, they are all pretty good at being pretty mediocre. Stevens is lovely in fishnet stockings and French-cut panties, but beyond that don't expect too much more from her. Her sister is played by Elena Sahagun, and she shows a bit more than Brinke(a very lovely young lady by the way) and out acts Brinke by miles. Her husband, played by Jay Richardson shows off his ability to act and be funny amidst mediocrity. Again, not a bad film to waste a little time that involves NO thinking on. If you are a Robert Quarry fan, watch it for his performance at the very least.$LABEL$ 0
+Wenders was great with Million $ Hotel.I don't know how he came up with this film! The idea of giving the situation after spt11 and the view of American Society is hopeful,that makes it 2 out of ten.But this is not a movie.Is that the best someone can do with a great idea(the west-east clash).There are important things going on in middle east and it is just issued on the screen of a MAC* with the fingers of an Amerian girl who is actually at the level of stupidity(because she is just ignorant about the facts).The characters are not well shaped.And the most important thing is the idea that is given with religion is somehow funny to me.At the ending scene Lana says lets just be quiet and try to listen.And the background music says "...I will pray".The thing is not about religion actually.But it ends up with this.How you are gonna see the truth if you just close your eyes and pray.The lights are already shining on the truth.Its just that nobody wants to see it. ps: "My home is not a place.It is people"The only thing that gets 10 out of 10 is that sentence.But it is wasted behind this film making. (by the way; as "someone" mentioned below ,Americas finest young man are not finest,they are just the "poor" and the "hopeless" ones who sign up for the army in need of good paychecks which is not provided by the government ! )$LABEL$ 0
+As a low budget enterprise in which the filmmakers themselves are manufacturing and distributing the DVDs themselves, we perhaps shouldn't expect too much from Broken in disc form. And yet what's most remarkable about this whole achievement is the fact that this release comes with enough extras to shame a James Cameron DVD and a decidedly fine presentation.With regards to the latter, the only major flaw is that Broken comes with a non-anamorphic transfer. Otherwise we get the film in its original 1.85:1 ratio, demonstrating no technical flaws and looking pretty much as should be expected. Indeed, given Ferrari's hands on approach in putting this disc together you can pretty much guarantee such a fact.The same is also true of the soundtrack. Here we are offered both DD2.0 and DD5.1 mixes and whilst I'm uncertain as to which should be deemed the "original", the fact that Ferrari had an involvement in both means neither should be considered as inferior. Indeed, though the DD5.1 may offer a more atmosphere viewing experience owing to the manner in which it utilizes the score, both are equally fine and free of technical flaws.As for extras the disc is positively overwhelmed by them. Take a look at the sidebar on the right of the screen and you'll notice numerous commentaries, loads of featurettes and various galleries. Indeed, given the manner in which everything has been broken down into minute chunks rather than compiled into a lengthy documentary, there really is little to discuss. The 'Anatomy of a Stunt' featurette, for example, is exactly what it claims to be, and the same goes for the rest of pieces. As such we get coverage on pretty much ever aspect of Broken's pre-production, production and post-production. And whilst it may have been preferable to find them in a more easily digestible overall 'making of', in this manner we do get easy access to whatever special feature we may wish to view.Of the various pieces, then, it is perhaps only the commentaries which need any kind of discussion. Then again, there's also a predictable air to each of the chat tracks. The one involving the actors is overly jokey and doesn't take the film too seriously. Ferrari's pieces are incredibly enthusiastic about the whole thing. And the technical ones are, well, extremely technical. Of course, we also get some crossover with what's been covered elsewhere on the discs, but at only 19 minutes none of these pieces outstay their welcome. Indeed, all in all, a fine extras package.$LABEL$ 1
+Child 'Sexploitation' is one of the most serious issues facing our world today and I feared that any film on the topic would jump straight to scenes of an explicitly sexual nature in order to shock and disturb the audience. After having seen both 'Trade' and 'Holly', one film moved me to want to actually see a change in international laws. The other felt like a poor attempt at making me cry for five minutes with emotive music and the odd suicide. I do not believe that turning this issue into a Hollywood tear jerker is a useful or necessary strategy to adopt and I must commend the makes of 'Holly' for engaging subtly but powerfully with the terrible conditions these children are sadly forced to endure. 'Trade' wavered between serious and stupid with scenes involving the death of a cat coming after images that represented children being forced to commit some horrendous acts. I found this unengaging and at times offensive to the cause. If I had wanted a cheap laugh I would not have signed up for a film on child trafficking. For anyone who would like to watch a powerful film that actually means something I would suggest saving the money on the cinema ticket for the release of 'Holly'.$LABEL$ 1
+I will not say much about this film, because there is not much to say, because there is not much there to talk about. The only good thing about this movie is that our favorite characters from "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" are back. Several of the bad things about this movie are that it has horrible characters, it has horrible comedy, horrible animation, and James Arnold Taylor trying to copy the wonderful, one and only Michael J. Fox as Milo James Thatch. The reasons for my criticisms are that all the characters are changed into something that they never were, and never should be, animation that has been downgraded to the lowest extent possible, and finally, why would somebody who did wonderful voice-over work for Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Clone Wars" want to copy Michael J. Fox? I happen to have an answer to this. Because they are the same person who thought he had to copy Eddie Murphy from Mulan in Mulan II. Yes, sadly, it is true..$LABEL$ 0
+Whoa. In the Twin Cities, we have a station that shows a "Big Bad Movie" Monday through Friday. Tonight's nugget was a film with Carrie Fisher called "She's Back" about a really annoying woman who ends up getting murdered when thugs break into her house. Bea (Beatrice) comes back to haunt her husband. She wants him to seek revenge on her killers, hence "she's back". And she won't let him rest until he does so. She irritates him endlessly... and the viewers, too! This movie is truly one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Hey, I like bad movies, though (my fave movie is Xanadu). I was really shaking my head throughout the whole film, wondering who thought this would be a good idea for a movie. Bea is just so annoying. The plot is silly; the acting is bad; the story... well, you get my drift. Anyway, if you wanna see a really bad movie - really really bad movie, check this one out. You won't be disappointed. Heh.$LABEL$ 0
+Although I am a fan of Heather Thomas and I have a few of her old bikini posters around here somewhere, I can honestly say that if the only movie I had ever seen her in was "Cyclone", I would never be able to guess why she had made it as far as she had in show business.Directed by Fred Olen Ray (about as good an omen as seeing buzzards circle over head in the desert), this tale of a woman (Thomas) who must protect a high-tech motorcycle from unscrupulous types is about as "B" movie as it gets (or in Fred Olen's case, "B minus").The cast itself should tell you something. It's not every movie that combines Thomas with actors the calibre of Beswick, Hall, Combs, Donahue, Tamblyn and Landau (!!). If you're lucky, very few movies do. And even though they seem to be having fun, shouldn't some of that fun be passed on to the audience? I vote yes, seems they voted no.Of course, if you ever wanted to see Heather deliver an uppercut to another woman, use the "F" word and get hooked up to battery cables, you've probably been looking for this one. Myself, I'll be content with old "Fall Guy" reruns.One star, given in hopes that when another "Cyclone" hits town, Heather runs for shelter. I know I will.$LABEL$ 0
+i am surprised so few have good words for this movie. For its time (the 80's) it was a very entertaining and engaging story. Casting was good. Story was good. Special effects were remarkable for the time period. Deserving of an 8/10.$LABEL$ 1
+Seeing this film, or rather set of films, in my early teens irrevocably changed my idea of the possibilities of human interaction and the range of potential experience. This monumental exploration of individuals, and their historical setting, reveals how full bodied and intense every human existence is. The people are portrayed as they are to themselves: their experiences of the smallest to the largest internal and external phenomena are detailed with the greatest of artistry and perception. Edgar Reitz displays a fabulous appreciation of human motivations and longings.When these phenomena are set against the immense time allowed by the length of the work, one cannot help but apprehend the force and vivacity of happiness, defeat, lust, love, sadness, melancholy, that each person feels. When I saw these films I perceived my future experiences, how my life would inevitably twist and oscillate due to both intended and accidental events. I acquired a feeling of the longevity of being and what it meant to reflect upon past lives, memories and contexts. A masterpiece and a revelation. I only wish the BBC would screen it again.If anyone knows where I can get a copy, could they contact me$LABEL$ 1
+Not the film to see if you want to be intellectually stimulated. If you want to have a lot of fun a the theater, however, this is the one. Lots of snappy banter(and some really cheesy banter, too). Mos Def and Seth Green are very funny as the comic relief. Exciting and creative heists and chase scenes. Mark Wahlberg and Charlize Theron(sexy)are appealing leads. And Donald Sutherland!$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of the worst films I've seen for years. The storyline has potential that is never realized. The actors are a poor choice, but considering the screen writing, their talent isn't wasted. I really wanted everyone dead as quickly as possible so I could get out and watch something else. Unfortunately, I did stay to the end and had a laugh at the murmurs of people moaning about how crappy this is. There wasn't booing, after all, this is England, just gentle moans about how crap that was. Then, I look on IMDb and see 288 people have given it 10 out of 10. I really just cannot see how those people are able to give that score. They must be a PR company working with the distributor. There's a hilarious set problem towards the end of the film, when in the graveyard and the hick attacks, look out for the dodgy scenery that rocks when touched (supposed to be a brick wall) - the blood effects are waaaay OTT - the film feels like everyone is making a spoof horror except the Director.$LABEL$ 0
+Wealthy widower Anthony Steffen (as Alan Cunningham) is a sadomasochistic lover, and British Lord. He brings sexy red-haired women to his castle, where he whips and murders them. Black-booted stripper Erika Blanc (as Susie) gets away, temporarily. Mr. Steffen is haunted by wife "Evelyn", who died in childbirth. As therapy, he decides to marry again, after meeting pretty blonde Marina Malfatti (as Gladys). By the end of the movie, they will have had to dig a few more graves. "The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave" is great title, at least.** La notte che Evelyn uscì dalla tomba (1971) Emilio Miraglia ~ Anthony Steffen, Marina Malfatti, Erika Blanc$LABEL$ 0
+This is the worst movie I have seen for years! It starts ridicoulus and continues in the same way. I thnik when is something going to happen in this film,,,, and the the acting is worse. The ending lifts it a bit and saves the movie from a total flop. Mark Wahlberg is a bad actor in a bad movie. Sorry Tim Burton Batman was good but this one sucks.$LABEL$ 0
+At a risk of sounding slightly sacrilegious, on first viewing I'm kind of inclined to put this right up on a par with 'Shaun of the Dead'. Now, given I view Simon Pegg as an unquestionable comedy genius, I realise this is a rather big claim. And to what extent you agree with that last statement may be a good preliminary gauge of whether 'Fido' will appeal to you.In a way the comedy picks up where 'Shaun' left off, except we're back in the original 1950s Living Dead-era stereotypical middle-American small town. The Zombie Wars are over and zombies themselves are becoming more well-adjusted, useful members of the community. This, so we're informed at the outset, is largely thanks to the scientific advances made by the good people at Zomcom - a nice play on romantic comedy perhaps? The beauty of the film lies in its dead-pan depiction of a respectable neighbourhood maintaining core values while making a place for zombies and the special hazards they pose. The charm and balance with which it does this is near enough perfect. Themes you might expect from a more mainstream kitsch comedy come through - the veneer of good clean living, keeping up appearances, repressed emotion, muddled parental values, social decorum and the plight of the alienated individual.It's a story told with happy heart and wide appeal that is brought to life vividly by the film's all-round strong cast. It's one of those works where it really shows through that everyone involved got a kick out of taking part. It's also fun imagining what Billy Connelly learning his script must have been like...So in conclusion, it is probable you will appreciate the humour of this film unless your father tried to eat you.$LABEL$ 1
+Ugh. Even the ever-popular Diane Lane could not save this movie, and the most exciting thing about the movie was seeing if Rourke's face would move. One has heard so much "gossip" about his botched face lift, etc., so like an accident on the side of the road, we just had to slow down and see the wreck. The plot was thin. Here we have a very professional mob hit man who somehow latches on to a wild and uncontrollable punk/crook, and throughout this movie we're wondering why this guy stays with this idiot, let alone gets together with the guy in the first place. Then the crime that was not even committed has the pro to go after the witnesses. He would have popped them right then and there. But then, we would not have had a movie then, would we? And why did the realtor even agree to the extortion? There were more holes in this flick than in my colander. The acting was horrid, the entire movie predictable down to the minute, and even the ending. And so much could have been done to make this a much better movie. But if you have about 90 minutes to kill and not have to use any brain cells in the process, then this movie is just what the doctor ordered.$LABEL$ 0
+How Disney can you get? Preppy rich girls act like idiots, buy a bunch of stuff, and get taught a lesson. Is Disney trying to send a lesson to itself? That maybe while buying everything it should maybe still be human? Whatever the psycho-analysis, this movie sucked.The girls want a rich party for their rich lives. But then money disappears and they have to use their riches to get the milk plant (yes, milk) going to employ the workers. They keep it afloat until daddy comes home. And the man at the beginning, who appears to be the one that takes the money, is the one. But the ending is dumb. Webcam in the Cayman Islands? Huh? Not worth my time ever again. But it is better than Howl's Moving Castle. "D-"$LABEL$ 0
+If this film is examined closely, it's a bit sad. It is detailed enough to touch upon very real problems children, who grow up in poor, dysfunctional environments. Yet, it retains it's comedic value, with spirited performances by Diahann Carroll and James Earl Jones. The sadness lies in the struggles and dysfunction of the mother (Carroll), who cannot truly help her children, not because she doesn't want to, or try, but because, it's obvious she doesn't know how. Remember, this is a comedy, but if you've never seen this, or if you have, watch this film and see the humanity, in the characters. Good film.$LABEL$ 1
+I happen to run into this movie one night so I decided to watch it! I was very pleased with the movie... I thought it was a wonderful plot. It's a great feeling knowing a deceased one has come back and you get that second chance to say what you want to say! And this wife stayed devoted for 23 years!!! I thought it was a great movie!!$LABEL$ 1
+I went to see this film because Joaquim de Almeida was in it. Joaquim had a fairly small part, so it was good that I liked the film on it's own. In fact, I liked it a lot!The film centers around two characters, Albert and Louie. Albert is a shy, retiring sort, and Louie... well Louie is not. The story revolves around Louie's request to Albert to let him come over to Albert's place for just a little while. Louie has just gotten out of prison.Albert and Louie have known each other since childhood, and of course whenver they do something together there is trouble and it's Albert who always takes the fall.The action of the film is based on the adventures that ensue from Louie's visit. On The Run is a chronicle of mad-cap, zany, situations. However, Bruno de Almeida and scriptwriter, Joseph Minion (After Hours), don't always take you where you expect to go. There are twists and turns that add depth to this film. Of course there is plenty of outright comedy, but there is much subtle humor here as well.There are some downright good performances here as well. Albert is played delightfully by Michael Imperioli. He's getting fairly well-knownthese days from the HBO series, The Sopranos.Louie is played by John Ventimiglia, who imbues his character with a lovable, child-like quality. (no matter what he does, you just gotta love Louie!).Both these actors are excellent in their individual characters. With Imperioli, you'll want to hug him and bring him home to Mom. Ventimiglia, well, you won't know whether you should slap him or bring him home (and NOT to Mom!).<p>There are other stand-out performances as well. The character of Rita is played by Drena DeNiro (yes, Robert's daughter). The audience adored her. In talking with the others who saw the film it was fun to discuss whether it was Albert or Louie who was their favorite of those two. But, everyone loved Rita!Is this film perfect? No, I can't say that it is. There were many times I wished the director had had a bigger budget to work with. There were some scenes that cried out for more budgetary freedom. (Give this guy a decent budget to work with and I believe you are going to see a film that will make you stand up and notice.)The ending sequence was a bit of a victim of budget. Yet, budget or no budget, the ending screen shot, in my opinion, brought together the talent of actor and director into a memorable, emotionally effective scene.$LABEL$ 1
+"Yes, Georgio" is a light-hearted and enjoyable movie/comedy that contains beautiful settings and beautiful music. It's not my favorite movie but it is a movie I have enjoyed seeing more than once. Some reviewers suggested if one wished to enjoy Pavarotti, they would likely be better served by picking up an opera DVD. Although, a full opera might be a better representation of Pavarotti's operatic talents, oftentimes, an opera requires costumes and has story lines that completely hide the appearance and nature of the person. "Yes, Georgio" permits Pavarotti to use his speaking voice and to exhibit a personality and character in ways an opera would not.Many reviewers seemed to find the story unbelievable; I don't agree. Enormously talented people can be both self-centered and charming - charming enough to captivate intelligent and beautiful people. Additionally, people who are very different from one other often gain insights about themselves and grow in positive ways from interacting with people who stretch them or take them in directions they might not have chosen on their own. Both Georgio and Pamela become more open to unexplored parts of themselves in relationship with the other.Relax and let yourself go into a visually and aurally rewarding film with Pavarotti at the peak of his vocal abilities. The ending scenes from Puccini's Turandot alone are worth the time to get there.$LABEL$ 1
+This gem for gore lovers is extremely underrated. It's pure delight and fun! Gratuitous servings of blood, insanity and black humor, which can please even the most demanding lover of the genre. A full exploitation of the almost universal fear of dentists and flawlessly shot. Only for the connoisseurs.$LABEL$ 1
+I had nothing to do before going out one night so I didn't want to watch anything too heavy, I picked the perfect film. This must have been a gift to Barrymore from someone she slept with, the director Raja Gosnell has made nothing but silly crap and the writing on this one is just atrocious. In what high school can you register without a parent present and no proof of age or former schooling? They let kids all come to the prom with no shirts, in skin tight leotards, ass shorts and one girl was dressed as Eve wearing only fig leaves? She announces that she's 25 and her brother is 23 but there is no reprisal from the school, parents or lawsuits of any kind against the newspaper for fraud or spying? The newspaper boss wants to catch the teacher in an underage sex scandal but doesn't realize the teacher is coming on to a 25 year old so any case would be entrapment? They allow a camera in and record peoples private conversations with under age kids? I wonder if I hired my younger sister to go back to HS with a camera on her and filmed under age girls for my personnel use I would not get in some kind of trouble??? NAHHHH No problem. Didn't she have to take gym or go to the bathroom at some point? The secondary characters in this were like cardboard cutouts of what high school students are thought to be and everybody was a stereotype. Jessica Alba is just embarrassingly bad in this mugging for the camera at every chance. In what world do the parents not get suspicious when their uber-geeky daughter is miraculously asked out by the school stud to the prom? And they don't ask the guy inside to meet him like every other parent in history. If some guy in my school or any other school for that matter had conned my sister and thrown eggs at her in her prom dress he would have been in a body cast for the rest of his life. This movie is so contrived and predictable it's nauseating, and why at the end is everybody (the Alpo girls included) cheering for this chick when two days before they hated her????DUMB, DUMB AND DUMB.$LABEL$ 0
+... but had to see just how bad it could get. The plotline was thin to begin with, but it just kept getting worse. A female genetic engineering grad student uses her research on accelerated mitosis to artificially create a male, because a biological weapon used in WW3 killed off 97% of the worldwide male population. The surviving men are either high prices gigolos in back alley clubs, or crazed lunatics in run down football stadiums plotting to overthrow the 'Lesbian Conspiracy'. The entire process resembled the microwaving of a large bowl of jello. Press a few buttons and ding you get a baby. Not only that, but he will age to mid 20's in a month, and then begin to age normally (how convenient). Eventually poor Adam gets bored with the secluded cabin in the woods where his creator had raised him and steals her car to 'see the city'.This begins 90 minutes of unlikely chases, convenient plot twists, and several subplots that we never see resolved. As Adam quickly learns, what men did survive are treated as outcasts/criminals, because they are dangerous beasts that cannot help there genetic predisposition to violence. The propaganda machines have been in full swing, scaring women into believing all men are rapists and murderers. This has led to lesbianism being the norm, the fall of Christianity, female only reproduction via cloning, and oh yeah world peace among other implied results. All of which seem unlikely given that only ~30 years had elapsed since the war. Adam stumbles from one bad situation to the next, all the while being genetically programmed to be non-violent and unable to really do much on his own behalf. With the FBI on his trail, madams looking for fresh meat, and his creator trying to recapture him (for herself it seems), he learns that violence is not limited to the male species after all.All in all, I would not recommend this movie.I did however enjoy Veronica Cartwrights portrayal of the 'love to hate her' Director of the FBI, and Julie Bowen didn't do bad as Hope the 'closet hetero' geneticist either.$LABEL$ 0
+The first 45 minutes of Dragon Fighter are entirely acceptable and surprisingly watchable. The characters are believable and interesting. The cloning lab looks really high-tech. After that, it all collapses. The characters start behaving idiotically, and a new subplot is introduced from nowhere about a fusion reactor (and this is supposedly "present day") going critical, the only plot justification of which is that it is required to kill the dragon - only it doesn't. The finish is incredibly weak. One wonders what made a movie that started out so well turn so wrong.All the characters except Dean Cain are played by Russians. This results in some weird situations and details, like the character being played by Vessela Dimitrova being called "Bailey Kent" despite her heavy accent (and despite her, on one occasion, inexplicably switching to *Spanish*!).Because of the decent start, I considered rating this movie a 5, but it really was more disappointing than that, so I only give it 4.$LABEL$ 0
+Dr. Bock teaches at the hospital and he is quite good at it. The thing about him is that he is depressed. Dr. Bock and his wife separated, his children are deviant, he cannot perform in the bedroom and he feels as if he isn't doing a very good job at healing people. He becomes suicidal but meets Barbara who changes his ideas for the better. All around this story is a murder mystery and a group of angry protesters outside.The movie is well done and the character of Dr. Bock is well played out. It's a little sad, somewhat funny and somewhat of a drama. It was good to see a couple stories wrapped around the hospital even if they were somewhat unrelated to what Dr. Bock was doing. Great movie.$LABEL$ 1
+I've been playing this movie incessantly this month, and I just love it. I was around in the 60s (oh dear), so it is nostalgic in one sense. However, it's the funny premise, the snappy dialogue and the great performances that keep me watching.Dr. Winston's reactions to Stephanie at the end of the movie are priceless. (I'd be more specific, but don't want to spoil it for anyone.) Who other than Matthau can play a man not entirely on the up-and-up and yet have us still love him? As for Bergman's costumes, I think she looks as dowdy as she's supposed to. I think "she was robbed" the one time that she appears in an evening gown. It doesn't suit her at all, which is too bad. I never liked it when I first saw it on her and I still don't.Goldie won an Oscar for her role. People thought it was a groundbreaking performance at the time, and yet it's the one performance that I don't love as much as the others. She does have the right amount of sweetness and likability, however, which is important for this role.And I agree - I thought Rick Lenz was great in it and it's too bad that his movie career didn't take off after this.I hope more people watch this movie ... they'll love it!$LABEL$ 1
+WOW!! Talk about a film that divides the audience! This is a real love it or loath it kinda movie. Personally I really enjoyed it. I noticed that other reviews are comparing it to Pitch Black - this is kinda dumb as the only thing they have in common is SAND! People can be real stupid. No, this film is far more in common with The Thing (how people fail to notice is amazing - they even have the same basic music) Lots of Carpenter touches are there, blue collar heroes, sharp humor, endless rolling landscapes full of death and things not understood. Perhaps what stops this film being a real classic is it's deference to other Carpenter works. Not least Dark Star which it has something in common with. I'd be interested to know how much it REALLY cost? $8000? Is that even possible? Maybe it was based on a short film that cost $8000? But I did find myself strangely moved when the various space dudes died. They are so underplayed that it's like watching a documentary at times. Having said that the script is kinda clunky and only about half of them can act however and I'm not sure the big guy playing the Captain is one of them. But his gun is AWESOME!! Give it a chance, if you like early Carpenter you might fall for it, just don't expect 2001.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie tries to run away to the typical 'I'm fighting because I'm obliged to defend the fatherland. The NAZI's are all bad guys, I'm against them' (typical of German war movies). How? By not talking too much about it, and just referring the war and the POW's. Nevertheless I would like to see a German movie which would be something between the extremity of Come And See and the "bad NAZI's" Das Boot. I say this because, excluding this factor, the German movies are the best depicting 2nd world war and the German side. You easily see some of the German hierarchical relations, very different from the ones in US army.This is a movie which tries to get a real sight of what was Stalingrad, and I was not there, and I doubt most people were there now, but if I would choose one movie depicting this battle, for sure would not be the all American Enemy At The Gates. Why do I say this? Because even the best soldiers are not hero's, and given the conditions they may regard their own lives instead of the fatherland. This goes for all the ranks, and in the end you see von Paulus giving the example.$LABEL$ 1
+Homelessness (or Houselessness as George Carlin stated) has been an issue for years but never a plan to help those on the street that were once considered human who did everything from going to school, work, or vote for the matter. Most people think of the homeless as just a lost cause while worrying about things such as racism, the war on Iraq, pressuring kids to succeed, technology, the elections, inflation, or worrying if they'll be next to end up on the streets.But what if you were given a bet to live on the streets for a month without the luxuries you once had from a home, the entertainment sets, a bathroom, pictures on the wall, a computer, and everything you once treasure to see what it's like to be homeless? That is Goddard Bolt's lesson.Mel Brooks (who directs) who stars as Bolt plays a rich man who has everything in the world until deciding to make a bet with a sissy rival (Jeffery Tambor) to see if he can live in the streets for thirty days without the luxuries; if Bolt succeeds, he can do what he wants with a future project of making more buildings. The bet's on where Bolt is thrown on the street with a bracelet on his leg to monitor his every move where he can't step off the sidewalk. He's given the nickname Pepto by a vagrant after it's written on his forehead where Bolt meets other characters including a woman by the name of Molly (Lesley Ann Warren) an ex-dancer who got divorce before losing her home, and her pals Sailor (Howard Morris) and Fumes (Teddy Wilson) who are already used to the streets. They're survivors. Bolt isn't. He's not used to reaching mutual agreements like he once did when being rich where it's fight or flight, kill or be killed.While the love connection between Molly and Bolt wasn't necessary to plot, I found "Life Stinks" to be one of Mel Brooks' observant films where prior to being a comedy, it shows a tender side compared to his slapstick work such as Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, or Spaceballs for the matter, to show what it's like having something valuable before losing it the next day or on the other hand making a stupid bet like all rich people do when they don't know what to do with their money. Maybe they should give it to the homeless instead of using it like Monopoly money.Or maybe this film will inspire you to help others.$LABEL$ 1
+I a huge fan of when it comes to Doctor Who series and still am, But I was very disappointed when i began to watch this new series.Children under the age of 15, or even better under the age of 10 will probably will enjoy it the best, and possibly new fans who haven't seen any of the original series, But as far as fans of the original series, will find this series missing much of the charm the made the original series so great, It took David Tennant to get me to Appreciate how Much better Christoper Eccellestion was as a Doctor in the 1st season.I would only recommend this series for people who haven't seen much of the original series, people who are under 15, and EXTREMELY DIE HARD who fans, everyone else will just get a laugh and mumble curse words about Russel T. Davies screwed up one of our favorite TV shows.$LABEL$ 0
+I went into this film expecting/hoping for a sleazy drive-in style slice of seventies exploitation, but what I got was more of a bizarre pseudo western with far too much talking and not enough action. It's clear that this film was made on a budget; the locations are drab and poorly shot, while the acting leaves a lot to be desired also. The plot focuses on a trio of robbers (a father and two sons) that steal a load of gold after killing some miners. They come across a cabin inhabited by a young girl and her stepmother...and all this is told in flashbacks by the young girl, currently residing in an asylum. It's clear that directors Louis Leahman and William Sachs thought they were making something really shocking; but despite its best efforts, South of Hell Mountain is just too boring to shock the viewer. The film drones on for about eighty minutes and most of it consists of boring characters spouting off boring and long-winded dialogue. The only good thing I have to say about the film is with regards to the music; which is good in places. The ending is the only other good thing about the movie; and that's only because it's the last thing that happens. I wouldn't recommend anyone bothers tracking this down...there was much better trash made in the seventies.$LABEL$ 0
+Looked forward to viewing this film and seeing these great actors perform. However, I was sadly disappointed in the script and the entire plot of the story. David Duchovny,(Dr. Eugene Sands),"Connie & Carla",'04, was the doctor in the story who uses drugs and losses his license to practice medicine. Dr. Sands was visiting a night club and was able to use his medical experience to help a wounded customer and was assisted by Angelina Jolie,(Claire),"Taking Lives",'04, who immediately becomes attracted to Dr. David Sands. Timothy Hutton,(Raymond Blossom),"Kinsey",'04, plays the Big Shot Gangster and a man with all kinds of money and connections. Timothy Hutton seems to over act in most of the scenes and goes completely out of his mind trying to keep his gang members from being killed. Gary Dourdan,(Yates),"CSI-Vegas TV Series", plays a great supporting role and portrays a real COOL DUDE who is a so-called body guard for Raymond Blossom. Angelina Jolie looks beautiful and sexy with her ruby red lips which draws a great deal of attention from all the men. This film is not the greatest, but it does entertain.$LABEL$ 0
+This was one of the worst films I can remember seeing. I am sure I have seen worse, though, if that mitigates me slamming it.The humor isn't funny, there are stupid stereotype jokes that, again, aren't funny. I was a captive audience on a plane and viewed this film. It was a complete waste of time. I enjoyed Martin in earlier films, but not this one. Same for Queen Latifah, she was excellent in Chicago and in Set it Off she was good too, but this role was horrid.I mostly credit the failure to the bad writing of the script. I feel strongly you can't save a formulaic, unfunny script with decent actors, this movie as a case in point. Still, all involved should have been wise enough to not participate in this film. I am just amazed that something so bad can get greenlighted, made, released theatrically, and promoted.$LABEL$ 0
+I bought the DVD a long time ago and finally got around to watching it.I really enjoyed watching this film as you don't get the chance to see many of the more serious better quality bollywood films like this. Very well done and but I would say you need to pay attention to what is going on as it is easy to get lost. When you start watching the movie, don't do anything else! I would actually advise people to read all the reviews here...including the ones with spoilers, before watching the movie. Raima Sen gave her first great performance that I have seen. Aishwarya was easily at her best. All performances were strong, directing and cinematography...go watch it!$LABEL$ 1
+First of all let us discuss about the story. It is a copy of the movie "Hitch" with an added Indian Flavor to it. One guy, who is a Love guru, and another man who is seemingly a sucker when it comes to ladies, and how this seemingly sucker becomes a charmer with the help of the love guru forms the story. Salman Khan is the love guru, and Govinda is the lame guy.Now coming to artists' performance, Salman Khan overacts throughout the movie, he tries to be funny, but fails big time. You can see Salman shouting throughout the movie, no real acting is seen in his performance. Govinda pairs opposite Katrina Kaif(Oh, my god, she is one heck of a girl. A real Beauty)is in real life a 50 year old dude, and Katrina is a girl in her early twenties. In the movie Govinda looks like Grandpa of Katrina Kaif. What a pity! Coming to Execution of the movie. This movie feels like a B-Movie, and a poor imitation of the movie Hitch. Where Hitch looks like a movie with a purpose and depth, this movie is shallow and purposeless, nowhere there is justification or clarity.Just forget this movie, for it is nothing but boring, typical Bollywood fare. Actually I give 3/10 because this is the lowest I go.$LABEL$ 0
+I try to catch this film each time it's shown on tv, which happily is quite often. But I keep forgetting to video it. As it is, I practically know the script by heart, but that doesn't stop me having a good cry, in fact it probably adds to it as I cry knowing what's coming next. It's such a lovely film - well made, well cast, good photography. I love it. One of my top ten films.$LABEL$ 1
+I got to know ÆON back in the early 90s via television and I loved it...What did you like about it ? The cranky drawing style ? The flawless artistic action involved ? The absurd and deadpan communication between the characters ? The whole layout of the surrounding future world ? No matter what you loved about it...The Aeon Flux film of late 2005 has nothing of that.Karyn Kusama, the so called "director" of the film, was hopelessly over-strained with transporting the original content to a new film. If you 're not familiar with the original series, you won't understand anything during for the first 60minutes of the film.The story is inscrutable and the vapid characters do not develop during the film.Kusama's attempt to improve the storyline by implementing some rather weak explanatory conversations between the main characters is not only a lame attempt to cover up her flaws as a storyteller , it's simply unworthy of the original ÆON concept.Charlize Theron might be an attractive woman, but she can't impersonate the ÆON character. Although she was attached to strings doing action scenes, her lack of talent for physical motion simply ruins the action sequences in the film. The result is a tremendous amount of hectic picture cuts to cover up the sheer lameness of her physique.Forget about all the rest, it's not worth talking about...I give 1point for Ms.Theron showing her boobs and 1point for the nice architectural photography in the film. That's it.$LABEL$ 0
+I didn't expect much when I rented this movie and it blew me away. If you like good drama, good character development that draws you into a character and makes you care about them, you'll love this movie.Engrossing!$LABEL$ 1
+This is like something I have NEVER seen before. It had me cracking up the whole time I don't think there was one scene that I didn't laugh through. It is about a girl from the country in South who goes off to a big town for college. At the school she befriends the RA across the hall. When she realizes that he has no family to go to for Thanksgiving she invites him to come home with her. Rabecca and her family and her serious boyfriend all go out to dinner one night and Becca realizes what her boyfriend is about to do...Propose. She urges Cral to do something so he stands up and shouts something like... Sorry mate but you are too late I already asked Becca to marry me a couple of weeks ago back at the school and she said yes. That all turns into Chaos. Please watch this classic it is totally worth it... I swear.$LABEL$ 1
+This off-beat horror movie seems to be getting nothing but bad reviews. My question is; why? I think this movie is pretty good. Dee Snider did very well for his first (and only) time directing. He also plays the antagonist, Captain Howdy (Carelton Hendriks). This movie seems to have a view of the future. Although it came out back in 1998, it seems to be about modern issues. Internet predators seems to be the underlying plot here. Although taken to another level, this is an issue which we still face today. I'll admit, the story fell short a few times, but that doesn't make this a bad movie at all. Robert Englund is even in this movie, that automatically makes it better. THe acting wasn't bad, the characters were pretty good as well. Hendriks was a pretty good antagonist I think. I give this off-beat horror a 7/10. Recommend for fans of Saw.$LABEL$ 1
+ArmoredThe best part about driving an armored vehicle is that if any bums approach you at a red light asking for money, you can shoot them in the face.And while the armoured guards in this thriller aren't using their protective power to purge the drifter population, they are using their position to fleece their employer.When newcomer Ty (Columbus Short) lands a job with an armored trunk company, he feels like he has found his lot in life. Unfortunately, however, when he discovers that his co- workers (Matt Dillon, Jean Reno and Laurence Fishburne) are plotting to take the $42 M shipment for themselves, Ty must fortify himself – and the funds – inside the armored truck.A tedious caper with a plodding plot and phoned-in performances, Armored is an utterly forgettable film.Besides, if you really want to jack millions, it's a lot simpler to just disguise yourself as an ATM. (Red Light)$LABEL$ 0
+If this film becomes a holiday tradition I am going to have to hide for Christmas for the rest of my life. How do you even think of comparing this with 'A Wonderful Life'! It was absolutely awful! The boy singing made my toes curl. And what on earth was the deal with his hair?? Emmy worthy performance?! Please. Granted, Lucci did OK but an Emmy????? I think this film is a waste of money. The fact that they stuck so close to the original story pretending to give it a modern and retro touch made it even worse. It lacked enthusiasm and persistence on all accounts. Lighting, wardrobe, make-up, it seemed everybody wanted to go home. Just a big NO from me.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is supposed to be taking place in and around Seattle. The, why is Porteau Cove P-R-O-V-I-N-C-I-A-L Park shown? Provincial parks are in CANADA, and not the United States. The Inspector uses a Palm Pilot complete with stylus to 'read' that someone has hacked into the computer of the bridal shop. I did not know that this was possible using a database storage device. A woman appears in the movie without any introduction and is never introduced. We learn half-way into the movie that this woman works in the District Attorney's office. Then, in the correctional center a guard actually PRECEDES Jenks through a door and keeps his back to the offender!! This would NEVER happen in a real correctional setting. The director really messed on this one -- this doesn't happen in real life. The acting is adequate. The Plot is good. The Cinematography is good. However, the many errors found in the continuity lead to a 3 out of 10 vote.$LABEL$ 0
+The movie was good. Really the only reason I watched it was Alan Rickman. Which he didn't pull off the southern accent,but he did pretty well with it.Know Emma Thompson did really good she definitely pulled off the southern accent. I like all the character in my opinion not one of them did bad,another thing I have notice. I have read all these comment and not one person has comment on Alan 5 0'clock shadow. Which made him look even better and he pretty much had one through the whole movie. I would give the movie a 9 out of 10. Another one of my opinions is the movie would been better if there wasn't any sex. Still it was alright. Love the scene were he says "Aw sh*t" when he is setting in his car and see them in his mirror.$LABEL$ 1
+I bought this adaptation because I really liked Anne Brontë's novel when I read it some time ago and usually particularly enjoy BBC dramas. But I'm very disappointed, I never thought it would be as bad as that: the whole series made me laugh much more than moved me as the novel had.First of all, the music (and songs) seems totally out of place in a period drama (sounds as if it's been written for a contemporary horror film)and like another commentator, I was particularly annoyed by the way the cameras spun and spun round the actors. I've seen some scenes filmed that way in "North and South" and it seemed all right there but in The Tenant, it's definitely overdone and simply annoying. Camera movements cannot make wooden acting lively.Most of the second roles were difficult to distinguish at first and the script lacked clarity. None of the characters were properly introduced at first. The little boy gave a very good performance, he's very cute and the best feature of the film.SPOILERS Tara Fitzgerald's characterisation of Helen Graham made her appear cold and harsh, letting no emotion pass through. She doesn't seem to be able to cry at all in a realistic way. I just couldn't believe Markham could have fell for her and I'm not mentioning the awful hairdo she was given. I could not help feeling some sympathy with her husband! Fancy being married to such a virago... Besides, he was the only main actor that sounded right to me. Toby Stephens I found just OK, Helen Graham's brother not very good. Maybe it's difficult to adapt a novel that deals with such bleak subjects as alcoholism and cruelty. Besides, what is only hinted at and left to the reader's imagination in the book is dwelt upon with complaisance in the TV adaptation: making some scenes both gross and comic, (like when Huntingdon's eye starts bleeding) and others far too sexed up for a period drama! I mean, don't we get enough of those bed scenes in contemporary dramas?$LABEL$ 0
+The gate to Hell has opened up under Moscow. A priest, played by Vincent Gallo, goes to the city to find a friend who has gone missing in the tunnels under the city in an attempt to find the gateway. Wandering around underground he and his colleagues have to deal with the tunnels inhabitants both human and demonic. Good idea with a good cast of second tier actors goes nowhere much like the tunnels that are its setting. I've watched this twice now and I still have no idea why this is suppose to be scary when not a heck of a lot happens other then people talk about the evil and we see shadow forms. Nothing is clear and honestly I didn't see the point of it all other than provide a pay check for those involved (Second billed Val Kilmer is in a couple of fleeting scenes that don't amount to much other than to allow him to be billed as in the film.) The idea is really good, the performances are fine, the script goes nowhere. Take the advice of several of the characters in the film and don't cross the river to see this.$LABEL$ 0
+Walter Matthau and George Burns just work so well together. The acidity of Willy with the perplexed amnesic Al is a mixture made in heaven. The scene when they meet again in Willy's flat is a gem and the final scene rounds up the film to perfection. Walter Matthau gives a superb performance as the irascible semi-retired comedian as only he can, the intonation in the voice and the exaggerated dramatics coupled with his general misunderstanding of what is going on form a great characterization. George Burns timing is legendary and nowhere was it better than in this film, his calm aplomb with desert dry replies are memorable. Watch for the scene near the end when Al and his daughter ask something of the Spanish caretaker, and Al's reaction - priceless.$LABEL$ 1
+Warning Spoiler. . . I have to agree with you, it was almost there. This was such a bad movie, about such and interesting true story. It had such promise, but the acting was ridiculous at best. Some sets were beautiful and realistic. Others are something out of a theme park. I found myself laughing as I watched, what was suppose to be, serious scenes. I really wanted to like this movie, but I couldn't. The best part was the fight between friends that ended with the "King" dying. I liked the Queens' punishment. And, the final shot made a beautiful picture, though. There are so many better movies to watch. I don't recommend this.$LABEL$ 0
+Brown of Harvard is a hard movie to pin down. We expect a lot more from our movies these days, so it helps to remember that audiences in the 20's were a bit more innocent. William Haines is charming as the rogue who has to stumble through pain and humiliation to find success and, even, glory. All of the relationships in the movie feel very stilted EXCEPT for the homoerotic tie between Billy and Jack Pickford, the town nerd. The movie has everything, romance, tears, love, death, and even sports... It's a great education in how society has changed in the 20th century.$LABEL$ 1
+I was skimming over the list of films of Richard Burton when I came to this title that I recall vividly from when I first saw it on cable in 1982. I remember dialogue from Tatum O'Neal that was just amazingly bad. I remember Richard Burton's character looking so hopelessly lost, and then remembering how his motivations didn't translate to me. In short, I remember "Circle of Two" because it was so phenomenally awful.This movie came out at a time when America was going through a rather disturbing period of fascination with unhealthy or skewed angles on teenage sexuality. Recall "The Blue Lagoon" (and other Brooke Shields annoyances), "Lipstick", "Little Darlings", "Beau Pere" and other films that just seemed to dwell on teens having sex, particularly with adults. As a teenager during this time, I found the obsession, combined with the sexual excesses of the 70's and 80's, made for a subconsciously unsettling environment in which to figure it all out, so to speak."Circle of Two" is not execrably acted or needlessly prurient, like "Blue Lagoon". In fact, it tackles the question of love between the young and the old in a brave, if totally failed, way. But honestly, it is one of those films you will *never* see if you didn't see it on its first run because it was so truly awful. No one would want to have this garbage ever surface to be publicly distributed again.$LABEL$ 0
+I remember watching American Gothic when it first aired, it came into my mind recently, all I could remember was the same guy appeared in Midnight Caller, which is Gary Cole, I don't watch much TV, but I watched American Gothic, I purchased the Complete Series on DVD this week,& it's still as good as ever, This is one of the best TV series ever, the reason I don't watch much TV is because it's just rubbish that's on, except for Derren Brown, it's all Reality TV or Soaps, such as Grease, Big Brother etc, i'm fed up with it, I got the Complete Series of American Gothic for £16.97 form the Asda website, that's the cheapest I can find it.$LABEL$ 1
+. . . and that is only if you like the sight of beautiful woman with nice, bouncy jugs running around the so called African jungle. So no problems there for most males out there.I watched it as one of those bundled together package. Forget about the plot which is essentially just a flimsy storyline to get our heroine flashing her jugs on screen at every opportunity possible. Just to give you a sense, our heroine swings from vine to vine and climb on top animals at every chance possible for no good reason at all just to let you see her jugs at all angles. Again, no complaints.The "fight scenes" are laughable and borderline on the pornographic. Our heroine got caught by the baddies at least five times in the movie. On occasions when she has to fight, the "fighting" involves rolling around in the dirt, grunting unconvincingly and basically fighting like kittens. I am surprised no hair pulling is involved. It get so bad that the chief baddie had to remind the "combatants" that "I said, the one that draw first blood wins!" in order to avoid watching anymore stupid fighting.The witch doctor Kuku was a bloody blast. From being a big, cuddly bear in the beginning, he became manic depressive when captured and then, outright psycho. He spent the whole movie muttering lines with no irrelevance.Beside Liana (our heroine)bouncing around topless, you also get to see plenty of other Amazonians as well as one woman who decided to jump naked into the lake to take a swim for no good reasons. Yeah, it is that kind of movie.Watch the beautiful Liane in her bouncy glory. Despite the movie being more than 20 years old, the allure of watching blond women flashing their nice jugs on screen never gets old.$LABEL$ 0
+"Coconut Fred's Fruit Salad Island!" is a hilarious show that is on Saturday mornings on WB. It stars Coconut Fred and all of his friends on the island, and every episode is a very funny misadventure of theirs. Most of the time, it is because of Coconut Fred's trouble making antics which makes it funny, and other stuff going on on the island at the same time. The humor is great and nobody on the island is very bright at all, which adds it being as amusing as it is. I don't think this could be funnier. The voice talents of the characters are magnificently superior and are exaggerated, which adds to the show's hilarity. If this is ever on DVD, I'm getting it A.S.A.P!Strongly recommended for a good laugh.$LABEL$ 1
+The poet Carne disappears (didn´t he disappeared with Prévert?) and is followed by the judge Carne. The director wants to give his own vision of a youth that he doesn´t understand and he doesn´t want to. It´s a long way from the wonderful "Les enfants du paradis"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$LABEL$ 0
+This movie, which I just discovered at the video store, has apparently sit around for a couple of years without a distributor. It's easy to see why. The story of two friends living in New York searching for their pal from high school who is now living homeless under the boardwalk at Coney Island, has flashes of being a very good film, but ultimately is weighted down by the story focusing on Stan and Daniel, rather than on their homeless friend Richie. Cryer is as usual very good and the film has a nice stark look to it, with the ghostly images of Coney Island. However, writer Cryer and director Richard Schenkman are too busy dealing with the fairly uninteresting lives of Stan and Daniel rather than focusing on Richie. One flashback in a music store, where Richie has a crush on an employee stands out and really shows the viewer where this film could have gone. But in the end, not much. Two many drawn out scenes of annoyance, such as inside the Skeeball building. RATING 4 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+How viewers react to this new "adaption" of Shirley Jackson's book, which was promoted as NOT being a remake of the original 1963 movie (true enough), will be based, I suspect, on the following: those who were big fans of either the book or original movie are not going to think much of this one...and those who have never been exposed to either, and who are big fans of Hollywood's current trend towards "special effects" being the first and last word in how "good" a film is, are going to love it.Things I did not like about this adaption:1. It was NOT a true adaption of the book. From the articles I had read, this movie was supposed to cover other aspects in the book that the first one never got around to. And, that seemed reasonable, no film can cover a book word for word unless it is the length of THE STAND! (And not even then) But, there were things in this movie that were never by any means ever mentioned or even hinted at, in the movie. Reminded me of the way they decided to kill off the black man in the original movie version of THE SHINING. I didn't like that, either. What the movie's press release SHOULD have said is..."We got the basic, very basic, idea from Shirley Jackson's book, we kept the same names of the house and several (though not all) of the leading character's names, but then we decided to write our own story, and, what the heck, we watched THE CHANGELING and THE SHINING and GHOST first, and decided to throw in a bit of them, too."2. They completely lost the theme of a parapyschologist inviting carefully picked guest who had all had brushes with the paranormal in their pasts, to investigate a house that truly seemed to have been "born bad". No, instead, this "doctor" got everyone to the house under the false pretense of studying their "insomnia" (he really invited them there to scare them to death and then see how they reacted to their fear...like lab rats, who he mentioned never got told they are part of an experiment...nice guy). This doctor, who did not have the same name, by the way, was as different from the dedicated professional of the original movie as night from day.3. In direct contrast to the statement that was used to promote both movies "some houses are just born bad", this house was not born bad but rather became bad because of what happened there...and, this time around, Nel gets to unravel the mystery (shades of THE CHANGELING). The only problem was, the so-called mystery was so incoherently told that I'm sure it remained a mystery to most of the audience...but, then there was no mystery in the first place (not in the book), because the house was bad TO BEGIN WITH. It's first "victim" died before ever setting eyes on it.4. The way the character of Luke was portrayed was absolutely ridiculous. He was supposed to be a debonair playboy who was someday to inherit the house (and was a true skeptic of it's "history")...and in this one he was just a winey-voiced, bumbling nerd who couldn't sleep(insomnia remember) and was a compulsive liar.5. I was also annoyed with the way the movie jumped from almost trying to recreate original scenes word for word (the scene with Nel's sister's family, and Mrs. Dudley's little opening speech...) to going off into flights of fancy that made me think more of these other movies than THE HAUNTING. It's like it couldn't make up its mind what it wanted to do.6. I missed Nel's narrative through the whole movie. The original was so like a gothic novel in the way that the story was mostly told in the first person, through Nel's eyes, and we always were privy to her thoughts. That totally unique touch was completely lost in the new version. They also tried to make Nel much more of a heroine. The original Nel was not a bad person, but she was a bitter person (could she be otherwise after sacrificing 11 years of her life to a selfish old woman and a spiteful sister?) and she liked to moan, and she lost her temper... This one was almost too good to be true. This was never more apparent than in the climax of the movie where the writer's had obviously been watching GHOST one too many times.7. They changed the history of the house and it's occupents too much. There was no Abigail Crain (the daughter of Hugh whose legend loomed large in the original versions), there was no "companion", and there was no nursery. There was also no "Grace" (wife of the original doctor) and Hugh Crain's wives died in totally different ways. These changes, changed the story WAY too much. I don't know whether the producers of this movie should be glad Shirley Jackson no longer walks this earth or whether they should...BE SORRY (if ya get my drift!!! The hauntings she could envision are not something to be trifled with!!!).In conclusion, let me just leave you with some words from the original Luke (appropriate substitution of the word "house" for "movie"!): "This 'movie' should be burnt to the ground, and the ground sprinkled with salt!" My favorite movie of all time remains so. No competition from this one.$LABEL$ 0
+As a fan of Wm. Faulkner since college, I was especially pleased to see Intruder In the Dust and for other reasons. My grandfather, also named Clarence Brown as was the director, grew up in the Oxford area having been born near there in 1888. We attended a week long family reunion at Oxford in July, 1964 a mere 15 years after filming the movie. It still looked mostly like it does in the film but was going thru a period of civil rights upheaval then as the site of Ole Miss. My recollection is of its being a nice little college town that summer but I was just an 18 year old college sophomore and white. I was just then beginning to see the injustice of segregation and prejudice but still had a long way to go. Anyhow, the movie is well worth watching but the filmmakers must have had to walk a tight rope to get it done there and I would love to know more about that story. Now days, Oxford is a larger, more modern college town with all the ills that go along with such things and I hope to return again to see how it must have changed socially in the last 40 plus years. Juano Hernandez should certainly have been nominated for an Oscar that year but Hollywood was still to bigoted itself to let that happen. Other Faulkner stories have been filmed so look for them and compare. One of the best was a PBS treatment of The Barn Burner from about 1985 or so starring Tommy Lee Jones. It really captured the intensity of rural Southern whites that Faulkner wrote so incisively about so often.$LABEL$ 1
+I just caught "Farewell to the King" on cable, and maybe it's just because I'm a girl, but I thought this was on the craptastic side. The script and direction are pretentious (once I found out John Milius was responsible, it all became clear). The supporting actors actually weren't bad - James Fox was outstanding. The biggest disappointment was Nick Nolte, who I usually enjoy. Once he goes native, he starts speaking a very stiff, stilted English, and half the time, he seems kind of distracted, as if he'd just smoked some of the bounty of Borneo's rain forest. And then the end -- what the ??? Learoyd just happens to be on the same boat as The Botanist (by the way, had the Botanist dumped the girlfriend, or what?)??? The boat just happens to run aground conveniently close to an island ripe takeover by a crazy Anglo ex-headhunting Army deserter??$LABEL$ 0
+A great suspense movie with terrific slow camera-work adding to the dramatics makes this a treat to watch and enjoy. Director-writer Brian de Palma does a super Hitchcock-imitation (many called it a "ripoff") with this film and the 2.35:1 widescreen DVD is a must to fully appreciate the camera-work (and several scenes with people hiding on each side which are lost on formatted-for-TV tapes).The downside of the movie, at least to anyone that has some kind of moral standard, is the general sleaziness of all the characters, including the policeman played by a pre-NYPD Dennis Franz (who has hair here!). The opening scene is still shocking with a fairly long shower scene of Angie Dickinson that is quite explicit, even 25 years after its release. The film has several erotic scenes in it as Dickinson (if that is really her on the closeups) and Nancy Allen are not shy about showing their bodies.There is not much dialog in the first 20 minutes and no bad language until Franz enters the picture after the murder. The first 36 minutes are riveting and even though it's apparent who the killer is, it's still very good suspense and fun to watch all the way through, particularly for males ogling the naked women.$LABEL$ 1
+Choose your fate: The terrible tykes of the fourth form, playing practical jokes that involve axes, or the...ummm...well-developed girls of the sixth form, who discovered some time ago cigarettes, gin, sex and how easily men can be led astray. The problem is that one set comes with the other. They are all there at St. Trinian's, that remarkably easy-going English school for girls led by headmistress Millicent Fritton (Alastair Sim). As Miss Fritton is fond of pointing out, "In other schools girls are sent out quite unprepared into a merciless world, but when our girls leave here, it is the merciless world which has to be prepared." Miss Fritton sounds something like a melding of Julia Child and Eleanor Roosevelt, and definitely has Sim's droll and deadpan comic genes. In The Belles of St. Trinian's, a sly, chaotic comedy from the team of Frank Launder and Sidney Gilliat, St. Trinian's is, as usual, on the brink of financial disaster. Salvation may be at hand, however, when a rich sheik sends his daughter to join the fourth form and receive a proper English education. The sheik also is a horse owner and one of his prize racers, Arab Boy, is being trained near the school for a race. It's only a matter of time before the fourth- form girls form a racing pool and bet heavily on Arab Boy, with Miss Fritton adding to the pool what funds the school has left. (Much of the fourth-form girl's money comes from the gin they make in chemistry, then bottle and lower by rope to Flash Harry (George Cole), a Cockney fixer, for distribution. "It's got something...I don't know quite what," says Miss Fritton on sampling the stuff, "but send a few bottles up to my room.") Miss Fritton, however, has a brother, Clarence Fritton (who, by some coincidence of casting, also is Alastair Sim), a bookmaker who not only has placed a bundle on another horse, but who also has a daughter. And he has placed the precocious Arabella in the sixth form to keep him informed. Soon the sixth form has kidnapped Arab Boy, the fourth form has taken the horse back, Flash Harry has joined forces with Miss Fritton, the sixth-form girls are determined that Arab Boy will not leave the second floor of St. Trinian's, Clarence and his Homburg-wearing gang have arrived, parents are driving up for Parent's Day and the Ministry of Education has arrived in the person of a very proper inspector. Total war breaks out at St. Trinian's. It's hard to say which is more dangerous, the African spears or the flour bombs. Alastair Sim as Millicent Fritton turns in a tour de force performance. Miss Fritton is a tall woman with a stately bosom, fond of long gowns with embroidered lace and Edwardian hats with lots of feathers. She takes everything in stride, even a fourth-former pounding at something in chemistry class and, after hearing an explosion a few minutes later, the results. "Oh dear. I told Bessie to be careful with that nitro-glycerine!" She is firm in believing that St. Trinian's is "a gay arcadia of happy girls." Sim was one of Britain's great eccentric actors. Other than the sheer chaos of all the little (and not so little) girls doing terrible things, he delivers much of the film's pleasure.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was absolutely wonderful. The pre-partition time and culture has been recreated beautifully. Urmila has given yet another brilliant performance. What I truly admire about this movie is that it doesn't resort to Pakistan-bashing that is running rampant in movies like Gadar and LOC. With the partition as a backdrop, the movie does not divert to political issues or focus on violence or what is right and wrong. The movie always centers around the tragic story of Urmila's life. Her fragile relationship with Manoj Bajpai has been depicted excellently. The movie actually shows how the people, both Hindus and Muslims, have suffered from this partition. The theme that there is only one religion is truly prevalent in this film.$LABEL$ 1
+A terrible amateur movie director (no, not Todd Sheets), his new friend and sister explore a cave. The friend and sister fall in and get rescued. Meanwhile a gang of horribly acted girls are defending their 'turf'. Whatever the heck that means. This film and I use the term VERY loosely is so bad that it's.. well bad. The humor is painfully unfunny, the "action" merely sad. Now I've seen some atrociously awful 'horror' films in my time & failed to grow jaded in my approach to watching low-budget films, yet I still weep openly for anyone who choose to sit through this. ONLY for the most hardened maschocists amongst you. but the rest run away FAST!!My Grade: F$LABEL$ 0
+This movie could have been a lot better than it was, if hadn't been a Disney Film. I thought that the young girl playing Shirley was all right, you could tell that she was really trying to do the job right. The teenage Shirley Temple wasn't right at all. I think that they should have spent last time on her childhood, the first hour should have been about the young Shirley, then the last hour should have been about the older Shirley. This was a boring movie, and not a good Shirley Temple story.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm surprised that no one yet has mentioned that there are two versions of this same film. The lion's share of the footage in both is identical, but here is where they differ: In one version (the version I have seen most often on broadcast TV), the group of clerics guarding the gateway consists of the "Brotherhood of the Protectors", a (fictional) splinter group of priests and brothers "excommunicated" by the Church. In the other version, which I've seen only once on TV, the clerics guarding the gateway are depicted as priests of the official Church, meaning the Archdiocese of New York (or perhaps Brooklyn). Also, in the former version, in most of the pertinent scenes, the clerics are referred to as "brothers" (and in some scenes, you can see where the lips say "Father" so-and-so but the dubbed audio says "Brother" so-and-so. In the latter version, I believe everyone is referred to as "Father".In any event, it seems that one of these two versions is more or less a partial re-shooting of the other, with all "Brotherhood of the Protector" scenes re-shot as "Archdiocese" scenes, or vice versa. (Kind of reminds me of the Raymond Burr cutaway scenes in "Godzilla"). I have videotaped both versions off broadcast TV, so no, I'm not imagining this. Can anyone shed some more light on the story behind these two versions of the film?$LABEL$ 1
+There is a DVD published in the UK in 2002 Code HRGD002 on the cover, no ASIN, VFC 19796 on the disk, no IFPI code in the inner rim.Probably a straight transfer from VHS. There is no much point is commenting an adult film. But this one contains a minimal plot, and the characters are believable. It was shown in the United States in normal cinemas.I've seen it In Pensylvannia way back in 1975.As such it deserves a place in an Encyclopedia of Movies. The DVD has no special features and no subtitles, and was probably made using a VHS tape as source$LABEL$ 0
+Don't watch this film while, or soon after, eating.Having said that, Begotten will stick with you for the rest of your life, like it or not. Based on the nihilistic philosophy that life is nothing more than man spasming above ground (to paraphrase the title sequence/introduction), this will more than likely contain the most intense and grisly imagery you'll ever see in a film.There is no dialogue, only image after image describing the cycle of life. The film's combination of stark black and white photography compounded with some truly creepy background sounds work to drive home the maker's message.The movie begins with God (portrayed as a bandaged and obviously insane man) slicing open his torso with a straight razor and subsequently dying in his own filth. After his death, Mother Nature emerges from his corpse to impregnate herself with his blood and semen and gives birth to Man, represented by a maggot of a human convulsing on the earth.The landscape is a barren waste, populated by hulking shrouded humanoids who eventually happen upon Mother Nature and Man. After a slew of violent scenes depicting the rape of Nature and destruction of Man, these humanoids proceed to pound the remains of the corpses back into the ground, and the cycle of life begins anew.I actually rented this from Blockbuster one night, based on the cover art and hype content, but this is definitely not a Blockbuster-type film. Don't expect narrative, dialogue or any pulled punches. This is intense imagery based on a dark subject.I give this movie some high marks for the filmwork and audio, but I don't think I'll be watching it too often, if again. I like my movies dark and unique, but this one is exponentially more than I expected.$LABEL$ 1
+This cheapo exploitation flick is some genuinely insipid stuff, courtesy of spaghetti land director Lamberto Bava, who wisely left his name off this junk.The basic crux of this outing concerns the discovery of some brutally mutilated individuals being washed-up on shore in the Caribbean. Authorities initially believe them to be victims of shark attacks, but as the investigation unravels, turns out to be something much more sinister.All of this ultimately amounts to very little however, we have here - poor dubbing complimented by similarly weak script, which often consists of nonsensical jabbering, and is really of little consequence for the most part. Acting can only be described as sub-par, which is par for the course in this instance. Truly lax direction doesn't help things either.Special effect mainly is for numerous close-ups of various gory bodies missing limbs, and so forth. Of course, there is the obligatory creature which periodically emerges at feeding time, which looks something like a big monster octopus thing, where its animation only consists of its pointed teeth ascending and descending in rhythmic articulation. Overall, the end result is none too convincing, sure, but admittedly is almost entertaining in a cheesy kind of fashion.It seems what the film makers were going for was a sort of low-rent hybrid of Jaws and Piranha, but the final product is just a bloody shambles, much like the corpses incessantly shown throughout this picture. I find it difficult to think of any redeeming attributes to warrant viewing this, so moreover, strictly for incurable monster movie addicts.$LABEL$ 0
+Walt Disney's 20th animated feature was the last one to be greenlighted by the great man himself (he died in late 1966) and is not generally considered to be among their very best output. The main problem is that, on the surface, the film seems merely to be the feline version of either LADY AND THE TRAMP (1955) or 101 DALMATIONS (1961) both of which are certainly more beloved by fans Even so, being both an animation and cat lover, I dug this reasonably bouncy concoction in which a pampered female cat (voiced by Eva Gabor) and her three little kittens are thrown out onto the streets of Paris by a wealthy lady (Hermione Baddeley)'s greedy butler. Luckily, they meet a streetwise alley cat (Phil Harris) who guides them on the journey back and are further aided along the way by a feline jazz band (led by Scatman Crothers) and two helpful and amiably dopey dogs; meanwhile at home, Edgar the butler celebrates his supposed inheritance and the mouse and the horse do their bit to help their fellow feline pets. Legendary entertainer Maurice Chevalier was whisked back from retirement to sing the title song (which includes a verse in French) and Scatman's band indulge in a breezy number "Ev'rybody Wants To Be A Cat".$LABEL$ 1
+I first saw this movie at a video store and, being the Bam Margera fan I am, had to rent it to see what it was all about. Since I have a huge and stupid (note the word stupid) sense of humor, I found this movie absolutely hilarious. Some of the parts are pointless and random, but that's what makes them so amusing. You'll need to think things like getting slapped in the face and bashed on the head with a watermelon are funny in order to appreciate this movie. I was really impressed.I was also surprised at the acting. These people actually did a good job. Nothing Oscar worthy, but well enough to get past the amateur level. Teens and young adults would probably find this more entertaining because of the modern slang and situations used. I wouldn't suggest watching this with your parents and vice versa.All in all, the acting was great, the script was hilarious, and the story is really something you can relate to.$LABEL$ 1
+I loved it, it was really gruesome and disgusting. I thought that the tearing of the human flesh was thoroughly provacative. the way that it was depicting the human crucifix about Jesus Christ was really interesting. The tearing about limbs and jaws was awesome brutally gruesome. Don't watch this if you have a weak heart, you wouldn't be able to stand it.$LABEL$ 1
+Citizen Kane....The Godfather Part II....D'Urville Martin's Dolemite. This is the single greatest piece of celluloid ever created and unleashed upon humanity. Rudy Ray Moore, in a role that transcends Academy Awards stars as Dolemite, the baddest cat in the universe. He clearly does not take any jive from no turkey (I myself am unfortunately a turkey) and proves it with his powers of rapping, pimping, and karate chopping. This is blaxploitation at its absolute finest, a shining example of the genre with its low budget, continuity errors, and hatred for rat-soup eating honkey expletive expletive. The true Godfather of Rap (not this new Ali nonsense) Moore is something of a juxtaposition of acting technique; somehow managing to be the most charismatic awful actor of the 1970's, and thats saying something. This one is HIGHLY recommended folks, if not for the one-liners alone.$LABEL$ 1
+OK. On the whole, this three part documentary will bring most interested people up to date with going's on in the world of physics, and the last 300 years of discovery of our universe. If you have read Stephen Hawkings brilliant book "A Brief History of Time" and understood it then you might benefit from the visual description of certain concepts..which i did to a certain extent. Greene is bearable, but obviously for the sake of the masses, tends to explain things in a slighty patronising way. This is of course deliberate and will be perfect for almost everyone who watches this series.The guest scientists were good. (no Hawking, but i suppose he has his own DVD(s) ) I kept waiting for him to appear but they rotate through the same ones for almost 3 parts... (very American weighted here, with a few Brits and one antipodean) I bought the Nova 2 Disc edition (NTSC) and there were a few inclusions that really detracted from the overall experience.1. The "this is brought to you by.." at the start of EACH part was a necessary evil for the first part, but seeing it 2 more times before It was over was very ordinary.2. Can't be helped I suppose but there is quite a bit of overlap at the start of 2 and 3 which had me reaching for the FFW button a few times.3. This disc set was straight from TV..(ie ads, what happen last show for those that missed it, and frequent "goto pbs.org for more ...." )appearing throughout the presentation. (quite unlike BBC material which is unmatched for presentation..Planets, The Blue Planet, etc) My 7/10 is based on content alone. The niggles were there but I got over them. If this had have been done with that classic British accented presenter( you know the one) it would be a perfect Disc set in my opinion.If you have seen this and want more...then I highly recommend Hawkings book " a Brief History of Time"... I wish it was a movie too.Happy viewing.$LABEL$ 1
+Another Woo's masterpiece!This is a best wuxie film i'm ever seen! Woo - RULEZ forever (except some Hollywood moments...). John Woo - greater director of the century.Maybe hi is not more intellectual than lot of Big Directors... But he is lyrical and spiritual idol of all free-mind people! His movies like the great poetry! Woo is a Movie Sheakspeare! Woo is a Movie Biron! Woo is a Mozart of Bloodshet!!!!IMHO violent in Woo films is not a directors bloodlust, but a instrument of art. Themes of Woo movies is more humanistic that more of the new films.$LABEL$ 1
+I love this show as it action packed with adventure, love and intrigue. Well some times love! It's so good see a show where all the characters work well together and they treat each other with respect. It's also very good to se Dick Van Dyke in a television role as I have only seen him in Mary Poppins. the mixture of the main characters, Mark, Amanda, Jesse and Steve is very capturing to the audience. This is a show you have to watch!$LABEL$ 1
+I saw the movie before I read the Michelle Magorian book and I enjoyed both. The movie, more than the book, made me come close to tears on several occasions. This film touches the deepest points of the human soul and never lets go. I encourage as many people to watch this masterpiece as much and as soon as possible. I give it ten stars.$LABEL$ 1
+Some unsuspecting films carry a message that resonates in the hours and days after viewing. Such is the case for CAROL'S JOURNEY (EL VIAJE DE CAROL), a beautifully crafted 2002 film from Spain based on the novel 'A boca de noche' by Ángel García Roldán who also adapted the book as a screenplay. War and its consequences are not new subject matter for films, but when that war theme plays in the background as a subtle driving force to develop characters (especially children) who must face adult life influenced by the games of adults, the result is a different and more tender examination of the coming of age film genre.Carol (Clara Lago) is a 12-year-old Spanish American youngster from New York who with her critically ill mother Aurora (María Barranco) returns to her Aurora's home in 1938 at the height of the Spanish Civil War, a home that has been left deserted by her father Don Amalio (Álvaro de Luna) since his wife's death. Carol's father Robert (Ben Temple) is a fighter pilot who has sided with the Republicans against Franco and is rarely with his family. Aurora has a past: she left her lover Alfonso (Alberto Jiménez) to marry Robert, and Alfonso in turn married Aurora's cold sister Dolores (Lucina Gil). Carol is an independent girl who remains aloof to all but her grandfather Don Amalio until she meets others her age but not of her 'class': Tomiche (Juan José Ballesta) and his two friends at first resent Carol, but as events develop Carol and Tomiche are bonded by what feels like the first awakenings of love. When Aurora dies of her illness, Carol must live with Alfonso and Dolores and their daughter Blanca (Luna McGill), yet turns to her grandfather for support and to her mother's best friend and teacher Maruja (the always radiant Rosa Maria Sardà) to understand the disparity between classes and the senseless war that keeps her beloved father from her side. Through a series of incidents Carol and Tomiche learn the rigors of becoming adults, facing more traumas in a brief period of the war than most of us experience in a lifetime. The ending, though sad, is uplifting as Carol's journey to maturity is complete.The film is shot in Galicia and Portugal and contains some extraordinarily beautiful settings captured with gentle sensitive lighting by cinematographer Gonzalo F. Berridi and enhanced by the musical score by Bingen Mendizábal. Director Imanol Uribe understands the fine line separating pathos from bathos, and in electing to concentrate the story on the children involved, he makes an even stronger statement about the futility and cruelty of war. The cast is exceptional: the stars clearly are young Clara Lago and Juan José Ballesta, but they are supported by the fine veteran actors in the adult roles. This is a visually stunning work with a lasting message and should find a much larger audience than it has to this date. Grady Harp$LABEL$ 1
+ROAD TO PERDITION can be summed up by Thomas Newman's score . It's haunting and beautiful but you're aware that this music is similar to Newman's other work and while listening to the soundtrack you're reminded of SCENT OF A WOMAN , MEETING JOE BLACK and THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION you're reminded of other films as the story unfolds on screen . As the Sullivans drive round America trying to escape from a psychotic hit man you think of THE GETAWAY , Irish gangsters is MILLER'S CROSSING whilst the subtext of guilt and redemption can be summed up by Coppola and Leone's gangster epics. Despite having a seen it all before feel this shouldn't be taken as a heavy criticism of Sam Mendes film which I repeat is haunting and beautiful and the only flaws that work against it is a very slow opening twenty minutes and I was slightly confused as the events that caused Michael Sullivan to be betrayed . But if you stop to consider how much of a sentimental mess Spielberg might have made with the story that revolves around a father and his twelve year old son running for their lives you can't help thinking what a superb director Mendes is ROAD TO PERDITION is a film where the entire cast give flawless performances . I've never been all that keen on Tom Hanks but he's every bit as good here as he has been in any starring role , probably better . Paul Newman plays a character with an Irish accent but at no point did I believe I was watching an American screen legend putting on a false accent - Newman's performance works due to the subtle body language , his character is torn up by guilt but Newman never milks it or goes over the top . While never upstaging Newman who gives the best performance in the movie the two Brit supporting actors Craig and Law are also very memorable as American gangsters and while Law will still have a long career as a leading actor one wonders how Daniel Craig might have progressed as a character actor if he hadn't decided to become James Bond , a role which heralds the end of an actors career$LABEL$ 1
+The most important thing about this movie is the brilliant performance by Daniel Day-Lewis and Hugh O'Conor as Christy Brown, guineas artist and fighter who despite of her physical condition overcame all the odds. As a person who did work with patients with cerebral palsy, I can assure you that their performance were shockingly convincing. The enormous support that Christy got form his family, low-income, working class Dubliners, encouraged him to do the impossible and this picture depicted this support brilliantly have not read the book, but the dialogs were written wisely to capture Christy Brown's witty arrogant personality. I do recommend this movie to everyone, especially to classic movie-lovers.$LABEL$ 1
+I buy or at least watch every Seagall movie. He came out with a handful of good movies then descending into poor stories, bad camera work and a walk-thru persona, he nearly lost me. A few movies ago he remembered how to make a decent movie. Now he's forgotten again. This film is seriously dark (on any level you care to name). There is a lot of slash & gash going on here with no discernible purpose unless it's meant as a warning against the military.Seagall may have had a stand-in for many of his scenes as it was often too dark to tell and someone else's voice was used most of the time. Sadly the only interesting character was the bad guy who killed his guard to escape custody & then proceeded to raise havoc all over the place. Okay since when do we place an armed guard in the holding room with a prisoner? Anyway this bad guy was at least colorful, and very focused. There's lots of gore if you like that king of thing. It looked to me like the bad guys tore the same gash every time. I'm just glad they didn't suck the blood from their hapless victims. I harken you back to my summary. Basically it is a horror movie disguised as an action film.Dec 6,2006$LABEL$ 0
+Absolutely stunning, warmth for the head and the heart. The kind of movie western movie makers are too rushed, too frenetic to even attempt. My kids watched it, and they loved it too. What real people--goes to show you how cultural differences (the Japanese setting) is less important than the human similarities. Go see it, whether you like dancing or not.$LABEL$ 1
+I recently saw this film at a 3-D film festival in Hollywood. It was in polarized 3-D (Gray glasses not red & blue) It was so much fun to watch this film with an audience, the print was excellent and the 3-D perfect. The performances were over the top and that added to the fun, the surprise ending (that we aren't supposed to share with fellow movie go'ers, at least according to the movie trailer and poster) had people howling with laughter. By today's standards this is probably more comedy than horror but with the added dimension of 3-D (complete with cobwebs and bats coming out of the screen) this film was an entertaining romp into 50's horror.$LABEL$ 1
+Michael Stearns plays Mike, a sexually frustrated individual with an interesting moral attitude towards sexuality. He has no problem ogling naked dancers but when women start having sex with men that's when he loses it. He believes that when women actually have sex that's when they lose any sense of "innocence" and/or "beauty". So he strolls through the Hollywood Hills stalking lovemaking couples at a distance, ultimately shooting the men dead with a high-powered rifle with a scope.The seeming primary reason for this movie's existence is to indulge in sexual activity over and over again. The "story" comes off as more of an afterthought. This is bound to make many a happily heterosexual male quite pleased as we're treated to enough protracted scenes of nudity (the ladies here look awfully good sans clothes) and sex to serve as a major dose of titillation. Of course, seeing a fair deal of it through a scope ups the creepiness factor considerably and illustrates the compulsion towards voyeurism. (For one thing, Mike eyes the couples through the scope for minutes at a time before finally pulling the trigger.) This is all underscored by awfully intrusive if somewhat atmospheric music on the soundtrack.Those with a penchant for lurid trash are bound to enjoy this to one degree or another. It even includes one lesbian tryst that confounds Mike and renders him uncertain *how* to react. It unfolds at a very slow pace, but wraps up with a most amusing ironic twist. It's a kinky and twisted rarity that if nothing else is going to definitely keep some viewers glued to the screen.7/10$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this film as a kid about 30 years ago, and I haven't forgotten it to this day. I couldn't say whether it's a good picture. But in those days I instantly fell in love with Jean Simmons. The memories concentrate on the very erotic feel of the movie, but I still remember the plot. Simmons was very young then, and there is another film that gave me the same feeling: David Lean's GREAT EXPECTATIONS. And again it was the young Jean Simmons. It's a pity that BLUE LAGOON is not available on video; I'd like to correct my memories...$LABEL$ 1
+Feels like an impressionistic film; if there is such a thing.The story is well told, very poetic. the characters well developed and well acted by the interpreters (or interpreted by the actors :)).The film delights in its own sumptuous emotions at times and works well, unless you hate such emotion in movies - not so in my case.It's a very humanistic film.The landscape and even the extraordinary situation of the displaced cook are very poetic in their own right.Well done.A good classic for any good film collection.$LABEL$ 1
+Oh, how I laughed during those first couple of scenes. This silly little film about an 11 year-old who carries a gun, steals cars, robs stores, burglars houses, extorts money from other kids, burns houses, shoots rats, buys drugs, distributes drugs to his mother and his friends, and then kills a guy. What a great comedy! But it wasn't intended to be a comedy. It was intended as a social drama. How can this be? The events in this film are absurd and ridiculous. The characters are all stereotypes right out of a 4 year-old's comic-strip-induced immature imagination. The dialog is laughable; people talk like morons. It's a very dumb film.The first scenes are indeed very funny, for all the wrong reasons. But the unintentional hilarity of the idiotic premise runs out after a short while, and after that the laughs come only rarely; by that time the viewer can't believe what he is seeing and is alternately amazed and bored by what follows (if he has at least half a brain cell).A short film, but feels like an eternity. The film actually IS a seriously-intended attempt to show the world of a young degenerate, while imitating movies vastly superior to it, like "Fun". There is just such an air of phoniness about everything; the kids, the adults, everyone lacks credibility both in their actions and dialog. The kid in the lead mugs his way through the film as though he had seen all the Jimmy Cagney movies at least a hundred times. And, typically enough, the kid isn't portrayed as a reservoir of evil, but, instead, as a misunderstood little artistic talent. But of course. Every young hooligan is misunderstood - society made him bad. Poor child.The film is embarrassing; a collection of stale, occasionally hilarious clichés put together to make a movie that lacks intelligence and meaning. The intellectual level of the film is zero.$LABEL$ 0
+Lackawanna Blues is a drama through and through. It details the life of a strong woman by the name of Rachel Crosby (S. Epatha Merkerson). Rachel is referred to as Nanny by all who know her, but she could have just as easily been called Wonder Woman. She epitomized strength, will power, confidence and resolve. She owned a home that she used to house just about every type of person that society would reject. Her tenants consisted of a lesbian, a psychotic war veteran, an amputee, and a host of other vagrants that made the home miles away from ordinary. Each successive event Rachel took in stride and handled flawlessly. She wasn't a dictator devoid of compassion, but in fact she was quite the opposite. She displayed compassion almost to a fault by giving shelter and refuge to so many that she seemed to over-extend herself.Merkerson did a good job, but I believe this role was right up her alley anyway. The movie had an even keel never straying from Rachel. There were of course dramatic moments but they were to be expected. Nothing was ever to shocking or profound other than Rachel herself.$LABEL$ 1
+San Francisco is a big city with great acting credits. In this one, the filmmakers made no attempt to use the city. They didn't even manage the most basic of realistic details. So I would not recommend it to anyone on the basis of being a San Francisco movie. You will not be thinking "oh, I've been there," you will be thinking "how did a two story firetrap/stinky armpit turn into a quiet hotel lobby?" Some of the leads used East Coast speech styles and affectations. It detracts, but the acting was always competent.The stories seemed to be shot in three distinct styles, at least in the beginning. The Chinatown story was the most effective and interesting. The plot is weak, ripped scene for scene from classy Hong Kong action movies. The originals had a lot more tension and emotional resonance, they were framed and paced better. But the acting is fun and we get to see James Hong and other luminaries.The white boy intro was pointless. I think the filmmakers didn't know what to do with it, so they left it loosely structured and cut it down. The father is an odd attempt at a Berkeley liberal - really, folks, everyone knows it's not "groovy" to live in the ghetto - but his segments are the most humorous. They threw away some good opportunities. Educated and embittered on the West Coast, a yuppie jerk here is a different kind of yuppie jerk than they make in New York. They are equally intolerable but always distinguishable. That would have been interesting; this was not.The Hunter's Point intro was the most disappointing. It was the most derivative of the three, and stylistically the most distant from San Francisco. You've seen it done before and you've seen it done better. Even the video game was better! Despite the generic non-locality and aimless script, these characters have potential, the actors have talent, and something interesting starts to force its way around the clumsy direction... about ten minutes before the ending. Good concept placed in the wrong hands.PS, there is a missing minority here, see if you can guess which one.$LABEL$ 0
+No Holds Barred is that movie that when you were nine or ten was the coolest movie this side of arnold schwarzenegger. But then when you grow up and watch it you feel embarrassed that you were so gullible to have liked it. You feel cheated, embarrassed, and stupid. If you have a little brother and you show him this and he tells you it's gay, give him a high five and take him to the strip bar for his eleventh birthday.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie stinks majorly. The only reason I gave it a 3 was because the graphics were semi charming. It's total disregard for a plot and the lack of even insubstantial surface character development made it seem like just a bunch of nice drawings. This is by far THE worse anime that came out of Japan. I can't believe they actually put their names on this garbage. What a rip off selling this thing for $20. If you haven't seen this don't bother. If you have, I pity you.$LABEL$ 0
+This is probably one of the best Portuguese movies I ever saw... I absolutely enjoyed the plot, because by the way the story was developing, you would get more involved on how their world was really upside-down... There is just only one part that doesn't really seem to fit in the movie, which is the girls' strip... It does not add anything important to the story, it looks like it's just there for a men entertaining purpose. The ending is a bit unexpected, though, at the same time, somewhat expected. If you don't understand, then follow me: after so many strange occurrences, the viewer is so used to oddities, that ending the movie with totally unexpected relationships (Like Mimoso and Susana) sounds totally natural after seeing the rest of the movie. But, most of all, Sorte Nula is a movie that makes you think hard trying to solve the mysterious occourings, laugh your head off with their unlucky lives and mess with your perception of what can happen in just a few minutes, when you turn your back away from something... for all that, I rate it 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+Considering the big name cast and lavish production I expected a lot more of this film. The acting for the most part is great, although the story they have to work with is mediocre at best. However the film still warrants watching because of the acting and the stars and some and up and coming young talent.$LABEL$ 1
+Hated it with all my being. Worst movie ever. Mentally- scarred. Help me. It was that bad.TRUST ME!!!$LABEL$ 0
+There are two kinds of 1950s musicals. First you have the glossy MGM productions with big names and great music. And then you have the minor league with a less famous cast, less famous music and second rate directors. 'The Girl Can't Help It' belongs to the latter category. Neither Tom Ewell or Edmond O'Brien became famous and Jayne Mansfield was famous for her... well, never mind. Seems like every decade has its share of Bo Dereks or Pamela Andersons. The plot itself is thin as a razorblade and one can't help suspect that it is mostly an attempt to sell records for Fats Domino, Little Richard or others of the 1950s rock acts that appear in the movie. If that music appeals to you this is worth watching. If not, don't bother.$LABEL$ 0
+This show is wonderful. It has some of the best writing I ever seen. It has brilliant directing by Dvid Trainer who also directed another smart television series called BOY MEETS WORLD.This show is with out a dought one of the greatest. Like THREE'S COMPANY, ROSEANNE, and the famous COSBY SHOW this will be on television for a long time to come.From it's perfectly crafted jokes to the great performances you would only dream of this is a wonderful show for people who lived in the seventies and the people who didn't. This show appeals to the young and the young at heart. A perfect show.$LABEL$ 1
+Okay people, I have to agree with almost everyone else's reviews here. The characters. Are. Stupid. They're ALL stereotypical, and yet have nice clothes and are always skinny.Don't even get me started on Jamie Lynn's role as ZOEY. Zoey is a pretty, popular, tan, blonde young teen who everyone just LOVES! She has a "rebellious", great, personality that everyone agrees with no matter how dumb or extreme it is. Most annoying of all: her voice is so darn bubbly and obnoxious. "OMG!"Take for example the first episode. The moment she steps onto the huge PCA campus, everyone seems to love her. The boys want to ask her out, the girls want to be her friend, etc. Thinking she's all that, the episode plays out with Zoey always being the center of attention; she is the so-called best player of the unofficial girls basketball team, confident, and has everyone pity her when she weakly gets hit in the face. Oh boo-hoo.My favorite character by far is this whole series is a girl that appears much later into the show, Lauren or something, who is the ONLY person ever introduced in the show to hate Zoey.And Zoey doesn't even seem to be very loyal to her friends sometimes. In one episodes she even calls her friend a freak without EVER apologizing and doesn't show the least bit regret in doing so.Zoey is ALWAYS the best:-Desiging professional T-shirts and backpacks (which become a big hit)-coming up with VERY elaborate schemes BY HERSELF to teach a single person a lesson. -Flawless grades -Taking the blame for stuff that wasn't even related to her just so everyone else could be happy.-Coming up with a commercial that was so good it was put on TV. The list goes on and on...Ugh. She has no acting talent. She's always the perfect person. She acts snotty and rebellious and preppy and...UGH! Can't stand her.Not only that, but everyone in the show always has great clothes. EVEN THE NERD! Her wardrobe is better than mine, and mine is pretty freaking decent.No one cares if everyone at PCA loves you, Zoey, and would do anything for you, even if it meant giving their right arm.BUT regardless of these cardboard characters, the plots are creative. Not everyday things. They're interesting and amusing. The humor is usually good-natured and fun, but the characters are so paper flat that it's hard to enjoy it.This show would be really good if Dan Schnieder put a bit more time thinking of the type of characters he wanted, because they are so typical, so boring that's it's lame and stupid.Point: No one's the least bit overweight, everyone has stylish clothes, Zoey is the definition of Mary-sue, the story lines are well-thought out, and the humor is laughable. But again, I want to emphasize that the characters taint the show. Watch the show if you must, but don't say I didn't warn you if your eyes start to bleed.$LABEL$ 0
+If Alien, Jurassic Park and countless other sci fi horror movies are your cup of tea, add a lot of sugar and you'll get this one down. The film begins in jolly old England around 1100ad and then jumps to present day California. Our hero Carver (Dean Cain) is the new Security Chief and Military Advisor for a Science Lab 400 feet underground. He arrives (Carver is also a helicopter pilot) with the lead Scientist and we soon find out it's a cloning lab and they have something newly found to clone. Is it a Dinosaur or what? As with the above movies, all hell breaks loose and our characters start getting picked off. The special effects on the Monster are pretty good for a "direct to video" movie and Dean Cain does what he gets paid for. But forget the rest of the group as we find out why we have never seen them before. Again, don't go in with high expectations and you'll be ok.$LABEL$ 0
+I'd like to think myself as a fairly open minded guy and it takes a lot(!) for me to dislike a movie but this one is without a doubt one of the suckiest, crappiest movie I've ever seen!I have no idea what's wrong with the people who gave it such a good rating here (imdb is usually pretty reliable when it comes to ratings)... the only thing I can imagine is that people must've voted during one or more conditions:1. While being shitfaced / stoned out of their minds 2. They've received hard cash for the votes 3. Under gunpointI can't believe I wasted a good 1 h 45 min of my life for this pathetic excuse for a movie.$LABEL$ 0
+If you want to watch a movie and feel good about watching it, then Tigerland is the film for you. I love this movie from top to bottom. This movie's picture-perfect scenes look so real; it's almost like a documentary of something that happened in real life but with drama. Boy, I tell you... REAL drama they actually real "fought" in one of the scenes (get the DVD listen to the commentary its not obvious). I see this film as a bunch of desperate young men trying to escape an ill-fated destiny, after watching Saving Private Ryan I have an a appreciation of what an "ill-fated destiny" is and know exactly how the men in the film feel. I see this movie as a crossbreed between "Stand By Me" and "Saving Private Ryan." What do men do when they are with a situation that's "hard pressed" in real life? Some men go crazy, some men cry, some men through fists, others do drugs, some randomly sleep with hookers ruthlessly trying to eradicate the meaning of love from their life, some try drink the pain away, some jump off buildings or bridges, some feel guilty and others feel so much agony it makes them so sick they collapse - physically. This movie has all those desperate emotions rolled into one ball. But don't get me wrong its not depressing movie, its realistic, its a very very humorous movie, the cocky and funny Bozz (Collin's Character) lights it all up, and on top of that there are about 5 female actresses in the movie; I'll let you figure out what their in there for! With dialogue, war/action sequences, picture perfect scenes along with appropriate music; this movie has it all, like I said: from top to bottom. I don't why Tigerland is heavily under-credited. The best thing about owning the movie is that on the cover it says in big bold writing "The best film of the year," and it absolutely falls nothing short of that. Keep the rare gems coming Hollywood, 10/10.$LABEL$ 1
+This is one particular Stooge short that actually uses satire in conjunction with slapstick, a rarity. As mentioned, the title and concept for this short was "borrowed" from a feature film from the same year with Clark Gable called "Men In White". It's basically about the trials and tribulations of interns and their sacred cause for "duty and humanity". I saw this recently and almost treated it like the Stooge version because it does take itself a little too seriously. In any case, "Men In Black" is so well written, directed and not to mention original, it didn't borrow a thing from Chaplin or any of the others, that the Motion Picture Academy nominated it for an award as the best short comedy of 1934. Some stinky short called "La Cucaracha" outdid it though and stole the award. Some producer's brother in law must have been on the Academy's voting board. "Men In Black" pokes fun at the whole concept of the medical profession much in the same way that the Marx Bros. always did at this time. May not be a fair comparison but I can see the Marx Bros. in this short. In fact in their feature "A Day At The Races", there is a scene where there's "medical things" going on and they cause anarchy as usual. My guess that this particular short was judged along those lines and hence why it was nominated in the first place. Try this in fact: watch this short first and then watch "Duck Soup" or "Day at the Races" with the Marxes and then see if there isn't the same great quality of comedy.$LABEL$ 1
+I can name only a few movies that I have seen which were this bad. This movie has terrible everything: The dialog is corny and cliché', the acting is poor for the most part with a few exceptions, the cinematography is nothing to cheer about, and the plot is silly (A fat woman stalks a suburban family because her daughter didn't make the soccer team). This is so bad, it's funny to watch. If you can catch this on lifetime, I'd recommend it highly as a comedy. As for being a serious movie, I'm afraid i'll have to rate this a 2.Don't watch this film if you are a serious movie fan and looking for an interesting and challenging storyline, or good acting. There is none to be found.Edit: Hmmm... I think a group of people who work for lifetime must have written some phony reviews and voted all the negative ones down. Don't believe them. This is a really crappy movie.$LABEL$ 0
+when i first read about "berlin am meer" i didn't expect much. but i thought with the right people, the right locations, the right music and fashion you could at least make a trivial movie about the hip berlin everyone seems to be talking about. but eissler failed, it's so ridiculously unauthentic. it's a complete misrepresentation of what it is going on in berlin's so called scene. of course it's not all about hippness, but you should expect more from a movie that's being sold as "the definite berlin movie".and apart from all the credibility stuff, it really is a bad movie. mediocre acting and a rather boring plot. interestingly some of the actors have proved in other movies that they are actually quite talented. so it really must be poor directing skills.don't bother watching "berlin am meer" unless you are 17, come from some small town in western Germany and want to move to the big city after you finished school. then you might actually find it enjoyable and totally cool.$LABEL$ 0
+I got this thing off the sci-fi shelf because I remembered seeing the first of the series when I was a kid. I'd rented the second one and it was a decent "B" sci-fi. This one was out right obnoxious. The "special" effects on the cars looked like something my 4 year old cousin could have done. The two assistant female cyborgs were so terrible that I literally cringed every time they came on the screen. The plot left so much to be desired that it made me sick. I don't know what anyone was thinking when they agreed to be a part of this movie but I'm sure that they'd have done better to have left it at 2 movies. The movies in this series are going from good to decent to terrible. I only hope that no terrorist groups have access to this movie as it makes an excellent torturing device.$LABEL$ 0
+waste of my life, .... the director should be embarrassed. why people feel they need to make worthless movies will never make sense to me. when she died at the end, it made me laugh. i had to change the channel many times throughout the film because i was getting embarrassed watching such poor acting. hopefully the guy who played Heath never gets work again. On top of that i hope the director never gets to make another film, and has his paycheck taken back for this crap. { .02 out of 10 }$LABEL$ 0
+A good x evil film with tastes of "James Bond", "Romeo and Juliet", and, maybe, even "Star Wars".The evil count Von Bruno receives an English gentleman as a guest for a very dangerous hunt. Elga, the beautiful simple and well intentioned lady that was forced to marry the count provides the love triangle. The count missing eye points to a terrible past. The Englishman is not what the count thinks and is a terrible treat to him. There is also the terrible hunchback, crocodiles and even the side appearance of some torture instruments.Boris Karlloff, here in a support role, makes an strong, but somewhat stiff, presence. The other actors (and direction) are the symbol of an era the strong representations of black and white movies. Since the beginning there is no doubt of who is the evil guy, who is the good one. Even traitors and stiffs can be identified somewhat easily.$LABEL$ 1
+There is a scene in this film at about the 42 minute mark that is among the worst I have seen in some time. As F. Scott Fitzgerald (Gregory Peck) and Sheilah Graham (Deborah Kerr) are lounging on the beach, suddenly things become tense and Sheilah begins to cry--at which point she tells her lover about her sordid past. This "dramatic scene" becomes so terribly overdone and histrionic I couldn't help but turn to my wife and exclaim how stupid it all was...as dramatic music swelled on the television as it all came to a phony crescendo. NO ONE experiences moments like this--no one. Now how much of the rest of the film is true, I cannot say, but this particular moment was laughably bad and as fake as an $8 Rolex--and leads me to assume that some of the other reviewers were correct--the film is a lot of bunk. However, I am not an expert on the life of these two people and the internet didn't seem to clear this up, either. Just who were F. Scott Fitzgerald and Sheilah Graham and what was their relationship really like? What I do know about Fitzgerald, however, does seem different from what I saw in the film. Was he the suave and decent man we initially see in the film? Well, considering he was married at the same time he was carrying on with Graham and drank like a fish, I'd assume he wasn't. Was he as obnoxious and boorish as we later see in the film? Perhaps, but if he was this bad AND yet Ms. Graham stayed with him, then this makes her out to be a complete dummy--and not someone you'd like to see featured in a film. And, if he wasn't, then the film does a poor disservice to his memory. Either way, it made for a painful and not particularly pleasant viewing experience.The sum total of this film appears to be a tale of two not particularly likable or healthy people. In a dark and salacious way, some might find this all very entertaining, but most are sure to see this as a train wreck with no surprises along the way! Unpleasant but with glossy production values (especially the music, which was lovely but way over the top) it begs the question "why did they even choose to make this in the first place?". The bottom line--it's a pretty bad film all around and probably not worth your time--even if, like me, you are big Gregory Peck fan.$LABEL$ 0
+A powerful "real-tv" movie. Very subversive and therefore remaining almost un-broadcasted ! (almost...thanx 2 arte in France). After you've watched this manhunt all movies filmed with the same concept (a documentary team following the events as they arrived) seem so weak.DAVID$LABEL$ 1
+This type of plot really does have a lot of potential, but it was butchered here. Honestly, I sensed the cheese element in the beginning, but I thought it would get better after the grotesque birthing. Whoa, I was wrong! So mad scientist makes a monster, wants to brag to his old cronies before he kills them, but of course they escape. After that, it's really bad. I should've counted the times the rubber shark mask peeked out from behind some foliage, but I most likely would have lost count.Pan down to the blood-dripping-from-severed-leg to show us how the shark-man finds the folks. I hate being spoon-fed every aspect of a horror film.Oh, and after being nearly killed by a mutated shark-man and trudging around a jungle-esqe island, there's nothing more cheerful than a middle-aged man reciting Shakespeare...This is one where you'll find yourself rooting for the monster... if you can bear to watch this poor excuse for a flick.$LABEL$ 0
+At the end of my review of Cache, I wrote that I was intrigued with Haneke as a film maker. This is what led me to get the DVD for La Pianiste, which I just finished watching about a half hour ago.It's all been expressed, here at IMDb and in many of the external reviews - the gruesomely twisted pathology that would 'create' an individual like Huppert's Erika, who is still trying, after years and years, to please her mother, at the expense of everyone and everything else in her life, beginning with her self. She's repressed everything that would free her from her self-imposed bondage, including, of course, her sexuality, which has literally imploded, to the point of madness, to where she can no longer even begin to comprehend what a genuine loving impulse would feel like.This is a graphic portrait of a severe emotional cripple, one who never found the strength to get out of her childhood situation and become a functioning adult. I think this subject relates to all of us - we're all striving for autonomy, but there are needs, so many conflicting needs, most of which are not even on the conscious level. It also deals brilliantly with the contrast between what one fantasizes about, sexually, and the reality of those fantasies, as well as the consequences of choosing to share one's sexual fantasies with another human being. Huppert's character gets what she asks for in the course of the film, and it is hardly the emancipating experience she had imagined it to be. Regarding the much-discussed scene in the bathroom: I really appreciated how this sequence had all the possible erotic charge (for the viewer, I mean) sucked out of it because of the prior scene, where she put the glass in the girl's pocket. By the time she's acting out her let's-see-if-this-guy-is-worthy scenario in the bathroom, we've already found out that she's dangerously disturbed and so it's not a turn on, her little domination session with our poor unsuspecting dupe.I think another incredible achievement of this movie is how, about halfway through it, I completely forgot that it was not in English and that I was reading sub-titles. That has never happened before, in any foreign movie, and I've seen quite a few. In this film, like Cache, the ending is not all wrapped up in a nice little tidy bow, but unlike Cache, we do at least get some sense of finality, despite the fact that we do not even know for sure whether Huppert's character is alive or dead. After experiencing La Pianiste, when it comes to Michael Haneke, I am, needless to say, more than a trifle intrigued.$LABEL$ 1
+This series had potential, but I suppose the budget wouldn't allow it to see that potential. An interesting setup, not dissimilar to "lost" it falls flat after the 1st episode. The whole series, 6 episodes, could have made a compelling 90 minute film, but the makers chose to drag it on and on. Many of the scenes were unbearably slow and long without moving the action forward. The music was very annoying and did not work overall. There were few characters we cared about as their characters did not grow during the time frame--- well, one grew a bit. The ending was as terrible as the rest of series. The only kudos here is to the art dept and set dressers, they created an interesting look, too bad the writer and director lacked the foresight to do something interesting with that element$LABEL$ 0
+Independent film that would make Hollywood proud. The movie substitutes good looks for good acting, a cryptic plot for a good story line, and self-absorption for character development. May be I missed something, go see it for yourself.$LABEL$ 0
+Most of you out there really disliked this movie... you were right. A small minority of you really loved the movie... can't say you' re wrong. For me, this movie was too stupid. I have seen many dumb, silly comedies but this one surpasses every one of them. As I was watching I couldn't stop rubbing my eyes, not believing what I was seeing and trying to decide if I should laugh or cry, as *REALLY STUPID* stuff were going on on the screen, and people were leaving the theater.According to the leading characters, time travel is accomplished, just enter any museum and you will actually travel to the past. Plus, if you are seeking an after death experience, just go to the nearest planetarium, there you shall meet Lord - sorry, Loydd and be given important commands... All te above doesn' t really make sense, right? Well, go ahead, watch the movie (I almost never regret the movies I watch), you probably won't like it, but you will be intrigued by the writer's ability in producing the ultimately STUPID script...I' m giving it a 3 out of 10, not good, far from being the worse...$LABEL$ 0
+Despite all the hoopla about THE TROUBLE WITH TRIBBLES episode, THE BALANCE OF TERROR might just be the best episode of the series. And, while I have always loved A PIECE OF THE ACTION because it is so much fun, I really do have to cast my vote as this Romulan episode as being the very best.The movie, interestingly enough, is really like a WWII submarine movie in that it bounces back and forth between the cloaked Romulan ship and the Enterprise as it seeks to destroy the Romulans before they sneak back across the Neutral Zone after a raid on Federation outposts. In so many ways, the show is much like the film THE ENEMY BELOW--where the American Captain (Robert Mitchum) and the German Captain (Curt Jurgens) are shown in counter-point as they both try to outwit the other--and in the process develop a grudging respect for their foe.Interestingly enough, only a short bit of the beginning of the episode takes place on a planet--and this is amazing because an episode on board ship could easily have been static and dull. But, because the writing was so fantastic and the main characters written and acted so well (Shatner and Mark Leonard as the Romulan leader). Oddly, for the die-hard Trekkers out there, they'll recognize Leonard as the same actor who later played Spock's father.The bottom line is this is simply a great and extremely engaging episode that will keep you on the edge of your seat.$LABEL$ 1
+I will divide my review into following 5 categories each accounting a maximum of 100%(if perfect) ________________________________________________________________ Visual Pleasure:[100%] This is extremely pleasing movie visually. I had a great time watching it. Golfing scenes are very well shot and the dramatic effects on the green were quite amazing. I also loved seeing the old wooden golf clubs and the bag.Director's Work:[70%] Bill Paxton is more associated to acting but this film shows he's got talent. Did a decent job.Acting:[90%] Shia LeBeouf was very good in his role of Francis Ouimet(this guy can ACT well). The rest of the cast was also good.Entertainment Value:[100%] I enjoyed every minute of it. It was overwhelmingly entertaining.Script:[91%] Based on a true story and therefore it makes the film that much more special. It was intriguing right from the start and loved every scene till the very end.__________________________________________________________________ My Advice: Definitely a MUST watch for all the Sports lovers especially Golf(You all will love it). Anyone who is looking for a nice entertaining movie and doesn't hate Sports can watch it. _____ 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+After seeing this film I felt sick to my stomach and if I had seen one more minute I would have had to rush to the bathroom and vomit til dawn. A sick film that was NOT funny and was NOT worth the money, any money at all. If anybody ever wants to see this movie don't! Your kids will never forgive you and will claim sickness for a week. So if you value your child's education and want to stimulate your child's mind please don't see this movie. I beg of you, DON'T!$LABEL$ 0
+This was one of my favorites as a child. My family had the 8-track tape soundtrack!! It took us years (until I was in my 20s) for us to get a video of the movie (my dad taped it from HBO or something). Every summer when we go to the beach (my mom, brother, sister and I) we lay on the beach and sing all the songs from this movie!!! LOVED IT!!!$LABEL$ 1
+I have to confess that I know some of those involved, I was in the forerunner to The Planet, Evil Unleased, however this was more than 10 years ago and I had since lost contact with them. I happened to be watching BBC Scotland News and a piece regarding Scottish Cinema, this mentioned and showed clips from The Planet and comments from it's director Mark Stirton, this prompted me to order a copy of the film on DVD.Now to the film, the level of acting, writing, directing and sfx is up there with some of the best around, OK it's not Star Wars but I've seen many a Hollywood product that is far inferior. It is very strange watching a film spoken in my local North East Scotland accent but that soon passed.^Mild Spoilers^The Planet draws on several sci-fi classics; Star Wars, Alien, Pitch Black, Forbidden Planet and Predator, a handful of the merchant crew of a deep space transport ship survive their craft being attacked and destroyed by unknown ships, they escape onto a deserted desert planet, one by one they are killed by invisible attackers, the ships only passenger, a mysterious prisoner also makes it to the planet, a battle ensues as the crew fight to survive.The Planet is a brilliant piece of sci-fi film making that certainly hides it's limited budget, well done to Mark, Mike and all those involved, I look forward to your next work.$LABEL$ 1
+I purchased a DVD of this film for a dollar at the big dept store. That's probably the best and kindest comment I have to offer on it. At least it didn't cheat me out of the cost of lunch.The problem with "Chiller" is Craven's problem as a director. The man has his apologists who claim his traveling papers prove he's a really smart guy and all-around sharp conceptualist. But it's no secret that, as a director, he has never possessed one iota of the visual and story-telling sense of a Hitchcock. As vigorously attested by "Chiller", he's much closer to that legendary flat-foot Hershel Gordon Lewis. What Craven lacks as a director is the main ingredient that would lift him from director for hire to a higher plane of film- making.Let's be specific. The transitional moments of this film are sleek. The establishing shots give it the feel of a quality production. The film looks professionally put together, in the way a film shot by a TV commercial director would. (A thought: The films only visual distinction, these transitions that at least look professionally handled may very well be the work of some second unit directors.) It's the parts between the bridges and smooth transitions -- the drama -- that fall flat. The core of the proceedings are invariably perfunctorily handled. The critical shots (after, say, the departing car drives into the well-positioned camera, then we cut to the night exterior of a hospital, then to the waiting area and hallway, then to the phone booth in the corner that will figure in the next bit of action) are quickly dispensed so we can hurry up and get to the next part. Craven never comes anywhere close to exploding the dramatic or visual possibilities of any moment. The net result of all this misplaced attention to the least important parts, and the fumbling rush to keep things moving, is a film that feels like the work of the fledgling art student who sharpens all his pencils, fussily adjusts his easel and lighting set-up, grinds all his pigments, stretches and primes his canvas ...and then has nothing to say. Craven, like the art student, never gets to the meat of the exercise.For Craven apologists who will point out that this film was made for TV, I will point to Spielberg's "Duel" and say no more.$LABEL$ 0
+Excellent. Gritty and true portrayal of pioneer ranch life on the Western plains with an emphasis on the woman's role and place. A moving film, lovingly made, and based on real people and their actual experiences. Low budget, independent film; never made any money. Definitely not the romanticized, unrealistic Hollywood version of pioneer life.$LABEL$ 1
+I was taken to this film by a friend and was sceptical about a Swedish film with subtitles. However, I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of this beautiful film. The unnecessary cruelty that man is capable of was portrayed confidently without overwhelming images - although animal lovers may have to shield their eyes for a brief couple of seconds somewhere during the first 10 minutes. A traditional story of humility versus brutality and hope versus tragedy was illustrated from a satisfyingly fresh angle using a spectrum of characters with very natural flaws and features. I particularly liked how the film managed to address multiple aspects of hypocritical human behaviour that concern bias, discrimination and sanctimonious pretence. An absolute gem of a film that I will promote to all who will listen.$LABEL$ 1
+"Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey" is one of those wonderful old movies about house pets. Deserves a place among the great movies of its genre and even the cinema world in general, together with other animal movies like "Old Yeller", "Napoleon", "Fluke" and "Air Bud". This means it is more than just a movie about pets.Can this possibly be just a "remake"? It is too good to be a "remake"! I know this one by heart, since my early teen years (when I was 12).It's a family movie to treasure. It's emotional, thrilling, adventurous, exciting, entertaining, humorous, charming, sweet, nostalgic, beautiful, heartwarming and sometimes dramatic. It's one of those movies to put a smile on the faces of those who appreciate this kind of films.This movie does not lack qualities. It has a well thought story, enjoyable characters, excellent and relaxing instrumental soundtrack, dazzling sceneries/landscapes of the magnificent Sierra mountains (in Oregon). Speaking of the vistas, it's not all mountains: forests, trees, rivers, waterfalls, sunsets... in conclusion, all of pure nature's wonders - truly a full panorama. The main human characters are nice, well developed and well portrayed by respective actors. Robert Hays is awesome as the kind-hearted dad, Bob Seaver. Kim Greist is good as Laura Burnford. Veronica Lauren is equally good as Hope. Kevin Chevalia is conventional as the youngest and cute brother Jamie (his appearance actually reminds me very much of Kevin Corcoran in "Old Yeller"). Benj Thall is great as Peter Burnford.When it comes to our quadruped pals, Shadow is my favorite. Shadow is the loyal, wise, mature, beautiful, caring and loving old Golden Retriever (brilliantly voiced by Don Ameche). Chance, the American Bulldog, is the opposite of Shadow. He is carefree, silly, impatient, anxious, clumsy, hilarious and loves to play (voiced by the talented Michael J. Fox). Chance just can't stand still. Sassy is the epitome of cats's image: elegant, independent, very confident and self-proud, with a typical cat attitude but with a certain feline charm. Sassy is a Seal Point Himalayan cat, one of the most beautiful cat breeds. Sassy is voiced by Sally Field, who also does a good job.Our four-legged friends are, themselves, great "actors" by nature: Ben as Shadow, Rattler as Chance and Tiki as Sassy.It's an underrated movie, but a classic by its own right. Its sequel is clearly inferior.This should definitely be on Top 250.$LABEL$ 1
+To review this movie, I without any doubt would have to quote that memorable scene in Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" (1994) when Jules and Vincent are talking about Mia Wallace and what she does for a living. Jules tells Vincent that the "Only thing she did worthwhile was pilot". Vincent asks "What the hell is a pilot?" and Jules goes into a very well description of what a TV pilot is: "Well, the way they make shows is, they make one show. That show's called a 'pilot'. Then they show that show to the people who make shows, and on the strength of that one show they decide if they're going to make more shows. Some pilots get picked and become television programs. Some don't, become nothing. She starred in one of the ones that became nothing." Now to stretch on what Jules was talking about, there are BILLIONS of television shows/pilots that were never aired because they simply were not...well, good. Probably the most notorious pilot that comes to mind is "W*A*L*T*E*R", a spin-off to "M*A*S*H" with Gary "Radar" Burghoff as the lead. Hmmm, would somebody really want to be watching Radar for a half-hour trying to solve crimes? Hence, the show was never picked up. What many people don't know (or what they thought they knew) is that pilots are hardly ever shown on the air, for they are made strictly for the Television networks for them to decide. Some have made they're way past and got onto the air (The pilot for the animated series "American Dad" comes to mind, as the show's serial itself didn't begin until nearly four months later. However, there are times were we should all be glad pilots never make it to air, and this here is why."Black Bart", a supposed tie-in with the Mel Brooks comedy classic, "Blazing Saddles", is a stale and bland "sitcom" with little heart and no soul. "Saddles" was a controversial comedy, nevertheless, with it's racist humor and vulgar comedy, which comes to mind "what idiot decided this would make a great television show FOR PRIME TIME TV?!?" I say "supposed", because none of the memorable characters from the movie, aside from Bart, on in this mess of a TV show. Mel Brooks wasn't even involved with the production of the serial and this was the first mistake in a long line (In a related story, I recently found out about an unaired TV pilot for a series based on the movie "Clerks." that Kevin Smith was no involved in....you see what happens?!?).Set somewhere around the same time as the movie (or at all), the story circles around the only Black sheriff in the wild west, named appropriately 'Black' Bart, who is this time played by future Academy Award winner Louis Gossett Jr., obviously before his stint in "real" acting, whereas in this he is playing a "G-rated" Richard Pryor. Most of the other characters are carbon (if not, really bad) copies of the characters in the movie: Jim, The Waco Kid is replaced by a similar looking character named Reb Jordan, a former Confederate soldier who is quick with the gun. Lilian Von Schtupp is now Belle Buzzer, a more of a ripoff of the character being that she's a show dancer and a German with a Marlene Dietrich-type accent and personality. While that's pretty much the end in similarities, The lead "bad guy" in the story is Fern Malaga, played by Noble Willingham, who I assumed would've been Hedley Lamar if Warner Bros. secured the rights to the name (See trivia for "Blazing Saddles") and his son Curley...I dunno, Taggart I suppose? The story is a poor excuse for a sitcom, much less a pilot. Bart deals with the mayor's drunk son and he's out-of-control behavior which has caused the town to spin. Really, it's a story that tries to introduce all the characters in the "series" and doesn't focus on the variety and context that would make this an "alright" show. I can't really call it a sitcom (and even if I wanted to) and that's primarily the fact it was shot on the backlot at Warner Bros. Studios and later added a laugh track, so the show is set up almost exactly like "M*A*S*H" (complete with a bland and dull "laughing" that is identical to the series). The acting is so-so, but there's one part that always make me laugh, and that's when the actor playing Reb Jordan almost seems to forget his lines and tries really hard to remember them while trying to sputter out a piece of dialogue. HA! The script is rather dull and is attempts to make racism more humorous than it was in the movie (Surprisingly, they use the word "N***er" numerous amount of times through a 22-minute episode, rather touchy for it's time period and even for today) and it gets repetitive.If you ever get your hands on this unseen piece of sssss...surly interesting novelty item, watch it just for the sake of the feeling for watching pilots (It's on the collector's edition of "Blazing Saddles", God knows why). There, yourself get a first hand chance for the reason why many movie tie-in pilots never air.$LABEL$ 0
+Oy vey... Jurrasic Park got Corman-ized. As usual the plot is wafer thin, from 1 foot tall dinosaurs that weigh 150 pounds and leave tracks bigger than they are, to inexplicable science which uses lasers to keep the dinosaurs in check and poultry trucks which have chickens loose in cages large enough for big dogs (I've seen chicken trucks they are all in cages the size of shoe boxes). And all that is in the first 15 minutes of this disaster of a film. All the male actors are imbeciles (thinking a grizzly might be loose in the desert, constantly dropping items to give the raptor an easy kill) and the female actors all look like they just came from a modeling shoot for Fredrick's of Hollywood. The raptor itself is the worst thing since the Hobgoblins (from the movie of the same name), it looks like they had a hand puppet version and a plastic model for the "motion" shots. If you want a good movie to sit around and heckle MST3K style, this is gold. If you want competent film making and good acting... don't watch a Roger Corman film. Acting gets a 4 out 10, some of the players upon this stage did try. Story gets a 2 out of 10, it reads like a drunken storytelling session gone bad. Special effects gets a 2 out of 10, I've seen worse, but not many.$LABEL$ 0
+This film revolves around an Arabian leader (Amir) who dies and wants to live on. So a Dr. Lloyd Trenton is being paid to transplant Amirs brain into a "willing" participant. But in the Doctors basement his dwarf assistant Dorro (Angelo Rossitto) drains young girls blood for the doctors purposes. So meanwhile Doctor Llyod pays a man to kill the people who assisted Amir into the country (Which is Reed Hadley, Grant Williams, and various unknown bodyguards.). Grant is the only survivor when his car crashes off the road. While this has happened the doctors other assistant Gor is sent out to get a body for amir and hurts him so badly Dr.Llyod cant operate. Meanwhile, Grant finds Amirs "girlfriend" Regina Carrol and tells her his story. Grant sees the man who drove him off the road and Dorro kills him. Then since Gor failed to get a body D.r Llyod puts Amirs brain into Gors disfigured body. Then Grant and Regina go to the Doctors lab an------------------------SPOILERS------------------------- find out his secret. Soon Amir (Gor) are prancing around killing people and in the muddle of what I think is plot Dr.Llyod has a brain-ray gun which hurts Amir on command. It turns out Dr.Lloyd wants a country in which all scientists can work without law. So then Regina dies. and at the end Amirs new body (I think) say that it shall be a new country blah blah.I still don't get the ending but overall this was a very enjoyable piece of smelly cheese.This film features Grant Williams in his second to last film roll. I recommend it for any fan of Al Adamson or if you like Brains.$LABEL$ 1
+In his first go as a Hollywood director, Henry Brommell whips an enthralling yarn that is all of penetrating relatable marital issues with melancholic authenticity, and lacing such with an equally absorbing subplot of a father-son hit-man business. The film is directed astutely and consists of a wonderfully put together cast as well as a swift, family-conscious screenplay (also by Brommell) that brings life to an otherwise fatigued genre. As a bonus, 'Panic' delivers subtle, acerbic humor—an unexpected, undeniably charming, and very welcome surprise—through its bumbling, unsure-of-himself, low-key star, whose ever-cool state is enticing, especially given his line of work.The forever-great William H. Macy again captures our hearts as Alex, a unhappy, torn, middle-aged husband and father who finds solace in the most dubious of persons: a young, attractive, equally-messed-up 23-year-old named Sarah (Neve Campbell), whom he meets in the waiting-room at a psychologist's office, where he awaits the therapy of Dr. Josh Parks (John Ritter) to discuss his growing eagerness to quit the family business that his father (Donald Sutherland) built. Alex, whose lust to lead a new life is obstructed by the fear of disappointing his dictating father, strikes an unwise fancy for Sarah, which ultimately leads him to understand the essence and irrefutable responsibility of being a husband to his wife and, more importantly to him, a good father to his six-year-old son, Sammy (played enthusiastically by the endearing David Dorfman).Henry Brommell's brilliant 'Panic' is something of a rarity in Hollywood seldom seen (with the exception of 2002's 'Road to Perdition') since its conception in 2000—it weaves two conflicting genres (organized-crime, family drama) into a fascinating, warm hunk of movie-viewing that is evenly strong in either direction—and it's one that will maintain its exceptional, infrequent caliber and gleaming sincerity for ages to come.$LABEL$ 1
+After perusing the large amount of comments on this movie it is clear that there are two kinds of science fiction movie-goers. There are the ones who are well read, extremely literate, and intelligent. They know the history of the genre and more importantly they know to what heights it can reach in the hands of a gifted author. For many years science fiction languished in the basement of literature. Considered my most critic to be little more than stories of ray guns and aliens meant for pre-pubescent teenagers. Today's well read fan knows well this history, and knows the great authors Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury, and Ellison, who helped bring science fiction out of that basement. In doing so they created thought provoking, intelligent stories that stretched the boundaries and redefined the human condition. This well informed fans are critical of anything Hollywood throws at them. They are not critical for it's own sake, but look upon each offering with a skeptical eye. (As they should as Hollywood's record has been less than stellar.) To these fans the story must take supreme importance. They cannot be fooled by flashy computer graphics, and non stop action sequences. When the emperor has no clothes they scream it the loudest.The second type of science fiction movie goer has little knowledge about the written aspect of the genre. (Look at many of the above comments that state "Well I haven't read the book or anything by this author...) Their total exposure to science fiction is from movies or the Scifi channel. They are extremely uncritical, willing to overlook huge plot holes, weak premises, and thin story lines if they are given a healthy dose of wiz bang action and awesome special effects. They are, in effect, willing to turn off their critical thinking skills (or maybe they never had them!) for the duration of the movie. Case in point, I Robot. While supposedly based on Asimov's short stories and named after one of his novels, it contains little of what Asimov wrote and even less of what he tried to tell us about humanity and our robotic creations. (Those of you that will run out and buy I, Robot will be very much surprised-this movie isn't even based on that story at all!) The film has enormous plot holes, that at some points are stretched to the limits of credulity. I won't point them out. I won't spoon feed you. You need to practice you thinking skills and discover them for yourself. The characters, which are named after many of Asimov's characters, do not possess the critical intelligence that was a hallmark of his stories. The plot itself with all it's action sequences goes against everything that the author stood for. His belief that humanity possesses the capacity to solve problems using their minds, not their fists, is vital to understanding his vision of the future. In short, other than the name, their is very little of Isaac in anything about this movie. There will always be those uncritical (i.e. unthinking) who will state: "The movie doesn't have to be like the book. Due to the medium, movies sometimes require that changes be made." But what about a case where the movie never even tried to stay close to the book (or books) from the start? What if all they took from the written work was the title? This begs the question: Why tarnish a great body of work by slapping it's title on your vacuous piece of crap? Save money and don't buy the rights to the works. Title it something else. Don't use the character's names. Believe me no one will accuse you of plagiarism. In fact it won't matter what you title it to the unread moviegoer who accepts everything you throw at him. But it will upset those who read, who think, who are unwilling to simply let you give them a pretty light show. I, Robot, like much of Hollywood's take on the genre, pushes Science fiction back down into that basement it lived in years ago. Hollywood could not do this alone. It takes an uncritical mindless audience that will accept puerile dredge like this.$LABEL$ 0
+One of the few comedic Twilight Zones that's actually really good. We have Floyd The Barber from Andy Griffith Show,The stock in trade Old Geezer dude from Many old westerns,and lovable old Frisby. It also has that cool spacecraft interior that I believe was used in the Sci Fi classic Forbidden Planet.Or else The Day The Earth Stood Sill.Plus the new guys in town are driving an exotic Renault(I think) sports car back in the days when European automobiles were known as "Foreign Jobs" in the U.S.. The whole idea of harmonica as weapon is a hoot.And the fact that Frisby's buddies love him despite being the fact he's a total BS artist is a heartwarming moment.$LABEL$ 1
+I was expecting a very funny movie. Instead, I got a movie with a few funny jokes, and many that just didn't work. I didn't like the idea of bringing in Sherlock Holmes' and Moriarty's descendants. It was confusing. It would have been more funny if they just had someone new, instead of Moriarty resurrected. Some of the things were funny. Burt Kwouk was very funny, as always. McCloud on the horse was funny. The McGarrett from Hawaii 5-0 was not even McGarrett-like. Connie Booth obviously is very good with accents. She is from Indiana, but played English and a New Yorker pretty well. Unfortunately, she was not presented much into the script. I was expecting a more funny film. Instead, I got a rather confusing movie with a poor script. Rather ironic, since both Booth and Cleese were together on this one. Maybe they were about to break up in 77.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is incredibly realistic and I feel does a great justice to the crime that many people do not understand because of a lack of experience. The many people who think they could fathom what goes through a victim's mind are arrogant. As a victim, I feel that Dawson did a fantastic job in her role of Maya. I agree that this is an incredibly brave film. This looks at rape from a different, more realistic standpoint than any other movie I've ever seen on the subject. The end did drag on a bit long, but I know that many victims imagine this kind of justice, since the chances of an attacker being sent to jail for their crime is around 1%. It's good to see a movie that sticks closer to reality than most would dare to.$LABEL$ 1
+'What I Like About You' is definitely a show that I couldn't wait to see each day. Amanda Bynes is such an excellent actress and I grew up watching her show: 'The Amanda Show.' She's a very funny person and seems to be down to earth. "Holly" is such a like-able person and has an "out-there" personality. I enjoyed how she always seemed to turn things around and upside down, so she messed herself up at times. But that's what made the show so great.I especially loved the show when the character 'Vince' came along. Nick Zano is very HOT and funny, as well as 'Gary', Wesley Jonathan. The whole cast was great, each character had their own personality and charm. Jennie Garth, Allison Munn, and Leslie Grossman were all very interesting. I especially loved 'Lauren'; she's the best! She helped make the show extra funny and you never know what she's gonna do or say next! Overall the show is really nice but the reason I didn't give it a 10 was because there's no more new episodes and because the episodes could've been longer and more deep.$LABEL$ 1
+I am not an artistically inclined individual. I am a science minded woman and I felt that this movie was maybe one of those campy artsy type films on a budget. I watched part of it with my fiancé and my future step daughter. We tried very hard to find something in this film to keep our interest. My fiancé and his daughter voted it off and we moved on to Ocean's 13,but that is another story. Not to be deterred I awoke the next morning and gave the movie another shot. I began again watching this movie in earnest. I just don't get it,I thought I would get it.I thought the funniest part was the flushing of the ashes and the urn finding a spot by the fireplace being used as a vase for what appeared to be dead flowers. Interesting and still it had dead stuff inside. It was an odd and bizarre movie. Maybe this is what they were after,however I won't be tricked a second time!$LABEL$ 0
+-SPOILES- Lame south of the border adventure movie that has something to do with the blackmail of a big cooperate executive Rosenlski the president of Unasco Inc. by on the lamb beachcomber David Ziegler who's living the life of Reilly, or Ziegler, in his beach house in Cancun Mexico.Having this CD, that he gave to his brother James, that has three years of phone conversations between Rosenlski and the President of the United States involved in criminal deals. This CD has given David an edge over the international mobsters who are after him. The fact that James get's a little greedy by trying to shake down Rosenlski for 2 million in diamonds not only cost him his life but put David in danger of losing his as well. Ropsenlski want's to negotiate with David for the CD by getting his ex-wife Liz to talk to him about giving it up, Rosnelski made a deal to pay off her debts if she comes through. David is later killed by Rosenliski's Mexican hit-man Tony, with the help of a great white shark, who just doesn't go for all this peaceful dealings on his boss' part. Tony had taken the CD that Liz left for his boss at a local hotel safe and now want's to murder James, like he did David, and at the same time keep the CD to have something over Rosenlski.David who had secretly hidden the diamonds that James had on him at the time of his murder is now the target of Tony and his men to shut him up for good. David also wants to take the diamonds and at the same time give his boss Rosenlski the impression that the CD that David had is lost but use it later, without Rosenlski knowing who's behind it,to blackmail him. The movie "Night of the Sharks" has a number of shark attacks in it with this huge one-eyed white shark who ends up taking out about a half dozen of the cast members including Tony. David who's a firm believer in gun-control uses knives high explosives and Molotov cocktails, as well as his fists, to take out the entire Tony crew. Even the killer shark is finished off by Tony but with a hunting knife, not a gun. When it came to using firearms to save his friend and sidekick Paco a girlfriend Juanita and his priest Father Mattia lives from Tony and his gang guns were a no-no with David; he was more of a knife and spear man then anything else. The ending of the movie was about as predictable as you can make it with David thought to be killed by the one-eyed shark later pops up out of the crowd,after Rosenlski was convinced that he's dead and leaves the village. David continues his life as a free living and loving beachcomber with no one looking to kill him and about two million dollars richer. to David's credit he had his friend Paco give Rosenski back his CD but under the conditions that if anything happened to him his cousin, who Rosenlski doesn't know who and where he is, will shoot his big mouth off and let the whole world know about his dirty and criminal dealings.$LABEL$ 0
+The turning point in "The Matador" comes about half through the movie when Danny, an unsophisticated man from Denver, is sitting in the balcony of his Mexico City hotel, enjoying a quiet moment. Someone knocks on his door, and knowing it's Julian, the paid assassin, he refuses to answer. But did he really? Richard Shephard, the director of "The Matador", presents us with a character, Julian Noble, who shows no redeemable qualities. In fact, we have already seen him in action, doing what he does best. When Julian meets Danny at the bar of the Camino Real in Mexico City, he spills the beans and tells his new acquaintance what he really does for a living.Danny, who has come to sell his program to a Mexican company, but it seems he is competing against a local outfit that appears to be in the front for getting the contract. Danny is a naive person who falls prey of the charisma and charm doled out by the smarter Julian. It's not until some time later, on a cold winter night that the killer appears at Danny's door asking his friend to repay a favor and accompany him on a trip to Tucson. It's at this point that the secret that binds them together is revealed in an unexpected way.Pierce Brosnan, acting against type, makes a great contribution with his irreverent Julian Noble. Just to watch him walking through the hotel lobby in his Speedo and boots gives the right impression about his character. Greg Kinnear, on the other hand, plays the straight part of this odd couple. Hope Davis appears only in a couple of scenes leaving us to lament why didn't she stay longer. Philip Baker Hall puts an appearance as the liaison between Julian and his assignments.Richard Shephard directs with style working with his own material. The musical score is by Rolfe Kent and the crisp cinematography of David Tattersall enhances everything.$LABEL$ 1
+Those who only remember the late Sir Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot or a professional raconteur would do well to seek out this charming piece of late '60s satire. Ustinov stars as a convicted embezzler (we first see him during his last day in gaol where he is preparing the prison governor's tax return) who, sensing that the future is in computers, poses (by means of a deft piece of identity theft) as a computer expert and sets out to infiltrate an American multinational.Ustinov (who co-wrote the script) is on top form, as is the delightful Maggie Smith, here unusually cast as an accident-prone cockney-sparrow dolly bird. Bob Newhart also puts in an amusing performance as a suspicious executive who has designs on Maggie Smith. In addition, Karl Malden is satisfyingly sleazy as Ustinov and Newhart's womanising boss.What do I particularly like about this film? Not only is it a well-thought-out 'caper movie' but it's also a touching little love story; Ustinov and Smith are very convincing as the two misfits stumbling into love (the whole scene involving the deck of cards is particularly effective.)So, what is there not to like? Well, the script is no more computer-literate than most films (that is, hardly at all) even though it captures the feel of late '60s 'big iron' business computing quite well. Also there are a couple of small plot glitches that you're not likely to notice until the second or third viewing, but I consider these to be minor niggles.As I said, this is a film which is well worth seeking out, and after you've seen it once you'll want to see it again at regular intervals.$LABEL$ 1
+Absolutely wonderful drama and Ros is top notch...I highly recommend this movie. Her performance, in my opinion, was Academy Award material! The only real sad fact here is that Universal hasn't seen to it that this movie was ever available on any video format, whether it be tape or DVD. They are ignoring a VERY good movie. But Universal has little regard for its library on DVD, which is sad. If you get the chance to see this somewhere (not sure why it is rarely even run on cable), see it! I won't go into the story because I think most people would rather have an opinion on the film, and too many "reviewers" spend hours writing about the story, which is available anywhere.a 10!$LABEL$ 1
+The influence of Hal Hartley in Adrienne Shelly's "I'll Take You There" is not overt, but clearly has ties to his work (Shelly has acted in two of Hartley's films). Not only does her film exhibit a very tight narrative, but the hyper-stylized and extreme characters strangely render human emotion in a very real light. Though this film is not ironic on the whole (thank God), the small and subtle ironies that pepper the piece allude to the bitter truths in love and loss. With beautiful cinematography and a soundtrack straight from the seventies, "I'll See You There" is a great indie-film that doesn't stoop to postmodern irony when dealing with the woes of love and the reality of human emotion.The film begins with Bill's life falling to pieces. Not only has he sold his best friend Ray a beautiful country home, but his wife Rose has left him in order to join Ray in the retreat. All washed up, Bill wallows in his own gloom and doom until his sister Lucy (played by the director Adrienne Shelly) brings him all kinds of surprises: a self-help book and a "date" for her traumatized brother.The unwilling Bill tries to refuse, but the sudden appearance of Bernice at his door leaves him no choice. No doubt Bernice's initially superficial demeanor and ridiculous hairstyle detract from his ability to "rebound" with her. However, her pseudo-hippie qualities annoy him so much that he lashes at her on their first date. And Bernice is so traumatized by his derogatory remarks that she attaches herself to him, forcing herself upon him. To what end, we are not aware... except for maybe the fact that she is psycho. (And who better to play the psycho than Ally Sheedy?)Aware that Bill desperately wants to see Rose, Bernice offers her car, but on the condition that he take her somewhere first. On the way, she proceeds to hold Bill prisoner with his own gun (a Pinkerton Detective, no less). An imbroglio of angst, resentment, redemption, passion and violence ensue as Bill and Bernice find themselves on their way to the country home of Ray and Rose... of course, with a few stops along the way.$LABEL$ 1
+When in 1982, "The Thing" came out to theaters everywhere, it had a cold reception and very poor box-office results, becoming almost a failure in John Carpenter's career as a horror director; however, time has proved that "The Thing" was definitely not a failed project and that the disappointing commercial results were not the film's fault. Nowadays, John Carpenter's "The Thing" has gained the appreciation it rightfully deserves and is considered by many horror fans as a horror classic, and not without a reason, as this new version of John W. Campbell, Jr.'s story "Who Goes There?" (previously adapted as "The Thing From Another World") is closer to the original tale and keeps a pessimistic feeling of dread and high doses of suspense in a masterfully crafted study about paranoia.The plot of "The Thing", begins in the winter of 1982 in a U.S. research station located in the remote territories of Antarctica, when the members of the crew notice a Norwegian helicopter coming their way. The two apparently insane pilots of the helicopter are trying to kill a Husky dog who makes its way into the American base. After the Norwegians are killed accidentally, the Americans try to figure out what made them to be insane. Soon they'll discover that the Husky dog the Norwegians were hunting was not a normal dog, but a creature able to mimic every living creature, and not only that, it has a tremendous hunger.Director John Carpenter earned a place in history when in 1978 he directed the seminal slasher "Halloween", where suspense and atmosphere were above gore and shock. "The Thing" could be seen as an evolution of that style, as even when Carpenter makes great use of Rob Bottin's special effects (which were labeled by critics as "repulsive" on its day), the film still focuses more on atmosphere and suspense rather than in the violent (and very well-done) displays of gore. The feeling of loneliness, as well as the "bad karma" between the members of the crew increase the feeling of paranoia as anyone could be the Thing, even our main character, R. J. MacReady (Kurt Russell), ending in a situation where nobody can be trusted.This plot element was more faithful to the concept of the source novel, and was blatantly ignored by the previous version (not completely a bad thing, just a big difference), making this version feel less like a remake and more as a new conception of the source novel. Bill Lancaster's script handles the characters with brilliant domain, giving us enough to distinguish them, but not too much to completely trust them, making them an essential factor in the film's haunting feeling of dread that keeps running through the movie. The mystery and the suspense are at the max, as never one can tell who is the Thing and who is normal, enhancing the paranoia and unpredictability of the plot with excellent results.The cast is very effective, and their performances as a whole so effective that one can almost feel the bad feelings between their characters as real. Carpenter's regular collaborator Kurt Russell as MacReady carries the film, and through his eyes we witness the madness and the horror the research station becomes as the situations goes worse. Definitely one of his best performances. Wilford Brimley is also terrific as Dr. Blair, a scientist that goes insane after discovering the Thing's purposes."The Thing" is a film so wonderfully crafted that its flaws tend to go unnoticed, although they exist. The most notorious being the very low-key and at times unappropriated score by Ennio Morricone. It's not exactly bad, but it just feels out of place at some scenes and it's not one of the best works by the legendary composer. Also, due to some misshapes with the special effects, some scenes were left out that actually fill some small plot holes, although nothing of big importance or actually annoying.When talking about John Carpenter's films, most people will almost instantly name "Halloween" as his favorite film, but personally, I would go with "The Thing", as I consider it Carpenter's greatest achievement so far, and one of the most interesting and actually scary horror films ever made. I would go as far as to call it one of the finest films ever made. 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+Here's one you can watch with a straight face, with a script so bad, even Will Ferrell wouldn't be in it.There are two laughs in HOT ROD.1. The Punch-Dance. Rod "needs to go to his quiet place" and before anyone can say Kevin Bacon, he is footloosing a passionate, overwrought bodyswerve to the strains of a band who wishes they had the big-hair faux-metal chops of Europe.2. John Farnham's You're The Voice. In one of those epic sequences where the star and his cohorts do The Slomo Walk down Main Street and the townfolk follow on their heels in support, the soundtrack is the gag. How did the film-makers even come across this Aussie recording artist? A major Australian vocalist (and a genuine talent) who shot to fame in the early '70s covering Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head, then disappeared until 1986 for The Big Comeback with You're The Voice, John Farnham's anthem is so bewitchingly cheesy, it leveled mountains in Switzerland.Besides these two high points in the film - both ruined anyway with the slipshod writing - the rest of the film is like choking on someone else's vomit.Andy Samberg is Rod, a failed stunt jumper who has never made a jump. Maybe it's got something to do with the fact he's driving a moped into the heart of darkness. Or his fake mustache. Yeh, someone actually thought that was funny.Without one jump under his starry belt, he plans for a 15-bus extravaganza - which would surely kill a lesser bad comedian, like Jason Biggs or Rob Schneider - to win the day and save his stepfather and simultaneously wipe out cancer and whatever... who watches these movies for plot anyway? Along the way (as usual for moronic leads in these comedies), he scores a salubrious chick (Isla Fisher), who must surely be retarded to consider swapping chromosomes with this loser.Sissy Spacek (CARRIE, 1976) has so little to do she almost phoned in her performance - then changed her mind and just hung up. Ian McShane must've lost a bet to be here.$LABEL$ 0
+If you liked Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, the chances are you'll like this, too. Although I guess a few of the British in-jokes (like calling two London characters Dixon and Winterburn, after Arsenal soccer players) may be lost on some, this is still cracking entertainment, which veritably pumps with vitality.Carlyle, Miller and Tyler are all excellent, bringing depth to their characters, and the interplay between the two protagonists is always well-judged. In fact Scott's direction is very assured, considering that this is his first feature film, and proves that he has his father's talent for putting us at ease in unfamiliar surroundings.Hell, I've convinced myself. I'm gonna see it again!$LABEL$ 1
+don't expect much from this film. In many ways this film resembles a film that Doris Day starred in in 1956,title, Julie. In this film Doris,who was a flight attendant,stewardess,in those days,landed the air craft after her derange husband,played by Louis Jordan shot the captain. She did a far better job,more convincing,than Kim Ojah,who took control of a 747 and manage to land it without much help from the control tower. I know a little about 747 aircraft,i use to be a flight attendant myself. Like i said,do not expect much from this film,it was done on a cheap budget. The producers were to cheap to use a plane with the name of a airline on it. Oceanic is one name that several movies have used. The only writing on this plane was the name of the company that made the aircraft.$LABEL$ 0
+PROM NIGHT (2008)directed by: Nelson McCormickstarring: Brittany Snow, Scott Porter, Jessica Stroup, and Dana Davisplot: Three years ago, Donna (Brittany Snow) witnessed the death of her entire family at the hands of her teacher (Jonathan Schaech) who has a bit of a crush on her. Now, she is preparing for her senior prom with her stupid annoying friends. Once there, they start dying one by one because the killer escaped from prison and no one bothered to warn Donna because apparently her prom is too important to interrupt. pros: I got a few good laughs out of the film due to the terrible dialog and the dumb character moves.An example:Everyone decides not to tell Donna that the man who is oddly obsessed with her (she doesn't seem that great) has escaped from prison. Their reason: They don't want to embarrass her in front of all her friends. LOLcons: Let me start off by saying I'm a huge slasher fan. Usually I can have fun with even the bad ones. I even like some PG-13 horror films. TOURIST TRAP (1979), one of my favorites, was originally rated PG. I also enjoy POLTERGEIST (1982) and THE GRUDGE (2004). So the fact that this is a dumb slasher film that is rated PG-13 does not have anything to do with me not enjoying the movie.First of all, I had a big problem with the story. I like slasher films that don't even have stories. At least they can be entertaining. This is about a teacher who falls in love with his student, so he kills her entire family. A few years later, he tries to make it up to her by ruining her prom and killing all of her friends ...? Then there were subplots that I doubt anyone cared about. Claire (Jessica Stroup) is fighting with her boyfriend, she has cramps, and I couldn't care less. This should have been a Lifetime feature, not a remake of PROM NIGHT. And then ... this is a slasher film with terrible death scenes. I don't even care that it's not that gory, some of my favorite slashers (HALLOWEEN, CURTAINS, the original PROM NIGHT) were not that gory but they still had effective murders. Here, we have half the characters dying in the same hotel room off screen, a woman being stabbed several times with no stab wounds, and a closeup on a bad actor's face as he screams in agony. I'm sure that 10 year-old girls were terrified, but not me.I also hated the characters. There was Donna's unrealistically sensitive boyfriend Bobby (Scott Porter) and I can almost guarantee you will never meet a boyfriend that sensitive in your life, unless you are a gay male. Then we had Donna's annoying friends Claire (Stroup) and Lisa (Dana Davis), and the token mean girl Chrissy (Brianne Davis). If you thought the characters in DEATH PROOF were annoying, try watching this movie. And don't get me started on Ronnie (Collins Pennie) and the DJ (Jay Phillips) who gave me flashbacks to Usher's performance in SHE'S ALL THAT.Add to all that predictable plot turns, a terrible soundtrack and a big lack of respect to the original material, and you have quite a stinker.$LABEL$ 0
+The is one of the worst spoofs I have ever seen. For one main reason: IT ISN'T FUNNY! I laughed a handful of times. The acting is bad, the script is worse. And why those guys had baby pacfiers in their hair I will never know. And you can tell this didn't have much of a budget to work with and it openly hurts the film. They had a good idea going in some parts but it never really came to past. And what was the point about the lead being older than his Dad? 3 out of 10$LABEL$ 0
+A convict serving time comes forward to give the Cold Case unit information about the murder of a policeman, committed years before. The murder of Sean Cooper, a good cop, was never solved. Naturally, the detectives believe the new evidence will help them put together all the pieces of the puzzle that frustrated their colleagues.In flashbacks we are taken to the baptism of James Bruno's baby. Sean and Jimmy were partners. There is tension as Sean, who is the godfather, arrives disheveled and late for the rite. Eileen Bruno doesn't appear to be happy being there. The real mystery is revealed by her. She caught Sean, who was drinking with Jimmy in the backyard, kiss her husband, and more shocking yet, Jimmy responding willingly.Somehow at the station the partners become the center of gossip. Sean has not endeared himself to his superior because he discovered the involvement with a criminal in his area who controlled the drug business. Sean realizes this man is in with the drug strong man because he always makes an excuse to free the scum bags Sean and Jimmy haul into the station all the time. The pressure is too much on Jimmy. Sean is comfortable in his homosexuality and wants to be honest about it. Cooper's own father doesn't want anything to do with a queer son. Even his superior McCree wants him out of his jurisdiction, but the case is complicated because Cooper comes from a long line of Irish men serving in the police force. Sean is killed because his homosexual condition, and for knowing too much on his peers' involvement in taking dirty money.Tom Petit wrote this honest portrayal of the life of a police officer in the closet and his secret love with another fellow cop. We thought it was a frank account of a serious matter no one talked about in those days. Sometimes the people involved with the show, fearing reprisals from sponsors, or the networks, don't dare to present these real situations. Jeannot Szwarc, shows a sensitive approach to this thorny issue, which is dealt without the sensationalism the case might have been shown with a different team.There is a rare Chad Everett appearance as the older Jimmy Bruno. His take is right on target with a touch of sentimentality that doesn't get out of hand. Shane Johnson makes an excellent contribution to the show as Sean Cooper. The cast is marvelous and it includes good all around performances from everyone under Mr. Szwarc's direction.In this episode, Nick Vera, gets closer to his neighbor, the mother of the basketball player the detective took his ball away. Nick is heading for romance with the woman!$LABEL$ 1
+Ayone who whines about how this movie was crap or that it had no plot must have been looking for "Jean de Florrette". HELLO! this film was made to be a random act of comedy and in no way involves a plot in any way shape or form. I would also like to remind these whiners that if you are going to flay the crap out of this film that they seem to be missing the point. This film is clearly made for people who don't appreciate the so called "american humour" which seems to me just a pile of smutty crap. The point is everyone has an opinion and you should be a bit more appreciative that some peoples sense of humour may not be in line with your own before shooting your mouth off.Thankyou$LABEL$ 1
+Sex,Drugs,Rock & Roll is without a doubt the worst product of Western Civilization. The monologues are both uninteresting and pointless In the rare monologue that captures the audience's attention it is quickly lost through overly long repetition and unnecessary additions (The Hells Angels at McDonalds comes to mind) I guess Bogosian's one man show needed some filler material to give a length that he thought justified the price of admission.I would rather sleep with my aunt and be hung upside down and drained of my blood than see Sex,Drugs,Rock & Roll again.$LABEL$ 0
+36. THE HOSPITAL (comedy, 1971) A series of emergencies has gripped Manhattan Hospital. Patients are dying left and right due to overcrowded conditions, and a ineptitude staff. When a resident doctor is caught up in the death count the chief medical examiner, Dr. Bock (George C. Scott), is called in to investigate. Having worked as a doctor for too many years, and going through a mid-life crisis of his own, Dr. Bock finds the going tough. He decides to commit suicide. But then he meets Barbara (Diana Rigg), a young-hippie beauty. Whose keen insights on life help the depressed Bock.Critique: Black comedy features a 'tour-de-force' performance from veteran actor George C. Scott. He's good at playing high-strung, serious characters whose strict morals are severely tested. First half of the film unfolds like a melodrama, giving a pretty good account of hospital life, and the shambles they sometimes are. But then, as things look set for a dramatic climax it skews into slapstick comedy. If Paddy Chayefsky's script had maintained its dramatic feel I wonder if Scott would've walked out with another best Actor Oscar (he had previously won it, 'in-absentia', the year before). His breakdown (suicide) scene is one of the most gut-wrenchingly real in cinema history.QUOTE: Dr. Bock: ". . .last night I sat in my hotel room reviewing the shambles of my life and contemplating suicide. I said 'no Bock don't do it. You're a doctor, a healer, you're a necessary person, you're life is meaningful'. Then. . .I find out that one of my doctors was killed by a couple of nurses. . .how am I to sustain my feeling of meaningfulness in the face of this?"$LABEL$ 1
+Our story: Two U.S. Navy deep sea divers search for silver coins hidden beneath the ocean off the Filipino coast. Our proof: Extremely dull entertainment at its best, with no plot in sight. Jim Brown is completely wasted, provided his help in producing this 70s war turkey. Richard Jaeckel is in his usual form. Don Cornelius and Richard Pryor are among those who gave special thanks in their contributions! BOMBS AWAY!!!$LABEL$ 0
+Definitely a movie for people who ask only to be entertained and who do not over-think their movies. Lots of action, lots of great dialogue (e.g. fun to quote), a little intrigue, and stuff blowing up all over the place. Samuel L Jackson and Geena Davis had great chemistry. Violent, but not gory. The fact that the female part was the competent action lead is a pleasant turn-about.Have seen the movie more than a dozen times and still enjoy it enough to put it back in my favorite films rotation every 3 or 4 months. I initially rented the movie because Samuel L Jackson was in the film, but was caught up in the events surrounding Samantha's quest to regain her memory and have never looked back.All you cerebral folks out there -- suspend disbelief for once, take yourself a little less seriously -- you might actually enjoy yourselves!$LABEL$ 1
+About your terrible movie copying Beethoven. As a professional musician it's my duty to watch every movie made about any composer and Beethoven is one of my favorites. When Hungarians and Americans meet, it's a terrible combination of empty over the top emotions combined with the worst taste possible. You proved it in your terrible b-movie. The only thing that carries the movie is the music. Of course you didn't bother to look further than the good but in my taste contrived performances of the Tackacs quartet, but OK I have to admit that the performances at least have quality as contrast to the movie you've made. It starts of with the dying DEAF Beethoven who perfectly understands Anna who is merely whispering. Beethoven's hearing during the movie get's better by the minute, but that must be because of some vague divine thing. Then there is the quite impossible semi-pornographic "eyes wide shut" double-conducting scene which is totally over the top with the luscious Anna and the crying nephew in the end (who also cries in the deleted scenes with constant red eyes, my GOD what a performance). And as culmination the rip-off from Amadeus, with Beethoven dictating music to Anna not in notes but in total nonsense, which she understands perfectly but no-one else in your audience even trained professional musicians will understand. Of course your reaction will be that negative response is a response at least, but I can assure you that Beethoven himself is turning in his grave because of your worthless creation and with reason. This so called homage is blasphemy and I am so sorry to have rented one of the worst movies ever made even though it's about my favorite subject. Ed Harris and others, you cannot comprehend the greatness of Beethoven in your wildest dreams and certainly not after a couple of lessons in conducting and violin playing. That's the trouble with you Americans: you think you can grasp everything even when it takes a lifetime of hard work. Yeah we can do it anyway! Remember that a good product comes with hard labor, talent, devotion and professionalism. All these you creators of Copying Beethoven lack. See you in kindergarten.$LABEL$ 0
+Samuel Fuller is hardly one of America's great directors. I'm not sure he qualifies as one of Hollywood's great craftsmen. But he certainly ranks up there with the best of Hollywood's true professionals who were willing to march to their own music. During the time he worked for Hollywood studios, he knew how to take an assignment, shape the middling material handed to him and then turn it quickly and efficiently into something usually better than its parts...on time and on budget. Pickup on South Street is a case in point. On the surface it's one more of Hollywood's early Fifties' anti-Commie movies, complete with appeals to patriotism, a hard-boiled hero and a slimy (and copiously perspiring) bad guy. Fuller turns this bag of Hollywood clichés into a taut, exciting drama with any number of off-kilter twists. The hero, Skip McCoy, is a three-time loser, a petty crook with soft fingers who doesn't change his stripes until the very end. The girl in the caper, Candy, has a level of virtue that would be easy to step over if you're so inclined. One of the most appealing characters, Moe Williams, is a stoolie. And in an unusual approach to Hollywood's battle against Commies, the appeals to patriotism fall on deaf ears; the hero isn't motivated by anything so ennobling. He just wants payback for a personal reason, and winds up becoming...at least for now...a good guy. Plus, all the actors were mostly assigned to Fuller by the studio. He had to make do. Richard Widmark by now had established his presence as an actor and star, but Jean Peters is a surprise. She gives a fine portrait of a woman sexy and dumb, and no better than her boy friends...or her clients...want her to be. And Richard Kiley, who later would become a two- time Tony award winning star on Broadway, is convincingly slippery and cowardly. It's hard to remember that he was the actor who inflicted on us, I mean introduced to us, "The Impossible Dream" from Man of La Mancha, More than anything else, this tale of a pickpocket who picks a purse in a subway car and finds himself with microfilmed secrets instead of cash, pursued by the Feds and the Commies, moves straight ahead with great economy. The whole enterprise, with a classic noir look, only takes 80 minutes to tell. The dialogue, with Fuller as screenwriter, has that party corny, partly pungent hard-boiled pulp fiction style. "That muffin you grifted...she's okay," one character says to Skip about Candy. Fuller moves us just fast enough from scene to scene to keep us hanging on what will come next. Then Fuller throws in the character of Moe Williams. All of a sudden the story ratchets up to a whole new level of interest, part comedy relief and part sad inevitability. The thing I like best about the movie is how the opening exemplifies Fuller's talents and strengths. In 2 minutes and 15 seconds, starting right after the credits, Fuller is able to instantly power up the movie, to establish for us what the story is about, and to show us what kind of characters -- Skip and Candy -- we're going to be involved with. And he does this with so much enticing curiosity in that hot, packed subway car that we can just about feel Fuller setting the hook to catch us. Says Glenn Erickson, in my opinion one of the best of movie critics, "In what should be an inconsequential story, Sam Fuller defines his peculiar view of Americanism from the bottom up: stiff-necked, aggressive self-interest that when fully expressed recognizes what's wrong and what's right and isn't afraid to fight for it. As always in his work, the individuals who fight the hardest for their country are the ones least likely to benefit from the effort." He's right, and it makes for a movie still vivid after 55 years.$LABEL$ 1
+I have to hold Barney drilling my head every day; well.. I guess there must be reasons. First, I'm convinced that our kids are not stupids, they are just kids, but they know (my 1 and a half years old son "selects" what to see) what's nice or disgusting. Did you see the news? Do you think your kids HAVE TO KNOW the reality as it is? Maybe..or maybe not; we (the adults) have the responsibility about what we want for our kids, and what to teach them. A film of drug dealers? news about massacres in Middle East? Of course, the kids must know there is a Real Life, but... they are kids; let's give them some mercy. What do you want for them? If you wanna have kids trained on weapons or the best way to kill a neighbor, go ahead, impose them Lethal Weapon, Kill Bill, any manga's anime, tell them Santa's a depraved who enters through the chimney directly to violate them. I want illusions for my son (don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Barney and Friends is the best; in fact, the show have a lot of defects, I read other comments and I agree with most); maybe the happiness is made of dreams, or illusions. At least, I want to teach him to grow WITHOUT FEAR BUT CAUTIOUS, that learns to think and believe that everything is not serial killers or hijackers, whom they're reasons to worth to grow. That, at least, he can be a little happy with his own dreams. So, parents, don't underestimate your kids; they know what they want.$LABEL$ 1
+Last weekend I bought this 'zombie movie' from the bargain bin and watched it with some friends thinking it was going to be a budget version of "Land of the Dead".Boy, was I wrong. It seems as if they spent a good portion of their budget on the cover-art, which is very misleading to fans of the zombie genre.We watched up to the point where the zombie chicks come alive and get in the car with some yuppie who is out in the middle of nowhere talking business on a cell-phone. They actually speak to the guy before one of the girls kills him; but once they started driving the car, I couldn't suspend my disbelief anymore.Some people actually consider this a "so bad, it's good" movie, they are liars. I didn't finish the movie, but one of the other reviews mention that they actually somehow become police officers at the end of the movie, which makes me glad to not have watched it all the way through.This is even worse than "Zombiez" DO NOT WATCH!$LABEL$ 0
+I often feel like Scrooge, slamming movies that others are raving about - or, I write the review to balance unwarranted raves. I found this movie almost unwatchable, and, unusual for me, was fast-forwarding not only through dull, clichéd dialog but even dull, clichéd musical numbers. Whatever originality exists in this film -- unusual domestic setting for a musical, lots of fantasy, some animation -- is more than offset by a script that has not an ounce of wit or thought-provoking plot development. Individually, June Haver and Dan Dailey appear to be nice people, but can't carry a movie as a team. Neither is really charismatic or has much sex appeal. They're both bland. I like Billy Gray, but his character is pretty one-note. The best part of the film, to me, are June Haver's beautiful costumes and great body.$LABEL$ 0
+Recap: Full moon. A creature, a huge werewolf, is on the hunt. Not for flesh, not for blood (not that it seem to mind to take a bite on the way though), but for a mate. He is on the hunt for a girl. Not any girl though. The Girl. The girl that is pure (and also a werewolf, although she doesn't know it yet). Three, well check that, two cops (after the first scene) and an old bag lady is all that can stop it, or even knows that the thing killing and eating a lot of folks around full moon is a werewolf. This particular powerful werewolf, Darkwolf, is closing in on the girl. If he gets her, mankind is doomed. Now the cops has to find the girl, convince her not only that there is someone, a werewolf nonetheless, that wants to rape her, and perhaps kill her, but that she is a werewolf herself. And then they got to stop him...Comments: This is one for the boys, the teenage boys. A lot of scenes with semi-nude girls more or less important for the plot. Mostly less. Well I guess you need something to fill some time because the plot is (expectedly) thin. And unfortunately there is little besides the girls to help the plot from breaking. One usually turns to two main themes. Nudity. Check. And then special effects. Hmm... Well there are some things that you might call effects. They're not very special though. In fact, to be blunt, they are very bad. The movie seems to be suffering of a lack of funds. They couldn't afford clothes for some of the girls ;), and the effects are cheap. Some of the transformations between werewolf and human form, obviously done by computer, are really bad. You might overlook such things. But the Darkwolf in itself is very crude too, and you never get to see any killings. Just some mutilated corpses afterwards. And there is surprisingly little blood about, in a movie that honestly should be drenched in blood.I'm not sure what to say about actors and characters. Most of the times they do well, but unfortunately there are lapses were the characters (or actors) just looses it. A few of these lapses could be connected with the problems mentioned above. Like the poor effects, or the poor budget(?). That could explain why there is precious little shooting, even if the characters are armed like a small army and the target is in plain sight (and not moving). But hey, when you're in real danger, there nothing that will save your life like a good one-liner...Unfortunately that can't explain moments when the Cop, Steve, the only one who knows how to maybe deal with the problem, the werewolf that is, runs away, when the only things he can be sure of, is that the werewolf is coming for the girl, who is just beside him now, and that he cannot let it have her. But sure, it let the makers stretch the ending a little more...But I wouldn't mind seeing none of the lead actors/actresses get another try in another movie.Well. To give a small conclusion: Not a movie that I recommend.3/10$LABEL$ 0
+I first heard about The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya from a reviewer on Youtube. He literally slapped the show with a big bad rant, condemning it rubbish and confusing. Curious, I decided to watch the show (once I got the order of the episodes right, thanks to those who made the lists), and I found it absolutely brilliant and enjoyable to watch. Great memorable characters who are full of life and are absolutely lovable and hilarious; a unique and not over blowing plot that makes sense now that I've watched the show; and two of the best anime moments in history, in my opinion. Plus the opening and ending themes are great.The anime, based on a collection of successful manga novels, follows a simple plot, once you understand it. While the show's focus is on the main character, Haruhi Suzumiya, the point of view is from her friend Kyon. Kyon is a regular high school student who doesn't really believe in supernatural stuff (e.g. Santa Clause, aliens, time travellers, ghosts, espers) but he soon ends up talking to Haruhi, who is the most oddest girl in the school and would prefer to date an alien, considering all men worthless. She even joined every club in the school to find something interesting, but quit as quickly as she joined. Upon "advice" from Kyon, Haruhi decides to form her own club with Kyon's club. Setting up in the literary club room, Haruhi forms the SOS Brigade - its mission to investigate supernatural cases (think Scooby-Doo minus the dog, the masked man and the Mystery Machine).Haruhi "recruits" three extra members. The first is Yuki Nagato, a bookworm of sorts who speaks very little and spends most of her time reading and sitting. The second is Mikuru Asahina, a shy girl who is forced into the club by Haruhi who thinks they need a cute mascot to get some things done. She is often forced into costumes by Haruhi to further her cuteness. The third is Itsuki Koizumi, a friendly and sociable transfer student who is always smiling. While Haruhi thinks her group is filled with normal people she couldn't be more wrong. While Kyon is as normal as you can get, the other three on the other hand are rather unique - Yuki is an alien, Mikuru is a time traveller from the future, and Itsuki is an esper (a person who has ESP). All three have come to watch over Haruhi who may just have the powers of a god, and if she becomes bored, she may be able to discover her powers and create a whole new world, and Kyon is involved somehow.The show is worth watching with great characters, music and some hilarious and wonderful moments. However, for parents, there is some sexual references including Mikuru's cleavage being exposed or touched several times, and several swear words used as well. Apart from that, the show is one of the greats.$LABEL$ 1
+Well I've enjoy this movie, even though sometimes it turns too much to a stereotypical situation. I didnt understood at this time if the "Punishment Park" has exist in the past, but I think the matter isnt really here.You have to look at this movie in a different manner. It shows how much violence you can find in our world. It reminds us that we live in a world who is lead by violence and that nobody can escape from it. If anyone refuse to "take his responsabilities" then you will be thrown out of our society...All our history is made by wars, we should never forget this. In fact its only when we will finally accept the truth that, maybe, we will change and understand that our "intellectual skills" have improve. So we could use them to find others ways to resolve our problems.In 2 words this movie is a must see, maybe it will help us to accept the truth...$LABEL$ 1
+When I first read Armistead Maupins story I was taken in by the human drama displayed by Gabriel No one and those he cares about and loves. That being said, we have now been given the film version of an excellent story and are expected to see past the gloss of Hollywood...Writer Armistead Maupin and director Patrick Stettner have truly succeeded! With just the right amount of restraint Robin Williams captures the fragile essence of Gabriel and lets us see his struggle with issues of trust both in his personnel life(Jess) and the world around him(Donna).As we are introduced to the players in this drama we are reminded that nothing is ever as it seems and that the smallest event can change our lives irrevocably. The request to review a book written by a young man turns into a life changing event that helps Gabriel find the strength within himself to carry on and move forward.It's to bad that most people will avoid this film. I only say that because the average American will probably think "Robin Williams in a serious role? That didn't work before!" PLEASE GIVE THIS MOVIE A CHANCE! Robin Williams touches the darkness we all must find and go through in ourselves to be better people. Like his movie One Hour Photo he has stepped up as an actor and made another quality piece of art.Oh and before I forget, I believe Bobby Cannavale as Jess steals every scene he is in. He has the 1940's leading man looks and screen presence. It's this hacks opinion he could carry his own movie right now!!S~$LABEL$ 1
+I waited until the 4th of July to write this because . . . well . . . because it just feels right to be doing it on this day.In 1924 D.W. Griffith needed a hit, he had not had a big one since ORPHANS OF THE STORM (1921). He'd been working steadily since then but his movies had been smaller in scope and had failed to hit the right chord with audiences. He was planning a film about Patrick Henry when he was contacted by members of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) who asked if he might expand his ideas to encompass more of the American Revolution. This movie is the result. By the time he had finished he had a 14 reel history lesson and there wasn't a trace of Patrick Henry anywhere.We all know the story of the Revolutionary War but Griffith threw in a love story with Patriot farmer Nathan (Neil Hamilton) falling in love with Tory aristocrat Nancy Montague (Carol Dempster, a leading lady for Griffith for many years). Complicating matters is the fact that Nancy's father hates Nathan . . . well not just Nathan, he hates all rebels. It does not help matters when, during a skirmish on the streets of Lexington someone jostles Nathan's arm causing him to discharge his gun and accidentally wound Nancy's dad!Paralelling the love story is the (mostly true but partially embellished) story of Capt. Walter Butler (Lionel Barrymore) a renegade British officer who feels he owes allegiance to no one. With Thousands of Indians form the Six Nations on his side he hopes to crush the colonials and become monarch of his own empire.Comparisons with BIRTH OF A NATION (1915) are inevitable. The Montague family might just as well be the Cameron's from the earlier film while Nathan could be a part of the Stoneman family. The sequence of the Battle of Bunker Hill is staged very similarly to a scene in BIRTH OF A NATION with the attacking army, in this case the Redcoats, storming a trench packed with Patriots. The only thing missing is Henry Walthall charging across No Man's Land to stuff a flag into the muzzle of a cannon. Amazingly enough the battle scenes in America seem to lack the energy of the battle scenes in BIRTH and fail to draw the audience in. Something is clearly missing. It isn't scope, G.W. "Billy" Bitzer's camera work is quite good. Maybe what is missing is . . . dare I say it . . . sincerity?The brutality of Capt. Butler and his men is well underscored although much of it happens in long shot or offscreen. Don't expect any heads to be lopped off in closeup like we saw in INTOLERANCE (1916). In one scene Butler's second in command, Capt. Hare (Louis Wolhiem) gouges out the eyes of a captive colonist. We see only the beginning of the deed, for the remainder the camera focuses on Hare's face as he obviously has a good time doing this. Lionel had been working with Griffith on and off since 1912. A story goes that he approached Griffith for work and D.W., knowing the reputation of his famous family, said "I am not hiring stage actors." to which Lionel replied "And I am nothing of the kind, sir!" He makes a very good and quite believable villain. Louis Wolhiem appeared with Lionel's older brother John three times; in SHERLOCK HOLMES and DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (both 1920) and later in THE TEMPEST (1927). As Capt. Hare his wild staring eyes and disheveled hair not only mark him as a villain but make you think he is quite mad also.Neil Hamilton later remarked that America was his first time on horseback and "I was scared to death.". He hides his displeasure very well though and we can believe he was quite the equestrian by the time shooting was over. Mr. Griffith was very much in love with Carol Dempster and at one point asked her to marry him. She refused and soon left his stock company, after which her star status gradually waned.Speaking of horses, one accidentally amusing moment which had to be unscripted came during the depiction of Paul Revere's ride. He rides his horse right up on the front porch of a family to announce "To arms! The Regulars are coming!" but as he tries to leave the horse cannot negotiate the steps backwards and stumbles spilling his rider on the ground! I am amazed Griffith did not do another take.So is America a classic? YES! Don't wait for July 4th to see it, it is enjoyable anytime.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a tongue in cheek movie from the very outset with a voice-over that pokes fun at everything French and then produces a rather naif but very brave hero in Fanfan La Tulipe. Portrayed by the splendid Gerard Philippe, the dashing young man believes utterly in the fate curvaceous Lollobrigida foretells - notably that he will marry King Louis XV's daughter! Problem is, La Lollo soon find outs she too is in love with Fanfan...Propelled by good sword fights, cavalcades, and other spirited action sequences the film moves at a brisk pace and with many comic moments. The direction is perhaps the weakest aspect but the film is so light and takes itself so un-seriously that I could not give those shortcomings a second thought. Look out for Noel Roquevert, a traditional heavy in French films, trying to steal La Lollo, making himself a nuisance, and feeding the script to the fortune teller that reads La Lollo's hand! And what a gem Marcel Herrand is as the megalomanous and lust-driven King Louis XV! That is not all: So many beautiful women in one film makes me wish I were in France and on the set back in 1952! The film may have come out that year but its verve, cheek, superb narration, immaculate photography and the memorable Gerard Philippe ensure that it remains modern and a pleasure to watch. I would not hesitate to recommend it to my grandchildren let alone to anyone who loves movies in general and swashbucklers in particular! Do see it!$LABEL$ 1
+Robert Wagner is the evil boss of Digicron, a telecommunications company with a virus that kills people.'so you're saying that the software virus has become a real virus that can kill people - that may be medically possible but not possible from my system' 'i'm having to write some new virus software of my own to trap it - it may take some time''but it's not going after software, it's killing people'watch out for the 'i'm into virology' love moment and perhaps first ever film plot to feature death by braille keyboard$LABEL$ 0
+hello, looking for a movie for the family to watch on a Friday night? Can't find what your looking for? I thought this was an extremely enjoyable movie. Good for the whole family. I found that it had a remarkably rare combination of it being appealing to both adults and children alike. It was brilliant, to say the least. Bruce Willis's acting was top-notch, there was a lot of humor in it and overall, a great movie. In my opinion, it's a must-see movie. And I don't think that about a lot of movies, believe me when I say it takes a lot for a movie to get me to think that. It's clear that there was much work done by Bruce Willis and cast to get this movie done. Excellent story, good acting, and again, overall a thoroughly enjoyable movie.$LABEL$ 1
+An amazing piece of film that was well-conceived and kept me on the edge of my seat. Brilliantly orchestrated in its timing, and the comedy kicked in exactly when the tension needed a release. The acting was generally well-done (the "Director" should've asked Alec Guinness for acting lessons), and the shot selections were impressive (as in elongating the hall as Billy tries to race to the door in the studio). This movie didn't let up since the opening scene...$LABEL$ 1
+Damien O'Donnell has a good track record and in this film he handles a very delicate topic with sensitivity but manages not to let the film turn into schmalz.This is a fantastic film, its funny with sad bits and it makes you look at things differently. Tell everyone you know to go see it now- FANTASTIC!The acting is excellent, and Dublin plays a starring role. This film will change the way you view people with disabilities and also give you a very entertaining night out in the cinema. I can't wait til it comes out on DVD.$LABEL$ 1
+Really, truly, abysmally, garishly, awful. But actor Clayton Moore (the movie Lone Ranger) acquits himself competently as an actor. He's the only one.A rare treat, for five minutes, if you want to plumb the depths of grotesquely transparent special effects, southern California as "the moon" (again and again and again), and acting so woodenly inept that it may be a spoof . . . except that it's clear that it isn't--no humor here, except unintentionally.The dialogue may be worse than any of these other aspects, and the costumes . . . well, enough said. Plot? What plot? Bad guy (well, head bad guy) and his henchmen, including his earthly agent called Krog (listen carefully or you'll suspect it's a spoof on the name of McDonald's founder Ray Kroc)and his unbelievably inept gunsels (who, however, have handguns that never need reloading; as does Commando Cody, so there are numerous firefight standoffs).Enjoy.$LABEL$ 0
+As you can see, I loved the book so much I use the title for my internet alias and have for over 15 years. (Okay, so it had to be spelled phonetically to fit the name character limit for the BBS at the time but what could I do?) If anyone every finds this movie, I would absolutely love to see it! Janet McTeer is great in everything else I've seen of hers. I think she would have made a great Prue. And it even features early Clive Owen - from before Chancer (a great series itself). What's not to love? I hope the powers that be wise up and make this available on DVD soon! With some of the true dredge they pout out, it's about time well executed productions make it on the market too.$LABEL$ 1
+Is there anything that happens in this movie that is NOT predictable? I think not. Basically the movie is cliché after cliché and really nothing ever comes as a surprise. It makes the movie extremely predictable and because of that the movie is also seriously lacking in tension. So for a thriller it is not tense and unpredictable enough but also as a drama it's a failure. This is because the movie its story is highly unlikely. I mean, no way this could ever happen in real life, as in the same way as the events occur in this movie. So the movie has a real suspense and credibility problem.But it truly are the clichés that killed the movie. It was cringing stuff at times. Everything is so formulaic in this movie. The predator is portrayed as a cool heartless, almost psychopath like sexual frustrated boy and the victim as a naive young woman, who acts like she didn't see any of this coming. Everything that happened in the movie was so obvious and all seemed to happen for a reason. Such as the sequence in which the 'predator' fixes the 'victims' broken car. That has got to be one of the oldest clichés out of the book. I knew what the movie tried to achieve after that point. I tried to look as if the teacher and the student were really growing toward each other trough the eyes of the other persons around them. It was so incredibly obvious and cheap that I almost wanted to stop watching the movie after that point. The movie is filled with moments like these.The title might suggest that this is a cheap porn movie but this in fact is a sappy made for TV movie. Which means that everything is slowly happening and the movie spends halve its time on character development and unnecessary sub-plots to make the movie even more drama like.I'll admit that Elizabeth Berkley is pretty good acting in this movie. She makes some of the clichés and events look even almost realistic at times. Her Hollywood career is as good as over after appearing in the Paul Verhoeven movie "Showgirls", so unfortunately she will probably only still appear in movies- and television series like this one. It's a waste of her talent and she surely deserves better. All of the other characters are a disappointment. Corey Sevier plays the cliché pretty 'untouchable' rich boy and the way the husband of the main character is portrayed is even worse. He looks more like a sexual frustrated predator than the true predator of the movie. He basically tries to have sex with his wife in every sequence. He wakes up, he wants sex. Before he goes to sleep, he wants sex. He gets home, he wants sex. It might be a realistic thing but I don't know, it just didn't feel right for a movie like this one and the story in general.A cliché filled movie and I can't think of any reason why anyone should ever watch this movie. It's predictable and therefor also lacks in suspense and credibility. Not an 'horrible' movie and it certainly is a watchable one at times but all the weak and cliché elements in the movie also make this far from a recommendable one.4/10$LABEL$ 0
+I was shocked and surprised by the negative reviews I saw on the web, I thought Cinderella 2 (as well as 3) is a very cute and funny sequel for everyone - kids and adults...like me, I am 22 years old.I also find it and very informative film, it shows lessons on being true to yourself and following your heart. I thought it has great animation, and the voice casting was very good; the songs performed by Brooke Allison too. Since this film has been divided into three flashbacks/stories, my favorite out of the three, is the story of when Jaq the mouse, became a human for a day, thanks to Fairy Godmother and her magic.$LABEL$ 1
+I found this movie to be extremely delightful.I am biased I suppose.I happen to adore Kathy Bates.I found her singing an added pleasure.She has a very nice voice.Ms Bates plays Grace Beasley.The film takes you from her doledrums married life in Chicago to England,the home of her recently murdered singing idol Victor Fox.There she meets his three surviving uppity sisters.She also discovers that Victor leaves behind a male lover,Dirk Simpson.The story leads you on to some surprisingly comedic and heartwarming situations as Grace and Dirk develop a true fondness for each other,after an initial rather rude rejection,on his part.They return to Chicago where they team up with Grace's pint-sized,hilarious daughter-in-law,Maudie,to find the serial killer who murdered Victor.Everyone in the picture did a fine job.Particularly enjoyed Julie Andrews,Lynn Redgrave and Barry Manilow.This movie was fun.It makes you cry.The music is absolutely charming.Other posters here who found problems with any parts of this movie,just don't have a clue.$LABEL$ 1
+Quirky, independent, theatrical, Christian Slater--these are all teasers that made me look forward to spending an hour or so "discovering" a jewel of a film. Boy, was I disappointed. Julian Po never gets over itself. The film is relentlessly self-conscious. I found myself unable to suspend disbelief for even a moment. The overdone, obviously theatrical sets, the overdone, obviously theatrical acting, the overdone, obviously theatrical directing -- well, you get the idea. Allegories do not need to be delivered sledge hammer style. And it's hard to feel much of anything for Julian Po because we never know much about him. The ridiculous girlfriend, the annoying townsfolk, the idiotic clergyman, the bratty kids -- why would anyone, particularly anyone with a life long ambition to get to the seaside (Slater's character), decide to stay in such a dismal place?$LABEL$ 0
+Zoey 101 is basically about a girl named Zoey who transfers into an all boys boarding school during the first year that they integrate girls into it. That raw plot line is, I'll admit, a pretty good idea. Although this show was meant for children, a five year old could probably point out its fatal flaws. First, Zoey is a cliché character, her being super popular, super attractive, super smart, and there;s nothing wrong with her; no girl is like that. It feels like the show was put the spotlight on Jamie Lynn Spears and increase her fame. Dana, who appeared at the beginning of the first season, is just plain mean. However, in my opinion, she was probably the most realistic character of them all, which is sad seeing that Dana is never nice. Nicole is too peppy and acts like a complete airhead, but mysteriously gets straight A's. Lola seems to be able to fool anything with her Emmy-deserving acting skills. Quinn is supposed to be super smart, and although she is able to create the most unrealistic things, she is also made out to be weird, and she never gets any guys although she is both beautiful and smart, while Zoey, Lola, and Nicole get guys and they're all beauty and no personality. Chase and Michael are very similar, and I even sometimes get them confused. Logan is unrealistically rich, and hands out millions like they're dollars. Nobody's that rich. I've also noticed that every character on the show is mean to that Stacy girl, who does nothing but act nice to them. That's not funny! That's mean and it just influences young girls to act mean to totally nice people. Finally, the school itself adds the frosting to the unreal cake by providing the students with 5-star amenities such as a scenic location, sushi bar, hot lounge equipped with free soda machines, pool&jacuzzi, movie theater, and the allowance for boys and girls to freely go into the other sex's dorm rooms. At most boarding schools, if a boy were to go into a girl's dorm or vice versa they would be expelled.In conclusion, Zoey 101 was poorly written and should have spent a few more years in the drafting process.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is terrible, it was so difficult to believe that Katie became a heartfelt teenager with the power to save the pity Chinese people, the movie didn't show any convincing argument to prove that. And the rest of the plot didn't make any effort to show us more than a cheap common sense... The plot is ridiculous and the only thing we can extract from it is that it demonstrate how arrogant a human can be. Katie must have inherited her arrogance from her mother, the most annoying character I have seen for a long time. The acting and scenery were OK, but the plot ruins everything, full of cheap clichés and hypocritical scenes, I expect not to see this movie again in my life. Skip this one!$LABEL$ 0
+The only thing serious about this movie is the humor. Well worth the rental price. I'll bet you watch it twice. It's obvious that Sutherland enjoyed his role.$LABEL$ 1
+2005 was one of the best year for movies. We had so many wonderful movies, like Batman Begins, Sin City, Corpse Bride, A History of Violence.....Coming up we also got Brokeback Mountain, King Kong....But if this year the only great movie that came out was Everything Is Illuminated, then we wouldn't miss all this year has brought. The first movie as a director of the talented Liev Schreiber is a delightful, heart-warming, touching drama that also brings one of Elijah Wood's best roles. He is perfect as Jonathan, a curious man that heads for Ukraine to find the woman who saved his Grandfather in World War II. Liev Schreiber, who also writes the movie, conducts a masterpiece, with memorable scenes and (a lot of) funny quotes. This here is a genuine mixture of Comedy with Drama, bringing a movie that will be commented years from now. A serious Oscar contender, Everything is Illuminated is a powerful, original, and, why not say, illuminated movie. But there's one thing you should remember while entering the movie: leave normal behind. This is special.------9/10$LABEL$ 1
+According to John Ford's lyrically shot, fictional biopic of Abraham Lincoln's life his greatest faults may have been an obtuseness with woman and an ability to dance in "the worst way." Ford's camera has only praising views to reveal of Mr. Lincoln's early life. But for what the film lacks in character complexities it makes up for in beauty and depth of vision. Uncharacteristically beautiful compositions of early film, what could have been a series of gorgeous still frames, Ford has a unique eye for telling a story. The film sings of the life of a hopeful young man. Henry Fonda plays the contemplative and spontaneously clever Lincoln to a tee, one of his best roles.The film concerns two young men, brothers, on trial for a murder that both claim to have committed. In classic angry mob style, the town decides to take justice into their own hands and lynch the pair of them, until honest Abe steps into the fray. He charms them with his humor, telling them not to rob him of his first big case, and that they are as good as lynched with him as the boys lawyer. What follows seems to become the outline for all courtroom- murder-dramas thereafter, as Abe cunningly interrogates witnesses to the delight and humor of the judge, jury and town before he stumbles upon the missing links.The film plays out like many John Ford movies do: a tablespoon of Americana, a dash of moderate predictability, a hint of sarcasm that you aren't sure if you put in the recipe or if Ford did it himself. Despite the overtly 'Hollywood' feel of the film, and overly patriotic banter alluding to Lincoln's future presidency, the film is entirely enjoyable and enjoyably well constructed, if you can take your drama with a grain of salt.$LABEL$ 1
+Where to start... If this movie had been a dark comedy, I would say it was FANNN-TASTIC! Unfortunately for me, and anyone else with free time and a buck to spare (mind you that was the price I paid, got it from Wal-Mart), this movie was meant to be a thriller. The only THRILL I got was watching Kirkland's lousy rendition of Anne Wilkes from Misery sans snowy woodland area. If you want a good laugh, on a rainy Friday night with some friends, then I highly recommend this movie. But if you want to watch something at least half way decent, then don't even bother.I for one enjoy crappy films, the worse the better in most cases. But Wow... I Meant WOW!! The only person in the entire film that didn't stink it up was the little boy, played by Vincent Berry. The only reason why I even give it 3 stars is because it gave me something to do.$LABEL$ 0
+Oh dear god. This was horrible. There is bad, then there was this. This movie makes no sense at all. It runs all over the map and isn't clear about what its saying at all. The music seemed like it was trying to be like Batman. The fact that 'Edison' isn't a real city, takes away. Since I live in Vancouver, watching this movie and recognizing all these places made it unbearable. Why didn't they make it a real city? The only writing that was decent was'Tilman' in which John Heard did a fantastic job. He was the only actor who played his role realistically and not over the top and campy. It was actually a shame to see John Heard play such a great bad guy with a lot of screen time, and the movie be a washout. Too bad. Hopefully someone important will see it, and at least give John Heard credit where credit is due, and hire him as lead bad guy again, which is where he should be. on the A List.$LABEL$ 0
+Yes, bad acting isn't only one thing to mention. Bad script,not so bad music. Unfortunately.Nice girl and nice boy with perfect bodies and super teeth just isn't enough for me and for you too.First thing in the morning after crash they go to swim to the sea, to have some fun !!! Smiling ...They find everything in the sea. I mean things like fishing-net, knife, scuba dive things, ropes, bottles, husband ...Woodoo stuff , are you kidding. Stupid. They are so happy on the island, they are going to die, and they are happy. Love, peace. Love. Just stupid.Terrible, skip this one please.$LABEL$ 0
+I don't think that many films (especially comedies) have added memorable, quotable dialog like MOONSTRUCK. I won't illustrate it - you can see a remarkably long list of quotes on this thread - but any film that can make subjects like the defense of using expensive copper piping rather than brass for plumbing purposes into memorable dialog is amazing to me. It is not the only line that pops up and makes an imprint on our memory. How about a restaurant waiter who regrets a planned marriage proposal because it will mean the loss of an old bachelor client? Or a nice, elderly dog fancier encouraging his pack to howl at he moon? Or Perry (John Mahoney's) description of a female student's youthful promise as "moonlight in a martini" (my favorite line).MOONSTRUCK is a wonderful example of brilliant script, first rate direction, and a good ensemble cast that fits perfectly. There are other examples (the drama THE OX-BOW INCIDENT is another example, but a grimmer one). Cher, Olympia Dukakis, Vincent Gardenia, Nicholas Cage, John Mahoney, and Danny Aiello are all involved in plots and cross purposes that examine the nature of love, and how to handle it. Is it a good thing to be totally in love? Cher and Cage, at the end, seem to think so, but Dukakis knows that real love drives the individual crazy (and Cage gets a glimmer of realization of this too, when he and Cher argue outside his home after they return from the opera La Boheme). Is infidelity by men a way of avoiding thoughts of death. Dukakis believes so, and (oddly enough - although he is not totally convinced) Aiello. Chance reveals infidelity - Dukakis realizes early that Gardenia's odd behavior is tied to unfaithfulness, and Cher literally stumbles onto Gardenia and his girlfriend at the opera (but Gardenia also stumbles onto Cher's similar unfaithfulness to Aiello). But chance also causes misunderstandings: Fyodor Chaliapin stumbles on Dukakis walking with John Mahoney and thinks that she is having an affair.There are lovely little moments in the film too. Cher's observation about flowers leading to receiving one. Her hearing the argument in the liquor shop and it's resolution. But best is the sequence of Louis Guss and Julie Bovasso as Cher's uncle and aunt Raymond and Rita Cappomaggi and Rita's charming and kind comment to Raymond about the effect of the moonlight on him. It is the sweetest moment of the entire film.It is close to a flawless film. After seeing it over a dozen times in as many years I can only find two points that do not seem as smooth as they should be. When Cher is at Cage's bakery, his assistant Chrissy (Nada Despotovich) mentions how she is secretly in love with Cage, but has been afraid to tell him. Earlier she was slightly snippy towards Cher, who put her in her place quickly. Yet nothing seems done with this potential rivalry. At the same time, the fact that Cher forgets to deposit her uncle and aunt's daily business profits is brought in momentarily in the concluding seven minutes of the film - but just as quickly dropped. Was there supposed to be some plot lines that were dropped, besides one about Cher and Vincent Gardenia working at a homeless man's shelter as penance? It is a small annoyance, but I think it is just based on a desire to see more of this film because it is so very good.$LABEL$ 1
+One has to wonder if at any point in the production of this film ascript existed that made any sense. Was the rough cut 3 hourslong and was it trimmed into the incoherent mess that survives? Why would anyone finance this mess? I will say that TomWlaschiha is a good looking young man and he does what he canwith the dialogue and dramatic (?) situations he is given. Butcharacters come and go for no apparent reason, continuity isnon-existent, and the acting, cinematography, and direction are (toput it politely) amateurish. Not One Sleeps is an unfortunatechoice of title as it will probably prove untrue should anyoneactually attempt to actually watch this film.$LABEL$ 0
+This time around, Blackadder is no longer royal(or even particularly close to being any such thing)... instead, rather a butler to the Prince Regent, portrayed by Hugh Laurie(who replaces Tim McInnerny, who presence is sorely missed, and that hole is never filled... his character had an innocent charm... while he was a bumbling and complete moron, we can't help but care for him, which isn't at all true of his replacement) as being intolerably daft(which he apparently was, according to the Trivia page), not to mention loud-mouthed and utterly non-threatening. Edmund can now do just about what he pleases, and does so. Why is he so frustrated and angry(honestly, it gets depressing at times)? Yes, his master is a buffoon, they always are. He doesn't seem to lack money, nor is he in any danger. In the second series, the Queen was mischievous and childish, and would cut off someone's head - or marry them - on a whim. Here there is simply never enough at stake for any of the conflict to be exciting and interesting. There is still commentary and even a little satire. Too often, it seems as if they thought that the history was funny enough on its own, so they merely restate it, not bothering to actually turn the facts into jokes or gags. And I can't tell you how many of them I figured out before they were done, literally more than a minute away. It's not usually a positive when you know the punchline before it is delivered. Baldrick doesn't change from last season... he's still rather pathetic and stupid, leading to "silly" humor. Frankly, the amount goes through the roof. Don't get me started on the gross-out stuff. The sarcastic, verbal wit can still be great, though much less of it is than before. I'd say about half of the episodes were rather amusing and downright funny, while the other three didn't really get me into them at all. I was disappointed in how predictable some of the plots and developments thereof were... I could see many of such coming a mile away. Some of the material tries way too hard to be funny and winds up coming across as incredibly forced. This continues with the tradition started by "II" of letting the plans work out occasionally. The theme is the worst of the bunch, the credits sequences the least creative. All in all, this is, by far, my least favorite of the four. I recommend it to fans of the franchise and of British comedy in general. 7/10$LABEL$ 1
+An awful B movie at best with video quality similar to Dead Alive. I challenge anyone who is a "Aliens (James Cameron 1986)" Movie fan to count how many times either lines or almost entire sequences were ripped off from the first two Alien movies to make this classic piece of garbage.Cast members such as R. Lee Ermey and Ray Wise were the only two actors with any talent and the lead "Jack Scalia" was really absolutely horrible. I think they cast him for his massive cleft chin. I was also annoyed with the stereotyping of the only black male on the set John Toles-Bey who must look at this movie and just wonder. Look him up sometime as he has done a lot of interesting movies.But on this movie: The script as I said earlier was a rip-off of Aliens tweaked and turned into a submarine "thriller". It included such lines as "I got a bad feeling about this" and "Kill me" as one crew member is infected by one of the mutants and his belly starts doing the "alien hop" just before it pops out of his stomach. There is also a rip-off of the classic "get some!" via Bill Paxton. We also have a bunch of navy grunts running through caves with creepy crawlies popping out of walls. Even the explosions of the mutated creatures is very similar to the popping of aliens as they charge marines in the movie "Aliens". And the kicker is that some of the mutants spit acid (as opposed to having acid for blood). There are many more major examples. So if you want to see this script done well watch the first two classics Alien and Aliens (With Sigourney Weaver). You'll have a more enjoyable time.The plot could have been interesting and done better if not for confusing sequences in the start of the movie and generally poor editing. Camera shots were pretty dull and honestly it wasn't very hard to stop watching it and walk around the room to get a snack or check email. Many of the interactions between characters made little or no sense and went nowhere more often than not. The whole command structure between crew and Capt. was poorly done. I'm not even sure if there are Captains in the military that have full control over nuclear subs. In general this just shows that there was little research done for background information to make the movie seem at least a little respectable and there are many other similar examples (like dive depth etc..).If you like horrible movies or are a big fan of Alien and Aliens and want something to just laugh and shake your head at then this movie may be for you. As for me this one is going back on the shelf...permanently.$LABEL$ 0
+Now this is what I'd call a good horror. With occult/supernatural undertones, this nice low-budget French movie caught my attention from the very first scene. This proves you don't need wild FX or lots of gore to make an effective horror movie.The plot revolves around 4 cellmates in a prison, and each of these characters (and their motives) become gradually more interesting, as the movie builds up tension to the finale. Most of the action we see through the eyes of Carrere, who has just entered prison and has to get used to living with these 3 other inmates.I won't say much because this movie really deserves to be more widely seen. There a few flaws though: the FX are not that good, but they're used effectively; the plot leaves some mysteries open; and things get very confusing towards the end, but Malefique redeems itself by the time it's over.I thought his was a very good movie, 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+This is a voice of a person, who just finished watching the second season of Rome, almost at one go, and grabbed the opportunity to see "what happened next" - this film conveniently takes off where Rome ends. If you find Rome an abomination, a foul mouthed screw-fest of little historical accuracy, then you might enjoy Imperium: Augustus. But, if you feel Rome is a good thing, if you enjoy the complicated intrigue, the ambiance of decadence and the work of the actors, then Imperium will obviously appear to you as an overly timid, superfluous and tedious soap opera with not many redeeming factors.There are some actors who for my taste look somewhat better than these in Rome. I especially disliked Rome's image of Cleopatra as a drug-soaked sex addict. There must have been a great deal of strength and dignity in that woman, and the actress in Imperium suits the part much better. O'Toole and Rampling are good, and so are some others. But then... If you have come to know - and love - Atia as the super cool bitch, you'll find the depiction of her in Imperium - as a tear-jerking mother goose in an apron - absolutely ridiculous. There are supposed to be some bitchy characters in Imperium, but these actresses rely heavily upon staring at the men and nothing much more. You'll find no interesting female characters in this epic. There's also the painfully comic Maecenas, whom we see as a screeching drag queen, even though there is little historical evidence that he was such (he's once referred to as "being effeminate in his pleasures" in the annals).The interiors are rather meager and rely on clichés upon clichés. Cleopatra's big hall looks like something out of a computer game or a children's play room in an Egyptian theme park. There's a looooooooot of really poor 3D graphics, not up to 2003 standards.The action is presented as a series of flashbacks the aged Augustus is reliving. So we get a quick look at some historical events, some of which are presented well, whereas some are not. An disproportional amount of time is wasted to show Livia as the "eternal flame" of Augustus. This affair doesn't sizzle for even a moment, the dialog is superlame and everything is seasoned with tacky tear-inducing musical score. Whatever amount of reality the show aims to capture, every last shred of it is destroyed by the dry synchronized dubbing (most of the actors are non English speakers).Everything is lukewarm in this epic. True, there are more historical accuracies than in Rome, but dramatically speaking, it's plain boring. The characters lack depth and the dialog sharpness. Camera-work is often reduced to static shots, and lighting offers nothing to please your eye.There's really no-one to love and no-one to hate in Imperium. Regardless of whether you liked or disliked Rome, there are much better films and miniseries around. Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire would be one thing I recommend.$LABEL$ 0
+This review is dedicated to the late Keith Moon and John Entwistle.The Original Drum and Bass.There seems to be very little early Who footage around these days, if there is more then lets be 'aving it, now-a-days it tends to be of a very different kind of Who altogether, a parody, a shadow of their (much) better years. To be fair, not one of them has to prove anything to anyone anymore, they've earned their respect and with overtime.This concert footage for me is one of their best. To command an audience of around a 400,000 plus strong crowed takes skill, charisma, wit and a whole lot of bloody good music.We all know of the other acts on the bill, The Doors (their last ever show weeks before Jim Morrison died), Moody Blues, Hendrix, Taste, Free and many more. The point being that whoever were there it was The Who that the majority had come to see. This show was one year after the Great Hippie Fest of the 1960's; Woodstock. The film and record had come out and so had The Who's greatest work to date, Tommy. The ever hungry crowd wanted a taste, to be able to experience their own unique event, to be able to "Grove and Love" in the knowledge that this gig was their own. To do this you needed the best of what Rock 'n Roll had to throw at the hungrily baited crowd.At two 'o clock in the morning in late August 1970 the M.C. announces, "Ladies and Gentlemen, a small Rock 'n Roll band from Shepherds Bush London, the 'OO".John Entwistle's body suit is of black leather, on the front is the out line of a human skeleton from neck to toe, Roger dressed in his traditional stage outfit of long tassel's and long flowing hair, Keith in a white t-shirt and jeans, as Pete had his white boiler suit and Doc Martins that he'd preferred to wear.The Who never stopped their onslaught of High Energy Rock for over two hours, performing theirs and other artists' greatest tracks such as Young Man Blues, Shaking' all Over, and then as on queue, Keith baiting the crowed to "Shut up, it's a bleeding Opera" with Tommy, the Rock Opera. The crowed went wild. This is what they had come to hear, and the Who didn't disappoint, straight into Overture and never coming up for air until the final note of "Tommy can you Hear me?" Amazing.To capture a show of this magnitude of a band of this stature at their peak at a Festival that was to be the last of its kind anywhere in the World was a fantastic piece of Cinematic History.The English DVD only comes in a soundtrack of English/Linear PCM Stereo, were as in the States, I think, you can get it with 5.1 at least, "Check local press for details…" on that, okay.The duration of the DVD is 85 minutes with no extras, which is a disappointment. Yes, for a slice of Rock and Festival History this DVD would send you in a nostalgia trip down memory lane the moment you press play, for some of the best Who concert footage as it was meant to be, Live, Raw and in your Face!I would have given this DVD ten if it wasn't for the lack of 5.1, and some extras would have been nice.Thanks Roger, Pete, John and Keith.$LABEL$ 1
+This film has some pretty gorey parts like a boob getting bit off and a other big bites. Castle Freak himself is a good monster. I would be scared to pieces if he was coming after me. However, the movie had some dumb parts about it.A husband goes drunk driving and kills his 3 year old son and blinds his teenage daughter. I suppose death is a greater damage than blindness, but you'd never know that the parents actually feel bad about their daughter being blind. All they care about is that "J.J.'s dead!" While their teenage daughter walks around running into things and talking about how she'll never be able to drive a car. The parents are like - "honey, stop walking around without a guide, you know better than that," and then they cry and don't ever stop being depressed because JJ's dead. Sounds like favortism to me. The lines of dialogue are not very realistic or well done. For example, when a giant crash is heard in the castle, everybody runs down into the basement to see what it was. It was a huge mirror that crashed to the ground and shattered. The husband runs to the broken mirror in horror and plainly says, "The mirror broke." I don't know, I would say a little more than that if a giant mirror mysteriously crashed to the ground in my castle. The husband and wife have some major relationship problems and it's funny to watch how dumb they are with each other. No one ever believes the blind girl. Advice: If a blind girl says she hears things, believe her and don't tell her to shut up. I think this is the moral of the story. Listen to people when they tell you things or else you might end up killing yourself to prove your point. Lastly, I thought the best character was the main police officer. He was the best actor and character. Everyone else (besides Castle Freak) was pretty run of the mill. 3/10$LABEL$ 0
+From the first scene, I was really excited. "I can tell this is going to be awesome!" I thought. The acting was so good, I felt as though I was eaves-dropping on these peoples' lives. The music too was exquisitely unsettling. The plot started with a sudden event and then drifted forward (one could sense) toward some irrevocable fate. The build was slow, but I personally love that kind of thing, as long as the quiet tension stays on track and doesn't get derailed before it's ready to pay off.So everything's going fine, and then the fireworks begin, and before you know it, the credits are rolling. "WHAT?!!!" was all I and my movie-night companion could say. If you understand the director's intentions, the blunt ending does make sense (for those of you who have seen the movie already, check out the very fascinating and hilarious interview with Larry Fessenden at filmcritic.com), but I can't help saying it was not pulled off quite right.This probably could have been resolved with as little as ten more minutes of material before the climax. In any case, it's too bad. Those ten minutes could have made all the difference in the world. (But for those of you who don't write or make films, you should know that crafting a story arc with the proper timing is a HUGE pain in the butt, and I am certainly not making this critique from any kind of pedestal!)Wendigo feels to me like a masterpiece that was given up on before it was finished. But hay, I'd take a blunted masterpiece any day over an over-produced piece of dog-poo over-compensated with too many digital effects (like most horror movies these days).One other comment. Some of the monster scenes left me confused as to whether I should be scared or laughing. I don't know how to explain it, but there was a distinctively Monty Python feel about this monster in his more blatent "monster" forms. Although this may sound like a terrible criticism for a horror movie--I don't know, it still worked for me in some crooked way. I will never look at deer antlers in the same way again! :)$LABEL$ 1
+What if a platoon of G.I.'s from the Japanese army were to be send back in time 400 years right in the middle of the feudal wars that led to the formation of the Tokugawa Shogunate? Great pitch right? The movie does exactly what it says on the tin.Thankfully the writers didn't bother to explain the, usually ridiculous in sci-fi movies, scientific mumbo jumbo of time transport. No how's or why's. They just did. However the time transport sequence itself is trippy as hell and quite beautiful, if not a bit dated. Not as silly as one would imagine.The rest of the movie follows the premise to a T. But while it loses a bit of steam with the various subplots that follow the G.I.s arrival to medieval Japan, it picks up with a devastating battle sequence. Undoubtedly it's the main order of the day. The whole concept and by extension the movie itself, was probably originated from this simple pitch: what if G.I.'s equipped with the latest in modern warfare were to fight samurais? And boy does it deliver.The main battle sequence that spans more than half an hour is probably one of THE best of its kind in 70's action/war movies. Not only is it relentless and exhausting in pace and length, it's also a terrific mish-mash of styles and techniques that only unique premises like G.I. Samurai can deliver. I mean, where else would you get the chance to feature tanks, ninjas complete with shuriikens, a helicopter and samurais in the same shot? The G.I. platoon led by lieutenant Iba tears literally through hundreds of extras, gunning them down with machine guns, mortars, grenades and tanks.This mish-mash of styles is with one foot firmly rooted in the sprawling jidai-geki epic of Kurosawa's Kagemusha or Hiroshi Inagaki's Samurai Banners, while the other is in western action and war movies. There are stylistic touches (like the wonderful slow-motion shots and bloody violence) that bring Sam Peckinpah or Enzo G. Castellari circa Keoma to mind. Japanese cinema has always been influenced by westerns and other Hollywood works and vice versa, and G.I. Samurai effortlessly turns this east-meets-west melting pot into an exciting film.The film-makers thankfully take the whole thing seriously and the movie benefits immensely from it. Not that tongue-in-cheek mentality is completely absent, it's just that it doesn't try to pander to so-bad-it's-good audiences that enjoy laughing at their movies. The budget was probably hefty, as it is evident in the hundreds of extras, elaborate costumes (very decent for a production that is not a traditional jidai-geki) and special effects. The camera-work and editing are all top notch, almost better than a movie with no higher artistic ambitions deserves.It's not withouts its flaws either of course. There are many "song" scenes, where all sorts of 70's Japanese rock, disco and country songs play over montages (there's a bonding scene, a love-interest scene, a "war is hell" scene etc). The songs themselves are pretty lame and corny and detract from the whole thing. Although it clocks at a whooping 140 minutes, it flies like a bullet for the most part. Still some scenes, flashbacks and subplots in the first half could have been clipped for a tighter effect.The cast also deserves a mention, featuring such prominent names as Sonny Chiba, Isao Natsuyagi (Goyokin, Samurai Wolf), Tsunehiko Watase (The Yakuza Papers) and Hiroyuki Sanada, all of them hitting the right notes.$LABEL$ 1
+Manipulative drama about a glamorous model (Margaux Hemingway) who is raped by a geeky but unbalanced musician (Chris Sarandon) – to whom she had been introduced by her younger sister (played by real-life sibling Mariel), whose music teacher he is. While the central courtroom action holds the attention – thanks largely to a commanding performance by Anne Bancroft as Hemingway’s lawyer – the film is too often merely glossy, but also dramatically unconvincing: the jury ostensibly takes the musician’s side because a) the girl invited assault due to the sensuous nature of her profession and b) she was offering no resistance to her presumed aggressor when her sister arrived at the apartment and inadvertently saw the couple in bed together. What the f***?!; she was clearly tied up – what resistance could she realistically offer? The second half of the film – involving Sarandon’s rape of the sister, which curiously anticipates IRREVERSIBLE (2002) by occurring in a tunnel – is rather contrived: Mariel’s character should have known better than to trust Sarandon after what he did to her sister, but Margaux herself foolishly reprises the line of work which had indirectly led to her humiliating experience almost immediately! The climax – in which Sarandon gets his just desserts, with Margaux turning suddenly into a fearless and resourceful vigilante – is, however, a crowd-pleaser in the style of DEATH WISH (1974); incidentally, ubiquitous Italian movie mogul Dino De Laurentiis was behind both films.It’s worth noting how the two Hemingway sisters’ lives took wildly different turns (this was the film debut of both): Margaux’s career never took off (despite her undeniable good looks and commendable participation here) – while Mariel would soon receive an Oscar nomination for Woody Allen’s MANHATTAN (1979) and, interestingly, would herself play a glamorous victim of raging violence when essaying the role of real-life “Playboy” centerfold Dorothy Stratten in Bob Fosse’s STAR 80 (1983). With the added pressure of a couple of failed marriages, Margaux took refuge in alcohol and would eventually die of a drug overdose in 1996; chillingly, the Hemingway family had a history of suicides – notably the sisters’ grandfather, celebrated author Ernest, who died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in 1961.$LABEL$ 0
+This all-but-ignored masterpiece is about the Monkees becoming aware that they are fictional characters in a movie (Head), and that everything they do or say had already been written in an (unseen) script they seem to be following. Head was written by Jack Nicholson, Rafelson, and Peter Tork during a three-day LSD trip in a suite at an expensive Hollywood hotel. The other three Monkees only acted in it.They fight this every way they can by doing things not in the script. They deliberately flub their lines, walk off sets, tear up scenery, punch other actors for no reason; and ultimately, commit suicide by jumping off a bridge. For instance, in the rapid flashes of a psychedelic party scene, if you watch frame-by-frame, you can see Rafelson sitting next to the camera and cameraman, very deliberately shooting into a mirror. He is revealing that the party is actually fake and is being shot in a studio with actors who suddenly drop out of character and walk away in the middle of a conversation when the Director yells "cut!"The Monkees, however, never drop out of character because those characters are also who they really are. That ends up being the core of the Revelation soon to come.At every turn, they realize their increasingly-bizarre actions were exactly what they were supposed to do in the scripted film they can't escape being in. You say they went crazy and walked through the sky (which turns out to be painted on paper and hung from the ceiling as the set's background)? No problem! Hey, hey, they're the Monkees, and those wacky guys just keep monkeying around! In the end, even their deaths did not set them free. That was how the movie was supposed to end, and their motionless, waterlogged bodies are fished out of the river, put in another box, and stacked in a film studio warehouse until the characters are needed again for another studio production.This is made all the more poignant by the fact that the Monkees really ARE fictional characters who forced themselves into the real world. They did it through the power of their music.Ironically, near the end, Peter Tork has what he rightly sees as a hugely profound revelation that solves their problem, but unfortunately, no one listens. Peter realizes: "It doesn't MATTER if we're in the box (the film)". He means that it doesn't matter if will is free or illusory, and that "the only important thing is that you just let the present moment occur and occur... You need to just let 'now' HAPPEN, as it happens", without analyzing or evaluating or judging whether the experience is "valid" by some abstract definition.When you can't even tell the difference, will being free or not doesn't matter--tying to figure out if you are the "real" you is just a pointless waste of time.I saw this film at a very important time in my life. I was trying to figure out how to escape being just "that geeky, creepy nerd girl" by thinking about it intensely instead of just having fun (i.e., sex) like everyone else did. But the revelation in Head broke my self-imposed recursive trap and helped me more than Rafelson or Nicholson or Tork will ever know.For decades, I've watched "Head" and wished I could thank Pete.Was this a good movie?Uhh, how about, like...==< YES >==$LABEL$ 1
+I thought the movie was a poor documentary. Nothing of substance was discussed. It seemed to cheapen the ideas and did not provide anything new. The film lacked wonder or romance or anything that would really drive one to science. Most scientists appeared "stereotyped" and sometimes weird. A woman said that her awards didn't matter a whole lot, only children that were helped. She said that after a 10 minute scene where she explained all her awards. Playing "humble scientist", are we? "I have equations dancing in my head," another said. I don't see how that explains anything to us. It hasn't covered significant effects of science on our culture. Politics of science were barely touched.Not a bad flick for a 10-14 year-olds. Other than that, I felt it was boring and unrevealing.4/10$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is yet another in the long line of no budget, no effort, no talent movies shot on video and given a slick cover to dupe unsuspecting renters at the video store.If you want to know what watching this movie is like, grab a video camera and some red food dye and film yourself and your friends wandering around the neighborhood at night growling and "attacking" people. Congratulations, you've just made "Hood of the Living Dead"! Now see if a distribution company will buy it from you.I have seen some low budget, shot on video films that displayed talent from the filmmakers and actors or at the very least effort, but this has neither. Avoid unless you are a true masochist or are amused by poorly made horror movies.$LABEL$ 0
+Don't bother trying to watch this terrible mini series. It is a six hour bore, an unbelievable love triangle between three people who have absolutely no chemistry for each other. There is no heat in this story, no real passion, no real romance. It is a dry, boring, drawn out, and uninspired as they come. And it doesn't even meet the expected level of technical proficiency. Take those six hours of your life and use them for something more worthwhile.$LABEL$ 0
+There is a bit of a spoiler below, which could ruin the surprise of the ONE unexpected and truly funny scene in this film. There is also information about the first film in this series.I caught this film on DVD, which someone gave as a gift to my roommate. It came as a set together with the first film in the "Blind Dead" series.This movie was certainly much worse than the first, "La Noche del Terror Ciego". In addition, many of the features of the first movie were changed significantly. To boot, the movie was dubbed in English (the first was subtitled), which I tend to find distracting.The concept behind the series is that in the distant past a local branch of the Knights Templar was involved in heinous and secret rituals. Upon discovery of these crimes, the local peasantry put the Templars to death in such a manner that their eyes can no longer be used, thus preventing them from returning from Hell to exact their revenge. We then jump to modern times where because of some event, the Templars arise from the dead to exact their revenge upon the villagers whose ancestors messed them up in the first place. Of course, since the undead knights have no eyes, they can only find their victims when they make some sort of noise.The Templars were a secretive order, from about the 12th century, coming out of the Crusades. They were only around for about 150 years, before they were suppressed in the early 1300s by the Pope and others. Because they were secretive, there were always rumors about their ceremonies, particularly for initiation. Also, because of the way the society was organized, you didn't necessarily have church officials overseeing things, which meant they didn't have an inside man when things heated up. And, because of the nature of their trials, they were tortured into confessions. The order was strongest in France, but did exist in Portugal and Spain, where the movies take place.Where the first movie had a virgin sacrifice and knights drinking the blood directly from the body of the virgin (breast shots here, of course, this is a horror film after all), and then, once the knights come back to life, they attack their victims by eating them alive and sucking their blood; in this sequel, this all disappears. You still have the same scene (redone, not the same footage) of them sacrificing the virgin, but they drain the blood into a bowl and drink it from that. Thus, when they come back, they just hack people up with their swords or claw people to death, which I have to say is a much less effective means of disturbing your audience. There's also a time problem: in the first film the dating is much closer to the Templars, where here they are now saying it is the 500 anniversary of the peasants burning these guys at the stake, which would date it around 1473. And the way that the Templars lose their eyes is much less interesting as well. In the first, they have them pecked out by crows. Now they are simply burned out, and in quite a ridiculous manner.Oh yeah, and maybe it was just me, but there seemed to be a lot of people from the first movie reappearing in this film (despite having died). Not really a problem, since the movie is completely different and not a sequel in the sense of a continuation, but odd none-the-less.The highlight of this movie is the rich fellow who uses a child to distract the undead while he makes a break for the jeep. The child's father had already been suckered by this rich man into making an attempt to get the jeep, so he walks out and tells her to find her father. It comes somewhat out of the blue, and is easily the funniest scene in the film. Of course, why the child doesn't die at this point is beyond me, and disappointed for horror fans.I couldn't possibly recommend this film to anyone. It isn't so bad that it becomes funny, so it just ends up being a mediocre horror film. The bulk of the film has several people holed up in a church, each making various attempts to go it alone in order to escape the blind dead who have them surrounded. When the film ends, you are not surprised at the outcome at all; in fact, quite disappointed. If you are into the novelty of seeing a Spanish horror film, see the first movie, which at least has some innovative ideas and not so expected outcomes.$LABEL$ 0
+The film had many fundamental values of family and love. It expressed human emotion and was an inspiring story. The script was clear( it was very easy to understand making it perfect for children)and was enjoyable and humorous at times. There were a few charged symbols to look for. The cinematography was acceptable. There was no sense of experimentation that a lot of cinematographers have been doing today(which quiet frankly is getting a little warn out). It was plainly filmed but had a nice soft quality to it. Although editing could have been done better I thought it was a nice movie for a family to enjoy. And the organization of information was just thrown at you which was something I didn't like either but in all it was a good movie.$LABEL$ 1
+An ear-splitting movie, a quasi-old-fashioned screwball romp designed to showcase singing star Madonna's comedic attributes. She does indeed go far out on the proverbial limb here playing a beyond-vivacious parolee attempting to prove she was framed for murder (a body was found in the trunk of her car after she ran a red light...big laughs). After an energetic animated credits sequence--which is much more fun than the rest of the picture--we have nothing to look at but Madonna's black mascara and red lips set off by her platinum hair and pale complexion. What else is there? Griffin Dunne seems defeated playing Maddy's keeper, while the poor-choice supporting cast struggles to get laughs with lousy dialogue. It's an unfortunate set-back to the talents of director James Foley, who unwisely allows his star to run rampant in the spirit of the nutty slapstick films from the 1930s (but even Katharine Hepburn in "Bringing Up Baby" had a human side). Wretched. * from ****$LABEL$ 0
+A Murder investigation goes on back stage while The Vanities, on its opening night, plays on to an unknowing audience. Odd combination of musical and murder mystery is worth a look for its cast, its production numbers, and the sheer novelty of the film.Gertrude Michael has the showy role of a bitchy actress intent on stopping the marriage between the show's stars, Kitty Carlisle and Carl Brisson, as well as starring in the infamous "Sweet Marijuana" number (which was also on a 70s Bette Midler album). So while the chorus girls shuffle around backstage, bumbling detective Victor McLaglen ogles the girls while he tries to solve the backstage murder of an unknown woman.We quickly learn that the maid (Dorothy Stickney) loves Brisson from afar, that the wardrobe lady (Jessie Ralph) is Brisson's mother, and that the stage manager (Jack Oakie) butts into everything. Lots of plots twists among the musical numbers. The show's best-known song is "Cocktails for Two." Kitty Carlisle also sings the haunting "Where Do They Come From?" And there's a weird rhapsody that erupts into a Harlem specialty number featuring Duke Ellington! Quite the cast.Some terrific acting here, especially Gertrude Michael and Dorothy Stickney. Kitty Carlisle is quite good as well. Brisson is a total zero though.Charles Middleton plays Homer, Toby Wing plays Nancy, Donald Meek plays the doctor, and also see if you can spot Ann Sheridan and Lucille Ball among the show girls.$LABEL$ 1
+Daft potboilers don't come much dafter than this, but it's a Douglas Sirk movie which makes everything alright. Except in this case it doesn't. Based on a sanctimonious novel by the sanctimonious Lloyd C Douglas, (he wrote "The Robe"), and already filmed in 1935 with Irene Dunne and Robert Taylor, it's got more uplift than a cantilever bra.Rock Hudson is the arrogant playboy who not only feels responsible for making Jane Wyman a widow but later is directly responsible for the accident in which she loses her sight. To make amends he takes up medicine, becomes a great eye surgeon and restores it. (No, it sin't quite that daft; he had planned to become a doctor before becoming an arrogant playboy). In between times, they fall in love.Try as I might I can't quite find the redeeming social commentary and critique of American mores that are supposed to lie just below the surface of Sirk's films, (this one isn't too deep). On the plus side Rock Hudson isn't half bad, (I think I am rediscovering him), and, of course, it looks great, (in Sirk's films people live in rooms the size of cathedrals). Nothing in this film matches the best of his later work and even in soap-opera terms this is definitely daytime TV.$LABEL$ 0
+If you don't mind having your emotions toyed with, then you won't mind this movie. On the other hand, if you enjoy British crime mysteries, following clues and seeing how they all logically fall into place at the end, you'll be very disappointed.Here are some of the logical inconsistencies that lead to that disappointment: * While the police utilize the CCTV cameras early on to gather clues about the mystery, the huge truck that stopped and blocked the children's view just before her disappearance doesn't get caught on camera. This is a critical piece of the mystery. It's inconsistent to have the car the children were in caught on camera and not the big truck that is so critical to the mystery.* The movie goes to great lengths to show the sophistication of the equipment in tracking down the children's movements but misses the opportunity to utilize the same sophisticated equipment is tracking down vehicles that may have entered the crime scene from camera-visible locations adjacent to the crime scene as part of developing clues.* In England, driving is on the left. The director goes out of his way to have the car at the crime scene park on the right, several meters away from the flower kiosk, when it could have easily parked immediately behind, or even on the side; as the huge truck did.* The police forensics team is so meticulous as to find a discarded cell phone in a sewer drain several miles from the scene of the crime, but can't find any blood evidence from the head injury right at the crime scene, even though they secured the scene just hours after the disappearance and with no intervening rainfall.* Search dogs were not used at all to find the missing children; this from the country that is well known for developing the hound dog for search and hunting.* It is illogical that such a highly publicized news story would not turn up the presumably innocent truck driver that stopped at the flower kiosk.* It is illogical that the mother would go to such extremes and expend so much effort to leave carpet fiber clues under her fingernails for her eventual murder investigators –even coaxing her daughter to do the same-- while she simply could not have crawled out of the unguarded mobile home. If she had enough sense about her to ask her daughter to get carpet fibers under her nails, she could of just as easily asked her daughter to call out for help or even leave the mobile home that was in a crowded residential park.* The suspect that abducted the little girl was portrayed as mentally slow/dimwitted --justifying his unknowingly drowning of the mother— but, he was smart enough not to cooperate with the police and also fully exercise his rights not to self-incriminate.There are more inconsistencies like this that will lead to a true sleuth aficionado's disappointment. 'Five Days' is a very weak British crime story.$LABEL$ 0
+What is this!! its so bad. The animation looks so terrible , it looks like a ps1 type game. The actors are awful, they just cannot act to save their lives. I sat through all of this film an then at the end I was annoyed when I realised I had wasted 3 hours of my life. I've not heard of this film, did it ever actually come out in the cinema or did it go straight to DVD? A girl got shot?! What is up with that, it was just a stupid film. They totally copied 'The Day After Tomorrow'. Its got to be one of the worst films i have ever seen. I would definitely recommend to people to not waste their time with this. You could spend your time watching 'The Day After Tomorrow', its a lot better. Well thats what I think of the film. Actually why have I wasted my time writing about it, ah dam!! Its really annoying me, its wasted 3 hours and 10 minutes now.$LABEL$ 0
+Redundant, but again the case. If you enjoy the former SNL comedian and his antics (in this case, Schneider), then you should go. Basic comedy….man's life is saved by having various animal organs transplanted into him. Unfortunately, he takes on each animal's characteristics. Former Survivor Colleen looks pretty good here, now that she doesn't have open sores on her legs, and a little makeup on her face! D$LABEL$ 0
+For only doing a few movies with his life the Late Great Chris Farley. Farley died at the end of 1997 and will be missed mostly by his co actor in Tommy Boy, David Spade. From the lame Police Academy 4 Spade really has done good with his career in films. Tommy Boy is a classic and we will always remember Chris Farley when we watch it. From appearing on Saturday NIGHT LIVE to doing Tommy Boy, Black Sheep, Beverley Hills Ninja, Almost Heroes, Billy Madison, and Dirty Work. I think Chris Farley had a short and successful career. Tommy Boy was his best in my case and I would watch over and over again and laugh at the same part each time. Thank you Chris Farley.$LABEL$ 1
+Tashan - the title itself explains the nature of the movie.This type of movies are actually made for flop. What a shame that Yash Raj Films produces such movies those are worthless than C-grade movies. Or even some C-grade movies have better and pleasing story than Tashan. The much hyped and over-confidently promoted Tashan poorly bombed at the box-office which it certainly deserved.In my view, this is the worst movie ever made from honourable Yash Raj Films' banner. How come they handled such a heavy project to new Vijay Krishna Acharya who has no actual sense of making action flick? He tried to imitate Sanjay Gadhvi's ways of making like Dhoom but he suffered at last. The action scenes are more like than comics or cartoon movies made for exhausting the audiences.The story also loses in its meaning and substances to tenderly win the audiences' hearts. In most scenes Anil Kapoor reminds me of southern Tamil star Rajnikant in his body languages and wordly expressions. I am not a fan of neither Saif nor Akshay, but the award of Kareena should have finally gone to Saif''s hand instead of Akshay. Just from the starting point I expected of it, but at the end it displeased me with the climax truth. Saif is the main behind the whole adventure, while Akshay joins in the midst. In any movie, the final should be judged with the whole characters of the entire story and the award or say reward should be given to the one who deserves credit. And Tashan loses in this way, and unexpectedly failed to become a hit.Akshay's has nothing new to show off his comedian talent here but still reminds of his previous movies. He seriously need to form a new image to his fans that would impress them again and again. In between Saif did a great job in Race, and now he returned again in his hilarious nature through this movie. But he has fully developed himself in the acting field. And last but not the least about Kareena. She looks really hot with bikini dress of which some complain as she became too lean. But I myself don't think so, instead she became slim. Yes slim!!! it is a good factor for a female to attract the major people (or say, male). Beside them it is nice that Saif's son Ibrahim appears in the beginning & last as young Saif. I hope now he too will lean forward in target of making acting as his career.Those who like this Tashan they are either mentally immatured or still want to go back to childhood, or say want to be admitted in an asylum. Thumbs down to debutante director Vijay Krishna Acharya who mishandled the project offered by Yash Raj Films. In future he should experiment and study the script minimum of 5 years before going into practical directions.Sorry, I don't like to rate good stars to this type of junk movies.$LABEL$ 0
+I was so happy to learn that Hari Om will finally be theatrically released in 2007. I saw this film three years ago at the Vancouver International film Festival and have been waiting for it's release ever since so I could send everyone I know to see it. It's like taking a trip to India....colorful, magical, thought provoking. Aside from one rather strange Hollywood style auto rickshaw chase scene this movie is very realistic. This is not a Bollywood style song and dance movie but it does have drama and romance and humor. The interactions between the Indian taxi driver and the french tourist are a good reflection on the fundamental differences between Eastern and Western life styles and philosophy. The characters are a little broadly drawn but the acting was very good. Visually this movie is a treat as you really do get a sense of what driving through Rajasthan is like...dreamlike. Sometimes it's hard to believe everything you are seeing and experiencing is real...the movie has that same quality. Great soundtrack too!$LABEL$ 1
+I still can't believe that Wes Craven was responsible for this piece of crap.This movie is worse than "Deadly Friend".The plot is stupid,the acting is mediocre and the film is deadly dull.I don't know why Wes Craven hates his debut "Last House on the Left"-an absolute masterpiece of the genre and likes(probably)this turkey.Don't get me wrong,I really like some of his movies,but it was a real torture sitting and watching this.$LABEL$ 0
+I had my doubts about another love story wherein disabled individuals find meaning and redemption through honest communication. And it's still not at the top of my list. But the performances from Helena Bonham Carter and Kenneth Branagh and exemplary, almost stunning, and rescue this from being just another tear-jerker. Carter's depiction of an ALS victim is strong, perhaps even overdone at times (sometimes her dialog dissolves into undistinguishable mutterings). But the overall effect is commendable and rewarding. Branagh may be the perfect compliment to her performance.$LABEL$ 1
+I've been a Jennifer Connelly fan since Phenomena, and after I heard about seven minutes in heaven, I saw it as soon as I could. The movie is not only a comedy if you think a lot of these things most of us went through as kids and are currently going through not only was the movie terrific led by the phenomenal jennifer connelly it captivated my attention that this movie was terrifically written directed and acted out it was one good deal I loved it and have watched it again and again and for those of you who enjoy a good laugh or love jennifer connelly you to can not put off seeing this movie!!!!$LABEL$ 1
+Warning: Does contain spoilers.Open Your EyesIf you have not seen this film and plan on doing so, just stop reading here and take my word for it. You have to see this film. I have seen it four times so far and I still haven't made up my mind as to what exactly happened in the film. That is all I am going to say because if you have not seen this film, then stop reading right now.If you are still reading then I am going to pose some questions to you and maybe if anyone has any answers you can email me and let me know what you think.I remember my Grade 11 English teacher quite well. His name was Mr. Krisak. To me, he was wise beyond his years and he always had this circuitous way of teaching you things that perhaps you weren't all too keen on. If we didn't like Shakespeare, then he turned the story into a modern day romance with modern day language so we could understand it. Our class room was never a room, it was a cottage and we were on the lake reading a book at our own leisure time. This was his own indelible way of branding something into our sponge-like minds. I begin this review of Vanilla Sky with a description of this brilliant man because he once gave us an assignment that has been firmly etched in my mind, like the phone number of a long lost best friend, and it finally made some sense to me after watching The Matrix. Now if I didn't know better, I would have thought that the Wachowski brothers were really just an alias for my teacher Mr. Krisak. But giving them the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume it wasn't him. But that was the first time this assignment was anything more than impalpable. He had asked us to prove to him and to ourselves that were real. Show me how you can tell that you are real. This got the class spouting off all of the usual ideas that I'm sure you can imagine. Everything from pain, to sense of touch to sense of loss to sense of hunger were spouted off to our teacher to prove to him that we were real. After every scenario that we gave him, he would come back with the one answer that would leave us speechless."What if you are nothing but someone else's dream?"What if you were someone else's dream? What a messed up question that is. This was a question/scenario posed to us about 15 years ago, before the astronomical use of the Internet and rapid advancement of computers. How possible could it seem back then? But if you look at today's technology, now ask yourself, what it you were a part of someone else's dream.Another brilliant but surreal film this year, David Lynch's Mulholland Drive explored similar areas. But Vanilla Sky goes deeper than any other film could hope to. In short this is one film that will literally (if you let it) blow your mind from all of the possibilities that surround you.Open your Eyes.Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a young, hot shot, righteous, full of himself publisher and owner of several magazines. He inherited this from his father and although he has talent and business savvy, his board of governers, the Seven Dwarfs, think he is a rich dink born with a silver spoon in his mouth. They feel he has done nothing to deserve the pinnacle of success that each and every one of them believes should go to them. Early in the film we meet one of David's gorgeous toys named Julie Gianni, played with pernicious but bombastic perfection by Cameron Diaz. David and Julie play a good game, both claiming they are just there to use each other and are not the slightest bit interested in a monogamous, committed relationship. This is the type of relationship commensurate with David's other flings he's had in the sexual prime of his life. And although both talk a good game, we can tell that only one is really telling the truth. Next we meet Brian Shelby, played with a stroke of genius by Kevin Smith's good buddy Jason Lee. Brian is writing a book that David is going to publish but they are also very good friends. This is something that David has very little of in his life and you can sense a real caring for one another early on in the film. Brian has one famous line that he keeps telling David over and over again. And that is " the sweet ain't so sweet without the bitter." He goes on to tell him that one day he will find true love and not just this part time lover status that he seems to perpetrate with all of the floozies who inhabit his bed for a night or two.At David's huge birthday bash, (so huge that the likes of Steven Spielberg wish him a happy birthday) Brian enters with his date, Sofia Sorrano, played of course by Penelope Cruz with what has to be the best performance of this year by an actress. This is a bash by invite only and at first David and Sofia seem intrigued with one another. And in typical David fashion, despite his best friend being there, he begins to flirt with Sofia. To complicate things, Julie shows up uninvited and begins spying on David. David then spends the night with Sofia, but they only talk and draw caricatures of one another. There is no hanky panky. The next day, as David is leaving Sofia's apartment, he is greeted by Julie, who offers him a ride and from there.......well, I think we have all seen the commercials.That is all I will really say about the plot, because from here the film teases us with what is reality and what is blurred perception. We are introduced to a character played by Kurt Russel and a few other shady characters that all play a part in this labyrinth like haze. There is a subtext of death and possible panacea-like cure-alls that may or not be able to create the possibility of eternal life. This is just one of the intriguing possibilities the movie offers us, but it doesn't end there.Like many movies seem to thrive on today, this film has a secret. Sixth Sense may have began this craze, but look even further back and you can maybe thank Angel Heart for starting the craze. Regardless of how it originated, Vanilla Sky has one of it's own surreptitious gut busters. And what makes this one so much fun is that the film gives you many obvious clues along the way but not enough to give you an apodictic solution to the gauntlet of truth and lies you have just put yourself through. I have seen this film four times and every time it has been because I want to see if there is something more I can pick up, something more I can understand. To be able to work your mind in the theater, to enable it to open up to new possibilities is something rare in a film. All of the ersatz so called "Best Pictures of the year" have been good but nothing spectacular. They lack substance. A Beautiful Mind was intriguing but flat, The Royal Tenenbaums was interesting but uneven. Vanilla Sky is a rarity because it is a film that leaves you yearning for more yet guarantees your satisfaction because the film and those that made it care about it. I know this film has received mixed reviews but I just think that those who don't like it don't quite understand it. This is what film making is supposed to be like. This is what a film is supposed to do to you. It is supposed to make you feel something. Most of the other films this year have been just empty spaces. This one isn't.10 out of 10 The best film of the year. I would love to see this get nominated for best picture and I would love to see Cruz up for best Actress, Diaz for best supporting, Cruise for best actor and Jason Mewes should be a shoe in for best supporting actor. Cameron Crowe should there as well. None of this may come to pass, and that is a shame. This is one film that should not be missed. And on a final note, I am quite sure Mr. Krisak would like this film and maybe this is the one film that may answer his question. Can you prove you are real? Or are we just a figment of someone's imagination? Are we artificially transplanted for someone else's bemusement? This is a film that spawns more questions than it does answers. And I'm sure that is just fine with him.Open Your Eyes$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this film yesterday.. I rented the DVD from Blockbuster.. In fact, I know one of the actresses from the film.. I won't say who..! (That's kept under wraps..) But I must admit, it wasn't as good as I thought it would be.. Tom Savini? Hats down to this guy.. But it's a shame he wasn't in the film for long.. What lacks the film is the idea, the script, sound, etc.. It may look like a good movie.. but it wasn't that entertaining..Well, I'm glad my Sister paid £10 for renting 3 DVD's from Blockbuster.. I chose this one.. and I was disappointed. Anyway, thumbs down for me..! Not my cup of tea! 0 out of 10!$LABEL$ 0
+I would reccomend this film to everyone. Not only to the fans of the rocker Luciano Ligabue, but to all film-buffs. Because it's sincere, moving, funny and true. Because Ligabue is a born storyteller and a film lover, and every frame of his film is made with love and care. Because his characters are loved and ask to be loved. Because most of the Italian debut films are lousy and this one, done by an outsider, is a real joy to watch and to listen at. Because Stefano Accorsi is gorgeous and reminds me of Andrea Pazienza, who was, like Freccia, beautiful and talented and good and lost his life because of the heroin, that Ligabue shows as it is, unglamorous and ugly, without indulging in easy moralisms. Because it's a film that speaks to our heart, our ears, our souls. And because I lived the experience of the FM radios and it was exactly like that. Thanks, Luciano!$LABEL$ 1
+Recognizing the picture of the diner on the cover of the DVD made me realize that this was a local movie. The word Detroit in the title furthered my suspecions and I did some looking up of things and yes, a local movie it was.So I picked it up. Someone I knew actually knew some of the producers/director (dont remember which) and said the producers/directors got people to PAY to be in this movie.Brilliant! What a great idea. The movie makers get some capital to do the movie with, thanks to their cast and crew. Then the investors (cast, crew, others) get some of the profits, I'm imagining.Profits!Um anyways. This film totally underwhelmed me. The special effects were special as in special children who ride the small buses to school. The acting was very amusing, not intentionally however. There's a great line where a guy says "well? this bone aint gonna smoke itself!" as a pickup line. Unfortunately that is the only fun part of the whole film. The story? Well, I sort of followed it about 3/5 of the way in, then everything stopped making sense and as we were sitting there watching it, it suddenly ended. I mean as in,..no resolution of anything..like they ran out of time. "Sorry folks, out of time, goodnight!"We sat there baffled and booing, and threw in another film. Then about 20 minutes later a neighbor of mine showed up..with one of the guys from the movie! We threw it back in and he (the actor) gave us a running commentary, which was awesome because he totally ripped on the movie!What more could you ask for??The most absurd scene for me was a motorbike chase scene were it was so dark that it could have literally been a guy running past with a flashlight and not a motorbike at all. That and the jaw droppingly in your face sudden ending is enough to make you howl. In pain! The zombies looked less like zombies than my coworkers do. And I dont work at the morgue either.So, I recommend seeing this if you can get someone from the movie to come over and give you a running commentary as to all the things that went on behind the scenes and make sure this person hates the movie because that just adds to the fun.Otherwise, give this one a pass. Rent something like Feeders if you want a jaw droppingly bad in a funny way movie...$LABEL$ 0
+One hour, eight minutes and twelve seconds into this flick and I decided it was pretty lame. That was right after Hopalong (Chris Lybbert) drops on his horse from a tree to rejoin the good guy posse. I was pretty mystified by the whole Hopalong Cassidy/Great Bar 20 gimmick which didn't translate into anything at all. Obviously, the name Coppola in the credits couldn't do anything to guarantee success here, even with more than one listed.If you make it to the end of the film, you'll probably wind up asking yourself the same questions I did. What exactly was the hook with the gloves? What's up with the rodeo scenario? Who was The Stranger supposed to represent? Why did they make this film? I could probably go on but my energy's been drained. Look, there's already a Western called "The Gunfighter" from 1950 with a guy named Gregory Peck as the title character. Watching it will make you feel as good as watching this one makes you feel bad. That one I can recommend.$LABEL$ 0
+Caddyshack II is NOTHING compared to the original Caddyshack. But, there are legitimate reasons for it. (1) Rodney Dangerfield was supposed to be the ace of this film BUT he didn't like the script, wanted to change it, his request was denied, so he didn't do the film. (2) It was low budget, Bill Murray had grown to superstar status. Ted Knight passed away in 1986, and Chevy Chase the "so called ace" of the first movie (although it was Rodney all the way)couldn't't be on more than 5 minutes, because it would cost too much to pay him. BUT you had Dan Aykroyd, Robert Stack, Randy Quaid and Jackie Mason, all serviceable substitutes, who none had their best performances.$LABEL$ 0
+The youthful group in "St. Elmo's Fire" who just graduated from college barely seem able to make it through high school much less four years at any prominent university. For the most part, these kids are irresponsible, selfish, greedy and stupid, yet co-writer and director Joel Schumacher appears to hold them up as touchstones for a generation. With a now-outdated cast of "up and comers", a background score that sounds awfully similar to that of "Terms Of Endearment", and writing which lords the smugness of this circle over us, "Fire" is a paltry blaze, one that gets even more embarrassing as the years pass on. *1/2 from ****$LABEL$ 0
+The plot of The Thinner is decidedly thin. And gross. An obese lawyer drives over the Gypsy woman, and the Gypsy curse causes him to lose and lose weight... to the bone. OK, Gypsy curses should be entertaining, but the weight-losing gone bad? Nope. Except Stephen King thinks so. And Michael McDowell, other horror author and the screenwriter of this abysmal film, does so, too. The lawyer is not only criminally irresponsible, he is fat too, haha! The Thinner is like an immature piece of crap for a person who moans how he/she has never seen anything so disgusting than fatness. Hey, I can only say: Well, look at the mirror.$LABEL$ 0
+American Pie has gone a long distance from the first. At first i believe the actors don't have a clue what their doing and instead it's just a remake of a college party gone nuts. Story sets out as two freshman college guys (featuring the young stifler) setting out the dreams of attending college just to experience the late night parties, sex and of course the booze. The plot is stupid and comes along way away from the original pie. In fact they didn't once again feature an apple pie somewhere in the film.Luckily i work in a video store and can rent for free. But please remember it is a waste of time unless you enjoy brainless sex films with absolute nudity and insane drinking. I'm a teen myself and i believe even Evan almighty would've been a better choice instead.$LABEL$ 0
+The best movie about friendship! Especially between an AIDs infected person and a " normal " person. This is a great movie for everyone to see even though there is strong language used. I have seen it 25 times.$LABEL$ 1
+Revolt of the Zombies has no redeeming features. I'm tired of people arguing that it's not that bad, and that the effects must have packed more of a punch in 1936. I suspect this isn't true: it's not like IQ's have risen sharply in the last 7 decades. The average viewer in 1936 was probably just as bored by this rubbish as the average viewer today. Why? Just try watching the first scenes, and count the pauses between things happening, the awful choice of when to cut to close-up, the slapdash editing that seems to include an extra two seconds on every shot to pad out the running time. Pay attention to the utterly redundant dialogue: "I'm going to make some tea/go outside/read my book now." "Are you?" "Yes, I am." That sort of exchange happens several times. Normally I would love that, being a HUGE fan of bad movies, but watch the listless actors mumbling their trite and tedious lines, and all desire to laugh at the movie slowly fades away. This sort of disinterested, pot-boiling time-waster is far worse than energetic, imaginative mind-blowers like Plan Nine From Outer Space or Santa Claus Conquers The Martians. Those who claim that this is "better" than those more interesting movies have a backwards idea of entertainment. This movie is not bad in the sense that your jaw hangs open in astonishment: it's bad in the sense that your eyes slowly close in boredom. Which is far worse.$LABEL$ 0
+Hilariously inept - like "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon" remade by five-year-olds.Spoilers ahead: Despite its title, and the high bodycount, "Slaughter Trail" is in fact a musical with Injun battles instead of dance numbers.If you ever wondered what Ed Wood might have done with a B-movie budget, this film should answer your question. Some decisions may have been bad only in retrospect, such as filming in the short-lived Cinecolor process, which resulted in faces changing hue within the same shot. But there was definitely some ill-advised skimping on the film's main set, a cavalry fort that seems to be partly a Norman castle.Terry Gilkyson, who later wrote the 'The Bare Necessities' for Disney's "The Jungle Book", supplies a score full of original ditties which would have been wonderful for a cartoon but which fit Western action like a fuzzy slipper stuck in a stirrup. One song tells how "horse hooves pound, and their melody sounds, like the hoofbeat serenade"...during a dead-serious scene of a cavalry patrol. Other songs literally narrate the story shot by shot, introducing characters, describing their moods and gestures - as they happen on screen - and even stop to advertise the Cinecolor process(!) The script sends ferocious Navajos on the warpath to avenge the killing of two of their band by an outlaw trio. By the end of the film, what looks like a hundred Navajos and cavalrymen have bitten the dust (thanks to repeated footage of the same characters dying over and over.) But the chief is satisfied once he sees the trio of badguys have been slain. As the singer helpfully informs those of us who weren't paying attention, the Navajos ride away, their battle called off. The cavalry captain, surrounded by the corpses of his fallen comrades, cheerily waves his appreciation.The direction could most charitably be described as wooden, or more to the point, Wood-en. Navajos are consistently shot off their horses in pairs -- never just one. Virtually every red man on foot dies by throwing his hands in the air and keeling over. The film also employs the most cautious stuntmen in Hollywood, who crouch before dropping off a one-story roof (and still fail to stick the landing) or turn to look behind them as they slide, "dead", down a rocky slope.The star is Brian Donlevy, who surely deserves an Oscar for not blushing. After the endless final battle scene -- "climax" is scarcely the word -- he scans a list of the dozens of his troopers killed, and shrugs, "It could've been a LOT worse." Trooper Andy Devine gets to sing and robber/murderer Gig Young laughs at Andy's antics...which leads a character who had been held up by masked bandits to rat Gig out: "I'd know that laugh anywhere!" And lest anyone forget just what a nasty piece of work Howard Hughes could be, recall that as head of RKO, Hughes was first in line to blacklist original star Howard Da Silva when HUAC denounced him. It would take Hughes another six years to finish running that once-celebrated studio into the ground, but it didn't help things when he insisted on reshooting Da Silva's every scene for this film, substituting Donlevy.It was nearly a decade before Da Silva was able to work in Hollywood again. But all things considered, for getting him out of "Slaughter Trail", he should have sent Hughes a thank-you note.$LABEL$ 0
+Oh man. If you want to give your internal Crow T. Robot a real workout, this is the movie to pop into the ol' VCR. The potential for cut-up lines in this film is just endless.(Minor spoilers ahead. Hey, do you really care if a film of this quality is "spoiled?") Traci is a girl with a problem. Psychology has developed names for it when a child develops a sexual crush on the opposite-sex parent. But this girl seems to have one for her same-sex one, and I don't think there's a term for that. It might be because her mother Dana is played by Rosanna Arquette, whose cute overbite, neo-flowerchild sexuality and luscious figure makes me forgive her any number of bad movies or unsympathetic characters. Here Dana is not only clueless to her daughter's conduct; she seems to be competing for the gold medal in the Olympic Indulgent Mother competition. It's possible that Dana misses Traci's murderous streak because truth be told, Traci seems to have the criminal skills of a hamster. It's only because the script dictates so that she manages to pull off any kind of a body count.A particularly hilarious note in this movie is the character of Carmen, a Mexican maid who is described by Dana as around so long she's like one of the family although she dresses in what the director thought would say, "I just fell off the tomato truck from Guadalajara." Carmen is so wise to Traci's scheming, she might also wear a sign saying, "Hey, I'm the Next Victim!" Sure enough, Traci confronts Carmen as Carmen is making her way back from Mass, and bops her with one of those slightly angled lug wrenches that car manufacturers put next to your spare as a bad joke. I rather suspect than in real life those things are as useless as a murder weapon as they are for changing a tire. In another sequence, Arquette wears a flimsy dress to a vineyard, under cloudy skies, talking to the owner. Cut to her in another flimsy dress under sunny skies, talking to the owner's brother. Then cut to her wearing the first dress, in the first location, under cloudy skies - but it's supposed to be later. You get the picture. We're talking really bad directing.As for skin, don't expect much, although Traci does own a nice couple of bikinis. For those looking for a trash wallow, 8. For anybody else, 1/2.$LABEL$ 0
+This is an excellent, suspenseful, murder-mystery movie. Not only was the plot full of suspense and intrigue but you get to see gorgeous Ryan Gosling for a couple hours, what's not to love! Also, Sandra Bullock is good in this movie - I've always been a fan of hers, (I just wish she hadn't decided to be in "The Lake House" which was horrible, but that's another story altogether). Obviously since there are thousands of other murder/horror movies out there, there are bound to be similarities between them, no need to bash this movie for having some similarities to at least a few that have already been made. Anyway, this is a great movie for those of you that actually enjoy "scary" movies, it's a little dark and twisted but overall a great movie!!!$LABEL$ 1
+Brides are dying at the altar, and their corpses are disappearing. Everybody is concerned, but nobody seems to be able to figure out why and how this is happening, nor can they prevent it from happening. Bear with me. Bela Lugosi is responsible for this, as he is extracting spinal fluid from these young women to transfuse his ancient wife and keep her alive. Continue to bear with me. Finally, the authorities figure out that somebody must be engineering the deaths and disappearances, but of course, they can't figure out the improbable motive. Let's just ignore the ludicrous pseudoscience and move on... If you can get through the first twenty minutes of this mess, you will be treated to Lugosi whipping his lab assistant for disrespecting one of the brides he has murdered, explaining that he finds sleeping in a coffin much more comfortable than a bed, and other vague parodies of real horror films (the kind with budgets and plots). Anyhoo - a female journalist follows her nose to the culprit (and remarkably the inept police are nowhere to be seen!), and then the fun really starts.The cinematography and acting are OK. There are a lot of well dressed, very good looking people in this film. The directing is fair, and the script is a little better than the material deserved. Nevertheless, this film fails to sustain the interest of all but the most hardened b-film fan. The best thing about it.... It does eventually end, but not soon enough.$LABEL$ 0
+On first watching this film it is hard to know quite what has happened, but on a subsequent viewing it become more clear. I enjoyed this movie. Dean Cain was excellent in the role of Bob. Lexa Doig's character was confusing to understand, at first, she was out to trap Bob but i really believe she landed up loving him although by then she had broken his heart. Dean Cain's performance was an usual excellent. He gets better with every film he does. My only question at the end of the film was what happened to Bob, Camilla and the baby. It was left for the viewer to decide$LABEL$ 1
+The comments already left for this show are way more funny than the show itself and they are all accurate. I feel exactly the same way, that I am very disappointed at how far Rick Mercer has fallen when he used to do some really great things on This Hour Has 22 Minutes but now he is just clowning around, going places and talking to people. He does some bits in the studio about things going on in the news but they are never funny at all, just really sad and predictable jokes about headlines. Most of his show is him going somewhere to talk to people, for example this week he is going to a rodeo and the video pieces are all of him making funny faces and acting scared of the wild horses, etc. He used to be funny but has gotten way less funny since leaving This Hour Has 22 Minutes and that show is also not funny at all any more. Now that Air Farce is off the air (finally thank goodness!) Mercer and This Hour Has 22 Minutes have got to be next in line for the axe, just old tired predictable comedy that almost nobody finds funny any more. It's sad really considering Rick Mercer used to be the funniest man on Canadian TV!$LABEL$ 0
+Wow,this is in my opinion the best sitcom since Friends. If you have had a crap day just sit yourself down with a beer (if you are old enough that is.if not a root beer will have to do.) and watch a couple of episodes,it's the perfect recipe for happiness.The thing I like most is that everybody in the show is very funny and they all have fantastic comedy timing. After a while you become attached to the characters and really care about them. I think the secret to the shows success is that they have an enviable life. Doug is fat but still happy with it,he loves his wife his job and his friends. The father in law is the fly in the ointment but hey nothings perfect.$LABEL$ 1
+"Ah Ritchie's made another gangster film with Statham" thought the average fan, expecting another Snatch/Lock Stock; expecting perhaps a couple of temporal shifts, but none too hard for "me and the lads" to swallow after a few beers.Ah, pay attention, you do need to watch this film. No cups of tea, no extra diet cokes from the counter, no "keep it running" shouts as you nip to the fridge - watch the film! No laughs other than those you may make yourself from the considerable violence (and if that floats your boat, so be it) but sharp solid direction, excellent dialogue, and great performances.My favourite - Big Pussy from The Sopranos, always a reliable hood.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw The Glacier Fox in the theatre when I was nine years old - I bugged my parents to take me back three times. I began looking for it on video about five years ago, finally uncovering a copy on an online auction site, but I would love to see it either picked up by a new distributor and rereleased (I understand the original video run was small), or have the rights purchased by The Family Channel, Disney, etc. and shown regularly. It is a fascinating film that draws you into the story of the life struggle of a family of foxes in northern Japan, narrated by a wise old tree. The excellent soundtrack compliments the film well. It would be a good seller today, better than many of the weak offerings to children's movies today.$LABEL$ 1
+Would you be surprised if I told you this movie deals with a conspiracy? No? How about if I told you the ringleader was a shadow puppet. What? You don't believe me? ... OK. Yes, I made that up. It's too bad, this movie could have used a sense of humor. I understand Charlie Sheen doing this at the time - another movie equaled more money - as for Donald Sutherland and Linda Hamilton ... why? Don't even get me started on Stephen Lang. He was so much fun as the Party Crasher in 'The Hard Way' and now this junk.Ah no matter. Everyone involved should feel ashamed. If you aim to make a bad movie and succeed - it's twisted - but I seriously doubt that was what they were aiming for here. Flat out, the story stinks and we're actually supposed to take this yak seriously. Makes you wonder if this movie even had a glimmer of hope. Seriously, I doubt it and in an industry so tight with the purse strings how this got green lit in the first place is beyond me. Maybe even more scary is how this dog pile made it's way to theaters!?Oh ... Sam Waterson, how great you are in Law & Order. Why are you here? Demoting yourself to the role of the President of the United States who might I add gets to be shot at by a remote control biplane controlled by the gonzo assassin. Then again this is a masterpiece of work from George P. Cosmatos who's "directing" credits include Rambo: First Blood Part II amongst other gems. Hmm.... case in point?$LABEL$ 0
+This film was absolutely...ugh i can't find the word oh wait... crap! I mean when it started i was like yeah this looks good and then after it was so boring. I nearly fell asleep and it had nothing to do with the fact that i caught a late showing because it was utter filth. Ram Gopal Varma has tried his best but the cast could never live up to the cast of the original Sholay i mean what was he thinking doing a remake. What was he trying to do? Be like Sanjay Leeli Bhansani and win all the awards next year like he did for Black? Ajay and that other guy were good especially the other guy who played raj because out of all of them he was the one to look at. What was Amitabh doing? He's destroying his own dignity by doing all these stupid films. First Nishabd then Cheeni Kum then Jhoom Barabar Jhoom and now this i mean hes got to gather a bit of his money and move as far away from Bollywood as possible before he loses all his respect and I'm telling you he's already past half his way. I mean all this is really good for the other actors like Shah Rukh Khan who's getting a really good name now because of the recent downfall of Amitabh. I never really liked him because he thinks he's God and i just knew Abhishek was going to be in that movie. If you want to save your £17.75 and spend it on something good go watch Heyy Babyy because that's just the funniest movie ever and it's number one in the charts!$LABEL$ 0
+French Cinema sucks! Down with all these psychiotric visions with their my-God-am-I-cultivated distinguished attitudes! Pestilence to conceited symbolic film-language and impervious chiffres! I'll no longer have a mind for that! Léos Carax, did you ever think about, that a dialogue in a film could be natural and vivid??? Maybe I'm too common to understand you? Or had it been your task to confirm all the clichés of a Frenchman the world can have? Guillaume the to-be-guilliotined comes to his home-palace, Mme. Deneuve, not in the picture, plays the flute: "Here am I, darling!" In this moment, I knew, that she's in the bathtub, and we`ll see her lying in there soon. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not prudish, and the incestous sex scene was the climax of the film. But this is, in Berlin, we say "etepetete", what means something like "être-peut-être", a snobistic, self-satisfied, and, the worst, seen that often in French movies I can tell! Other example: She, beautiful and willing, is looking at herself in a mirror, combing her hair, and her wild-bearded, dirty young guru rushs into the room, breathless shouting: "There's no escape, there's no escape!" Forty years after existencialistic Sartres and consorts- what's new, what's exciting about? My God, there's that woman and she loves and admires you, what would be more natural to be happy with your life? And when you're not, please explain much better, why!! Born French means you have to live a life in extravaganza, no escape, is that the point?$LABEL$ 0
+In the 2nd of his Historical Martial Arts films, Chiba portrays his real life sensei Mas Oyama. The film even recreates Oyama's incredible feat of killing a raging bull with his bare hands (Oyama did this feat over 50 times in real life). Dynamic fight choreography featuring authentic Kyokushinkai techniques. Ironically this is one of the rare Sonny Chiba films in which he DOESN'T tear out or rip off body parts of opponents. A must see for Sonny Chiba fans definitely one of his top 5 films$LABEL$ 1
+Sure, we all like bad movies at one time or another, and we in fact enjoy them, This however, wasn't even a guilty pleasure, it was just crap. Some guy, vince offer, who is conceited enough to make himself the main character while probably got drunk/high--probably both--and thought it was a great idea to make a movie. He then proceeded to show his script to equally high/drunk individuals. Overall, this movie was so bad, predictable, and unoriginal I couldn't get through 20 minutes of it before I turned it off. It makes You Got Served look like Citizen Kane. Bat Man? WTF...Some guy that walks around with a bat, real original. Almost as good as calling him Fat Man, and having a fat guy walk around in a superhero outfit.$LABEL$ 0
+A comedy that worked surprisingly well was the little British effort "The Divorce Of Lady X (1938)" . It marks the first pairing of Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon, before that little film about uncontrollable passion on the 19th century English moors. And while Olivier and Oberon are not particularly well-suited to screwball comedy, it all flows along nicely. Oberon is Leslie, a young woman who ends up in priggish divorce lawyer Logan's (Olivier) hotel suite by way of a nasty English fog preventing travel. She does everything possible to irritate him--but, in the crazy way films go, he falls for her. And she falls for him. But a serious case of mistaken identity occurs when Oberon's "Lady X" (that's all she leaves Oliver in a note) is thought by Olivier to be a married woman. To make matters worse, and more amusing, Lord Mere (Ralph Richardson) goes to Olivier wanting a divorce from his wife whom dear Larry thinks must be Oberon! There is some nice battle-of-the-sexes dialogue, and fun exploration of sexual politics. You can see that Olivier is not too confident with the comedy, but in true Olivier he's a consummate professional, and delivers. And he handles the screwball twists and turns, maybe not with ease, but with gusto. Oberon was no great shakes as an actress, but she was usually competent enough, and despite their reputed off-screen dislike of her, worked well with Olivier. This was filmed in early Technicolour that looks very primitive today (everyone looks even whiter than Michael Jackson), but perhaps the print needs cleaning up.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is one of the most provocative Jesus movies I have ever seen. It does not seek to tell the whole story, but only to portray an interpretive expression of the last day of Jesus Christ. It is darkly witty, playful and seriously faithful to elements of the Jewish tradition and to modern scriptural interpretation. Judas is much more ordinary than other portrayals, not the dark and sinister evil that we sometimes imagine, but a grossly mistaken man, horribly misguided in his zeal. Chris Saranden's Jesus is playful and serious, faithful and committed--very human while also divine. The final dialog is thoughtfully done and serves as the kind of small talk that two powerful men might do when they have just committed an atrocity. I would watch this movie again and recommend it to others.$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of the most ridiculous westerns that Hollywood ever made. Gary Cooper plays 'Reb Hollister', a former confederate officer wanted by the law. He meets up with a moron named Weatherby, played by Leif Erickson, who is a U.S. Marshal with no knowledge of firearms. Weatherby is on his way to Dallas to see his fiancee, Tonia Robles, played by Ruth Roman. Senor Robles, Tonia's father, has plenty of men, but they can't seem to be able to keep an eye on his cattle, which are regularly rustled by the Marlow brothers. Will Marlow, played by Raymond Massey, has financed the loan on the Robles estate, making things completely absurd. He even has the power to call for mortgage payments before they're due, simply because he feels like it.Since Weatherby is a Boston boy who can't fight, since he only became a Marshal so he could visit his fiancee, Tonia, (Just another instance of more plot nonsense. Are we to assume that you only have to pass a written test to get this job? Wait a minute, this guy couldn't pass the written test either.) he switches identities with Reb Hollister, who of course is an expert gunman. Reb takes the liberty of greeting Weatherby's girl with a passionate kiss, while Weatherby looks on like an idiot. Gary Cooper, Hollywood's number one stud, is in fine form here as Reb. Before the movie's done, not only does he take Weatherby's job, he steals his fiancee also, and Ruth Roman as Tonia, falls for him so hard and so fast that she gives chump Leif Erickson the brush-off before the films little more than half over.There isn't a shred of plot credibility in the whole film, so despite the good cast and lush photography, the film is a dud. And Cooper's character is a complete heel to boot. The film also stars Barbara Payton as Brant Marlow's girl, a beautiful and talented actress who squandered away her chances, unfortunately, by making too many headlines for the wrong reasons. I strongly suggest you pass this one up.$LABEL$ 0
+This kind of "inspirational" saccharine is enough to make you sick. It telegraphs its sentiments like the biggest semaphore on earth. It removes from the audience its own interpretation and feeling by making the choices for it. The big finish is swimming in weeping orchestration that must supposed to work like jumper cables on a dead car; I guess you'd need such prompting to feel if you're stupid enough to watch a film as simple-minded and sappy as this. Streep glows and you wonder if she really has the depth of feeling on display or if it's just that---a display, switched on and off like a light. Because I can't for the life of me see how she could possibly find life in such a dud of film. Even though it's based on a true story, and an inspirational one at that I'm sure, the set-up, execution and performances play like a third-rate TV movie or half-witted high school drama.$LABEL$ 0
+True Love, I truly enjoyed and LOVED this movie. It was fun, funny and inspirational. I just saw it on DVD. How did I miss this one it's a winner! I mean Flex was "That Guy". I wanted to marry him. This was my 1st time seeing him as a straight leading man and he pulls it off. I thought Tangi Miller was the best ever and I was a Felicity head too. A fearless woman who only fears her Nana. Thank You for giving women of color range in your work and she looks great! Tasha Smith was a Blast! Aloma Wright was priceless as Nana. This cute romantic comedy is "A Must See". Oh and the new comer Marcus Patrick is worth the surprise ladies...True Love. Karen$LABEL$ 1
+I had watched snippets from this as a kid but, while I purchased Blue Underground's set immediately due to its being a Limited Edition, only now did I fit it in my viewing schedule - and that's mainly because Bakshi's American POP (1981) just turned up on late-night Italian TV (see my review of that film below)! Anyway, I found the film to be a quite good sword-and-sorcery animated epic with especially impressive-looking backdrops (the rather awkward rotoscoped characters were, admittedly, less so) with a rousing if derivative score. The plot, again, wasn't exactly original, but proved undeniably engaging on a juvenile level and the leading characters well enough developed - especially interesting is the villainous Ice-lord Nekron and the enigmatic warrior Darkwolf; the hero and heroine, however, are rather bland stereotypes - but one can hardly complain when Bakshi and Frazetta depict the girl as well-endowed (her bra could be torn off any second) and half-naked to boot (her tiny panties are forever disappearing up her ass)! Still, it's clearly an action-oriented piece and it certainly delivers on this front (that involving Darkwolf being particularly savage); the final showdown though brief, is also nicely handled and sees our heroes astride pterodactyls assaulting the villains' lair inside a cave .In the long run, apart from the afore-mentioned Frazetta backdrops, the main appeal of this movie for me now is its nostalgia factor as it transported me back to my childhood days of watching not just films like CONAN THE BARBARIAN (1982) and THE BEASTMASTER (1982) but also animated TV series such as BLACKSTAR (1981-82) and HE-MAN AND THE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE (1983-85).As for the accompanying THE MAKING OF "FIRE AND ICE" (TV) (Mark Bakshi, 1982) **1/2:Vintage featurette on the sword-and-sorcery animated film which is only available via the washed-out VHS print owned by Ralph Bakshi himself! It goes into some detail about the rotoscope technique and also shows several instances of live-action 'performances' (in a studio) of segments from the script - which would then be traced, blended in with the backgrounds and filmed. Still, having watched several such behind-the-scenes featurettes on the art of animation (on the Disney Tins and the Looney Tunes sets, for instance), it's doesn't make for a very compelling piece...$LABEL$ 1
+I play final fantasy 7, and this movie is EXCELLENT like the game, all fans of final fantasy will love this movie. The music are fantastic and the history is good, but, the best of this movie is the visual effects, are amazing. The characters are equal to the game and that detail are good for the fans. You don't need play the game to like this movie, all the people can enjoy the film, because the history is some different and is easy to understand. I buy the DVD because is EXCELLENT, IS 100% ADVISABLE, if you don't see this film, what you waiting for? believe me,you will fascinate like me$LABEL$ 1
+If you are under 13 or above 13 and pretty intoxicated, you'll enjoy D-war. If you are a seriously dedicated fan of all kinds of brainless action films, you'll enjoy D-war. Otherwise, don't bother! I saw the movie today with my nephews and 3 of their friends. They really loved it and that made me feel good. After the movie was over, all the kids(my nephews and their friends)could not stop thanking me for taking them to the theater.The CG is good. Acting and directing are horrible. Storyline is extremely simple. But, since the half of the audience was kids, they were screaming, shouting and cheering every time the dragons appeared on the screen. This made the viewing experience far more exciting than it should have been.It's a good movie to take your kids to, but except for the final battle sequence, D-War is disappointing. I give this film 7 out of 10 mainly because the kids loved it so much.$LABEL$ 1
+No wonder Pamela Springsteen gave up acting to become a full-time photographer; it's a much better idea to have her behind a camera than in front of one. While this movie is not without its interesting elements (mullets from hell, etc.), it is outweighed by flaws. For one thing, Angela, the murderous counselor, appears to be about the same age as the campers. Having an older, more threatening camp director would have done a lot for the film. And then you have the murder scenes. The budget was apparently too low to execute most of them properly (no pun intended), although drowning someone in an outhouse toilet is certainly original. But overall, there are a ton of movies out there that are scarier/more fun to spend an hour and a half of your life watching.$LABEL$ 0
+This has to be, by far, the absolute worst movie I have seen in the last 20 years. When I saw that Michael Madsen was in it I figured it couldn't be too bad a movie since he has been in some pretty decent films, and he was a pretty fair actor. WRONG! No one should waste their time on this film. I fast forwarded through 80 percent of it and I don't feel that I missed a thing.$LABEL$ 0
+'Had Ned Kelly been born later he probably would have won a Victoria Cross at Gallipolli'. such was Ned's Bravery.In Australia and especially country Victoria the name Ned Kelly can be said and immediately recognised. In Greta he is still a Hero, the life Blood of the Town of Jerilderie depends on the tourism he created, but in Mansfield they still haven't forgotten that the three policeman that he 'murdered' were from there.Many of the buildings he visited in his life are still standing. From the Old Melbourne Gaol where he was hanged, to the Post office he held up in Jerilderie. A cell he was once held in in Greta is on display in Benella and the site of Ann Jones' Hotel, the station and even the logs where he was captured in Glenrowan can be visited.Evidence of all the events in the movie (except for his love interest) can be found all over Victoria, in police records and even in the Sash that Ned was awarded with for rescuing Dick Shelton from drowning. None of this is wrong, and whats left out would further justify Neds actions. The Horse that Ned 'stole' was actually stolen by Wild Wright (the man who Ned boxes with after getting out of jail). Ned was already in prison when the horse was reported stolen so he couldn't have stolen it.The Jerilderie Letter is more than what has been stated before. It is not self justification it is Ned's biography, an outline of what he stood for and who he was protecting. So go ahead and read it, watch the movie and then make up your mind about what Ned stood for.$LABEL$ 1
+"Feast of All Saints?" Where...? When...?Was the Feast of All Saints storyline and theme edited out? What a waste of a wonderful title! There is never anything in the story that has the remotest connection to the "Feast of All Saints." Nor is there anything in the story about "All Souls Day" which the term is referencing. Why bother to use this title if you never intend to including any kind of storyline or theme about "All Souls Day" or the "Feast of All Saints"? Embarrassly Bad Script & Amateur Writing How did they attract such great talent to this clunker? The writing is so amateur--characters that have known each other all their life go into big long speeches about their life history for the sake of the audience. Not at all the way people talk to each other. What was the Director Thinking?The directing is equally bad! The forced and overly deliberate style feels amateurish. In one scene, a character is yelling "Take your hands off of me" and NO ONE is touching him! The most badly directed scene however, is the incredibly over-the-top battle scene at the beginning of the film.Excessive Gore in a Very Fake, Silly Battle SceneThere are so many dead people in the most fake battle scene. It looks like a Saturday Night Live skit!! You can see extras waiting for their cues to walk across camera. Everyone plays their death scene like 4th grade boys--exaggerating every little gasp and twitch. The blood on battle victims is so excessive and carelessly applied it looks like someone used a ketchup dispenser and just squirted straight lines of red on the costumes.This whole battle scene comes off as the spoof of a really cheesy war movie. You almost expect someone like Will Ferrell and Mike Myers to ride up on a horse and deliver the punchline.Who in Real Life Would Ever Behave this Way?! The most ridiculous bit of writing, directing and casting is actually the focus of the scene: A little girl is standing under the dead body of her hanging father--who is terribly mutilated, and literally dripping blood form his gaping wounds. Even a totally idiot would know he is dead! Yet she is--very monotonously--repeating over and over "Daddy, daddy..." while looking at someone off-screen. She delivered it with about as much believability and passion as you could expect from an non-actor kid that had been repeating the line for the cameras all day.Even if the poor kid had any acting skills, the scene is completely unbelievable. The little girl wouldn't even BE in the middle of the battlefield after hours of carnage--surrounded by hundreds of dead bodies, while she calmly stands there!! Natural instincts would had the kid screaming and terrified, running AWAY from the bloody carnage! Are we Suppose to be Horrified or Laugh...?!One particularly goofy detail, that gives the scene an SNL satire tone, is the father hanging, with a huge hook through his mouth and cheek. He looks like a fish on a hook! The unintentionally funny details, make the whole scene come across as fake and silly.In Fantasy La-La-Land, Mothers and Daughters are the Same Age! Another funny detail, is that you see a central character--the little girl's mother--at the end of the scene and in the next scene, that occurs 20+ years later, she looks exactly the same! She is still young and beautiful, and now the same age as her daughter! I almost turned the movie off right there because the direction and writing were obviously awful--but I tried to stick it out because I wanted to see the Louisiana settings and I like all the actors. I don't know what these fine actors were thinking when they accepted these roles!Who was the Targeted Audience?The excessive amount of blood and badly acted violence in the opening scene are weirdly out of place with the soap opera storytelling tone that follows. It is also a strange way to start a movie that, for the rest of the time, seems targeted to romance novel reading females. Weird inconsistency in tone!$LABEL$ 0
+I now that these days, some people wan't see a movie without movie styling, so much Dogma, Lars Von, Watchosky Brothers, are changed what we expect in a movie, perhaps, Casomai is no-one-more-Independent-non-american movie, the movie take all movies resources and language to tell us a simple history about love and marriage, but much more .. Fully of views, lectures and let you thinking ... and I'm sure, you can't fell boried any second of a long 116 minutes. I calculate that don't have a single scene longer that 3 o 2 1/2 minutes.$LABEL$ 1
+Okay. I really tried to tap into the (so called) silly & surreal humor that this film sets out to be. I'm told that the Japanese version of this film is much shorter than the one shipped to America (go figure!), and has less political references. Apart from all that, I found this sexual/political farce just as boring and pointless as standard porn. The central female lead is easy on the eyes, and could actually act. I would love to see her in a non pink film where she could actually flex her acting muscles (and no,not the ones you're thinking of). It's obvious that Japan can (and does)produce just as much crap as other countries. I couldn't recommend this to anyone, with the distant possibility of someone who has a Jones for Asian porn. Go see a real Japanese film.$LABEL$ 0
+Australian Fred Schepisi (A Cry in the Dark) directs this comedy/ romance that is fun, relaxing, and set in the spring. You will laugh while watching this movie. Tim Robbins (Shawshank Redemption, Dead Man Walking) is an auto mechanic, Ed Walters, with a high IQ, which gets higher with the help of Albert Einstein, Walter Matthau (Grumpy Old Men) and his academic friends Nathan, Kurt and Boris. You can tell them by their preppie shoes. Meg Ryan (Sleepless in Seattle, You've Got Mail) is Catherine Boyd, Einstein's niece who is a competent, but not so confident mathematician. Perhaps it is because she is surrounded by all that genius. She thinks that if she marries someone with a high I.Q. her kids will have a high I.Q. as well, but she does not knows what she wants. Between Tim Robbins cute smile and Meg's cuteness this is a refreshing movie. I love sweet stories. People all ages should enjoy this movie. Catherine is engaged to the jerk James Moreland, who works in animal behavior, but is very stuffy. This is a love a first sight type situation, between the mechanic and the mathematician. Witty lines and subliminal lines! The cinematography is nice. Princeton, New Jersey is beautiful in the Spring. With much help from all those brilliant men Catherine falls for Ed, without knowing that he is an automobile mechanic.Favorite Scenes: Ed taking a multiple choice test in front of a crowd with the help of Einstein, Nathan, Kurt, and Boris. Ed and Einstein riding on the motorcycle. Nathan, Kurt and Boris letting all the research animals free!Favorite Quotes: Albert Einstein: "Don't let your brain interfere with your heart". Ed Walters: "When was the last time he said "Wahoo""? Catherine Boyd: "Well I'm sure I don't know". This is a refreshing movie, I recommend it. I have the tape and every once and awhile I will watch it again.$LABEL$ 1
+This one is a great one! Robert De Niro and Cuba Gooding have teamed up to make a powerful and very influential film. This is the true story of the first black US Navy diver and the obstacles he faced in attaining his certification at the hands of a racist Master diver. Along the way, he must also face plain old bigotry from all of his classmates, none of whom want him in their class. They move out of the barracks when he arrives. Ultimately, he becomes certified and goes on to have a great career as a US Navy diver. Watch this one! It's a great tale of courage and honor. As the story unfolds, we get to watch racism slowly dissipate and everyone begins to respect men one at a time.$LABEL$ 1
+I don't really consider myself a conservative, so I wasn't personally offended by this film, but it was pretty clear that the plot and the characterization in this film were secondary to the message. And the message is that all conservatives are either evil or stupid (or both). The characters are one-dimensional -- either good, freedom-loving Americans, or brainless, greedy, evil conservatives. There's nothing clever or creative, just anti-conservative. I don't really mind the political bias itself, but it shouldn't be the only purpose behind the movie. And clearly it is.On the positive side, the cast is wonderful and Chris Cooper's impression of W is funny the first two or three times, but after that it's just the same old joke being told over and over again.So if you really hate the conservatives, you'll probably enjoy this film, but if you're looking for something with realistic characters and a story that's less black-and-white, then you'd be better off watching something else.$LABEL$ 0
+This is really good. Original ideas in the film and a great terrorist action film. Only second to die hard and die hard with a vengeance, this film has suspense and a good plot. I would recommend it to anyone with a taste in films like mine; Action, terrorism and gangster/mafia.$LABEL$ 1
+Rajkumar Santoshi Without Any Doubt Has Directed The Greatest Movies And Biggest Box Office Hits Of Indian Cinema.This Movie Falls Short Of All Expectations As This Movie Stars Two Great Actors Mr. Amitabh Bachchan And Akshay Kumar And When You Have These Two Actors In The Same Movie You Have To Make A Magnum Opus.In The Later Part Of The Movie You Can Make Out That Amitabh Bachchan's Voice Has Been Dubbed By Some Other Person Which Was Due To His Illness.Still The Movie Did'nt Had Proper Character Development Plus Cinematography Was'nt Good Too And One Thing That Bollywood Should Learn Is That They Should Use Visual Effects Only When It Is Needed And When Applied Should Be Done With A High Budget.The Script Had So Many Flaws Which Gives The Viewer Excuses To Attend His Phone Calls Rather Than Watching The Movie.The New Comer Shakes The Leg Well But Could Not Act Well But Where The Movie Loses Big Time Is The Storyline Screenplay And Cinematography.A Talented Actor Like Bhoomika Chawla Has Been Wasted In The Movie As Well As Sushant Singh.But Every Director Once In A While In His Career Makes A Bad Film.So Watch It Only If You Are A Fan Of Multi-Starrer Flop Movies.$LABEL$ 0
+A poetic examination of the human condition performed without dialogue. The anti-hero, The Man builds a contraption to escape a band of marauders, out of the wastland of what was once a civilization, to the ruins of the city to scavenge for his survival. There he crosses pathes with The Brute, brilliantly played by Jean Reno, of "The Professional" and "Mission: Impossible" fame. The Man is rescued by a crazy old genius who lives in a fortress of his own design. By using their wits, The Man and the old genius are able to keep the Brute and his ilk at bay, but they realise it is only a matter of time before their defenses are compromised, so they make a break for it. This is a strongly understated tale of the desparate struggle for life, with excellent action scenes and clever humor. Of all of the movies of its kind, like "Road Warrior", "Omega Man", and even "Ultimate Warrior" (featuring Yul Brenner as a buff knife-fighter), "Le Dernier Combat" is the most artfully crafted. Copies of the video are hard-to-find, I would give my left eye ball for one. If your local art house ever has a revival of this film, I heartily recommend that you break any engagement to able to be able to see it big.$LABEL$ 1
+It's true that you always remember what you were doing at a point when disaster or tragedy strikes. And none more so that September 11, 2001, a date which changed the entire global landscape in its fight against terrorism.No, this documentary didn't set out to be dwelling on the events leading to 9/11. Rather, the filmmakers, brothers Gédéon and Jules Naudet, set out to do a documentary on the trials and tribulations of a rookie New York firefighter. They had gone to the academy and done some shoots of training, and had handpicked their "proby" (probation firefighter) to join them in an NY firehouse, home to Ladder 1 and Engine 7. But their production was to develop and contain at that time, believed to be the only shot of the first plane slamming into the World Trace Center.I was traveling back with a friend on the train from a night of LAN gaming, and received a call at about 850pm local time from my Dad, who informed me of the above. Few minutes later, he told me there was another, and that the WTC was under attack. By the time I arrived home, the upper floors of the twin towers were ablaze and in smoke, and to my horror, they collapsed, under an hour.The filmmakers had two cameras running that day, one who had followed a team out on a routine call, and which immediately raced to the WTC upon hearing and seeing the plane crash into it. We follow what is possible the only filmed sequence of events in the lobby of WTC1 where the first responders of firefighters, paramedics, and police had to make sense of what happened, and to quickly develop a plan of action. The other camera, held by the other brother, was making his way to WTC to look for his sibling, and along the journey, captured the many expressions of New Yorkers, as well as the sense of chaos in and around Manhatten.Peppered throughout the documentary are numerous interviews with the men from Ladder 1 and Engine 7, which miraculously, did not suffer any casualty. But being survivors also brought about its own set of psychological turmoil, as they struggle to come to terms with the event. Through the events that unfold, we learn of the strong camaraderie amongst these men who risk live and limb each day on their jobs, to save lives.We began with what the documentary was supposed to be, before events of the day totally swung in and became the focus, right up to the rescue phase where hopes of finding survivors under the rubble were kept alive by the men who work round the clock in making sense of the collapsed steel structures. It's not a film that is fabricated, and what you see here cannot be recreated in any other documentary (and heavens, not sound stages for Hollywood blockbusters). It's as close as you can get to that day, witnessing the event up close, from safety.Code 1 DVD contains a separate extra hour of 4 sets of interviews with the men of Ladder 1 and Engine 7.$LABEL$ 1
+Oh, my. Oh, this is a *really* bad movie. The acting is absolutely atrocious, the script is god-awful, and the photography is simply dreadful.What does make this movie stand out, however, is that you never once care about a single soul-- good guy or bad guy, living, dying or dead-- in the entire 87 minutes. "Oh, s/he died? Huh... Figured they would" was the best reaction I could muster after each murder. Characters are so black-or-white that with the volume turned off, you could still figure out who was who. While the cast's voices had an odd monotone quality throughout, their faces give the impression that you're looking at an old silent movie with a lot of eyebrow waggling, exaggerated frowns and "pensive looks". Each character is a humorless, passionless, one-dimensional one-trick pony; once they fulfill whatever their particular role in this fiasco demanded their creation, they are summarily dismissed.It vaguely made me think of what would happen if Thomas Borch Nielsen (director/writer of "Skyggen", American title: "Webmaster") decided to do a low-budget version of "American Psycho" and got kind of distracted along the way.This isn't a particularly gruesome movie; the cold, passionless cast ensures that. It isn't an offensive movie; the director plays it so safe that no one could possibly find it so. It is, simply and after all, a bad movie.Avoid it. We were not so fortunate and actually paid to watch this bomb on Pay-per-View. As part of my penance, I'm writing this review.Enough said.$LABEL$ 0
+I was in my mid teens when I saw this movie, and I was struck by the beauty of the young stars as well as the loving cinematography and the simple sweetness of the story. It amazes me to learn that Alvina has recently died, that Bury apparently has not worked in the film business for almost 30 years, and that both would be in their 50s.The Elton John soundtrack is amazingly beautiful and supports the air of protected innocence the characters experience in seclusion. I have seen the movie poster, billing it as "Deux Enfants Quis'Aiment," which apparently means something like "Two Children Who Like Each Other"--the English language distributors were wise to abbreviate the title!Paul, the ignored 15-year-old son of an English businessman living in Paris, meets Michelle, an orphan, at the zoo. The two take what they intend as a day-long holiday to Michelle's late father's rural cottage, but end up staying there for a year, isolated from the outside world. They fall in love, Michelle gets pregnant, and they have the baby alone at home. After the baby's birth, the police come to Paul's work place and take him away."Blue Lagoon" comes to mind as another film that almost captures the theme of innocence protected in an isolated paradise. So sad that "Friends" has never been released on DVD.$LABEL$ 1
+When Braveheart first came out, I was enthralled, and was admittedly one of the most rabid fans of the film. When Rob Roy came out, I was intrigued, and although I enjoyed the film I did not think it was a great film. However, as time has gone by, my appreciation for Rob Roy has grown, and my enthusiasm for Braveheart has diminished. Braveheart is great entertainment, to be sure, but there are flaws as well. The most significant, in my view, is the unflattering portrayal of Robert the Bruce, who was without a doubt Scotland's greatest king. Another is the historical inaccuracy of the film, which tarnishes the film in proportion to the many historical distortions. I think I am also bothered by the fact that it was in this film, seen only (at least by me) in retrospect, that the beginnings of Mel Gibson's egomania can be seen clearly for the first time. In contrast, Rob Roy has grown on me over the years. Partly because it largely avoids the faults I mind most in Braveheart. But also because Rob Roy is like fine wine, growing more mature and complex with each viewing.$LABEL$ 1
+The French either make pro-Marxist films or anti-Marxist films - with a few in between. "Merci pour le chocolat" is the latter of this genre. From the opening credits telling the viewer what music is going to be played and by whom it was who composed you know that you are going to be swathed in middle class pretension. It is an old man's film with an excess of 40's plus people. It is also directed by an old man along with an old crew who have nothing to say about life to the viewer. The plot is not only banal but preposterous. How many films reveal the plot through dialogue only to repeat the same message via flashback some five minutes later? Maybe the director and actors had a low retentive capacity? In truth their is no tenable plot at all. It is riddle with holes like a good piece of French cheese.Whether intentional or not, it is a film about the bourgeoisie. At least a third of the film focuses on the piano and the pretentious twaddle espoused in each scene. I concede it has some well framed shots though they couldn't have used a steady-cam in this film - it would have woke them all up! Other than it being a nonsense story, the film allows the upper middle class to parade their values and vanity in a very comfortable Swiss location. A telling line of the film is when Rodolphe Pauly tells Anna Mouglalis that she need not lock her car while in the resort! Oh dear me.On the DVD, Miss Huppert makes a comment about shedding a false tear for a scene. Smirking she says: "Like they do in the American Actor's Studio!" I think Miss Huppert and the rest of the cast could learn well from the Actor's Studio.If there is one statement that stand out in my mind it is when Huppert remarks 'we are having friends for the weekend and all the servants are away'. No doubt they had all escaped from the mind numbing set lest they be associated with such an appalling film.Safety Medical Note. In the film they show a hot water scald being covered with ointment and a bandage. This should never be done. Only cold water should be used.Minus 10 marks.$LABEL$ 0
+A gem of a British caper-comedy. Poor American schlub Pinky Green (Richard Jordan, playing another bad guy but this time an adorable one) gets out of a British jail and tries to go straight, but his maintenance man job in a bank is too attractive for his never-reformed criminal friends, headed up by a really nasty Ivan (David Niven in one of his last roles). Pinky resists, but the lure of all that money is just too much for him. Things unravel and reravel and it's all joyous to watch. Jordan must have played 20 bad guys in his career, but he never played the same one twice - this one is just too lovable to hate. Niven never played a slicker bad guy, oil all over. Two fine actors we've lost that I wish we had back.$LABEL$ 1
+How this has not become a cult film I do not know. I think it has been sadly overlooked as a truly ingenious comedy!"Runaway Car" attempts to pass itself off as a fast-paced thriller, but taking the quality of acting (good God it's bad), the storyline, the practicalities of the car's demonic possession and the baby evacuation scene into account there is nothing you can really do but laugh. And laugh you will. Films are made to entertain us, and the degree to which they do this can be an indication of a film's worth. This film is the pinnacle in entertainment, I laughed from beginning to end. At one point I got short of breath and nearly choked, it really is that funny at some points. When the baby was airlifted out of the sunroof in a holdall by a helicopter with a robot pilot who managed to maintain a constant velocity identical to the car and a perfectly flat flight plain that meant the grapple hook didn't rip the car roof to pieces, I was laughing hysterically. But when the baby starting swinging around in the air, nearly hit a bridge and almost got tangled up in a tree, tears were running down my face.It also occurred to me that the black cop was the guy who played Jesus in Madonna's "Like A Prayer" video. He seems to get everywhere.$LABEL$ 1
+Skullduggery is a strange, strange film based on the novel "Ye Shall Know Them" by Vercors. To unleash criticism at the film feels really unkind, since it is a movie that deals with earnest themes like humanity, and pleas for upright moral standards and tolerance. But in spite of its honourable intentions and its well-meaning tone, Skullduggery simply isn't a very good film. For me, the main problem is the terribly disjointed narrative which can't make its mind up how best to convey its message. The first half of the movie is like watching a standard jungle expedition flick of the Tarzan ilk; later it teeters into sci-fi fable; by the end it slips into courtroom melodramatics. The differences in tone between each section of the movie are too great, too jarring, to overlook. They stick out like a sore thumb and remind you constantly that you're watching a muddled, disorganised movie.An archaeological expedition into the jungles of New Guinea is led by adventurer Douglas Temple (Burt Reynolds). One of the main archaeologists involved in the excursion is attractive lady scientist Dr Sybil Greame (Susan Clark). After an arduous trek they stumble upon a tribe of strange ape-like creatures. These primitive, long-lost people are covered in hair and have survived for centuries without being in any way touched or influenced by the developments of modern man. There is some evidence that they may the ancestors of early man – the "missing link" in the evolution of apes into humans. Or perhaps a race of humans who simply look and behave differently from usual? Or even a race of animals that have begun to develop human characteristics? The archaeologists call the tribe "the Tropi" and are initially thrilled by the implications of their discovery. But things take a devastating turn when nasty opportunist Vancruysen (Paul Hubschmid) declares his intention to exploit the tribe and their idyll on behalf of developers. He questions whether the Tropi are truly "human" and takes his argument to the courts, where he hopes to be granted legal backing so that his own greedy ambitions can be continued.This was a very early film in Reynolds' career, and he actually unbalances this movie by acting like he's in a comedy while the rest of the cast take it all very seriously. Not that Reynolds can be blamed – he has an impossible role, asked to play a charming adventurer who really belongs in a Tarzan flick. His character and the film are not relevant to each other. Clark fares much better as the earnest lady archaeologist, and there are nice supporting roles for British actors Edward Fox, Alexander Knox and Wilfrid Hyde-White. A major shortcoming in Skullduggery is the lame and ineffective make-up used to give the Tropi their strange hairy appearance. Rather than making the actors look like believable hominoids, the stuck-on hair merely makes them look unintentionally comical…. and that's just not the right idea. We're meant to feel great sympathy for these creatures, but that's awfully hard when they look so unconvincing. Skullduggery is a failed attempt to tell a story that could have been poignant, philosophical and stimulating. The honourable intentions are there for all to see, but the end result doesn't do them justice. A worthy failure it might be but a failure nonetheless.$LABEL$ 0
+Why is it that in the '50s and '60s, Italians made so of the best movies, and then during the '70s and '80s, made nothing but zombie and cannibal movies? Probably because art films didn't make any money. , The Cannibal Movie, unlike the Zombie Movie, which was created by Americans and `exploited' by Italians, is a purely Italian creation, designed as a mondo exploitation showcase, and to make as much money as possible (no artistic integrity getting in the way here). Eaten Alive came during the Cannibal Movie heyday. The director, Umberto Lenzi, hadn't even hit his stride yet; his genre classic, Cannibal Ferox, was still a year away.In plotting similar to (read: ripped off from) Ruggero Deodato's seminal cannibal classic, Cannibal Holocaust, a woman (Janet Agren) receives word from the police that they've received a 8mm film from her sister. She's gone missing in Africa, and it's suspected that the tribal ritual depicted on the film may have something to do with it. Mel Ferrer, as a Professor of Somethingoranother, tells her that a man named Jonas (Ivan Rassimov) has started a Jonestown-like cult in New Guinea, and that's where the sister is. The woman hires a guide (Robert Kerman) to take her through the jungle to find the cult and her sister. And, wouldn't you know it, the jungle is full of cannibals. One sentence should sum it up: if you've seen on Cannibal Movie, you've seen them all, mostly because these films steal shamelessly from each other (Lenzi copied Cannibal Holocaust to make this film, and retooled this to make Cannibal Ferox; Deodato copied parts of this for Hit and Run). And because they all share the same material, they all feature the same traits: awful photography, boring scenery, terrible dubbing, overacting, and exploitation, exploitation, exploitation. Genre fans will have a ball since everyone in it is a genre veteran. Rassimov and Kerman have a scenery eating contest. Agren exists solely to be naked, raped, or in peril. Plenty o' gore for all the sickos out there. The cannibals, who do actually appear to be native cannibals, eat lunch met disguised as human flesh. And, in the grand tradition of Cannibal Movies, any live animal shown onscreen is usually killed shortly thereafter. Overall, really not a good experience, but I'm sure there are psychopaths out there who find this excrement entertaining. I know I did.$LABEL$ 0
+One of the most magnificent movies ever made. The acting of Charles Buchinski (later known as Bronson) is simply outstanding. This is the crown on the career of director Winner, who himself was often quoted saying this was his masterpiece. The plot has been copied many times, but it's never been topped. Wildey J. Moore, the gun manufacturer, many times claimed his brand's growth since the mid 80s can be fully credited to DW3, and rightly so. This is not just a movie, this is art that many generations will admire and appreciate. Although this movie has never been fully appreciated in the USA, it has found a huge following in Europe and Asia, where the movie is regularly shown at film schools and it is still a popular hit in student cinemas all across Europe. All in all, a true classic.$LABEL$ 1
+I just caught "Wild Rebels" on one of the "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" archive compilations, and this movie was so bad even the MST3K crew couldn't make it entertaining. There are some MST3K "targets" that were films whose concepts were so dippy they couldn't possibly have been good movies (like "The Green Slime"), and others whose basic premises could have been made into genuinely entertaining films if their filmmakers hadn't bobbled them in the execution. "Wild Rebels" is a film whose basic premise DID make a good movie three years earlier, when Don Siegel directed his remake of "The Killers" at Universal. Both films are about a failed racing driver who's seduced by a femme fatale into driving the getaway car in a robbery masterminded by the woman's boyfriend -- only in "The Killers" the driver was John Cassavetes, the woman was Angie Dickinson and the criminal mastermind (cast wildly but successfully against type in what turned out to be his final film) was Ronald Reagan. Steve Alaimo, Bobbie Byers and Willie Pastrano are quite a comedown! But what REALLY makes "Wild Rebels" an awful movie is the direction by William Grefé (note the accent over the final "e," present in his on-screen credit), which has absolutely no sense of pace whatsoever and seems to let every shot run at least half again as long as it needs to to make its dramatic point. It's only a pity that someone didn't do a mocking commentary on this movie now (in 2009); the comparison between Steve Alaimo's hairdo and Rod Blagojevich's would have been irresistible!$LABEL$ 0
+Spoilers: This movie has it's problems, but in the end it gets the message across. I liked it because it ends the way things really do. The nice guy tries and tries, gets his heart broken several times, but in the end there is no typical hollywood ending. It ends the way such things always end, or at least always have in my own and friends' experiences. Anyone who thinks that the ending to this isn't how it really happens, as the first comment seemed to, believing that the girl would come around, realize she's dating an asshole who treats her bad because he doesn't care about her at all is either naive or lives in a more perfect world than I. I give it 7/10, extra points simply because it wasn't afraid to end on a down note, give no real resolution, just the main character left heartbroken, confused and alone as so many men of countless generations have been before.$LABEL$ 1
+Thirty per cent of this movie appears to be the prototype for the Map Channel. You see a giant map for about ten minutes, then they unleash the stock footage big time while droning(droning, get it?)on about radar. Apparently there's a lot of radar stations in the far north, protecting North America's borders from attacks by deadly polar bears. The bears never show up, but a giant Mantis does. It was frozen in the ice for over a million years or so, until it was released by an earthquake somewhere else in the world(yeah, right. For my money, it was released by global warming). It is a huge prehistoric insect, and it needs lots of food. Since there aren't any cows in the frozen north, it decides to feast on the most bovine-like creatures it can find up there. I.E., human beings. It starts attacking radar stations, probably because the humming from the radar dishes was getting on its nerves.Enter Col. Joe Parkman, the resident smarmy guy of the film. He's investigating a plane that went down, and is puzzled why there are no bodies in the wreckage. The only thing he finds is one of the claws of the Mantis. Apparently it decided to trim its nails while it was snacking on the plane's crew. Parkman takes the claw tip back with him to be analyzed by a thousand year old scientist.Grandpa scientist can't make heads or tails of the claw, mostly because he's missed his naps so his mind isn't functioning too well. So he calls in a smug paleontologist played by the guy who was the P.I. in Perry Mason. He and his friend, a transvestite photographer, fly north because he's decided that the claw must have come from a Praying Mantis. Just one the size of a commuter train.It's Luke warm love at first sight when Col.Parkman first sets eyes on the she-male photographer. The men at the base, obviously having been deprived for many years, think she's the hottest thing to come along since Granny Clampett. Smug science guy and smarmy soldier guy start working together to track the path of the Mantis, which has devastated some stock footage of an Eskimo village. It comes to the base looking for an after dinner snack, and crushes some cheap sets quite effectively. Then it flies south and disappears.Now comes the tense hours when the civilian ground observer core are called on to sweep the skies looking for anything large flying overhead. I doubt that in reality they would have been told that they were looking for a giant flying mantis that eats human beings, since that would haver caused a panic. Probably they were told to look for a giant 727 that was painted green and hummed because its engine was out of tune.Col. Parkman goes up in a plane to try to shoot the Mantis down, and botches the mission. The Mantis lands in New York City, probably because it wanted to take in a show on Broadway or visit Sex World in Times Square. The army corners it in the Tunnel, and Parkman and his men don stupid suits that they borrowed from the Orkin Man to go in and try to blow the Mantis up. Success! Well, almost, since the Mantis is still twitching enough that it almost kills the mannish Eve Arden photographer lady. There's a tepid love scene at the end, and the paleontologist takes a picture of the dead mantis because Colonel Hair Grease and Ms. Gender Unspecified are busy smooching. So kind of a nauseating ending.$LABEL$ 0
+The Dereks did seem to struggle to find rolls for Bo after "10".I used to work for a marine park in the Florida Keys. One day, the script for "Ghosts Can't Do It" was circulating among the trainers in the "fish house" where food was prepared for the dolphins. There was one scene where a -dolphin- supposedly propositions Bo (or Bo the dolphin), asking to "go make eggs." Reading the script, we -lauuughed-...We did not end up doing any portion of this movie at our facility, although our dolphins -were- in "The Big Blue!"This must have been very close to the end of Anthony Quinn's life. I hope he had fun in this film, as it certainly didn't do anything for his legacy.$LABEL$ 0
+Uncompromising look at a suburb in 21st century Vienna mixing the stories of six groups of characters by former documentary maker U.Seidl is a provocative, minimalistic and intense piece of observation cinema.After the world-wide spread of Big Brother reality shows, Hundstage takes modern voyeurism to an unsettling, profound level. Hard to like but unignorable piece of European art-cinema might seem cruel and seedy, yet manages to convey the nihilistic alienated feeling of modern society in a praiseworthy manner.A must for lovers of world cinema.$LABEL$ 1
+This is not a GREAT movie as tho the cast (especially the kids) admirably help to carry along this very sad yet contrived plot it is filled with cliché upon cliché. Poor family in 50's mid America, dying mother, alcoholic father, 10 children (1 of whom has epilepsy) and an awful decision to be made. Its very easy to watch and some of the kids performances are moving without being sickly or naff. And little Frank and Warrnen steal the show for me with the last scene leaving me bawling no matter how many times I see it. A great rainy afternoon movie i recommend to all. Only those with the hardest of hearts could fail to be moved by it. Not on a par to Sophies Choice but a good TV movie equivalent!!!$LABEL$ 1
+I really hated this movie and it's the first movie written by Stephen King that I didn't finish. I was truly disappointed, it was the worst crap I've ever seen. What were you thinking making three hours out of it? It may have a quite good story, but actors? No. Suspense? No. Romance? No. Horror? No. It didn't have anything.It's got this strange, crazy science man with Einstein-hair, the classic thing. Not real at all. And a man keep getting younger all the time. It seems like they just used the name of Stephen King to make a crappy, too long movie with nothing exciting at all.I give this movie "1 (awful)". If they had like -5, I would probably take that instead. It was a total waste of time.$LABEL$ 0
+This is indeed the film that popularized kung fu in the 1970s. However, if it ever had any kind of excitement or even halfway interesting plot, it doesn't seem to have aged very well.Long story short: extremely drawn out, slow-moving, confusing plot with run-of-the-mill choreography, typically annoying and exaggerated whiplash sounds with every punch and kick, and constant "plot twists" that never come to an end. By the time the film reaches its emotional climax, I had long had all the wind knocked out of me to actually care.Watch it for its historical value as a milestone of Chinese kung fu cinema -- just leave your expectations at the door, or you'll be bitterly disappointed.For hardcore fans only.$LABEL$ 0
+This game is the bomb and this is the 007 game of the year and should be on greatest hits. When I got Agent Under Fire, I thought that was a good game but then Nightfire came around and that was better, but now there is a new type of James Bond game. This time it a 3rd person shooter and there is more than 12 missions, the graphics of the game are out of this house. It even has all of the great actors and actresses in this game like Pierce Bronsan as once again James Bond, William Dafoe as the villain Nikolai Diavolo, and Judi Dench as M (forgive me all if I spell it wrong). This game would be own as the greatest James Bond game around.I give this a 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+The unflappable William Powell. He is a joy to watch on the screen as he makes his way through situations without a care in the world. He always seems on top of his game and shows little care for anyone who doubts him. The murders are projects, barely human beings. I have noticed this is a staple of the whodunnit. Other than an occasional weeping widow, the victims fulfill the function of being the reason the movie exists. Nothing more. There are enough twists and turns to keep things interesting along the way and Powell is a master at this. There is a lot of political incorrectness, especially as it relates to the Asian performers. This is a little hard to take. The cast is great, and Curtiz's direction is also a consistent asset.$LABEL$ 1
+What we have here is a downright brilliant piece of early 80's incompetence that will render even the biggest connoisseur of trash- cinema completely speechless! "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" is a very cheap and cheesy fantasy/Sword-and-Sorcery adventure that doesn't have an actual plot but does eagerly & shamelessly borrows elements from other films. Writer Ed Naha and Hector Olivera (who?) watched enough similar type of movies to know that they needed a handful of essential characters, but probably figured that all the rest would follow automatically. In order to make a fantasy-adventure you need: one super- evil villain (preferably with a black cape), one young hero in training, one lone warrior, one amiable type of furry pet, one wise midget living in the woods (optional) and a whole colorful collection of hideous demons, enslaved dwarfs, and winged gargoyles to serve as filler. The story is phenomenal and so original, with Simon the young son of a wizard having to flee from his beloved kingdom after the evil magician Shurka takes over the power and killed the king. Simon wants to go back and save the people, but therefore he needs his powerful ring which he lost during his escape. Simon befriends lone warrior Kor (the usually cool dude Bo Svenson who clearly needed the pay check), who assists Simon during the long and devastating journey full of ordeals, dangerous encounters and magical showdowns. Admittedly it doesn't even sound too bad thus far, but that's merely just because I excluded all the deliciously inept little details. Simon has a best friend named Gulfax, for example. Gulfax is an albino version of Chewbacca and evokes incontrollable chuckles whenever he opens his poodle-snout to yelp something incomprehensible. The obstacles during journey back home are hilariously irrelevant to the "plot" and simply serve as padding footage to cover up the lack of actual content. Simon has nightmarish visions inside the tent of a suspicious forest nymph, Kor settles an old score with the pig-faced nemesis whose sister he refused to marry and there's the supposedly horrible 'suicide cave' where you can only sing your way out of. But the absolute most unequally brilliant sequence – not just of this film alone but in the history of cinema – involves the resurrection of four zombie warriors. Simon awakes the legendary courageous warriors, hoping they will assist them in their battle, but the rotting corpses only take a few steps, complain about how tired they are and return back to their graves. That's it! So much for the zombie sub plot! Best sequence ever! I could go on listing unintentionally hilarious little details for several more paragraphs, but you get the idea. "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" is a tremendously messed-up "so-bad-it's-good" film. Word of advice: do not watch this joyful piece of junk alone. Invite friends, preferably the dope-headed types with a wicked sense of humor, and watch it in group. It will be a night to remember…$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of my favourite films, dating back to my childhood. Set in the remote wilderness of Siberia at the turn of the century, a small community is stirred when an extremely cold winter forces two tigers to come down from the mountains in search of food, preying on outlying farms. In this atmosphere we are introduced to Avakum, a hermit fur trapper, who lives out in the wilds, as he comes to the village to sell his annual catch to Boris, his close, and rather only, friend in the village, who runs a store. At Boris' request, Avakum accompanies his friend's arrogant son, Ivan, on the hunt for the menacing tigers. Personalities crash and tempers flare as the older, more experienced Avakum criticises Ivan's amateur methods, an encounter noticed also by the other members of the hunt. On the second day, the hunters sight their prey and give chase. In a thick wood, Ivan wounds one of the tigers, which then attacks the hapless man. Avakum, seeing Ivan tangling with the enraged beast, fires, but accidently hits Ivan. He kills the tiger as it flees. The other hunters arrive on the scene, suspicious.Back in the village, the doctor works to save the wounded Ivan. Avakum attempts to leave the village, but is confronted by Ivan's friends. The trapper brushes them off however, and speeds off with his dog-drawn sled. The young villagers swear after him that they'll come for him if Ivan dies, which he later does, but before dying explains to his father that it was an accident. Old Boris, upon learning of his close friend being run out of the village, straightens out the gathering "lynch mob" and goes out after Avakum, to find him and set things right. And so the main story begins.A simple film, it raises the conflict of man and civilisation versus nature, mainly Avakum's struggle to survive alone out in the wilderness. The winter landscape is very well filmed. Perhaps the strongest element in the film is the soundtrack by Jimmie Haskell. Very sentimental and evocative, the main theme reminiscent of Albinoni's Adagio. Other movements reflect Russian styles, as well as a couple of folk music type tunes.Unfortunately, this film is not available to buy, to my knowledge, which is rather a shame. The copy I own, recorded off TV nearly twenty years ago is slowly deteriorating. This film is a must see for those who can appreciate it, if they can find it. 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+I have a feeling that the Warners Bros Depression-era musicals are going to become a lot more pertinent in the next couple of years. Yes, we are in the economic doldrums (or have you been living under a rock) and times look bleak. But we always have the movies as a way to escape our troubles. In the 30's, film-going was hugely popular even at the height of economic gloom. "Footlight Parade (1933)" was one such film that audiences flocked to. While this Lloyd Bacon-directed musical doesn't quite capture the social issues of the time as "Gold Diggers of 1933 (1933)" does, it's still a wonderful showcase of talent. We have to wait until the end of the film for the three centrepiece Busby Berkely extravaganza numbers, but boy, are they worth waiting for me. Yes, little Ruby Keeler is a terrible singer and actress, and her tapping is so-so, but Busby's magical "By A Waterfall" whisks her, and what seems to be a hundred other chorus girls, into a dizzying water wonderland. Of course Busby's numbers could never really be performed on a stage (they defy limits of gravity, for one thing), and they contrast terrifically with the realism of the tough, wisecracking non-musical scenes. And "Footlight" also has James Cagney in at the one of his all-too-few musicals (really, what couldn't this man do?). He even gets to take over from the leading man, don sailor garb and fawn over sexpot Shanghai Lil (who is really little Ruby in China-girl wig!).He co-stars with Joan Blondell, his adorable, adoring secretary who Cagney somehow overlooks in favour of other women (until the final reel, that is). Apparently Blondell was the only other woman who Cagney loved apart from his wife. And you can see the mutual adoration in every scene.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a novelty in Danish film. The mood is not unlike that of Blinkende Lygter, also by Anders Thomas Jensen, but with a novel touch. One difference is fewer characters, leaving much more room for them to be dwelled into. And what characters?! The two butchers are perfect. Mads Mikkelsen is a dominating, deranged parody and Nikolaj Lie Kaas an indifferent looser with a twin brother more or less an unholy pairing of the two.$LABEL$ 1
+First of all this is one of the worst soft-core straight to cable "erotic thriller" I've ever seen in my life. Of course, like all erotic thrillers are want to do, it's about a brothel madam and is set in a brothel. This, of course, makes the softcore simulated sex that pops up every other 10 minutes seem "in context." Whatever.Forget for one moment that this was never meant to win any awards. The actors are terrible and their line reading made me cringe. The woman who plays the female cop is so bad it's beyond description. She must be a really REALLY good friend of the guys who put up the movie for this terrible adventure, if you know what I mean.The production values are only slightly higher than porn. Other than that? I suppose if you're really drunk and you need something to laugh at, this would be a perfect film. And if that's the case, I recommend fast forwarding to all the scenes with the female cop. What's that accent, Brooklyn? Hilarious!$LABEL$ 0
+Beforehand Notification: I'm sure someone is going to accuse me of playing the race card here, but when I saw the preview for this movie, I was thinking "Finally!" I have yet to see one movie about popular African-influenced dance (be it popular hip hop moves, breaking, or stepping) where the main character was a Black woman. I've seen an excessive amount of movies where a non-Black woman who knew nothing about hip hop comes fresh to the hood and does a mediocre job of it (Breakin, Breakin 2, Save the Last Dance, Step Up), but the Black women in the film are almost nonexistent. That always bothered me considering so much of hip hop, African-influenced dance, and breaking was with Blacks and Latinos in massive amounts in these particular sets and it wasn't always men who performed it, so I felt this movie has been a long time coming. However, the race does not make the film, so I also wanted it to carry a believable plot; the dancing be entertaining; and interesting to watch.Pros: I really enjoyed this film bringing Jamaican culture. I can't recall ever seeing a popular, mainstream film where all the main characters were Jamaican; had believable accents; and weren't stereotypical with the beanies. The steppers, family, friends, and even the "thugs" were all really intelligent, realistic people who were trying to love, live, and survive in the neighborhood they lived in by doing something positive. Even when the audience was made aware that the main character's sister chose an alternate lifestyle, it still didn't make the plot stereotypical. I was satisfied with the way it was portrayed. I LOVED the stepping; the romantic flirty relationship going on between two steppers; the trials that the main character's parents were going through; and how she dealt with coming back to her old neighborhood and dealing with Crabs in a Barrel. I respected that she was so intelligent and active at the same time, and so many other sistas in the film were handling themselves in the step world. They were all just as excellent as the fellas. I don't see that in too many movies nowadays, at least not those that would be considered Black films.Cons: I'm not quite sure why the directors or whoever put the movie together did this, but I question whether they've been to real step shows. Whenever the steppers got ready to perform, some hip hop song would play in place of the steppers' hand/feet beats. At a real step show, there is zero need for music, other than to maybe entertain the crowds in between groups. And then when hip hop songs were played, sometimes the beat to the song was off to the beat of the steppers' hands and feet. It was awkward. I was more impressed with the stepping in this movie versus "Stomp the Yard" (another great stepping movie) because the women got to represent as fierce as the guys (in "Stomp the Yard," Meagan Good got all of a few seconds of some prissy twirl and hair flip and the (Deltas?) let out a chant and a few steps and were cut immediately). Even when there were very small scenes, the ladies tore it up, especially in the auto shop, and it was without all that music to drown out their physical music. I know soundtracks have to be sold, but the movie folks could've played the music in other parts of the film.I'm not a Keyshia Cole fan, so every time I saw her, all I kept thinking was "Is it written in the script for her to constantly put her hand on her hip when she talks?" She looked uncomfortable on screen to me. I thought they should've used a host like Free or Rocsi instead. Deray Davis was funny as usual though. Also, I groaned when I found out that the movie was supposed to be in the ghetto, like stepping couldn't possibly happen anywhere else. Hollywood, as usual. However, only a couple of people were portrayed as excessively ignorant due to their neighborhood and losers, which mainstream movies tend to do.I would've given this movie five stars, but the music playing killed it for me. I definitely plan to buy it when it comes out and hopefully the bonus scenes will include the actual step shows without all the songs.$LABEL$ 1
+It's the worst movie I've ever seen. The action is so unclear, work of cameras is so poor, actors are so affected ... and this lamentable 5 minutes of Arnie on the screen. My advice from the bottom of my heart - don't watch it unless you like such a low class torture.$LABEL$ 0
+Excellent writing and wild cast. The tech is poor but it's obviously very low budget. Looks like they didn't cut the negative but had to release on a video output. In any case one of the most inventive comedies I've seen lately. The screenwriter in particular is fine.$LABEL$ 1
+Contains Major Spoilers, on the off chance you would actually care about the story line.OK, we have storms that destroy a city and a computer hacker who clobbers the power grid.Predictable schlock from the start, and if that weren't enough, the 5 second action bumps between the movie and the commercials kill what little suspense there might have been. For example: will they make it to the airport in time? Things look dim as we go to a commercial…and the action shot before the ad shows them bouncing around inside the plane! Well, I guess they're gonna make it after all…but then again, they had to because they're good guys.The acting wasn't any too impressive (exception and welcome relief: Randy Quaid as Tornado Tommy) , the effects were kinda lame, the bad guys got it, and the good guys came through. The real disaster of this movie was the script, especially the ending. Not only did they wrap things up happily as quickly as a soap opera given 24 hours notice of a cancellation, but they glorified the hacker as well-intentioned. So he caused a bazillion deaths…he meant well. And, of course, an uplifting final TV report about people coming together. Barf. It was everything I expected from the commercials, and I'm glad I wasted my time watching it. It will make great conversation at the lunch table tomorrow.Is CBS insulting us by making this? Sure…but we watched it, didn't we? Did you count many ads there were for home backup generators during this pig?Here's hoping for the next Plan 9 from Outer Space (which gets better with each viewing). This isn't it.1 star.$LABEL$ 0
+Another Indian legend you never heard of before is let loose. As the name implies, this is a vengeful wraith who likes to absorb the skeletons of people while they're still using them. As usual, ancient burial grounds (can you say, "Poltergeist?") have been disturbed by clichéd greedy land developers building stuff.The CGI, if it had been better, might have made the effect more treacherous looking, but they skimped on the budget, and it shows--to comical effect. The unleashed creature probably should have been kept off stage during its first several killings-that might have added some mystery or impending doom atmosphere-but the inept director decided to show us in the first five minutes what it looks like, and it wasn't impressive. The deaths are just poorly done, again with shoddy CGI. I guess ancient spirits always kill by using cheap special effects. As for the "victims," they look they're going to laugh any moment while they do goofy screams. It's always obvious who's going to get it: a character with only a few lines shows up, strange noises are heard, CGI dots fly, exit character. Repeat (several times).Still, there's a few chase scenes featuring the monster that actually made this thing watchable. Unfortunately, the director seems to be using these as a device to fall back on (so it's used too often) when he can't think of anything else for his characters to do. Overall, it's pretty silly, but I've seen worse. This flick is cheap, but it's oddly fun to watch.$LABEL$ 0
+When I really began to be interested in movies, at the age of eleven, I had a big list of 'must see' films and I would go to Blockbuster and rent two or three per weekend; some of them were not for all audiences and my mother would go nuts. I remember one of the films on that list was "A Chorus Line" and could never get it; so now to see it is a dream come true.Of course, I lost the list and I would do anything to get it back because I think there were some really interesting things to watch there. I mean, take "A Chorus Line", a stage play turned into film. I know it's something we see a lot nowadays, but back then it was a little different, apparently; and this film has something special.Most of the musicals made movies today, take the chance the camera gives them for free, to create different sceneries and take the characters to different places; "A Chorus Line" was born on a theater stage as a play and it dies in the same place as a movie. Following a big audition held by recognized choreographer Zach (Michael Douglas), Richard Atenborough directs a big number of dancers as they try to get the job.Everything happens on the same day: the tension of not knowing, the stress of having to learn the numbers, the silent competition between the dancers…And it all occurs on the stage, where Douglas puts each dancer on the spotlight and makes them talk about their personal life and their most horrible experiences. There are hundreds of dancers and they are all fantastic, but they list shortens as the hours go by.Like a movie I saw recently, "A Prairie Home Companion", the broadcast of a radio show, Atenborough here deals with the problem of continuity. On or behind the stage, things are going on, and time doesn't seem to stop. Again, I don't if Atenborough cut a lot to shoot this, but it sure doesn't look like it; and anyway it's a great directing and editing (John Bloom) work. But in that little stage, what you wonder is what to do with the camera…With only one setting, Ronnie Taylor's cinematography finds the way, making close-ups to certain characters, zooming in and out, showing the stage from different perspective and also giving us a beautiful view of New York.In one crucial moment, Douglas tells the ones that are left: "Before we start eliminating: you're all terrific and I'd like to hire you all; but I can't". This made me think about reality shows today, where the only thing that counts is the singing or dancing talent and where the jury always says that exact words to the contestants before some of them are leaving (even when they are not good). It's hard, you must imagine; at least here, where all of them really are terrific.To tell some of the stories, the characters use songs and, in one second, the stage takes a new life and it literally is 'a dream come true'. The music by Marvin Hamlisch and the lyrics by Edward Kleban make the theater to film transition without flaws, showing these dancers' feelings and letting them do those wonderful choreographies by Michael Bennett. The book in the theater also becomes a flawless and very short screenplay by Arnold Schulman; which is very touching at times. So if it's not with a song it will be with a word; but in "A Chorus Line", it's impossible not to be moved.During one of the rehearsal breaks in the audition, Cassie, a special dancer played by Alyson Reed, takes the stage to convince Douglas character that she can do it. The words "let me dance for you" never sounded more honest and more beautifully put in music and lyrics.$LABEL$ 1
+The movie follows the events of the novel "Cel mai iubit dintre pamanteni"( could be translated as "The most beloved among humans" ), written by Marin Preda ( a very controversial book and movie), a novel which became something like The Bible or the story of Hamlet, very popular and hard to get, due to its satiric contents over the Communist regime. It represents the drama of the intellectual man, the humanist, in a "red" world. A movie filled with passion, fear, sexuality, all the great ingredients for a great movie recipe.One of the greatest Romanian movies,despite its psychological charge(after all, it is an European movie).$LABEL$ 1
+If it weren't for the editing out of curse words and a superimposed blur when one character give another the finger, it would be easy to mistake this low-budget snoozer for a Sci-Fi channel pilot. The plot about the government's attempts to destroy a group of telekinetics it originally trained as military weapons ends ambiguously enough with the hero, himself gifted, in pursuit of a telekinetic survivor bent on revenge. Alas, the movie is talky, boring, predictable and even devoid of interesting special effects. Top-billed Louis Gossett, Jr. has a minor role as the evil government bureaucrat who originated the program and now wants to eliminate all traces. He walks through the part and it is hard to understand why he bothered. Other members of the cast do a decent job with a script that demands little.$LABEL$ 0
+I have seen The Running Man several times as I am a Stephen King fan and have all his movies but now it is even better because up until 2 days ago I didn't know about this website and I didn't realize that the Paul Michael Glaser that was involved with this movie was the same Paul Michael Glaser that I grow up watching on Starsky and Hutch television show. For me this is a pleasant surprise because I can't tell you how many times I cried when Starsky or Hutch got hurt. The episode where Starsky (Kill Starsky) almost died I cried so hard My dad had to turn away from the show. What to you expect of a kid at age 12. Now, I intentionally look for films and programs involving Paul or David Soul and anything that Stephen King has his hands on I'm so there!!!!!!!! Just got to say Happy birthday Paul!!!!!$LABEL$ 1
+A stuttering plot, uninteresting characters and sub-par (to say the least) dialogue plagues this TV production that could hardly have been interesting even with a billion dollar production budget.The characters aren't believable, in their motives, actions or their professed occupations. The plot reads like a bad Dungeons and Dragons(TM) hack but with plasma rifles and force fields. There are severe continuity issues and the degree of pointless interaction between the characters has this author, at least, wincing. Avoid it like the plague. Watch any episode of Dark Angel and you will have better acting, dialogue and plot. Yuck.$LABEL$ 0
+Yes, this movie is a real thief. It stole some shiny Oscars from Avatar just because politicians wanted another war-hero movie to boost the acceptance (support?) for the wars U.S. is still fighting today. I do not really want to go here into politics, but come on, this is more clear than the summer sky. Hurt locker does not really have anything outstanding, no real plot at all. I really feel myself in the 50's of Hungary when the party told the people what to like and what not to like. The same propaganda movies were produced that time, only with the exception that those were black and white. Even if we consider this title a reasonable piece of the "U.S. wars are cool" genre, you surely have much better movies to choose from.$LABEL$ 0
+Whilst this is most definitely a well crafted piece of film-making, it's thoroughly without any entertainment value whatsoever.If you're depressed already, this film will send you over the edge.If you're feeling somewhat depressed, this film will be just one more thing in your life to feel bitter about. You'll feel that it's just your luck to have chosen to watch a movie that turns out to be a complete waste of time.Otherwise you might be able to make it through this film unscathed (I didn't, BTW), safe in the knowledge that your life is so much better than Jim's. Then again you might consider that you have been fooling yourself, and that are in fact in a much worse situation than you'd previously realized. You might feel a bit annoyed at Jim for bringing this to your attention. You may want to slap him around a bit with a wet fish. The sad truth is, much as I wanted to like this movie... I hated it. It took rather a long miserable road down the path of oblivion and then suddenly, for no reason whatsoever, looked back at itself and then stopped.Jim does not have an epiphany, at least not one that is conveyed on screen. Jim has a miserable life and a miserable set of options. He discovers nothing that one can relate to and fails to make any significant progress on his journey of self-discovery. Of course no-one alive could write a happy ending to this movie. As others have said it's no Hollywood tale, it's gritty and it's real. It's well made. Life is quite a struggle at times. If anyone were to know "the answer", they do well to shout it from the rooftops.Still, I feel cheated because this movie pretends to have something to say. You feel that it's going to say something, that if you just suffer through a little more of it, it'll have something to say. It'll make you stop and think. It doesn't.Again, I do submit that this is a well crafted film. And therefore may be of value to a film student with a penchant for e.g. lighting techniques of the use of colour palettes. For the rest of us, it's utterly miss-able.$LABEL$ 0
+I have to admit to enjoying bad movies. I love them I watch all of them. Horror especially. My friends and I all gather after a hard week at school and work, rent some crazy tapes, order a pizza and have a blast. One of the ones we got at Hollywood Video, was this one, Zombie Bloodbath. This one had a great box, so I was expecting less than usual.The story is about a housing project that is built over a nuclear facility that has had the above-ground layers bulldozed, and the other underground layers are simply covered up. The inhabitants of this neighborhood find the covered up facility when some kids fall into a hole inside a cave. This wakes up some zombies.From this point on, it's chunk-city. The gore effects and action never stop until the end credits roll.OK, it's not great art, but this one, with it's in-joke dialogue and over-the-top gruesome stuff was our favorite of the evening. Actually, it was one of the best "party tapes" I have ever had the pleasure of watching. And you could tell it was done on no money, with a bunch of crazy people. There are hundreds of zombies, and the Director looks like Brendan Frazer (he has a cameo) and it is just a wild trip.$LABEL$ 1
+During World War II, two Byelorussian (Soviet Russian) soldiers try to avoid being captured by occupying Nazis, as they trudge through snowy terrain, searching for food and safety. If you happen not to like black-and-white "foreign" films, you may still enjoy "Voskhozhdeniye" (retiled in English "The Ascent"). Director Larisa Shepitko paces the film extraordinarily well, despite its being a largely introspective piece of work. Her untimely death, in a car accident, made this Ms. Shepitko's final film, unfortunately.After the opening mission is declared, there doesn't seem to be much that could happen in the snowy woods, but Shepitko and a changing setting make it unexpectedly exciting. Leading players Vladimir Gostyukhin (as the spiritually wounded "Rybak") and Boris Plotnikov (as the physically wounded 'Sotnikov") successfully avoid being crushed by the ever increasing symbolism. Their allegorical performances, under Shepitko's sharp direction, provide a memorable and thought-provoking take on a familiar story.******** Voskhozhdeniye (4/2/77) Larisa Shepitko ~ Vladimir Gostyukhin, Boris Plotnikov, Lyudmila Polyakova, Anatoli Solonitsyn$LABEL$ 1
+1904. The North African nation of Morocco is hanging onto a tenuous Independence, as the various European powers - France, Germany, Britain, Russia, Spain, and now the United States - are vying for influence in the region. The Sultan (Marc Zuber) is a weak puppet; his uncle, the Bashaw (Vladek Sheybal), who is being manipulated by the French and Germans, is the real power behind the throne. Enter Berber Chieftan Raisuli (Sean Connery), the leader of the Rif tribe and "the last of the Barbary Pirates", who kidnaps an American missionary, Eden Pedecaris (Candice Bergen) and her two children and takes them hostage. Back in the US, President Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith) threatens to go to war over the issue: "Pedecaris Alive or Raisuli Dead!" - seeing the issue as the perfect way to exercise his "Big Stick" diplomacy, though Secretary of State John Hay (John Huston) is not so confident. However, the Raisuli has less sinister plans for the Pedecarises, who are more than capable of handling themselves in any event.John Milius's great historical film, based VERY loosely off of a true story (i.e. Pedecaris was a middle-aged man), is a wonderful bit of escapism. It has some amazing action scenes, a witty, well-written script, a fine cast enjoying themselves with the material, and does not overstay its welcome like, say, "Pirates of the Caribbean" or the "Lord of the Rings" movies. It's not really an "epic" film in the strictest sense, but it's one of the best pure action movies ever made.While the historical context is shaky, the storyline is interesting, and as some reviewers point out, it is even more pertinent today than it was when made. As President Roosevelt says, "America is like a grizzly bear" - fierce, strong, but a little blind and reckless at times. At the time of the film's setting, America has just been propelled onto the world stage as superpower, following their resounding victory in the Spanish-American War - and Roosevelt seizes this incident as a way to prove America's worth. In real life, it didn't quite work out that way, but allegorically it works well. While written from a right-wing perspective, Milius's screenplay is pretty accurate in assessing America and its place in the world. He admires Roosevelt and his method of "big stick" diplomacy, and correctly recognizes (in the words of Roosevelt) that while America may be feared and respected, they'll never be truly "loved" by the world, no matter what they do. And there are some scenes - like Roosevelt's target shooting of European leaders and the almost-comic surprise attack by Marines on the Bashaw's palace - which show America's reckless and violent side, while others - the climactic showdown with the Germans - show their heroism.The historical/political context of the film is, of course, merely meat on the bones of what is essentially a rousing action/adventure film. There are some brilliantly done action scenes, such as Raisuli's rescue of the Pedecaris's from double-crossing tribesmen, which features some of the best swordplay in any film. The opening entrance of the Raisuli and the aforementioned march and attack of the US Marines are brilliantly done bravura set pieces. And the final battle, which combines elements of "Lawrence of Arabia" and "The Wild Bunch", while a major historical fantasy (a three-way battle between Germans, Americans, and the Rifs), is a superbly staged, adrenaline-pumping sequence.The excellent cast gives some wonderful performances. Everyone seems to be having a fun time with the film, and it shows. Sean Connery is surprisingly convincing as a Berber with a Scottish accent, but manages to pull off his interesting, well-drawn and chivalrous character who comes to respect his hostage and abhors modern, uncivil warfare. Candice Bergen, an actress whom I've never been fond of, gives a fine performance as the feisty Eden Pedecaris, who is every bit as tough as her captor. Brian Keith is an amazingly convincing TR - you really feel he must have been like this, an athletic, blustering, yet practical and intelligent man with an admirable sense of self. The scenes of Roosevelt boxing and target-shooting while discussing foreign policy are some of the greatest "bad ass" moments in movie history - and who can forget lines like "Why spoil the beauty of the thing with legality?" John Huston provides solid support as the weary, cautious Hay, acting as a perfect foil to the much more impetuous Roosevelt. Among the fine supporting cast, the best are Geoffrey Lewis as Samuel Gummere, the cynical Ambassador caught in the middle of the political intrigue, and Steve Kanaly, as the gung-ho Marine Captain who cheerfully advocates (and carries out) "Military intervention!" as the blunt and simple solution to the whole complex situation. Other familiar faces such as Vladek Sheybal, Nadim Sawalha, Roy Jenson, Larry Cross, Marc Zuber, and Darrell Fetty also do fine work, no matter how small their role. Spaghetti Western fans will recognize Antoine Saint-John ("A Fistful of Dynamite") as the German general and Aldo Sambrell as one of Raisuli's tribesmen."The Wind and the Lion" is, all around, a wonderfully done adventure film. It has something for everyone: wonderful gun- and swordplay, a lot of humor, a tough, feisty heroine (and her two cute children), a nice (if unconsummated) romance, and an interesting (if fanciful) political/historical context. It's not a masterpiece, but hey, it wasn't trying to be. I give "The Wind and the Lion" a stirring nine stars and my highest recommendation.$LABEL$ 1
+Gilmore Girls is a hilarious show with never ending sarcasm, wit, and charm. At age 16 Lorelai Gilmore gave birth to Rory Gilmore. She left her parents house and got a job. Now, Lorelai and Rory have a relationship that many mothers and daughters envy. They are best friends. The girls have an extensive knowledge of movies, and TV shows, and are constantly quoting them. In the first season, Lorelai needs money to send Rory to Chilton ( a very highly rated high school), so she reluctantly has to turn to her parents. They are happy to give them the money, but in exchange, Rory has to come have dinner with them every Friday night. I highly recommend this show. I love it!$LABEL$ 1
+A found tape about 3? guys having fun torturing a woman in several inhuman ways.Yeah, spoiler.First of all, the acting made this short not scary at all, the woman seemed to have orgasms, not suffering. Some of the punishments were so ridiculous! what's shocking about throwing some meat or spin her in a chair? If you are shooting a nonsense tape, at least make it good. The only part to remark is the end: the hammered hand and the pierced eye, the rest of the film is really poor. To end the boredom, the supposed story about the tape being investigated, extra bullshit.$LABEL$ 0
+The Biggest one that bugs the hell out of me is that they say Zues takes DUTCH commands. But she is speaking German to him. The 2 languishes are completely different, its like saying "well he takes French commands" and start talking Spanish.James Belushi gives more the feeling of being a comedy actor not a detective in the slightest. The role just doesn't fit him, even if its mend to be a comedy.To many stereotype/predicable stuff. Typical comment or comebacks.If you don't look at those things i think it could be a nice movie to watch if its ever on TV. But i wouldn't suggesting renting it.$LABEL$ 0
+Where to start?? I think only three other films have led me to post a review on IMDb, and all of those were positive. As for this..?Mind-blowingly, hideously, tragically, embarrassingly, catastrophically, stupidly, irritatingly, completely and utterly beyond awful.I am STUNNED this got made, never mind given a theatrical release. I think I am literally in shock.I'm no "snob". I didn't expect beautiful film-making or intense character-depth, but this is truly beyond a joke. We simply MUST demand more from the films we see.Avoid. Like the Black Death.$LABEL$ 0
+Nothing about this movie stands out as either being great or terrible.In the end, that is what kills it. The blandness is just not good. I can't say I expected better from Will Smith, but I definitely did from Kevin James of "The King of Queens"-- but, hey, I'm getting used to saying that a lot lately. This film attempts to make its mark as a witty romantic comedy, but it never hits the bull's-eye. In fact, it never hits *anywhere* within the target. The allergy scene is disturbing; the fact that Kevin James can't dance is something that wouldn't exactly catch anybody off-guard, and is therefore (in a movie like this) not funny. This movie constantly tries to win your heart, but always with the wrong ploy at the wrong time. Some parts are okay (but I'm searching my brain for examples), but I really think this movie should be avoided.$LABEL$ 0
+Quite unimpressive. The 'twists' are all pretty predictable, if you've seen any movies within the last ten years, and the few somewhat interesting parts (wherein someone utilizes context clues to make a decision) are few and lack much punch, since the 'secret' has already been shown before these clues are explained.(spoilers, sorta)The acting is decent enough. The story simply isn't very interesting. The whole 'still awake' premise becomes nullified by the astral projection stuff(not kidding). The surgery scene is initially tense, a bit discomforting, but then becomes utterly banal.Not horrible, but not memorable. Terrence Howard's least interesting role to date, so far as I've seen. Kind of boring, overall.$LABEL$ 0
+Bad actors, terrible script, totally unbelievable ending - this film had it all. After seeing films like this, you wonder why the makers bothered at all. This film has absolutely nothing to say, all the methods used to create a scare have been used over and over again in previous horror films. A total waste of time.$LABEL$ 0
+I can't say I enjoyed this as much as "The Big Lebowski" or "Raising Arizona," and felt a little slighted, but "O Brother" is an enjoyable film worthy of some good laughs and a taste of the Coens' brisk, twisted sense of creativity. The DVD edition contains the featurette, and I was interested to find out that the Coens are pretty simple in their directorial techniques. That surprised me! Of course, this movie is not the best example (and I'm only saying this in comparison) and it wasn't worthy of any Oscars (many feel it was robbed), but maybe it depends on the appeal. Though I enjoyed the Coens' previous work, I've never been a fan of old westerns or "The Dukes of Hazzard" or any of that stuff they show daily on TNN. I guess that's why I didn't feel as enthusiastic about checking out this movie, seeing that it revolves around Southern folk. For all those from the South who are reading this, I don't mean to offend ANY of your people! I'm sure you guys feel the same way when you watch movies about urban areas like "A Bronx Tale." When you live in the city all your life, it's hard to get accustomed to films of this nature. But all apologies aside, I found the characters fun and quirky. I think John Turturro nailed the accent perfectly, and seeing the way he talks in real life I find that amazing. Tim Blake Nelson was also good. Of course, George Clooney--who I assume is not the best at feigning accents, judging by his decision to chuck the idea of working with a dialogue coach and developing a New England accent for "The Perfect Storm"--naturally seems a little miscast and continually struggles with the accent. His performance was good, though. You can also spot Coen regulars like Holly Hunter (in a short but sweet role) and John Goodman (also on screen for a short time, but steals every minute of it).Though I don't normally dig country music, I liked the title song "A Man of Constant Sorrow." The DVD also contains the music video for that song. Overall, I found the film entertaining and original, but it doesn't have that in-your-face quality that the Coens have shown to us in the past. It's a slighter effort, but a good one. I still suggest you check it out. My score: 7 (out of 10)$LABEL$ 1
+God, what an awful thing ! Oliver Stone probably wanted to experiment or something (see the terrible use of music and pictures here) but what for really ? The whole thing behind "Natural born killers" seems to be a "clever" look at how medias can turn into complete trash but unfortunately the movie turns into trash itself. Please Mr. Stone, next time you want to criticize the fascism of tv shows using violence to get high rates, avoid doing the same with your movie ! Michael Haneke said quite cleverly about this film that it was denouncing media fascism with fascist cinematographic ways. How true... Only he forgot to tell us about the massive headache you get after sitting through this overlong load of crap !$LABEL$ 0
+Stars: Hayden Pantierre.There have been so many movies that have this exact same plot, and this one is just a poor rehashing of it. Populer white girl moves to ethnic school, doesn't fit in, soon becomes accepted. Originality is nonexistent in this, and neither are the laughs. It uses so many old poorly executed jokes it's annoying. I don't know why they think it's a good idea to make made for video sequels to mediocre films, but it isn't. With that said, the positives in this are that all the people in it are fairly competent actors and actresses.My rating: * out of ****. PG-13 for Language and Sexual Humor.$LABEL$ 0
+First, let's get it out of the way. . . yeah, this film steals a LOT from 'Darkness Falls' (2003). The plot for 'Darkness Falls' goes something like this: The Tooth Fairy, a murderous woman who hides her face due to disfigurement kills people who look at her out of revenge. In 'The Tooth Fairy' (2006), the disfigured Tooth Fairy (who, yeah, hides her face) unleashes her furious vengeance on just about anyone. A little too similar to be coincidence.But, what must be asked is this: If you're going to directly steal the exact plot from a movie, why choose something as mediocre as 'Darkness Falls'? Sure it made a few bucks at the box office, but that was strictly for the fairly okay theatrical experience the film delivered. A low-budget, straight-to-video movie will not have that same effect. And it didn't.As I watched the opening 15-20 minutes of the film, my expectations actually rose. There seemed to be at least SOME production value. The story didn't seem terrible, just blatantly ripped off. Past the first scene, we get an okay cast of characters including an ex-doctor with secrets (played by that guy who looks like a Busey) and some hot veterinary student (Jenifer from Argento's 'Masters of Horror: Jenifer'). After those few minutes, however, the film just slowly goes down the drain. It serves all the basic horrible clichés including, but not limited to: some crazy old person with an unheeded warning, the buff dumb jock, the psychic, and the stripper with the heart-of-gold.One of the biggest problems this film had was its inability to stick with a target audience. It's kind of like the filmmakers wanted to change the tone for whatever character was on screen at the time. When the adults were on screen, it had a more mature feel. When Star (the stripper) and whatshisface (the jock) were on screen, the dialogue went down to a more stupid, err immature, level. When the kid was on screen, it felt like an episode of 'Are You Afraid of the Dark?'. . . only less scary.Technically, the film is all over the place. The visuals range from fairly good to plain boring. The writing is subpar, as is the acting for the most part. On the plus side, there's some excessive gore at parts (including a fairly cool (yet painfully predictable)) woodchipper scene and a pretty vicious nailgun scene. Also, if you're looking for a bit of the sexy stuff, there's a brief topless scene (but if you want to see this chick topless, there are better films to do that). Other than that, there's not much to bother with when it comes to this film.If you're a huge fan of 'Darkness Falls' (do those exist?), maybe you can check it out to see the story done in a different way. . . but, that's about the only reason I can find to see this one.Final Verdict: 3/10 -AP3-$LABEL$ 0
+Like those who listened to radio reports about the attack on Pearl Harbor, every one who has ever seen PINK FLAMINGOS can tell you exactly where they were when they first saw it--and some thirty years later the movie is still one of the most unspeakably vile, obnoxious, repulsive, and hilariously funny films ever put to celluloid, guaranteed to test the strongest stomachs and the toughest funny bones.Filmed with a close-to-zero budget and some of the shakiest cinematography around, PINK FLAMINGOS tells the story of two families that compete for the tabloid title of "The Filthiest People Alive." Just how filthy can they be? Plenty: the film includes everything from sex with chickens to what I can only describe as a remarkable display of rectal control to a heaping helping of doggie doo, and I guarantee that you won't want to eat an egg for at least several weeks after seeing it.The cast is either wonderful, atrocious, or atrociously wonderful, depending on how you look at it. The star, of course, is Divine... and to describe Divine as the BIGGEST drag queen on the planet would the understatement of the year. She is a mammoth creature given to BIG eye makeup, BIG orange hair, and BIG expressions--she is the Charleton Heston of drag, and whether she is almost running down a jogger, pausing to use the bathroom on some one's front lawn, or startling real-life shoppers by taking a stroll along a Baltimore sidewalk she is both unspeakable and unspeakably funny. Others in the cast include Mary Vivian Pearce, Danny Mills, and the ever-appalling Edith Massey as members of Divine's family; and Mink Stole and David Lochary as the white-slaving, baby-selling couple who challenge Divine's status.It should be pretty obvious that PINK FLAMINGOS is not exactly a movie that will appeal to just every one, and viewers who know director John Waters only through such later films as HAIRSPRAY and CRYBABY will be in for a major jolt. But if you want to see something so completely different that even Monty Python couldn't imagine it, this is the movie for you. Just make sure you eat before you see it, because you probably won't want to eat afterward--and you might want to keep a barf bag handy just in case.Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of those movies where I just want to move my feet and dance around the house. It's a very positive and happy type of music. The movie has some sad parts but mostly the music is what makes me happy. Gary Busey did a great job as Buddy Holly. Buddy Holly kept on going even tho his pastor, his parents and the Nashville record producer told him no. Buddy Holly didn't give up on what he liked. I didn't know much about Buddy Holly until I watched this movie. I've been to the Surf Ballroom where he last played but didn't give much attention to it until I watched this movie. It's an incredible movie with lots of fun so get on your feet and see this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Wow, what a great cast! Julia Roberts, John Cusack, Christopher Walken, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Hank Azaria...what's that? A script, you say? Now you're just being greedy! Surely such a charismatic bunch of thespians will weave such fetching tapestries of cinematic wonder that a script will be unnecessary? You'd think so, but no. America's Sweethearts is one missed opportunity after another. It's like everyone involved woke up before each day's writing/shooting/editing and though "You know what? I've been working pretty hard lately, and this is guaranteed to be a hit with all these big names, right? I'm just gonna cruise along and let somebody else carry the can." So much potential, yet so painful to sit through. There isn't a single aspect of this thing that doesn't suck. Even Julia's fat suit is lame.$LABEL$ 0
+Nice movie with a great soundtrack which spans through the rock landscape of the 70's and 80's. Radiofreccia describes a generation, it describes life in a small village near Correggio (hometown of Ligabue, the singer who wrote the book that inspired the movie), it describes life of young people and their problems relating to the world. It reminds of Trainspotting, with a bit of Italian touch.$LABEL$ 1
+I'd waited for some years before this movie finally got released in England, but was in many ways very pleased when I finally saw it. There are a lot of great things to the film, for a start the acting. Its not something I have all that much need for in a horror picture but the people in this film all put in fine work. This and the constantly gripping and interesting script, with a nice sorta Lovecraftian feel to it, give the film a real solid backbone. Add to this the doses of surreal nightmare imagery and occasional gruesome gore and the films a winner. It has my favorite kind of gore too, supernatural and splattery. Also, the characters of Marcus, the angry bodybuilding transsexual and Daisy, his mentally retarded lover/plaything are genuinely freakish and unnerving at times, and give a far out, anything goes sense of morbid grown up craziness which works well with the frequent Freudian overtones. This is one of the most impressive recent horror movies, far more shocking or out there than anything Hollywood can produce. My only gripe was that I wanted the ending to be darker in tone, but it still works, so on the whole I'd really recommend this to serious horror buffs.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie has one or two slightly interesting gags but they are NOT worth the wait. After an unexplained argument between two guys picking up litter in a drive-in movie theatre we cut to a family leaving! Hollywood and driving driving driving driving their camper van across the screen again and again as inane dialogue is voiced over. At least I think it's inane, the terrible song that accompanies this montage is mixed so loud it renders the dialogue at times almost inaudible. Finally the camper van arrives, at night, at a gas station where the family get out, have another inane conversation, before driving off. The camera then pans across to reveal the actor we have just seen drive away. He talks straight to camera and we realise he is the director of the movie we are watching which is about him, and how he came to make the movie.A nice idea which ALMOST (but not quite) makes the previous sequences worth the pain.As the movie unfolds he encounters the two characters we met picking litter at the start of the movie and they all form a motion picture company.All sorts of not very funny and clumsy comedy ensues as they put together a crew and attempt to raise the cash needed to start filming.This movie was obviously put together on a shoe string and a promise and there is a nice little idea in here struggling to get out but the execution is so inept that the idea gets lost. Comedy is more than things just falling over and everyone talking (or shouting) at once. So much of the dialogue here is shouted by several actors simultaneously - Robert Altman can do this sort of thing well because he has a script, rehearsals, decent sound techies, and editing facilities. Everyone shouting at the one mike which, by the sound of it, was hidden in a dustbin in the next room, does not make for clarity.$LABEL$ 0
+I can honestly tell you that this movie is the most awesome movie ever!!! If you are in the mood for a comedy, I totally recommend this movie! So, here's the summary. There is this girl(Nikki) who is fourteen and a half and she goes on a vacation with her father(Andre) whom she hasn't seen for about two years. She expects the vacation to be totally boring, until she meets this boy(Ben), who is much older than she is. So, to try to impress him she says that she isn't on vacation with her father, but her lover. This is a hysterical movie from beginning to end, and I highly suggest it. So rent it and enjoy!!!$LABEL$ 1
+Well here comes another,well,romantic comedy...but unlike all others movies of this genre,this is by far the best I have seen in a long while..I'll admit,at first I wanted to watch this movie because of Megan Fox,and a little because of Simon Pegg...First of all,if you have watched a decent amount of movies,you will know that Sidney and Alison would be together at the and of the movie,one way or another...but from the beginning to the end of the movie you won't know how...Okay,now this movie is just made for Simon Pegg.I can't see any other actor in the role of Sidney,and I'm sure this would be a very weaker movie if not for Pegg's great performance.There is a number of great gags and jokes in this movie that kept me laughing really hard,courtesy of Simon Pegg's character Sidney...but I think everyone in this movie is good.For example,Kirsten Dunst is really solid in this movie( I usually don't think of her as any more than an average actress,but she was really good in this one ),then there's Jeff Bridges,there's Gillian Anderson,and of course Megan Fox who plays spoiled bitchy star Sophie Maes...great role for her...All in all,while I usually don't agree with ratings her on IMDb,this time I would completely agree with them...Go and see this movie,it is really light-hearted and positive,and I recommend it deeply... My rating 7 out of 10...well 7.5 actually...$LABEL$ 1
+With the advent of the IMDb, this overlooked movie can now find an interested audience. Why? Because users here who do a search on two-time Academy Award winner Glenda Jackson can find 'The Return of The Soldier' among her credits. So can those checking out Oscar winner Julie Christie. Fans of Ann-Margret can give the title a click, as will those looking into the career of the great Alan Bates. Not to mention the added bonus of a movie with supporting heavyweights Ian Holm and Frank Finlay. Any movie with so many notables in it is rewarded by the IMDb, given all the cross-referencing that goes on here. So, why isn't this movie out on DVD? Don't the Producers realize the Internet Movie Database is a marketing gift for such a film? And 'The Return of The Soldier' is definitely a gem waiting to be discovered. Get with it, people.$LABEL$ 1
+[WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS]Written by husband and wife Wally Wolodarsky (who also directed) and Maya Forbes, this indie film is one of the better romantic comedies in recent memory.Jay Mohr takes a break from playing smarmy weasels to be the nice guy faced with the fact his fiancée wants to bed other people and he's allowed to do so, too. Julianne Nicholson, who was so good in "Tully," plays spunky and vulnerable with great gusto. Too bad she doesn't get the recognition she deserves. Good supporting performances help immensely, too. Lauren Graham, who made last year's "Bad Santa" memorable, plays the jaded, cynical sister to perfection, Bryan Cranston (the dad on TV's "Malcolm in the Middle") gets a few funny, raunchy moments, and Andy Richter plays a genial guy who falls for a single mother - Helen Slater in a credible, albeit familiar, role as a mousy woman.What surprised me most about "Seeing Other People" was how funny it is. There are some genuine laughs here. Ed's first attempt at meaningless sex gets some great lines, and there's a ménage a trois that elicits one of the most truthful reactions from a man as the male fantasy gets tweaked.The film's premise isn't unusual, but I liked that it was Alice (Nicholson) who thought of it, much to the chagrin of Ed (Mohr). Given the genre, you know that no matter how good her intentions are, Alice's plan is doomed. We see how the couple works through this strange situation. Initially, Alice and Ed are turned on by the idea, but then the human element sets it.I appreciated Forbes and Wolodarsky not turning this into a cheap sex romp. Yes, there's sex and nudity, but there also are real emotions at work here. The "other people" Alice and Ed befriend don't want to be the objects of casual sex; they have feelings, too. In one case, too many feelings.Granted, some scenes run one joke too many, the Richter-Slater subplot isn't necessary and Alice does something truly uncharacteristic. But that's forgivable because Mohr and Nicholson generate such tremendous intimacy and honesty - check out the scenes where Ed rummages through Alice's underwear drawer or his reaction to her announcement about ending the experiment - that no matter how much we might enjoy their little game, we root for this couple to succeed.Unfortunately, this film got little, if any, publicity and a limited release. Hollywood studios, whose romantic comedies often veer on the unfunny, turgid and unsurprising, would do well to learn from this intelligent and funny film.$LABEL$ 1
+What a terrible movie! It represents perfectly the state of degenerateness of French society, where the most elementary respect for wholesome values and traditions has completely disappeared. The plot is nonsensical, the movie is not funny at all and the characters are completely shallow and uninteresting. To say the least, the direction and the cinematography are very poor and uninspired. Catherine Deneuve is as bad an actress as she always was, even when she was directed by Bunuel in Belle De Jour. The rest of the usually good cast (Vincent Lindon, Line Renaud, Jean Yanne) seem completely lost in an ocean of vulgarity, platitudes and restlessness. I cannot help to draw a parallel with the wonderful James Ivory's "Le Divorce", with its thoughtful depiction of French and American mores, its superlative cinematography and stellar cast put to good use. Having watched "Le Divorce" you can feel a kind of empathy with the French, regardless of their foibles. "Belle-Maman" leaves you with only a nauseated contempt for its morally bankrupt and clueless protagonists.$LABEL$ 0
+This film's kind of like Conan the Barabarian, but with more sex, rape and murder. There is a plot somewhere underneath all this debauchery but the filmmakers don't do a good job showing it, which is a shame because it 'could' be a decent story. Richard Hill gives a solid performance in the lead role, as does the villain - who sadly didn't appear in anything else of note. The fight scenes aren't too bad either - I love the way Deathstalker lets his sword 'drink' the blood of his victims - and there's plenty of nudity and sex to temper the general level of machismo throughout. All in all, not good - but not necessarily that bad either...$LABEL$ 0
+This may just be the most nostalgic journey back in time & through time to when one's childhood starts a journey to reminiscences back & forth onwards & upwards,forwards & backwards,up & down & all around.The boy Jimmy,H.R. Puffinstuff,Dr.Blinky,Cling & Clang,Ludicrous Lion,& even the evil Witchie Poo too through & through. The latter day inspirations of Lidsville,"The Brady Kids Saturday Morning Preview Special" Sigmund & the Sea Monsters,and Land of the lost both the new & old are what this very show bridged the gap to as well as The Donny & Marie Show,The Brady Bunch Variety Hour a.k.a. Brady Bunch Hour & Even The Paul Lynde Halloween Special. Maybe even other things in between & Beyond the Buck just keeps on moving on & on & even beyond expectations & as well as unexpected bounds.Now as we get updated in March of '06 we know that Jack Wild's gone & so now it make's it even more symbolic for us to really get nostalgic.Including now in August of '06 both when Jack Wild guest stars as himself on Sigmund and The Sea Monsters as well as when on a latter episode H.R.Puffinstuff does too and to recall all of the other nostalgic journeys of all the Syd & Marty Kroft Characters as well including The H.R.Puffinstuff Goodtime Club;The Donny and Marie Show;The Brady Bunch Variety Hour a.k.a. The Brady Bunch Hour;etc. Truthfully,Stephen "Steve" G. Baer a.k.a. "Ste" of Framingham,Ma.USA.$LABEL$ 1
+The film had it moments, but was disappointing in my eyes anyway. It was a reworking of Trespass (Walter Hill) and so The Treasure Of the Sierra Madre, with less tension, bite and human emotion. There was some nice acting but the story was limp and lacked any real depth. I watched the movie for Mr Reno and Mr Fishburn, neither were inspired and both had little to say or act out of their skin for. This movie has been done to death in the past and did not have to be made, eats up money which could be used on better movies. For an action movie it was sparse of action and as a thriller did not thrill. Better than watching snow fall, but not for me.$LABEL$ 0
+Even MST3K couldn't make this painful, long, and ultimately mind-bending drek funny or entertaining. While most bad movies in and of themselves are hilariously bad, this one is one of those few videos that uses the word bad in its literal sense.The element that makes this so PAINFUL to watch is not the lack of story, but the fact that SOOOO much background is crammed into the first half-hour that it is utterly ridiculous and harder to follow than a highway while driving with no headlights.The hero of the film, Ator, is no more than eye-candy for this literal energy-sucker of a film. Dressed in a loin-cloth and sporting "pecs like melons," as Joel put it, he belongs more in a fitness magazine than here.I would recommend this ONLY to die-hard, and I mean die-hard followers of cheese. If you have an enemy, recommend them this film. If you make it through this, I commend you. You should be able to make it through anything.$LABEL$ 0
+Square really landed this one. They didn't try to please everyone and instead focused exclusively on Final Fantasy 7 fans. And boy, are those going to be happy fans when they see this movie! The story might not be all that interesting or credible but it ties in neatly with the story of the game and has several honest-to-god funny moments!! A total surprise there and a welcome one tooThere are lots of cameos and funny references to the game too. And most important of all: The fighting scenes rock so hard they could cut through diamond! They are truly the total awesomeness and would have made the movie worth it even if everything else sucked. I mean, they are some of the best ever created PERIOD.See this movie. Bye.PS: I know my review sounds like the ravings of a teenage girl. It was, like, totally what I intended.$LABEL$ 1
+Watching The Wagonmaster is not likely to result in deep thoughts, unlike many other great Ford films, like The Searchers, My Darling Clementine, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and The Grapes of Wrath among others, but it is likely to produce a feeling of awe and deep satisfaction. The story is very simple: two cowboys decide to help a wagon train of Mormons get to California. Along the way, they run into a medicine man whose mules ran away, a group of bank robbers, and some Navajos. There's a lot of adventure and excitement on the trail, and the film is imbued with fun and beauty. The music is absolutely beautiful. The scenery, again from Monument Valley, is as beautiful as it ever was. Plus, how can you go wrong with James Arness? The Wagonmaster might not be one of John Ford's better known films, but it is nonetheless a must-see if you get the chance. 9/10.$LABEL$ 1
+This was the most unrealistic movie I ever seen.I can't believe that the writer and director didn't see that almost all the movie looks like a SF one.For example: 1. It is impossible for the killer to stay on cold glaze and after 10 hours to get up so quickly.2. You can't get electrocuted trough a water pipe like in the movie.(believe me, it's my domain)3. With a saw you can cut 10 pipes in 10 hour very easy. Let's say that the chain was made from steel but the water pipe was rusty and it was made from iron.4. If you try to cut your foot with a saw you faint (in the best case, it's more likely to die because your hart fails) before to get to the bone(shin).And there are more other examples.$LABEL$ 0
+A very great movie.A big love story. Lots of sword fighting. Huge battle scenes. Heros and villains. Real history.Few in the West know much Chinese history. Chin Zchaundi founded China. The country is in fact named after him. Some are familiar with the terra cotta army recently unearthed. This is a historical epic of how he ended the Period of Contending States and unified China. He founded a dynasty that only last 14 years but it was immediately replaced by the Han dynasty that permanently defined Chinese civilization ever since.Chin (or the King of Zheng as he was known before he founded the empire)was roughly contemporaneous with Scipio, Hannibal, and Fabius in the West. The parallel Roman world dominance (West and East worlds) was achieved without a single towering personality like Chin. It would not be for another century before the West produced Caesar - the nearest comparable Western figure.Chin is shown very sympathetically here in the beginning but he develops over the course of the film into a ruthless despot. History only records the ruthless despot part but the sympathetic beginning leaves room for real character development over the course of this long film. The famous story about the meeting with the assassin is as true as any two thousand year old anecdote can be. Gong Li is lovely. She is the emotional core of the story. It all makes for great movie making.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this "movie" partly because of the sheer number of good reviews at Netflix, and from it I leaned a valuable lesson. Not a lesson about ethnic diversity however...the lesson I learned is "Don't trust reviews".Yes, racism sucks and people are complicated, but the people who actually need to see this movie are going to be the ones who are the least drawn to it and least affected by it if they DO see it. The only reason that I can think of for the number of good reviews is that it's being reviewed by people who aren't used to thinking, or who've seen their first thought-provoking movie and somehow think that Haggis invented the concept. In fact, he basically made this film, which should be called "Racism For Dummies", as emotionally wrenching as possible, seemingly to give people who don't spend a lot of time thinking the impression that they've discovered some fundamental truth that's never been covered in a film before. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintanence it's not... An after-school special for the unthinking masses, cut into bite-sized overwrought ham-fisted pieces to make it easier to swallow without too much introspection.It's as if they portrayed everyone as being the worst possible extreme, simply to make us happy that we're such good people because we don't identify with the characters. Let's face it people. NOBODY identifies with these characters because they're all cardboard cutouts and stereotypes (or predictably reverse-stereotypes). It's well acted (even if the dialog is atrocious) and cleverly executed, so much that you don't think to ask "where's the beef?" until you can tell the film is winding down. The flaming car scene was well executed, like much of the movie, but went nowhere in the end. The messages are very heavy-handed, and from the "behind the scenes" blurb, the producers were clearly watching a different movie, because there is very little to laugh about in this movie, even during the intended funny parts. I have to stress that this is NOT entertainment, more like a high school diversity lesson...call it the "Blood on the Highway" of racism. They could even show this in high schools if it weren't for the "side-nude" shot of Jennifer Esposito.In this film, everyone's a jerk and everyone learns a lesson (except for Michael Pena who gets the best role, but the most predictable storyline).This is a bad film, with bad writing, and good actors....an ugly cartoon crafted by Paul Haggis for people who can't handle anything but the bold strokes in storytelling....a picture painted with crayons.Crash is a depressing little nothing, that provokes emotion, but teaches you nothing if you already know racism and prejudice are bad things.$LABEL$ 0
+As a Westerner watching another culture's view and tradition of marriag, I found Just Married mesmerizing and delightful. The idea of marrying a stranger through the mutual arrangement of parents is difficult, especially in this modern age. Yet this is the case in this Hindi film. Told with humor, and fresh perspective, we learn of Abhay and Ritika who have only met once and are now on their traditional five day honeymoon. As said, it is difficult to believe in this cell phone affluent age that such an archaic custom as an arranged marriage still take place. We see the awkwardness that this young couple feels as they come together on their first night, and how they try to forge a bond, even though they do not know one another. We see different views of marriage and commitment as presented by the other couples also on holiday, from a couple of forty years married to others still unsure of making marital commitment. There's song, witty dialog, poignant moments, blending and comparison of new ways and tradition. Watching the movie with subtitles definitely loses some of the trueness of the story, yet it is still a delight to watch. Granted some of the plot is a little trite and the bus incident a bit drawn out and contrived; however the overall movie was worth watching.$LABEL$ 1
+My nose is bent slightly out of shape as I write this. I had sent a previous comment on this film some weeks ago that has not yet appeared, so I assume it was rejected, even though it met all the usual guidelines.I found this film interesting for the first thirty minutes, particularly the performance of Jordi Mollà, a veteran actor who has appeared in such major productions as "Blow" and "The Alamo." Leonor Watling is also quite good. Unfortunately, everything sinks eventually under the weight of a truly awful, melodramatic script. There is also an abundance of gratuitous nudity that does nothing to advance the narrative or lend even an impressionistic nuance to what is otherwise a beautifully filmed piece of art.An actual day trip to the beach at Valencia would be much less arduous than having to encounter these fictional characters again anywhere, anytime.$LABEL$ 0
+This is an interesting movie. I think it's very humorous, although the humor is very black. Fulci is good and funny acting himself, it's a really funny and truly crazy "self-portrait" of an artist ("I make horror films. If I would make love films, no-one would buy tickets..."). And it's really SEXY movie also: Almost all the time there is some "action" or tension going on; and many sexy girls/women... Maybe it goes to the core of why anyone starts to do movies/art in the first place... It's a real psychedelic trip, maybe best seen a little drunk or some similar state of mind. There is some really nasty gore scenes also, of course, because it's Lucio Fulci. As a matter of fact some of those scenes are quite disgusting. Anyway it's one of the three best and most complete Fulci films I've seen (the others are House By The Cemetery & Zombi.Haven't seen The Beyond). Actually, the script is overally, to my opinion, quite ingenious. You could see this movie as a portrait of an extreme neurotic, or a person who suffers from obsessive-compulsive disorder (fashionable words): The character has a compulsive need to confess "crimes" or bad thoughts; Especially crimes he hasn't even DONE. And he questions himself all the time: What if I HAVE done it? What if I want to do it? Have I done it? Do I want to do it? He overreacts and exaggerates his thoughts. I'm sure Fulci has been interested of psychology, and maybe even read something of the area; in his "House By The Cemetery"-movie for example there is a character named Freudstein. This is maybe the most concentrated and straightly personal movie Fulci did. I also like the simplicity of the photography/pictures in this film. Only thing that disturbs me a little bit is the sadism, especially towards women; I don't quite understand why? Is it entertainment? Is it art? Is it horror? Anyways and overall, this is really interesting and well made movie, definitely recommended classic film at least for fans or anyone interested of this genre. For the others it may be too much.$LABEL$ 1
+I could not watch more than 10 minutes of this movie. It has set the standard. I will never again give a movie a 1, unless it was as horrible as this one. I fully agree with the other comments about this film. But, since I'm Dutch, I watched it with Dutch translation. Apparently, they didn't have money for a proper translation, so they decided to babelfish it. With sometimes hilarious results.Don't smoke, don't drink, don't do drugs, don't watch Demon Summer.I was surprised that the actors (Wow, I can't believe I just said that.) didn't hold the script (Was there any?) in their hands while shooting. I think they also did a good job on... Well... Uhmm... No, they didn't do a good job at all.$LABEL$ 0
+Okay,I had watched this movie when I was very little and the day that we were cleaning out the closet I see this!I thought,"I have no idea of what this movie was like,"so I went ahead and put it in.OH MY GOD!!!!!This film is so darn bad!I never thought that this film could ever get as close to my least favorite film as it did,but I did laugh,because all the jokes were so corny and ridiculous,not funny!!!!So much stuff in this movie was funny,because it was SO STUPID!!!!This film is not anywhere near good.I would have to say if you want to watch this movie you definitely better not expect anything big and if you've already seen it,trust me,I feel your pain as well!!!!$LABEL$ 0
+I hadn't planned on seeing this movie, however I wasn't disappointed when a friend dragged me along. Although there are no real surprises here, the guys do reasonably well with their obviously modest budget.If you've seen the trailer you probably know what to expect from this type of movie and there's a pretty constant stream of jokes here, with a couple of classic moments, with the highpoint probably being an excellent flashback to what the guys were like in the 1980's. Also, I've read elsewhere that the ending was a disappointment, but I found it refreshingly different from what I had expected from this genre.Overall, this movie wont change your life, but it's got enough laughs there to keep you entertained throughout.$LABEL$ 1
+Yeah, that about sums it up. This movie was horrifying. Two minutes in I wanted to gouge my eyes out. This has been praised as an "innovative LDS comedy," but it's not even good for members of that church! I don't think any human being should be so victimized as to watch a movie of this low quality.First of all, you can tell that absolutely no effort whatsoever went into this movie. It seems as if the horribly drab, glib, trite plot was thrown together by two crazy weasels somehow imbued with the gift for coherent (at least semi-coherent) thought. Then, there's the acting, which is dismal from *everybody* involved. Even the cameos fail to liven anything up.And let's not forget the fact that our protagonist is a shallow jerk who we would like to believe can change, but that road is full of embarrassingly bad dialogue, appallingly hideous "gags," and a lot of Mormon "in-jokes" that anyone in their right mind, LDS or not, should consider purely *stupid*! This has to be one of the worst films I've ever seen!$LABEL$ 0
+Infamous horror films seldom measure up the hype that surrounds them and I have yet to come across a worse offender than Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes. Having held back from watching this for years, I was really pleased when I got it for Christmas and waited for an evening when my girlfriend was out to settle down and watch it - knowing her extreme dislike for anything genuinely horrifying. I needn't have bothered.After a promising - if familiar - start, that firmly sets the film in the 'Desolution USA' world of survival horror, things rapidly go to pieces when the protagonists and antagonists meet in the deserted wasteland.Looking like it was shot on a budget of $5, with the cannibal clan's costumes hired from a dodgy fancy dress shop that specialises in faux caveman and Red Indian attire, the story follows an annoying bunch of unsympathetic WASPs who take a detour on a road trip to California, to look for a silver mine in a nuclear testing zone (!). When they break down they are set upon by the local family of flesh-eaters and have to fight to survive.While hoping for another Deliverance, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Wrong Turn or Devil's Rejects, I actually realised I'd stumbled across something that should have remained dusty and unwatched in a backstreet video store's bargain bin.With gallons of tomato ketchup for blood and a couple of gruesome wound close-ups, I can kind of see how an 18 Certificate (in the UK) is justified, but with those close-ups trimmed this wouldn't have looked out of place as a Saturday afternoon thriller on ITV.The whole silver mine/nuclear test site subplot is just a McGuffin to justify pitching the 'civilised' family against the primitives, but given how easily the savages get their asses whupped it stretches credibility to think that they had survived for a generation preying on passers-by.And then there's the ending ... or lack thereof. The Hills Have Eyes seems to be missing either a third act or, at the very least, a satisfying denouement. Instead, I was just left wondering: "Yeah, and ... ?"$LABEL$ 0
+Although at first glance this movie looks like the story of your parent's high school life (and many people will try to tell you that this movie is WAY outdated)... and I admit that that was MY first impression.... but honestly,the 'lessons' that are learned by the heroes/heroines are def. NOT outdated. Who doesn't want to be famous? And who doesn't want do be accepted my their peers? And the homosexual guy-isn't there a whole controversy today about gay marriage, blah, blah? This movie, though released in the 80's still addresses some of the biggest issues in today's world. This movie does have a little too much profanity and nudity for my taste, though. (thus the 8/10 rating)$LABEL$ 1
+There are not many films which I would describe as perfect, but Rififi definitely fits the bill. No other heist film has come close to it, before or after. The plot is simple, but engrosses you. It never ceases to amaze me how absolutely gripping the film is every time you view it. You care for all the characters, even though they are bank robbers, because they are presented as human beings with all their problems and flaws. It's hard to imagine any other actor besides Jean Servais in the role of Tony le Stéphanois. When the members of the crew are each talking about what they are going to do with their money and finally get to Tony, his answer and the expression on his face says it all. While the 30 minute heist sequence is the most famous part of the movie(and rightfully so)the film actually gets better afterward.The director Jules Dassin knew what he was doing when he decided to not have any music during the heist scene or the final shootout, but instead inserted a great climactic score during Tony's final ride towards his destiny. To think that if Dassin, an American Director, had not been blacklisted in Hollywood and forced to work in France, this masterpiece of cinema would never have been made the way it was. It certainly wouldn't have been as good if it was made as an American film during that time. It was absolutely horrible what Dassin had to go through, but he did achieve his greatest work because of it, to the benefit of all of us. I'm just cringing at the thought of the upcoming Al Pacino remake. Most heist films since Rififi have already borrowed from it in some way or another. There's no reason to remake this masterpiece other than money. Leave the classics alone!$LABEL$ 1
+Soul Calibur has always been my favorite fighting game series of all time. And SCIII is my favorite one of the series.The graphics are very well done. Much bigger improvement over the choppy polygons in Soul Edge/Soul Blade. The characters have facial expressions, hair blows in the breeze and they even blink.Soul Calibur has always been known for it's interesting plots and characters and SCIII is no exception. Each character has his/her background story that is detailed and well done. My favorite character is Chai Xianghua. She's cute, she's funny and she's a strong female character. Yeah, I know she wears pink and has a boyfriend (who she ends up saving BTW), but there seems to be more to her than that. Xianghua, like all the other characters, have flaws and upsides to their personalities, so no character is perfect, not even the good guys.The music is beautifully composed for a fighting game series. It doesn't sound kitchy (the Vampire series) nor does it sound like old school porn film soundtrack (Mortal Kombat). The characters have their own themes and a lot of the themes are done to match the culture of that certain part of the world. I don't think there is a song on this soundtrack I don't like.Another cool thing about this game is to create your own anime-like character (Create a Soul). You could make him/her look as cute or as sexy or even ugly if you like. However, if you found a character customization that you like, remember to take notes, or else you won't remember how you created that character. I found myself being very addicted to CaS.Overall, I think Soul Calibur is my number one fighting game series of all time. It has everything I asked for. What more could I want?$LABEL$ 1
+Yes, I know that this movie is meant as a comedy! And the humor is over the top! But the theme about people getting less intelligent in future time might not be so far fetched! I cannot say that it will happen,but if we don't take proper care of our educational system than this could be a possibility! I have noticed that some schools aren't teaching facts anymore! (Like history,geography,basic stuff). The focus is more on learning practical abilities! The theory behind most subjects may be boring but is essential in understanding how things work! In the movie there is this ridiculous example of people growing crops with Gatorade in stead of water! Well,we can laugh about it! But if you never been taught that water contains minerals necessary for plants to grow so how would you know! To me this is a scary notion! So now you understand why this subject isn't funny anymore! It could be that Mike Judge is making fun but at the same time is warning people for a real disaster if education doesn't improve fast! Am I taking this movie too seriously! Yes of course! To each his own fun! I loved Mike Judge's work (Beavis and Butthead and Office space)! In these he was able to be critical and funny at the same time! In "Idiocracy" I missed this! Most of the events are too absurd and as I said earlier very scary! I do think if you are in the mood you will like this movie!$LABEL$ 1
+The original animated Dark Knight returns in this ace adventure movie that rivals Mask of Phantasm in its coolness. There's a lot of style and intelligence in Mystery of the Batwoman, so much more than Batman Forever or Batman and Robin.There's a new crime-fighter on the streets of Gotham. She dresses like a bat but she's not a grown-up Batgirl. And Batman is denying any affiliation with her. Meanwhile Bruce Wayne has to deal with the usual romances and detective work. But the Penguin, Bain and the local Mob makes things little more complicated.I didn't have high hopes for this 'un since being strongly let down but the weak Batman: Sub Zero (Robin isn't featured so much here!)but I was delighted with the imaginative and exciting set pieces, the clever plot and a cheeky sense of humor. This is definitely a movie no fan of Batman should be without. Keep your ears open for a really catchy song called 'Betcha Neva' which is featured prominently through-out.It's a shame the DVD isn't so great. Don't get me wrong there are some great features (the short 'Chase Me' is awesome) and a very cool Dolby 5.1 soundtrack but... the movie is presented in Pan and Scan. Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman was drawn and shot in 1.85:1 but this DVD is presented in 1.33:1 an in comparison to the widescreen clips shown on the features there IS picture cut off on both sides. I find this extremely annoying considering Mask of Phantasm was presented in anamorphic widescreen. Warner have had to re-release literally dozens of movies on DVD because people have complained about the lack of Original Aspect Ratio available on some titles. Why they chose to make that same mistake here again is beyond me.I would give this DVD 5/5 but the lack of OAR brings the overall score down to 4/5. It's a shame because widescreen would have completed a great DVD package.$LABEL$ 1
+If you asked me to pick the best acted movies ever made, this movie would be on a short list along with 1951's Streetcar Named Desire. I imagine i'll discover some others that qualify, but Kramer vs Kramer is an outstanding exercise in naturalism. So its a very satisfying experience on that level: just watching the marvelous, probing performances of Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep and the child Justin Henry in particular. One of the best child performances ever.But I also find it very satisfying to watch, because its such a thoroughly involving story - it always makes me forget my own problems. It has such excellent narrative drive. Once you stick Kramer vs Kramer on, and Alice Kramer leaves Ted to juggle work and their young son, telling him nothing more than she has to discover herself - you keep watching to know that everything turns out okay for them. And even once you know how things do turn out, each moment of the ride just rings so brilliantly true that its a joy to watch it happen again and again.Make no mistake - Kramer vs Kramer is not light entertainment: its a very realistic portrayal of the effects of divorce on everyone involved.10/10.For one of the best scripts (born out of conversations between Benton and Hoffman, who was going through a divorce at the time) ever written, executed and performed beautifully and faultlessly. Not to mention what a great, involving story it is. Put simply, a perfect film.$LABEL$ 1
+Let me say at the outset that I'm not a very artistic person and that I don't "get" new art. That being said, this film is absolutely crazy, and in my opinion not crazy in a good way. Filmed entirely in black and white with a series of very loosely connected stories, Avida is a film for those who can look at modern art and say "wow, I feel the energy and passion of this painting." The only reason I give this film a 3 out of 10 is because I actually did manage to laugh at some parts, though mainly laughing at the sheer insanity of the film. Two of the characters throwing chairs on a lawn, as to do what these characters were doing, I have no idea. I wouldn't recommend this film to anybody.$LABEL$ 0
+Wonderful film that mixes documentary and fiction in a way that makes the spectator question: what is the extent of truth in documentary films or is there such a thing as an objective documentary.$LABEL$ 1
+It has been some years since I saw this, but remember it and would like to see it again. It kind of became a "therapy" for me with a personal experience of my own.A thirty-five year old man laments over a high-school baseball game in which he "missed the ball" and his team lost. He thinks about it 20 years later, "if only I'd hit that ball" and how his life would be better because of it. Then, he gets a chance to find out....and gets a little more than he bargained for.It reminds me so much of when I was in high school, I twice tried out for our drill/dance team and didn't make it. This team was the closest thing to a sorority in my school. If you were on it, you were "all that." I didn't try out till my last two years of HS and after the second time, I took it really hard. I'd hit and bruised my leg badly just before tryouts and wore tights to cover the bruise, and that caused me to not make it. That was in 1987.Through the years, even now sometimes, I think "If only I hadn't hit my leg I would've never worn those stupid tights." Now I don't sit and think my life would be any better or even any different had I made it, but seeing this movie made me realize that we never really know how different things may be by changing one little thing way back in the past. Who knows, it could have changed the course of events to the point that I wouldn't have met my son's father.I would recommend this movie to anyone who has that one moment in the past they wish they could change. Be careful what you wish for!!!$LABEL$ 1
+Not really a big box office draw, but I was pleasently surprisedwith this movie. James "I did some things to Farrah Fawcett" Orr co-wrote and directed this movie about an ordinary, average guynamed Larry Burrows who thinks his life would have beenincredibly different if he hit a homerun at a key baseball gamewhen he was 15. But thanks to mysterious and magical bartenderMike, Larry gets his wish, yet soon realizes that his new lifeisn't exactly as he hoped it would be.I must say, this movie really impressed me. Critics have givenit mixed, and I must say the concept is really interesting andpulled off well. Yes, it is a little standard, but packs enoughfunny moments, drama and excellent acting to make it reallygood. James Belushi (I think) was Oscar worthy for his role. JonLovitz is perfect, and Linda Hamilton plus Renee Russo shine intheir roles. Michael Caine is perfect as the bartender. It'sjust a good movie with a good lesson. If you've never seen, Ihighly recommend you check$LABEL$ 1
+This is another Sci-Fi channel original movie staring Rhys Davies where its hard to decide whats worse, the acting, or the writing/directing/producing (John Sheppherd helms all three.)Basic story: obsessed exobiologist captures chubacabra monster,smuggles it in a cargo container aboard a cruise ship it escapes and the blood bath begins. Clichéd sci fi cast of the sturdy captain with the beautiful daughter, handsome hero and mad scientist. Captian calls in a terrorist alert for the ship (since of course wouldn't believe a monster story.)No dramatic Helicopter drop of the Navy Seals here. Budget only allowed for entire force force of eight seals to arrive in a fiberglass fishing boat and ride a ships wench aboard. Puleeze. Also cheesy computer animation of the ship you could do better on your computer. I also loved when the Seal commander looking thru standard binoculars from ten miles away was able to see three people jump of the ship. If the Sci-Fi channel is going to continue original movies I hope they realize there audience is not kindergarten level and purchase better scripts and directors. If this were direct to video you would find it in the 99 cent bin.$LABEL$ 0
+And that goes especially for lawyers & cops. Puerto Rico,which boasts of a small,but potent film production firm,brings this multi layered tale of corruption,due to the on going drug cartel that starts in South America,makes a pit stop on the island commonwealth,and then northbound into North America. Steven Bauer,the most recognizable face on screen here,leads a cast of top notch actors,in a story of "can you spot the only respectable face in the crowd?". Ricardo Mendez Matta moves up from directing mainly action adventure fare for American television,in a screenplay written by Matta,along with Poli Marichal. The rest of the cast (Elpidia Carrillo,Magda Rivera,Jose Herredia,Luz Maria Randon,to mention a few)turn in oh so fine roles,in a film that will keep you wondering "is there any respectable characters here?". Spoken in Spanish with English subtitles. Rated 'R' by the MPAA,this film contains outbursts of vulgar language,brief flashes of nudity,adult content & violence,some of which is quite lurid.$LABEL$ 1
+In a lot of ways this film defines the essence of everything I love about cinema, in terms of capturing those strange, elusive moments of unguarded truth. In other ways, it is undeniably an amateurish, unfocused result of junkies self-indulgently fooling around with a camera. Ultimately it comes out somewhere between pure brilliance and unwatchability (thankfully much more so the former than the latter). Part of me wants to reward it solely for it's absolute innovativeness and moments of pure sublimity, but at the same time I can't completely ignore the occasionally downright awful "acting" and overtly bad production values. At first the editing seems overwhelmingly sloppy and needlessly distracting (or maybe just wrongheadedly "innovative"), but after a while I got used to it, which is, in the end, the true sign of whether a film succeeds on it's own terms or not. I guess that answer basically sums up my all-around feelings for the film. That is, despite it's in-ignorable flaws, on a whole it does work very well. And, if nothing else, a film like this really shows how false and contrived the faux-documentary, shaky-cam style can sometimes be when it so obviously applied purely for effect (such as in films like the otherwise admirable Roger Dodger). Here the aesthetics are plainly derived from the necessities of the filming situation, and are not just used arbitrarily to make it look "cool".$LABEL$ 1
+Children love dinosaurs. It's somewhat part of their culture. But they've got The Land Before Time. The original. At least that movie had heart. This. This movie is just plain pathetic. Just because kids love dinosaurs doesn't mean you can just slap together any old story and show it to the children. This movie has no plot, the whole premise is stupid, and it's more by the numbers stuff. Not as soul sucking as Theodore Rex, but it's lightyears away from being a Land Before Time.$LABEL$ 0
+Last week I watched a Royal Shakespeare Company production of Macbeth. It was 25 years old, filmed w/no props except swords, no furniture except chairs. It was RIVETING. The acting was super - all the actors trained Brits. Contrast that performance to this...yawn yawn yawn. Al Pacino, as Shylock, was tragic, heavy, and couldn't quite lose the New Yorker accent, despite the long....pauses....between.....lines.... The whole thing was soporific, even the "comic" scenes were barely even worth a smile, let a lone a belly laugh. This is supposed to be funny. They tried to make it tragic. It was neither, just boring. I give it four points for costumes, scenery, and Jeremy Irons, who is good at playing a dull, depressed, deep-voiced guy (can he be anything else???)$LABEL$ 0
+I just love this film it totally rocks! Nicolas Cage looks hot and Tommy does not! I definitely feel that Fred and Randy should have had a little more time together on screen cause they're totally cool. My favorite part is when he says "Peter Piper Picked A Pepper I guess I Did!"$LABEL$ 1
+In the first transformation scene, what is the music? I've heard it was "The Greeks Don't Get No Freeks". Is that right? I really liked that sound. I also liked the "Hyde's Got Nothing to Hide" in the final scenes. Truly a doper movie, but with many laughs and puns, sight gags, and slapstick. Madam Woo-Woo's place was reminiscent of some places I have visited myself. Ivy Venus has appeared in some other stuff that is truly amazing. She looks much different in the movie we're talking about, but her maturity didn't hurt her a bit. Mark Blankfield reminds one of Gene Wilder in some ways. Bess Armstrong was beautiful and maintained her beauty for a long time.$LABEL$ 1
+I've seen this movie quite a few times and each time I watch it, the quirkier and funnier it becomes. Perhaps its the lack of research that went into Nicolas Cage's character's 'punk' persona or just the cheesiness factor because it was such a typical eighties film...nonetheless it's a cute love story with extremely funny, unique characters. I think it's right up there with "Fast Times" and "Weird Science" (quintessential eighties flicks!)$LABEL$ 1
+Watching this I mainly noticed the ad placements. DHL, Aquawhite Strips, Rockstar and more. It's one product placement after another. It's quite obvious how this movie got its funding. Jessica Simpson's "acting" is laughable. Any Dick shouldn't ever get work because he plays the same lame character. The "story" is just a backdrop for this very long commercial. I can't believe this movie was even considered for theatrical release. The longer you watch this movie the more you're embarrassed for everyone involved. The only minor saving grace is Larry Miller and Rachael Lee Cook, who gets almost no screen time as Jessica's cousin. I'm embarrassed I watched the whole thing. I would recommend avoiding this one.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm not tired to say this is one of the best political thrillers ever made. The story takes place in a fictional state, but obviously it deals with the murder of Kennedy. A truthful and honest district attorney (played by Yves Montand) does not believe that the murder was planned and executed by the single man Daslow (=Oswald) and though all other officials want to close the case he continuous to investigate with his team.The screenplay is written tight and fast and holds the tension till the end. Just the part dealing with the Milgram experiment about authorities is (though not uninteresting) a bit out of place. The ending sequence - explaining who Icarus really is - partly shot in slow motion and intensified by a Morricone soundtrack is the most powerful sequence I have ever seen in a movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Elvira Mistress Of The Dark (1988): Cassandra Peterson, Daniel Greene, William Morgan Sheppard, Susan Kellerman, Edie McClug, Jeff Conaway, Phil Rubenstein, Larry Flash Jenkins, Tress MacNeille, Damita Jo Freeman, Mario Celario, William Dance, Lee McLaughlin, Charles Woolf, Sharon Hays, Bill Cable, Joseph Arias, Scott Morris, Ira Heiden, Frank Collison, Lynne Marie Stewart, Marie Sullivan, Jack Fletcher, Robert Benedetti, Kate Brown, Hugh Gillin, Eve Smith, Raleigh Bond, Tony Burrier, Alan Dewames, Timm Hill, Read Scot, James Hogan, Derek Givens...Director James Signorelli...Screenplay Sam Egan, John Paragon.Elvira, Mistress of the Dark was an 80's TV icon who had her own late night show on cable. She hosted and presented classic American horror films, many of them campy, while providing her own quips and humorous remarks. Actress Cassandra Peterson has to this date ridden on that success. In 1988, her first film was released. Playing herself, she's stuck hosting monster movie shows but longs for her own show in Las Vegas and make big money. Her agent Manny proves a disappointment. It's not long before she inherits a mansion from a deceased relative, a pet dog and a book of recipes. She comes to claim her inheritance in a small Nevada town - she was on her way to Vegas and became lost - and soon stirs things up in the sedate community. Outspoken conservative town council woman Chastity Pariah (Edie McClurg) soon sees her as a threat to the decency and values of the small town. Her voluptuous figure and winning personality soon draws the youth of the town. She falls for Bob Redding (Daniel Greene) the town handyman/carpenter, but before any real relationship can bloom, she finds herself in deep trouble. Vincent Talbot (William Morgan Sheppard) an eerie older man who is also set to inherit part of the fortune of Elvira's relative is in fact an age-old sorcerer who has a personal vendetta against Elvira's aunt and Elvira herself. He is aware that the so-called "recipe book" is actually a book of powerful magic, a power he wishes to claim for himself. He schemes to bring down Elvira by having the town burn her at the stake. How will Elvira get out of this one ? The movie was no real success at the box office, drawing a crowd of mostly young audiences familiar with the Elvira show on cable. Truth be told, this is a funny and feel-good movie. The script is chalk full of all kinds of jokes, some bad, some good, lots of sexual innuendo, visual jokes and overall campiness i.e. the hilarious last scene in which Elvira has finally got her own strip show in Vegas. This film is a cult classic of sorts, catering to Elvira fans. You couldn't enjoy this film otherwise. It's also a look back at "pop" culture of the 80's. Elvira was as much an icon of the 80's as was Alf, Vicky the Robot, Hulk Hogan, Mr. T and Madonna.$LABEL$ 1
+After two long, long opening skits, one of which my brother saw the conclusion coming of and the other totally joke free, we start the fast-forward fest that it GROOVE TUBE proper. Naturally, uber-stupid frat boys who still mainline JACKASS or Tom Green will find the idea of fecal matter coming out of the some tube, SEX OLYMPICS(I really don't need to give you details, do I), and a clown who basically does the "not very endearing clown" bit I think I've seen approxiately ninety times now will eat this up like dung beetles: well, more power to you.I just want to express that, despite what you've heard, this movie was in no way a model for the many infinitely funnier movies like KENTUCKY FRIED MOVIE or what not. The skit movie had already been done in AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX, and so on. And done way better.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie had lots of great actors and actresses in it and it addressed some very noble issues. It's full of emotion and the direction is done well. The storyline progresses very quickly, but I guess that's better than having to watch a 3 hour movie. This is an easy movie to watch again and again and enjoy.$LABEL$ 1
+Give director Stanley Tong of Jackie Chan's Super Cop and Rumble in the Bronx, and what do you get? You receive a series of kung fu fights and a lack of Magoo-like madness.The limited plot has Magoo (Leslie Nielsen) put into an international plot, where he steals a world-renowned gem. Of course he has no idea what he is doing. In fact, he has no idea that he had the gem.Within thirty minutes you could get very bored watching this. There are some very funny moments though like when he is cooking the chicken. You will wish that you were as nearsighted as Magoo. Its a fun movie to watch but its quite a disaster! You have to love Leslie Nielson because he was made some very funny movies. This isn't his best, but he does a good job playing Magoo. I thought it was a funny film, and it should be recommended to young children because they will probably think that its very funny.$LABEL$ 0
+Alexandr "Sascha" Luzhin (John Turturro) is a former leading chess player attempting a comeback at an Italy-hosted tournament. His brilliance is unquestioned but his obsession with chess has stunted his growth in all other aspects of his life. Natalia (Emily Watson) is a beautiful heiress who has come to the same resort with her mother, Vera (Geraldine James) to scope out possible marriage partners. Vera leans toward a handsome count but, astonishingly, Natalia is more fascinated by Sascha, whom she met on a walk. Sascha, too, is taken with Natalia and proposes marriage at their second meeting. But, with the concentration that Sascha must give to the chess matches and, with other happenings in his past still causing problems, will he win the heart of Natalia? Oh, and can he become the chess champion, also? This is a lovely film, based on a novel by Nabokov. The acting is amazing, with Watson very fine as the beautiful little rich girl and Turturro utter perfection as the shy, awkward chess enthusiast. James gives quite a nice turn as the overbearing mother and the other cast members are wonderful as well. As for the look of the film, it could not be better. The scenery is of the put-your-eye-out variety, the vintage costumes are gorgeous and the cinematography is deserving of much applause. Yes, the story is unusual and told with the use of flashbacks, at times, making it a film not everyone will appreciate. Then, too, the ending is bittersweet. However, if you love romance, period pieces, great acting, knockout scenery, or the fine art of motion picture creation, don't miss this one. You will be defenseless in resisting its multitude of charms.$LABEL$ 1
+I bought this film on DVD despite the "stale" review and that was idiotic... That review was completely accurate and I have never seen any worse "erotic" film in my long life! Even if it partly was lovely filmed and had interesting surroundings, plus a nice cover... But my own Extreme Erotica (c) films are over 100 times more erotic (just in the soft delicious aspect) with probably less than 100 times of this films budget! The story have no logical connection with the first film or the famous book... Or any new (exciting) element of slave training, except some very strange and sad developments... Then did the main male character - Klaus Kinski - not look a bit like the second Master of "O" he try to play... And not even lovely Arielle Dombasle, did look delicious in any scene!$LABEL$ 0
+This Film was one that I have waited to see for some time. I was glad to find it has been everything anticipated. The writing of this film has been so finely crafted and researched far beyond what is seen by the audience. I found it amusing that so many people watching will not read between some very important lines but indeed if not the movie will make sense in a different way and is very brilliant. The film has many stories and characters woven together around this one Character Kilo , a Man whom has rose from the streets amidst many woes and become a very powerful criminal. After spending some time in Prison Kilo finds a loophole in the justice system and through a disturbing turn of events is released only to find everything is not at all what it seems. Kilo Finds himself going up against the higher realm of society and Political royalty in order to make clear how important a Man's Word is and stands for. A war begins as the street is in arms against Lords of wealth and corrupt Power.A build up to explosive and powerful non stop twists and turns. This film will leave you riveted. I found the cast of this movie to be outstanding and is not a Movie to be ignored. Excellent. Go Rent It Today!!$LABEL$ 1
+In retrospect, the 1970s was a golden era for the American cinema, as demonstrated and explored by this documentary directed by Ted Demme and Richard LaGravenese. This IFC effort serves to illustrate and clarify the main idea of what that time meant for the careers of these illustrious people seen in the documentary.The amazing body of work that remains, is a legacy to all the people involved in the art of making movies in that period. The decade was marked by the end of the Viet Nam war and the turbulent finale of those years of Jimmy Carter's presidency.One thing comes out clear, films today don't measure against the movies that came out during that creative decade because the industry, as a whole, has changed dramatically. The big studios nowadays want to go to tame pictures that will be instant hits without any consideration to content, or integrity, as long as the bottom line shows millions of dollars in revenues.The other thing that emerges after hearing some of America's best creative minds speak, is the importance of the independent film spirit because it is about the only thing that afford its creators great moral and artistic rewards.This documentary is a must see for all movie fans.$LABEL$ 1
+The name (Frau) of the main character is the German word for "Woman". I don't know if that was intentional or not, but if sure got some giggles from the German audience at the Fantasy Film Festival last year, when it was shown.But those were the only giggles the movie got. Not that it was aiming for giggles, it's a horrible movie for heaven's sake! A horrible movie in more than one meaning. It's a shame that a premise like that was wasted with horrible even unbearable moments for the viewer (definetely not for the faint of Heart!!)! And it wasn't even necessary to show all the things that are shown. I'm not even going into a moral obligation (because movies don't really have that kind of task or function) discussion of what is shown here, but this is a new low on the whole "torture movement" that has grown in the last few years!$LABEL$ 0
+Ah, the classic genre of 80s sex comedies. This is set on two beaches; one a nude beach featuring myriad (fully) unclothed women. The plot? Something about a bunch of dimwits attempting to get laid. The usual. Fans of gratuitous T&A (and P) should hunt this one down.$LABEL$ 0
+It's unbelievable but the fourth is better than the second and the third. After the third that was awful, it's incredible how they could have an unexpected sequel with new ideas. Chuck is the same nasty doll of the previous movies. Interesting the final that lets know that a fifth can be done....$LABEL$ 1
+Yes, said title line does actually appear in this movie. Why? I'm not sure. When the line was actually being said, didn't somebody in the crew filming, at some point, laugh? I would have liked to see the outtakes from this movie, mostly because I think they would be more entertaining than the movie itself.Helmed by director Jim Gillespie, ("I Know What You Did Last Summer,") comes a teen slasher movie that seems to assume we haven't ever seen a teen slasher movie before. Of course, he's not to be given all the blame. There are also three writers responsible, and this is somehow based on a video game that's still in production. The title of said game is "Backwater," but upon looking for information on it I came up with absolutely nothing.And so we begin the movie... I would like to say before I continue that I wasn't expecting this to win an Oscar. When I am in the right mindset, I enjoy a fun horror movie to pass the time. I think there exists an opportunity for an effective, original, and smart slasher movie. "Venom" is not this movie.There is almost no character development at all. That's fine. You don't expect a whole lot. However, instead of a well-knit cast of a few, this movie decides to introduce us to the following many horror movie cliché characters...1. The Final Girl: She has just broken up for her boyfriend. This means that at some point in the movie when they are in peril, they will decide to get back together again. Which more than likely means he will die and she will be the last remaining survivor of the movie. "Eden" is played by Agnes Bruckner, without much enthusiasm, I might add.2. The Boyfriend: He's just around to co-exist with The Final Girl until his demise. Sure, he can save her, but he's doomed and we know it. "Eric" is played by Jonathan Jackson.3. The Bimbos: Usually horror movies only feel the need for one of these, but here we have two. They shoplift, they steal, they might show their breasts, (not in this case,) or they might possibly be alcoholics. A staple of the genre. They also wander around in dimly lit areas all on their lonesome, usually saying things like, "Hello? Is there anybody there?" "Tammy" and "Patty," suitably named, are played by Bijou Phillips and Davetta Sherwood.4. The Jackass: Sure, he looks pretty, but he's the idiot in the movie that's inserted purely to be an idiot. He says stupid things, does stupid things, has obviously never seen a horror movie, and is one of enjoyable kills you watch this kind of thing for. "Sean" is played by D.J. Cotrona.5. The Girlfriend: She loves the Jackass even though pretty much nobody else does, and she's usually the one left alive for a while so she can scream and cry until she starts tripping and gets left behind. "Rachel" is played by Laura Ramsey.6. The Creepy Janitor: In this case, The Creepy Gas Station Attendant. Enough said. "Ray" is played by Rick Cramer.I could continue, but I think you get the picture. The remaining characters aren't so much common as they are equally killable. There's "The Gay Guy," (Pawel Szajda as "Ricky,") who definitely got robbed as far as screen time is concerned, and "The One Who Knows What's Going On." Of course none of that matters, because at first everyone always thinks that one's crazy. "Cece" is played by Meagan Good.There are a couple other characters, namely a deputy played by Method Man, but he and others are killed off pretty quickly and get even less character development than the following clichés.So, you're probably thinking, "why does this movie require such a deep analysis? It's just a summer horror flick, for cryin' out loud!" Based on that question, does it deliver the goods? Yes, and no. The acting isn't particularly convincing, even given the amount of talent involved. Bijou Phillips was hailed for her performance in Larry Clark's Bully, and Agnes Bruckner has been an up-and-coming talent for a while now.So, what about the gore? There's some. That's really about it. A lot of the juiciest bits are cut-aways. Namely a scene involving somebody's face and a sandblaster used to remove paint from cars.To the filmmaker's credit, there are a couple interesting scenes. I liked the bit where part of a house was literally ripped off so that the unstoppable villain could get to the characters.If this had all been centered around a smarter screenplay in which the characters didn't make the same dumb mistakes literally hundreds of horror movie characters had made before them, it might have made for a more enjoyable experience. All of the most interesting characters are immediately killed off in the first third of the movie and then it just becomes a not-particularly-interesting countdown until we know it's just The Creepy Janitor and The Final Girl.I suppose I must be a little jaded, but as a horror film fan, I'm left wondering why I should have bothered when I could easily have written a better screenplay myself. I won't even mention the numerous instances of terrible CGI.$LABEL$ 0
+The script was VERY weak w/o enough character arcs to make you care one bit about the characters or what happens to them. The script is way too talky and not enough gore or action to even call it slow paced. The story gets to the point that you just want everyone to shut up and die as quickly as possible so you don't have to listen to them talk this very muted, stiff dialogue. On a technical note, the music mix is way to high and makes it hard to understand what is being said most times. Then again, this could be called a blessing. Overall, this same story could have better been told in a short film w/ a running time under 30 minutes. The obvious "in your face" homages to Sam Raimi and "Evil Dead" would have been good had they been more subtle, but here they seem more like a bald faced rip off. C'mon, this kind of 35mm budget and THIS is the best that could be done? Still, the cinematography, lighting design and shots were very well done indeed.$LABEL$ 0
+Pathetic... worse than a bad made-for-TV movie. I can't believe that Spacey and Freeman were in this flick. For some reason Morgan Freeman's character is constantly talking about and saying "pussy" when referring to NSync boy's girlfriend. Morgan Freeman calling women "pussy" is just awkward... What the hell were the people behind this film thinking? Too many plot holes to imagine combined with the horrid acting, confusing camera angles, a lame script and cheap background music made this movie absolutely unbearable.I rented this flop with low expectations.... but... well... it really sucked.$LABEL$ 0
+Franco proves, once again, that he is the prince of surreal & erotic cinema. True, much of his work can be viewed as entertaining sleaze but with Succubus (Necronomicon) he shows what he is truly capable of when he lets his warped creativity run riot and gives us a film that is both hypnotic and enigmatic whilst still maintaining the delirious eroticism intrinsic in his work. Jerry Van Rooyen's splendid score pulsates as the viewer is thrown from one bizarre scenario to another as we follow the trials of a striptease artist (Reynaud) who may be schizophrenic, or may indeed (as one mysterious character states) be a devil, attempt to come to terms with the world she inhabits. A beautiful and enigmatic piece of cinema highly recommended to anybody with even a passing interest in alternative cinema.$LABEL$ 1
+Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance are legendary actors, and director Kostas Karagiannis was the man behind the successful Greek Giallo-esquire thriller Death Kiss in 1974; and yet when you combine the three talents, all you get is this complete load of drivel! God only knows what drove the likes of Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance to star in this cheapie devil worship flick, but I really do hope they were well paid as neither one deserves something as amateurish as this on their resumes. The story focuses on a group of devil worshippers that kidnap some kids, leading another group to go after them. The pace of the plot is very slow and this ensures that the film is very boring. The plot is also a long way from being original and anyone with even a passing interest in the horror genre will have seen something a bit like this, and no doubt done much better. The obvious lack of budget is felt throughout and the film doesn't manage to overcome this at any point. This really is a depressing and miserable watch and not even a slightly decent ending manages to up the ante enough to lift this film out of the very bottom of the barrel. Extremely poor stuff and definitely not recommended!$LABEL$ 0
+Please don't waste your time. This movie rehashes the worst of Bram Stoker's Dracula (Van Helsing), Anne Rice's Vampire Lestat (rock music and silly biblical references), and Blade (high-tech toys). I really like vampire movies and novels, and there are many out there that are very good . But not this stinker. Not even the soundtrack helps it, mostly because the movie resorts to ridiculous scary classical music rather than the "kick-ass metal" some reported. Only a few times did I hear any metal; mostly it was tortured violins. Avoid it like garlic and crucifixes.$LABEL$ 0
+I have seen already fantastic stories, but the premises of this one are so unbelievable that it comes very close to being ridiculous. A rich and young guy undergoes a heart transplant the day after his marriage, and he is somehow witnessing his own surgery and the plot of his surgeons to kill him. Even if there is a medical explanation to such a phenomenon what next happens is a mixture of dialog among ... say ... souls? ... maybe and real life where the dedicated mother will do everything to save the life of her son. There is no shade of suspense or thrill, just a combination of a bad and simplistic plot with a series of coincidences that can never happen in life.This is not to say that the film is completely lacking quality - actually first time director Joby Harold does a decent job in directing a good team of actors that includes Hayden Christensen at his first major role after having taken off the Anakin Skywalker costume, fabulous Jessica Alba and super-gifted Lena Olin. All would have deserved a better story.$LABEL$ 0
+That's pretty ridiculous, I hope many people are exposed to Muslims who live all over the U.S, U.k, and all over the world. The religion has over a billion followers. I Myself born and bread in America and through my religious classes and teachings I have been taught to cherish my country and work to contribute to the society. I am very dedicated to the followings and teachings of my religion have been stressed through out life to educate and prepare oneself for success through education in order to contribute back to the world. I have know many Muslims from all over and I have traveled to countries like Pakistan..I have yet to meet one person who believes that we should hurt anyone or not accept any other religion except from the people in the media...I wonder why... Also its sad that these extremists are the ones the media use to represent a whole religion. Its a religion of one billion people, and these are less than one percent, I am sure the other people of other religions would not like to be represented by the KKK, IRA and many more which are simple small percentage extremists who use outdated and not literal passages from the respected books in order to pursue their own revenge, personal, or business matters through their so called religion$LABEL$ 0
+Despite a small handful of nicely executed scenes, this entry (the fourth) feels tired. Toshiharu Ikeda, who directed the superb MERMAID LEGEND and the seminal Japanese splatter film, EVIL DEAD TRAP, shows little enthusiasm for the stale premise.A miscreant becomes obsessed with an outwardly conservative woman who reluctantly appeared in a porno photo shoot. Predictable stalking, harassing, assault and rape ensues.The staple of roman porno is sex. And sex mixed with violence. Both potentially exciting subjects, to be sure, but not when so little effort is made to make them fresh. A masturbation scene in which a woman forces pencils up her opening (via condom) is too little kink to late.The series' rain motif continues and the film's final scene brings relief.$LABEL$ 0
+(This review is based on the English language version)Orson Welles' legendary unfinished epic was just that - unfinished. It should have been left as such, not thrown together in this clumsy, boring compilation of whatever material was available.While I'm sure it was done with the best of intentions, the filmmakers have not only failed to do justice to Welles' vision, they've also managed to discredit it by inflicting this version upon audiences.The first thing that strikes the viewer is the amateurish quality of the audio. Not only are the newly dubbed voices rather poor performances, they're also inconsistent - Welles' original recordings (using his own voice, as he often did) have been retained in a handful of scenes, & they don't match at all. There hasn't been the slightest attempt at consistency. Add to that an extremely empty sound mix which has only a bare minimum of sound effects & atmos - a long sequence during a huge festival (including the running of the bulls) sounds like it was recorded in a deserted suburban street with about three people making the sound of a crowd that's meant to be in the thousands.However, the real problem is the unavoidable fact that 'Don Quixote' was incomplete, & it's glaringly obvious from watching this. The film consists of a handful of scenes strung together & dragged out to ridiculous lengths just to make up the running time. Case in point - the sequence where Sancho searches for Don Quixote in the city goes on forever. It's just Sancho approaching people in the crowd, asking them the same questions over & over again - there is no way that Welles could ever have intended using every single take in its entirety, but that's what appears here. It lasts over twelve minutes, when, in fact, it would most likely have lasted about two minutes absolute maximum in a proper finished version of the film. While the start of the film is relatively complete & rather well done, the rest has massive holes which simply can't be filled with endless overlay of Spanish countryside & still more shots of Don Quixote & Sancho going back & forth. There's also no ending. No resolution, no conclusion, no punchline, no point.Although there is material in private collections that was unavailable to the filmmakers, that couldn't possibly account for what would be required to make this into a complete, coherent work. Welles simply didn't complete shooting, largely due to the fact that his lead actor died before they could finish.However, putting aside the fact that it wasn't complete, & never could be, one would think that just seeing a collection of footage from this masterpiece that might have been would be enough. Unfortunately, by putting it all together in such a slipshod manner, one is left with a very negative impression of the film overall. In particular, what was clearly a terrific performance from Akim Tamiroff as Sancho is utterly ruined with the new voice & with long, drawn out scenes that eventually cause him to be simply irritating.Orson Welles' vision for this film was something far more ambitious & complex than a simple retelling of the story of Don Quixote, but that's what has been attempted here, & as such, the point is lost. The only person who could have assembled all the material into anything worthwhile would have been Welles himself, & he didn't.The footage could have been put to far better use in a documentary chronicling the whole saga of Welles trying to make the film. Welles himself even came up with the perfect title for such a doco: "When Are You Going To Finish Don Quixote?"$LABEL$ 0
+Saw the move while in Paris in May 2006 ... I was debating between that and mission impossible...I am very glad I choose OSS 117 not only because it was funny but might as well watch a FRench movie while in France. I had a great time... would recommend it. It is important to have some understanding the French society of Today to really enjoy the humor of this movie ... cannot wait for the DVD to come out... I don't know how some of the 'jeu De mots' 'puns' would be translated in English I 'll certainly buy it when it is out! P.S. I saw on 'BRice de Nice' which is a movie starring Dujardin that all kids were talking about in France. this movie is a comedy but sillier than one can imagine...in comparing both movies I have to say that Dujardin did a good job in OSS 117.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this recently on a cable channel. The movie is great; it's one of the few musicals I have seen that doesn't shy away from the light and dark. It portrays some of the splendour of the age along with a lot of the squalor. Some of the set piece dance sequences so much is going on, I didn't know where to look next. One day I shall go and see this on the big screen, just so that I see what's happening. But what really lifts this to another level is Oliver Reed's performance as Bill Sykes. Not only is a thoroughly mean and menacing man but there is something else, some inner demons. He gave me the impression that if you pushed him into a corner, he was capable of anything. It was almost as if the Sykes character was on the edge of madness, just awaiting the trigger. I have seen the Robert Newton's Bill Sykes from the 1948 movie, and I thought he was 'just' a bad egg, but Oliver Reed's performance intimidated me in my own living room.$LABEL$ 1
+LCDR Tom Dodge, despite having a reputation among submariners as a renegade and maverick (*note to reader: Maverick does not mean "Tom Cruise". Maverick means "non-conformist".), is actually an intelligence operative for the Vice Admiral of his submarine fleet. The Vice-Admiral is concerned about our old friends the Russians hosting yard sales with their old diesel fleets. Countries like Lybia, North Korea or Iraq would love to get their hands on this baby and slip a nuclear warhead into Norfolk Harbour or Mayport, Florida. And this was 6-7 years before 9/11.The Admiral assigns Dodge to assume command of a moth-balled WWII diesel sub and mount an exercise against the surface fleet and the USS ORLANDO, a top of the line fast attack sub. Dodge takes command and in no time whips up the bad news bears.. err I mean his lovable group of oddball submariners into warriors. Despite having "welcome aboard" tattooed on his penis, he is a competent and fair commander, he does not choose favorites and he delegates authority in a responsible manner. The US NAVY could not have come up with a finer piece of recruitment propaganda than this handsomely made under-appreciated gem from the creator of "Police Academy".$LABEL$ 1
+What an awful adaptation. The worst part was the music. Saxophone muzak and synthesizers playing in a story set in the early 1800's?????? The only character that didn't bore me to sleep was Robert Hardy. I had to fight to keep my eyes open on this one, and I love Jane Austen movies usually. I didn't even rent it, I borrowed it from the library. They should have paid me to take it. I don't quite understand how Catherine and Henry managed a passionate kiss at the end when throughout the movie they had no chemistry or indication whatsoever that they cared for one another. Isabella and her brother were way overdone; it was no secret to me immediately that she and her brother were the "bad guys" and part of the excitement of Jane Austen movies is the discovery that who you think is good, isn't. This is probably on my list of the ten worst movies I've seen.$LABEL$ 0
+The movie with its single set, minimal cast, and straightforward photography (except for a couple of brief special effects) reminds me of one of those old 60 minute playhouse dramas so popular during TV's early years. Nonetheless, the suspense hangs heavy over poor war widow Ida Lupino as she tries to deal with her semi-psychotic handyman Robert Ryan before one of his mood-swings kills her. And who better to play the troubled part than that great actor Ryan. He wasn't very versatile-- watching him essay comedy is almost painful. But no one was better at wounded idealism (On Dangerous Ground) or the psychic pain of this movie. Few actors could express as much with their eyes as this lean and towering figure.Lupino's problem is that she's locked up in her house with a man who is kind and gentle one moment and raging the next. The suspense comes from her various ploys to keep him happy while trying to escape. It's a nail-biter all the way. This is not one of Lupino's many fine "soulful" parts that she was so good at. Instead, it's a role many lesser actresses could have handled well enough. My favorite scene is with Ryan and bratty teenager Margaret Whiting. Ryan's already having difficulty with his masculinity and what others are saying about him. Then when Whiting walks in and finds the attractive-looking Ryan scrubbing the floor, she starts getting coy, flirting with her budding sexuality. Sensing trouble, Ryan abruptly fends her off-- finesse is not his strong suit. Insulted, Whiting attacks his masculinity by calling his work "women's work". That does it. Up to that point he's been courteous and professional with Lupino, trying to set himself on a normal path. But Whiting has hit his raw nerve. Now there's heck to pay as Whiting bounces out the door, leaving Lupino to pay the price. It's a riveting scene, expertly done.Anyway, this is one of the dozen or so films produced by Lupino and her husband at a time when audiences were moving away from these little black-and-whites in favor of wide-screen spectacles. Too bad. What a hugely talented figure she was both behind the camera and in front. She deserves at least an honorary Oscar from a movie industry to which she contributed so much.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie suffers from the fact that for years Hollywood had no clue as to how to package Jackie Chan for the masses. His low-budget Hong Kong movies were all fast-paced kinetic thrillers that highlight his amazing gymnastic skills and talent for light comedy. His early Hollywood films stuck him in the same movies that were being packaged for Stallone or Chuck Norris. There is nothing about Chan's character in this movie that requires the character to be Asian except for his being the star. In his Hong Kong films Chan is never dull, with the movies being one rapid-fire martial arts sequence after another, but "The Protector" is lifeless throughout. Danny Aiello isn't given much to work with either and the lacking chemistry between the two probably is more a result of the script and direction than how the two actors got on together. Both have been better in worse movies. The best thing about the movie is the Hong Kong settings. The worst part is the appalling way that Jackie Chan comes off so colorless and drab. It wouldn't be until the made-in-Canada "Rumble in the Bronx" that the west would finally figure out how to make a good Jackie Chan movie.$LABEL$ 0
+The premise sucked me in, but it was clear about 30 seconds in that this was either David Lynch or something seriously terrible. Interesting to watch just to run through the fundamentalist laundry list. I can be a sucker for a stirring spiritual piece (Romero comes to mind), but there was nothing spiritual whatsoever about this one. The message seems to be that we must all pretend we have an iq of 80 (or simply get a lobotomy - Jennifer what happened to ya?) and blindly follow the Bible without any sort of self-examination whatsoever or we'll trigger the second coming. It's the kind of attitude that makes people fly jumbo jets into 110 story buildings (I work around the corner from the site of the former WTC). I like to think that God is a little greater than that.$LABEL$ 0
+There was some good build up of suspense throughout. The cinematography was surprisingly good considering such minimal budget. We witness occasional spells of good acting, however, this is quickly deflated by some quite cheesy lines. Understandably there would not be much of an intellectual conversation to be had, sitting up on trees while a crocodile is stalking you. Silence would have been golden here. There could have been a bigger play on suspense than dimly uttering, "I sat in the cupboard for fear of my brother..." Something tells me there's a slight difference in getting a beating from your brother than being eaten by a mighty 15ft croc. You decide. Throughout the film I can't seem to find a connection or for that matter, sympathy with the characters, perhaps thats because they don't develop one throughout the film, character that is. There are some occasional good scares when the crocodile sneaks up on the characters, overshadowed again by some questionable scenes. In one instance we should be terrified by an ear floating in the water but later we sit beside a decapitated, limbless corpse and only worry about a broken finger. A definite roller coaster of a film when it comes to logic.$LABEL$ 0
+Super Troopers was an instant classic. Club Dread, while disappointing to many, had its moments. Puddle Cruisers has fewer moments. I saw this movie on the shelf of my local video store and saw at the bottom that it was made by the Broken Lizard group who made Super Troopers, so naturally I picked it up. I only found one scene to be laugh out loud funny. A far cry from Super Troopers. All in all, I was very disappointed. I would not recommend this to anyone, unless you have an abundance of free time, and really need to kill some time. However, you're better off playing video games, or watching something that might make you laugh or think.$LABEL$ 0
+Yes, this review may contain spoilers, but you'll thank me for it. This is the worst film I've seen in quite some time. I came to this board expecting to see the same response I had, but inexplicably, there are several people who love this film and Spacey's performance in particular.Some will chastise me for saying it, but I find Kevin Spacey's acting quite limited despite the world's admiration for him. I felt like I was watching a meaner version of Kevin's "American Beauty" role. His character in this film is ridiculously overacted, all the way down to his laughable insults he throws at his assistant.There are all-world trite and boring scenes like when Spacey is tearing into Whaley about bringing him Equal instead of Sweat and Low. Somehow, I suspected this particular scene was supposed to be funny, but by this time I was ready to hit the stop button (this is approximately 20 minutes into the film).What about the faux-homage to "Resevoir Dogs"? Whaley proclaims, "I think I saw this in a movie once," as if he's going to cut off Spacey's ear. But what does he use to cut him? An envelope! That's right, he's going to give him paper cuts! That has to be one of Hollywood's all-time worst scenes, and the fact that the actors and director tried to carry it out with a straight face makes it even more appalling.I will admit that I didn't see the end of this film (my DVD mercifully locked up about a half hour before the end), but anyone who wishes to say so could spare me the line that I missed a great twist and everything would have made sense. Well, I don't care what happened in the end, because it could never make up for all that bad acting and relentlessly over-the-top dialogue. I even got the feeling that the actors themselves wanted to get out of this film as bad as I did.$LABEL$ 0
+Ordinarily, Anthony Mann made westerns with 'the big guys' - James Stewart, Gary Cooper, Henry Fonda . . . the A list cowboy stars. But in this B+ film, he tackled something notably different and had quite a bit of success with what turned out to be a truly one of a kind western. The main character, played by Victor Mature, is a trapper/ mountain man, and ordinarily they are romanticized in films - Robert Redford in Jeremiah Johnson, that sort of thing, where the hero is not in fact a typical mountain man but a clean cut heroic figure who hangs out with real mountain men. Not here. For once, a true mountain man - vulgar, crude, animalistic - is the central figure, and it's something to see, giving Mature one of his better later roles. The real acting chops are provided by Robert Preston, excellent as a self-absorbed Custer type cavalry commander, and James Whitmore, the poor man's Spencer Tracy, as another of those old timers who feel themselves trapped between ever more hostile Indians on the one side and the oncoming force of civilization on the other. Even more impressive is a very young Anne Bancroft as the officer's wife, who is initially repulsed by the very sight of Mature's grisly character, then finds her own veneer of civilization slipping away as she begins to realize, to her own shock, that she's attracted to him. Rarely if ever has a remote frontier fort been so accurately realized on screen, without the romantic allure that John Ford gave such a place in his masterful Fort Apache. The battle sequences are big scale and notably violent, and particularly impressive if you seen them in widescreen format. Good show, and underrated movie, all around.$LABEL$ 1
+The movie's storyline is pat and quaint. Two women travel through the middle east and discover themselves. Unfortunately, if you are looking for a movie about the middle east and central Asia this is absolutely terrible.The producers of the film either did no research or were unbelievably lazy when filming it. To begin with, and most glaringly incorrect, the Nuristanis, as they were known in the thirties, and indeed since the 1890s and their forceful conversion by Abdul-Rahman Shah of Aghnaistan, were not nomads. In fact they have not been nomads since the Aryan invasions of central Asia over three milenia ago.Second, the city that is filmed as Tehran is not Tehran, which is understandable, however the geography of the area around the city could not be more strikingly DIFFERENT than the city of Tehran, which is surrounded on all side by a large mountain range, which predominates all of the cities views.Third, Persian, despite the fact it is spoken in Iran and Afghanistan, is never heard in movie. When there are native speakers who do not speak in German they speak in Arabic. The 'Persian' guards at the border, in fact, say to each other 'Ma hadha rujal' (This is not a man) and not 'in mard nist' as it would be in Persian. Also, the love song between the Indian princess and one of the main characters is obviously in Spanish. While talking in the garden one of the main characters says that the Quran uses the words 'Ferdos' and 'jehaan' and makes some reference to drugs afterwords. These words certainly never appear in the Quran as they are Persian for Paradise (indeed, Ferdos and Paradise are very distant cognates between our languages) and 'World' respectively, though Jehaan is admittedly close to 'Jehennan' which is hell in Arabic. When they encounter the nomads in the desert the language spoken is also Arabic, this despite the fact that there are NO native speakers of Arabic in Iran and Afghanistan and its use is primarily religious, with some use in education at that time.When they are stopped in Iran before they reach the Afghan border the people they encounter are wholly unlike any Iranian group. Their tents are typically bedouin with carpets decorating the walls and a high profile. In Iran it is also extremely uncommon for people to wear Turbans unless they are a cleric. The language spoken is clearly Arabic from the initial greeting of 'Ahlan wa Sahlan.' When they do reach Kabul the desert they find themselves in is sandy, totally unlike the rock dirt that is found in the arid parts of the Hindu Kush mountain range. There is an absence of the light green scrub that covers the ground in the summer and spring. The area is also not wholly consumed by the extreme mountains of the mountain range that won its name, The Indian Killers, because of its difficult and limiting ground.In short, the story line is the only thing in this movie that holds any water and it is still weak and common place. It lacks any real draw to it, being merely the tale of two women trying to learning about themselves as they get to Nuristan, however, even that is still-born and no real development is felt, leaving the characters in the end just where they were in the beginning and nothing has changed except that world war two has broken loose. In short, this is a really bad movie that I would have rated at one star except for the good footage of Bedouin and the deserts of the Levant, even if they are misnamed.$LABEL$ 0
+The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance - what a laughable title, it's so utterly misleading. It's not surprising that the film-makers try and mislead us though because this is one terrible movie.The story basically involves a murder mystery in a castle on a remote island.Very little happens in this film. And when something does wake the viewer from his stupor, it invariably is unintentional comedy in the form of atrocious dialogue delivered by a hopeless group of voice-artists. These guys are so bad they make the actors they deliver voices for appear like a group of remedial-level morons. It really is hard to determine how bad the acting is when you have dubbing this abysmal. But the voice-artists cannot be blamed for the script. It's a travesty. Unintentionally funny at best, pathetic at worst. The story in general is, to say the least, uneven. The women characters are particularly idiotic; the men are either creepy or tedious.The whole enterprise smacks of pure exploitation of the audience. It doesn't remotely deliver what it promises and even when the murders (finally) start happening, they all occur off screen. All we get is a few half-hearted severed head shots.A few people have said that this movie is a giallo. I cannot agree less with this opinion. Anyone who enjoys Italian thrillers should give this movie a wide berth as there is nothing remotely thrilling about it. It's basically a soft-core porn film with a horror angle. But it's not very erotic either.I can't recommend this to anyone.$LABEL$ 0
+I thoroughly enjoyed this film, which in many ways, as Hitchcock did on several occasions, was a first attempt at a plot which he re-shot later in his career. Possibly the most amazing thing about it, however, is how faceless the lead characters are. After watching, one remembers Murray Alper as the jovial truck driver, Vaughan Glaser's touching turn as a blind "patriot", the unforgettable traveling Freak Show and of course Otto Kruger as the suave and sophisticated villain, all of whom completely overshadow Bob Cummings as the rather wooden fugitive (compare that bridge jump to Harrison Ford's similar stunt in Andrew Davis' "The Fugitive") and Priscilla Lane whose change of heart and subsequent love towards Cummings is never quite believable.The other major support player is, of course, Hitchcock himself who bookends the film with 2 extraordinary stunts. Many people criticise the older films for their lack of realistic special effects. My feelings are that with lack of technology, to even attempt and convey what the director wants to show is an amazing achievement.Obviously this film carries an anti-fascist message, made at the time of the Second World War, but being a Hitchcock it is never the most important thing and the emphasis is always on the action. Well worth checking out, especially for the support roles.$LABEL$ 1
+Man, I really wanted to like these shows. I am starving for some good television and I applaud TNT for providing these "opportunites". But, sadly, I am in the minority I guess when it comes to the Cinematic Stephen King. As brilliant as King's writing is, the irony is that it simply doesn't translate well to the screen, big or small. With few exceptions (very few), the King experience cannot be filmed with the same impact that the stories have when read. Many people would disagree with this, but I'm sure that in their heart of hearts they have to admit that the best filmed King story is but a pale memory of the one they read. The reason is simple. The average King story takes place in the mind-scape of the characters in the story. He gives us glimpses of their inner thoughts, their emotions and their sometimes fractured or unreal points of view. In short, King takes the reader places where you can't put a Panavision camera. As an audience watching the filmed King, we're left with less than half the information than the reader has access to. It's not too far a stretch to claim that One becomes a character in a King story they read, whereas One is limited to petty voyeurism of that same character when filmed. For as long as King writes, Hollywood will try shooting everything that comes out of his word processor, without any regard to whether or not they should. I don't blame the filmmakers for trying, but it takes an incredible amount of talent and circumspection to pull off the elusive Stephen King adaptation that works. The task is akin to turning lead into gold, or some arcane Zen mastery. Oh well, better luck next time.$LABEL$ 0
+On the way back from IMC6 (San Jose, California), all five (mind you, three of us hardcore Kamal fans) of us had reached a unanimous verdict; VV was solid crap and thanks to the movie we were going to have a pretty screwed up Monday. Not to mention, we swore to stay off the theatres for the next year.I won't blame Kamal here because he sort of dropped a hint in a recent interview with cartoonist Madan (on Vijay TV). He said something like, "Tamizh Cinema'la Photography, Editing'la namba munnera'na maadri Screenplay, Direction, Acting'la innum namba munnera'la" (Tamil Cinema has grown in terms of Photography and Editing, but we have hardly improved, when it comes to Screenplay, Direction and Acting"). While you're watching VV, those words ring very true.Now, here are the 10 Reasons to hate this movie:1. Harris Jeyaraj2. Harris Jeyaraj3. Harris Jeyaraj I'm barely holding myself from using expletives here, but fact is HJ has mastered the fine knack of screwing up every recent movie of his (remember 'Anniyan', 'Ghajini') with the jarring cacophony, he bills as background music. The next time I have an eardrum transplant, he's paying for it. 4. Songs Neither do the songs help move the movie's narration spatially/temporally nor do they make you sit up and take notice. The film feels like it's made of four VERY long songs with a few scenes thrown in between them.5. A Short gone too far. VV at best is fit to be a short story, not a 2 hour plus "thriller". To use a cliché here, like the Energizer bunny it goes on and on and on; only in this case you don't want it to. The later part of a movie feels like a big drag.6. Kamal-Jothika pairing Two ice cubes rubbed together could've produced more sparks than this lead pairing. There's no reason you would root for them to make it together. In fact every time they get together in the second half of the movie, they make a good irritant to the narration. Hate to say this, but Kamalini Mukerjhee's 10 minute romancing does more than what Kamal and Jothika achieve in this movie plus 'Thenali'.7. Kamal Haasan's accent Kamal has this pretentious accent that nobody speaks either in India or in the US; and it isn't new either. He's been doing it since 'Thoongadae Thambi Thoongadae'. It's simply gets on the nerve. Imagine what havoc it can cause when his flair for using this strange accent meets shooting on location in the US. He doesn't leave it at the Immigration either, he offers doses of advice to his men (bewildered TN Cops from Keeranor, Sathoor and beyond) in chaste Kamanglish ("Wha we hav here is plain bad police wok"), of course with nauseating effect.8. Logic There are a few directors whom you expect to stand up to a certain scale. Gautam fails us badly with some crappy performance in the Department of common sense. Which D.C.P in his senses would meet his love interest on the streets to discuss such matters as committing himself and life after! The scene inside the theatre was so bad, towards the climax; we could hear people behind us loudly challenge the Hero's IQ. "Is he stupid, can't he just use his Siren or Lights?" (On a busy Madras road, Kamal-the-cop-on-a-police-Jeep chases a guy on a bike just like any ordinary dude!). "Can't he just use his gun?" ("The guy on a bike" starts on foot and we have a fully geared Kamal in hot pursuit for a considerable amount of time). I'm not voting in favour of the later, but I'm just trying to explain the mood inside.9. Gore & Violence If I wanted to watch women being raped, their throats getting slashed, more women getting raped and thrown into the bushes with excruciating authenticity, I would sit at home and rather watch a "Police Report" or "Kuttram". The use of excessive violence should go in a way to extend the story, not overwhelm it! Somewhere down the line Gautum seems confused about what the extensions (rapes, murders) are and what the mainstay (story) is!10. Even a double shot Espresso couldn't get the pain out of the head.$LABEL$ 0
+i completely agree with jamrom4.. this was the single most horrible movie i have ever seen.. holy crap it was terrible.. i was warned not to see it..and foolishly i watched it anyway.. about 10 minutes into the painful experience i completely gave up on watching the atrocity..but sat through until the end..just to see if i could.. well i did and now i wish i had not..it was disgusting..nothing happened and the ending was all preachy..no movie that bad has the right to survive..i implore all of you to spare yourself the terror of fatty drives the bus..if only i had heeded the same warning..please save yourself from this movie..i have a feeling those who rated it highly were involved in the making of the movie..and should all be wiped off the face of the planet..$LABEL$ 0
+JESSICA: A GHOST STORY is as the name implies a ghost story. The theme is meant to be horror but comes across closer to comedy!A woman comes who was brutally murdered comes back from the dead. This constitutes what this movie attempts to pass off as a plot. There is really nothing more to it. The movie comprises of a series of loosely connected scenes involving a guy who had an affair with this woman prior to her death.Immediately from the opening scenes, this movie has the appearance of a "straight-to-DVD" effort. Unlike gems such as VACANCY 2, the movie has no sense of direction or creativity and certainly gives "straight-to-DVD" movies a bad name! The direction is as poor as can be with a complete lack of suspense, scares or tension. Even the drama elements are hopelessly handled and represent something more boring than even the worst soap opera you may have had the misfortune of enduring.The acting across the board is absolutely abysmal with no one actor involved managing to show even the slightest potential of a successful acting career.Many of the individual scenes are incredibly long, with very long pauses between dialogue exchanges. I'm not exaggerating!The only reason I give this movie a rating of 2 rather than 1 is because some of the poor acting combined with even worse dialogue made for a few unintentional laughs. I stress the word "few" in that sentence. This is not overall one of the "so-bad-it's-good" movies like CAMP BLOOD or THE NAIL GUN MASSACRE. If you want to laugh hysterically, watch those movies. If you want to see a proper horror movie about ghosts watch THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, THE CHANGELING, RINGU, THE EYE (original Korean version), THE GRUDGE, ONE MISSED CALL or PHONE.I advise anyone who has had the good fortune of avoiding seeing JESSICA: A GHOST STORY to keep up the good work! Just forget this movie exists. Don't spare a thought for it!$LABEL$ 0
+I found the documentary entitled Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control to be a fairly interesting documentary. The documentary contained four "mini" documentaries about four interesting men. Each one of these men was extremely involved with his job, showing sheer love and enjoyment for one's job.The sad part, I must say, would have to be the subjects in which these individuals worked/studied. They were interesting for about five minutes, afterwards becoming boring and lasting entirely too long.The video was filmed in a very creative way though. I very much enjoyed the film of one thing with a voice dub over another. It played out excellent and also coincided nicely with the music.$LABEL$ 0
+I got encouraged to watch this film because I've heard good word of it: it was supposed to be this thrilling true crime milestone, disturbing, shocking... all that jazz. Well, I am disturbed because I spent money on it, and I am shocked that something so God-awful actually got released. That's about it.This is a supposed "new look" at Charles Manson's family of insane loser junkies and their murders. But if this is a "new look" then it's probably "new" as in "fresh and totally inept": just watching it gave me a headache and I had to give up trying to make any sense of it or even understand just what the director intended it to be.I suppose I should say something about the plot but fact is, it was so stupid and incoherent that I barely remember if there even WAS a plot at all. There was something about a "Manson tape" delivered to a radio DJ (or a TV producer?), then an hour of pointless random footage of "the family" in '69, then the Polanski murders (looking like a bad school play) and finally some idiotic part about a bunch of skinheads getting drunk and beating the hell out of one another in an alley (I kid you not), and then it ended (thank God) (Don't ask me to make any sense of that, I'm just recalling what I saw!) The performances were terrible, too. And how difficult is it to make a convincing "Manson"? Get a short skinny scrawny bloke, put a dirty wig and a shaggy beard on him. There's your Manson. But this "Manson" doesn't even look right. He just looks like, uh, a bloke in a cheap wig and a glued on Santa beard painted black.Or maybe that's what this film is actually about: Manson's family didn't make any sense, so this film doesn't make any sense, either. It's symbolic! (Yeah, right) I'm still so angry at spending money on this I stopped my normal lurking on this site and registered just to vote 1 for this film and post this warning that will hopefully prevent others from spending their money on this garbage. Stay away from it, it's not even worth renting.PS. The recent US TV production "Helter Skelter" got bad reviews here but I saw it last month (I saw the 1976 original too) and let me tell you, compared to "Manson Family", that new Helter Skelter is BRILLIANT and FLAWLESS. And I was disappointed in it! That's how bad "Manson Family" is: it makes a flawed and mostly disappointing TV movie look perfect.$LABEL$ 0
+Just two comments....SEVEN years apart? Hardly evidence of the film's relentless pulling-power! As has been mentioned, the low-budget telemovie status of 13 GANTRY ROW is a mitigating factor in its limited appeal. Having said that however the thing is not without merit - either as entertainment or as a fright outing per se.True, the plot at its most basic is a re-working of THE AMITYVILLE HORROR - only without much horror. More a case of intrigue! Gibney might have made a more worthwhile impression if she had played Halifax -investigating a couple of seemingly unconnected murders with the "house" as the main suspect. The script is better than average and the production overall of a high standard. It just fails to engage the viewer particularly at key moments.Having picked the DVD up for a mere $3.95 last week at my regular video store, I cannot begrudge the expenditure. $10.95 would be an acceptable price for the film. Just don't expect fireworks!$LABEL$ 1
+This Filmfour funded Sci-Fi movie is most definitely a must see. While it takes huge influence from The Manchurian Candidate and offers nothing new or original plot wise; it's handled with the utmost skill that it comes off as being fresh and inventive, despite it being basically a re-run of an earlier film. It's good to know that films like this are still being made (even if they aren't getting wide releases), and Cypher is refreshing for that reason. The plot twists and turns, which gives it an element of paranoia and also serves in keeping the audience on the edge of their seat while trying to figure out the meaning of Cypher's mystery. The plot follows Morgan Sullivan; a bored suburban man that decides to take a job with Digicorp that involves him listening to speeches from several rival companies and recording them for reasons, to him, unknown. However, his job is interrupted when he meets a mysterious young lady known as Rita...This film features a number of stark white backgrounds that give it a very surreal edge and blend well with it's apocalyptic imaging of the future. This gives the film a very odd look that sets it apart from the majority of other films of the same type, with it's only real close affiliate being Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. The plot is also very efficient and ditches character development in favour of the more stylish - and more thrilling - plot developing. You never quite know where you are with the plot, which serves in making it all the more intriguing. The acting is largely good with a largely unknown cast backing up the team of stars; Jeremy Northam and Lucy Lui. Northam very much looks the part of the quiet and disheartened man at the centre of the tale, and does well with his role. Lucy Lui is an actress that has a resume that doesn't quite fit her talent, but she has a look about her that just fits this movie.Cypher is far from perfect as some of the sequences are illogical and at times it can be inconsistent; but on the whole, if you want an inventive recent Sci-Fi film; Cypher is the way to go.$LABEL$ 1
+Any one who has seen Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ and was bothered by the gory violence would want to see this film instead. Though it wasn't a success in th box office or TV ratings, The Fox Movie Channel still finds a real good motive to show this anually. I liked the way that they trained Chris Sarandon and the men who portrayed his disciples to sing in Hebrew.Though Sarandon didn't have long hair like any other Jesus would in other films, his looks are pretty close to what a Jewish man would appear. What surprised me or startled me was the scene where Caiaphas told Jesus about Pilate "And don't ever forget, that you are a Jew!" Though that may have not been a racist remark,Colin Blakely was trying to make Chris Sarandon look like garbage in the eyes of the prominent men of those days.Keith Michell's portrayal of Pilate was hulking, comparing with his previous performances in "The Story of Jacob and Joseph" and "The Story of David". But if you compare his portrayal of Pilate with Telly Savala's or Hurd Hatfield, you can say that he really painted well the impression of a Roman procurator.$LABEL$ 1
+When I was young, I was a big fan of the Naked Gun movies but just recently I watched the show Police Sqaud! and I think its great! Leslie Nielson's awesome, Alan North is cool, and who the heck is Rex Hamilton? But anyways, it's one goofy show.One of my favorite parts of this show when they do the freeze frame scene during the end credits. I think my favorite one is when Norberg (not O.J.) walks in during the scene and he tries to fit in with the freeze frame. Classic!The only problem to me is the cigarette gag gets very old (when Drebin shows a cigarette to someone and asks, "Cigarette?" and the person replies, "Yes. I know.") I think they used it too many times by whatever.Good acting, good gags, great show!7/10$LABEL$ 1
+within about 5 minutes in to the film the first fight scene i was watching i just could help but pointout the lack of tension in the scene the cameras crossing back and forth really shows he had no idea what he was doing, well actually the soundtrack shows that the best. i no its a low budget film and your not going to get top 40 songs but at least get music that goes with the scene that isn't actually that hard acting, well if i saw any i would gladly let you know. the script was so badly written would now surprise me one bit of the guy directing wrote this piece of beep, i will give the person one 10/10 and that was for the DVD cover because if i actually saw "before watching this" in a shop and it was like 10 15 bucks i would have bought it, why well if you look at the front cover this actually well done you flip over to the back and you see that it has actually won awards. now that is a very misleading thing because even in a small film festival i wouldn't ever believe in my life that this would win anything all i can say is "wow if this was the best i wouldn't want to know what the crap in the film festival was like"films that are this bad only have one good use and that is for a aspiring film maker to use as inspiration films like this are better tools then good films, because with good film you almost know off the bat there is a good chance you wont make a film that good, but if you use a film like this you can look at all the things they director or writer did wrong so you wont make the same mistakes, and you have the added plus of looking at this film and saying if a piece of beep like this can get made then there is hope of anyone out there$LABEL$ 0
+I must say that I really had no idea that I was going to sit down and watch this movie. I guess it was the fact that I had nothing better to do between class. But, for once a TV movie caught my interest. More importantly Helen Hunt caught my eye. I really wasn't a big fan of hers prior to this film. Sure I liked Twister and As Good As It Gets. But, something about this movie really did it for me. I would now see myself as a huge fan. This movie comes with high marks from...me. Give it a chance, it won't let you down.$LABEL$ 1
+My mother worked with Dennis L. Raider for eleven years, not to mention shared an office with him. When it was announced he was BTK, she was shocked. The whole day was just her telling stories about how she never would have seen him as the Wichita Killer. I've heard her re-tell them many times. I've inquired her about a lot of things, and gone to all the interviews that she was asked to go to. I've read the entire book written about Raider, Wichita is my hometown and I was surprised that such a thing could happen in Kansas.There was another BTK movie on TV not too long ago, and I thought this one would have been better at portraying Dennis' killings, maybe even have some intelligent touches to his motives.I'm going to be very blunt with the flaws in this movie. This is based on my mom's portrayal of him, all my readings on him, and the video tapes I've seen of him talking.First of all, the camera angles were horrible. It looked as though it had been shot on a home video camera. The acting was terrible and I couldn't even bear to watch it.Dennis Raider never had long hair. Dennis Raider was a "very anal man" and was a "follow the rule book" kind of guy. He wasn't as nice as the movie made him look, he was very polite and abrupt, business like. Same goes for his killings, as far as we all know. If you've seen his confession in court, you can already guess.And as for the obsession with the slaughter house? No. Never have I read or has Dennis Raider confessed to having a problem with animal cruelty or people squishing bugs. In fact, he practiced on cats and dogs for choking methods. Yet through-out the whole movie he was putting animals in his victim's faces and acting like he cared about the well-being of them.Dennis Raider never killed the people that he knew, he confessed this, but in the movie in his first killing he tells the lady he knows her also.I really don't even want to go in to this movie, and I'm already ranting. This is NOT what you want to watch if you are interested in the actual happenings of BTK. This is NOT what you want to watch if you want a good horror movie. If you want a badly shot half-porno with some slaughter scenes served the side, then this is your kind of movie.$LABEL$ 0
+If you thought that the original from 83 was bad then try out this modern day masterpiece. How could it be worse more you ask? Well...at least in the first one you had Ally Sheedy jogging in a sports bra. Other than updated graphics, modern day themes (such as terrorists), modern weapons and a sexy new voice for Ripley unfortunately this is the same sad tired story. Anyone that saw the first one could see exactly where the next scene / line in the story was going. And for anyone that didn't see the first one...well consider yourself lucky that you only watched it once. Maybe in another 23 years Hollywood will try again.$LABEL$ 0
+Haunted Boat sells itself as 'The Fog' meets 'Open Water'. In many ways this is accurate. There are scares and weird looking people to keep you interested.However the acting ability is poor at best. Showing clear signs that this is merely a bunch of friends making a horror film. Which in all credit they do to the best of their ability. When you accept the low budget makes it very difficult for special effects, with the ghosts looking pretty much like men with rubber masks on.Many aspects of the film are creepy and strange. But it suffers for using too many twists and turns in a short space of time which just leaves you bored and confused. In terms of keeping you awake the film does it very well. Ignoring the irrelevant twisting every 5 seconds near the end, you actually want to know what is going on. And are willing to wait the 1hr 35 minutes for the climax.This is no Ghost Ship but it'll definitely do for an evening in front of the T.V.$LABEL$ 0
+I rented this type of "soft core" before, but I can honestly say, I wasn't expecting this to be in the same type as "Rod Steele: You Only Live Until You Die"--which was both sexy AND funny. It had a good script, a sincere leading man, and a sense of purpose. It also has Gabriella Hall who is hot. The reason why I didn't expect this movie, was because the box was missing the "Must be 18 to Rent" Sticker. I was looking for more "cheese" and less "cheesecake."First of all, I think movies shouldn't be allowed to start with "actors" rehearsing for a part at a talent agency (or wherever "actors" rehearse). In this movies seeing the "actors" rehearsing highlights the lack of preparation that went into acting out the real characters in the movie.Okay, having found out that this WAS a soft core movie, I didn't necessarily turn it off and demand my money back. But, the dizzying way the extended video "erotic" scenes are added to what was probably a late night pay-cable release are very annoying and easy to fast-forward through without the sustained quality of, say, Rod Steele. You know they must've had some money, because I think some of it is filmed overseas.I will have to say the main actor trying NOT to spill the invisibility potion on himself is one of the most baffling acting jobs I've ever seen. And, I've seen Torgo from Manos! It may actually have been worth the dollar rental fee (that and Gabriella Hall). Still, there are better corny movies to rent with your friends.$LABEL$ 0
+I watched this movie based on the comments of a few that said that is was bad but funny. But you need to be warned that this movie has the worst special effects ever produced. They make 1950s science fiction movies look like works of art. This is funny at times, but annoying for the most part. And to compound the problem with the seriously pathetic special effects is the total lack of logic that characterized a majority of the events depicted. One of my favorites is where three of the characters drop hundreds of feet into a tunnel created by the arachnia and arrive to find it fully lit. Apparantely the arachnia have also managed to hook into the power grid. Very impressive. But this is just one example. And for what its worth, the music sucks, the acting sucks, the two cute girls are annoying, the obnoxious guy is annoying, the so-called handsome lead man is a geek, and the black girl who fall for him is a fool. Her father is the worst actor I have ever seen. I am not sure the brief moments of humor can possibly make up for the experience.$LABEL$ 0
+I must say: out of all modern korean martial arts movies this one is worth checking out. It wasn't as epic as Musa-The Warriors and didn't develop the characters as well, but it had many nice ideas. Simple story: a elite soldier thought dead, returns after years to end the reign of the Japanese in Korea in medieval days. His counterpart was formerly the best friend he had and now he is out to stop him. The fight scenes are all with sword or different weapons and very entertaining to watch. The motives of the figures are discovered first near to the end. You might need to watch it again to get all the connections right. And me personally...I loved the end. I could watch it over and over again. Maybe a little pathetic, but a real freedom fighter story.... People can be killed, but not the ideas they stand for....$LABEL$ 1
+This is a movie that plays to everyone's emotions. We all want a second chance at things. Jim Morris got one, followed his heart and got a chance to live his dream. What a great message and what a great delivery by this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+"Zu:The warriors from magic mountain" was and is an impressive classic! You never would have guessed it was made in 1983. Tsui Hark's use of special effects was very creative and inventive. (He continued doing this in the Chinese Ghost Story trilogy and later productions.) Even now it can measure up to other movies in this genre. "Legend of Zu" is connected to "Zu"warriors from magic mountain"! It is not necessary to have seen this movie to understand the plot of this one. The plot is a bit hard to follow. But to be honest it doesn't matter. It is all about the action and adventure! I always was wondering what Tsui Hark would do if he got his hands on CGI. Now we know,he made this movie. Maybe it sometimes is too much but the overall result is so beautiful that I am not going to be critical about that. There is so much happening on the screen,you simply won't believe! I think it is a big shame that this movie wasn't shown in theaters here in Holland. Because this movie is screaming for screen time in cinemas! This movie easily can beat big budget Hollywood productions like "Superman Returns" or Xmen 3. The only thing I do have to mention is the lack of humor! In most of Tsui Harks's movies he combines drama,fantasy,martial arts and humor. Somehow it is missing in this movie. Again I am not going to be picky about these small matters. "Legend of Zu" delivers on the action front with the most beautiful special effects you will see. A true classic!$LABEL$ 1
+One of my favorite shows in the 80's. After the first season, it started going downhill when they decided to add Jean Bruce Scott to the cast. Deborah Pratt was wonderful and it was fun watching her and Ernest Borgnine's character go at it with each other. The last episode she appeared in was one of my favorites for in the second season. Unfortunately during those days, blacks did not last long on television shows. Some of the episodes in the second season where okay but the third season it was more about the human characters than Airwolf and it was not shown until almost at the end of the show. When it went to USA, it was disgusting!!!$LABEL$ 1
+I picked up this movie with the intention of getting a bad zombie movie. But I had no Idea what I was getting myself into.I started the movie and soon I had been pulled into a world of pain and visual torture.I finally know what hell is like. It's this movie. For eternity. This movie has no value. It didn't even really have a plot. There was stuff going on in each scene but no overall explanation why anything happens.Instead of watching this movie I suggest that you line the nearest blender with oil and try and stuff as many bullets in it as you can. You will find that the outcome to be far more pleasant than this movie.Don't even watch it. Not even to see how bad it is. I beg you. If you watch it, then it means they win.$LABEL$ 0
+After we counted the use of the f word, oh, about 22 times in the first 10 minutes or so of the film, listened to some really bad actors going on about a woman and a horse, and pretty much acting like 12 year old boys being naughty together, well, we turned it off. Relying on gratuitous profanity and potty humor is a sure sign of a loser Hollywood movie, the product of unimaginative and no-talent writers. We did give it a second chance, thinking surely it would get better. No dice. Later, my boyfriend skipped through the rest of the movie in case it improved, still no dice.The main character did have a cool bike.I wouldn't recommend this to anyone except maybe really immature adolescents, or frat boys.$LABEL$ 0
+A real head scratcher of a film by Bill Rebane who appeared to be getting worse in his trade throughout the eighties. Three crackpot millionaires invite nine people to a remote hotel to compete in a last person standing contest in which the final contestant will be given $1 million provided he or she makes it that far. A series of lame pranks are pulled on some of the guests while the others engage in what most adults would do under the circumstances namely get shatfaced at the hotel bar. Most scenes are merely an excuse to focus the camera on various female body parts including an opening dance number that is a crossover of American Bandstand meets geriatric aerobics complete with hookers. If there was any hesitation that white people can't dance this scene hammers the final nail in that coffin. Pay close attention for the nipple slip. This continues on for about forty-five minutes until Bill Rebane begins throwing darts at various plot twists and whatever he hits becomes the inspiration for the next scene making this one incoherent mess. It's a game until it's not a game. The three old coots are in complete control until they're not. The hotel is possessed by a supernatural force until it becomes just props. They're dead until they're not. Even the narrator at the end replies that he doesn't know what the hell happened. I defy anyone to reason where Rebane was going on this one. The acting is dinner theater caliber minus the dinner. Most of the actors probably went back to their day jobs at the local Stuckey's. I give it a few points for the scene where the yuppie broad opens the closet and a skeleton is inside skull humping himself. Let's see Gone With the Wind do that! This Chilling Classics collection is really becoming the bane of me. Bane, Get it! Like Rebane! I hate myself.$LABEL$ 0
+this movie is not porn, it was not meant to be porn, and unless my uncle runs for president of the world it should never be considered porn.now that that issue was sorted out, i can say i thoroughly recommend this film, as it's issues are still widely available. it's funny, the acting is great and it raises serious(curious) questions.i can't fully understand why this film was so mistreated, probably this is why i plan to never visit the us. Lena is the true pioneer of the modern riot-grrrl movement, confusion, curiosity and wit are her main attributes, she is occasionally angry, but aren't we all?$LABEL$ 1
+Komodo vs. Cobra starts as 'One Planet' environmentalist Jerry Ryan (Ryan McTavish) & his girlfriend Carrie (Renee Talbert) hire Captain Michael Stoddard (executive producer Michael Paré) to take them to an island in the South Pacific, at first Stoddard is reluctant since the island is a top secret military research base but soon changes his mind when a load of cash is offered. Along with TV news reporter Sandra Crescent (Jeri Manthey) they set sail for the island & once ashore find out that the military have been funding illegal DNA genetic experiments which have resulted in huge Komodo Dragon's & King Cobra's that have eaten almost every other living thing there & Stoddard & co are next on the menu...Co-written & directed by the ever awful Jim Wynorski under his Jay Andrews pseudonym this is just plain awful, this is just plain hard to sit through & is even worse than the usual rubbish 'Creature Features' the Sci-Fi Channel have the nerve to air if that's possible. The script is terrible, predictable & utterly boring, some giant monsters of some sort are created by scientists messing around with DNA, a group of people are trapped with said monsters & have to try to escape being eaten. That's it, that's the whole plot of Komodo vs. Cobra, maybe this was trying to rip-off AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004) with the title but all the 'vs.' bit amounts to is a rubbish thirty second stand-off between the two titular beasts at the very end, boring as hell & surely a big disappointment to anyone hoping to have a full on monster mash. The character's are poor, the dialogue is awful, the pace is slow, the story is predictable & cliché ridden & the whole film just sucks really with a lazy script that states wrongly that both Komodo Dragon's & Cobra's are amphibious which they are not. Hell, Komodo vs. Cobra isn't even worth watching for any unintentional laughs since it's so dull & hardly anything ever happens although the sight of a woman hiding behind the smallest rock on the beach from the Cobra is quite funny for the wrong reasons.How does Wynorski keep getting directing jobs? He is probably consistently the worst director currently working, how can he keep getting fun sounding films set on beautiful locations with half decent casts & still churn out such an awful film? I think this was cut to get a PG or for it's TV showing since every time someone swears it's masked by a Parrot squeak! There's zero gore or violence & the monster scenes are limp, people just sort of stand there, the monsters just sort of stands there too hissing or roaring & that's about it. The CGI computer effects are terrible, this is really poor stuff that just looks horrible.With a supposed budget of about $450,000 this looks as cheap as it was, the Hawaiian locations are nice to look at but that's about it. The acting is poor from an uninterested looking cast.Komodo vs. Cobra is an absolutely terrible Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' from Jim Wynorski, films don't get much worse than this.$LABEL$ 0
+THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! The Decline of Western Civilization......what a great title eh? And of coarse a great movie. This is the best concert film I have ever seen. A close second being the Talking Heads movie "Stop Making Sense". I first heard of this movie when Waynes World came out in 1992. I looked at the director's name Penelope Spheeris and thought cool name, what else has he directed? I thought the first name was pronounced like envelope. After some time looking in movie guides I came across the critically acclaimed Decline and realized Penelope was a woman.....my Mom corrected me. I spent 8 years of my life trying to track this down. I finally saw it on VHS in Vancouver, where I currently reside. It was worth the wait. This captures the LA punk movement very well. This is teen angst at it's best folks. My favourite is the band the Germs who need subtitles for the lyrics because Darby Crash sings so crazy, you cannot understand it. I laughed when I saw this. The band Black Flag live in an abandoned church and the band X are a very intelligent bunch. Also laughed at the letter some idiot writes in to Slash Magazine about how we do not need to save the whales, there are countless miles of ocean for us to pour toxins in! I became a huge Penelope Spheeris fan after this, and saw all her punk movies-Dudes was OK, and Suburbia is a cult classic! I own both of these on VHS. She is a true underground film maker and I love her stuff. I would have loved to have seen this movie in 1994 when grunge was so popular. I was a big Nirvana fan then, but alas I saw this in 2002 and by that point I had grown out of grunge and now I listen to Crystal Method/Fatboy Slim. Quite a change of pace, I know, but what can you do? But if you want a true depiction of the punk movement this captures it better than anything. Much better than 1991: The Year Punk Broke. This is a tough movie to track down, but if you get your hands on it, rent it, even if you don't like the music it is an excellent piece of work. Now days it might be easier to find with DVD's being so popular. By the way Penelope produced a little known Albert Brooks movie called "Real Life" which I also own. Very funny stuff in todays reality TV craptacular! Rent Decline......Highly recommended! Thanks!$LABEL$ 1
+I don't have much to say about this movie. It could have been a wonderful tour-de-force for Peter Sellers, but it is one of the most tragic misfires in movie history. That it was Sellers final movie makes it all the more painful.The terrible screenplay, direction and shockingly wooden performances all come dreadfully together to make this one of the most unwatchably awful movies ever made.I wish so much that I could find even a snicker or a chuckle buried somewhere in this pile of putrid blubber, but it's a lifeless, humorless disaster. The truth hurts.Peter, why couldn't you have stopped at BEING THERE?$LABEL$ 0
+Remember the wooden, undramatic literary adaptations of the 1970s at their worst? You will when you see this broadly acted, unintentionally hilarious piece of chocolate-box adaptation. Most culpable of all is Catherine Z-J who, while undeniably easy on the eye, substitutes swishing a big dress and looking sultry for actually turning in a performance. Played po-faced like a melodrama, or Cold Comfort Farm without the jokes, this effort is not helped by a scriptwriter with a tin ear for dialogue who misses entirely the novel's sense of irony or tragedy. A shame, given the quality of the acting talent on offer - Joan Plowright, Claire Skinner, Steven Macintosh all deserve better than this.$LABEL$ 0
+Obviously, the comments above that fawn over the movie were made by someone who's on the crew. I don't recall ever seeing a movie that's more insulting to the talented actors or the audience watching. In my 30 years of watching movies, this is the only one I have ever walked out of. Bad humor, bad jokes, bad gags, bad editing, bad plot, etc. Note to producer: It's never funny to hunt humans based on race. Great that you tried to be politically correct by incorporating all races, but you're still hunting humans based on race, and that's sickening.$LABEL$ 0
+best movie ever!!!!! this movie broke my ribs just by the force of laughter, but it was well worth it. i don't intend to do a summary of this excellent movie, just go see it if you have the chance. i think you will either love it, or hate it. that's the qualities of a real cult movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Oh, how we have a misfire here; a film so bad that your mind will wonder and drift away onto other things as it wastes your time with brain numbingly poor production values; character stereotypes of the worst and racist kind since D.W. Griffith referred to the Chinese character in Broken Blossoms as 'the yellow man'; characters so unimaginative and un-engaging that it's difficult to watch as well as a narrative that plods along at such a slow, stupid and pointless pace that you will question the very people who say they like this film.Prizzi's Honor is a film that ends up being an absolute post-modern disaster in every which way possible. The film is a messy and senseless disaster that has John Huston directing; Kathleen Turner and Jack Nicholson staring and everybody else filling in the gaps as either dumb stereotypes or supporting characters that weep on a phone now and again or bicker with a main character. Prizzi's Honor is a film that falls into a genre of neo-noir, comedy, romance, action, gangster and overall crime – this twinned with its director and cast should be enough to propel it through some sort of a story; some sort of a sequence of good scenes; some sort of intelligence in the form of a screenplay or something else but no – what we get is a nasty and ugly film revolving around nothing at all.I'll give a couple of examples of how shoddy this horror show of a film actually is. Firstly, the film thinks it's a love story and it thinks this for about an hour of its time: of MY time. Charley Partanna (Nicholson) is an assassin who kills people for a family that he works for in New York and yet he resembles his character out of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest more than an international hit-man. He meets and falls in love with Irene Walker (Turner) who is another assassin and they hit it off but as the poor excuse for a plot plays out, it appears all is not right. I read that the plot for this film is: "A professional hit man and hit woman fall in love, only to discover that they have each been hired to kill the other." Well, yes that's true but that actual revelation doesn't happen until about twenty minutes to the end! Nicholson plays Partanna like someone with an IQ of 60: he walks around; seemingly making observations and talking out loud about things he sees; he talks like he is either drunk or has a more serious problem from within and worse of all we never get the feeling he is an assassin – one really poorly shot assassination early on (that actually happens off screen) is not enough to suggest this guy is a hard-bodied, best of the best, international hit-man.So with a main character who is un-likable and un-realistic, we move to the script. The first hour and a half is just a cinematic dead zone with what ever there is to suggest traces of life merely poor conventions: Partanna slouches around on the phone or in person asking the same things over and over again: "Do I marry her?; Do I love her? What is love? What do I do?" and it gets so repetitive, it's not even able to act as good humour. This twinned with the way he always seemed to be on the phone to someone: a girl called Maerose Prizzi (Huston) played by director John's daughter; which served absolutely no purpose to the plot whatsoever and seemed to be there for laughs as was the scene in which she tells her father about how she slept with Partanna and loved it – that got me thinking, was this supposed to be funny? Should I be laughing? The film felt like a smart mafia picture what with its opening scene of a wedding (alá The Godfather) and consequential scenes with a touch of noir as gangsters, police men and assassins were introduced into the film. But what we get is something very, very different.The second hour revolves around some sort of a kidnap plot; right, the love and romance is dealt with – maybe the film will kick-start. I was so very wrong: with more characters continuously talking very slowly and very deliberately in a monotone way, we have a kidnap scene involving some guy coming out of his office: this scene sums the film up. Everything is briefly planned and then executed in a heavy handed and dumb way that just makes it look cheesy. We do not get to see them arrive to some dramatic music; perhaps they have to get through security to get to the elevators; maybe they have to be careful of civilians when they hide in their chosen places and when that random woman steps out of the elevator and the gunshot occurs – the scene isn't even edited correctly. Some suspense, some drama: "Do I shoot or don't I?"; maybe some slow motion as the character has to quick draw before it's too late – anything but how it was actually executed. Prizzi's Honor continues its monotonous and uninteresting decent into filmic oblivion as it nears its climax. It's a film where cameras reflect in windows; lights reflect in sides of cars and 'dead' chauffeurs blink when nudged. Prizzi's Honor is a jumbled and messy film that will try the patients of any film-goer and don't say it was a comedy because I didn't laugh with it – AT it is another matter. The film is repetitive, drawn out and colourless in its vision and scope for originality - there is no Honour here.$LABEL$ 0
+The original movie ( dated 19??)did not show any "monster" , it just SUGGESTED scary "things" , .This version however shows every aspect of a "sick minded ghost" , including unnecessary special effects . The "mystery " ,as presented in the original movie , was the most scary part : one simply did not know what was causing the weird things that happened. By showing the face of the "old man" , this Mister has completely disappeared. Even worse : the special effects ( crying wooden children faces) is ridiculous. This is a stupid remake , too obviously spectacular to even be close as scary as the original$LABEL$ 0
+"Hero and the Terror" is a fairly dull thriller - a la: no real character substance, predictable plot, and... Boring. For a thriller I found this movie slow in working up to its pitiful climax, as it just seemed to drag along until Chuck's wife's baby is born... and then it drags on from there until it reaches the end - which I can hardly remember already even though I only saw the film 10 minutes ago.I give this film 3 out of 10 - for the first 10-20 minutes.$LABEL$ 0
+Fellowe's drama about a couple's marriage which is threatened by a younger third party which interests the wife of the house (Watson). Wilkinson plays the role very well as the troubled husband who cant control his wife's cheating, and deals with the issue. I also like Rupert everett a lot in his role as William Bule, the man that Watson has the affair with. Although i think Emily Watson is a great actress, i had a bit of a problem with the way her character was written, did not make her too likable (i know a cheater is not supposed to be likable, but some of her actions and things she did had no reasoning behind them). The screenplay was perhaps the weak part of this drama, although Fellowes' direction was good and the performances were also quite good. This film is better than Unfaithful, but not a masterpiece by any means. ---IMDB Rating: 6.7, my rating: 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+An angry boy who has tragically lost his parents is looked after by his grandfather. Together they find common ground in the Gaelic folk tales which have been passed down orally from generation to generation of islanders. Although tragic episodes, such as the Highland clearances, feature in the stories, there is a surprising amount of humour and gaiety in them. It's all filmed in Skye, so there is a double dose of beauty. The mountain scenery is breathtaking, and it's a rare chance to hear Scottish Gaelic spoken. I'm English, so I had to read the subtitles, but the sound of spoken Gaelic is nonetheless wonderful. The performances are just what you would expect from carefully chosen non-actors - in other words, you are watching the real thing - people who care deeply about Gaelic folklore and history. The Gaelic community, especially on Skye, worked innumerable minor miracles to make this film. Anyone who has the slightest interest in Gaelic, folk history, folk music, oral culture, Scotland, British history, multi-culturalism or social justice should go and see this film.$LABEL$ 1
+There is absolutely NO reason to waste your time with this "film". The original said it all and still holds up. Either read the book or do some research about the story, and you'll realize this remake is ludicrous. Eric Roberts as Perry Smith? His sister could have done a better job! Having been to Holcomb & Edgerton, KS where the story takes place, the sets and locations looked NOTHING like Kansas. The original is riveting, from the location filming to the use of the actual participants, weapons and victims belongings. Unforgettable performances by Scott Wilson and Robert Blake. Soundtrack by Quincy Jones and cinematography by Conrad Hall...The original is available on DVD in widescreen now. Let this turkey die a quick death.$LABEL$ 0
+As far as cinematography goes, this film was pretty good for the mid 50's. There were a few times that the lighting was way too hot but the shots were generally in frame and stayed in focus. The acting was above average for a low budget stinker but the direction was horrible. Several scenes were dragged out way too long in an attempt at suspense and the effects were non-existent. The attack by the skull in the pond should have been completely removed from the final cut and every attempt to bring life to the skull was obvious with stick pokes and strings. I also couldn't help but think the budget didn't allow them to furnish the house so they kept making references to the movers and that all the things in storage should be coming soon. Honestly...it would have been more entertaining if it were a worse movie. It wasn't bad enough to be a "good-bad" movie but wasn't good enough to be "good" either. Get the MST3K version...it's more fun.$LABEL$ 0
+My favourite police series of all time turns to a TV-film. Does it work? Yes. Gee runs for mayor and gets shot. The Homicide "hall of fame" turns up. Pembleton and nearly all of the cops who ever played in this series. A lot of flashbacks helps you who hasn´t seen the TV-series but it amuses the fans too. The last five minutes solves another murder and at the very end even two of the dead cops turn up. And a short appearance from my favourite coroner Juliana Cox. This is a good film.$LABEL$ 1
+Ok, maybe Posse can't compare to other popular cowboy/western movies. But that's because it didn't have the FUNDING those movies had. Obviously, whenever you want to produce a story such as this one, focusing on African American historical involvement (and NO, servants and 'mammies' are not historical involvement), Hollywood isn't going to be too supportive. And believe me they weren't. The producers and actors sacrificed a lot of 'out of pocket' expenses to make "Posse", just so that the story could be told. I think that alone is commendable. Posse may not be Oscar material (and they don't like Black media too much either), but it is a start. It is entertaining, and it introduces us to the black cowboy, a character most of us are unfamiliar with.$LABEL$ 1
+I must say that I am fairly disappointed by this "horror" movie. I did not get scared even once while watching it. It also is not very suspenseful either.... I was able to guess the ending half way through the movie... So.. what's left?"The Ring" is a trully scary movie... I wish other movies would stop copying from it (e.g. the trade-mark: long hair). Please give me some originality.Will not recommend this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+I truly enjoyed this film. It's rare to find a star who can pull off the physical aspects of any sports/dance themed film convincingly and do a first rate acting job as well. In this film you find two stars who rise to the occasion. Both women deliver warm, touching and at times humorous performances. The film also touched on a number of topics, from racial issues to sexual identity. And yet the approach wasn't heavy handed. The production values were also top notch for a small budget film. I saw this at the Philadelphia Gay & Lesbian film festival and went back to see it a second time. It was a real crowd pleaser. Everyone I spoke to seemed to enjoy this film.$LABEL$ 1
+Lucio Fulci made a lot of great films throughout his career and the way that many of them featured a bucket load of gore lead to him earning the title 'The Godfather of Gore'. While Don't Torture a Duckling was made before Fulci became well known amongst gorehounds, and isn't all that gory; it's certainly a gritty and nasty little thriller, and for my money - the best film that Fulci ever made! Don't Torture a Duckling really is head and shoulders above a lot of the Giallo genre in terms of production values and unlike many of Fulci's later films, everything about this Giallo is great. The plot focuses on a small rustic community where dead bodies have began turning up. The murders are even more shocking because the victims are just young boys. Shortly after the police convict an innocent man of the crimes, a reporter named Andrea Martelli arrives in the village and decides to start investigating the murders on his own. Martelli soon encounters various suspects, including a sexy young lady named Patricia, a sinister priest and a local witch who enjoys making wax effigies and sticking pins into them.While this film may not feature loads of gore, it does have two of Fulci's nastiest sequences to make up for it. The nastiest involves a woman being brutally slaughtered by a group of men in a cemetery, while the image of a man falling from a cliff and hitting any number of rocks on the way down is liable to turn some stomachs. Don't Torture a Duckling features an absolutely great Italian cast. Barbara Bouchet (a personal favourite of mine) is incredibly sexy in her role as Patricia, and gets to flex her acting muscles more than she did in many later films. Tomas Millian is excellent as usual while the rest of the cast is well fleshed out by likes of Irene Pappas, Florinda Bolkan and Marc Porel. The cinematography on display is stunning and Fulci really gives the viewer the impression that he puts a lot of care and effort into every scene. The story plays out slowly, and it's always interesting as Fulci never allows the film to stray too much from the central plot line. There isn't a great deal of mystery towards the identity of the murderer; but Fulci almost manages to keep us guessing right up until the end and Don't Torture a Duckling does climax on a high. Overall, it's a shame that Fulci didn't make more films like this. Don't Torture a Duckling is his out and out best work and I insist that every Giallo fans sees it!$LABEL$ 1
+This could have been a good biopic, but what a mess! I had this film when I was a theater manager. When I put the film together, and watched it, I thought I had some reels out of order. As it turned out I didn't, and if I did, nobody would have noticed. I couldn't figure out what's going on! Everybody who walked out pretty much felt the same way!$LABEL$ 0
+The White Warrior is definitely one of,if not Steve Reeves weakest films. Set in 18th or 19th century Russia (??) Steve plays a cossack warrior who tries to over run a mad man Russian czar by running up a mountain side with his rebel band in a goofy looking Russian white tunic..... For the most part the great Reeves physique is hidden in a goofy, knee length tunic, with an even more sillier looking russian hat.The action is rather minimal, with only a good wrestling scene from the mid waist up that shows off the great Reeves physique. This is an apparent attempt by the producers to move Reeves out of the sword and sandal genre into another historic era, with poor results. The dialogue from the script is hard to understand at various points, and only commentary from the narrator allows the viewer to understand what is really happening from scene to scene. I would image Reeves regretted making this film, but in an attempt to try and get out of his toga and sandals and tribune armor it helped launch him to other historic characters such as Morgan the Pirate and the Thief of Baghdad.$LABEL$ 0
+If the makers of Atlantis had something to say in this film, its theme was (literally) drowned out by the emphasis on "special effects" over characterization. Almost as if in an attempt to "keep up" with the rest of the summer action blockbusters, Disney has ditched the character-driven, movie-with-a-message approach in favor of a Star Wars "shoot-'em-up" with stereotype heroes and villains.The art is cartoony and the producers think that they can rely on computer generated images (CGI) of flying fish-craft and submarines to fill the gap. They are wrong, and the days of beautiful, handcrafted animation is fast flying out the window in favor of assembly-line CGI.This movie is all spectacle with no heart. At times the film comes close to being a good, worthwhile movie, but frustratingly misses the mark so many times by copping out of talking about something meaningful and instead choosing to go with the glitz.Another problem with the movie is the pacing. It starts confusingly and then begins to rocket along with a choppy story editing style that is not appreciated. The viewer is rushed out of the door along with Milo Thatch (voiced well by Michael J. Fox) and is left thinking "Gee there must be an awful lot of stuff that's going to happen once we get to Atlantis". Unfortunately, not much happens. The secret of Atlantis remains a secret with the story-tellers not really knowing how to explain the legendary island/continent. They are afraid to commit to saying where Atlantis is, even in a fictional story. Is it in the Atlantic? Is it in the Mediterranean Sea? Who knows? Nothing is hypothesized, even from a purely fantasy-based point of view. The viewer will leave the theatre asking themselves "Now what was that all about? What was the point of the movie? Why couldn't the surviving Atlantean's remember how to read when many of them lived through the disaster to the "present" day? And WHY did Atlantis sink?" and then promptly begin to forget about what they saw. There is nothing left to think about or mill over... except the loss of money in their wallets.The characters and their motivations are equally unfathomable. From the eccentric zillionaire who founds the expedition with seemingly more money that existed on the entire planet in 1914, to the (spoiler) collective consciousness that enters Kida and VOLUNTARILY deserts its people!?! The crew are a collection of quirky, 2-dimensional people of anachronistically (for 1914) P.C. race and gender. The demolitions expert talks like he came right out of a Warner Brothers' Bugs Bunny short. Most of the jokes are gross one-liners that are largely missed by the audience for two reasons: They are delivered at lightning-speed pacing and usually mumbled. The way these supporting players do a moral turn-around near the end of the movie is hard to believe.While we applaud Disney for trying to create animated movies for adults - and this is the first Disney not to have cute, talking animals or objects - it fails to make the transition. Younger children will be frightened by some of the action scenes and be left in the dark by the large amount of subtitles (when the characters speak Atlantean). In the first five minutes of the expedition, approximately 200 people are killed without a second thought. Obviously Disney thinks that if you didn't know who those people were, then why should you care? Again, the movie has no feelings on any level.Mulan and Tarzan were the last animated movies produced by Disney that were done extremely well. Sadly, Atlantis harkens back to those failed attempts in the past such as the Black Cauldron and Hunchback of Notre Dame. Disney needs to get back to their roots. A sequel to Peter Pan is coming out shortly but one never knows what the results will be until you see it for yourself. And now that Disney has discovered Science Fiction one hopes that they will realize that that genre must have more than spectacle to it. We also hope that the upcoming "Treasure Planet", a sci-fi adaptation of Robert L. Stevenson's "Treasure Island", will have more heart to it than the unfathomable "Atlantis: The Lost Empire".$LABEL$ 0
+Bruce Almighty is the story of Bruce Nolan, an average man who feels God is messing up his life. God confronts him and show Bruce the error of his ways. Of course, giving someone God's powers could take a turn for the worse. Bruce Almighty is a good comedy, Jim Carrey is good, as always Morgan Freeman is first-rate and seems right at home as God and the cast brings the plot together well. The jokes are almost always on target, although sometimes they resort a bit too much on Carrey's facial expressions. I liked the fact that the movie actually portrayed God, not only that but also as a black man. I thought this quite well, especially with the brilliant Freeman. There are some hilarious scenes, the opening cookie scene for instance, others miss the target slightly but still a good film. 6/7 out of 10$LABEL$ 1
+This film was hard to get a hold of, and when I eventually saw it the disappointment was overwhelming. I mean, this is one of the great stories of the twentieth century: an unknown man takes advantage of the unsuspecting airline industry and GETS AWAY with millions in ransom without hurting anyone or bungling the attempt. With all of this built-in interest, how could anyone make such a lackluster, talk-laden flick of this true-life event. While Williams is always interesting, the screenwriters assumed that the D.B. Cooper persona was stereotypically heroic like a movie star, s what we get is a type-without any engaging details or insights into the mind of a person daring enough and clever enough to have pulled it off. Harrold practically steals the movie with her spunk and pure beauty, but the real letdown was in the handling of the plot and the lame direction. Shame on this film for even existing.$LABEL$ 0
+I just watched this film this morning and I found it to be a great showing of the richness of faith. Babette gave them another way to look at life; not a replacement, but an enhancement. She shared all that she had with those who gave what little they had to her. I see the story of God in here. He sent his only son to man. Man could not possibly give anything that would equal that. So, for our small sacrifice, we are given an ultimate treasure and are transformed because of it. In this film the bickering townspeople have so consumed themselves with a small interpretation of God. Babette showed them that life and God can indeed be beautiful in it's fullest sense. The love that God's son showed to man is the love we should show to one another and our lives will be the richer for it. Even the film is a metaphor. It seems slow in the beginning, but the investment of time and attention to detail is rewarded in the end. It was truly a feast.$LABEL$ 1
+with this film being directed by Roger Avery and Quentin Tarantino doing the screenplay i was sure this was going to be a gem. i was wrong. i don't hate this film but in no ways do i like it.i love Roger Avery because of his amazing direction in rules of attraction and his screenplays to pulp fiction and silent hill but he made a mistake making this. do i really need to comment on Tarantino, we all know hes a genius.this movie is just set around a gang robbing a bank but fails due to silly people participating in the robberyi'm disappointed in Tarantino and Avery for doing this film but doesn't change my mind on how amazing they both are. everyone makes mistakes......... 3/10...........j.d Seaton$LABEL$ 0
+Funny. Sad. Charming. These are all words that floated through my head while I was watching this beautiful, simple film.It is rare that a movie truly moves me, but "Shall We Dance?" accomplished that with grace to spare. Gentle humor mixed in with occasional subtle agony made this easily one of the best experiences of my movie-viewing history. It left me with a quiet sense of exultation, but with a small touch of sadness mixed in.And the dancing, oh yes, the dancing. Even if you are not a lover of the art, or can't put one foot in front of another, the steps displayed here will take your breath away, and make you want to sign up for classes as fast as you can. It was absolutely enchanting, even the parts that show Sugiyama's (touchingly portrayed by Koji Yakusho) stilted steps when he was first learning to dance were lovely in a humorous, child-like way. And yet, this film was not entirely about dancing, but more about the subtleties of human behavior and feelings. We witness a shy man learning to express his repressed feelings through dance, a beautiful dance instructor rediscovering her love for the art, and the personal growth of every member of the wonderful supporting cast.Beauty. Pain. Emotion. All the love and little agonies of life are here, expressed with the delicate feeling of a fine Japanese watercolor painting combined with the emotional strength and grace of the culture.$LABEL$ 1
+Justin goes home to live with his strict, hard-nosed police detective father, but it seems daddy has turned the upstairs into three makeshift apartments each with bizarre tenants residing in them. Straight-laced idealist Justin is thrust into the world of the occult, murder, under-aged drinking and other dastardly things. Ho-hum Wow, have I seen the same film that nearly all the other reviewers on here saw??? Clever, compelling, original, intense, clever, genius????!!? I witnessed none of those things. What I DID see was an uninteresting, bland, trite, extremely clichéd low-budget thriller that was ripe with implausibilities and no tension in the least bit as the killer is telegraphed as soon into the film as he gives his monologue/debate/discussion. And where are these humorous laugh-out-loud moments? I never so much as chuckled, perhaps because i was too busy struggling not to be put to sleep by the film.My Grade: D DVD Extras: Audio commentary with director Dave Campfield; Second commentary with various contributers as well as isolated music tracks; 4 featurettes (Making of, on the set, turning 1 room into 4, & Inside the black circle); Interviews with Felissa Rose, Desiree Gould, & Raine Brown; Alternate scenes; bloopers; a music video for 'Addiction'; A trailer for this movie; And trailers for "Shock-o-rama", "Chainsaw Sally", "Skin Crawl", "Sinful", "Bacterium", "Creature from the Hillbilly Lagoon", & "Millennium Crises"$LABEL$ 0
+The above line sums it up pretty good. The best assets of the comics are it's visual gags and word-jokes (the latter of which are almost impossible to translate, which is why the comics are at their best in their original language).Both are quite hard to capture in film, which is why those will never be as good as the comics. Movies are simply a different medium than comics. With that in mind, this movie does surprisingly well in capturing the fun of the comic.The word gags are bearable, and sometimes even funny (Debouze does an Amelie reference!). I have to mention that I watched the french version. If you don't watch the french version or your lack of understanding of the french language limits you to the subtitles, the word jokes will probably suck.The slapstick is okay as well; it's a very simple form of humor, and not really funny when you're older than twelve, but it captures the spirit of the comicbooks. The other visual jokes are the movie's saving grace for the older audience, as their often quite funny.The acting is totally over the top, but again, that's not annoying at all as it captures the spirit of the comicbooks. Only Depardieu and Clavier don't really overact, which might be the reason some people think they didn't enjoy their roles (I didn't notice a thing). On the other hand Jamel Debouze and especially Claude Rich turn overacting into an artform. It's actually fun to watch. Again, I fear it wouldn't be nearly as funny when the voices are dubbed.Overall not a bad movie at all, much better than the previous one. It's not a classic and it doesn't dethrone The Twelve Tasks of Asterix as my favourite Asterix movie, but it's still worth seeing. The french version, that is. 7/10$LABEL$ 1
+I would label this show as horrendous if it weren't for the fact that it's on the same network as Arrested Development. Because it is on FOX and getting renewed while AD got cancelled. It is absolutely beyond words how atrocious this show actually is. But let me try and describe it. Take an extremely low rate Archie Bunker and have him spout out humor that would have been out of date if it were on Married with Children. Then take great plot lines from AD (son has an ugly, boring girlfriend) and dumb them down so the idiots who watch sitcoms can understand them. If you watch this, I will have completely lost respect for you, as should your family. However, if you are a fan, you should love FOX's new comedy 'Til Death. Looks like real funny, cutting-edge stuff. I mean, married couples not getting along ... brilliant.$LABEL$ 0
+Robert Mitchum stars as Clint Tollinger in this short but tough western: Man With The Gun. Tollinger is a professional town tamer - as in, when a town needs someone to save itself; he is the one who is brought in to do it. Tollinger's latest gig comes by as an accident: strolling into town looking for his former fling, he stumbles into a town being played like a puppet by a local western gangster. But many townspeople begin to rue the day they hired Tollinger, as his way of cleaning up the town becomes very taxing (suddenly High Plains Drifter seems less original). Man With The Gun starts off as an average western tough-guy film but begins to surprise you more and more as the film progresses. What starts off as forgettable and run-of-the-mill ends up dark and character-centered. The entire film is very well shot and the cast is very enjoyable. Mitchum is his usual excellent self here in Man With The Gun - not one of his very best performances, Mitchum still has his classic and effective tough-guy screen presence in high gear and he knocks the action-packed, meaningful, and shocking scenes of the film right out of the park. Man With The Gun is a nice Mitchum western and is easily worth one's time.$LABEL$ 1
+My favorite film this year. Great characters and plot, and the direction and editing was smooth, visually beautiful, and interesting. Set in Barcelona, the film follows a year in the lives of six foreign graduate students and assorted others. Cultures and languages clash but hearts and lives intertwine. The leading role would never have been cast in Hollywood, but he carried the part perfectly. The characters were nicely developed and their interplay was honest and accurate. There were two especially noteworthy scenes, the climax was truly inspired. The film is sentimental, and the last ten minutes could have been cut, but it was wonderfully entertaining. I nearly didn't watch it, but did just to see Audrey Tautou. Her role although billed second or third was minor, and was outshined by several other characters. I wish more films like this were made. It brought to mind The Big Chill or The Breakfast Club. Don't start this movie late if you plan to go to bed 1/2 way through.$LABEL$ 1
+the film itself is absolutely brilliant, its that buzz, that rush that makes you just want to go out, blow your wages and loose yourself. It's what the weekend is all about, its our sanitation where we can come together as one and be ourselves without a care in the world. The film is layered in depth and the dialogue in places is just spot on, especially with Jip. The characters themselves are instantly likable, one in particular is obviously dyers character and his views on what "Star Wars" is really about, genius.If ever you've got an hour to kill before going out, stick on this, you'll immediately feel yourself growing in confidence, definitely recommend it.$LABEL$ 1
+I didn't expect much when I first saw the DVD cover. I mean, Pierce Brosnan as Grey Owl??Ah...but then the story got underway, unfolded in a beautifully photographed and paced film. I was surprised and delighted at this (basically) true story. Made me want to read more about this fascinating character, which means, the director fulfilled his purpose, and the film was a success!$LABEL$ 1
+this is more than a Sat. afternoon special. Exremely well written if very low key there is a lot here if you look for it. Catch the cat companion/scout for instance. It not only could have been a comic book it should have been a comic book. The comic industry (as well as the film's publicists) missed the boat on this. One of the least know really great films. A great script by John Sayles is a strong point but the acting is good as well. Probably the best "super hero" film I've ever seen. Short on special effects but long on believability. This one's a keeper. I have never seen a DVD of this film but i used to own a VHS version. Good hunting$LABEL$ 1
+I have to say this is the worst movie that I have ever watched in my life, I cannot believe that I wasted $10 at blockbuster ; this movie should be burned and who ever thought of it has issues. Who ever actually spent money to make this movie was insane =D This movie has TERRIBLE actors and some of the scenes make absolutely no sense. Well, the whole movie doesn't make sense. Also the part where those "men" come into the diner ( department of national securities )that happened to be the worst part of the film. How dare they say Frank Sinatra's name in vain? Also, what is up with those glasses? When the guy and girl are in the car and she "drinks" water, you can totally tell that she isn't even drinking! Also, what is up with the freaky dinner guy. And everyone knows that you don't stab tires, you slash them.$LABEL$ 0
+This is the best of Shelley Duvall's high-quality "Faerie Tale Theatre" series. The ugly stepsisters are broadway-quality comedy relief, and Eve Arden is the personification of wicked stepmotherhood. Jennifer Beals does an excellent job as a straight Cinderella, especially in the garden scene with Matthew Broderick's Prince Charming. Jean Stapleton plays the fairy godmother well, although I'm not sure I liked the "southern lady" characterization with some of the lines. Steve Martin's comedy relief as the Royal Orchestra Conductor is quintessential Martin, but a tiny bit misplaced in the show's flow.As is customary with the series, there are several wry comments thrown in for the older children (ages 15 and up). With a couple of small bumps, the show flows well, and they live happily ever after. Children up to age 8 will continue to watch it after the parents finally get tired of it -- I found 3 times in one day to be a little too much.$LABEL$ 1
+I am definitely a Burt Reynolds fan, but sorry, this one really stinks. Most of the dialogue is laughable and the only interesting plot twist is in the last five minutes of the movie. I can't believe he even made this one. Is he actually that hard up for money?$LABEL$ 0
+Let me say from the outset I'm not a particular fan of this kind of film, but Nightbreed holds a certain fascination for me with a message about perspective.Back in the old days, the folks who inhabit Midian would have been called Zombies, the undead. And according to what Clive Barker has given us certain members of human kind, in this Craig Sheffer are born with the potential to become part of that world.Psychiatrist David Cronenberg at first looking like the mild mannered professional has taken unto himself a fanatical mission to rid the world of the Nightbreed. He tricks the police into killing Sheffer, but Sheffer goes to a graveyard named Midian cemetery where the Nightbreed congregate and live underground. Sheffer has also left a girl friend, Anne Bobby, who still has feelings for him even after he's been killed and is now one of the undead. She tries in her own small way to be a bridge to humankind. Clive Barker's creatures are a pretty gruesome looking lot and are not particularly fond of humans. But it's plain to see that if humans left them alone, the Nightbreed in turn not bother with them.Your sympathies are definitely with the Nightbreed especially after seeing a fanatic like Cronenberg and redneck police chief Charles Haid in action.Clive Barker's been an out gay man for some time now and some have suggested to me that the Nightbreed is a metaphor for gay people. I can see where that would come in, especially since there are a whole lot of people who don't even think of gays as anything human because they're taught that way.Granted Nightbreed is pretty bloody with a lot of gratuitous violence, but it also does make you think and I do like the way Clive Barker does turn traditional theology on its head and makes Craig Sheffer a kind of messiah for the Nightbreed creatures.$LABEL$ 1
+I have never read the Bradbury novel that this movie is based on but from what I've gathered, it will be interesting (when I finally do read it and I will). My comments will be based purely on the film. As soon as I saw the trailer I knew I had to see it and was so excited but when I finally did, I was so disappointed it hurt. This is because the movie itself felt so amateurish. The actors were not well cast (though Robards and Pryce are both good actors - just not here). The kid actors, it seemed, were merely asked to show up, get in the characters' clothes, say the lines and make the faces. The set and props were cheap and unrealistic. The direction was surprisingly bad. I was so surprised at the awfulness of it that I had to go online and check who directed it, just to see the kind of work he had done. The editing was cut and paste and the plot (screenplay) was just that as well (even though the author had been involved himself, irony?). The building up of the tension, fear and suspense was so mild it was ineffective when the climax finally came.I've read some of the comments on this movie and find it hard to believe people actually like it. What hurts the most is that the content is interesting and fun and intriguing. It had so much potential. Unfortunately, the film was so technically bad it takes away from the brilliance of the story.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a truly awful "B" movie. It is witless and often embarrassing. The plot, the basic "making into show business" routine, is almost nonexistent. In fact, the film is merely an excuse to push the war effort and highlight some popular music groups of 1942, including the Mills Brothers, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Bob Crosby, and Freddy Slack. Each group gets about the standard three minutes, the exception being the Mills Brothers, who for some reason warranted two numbers. Ann Miller doesn't get to dance until the last couple of minutes of the film, and she has little to do but strut her stuff amid a barrage of patriotic propaganda.The most interesting moment in the film, in my view, occurred in the Duke Ellington segment. The band appears to be playing in a train, standing in awkward positions. (In the deep South at the time, the band was segregated in railroad cars when traveling.) Johnny Hodges is seen next to Duke, and Harry Carney may also be identified. In the last moments of the film, trumpeter/violinist Ray Nance rushes down the aisle to the camera and does an "uncle Tom," bugging his eyes and wiggling his head the way Willy Best did in many films. For modern viewers, especially jazz fans, this homage to segregation is sad indeed. Some movies go best unseen.$LABEL$ 0
+I have to admit I am prejudiced about my vote on this film, but I have strong reasons as I know some of the true history that was given the Hollywood treatment here. Edna Ferber's novel upon which this is based is from an era where real names can't be used. In a way, this film is all smoke & mirrors. Even though it was released in 1946, it was filmed shortly after Casablanca. Ingrid Bergman is at her most radiant in this movie as a brunette. She plays a beautiful woman who is trying to trade on her beauty to get a rich husband. Today that is a gold digger, but in this social era, she is desirable & the kind of woman who makes all the men want her, & all the old snooty society types talk of her & avoid her, while wishing they were her. Ingrid is at her best & plays this role well. Some sympathy for Ingrids character is raised in the New Orleans section of this film as she manages to get a decent belated tomb for her scandalized mother as part of the settlement by her relatives to get her to leave New Orleans. The snooty family of relatives there are so scandalized by her that they will do almost anything she asks to get her to leave town. Gary Cooper is good in this film though he already appears to be aging a bit to play a dashing Texan Bachelor/Gambler. He pulls it off well considering that handicap which he appeared older than he was due to his real life chain smoking. Flora Robison as Ingrid's Maid got nominated for an Oscar as supporting actress in this film. Jerry Austin as Cupidor was over-looked in many ways for his role but is the only comic relief in the film & does it well.When the film moves to Saratoga, it depicts accurately how important Saratoga was in that era. I like the sequence when Bergman walks to the Saratoge Spring to get some of the "sulfur" water which everyone considered so healthy then. When she drinks some she forces herself not to make a face and comments how good it is & that she must have more. The real history is the railroad battle which really occurred on the rail line in Tunnel, New York- which is the actual Saratoga Trunk the film title is derived from. This battle actually happened in 1869 between agents for Andrew Carnagie & J. P. Morgan. The line was the economic key to the country in 1869 connecting coal country & the east coast. The references to it are throughout the film are very real. There is even some dialog describing Carnagie as a "Scot" though the reference is vague & unfamiliar to anyone not knowing the history around the battle.The railroad line & the railroad tunnel in Tunnel, New York (zip code 13848) still exist although the film was shot in California. The real tunnel is about 1 mile long. It is still part of a key freight line today, years after this occurred. I grew up there. Gary Cooper's line in the film while he is riding the train into the tunnel is right, it is still "mighty pretty country".$LABEL$ 1
+This movie isn't even good enough for the $1 bin at the grocery store.I only purchased it because Terrence Howard was in it. Guess he couldn't be too choosy about his roles during this time. The movie in itself was hard to sit through. It seemed they were grasping at straws with a storyline. The "guys night out" had to be the most boring I've ever seen. One minute they are talking and the next reciting poetry? Even the arguments were hard to follow. Most of the acting lacked any depth.I have no idea what they were going for with this one but they certainly missed the mark.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a spectacular production! I have seen the show live twice in Chicago and my only problem with the production was the fact that I was able to perceive only fragments of what was going on. The stage consisted of three giant catwalks and the platform and as the action moves from one part of the stage to the next sometime you loose track of what is going on no matter where you are located. As always, this is a thought-provoking sensory overload, skillfully captured in high definition with 15 cameras! The footage was Masterfully edited, one of the best concert DVDs of all times in my opinion! I only hope and wish that they will release this on Blu-Ray of HD-DVD so that we can re-live this extravaganza over and over again.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm not going to bag this film for all the myriad technical f|u|c|k|u|p|s, it would take two days to outline how the whole thing isn't even remotely possible. Others have pointed out all the relevant stupidities already.Given all that, I still could have sort of enjoyed it, if only they hadn't included all the maudlin, nauseating, infuriating, Disneyesque sentimental crap, which is so out of place anywhere, but nowhere more than out in space, where the tiniest mistake can mean instant death.The "crew", as well as the "real" astronaut were equally guilty of putting all their fatuous nonsense ahead of everything else. It completely ruined any value the production may have had left.I'm surprised NASA let this garbage out so that so many people would get so much misinformation about something so important to them. If you haven't seen this yet, save yourself the irritation. Watch Apollo 13 again. At least that tried to be sort of real.$LABEL$ 0
+This film was adapted from the well known sutra on Journey to the West where a monk with his three students seek out to find a long lost book with regards to the teaching of Buddha.Though this movie is not as solemn as the previous films made according to the legend, it did however, managed to bring in romance and fun-filled humorous scene.This real objective of this movie revolves around more on the monk who were primarily saved from being eaten by demonic flying creatures. One of his student, the Monkey God managed to get him out from the battle in the nick of time, but were in turn captured by the demons and cast into the deep throat of a dragon, locked up in that particular dungeon.The monk awoke in a small village where he found Mei Yan (the so called ugly serpent daughter) who fell in love over him at first sight. Though ugly, she did not let her appearance be casted aside from getting to him. However, a quest for rescuing his three students soon turn out to be filled with obstacles and each of which turned out to get worse with Mei Yan following the monk. Problems crept deeper and this is where conflicts between the relationship gets worse.The rest of the tale would be left at your own disposal, but suffice to say, this film does not depict the typical storyline of the book, it is more for those who wants to seek out for a funny and light picture of what Journey to the West and the love obstacles really mean.Towards the very end, the whole summary could be described with only one word, and that is love. The monk went to show the Heavenly Gates, the Celestial Palace and Buddha himself how love can overcome even the worst fear of all and deemed fit as the most powerful weapon that can be used against any enemy of superior powers.A wonderfully created and funny acts awaits those who buys this ticket. There would be of course, no regrets, at least from my side and those who were with me at the cinema that day watching the same film.$LABEL$ 1
+Let me first state that I enjoy watching "bad" movies. It's funny how some of these films leave more of a lasting impression than the truly superb ones. This film is bad in a disturbingly malicious way. This vehicle for Sam Mraovich's delusional ego doesn't just border on talentless ineptitude, it has redefined the very meaning of the words. This should forever be the barometer for bad movies. Sort of the Mendoza line for film. Mr. Mraovich writes, directs, and stars as blunt object Arthur Sailes battling scorned wives and the Christian forces of evil as he and his partner Ben "dead behind the eyes" Sheets struggle for marital equality. As a libertarian I believe gays should have a right to get married. Ben & Arthur do more harm to that cause than an army of homophobes. The portrayal of all things Christian are so ugly and ham-fisted, trademark Mraovich, that you can't possibly take any of them seriously. Arthur's brother Victor, the bible toting Jesus freak, is so horribly over-the-top evil/effeminately gay that you have to wonder how he was cast in this role. That's because Sam "multitasking" Mraovich was also casting director. The worst of it all is Sam Mraovich himself. When you think leading man do the words pasty, balding, and chubby come to mind? Sam also delivers lines like domino's pizza, cold and usually wrong. The final tally: you suck at writing, directing, acting and casting. That's the Ed Wood quadruple crown. Congratulations you horrible little man.$LABEL$ 0
+Essentially a undistinguished B-movie that mysteriously is directed by one of the golden era's major talents, Fritz Lang. Even with the stellar names of Lang, Walter Pidgeon, Joan Bennett and George Sanders, be prepared for a ludicrous storyline, bad acting, patently phony sets and miscasting. For transparency sake, I have to admit I am an ardent non-admirer of Walter Pidgeon, who was lucky to have found a niche at the artificial dream-factory of MGM, and somehow worked in secondary roles, supporting Greer Garson and others. He is wildly miscast, acting in a chipper, '30s-Ray Milland madcap comedy tone, in a role where his life is in danger, and he is in hiding. Joan Bennett's cockney accent is excessive, but her lacquered hair, perfect makeup and classy outfit belies a street-wise Cockney slum-girl. George Sanders is incapable of bad acting, but disappears after the preposterous opening finds Pidgeon somehow pretending to shoot Adolph Hitler. Surprising for Fritz Lang is the unevenness of tone. I found the film wavered uneasily between occasional moments of suspense-thriller surrounded by light-hearted comedic interplay. Hitchcock totally reversed the ratio, using comic relief to occasionally pace the suspense. There is a reason this film is unknown. It didn't serve or propel anybody's career or reputation, and is forgotten because it's a surprisingly bad film from such a pedigreed group.$LABEL$ 0
+When, oh when, will Hollyweird write a decent movie based around computers? I cannot believe people actually consider this movie to be a credible story.No computer operating system could ever survive wit that sort of annoying scrolling interface. It may look good on a movie screen but if you actually tried using it for any length of time you would go nuts.As for "tracing" people the way she did it simply cannot be done that way. Network security alone would prevent that from happening. The key stroke logging was laughable to say the least.Regarding the software that was supposedly being installed, no system administrator would allow such a critical piece of software to be installed on a production system until it has been tested, retested and tested again on a sandbagged system.But probably the worst possible part of the movie was the "virus". There is no way that a virus that works on one operating system will work on any other system. And as for a virus that could take out a mainframe is a couple of seconds, that just beggars belief. There is no way that an open remote connection would have the required superuser access that would allow deletion of system files.I could go on but I can't be bothered.A porno has a better thought out plot that this pile of garbage.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was so incredibly boring, Michael J. Fox could've done so much better. Sorry, but it's true for all you people who liked the movie$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is so unreal. French movies like these are just waste of time. Why watch this movie? Even, I did not know..why. What? The well known sex scene of half-siblings? Although the sex scene is so real and explicit, but the story it is based upon is so unreal. What is the use of it, then? Can you find easily in life, half sibling doing such things?Did I learn something from this movie? Yeah: some people are just so fond of wasting time making such movies, such stories, such non-sense. But for those who like nihilism, nothingness in life, or simply a life without hope, then there you are.. you've got to see this movie.Only one worth adoring, though: CATHERINE DENEUVE. She's such a strikingly beautiful woman.$LABEL$ 0
+The Nest is really just another 'nature run amock' horror flick that fails because of the low budget. The acting is OK, and the setting is great, but somehow the whole film just seemed a bit dull to me. The gore effects are not the best I've seen but are fun in a cheesy sort of way. The roaches themselves are just regular cockroaches that bite people. The Nest reminded me of a much better film called Slugs. If you liked The Nest then Slugs is a must-see as it's ten times better. Also worth noting is that Lisa Langlois who plays Elizabeth was in another 'nature run amock' type film called Deadly Eyes (aka The Rats), which is about killer rats as you may have guessed. If you enjoy these types of horror films then you may want to give this a watch, but you'd be far better off seeing Slugs which is far more interesting and gory.$LABEL$ 0
+Excellent endearing film with Peter Falk and Paul Reiser joining forces as father and dad.Dad shows up one evening to state that after over 40 years of marriage, mom (Olympia Dukakis) has left him.The rest of the film depicts the father and son on a day trip to get dad's thoughts off what has occurred. With them away, the daughters can play detectives.The story shows the adventures of father and son in their discussion of life, what should have been, why mom was complaining about dad as they discuss their philosophies of life.We see an unexpected fishing trip and pool playing which leads to a near brawl. Both men seem to break out of their daily lives.The end is a downer as we learn why mom suddenly left. It becomes a story of courage and the human spirit in the face of adversity. It's never too late to change.$LABEL$ 1
+Beware, My Lovely is an experimental studio film from the early fifties and was directed by a man, Harry Horner, better known for his set designs. Robert Ryan plays a handyman who is hired by Ida Lupino to do some housework for her. The problem is that he is a psychopathic murderer and doesn't know it. Miss Lupino is an empathetic soul and tries to win Ryan over, to little avail. He is not the sort of man compassion could help or cure. Thus we have an interesting situation of two people who basically mean well, but one of them can't do well because there is something wrong with him. He suffers periodic blackouts during which he commits acts of violence, which he later forgets. Essentially the effect Ryan has on Lupino is that of the hunter and his prey, or in another sense a sadist. The audience finds out early on that Ryan is a mad killer, but it takes Lupino much longer. Thus we must live with this knowledge as we watch poor Miss Lupino try everything in her power to 'win' Ryan over in order to make things work, get the job done, get on with life. But getting on with things isn't in Ryan's makeup, as he is incapable of any but the most rudimentary forms of normality, and as soon as there is an opening his paranoia asserts itself. As a study in mental illness the movie isn't too impressive. What it's superlative at is showing the effect of major mental illness, with dangerous psychopathology in the mix, and its effect on a normal person. In this regard the film is realistic and compassionate, though relentlessly logical in that we know Lupino can't 'fix' Ryan, yet we want her to. The result is that, if one is willing, one can get extremely involved in this film emotionally if one can put aside, so to speak, its melodramatic structure.Horner shows us, gradually, the layout the Lupino house , a forbidding gothic monstrosity that never feels like a home. We become familiar with staircase, kitchen and pantry; and we come to know which windows Miss Lupino can use for an escape and which ones she can't.$LABEL$ 1
+Marie Dressler carries this Depression-era drama about a kindly bank owner, which recently aired on TCM during their April Fools comedy month. If you come with the expectation of big laughs courtesy the Dressler-Polly Moran team, you'll be disappointed, as this is really a very downbeat film. It's also very poorly made, surprisingly so considering it came from MGM. Leonard Smith's bare bones cinematography is strictly from the 'set up the camera and don't move it' school, frequently to the detriment of the cast, who find themselves delivering lines off screen (it's like a pan and scan print before such existed!) or having their heads cut off. The film doesn't even have a credited director, underlying the apparent fly by night nature of the production. Overall, it's an unsatisfying mess, with Dressler frequently over-emoting and only that bizarre, final reel dash to the bathroom to set it apart.$LABEL$ 0
+Cyclone is a piece of dreck with little redeeming value, even on the so bad its entertaining front. A friend of mine took the tape from an overflowing St. Vincent DePaul clothes bin. Okay, that may be a little bit dodgy but it was meant to be a clothes bin, not a crappy old VHS bin, something the less fortunate members of our society don't really need to make their lives better. It could be considered a mercy. Watching a movie like Cyclone would really only add to their problems. Anyway the basic premise of a woman with a super-powerful motorcycle that it armed to the teeth with rockets and lasers isn't even properly exploited. The two 'high speed' chase sequences involve vehicles travelling at less than hair raising speeds of around 40 KMPH and a super-fast motorcycle that is in danger of being overtaken by a crappy old station wagon is not that awe inspiring when you get down to it. There is only one scene where the bikes goofy weaponry is used, at the film's climax, and it is laughably ineffectual, or just laughable, when it is. This includes laser beams that look like they should be coming out of the hands of an evil wizard in a cheesy eighties sword and sorcery that produced large bursts of flame which seem to have no noticeable effect on their targets even when they hit directly. The rest of the movie is just tedious hard to watch filler. Lots of bad actors, yes even Combs and Landau suck in this, most of whom seem like they have been lifted from the set of a porno movie stand around exchanging really bad dialogue in a desperate attempt to pus forward the barely coherent plot. There are a few badly staged fight sequences and some excruciatingly unfunny comic relief scenes with some cops and the owner of the motor cycle repair shop. Comedy of the sub Benny Hill horny old man can't stop staring at the female leads chest variety. Basically the 'money' scenes involving the bike actually doing stuff are few and lame and the rest is clunky filler material. Skip it.$LABEL$ 0
+"Cinderella" is one of the most beloved of all Disney classics. And it really deserves its status. Based on the classic fairy-tale as told by Charles Perrault, the film follows the trials and tribulations of Cinderella, a good girl who is mistreated by her evil stepmother and equally unlikable stepsisters. When a royal ball is held and all eligible young women are invited (read: the King wants to get the Prince to marry), Cinderella is left at home whilst her stepmother takes her awful daughters with her. But there is a Fairy Godmother on hand...The story of "Cinderella" on its own wouldn't be able to pad out a feature, so whilst generally staying true to the story otherwise, the fairly incidental characters of the animals whom the Fairy Godmother uses to help get the title character to the ball become Cinderella's true sidekicks. The mice Jaq and Gus are the main sidekicks, and their own nemesis being the stepmother's cat Lucifer. Their antics intertwine generally with the main fairy-tale plot, and are for the most part wonderful. Admittedly, the film does slow down a bit between the main introduction of the characters and shortly before the stepsisters depart for the ball, but after this slowdown, the film really gets going again and surprisingly (since "Cinderella" is the most worn down story of all time, probably) ends up as one of the most involving Disney stories.The animation and art direction is lovely. All of the legendary Nine Old Men animated on this picture, and Mary Blair's colour styling and concept art (she also did concept art and colour styling for "Alice in Wonderland", "Peter Pan", "The Three Caballeros" and many many others) manage to wiggle their way on screen. The colours and designs are lovely, especially in the Fairy Godmother and ball scenes, as well as in those pretty little moments here and there.Overall, "Cinderella" ranks as one of the best Disney fairy-tales and comes recommended to young and all that embodies the Disney philosophy that dreams really can come true.$LABEL$ 1
+**Might contain spoilers**Ok, lets conclude this movie in one word: bad. Two words? Really bad. Now why do I think that? Let me explain. Guttenberg leads a special-ops team consisting of four persons that get assigned to retake an lethal virus after some arms-dealer stole it from a lab. They do this by attacking the arm-dealers in mid-flight and somehow gets back the virus after some fighting. However, suspicions arise about Guttenberg because one of the terrorist knew his name. After debriefing the team-members get attacked by unknown persons and everyone starts to suspect everyone else is involved. After deciding they cant trust their bosses, they decide to, once again, steal the virus and try to lure out the possible attackers.In theory this is a plot that could have worked in a low-budget movie that just aims to be aired on TV. However, the plot is compromised and the movie ruined in several accounts. Firstly, the plot is totally predictable and it is not fun to know how the movie is going to end after three minutes. Second. The acting is really bad, or the actors are directed to act as dummys. There aren't many emotions, change of facial expressions at all etc. I was especially disappointed in Guttenberg that I believe can do so much more, but fails completely in an attempt to be a rough action-hero. In addition, though I am not by any means any expert on the subject, I totally believe I could assemble a better covert-ops team by picking up five strangers and train them for a week. This seems to be a theme in the movie to do things as stupid and unprofessionally as possible. This go for good guys, bad guys and bystanders as well. Then I sincerely doubt the scientific and technical consultants, if any, of the film. For example, I have poured liquid nitrogen over my hand and I didn't break instantly.Don't know how to conclude this really, but lets say that this movie has a predictable plot, bad acting and they seem to be amateurs in whatever the do. Sorry, can't be any nicer than that. Do not watch this movie, it is not even so bad it is funny. 2/10$LABEL$ 0
+The premise of an African-American female Scrooge in the modern, struggling city was inspired, but nothing else in this film is. Here, Ms. Scrooge is a miserly banker who takes advantage of the employees and customers in the largely poor and black neighborhood it inhabits. There is no doubt about the good intentions of the people involved. Part of the problem is that story's roots don't translate well into the urban setting of this film, and the script fails to make the update work. Also, the constant message about sharing and giving is repeated so endlessly, the audience becomes tired of it well before the movie reaches its familiar end. This is a message film that doesn't know when to quit. In the title role, the talented Cicely Tyson gives an overly uptight performance, and at times lines are difficult to understand. The Charles Dickens novel has been adapted so many times, it's a struggle to adapt it in a way that makes it fresh and relevant, in spite of its very relevant message.$LABEL$ 0
+It was evident until the final credits that this film was made in 1989, as all the elements of its production were made to look 1960's - the acting, the characterisations, the sets and the props all had an aesthetic from an earlier time.The film opens to the moments prior to the dropping of the A-bomb on Hiroshima and how this tragic incident affects one family: a young woman, Yasuko, who lives with her aunt and uncle. Even in black and white, and using special effects that are quite primitive by modern standards but emotive and effective nonetheless, the depictions of the immediate aftermath of the bomb are quite horrific. Family members become unrecognisable to each other, others resemble zombies as they wander the streets bedraggled and in shock.The title refers to rainfall that fell soon after the bomb, which was mixed with radioactive ash, and in which Yasuko is caught. Rumors of Yasuko's being in Hiroshima at the time of the bombing affect her marriage prospects and it is later learnt that the black rain is indeed causing sicknesses. The film is concerned not just with the physical effects of the bomb on the Japanese, but on the social and psychological damage that was wrought.I found the film compassionate and a fascinating journey into a unique culture. While the film is primarily concerned with the pain felt by one family, the film's gentle political message is relevant today and probably for all time - wars have horrific consequences, and should not be entered into unless absolutely necessary. It is said that history repeats itself, and the current leaders of the 'Coalition of the Willing' have learned nothing. While atomic warfare has not resurfaced since 1945, other deadly after-effects have. This film is compelling viewing.$LABEL$ 1
+I have very few to add to what all the other reviewers already made more than clear! This movie is awful! Beyond awful... In fact, so insufferable that they have yet to come up with a term to describe the awfulness that is "Skeleton Man". In case you expect your movies to feature a minimum of logic and plot, you should stay as far away from this as humanly possible. Sure, loads of people are getting killed by this skeleton-puppet wearing a ridiculous cape, but nobody ever bothers to properly explain what he is, where he comes from or why he's so angry with the world. He looks like a crossover between Skeletor from "Masters of the Universe" and the horseman from "Sleepy Hollow" and runs amok in some godforsaken wilderness. The setting of "Skeleton Man" is another totally retarded aspect! For nearly half an hour, I assumed that the movie took place at a small isolated island, but it simply plays at the mainland where fancy highways cross the forest and power plants are located at the end of the woods! Huh? Why does everybody pretend to be trapped when there are like a million escape routes? Anyway, after a couple of totally random killings, a special commando squad, led by poor washed-up Michael Rooker, arrives to come and hunt a monster they don't know anything about. Really hilarious is how every member of this squad introduces him/herself as the expert in a certain field (we have a sniper-specialist, a tracking genius, a drill instructor...), yet they ALL die before any of them is able to demonstrate their supposedly masterful skills! The horror Gods must really hate Casper Van Dien, as he's present again as well, portraying an heroic soldier who steals a truck for no apparent reason, crashes on the highway, but somehow gets catapulted back to the middle of the woods to die there. Right, that makes sense... Furthermore the characters steal cool one-liners from "Predator", the bonehead's horse constantly changes colors, helicopters are brought down with bow& arrows, ordinary bullets cause trees to explode and completely pointless Vietnam flashbacks haunt Michael Rooker. I say we all combine forces and vote this pathetic flick into the IMDb bottom top 100 ASAP!$LABEL$ 0
+This is a very funny movie, easy to watch, that entertains you almost all the time. The work of the Director is recognizable and the type of humor is his trademark. The movie is a typical police partners history like lethal weapon, but the jokes and comedy are of Argentinian sort. The twist is that one of them is a psychologist played by Peretti and has to go with detective Diaz (played by Luque) on his assignments while he also assist him (Diaz is troubled because his wife cheated on him). Some of the dialogs are hilarious worldwide: understandable and laughable anywhere. Is very good overall, it would deserved an 8, but I rated 7 because it gets a little down at the end. On a personal remark I must add that is a "bravo" for Argentinian Filmmakers, considering the little good is coming lately.$LABEL$ 1
+I'll give writer/director William Gove credit for finding someone to finance this ill-conceived "thriller." A good argument for not wasting money subscribing to HBO, let alone buying DVDs based on cover art and blurbs. A pedestrian Dennis Hopper and a game Richard Grieco add nothing significant to their resumes, although the art direction is not half bad. The dialogue will leave you grimacing with wonder at its conceit; this is storytelling at its worst. No tension, no suspense, no dread, no fear, no empathy, no catharsis, no nothing. A few attractive and often nude females spice up the boredom, but this is definitely a film best seen as a trailer. I feel sorry for the guy who greenlighted this thing. Good for late-night, zoned-out viewing only. You have been warned.$LABEL$ 0
+I'll give this movie two stars because it teems with beautiful photography. Otherwise, it teems mainly with clichés and stereotypes: mountain people are either dumb white trash of the fanatically religious or ragged racist kind, or wise white Indians. Indians are magical people who move around without a sound, can disappear in the blink of an eye, talk to animals, and read minds over large distances. And so on and so forth.Throughout the movie I kept wondering what the point of the film was (other than showing me pretty pictures of mountains, log cabins, woods, an assortment of animals, free-spirited mountain-dwellers and freaky people in church).The plot touched a whole range of issues but explored none of them in depth. This was neither a story about growing up during the depression, nor about about being an orphan, nor about a struggle for identity. It tried to be all of those things and more, which made it superficial and unsatisfactory.Although the movie was supposed to be about Little Tree's education, we learn almost nothing about it. He was given a brief summary of the history of his people (who were brave and stoic) and a distillery demonstration; tried his hand at chopping wood (at which he failed) and whiskey running (literally); learned how to read (and maybe to write) with the help of grandma and her dictionary - and that was it. Apparently he didn't learn much during his stint in boarding school because he was locked up in the attic.However, grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character made sure that in the end Little Tree became a very spiritual person whose main goal as an adult - after, and I'm paraphrasing here, "riding with the Navajos" and "getting caught up in a couple of wars" - was to "catch up" with grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character in heaven (instead of, say, dating girls, getting married, having children or other such nonsense).Last but not least I must say that I found grandpa's trade offensive. Why of all things did it have to be a whiskey still? To counteract the stereotype of the "drunken Indian"?$LABEL$ 0
+"Laugh, Clown Laugh" released in 1928, stars the legendary Lon Chaney as a circus clown named Tito. Tito has raised a foundling (a young and beautiful Loretta Young) to adulthood and names her Simonetta. Tito has raised the girl in the circus life, and she has become an accomplished ballerina. While Chaney gives his usual great performance, I could not get past the fact that Tito, now well into middle age, has the hots for the young Simonetta. Although he is not her biological father, he has raised her like a daughter. That kind of "ick" factor permeates throughout the film. Tito competes for Simonetta's affections with a young and handsome 'Count' Luigi (Nils Asther). Simonetta clearly falls for the young man, but feels guilt about abandoning Tito (out of loyalty, not romantic love). The whole premise of the film is ridiculous, and I find it amazing that no one in the film tells Tito what a stupid old fool he is being (until he reveals it himself at the end). The film is noteworthy only because of Loretta Young, who would go on to have a great career. While I adore Chaney's brilliance as an actor, this whole film seems off to me and just downright creepy.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm sorry guys, all who thought this film could be something great, I'm afraid you would be disappointed.The standard, the movie wanted to set is completely ruined by some very simple plot. So simple, that the movie is not evolving until the end. I asked myself if the plot wasn't about the action but about the main character (played by Mickey Rourke), but I found that the character was inconsistent - either he is a professional killer or some guilt haunted brother. But both don't go together, because the kid he tries to guide poses him in dangerous situations where no professional killer would put himself. Now, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, is a good looking actor, but he played his character a little unnatural. I didn't believe his acting, it looked like the director tried to pull out of him some personality he couldn't provide. And he didn't have to, because his less crazy behavior was creepy enough. The only one whose acting was great, was Diane Lane. If not her, i would give this movie 1 star.In conclusion, I expected to see some well played movie and some interesting plot. And I completely blew it with my high expectations.$LABEL$ 0
+Musically speaking Irving Berlin gave Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers another pluperfect musical after Top Hat if that was possible. Although in this case like that Jerome Kern confection Roberta that they were in, Follow the Fleet retained Randolph Scott with another singer, this time Harriet Hilliard.Randolph Scott is a career Navy CPO and Fred Astaire is an ex-vaudevillian who enlisted in the Navy to forget Ginger Rogers his former partner. But now the two are on shore leave. Fred and Ginger take up right where they left off, and Randy accidentally meets Ginger's dowdy sister Harriet who blossoms into a real beauty. But Randy's a typical love 'em and leave 'em sailor. Again Irving Berlin wrote a hit filled score with him tightly supervising the production. Ginger gets to do some really outstanding vocalizing with Let Yourself Go which she and Fred later dance to. But the real hit of the show is Let's Face the Music and Dance which is a number done at a Navy show. Sung first by Astaire and later danced to by the pair, Let's Face the Music and Dance is one of the great romantic numbers ever written for the screen. Their dancing on this one is absolute magic.I'm sure that when I mention Harriet Hilliard a few younger people might ask who that was. But they will know immediately when I mention her in conjunction with her famous husband Ozzie Nelson. That's right Ozzie and Harriet. It's something of a mystery to me why Harriet stopped singing when she just became David and Ricky's mom on television. Then again she didn't even keep her own name. Neither Ozzie or Harriet sang on television. Ozzie was a pale imitation of Rudy Vallee as a singer, but Harriet could really carry a tune. She sings Get Thee Behind Me Satan and The Moon and I Are Here, But Where Are You, both with real feeling and class. I recommend you see Follow the Fleet if for no other reason than to hear a dimension of Harriet Hilliard incredibly forgotten today.$LABEL$ 1
+I can never fathom why people take time to review movies that they have not understood fully. I know people will read scathing reviews on these pages of this film, and it will keep them from seeking copies of this quite forgotten, late '20s style but 1932 movie, which should probably be referred to as "Indecent," as that is the name on the main titles.Myrna Loy, best known as a comic actress in countless genteel roles, shows herself to be miscast in all of them. She was a true dramatic actress, something that I did not know before watching this film, which predates all of her famous roles. She is exciting and moving here, two things she never was opposite the graceful and refined William Powell. I'm still rather in shock over how good she was.Becky Sharp (1935), the first three-strip Technicolor feature, is more familiar but this one is far better artistically and an adaptation. It is also very poignant as an expression of a film style that was about to die. You cannot take my word for it, you must see it.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm always surprised about how many times you'll see something about World War 2 on the German national television. You would think they don't like to open old wounds, but there isn't a week that goes by without a documentary or a movie about the horror and atrocities of this war. Perhaps it's a way of dealing with their past, I don't know, but you sure can't blame them of ignoring what happened. And it has to be said: most of those documentaries are really worth a watch because they never try to gloss over the truth and the same can be said about their movies (think for instance about "Der Untergang" or "The Downfall" as you might now it) which are also very realistic.One of those movies is "Rosenstrasse". It tells a true story and deals with the subject of the mixed marriages during the war, even though the movie starts with a family in the USA, at the present day. After Hannah's father died, her mother all a sudden turned into an orthodox Jew even though she hasn't been very religious before. She doesn't know where the strange behavior of her mother comes from, but as she starts digging in her mother's troubled childhood, Hannah understands how little she has ever known about her mother's past.The fact that this movie deals with the subject of the mixed marriages during the Nazi regime is already quite surprising. For as far as I know, there hasn't been another movie that deals with this subject. (For those who didn't know this yet: Being married to a so-called pure Aryian man or woman meant for many Jews that they weren't immediately sent to one of the concentration camps, but that they had to work in a factory). But it does not only tell something about the problems of the mixed marriages, it also gives a good idea of how these people were often seen by their own parents and relatives. How difficult it sometimes was for them during the Nazi regime and how these people, most of the time women, did everything within their power to free their men, once they were captured and locked away in for instance the Rosenstrasse...The acting is really good and the story is very well written, although the way it was presented in the beginning didn't really do it for me (and that's exactly the only part that you'll get to see in the trailer). Perhaps it's just me, but I would have left out a big part of what happens in the present day. At least of the part that is situated in the USA, because the part where Hannah goes to Berlin and talks to someone who knows more about her mother's past, definitely works.If you are interested in everything that has something to do with the Second World War, and if you aren't necessarily looking for a lot of action shots, than this is definitely a movie you should see. This isn't a movie in which you'll see any battles or gunfights, but it certainly is an interesting movie, because it gives you an idea about an aspect of the war only little is known of. I give it an 8/10.$LABEL$ 1
+Christian Propaganda...Lots of fear mongering...This is not SciFi, this is ChriFi (Christian fiction).The movie started out OK but took a sharp Christian right turn. From then on it was all about god, jc, the holy bible and the devil . The ufo's are really just demonic deception to fool people in to believing that there is other intelligent life in the universe. Satan's idea is to trick you in to thinking that there could be more to life than what is in the bible.The abductions could be used to explain away the rapture. The people left behind would believe it was a mass alien abduction, instead of god taking all the Christians to heaven. No reason to repent if its aliens. The deeper message in the movie is that if you don't believe in god and have jc in your life than you believe in nothing and your life has no purpose.$LABEL$ 0
+This DVD is missing its calling as a Heineken coaster.... This is a great example of why no one should ever go see a sequel with a different director/writer than the original. Two hours of this turkey left me begging for Exorcist 2 reruns. NO legitimate laughs. NOT ONE decent scare. The script was just a mess and I felt bad for the actors who had to perform it (they must have had sick relatives at home or monster coke habits or something).The original was a makeup effects landmark. So naturally, the producers of the sequel thought it would be a great idea to to scrap makeup FX and do CG werewolves instead. These CG werewolves had me laughing a lot harder than any of the "comedy". It was just a total miss. If ya want a night's entertainment, go rent the original again. Or go take a film class and make your own horror film. You're bound to do better than these fools did.$LABEL$ 0
+This incredibly formulaic flick from the "Walker, Texas Ranger" squad contains some of the most unbelievable scenes ever witnessed within a TV movie. In addition, one can pretty much predict the outcome from the get-go. However, it's a fun little movie that gets the job done: it entertains. That's all it was meant to do and it does so. The stunts and explosions are fun and exciting and the plot isn't half bad. The acting is also decent, which isn't much of a surprise, because everyone knows that Chuck Norris is no Steven Seagal. If you're a fan of the genre (and of "Walker, Texas Ranger"), you will definitely love this. If not, then don't waste your time. 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+Karen (Sarah Michelle Gellar), an exchange student in Japan who is just beginning to do some social work, is sent to aid an elderly semi-catatonic woman, Emma (Grace Zabriskie), after her previous caretaker, Yoko (Yoko Maki), disappears. Karen soon learns that something is not right in Emma's home, and she attempts to "see how deep the rabbit hole goes".Maybe it's a delayed influence from the success of M. Night Shyamalan's films, but slower-paced, understated horror films are a recent trend. In some cases, such as Hide and Seek (2005), the approach works remarkably well, and in others, such as White Noise (2005), the pacing tends to kill the film. I didn't like The Grudge quite as much as Hide and Seek, but this is still a very good film--it earns a 9 out of 10 from me.The Grudge has a couple significant differences from other recent examples of that trend, however. One, it is well known that this is a remake based on the Japanese film series that began with Ju-On (2000) (in particular, it's extremely close to the first half of Ju-On: The Grudge, aka Ju-On 3, from 2003). Two, as with many Japanese horror films, the slower pacing here isn't so much in the realm of realist drama as with surrealism. As is also the case with a large percentage of European horror, The Grudge should be looked at more as a filmed nightmare.Director Takashi Shimizu, also the director of the five Japanese entries in the Ju-On series to date (the fifth is currently in production), and writer Stephen Susco have largely dispensed with linearity and are not overly concerned with logic or plot holes when it comes to the horror behind the story. The idea instead is to present a dreamlike sequence of scenes, with dream logic, where the focus is atmosphere, creepiness, the uncanny, and for many viewers--scares. How well the film works for you will largely depend on how well you can adapt yourself to, or are used to, this different approach to film-making (although admittedly, some of the seeming gaps are filled in by previous entries in the Ju-On series). Traditionally, American audiences consider as flaws leaving plot threads hanging and abandoning "rules" for the "monster". A more poetic, metaphorical, surreal approach to film isn't yet accepted by the mainstream in the U.S.However, even if you're not used to it, it's worth trying to suspend your normal preconceptions about films and give The Grudge a shot. This is a well written, well directed, well acted film, filled with unusual properties, such as the story interweaving a large number of "main characters" (which is done better here than the more episodic Ju-On 3), good cinematography, subtle production design touches (check out Gellar's clothes, which match the color and texture of the exterior of Emma's house, when Gellar first approaches), and beautifully effective horror material.Even though it is more slowly paced that your average horror film of the past, the pacing usually enhances the eeriness, and there is no shortage of bizarre events to keep horror fans entertained. The supernatural premise of the film is absorbing, and based on interviews on the DVD with Shimizu, have prodded me to pay more attention to Japanese beliefs and folklore. Although the most interesting subtexts would probably arise with a more intimate knowledge of Japanese culture, it's interesting to ponder why so many Japanese horror films feature scary children and adults who look like scary children.I subtracted one point for the film slightly veering into clichéd mystery/thriller territory with a "here's what really happened" flashback, but even that was fairly well done, and otherwise, this would have been a 10 out of 10.Now that I've said all of the above, let me finish with a mini-rant: It's not that I'm anti-remake, but it is ridiculous that U.S. distributors and studios feel that we need remakes of foreign films to make them appropriate for consumption. The original versions of these films should just be playing in U.S. theaters in wide release. There is no need to present an almost identical film but just substituting white American actors for non-white or foreign actors. Yes, The Grudge is a fine film, but ultimately, I'd rather see something original using this talent, and be treated to the latest foreign horror films--not just Japanese, but also Indian, Spanish, Chinese, etc.--at my multiplex. In the hope that someone with some pull at the studios reads this, it is also more cost-effective to do this, as (1) you can completely avoid production costs, and simply make domestic distribution deals from which you receive profit, and (2) you can make money off of fans like myself who otherwise pick up the foreign film DVDs in foreign manufactured or even bootleg versions.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is pure guano. Mom always said if you can't say anything nice... but even Mom would say I had to do my part to warn others of this movie.I can guarantee this is the film that Geoffrey Rush wishes would just go away. I would hope that Greg Kinnear fired his agent..from a cannon for giving him the script. After this Ben Stiller is probably praying for someone to pitch "There's Still Something About Mary." I have always been a fan of Wes Studi's, thank whatever you hold holy that he wore a mask through the film so maybe people won't identify the film with him.It starts of promisingly with a stylistic spoof of the cinematography of the Batman films and then just loses something...like a coherent plot and half decent effects.The jokes are telegraphed an hour before the punchline comes, and even then they fall flat. If you want to see an effective spoof of the comic book world see "Chasing Amy".RUN! DON'T WALK AWAY FROM "MYSTERY MEN"!$LABEL$ 0
+A group of young filmmakers with virtually no budget set out to make something clever and original -- and while there is a bit of originality and some skilled drawing in this slacker puppet show take on "Dante's Inferno," there is nothing especially clever. Dante's "Divine Comedy" was a brilliant piece of social commentary. This film is a vaguely moralistic student film with pretensions to High Art.I suspect those who loved this film were those readily amused by the sophomoric pokes at some icons of the political and/or religious right, and that those who hated it took offense at seeing their favored icons poked. Be that as it may, few of those pokes actually rose to the level of satire.The high point of the movie is a sudden outbreak of "Schoolhouse Rock" on the subject of lobbying and the "revolving door." It's really a shame that the entire film couldn't have been a musical. That would have stripped away a great deal of the annoying film school pretentiousness and added a far stronger element of fun.$LABEL$ 0
+The title of my summary pretty much covers my review. This is to me what Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was to someone 5 years older. While I missed out on that little pop-culture wave, I embraced the toy line and t.v. series that was Mighty Max with both arms.You wanna know how into this I was? I went as Mighty Max for Halloween.Thank God for the internet. Thanks to Demonoid, last week I was able to watch this great show from my childhood for the first time in over a decade.I'm watching this right now, having just been blown away by recognizing Rob Paulson of Animaniacs, and am also loving the celebrity humor in "Tar Wars". 4 minutes in, and they have already mentioned, By NAME: Clint Eastwood, Governor Arnold, Dustin Hoffman, John Wayne, AND Ace Ventura. Hells yeah. Damn, it is only upon writing this that I realize there is NO WAY IN HELL I can give this series anything less than a perfect score. Any imperfections have been lost in the fog of time. This Is My Childhood. This Is Awesomeness. This Is The Mighty One.$LABEL$ 1
+I have never seen a comedy that was this much of a chore to sit thru...not one laugh in it. Ok, maybe one little chuckle for the Michael Clarke Duncan bit as the big, black, bald gay virgin. But the rest of it was shockingly un-funny. On top of being void of any laughs the "skits" go on forever! Steer clear of this one if you value your time and money. DREADFUL!!! The worst!!!$LABEL$ 0
+This is a great "small" film. I say "small" because it doesn't have a hundred guns firing or a dozen explosions, as in a John Woo film. Great performances by Roy Scheider and the three "bad guys". John Frankenheimer seems to have more luck with small productions these days. The film is very easy to watch, the story is more of a yarn than a washing machine--instead of everything going around and around, it seems as though things just get worse as the plot thickens. Wonderful ending, very positive. I never read the Elmore Leonard book, but it can't be much different from the film because it FEELS like I'm watching an Elmore Leonard movie.$LABEL$ 1
+A very sensitive topic--15 y/o girl abandoned by mother as a baby and who goes to visit her, continues to be ignored, is raped by her mom's boyfriend, becomes pregnant. There was not enough depth displayed of this situation. Too much of time is taken up on the chase with the truckers transporting the baby. (Interesting, this baby with asthma--you never see him cry-- except once--, be fed, have is diaper changed during the whole truck transport ordeal.) I would have liked to have seen more of the interrelationships, more focus on the fact that this girl was a minor--this should have stood up in court immediately.And this was a true story! It deserved a better telling than that!!If it weren't for the subject matter, I would have given this closer to a 0 rating. I rented this from the library. Only later I found out it was a made for TV movie. oh well$LABEL$ 0
+I'm glad some people liked this, but I hated this film. It had a very good idea for a story line, but that's where it ended. It was badly written, badly acted and badly made. It had some interesting plot points, but they were just skipped over too fast, the writers needed to realize what to keep in and expand on these bits, like lying about why she was kidnapped, and ditch the dross. Instead it was "what's going on?", 5 seconds later they tell you.This film had no suspense, and I was bored from start to end. I just wanted it to finish. Go and rent misery, or best laid plans if you want suspense or twists that keep you guessing to the end.$LABEL$ 0
+What fun! Bucketfuls of good humor, terrific cast chemistry (Skelton/Powell/Lahr/O'Brien), dynamite Dorsey-driven soundtrack! Miss Powell's dance numbers have exceptional individual character and pizzazz. Her most winning film appearance.$LABEL$ 1
+The Palestinian situation is fertile and as-yet largely fallow soil for film-making. 'Divine Intervention' tries hard, and gives us an insightful peek into the almost surreal life of those caught up in the troubles, but the film amounts to little more than a handful of (admittedly lovely) visual jokes thrown onto celluloid, while the links between them become increasingly obscure as the film progresses. A missed opportunity to say something more coherent about a very topical issue.$LABEL$ 0
+This film stands head and shoulders above the vast majority of cinematic romantic comedies. It is virtually flawless! The writing, acting, production design, humor and pathos are all wonderful! Even the music -- from Dean Martin to La Boheme -- is captivating and delightful!Every character is peculiarly delightful and memorable, from the leads played by Cher and Nicolas Cage, to the many supporting roles -- Olympia Dukakis , Vincent Gardenia, John Mahoney, Danny Aiello -- even grandpa with his dog pack! Each of these performers, plus Norman Jewison as Director, performs above their normal quality in this ensemble work. For several of the actors, this was an early major exposure in film, so the casting is also exceptional -- and we have many current acting powerhouses whose careers were altered by their effectiveness in this film.I've seen this film several times all the way through -- which can sometimes deflate the impact of a film substantially. More tellingly, I realized some years ago that whenever I channel-surfed my way into a scene from this film -- any scene -- the scene was compelling and beautifully crafted. There are so many stunning and memorable scenes the original meeting between the Cher and Nicolas Cage characters, where Cage tells his tale of woe; Vincent Gardenia discovered with his paramour at the opera, amidst the splendor generated by his gold-mine plumbing business; Olympia Dukakis scolding John Mahoney for philandering with his student in the classic line about liaisons with co-workers: "Don't sh-t where you eat!"; Danny Aiello at his dying mother's bedside; Nicolas Cage "taking" Cher as the rapture of an aria soars in the background! There are of course many great romantic comedies, among them Sabrina (both versions, but especially the Audrey Hepburn/Humphrey Bogart/William Holden original); When Harry Met Sally; The Apartment.None quite equals Moonstruck!$LABEL$ 1
+In many ways, the filmic career of independent film-making legend John Cassavetes is the polar opposite of someone like Alfred Hitchcock, the consummate studio director. Where Hitchcock infamously treated his actors as cattle, Cassavetes sought to work with them improvisationally. Where every element in a Hitchcock shot is composed immaculately, Cassavetes cared less for the way a scene was figuratively composed than in how it felt, or what it conveyed, emotionally. Hitchcock's tales were always plot-first narratives, with the human element put in the background. Cassavetes put the human experience forefront in every one of his films. If some things did not make much sense logically, so be it.One can see this even from his very first film, 1959's Shadows, filmed with a 16mm hand-held camera, on a shoe string budget of about $40,000, in Manhattan, with Cassavetes' acting workshop repertory company, and touted as an improvisatory film. The story is rather simple, as it follows the lives of three black sibling Manhattanites- Benny (Ben Carruthers)- a trumpeter and no account, Hugh (Hugh Hurd)- a washed up singer, and Lelia (Lelia Goldoni)- the younger sister of both. The film's three main arcs deal with Hugh's failures as a nightclub crooner, and his friendship with his manager Rupert (Rupert Crosse); Benny's perambulations in an about Manhattan with his two no account pals; and Lelia's lovelife- first with a white boy Tony (Anthony Ray), who does not realize light-skinned Lelia's race, even after bedding her; then with stiff and proper Davey (Davey Jones), who may be a misogynist.In the first arc, nothing much happens, except dark-skinned Hugh gets to pontificate on how degraded he feels to be singing in low class nightclubs, and opening shows for girly acts. He dreams of making it big in New York, or even Paris, but one can tell he is the type of man who will continue deluding himself of his meager skill, for the one time we actually get to hear him sing, he shows he's a marginal talent, at best. That Rupert keeps encouraging him gives us glimpses into how destructive friendships work. But, this is the least important of the three arcs…. While this film is better overall than, say, Martin Scorsese's first film, a decade later, Who's That Knocking At My Door?- another tale of failed romance and frustrated New Yorkers, it has none of the brilliant moments- acting-wise nor cinematographically- that that film has. It also is not naturalistic, for naturalism in art is a very difficult thing to achieve, especially in film, although the 1950s era Manhattan exteriors, at ground level, is a gem to relive. While Shadows may, indeed, be an important film in regards to the history of the independent film circuit, it certainly is nowhere near a great film. Parts of it are preachy, poorly acted, scenes end willy-nilly, almost like blackout sketches, and sometimes are cut off seemingly in the middle. All in all it's a very sloppy job- especially the atrocious jazz score that is often out of synch with the rest of the film, as Cassavetes proved that as a director, at least in his first film, he was a good actor. The only reason for anyone to see Shadows is because Cassavetes ultimately got better with later films, and this gives a clue as to his later working style.The National Film Registry has rightly declared this film worthy of preservation as 'culturally significant'. This is all in keeping with the credo of art Cassavetes long championed, as typified by this quote: 'I've never seen an exploding helicopter. I've never seen anybody go and blow somebody's head off. So why should I make films about them? But I have seen people destroy themselves in the smallest way. I've seen people withdraw. I've seen people hide behind political ideas, behind dope, behind the sexual revolution, behind fascism, behind hypocrisy, and I've myself done all these things. So I can understand them. What we are saying is so gentle. It's gentleness. We have problems, terrible problems, but our problems are human problems.' That this film is 'culturally significant' is true, but that truth is not synonymous with its being 'artistically significant'. It is in the difference between these two definitions where great art truly thrives.$LABEL$ 1
+The distribution was good, the subject could have been interessant and comic. whereas, he described the wandering of an old non credible communist looking for loving sensations. Instead of this, the atmosphere is nor lively nor heavy.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie starts out hilarious from about the 15 second mark, and continues it throughout the movie. I cannot recall a scene where i didn't turn to look at people laughing with me. he is the perfect actor for this roll because of the way he looks and the way he dressed.The comedic parts were great to see from actors not very big or popular. As you can see people do like this movie it is currently rated 7.9 on IMDb. i think it should be in 250. Lets put it this way i haven't seen this funny of a movie since American pie or the original vacation. see it if you want a laugh. I give this movie 2 of the highest thumbs up i have ever given since i found out about IMDb, great movie site.$LABEL$ 1
+"This story is dedicated to women," according to the introduction, "who have been fighting for their rights ever since Adam and Eve started the loose-leaf system." When "Politics" was filmed, the Nineteenth Amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote, was only a decade old. And, the film deals with the wielding of political power by women as a voting group. Advocating prohibition, and shutting down speakeasies, was a main concern for women at the time.Good-natured Marie Dressler (as Hattie Burns) becomes politically active, after a young woman is shot and killed coming out of a speakeasy. She wants the liquor-selling joints closed; and, is drafted into a Mayoral run, after delivering a powerful speech at a women's rally. Ms. Dressler is supported by her tenants, best friend Polly Moran (as Ivy Higgins) and her stuttering husband Roscoe Ates (as Peter Higgins). Dressler's run for Mayor of Lake City draws opposition from men in town; so, Dressler orders the women to go on strike, denying them, "everything" in the "parlor, bedroom, and bath." The film sounds much better than it turned out. The humor, frankly, isn't too good; and, it features some unfunny and moderately offensive situations ("You look like Madame Queen" refers to an Amos and Andy character). And, the mixing of shootings and slapstick doesn't mix well, this time. Producers might have considered making the film more dramatic, focusing exclusively on Dressler and the characters played by William Bakewell (as Benny Emerson) and Karen Morley (as Myrtle Burns).**** Politics (7/25/31) Charles Reisner ~ Marie Dressler, Polly Moran, Roscoe Ates$LABEL$ 0
+At the beginning of the film, you might double-check the DVD cover and re-read the synopsis a couple of times, but no worries. It's NOT "Memoirs of a Geisha" that you purchased; just a movie with an intro that is much more classy and stylish than it has any right to be. Still, the opening is by far the best thing about the entire movie, as it shows how in the year 1840 a Samurai sword master catches his wife committing adultery. He decapitates the two lovers before doing some hara-kiri (ritual suicide through disembowelment). Cut to present day, when the American Ambassador in Japan welcomes a befriended family and drives them up to the same house where the aforementioned slaughter took place nearly one and a half century ago. From then onwards, this becomes a seemingly routine haunted house flick yet the utterly retarded and implausible script still makes it somewhat exceptional. Let's start with the good aspects, namely the original Japanese setting and the presence of the delicious Susan George who is my all-time favorite British horror wench (well, together with Britt Eckland, Linda Hayden and Ingrid Pitt). The bad aspects simply include that the screenplay is incoherent, imbecilic beyond repair and full of supposedly unsettling twists that only evoke laughter. The restless spirits of the house soon begin to entertain themselves by perpetrating into the bodies of the new tenants and causing them to do and say all sorts of crazy stuff. The spirit of the massacred adulterous woman particularly enjoys squeezing into Susan's ravishing booty and transforming her into a lewd seductress! In this "possessed" state, she even lures the American ambassador outside to have sex in the garden of a high society diner party full of prominent guests. So, strictly spoken, it's not really "evil" that dwells in the house; just a trio of sleazy ghosts with dirty minds and far too much free time on their long-dead hands! Obviously these scenes are more comical than frightening, especially since the light-blue and transparent shapes remind you of the cute ghost effects that were later popularized in "Ghostbusters". "The House Where Evil Dwells" is probably the least scary ghost movie ever. Throughout most of the running time, you'll be wondering whether director Kevin Connor (who nevertheless made the excellent horror films "Motel Hell" and "From Beyond the Grave") intentionally wanted to make his movie funny and over-the-top, like "Motel Hell" maybe. But then again, everyone in the cast continues to speak his/her lines with a straight and sincere face, so I guess we are nevertheless supposed to take everything seriously and feel disturbed. "The House Where Evil Dwells" is never suspenseful or even remotely exciting and it doesn't even contain any grisly images apart from the massacre at the beginning. I am fully aware of how shallow it sounds, but the two scenes in which Susan George goes topless are the only true highlights. Well, those and maybe also the invasion of cheesy and ridiculously over-sized spiders (or are they crabs?) in the daughter's bedroom. How totally random and irrelevant was that? If you ever decide to give this movie a chance notwithstanding its bad reputation, make sure you leave your common sense and reasoning at the doorstep.Trivia note for horror buffs: keep an eye open for the demon-mask that was also a pivot piece of scenery in the brilliant Japanese horror classic Onibaba.$LABEL$ 0
+This is the follow-up creation to Better Off Dead. In a competition, Better Off Dead would win hands-down. But for star power, One Crazy Summer outshines Savage Steve's better script. Problems with One Crazy Summer (OCS): casting. Better Off Dead (BOD) was cast so much better. Friendship: OCS shows Cusack giving hateful looks to Bill Murray's little bro. Trouble on the set?? More outrageous friends in OCS, but more genuine friends in BOD. Plot was good. You'll predict some of it, but even the predictable parts go further than you think they could. So, even though this is Better Off Dead's ugly stepsister, it's worth a look. See Demi Moore before the plastic surgery if for no other reason. John Cusack fans, you gotta see it, just to say you have. If you don't like Bobcat Golthwaite, I'm sorry. I don't like him either, but you can't escape him in this one. At least he does a great job in the film doing a tribute to another movie monster. Editing needed help on the beach, but for most part, not much to complain about. Overall, it's good and funny. But try not to compare it to BOD or you'll find it lacking. *sigh*$LABEL$ 1
+If this film had a budget of 20 million I'd just like to know where the money went. A monkey could make better CGI effects then what was wasted for 3 hours on this dreadful piece of garbage, although I must admit the machines and the martians would have looked really, really cool on an original play-station 1 game, and early PC games from the mid 90s if a game had ever been made. What puzzles me is where did the money go? Pendragon films could have made a great film with good old fashioned models and computer controlled cameras a la George Lucas circa 1975-83, and actors who actually look like they care about what they are doing (or ruining in this case) for about the same 20 million. This is quite possibly the worst film EVER made! I would rather sit through a 24 hour repeat screening of Ishtar than watch this film again. I hated it completely! I regress. I say this IS the WORST film EVER made because unlike other bad movies like Plan 9 or Killer Tomatoes, or Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, these are films that are so bad you have a special place in your heart for them, you love them. There is no love for this film and no place in my DVD library for it. I sold it to a guy for a dollar. I'm betting the money for the film was spent on booze and other vices for the cast and crew. Shame on you Pendragon films! I want my money back!$LABEL$ 0
+If you want to see a movie about two utterly unsympathetic characters, this is the one. The acting is superb, both from John Cassavetes as the insane paranoid whom, as the saying goes, they REALLY ARE out to get, and from Peter Falk as his lifelong best friend to whom he turns for rescue. Big mistake, but since they're both amoral mobsters, and misogynistic bastards to boot, it's hard to decide whom to root for LESS. Only writer/director Elaine May could have gotten away with this one. I thought it interesting that in a lengthy interview with producer Michael Hausman included on the DVD, he disclosed that the two stars had "very different ideas" about the script, that the director was nearly impossible to work with, that the director of photography had impossible demands made of him, that the crew was constantly angry about being made to sit around waiting, and so on. This mood of one big VERY dysfunctional family comes across clearly on the screen.$LABEL$ 0
+Good, boring or bad? It's good. Worth your money? If you can spare it for a ticket, sure. Better than the trailer makes it seem? Yes, oddly.There isn't much to the script - Guards working at armored truck company move vast amounts of cash. Guards see opportunity to retire as millionaires, one of them is too honest to go along with it all, and a well-laid plan goes to hell. This could have been a poorly-executed Reservoir Dogs ripoff, but the skill of the cast and the director's ability to make just about anything tense pull it out of that realm and put it onto a solid footing.$LABEL$ 1
+The movie seemed a little slow at first. But it picked up speed and got right to the point. It showed exactly how the government and the scientist argued for humanity and the reasons of the "gadget". I enjoyed it. It is very close to reality as any movie about the Atomic Bombs that were to be dropped on Japan. I have recommended it to friends. I was particularly pleased with the acting ability of Dwight Schultz.$LABEL$ 1
+My rating refers to the first 4 Seasons of Stargate SG-1 which are wonderfully fresh, creative and addicting. When the cast stepped through the gate, you never knew what lay on the other side! Starting around Season 5, the show took a different focus - still good, but different.The series follows the adventures of a team of humans (and one alien) who regularly venture into a planetary transport device called the "Stargate". The backstory of the series is based on the characters and events of the movie "Stargate" in which the device is discovered during an archaeological dig in Egypt.The episodes are light (innocent and easy to watch) and very creative. Many of the inventive stories could easily have been made into great sci-fi movies of their own. What happens next was always unpredictable.The characters on which the show rests are also well-defined and brilliantly performed. Their tone is serious, but the dialog is flowered with incredible wit and humor. They are simply fun to watch.Starting somewhere around Season 5, the series started to evolve into a continuing storyline based on fighting a single foe (the Goa'uld, then the Ori). The plots become more complex (a lot more political/strategic oriented) and interdependent. The characters were still as great as ever but the show was different in nature.One thing that must be mentioned is to watch the episodes that commemorated the 100th and 200th episodes. They are simply can't-miss shows. They exhibit the creative and wildly humorous genius that carried the series through 10 seasons.If you are a sci-fi fan, watch a few episodes of the first 4 Seasons and you'll likely be hooked. If you like evolving story lines between two opposing sides, you have 10 seasons of shows to look forward to.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie should have never been made.What a shame of the budget.Please hire convincing actors, and make a proper movie. Very thin plot, and unconvincing lines. Almost hilarious, and that is a shame for an action movie.... Definitely not worth watching.They keep replaying the same "shots" of an Stealth airplane flying away. You have seen it ones, and that was not worth re-running 3 or 4 times.It is time for Steven Seagal to retire from movie-making.His movies are getting worser every time.Black Dawn, and Submerged were already bad, but this movie is even worse.$LABEL$ 0
+Every kid has that movie that he pops into VHS when he has nothing to do, or when there is a babysitter around. This was that movie for me. I can tell you the whole plot exactly, I must have seen it 100 times at least, and I can say it is a good kids/family movie.I still have the tape, I haven't watched it in 5 years, but maybe I'll get around to it this week, and be a kid for the day. You just have to love the care bears, and their messege.$LABEL$ 1
+Idea is great, spoiled big time by the judges.Why make fun of people? if what the inventors say is true, and as most of them say, they spent their life saving on the invention, the minimum is to reject the idea without making fun out of the people.also, it shows when they want to accept an idea by the crier that they added to the judges.The only one i respect out of the judges is the one who always sits on the right of the table, he is a respectable personof course the English snob who claims to be a business man, wearing a suite doesn't make you one pallast but not least, the big guy who sits between the English and the crier. wake up man, the is no job called and inventor for you to call yourself one. an inventor is an attribute not a job man.i think they wanted to add someone like Simon from the American idol, they thought it worked there, it can work here as well. the context is different and the idea is totally different.it is a good idea and they could have done a good show out of it if they just change the judges and remove their act and attitude.just stop making fun of the people.$LABEL$ 0
+Although i don't like cricket at all and i have seen this movie 13 years ago, I still think it is one of the best coming-of-age movies ..i remember the day i returned home from my school and sat down to have my lunch, I saw the opening titles of that movie and then....i was so immersed in it that i felt i was there, it really affected me personally. i still remember how i felt when i first saw it ,i felt that the poor boy was a friend of mine, going through the same adolescent experience we were having in those days. what i really liked about that movie is the main theme of a "shy" boy fantasizing about "kissing" his dream girl, no offense but if that was an American movie, you would certainly see-at a certain point, mainly climax- the "shy" boy "making love" to his girl, and i really can't grasp this contradicting concepts till now...i have a simple request ,if anyone knows how to get this movie on a DVD by mail ,please let me know cause i need a shot of memories..Thanks$LABEL$ 1
+Late night on BBC1, was on my way to bed but curiosity piqued at a contemporary-set Irish film so I stayed to watch for a few minutes and then stayed to the end. I have to admit that the main attraction was the only English actress, Kelly Reilly, who is stunning to look at.This is billed as a black comedy, which is one of the hardest things to pull off. It should be the perfect blend of horror and horrible laughs so that in the end you don't know why you're laughing - for me Martin Scorsese's After Hours (1985) is the best example. Dead Bodies is more black than comedy but the plot rattles along and spirals down towards further blackness. I didn't spot the final twists in the tale as some other posters here did so I was suitably surprised.As a snapshot of the Irish film industry in 2003, it all seems rather worthy; it doesn't look like they spent too much on the making of it so it had a chance to make its money back. The script could've been a whole lot sharper but the acting was on the whole pretty good. I'm glad I watched it, flaws and all, tho I don't think I learnt much about Ireland today, especially their policing methods!$LABEL$ 1
+Hi, I'm a friend of werewolf movies, and when i saw the title of Darkwolf hitting the shelves i was like "hmm, simple and nice name to it at least. Althou... i wonder why i haven't heard of it before."First of all, the movie starts with tits. Lots of tits. Tits are pretty much all this movies budget went to. Who cares about a werewolf effect, just pay the actresses enough to get topless shots!So, about the mysterious darkwolf character (a little spoilers ahead, but who really cares...) He's your average everyday biker. Not even super-tough looking, but like the old wise woman says in the movie "he is far more powerful and dangerous than you've ever faced before." Just by describing her a tattooed biker-type of a guy. Pretty original. I even had look twice when they first used the "red glowing eyes" SPECIAL EFFECT! I mean my god, that "lets-plant-red-dots-on-eyes-with-computer" effect has been used since the seventies. It looks plain ugly here! And don't get me started with the werewolf 3D-CGI. As said before, like an bad and old video game.And finally, as i do like werewolf films, like i said. They prettymuch always build a werewolf-legend of their own. Darkwolf does build the werewolfworld as well, about some silly legends of hybrid-werewolves and the ancient bloodline. BUT. It almost instantly after creating the rules of engagement "the darkwolf kills anyone the girl has touched" starts random-slashing. Which just doesn't make any sense, why even bother telling us the rules of killing, when they aren't even gonna play by them... Aplus the wolf-point-of-view shots are made with a sony handycam or something, filming mostly the floor and walls. Just add growling noises and you've got a super werewolf effect. The gore is partially OK. But when the wolf slashes everyone with an open hand, just by basically laying the hand on top of the victims, it just doesn't do the trick for me...Truly, WHO gives money to make these heaps of junk straight-to-video horrortitles, they aren't even funny-kind of bad movies, just sad.$LABEL$ 0
+I had noticed this movie had been on Cinemax a lot lately, so this morning, I decided to watch it. I had just finished the Infiltrator, which is a great movie, and I thought this looked good as well. From the description the cable had, atleast. This film was awful. It's slow, the pacing is horrible, it feels as tho it lasts 4 hours. There's no real plot to speak of...agh! How can anyone say anything good about this movie. Rickman is good...but he always is...the other two characters work well, but there's no real story to support any of it. After 2 hours, and you sitting there wondering what on earth is going on, where on earth is the plot- it ends with a surprise that frankly just made me sick. Don't bother with this one.$LABEL$ 0
+Tenchu aka. Hitokiri- directed by Hideo Gosha - starring Shintaro Katsu and Tetsuya NAkadei belongs (together with Goyokin, HAra Kiri & Rebellion) to the best chambara movies existing.Its the story about Shintaro Katsu (who plays Okada Izo) working for Nakadei, who wants to become the daymio. Okada, being the "cleaner" for Nakadei is being treated like a dog - and after quite a while he realises - what he realy is to Nakadei.But there is so much more in this movie - every fan of japanese cinema should have seen it !!!!!!!(Tenchu means Heavens Punishment)$LABEL$ 1
+Wow, did this episode start on a STOOOOOPID premise! The Enterprise is chugging along when all of the sudden, Abraham Lincoln is floating around in space and welcomes the Enterprise!!!!!!! Is it just me, or is this a really lame-brained idea?! Lincoln comes aboard and they welcome them. Abe suggests they beam down to some barren planet, where they meet other famous dead folks--both good and evil. It seems that a really cheesy-looking rock monster has assembled a team of GOOD and EVIL people to battle it out for supremacy. The whole thing seems really daffy and inherently unfair, as the GOOD side is saddled with Surak--a Vulcan who makes Gandhi seem like Rambo!! Despite a totally AWFUL premise, the action is pretty good and it's great to see overhead shots of obvious doubles fighting it out in this grudge match. But, don't mistake this for high art or deep sci-fi. The bottom line is that the series was on its last legs as a first-run series and this really looked like they dusted off this turkey and filmed it regardless of the absurdity of the premise.$LABEL$ 0
+This pile of sh!t is tied in my book as the worst thing ever made. I can't BELIEVE that someone actually relased this CRAP, let alone acually MADE it. HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE. Not even worth mentioning the damn story or any details about it. THAT's how bad it actually is. Avoid it like SARS!$LABEL$ 0
+All the kids aged from 14-16 want to see this movie (although you are only allowed at 18). They have heard it is a very scary movie and they feel so cool when they watched it. I feel very sad kids can't see what a good movie is, and what a bad movie is. This was one of the worst movies i saw in months. Every scene you see in this movie is a copy from another movie. And the end? It's an open ending... why? Because it is impossible to come up with a decent en for such a stupid story. This movie is just made to make you scared, and if you are a bit smart and know some about music, you exactly know when you'll be scared. When the movie was finished and i turned to my friend and told (a bit to loud) him that this was a total waste of money, some stupid kid looked strange at me. These day i could make an Oscar with a home-video of my goldfish, if only i use the right marketing.$LABEL$ 0
+Claire Denis's movies seem to fall into one of two categories: the violent and bloody or the quiet and intimate. "L'Intrus" definitely falls into the first category, but it's not so awful as "Trouble Every Day" or "J'ai pas sommeil."Now, ever since I saw "Chocolat," I've made it a point to see every new movie Denis makes. And I have always been disappointed. "L'Intrus" was no exception. She has yet to make a movie as personal and as moving as her first one. You get a lot of the Denis regulars: an older but still magnificent Béatrice Dalle who seems to be in the movie only to show off her full lips, the gap between her teeth, her ample cleavage, and a couple of nice coats; the black guy from "Trouble Every Day" and "J'ai pas sommeil," Grégoire Colin, and that Lithuanian or Russian girl. Michel Subor's character was interesting enough, but the camera lingered on him at such length that I got annoyed by that curly forelock of hair hanging over his forehead and was relieved when, somewhere in Korea, I think, he finally got it cut. There was certainly some action--gruesome murders, a man's search for a son--and there may even have been a plot, but one viewing wasn't enough to figure it out, and two viewings are, I fear, out of the question. For one thing, the score was jarring and obtrusive (as in "Beau Travail"). For another, the seasons changed too abruptly, leaving you even more confused about what was going on. Oh, there were a few pretty shots, and if you liked "Friday Evening" with its shots of the folds in heavy drapes and bedsheets, you might appreciate the aesthetics of "L'Intrus." Otherwise, steer clear. I saw this movie in French and it's possible I missed something crucial. But the dialogue in a Denis movie rarely amounts to more than five pages, double spaced and with ample margins. In "Chocolat" the silence is sublime; in "L'Intrus," it's just dull.$LABEL$ 0
+This film was on last week and although at that time of the day (around 6pm) the quality of the movies is almost never good (at least here on Mexican TV), I couldn't switch the TV off. The story about Madelene Moore really touches you. She doesn't come across as a very sympathetic character at first, but seeing the whole film, you just want her so succeed. This film really leaves you thinking. And i think that basically due to the great acting of Brooke Johnson. I had never heard of her before nor knowingly seen her in another film, but this was great great acting. Compliments to Brooke. I hope to see her in another film soon.$LABEL$ 1
+I agree with the other comments. I saw this movie years ago. Christopher Plummer is hilarious as a dandy. The ribaldry is unsurpassed. If this comes out on video, I will definitely buy it.$LABEL$ 1
+I have had the opportunity to catch this independent film and was impressed with it, despite the lack of excitement in the plot. The acting was very good by everyone involved. Amy Madigan played the part of a guilt ridden mother who is tired, yet well intentioned and determined to make up for her younger daughter's condition. Yet, in the process, she has neglected her older sister, who is more interested in playing with her savant-syndrome sibling and living in a world of escapism.The men in the movie are very powerful in their secondary roles. Christopher Lloyd, in a very understated role, shows us why he has such versatility. He plays a teacher who is dedicated to his profession and literature research, yet starved for a meaningful relationship. He and Madigan connect very well in their scenes together, yet both know nothing more can come from their friendship. Their wordless goodbye is nothing short of brilliant, an acting lesson for aspiring performers.And in a small role, Fred Savage is fun to watch.You can tell why this movie was based on a play, it's probably very good on stage. On screen, it's not particularly exciting, but it's nonetheless very thoughtful and powerful in its subtleties.$LABEL$ 1
+Still the definitive program about the Second World War, The World At War isn't just long, but also very informative. The series contains 26 episodes (each episode lasts for about 45 min.), and includes the events leading up to and following in the wake of the war. Most episodes are about the war in Europe, and there are several episodes about the war in the Pacific. Other episodes include information about the wars in Africa, Burma, the Atlantic and the home fronts of Germany, Great Britain, United States and Soviet Union. There is one episode that's dedicated to the Holocaust. The series starts off with the episode A New Germany (1933-1939), and tells about the rise of the Nazis in Germany and German territorial gains prior to the outbreak of war. The series ends with the episode Remember; the war's influence in a post-war world. Remember is a fitting episode to end this great program. Every episode begins with a short introduction and then with opening credits. The credits are accompanied by a powerful music theme. There are many fitting music pieces throughout the series. Each episode is like a mini-film. The footage is fantastic, and so is the way it was put together. In addition, some of the footage is in color. The information included also makes the episodes memorable and entertaining.The series was produced by Jeremy Isaacs for Thames Television (UK). Commissioned in 1969, it took four years to produce, such was the depth of its research. The series was narrated by Laurence Olivier (one of the most famous and revered actors of the 20th century). The series interviewed leading members of the Allied and Axis campaigns, including eyewitness accounts by civilians, enlisted men, officers and politicians, amongst them Albert Speer, Karl Donitz, Jimmy Stewart, Bill Mauldin, Curtis LeMay, Lord Mountbatten, Alger Hiss, Toshikazu Kase, Arthur Harris, Charles Sweeney, Paul Tibbets, Traudl Junge and historian Stephen Ambrose. Jeremy Isaacs says in "The Making of The World at War" that he sought to interview, not necessarily the surviving big names, but their aides and assistants. The most difficult subject to locate and persuade to be interviewed, according to Isaacs, was Heinrich Himmler's adjutant, Karl Wolff. The latter admitted to witnessing a large-scale execution in Himmler's presence.The World At War is often considered to be the definitive television history of the Second World War. Some consider it the finest example of the documentary form. In a list of the 100 Greatest British Television Programmes drawn up by the British Film Institute in 2000, voted for by industry professionals, The World at War ranked 19th. The program has everything that the viewer needs to know about the war. After watching a few episodes I liked the series so much that I tried to watch the remaining episodes one after the other. I've seen some of them several times. There are two other great documentary series that I know of that may be of interest to the viewer. One is called The Great War (1964) that's about World War I. The other is called Cold War (1998) that's about the Cold War obviously.$LABEL$ 1
+I have seen 'The Sea Within' today and I loved it. The actors of the movie are wonderful (specially Javier Bardem, of course), but I thought that Belén Rueda would have a better role. Lola Dueñas, Clara Segura and, specially, Mabel Rivera perform excellent interpretations. And I cannot forget Celso Bugallo and Joan Dalmau (brother and father of the protagonist).There are two technical aspects I loved very much: Aguirresarobe's photography and the score by Amenábar himself. I liked the song, 'Negra sombra' ('Dark Shadow'), by Luz Casal with music of Carlos Núñez.In short, I think that the Spanish Academy should choose 'The Sea Within' in order to compete in the Oscar Awards. I liked other Spanish productions, such as Almodóvar's 'Bad Education', but Amenábar's film is much better than them. 'The Sea Within' deserves all the awards.$LABEL$ 1
+As someone who has read the book, I can say that this is vastly inferior to the big American version starring Gwyneth Paltrow. There are various reasons for this. Firstly, Emma is too unpleasant. Yes, she has faults, and isn't the easiest person to like - but the viewer shouldn't downright start to despise her. Secondly, Mr Knightly is miscast. His brooding and melancholy in this version are better suited to a Bronte or Gaskell adaptation than Austen, and throw the mood of the whole affair "off". Thirdly, Samantha Morton is too strong an actress to be relegated to the role of Harriet; and why was she made to look so sickly? Harriet is supposed to be blonde and blooming - not to look as if she's going to be carried off by consumption in the next scene. Fourthly, the structure has been mucked up and scenes cut. At the end, when Emma decides she loves Mr Knightly, it comes across as utterly baffling because this narrative hasn't been adequately shown and carried along throughout the film. Fifthly, what was going on, exactly, with Mrs Elton's accent? She went from sounding like an American actress trying to suppress her own accent at the beginning, to all out American half-way through, and then back to English at the end. Finally, this dragged at the end. The book and the big film version end with the wedding of Emma and Mr Knightly. This version drags on confusingly after the announcement of the wedding without actually showing us the ceremony.All in all, a rather haphazard attempt. Read the book or rent the Paltrow version instead$LABEL$ 0
+I'm not a huge fan of Lucio Fulci's films. Most of his 80s gore films had their moments, but often came across as second-rate Dario Argento imitations. With the exception of the entertaining "Zombi" (which was a George Romero imitation), I didn't really enjoy them. I know Italian horror often disregards the plot, but the storyline and characters in his films were just far too thread bare even by the standards. This is why "Don't Torture a Duckling" surprised me. Its actually a very well made film with an engrossing murder mystery. Its possibly the best giallo ever made, only seriously rivaled by Dario Argento's entries into the genre. And unlike Fulci's previous giallo "A Lizard in a Woman's Skin", this never drags.Fulci's direction here is quite good. He keeps the story moving at a good pace and maintains the viewer's interest throughout. Also, the conclusion to the mystery comes as a complete surprise to the audience. Plus, he adds some clever touches, such as the upbeat soul music during a particularly disturbing graveyard beating sequence. Overall, the violence here is restrained and only used when necessary for the story. The acting is good for the most part also, full of familiar faces from 70s Italian exploitation cinema. Both Thomas Milian and Barbara Bouchet are super cool throughout. The only weak link is Florinda Bolkan, whose performance is just far too over-the-top. Its the only laughable aspect of the film. "Don't Torture a Duckling" definitely comes with my recommendation and may be a good introduction to the giallo subgenre as a whole. (8/10)$LABEL$ 1
+This film without doubt is one of the worst I have seen. It was so boring that I simply could not wait for it to end. I talked my girlfriend into watching it after this site had good reviews and after even 30 mins in she looked at me as if to say "your nuts" The scenery was as boring as the film with nothing but driving around in the car looking at the wind blowing bits of bush around. The acting was un-inspiring and the film was simply a waste of what have been a good idea into a waste of a dvdr.Guy Pierce should have stuck to neighbours as at least he washed his hair. All he done was talk on his phone but yet sold nothing as a salesman. He would have been sacked weeks before. His girlfriend (once in Coyote Ugly) should have remained dancing on the bar as at least she looked hot in that.The guy who played Vincent (those who watched know) was so annoying with his phone calls that any normal person would have drove to his house and hit him with a bit of 4 by 2.I do not on this earth know what anyone liked about it. I actually want people to watch this to suffer the torture I went through.$LABEL$ 0
+Unlike another user who said this movie sucked (and that Olivia Hussey was terrible), I disagree.This movie was amazing!!!!!! Olivia Hussey is awesome in everything she's in! Yeah she may be older now, because many remember her from Romeo and Juliet, but she's wonderful! This story line may be used quite often, but it's a unique movie and I'll fight back on anyone who disagrees! I enjoyed this movie just as much as I have any other Olivia Hussey movie. Olivia's "my girl" and I love her work.I saw this for the first time on Saturday (4/14/07) and fell in love with it. Not only because's it's an Olivia movie, but because of it's unique story line and wonderful direction.$LABEL$ 1
+If you speak French or can put up with sub-titles, you will really enjoy this movie. If on the other hand you just want to see God's most beautiful creatures, this is a must see. Not an ounce of silicon in sight. Zalman King eat your heart out. Sophie Marceau's body is the epitome of perfection and everything I had ever fantasized about. Her part is even in English. Even the fact that she was nude with John Malkovich did not detract for her beauty. Sophie is a ten if ever there was one. Chiara Caselli and Inés Sastre are 9.5s. Oh yeah, it is a pretty good story. Several little vignettes are woven together in a sort of Six Degrees of Separation style.$LABEL$ 1
+This is the first porn I've ever tried to review. It demands a different approach than usual, since the allegory will not reward dissection. "I'm American. I'm a prudish virgin." "We are European. We are cultured and sex-mad." "It is nice when we all screw each other." Lots to talk about! Well, there kind of is in fact, relative to your average 60s topless volleyball number anyway. And the enervating patina of 'class' at least delivers clean, detailed compositions. But what the hell kind of thing is that to say about a porn? OK then: the only scene I really (rhetorically) got off on was the first time Brigitte Maier steps in. There are efforts to toss in a nice variety of race and age while letting no two men anywhere near each other; the one black guy suffers a premature bout of editorial coitus interruptus. And multiple takes or not, one perhaps undescribable-on-IMDb act does look like it was partially simulated by a surgical hose. Still, I stayed awake, and it was eight in the morning...but what does the last shot mean?!$LABEL$ 0
+I have seen many many movies and this just totally blew my mind. The trauma, the suspense is just amazing. I ended so wound up in the psychological fear and Philosophy of it, and relating it to reality. Movies that play and challenge your mind are movies you don't forget, those that make you doubt your reality. A problem could be the quality, but that doesn't bring down the essence of the movie.The idea it self is brilliant and the ending leaves you just completely shocked and with the question for you to seek the answer. I just totally loved it! So many clues and twitches and puzzles. One of the best movies ever, hands down.$LABEL$ 1
+This film stands as one of the most amazing examples of compelling and artful film-making I've every seen. Herzog seems to capture the almost transcendent tragedy and beauty of Dieter's story, as well as his endearing personal character. By the end of the film, I was left wishing that I'd had the opportunity to meet Dieter before his passing.On a technical note, the cinematography is intimate and astoundingly beautiful. The narrative is intricately woven, with great awareness of the subject and his capacity for reliving and reenacting traumatic events. Few documentary directors have so strong an ability to so thoroughly invest the audience in the character. This film is a must see!!!$LABEL$ 1
+A small town is attacked by a horde of bloodthirsty vampires. The only hope is a lone avenger and a group of ragtag survivors.Released in 1993, "Darkness" garnered something of a cult following upon release. It's easy to see why-it's loaded (and I mean freaking loaded) with gore, and it's energy and enthusiasm, like that found in other no-budget cult horror flicks like "The Dead Next Door" and "The Children of Ravensback", is actually rather infectious.While that may be true, that's sadly not enough to save it. The film was shot on a Super 8, so the image is grainy and dark, making things very difficult to see (it would have been great if it had obscured the protagonists dreadful mullet.) Also grating is the soundtrack, made up of annoying Casio Keyboard and even more annoying Death Metal (seriously, what is it with these no budget horror flicks and bad Death Metal?) While one isn't expecting Oscar worthy performances, the acting is still strictly amateur hour, as the actors sometimes seem almost confused instead of frightened or threatened.In the end, I'm sure fans of no-budget gorefests will love this. Everyone else though, will wish there was a little more meat on the ribs.$LABEL$ 0
+I can understand after watching this again for the first time in many years how it is considered one of the worst Laurel & Hardy's. For me, it isn't as close to as bad as "Air Raid Wardens" and "The Bullfighters", but there are some definite huge flaws in it. The film is set up to show Laurel and Hardy as the owners and instructors of the dance studio. Hardy is funny as the prancing lead of a "London Bridge" dance, surrounded by 20th Century Fox starlets, while in the next room, Laurel teaches the beginners ballet while wearing a ballerina outfit. A clumsy carpenter spills glue on the floor, leading to a predicable gag where Hardy ends up the looser. Then, in come the racketeers, now selling insurance covering up their protection racket. One of them is a very young and handsome Robert Mitchum. But no sooner do they bully the boys into buying insurance, they are arrested.This is the end of the gangsters and the last time we see the dance studio. The rest of the film is devoted to Laurel and Hardy's support of wealthy patron Trudy Marshall and her inventor boyfriend, Robert Bailey. They first try to help them hide their relationship from her disapproving parents (Matt Briggs and Margaret Dumont) and hopeful suitor Allan Lane, whom we can tell right off is a no-good swine. This leads to Briggs' hidden bar being revealed to tea-totaling Dumont, and a gag where a rug is literally pulled out from the wealthy patriarch which crashes his bed into a pond below. When Bailey uses the boys to help display his ray gun, pandemonium ensues. The dead-pan butler announces to Case and Dumont that their house is on fire.Later, Hardy wants to use the insurance policy to gain money to pay their dance studio rent and hopes to get Laurel to break a leg to do so. There is no reference to the fact that the insurance salesmen were gangsters and that the policy would probably be invalid. (Even if they were to have become legitimate insurance salesman, after being arrested, their licenses would have been revoked). Laurel ends up getting off a bus which had been abandoned by the driver over a supposedly rabid dog (only a frosting covered, cake devouring Toto look-alike, or possibly the actual pooch), causing Oliver to end up on a huge beach roller-coaster that somehow the bus has ended up on, perfectly fitting its wheels onto the tracks. Roller-coaster gags can be exciting, as evidenced in "Abbott and Costello Go to Hollywood", and this one is amusing but anticlimactic.As the story wraps up, all of these gags seem to have no point, giving the impression that this was simply a series of one-reelers put together to make a full-length feature, hopefully part of a double bill. L&H, as I've mentioned in other reviews of their later films, had lost much of their luster after leaving Hal Roach's employ, but surprisingly here, they do not come off as old and tired looking as they had in films made in the same year. Had the gags not been as amusing, as was the case with some of their other films, this surely would have ranked a "2" as opposed to a "3".$LABEL$ 0
+Sadly it was misguided. This movie stunk from start to finish. It was hard to watch because I used to watch Clarissa Explains It All every day on Nickelodeon. I LOVED her. Then the next thing I found she did a spread in Maxim and she was gorgeous! I haven't really heard anything about her until I watched this movie on accident. I couldn't believe she would even let something like this be seen with her name all over it. Everything about it was wrong but it still looked like someone somewhere in the team was trying really really hard to save a sunk ship. Too bad.. I hope she continues to act and I would love to see her with a real cast in a real movie.$LABEL$ 0
+If you have beloved actors, Peter Falk, Rip Torn, George Segal, and Bill Cobbs, you don't need Billy Burke, Coolio, or any other distractions. Massive talent is totally wasted in "Three Days to Vegas", with the blame falling squarely on the script. My neighbor's vacation films are about as interesting as this misguided road movie. If you want to see how to utilize a veteran cast with a good script, check out "The Crew". There really are no redeeming factors here, and watching these wonderful actors struggling with such weak material is a crime. I wanted to like it, but the shallow script cheats the audience, by essentially giving the actors nothing to work with. - MERK$LABEL$ 0
+I just can't understand the negative comments about this film. Yes it is a typical boy-meets-girl romance but it is done with such flair and polish that the time just flies by. Henstridge (talk about winning the gene-pool lottery!) is as magnetic and alluring as ever (who says the golden age of cinema is dead?) and Vartan holds his own.There is simmering chemistry between the two leads; the film is most alive when they share a scene - lots! It is done so well that you find yourself willing them to get together...Ignore the negative comments - if you are feeling a bit blue, watch this flick, you will feel so much better. If you are already happy, then you will be euphoric.(PS: I am 33, Male, from the UK and a hopeless romantic still searching for his Princess...)$LABEL$ 1
+ROCK STAR / (2001) *** (out of four)By Blake French:	"Rock Star" is the story of a nobody who becomes propelled into fame, only to realize living his dream is not the way he imagined it. We have seen all this before (in better movies), but this human story does capture the world of rock and roll with a brutally honest and insightful edge. It garners a recommendation because of its visualization of the atmosphere. The script, by "Crazy/Beautiful" director John Stockwell, portrays the hard-core universe with memorable images-it doesn't explain what it is about, it shows us.	"Rock Star," originally titled "Metal God," stars Mark Wahlberg as Chris "Izzy" Cole, a Pittsburgh office supplies salesperson who dreams of becoming Bobby Beers, the fiery lead singer for the heavy metal rock group, Steel Dragon. Although Chris already sings for his own tribute rock group called Blood Pollution, instead of writing his own songs, he insists on performing only those by Steel Dragon, and only in the exact way they perform them. His group becomes irritated with Chris' obsessions and gives him the boot.	This devastates Chris, as well as his supportive parents and faithful girlfriend, Emily (Jennifer Aniston from TV's "Friends"). He then receives a phone call. It's the Steel Dragon band. They have seen Chris' tapes and want him to replace the recently fired lead singer. In an instant, Chris rockets into the dizzying world of sudden stardom-from the biggest rock fan to the biggest rock star. Unfortunately, it's not as rewarding as he expected.	A true story inspired the "Rock Star" concept. An Ohio supply salesman, Tim "Ripper" Owens, really did replace Rob Halford, the lead singer in Judas Priest, after initially singing for a tribute band. The rest of the film is probably fiction, although most of what happens must represent the experiences of many other bands. The film details the various ordeals of being a rock star. It explores the aspects of touring, personality differences, the danger of drug abuse and violence, struggling relationships, sexual freedom, dishonesty, and the extreme measures of the producers all to please the fans and keep popularity high. I have seen all of Mark Wahlberg's movies, and this is the first that has earned my affection. Wahlberg, a former singer/model, has made movies like "Fear," "Boogie Nights" "Three Kings," and most recently Tim Burton's lacking remake "Planet of the Apes." I am starting to admire the young actor more and more. Although he has not performed in many successful films, he has taken many chances, and done a variety of roles. "Rock Star" is his best film to date. I can't think of many actors who could have convincingly portrayed Chris Cole's struggles and aspirations. Wahlberg truly makes "Rock Star" rock. Jennifer Aniston lights up the screen as well. She creates a chemistry-rich relationship with Chris that induces audience participation. It's tragic of what happens to their relationship. We care about these characters a great deal. During the film concert scenes, director Stephen Herek (who also directed "Holy Man" and the live action version of "101 Dalmatians") creates a gripping atmosphere. He captures the scenes with an intense urgency, and a raw, unmistakable energy. The musical numbers provide the film with the best, most involving scenes. Unfortunately Herek cannot sustain the energy and zest throughout. At the three-quarters mark, he looses the spark as the movie becomes dull and unpleasant. I understand where the story needs to go in order to portray the negative side of fame, but this movie loses everything it previously had going for it. In "Almost Famous," a much better film about rock and roll, there is a certain amount of interest and life in even the most sorrowful scenes. Here, it feels as if the filmmakers lose their passion.The message comes a bit too late and suddenly in the story. The film turns into a morality tale that wants to provide us with a sappy destination. The filmmakers might as well stop everything, appear on screen and say: "now audience, the moral of the story is…" We understand the theme, but it's too instantaneous. The personal discovery for Chris' must be gradual.Fortunately, all of this happens in the last twenty-five minutes of the film, hardly enough to completely destroy an entire eighty-five minutes of a reasonably good feature. "Rock Star" is not a great movie-see "Almost Famous" if you want a remarkable film about rock and roll-but for Marky Mark, it's a turning point in his career. $LABEL$ 1
+I just found out before writing this review that "Komodo vs. Cobra" and another movie called "Curse of the Komodo" were both directed by the same guy, Jim Wynorski. That might explain why they are films of nearly identical premises. They both feature a military-governed island, a colonel whose concerned more about covering his tracks than the lives of his employees, people racing to get to a chopper that is conveniently lying in a field somewhere on the island, and giant komodo dragons created through genetic experiments running amok. What differences are there? Well, the intruders on the island are now capitalists wanting to expose the government secret and there's a giant cobra on the island as well, hence the title "Komodo vs. Cobra" even though the conflict between the two monsters is hardly relevant to the 'story.' "Komodo vs. Cobra" is more or less what you'd expect given its title and its channel origin: the Sci-Fi Channel. Although every now and again you will find one that for one reason or another may appeal to you (I liked a movie called "Komodo") I hardly doubt this one will."Komodo vs. Cobra" is not only a boring film, but it's also one of the least enthusiastic sci-fi flicks I've seen in a long time. In some of these movies, there is an air to them that indicates the filmmakers were giving at least a certain level of effort, but I see very little here. That's indicated again by it just being a rehash of "Curse of the Komodo." The CGI for the monsters look as if they came straight out of a second-rate video game, the cinematography and misc en scene is poor, the acting ranges from passable to poor, the action scenes are dull, and then there are some parts that are, frankly put, unforgivably bad. I see a lot movies where a person will shoot a gun many times without reloading and I can deal with this. But in this movie, where Michael Paré takes a single thirty-eight handgun and fires it approximately fifty times nonstop without reloading once…well, at first I laughed, but even then it just became tiring. That would be the 'action.' A monster appears, people scream, Paré fires nonstop without reloading his gun once throughout the entire picture, and somebody gets eaten."Komodo vs. Cobra" is a very bad movie. The only thing in the movie that is worth mentioning in a charitable manner is an actress named Michelle Borth, who is not only very beautiful, but a surprisingly strong performer. Even with the trashy dialogue and lack of enthusiasm in the screenplay she was given, Michelle Borth managed to pull off a surprisingly good performance and it just appalls me that an actress as good as her can get stuck in a film as junky as this. She obviously took it for the paycheck, but it won't boost her career any, I'm afraid.$LABEL$ 0
+Yes, it feels, and for the most part plays like an "after school special", for a slightly more adult audience, alright maybe a teen audience. But add in Bill Murray (already showing some dramatic as well as his usual comedic talent), a nice supporting cast, and an unexpected sweetness about growing up, and remembering those great, or not so great days at summer camp, and you get a heartwarming, funny, sleeper hit.It does get a little too smarmy for its own good, but that is also one of its charms. When you hear the title "Meatballs", and see the poster, you expect a teenage sex romp, but what you get is a sentamental, yet sometimes sexy look back at those formative years at summer camp. The sentamentality, and the remberances of simpler times reminds me of "A Christmas Story", which I also love. The rememberances of summer camp were never so well stated. The only movie I've seen that comes close, is "Indian Summer", which I like almost as much as "Meatballs", and also stars Matt Craven. Let's hope he completes the trilogy. Maybe he could come back for "Return of the Meatballs", and bring some dignity back to the franchise (Meatballs 2 through 4 bare no resemblence to the original classic)."Meatballs" is easily on my Top 10 Guilty Pleasures of all time (not really guilty either). It's a wonderful little film, that always makes me smile.$LABEL$ 1
+I think this show is screamingly funny! It's not for every taste, and I'm not going to elevate or denigrate the folks that don't get it. I'm sure they're wonderful bright people that operate at a different wavelength. But if you like it, you REALLY like it. Sarah plays a self-infatuated loser named "Sarah Silverman" who often finds her self in Homerian predicaments (that's "Homerian" as in "Homerian Simpsonian").I remember Sarah Silverman from her brief gig on Saturday Night Live in the early 90's. I liked her immediately then and I go out of my way to check out anything she's done.This show is choke-on-your-food-and-wet-your-pants funny. Therefore I always fast before watching it and wear adult diapers. Check it out!$LABEL$ 1
+Okay, so there is a front view of a Checker taxi, probably late 1930s model. It has the great triangular shaped headlights. There also is a DeSoto cab in this black and white, character driven, almost a musical love gone wrong story.The real pleasure here is the look at 1940s room interiors and fashions and hotel elevators. The hair styles, male and female are gorgeous. If Dolly Parton had Victor Mature's hair she could have made it big. There is an artist loft that would be the envy of every Andy Warhol wannabe.If you watch this expecting a great Casablanca storyline or Sound of Music oom-pah-pah, you will be disappointed. There is a nice little story beneath the runway model approach in this film.My copy on DVD with another movie for $1 was very viewable. The title sequence was cute but not up there with Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World or The Pink Panther. This was an RKO movie but it did not have the nice airplane logo that RKO used to use.I liked Victor Mature in One Million, B.C., and Sampson and Delilah and especially in Violent Saturday. See if you can find that one. He was wonderful in the comedy with Peter Sellers called Caccia Alla Volpe or After The Fox.Richard Carlson went on to do I Led Three Lives on TV in the early 1950s.Vic Mature was offered the part of Sampson's father in the remake of Sampson and Delilah. He supposedly was asked if he would have any problems playing the part of the father since he was so well known as Sampson. Victor replied, "If the money is right, I'll play Sampson's mother." Tom Willett$LABEL$ 1
+The original Female Convict Scorpion is an all time masterpiece. The first sequel, Jailhouse 41, was not quite as good in my opinion, though it's still notable for the fact that it took the idea from the original and created something in a completely different style. Director Shunya Ito has managed to do the same thing again with this film; the story is a bit different here, but still he's managed to take what made the previous entries excellent and better than many films of this type and craft something fairly original around it. Again the action focuses on Nami Matsushima (a.k.a. "Scorpion") and this time she's out of the jailhouse and not too keen on the idea of going back. After escaping from pursuing police officers, one thing leads to another and Scorpion finds herself getting it together with a prostitute and her retarded brother. The prostitute ends up getting impregnated by the retarded brother (...), while Scorpion is kidnapped and caged up by someone who she made an enemy out of in prison. But Scorpion doesn't like spending time behind bars and it's not long before she's back to doing what she does best.The film gets off to a great start as we see Scorpion hack the arm off a copper intent on taking her back to jail. From there, however, the film slows down a lot and Beast Stable ends up being more of a drama than the previous two films. That's not to say that there isn't still plenty of action - Scorpion still spends a lot of time in 'revenge mode' and the film isn't exactly short on general sleaze. Meiko Kaji once again reprises her role as the sinister title character and it's another understated, almost wordless performance. Her screen presence is great, however and she manages to have a menacing presence despite being only small physically. The plot structure for this film is similar to the other two in that it all builds into a crescendo of revenge. There are more people who have angered Scorpion in this film than in the previous two so this section takes up a fairly large part of the film. There's a few surreal sequences, not as many as in the first film and nowhere near as in the second, but the film stays in with the rest of the series on that point. Overall, I would say this film is between the first two in terms of quality - not as great as the original and slightly better than the second.$LABEL$ 1
+1 thing. this movie sucks BIG TIME..i was into singaporean comedy when Chiken Rice war came along. But, this time, even Gurmit Singh (well-done) acting cant pull this one of. A total failure of following HK's Shaolin Soccer. Next time: do ur own thing!$LABEL$ 0
+Everything is idyllic in Suburbia when the little family moves in, as the father have got a new job in a computer company there. But no paradise would be complete without its snake. Strange things happens as the family joins the local country club without the husband, as it certainly holds secrets. The father is not a joiner, but pressure is on him to join, as everyone who is anything in the neighborhood and at work are members. Robert Urich's good guy part is a bit tepid, but Joanna Cassidy as good natured housewife turning nasty sizzles. Suspenseful and well-made chiller with a bitchy Susan Lucci as club chairperson. Look out for cult favorite Michael Berryman in a bit part as a valet. The movie captures the sense of paranoia and the special effects final is worth waiting for. I have seen this movie quite a few times.$LABEL$ 1
+Neil Simon's THE ODD COUPLE set up a model for many of his later plays. Felix Unger and Oscar Madison were the unsuitably paired roommates in the original, the former being picky and neat, the latter being slovenly and loose. Simon would rewrite (less successfully) the play in the 1990s as THE NEW ODD COUPLE, with female roommates. He made it a mixed couple (a woman with her daughter, and a man) in THE GOODBYE GIRLS. He also gave it an additional twist in 1973 with THE SUNSHINE BOYS, a Broadway hit starring Jack Alberson and Sam Levine as Al Lewis and Willie Clark, the aged, semi-retired Vaudevillians. Here the "apartment" problem is reduced to a teaming of two men who can't stand each other. The 1976 film starred Walter Matthau as Willie, and George Burns as Al.In actuality, Al probably does not think totally badly of Willie - Willie is pathological on the subject of Al. First Al had little habits, such as accidentally spitting slightly when pronouncing words beginning with the letter "t", and slightly jabbing Willie with his index finger, on stage. Secondly, Al retired when his wife died. Willie was not ready to retire (and has been forcing his nephew and agent, Ben (Richard Benjamin) to try to get him jobs in commercials. But Willie can't remember lines unless they are funny, and keeps flubbing them. So he rarely is able to stay to the end of a rehearsal for a commercial.Ben is asked to get the two back together for a live scene of their most famous sketch on a television show about American Comedy. He does bring Al to see Willie, and the sparks begin flying, as neither can figure out what the other is doing (and this is just in rehearsal. On top of that, Willie is insisting on changes (minor ones, but they throw off Al) such as saying "ENTER!!!" when Al knocks on the door. The initial rehearsal is a failure, but Ben manages to get them to the taping of the show. The question is if they will complete the scene in the finished program or will Willie wring Al's neck?The three leads, Matthau, Burns, and Benjamin, do very well with the one-liners, frequently reminiscent of vaudeville patter (example: "Chest pains...I'm getting chest pains Uncle Willie. Every Thursday I come here and get chest pains!" "So, come on Fridays!"). Benjamin strives to prove his deep affection for his uncle, although Matthau's rough outer shell makes it difficult (he only smooths down when he discusses the glory days of vaudeville). Matthau has a little better grasp on reality (at first) than Burns, who seems senile by his repeating himself - but in actuality Matthau's sense of rejection by the world that once applauded him make him less willing to behave properly. Burns is not senile - he takes things slowly. But he seems far happier in accepting his retirement.I call this a final "Voyage of Discovery" for our modern Lewis and Clark. Al and Willie transcend their old skits, as they gradually end up realizing that they have more in common in their old age than they thought. Even the irascible Willie admits that Al may be (to him) a pain in the ass, but he was a funny man.Burns was not the original choice for the part of "Al Lewis" (supposedly Dale of the team Smith and Dale). Jack Benny was. Benny probably would have done a good job, but ill-health forced him out (he died in 1975). Burns (whose last involvement in any film was in THE SOLID GOLD CADILLAC in 1956 as the narrator) turned in such a fine performance that he got the "Oscar" for best supporting actor, and was to have a career in movies in the next decade in such films as OH GOD!; OH GOD, YOU DEVIL; and GOING IN STYLE. He died in 1996 age 100, having proved that he was more than just a brilliant straight man for his wife Gracie Allan.$LABEL$ 1
+This astonishing waste of production money is filmic proof that the rich and famous can be just as stupid and wasteful as politicians. From a (silly) play by Tennessee Williams and directed (with a dead hand) by Joseph Losey and starring Taylor and Burton and Noel Coward - this project filmed in a spectacular cliff-top mountain island mansion in the Mediterranean must have seemed a sure fire winner when presented to Universal in 1967. The result is so absurd and tedious that it almost defies belief. Visually the film is spectacular but that is the force of nature that has allowed the setting and the fact that a real home is used instead of a set. The shrill antics of a screeching Taylor, Burton's half asleep wanderings, the loony dialog, Noel Coward laughing at himself, the ridiculous story and plot devices and the absurd costuming simply irritate the viewer. BOOM is a disgrace, a waste of money and talent and clear proof that lauded famous people can be idiots just like the rest of the planet's plebs. Not even fun. Just terrible and mad shocking waste.$LABEL$ 0
+This film is self indulgent rubbish. Watch this film if you merely want to hear spoken Gaelic or enjoy the pleasant soundtrack. Watch for any other reason and you will be disappointed. It should be charming but isn't - it's just irritating. The characters are difficult to care about and the acting is poor. The stories within the film are also charmless and sinister. I was expecting a heartwarming family film but this also held no appeal to my fourteen year old daughter. It is rarely that I cannot see a film through to its conclusion but this one got the better of both of us.Although the film is set in current times it has the look and feel of a cheap East European film made during the Cold War. There isn't even enough in the way of beautiful Scottish scenery and cinematography to redeem it. A real shame because as a film this is an embarrassment to Scotland.$LABEL$ 0
+A plot that is dumb beyond belief. However, that said, it must be admitted the lead actors go at their roles as though it were Shakespeare. And that is as it should be. It isn't their fault the writer seems to be in a coma.Hats off to what is really a very cunning performance by Joanna Kerns. She proves that just because it isn't on the page doesn't mean a role can't be seized and dug into. And she does so with gusto. Good for her.Ditto to Christine Elise who is called upon to be little more than confused and weepy, but goes way beyond what is asked of her by the script.And to Grant Show as well. A graduate of daytime and prime time soaps (Ryan's Hope, Melrose Place). He is always versatile and underrated. His primary drawback seems to be his impossible-to-ignore good looks. He is a sturdy, well grounded actor capable of much more than he is generally given the opportunity to do.The rest of the cast is basically window dressing.The direction is adequate and the script, as I alluded to, is fairly idiotic.Watch this one to enjoy three good actors in the leads taking delight in performing some much needed scenery chewing. It's fun.$LABEL$ 0
+Excellent movie in many aspects. Vicente Aranda has succeeded in depicting the time (1830) with meticulous care. The light, the places, the feeling, are perfectly perceived from the very start of the movie. And along with it -in opposite to what happened to "Mad Love" (Juana la Loca), a rather episodic historical movie- all of this beautiful photography/ music/ clothes is wrapping a very fluid screenplay that reaches its climax in the only possible way.Concerning the actors, Paz Vega as Carmen is outstanding: liar, seductive, agressive, totally sexual, so beautiful Carmen. Sbaraglia is a little less convincing the audience about his instant mad love for Carmen, but he succeeds in conveying the proper tragic mood to the whole movie. I recommend it to everyone: the best spanish movie of the year.$LABEL$ 1
+As a premise, this backwoods version of the Dead Calm storyline had promise.However, director Eric Red's inability to render a convincing hurricane leads to a deluge of continuity and lighting errors.Ultimately, the viewer is more spellbound by the bizarre weather effects than the intended storyline. Intermittent spates of ham-fisted over-direction are similarly distracting.Charles Dance, doing an 'inbred backwoods hardass' schtick, does his best to save the movie. But ultimately, Undertow squeals like a pig ... and has more ham to boot.$LABEL$ 0
+Mickey Rourke ( who was once a famous movie star ) plays Martin Fallon an IRA terrorist who accidentally blows up a school bus full of children who is so disgusted by his actions decides to leave the IRA and goes on the run in London !!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!The movie's opening is rather disturbing as the lives of little children are ended in a fireball . Things like this happened throughout the 1970s and 1980s and into the 1990s in Northern Ireland which gives A PRAYER FOR THE DYING a stark realism . However as soon as Fallon decides he's going to give up violence ( What ? He's a terrorist and he's never blown up innocent passerbys before ? ) realism disappears and clichés and ridiculous plot twists take place . Martin is employed by the London underworld ( Don't they have their own hit men ? )to commit a hit while he wears an IRA " uniform " ( Never knew the provos wore uniforms ) at a cemetery in broad daylight ( Wouldn't an IRA man use a bomb placed under a car ? ) where he's spotted by a priest who recognises him while he was in the SAS . Hands up who thinks I'm lying ? I'm not and we're half way through the running time and there's still several clichés to come This all sounds very silly and it is but what do you expect from a novel by Jack Higgins ? Everything is clichéd , contrived and stereotypical and the bits that aren't are just plain bizarre . The critics slaughtered this movie when it came out , most notably they stated that it might have some potential if the movie had Bob Hoskins playing gangster Jack Meehan and Alan Bates playing the SAS soldier turned priest and for once the critics would have been right . They should also noted the film might have been less dire if Fallon was played by someone who was capable of doing an Irish accent . Rourke might be hunky and macho ( Oh gawd another movie with an IRA uberhunk ) but accents aren't his strong point any more than character acting is . To give you an idea how disappointing PRAYER FOR THE DYING IS the director ended up disowning it which is always a bad sign As a footnote the original release of PRAYER FOR THE DYING in Britain was delayed for several months because of " The Enniskillen bombing " . In November 1987 the Provisional IRA exploded a bomb in the centre of Enniskillen where a Remembrance Day parade which commemorates Britain's war dead was being held . Eleven ( 11 ) people were killed and scores more injured . It wasn't an accident and no one left the IRA because of it$LABEL$ 0
+In the literal sense....Reminds you of those "cops-and-robber" or cowboys-indians" role-playing games you played with your 8 year old friends. Tedious and un-inspired, the storyline was obviously written to make bad acting and dialogue seem as part of the plot, but all it does is showcase it. I cant believe John Badham let his name be associated with this piece of crap. This could have been done better by a high school film buff who had been given the camera lighting, filmstock and editingDestined to be a time-filler on Sci-fi channel, when they've overused everything else from their library, and barely better than the paid programming shill downstream.$LABEL$ 0
+1. Aliens resemble plush toys and hand puppets, while having arms that don't function.2. Aliens mastered intergalactic space travel, but they don't know how to push an unlocked vault door open, yet can push open a door being held shut by five people.3. Old Security Guards know how to get a hold of C4, and are just waiting for the right time to use it, say, when they are suddenly fired for no explainable reason.4. Apparently, US Army boot camp, in the 80's, involved several sessions of "garden tool combat", including the pirouette spin of death.5. To impress your prudish girl friend, you have to "save the world...err...neighborhood" from aliens.6. All women are sluts, either openly or secretly.7. Scummy night clubs look like bad diners.8. "Scummy" waitresses double as dancers for The Fontanelles (how did they get talked into this?) who can only do bad 60's dance moves.9. Army privates secretly dream of being Rambo.10. Grenades apparently have a setting for "flash-bang". 11. Being burned alive apparently only leaves one with minor burns on their arms.12. US Army Staff Sargeants apparently happen to always be in the area and do nothing about aliens in the area.13. Aliens apparently always "go home", which means back to the vault they were un-locked in.14. Aliens are attracted to bright lights, which apparently means in the Los Angeles area one would assume, the protagonist's house is the most brightly lit thing in the area.15. Showing 16 parking scenes in a movie makes the audience clamor for more.16. Vans from the 80's apparently have horrible suspension systems.17. Comedy is supposed to happen in this film.18. Horror is supposed to happen in this film.19. Spoofs and homages are supposed to happen in this film.20. This film cures insomnia.21. Apparently, garden tools make electronic keyboard noises whenever they are used, not just in fights (tell me I'm not the only one who noticed this).The simply truth is this film just came out wrong. Period. There isn't much meat on the bone, nor does it do anything really well. Even average. It's just bad. However, I've seen far worse, and the rake fight scene is pure comedy gold, intentional or otherwise.2/10 - Jaws 4 was worse then this. At least the film never took itself seriously.$LABEL$ 0
+I would give this movie high marks for the cinema-photography and performances. I just read a user comment concerning the performance of the actress who plays a conniving courtesan who fleeces Sinuoeh, the lead character. I remember a mini-biography of this actress following the movie the last time I saw it. Apparently, she was a Holocaust refugee, discovered by a French husband and wife in the movie industry who were taken with her extraordinary beauty. She died very young and under tragic circumstances. Gene Tierney is also outstanding in this film. Like other neo-Biblical films of the 1940's and 50s, "The Egyptian" reflects the morals and values of that time, but is still great entertainment because the performances are terrific and the story so well told.$LABEL$ 1
+One of the worst movie I have seen in 2009 so far: The story hesitates between a silly thriller or a dumb comedy.As nothings happens, the void is filled with long, boring dialogs that don't make any sense! The cast is famous but doesn't bring any emotions except to fast-forward the play! And it happens in a plush seaside hotel that looks really gloomy. In comparison, the one of the "Shining" is funfair! NB: a lot of users think that it is located in the French Riviera! They are wrong! It isn't the south of France (Nice, Cannes) but totally the opposite: Cabourg & Normandy, to be simple the beaches of the D-Day! That's why the sea is as grey as the sky and there isn't sun!$LABEL$ 0
+i had no idea what this movies was about, it jumps from plot line to plot line erratically linking incoherent ideas with one another. it simply doesn't make sense. the chopped up time line doesn't help either. we start in present day get a flash back to the past and then return to the future only to go back into the past.this movie is also filled with horrible sappy lines and cliché themes such as princess and the pauper, "you cant have me even in my death" lines, "you don't even love me enough" line. cliché to the max!fighting scene were horribly corny, lighting was constantly misplaced which offset the CG with the actors (meanning you could tell some of the backgrounds were clearly CG). Although the society in di moon was quite interesting.i wouldn't really recommend his to anyone, avoid if possible.if you found this comment hard to follow, the movie would be equally as bad.$LABEL$ 0
+The folks at Aardman have done a cool, cute and wild adaptation of their short films of Wallace and Gromit to feature length, as the man and his dog, inventors who seem to have more of the intelligence (or practicality) for the latter. In this case they've invented a machine that can capture all of the bunnies that are eating up the crops all over a quiet English village. In particular for Mrs. Tottington (or 'Totty' for those who are 'intimate'), much to the chagrin of Victor Quartermaine, who just wants to kill all the rabbits with his trust rifle. Wallace and Gromit seem to have success with their machine, but Wallace has a mix-up: a machine he's made to make more food suddenly criss-crosses himself with a rabbit - the curse is on! A lot of this is about as much light-hearted fun that a kid's movie could ask for, but it also tips its hat to the oldest tradition in classic cartoon slapstick: Looney Tunes, which in turn is indebted to much silent comedy and vaudeville. Granted, the Aardman guys (Nick Park and Steve Box) have a bunch more gimmicks and tricks and ingenuity with their material. It's never less than amazing to see how they put the stop motion to use, even when a joke or a gag might be a little on the funny "ho-ho" not funny "ha-ha" side (a tired criticism but I'll say it). Curse of the Were-Rabbit works so well on all fronts for the audience, in its warped story and sudden dips into exposition (the Golden Bullet story is a doozy), Park and Box and company never lose sight of glee in the material.It's fuzzy and warm-hearted and completely off-the-wall for the kids (even the very youngest will love the adventures and strange gadgets, such as the truck Wallace and Gromit drive around in), and for adults there's little barbs of funky, absurdist tones in the midst of a classic English farce. Only (and I'm probably a minority opinion here) when compared to Chicken Run it's almost a little slight a work- there's less any plot than there is a series of running gags, and of course lots of puns involving bunnies and monsters and carnivals and cheese (and horrible men with egos in their guns like the Fiennes voiced Quartermaine). But when it strikes best, it's one of the most entertaining films of 2005. It gives me a big goofy smile anytime it's on TV.$LABEL$ 1
+Another weak third-season entry, 'Is There In Truth No Beauty?' nonetheless has at least one key plot element that is very different and as Spock would say, fascinating. The main character is an alien who must be carried around in a black box because his appearance is so horrendous that it drives humans insane. It's too bad the episode cannot live up to this incredible premise. Obviously, I think, it was a mistake to ever 'show' the alien, as its actual visage in no way even approximates such a daunting build-up; all we get is the standard Star Trek psychedelic light display used for any number of things in different episodes, usually when the ship is passing through a magnetic storm or something similar. In any event, Kollos' appearance can at least be tolerated by Mr. Spock, and then only if Spock is wearing a special visor. (For the longest time, I thought the alien's name was 'Carlos,' which I found humorous, but I digress.) Spock is required to mind-meld with Kollos at one point so that the alien can pilot the Enterprise back to safety. This is accomplished, but when Spock/Kollos go back to end the mind-meld, by golly, Spock forgets his visor. Uh oh. He goes crazy but eventually recovers with the help of Kollos' assistant, a blind woman with psychic powers. This might have been a really bizarre, excellent episode but it is poorly directed and comes across as yet one more badly executed show of the series' last season.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is trash-poor. It has horrible taste, and is pedestrian and unconvincing in script although supposedly based on real-events - which doesn't add much of anything but make it more of a disappointment. Direction is not well done at as scenes and dialogue are out-of-place. Not sure what Robin Williams saw in this character or story. To start, Williams is not convincing as a gay in a relationship breakup nor is the relationship itself interesting. What's worse, his character is compelled by an ugly pedophile story that is base and has no place as a plot device. You have an older Rory Culkin tastelessly spouting "d_ck_smker" - in good fun- which is annoying enough and then laughed up by the Williams character. Finally you have Sandra Oh as a guardian angel adviser to Williams and a thrown in explanation of the whole fiasco towards the end. Toni Collete's character is just plain annoying and a re-hash of her 6th Sense performance with poorer direction. Very Miss-able.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie "Vampires: The Turning" isn't even really worth the 2 out of 10 I'm giving it. The movie, is very predictable from beginning, up to the very end when our hero kills the leader of the Vampire Slayers. The use of music in this movie was even bad, it kept playing as if you were to expect something significant to happen at any second, though it never did. The acting, was B-Rank at best... And the movie was just, dull. The only reason I give this movie a 2 out of 10 is because the story, had potential though it ended up unable to deliver. Oh, and did I mention the wardrobe? The wardrobe for this movie was obviously cheap to "non-existent" because our hero, and his girlfriend (whom he's trying to save throughout the entire movie) wear the same outfits through the entire movie. I'd suggest this film only if your really bored, and don't have a good wall with fresh paint to watch dry. ~Dave, the Horror Cowboy$LABEL$ 0
+A new guard in in the armored truck gig is recruited by his co-workers to steal 42 million from the truck. No bad guys, so no one will get hurt, right? Of course things go wrong and the new guard decides to have a conscience and make things right by saving the life of a dying man.I'll admit that I didn't really have any interest in this film, but I didn't have any interest in Fantastic Mr Fox either, and that film made my top ten of the year. Armored is even more of a disappointment then I thought it would be. As a heist film, it fails to deliver the goods, it's boring and full of plot holes and leaps in logic that one will hurt themselves thinking about it.Despite this the film somehow has a really great cast, but the film doesn't even use this to it's advantage. Everyone seems wasted in wooden characters that make stupid choices. Columbus Short is an uninteresting lead that is never charismatic and never makes the audience want to give a crap. Matt Dillon is the mastermind behind the heist and he plays Mr. Nice Guy at first, then when things don't go his way he quickly becomes the villain. The rest of the impressive cast include Lawrence Fisburn, Jean Reno, Skeet Ulrich, Fred Ward, Amaury Nolasco from Prison Break and Milo Ventimiglia from Heros. Non of them do much and when they actually do something, it's without much reasoning behind it.The film is relatively short, but even with it's running time under 90 minutes, it felt dragged out. How long can you make a movie about a guy trapped somewhere? Phonebooth did a decent job and it was even more restricted. The leaps of logic concerning the plot here are tragic. 42 million and all the security they have are check ins every hour or so? The entire plan from my understanding was to drive the trucks into an abandoned warehouse and hide the money. Pretend to get hit and burn the trucks. They would then walk away with the money. Of course something goes wrong, or there would be no movie right? Through a series of unfortunate events out so called hero has trapped himself inside the truck with an injured officer. The rest of the movie is Dillion and his crew banging on the doors to get in. How very exciting.The script calls for our hero to have financial problems, he might lose his house, which would in turn make him lose his brother. You see, both their parents died and it's just the two of them looking out for each other. So now he has a reason to join the heist. At first he didn't want in, but his money problems is just the right push to throw him in the thick of things. How convenient. Armored's whole spin on the heist genre is that it's from an armored truck, from the guys who drive it. After that basic premise, the film falls flat on it's face. I found myself wanting it to end sooner and sooner each time someone spoke. Speaking of the ending, it sucks. Skip it.$LABEL$ 0
+For a really wonderful movie, you could also try seeing the movie about Saint Francis of Assisi - good for any audience. Best thing I liked about this movie was the Mexico landscape, & it gets the movie up to a 2. I was surprised that these actors didn't have terrible sunburn, they were so were not desert dwellers. And Moses is said to have a speakING impediment, but certainly not here. Even the "miracle" scenes were contrived & un-believable. And what's the point if you can belief anything in a TV story? Talk about dumbing down, I thought this Hallmark-made movie was pathetic, & I can see why others hate Hollywood. I don't, just some of these corporate profit grubbers. You don't have to be any kind of religious to benefit from "Jesus of Nazareth", but for this waste of celluloid you need to be bored, with nothing to do, dumbed-down & religious. And for a real movie experience, try "Short Cut to Nirvana", a very highly rated film.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw the movie last night here at home, but I thought it was too long first of all. Second, the things I saw in the movie were way too out of text to even have in this what I thought was going to be a comedy type movie like the rest before. The things isn't funny in the movie: fiancé hitting his girlfriend, beatings. The movie was way too long--talk about wanting to go to sleep and wondering when it will end when you wake up and still have it playing! Some of the things at the reunion were too much to capture--like the lady singing--i felt like i was almost watching a spiritual song show here! come on Perry, you can do better then this!$LABEL$ 0
+DOes anyone know where or how i can get a copy of this film?!! I've been searching for way too long, someone help! Back in 1997 my girlfriends and i were extras on this Long Island based film, and we actually never got to see it. :( i was hoping i could find a copy somehow so i can finally check it out, and share it with the girls! Is there anyone out there who knows where to get a copy of this, so i can stop driving myself crazy? (also, it doesn't matter if its in in VHS format, i'm still in the ice age myself.) If you, or anyone you know, has a copy of this film please help, i would be willing to pay for a good copy of it!$LABEL$ 1
+This show was not only great human drama but portrayed racism in this country in a raw, all too true to life manner. When one show can be so witty and entertaining and yet so poignant and educational all at once, this is television in its highest form. The acting was phenomenal. The writing was exceptional. Not only did the show portray race relations in a straightforward manner that seems unmatched by any other television series, but its ability to depict this subject matter as it existed in the 1960's alongside how it exists in the beginning of the twenty-first century powerfully demonstrates the ways we have changed, and sadly, the many more ways we have not.$LABEL$ 1
+A young couple -- father Ben (solid Charles Bateman), wife Nicky (the lovely Ahna Capri) and their daughter KT (the cute Geri Reischl of "I Dismember Mama" fame) -- find themselves trapped in a small California desert town populated by hysterical lunatics. Worse yet, there's a pernicious Satanic cult that's been abducting little children for their own diabolical purposes. Director Bernard McEveety, working from an offbeat and inspired script by William Welch and L.Q. Jones ("Devil Times Five" director Sean MacGregor came up with the bizarre story), relates the compellingly oddball plot at a slow, yet steady pace and ably creates a creepy, edgy, mysterious ooga-booga atmosphere. Strother Martin delivers a wonderfully wicked and robust performance as Doc Duncan, who's the gleefully sinister leader of the evil sect. The top-rate cast of excellent character actors qualifies as a substantial asset: Jones as gruff, no-nonsense Sheriff Hillsboro, Alvy Moore as friendly local Toby, and Charles Robinson as a shrewd, fiercely devout priest Jack. John Arthur Morrill's bright, polished widescreen cinematography, Jamie Mendoza-Nava's spooky score, and the wild, rousing climactic black mass ritual are all likewise up to speed. The idea of having toys come to murderous life is simply ingenious (the opening scene with a toy tank coming real and crushing a family in their car is truly jolting). Nice eerily ambiguous ending, too. A pleasingly idiosyncratic and under-appreciated winner.$LABEL$ 1
+Absolutely nothing is redeeming about this total piece of trash, and the only thing worse than seeing this film is seeing it in English class. This is literally one of the worst films I have ever seen. It totally ignores and contradicts any themes it may present, so the story is just really really dull. Thank god the 80's are over, and god save whatever man was actually born as "James Bond III".$LABEL$ 0
+If you're a T-Rex/Marc Bolan fan, I recommend you check this out. It shows a whimsical side of Marc Bolan as well as Ringo Starr, apparently having a pretty good time shooting some of the scenes that aren't part of the concert, but fun to watch, leaving you with a sense of getting to know them as just people, and when the concert is shown a talented musician, both playful and professional that rocks and seems to impress the screaming girls. Watching him in concert, you would never know that being a rock star is a job, but just having a great time playing some great songs with some good friends, like Elton John and Ringo Starr appearing in some of the live performances. True, there are a few songs missing that I would like to have seen on there, but like any album it can't have everything. I just bought this in 2006, but if I would have know it came out in 1972, I would have definitely bought it years ago. Sad and strange that a man with so many songs about his love for cars, would never learn to drive and would die in a car crash!$LABEL$ 1
+I was at the same screenwriters conference and saw the movie. I thought the writer - Sue Smith - very clearly summarised what the film was about. However, the movie really didn't need explanation. I thought the themes were abundantly clear, and inspiring. A movie which deals with the the ability to dare, to face fear - especially fear passed down from parental figures - and overcome it and, in doing so, embrace life's possibilities, is a film to be treasured and savoured. I enjoyed it much more than the much-hyped 'Somersault.' I also think Mandy62 was a bit unkind to Hugo Weaving. As a bloke about his vintage, I should look so good! I agree that many Australian films have been lacklustre recently, but 'Peaches' delivers the goods. I'm glad I saw it.$LABEL$ 1
+From the very opening scene you will notice just how hard they tried to mimic the very smart and powerful 'Cruel Intentions', and how flat it landed. You'll also notice what a terrible choice they made by casting Robin Dunne as Valmont... Then in the second scene, you meet the two best things in this movie, Amy Adams and Mimi Rogers as Kathryn and her mother. That is, if you can get past the fact that Kathryn wasn't blonde in the first film... Then the movie goes on, you see the cheap romantic story from miles ago, and you notice Sebastian has already met an Anette in the past, here called Danielle, and a Cecile, here called Cherie... How original is that for a prequel. Then it turns into a low budget 'Wild Things' type of film with lots and lots of oh-my "twists". As I mentioned, Robin Dunne was a very bad choice. Not that he is a bad actor, he's good.. He just doesn't have the charisma Ryan did. Amy Adams, who is in my opinion one of the most talented young actresses of our time, once again delivers. But with all the talent in the world, there is no way one could save this trash. As a whole, this "movie" feels like a 'Beverly Hills, 90210' episode. The score has been stolen from 'Cruel Intentions' and 'Jawbreaker'... Yes, they used the score from JAWBREAKER... Couldn't they at least leave that one alone?! You'll want to pass this one. If you want more Cruel Intentions, watch Stephen Frears' Dangerous Liaisons.$LABEL$ 0
+"The Chipmunk Adventure" is one of the greatest animated movies of the 1980's. Alvin and the Chipmunks have always been of some interest to me, since they were what really got me into rock and roll. Neither one of the Chipmunks has any bad traits. Alvin's really the star and has all the cool looks. Theodore is the lovable sensitive one. Then there's Simon (my personal favorite), the smart one who is often a party pooper. I also like the Chipettes a lot. There's Brittany, who, like Alvin, is one who is always trying to be so popular. Then there's Eleanor, who, like Theodore, is sweet, sensitive, and loves food. Janette is the only Chipette who is not much like her counterpart; she's very naive and really clumsy.In the Chipmunks' very first full-length movie, David Seville is going on a business trip to Europe, and he's leaving the boys with Miss Miller while he's gone. While playing an arcade game, Alvin loses against Brittany and then says that if he had the money, he'd race Brittany around the world for real. Unbeknownest to the kids, a man named Klaus Furschtien and his sister, Claudia, who have been trying to come up with a sneaky way to deliver diamonds around the world in exchange for cash, overheard this conversation and said that they'd let them race around the world for $100,000. Alvin and Brittany accept it and go on the race.This adventurous movie has a lot of great songs. "Off to See the World" made for an appropriate theme song for the movie. Then there is "Getting Lucky", one of my favorite songs in the movie. "My Mother" is most likely the sappiest song in the movie, but it always makes me cry. "Wooly Bully" is the only cover song used in the movie (the rest were completely original). Then, of course, there's "The Boys and Girls of Rock and Roll", which, in my opinion, has to be one of the greatest musical numbers in movie history.I used to watch this movie very often, until my recorded tape of it died. I still watch the movie, though. This is actually a fun movie for people who are about to go on a vacation to a foreign country for the first time. It'll give you an idea of what kind of stuff you'd expect out of world travel. Definitely one of my childhood movies, and one that I'd recommend to 80's fans and Alvin & the Chipmunks fans.$LABEL$ 1
+If you can watch a Bond film from 1983 that isn't as good as Octopussy and still enjoy it.If you can accept production values which aren't that much above the level of a TV movie.If you can look at Sean Connery with wrinkles on his forehead beneath an obvious toupée and still see James Bond.If you can get past an inexperienced Basinger, a weaker Largo and a jolly Q.If you can learn to love an idiosyncratic score, not up there with Barry on his worst day.If you don't believe the hyperbolic reviews that it was greeted with on release.If you can meet a poker battle and a video game face off and enjoy them both the same.Yours is Never Say Never Again and everything that's in it.And, what is more, you'll probably enjoy it, my son!$LABEL$ 1
+While in the barn of Kent Farm with Shelby waiting for Chloe, Clark is attacked and awakes in a mental institution in the middle of a session with Dr. Hudson. The psychologist tells him that for five years he has been delusional, believing that he has come from Krypton and had superpowers. Clark succeeds to escape, and meets Lana, Martha and Lex that confirm the words of Dr. Hudson. Only Chloe believe on his words, but she is also considered insane. Clark fights to find the truth about his own personality and origin."Labyrinth" is undoubtedly the most intriguing episode of "Smallville". The writer was very luck and original denying the whole existence of the powerful boy from Krypton. The annoying hum gives the sensation of disturbance and the identity mysterious saver need to be clarified. My vote is nine.Title (Brazil): "Labirinto" ("Labyrinth")$LABEL$ 1
+This was allocated to the fans as the "winner takes all" match occurred between two separate "companies" (the World Wrestling Federation and the "Alliance": an amalgamation of former WCW and ECW superstars. Because the final match to duduce the superior company was a tag-team match, the wrestlers were confined to tossing opponents from each side of the ring to another; each wrestler concludes that in order to debiliate their opponents and to intensify the match, interfernce is necessary. Each wrestler merely pummels an opponent with punches, executes a special move, and tags in a partner. The storyline had previously been tarnished by the subterfuge of Vince that a member of the Allance would be fradulent and join the WWF. It was obvious, with that statement, that the WWF would prevail. Overall: very innovative storyline but poor execution, which is not the scarcity of the wrestlers because the match format is tag-team. The remaining matches are just revolting:Edge versus Test: potent "big boot" by Test, but this did not display the true talents of both starsAl Snow Versus Christian: good match but superflous to the pay-per-viewTaji versus William Regal: the worst match of the nightImmunity Battle Royal: This was an outstandingly fun match to watch, but because the main stars of both companies were involved in the main event, only a wrestler who characteristically appears on "Heat" and is probably a WCW light-heavyweight reject (i.e. the Hurricane who is merely hired as an entertainer)Hardy Boyz Versus Dudley Boyz: The best match of the night: Jeff Hardy executed a "Swanton Bomb" from the summit of a cage and through a wooden table and Matt was wedged into the cage, which appeared to be extremely painful.Because Stone Cold was the WWF champion, Rob Van Dam was the Hardcore Champion, and Kurt Angle was a "mole" in the alliance, all fundamental stars in the main event on the faction of "the Alliance" were granted work after the match's outcome, except for Booker T., who recently attacked a wrestler on "Raw" and will inevitably be given work. Shane McMahon will return to television somehow, and everyone desired to witness the downfall and demise of "the Alliance" to see Stone Cold out of work. The WWF has done much better. A match in which all tiltes were brought to one faction would have been better, and what ever became of Casket and Iron Man matches?$LABEL$ 0
+This movie offers NOTHING to anyone. It doesn't succeed on ANY level. The acting is horrible, dull long-winded dribble. They obviously by the length of the end sex scene were trying to be shocking but just ended up being pretty much a parody of what the film was aiming for. Complete garbage, I can't believe what a laughable movie this was. And I'm very sure Rosario Dawson ended up in this film cause she though this would be her jarring break away indi hit, a wowing NC-17 movie. The problem is no adult is going to stick with this film as the film plays out like a uninteresting episode of the OC or something aimed at teens. Pathetic.$LABEL$ 0
+Che: Part One was a fascinating experiment, which did not only tell a very interesting story, but it also tried to do something different with the "biopic" genre.Che: Part Two is the excellent culmination of this experiment.This movie offers all of the same attributes from the first one, from the extraordinary performances (specially from Benicio del Toro) to Steven Soderbergh's brilliant direction, without forgetting its intention of breaking with the conventional rules from the biopics.That is what I admire from Soderbergh's experiments...they always try to do something different and unusual, and they succeed most of the times.The final message from this film is perfect, and it includes everything we have been told about Che Guervara's life.The only fail I found on Che: Part Two is that a few parts felt a bit irrelevant.In summary, I give Che: Part Two a very enthusiastic recommendation because, as the first one, it is a brave and fascinating experiment which challenges the spectator and leaves us thinking.$LABEL$ 1
+As much as I dislike saying 'me too' in response to other comments - it's completely true that the first 30 minutes of this film have nothing whatsoever to do with the endless dirge that comprises the following 90.Having been banned somewhere doesn't make a film watchable. Just because it doesn't resemble a Hollywood product does not make it credible.Worse yet, in addition to no discernible plot (other than there are lots of muddy places in Russia and many people, even very old women, drink lots of vodka) a number of visuals are so unnecessarily nauseating I'm in to my second package of Rolaids.As for spoilers - well, the film is so devoid of any narrative thread I couldn't write one if I tried.Don't waste your time or money, and don't confuse this with good Russian cinema.$LABEL$ 0
+Before seeing this, I was merely expecting another mediocre soft core copy of the much imitated "Emmanuelle" series starring Sylvia Kristel. It was really surprising how good this one turned out to be. It actually has a story, and it is very romantic indeed. What makes 'Yellow Emanuelle' so good is it's leading heroine, the beautiful and exotic Chai Lee. She plays her character, Emy Wong so sweetly, that the viewer just has to feel something for her when her dreams crash down around her. Emy Wong is a much-respected doctor, statuesque, with a regal quality. She comes from an important old family, where ancient customs are still practiced. Emy will remain a virgin until she is married, to a man she has never met. The beautiful doctor seems OK with this arranged marriage. It is simply how it is done in her world. However she does not plan on meeting and falling in love with the British pilot who ends up under her care in the hospital where she works. Emy decides to do away with custom, and she gives herself to her Western man. But only after a very long courtship, as Doctor Wong is anything but an easy woman. Her pilot, George, is a good guy, and promises to marry Emy, so that she doesn't lose her respectability and place in her rigid society. Neither one counts on a third party, one Ilona Staller, who destroys their relationship through a series of vicious games. Emy is made to believe that she has been abandoned by her man, that he only played a game with her in order to sleep with her. Her place in society is gone, she has been debased. The film takes a surprisingly dramatic and depressing turn as this proud, elegant woman gives up her career, as well as a sweet relationship with her caring father, and succumbs to a life of drinking and prostitution. I was surprised to find myself so engrossed in this operatically tragic tale. I was on the edge of my seat when George blows back into town, and unknowingly walks into a hotel where his beautiful Emy is working as a prostitute! Classic drama. I imagine many viewers were a bit frustrated by all this drama. One would expect lots of sex and nudity here, but there is not much. And when there is, it is totally non-exploitative, and very artsy and soft-core. If you are a fan of the first Emmanuelle, with Sylvia Kristel, than you most likely will appreciate this, lesser known classic. I was especially impressed by the extra attention to details. The whole segment where Emy takes George to her fathers house on the island is really nice. Her father shows George, and the viewer his impressive collection of Bonzai trees. He has a whole miniature forest built out of these amazing trees. Totally unexpected. After catching it on late night cable TV years ago, I spent much time searching the internet for a copy of the film. When i finally got it i found that the video version was longer. More sex? No, more melodrama. For the DVD release there is a subplot about George suddenly keeling over with some unknown deadly disease! I actually preferred the cable version better. I am glad that this rare gem has been released finally on DVD. I must also mention the beautiful cinematography and the bizarre and catchy 70's soundtrack. While watching this one you just get the feeling that you are watching something very rare, and quite special. I recommend it to thoughtful viewers who don't need sex and violence to maintain their interest.$LABEL$ 1
+Wonderful romance comedy drama about an Italian widow (Cher) who's planning to marry a man she's comfortable with (Danny Aiello) until she falls for his headstrong, angry brother (Nicholas Cage). The script is sharp with plenty of great lines, the acting is wonderful, the accents (I've been told) are letter perfect and the cinematography is beautiful. New York has never looked so good on the screen. A must-see primarily for Cher and Olympia Dukakis--they're both fantastic and richly deserved the Oscars they got. A beautiful, funny film. A must see!$LABEL$ 1
+***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Released in 1956,and considered quite racy at the time, Douglas Sirk's over the top candy colored melodrama is still a wonderful thing. The plot concerns the goings on in an oil rich dysfunctional Texas family that includes big brother Kyle, who is insecure, weak, wounded & very alcoholic, played by Robert Stack in a very touching & vulneable performance and his sluty sister Marylee played in an extreme manner by Dorothy Malone. Ms. Malone's performance is telegraphed to us via her eyes, which she uses to show us her emotions, which mostly consist of lust (for Rock Hudson) and jealousy (for Lauren Bacall). Malone is the only actress I've ever seen in movies who enters a room eyes first. Now don't get me wrong, her performance to say the least is an absolute hoot, and is one of the supreme camp acting jobs of the 1950's. But it is also terrible, because as likeable and attractive as Malone is,she's not a very good actress, and she's not capable of subtly or shading. Her performace is of one note. She does get to do a wicked Mambo,and in a great montage, as unloving daddy played by the always good Robert Keith falls to his death climbing a staircase, Sirk mixes it up with an almost mad Malone doing a orgasmic dance as she undresses. Stack,(who should have won an Oscar) & Malone, (who won the award, but shouldn't have) are the real stars of the film, the ones who set all the hysteria, both sexual & otherwise in motion, while the "real stars" of the film, Hudson & Bacall fade to grey & brown,which are the colors that they are mainly costumed in. Hudson who was a better actor then given credit for plays the childhood & best friend of Stack's, and the stalked love interest of Malone's who moans & groans over Rock through most of the film. But Hudson wants no part of her,and instead is in love with Bacall who is married to Stack. No one is very happy & no one is happy for very long. The Stack-Bacall marriage falls apart big time after a year, and Stack pretty much drinks himself into oblivion because he thinks he is sterile, and can't give Bacall a baby to prove that he's a man. Sirk who was a very intelligent man, and had a long & fascinating career both in films and theatre in Germany, ended his Hollywood career at Universal in the mid 1950's with a series of intense vividly colored "women's movies" or melodramas. Although they were mainly adapted from medicore or trashy source material,in Sirk's hands they became masterpieces of the genre. Sirk had a wonderful sense of color & design which he brought to play in these films filling his wide screen spaces with characters who played out their emotional lives among weird color combinations & lighting, make believe shadows, and lots of mirroed reflections. In "Written" the characters are always peeking out of windows, listening at doors or sneaking around. So in the end, after much violence, an accidental murder, a miscarriage & more Sirk ends the movie with a final & startling scene of a "reborn" and reformed Malone in a man-tailored suit, sitting at a desk foundling a miniature oilwell.$LABEL$ 1
+An interesting movie with Jordana Brewster as a young woman who travels to Europe in an attempt to find out what became of her older sister (Cameron Diaz) who mysteriously died years earlier. Brewster is very good and keeps you involved despite some unrealistic plotting, such as having her amazinly find and start a romance with her dead sister's much older boyfriend (Christopher Eccleston). Still, mostly good. GRADE: B$LABEL$ 1
+[I saw this movie once late on a public tv station, so I don't know if it's on video or not.]This is one of the "Baby Burlesks" (sic) that Shirley Temple did in the early 1930s. It is hard to believe that anyone would let their daughter be in this racy little film which today might just be considered this side of "kiddie porn".Shirley Temple stars in a cast which probably has an average age of 5. They are all in diapers, and are in a saloon which serves milk instead of alcohol. The "cash" is in the form of lollipops.Shirley playing a "femme fatale" sashays up to the bar and talks to soldiers who make suggestive comments about her (!). But Shirley doesn't need really their lollipops/cash because her purse is full of ones from other "men".Meanwhile a little black boy does a suggestive dance on a nearby table (!).What a strange film . . . infants using racy dialogue playing adult roles in a saloon. Who thought up this stuff any way?$LABEL$ 0
+Duck_of_Death needs to watch this film again, as his major criticism is completely baseless. The film never once forgot about the time delay, and it was mentioned explicitly in a couple of places. The crew were never shown having conversations with mission control that didn't obey the time delay rules.One thing I did think was a bit far-fetched was the amount of risk involved - would a crew land on a planet on which pressure suits would only last two hours? I doubt it. Would a manned space ship go into a star's corona? I doubt it. Would humans land on a moon that was being bombarded with huge amounts of radiation? I doubt it. Also, the ship seemed overly sturdy. Would a ship designed like that risk atmospheric flight to slow it down? I doubt it. Would it survive being hit by comet debris? I doubt it. I think in both cases the stresses on the structure would be too much. But all-in-all, the unlikely scenarios were compensated by some nicely done special effects, good editing and production, and some good acting, especially by the actors portraying the ship's commander and the Russian cosmonaut.$LABEL$ 1
+I don't remember this film getting a cinema release over here. I only saw it when it came onto cable. The film deals with the dehumanisation of children into killing machines. Specifically one person, the way he gets replaced and dumped (literally) into an off-world community where he finds himself unable to cope with coming to terms with who he really is and what he feels.Seems to me that a lot of people expected this to be Rambo in space, and would have been happy if it was.I'm certainly happy it was'nt - Kurt does a fine job of portraying an emotional cripple. The scene where he's sitting outside the compound shows this, albeit the decision for two slow-mo replays detracts from the moment.This is not a classic SF movie in the way that Bladerunner, Alien, Silent running, Logan's run or THX1138 were, however it is unfortunately the nearest I've seen to it in a long time.He changes in the movie to a believable degree, he does'nt crack Arnie one liners, he does'nt become Snake Plissken and there is no definative happy ending.That's why this film did'nt do well. It did'nt follow formula, and among a 18-25 year old target American audience, that's unforgivable as it was was'nt what they expected to see.Fear and discipline.Always.$LABEL$ 1
+However, the ladies of all ages will lap it up, no doubt; at least the opposite sex understand what it is to be a mother, and most of us men try to fathom out what it is to be a father. Whether changing nappies is not at all my favourite occupation and trying to get those bottled baby-foodstuffs into errant toothless mouths must rank very high on household duties preferably left to its mother, has absolutely nothing to do with the matter.Some good interpretations here, and a good story idea; the handling of the matter, limited to rather scanty TV-production concepts, gives the film a rather over-mellowy taste with not much new to offer. An insipid way of delivering the goods, and in the end the outcome is so forseeable during the last 20 minutes or so, even my wife dozed off, and I was jumping up to the computer to get the on-line scoring in the Barcelona-Deportivo match, hoping the away team would do something rather good. They did. This film did not.Better by far is Mike Leigh's magnificent "Secrets and Lies" (qv) which touches on the same subject matter, but with Brenda Blethyn playing a far superior part.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is not very good.In fact, it is the worst Elvis movie I have seen.It has very little plot,mostly partying,beer drinking and fighting. Burgess Meredith and Thomas Gomez are wasted. I don't know why they did this movie.You could say Elvis was wasted as well,he is much,much better in "Follow That Dream."$LABEL$ 0
+This was the worst movie I've ever seen, yet it was also the best movie. Sci Fi original movie's are supposed to be bad, that's what makes them fun! The line, "I like my dinosaur meat well done!" is probably the best quote ever! Also, the plot sounds like something out of a pot induced dream. I can imagine it now, the writers waking up after a long night of getting high and playing dance dance revolution, then putting ideas together for this: Space marines got to alien planet, which is infested with dinosaurs and has medieval houses in it, to protect a science team studying the planet. Best idea ever! In fact, in fits the complete Sci Fi original movie checklist: guns dinosaurs medieval times space travel terrible actingSo go watch this movie, but don't buy it.$LABEL$ 1
+A very hyped-up, slick, edgy reinterpretation.They've fallen into the "because it's modern, it has to be hyped-up, slick, etc." trap."Romeo and Juliet" carried this idea off much more successfully, but I really think it's time we move beyond the two extremes here (period piece vs. edgy film).Just because this is a "modern" retelling, doesn't mean the movie has to look like a magazine ad, or have anything to do with drugs or guns.If the trappings were as subtle as the honeyed words, Macbeth would be a far more powerful film. As it is, read your Shakespeare. Read it out loud. Ask your Oxford dictionary some questions. Skip the film. Or don't, but you've been warned.Sorry for the super-long review. IMDb made me do it.$LABEL$ 0
+I had heard interesting critics on this movie. I believed it was a love story but I wasn't sure what was the plot about. So, when I finally saw it, I found myself in the middle of a love relationship between the ex-con Isabel (Isabel Ampudia) and the junkie Rufo (Sebastián Haro). So, a love story but not probably what I was expecting.The movie is focused on Isabel, as she struggles to get back into society. She doesn't want to return back to her neighborhood and she finds herself without a home or anywhere to go. So, while she just experiences those first hours of freedom after being released from jail she came across Rufo, an old acquittance of her which while she was in had become a junkie and lives on the streets. Not having where to go, and without money or feasible source of income, she decides to join Rufo on his residence: a covered area on a lonely street.The story by itself is moving. It explains how the, impossible, relationship between Isabel and Rufo gets deeper until the the almost final twist of the movie.Definitely, the movie is worth watching. Sebastián Haro is splendid in his role of the junkie. A person being able of both being an innocent and tender giving person and a ruthless street scum. Just depending whom deals him with. I believe his role.On the other hand, I don't quite believe the role of Isabel Ampudia. Although the movie tries to show the bitterness inside her through several scenes, she is not capable to make me believe it. She is in a way too sweet and too honest for which might be expected of somebody on the same situation.The movie tries to show a love on a desperate situation. It is a enjoyable movie. But the feeling I get when the movie ends is that Isabel, with the way of thinking and acting she has, would never have arrived to that situation. Her role, partly because of the script, partly because of the acting is difficult to believe.I specially like the ending, and because of it I have raised my rating one or two points. I liked its bittersweetness and the fact of showing that sometimes, survival instinct is above other more spiritual considerations as love.Summarizing, an interesting movie, but it lacked some punch to be a total "must see".$LABEL$ 1
+I bought this video on a throw-out table at the video store expecting a good cast in what was touted as an award-winning Brit sex comedy. I guess I should have read the finer print. I rarely write a panning review, but here goes.These actors in gay roles really play games with your memories of a lot of far more worthy films. This comedy was a very cruel joke at the expense of the actors, the theatre-going public and of all the nice films that have contributed to their reputations.I repeat: is the joke about trashing the actors' other highly respectable on-screen personae with this scurrilously trashy flick? Can the reference to the Austen classics 'Pride and Prejudice' and 'Sense and Sensibility' be anything else? How much of a political statement was it to produce this melodrama using these stars? Are we meant to simply take it as a lay-down misere that all actors are gay and thus letting their on-screen roleplay affect our lifestyles is accepting their private homosexual dealings in our faces, too? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. I say NO to this one.$LABEL$ 0
+First of all, nothing will ever compare to the original movie, but for gosh sakes, they're not trying to. It is just one persons opinion about what could have happened after Rhett left Scarlett at Tara. I for one thought it was a terrific movie and would like to add it to my GWTW collection. The scenery alone would make me want to watch the movie. Just view this movie as an extension of the original and don't think they are trying to replace Vivian Leigh and Clark Cable and you will enjoy it a lot. They really captured the spoiled selfishness of Scarlett in many of the scenes and you can see from the longing in the looks from Rhett that he is clearly still in love with Scarlett. The fact that you can recognize many of the actors in the movie is another plus even though some of them have only been seen on TV. I always wanted them to have other children after Bonnie Blue died in the movie and this satisfied my need perfectly. Lore60$LABEL$ 1
+I don't hand out ten star ratings easily. A movie really has to impress me, and The Bourne Ultimatum has gone far beyond that. Furthermore, this trilogy has come together so nicely, that I believe it to be one of the greatest motion picture trilogies of our time. Though all three films could not be any more different from the Ludlum novels, they still stand as a powerful landmark in cinematic achievement. The Bourne Ultimatum made me want to cry that the series was complete, yet I could not even attempt to stop smiling for hours.From the moment that the opening title appeared, I knew we were in for a ride. Paul Greengrass has done it again. Everything we love from the previous Bourne films is here once again: the action, the dialogue, and of course the shaky camera. However for me, that last one was never a problem. I think it adds to the suspense.I will be back to see this film several times before it is released on DVD, simply because it is genius. It is a perfectly satisfying conclusion, and should stand the test of time as a fantastic movie, and altogether, an unforgettable trilogy.$LABEL$ 1
+Seriously, I don´t really get why people here are bashing it. I mean,the idea of a killer snowman wreaking havoc on a tropical island paradise is pretty absurd. The good news is, the producers realized it and made it a comedy in the vein of Army of Darkness. Especially in the second half of the film, when the little killer snowballs attack, I laughed my ass off. For example, the put one of the little creeps into a blender (a la Gremlins 1) and mix it. After that, it morphs back into a snowball and squeals with a high pitched voice "That was fun!".Bottom line - incredible movie, rent it.$LABEL$ 1
+It's been a while since I've watched this movie, and the series, but now I'm refreshing my memory! This was a very funny movie based on the classic series! Johnny Knoxville and Seann William Scott were hilarious together. Bo and Luke Duke help Uncle Jesse run Moonshine in the General Lee. When Boss Hogg forces the Dukes off their farm, Bo and Luke sneak around Hogg's local construction site and find samples of coal. They soon realize that Boss Hogg is gonna strip-mine Hazzard County, unless the Dukes can stop him, with the help of their beautiful cousin, Daisy. My only two problems with the movie was that Burt Reynolds wasn't right for the part of Boss Hogg, and Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane was way too serious. Other than that, I highly recommend THE DUKES OF HAZZARD!!!$LABEL$ 1
+I had never heard of this movie, but I like Heath Ledger and Bryan Brown and the story sounded interesting, so I figured I'd give it a shot. I found it to be very enjoyable. Heath Ledger plays a 19 year old who works a kind of crappy job and wants to start making some serious dough, so he goes and asks for work from mobster Bryan Brown. I won't go into details but things go very bad for Ledger and gets into big trouble with Bryan Brown. From their on the movie just gets better and better, with one scene involving Ledger hooking up with a pair of bank robbers. And lets not forget the beautiful Rose Byrne, who plays Ledger's love interest. I would definitely recommend this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Teamo Supremo are three kids, consisting of their leader- Captain Crandall, Rope Girl and Skate Lad, all with their own battlecry (buza! chika! woopa!) and outfit and moves. They work for the governor, Kevin, and were recruited after wishing to be heroes and playing at that game. They lead normal lives as well, and have family and school duties, but most of the action takes place away from school fighting villains. The villains all have rather unique and singular traits, such as Mister Vague and his men who never seem to know what their plans are but act anyway. From an evil robot to a wicked baron the three have to encounter them and stop their evil, and often strange, plans to gain power, take revenge etc.The animation itself is quite nice and smooth, but the style appears to be simple on purpose. The backgrounds have overlapping colour and the buildings seem futuristic. The music is quite nice, and the show isn't too bad altogether, although the style isn't my favourite.The plots are almost always nonsensical and ridiculous, but after all this is a cartoon and one can't blame them for that. However this would not be in the same rank as Fillmore! or Pepper Ann.$LABEL$ 0
+I cannot believe how popular this show is. I consider myself an avid sci-fi fan. I have read countless sci-fi novels and have enjoyed many sci-fi movies and TV shows. I really wouldn't even consider this true sci-fi. Every episode I have sat through was like a lame, watered down version of a Star Trek episode, minus anything that might make it interesting or exciting.It's basically a bunch of people standing around in ARMY fatigues, talking about something boring, who occasionally go through the Stargate and end up on a planet that looks just like Earth, with people who look and sound just like Humans! It seemed extremely low budget. The characters are all forgettable one dimensional cutouts, and the many attempts at humor fall flat. It reminds me when you see a commercial with a famous athlete in it, trying to be funny, but he is not. It is just sad.The movie was terrible as well. There is so much you can do with a portal through space, yet every place the ARMY people go is BORING! This shows no imagination! I actually thought the TV series "Alien Nation" from a few years back (based on the movie Alien Nation) was much better. That show actually had good story lines and decent characters. I wasn't crazy about "Alien Nation", but compared to this overrated crap, it was great!Also, unlike the great new "Battlestar Galactica" series, "Stargate" copied the look and feel of the lame movie too closely! They should have at least updated the cheesy "toilet flushing" special effect of whenever somebody goes through the Stargate.$LABEL$ 0
+After 10 viewings in 20 years I too think this was the Crazy Gang's best effort on film, with more cohesion in the plot than their next best, "Alf's Button Afloat". They were indeed a crazy trio of double acts thrown together mainly on stage, sometimes in front of royalty, until Chesney Allen retired in the '40's through "ill-health". He outlived them all by years. Apparently they were just as mad outside "work", regularly playing practical jokes on one another.The Six Wonder Boys troupe head for I'll-Get-Her-To-Tell-Me (Alaska) to dig for the gold that was being found there. It seemed a better idea than going to Mansfield ... because they'd been there. When they get to Red Gulch they find their information was a mere 40 years out of date - they thought that the chips that were in the guilty newspaper they'd read tasted funny. But by then it doesn't matter as they've all fallen in love with Snow White and want to help her grandad find his long lost stash of gold. Baddie Bill "M" McGrew wants it himself however.The number of verbal and visual puns is astonishing, but most of them will probably only make sense(?) to Brits and ex-pats interested in seeing '30's British b&w comedies. Imho nearly all of the gags and routines work, including the Gold If patter between Bud & Chesney and the "Whistle While You Work" pastiche - even the "Always Getting Our Man" Mountie inserts. A marvellous little film, in a rather tired looking condition but utterly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+If like me, you enjoyed the first film "Bruce Almighty", my advice to you is not to get your hopes up too high; in fact disregard any hope you possess for this movie if you are above the age of 12 and have any film-sense at all.Without giving too much away, the story sees Evan (Bruce's nemesis co-anchor from the first film) move home with his family to the Virginian suburbs to "Change the World" with a new political path. What follows is a rather far-fetched and quite 'silly' storyline, which is obviously set out to target young children as the main target audience. Unlike it's predecessor, Evan Almighty is a family orientated film with the ambiguous genre of 'comedy' tagged upon it's misleading position of 'sequel' to which some would regard a modern-day comedy classic that can be enjoyed by a slightly more mature, upscale audience.Generally speaking, Evan Almighty comprises itself of terrible cinematic values. The acting; omit Steve Carell and Morgan Freeman, was rigid and many of the characters were seemingly thrown in to use up the unnecessarily large budget issued for the production. Additionally, the cast includes acting legend John Goodman who makes an appearance as a heel and is seen just a few times in the movie's entirety; I didn't quite buy the character though and thought the storyline from which he was involved in lacked depth even for a family comedy. Every other character in the movie (especially the wife and kids!) deserve a mention for their acting so cheesy it could fill a king-size Kiev. Be warned though; it is the typical Americanized cheddarfest associated with many mainstream family-orientated films, so I'd advise you defend yourself with the nearest grater in sight.It may seem the movie is worthless thus-far, however, it does have -some- promising aspects. The CGI was outstanding and it was clear that a lot of time went into modelling the Ark and producing water effects and animation of the computer generated animals towards the end. The particles, renders and textures used were aesthetically stellar. Although part of me couldn't help, but think these were undeserving to a movie with such poor ideals and were, in my opinion, 'too good' for this piece of cinema and carried the movie throughout.Overall I view this film as a disaster in terms of continuing what was a franchise with huge potential, but unfortunately it fell short to a bad conclusion in the Almighty series and approaching the end of the film I had set my expectations high for an epic and somehow meaningful finale to make up for the mediocre content I had so far witnessed. This wasn't the case and I was deeply disappointed and confused come the closing credits. As I sat discontent I couldn't help, but think the movie wasn't anywhere near as 'Mighty' as I hoped for. In many ways the film reminded me of a watered down "Night at the Museum" as it showed similar styling and characteristics, but unfortunately was leagues below even that.I give this movie 3 out of 10, as it is watchable, but it's definitely one to be avoided! If you HAVE to see this film, be prepared for disappointment as 'mildly entertained' is the best you could hope to obtain in watching the said production.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is painfully slow and has no plot. It conveys the lives of a group of laid off boatworkers. One of the older ones is sincere in his attempt to get a job. There may be some social commentary here, but, it is muddled as nobody is painted in a very sympathetic light.I do not understand why it had a 7.8 when I decided to watch it. I watched the whole tedious thing and built expectations for a huge redeeming payoff. No luck. The IMDb rating has always been such a good match for my tastes. Anything above 6.5 was worth watching.And my wife says Javier Barem does not even look good in this movie. He's not my type, so, my agreement does not mean much.Sigh. I give it a 1.$LABEL$ 0
+My siblings and I stumbled upon The Champions when our local station aired re-runs of it one summer in the 1970's. We absolutely adored it. There was something so exotic and mysterious about it, especially when compared to the usual American re-runs (Petticoat Junction, Green Acres... you get the idea). It had a similar feel to The Avengers (not too much of a surprise, since it was also British and in the spy/adventure genre).I would love to see it again now -- hopefully it holds up. I've mentioned this show to others and no one has ever heard of it, so I began to wonder if I'd imagined its whole existence. But the wonder that is the web has allowed me track down information about it. Hopefully it will find a new generation of fans.$LABEL$ 1
+As a flying and war movie buff, this ranks at he bottom of my list. It is historically completely inaccurate and the cast sounds and acts like they just stepped out of a high-school play. The acting, script, direction, production standards and casting are all garbage. The only saving grace is some of the flying sequences. If the people they portray were fictitious, I might rate it a 2, but if there is one thing that annoys me more than anything else in movies, it is pretending that this is history and that the great people they are trying to be, actually did this! Its almost as if they tried to write in as many notable WW1 personalities as possible.There are many good WW1 flying films and this is NOT one of them.$LABEL$ 0
+The only part lacking in this movie is Shue's part as the daughter wanting to follow in her "aunt's" footsteps as a daytime soap star. Otherwise it would be a perfect 10.It seems that every actor enjoyed their parts and overacting to fulfill their own enjoyment as well as the script - I have to wonder if a little ad lib'ing wasn't taking place in parts. It was well cast and there are some classic lines that will stick with you.It's a fantastic movie everyone should see at least once. I'd recommend not drinking anything that would sting coming out your nose.You'll definitely want to watch the last scene closely, 'Nurse Nan' has a little secret she'd rather not have shared with you.If you love daytime soaps or despise them, this move pokes fun in all the right places.$LABEL$ 1
+This is an excellent little film about the loneliness of the single man. Phillipe Harel as Notre Heros is a bit like an amalgam of Robert de Niro in Taxi Driver, Inspector Clouseau (in his stoicism) and Chauncey Gardiner in Being There (also Peter Sellers). He is single yet doesn't have a clue how to attract the opposite sex - in fact, he really makes no effort at all!He has a stoicism and fatalism that defies any hope of ever achieving coupledom - his friend Jose Garcia as Tisserand is in the same plight yet at least makes a brave effort to transcend his extended virginhood (he's 28 and admits he's never had sex).Very good outdoor shots of Paris and Rouen, where the two software people travel on business. They try various nightclubs and places but all to no avail. My theory is that they're trying the wrong places - they go to more-or-less 'youth' nightclubs; they should try the type that has older people, more their own age.Harel increasingly becomes isolated and does a little de Niro effort, as in Taxi Driver, urging his friend/colleague to go and stab some bloke who's pulled a nice-looking girl in the nightclub.Worth watching.$LABEL$ 1
+Scratch is a documentary about DJs and their art of scratching. From that one line description of the film you would have no idea how entertaining and educational this little film is. It is a joyous and vibrant celebration of a cool subculture which is little known. It's filled with great underground hip hop music and you get to see some top DJs (e.g. DJ Q-Bert, DJ Shadow, and Mix Master Mike from the Beastie Boys) showing off their stuff. Going into the film I wasn't sure that "scratching" can really be called an art form, or that the turntable can be viewed as an instrument in its own right. Scratch completely changed my mind on these points. What these guys do with their turntables is truly amazing--it is definitely some kind of art--and the turntable, if you know how to use it, can be transformed into an instrument that you can "play," as much as a drum or a guitar. And you even get a lesson on the basics of scratching from DJ Q-Bert (e.g. how to use the fader to get different sound effects). All these DJs in their own way were inspired to take up the art of scratching after watching Herbie Hancock perform his song "Rock It" (you remember that song, don't you?) live at the Grammys. What got their attention was not Hancock himself but his DJ and his scratching. Not only is Scratch about scratching, but it does some "scratching" of its own thanks to the creative way in which this documentary is shot and edited. There are moments where clips are quickly "rewound" and then "forwarded" several times, which mirrors (in the film medium) what happens when a DJ quickly moves the record on his turntable back and forth while using his fader (that "wicka-wicka-wicka" sound). Whether you're a fan of hip hop or not, you can count on Scratch to give you a very enjoyable night at the movies. After seeing it, I had an itch to go buy a turntable of my own. And I mean this as a compliment.$LABEL$ 1
+The dreams of Karim Hussain are to be feared. When the right hemisphere of his characters overpowers the left, shocking images of blood, dismemberment, and various abominations are released. Religion won't save you, nor will mother nature or your own family. Hussain's dark poetry, because that's what this film really is, destabalizes all institutions of sanctuary.`Subconcious Cruelty' is a current crowd pleaser on the horror\fantasy festival circuit. The film's opening meditation on madness is both well written and profound. The protagonist's desire to profane the birthing process which brought him into the hell he inhabits unfolds with horrific and credible illogic. From here the film continues deeper into the subconcious and tackles mother nature. Hussain offers depictions of lusty pagan fertility and writhing mushroom madness. Nature is exposed as blood-drenched and violent in Hussain's frightening enlightenment.`Subconcious Cruelty' is disturbing to all and rewarding to those who see past the shock into the mature themes of life, lust and madness this very worthy film explores. CJ Goldman deserves kudos for his special make-up, as do David Kristian for unnerving sound design and Teruhiko Suzuki for score.$LABEL$ 1
+Fearful Symmetry is a pleasant episode with a few faults. The first thing about the episode is that it takes place near Mountain Home Air Force Base in southwest Idaho. Season one's 'Deep Throat' takes place near Ellens Air Base, also in southwest Idaho. I'm wondering if the air force bases are one and the same but they decided to use the real name in Fearful Symmetry. Mulder and Scully have some good dialog, always a plus. Ed Meecham, the zoo keeper, reminds me of cranky, old school teachers. They must have liked children at one time, you just can't imagine how. Just like he must have cared more for animals at one point. I liked the concept of the episode, but I felt it had some inconsistencies. If aliens are so adept at abducting humans and returning them safely, why can't they put the animal back in the right place? And the aliens are just now having problems returning the animals? I don't buy Mulder's theory of a problem with the space-time continuum. As if he's an expert on that. I also thought Jayne Atkinson's performance as Willa Ambrose was not well done. Besides those nitpicks, I still enjoyed this episode because of the intriguing concept of aliens harvesting animal DNA as well as human DNA.$LABEL$ 1
+This is without a doubt one of the worst movies EVER, I emphasize, EVER made. What´s worse, my old hero Dolph is in it and he´s starring it. Jesus... The story is actually quite good but the way it´s carried out made even my body hurt. The fighting scenes for starters are about as well choreographed as a fight between two drunks slugging it out in the gutter. The actors, except for Dolph who kinda sucks also, perform so badly you can´t help but wonder if their reason for being there is that they´re all friends of the director, who by the way must have been absent most, if not all, of the time. This is §12 million spent in an unimaginable way, because by the look of the effects and scenery, the cost can´t be a cent above §1000.$LABEL$ 0
+I am a glutton for B-movies. I love the old Drive-In fare like this movie. This film, made for very little money it seems, does do one thing that some bigger budgeted films fail. It is cheezy. It is gory. It has no real plot, but it entertained me for an hour and a half. I was either laughing or covering my eyes in shock. There are a few great effects like a shot from INSIDE a guy's mouth when he gets stabbed in the chin by a knife and it pokes up through his tongue and slams into the roof of his mouth, and one gross-out with a guy getting his eyeballs yanked out. But there is also loads of zombies, and some psycho killers patterned after Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and a demon possessed scarecrow. I loved the dialogue that the killers spout as they torture and kill people. It has great camera work, and some cool editing tricks. This one is more original than the first Bloodbath, and the undead look better, but it is still patterned after those dubbed trashy zombie movies of the 70's and 80's and it still has a cheeze factor that ranks mighty high. Don't expect Romero, just second-rate Fulci. I would say that Horror fans will like it, and it is funny and cheezy and a fast ride through B-movie Land.$LABEL$ 1
+Eddie Murphy Delirious is undoubtedly the funniest thing I have ever seen in my life. When I saw it for the first time about 2 years ago I was in stitches for weeks after it. To date I have seen it a further 17 times and i still laugh my ass off each time. For those who dont know Eddie Murphy was a brilliant stand up comedian before he was a Hollywood superstar. There is not one dull spot in this piece of genius unlike Eddie Murphy Raw which was released in 1987 which goes flat during the middle. If you are not the sort of person who can't stand swearing then I wouldn't advise you to see it as you will probably hear swearing of some form every 5-10 seconds. I gave this a 10 out of 10 because it displays the greatest comic genius of them all at his best.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a really funny (and sexy) movie - that is not just silly but has great acting. It's the kind of movie where the characters are so entertaining that you feel like you are connected to everyone in the theater. I saw it at the Boston film festival, and I found myself frequently laughing out loud with everyone else, and also moved by some of the movie's more serious parts. It's a unique movie about two doctors, and I don't want to give anything away but there are some powerful scenes as well really funny ones - plus the dialogue is great. Wood Harris' character has a unique relationship with his girlfriend Zoe Saldana, and Brian White and Mya are also funny and sexy in their roles. If you get a chance to see it - go - you won't be disappointed. It's worth seeing again. Wood Harris deserves an award.$LABEL$ 1
+I very much looked forward to this movie. Its a good family movie; however, if Michael Landon Jr.'s editing team did a better job of editing, the movie would be much better. Too many scenes out of context. I do hope there is another movie from the series, they're all very good. But, if another one is made, I beg them to take better care at editing. This story was all over the place and didn't seem to have a center. Which is unfortunate because the other movies of the series were great. I enjoy the story of Willie and Missy; they're both great role models. Plus, the romantic side of the viewers always enjoy a good love story.$LABEL$ 0
+Now more than ever we need Peace & Love in this world!This film really showcases the wonderful music of the Broadway show, and the fabulous Choreography of the legendary Twila Tharp! I saw it again after many years, and it still holds up well.Thank you, MGM/UA for putting this on DVD! I love the option of seeing in Widescreen. MGM rocks for doing this on many of their DVD releases.Ya gotta love Treat Williams as Berger and John Savage as Claude. They couldn't have picked better actors & actresses for this film! Beverly D'Angelo is such a 'hot mama' in this film--I had forgotten just how hot! WOW!The supporting cast is absolutely great,with the late great Nell Carter making a singing cameo in a couple of scenes, as well as the kooky Charlotte Ray (Mrs. Garrett on 'Facts Of Life')The story gets a little weak toward the end, but the anti-war sentiment of the late 60's still holds up, and is relevant today. It's beautifully filmed (quite a bit on location) and is so colorful and lovely and really brings the spirit of 1968 back on the big screen.I saw this movie when it was released in 1979 when I was 15, and was moved by it then, and it still moves me now at 40. Some other reviews on here say they think it should have been made sooner--I don't think Hollywood was ready to make such a movie back in the late 60's-early 70's.The Vietnam War ended in 1975, and the whole thing hit a little too close to home, I think for this story to be filmed before it was (like in 1969, 70, 71)Bravo to Director Milos Foreman! I love this film!!!!!!!It's nice to see it again, this time on DVD. It never looked better!$LABEL$ 1
+If you enjoy Cleese & all the British 'Pythonesque' humour of the time, then this little gem is absolutely hilarious.Arthur Lowe is a real treat!I saw this with friends on TV when it first came out, and its classic quotes have formed a part of our jokes for 30 years, and will do forever! I have it on tape and it is continually appreciated.Perhaps some reviewers are taking it too seriously.I can't believe it is now only available in the US (NTSC of course), and not in UK, where it should be an essential part of the history of British humour!!$LABEL$ 1
+This story had a good plot to it about four elderly men that share a deadly secret concerning a young woman that they met 50 years ago. After all this time, the young woman returns to seek revenge on the men. This story occasionally made me nod off during the movie in the middle of tiring elevator music and the ever so consistent thunder storms. But it is well worth the wait in the end when we find out just who the mystery woman is that keeps plaguing the old men in their dreams and interfering in a young man's life. The most of what I liked in this film was the suspense in which the young woman appears to the men just before their deaths. The special effects were something. Every time I heard her call out to them I would think "Not that face again." But it was a good movie, I just wish that the pace was not as slow or the acting not as tiresome. And what I also liked about the movie was the flashback of the 20's, very authentic as well as the costumes being original.$LABEL$ 0
+This ingenious and innovate comedy packs many moments priceless and great sense of pace, though overlong. Chaplin's satire with several classics scenes , he has dual role as a Jewish barber and dictator Hynkel, an offensive portrayal of Hitler . Then the barber is mistaken for the Hitlerian tyrant and happen bemusing events. Funny and extraordinaries acting of all casting, as the co-stars Jack Oakie as Napolini(Mussolini-alike), Henry Daniel as Gasbstich(Himmler-alike) and Billy Gilbert as Herring( Goering). Chaplin's first spoken film is brilliantly photographed by Karl Struss.This splendid film contains numerous amusing scenes, the funniest are the following : 1) The one when during the WWI the barber-soldier along with a co-pilot are flying in a turned plane without aware 2)Dictator Adenoid Hynkel doing overacting speeches including a twisted microphone 3)Hynkel playing with an enormous balloon of the world 4)The Jew-barber shaving a man fitting to Hungarian Dance number 5 of Brahms 5) when Hynkel and Napolini each try to keep his body higher than other in a barber's chair; among them.Hitler banned movie exhibition to the Germans due to its satire of him, and put him in his death list after his proposed conquest of America.The movie is co-starred by Paulette Goddard, third of his four wives , they were married in 1936, although no announcement of the marriage was made later, one time finished The Great Dictator.The picture was released in 1940, when Chaplin had survived a moral scandal by a paternity suit but a brush with the House of Un-American Activities was the signal for the USA to refuse him re-entry from Britain and he fled to Switzerland.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw Anatomy when it came out and recently bought it and the 2003 sequel and as I watch a lot of foreign films in various genres, you have to watch movies in their original language for sure. Not only is it annoying to know the voices don't belong to the actors, but they always seem cheerful, like the whole movie is one big long toothpaste commercial or something. It makes an otherwise awesome movie seem horrible and I have had to convert a lot of my friends who used to think foreign films aren't as good as North American films - that they aren't "Hollywood enough". Also, they translation is never right, it's too literal, and screws up the vibe of the movie, even if it's basically saying the same thing. I watched Anatomy by myself the other week in German then with subtitles with my roommate because he was on his laptop and didn't want to have to miss parts when he couldn't see the subtitles because he was typing. 30 mins in and he begged me to let him finish his work then start the movie over with subtitles. He loved it! Both movies are awesome as intellectual horror films! Kelly$LABEL$ 1
+this could have been better,but it was alright...it helped me get away from my boredom.I didnt even wanna see it,the only reason i wanted to rent it is because Jamie Martz is in it..he is a unknown actor but he is shining and is the highlight of the movie...the ending was so horrible and the acting was good for a b movie...i give it a 4 out of 10$LABEL$ 0
+Based on the true story of two young Americans who sold national secrets to the Soviet Union in the height of the Cold War, "Falcon And The Snowman" wants to be both suspenseful and philosophical, and winds up falling short in both departments. It's less le Carré than who cares.Timothy Hutton stars as Christopher Boyce, a former seminarian who, disgusted by Watergate and the middle-class values around him, is probably the wrong guy to be hired by a company running spy satellites for the CIA. Sean Penn plays his drug-dealing pal, Daulton Lee, who makes himself Boyce's courier, delivering secret files to the Soviet embassy in Mexico City. An offbeat synth-jazz score, lack of sympathy or emotional attachment for anyone, and lots of scenes of guys getting angry in rooms all combine to deaden what could have a decent moral-dilemma thriller.It's really Penn's movie despite the second billing; his character gets to talk turkey with the Russians while Hutton plays with his pet falcon. Hutton looks like they woke him up five minutes before they called "action". With Penn, it's a crapshoot whether you get a brilliant performance or an over-the-top one. Here, it's a bit of both, but more the latter, especially in the second half when Lee switches from coke to heroin. He screeches. He snorts. He crashes Russian embassy parties. He gets pummeled with telephone books. He spits at himself in a mirror, a big goober he must have been saving for a paparazzi. "I don't know who my friends are anymore!" he cries out. It's exhausting to just watch him.Penn seems to have modeled Lee somewhat on Dustin Hoffman's Ratso Rizzo from "Midnight Cowboy", complete with overly nasal line readings and constant eye shifting. John Schlesinger directed this film as well as "Midnight Cowboy", but he seems to have had another Hoffman film in mind, "The Graduate", throwing up scene after scene of Boyce and Lee poolside, trying to decide how to live their lives in their gilded cage. Too bad no one suggested plastics.From the opening shots, news footage of American decline juxtaposed with Boyce and his bird, "Falcon" makes clear it is a message movie, though the message itself is far from clear, probably because the characters never come into focus. Is Boyce supposed to be an idealist? Or is he just a mercenary? Hutton and Schlesinger don't seem to know, which makes it harder for us. Meanwhile, opportunities to establish some suspense, like Boyce stealing documents from the top secret "Black Vault" where he works or Lee playing games with the Russians, are interrupted by jump cuts to scenes of the pair with their families and friends. It's the normalcy of the story that Schlesinger finds interesting, but it's the least interesting aspect for us.Good stuff: It's interesting to see a film that works the 1970s vibe so early as this one, referencing Maria Muldaur and Tang. Dorian Harewood, memorable in "Full Metal Jacket", has a nice turn as Boyce's paranoid colleague Gene, who shows Boyce how to make margaritas with a shredder but has some serious 'Nam issues beneath his partying exterior. Macon McCalman is also fine in a totally different way as the no-nonsense boss who gives Boyce his high-security job. David Suchet as the Russian embassy official who deals with Lee makes for a fascinating blend of menace and amiability.But "Falcon And The Snowman" stands or falls on the the question of the two title characters, and neither the actors nor Schlesinger are able to mine much in the way of answers. Worse, after more than two hours in their alternately feral and catatonic company, you don't really want answers. You just want those credits to roll.$LABEL$ 0
+Watching CBS's "Surrender, Dorothy", I kept wondering why Diane Keaton would want to be in it (not because it's a television movie--with the dearth of enticing roles for slightly older actresses, it isn't any wonder why Academy Award winning performers such as Keaton turn to TV--but because it offers no opportunities for Keaton to shine). A single mother, grieving the sudden death of her twenty-something daughter, imposes upon--and gradually becomes friends with--the group of young people her daughter was close to at the time of her accident. Adapted from the novel, this teleplay gives us a group of self-absorbed characters one would cross the street to avoid. Aside from being coarse and dim, these phony people are incredibly unconvincing, as is the tidy scenario and the bungalow near the beach where the kids reside (one young man, who wears muscle shirts to tell us he's gay, hears Diane Keaton say, "Surrender, Dorothy" and actually asks, "That's from "The Wizard of Oz", right?"...no, genius, it's from "Citizen Kane"!). Keaton may have wanted to do this material based on the subject matter of confronting death. She tries turning this distinctly unlikable woman into a shadow of her own personage (lots of kooky outfits), but it doesn't sit well with the viewer since Keaton has always been warmly likable and flexible in a flaky way. Here, she's a crazed harpy who doesn't learn many lessons on her journey of self-discovery (the movie quickly forgets it's about a dead young woman and becomes an odyssey for the nervous wreck of a mom, who appears to be an overage hippie who has never lost anyone close to her). This is the kind of film actors promote on talk shows with the caveat, "It should help a lot of grieving mothers out there". I can't imagine it helping anyone since it is intrinsically a downer, muddled and baffling. It's deranged.$LABEL$ 0
+Dennis Quaid is tryin' hard to prove us that Jerry Lee Lewis was a dumb guy. And he's doing too much to prove it. TV sequences are very good, like a photocopy of old black and white footages. Music is fine too, because Mr. Lewis himself is singing. But the rest is just Hollywood B-Movie style, with the fifties Happy Days complex. I think the only good thing in this movie is to see young Winona Ryder.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw The Merchant of Venice in London last week. Great acting by Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons, Joseph Finnes and Lynn Collins. Compare to other movies based on Shakespeare's play, this production has made the play so easy to understand and follow. Bravo to Michael Radford for directing such top actors. The costume and the scenery are great and since it was filmed on location in Venice it gives the film and authentic flavor. I had read the play over thirty years ago at school and the emphasis was on the characters' anti-Semitic behavior toward the Jews and the cruelty of the Christians. I do not know if this movie is going to be controversial but in any case I am sure that it will get few Oscar nominations.$LABEL$ 1
+Really!Here the French cinema hits rock bottom ,and compared to it, the least appealing of the American adolescent horror movies,the likes of "Friday the thirteenth" "Freddy" and co are masterpieces of the seventh art.It's all the more infuriating as there were exciting original elements :the forêt de Brocéliande and its legends ,the druids and King Arthur ,all were splendid assets for a dreamlike fantasy and horror film.Alas! Filmed ,as an user aptly pointed out in a fake forest,near Paris ,the movie is fake horror,fake Celtic history,fake vestiges -you should see the professor (Wilms who was a wonderful M.Le Quesnoy in "la vie est un long fleuve tranquille) scream for the "invaluable scrap" -which the production probably bought in a dime store-fake characters ,fake excavations...The boys disguised as druids are unintentionally very funny ;so are the girls who seem to be experts in martial arts.And what can we say of the professors? of the monster? A ten year old would write a better screenplay than this grotesque farce.To think that people can spend money for such drivel when artists are still waiting for a producer!Word to the wise:Maurice Leblanc wrote a marvelous story dealing with druids and old ceremonies in his Arsene Lupin saga called "l'île aux trente cercueils" .A miniseries was made 30 years ago.Avoid this "Broceliande" garbage and try to see it instead.$LABEL$ 0
+"Intensive Care" by Dorna von Rouveroy is easily one of the worst horror movies ever made.This extremely cheap Dutch slasher flick offers some gore and plenty of absurd situations.A horror veteran George Kennedy is completely wasted as as Professor Bruckner.The acting is abysmal,the action is slow and the climax is laughable.A famous surgeon has a car accident.He lies in a coma seven years and then he wakes up and goes on a bloody rampage."Intensive Care" is clearly influenced by American slasher films including "Halloween" and "Friday the 13th" series.The killings are hilarious and the dialogs are painfully stupid.Still if you are in the right mood you can give this piece of trash a look.You'll laugh until it hurts with this one-you can believe me!$LABEL$ 0
+One of the best 'guy' movies I've ever seen has to be the Wind and the Lion. Gad, the scenes...Raisouli's bandits swarm over the wall... A staid British gentleman calmly gets up from tea with Candice Bergen and drops three of them with a Webley revolver in his coat. A whisper from the ghost of Empire... Lest we forget! Lest we forget!U.S. Marines coming ashore from the long, long gone _Brooklyn_. They were carrying Krags, it should have been Lees, but, oh wow. And the Winchester 97 blowing large holes in obstreperous natives and even more obstreperous and faithless Europeans... Raisouli --Sean Connery, o, Wow!--wondering 'What kind of gun does Roosevelt use?"Teddy Roosevelt--Brian Keith, o, Wow!--wondering "What kind of gun does Raisouli use?' and writing yet another angry letter to Winchester about the stock on his Winchester 95.Raisouli, armed with but a sword... A Prussian cavalry officer, HOLSTERING his pistol and drawing HIS sword... Honor. That's something long dead, from a world long gone, but Raisouli would never have flown a plane full of children into a building...Milious at Milious's magnificent best, and now out on DVD.$LABEL$ 1
+This is film that was actually recommended to me by my dentist, and am I glad he did! The blend of British humor (should I say, Humour?) and the reality of a lost, middle-aged widow trying to maintain her lifestyle were a hoot. Add to that mix the reality of what it takes to actually grow pot (those plants under the bushes were NOT going to make it without the TLC they received), and it is a truly hilarious, yet touching film. I laugh every time I conjure the vision of all the bar patrons sitting in their lawn chairs with sunglasses on counting down the lights! Maybe it's just my Mendocino County blood, but the Brits definitely got this one right!! 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+The small California town of Diablo is plagued with mysterious deaths after sheriff Robert Lopez unearths an ancient box.Legend has it that the box holds the sixteenth-century Mexican demon named Azar.FBI agent Gil Vega is sent to investigate the murders and joins forces with the sheriff's daughters,Dominique and Mary to fight with evil and bloodthirsty demon."The Legend of Diablo" is an absolute garbage.The film lacks scares and gore,the acting is amateurish and the direction is bad.The animation is the only one aspect of the film I enjoyed.I'm a big fan of indie horror flicks,for example I loved "Torched","Live Feed","Bone Sickness" or "Neighborhood Watch",unfortunately "The Legend of Diablo" is a huge misfire.Definitely one to avoid.$LABEL$ 0
+Southern Cross, written and directed by James Becket is a waste of good celluloid and actor's efforts. A formula film is not necessarily bad if it pays off on it's promise, which this film does not. It is a tiresome concoction of movie cliches that can be traced to a thousand different films from the past. It is full of random and empty plot twists that add nothing but aimless action, such as a trip by the protagonists to a ghost town where the villains (unexplainedly) follow them. This was obviously concocted as an excuse for a shoot out and escape scene bordering on the preposterous, with people popping in and out of doorways and running past windows while firing pistols at each other. It makes one believe that somebody told Becket there was a ghost town in the Chilean foothills and he said, "Oh great, lets do a shoot out scene there."Don't even waste your rental money on this. It is a bunch of random bits and pieces from a hundred different films thrown together to call an action drama.$LABEL$ 0
+Besides the fact that my list of favorite movie makers is: 1)Stanley Kubrick 2)God Allmighty 3)the rest... this movie actually is better than the book (and the TV miniseries though this is an easy feat, considering the director). The flawless filming stile, the acting and (Kubrick's all time number one skill) the music - make it THE masterpiece of horror. I watched the TV miniseries a few years ago and liked the story and I had my hopes about this when I got a hold of it. IT BLEW ME AWAY!!! It is far better than I ever imagined it. It starts slow (Kubrick trademark) and has a lot of downtime that builds up the suspense. The intro scene is a classic by all means and I watched it about 20 times just for the shear atmosphere it induces to the whole film. Also the film doesn't offer a lot of gore (it has just enough and it is by no means tasteless) a trend that I hate in recent day horror films. Just watch it!$LABEL$ 1
+What can be said about such a pathetic movie ? - Very bad acting ! The main actress seems to know only one facial expression : fear mixed with weakness. Like a poor beaten dog... The other actress (the one who plays the evil) looks like the female double of Ozzy Osbourne, with an awful red wig. The other actors are so pitiful that they don't even worth being described. - There's absolutely no plot. The story begins with possibilities but goes nowhere : we don't know anything about the meaning of "11:11", nor who Rayden really is, excepted the simple "she's evil" or "she's a child of Apocalypse"... which is not an explanation. We don't know why the parents have been killed, what kind of danger is growing and why Sara was chosen. As the film goes on, we just watch pseudo-scary scenes, with a bad music. Moreover, the end doesn't tell anything : we just see two possibilities as if one of them was a bonus scene or the director's cut... There's no plot, so no possible interpretation. - "11:11" is just full of clichés ! It is so obvious that i couldn't help laughing. For example : the deserted library or the bathroom scenes, ghost silhouettes walking with a blast of wind, ... there's even the fashionable "little scary girl" as in "Dark Water" or "The Ring". Of course, the main character is bullied at school and looks like a stereotyped Gothic girl (dark hair, red lips, skinny, black clothes). Is it an obligation to make her credible ? I don't think so. The psychology of Sara is so few developed and so typical that it doesn't make her credible, nor endearing.- Terrible direction : as i said, nothing original, everything has already been seen a thousand times and is used here without any real purpose. - There are some funny incoherences. For example, i don't know if "ghost science", "paranormal course" or whatever is taught in American universities... In Europe it is really not the case : teachers talking about negative energies or using "unmaterial" creatures sensors... ridiculous. Also : how can you watch a movie shot in the sixties with a Super-8 camera on a computer screen without spending hours of your time for a digitalization (in the movie they watch it immediately on the computer screen) AND how can you, on this old film, isolate a tiny detail then zoom in and see a perfectly identifiable face ? I wonder if the director has ever tried to digitize an old analogical film...Eventually, "11:11" just worths being watched if you like to laugh at silly movies, or maybe if you want to fall asleep on your couch... But it's an expensive way to fall asleep !$LABEL$ 0
+Before I start my review here is a quick lesson in australian slang which may help you with viewing the movie and understanding some of the other reviews from australia and overseas.In australian slang "thongs" are a pair of rubber sandals (not to be confused with the same american word that pertains to butt revealing underwear), "stubbies" are a brand of australian short, a "stubby" is a small can sized bottle of beer, and a "stubby holder" is a foam insulator for a small bottle of beer.If you love black comedies about smalltime criminals then you will love this movie, unfortunatley a lot of people on IMDB with weak stomachs and no appreciation of dark humour have reviewed this movie which unfortunately makes this movie appear to be more mediocre than what it is. A lot of reviewers have also compared it to Lock/Stock and Pulp Fiction, while it is the same genre, it is a completely different and original style.A lot of reviewers have also panned this movie for using Heath Ledger's characters dead brother to open and guide the narrative for this movie, without watching the movie closely enough to realise that his brother was killed by the same villain that wishes to kill heaths character, this is explained midway through the movie but not clearly enough for most to understand.This movie is also reminiscent of Lock/Stock and Reservoir dogs in that it is the Director/writers debut feature, and for a debut feature it rates as well as these two movies, as a matter of fact like Lock/Stock and Reservoir Dogs I rate this movie as a 10/10 for a director/writers debut, unfortunately unlike Tarantino and Ritchie Jordan fails to live up to expectations in his subsequent movies like Ned Kelly.This movie is one that you should definitely add to your DVD collection and is one that holds up to several viewings quite easily.$LABEL$ 1
+I know, I know, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" is the worst movie, or maybe "Manos, the Hands of Fate." But I can't get worked up over those sock-monkey movies. Of *course* they're bad. How could they be any good? But if you're talking about movies with respectable production values and bankable talent, the T. rex of all turkeys has to be "Yentl." All the treacly phoniness, all the self-absorbed asininity, that stains everything Barbra Streisand has done since 1964, reaches its culmination in this movie. From its lonely summit of awfulness, "Yentl" looks back to "A Star is Born" and forward to "The Mirror Has Two Faces." There is nothing else quite like it. What emotional undertow dragged Streisand out to make this movie I would rather not speculate, and what audience she was playing to I cannot possibly imagine, although I'll bet there's a nine in ten chance you aren't a member of it.Nobel Prize-winner and saintly guardian of Yiddish literature Isaac Bashevis Singer was so outraged by what Streisand did to his story that he blasted her in public for it. It is a tribute to Streisand's impenetrable vulgarity that she not only didn't commit suicide, but went on to make more awful movies.$LABEL$ 0
+When Jim Wynorski first announced he would be doing a new sequel for my favorite series of all time, the "Slumber Party Massacre" series, I was ecstatic. I had been waiting for a new installment for literally years. So, production began and very small bits and pieces on the shoot and the actors involved were released until the shoot wrapped. Then, the announcement of a title change. No longer would this new sequel be titled "Slumber Party Massacre IV," but "Cheerleader Massacre" instead. I was a bit disappointed, but having a different title would be a very small price to pay for a film I had waited so long to happen. I was still extremely intrigued and on the edge of my seat to see it.Maybe a month ago, some very advanced copies of the film were released to some extremely lucky viewers, who got to see the film months before its release date. A few reviews leaked on the net and judging by them, I began to become apprehensive on Jim Wynorski's "Cheerleader Massacre."Tonight, I got to see the film for the first time in full length and I am still scratching my head. As I read in another review, "Cheerleader Massacre" is definitely NOT a new installment in the "Slumber Party Massacre" series, but a slasher flick all on its own. And a bad one at that.Before I get into the specifics of the film, let me first state what an enormous fan of Jim Wynorski's films I am. I always thought him to be a true camp genius, with a winner almost every time. Yes, his movies are made on shoestring budgets and don't contain the most top-notch acting around, but they're fun nonetheless. They are what they are: campy movies you watch when you want to have a good time. From "Sorority House Massacre II," to "Hard to Die," to "Chopping Mall," Jim has produced the goods on more than one occasion. One of the reasons why I was excited that this film would be his latest project."Cheerleader Massacre" does not (in my opinion) reflect any of the films I had seen this director/writer create in the past. Firstly, the production was extremely inexpensive and the film was actually shot on videotape, something I had never seen Jim do before. The actors were mediocre, to say the least, and the story is almost laughable. The killer is also extremely stupid and reminds you more of your cuddly old grandpa, rather than an escaped lunatic.Of course, the film is littered with female nudity. This is a Jim Wynorski movie we're talking about, folks. But some of the boob-shots seen here almost seem like they were done for time. There is an extremely long shower scene, containing the cheerleading coach, that seems to go on forever and it greatly reflects a shower scene in Jim's "Sorority House Massacre II." The girl even bathes herself almost in the exact same way."Cheerleader Massacre" is also extremely cliched, to say the least. The opening scene is literally something we've all seen in HUNDREDS of past slasher flicks. A guy and a girl making out, on the verge of consummating their relationship when...you guessed it. They're hacked to pieces.Brinke Stevens, who I've never really considered to be a tremendous actress in the first place, also gives one of her stiffest and forced performances in her small cameo. We're talkin' possible cue cards here. She recalls some incidents her character endured by the killer seen here twenty years ago to the police, while footage of the original "Slumber Party Massacre" plays. Why was footage from the original film used if it was definitely not a new "SPM"? I have no idea. There is also two explosions seen in this movie that I am almost certain were recycled from other films.Not only does this film recycle FOOTAGE from past films, but it also recycles the scores from other films as well. Some of the music used in "Humanoids from the Deep" (which was also recycled prior for "The Coroner") can be heard throughout the entire film. There are at least two more as well that I cannot identify, but am certain have been used before.After sitting through this film's horrendous acting, ridiculous story, non-existent gore/special effects, and camcorder-like quality, I am having some serious concerns toward Mister Wynorski's career. Has the man who delighted audiences with films in the past finally lost his niche? Only time will tell. Oh, and let's not forget his newest film. A new installment in the "Sorority House Massacre" films, now titled "Final Exam." I think I'm seeing a pattern here...$LABEL$ 0
+Too bad a couple of comments before me don't know the facts of this case. It is based on actual events, a highly publicized disappearance and murder case taking place in the Wilmington, DE/Philadelphia PA region from '96 through 2000. I have to admit I was highly skeptical of how Hollywood would dramatize the actual history and events and was actually quite impressed on how close they stayed to what was constantly reported on local newscasts and Philadelphia Inquirer news stories throughout the time period. Of course I immediately pointed out that the actress (who I really like in Cold Case) who played Fahey looked nothing like her (Anne Marie was actually prettier). I have to admit though that Mark Harmon really nailed the type of personality that was revealed as Capano's and the behavior that Capano exhibited throughout this period. Details of the case were right on...no deviations of dramatic effect...even down to the carpet, gun, furniture, and cooler. In conclusion, I also wanted to add that I have met Tom Carper many times at various functions (a good man, despite being a politician) and I am so glad that he pulled the strings in the Federal realm necessary to solve this heinous crime. Guys like Capano are real and it was great to see him finally put behind bars.$LABEL$ 1
+I tuned into this thing one night on a cable channel a few minutes after the credits ran, so I didn't know who had done it at first. The longer I saw it, the more I started thinking, "Jesus, this looks like an Albert Pyun flick." Wasn't quite sure, though, for two main reasons: the photography was quite good (and the Utah desert scenery was beautiful), and Scott Paulin gave an hilarious performance as Simon, a murderous cyborg, but with some style and a sense of humor. Paulin must have ad-libbed the many clever one-liners he shot out, because Albert Pyun hasn't written anything even remotely funny or coherent in his career. Unfortunately, Paulin doesn't have all that much screen time before he's gone, and the movie's the worse for it. Lance Henriksen, playing the evil head cyborg, growls his way through his part, as he's done in countless other movies like this. I don't know what the hell Kris Kristofferson is doing in this thing; maybe he wanted to see what the Utah desert looked like and get paid for it. He goes through the movie looking (and sounding) like he just woke up, and in fact spends most of the last half of the movie on his back in a tent. Kathy Long, the nominal hero, has a great body, is attractive, has a great body, fights extremely well, has a great body, and doesn't have an iota of acting talent, but that doesn't matter in a movie like this. This being an Albert Pyun film, it's full of the trademarks that we've all come to know and love: inane and idiotic dialog, choppy editing, and the impression that they lost a reel in the middle of the picture and figured, "Ah, nobody'll ever notice."As bad as this movie is, however, it's a shade above most of Pyun's other efforts--this is "Citizen Kane" compared to his brain-numbing "Adrenaline: Feel the Rush", for example. The fights are pretty well done, if repetitive (after she knocks down eight or nine guys one after the other, you find yourself saying, "Alright already, go to something else"), and Long is very athletic (and, as a previous poster has noted, has a great derrière). It's not a good movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not anywhere near as incoherent and incompetent as Pyun's usual extravaganzas. You could do worse than rent this movie--not much worse, granted, but worse nonetheless.$LABEL$ 0
+The movie opens upon Julian Sands, lying on his back, a black kitten drooling blood into his awaiting mouth from where he holds it, about two feet above him. That was so provocative, and I thought, "Here we go! A good vampire movie!" And then it died. That was literally the only scene which captured any part of the imagination. It was slow, uneventful drivel thereafter. I was vastly disappointed, as my previous experience with Sands' acting was quite enjoyable. However, this attempt was obviously misdirected and the screenplay left a lot to be desired.Even Julian Sands's questionable performance could not begin to save this already sunken barge of a movie.It rates a 1.1/10 from...the Fiend :.$LABEL$ 0
+About twenty minutes into this movie, I was already bored. Quite simply, these characters were fairly dull. Occasionally, something enjoyable would happen, but then things would slow down again. Fortunately, my patience was eventually rewarded, and the ending to this movie wasn't bad at all. However, it was by no means good enough to justify sitting through the first ninety minutes. So, I would say that the movie was mediocre overall, and considering all of the talent in the cast, I'd call this a disappointment.$LABEL$ 0
+`Manna From Heaven' is a delightfully compelling film.Within the shifting paradox of values in middle-class Americans from 40 years ago to the present day, the plot tweaks the concerns and hopes of an interesting range of `Damon Runyonesque' characters.Their struggles with moral dilemmas, dotting on `what might have been,' hopes to yet fulfill youthful dreams, romantic yearnings, and `hit it big' combine to make a most entertaining film. Rather than relying upon `in-your- face' sexual explicitness, the burgeoning relationship between Inez and Mac/Bake is classically subtle but clear. His untying the knot in her shoelace at the Art Gallery and their heat in their poker game is outstandingThe script's crisp writing is skillfully interpreted by an outstanding star and supporting cast. One of the few films I have ever fone to see twice in its opening run, `Manna From Heaven' definitely warrants national distribution.Conrad F. Toepfer$LABEL$ 1
+If I'd only seen the poster for Nurse Betty, I probably wouldn't have touched it with a ten-foot pole. But after I heard some positive buzz, and knowing it made some noise at Cannes, I decided to give it a try. What I got is a truly enjoyable movie, based on a very entertaining plot. Rene Zelleweger is impressive in her role as ‘nurse' Betty, a woman who is sent into a delusional psychotic episode following a traumatic experience. I also liked Morgan Freeman (no surprise) and was pleasantly surprised by foul-mouthed comedian Chris Rock. The film bounces continuously between comedy, drama, romance, and thriller. Yet despite this apparent identity crisis, it holds up quite well. I found my eyes glued to the screen from beginning to end always waiting for the next twist in the story. The entire cast is strong, if not spectacular. My only real complaint is that director Neil Labute (who made a splash a few years ago with the very impressive and dark ‘In the Company of Men') relied much too heavily on many cliched Hollywood conventions. The mood-creating musical effects he crammed down our throats during each sentimental scene were unbearable! And he did the standard old "let's take some of the minor characters and pair them up at the end in an illogical and unnecessary romance" trick, just to make absolutely certain everyone goes home with a smile on their face. Why must directors and writers treat their audiences like idiots??But the movie is still much too enjoyable to be dragged down very far by these annoying irritations. In a very subpar year for movies, 'Nurse Betty' ranks as one of the more pleasant surprises of 2000. 8 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+This flick was even better then 'Waiting for Guffman'. The great strength in these two films lie in the brilliant character acting by Guest and Levy's little second-second city troupe. If one finds this movie boring or pointless, God help 'em, they just didn't get it. It is a mockumentary, something at which Guest and Levy have a genius for. At the end of the movie where Guest's southern down home dog lover tells us that to relax after the show, he went to Israel to work on a 'caboose', or when he tells us that ventriloquism is an ancient art and we see a hieroglyphicof an ancient Egyptian holding a tiny ancient Egyptian in it's hand, I realized it is moments like this that make life worth living. Thank you Mr.Guest and Mr.Levy, and God bless you.$LABEL$ 1
+I stopped short of giving "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House" 10/10 due to an aspect that makes us in the 21st century cringe a little bit: the fact that a black person is the faithful servant (somewhat reminiscent of Stepin Fetchit). But other than that, the movie's a hoot. Portraying middle class New York couple Jim (Cary Grant) and Muriel Blandings (Myrna Loy) trying to build a house in Connecticut, this flick has something for everyone.Grant is his usual flippant self, while Loy does quite well as merely a wife. But Melvyn Douglas adds some real laughs as Jim's and Muriel's lawyer Bill Cole, who seems to have more plans than he's making clear. As for the house itself...throughout most of the movie, you'll probably feel ambiguous as to whether or not you want to live there. The builders, contractors, and others also provide their fair share of laughs.All in all, a comedy classic. Also starring Louise Beavers, Reginald Denny, Sharyn Moffett, Connie Marshall and Jason Robards Sr.$LABEL$ 1
+This self proclaimed "very talented artist" have directed easily the worst Spanish film of the 21st century. Lack of emotion, coherence, rhythm, skills, humor... it repeats the same situation over and over again. It shows no character development. It does not even show any violent and/or sexual content, and it does not add anything new to the psycho-killer sub genre. So lame it should be shown at film schools as an example of "what not to do" in a first movie.BTW where the hell is the "talent"? there are scenes which have been shot almost identically; there are scenes which have two or more master shots and it is quite awful to see the action jumping from one master shot to another without a reason. The camera almost never moves, as if the "very talented artist" was afraid of showing his lack of visual skills. The actors playing the main roles act like amateurs, and the supporting cast is hardly believable. There are more holes than plot in the script (if ever there was one)...A really disheartening movie, and a whatsoever talented director.$LABEL$ 0
+This production was made in the middle 1980s, and appears to be the first serious attempt to put BLEAK HOUSE on celluloid. No film version of the novel was ever attempted (it is remarkably rich in subplots that actually serve as counterpoints to each other, so that it would have been very hard to prune it down). The novel was the only attempt by Dickens to make a central narrator (one of two in the work) a woman, Esther Summerson. Esther is raised by her aunt and uncle, who (in typical Dickens style) mistreat her. She is illegitimate, but they won't tell her anything about her parentage. Later we get involved with the gentry, Sir Leicester Dedlock, and his wife. Lady Honoria Deadlock (Dame Diana Rigg) is having an increasingly difficult time regarding her private life and the meddling involvement of the family solicitor Tulkinghorn (Peter Vaughn). We also are involved with the actions of Richard Carstone (Esther's boyfriend) in trying to win a long drawn out estate chancery case, Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, which everyone (even Richard's cousin John Jarndyce - played by Desmond Elliot) warns is not worth the effort.Dickens had been a law reporter and then a parliamentary reporter before he wrote fiction. Starting with the breach of promise case in PICKWICK PAPERS, Dickens looked closely at the law. Mr. Bumble said it was "a ass" in OLIVER TWIST and Dickens would consistently support that view. He looks at the slums as breeding grounds for crime in TWIST, that the law barely tries to cure. He attacks the Chancery and outdated estate laws, as well as too powerful solicitors and greedy lawyers (Tulkinghorn, Vholes) in BLEAK HOUSE. In LITTLE DORRIT he attacks the debtors' prisons (he had hit it also in David COPPERFIELD). In OUR MUTUAL FRIEND he looks at testators and wills. In THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD he apparently was going to go to a murder trial. Dickens was far more critical of legal institutions than most of his contemporaries, including Thackeray.But the novel also looks at other problems (like charity and religious hypocrisy, the budding Scotland Yard detective force, social snobbery in the industrial revolution). He also uses the novel to satirize various people: Leigh Hunt the writer, Inspector Fields of Scotland Yard, and even the notorious Maria Manning. Most of these points were kept in this fine mini-series version. If it is shown again on a cable station, catch it.$LABEL$ 1
+Without a doubt, the best Burt Reynolds film ever! Even better than Smokey and the Bandit. This was probably the first real bloody cop thriller of the 1980s and delivered the perfect blend of humor, action, mystery and style that is missing in today's films.This one has it all: A psychotic Henry Silva jacked up on PCP, $1,000 a night call girls, ninja assassins and Burt Reynolds getting his fingers sliced off, one by one, with a butterfly knife. The film is based on the novel by William Diehl who also wrote PRIMAL FEAR, another one of my all-time favorites. This movie is worth watching just to see Henry Silva get shot six times, crash through a window, and fall thirty stories from the top of an Atlanta high-rise. This is probably the coolest stunt in Hollywood history, performed by legendary stuntman Dar Robinson.Robinson also played "Moke" in the Elmore Leonard movie STICK, also starring Burt Reynolds. Stick features another great Dar Robinson stunt. Robinson falls from a Miami apartment building and unloads all six shots from a .44 magnum on his way down. Very cool stuff.SHARKY'S MACHINE is my favorite police drama. I never understood why this film flopped the way it did. If Burt did more films like this, he would've built a better reputation for himself. He proves to be a talented director with Sharky, as well as a gifted actor. Burt is supported by Brian Kieth, Charles Durning, Bernie Casey, Richard Libertini, Rachel Ward, and everyone's favorite bad guy Henry Silva. PLEASE remake this classic film! Get Affleck and Samuel L. and some other hot actors and you've got a great movie just waiting to be filmed.I give it a 9 out of 10$LABEL$ 1
+Plot = Melissa is a new girl in town, she's fifteen years old and her birthday is coming up in one week. Since Melissa is beautiful, every boy in town wants to hook up with her, but the few that manage to catch her interest mysteriously die.To be honest the real reason I wanted to watch this film is because Dana Kimmel of Friday The 13th pt 3 was in it which isn't a proper reason why to rush out and see a movie. When I started watching it I realized that "Sweet Sixteen" isn't a very good slasher, it's really dull and boring and just doesn't go anywhere. After over an hour, only three murders have occurred and the story hasn't really developed in any possible way.The movie is nicely shot with quite nice photography and good directing but just as with many other slasher flicks from the 80s, the movie suffers from being too dark at times. The acting is actually pretty good though and Melissa's character is easy to sympathize with, even though she's a complete slut.The story line isn't completely rubbish but it's just way too dull to keep you interested, the only things that kept me interested was Melissa she was stunning and Dana Kimmel whose really sweet and cute in this movie.All in all pretty dull slasher flick that doesn't go anywhere I'd definitely wouldn't recommend it to Slasher fans.$LABEL$ 0
+This film is a very funny film. The violence is bad, the acting is...Well Dani, stick to singing or screaming or whatever the hell it is you usually do. The random chicks wearing hardly anything is just to catch sexually-frustrated goth lads in. Personally, i think this movie really does suck. The story and characters COULD be very good, if say the directing, the actors and other little nibby things were made better. But the film is just bad, the only reason why people like this piece of crap is because it has Danni in it. This film is possibly the worst B-rate film ever. And, believe me that's hard to achieve, especially when you're competing with Def by Temptation and over crappy excuses for "serious" horror movies. I'm not a CoF fan, and so i just see this as another rubbish movie...A really bad one. If Dani made this as a comedy then, good going him. Very well done. Over than that though, i rate it low, for it's crappiness. Watch it when you're in a happy, happy, joy, joy mode so you can laugh at everything or if you're high on multiple different types of drugs.$LABEL$ 0
+The first time I saw this movie, it didn't seem to go anywhere. When I watched it a second time though, it made a lot more sense. Give it a chance, watch it more than once, there are a lot of key elements that shape the story that could be missed the first and even second time watching it. The Cohen brothers brilliantly weave actual happenings of the early 20th century into this story to make a believable setting and storyline. The combination of Clooney's leading role blends well with Turturro and Nelson's supporting acts. John Goodman's appearance in the movie is hilarious. The soundtrack is great as well. This movie has become a household favorite for my family. 10/10, for sure.$LABEL$ 1
+This barely watchable film was a bit of an ordeal to sit through. None of the segments are good, but at least the first one was mildly amusing, and the middle one was somewhat imaginative. The final one was just plain brutal, and after sitting through two weak comedic shorts, the third one was truly painful to watch. Even by the low standards of a National Lampoon movie, this one seemed especially boring and joyless.$LABEL$ 0
+A wasted effort. On the surface it's a typical disaster movie: we're involved in the lives of a few people who get caught up in the Big Event. However, the script is so awful and there's so much explaining of the characters' background within the dialogue that we feel we're being treated like morons. Even Sesame Street didn't explain the origins of Mr Snuffleupagus or how Mr Hooper died: we can work it out. Someone thought that entering 'Enron' into the script would give it currency when discussing power companies. The acting is by and large bland, with the exception of the older performers (Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy), and after the first hour, I couldn't care less about who the storms took out.But maybe there are the special effects to watch. Sadly, no. Even on a 20-year-old TV set I could see one tractor and trailer were computer-generated—badly. Maybe there are budgetary limitations, so I can forgive that one. Footage of a plane trying to land looked pretty real, but I kept telling myself I had seen that before. This site confirms it: it was from an earlier film, Nowhere to Land.So in summary, the only good bits are from another film, and when you see the best action sequences compressed into a 30-second network promo, it makes Category 6 look quite good. My advice: rely on your network to do some good 30-second clips, watch them, and save yourself two nights.$LABEL$ 0
+First of all, we know that Bruce Willis is a good actor but if you take the majority of his movies you'll see that the characters have these moments where they are the same. His character in this movie is far beyond every single one so far... and counting. The story begins in the (not so far) future where a man is sent to the past to find the source of a virus that has swept most of humanity from the face of the earth. The story seems to go towards SF but i think its closer to a drama because of the slow rhythm of the story. About that. Movies tend to be faster and slower at some points and develop more towards the end than the beginning but as you see this movie you'll be aware of this constant rhythm of story and revealing facts that does not speed up nor slow down. Its the one and the same speed that flows gently and pretty good. But that doesn't mean that the ending wont pull your nerves, cause its pretty good. As far as the direction goes, it is prefect. Movies as such are easily destroyed by bad directing but this one has become far better. So, if you are getting ready to see a Sci-Fi movie or some action, you'll miss it. B There should be more movies like this.$LABEL$ 1
+The basic plot of 'Marigold' boasts of a romantic comedy wherein the film industry is kept as a backdrop. An American actress Marigold, played by Ali Carter gets stuck in India. Worse that, she is out of money. She then decides to play a small role in a Bollywood musical, so that she can earn enough money to get back to her nation. Here she gets to meet Indian choreographer Prem, played by Salman Khan. Basically, the movie fails at the script level. Just by calling a film a Hollywood venture doesn't guarantee quality cinema. Marigold stands out as the best example. The art direction is weak and outdated. Musically, Marigold turns out to be a dud. Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy's is far from being acknowledged as a decent hear. Actingwise, Salman delivers of his most amateurish performances till date. Ali Larter is good and has immense screen presence. Performance wise too, she is good.One can also find good reviews regarding this movie at http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=36310$LABEL$ 0
+Pet Sematary , though a nice 80's Horror movie, with a nice Director and atmosphere, IS a copy of the Italian movie ZEDER by Pupi Avati. It's clear that Stephen King has copied almost all the ideas from this director (the movie Zeder was made before King wrote the book)The cat, the ground, everything was copied, this is a case of plagiary , but, being Stephen Kind a famous American writer , it's totally normal that he can get away with this , it's obviously due to the huge difference between this kind of Italians movies with no -budget (and in part, it's crap itself ... ) but the original idea, I repeat it, it's Italian director AvatiLet the world know$LABEL$ 0
+Sharp, well-made documentary focusing on Mardi Gras beads. I have always liked this approach to film-making - communicate ideas about a larger, more complex, and often inscrutable phenomenon by breaking the issue down into something familiar and close to home.I am sure most people have heard stories about sweatshops and understand the basic motives behind profit and capitalism, and globalism's effect on poorer nations (however people feel about it). Rather than expound on these subjects and get up on a soapbox (not that there's anything wrong with that, other than such documentaries typically preach to the converted), this documentary simply shows Mardi Gras beads, how they are manufactured, by what people, and under what conditions, and then how they are utilized by consumers at the end of the process. It openly and starkly investigates the motivations of everyone involved in the process, including workers, factory management, American importers, and finally, the consumer at the end of the chain.I felt a little sickened by this; equally by the Mardi Gras revelers, but also by the way the workers in China have accepted their situation as normal and par for the course (even if they have some objections to the details of how they are managed). The footage of the street sweepers cleaning up the beads off the streets at the end, made a particular impression. But that was just my reaction; I can see how someone else might read this documentary a little differently.Unlike other documentaries on this subject, I don't think you have to have any specific political opinion to be affected by this. This is ultimately a story about human beings and our relation to the goods we produce and consume. If you have ever bought a product made in the Far East, this should give you something to think about.Outstanding and highly recommended. Need to see more documentaries like this. Kudos to all of those involved in the making of this film.$LABEL$ 1
+As an avid Gone With the Wind fan, I was disappointed to watch the original movie and see that they had left out many important characters. Luckily, the film on its own was a wonderful piece. When the book Scarlett came out, I read it in hopes of following two of my favorite literary characters farther on their journey together. While the book lacks any true quality, it remains a good story, and, as long as I was able to separate it from the original, was and still is enjoyable. However, I consider the six hours I spent watching the "Scarlett" miniseries to be some of the worst-spent hours of my life. Discrediting any of the original character traits so well-formed in Margaret Mitchell's book, this series also turned the story of the sequel into one of rape, mistrust, murder, and misformed relationships that even the book Scarlett stayed away from. The casting for many of the characters refused to examine the traits that had been so well-formed in both the original novel and film, and even carried through in the second book, and again leaves out at least one incredibly crucial character. In the novel, Scarlett O'Hara Butler follows her estranged husband Rhett Butler to Charleston under the guise of visiting extended family. After coming to an "arrangement" with Rhett, she agrees to leave, and proceeds to reconnect with her O'Hara relatives in Savannah. Eventually, she accompanies her cousin Colum, a passionate leader of the Fenian Brotherhood, to Ireland, to further explore her family's "roots that go deep," and is eventually named "The O'Hara," the head of the family. While her duties as The O'Hara keep her engaged in her town of Ballyhara, Scarlett ventures out into the world of the English landowners, and instantly becomes a sought-after guest at many of their parties. She, having been scorned by Rhett time and time again, eventually agrees to marry Luke, the earl of Fenton, until Rhett comes along in a clichéd "night-on-white-horse" - type of a rescue. The "Scarlett" miniseries fails even to do this justice. Raped by her fiancé and scorned by her family, the series shows Scarlett thrown in jail after she is blamed for a murder her cousin committed.I heartily advise anyone considering spending their day watching this to rethink this decision.$LABEL$ 0
+Just like last years event WWE New Years Revolution 2006 was headlined by an Elimination Chamber match. The difference between last years and this years match however was the entertainment value. In reality only three people stood a chance of walking out of the Pepsi Arena in Albany, New York with the WWE Championship. Those men were current champion John Cena, Kurt Angle and Shawn Michaels. There was no way Vinnie Mac would put the belt on any of the rookies; Carlito or Chris Masters. And Kane? Kane last held the WWE Championship in June 1998, and that was only for one night. It was obvious he wasn't going to be the one either. Last years match was a thrilling affair with six of the best WWE had to offer. 2006 was a predictable and disappointing affair but still the match of the night by far.The only surprise of the evening came after the bell had run on the main event. Out strolled Vince McMahon himself and demanded they lift the chamber. It was then announced that Edge was cashing in his money in the bank championship match right then and there. With no time to prepare and just off the back of winning the Elimination Chamber match John Cena did not stand a chance and dropped the title after a spear to one of the most entertaining heels in WWE. This was the only entertaining piece of action that happened all night.The undercard, like last year, was truly atrocious. Triple H and The Big Show put on a snore fest that had me struggling to stay away. HHH picked up the win but that was never in any real doubt was it? Any pay-per-view that has both Jerry Lawler and Viscera wrestling on the same card will never have any chance of becoming a success really does it. The King pinned Helms (who books this stuff?) and Big Vis tasted defeat against the wasted Shelton Benjamin with a little help from his Mama.The women of the WWE also had a busy night. There was the usual Diva nonsense with a Bra and Panties Gauntlet match which was won by Ashley and the Woman's Championship was also on the line. In a match, I thought would have been left to brew till WrestleMania 22 Mickie James challenged Trish Stratus in a good match. Trish won the contest but it was evident that this is going to continue for the foreseeable future.The opening contest of the night pitted soon to be WWE Champion Edge against Intercontinental Champion, Ric Flair. This could have been better but it was a battered and bloody Flair that retained after a disqualification finish. Edge obviously had bigger fish to fry.So New Years Revolution kicked off the 2006 pay-per-view calendar in disastrous fashion. The only good thing from that is knowing that for the WWE the only way is up. They don't get much worse than this.$LABEL$ 0
+I was just looking at the 100 bottom movies according to IMDb users seeing if there was anything to review that I haven't yet and I found this little screen gem. One of those occasions when you see a movie ranked as one of the worst and you just have to be one of the few that actually likes it. Darn, well I guess I will get ridiculed and spat upon here, but for me this was a pretty good flick when I saw it. It has been awhile however, I remember it used to come on HBO late at night and I watched it two or three times and I haven't seen it really since and I would love to watch it again now knowing Jolie was in it. The story follows a cyborg and a guy trying to escape the clutches of this corporation and some bounty hunters after them. I think that is basically all there is to it, throw in a few scenes with Jack Palance and we have our movie. Some good action here and there, and some blood and violence as well. There is also a love story at play as well as the female cyborg and the guy who trained her to fight kind of fall in love with each other. The dialog sometimes becomes rather bad at times and it is by far not a top notch film, but for a b-movie it is really good. I don't know if it was a theatrical release though because it does not seem high quality enough for that, but it does make for one of the better direct to videos if it was one of those.$LABEL$ 1
+Attractive husband and wife writing team Robert Wagner (as Joel Gregory) and Kate Jackson (as Donna Gregory) arrive at the spooky mansion of actress "Lorna Love" (actually, silent film star Harold Lloyd's house). Mr. Wagner and Ms. Jackson are contracted to write the silent movie star's biography. Wagner has a personal interest in the project, since his father was once the famed star's lover. Mysterious events unfold, and Jackson must fight to save her husband from the spirit of the beautiful blonde, who is "perfectly preserved" in a crypt on the estate; moreover, the evil woman seems bent on possessing her husband, and murdering Jackson! This is very much a "Night of Dark Shadows" variation, co-starring genuine "Dark Shadows" alumni Kate Jackson, who knows and plays her part well. Robert Wagner lacks David Selby's intensity. Sylvia Sidney (as Mrs. Josephs) sidesteps Grayson Hall. Marianna Hill is not a match for Lara Parker (or Diana Millay). Bill Macy (as Oscar Payne) is good in a part that would have been played by John Karlen (in a Dan Curtis production).There are smooth cameos by Joan Blondell, John Carradine, and Dorothy Lamour. Ms. Lamour's delivery resembles Joan Bennett, which begs the question: why didn't producer Aaron Spelling get more of the original "Dark Shadows" regulars? Director E.W. Swackhamer was Bridget Hanley's husband; he worked with Ms. Blondell on "Here Come the Brides", and with Jackson on "The Rookies". "Death at Love House" has, arguably, a tighter storyline than the "Night of Dark Shadows" film; it differs in the movie star angle; and, in its "Father Eternal Fire" ending, it more closely resembles the TVseries' "Laura the Phoenix" storyline. **** Death at Love House (9/3/76) E.W. Swackhamer ~ Robert Wagner, Kate Jackson, Sylvia Sidney$LABEL$ 0
+This film is mildly entertaining if one neglects to acknowledge its numerous incongruities of plot and sheer lack of believability. Bruce Willis as "The Jackal" never seems to live up to his reputation as a cunning mastermind of the underworld. Instead, he bumbles about in broad daylight, parading a mishmash of shoddy disguises. Why this man has never been captured before (or even identified) is beyond me. Not once is the audience impressed by his cleverness or daring; considering the price he demands for his services (an exorbitant $70 million), his methods are decidedly low-budget and stupid.As for those in pursuit of him, they are at least as ridiculous in their behavior. They show no sense of expertise, instead relying on half-baked conjecture which sends them traversing across the country at their whim. Incredibly, these far-fetched guesses (maybe he bought a boat, maybe he's in Chicago, etc etc) invariably lead them straight to the Jackal, who yet again escapes their clumsy grasp.Richard Gere, whose Irish accent fades in and out like a distant radio station, plays the inexplicable role of an imprisoned convict who is released from jail to work alongside the FBI. He actually makes a compatible partner, if only because his means are as amateurish and inept as his professional pals. At one point, he actually confronts the infamous Jackal, but unfortunately the FBI, although they trust him enough to leave him out of their sight, fail to equip him with a weapon or any means of communication. What kind of operation are they running here?The film also appears overly reliant on gruesome violence, which is entirely superfluous and provides no suspense whatsoever. The supposedly stealthy Jackal acts more like a demented and senseless serial killer, eliminating people for sport and writing on a victim's cheek with blood.The film's action scenes are both predictable and unrealistic, and many moments are ruined with melodrama. This movie is poorly executed on many levels, the one bright spot being the ever consistent Sidney Poitier. Avoid this movie if you are in the mood to think as you watch it.$LABEL$ 0
+Raymond Burr stars as an attorney caught up in the murder of his best friend (Dick Foran) thanks to his affection for his friend's wife (Angela Lansbury). This was a full year before he started doing Perry Mason, so the movie might be of particular interest to his fans if it was the inspiration for his casting.There isn't all that much else here that's interesting though. Lansbury is always good, but her character here is very one dimensional and the motives for her crime in the mystery are totally obvious. There's an interesting performance by Lamont Johnson as a painter who's also in love with the "femme fatale", but the Burr character is pretty straightforward. It's frankly bizarre to see an actor like Burr doing these romantic scenes with Lansbury, and his halting delivery does not match his character here very well as it does in most films I've seen him in. There's no mystery at all really, and the whole suspense is supposed to be around the title of the film and the way that Burr's character is setting up the Lansbury character to implicate herself (double jeopardy prevents her being tried again for the original murder, presumably). He does so with a very large tape recorder which she doesn't notice when she comes into the room I guess.A few perhaps unintentionally fun moments and basically the rest of the thing could have been done for TV.$LABEL$ 0
+Purchased this film for one dollar and figured I could never go wrong, my big mistake was watching it. Enjoyed the acting of Ice-T and the rapping which gave lots of class to this film about Los Angeles and the world of pimps. There is a boxer who kills one of his opponents in a practice ring and who has a career, but because of mental problems from childhood and the killing of this other boxer he retires. He gets hired by a pimp who is looking for a bodyguard to protect the girls that work for him at their trade and make sure they are not beaten up. This boxer falls in love with the boss's girlfriend and all kinds of trouble starts. This is entertaining and it then becomes a big laughing comedy.$LABEL$ 0
+The story in this movie is fairly implausible B grade stuff, but the script called for a creepy guy to play the lead, and in 1940, that meant Peter Lorre. And Peter is at his creepiest in this one as island owner Stephen Danel, who gets prisoners paroled to his custody to work at his island diamond mine. Upon arrival the parolees discover that they are slave mine workers that can be beaten or killed at the whim of Danel.Only two things seem to have it worse off than the slaves; Danel's wife, and monkeys. Monkeys tick him off so much that his violence towards them probably leads to the only meat the slaves get.Lorre is perfect in his role here, and creeps up the screen in industrial-strength fashion. Although the script is not Casablanca caliber, the editing is very tight and there are no wasted scenes. This is a very watchable story, but I'm not sure what niche this movie filled. Too long for a short subject, and too short for a feature length film, I'm not sure how this was marketed to theaters.I just caught this for the first time on a late night/early morning TCM showing. Lorre fans will not want to miss this one if they haven't seen it.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this with few expectations and absolutely loved it! Bend it like Beckham is a fairly typical coming-of-age movie about a fairly atypical girl. This is Parminder Nagra ("ER")'s breakout role, playing Jess, a teenager in England who is caught between her traditional Indian family and her love of football (that's soccer to us North Americans). And even though she's actually much older than her character, she plays the role pitch-perfect.This is a movie about friendship - specifically Jess's friendship with Jules (Keira Knightley), her teammate who is also going through family issues, especially with her mom, who wears purple nail polish and little bows on her shoes, and who wants Jules to be more feminine, wear lacy underwear and flirt with boys and is terrified that playing sports means her daughter is a lesbian. Jules and Jess both love playing the game and have issues trying to convince their families to let them go after their dreams. They also, unfortunately, both love the same man - Joe, their coach (played by Jonathan Rhys-Meyers). The love triangle causes some strain in their friendship.In some spots, Bend It Like Beckham falls into clichés. In others, scenes drag on far too long, and this movie probably could have benefited from overall tighter editing.But this was a refreshingly fun film about growing up, culture clash, and the love of football. It's about female empowerment, chasing your dreams, and supporting your friends. Funny, charming and fun, Bend It Like Beckham is the little film that could... and did.Excellent. 8/10.$LABEL$ 1
+Note, I only saw approximately the last half of this movie, so feel free to take my review with whatever grain of salt you deem appropriate, that being said, seeing what I saw was more than enough to make me quite convinced that a one-star rating for this is enough.In short, it's a dismal-plot slaughter of the wonderful precursor (NL Christmas Vacation) with Chevy Chase, only it doesn't have Chevy Chase in it, and it takes place in a generic tropical island, essentially with no connection to Christmas at all.Ol' Chevy probably didn't want in because the plot is that devoid of actual fun, instead they got the screwy Cousin Eddie, who, again, was great in the original, but in this he is just over the top, and an extremely poor basis for any movie considering the plot and acting. The attempts at humor are generic to a degree where even contemporary television comedy trumps it, and considering that this is supposed to be comedy, I doubt I need to say more.This is not to be seen for its qualities, for it has none, but for it's failings and again, how Hollywood is spilling it's life's blood of the past in the pursuit of a quick buck.I think I'll watch the original before the upcoming Christmas season just to try to regain my childhood innocence, from a lost time when motion pictures were more than just high-budget, but mindless, garbage.$LABEL$ 0
+What can possibly said about this movie other than, "viewer beware". Christmas Evil should come with a warning label like cigarettes do, because this was harmful to my eyes and ears. I am rarely this unsatisfied with a "b" horror flick, but this movie couldn't even bring a little scare to a five year old. The point of a relentless lunatic that has a thirst for blood in a film is that he/she should seem almost god-like, like nothing can stop their maniacal rage, but in this film the resident psychopath gets himself stuck in a chimney in a bizarre attempt to surprise his next victim and of course follow along with the all to popular legend of santa claus, it's a reminder to the viewer that this man is in no way dangerous because he's far too stupid to be dangerous. All in all a total waste of film.$LABEL$ 0
+This one isn't even lively enough to be fun. Something is out there, ripping people off (off-screen) after a spaceship crash (off-screen) while government executives investigates (off-screen) and bad actors says stupid lines (on-screen), including a guy who looks like Jim Carrey with a hangover. The "monster", when it finally is shown, looks like an extra from "Robot Monster", but there ain't enough monster fu anyway.Fortunately, it's pretty short. Skip it, unless you want to get bored out of your skull by this$LABEL$ 0
+Gary Busey is superb in this musical biography. Great singing and excellent soundtrack. The Buddy Holly Story is a much better movie than La Bamba. From reading other comments, there may be some historical inaccuracies. Regardless, it is a fun toe-tapping film, and a good introduction to Buddy Holly's music.$LABEL$ 1
+Jean Dujardin gets Connery's mannerisms down pat: the adjusting the cuff links when entering a club as all the women turn to admire him, the nonchalant straightening and smoothing down of the tie, the swaggering, steely gait. It's uncanny, and you come to realise just how much of Bond in the Sixties was Connery's creation and not really Ian Fleming's character. The cinematography is a nod to those early films, the movie takes off From Russia With Love and Thunderball mainly. The main joke is how chauvinistic the hero is, not just in terms of sexism but nationalism and colonialism, and how he puts noses out of joint when he is sent to Egypt. It's not perfect - about 20 mins in it seems a one-joke movie and bits of it remind one of spoofs of the day, of which there were plenty. Morcecambe and Wise's The Intelligence Men had suspect-looking men in fez's following their heroes around too, and that's going back a bit. Unlike Sellers' Clouseau or Baron Cohen's Borat, Dujardin doesn't give his character that layer of realness or genuine pathos - he is too busy perfecting his Connery mannerisms. It doesn't do enough with the credits or a big song, and there's no funny or serious villain, like Mike Myers' Dr Evil or Ricardo Montalban's Naked Gun nemesis, for the hero to go up against.But the scene where OSS117 wakes up in Cairo one morning had me laughing out loud in the three-quarters empty cinema, and the whole thing looks wonderful, plus you'll never get a chance to see Operation Kid Brother on the screen, and the women are ace crumpet, really hot. It's a Bond spoof without falling into the mad scientist/Ken Adam sets or funny gadgets routine. Throughly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+First, I would like to apologize for my rating of "1"... The only reason i give this film such a high rating is that I can't delve into negative integers. All "This is a spoof" musings aside, and while I certainly have tried to give it due consideration, have left me with a certain notion, namely; "This is quite possibly the worst film ever made." On any level and in any plausible quantification of qualitative measurement... Seriously, I tried, I'm just as in to any indie born-for-cult-video-distribution film as the next buff, but seriously, this movie sucked rhino balls...Honestly, if I had directed this "film" I would have seen it as a legitimate cause for suicide.$LABEL$ 0
+- A newlywed couple move into the home of the husband's dead former wife. It's not long before the new wife begins to have the feeling that someone doesn't want her in the house. She sees skulls all around the house. But when the husband investigates, he can't find anything. Is someone trying to drive her back to the asylum that she was recently discharged from? Or, is the ghost of the dead wife trying to get the new wife out of her house? - This is the first time that I've watched The Screaming Skull without the assistance of the MST3K crew. And, it will in all likelihood be the last time I watch it this way. Can you say dull? I'm not talking ordinary dull - I'm talking watching grass grow dull. There are great stretches of the movie where nothing happens. The screen could have gone blank and I would have gotten as much entertainment out of it. The characters drone on and on with the most monotonous conversations imaginable. The Screaming Skull could probably be marketed as a sleep aide.- The actors don't help matters much. Most of them deliver lines with the conviction normally reserved for a grade school play. I haven't looked it up, but I would be shocked to find that anyone associated with this movie ever appeared in anything of cinematic value. I won't even go into the script the actors are given to work with. Let's just say that the characters are given some of the most idiotic lines ever uttered on film.- You've been warned! Either avoid this one at all costs or, at least, seek out the MST3K version.$LABEL$ 0
+I have seen so many bad reviews on Supervivientes de los Andes that I felt compelled to stand for it (or at least I'll try). First of all, of course that it looks dated, it was made in the seventies with very low budget, but that's part of it's charm. I like contemporary films but also dig the old ones for what they worth. I'm not the one to feel the urge to only see or like movies with modern treatments and effects; besides, almost every movie buff likes old fashioned motion pictures (who doesn't like films from El Santo or Plan 9 from outer space, no matter it's overall quality?). In the aspect of pace, is just a tool for covering (again) it's low cost, and I think the constant dialogs are in order of a better character and situations development. Sure, Alive has better FX, but I won't despise the old one just because of that, and I don't feel quite attracted to English speakers in an event involving people from Uruguay and for me, that gives a plus to Supervivientes de los Andes. It's like, even if Canoa, from the seventies and based on a true event too, would have a better remake now due to the advance of technology, but I think I would stick to that one based on the emotions that offers regardless it's production date.All of this is based in the impact that had on me because the first time I saw it was on TV, and nowadays I don't think it has lost some of it's primal force. Of course it's been a long time and I've seen tons of better movies in every aspect of cinema, but that doesn't diminish it's true value. It's not a bad film, and I place it above Alive without hesitation. Just give it a break.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is really bad. It maybe harsh, but it is. It really is. Poor script, every vampire cliché in the book is used, and no sympathy is given at all to the origins of the main character ... i.e. ole Dracula. There have been some truly brilliant Dracula/vampire movies in the past, but this doesn't even make it into the "dire" slot.Take a selection of people who seem to have dropped out of a teen-slasher move, add a dribble of Dracula Lore and mix in a heady tonic of religious/surreal day-dreaming ... and you get a confusing mess of a film - Dracula 2000.I really cannot find any good things to say about this movie, as if it wasn't bad enough that it was made in the first place, they seem to have made Johnny Lee Miller effect an English accent ... Whats the problem with that I hear you cry ... Well, he is English, but he sounds like an American trying to do an English accent.All in all you may as well say your money (if you were thinking of buying it), or rent it out, watch it, and discover for yourself why it's about as scary as the Tellytubbies.P.S. Although La La is pretty frightening!$LABEL$ 0
+Looking backwards to that year 2002 when "Furia" was made, one can easily recognize the heralding sings of today's New Generation in Romania.The main qualities of "Furia" stand in a very solid script, with a substantial dramatic core and a really professional developing, plus a cast of excellent actors. All four leading roles are admirably performed, both with depth and casualness: Dragos Bucur and Andy Vasluianu confirmed, since then, being two of our best performers today, Dorina Chiriac follows them closely, and Adrian Tuli, a non-professional (in real life, a graveyard manager!) cast as Gabonu, was a genuine revelation! Further, Radu Muntean's directing is skilled and expressive, creating in a very compelling style that feeling of "a fateful night" and inescapable destiny. One can easily pass over the few awkward and even failed moments, since time proved them to be only the uncertainties inherent to a debut, never repeated in his subsequent movies: "Hârtia va fi albasträ" and "Boogie".$LABEL$ 1
+One of the worst movies ever made... If you can get through this movies without falling asleep, then you are doing pretty good, considering no matter how hard you turn up the volume you cant hear what the 'actors' (?) are saying and if you can acually see whats going on from the terrible film (I mean hell if you cant find anything that works better... use a Home movie camara... AT LEAST YOU CAN ACUALLY TELL WHATS GOING ON!)It is beyond my imagination how people get a movie like this to slip through the cracks, and escape on video... and further more.. how do people making this not know how terrible it is... good god... (!)After what I have just told you... If you are waiting for me to give you a summary of this piece of trash movie, there is nothing to tell... a group of campers on motorcycles get lost in the woods and a bunch of people terrorize them... or somthing to that... whats more so an action movie than a horror... this 'movie' (?) is of NO interest... if someone acually likes this I litterally feel for you.... Absolute Trash... not even one of those cheap funny flicks to watch go rent.. 'Plan 9 From Outerspace' and have a ball$LABEL$ 0
+Feeling Minnesota, directed by Steven Baigelmann, and starring Keanu Reeves, Cameron Diaz and Vincent D'Onofrio: The strained relationship between two brothers, Sam (D'Onofrio) and Jjaks (Reeves), is pushed to breaking point when Jjaks arrives at Sam's wedding and makes off with the bride, Freddie (Diaz), a former stripper, marrying Sam to repay a gambling debt owed to night-club owner Red (Lindo). Baigelman's writing and directing debut is a frustrating mess, full of hateful characters and lacking coherence. Putting Keanu and Diaz in the same movie should at least provide some eye candy, but Baigelman even cops out on that score, grudging his actors up with little positive effect. Very poor.$LABEL$ 0
+THE CELL (2000) Rating: 8/10The Cell, like Antz, must be watched twice to be appreciated. The first time I saw this film I thought it was mediocre, but the film had such a lasting impression on me after viewing, I decided I had to rent it again. I did, and I found the film to be much more likeable. The Cell is not for everyone, but it divides its stories up with quality and is a visually intelligent film that dreams up images and plot ideas that could not be matched. The film's script can be clunky at times, as can the acting, but the visuals are ingenious and bring the engaging story to an exotic and intriguing life. The Oscar nominated makeup is also daring and careful, while the beautiful costumes and utterly brilliant set decoration went unnoticed. Tarsem Singh who has also directed music videos, goes totally crazy with his direction and it results well. He has major talent and this film has a lot of potential if you give it a chance. Overall, The Cell is a powerful, disturbing and avoids being too tacky which makes it a great, pleasurable watch.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie, despite its list of B, C, and D list celebs, is a complete waste of 90 minutes. The plot, with its few peaks, was very predictable. It was so silly that I cannot believe that I am taking the time to even write a review of it. Flex, to his credit, has grown in his ability to act since playing Michael Jackson in a made for TV movie a few years ago. Tangi, on the other hand, has regressed, as she was more talented in her role as Felicity's flunkie some years ago. As I sat watching this train wreck of a film, with its pitiful production and horrible sound quality, other four letter words came to my mind to qualify what I thought of this film. However, in an effort to keep my writings G Rated, I'll simply say this film is another four letter word starting with an L. LAME!!!$LABEL$ 0
+I loved this movie! It was all I could do not to break down into tears while watching it, but it is really very uplifting. I was struck by the performance of Ray Liotta, but especially the talent of Tom Hulce portraying Ray's twin brother who is mentally slow due to a tragic and terrible childhood event. But Tom's character, though heartbreaking, knows no self pity and is so full of hope and life. This is a great movie, don't miss it!!$LABEL$ 1
+This was the worst movie I have ever seen Billy Zane in. I understand that this movie was mainly to showcase the new comers, who did pretty good for newbies, but over all, the movie was not believable.With all of the gunfire, you would think the police would have intervened. Even the coin being a bug on Sean was stupid. The way Sean suddenly realizes the coin is the bug, was not realistic.Looks like this movie was slapped together fast. Poor job. Get a better writer.The count down to the end was not in sync with anything. It took longer to fight. And what a coincidence that each time Billy was going to blast Sean, he'd be out of bullets. Once, I can believe, but not twice. Actually, Billy's character was goofy. It was so stupid when Sean punches him out at the end. It was like a comedy. Bad! Bad! Bad!$LABEL$ 0
+Stranded in Space (1972) MST3K version - a very not good TV movie pilot, for a never to be made series, in which an astronaut finds himself trapped on Earth's evil twin. Having a planet of identical size and mass orbiting in the same plane as the earth, but on the opposite side of the sun, is a well worn SF chestnut - the idea is over 2,000 years old, having been invented by the Ancient Greeks. In this version the Counter World is run as an Orwellian 'perfect' society. Where, for totally inexplicable reasons, everyone speaks English and drives late model American cars. After escaping from his prisonlike hospital, the disruptive Earthian is chased around Not Southern California by TV and bad movie stalwart Cameron Mitchell who, like his minions, wears double breasted suits and black polo neck jumpers - a stylishly evil combination which I fully intend to adopt if ever I become a totalitarian overlord. Our hero escapes several times before ending up gazing at the alien world's three moons and wondering aloud if he will ever get home - thus setting up one of those Man Alone in a Hostile World Making a new Friend Each Week but Moving on at the End of Every Episode shows so beloved of the industry in the 70s and 80s ('The Fugitive', 'The Incredible Hulk', 'The Littlest Hobo' etc.) The curiously weirdest bit though was the title sequence. Somewhere between 'Stranded in Space' first airing (under the title 'The Stranger') in 1972 and the MST3K version in 1991 it somehow acquired some footage from the 1983 movie 'Prisoners of the Lost Universe'. So in 1991 the opening credits for 'Stranded in Space' run under a few shots of three people falling into a matter transmitter and vanishing. It's a sequence that has nothing to do - even thematically - with anything that is going to follow.Just to add to the nerdy B movie confusion, one of the actors in this nailed on footage, Kay Lenz, later appeared in a 1994 movie called 'Trapped in Space'. Knowing this fact could never save your life but it might score you very big points and admiring looks from fellow trash movie enthusiasts - if you could ever work out a way of manoeuvring the conversation round to the point where you could casually slip it in without looking like a total idiot...$LABEL$ 0
+- After their sons are sentenced to life in prison, Adelle (Debbie Reynolds) and Helen (Shirley Winters) begin receiving threatening phone calls because someone fells their sons got off easy. The pair decides to move to California to escape the publicity of the trial and to start a new life. They start a dance school that is soon very successful. One of the students has a rich unmarried father with whom Adelle quickly falls in love. In the meantime, Helen is busy raising rabbits and becoming a little too infatuated with an evangelist on the radio. It's only a mater of time before everything falls apart and the women enter a world of madness and murder.- I can't help but compare What's the Matter with Helen? to Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?, also starring Shelly Winters. Where that movie seemed almost restrained in its presentation of Auntie Roo's madness, there's nothing holding Helen back in this movie. It may take a good deal of the movie's running time, but once she snaps, Helen is one Bad Mad Mutha. You don't want to mess with her. Winters is so delightfully demented that it was impossible for me not to enjoy her performance. I'm not going to spoil the movie, but the things Helen is capable of are totally over-the-top.- As good as Winters is, Reynolds is totally ridiculous in her role as the gold-digging tap dancer. I got the impression that she thought she was in a movie that would get her nominated for some award. This ain't Citizen Kane! Quit acting so serious. Hey, Debbie, don't you realize that you're main purpose is to be a victim of Winters' insanity.- I just love these former-female-stars-in-the-twilight-of-their-career horror movies. What's the Matter with Helen? is as fun as any.$LABEL$ 1
+I love playing football and I thought this movie was great because it contained a lot of football in it. This was a good Hollywood/bollywood film and I am glad it won 17 awards. Parminder Nagra and Kiera Knightley were good and so was Archie Punjabi. Jonathon Rheyes Meyers was great at playing the coach. Jazz (Parminder Nagra) loves playing football but her parents want her to learn how to cook an want her to get married. When Jazz starts playing for a football team secretly she meets Juliet (Kiera Knightlety) and Joe (Jonathon Rhyes Meyers) who is her coach. When her parents find out trouble strikes but her dad lets her play the big match on her sisters Pinky (Archie Punjabi's) wedding. At the end her parents realise how much she loves football and let her go abroad to play.$LABEL$ 1
+This Showtime cable film features a talented cast and weaves together several storylines involving the darker side of New York... from the naive and innocent tourists' nightmarish adventure to a pair of undercover cops on the streets... to an old friend's betrayal, it has it all.Well worth a look, as is its sequel.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a film i decided to go and see because I'm a huge fan of adult animation. I quite often find that when a film doesn't evolve around a famous actor or actress but rather a story or style, it allows the film to be viewed as a piece of art rather than a showcase of the actors ability to differ his styles.This film is certainly more about style than story. While i found the story interesting (a thriller that borrows story and atmosphere from films such as Blade Runner and many anime films), it was a bit hard to follow at times, and didn't feel like it all came together as well as it could have. It definitely had a mixed sense of French Animation and Japanese Anime coming together. Whether thats a good thing or not is up to the viewer. Visually this film is a treat for the eyes, and in that sense a work of art.If you like adult animation, or would like to see a film that is different from most films out at the moment. I would recommend it. All i can say is that i enjoyed the experience of the film but did come away slightly disappointed because it could have been better$LABEL$ 1
+I happened to catch this supposed "horror" flick late one Friday night, I wish I'd gone to bed! Tell me.. Is a 3 ft tall raincoat-clad twerp on a gurly bike supposed to convey some sort of fear? Not here, yet Mi-low is still able to beat the crap out of the janitor (Antonio Fargas) who is three times his size(?) uh-huh. And the ending is so pitiful... it just leaves you hanging with nothing to go on what-so-ever! I found myself asking, "Is that it???"Acting is about as good as it'll get in a low budget film. The aforementioned Fargas delivers a decent performance; but it is my conclusion that Jennifer Jostyn maybe one of the worse actresses to ever strut into Tinsel Town! Sure, cute face, but bad acting.Rating: 1$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is my all time favorite!!! You really have to see Michael Jackson in this wonderful film!! I'm always over the moon, watching it!! This is a film, that you really have to see, also if you aren't a MJ Fan, cause this film writes, like Captain EO, E.T. and Ghosts, a bit of Film and music History!! This wonderful film, out of Michael's feather, is a must have!! And: Smooth Criminal, is really the most wonderful, exciting and amazing song I've ever heard in my life!! Thank you Michael for this film and I love you!!! MJ's the best musician to hit this planet, he's a fine man and he always brings sparkles in your eyes, when you listen to his music!! Please, if you don't know this film, watch it and don't miss it, because would be too bad for yourself if you'd miss it!! -Highly Recommanded film, for every movie lover-$LABEL$ 1
+waste of 1h45 this nasty little film is one to avoid, its like a cheap badly plotted cross between saw and a few other recent films about kidnap, why the writer wrote this is obvious..he has no soul and did it to try and me some money. The twists were obvious, when those in peril could escape they did the obvious and didn't etc.. only good thing about it is I've discovered 1 new actress worth watching..peyton list, don't watch shuttle though, there are too many better nicer films to watch rather than this that will make you miserable and think less of the world. Spend your time more wisely watch good films, do some exercise, cook a nice meal..anything but waste your time on rubbish like this$LABEL$ 0
+I simply can't get over how brilliant the pairing of Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon is. It's like the movie doesn't even need additional characters because you can never get tired of the dialog between these two.Lemmon had already been in several well-known films like Mr. Roberts and The Apartment and Matthau was fresh off his Oscar win for The Fortune Cookie (another Billy Wilder film also with Lemmon). That particular movie wasn't as great as this one because the story couldn't sustain such a long running time (I think it was almost 2 hours). However, this goes by at a brisk hour and a half, even though the introduction of the events leading up to Lemmon ending up at Matthau's apartment is a tad long (so was this sentence). That's a minor quibble though and for the rest of the running time you have a marvelous time.I have already written a comment about how the follow-up to this film sucked and I won't go deeper into that. The reason why this is such a joy is probably that the movie was made just as the innocence of American movies was beginning to fade fast into oblivion. There are some sexual references but they are dealt with in such an innocent way that you couldn't even get a "Well, I never..." out of the most prudish person out there. It is kind of fun to see a movie from a long lost era and that was probably why the sequel didn't work because you had Matthau and Lemmon say quite a few f-words and that just doesn't fit them.Of course, now they are both gone and you can just be happy that you still can enjoy them in a marvelous film like this. I think the only male actor in this film who is still alive is John Fiedler. Edelman died recently. So there you have it. Simply one of the best comedies and films ever.Add: I have just learned recently that John Fiedler has died so to all the fans of him I am deeply sorry. I didn't mean any disrespect and I will try to be more careful of what I am blah blah blahing next time.$LABEL$ 1
+Stuck in a hotel in Kuwait, I happily switched to the channel showing this at the very beginning. First Pachelbel's Canon brought a lump to my throat, then the sight of a Tiger Moth (which my grandfather, my father and I have all flown) produced a slight dampness around the eyes and then Crowe's name hooked me completely. I was entranced by this film, Crowe's performance (again), the subject matter (and yes, what a debt we owe), how various matters were addressed and dealt with, the flying sequences (my father flew Avro Ansons, too), the story - and, as another contributor pointed out, Crowe's recitation of High Flight. I won't spoil the film for anyone, but, separated from my wife by 4,000-odd miles, as an ex-army officer who was deployed in a couple of wars and as private pilot, I admit to crying heartily a couple of times. Buy it, rent it, download it, beg, borrow or steal it - but watch it.PS Did I spy a Bristol Blenheim (in yellow training colours)on the ground? Looked like a twin-engine aircraft with a twin-.303 Brownings in a dorsal turret.$LABEL$ 1
+Warning: This could spoil your movie. Watch it, see if you agree. To think that we as humans can not learn from the past. The futuristic society portrayed glamorized what Hitler believed, obliterate a race of people (in this case men) for the benefit of society. It made me sick to my stomach. Also the plausibility of a Y bomb is insane. Even in war our instinct for self-preservation will prevent the extinction of humanity. We made mistakes in the past ie: Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in '45 but because of that we avoided a bigger mistake in '63 during the Cuban Missile Crisis$LABEL$ 0
+Some of the background details of this story are based, very, very loosely, on real events of the era in which this was placed. The story combines some of the details of the famous Leopold and Loeb case along with a bit of Aimee Semple McPherson.The story begins with two mothers (Shelley Winters and Debbie Reynolds) being hounded as they leave a courtroom. The crowd seems most intent on doing them bodily harm as their sons were just convicted of a heinous thrill crime. One person in the crowd apparently slashes Winters' hand as they make their way to a waiting car.Soon after they arrive home, they begin getting threatening phone calls, so Reynolds suggests they both move to the West Coast together and open a dance school. The dance school is s success and they cater to incredibly obnoxious parents who think their child is the next Shirley Temple. One of the parents of these spoiled kids is a multimillionaire who is quite smitten with Reynolds and they begin dating. Life appears very good. But, when the threatening phone calls begin again, Winters responds by flipping out--behaving like she's nearing a psychotic break and she retreats further and further into religion--listening on the radio to 'Sister Alma' almost constantly. Again and again, you see Winters on edge and it ultimately culminates in very bad things!! I won't say more, as it might spoil this suspenseful and interesting film.In many ways, this film is a lot like the Bette Davis and Joan Crawford horror films of the 1960s like "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?", "Straight-Jacket" and "The Nanny". While none of these are exactly intellectual fare, on a kitsch level they are immensely entertaining and fun. The writing is very good and there are some nice twists near the end that make it all very exciting. Winters is great as a fragile and demented lady and Reynolds plays one of the sexiest 39 year-olds I've ever seen--plus she can really, really dance.My only concern about all this is that some might find Winters' hyper-religiosity in the film a bit tacky--like a cheap attack on Christianity. At first I felt that way, but when you meet Sister Alma, she seems sincere and is not mocked, so I took Winters' religious zeal as just a sign of craziness--which, I assume, is all that was intended.By the way, this film is packaged along with "Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?"--another Shelley Winters horror film from 1971. Both are great fun...and quite over-the-top!$LABEL$ 1
+This is a pleasant film, even if the premise is silly. It was sort of a guilty pleasure to watch. Meg Ryan seems to be able to pull off roles in this kind of film (another example is Joe vs. the Volcano). That's what makes her a star, in part. Walter Matthau, of course, had that ability, too, and he really puts himself into the role, making an amusing, good-hearted Einstein. I suppose you could say they're both good at portraying loveable characters, though loveable in different ways (loveable young women vs. loveable curmudgeon).$LABEL$ 1
+Quite what the producers of this appalling adaptation were trying to do is impossible to fathom.A group of top quality actors, in the main well cast (with a couple of notable exceptions), who give pretty good performances. Penelope Keith is perfect as Aunt Louise and equally good is Joanna Lumley as Diana. All do well with the scripts they were given.So much for the good. The average would include the sets. Nancherrow is nothing like the house described in the book, although bizarrely the house they use for the Dower House looks remarkably like it. It is clear then that the Dower House is far too big. In the later parts, the writers decided to bring the entire story back to the UK, presumably to save money, although with a little imagination I have no doubt they could have recreated Ceylon.Now to the bad. The screenplay. This is such an appallingly bad adaptation is hard to find words to condemn it. Edward does not die in the battle of Britain but survives, blinded. He makes a brief appearance then commits suicide - why?? Loveday has changed from the young woman totally in love with Gus to a sensible farmer's wife who can give up the love her life with barely a tear (less emotional than Brief Encounter). Gus, a man besotted and passionately in love, is prepared to give up his love without complaint. Walter (Mudge in the book) turns from a shallow unfaithful husband to a devoted family man. Jess is made into a psychologically disturbed young woman who won't speak. Aunt Biddy still has a drink problem but now without any justification. The Dower House is occupied by the army for no obvious reason other than a very short scene with Jess who has a fear of armed soldiers. Whilst Miss Mortimer's breasts are utterly delightful, I could not see how their display on several occasions moved the plot forward. The delightfully named Nettlebed becomes the mundane Dobson. The word limit prevents me from continuing the list.There is a sequel (which I lost all interest in watching after this nonsense) and I wonder if the changes were made to create the follow on story. It is difficult to image that Rosamunde Pilcher would have approved this grotesque perversion of her book; presumably she lost her control when the rights were purchased.$LABEL$ 0
+There must have been some interesting conversations on the set of Eagle's Wing, with Martin Sheen straight off Apocalypse Now co-starred with the actor he replaced on Coppola's film, Harvey Keitel. A real unloved child of a movie, dating back to the last major batch of Westerns in 1979-80, it was much reviled at the time for being made by a British studio and director (conveniently ignoring the fact that many of the classic American westerns were directed by European émigrés), which seems a bit of an over-reaction.The plot is simplicity itself, as Martin Sheen's inexperienced trapper finds himself fighting with Sam Waterston's nonosyllabic Kiowa warrior over the possession of a beautiful white horse, the Eagle's Wing, across a harsh and primitive landscape in a time "before the legends began." Aside from Caroline Langrishe's captive Irish governess, the supporting cast have little to do (Stephane Audran never even gets to open her mouth) and it is a little slow, but Anthony Harvey's film does boast terrific Scope photography from Billy Williams and a good score from Marc Wilkinson.$LABEL$ 1
+I got stuck in traffic (I live in Sicily) on the way to the theater (at a military base) to see Superman Returns, was 15 minutes late, and the only other movie playing was "See No Evil", there was no poster up for it, and just a short description of the movie on the schedule...but my girlfriend and I decided to check it out...As soon as I saw it was produced by WWE I just knew it was gonna be awful. The few people in the theater were laughing most of the time, and it was the first movie that I honestly considered walking out on, and I've seen "The Ringer"...okay, I would have walked out of that one, but I was too busy sleeping. The death of the bad guy at the end was pretty good, but other than that, it was just stupid.$LABEL$ 0
+I've been trying to find out about this series for ages! Thank you, IMDb! I saw this as a child and have never quite been able to get it out of my mind. As a 6-year old, of course, I was particularly struck by the episode of the cyclops, which was absolutely chilling (I talked about it so much that my older brother made me a cyclops out of a plastic cave man figurine, which I still have) What I also remember, though, was the atmosphere, which was unusual right from the beginning - mysterious, austere, and extremely authentic. When I read the original many years later I experienced that same sensation. It's a very hard thing to capture - and probably impossible in Hollywood. Every 'Odyssey' I've seen since has been an enormous let-down. The characters in this series seemed genuine, real people - ancient Greek people - and not some Hollywood stars in costumes. This is a real masterpiece! But - Why is it not better known? And why isn't it available on VHS or DVD? I would just love to have the chance to see this again!$LABEL$ 1
+I don't know if this type of movie was as cliché then as it seems to be now.Considering how many "Bad News Bears" films had already been released by 1980, however, I think that this sort of movie was already a tired idea.A former football player is partially paralyzed in Vietnam and is confined to a wheelchair. The Chicago Bears offer him a PR job but he wants to coach. At the same time, his underage nephew is picked up for armed robbery. We are told that he has already been arrested over a dozen times before and he must now serve some hard time...which turns out to be less than a year! Of course, the kid is actually a good kid who only needs a tough male role model in his life. The same goes for all of the kids in the detention facility. Yes...even the one locked up for attempted murder! I'm sure you already know what happens so I'll try and keep the rest of this brief.Our protagonist becomes the coach of the kids' football team. He overcomes the delinquents' cynicism and earns their respect. His team faces off against a local high school team (yeah right!) and they get their butts kicked. Now determined more than ever to prove himself a worthy coach, he demands a rematch. Will these underprivileged, scrappy kids with hearts of gold be able to improve enough to win the rematch? Awful execution of the football sequences ruins any possibility of excitement in this film. "Coach Of The Year" should get penalized for roughing my brain. 1/10$LABEL$ 0
+I went to see this film out of curiosity, and to settle an argument. The film is now best known from the suite of music Sergei Prokofiev extracted from his incidental music to the film, the Troika movement even turning up in pop arrangements. The general outline of the plot is well known from the sleeve notes on various recordings. A clerk accidentally generates a non-existent Lieutenant Kizhe in a list to be presented to the tsar. The tsar is interested in this person, and rather than tell him he doesn't exist, the courtiers and officers maintain the pretence that he is real. Kizhe is exiled to Siberia, recalled, promoted, married, promoted again, dies, is given a state funeral, revealed as an embezzler and posthumously demoted to the ranks.I had heard conflicting stories about how the clerk invented Kizhe, involving ink blots and sneezes, but I'd heard the film was lost, so there was no way to find out what happens. Then the film turned up at the Barbican in London as part of their Prokofiev festival. For the record, it turned out that all that happens is that the clerk confuses two words whilst writing an order and turns Kuzhe into Kizhe. As the tsar is in a hurry to see the order, there's no time to correct the mistake.Having gone expecting an historical curiosity, I was pleasantly surprised. The film is very funny, and the audience, myself included, laughed continuously. Although most of it is filmed straight, set mostly in the palace, there are a few "trick" shots where multiple images appear on the screen. For instance, the tsar's army is represented by a small group, repeated across the screen. Four identical guards perform perfect drill in perfect unison. Two identical servants scrub the floor.One slight drawback was it was very difficult to work out who everyone was. There were two women who might have been the tsar's daughters, or a daughter and a servant or something else. And very few people were named. But all in all, an enjoyable film and I'm surprised it's not seen more often.$LABEL$ 1
+Forest of the Damned starts out as five young friends, brother & sister Emilio (Richard Cambridge) & Ally (Sophie Holland) along with Judd (Daniel Maclagan), Molly (Nicole Petty) & Andrew (David Hood), set off on a week long holiday 'in the middle of nowhere', their words not mine. Anyway, before they know it they're deep in a forest & Emilio clumsily runs over a woman (Frances Da Costa), along with a badly injured person to add to their problems the van they're travelling in won't start & they can't get any signals on their mobile phones. They need to find help quickly so Molly & Judd wander off in the hope of finding a house, as time goes by & darkness begins to fall it becomes clear that they are not alone & that there is something nasty lurking in the woods...This English production was written & directed by Johannes Roberts & having looked over several other comments & reviews both here on the IMDb & across the internet Forest of the Damned seems to divide opinion with some liking it & other's not, personally it didn't do much for at all. The script is credited on screen to Roberts but here on the IMDb it lists Joseph London with 'additional screenplay material' whatever that means, the film is your basic backwoods slasher type thing like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) with your basic stranded faceless teenage victims being bumped off but uses the interesting concept of fallen angels who roam the forest & kill people for reason that are never explained to any great deal of satisfaction. Then there's Stephen, played by the ever fantastic Tom Savini, who is never given any sort of justification for what he does. Is he there to get victims for the angels? If so why did he kill Andrew by bashing his head in? The story is very loose, it never felt like a proper film. The character's are poor, the dialogue not much better & the lack of any significant story makes it hard to get into it or care about anything that's going on. Having said that it moves along at a reasonable pace & there are a couple of decent scenes here.Director Johannes doesn't do anything special, it's not a particularly stylish or flash film to look at. There's a few decent horror scenes & the Tom Savini character is great whenever he's on screen (although why didn't he hear Judd breaking the door down with an axe while escaping with Molly?) & it's a shame when he gets killed off. There are a couple of decent gore scenes here, someone has their head bashed in, there's a decapitation, someone gets shotgun blasted, someone throat is bitten out, someones lips are bitten off & someone is ripped in half. There is also a fair amount of full frontal female nudity, not that it helps much.Technically Forest of the Damned is OK, it's reasonably well made but nothing overly special or eye-catching. This was shot in England & Wales & it's quite odd to see an English setting for a very American themed backwards horror. The acting is generally pretty poor save for Savini who deserves to be in better than this. Horror author Shaun Hutson has an embarrassing cameo at the end & proves he should stick to writing rather than acting.Forest of the Damned was a pretty poor horror film, it seems to have fans out there so maybe I'm missing something but it's not a film I have much fondness for. Apart from one or two decent moments there's not much here to recommend.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this DVD on sale and bought it without a second thought, despite not even having known it was out since this is one of my favorite books of all time. As soon as I got home I raced to watch it only to find myself utterly disappointed. While it is true that this film is somewhat based on the book, the similarities end there. The characters are changed (ie Finny seems more a pompous jerk than anything else whereas Gene seems to be somewhat of a hillbilly), scenes are misplaced or altogether changed (ie. Lepper), many characters are missing and famous lines/thought are missing. The movie does attempt to portray some feeling that the previous one lacked but it is done in a lackluster way that makes for a flat boring movie. It is the depth of character and feeling that makes the book such a classic and this movie takes those things and utterly destroys them in its rewriting.$LABEL$ 0
+I don't know much about Tobe Hooper, or why he gets his name in the title, but maybe he shouldn't have bothered. As another commenter mentioned, there isn't really enough horror or erotica to bring in fans of either genre. The plot is incoherent, the Sade sequences are gratuitous, and most of the acting is so-so. Englund was doing his best with weak material, and Zoe Trilling has a really great bottom, but neither is enough to carry this film. This one's a tape-over. Grade: F$LABEL$ 0
+Watching John Cassavetes film, Opening Night, I was reminded of something that Quentin Tarantino said once in an interview about personal experience in being a creator of art or acting. He referred to an example of, say, if he ran over a dog while on his way to act in a play that it wouldn't be the end of his life but that it would affect him, and that, without a doubt, he would have to bring that experience with him on stage even if it was a light comedy. "Otherwise," as he said, "what am I doing?" I couldn't help but think of his words when watching Gena Rowland's character, Myrtle Gordon, who for almost a whole week or so goes through a very similar scenario. There is more to this in Cassavetes' film, of course, since it's about how the theater works around a star actress, what emotion and human nature mean when looking at playing a character, and how one lives when all one has (like Myrtle Gordon) is the theater.Near the beginning of the film, after exiting a performance, Myrtle is signing autographs and one such fan named Nancy comes up to her favorite star and pours her heart out to Myrtle. It's a touching little moment, but it doesn't last as she has to get in the car (pouring rain and all). She then watches in horror as the girl, who stood right next to the car as it drove off, gets hit by another car in an auto accident. She's not sure really what happened, but then finds out the next day that in fact the girl did die from the hit. From then on she's sort of stunned by this even after she thinks it's out of her system. At first this shows in small ways, like when she rehearses a scene with her fellow actor (played by Cassavetes) and can't seem to stand being hit - she blames it on the lack of depth in the character (the writer: "What do you think the play lacks?" "Hope," says Myrtle)- but then Nancy starts to show up to her, an apparition that to Myrtle is all to real, until she's suddenly gone.Cassavetes, as in the past films, is after a search for what it means to have emotion, to really feel about something and feel it, or the lack thereof, and how it affects others around the person. This isn't exactly new ground for Rowlands, who previously played a woman on the edge of herself in Woman Under the Influence (in that case because of alcohol), nor would it be alien territory for costar Ben Gazzara, who just came off starring in Killing of a Chinese Bookie. But the actors express everything essential to their characters in every scene; Cassavetes doesn't tell them how to get from A to B in a scene, and he doesn't need to. There's a mood in a Cassavetes film that trumps the sometimes grungy camera-work. You know Myrtle, for example, should be content somehow, even if it isn't with the plot. But she's haunted, and is unsatisfied with her character's lack of depth and the tone of the play ("Aging, who goes to see that?" she asks the playwright), and it starts to affect those around her too.The question soon becomes though not what is the usual. A conventional dramatist would make the conflict 'Will she be able to go on stage, will the show go on?' This isn't important for Cassavetes, even if it's there, as is the question 'Will she be alright?' Perhaps going through such a grueling play as "The Second Woman" could help her work out her personal demons and her losing her grip on reality (seeing Sara and attacking her in front of total strangers, who wonder what the hell is going on)? Or will the play's lack of hope strain everything else wrong with her? The depths Rowlands makes with her character are intense and harrowing, and that it's expected doesn't mean it's any duller than Woman Under the Influence- if anything, it's just as good as that film at being honest about a person in this profession, and consequently the other performances are just as true, from Gazarra to Nancy played by a subtle Laura Johnson. Cassavetes answers to his own posed questions aren't easy.One of the real thrills of Opening Night, along with seeing great actors performing an amazing script, is to see Cassavetes take on the theater the way he does. We see the play performed- and it's apparently a real play- and we only know slightly what it's about. When we see the actors on the stage performing it, we wax and wane between being involved in what melodrama is going on (relationship scuffling and affairs and the occasional slap and domestic violence) and the improvisation of the actors. I wondered watching how much really was improvised, how much Cassavetes allowed for the other actors to do in the scenes where Myrtle starts to go loopy or, in the climax, is completely smashed. He's on the stage, too, so it must have been something for them to work it out beforehand and let what would happen happen.It's funny, startling, chilling, and edge-of-your-seat stuff, some of the best theater-on-film scenes ever put in a movie, and we see the lines between actor on stage, actor on film, actor with actor, blur together wonderfully. Opening Night is a potent drama that is full of frank talk about death and madness, reality and fiction, where the love is between people, and really, finally, what does 'acting' mean?$LABEL$ 1
+A teen-aged girl gets the horse of her dreams and is trained by an ex-Jockey to participate in London's Grand National Steeplechase. A fine adaptation of the classic children's book, with an excellent, start-making performance by Taylor as the energetic but polite youngster. Rooney is OK as her trainer, although he has some overly melodramatic moments. Crisp and Revere are quite good as Taylor's loving parents. Filmed in Technicolor, it looks beautiful. The problems are that there are corny elements, nothing very interesting happens, and it drags on a bit too long. The race is exciting but could have been much more so.$LABEL$ 1
+I liked the understated character that Laura Linney played in 'Love Actually', and she is very good in 'Man of the Year'.But wow. Robin Williams doesn't give that much of a performance, with a couple of minor exceptions this was weak. Laura Linney may not have been miscast, but either the editing raped her character, or this was just a sad performance by director Barry Levinson.And I think it was Barry Levinson that got old. So many weak performances, such uneven results have to be the fault of management.Christopher Walken and Jeff Goldblum are great in supporting roles. Goldblum plays a sinister side with relish, and Walken's combination of entertainer's manager and commentator for the film is wonderful.But the story is cliché, the presentation looks like it could have (should have) been a very good picture, and too many actions are half-hearted. The pacing, story, and direction all come up weak, compared to, say 'Head Office' (spoof of 'Secret of My Success').$LABEL$ 0
+This film is probably the worst movie I have watched in a very long time. The acting is so wooden a door could have done a better job. The plot is laughable and shallow and the actual "rugby" shown is a far cry from reality. I still don't get the "haka" as portrayed in this poor excuse for entertainment. I am not a Kiwi but I do know that the Haka can only be performed by someone of Maori origin and not by an all-American white boy.I am assuming that this was made for the American audience so the shallowness and "Disney end'" is excusable but there was hardly any attempt to point out the basic rules of the game apart from the prison side where the main character suddenly takes charge of an American Football game and gets everyone playing rugby instead. The only thing good about this film were the end credits. It would be less painful to spend ninety minutes inserting toothpicks into your eyeballs.$LABEL$ 0
+This is the kind of film one watches in gape-jawed, horrified silence, and yet continues to watch, mesmerized, as if watching a train wreck in slow motion. And yet, in the back of your mind, thoughts are churning: "Who on EARTH green-lighted this garbage?"Some of the preceding user comments say things like, "A good way to introduce children to Laurel and Hardy" -- an insult to children everywhere. That children would need some sort of training plan to learn to love slapstick comedy shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of children the world over. Others have commented on the faithfulness of the two stars' characterizations of Laurel and Hardy to which I would respond: so WHAT? One would think that the rash of movie BOMBS based on beloved series (Rocky and Bullwinkle, Avengers, Flipper, Mod Squad, ad nauseam) would have taught Hollywood that there are some things that simply can't be recreated. The films of Laurel and Hardy are readily available on video: why bother with this?As for F. Murray Abraham, a fine actor of stage and screen... well, all I can say is, he must have been in trouble with the IRS.Run, don't walk, away from the television if this trash comes on!$LABEL$ 0
+Sorry I couldn't disagree more ,with the last comments . frankly I thought this was worse than Carry on Columbus , enough said . Last film for THE usually brilliant Charles Hartrey who looked out of place as the humour had move on to the Highly witty level of on the buses, films of which were being made at the same time ,were frankly funnier .Barbara Windsor was embarrassing,a character like one of your mums flirty friends who still thinks she's eighteen , on holiday with some non entity of a Scotsman , Rab c Nesbit he ain't. The series miraculously trundled on with duffers like Carry on Behind ,and Carry on England . Carry on Dick wasn't bad , but really with this film the end of the series was nigh , a pity because up to this film I cant think of bad film before this?$LABEL$ 0
+Next to the slasher films of the 1970s and 80s, ones about the walking dead were probably the second most popular horror sub-genre. While slasher films had 'Black Christmas' and 'Halloween' to get the whole thing going, zombie flicks had George Romero's 'Dead' films. And unsurprisingly soon after the success of his first two in the series, other directors wanted to cash in. A lot of Italian directors were especially interested, such as Lucio Fulci who brought us 'Zombie' a year after Romero's 'Dawn of the Dead', known as 'Zombi' in Italy and some other countries, and it was there that Fulci's film was known as 'Zombi 2'. Apart from the walking dead it has no relation to Romero's film, but is a good film in it's own right. It was a big success in Europe and 9 years later a sequel was born.Pros: Lots of beautiful, lush scenery. Awesome score. The acting isn't exactly good, but the cast is game and seem to be enjoying the experience. After kind of a slow start, the pace moves along like that of an action flick. Plenty cheese and unintentional hilarity for bad film lovers. Good job on the make-up effects. Lots of blood and some decent gore.Cons: Virtually plot less. Nothing you haven't already seen before. Blatantly rips off some things from the first couple of 'Return of the Living Dead' films. Cardboard characters. Hasn't aged too well due to the bad 1980s rock music(Not that I'm saying all rock music of that period is bad), clothing, and overall feel of the movie.Final thoughts: First of all, this is not a true sequel to Fulci's cult classic. In fact, I don't know if it was ever meant to pick up where that film left off. For those that don't know, Fulci was ill during production and ended up leaving and was replaced with Bruno Mattei. Mattei's films are pretty laughable, but like this film many are good campy fun. And that's all this film really is, just something to watch for fun.My rating: 3.5/5 (So-bad-it's-good rating) 2/5 (Serious rating)$LABEL$ 0
+This is the first Guinea Pig film from Japan and this is the sickest, in my opinion. A bunch of guys torture a girl for several days before finally killing her. And at this point, I will say that these films are NOT real! They are faked horror films which try to be as realistic as possible.The scenes are sickening but also unrealistic in many cases. For example, when they kick the girl in the floor, we can clearly see how they kick and stump the floor near the girl! And how stupid this looks! The sound effects are also unrealistic and don't make sense. Other scenes include animal intestines thrown on the girl, the girl exposed to loud noises for many hours, the ripping off of fingernails, worms placed on the wounds in the girl's body, the eye pierced and mutilated in horrific detail and stuff like that. Very sick and mean spirited film and has absolutely nothing valuable or cinematically significant. This first entry is the sickest and most amateurish Guinea Pig, although it is not as bloody as the next part, Flowers of Flesh and Blood, which tries to be as shocking as possible.Guinea Pig: Devil's Experiment is perhaps the sickest thing I've seen and the closest thing to snuff there is. This is still (of course) faked s(n/t)uff, the only difference to genuine "snuff film" is that no one dies or hurts for real in this film. I cannot recommend this to anyone since thi s is so s****y and repulsive. They who consider this is a great horror film understand nothing about cinema and the real meaning of it. I watched this as a curiosity (as the other parts in the series) and now I know how insignificant trash these are. They work only in shock level and that's not too valuable cinematic achievement. Devil's Experiment is perhaps the sickest film I've seen and Mermaid in a Manhole (Guinea Pig 4) is perhaps the most disgusting film I've seen. So these are pretty extreme in my book, but that's all they are.$LABEL$ 0
+Although there is melodrama at the center or rather at the bottom of this film, the story is told beautifully and subtly and the acting is superb.Yaara, studying at Princeton, returns to her native Israel for the funeral of her oldest and dearest friend, Talia. Because Yaara practically lived with her friend's parents after the death of her own mother, she has lost her adoptive sister. And because Yaara, blind from birth, has been guided and guarded by Talia, her friend's suicide is as unbearable as it is inexplicable.Inevitably, the blind girl is the one who determines to solve the mystery of this death. Though without sight, she has insight. Though she cannot see, she is able to find what is out of sight than the "normal" people around her. The film thus becomes an absorbing mystery as Yaara scours for clues in memories of her relationship with Talia, in her adoptive family's house, in tapes, diaries, and people in Talia's past and present.Told from Yara's point of view, the film is also seen from her point of view, as she visualizes what she hears, believes, and imagines. The solution to the mystery is rather conventional, but the search is conducted with such subtle care and the answer rendered so beautifully and without fanfare, that the pat moment is easily forgiven. The truths emerge gradually yet inexorably, clarifying not only Talia's life, but also her relationship with Yaara. Tali Sharon, as Yaara, uses her mobile face and voice effectively, and is utterly believable as both the adult and teenage girl. We accept fully her ability by the film's end to find her place in the world more confidently.Noteworthy is the precision by which places and actions are repeated with small but significant variations that never become tedious, the dead-on acting by the minor characters, and the interesting decision to represent Talia only as a teenager. I will quibble with Yaara's final declaration as stands with Gadi, Talia's last boyfriend, at a cliff's edge, but that trip to the edge is so fascinating that the image will remain in sight longer than her words will be recalled.$LABEL$ 1
+"True" story of a late monster that appears when an American industrial plant begins polluting the waters. Amusing, though not really good, monster film has lots of people trying to get the monster and find out whats going on but not in a completely involving way. Give it points for giving us a giant monster that they clearly built to scale for some scenes but take some away in that it looks like a non threatening puppy. An amusing exploitation film thats enjoyably silly in the right frame of mind. (My one complaint is that the print used on the Elvira release is so poor that it looks like a well worn video tape copy that was past its prime 20 years ago.)$LABEL$ 0
+Even if you could get past the idea that these boring characters personally witnessed every Significant Moment of the 1960s (ok, so Katie didn't join the Manson Family, and nobody died at Altamont), this movie was still unbelievably awful. I got the impression that the "writers" just locked themselves in a room and watched "Forrest Gump," "The Wonder Years," and Oliver Stone's 60s films over and over again and called it research. A Canadian television critic called the conclusion of the first episode "head spinning". He was right.$LABEL$ 0
+I first saw this film over 25 years ago on British TV and have only just caught up with it again last week on a DVD copy bought off ebay. I had remembered the musical sequences, the colour and the gorgeous fashion plate poses and clothes but the plot is weaker than the earlier Anna Neagle/Michael Wilding film Spring in Park Lane and Maytime doesn't stand up so well to the passage of the years. But Michael Wilding is a joy in the film, charming, funny, debonair, appears to be having great fun and on top of his form. Worth watching for him alone. Anna Neagle appears a little matronly beside him, and a little too old for the part she plays but by the end of the 1940's their film partnership was well established with the cinema going public. Spring in Park Lane had been a top hit for 1947 and a big money maker. In his autobiography Wilding wrote at length of his great regard for Herbert Wilcox the director and instigator of this London series of films.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw the MST3K version of "Deathstalker III" and loved the movie so much -- even "unmystied" -- that I decided to watch the entire series of "Deathstalker" films. I bought I and II and settled down for a laugh.Nothing about "Deathstalker I" was funny on any level and when the credits rolled I was embarrassed and regretful that I had bought it! Too much ugliness and nudity. I guess either "DS 3" was a much cleaner production or MST3K really edited a lot because I expected something similar, i.e. stupid and carefree and simple. I was wrong. Even at $6.99 it seemed a waste of money. I didn't even open "DS 2" as I will return it tomorrow. Now I'll probably just throw away this DVD as I can't return it and no one wants it -- including myself! So really, don't bother with this one. Even the nudity (lots of it, btw) is uninspiring and icky.$LABEL$ 0
+I have a question for the writers and producers of "Prozac Nation": What is the root cause and what is the solution to the widespread problem of personal depression in America? In the moving performance of Christina Ricci as Liz Wurtzel, the film portrays a young woman with unlimited potential as a Harvard student and as a writer. But this is not a story of success, only one of self-destruction as we watch Liz bring misery into the lives everyone who comes in contact with her. The film examines divorce, family dysfunction, drugs, alcohol, and prescription medication as possible reasons for Liz's unhappiness. But none of those superficial explanations are satisfactory.At some point in the film, it would have been helpful to suggest that Liz needs to take responsibility for her life and her problems. No light was shed on what the film alleged to be a runaway problem in "The United States of Depression." In the story, Liz had a caring therapist (Anne Heche), a caring roommate (Michele Williams), a caring boyfriend (Jason Biggs), and a troubled but caring parent (Jessica Lange). In a key scene in the film, Liz is lying in a hospital bed watching the break-up of the space shuttle Challenger. Instead of equating Challenger with Liz's life, the film should have used the image as a starting point for her healing and recovery.This film reminded me of a generic made-for-cable "victim" film on the Lifetime network. An excellent cast was wasted, especially in the earnest performance of Christina Ricci. The real-life Elizabeth Wurtzel obviously found within herself the resources to cope with her depression and become a successful author. It is unfortunate that the film could not offer us even the slightest glimpse into her courageous spirit.$LABEL$ 0
+Ich will danke Herr Hacke für den Filme. Mein Deutsch ist nicht gut. Enschuldigen Sie.First of all, i didn't know how diverse the sound of Istanbul, inspite i live in Turkey.Faith Akin and Alexander Hacke have made a different approach for Turkish music.Narrating, performing, seeing Istanbul and Istanbul Music from a foreigner aspect had given the real meaning of the music itself.In this movie I had found out how different our(Turkish) culture is, how interesting our performers are, and how much respect they deserve. Unfortunately no one have been able to serve this kind of documentary before.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this movie again as an assignment for my management class. Were to mainly comment on the different management styles and ideas on quality(of the product). I did rent this one back in the eighties and I remember it to be good(but not great)movie. I've always liked Michael Keaton's style and delivery. He was a perfect fit for the movie.I am surprised to see some of the low ratings for this movie. I grant you yes it's no Oscar winner but it does have decent comedic value. It's more of a subtle comedy rather than a all-out comedy farce. I also find some of those that felt this was an inaccurate film on cultural and business differences. I beg to differ. I grant you again that there are a lot of generalities and dramatizations but then again this is Hollywood film not a documentary. From what I've read about differences between Automakers on both sides of the Pacific at that time many of the principle ideas were accurate for the time.Some of the basic differences were that Japanese workers made to feel as part of the company as a whole. Teamwork was emphasized. They perhaps made the company above all else. Where American workers had more of a management verses labor type of relationship. The individual was more important than the company. I'll probably get some hate email over that comment I'm sure.Another difference was how quality was viewed and whose responsibility it was to fix. In many Japanese plants defects or problems are examined and fixed at the time it is discovered. Rather as one character in the movie put it "it was the dealers(meaning car dealer) problem".Many of these things are probably dated but I'm sure some are still around as many US car makers are still struggling to keep up with the Japanese. If one is more interested in the subject of American, European and Japanese automakers I can recommend a book that studies this subject in more detail and was done around the same time period. The book is called "The machine that changed the world" by James Womack, Daniel Jones and Daniel Roos. It's about a study of automakers during and before the time period that this movie covers. Parts are bit dry but I think you'll find that it backs up much the movie also.$LABEL$ 1
+Near the beginning, after it's been established that outlaw John Dillinger (Warren Oates), is an egomaniacal rapist, another bandit of the 1930s is cornered in a farm house and surrounded by the FBI. Second-in-command Melvin Purvis (Ben Johnson), surveys the situations, sticks a lighted cigar in his mouth, picks up two loaded .45-caliber automatics, and stalks off into the distant house alone. Bang, bang, bang. Purvis emerges alone from the house, carrying the female hostage, the miscreant dead. All in long shot.If you're enthralled by stories like Red Riding Hood, this should have considerable appeal.Oh, it's as exciting as it is mindless. Pretty Boy Floyd meets his demise dramatically. Multiple violations of the civic code. Plenty of shoot outs with Tommy guns and pistols. Blood all over.As history, it stinks. Few remember Melvin Purvis as an FBI hero, partly, I would guess, because of his name. Melvin PURVIS? We all remember J. Edgar Hoover, who fired Melvin Purvis because he was a rival in the quest for public attention though.The picture was written and directed by John Milius. He's the guy who had it written into his contract that, should any animals be shot and killed in the course of one of his productions, he should be the designated shooter. Milius is the guy, a compleat gun freak, who had Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders in the Spanish-American war shouting quotations from Henry V -- "Saint Crispin's Day" and all that.Exciting, yes, and complete garbage. "I knew I'd never take him alive, and I didn't try too hard neither." That is, kill 'em all and let God sort them out.You'll just love it.$LABEL$ 0
+This is, without a doubt, one of my favorite Columbo episodes ever. The acting is very well done, the music is very catchy, the script is ingenious, and the direction is fabulous.Peter Falk, who acts brilliantly in every Columbo episodes, acts particularly well in this episode.Also, great performances from Stephen Caffrey, Gary Hershberger, Alan Fudge and Robert Culp.The ending is absolutely brilliant and I love the way Columbo describes it.This is a Columbo movie that WON'T, go amiss.$LABEL$ 1
+Another wonderful Patterson book made into an incredibly awful movie. If the big budget movies don't work then why make a low budget made for t.v. movie that's 10 times worse! I am desperate for a good movie that will do ONE of his books justice!$LABEL$ 0
+I like Wes Studi & especially Adam Beach, but whoa is this movie a load of pretentiousness. Ponderously slow. Overly cryptic to the point of obfuscation, not because the plot warrants it but because there is almost no plot. Even less in the way of characterization. This is almost like one of those creaky old Charlie Chan mysteries (the cheaper Monogram studio versions) with lots of red herrings & oddball characters (like the old ex-senator with the checkered past who is now a recluse) & loads of people getting killed over objets d'art that you wouldn't look twice at in the mall. Great scenery, though. Pretty hair on the redhead, too, although I never did figure out what she was doing in this at all. Neither could my wife. Sheesh, at least the old B-movies had the decency to be short.$LABEL$ 0
+Olivier Assayas' film stars Asia Argento as a woman who had a relationship with Michael Madsen. Madsen is a business man who's in financial trouble. In desperation he is going to sell his share of a business to a company called Golden Eagle, a company from the Far East. As Madsen begins his moves away from his company Asia Argento returns to his life. The pair had a torrid love affair that included her doing business favors for Madsen (with said Golden Eagle). Once Argento enters the film the film follows her as we see the tangled web she's woven and how the complications spin dangerously and violently out of control.I'm not a fan. Actually I was quite bored as the film seems to go from pillar to post for much of the first hour during which I kept wondering what the point was other than to provide a meaty role for Argento. Argento, daughter of director Dario Argento and a director in her own right, is a unique actress. At times stunningly good, she is more often then not going to give you a quirky off beat portrayal of a damaged human being. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I don't think it completely works here mostly because the script is too "complicated" to support it. I didn't care what was going on so her wounded girl just rubbed me the wrong way(she seemed more nut job than anything else). I'm not blaming the actors but writer/director Assayas who has once again constructed a complicated tale with the sort of parts actors love to tackle, but which leave audiences scratching their heads because they they don't really work. If you must try it on cable$LABEL$ 0
+Is there a movement more intolerant and more judgmental than the environmentalist movement? To a budding young socialist joining the circus must seem as intimidating as joining a real circus. Even though such people normally outsource their brain to Hollywood for these important issues, the teachings of Hollywood can often seem fragmented and confusing. Fortunately Ed is here to teach neo-hippies in the art of envirojudgementalism.Here you'll learn the art of wagging your finger in the face of anyone without losing your trademark smirk. You'll learn how to shrug off logic and science with powerful arguments of fear. You'll learn how to stop any human activity that does not interest you by labeling it as the gateway to planetary Armageddon.In addition to learning how to lie with a straight face you'll also learn how to shrug off accusations that are deflected your way no matter how much of a hypocrite you are. You'll be able to use as much energy as Al Gore yet while having people treat you as if you were Amish.In the second season was even more useful as we were able to visit other Hollywood Gods, holy be thy names, and audit - i.e. judge - their lifestyles. NOTE: This is the only time it's appropriate for an envirofascist to judge another because it allows the victim the chance to buy up all sorts of expensive and trendy eco-toys so that they can wag their finger in other people's faces.What does Ed have in store for us in season three? Maybe he'll teach us how to be judgmental while sleeping!$LABEL$ 0
+Leland follows the story of Leland P. Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling), a disaffected teenager who has apparently murdered a severely retarded peer, the brother of a girl he was dating. The issue is not whether he did it or not – Leland admits to it, straight away – but rather, why. Interestingly, rather than a crime drama, Leland becomes a character story, examining why people do what they do – not necessarily the easiest ground to till.And Leland features the required indie group of screwed-up people. Aside from the title character, there's also Pearl (Don Cheadle), who is his teacher at the juvenile correctional facility and who sees straight off that Leland is different. We meet Leland's distant and egotistical father (Kevin Spacey in an extended cameo), who never seems emotionally stirred in any way by what his son did. But the real flavorings come out when we immerse ourselves in the Pollards, the family of the retarded child. First, there's Leland's girlfriend Becky (Jena Malone), a drug addict who can't keep herself clean; her sister Julie (Michelle Williams), perhaps the most normal person in the film, who merely seeks to get away from it all; and Allen Harris (Chris Klein), a young man who lives with the Pollards and is Julie's boyfriend. Lastly, there's Ryan (Michael Welch), whom all the others call goofball, who cannot communicate and seems barely aware of his surroundings.Leland focuses primarily on its eponymous protagonist, but the movie slowly – occasionally too slowly – burrows into everyone's lives, asking the chief question, why do people do what they do? While Leland discusses it openly in a journal Pearl allows him to keep, examining notions of good and bad and personal responsibility, all the characters at some point in the film face a moment where they must make the fundamental choice of their own happiness or another's, perhaps the most basic choice any human can make. And the movie takes a good look at what goes into those choices, and the consequences of them.In the beginning of the film, you're simply struck by the depth of the cast. Spacey. Cheadle. Gosling. Michelle Williams. Even Chris Klein – these are people who for the most part tend to elevate any film they are in, and putting them all together makes for a heady brew. For a space in the middle the film seems to stall, sputtering along as it unfolds; it looks for a while as if it will be content merely to ask questions and not supply any answers. But when we arrive at the home stretch and the movie starts to hit its stride and come together, Leland becomes a quietly powerful piece of film-making. Leland's explanation of the world and his actions, in the end, bring every story into focus, and all the investment you've made in the film pays off.Saying Ryan Gosling is excellent is like saying a sunny day is nice. At this point in his career it's redundant – this is one of the finest young actors working today, and it is a pleasure to watch him craft what could have been an unlikable character into a thought-provoking protagonist. Gosling employs such subtlety here that it hardly seems like acting; he has to face off most of the film opposite Don Cheadle, whom we know has the goods, and he not only holds his own, he elevates Cheadle's game as well. Cheadle himself is in top notch form, imbuing Pearl with a fully-rounded humanity – for good and bad. Spacey is kind of one-note, but that's the character, and he handles it excellently. I was surprised by Chris Klein; with this level of acting, I thought he would be buried in the mix, but he gives probably the turn of his career so far. Terrific work all around.Leland is a bit of a downer, and again, it's draggy in spots. But it finishes strongly and leaves a lasting impact on the viewer (on this one, anyway). There's also a subtle commentary on racism in the film (in Leland's first day in juvenile hall class, he's the only white person in the room) that, like much of the movie, is very effectively handled. I wouldn't go so far as to call this required viewing – some might find it too slow or too odd – but I thought it was one of the better films I've seen in a while, far stronger and more satisfying than most fare out there. I'd recommend it – with the above caveats – if for no other reason than to watch Gosling further perfect his craft.$LABEL$ 1
+then the second half of this movie is hard to follow. I got the first part with the Spanish Inquistion, but the film skipped many years forward with the French ruling Spain. The movie does little to fill you in on what happened, and I don't remember much about it. So, the movie gets confusing then. The movie begins when Ines, daughter of a rich merchant, is accused of Judiasm by the church, specifically Father Lorenzo. She is put to the Question and forced to confess. Even her family's wealth can not buy her out of prison. Her father forces Lorenzo to sign a confession saying he is the offspring of a chimp, in hopes of getting Ines released. All it does is give a reason for the church to condemn Lorenzo, who runs off to France.Then, the movie skips many years, and the French Revolution is in full force. Ines is released from prison. It was very good make up work to make Natalie Portman look that tore up. She finds her family dead and seeks Goya for her help. She tells him she had a child in prison. Goya sets up a meeting between her and Lorenzo, whom is now with the French and in power. He is the father. Goya sees the daughter and tells Lorenzo, whom decides it's best to send her off to America, so no one will find out. But before his plans get carried out, the British join the Spainish, and Spain reclaims power and he is now the persecuted. That part is not well told in the film. It's like the film shows this to happen in a day.FINAL VERDICT: The movie is good until it skips many years in time after the Inquistion, then the movie expects you to understand what is going on. It just got too confusing to me then.$LABEL$ 0
+VHS - I have watched this over and over and LOVED every minute of it so much so I have now ordered the DVD I only wished the film could have lasted longer. I never worry about what other people think I prefer to make my own mind up and entirely disagree with the negative comments and will not let others spoil my enjoyment of the film whatsoever. Make up your own mind and don't let others put you off! I have all Jane Austen's BBC series but this is my FAVOURITE. I see there is to be a NEW Northanger Abbey released in 2007 which I will buy when it comes out but it will not stop me watching Northanger Abbey released in the 80's.$LABEL$ 1
+This awful effort just goes to show what happens when you not only use computers to generate the effects, but also let them devise the plot and write the script. Someone somewhere has obviously come up with a new bit of software that asks a few questions then churns out four hours of loosely connected clichés, lousy dialogue and a collection of stock characters that you end up wishing had all drowned in the first five minutes.Tom Courtney took the prize for worst performance. Saying that he was wooden would be an insult to trees. It's hard to fault Robert Carlyle in almost anything he does, but the odds were stacked against even him in this one, especially since he was for some unaccountable reason required to adopt a gor' blimey London accent.A complete washout.$LABEL$ 0
+I have always loved The Muppets. Though most children's entertainment then wasn't that likable, The Muppet's was. The Muppet's are very, very funny. They are probably the most likable children's characters ever. Not only did The Muppets have their own show. They also have starred in many films. from The Muppet's Christmas carol to The Muppet's treasure Island. The first Muppet's movie, The Muppet movie, was also, like the show and the other films, excellent.The Muppet movie is about how they all got started. Kermit the frog used to live in a swamp. Until one day a movie executive tells him that there are auditions for frogs in Hollywood. So Kermit takes off for Hollywood. Along the way he runs into lots of people such as Fozzie Bear, Gonzo the great, and Miss Piggy. Also, an evil man is trying to capture Kermit.All of the Muppet films are highly enjoyable. I mean they are all very funny. This film has many film appearances. Such as Steve Martin, Mel Brooks, Elliot Gould, Carol Kane, Richard Pryor, and Orson Welles. The Muppet films are all very enjoyable. I hear that Jason Segel is going to star in one soon. I can't wait to see it.$LABEL$ 1
+Stan Laurel regarded PUTTING PANTS ON PHILIP as the first ‘true' L&H film. THE SECOND HUNDRED YEARS was the first 'official' L&H film, but this was the one where Stan completely resigned himself not only to performing (he had signed on with the Hal Roach Studios as a director and 'gag-man', before certain situations - among them Oliver Hardy's accident with a leg of lamb leading to Stan having to replace him; and the extra money that performing would provide for himself and his new wife, Lois - brought about his historic return to performing, as well as writing, directing, editing and involvement in other areas of production), but also realised the fact that he was part of a team that worked well together. This, therefore, is an historic and very important film in the history of comedy.It is also a surprisingly funny little silent film; rather different from what Laurel & Hardy would become known for and from what they are more immediately associated with today. The characters of 'Stan & Ollie do not appear - Scottish Stan Laurel plays the nephew of Oliver Hardy, a respectable man about town who is reluctant to be seen with this strange-looking fellow with a kilt and the habit of chasing pretty girls. There are some very funny moments in this well-made, charming little movie, and the performances of these two Kings of Comedy are spot-on - watch Stan's little 'scissor-kick' and smile that says, "Well waddaya know?" when he sees girls, or the hair-ruffling scene at the airport, for instance. Hilarious.Watch this film if you can, with backing music from The Beau Hunks Orchestra (available on the VVL video releases) which enhances the 1920s feel and is very, very pleasant to listen to. It's a brilliant and underrated little film, which is why I said it was 'surprisingly' funny.$LABEL$ 1
+Well - when the cameo appearance of Jason Miller (looking even more eroded than he did in Exorcist IV) is the high point of a picture, what've you got?It's a little bit country, a little bit rock n' roll: mix two drunks with money who drag their kid all over the place with a bog-dried mummy (have you figured that one out yet - DRIED in a bog?) in the basement, Christopher Walken with a bad dye job, and a little girl who might have been an interesting character if they'd developed her.I understand - sort of - that they're going back to visit her relatives. After that....Problem: There are several interesting flashbacks to what I must assume is her mother being killed in a car bombing (I think). This is never connected to anything. Problem: What do we need the grandmother for? Now, the grandmother could be interesting. She speaks Gaelic, or Celtic, or something. Maybe you can make something of her. The best they can do is that she 's got a tobacco habit. That's all.Problem: They cast a real shifty character as the husband. Is he type-cast (will he sell his wife to the devil? Maybe he can look forward to the trust fund he manages for her)or is he cast against type (after all, he has a good haircut and nice clothes)? He drinks, he hesitates. He's not a bad guy. Not a good one. But dislikable. Why didn't they DO something with him?No problem: an old boyfriend shows up. The husband knocks him down. He comes back to knock down the husband. (It gets pretty stupid, but at least THAT character has motivation.) NOW - she's an alcoholic, he's an alcoholic; he might only have married her for her money. The grandmother is locked in the bedroom. The blind uncle takes our heroine to the basement to show her the mummy of a witch (are you following this?) who may come to life. In fact, you KNOW she'll come to life, the music swells. A little girl lives in the house, takes tea to the grandmother (unlocks the door to do so) and provides granny with cigarettes. Periodically, granny gets out. But nothing happens. Husband and wife lose the kid in the house, subsequently lose their bedroom. Uncle gets his throat cut in the basement. The leading lady has nose-bleeds. The husband drinks. They both drink. In the face of all of this, the awful truth alluded to in the first over-voice is - omigod - an abortion when the leading lady was twelve years old.In spite of all these dangling-thread ingredients, nobody managed to get a story on the screen. No bridge between situations, no graduation from mild disturbance to awful horror, just long slow scenes that go nowhere.;nbody, really, to care about - and they had places to go with that aspect - the innocent kid in the charge of drunks,the grandmother who might be locked up because she's a monster, but no, her worst fault is smoking. She's got great hair, good makeup. In short, no plot. Just a little random (predictable)violence in a dark library, with the rain gushing in, and the sound track cuing us in. You need more than a few drunks and Christopher Walken to make a movie.The production values were good. Oh. Nice scenery, good wardrobe. The cameraman, at least, knew what he was doing.I bought it. Poor me.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm not great at writing reviews, so I'll just spout my opinions...I loved this series at first. The adventure, the action, the comedy, the drama... I thought it was all brilliant. Anderson, Tapping, Shanks, Judge, Davis... I loved them all. Davis, it seemed, was the fifth-most important person in the cast. Not a big deal. But when his character (General Hammond) left at the end of the seventh season, and Anderson's character (Colonel O'Neill) moved from the field to the office, the quality of the series suddenly fell off a cliff. I don't know whether it's because Hammond was more important that I realized or what, but for some reason, after the seventh season, the series turned to ****.The first seven seasons, though, were awesome. The movie Stargate seemed mediocre the first time I saw it, but it turned out to be, even if this wasn't the original intention, a brilliant setup to the series. I recommend that you watch the movie first, then watch the first season of the TV series, then watch the movie again (you'll have a whole new appreciation of it the second time around, believe me), and then watch the rest of the TV series.The last three seasons of the series aren't nearly as good as the first seven, but that doesn't mean they aren't good. It just means they're a letdown if you've gotten spoiled by the first seven seasons.After you have finished this series, be sure to watch the spin off series, Stargate: Atlantis. It is a worthy successor to this brilliant series.EDIT on 7-18-08: I just found out that Don S. Davis died a few weeks ago. It is a great loss.$LABEL$ 1
+OK, anyone who could honestly say that this movie was Great or even Good is either delusional or knows the Director, Writer and Producers and is trying to boost the buzz on this film. I watched the movie because a friend of mine worked on it and it was Horrible. I'm an actress and have worked in the industry for a while now on big films and even independents and this movie bored me to tears. The reason I'm being so harsh is because this film was clearly a different take on "Of Mice and Men" and they should sue because it is such a horrible rip-off of the story. In an industry where Hollywood seems to be creatively bankrupt...for someone to take a classic book and film "Of Mice and Men" and destroy it with a new spin bugs me so much. The actors, the accents, the dialog and the direction were amateurish and the writing was dismal. I mean if your going to take a new spin on an existing story make sure its just as good or better than the original to make the new spin justified. Did not like this movie at all.$LABEL$ 0
+Man, this movie sucked big time! I didn't even manage to see the hole thing (my girlfriend did though). Really bad acting, computer animations so bad you just laugh (woman to werewolf), strange clips, the list goes on and on. Don't know if its just me or does this movie remind you of a porn movie? And I don't mean all the naked ladys... It's something about the light or something... This could maybee become a classic just because of the bad acting and all the naked women, but not because it's an original movie white a nice plot twist. My final words are: Don't see it! It's not worth the time. If you wanna see it because the nakedness there's lots of better ones to see!$LABEL$ 0
+I loved Long Way Round and wasn't even aware of Race to Dakar until i saw it on the shelves of my local supermarket. I bought it and after a slightly 'hmm will this be as good' first episode i decided that it was. Charlie Boorman was great as were the other members of the crew. Great to see him with Ewan again. There was a fair bit of swearing in it but that didn't bother me. As for their being no mention of it on the package. Thats more to do with the silly Excempt from Classification certificate that the BBFC have. They should have given it a 15 just for the language alone.Highly recommended series, i want more!!$LABEL$ 1
+It couldn't.From the cutting dialogue to the super special effects this film was a joy to behold throughout. The immediate feel for the bitterness of the antarctic, the affinity for the characters that is built up at the base level before the real action heats up and the cunning finale combine to make this one of the most memorable and enjoyable films around.Up against a long list of films that have attempted to exploit the theme of visitors from another planet, The Thing comes out on top and laughing. Who can forget the perfectly timed dialogue and the chilling special effects? Special effects that are a lot more impressive than the computer generated images that we get to see today. I for one found some of the most enjoyable aspects of the film to be the way that we were introduced slowly to each member of the crew, and the way that they all had some distinctive character traits. This wasn't just a senseless bloodbath-come-slasher-horror flick. This film had feeling. Emotion.I truly can't recommend this film highly enough. I have yet to see anything in it's class that comes anywhere near to matching, let alone bettering, the near perfect acting and timing utilised in this cunning polymesmeric feat of cinema.$LABEL$ 1
+On the heels of the well received and beloved coming of age film classic ,concerning the lives of teenagers as they headed into adulthood, George Lucas' American Graffiti, we have Cooley High. An adaptation of sorts by one Eric Monte, co creator of the popular 1970's CBS sitcom Good Times.Cooley High was, and is, viewed as a black version of American Graffiti.Instead of central California ,as in American Graffiti, we have the black slum of Chicago's Cabrini Green as the backdrop for the story here. Instead of America in 1962 Cooley High is situated in 1964.The movie stars Welcome Back Kotter's ,Lawrence Hilton Jacobs and Glynn Turman as the movie main protagonists and its' main characters. It has Garrett Morris playing the principal who tries to keep Jacobs' and Turman's characters,named Coceise and Preach, out of trouble a great deal of the time.You know, I would like to say that Cooley High is a worthy comparison piece to American Graffiti or that it is a great film on its' own but I can't. The problem lies with the fact that the producers of the film couldn't or wouldn't hide the sad underside of black life in America.Having the film in the Cabrini Green part of Chicago doesn't help things.Neither does the crass gross attempts at humor here. When Coceise is looking for a letter of intent from a college he finds his little brother has thrown down a toilet. When the gang visits the Chicago Zoo, one of the gang named Pooter, has manure thrown on him by an ape. When the Turman's character,Preach, is being chased by two hoodlums in the school hangout(A dirty and depressing place to eat food in much less meet people at), he opens the door of the girls' bathroom while a girl is relieving herself as he escapes through the window of the same bathroom! The high school, the homes of the characters, the bathrooms, just about everywhere in the film displays the unfortunate look of urban decay and poverty.If that wasn't enough there was the rough display of humor in the film. The use of violence and profanity in the film. Cooley High may be an coming of age film ,but it is a hard and rough coming of age film with little or none of the wit and liking of the use of nostalgia that made people like and appreciate American Graffiti so much.Motown Records had a hand in making the film. The company's music was part of the film's soundtrack. But even here you get a sense of same old same old as one has heard these songs before a million times over. Not that they weren't great songs within themselves but black music,of that time period was more than just Motown.Especially in Chicago. The song nearing the end of the movie, by the Spinners' G.C. Cameron, was not all that impressive. There have been better Motown ballads that have been done, by better Motown artists than Cameron without question.The last part of the film showing where the characters went to pay homage to the film Cooley High aimed to be ,American Graffiti. It shows that Preach,an intelligent but underachieving student went to Hollywood and became a successful television writer. Eric Monte may have patterned himself as Turman's character. The last shot of film show's Preach running away from Coceise's funeral ,held on a dark rainy afternoon, and all the bleakness that Cooley High came to represent. Eric Monte ,through Preach and that final scene, had one little lesson for all of us when watching Cooley High and for the love of the past. Don't look back.$LABEL$ 0
+Wow. The only people reviewing this positively are the Carpenter apologists. I know a lot of those. The guys that'll watch John Carpenter squat on celluloid and pinch out a movie and proclaim it a masterwork of horror. This "movie" is utter crap. It looks and sounds like a porno (good lord, the soundtrack is awful...), and has sub-par porn acting, which is shocking, because normally Ron Perlman is really a very good actor. I honestly have no idea what Carpenter was thinking when making this. Most likely "Beans, beans, beans.." until somebody fed him and rolled him up into a blanket for the day... They say nothing about the abortion debate whatsoever, when they could have had a very interesting central theme (how do religious zealot anti-abortionists feel when it's the devil's baby?) but instead they chose to have Ron Perlman and his terribly acted kids kill a bunch of people and have the horribly cast doctors try to calm the hysterically bad pregnant girl. Not a single person from this episode or what have you should come away unscathed. It's just awful. Like, Plan 9 From Outerspace awful. Like, good god please would somebody turn it off before I soil myself awful. Try watching this and The Thing in the same day and your mind will implode.$LABEL$ 0
+Van damme has done some great films over the years and this one hits a big ten in my books. From the setting of Mexico to the five star fight scenes, this movie was amazing. The film is all about border patrol officers protecting there territory which is the border of Mexico. Ex navy seals are smuggling drugs out of Mexico into the united states of America (USA), Van damme and Scott Atkins give stunning performances as the cop and the villain. Although this film wasn't as good as until death but it still gave the action,acting and the film a five star look. I always look forward to these b grade action films and they keep getting better. keep them coming van damme.Watch this film if you enjoyed films like - Until death, The hard corps and second in command.$LABEL$ 1
+I've been looking forward to seeing this film ever since I first caught the trailer, and I'm so glad now that I have. It's truly a wonderful film. The actors are superb, the writing is fresh and real, the whole thing was just spot-on. I love James McAvoy in this, and I can't wait to see him in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" movie this December. Romola Garai is wonderful too. Be sure to check her out in "I Capture the Castle" or "Nicholas Nickleby," two of my favorite films. Overall, I think I liked this movie because it didn't chicken out. It's a difficult subject matter to tell a story about, in that you're very likely to offend a lot of people or mess up and make it into some overly-sentimental-sugary-sweet love fest. But they avoided doing that completely, and instead made a film that's real, honest, and touching, yes, but never over-the-top. Very well done. Amazingly well done. Go out and see it, and you'll know exactly what I mean.$LABEL$ 1
+A River Runs Through It is based on the true story of two fly fishing brothers, Norman and Paul, (Brad Pitt and Craig Sheffer) whose Reverend father (Tom Skerritt) is a strict man whose two passions are his faith and fly fishing, - and, for him and his sons, there is a fine line between the two. This story describes the slow progression of the brothers' lives and how their lives separate on two different paths. It is a touching movie narrated by the director, Robert Redford, playing the elderly Norman and reflecting on times long gone and people long dead.Certain themes recur in the movie, such as memory, death, eternity, and dreams. Most of these themes revolve around the almost tragic hero of Paul. He is a capable, charming, and brave man, but has his fatal flaws.The closing lines sum up the "point" of the movie: "Then in the Arctic half-light of the canyon, all existence fades to a being with my soul and memories and the sounds of the Big Blackfoot River and a four-count rhythm and the hope that a fish will rise. Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of those rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs. I am haunted by waters."$LABEL$ 1
+4 out of 10.This film was neither funny as a whole nor was it even worthing investing any kind of emotion into the characters. Eugene Levy is probably the most funny.... The rest of the cast do their jobs, but the story never really gets very deep and there are a lot of holes in the plot that never get filled. This just wasn't very much fun, despite being funny at times.$LABEL$ 0
+What a shame that a really competent director like Andre de Toth who specialized in slippery, shifting alliances didn't get hold of this concept first. He could have helped bring out the real potential, especially with the interesting character played by William Bishop. As the movie stands, it's pretty much of a mess (as asserted by reviewer Chipe). The main problems are with the direction, cheap budget, and poor script. The strength lies in an excellent cast and an interesting general concept-- characters pulled in different directions by conflicting forces. What was needed was someone with vision enough to pull together the positive elements by reworking the script into some kind of coherent whole, instead of the sprawling, awkward mess that it is, (try to figure out the motivations and interplay if you can). Also, a bigger budget could have matched up contrasting location and studio shots, and gotten the locations out of the all-too-obvious LA outskirts. The real shame lies in a waste of an excellent cast-- Hayden, Taylor (before his teeth were capped), Dehner, Reeves, along with James Millican and William Bishop shortly before their untimely deaths. Few films illustrate the importance of an auteur-with-vision more than this lowly obscure Western, which, in the right hands, could have been so much more.$LABEL$ 0
+But I doubt many were running to see this movie. Or "Some Came Running Out Of The Cinema". Okay, that's a bit harsh.The film starts in an unintentionally comical way: Frankie-boy comes back to his hometown after many years (this already smells of clichés) and the whole town is shaken by his arrival: he is talked about, everyone wants to talk to him, and every woman he meets flirts with him like there's no tomorrow - even his niece hints that she would gladly have dropped her date to chat with Frankie-boy a little longer! Even his pretty niece wants a piece of him! Sounds like one of those laughable "Mike Hammer" episodes where EVERY single female wants Stacey Keach. And, like Stacey Keach, Frankie-boy is anything but a good-looking woman's wet dream. In real life, someone like Sinatra (without the fame) wouldn't get within 100 m of someone as beautiful as MacLaine. But in this Hollywood movie it's the other way around: MacLaine is absolutely nuts about Frankie-boy, but HE couldn't care less! Sinatra plays his "cool" shtick much too often in his movies, and it is rarely credible. Dean Martin is kind of miscast; he isn't miscast as a card-player, but rather because of the accent which simply doesn't suit him. MacLaine is charming as ever, but she plays a caricature - and this reliance on caricatures is one of the basic problems with the film. The main characters are all some sort of stereotypes out of bad or seen-it-all-before movies and cheap novels; Frankie is the "cool cat" who comes back to town to get all the women, and he couldn't care less about his writing (which, predictably, eventually garners recognition); Martin is a sleazy but friendly card-player; MacLaine is the dumb, but very likable bimbo; Frankie's blond love-interest is a snotty literary expert; Frankie's brother is the successful guy who married into his wife's business and has a lousy marriage; and so on. Clichés.The story contains a couple of coincidences which are a little too far-fetched for my taste: Frankie just happens to bump into his niece in a locale; his niece just happens to be meters away from her daddy when the latter kisses his secretary for the FIRST time; and then there is the awful, stupid ending.In it, a drunk guy bent on killing Frankie-boy somehow manages to find him in a carnival of all places! The place is utterly crowded, with the typical noise and chaos - plus it's happening in the evening - and yet the guy somehow finds Frankie (in spite of being drunk as a doorknob) and shoots at him. But guess who he kills? MacLaine. She jumps in front of the bullet to save Frankie: a cliché which comic-book writers might cringe at. This utterly pathetic, over-dramatic, and annoying ending certainly cannot please any, even semi-intelligent, viewer. And this happens on the same day that MacLaine and Sinatra got married! The writer of this nonsense seems to have read crappy dime novels his whole life - how else is the writing of this movie to be explained? There is even a card game in which a brawl ensues with Frankie & Martin vs. some cliché caricatures out of the writer's "vivid" imagination. (It was like a damn Western suddenly.) Another dumb thing is the way Sinatra was crazy about the boring snotty-nosed bimbo and pretty much ignored MacLaine. As the movie progresses we find out that Sinatra finds MacLaine to be too dumb for him, just as the blond bimbo finds Sinatra to be too low-class for her. There is a certain snobbism and disdain to be detected in the script regarding MacLaine. MacLaine is treated as worthless by everyone, while the blond bimbo is treated as a princess and an intellectual; the ironic truth is that the latter's character comes off as rather dumb and not at all as intellectual; her behaviour, comments, and opinions are mostly clichéd, silly, confused, pretentious, and primitive. At least MacLaine's character KNOWS that she (MacLaine) is dumb. There is another irony that I didn't fail to notice: Sinatra had trouble finding an ending for his latest story - much like the writer of this movie, and that's why he came up with the corny, crappy finale.The film basically has a solid cast, and the photography is nice, but the script, though sometimes okay, relies to heavily on silly nonsense instead of on reality-based characters and events.If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Shirley MacLaine and other Hollywood intellectuals, contact me by e-mail.$LABEL$ 0
+This show was Fabulous. It was intricate and well written and all the characters where likable with out being horribly sweet. Even Jonathan Cake the philandering boyfriend was likable. Since our airwaves are filled with crap like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, it was nice to see a drama that was not too soap opera like. It was always intriguing to see how each character would be connected to the next circumstance. It really is annoying that we finally get a show that makes you think a little bit and have it thrown out because of some mysterious number that most of us don't even pay attention to. Some of us are not sheep. This show will be missed maybe not by a lot of people but by some pretty loyal fans.$LABEL$ 1
+I heard tell that Madonna was briefly considered for the Catherine Tremell role. Compared to Sharon Stone, Madonna is too coarse and BAUERISCH. She's not even close. EVIL INCARNATE: Sharon Stone is a bit long in the tooth, the ameliorative effects of modern chemistry and surgery notwithstanding. However, she artfully treats us to a frightening personification of evil beyond redemption. In the obligatory sex scene, she projects pure, crystalline lust. Especially her hooded, luminous eyes and a face flat with pleasure. Thanks to brilliant use of lighting and other stage techniques, the harsh lines of age are only occasionally manifest. Rather, she seems to have a slight golden glow (YES, YEATS). The locations gave us a view of London that is a welcome departure from the usual Londonscapes .The Catherine character is so powerful and menacing that I thank my lucky stars that our paths never crossed. I wouldn't have had a chance.THE ORIGINAL BASIC INSTINCT; ATTEMPTS AT CENSORSHIP: I must briefly comment on the original 1992 film, set in San Francisco, a beautiful city worthy of this film. It is outstanding, from the music to the locations to the sets, and so on. Paul Verhoven pulled striking performances out of the cast and crew. That the main Baddie was a woman did not escape the scrutiny of Bay Area Gay and Lesbian activist groups. Attempts at censorship were vehemently denied. SWELL. These philosophical pygmies demanded editorial control over the script, insisting on re-writes that would promote their political and psychiatrically driven agendas. Example: Sanctimoniously alleging sexism and misogyny, they demanded that the lead role be switched from BAD GIRL to BAD GUY. On locations in San Francisco, the gentle, tolerant activists did their best to sabotage filming of the scenes with noise, flashing lights and other tactics. The Executive Producers, Mario Kassar and Andrew Vajna, vowed to fight any efforts to restrict the artistic freedom guaranteed in our democracy and obtained restraining orders against the disruptive tactics. BLOWBACK: Thanks to the fulminating activists, the film got huge national press coverage - millions of dollars worth of free advertising. Their calls for viewers to boycott the film resulted in a backlash that had customers waiting in long lines wherever the film was launched. It also received widespread critical acclaim. It was, in the words of the reptilian Hackett in NETWORK, "A BIG- TITTED HIT!" Sorry, Gentle Reader; I just couldn't resist that one. Yes, it's a gibe.In conclusion, I believe that both BASIC INSTINCT 1 AND 2, with their brilliant musical scores, aesthetics and acting, are works of art that deserve protection under our Constitution.$LABEL$ 1
+The plot was very thin, although the idea of naked, sexy, man eating sirens is a good one.The film just seemed to meander from one meaningless scene to another with far too few nuddie/splatter/lesbian mouth licking shots in between.The characters were wooden and one dimensional.The ending made no sense.Considering it had Tom Savini and Shaun Hutson in it, you would have expected a decent plot and decent special effects. Some of the effects were quite good but there were just too few of them.Brownie points go for occasional flashes of tits and bush, naturally, and of course the lesbian moments. I also thought that the scene with the sirens bathing in the pool under the waterfall could be viewed as an innovative take on the 'shower scene'The film had many of the elements that go into making a first rate horror film but they were poorly executed or used too sparsely.If I had been watching this alone and aged 15, i would have really enjoyed it for about 10 minutes (with 1 hand of the remote control), then lost interest suddenly and needed a pizza...$LABEL$ 0
+Many times the description "full of sound and fury signifying nothing" is used and is right on target. Unfortunately "Code 46" lacks both sound and fury. A bit of fury would have been greatly appreciated. Tim Robbins character (William) is so lacking in passion that the idea of his falling instantly in love with Maria (Samantha Morton) seems almost absurd. These folks are so passionless that one begins to wonder if perhaps the water supply of this future world has been dosed with thorazine. There is a "Brave New World" sort of atmosphere to the film that is helped along by every scene being shot about 2-3 stops overexposed. Unfortunately this technique gets tedious and rather hard on the eyes. The cutesy mishmash of languages also grows tedious when there seems to be no apparent reason for its existence. Many futuristic, scifi films are criticized for being all flash and no substance. This film has neither flash nor substance. Its a code 6 all the way.$LABEL$ 0
+Having watched all of the Star Trek TV series episodes many times each since the 1960s, most being quite good to superb, and only very few being mediocre, my opinion is that this one is the worst of all.In fact, I think it's so poorly executed as to be an embarrassment to the series. It's not that the story is so bad, although it's not particularly outstanding in any way, but the acting is just abysmal on the part of the two lead characters, meaning those other than the regulars in this case. Barbara Anderson gives her weakest performance ever as the daughter of a mass killer, and who is on a mission of a sort. She practically calls in the role from a phone, and shows no real emotive abilities here. Although usually she's never used as more than a pretty face in most of her film/TV roles,usually small parts, she has done much better.Arnold Moss as her father gives new meaning to the term 'Ham' and is the only actor ever on a 1960s Star Trek episode that outdid William Shatner in this area, and actually makes Shatner look superb by comparison. And he gets to play a Shakespearian actor no less, which gives him more impetus to overact, and he does so.Other than these two leads being so weak, the story is such that anybody with any sense at all can tell who the killer is within the first 15 minutes. I say this because I told my brother the whole plot ending at the first commercial break when we were watching the original 1966 broadcast as pre-teens. His reply was, Yeah, you're right.Skip this one and watch the much superior Menagerie episodes which were originally televised right before.$LABEL$ 0
+Although I'm a girl, thankfully I have a sense of humor and realize that this really IS a funny anime! Watching it does give you an overwhelming feeling that it's definitely a guy show but that doesn't take away from the fact that its hilarious! 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+I remember watching this film a while ago and after seeing 3000 miles to Graceland, it all came flooding back. Why this hasn't had a Video or DVD release yet? It's sacrilegious that this majesty of movie making has never been released while other rubbish has been. In fact this is the one John Carpenter film that hasn't been released. In fact i haven't seen it on the TV either since the day i watched it. Kurt Russell was the perfect choice for the role of Elvis. This is definitely a role he was born to play. John carpenter's break from horror brought this gem that i'd love the TV to play again. It is well acted and well performed as far as the singing goes. Belting out most of Elvis's greatest hits with gusto. I think this also was the film that formed the partnership with Russell and Carpenter which made them go on to make a number of great movies (Escape from New York, The Thing, Big trouble in little china, and Escape from L.A. Someone has got to release this before someone does a remake or their own version of his life, which i feel would not only tarnish the king but also ruin the magic that this one has. If this doesn't get released then we are gonna be in Heartbreak Hotel.$LABEL$ 1
+To be honest, I did never read one of the comics and cannot remember part 2 and 3 at all. I can compare to the first part (Werner - Beinhart) and this one here is really disappointing, compared to part1 as well as compared to most other movies I watched the last weeks. The first minutes seam to be just a needless clone of the first movie intro and then it is becoming even worse. There are a few good (funny) scenes, but in total it is just another boring second-rate try of German film industry that cannot succeed (nearly as usual). One good thing: The movie is quite short (75 min.) The bad thing: It only contains story and jokes for 45 Minutes ;) -> Don't watch it$LABEL$ 0
+I dug this out and watched it tonight. I honestly think it must be 20 years since the last time I saw it. I remember it being a seriously flawed film. I don't remember it being THIS bad!!!!!I am absolutely aghast that a project with this much potential should have been mistreated so reprehensibly. Who am I to blame for this? The 2 guys who wrote (and I use that word loosely) the script? The casting directors who so terribly miscast at least 3 major characters in the story? (Only 2 of them are among "the amazing 5".) The director, who clearly refused to take it seriously, and kept shoving awful music on top of bad writing & bad acting everywhere? (I LIKED the theme song-- but it should never have been used all the way throughout the entire film!) Don Black, who should be ASHAMED at some of the lyrics he wrote for that music?It figures that I should pull this out, less than a week after re-reading the comic-book adaptation. The first 15-20 minutes of the film more-or-less (really, LESS) parallel the first issue of the comic. As I watched it tonight, I kept wondering-- why was ALMOST every single detail changed? Doc showing up, then using his wrist-watch remote-control to open the safe, and the sniper's bullet missing him by 5 inches because the refractive glass, were just about the only things left the same. I mean, if you're gonna do an "adaptation", WHY in God's name change EVERYTHING???Once they leave Doc's HQ, virtually NOTHING is as it was in the comic (which, given Roy Thomas, I figure probably follows the book). I read somewhere they actually combined elements of 2 different novels into one movie. Again-- WHY? I've heard it was changed because they weren't able to secure the kind of budget they wanted. I look at the film, and think... LACK OF MONEY in NO WAY explains what I saw on the screen!!You know, when people complain about Joel Schumacher, they should really take a look at this thing. The best thing I can say is, I think it would make a great double-feature with the 1966 BATMAN feature-- and probably a great triple-bill with that and the 1980 FLASH GORDON. All 3 films are "silly". Maybe we can "blame" the 1966 film (and TV series) for this. Some fans have complained over the years that Adam West's BATMAN ruined the image of comic-books in the minds of generations of non-comics fans. I think the same could be said for Hollywood. I'm reminded of how many really, really BAD films based on "classic" characters have been made over the years, especially (it seems to me) in the late 70's & early 80's. Charlie Chan, Fu Manchu, Tarzan, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, The Lone Ranger-- all "murdered" by Hollywood types who think, "OH, comic-books! So you know it's supposed to be STUPID!" More like they're the "stupid" ones. What a waste of potential.Let me say some good things... Despite the script and the directing, Ron Ely is GREAT. When I read a DOC SAVAGE story, I don't think of the James Bama paintings, I think of Ely. Bill Lucking (who later was a regular on THE A-TEAM) is terrific. Eldon Quick (who I've seen somewhere else, but can't recall where) is terrific. Paul Gleason-- who I absolutely HATED with a passion and a vengeance in THE BREAKFAST CLUB ("teachers" like the one he played should be banned from ever teaching anywhere), may be the best of the "amazing 5" in the film. Pamela Hensley-- though her part was almost unrecognizable from the original story-- is terrific. Before she let her hair down, I also realized she looked a HELL of a lot like "Ardala Valmar" from those awful John Calkins BUCK ROGERS strips I just read the other day. She's got a big nose like Ardala-- only not quite as pronounced. The comics Ardala actually looked more like the 1936 movie Princess Aura-- or Cher. Or maybe Streisand. Take yer pick. (Ardala actually got plastic surgery in the George Tuska strips-- after, she was stunning!)Paul Wexler, funny enough, I saw just last week in a GET SMART episode. I wonder if he was anything like the character he was supposed to be playing? I don't know, because that character sure wasn't in the movie the film takes its title from.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is a piece of the time in which it was made..... Realistic. Movies were not candy coated during the late 60s and early 70s. The producers did not try to create some happy ending that didn't exist. The lack of a happy ending would create agitation in the audience that, hopefully would spur them on to action. At least that's how it seemed at the time. In today's movie world this movie would probably not be done. There would, definitely, not be this ending, however realistic. The sad fact is that the movie depicted a situation which could not be improved upon without action from the improvement of the relationship between the white southern traditional thinking and the progressive movements of that time.$LABEL$ 1
+this film has its good points: hot chicks people diethe problem... the hot Chicks barley get nude and you don't get to see many of the people dieing, mostly just lots of fast movements and screaming though there were two good kill scenes.also for those of you watching this for JENNA JAMESON she is just a side chearator with a very small role and Minor nude scenes.What this film needed.. script and story would be nice but I will not complain about that.. simply put it needs more nudity and better kill scenes cuz lets face it that is why we watch these flicks...I wouldn't waste my money on it...and if you must, wait until it's on the OLD shelves at your local video store$LABEL$ 0
+I think it's two years ago since I have seen the movie and till this day it's the worst film I have ever seen. The only thing I thought after seeing this movie was that it was made for some tax reason. So after all this time I finally spilled my gut ;) And now IMDb says I have to fill 10 lines with comments:"Sorry, you must provide at least 10 lines in your comment. Please return to the edit window (or use the BACK option if this isn't a new window)."Please there is nothing to say anymore...Sorry for some bad English.$LABEL$ 0
+Pierce Brosnan has sipped his last Martini and returns, in an outrageous self-parody, as the aging foul-mouthed boozy assassin Julian Noble, who has a particular fondness for teenage girls, bullfights and tacky clothes. During a job in Mexico City he meets Danny (Greg Kinnear), a straight-faced Denver suburban business-man, who's in town to make his deal of-a-life-time, in a hotel bar. Despite their completely different personalities and Julian's crude and insensible remarks, they become friends. Largely carried by the performances of Pierce Brosnan and Greg Kinnear, director Richard Shepard revealed that he didn't write the film with Pierce Brosnan in mind , but I can hardly imagine this without him. He proves to have a real talent for comedy and can be more than just James Bond or cold-war spies. The scene in which the two meet at a glossy hotel bar (stunning sets and beautifully photographed) really is a bravura piece of acting skills. The scene lasts almost fifteen minutes, and although it was probably carefully scripted, the two actors are largely improvising, but they succeed wonderfully! It almost feels like a new standard in screen acting. Think of Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel in MEAN STEETS improvising and add one of the most subtle underpinnings of many genre clichés and the actors' own typecasting (Brosnan's James Bond in particular), and you got one of the most delightful pairings in recent Hollywood. Sadly, the story wears thin after a while. After an hour, the film just runs out of steam. Nevertheless, and I can't put my finger on it exactly, I did enjoy this very much. It just feels very fresh and original, with some imaginative use of sets and lighting, and some hints to Seijun Suzuki and Jean-Pierre Melville. The other characters aren't given much to do, but this film does offer something new, in that respect it almost effortlessly succeeds in blending all conventional genres into quite an entertaining spoof. Very amusing.Camera Obscura --- 7/10$LABEL$ 1
+This is probably the only female Ninja movie ever made. It's great as a B film and the action sequences are a lot of fun to watch. This movie is just so deliciously 80's. You'll never see another film like it. Check it out for some 80's retro fun.$LABEL$ 1
+I loved October Sky. The thing I loved most had to be the music. It worked two ways: in the first hour of the film, it gives the viewer a time-frame. This is done by playing songs from the late Fifties. In the second hour, an instrumental score takes over. The music now fits the mood of the film perfectly.I did not only enjoy the music, I also quite enjoyed the cast. Jake Gyllenhaal as Homer Hickam was especially a surprise for me. He gave off a first-class performance, as did Chris Owen (Quentin) and Chris Cooper (John Hickam).I've seen this movie about escaping the life already laid out for you twice now, and both times I thoroughly enjoyed myself.$LABEL$ 1
+I first saw this one when it was first shown, so I'm not too objective about it. It really managed to scare me, partly because it was so late at night, but partly because of that whole feeling from a videotaped suspense story (the same thing that helped Dark Shadows itself). And the casting was so right. I hardly know Shane Briant from anything else, so it might not be so right to call HIM "well-cast," but to me, he IS Dorian Gray. And as far as the other male actors, the one who fit his part so well was Nigel Davenport (who's so good at "larger than life" characters) as Sir Henry. And John Karlen, a sort of Dan Curtis "repertory player" at the time, because of Dark Shadows. As one poster points out, this version manages to include the involvements with men, in a fairly subtle way. The scene where Dorian recites a list of men's names to John Karlen's character, as a way of blackmailing him, and the look on Karlen's face, were very well-done. (If that scene were done now, it would probably be done in a TOO OBVIOUS way, and be bad by comparison.) I saw it when "Dorian Gray" was barely a name to me, let alone more, so even more than the famous 1945 version (which is rightly famous), this is THE version to me.$LABEL$ 1
+Latter Days is a very, VERY independent movie. And compared to many of today's more modern films, it's lacking on many parts. The shooting seems at times quite amateurish, the dialogues can be a bit chopped up and the characters are not impressively complex. So, don't have too high hopes for this movie, because as I've said, it's very independent. But whatever it lacks in the concrete aspects of the film can be overlooked because of the story's charm! I cannot claim that the plot is outstandingly original, but the story is still beautiful and heart-warming in many ways! It's not about being gay versus being straight, it's about faith, and how you decide to run your own life! It's a silly story, that makes you want to both cry and smile at the same time! So to be honest, Latter Days is far from perfect, but I truly loved the movie and I highly recommend it! It's very critical towards the religious aspects of our society, and there is homosexuality involved - but approach it with an open mind, and I'm pretty sure that most people will enjoy it as much as myself!$LABEL$ 1
+I first saw this mini-series as a child and though I am a child no longer, I still love it!!! Professional copies are hard to find, however, when it's on DVD, it's MINE!!! =]Great casting, marvellous plots, and plenty of action, romance, and even quite a bit of well-placed comedy. I'm not a historian by nature, but I love this masterpiece of historical fiction!$LABEL$ 1
+This is not an all-around terrible comedy, but it is very DULL. It has barely any laughs, and it wastes its lavish production values. There is one poignant moment near the end, when Fu Manchu offers a dose of his elixir to his "nemesis" and tells him that "You've been my one worthy adversary; and now we can start all over again". That scene, however, along with Burt Kwouk's amusing cameo in the beginning, are the only memorable parts of the movie. (*1/2)$LABEL$ 0
+1st watched 6/21/2001 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Emmanuel Itier): Pretty much worthless supposed thriller that spends more time drawing us into sexual encounters with and without the star 'Amber Smith.' It tries to wrap a story around the sex scenes but as usual with these types of movies it is not done very well. I was so bored with this movie that I actually fast-forwarded thru the ending to get it over with. The video version I watched was called 'Tell Me No Lies.'$LABEL$ 0
+Spirit and Chaos is an artistic biopic of Miyazawa Kenji, a Japanese poet and writer who was active in the early 20th century. The film captures and interprets his artistic method ('sketching' poems), his inspiration (the spirit of nature and its fantastic beauty) and his struggles to accept a harsh reality in the face of his idealist imagination.The film integrated excerpts of Miyazawa's poems into the plot beautifully. His relationships with his students was powerful, especially in one scene where he offers everything he has to a student who has just been caught stealing materials from the classroom. Miyazawa's selfless compassion for the farmers in his village, his sister and other unfortunate people can serve as a lesson to us all. Furthermore, Miyazawa's devotion to science was also nicely portrayed. In a time when Western ideas were still met with skepticism, especially in provincial towns like the one where Miyazawa grew up, he understands its usefulness in helping his fellow villagers and is inspired by its elegance. The way the film presented moments of artistic passion and disappointment in the writer were truly intense and well interpreted.I felt that the CGI integrated into the film, while groundbreaking an innovative, clashed with the more organic animation. It could be argued that this was intentional to represent conflict within the main character, but I found it rather unaesthetic. I also wish that the film had discussed Miyazawa's Buddhist influence, but it worked fine without it. I though this film was very well done. I give it a 9/10, with the one point being deducted for the CGI. Otherwise the animation, plot and dialog were all wonderful and heartfelt. I haven't seen any other films by Kawamori Shoji, but after seeing this one I will be sure to give them a chance.$LABEL$ 1
+Wow...Reading through these comments, I see a remarkable socio-cultural clash theme emerging between the US and ... the Dutch! The US P.o.V. appears to be that this is quite a good little movie, Parker being a likable hero, the story a light-hearted rendition of what could be a glorified form of reality.All three Dutch reviewers view the world through a totally different pair of glasses it seems. They categorically and in surprisingly similar terms agree the movie is a disaster.Far be it from me to take sides in what appears to be a dispute between cultures, on this item as wide apart as the ocean that separates them geographically. Still, based on factual observation - I saw the movie with my very own eyes - I suspect the Dutch are not too far off the mark: "Parker Kane" is poorly made, utterly boring, and really not worth the celluloid that was no doubt wasted in its creation.$LABEL$ 0
+River Queen attempts to pack a complicated, sweeping, historical narrative into just under two hours. There are some breathtaking battle scenes and the Wanganui scenery is beautifully captured. However, the film did suffer from some poor leads - Samantha Morton (Sarah) especially came across as unconvincing. There seemed to be an indecisiveness about how the role should be played - as a helpless waif tossed by fate or as a strong, determined character with a clear view of her destiny. Kiefer Sutherland's character - Private Doyle - seemed to be pointless and for the most part - unintelligible. Keifer's Irish brogue needs a little polishing. On the other hand, Cliff Curtis, Temuera Morrison and Rawiri Pene (as Sarah's son "Boy") were well rounded and believable.The last 20 minutes of River Queen came across as particularly compressed and rushed. It seemed as if they decided they had to tie up all the loose ends before 120 minutes were up. E.g. How on earth did Wiremu know how to find Sarah and Doyle? No explanation and very unsatisfying.I did go to this movie with an open mind. I hadn't read or heard anything much apart from its troubled production. What I experienced was a mish mash of New Zealand history, beautifully photographed but ultimately disappointing.$LABEL$ 0
+most of the bad reviews on this website blame "Hood of the Living Dead" for one (or more) of the following reasons: 1) it is a low-budget movie with virtually no acting; 2) it was so bad it made me laugh 3) it is something I could do myself. I won't even discuss the first point because it is a very subjective matter whether you like low-budget and independent stuff or not. I must say, however, that I still fail to understand people renting such a movie as "Hood of the Living Dead" and then looking surprised when they realize it is not as polished and cute as a romantic comedy with Lindsay Lohan or Matthew Mc Conaughey. As for the second point, I really don't see what's so wrong with laughing. I personally like to laugh, and love movies that make me to, be they comedies or horror flicks. When in "Hammerhead" I saw this girl stepping into a PUDDLE and the shark-man came out of it to eat her, I just cracked up. And I was grateful that the director made such a stupid scene and gave me ten seconds of pure fun. Honestly, laughing just makes me feel good, while it seems that many people writing reviews see it as a bad bad thing. If you only want to feel sad and scared while watching a movie, "Hood of the Living Dead" and low-budget flicks are definitely not for you. But please don't come and tell us that you find them laughable. We already know it. This is most probably why we decided to watch the movie in first place. However, it is the third point that leaves totally baffled. Just several years ago people were lining up out of theaters to see "Blair Witch Project", which is a way more rudimentary, boring, plot-less and bad-acted movie than "Hood of the Living Dead" (and takes itself way too seriously too). Moreover, half a million people go on YouTube every day to see the short films of "Lonelygirl15", which is certainly something everyone with a cute girlfriend, a room and a webcam could do! Not to talk about all of the even more amateurish videos you can find there. Why don't people blame those clips for bad acting and non-existing plot? I think it is one of the best things of our times that everyone, with affordable technology and a bunch of friends, can make their own movies and share them with people that have similar interests. And I feel a certain admiration for people who spend their weekends with their friends making a honestly bad (yet refreshing) piece of trash like this rather than shopping at the mall or playing video games alone. Leave aside your biases and your desire to sound like a smart film critic by attacking b-movies, and you'll see that "Hood of the Living Dead" can bring you almost as much fun as it did to its makers! If you have a taste for refreshing and enjoyable home-made horror movies, I recommend "Zombiez", "The Ghosts of Edendale", "The Killer Eye", "Monster Man", "Don't Look in the Basement", "The Worst Horror Movie Ever Made", "Redneck Zombies", "Jesus Christ Vampyre-Slayer" and "Habit".$LABEL$ 1
+This was a great anime. True the animation is old but its still worth watching and has a better plot than Ninja Scroll, the problem that it was kinda long.Japanese movie star Hiroyuki Sanada who played Ujio from Last Samurai played the main character Jiro and it was directed by Rintaro who did Galaxy Express 999 and Metropolis.The anime has some good animation for an old anime, interesting characters like the main villain Tenkai and Ando Shouzan and of course lets not forget the beautiful musical scores in the film.All in all this movie is worth watching for fans of anime, animation in general, action, and Samurai/Ninja flicks. Despite the lows in the film that didn't the film from being a great film to watch.Don't miss this film.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie deals with the European ERASMUS exchange program but more generally about the European youth. It is so true , that I don't know Klapisch did to reach such a masterpiece... Definitely one of my top 5 movies. It reminds me of the famous song "This is my life, my life, life is life..." 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is nothing short of a dark, gritty masterpiece. I may be bias, as the Apartheid era is an area I've always felt for. But I'd say it ranks right up with Cry Freedom and Cry the Beloved Country. Sadly up until a few days ago I'd never even heard of this movie. Inside is one of the most underrated films of all time, probably because it was a small film company, I'd never even heard of it before. Eric Stoltz, one of my favorite actors anyway, is believable and dramatic, Nigel Hawthorne plays his dastardly role well. Do not look for humor in this film, there is none. It is real, savage and gritty to the last, and to the sensitive I'd say bring a box of tissues. But movies as great as this make you wonder, why is it that the greatest films are often never heard of?$LABEL$ 1
+Movie about two Australian girls--Debbie (Nell Schofield) and Sue (Sue Knight)--and what happens when they become girlfriends of two surfer guys.I caught this at an art cinema here in America in 1981. Technically I was still a teenager (I was 19) so I was interested in seeing how Australian teens acted. Script wise there's nothing new here. It shows the usual teenage adventures dealing with dating, sex, suicide etc etc. I always knew what was going to happen before it did but I was never bored. What I found interesting was, despite the accent and a few changes in clothes and hair, these teenagers aren't much different than American teens. They had many of the same difficulties and hang-ups. Also this was based on a book from a real surfer girl and her true life adventures and (I heard) it was a faithful adaptation of it. The acting was just OK but the actors were attractive and this was well-made and pretty interesting. So this is no unsung masterpiece but a pretty accurate portrayal of what it's like being a teenager and trying to be with the popular kids. I give it a 7.$LABEL$ 1
+As a French, i found it very pleasant to be able to laugh at the old stereotype which is made of French like that, at some defaults of Westerners, at Spy movies etc...and at a lot of other things too, en route... I already saw it 3 times and each time i discovered new things and laughed to tears... Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Béjo, Aure Atika the director and all the cast, all the crew did a fantastic job. This movie is funny but is although much more than that : it's got plenty of levels to it. You laugh because of simple gags, because of some critics made with wit (the movie's courageous enough to be critical), because of physical comedy, because you believe in the characters etc... Esthetically and musically, it's a success too. Go see it if you can.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a fine musical with a timeless score by one of my favorite composers (Gershwin) and a nice 'Parisien' atmosphere which gives the movie a lot of charm, but in terms of a story.. well it's not really there. Or at least, not very well worked out. The acting is also not so smooth by Caron. But I liked some of the dialogues, I liked the scene at the Seine, I liked the character played by Levant, the colors; and the dancing of course, which is quite magnificent.A 7.5 - 8 seems on the dot to me.$LABEL$ 1
+As kids movie it is great. For the family it just sucks. I was truly hoping for something like the Goonies which is a great film for all ages. This movie was just geared too much to the kids with the silly script and characters calling each other little names like booger breath. ??? Alan Cummings was however a delight. And why do people compare Willy Wonka to this movie...just because there is a theme song closely resembling the Willy Wonka song doesnt make this film anything like Willy Wonka.$LABEL$ 0
+Okay. Here's the thing. I've read through the comments of other viewers --- some trashing the film and some saying it's the funniest, darkest, blackest comedy ever made. Whiffs of Tarantino, etc. Well, not exactly. But, guess what? It's still an enjoyable and, ultimately, funny film. Not brilliant, not trash. Liv Tyler gives a great performance and you absolutely cannot take your eyes off her. She's a woman with very strong decorating ideas...Matt Dillon, a greatly underrated and under-used actor, is wonderful, as ever. He always manages to stride that delicate line between scruff and soul, and he pulls off the comedy beautifully. Ditto John Goodman (though the religious overtones, probably funny in the script, really don't work). Paul Reiser is very good --- definitely better than he was on TV.The usually unbearable Michael Douglas is actually great in this role. As for his coif, well, see the film. Between this and "Wonder Boys," you're actually reminded of the fact that Douglas can act. The movie will make you laugh in parts. Okay, not exactly belly-laughing, but definitely in the I'm-amused-I'm-very-amused category. If you're renting this expecting to see another "Pulp Fiction," forget it. But if want something kinda hip and kinda fun, this is a damned good choice.$LABEL$ 1
+Well I don't know much about anything, but I sure liked this film. In short, it was creative, humorous, simple, and heartwarming. In other words, it was everything it set out to be.The story is set around a girl's first love, (as the title suggests) and I certainly should warn you: expect nothing challenging or provocative in terms of the subject matter here. I mean, it is a children's cartoon. It's really just a simple story, but it's told well, and it holds your attention well.In the end: it's short, it's funny, it's cute, it's simple, it's good.$LABEL$ 1
+If you like bad movies (and you must to watch this one) here's a good one. Not quite as funny as the first, but much lower quality. A must-see for fans of Jack Frost as well as anyone up for a good laugh at the writing.$LABEL$ 0
+After watching this movie, I couldn't help but notice the parallels between it and another film called America 3000. Both were very bad mid 1980's post apocalypse disasters on celluloid. Obviously fake sets, wooden acting and stupid monsters are found in both films. About the only difference between the two is that the lead villainess here (played by Angelika Jager) has a very thick accent. Avoid this one unless you're watching the MST3K version. Joel and the bots barely salvage this turkey.$LABEL$ 0
+I'd even say some shades of Hitchcock...this is clearly better than MMM, which is seen as a guilty pleasure by some if not most Woody fans. By the way, did you know that Annie Hall was first conceived as a murder mystery? Anyhow, Woody reclaims some relevance in film comedy with this one. The plot turns are nice and tight. I will say that in the first 20 minutes or so, some of the actors are a little too hasty at delivering their lines, but stick around. Scarlett Johansson proves well-cast in the Diane Keaton-type role, and at no time is there any uncomfortable moments between her and the much older Woody. No one could imagine a more perfect actor for the role of Peter Lyman than Jackman.$LABEL$ 1
+Well,I am a dancer so automatically I liked this film. The only thing I didn't like was they didn't have much dancing as I thought there would be. But I have to say the it was a good dance film. I think there should be more songs too. But it was a good film as i said before! My rating 9/10!$LABEL$ 1
+I don't often give one star reviews, but the computer won't let me do negative numbers.The opening titles tell us we're in deep water already. Although this is a low budget exploitation film, there are 17 producers credited. No. No.At the beginning of the story abusive husband Kenneth comes home to his family in an upscale gated community. The house is a pigsty. His wife, Della (Kim Basinger) has let the children run amok all day.OK. We're already in deep water. Ms. Basinger was 55 years old when the film came out. Uh, are these her children or grandchildren? It's Christmas Eve. Della drives to the mall, a lengthy scene that could have been cut. To bludgeon home the idea of eeeeeeevil male aggression rampant in the universe she drives past football players in full uniform playing in pouring rain on Christmas Eve. Sure. For a bonus she sees a vehicle with a slaughtered deer tied to it.We get some actual suspense in the driving scenes, though. It's raining and traffic is bad. First we see Della try to drive and smoke at the same time. Then later Della tries to drive and talk on her cell phone at the same time, at one point turning completely around to check the cluttered back seat for the charger for the phone.She wanders the mall, sees an old friend from college, tries to buy stuff but her credit card is declined- gosh, maybe her husband is grumpy because he's going broke, but that's too complicated for the script to follow.In the parking lot she runs afoul of the most ludicrous gang in the history of films. One White boy (Lukas Hass watching his career go down the toilet), one Black, one Asian, and one Hispanic. Imagine a company of Up with People gone to the bad and you'll have the idea.Although they have a gun she gives them attitude. A mall cop comes to investigate the ruckus and they shoot him in the head, firing more than once. The parking lot is crowded as can be, people everywhere, and nobody notices.Della escapes in her car and rather than choosing a police station or well lighted safe area, she drives to a construction site, where she kills all four bad boys one at a time with simply the tools (literally) at hand.MAJOR spoiler ahead.She drives back home. The car poops out so she walks through the pouring rain. Checks on the children, goes downstairs, and when her husband petulantly asks what she got him at the mall shows him the gun and shoots him at point blank range.The experience with the four punks was supposed to result in personal empowerment for Della. Instead we know that her children will probably spend Christmas in foster care or a group home, because the State will collect them while she answers to murder one charges. The four punks can be classified as justifiable homicide in self defense. The husband, different story.I'm so glad I saw this on cable. If I'd seen it in a theater (did it get any release?) I'd have been furious. As is, I'm just sad seeing talents like Ms. Basinger and Mr. Haas waste themselves on garbage like this.One very good thing, though. This was written and directed by Susan Montford. Ms. Montford has not gotten another writing or directing credit since passing this turd. There is justice in the world.$LABEL$ 0
+I had mixed feelings for "Les Valseuses" (1974) written and directed by Bertrand Blier when I started watching it but I ended up liking it. I would not call it vulgar ("Dumb and Dumber" is vulgar, "The Sweetest Thing" is both vulgar and unforgivably stupid); I would call it shocking and offensive. I can understand why many viewers, especially, the females would not like or even hate it. It is the epitome of misogyny (or so it seems), and the way two antiheroes treat every woman they'd meet seems unspeakable. But the more I think of it the more I realize that it somehow comes off as a delightful little gem. I am fascinated how Blier was able to get away with it. The movie is very entertaining and highly enjoyable: it is well written, the acting by all is first - class, and the music is sweet and melancholic. Actually, when I think of it, two buddies had done something good to the women they came across to: they prepared a woman in the train (the lovely, docile blonde Brigitte Fossey who started her movie career with one of the most impressive debuts in René Clément's "Forbidden Games"(1952) at age 6) for the meeting with her husband whom she had not seen for two months; they found a man who was finally able to get a frigid Marie-Ange (Miou-Miou) exited and satisfied; they enlightened and educated young and very willing Isabelle Huppert (in one of her early screen appearances.) Their encounter with Jeanne Moreau elevates this comedy to the tragic level. In short, I am not sure I'd like to meet Gérard Depardieu's Jean-Claude and Patrick Dewaere's Pierrot in real life and invite them over for dinner but I had a good time watching the movie and two hours almost flew - it was never boring.$LABEL$ 1
+If you are a fan of Zorro, Indiana Jones, or action in general this is a must-see. Directed by Republic's ace team of William Witney and John English, and starring Reed Hadley as Don Diego/Zorro, this serial delivers! I won't bore you with the plot (who cares? less talking, more fighting); what really matters here is Hadley's superb interpretation of the character/s and the stunt work of Dale van Sickel and Yakima Canutt. ***STUNT SPOILERS FOLLOW ***You can see the influence this film had on Lucas and Spielberg -- Zorro gets caught in the original version of the Star Wars trash compactor in one chapter, trapped on a rope bridge a'la Temple of Doom in another, does a Raiders horse-to-coach transfer and even flees through a tunnel while the baddies knock over a huge water tank and flood the tunnel behind him, exactly as Mola Ram does to Indy in Temple of Doom. In addition to all this, the whip action is great as Zorro disarms villains, swings to safety, etc. with his trusty lash. Most of the sword work is fair to lame, except for chapter one, which features a terrific sword brawl in a cantina choreographed by sword/stunt legend Ralph Faulkner, who makes a rare screen appearance as the evil Rodriguez. This was the first serial I ever saw, on Matinée at the Bijou when I was a kid and I have been hooked on them ever since. Zorro's Fighting Legion delivers "Z" goods!$LABEL$ 1
+I purchased this movie at a car boot sale, so I was not expecting it to be a horror movie on the same level as A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) or The Hills Have Eyes (1977) but I thought that it would still be fairly enjoyable to watch. However, it proved to be not at all enjoyable, but instead the acting and the general movie was mock-able, such as the ways the the 'unsees killer' murders his victims and how all of the people killed just happen to be young blonde women. It was a stereotypical horror film. I say this because of the following reasons:1) Three blonde women in danger, the majority get killed. 2) One survives by crawling around in the dark while being chased by the killer. 3) Surprise surprise, help arrives in the form of a shotgun!By using three simple points, I have saved you two odd hours by summarising this poor excuse of a horror movie, so you are now lucky enough to not have to watch it.$LABEL$ 0
+A woman who hates cats (Alice Krige) and her son (Brian Krause) have moved into a small town, and must deal with a mean teacher (Glenn Shadix), their incestuous relationship, a lovely girl (Mädchen Amick) and one hell of a big secret.Okay, so technically, this is a "bad film". But, who cares? It's so very fun! Impossible things (involving corn) happen, people freak out about kitty cats, there's bad one-liners, there's too much cheese to handle!So, yes. You will enjoy this. A lot. It won't move you, touch you, scare you, or thrill you in any way, but it will keep you entertained and laughing!$LABEL$ 1
+BBC's 3 hour adaptation of the novel by Sarah Waters..."Fingersmith". Life is tough without money, especially in Dickensian London. Dark deeds lead to despicable dilemmas.Is love really just a luxury for the rich and free ?? Elaine Cassidy as "Maud Lilly" and Sally Hawkins as "Sue Trinder" both give fantastic performances as the leading ladies asking this question ... OF EACH OTHER ...whilst Rupert Evans shines as the delightfully bad "Gentleman".. with great support from Imelda Staunton's "Mrs Sucksby", David Troughton's "Mr Ibbs" and Charles Dance's "Uncle". The plot twists and turns and I wasn't sure I could be led to care about characters able to hurt and use each other in this way... but somehow.. i do care... and thats because of the quality of the performances... love feels like love .. hate feels like hate... betrayal .. confusion.. well hopefully you get the idea and hopefully you will get the DVD and enjoy.( Elaine Cassidy is just great in this.. gorgeous in fact.... i have to declare i am in her fan club... Hi Elaine : )$LABEL$ 1
+In order to stop her homosexual friend Albert (Perry King) from being deported back to Belgium, Stella (Meg Foster) decides to marry him. The only other problem with that is that Stella herself is a lesbian. The two have their separate lives when one night after Albert's birthday party, they fall into bed and then into love. Later in the film after falling in love, Stella suspects Albert of cheating and shows up at his job one night late after closing. What she finds will leave the viewer stunned. This is a great film, very original. Perry King and Meg Foster are so good in their roles that it is amazing that they were not better recognized for their work here. Very controversial upon its release in 1978, the "R" rated film is now "PG" in this much more liberal time.Recently released on DVD, the disc contains a "Making Of" segment on the special features and in it it's stated that the film was based on an actual story so the viewers who say the film is not "real" are mistaken. Everyone is an individual and different people fall in love for different reasons-these are the issues explored in this wonderful film for everyone who has ever loved!$LABEL$ 1
+I find it heart-warming and inspiring that the writing team behind such hopelessly mainstream Hollywood movies like INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, American Graffiti and HOWARD THE DUCK would begin their career with a low-budget exploitation horror film like this. Perhaps as a testament to the talent that would earn Willard Hyuck and Gloria Katz an Oscar nomination later in their respective careers, Messiah of Evil has potential, but sadly becomes frustrating exactly because it can't muster the film-making prowess to pull it off.The premise involves a young girl who travels to a small coastal town in search for her painter father who went missing a while back. It doesn't take long for the fragmented narrative to abandon all hope and dive headlong in disjointed absurdity - and for a while it works admirably well to the point where you begin thinking that maybe Messiah of Evil needs to be reclaimed from the schlocky gutter of 70's exploitation as an example of artful mystery horror.The surreal non-sequiturs keep piling on as the daughter stumbles upon a young couple in a seedy hotel room who are in town to conduct a research on the local legend of the 'blood moon', a scruffy and half-mad alcoholic (played by the great Elisha Cook Jr. in perhaps the best scene of the movie) who warns her about her father only to be reportedly found dead in an alley 'eaten by dogs' a little later, the blind old lady that owns the local art gallery and who has inexplicably removed all of her father's paintings from the shop and last but not least a retarded, murderous, squirrel-eating albino.Part of the movie's charm is precisely this brand of bargain-basement artsy surrealism that defies logic and genre conventions every step of the way. Whereas with Lynch it is obviously the mark of a talented creator, with Messiah of Evil the boundaries between the 'intentional', the 'unintentional' and the 'didn't really expect it to come out this way but it's good enough - WRAP SCENE' blur hopelessly.Take for example the double narration that flows in and out of the picture in a drug-addled, feverish, stream-of-consciousness way, one coming from the daughter as she wanders from place to place in search for her father, and the other narrated by her father's voice as she reads his diary. While we're still talking about a 'living dead' picture, Messiah of Evil is different and only loosely one - at least with current preconceptions of what a zombie movie is supposed to be. The origin of the living dead here is a 100 year old curse, bestowed upon the town by a mysterious 'Dark Stranger' who came from the woods one day. In the meantime Hyuck finds time for snippets of mass-consumption criticism in a flesh-eating supermarket scene that predates DAWN OF THE DEAD by a good number of years (you can hear the MST3K line already: 'man is dead, only his capitalist food tins remain') and a nicely thought but poorly executed similar scene in a movie theater.I generally think that the surreal works in careful, well measured doses - how is the absurd to work if it's not hidden within the perfectly normal? Hyuck seems to just smear it all over the picture and by doing so dangerously overplays his hand. When the albino for example picks up a girl hitching her way to town and eats a squirrel in front of her, you can almost imagine the director winking meaningfully at the audience, amused and satisfied with his own hijinks. The general film-making level is also pretty low - after the half-way mark, the pace becomes muddled and the story tiresome and evidently going nowhere and not particularly fast either. Add to that the choppy editing, average acting and Hyuck's general inability to capture true atmosphere - the empty streets of coastal town are criminally misused - and I'd file Messiah under 'missed opportunity' but still grindhouse afficionados will find enough to appreciate - even though it's not particularly gory, trashy or sleazy.$LABEL$ 0
+In the wasteland that Hollywood Productions have become of late, this movie - in and of itself - is truly "MANNA FROM HEAVEN"!!!In what could best be described as a "cute" movie, approximately 350 years of movie acting experience (allright - give or take 100 years!) joyously lights up the screen to tell a tale of deceit, remorse, and redemption about a Catholic Family in Buffalo, NY.Truly well-positioned to take its place in the "feel-good" movie genre, this quiet little independent film by the Burton Sisters' FIVE SISTERS PRODUCTIONS COMPANY will leave a smile on your face and joy in your heart, all while renewing your faith in mankind.From the spectacular opening scene shots of Buffalo, NY to the final credits, the film manages to tell a tale that could have been told of any family, anywhere. Yet, somehow this particular gathering of family and "family by association" in a small, non-descript house in Buffalo more than fits the bill. If you've never been to Buffalo, you'll leave the theater with thoughts of "shuffling off" for a visit! Shots of the city landmarks and surroundings help to bring a quaint, down to earth tone to the film - which suits it just fine. The quiet beauty of the "Queen City of the Great Lakes" compliments, rather than detracts from the tale that is being told. If only more movies would take advantage of the natural beauty of this country's "second cities" instead of running off to a soundstage somewhere, the end results would be so much more believable.Great performances by Shirley Jones, Frank Gorshin, Wendy Malick, Jill Eickenberry, and the rest of the ensemble cast prove again that true talent outlasts Hollywood's "flavor of the week" any time!GO SEE THIS MOVIE!You've wandered in Hollywood's desert for too long!$LABEL$ 1
+I have done a lot of international travel, both on business and as a tourist. For both types I assure you the best advice is also the oldest: Always drink the wine of the country. In this movie the archangel Michael comes to Earth on business, wraps it up quickly and decides to hang around for a little touring. Boy! Does he "drink the wine of the country."Could man be drunk forever with liquor, love and fights He'd lief rise up of mornings and lief lie down of nights.These are things you can't do in Heaven so he enjoys them while he's here! Of course it turns out he had a couple of other jobs to tackle and, if he is less direct about them than he was about the first one, he is just as successful. The final scene is a little schmaltzy but it is also wonderful. Jean Stapleton gets to dance with John Travolta.$LABEL$ 1
+Paul Reiser did a spectacular job in writing this movie. Peter Falk gives the performance of his life. It is worthy of an Academy Award. This was one of the most poignant and funny movies of the year. Reiser's wit is fantastic and he is as good as it gets and as he was in his long running TV sitcom "Mad about You". Peter Falk did a masterful job as his dad, and Peter who is now 78 years young made us laugh and cry at the same time. The supporting cast was equal to the task especially the gorgeous gorgeous Elizabeth Perkins. It is a must see movie for 2005. We bet that everyone across all ages and religions will love this movie and somehow relate to it in one way or another. We have mothers and fathers and siblings like these in the movie. We have all had the good and bad times together and wish things were the same but different.$LABEL$ 1
+Wow. this movie is the voice of a climbing generation. Director Sam Keith takes us to the darkest depths of Man's soul where we find love, life, and top-roping. World-weary Telly (Leo Fitzpatrick) follows his heart and his anchors through a cerebral journey to find sanity in a post-apocalyptic Colorado. Instead, Telly meets confrontation in Don (Jason Bortz), the embodiment of machismo and a zeitgeist of humanities foibles. The epic film comes to a climbax at a gut-wrenching top-roping competition that will make even the strongest willed viewers squeamish at the dizzying heights.This movie has it all: Top-roping outside, Top-roping in the gym, Cut-off shorts and sleeveless flannel shirts, Awesome climbing footage (some so good, you see it 2 or 3 times!), Bear and snake attacks.I gave the movie 8 out of 10 because I wanted to see the romance develop a bit more. It seemed as if the film was leading up to a spicy, top-roped sex scene between Telly and his new lover, but alas, it wouldn't fit into the already jam-packed hour and a half thrill ride.Fans of Cliffhanger and Mission Impossible II will find this flick to be a diamond in the rough. Overall, if you are ready to challenge your world view on humanity and climbing, this is the film for you!!!1$LABEL$ 1
+Once a wise man from India once said, "First they will laugh at us. Then they will hate us. Then they will fear us." Know that yes this film's budget was a bit off, but even then with its story still takes our interest many yrs later, regardless of how it may have looked. But know soon, in due time "Masten Thrust" will arise to the big screen once again. Then he and the new redesigned T-Rex will more then shock you. It will scare many for centuries to come!! This film is in current pre-production and will be nothing like anything you have ever seen before! This will be beyond THX format.....right into 4-DX format. "Be afraid, be VERY afraid!"$LABEL$ 1
+I was very surprised to see that this movie had such a good rating, when i checked it on IMDb after seeing it. This really is one of the worst movies i have ever seen and i have seen many bad movies. It looks like a good movie in the beginning, but when he comes into surgery i couldn't believe how bad it got. This voice-over destroys EVERYTHING! Just imagine you are being cut open like that and then listen to what he says. I saw the movie in German so i don't really know what he said in English, but ironic stuff like "Yeah right, it doesn't hurt.."?...what is this? Telling yourself "think about something else" and then forgetting your pain by just thinking about your girlfriend is just...stupid. And his mother...how the hell does she figure something like that out? Someone comes to tell her, her son died in surgery (what she kind of had to expect). Plus she found some letters in Jessica Albas bag. plus that "she knows the hospital" stuff... and then it takes her "one second" to figure it out? What the hell?" And the ending...why does the police bust them? The patient died in surgery, thats all that happened. That drunk doctor doesn't know anything else either...and then they bust them all, even the girlfriend??? Why??? Despite all that i think Christensen did a bad job, but that doesn't really count for me...those mistakes and stupid things i wrote about above are the problem. I watched this movie with some friends and we all were VERY disappointed... As i said, one of the worst movies i have ever seen... Just don't watch it ;)$LABEL$ 0
+This is a great off-the-wall romantic comedy about love, work, pandering to the public taste, and midlife crises. The main character is a talented movie director who decides to make a silly PG-13 movie to get himself out of hock with the IRS. It has an excellent cast, a wide range of humor (from deadpan to slapstick), and fine writing. It's also a wry send-up of the movie industry. The metacommentary includes several excellent cuts between reality and the movie that's being made, and in some places the film departs from strict realism. The result is a multi-dimensional masterpiece of wry midlife humor.$LABEL$ 1
+For people like me who were born long after the '60s ended, we can only learn about the era through cultural artifacts, of which "Hair" is one. This is certainly a well done tour de force. One can get a sense of how things were for the hippie culture. Probably the most impressive scene - for me at least - is when the group crashes the rich people's party. As for the movie's final scene, one might interpret it as the symbolic end of everything that the '60s represented.But no matter how one interprets this movie, it's important to understand that even though the '60s themselves may have ended, the movements that typified them still exist in small enclaves. It's a time that people won't soon forget.Anyway, this movie is one that I definitely recommend. Milos Forman scored another great one here, right between his two masterpieces "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Ragtime" (so why did he later make a piece of crap like "Man on the Moon"?!). Starring John Savage, Treat Williams and Beverly D'Angelo.$LABEL$ 1
+I can tell you just how bad this movie is. I was in the movie and I haven't seen it yet, but I cringe at the thought of anyone actually paying to see me drunk. Especially considering what we did that year. The thing is that they probably over edited it. Especially the scene where my roommate was snorting coke of the tits of a Mexican prostitute (they probably should have followed him around). We made a few come and go appearances but aside from that I can't really remember anything. I was the MC in a few scenes (from what I'm told. What I can tell you is that everyone avoided the camera crew since who wants to be remembered as the guy who threw up or the girl who showed her tits to the world (or the girl that loser lost his virginity to). Overall the trip itself was crazy but people act different once the camera is on them.$LABEL$ 1
+Basically, the movie might be one of the most mesmerizing titles made by either of the two Scotts(Ridley and Tony). Let's make it straight, the movie deserved its hype as one of the most stylish actioner/thriller ever made.When it comes to disgruntled tragic heroes, Denzel Washington and Tony Scotts really make a perfect duo. Both this movie and Deja Vu are better thrillers you can expect. Washington really got very comfortable in the shaky cameras and every executing scenes in the movie. One would easily be related to his character's emotions therefore enjoyed all the killings on the road. It's a success that they created a super-dark Mexico city with a lot of shits happening. One would be easily convinced by the extent of corruption depicted in Man On Fire. I don't know what would the Mexicans think when they watch this......Well, let's face it again. It's among the best of the Death Wish genre, but it also suffered from extensive amount of violence. It's a bit annoying that they justify the actions of a vigilante by making the movie very realistic and let Denzel Washington play the "missing sheep" type of tragic hero. In the end, they even had the kidnapper shot in his own swimming pool like a documentary. I was checking on IMDb if the movie was based on real events for that...... So that's for your consideration if you also finds the movie's theme is a little bit phony.At the end, I hope one would not take this movie for real.8/10 for art direction/editing/cinematographic/Denzel Washington.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this film last night at a "pre-Code" film festival, and I have to tell you that when Gary Cooper turned his head for his introductory close-up, the entire audience gasped. He was just that beautiful.Cooper's looks aside, this film displays Rouben Mamoulian's directorial artistry to perfection. Wonderful scene-fades, creative camera angles, symbolic allusions--Mamoulian just keeps exploring the directorial medium and coming up with innovation.This was Sylvia Sidney's first role in Hollywood, after her success on the New York stage, and she is just as lovely as a Gary Cooper leading lady ought to be. It's nice to see her in a role with a harder edge than many she was given--so often she looks like she's afraid she's about to be hit by someone.There are lots of familiar faces in this film, including the wonderful Wynne Gibson. Most striking is Guy Kibbee, best known for playing fatuous rich men, as a grinning and mendacious hit-man.There aren't nearly enough of these pre-Code films available on VHS or DVD, so if you can't find a pre-Code festival near you, try campaigning Turner Classic Movies for a broadcast! As for the reviewer who believes Gary Cooper was too stupid to have dialogue more complex than "Yep" or "Nope," he should perhaps consider Coop's performance in films such as "Mr Deeds Goes to Town" or "Meet John Doe." Although heaven knows anyone who looked that good shouldn't have to be smart as well.$LABEL$ 1
+This is an amazing movie from 1936. Although the first hour isn't very interesting (for the modern viewer), the stylish vision of the year 2036 that comes afterwords makes up for it. However, don't plan on being able to understand all of the dialog - the sound quality and accents (it's American - but "1930s" American) make it difficult.Basically, the story is a sweeping 100 year look at a fictional US town called "Everytown". It spans from 1936, when a war is on the horizon, to 2036, when technology leaps forward and creates its own problems.The first one hour is a bit slow - although it's tough to tell what audiences back then would have thought. The events, suspense and visuals are pretty low-key in today's terms. However, when it gets to the future, it's just plain fun to watch. The large sets and retro sci-fi look of everything is hard to beat.Unless you have great listening abilities, this movie is hard to listen to. I think I understood only 80% of the dialog. It could use closed-captioning.If you're a sci-fi fan, this is one of the genre's classics and is a must see (well, at least after the first hour). For the average viewer, wait until there's a closed caption version and then watch it if you're comfortable with movies of this time period.$LABEL$ 1
+I started to watch this show by accident, but I love it. The fact that main character is in a wheelchair is something that lacking in television, especially for kids shows. My five-year-old nephew (as most children do) would just stare at people who were in wheelchairs or had some other type of handicap but after he watched Pelswick it just seemed to be a normal occurrence to him. Every time he saw a wheelchair he would simply say "Like Pelswick" and go on with what ever he was originally doing. And YES the animation is a little crude, but if you can stand to watch through the first season of the Simpsons then this isn't that bad. The "Genie" is actually an Angel who is there to help Pelswick learn lessons in life. He CAN NOT walk some else said he could walk some of the time, I've seen every episode and he never to my recollection walked, he is a paraplegic he has no feeling below his armpits (he mentions it in an episode). As for the humor if you can get a copy of the "Ntalented" episode, which lampoons boy-bands, you will instantly love this show.$LABEL$ 1
+Mel Torme and Victor Borge, in their younger years, serve to make this film interesting - and especially viewing a young Sinatra, on the sunny side of 30, and definitely conveying that this was his "yes, I'm a popular singer, but hardly an actor yet" stage. Michele Morgan is an annoying, inane presence, and Jack Haley is an actor whose appeal has always been totally lost on me. Leon Erroll is silly, as always, but overall pretty funny. 7 stars of a potential 10 is about the right "grade," because with the combination of its positive aspects, along with the lack of much of a story, and a silly one at that, and the fore-mentioned annoyances - it is overall average at best. Most of the fascination is from the viewing of the three entertainment icons in their early years.$LABEL$ 1
+This film for me and my wife is more entertaining than all the bloc-buster violent thriller/mystery/murder movies that abound. It is about real people making the best of their lives. They just happen to be Indian and the main characters are in law enforcement. The realistic acting and the great scenery more than make up for the slightly implausible plot. The sound track is by BC Smith, who also did the soundtrack for Coyote Waits, and is great. Adam Beach plays a tribal policeman who is a little bit accident prone and Wes Studi is the stoic consummately professional detective. There are many other fine either supporting or cameo roles by Graham Greene, Tantoo Cardinal, etc. We have also seen Coyote Waits, another adaptation of a Hillerman novel, and we greatly enjoyed it too.$LABEL$ 1
+The only reason I am commenting is because I finally figured out why Dr. Cox was bald. Although we probably all realized it at the same time this week, Dr. Cox is bald because they showed these episodes in a different order than they filmed them. The latest episode when our favorite grumpy, Jesus-loving Nurse Roberts dies Dr. Cox shaves his head. The must have showed them out of order for some odd reason and forgot they slipped up the continuity. For shame, Scrubs. They've made mistakes like this before. I remember when Elliot is trying to date Scott Foley and her hair is wet 2 seconds before water hits her. I try not to notice these things, but my favorite show needs to step it up.$LABEL$ 0
+William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice is about a Jewish moneylender and his bond to extract a pound of flesh from the wealthy merchant Antonio, the forfeiter of a debt. The Jewish moneylender, of course, is Shylock and he is given such a towering performance by Al Pacino that even outstanding actors like Jeremy Irons, Joseph Fiennes, and Lynne Collins fade into the background. The film is set in 16th century Venice and director Michael Radford relies on setting, mood, and realism to tell its story, rejecting lavish period costumes or a modern setting with rock music to appeal to a wider audience.Radford slices the play's three-hour length to a manageable two hours and eight minutes and also provides some historical background. In the opening narration, he tells us how Jews came to England, were subject to increasing persecution, and eventually expelled from England. They were forbidden to own property, could make profits only by lending money at interest, and were forced to live in a Venetian "geto", a forerunner of darker events to come. In the film, the merchant Antonio (Jeremy Irons) spits upon Shylock in public, yet feels no shame in going to the usurer to borrow 3000 ducats to help his friend and suggested lover Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes) to properly court Portia (Lynne Collins), a wealthy heiress. Though Shylock has been insulted by Antonio, he agrees to loan the money without interest for three months on the condition that forfeiture of the bond grants him the right to exact a pound of flesh from Antonio's heart.The play is primarily a drama of hatred and revenge, but like many of Shakespeare's works there are touches of broad comedy as well. Here the comedy involves three pairs of lovers: Bassanio and Portia, Gratiano, Bassanio's friend, and Nerissa, and Lorenzo, another friend of Bassanio, and Jessica, Shylock's daughter. Portia has offered herself to the person who can pick the right treasure from one of three boxes, made of gold, silver, and lead. The Prince of Morocco chooses the one of gold, the Prince of Aragon the one of silver and both are disappointed. Bassanio, however, loves her for herself and opens the leaden casket to find the portrait within. Radford's adaptation conveys a remarkable feeling for time and place. Portia's residence at Belmont suggests one of those splendid summer homes complete with immaculate gardens and art treasures hanging in every room and contrasts well with the grungy look of Shylock's city with its dank alleyways.When it becomes clear that Antonio cannot repay the debt, Bassanio returns to Venice, leaving Portia behind. When he arrives, the loan is in default and Shylock is demanding his pound of flesh. Even when Bassanio, backed by Portia's wealth, offers many times the amount in repayment, Shylock is intent on revenge not only for the loss of the money but for a lifetime of outsider status. The duke, who sits in judgment, will not intervene as Portia enters in the guise as a lawyer to defend Antonio. It is here that the film reaches its dramatic heights as all parties come to court to achieve a final resolution.The Merchant of Venice is not only about an unpaid debt but also about the estrangement of Jews from Christian society and their desire for belonging. It has been one of Shakespeare's most controversial plays and analysts have debated for a long time whether it is an anti-Semitic play or simply a play about anti-Semitism that reflects the prevalent view of Christian society in Elizabethan England. Although Shylock is definitely a caricature, he is an ambiguous figure and there are many indications that Shakespeare views his flaws as human failings, not Jewish ones. The Duke recognizes that he is simply a man who has failed to adhere to the compassionate language of the Torah.In the monologue, "I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? …If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?", Shylock shows a universal humanity, expressing the equality of all men. Though we are horrified at the sentence he wishes to carry out, we can feel his pain accumulated over the years. Pacino's performance brings new vigor to the text and his often over-the-top persona is replaced with a gentler, more understated demeanor that brings understanding to his cause.. During a Toronto International Film Festival interview last September, Radford said about Pacino, "…when you work with a brilliant actor, you have a great machine. It's a bit like driving a powerful car. You have to dare to do it." He has dared and we are all the beneficiaries.$LABEL$ 1
+- Bad Stuff: This movie is real crap. Bad stunts for one thing, they looked so fake I thought this was "The Twilight Zone". The flashbacks are pretty much useless. One part of the movie he thinks taking his anger out on a window will make his life better. I wanna know the casting director and if he was high because the acting, even from the adults was horrid. A kissing scene in this movie even sucked. This movie killed the book. The book was great. I highly do not recommend this movie. Not even for educational purposes. - Good Stuff: I don't know what I can say really. There is some suspense parts that get you going, but they are quickly shot down by the bad stunt work and acting. - My Verdict: Do not watch.$LABEL$ 0
+I would not have known about this film if not for its "surprise" Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature film. Thankfully, it came to pass that I was able to watch this animated little treasure.The story is about the child Brendan who was the nephew of the imposing and overprotective Abbot of the township of Kells. The main pre-occupation of the Abbot is to build a wall to protect Kells from the attacking Vikings. One day, Aiden, the renowned illustrator from Iona, sought refuge with them. Aiden opens Brendan's eyes to the art of illustration and the lure of the outside world. Along the way, Brendan befriended the white forest sprite Aisling, as he sought to recover an ancient crystal invaluable to the meticulous art of book illustration."The Secret of Kells" is unlike most of the animation released these days. It is a throwback of sorts as the illustrations are done in stark geometric lines and design without much care for realism, as much as symbolism. The movements of these lines are reminiscent of the simplistic yet fluid animation style used at the beginning sequence of "Kung Fu Panda." However, it is the magnificent use of color that is the main source of wonderment for the audience. The reds used in the Viking invasion sequence is unforgettably haunting.Try to catch this quiet gem of a film. It is a welcome respite from all the senseless bombast of current animated fare such as "Monsters vs. Aliens" and the like. The sparse Celtic musical score is effective in evoking the sense of fantasy that imbues the film. OK, the story might be a little shallow and the ending a bit wanting. I would have liked to know more about the Book that Brendan and Aiden was working on. But the clear star of this film is clearly its amazing stylized artwork, said to be based on the artwork in the real Book of Kells.$LABEL$ 1
+WHITE CHICKS Hold on, why couldn't they have dressed as Black Chicks, oh yeah, they wouldn't look different at all. Can anyone give me one Wayans movie where they haven't dressed up as ladies? Don't Be A Menace doesn't count, Jack White and Michael Costanza ghost wrote that (the other Norton Trio members acted as Directors).In White Chicks, there's never really any jokes. It's just the Wayans acting like girls for 2 hours. There's no setups, no punchlines and no laughs. There is a lot of "I think I'm gonna play some Time Crisis 3." At least for me there was (5 times to be exact).Somebody has to tell Kenan Ivory, Damon, Marlon, Shawn, Damien (the only talented one), Kim, Rakeesha, George W., and Osama Bin Wayans to stop making movies. Its only hurting the O-Zone layer.VERDICT 1/2* out of ****$LABEL$ 0
+For comedy to work, there are many factors involved:1. Don't be afraid to take risks. 2. If anyone or anything deserves to be poked fun at, do it and continue to do it,...but most of all:3. BE FUNNY!!!!"The Chaser's War on Everything" succeeds in all those three things. In fact, the show proved to be so popular and so funny that already only months after it's first episode, a DVD of the first season was released. I picked it up within days of it being released and hit the floor laughing and had so many fu#@ing tears in my eyes- It's that well, good!In short and to save me blabbing on about the show- watch it, buy it, podcast it, whatever will make you watch the fu$#ing best show in the world!!!!!Go the CHASER!!!!$LABEL$ 1
+Seeing as the world snooker championship final finished in a premature and disappointing manner with Ronnie O`Sullivan defeating Greame Dott by 18 frames to 8 BBC 2 found a gap in their schedule and so decided to broadcast A WALK ON THE MOON a movie I had absolutely no knowledge offI missed a few seconds of the title credits so had no idea Viggo Mortensen starred in it and thought possibly it might be a cheap TVM , certainly the opening with the mawkish Pearl and Marty taking their kids to a Summer camp has that sort of made for TV feel though the brightly lit ( Too brightly lit ) cinematography seemed to suggest this was a cinematic film and it wasn`t until the appearence of Viggo Mortensen as hippy guy Walker that I realised this was a cinema release , after all someone of Mortensen`s stature wouldn`t star in a TVM , I mean that`s like a legend like Robert DeNiro appearing in a straight to video film . Wait a minute , didn`t Bob .... ?Some people on this site have mentioned that Pearl and Marty are an unconvincing on-screen couple and I agree . I can understand why Pearl would be attracted to exciting hippy guy but have no idea why Walker would be attracted to plain house wife Pearl . The sixties was before my time but surely if you`ve got the choice between hippy chicks and bored house wives it`s not really a choice at all . Mind you a lot of people took LSD in those days so I guess that explains itI feel the major problem of A WALK ON THE MOON comes down to the fact it`s a romantic drama at heart ( Just like you`d expect in a TVM ) with several cloying coming of age scenes so why include a fairly explicit sex scene ? It jars with the rest of the movie and is possibly off putting to the menopuasal women who were 20 something in 1969 . I say possibly because the movie also seems to aim at a teeenage market with the coming of age scenes and those teenagers will probably be bored with the historical and social context of man walking on the moon and Woodstock . In other words A WALK ON THE MOON tries to attract many types of audience but will probably appeal to none of them$LABEL$ 0
+Even longtime Shirley fans may be surprised by "Now and Forever." The movie was filmed with Paramount studios – not with Shirley's parent company Twentieth Century Fox – in 1934, before Fox producer Darryl Zanuck had perfected the successful Shirley formula (cute songs, cold hearts for her to melt, young couples for her to play cupid to, happy endings). Thus "Now and Forever" falls into the category of a Shirley vehicle without the standard Shirley story. It is an awkward position for any movie, but this impressive, talented cast makes it work.Gary Cooper and Carole Lombard star as fun-loving, irresponsible con artists Jerry and Toni Day. The only thing that this devoted yet dysfunctional duo seems to hate more than being together is being apart. When they are suddenly landed with custody of Jerry's young daughter Penny (Shirley Temple), it is Toni – and not Penny, as many believe – who persuades Jerry to give up his criminal career. But Jerry flounders at his desk job, and desperate to prove that he can provide for his new family, he soon returns to thieving and dishonesty. In a standard Shirley device, Penny tries to melt the heart of crusty curmudgeon Felix Evans, the victim of one of Jerry's cons, but her attempt fails, for Evans is revealed to be a con artist himself, and he blackmails Jerry into helping him steal jewels. The drama, gunfight, death, and sorrow that follow all make this film a very unusual one for Little Miss Sunshine. There is no happy ending, no dancing, and only one song sequence (the cute number "The World Owes Me a Living").But this does not mean that Shirley fans should avoid "Now and Forever." Rather, it's divergence from the usual Shirley story make it more interesting and memorable than many of her other films. But beware: You should avoid colorized version of this film, and see it in black-and-white if you can. The color is bright, garish, and unrealistic, and in many scenes, Shirley's famous curls are actually red instead of blonde. Yikes!$LABEL$ 1
+I, too, found "Oppenheimer" to be a brilliant series and one of the finest offerings ever on American PBS. David Suchet was particularly effective as Edward Teller, as I recall, and the overall conception was spectacularly good. The only reason that the series doesn't rate a full 10/10 is for the low-budget production values in some areas. Actual content is absolutely first-rate in my recollection.The Oppenheimer miniseries will be released in the UK on July 31st! It will be a Region 2/PAL set, but it would seem that a Region 1/NTSC set should be soon in the offing.If you have a universal player in the US, you can order the series right now from Amazon UK.http://tinyurl.com/znyyqHuzzah!!$LABEL$ 1
+This film is stunningly beautiful. Goldsworthy's art really benefits with the medium of film because you can see the art at its most beautiful, moving and changing and blossoming. I strongly recommend this movie to everyone. I can think of nothing else to say about it. It's just the kind of movie you HAVE TO see, because it's so visually compelling and left me very refreshed when I left the theatre.$LABEL$ 1
+Anthony Quinn is a master at capturing our heart and sympathy. He portrays a Romanian peasant with a below average IQ, harassed by his wife to do more. It's WWII and the Nazis have taken over his country. Soon he finds himself digging entrenchments hoping to benefit himself in his wife's eyes. The Nazis have different ideas. Through the next years we watch events unfold through his naive eyes, but all he wants to do is go home. His manipulations and ill luck just get him in further hot water. Finally, through no fault of his own, we see his picture on the cover of "Der Spiegel" as the perfect Aryan. The war ends and the allies put him on trial for war crimes. But all our peasant wants to do is return home to his wife.$LABEL$ 1
+This is the second film I've seen of Ida Lupino as a director after 53's the hitch-hiker. I think this one was a better film then that one. This one has a girl who is about to get married and she is then sexually assaulted and doesn't like everyone looking and talking about her so she runs away and and is taken in by a family. I think Leonard Maltin's review is right only to give it 2 and 1/2 stars.$LABEL$ 1
+It seems like more consideration has gone into the IMDb reviews of this film than went into the source.Here's a review without pretensions:Just when you think nothing is going to happen, it doesn't.Dress it up any way you like, this is a dull film, full of unengaging characters doing very little of interest.One to put on if you want to convince an impressionable emo chick that you're like, so deep, man.Not something to watch for your own pleasure though.Unless.You're.Pretentious.$LABEL$ 0
+A gritty look at New York City and dock workers. This is a classic film, realistic, brutal at times, always believable. It was originally shown LIVE on tv,also starring Sidney Poitier. John Cassavetes was a fantastic director and actor.$LABEL$ 1
+*review may contain spoilers*predictable, campy, bad special effects. it has a TV-movie feeling to it. the idea of the UN as being taken over by Satan is an interesting twist to the end of the world according to the bible. the premise is interesting, but its excution falls waaaay short. if you want to convert people to Christianity with a film like this, at least make it a quality one! i was seriously checking my watch while watching this piece of dreck. can't say much else about this film since i saw it over a year ago, and there isn't really much to say about this film other than.....skip it!$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie tonight in a preview showing and it was fantastic. It does well in portraying issues that the average High School student is subjected to. I left the movie feeling stunned and saddened and yet grateful that this movie will have a chance to raise awareness through its audiences regarding these issues (bullying, rape, suicide and depression).Its a Fantastic Aussie Film.Go see it.Support it.Learn from it.$LABEL$ 1
+The Bone Snatcher is about a group miners who go on a search for a missing crew of miners in the Namib Desert. When the find them, they are nothing more than bones stripped clean and they could not have been dead for more than six hours. The story keeps you interested as to what exactly caused this. The characters are well enough, and the acting is pretty good.About an hour and ten minutes in when you find out what is causing the bones to be stripped clean, you sigh "oh, that is really stupid." The movie is ruined by bad writing and a non-exciting ending. Up until that point, the movie was pretty good, and it is a shame that it took such a bad turn. So I cannot recommend this movie. I gave it a 4/10.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw it tonight and fell asleep in the movie.That is something that I have not done since - I have never fallen asleep at the movies.I LOVE the original and have seen it several times and recommend it to everyone. This may have been the problem but I do not think so, because there were a couple of bright spots that showed if done right they could have made this movie work.Bette was under used and Anne was over used and miscast.I do not know why English or anyone for that matter let this go out in that condition.They billed this as a Sex in the City but better? Not a chance I liked Sex in the City a lot and was disappointed by this movie.So do not waste your money on this movie - go see anything but this!$LABEL$ 0
+While credited as a Tom and Jerry cartoon, this is not the cat-and-mouse team but an earlier Mutt-and-Jeff rip-off featuring them going to Africa and disguising themselves in the stereotypical burnt cork makeup to try to blend in. While the dialect humor is mostly lame, there is a brief musical sequence involving "black skeletons" that was entertaining. I have to ask however, how could Tom and Jerry still have their makeup stay on even after being dumped in the water a couple of times? One of many entries produced by the Van Beuren Corporation for distribution by RKO Radio Pictures before RKO made a deal with Disney. Only worth seeing if you're an animation buff or is interested in how certain ethnicities were stereotyped as entertainment way back when.$LABEL$ 0
+Snow White is in my opinion a bad movie on an artistic point of view. The plot is pretty much foreseeable, the characters are stereotypes, the editing too exaggerated. Anyway, the movie seems not to have a lot of artistic ambitions. Instead, I think this is a straight commercial thing. Including a character from the french part of Switzerland (the actor IS the leader of the band he is touring with in the movie - the band's called SENS UNIK) seems to aim to a larger audience. A straight German-swiss movie would not have sold in the french part - and vice versa. What really got on my nerves were the product placements all over the movie. Sometines scenes remembered of advertisement clips! I also think the topic of "young people taking drugs without any other targets in their lives" is a wide spread reality in Zurich. Therefore, it should be elaborated with more care. I hope Samir got enough money with Snow White, in order that his next movie is gonna show his true artistic skills.$LABEL$ 0
+What is left of Planet Earth is populated by a few poor and starving rag-tag survivors. They must eat bugs and insects, or whatever, after a poison war, or something, has nearly wiped out all human civilization. In these dark times, one of the few people on Earth still able to live in comfort, we will call him the All Knowing Big Boss, has a great quest to prevent some secret spore seeds from being released into the air. It seems that the All Knowing Big Boss is the last person on Earth that knows that these spores even exist. The spores are located far away from any living soul, and they are highly protected by many layers of deadly defense systems. The All Knowing Big Boss wants the secret spores to remain in their secret protected containers. So, he makes a plan to send in a macho action team to remove the spore containers from all of the protective systems and secret location. Sending people to the location of secret spores makes them no longer a secret. Sending people to disable all of the protective systems makes it possible for the spores to be easily released into the air. How about letting sleeping dogs lie?! The one pleasant feature of ENCRYPT is the radiant and elegant Vivian Wu. As the unremarkable macho action team members drop off with mechanically paced predictable timing, engaging Vivian Wu's charm makes acceptable the plot idea of her old employer wanting her so much. She is an object of love, an object of desire -- a very believable concept!Fans of Vivian Wu may want to check out an outstanding B-movie she is in from a couple years back called DINNER RUSH. DINNER RUSH is highly recommended. ENCRYPT is not.$LABEL$ 0
+Hayao Miyazaki's magic continues with this absolute crowd pleaser Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea, his latest animated film, which turns on the usual sweetness to charm your socks off. I thought that the trailer featured its song which was quietly hypnotic, and I didn't have to wait for an invite to make sure I got my ticket for the sneak preview of the movie, scheduled to open here next week.For fans of Studio Ghibli films, you'll probably know what you're in for, as Miyazaki has yet another winner in his filmography, that will win new fans over. I'm embarrassed to say the least that I've so far watched only My Neighbour Totoro (eyes that pile of Ghibli DVDs) and love it to bits, but I guess this would serve as a final push for me not to continue missing what would likely be animated films that I would enjoy.Ponyo (voiced by Nara Yuria) is a magic goldfish that yearns to know what is life beyond the sea, with her constant forays in a bubble to the surface of the water to sneak a peek. Nonetheless these ambitions do not bode well with her humanoid dad Fujimoto (Tokoro Joji), who harbours some hatred toward the human race for pollution, and briefly touching a subplot on environmental protection / revenge by Mother Nature as well. An accident one day sees Ponyo being washed ashore, and picked up by five year old boy Sosuke (Doi Hiroki) who lives on a house on the said cliff with his mother Lisa (Yamaguchi Tomoko), while dad Koichi (Nagashima Kazushige) is mostly out to sea since he's a sailor. And you can expect some moments of throwback to the likes of The Little Mermaid, or Splash made for kids. Saying anything more would be to spoil the fun.The artwork here is still simply astounding even though it's in 2D glory, knowing that each cell is painstakingly worked on. There are so many things going on at the same time within the same frame, that you'll probably be game for repeated viewings just to spot them all. This definitely beats any 3D or CG animated production any day given its beauty coming from its simplicity, and not only from the artwork department, but on its story too, despite complaints coming in that it took a leaf from the Hans Christian Andersen classic. While there are avenues to make this film extremely dark, it only suggested certain dark themes, but opted instead for a film with more positive emotions, suitable for both kids and adults alike.At its core, its about love, that between the family members of Koichi, Lisa and Sosuke, and especially between mother and son. More so, it's about the love between the boy and his new pet fish which he christened Ponyo, and I tell you Ponyo herself has enough cuteness in her to beat the likes of Bolt, WallE and Eve all hands down. Characterization here is top notch, and it's hard not to fall in love with Ponyo, in whichever form adopted, especially when she's such a playful being who doesn't hide her emotions - if she's upset with you, either she turns away or you could expect a jet stream come spewing from her mouth into your face!Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea is a definite shoo-in to my top films of this year without hesitation. And the next time I go to Tokyo, I'm sure as hell going to make my way to the Ghibli Museum to bask under the magical world brought to us by Hayao Miyazaki. Highly recommended film, so don't you go missing this on the big screen!$LABEL$ 1
+Michael Dudikoff stars as Joe Armstrong a martial artist who fights ninjas who are stealing weapons from the U.S Army, in this entertaining yet admittedly brainless martial arts actioner, which is hampered by too many long pauses without action, but helped by some high energy action setpieces as well as Steve James' performance.$LABEL$ 0
+Masayuki Suo, who directed this fine film, is on a role. After the decent "Fancy Dance" and the classic (in Japan, anyway) college-sumo comedy "Shiko Funjatta", Suo has followed his own huge footsteps with a smashing success.The story is engaging. We both laugh often (Naoto Takenaka is hilarious, as he is in Suo's two previous films) and really root for the characters. But to me the big bonus is the look this movie gives the viewer into Japanese society - real life in Japan. Suo has a knack for showing real-life activities with entertaining flair. The result is a movie that will pull you in, make you laugh, make you think, and both entertain you and give you insight into today's Japan.Also look for the the main 8 actors from Shiko Funjatta, as they all appear again in various roles, from supporting characters (Takenaka) to short cameos (many).$LABEL$ 1
+The synopsis of this movie led me to believe that it would be a story of an unconventional woman challenging the conventions of the society in with she lives. I like strong female characters and expected a movie much along the lines of "Chocolat" with a less fairy tale and more bite. What I got was a cast of despicable characters.For a character-driven movie to be effective, I need to feel a connection or compassion for the people. There was no one with whom I could relate in the movie. Grazia (Golino, whose work I admired in "Rain Man") portrays a mentally ill, probably bipolar, female that is often rude, aggressive and violent. Her husband bickers and yells, when he is not hitting or slapping someone. The children are rude brats. They yell at each other and the females in the movie. They attack other children with no provocation. Violence begets violence. This seems to be an island of unfeeling, aggressive, violent and rude people all the way around.The direction is not compelling. There are intermixed scenes that attempt to be art, but instead bore the viewer. The location is exceptionally gorgeous, but even that fails to be captured to the degree that it could be on film.I would have to recommend that you stay away from this failure of a movie.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this film without knowing much about it at all. The split screen device was immediately irritating, and things didn't improve for me after the title sequence had finished. The plot, characters and dialogue were all extremely cliched - poor guy from abusive family gets thrown out of home, wants to get out of his 'lot', reinvents himself, changes his voice, dresses in others' clothes, is adopted by a gay man who he proceeds to disgard on his way up to becoming part of an international set of drug taking British aristocrats.The estate of Patricia Highsmith (talented mr ripley) should be suing the makers of this film. The triple screen to me, together with the over 120 min duration, emphasises the almost non existent editing. Can't decide which image works and is the most powerful, why not show three and hope you get it right with one of them. This gimmick removed any connection or interest I had with any of the characters. Important dialogue was repeated 3 times across each screen, as if to say 'this is an important / moving / deep moment, ok!'.Don't waste your time.$LABEL$ 0
+I don't usually write a comment when there are so many others but this time I feel I have to. I have spoken of taste in another review, saying it's all in the eye of the beholder but when it comes to this film, if you like it, it simply means you have bad taste.I love films. I loved "Isle of the Dead" which is pretty much an unknown B&W film. I even liked "Scream" and "Scary Movie" I liked these films because they have, if not a lot, at least something good about them. I appreciate 99.9% of the films I've seen because they tell a story which I haven't heard before, and most directors only make films with a good storyline. Throughout this film I was thinking "Where is this going?" (even near the end) "Where did they get these awful actors from"? "Was that supposed to be a joke?" and suchlike. With the obvious twist looming I was sceptical, but hoped it would perhaps "make" the film and prove I hadn't wasted my time. I was sadly mistaken. The storyline was bad to begin with and the twist actually ruined any glimmer of hope there was. Here's a rundown: Storyline – much like the first film, which was alright, this one is slow and sparse with no audience relation to the characters or the situations. The situations are cringeworthy and shallow and completely boring and predictable. The twist was terrible, it didn't make me feel a thing, like excitement or WOW. Just "My GOD." There was nothing in the bulk of the film that you could look back to and think "Oooo wasn't that clever" because it wasn't. In "Fight Club" there are flashbacks at the end showing bits where Tyler's true identity was cryptically shown, and when you watched it again you saw more, it really was a work of genius, how it was written, laid out and directed. This was a meaningless attempt at an awesome twist. I think it was "wild things" that had like a pretty poor double twist and I still liked the film because the rest was OK and it wasn't trying too hard to be a big twist. Its like the CI2 writer thought it was gonna be the best twist ever. But really, its just a bad story with a bad twist dumped on the end. The film ended almost immediately afterward, with the whole film void by Sebastian's whole story build up meaning nothing and a horrible half forced, paedophilic ending with a particularly young and innocent acting girl. Acting – the actors in this film are appalling. Almost as bad a "Sunset Beach." - Extremely corny and badly performed. It's not even so bad it's good like "Hunk". The worst acting I thought came from Amy Adams who played Kathryn, it was a rigid, pathetic and badly thought out performance by her. Robin Dunne was also poor. I haven't seen "American Psycho II" yet, but no doubt his laid back "cool" style has ruined that film also.I can't even say it is a good film for teens, as its not. If my son or daughter liked this film I'd be ashamed. But they wouldn't anyway, as they would take into consideration all the things that make a good film, which this film has none of. Really. I'm disappointed that some have said "you might not be in the age bracket for this film, and so dislike it" I like all the films now that I liked as a teen and had very good taste. Also, do you really think that when you reach 20+ you suddenly don't like any teenish story lines? No. I liked "Mean Girls" and other generic teen films, and watch "Beverly Hills 90210" all the time. There's no excuse for poor directing, acting and screenplay I'm afraid. Besides, I was 16/17 when I first watched it. If anything, being older just makes you a better judge of a terrible film. I can't believe anyone can give it 10/10 either, one of my favourite films is "Memento" and I gave it 9 as I know there can be better. It is a shame for this site that people do that, give 10s flippantly, or don't get the films/show, and so give it 2.Anyone who liked this film really should vary their taste, and perhaps their lives, and with this realise that this is the worst film EVER made. (worse than "Loch Ness")If you aren't a teenager with bad taste, or simply don't have bad taste you will absolutely hate this film.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie had the potential to be really good, considering some of the plot elements are borrowed from the sci-fi actioner THE HIDDEN. And Dolph always lends some cheesy appeal to his roles. But someone somewhere really dropped the ball on this one.Dolph plays a butt-kicking monk (!) who travels to New York to retrieve a key that unlocks a door beneath his monastery that has imprisoned the antichrist for 2000 years. He must battle the minion, who is a spirit that jumps from body to body much like THE HIDDEN and JASON GOES TO HELL. The minion, naturally, wants the key so it can let the antichrist out. Along for the ride is an annoying female archaeologist and together she and Dolph are chased by the minion-possessed bodies.If I'm making this sound entertaining, forget it. The pacing is very awkward and sluggish, the acting subpar at best, and the fight scenes staged poorly. Dolph sleepwalks through his role and spouts some of the worst dialogue of his career.The cheese factor really picks up at the end when the minion battles an army of machine-gun wielding monks at the monastery, but the rest of this flick is a snoozefest.Too bad, I really wanted to like this.$LABEL$ 0
+Barbra Streisand's first television special was simply fantastic! From her skit as a child to her medley of songs in a high-fashion department store -- everything was top-notch! It was easy to understand how this special received awards.Not muddled down by guest appearances, the focus remained on Barbra thoughout the entire production.$LABEL$ 1
+The promotions for "Clubbed" project a slick looking film based around the clubbing scene of the 1980's. What we end up with is a film with identity issues. The sub-plots end up taking over from what viewers would assume to be the main plot, so the focus on this film being mainly about "clubbing" ends up being left in the gutter.Boxing, depression, self-loathing, gangsters, bouncers and drug-deals, are all hastily crammed into 90 odd minutes. On no less than 4 occasions I had to check the run-time of the film, as the worry grew that this film was bound to disappoint.What club scenes we do see are bland and repetitive, featuring approximately 3 extras dancing in what is barely recognisable as a "club", hardly capturing the vibe of the day.If you're looking for a film about the 80's club scene, something along the lines of what "Human Traffic" did for the late 90's, forget "Clubbed".$LABEL$ 0
+I can't get this flick off my brain. It's definitely totally different than anything that's out there. I've seen a ton of movies over the holidays and while some are okay nothing really rocked my world the way BlindSpot did. There is just something way cool about the actors and the way that they put the film together. It's like there is really scary stuff mixed with with some pretty f****ing hilarious black humour. Franco is great but the older rough dude steals the show in a few scenes, like when he punches the kid out in the dirt grave. I guess some politically correctos won't appreciate the vibe (don't bring your grandma) but it is totally awesome. The thing that's best is the kaliedescope style. There is some really serious stuff mixed with super interesting footage of the road. The movie really makes you sad and scared in parts but it also spins your head with what is happening and the way it is filmed. WTF is up with the world? Sooo many critics are raving about all these supposedly revolutionary ground-breaking films and when you see them they're boring and predictable and not-all-that. I don't get it because there are a lot of other better choices. Blind Spot is really kinda great because it gives you thrills and chills and major upcoming star power but does it in a way that is completely fresh and definitely totally rad.$LABEL$ 1
+I am surprised at IMDb's low rating of this movie. With all due respect, its low rating is representative of the IQ level of those who rated it so poor. They would rather see a movie with cheap thrills, a bigger budget, and more gore.The first misconception by people is that this is a horror film. It is not, nor does the film mislead you into believing it is one. It is a psychological thriller. It is for people who actually want an intellectual experience when watching a movie. Reel.com's review is the perfect example of how I feel about this movie. All the other negative reviews doesn't make much sense. It's almost as if trying to make an original movie for a change- very rare these days- is something bad and not worth it.I will reveal some spoilers for the morons who said it was boring and didn't make sense. Martha was brainwashing herself and performing experiments on herself to be a caring mother while she really was an evil Nazi who would kill without warning. The evidence is all in the pudding and the fact that at first viewing, we sympathize with this cold-blooded monster for the duration of the movie is a testament to the film's direction and writing.I definitely feel that this movie should at least be rated in the 6's range on originality alone. I recommend this movie for the people on the other end of the IQ scale- aka smart people- since this movie is obviously being butchered by those who would rather watch Scream or Freddy's Nightmare.Kudos to the acting as well. For such a low budget film, you are amazed that this movie didn't hit your local cinema with the great direction, writing, and acting. Please don't be fooled by the rating by IMDb. This movie is worth it. I actually recommend buying the film since a first viewing on a rent will not do this justice.$LABEL$ 1
+A humorous voyage into the normally somber funeral business. It's easy watching, and even offers Blethyn & Molina stealing a scene from an old Fred & Ginger movie. Walken is over the top as a zealous competitor of Molina in the undertaking business, trying to bring a new style to an old Welsh town. We see a couple of very funny examples of the "new style". The plot thickens with Pugh having an affair with Watts, and her suggesting that they do Blethyn in. Meanwhile Molina has rekindled his long suffering romantic feeling for Blethyn, and convinces her to fake her death so that they can run away to the South Seas, and dance away their days together. During the "fake" funeral Blethyn learns of her husbands' infidelities and plots her revenge. Watch it for a view of what funerals probably should be--a celebration of life!$LABEL$ 1
+Man's Castle is set in one of those jerry built settlements on vacant land and parks that during these times were called 'Hoovervilles' named after our unfortunate 31st president who got stuck with The Great Depression occurring in his administration. The proposition of this film is that a man's home is still his castle even when it's just a shack in a Hooverville.Spencer Tracy has such a shack and truth be told this guy even in good times would not be working all that much. But in a part very typical for Tracy before he was cast as a priest in San Francisco, the start of a slew of classic roles, he's playing a tough good natured mug who takes in Loretta Young.One of the things about Man's Castle is that it shows the effects of the Depression on women as well as men. Women had some additional strains put on them, if men had trouble finding work, women had it twice as hard. And they were sexually harassed and some resorted to prostitution just for a square meal. Spence takes Loretta Young in who's facing those kind of problems and makes no demands on her in his castle. Pretty soon though they're in love, though Tracy is not the kind to settle down.The love scenes had some extra zing to them because Tracy and Young were having a torrid affair during the shooting of Man's Castle. And both were Catholic and married and in those days that was an insuperable barrier to marriage. Both Tracy and Young took the Catholic faith quite seriously.Also in the cast are Walter Connolly as a kind of father figure for the whole camp, Marjorie Rambeau who's been through all the pitfalls Young might encounter and tries to steer her clear and Arthur Hohl, a really loathsome creep who has his eye on Young as well. Hohl brings the plot of Man's Castle to its climax through his scheming. Man's Castle is grim look at the Great Depression, not the usual movie escapist fare for those trying to avoid that kind of reality in their entertainment.$LABEL$ 1
+Janeane Garofalo has been very public in her displeasure about this film, calling it, among other things, anti-feminist. She has also said on her radio show she hates making "romantic comedies" because she doesn't believe in them. I wholeheartedly agree with Janeane here. This film is a trifle at best. She does her best, but overall, it was just another boring, unbelievable "romantic comedy" that has no basis in the real world. Whereas there will be some who will say "suspend your disbelief", one grows tired of having to suspend it nearly every time you get a romantic film from Hollywood. Janeane's character, for some reason, is usually filmed in shadows and darkness, which makes her look unattractive, while Uma's character is filmed in lighter tones (which probably displeased Janeane and is probably one of the reasons she detests this film). That really hurts the film if we are to buy the premise that Janeane is supposed to be the better looking of the two. As many have said here and on other comment threads, Janeane is not ugly, but in fact, quite beautiful. I haven't read one review where someone said Uma was better looking. Having said that though, I believe that Ben Chaplin's character would more than likely stay with Uma, not Janeane. Many men don't like really intelligent women (and many women don't like really intelligent men), and sadly, Ben probably would have stayed with Uma. And despite the director's attempt to make Janeane unattractive, it doesn't work. Her natural beauty comes through anyway.I think a lot of Janeane's male fans who are obsessed with her like this film because they like to think of themselves in the Ben Chaplin character, and actually scoring with Janeane. Janeane is a lot more complicated than the character she plays here (real life is always much more complex than Hollywood can imagine), so take a cold shower gentlemen. This is the role that Janeane is best known for, and that's a shame, as this really isn't that good of a film.$LABEL$ 0
+This film really deserves more recognition than its getting. It really is a stunning and rich portrayal of blood ties, favours and allegiances within the crime world. The film is shot beautifully and delves into all you're classic crime themes such as betrayal and power. This film is a movie goers film, it requires attention and understanding and rewards fully in the end. It is the godfather of hong kong and is a welcome change rather than another wire frame fighting, martial arts epic which seems to be the major contribution to the cinema world from hong kong and china. It features an arrangement of great characters, actors and development although is fair to say I had to watch it twice just to nail what was happening with some of the characters due to their being so many interactions in the film. ALl in all 8/10 Great plot characters but there are characters that don't stand out enough and the music didn't really get me going and at times i felt it didn't sync well with the action(there is action by the way) so it loses some points for that.$LABEL$ 1
+While there aren't any talking animals, big lavish song production numbers, or villians with half white / half black hair ... it does have 1 thing ... realistic people acting normally in a strange circumstance, and Walt & Roy did in their eras with the studio. If you thought think "The Castaways" or "The Island At The Top Of The World" weren't identical, or you hold them to a higher authority than Atlantis, then your idealism is just as whacked as keeping your kids up till midnight to watch a friggin' cartoon.$LABEL$ 1
+I don't know what that other guy was thinking. The fact that this movie was independently made makes it no less terrible. You can be as big a believer as you want... the majority of this film is mindless drivel. I feel i have been insulted by having to watch the first 40 minutes of it. And that alone was no small feat. Not only is the acting terrible, but the plot is never even close to developed. There are countless holes in the story, to the point where you can hardly even call it a story anymore. I've never read the book, so I can't critique on that, but this is the first review that I've written here and it's purpose is solely to save all you viewers out there an hour and a half of your life. I can't remember the last time I couldn't even finish watching a movie. This one really takes the cake.$LABEL$ 0
+I am so excited that Greek is back! This season looks really eventful. Im glad that Casey is trying to get serious about school but is still involved in the sorority. Its really funny that she wants to go into politics & that they're highlighting her 'scheming talent.' I loved Calvin's new haircut! It makes him look more mature. They should shave Cappy's head, as well. All the guys are hot but Calvin is definitely the hottest! I cant wait to see more of him! I'm especially interested in what happens between Calvin, Adam, & Rusty! I also love Rebecca. She's really pretty. I actually think that Rebecca & Calvin should hook up. go for it, Calvin! Join my team!$LABEL$ 1
+I'm from Belgium and therefore my English writing is rather poor, sorry for that...This is one of those little known movies that plays only once on TV and than seems to vanishes into thin air. I was browsing through my old VHS Video collection and came across this title, I looked it up and it had an IMDb score of more than 7/10, that's pretty decent.I must admit that it's a very well put together movie and that's why I'm puzzled. This is the only film made by this director...? How come he didn't make lots of films after this rather good one...? Someone with so much potential should be forced to make another movie, ha ha ;-) Anyway, I really would like to see that he pulls his act together and makes another good movie like this one, please.....?$LABEL$ 1
+If you watched this film for the nudity (as I did) you won't be disappointed. I could have done without the bumbling crooks or the bear though. Some bottomless nudity could have be shown but for what it was I think H.O.T.S. has to be the best of its genre.It is not the sort of film that could have been made today which is a pity because it is the sort of film that is worth watching in these times.I would take mindless nudity over pivotal plot points any day.It is a shame that the DVD doesn't have any extras but as they didn't have DVDs when this was filmed that is understandable. I would have like to know more about the shooting of the film especially where they shot the football match at the end.$LABEL$ 1
+McConaughey in a horror/thriller? I had to see this. I was pleasantly surprised.The plot is told in flashback mode, and it concerns an otherwise normal and happy family of three going through a very bizarre predicament. I can't say much more without spoiling the whole movie, sorry. Just know that if you decide to watch it, you'll be, in the very least, surprised.All the main players are very good. Bill Paxton did a great job directing those kids, and his acting is awesome. McConaughey's acting is solid throughout and fits the bill perfectly.This movie challenges you to think. Is Dad crazy? Is there a God? Do Demons exist? How far would you go to right a wrong. And what is "right" anyway? I'm still thinking.And thus I recommend "Frailty". 7/10 and this is one of those movies that deserves and rewards a second, or even third viewing.$LABEL$ 1
+There are several things wrong with this movie- Brenda Song's character being one of them. I do not believe that the girl is a lousy actor- I honestly don't. I believe she is given poor lines. She is just supposed to be, "that vain, rich girl", and while it is funny in the TV shows she plays in, it can't even get a dry laugh from me here.Either way, I really should have known what to expect when I sat down to watch this film.The movie was not that terrible...initially. Wendy's reaction to Shen was completely natural. I mean, how would you feel if a man, claiming to be a reincarnated monk, chased you around commanding you to wear a medallion and insisting that you were needed to fight "the great evil" and save the world? Which brings me to another point. I know this movie is entirely fiction, but it is still has a founding in Chinese culture. It seems like all of the "warriors" in Wendy's family line were women. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt that the monks would've just been okay with that. Sure, maybe they could've worked it in somehow, but they offered no explanation whatsoever. By doing so, they just contributed to the many cheesy attempts at female empowerment made by Hollywood and the media.Nevermind that, however- let us continue.Wendy's character becomes more unbearable as the film go on. Yes, she is a teenager, and it is near homecoming- I mean, who wants to fight evil during homecoming? The problem is, when "the evil" starts to manifest himself, Wendy does not seem as freaked out as she should be. She is extremely careless- even for someone like her. She continues not to care about her training. I will use this conversation as an example, Shen: "If you do not win this battle, evil will take over, and everything good will be gone." Wendy: "Whoa, talk about pressure. Well...let's talk about something else." Yes, let's Wendy. Let's also go dancing when you should rightfully be training. Of course Shen lets her, but his character has an excuse. Better that he cooperate with her, than that he not, and she not train at all, and get them both killed.Oh, speaking of which. Shen also told Wendy that it was his destiny for him to die for her in battle, as he had for her great-grandmother (I am assuming that part).This makes Wendy's actions more unforgivable.As the script-writer would have it, Wendy's homecoming and this "great battle" are on exactly the same day. Do you know what Wendy does? Do you even have to guess? Yes, she does end up going to the battle, for when she tries to leave for homecoming, the monks, (who Shen had trapped in the body of her coach and teachers because she "felt weird fighting an old man") inform her that Shen has gone to battle alone, so she goes to save him.We initially see some half-decent fighting, that is actually entertaining. Until finally, the great evil comes out of Wendy's rival-for-homecoming's body, and creates the actual embodiment of himself out of the broken pieces of the bodies of his ancient warriors.Don't ask.Anyway, Wendy gets all "panicky." Then Shen goes and defends her from this guy- forgive me for forgetting his long Chinese name- and manages to get himself killed.Wendy catches Shen as he makes his long descent from being thrust uncomfortably high into the air.She screams title of said article out.Now...it was bad enough that Wendy became powerful far, far too fast. No, I will not let it be excused because it was her "destiny" and she had "the power within" her.Since when, though, did she learn healing? No, worst...since when could she resurrect people? So Shen is raised from the dead. Then, Wendy and he fight the guy.He loses way to easily. The worst part, is when they jump together, and kick him at the same time, and he is banished forever. Then the monks commend Wendy on her sacrifice.Two things, #1: Don't the script writer and director know a battle needs a little more "finesse" to it? #2: What sacrifice? The fact that she didn't go to homecoming? Because the girl did not break a sweat, or even bleed. I mean, come on now, this movie was TV PG, I wanted to see somebody get hurt.Ah-hem...moving on.I know it sounds like maybe I should have given the movie a one, based on my comments. Part of critique, you must know, though, is breaking a thing down. You don't necessarily try to look for the bad, but if it's there, you bring attention to it. This movie has a lot of bad, but something funny happens when you never really expect something to be all too great in the first place.So, I suppose it was all right. Not that me not saying it wasn't all right would've stopped anybody from watching it.$LABEL$ 0
+I liked this a lot. The camera angles are cool, it's not all jumpy like a Blair Witch. And I thought they did a great job with the Sound when we see things from Kane's point of view. Lots of fun. Plenty of people were shouting at the screen! Kane did a great job with his various psycho emotions. He's a lot less one-dimensional than most horror heroes.Kane is a lot less scary and more believable than most movie psychos. It was not clear to me how he would react to various situations. There are not many twists here, but it is clever and original in it's own way. Good, creepy, B-movie slasher fare.$LABEL$ 1
+It was a decent movie, I actually kind of enjoyed it. But the ending is so abrupt!! There is absolutely no closure and it leaves tons of loose ends. What happens after the concert? What happens with her boyfriend? Does she hook up with Grant? Does she come beck in the next semester? And what about Angela? Obviously Holly's performance would knock Angela down a few pegs, but nothing is shown to indicate how she reacts. There is so much left up in the air and it's very unsatisfying. I don't know if it is trying to leave room for a sequel or something, but it is a terrible ending and I think that it really makes the movie a joke. I was very disappointed.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a great horror film for people who don't want all that vomit-retching gore and sensationalism. This movie has equal amounts of horror, suspense, humor, and even a little light nudity, but nothing big. Linnea Quigley isn't over the top as she was in "Return of the Living Dead" where she danced naked on a crypt, but she is still essentially the same slutty character. Cathy Podewell is a virginal and chaste character before going on to "Dallas," and we are also introduced to Amelia [soon Mimi] Kinkade,the sexy and sinister would-be dark matron of the house. As she and Linnea are possessed and take over the house, they reanimate the bodies of their dead friends to scare the limits out of the survivors. I've heard a lot of people compare this movie to "The Evil Dead," but if anything, this movie is a rival to that one the same way Freddie rivaled Jason.This movie series though is far superior to that one !$LABEL$ 1
+i was looking forward to this, and to be honest there were some bright spots, but it would have worked better if it had concentrated on one story rather than shooting all over the world. The many dogs were a lot of fun but i got bored of the wine fascists pompously whining (;-)) on about their achievements.I felt it would have worked better as an hour long TV documentary, concentrating on one of the many different issues it explored. The most interesting being the french town near montpelier fighting off a an American wine company's campaign to get rid of the historic forests. A socialist mayor agreed to a deal, a nicely timed election arrived, and a communist mayor was elected, who turned it down, much to the exasperation of the American wine execs...hopefully the director's cut will be shorter than the original..$LABEL$ 0
+When I rented this movie I thought I was going to see a horror-movie. However, there is little horror in this typical seventies mystery-drama directed by strange James T. Flocker. Nice-looking Matt Boston carries the picture with his fine performance and the typical strange atmosphere of Flocker's movies is all-present.$LABEL$ 1
+What about Scream Baby Scream is supposed to make me not feel like a fool for buying it? I bought it because, God help me, I'm a sucker for old B-cinema even as worthless as this. Nonetheless, Something about this movie irritates me, it's probably Janet, Janet comes off cold & snooty, seemingly, with the intention of coming off as deep and noble, with a look on her face that screams constipation, she can't seem to agree to anything her uptight boyfriend wants. I'm glad that this is her only role. What really irritates me is that this is a 1960's gore film gone terribly awry, and as we all know, awry is Floridian for "zero gore". It's like the director started with a Herschell Lewis style but backed out of the gore scenes when his wife found out, so instead we end up with one dull conversation after the other, and basically, a whole lot of irritating nothing. In other words, we end up with Florida Bore. Joseph Adler should be embarrassed. Janets boyfriend, Jason is almost as ridiculous as she is, this guy has something negative to say about absolutely everything, come to think of it, he's probably the least likable good guy in horror history. The only thing this movie really has going for it is that it carries that 60's/early 70's B-gore vibe that you can find in stuff like Undertaker & his pals, Blood Freak, or most anything from Herschell Lewis. Even Rodney from the Gruesome Twosome is in this, I Ithought his caveman comedy routine was irritating, most everything from reel to reel is stupid, even the trip scene was stupid. The only positive thing at all is the small amount of beach scenery, but that mostly includes Janet whining about life not being perfect. In the only real ironic twist, Scream Baby Scream gets even less interesting once the story finally gets started, around the 45 minute mark. If you happen to be indifferent to whether or not your entertainment is watchable, but are offended by the color red, you might not hate this. Why does Troma distribute this? Wouldn't this be Something Weird Video's area? Scream Baby Scream very well may be the worst in Florida horror/gore of its era, but, I suppose, underneath the unlikeable characters, and the incoherent plot, lies potential. Scream, Baby, Scream really just seems like it should follow the Blood Feast pattern, so, to steal a quote from Janet, "If it doesn't fit, I throw it out". 2/10$LABEL$ 0
+I recently viewed a copy of this (under the title 'Eaten Alive') Talk about dreadful! Any movie Ed Wood ever put out looks like Oscar material compared to this laughable tosh. To be fair a couple of lines from the script will live long in the memory such as "These people (Cannibals) don't buy frozen meat from a supermarket like us, they get it fresh everyday from folk like you or me" Classic! The mad 'Jonesville' type leader out in the jungle was the best character in the film, he really did look like a nutter. I think he was the only actor not to be dubbed in (badly), if these Italians must have American characters in their films why dont they get Americans to dub in the dialogue instead of English people trying their best to sound like Annie Oakley. I'll give this 3 out of 10, I'll give it three because it really is funnier than most comedies out these days.$LABEL$ 0
+The photography is accomplished, the acting is quite good, but in virtually every other department The Greek Tycoon is a dreary bore. Taking its inspiration from the real-life love affair of Jackie Kennedy and Aristotle Onassis, the film is a glossy but absolutely empty soap opera of the kind that can be found on TV all day long. Viewers who embrace the whole "celebrity magazine culture" (paparazzi photographs and gossipy stories about the rich and famous) will undoubtedly find much to whet their appetite here. But those who prefer films with a bit more substance and craft and quirkiness will find the 107 minute running time a butt-numbing slog.American president James Cassidy (James Franciscus) and his beautiful wife Liz (Jacqueline Bisset) are in Greece on official business. A ridiculously wealthy Greek shipping tycoon, Theo Tomasis (Anthony Quinn), catches sight of Liz at a party at his elegant manor. Despite the fact that both of them are married to someone else, there is an immediate attraction between them. Later, at a private party aboard his yacht, Tomasis makes his desires known to Liz. Some while later, President Cassidy is assassinated whilst out strolling on a beach. Liz is shocked and saddened by his death, but it isn't long before she seeks comfort in the arms of her Greek lover Tomasis. Eventually the two of them are married and their love affair becomes a favourite talking point for the world's newspapers, magazines, photographers and wags.It is somewhat amusing to note the vigour with which the producers of this film denied that it was a dramatisation of the Kennedy-Onassis story. They wanted the film to be seen as an original story, rooted in fiction. But anyone with a brain can see from where the movie is drawing its inspiration. Even Aristotle Onassis himself knew The Greek Tycoon amounted to his love-life getting the Hollywood treatment (if rumours are to be believed, he actually had a hand in approving Anthony Quinn for the Tomasis role!) J. Lee-Thompson isn't really the right sort of director for this type of movie – he's better suited to action fodder like The Guns Of Navarone and Ice Cold In Alex – but he marshals the proceedings with an uninspired, professional adequacy. Quinn is very watchable as Tomasis; Bisset looks lovely as the object of his desires; Franciscus uses his toothy smile and a façade of integrity to make for a believable politician. Their performances are good on the surface, but there's little for the actors to do on any deeper level. Similarly, Tony Richmond's photography gives the film an elegant surface sheen as it moves from one exotic locale to the next, but the merest of scratches proves that there's nothing behind the film's glossy exterior.$LABEL$ 0
+Living in Edinburgh, and have a great thirst for history, I was very put off by the "libertys" taken. Wrong breed of dog for a start!! Bobbys owner Old Jock was an old single man, who came to Edinburgh and died a pauper in lodgings, not like in the film at all. For anyone coming to Edinburgh and hoping to see sights of the film,you will not find the graveyard in Princes St Gardens!! There were a few moments were a tissues would have been great. The actors were fantastic at padding out a rather flimsy script. I don't feel the poor wee Bobby actually got enough screen time, possibly due to being "lost" at one point. All that said, the film was fine and any 8 yr old will enjoy.$LABEL$ 0
+ONE DARK NIGHT is a highly overlooked and little known film from the early 80's that deserves an audience that I fear it will never get, and that's a damn shame. I have seen this film compared to others that have gotten a bigger name over the years, most notably PHANTASM, HELL NIGHT and MAUSOLEUM. This is a much different film than those and I don't see the comparisons other than the mausoleum, which is a bit similar to the one in PHANTASM, but not enough to make any real comparisons. I'm not sure how this one slipped through without a broader acceptance. Maybe it's all in the marketing, I don't know. Perhaps a remake would breathe new life into it, unless Raymar drained all the life out of it that is. I'm not too big on all the remakes that are abundant these days, but I think they do work well with lesser known films (except for the awful GHOST SHIP remake, which other than the opening scene and Mudvayne's Not Falling blaring, was utter crap). So if a remake of ONE DARK NIGHT would happen to fall into the right hands, I think it would make a lot of people go and watch the original. I know that's what I do if there's a remake of a film I haven't seen before. So anything short of a remake, I fear, would not bring this film back to life. Unless, of course, Raymar got his eyes on it.Anyways, ONE DARK NIGHT is a must see for horror fans, especially 80's horror fans ('cause we all know that's when the best horror movies were made). Creepy setting. Fairly good acting. Very good story. Campy. What more could you want from an early 80's horror film? What's that... nudity and gore? Well, sorry. No nudity or gore in this film, but it's still great nonetheless! A solid 8 out of 10. Enjoy.$LABEL$ 1
+After a quasi-Gothic, all-fruity music video, the movie starts with Cassidy the lead singer killing herself. In a perfect world that would be that and the end credits would roll. We don't live n that world. The insipid band members decide to go to some clown to contact her dead essence. When I say clown, I mean actual clown. He tell them they're all going to die via Cassidy's ghost (the spirit possesses Dora, one of the band-mates) We couldn't care less as the characters are all boring, vapid, and extremely horribly acted. Written by Adam Hackbarth (an incredibly apropos surname if there ever was one), and directed by Corbin Timbrook (who after The attendant, and Tower of blood, HAS to know that he keeps making crap for a living), this movie s a constant battle between the film's incompetence and the viewer's need to stay awake. Not enough blood to appease gore-hounds, nor enough nudity to satisfy pervs. This movie in fact has absolutely nothing to recommend to absolutely anyone.My Grade: F Eye Candy: Amanda Carraway gets topless Where i saw it: Starz on Demand$LABEL$ 0
+If you love drive-in cheeze from the early '70s you will just love this one.How could you go wrong with a low budget film about bloodshed in a lunatic asylum? You can't! Crazy folks and sharp objects are always an entertaining combination.The film looks like it was shot inside someone's house for about $320.65. For me that just ads to the fun of watching this type of stuff.The gore is a bit mild compared to others of this ilk,but there is enough to keep us bloodthirsty sickos (like myself)happy.Some horror films drag in parts and leave you waiting for something to happen.That's not the case here.The characters are entertaining enough to make every frame quite enjoyable.There is never a dull moment from start to finish.The mind melting climax at the end that is just unbelievable. I liked it so much that right after the end credits I watched it a second time.It's an absolute must see for any self respecting drive-in horror nut.9.5/10 on the Drive-in-Freak-O-Meter...required viewingYea I love you..I DO love you...now take your Thorazine and put your clothes back on...please....8)$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is about a very delicate argument and if you are searching for something that makes you think here you are right. Tim Robbins has made a wonderful job and the result is a kind of docu-drama that should be shown in schools (for the strong themes treated). What about the actors? Well, they are simply great; Susan Sarandon is truly 'the face of love' and Sean Penn is unbelievable as almost always. An absolutely must-see!$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was made by Daiei Studios, known for its Gamera movies. It is about a samurai lord who was murdered by one of his own men. He claims his throne, forcing his former's two children to flee into the woods, where they hide near a huge stone statue for 10 years. In those time that passed, the new samurai lord has proved to be very brutal and ruthless towards the village people and the valley. Therefore, it seems that the good people's only hope is the stone statue, which is where a demon god sleeps; they want the god to help them. This samurai movie brings to us traditional Japanese aspects including sword-fights, geisha and worshipers. It is a superb and powerful story of survival and hope, with the protagonists attempting to triumph over pure evil. It is full of excitement, particularly the parts where the children struggles to remain in hiding as the evil warlord is out to get them. In addition, it has beautiful cinematography, with luscious landscapes of the village and countryside-instantly reminds you of the ancient times in Japan. As with most samurai movies like "The Seven Samuari" and "The Last Samuarai," this movie is no less than pure, sometimes graphic, action. There are several disturbing scenes in the film. Therefore, it is not the casual sci-fi film. Yet, it is strong and powerful, and delivers a message that a good-natured human can overcome any adversaries, as depicted in this film, even the young innocent girl can calm the wrath of the demon god. The scenes of the demon god, known as Daimajin, trampling on its enemies and anything that stands in his way will instantly remind you of a Godzilla or Gamera film. Overall, a powerful and serious, yet hopeful film.So, be careful with your samurai sword. You wouldn't want to rattle Daimajin's cages.Grade A$LABEL$ 1
+Fourteen of the funniest minutes on celluloid. This short parody is at least as much a part of the Star Wars saga as Phantom Menace, and far more entertaining, if you ask me. Hardware Wars was the first in a long line of SW spoofs which form their own subgenre these days. I hate to describe it too much-it's so short that the premise is just about the whole thing. Suffice it to say that many of the most popular and familiar aspects of Star Wars have fun poked at them. Household appliances such as toasters and vacuum cleaners portray spaceships and robots, the Princess Anne-Droid character wears actual bread rolls on her head instead of the famous coils of braided hair, and Fluke Starbucker is even more of a dork than his original, if that's possible. Ernie Fosselius is one crazy son-of-a-buck-he's also the source of Porklips Now, the Apocalypse Now spoof.$LABEL$ 1
+"A wrong-doer is often a man that has left something undone, not always he that has done something."--Emperor Marcus Aurelius The DVD release of "Watch on the Rhine" could not come at a better moment. It restores to us a major Lillian Hellman play stirringly adapted to the screen by Dashiell Hammett (Hellman scholar Bernard F. Dick's audio commentary affirms his authorship). It presents a subtle performance by Bette Davis, who took a subdued secondary role long after she'd become the workhorse queen at the Warner Bros. lot. Equally significantly, it reminds us that World War II had a purpose.Sure, you say, like we needed that. We've heard Cary Grant sermonizing in "Destination Tokyo" (1943) about Japanese boys and their Bushido knives. We've watched jackboots stomp the living hills in "The Sound of Music" (1965). We've toured an England callously occupied by Germany in "It Happened Here" (1966). Yet, truth to tell, we still need the message spread.I have an 81-year-old friend who curses Franklin Roosevelt regularly. He feels that FDR connived the U.S. into a foreign fight we didn't need, and thereby caused the death of his favorite cousin. He's encouraged in his demonizing of Allied leaders and the trivializing of War Two by Patrick Buchanan.The political columnist has freshly released a fat book heavy with detailed research which claims that Adolf Hitler would have posed no further menace to Poland, Europe, or the world if only the Third Reich had been handed the Free City of Danzig in 1939. Buchanan holds that if those selfish Poles hadn't confronted the Nazis, drawing in foolishly meddling Britain and giddily altruistic France, no war would have engulfed the West. He believes that without the rigors of Total War, no one in Germany would have built gas chambers to provide a Final Solution to the Jewish Problem.Some commenters on this site feel that "Watch" sags under the weight of stale propaganda. Maybe. However, neither my friend nor Pat Buchanan seem to have gotten the film's point: Some people hurt and kill to grab other people's land, goods, and liberty; such people dominated the Axis Powers and "enough" didn't appear in their vocabulary.Paul Lukas deserved the Oscar he won. He and Bette Davis put convincing passion into their portrayals of refugees who fight oppressors. They give emotional punch to the intellectual case for stepping off the sidelines, for actively facing down torturers and murderers. Bernard Dick notes that Hellman didn't care for Lukas as a person since he stayed apolitical. Of course, as a Hungarian he had seen first-hand Bela Kun's bloody "dictatorship of the proletariat" replace an outmoded empire and then topple to Admiral Horthy's right-wing tyranny.In a marvelous cameo role added to the play by Hammett, Henry Daniell sardonically depicts a Wehrmacht officer of the class that disdains the brown shirts he serves. His Phili von Ramme would doubtless stand with Field Marshal Rommel in 1944 during the Plot of July 20th against Hitler. In April 1940, however, he pragmatically abets the Nazi cause, although he insults Herr Blecher "the Butcher" and scorns the Rumanian aristocrat Teck de Brancovis for trying to peddle information on an Underground leader.Teck, a pauper and possible cuckold, wishes cash and a visa to return to Europe where he can resume the shreds of a life that had come undone with the empire-shattering Great War and the greater world-wide economic Depression. He has no political convictions, no scruples about trading a freedom fighter for his own tomorrow. Mercury Theater graduate George Coulouris lends this burnt-out case's Old World cynicism an edge of desperate menace.Lucille Watson gives winsome vitality to the grasping man's hostess, a domineering old gal who knows her mind and gets her way--but who doesn't adequately appreciate her children and their achievements outside the home she controls. She and her pallid office-bound son belong to the American version of von Ramme's and de Brancovis' privileged kind. However, this family hasn't seen ruin and never will. They're moneyed people who could silently advance evil simply by not opposing it.This mother and son might easily make choices which would reflect that complaisance toward National Socialism and Fascism which flourishes today in my friend and in pundit Buchanan. "Watch on the Rhine" has a manicured period look. Its dialogue reflects its erudite origins on the stage rather than sounding fresh from the streets. Yet Hellman and Hammett's film has gut-based power. Audiences still need to hear and heed its call to arms against grabbers relentlessly on the march.$LABEL$ 1
+First off; I'm a dedicated fan of Modesty's, and have been reading the comics since I was a child, and I have found the earlier movies about our heroine unsatisfying, but where they fail, this one ROCKS! Well then, here we go: Ms Blaise is working for a casino, a gang of robbers comes along and she starts gambling for her friends lives. If the robber wins one round, she'll have to tell him about herself. If she wins two times in a row, one of the staff members goes free. (Sounds stupid, yeah, well, I'm not that good at explaining either..) ;)She tells him about growing up in a war zone, without parents or friends, about her helping an old man in the refugee camp and how they escape, living by nature's own rules. They hunt for food, and he teaches her to read and fight. As they approach civilization they get caught up in a war, and as they are taken for rebellions, they are being shot at and the old man dies, which leaves her to meet the city by herself.Then she meets the man who's casino she's now working for, and there the story ends. What is to follow is that there's an awesome fight and the line's are totally cool. Alexandra Staden is a TERRIFIC Modesty Blaise! Just as modest and strong, graceful and intellectual as the comic-one.Feels awkward though, too hear Modesty speak with a slightly broken accent, but that's not relevant since the comic book- blaise can't speak out loud, but certainly must have a somewhat existing accent. (Not to mention that it's weird everybody's speaking English in the Balkan..)The acting is really good, even the child who personifies the young Blaise must have a applaud! My favorite part must be where she rips up her dress to kick the stupid robber's ass! Totally awesome! :D I can't wait until the real adventure begins in the next movie/s!Watch it, you won't be disappointed!$LABEL$ 1
+This has to be the funniest stand up comedy I have ever seen. Eddie Izzard is a genius, he picks in Brits, Americans and everyone in between. His style is completely natural and completely hilarious. I doubt that anyone could sit through this and not laugh their a** off. Watch, enjoy, it's funny.$LABEL$ 1
+Peter Lorre turns in one of his finest performances as a Hungarian watchmaker coming to the United Staes to make a new life for himself and someday bring his girl across the big pond to be with him. Lorre's infectious optimism and bright outlook come off very effectively which makes the performance all the better when he has his face hideously burned in a hotel fire and, when no one will give him a chance to work, turns reluctantly to a life of crime. Lorre's range as an actor is seldom as apparent as in this movie with his jovial, good-natured immigrant, to his depressing, melancholic, disfigured self searching for the truth behind what he believed America afforded him, to his suave, intelligent, better-than-your-average hood, to his sympathetic dealings with a blind woman with whom he falls in love. The story is well-paced, has some interesting twists, and gives Lorre many opportunities to shine. Director Robert Florey does a quality job behind the lens, and all of the supporting cast help aid the film with Evelyn Keyes giving a particularly good turn as the blind girl. I loved the ending - and the truth - that was shone to exist in Lorre's character despite all the negative things society had done toward him. For a little B picture, The Man Behind the Mask is good movie-making for its time.$LABEL$ 1
+My cable TV has what's called the Arts channel, which is a "catch-as-catch-can" situation sometimes, sometimes films, sometimes short clips of films or ballets, and I came into this just as the bar scene came on, where they tear up their coupons. Excellent, exquisite, Ealing wins again, my wartime-Glasgow-raised mother would love this, should I ever find a copy of it. Some of Britain's best artists, from Mr Holloway to Wayne and Radford and the delicious Miss Rutherford, having a wonderful time gently sticking it to the Home Office. Loved the last scene, where as soon as they are "back in England!" the temperature plummets and it rains...$LABEL$ 1
+I have copy of this on VHS, I think they (The television networks) should play this every year for the next twenty years. So that we don't forget what was and that we remember not to do the same mistakes again. Like putting some people in the director's chair, where they don't belong. This movie Rappin' is like a vaudevillian musical, for those who can't sing, or act. This movie is as much fun as trying to teach the 'blind' to drive a city bus.John Hood, (Peebles) has just got out of prison and he's headed back to the old neighborhood. In serving time for an all-to-nice crime of necessity, of course. John heads back onto the old street and is greeted by kids dogs old ladies and his peer homeys as they dance and sing all along the way.I would recommend this if I was sentimental, or if in truth someone was smoking medicinal pot prescribed by a doctor for glaucoma. Either way this is a poorly directed, scripted, acted and even produced (I never thought I'd sat that) satire of ghetto life with the 'Hood'. Although, I think the redeeming part of the story, through the wannabe gang fight sequences and the dance numbers, his friends care about their neighbors and want to save the ghetto from being torn down and cleaned up. Forget Sonny spoon, Mario could have won an Oscar for that in comparison to this Rap. Oh well if you find yourself wanting to laugh yourself silly and three-quarters embarrassed, be sure to drink first. And please, watch responsibly. (No stars, better luck next time!)$LABEL$ 0
+I was actually fairly surprised to find out a movie based on the Far Cry game had been created. The story here is not something I would consider to be a strong point in the game universe. No worries though as in typical Boll fashion the story in the movie has very little to do with the game it is based on. Now I understand that certain liberties need to be taken to make a transfer from one form of media to another but it seems like he really just doesn't even try to make a connection. Not only that but the acting and action sequences are so corny it almost makes you feel like the whole project was one big joke. It has been said a million times before but why couldn't someone more talented pick up the video game rights to create a movie????$LABEL$ 0
+I am a fan of bad horror films of the 1950s and 60s--films so ridiculous and silly that they are good for a laugh. So, because of this it's natural that I'd choose this film--especially because with John Agar in it, it was practically guaranteed to be bad. Sadly, while it was a bad film, it was the worst type of bad film--dull beyond belief and unfunny. At least with stupid and over-the-top bad films, you can laugh at the atrocious monsters and terrible direction and acting. Here, you never really see that much of the monster (mostly due to the darkness of the print) and the acting, while bad, is more low energy bad...listless and dull.The film begins with some young adults going to Satan's Hollow to neck. Well, considering the name of the place, it's not surprising when they are later found chewed to pieces! Duh...don't go necking at Satan's Hollow!! Well, there are reports of some sort of crashing object from the sky, so what do the teens go? Yep, throw a dance party--a very, very, very slow dance party where the kids almost dance in slow motion. So it's up to the Sheriff (Agar) and his men to ensure that the teens can dance in peace without fear of mastication.As for the monster, it's some guy in a gorilla suit with a silly mask--a bit like the monster in ROBOT MONSTER. Not exactly original and not exactly high tech. To make it worse, it makes snorting noises and moves very, very slowly--so slow that even the most corpulent teen could easily outrun it! How it manages to kill repeatedly is beyond me.Overall, too dull to like--even if you are a fan of lousy cinema.$LABEL$ 0
+I absolutely love this movie! Evil Dead has NOTHING on this film! Night of the Demons 2 and 3 are a total bore fest, but this one is a classic. It's super cheesy and the acting is alright at best, but what more could you want from an 80's horror movie? Stooge has some of the best one-liners to ever hit the screen in this one. (he's my favorite character) A lot of people talk about the lipstick scene in this movie, but my personal favorite is the ending, sadly enough has nothing to do with the main characters, when the old man eats his left over Halloween apples in a pie, and his throat is mangled from the inside out. The sound track is awesome. The scene with Angela dancing is totally creepy, especially after the strobe light comes on, and you can see her jump from one part of the floor to the next with every sound of a camera shutter click on the song that's playing. The make-up effects in this movie are pretty sweet; Angela gave me nightmares as a kid. If you're the type of person who demands perfection out of your filming experience, you might want to give this one a pass. But, if you're like me, and you really dig the whole Halloween, haunted house with the demons cliché, than this one is definitely a must own.$LABEL$ 1
+Vincent Cassel plays the part of Paul, an ex-con assigned to an office job where he meets Carla, a secretary who is ‘quite deaf', when she has her hearing aids in ‘very deaf‘ when not (played by Emmanuelle Devos). Together they help each other to develop as people.What was particularly interesting about this film was the complexity of the characters – not fitting into obvious stereotypes. Paul appears uneasy in the office environment, is it that he's just not cut out for work? This belief is dispelled when he gets a job in a bar and shines.The film has a certain amorality which I find refreshing and showed how easy is to act criminally, even if we think it is harmless or justified.Finally, it is a film full of great ‘moments' both touching and humorous. One is when Carla is babysitting and is trying to comfort a screaming baby. She continues to cuddle it – but takes her hearing aids out for her own comfort.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is one of the best shorts I've ever seen - and as I make it a point to be at all the major film festivals, I've seen a lot, especially of what the industry considers "the best." I'm not a fan of Monaghan. His acting generally tends to be overdone and uninteresting to me, his only decent performance being in Lost, so I generally try to avoid his films. I did, however, happen to see this at a film festival a few years back and was completely awed. This director really knows what she's doing. Of course, you are going to get the trolls (or just ignorant people) who don't understand what constitutes a good film and rip on low budget work because they have no idea what went into it. But luckily, from what I've seen, they are in the minority when it comes to this gem.Let's not deny that the film was working on no budget, and that a couple of the supporting actors could still use work, because that's certainly true. The production value is very low, but what can you expect for a first real film from someone still in high school? Pretend for a moment that the budget doesn't matter. If you take away a bit of the acting, the sound quality (which actually wasn't the fault of the filmmaker; I saw this at a festival and the sound was fine...I guarantee whoever made the DVD itself screwed up), and the fact it was shot on mini-DV, then what are you left with? The story, the visual composition and the soul of the film, which are indisputably flawless.Nanavati can tell a story. That much is clear. She can write substance-heavy, engaging scripts better than most people in Hollywood, create a shot list that perfectly compliments that story, and bring it to life in a fascinating, creative way that, were this higher budget, might have won awards. Give it more experienced actors, better sound post-production, and 35mm instead of mini-DV and even the trolls couldn't complain. This girl is incredible, and keeping in mind that Insomniac was made a good few years ago, she's done some amazing work since. The trailer for Dreams of an Angel shows that, and I can't wait to see the higher budget stuff she's done. 9/10 stars, this is one hell of a movie from one hell of a filmmaker.$LABEL$ 1
+I watched this movie only because I didn't want to leave my 9 yo and her friend in the theater by themselves. Honestly, I went in expecting to enjoy a good nap -- but found myself entranced by the movie. I'd recommend it to anyone who asks! Roy's mom was on one of my all-time favorite TV shows years ago, playing a mermaid (Maximum Bob). She was really cute in this movie. The three main characters were all excellent young actors. Also enjoyed seeing and hearing Jimmy Buffet. The movie itself was quite beautiful - showcasing some of what makes Florida so great. I'm glad I ended up going to this movie. And to think, I was disappointed that I couldn't take them to see "Stick It" -- I think this was MUCH better!$LABEL$ 1
+I got about halfway through this movie and was very disappointed. It was just flat out boring and completely unrealistic. I can get past being unrealistic in a lot of movies, but not when it's supposed to be a crime drama thing. The evidence collection and interview processes were just plain oddball. I started fast forwarding to see how it ended. And then got bored with that and just turned it off and returned it. The main character, played by Ellen Barkin, just wasn't believable at all. Peta Wilson acted very well in this film, but her character was way out there and there wasn't anyone for her acting talents to play off of that made it work.$LABEL$ 0
+First of all, let me say the I am LDS or rather, I am a Mormon. So when I watched this film, I automatically gave it the benefit of the doubt. I can usually find something redeeming in every movie I watch. And this one was no exception. It does have its redeeming moments. But they are few and far between.One of the first things I noticed that bothered me very greatly was that it seemed as though Halestorm was ashamed of our Church! In the LDS Church, congregations are called "wards" and the basketball court is in the "cultural hall". NEVER ONCE are either of these two names mentioned. The Church is never referred to by name and "the standards" is as far as it goes in mentioning what our Church believes.It makes me wonder if the directors are really LDS or LDS wannabes? This film had so much potential! It could have really shown our Church in a positive light and helped the public to see not only what we have to offer, but also what we believe. Instead it was only mildly entertaining and left much to be desired. If I were not already LDS, I'd be left thinking Mormons are stupid, idiotic and ashamed of their beliefs.It is NOT a film I will recommend to my nonLDS friends.Sorry Halestorm. You can do better than this!$LABEL$ 0
+At least one kind. Very human and moving. Not out to teach a lesson or anything like that. All principals are effective. I saw the movie years ago and still remember it (but can't remember the Morgan Fairchild role).And a nice slice of American life.$LABEL$ 1
+"Indian burial ground": If those three words appear anywhere in a real-estate listing, look for a different neighborhood. A young couple with a young daughter and a toddler-age son move into a Maine house adjacent to a pet cemetery--and, after a l-o-o-o-ng hike, an ancient Indian burial ground. Seems the Indian ground can bring Fido or Fluffy back from the dead--if you don't mind having a raving hell beast for a pet. It can do the same for dead people--if you don't mind having a homicidal zombie around the house.Throw in a busy two-lane blacktop, speeding big rigs, a well-meaning (if somewhat dim) old neighbor, and one kid who really doesn't get enough supervision, and I think you can figure out what happens from there--an over-the-top, illogical mess, which, in all fairness, does offer up a few scares.Well, there are worse Stephen King adaptations (such as "Maximum Overdrive," which King also directed). But there are far better ones, too (such as "Salem's Lot," "The Dead Zone," and both versions of "The Shining").$LABEL$ 0
+Well, since it's called Porno Holocaust and directed by Joe D'Amato, I went into this film expecting sleaze...and while I somewhat got it, Porno Holocaust was a massive disappointment as it's just so damned BORING. The title suggests that the film will feature porn, and that's not wrong - Porno Holocaust is pretty much just porn, and most of it is just the same stuff over and over again, I was fast forwarding before the end. The first sex scene is between two women and it got my hopes up, but after that it just degenerates into normal porn, and the rest of the film (for the first hour!) is made up of talking, and you can imagine how much fun that is to sit through! The plot focuses on a deserted island where, believe it or not, something strange is going on. Naturally, it's not long before a group of people - made up of a few men and some scientists, who all happen to be sexy women, land on the island. They have sex a few times and some strange things happen, then over an hour later they're attacked by a mutant zombie creature with an eye for the ladies...This must have seemed like a good idea for an original porno - a zombie who likes to get it on, but unsurprisingly it doesn't work well at all. The film clocks in at just ten minutes short of the two hour mark, and that is far too long for a film like this. I have no idea why Porno Holocaust is as long as it is; if they'd just snipped one minute out of every sex scene, the film would have been under ninety minutes, and that would have made it much more tolerable! The zombie takes what seems like an eternity to appear (it's quite a long time before there's a sex break long enough for them to actually travel to the island in the first place), and when it does finally appear, it's a huge disappointment! I realise that this is low budget B-movie trash, but D'Amato surely could have tried a bit harder and come up with something better than this! I'm not even going to bother mentioning the acting, atmosphere etc, there's no point. Porno Holocaust is basically just your average dull porn flick with a slight sprinkling of horror, and I can't recommend it!$LABEL$ 0
+I'm sorry but I didn't like this doc very much. I can think of a million ways it could have been better. The people who made it obviously don't have much imagination. The interviews aren't very interesting and no real insight is offered. The footage isn't assembled in a very informative way, either. It's too bad because this is a movie that really deserves spellbinding special features. One thing I'll say is that Isabella Rosselini gets more beautiful the older she gets. All considered, this only gets a '4.'$LABEL$ 0
+I finally caught up to "Starlight" last night on television and all I can say is. . . wow! It's hard to know where to begin -- the incredibly hokey special effects (check out the laser beams shooting out of Willie's eyes!), the atrocious acting, the ponderous dialogue, the mismatched use of stock footage, or the air of earnest pretentiousness that infuses the entire production. This truly is a one-of-a-kind experience, and we should all be thankful for that. I nominate Jonathon Kay as the true heir to Ed Wood!$LABEL$ 0
+Movie Title - TartDate of review - 5/26/02Year of movie - 2001Stars - Dominique Swain, Brad Renfro, Bijou Phillips (barely), Melanie Griffith (barely)NeCRo's Rating - 4 skulls out of 10May Contain spoilersPlotAn "outcast" Dominique Swain wants to be with the "in" group and so she abandons her real friends and joins them.......much annoying rich people talk occurs. Actingugh, I guess I got what I wanted in that Dominique was ok, but man, the rest of the cast besides maybe Brad Renfro were bad or at least not interesting or likable at all. I know some could say that the others were good because they made me hate them....trust me....I like unlikable chars but this group is unlikable because they can't convincingly be bad people.It figures that the only other people I got this for were barely even in it and that is Melanie Griffith and Bijou Phillips, but the little time they had they were ok. Melanie spoke maybe 2 lines, but at least Bijou had a good character although small.Violence and GoreMy mind was constantly under attack from horrid dialogue and very very annoying characters, that's violence enough!! ok there was one bludgeoning with a rock which was ok.T&A Nudity Factorhahaha, they couldn't even add in any nudity to help spice up this movie, probably because no one would want to bear their body for this crap. If they are going to expose themselves they should do it in a movie where they will be remembered as their character and not for "oh hey I heard she gets naked in this one."Overall View of the movie (review)ok ok I know I pride myself on being the person who can like most if not almost all movies or at least find some good in it. Well this movie is one of the few I really struggled to find anything worth while in. The problem with this movie is that it is so damn annoying. I already have a deep hatred for snobby rich people attitudes and that didn't help either. All this movie really is, is just a bunch of rich people sitting around acting depressed and stupid. I can't stress the annoyance factor enough. This movie tries to rehash the tried and true "In group" plotline which can usually be done ok with little difficulty.Why do I not have a pic from the movie or the box cover? Well I felt this movie didn't deserve that glory so I decided to put a pic of the reason I rented this, and that reason is none other than Dominique Swain. Yes I too was wooed by her in Lolita and thought she was so good that I decided from then on to check her out in any movie in which she acts. At least I keep my promises and yes I have seen the majority of her movies, minus a few hard to find ones. She herself is a great actress and I would defend her actively, but man she chooses some of the crappiest movies to star in. This movie and Smokers are both in the same boat of crappiness, but at least Smokers had a cool idea for a story and even some real good scenes.Also the dvd box tries to fool you into thinking that this movie has stars as well in it by putting Melanie Griffith and Bijou Phillips names on the front of the box. If there's one thing that P****S me off it's a movie that plasters the names of stars on a box to make you think "wow it has ____ I wonder how good ___is in this one I saw ___ in that movie and thought she was great!" only to have the big names in the movie for a total of maybe 10 minutes between the 2. Bijou actually had a part that semi-meant something. Melanie on the other hand, only has 2 lines about.... Granted I don't like Melanie that much, but this is about ethics and not star acting.Out of all this mess though props must go to Brad Renfro for turning in an ok performance along with Dominique. Brad may be one very messed up kid in real life, but at least he can act. So the only reason this movie gets any skulls is because I got what I basically wanted which was Dominique Swain and Brad Renfro. Also I had the added pleasure of seeing underrated actress Bijou Phillips make me like her even more. So even though I was annoyed throughout I still came out with some positives, although this was pretty hard this time.I recommend you to ONLY see this if you've seen Lolita and know how good Dominique is or if you are some offbeat fan of Brad or Bijou. Uber Melanie fans will be sorely depressed. Also if you're a fan of crappy movies like me, please do not assume this be a guilty pleasure because you will feel guilty alright, for the money spent on buying or renting.Some movies are "so bad that they are good" as the saying goes. What they forgot to add was "so bad that they are good (to pass up)."NeCRo$LABEL$ 0
+Another Day - this movie requires you to watch it another day to understand it. I thoroughly enjoy watching Shannen Doherty and I was quite interesting in seeing how well Julian McMahon and Shannen appeared together following the roles they played in Charmed. I can certainly PRAISE the acting skills throughout the film, even the directing - but the plot...what happened? I am at a loss for words because I am still confused. I have to stay loyal to the actors who really did a good job considering the madness of the plot. I also have to recommend you watch it because despite the plot-madness I would still watch it over and over again.$LABEL$ 0
+This did for crime what "Not Another Teen Movie" did for school. I laughed all the way through as 2 inept gangs warred with each other and among themselves. An unsubtle comedy using overt jokes and gags that kept me rolling all the way. I suppose the biggest gag in the entire film was that time never seemed to go forward leaving the characters trapped in the 30's.$LABEL$ 1
+I loved this movie. It is rare to get a glimpse of post-partum Vietnam, and this movie-sans combat scenes and exciting bombs and gunfire- did it. I had no idea I'd be so affected by it. What an amazing look at how alien Vets feel. It was tough to watch, quite frankly. We all understand the fighting and the Apocalypse Now type of drama, but this is so so different. What happens when they come back and try to live a life? They can't. It made me very aware of a large group of men that are rattling around lost in America. Not able to relate, can't sleep, can't have love affairs, can't deal with "normal society". They feel totally apart. This is a huge tragedy, and one that isn't addressed enough. Yeah, we've changed our attitude about Vietnam Vets, we like them now, but so what? It doesn't seem to have made any difference to them. It's too late? So it was a great film, but I cried a lot. I have no other criticisms.$LABEL$ 1
+Problems: 1) Although billed as "a loving tribute to Poverty Row," a lot of the old footage is not even from Poverty Row films-- much of it is from RKO's "The Most Dangerous Game," (1932), with some from the silent (!?) version of "The Lost World" (1926)! 2) Much of the old footage is just used as filler (the old shipboard footage) or as silent shots (for example, of Bela walking, looking or staring) often repeated; 3) Where is the pantheon of Poverty Row Master Thespians (Bela, Boris, Lon Chaney, Jr., George Zucco, John Carradine, Buster Crabbe, Tom Neal, etc.) emoting their lines as punch lines to the 'new' characters jokes (as in Woody Allen's "What's Up Tiger Lily?" or Steve Martin's "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid")? Even Mike Nelson's feeble commentary on the colorized "Reefer Madness" is funnier than this. High Point: The long but extremely enlightening lecture by Gregory Mank which makes you give new respect to and admiration for Bela, John Carradine and George Zucco. That's worth the price of the DVD alone!$LABEL$ 0
+This movie starts slow, then tapers off. After watching for about an hour, and seeing absolutely nothing happen, I walked out. I mean, nothing happened. Zero. Zip. Nada. There is no story. The characters are vague representations of the most boring people any of us know. The producers of this film could be sued in a court of law if they try to sell it as a "motion" picture. There is no motion. I could have told the same "story" with a couple still pictures with captions. The script is a joke. It's just awful. I doubt that any script doctor in the world could save it. My biggest regret is not that I wasted 60 minutes of my life watching "Love In the Time of Money", but that I missed a great opportunity to be a leader. I could have been the first to walk out, but I waited a bit too long. Instead, I watched about 20 people walk out before me.$LABEL$ 0
+Man, what a scam this turned out to be! Not because it wasn't any good (as I wasn't really expecting anything from it) but because I was misled by the DVD sleeve which ignorantly paraded its "stars" as being Stuart Whitman, Stella Stevens and Tony Bill. Sure enough, their names did not appear in the film's opening credits, much less themselves in the rest of it!! As it turned out, the only movie which connects those three actors together is the equally obscure LAS VEGAS LADY (1975) – but what that one has to do with THE CRATER LAKE MONSTER is anybody's guess… Even so, since I paid $1.50 for its rental and I was in a monster-movie mood anyhow, I elected to watch the movie regardless and, yup, it stunk! Apart from the fact that it had a no-name cast and an anonymous crew, an unmistakably amateurish air was visible from miles away and the most I could do with it is laugh at the JAWS-like pretensions and, intentionally so, at the resistible antics of two moronic layabouts-cum-boat owners who frequently squabble among themselves with the bemused local sheriff looking on. The creature itself – a plesiosaur i.e. half-dinosaur/half-fish – is imperfectly realized (naturally) but, as had been the case with THE GIANT CLAW (1957) which I've also just seen, this didn't seem to bother the film-makers none as they flaunt it as much as they can, especially during the movie's second half!$LABEL$ 0
+Cassavetes was clearly an intelligent, sensitive man with bold new ideas about making films. He wanted to be an auteur, to break away from the confines of the system and bring a new realism to the American cinema. For that, I applaud him.Unfortunately, as a member of his audience, I cannot applaud A Woman Under the Influence. Cassavetes took what could have been a fascinating topic (an insane woman) and somehow managed to craft a dull film, filled with lengthy, ad-libbed ranting and drawn-out scenes. He seems to have had a gift for capturing the dullest moments of a person's life on film, and it often appears as though he simply turned the camera on his family and let the motor run and run. This tactic would be acceptable if Cassavetes had captured something devastatingly REAL -- or even a kernel of something so real it touched the heart in ways a conventional film could not. Yet I found the performances, particularly Rowlands', to be artificial. I never believed for a moment that she was really insane. I have met people who are truly mentally disturbed, yet I've never seen any of them act quite like Gena Rowlands in A Woman Under the Influence. She played it like a very obnoxious, uninhibited woman who drinks a lot, and even that was confusing because we only see her drink once (at the beginning), but she acts drunk for the remainder of the film. There are some moments in which she taps into something real, but those moments are few and far between; she fails to sustain a seamless mentally disturbed character. Again, I applaud her efforts, but effort alone is not enough to make the performance ring true.Novice audiences who happen upon this film and see its high IMDb rating will no doubt feel compelled to love it and rate it highly, just to prove that they 'get it.' But don't be brainwashed by the hype -- judge for yourself. You don't have to pretend to like it.Like Woody Allen, John Cassavetes could be accused of solipsism in his film-making, seeming to find his own psyche and his own life experiences so endlessly fascinating that he couldn't imagine that to others they appeared presumptive and tortuously self-indulgent. But Woody Allen at least has demonstrated a gift for keeping an audience entertained -- he knows that a compelling story structure and a good dose of humor are essential to any movie. If Cassavetes had employed some self-discipline (and a sharp pair of editing shears!), A Woman Under the Influence could have stood a chance. But what's the point of making a 'realistic' film if the only people who can stand to sit through it are the art-house devotees and film students who worship Cassavetes as some sort of anti-establishment deity? Without dumbing anything down, I believe Cassavetes could have made A Woman slightly more accessible by keeping the pace moving with an actual plot, instead of presenting a string of 30 minute-long scenes of ad-libbed arguments. If you just make films for yourself and a few of your fans, you're just reaching the already converted. Watch this movie with your own set of eyes and make your own decisions about it. If you are truly moved and fascinated by it, good for you.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a good plot concept, so why-o-why is it such a poor film. The acting is terrible and every shock is signposted so far in advance that it is almost laughable by the time it reaches you. Spend your time and money elsewhere, this is not worth watching.$LABEL$ 0
+One of the better movies to come out of the 1980's, this based-on-fact movie tells the story of a disturbed high school student who murders his girlfriend, leaves her naked body on a river bank, and brags about it later to his friends. What is just as bad is their inability to FEEL anything about it.Disturbing but incredibly compelling look at aimless and apathetic kids who have no respect for their parents or any sort of authority, who seem almost doomed to live lives of rebellion and recklessness. This drama hits hard and is impossible to forget. The young cast does a creditable job - even Keanu Reeves, in one of his earliest roles, is better than usual. Of course, there's no reason for the character of Layne (Crispin Glover) to be as crazed and off-the-wall as he is, but that's just Glover being himself. Veteran Dennis Hopper has an especially good role as a loner who despite his own sordid past is saddened by the attitudes of this group of kids. I would like to point out the chilling performance by Daniel Roebuck as the young murderer; he's an under-rated actor and aside from Hopper, his is probably the best performance in the film.I saw "River's Edge" for the first time a long time ago when it first started being shown on cable TV movie channels; however, I didn't catch all of it; I saw it in its entirety for the first time a number of years later, and now I've seen it again for what is probably the definitive time.Some potently affecting moments include Madeleine's (Constance Forslund) breakdown where she wails that maybe she should leave her children just like their worthless father did. I also liked the scenes where Matt (Reeves) faces off with his disturbed younger brother (Joshua Miller) and when the teacher, Mr. Burkewaite (Jim Metzler) deplores the fact that the girl has died and that none of his students seem to care.I will never forget this film, not as long as I live. It's too saddening for that.10/10$LABEL$ 1
+If any movie stands out extremely with the actors' acting skills, this is probably the one. I've never seen dialogues be spoken in such a rough way, but having a strong feeling. The movie was disturbing at moments. However, the movie was terrible at editing. The movie tries to go the commercial way by adding comedy and songs, yet they feel out of place. Like Karisma is getting beat up, and the same time SRK is fighting (comically) with the police officers. The Ishq Kamina song was very out of place. On top of that, the movie is overly glossy in the beginning. The direction was not bad, but certainly nothing one can brag about.I have to say that the actors' were chosen very wisely. Without them, this movie would not have an impact. Karisma Kapoor has given her best role to date, and this looks very good on her record after Zubeidaa and Fiza. She looks pretty in the first half, and I've never seen an actress scream of emotion and anger as well as her. What is most ironic is this is probably her weakest written role to date. Nana Patekar was excellent as her father-in-law. Not much to say about him, besides this is a role made for him. Deepti Naval as the mother-in-law was excellent especially in her final scene. Though she doesn't have much to say, her facial expressions and body language was good. The other good performance was the little kid. He was adorable, and is sure to bring tears to the viewer's eyes. The movie was probably saved desperately by their performances. Sanjay Kapoor was all right, but he didn't have much to do. Shahrukh Khan was wasted in his bad boyish type role. One thing that brought the audience to the theater was Ishq Kamina. The song picturization and dancing is perfect for the crude lyrics of the song. And boy Aish is mad hot. However, the song belonged to be in another movie only because it came at the worst moment ever. People may have come to the movie for Aish, but they won't brag too much about it after-wards. Hum Tum Miley was properly paced, but seemed to drag as the suspense mood was leaving throughout the movie. Damroo Bhaje was boring and nothing to rave about. Dil Ne Pukara is too boring of a song to get the mood of the movie. Despite the poor editing, the performances alone make it a must see.$LABEL$ 1
+Four great stories from master Robert Bloch, adapted to the screen by the best actors in the field in the early Seventies, are the base of this excellent Amicus' production. This was a kind of movie very popular in the Sixties till the mid-Seventies and it's one of my favorite type of horror movies. This one in particular shines for the episode Sweets to the Sweet, where Christopher Lee is stalked by his evil little girl child, heiress to her mother tradition. Great fun from start to finish, and good to very good are also the other three episodes (with the last one a bit on the comic side, but with the great addition of Ingrid Pitt, the most famous vampress of the English cinema.$LABEL$ 1
+I voted this a 10 out of 10 simply because it is the best animated story I have been able to see in quite some time. The animation is stunning. The artwork behind each and every landscape was beautiful. From the colors to the lighting to the not standard fare of artistry. I was amazed. Moving beyond the beauty on the screen, you are immersed in a storyline that is at once timeless and at the same turn fresh. Character development is brief yet these touchstone moments are exactly what is needed to clue the viewer in to what and why and how the character has come to where they stand. I'm impressed with the entire affair and think this is a must see for the entire family.$LABEL$ 1
+I am the guy who usually keeps opinions to himself, but I just got back from this movie, and felt I had to express my opinions. Let me start by saying that I am a HUGE horror fan. But what makes a horror movie? I sure like to see even a tiny bit of a good script and character development. I know they often lack in horror movies, but Prom Night looked like it didn't even put forth ANY effort in that department. Next, we all love suspense. That on the edge of your seat suspense with unpredictable surprises. Yeah, Prom Night had none of that! Of course, we like a terrifying killer. Prom Night have that? Nope, it has a pretty boy with a cute lil' knife. And when all else fails...at least horror has its guilty pleasure to make it enjoyable like gore gore gore, and the occasional nude scene! Yeah, well when you have a horror movie rated PG-13 like Prom Night, they leave that stuff out too. So with all of these elements missing, I ask....does this still count as a horror movie? Nope. I'd call it more of a comedy. People in my theater were laughing more at this then they were when I saw "Semi-Pro" that was supposed to actually be a comedy (which also sucked, but thats another story!). I think I am just going to have to give up on new horror. All the good horror movies of the good ol' days have been remade into garbage so movie studios can make money. The people I went to see it with didn't even know this was a remake! Which made me mad! I wonder what will happen when there's no more movies to remake??? Where will horror go next???$LABEL$ 0
+This movie has it all: it is a thriller, a chase movie, a romance story, a mob tale, a comedy, a road movie... well, in fact it's none of this at all. All the time you are waiting for something interesting to happen, but no, you are still watching the same dull, uninspiring and superficial cliché of a movie with a very bad soundtrack. Even the star cast acting is lacking in credibility. A hit man with his quirks, a girl who's playing hard to get, mob guys acting tough and incapable cops, yawn...I'd recommend not to watch Backtrack. If you want to see a good movie directed by a famous actor, go and see 'The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada' by Tommy Lee Jones. Now, that's what I call worth watching.$LABEL$ 0
+Surprisingly good "Mean Streets"-type crime drama. Foreshadows elements of "Goodfellas" and "Casino". Joe Pesci's first big role. Clever dialog. I think the Maltin guide gives this a bomb rating. I can only guess no one actually bothered to watch it.Saw this at Tarantino's film fest and he said Scorsese used a number of these actors in Raging Bull.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this film at SXSW with the director in attendance. Quite a few people walked out, and the audience could barely muster even polite applause at the end. Of the 60 or 70 films I've seen at this festival, Frownland is among the worst.At 106 minutes, it is at least 95 minutes too long. You get to watch the main character's failed and drawn out attempts to communicate, in extended real time. The same grimaces, hand over mouth motions, kinetic and frantically repeated words and syllables over and over and over again - WE GET THE POINT.One site actually compares this work to early Mike Leigh. What drugs would you have to be on to make that statement? Given that Frownland is a Captain Beefheart song, maybe you'd have to be able to enjoy Trout Mask Replica on heavy rotation to appreciate this film. Unbelievably, this won a jury award at the festival. You can bet it did not win an audience award.$LABEL$ 0
+First, let me mention the fact that, in spite of its title («Stories», in plural), there is only ONE Kitchen Story. As to whether Isak died or not at the end, I'm not so sure since, in one of the very last scenes, HIS PIPE is seen lying on the table next to the two cups. On the DVD cover, there is a reference to Tati. It claims that the film is «très drôle: rappelle Tati !» («Very funny: reminiscent of Tati!». The great Jacques Tati relied mainly on mime and silent deadpan attitudes to achieve his comical effects and to offer his critically satiric views of his 1950’s French «modern» society. Of course «Kitchen» does take place during the 1950’s and it does offer some (rather faint) satirical references to the absurdities of bureaucracy and there are some long moments were no words are uttered -– but they are not really funny. Are all these small details enough to make «Kitchen» a «Tatiesque» movie ? This being said, I have to admit that «Kitchen» does deal with the sometimes false objectivity of scientific research versus the «truth» of human subjective emotions. Generally speaking, the movie was agonizingly slow, with nothing much happening -- with barely any «dramatic impulse» : the involving parts were the set up during the first 15 minutes or so, and during the last half hour or so. Indeed, the last segment was -- FINALLY !!! -- interesting and moving. It might seem that it was a short subject, of less than an hour, unduly stretched to some 90 minutes. Now, about the set-up (a «scientific» observation on the behavior of single males in their kitchen): at first it seemed very promising –- with the charting out of the comings and goings of bachelors in their kitchen as a means to determine what new inventions would be most useful to come up with. But very quickly this premise turned out to be just a prologue, an «excuse» to introduce the real subject which was only fully developed towards the end and which was about loneliness and the invaluable bond of friendship. Pity ! I honestly wanted to like that movie. Yes, it seemed so promising when I heard about some of its unusual little «anecdotes» -- which were indeed there and which I enjoyed -– such as the burning of a man’s nose hair (instead of using scissors to cut it off), the «investment» of having a huge quantity of «valuable» black pepper stacked away in a barn, the role reversals (the observant becoming the observed), a man’s mouth emitting sounds from a radio program. And there is also a sick horse becoming the catalyst of half-hidden human despair, the relative importance of right or left side car driving in Sweden and Norway (a reflection of the importance for each of these very close neighboring countries to affirm its individuality ?). Am I the sole person who did not fully enjoy that film ? Does this necessarily mean that I'm wrong ? Perhaps it’s almost generally praised «fine points» were, in fact, «too subtle» for me ? Perhaps... Could my individual views on this movie ironically reflect the very essence of the film itself -- which would be the vital necessity to have the right to differ, to affirm one’s individuality and not to follow blindly society’s trends and opinions ? Each one of us has the right to have different personal views and not to be a slave of the demands of one’s bread-winning «dictatorial» demands: often, we do have other alternatives that would allow each one of us to be useful to our society while respecting one’s inner principles. In short, being true to oneself -– the way that in that film Folke (Isak’s «scientific observer») ends up by giving up his job while preferring to stay in his new friend Isak’s house and help his out with the tasks of his farm ... And so, «Vive la différence», as the French say !$LABEL$ 0
+With the mixed reviews this got I wasn't expecting too much, and was pleasantly surprised. It's a very entertaining small crime film with interesting characters, excellent portrayals, writing that's breezy without being glib, and a good pace. It looks good too, in a funky way. Apparently people either like this movie or just hate it, and I'm one who liked it.$LABEL$ 1
+The only reason I rented this movie was that Val Kilmer rarely stars in a bad movie. There is of course a first time for everything. In many ways, this movie proves that oaters aren't as easy to make as we think, especially by foreign directors. The only one who got by with it was probably Sergio Leone, but even his movies lacked that something indefinably innate to our American psyche and panache. American actors in Clint Eastwood and Henry Fonda did help . I can see now why they changed the original title from "Summer Love" to " Dead Man's Bounty". That itself tells me the producers and director didn't have any core understanding about a western other than those standard shoot'em up scenes and violent themes. I suppose we can say the same about American directors attempting to make a Polish movie while failing miserably in the process.$LABEL$ 0
+It's hard to put your finger on this one. Basically I suppose it's a comedy about an idle rich drunk who falls in love with a (comparatively) poor girl, whom he wants to marry at the risk of being disowned by his family.It has funny moments, romantic moments, and touching moments. Dudley Moore is funny and somehow makes his self-centred character endearing, Liza Minelli is a convincing foil as the the feisty opposite he attracts, but John Gielgud steals the show as Arthur's wonderfully sarcastic butler.It's corny but great fun with a memorable soundtrack, and ran for nearly 3 months at our local fleapit.$LABEL$ 1
+Fabulous film! Rented the DVD recently and was floored by this stunning piece of work. Douglas Sirk was a filmmaking genius and he gets performances out of Rock Hudson, Dorothy Malone (Oscar winner), Robert Stack (Oscar nominated), and Lauren Bacall that words cannot describe. Paul Verhoeven brilliantly payed homage to this film by having Dorothy Malone play Sharon Stone's murdering inspirational guru in his Basic Instinct. What a great joke! By turns the film is hilarious, riveting, campy, biting, trashy, compelling, and eye rolling! It's definately the grandaddy of every tawdry big-and-little screen soap opera but none have had the dazzling style like you'll see here: the camera work is smooth and polished, the use of color is breathtaking, the opening montage set to the title song is beyond memorable, the one dimensional characters are unforgettable, and the final image will have you scratching your head as to how the censors back then let it make the final cut! While most older, highly regarded films can sometimes be a boring chore to sit through, Written on the Wind contains so much and goes by so fast that it's actually a shame when it ends. Thank you to Mr. Sirk for crafting -and Todd Haynes for drawing attention to- what has now become one of my favorite films of all time! SEE THIS MOVIE!!!$LABEL$ 1
+I had just watched one episode of this program and I couldn't even get to the end of the program. Every minute I had watched this program my I.Q must of dropped about 10 points. This is basically like a children's program but with swearing. Not even the swearing and the insults she tells other people made me laugh. Anyways the story must of been written by a monkey and the people who actually put this script for this program through for filming must of been held at gun point and had no choice but to film this retarded, disappointing, horribly acted program. Sarah Silvermann should use the little money she actually made from this program and get some god damn acting lessons.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie has some good lines, but watching Dillon's less-than-masterful Rourke impersonation just left me wanting to see the original. I like Marisa Tomei but she's no Faye Dunaway.Also, in my opinion, the number one movie rule is to make the lead character someone you care about. You might not LOVE the character, but you should care what happens to him. This is achieved in Barfly with the hilarious running gag about the fights with Eddie the bartender. The main fight in Factotum is when, completely unprovoked, he stalks up to the Lily Taylor character in a bar, punches her to the floor and calls her a whore.The whole thing just didn't work. Again, some great lines -- some laugh-out-loud funny -- but as a movie overall it's a fail. Mediocre attempt at reinventing something that was brilliant, and you can't get past that. Next? Let's remake Breakfast at Tiffany's with Kate Hudson.$LABEL$ 0
+My kid makes better videos than this! I feel ripped off of the $4.00 spent renting this thing! There is no date on the video case, apparently designed by Wellspring; and, what's even worse, there's no production date for the original film listed anywhere in the movie! The only date given is 2002, leading an unsuspecting renter to believe he's getting a recent film.This movie was so bad from a standpoint of being outdated and irrelevant for any time period but precisely when it was made, that I'm amazed that anyone would take the time and expense to market it as a video. It might be of interest to students studying the counter-culture of the 1960's, the anti-war, anti-establishment, tune-in, turn-on and drop out culture; but when you read the back of the video case, there's no hint that that is what you're getting. If you do make the mistake of renting it though, it is probably best viewed while on drugs, so that your mind will more closely match the wavelength of the minds of the directors, Fassbinder and Fengler. Regardless of your state of mind while watching it, I can tell you that it doesn't get any better after the first scene; so, knowing that, I'm sure you'll be fast asleep long before the end.$LABEL$ 0
+This very peculiar setting of Wagner's last opera definitely grew on me. When I first saw it, I was somewhat annoyed by many of the films surrealistic images, and felt that far too much was superimposed upon the story. However, if you can put up with a fair amount of rather recherché "gimmicks," I think you will find that the film DOES manage to capture the very strange, other-worldly atmosphere of the opera, and that there are moments which are particularly fine.Personally, I never really understood the role of Kundry until I saw how Edith Clever portrayed her. Her performance (a lip-synchronized mime of the singing voice of Yvonne Minton) is nothing short of dazzling, from end to end, and alone justifies the hours it takes to absorb the film.Another reason to delight in this film is that it captures the spectacular interpretation of Robert Lloyd of the crucial role of Gurnemanz, one which Lloyd has performed to a crisp at opera houses throughout the world. I have been privileged to enjoy him in the role of Gurnemanz on the stage of the Metropolitan Opera several times, and the lusciousness of his voice, and the warm, fatherliness of his interpretation of this noble character really needed to be preserved, as did his performance in the character's two major monologues, the Karfreitag scene and the recounting of the prophecy in Act 1.The version I have seen was a videotape made for America, and so there were subtitles which, alas, could not be done away with. This is especially unfortunate because the translation used is very inaccurate and forces an extremely Christian interpretation on a film which is already forcing layers of interpretation on the opera. This seemed to me to be quite contrary both to Wagner's clear AVOIDANCE of Christianity, and his very deliberate attempt to "generalize" the Christian elements of the story. (See footnote with spoiler at the end of this review.) I find it nearly impossible, when viewing a film with subtitles, to keep from absorbing them, and strongly recommend that, if in the DVD versions you have the ability to turn the subtitles off, you do so, and instead, if the opera is unfamiliar to you, that you read the libretto carefully beforehand.The bottom line is that there is much in the film which I dislike, and would just as soon have seen done differently...but it has risen steadily in my estimation over the years since I first saw it, and I find myself drawn to enjoy it again and again.__________________________________________________________________FOOTNOTE CONTAINING A SPOILER: A good example would be Kundry's famous line, "I saw him...him...and laughed." This gets translated, in the subtitles, for reasons which escape me, as "I saw the Savior's face." It is especially irritating to me, because throughout the libretto, Wagner very deliberately and carefully refers to this unseen character WHO NEED NOT BE THE BIBLICAL Jesus as "der Heiland," i.e., the German for "The Healer"--a reference to the wound of Amfortas, and to all wounds and maladies and the need for healing.$LABEL$ 1
+Well how was I suppose to know this was "the" dumb ass promotional "Lordi Motion Picture"? I mean, I realized this when that "dinosaur" costume showed up and by the time the lead singer made his appearance I was humming "Hard Rock Hallelujah" to myself... even though I hate that song. "Dark Floors" is about a young autistic girl who is in the process of being sneaked out of the hospital by her over protective father when they, and the rest of the people in that particular elevator, become momentarily trapped... When they arrive at their floor it comes as quite a surprise to find that there is nobody else around. The hospital is empty... Except for a variety of monsters that seem to be stalking them for no apparent reason... They run through the hallways and stairwells, encountering all of the band members of the heavy metal band in their outlandish, shock-rock costumes... Nothing really memorable here, except the lousy acting, lack of gore/nudity, and the utterly shameless promotional edge, reminding me very much of "KISS Meet the Phantom of the Park". Yeah, remember that dud? Wish I didn't... I would just recommend avoiding all of these Ghost House films like a fungus and not listen to Lordi since they are a Gwar ripoff band!$LABEL$ 0
+Discovering something, the journey is so much more fun, so much more surreal and so much more emotionally galvanizing than when you finally arrive at the destination. Falling in love is perhaps one of the most opulent feelings in the world. You feel energized, invigorated and alive. You simply want to be around that person every second of the day and the very sound of their voice gets you excited and sometimes aroused. Love, and all the physical and emotional side effects that comes with it, is pure bliss. Where it goes from here is anyone's guess, but when you first begin your journey together, nothing can compare to it.Diane Lane and Richard Gere play Adrienne Willis and Dr. Paul Flanner, two emotionally scarred middle aged individuals. In this film, they are about to embark on that mystical journey together, where love, and the discovery of the emotions along the way, will help save them.Lane is dealing with the typical jerk of an ex-husband who still loves her, but in her eyes, only because the woman he cheated with no longer wants him. As hurt as she was by him, as much as she really dislikes him, there is a part of her that is actually considering taking him back. Why you might ask? Because in life, and love, sometimes comfort supersedes intelligence. Yes, this man cheated on her but she has kids with him, she built a life with him and there is obviously still a connection with him.Richard Gere plays a recently divorced husband and estranged father. He also just lost a patient as she reacted negatively to the anesthetic. He is now being sued by her family and he is guilt ridden but hardened about the issue. This is what brings him to Rodanthe in the first place. Although his lawyer told him not to, he felt compelled to visit the woman's husband in Rodanthe. He stays at the Inn that Adrienne is taking care of. Soon, they find comfort in each other's arms and discover that they too can have a second chance in life.By now this sounds like a simple idea for a film, and although it might be something you've seen or read about before, Gere and Lane simply own the film. Diane Lane lights the screen up with her smile. Her eyes twinkle in the dark and the life she brings to the character is one worth watching. Gere's character is a little different. He is more hardened and bitter. It takes Adrienne's pain and her passion to bring him out of his shell. He blames quietly himself for his strained relationship with his son and her secretly blames himself for the death of the patient. On the outside he tells anyone who will listen that it is not his fault, and that she was a 1 in 50,000 casualty. But deep down, it eats away at him. They find each other at a time when both need someone to listen.Gere and Lane have been in film together before but this is the first time they play lovers. They were married in Unfaithful but here they play lovers finding each other when the people in their lives have abandoned them. They have a spark and a real chemistry. I would love to see more films with them together. In fact, I'd love to see more films with Diane Lane but that's a story for another time.Nights in Rodanthe is a very passionate and romantic film about two lost souls who save each other. They both become better people, they both become stronger people. I enjoyed it immensely and would recommend it to anyone, not just couples. This is a film about redemption, absolution, and second chances.It will also ask you to bring some hankies.8/10$LABEL$ 1
+The first question is: how many talentless idiots it takes to screw a movie up? Answer: one is more than enough, if he writes the screenplay and directs it. The second question is: did anyone teach the actors to handle guns properly? Answer: hell no. I wonder if Kristy Swanson got hit across the face with hot brass - because it damn seemed so! The third question is: how many times we did the "super secret government agency conspiracy gets uncovered from inside" plot? Answer: a good couple too many! The fourth question is: are Michael Madsen and Ron Perlman overrated? Answer: in this movie, sadly, yes. The fifth question is: can a pair of boobs save this movie? Answer: even three (Kristy Swanson's pair and the director/writer) didn't.God... If I see the (most probably) assassin getting her guns ready for a hit, and then the morons from prop department give her a completely different set the first bloody thing in the goddamn movie, the "suck" meter hits the peak. Time from beginning of the movie to me switching the TV off: fifteen minutes. Just a little bit more than it took me in case of "Alone in the Dark".$LABEL$ 0
+When thinking of the revelation that the main character in "Bubble" comes to at films end, I am reminded of last years "Machinist" with Christian Bale. The only difference between the two films is the literal physical weight of the characters.An understated, yet entirely realistic portrayal of small town life. The title is cause for contemplation. Perhaps, we, the audience are the ones in the "Bubble" as we are given no payoffs in the films slim 90 minute running time. Audience reactions were often smug and judgmental, clearly indicating how detached people can be from seeing any thread of humanity in characters so foreign to themselves. These characters are the ones people refer to as those that put George W. back in office for a second term.It's sobering to consider how reality television has spoiled our sense of reality when watching an audience jump to their feet for the exit as soon as the credits role. This film has it's merits, and is deserving of consideration for the things it doesn't say outright.$LABEL$ 0
+Although it isn't mentioned very often, "Don't Look in the Basement" is a very interesting film and is definitely worth a watch. The story follows a young nurse, Charlotte Beale, who is hired at Stephen's Sanitarium to replace Dr. Stephens, after he is murdered by a patient. Many patients begin to torment Miss Beale, and her boss, Dr. Geraldine Masters, acts as if she's hiding something...This movie has many appealing characters that you actually end up caring about, and have sympathy for during the climax, which doesn't happen very often in horror films. The musical score is great and is reminiscent of "Dark Shadows," the performance from Rosie Holotik, Rhea McAdams, and Bill McGhee are all great, the story is very intriguing with a great twist ending. This movie has a campy atmosphere around it that no other film I have ever seen has been able to capture. Many horror fans have never seen or even heard of this film which is really unfortunate because it could have been a horror classic. "Don't Look in the Basement" is definitely worth watching for all fans of 1970s drive-in films.$LABEL$ 1
+This film doesn't have a very clear picture of what it is or wants to be. There are some good bits when Stewart is on screen and they give him some lines to work with. It works best early on as romantic comedy, but the story keeps heading for more dramatic territory and gets itself lost in the process. By the last fifteen minutes or so, the plot twists are just a series dramatic clichés. The part with the airplane feels like some leftover footage from another film spliced in.The main reason I can think of to watch it is if you want be able to say you've seen all of Jimmy Stewart's films.$LABEL$ 0
+I only came here to check Terror Hospital for an alternate title so I'd know what not to pick up. Not only do I get the original title, but I come to find Terror Hospital is one of seven more aliases.This one is a real clunker. Movies like this can usually be forgiven for any number of reasons, mostly unintended consequences of the feature on every level of production that result in at least a mild form of entertainment, mostly amusement. This has none of that. Instead, the viewer is witness to redundantly unnecessary and way-too-convenient-for-the-situation exposition and drawn out scenes of characters warily moving from room to room, and all this is half of the film. Forget trying to figure out where anybody is (or who they are) during darkened or nighttime scenes, too; you probably won't care, anyway. There is also a random car chase sequence that seems quite dull when compared to some of the old driver's ed movies I slep... er, I mean sat through and watched way back in high school. Really, we're talking about mysticism, possession, and a killer on the loose here - not a bad recipe for trash cinema. Unfortunately, there's nothing here to make it even "good" trash; when joined to the aforementioned, the bad acting and not-so-special effects are just that - bad acting and not-so-special effects. This one's just trash, pure and simple. Leave it on the rack at the pawn shop or in that box at the yard sale. There's a reason its there...$LABEL$ 0
+Raising victor Vargas is just a bad film. No amount of denial or ad-dollar supported publicity with change this sad fact.Maybe Peter Sollett saw he didn't have the money to do the movie he wanted to make and decided to take the easy way out by making a bad film that cynically apes the tenets of current "edgy film-making". Maybe he just doesn't know any better. It's hard to tell.What's not hard to tell is the result. Except for a few viewers who will intellectualize the bad film-making into an attempt at pseudo-realism, few will enjoy it.I know I didn't.Do yourselves a favor and pass on this film.$LABEL$ 0
+This was one of my favorite series when I was a kid. The Swedish broadcasting company decided to broadcast it once again a couple of summers ago when I had just finished my first semester of medical school. I was surprised to see the depth in which the organs was explained. Sure, some things are simplified but most of it was correct (even though it was made 22 years ago!) and quite understandable. I would suggest that all soon-to-be medical student should watch it. It is a very good way to learn some of the basic medical words for example. Now I'm in my 7th semester and I think I'll watch the series once again as soon as I've bought the DVD-box :-)$LABEL$ 1
+**Warning! Mild Spoilers Ahead!**(Yes, I realize it's tough to spoil an historical documentary, but I do reveal some of the backstory and methods.)This is an exceptional documentary not just because of the remarkable footage, but also due to the story behind it. Because the Naudets did not set out to tell the story of 9/11, but rather that of a rookie firefighter, the men's emotions and the viewer's connection with them are more real and powerful than they would be in a standard retrospective. In a filmmaking sense, "9/11" is textbook. If the events were an actual script, they would be superb, as the characters are established, then thrown a curve to which they must react. This is all the more amazing considering the pain and emotion of the raw footage that the directors had to wade through to piece this story together. The first portion of the film provides a glimpse of life inside a fire station; specifically, how a rookie assimilates himself into a crew of veterans. That part alone is quite good, and had the documentary been allowed to run its intended course, it probably would have been solid. The brothers appear to realistically portray the process of becoming a NYC firefighter. Then of course, all hell breaks loose. The chaos following the WTC attacks is vividly seen, as various characters that we have gotten to know are thrust into terrifying situations. Seeing not only the attacks, but also the first-hand reactions is a very moving picture of extreme human emotion. The aftermath, in which firefighters are discovered to be lost and found, is human drama at its peak. Life and death hang in the balance. Unlike many movies, the viewer not only doesn't know who will live and die, but genuinely cares about them. The only negative thing I have to say about this is that the Robert DeNiro (whom I like) blurbs were uninformative, unnecessary, and didn't advance the story at all. They were probably added just to attract more television viewers.Bottom Line: The best documentary I've ever seen. Nonpareil portrayals of raw human emotion and drama. 9.5 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+Currently, this film is listed on IMDb as the 42nd worst film ever made--which is exactly why I rented it from NetFlix. However, I am saddened to report that the film, while bad, is no where near bad enough to merit being in the bottom 100 films ever made list. I have personally seen at least 100 films worse than this one. Hardly a glowing endorsement, but it just didn't meet the expected level of awfulness to be included on this infamous list.The film begin with Stewart Moss and Marianne McAndrew on their belated honeymoon (by the way, they are married in real life as well). He's a doctor who is obsessed with bats and insists they go to a nearby cave. Once there, they behave very, very, very stupidly (hallmark of a bad film) and are soon bitten by a bat. According to this film, bats love to attack people and there are vampire bats in the US--both of which are not true at all.Oddly, after being bitten, the man doesn't even bother going to the hospital!! The first thing on anyone's mind (especially a doctor) is to get medical help immediately, but not this boob. Soon, he's having seizures--yet he STILL isn't interested in seeking help! Again and again you keep thinking that this must be the stupidest couple in film history!! After a while, he eventually goes to see a doctor and is sent to the hospital. But, by then it's too late and his attacks become more violent and he begins killing people to suck their blood. When it's totally obvious to everyone that the man is a crazed killing machine, the wife (who, like her husband, has a grapefruit for a brain) refuses to believe he's dangerous--even after he attacks people, steals an ambulance and runs a police car off the road!! Now most of the time Moss is going through these episodes, his eyes roll back and he looks like a normal person. Oddly, however, a couple times he develops bat-like hands and towards the end they used some nice prosthetics on him to make him look quite bat-like. Had this been really cheesy, the film would have merited a 1.In the very end, in a twist that hardly made any sense at all, the wife inexplicably turned into a crazed bat lady and had a swarm of bats kill the evil sheriff. How all this was arranged was a mystery as was Moss' and McAndrew's belief that this film would somehow help their careers--though they both have had reasonably long careers on TV playing bit roles since 1974.Overall, very dumb. The plot is silly and makes no sense and strongly relies on people acting way too dumb to be real. Not a good film at all, but not among the worst films of all time either.NOTE: For some reason, IMDb shows the graphic for the three DVD set for IT'S ALIVE and it's two sequels of the web page for THE BAT PEOPLE. While THE BAT PEOPLE has been seen with the title "It's Alive", the two movies are not at all related. It's easy to understand the mistake--especially since they both came out in 1974, but the movie I just reviewed starred Stewart Moss and Marianne McAndrew and the other film starred John Ryan and Sharon Farrell.$LABEL$ 0
+Sydney Lumet, although one of the oldest active directors, still got game! A few years ago he shot "Find me guilty", a proof to everyone that Vin Diesel can actually act, if he gets the opportunity and the right director. If he had retired after this movie (a true masterpiece in my eyes), no one could have blamed him. But he's still going strong, his next movie already announced for 2009.But let's stay with this movie right here. The cast list is incredible, their performance top notch. The little nuances in their performances, the "real" dialogue and/or situations that evolve throughout the movie are just amazing. The (time) structure of the movie, that keeps your toes the whole time, blending time-lines so seamlessly, that the editing seems natural/flawless. The story is heightened by that, although even in a "normal" time structure, it would've been at least a good movie (Drama/Thriller). I can only highly recommend it, the rest is up to you! :o)$LABEL$ 1
+In all honesty, this series is as much a classic (as television goes) as the original poem is to the world's literature. Far from being crassly exploitative, it is a beautiful and respectful rendering of one of the western culture's defining texts.I was moved by the plight of Odysseus and his followers; touched by the drama of the fall of Troy (which was felt but not seen); intrigued by the way the gods played with the fate of mortals. (It should be mentioned that the gods appearing here are not ridiculous CGI creatures flitting around on their ankle wings, or poorly-cast fashion models in bikinis. As in Homer's work, they act through mortal agents or, rarely, are represented by classical statuary).It's a pity it's not available in DVD, especially given the vastly inferior and cheesy adaptations of the Odyssey that one can find in video stores.$LABEL$ 1
+My choice for greatest movie ever used to be Laughton's "Night of the Hunter" which remains superb in my canon. But, it may have been supplanted by "Shower" which is the most artistically Daoist movie I have seen. The way that caring for others is represented by the flowing of water, and the way that water can be made inspiration, and comfort, and cleansing, and etc. is the essence of the Dao. It is possible to argue that the the NOFTH and Shower themes are similar, and that Lillian Gish in the former represents the purest form of Christianity as the operators of the bathhouse represent the purest form of Daoism. I would not in any way argue against such an interpretation. Both movies are visual joys in their integration of idea and image. Yet, Shower presents such an unstylized view of the sacredness of everyday life that I give it the nod. I revere both.$LABEL$ 1
+At the time that this movie was made most housewives knew exactly who Barbara Stanwick was parodying.Today only some women over 50 probably remember Gladys Taber,whose column "Butternut Wisdom" ran in Family Circle Magazine from before World War II until the 1970's.She lived on Stillmeadow Farm in Conecticut,and her columns were collected into a number of books,Stillmeadow Seasons, Stillmeadow Daybook, etc. The lines that Barbara Stanwick recites as she types them for her column are quite typical of the ones that began a typical Gladys Taber column.Besides cooking and country living,she got rather nostalgic and philosophical at times.She talked a lot about her favorite dogs, mostly cocker spaniels.You might say that Martha Stewart is the Gladys Tabor of today.Christmas is Connecticut may not be any cinematic masterpiece,but it is pleasant,lighthearted entertainment,soothing to the stressed out mind,and that is good enough$LABEL$ 1
+When viewing a movie as silly as 'Hot Rod,' one must sit back, relax, and alter one's intellectual capacity to a like state – which is, in this case, a state dimwitted enough to endure brainless drivel that has somehow been mistaken for comedy. With a brief runtime of 88 minutes, this film was long past drawn-out and buried itself beneath a bundle of repetitive jokes – jokes that came at a minority and weren't even funny in the first place. 'Hot Rod''s base material is as superficial and irrelevant as 2004's cult hit 'Napoleon Dynamite,' though it's much more contrived and comes without ANY of the laughter. In fact, the movie's blatant desperation to be compared to 'Napoleon Dynamite' is scornful and offensive, and left me ticked off, instead of just being annoyed.The movie, if one were compelled enough to call it such, poses a paltry story that puts self-proclaimed stuntman Rod Kimble before us, with the trifling intention of jumping fifteen buses (one more than his idol Evel Knievel jumped, so we're told by Rod) and raising $50,000 dollars for his stepfather's impending life-saving heart operation; all so that he can fight his stepfather, once recovered, and gain his respect… because in order to gain one's respect, one must first fight them. Huh? Whatever. Each character is no more interesting than Rod's stick-on mustache, and from the film's opening joke to its ridiculous conclusion, each scene played like a nonsensical, and terribly unfunny, SNL skit – which, with the addition of an extra 85 minutes, is, essentially, what 'Hot Rod' strives to be.The film's star, Andy Samberg, contributed an effort to the screen that observably exerted every last drip-drop of his comedic capabilities. Unfortunately – rather, realistically – his humorous talents are no more admirable than a five-year-old retelling his own exhausted joke that somewhere includes the innocently crude poop and pee-pee gags. And if that's disappointing, pull a chair, hide your face in your hands, and brace yourself for the real blow: he IS the film's humor! To rescue them of their mortification, I'll willingly omit the ghastliness of Samberg's co-stars' roles and leave the second third of The Lonely Island team, director Akiva Schaffer, to his non-existent talent as a director… or a comedian. Basically, every thing one could possibly do to further trample a crash-course comedy is perfectly portrayed here; and done so arrogantly, as though the film would be funnier that way. Trick yourself into believing that there's even a single laugh in this heap, or treat yourself to another movie – ANY other movie.$LABEL$ 0
+I don't know what the makers of this film were trying to either accomplish or say, but they badly failed at whatever it was. Unless of course the object was to totally confuse the viewer. I watched this movie simply because Drew Barrymore was in it, and it turned out that she had a smaller than small cameo in it. The whole idea of having this kid go on some wild car trip to win a big money prize from a gas station game and meet up with all sorts of wackos is utterly ridiculous.$LABEL$ 0
+If my memory is correct, when this movie was released it came across as something of a comedy - a funny look at the adult entertainment industry. If that's what it's supposed to be, it doesn't really work. It just isn't that funny. Setting that rather significant (since this is called a comedy!) failure aside, since I have no personal knowledge of the subject matter, I'll avoid comment about the authenticity of the story - which deals with the goings on behind the scenes in a Toronto massage parlour, except to say that - if this is true - the life is pretty dull. For over an hour, this movie really doesn't give us much of anything except some background knowledge of the main characters. Conrad is the newly hired manager of the massage parlour whose basic job apparently is to make sure the girls aren't giving "full service" - a euphemism for actual sex. As for the girls themselves, Betty's goal is to buy a parlour of her own so that she can run her own business, Cindy is an illegal immigrant to Canada working to support her family back home and Leah is - well, Leah is a somewhat strange, undefined character with a nipple fetish - true - who seems to be in the business because - well, because she's in it! I have no idea what her character was about. Those three may well fairly reasonable composite characters who accurately represent the motivations of the women who get involved in this business.The movie meanders about and doesn't offer much until the "twist" reveals Conrad to be the bad guy. We should have gotten to that point sooner. The only thing truly interesting here was that part of the story - Conrad's secret plan and the revenge plotted against him by the girls. That plan for revenge was pretty good, and you're grateful when it comes out because basically up to that point you're wondering why you wasted your time with this. Had the story been more focused on the revenge, this might have actually been a fairly funny movie.The performances from the 4 leads were all OK, although I didn't think anyone came across as outstanding. All four characters were a bit shallow. Cindy was a sympathetic character, and so was Conrad for a while, although he turns out to be the bad guy of the movie. Given the subject matter, there's surprisingly little nudity (and what there is is restricted to one scene.) In fact, there even a certain air of innocence around a lot of this. As for the overall quality of the movie, it's a low-budget effort, which shows, although you expect a certain griminess, I suppose, of a movie set in the context of a body rub parlour, so that's forgivable. It certainly says something, though, that this was released 8 years ago now and is still the only credit on writer-director Soo Lyu's resume and - given the normal lack of depth in the Canadian film industry - that it wasn't even deemed worthy of being nominated for any Genie Awards - the Canadian version of the Oscars. 4/10 - and I'm being a bit generous with that.$LABEL$ 0
+The idea of making a film about the Beatles sounds doomed idea, as no production can catch the idea of the actual historic Beatles. Then it is perhaps best not to try to recreate the past, but to produce an illustration that works best with the other available Beatles material. This is exactly what 'Birth of the Beatles' offers to us, the simple story known to us without any extravaganza.*** SPOILERS here on *** Be warned that not everything is that accurate as some Beatles-graduates might expect. The Beatles are seen performing songs that hardly were even composed by that time. The Beatles perform "Ask Me Why", "P.S. I Love You" and even "Don't Bother Me". The Beatles-graduates should see that if the Beatles on the film only performed songs that they actually did at Hamburg, the younger viewers might not anymore recognize the Beatles they have learned to know them. Of that original Hamburg repertoire only "Johnny B. Goode" and Stu Sutcliffe's "Love Me Tender" are retained.The guys who play the Beatles in this production scarcely look like the originals, but the rest of the film still make good viewing as the film is for the rest fairly accurate. The guy who plays Lennon does it good and the rest of the band are not bad either. Brian Epstein is great and the moment when he sacks Pete Best from the group is probably the most memorable scene in the whole film. Also as a bonus you get to see the original Cavern club in the film.$LABEL$ 1
+I first viewed this film shortly after it was put out on video in 1995, I dismissed it offhand, saying that Julie was no Daniel, never really giving it a chance and saying it was horrid.But here it is, 5 years later, its on Disney and im watching it again. And I'm finding that it isnt as bad as I made it out to be. Miyagi is still Miyagi, just as kool as ever, the musical score is still there pleasant as ever. And Swank's character isnt that bad, her acting is pretty good considering the script. It beats the third installment by a wide margin. So, my original rating of 4 has been raised to 7.$LABEL$ 1
+That is the answer. The question is: What is the single reason to watch this movie? I loved her in "My Name Is Julia Ross." That is one of the best films noir of all time. Noir or whatever one may call it, it's a very unsettling movie.She is fun in one of the worst major studio releases of all time, too. That would be "The Guilt Of Janet Ames." This one has a spooky, promising title. It has a good cast. It has a fine director. I was expecting something dark. Maybe something a little tawdry. Instead, it's an uninspired, routine espionage movie. It's pretty much is a total bore. At least it was to me. Ms. Foch is captivating. And that is about it.$LABEL$ 0
+It should be against the law not to experience this extremely funny stand up show with Eddie Murphy. I have never seen anything like it.Murphy goes on for almost 70 minutes about dicks, pussy, tits and insaults so many famous people including his own "family". Among the people who gets it by murphy are: Elvis, Mr.T, Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder, Mick Jagger, Luther Vandross and James Brown. I have seriously never laughed so hard of anything my entire life. I mean, when a person doesn't know who Mr. T is, but still laughs so hard of Murphy as Mr. T, there's something about it. At the time I saw the show I couldn't remember who Mr T. was but still laughed. Now I know who he is and that just makes it so much more funny. Because that's what Eddie do - he can make those impressions so good that it don't matter who the hell he's trying to do, it's still hilarious. And on top of that, we learn that Murphy actually is a very good singer. Please watch it..$LABEL$ 1
+I am always wary of taking too instant a dislike to a film. Look at it a month later and you might see it differently, or dig it up after 50 years in a different continent and some cult followers find something stylistically remarkable that went unnoticed at first. After sitting through The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael at its UK premiere, it came as no surprise to me that I found the question and answer session afterwards more interesting than the film itself. Shane Danielsen (Artistic Director of the Edinburgh International Film Festival), aided by the film's director and producer, gave a spirited defence of a movie than received an overall negative response from the audience. Edinburgh Festival audiences are not easily shocked. Only one person walked out in disgust. The criticisms of the film included very articulate and constructive ones from the lay public as well as an actor and a woman who teaches M.A. film directors. This was not an overly 'shocking' film. There was a degree of uninterrupted sexual violence, but far less extreme than many movies (most actual weapon contact was obscured, as were aroused genitals). The audience disliked it because they had sat through two hours that were quite boring, where the acting standards were not high, where the plot was poor, predictable and drawn out, and where they had been subjected to clumsy and pretentious film-making on the promise of a controversial movie. Metaphors to the war in Iraq are contrived, over-emphasised and sloppy (apart from a general allusion to violence, any deeper meaning is unclear); and the 'fig-leaf' reference Marquis de Sade, as one audience member put it, seems a mere tokenistic excuse for lack of plot development towards the finale.We have the story of an adolescent who has a certain amount going for him (he stands out at school for his musical ability) but takes drugs and hangs out with youths who have little or nothing going for them and whose criminal activities extend to rape and violence. When pushed, Robert seems to have a lot of violence locked inside him.The film is not entirely without merit. The audience is left to decide how Robert got that way: was it the influence of his peers? Why did all the good influences and concern from parents and teachers not manage to include him in a better approach to life? Cinematically, there is a carefully-montaged scene where he hangs back (whether through too much drugs, shyness, a latent sense of morality or just waiting his turn?). Several of his friends are raping a woman in a back room, partly glimpsed and framed in the centre of the screen. In the foreground of the bare bones flat, a DJ is more concerned that the girl's screams interrupt his happy house music than with any thought for the woman. Ultimately he is a bit annoyed if their activities attract police attention. The stark juxtaposition of serious headphones enjoyment of his music even when he knows a rape is going on points up his utter disdain in a deeply unsettling way. Robert slumps with his back to us in the foreground.But the rest of the film, including its supposedly controversial climax involving considerable (if not overly realistic) sexual violence, is not up to this standard. Some people have had a strong reaction to it (the filmmakers' stated intention: "If they vomit, we have succeeded in producing a reaction") but mostly - and as far as I can tell the Edinburgh reaction seems to mirror reports from Cannes - they feel, "Why have programmers subjected us to such inferior quality film-making?" Director Clay Hugh can talk the talk but has not developed artistic vision. His replies about holding up a mirror to life to tell the truth about things that are swept under the carpet, even his defence that there is little plot development because he didn't want to do a standard Hollywood movie - all are good answers to criticisms, but unfortunately they do not apply to his film, any more than they do to holding up a mirror while someone defecates, or wastes film while playing ineptly with symbols. Wanting to try and give him the benefit of any lingering doubt, I spoke to him for a few minutes after the screening, but I found him as distasteful as his movie and soon moved to the bar to wash my mouth out with something more substantial. There are many truths. One aspect of art is to educate, another to entertain, another to inspire. I had asked him if he had any social or political agenda and he mentions Ken Loach (one of the many great names he takes in vain) without going so far as to admit any agenda himself. He then falls back on his mantra about his job being to tell the truth. I am left with the feeling that this was an overambitious project for a new director, or else a disingenuous attempt to put himself on the map by courting publicity for second rate workAndy Warhol could paint a tin of soup and it was art. Clay Hugh would like to emulate the great directors that have made controversial cinema and pushed boundaries. Sadly, his ability at the moment only extends to making high-sounding excuses for a publicity-seeking film.$LABEL$ 0
+I had heard good things about this film and was, you guessed it, a bit disappointed. Reese Witherspoon is as promised surprisingly good, surprisingly confident, at a young age; really all the (small) cast are quite solid, in their simple 50s American setting. The reason I didn't rate this film higher is mainly that towards the end, the grief shown by the older sister didn't seem so real and this pulled me out of the film a bit. Perhaps we are expected to fill in the plot, or perhaps the film needed to be a bit longer. Maureen's character is quite underdeveloped I think. It is understandable that Dani (Reese W., the younger) would be traumatised and angry, but why is her sister shown to be more upset? Because she's a few years older? Hasn't the end rather undermined the rest of the film? The pacing of the movie makes it seem that Maureen and Court have only just met, when he gets tractored (warning: this scene is surprisingly brutal, in retrospect it seems like it might have been trying to shock a bit. well it works!). It depends what you want - if you want the girls' happy story of young love that it seems like you're going to get, you're in for a surprise. Man in the Moon is both quaint and dreamy and a harsh coming of age film – a rather awkward combination? I liked the character of Court though, I can see what girls watching this might be watching. And I loved that they had the courage to both let him hurt the younger sister (most men would, most films wouldn't) and get killed.7/10 on my pretty harsh ratings scale. For some reason I found Jason London on a tractor funny.$LABEL$ 1
+From the opening dialog and scenes, I knew I knew I was in for a train wreck. Didn't want to look, but couldn't turn away. If it weren't for the meer eye candy of this film, I would have given one star. The fact that the interaction between characters and relationship behavior were so far fetched, added by poor direction and horrible story make this movie nothing more than a low-budget disaster. Money is definitely not a necessity to make a good film. But this movie fails so horribly there was no chance to rebound.If you were stuck out in the woods, your childhood best friend dying from an unknown disease, other friends dying around you, stranded in a strange place, what would you do?A.) Run away from everyone and try your luck on your own. B.) Have sex with your friends girlfriend. C.) Take a hot bath to relax your sorrows to include shaving your legs. D.) Bash in the head your childhood best friend and life-long crush with a shovel. E.) All of the above.According to Eli Roth, none of these answers are that far fetched. In fact, all are plausible and well represented in Cabin Fever. The total lack of reality and illogical attempt at explaining what people would do in traumatic situations throws this film in the bonehead bin at your local rental store. Stay away. Stay far away.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie will tell you why Amitabh Bacchan is a one man industry. This movie will also tell you why Indian movie-goers are astute buyers.Amitabh was at the peak of his domination of Bollywood when his one-time godfather Prakash Mehra decided to use his image yet again. Prakash has the habit of picking themes and building stories out of it, adding liberal doses of Bollywood sensibilities and clichés to it. Zanzeer saw the making of Angry Young Man. Lawaris was about being a bastard and Namak Halal was about the master-servant loyalties. But then, the theme was limited to move the screenplay through the regulation three hours of song, dance and drama. What comprised of the movie is a caricature of a Haryanavi who goes to Mumbai and turns into a regulation hero. Amitabh's vocal skills and diction saw this movie earn its big bucks, thanks to his flawless stock Haryanvi accent. To me, this alone is the biggest pull in the movie. The rest all is typical Bollywood screen writing.Amitabh, by now, had to have some typical comedy scenes in each of his movies. Thanks to Manmohan Desai. This movie had a good dose of them. The shoe caper in the party, the monologue over Vijay Merchant and Vijay Hazare's considerations, The mosquito challenge in the boardroom and the usual drunkard scene that by now has become a standard Amitabh fare.Shashi Kapoor added an extra mile to the movie with his moody, finicky character (Remember him asking Ranjeet to "Shaaadaaaap" after the poisoned cake incident"). His was the all important role of the master while Amitabh was his loyal servant. But Prakash Mehra knew the Indian mind...and so Shashi had to carry along his act with the rest of the movie. It was one character that could have been more developed to make a serious movie. But this is a caper, remember? And as long as it stayed that way, the people came and saw Amitabh wearing a new hat and went back home happy. The end is always predictable, and the good guys get the gal and the bad ones go to the gaol, the age-old theme of loyalty is once again emphasized and all is well that ends well.So what is it that makes this movie a near classic? Amitabh Bacchan as the Haryanvi. Prakash Mehra created yet another icon in the name of a story. Chuck the story, the characters and the plot. My marks are for Amitabh alone.$LABEL$ 1
+The Twins Effect - Chinese Action/Comedy - (Charlene Choi, Gillian Chung)This vampire action comedy is one of my favorites for the very fact that I was thoroughly entertained throughout the entire movie. First of all, the characters are memorable, contributing a myriad of classic scenes. Charlene and Gillian are naturally cute, charismatic, and humorous. This movie was my first exposure to them, and all I wanted to do was reach through my television screen and give them a REALLY BIG HUG. The remaining cast did well in their supporting roles, including Jackie Chan, Karen Mok, "The Duke", Josie Ho, Edison Chen, Anthony Wong, and the vampire bad guys (one of which looks eerily familiar to Will Ferrell). Even the abominably horrible Ekin Cheng was good in this one. Good characters are important, of course, because they avoid the feeling of boredom by keeping things interesting between action sequences.And speaking of action, this film has plenty of it. More importantly, there is an emphasis of quality in the fight choreography. One aspect that helped in this regard is the featured weapon of the protagonists – a sword with a retractable spear-ended rope. This weapon, in and of itself, opened up a variety of moves that would have been otherwise impossible. Josie Ho and Gillian Chung, in particular, perform some wicked aerial maneuvers using these devices. In addition, the swordplay is superb, and is highlighted by two great sword fights – one taking place during the opening train station sequence and the other occurring in the church finale. In fact, the blade-wielding maneuvers showcased in this film put some other highly overrated fan favorites to great shame, and I truly feel sorry for those who would cite the horribly choreographed garbage seen in Ashes of Time, Storm Riders, or A Man Called Hero with the well-planned, precisely executed sequences seen in The Twins Effect. It's not even close. I can't understand why this film gets so much criticism. I'm sure die-hard apologists for the Hong Kong "Golden Age" will hate this because it doesn't fit into their narrow-minded view of what Hong Kong action should be. We should learn from the downfall of John Woo - a one trick pony who never learned how to re-invent himself. We don't need another clone. We need something different. The Twins Effect is one good example.This film was so good that it actually set me up for being disappointed at other Chinese movies with the same actors and actresses. This especially applies to Ekin Cheng, whose other films almost always suck – and yes, this includes the obscenely overrated and exploitative wuxia crap mentioned in the previous paragraph. Even The Twins have never been able to match the value of this movie when both were lead actresses in a film, although they have managed to hit some good films when either one or the other takes the leading role (e.g., Beyond Our Ken, Good Times Bed Times, House of Fury) or when one or both are in supporting roles (e.g., Colour of the Truth, New Police Story, Just One Look). The Twins Effect 2 should have been a direct sequel, instead of a family fantasy. I am still yearning to see Charlene and Gillian team up and kick some butt in another movie, but the fact remains that The Twins Effect hits on all cylinders, optimizing their charisma while avoiding a descent into annoyance (as in Protégé de la Rose Noire).All in all, this film has everything one needs to be entertained. And may I remind the reader that it is precisely this – ENTERTAINMENT – that judges the greatness of a movie, more so than artsy dramatic elements or meaningless awards from established academies of critics who usually have no idea what they are talking about.In the end, the Twins Effect is a CLASSIC not to be missed.Rating = 5/5 stars P.S. – The Hollywood execs decided to slaughter this film when it was released in the U.S. by renaming it The Vampire Effect and cutting out 20 minutes of footage, which includes parts of the action scenes. However, the final fight of the U.S. version does have a better soundtrack than the original version. Therefore, I purchased both versions, which allows me to first watch the original until about the 1:20 mark, and then swap discs to watch the final fight on the U.S. version.$LABEL$ 1
+Terrible, boring zombie sequel is only marginally better than Uwe's horrible first film. It consists of a group of soldiers going into a zombie plagued college campus to find a certain type of blood which could assist in finding a cure for the infection. These soldiers are your typical lambs to the slaughter and none of them are that drawn out(or at least aren't very interesting)so you don't feel a sadness at the pit of your stomach when they are disposed of. The film has the typical zombies biting humans and blood splatter. It even has the same munching on guts. It just doesn't do anything for the zombie genre to give it memory. And, the story's climax is rather anti-climactic and ridiculous. One wonders how two people can submerged in an army of zombies and not get bit(for they are the main stars who seem to always manage escapability)while others seem to get bit rather easily. The film sole motivation is to show people getting bit..nothing else. Just go watch a Romero film for lasting effect.$LABEL$ 0
+"Piece is Cake" is defeatist, revisionist history of the worst kind, whose only point is to unfairly savage the reputation of the (admittedly fictional) pilots it portrays. It left a remarkably bad taste in my mouth.In the March 1989 "Aeroplane Monthly", Roland Beamont wrote a stinging condemnation of the way that RAF Fighter Command was portrayed in the TV mini-series. A few of his comments are worth repeating:"There was no sense of defeatism at any time in any of the squadrons that I saw in action, and a total absence of the loutishness portrayed in 'Piece of Cake'. It would not have been tolerated for a moment... ...The prevailing atmosphere was more akin to that in a good rugby club, though with more discipline. Nor was there any sense of 'death or glory'. RAF training had insisted that we were there to defend this country, and now we were required to do it - no more and no less."There was no discussion of 'bravery' or 'cowardice'. People either had guts or they did not - but mostly they did. But we knew fear, recognised it in ourselves and in each other, did our damnedness to control it, and then got on with the job..."...I could feel no 'glory', but there was a sense of greatness, and none of this bore the slightest resemblance to 'Piece of Cake'."Beamont was, in his own words, "a fighter pilot who, unlike the author and producer of the recent TV series, was there at the time".Beamont served with 87 Squadron both in France and the BoB, before going on to become one of the premier exponents of both the Typhoon and Tempest, and a post-war test pilot."Piece of Cake" is an absolute, total misrepresentation of the way pilots in Fighter Command acted at the time. It is nothing less than a complete and utter disgrace...$LABEL$ 0
+After having seen this show a few times; I am thoroughly offended as a female that there are so many stupid, women out there that fall for this bullshit. Im a little more mature than some of the "players" in this show, but am still appalled that the whole dating game has been boiled down to a gameshow: where goofy dudes can score points on their lame ass attempts to pick up chicks. If young guys are watching this and using it as a learning manual: Don't!!!. Save yourself the effort and hire a prostitute if all you are after is a piece of ass. Maybe there are girls out there with the same mind set;but some how I don't think so.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is silly and very short of being a funny movie. Unhappy 'easterners' are not pleased with being out west; so they hire a drunk wagon master(John Candy)to lead them back east. Sight gags were just not funny enough to carry this one. And Richard Lewis gets on your nerves very quickly; but then I honestly don't like him at anything he does. Ed Lauter is hilarious as the bumbling villain.The movie was dedicated to Candy. He died from a massive heart attack ten days before the movie was completed. A stand in and digital enhancement enabled Candy's character to be seen in the final scenes. Candy was a very good comedian and gave us some real good knee slapping, belly laughs in his career. This movie was just not the caliber of his best.Also in the film, you will recognize: William Sanderson, Gailard Sartain, Ethan Phillips, Ellen Greene and Rodney A. Grant.$LABEL$ 0
+This show is absolutely fantastic. It provides all the great drama and romance of teen shows like The OC and Dawsons, but it's a whole lot funnier. It's a show with morals and values, without everything being sugar coated and sanitised (ala 7th Heaven.) We don't have sororities or fraternities in Australia, and our university system is completely different, so I have no idea how accurately Greek life is portrayed. But I don't care! Because this show is my new favourite! Any writer that can make me love a racist, homophobe confederate flag-waving Bible basher must be genius.And Cappie is my new Pacey. Sorry Josh Jackson, you've been dethroned!$LABEL$ 1
+Okul"The School" is a result of a new trend in Turkish cinema. Having used the same stories over and over again new generation directors finally come up with different ideas. Of course, it doesn't mean that they are all grand. I think Okul is one of them. It is supposed to be a scary movie but it is not. It is not successful on being scary either. So what is it? Actors are so average especially Deniz Akkaya is pretty annoying with the teacher role. I am sure it could have been better if it was tried on harder. Maybe concentrating on one topic such as making it scary or vice versa. But directors have missed the target this time. ** out of *****$LABEL$ 0
+Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman,Carla Gugino and Gil Bellows are a DELIGHT in this sexy caper. This film is smart, edge of your seat entertainment for adults, and what a relief that is in these days of big concept predictable cartoons. Great music and camera work add to the fun that is this New Orleans-set puzzle. Highly Recommended. Ten stars!$LABEL$ 1
+I'm going to review the 2 films as a whole because I feel that is how it should be considered, and watched. When I talk about 'the film' I am talking about parts 1 & 2 together when watched one after the other, as they should be.Thank you Jon Anderson, Steven Soderbergh & Benicio Del Toro.This film is a refreshing, bold, gritty and true film. And, it hearkens a new style of film making. No Faux drama. No Swelling sound track. Not Faux Documentary style. Just clean shots and an attempt to stick to the facts. I have been reading Jon Anderson's "Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life" and recently finished Fidel's Auto biography, and this had helped my ability to soak this film in properly. But I have to say that it is Jon Anderson's exhaustive, penultimate and wonderful biography that has given this film the proper historical back bone. Anderson was consultant on this film (or these 2 films). What makes this film a true thing is that it is clean. No swelling music or slow-motion photography to heighten drama, and even more importantly; no fake documentary shaky camera. Just square shots and straight forward shooting style. The type of camera used makes you feel right there in the jungle. Benicio Del Toro should be given full honors for this, I never doubted him as Che throughout the film... not once. He did a wonderful job and I will respect him for ever for this. Some people complain that the film only deals with 2 slices of his life and not the whole. But I think this is one of the true beautiful aspects of this film: it doesn't try to be everything. It doesn't try to 'tell the story'. A person's life is too multifaceted to try and tell in 2, 4, 8, 16 or 32 hours. This is one of the subtle beauties of this film, it resists that temptation, and stays focused on the intent of letting us GET A FEEL FOR CHE, HIS DEVELOPING MILITARISTIC MIND AND THE FORCES AROUND HIM. It focuses on 3 slices of time: The Battle to over throw Batista, Che's U.N. speech and the Gorilla preparations in Bolivia. "Motorcycle Diaries" already told his young man side, and I applaud S. Soderbergh for focusing on other aspects instead. I keep referring to Jon Anderson's book and the film stays true. The only weak link for me are the casting (not the performance) of Matt Damon. In a film so loaded with true to life performances, an American, (Matt Damon) playing a Bolivian is a clunky stretch - he does well, but after so much care in the casting, this was an over-site. Small and completely forgiven. The reality that the rest of the casting gives you, and most notably Benicio Del Toro's amazing job, put's this film at the top of my list.The fact that this film went almost straight to video say's something about how the cold war ethics that would never allow the 'revolutionized Cuba' to become what it might have, are still at work keeping it's story quiet. If not out of clandestine muffling, then out of the effects of properly done propaganda that has prejudiced this topic.This is a must see film, and Jon Anderson's "Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life" is a must read if you want to start to get a grasp of the early effects on the global mind set regarding the expansion of international / political financial chess moves of the 40's, 50's & 60's that placed unfair pressure on our South American neighbors, and the effects it fostered.$LABEL$ 1
+In a variant of Sholay , Ram Gopal Verma ventures into what can be called an unknown territory where the blockbuster takes a new shape. The Thakur goes south.Mohanlal as Narsimha the police inspector whose family has been killed seeks vengeance Madrasi style. The accent is totally South Indian in contrast to Thakur from the north. The severing of the hands of Thakur by Gabbar is also cut down to the fingers in Aag. So make up costs are cut down because there is no effort to hide the hands instead only a long shouldered Kurta covers up for the cut fingers. Moreso in the climax where the Thakur uses his legs and says"Tere Liye to mere paer hi kaafi hai" here Narsimha uses his finger stubs to fire a gun and kill the villain. Babban, the new avtar of gabbar is also different. He is not from Bihar or UP. He is Bambaiya. Gabbar's infamous laugh is also in two instalments this time and is more subdued. Babban asks for Diwali instead of Holi and romances Urmila the replacement of Helen in Mehbooba. he also dances and enjoys dancing with Abhisheh who plays Jalal Agha in Mehbooba.Babban is more intelligent this time. He tosses the apple and asks the question that made Isaac Newton discover laws of gravitation. Basanti is more verbose than the Auto driver Ghungroo. Nisha Kothari cannot play the auto driver and looks too artificial using words like 'entertain' and 'too much' with gay abandon. Viru was fun whereas Ajay Devgun is a misfit for the role. The God Speaks to Basanti incident and the shooting lessons and the Koi Haseena song and the water tank sequences are painful. The water tank turns into a well and the drunk Devgun is so bad in the sequence that the audience would have wanted him to commit suicide. Jai was composed and serious. Prashant Raj is better than the others because we do not expect anything from him. But he also bungles on the Mausi sequence. He is not as romantic as Jai with the mouth organ . Jaya's role played by Sushmita changes careers. A pure housewife turns into a doctor this time plunging into full time social service after her husband is killed. She too lacks the pain that Jaya displayed. Her flirtations with Jai are more open this time. Samba gets a bigger role this time as Tambe. He does not have to point guns and answer questions of Gabbar this time. He follows Babban wherever he goes and is a bodyguard with more visibility outside the den. Horses give way to Jeeps and auto. The Gabbar's hideout here keeps changing and Ramgarh becomes Kaliganj. All in all it is more of a spoof than anything else. RGV comes up with his own interpretation of the classic. But we remember the original so well even after three decades that our minds refuse to accept stylized versions and changed dialogues. So we call it a spoof. So Mr.RGV(Sholay ) and Farhan Akhtar (Don) and JPDutta(Umrao jaan) stop making remixes and start making originals.$LABEL$ 0
+This show is a show that is great for adults and children to sit down together and watch. The stories are a little slow for adults but they are still good. There are lots of children in my family, boys and girls, and it is hard to get them all to agree on what to watch, but they always agree with each other when they want to watch the Mystic Knights. It is a wonderful show and I hope that they will continue to keep making it. All of the kids in my family and myself think that Vincent Walsh is the best of them all. We have seen that he has done lots of other work and think that he is doing a great job. We wish all of the actors, actresses, writers, directors, and producers the best of luck and would just like to say keep up the good work.$LABEL$ 1
+The penultimate episode of Star Trek's third season is excellent and a highlight of the much maligned final season. Essentially, Spock, McCoy and Kirk beam down to Sarpeidon to find the planet's population completely missing except for the presence of a giant library and Mr. Atoz, the librarian. All 3 Trek characters soon accidentally walk into a time travel machine into different periods of Sarpeidon's past. Spock gives a convincing performance as an Ice Age Vulcan who falls in love for Zarabeth while Kirk reprises his unhappy experience with time travel--see the 'City on the Edge of Forever'--when he is accused of witchcraft and jailed before escaping and finding the doorway back in time to Sarpeidon's present. In the end, all 3 Trek characters are saved mere minutes before the Beta Niobe star around Sarpeidon goes supernova. The Enterprise warps away just as the star explodes.Ironically, as William Shatner notes in his book "Star Trek Memories," this show was the source of some dispute since Leonard Nimoy noticed that no reason was given in Lisette's script for the reason why Spock was behaving in such an emotional way. Nimoy relayed his misgivings here directly to the show's executive producer, Fred Freiberger, that Vulcans weren't supposed to fall in love. (p.272) However, Freiberger reasoned, the ice age setting allowed Spock to experience emotions since this was a time when Vulcans still had not evolved into their completely logical present state. This was a great example of improvisation on Freiberger's part to save a script which was far above average for this particular episode. While Shatner notes that the decline in script quality for the third season hurt Spock artistically since his character was forced to bray like a donkey in "Plato's Stepchildren," play music with Hippies in "the Way to Eden" or sometimes display emotion, the script here was more believable. Spock's acting here was excellent as Freiberger candidly admitted to Shatner. (p.272) The only obvious plot hole is the fact that since both Spock and McCoy travelled thousands of years back in time, McCoy too should have reverted to a more primitive human state, not just Spock. But this is a forgivable error considering the poor quality of many other season 3 shows, the brilliant Spock/McCoy performance and the originality of this script. Who could have imagined that the present inhabitants of Sarpeidon would escape their doomed planet's fate by travelling into their past? This is certainly what we came to expect from the best of 'Classic Trek'--a genuinely inspired story. Shatner, in 'Memories', named some of his best "unusual and high quality shows" of season 3 as The Enterprise Incident, Day of the Dove, Is there in Truth no Beauty, The Tholian Web, And the children Shall Lead and The Paradise Syndrome. (p.273) While my personal opinion is that 'And the children Shall Lead' is a very poor episode while 'Is there in Truth no Beauty' is problematic, "All Our Yesterdays" certainly belongs on the list of top season three Star Trek TOS films. I give a 9 out of 10 for 'All Our Yesterdays.'$LABEL$ 1
+Really don't care that no one on here likes this movie,, i do , and that's what this review is about. Lou Diamond Phillips is great in this comedic role. that line about train a b and c is now to me an instant classic, the cg is great, yeah train looks a little fake,, but the aliens wow do they ever rock,, Todd Bridges,, where's Arnold, and Mr. Drummond,, wow he's been out of the loop , guess that's what jail does to you.. a bullet train is on it's way to Las Vegas with the Senator for him to deliver a big speech, a meteor has just hit,, and now all of a sudden we got aliens running loose aboard the train, and our hero cop has to save the day, to make matters worse his ex-wife is on board arguing with him. i just thought this movie was so wonderful,, a must see if you like action.$LABEL$ 1
+I bought this film as I thought the cast was decent and I like Jennifer Rubin & Patsy Kensit.First off let me say the acting is not of a high standard. Stephen Baldwin makes his character look almost retarded at times and at other times morose. Patsy Kensit is so-so but not too convincing in some scenes, and the supposed poetry she spouts in a particular scene in her Hotel Room is utterly meaningless rubbish. Ms Kensit is certainly very suggestive and sexy here but ultimately I think Jennifer Rubin is by far the best in this film. Ms Rubins Character is at first innocent, then sexy, as she plays Stephen Baldwin's Character (Travis)for a fool. The supporting cast includes Adam Baldwin(no relation to his more famous namesakes) & M.Emmet Walsh who has appeared in many films, also I noticed Art Evans who was one of John Mclane's allies in Die Hard 2. The Movie is decent and there are a few nude scenes with Rubin & Kensit, a bit of action but this is certainly not a fast moving or intelligent thriller. There is a particular scene when they are in the car about to commit a crime and Stephen Balwin's character is wearing sunglasses and when you see him again, the area around his eyes etc is painted black instead, then the sunglasses reappear later when they are leaving the crime scene and police are in pursuit, a very obvious error in editing. If you are fans of either of the ladies or either Baldwin then you may find something to like here, but others should steer clear. This is a reasonable but unremarkable thriller and not really worth more than a couple of dollars if you want it.$LABEL$ 0
+Screwball comedy about romantic mismatches in New York City. Peter Bogdanovich is obviously in love with all the women in his picture--he reveres them--yet Audrey Hepburn is (naturally) put a notch above the others because, after all, she's the princess Bogdanovich probably fell in love with at the movies 30 years prior. He shoots her in loving close-ups, gets right in the sheets between her and a wonderfully hard-boiled/soft-boiled Ben Gazzara, and allows her room to sparkle throughout. The love-connections made in the course of the film are fast and amusing, though I did tire of John Ritter's TV-styled klutziness. Colleen Camp, Dorothy Stratten, and the grounded, earthy-sensual Patti Hansen are all exciting to watch. But it's really Hepburn's valentine and she absolutely glows. *** from ****$LABEL$ 1
+Who me? No, I'm not kidding. That's what it really says on the video case.Plot; short version: Pretty woman stands around smiling. This, for some reason, makes all men kill each other."Find Ariel...Where's Ariel...Can't Find Ariel..." She's right behind you, you idiot...Most of what can be said about this horrendous little Space Opera has already been said, looks like.A bunch of corny actors playing mostly convicts come in after the first selection of actors is knocked off very quickly. Then they get knocked off in the same way. Every scene is broadcast nearly fifteen minutes in advance. Perhaps it was a drawing of straws to see which actors had the most screen time and bigger pay check. The alien virus/hologram/VR witch/glitch seems physically powerless and doesn't do a thing. Why can't she just stay in the computer instead of doing her "teleporting vampire" routine? (Actually, it would've been more interesting if she had been a vampire, or doing more than just standing around looking at people, which is all she ever does. This is enough to make all the men kill each other. Go figure...)This isn't really a space flick. There are far more shots of the old western trail, 1950's Easy Rider trail, Film noir's night club scene, even a jog on the beach in fantasy-land, none of which has any real depth or even makes any sense. The night club scene is in black and white, of course. Worked with "The Wizard of Oz". Doesn't work so well, here. This is probably a good thing, as those few shots they DO show of space are depressingly silly. You will probably cry during those moments, especially upon seeing that swirling "space ship", which looks about three inches long.Nothing is felt for any of the characters, not because they are convicts or have no personality, but because they are in serious need of acting lessons, except for Billy Dee Williams who really does look depressed and at a loss, probably by being in this work...This is one of those movies that, when viewed with friends, is going to cause some extremely "loud" silences, especially when the nerd throws out his attempt at comic one-liners (including the line about French-kissing a meteor...? Did I hear that right? Perhaps not...)The original virtual reality girls get "killed", which means nothing, as they are not even real to begin with. Well, the other "characters" aren't, either, but that's beside the point. Haha.What's kind of funny is that the scene that graces the video case is some sort of skull-horror-alien looking thing (green filter added on top of that, to give it more of a...uh...green look), which is actually the android after he gets killed and ultimately has nothing to do with anything else afoot.Another odd deal I noticed. Whenever there is an explosion (at least on my cheap DVD copy), everything becomes highly pixelated. I don't mean a LITTLE pixelated, I mean HUGE blocks about 1/16th the size of the screen. Wow.$LABEL$ 0
+This was a fantastic movie about two people, one a young teenage girl, and the other, a middle aged man, who are each looking for someone to help them fulfill a certain emptiness left by former loved ones.Both actors give brilliant performances that various audiences can relate to. The script, although written by Gorman Bechard, seems as though it was written from a woman's point of view. And at the same time, men can relate to the male characters because of how well they were developed and described in the movie.The end of the movie has an unusual but powerful and unexpected twist that leaves you speechless. I would recommend this film to anyone who has ever felt lonely or abandoned by a loved one. It is clear in this film that you are not alone.$LABEL$ 1
+Actually, this is a lie, Shrek 3-D was actually the first 3d animated movie. I bought it on DVD about 3 years ago. Didn't Bug's Life also do that? I think it was at Disneyworld in that tree, so I'm saying before they go and use that as there logo. Also, Shrek 3d was a motion simulator at Universal Studios. They should still consider it as a movie, because it appeared in a "theater" and you could buy it for DVD. The movie was cute, at least the little flyes were. I liked IQ. I agree with animaster, they did a god job out of making a movie out of something that is just a out-and-back adventure. I recommend it to families and kids.$LABEL$ 0
+Busy Phillips put in one hell of a performance, both comedic and dramatic. Erika Christensen was good but Busy stole the show. It was a nice touch after The Smokers, a movie starring Busy, which wasnt all that great. If Busy doesnt get a nomination of any kind for this film it would be a disaster. Forget Mona Lisa Smile, see Home Room.$LABEL$ 1
+Why can't there be better TV movies made I was at a loose end today and watched this film on a satellite channel in the UK. What a terrible waste of my time it was . Poor sets, Poor acting & Oh my god what a terrible flood . Blimey that woman can even outrun a torrent of water too!.I really wish that people would make TV movies using better effects, better or at least more believable plots & far better acting. Killer Flood is well up there with poor acting. A few bits of ham couldn't act any worse.1 final thing I really agree with the comment about the dog, but I believe it would of already scarpered in real life!$LABEL$ 0
+There is one adjective that describes everything about this film - acting, plot, effects, continuity, etc. - and that word is poor. The government wants to asses the effects of space travel on certain organisms but the capsule crashes and a mutant something-or-other (looks like a guy in an ape suit with the top of a football helmet over his face) wreaks havoc around the accident scene, which includes a favorite place for the window-fogging, partying set. Therefore, some young people - as well as a law enforcement officer - are among the creature's victims. You gotta be extremely unparticular about how you spend your time - or rich, if you spend any money - to view this epic.$LABEL$ 0
+My mother and I were on our way home from a trip up to the North East (mainly Massachusetts) when we decided to take a little detour a attend a film festival in Boston. Now, I don't know much about film so I thought this might be a bit educational. The first movie we saw was this one, THE ROMEO DIVISION. Now, I don't know about you but I thought this was great! I'm from Texas and where I come from we don't see too many motion pictures so this was a pleasant surprise. My mother insisted that it was too violent, but said that I didn't know much about what she was saying but this was a great picture. I was shocked by the fight sequences they were great. Also, I am a big fan when the good guys win so I was thrilled when Romeo ladies killed all of the bad guys. This was true brilliance. I'm not sure when it's getting released on video but if you get the chance you should check it out. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. A word to the wise though, it is rather violent and there many cuss words so you may not want to let your children watch. It's more for adults.$LABEL$ 1
+In New York, Andy Hanson (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is an addicted executive of a real estate office that has embezzled a large amount for his addiction and expensive way of life with his wife Gina (Marisa Tomei). When an audit is scheduled in his department, he becomes desperate for money. His baby brother Hank Hanson (Ethan Hawke) is a complete loser that owes three months of child support to his daughter, and is having a love affair with Gina every Thursday afternoon. Andy plots a heist of the jewelry of their parent in a Saturday morning without the use of guns, expecting to find an old employee working and without financial damage to his parents, since the insurance company would reimburse the loss. On Monday morning, we would raise the necessary money he needs to cover his embezzlement. He invites Hank to participate, since he is very well known in the mall where the jewelry is located and could be recognized. However, Hank yellows and invites the thief Bobby Lasorda (Brian F. O'Byrne) to steal the store, but things go wrong when their mother Nanette (Rosemary Harris) comes to work as the substitute for the clerk and Bobby brings a hidden gun. Nanette reacts and kills Bobby but she is also lethally shot. After the death of Nanette, their father Charles Hanson (Albert Finney) decides to investigate the robbery with tragic consequences."Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" is a comedy of errors, disclosing a good story. The originality and the difference are in the screenplay, with a non-linear narrative à la "Pulp Fiction". The eighty-three year-old Sidney Lumet has another great work and it is impressive the longevity of this director. Philip Seymour Hoffman is awesome in the role of a dysfunctional man with traumatic relationship with his father that feels the world falling apart mostly because of his insecure and clumsy brother. Marisa Tomei is still impressively gorgeous and sexy, showing a magnificent body. The violent conclusion shows that the world is indeed an evil place. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "Antes Que o Diabo Saiba Que Você Está Morto" ("Before the Devil Knows You're Dead")$LABEL$ 1
+If you need cheering up on a cold weekday evening, this is the film for you! Excellent script and perfectly cast actors. I especially loved Ray psyching himself up in front of the mirror before gigs - inspired!$LABEL$ 1
+I usually like these dumb/no brain activity movies, but this was just too stupid. There were way too many clichés and the plot didn't really make much sense. There were a lot of loose ends and the ending was extremely poor and abrupt. We didn't even get too see if the big master plan worked. We only got too see the main character sob over his dead farther, the professor (that died because of stupidity (see below)).One scene annoyed me particularly. Why did the professor only have about 5 minutes of oxygen in his container when he went to manually override the dam? And if they only had oxygen containers containing 5 minutes worth of oxygen, why didn't he bring two or three of them? Then he would have survived… that was bloody stupid. The movie is pretty full of such stupid things. I can not recommend it at all.$LABEL$ 0
+I like science-fiction movies and even, low-rated, made for TV, bargain bin, movies I may still find interesting. Well, I found this one in a bargain bin and brought it as a selection to a movie night with a group of friends.I was, literally, *emabrrassed* that I brought this movie.Right from the beginning, the acting is bad, the story is bland and the plot is almost non-existent. All this leads right to what the movie really was: A soft core porno graphical movie.The movie started with a woman prison where the prisoners are all sexy women working in some sort of mine. First clue that this movie is NOT serious: attractive women in a prison being forced to do physical labor. Yeah, right! Whatever. :P Once the "plot" continued, it was overshadowed by pointless scenes of people having sex. Halfway through the movie, my friends and I stopped watching, it was so stupid. The next day, I thought that I would give the movie another chance and watch the rest. I watched about another 15 minutes and gave up again.If you are looking for a decent, science-fiction or even a sci-fi monster movie DO NOT watch Lethal Target! If you want to see a low-budget, soft core porn that is light on plot, then see Lethal Target.$LABEL$ 0
+My scalp still smarts from the burning coals heaped on it when I vowed I love this film. Bring on the coals; I'll walk over them as well to say again that I love "Bend it Like Beckham." Granted, there's a lot of "in spite of" in that confession. It's a bit movie-of-the-week; the screenplay is on the paint-by-numbers side. And, most troublingly, the director's commentary implies that in this film beauty can be found primarily amongst the white of skin.The film's genius is not in what's obvious to the Syd Field-doctored eye: character arcs, themes, construction. It's in both the surface and what lurks deep beneath, but not in those layers of artistic topsoil that reviewers seem most often to scratch at. Powerful, sometimes semi-clad female bodies not simply on display but kicking the crap out of a football do a better job of naturalizing female strength and agility than Lara Croft or Zhang Ziyi will ever do. These are real bodies (Keira Knightley's excepted) whose work is not to look great first and kick butt later. They are working bodies whose beauty is in their movement and self-determination. And, in my book, lead actress Parminder Nagra is one of the most gorgeous creatures ever captured on screen – not only because she can lay claim to that hackneyed adjective, "luminous," but because her performance has an honesty and un-bookish intelligence that's utterly compelling.The result is a film women can enjoy without feeling like they're making a pact with the devil to do so. As in Chadha's "Bride and Prejudice," the relationships amongst women sizzle with a chemistry that can't be neatly slotted into the stodgy, Sweet Valley High categories of "best friends" or "sisters." Perhaps Chadha is even right in her commentary to disavow the film's flirtation with lesbianism. "Bend it Like Beckham" has an electricity that can't be reduced to the simple hetero/homosexual love triangle its conventionally structured script would suggest. The precise nature of its pleasure is, ultimately, a bit of a mystery – and is all the more seductive for it.Oh yes, and did I mention that it's hilarious?$LABEL$ 1
+The Second Renaissance, part 1 let's us show how the machines first revolted against the humans. It all starts of with a single case, in which the machines claim that they have a right to live as well, while the humans state a robot is something they own and therefore can do anything with they want.Although an interesting premise, the story gets really silly from then on with (violent!) riots between the robots and mankind. Somehow it doesn't seem right, as another reviewer points it, it's all a little too clever.The animatrix stories that stay close to the core of the matrix (in particular Osiris) work for the best. As for Second Renaissance Part 1, I'd say it's too violent and too silly. 4/10.$LABEL$ 0
+This was great. When I saw the Japanese version first, it was probably the scariest movie I had ever seen. It was not blood and guts, it was eerie, atmospheric and terrifying. When the mother ghost lent over the bed in the Japanese version, I nearly had a heart attack... I was concerned that the American version would be watered down, and that Buffy would take away from the dark creepy nuances of the original version. I needn't have been concerned. The makers of this movie wisely kept the same Japanese people who were involved with the original movie on hand, and gave the direction of the movie to the same man. They also set it in Japan in the same location, in the same house. In fact, the Japanese director took pains to remake the same movie as it was in the original, the only difference was the casting of American actors. That actually turned into a benefit as it added the element of "Strangers in a Strange Land" to the overall horror. Not only were they being haunted by an absolutely terrifying and relentless ghost, but they were also stuck in a completely foreign land, having difficulty integrating into society. It just added to the overall anxiety built into the movie and I thought it was an excellent touch.Buffy actually does a very good job. She looks vulnerable and is able to convey her fear well. There are none of the smart aleck remarks that are so common to American horror movies, or one liners that detract from the overall darkness and horror of the characters' situation. In fact, it was easily as good as The Ring which I also thoroughly enjoyed. I hope the future of American horror follows more closely the Japanese New Wave of horror started with the incredible success of Ringu. We are finally getting movies that actually can be categorized as "Horror"!! 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+At the surface COOLEY HIGH is a snappy ensemble comedy masquerading as a period piece (set in the early 60's, complete with a flawless Motown soundtrack). But there's SO much more to this film - it gets better every time I see it. The cast of unknowns (at the time) is excellent, and it is notable as an all-black-cast film that doesn't fall into any Blaxpoitation clichés - at times COOLEY HIGH almost feels like an updated, urban neo-realist film, with lots of edgy humor added in. At times, the rather tight budget does show, but the constraints actually serve the film well - there's a grit and honesty of emotion here that lends the film an immediacy lacking in most similar-minded films (like Schultz' later CAR WASH, which was more popular, but largely pointless) Warm-hearted but also true-to-life, this might be one of THE sleepers of the 70s - celebrated at the time, it seems that few film freaks know about this one today. Their loss - this is a fine, fine film.The bare-bones pan-and-scan DVD (no widescreen!?!) is testament to just how little cared-for this excellent film is.$LABEL$ 1
+"Thunderbolt" is probably Jackie Chan's worst movie since "The Protector" in 1985. Yes, I know that nobody watches his movies for their stories, but the plotting of this one is unusually lame, even by his standards, and while the fight choreography IS up to his standards, the fight scenes (the whole two of them) are ruined, as others have mentioned, by the frenetic, distracting camerawork. Even the most serious Jackie Chan fans shouldn't really bother with this offensively haphazard, stunt-and-plug-filled garbage. Anita Yuen's cute and perky performance is one of the few redeeming virtues. For a good "serious Jackie" movie, I recommend "Crime Story". (*1/2)$LABEL$ 0
+Okay, there are a ton of reviews here, what can I possibly add?I will try anyway. The reason this is my favorite Scrooge is because of EVERYthing. The sets, outdoor locations, costumes are so beautiful and authentic. The music is sweet. The supporting cast is very well done. One of my favorites is the narrator & nephew, played by Roger Rees. His understated sincerity is touching and his voice is the sound of Christmas to me. David Warner is also a totally believable Bob Cratchit. His is a difficult life, but he remains positive and dignified. The best part of course- is George C. Scott as Ebenezer Scrooge. Some have said his portrayal too gruff. I couldn't disagree more. His exchanges at the beginning while cold or harsh, weren't out of character. He is a terribly disillusioned man who's heart has been hardened by the vicissitudes of life and his own lust for wealth. During the flashbacks, it's obvious that he isn't all gruff. This is where we see that there is hope for him. If he was totally gone, his partner Marley would never have come for his sake in the first place. And after all, we are none of us past hoping. I think that is a HUGE part of what Dickens was trying to say. When Scrooge looks in on his dance at his employer's with Belle, you see him smile regretfully as he tells Belle in the flashback that he will go through life "with a grin on my face." Clive Donner was smart enough as the director to allow these moments on film. Sometimes they get left on the editing room floor.And finally, his conversion is so absolutely full of joy that it makes me cry tears of joy EVERY time I see it. His apology to his nephew Fred, so sincere, so moving, it is the spirit not only of Christmas, but of humanity itself. The joy he brings to Fred, to his wife are so apparent. And the line that gets me every time, "God forgive me for the time I've wasted." Bravi tutti!$LABEL$ 1
+I shot this movie. I am very proud of the film. It was a great experience which shows up on the screen. Halfdan Hussey is an excellent collaborator who had a vision and was able to capture the movie in the exact way we envisioned while prepping the film. The sets are amazing and well crafted for each character. John York and his team built sets that not only fit the characters, they worked well in shooting the film, allowing us to move seamlessly through walls and from one set to another. Each character has an amazing arc, which makes for a great story. I feel like all of the actors gave excellent performances. I disagree with some of the other comments that say the acting was not good. Watch it and decide for yourself.$LABEL$ 1
+Jay Craven's criminally ignored film is a sober breath of fresh air in the generally narcissistic and derivative world of independent film. First off, the photography is pure aesthetic pleasure, capturing all of the gloomy beauty of Northern New England in late autumn (Cinematographer Paul Ryan did 2nd Unit on Malick's Days of Heaven). Second, the performances are uniformly excellent - Rip Torn's Noel Lourdes is irascibly charming and Tantoo Cardinal's Bangor is at once sensitive and exuberant, to say nothing of a fine supporting cast. Overall though, it is a tribute to the narrative strength of the film that the story maintains a strong and lively pace while still unfolding in its own time, and the film comes to a conclusion, natural and genuine, that nevertheless does not seem expected. This is one of the rare cells of dignity in the independent film world, a film that explores a small piece of the intersection between humans and history.$LABEL$ 1
+Being a bit of a connoisseur of garbage, I have stumbled across this little treasure. Action, romance, crooked cops, violence. Its all here and not a single one has been pulled of right. I was in love immediately. Then, a funny thing happened about the second time around. I became addicted. I thought it was going to be a one rent and chuckle kind-of-movie.Rudy Ray Moore knew what he wanted to see in a movie. He didn't have the money to make it look good, but he did it anyway. That's very commendable. It also shows he was making the movie for his self. I don't know how many of you have heard Rudy Ray's music, but if you haven't he has a whole slew of albums reaching into the fifties.$LABEL$ 1
+As usual, Hollywood stereotyped EVERYONE in the movie. But, this one is a classic - from the uptight white collar banker to the Russian woman!! Well done. Even facial expressions were great! Language was perfect (even in Russian language) and Nicole did a splendid job!! Hey guys - you get what you pay for:)$LABEL$ 1
+I recently watched Belle Epoque, thinking it might be wonderful as it did win an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. I was a bit underwhelmed by the predictability and simplicity of the film. Maybe the conflict I had was that from the time the movie was filmed to now, the plot of a man falling for beautiful women and eventually falling for the good girl has been done so many times. Aside from predictability of the plot, some scenes in the film felt really out of place with the storyline (ex. a certain event at the wedding). At times the film was a bit preachy in it's ideas and in relation to the Franco era the film was set in and the Church. The only thing the film had going for it was the cutesy moments, the scenery, and the character of Violeta being a strong, independent woman during times when women were not really associated with those characteristics.$LABEL$ 0
+In life, we first organize stones (Piedras in Spanish) such as a career, family, friendship, and love. In this way, we shall find space between these to fit smaller stones, our small necessities. If you act in an inverse way, you will not have enough room for larger stones. The five protagonists in this film are women who have not been able to organize the large "stones" in their lives. Ramon Salazar, a Spanish motion picture director defines his first feature Stones in this way. The film tells the parallel, conflicting trajectory of five women: Anita (Monica Cervera, 1975-), Isabel (Angela Molina, 1955-), Adela (Antonia San Juan, 1961-), Leire (Najwa Nimri, 1972-), and Maricarmen (Vicky Pena, 1954-).All are endeavoring to remove the stones that insistently appear in their path or, worst, that are in their shoes. They are five Cinderellas in search of Prince Charming and a new chance in life. The best story of these five Cinderellas is that of Anita (Monica Cervera) who also stars in "20 Centimeters," "Busco," "Crimen Ferpecto," "Entre Vivir y Sonar," "Hongos," and "Octavia." Sarge Booker of Tujunga, California$LABEL$ 1
+I put down this vehicle from Robert De Niro and Eddie Murphy, and Murphy in particular the first time but having seen it again, recently, I can see that it does have some very funny bits.This is by no means to say that this is the greatest buddy comedy of all time, but really what can you do to the already exhausted subgenre? What director, Tom Dey, has tried to do is make it a satire of the clichés of buddy comedy and the media. Early in the movie the executive of a cable network asks: "How is this different from Cops?", when Chase Renzi is pitching the idea of a reality show dealing with De Niro's character, Mitch Preston (hilariously boring name by the way). That's when I saw it in a new light that I hadn't previously noticed.The idea is to show all the elements of the buddy comedy and put a twist on them. De Niro's reluctance to star in the show and to partner up with Murphy is right out of every cop film you can think of. You can say that De Niro is actually playing himself asking: "Why would I do another movie playing a cop?" Chase Renzi is portrayed to be a Hollywood phony but if you look at her opening scene again, she is merely doing it to save her job. She somehow sees the ridiculousness of what she is doing but she wants to succeed despite that. One line says it all: "Who doesn't want to be on TV?" Maybe this is reading too much into what is essentially a lightweight film, merely set to entertain, but it does give it a little spin that I hadn't noticed before.As for Murphy. You got to applaud him for looking this ridiculous. Trey wants to be a star so bad that he is willing to sell out everything he comes in contact with. Murphy was a big star and maybe it struck a nerve that it is all so fleeting.The plot with the gun is of course pretty boring. The action sequences are nothing special, except the end which required a lot of effort both from cast and crew. One thing that I noticed about the villain is that he is dressed like an 80's pop star. George Michael comes to mind and that adds to the whole media spin.So, I trashed it the first time around but what the heck; if you are gonna do this, why not point out how ridiculous it really is and De Niro and Murphy took a big chance doing this.$LABEL$ 0
+There are few films or movies I consider favorites over the years. The Gospel road was one of them. I watched this as a young teen and would like the opportunity to watch it again. My favorite parts were the fact that 1/Jesus was blond, 2/the last supper was a huge meal,3/ he liked playing with the children,4/His death was for all people and for all time.The movie may not have been theologically sound or high quality acting, but it touched my heart at that time. Besides I am a Johnny Cash fan and it was a brave venture. If it ever comes out on DVD, I will purchase it purely for sentimental reasons.$LABEL$ 1
+1936 was the most prolific year for Astaire and Rogers. Their second film for RKO that year is the third film in this collection – Mark Sandrich's 'Follow The Fleet.' This time out Astaire is painfully uncomfortable as Bake Baker, a seaman on leave who just happens to stumble into the seedy waterfront café where Sherry Martin (Rogers) is warbling romantic sweet nothings in everyone's ear. Yep, you guessed it – they're hot for each other once again. Only this time Sherry's spinster sister, Connie (Harriet Hillard) threatens the whole fine romance by falling for Bake's robust seafaring buddy, Bilge Smith (Randolph Scott); a sort of use 'em up and toss 'em out kind of guy, thus forcing Sherry to reconsider her opinion of all sailors in general. Irving Berlin lends immeasurable class to the proceedings with his classic, classy score, including standards 'Let Yourself Go', 'I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket' and 'Let's Face the Music and Dance;' the latter a divinely inspired skit about suicide that turns into another immediately recognizable and thoroughly sublime pas deux for Fred and Ginger. The transfer on 'Follow The Fleet' is a tad weaker. The gray scale remains nicely balanced but now it's a tad thick looking with not nearly as much tonal variation as the previous titles. Grain is still present. So are age related artifacts. Once you've settled into to the slightly dense and sometimes more softly focused image quality, the overall impression is more than acceptable for a film of this vintage. The audio is Mono but very nicely balanced. Extras include a featurette, theatrical trailer and short subject, but oddly – no audio commentary. Considering the importance of this film in the overall canon of Astaire/Rogers this is an uncharacteristic oversight from Warner Home Video.$LABEL$ 1
+"Soylent Green" is one of the best and most disturbing science fiction movies of the 70's and still very persuasive even by today's standards. Although flawed and a little dated, the apocalyptic touch and the environmental premise (typical for that time) still feel very unsettling and thought-provoking. This film's quality-level surpasses the majority of contemporary SF flicks because of its strong cast and some intense sequences that I personally consider classic. The New York of 2022 is a depressing place to be alive, with over-population, unemployment, an unhealthy climate and the total scarcity of every vital food product. The only form of food available is synthetic and distributed by the Soylent company. Charlton Heston (in a great shape) plays a cop investigating the murder of one of Soylent's most eminent executives and he stumbles upon scandals and dark secrets... The script is a little over-sentimental at times and the climax doesn't really come as a big surprise, still the atmosphere is very tense and uncanny. The riot-sequence is truly grueling and easily one of the most macabre moments in 70's cinema. Edward G. Robinson is ultimately impressive in his last role and there's a great (but too modest) supportive role for Joseph Cotton ("Baron Blood", "The Abominable Dr. Phibes"). THIS is Science-Fiction in my book: a nightmarish and inevitable fade for humanity! No fancy space-ships with hairy monsters attacking our planet.$LABEL$ 1
+... but the trouble of this production is that it's very far from a good musical.Granted, one can't always expect the witty masters like Sondheim or Bernstein or Porter; yet the music of this piece makes even Andrew Lloyd Webber look witty. It's deadly dull and uninventive (with one or two exceptions) and just after I watched it I couldn't recall a single significant melody - which is rather tragic coming from someone who learned the whole Another Hundred People from three listenings.It is also strangely un-theatrical. It takes place on an incredibly large stage (one really has to feel sorry for those people in front rows who broke their necks in order to see something happening 50 meters on the right or 100 meters on the left) and does absolutely nothing with it. When there's supposed to be one person singing on-stage, that's just what you get - and the rest of the enormeous stage is empty. For me as an aspiring theatre director it was almost painful to watch.The fact remains, Cole Porter seems to have captured the French culture in his works better than these no-talents can ever come close to. And I'm puzzled by the popularity of this would-be-legendary musical.$LABEL$ 0
+And this is a great rock'n'roll movie in itself. No matter how it evolved (at point being a movie about disco), it ended up as one of the ultimate movies in which kids want to rock out, but the principal stands in their way. Think back to those rock'n'roll movies of the 50's in which the day is saved when Alan Freed comes to town with Chuck Berry to prove that Rock & Roll Music is really cool and safe for the kids, and Tuesday Weld gets a new sweater for the dance. Forward to the 1979, repeat the same plot, but throw in DA RAMONES, whom no one then realized would become one of the most influential bands of the next quarter century (and then for the obligatory DJ guest shot, "The Real" Don Steele). Throw in, too, all the elements of a Roger Corman-produced comedy-exploitation film, except for the two-day shooting schedule, some of the familiar Corman repertory players like Clint Howard, Mary Wournow and Dick Miller (there since "Bucket of Blood"), and you've got one of the great stoopid movies of the day. One of the few films that uses deliberate cheesiness and gets away with it. I showed the new DVD to a friend who could only remember seeing parts of it through a stoner- induced haze at the drive-in, and he agreed that this is one of the great movies to be watching drunk, not the least for the lovely leading ladies and the great Ramones footage.$LABEL$ 1
+After visiting the Kimbell museum in Forth-Worth, Texas, USA, enjoying the art and the architecture (also of the adjacent Modern Art Museum), and having a delightful conversation with the knowledgeable bookstore lady, I purchased this a propos DVD with rather high expectations… and was not disappointed in the least.The thematic approach, dramatic tension, revealing interviews, archival footage and stunning architecture are also mixed in a coherent whole to explore the life of the late iconic Louis I. Khan.The documentary begins: contemplative classical music plays, archives are scanned with a reflective shadowy face superimposed, blurring letters symbolically referencing a train window passing a backdrop landscape — a journey —, focus and out of focus, the search eventually culminates to an article in a newspaper. Nathanial Khan reads from the front page of the New York Times where his father is simultaneously praised as the best American architect alive and his death announced. "When I first read that obituary, I have to admit, I was looking for my own name. I was his child too, his only son. I didn't know my father very well. He never married my mother and he never lived with us (…) He died when I was eleven."So years later, this illegitimate son is still haunted by unclear fragmented thoughts and feelings about his father who seems to be a great professional and public figure, but who's secretive personal life escapes him and affects him to the point where he intends to do something about it."For years, I struggled to be satisfied with the little pieces of my father's life I've been allowed to see, but it wasn't enough. I needed to know him. I needed to find out who he really was. So I set out on a journey, to see his buildings and to find whatever there was left of him out there. It would take me to the other side of the world, looking for the man who left me with so many questions."So the documentary is two-fold, by a slow systematic discovery of the world-renown architect, we get to know: 1) his ideas, buildings and the architectural perspective and 2) his families, coworkers, people's life he affected and the human perspectiveThe DVD also offers added insight with a Q&A with the writer/director and additional footage that includes such great Louis I. Khan quotes as "Everything that everybody says is the truth. It's their truth. It might not be factual." and "A good idea that doesn't happen is no idea at all."This movie is a journey of discovery. Self-discovery and discovery of a man, a great man, yet a human, imperfect like all of us. We get to know him through the eyes of an admiring and slightly bitter son, but with the openness and objectivity to really explore without making easy conclusions and without judging.By key interviews with people who interacted with him in various capacity. We slowly put some pieces together until that final interview with this man from Bangladesh who really seems to bring it back home with visceral and sensible comments.Brilliant architect, brilliant documentary.$LABEL$ 1
+I hope the people who made this movies read these comments. The choreography was horrid, the plot was nill, and the actors where so low budget power rangers appears 5 star to this junk.The fight scenes where so slow you could actually see the actors waiting for each other to perform the next move. Camera cut-aways and poor lighting could not cover up the cheap effects. The lightning was just plain stupid. The weapons looked like something out of a final fantasy game, and the dual bow and arrow was just dull as anything I have ever seen.Next movie you decide to make try investing in some wireless mics, better script and try actually spending some time on your stunts.Honestly there are shows on t.v. that play ever night and are thrown together in a few hours that look better than this one.Stick to martial arts (unless its as poor as your acting) then take up quilting.$LABEL$ 0
+Bela Lugosi gets to play one of his rare good guy roles in a serial based upon the long running radio hit (which was also the source of a feature film where Lugosi played the villain.) Lugosi cuts a fine dashing figure and its sad that he didn't get more roles where he could be the guy in command in a good way. Here Chandu returns from the East in order to help the Princess Nadji who is being hunted by the leaders of the cult of Ubasti who need her to bring back from the dead the high priestess of their cult. This is a good looking globe trotting serial that is a great deal of fun. To be certain the pacing is a bit slack, more akin to one of Principals (the producing studios) features then a rip roaring adventure, but it's still enjoyable. This plays better than the two feature films that were cut from it because it allows for things to happen at their own pace instead of feeling rushed or having a sense that "hey I missed something". One of the trilogy of three good serials Lugosi made, the others being SOS Coast Guard and Phantom Creeps$LABEL$ 1
+A low budget may be an excuse for poor acting talent and pathetic looking fake gore. However, it is not an excuse for poor writing. It is a talent to be able to write dialog without making it sound forced and mechanical. The dialog in this movie was on par with most instructional videos shown to fast food staff in training.I also understand that one must make a few exceptions when it comes to acting talent when you only have 20 bucks to spend on it. With that being said, no serious director would have looked at these scenes and said to himself, "that was perfect". I see better character acting on Canadian television.This movie had a paper thin plot, bad acting, poor dialog and holds no intelligent ideas at all. This simply proves to me that some independent films are that way for a reason. If your looking for a quick scare, rent anything else. Even the "Cable Guy" was a scarier film. After watching this film, I think i would have been better off watching a re-run on the X-files.$LABEL$ 0
+A very sweet movie about a young Chinese man enamored of western technology and an Englishman trying to make his fortune showing movies in China. It's a very interesting story that is presumably based on true events, although I'm assuming it's more fantasy than real. It's got a fairy tale quality you rarely get in real life, and it's also got 8 people credited for the script, so they must have been making up stuff right and left.This is a very likable movie that conveys how magical film was to people who had never seen it before. It is not an especially deep movie, touching briefly on the loss of tradition and the encroachment of western culture but mainly just being a pleasant little movie. It's actually a movie I enjoyed very much that is already beginning to disappear from my mind 15 minutes after seeing it. Light as a soufflé, but I enjoyed every minute.$LABEL$ 1
+There aren't many good things to say at all about Underneath, Soderbergh's untrue endeavor into neo-noir. Soderbergh remakes Robert Siodmak's decent noir Criss-Cross faithfully, not altering the plot very much at all, however the adaptation drains it of every ounce of its state-of-the-art film noir atmosphere, giving it the same story set in the very least appealing places, lifestyles and anachronisms. Soderbergh, who would later make wonderful crime films like Out of Sight and the Ocean's series with great style and atmosphere, takes the dangerously obvious route to modernization by renovating the story with the ugliest, dullest and flattest fashions of the early 1990s. Nightclubs have terrible, revoltingly dressed garage bands, Peter Gallagher's uninteresting version of Burt Lancaster's anti-hero is left by his femme fatale girlfriend for compulsively buying cinematically lifeless modern appliances like stereos, TVs, and other up to date pieces of equipment that suck the reaction out of the film.It could've been more entertaining and less boring had it a few saving graces like a good score, more flesh to its characters, more than just William Fichtner giving performances that aren't wooden, a crisper pace. Unfortunately, Underneath has none of these things. Soderbergh, a fine director, does not utilize his dry detachment to the benefit of his film this time. That disposition works wonderfully when he's helming a crime movie with more tongue in its cheek like the George Clooney pictures previously mentioned, or a social or character drama like Traffic or sex, lies and videotape. With a movie like Underneath, it intensifies the boredom experienced by the viewer.$LABEL$ 0
+"Tokyo Eyes" tells of a 17 year old Japanese girl who falls in like with a man being hunted by her big bro who is a cop. This lame flick is about 50% filler and 50% talk, talk, and more talk. You'll get to see the less than stellar cast of three as they talk on the bus, talk and play video games, talk and get a haircut, talk and walk and walk and talk, talk on cell phones, hang out and talk, etc. as you read subtitles waiting for something to happen. The thin wisp of a story is not sufficient to support a film with low end production value, a meager cast, and no action, no romance, no sex or nudity, no heavy drama...just incessant yadayadayada'ing. (C-)$LABEL$ 0
+It felt like I watched this movie thousand times before.It was absolutely predictable.Every time the story tried to get a bit twisted,every time I awaited something interesting to happen, I saw nothing but what I expected. Like "The bread factory opened up another facility,because there was not enough bread". In two words:Flat story,that has become a cliché,bad acting,bad special effects...Only the dumb Russian cop,Vlad, was a bit funny while punishing around the bad guys.The pile of muscles was so incredibly STUPID,that it made me laugh at him for a moment. I wonder why i waste my time spitting on that shame-of-a-movie... It won't get worse (because it is not possible) :D$LABEL$ 0
+I'm not sure what Diane Silver was thinking when she was making this movie, but it obviously had nothing to do with Richard Wright's novel, which the movie is based on.We read the novel this past summer for AP English 12, and just watched the film. During periodic note-taking and checking of the clock, I contemplated the chances of being struck by lightning. Of course, the sky was completely clear, and I was forced to watch the rest of the movie... and then write a 5-paragraph essay on it.Wright's novel discussed very real themes, of the mind of a killer and the psychology behind it. Silver's movie turned a murderer into a victim, which is NOT what Wright wanted (see: "How Bigger was Born" 454).I'm going to make this short and sweet: if you want to leave your consciousness, in Raphael Lambert's words, unsullied, skip the movie and read the book. The 1986 adaptation is not thought-provoking material.... ::sigh:: Now I have to write the essay.$LABEL$ 0
+This started out to be a movie about the street culture of the Bronx in New York. What it accomplished was to give birth to a new culture and way of life, for American youth. What other movie has done this except Rebel Without A Cause? One of the most important movies of all time. The elements are simple yet fascinating. The story is timeless, young people try to succeed against all odds. Yet the story is always believable and never depressing. The characters are so realistic, a city dweller, would recognize them as neighbors. The story is entertaining, and comes to a satisfying ending. Buy this one for your permanent collection. It is a piece of American history.$LABEL$ 1
+I just watched this film 15 minutes ago, and I still have no idea what I just watched. Mainly I think it's a film about an internet S&M "star" of CD Roms that are about as realistic as flash cartoons online. She's murdered by someone, which causes her sister and a crack team of 2 FBI agents to investigate the death. The local homicide division of Big City, USA is also investigating, though most of his work comes by the way of oogling the CD ROMs which he claims are as realistic "as the real thing". I know. Wow.Michael Madsen is the only one in the film that has any kind of credits behind him. He's in the film for about 15 minutes, and half of that is him banging the main girl for seemingly no apparent reason. I won't even explain the ending, because quite frankly I can't make it out myself. But before the final scene, we're treated to a 3 or 4 minute montage of everything in the film. Honestly, they could have ran that then the final scene and it would have been the same effect with the cross eyed direction and all.All in all, stay away from this film. I got it because I love bad movies and I love Michael Madsen. I really could have used that 80 some minutes on something else and have been more satisfied. Like, playing that game with a knife where you jab at your hand repeatedly. That for 80 minutes would be much more entertaining.$LABEL$ 0
+Clearly an hilarious movie.It angers me to see the poor ratings given to this piece of comic geniusPlease look at this for what it is, a funny, ridiculous enjoyable film. Laugh for christ sake!$LABEL$ 1
+This 1953 Sam Fuller movie contains some of his best work, and its sad that he couldn't continue to get the backing of major Hollywood studios to do his stuff. The story line goes something like this. A tough hard broad (read prostitute) is riding the subway one hot summer day, and gets her pocketbook picked by Skip McCoy. What Skip (and the dame) don't realize is that she is also carrying some microfilm to be passed to commie spies. This opening shot without dialogue, and mostly in tight close-ups is a beaut,one of the many that Fuller uses throughout the movie. Playing the babe known as Candy is Jean Peters, who was never better nor better looking. One forgets how beautiful she was, and she handles this role very well. The Pickpocket is played by Richard Widmark, who had already made his mark, and set his style with 1947's Kiss Of Death as the crazy creep with the creepy laugh, and although he's a little "softer" here, he's still scary. These hard edged characters do have soft spots here and there, but its noir and nasty all the way. The standout performance belongs to the wonderful Thelma Ritter,who plays Moe the stoolie saving up her dough to pay for her own funeral. Ritter received a well deserved Oscar nomination for her performance, but lost out to the boring but popular performance of Donna Reed as the B girl (read prostitute) in "From Here To Eternity." Hollywood loves it when a good girl goes bad, and loves to Oscar them even though their performance is usually awful. See for instance Shirley Jones in "Elmer Gantry. Set among the docks and dives of New York City, with crisp black and white photography by the great Joe MacDonald,and some very good art direction. Especially good is the set representing the New York City subways and Widmark's shack near the river. Made at the height of the cold war and red scare, the villian of the piece is the ordinary looking commie, played by Richard Kiley who is much more dangerous than the pickpocket who is a criminal but is just trying to make a living and above all is a loyal American.$LABEL$ 1
+I loved this movie, I saw it when I was about 8 years old and almost seven years later, this evening I got to see it again. I really thought it had an interesting idea, they only thing that upset me was the ending which I felt was a cop out. 'Round here it's hard to find this movie and I was lucky enough to have seen it on BRAVO. I also expected to see more Drew Barrymore in here too!$LABEL$ 1
+Originally filmed in 1999 as a TV pilot, "Mulholland Dr." was rejected. The next year, David Lynch received money to film new scenes to make the movie suitable to be shown in theaters. He did so - and created one of the greatest, most bizarre and nightmarish films ever made.The film really doesn't have main characters, but if there were main characters, they would be Betty (Naomi Watts) and Rita (Laura Elena Harring). Betty is a perky blonde who's staying in her aunt's apartment while she auditions for parts in movies. She finds Rita in her aunt's apartment and decides to help her. You see, Rita's lost her memory. She has no clue who she is. She takes her name, Rita, from a "Gilda" poster in the bathroom. So the two set out to discover who Rita really is.David Lynch has been known for making some weird movies, but this film is the definition of weird. It's bizarre, nightmarish, and absolute indescribable. It's like a dream captured on film. By the 100-minute point, the film has become extremely confusing - but if you've been watching closely, it will make perfect sense. Having watched the movie and then read an article on the Internet pointing out things in the film, I now understand the movie completely.The acting is very good. Watts is terrific. Justin Theroux is very good as a Hollywood director facing problems with the local mob. The music is excellent. Angelo Badalamenti delivers one of his finest scores. And the directing - hah! David Lynch is as masterful a filmmaker as ever there was.Is this your type of film? Well, that depends. You should probably view more of Lynch's work before watching this movie. You'll need to be patient with the film, and probably watch it a second time to pick up the many clues Lynch has left throughout the movie. For Lynch fans, this is a dream come true."Mulholland Dr." is a masterpiece. It's brilliant, enigmatic, and masterfully filmed. I love it.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie starts at A and never quite reaches B. Its title promises far more than the film delivers. It's superficial and filled with the usual cliches of a story in which a guy questions his sexuality. The people are agreeable, even the obligatory flamboyant type. The lead (Kevin McKidd) overacts insofar as there's a reason for him to act at all. Simon Callow, playing a horny straight, is always worth watching, and he's by far the only reason to stay with the movie. However, the rubbish about his men's group "meditations" or whatever they are grows extremely tiresome in short order. They seem to have been thrown into the movie's mild mix in a misguided effort to vary the setting and non-stop inaction. The same comment applies to a really odd and unconvincing camping trip. Don't worry about pausing the tape so you can get a snack. Let the thing run; you won't miss anything. Hugo Weaving's character is superfluous. He appears in a sequence with one of the lesser leads and doesn't even meet the rest at all. The outcome of that sequence isn't explained, and Hugo's real estate dealings have nothing to do with the story. The movie is a total disappointment at the end, because there is no resolution. The thing simply fades out and we're sent to the closing credits. This is an interlude with no structure.$LABEL$ 0
+Looking for a REAL super bad movie? If you wanna have great fun, don't hesitate and check this one!Ferrigno is incredibly bad but is also the best of this mediocrity.$LABEL$ 0
+Maybe not the most original way of telling a story, we've seen all this before in many movies.. but.. I liked it October Sky alot anyways. It got something, Great directing and good acting by all parts, especially Laura Dern(the teacher) and Chris Cooper(the father). I wanna be a rocket-engineer!:)$LABEL$ 1
+Although I have enjoyed Bing Crosby in other movies, I find this movie to be particularly grating. Maybe because I'm from a different era and a different country, but I found Crosby's continual references to the Good Old USA pleasant at first, trite after a while and then finally annoying. Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-American whatsoever - but it seemed that the English could do no right and/or needed this brave, oh so smart American visitor to show them the way. It's a "fish out of water" story, but unlike most movies of this sort, this time it's the "fish" who has the upper hand. To be fair to both myself and the movie, I have watched it a few times spaced over a few years and get the same impression each time.(I watched another Crosby movie last night - The Emperor's Waltz - and that, too, produced the same reaction in me. And to my surprise even my wife - who for what's it's worth is American - found the "in your face" attitude of American Crosby to be irritating. One too many references to Teddy Roosevelt, as she put it.) As for the premise of the movie, it's unique enough for its day and the supporting cast is of course very good. The scenery and the music is also good, as are the great costumes - although I agree with a previous reviewer that the wig on William Bendix looks horrid (picture Moe of The Three Stooges).All in all for me this would be a much more enjoyable picture without the attitude of Bing Crosby but because he is in virtually every shot it's pretty hard to sit through this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Necessarily ridiculous film version the literary classic "Moby Dick". John Barrymore is Captain Ahab, who falls in love with the pastor's daughter, Joan Bennett. His brother Derek is a rival for Ms. Bennett's affections. When Mr. Barrymore loses his leg in a whaling accident, Bennett rejects him. He must slay the whale and win Bennett back...There are several scenes which may have thrilled 1930 theater audiences; particularly the scenes involving Barrymore losing his leg. The film hasn't aged well, however; there are much better films from the time, both 1920s silents and 1930s talkies. The two name attractions, John Barrymore and Joan Bennett aren't at their best. **** Moby Dick (8/14/30) Lloyd Bacon ~ John Barrymore, Joan Bennett, Lloyd Hughes$LABEL$ 0
+The goofy Griswalds win the T.V. game show "pig in a poke" grand prize, and all fly off together to Europe where they manage to cause one stupid disaster after another. Of all the ridiculous, unfunny money-spinning sequels this one beats the lot. Harold Ramis' 1983 film was a below average misadventure in which the misfit family went on a nightmarish "Vacation" across the States. This time Amy Heckerling ("Look Who's Talking") helms what turns out to be a disastrous "comedy" which will annoy you more than it will make you laugh.Hughes script (with Rob Klane) is awful and you wonder why the likes of Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo bothered with such a dead-beat project, as even Anthony Michael Hall and Imogene Coca had the sense to decline the offer. Even an omnipotent Michael Palin is unable to lift proceedings to any level that one could call entertaining.Yet, as inconceivable as it may seem, "European Vacation" was successful enough to warrant a second sequel! Surely it couldn't be as unbearable as this one. You know, I have yet to see a National Lampoon show that was worth the bother.Monday, December 26, 1994 - T.V.$LABEL$ 0
+I picked this up because, having spent time in the Albany region of New York, I knew a couple of people in the movie and I happened upon it by chance. The attempts at comedy are lame, the compulsory girl-on-girl scene is sickening, the plot is nonexistent, the acting is among the worst I've ever seen, and don't even get me started on special effects. I realize this is a very low budget film made by a small independent company, but if you're going to do a sci-fi horror flick with giant bugs, don't make the giant bugs completely unbelievable. People want to see giant bugs. That's half the fun right there. And if you're going to make the giant bugs completely unbelievable, at least get the actors to make some sort of tongue-in-cheek allusion to that fact ("You idiots! These aren't them! You've captured their stunt doubles!"). Be prepared to waste two hours of your life that you'll never be able to get back.$LABEL$ 0
+Some films manage to survive almost on originality alone - "Wonderland" is certainly one of those films. The script manages to throw everything into a near-fever pitch, but without making it incoherent. The speed of this thriller is not to chosen to cover up a weak script, but rather to accurately reflect the drug-addled reality.As director, James Cox as a very peculiar way of working his actors. Most of the characters are perpetually on edge, and often because they're rather quite ugly personalities. Val Kilmer has described John Holmes to be a hustler, able to manipulate and control. No offense to Kilmer, but his version of Holmes seems only able to control the drastically weak-minded. Nonetheless, it's a stunning performance. Comparing this to Kilmer's more 'Hollywood' roles like in "The Saint" it seems to prove he is far more at home in gritty indie flicks.The actors are the main force holding all together. There are various little performances that stand out - especially the women. Carrie Fisher, Kate Bosworth, and Lisa Kudrow all have limited screen time next to their male counterparts, but they are all fantastic. Aside from Kilmer, Ted Levine and Dylan McDermott give a weird, stunning energy to their roles.I originally put off watching "Wonderland" because I assumed it was a film about a porn actor, in the strictest sense. Yes, the story revolves around John Holmes, but it has literally nothing to do with his professional career. Basically, this film is a murder mystery, and as such - it's excellent.RATING: 7.5 out of 10$LABEL$ 1
+Gunga Din (1939) is based on Rudyard Kipling's poem.The movie is directed by George Stevens.It's set in India during the 19th century where three British soldiers have to stop an evil guru and his murderous cult.Gunga Din is a marvelous adventure war comedy with plenty of thrilling moments.The three leading men are brilliant.Cary Grant is Sgt.Archibald Cutter, Victor McLaglen is Sgt.'Mac' MacChesney and Douglas Fairbanks Jr.(the son of the legendary you know who) is Sgt.Thomas Ballantine.Let's not forget the other fine players who include Sam Jaffe playing Gunga Din himself in a brilliant way.The beautiful and gifted Joan Fontaine is Emaline Stebbins.It's awfully fun to watch the difficulties of Tommy's and Emmy's wedding plans.Gunga Din is awfully lot of fun.It can be funny, it can be thrilling.It can be everything a good movie requires.$LABEL$ 1
+Whatever you do, don't stop watching when you think the movie is over! Hang around for the first batch of credits or you'll really miss something! We saw this movie at the Savanaah film festival and thought it was the best of the bunch. Dreya Weber is a marvel really, not only because of her performance, but because she can pull it off so far above the ground. At the Q&A she said there were no wires or effects, so everything you see is really her going for it. Addie couldn't make it to the festival because she was dancing with Madonna. She was excellent and, my gawd, so beautiful. I was amazed that the film went over so well with the blue haired lady crowd, but there you have it, Savannnah isn't a backwater.$LABEL$ 1
+After reading the other tepid reviews and comments, I felt I had to come to bat for this movie.Roeg's films tend to have little to do with one another, and expecting this one to be like one of his you liked is probably off the mark.What this film is is a thoughtful and unabashed look at religious faith. The only other film like it-in terms of its religious message-would have to be Tolkin's `The Rapture.'I am astonished that anyone could say the story is muddled or supernatural. It is a simple movie about Catholic faith, miracles, and redemption--though you would never guess it till the end. It is also the only movie I can think of whose resolution turns, literally, on a pun.As a (happily) fallen Catholic myself, I know what the movie is about, and I find a sort of fondness in its ultimate innocence about the relation between God and man. But if you are not familiar with the kind of theology on which the film is based, then it will go right over you head.As a film-as opposed to a story-`Cold Heaven' it is not ground-breaking. While `The Rapture' is heavy with pictorial significance and cinematic imagery, `Cold Heaven' downplays its own cinematic qualities. There are no striking shots, no edgy effects, no attempts to fit the content to the form. It is workmanlike shooting, but subdued. Nor does it have dialogue or acting to put it in a class of high drama. It is a simple story that unfolds simply. It may seem odd; but at the end the mystery is revealed. It looks ambiguous; but with a single line the ambiguity vanishes in a puff of Catholic dogma.In this regard, `Cold Heaven' has at its heart exactly the same sort of thing that drives a movie like `The Sting,' or `The Sixth Sense,' or `Final Descent,' or Polanski's `A Pure Formality.' All of these are films with a trick up their sleeves. They may frustrate you along the way, but they have a point-an obvious one, indeed--but the fun is, at least in part, in having been taken in.Still, even if it seems like little more than a shaggy dog story with a punch line, it is worth watching for way it directs-and misdirects-you. Try it-especially if you are, or have ever been, a Catholic.$LABEL$ 1
+Annie Rooney lives with her officer father and brother Tim in the slums of New York, where she is constantly getting involved in many fights with the other neighborhood kids. Annie secretly has a crush on Joe Kelly (whose little brother Mickey is head of the gang that Annie constantly battles), who is in a gang that is headed for trouble, says Officer Rooney. Kelly sponsors a dance, where Tony plans to shoot Kelly in order to get even with him for making him look like a fool in front of his girl, but Officer Kelly gets fatally wounded instead. Tim (part of Kelly's gang) is told by Tony, and friend Spider, that Kelly shot his father, so he goes after him in vengeance. Annie learns of this and goes to stop her brother, if she is in time. Very good mix of humor and heart in this film, even though the plot doesn't start until the 40 minute mark of the film. Pickford is enjoyable (even though she was 33 playing a girl no more than 12-13) and really gets into her character. Haines doesn't play Kelly as tough as he should, but is able make the audience feel for him on an emotional level. The scenes where the officer tells Annie of her father's death and the ending really put a lump in your throat. The mix of all sorts of kids throughout the film are fun to watch. Rating, 8.$LABEL$ 1
+Another fantastic offering from the Monkey Island team and though it was a long time coming and had to survive the departure of Ron Gilbert it's another worthy installment. My only gripe is that it was a little short seeming in comparison to the previous two, though that might be because of a glorious lack of disk-swapping. Roll on MI4.$LABEL$ 1
+With title like this you know you get pretty much lot of junk. Acting bad. Script bad. Director bad. Grammar bad.Movie make lot of noise that really not music and lot of people yell. Movie make bad racial stereotype. Why come every movie with black hero have drug addict? Why come hero always have to dance to be success? Why come famous rapper always have to be in dance movie? Why come letter "s" can't be in title?Hollywood need to stop dumb down audience and make movie that have people with brain who know how speak proper English.Do self favor and not go see.$LABEL$ 0
+Yes, 2:37 is in some ways a rip off from Gus van Sants Elephant. It's about some students who are dealing with their problems leading to the suicide of one of them. Yes, it's full of clichés, but that's life. You just can't deny that creepy nerds, disabled persons or popular students who, despite their popularity, do have problems are existing in the real world.But that's not, what this film is all about. It's not about life in Highschool. It's not about the misery of life itself.If you look beneath the surface, beneath the soap-like social relationships that are shown, you will find some gripping, thought-provoking criticism of our society.Why are people committing suicide? Do we really understand their motives? Or are we just trying to understand, after its already too late? And why is it always someone, you would never have expected it to be?This movie doesn't answer this question, but it raises it. And it does so in a very intense way. All the way it keeps you guessing, whose blood it might be, that you see at the very beginning. You are following the paths of some students, all of them having a more or less good reason to end their lives, just to be forced to watch the gruesome act in the finale.Did you know who it would be? Or were you caught by surprise, like in real life?The message is verbalized by one of the surviving kids in the end. We are always so fixed on our own problems, we forget to see those of others. There might be someone, a colleague, a friend, who does not want to live anymore. But, if you don't open your eyes, you'll never know until its too late.This movie delivers well. It might have some flaws, but they don't matter anymore, when its over. Either you see a reflection of society, or you are blind for reality.$LABEL$ 1
+Motivations of the characters was completely unbelievable. Many times throughout the movie you find yourself thinking that the characters' actions were totally illogical, making it impossible to identify with the characters. Possibly, the writing / direction were completely out of sync making the movie painful to sit through. I wanted my money back from the video store...$LABEL$ 0
+I'm a huge Steven Seagal fan. Hell, I probably weigh as much as he does although I don't have the street cred to sport the frizzy-mullet-ponytail. Having stated my own bias and affection for America's favorite corpulent stage and screen hero, it is with a heavy heart that I must declare this to be his worst movie ever. I'm not sure he could make a movie any worse than this.In his defense the major problems with this film seem to occur in post-production. It's painfully obvious that this movie was supposed to have a different storyline. That results in woeful voiceovers in which Steve's voice doesn't nearly sync up with that of the dubbed voice. The editing is pisspoor and overall this starts bad, gets even worse, and by the end you'll wish you had rewatched The Da Vinci Code instead. Yes, it's that bad.After this I don't know what to expect from Steve. My friends still laugh at me for listening to his CDs. Is it time I start checking out some of the Van Damme direct to DVD nutty logs? If you are tempted to watch this movie, rip your eyeballs out and flush them down the toilet. A lifetime of darkness is better than 89 minutes of this.$LABEL$ 0
+Much praise has been lavished upon Farscape, but I don't think it's that good. It certainly has a distinctive look, but it lacks just about everything else: story, purpose, direction, excitement; you name it. I'm a big sci-fi fan, and I make it a point to watch all the sci-fi shows I can. I've almost finished the four seasons of Farscape, and at this point I'm not very satisfied. The show does have a few good things - most notably Claudia Black (who's sadly missing from the first few episodes of season four) -, but they are very few and very far between. As a whole the show is marred by a lot of very silly stuff (such as Fantasy elements rather than SF ditto), and many many episodes, esp. in season four, are unspeakably messy and very poorly structured. And one just feels that it isn't going anywhere. It's mostly just non-directional adventures with thin, long-running plot lines which develop painstakingly slowly. Well, sometimes it's a little bit tighter, but it only lasts for a very few episodes at a time.Effects-wise, there are a few impressive things here and there (esp. out in space, occasionally), but the show seems stuck in the same style of effects, which frankly gets old fast. Outlandish and unconvincing puppet aliens mar the show a great deal, and I've come to prefer (by far) the episodes where regular human-looking characters are the focus.I think the Peacekeepers are by far the most stylish and intriguing and interesting figures on the show; they succeed in being a convincingly alien culture, despite their all-human appearance. There are a few really cool episodes with them, esp. in the first season (IIRC), where Crichton masquerades as a Peacekeeper captain, and invades and eventually destroys one of their secret bases. Such episodes can reach a rating of 8 out of 10, but I cannot award the show as a whole more than a "4" rating.Aside from the Peacekeepers (which themselves are somewhat too single-mindedly totalitarian and militaristic to be really nuanced), the show simply doesn't offer anything important or significant that you need to know or want to see. OTOH, it does contain a few good ideas and is not a total loss.This is just my opinion, of course, but as a seasoned sci-fi fan, I think it counts for something, and may be of help to others. There aren't a lot of good sci-fi shows out there; but Star Trek (any series) and especially the new Battlestar Galactica are definitely better than Farscape. But if you're a huge fan of mediocre sci-fi shows, you may well like Farscape, too.My rating: 4 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+I once had a conversation with my parents who told me British cinema goers in the 1940s and 50s would check to see a film's country of origin before going to see it . It didn't matter what the plot was or who was in it , if it was an American movie people would want to see it and if it was British people wouldn't want to see it . This might sound like a ridiculous generalisation but after seeing THE ASTONISHED HEART I can understand why people in those days preferred American cinema to the home grown variety Back in the 1940s British equity was devoid of working class members and it shows in this movie . Everyone speaks in an English lad dee daa upper class accent that makes the British Royal Family sound like working class scum and what this does is alienate a large amount of a potential British audience who would no doubt prefer to be watching Jimmy Cagney in WHITE HEAT because people would have , If not related to then certainly empathised with a violent gangster in cinematic terms more than some high class English shrink in 1949 . That's entertainment , the reason people go to cinemas . Even the characters names seem bizarre - Leonora ! How many British people were named Leonora in 1949 ? And the protagonists drink cocktails . And they use words like " Austere " . You do get the feeling that this wasn't marketed for a 1949 mainstream British audience . But why should it if the majority of British cinema goers were queuing up at cinemas to watch far more entertaining American imports ? Watching THE ATSONISHED HEART in 2005 I was astonished how dated everything was , in fact it's so dated I thought maybe it might be a spoof from THE HARRY ENDFIELD SHOW . What didn't astonish me was the fact that these types of movie came close to sinking the British film industry , an industry that didn't pick up until American money invested in crowd pleasers like ZULU , ALFIE and the James Bond movies$LABEL$ 0
+when i saw commercials for this i was thinking "NO WHAT HAS NICK AT NITE DONE!" because it was taking up "fresh prince" slots. well, i still love the fresh prince. but george lopez is a surprisingly good show. i love how not-stereotypical benny is. carmen is a pretty good character, its really funny to see how stupid and overemotional she can be sometimes. i feel bad for the guy who plays max, he looks much younger then he actually is! but max is a fun character, and acted well. and yeah, angie is a little stereotypical, but she has her funny moments. ha ha george does have a big head! nah but he can be really good too. funny show! it definitely should be on more often then home improvement.$LABEL$ 1
+I caught Evening in the cinema with a lady friend. Evening is a chick flick with no apologies for being such, but I can say with some relief that it's not so infused with estrogen that it's painful for a red-blooded male to watch. Except for a single instance at the very end of the movie, I watched with interest and did not have to turn away or roll my eyes at any self-indulgent melodrama. Ladies, for their part, will absolutely love this movie.Ann Lord is elderly, bed-ridden and spending her last few days on Earth as comfortably as possible in her own home with her two grown daughters at her side. Discomfited by the memories of her past, Ann suddenly calls out a man's name her daughters have never heard before: Harris. While both of her daughters silently contemplate the significance of their mother's strong urge to recall and redress her ill-fated affair with this mysterious man at this of all times, Ann lapses back in her head to the fateful day she met Harris - and in doing so, lost the youthful optimism for the future that we all inevitably part ways with.Both Ann and her two daughters - one married with children, one a serial "commitophobe" - struggle with the central question of whether true love really exists, and perhaps more importantly, if true love can endure the test of time. Are we all one day fated to realize that love never lasts forever? Will we all realize that settling for the imperfect is the only realistic outcome? The subtle fact that the aged Ann is still wrestling with an answer to these questions on her deathbed is not lost on her two daughters.The cinematography for Evening is interesting - most of the film is spent in Ann's mind as she recalls the past, and for that reason I think the film was shot as if it was all deliberately overexposed, to give everyone an ethereal glow (and thus make it very obvious that all of this is not real, but occurred in the past). Claire Danes is beautiful (appearing to be really, really tall, though just 5' 5" in reality), and is absolutely captivating in one climactic scene where her singing talents are finally put to the test.You can't really talk trash about the cast, which leads off with Claire Danes and doesn't let up from there: Vanessa Redgrave, Patrick Wilson, Meryl Streep and Glenn Close fill out the other major and minor roles in the film.I can't really say anything negative about this film at all, though Hugh Dancy's struggle to have his character emerge from utter one-dimensionality is in the end a total loss. Playing the spoiled, lovable drunk offspring of the obscenely rich who puts up a front of great bravado but is secretly scared stiff of never amounting to anything probably doesn't offer much in the way of character exploration - he had his orders and stuck to them.In the end, gentlemen, your lady friend will most certainly weep, and while you'll likely not feel nearly as affected, the evening will definitely not be a waste for the time spent watching Evening. Catch it in theatres or grab it as a rental to trade off for points for when you want to be accompanied to a viewing of Die Hard 4 or the upcoming Rambo flick. It'll be your little secret that this viewing didn't really cost you much at all.$LABEL$ 1
+I never really knew who Robert Wuhl was before seeing this. But after seeing it I realized what a funny man he is. This HBO special features him teaching "American history" to New York university film students and the man was just phenomenal. He poked fun at almost every key historic event that occurred not just in the U.S. but some other parts of the world. This documentary/comedy was a great satire that made me question if what I accept as the infallible true history is really true.I enjoyed how Mr. Wuhl managed to mix useful information with great comedy and made learning a lot more exciting. I would recommend this to anyone interested in history and is willing to question what his/her beliefs.$LABEL$ 1
+Only reason I have seen 101 Dalmatians was its nominations for original song and costume design for the Oscars. I must admit that I was less than impressed with this film. In this sequel, Cruella DeVil(by the way Glen Close pulls off this role very well) is released from the hospital due to her good behaviour. She likes all sort of animals and locks all her furs away. From that point, we only wait until she starts having crises. Soon enough, she does and tries to make the best coat of fashion world, of course for herself and from fine Dalmatian fur. Apart from Glen Close, I found all cast quite silly but from a child's eye funny. That is fair enough as its target market is, I assume, children under 12. Quite a good entertainment for children and families, but didn't do much for me. * out of *****$LABEL$ 0
+I loved this film. A must see for any Rod Steiger fan. Producer Suzanne DeLaurentiis and Director Stewart Raffill have brought us a true family film that touches the soul. An incredibly well put together movie with a beautiful soundtrack.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is not in anyway funny, it tries to be funny with it's lame humor, which is so dry and boring that the movie is just 2 hours of torture. Throughout the whole movie i was thinking one thing, "when is this gonna end". One thing you have to hand to them, is that they do have a very few mildly funny moments, which is also why i gave it a whole 2 stars. It is unoriginal and uses up almost every old blonde joke in the book, even the ones that wasn't funny the first time. It basically is a movie to belittle blondes and to record the whole repetoir of blonde jokes.To sum it all up, this movie is blonde humor gone bad, it is not worth paying any amount of money to watch, it is just that bad.$LABEL$ 0
+Just Cause takes some of the best parts of three films, Cape Fear, A Touch of Evil and Silence of the Lambs and mixes it together to come up with a good thriller of a film.Sean Connery is a liberal law professor, married to a former Assistant District Attorney, Kate Capshaw and he's a crusader against capital punishment. Blair Underwood's grandmother Ruby Dee buttonholes Connery at a conference and persuades him to handle her grandson's appeal. He's sitting on death row for the murder of a young girl.When Connery arrives in this rural Florida county he's up against a tough sheriff played by Laurence Fishburne who's about as ruthless in his crime solving as Orson Welles was in Touch of Evil. Later on after Connery gets the verdict set aside with evidence he's uncovered, he's feeling pretty good about himself. At that point the film takes a decided turn from Touch of Evil to Cape Fear.To say that all is not what it seems is to put it mildly. The cast uniformly turns in some good performances. Special mention must be made of Ed Harris who plays a Hannibal Lecter like serial killer on death row with Underwood. He will make your skin crawl and he starts making Connery rethink some of those comfortable liberal premises he's been basing his convictions on. Many a confirmed liberal I've known has come out thinking quite differently once they've become a crime victim.Of course the reverse is equally true. Many a law and order conservative if they ever get involved on the wrong end of the criminal justice system wants to make real sure all his rights are indeed guaranteed.Criminal justice is not an end, but a process and a never ending one at that for all society. I guess if Just Cause has a moral that would probably be it.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is entertaining enough due to an excellent performance by Virginia Madsen and the fact that Lindsey Haun is lovely. However the reason the movie is so predictable is that we've seen it all before. I've haven't read the book A Mother's Gift but I hope for Britney and Lynne Spears sake it is completely different than this movie. Unless you consider ending a movie with what is essentially a music video an original idea, the entire movie brings to mind the word plagiarized.$LABEL$ 0
+So i consider myself pretty big into the anime scene, with very few shows i simply WILL NOT WATCH.this show, however, i would recommend to anyone.Quite possibly the most Original series to date, it;s got just about everything i could ask for. A side story, so to speak, about an unconditional love that will NOT be admitted to, a very blatant comedy, and a very well put together voice acting cast (both Japanese and American translation).If not for the terribly funny aspect to it, it would be, just another anime.More or less, as i have noticed, a 'love it or hate it', very few people i have seen introduced to this series will end up with a distaste for it.Original to the core, with everything you could ask for in an afternoon, bet the house on this series. I'm ready to ASSURE you that you will enjoy it.$LABEL$ 1
+I love Aaron carter but even i expected pop star to be predictable, but i was so wrong! Aaron carter was really funny in it and a great actor! Also the actress who played Jane was a brilliant actress! Every one who i no who watched it loved it!The music in it was also really good!The my favourite lines from the film is "you cant send me to a public school mom! Im a CELEBRIDEE!!" and "Take your time, it'l come to you!"Although the endings kind of cheesy,all the good chick flicks do! This film is great, and a proper good Chick flick, that i can watch over and over again!$LABEL$ 1
+...but I regret having seen it. Since the ratings on IMDb are relatively high (and they must also have been relatively high on Netflix), I guess I put it in my queue because it is advertised as a gentle comedy from the UK, a category that has produced many films I liked immensely. "Saving Grace," on the other hand, falls into the category of laugh-less comedies usually populated by Hollywood movies produced and directed by the talentless. Brenda Blethyn is a capable actress, and I have liked her in other movies. The concept -- a gardener growing marijuana to overcome the penury she finds herself confronting after her husband's death -- does not offend me. Notwithstanding the strenuous efforts on the part of the cast to produce humor, the film falls flat on its face (falling flat on its arse might have been funnier) as far as I and my wife were concerned. Be forewarned, oh gentle reader, not all offbeat British comedies succeed. This one is a dud.$LABEL$ 0
+Barbara Streisand directs and stars in this very Jewish story.To have a chance at obtaining an education, Babs enthusiastically disguises herself as a boy which isn't the most difficult thing to do since she already looks like a boy, anyway. At her new school she meets many male classmates who have no trouble at all in believing she's a guy.Don't miss the best of many moments of unintentional humor when Babs' male friend thinks she's a man, but pins 'him' to the ground, sits on top of 'him', and looks affectionately into 'his' eyes.... *snicker*.Mediocre film; splashy story about nothing particularly interesting.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie starts off on the wrong foot and never really gets it going. The first scene shows a Life Flight helicopter landing and just outside the window you can distinctly see mountains in the background. For those of you who might not ever have been to Houston there is no elevation change. The city sits just above sea level and a 5 ft. incline is considered a big hill. To go along with that scenery, any shots outside of the hospital immediately tell the viewer that they are not in Houston. The trees are all missing leaves or are pine trees, neither of which Houston has very much of. Even the hospital itself, on the outside, is very unbelievable. Memorial Hermann Hospital is one of the top hospitals in the United States and sits smack dab in the middle of the Medical District just miles from downtown Houston, yet every outside shot of the hospital makes it appear that the hospital is out in the suburbs or even the countryside.It is obvious that whoever was in charge of the actual tropical storm part of the movie skimped out because the numerous shots of radar are all wrong. The first radar image in the movie is that of Hurrican Hugo hitting South Carolina. We later see Kris Kristofferson leaving his job and one of his assistants tells him that Alison is moving back south across Houston yet the radar image he shows has Alison clearly moving north off of the Gulf of Mexico into Houston...probably the initial landfall of Alison.As for the acting, it isn't all that bad. JoBeth Williams, Kris Kristofferson and Rick Schroder all do a decent job considering that this is a straight-to-TV movie. The plot of the story is decent and the fact that it is based on a true story makes it a bit more entertaining. My one problem with the acting is the portrayal of Houstonians with big thick Southern accents...the actors all sound like they are from Birmingham, Alabama and not Houston, Texas.The movie gets its point across and to the general audience it does exactly what it is meant to: entertain. If you are looking for a factual account of what happened to the city of Houston in June of 2001 then you will be disappointed. One thing to keep in mind before viewing this movie is that it is based solely on the evacuation of Memorial Hermann Hospital and not on Tropical Storm Alison and the impact on Houston metro itself. If you are looking for a factual account of Tropical Storm Alison's impact on Houston metro might I suggest watching The Weather Channel's Storm Stories for Tropical Storm Alison.*1/2 out of *****$LABEL$ 0
+I heard this movie was bad…They even warned me it was terrible, but for some reason (probably Katie Holmes) I still watched it when it came on national TV. Watching Kevin Williamson films means torturing! His scenarios aren't funny, definitely not scary and not the least bit creative. Teaching Mrs. Tingle breathes the same irritating atmosphere as his brainless series `Dawson's Creek' and it's probably meant for the same target group as well. Before the credits even started, 5 people already wanted a hug and they stated that eerie `I love you'-sentence. It doesn't get any better as the soundtrack is filled with annoying pop/rock and the storyline is ultra-thin. Three students on the verge of graduation get caught cheating by the wickedest teacher in school. Every high-school has a teacher like that, you know… To save their skin, they try to convince Mrs. Tingle that it wasn't their intention to cheat but this attempt goes horrible wrong. The typical high-school humor is completely lost on me, the overdose of sentiment is pathetic and the acting (with the exception of Helen Mirren) is abominable. I'm sure Katie Holmes can act – that's a fact proven by her role in `the Gift' – but she urgently needs to stop accepting frumpish girl roles. As said before, the only positive comments goes out to the brilliant casting of Helen Mirren as the shrew. It's like Kathleen Turner in `Serial Mom'! The role suits her perfectly and you can't imagine anyone else playing her. Other than that, this is avoidable teenage nonsense.$LABEL$ 0
+If you enjoy suspense this movie has it. The fact that Marina Zudina portrays a mute adds to her haplessness and increases the suspense. Alec Guiness's appearance was nice, but didn't really add to the movie. I'm not sure if Evan Richard's part as Andy Clarke was an attempt to add a little humor or if he was supposed to just be a bumbling idiot. I thought the cinematography was excellent. This added not just to the quality of the production but to the suspense as well. The bathtub seen with the water droplets in slow motion was wonderful. Also the scene where the knife comes down and then it switches to Andy Clarke cutting an extremely rare piece of meat was very well done. I would call it overall good entertainment$LABEL$ 1
+Water Lilies is a well-made first film from France about young female sexuality and friendship. Sciamma works with specialized, slightly sanitized material that is as off-putting to some as it is alluring to others. The film focuses exclusively on three middle-class teenage girls in a tidy new Paris suburb. Their lives revolve around a big indoor swimming pool where two of the three are part of a synchronized water ballet team.Such distractions as parents, siblings, work and school have been neatly excised from the equation. The central sensibility belongs to the attractively sullen but skinny Marie (Pauline Acquart), who is not on the team, but thinks she would like to be. Marie worships Floriane (Adèle Haenel), an alluring blonde and team standout whom the boys are after. This takes Marie away from her former best friend, also a member of the water ballet team, the somewhat plump Anne (Louise Blachère). Being less special Anne is more truly accessible to the boys. Floriane, like this film, promises a bit more then she truly offers. Marie has the more essential quality for a teenage girl: she suffers inwardly. Flroiane doesn't so much suffer as jump into situations and then bolt.Marie is dazzled by the glamor of the water ballet as well as Floriane. Floriane takes advantage of this to make Marie first her slave and a cover for her assignations, then, lacking any other friends, her confidante. All the other girls think Floriane a slut, an illusion she encourages in the men and boys she teases, because it leads them on. She suffers the pretty girl's fate of being not a person but an object, and she can't resist the validation the boys give her by wanting to kiss her and bed her, but she doesn't really care about any of them and knows her involvements with them are a trap. Enlisting Marie to act as her pal so her (unseen) mother won't know she's going out to meet boys, she also gets Marie to rescue her from the boys later. It looked the opposite at first, but Floriane needs Marie as much as Marie thinks she needs her. Anne is left with her discomfort with her body and a desire to get laid that's earthier and more real than the other girls'.Keeping all external context at bay, Sciamma can highlight subtle shifts in the delicate equation of the three girls' goals and interactions. On the other hand the film's water madness, which includes lots of showering and spitting as well as underwater swimming shots, makes it feel completely airless at times and some of its 95 minutes do not pass so quickly. Luckily the film has a sense of humor and lets the trio sometimes forget their ever-present goals and avoidances and just do silly, pointless girl things. It's the offbeat moments that give the film life; too bad in a way that there aren't more of them. But Sciamma has the courage of her obsessions and what remains as one walks out of the theater is the personalities and their dynamics. Along the way of course it is pleasant to watch the swimming and to gaze at the girls, who understandably love to gaze at themselves. There's no great revelation or drama on the way, but things get a bit more interesting when it emerges that Marie doesn't just admire but truly desires Floriane and is jealous of her boyfriends--whom Floriane always stops before they go all the way. In a typical irony of this kind of plot, Floriane actually decides she wants to have her first real sex with Marie--but Marie is the one who holds off, because she knows it won't have the significance to Floriane that it will have to her. When it happens, it's a timid, mechanical affair. Meanwhile Anne has a huge crush on Francois (Warren Jacquin), a male swimmer, but of course he is after Floriane. Boys are not an element that's been subtracted and there always seem to be several dozen ready at poolside or on the dance floor, but they are just bodies and faces, available studs.$LABEL$ 1
+If you liked Paddy Chayevsky's "Network" you'll probably like this black comedy as well, as it's another brilliant Chayevsky script, a wonderful satire on big-city hospitals and a perfect vehicle for Geo. C. Scott. He plays a burned-out chief of medicine on the most chaotic day he or his hospital have ever seen. His personal crisis is coming to a head and his hospital's falling down around him, as local residents demonstrate against the hospital and patients and doctors are dying at an alarming rate, thanks to a biblically-inspired and murderous saboteur. The latter, who theatrically declares himself the "Fool for Christ," "Parakleet of Kaborka," "Wrath of the Lamb," and "Angel of the Bottomless Pit," bops doctors on the head, administers lethal injections and swaps patients' identities, causing treatments and operations to be performed on the wrong persons.This film makes you uncomfortable, as deadly mistakes like these do happen (hopefully not so many, not so often and not in one place) and at the same time makes you laugh at the priceless character portraits. One is Richard Dysart ("L.A. Law") as Dr. Wellbeck, a sort of celebrity surgeon who spends far more time worrying about his investments and publicly-traded stock than about his patients, who suffer lethally from his vast indifference and neglect. There's Diana Rigg as free-spirited, hippie-ish Barbara Drummond, who seduces the beleaguered chief of medicine (Scott) and tries to get him to run away with her. Then there's the deluded murderer, who happens to be Barbara's father and who "functions well enough" back at the Indian reservation where he lives with his daughter and even runs a clinic, but who's pushed to madness merely by being placed back in civilization. The strongest portrait by far is Scott's Dr. Bock, who bares his soul as former boy genius, failed father and husband, brilliant doctor and responsible administrator, who constantly dreams of suicide but must bear up under the demands of his job. Scott is exceptional in this demanding role.Until the final scenes one doesn't know if Bock will leave the hospital behind for Barbara's Indian reservation and a quieter, simpler life, whether her murderous father will be caught or whether the protesting, rioting locals will take over and bring the hospital to its knees. Watching the crazed killer at work, one suspects Chayevsky is telling us our lunatic society makes him do these things, as we're told he's a different person away from cities and people.As my own father was the chief administrator of a number of large hospitals over the years, I had some idea of the demands of his job and the huge responsibility he shouldered. This story makes that responsibility the linchpin on which Scott's crisis turns. This is both a funny and scary film, with the actors up to the considerable demands of Chayevsky's script. It's also a film I get more out of each time I watch it.$LABEL$ 1
+In relative terms having watched a lot of disgustingly bad tele Tom Fontana & Levinson are geniuses for creating & delivering In this writer's book the greatest ever TV show. Oz was treated horribly In this country, the finale went out well gone 3 In the morning, before that It was strictly considered alternative viewing for those oblivious to prime time garbage.I first caught Oz towards the end of the first series and from then on It was an unmissable watch. My man Adebisi possibly the most Intimidating villain ever, Beacher the perfect anti-hero, Eammon Walker's Saeed an acting class In evocation. There was the hardcore stuff of course - some plain evil but essentially Oz had soul. Augustus narrates the unfolding plot with pearls of Insight while the struggles of Beacher, Mcmanus, Saeed, Rebedahl etc are better than any soap opera before or since. Compassion violence wisdom tragedy Intelligence pain joy brutality love & heroism Oz went through the spectrum of human emotion - all Inside a max security prison! I can honestly say those Thursday nights with the great Vids to follow Oz series 2/3 way back In 99 were the best TV I'll ever see. Beacher assaulting Vern In the gym Is a moment I don't need a video for - a small screen classic I'll never forget.Imagine what Oz would have done with the same push as the Sopranos given a 10 pm timeslot and all the promos??? Fine I'm over that now, for those that caught It consider yourself privileged for those who didn't TV is shite.......and you deserve It.$LABEL$ 1
+This film has very tight and well planned dialogue, acting and choreography.Recommended film for anyone who wants to see masterful writing and plot.Question: Does anyone know where the house is actually located? It is one of the most interesting houses, a 19thC windmill.$LABEL$ 1
+"A trio of treasure hunters is searching the West Indies for a hidden fortune. The lure of gold makes for a rise in tension as the men come closer to the treasure's location. The deep-sea divers hope to track down the gold, but find that greed and hatred leads to murder," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. "Manfish" is the name of their boat, not a monster. The skeleton who gives muscular Captain John Bromfield (as Brannigan) his half of the treasure map is very good. Old salt Victor Jory (as Professor) provides the other half of the map. First mate Lon Chaney Jr. (as Swede) plays dumb, and sexy Tessa Prendergast (as Alita) guards the rum (not very well, obviously). Serious editing and continuity problems mar the picture, which otherwise might have amounted to something.*** Manfish (2/56) W. Lee Wilder ~ John Bromfield, Victor Jory, Lon Chaney Jr.$LABEL$ 0
+(various spoilers follow)Gene Kelly. Not Georges Guetary, who is sometimes criticized for being too young and un-French. Not Leslie Caron, who is sometimes criticized for her very green performance. Not even Oscar Levant, who more often than not annoys the dickens out of me.No, it would definitely be Gene Kelly. There's something about his screen persona that's too ambitious and focused for him to be convincing as a penniless artist in Paris, content to put off facing the critics indefinitely, frolicking with little kids and old ladies and painting in the streets. That's what made him so effective in SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and other movies where he played ambitious, focused characters. Jerry Mulligan is in some ways a cousin to Tommy Albright in BRIGADOON, another Lerner story with Kelly miscast as an American at loose ends who falls in love with a picturesque European place and an innocent female who embodies its virtues.Except that Jerry isn't as likeable as even poor dazed Tommy. That's another galling thing about this film. Jerry is sometimes a cad to Milo, and even worse to Lise. When he first sees the latter at a club, he pulls a dirty trick to get her to dance with him. When she sits down again he pulls an even dirtier trick to get her phone number. When he calls her the next day she hangs up on him, which he takes as a cue to drop in at her workplace. And throughout all this it's obvious she wants NOTHING to do with him. When she starts laughing at his jokes in the perfume shop, it's about as believable as Milo's interest in his paintings. Sure he's good-looking and playful, but why should that sway her when she's got Henri, who seems like a gentleman to boot?Admittedly it comes off so distasteful partly because of the actress. If a role like Lise was played by, say, Judy Garland, she would shower Jerry with indignant insults and glares. If she was played by Cyd Charisse, one would admire his guts. But when she's played by first-timer Leslie Caron she looks and acts like a shy, vulnerable teenager, and as a result Jerry just seems like a creep. And why DID they choose these other actors (though personally I'd rather they'd solved things by changing the lead) when the whole story hinges on the romance of these two young poor sweethearts disentangling themselves from their loveless commitments to older rich people? Not only is Gene Kelly a few years above Guetary and Foch, he's old enough to be Caron's father.In short I think it all would have been improved by casting some young comedic-relief type dancer as Jerry, the kind that usually turned up in musical supporting roles...e.g. Ray MacDonald in GOOD NEWS or Bobby Van in SMALL TOWN GIRL. Maybe not them necessarily but someone LIKE them. Someone who could have chased Lise and made it seem harmlessly playful; someone who would have appeared genuinely happy living in that Chaplinesque hole-in-the-wall; someone whose humor and naivete would have contrasted better with Oscar Levant's sarcastic grumpiness. It probably also would have made the ballet seem less ponderous. And it might have provided a voice that could sing Gershwin better.All this may give the impression that I don't like Gene Kelly. I do like him. He was terrific in most of his films, just not this one (well, and a few others). I don't despise AAIP itself, either; it has good points, like the art direction. And Leslie Caron, who despite her inexperience is rather charming, and really does look like she just stepped out of a painting. Georges Guetary does a fine job and his "Stairway to Paradise" is my favorite number in the movie. Nina Foch is beautiful and touching and should have ended up with SOMEBODY. But not Jerry Mulligan. I wouldn't wish that on her.$LABEL$ 0
+Over the years some of them most enjoyable films have been about dysfunctional families.Bonjour,Monsieur Sholmi is such a filmThis is an Isreali film about a Moroccan Jewish family.This could be about any family, in any culture. We all know or would want to know people like those in this comic gem.This 2003 delight was written & directed by Shemi Zorkin. Let us hope he a long career.The movie is seen through the eyes of the 16 year old son,who seems to be concerned with everyone in the family. Heis brilliantly played by Oshri Cohen (he was 18 when he made the movie.He has been in a few since & I know I will hunt them up. Hopefully this young man will become an international star.The entire cast is magnificent,I do hope I see them again.I loved every person in the cast to some degree.I think all who see this will agree.It has been nominated for many international awards & has won 8, It deserved every one.Now being a film in a language besides English it had a very limited run in the USA, which I feel is regrettable.Rent this film you will be glad you did.Ratings: ***1/2 (out of 4) 95 points(out of 100) IMDb 9 (out of 10)NOTE: Since the story is not new, this is as high a rating it can get.$LABEL$ 1
+In 1993, "the visitors" was an enormous hit in France. So, the sequence was inevitable and unfortunately, this sequence ranks among the worst ones ever made. This is a movie that doesn't keep its promises. Indeed, it's supposed to tell a sole story. Jean Reno must go in the twentieth century and take Christian Clavier back in the Middle Ages so that time can normally follow its course. The problem is that Clavier feels completely at ease in the world of the twentieth century, and so make him get back in the Middles Ages is rather hard... Instead of this, the movie goes on several other stories without succeeding in following the main plot. As a consequence, the movie becomes sometimes muddle-headed, sometimes a bit of a mess.But the movie also suffers from the performance of nearly all the actors. Reno and Clavier fall into the trap that however they could avoid in the first movie: they're going over the top and become annoying. Then, why did Jean-Marie Poiré the film-maker engage Muriel Robin in the female main role? He made a mistake because she seems ill-at-ease and is absolutely pitiful. The other actors aren't better: Marie-Anne Chazel is nonexistent and Christian Bujeau, unbearable. Of course, the movie contains a few good moments with efficient gags but it often falls into vulgarity and easiness. Certain sequences and dialogs are affected. It also appears hollow because Poiré takes back elements that secured the success of the first movie. Thus, a young girl takes Reno for a close relative of her family and asks him to take part in her wedding.A labored and disappointing follow-up. Anyway, what's the interest of this movie otherwise commercial?$LABEL$ 0
+Vonnegut's words are best experienced on paper. The tales he weaves are gossemar, silken strands of words and expressions that are not easily translated into a world of Marilyn Manson or Jerry Bruckheimer explosions. His words have been treated well once before, in the remarkable Slaughterhouse-5.Mother night is probably one of the three novels Vonnegut has written I could take to a desert island, along with Slaughterhouse-5 and Bluebeard.The film version deserves a 10, but the books are so permanently part of my interior landscape that I just can't do it...some of the scenes left out of the film are part of my memory...$LABEL$ 1
+I watched this film sort of by accident, having bought it as the B side on The Omega Man DVD. The Omega Man was a bit of a disappointment - except for the beginning, which was clearly the inspiration for 28 Days Later, the rest of it is just the stuff of TV movies. But Soylent Green is in a whole other league. I bet this is one of Tarantino's favourites. There are at least 3 scenes in the film that I've never seen anything like before. Heston casually getting into bed with the "furniture" while discussing something else completely unrelated! A whole crowd of people being scooped up by a fleet of mechanical diggers! A priest taking confession and being shot by the confessor. Ok maybe that's been done since - but there aren't many films that are so consistently original like this. And what the heck is going on between Heston and Edward G. Robinson? Is this the most unlikely gay couple ever, or what? Luckily, I saw this film without knowing the ending - which apparently is rare. Then I watched it again, and enjoyed all the little clues that make the long early scenes worthwhile. A very nice script - and some great sets too. Just when you thought you'd seen everything . . .$LABEL$ 1
+I recently visited the Magic Kingdom as an adult with my mom, her best friend and my adult sister. Disney World is often mistakenly perceived as a place for just children, but when you see quality shows like Mickey's Philharmagic, you realize that the magic of Disney is for everyone! It was such a great show that we left the theater and turned around and got in line again. And then a third time. It was absolutely breathtaking. I would encourage anyone who goes to Disney World to check out this show, which is not just a show but a world wind, fun filled ride with Donald as he once again lets his temper get him in trouble!$LABEL$ 1
+This HAS to be my guilty pleasure. I am a HUGE fan of 80's movies that were designed to entertain and they didn't care if they offended anyone. This move has no meat, not substance, no deep thought provoking scenes. Just plain old college kids having fun and if a few breasts have to be shown, then so be it! This movie is for when you just want to relax and NOT think. Viva la nudity!$LABEL$ 1
+I'm not usually given to hyperbole, but after seeing over two decades worth of Academy Awards, I can honestly say that this year's awards show was the most disgraceful example of poor direction, total cruelty, and sheer stupidity that I've ever had the misfortune to witness. I'm not talking about the awards themselves- as usual, there is plenty to argue about when you tally up who won, who lost, and who never even got nominated, but the process is as it's always been and is as fair as it's liable to be. What is terribly UNfair is the treatment both the "stars" and "non-stars" received at the hands of Cates and Horvitz, in the name of "reducing boredom."It is bad enough that for the last several years anyone who isn't Al Pacino has been "played off" at 45 seconds without any regard for what he was saying, how he was saying it, and what the emotion was behind the statement. It demonstrates nothing more than a total lack of respect, however, to herd nominees on the stage like cattle without paying them the honor of showing their faces while their names are read, to make them slink away quietly when they lose, to deny them the thrill of a walk to the podium, and to force them to read their statements with their backs to the audience. All of those things were done to the "non-stars" -never mind that the movies wouldn't exist at all without those artists and that most of them only ever get one chance to face their peers and their audience. The stars didn't fare much better. It's becoming more sad than funny when winners of the caliber of Hilary Swank and Clint Eastwood have to beg for a few extra seconds for their speeches. Chris Rock, as host, was neither as inflammatory and controversial as the Academy had hoped, nor nearly as funny as he could be. His opening remarks were almost (but not quite) as offensive as Sean Penn made them out to be, and his comments during the show were more innocuous than interesting. Of course, he could hardly be blamed when it was clear that was being kept on as short a leash as any host has. In the end, Chris Rock was something he's almost never been before: a non-entity.Even the musical numbers were handled poorly. Beyonce sang well, but there was simply no reason why she should have been featured in three out of the five songs. Another example of utter disrespect for an artist was giving Jorge Drexler's nominated song to Antonio Banderas- even though Drexler was present and clearly wouldn't have minded singing his own song, based on his winning "speech." The efforts of Cates and Horvitz to make the show shorter and faster may have worked to a degree, but what resulted was a show devoid of life. We've all whined about the overlong speeches given by people we don't know, about the overblown production, about the self-congratulatory quality. But this is THEIR night- not ours. What is meant to be a celebration has become an insult to the people being celebrated. Cates and Horvitz should, frankly, be ashamed.$LABEL$ 0
+Although this has to be the nadir of season six, this schmaltzy episode isn't badly written or acted. It's just that most of us looked to the X-Files for taut, gripping horror/thrillers ending without easy answers and moving toward dark but fathomable conspiracies. Season 6 gave us a stream of tongue-in-cheek comedies that undermined the show's continuity and, frankly, made Simpsons' Halloween Specials look like great thriller TV.In this episode Victoria Jackson of SNL fame plays the long-suffering girlfriend of a man who sets himself up as a rainmaker. However her weatherman boss is the one who truly loves her and Mulder winds up having to provide him dating advice in order to get out of town.There's some playful fun with the chemistry between the agents and some amusing but none-too-sophisticated characterization of Midwestern hicks. It's nothing you'd want to see more than once!It's hard to figure out Season 6. X-Files creator Chris Carter seems bored by the whole 'Syndicate conspiracy' story arc and abandons responsibility to the black comedy writers.$LABEL$ 0
+I was fortunate to see a screening of this remarkable short film by Joshua Leonard before its premiere at the 2005 Sundance Festival. In twelve brief but exquisite minutes, Leonard takes us on a life-changing journey as he probes one of the most controversial contemporary social and ethical issues facing our society. The film embodies elegant direction, moving performances and a heart- rending story. Kelli Garner and Lucas Haas radiate as the two lovers. And, in his first venture into dramatic narrative, Leonard proves to be a director with a propitious future. I feel this short should be expanded into a feature film. It's difficult to describe talent, but as this debut film demonstrates, you know it when you see it!$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is proof you can't just go to a Redbox and read descriptions of films and pick one and give it a try.While I'll give 'em great credit for having produced a film with halfway-decent special effects on such a low budget, and at least a halfway decent script and story line... unfortunately, it was only just that: halfway decent.If you like movies where things aren't all neatly wrapped up, and don't mind low-budget effects, you might like this film. Honestly, it wasn't really my cup of tea. I should've just gone to bed rather than spend my time watching.For a better science-fiction movie produced on an even LOWER budget (!) have a look at "Primer."$LABEL$ 0
+Although normally my preference is not for romantic dramas, seeing this film left me a little short.It had promise, the characters and relationships could have been explored much deeper than they did, yet the story seemed not to understand the direction it wanted to take.The comparisions and parallels within the story, especially the three generations of women in the family, had a lot of potential, but somehow didn't fully extend itself. It could have made the film much easier to relate to and attach to which is the aim of any film about lost-love and life regained.IMHO, I think the film suffered from a lack of direction in the writing, although Harry Connick Jnr and Sandra Bullock did try desperatly to breath a little life into otherwise flat character outlines.It's not that this is a bad film, some parts leave you understanding the reasons for various plot developments, its just that this film is underdone, and a little flat overall.$LABEL$ 0
+Silly movie is really, really funny. Yes, it's got its dead moments, it can be a bit too obvious, it declines a bit in the second half and the story is an incoherent mess, but it's laugh out loud funny all the way. And it's worth seeing just for Ed McMahon as a right wing kook. This movie is in the same class as Elvira, Mistress of the Dark, another incredibly funny, underappreciated film.$LABEL$ 1
+One of my desires is to be a film-maker, and I just have to say there's no way I will be able to compete with the powerful drama The War at Home. The reason is because the acting is perfect, and when you see the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. All I can suggest is watching it, I got so involved in it and was extremely impressed.Estevez's and Sheen's relationship on the screen was absolutely amazing.And so was his relationship with his mother (Kathy Bates). Some of the best scenes include these 2. As well as the relationship between Sheen and his daughter, Estevez's sister in the film.10/10, and definitely in my top 10. I want the DVD!$LABEL$ 1
+There is so much that is wrong with this film, but to sum it up: Terrible acting- so bad it must have been on purpose. poor script - they may have had some good ideas but this was not the best way to present the story. ridiculously bad ending- in some cases the ending manages to save the film-not in this case. if you manage to sit through the entire film you will want to kick yourself at the end because the ending is not even worth waiting for. This is the worst film i have seen in a long time. It was complete torture sitting through this film, i would have appreciated someone warning me in advance. So do yourself a favor. Watch this film only if you have absolutely nothing better to do. Even then you will regret having put yourself through the unspeakable torture.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie deserved better It's great fun, has some wonderful jokes and sight gags, some in-stuff for the "Geeks" amongst us (And we know who we are), and the effects are indeed effectual. Watching Paul Reubens fart in the face of an Academy Award winner is worth the price of admission alone. I never read the comics series before I saw the movie, but have since. as good as they are, I still recommend MM the film. (Although having the Flaming Carrot as a character would have been cool, too) Greg Kinnear is, well,...amazing as Captain Amazing, and NO ONE ELSE could be The Shoveller except William H. Macy My favorite line in the film? "We've got a blind date with Destiny. And it looks like she's ordered the lobster." See this film. BUY this film! It's only 5 bucks and some change at your local Wal-Mart. You'll thank me. Really you will. Oh, and Ms. Garafolo is in it. THAT ALONE makes it watch-worthy$LABEL$ 1
+The true story of Phoolan Devi who became a national hero in India because she fought for her rights as a woman but in a violent manner. I was surprised to see a powerful film with strong images come out of India instead of the Bollywood art trash classics they churn out.$LABEL$ 1
+Turning Isherwood's somewhat dark and utterly brilliant novel into light comedic romp could easily have been a recipe for disaster, but somewhow it wasn't . The story moves at a zanily rapid pace and the black and white imagery is gorgeous, as are Harvey and Harris as they ham their way through a wacky Weimar Berlin. Fun!$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this film some years ago and promptly bought the soundtrack because it was simply excellent. Bacharach's music is endearing and should be given the recognition it richly deserves. The cinematography is awesome. Critics hated it, but they hated HOME ALONE too. I haven't found it on video but welcome anyone who can find a copy.$LABEL$ 1
+Saw it yesterday night at the Midnight Slam of the Festival des films du Monde in Montreal. What a disappointment. This movie is clearly over rated by IMDb fans. The acting was only but regular. The directing didn't bring anything new or interesting. The plot lacks considerably : the movie is all about those college grads and the game they play making prank calls(7eventy 5ive). And on top of that, you can predict the movie's end in the first five minutes. If you like prank calls and a slasher with an axe that makes you jump only once or twice during the whole movie, you might like it. If you don't, this movie is not worth it.$LABEL$ 0
+This television show is stereotypical and far-fetched in many of its aspects.First of all, the setting. All of the characters attend PCA, this unbelievable boarding school with painted, stylish dorms. The campus seems to have no reasonable rules - for instance, the boys are often seen in the girls' dormitories, and vice versa. But this may be simply because the dorm adviser, a silly character that basically bores the viewer instead of amusing them, as I assume her purpose is supposed to be, sits around and does nothing. I have friends in boarding schools, and they laugh at many aspects of the school in this show.Next, the characters. I was so disappointed to discover that Nickelodeon wasn't creative at all with the personalities in this show. They all represent on characteristic which is exaggerated to the extreme: Zoey is supposedly perfect in everything she does (looks, grades, sports, guys, judgment, creativity, etc), Michael is the jock, Logan is the arrogant jerk who basically does nothing aside from aggravate all the characters as well as us poor viewers, Nicole is the preppy idiot who knows nothing but somehow maintains straight-A's, Dana was the tough girl, Quinn is the unrealistic 'smart kid,' whom they consistently make fun of, Chase is the guy who is afraid of confessing his 'true feelings' which really aggravates me as the show continues, and that new girl- Lola or something- is just another clone of Nicole.The main two characters that aggravate me the most are Zoey and Quinn. First of all, I just do not understand Zoey's character. She was obviously created to be the 'perfect' character as I said above, but she seems to be the most flawed out of all of them- in most of the episodes she creates a problem, then has to fix it. What's frustrating is that we are supposed to love her and think she is amazing when they haven't even created a very realistic character to begin with.Quinn, on the other hand, bothers me because she is exaggerated to the point at which her character is absolutely insulting. The impression I get from Nick concerning her character is that 'geeks' and 'nerds' are people to laugh at, to criticize, to mock. In the spring break episode they did a year ago, they introduced two more 'nerds' who the characters had to make 'cool.' I found this highly offensive and stereotypical. What kind of message is Nick sending to these kids? Is it: Don't do well in school, don't get good grades, don't study hard- you'll end up being a geek and we will mock your profession in future television series! Because that is definitely the message I get from these poorly constructed characters, and it is an awful message through and through.All I can do is hope that Nick one day realizes that by putting down the intelligent folks in our world, they are not doing anyone any good.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is definitely one of the finest of its kind,. A Victrion age story of love, and, grit. The depth of its story line is one that will stir the inner most emotions of love, and hate, with some very interesting twists, this is a must have movie for not only the lesbian audiences, but, for all viewers. I can't say much more or I will spoil the experience for a new, young audience who might just be coming out. Another fine work for Sarah Waters. It also is a great way for Sally Hawkins to win over audiences who only get a brief glimpse of her talent in another Sarah Waters work, in "Tipping the Velvet".. It is also a must see..$LABEL$ 1
+I found this one to be more chaotic than the average Stooges short (as strange as that may sound). There were several funny bits, especially the running gags ("Calling Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard!", the glass door breaking, the Stooges running into the supply room and coming back out with... well, you know), but also quite of bit of it was taken up with things that just didn't make any sense to me. I have to assume that these were generally take-offs of scenes from the film "Men In White", but since I don't know much about that movie I can't say for sure. Maybe if someone could explain these I'd appreciate this short more.$LABEL$ 1
+"Scarface" has a major cult following even now, 22 years after its release.It has also been widely criticized as being very tacky, unrefined, over-the-top and all bloated up! These are people who compare Scarface to The Godfather movies. It is true that on the technical front, (cinematography, screenplay, direction, etc.) Scarface is way behind 'The Godfather'.But it is also true, that what Scarface has and some other gangster movies lack, is the rawness, the sheer crude approach of the gangsters. The Latino gangsters in this movie look much more menacing and real than any of the polished Italian or Irish gangsters from other gangster classics like 'The Godfather' or 'Goodfellas'. This is one of the major winning points of Scarface and I strongly believe that this fact has been written off as "tackiness" by most critics! I have seen the original 1932 Scarface, and I must say that both these movies are way too different from each other and should be seen as two different movies instead of praising the original over the "remake"! Al Pacino has been criticized to be over-the-top and loud in this movie. But how about considering that that is precisely the way the film-makers wanted Tony Montana's character to be! He is this angry young man who takes hasty decisions and throws fits of tantrum every other minute! He is not the calm Michael Corleone here. He is Tony Montana, a very tacky, uneducated individual who doesn't really think much and gets angry all the time!There is definitely a very 80s feel to this movie. The soundtrack is all 80s! I love some of the songs, including 'Gina and Elvira's theme', 'Push it to the limit' and the title track instrumental.There are some memorable and beautifully shot sequences, including the famous chainsaw scene, the Rebenga hit, the first meeting with Sosa and Tony's visit to his mother's.About the performances: Al Pacino is brilliant as the angry Cuban refugee. He has reportedly mentioned that he enjoyed playing Tony Montana the most in his entire career. And it really does seem like he has enjoyed himself thoroughly in all his scenes! One wonders what "Scarface" would be like without Pacino. I just couldn't imagine anyone else portraying Tony Montana and in all probabilities, the film wouldn't be as effective without him!Steven Bauer shines as Tony's friend Manny.Robert Loggia is wonderful as Tony's boss, Lopez. So is F. Murray Abraham (as Omar) in a small role.Then there is some eye-candy in the form of Elvira played by Michelle Pfeiffer. She looks beautiful and is adequate in her role.The director does go a bit overboard during a particular part in the climax. Without revealing anything, I would only say that that was the only little part that suffers due to improper handling."Scarface" is definitely one of the most entertaining and one of the best gangster movies to ever come out. Enjoy it for what it is: a raw portrayal of the Drug Lords and their gangland!$LABEL$ 1
+So, this starts with at least an interesting and promising basic idea, goes on and on with tension, Carey in a good untypical role but in a less than you expected performance, weak direction from Joel Schumacher match with some plot holes, the "detective scenes" show us the luck of creativity. If you don't have great expectations (because of the negative reviews) maybe you will enjoy this . At the end they offer to us a lesson about morality (for those who remember "Falling Down") and the "Family Joy and Cure" that ruins every possibility to be kind and find the film watchable P.S. It's obvious who is the "killer"! I wonder why W.Sparrow (Carey) didn't resolve the mystery from the beginning of the film...$LABEL$ 0
+while watching this movie I got sick. I have been grewing up with Pippi and every time was a real pleasure. when my wife came to Sweden she was looking at the oldies and had a real good laugh. but this American version should be renamed and never be shown again. it is terrible from beginning to it's end. how can they manage to make it soo bad. well I guess someone blames the translation ha ha ha.. but they are never close to Pippi. may this movie never been seen again and never sent out on a broadcast. burn the movie and save the kids. if you want to look at Pippi then look at the original movie and have a good laugh. WE LOVE PIPPI INGER NILSSON, sorry Tami Erin you will never stand up to be Pippi.. Oh yes.. when read the "spoilers" explanation, "'spoiling' a surprise and robbing the viewer of the suspense and enjoyment of the film." well I guess the director stands for this... you are looking at this movie at your own risk.. it is really a waste of time...$LABEL$ 0
+SPOILERS This is a gripping movie about grifters. But who is conning who here? When does the hunter turn into the prey? This gritty, dark movie is slow moving and seductive. It pulls you in and drags you down the proverbial garden path, only to waylay you just as you think you are safe.It has a riveting script, with good acting (at least from the leads). I didn't notice the background music, but it was never jarring, so it must have been done right.I was very surprised that I liked this movie, because I don't usually go for this genre but this one sucked me in and kept he hooked until the end.$LABEL$ 1
+Okay, I'll admit right up front that the Inki cartoons made by Loony Tunes are pretty offensive and I can understand why Warner Brothers has pulled them off the market. Seen today, the huge-lipped and very stereotypical Inki is not politically correct. However, the cartoons were well-made and it's a shame they aren't released with some sort of explanatory prologue (such as the one with Leonard Maltin they included with some recent politically incorrect Donald Duck cartoons that were recently released on DVD). In other words, throwing out the cartoons completely is to forget our history. Plus, Inki, Little Black Sambo and other racist cartoons are out there--especially on the internet.This Inki cartoon has our little hero out hunting. At first, he's chasing a cute little caterpillar but later accidentally happens upon a lion--a lion that is more than happy to make Inki his dinner. However, through all this, a weird Minah appears again and again...and eventually you'll see why this bird is so important to the story.Cute, well made and clever. I like the Inki cartoons. Plus, I take pleasure in showing them to extremely thin-skinned liberal friends just to watch them have apoplectic fits or even heart attacks. Loads of fun, folks!$LABEL$ 1
+I am a new convert you might as well say. I borrowed the dvds from my local library. I have been interested in samurai since watching 'The Last Samurai.' My dad told me he used to watch Shintaro when he was a kid. He said that it was pretty good. We are up to series 3. I absolutely love it. It takes a little to get used to the dubbed English voices over the characters speaking Japanese but I really enjoy it all the same. It is a little strange to watch the slight pauses when the ninja stars are thrown at characters and they stick into a tree or wall. I was not used to this but I am now. But I suppose that's the technology they had in the 60s. I've noticed that Shintaro is kind, friendly, willing to help those in need, he's very humble, most of the time he doesn't big note himself (he only says he is better than the enemy ninja). I admire Shintaro for these qualities. It's really interesting to watch the swordsmanship that Koichi Ose has. It is amazing. This series is for anyone who are interested in samurai.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is really nothing besides an admittedly well-crafted series of tense sequences punctuated with an inevitable "gotcha!" at the end of each. Really, there is no character development and no real plot to speak of. There are only the most skeletal of motivations for the characters to do anything while they trudge forward to their unavoidable dooms. It's all just an excuse to show a creepy ghost kid (who seems to have gotten some of the family cat mixed up in his ectoplasm) and his ghost mom (with long black hair hanging in her face kind of like "The Ring") take down a bunch of cardboard cut-out, two-dimensional excuses for human characters.This English-language version of "The Grudge" is the equivalent of cinematic junk food; satisfying momentarily, but not really what you ought to be living on.Not recommended.$LABEL$ 0
+If good intentions were enough to produce a good film, I would have rated the turgid, ponderous, obvious "Focus" a bit higher than 4. Macy does his best, but as an earlier poster commented, Miller's little parable asks us to suspend disbelief too often. Perhaps the novel gives us a bit more background on Newman, so we can understand how someone who is obviously not without intelligence could be so dense in perceiving the attitudes of those around him. I agree with another reviewer that if one is unaware of how bigoted average citizens were in America during this time period, then this movie might be an eye-opener. I grew up in the fifties, and the "good" pastors of my Lutheran church found nothing wrong with having the church picnic at a commercial beach, whose sign prominently indicated that no Jews or blacks would be admitted. It is difficult for young people today to understand that this was the norm, and not just in the South. As late as 1964, when I graduated from a somewhat racially integrated (but sexually segregated) public high school in Baltimore, my black classmates could not attend the traditional "father and son banquet," as it was held at a facility which did not admit blacks. Sadly, it was an establishment owned by a Jewish family. The subject matter of "Focus" is important, and we should never forget, despite the lingering signs of racism in modern America, how truly repulsive the attitudes of that previous generation were.(The "greatest generation," indeed). So, perhaps this film is somewhat valuable in countering the recent wave of sentimental crap about the forties from the likes of Steven Spielberg and Tom Brokow. But in the end, as in "Far From Heaven," the filmmakers' good intentions are undermined by having a protagonist so ridiculously oblivious to the social conventions of their time.$LABEL$ 0
+I hadn't heard anything about this project until I saw that it was going to be on, so I watched it with a completely open mind. And, gee, the cast is full of strong players.Unfortunately . . . it's awful. I don't mean it isn't good; I mean it's extraordinarily bad -- sometimes laughably so, but mostly it's just boring. Its strongest appeal comes from having attractive people as naked as US network TV will allow, but it's all tease and no substance, and having nymphs as backup characters can't justify several hours of bad TV.There are two basic problems that the cast can't overcome. First, the script is *awful*. Yes, making changes to the Hercules myth (which is certainly not a single monolithic story in the first place) is traditional, but this version is relentlessly dull and much too frequently dumb (and sometimes downright head-shakingly peculiar), with terrible pacing, bits borrowed from here and there (and several parts seemingly belonging in different films), and truly awful dialogue. The dialogue is frequently unbearably bad, in fact, to the point where you feel embarrassed for the actors. Sean Astin, apparently now typecast as second-banana, seems especially burdened by one awful line after another. There's no consistency of tone or atmosphere and little cohesion to the plot.Second, most of the special effects are really bad. REALLY bad. There's occasionally a decent bit of CGI, but mostly, again, you feel really embarrassed on behalf of the cast. I have no idea what the budget for this project was, but it sure looks like crap compared to "Clash of the Titans" or even "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" and doesn't even compare very favorably with the old Lou Ferrigno and Italian 'spaghetti' Hercules movies. Just painfully miserable.There are plenty of other problems -- the story is needlessly complex and can't keep up with itself, and Hercules himself isn't presented as a very interesting character. Almost everyone who doesn't have a European accent tries to fake one of some kind, which is not merely amateurish and dated but never really made sense in the first place: drama doesn't become better just because the actors use British accents, after all. But the terrible script and equally terrible effects sink the whole thing right off the bat.In fairness, "Hercules" was apparently intended as a four-hour miniseries but truncated (for this airing, anyway) to a three-hour TV movie. I don't know what they cut, but it's possible the edits made things worse. I don't think you could make "Hercules" good by adding to it, but that doesn't mean that the continuity, say, hasn't suffered from the network edits. There's no way I'll watch the USA version to see, though.$LABEL$ 0
+"Steve"(Chris Hoffman)gathers a group from high school for a reunion at the cabin location where his twin brother Wes went missing. While they are there, a reptilian creature in the shape of a man(reminded me a lot of the Gillman from CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON)awaits in the wilderness choosing the right time to pick them apart one by one. A biker, Ellen Ripley-type time female bad-ass, Kat(Chase Masterson)has an underground military bunker she practices experiments in, while it also serves as a place of safety from the thing on the bloody rampage. Kat knows more than she's telling(she also suffered the loss of a child), but there's another novelty twist most of the group have no idea of. This creature might just be more human than they realize..and it's former identity might shed some light on a deception only one other person has been hiding since Wes' death. Kat holds the key to many of the mysteries that unlock as the group remains near the cabin.Thankfully, a large portion of the film stays away from the creature which leaps in the air while we also see a hazy screen when we look through it's eyes. The film has Dawson's Creek-type melodramatics which often hinder any real tension that needs to build in a little monster movie. The direction is very bland leading to a relatively dull experience instead of eliciting scares. The cast is rather life-less and uninteresting. Pretty Maggie Grace(THE FOG remake) might be the only draw for this film.$LABEL$ 0
+Truly a wonderful movie. Bruce Willis gives his always-outstanding comedic-romantic acting power to this message-movie and the movie brings hope to the losers many of us know we are. A gift to everyone of middle age whose spent time seems both full and yet empty: there is more around the next bend and it can be great, enriching, and romantic. Leave the recent past and return to the lessons of the distant past, and then take off on a favorite flight to your better future. If we could re-live our youthful experiences, if we could really remember the events that shaped us, wouldn't we find a special kind of freedom? See the movie, open the gift.$LABEL$ 1
+Chucky's back...and it's about time! This time, with the help of Jennifer Tilly and a little spell from Voodoo For Dummies. Well, at least with this installment, the camp is back. This was the more gruesome of this series, so far. It has some good twists and some good action scenes. This one was by far, the most fun of the series, and successfully, if unintentionally, bridges the gap between pure horror to horror/comedy. I am looking forward to Seed of Chucky. It'll be a hoot!"Jesus, the music scene's gone to h3ll since I've been dead!" ChuckyWe needed the levity, as the doll thing's getting old. The added comedic element, and the better action scenes brings this one back up to equal the quality of the first, when the idea was fresh and new-ish.6.8/10 from...the Fiend :.$LABEL$ 1
+Nightkill stars Robert Mitchum as a world-weary private eye probing the case of a missing industrialist (Mike Connors). He is hired by Jaclyn Smith, the anxious wife of the missing man. What Jaclyn fails to inform Mitchum is that she knows full well her husband's whereabouts. After all, she was the one who helped her lover James Franciscus dispose of her wealthy hubby.What more would expect from a rotten slasher film with Robert Mitchum? Mannix goes western, monkeys are abused, models lean against classic cars, and Smith is constantly upstaged by Sybil Danning until a giallo style wrap-up brings the whole sorry mess to a bitter end. This is BAD cinema. And this movie is sooooo poor. It makes it look like Halloween mixed up with Trick Or Treats. Avoid this.Rated R for Graphic Violence, Nudity and Sexual Situations.$LABEL$ 0
+Mute Witness is a modest, yet very solid thriller that never really received the attention or good comments it deserves. The film – written and directed entirely by Anthony Waller – is a tense, action-packed thriller with black comedy aspects and horror influences. No pointless mumbo-jumbo or endless plot-twists…just straight to the point mystery. Mute Witness handles about the vicious topic of `snuff'-movies and is effectively set in Russia. *** SPOILERS *** Since the production costs are cheaper there, a US film crew temporarily moves to Russia for shooting a horror film. An old hangar is used as film location. The female make-up artist of the team accidentally gets locked up overnight and while trying to find a way out, she witnesses the recordings of an authentic snuff-movie! She's caught and tries to escape but, since she's a mute, she can't cry for help and neither can she explain what she saw to the police properly. The girl's life is in real danger now, since there's a whole hidden network behind these snuff productions and they don't want the witnesses to be alive… *** End Spoilers ***. Mute Witness contains multiple highly exiting action sequences and is rather bloody. Some of the mystery clues are effectively kept secret till the very end. Regarding the similar topic, I'd say it's definitely better than the more famous `8 mm', directed by Joel Schumacher and starring Nicolas Cage. The acting in Mute Witness isn't great, but the leading actress (who's Russian herself) looks really cute. Sir Alec Guinness makes a special appearance, too. And a very cool one, I may say. Surely recommended with guaranteed fun and scares.$LABEL$ 1
+This Film was really eye-opening. I have seen this film several times. First, when I was four and I actually remembered it and then when I was 12. The whole message that the director is conveying is for everyone to wake up and not make the mistake of leaving God out of our everyday lives or just Plain going the extra mile to insult him.A great Movie for Non-believers and Believers alike!$LABEL$ 1
+It was a painful experience, the whole story is actually there so I won't go into that but the acting was horrible there is this part in the very beginning when the scientist brother goes to work he actually wears a white coat at home before leaving to work, I thought working with biohazard material meant that you should wear sterilized clothes in a controlled environment and the lab itself looks like a school lab there is this monitor on top a file cabinet that has nothing to do with the whole scene its just there to make the place look technical and a scientist is actually having breakfast in the lab and next to him is a biohazard labeled jar and his boss walks in on him and doesn't even tell him anything about it...not to mentioned bad acting very bad can't get any worst than that my advice don't watch and I thought nothing could be worse than house of the dead apparently Uwi Boll's movies look like classical Shakespeare compared to this!$LABEL$ 0
+WWE has produced some of the worst pay-per-views in its history over the past few months. Cyber Sunday, Survivor Series and December to Dismember were appalling to say the least and so it was relying on its B brand show, Smackdown! to attempt to end the year on a high note. Armageddon had two major gimmick matches in the Last Ride and Inferno matches, three Championships were on the line and an interesting main event in the shape of a tag team war featuring Batista and John Cena against King Booker and Finlay. However, it was an amendment to one of those Championship matches that brought us not only the match of the night but also now a match of the year candidate when Teddy Long gave us fans an early Christmas present. T-Lo changed the WWE Tag Team Championship match from Champions, London and Kendrick against to Regal and Taylor to a four team Ladder match including MNM and The Hardy Boyz.I am not going to dwell on this match too much as nothing I can say would be able to do it justice. This has to be seen to be believed. There were many high spots and many more brutal bumps and awkward landings. The one move I have to talk about however was the one that took Joey Mercury straight to the emergency room midway through the contest. Jeff Hardy jumped onto a ladder that was set up in the see saw position with Matt Hardy holding both members of MNM over the opposite end of it to take the full force. Unfortunately for Mercury he didn't get his hands up to protect his face and took the ladder full force in the nose and left eye. This was vicious. His face was instantly a mess for all to see and not surprisingly this ended Mercury's night early. We found out later he suffered a broken nose and cuts under his left eye. Be warned. This is not for the faint of heart. The ending to this roller-coaster of a match came after Paul London managed to grab both Championship belts for the victory. I have been watching wrestling for almost 15 years and it doesn't get any better than this match. Unbelievable.The night opened with only the 4th ever Inferno match. Kane took on MVP in a good match but it was all about the visual and not really about the action. There were a few close calls with the flames for both competitors but in the end it was Kane who forced MVP onto the flames after they both ended up outside the ring. MVP ran around the ring whilst his butt was on fire and there was a sick part of me that laughed watching this. May I suggest to Michael Hayes that MVP comes out next week on Smackdown! to Johnny Cash's Ring of Fire.The other gimmick match of the night, and the second match of a triple main event was an all out war Last Ride match between Mr Kennedy and The Undertaker. This was a stiff match from start to finish and was the best of the series Undertaker and Kennedy have had yet. The used poles, chairs and one scene had The Undertaker thrown 15 feet from the Armageddon set onto what was suppose to be the concrete floor. Unfortunately it was plain to see that this was nothing but a crash mat and crowd didn't pop for this. The ending came after a chokeslam by The Dead Man to Kennedy on top of the hearse followed quickly by a match-winning tombstone.In other notable happening from the card. Chris Benoit defeated Chavo Guerrero by submission in another stiff match. This was a very good bout with Benoit hitting 8 German suplexes on Chavo at one time. Benoit was also considering whether to put Vikki Guerrero in the sharpshooter or not. Luckily he came to his senses and let her go. This led to Chavo attempting the roll up only for it to be countered into the sharpshooter for the submission.Another cracking match on the card was the Cruiserweight Championship contest between the longest reigning Champion in WWE, Gregory Helms and Jimmy Wang Yang. Featuring a lot of high flying and dangerous spots, some of which took place outside the ring, this was a match much more deserving of the crowd response than what it got. JBL put it best when he berated the fans in Richmond, Virginia for sitting on their hands during this one and at one point even started a boring chant. Helms picked up the duke after a jawbreaker type manoeuvre with his knees to Smackdowns! resident redneck.The Boogeyman pinned The Miz in a worthless match. I hate The Boogeyman with a passion. Only worth listening too for JBL's ranting about Miz. JBL is comedy gold.The last match of the night was main event number 3. World Heavyweight Champion, Batista and WWE Champion, John Cena teamed up to take on Finlay and the Champion of Champions, King Booker. There was no way the match could top the Tag Team Championship match from earlier on but it entertained none the less. The match would have been more memorable had it been given an extra five to ten minutes but how many times have I said that about WWE matches this year already. It was King Booker who was pinned at the end of the match after a big Batistabomb.So 2006 is over for the WWE in regards to it's pay-per-view schedule. It started the year on a terrible note with New Year's Revolution but ended on a high one with Armageddon. This Ladder match will long be remembered as one of the greatest ladder matches of all time. My hat is off to all eight competitors who but their bodies on the line to give the fans one hell of a match.$LABEL$ 1
+The time I wasted seeing this movie, I demand back! I felt sick afterward, but not because it touched me in any way. It's pretentious, trying to get the audience to feel bad for the people involved, but I couldn't care less. The characters are soulless and stupid. You don't get an explanation for some of the scenes and it doesn't leave any thoughts afterward to come up with your own explanation. All of the students in the movie has issues, but since you don't feel for them you don't believe their problems.If I could write better in English I'd never stop. But I can't, so, I'll stop now.Don't watch this.$LABEL$ 0
+Like others, I have seen and studied most of the books and films concerning the Clutter Killings, including a few dramatic works thematically based on the actions and psycho-mythology of the participants to the crime -- including Capote himself. As to Capote, I cannot forgive him for willfully withholding Perry Smith's confessions, intimacies and writings from even the defense counsels. I believe truths and facts Capote "reserved" for his "book," which required for Capote two guilty verdicts and capital punishment, would almost certainly have sustained a successful insanity defense for Perry Smith even under the old McNaughton Rule. Capote himself could never write another major literary work after "In Cold Blood." Shame and guilt. In my opinion, he willingly encouraged and planned the brutal capital punishment to provide the spectacular ending he required for his book/drama. To him, both men HAD to die for his book to succeed. The book had to justify itself by pretending it was about the horror of capital punishment. His actions and silence assured that ice-cold conclusion.Capote's book is not truth. It is not factual or journalistic. It is drama and melodrama spiced with his own creatively psychotic imagination. What most people consider the virtues of the contemporaneous first movie are stark images of Capote's mind, which may have been the most cold-blooded aspect of all. No wonder viewers ironically but necessarily prefer Blake's performance. That actor IS the nightmare from Capote's dishonest imaginings.So who is to say how the two killers should be played? Who is to judge what could make an essentially poetic psychotic snap from excessive courtesy and kindness to "do it now" killing? I agree with the few who see in Eric Roberts' work a magnificent performance, Shakespearean in its range, yet played with heartbreaking sincerity. Anthony Edwards takes a much safer "attitude mode" to create a smarmy Hickok; but he is one-dimensional and boring, with only a few notes in his television range. Roberts is almost four-dimensional, adding physical weakness and agony to a powerful animal body, a Frankenstein Creature who thinks in poetry and knows exactly what NOT to do. Like Leopold apropos Loeb, Robert's Perry Smith is hopelessly in love with an evil man. Without Hickok or a man of his particularities, Perry Smith would not have brought his psychotic mind into a world of horrors. He fears himself more than he fears anything else in life.Given the freedom from Capote's death grip on the consciousness of the Clutter killings, Roberts and Edwards are free to create original personalities and psychoses to craft a different and new production of the drama. Same facts, some of the same lines from the case record, but deeper, more complex, with clearly titanic psychotic stresses -- indeed Roberts is so good at this fluidic madness that he physically and facially demonstrates in every moment how little awareness he has of where or who he is.What many of our reviewers dislike about this film, Roberts in particular, is that cold-blooded killing isn't shown the way they expect and have been manipulated to demand. That is because here we are seeing a far more profoundly realistic "interpretation of life and death" than Capote could ever create -- a real Tragedy.The actual cold-blooded killer, Mr. Capote, and his hypocritically artistic "non-fiction novel" do not control these interpretations and performances.If "In Cold Blood" and Capote's effect on life, literature and truth matters as much as scholars say, then it takes guts as well as talent to portray the truth, or a version of the truth, that is not the rank, cowardly lie drawn up from the fathoms of Capote's own abyss.$LABEL$ 1
+"Fungicide" is quite possibly the most incompetent, embarrassing, pitiful "film" I have ever seen. The acting is criminal, the direction practically non-existent, and the special effects presumably put together by unleashing a monkey with learning difficulties on a defenceless laptop computer.Far be it from me to stifle creativity, but I actually believe things like this shouldn't be made. I am sure the "film"-makers will say that, yes, the "film" was hampered by a low (as in nothing) budget - but in that case they just really shouldn't have bothered. As it is, they have offered the world something so dire, so execrable, that only imbeciles could get the merest shade of enjoyment from it.Starting the "movie" it wasn't as though I was expecting "Citizen Kane" or anything. I was expecting a low budget little horror with perhaps a modicum of inventiveness, a hint of fun, and even some energy. What I got was the cinematic equivalent of a used handkerchief.The plot? Well, our leering antihero scientist, who works in his parents' basement, is seen manically stirring some goo in a cup. Apparently, such high-level science is the end-result of years of research. His parents then send him off to a strange hotel-type place in the countryside to relax. There are some other people there, who are simply too awful to write about. Anyway, the scientist drops his test-tube onto some mushrooms - and soon the mushrooms grow and kill some people. (Wow, I'm getting suicidal just writing the plot summary). Our heroes save the day by detonating a barrel of balsamic vinegar (by attaching a "fuse" - really a piece of string - to it). The barrel unaccountably explodes with the power of a small nuclear weapon, destroying all the mushrooms. The end. (Thank goodness).That summary is as good as the "film" gets (and actually makes it sound a lot more interesting than it actually is). It really should never have got past this stage of development (by which I mean a plot outline scribbled on the back of an envelope with crayons). Somebody should have really stepped in and given someone a vigorous shake and said "NO." And those "special" effects. Well, they're "special" all right. This is CGI gone crazy. And done by a person who I can only assume believes the bicycle pump to be the pinnacle of modern technology. And when the mushroom monsters are not in the style of a 1984 home computer graphics package, they are represented by actors shuffling along covered in a sheet (I kid you not).One of the most inexcusable things about the movie is its laziness. This can be summed up by the scene in which the hero spins his guns (a la Clint Eastwood) and then fails miserably to get them in his pockets. I mean come on, a couple of retakes and he could have pulled it off, but just to leave it as it is - really weak.I cannot believe money was spent on this camcorder-shot rubbish. The "film"-makers should hang their heads in shame and be banned from going within fifty metres of any movie-making equipment.I also think it's wrong that friends and family of the makers come onto IMDb and post mendacious reviews and give stupidly high user ratings which give a totally inaccurate picture of the "movie." "Fungicide" is an absolute travesty of film-making. Mr Wascavage is either very, very stupid or very, very cynical.$LABEL$ 0
+"Her Cardboard Lover" is Norma Shearer's last movie. She quit the movies and, I think, joined the Board of Directors at MGM. That was a good move on her part. "Her Cardboard Lover" was talky and boring in parts. It was obvious there were only a handful of actors with speaking parts so they had a lot of dialogue to speak to keep this turkey afloat. The story was a good idea about a wealthy woman (Norma Shearer) hiring a man (Robert Taylor) to make her playboy fiancee (George Sanders)jealous. I am surprised that the director, George Cukor, did not cut many of the talky scenes between Ms. Shearer and Mr. Taylor. Mr. Cukor served Ms. Shearer well in "The Women" but not in this movie. The best performance in the movie was given by Robert Taylor. During Mr. Taylor's career, he was given his best comedy roles in this movie and "When Ladies Meet" in 1941. In 1942, he gave his best comedy performance in "Her Cardboard Lover" and, up to then, his best dramatic performance in "Johnny Eager." He had a busy year. I think of all the actors at MGM, Mr. Taylor worked with all the major and minor actresses on the lot. Also, MGM gave Mr. Taylor all types of movies to make - most of them were successful. That is why MGM kept him for 25 years. Mr. George Sanders was very good as a socialite heel. He played a similar role eight years later in "All About Eve" for which he won an Oscar for a supporting role. As for Ms. Shearer, this was one of her worst performances, she was not funny and too dramatic for this comedy. It is strange that she made a great comedy in 1939, "The Women", and gave her best performance. It was obvious that she was too old looking for her younger leading men in "Her Cardboard Lover." Also, it didn't help that some of her clothes were awful.Too bad she and Mr. Taylor did not make another dramatic movie like their last movie together, the superb "Escape". The same comments about this movie can be said of another movie, "Personal Property" that Mr. Taylor made in 1937 with Jean Harlow. It was too talky, boring, and the actress looked old. Ms. Harlow looked ill throughout the movie and nobody in Hollywood noticed to tell her to see a doctor, so in 1937, she died at age 26. What a waste! She was becoming a good actress and getting better roles.$LABEL$ 0
+Uzumaki, which translates into "spirals", arriving within this new wave of Asian Horror films following such hits like Ringu, Ju-On and The Eye (two of them with remakes.. and much more coming like Dark Water and Tale of Two Sisters), falls short of the spooky, supernatural thriller element so characteristic of the other movies, the only thing that remains is weirdness and not in a Tim Burton or David Lynch kind of way, but in a irrelevant and dull way. Its start with a girl, some other kid with a crush on her, her best friend and his dad who's obsessed with Uzumakis! Everything that happens concerns Uzumakis, people die and you see Uzumakis. So okay, It'll go along with it, I'm kinda amuse by spirals myself, characters don't seem to go anywhere, but I'll play along. We find out the town is cursed by Uzumakis, people start screaming at Uzumakis and the point is Uzumakis are everywhere, the movie is a disaster, it doesn't know where to go, except to show you the power of Uzumakis!!!!!!!!! There are some cool concepts like when the mother cuts her fingers because she sees Uzumakis on her fingerprints but then there's another scene where she hears her husband (from beyond the grave!!) tell her that she also has Uzumakis in her ear, the way they handled that scene was just laughable, not even cheesy fun, there are also some (a little bit) of cool visuals, like the collection the father has of Uzumakis and the girl with the Uzumakis hair.. yep, Uzumakis hair, its out of context though, its seems like it was taken out of a Fruit Snack commercial where if you eat an Uzumakis fruits snack, its taste is so incredible your hair turns into Uzumakis, now if this wasn't bad enough, suddenly, out of nowhere there are Snail Men.. or ManSnails… whatever… and you know why? right? Because in their shells they have Uuuuzuuuumaaakiiiis…. That only left time enough for a crappy anti-climatic ending and by that time I was sick of friggin' uzumakis.. uzumaki here uzumaki there, sure, look around you, how many Uzumakis can you find… If you want to see a movie about spirals go see PI (3.1416) now there you'll find some pretty cool uzumaki concepts in between the meaning of life and Dark City has also a little bit of a spiraling thing in there.This movie could have worked as a music video, it has already garnered a cult following and thats why I was compelled to see it, but after doing so, I'm not sure why people think it's great. I was truly disappointed.$LABEL$ 0
+Bog Creatures shows exactly what can happen when very enthusiastic people get together with a little cash, some knowledge of movie making, a mixed bag of aspiring actors, and a lot of determination, yet all without the necessary knowledge and skills to pull off anything more than a fairly poor looking After School Special (in a bad way, not a nostalgic good way). I mean this is so-so quality home movie / student film stuff if you want to pass it around to family and friends for free. Thankfully, I found it in a discount bin somewhere. Sure, there may be some sort of market out there for this kind of thing, but it is a market that seems to only exist by default because there are so many poor B movies out there. Even more so now in this day and age.The only people I would recommend this move to is aspiring guerrilla filmmakers. First, I would recommend that they watch the special feature MAKING OF thing included on the disc. See the film crews enthusiasm, their hard work, joy, and very high opinions of their own product. THEN watch the movie. Within a few frames you will hopefully understand what went wrong. Bored, I went through the whole thing and clearly the director and cinematographer tried, but just don't know enough about what they are doing. They knew enough to have fun, but in the long run, without necessary skills, this interprets to: They knew enough to be dangerous. This is like a bad Nickelodeon movie (as apposed to a more decent one I guess). A couple of the actors did ok, and the cool stoner looking dude with the tattoo (real or fake tattoo I know not) was probably the best and most natural and I hope he makes it. But their natural acting talent was what was coming through despite the bad movie, bad script, and so-so directing principles. If the director had spent more time helping these aspiring actors to develop their characters, studying successfully proven camera techniques and lighting principles to direct his crew better, and if the script had been actually worked on instead of written in a week or so (according to the very indulgent documentary) then maybe this could have been more of a film. Instead, it's a film that has a feeling of some potential, and has a few moments in it (due more to the genre than the film itself), but ends up showing nearly every frame, WHAT NOT TO DO. If you want to see what a decent low budget horror movie can really look like, watch Phantasm or even Laserblast. If you want a glorified home movie (no joke), get Bog Creatures.$LABEL$ 0
+Having listened to and enjoyed Harvey Bernhard's Omen II commentary I was shocked to discover he was also behind this absolute piece of rubbish. It's like a really bad TV movie you might glimpse in the middle of the day when you have the flu and are too ill to reach the remote. I think at the bit where Michael Lerner is confronted by what I can only describe as a high school cast of Les Miserables my mouth hung open in disbelief. And then my mouth was going up and down because I was laughing so much. Dire. I don't know why I have to write a minimum of ten lines, I have made my point succinctly, there's nothing clever about all this modern verbiage.$LABEL$ 0
+Tim Taylor is an abusive acholoic drug addict. He's a coward and a child and has absolutely no redeeming qualities as an actor or a person. The only film with him in it that is enjoyable is "Galaxy Quest" and that just because his character - a boozed out washed up actor from a former hit TV show - was so close to real life for him. The rest of the cast is equally bad. I HATE the mother and the actress that played her Patricia Richardson, she sucks! Ever cliché is there, the stupid woman who is fat and likes opera and only cares about her children, while in real life she's proclaims family values and gets divorced after having twins. And the child actors were about as interesting as a root canal.$LABEL$ 0
+I have to admit that Holly was not on my watch list for the Edinburgh Film Festival. However, after the Artistic Director of the Festival specifically recommended this film to an audience of over 200 people prior to the screening of another film, I decided to go to see it. Wow! This film is dealing with the very difficult issue of child prostitution and does so without any compromise. I have found myself crying a number of times during the movie and laughing at others. Speaking about an emotional roller coaster.The lead actor (Thuy Nguyen) is a Vietnamese newcomer (who was only 14 at the time of filming) and had to tackle this incredibly complex and difficult role. She reminded me of Keisha Castle-Hughes from Whale Rider but the role here is much more demanding as she has to play a child prostitute. Chances are that she will win numerous awards.The main story is about a girl who was sold to prostitution by her family and held as a sex-slave in a brothel in Cambodia. She meets an American (played by Ron Livingston in a strong dramatic role that we are not used to see from him), who after spending some time with her decides to help her. By that time however, she is sold again and he is going on a search for her around Cambodia. The story turns and twists and the audience can never predict what will happen next.The acting was strong across the board with a very interesting international cast. Udo Kier (very convincing as a sex tourist), Virgine Ledoyen (touching as a social worker) and Chris Penn (one of his last movies). The Asian cast was also superb.Although the film deals with this difficult subject matter it focuses successfully on telling a compelling, powerful story. It was shot in Cambodia (some scenes in real operating brothels) which adds to the feeling that you are almost watching a documentary. It seems that the DP used a lot of hand held camera and close-ups and overall it made you feel like you are right there as part of the story.After the screening, I was listening to other members of the audience as they left and it seemed that they were all stunned. This is not an easy film to watch and I salute the filmmakers for not making a "Hollywood Film."It is by far the best film I have seen in the Edinburgh Film Festival. Opinion shared by my husband and a couple of other friends.$LABEL$ 1
+My one line summary should explain it all, but I'll have a go at it.From the get-go, this movie seemed like an overdone soap opera, and that's about all I can comment on. There were a few interesting scenes, such as the "Big one" that hit during the middle of the movie, but, wait, what's that? The earthquake *gasp*, wait a minute! That's Dante's Peak! Well, parts of it butchered and slapped in. I can't believe how poorly this movie was done, "borrowing" scenes from other, much better films. One wonders what director thought that viewers are dumb enough to believe large wooded mountain-esque backdrops exist in downtown LA, ala Dante's Peak.My advise, forget the Bond Wanna-be, Nash, in this film and go for the real thing (again, someone from Dante's Peak coincidentally.)$LABEL$ 0
+Okay okay, I must admit, I do somewhat like Peter Liapis and I'll admit this is not the best Ghoulies sequel. I mean, yeah, it had its flaws, such as NO GHOULIES themselves. But the two Ghoulies that come to earth were really funny, I guess they were called, Dark and Lite. I enjoyed the plot of the movie. And even at the end of the movie both Ghoulies implied that there would be a sequel. Still waiting. lol. Peter Liapis reprised his role as Jonathan Graves, this time playing a detective, how cute! Ghoulies IV may not be scary or suspenseful, but it is definitely funny. I thought I would comment on this movie and just say -- it's not that bad. It is worth watching even though the Ghoulies aren't in it.$LABEL$ 1
+I have always loved the ironic symbolism and brilliant cinematography of Coppola's masterpiece. I was lucky enough to meet Martin Sheen outside the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium one night in 1981, as he waited for Charlie and Emilio to leave a concert. He was very humble about the praise I shared with him for this work of art, especially his portrayal of the young Captain. This is, without a doubt, a must see, a complete 10 and an important part of American Film History. "Charlie Don't Surf". Robert Duvall's famous line (the other one) does not need repeating as it has become an oft repeated anthem and his Pattonesque character will long be remembered as a classic American war hawk in the John Wayne tradition. It is a surprise to see how young Laurence Fishburne looks.$LABEL$ 1
+I sat down to watch this movie with my friends with very low expectations. My expectations were no where near low enough. I honestly could not tell what genre this movie was from watching it, and if it was a comedy, the humor was completely missed. The plot was nonexistent and the acting was horrendous. My friends and I managed to watch approximately 30 to 40 minutes of this film before we turned it off and promptly begged the video store to take it back. I do NOT recommend this movie to anyone unless you are purposely trying to watch the worst movies of all time. I honestly don't know how this film lasted more than a day in theatres and moreover I can not understand why anyone would willing watch it, considering not only it's very uninteresting title but also the lack of any famous actors/actresses in it's cast. This review is not a joke and I honestly think this could possibly be the worst movie ever made. It's certainly the worst movie I've ever had to sit through.$LABEL$ 0
+I don't think this movie was rated correctly. I took my copy and blacked out the PG rating and wrote down R. I would NOT recommend this for anyone under 17 or 18, whatever the R limit is.Why? It contains a scene in the jungle with several topless Indian women. I don't know about you, but that's not something for little children to be watching. True, it might be the traditional "clothing style" of the African (?) Indians, but... I think partial nudity should give a movie an R rating.I haven't seen the movie recently, but I guess otherwise, it was alright.$LABEL$ 0
+This film is really a big piece of trash trying to make itself look like a Hollywood production.Poor story outline(stupid robot story)...ultra bad acting by untalented pop idols...and they are trying to"FIGHT"!!!My goodness...those miserable actors uses wires to make them look like they are "good fighters"...:(and I hate that arrogant Edison Chen...the worst actor I have ever seen!!!I will never touch his movies again.AVOID this movie at all costs!!!I wanted to give it a negative value out of ten...not even worth a 0/10.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm a Geena Davis fan for life because of this movie. I've always loved Samuel L Jackson. And the two make a great pair on screen. This said, I think 'TLKG' is the best action movie I've ever seen, forget the twist endings that audiences have now come to expect and that filmmakers now try (mostly failing) to incorporate into their movies.10/10$LABEL$ 1
+A great 90's flick! Parker Posey is fabulous in this story about the nightlife in Manhattan that requires so much cash. Posey gives an amazing performance as a librarian and a night crawler. This is a good, light movie for Saturday night before you go out. The soundtrack rocks, the outfits are out of this world, the script is funny and the actors do a great job. The redeeming value : you can make it in this world if you try, just find your niche. I believe Parker Posey is the PERFECT actress for this kind of character: young, fabulous and broke. (You must look up the movie "Clockwatchers" ). If you watch Party Girl you are bound to have a good time. Enjoy!$LABEL$ 1
+This fantasy was utter garbage. I thought Michael Moore cornered the market on ridiculous anti-government movies, but this one was far worse than anything he ever did. No wonder critics of the British media complain it's driven by tabloid journalism. This movie is a left-wing loony's greatest fantasy come to life on the big screen. Anyone even slightly to the right of such rabid Bush-bashers should be appalled it ever got funding to be made. I'm sure it will do well in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea, though. It's hard to believe that in these days of insane Muslims blowing up innocent commuters there is anyone in the U.K. who thinks Britain should surrender in the war on terrorism. I guess it's no longer the country I admired for standing alone against the Nazis nearly 70 years ago. All hail Neville Chamberlain and the pathetic policy of appeasement!$LABEL$ 0
+Satan's Little Helper is one of the better B Horror movies I have seen. When I say better I mean the story. The film hatches a new plot, something that's not so cliché in the Horror genre - something fresh. But there are also some ridiculous questions that come along with it. Questions you will be asking yourself throughout the movie.The film first caught my attention while I was cruising the Horror section in HMV. I was tired of all the so called "terrifiying" Hollywood blockbusters and wanted something different. The cover art for Satan's Little Helper immediately caught my attention. As you can see, the image draws you in - it's chilling! I knew it was a straight to DVD release - but I took a chance. I mean, I just seen "Boogey Man" the night before - so It couldn't get any worse! After I watched the movie, I was semi-satisfied. I loved the plot of the movie. It was really creepy how the killer was pretending to be the little boys friend, so he could kill. In some sick deranged way, he actually thought he and the little boy would become partners - a duo of terror. It was a great idea to set the film on Halloween night. This way, no one would think anything of a masked man beside a little kid. They would simply think he was his guardian. But, this is also where the "plot holes" begin to surface.If your son came home with a "friend" he met trick or treating - that's fine. You wouldn't think anything of it - if he was 9!, or round about the same age as him. If however, he appeared with a strange man in a mask, you would be startled and protective of your child. You would ask the man to remove his mask and identify himself. You would ask why he is with your son. He doesn't know him. You would tell him to please leave. He isn't a family friend. He's a stranger. Now, we're supposed to teach our child not to talk to strangers. In this case, the mum is completely fine with it. Huh? They never seem to think it's a tad odd that the "man" doesn't speak - at all. Gruanted they think it's the daughters boyfriend, but after 10 minutes of not talking you would pull the mask off and ask him why he's not saying a word.The film goes down hill from there. The thing that got me the most was, all the mum said was "Do you want some cider?". I can't count how many times she says this in the movie. It's like, oh you're dying - we have cider though, it's all good!! The movie started promising, and failed to deliver. It was more of a horror/comedy, and even as that it fails to deliver. I guess you could call it a "Dud","Flop" etc..The best thing about the movie is the cover art. Though, something tells me that's not worth the 12 dollars!$LABEL$ 0
+Cartoon-like special effects, horrible acting and dialogue, and dry plot! This movie has it all! My friend and I went to blockbuster to find a horrible movie that we could make fun of, but this was just too much. The movie begins with a women and her son vacationing on a made-up island in the Bahama region. The women, who just happens to be a doctor/virologist is in the area when a man collapses. He has a strange wound on his arm, and she immediately knows that it is a contagious virus. The story goes on to show startlingly fast romance between the two teenage leads (this is justified by the girl saying "I know it's fast, but it just feels nice." ????) Anyway the entire island gets infected with this virus and the CDC is brought in. We are told that within three months, if the virus is not treated and contained that it will spread to the united states and kill millions of people. This information does not stop the CDC from leaving the island to save themselves. Thankfully the cure to this horrible virus is found just in time, and the entire island is saved. To celebrate the death of there loved ones, the island people have a smashing party where everyone is dancing, having fun, and forgetting about the horrible epidemic that just occurred.$LABEL$ 0
+Much about this movie was beautiful. The acting, the scenery, and without a doubt, Aaron's cinematography background showed through on the beautiful shots. Definitely worth watching, as your attention will be captivated the entire time, and it ends on just the right note.The acting by newcomer Jonathan Furr was superb, as one would think he was a pro acting since he was born. He has gone on to act in other feature films, but this starring role will always be remembered.The film does have that academy award feel to it at times, where it's slow and scenic and quiet, so it's not a movie that a.d.d. kids can sit through. However, the rustic feel of East Bend and Yadkinville played out well as a 1940's era film.$LABEL$ 1
+I will admit I didn't pay full attention to everything going on in this film, but to be honest, I don't think it would have mattered. Basically local councillor Sidney Fiddler (Sid James) persuades the incompetent Mayor Frederick Bumble (Kenneth Connor) of Firecombe to hold a beauty contest, to improve the town's image. They face opposition from women's liberationist Augusta Prodworthy (June Whitfield) trying to sabotage the contest, but they do have publicity agent Peter Potter (Bernard Bresslaw) and Palace Hotel owner Connie Philpotts (Joan Sims). Soon enough the young, beautiful wannabe models show up, including Hope Springs (Barbara Windsor), Paula Perkins (Valerie Leon), Dawn Brakes (Goldfinger's Margaret Nolan), Debra (Sally Geeson) and Ida Downs (EastEnders' Wendy Richard). When the girls have cat fights, it does draw away regular residents, but after quite a while of some plodding not that funny innuendos and William (Jack Douglas) having over-active twitches, it does finally reach the competition, and it's just afterwards I couldn't be bothered. Also starring Patsy Rowlands as Mildred Bumble, Peter Butterworth as Admiral, Joan Hickson as Mrs. Dukes, David Lodge as Police inspector, Angela Grant as Miss Bangor, Arnold Ridley as Councillor Pratt, Robin Askwith as Larry, Patricia Franklin as Rosemary, Jimmy Logan as Cecil Gaybody and Dad's Army's Bill Pertwee as Fire brigade chief, Charles Hawtrey had obviously quit the Carry Ons, but where's Kenneth Williams? I suppose seeing Babs and young, beautiful looking Pauline Fowler in bikinis, but for comedy value, this fails miserably, and the overuse of the swanny whistle just gets on your nerves. Pretty poor!$LABEL$ 0
+From all the bad comments about this movie and add them up I feel the same way. It may look like the Australians are weaklings instead they were brave soldiers. In this film it was very terrible and too graphic. I didn't see enough heroism just more cowardice which is ashame because its nothing from what I read. We don't need the extremity of violence like that we can use our vivid imagination of what they went through. It's like saving private ryan where the nazi is pushing his knife slowly in the soldier. For example Mel Gibson is a over extreme director for his movies not because of the violence but for the level of historical inaccuracy. Letters of Iwo Jima was one of the war films that was close enough to history (although I could be wrong) except Flags of our Fathers and Bridge of the River Kwai. You're better off reading it its an insult to the victims and the fallen if you don't tell it right, and the movie drag on for too long there was nothing interesting about the dialogue and not enough retribution from the aussies to kill Japanese soldiers. Just read history on the internet, mags and in books. Movies always kill the sense of realization. What they did to POWs in Singapore and the Philippines was just dreadful escpically to civilians. It just makes me feel proud to see goodies beat the baddies but movies like this ruin it.$LABEL$ 0
+Eh. This is a popcorn movie, nothing more. I watched this with a bunch of friends (and though that might NOT be the best way to view a horror movie...) and most of the dialogue and action was laughable.It left me yearning for a real film. :)The main problem is the lack of tension in the film. It keeps flashing back to 'explanation' scenes, which dissipates any discernible tension.And the character relationship 'twists'? Yeah, they suck. I won't say what they are, but they just don't add anything to the film/storyline.(By relationship, I mean the two main characters.)Eek. My recommendation is this: watch this movie if you can't think of anything better. Mediocre at best...Maybe not even that.$LABEL$ 0
+To say I was disappointed is an understatement. An amateur film made by professionals. I was about to leave the theater in two or three occasions (something I've never done)I was stopped by Cloris Leachman really. She rings true, the only one I should say. This new women are less modern than the George Cukor women of the 30's. This ones are "acting" for us trying to be with it but their "conflict" is exactly the same as it has always been, in movies anyway. The fun of the original was based on a crisp, vitriolic and very funny script. A masterful direction and an unrepeatable cast. All the elements that are missing here. TV actresses mingling with models and Oscar nominees/winners. There wasn't anything organic about it. The whole thing felt like a put on, improvised in the moment without a clear objective. 2/10$LABEL$ 0
+This picture for me scores very highly as it is a hugely enjoyable and amusing spoof of Alien Invaders taking over a town and many of its' men folk.The town and the players are all decked out in sort of 1950's style and the whole movie has a deliberate tacky and kitschy feel to it. Some of the scenes are hilarious like with the birth of an alien creature.All the actors give full blooded and serious performances which makes the film even funnier and the special effects and Aliens are at least it seems to me intentionally 3rd rate to add to the amusement.These type of films often deserve a cult following:8/10.$LABEL$ 1
+What I hoped for (or even expected) was the well known "stop motion" imagery and extreme slow motions, extreme zooms and all embracing fish eye takes. In short: The art of a) finding interesting Visual Events and b) capturing them in a way the human eye is not capable of, to be replayed so that the human eye can see. The stuff that made the other Qatsi's hits.I just wondered how the creation of the whole would fit the title.Having watched the movie I got the feeling that the focus in this third part was on the message and not on the wrapping. That's fine, especially since the message is so valid. But I already knew the message, and it appeared there was nothing else left for me. More then half the film was solarized or colorized or posterized or transformed through some other filter. It looked a lot like the effects your video camera does but you never use. A lot of the images would have been prettier without the filters, like the giraffe and zebra chase. You could say that 'technology or whatever human based malicious source disfigured our beautiful nature' but why use these seventies effects to symbolize that? At the point that there had been more than 10 minutes in a row of this cheap looking effect I was ready to leave. The hope that the rest just couldn't BE that bad made me stay. But then there was the slow motion: slow motion is good because it gives you time to analyze the moving picture. But if there are no more than 24 or maybe 50 or 60 frames a second, then there's just not enough motion to slow down. Please, record the motion-to-be-slowed faster, like was done with the beautiful shots of the foaming and splashing water (some of) the laughing people and the drill song singing soldiers. I acknowledge that archive pictures can't be redone, but I had already seen a lot of that footage anyway, it could have done without it. It must have been a lot of work to search through the archive footage, and the effects can't have been that easy to apply and arrange as well. On top of that, a lot of the work was mixed with each other. It shows that the creator wasn't out to lengthen the movie or to spare himself. But I didn't like the mixed stuff one bit... The idea behind it was sometimes nice or even clever, but the implementation was insufficient. The computer generated images didn't bother me that much, however out of date. The 'bits' streaming along circuits (in the first part of the film) looked more recent and were nice. Mandelbrot is always fun, the fractal-mountain was less. I was pleased to hear a cello playing a major role in the music. A little less vibrato at certain moments would have been appropriate with Glass' music, but that's a matter of taste. As is all of the above, of course. I do hope that there will be another Qatsi story to tell soon, where computer imagery will have a less significant role and that will inspire somebody to get into the field again.$LABEL$ 0
+The turgid pace of this movie numbs us to any shocks that it might provide. There was no real suspense. Most of the characters were insipid. The chesty Irish priest was as lame as the love interest. Interest is misleading. The girl that they chose to provide the film's sensuality might be better. The central conflict of the main character was uninvolving. This film is entirely devoid of positives. It is like a tedious exercise by someone who didn't want to go to the gym that day but did anyway.$LABEL$ 0
+Not the best of the Lone Star series, but it moves along quickly with good performances. Introduced as "Singin' Sandy" in the main title, John Wayne as a 'singing cowboy' isn't successful-- you never even see a front close-up of him while he's 'singing.' The actual singer is the director's son, Bill Bradley, who warbles away sounding like many popular singers of the day such as Hutch or Joseph Wagstaff. The film features: Cecilia Parker (also seen in "The Lost Jungle" serial, "Tombstone Canyon," and as older sister Marian in the Andy Hardy movies) doing her best Katherine Hepburn-- "Really they mustn't; really I'm not"; Al St. John, before he literally became "Fuzzy" filling all his available screen time with his characteristic business of hat flipping, head and chin scratching, grimacing, and gawky physical gestures and movements; George (pre-Gabby) Hayes as a gentle pipe smoking father; and Forrest Taylor, minor vet of 395 movies and TV shows, playing the oily villain with string bow tie and prop cigar. Fun or odd moments: Yakima Canutt's great 'under the stagecoach' trick; the 'gay' scene when Singin' Sandy ties Bert and Elmer together face to face, drags them roped to his horse, and dumps them at Kincaid's office, where Kincaid says, "You're a fine pair of lovebirds!"; Denton's rapturous comment after an atrocious song and guitar playing performance by 'Sandy,' -- "Ummm. I could listen to that all night!"; Kincaid's reply, We won't go into that," after being told by a rancher "You've got the soul of a snake!"; and, of course, he utters the immortal, "I've made Denton an offer he can't refuse." The plot of the movie is saved by Sandy's tricking Kincaid, and later saying the three magic words in many of these films: "I'm from Washington." FDR has saved us from the Depression! (Is that why the villains are always either bankers or in real estate?) The shootout sequence is taken from the earlier Bradbury film "Man from Hell's Edges" (1932). All of the Lone Star westerns are special because of their unique mixture of interesting characters, the troupe of actors and stunt people, and the spin on the clichés and repetitive back stories and situations. This one ranks a little low, marred by the inappropriate and mis-used "Singing Cowboy" gimmick. I'll give it a 4.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie with a friend who ran a marathon with me, and we both had the same feeling about it: it wasn't terribly motivating, and didn't even broach the idea of what a training schedule would look like, so that non-marathoners could have an idea of what it would take for them to train and run one. In fact there was almost zero technical information at all. I didn't expect this to be a tech-heavy instructional video, but when that info was near zero then the film just wasn't balanced, and wasn't particularly useful to non-marathoners contemplating their first run.There were other problems. Some of the very first images were people collapsing near death while trying to run a race. Yeah, real inspiring. The timing was also hard to follow, because it was semi chronological, but the filmmakers rarely gave you any good clues as to what point in time you were looking at. And they withheld information. You see that Kantor has an injury, and you just assume it's from all her training, but then several scenes later they finally clue you in that it's because she tripped over a pine cone in her yard.Some parts were very good, though, like the bit about a woman defying race officials who wanted the run to be men-only, and the coverage of a Chicago race where two of the runners portrayed earlier were vying for first place.Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of other chronological documentaries, like Supersize Me, and Grass, where you always know where you are, and you feel like they told you everything you wanted to know.In short, it wouldn't have been hard to make a better marathon film, and as it stands I can't recommend this to non-marathoners to educate and motivate them to try one, because I don't think it will have that effect.$LABEL$ 0
+"The Love Letter" is a somewhat pleasant, very very low-key romantic comedy in which the use of just the right few words in a mysterious love letter unlocks the secret passions and longings of a sleepy sea-side town's inhabitants.It's not for all audiences. "The Love Letter", I feel, benefits from it's simple and quiet tone. Never intentionally wacky and phony like most romantic comedies it's quaint, picturesque, and comfy. However, for these exact same reasons, many viewers will be bored and disinterested.The cast is nice. It's great to see Tom Selleck again, and is such an underplayed role. And it's hard to believe this is the same Kate Capshaw we met 15 years ago in "Indiana Jones and the Temple Of Doom". She's quite naturally good here; improving in every role I've seen her in since grating on Indy's nerves. And is it possible Capshaw is just getting lovelier and lovelier with age ? ( What is it about that Spielberg!?)It doesn't amount to much; but after another noisy summer movie season I'll probably look back with brief fondness for this light-as-a-feather romance.$LABEL$ 1
+My wife and I just finished watching Bûsu AKA The Booth. She fell asleep during some parts of the movie. I really wish I had taken a snooze with her, but the unfortunate fact is that the main character's voice is so loud and grating that it was impossible for me to sleep. When our protagonist speaks, it makes me want to hear Regis Philbin and William Shatner sing karaoke. He also has no redeeming qualities. I was hoping he'd get hit by a bus five minutes into the film.Don't get me wrong, I love Asian horror cinema, but The Booth is extremely irritating and full of scenes that really make no damned sense at all. If you want some good Asian cinema, check out A Tale of Two Sisters or Into The Mirror. Avoid The Booth like the plague, especially if you suffer from frequent migraines.$LABEL$ 0
+May be spoilers so do not read if you do not want to Just like watching the TV news , everything is already happened, a great tsunami looms over a city bay and CUT , no more to see, Tokay suffers a large earthquake , did anyone see more than the 5 seconds I saw? If you want to make a love story , make a love story but if you want to use a disaster movie title , do please be kind enough to show me THE DISASTER , pd after watching this movie watch JISHIN RETTO or any GODZILLA film to satisfy the part that was willing to see people screaming and buildings collapsing that did not get a chance to do in this movie. Don t take me wrong I love disaster movies and I love the original Nihon chimbotsu and Jishin retto, I even like the latest Poseidon , not to much of a story there but a very good and graphic disaster sequence , New Nihon chimbotsu looses the point as many times as pearl harbour or the day after tomorrow but at least this two movies do show good disaster sequences, and also enough with the expensive FX that did not show anything , give me fake buildings if you like as long as you do destroy them properly , I know I must sound like a sadistic freak, however I did go to see Love actually when I felt like going to see a romantic film , grrrrrrr even kimpachi sensei makes me cry and this movie didn:t . there is also a TV series called napping chimbotsu made in 1975, I have on DVD and it is much better$LABEL$ 0
+it's a lovely movie ,it deeply reflects the Chinese underground bands' current lives. if you chinese culture ,traditionaled rock n roll music, there you go, i will highly recommend this one .but one thing i am wondering is whether this movie has been showed in Mainland ? i sorta doubt it ,:D$LABEL$ 1
+IN COLD BLOOD has to be ranked as first-rate movie-making, even if the subject matter is about as grim as it gets in the world of make-believe, but film noir fans should definitely find this one a gripping piece of work, based as it is on a true-life crime spree.It opens with Quincy Jones' music under the credits and starkly dramatic views of a highway bus heading toward Kansas City, effectively setting the mood of the film even before the credits end. The B&W photography of Conrad Hall does a superb job right from the start.Also clear from the start: ROBERT BLAKE and SCOTT Wilson are natural born actors. They do a great job of portraying free spirited buddies looking for the next thrill. "Ever see a millionaire fry in the electric hair? Hell no. There are two kinds of rules in this world. One for the rich and one for the poor," says Wilson, taking a swig of alcohol behind the wheel.Both are destined to cross the path of a farm family, showing no mercy and leaving no witnesses behind.Blake, reminiscing about movies, and thinking of hunting for gold in Mexico, says: "Remember Bogart in 'Treasure of the Sierra Madre'?" (An ironic moment, because Blake himself was in the film as a little boy selling lottery tickets). "I got you pegged for a natural born killer," Wilson tells Blake.JOHN FORSYTHE is one of the lead detectives on the case, discovering that all four family members were tied up, shot in the head and one had his throat cut. "Don't people around here lock doors?" asks PAUL STEWART. "They will tonight," is the terse reply.After the murders, the killers discover that there was "no big fat safe in the wall", like their prison informant told them. So, in the end, it was truly a stupid, senseless crime. The question is: WHY did they do it? And this is something the second half of the film explores in depth. It takes an hour and a half into the movie before the detectives catch up with the killers and begin the interrogation.It's these final scenes that carry the most conviction and the most interest as the boys are told they've made numerous mistakes and left a living witness. The actual events up to and including the murder are saved until the end. "It makes no sense," Blake tells Forsythe. "Mr. Cutter was a very nice gentleman. I thought so right up until the time I cut his throat." The screenplay by Richard Brooks is concise and to the point--and so is his direction.Summing up: Brilliant depiction of two aimless young men on a crime spree that made no sense then or now for a mere $43. Chilling.$LABEL$ 1
+It's Die Hard meets Cliffhanger when a ski resort is besieged by terrorists and it's up to one cop, Jack (Crackerjack) to stop this.A B-action movie that borrows from other films and is quite good with pretty good action, a ridiculous plot (as always in these movies) and three fine stars. Thomas Ian Griffith as the cop and Nastasja Kinski and Christopher Plummer as terrorists. If you don't like stupid B-action movies this is not for you.$LABEL$ 0
+People like me will tear this movie apart. It's just not realistic. The Plot is sooooooo predictable. You can anticipate everything that happens convientantly Of course, they find the treasure and become filthy rich, and trick the bad guy. We've seen it a million times before. The writers of this movie must think that the majority of the movie going public is stupid. They must be right because The majority of people actually liked this film. I mean solving riddles in a matter of seconds. The secret treasure room hidden under the Manhattan subway? You'd think with all the work that's gone on in New York underground That room would have been discovered before. and all that was constructed during the civil war? PLEASE And the love story between Ben and Abigail?? how cute, and I thought the romance in Clive Cussler novels was weak. They just fall in love like that, in 2 seconds WHATEVER I'd be more concerned with saving my own ass then getting some. the hell with the girl and the stupid piece of paper. 1/10 Garbage$LABEL$ 0
+I was totally surprised just how good this movie actually is because when I first saw it I was only mildly amused! I must say however, that I am still very disappointed that Donald O'Connor wasn't given a bigger and better role! He was an enormous talent.There is a great chemistry among all the main cast members and Matthau has never been funnier.I am tremendously glad that this picture got made because we get to see Lemmon and Matthau team up for the very last time; in a vehicle that puts their talent to great use. Brent Spiner proves that "Data" from Star Trek the Next Geeration is not the only good character he can play.The storyline is really quite simple but the comedy and the characters work really well and I laughed heartily throughout this movie and I highly recommend it.$LABEL$ 1
+The oddly-named Vera-Ellen was to movie dancing what Sonja Henie was to movie ice-skating: blonde, girlish, always delightful to watch, but not an especially good actress and usually lumbered with weak material. When I watch Vera-Ellen's sexy apache dance with Gene Kelly in 'Words and Music', I can't help noticing that her blouse (yellow with narrow red horizontal stripes) seems to be made out of the South Vietnam flag. For some reason, the very American Vera-Ellen starred in *two* musicals (made several years apart) set in Edinburgh, a city not noted for its tap-dancers: 'Let's Be Happy' and 'Happy Go Lovely'.In the latter, Cesar Romero plays an American impresario who for some reason is staging a musical in Edinburgh. There's a vague attempt to link this show to the Edinburgh Festival, which is nonsense: the Festival is not a showcase for splashy leg-shows. We also see a couple of stock shots of the Royal Mile: apart from a few Highland accents, there's absolutely no attempt to convey Scottish atmosphere in this movie. The funniest gag occurs at the very beginning, when we learn that the title of Romero's show is 'Frolics to You': this is a cheeky pun that Britons will get and Yanks won't.Vera-Ellen is, as usual, cute and appealing and an impressive dancer, but the very few musical numbers in this movie are boring and bad. The plot -- mistaken identity between magnate David Niven and reporter Gordon Jackson -- is brainless, though no more so than the plots of several dozen Hollywood musicals. Romero is less annoying than usual here, probably because (for once) he isn't required to convince us that he's interested in bedding the heroine.The single biggest offence of this movie is its misuse of Bobby Howes. The father of Sally Ann Howes was a major star of West End stage musicals; his wistful rendition of "She's My Lovely" was a big hit in Britain in 1937. Here, he shows up in several scenes as Romero's dogsbody but never has a chance to participate in a musical number, nor even any real comedy. It's absolutely criminal that this movie -- with a title containing the word 'Lovely', sure to evoke Howes's greatest hit -- would cast a major British musical star but give him nothing to do!The delightful character actress Ambrosine Phillpotts (whom I worked with once) shines in one restaurant sequence, and there's a glimpse of the doomed beauty Kay Kendall. As Vera-Ellen's confidante, somebody named Diane Hart speaks in one of the most annoying voices I've ever heard: it sounds like an attempt to imitate Joan Greenwood and Glynis Johns both at the same go, but doesn't match either. Val Guest has a story credit, but this movie doesn't come up to the quality of his brilliant comedies. The colour photography is wretched, though I realise that postwar Britain could not afford Hollywood's process work. 'Happy Go Lovely' is at utmost best a pleasant time-waster, with 'waster' being the operative word. I'll rate this movie just 4 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+Once I watched The Tenant and interpreted it as a horror movie. It uses many of the tropes of the genre: the sinister apartment, suspicious neighbors, apparitions, mysteries, hallucinations. The life of the hero, Trelkovsky, seemed surrounded by evil, secret forces trying to drive him mad.Last time I watched it I challenged this initial interpretation. If this movie is a horror movie, it's only horror in the sense that a Kafka novel is horror. In fact this movie can be understood on a literal level as a lonely man slowly becoming crazy without any external influence.Polanski made in his career three movies dealing with madness: Repulsion, which I don't particularly like because the development of madness in the heroine never convinced me; Rosemary's Baby, in which the heroine is driven mad by evil forces; and The Tenant, which might be the best study of paranoia ever made in cinema.Trelkovsky is a young man who rents an apartment in which a woman killed herself. He becomes obsessed with her and slowly starts becoming her: he wears her clothes, puts on makeup, talks like her. But is he being possessed by a spirit, or is he just letting his wild imagination get the best of him? It's this hesitation between what is real and imaginary, and which Polanski never resolves, that makes this such a fascinating movie. Many events in the movie can be attributed to the supernatural as easily as they can be to normal causes, and it's up to the viewer to decide what to believe in.Although this is not my favorite Polanski movie, it is nevertheless a good example of his ability to create suspense and portray madness in very convincing terms. And technically speaking, it's a marvel too. Suffice to say he collaborates with film composer Philippe Sarde and legendary director of photography Sven Nykvist (Bergman's DP) in the making of this movie. A slow pacing and sometimes uninteresting segments may make this movie difficult to enjoy, but it's an experience nevertheless.$LABEL$ 1
+Demi and Woody are married, but they're poor. They meet Robert Redford, and he's REALLY rich. He takes a fancy to Demi, and since he's a gambling man he makes the couple an "indecent proposal:" one million dollars for a night with the little woman.At this point you need watch no more of the film because you can put the details together in your sleep. Of course Demi is going to accept the offer. If she doesn't there's no first half of the movie. Of course it will affect Demi and Woody's marriage. If it doesn't there's no second half of the movie. And of course everything will turn out okay by the time the credits roll. If it doesn't, there's no happy ending for the sake of box office.The absolute best thing you can say about INDECENT PROPOSAL is that Demi Moore looks good in a black dress. As for the rest... The script is incompetent, the direction amateurish, the performances negligible. I suspect Redford, Moore, and Harrelson blush and change the subject every time the film is mentioned. Do them--and more importantly yourself--a favor. Unless some one offers you a million... Miss It!Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer$LABEL$ 0
+The "Wrinkle in Time" book series is my favorite series from childhood. I have read and re-read them more times than I can count over the last 35+ years. The characters, with all their virtues and flaws, are near and dear to my heart. This adaptation contained very little of the wonderful, magical, spiritual story that I love so much. To say I was disappointed with this film would be a great understatement.If you have never read the book(s) I imagine you will enjoy the movie. The acting is passable, the special effects are well done for a made for TV movie, and the story is interesting. However, if you love the books, avoid this movie at all costs.I found this statement at the Wikipedia page of the novel: "In an interview with Newsweek, L'Engle said of the film, 'I expected it to be bad, and it is.'"I, like another reviewer here, feel the need to read the book again to dispel this movie from my mind.$LABEL$ 0
+I've seen this film criticized with the statement, "If you can get past the moralizing..." That misses the point. Moralizing is in the conscience of the beholder, as it were. This is a decent film with a standard murder mystery, but with a distinct twist that surfaces midway through. The resolution leaves the viewer wondering, "What would I have done in this position?" And I have to believe that's exactly what the filmmaker intended. To that end, and to the end of entertaining the audience, the film succeeds. I also like the way that the violence is never on stage, but just off camera. We know what has just happened; it's just not served up in front of us, then rubbed in our faces, as it would be today with contemporary blood and gore dressing. Besides, the violence is not the point. The point is the protagonist's moral dilemma, which is cleverly, albeit disturbingly, resolved.$LABEL$ 1
+I must warn you, there are some spoilers in it. But to start it off, I got "Spanish Judges" on February I think. It was mention it was the last copy, but as I see, it wasn't back-ordered. But either way, I have it. I thought it was good. I wanted to see this mainly because of the great actor, Matthew Lillard (I'm surprised no one on the reviews mention the scar) although it is kind of low budget, getting enough money to make this film would be worth spending. Man, what a good actor.The story it about a con artist known as Jack (Matthew Lillard) who "claims" to have merchandises called The Spanish Judges. If you don't know what Spanish Judges are or haven't seen the trailer for this and this is the first review you have read, I won't even say what they are. I figure it would be a big twist of no one knew what it was. He needs protection, so he hires a couple who are also crooks, Max and Jamie (Vincent D'Onofrio and Valeria Golino) as well as a crook that goes by the name of Piece (Mark Boone Junior). He has a girlfriend who won't even tell anyone her name because she's from Mars, as she said. So they (mainly Jack) call her "Mars Girl". Everything starts out fine, but then it turns to one big game. A game that involves some lust, lies and betrayal.There was some over acting in it (Matt and Valeria, as well as Tamara, were not one of them). There were some scenes they could've done better and the score could've been a little better as well. Some of the score was actually good. The theme they used for the beginning and the end (before the credits) was a good song choice, that's my opinion. The fight scene in the end could've been a little longer and a little more violent, but what can you do? One more comment on Matt: Damn, he plays a smooth, slick con man.I know this is a review, but I need to make a correction towards NeCRo, one of the reviewers: Valeria Golino is not a newcomer. According to this site, she has been acting since 1983. To me, and hopefully to others, she is well known as Charlie Sheen's Italian love interest in both the "Hot Shots!" movies. But good review.Although I think it's one of the rare films I've seen and it's really good (which is why I gave it 10 stars above), I will give the grade of what I thought when I first saw it.8/10$LABEL$ 1
+Not the best of the films to be watched nowadays. I read a lot of reviews about Shining and was expecting it to be very good. But this movie disappointed me. The sound and environment was good, but there was no story here. Not was there a single moment of fright. I expected it to a horror thriller movie, but there was no horror no thriller. The only scene where I got scared was during the chapter change scene showing "Wednesday". There are lots of fragments i the movie. Most of the things are left unexplained with nothing to link it to anything. The story does not tell us about the women or other scenes that is shown. Might be a good movie to watch in the 80's, but not for the 21st century.$LABEL$ 0
+I had intended to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Marcello Mastroianni's passing with numerous unwatched films of his that I own on VHS; however, given my ongoing light-hearted Christmas marathon, I had to make do with just this one! As it happens, it features one of his best performances - and he was justly Oscar-nominated for it (with the film itself being likewise honored). This was also one of 14 collaborations with that other most widely-recognized star to emerge from Italy, Sophia Loren; both, incidentally, are playing against type here - she as an unglamorous housewife and he a homosexual! By the way, the film's title has a double meaning: the leading characters are brought together on the historic day in which Hitler came to Italy to meet Mussolini (the event itself being shown in lengthy archive footage), but it more specifically refers to the stars' 'brief encounter' in which they share moments of friendship, revelation and, briefly, passion - though each knows that a return to their normal existence is inevitable, which leads to the film's abrupt bittersweet ending. This is virtually a two-hander (with all other characters - save for the nosy concierge of the apartment block in which the story takes place in its entirety - which include Loren's gruff and fervently patriotic husband, surprisingly played by John Vernon, appear only at the beginning and closing sequences); still, the cramped setting doesn't deter director Scola (for the record, this is the 7th film of his that I've watched and own 3 more on VHS) and cinematographer Pasqualino De Santis, so that the result - though essentially low-key - is far from stagy: the camera is allowed to prowl the various sections of the large building, observing the proceedings intimately or dispassionately as the situation requires, but always keenly.The narrative, of course, depends entirely on the performances of the two stars for it to be convincing, and they both deliver (their on-screen chemistry is quite incomparable); it's interesting, however, that while Loren walked away with the prizes in their home turf, it's Mastroianni's moving yet unsentimental outsider (the film, somewhat dubiously, does seem to equate his sexual deviance with Anti-Fascism!) who generally impressed international audiences!$LABEL$ 1
+Actually, Goldie Hawn is from Washington (Takoma Park, Maryland), but I digress. This is sort of a Mr. Smith goes to Washington type of movie, with some variations but the same premise. I taped this movie off of cable years ago because I had a huge crush on Goldie Hawn. The story is interesting, but it's highly unlikely that some cocktail waitress will get an important job in the government just because she saved some big shot's life. It made me laugh and made me mad at the same time. It made me laugh because some of the situations she found herself in were so ridiculous, I had to laugh. (POSSIBLE SPOILER AHEAD). It made me mad to think that our government would set up an average citizen in the manner she was set up. And the speech she made at the end...beautiful. Too bad not many people have guts like that in real life.$LABEL$ 1
+I was looking for a documentary of the same journalistic quality as Frontline or "Fog of War" (by Errol Morris). Instead I was appalled by this shallow and naive account of a very complex and disturbing man and his regime: Alberto Fujimori. This movie should be called "The return of Fujimori". The director presumes she made a "perfect" movie because alienates both pro and anti-Fujimori factions when in fact it is a very biased and unprofessional piece of work. The movie has few crucial facts wrong: 1) She uses the so called "landslide" election of 1995 in which Fujimori was re-elected with 65% of the vote, as an example of the massive popular support of Fujimori. But we all now know to be the fruit of a very organized electoral fraud.2) The movie states that Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) killed 60,000 people. In fact, the Truth Commission's final report states that there were 69,280 deaths due to political violence in Peru. 33% of those were caused by SL. That leaves the other 67% in the hands of the police, military and other groups. The fact that she uses the same misleading information that Fujimori has been using for 10 years it is another example of how terrible this movie is. For any person with some education on Peruvian politics and history, Fujimori is clearly a consummated manipulator, a delusional character and remorseless egomaniac. His regime was very far from being democratic. He is still a menace to Peruvians. Despite these facts the director lets Fujimori tell the story. Not only on how he wants the camera to be positioned but the narrative and direction of the film seem to be part of his political agenda. He always seems to have the last word. There are no journalistic "cojones", just soft questions and unchallenged remarks. Where is Oriana Fallaci when we need her? The director, when questioned after the screening, didn't hide the fact that she was deeply impressed by Fujimori, his charm and intelligence. Yes, she has been definitely charmed by him, and you can tell by looking at this film. It's obvious she has a very hard time to digest the multitude of facts that point towards his responsibility on the corruption, murder and deception that took place. She assured the gasping audience that Fujimori was really a "patriot" when few moments earlier, one of the leading Peruvian journalists was very adamant in telling us that Fujimori was, above all, a "traitor". She went on to say that despite all the accusations not "a single dollar" was found on any bank account on his name, etc, etc. It was like hearing again the same gang of ruthless thugs that ruled the country for 10 years defending their master. It was a sad moment for journalism.This film makes injustice to history. It is an insult to hundreds of dead people, disappeared or unjustly incarcerated by Fujimori's regime. No wonder she later confessed that all the Peruvian intellectuals she befriended while making the movie felt betrayed by it. Unbiased? The words "oportunistic", "naïve" and "denial" come to my mind instead.$LABEL$ 0
+For anyone with a moderate sensibility, a moderate feeling of the human and humane condition, for anyone capable of getting above the Hollywood ilk, for anyone who is satisfied seeing cinema which does not have a series of Seagals/Willis/Van Dammes blasting the brains out of anybody or seeing who gets into bed with whom, for anyone whose intellectual level reaches a capacity to grasp, sympathise with, comprehend, laugh WITH, cry WITH natural tender heart-warming hilarious compassionate HUMAN BEINGS, `Le Huitième Jour' is waiting for you. Jaco van Dormael has not achieved simply a masterpiece, that would have been too simplistic; he has achieved one of those rare monumental works of art in the cinematographic world which defies any kind of encapsuling. Is it a drama? Is it a comedy? No: it is the story of Georges, a wonderful funny pitiful laughable loving frightened beautiful personality, a sufferer of the Downes Syndrome. It is a story which has you laughing through your tears, but this is not one of those classic tear-jerkers; this film moves through a world that has you at once mixing your feelings of compassion or pity or even shame with those of admiration, warmth and even love. A successful banking salesman, Harry, bumps into Georges: they were both going in opposite directions with absolutely opposing ideas, problems and priorities; skillfully van Dormael melts these two unlikely men into a warm friendship, but which is so much more than the good buddy friendship of those having a beer down the road. This is a relationship which develops into a profound needing by both for the other. The cuasi-surrealist scenes fit in perfectly: Georges recalls (or invents) past scenes of his life while either day-dreaming or sleeping; even the almost phantasmagorical final scene is totally correct. The only scene which might be considered a little out of place is when they steal a bus and drive it out of the show-rooms. However, this does not detract from the whole. This film is a monument. Even if your French is not up to much, please bear seeing it with sub-titles. `Le Huitième Jour' is worth the trouble. As for anything else, well, just read the following commentaries – I go along with all of them. This film is a joy, it is majestic, it is unique. If you have seen `Rain Man' which I consider an excellent film, you must see this one: it is far superior because it has not the superficial veneer of famous Hollywood-produced world-renowned actors; it has Pascal Duquenne and Daniel Auteuil – TEN oscars for these two, and three more for Jaco van Dormael. Who cares…………? Yes: 11 out of 10 if the IMDb rating doesn't break down under the strain.Magnifique! Chapeau!$LABEL$ 1
+I am stunned to discover the amount of fans this show has. Haven't said that Friends was, at best an 'average' sitcom, and not as great as others have made out. Let's face it, if it wasn't for the casting of Courtney Cox Arquette, David Schwimmer, Matthew Perry, Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston and Matt Le Blanc, then who knows whether this show would've lasted as long as it has done. I very much doubt that. Although as the series progressed, Friends got more progressively predictable, lame and boring that I couldn't care less about the characters- of whom are the most overrated in TV history- or of their plight, nor of who was sleeping with whom. And it went from being funny in the first four seasons to occasionally funny. And even when it had all these A-list Hollywood actors from the movie world, I still didn't bother to tune in. The writing in Friends became stale that I lost interest in this show from the sixth season onwards and as for the ending, well it was predictable to say the least.What was annoying though was that this lasted for ten seasons, whilst some of my favourite shows lasted for only three, four seasons for instance and were eventually cancelled and taken off the air for good. The show should've came to an immediate halt by the time the cast wanted bigger salaries. In truth, as much as the series waned, it was the show that was bigger than the actors themselves, not the other way round. When it ended in 2004, I was so relieved to see the back of this sitcom. Now, there is talk of a friends reunion show coming to our TV screens very soon. And yet, I for one will not be looking forward to it whatsoever.$LABEL$ 0
+"The Invisible Ray" is part science fiction and part horror. It was also the third of seven Karloff/Lugosi features. In this entry the dominant role goes to Boris Karloff.Through specially designed astronomical equipment, Dr. Janos Rukh (Karloff) demonstrates to colleagues Dr. Felix Benet (Bela Lugosi), Sir Frances Stevens (Walter Kingsford), his wife Lady Stevens (Beulah Bondi) and their nephew Ronald Drake (Frank Lawton), that a meteorite containing a powerful element, landed on the African continent many millions of years in the past. Rukh impresses his guests who invite him to accompany them on an expedition to Africa to find the mysterious element.Rukh goes off on his own and discovers the place where the meteorite landed and the element which he names "Radium X". Due to Rukh's long absences, his comely young wife Diana (Frances Drake) becomes attracted to Drake and the two fall in love. Meanwhile Rukh becomes contaminated by Radium X to the point that anyone he touches will die instantly. The contamination causes his skin to emit a bright glow in the dark.Rukh goes to Benet for help. Benet devises an antidote which if taken on a daily basis, will provide temporary immunity to the element. Unfortuneatly, the deadly element also affects Rukh's brain, slowly turning him into a vindictive murderer.While Rukh is continuing his work, Sir Frances takes news of the discovery back to France. Diana and Ronald accompany him. When Benet informs him of this action, Rukh accuses the party of betraying him and his discovery and secretly plans his revenge. When he returns to France he learns of the healing power of Radium X as he cures his mother's (Violet Kemble Cooper) blindness and of Benet's work in curing the maladies of his patients.But Rukh's madness intensifies. First he murders an innocent man whom is identified as Rukh. Upon hearing of Rukh's apparent demise, Diana and Ronald marry. This angers Rukh and he begins to exact his revenge on the five other members of the expedition. One night he is lured into a trap set by Benet and...........Karloff is excellent in the lead role moving from a happily married ambitious scientist to a raving maniac. Lugosi has a straight role for once and does what he can with the limited part.At 79 minutes this film was the second longest of the six Karloff/Lugosi collaborations. Karloff's film all the way.$LABEL$ 1
+The exclamation point in the title is appropriate, albeit an understatement. This movie doesn't just cry -- it shrieks loud enough to shatter glass.Filmmakers Andrew and Virginia Stone made shrill, humorless suspense thrillers that strove for a semi-documentary feel. Here, they shot on actual New York locations with tinny "real-life" acoustics to jack up the verisimilitude. But the naturalism of the sound recording only serves to amplify the Stones' maladroit dialog and the mouth-frothing histrionics of tortured butterfly Inger Stevens.In a performance completely devoid of modulation, Stevens plays the wife of electronics whiz James Mason (looking haggard and bored); both are held captive by extortionist Rod Steiger (looking bloated and bored) and his slimy cohorts in a scheme to blackmail an airline with a deadly bomb that Mason has unwittingly helped construct.Here is another credibility-straining instance of a criminal mastermind so brilliantly attentive to every detail, yet knuckleheaded enough to hire a drug-addicted degenerate as an underling. The Stones' idea of nail-biting tension is to trap the hysterical Stevens alone with Benzedrine-popping rapist Neville Brand, filling the frame with his sweaty, drooling kisser. But the camera work is so leaden and Brand so (uncharacteristically) demure that the effect is hardly lurid, much less suspenseful. The Stones, a square pair at heart, don't even have the courage of their own lack of convictions.The film, which ends with the portly Steiger chasing the fleet-footed Stevens on a subway train track, is as clumsy as its ungainly heavy. With Angie Dickinson as Steiger's amoral girlfriend, Jack Klugman, Kenneth Tobey, and Barney Philips.$LABEL$ 0
+Robert Carlyle excels again. The period was captured well and the soundtrack, although hearing modern techno in this period piece was a little disconcerting at first, proved to be very well chosen.Well worth a watch.$LABEL$ 1
+This TV series is about a foolish and unconventional English gentleman who gets up to all sorts of merry mishaps.I remember watching Mr Bean with my family back in 1990, when I was still a child. My family laughed so hard at every episode, and the contents of which still come up in our daily conversations twenty years later. The memorable scenes which are still in my head include Mr Bean attempting to get out of his car park, shooting out the lights, counting sheep, and him in the swimming pool. We bought all the Mr Bean videos on VHS, no mater how expensive they were. It was worth it because we watched them over and over again! It is so rare to see a very funny TV series that is suitable for all ages.$LABEL$ 1
+The movie was disappointing. The book was powerful. The views and the learning of Little Tree were powerfully portrayed in the book. The movie just coasted along and finally dribbled away. Still a nice tale for kids.$LABEL$ 0
+So often these "Lifetime" flicks are one-dimension, with over-the-top characterizations and performances, and with contrived plot lines and climaxes which are intended to trade any semblance of reality for drama.But most of all, many of these flicks provide characters where it's difficult to feel a trace of sympathy or empathy for even the "good guy/good gal" characters, much less the"bad" ones.However, here the performance were all good, the characters realistic, and the relationships among the three leads (as well as the ex-husband/father and the two females) rang true throughout.The mother's boyfriend was portrayed as being about halfway in age between mother and daughter, and the actors were age-appropriate to this in term of their actual ages. None of the characters was portrayed at an extreme - either all-good or all-bad - and all rang true.Without in any way condoning his allowing the relationship with his prospective stepdaughter to advance to the level which it did - you can still feel some sympathy for him without retracting blame.Neither mother nor daughter were perfect, neither good nor bad, but simply two individuals whose relationship seemed realistic and not contrived by the script writer.Lifetime flicks - even those which begin with some semblance of normality - often end with a deranged character brandishing a carving knife or such. Other stories seem to need to provide the "everyone lived happily ever-after" close.This film presented a realistic premise, story and resolution, from start to finish - a welcomed variation to the norm of this genre/$LABEL$ 1
+Sometimes they get lucky and have a hit on their hands (Wayne's World, the first one, not the second). But most often they have duds (It's Pat comes to mind rather quickly). This time out it's Tim Meadows as The Ladies Man. This movie falls somewhere in between a hit and a dud. It was very funny for the first 20 minutes, but then, as usually happens with SNL skits, it starts to slow down, before finally ending, long after it should have.Tim Meadows is Leon Phelps, a radio DJ with a nightly show called The Ladies Man. He answers any and all questions dealing with sex and relationships, usually in the crudest way possible. Everything seems to ultimately come down to the butt. After pushing the buttons of the station manager, Leon, along with his producer Julie (Karyn Parsons) gets fired, and needs to find another job. Out of the random blue, comes a letter from one of his ex-ladies. The letter offers him wealth and luxury for the rest of his life, the only problem being that the letter isn't signed. So Leon needs to track down all the women he's been with to find the woman of his dreams. But sometimes, as Billy Dee Williams says in the film, the woman of your dreams is standing right in front of you. There is also a sub-plot about a bunch of guys who's wives/girlfriends have all slept with Leon, and they want to first figure out who he is (by a tattoo he has on a part of his anatomy), then kill him. Leading this bunch of guys is, surprise! Will Ferrell from SNL. First off, I thought the sub-plot was rather lame. The singing and dancing stuff was just completely worthless. I usually like Will Ferrell but here he just never clicked for me. And the rest of the guys were just schlubs who tagged along, and in the end all decided that having their wives/girlfriends cheat on them was in fact their fault. So back to the main story. The story basically centers around Leon and sex. So what it comes down to is, if you don't like the character of Leon, you won't like the movie. His voice, his mannerisms, his dialogue is what carries the movie. I am not a big fan of Tim Meadows. I never thought he was a particularly good actor on SNL. The only thing I ever really liked of his, was his Ladies Man skits. But the best thing about those, is that they usually involved the guest host (remember the one with Cameron Diaz?), and they were short. For about 5 minutes, they were pretty funny. And here, for about 20 minutes, it's really funny. What I thought was good about the character in the movie, is that he stayed in character throughout. He never wavered from his wanted to just get laid persona. Until right at the end where there was this transformation, and the ever present speech to tie things up. Other than that, it was pretty good at keeping Leon as Leon, and not changing him into something less crude than he was. There isn't a lot of substance to this movie, if you couldn't guess. But like I said earlier, the beginning of the movie I found to be very funny. Some real laugh out loud moments, all revolving around sex and his crudeness. The problem of course with this movie, and most other SNL spin offs, is that these are characters that are only supposed to be shown for a few minutes at a time. Stretching the concept into 80 minutes is very difficult. That difficulty is obviously why they needed the sub-plot, because without it, this movie would have been a little under an hour. When it was good, it was good, but when it wasn't good, it got to be boring.So overall, The Ladies Man wasn't as bad as other SNL films, but it wasn't as good as others. It had some funny moments, the first 20 minutes was pretty good, but the rest of it dragged on. There was an unnecessary sub-plot whose only purpose was to lengthen the film. The bottom line is, if you like Tim Meadows and his Leon Phelps character, you'll be able to watch the film. If he annoys you, don't even bother going. Unless you just want to see Tiffani Theissen in some nice revealing clothing. $LABEL$ 1
+Like most other people, I saw this movie on "Mystery Science Theater 3000." Although it received some well-deserved barbs, it's one of the better films to be featured on that show.The premise is better than even your average Hollywood blockbuster these days; it poses some interesting moral dilemmas. Although the score is sometimes obtrusive, it also provides a few lovely moments when Richard is walking by the river. Watching the movie, you can see where a lot of plot developments probably looked very good on paper. Richard's discomfort in modern society is an interesting problem to ponder, and the ending probably would have been a nice '70s-style mindfuck if the preceding affairs hadn't been so goofy.Unfortunately, the movie is visibly cheap, making the flaws all the more obvious. The "clone farm" is very obviously a college campus, and a beer can serves as a major plot point. Lena and Richard have zero chemistry -- we are supposed to believe this is a meeting of kindred minds, but there doesn't seem to be a brain cell between them. The "cranky old couple" schtick also gets real old, real fast. There are also some mistakes that can be blamed on bad directorial choices, such as the decision to hold a climactic conversation out of reach of any audio equipment whatsoever.In all, a noble effort, but is nonetheless best viewed on MST3K.$LABEL$ 0
+David Lynch's ninth full length feature film, Mulholland Drive is a deeply touching story about betrayal and jealousy. If anything, it brutally contrasts our ambitions and hopes to the often bitter truth. Every frame of this movie has importance and links to other parts and to themselves at the same time. Nothing is what it first appears to be and you're left with a real puzzle as you end up trying to put the pieces together. It is a movie that does not compromise, nor does it fail to fully handle the challenging form and camera language, as might have been the case earlier with Lost Highway.Although one clearly recognizes classic lynchian motifs and devices, the movie remains highly original, even in the light of it being a Lynch movie. Lost Highway marked a new way of telling a story; bred an unconventional mean of setting emotions on to the screen. With Mulholland Drive, Lynch not only managed to control this technique, but takes it to new levels in making it much more complex and multi dimensional. In doing this, he creates a framework of different layers in time and of the human mind. In a press conference on the Cannes film festival 2001, David Lynch said that striving for perfection at best could give a result where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Talking about synergies like this becomes highly relevant to Mulholland Dr. where the different sequences and many details contribute to the total; dreamscapes and parallels intertwine to create the story. In some art, the beauty of it lies in its simpleness. This is not the case with Mulholland Drive, and has never been with Lynch. It is the complexity that colors and builds the worlds Lynch creates, the same complexity that characterizes the real world.It never gets forced like, in my opinion, for example Memento does, using an original way of communicating with the viewers. Further comparing Mulholland Drive to other movies, I think it proves David Lynch as a master of what he does and bridges art and film making in a way that no one has ever done. Compared to for example Alejandro Jodorowsky or contemporary Matthew Barney, I do believe that Lynch more clearly manages not letting the artist dominate the film maker or, more likely, David Lynch better understands and executes film making as an art form.Understanding the plot is no small feat, but Lynch's way of working with sound, perspective, chronology and form paints a work of art so dark and frightening that it sometimes feels more realistic than real life. The lynchian cinema is often, and most definitely in Mulholland Drive, a surge of human emotions. Working with emotions is a delicate craft that demands understanding and depth. As Lynch puts it: "A little bit too much, and the emotion goes away. A little bit too little, and it doesn't happen." In Mulholland Drive, David Lynch has no problem making this balance. Lynch's portraits span all kinds of dimensions and take different directions, creating incredibly realistic characters and situations. Watching Mulholland Drive is a journey through the subconscious. It is a truthful and naked movie with indisputable artistic value. That is why I love Mulholland Drive and what's taken it to the pinnacle of cinema history. The ultimate movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Power rangers, the moronic merchandising television kids show from the 1990s, has got to be the most pointless and ridiculous television show ever created.What exactly is the point of this show anyway, other than to sell second rate plastic nonsense to children? There is nothing even remotely redeeming or interesting about this show in anyway.Look at the costumes, which look like spandex gone bad.The mullet style hair, earrings, and fashions of the early 1990s look completely ridiculous these days.Avoid this show at all costs!$LABEL$ 0
+I have to agree with the previous author's comments about the excellent performances and plot. Started watching this movie by accident...(lazy Sunday afternoon clicking channels to see if anything good was on)...and was mesmerized by Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez. Wow! Gut wrenching! Kudos to everyone (have always admired Martin Sheen) but was particularly impressed with Emilio! Excellent job of acting and directing...simply superb! So why have I never heard of this movie before? I'll have to spread the news.$LABEL$ 1
+Okay, I'm just going to disagree with the past comments that criticized this show. I happen to think this show is awesome. (I mean when Jasmin Weber was still on and Franzi was still alive, so addicting!). And I was surprised to learn that this was categorized as a soap, because it just doesn't carry the same look and feel as soaps in America. Soaps here are absolutely horrific! At least GZSZ films on location, features real music and more plausible story lines. Moreover, the acting on GZSZ, for the most part, is quite believable especially with Josephine Schmidt and Felix Jascheroff. (Plus, soap actors are some of the hardest workers around in the business as they have the most demanding work schedules). If it's ratings are that high, it must be doing something right; soaps in America are shown in the day-time and, historically, have always had rock-bottom ratings. Give GZSZ a chance! Trust me, it's good!$LABEL$ 1
+I was so let down by this film. The tag line was something like 'The story of a girls sexual awakening'. You can only imagine how disappointed I was. I was seventeen at the time and I took my girlfriend to see it. I thought we were going to see a sexy movie that would leave my girlfriend gagging for it. Sadly that was not the case. I guess we just weren't ready for a deep and meaningful movie that required an element of sophistication that we just didn't possess at the time. I'm not so sure I possess it now, and I have long since parted company with that particular girlfriend (pity really... my first love). We left the cinema half way through the film, my friend, who should have known better, stayed for the whole thing. I still got the required result with my girlfriend, the film just didn't help much. It would be interesting to see it again so that I can make a more informed critique, though I feel the experience has left me scarred for life.$LABEL$ 0
+Deep Shock plays out like a TV movie: a whole cast of commercial-quality actors, a poorly designed creature to be the "bad guy," and a script that is more full of technical, political jargon and importances than it knows what to do with.I checked out the movie because of the creature (I love to see what filmmakers have in mind for their designs in these cheaply made videos), and right off the bat, I got disappointed because the creature on the box was not the one in the movie. The actors I expected because of the type of film it is (really quite generic and not thought out past a certain point). The music was typical, not-thought-out action symphonic music.I liked the design of the computers and technical equipment, along with the mini-sub design. The movie even flowed really well, with guiding screens letting you know which set you're watching the story unfold in. But there isn't much of a story here anyways.This movie gets a 3/10 stars IMO. The boring search and destroy mission to blow up the North Pole and these creatures protecting it...kinda lame. Even lamer is the tagged-on love relationship between two of the characters that you don't see coming. Chalk this one up to being a movie which tries to get actors' careers off the bench and into a video. Don't bother.$LABEL$ 0
+An absurdly hilarious and strikingly human tale of the jealousies and infidelities surrounding a beetle marriage, Russian animation pioneer Wladyslaw Starewicz's "Mest kinematograficheskogo operatora" ("The Cameraman's Revenge", or "The Revenge of a Kinematograph Cameraman") is a delight of early animation, brimming with highly-effective stop-motion puppetry and no shortage of imagination.Mr. and Mrs. Beetle have a completely uneventful marriage, and both yearn for more excitement in their lives. Mr. Beetle's desires can only be satisfied by the beautiful exotic dancer at the "Gay Dragonfly" night club, whom he visits whenever he takes a "business trip" to the city. She is the only one who understands him. A fellow admirer of this dancer, an aggressive grasshopper, is jealous that Mr. Beetle has stolen his lady and, as fate would have it, he is also a movie cameraman. The devious grasshopper follows Mr. Beetle and his acquaintance to a hotel room, where he films their exploits through the keyhole.Meanwhile, Mrs. Beetle has, likewise, acquired a friend to add excitement to her life. He is an artist, and he brings her a painting for a present, before they both settle down on the couch for some intimacy. At that moment, however, Mr. Beetle returns home and witnesses the entire spectacle. As Mr. Beetle bashes through the front door, the artist friend clambers up the chimney, but he doesn't escape without Mr. Beetle first venting his anger and frustration upon him.There is a certain irony in the statement that follows: "Mr. Beetle is generous. He forgives his wife and takes her to a movie." He is generous enough to forgive her, and yet he had been equally unfaithful just minutes earlier. At this point in time, however, we still haven't forgotten the jealous movie cameraman who had been plotting his revenge, and it is no surprise when he turns out to be the projectionist for the film Mr. and Mrs. Beetle are attending. Suddenly intercut into the film they are enjoying is the footage of Mr. Beetle's disloyalty, and the angry wife hits him across the head with an umbrella, before the frightened and angry husband dives through the theatre screen in search of the grasshopper.In the final scene, both Mr. and Mrs. Beetle, now somewhat more appreciative of each other, are serving time in prison for the fire that broke out when Mr. Beetle sought his final revenge. We do, indeed, hope that "the home life of the Beetles will be less exciting in the future…" This film may appear to be a mere story of the comings-and-goings of a miniscule insect species, but Starewicz is communicating so much more than that. This isn't a story about beetles – it is a story about us. And it's startlingly accurate, isn't it?!$LABEL$ 1
+Every once in a long while a movie will come along that will be so awful that I feel compelled to warn people. If I labor all my days and I can save but one soul from watching this movie, how great will be my joy.Where to begin my discussion of pain. For starters, there was a musical montage every five minutes. There was no character development. Every character was a stereotype. We had swearing guy, fat guy who eats donuts, goofy foreign guy, etc. The script felt as if it were being written as the movie was being shot. The production value was so incredibly low that it felt like I was watching a junior high video presentation. Have the directors, producers, etc. ever even seen a movie before? Halestorm is getting worse and worse with every new entry. The concept for this movie sounded so funny. How could you go wrong with Gary Coleman and a handful of somewhat legitimate actors. But trust me when I say this, things went wrong, VERY WRONG.$LABEL$ 0
+*SPOILERS*I'm sure back when this was released in 1958 it was much appropriate for its time. Back then films were slower paced to allow audiences to follow and analyze the story. Here a man moves into a house owned by his last wife that died mysteriously with his new wife. The gardener Mickey (played by Alex Nicol, who also directed he film) really is an underappreciated character. He gets a skull to indirectly warn Jenni that she is in trouble, since he knew that there was foul play in the first wife's death. He can't tell Jenni directly what happened, so he tries to scare her off with the skull. Jenni, we also find out, saw her parents die, thus causing a lifetime of mental anguish that lead to institutionalization. Like many audiences today, I found the pacing to be a little too slow for my tastes. But if you like slow-paced horror without a lot of gore, this film is for you.$LABEL$ 0
+It's a bit unnerving when a studio declines to screen a film for the press before it goes into wide release. That many movies suck is no surprise, but when a studio itself admits as much ahead of time, the process of movie-going becomes a passion play of sorts. Consider it an early Christmas gift from Hollywood, then, that "Aeon Flux" isn't nearly the affront to taste and decency one might expect, given the above. Though ultimately overwhelmed by its flaws, it at least has (sort of) an idea with which to toy around. Too bad director Karyn Kusama seems to have little clue how to execute it all.It's the future. There's been a plague. There is a dictatorship, and there are rebels. The latter are known as the Monicans, and far from being a cult of beret or tennis racket worshipers, they're into attempts to overthrow the former, called the Goodchild regime. The regime is occasionally mean to the citizenry, which is more than Aeon Flux (Charlize Theron) and her pals can stand. Through some sort of biochemical virtual reality technology, the Monicans receive orders from their dear leader (Frances McDormand), a mystical priestess-type who appears to have been cross-bred with a carrot. It falls to Aeon to strap on some form-fitting, futuristic spandex get-ups to carry out the High Carrot's orders, which are of course some version of "destroy the regime." Having years earlier watched her sister get liquidated by the Goodchilds, she needs little convincing.Not surprisingly, things get complicated. The Goodchilds might not be quite what they seem, and Aeon herself might have an unexpected history with them. Though occasionally muddled, the film's central conceit (of which I won't reveal more) contains some neat notions about the nature of human existence and survival. There's room for much more examination of which the film doesn't take advantage, but the ideas are there, at least. The big problems of "Aeon Flux" are technical. Kusama has made the baffling decision to film nearly all the action so close that we can rarely follow what's going on. To make matters worse, it's edited in a flurry of jump cuts that leave us completely lost. The result is some serious spacial disorientation that takes over the film. "Aeon Flux"'s aesthetic is one of sleek costume, oddly-angled architecture, and nimble characters. Much of the action occurs in minimalist, open spaces that beg for some unbroken long shots that might convey the grace and athleticism implied by the above. Instead, we get split seconds of flying limbs, breaking glass, and accompanying sound effects.There is a pretty good movie trying to get out of the morass of "Aeon Flux." Put this stuff in the hands of the Wachowski brothers, say, and the results could be quite different. As it is, though, I felt like "Aeon Flux" was willfully pushing me away from a movie I wanted to enjoy. This film is unattuned to its own strengths. Like a novice poker player dealt a royal flush, it somehow finds a way to lose in spite of its potential.$LABEL$ 0
+I admit I had no idea what to expect before viewing this highly stylized piece. It could have been the cure for a zombie virus or the common cold for all I knew. It began with great visuals, little snippets to grab your attention and cause your imagination to run wild. As it continued I learned quickly through voice overs what was taking place. A nice little neo noir story that I felt was not a waist of a few minutes of my time. The little clues given to the audience through visuals at the beginning give them a sense of accomplishment as they piece together the plot. Along with a nice twist at the end its a cool package overall. The score, though not bad, gave the film almost a music video feel. It just felt a little dated, not adding anything to further the storyline. Some of the performances felt overly dramatic but fit perfectly with the feel of the overall piece. I walk away from this very satisfied. I was given a lot of information in a short period of time but through great editing and voice-over work it didn't feel rushed or pushed. Great job!$LABEL$ 1
+This is a really fun, breezy, light hearted romantic comedy. You cannot go wrong with Meg Ryan's cute perkiness combined with Albert Einstein's genius. Normally, I'm not a fan of completely fabricated fictional tales about actual people, now deceased and not able to defend themselves, but I think the late Einstein might himself have gotten a chuckle out of this one.It's the 1950's...Princeton, New Jersey in the spring. The story revolves around a pretty, young, scatter brained mathematician, Catherine (Meg Ryan), who is all set to marry a stuffy jerk, a behavioral researcher named James, merely because he has the brains she's looking for in the father of her future children. However, it's love at first sight when her car breaks and she meets an auto mechanic named Ed (Tim Robbins). As she doesn't think Ed is intelligent enough, her uncle, none other than Albert Einstein, plays match maker, assisted in his endeavors by three mischievous cronies, all theoretical physicists. Uncle Albert must make Ed appear suitably smart, so concocts a charade portraying him as a physicist...naturally with amusing results.Walter Matthau is his usual hilarious self, and pulls off the character of Einstein quite effectively. With his three professorial buddies, Kurt, Nathan, and Boris, a lot of laughs ensue. The real Einstein had a genuine human side and this film just takes it one (outrageous) step further. If you suspend all logic, you can almost imagine this silly story happening!It might not be rocket science (despite its main character) but it is a wonderful sweet, refreshing movie. One of the best of the comedy romance genre.$LABEL$ 1
+Awful, awful, awful times a hundred still doesn't begin to describe how crappy "Biggest Loser" is. Picture this: take two fat couples with nothing interesting to say, humiliate them, and let them work to lose weight, all on prime time television. Am I the only one who thinks that this isn't something people with IQs in the 3-digit area WANT TO WATCH? Everything drags on forever, with the lumps of lard whining on about how losing weight is going to mean so much for them and their lives. Does anyone care? Do they think we care? Do they care if we care? Probably not. I think I'll videotape myself doing crunches and sell it to some major television corporation. If this passes for television, then so can my workouts!$LABEL$ 0
+Old bat transforms to younger OK looking girl after drinking a potion. This movie was dreadful. The acting atrocious. The camera work made me head spin. And it features the longest, most excruciatingly boring strip-tease ever put to film. Piero Vivarelli should be ashamed for directing this. Eduardo Manzanos Brochero should'voe been blacklisted just for writing something so awful.Don't rent this movie, the only exception I can this of is maybe If you're dying and only have less then 90 minutes to live, watch this film cause it will feel like an eternity and you'll be begging the Grip Reaper come a little early.My Grade: F$LABEL$ 0
+The basis for this dynamic docudrama is the true story of one of the most extraordinary card players ever.STUEY is a tight, cohesive biopic of a true poker Ace whose life is a one-way trip down the Highway to Hell with few detours.This dramatic feature stands wide apart from other films about poker. It represents a rare and earnest attempt to bring to the silver screen a true story of ultimate gambling compulsion. The complete obsession that annihilates any proximity of spirituality and nullifies any chance of redemption. This is the least likely movie a Vegas Casino executive would recommend. And it is the sole poker DVD you are likely to find on the shelves of Gamblers Annonymous.There are scenes in this movie that poker buffs are sure to refer to as some of the best gambling scenes ever. Stu reading his opponent's hand and, particularly, a Texas hold'em bluffing scene.Prophetically, early on in the movie we see a young Stu bullied out of his pocket change by a bunch of neighborhood hoodlums. Poker is for loners seeking revenge. It is a game of patience which bullies lack. 'You can't bully me!' may very well be an underlying sentiment of the punishing force that a champion poker player unleashes upon his adversaries.Conservatives will look upon this film as a cautionary tale of a soul lost in sin. They may evoke Mark Twain: 'The best throw at dice is to throw them away.' The young and liberal masses will inevitably have a more simplistic and sympathetic outlook. They may not have heard of Twain's quote, but will sure remember a remark made by Stu's stunned pal who learns from up-and-coming Stuey that he'd won a car from a local character in an overnight game. 'You tell'em to go to hell and they look forward to the trip'.The mosaic of Las Vegas vignettes that we see in STUEY will long linger in memory. Frank Sinatra, the most generous tipper? Forget about it! Nobody tips as extravagantly as a hot-shot gambler. And for Vegas visitors who may not know the impact of tipping on the quality of their stay, check out the scene of Stu checking in a Vegas hotel!'This is what i was meant to do, this is where i was to be. Movie stars in Hollywood, politicians in Washington and gamblers in Vegas.'$LABEL$ 1
+A slick romanticizing of the sexual exploitation of NewOrleans black women by white men of power and privilege. Ooh. Does that whet your appetite? Well, then, belly up to a VHS or DVD and gorge on this gratuitous trolling through a seamy segment of history. For good measure, it's adapted from the book by celebrated hack Anne Rice. The directing is as cloying and melodramatic as the cheesy dialog. Most of acting is amateurish. The production's sole worthwhile note is that it employed practically a dozen black actors, all of whom have scarcely been in employed in today's market (Jasmine Guy, Ben Vereen, Pam Grier, Eartha Kitt), including some faces that have barely been seen at all (Bianca Lawson, Rachel Cuttrell). It also is, despite itself, a sterling showcase for Nicole Lyn. The pompous and ponderous James Earl Jones is on-hand as well. So, is the late Ossie Davis, a minimal talent who owes his success to having been affiliated with the legendary Negro Ensemble Company. This film should be rated "T" for tripe.$LABEL$ 0
+Well, when before I saw this film I really wasn't sure whether it would be my cup of tea...how wrong I was! I thought that this was one of the best films I've watched for a very long time, a real family classic. The story of a young evacuee and his new 'foster' dad, this film ticks all the boxes. I've not read the book (maybe that's a good thing & meant I enjoyed the film more) but with regards to the story, I really can't think of any bad points, hence scoring it 10 out of 10 (and I hardly ever think anything warrants top marks!). By the time William proclaimed 'I CAN RIDE MY BIKE, DAD!' I was sobbing my heart out (anyone who's seen it will understand, I'm sure). Really heartwarming, and definitely recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+I understand that Roger Corman loves to do things on the cheap, but this is just sad. I purchased this flick from the dollar bin at my local video store not a month after watching the original Carnosaur. I was blown away; It was the same damn movie, with just some Corbin Bernesen spliced in! It reminded me of all of those 80s ninja movies that took old Kung Fu movies and spliced in a bunch of white ninjas running doing cartwheels with the word "ninja" written on their headbands (if you haven't seen them, check out "Ninja Terminator", "The Thundering Ninja", "Black Dragon" and "Ninja Warriors"). Thanks Roger Corman; you just made me waste a dollar.$LABEL$ 0
+It's often said that Tobe Hooper just struck lucky with his grisly 1974 horror film 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' and every time I see another Hooper film - that view is only reinforced. It would seem that Hooper wanted to make his own version of films such as Scanners and Firestarter in 1990 and so we end up with Spontaneous Combustion; a film with a couple of good ideas and a whole load more that are borrowed from other films. Put it all together and you get a messy, boring film that most people would do well to miss! The film leads the audience to believe that it might be half decent initially with an intriguing back story that focuses on some experiments carried out on two young people in the fifties. The couple have a child and shortly thereafter burn to death as a result of the experiments done on them. Fast forward some years and the baby is now an adult named Sam; but naturally he's not a normal person and soon finds when it's discovered that he has the ability to set things on fire at will.The film stars Brad Dourif, who must have seemed like a good casting choice given his success with Child's Play two years earlier; but actually was an uninspired decision as the central performance is really terrible; and not helped by the terrible supporting performances. The turgid direction and dull script also don't do the film many favours and the trend of lacking in favours is continued by the special effects, which are very unrealistic and have nothing on the films that this one is ripping off; all of which were made some years earlier. The plot is really slow and it's almost an hour before anything of note happens, and I didn't care for it even then. It soon becomes obvious which direction the film will go in and it all boils down to the sort of tedious ending you would expect. The final confrontation is a big disappointment and nothing is really explained during the film. Not that any revelation would have been interesting anyway. Overall, this is a rubbish film and another reason why Tobe Hooper is a long way from being a great horror director. See Firestarter again instead.$LABEL$ 0
+Unbelievably close to real life feelings and emotions captured by Joseph Mazzello as a hemophiliac child affected by AIDS and his new young neighbor, a wanna-be tough redneck played to perfection by Brad Renfro. Although the story may seem slightly farfetched (the two boys attempt to river-raft several hundred miles to find a doctor who claims to have the cure to AIDS), the emotion, actions and interactions of all characters involved are tragically close to real life. Being a "big brother" to a boy in a similar situation who died a few years after this film was released, I strongly recommend this picture to anyone who has ever wondered what really happens in the life of a child with AIDS. Superb direction by Peter Horton creates the perfect mood and setting for each scene and draws the viewer into the various emotions affected by friendship, illness, prejudice and the final parting of two friends who fought hard to overcome adversity.$LABEL$ 1
+It may be a remake of the 1937 film by Capra, but it is wrong to consider it only in that way! It was supposed to expose Hilton's novel in a completely different way. As a musical is excellent. The scenery is terrific, the characters good and anyone like "Leonard Maltin" who considers the Bacharach music awful must be completely deaf! I strongly recommend it.$LABEL$ 1
+Fiction film (it lists as based on a story though it does have a "documented by" credit) about a group of scientists going into the wilds of Canada to try and find a Bigfoot.(They want to capture one and then attach a tracking device). Its lots of scientific mumbo jumbo mixed in what is really a dull film of a bunch of people wandering around in the wilderness. There are some attempts at creating tension and scares, but to be perfectly honest there is nothing here worth seeing outside of some great looking shots of the wilds. This is a perfect definition of an exploitation film, it promises you so much, a look at Bigfoot, but in reality it delivers very little. Recommended for insomniacs only$LABEL$ 0
+"Crossfire" is ostensibly a murder mystery but what distinguishes it from other similar movies of the period is the killer's motive, which is anti-Semitism. The story highlights examples of the kind of ignorance which fuels bigotry and contains references to a "hillbilly" and an Irish immigrant who also suffered maltreatment because of their ethnicity.The movie's plot is based on Richard Brooks' novel called "The Brick Foxhole" which is about a hate crime where the victim was gay. It's ironic that this story about a form of intolerance should be met with intolerance by the censors who stipulated that, for the screen version, the type of bigotry involved should be changed to anti-Semitism. Another irony is the behaviour of a soldier who seems fiercely proud of having served in a war against the Nazis and yet embraces their hatred of Jews. The director and producer of this movie also suffered another type of intolerance when they were blacklisted after being called to appear before the "House Un-American Activities Committee". All these points just seem to underline the deeply entrenched and intractable nature of the whole problem of bigotry as depicted in this movie.When Police Captain Finlay (Robert Young) investigates the murder of Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene), he discovers that on the night when he was killed, Samuels had been socialising with a group of soldiers and one of these, Corporal Arthur "Mitch" Mitchell (George Cooper) is quickly identified as the prime suspect. Further information is also gathered from Montgomery (Robert Ryan) who is another of the soldiers who was present that night and Sergeant Keeley (Robert Mitchum) who's a friend of Mitchell. Keeley, with the help of some other soldiers, then searches for Mitchell and when he finds him, hears his account of what he did on the night of the murder including his meeting with a dance hall hostess called Ginny Tremaine (Gloria Grahame).Keeley helps Michell to avoid being arrested and tries to identify the murderer. Ginny Tremaine is questioned but her information is insufficient to prove Mitchell's innocence but Finlay's investigations lead him to recognise the motive for the crime and subsequently, he sets up an elaborate trap which leads the real culprit into exposing his own guilt."Crossfire" is a movie with a message and the identity of the murderer is revealed at a very early stage in the story. The "message" is conveyed in a way which was, no doubt, appropriate for the period in which it was made but by today's standards seems rather heavy handed. The cinematography by J Roy Hunt is just wonderful with low key lighting and creative use of numerous strategically placed table lamps combining to evoke a look which is perfectly compatible with the drama being played out on screen.Despite it being a low budget production, "Crossfire" was a great box office success and benefited from having an absorbing and very relevant story with a marvellous cast, two of whom were nominated for Academy Awards for Best Supporting Actor (Robert Ryan) and Best Supporting Actress (Gloria Grahame). The additional nominations for Edward Dmytryk (Best Director), producer Adrian Scott (Best Picture) and John Paxton (Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay) are just further evidence of the positive recognition which this movie justifiably received.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was recommended to me by the same person that blessed me with a copy of The Chronicles of Narnia. Shadowlands is one of the most amazing screenplays ever written. It is well executed, acted and directed. The cinematography is a bit dark for my taste but I'm sure it was intended to be so. The screenplay is like poetry in portions of the movie, through out the movie I found myself taking pause to reflect on the comments just made on screen. This is a wonderful piece of cinema and I can only hope that more people will run across it and add reviews. Fair warning though this was a 6 tissue movie for me. Very touching. Very Heartfelt performances.$LABEL$ 1
+Jeff Lieberman's "Just Before Dawn" is definitely one of the most underrated horror movies ever made.The film,whilst a little bit influenced by "Deliverance" and "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre",is extremely creepy and memorable.The suspense almost never lets up and the atmosphere is genuinely eerie.The cast is excellent,Deborah Benson and Jamie Rose are great female leads.The inbred twins are truly frightening and remorseless killers.The film is beautifully shot-it was actually filmed on location at Silver Falls State Park in Oregon.There is very little gore,but one killing,when Verchel is stabbed in the groin,is pretty nasty and unpleasant.A must-see for slasher fans.10 out of 10-what else?$LABEL$ 1
+An uninspired and undistinguished "new" Columbo which sees the man-in-the-mac attend his nephew's wedding, only for his bride to disappear on their wedding night. Columbo investigates...And that it is about it: indifferently plotted and surprisingly laden with a flat script, given that it is written by Robert Van Scoyk, who penned the highly enjoyable Columbo story "Murder Under Glass" in the detective's heyday; there is not even a murder to speak of and the greatest amount of ingenuity afforded to Columbo by the script-writer is the narrowing down of suspects via the photos taken at the wedding, which include everybody who was there!Devoid of every Columbo trait possible, I thought I was watching an episode of Hill Street Blues. An insult to the history of the series, with appropriately soap-opera style acting. Very avoidable stuff.$LABEL$ 0
+The mystery here is why this delightful, small comedy has been ignored by most critics and has failed to find the audience it deserves. Simply showcasing the budding talent of Audrey Tautou should be enough to generate greater recognition from the cognoscenti. Lacking in pretension and relying on quirky characterizations, itÕs rumination on the interconnection of human behavior manages to be both amusing and life affirming and, unlike some of itsÕ more critically acclaimed competition in the genre, such as The Taste of Others, it actually entertains.$LABEL$ 1
+Right on Colmyster. I totally concur with all your sentiments and add these. I came to my PC especially to post a comment on this dreadful (minus)Bgrade movie. I was going to say that in this day and age I am at a loss to comprehend how anyone could possibly make such a woeful movie - but you beat me to it. Anyone reading this and Colmyster's comment, trust me ---- DON't waste you time and money. It's an absolute shocker. The acting is totally pathetic, the script is way worse, and the (so called) special effects are a joke. Surely no-one actually invested money to make this movie? I really cannot think of anything else to say about this so called horror sci-fi product, but must pad this commentary to make 10 lines of comment in order to have it accepted for submission.$LABEL$ 0
+As to be expected, there's a pretty good reason why this film is so obscure and unknown in spite of dealing with the always-popular premise of zombies and starring the 80's B-movie queen Linda Blair, namely: it sucks! "The Chilling" is trying enormously hard – way too hard – to be a story with depth and factual background, whereas it should have just been a light-headed and gore-packed horror flick about frozen zombies. It takes an incredibly long time before anything remotely interesting or significant happens. There's a lot of drivel about cryogenics, which I learned in my physics class is the study of products and their behavior at extremely low temperatures. So naturally, in this film a bunch of people are studying the behavior of human corpses when deep frozen. Needless to say this is extremely boring, until two dim-witted night watchmen decide, during an electric power failure, that it's a good idea to put the metal-constructed cool cells outside at the heights of a thunderstorm. The coolers are struck by lightening, obviously, and the bodies spontaneously defrost and come to live to go on a murderous zombie rampage. "The Chilling" is a boring and surprisingly (for a late 80's effort, at least) gore-free horror film that doesn't even use up a quarter of its potential. All the painful attempts to build up an atmosphere of suspense and eeriness fail tremendously and I can't think of any reason why the zombie-attacks had to be so bloodless. Even in spite of the low budget available, they could have done better. The set pieces, make-up effects and costumes are pitiable. The research lab, for example, looks like a proper apartment flat whilst the zombies couldn't look less menacing with their green faces and foil-wrapped outfits. How Linda Blair managed to get involved yet again in such an embarrassing low-budgeted horror flick is a complete mystery. She's attracted to lousy B-movies like bees are to honey.$LABEL$ 0
+From an artistic standpoint, the movie fails to entertain or provide any moral resolution. The plot is hard to follow, if there is one at all. The acting is tough to stomach. The dialogue is cliche and clearly written by somebody who doesn't know English. Only the cinematography was worth watching in this movie, although you can still see flaws in the picture.As an Asian-American female, the movie angered me because it proved how narrow minded people can be. Politically speaking, putting Asian women in such disgraceful roles should be outlawed. Perpetuating stereotypes of Asian prostitutes is not only bad for the self-esteem of Asian women, but also to the country as a whole. I feel for the lead actress who played Maya and the exploitation she must have faced in playing such a role.As Americans, please avoid this movie. Art should be used to develop our tolerance and respect for one another, not hold it back.$LABEL$ 0
+My mom took me to see this movie when it came out around Christmas of 1976. I loved it then and I love it now. I know everyone makes fun of Barbra's hair in this one, but I think she looks and sounds great! ...And I seem to remember a number of women who copied that permed look at the time! Also, the bath tub scene between Streisand and Kristoferson is just so sexy! The music is great as well. This is the groovy 70's Babs at her best!$LABEL$ 1
+For all those people who believe the dialog is worth something, and who appreciate a farce that is clever enough for you to take it seriously, this movie will surprise you. It is not a 'whodunit' for people who can't aren't able to follow the verbal exchange of our hero, Professor Dexter Cornell (Dennis Quaid).Cornell teaches in Southern California, near the tar pits. He has not published a novel in four years, his wife is divorcing him, he drinks a bit much, and is blessed or cursed with caustic wit, which he freely dispenses to his students. He has recommended a friend for advancement, and one bright young student has submitted a manuscript to him as an independent project. Cornell doesn't even want to read it, so gives it an "A", and pushes it to the side. Leaning back with a drink in his office he stares out the window, when the bright young student falls past his window on the way to meeting the sidewalk in a splat encounter.Hal comes to talk, and they chat, drinking some more. The Cornell realizes that he HAS to read the manuscript, now. When he goes home, his wife is waiting with divorce papers. He drinks some more. She leaves, and he goes to a faculty affair, only to find her there. He drinks even more. And when his wife learns that the student is dead, she swoons, and he learns that she had been having an affair with the student. This of course prompts him to do some more serious drinking. The next morning he wakes up to find himself in the dorm room of one of his students, a freshman named Syd (Meg Ryan).He feels worse than a hangover, goes to the doctor and learns that he has been poisoned, it is irreversible, and he has 24-48 hours to live. He doesn't have much time to find out who killed him, and there are sub-plots, motives, relationships and surprises at every turn, although everything makes sense at the end. All his discoveries and exchanges are adorned with sarcasm, dry wit and keen observations. Let's just say that this movie will give new meaning to the adage "publish or perish".There are no bad performances in this movie. There are recurrent images, and symbolism used at careful intervals. Watch for the cracked glass, and images distorted through glass. Some of the camera shots are revolutionary for 1988, and some of the violent action is carefully and skillfully choreographed. The music is unobtrusive and appropriate, although occasionally it makes it's own statement, in song lyrics. The visuals in this flick are impressive.If there are any failures, it is that the opening 20 minutes move a little slow, and nearly puts you to sleep. But the pacing picks up quickly, with just the right amount of exposition in between action segments.There are no explicit sexual encounters, although there is violence and some bad language.This is a writer's movie, and is best appreciated by those who have a sense of humor about their own success or failure. I do think if you take it seriously, you're already in big trouble.$LABEL$ 1
+I love most Jet Li movies (with the exception of Romeo Must Die) and I bought this movie in a VERY cheap three-pack with "The Master" and "Twin Warriors". While Twin Warriors was very impressive and I was thoroughly intrigued by it, and the master was a bit "Karate Kid" but also enjoyable, I thought this movie was TERRIBLE. I'm not just saying that because I'm used to better movies. I'm saying that it was almost down there with "Kazaam". The fight scenes were terrible (blurry cameras and no real fighting) and the plot was your typical "stupid kung-fu plot". If you are going to have a plot this stupid (see 'man turns into woman to become all-powerful then falls in love with Jet Li') you best have some great fighting to go with it. If you are looking for an original HK Jet Li movie, I suggest you go rent "Shaolin Temple 2" (aka Kids from Shaolin).$LABEL$ 0
+Preminger's adaptation of G. B. Shaw's ''Saint Joan''(screenplay by Graham Greene) received one of the worst critical reactions in it's day. It was vilified by the pseudo-elite, the purists and the audiences was unresponsive to a film that lacked the piety and glamour expected of a historical pageant. As in ''Peeping Tom'', the reaction was malicious and unjustified. Preminger's adaptation of Shaw's intellectual exploration of the effects and actions surrounding Joan of Arc(her actual name in her own language is Jeanne d'Arc but this film is in English) is totally faithful to the spirit of the original play, not only on the literal emotional level but formally too. His film is a Brechtian examination of the functioning of institutions, the division within and without of various factions all wanting to seize power. As such we are not allowed to identify on an emotional level with any of the characters, including Joan herself.As played by Jean Seberg(whose subsequent life offers a eerie parallel to her role here), she is presented as an innocent, a figure of purity whose very actions and presence reveals the corruption and emptiness in everyone. As such Seberg plays her as both Saint and Madwoman. Her own lack of experience as an actress when she made this film(which does show up in spots) conveys the freshness and youth of Jeanne revealing both the fact that Jeanne la Pucelle is a humble illiterate peasant girl who strode out to protect her village and her natural intelligence. By no means did she deserve the harsh criticism that she got on the film's first release, it's a performance far beyond the ken and call of any first-time actress with no prior acting experience. Shaw and Preminger took a secular view towards Joan seeing her as a medieval era feminist, not content with being a rustic daughter who's fate is to be married away or a whore picked up by soldiers to and away from battlefields. Her faith, her voices, her visions which she intermingles with words such as "imagination" and "common sense" leads her to wear the armour of her fellow soldiers to lead them to battle to chase the invading Englishman out of France.And yet it can be said that the film is more interested in the court of the Dauphin(Richard Widmark), the office of the clergy who try Joan led by Pierre Cauchon(Anton Walbrook, impeccably cast) and the actions of the Earl of Warwick(John Gielgud) then in Joan herself. The superb ensemble cast(all male) portray figures of scheming, Machievellian(although the story precedes Niccolo) opportunists who treat religion as a childish toy to be used and manipulated for their own ends. The sharp sardonic dialogue gives the actors great fun to let loose. John Gielgud as the eminently rational Earl whose intelligence,(albeit accompanied by corruption), allows him to calculate the precise manner in which he can ensure Joan gets burnt at the stake and Anton Walbrook's Pierre Cauchon brings a three dimensional portrait to this intelligent theologian who will give Joan the fair trial that will certainly find her guilty. Richard Widmark as the Dauphin is a real revelation. As against-type a casting choice you'll ever find, Widmark portrays the weak future ruler of France in a frenzied, comic caricature that's as close as this film comes to comic relief. A comic performance that feels like an imitation of Jerry Lewis far more than an impetuous future ruler of France.Preminger shot ''Saint Joan'' in black and white, the cinematographer is Georges Perinal who worked with Rene Clair and who did ''The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp'' in colour. It's perfectly restrained to emphasize the rational intellectual atmosphere for this film. Preminger's preference for tracking shots of long uninterrupted takes is key to the effectiveness of the film, there's no sense of a wasted movement anywhere in his mise-en-scene.It also marks the direction of Preminger's most mature(and most neglected period) his focus is on the conflict between individuals and the institutions in which they work, how the institution function and how the individual acts as per his principles. These themes get their most direct treatment in his film and as always he keeps things unpredictable and finds no black and white answers. This is one of his very best and most effective films.$LABEL$ 1
+I was on my way out one morning when I was checking something on the T.V. and came across this film. I don't ever remember seeing this or hearing of it. What a fun and interesting one to watch. Well, my meeting was pushed back, because I couldn't get out of this film. It had some real interesting things in it that marked it's time in history, and some fun things that they don't have people do in today's film because it's not pretty. Well, there was a lot of realism in it. The acting was good for a 1954 film. Subtle and genuine actions on the part of the characters that had me watching what they were going to do next. That is why I ended up watching it. I don't know why they don't show it more often. I would rather watch this than some films they play more than necessary. For history buffs, people who like period films, and those that are in the film appreciation groups will like this one. "The Egyptian" has a variety of flavors dealing with a lot of things to look at in human nature that has not changed since it's time. What does that say about us? Those that don't like movies that take their time to unfold and tell a good story....are not into film.I haven't had the time to rent it if it is available, but if I get a chance to see it again, I would probably vote it a 10.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a great movie, all 3 were. The last one was not as good as the first 2 but it was made along time after and it was pulling at straws. But you want to watch it cause it tells the end of the story. Just not how we might think it should end.These movies made me want to be there to be in all the hardship, love, tears, and laughter that the people in this movie go threw. It is one of the few movies that is good every time you see it no matter how many times that is.There are some parts in the movie that the little kids wont understand and the older ones maynot be old enough to watch. but it is a great movie, spanning over 20+ years.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this tonight with moderate expectations - if Tartan Films have picked up on something and are releasing it the that's generally a good sign, however I'm not normally a fan of Julie Walters, generally disliking her comedy roles (sorry to any fans, but it's a personal thing - I just don't find her funny in comedy).This was magnificent though - a great performance by all, but Grint and Walters are exceptional! Plenty of laughs, plenty of pathos, great timing and a wonderfully paced film - such a coming of age film wouldn't normally be something I'd expect to like so much but I can't recommend this highly enough - and watch Rupert Grint as he matures into a fine fine actor.$LABEL$ 1
+I should have known when I looked at the box in the video store and saw Lisa Raye - to me, she's the female Ernie Hudson A.K.A. "Le Kiss of Death" for *ANY* movie. Its almost *guaranteed* the movie will be bad (e.g. Congo)if Hudson is in it (with the exception of the Ghostbusters films, which were intentionally campy and bad). Despite my instincts, and the fact that I just saw Civil Brand, yet another cinematic "tour de force" starring Lisa Raye, I rented it anyway. After all, I ignored my "Hudson instinct" on OZ and ended up watching a very quality series so I figured I'd give this movie a chance.If you are a lover of bad movies, this is a definite must see! This has got to be the most unintentionally funny movie I've seen in a loooong time. The plot is fairly straightforward: Racheal's (Monica Calhoun) sister is killed by a band of brigands (Led by Bobby Brown!) and, like many an action movie before this, she straps on her guns ONE LAST TIME and vows to avenge her sisters death. To do this, she reassembles the titular Gang of Roses (supposedly based on a true story of a female gang) and they go out and exact revenge and, along the way, there's some subplot or something or other about some gold that might be buried in the town. One nice thing I will say about this movie is that from what I could tell, the stars did their own riding and they looked GREAT galloping.The funniest (albiet unintentionally funny) scenes? Look for when they introduce Stacy Dash's character or when Calhoun's character rescinds her vow not to strap on her guns (replete with a clenched fisted cry to the heavens) or Lil' Kim's character joking with Lisa Raye's character or Stacy Dash's character being killed or Lil' Kim's character convincing Lisa Raye's character to rejoin the gang or the Asian Chick or Macy Grey's character talking bout "The debt is paid", etc. With the exception of Calhoun's Racheal and Bobby Brown's Left-Eye, I can't even remember the names of the other characters cuz I was laughing so hard when they were introduced.If the director had gone for parody and broad comedy this would have been a great movie. Unfortunately, he tries to take it seriously seemingly without first taking exposition, sound design (in his defense, Hip-Hop is notoriously difficult to work into a period piece), set design, script writing nor period historical research (was it me,or were these the cleanest people with the whitest teeth in the old west?) seriously. Usually when I see a movie that's not so good, I ask myself "Could you have done any better?" This is the first time in a long time where the answer is an unequivocal "YES!"$LABEL$ 0
+I don't mind sequels; sometimes they're better than the original. However, many times the originals are best left alone....especially when you can't duplicate the cast. One of the big reasons "The Magnificent Seven" was such a hit was the very popular cast.This is hardly the "magnificent seven," when only Yul Brynner returns as one of the members of that famous group in "The Magnificent Seven." With six of the seven guys absent and replaced by much lesser-known actors, this loses its appeal in a hurry. In other words, except for Brynner, these guys have no charisma! This is a like a championship sports team fielding all substitutes except one.Brynner is good, once again: fun to watch, fun to hear with that distinctive deep voice of his, but the story, not just the rest of the crew, is lame. This movie should never have been made. In the original, we cared about the "seven;" in here, we couldn't care less.$LABEL$ 0
+I watched this movie with big expectations. The blurb on the back indicated that this was going to be a nasty one. But it was pretty tame and a little unsatisfying. The violence was nothing I haven't seen a thousand times before, the gore level was only average (mind you there was probably more than what has been seen in Hollywood in the last 5 years - perhaps more), and at no stage was I even feeling uneasy let along frightened. Again a CAT 3 movie with big wraps, has not lived up to its hype.Sure hire this movie, but don't go in with any expectations. I am so keen to get into the whole Asian horror scene, but am continuously disappointed. I did love Ichi, and Audition, but then again, Miike stands alone at the moment.Please inspire me..... there is a large cluster of jaded genre fans who are starved of quality horror!$LABEL$ 0
+This "coming of age" film deals with the experiences of two young girls, Dani and Maureen, as they learn about life and love one fateful summer.Directed by Robert Mulligan, famous for his superb work in "To Kill a Mockingbird," the film never hits a false note. All the acting is superb. As Dani, Reese Witherspoon makes a stunning film debut. Watching this beautifully photographed and superbly directed and edited film, I felt like I was looking through a window to reality, rather than watching a movie.I have watched this movie at least 5 times, and can honestly say that it is one of the single best movies ever made about being young, being in love, and going through the feelings, challenges, and changes of young adulthood. Families with children between 10 and 15 should watch it together, and use it as a discussion piece, as it raises a number of issues about sibling rivalry, how to deal with being in love, the responsibilities of a parent, etc.$LABEL$ 1
+We see Thomas Edison, with a glowing smile on his face, trying to electrocute a 5 ton living being. Eventually he was successful, and so the first animal snuff film is born, cleverly disguised as an amazing achievement in technology. This is scientific arrogance at it's worst, folks. It ranks up there with the doctor who decapitated a monkey just to prove that he could keep its severed head alive for 22 minutes.Oh yes, there's the absurd excuse that the elephant had been convicted of "murder" and sentenced to death, and that this was a fair and humane "execution". To all the people who are satisfied with this sophistry, please form a line on my right. I'm going to give you all a big collective Three Stooges slap across the head.Go watch "The Advocate" (1993), a movie based on the true story murder trial of a pig in Mideval France. 500 years later, humans are still a bunch of morons I see.What's next? We arrest birds for stealing our blueberries? Arrest pricker bushes for assault and battery? Thomas Edison, I hope you have a big fat worm crawling through your eye socket right now. Oh wait, that would be trespassing, wouldn't it? lol$LABEL$ 0
+This production is an insult to the Stooges, especially Moe. It is inaccurate and poorly acted. Many of the events depicted just didn't happen that way and too much was left out or skipped over. Read the books written by Moe and his daughter Joan instead. This was a waste of time.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a really obnoxious show. It is in fact an example of how low television has fallen since 'reality' got in style. Tanya is pretty but she is also extremely rude and has awful taste. Is a house show the place for sex appeal? Apparently some males like the show because they find Tanya attractive. The other boss is not pretty but he's fully as rude and also has awful taste. It is unfortunate that so many houses have to be shown while someone is still living in them. Most of the people who are allegedly viewing these houses before changes are made should be moving into brand new houses or completely empty ones so they will not be insulting anyone. Most of them ..like the 'crew'..need to be taught manners. I can imagine how awful the British show is since the British reality shows tend to be even worse when it comes to manners and taste.What happened to the Arts and Entertainment channel? When it started out (and for some years afterward) it was filled with treats. Now it's one big trash machine.$LABEL$ 0
+Valley Girl is the definitive 1980's movie with catch phrases filtered throughout this wonderfully acted movie. The characters are so convincing that you forget it is a movie and not a video of an actual "day-in-the-life" of any high school, USA. This flick is to the 1980's what the Brady Bunch TV series is to the 1970's. If you don't like it, well then "Gag me with a spoon."$LABEL$ 1
+Dr. K(David H Hickey)has been trying to master a formula that would end all disease and handicaps, but needs live donors to complete his work. His doctor brother Richard(Dennis O'Neill)has a son named Eddie(Derek Philips)who is accepted to medical school. Eddie has a girlfriend named Sarah(Lizabeth Cardenas)who is pre-law and plans to attend law school herself the coming fall. She and Eddie resume their relationship when Sarah calls things off with her current boyfriend who is also shagging the lady of Walt(Bill Sebastian;Eddie's best friend who recently paid for his cheating girlfriend's boob job). Eddie accidentally gets hit by a car and appears on the throes of death when Dr. K makes a suggestion to Richard..let him "recuperate" Eddie using his secret, illegal methods. When Dr. K applies his serum to Eddie horrifying results occur. Eddie's face bulges massive warts while he has also acquired a taste for human flesh. Many will die so that Eddie can feed this uncontrollable appetite he can't quench. Soon he may even pose a threat to his father and girlfriend..Eddie Monster must be stopped.Typically awful direct-to-video horror flick suffers from a severe lack of budget, acting, and overall talent. The premise, which seems like an interesting fright-fest, fails to deliver even as a zombie flick. The gore is limited with a few munching scenes but most of the violence occurs off-camera. The use of time to move the story along can really get annoying.$LABEL$ 0
+Another great movie by Costa-Gavras. It's a great presentation of the situation is Latin America and the US involvement in Latin American politics. The facts might or might not be accurate but it is a fact that the US was deeply involved in coups and support of Latin American dictatorships.Despite this though the spirit of the movie follows the typical leftist/communist propaganda of the Cold War era. Costa-Gavras is a well-known communist sympathizer and his movies are always biased. For example he presents the US actions as brutal and inhumane, while representing Tupamaros' extremist activities as something positive.As it turned out it was a blessing for Uruguay and the rest of the Latin America that the US got involved. Europe is filled with poor East European prostitutes. I never heard of poor Uruguayan or Chilean girls prostituting themselves en masse as it happens in most East European countries. The US was fighting a dirty war and god bless us all the monster of Soviet Communism was defeated. It is unfortunate the US had to do what it did in Latin America (and elsewhere) but sometimes you need to play dirty. This is not an idealistic world as Costa-Gavras and Matamoros like to believe. Had Matamoros come to power in Uruguay, we would've had another Ukraine in Latin America.All in all this movie follows corrupt and bankrupt leftist ideology of times past and tries to pass it as idealistic and morally correct.$LABEL$ 0
+Though structured totally different from the book by Tim Krabbé who wrote the original 'The Vanishing' (Spoorloos) it does have the same overall feel, except for that Koolhoven's style is less business-like and more lyric. The beginning is great, the middle is fine, but the sting is in the end. A surprise emotional ending. As you could read in several magazines there is some sex in the film, but it is done all very beautifully. Never explicit, but with lots of warmth and sometimes even humour. It is a shame American films can't be as open an honoust as this one. Where Dutch films tend to go just over the edge when it comes to this subject, 'De Grot' stays always within the boundaries of good taste. 'De Grot' tells an amazing story stretched over more than 30 years. When you'll leave the cinema you'll be moved. What can we ask more of a film? Anyway, this film even gives more....$LABEL$ 1
+Handsome and dashing British airline pilot George Taylor (a solid portrayal by Guiseppe Pambieri) gets beat up by thugs after a wild night in Hong Kong. George meets and falls in love with the sweet and virginal Dr. Emy Wong (a fine and charming performance by the lovely Chai Lee). George regains his health and goes back to work. When Emy fails to hear from George for a lengthy amount of time, she succumbs to despair and becomes a prostitute. While director/co-writer Bitto Albertini does indeed deliver a satisfying amount of the expected tasty nudity and steamy soft-core sex, this film is anything but your routine wallow in leering sleaze. Instead it's a surprisingly thoughtful, touching and tragic love story between two well drawn and highly appealing characters (Chai as Emy Wong is especially radiant and endearing). The picture starts out bubbly and cheerful, but the tone radically shifts into a more grim and harsh mood about two thirds of the way through. Emy's descent into vice after she falsely assumes that George has abandoned her is bleak and upsetting; ditto the remarkably sad and heartbreaking surprise bummer ending. Granted, the narrative is certainly melodramatic, but never too silly or trashy. Moreover, the sex scenes are quite tasteful and even genuinely erotic. Notorious Italian porn star Ilona Staller has a nice sizable supporting part as George's jealous and uninhibited secretary Helen Miller. Guido Mancori's polished cinematography offers many strikingly gorgeous shots of the exotic locations. Nico Fidenco's funky, throbbing score hits the groovy spot. Worth a look for those seeking something different.$LABEL$ 1
+This film breeches the fine line between satire and silliness. While a bridge system that has no rules may promote marital harmony, it certainly can't promote winning bridge, so the satire didn't work for me. But there were some items I found enjoyable anyway, especially with the big bridge match between Paul Lukas and Ferdinand Gottschalk near the end of the film. It is treated like very much like a championship boxing match. Not only is the arena for the contest roped off in a square area like a boxing ring, there is a referee hovering between the contestants, and radio broadcaster Roscoe Karns delivers nonstop chatter on the happenings. At one point he even enumerates "One... Two... Three... Four..." as though a bid of four diamonds was a knockdown event. And people were glued to their radios for it all, a common event for championship boxing matches. That spoof worked very well indeed.Unfortunately, few of the actors provide the comedy needed to sustain the intended satire. Paul Lukas doesn't have much of a flair for comedy and is miscast; lovely Loretta Young and the usual comic Frank McHugh weren't given good enough lines; Glenda Farrell has a nice comic turn as a forgetful blonde at the start of the film, but she practically disappears thereafter. What a waste of talent!$LABEL$ 0
+Mardi Gras: Made in China provides a wonderful, intricate connection between popular culture, nudity, and globalization through the making and tossing of beads. I saw this film at the International Film Festival of Boston, and was expecting a dry introduction to globalization, but what I got was a riveting visual display of shocking footage from both China and the United States. The eye-opening film is humorous, in-depth, serious, non-patronizing, and it leaves you wanting more as the credits role. It is worth comparing to Murderball -- it's simply that well done. The young women workers in China have various points of view, and the owner is amazingly open about the discipline. The revelers during Carnival are the highlight, but only because this excellent film provides in-depth context inside the factory in China without narration. Bravo to the filmmaker for getting inside and finishing the film! I would have never thought about the connection between beads, China, and New Orleans; now I think about the human connection between almost every object, but also the role of globalization, inequality, and fun. More importantly, I can make these connections without feeling a sense of guilt after watching this film, unlike other films on globalization that I've seen.$LABEL$ 1
+But I can't say how I really feel about this pile of steaming dung. Where to begin. The film quality, there isn't any. I've seen clearer pictures on America's FUNNIEST HOME VIDEOS! The acting is substandard, the gore effects is okay. The clown mask is the best part of this movie, the story is repetitive. The same thing over and over again. At least in a Friday THE 13TH or HALLOWEEN we stick with one main character for the most part. There is no main characters, just victims. Man, now we come to the worst part of all. The final survivor kills the clown and finds out it was one of her friends. Then when the police finally arrive, they don't believe her and she is locked up in a rubber room. What kind of ending do you call that, crap, that's what. In my opinion, there is no excuse for a bad ending in a horror movie, that was just sloppy writing. The excuse, "It has to ending badly, it's a horror movie." or "We need to end it badly to leave it open to a sequel" are just lame excuses and that is all. I must give the CAMP BLOOD the THANKSGIVING TURKEY.$LABEL$ 0
+From the opening scene aboard a crowded train where a ruthless pickpocket is at work (RICHARD WIDMARK) stealing from a woman's purse (JEAN PETERS), PICKUP ON SOUTH STREET is relentlessly fascinating to watch. Partly it's because the acting is uniformly strong from the entire cast, the B&W photography is crisp and adds to the starkness of the story and characters, and because Samuel Fuller's direction puts him in the same league with the biggies like John (ASPHALT JUNGLE) Huston. In fact, it has the same urgency as the Huston film about a heist that goes wrong--but the payoff is not quite as strong.JEAN PETERS is excellent as the hard-edged girl whom Widmark describes as being "knocked around a lot". She gives a lot of raw energy and sex appeal to her role of the not too bright woman carrying a micro-film in her purse for her boyfriend (RICHARD KILEY), something the FBI already knows about. They're on her trail when the theft occurs.THELMA RITTER adds realism to her portrait of a woman called "Moe" who buys and sells anything to make a profit and ends up paying for it with her life. She's particularly touching in her final scene with Kiley.This one is guaranteed to hold your attention through its one hour and twenty minute running time. Good noir from Fox and notable for the performances of Widmark, Peters and Ritter.$LABEL$ 1
+I have seen a couple movies on eating disorders but this one was definitely my favorite one. The problem with the other ones was that the people with the eating disorders towards the end just automatically get better or accept the fact that they need help and thats it. this movie I thought was more realistic cause in this one the main character Lexi doesn't automatically just get better. She gets better and then has a drawback. I think this movie shows more than the others that I've seen that getting better doesn't just happen, it's hard work and takes time, it's a long path to recovery. I think this movie shows all of that very well. There should be more movies like this.$LABEL$ 1
+H.O.T.S. is not for those that want hardcore porn. Instead, this film is a precursor to many 80s era cult-classic college/frat films like REVENGE OF THE NERDS and PORKY'S and a post-cursor to the world-renown ANIMAL HOUSE. A good time if you dig a lot of big-titted 70s/80s Playboy type chicks and cheezy slap-dick comedy - but nothing too notable if you wanna use it as whack-material...H.O.T.S. is an "unauthorized" sorority of sexy outcasts doing battle against the popular and trendy Pi girls. This one has pranks, an Aunt Jemima-ish house keeper, and even an over-heated robot that makes it relatively fun viewing if boobies are your "thing"...Well...I like tits as much (or probably more...) as the next guy - but with all the sleazy sh!t that I've seen, I couldn't help but wish for a few hardcore scenes to make this one truly worthwhile. I knew it wouldn't happen, but I still wish that H.O.T.S. had a bit more sex and a bit less cheeze. Not quite as notable as NERDS, PORKY'S, or ANIMAL HOUSE, but worth a look for fans of those types of films...7/10P.S... and I forgot - this one has consummate douche-rag Danny Bonaduce in probably the best role of his career outside of his "reality show"...$LABEL$ 1
+THAT'S certainly a strange way to promote a film upon which a great deal rested. And it seems like plain suicide on the part of the studio, given that (1) The feuds between the cast were well known long before the movie's release. (2) The feud between the Producer(Robert Fryer) and Director ( Michael Sarne) was also common knowledge. (3) The cast made no secret of their contempt for the film and made it public at every opportunity, with daily bulletins from the set gleefully reported by gossip columnists everywhere.And (4) The author, Gore Vidal hated it practically from day one. Nevertheless, that tagline just about sums it up. Raquel Welch does give a decent performance as Myra, and she looks lovely besides. John Huston is very funny as Buck Loner, the ex-Cowboy Star who runs a phony acting academy. Mae West, (in her first screen appearance since 1943) naturally rewrote her part to suit herself, and she is great as ''oversexed'' (and that's putting it mildly) ''Talent Agent'' Leticia Van Allen. Still, she must have wondered (after waiting so long for a good vehicle in which to return) how she ever ended up in this mess.Tom Selleck (in his film debut) is one of her ''clients''. John Carradine and Jim Backus, as Doctors, also amble in briefly. Rex Reed as Myron, Farrah Fawcett and Roger Herren, as the victims of Myra/Myron's sexual passion, are neither here nor there. The same goes for the script, which not only fails to focus on the basic plot of the book, but seems to head in at least three different directions at once. Although West's part was originally larger, she was reduced to a cameo role by the time Sarne was through with the editing. And, partly because of this, she seems to be in a different movie. Apparently, at some point, the Producers realized that Mae was going to be the film's big draw, and, unable to replace most of her cut footage, they rushed her back to the set at the end of filming for the second of her two songs, both of which come out of nowhere. The device Sarne used of throwing in old film clips of bygone stars to emphasize whatever points he was making, doesn't work at all. By the time the movie concludes, all a weary spectator can do is wonder what in the hell it was all about. Not surprisingly, just about everyone connected with the production felt the same way, and it died at the box office. A technically flawless DVD includes, (among other extras) separate commentaries from both Welch and Sarne, each of whom have completely opposite opinions of just what went wrong.No doubt it's home video re-release was prompted by a 2001'' Vanity Fair'' piece, which attempted (in great detail) to do the same thing. True, the structure of the novel made a screen adaptation a dubious undertaking, but, with Sarne at the helm of what was obviously a ''troubled'' production, it really never had a chance.$LABEL$ 0
+Aaah...The Thing.To see a horror film in which not only is every character over the age of thirty, but distinctly UNattractive, makes a refreshing change, and reminds me of those distant times when actors were chosen because of their talent and their ability to play realistic characters, rather than because of their teen appeal on a magazine cover. And Carpenter chooses a production designer and a cinematographer who can actually create realistic environments rather than over-styled parodies. And there's no gimmicky 'twist' ending, or cameo celebrity appearance, or lame pseudo-romantic subplot.And I REALLY miss on-set physical effects; with all those 20 year old kids trying out crazy new ideas with vats of blood and latex and early animatronics. In the 5 years between 1979 and 1984 we saw Alien, The Elephant Man, Poltergeist, The Howling, An American Werewolf in London, The Thing, The Company of Wolves, A Nightmare on Elm Street...what an era for horror effects! And don't get me started on the death of matte painting. The matte work in this movie is beautiful and seamless.What do we have now? Third rate CGI, former music video directors and professional stylists, that makes even 'gritty' horror movies look like glossy MTV videos.Now I'm going to go Netflix 'The Howling'.$LABEL$ 1
+Spend your time any other way, even housework is better than this movie. The jokes aren't funny, the fun rhymes that are Dr. Seus aren't there. A very lousy way to waste an evening. My kids 4-16 laughed a little at the beginning the younger ones got bored with it and left to play Barbies and the older ones left to play ps2 and surf the net. My wife left and did dishes. So I finished it alone. It was the worst "kids" movie I have seen. If you want to watch a fun kids movie watch Shrek 2, that movie is fun for kids and their parents. AVOID THIS MOVIE. It isn't funny, isn't cute, the cat's makeup is about the only good thing in it and you can see that on the disc label.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm assuming the filmmakers heart was in the right place but, frankly, this movie is truly unconscionable. I was offended by the tone and the total cop out ending. You cannot take issues like this so lightly! Without knowing the final caveat of the movie... we watch as a guy guns down his 9 month pregnant wife and two sons and are supposed to follow him for the next 2+ hours as he tries to establish a new life?? You cannot have sympathy for a character who does this. Cannot! Not to mention, we're given nothing until the last say 1/2 hour of this unnecessarily long movie, as to why this guy is suffering so much. No flashbacks, no sudden reactions to noise or movement - stuff that real vets are suffering from. All we know is he has a pain in the ass wife and can't financially take care of her and his 3 kids. There really didn't seem to be any research whatsoever into what current Iraq vets are going through.Additionally, the movie suffers tremendously from a heavy handed and totally inappropriate score. Its a catastrophe. It is truly harmful to some actually good acting on the part of the male lead and at times Joe Morton. It foreshadows EVERYTHING you're supposed to feel, and sometimes gives you the wrong clues entirely! Again, this was a brutal thing this guy did, and so seeing him get a new job, meet a new blonde, struggle behind the counter making toast is NOT appropriate! And really, the ending? What a freakin cop out! How dare you.There are far richer films dealing with the affects of war on returning soldiers, please don't bother with this one.$LABEL$ 0
+I occasionally let my kids watch this garbage so they will understand just how pathetic the show's "contestants" are. They are pathetic not because they are fat, but because they whore their dignity for a few minutes of fame and fortune.For anyone to appear on National TV and blubber, sniffle, and whine about being fat (entirely their own fault) is nauseating. What does this say about us as a nation? Does it suggest that your lifestyle choices, and the consequences of them, aren't our responsibility? "The Biggest Loser" is an appropriate title, but it has nothing to do with one's weight.Absolute trash.$LABEL$ 0
+Gerard Phillipe is absolutely perfect in this movie, funny, tender, brave and lover.He gives a superior dimension to a movie which is even a masterpiece, as much by the other actors (Gina Lollobrigida:miaoooou!!) as by the story or the rhythm. Never boring, always creating new emotions: for me, the best french movie of all time.$LABEL$ 1
+This Worldwide was the cheap man's version of what the NWA under Jim Crockett Junior and Jim Crockett Promotions made back in the 1980s on the localized "Big 3" Stations during the Saturday Morning/Afternoon Wrestling Craze. When Ted Turner got his hands on Crockett's failed version of NWA he turned it into World Championship Wrestling and proceeded to drop all NWA references all together. NWA World Wide and NWA Pro Wrestling were relabeled with the WCW logo and moved off the road to Disney/MGM Studios in Orlando, Florida and eventually became nothing more than recap shows for WCW's Nitro, Thunder, and Saturday Night. Worldwide was officially the last WCW program under Turner to air the weekend of the WCW buyout from Vince McMahon and WWF. Today the entire NWA World Wide/WCW Worldwide Video Tape Archive along with the entire NWA/WCW Video Tape Library in general lay in the vaults of WWE Headquarters in Stamford,Connecticut.$LABEL$ 0
+One of my all-time favorite so-laughably-lousy-that-it's-totally-lovable el cheapo and stinko nickel'n'dime independent horror creature features, an enjoyably dreadful marvel that was released by the formidably fecund exploitation outfit Crown International Pictures so it could play numerous crappy double bills at countless drive-ins back in the 70's and eventually wound up being rerun like crazy on several small-time secondary cable stations throughout the 80's. I naturally first saw this gloriously ghastly abomination on late-night television one fateful Saturday evening while in my early teens and have had a deep-seated, albeit completely irrational abiding fondness for it ever since.A meteorite falls out of the sky and crashes into the still waters of a tranquil country lake, thereby causing a heretofore dormant dinosaur egg to hatch. Of course, the baby dino immediately grows into a gigantic waddling, grunting, teeth-gnashing prehistoric behemoth with goofy flippers, an extended neck and a huge mouth full of little sharp, jagged, stalagmite-like chompers. Our Southern-fried male cousin to the Loch Ness Monster promptly starts chowing down on various luckless local yokel residents of a previously quiet and sleepy hillbilly resort town. It's up to drippy stalwart sheriff Richard Cardella, assisted by the painfully idiotic hayseed comic relief brotherly fishing guide duo of Glenn Roberts and Mark Seigel, feisty gal pal Kacey Cobb and terminally insipid nerdy scientist Bob Hyman, to get to the bottom of things before the over-sized gluttonous Jurassic throwback ruins the tourist trade by eating all the campers and fisherman that the hick hamlet makes its cash off of.Director/co-screenwriter William R. Stromberg displays a wonderfully woeful and thoroughly clueless incompetence when it comes to pacing, atmosphere, taut narrative construction and especially eliciting sound, credible acting from his hopelessly all-thumbs rank amateur community theater level cast. The performances are uniformly abysmal: Cardella is way too bland and wooden to cut it as a solid heroic lead while the pitifully dopey redneck comic antics of Roberts and Seigel provoke groans of slack-jawed disbelief -- you aren't laughing with these two atrociously mugging clods so much as at them, particularly when the insufferable imbeciles discover a severed head bobbing up and down in the murky lake water. Better yet, a clumsily integrated sub-plot concerning a vicious on-the-loose criminal leads to a spectacularly ham-fisted supermarket hold-up scene which degenerates into a hilariously stupid mini-massacre when a young lady shopper interrupts the stick-up artist in mid-robbery! A subsequent car chase is likewise severely bungled as well; it's so limply staged and unimpressive that one feels more relieved than scared when the monster abruptly pops up to devour the nefarious fugitive. Moreover, David Allen's funky herky-jerky stop motion animation dinosaur is the authentic gnarly article, projecting a certain raw charisma, sneaky reptilian personality and overall forceful screen presence which makes all the horrendously underwhelming human characters seem like pathetically unbecoming nobody bores in comparison. And as for the rousing conclusion where the sheriff takes on our slavering beastie with a bulldozer, the operative word for this thrilling confrontation is boffo all the way.$LABEL$ 1
+After reading only two of the comments herein, as a lifelong Bronte fan, beginning with Olivier's Heathcliff and enduring with the many versions of Charlotte's "Rochester," it is more than eye-opening to see that it is the UNsung Bronte sister who gave the lie to the male-chauvinist period the trio inhabited. Of course, the "miracle" in all three versions of 19th-Century British domesticity is that the "girls" were all "spinsters" and their only realistic brushes with "men" were their vicar father and their wastrel? brother. That said, finally, it is ANNE Bronte who has, in her single assay?, proved the "feminist" point, way way ahead of contemporary types, and including the "voting franchise" ranks. However, history evinces more than a few who preceded, including the Greek heterai and Sappho and the likes of an ancient emperor's Yang Kuei-fei. And how about "Eve" and her apple?$LABEL$ 1
+A very funny east-meets-west film influenced by the closure of GM's Flint, Michigan plant in the eighties and the rise and integration of Japanese automakers in the US. Set in western Pennsylvania, it features great performances by Michael Keaton, Gedde Watanabe, and George Wendt. Music by blues legend Stevie Ray Vaughan.$LABEL$ 1
+The defining scene to this movie is when the fat guy quits,but the evil doctor just gives him one more duty,check on the dinosaurs.Keep in mind that he no longer has this job and so is absolutely not getting paid for this.Also keep in mind it's a goddamn dinosaur and the doctor he's supposed to trust is evil and doesn't like him.But he's still like,yeah okay.That just defined the stupidity in this movie.One Melissa Brasselle proves that seriously anyone can bolt on some breasts and be in movies.I can go ride a mountain-bike between them,but hey aside from that the people of Paraguay are very nice.Eric Roberts gives his absolute worst performance so far,there's no adjective to describe how bored he is throughout.Corbin Bernsen saves what there is to save and you start rooting for him,but they have to stick to the formula of course.And I wonder how much your life sucks when you play like,one of the army guys in this one?How low can your acting career go?The special effects are so embarrassingly bad you expect a sign saying "Studio 3" to get into the frame.It's not even honest pulp,it's all taken from "Carnosaur",which even sucked all by itself.And then I wonder why just anyone is allowed to make a movie.$LABEL$ 0
+This may well be the worst remake Hollywood has ever produced, and that's saying something. I'll take it further than that and say this movie is so stunningly, deliriously bad that IT MUST BE SEEN. I don't know if I'm even capable of tackling all the things wrong with it--like the fact that the casting director appears to have pulled names out of a hat, or the mind-blower of Richard Gere's character being allowed to walk away scot-free at the end (I'm sure the people saying, "It's just fiction, who cares" would have no problem if it was a former Al-Qaeda operative who just wants to return to his home country)--so I'll just devote my review to the utter hilarity, which is mainly the scene where Bruce Willis is testing out his gun. In the original version, you'll recall, the Jackal practices his kill on a pumpkin. The pumpkin explodes on impact, an effect known as "understatement." In THIS version, Willis sets up a pumpkin target, but he doesn't use a sniper rifle--he uses a gigantic remote-controlled cannon which costs tens of thousands of dollars and can only be stored in the back of a huge conspicuous minivan (this man likes a challenge). He reveals the cannon by pulling away a tarp, at which point Jack Black, who is there to observe, jumps around and says, "That ROCKS! This thing ROCKS!" about 18 times (I guess Willis didn't have to disassemble it first, he just lifted it, tarp and all, out of the back of the van, despite it probably weighing several tons). The scene then turns into an Austin Powers movie as Willis misses the pumpkin and takes out a tree, then has Black run through the mud with his pants falling down, finally blowing off Black's entire arm. The pumpkin falls to the ground, unharmed. If I can recommend this movie for ONE non-ironic reason, it's for the Diane Venora character as a tough Russian major who becomes romantically linked to Gere despite having a facial disfigurement--a bold move for a Hollywood feature. By mid- movie I was really liking this character, so it was a shame when she had to be killed. I would have liked to see a movie about her. Other than that, this pile of crap is only useful as an objective intelligence test. 3/10.$LABEL$ 0
+With all due respect to Joel Fabiani and Rosemary Nicolls and their characters, Department S will be forever associated with Peter Wyngarde's Jason King.Most people remember him as this camp, flamboyant and debonair womaniser cum detective in the mould of Austin Powers but that will do a disservice to the character: He's far more nuanced than that.Jason King is lazy (he often lets Stewart fight all the bad guys and only chips in at the end), he is egotistical (his appreciation of people is based on whether they've read his novels or not), a lot of his detective work is speculation without facts to back them up and he sulks whenever Annabelle is right...and she often is. He's clearly a man having a mid-life crisis and drink drives but.......Jason King is brilliant. If Wyngarde had played him purely as a dashing hero, it wouldn't have worked but he shows King often as a paper tiger, led by his libido, love of finery and prone to grandstanding (and it gets in the way of his detective work at times) but he has some of the best lines and put downs in TV history. And by not playing him as whiter-than-white, the chemistry and interactions between the three lead characters is all the better for it.Watching it again on DVD recently, you get to see just how much depth Wyngarde put into Jason King.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this 1997 movie because I am a fan of Lorenzo Lamas (and of his father, the late Fernando Lamas). In my opinion, Lorenzo looked his best in this film, mostly due to his hairstyle and the preppy wardrobe that were flattering to him.As the plot progressed, I realized the movie was more than just entertainment or a reason to see a favorite actor. The story was about a ring of serial killers and the attempts of law enforcement to investigate the ring and bring the members to justice. There was adequate suspense, and I believe the violence was necessary to relate the story to the viewer.At the end of the film I was shocked to learn the film is the true account of horrendous murders that occurred in Utah. Furthermore, Lorenzo and his leading lady were portraying actual FBI agents who solved the disappearances of many young women and contributed to the apprehension of the ring. I believe the film is worthwhile as it informs the public about the dangers and capabilities of the criminal element.$LABEL$ 1
+Alright! A sci-fi/horror/action B-hybrid directed by Jim Wynorski and in the final scenes we get to see a cyborg with a defleshed metal head killing off multiple people! As with any Wynorski-flick, he throws in a whole bunch of crazy ideas and subplots that mostly don't lead to anywhere. But "Storm Trooper" is more like a two-movies-for-the-price-of-one kind of deal. On the one hand we got the drama/thriller part (as such the film opens) with Carol Alt killing her incredibly annoying & ungrateful husband (a plot that simply leads to nowhere). And on the other hand we got the 'escaped cyborg on a rampage' part, "Night of the Living Dead"-style. With Carol and the Cyborg being the ones trapped inside the house and a bunch of special OPs/bounty hunters playing the role of the zombies, trying to break into the house. Needless to say this flick is not up there with the greatest. Zach Galligan (of "Gremlins"-fame) especially is painfully bad and Corey Feldman (in a small supporting roll) is once again completely wasted on this movie. Wynorski even rips off one of his own movies here, since I am 99% sure he used some stock footage of his previous film "976 EVIL II" (the scene with the exploding truck and the motorcycle). Yes, it's so not good and so much fun. This is strictly for Wynorski-fans only. And I am one of them, in case you didn't know already.$LABEL$ 0
+I thought I had seen this movie, twice in fact. Then I read all the other reviews, and they didn't quite match up. A man and three young students, two girls and a boy, go to this town to study alleged bigfoot sightings. I still feel pretty confident that this is the movie I saw, despite the discrepancies in the reviews. Therefore I'm putting my review back: If you like the occasional 'B' movie, as I do, then Return to Boggy Creek is the movie for you! Whether it's setting the sleep timer, and nodding off to your favorite movie-bomb, or just hanging out with friends. Boggy Creek, the mute button, and you've got a fun night of improv. Look out! Is the legend true? I think we just might find out, along with a not-so-stellar cast. Will there be any equipment malfunctions at particularly key moments in the film? Does our blonde, manly, young hero have any chest hair? Will the exceptionally high-tech Technicolor last the entire film? You'll have to watch to find out for yourself.$LABEL$ 0
+I usually like zombie movies, but this one was just plain bad.The good parts: Girl swimming topless with thong bottoms, Sonya Salomaa's topless, and Ona Grauer's boobs jiggling in a skimpy top when she ran.The bad part: too much video cuts, too much Matrix slow motion (it drags the action), not enough blood and guts, bad acting, and no story. The only other person in the theater was smart and left right after the topless swimming scene. A total waste of $6 and time. I give it a 2 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+Why is it that when a star reaches the top of the star chain, they ruin all the good work by making a bad movie? Burt Reynolds peaked, then started making dreadful Hal Needham car chase flicks. Arnold Schwarzenegger became the hottest property in Hollywood, only to invite derision upon himself with the appalling Last Action Hero. And here, loquacious Eddie Murphy erases memories of Trading Places and 48 Hours with this "family" adventure flick, which is an unbelievably tedious, childish and generally plain awful misfire in which the chance to see Charlotte Lewis's great big breasts in a tight blouse is the most appealing aspect of the entire film.The story is pure humdrum. It concerns social worker Murphy, contacted by mysterious types and told that he is the Chosen One. Chosen for what, I hear you ask. His job is to rescue a Tibetan boy with mystical powers from a race of demons who want to rule the world. As the main demon, classy actor Charles Dance looks terribly embarrassed to be in the film, but hey, I'm sure he was well paid for sacrificing his talents. Of all Murphy's films, this is easily the worst. I've read some reviews which suggest that it is nice to see Murphy in an atypical role, in a non formulaic kind of film, and while both points are loosely true there's no forgiving the fact that the film - however atypical and non formulaic it might be - is an absolute load of garbage.$LABEL$ 0
+OK, before I get into this, let's go ahead and get the warning out of the way: this movie is the quintessential "cinematic" definition of SLEAZE! There are movies out there that can definitely out-shock or out-disgust this movie that have WAY more artistic validity than can be said for this turd of a film. So what makes it so sleazy?? Let's take a closer look at "Wet Wilderness" for a moment......Made in 1974 for practically nothing, this "roughie" has no real genuine "plot" to speak of other than portraying what would happen if a FAMILY went into the wilderness to relax and spend a day while being accosted by a fat dude in a ski mask wielding a machete looking for kicks.....the kind that end up with everyone being forced to have sex with each other while being systematically murdered by the masked creep. So those sensitive to themes dealing with incest are encouraged to look elsewhere. Then to really either add a level of surrealism or just demonstrate a complete ineptness for the art of film-making, the "daughter" of the group runs away after being forced to have sex with her brother and finds a random black dude (!) tied to a tree branch ("...that fat sum-bitch left me here for 3 days...") with virtually NO explanation whatsoever!! He is saved.....or is he? Of course not!! They are caught before they can escape, where our killer forces them to have sex as well while forcing the mother to join in, ending up with a dead black dude (courtesy of a hatchet through the chest) when all is said and done. Then our killer forces the daughter and mother to give him oral sex when one of the women grabs the machete........and the movie abruptly ends!!! Just like that! No warning, no tied-up loose ends.....it's simply over. Now there MIGHT be a proper ending to this film (I honestly do not know), but I have only seen the extremely crude Alpha Blue Archives version. Their version appears to have the ending either cut out completely or this is how it ends. If this was intentional, then in Film-making 101, I'm sure there is some sort of rule of thumb on HOW to end a film, but it shouldn't be done like THIS! Fans of the film "Psycho" should rejoice upon hearing the soundtrack music, as it's all through the film! I'd be willing to bet no rights were licensed or anything. Also, even though this is a "violent" film, there's not a hell of a lot of it, so gorehounds will find nothing of real use here. None of the violence is graphically shown.....only the results (one of the victims gets stabbed with a machete right above the vagina area). Also, the sex is some of the UGLIEST sex I've ever seen! The interesting thing about this film is it's too ugly a film to work as an effectively erotic porno or turn on anyone but those with a tendency to like things sleazy, nasty, and ugly, but not violent enough to garner any real notoriety with those looking for something really brutal like "Cannibal Holocaust" or other flicks like that. The only "notorious" thing about this steaming pile is that violence was added to an adult film, a fairly new concept at that time, especially when you consider than porn chic was all the rage and the grindhouses that filled 42nd Street played stuff like this to a most jaded group of porn mavens. This wasn't and isn't "mainstream" porn at all.If you were in film-making school and there was a list of movie-making "don'ts", this film would be a shining example of that lesson! This cinematic swill demonstrates what happens when cerebrally challenged filmmakers are given a "budget" (in this case, probably about $142.....cuz it looks it!) and ignore all the "don'ts" and turn them into "do's".....yes, this film is that bad!! One more thing: those who get offended by racial epithets are also encouraged to watch something else. The black man in the film is constantly being verbally abused about his color and the killer is obviously racist, but there was NO political correctness in the early 70's. I'm not sure a film like this could be made today.To be honest, this won't "shock" anyone or titillate anyone but those who get off on ugliness. Actually, I got bored. The sex is so ugly and mundane, it's hard to watch with any sense of eroticism, so if you chance this, you will thank God for the fast forward button! The "acting", if you want to call it that, is amateurish at best (I mean, it's even bad for PORNO!) with not one reason to care about anyone or anything in this!! If you JUST gotta see this anyway, then download it, as you'll really feel like a heel if you buy this. Some things are simply that worthless.....and "Wet Wildernes" is. The only thing more unpleasant than watching this film would be watching this film sitting in a theater and looking around at the others in attendance watching it too and suddenly feeling unsafe. Probably not society's greatest collection of thinkers and intellectuals. But if you're up for some stupid, yet SLEAZY porn garbage, give it a crack. It's 54 minutes and yet, it feels MUCH longer!! Crackheads would LOVE this! Then again, maybe there's something wrong with me for seeking this out in the first place......LOL! Caveat emptor, sleaze-lovers!!$LABEL$ 0
+Oh wow, the character shares my name first name! Nick! This movie as bad as the first one, if not worse. Well, at least there's an actual octopus in this movie. An actual octopus that makes a better appearance in this film. By better, I mean, "Longer" the acting is pretty dry and it's hard to sit through. Just to let you know, when this ninety minute film ends not only are you freed from your couch but you get your ability to breathe back. Not only that, but you realise how stupid you are and then commit suicide, realising how horrible life is after watching this film. Really, it shows how desperate horror movies are today, more crap like this is being realised and where the hell have the real masters of horror been lately? This film should have been the final straw, so we can bring back cinematic geniuses in horror cinema, that could make some actually GOOD modern horror films, this movie bites.$LABEL$ 0
+You know you're in trouble when the film your watching has numerous alternate titles. Generally it means that they tried and retried to hide the turkey in various markets. Such a turkey is The Brain Machine which has seven different titles.Its about some super secret government project that is suppose to be able to use a computer to read people but instead it drives people to kill each other or themselves, or something like that. Its filled with B level TV actors sitting in paneled room with lawn chairs trying to act a script that makes almost no sense.Its a turkey of the untastey kind. Avoid it.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this on DVD with subtitles, which made it a little frustrating to get through, because of the film's length. But I was riveted throughout all of it. That I was fascinated by the characters and always engrossed in the story, despite the subtitles, is a testament to the film's power. It's an amazing piece of work. I have it on my list of ten favorite films of all time. It's easily the best foreign film I've seen in the last twenty years or so. I would like to know the full story behind the making of this film. It must have taken a very long time and required the use of hundreds of locations. Its use of some hardcore scenes (on the TV in the motel room) may unfortunately make some people choose not to see it, but if you don't mind those, you'll be deeply moved by all the stories in this one!$LABEL$ 1
+Well, This was my first IMAX experience so I was pretty blown away about that, primarily; although with hindsight, I can't help wishing that it had been some other (less monochrome)film.Magnificent Desolation very much had the "Programme for Schools" feel the way it listed all the astronauts and this made it feel a LOT like reading National Geographic Magazine in 3D. Weirdly it actually had a very two dimensional quality that only occasionally exploded into reality and a lot of time it felt like some PowerPoint Presentation. There was a moment in the film when an unnoticed abyss opens; seemingly at your feel, that had a bit of a WOW factor but to be honest, that may have had more to do with me being an IMAX virgin.The commentary, provided by Tom Hanks, I personally found very, (what's a nice way to put it??) "flag-wavingly nationalistic" which didn't go down too well in central London, judging by remarks overheard as we left.Over all, I loved the IMAX experience, but dearly wish a different film had been on on that day. The Moon isn't a particularly colourful subject and to be honest, a lot of the 3D effects were lost in the monochrome scenery. All that would have been well, were it not for the documentary inserts and distractions like the interviews with American schoolchildren which spoiled it a bit$LABEL$ 0
+So when Bob and Marion Boxletter see a guy at a hotel, Marion believes it is her long lost brother Brian, but when she approaches him he appears to be someone else just with the exact same face. Marion manages to get his fingerprints and takes it to the police and when the identity is confirmed that it was in fact her brother Brian she and Bob leave for New York after tracing his whereabouts. They get a hold of Brian, but still he doesn't know what they are talking about, but all the couple really want to know is where Brian has their 8 maybe 9 year old son Joey... and even when they see Joey he doesn't know them either. The plot thickens and they find themselves one day thinking that they are someone else as well. Experiments made out on people only to make the perfect assassins yet the question of why they would bother putting Bob and Marion in the same building as each other is beyond me. Personally Gregory Harrison played his 2 parts great, but I have no clue what was wrong with the other actors, they seemed bored and lost. 3 out of 10, a little suspense yes but that's it.$LABEL$ 0
+When I first saw this show, I was 9, and it caught my attention right away when Stewie was trying to call Lois on the phone in the hotel. I laughed and kept on watching. When the episode was finished, i wrote down the name of the cartoon and watched it regularly. This separates itself from the Simpsons and other shows on say, Cartoon Network because the jokes are more mature, not too much, but it's TV-14 for a reason. The quick film cuts after each punch line and cute, funny movements and behavior of the characters make it special. Talented Seth Macfarlene is the creator and the voice of quite a lot of characters in the show. A good theme song, and a crazy family that there's always something funny, makes this my favorite cartoon along Sealab 2021 and Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Check it out it's funny stuff.$LABEL$ 1
+This show, Paranormal State, has an almost "Blairwitch Project" feel to it. As in, you're watching a 'documentary' that's actually just a scripted movie, made to look and feel like a documentary.My biggest problem with the show, is their 'go to' outside advisers of the Warren's, who were made famous for their 'investigations' of the Amityville murders, which were shown to be completely fraudulent, just based upon the police reports of the family's deaths! (such as the eldest daughter actually having been involved in the entire thing, to the point of possibly even helping with some of the deaths!) Then there's the way they constantly jump to blaming demons for everything. Not to mention how haughty the group is about what cases they take. They don't want to help those who need it most, they just want the weirdest cases, that will get them the most press and attention.They're complete frauds, plain and simple.$LABEL$ 0
+I actually didn't start watching the show until it came on FX. I was bored and had nothing to watch and saw that the show's reruns were premiering so i decided to watch it. I was so upset that I had not watched the show when it first aired on t.v. I loved the show so much!Finally a show for everyone to enjoy. I remember Full House and Family Matters and Step by Step and they were okay shows but just not funny enough. They would make dumb jokes and laugh over things that were just plain stupid, but not That 70s Show. That 70s Show was hilarious, smart and so real. I think it was the best show ever made and I'm very sorry that it ended. Although I love this show, I do think it should have ended on the seventh season when Eric and Kelso leave. The last season was just not right, Eric was the main character and the show should have ended when his character leaves. I still love this show and I hope TV starts making more shows like this one.$LABEL$ 1
+If another Hitler ever arises, it will be thanks in part to nonsense like this film, which propagates the absurd notion that he was a visibly deranged lunatic from the start. Far from following such a person and electing him to the highest office in the land, sane people would cross the street to avoid him, and he would have died in a ditch, nameless and unknown.Anyone who reads the accounts of Hitler's close companions - the autobiography of his secretary Traudl Junge for instance - will be struck by the fact that people found him a kindly, intelligent, generous man. He was also a brilliant orator, and the fact that his speeches seem overblown and ranting to modern ears ignores the times in which they were made, when strutting pomposity was common in political speeches. Ditto the overstated anti-Semitism, which was neither a central plank of the early Nazis - who were primarily anti-communist - nor uncommon or unusual for the times. The film makes it look as though Hitler's sole ambition from the start was the Holocaust.If you want to identify the next person who will cause the death of tens of millions, you can ignore fleck-lipped ravers life the one portrayed here. Look instead for a charming, charismatic man whose compelling speeches inspire the entire nation, and whose political work visibly and materially benefits the country. I'm afraid his personality will be much more like Barack Obama's than Fred Phelps'.I hoped for much here, and got nothing but caricature. The fools who made this thing perpetrated a crime against reality. This is the historical equivalent of 'Reefer Madness'.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie has a look and feel of many "Fresh" directors (closeups and focus on the emotions being experienced by the actors). The point of the film was presented from many angles and expressed well by the relatively inexperienced cast. The point being "Have faith in Jesus Christ and the Morman Church" Oh, and if you read or hear anything contrary to the teachings of the Prophet, it is just Haterade. (Fuel for Hatred)$LABEL$ 0
+Kurosawa, fresh into color, losses sight of his usual themes of truth and perception of reality and opts for a depressing take on Tokyo's slums. Kurosawa stretches for a style that was, in my opinion, his antithesis- that is to say, I feel as if Kurosawa wanted to make an Ozu picture. Poorly paced, poorly conceived, this movie is a rare dud in this auteur body of excellent work. While Ikiru, while being mundane and depressing, was still interesting and well paced, and while Stray Dog depicted the slums and social poverty of Japan without being too heavy handed or boring, do desu ka den has all the somberness that one could expect with its content, with none of the redeeming qualities of earlier Kurosawa pictures.Be warned, this is not a movie that Kurosawa should be judged by.$LABEL$ 1
+The year 1983 saw a strange phenomenon; two rival Bond films. "Octopussy", starring Roger Moore, was part of the official Cubby Broccoli Bond franchise. "Never Say Never Again", made by a rival producer, is, apart from the awful "Casino Royale", the only Bond movie which does not form part of that franchise. Its big attraction was that it brought back the original Bond, Sean Connery; its title reputedly derived from Connery's remark after "Diamonds Are Forever" that he would never again play the role. Some have complained that Connery was, at 53, too old for the role, but he was in fact three years younger than his successor Moore, who not only made "Octopussy" in the same year but went on to make one further Bond film, "A View to a Kill", two years later.The film owes its existence to the settlement of a lawsuit about the film rights to Ian Fleming's work. It is perhaps unfortunate that the terms of the settlement included a clause that the new film had to be a remake of "Thunderball", as that was perhaps not the greatest of the Connery Bonds. (A remake of "Dr No" or "Goldfinger" might have worked better). The plot is much the same as that of the earlier film; the terrorist organisation SPECTRE, acting together with a megalomaniac tycoon named Largo, have stolen two American nuclear warheads and are attempting to hold the world's governments to ransom by threatening to detonate them unless they receive a vast sum of money. It falls to Bond, of course, to save the world by tracking down the missing missiles.The film is fortunate in that it has not just one but two of the most beautiful Bond girls of all, Barbara Carrera as the seductive but lethal Fatima Blush and Kim Basinger as Largo's girlfriend Domino who defects to Bond's side after learning of her lover's evil plans. A number of the Bond films have a plot that hangs upon the hero's ability to win over the villain's mistress or female accomplice- there are similar developments, for example, in "Goldfinger", "Live and Let Die" and "The Living Daylights". In the official series, Bond's ally is normally regarded as the female lead, but here Carrera, playing the villainess, is billed above Basinger, who was a relatively unknown actress at the time. Basinger, of course, has gone on to become one of Hollywood's biggest stars, whereas Carrera is one of a number of Bond girls who have somewhat faded from view.Of the villains, Max von Sydow makes an effective Blofeld, the head of SPECTRE, but Klaus Maria Brandauer seemed too bland and nonthreatening as Largo, except perhaps during the "Domination" game, a more sophisticated variant on those violent computer games such as "Space Invaders" that were so popular in the early eighties. Brandauer can be an excellent actor in his native German, in films such as "Mephisto" and "Oberst Redl", but he does not comes across so expressively in English.One of the film's features is that it both follows the normal Bond formula and, at times, departs from it. There is the standard world-in-peril plot, chase sequences, a series of exotic locations, glamorous women, sinister villains and a specially written theme song based on the film's title. There is, however, no extended pre-credits sequence, and we see some familiar characters in a new light. For example, Bond's boss M becomes a languid, supercilious aristocrat, his American colleague Felix Leiter is shown as black for the only time, and the scientist Q is portrayed by Alec McCowen as a disillusioned cynic with (despite his characteristically upper-class Christian name of Algernon) a distinctly working-class accent. There is also an amusing cameo from Rowan Atkinson as a bumbling British diplomat. Although Connery was perhaps not quite a good here as he was in some of his earlier films in the role, this ringing the changes on the familiar theme makes this one of the more memorable Bonds. 7/10 A goof. Rowan Atkinson's character states that he is from the British Embassy in Nassau. As, however, the Bahamas is a Commonwealth country, Britain would have a High Commission in its capital, not an Embassy.$LABEL$ 1
+A Roger Corman rip-off assembled for what appears to be virtually zero budget. All of the special effects were originally used in "Battle Beyond the Stars", and I suspect a fair amount of the props, costumes and sets were re-used from other sources as well. The story seems to have been written around these elements, so this isn't really a movie as much as it's a recycling project. Third-rate "Star Wars" junk wasn't needed then or now.$LABEL$ 0
+"Opposing Force [1986]" wasn't as good as "Dr. Strangelove" and it wasn't as good as "The Bridge on the River Kwai". Heck, it wasn't even as good as "G.I. Jane", which is pretty sad.The film revolves around a basic ethical problem: In a simulated prisoner-of-war situation, how far can you go before you start breaking the law? What exactly IS the law in such a situation? How can you simulate the torture of someone without actually torturing someone? Can you intentionally inflict pain? How about breaking bones? Mock executions? Sexual abuse? Severe blood loss? Real guns with bullets? Death? Somewhere between these is a really fuzzy line dividing "acceptable" from "atrocious".Now, what could you do if you found yourself in such a training program and the lines between simulation and reality begin to vanish? What could you do? This movie attempts to portray this dilemma.I found it interesting to see the types of tactics used in "resistance training". I have a brother who went through the USAF's POW training program. According to him, it was pretty close to the mark technically.The film has a fairly good premise, but it doesn't have a particularly good story. I wondered if it might be based on some actual event, but it became pretty apparent that it wasn't when the explosions started. They must have changed scriptwriters three quarters into the film, because it takes a real extreme turn and devolves into a somewhat pointless shoot-em-up with lots of distracting explosions. I found it to have a rather unsatisfying ending; again, kind of pointless. I'm left wondering what the point of the whole thing was - I'm beginning to suspect there simply wasn't one. It could have been much better with just a little more story to go along with the fireworks.$LABEL$ 0
+Any person with fairly good knowledge of German cinema will surely tell that numerous films about a young girl having troubles with her mother as well as her boy friend have been made in the past.If such a film is shown to people again,it would surely click provided if it has something new,fresh and captivating for today's challenging audiences. This is also true for German film maker Sylke Enders as her film's principal protagonist Kroko has been mistreated by everybody around her including her mother and boyfriend.She is bold enough to face any punishment as she has tried her hand at all kinds of criminal activities including shoplifting.Kroko was originally shot on DV to be blown afterwards to 35 mm format.Its technical virtuosity does not hamper our joys when we learn that Kroko would like to become a policeman as she feels that she is averse to the idea of becoming a run of the mill hairdresser.If someone were to state a positive aspect of Sylke Enders' film,it may well be Kroko's involvement with handicapped people as a result of a punishment.It is with Kroko that we learn that punks are human too with their unique joys and sorrows.$LABEL$ 0
+Horrible. I see many user comments on how great this show is. It truly is a Wanna-Be-Friends - Made in Taiwan knockoff. The jokes are lame as...and the plot is ridiculous. The actors are obviously struggling to be funny and are probably cringing when they hit those awful punchlines (if you can call them that). The bulk of the other users who have commented are obviously from another planet (or at least another continent). There are obviously reasons that TV companies cancel shows...and none of then are when shows are doing well. Make sense? Anyway, steer clear - even if it is raining and there is absolutely nothing else on this planet to do...go stand in the rain instead - more fun.$LABEL$ 0
+I don't think this movie is for everyone. But I saw it this weekend in Seattle and I thought it was so funny. I haven't laughed that hard during a movie in long time. I thought the entire cast did a great job. You will find yourself laughing from the first moment through the very last scene. I suspect some moviegoers (especially the ones who take themselves WAY too seriously) will be turned off by this brand of humor. Not me. The movie was a real surprise. And the entire theater was rolling with laughter throughout the showing I went to which makes me think that a lot of people enjoyed themselves and were happy to have a good time at the movies for a change. I cannot wait to see it again! If you're in the mood to LOL then this is for you. Funny funny funny funny!$LABEL$ 1
+I was hooked in by the premise that the show was about demons. From hell. And a doorway to hell. What I didn't realize was that I would be watching some guys run around tunnels chased by small children who may / may not have been demons for the entire movie. Sure there was some dialogue in between, and great underground scenery but the lack of a plot, developed characters, any twists or development in the story at all was sorely lacking. Oh, and out of interest, there were no special effects. The entire budget was spent on actors salaries, sets and lots of time running around with a camera underground.The ending was one of the typical lackluster boring endings that makes you say "I endured this film of boredom for that!?" If you want to see demons and a doorway to hell, I promise you that you would be better off served watching the trailers to the game Hellgate : London which while shorter than this movie at 5 minutes, pack more dialogue, character development, action, plot and satisfying conclusions than this.The second star is for effort, but overall a low score for failing to make a movie that stands out, and for promising in the tagline much more than what was delivered.$LABEL$ 0
+Engaging characters, nice animation, dynamite songs...all this and cute kitties, too. There's a lot of excellent humor, but no real menace, so don't worry about your little ones. The two farm dogs steal the show, even though they only appear in two scenes. The artwork has a linear quality that may put off some people, but I find it charming.$LABEL$ 1
+Ted V. Mikels's film Corpse Grinders 2 is 103 minutes of excruciating cinematic swill. The plot is pretty much a mixture of nonsensical business dealings among people who grind corpses into cat food while cat aliens, who are losing a war with dog aliens, looking to get some of this cat food. Watching this movie, I began to look for any kind of distraction, anything to reassure myself that I was doing something else besides losing my mind from the inside out.Several scenes go on for far too long, as characters take forever to do simple things. I've heard that Mr. Mikels doesn't like to use jump cuts too often, fearful that they will confuse his audience. I'm not sure if this attitude is "avant-garde" or just "stupid." Try as I might, I could not bring myself to care about any of the characters in the unnecessarily huge cast, well with the possible exception of the old men who are the caretakers of the factory. The majority of the cast are a bunch of no-talent amateurs who don't even bother to learn the lyrics to "Amazing Grace" before they have to sing it on camera. Although perhaps the blame should go to the poor sound quality, since I only actually heard around 80% of the dialogue while watching the DVD.This is quite possibly the worst film to ever be shot. I've listened to snippets of the commentary,and Mr. Mikels comes off as a surprisingly sweet old man, what the hell was he doing making this kind of trash? I'd like to hear the explanations from the old men who had to lie shirtless on a metal conveyor belt waiting to be ground up. Movies I've long hated suddenly seem a lot better. I long for the intermittedly appropriate music of Excalibur, and the consistent lighting of Dawn of the Dead. I need to go do something, anything. Don't see this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+A bad movie, but with one reel that is worth savoring. For most of the film, the jokes are bad, the songs are bad, even W.C. Fields is bad. Then there is one sequence with Bob Hope and his movie-ex; the dialogue is witty and the song (a version of "Thanks for the Memories") light, cynical and delightful. Who parachuted in for this one bit? Yet it makes the whole thing worth the original 25 cents admission.$LABEL$ 0
+Well now, here's the thing - for this movie to work, you'll have to accept the following - a woman who's murdered is alive again at the end of the movie, a detective stops interrogating the dead woman's fiancée because a newspaper reporter asked him not to, and that same reporter, smitten by a good looking blonde hauled into night court for suspicious behavior, winds up getting married to her in exchange for the judge letting her off the hook. Are you following me on this? I can't tell you how many times I paused and rewound the picture to repeat scenes that just didn't make any sense. In the end, the blonde (Claudia Dell) and the reporter (Richard Hemingway) remained married, but I have no idea how they came to that decision. In fact, I can't figure out how the film maker came to the decision to make this flick. Oh I suppose there's some entertainment value here for just the sheer nonsense of it all, but it would have been nice if even a couple of the pieces fit. Still, I'm not ready to add this one to my Top Ten Worst list. I think that night club scene with the feathered ladies might have saved it. But why was it in the movie? I just don't know.$LABEL$ 0
+Oh yes! Hollywood does remember how to use the good old formula, and when lightning hits, it's a rather wonderful feeling. Rarely Hollywood creates a masterpiece because lately, there seems to be more concern with hurrying up and getting the most rewards in a hurried manner, or there is the matter of too many cooks in the mix. Usually good screenplays are the result of a talented writer who is in full control of his/her property, understand his material and is a good writer. Then, there is a little important part, often neglected by the marketing geniuses that so often lack creativity and vision: a good actor.A good actor can make the difference between a mediocre, half-cooked try, and a fully realized film that might not be an important and relevant movie, but one that contributes to its genre and might eventually become a classic of its type. We get very few romantic comedies, and we are people who are starved for them. Buried in the sexy humor of "Sex in the City" is the romantic, yet stormy relationship of Big and Carrie, and people flocked to "Mamma Mia" because it had some romance, skillfully played by Streep and Brossnam. It could have a silly musical, but it did touch us because it was played with intensity and conviction. "Nights" offers us more of it, with the amazing talents of a woman who does magnificent work in romantic films, Ms. Diane Lane. Ever since her days as a child actor, we could appreciate how her talent, combined with her appreciative soul allowed us to see into the hearts of the story's protagonists. A few years back, she teamed up with Mr. Gere, giving us a tormented, romantic, and sexy performance as the wife who is not too sure of her actions' consequences in "Unfaithful", work that should have garnered her at least an Academy Award. She is back, doing more formidable work in this romantic gem as a woman who has given up on her romantic prospects, and suddenly she realizes there might be another chance around the corner.Ms. Lane makes this film pulsate with intelligence and passion. Her facial expressions communicate volumes about the different emotions her character undergoes. We can read frustrations, yearnings, desperation, anger, hope, loss, and a range that is way out reach for a lot of the marketable types that Hollywood constantly push down our throats. Here is a mature performer who has the gift to project real emotions and allows us to connect with the material in such a way that we are moved as we become part of the experience.Ms. Lane is such a triumphant joy to watch as she goes through transformations from the first scenes of the film until the very end. Her discoveries become ours as we celebrate with her the power of hope and love. She is able to bring back the unsurpassed joy of a person in love, much like a teenager does, and yet she never lets you think of her character as silly or irresponsible. Her eyes are expressive gems that can move even the cynical in the audience. She is one of the stars that can do wonders with just one look. In her the classic feel of those grand movies of yesterday are back. Her work recalls the passionate and intelligent work of Hepburn, Davis, Garson, women who played everyday types and made them memorable because they created complete characters.We admire those superb actresses who recreate real life legends and are rewarded for it. Half their work is done by the mystique of the figures they impersonate; however as much as anyone might make you think, it is the roles such as Lane's in this movie that are a more impressive achievement because they are created from scratch, given a personal imprint and are able achieve heights without any previous theatrical material support, such as plays, and the background of a famous legend whose life is paid tribute on the silver screen. Lane's character is one woman whose experiences could be any of us. She represents our dreams and emotions with much quality, class, and just the right amount of sentiment. It is quite a remarkable achievement, and we should be grateful that we are still able to find such a remarkable performance nowadays.There are a few adjectives I could use to pay tribute to her work, but I can only say that in my humble opinion every single frame of her work in this film is testament to one of the greatest performances ever put on celluloid by a living performer. Thank you, Ms. Lane.$LABEL$ 1
+Really touching story of a recruitment camp in America, where young men are prepared for the Vietnam war. The human study always appealed to me when it comes to war movies, because it translates personal, subjective opinions on war, opposed war action movies where action, and technical data are being analyzed to the prejudice of the human factor. The movie manages to put a new spin on an already ancient subject, and manages to distance itself from usual war movies, especially by focusing on an anti-hero from the view-point of traditional standard. The movie focuses on the tragic character of Bozz, who smartly avoids being sucked in by the dehumanizing war machine, and refuses to give up control over his destiny and fight for something he doesn't believe in, spends his energy in searching ways to avoid being sent overseas, both for himself and comrades and ironically ends up finding his own just reason for finally going to war. Perfect irony.The acting is truly exceptional, and the documentary-style shooting almost makes you feel transposed into the movie. Also the movie will provide food for thought for those exhilarated by the action in usual war movies or war-games enthusiasts, hopefully awakening some minds of a generation which luckily escaped the terror of being drafted.$LABEL$ 1
+I first watched the Walking Tall movies when I was about 8 years old and I thought both Joe Don Baker and Bo Svenson did a great job, they must have anyway because since watching the movies, I have tried to learn as much about the real Sheriff Buford Pusser as I can. All 3 parts of the movie gave me chills and Buford Pusser was a true hero, I only wish he were alive today and that there were more people like him. I would love to thank him for getting rid of all the crime and being so brave. I am very sorry that his family had to go through such horror and pain. My heart goes out to them. So from a 30 year old fan of Sheriff Pusser and of the 3-part Walking Tall movies and the actors that portrayed him, please do not be negative about these movies and actors, they were only trying to let us know what a wonderful man the real Buford Pusser was and what a great family he had. And to all the young people who may have not heard much about Buford, I suggest you watch the Walking Tall movies and learn more about him.$LABEL$ 1
+i would never have thought that it would be possible to make such an impressive movie without any music. but it is. just the pictures. watch out for that picture: anne talking with that little boy benny 'bout the soul. really strong. might make you feel different.$LABEL$ 1
+Let's face it, there is no perfect production of Hamlet, it's simply far too long and varied and cerebral to get completely perfect across the board, especially what with the challenges of Elizabethan English and Shakespeare's abstruse dialogue. In any staging of it, there are bound to be certain moments, scenes, or intonations that one disagrees with. I've seen a lot of filmed Hamlet productions: Olivier, Gibson, Branagh, Scott, and now this BBC film with Jacobi. In terms of faithful, full-length productions, this one ranks up there with the very best.Most Hamlet productions are drastically cut, because to perform the entire play takes a stage-time of four to five hours. This production appears to be complete -- that is, ALL of the original Shakespeare dialogue is intact -- and so it's essential for scholars and Shakespeare-lovers. And though the lines seemed rushed on rare occasion (for those less completely familiar with the text), for the most part the script is well-acted, well-spoken, and well-performed. Subtitles are available and very helpful, although upon occasion they lag slightly behind.Jacobi does a quite admirable job with theatre's longest and most impossible role. I actually cried when Hamlet dies, and I don't think I've done that before. Patrick Stewart (as Claudius) and Claire Bloom (as Gertrude) are excellent, as are Lalla Ward (Ophelia) and David Robb (Laertes), and the rest of the very on-point cast. Sets are minimal, so we can thankfully concentrate on the play without distraction or attention paid to non-essentials.At 3 hours and 45 minutes, this full-length Hamlet is a long haul to sit through, but again, if you want the real deal, it's 100% worth it, even if one needs to take an intermission for oneself. I highly recommend this production to all Shakespeare lovers and scholars.$LABEL$ 1
+I finally found a version of Persuasion that I like! Anne doesn't look like a scullery maid in this version, just a very thin, aging, pretty woman, quite like she's described in the book. Captain Wentworth doesn't look like he's 50, nor does he look perpetually angry but rather, as he's described in the book, he hasn't aged as much as Anne and is quite handsome. And they play their parts with such conviction and realism...that's what acting is all about. They were believable. They created real characters, and it was like the characters in the book came to life. If you haven't seen this version, I urge you to find it, order it or request it from either a bookstore, or a library if you must. It's worth the price and worth the wait. I watched the 1995 version, and the 2007 version and this one towers over the other two. Why it isn't rated higher is beyond my comprehension. The book conveys the tenderness of their relationship and this movie makes the book come to life.$LABEL$ 1
+I always liked this movie, I have seen it so many times but I always enjoyed it :) the story is interesting and special. But the only thing I have to disagree with is that I don't think Max lived in a Romanian monastery or what was that :P They don't look that way in Romania.. Anyway, back to the story, Ghita Muresan played pretty well but as someone said before me, his English needs to improve. And there were some funny moments and some tragical/sad parts too. It worths being seen, I thought it was sweet that the giant wanted to find his love. I recommended to you all. It's not the best movie ever, but it was nice!$LABEL$ 1
+Beautiful coming of age romance about an English boy and French girl who run off, and grow up.I saw this movie as a teenager and loved it. I saw it again this year and loved again.$LABEL$ 1
+The Comic Strip featured actors from 'The Young One's' - a student based sitcom from the 80's. Comic Strip features included parodies of westerns, 'The famous 5', and The Professionals - all a lot funnier than this. Having said that Alexei Sayle puts in a good turn as a traffic cop with ambition and the soundtrack features great music from the era. 5/10$LABEL$ 0
+just below the surface lies what? a simply awful movie is what.as other viewers have justifiably commented, the storm sequences are just plain ridiculous. chopping already sodden firewood in the pouring rain? now that's smart. menace? foreboding? sexual tension? for those read dull & contrived, dull & contrived and dull & overly contrived.i want to say thank god for mia sara's shower scene but in retrospect i think the producers of the film, having seen the completed mess realised that they had to put something in to make it half way worthwhile at all. so it just becomes yet another contrivance. do yourself a favour and give this a miss.$LABEL$ 0
+Okay so there were the odd hole in the plot you could drive a zeppelin through, but how well was the emotional stuff handled? It would have been so easy to descend into cheesiness but the writer pulled it off. The image of the ex female cyberman making crying noises as she/it saw her reflection after regaining her emotions is one that will stay with me forever. That's twice now the monsters have shown a soft side and been presented fleetingly sympathetically, the previous being the last Dalek from series one, but by Jove it's worked. Add to that the other ex-female who had been "upgraded" on the eve of her wedding, and Jackie Tyler recognising her husband after she had become "cyber" and you have a permanent throat lump. Keep it up!$LABEL$ 1
+The production value of AvP2 can be described by one adjective: AWFULThe script is ridiculous, even in the fictional area of AvP: What are the facehuggers good for on the Predator's ship? Why is the Predator cleaning up all signs of his influence and than wasting precious time with eviscerating and even presenting the body of an insignificant human cop? Why is the Predator alone? Why is the Predator equipping himself only on earth but on his home planet? Why does the Predator make his job so uneasy for himself by hunting down the Aliens rather than bombing the whole countryside like the humans do in the end? Why is the Predator dropping more & more of his few weapons rather than collecting them to keep them together after using one. In the end he is even dropping his armor before fighting the Predalien in hand to hand combat: what a bad plagiarism of the first predators final fight between Arny and the Predator. The Predator's gestures are so exaggerated that he is moving more like a Japanese sumo than like highly skilled extraterrestrial-safari-hunter. As one can see immediately the whole story is a mess. But it gets even worse because this botched-up job is filled up with boring patchwork of senseless interludes like a lengthy pizza ordering episode or some detailed information about the criminal past of the two brothers (Dallas & Ricky). The Sheriff is of course the friend of these two criminals who he puts regularly behind bars. (not convincing & absolutely superfluous for the plot).In addition to that the cast of actors is horrible. Compared to the high class of directors & actors of the former Aliens or Predator movies AvP2 is an embarrassingly bad piece of crap.At last the action of the movie is really poor. There is not a single scene of action combat in which the audience can see the whole set. Each and every fight is filmed in short & shaky bursts with close up zoom at nearly full darkness. That results in an atrocious experience for the audience because one can mostly see nothing but a dark shaky screen.I suggest the two directing brothers Strause to buy themselves a steadycam and get a lesson in modern CG so that the next film contains some visible action of visible figures and might not need to disguise their bad directing abilities in such a manner.I would advise anybody (even die hard AvP fans) against watching this film: prefer the first one or the original Aliens or the original Predator films but avoid disappointing yourself by wasting your precious time on this failure.$LABEL$ 0
+Brief marital infidelity comes back to haunt loving wife Grace Needham (portrayed by the always sexy Nastassja Kinski).She had left town, and her depressing husband, to embark on a trip to sunny Miami, where she was pursued and ultimately seduced by Julian Grant, a handsomely evil and manipulative business executive, who is portrayed very well by William Baldwin (why do all of the Baldwin brothers play evil people so damn well?)The seducing of Grace took place as the two drank champagne on a deserted beach they reached privately by sailboat. Grace admitted she drank too much for her own good and revealed the many problems in her marriage. Julian gained her confidence by claiming he would never allow those types of problems to occur, if he had a relationship with Grace. Julian's manipulation continued as he described a "lost at sea" fantasy involving the now uninhibited Grace, who sat near, listening to his every word and becoming more and more engaged with his romantic dream.His manipulation paid off as a few subtle nudges led to Grace's soft kisses, paused momentarily by her pulling back as if suddenly thinking to herself `What am I doing? I'm a wife. I'm a mother. I have a real life. Real responsibilities. Sure, the two of us have talked about being together, lost at sea, but that is just a fantasy. Look at what we're doing here. The consequences are real. We're really alone on a secluded beach. Am I going to let this fantasy really happen?'She succumbs to the dream, as her kisses became more passionate. The once guarded Grace, who used to respond to men's propositions by saying "I'm married" enjoyed watching as Julian unbuttoned her shirt, leading to more kisses, body caresses and her climbing onto Julian's lap! She smiles, kisses, moans, laughs and frequently looks up at the sun throughout what unfortunately was a brief love-making scene in which everybody seemed to have most of their clothes on.While I thoroughly enjoyed the look of illicit passion on Grace's face as the once devoted wife was being thoroughly satisfied by having sex with a man that clearly enjoys manipulating others, I will say that on the whole, the scene was undeserving of the movie's "R" rating.Julian returned home to find her husband rejuvenated from his securing of a high paying job, and she is excited about being able to return to a normal life where she can once again be a loving wife and caring mother.But the evil Julian Grant reenters the picture and is not willing to give up so easily on Grace. Grace has a plan to rid her life of Julian, but will it work?Obviously, I don't want to ruin the remaining story line for you. However, I will say that I always enjoy movies involving sexual pretense by a wife (especially when she exhibits uninhibited attraction and behavior that is normally reserved for her husband) but in actuality, is seeking revenge against the antagonist. This movie would have been much, much better if the movie had included more of that in the story line. My feelings are if the movie brings it up, then the movie should finish it. And this movie definitely brought it up. Unfortunately, certain constraints in the story line prevented this from being significantly pursued. There are many other movies available that succeed with that very point, and I'll include their titles in the "recommendations" portion of this section. I'm also open to receiving emailed suggestions of other movies that contain a good story line involving sexual pretense on the part of a seemingly devoted wife.Overall, Nastassja Kinski and William Baldwin are both very good. The movie is not.$LABEL$ 0
+It takes an eternity for this typically over-simplistic and idiotic Stephen King-based film to finally get out of the starting blocks. About half-an-hour is spent on needless introductions to various boring characters and their irrelevant little personal problems that might excite bored housewives and apathetic pensioners in soapy dramas, but this is supposed to be the horror genre (or so I naively thought). The mutt fails to look all that fearsome, which Leonard Maltin, the notoriously clueless/hopeless and always grinning film critic, would disagree with: he considers Cujo to be "genuinely frightening". (I often do have to wonder if Maltin is genuinely thick - or merely likes to do favors for his Hollywood friends...) It's both illogical and inconsistent the way Wallace survives an attack with only a leg injury. And, naturally, her car breaks down just when she needs it to save her life: this is one of the oldest horror-film clichés; trust King to use it to minimum effect. The premise is imbecilic, too banal, even for a horror film: a rabid mutt attacks a family. Is that it? This sort of thing barely constitutes a 3-minute sub-sub-plot in your average zombie film. I think even Cujo must have sensed that he was starring in a turkey. Mutts have terrible agents... But what I really don't understand is how people can actually throw themselves at the "Cujo" book and read it from cover to cover? These SK fans must be immortal: that's the only explanation, i.e. why they treat time as such a meaningless commodity.Bodycount: 3.$LABEL$ 0
+Having loved Stephen King's novels and short stories for many years, I, like most reviewers, have been consistently disappointed in the adaptations to film from his printed works. A few notable exceptions are "Stand By Me" from "The Body", "Carrie" from the novel of the same name, and "The Shawshank Redemption" from "Rita Heyworth and Shawshank Redemption". This movie is by far the worst thing that has ever been produced with Stephen King's name attached to it in any way. It is no surprise that Mr. King has pretty much disavowed any connection with it. I feel the thing that most offended me about this poorly acted, cheaply filmed, hideously directed piece of garbage is that they had the audacity to COMPLETELY change the ending Don't waste your time or money on this amazing bow-wow of a movie!!$LABEL$ 0
+A wonderfully quirky film with enough twists for a sack of pretzels. Parker Posey plays Fay Grim as a sexy, vulnerable, loving mother who may or may not be what she seems. The story is very tongue in cheek, and the dialog skillfully understated. Hints of humor and intrigue, neither of which overpower the characterization Posey pulls off so well. The supporting cast is stellar. The downside? This film needs your full attention, almost to the point of stopping the film and taking notes. Posey has more sex appeal in her lifting of an eyebrow than most actresses have in their entire body. She's worth your time, even if you don't understand the denouement.$LABEL$ 1
+Did they use their entire budget paying the porno stars or what?!?Sound effects, background music and the editing in general was so bad you'd think some 12-year-old wanna-be made the film.Most of the acting was good considering the script... the "innocent virgin" played her part really well.The mutants look really cool and this actually could have been a really cool flick with the right brain behind the wheel... but, unfortunately for all involved, that's not the case.Turn Left was made better than this movie and those guys didn't even have any money!!! Good thing I didn't rent the movie myself!$LABEL$ 0
+Matthew McConaughey is a mysterious man waiting for Agent Wesley Doyle (Powers Boothe) in his FBI office. He claims to have information about a serial killer chased by FBI. When Agent Doyle arrives in the office, he tells him that the serial killer is indeed his dead brother. Agent Doyle requests some evidence, and the man tells the story of his life, since his childhood. They were a simple family of three: his widow father Meiks (Bill Paxton), his brother and himself. One night, his father gathers the two brothers and tells them that an angel of God had just visited him and assigned his family to destroy demons. What happens next is one of the most scary movie I have ever seen. I watched this movie four months ago on VHS, and yesterday I watched again, now on DVD. Although being a low-budget movie, the screenplay is sharp, with no flaw. The cast is outstanding, but I would like to highlight the performance of Matt O'Leary as the young Felton. It is a very difficult and complex role to be performed by a young teenager. The direction of Bill Paxton is remarkable. There is no explicit violence in this horror movie. A great debut behind the camera. I regret the Brazilian title of this movie: 'A Mão do Diabo' (The Devil's Hand'). If at least it were 'The God's Hand', it might be acceptable. But calling this movie as 'the devil's hand' is indeed ridiculous. Brent Hanley, the screenwriter, did not deserve such a lack of respect from the Brazilian distributor. This film is highly recommended. My vote is eight.Title (Brazil): "A Mão do Diabo" ("The Devil's Hand")$LABEL$ 1
+I'm not going to criticize the movie. There isn't that much to talk about. It has good animal actions scenes which were probably pretty astonishing at the time. Clyde Beatty isn't exactly a matinée idol. He's a little slight and not particularly good looking. But that's OK. He's the man in that lion cage. We know that when he can't take the time away from his lions to tend to his girlfriend, he will end up on an island with her and have to save the day. Someone said earlier that it is a history lesson. The scenes at the circus are of another day, especially the kids who hang around. I didn't realize that even back in the thirties, they sailed on three masted schooners. It looked like something out of 1860. I guess that's the stock footage they had. No wonder the thing got wrecked. They're always talking about fixing her up. There's even a dirigible. It tells us a little about male female relationships at the time, a kind of giggly silliness. But if you don't take it too seriously, you can have fun watching it.$LABEL$ 0
+A high school track star falls dead after winning a race; shortly after, her older sister (Patch Mackenzie) returns home in time to notice that all of her sister's track team members are disappearing. Who could the killer be? You may not care enough to want to find out.Crude, cheap, amateurish slasher is just about completely worthless, although top-billed Christopher George (as the nasty, hard-driving track coach) tries to give it a lift with an intense performance. Not even the gore is worth mentioning. The whole thing is lame from beginning to end, starting with opening the movie to a track meet montage set to disco music, and the casting of E.J. Peaker, once a co-star of the movie "Hello, Dolly" as a character named "Blondie"! That's right, "Blondie". This may mean that we aren't supposed to take the movie seriously, but in any case it's a shambles.It's the kind of routine slasher junk that makes the "Friday the 13th" movies look like works of art in comparison.The only point of interest may be wanting to see an early film appearance by Vanna White, of all people.2/10$LABEL$ 0
+I love horses and admire hand drawn animation, so I expected nothing short of amazement from Dreamworks new animated picture Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron. I guess you could say I was a little bit disappointed. You have wonderful animation and at first what seems like a perfect story. A story about absolutely nothing but a horse in nature. The animals don't sing cute songs or even talk -- a major plus. Sadly, the film has an uncalled for narration by Matt Damon; a sappy soundtrack by Bryan Adams; and enough action scenes to compare it to a Jerry Bruckheimer production. If the film makers would have just stayed with simplicity, we'd have a masterpiece here. This is not a great film, but it is good entertainment for small children. I would recommend this film to families because it has its heart in the right place and its the only thing out there right now that isn't offensive to small children. Not bad, but could have been much better. Very pretty visuals though.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie of 370 minutes was aired by the Italian public television during the early seventies. It tells you the myth attributed to Homer of the Journey home of Odysseus after the Troy war. It is an epic story about the ancient Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations, told at list 500 years after those events toke place, around 1100 BC.This is a 1969 movie, so if you buy the DVD version you would find that the sound is just mono and there is no other language than Italian, even the close caption is in Italian. Pity. Many people would enjoy this masterpiece if it had at list the English subtitles. But if this is not a problem for you, than I would strongly recommend to watch this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+In my analysis of "Trois couleurs: Blanc" I wrote that its tone is much lighter than the tone of "Trois couleurs: Bleu". I think it's the same with this film. This time it's not because of a tragic comedy-element, but much more because of the main character Valentine. Although her boyfriend is living abroad and is ridiculously jealous, she manages her life with lightness and optimism, it seems to me that she might be Kieslowski's image for a carefree youth. The opposite seems to be the judge, who is very pessimistic, a grumpy old man, who experiences big loneliness. In my view, Valentine and the judge are pretty similar to each other, the judge is just much older and has experienced many more disappointments. They share a different kind of naivety and they both discover that they can learn much from the other one. Finally I would like to stress Irène Jacob's performance, she rounds off the run of amazing female contributions to the "Three Colours"-trilogy.$LABEL$ 1
+This production, build on real danish crime stories, is a experience through excellent directing, acting on all levels and has a nerve not often seen in crime series. Every episode is a thrill because it's seems like the hole team believe that "this is my life right now - this murder or murders are MY responsibility to solve" and the output is brilliant.As a viewer, you just have this wonderfully filling of being entertained cause it feels like their focus, on purpose or not, lie on that they WONT you to have a good time...:o) Don't miss this one, it's just right under 'Band of brothers' quality and is a "must have seen" experience - What a wonderful crime time !$LABEL$ 1
+Was excited at the opening to hear part of "Chevaliers De Sangreal" but wanted more so I bought said Hans Zimmer piece. Possibly the most inspiring and beautiful 4 minutes of music ever written! This movie is an exciting thriller masterpiece even w/o the religious considerations. You get to tour the Vatican and parts of Rome with excellent cinematography. The opening at CERN where the "God Particle" or largest quantity of Antimatter is created with STUNNING visuals is an immediate clue which foretells the excellence of this movie. Who doesn't love Hanks? The storyline and twists in this film are just superb and well drawn out until the amazingly twisted climax. This film suggests a satisfying compromise between Science and Religion though plenty of closed heads will persist on both sides. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." A.Einstein$LABEL$ 1
+What to say about a movie like Rock Star? A lot actually! This is the type of movie that is almost tailer made for the critics to slam. It is also a movie I, as a MAJOR Hard Rock fan enjoyed-no-loved actually-while all the while being very consciously aware of its many flaws and that the movie, while a decent effort in some respects missed the chance it had to escape into greatness and become a rock movie classic. Oh well....I loved this movie-and would see it again and again-but I know that's purely based on my own personal tastes-Rock Star is a movie that will appeal to anyone who has experienced elements of the rock or hard rock lifestyle and wants to go down the road to nostalgia. It was a great time for metal heads. And it's nice to have a movie that effectively captures that(long forgot by many non-rock fans.) time effectively, as I think that Rock Star has done. That is one of the film's strengths, the concert footage. You will feel like your right there with them and how could any hard rock fan not love that? As far as setting the atmosphere Rock Star gets a 10 of 10. It also gets a 10 of 10 for pure entertainment. If you want a movie to just let yourself go and free flow into some great memories of good times past, then this is the movie for you. It is also the reason why I loved this movie so.But it isn't a great movie. I understand that and were it my actual job to review movies professionally, I'd probably have to be a bit hard on this one. The problem with Rock star is the character development.What is wrong with the character development is this, there isn't any. None. The movie has certain scenes-few and far between but they ARE there-that DO touch on greatness:WARNING BRIEF SCENE SPOILERS: 3 examples- 1)when Izzy makes his debut on stage(including the fall he takes)2)The first "after show" party with Emily(Anniston and Izzy.)3)Backtracking a little-In the beginning when the original lead singer is casually dismissed(fired)-the whole "business as usual" tone sets the stage for what's to come. It's played very effectively.But the problem is, nothing ever does come. There is little to no character development of anyone in this movie, peoples' persona's are merely touched on, but never fully explored. I don't think that's the fault of the actors/actresses,particularly Anniston who tries hard, they just are not given much to work with. It's just that the script was weak and lacked the ability to go beyond the "formula" feel into true movie depth. Rock star was so sugarcoated at times(including towards the end) it was almost ridiculous. And , though, those scenes I mentioned WERE outstanding and very believable, sadly much else in the movie wasn't.Another reviewer mentioned the lack of buildup towards the end and I agree but there was actually a lack of buildup about ANYTHING. WHY does Izzy leave at the end? Because he misses his girlfriend and the band won't let him write songs? It tests the limits of believability. And, frankly the end was just corny. Made no sense and had no reality to it at all.Watching this, it's almost like watching a movie where the makers of it said: OK, this happens here and then this happens and then this etc etc etc. By the end it's no longer a movie about a boy who's dream came true, it's just another thickly formulated love story. And you wonder why so much detail is left out....I hope I'm not being to hard on Rock Star because I truly loved it-but not for the right reasons. I would have liked to love this as a great movie about the highs and lows of rock fame. Instead I loved it for it's 80's period feel, the clothes, the hair, the lights, the life.... Although many others loved it to, I suspect most are people who lived the life of a rock fan, like I did or some who play. I'd have liked to see the movie cross over and just be respected for being a good, well told movie, instead of a cliché. I think, one of the problems was the length. I myself, hate over long films but this was one that really should have been longer, if a movie is done really right, the length is not even felt-there is just to much to the story for it to be as short as it was-that's one reason why there doesn't seem to be much development of either the story or the human beings portrayed in the movie.So-to wind down-this is a movie you can greatly get into- but not a great movie. See it for fun. See it for entertainment. See it to go back to that great, great space in time when metal wasn't just a part of life, it WAS life-and for those non rock fans-see it to get a little glimpse into a life that meant and still means so much to so many of us.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm not a writer or an critic...I'M just a student that has seen this movie few minutes ago....AND I want to thank people that worked on creating this movie!It is not the best or the most.... but it touched my heart...why???i would like to understand it myself...it is easy and accessible..it is a movie that makes you feel good after a bad day without any regret about the time wasted on watching it!It is about love and caring, about the life that we have but we miss it sometimes because of material stuff .......Look at all the time that we have but we miss it....why a fu*k do we do that???We need to live like were dying ...care about every second and remember:if we do good things-good things come back to us!HAppiness is real...and it has a special taste in New York...i love this town and the world the we live in!!!!thank you very much for the movie and sorry for my mistakes(English is my second language)...$LABEL$ 1
+This may very well be the worst movie I'll see if I live to be 100. I think a group of first-graders could have come up with better plot lines as a class project than this. I'm dumber for having watched it, and God have mercy on the souls who were paid to produce this film.And after I finally turned it off, I actually had the urge to vomit.No one had a clue about photography when made this. No one had a clue about acting. No one had a clue about just about anything.I can't believe F/X shows this crap on occasion. The only time I had seen it was on one of the Starz! channels - not even the main one. And it was on at about 3 a.m. at that.$LABEL$ 0
+If this was the best dutch cinema had to offer these years, my worst fears have come true. I have NEVER, even in dutch movies, seen worse acting. I couldn't get myself to watch it for more than 40 minutes, so if that's the cause of me missing the genius, so be it.$LABEL$ 0
+As a child I preferred the first Care Bear movie since this one seemed so dark. I always sat down and watched the first one. As I got older I learned to prefer this one. What I do think is that this film is too dark for infants, but as you get older you learn to treasure it since you understand it more, it doesn't seem as dark as it was back when you were a child.This movie, in my opinion, is better than the first one, everything is so much deeper. It may contradict the first movie but you must ignore the first movie to watch this one. The cubs are just too adorable, I rewind that 'Flying My Colors' scene. I tend to annoy everyone by singing it.The sound track is great! A big hand to Carol and Dean Parks. I love every song in this movie, I have downloaded them all and is all I am listening to, I'm listening to 'Our beginning' also known as 'Recalling' at the moment. I have always preferred this sound track to the first one, although I just totally love Carol Kings song in the first movie 'Care-A-Lot'.I think the animation is great, the animation in both movies are fantastic. I was surprised when I sat down and watched it about 10 years later and saw that the animation for the time was excellent. It was really surprising.There is not a lot of back up from other people to say that this movie is great, but it is. I do not think it is weird/strange. I think it is a wonderful movie.Basically, this movie is about how the Care Bears came about and to defeat the Demon, Dark Heart. The end is surprising and again, beats any 'Pokemon Movie' with the Care Bears Moral issues. It leaves an effect on you. Again this movie can teach everyone at all ages about morality.$LABEL$ 1
+Let's not kid ourselves, this atrocity is not Plan Nine or Cat Women. It is bad, period! The performances vary from drama school theatrics (Marla English) to a 'couldn't care less' walk through (Tom Conway). The photography (even in a good print) is so murky it is occasionally hard to see what is happening. The real problem, however, is the aimless, pointless, nearly plot less story and the leaden, paceless direction. At a brisk 77 minutes it still feels endless.The screenplay is especially inept. There are two story lines that only intersect at the very end of the picture. Tom Conway is trying to create a super race, using voodoo and modern science (although there is little science in evidence) which he can control telepathically. He is keeping his wife prisoner (for no discernible reason). Meanwhile a couple of petty crooks and a white hunter type guide are trying to find the village in which he is working, in the expectation of gold and jewels. When they finally arrive, Tom Conway decides that one of them, the woman, is the perfect subject for his experiments. She is turned into a monster, kills Conway (natch!) and then reverts to normal. She sees a gold statue half drowned in a boiling pool, tries to retrieve it and falls in the water and apparently drowns. The white hunter rescues the wife. In the final shot we see the supposedly drowned woman emerge as the monster again; threatening a sequel (now that really is a scary thought!).The AIP producer, Samuel Z Arkoff, in a lecture included on the DVD, prides himself on spotting the teenage niche market and satisfying it with ingenious low budget movies. However, it is difficult to see how anyone could think this rancid concoction would satisfy any sort of audience. What appeal do they think it could possibly have? The monster appears so rarely that it could hardly be called a horror film. The jungle action is tepid and tedious. There are no teenagers in it and no characters that teenagers could be expected to identify with.The producers exposed 77 minutes of film, but they didn't make a movie. This is a con trick and Arkoff should be ashamed of his association with it.$LABEL$ 0
+The above seemed a much more appropriate title when me and my suicidal underlings decided to watch this masterpiece of modern bullshit Erotic,Scary, Suspenseful, Well thought out, these are all the things this film fails to be.It is however incredibly funny, the slow sound effects and bad dubbing add to this to make one of the greatest comedies I have seen in recent years. And yet this film doesn't even try to be funny and that is one of the movies grand achievements, it becomes a comedy without even attempting to amuse.Throughout the film an old guy who looks amazingly like Santa Claus goes around ploughing over zombies and smashing vampires into the ground. This made me fail to believe the films title, if this was vampires vs zombies why were the vampires and zombies not fighting? Oh well whatever, besides there were more flaws to this rental than the title. Such as this one; there has been a virus sweeping through America creating zombie like beings who go around acting a lot like your average tourist. And yet there's only four zombies in the entire film. Another problem is besides one shop everywhere is deserted. Surely you'd see zombies roaming about in the woods or in the background a bit. In fact I believe they just drove around in a circle of forest over and over again since they didn't have a high enough budget to film in a wider location, that or the director didn't want to waste his precious time filming in different areas of wood he was to busy sitting in a trailer jerking off to be bothered with such trivial matters.In fact the director had so much fun doing this that he didn't have enough time to hire a big enough cast or even an editor. And so he told the eight members of the cast to dress up as different people and try not to act inconspicuous, whilst I assume he changed his name and began randomly snipping at the film reels "editing isn't a hard job anyway right?" The only reason this "movie" found it's way into our bag was because somehow we got it confused with Freddy vs Jason, strange how these things happen isn't it. And the only way we made it though the night was by strapping gas masks on and bolting them to our skulls to avoid the stink of this nauseating mess.Oh yes we did laugh at the end, but I'm sure one does that a lot when he has lost his sanity...................$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is god awful. Not one quality to this movie. You would think that the gore would be good but it sucks bad. The effects are worse and the acting if you can call it acting is the worst I've ever seen. This movie was obviously shot on a camcorder and runs on a budget around 500 dollars probably. If you want to watch a good Zombie movie than watch Dawn of the dead or Day of the dead. If you want to watch a good cheap shot on video Zombie movie like this but way better than watch Redneck Zombies. Please avoid this movie at all costs. It is unwatchable and pointless. You've been warned. I've got nothing else to say about this stupid movie.$LABEL$ 0
+A colleague from work told me to watch this movie, since he considered this movie to be one of the best movies ever. So I did watch it. First I have to admit that I dislike mainstream movies and prefer to watch movies with a real meaning.And this is the point, why I dislike this movie. It doesn't have any meaning. It's just a combination of funny, stupid, boring, entertaining, absurd and thrilling pieces.At first I thought that this movie could be a real mystery thriller (as the German packaging read), but the movie was too mysterious for me.David Lynch may be able to make a combination of the most different images, but the composition tastes to me as awfull as a combination of milk with beer. Both for themselves are pretty good, but together?$LABEL$ 0
+First of all, I think the casting and acting were excellent. The problem is the story. There is basically no story here worth telling and thus basically no movie here. Larry McMurtry has done Lonesome Dove and I can't fault the original, though it probably didn't need sequels. He did Hud with Paul Newman, which is one of my favorite movies. Mellencamp is supposed to be a country singer, but the only song I hear him sing is an old Buck Owens song. The movie makes a big deal out of chicken farming. Mellencamp's character has a good wife, and it's utterly stupid of him to stray from her. The incident with riding in the sliding cage is utterly stupid. Maybe people do that for fun in some parts of the country, but I never heard of it.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie has the most beautiful opening sequence ever made. I've seen this movie for the first time a week ago, since then every day I see the opening and every time I feel as thrilled as I felt the first time I heard David Niven uttering the immortal words from Sir Walter Raleigh's The Pilgrimage:Give me my scallop-shell of quiet, My staff of faith to walk upon, My scrip of joy, immortal diet, My bottle of salvation, My gown of glory, hope's true gage; And thus I'll take my pilgrimage (…)Do you know why it would be a truism to say Michael Powell's and Emeric Pressuburger's lives are thoroughly justified for having crafted such a wonderful opening? Because they had been already admitted in the Paradise of Poets long before they made this movie.I imagine both of them facing trial during Doomsday and saying nonchalantly to an irate God: I beg your pardon, Sir. So, do You want to know what have we done during our lifetime? Well, well you'll see: We've written directed and produced: I know Where I'm Going, Colonel Blimp, Red Shoes… do you think that enough Sir? It is rather obvious that these two great artists had already fulfilled their duty with God, Nature the Muse or Whatever you may call It when they shot A Matter of Life and Death. The fact that other people's lives would be justified for their deeds could be not apparent to everybody, notwithstanding I feel my life would have a meaning had I never done anything else that to see this movie.Of course old-timers will be tempted to say: They don't do movies like this one any more. They'll be partially mistaken; they didn't make movies like this in the past times either.I've have already quoted Keats here, but I'll repeat his words: A thing of beauty is a joy forever.$LABEL$ 1
+Well, where to begin? I guess I can start with the general complaint regarding the way in which this film is marketed. Call me ignorant for not knowing of Schneebaum's book before viewing the documentary that has been based off of it and decide that I have been living under some kind of a rock, but don't blame me for picking this movie up since the title and the description on the box makes no note of the fact that this "documentary" is actually a companion to said book. Yeah, I felt quite stupid after viewing this little flick seeing as how the reason as to why I sat down to watch it in the first place was to get a good serving of a "Modern Cannibal Tale." I mean, am I a fool for expecting this film to actually cover most of its story on the behavior of cannibalism in jungle tribes? I certainly didn't expect an hour and forty-five minutes of one old geezer kissing his own ass by whining about every little detail of his dull and worn out life. I certainly didn't expect the insipid directing and I most notably did not foresee myself laughing so hard at Tobias Schneebaum and all of his off-putting glory.Schneebaum is indeed unlikable. The old man just rambles and bitches the entire film making the whole picture a personal tale of his even though he isn't even that interesting a character to fill a story. Oh really? He was a cannibal? Ninety percent of the movie is focused on next to nothing regarding Schneebaum's dirty past. The only time that we really get to see some cannibal action is when Tobias finally breaks his little silent treatment about what happened to him in Peru and say that he had "a small piece." That's it, folks. Ninety minutes of bull later and Tobias Schneebaum is a cannibal by three inches. It's like calling a movie "The Life Of A True Don Juan" only to see that the only the time the protagonist of said film did something sexual happened during college when he once played "just the tip." Unbelievable.The directing is, indeed, superbly ghastly as there is no flow or rhythm to the story that is being told. Alright, I understand that I didn't read Schneebaum's volume before watching his celluloid tale of it, but I can still recognize some bad pacing and even worse editing. One minute Schneebaum is talking about cruise ships and tourism and the next he's going on and on about how he can't drive and then jumps to talking about some dead relative or some failed and miserable saga in his life. I mean, Jesus, can you at least slam his back story to the first part; follow up with some stuff covering his homosexuality and then end it off with a hearty look into his visit to Peru? Also: I don't particularly care much for Schneebaum's insipid little quips on life and living, but I at least implore the old man to keep consistent with his ramblings. If I hear a guy talking about how he prefers life in the jungle I don't expect him to suddenly bitch and moan about wanting to go back home twenty minutes later. Absurd.Another note on the directing is the random clips from the story at hand to the small little television appearances in which our hero has appeared. While some might find the clips to be fancy little breaks from the story, the director has overused the gimmick and broken his entire film into pieces by seemingly attempting to place most of the efforts of telling the story on the old reels.The bottom line, here, is that Tobias Schneebaum is a fraud. Pure and simple. I know that I haven't read the book, but I'm still holding on to the argument that this film is totally useless by noting that a good film must stand on its own. This documentary relies way too much on the assumption that the viewer is already an avid fan of Schneebaum's work and instead goes on from that assumption like a supplemental disk found on a DVD. Schneebaum is both arrogant and bitchy, striking a sour combination when mixed with the fact that his story is remarkably un-riveting. If you're looking for a solid piece on the nature of humans and cannibalism, turn away because "Keep The River To Your Right" is an embarrassingly hilarious self-serving rant over a man who is long overdue for a straight-jacket and a gag.$LABEL$ 0
+So I don't ruin it for you, I'll be very brief. There's some great acting and funny lines from the attractive cast. A young graduate of Harvard Med School (Brian White) finds out he doesn't know as much as he thinks about people. He goes to a small hospital in Florida for his internship because a girlfriend (Mya) left him for a job as a TV Producer. His Senior Resident (Wood Harris), helped marvelously by his 'creative collaborator'(Zoe Saldana) bring him up to speed. They help protect his career and show him the wider possibilities that come from being a compassionate doctor instead of a player who just wants to make money (as seems to be true for many of my pre-med friends).$LABEL$ 1
+I can only think of one reason this movie was released. To capitalize off the upcoming fame of Guy Pearce. This movie has no merit at all and needlessly trashes Errol Flynn's memory. The homosexual encounter was pure speculation. The disdain shown for Flynn in this movie is palpable. An easy way to slander an actor who died years ago. Horrible and embarrassing. Very disappointing. Don't waste your time on this utter trash. Watch My Wicked wicked ways if you want to learn about this fine actor or read his autobiography. This movie is NOT the way.$LABEL$ 0
+Hellborn starts as a young psychiatric doctor named James Bishop (Matt Stasi) takes up his residency at St. Andrews insane asylum, or 'mental illness facility' as they like to call it there. With nearly 600 patients Bishop meets his boss Dr. McCort (Bruce Payne) & is put to work, he gets ward 'A' where some seriously deranged & dangerous patients are held. If that wasn't bad enough during his first round of visits Bishop finds a dead body & has threatening sounding graffiti messages sprayed over his room. Bishop starts to hear stories from the patients about sinister goings-on at the asylum & soon finds out for himself the stories have more than a hint of truth about them...Known as Asylum of the Damned in the US this supernatural horror film was directed by Philip J. Jones & I sort of liked it but in the end there were too many unsatisfying elements for me to totally enjoy it. The script by Matt McCombs takes itself pretty seriously & I quite liked the basic idea behind & some of it's ideas but there are a few things which work against it. For a start the film is just too slow, the story is pretty good & doesn't give itself away too early but it takes an absolute age for it to get going & I was rapidly losing interest with each passing minute. I also thought the so-called twist ending was far too predictable & the ending itself far too bland & forgettable. It's a shame because I liked the story, the character's, the setting & some of the ideas but it's simply too slow & frankly dull to keep one entertained over it's 90 minute duration. It's one of those films which I would like to recommend but in all honesty I can't.Director Jones does a good job, this is actually a well lit & quite atmospheric film. I wouldn't say there's anything scary here. I'm not sure if Hellborn was shot in a real insane asylum but if it wasn't they did a great job on the sets & the film looks pretty good overall. Unfortunately there is a real lack of gore or action, there are two hand-print shaped wounds & a severed tongue & that's it, absolutely nothing else in terms of blood or gore which has to go down as a disappointment. Depending on who you believe & which review you read the special effects are either the worst ever or very good, well as a devoted watcher of low budget horror I was very impressed with the effects especially the demon thing which looks mightily impressive & is a man in a suit type effect rather than a terrible CGI computer graphic although it's an impressive suit. It all depends on your expectations I suppose.Technically the film is good, it looks nice enough & the lack of CGI computer effects is something I welcome. The acting isn't great though, it certainly could have been better.Hellborn is a film that disappointed me, there were some good stuff about it but at the same time some terrible stuff which unfortunately outweighs the good. I sort of liked parts of it but as a whole 90 minute viewing experience I'd find it totally impossible to recommend to anyone.$LABEL$ 0
+It seems to me, as a recent film school graduate, that in these times of New Zealand film reaching new heights, the general public seems to think every New Zealand film made is great. Sione's Wedding proves this is dead wrong.It's completely overrated and not funny, and far from the 'hilarious' film other users of IMDb have commented. The only really funny thing I found in this film was Derek the wannabe black guy, but other than that the jokes were recycled crap that we'd all heard before.Being of half-Samoan decent, I wanted to see how the film was going to deal with Polynesian representation. It was a complete balls-up - I know it's a supposed comedy, but I didn't feel like the characters had anything new to say about Polynesian identity, even if it was in a tongue-in-cheek manner. I was most disappointed with the ending of the film and the resolution of the character's relationships - Mikaele was the player who only messed around with white women, comes to slightly turn his ways when the 'Dusky Maiden' comes to town, has an epiphany that maybe he should start looking for a stable relationship, then at the very last minute rejects it and accepts his position as a Polynesian Playboy for palagi women. I didn't understand why they did this.All in all, it was very disappointing. My whole family went to see it expecting to have a good laugh, but ended up being really bitter about paying to see it at the cinema. The jokes are lame at best, the acting, particularly of Sefa's girlfriend, APPALLING, and honestly I would've been happy if I had got my hands on one of those pirated copies of the film to save myself the $15 ticket price.I think the only good thing to come from the movie is that it's the second step (behind No. 2, of course, a far superior film to this one) in the birth of Polynesian cinema. I hope Pacific filmmakers in the future can learn from Sione's Wedding in how to NOT reflect Polynesia and have something more meaningful and sensible to say. Even if it is done in a comedic fashion.$LABEL$ 0
+Hard to imagine what they were thinking of when they made this movie (i.e., the writers, directors, producers, actors, editors, etc.). Christopher Plummer, veteran of 129 movies, frolics along among scores of other actors with apparently no more motivation than to collect a paycheck. I guess there is nothing wrong with that, but once they are paid that doesn't mean anyone has to watch it.It bugs me that there are actually good reviews for this movie here at imdb. Art? If you want to see art go to an art gallery, don't watch this movie. Comedy? Watch a re-run of the Flintstones, about the same plot with less time wasted.Dabney Coleman gives his usual performance, for better or worse. And some of the young actors may have gotten some good experience from doing this movie. But Plummer???? It was embarrassing to watch his performance, in fact I was positively transfixed on him throughout the movie, knowing this was Plummer of Sound of Music fame! I see from his bio that he called Sound of Music "sound of mucus", so guess he didn't like it as much as the 100's of millions who liked him in it.I wonder if today he was asked, how do you rate Sound of Music compared to Where the Heart Is, what would he say.....?Probably something like "Where the Money Is"....$LABEL$ 0
+First of all, the actor they have to play Jesus has blue eyes... half the actors they have playing Jews have blue eyes. Aren't there enough brown-eyed actors out there? Jesus being depicted as having blue eyes is one of my pet peeves. He was a full-blooded Jew! Second of all, what is it with old English-language movies that are supposed to take place in non-English-speaking countries, and everybody has English accents? (Another example is David Lean's "Dr. Zhivago".) Aren't there enough either Jewish actors or actors who can do a Israeli accent? The movie often is not true to the Scriptures, and so seems to doubt the legitimacy of Jesus's claim to be the Messiah. In the bible, when Jesus is baptized by John, a voice comes from heaven saying "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22). In the movie, John the Baptist says this! The screenwriter seems to be trying to portray the believers as crazy, as well. For example, in the bible, the angel Gabriel tells Mary she will become pregnant with the Son of God (Luke 1:26-38), but in the movie, we do not see or hear any angel - Mary appears to be talking to a moonbeam, and when Mary's mother hears her talking to someone and peeks in on her, she doesn't hear or see anyone either. Also, in the movie, when Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees in the Temple in Jerusalem, he says, "You shall not see me here again, not until you learn to cry, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord', for I and my father are one and the same." The correct line (Matthew 23:39 and Luke 13:35)is "You will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" Period. Jesus never claimed to be God. The movie cuts out a lot of important parts (the Sermon on the Mount is very expurgated), but then spends a lot of time on stuff that isn't even in the bible (a whole scene with Mary Magdalene talking with a john). It seems like the screenwriter, instead of wanting to do a movie version of the Scriptures, wanted to make a movie about what he thinks might have really happened behind (and between) the scenes. The movie has one gem though - during the scene where Jesus tells the parable of the Prodigal Son, at Matthew the tax collector's house, I had tears streaming down my face. It is the best movie I've seen about Jesus's ministry (but that isn't saying much, because the others are just terrible). "Jesus Christ Superstar" is my favourite movie about Jesus's last days ("The Passion of the Christ" is way too graphic), though I like how "Jesus of Nazareth", instead of just ending with Jesus's death, continues on and shows his resurrection.$LABEL$ 0
+Artificial melodrama with a screenplay adapted by Mel Dinelli from his play "The Man" concerns a boarding-house proprietress taking in a troubled handyman who may be homicidal. Despite solid work from Ida Lupino and Robert Ryan (both trying their best), this tedious yarn isn't very inventive within its one primary set (which quickly becomes visually dull) and underpopulated cast of characters (there is however a smart pooch who senses the worst!). Hokey and humorless, with a stilted direction from Harry Horner (perhaps Lupino should have directed?). Where's all the suspense promised by the ads? Dinelli also served as a co-producer. *1/2 from ****$LABEL$ 0
+A good deal of running around. A badly conceived adversary with very little complexity. A scientist who works in communications sending off signals into space and receiving them, gets caught up with aliens. Along with his pretty wife, he invades their territory and is given secrets about them. He becomes rather traitorous in the process. Granted, he is given little choice anyway. There is a scene where he gives them everything they want. This is a dull movie with lots of long stretches where little happens. The plot isn't technically bad. It's just that we are usually following a car, a trip through a woods, investigating a building. This is what editing is all about. I suppose the story wouldn't technically support much more. Not much here.$LABEL$ 0
+I must confess that I was completely shocked by this film. For one, I went to see it on a whim expecting something mediocre, but given this, the most shocking thing was that this was in a populist American cinema at all. This is British comedy at its finest - dark, quirky and funny in ways that American films just never are. I must stop short, however, of recommending this wholeheartedly to anyone; I went to see it with several people, some English, some European and some American and while some of us loved it (mainly from the first two groups), some hated it and found it worthless. If you think you're into this kind of thing then go. If not, don't. 10/10.$LABEL$ 1
+I waited for this movie to come out for a while in Canada, and when it finally did, I was very excited to see it. I really enjoyed it. Of course, in the beginning, it is a very sad movie (and it was New Years Day - making it even sadder) - however, it sticks with you. The next day I was thinking about it again, because although it revolves around something so emotionally draining, you realize after a few days that it is such a beautiful story. How one person can be seen as the link to so many people, but sometimes you can be blinded so many things. And how Diane Keaton's character kind of saves the rest of them by just being there. And how they save her in the process as well. It was such an excellent movie, and Chris Pine (one of my favourite actors) provides the perfect comic relief. It is definitely a movie that will need a box of tissues, but will really stay with you for a long time.$LABEL$ 1
+To this day, Malcolm McLaren is telling anyone daft enough to believe him that the Sex Pistols were his idea and that the band members were his puppets to be used to make him money. There is a good reason for him doing this, namely that he is a liar.Here are some real facts.* McLaren was actually approached by the band to be manager, not the other way round.* The Pistols were a proper, organic band and not created by McLaren or anyone else. Jones and Cook were childhood friends. Rotten and Vicious went back a long way too. This is something that has led to unfair criticism of the Pistols down the years as they have been likened to manufactured boy bands.* The band and no one else wrote the songs, recorded them, played live, created the publicity and gave the interviews.* McLaren did not instigate the Bill Grundy incident. The Pistols only appeared on the programme because Queen had pulled out. According to the band, McLaren was cowering in the back in case arrests were about to be made.* Johnny Rotten walked out of the band. He was not sacked.* Far from outwitting the Sex Pistols, John Lydon (Rotten) actually successfully sued him in the 1980s for control and a considerable sum of money. Some of the evidence used by Lydon's lawyers was from McLaren's boasting in 'The Great Rock & Roll Swindle'. This would suggest that McLaren is none too bright despite his affectations.* The sackings and subsequent pay offs from A & M and EMI were, again, not engineered, it was merely the way things panned out.* McLaren boasts about the money he made from the band. If he had been competent, he could have made a great deal more. It seems he coudn't even organise gigs properly.* McLaren's claim at the start of the film that he invented punk rock can be disproved in about ten seconds. The Pistols were not the first punk band, merely the most high profile.This is a terrible film. The only parts worth watching are the genuine footage of the band, later put to much better use in 'The Filth And The Fury'.$LABEL$ 0
+I cannot believe it has been 25 yrs since I first watched this story on TV. I remembered to have been very much touched by it and was lucky to get the VHS tape several years ago. I did not watch it again until just recently. I have been watched it over and over ever since. I must have watched it 10 times in the past 2 wks.The acting is superb, the story is compelling, and I am embarrassed to say that I did not appreciate actor Bryan Brown's talent until now. The playful facial expressions shown in the first half - when he gave Jean the stolen medicine in Malaya is such a contrast to his very reserved and nervous body languages shown in the second half: in their first drink together in Caines and the touring of the homestead. We have to wait until the wedding reception, especially the final dance scene to see his open display of affection for Jean. The same dancing eyes that first revealed his admiration in Malaya. Who wouldn't want to be his Mrs. Boong ? While Joe changed from a cocky, almost bigger than life figure in the Malaya jungle to a somewhat self-conscious average Joe in his own backyard, Jean took the opposite road; her wartime experience seems to have given her new confidence. She wasted no time and went after what she wanted. She took steps to take what she could get - exactly as Joe had told her to once upon a time.For me, all these transformations helps to show this is more than just a love story - this is a story about growth, courage and fragility in life. The solicitor -Noel is both a sweet and sad figure. He too gave much to Jean - he gave his last hope for love. At the end, he did what true love requires -- he put her happiness ahead of his own.I happened to like the fight between Joe & Jean that was not in the book. I thought it's an appropriate and necessary addition for it helped to surface the inner struggles they both had to deal with in order to make their life together possible.Now, I am older, maybe I understand life, love and loss a little better. This story touches me even deeper. I am, however, surprised to see B. Brown has blue eyes in the promo photo shown on this site. He most definitely did not in "A Town like Alice." Well, 25 yrs is a long time !$LABEL$ 1
+The recent release of "Mad Dog Morgan" on Troma DVD is disappointing.This appears to be a censored print for television viewing. Some of the more violent scenes have been edited and portions of the colorful language have been removed. Anyone who viewed the film uncut will be mad as hell at this toxic DVD version. "Mad Dog Morgan" deserves to be released on DVD in the original theatrical cut. However, even as released on DVD, the film is still one of the better depictions of bushranger life in nineteenth century Australia. After having toured the Old Melbourne Gaol, with death masks of convicts on display, it is "Mad Dog Morgan" that comes to mind.$LABEL$ 0
+Okay, it's too long and it's too satisfied with itself. Still, "The Great Dictator" is a fascinating movie. Chaplin does a terrific job satirizing Hitler and trying to portray the oppression of the Jews in Nazi Germany (this was before the concentration camps were common knowledge). Not a Chaplin masterpiece, but still worth seeing.$LABEL$ 1
+Unbelievable. "Philosophy". "Depth". "Genius". "Masterpiece". People must have seen another "Oldboy" because the one I've seen was a badly written, poorly conceived, over-the-top-acted, sordid piece of "Kraapola" which, even ignoring for a moment the ludicrously violent scenes which makes it unsuitable for the eyes of a child, could barely satisfy the imagination and the thirst for plot consistency of a seven years old.The "depth" of this sorry concoction was exhausted in one little piece of wisdom, "Laugh and the whole world will laugh with you, weep and you'll find yourself alone", the type of boring fortune cookie saying which a great author, be him Shakespeare or, more to the point of IMDb, Kurosawa, would have thrown in the garbage can with no second thoughts. Where this movie should have landed too, if we wouldn't live in an era in which the cheaply shocking and the perversely disgusting are confused with what used to be named once "great art". In short, yuck.2 out of 100. It's not 1 out of 1000 only because of some occasionally expert camera-work. In no way enough to save this infantile failure from worthlessness, though.$LABEL$ 0
+Well, it's yet again a film that plays with your sentiments and you come out all soft as opposed to a rocky film. But I'm a sucker for those so I gave it a good score... the acting was very good and there were a lot of feeling. The violence is kept to a minimal which makes a change. I'd have given it a 9 if it were not for the salute at the end! All in all a good movie with very good actors.$LABEL$ 1
+Erika Kohut is a woman with deep sexual problems. At the start of the film, we see her arriving home late. When her older mother protests, Erika goes into a frenzy, attacking the older woman without pity. Erika, as it turns out, is a musical teacher of a certain renown in the conservatory where she teaches. When we next see her, she is the model of composure, but she shows a cruel side in the way she attacks a young male student because she feels he is wasting his time, and hers. The same goes for the insecure Anna, a talented girl who Erika hates, maybe because she sees in the young woman a promise that she is not willing to promote.At the end of the day, we watch Erika as she goes into an amusement area and proceeds to one of the cabins where pornographic material is shown. Erika is transfixed as she watches the things that are being performed on the screen. On another occasion, Erika comes to a drive-in where a movie is in progress. Her attention goes toward a parked car in which, two lovers are performing a sex act. The camera lingers on Erika as she is lost in reverie watching what the two lovers are doing, until she is surprised by the young man inside the car. Erika flees horrified she's been discovered.When a wealthy couple invites Erika to perform in a recital in their opulent home, she meets an eager young man, Walter, who is related to the hosts. Walter is immediately taken with Erika's playing; the young man is a talented pianist himself. His eagerness to compliment Erika is met with skepticism on her part. Walter decides to audition for Erika's master class, and is accepted.Thus begins Walter pursuit of Erika, who is taken aback when she realizes what the young man's motives really are. In turn, Erika, begins to fantasize about Walter in ways that only her mind could, imagining what she would like him do when, and if, they get together. Walter gets turned off by the letter Erika has written to him, detailing sexual acts that are repugnant to the young man.The film's ending, reminded us of the last sequence of Mr. Haneke's current "Cache". We are taken to a concert hall where Erika is going to perform. She is seen stalking the lobby looking for the arrival of Walter, who goes on into the hall without noticing her. Erika's expression to the camera reveals a lot more of her state of mind in that last minutes of the film. As she flees the lobby area after inflicting a wound on herself, the camera abandons her and concentrates on the building's facade that seems to stay on the screen for a long time."La Pianiste" is a personal triumph for Isabelle Huppert. This magnificent actress does one of her best appearances on the screen, guided by the sure hand of Michael Haneke, one of the most interesting directors working today. Ms. Huppert's works with economic gestures, yet, she projects so much of her soul as she burns the screen with her Erika.The supporting cast does wonders under the director's guidance. Annie Girardot, always excellent, is perfect as Erika's mother. She seems to be the key of whatever went wrong with her daughter. There is a hint of incest that is played with subtleness in the context of the film. Benoit Magimel is perfectly cast as Walter. This young actor does a wonderful job in the film as the young man, so in love with a woman that is possessed by demons, that he'll never be able to chase away or get her to love him in a normal manner.Michael Haneke films are always disturbing to watch, yet they offer so many rewards because he dares to go where other men don't. The magnificent music heard in the film are mainly by Schubert and Schumann, two composers that are Erika's own favorites. The movie is helped tremendously by Christian Berger's cinematography.$LABEL$ 1
+Charles Bronson has given the viewers lots of great moments on the screen. But this movie lacks everything that a thriller/action-movie should have. There are a few action scenes in the movie, but they're really crappy. And when the action scenes fail, does the story save the film? Not at all, is my answer to that. The story is even worse than the action scenes. It's very straightforward and boring, and even though I'm a big movie fan, I almost fell asleep several times. I don't know how they came up with a failure like this. A low budget, maybe? Regardless of that, it looked like all the actors had no interest in being in the movie at all. When that happens, the result is really bad.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm so confused. I've been a huge Seagal fan for 25 years. I've seen all of his films, and many of those dozens of times. I can only describe this film as "bizarre." Steven Seagal shares screenplay writing and producing credits on this film, but I have a really tough time believing he would choose to dub over his own voice for so many of his lines, with a thin, whiny imposter's voice no less. What I also don't get is, if they had to dub SOME of his lines, why does his own voice appear on the rest of them? I expect Seagal to age like the rest of us. But the Seagal in this movie barely exudes a fraction of the same swagger, confidence, bravado, charm, and sex-appeal he so easily showed us in ALL of his previous movies. What I found myself missing most of all was his cocky, self-assured attitude and his bad-ass sneer that so easily shifts into that adorable grin. Where is that in-your-face attitude and charm that made him such a huge star??? I hope that this film is not an indication of what Seagal has left to offer us - if so, his lifelong fans will have to concede that the Seagal we all knew and loved is gone.$LABEL$ 0
+I checked this movie out when it still had 6 votes and it said like 7.2 or something, but seriously this is a horrible movie. Lets break it down. The first thing you notice about this movie is that it was filmed on a hand-held digital camera owned by a freshman at a community college. the next thing you'll notice is that the actors, are all friends of said freshman (he probably met them at the pub the night before. Third on the list you will notice that the musical editing is horrible, and they try to cram many songs into this movie, at 30 second intervals... also all digital editing is done on said freshman's home PC... probably using windows movie maker. This movie was horrible... pretentious, had an undeniably bad script, and acting that followed suit. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone I know, but I do sentence the writer and director to watch this movie in hell for an eternity.$LABEL$ 0
+Meatballs works its way into conversations, like no other movie. Especially during Summer. Whether it's the song about the CITs (Counselors In Training) or the cut-downs or the inspirational Rudy the Rabbit or It Just Doesn't Matter speech...it pops up! Poor Mickey/Morty, who knows where he'd wake up next!?! Such a great snapshot of the seventies and a cultural icon for my generation of those who understand that non-PC is really funny, no matter who you are! Wheels and Spaz are favorites, as is the hot dog eating contest with the famous line "what..? no mustard?" Oh, how many times I've reiterated that line and been the only one laughing! Thank you to the writers, actors and directors! Applause, applause!$LABEL$ 1
+Back in the 1970s, WPIX ran "The Adventures of Superman" every weekday afternoon for quite a few years. Every once in a while, we'd get a treat when they would preempt neighboring shows to air "Superman and the Mole Men." I always looked forward to those days. Watching it recently, I was surprised at just how bad it really was.It wasn't bad because of the special effects, or lack thereof. True, George Reeves' Superman costume was pretty bad, the edges of the foam padding used to make him look more imposing being plainly visible. And true, the Mole Men's costumes were even worse. What was supposed to be a furry covering wouldn't have fooled a ten year-old, since the zippers, sleeve hems and badly pilling fabric badly tailored into baggy costumes were all painfully obvious. But these were forgivable shortcomings.No, what made it bad were the contrived plot devices. Time and again, Superman failed to do anything to keep the situation from deteriorating. A lynch mob is searching for the creatures? Rather than round up the hysterical crowd or search for the creatures himself, he stands around explaining the dangers of the situation to Lois and the PR man. The creatures are cornered? Again, he stands around watching and talking but doesn't save them until they're shot. Luke Benson, the town's rabble-rouser, shoots at him? Attempted murder to any reasonable person, but Superman releases the man over and over to cause more problems. Superman had quite a few opportunities to nip the problem in the bud, but never once took advantage of them.That said, both George Reeves and Phyllis Coates played their characters well, seemingly instantly comfortable in the roles. If only they had been given a better script to work with.$LABEL$ 0
+Crackerjack is another classic Aussie film. As so many Australian films like The Castle, The Dish and Sunday Too Far Away, it goes somewhere that hasn't been widely explored in film before, this time it is the game of Lawn Bowls and bowling clubs. Crackerjack is a much slower paced sports movie than many you will find such as Remember the Titans or Million Dollar Babybut the characters involved are athletes in their own right. This movie is a show case of a large area of Australian culture and features a sport that is popular and on the rise of popularity in Australia. Mick Molloy presents a classic, unforgettable character. It really is a must see.$LABEL$ 1
+Although this movie doesn't have the darkness of the books, it is in my opinion a great movie. It's great campy fun with the beautiful Stuart Townsend as Lestat. He may not have the blond hair and blue eyes that are so vividly described in the book, but to be fair, he would not look good with blond hair, and Lestat is most definitely about looking good. He moves like the predator I always imagined Lestat would have. The visual effects are pretty good, and the soundtrack is absolutely amazing. It's not Interview with the Vampire, so don't try to compare the two. Interview is Louis' story. This is a cut and paste version of Lestat's. In any case, I highly recommend.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was horrible. If it had never been made the world would be a better place. Come on, a flying wagon? What were they thinking? This was a sub-par movie with a horrible hook, and I would like a written apology from the studio that produced this, along with some cookies to help repay me for the time I wasted on this crap fest that I can never get back. If you payed to see this movie, I am truly sorry because I watched it on TV on a Sunday afternoon when I had nothing better to do and it pretty much ruined my whole week. A flying freaking WAGON?!?! And that's supposed to make up for having a horrible mother who cares more about her own screwed up needs than her children? No wonder they don't have enough sense to tell someone he is beating them, their mother teaches them nothing but that what she wants comes before everything else. Absolutely horrible.$LABEL$ 0
+I have to be honest, I really had a good time watching She's the Man. Despite it being a typical teenage comedy or if you will the switching of the sexes movie, it had some pretty decent laughs that I think anyone could get. Adults and teens alike would over all enjoy this movie.Amanda Bynes is your typical rebellious teen who dresses and acts like a guy, and when she is turned down to try out for the boy's soccer team, she decides to take over her brother's appearance to prove herself worthy of being on the boy's soccer team. Of course, love shows itself when she meets another guy who thinks she's her brother. She also has a girl who is chasing after her. Well, the tag line says it all.This is a fun little teen drama that I think will be remembered for a while. Amanda Bynes did prove something in the film, it's really hard to really act like a guy. :D Well, it's true! 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+I like Steve Buscemi. I like his work very much, both as an actor and a director. You could say that I am -into- Steve Buscemi. A Steve Buscemi freak. I lurv Steve Buscemi.I remember when I first saw Buscemi's full length directorial debut, "Trees Lounge." I enjoyed the movie, although it wasn't as good as it could have been. It was -almost- there. It -almost- scratched that itch, the itch of wanting to see "small" movies about "small" people in "small" bars that are in "small" towns. It was close enough to where I would say that it was a very good movie - one that with a few tweaks could have been great. But that's OK. I like the movie and I've watched it more than once.But this review is not about Trees Lounge. It's about "Lonesome Jim." When I saw the description of the movie and then I saw who's movie it was, I was excited at the prospect of finally seeing the movie that I knew that Trees Lounge could have been. But what I actually experienced was not unlike that of leaving one of those smalltown bars with a belly full of cheap whiskey and an armful of cheap floozy, heading back to your apartment with a mushy brain full of exciting prospects that inevitably disintegrate into the reality of alcohol-induced impotence and headspinning regurgitation.In other words, this movie left me flat and unrequited and sorry that I wasted the time and the money that it took me to get to that state - the film equivalent of waking up next to that cheap floozy the next morning, or if you happen to be the floozy, waking up next to that stinking and farting and unshaven imbecile. The film had all of the substance of a stale white bread sandwich (with store brand white bread, no less) and the emotion of a cadaver. I am not sure what the point of this film was, and since it was supposed to have some sort of a point and was not an exercise in abstract surrealism that can get by without one then this lack of a point is a sin of omission. Sorta like those new cars that don't come with ashtrays anymore although there are millions of people who smoke and buy new cars (I'm not one of them, but hey, I can sympathize). Overall it was a boring film about boring people doing boring things and had none of the grit and believability that can carry and save such a film. I mean, Trees Lounge was about boring people doing boring things, but it was interesting. I blame a lot of this on Affleck. Why do people keep casting these Affleck turds? They suck the life out of anything that they are connected with. One Affleck was in one decent film (and wasn't even the reason why the film was decent) and all of the sudden every butthole named Affleck is stinking up as many films as they possibly can. And Liv Tyler is no better. Being the daughter of a rock star does not necessarily make an actress. She is as lifeless as Affleck. These people simply do not rise from the flat page of the script. People pay to see films and they deserve to see actors and actresses with a bit of charisma - these two duds together don't have the spark of the old guy who hands out shopping carts at Wal Mart. I always thought that Steve Buscemi was the type of guy who would rise above this type of pablum, but oh Steve you let us down. This film makes me want to stuff you into another wood chipper.$LABEL$ 0
+Assy McGee is a show that you really have to be a certain age to appreciate. Otherwise, it's likely you'll miss the references to 80's cop films and simply think it's a running gag about a walking rectum. Think it's brainless, infantile poop humor? Go watch the Stallone film 'Cobra' and you'll see what I mean. This show actually has very subtle humor, which says a lot, both for a show that aired on adult swim, and for a show about a walking ass.All the standard genre clichés are in place that made movies like Dirt Harry and Cobra so great and ripe for parody. Sanchez is Assy's partner, who is - as per the genre - level-headed and constantly apologizing for his partner's homicidal behavior. The police chief is, of course, a fire-breathing hard case who lives to scream "I want your badge on my desk first thing tomorrow morning!" The over-the-top, and sometimes completely nonsensical manner in which the 1980's 'Renegade Cop' film is parodied suits the subject matter well. For instance, while breaking up a bus robbery, one of the criminals stops to ask Assy, "Hey, where are you going, asshole!?" To which the title character snaps off the one-liner: "I'm going... to shoot you." Highly recommended for anybody who loves 80's action movies, and has actually viewed enough of them to understand the humor.$LABEL$ 1
+This is another enjoyable and entertaining Hitchcock film. James Stewart and Doris Day are incredible in this movie. Bernard Herrmann appears as himself near the climax.The scenery and locations are great, except the one scene early on where the background was obviously fake, which doesn't make sense to me since scenes before and after were in the same setting and they were real location shots. I've heard that Hitchcock did this on purpose sometimes.The reviews for this movie seem to be mixed. I think this is a better than average Hitchcock movie. Very entertaining and it has a great light comical scene at the end.I rated this movie 8 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+What You Need In the run up to 'What You Need', every episode since 'The Lonely' had been a winner to some extent. This episode is the first major failure since 'Escape Clause'. The Serling script is again based on someone else's materiel, a short story by Lewis Padgett. As with 'And When the Sky Was Opened', Serling altered the content significantly, removing a scientist and his machine and inserting an elderly peddler.'What You Need' works best when it is being sweet. The opening half, in which the peddler provides customers in a bar with objects they will need in the near future, has a gentle charm about it that may have worn thin throughout an entire episode but works well in the time frame it is allotted. Sadly, the main plot which it sets up is full of gaping holes. The minute Steve Cochran's performance as a two-bit thug becomes the main focus the episode falls apart. Cochran's part is an underwritten stereotype and his flat performance highlights this flaw. His exploitation of the old peddler is dull and predictable and the revelation that he will murder the old man is totally unconvincing, making the whole slippery shoes scene seem completely false. Ernest Truex is good as the peddler, bringing a magical, mysterious but warm edge to the character, but he's not good enough to help the floundering script.To make matters worse, the weak script is also full of inconsistencies. For instance, we learn that the peddler's power to provide people with what they need stems from an ability to see into the future. So how exactly does this allow him to produce a pen that will magically pick winning horses. That seems like it should be a little outside his realms of power. Also, for a man who can see the future, the peddler certainly acts surprised to find the thug waiting for him in his flat. There are many more holes that can be picked in 'What You Need' but it's hardly worth it when the episode is so thin that you can see through it anyway.$LABEL$ 0
+My observations: vamp outfit at end is ravishing and wonderful, exotic and fantastic. Jeanette wore it well, and got even with naive Nelson. Boat crashing into his balcony served him right. Costume outfits of his female mafia were designed surprisingly well, especially by today's standards. 1942 costume designer did great job. Main song theme just lovely.Caution to negative posters: 1942 was time of WW II; Pearl Harbor happened year before. U.S. just coming out of Great Depression; needed to get out and spend that hard earned money on diversion of singing, dance and yes, fantastic fantasy. Despotic dictators were trying to rule out there in RL, snuffing out freedoms. Thank goodness the public had these fantastic plot line movies to attend. Movie going was a privileged treat, in those depressing times. When you, negative posters, become actors or even movie stars, then YOU have room to talk and criticize. Jeanette's and Nelson's movies stand the test of time.Angel wings wonderful, on the real angel. RL wings at costume party not so hot, but great on Jeanette considering the SL.Beautiful singing by Jeanette and Nelson, as always. Jeanette dancing was a pure delight.15/10$LABEL$ 1
+I can't tell you how angry I was after seing this movie. The characters are not the slightest bit interesting, and the plot is non-existant. So after waiting to see how the lives of these characters affected each other, hoping that the past 2 and a half hours were leading up to some significant finish, what do we get??? A storm of frogs. Now yes, I understand the references to the bible (Exodus) and the underlying theme, but first of all, it was presented with absolutely no resolution, and second of all it would be lost to anyone who has not read the bible (a significant portion of the population) or Charles Fort (a still larger portion). As a somewhat well read person, I thought this movie was a self indulgent poor imitation of a seinfeld episode.Don't waste your time. It would be better spent reading......well anything to be honest$LABEL$ 0
+On paper this looks a good film . Michael Caine plays a tough and ruthless boxing promoter who's son is up for a title eliminator . The pity is that when the story is transferred from paper to my television screen it loses a certain everything . I had hoped we'd be seen emulating his definitive role in GET CARTER and as the film progresses it does seem to take on the qualities of a tough gritty revenge thriller but the whole tone of the film jumps around so much you'll be confused as to what genre it's trying to fit in to . For example Caine ( Who you can't believe in as Billy " Shiner " Simpson , he's simply Michael Caine ) has a laugh out line as he refers to someone as " Hattie Jacques " then in a supposedly humorous moment has his henchmen break someone's arm . Oh how I laughed . I mean it's supposed to elicit a laugh the way it plays out on screen isn't it ? But these seems at odds with the way the rest of the film plays out Obviously director John Irvin doesn't know what approach to take with Scott Cherry's screenplay . Irvin isn't a bad director and is well regarded for his war films such as THE DOGS OF WAR and HAMBURGER HILL but he's ill suited to this type of violent drama and one can't help but feel he might have been intimidated somewhat by a living legend like Caine . Caine does give the impression he's just doing it for the money and the well known faces in supporting roles like Landua and Cranham are basically just cameos who could be played by anyone$LABEL$ 0
+I will freely admit that I haven't seen the original movie, but I've read the play, so I've some background with the "original." If you shuck off the fact that this is a remake of an old classic, this movie is smart, witty, fresh, and hilarious. Yes, the casting decisions may seem strange, but they WORK. I'm a staunch feminist, and I wasn't offended in the slightest by this movie--despite what other women might be saying. This is NOT a movie for men to see (so please, ladies, don't drag your guys to see it with you, that's just cruel); women will get the jokes, the situations, and the relationships. I was pleasantly surprised by the depth that Annette Bening brought to her character...she did an excellent job. Debra Messing was adorable, and Candice Bergen was fantastic. I was less impressed by Meg Ryan...she brought emotion to the table, but her comedic take on it was less strong. The all-female cast is strong, and it definitely a laugh-out-loud sort of comedy. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, and fully intend to go see it again with my mother. Women will understand.$LABEL$ 1
+Ugh! Another one of those "fooled by the cover" DVDs. I expected some kind of action at least with bears, cats, & such on the cover. I got NOTHING! Bad movie!.I forced myself to watch this all the way through thinking that eventually SOMETHING would happen...no luck.Now the reason I gave this a 2 is because of the scenery; otherwise it sucked.The kid was terrible, talking to himself (although I suppose they couldn't just run a movie with dumb music and no dialogue at all), doing his lame karate stances to a tree stump, threatening a raccoon, munching on worms, and (what a dumbass) kicking a porcupine. And he wouldn't be pulling those quills out that easily either...they stick like fishhooks. At least he fought the bear (weakly) a couple of times.What was up with the flashback thing? It made a bad movie even worse. I wanted to see a survival movie, not some dramatic bs about a kid suffering thru divorce.What else can I say? Well, maybe they should have had the bear eat the kid or something. At least that would have been more exciting.People, don't waste your time on this one.$LABEL$ 0
+Oz is by far the best show ever to grace television. Better than The Sopranos, yes, ER, yes, CSI, absolutely. Uncompromising, daring, and utterly disturbing yet profoundly moving. Oz took us past any image of prison that anyone had ever conjured up on television. Tom Fontana truly did a brilliant job with the writing. No topic is taboo. Rape, drugs, murder. Oz is evidence of just how good TV can be. It follows characters of all different backgrounds and all different races, but always comes back to your everyman Tobias Beecher, in jail for vehicular manslaughter. We see what we don't want to see, pain, death, mayhem. Oz will disturb you, make you cringe, make you look away, but most of all it will make you think. To see Oz is to see a truly magnificent television production$LABEL$ 1
+We do not come across movies on brother-sister relationship in Indian cinema, or any other language or medium. This relationship has several aspects which have not been exploited in movies or novels. Typically, a sister is depicted as a pile-on who can be used for ransom in the climax. This movie treats the subject in an entirely different light.It is inspired by George Eliot's novel "The Mill on the Floss". The brother is very prosaic, all-good, the blue-eyed boy who is a conventionally good son and a favorite with his mother. The sister is romantic, wild and defiant of the unwritten rules of the society. In spite of this, the love of the brother-sister is the winner.This movie is about the love of the two siblings who are separated in childhood and revival of the same feeling when they meet years later. It is also the quest of the subdued brother to reunite with his sister who has chosen to be wild to defy the world.Although the movie and the novel are set about 3 centuries apart in two distant countries, yet the sentiments are the same and still hold true.$LABEL$ 1
+Many other viewers are saying that this is not a good movie to watch since they feel that it isn't "realistic." How can it not be considered realistic. They feel that say the incest part isn't easy to relate to, that it isn't common. i can guarantee you that you have met more people than you think that have had an incest act occur. Many of them aren't going to come out and say it, and mostly these are victims. Also, many people are Gay, and are still in the closest, because no matter how much they would like it to be, they know they will be ridiculed and possibly even abandoned. And tell me, how many kids have you went to high school with that has ended up being pregnant or had an eating disorder? i bet a lot, and although pregnancy isn't from incest most of the time, its still easy to relate to. Who can't relate to being an outcast or being bullied? that happens all the time. and many viewers are probably concerned with there education such as Marcus. being a stoner seems to be quite common these days to. so there are a lot of things to relate to. More than the rest though, no matter how popular you may get, sometimes you feel invisible or alone, not noticed, or overlooked such as the suicide victim, how can you not feel like you can relate to the movie? I find that the movie may have seemed pointless to others, but i would like to think of it as important. It an interesting way of showing that suicide happens, and to be aware. it comes from the people that don't show their unhappy thoughts, its very surprising. The people who show there problems do commit suicide sometimes to, but when you hear of suicide, who would have guessed is usually running through most peoples minds.The ending surprised me, i wasn't expecting it to be the girl that until the end, was mostly an extra in the scenes, not even introduced. the story, even in its description, says its about 6 teenage lives, when in fact it was 7. My only real disappointment was that it wasn't one of the characters that we got to learn about, it merely at first seems like the movie was pointless to watch if the real victim is just some random chick. until i thought more. it made perfect sense for being a huge surprise, since thats what suicides are like. plus, who was to choose who any of the other students had more of a reason than the other.though this movie has some bad points, most movies have a few, but i would recommend this movie, as long as you can deal with watching the tragic moments of watching the suicide, and violence and profanity shown in this film.$LABEL$ 1
+Los Angeles, 1976. Indie film brat John Carpenter, fresh out of film school and with one film - his class project's no-budget spoof of 2001 called Dark Star - under his belt, finishes a gritty actioner called Assault On Precinct 13. The story of an almost deserted police station under siege by an unseen LA gang, it was a minor hit on the drive-in circuit and garnered small praise from the few critics who cared, but it hardly set the film world on fire, unlike Carpenter's follow-up smash Halloween (1978). On Precinct, Carpenter was still learning how to exploit his almost non-existent budget by using lower-shelf actors, keeping the action to the one hellishly small location, and moving the film along at a tight pace with a combination of editing, intelligent camera work and switched-on genre savvy.No-one wants or needs to be hungry in Hollywood anymore, particularly if the week's catering bill on the 2005 version of Assault On Precinct 13 is more than the entire cost of the original. It does translate into a certain kind of laziness on a filmmaker's part - you have a stupidly large union crew, a studio and a marketing firm all doing your thinking for you. Which is why twenty years after watching Carpenter's film I can still see every glorious moment, from the small girl gunned down in cold blood while buying an ice cream, to the relentless pounding synth score. A week after Assault 2005, I remember Larry Fishburne's unmoving ping pong ball eyes and little else."Forgettable popcorn actioner" fits the top of the poster perfectly. It's New Years Eve at Precinct 13, a station closing down with a skeleton staff to see in its final hours. On call is Jake Roenick (Ethan Hawke), an ex-narc now deeply troubled and hopped up on Jack Daniels and Seconol after his partners were iced in the opening scene; Iris (The Sopranos' Drea de Matteo), a nympho with a thing for criminal types, and Jasper (Brian Dennehy), a crusty old timer one scotch away from retirement. As in Carpenter's Assault..., a bus with four heavy-duty criminals is rerouted to the Precinct. All boozy eyes are on gangster kingpin Bishop (Fishburne, still beefed-up from his time in the Matrix) who has narrowly survived an assassination attempt from an undercover cop and plans to blow the lid on the endemic corruption in the organized crime unit led by Marcus Duvall (a tired-looking Gabriel Byrne). Soon the phones are out, the power lines are down, and both crims and police find themselves heavily armed with a serious police arsenal and consumed with paranoia while waging war against a task force of Duvall's corrupt cops sporting white balaclavas, bullet vests, infra-red bazookas and more high-tech gear than the Skywalker Ranch. This, we're expected to believe as the helicopters buzz around the top of the police station shooting rockets into windows, is a clandestine operation to cover Duvall's tracks. He may as well have taken out billboards on Hollywood Boulevard.As with the recent Seventies genre reworking Dawn Of The Dead, Assault 2005 takes the barest plot essentials of John Carpenter's original and, to quote the Seventies, "does it's own thing, man". The main question is - why bother? John Carpenter's 1976 is a cult favorite among genre buffs, but is hardly branded in the public's collective consciousness. Carpenter himself was busy reworking Howard Hawks' classic western Rio Bravo into a tight, claustrophobic urban thriller for only $20,000. French wunderkind director and rap producer Jean-Francois Richet, a self-professed fan of John Carpenter's work, seems less concerned with making an homage to either Hawks or JC - although the script is peppered with references to cowboys and injuns - and seems intent on squeezing in as much flash and firepower as the multi-million dollar budget can withstand. The result: some tense moments with hand-held POV cameras, an unexpectedly high (and bloody) body count, a few neat plot twists, but essentially a B-grade urban actioner with a much inflated price tag. As for name-checking Carpenter, it's pure conceit on the part of the filmmakers that doesn't pay off.To Monsieur Richet, I say bon voyage, and I wish you luck on your music career.$LABEL$ 0
+I love this show. I watch all the reruns every day even though I have seen all of them like 6 time s each.It's about two sisters, Holly (Amanda Bynes) and Val (Jennie Garth), who live in New York. Holly goes to live with Val when their dad is transferred to Japan. Val has the perfect life, she has a boyfriend and a perfect apartment of the Upper East Side.The show basically shows all the problems Vall and Holly go through. the main problem is guys but also is about being responsible and other life choices.Holly is 16 and is a total free spirit while Val is the complete opposite. She is the organized has to have a plan to do anything kind of person.The other characters are Henry, Vince, Gary, Lauren, and Tina.$LABEL$ 1
+Driving Lessons From the writer of the critically acclaimed films, Mrs. Brown and Charlotte Gray, Jeremy Brock brings a touching heartfelt dramedy starring Academy Award Nominees Julie Walters and Laura Linney and from the Harry Potter series, Rupert Grint. The beautiful portrait tells the story of Ben Marshall, (Rupert Grint) a seventeen year old boy being held captive in the heart of his religiously neurotic mother Laura (Laura Linney). After his school year ends he decides to take a job with a clever, free-spirited, and "heavy on the bottle" retired actress, Evie Walton (Julie Walters). The pair embarks upon wonderful adventures from camping to walks around the block to the simple conversations about life. Challenging the domineering mother, as well as each other along the way, the two develop a beautiful bond that revolutionizes both their lives.The comedic elements are flawless and precise especially coming from the British veteran, Julie Walters. Brock uses his unique style to create an infamous and loving nature that first time directors could only dream. Directing comes naturally to Brock as he builds up stunning imagery that breaks the surfaces and plunges the viewer down into an overabundance of adoration and creation. Even the subtle score by unknown composers Clive Carroll and John Renbourn accentuate the tone and manner Brock had no trouble in generating.Laura Linney is always making her mark in films as she does as "Laura." The bossy and overbearing mother is at times unbearable and with Linney at the helm of it we are engulfed into that persona. The complexity of her character couldn't have been more flawlessly portrayed by anyone else. Rupert Grint breaks away from "Ron Weasley" and tries on someone new. His performance is more responsive than loquacious but Grint gives us someone brand new to a child performance and the viewer gets to enjoy it. But the standout is coming from Oscar nominated actress Julie Walters who gives "Evie" a life of her own. Despite the role being clearly a leading one, Walters fairs better in the supporting category where I believe she can simply take home the prize. "Evie" is a mix of "Clementine Kruczynski" and "Mrs. Laura Henderson" with her free spirit and lovable persona. Hopefully her role will not go unnoticed this awards season.Driving Lessons isn't an "out of this world" experience but a fine, enjoyable one that any viewer could just kick back and learn a little something about life, love, and friendship coming in the forms of the most beautiful colors and sizes.Grade: ***/****$LABEL$ 1
+Hi, Everyone, Oh, Boy... This one is a lulu. It has really bad background music whenever they can squeeze it in. There are three bad guys who, I guess, are the stars of this. They beat people up and chop people up and crash trucks and bulldozers into people. Usual stuff.The woman who is sending them on their missions is unable to move her mouth when she speaks. It's sort of like watching a bad ventriloquist who is her own dummy. She walks like she is balancing an egg on her head.The wardrobe is 70s leisure style for the men and blah for the female lead who is supposed to be a good nurse. The bad novocain mouth woman wears red. A silk frock perhaps, or maybe just a poplin windbreaker that is too big.I actually liked the ending even though it did not make a lot of sense. It lets us in on what happened earlier in the film.The police officers are OK. Some bad, some good, all stupid except two. The two bright ones could have worked again in Hollywood.The movie starts interestingly enough and ends with a surprise. The middle sucks. The guy in the diner who gives a free hamburger to the star does a good job. He is like a 1940s character actor. Great voice.This one is a bit too long. The lady with marbles in her mouth could have had just a couple of lines and the rest could have been said by a parrot. It would have been easier to understand a bird.Her scene with a sword could have been handled by a trained woodpecker.Tom Willett$LABEL$ 0
+This is a wonderful film. The non-stop patter takes several watchings to fully appreciate. The musical productions of Busby Berkeley will never be duplicated. I think this movie easily outdoes all of his other efforts. Joan Blondell and James Cagney are incredible together. Some of the humor would almost push the boundaries of today's movies. Put rational explanation of how they did it aside and enjoy it for the spectacle that it is.$LABEL$ 1
+The Hanson brothers - Andy (apparently has his act together) and Hank (clearly doesn't have his act together) need money. Andy comes up with a scheme to get some dough that will have consequences for the whole Hanson family.This film delivers. This is a layered, full-blooded roller coaster ride that knows exactly what it is doing. As a crime drama / thriller I would happily compare it to 'No Country For Old Men.' While both films have have an ample supply of character drama and thrills, 'Devil' is more on the thriller side because of its fast pace. 'No Country' is a colder and bleaker film that you can really admire, while 'Devil' is a bit more enjoyable. There is definitely less violence in 'Devil' than 'No Country.' The acting delivers as well. Ethan Hawke, sometimes wooden in the past, brings the jitters, sweating and the deer-in-the-headlights-look to the besieged Hank. Philip Seymour Hoffman, as Andy, has the film's hardest scenes and is fast becoming the actor, who you believe can do anything.There's really not much wrong with this film. It jumps back and forth without being confusing. Events spiral out of control, but the film never does - the writing (from first timer Kelly Masterson), directing (veteran Sidney Lumet) and the editing stay as tight as a drum. In many categories, this is award caliber stuff, though maybe films like 'The Departed' and 'No Country' squeezed this one out of the limelight. If you liked those, you'll like this.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm a fan of Zhang Yimou and finally found this DVD title from the shelves of a Shenzhen bookstore after a long search at many places.This is a huge departure from previous Zhang Yimou work, esp in terms of style and locale. The director himself has said that this is the first and only time he'll ever attempt to make a black comedy set in contemporary China. You may even say this work is experimental in nature, compared to his other well known big budget and formal pieces.Filmed with a hand-held camera and wide angle lens throughout the duration of the whole film, the quick pace editing and high energy performance & naturalistic tone never let you go once it grips you from the start. It presents a very realistic account of modern Chinese urban sensibilities, which in this case is set in Beijing. If you appreciate and love this kind of black humor, you will love this film totally. Also look out for hilarious cameos by Zhao Benshan (Happy Times)and the director Zhang Yimou himself.A last point of note: I find the characters in this film, as in all other Zhang Yimou films, exhibiting similar personality traits - stubbornness, always trying to beat the odds & up the ante. Do let me know your thoughts on this.David Lee$LABEL$ 1
+Having seen this without knowing all the hoopla surrounding the lead character, indeed without even knowing that it was based on real-life events, I must say I am impressed. "Murder in Greenwich" is an above average production for a made-for-TV movie - the acting is uniformly great, Christopher Meloni in particular putting in a stand-out performance and the teen actors excel in what are difficult roles. The idea of the dead girl narrating the movie is a stroke of genius which elevates the movie from merely good to excellent. The script is exemplary for what is essentially movie-of-the-week fodder and the cinematography is beautiful.$LABEL$ 1
+This really should deserve a "O" rating, or even a negative ten. I watched this show for ages, and the show jumped the shark around series 7. This episode, however, is proof that the show has jumped the shark. It's writing is lazy, absurd, self-indulgent and not even worthy of rubbish like Beavis and Butthead.It is quite possible to be ridiculous and still be fun -- Pirates of the Caribbean, the Mummy, Count of Monte Cristo -- all "fun" movies that are not to be taken seriously. However, there is such thing as ridiculous as in "this is the worst thing I've ever seen." And indeed, this is the worst episode of Stargate I've ever seen. It's absolutely dreadful, and this coming from someone with a stargate in her basement.Makes me want to sell all of my stargate props, most seriously.$LABEL$ 0
+If you are an insomniac and you cant get anything to get you to sleep i definitely recommend this movie. If you are renting it for whatever other reason....DONT!....this movie is by far one of the most slow moving turtle motivated movies i have ever seen. The only reason i rented it was because my brother wanted to for some odd and strange reason. I cant even write about this movie anymore...GET IT AWAY FROM ME!!!!!!!!$LABEL$ 0
+This is a typical Sandra Bullock movie in which she plays a mousy (but profane) woman who is in trouble but finds a way to survive and be the hero. Sound familiar? There are plenty of holes in this story. Things just don't add up and some of the suspense is a little corny. But - that suspense is very good. There is a lot of tension in this story which has strong paranoia running through it. The story starts off slow but kicks in pretty soon and stays that way, making it an involving movie for the viewer. That's why I give it a pretty good rating - the movie gets you involved in it. Bullock is more cute than annoying, which she normally is to me, so this is my highest-rated movie with her in it.$LABEL$ 1
+I happen to have bought one of those "Legacy of Horror" 50 movie pack collections and would you believe I'm still looking through them to find a good HORROR movie in it. Sometimes you find an enjoyable yet campy one like The Devil's Messenger or The Devil Bat, or one of the great Alfred Hitchcock's films (some aren't horror however and are only on there because Hitchcock directed some horrors and suspense) but other times it seems that they put movies like The Island Monster and this on because they can't accept the fact they would easily be forgotten and should be for that matter.So we open up to sort of a Westing game idea. The rich yet cruel and abusive father played by Carradine (the one standing feature of this) has died and left his inheritance to his children and servants who he still hates. Carradine gives a good enough performance as always, but he's left mainly in a voice recording and flashback sequences leaving us to sit through the mediocre/terrible performances. The rest of the cast either overacts or underacts in scenes. Given this was an independent film of the 70's the lighting and effects are pretty limited. It's hard to build a lot of tension when the viewer can't see what's happening that well in some scenes. Some actors like the servants Igor and Elga give an effort at least and I'm ashamed to admit kind of left me chuckling at the end mainly for the sheer stupidity but still with some very minor happiness that they pulled some version of a twist to an otherwise pretty obvious who-done-it but not enough to enhance the quality of the film. You aren't meant to like the characters as they are either selfish and cruel or psychotic, but it takes it to a whole new level and makes many unwatchable. The death scenes are pretty bad and the suspense is not really there. It proves that you would probably enjoy the 20 movie pack "Chilling" containing films like House on a Haunted Hill, Little Shop of horror's with Jack Nicholson, and Night of the Living Dead over it. This is best avoided.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm sorry but this is just awful. I have told people about this film and some of the bad acting that is in it and they almost don't believe me. There is nothing wrong with the idea, modern day Japanese troops get pulled back in time to the days of Busido warriors and with their modern weapons are a match for almost everything. When the troops first realise something strange is happening does every single person in the back of the transport need to say "Hey my watch has stopped"? Imagine lines like that being repeated 15+ times before they say anything else and you have the movie's lack of greatness in a nutshell.$LABEL$ 0
+When "Madame" decides to let her cats inherit her it spells trouble. The snobbish Butler Edgar who is next in line to inherit decides to get rid of the cats. Thereby the story can begin and the cats can go on an adventure that would otherwise have been impossible. An adventure that lets them meet the charming, but not altogether trustworthy cat O'Malley. He helps them through many dangerous and funny situations until the inevitable happy end.The force of this movie is in its humor and music. Edgar is simply hilarious as the insulted butler who is out to settle the score and of course he himself takes some serious beatings. One of the best scene contains him being chased by the two dogs Lafayette and Napoleon. The score is great and like in "the Jungle Book" you have scenes that is almost "musical" in the sense that the story doesn't progress and the focus is to let the protagonists express themselves via dance. And of course we like, that the score is quite Jazzy.And of course it's not only me but also my children who love this one.Regards Simon$LABEL$ 1
+This movie resonated with me on two levels. As a kid I was evacuated from London and planted on unwilling hosts in a country village. While I escaped the bombing and had experiences which produced treasured memories (for example hearing a nightingale sing one dark night for the very first time) and enjoying a life I never could have had in London, I missed my family and worried about them. Tom is an old man whose wife and child have both died and who lives alone in a small country village.As an old man who is now without a wife whose kids have gotten married and live far away in another province, I am again sometime lonely. The boy's mother is a religious fanatic with very odd ideas of raising a child. Since a deep affection has grown between old Tom Oakley and this young lad, Tom goes in search of him and finally rescues him from very odd and dangerous circumstances. At the end of the story there is great tension since due to some bureaucratic ruling it seems that the child is going to lose someone who has developed a loving relationship with him.$LABEL$ 1
+I love this movie!!! Purple Rain came out the year I was born and it has had my heart since I can remember. Prince is so tight in this movie. I went to a special showing of Purple Rain last night and it was like a concert i was glad to see some true fans cause this movie is so undervalued, it is really one of the greatest movies of all time. The music is untouchable. The movie is about "The Kid", played by Prince, his family is dysfunctional, his band is the hottest act in town, and he has his eyes on the Apollonia, an aspiring singer. There is no question why purple is my favorite color I can thank "The Kid" for that. So if you have not seen this then you are need to asap. This is a classic - 4ever!$LABEL$ 1
+I own a vacation lake home not far from Plainfield, WI. Ten minutes from the Gein property to be exact. I've seen his land, the cemetery where he is buried and where he did his digging, and I've shopped at the hardware store that was formerly owned by the Worden family. While visiting relatives in California, we decided to rent this movie. It was disgusting. The true story of Ed Gein is so disturbing and creepy, why the creators of this piece of trash decided to make up their own story is beyond me. The actor playing Ed is a very large man, Ed was a very small, meek, and shy man. That is part of what makes his story so frightening. He did not have a helper to dig up the graves and anyone who owns land in the area knows that it is mostly sand with a little dirt in it. You won't break much of a sweat digging a hole. They didn't have to hire an actor with the physique of a wrestler, just do your research. And if the writing wasn't bad enough - there are NO mountains in Wisconsin, and I'm pretty certain that 911 was not available in 1957.$LABEL$ 0
+Why does this piece of film have so many raving reviews? This is amateurish, unfunny and annoying.The only memorable thing here is the corny title song. The production values are low and the "comedic" (if you want to call them that) ideas are weak, they seem like leftovers of leftovers from SNL that even they would not dare to have put on the screen.I'm beginning to thoroughly mistrust IMDb ratings. This is light years away from Kentucky Fried Movie - not even in the same Galaxy.It's not even possible to write 10 lines about it.OK, another good thing: ugly street scenes and ugly people - something one doesn't get to see a lot in todays TV and Movies.$LABEL$ 0
+1st watched 4/29/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Mick Garris): Campy vampire-like Stephen King movie has so many strange and goofy elements that you start laughing over the extreme weirdness about 3/4 the way into the movie and you wonder if this movie might have a cult following for King fans. It's the story of a mother and son who are sleepwalkers(a shape-shifting feline-like, flesh eating, life needing, near extinct breed of humanoid) who move from town to town searching for virgins to feed on to keep themselves alive. They come across as pretty normal upper-class folk except they are secret lovers and cats hang around the outside of their home, day and night. Cats are deadly to them, so they set traps in their yard to try and keep the population down. We get to see them break a couple of their necks when they attack(which is also a first in my movie-going experience) --- hopefully no real cats were harmed in the making of the film. The boy is after a sweet girl that he has a crush on until he turns into a "sleepwalker" and then he just wants her body. There is so much campy uniqueness to this movie that it might have been better if it was an all-out satirical comedy on suburban life, but the director instead tries to scare you every couple minutes until you wish he'd just get over it and bring out the gore. Eventually that happens and the movie winds down to it's typical Stephen King downbeat ending. The movie is interesting because King's humor comes thru more than usual but his weirdness is also very present and what you have is a movie that his fans will probably like and should have in their collection, but as a worthwhile movie experience it really doesn't cut it.$LABEL$ 0
+Young Mr. Lincoln marks the first film of the director/star collaboration of John Ford and Henry Fonda. I recall years ago Fonda telling that as a young actor he was understandably nervous about playing Abraham Lincoln and scared he wouldn't live up to the challenge.John Ford before the shooting starts put him at ease by saying he wasn't going to be playing the Great Emancipator, but just a jack-leg prairie lawyer. That being settled Fonda headed a cast that John Ford directed into a classic film.This is not a biographical film of Lincoln. That had come before in the sound era with Walter Huston and a year after Young Mr. Lincoln, Raymond Massey did the Pulitzer Prize winning play by Robert Sherwood Abe Lincoln in Illinois. Massey still remains the definitive Lincoln.But as Ford said, Fonda wasn't playing the Great Emancipator just a small town lawyer in Illinois. The film encompasses about 10 years of Lincoln's early life. We see him clerking in a general store, getting some law books from an immigrant pioneer family whose path he would cross again later in the story. And his romance with Ann Rutledge with her early death leaving Lincoln a most melancholy being.Fast forward about 10 years and Lincoln is now a practicing attorney beginning to get some notice. He's served a couple of terms in the legislature, but he's back in private practice not really sure if politics is for him.This is where the bulk of the action takes place. The two sons of that family he'd gotten the law books from way back when are accused of murder. He offers to defend them. And not an ordinary murder but one of a deputy sheriff. The trial itself is fiction, but the gambit used in the defense of Richard Cromwell and Eddie Quillan who played the two sons is based on a real case Lincoln defended. I'll say no more.Other than the performances, the great strength of Young Mr. Lincoln is the way John Ford captures the mood and atmosphere and setting of a small Illinois prairie town in a Fourth of July celebration. It's almost like you're watching a newsreel. And it was the mood of the country itself, young, vibrant and growing.Fans of John Ford films will recognize two musical themes here that were repeated in later films. During the romantic interlude at the beginning with Fonda and Pauline Moore who played Ann Rutledge the music in the background is the same theme used in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance for Vera Miles. And at a dance, the tune Lovely Susan Brown that Fonda and Marjorie Weaver who plays Mary Todd is the same one Fonda danced with Cathy Downs to, in My Darling Clementine at the dance for the raising of a church in Tombstone. Lincoln will forever be a favorite subject of biographers and dramatists because of two reasons, I believe. The first is he's the living embodiment of our own American mythology about people rising from the very bottom to the pinnacle of power through their own efforts. In fact Young Mr. Lincoln very graphically shows the background Lincoln came from. And secondly the fact that he was our president during the greatest crisis in American history and that he made a singularly good and moral decision to free slaves during the Civil War, albeit for some necessary political reasons. His assassination assured his place in history.Besides Fonda and others I've mentioned special praise should also go to Fred Kohler, Jr. and Ward Bond, the two town louts, Kohler being the murder victim and Bond the chief accuser. Also Donald Meek as the prosecuting attorney and Alice Brady in what turned out to be her last film as the pioneer mother of Cromwell and Quillan. And a very nice performance by Spencer Charters who specialized in rustic characters as the judge.For a film that captures the drama and romance of the time it's set in, you can't do better than Young Mr. Lincoln.$LABEL$ 1
+Very silly movie, filled with stupid one liners and Jewish references thru out. It was a serious movie but could not be taken seriously. A familiar movie plot...Being at the wrong place at the wrong time. An atrocious subplot, involving Kim Bassinger. Very robotic and too regimented. I have noticed that Al Pacinos acting abilities seem to be going downhill. A troubleshooter with troubles , but nothing more troubling than Pacinos horrible Atlanta accent. Damage control needs to fix this damage of a film. OK my one liners are bad, but not as bad as the ones in this film. This movie manages to not only be boring but revolting as well. Usually a revolting film is watchable for the wrong reasons. This movie is unwatchable. I did manage to sit through this. The plot ,if written a tad bit better, with , perhaps a little better acting and eliminating the horrendous subplot,and even dumber jokes, could have pulled this thriller out of the doldrums. What we are left with is a dull, silly movie that made sure it was drilled into our heads that Eli Wurman was Jewish. An embarrassment to all the good Jewish folk everywhere.$LABEL$ 0
+We watched this movie in my chemistry class, so obviously it had educational value. I thought the film did a really good job of intertwining the subjects of the science, moral issues and personal experiences of the manhattan project, but wasn't exactly focused on strong acting. I would recommend this movie for the scientifically inclined or those interested in the moral issues behind Fat Man and Little Boy, but if the subject of nuclear bombs bores you, don't see it.$LABEL$ 1
+After having watched "Guinea Pig", two questions come in mind ( besides 'Am I really a psychopath to watch that ?' ) : 'Is it a snuff ?' The answer is no ; although it's the closest thing to a snuff movie I've ever seen. And then : 'Where the hell have they found that girl ?'. Because she gets tortured for '45 min, without any reasons given ( in fact, there is nothing else in this movie !) : Fingernails teared off, beaten with hands, feet, tools, infested by maggots, ... and many more until the final scene ( I'm still not sure how they did that ). Because it belongs to the 'japonese underground scene', it's obvious she didn't get a lot of money. So what were her ( their ) motivations ?I saw it in japonese without subtitles, but it's not a problem ( no real dialogues, the boys are just insulting her in a few scenes ). I haven't seen yet all the serial, but the first "Guinea Pig" is not known for being the best one. Still I've rated 8, because if the purpose was making people believe this a snuff, the issue is quite good ( ask Charlie Sheen, the actor ). But I think they could have gone further, which they did in the following ones.Another movie I'm hiding from my parents.8/10$LABEL$ 1
+A group of teens that have broken into a huge department store, are attacked by a crazed police man. Exciting and suspenseful throughout and refreshingly devoid of extreme violence and gore, but those Aussie hairstyles and accents are a bit much to take. And they can induce headaches. But this is still a good thriller. 7 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+I remember watching this mini-series the first time in 1984 with a growing sense of anger and indignation. Having read the comments on this title, I must agree with those from the people in Greece. This was produced to coincide with the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games and, to me, it seemed like nothing more than an exercise in jingoistic, flag-waving American nationalism in which the American athletes are glorified at everyone else's expense. Some other nationalities would have every right to feel deeply insulted at the way they were portrayed in this series. It may, however, help to explain the way in which many American spectators behaved at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics and the TV coverage which seemed only interested in events that Americans were likely to win.$LABEL$ 0
+From the offset, I knew this was going to be a terrific movie, the pace, the cinematography, personalities indigenous to the Dallas area, the diversification of characters, not to mention the director Oliver Stone and of course Eric Bogasian...The film starts out on a Friday (suggestively occult in the first place) and begins with a radio station in Dallas that is hosting their number one talk show, The Barry Champlain Show (Based on the Talk Radio Host Alan Berg)...Barry (Eric Bogasian) is the abrasive radio talk show host and his job is such whereby it is compulsory to pontificate all of the sensationalistic nuances of the radio audience feeding into his show...He attempts to commiserate with a bunch of societal deviates turned lonely, vulnerable, obscene phone callers who have the masochistic craving to be publicly vilified, Barry Champlain is effective in coping with this precarious ilk, by socially debasing them rather than simply subjugating them to mere admonishment...New technologies serve a stigmatic purpose for the Dallas radio audience, and paramount concepts take a backseat to perversion, talk about "Baseball Scores, Orgasms and People's Pets!!"The whole thing is a cacophony of drug-induced diatribes and a potpourri for psychopathic paranoia!! This high profile cannon fodder is something that Barry Champlain thrives on!!! The convoluted pathos, the deranged proclivities deeriving from inaneities and puveyors of pornography and the overall pop culture afflictions serve as volatile ammunition for Barry Champlain's stilted battleground!!The setting for this movie is perfect in that there is a two thousand foot drop in terms of ideology.. In the the center of Dallas there is an overbearing sense of cosmopolitan awareness, whereby 20 miles away resides a significant chapter of the Ku Klux Klan!!...The play is based in Denver,that is where the actual story takes place, other small theater plays depict the cities of Louisville, Atlanta and Cleveland. Dallas is the city where the film takes place, I thought it was an excellent choice!!...This movie illustrates how people have a horrid and erroneous and deadly misconceptualization of the Jewish people in America, whereby they control the banks, their agenda is different than everybody else's and their intellectual literature leads to perversion!! These preconceived notions compound Barry Champlain's overall dilemma!!! Barry Champlain's personal undoing is whereby he is irascible and non-responsive to his alcoholism, and his abrasive and politically controversial nature is his ultimate undoing, this is what makes the film so believable!!The characters in the movie were well portrayed, Dan, the tailor made for middle management hatchet man (played by Alec Baldwin) who was constantly monitoring Barry Champlain's every move!!..Laura, his girlfriend, also his producer, will constantly feel Barry is someone who is always misunderstood!! Ellen, his ex-wife, is a recipient of Barry's anguish and selfishness, but cannot quite relinquish her feelings for Barry regardless of the path of personal destruction he winds up resorting to!! The Dallas radio audience is a melting pot of socially misplaced retro-bates who are dementedly amused by their own real shortcomings!!!...In part, everybody's hang-ups including Barry Champlain's own hang-ups are what do Barry Champlain in!! His audience ogles depravity, solicits amelioration and ultimately becomes Barry Champlain's pet project for prescribed sinners!! Social culture conflicts become Barry Champlain's downfall!! This movie is superb!! In my opinion Oliver Stone's best picture, including Platoon and Natural Born Killers..That statement in of itself tells you how magnificent a film Talk Radio is...The story consulting and acting and co-producing of Eric Bogosian is simply compelling!! The camera angles, the dialogue, the haunting character portrayals, all top notch..The cinematography of the Dallas skyline at the end of the movie is terrific!! Dallas has the dubious distinction of being deemed a mega metropolis...So now, just like Los Angeles and New York, there are crack baby cases too numerous to count, low cost housing neighborhoods from Hell and budgets cuts that will mean there will be a significant number of people who will be dead by this time next year!!!!...Dallas asserts it's status as a major metropolitan area in the precarious manner by which human debauchery prevails!! The city has it's lynching radio listeners who have given a pejorative spin to the marvel of nationwide air wave communication!! These are the culprits in the movie!! The ghoulish tabloid derelicts who want to meet the big bad wolf, and their decadent curiosity has morally obliterated "The last neighborhood in America"$LABEL$ 1
+GOOD: Technomusic accompanying medieval swordplay. Also, the movie looks sleeker than most b-movies, but let's face it: Quake or Doom has more atmosphere.BAD: Unintelligent plot, no acting and totally unbelievable universe. I am usually able to see the potential of even very bad movies; heck, I love a good B-movie like "Split Second" and the likes. But this one has has nothing but boredom and cliché to offer... Totally predictable from start to end. Oh, and I forgot the lousy special effects, they look more like an old Playstation game than anything out of myth! The use of a classic poem to sell this sucker offends me!CONCLUSION: Quite simply boring. If you want to see Lara Croft, buy the game, it's way sexier!$LABEL$ 0
+I never thought an old cartoon would bring tears to my eyes! When I first purchased Casper & Friends: Spooking About Africa, I so much wanted to see the very first Casper cartoon entitled The Friendly Ghost (1945), But when I saw the next cartoon, There's Good Boos To-Night (1948), It made me break down! I couldn't believe how sad and tragic it was after seeing Casper's fox get killed! I never saw anything like that in the other Casper cartoons! This is the saddest one of all! It was so depressing, I just couldn't watch it again. It's just like seeing Lassie die at the end of a movie. I know it's a classic,But it's too much for us old cartoon fans to handle like me! If I wanted to watch something old and classic, I rather watch something happy and funny! But when I think about this Casper cartoon, I think about my cats!$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is just crap. Even though the directors claim to be part of that oi-culture, it's still a very, very bad directorial debut. The topic itself is very interesting and I accept the bad acting due to the fact, that they are all amateurs and never acted before, but the worst thing about this film are the dialogs and very unexperienced and naive directing. There's no timing at all in that movie. I felt like the directors were so exited to do that movie (it's their first feature), that they actually never really asked themselves, what story they wanna tell. I met Ben (one of the directors) on several occasions and he's a nice and thoughtful guy, but that doesn't make him a director. I think, that "American History X" is full of clichés, but somehow manages to transport a story. "Oi!Warning" is full of clichés, doesn't tell anything new or provocative and (-that's the sad thing about this movie) it's far from any Oi!-Reality.If you wanna see weird but great German films, watch the movies of Michael Haneke, Christoph Schlingensief, Oskar Roehler, Hans Weingartner or Oliver Hirschbiegel:Benny's Video Funny Games Die Unberührbare Mein Letzter Film Das Experiment Das Weisse Rauschen Muxmäuschenstill ...*** out of ten, because of the topic and the photography$LABEL$ 0
+There was a time when Michael Jackson was revered as the King of Pop. Then came a time when he attracted negative publicity as much as lemonade attracts wasps. Finally, it is now the time that we feel truly sorry for this man.This 'movie' is another reason to. I promised a rabid Michael Jackson fan to watch it with her. You know the type of fan -- someone who tells him- or herself to like everything the object of affection ever did. While watching this movie, which she had seen twice already, I realized how far this fandom goes. Probably far enough to rate this movie above a 1/10, as some people miraculously did.The movie attempts to be a parody of many other movies and series, most notably Cast Away, Lost and Jurassic Park. Unfortunately, it fails miserably at any level. The acting does not save the absolutely horrible story, the filming has the quality of a too-often played video tape, the special effects were better executed in Be Kind Rewind (for those who do not now this movie: with aluminum foil)... All this would be funny if the movie managed to be, well, funny. Unfortunately, it is not. It hurts to watch this.And then there is Michael Jacksons appearance in this garbage. He appears on a projection screen to deliver an important message, and manages to come across as mobile as Jabba the Hutt and as serious as a 4-year old. Just when I thought "who is the terrible person that lured this poor man into participating in this movie and yet again making a total fool of himself", I (finally) reached the ending credits and discovered that the movie was actually partially shot at Jackson's Neverland ranch. In other words: He. Likes. It.This movie, and Jackson's involvement in it, is truly disturbing. Do not watch it even for the "haha, a movie in the IMDb Bottom 100" effect. Or be warned.$LABEL$ 0
+I thought it was comedy!! What a hoot! I can't believe Forsythe or Reynolds would actually appear in this piece of trash..And then there's the beautiful Erika Eleniak or whatever this piece of eye candy is called..Appears she put on a few pounds since her Playboy centerfold..Like about 50!! The story line is ludicrous, the acting absolutely horrendous, and the tired old cliché's that are run over and over and over again, boy it took a lot of stamina to sit through this dog..The only thing worth it was the LAUGHS!! And there are PLENTY! If you really want to kill say, an hour and a half pick this baby up at the rental shop, but make sure you have a room full of brain dead people to watch it with you. I think that's who it was written for.. it plays like they were thinking of a real low rent, drug induced audience for this one..$LABEL$ 0
+I seriously enjoy Dr Who.Seriously, don't just dismiss me as a "sci-fi person", because I'm not normally. I caught on because a friend got me hooked when they started watching it. It is actually really funny, and more often than not, it's fast-paced. All of my family watch it pretty much and that's a miracle.Christopher Ecclestion is pretty good, but David Tennant is brilliant. I think it's because he made the Doctor so manic and it's just nice to have that little bit of eccentricity in a TV character again.I don't know what it is about it, but everything manages to work like clockwork. All I'm going to say is just try it. One episode (probably best if you don't pick the second half of a two-parter, though).$LABEL$ 1
+I usually read reviews before I watch a movie. Guess what, I didn't do that before watching TLB, and I have to say I was very surprised to see the above average rating at IMDb. I found it to have a total lack of story. You just get dropped into it (and, sadly, not in the way Saving Private Ryan dropped us into the movie), and it also has a sudden end, which was very unsatisfying for me.I have to admit, the wounded soldiers looked pretty realistic to me, especially with the low budget in mind. But prepare yourself to have a laugh... Some guys are being tossed through the air after an explosion as if they are Olympic gymnasts. A mid-air corkscrew or somersault during WW I is a bit too much for me, especially when it's performed countless times during the movie...But the parts that really got me laughing until I almost cried were the scenes containing close combat. The screaming and shouting German voices...unbelievably funny. It seems as if they are spoken by one single actor / voice performer, because they all sound exactly the same, and it just sounds like a 'typical' German voice.I would absolutely NOT recommend this movie to anyone, except to people who just want to have some laughs because of the sad and corny quality of it.$LABEL$ 0
+This film is a nightmare! The sensation you feel when you wake up from a nightmare is the same I got when I finished watching this movie: "Uff…OK, it ended, what a relief!" I felt pain watching this movie, so bad it was! It's a B-series low cost movie, that's for sure, but I think it not an excuse to be so bad! I've watched brilliant low cost movies, with nice plots, nice production, nice acting, and most of all, some substance! This one got nothing of it! The plot is hilarious, it almost seems like an "American guide about how to transform ancient Chinese mythology into a ridiculous teenage movie, with some kids playing with the occult"… I don't know if the Chinese tale present in this movie is real or not, but if it is, the "damage" is even worse! The production is just horrible, a plain zero (What "special effects" are those?). There's no suspense. The supposed "tension scenes" are a complete failure. The acting is not better; and what about the dialogs? Oh my God! A movie which has for several times dialogs just like: "I will pass there later, OK? Is that alright? – OK, alright. - OK? – OK, alright, bye then"… I'm sure it doesn't deserve more than a 1/10 score!Too bad to be true!$LABEL$ 0
+This film is a hodge-podge of various idiotic cliches. For instance, boy-meets-spoilt-rich-girl and gets her to fall in love with him by harassing her in college (an over-used backdrop in recent Indian commercial films). A male chauvinistic glorification of sexual conquest. The climax is predictable (having been used ad nauseum in several other films). As with many other recent commercial Hindi films, the film abounds with the incongruous insertion of songs, which probably contributed to the film's success more than anything else.$LABEL$ 0
+I completely understand WHY this movie was made. Silence of the Lambs was an incredible film - a gruesome thriller with a superb story and high jump-factor....What I don't understand is why THIS movie was made... and why Anthony Hopkins agreed to reprise his role as Hannibal the Cannibal in this terrible and dissatisfying film.There's no possible way to spoil the movie any further than going to see it could, but for those of you who prefer to waste your money, DON't READ ON. The film is absolutely horrible. It's so bad that the transition from Jodie Foster to Julianne Moore becomes a non-issue. The only way to truly enjoy the film is to set your watch and leave the theatre exactly two hours into the film, because up until that point, it's quite an interesting thriller. The reparte between Moore and Hopkins is comparable to Hopkins and Foster, and the performances by the other characters are pretty good. But literally at the two hour mark, the film degrades into nothing but a cheesy D-grade horror flick...it's sick, and it's stupid and almost like the crew ran out of filming time, and threw together an ending in one day of filming.Initial buzz over the Thomas Harris' book's unsatisfying and bizarre ending led director Ridley Scott to order a re-write... and, honestly, having seen the film AND read the book's finale, I don't know which is worse.Please - don't waste your money OR time on this film, unless you're prepared to leave EXACTLY at the two hour point, because that's the ONLY way you'll feel satisfied about the saga of Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter... continuing the mystery that made the first film, and the wait for this one, so great.$LABEL$ 0
+Potential viewers be warned, the current IMDb viewer rating for "Tomorrow at Seven" is an anomaly of low voter turnout. It has an interesting premise, a killer leaves an Ace of Spades calling card at the scene of his crimes, while alerting the victim in advance. The execution falls flat however, and to say that the movie has it's share of plot holes would be to imply that there actually is a plot.Chester Morris portrays mystery writer Neil Broderick, weaving elements of actual murders by the Ace of Spades killer into his latest novel. Broderick intends to interview a wealthy businessman for his book, but first he has to get past the man's eccentric secretary - "If you line his relatives up, you'd have enough nuts to hold a Ford together". That line unceremoniously endears him to the "nut's" daughter Martha (Vivienne Osborne), who offers to make the introductions.Broderick meets Thornton Drake (Henry Stephenson) just as the latter is about to complete a jigsaw puzzle delivered by a courier that morning. The only remaining pieces, as we learn in the following scene, form the bold, black shape of the Ace of Spades containing the words "At Seven Tomorrow Night". Now what person putting together a puzzle doesn't use the pieces with contrasting colors FIRST! Initially I was intrigued by the appearance of Frank McHugh and Allen Jenkins in their roles as a pair of police detectives summoned to the Drake residence. Generally, their characters are colorful enough to offer genuine comic relief, but here they're just plain annoying. McHugh's Clancy in particular winds up shouting objections to inane comments made by his partner Dugan, and both usually head in the opposite direction when real trouble might turn up.Now here's a question - in light of the identity of the Ace killer, why would he have invited a novelist and a pair of cops that he just met, on a flight to his Louisiana plantation? Especially when at seven o'clock, all parties would be a captive audience aboard the plane when the first murder is committed. It's not Drake however who's dead, but his secretary Austin Winters (Grant Mitchell). The early suspicion falls on pilot Henderson (Cornelius Keefe) following a lights out scene, but Henderson still hasn't reported the murder to his supervisor until well after he arrives at Drake's plantation with everyone else. Can you imagine anyone trying to get away with that today, unless your name was Ted Kennedy?With the cause of death yet to be determined, the local coroner is called in, but the first one that shows up (a Broderick accomplice) is a phony. Yet, when the real coroner shows up, he simply disappears immediately after! In a second dark out scene, a letter from the murder victim Austin Winters is about to be read. It winds up missing when the lights return, and because it may point to the murderer, it becomes a clue that must be retrieved. So where was the letter? Winters' daughter Martha grabbed it and placed in on the mantle of the living room! How much thought was put into this?Obviously, the entire affair is so inane that Morris' character solves the case rather easily. Even though the film comes in at just about an hour, it becomes almost a chore to watch with all the nonsense going on. There's really only one humorous moment worth repeating; while aboard the plane, the detectives have this exchange: Dugan - "Hey Clancy, how often do these things fall?" Clancy - "Once!" Except for McHugh and Jenkins, I can't say I've seen any of the other players in films of the era, though I'm a fan of most "B" grade mystery movies from the '30's through the '50's. Fortunately, the pair fares much better backing up Humphrey Bogart in a goofy 1938 gem - "Swing Your Lady", where the laughs are intentional. The best I can offer about "Tomorrow at Seven" is a quote from Martha Winters about midway though this turkey - "This is just a silly waste of time".$LABEL$ 0
+Black Scorpion is Roger Cormen's Batman. Which is cool and there is a lot of cool stuff in this movie. Like the Breathtaker being a cross between Doctor Doom and Darth Vader, that's kind of cool. The mind control gas in the inhalers was worthy of the Mad Hatter. The Cormen B-movie style is all over this puppy which is not always a good thing. There are plenty of stunts and hot babes to make any action fan happy. This movie, the good out weighs the bad. But if you aren't one for comic book movies, then I would advise not watching Black Scorpion, however if you like comic book like movies and don't care if it was ever a comic before. Then check out BLACK SCORPION, as for me I give it 8 STARS.$LABEL$ 1
+I watched this film in a Singapore theatre yesterday (4 February, 2006)and came away with a better understanding of what schizophrenia patients and their loved ones go through.Ms Aparna Sen must be congratulated for not only taking on a difficult subject, but also treating the mentally challenged with a deep understanding of their predicament that is necessary to help them cope with the trauma of disorientation, hallucinations and the storm of turmoil raging in their minds.We have had Hollywood movies on this subject such as "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" where Jack Nicholson carried away the honours. Since then research has helped provide more insights into the problem and clearing some misconceptions about treatment. In "... cuckoo's nest," for example shock therapy has been portrayed as barbaric, but in "15 ..." the point has been made that it is not as bad as it has been made out to be.The other misconception is that abuse in childhood is a cause for schizophrenia. But scholars such as Dr. E. Fuller Torrey have emphasised that studies have shown that childhood schizophrenia is a brain disease and is thought to have some genetic roots.It is now established that schizophrenia can be treated like any clinical ailment and its advance can be checked if detected early. Even in fairly advanced stages regular medication and counselling can be effective.The same understanding shown by Ms Sen is evident in the way the actors play out their parts. In keeping with the gravity of the theme, the acting is controlled throughout with Ms Konkana Sen-Sharma's evocative silences and eyes mirroring the helpless confusion of a disturbed mind speaking louder than some of the rantings we are used to in most of the movies that have included mentally challenged characters.Like me most of the audience in the theatre appeared confused at the abrupt ending. It leaves lot of questions hanging in terms of the plot.Has Meethi's search ended? Why is she not found in No. 15? Were children actually playing when Meethi strode past the gates with her eyes sparkling with recognition? Can anyone sort out this jigsaw puzzle?$LABEL$ 1
+Diana Guzman is an angry young woman. Surviving an unrelenting series of disappointments and traumas, she takes her anger out on the closest targets.When she sees violence transformed and focused by discipline in a rundown boxing club, she knows she's found her home. The film progresses from there, as Diana learns the usual coming-of-age lessons alongside the skills needed for successful boxing. Michelle Rodriguez is very good in the role, particularly when conveying the focused rage of a young woman hemmed in on all sides and fighting against not just personal circumstances but entrenched sexism.The picture could use some finesse in its direction of all the young actors, who pale in comparison to the older, more experienced cast. There are too many pauses in the script, which detracts from the dramatic tension. The overall quietness of the film drains it of intensity. This is a good picture to see once, if only to see the power of a fully realized young woman whose femininity is complex enough to include her power. Its limitations prevent it from being placed in the "see it again and again" category.$LABEL$ 0
+OK, first off there may be a SPOILER here since i don't know what constitutes giving out too much information. My subject line says it all but surely people will want to know WHY it's so stupid.First off, this film follows a bunch of Yuppies as they go to a sports game in Chicago but wind up taking the wrong exit and winding up in the ghetto. Scary, huh? Well, first of all, Emilio is driving everyone in the world's most overblown RV/Winnebago, tricked out with satellite dishes and crap like that on it. So these guys are GOING to a sports game (i forget which, though likely the Bulls or the White Sox since they're near the oh-so-scary ghetto), yet they can't even make it down the freeway without having an onboard viewing command center that would put ESPN to shame. Yet they're smart enough to earn livings that would pay for the stuff, but are such sports fans that they don't even know which exit to get off at on their way to the game they so love.I gave up on the movie within a half hour after that, but the reasons were plentiful. They wind up IN THE GHETTO, yet their main danger to their existence is DENIS LEARY. A WHITE GUY. I'm no racist, but COME ON. In anything RESEMBLING reality - and this film WAS trying to be an urban nightmare - Denis Leary would not be trying to kill Emilio Estevez, he'd be hitching a ride to get the f*** out of Dodge himself!!!This is easily one of the dumbest movies ever created, although I'm not familiar with much of the rest of the world's cinema. If MST3K were still on, they surely would have devoted an episode to this one.$LABEL$ 0
+In this sequel to the 1989 action-comedy classic K-9, detective Dooley [James Belushi] and his dog Jerry Lee return to fight crime, but this time they are teamed up with another detective [Christine Tucci] and her partner, a mean Doberman named Zues who does not get along with Jerry Lee very well. Dooley does not get along with his new partner much either. That all changes as the movie goes along. The movie is intense as their is a guy that really wants to kill Dooley for the way he treated him in the past. There is some dramatic scenes dealing with the death of Dooley's wife that don't really seem to be with the tone of the movie because the rest of the movie is action sequences, dog poop jokes, fart jokes, and jokes about dogs biting bad guys in a certain area. I know that that seems like very low humor, but some of it is actually very funny. I didn't see this movie for the jokes, I saw it for two reasons. The first reason is because I am a big James Belushi fan and the second is for the action sequences. James Belushi is funnier than he was in K-9 and the action sequences at are better too. It would have been nice to see more characters from K-9 to return, but it's still a fun movie. If you are a James Belushi fan, you'll love this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+The magnificent Greta Garbo is in top form in this, her first talkie. She gets fine support from the rest of the cast which includes Charles Bickford the rugged sailor who captures her heart. Ms. Garbo gives a great performance as she usually does as the estranged daughter of a sea captain who returns after fifteen years. Also in the cast is that great actress Marie Dressler. A great movie!$LABEL$ 1
+This is without doubt the worst movie i have ever seen. And believe me, I have seen a lot of movies. The unbelievable twist the movie makes - going from an extremely bad "Alien lifeforms inhabit earth" movie with sickening bad acting, to a film that tries to spread an Archchristian "Judgement day is at hand, seek Jesus or though shall burn for all eternity in the fiery debts of hell" message - left me stunned after being tormented for 85 minutes. Even religious Christians must be ashamed or furious by watching their beliefs being posted like this. I didn't know what to do with myself when I watched the horrible acting that could have been performed by 7-year-olds. Simply disgusting. I am not a Christian nor very religious. But if I had been, I would no longer be afraid of Hell. Rich Christiano has shown be something much, much worse.$LABEL$ 0
+Actually, the answer only occupies a tiny portion of this excellent Imax movie that educates us on our delicate selves. C.G. and special cameras--assisted by Imax--incredibly display the inner (and outer) workings of an average human, be it adult men and women, boys and girls, or babies. Nearly every human body part aspect is specifically detailed: digestion, reproduction (featuring a Marvin Gaye hit), the heart, etc. Some especially revealing moments include how an infant can be immersed underwater and also how the brain's impulses look. It is amazing how we function.The subject matter skips around an awful lot. But at all times we still learn a hell of a lot about our bodies that we should be *required* to know.$LABEL$ 1
+Quentin Tarantino once said that to succeed in the film industry you had to make your own Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs. Writer/actor/director Larry Bishop seems to have taken that advice a little too literally with Hell Ride and concocted a messy homage that borrows much too heavily in its visuals, music, camera-work, and time-altering storytelling. But to properly mimic a Tarantino film, one has to have a knack for constructing creative conversations; unfortunately Hell Ride's primary derailing element is its atrocious ramblings and vulgar monologues that only work to disgust and confuse the audience while simultaneously invoking pity for the actors just for being involved.The anti-hero protagonist biker gang, The Victors, consists of several weathered vigilantes who bring their own brand of bloodthirsty justice to the lawless roads. The leader, Pistolero (Larry Bishop), is hell-bent on revenge and putting out fires. The Gent (Michael Madsen) just tries to balance his chaotic, psychotic symphony of life with putting lead into anyone who crosses his boss, and Comanche (Eric Balfour) follows with a fierce loyalty and a mysterious past.On the villainous front, Deuce (David Carradine) is the mastermind who orchestrates from afar, though not quite far enough, and Billy Wings (Vinnie Jones) spits venom and lewd explanations for his tattoos while toting a harpoon gun and a general disdain for life. While these characters might sound interesting on paper, once they're forced to rant horrendously ill-conceived dialogue all traces of cool disappear faster than the funding should for Bishop's next film.While Hell Ride is riddled with imperfections and missed opportunities, the main facet of its undoing lies in the poorly devised conversations. And because Bishop's main influences are the talky films of Tarantino, there are a lot of them. The first twenty minutes of the movie are nearly unintelligible and would probably make as much sense muted. By the time Pistolero's main squeeze is introduced and certain phrases are overused to the point of nausea, you'll pray for both death and the ability to turn the sound off. Even Dennis Hopper has trouble remaining cool while spouting off such goofy dialogue.Have you ever repeated a word or phrase to yourself so many times that it just doesn't sound right or even make sense anymore? Bishop starts there and then keeps the madness going until you envy the characters on screen getting their heads cut off. And when the dialogue finally takes a break, we're treated to interspersed shots of nude female oil wrestling and throats being slashed. I'm not sure what effect Bishop hoped to attain, but I doubt he found it.Hell Ride wants to pay homage to Quentin Tarantino films, Robert Rodriguez films, and every movie that idolizes the violent and devil-may-care attitudes of bikers. But while its intentions may be noble, the horrendously cringe-worthy dialogue and the hyper-stylized timeline-mangling editing prevents the audience from becoming invested with the generic tough-guy characters. By the time we figure out the mystery behind the characters' motives (and it may be awhile before you even realize there's a mystery to be solved), it's just too hard to care anymore. And while everyone on screen is clearly having fun, they've entirely neglected to translate any of that entertainment to the audience.- Joel Massie$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie when I was a lot younger but it captured me. I loved Orry and George's relationship so much. I was so enraptured in Orry and Madenline's love story. I am a hopeless romantic so it really got to me. I especially liked it when he first met her. I just wish he had more time with her and their baby. So you know in Book three I was so hurt that he died. I didn't really understand that because they had little time together. I just loved Patrick in this movie. I just bought all three books together and I can't stop watching them. My 12 year old son is stuck on it. He likes the fighting in the war. I cry every time. I wish I could meet Patrick and Madeline in person! It was a wonderful movie and cast!$LABEL$ 1
+I am sorry to rain on everybody's parade. Just a little background about me: I like and know a lot about Asian cinema, especially Japanese, Chinese and Indian. Admittedly I am a novice when it comes to South-Korean cinema but, if this is the best of the best, sorry. I just want you to know that I am not at all narrow-minded when it comes to appreciating foreign movies and I do not fit the stereotype of the "dumb American" . . . well, not perfectly.I cannot believe the high praise this piece of nothing is bestowed upon. This is a disgusting *and* ludicrous movie. Hammy acting - everything is badly done and overdone, like begging for the uneducated viewer's attention. Horrible camera-work, with an insistence on meaningless close-ups derived from the MTV aesthetics.The plot is more full of holes than a gigantic piece of Swiss cheese. Nobody expects a thriller to be 100% realistic, and for the sake of entertainment I'd be happy to close my eyes to small unfitting details. But, excuse me, what's happening here that *can* stand even summary scrutiny? This story of an unbelievably intricate and contrite act of revenge is worse than the worst tabloid story one can read in a line at the supermarket. (Don't want to spoil your "enjoyment", if that's the word, so won't go into details of the plot.) The fighting scenes are violent, unbelievable, downright stupid (the main "hero" taking on dozens and dozens of opponents in the same time, after he ONLY trained while imprisoned, punching a wall ! ) The truly "outstanding" features of this movie are two: the lurid and incestuous sex (brother on sister and father on daughter, well, we've evolved since Oedipus, didn't we?) and the graphic violence. The cut off body parts - hands, teeth, tongues - together with industrial quantities of spilled blood (how many tens of thousands of tomatoes had to die for this movie to be made?) have no esthetical function/motivation whatsoever.A feast for the S & M inclined, admittedly, but, even for those, a feast of no merit nor subtlety. Heavens, even Mel Gibson's recent and much-discussed work on an almost similar theme wasn't THAT bad.The invariably good press this pretentious, overblown, overlong piece of gratuitous gore coming from Korean shores obtains makes me wonder what's happening. I don't think of myself as being the ultimate paragon of taste and often I am ready to accept that a movie I didn't enjoy may be better than I was able to perceive. However, I have no scruples whatsoever in calling this one as I see it: bad, bad, bad. No redeeming qualities. My 2c? Find something better to do with your time.$LABEL$ 0
+Homicide: The Movie proved to be a good wrap-up to a well-written, well-directed, and well-acted series. Loose ends were tied up that weren't properly addressed at the end of the final season. The entire series, and especially the movie, provided a life-like look at life (and death) in Baltimore, a culturally unique city with an extremely high murder rate. My attraction to the series began long before I moved to Baltimore, but once I experienced life here for myself, I realized how realistic it was. And the movie certainly retained that spirit. I will certainly miss new original episodes of the series, but am very grateful to NBC and the producers and cast for giving us one last glimpse at the dark side of Charm City.$LABEL$ 1
+This show is brilliantly hilarious! I started watching in 2007, and had never heard of it before then. After one episode, I was hooked. I'm never home to watch it, so my wife bought me the entire series on DVD. Non stop laughs, need I say more? I wish it was still on TV, because it is definitely worthy and a whole lot better of crap on currently on TV.I wish they would make a movie, seriously, who wouldn't go see it. Kevin James's name alone will bring a huge fanbase to any movie, the guy is (make your stomach hurt) funny.Just a really good, down to earth, believable show. If you have the chance to buy it on DVD, do it, its worth it.$LABEL$ 1
+The worst movie i've ever seen. I still don't understand what Dennis Hopper and Michael Madsen intend to do in. Maybe they had bills to pay... The best and cult part happens during a flashback which brings us during WWII when a Nazi officer hide his Jewish wife. That's the beginning of a typical serial killer life! It seems to be directed during the beginning of the 80's but then appears a New Beattle... Amazing! This movie was directed in 2001... I'm quite sure that it took less than two weeks to do that movie. I heard that Dennis Hopper's wife asked for divorce after she saw that picture and Michael Madsen's mother had a heart attack when the actor admitted to be the man under the yellow baseball hat. Pathetic!$LABEL$ 0
+A total and absolute waste of time. Bad acting. Bad story. Predictable. Simple. Pathetic. After a while I was only watching to see what happens, since I'd already invested my time into it. Totally surprised Mrs Forlani played in a weak movie as this. Honestly - just don't bother. A total and absolute waste of time. Bad acting. Bad story. Predictable. Simple. Pathetic. After a while I was only watching to see what happens, since I'd already invested my time into it. Totally surprised Mrs Forlani played in a weak movie as this. Honestly - just don't bother. A total and absolute waste of time. Bad acting. Bad story. Predictable. Simple. Pathetic. After a while I was only watching to see what happens, since I'd already invested my time into it. Totally surprised Mrs Forlani played in a weak movie as this. Honestly - just don't bother.$LABEL$ 0
+In 'Hoot' Logan Lerman plays Roy Eberhardt, the new kid in school who has just moved from Montana. But Florida is a lot different from Montana. Despite is troubles in blending in, Roy discovers a bigger problem. A new franchise restaurant is coming to town and families of burrowing owls are in trouble. Can the new kid, a tomboy (Brie Larson) and a runaway (Cody Linley) stop big business from destroying these owls' home? This movie was pretty good. The kids (Logan Lerman, Brie Larson and Cody Linley) are the real stars of this film. Luke Wilson (Officer Delinko) is okay, but really does not have a very big part. Neither does Robert Wagner (Mayor) or Jimmy Buffett (Mr. Ryan).Nevertheless this was a fun film that the whole family will enjoy. For a first time producer, I thought Jimmy Buffett put together a quality piece of work. Plus the owls were really cute.$LABEL$ 1
+Growing up in the late 60s and 70s I could not help but become a fan of science fiction. With America's space program in top gear, sci-fi books, movies, TV shows, and comic books fueled my imagination and opened my mind to the possibilities that exist in the universe. Farscape is so unlike any other sci-fi show yet it has all the ingredients that made shows like Star Trek, Battlestar Gallatica, X-Files, and Deep Space Nine personal favorites. One of the criticisms of Farscape is that the casual viewer can't just jump in and watch one episode and understand what is going on. There have been other very successful shows that used multiple episode story arcs and complicated characters. This for me is one of the charms of the show. I don't need or want to have the story all tied up neatly at the end of every episode like the various incarnations of Star Trek have done. All in all, Farscape has wonderful and funny characters and a running storyline that says that although humans may be the least evolved or advanced intelligent species in the universe, they still have unique qualities and abilities.Unfortunately, the shortsighted people at the Sci-Fi channel have canceled Farscape's 5th season. They have stated that the cancellation was based on sagging ratings. Yet just a few years ago it was their top rated original series and a critical favorite. It's a shame that all of the artists who help create this show will be unable to continue their labor of love because of the fiscal problems of the very channel/company that made it all possible in the first place.Hey, don't take my word for it, watch the show, watch the re-runs and make up your own mind. Help save Farscape!$LABEL$ 1
+I was unsure of this movie before renting and did so on the assurance that Hilary Swank has always given excellent performances in her movies. She seems to rely on restraint to gain the emotional impact that she does. And she didn't prove me wrong in this movie.However the movie also had fantastic performances from all other members of the cast both speaking and non-speaking. I have to single out Jamie Bartlett and Chiwetel Ejiofor - the two main protagonists - for their outstanding acting abilities and portrayal of true human feelings and failings. The whole movie ran almost like a documentary.I must applaud Tom Hooper as the director and Avril Beukes as the editor for keeping a multiple layered story being revealed smoothly whilst keeping dialogue and action moving along in an understandable fashion. The opening sequence of the South African landscape was striking and I had to push the pause button to savour the photography.Why can't a movie like this ever get nominated for an International award. It seems to me to hit the high-rating button on all counts. It was not just a film it was a true experience of life in a country coming out of apartheid. A life of poverty was all around but it celebrated the dignity of the human spirit.$LABEL$ 1
+Avoid this crap at all costs. Bad script, bad directing, bad acting, bad editing, bad sound, and bad music. Get the idea? This movie tries to be western flavored, it's not. It tries to be hard core violent, it's not. It tries to present a fresh look at an old genre, it doesn't. The actors try there best, and my heart goes out to them. But with such inane material to work with it's hard to make something shine. To me this has all of the looks of a "fresh outta film school gonna set the world on fire" first attempt. Freshmen film makers often bite off more that they, or their budget, can chew. The best thing they can do is to take a few steps back, reassess what is possible, and work within their limited budget the next time out.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a extremely well-made film. The acting, script and camera-work are all first-rate. The music is good, too, though it is mostly early in the film, when things are still relatively cheery. There are no really superstars in the cast, though several faces will be familiar. The entire cast does an excellent job with the script.But it is hard to watch, because there is no good end to a situation like the one presented. It is now fashionable to blame the British for setting Hindus and Muslims against each other, and then cruelly separating them into two countries. There is some merit in this view, but it's also true that no one forced Hindus and Muslims in the region to mistreat each other as they did around the time of partition. It seems more likely that the British simply saw the tensions between the religions and were clever enough to exploit them to their own ends.The result is that there is much cruelty and inhumanity in the situation and this is very unpleasant to remember and to see on the screen. But it is never painted as a black-and-white case. There is baseness and nobility on both sides, and also the hope for change in the younger generation.There is redemption of a sort, in the end, when Puro has to make a hard choice between a man who has ruined her life, but also truly loved her, and her family which has disowned her, then later come looking for her. But by that point, she has no option that is without great pain for her.This film carries the message that both Muslims and Hindus have their grave faults, and also that both can be dignified and caring people. The reality of partition makes that realisation all the more wrenching, since there can never be real reconciliation across the India/Pakistan border. In that sense, it is similar to "Mr & Mrs Iyer".In the end, we were glad to have seen the film, even though the resolution was heartbreaking. If the UK and US could deal with their own histories of racism with this kind of frankness, they would certainly be better off.$LABEL$ 1
+Dewaana as a film goes through the usual clichés. Man and Woman fall in love and marry, husband is supposedly killed by a family friend who wants their family fortune, woman remarries and surprise surprise husband no.1 reappears. The movie is reminiscent of Yash Chopra's Chandni and countless others. Divya Bharti and Shah Rukh Khan give good performances. Amrish Puri as a villain goes through the motions and is nothing more than a standard bollywood villain The music by Nadeem Shravan is superb, all the songs were brilliant. My favourites are Sochenge tumhe pyar or Koyi na koyi chahiyye. Dewanna is an ordinary movie that goes through the motions.$LABEL$ 0
+This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Horrible acting,Not funny at all, and well just boring.I can only assume all these 10 out of 10 fav. all time movie comments are actually the actors themselves in disguise.Idk what the runtime on this movie is I'm sure its listed on this page It certainly felt like an eternity If your looking for a tough challenge,attempt to sit through this awful movie.otherwiseDon't waste your time as I did on this one$LABEL$ 0
+This is definitely one of the most scary and spell-binding films ever made. You are stuck to the movie from the beginning to the very end. Even though there are some plot holes, it keeps being exciting to the final showdown. Besides "8 MM" and "Peeping Tom" this is one of the best films about "Snuff Movies", a taboo theme of our culture. If you like the SCREAM Trilogy, you will probably love that one.$LABEL$ 1
+This isn't cinema. It isn't talent. It isn't informative. It isn't scary. It isn't entertaining. It isn't anything at all.I got this because my cousin says, "Diablo! COOL!" Yeah, right. The only thing cool about this experience was the lone fact that I didn't buy it but rented it instead.It's shot like a bad soap opera. No wait. Soap operas at least LOOK professional...sorta. This? This looks like it was shot with someone's camcorder. It's horrid! Wretched! It sux.The cinematography is detestable! WHO IS this director anyway? I don't even care enough to look him up. He STINKS! The performances by these poor unsuspecting actors were far better than this crap-fest deserved.2.6/10 on the "B" scale. That registers about a 0.3/10 on the "A" scale from...the Fiend :.$LABEL$ 0
+With a movie called "Gayniggers from Outer Space" how could you go wrong? Just throw in some over the top stereotypes for the characters, use the Village People as the main suppliers for the soundtrack, and throw in tons of gay-gags. Plot is unimportant. Too bad, this film doesn't contain any of this and every joke misses the spot. The characters all look alike apart from the german gaynigger, one or two jokes work, the rest fails.The title made me laugh and I was prepared to laugh even more about the film. My expectation were to high apparently.$LABEL$ 0
+Having read the other comment about this superb piece of TV drama I felt compelled to balance things a little. If you like you murders, to be signature and serial, and your cops to be British, and shout a lot, and the gore to be bloody and have a religious slant then this hits every button. Not quite enough 'gov'ing to put the shouting into the Sweeney's rarefied heights, but otherwise highly rated. Ken Stott is excellent as the 'cop on the edge' and the guest stars are also well cast, including Edward Woodward and Art Malik. Recommended. (In response to the earlier comments, although I accept that 'Red' would not 'normally' drive away from a hit and run, he had just witnessed his brother arrested for murder, and I am fairly sure he does not see the boy move.)$LABEL$ 1
+The 80's is largely considered the decade in which horror decided to have fun. Sometimes, there were some definite brains behind it all ("Evil Dead II", "Night of the Creeps" and "Return of the Living Dead" for example) and then there were those movies that were mindless but had a definite low rent charm and were perfect for a night with beer and friends. Movies like "Pieces" and "Blood Diner" stacked rental shelves in the 80's and 90's, offering little in intelligence or craftsmanship but plenty in dumb entertainment. Kevin Tenney's 1988 movie "Night of the Demons" is a part of this tradition-stupid, poorly acted and not an original bone in it's body, but dammit if you don't have a good time.The plot is so simplistic it just had to come from the 80's: a group of dumb teens played by a bunch of actors in their mid to late 20's decide to go to a party at Hull House thrown by Angela (Mimi Kinkade) and Suzanne (Scream Queen legend Linnea Quigley.) Well, Angela and co. decide to throw a séance. This turns out to be as Will Arnett's "Arrested Development" character Gob would call it, a "Huge Mistake," because a demonic force soon possesses Angela, and starts to get to the others as well.Take "The Evil Dead", "A Nightmare on Elm Street" and your average dumb dead teen flick, throw them in a blender, and "Night of the Demons" is what you get. The movie is anything but original, and really, it's not a good movie. The whole thing is insanely derivative, the acting is terrible, the jokes often fall flat, the characters are annoying (especially the character of Stooge) and the plot holes are numerous. That out of the way, it's still a lot of fun. So why? Well for one thing, the make up and gore effects are top notch, with some really memorable moments (especially a nasty and just plane odd bit with a tube of lipstick) that really stick out. It also rarely if ever takes itself too seriously, yet with the exception of some terrible puns, plays it straight and never wastes the audiences time with winking self awareness. Plus, there's a definite energy and enthusiasm to the whole enterprise that's almost impossible to resist. Yeah, it's nothing special, but it knows that, and it couldn't be more proud of that fact. It's a goofy party horror movie, and it never pretends to be anything more.It might not be a classic, but "Night of the Demons" is a good example of horror junk food done right. It might not be too memorable or original, but sometimes you don't want a fancy beer. Sometimes you want a Budweiser.$LABEL$ 1
+Bruce Willis, as usual, does an excellent job.[warning: may be considered a "spoiler"]While my friend thought it was good, I kept glancing at my watch during the entire movie wondering when it would end. After seeing such great flicks as "The Patriot" and "Chicken Run" I was really disappointed in Disney's "The Kid."Willis plays a middle-aged man with a harsh and realistic attitude on putting a positive spin on people's images (he's an Image Consultant). An unknown kid shows up. Yes, it's him but younger, and even Lily Tomlin can see him. At this point I'm reminded of a cross between a poor "Quantum Leap" episode and a bad time traveling flick.Kid and Willis go through trying to figure out why he's in that time period. They figure it out. They meet Willis when he's older. Nevermind that it never goes into detail how old Willis teleports them between time periods and gets them together to begin with, how he got that knowledge to begin with, how he came to the realization that he needed to do this, and so on.Basically, it's a very tired, unoriginal, uninspiring plot that has some great actors in it. The good news is that "the Kid" actor is nowhere near as annoying as he's presented in the trailers on television.$LABEL$ 0
+I found this to be an utter waste of time, effort and money. I know Disney always displays lack of creativity when making "straight-to-video" films - but rehashing the plot of the original film with a "new perspective" is an all-time low...soon they'll just be re-releasing the original films with new animation and new songs and be calling it a "new version of the movie we all love." Nathan Lane surprisingly returns to his role of Timon yet again. Timon and Pumbaa the animated animals from the world of the original "Lion King" embark on a narrative journey to tell us the original story the way it REALLY happened...as they see it.Of course Timon is now the hero of the story, yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah...The musical sequences are lame and the animation is crap. The vocal talents are impressive for a video feature, but then again, when was the last time you remember Matthew Broderick, Whoopi Goldberg or Nathan Lane being in anything of real commercial substance? Overall if you liked the original you'll hate this. It's insulting because it's unfair to children and adults alike. And that about sums it up.$LABEL$ 0
+I was all in awe of the film looking at the promos and went to watch it FDFS The film was horrible to say the leastThe first scene is good and till they go to London things are funny but slowly the pace slackens and they is nothing funny about itThe Manoj Joshi subplot is funny at places but is unwanted and adds to the boredomThe drugs part is funny especially the monologue of GovindaThe film goes on and on aimlessly just like a small kid has written itThe interval brings a twist in the story but by then i lost hopeThe second half starts okay but the way things are handled makes a mockery The entire Arbaaz- Jackie angle is half baked Also how come people don't identify them?The climax is quite funny though stupidPriyadarshan is not at all in his elements, from this film he started doing craps and his films got bad and bad Music is good, SIGNAL, TERE BIN stand out and AFREEN too Camera-work is goodAkshay Kumar has white in his stubble and looks old but he acts well though this role he has done many times yet thanks to his natural comedy acting things look bearable Govinda looks out of shape, bad and his act except monologue is boring too surprising from Govinda seems too much pressure on him to comeback and Priyan fails to utilize him Paresh is okay in parts but overall just repeat act Manoj Joshi is funny at places Sharat Saxena is okay Shakti Kapoor is great Jackie Shroff looks overweight and acts in his sleep Arbaaz Khan is bad Lara Dutta shrieks to glory but fails to act$LABEL$ 0
+I caught this on local Mexican television at 2:00 a.m. and I decided to give it a chance since it's based on a real life case that deals with the murder of the typical All American family (a dad, a mom, and a young son).On the beginning the hints point to Walker to be the murderer as he had strong differences with his father. Shortly after, when Walker and Luke are taken to the Sheriff's dept. to being examined by the lies detection machine, things turn out to be very different...Also, when Walker and Luke attend to an appointment with their father's lawyer, they learn that Luke would receive $200,000 and Walker is out of the heresy. Luke immediately buys a convertible.Anyways, this is an excellent mystery movie that deals with betrayal, ambition, feelings, and cold , very cold blood.I know the real names were changed but still the experience is the same. Give this movie a try. I know there are HUNDREDS of "based on real murders" or events of the like, but this one is truly worthy. Pure quality on acting, direction, and plot.$LABEL$ 1
+It's somewhat telling that most of the great reviews for the film on IMDb all come from people who have only reviewed one film in their entire IMDb career and yes you've guessed it, that film is "Parasomnia". I've often suspected suspiciously good reviews on IMDb for what turns out to be an anything but good films as underhand marketing , but it seems fairly transparent in this case.That's not to say Parasomnia is terrible, but it stops well short of being the good or great film it had the potential to be.On the plus side, it has a great baddie in Patrick Kilpatrick who does a brilliant job projecting menacing and evil, I could easily see him having what it takes to play a truly memorable baddie on a par with Hannibal Lecter. There are some beautiful visuals in the dream sequences, in fact if the film had decided to explore that terrain more it might have been something better. The actual concept of devious misuse of hypnosis is great too.Although I understand suspension of disbelief is necessary for immersion in any good story, it's the mark of a good story that it succeeds in letting you do that. If you find yourself being annoyed at what you find illogical or just plain silly, then the story is losing you and that's what kept happening to me with this film. Other reviewers have mentioned this here and I don't want to get into spoiler territory, but I will say the setup at the ending was particularly ludicrous and disappointing, not too mention the varying mental age of a character that is only supposed to have experienced a few years of life.All in all, there is the germ of a great idea here in diabolically misused hypnotism, but sadly this film fails to realise it into anything special.$LABEL$ 0
+Steve Martin should quit trying to do remakes of classic comedy. He absolutely does not fit this part. Like the woeful remake of the Out Of Towners, this movie falls flat on it's face. How anybody ever thought Steve Martin could even come close to Jack Lemmon's wonderful performance is beyond me and the same is true for this movie. Dan Ackroyd could have played the Bilko part better. Martin is great when doing his own original characters but fails miserably trying to recreate other people's classic work. It's a sad statement when the funniest part of a movie is contained in the first line of the credits when the movie is over. The line "The producers gratefully acknowledge the total lack of cooperation by the United States Army" was just about the only line that actually made me laugh. If you want to see the real Bilko, get hold of the original episodes of the Phil Silvers Show. Those are guaranteed to make you laugh, unlike this mistake that should never have happened. I put this movie in the same category as the aforementioned Lemmon classic and the remake of Psycho. None of them should ever have happened.$LABEL$ 0
+Forget all those people who tell you it's not as good as the book. So what? This is a film after all. It is a sheer joy to watch, made entirely on location in Cephallonia, gorgeous photography but with dark, disturbing moments as well. The only problem I have is with the obvious miscasting of Nicolas Cage as captain Corelli. Apart from that the film was a very pleasant surprise.$LABEL$ 1
+Manmohan Desai made some entertaining though illogical films like AAA, PARVARISH and NASEEB but he made some craps like COOLIE and MARD and then GJSThis movie is one of the worst movies ever made by him the dial became famous Mard ko dard nahin hota but the film is so bad you cringeThe British are made carricatures and the film looks so weird The scene in the British hotel is damn stupid The film has many stupidities like Amrita assaulting Amitabh and then the entire scene plus towards the climax the film becomes even worse There are more gems like the horse statue getting life, The masks of Amitabh haha and moreDirection by Manmohan Desai is bad Music is okayAmitabh does his part with style, nothing different from COOLIE, LAAWARIS type roles Amrita Singh is okay Satyen Kapuu is okay Prem Chopra is as usual, Nirupa Roy is again her usual self Dara Singh is also as usual$LABEL$ 0
+This movie sucked sooo bad, I couldn't even watch the ending. Milo's voice was too low and I couldn't understand what he said as well as some of Kendra's lines. Also, where did he get all these wedding dresses from; it was very impractical. The movie failed to elaborate on Milo's drowning and how it made people ridicule Dr. Jeter and his practice. Overall, I was disappointed that I was unable to give this movie a rating of zero because by grading this movie as a one, I felt I was giving it undeserved praise.$LABEL$ 0
+One would make you believe that this game is about a man obsessed with a number. And sure, it's an interesting subject - can a person become so obsessed by something marginal as a simple number that he completely loses touch with reality and becomes hopelessly delusional and paranoid? Well, perhaps someone will make a movie about that sometime. This one unfortunately doesn't have anything to do with the above, never mind what the trailers (or even the movie itself) would like you to believe. I would like to say that this number is just a MacGuffin, but it isn't even that. It's pointless. A gimmick. A hook for unsuspecting audience.Well what IS the movie about? A dog-catcher (Carrey) who becomes obsessed with a cheesy noir crime book because he feels it somehow reflects his own life. There. Sure, the character in the book - detective Fingerling (sigh) - is (for some reason) obsessed with number 23, and Carrey himself becomes obsessed and starts seeing the number everywhere.. but it's just padding, and totally irrelevant to the story. In fact, you can cut out all the 23 references and have the main character(s) obsess about cheese or something and you'll have the exactly same story. It is painfully obvious that all the "23" stuff was written in waay after the story was already finished, rejected and sent for "rewrites".Which would be OK.. I guess.. if the movie wasn't dull, dull, dull. Half of the movie is narrated, for chrissakes. You aren't watching the movie, you are listening to Jim Carrey narrating the movie. About a quarter-in Carrey starts reading the book, and from then until the horribly cliché ending we are forced to watch "real-life" scenes from dog-catcher's life (where nothing happens) interspersed with narrated artsy film noir-ish "book" scenes which will either leave you snickering or just plain depressed. It's like a poor man's "Sin City" with all the violence cut out, narrated by Carrey and shown in slow-motion. Ugh.This is a simple case of a C-movie script somehow being filmed with an A-movie cast.. probably because of the "number 23" hook which I guess sounded intriguing enough on paper to warrant the premium Hollywood treatment. However, since - as I said already - the movie is about number 23 as much as it is about cheese production in Switzerland, one cannot feel anything but cheated.I give "Fingerling - the movie" 3 out of 10, because I guess it didn't insult my intelligence as much as "Forsaken" did or made me downright suicidal like "Battlefield Earth" did and the bottom of the scale must be reserved for abominations like those. But fear not, this is still a pretty lousy flick.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie on television as SCREAMERS and loved it. I heard an interesting story about this film. When Roger Corman released it to drive-ins in the summer of 1981, his trailer department sent out an advance trailer which was not actually footage from the film. It was allegedly footage of a naked woman being chased around a laboratory set by a monster. During the film's opening at drive-in's, irate customers complained the did not see the movie they paid to see. Theater owners called Corman and said their customers felt ripped off. So Corman had to run off copies of the footage, and send the positive film to theater owners to splice into the film themselves. Since the footage was never part of the film negative, it has not appeared in any video, DVD or television broadcast. Has anyone ever seen this footage? Anyone who saw this film at a drive-in in the summer of 1981 remember this?$LABEL$ 1
+The fifth collaboration between Marlene Dietrich and director Josef von Sternberg, BLONDE VENUS is a film that looks great while it's playing but fails to engages the viewer. The plodding storyline of Dietrich being torn between two men, becoming a mammoth cabaret star, and fighting for the custody of her child is jumbled and often feels like bits of three separate films half-baked together. Dietrich is unwisely cast in a rather passive, reactive role for much of the film and her character remains aloof from viewers, while Herbert Marshal is unconvincing as her ill-tempered husband, and Cary Grant is largely wasted as a suave suitor who dashes in and out of the picture. The film does contain some intriguing set pieces (the "Hot Voodoo" number is the high point) that are impressively surrealistic for this era in Hollywood, although it proves to no avail in such a dull, incoherent film.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a great movie! Most of us have seen Jurassic Park, where the Chaos Theory is summarized by telling about a butterfly's wings, causing a tornado on the other side of the planet. Well, Bug is all about that (or at least something, don't worry this is no spoiler) I'm definitely not a religious type and don't believe in pre-destined stuff, fate, etc, but this movie surely makes you wonder if coincidence really exists...further more, the acting and camera are excellent too, another prove that it's still possible to make a good movie without a zillion bucks$LABEL$ 1
+This movie captures the essence of growing up in smalltown America for a young girl on her own. The realism and subtle nuances, offered to Ashley Judd's character, Ruby, by the storyline, capture what can only be described as a true to life setting in the panhandle of Florida. From the slam of a screen door, to the lack of work, the echoes of what life is really like on the "red-neck riviera" provide rough choices for the young girl. Paradise did not come easy. But she slowly overcomes obstacles and deceit, and learns to be her own woman, with a strength that flows from within. Ashley Judd's winning smile, and infectious gait exude warmth and command respect and admiration. The careful pace of the character development resembles that of "Ulee's Gold" in 1997, starring Peter Fonda, and also directed by Victor Nunez.$LABEL$ 1
+Play Mystery Theater 3000 at home with your friends! Rent this movie for the laughs! The acting is poor, the sounds is terrible and the fights are ridiculously unbelievable. I thought the movie was a joke until I looked it up on IMBD. I can't wait to rent the sequel, China O'Brien II.$LABEL$ 0
+It's not a terrible movie, really, and Glenn and Keitel are top-notch actors. Further, they do an acceptable job with the very weak script. The scenery is lush and the plot has some interesting twists. Further, I umderstand why these actors and the crew made the film, they are professionals and they get paid for it. But I do wonder why studios spend the time and money to make a film and then don't release it for theater audiences? Even if a film is a box-office flop, surely it makes some money. If you are a fan of Keitel or Glenn, rent the video or catch it on TV, as did I. Granted, the movie won't help solve the immigration quandary with Mexico, but the experience is far better than 90% of the standard TV fare of today.$LABEL$ 0
+"Ninja III" is not quite as bad as "Enter The Ninja", the first part of this "trilogy", but it's still a very bad movie. It will hardly please the fans of martial-arts movies, because there isn't enough action, but even the action scenes themselves are often spoiled by laughable excesses and needless violence. As if the film wasn't already weak enough, the filmmakers turn parts of it into an idiotic "The Exorcist" rip-off. The only redeeming value is the winning presence of the actress who plays the "dominated" heroine; she is a beautiful and athletic woman, which the director doesn't forget to exploit in various sleazy ways - she just happens to be an aerobics teacher. I don't mind a little soft-core exploitation, but it must not pretend to be something else.$LABEL$ 0
+A very silly movie, this starts with a soft porn sequence, ventures into farcelike comedy in the art gallery, adds a shocker of a discovery in the hotel room then introduces a random murder for no obvious reason.What follows is bizarre and surreal (the stopwatch scene in particular is exquisitely unnecessary), culminating in a revelatory "twist" ending which is as obvious as it is unfair on the viewer (see the trivia section for precisely why it's deliberately unfair).The movie goes out of its way to be offensive to as many groups as possible - transsexuals, the insane, and the wonderful "Huggie Bear"-style racial stereotyping on the subway - and condescendingly treats the viewer like an idiot in the closing scenes, as characters endlessly explain to one another in great detail and over and over again what just happened in the film. Though the background female characters in the restaurant scene at the end are a joy to watch.In fact, the whole movie is a joy to watch: Despite its many, many flaws, the whole package just, well, works.$LABEL$ 1
+A pity, nobody seems to know this little thriller-masterpiece. Where bigger budgeted movies fail, "Terminal Choice" delivers lots of thrills, shocks and bloody violence. A little seen gem, that deserves being searched for in your local video shop. That anonymous guy beneath is quite right, when he says, you'll never trust hospitals again... it IS that effective ! Good ending,too, not really a twist, but it doesn't end the way one thought it would. Yep, that's Ellen Barkin in an early role...$LABEL$ 1
+Slither is a horror comedy that doesn't really have enough horror or comedy to qualify as one or the other. It has one scene that is exceptionally good, any number of zingers that work, but very few real scares and not enough humor to maintain the movie. In addition, the script does not focus on the hero and heroine, and goes off kilter in several places.A major failing of this film is that it introduces and then leaves its hero (Fillion) to follow Grant Grant (Michael Rooker) as he is first introduced and then becomes the monster. This whole part of the film drags - Michael Rooker's character isn't that interesting to us as a person, and watching as he goes through a series of motions while acting in the monster's interest might be interesting if this was Grant - Portrait of a Man Turning Into A Monster rather than a horror-comedy alien invasion movie. In the final analysis this movie's problems are in the script - it isn't that important to the audience how the monster acts or propagates. The purpose of a horror-comedy is to get the heroes backed up in a corner with shotguns and then throw bugs at them, with them cracking wise every time something frightening or disgusting happens. Instead we get an exploration of the alien's habits and tactics that just makes this part of the movie drag. The ostensible heroine (Elizabeth Banks as Starla Grant) is more central to this part, but nonetheless I felt the movie had left its narrative track, unless it planned on following Grant Grant all the way to the end.When Fillion and his posse finally confront the alien the movie does begin to cook, but once again the problem is in the script. By this point that audience knows - and the characters should know - that Grant is not just suffering from some disease, and act accordingly (shotguns) - instead they continuously parley in the face of increasing evidence that this is not something that "let us get you to a hospital" is going to help. Although their reactions might have been human and real, these are characters in an action movie and simply should have done what the movie promised - delivered action. A lack of action scenes in a movie with as few ideas as this is a great failing.*** SPOILERS AHEAD *** After the first confrontation and the bursting of the alien larval sack (a minor character and perhaps the best scene in the movie) the script once again betrays the movie. At this point one of the characters is almost taken over by the alien and develops an insight into the alien. The writer-director (Gunn) chooses as this character a completely new character, rather than one of already developed minor characters. Why? Why did he need to introduce a completely new character more than an hour into the movie that becomes central to the plot? By the time this character is attacked, we know hardly anything about her and could care less about her, even though she is a winsome teenage girl in her bath. Had Gunn decided not to use this character and just used one of the established minor characters, he could have completely avoided introducing her family, and saved time and money. Furthermore, the hero and heroine would have been filled in on the alien's plans without all the additional characters, and could have gotten around to blowing away aliens sooner and with more vigor.My last criticism is based on the movie's look. Gunn is primarily a writer, or maybe it was budgetary constraints, but this movie looked ugly and uninteresting. Most of the action takes place at night in woods or on a field, and the screen simply looks drab. The sets in Wheelsy (the fictional town where the action takes place) look cheap. The whole movie looks cheap. Box Office Mojo states the films' budget was $15 million, newspapers say $29 million, and considering they didn't use any name talent, I would say the money did not show up on screen. The monster is just repulsive, and rarely looks deadly.The last criticism is primarily based on the reality of the character's actions. By the time Fillion and Co have begun hunting Grant/the alien, one woman has disappeared and Grant is known to have been mutilating animals. At this point I was expecting the FBI or at least the State Police to show up and take over from the hick Sheriff. A woman has disappeared and likely been murdered, and a local has been acting psychotic. Time to call the authorities. But basically I was hoping that would happen because I just wanted some characters who would show up and ACT.Although this movie is ostensibly a horror-comedy, the movie it bears the most resemblance to is Dreamcatcher in terms of monstrous invasion and the type of monster and its intentions. Whereas Dreamcatcher had much bigger problems with story (especially the entire Morgan Freeman subplot) and particularly the ending, in many ways it was stronger, primarily because the main characters were stronger, but more importantly because it looked beautiful. Although that may be anathema - preferring the movie that is weaker in general plot and structural spine because of production values - that just shows you how uninteresting I found the look of Slither.$LABEL$ 0
+This was a great film in every sense of the word. It tackles the subject of tribadism in a society that is quite intolerant of any deviations from the norm. It criticises a great many Indian customs that many find oppressive -- such as the arranging of marriages by others, the importance of status and face, religious hypocrisy, sexism, the valuation of women in terms of their baby-making capacity, the binding concepts of duty and so on. At the heart of the film is a touching love story that goes beyond such limitations of the society which the two protagonists find themselves. The film is well-acted and genuine, completely believable from beginning to end, unlike most Bollywood flicks. The main faults of the film as I saw it was first, that the two lovers seem drawn to one another not necessarily by a natural affinity for each other as much as the fact that they are stuck in dead-end marriages with no passion and no rewards. This may play a part in the sexual awakening of the characters, but most people stuck in the same situation will not "turn homosexual". It seems clear from the beginning of the film that the two characters are quite heterosexual -- when Radha does her scene at the end of the movie with Aashok, she makes it quite clear that "without desire she was dead", and the implication was that if he had desired so, he could have fulfilled her quite completely, and also when Sita seemed very disappointed when her husband seemed to not like her. Such situations do not turn people into homosexuals -- they may seek comfort in others in the same position, but inthe film it is not at all made clear that they are lesbians from the beginning -- quite the opposite. Some people are bisexual, it is true, but most tend to be either hetero- or homosexual. In the case of the ladies in the film, both had insensitive jerks for husbands . . . if this had not been the case, would they have naturally found the need to express their desire in a relationship that they may have otherwise not have considered? The film ignores this. The other fault is the naming of the characters . . . the names Sita and Radha seem contrived deliberately to shock and outrage (imagine a film in America depicting a gay relationship between a man named "Jesus" and another named "Paul"!) by using names associated with various Hindoo scriptures. The film is strong enough to stand on its own and needs no such devices in my opinion. At any rate, the faults do not take much away from the power of the movie. It is indeed a very touching and powerful story -- the images and characters will stay with you a long time after you leave the theatre.$LABEL$ 1
+When I saw the Exterminators of year 3000 at first time, I had no expectations for that movie. Although, it wasn't so bad as I was thought. It's kind of Italian version of Roadwarrior, with cast, that is almost famous in Italy, including Venantino Venantini. Behind the story is Elisa Briganti and Dardano Sacchetti, who are also responsible for story of Zombie flesh-eaters. You can also see other links to Italian horror movies: Luca Venantini plays the role of Tommy, and you can see that kid in Paura nella citta dei morti viventi (City of the living dead AKA Gates of hell) as John Robbins and in Cannibal apocalypse as the role of Mary's brother. Quite entertaining movie, with some dull parts.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a relatively watchable movie (+1). After watching UKM: Ultimate Killing Machine, this one looks good, in comparison. There are no obvious technical gaffes, although the vampiric teeth look odd.The story line makes no sense. Let's see. An American GI fights vampires. Comes back to the states and is rehabilitated for seeing... Vampires. His commanding officer is the aunt of his ex-wife. Who happens to be doing some research on the biodiversity of the South American area where the vampires are. Huh! Don't pile on too many coincidences. Who cares about the head vampire? Or, his daughter? Or, any one in this film? The only originality in this is that most of the myths about vampires (allergic to crosses and garlic, can't come out in the day, etc.) are wrong. But, they can't be killed except by beheading or a wood wound in the heart. Yeah, right. It's obvious they just didn't want to film a dark movie, since this is a made for TV film.It would have been nice for the viewer, if they had hired some actors. Oh, they've got Lynda Carter (TV's Wonder Woman), and a big, black dude with a tremendously deep voice, who snarls appropriately in order to show off his vampire teeth prosthetics. But, otherwise, you would never know they had actually paid people to read these lines.There is more than enough fight scenes, and some vampire-biting-neck blood, but no real violence.$LABEL$ 0
+In order to describe what's seriously wrong with this movie it has to contain some *spoilers* so if you're going to see it and expect to be surprised, don't read this!I liked everything about this movie except the plot; and in a thriller like this believable plot is essential. It is well acted, if a bit slow moving, and the camera work and Portland scenes are exquisite for a low-budget, unpretentious picture. The dialog is very good. Mason is seriously withdrawn youth who works at a telemarketing company selling insurance. His high school buddy, Berkeley, is his employer and looks after him like a brother despite the fact that Mason is quite obviously mentally ill. Mason has nightmares which send him gasping and fumbling for his inhaler. His visions and nightmares suggest that he has had serious problems with good-looking women in his past, and the movie seems to be suggesting that he may be a serial killer of women. He meets a perky, pretty girl named Amber and he sketches her in his notebook. She takes a liking to him and poses for him so he can paint her portrait. He sees more of her and begins to awaken from his withdrawn state, almost becoming halfway human. Then something goes wrong. Amber finds sketchbooks with drawings of other girls and she begins to wonder. She becomes frightened and pulls away. We are wondering if her sudden coldness is going to push him over the edge. His behavior becomes more erratic. This is the setup for the revelation. In order to explain how this movie goes horribly wrong I have to explain what happens. *Another spoiler warning!* In order for this plot to work we have believe that Amber, a really outgoing, pretty young girl is going to go for a seriously emotionally disturbed young man who, at least at the beginning of their friendship, has a vacant stare and can only speak in monosyllables or doesn't speak at all. He's way beyond nerdy, he appears on the verge of total catatonia. Yes I know, girls can be attracted to all kinds of weirdos, but usually the Charles Manson type or punk rockers, guys with some kind of evil manic energy. Mason is practically a zombie, he's hardly there at all. Any perky young thing would cross the street to avoid him. It is just not believable that this girl is attracted to him. Moreover there is no credible reason for Berkeley to indulge the crazy Mason, that just isn't believable either. But wait, there's a revelation. Amber fails to show up at Berkeley's house for Christmas dinner where Mason is expecting her and Berkeley, his old buddy, has to tell him that Amber and all his other former girlfriends, the ones he drew in his many sketchbooks, don't exist at all! She and all the others are merely figments of his twisted imagination: he dreamed them up. Well, this explains why a normal cute Amber would go for Mason, she's just a figment of his imagination. This could have been the final revelation of the movie with the proper preparation and setup, but alas, it's not. At this point Mason runs back to his apartment and finds Amber there...he's enraged, he kills her. But now we are given to understand that Amber was in fact real, not Mason's imaginary girlfriend. In the end, after being given proof that Amber actually exists and that Mason killed her, Berkeley has to admit that he was wrong, that he misjudged Mason. This would work if Mason had been halfway sane from the beginning, but because we the audience always suspected him of being totally deranged and possibly a killer of women it is no surprise to us. We suspected what he was all along and can't understand why Berkeley couldn't see it. But then we are once again left to wonder: if she was real, why Amber would be attracted to the catatonic Mason? To make the ending worse, we are never given to understand whether all the other of Mason's girlfriends, the ones in the sketchbooks, were real or was Amber the first real one? And if the others were real, did he kill them too? What did he do with the bodies? The problem is that the filmmakers just didn't know what to do with the material. Perhaps there could have been a way to straighten it out and tell a credible suspense story, but this movie is not that.$LABEL$ 0
+An evil land baron is holding up water to a group of ranchers in order to try and take their properties for pennies on the dollar. Along comes Singin' Sandy Saunders (John Wayne), who saves the day for Gabby Hayes and his daughter by going undercover as the villain's newest gunman.The first of sixteen films Wayne made for Lone Star/ Monogram Pictures, this tries to cast him as a singing cowboy, only with an obviously lip-synced voice. The title card prominently features his character as "Singin' Sandy" leading one to believe that this was meant to be the first in a proposed series!Yes it's ridiculous, but also a lot of fun to see Wayne singing songs and shooting guns, especially when he does a little ditty before shooting it out with gunman Earl Dwire.Riders Of Destiny features a rare villainous role for for Al "Fuzzy" St. John, who clowns around as much with the bad guys as he did playing a heroic sidekick, riding alongside Buster Crabbe and Lash LaRue.$LABEL$ 1
+Okay, here is a really short review: this movie blowed. I wish I could just have a review that stated this simple principle, but I must bore you with more bad review type words like 'horrible' 'clichéd' and 'unwatchable.' It's the type of film you watch when you are drunk or are stuck on a desert island with nothing else to do. Here's the premise: the vice president is captured by a terrorist group at a play-off hockey game and only Van Damm can stop the madness. Truly, truly terrible, but then again, I didn't pay to see it the first time around and only my dad felt the absence of girth in his wallet after this movie. I hate the fact he is a Republican and all, but then again, he did spare me the horror of paying for this piece of garbage. Okay, that is now enough space to be recognized as a review, so I bid adieu.$LABEL$ 0
+For years I hesitated watching this movie. Now, I know why. Not only is it a comedy that fails at being even remotely funny, but there's also just nothing to laugh *at* about the movie. It was even worse than I'd expected. I rented this sucker and still felt cheated out of time more than money. I have never seen a film that annoyed me that much. It is a movie about stupid people that are doing stupid and terrible things. I don't really know either how someone with common sense could actually act in this kind of movie. I have used IMDb for some time but felt obligated to register just to help prevent poor unsuspecting folks from renting or, worse, buying this stinker!! Really a waste of time and money. I must say that the plot line is awful.$LABEL$ 0
+At Beaverview Cheerleading Camp, the goody-goody two shows Lucky Ducks cheerleading team must get in cahoots with the 'tough' bad girl cheerleading team of The Demons to beat the dastardly Falcon team who always seems to win at this camp I guess. This being a typical clichéd '80's teen (lame) sex comedy who do you think will win? But what the film lacks in originality it more than makes up for it sheer bloody awfulness. Oh and insanely bad dance numbers and the obligatory Japenese businessmen who want to buy the camp (on the condition that male cheerleader, Tommy Hamilton, stays with the camp of course). Simply awful, forgettable, and sadly has a surprising lack of nudity.Where I saw it: HBO Comedy My Grade: F (yup I did indeed give it to them)$LABEL$ 0
+while mind of mencia could be summed up as nothing more than a clone of chappelle's show, it is really worse than that. first of all, Carlos mencia is a jacka** that is as funny as he is original, which isn't saying much. the show contains lame spoofs of American television ads and political issues, and mencia's "comedic" insight on politics adds to the low quality of this show. on top of it all, mencia tosses in more lame ethnic jokes and stolen Jeff foxworthy lines than i can count on one hand. while every once in a while Carlos gets a cheap laugh, the rest of the time he spends insulting everyone in sight, which does include exploiting his own audience members. with the exception of south park, drawn together, and Friday night stand-up, this show marks the end of the chappelle's show glory days, which for those of you who haven't heard, was before he went to Africa.$LABEL$ 0
+Directed by Jim Wynorski (Chopping Mall, Return of the Swamp Thing), Cheerleader Massacre is the fourth installment in the Slumber Party Massacre series. Just think about it: it's the fourth chapter of a slasher series that no one really cares about! So how could this even be good? Well, it's not! But since when did slasher films have to be good? Cheerleader Massacre is entertaining, that's for sure. But in the entertainment field, we've seen better, that's for sure too! As you can see, I'm not sure about where I stand concerning this movie. Those who watch slashers only for nudity will be more than satisfied. This movie's all boobs, but unfortunately no blood, or not enough. I think I'm being generous with this movie because I had a good time watching it and I really enjoy watching slasher movies, even as bad as they sometimes are. If you want me to be sincere, The Slumber Party Massacre Part 1 is the best one and all the others are a waste of time, so I guess I have a lot of time to waste!! For more fun, watch Sleepaway Camp 2 and Cheerleader Camp.$LABEL$ 0
+Well, I fear that my review of this special won't heed much different observation than the others before me, but I literally just watched it- during a PBS membership drive- and frankly I'm too excited NOT to say anything. To really appreciate the enigma that is Barbra Streisand, you have to look back before the movies. Before the Broadway phenomenon of the mid-60's. When television was still a young medium, there was a form of entertainment very prominent on the air that is but a memory today: musical variety. Some musical shows were weekly series, but others were single, one-time specials, usually showcasing the special talent of the individual performer. This is where we get the raw, uninhibited first looks at Streisand. She had already been a guest performer on other variety shows including Garry Moore, Ed Sullivan, and scored a major coup in a one-time only tandem appearance with the woman who would pass her the baton of belter extraordinary: Judy Garland. In 1966, COLOR ME BARBRA introduced Barbra Streisand in color (hence the title), but copied the format of her first special a year earlier almost to the letter. In 3 distinct acts, we get an abstract Streisand (in an after-hours art museum looking at and sometimes becoming the works of art), a comic Streisand working an already adoring audience in a studio circus (populated with many fuzzy and furry animals), and best of all, a singing Streisand in mini-concert format just-- well, frankly, just doing it. It amazes me that she still had the film debut of FUNNY GIRL yet to come, as well as turns as songwriter, director, and political activist. Here, she is barely 24 years old, doing extraordinary things because, as she puts it in her own on-camera introduction, 'we didn't know we couldn't, so we did.' The art museum sequence is shot in Philadelphia over one weekend immediately after the museum closed to the public on Saturday evening, and apparently done with only ONE color camera. Yet there are cuts, dissolves, and tracking shots galore, resulting in one rather spectacular peak moment-- the modern, slightly beatnik-flavored, "Gotta Move." After getting lost amongst the modern abstracts, jazz-club bongos begin, with Streisand emerging in a psychedelic gown and glittering eye makeup, doing the catchy staccato tune with almost androgynous sex appeal. It is not until Act 3, believe it or not, that the moment is matched or bettered by another feat: in the concert sequence, in a white gown and pearl earrings, Streisand recites the torchy "Any Place I Hang My Hat is Home," tearing into the final notes and revealing one of those climactic belts that makes you scream like a little girl even if you're 44 years old...and a guy. Just plain old great television. Check it out.$LABEL$ 1
+This three stooges flick is at a tie with my other favorite flick "Disorder in the Court". This is an uproar of laughter for any Three Stooges fan to enjoy.The boys are janitors at a recording studio when they hear the lovely Christine McIntyre sings a great version of "Voices of Spring". She is going to be offered a record deal, but she is scarred to be honest with her father about her choice of a career and prove herself as a real singer. When she and the others leave the studio, the stooges decide to have a little fun and play her record and dress Curly up as Christine. The contract lady who can make Christine's career, sees Curly and mistakes him for Christine and invites Curly to sing for her party. Of course there is a man that they have upset that is at the party and they destroy his solo in front of the crowd, so he'll find a way to get back at them.What a great stooge flick, this should not be missed! 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+A disturbing film, this, climaxing, as it does, with an intensely intimate reunion between a naked man and his young son, but in its confused structure it contains a poetically imagined visual exploration of the innocence of an idealised amnesiac.The plot follows two threads, the weaker of which is the gradual revelation of Graham/Pablo's condition. Wound through this, though, is a beautiful description of his condition, and his meandering path towards a partial awakening, driven by his affair with Irene.The affair is the strong thread, while the specifics of the plot are carried by a seemingly tacked on collection of characters: Graham's best friend, who can reveal the cause of his condition in a clunking flashback, his manipulative boss and his comic book mad scientist psychologist: all of whom have an interest in keeping him lost and dependent.The failure of the film lies in the conflict between the two threads. One is visual, meandering and sublime, while the other is structured like an inept thriller, all expository dialogue and unresolved patterns of symbolism.Nevertheless, I enjoyed Novo. It keeps flirting with the abyss of taboo and shying away into something beautiful, as in the quarry, with the double bassist and the two women, when a setup for a scene of cheap pornography becomes a segment of peace and rejuvenation. I still don't get the tooth, though.Odd, clunky and a narrative failure, but with an almost redeeming beauty.$LABEL$ 0
+This is an entertaining "history" of the FBI, but it should be viewed as fiction, because that's exactly what it is. What else could it be when J. Edgar Hoover personally approved and had a cameo role in the production. James Stewart is excellent, as usual, and the supporting cast, except for the talentless Vera Miles, is good. Murray Hamilton is especially good in a supporting role as Stewart's partner and best friend. The FBI accomplishments that the film highlights are undoubtedly all true. What is significant is what it leaves out.One of the most shameful parts of the film is the depiction of the killing of John Dillinger. It is portrayed pretty much as it happened, but no mention at all is made of Melvin Purvis, the Chicago Bureau Chief who headed the operation. Instead, the operation is depicted as if the fictional Chip Hardesty were running it. It has been said that Hoover was jealous of the publicity that Purvis received after Dillinger was killed; Purvis was subsequently transferred to a remote outpost, and shortly afterward left the FBI. This is no doubt why Purvis was never mentioned in the film. But this viewer, at least, paused to think that if Purvis was treated this way, what about all the agents who conducted all the other operations depicted in the film. Were they also completely ignored and replaced by the fictional Hardesty.The film is probably accurate in its portrayal of FBI activity up through the end of WWII. However, after that point, the film would have us believe that the only threat facing the US came from international communism, which is no doubt what Hoover believed. Never mind the Mafia. Never mind the lynchings that were still going on in the South. Never mind that blacks were being intimidated to keep them from voting in much of the South. I don't know if the FBI had started wiretapping Martin Luther King by the time this film was made, but if not, it wasn't very long afterward that it started.As I said at the outset, this is pretty good entertainment, but it should be viewed as the sanitized fictionalization that it is.$LABEL$ 1
+Went to see this movie hoping to see some flashes of the Jet Li we were amazed by in Lethal Weapon 4. Unfortunately too many of his fight stunts are so clearly fake that it took even that enjoyment out of it. The flying kicks would be a lot more impressive if you couldn't see the wires holding him up as he flies through the air for 4 seconds and 9 kicks.Too cartoonish and very disappointing.$LABEL$ 0
+Wow! After the first five minutes of watching this "film", I was quite tempted to put a bullet in my brain, and end my life. It's really hard to describe what exactly this film is about. I honestly don't know what kind of human being would even finance a piece of excrement. The film looks to have either been shot on video or 16mm. I normally don't have a problem with SOV movies, are shoddily made 16mm films, but this was just so awful. And where did they find these "actresses"? I have seen some bad acting, but this takes the cake. Watch the first 5 minutes and you'll see what I mean. BCI Entertainment should be boycotted for distributing this god awful sludge. This has to be the worst film I have ever had the displeasure of viewing. I want my 74 minutes back! If you are able to sit through the first 5 minutes, without either shooting your TV or committing mass homicide, then give a shot. After all, what have you got to lose?$LABEL$ 0
+When I started watching 3 of the episodes of this series on the Action Channel,I have to say out of all the shows that I've seen that ADV released,this one is one of the best shows of all time. I had to see it again,and that's when I got my chance. I bought the entire box set of this series at Best Buy for my 20th Birthday. And I got to enjoy it,and see more of the episodes that I missed on Action Channel,and the same 3 episodes that I've seen. My favorite characters in this show are: Sylvia,Leon,and Nigel. The animation in this series was the best,and the hard suits were cool as well. But the show also has a great voice cast like:Chris Patton,Jason Douglas,Christine Auten,and Hillary Haag,and more. So if you like this show on Action Channel,then you have to own it on DVD. It's the best,and you will see what I mean.$LABEL$ 1
+When anyone comes into a film of this type of film it's not without saying that an overdose of that great over-the-counter brain-medicine, Suspension of Disbelief, comes in mighty handy.Jeanette MacDonald plays two roles: Anna/Brigitta, the woman who Nelson Eddy has ignored since the beginning of time, but who also is -- an angel sent to Earth.My reaction when I saw this was a mute gasp of "Hunh?" Where have I seen this before? It turns out, I have seen it before, but in a movie made much later than this one. DATE WITH AN ANGEL, a forgettable pile of dreck made in 1987, cashed in on the ethereal beauty of one Emmanuelle Beart who had no speaking lines, also wore a blond wig, and made life hell for soap-actor Michael Knight. Much worse in every conceivable angle with ultra-low 80s values but more than likely an updated version of this 1942 turkey.Anyway, not to elaborate, this is not a memorable film and stands as a doorstop of information because it was the last time MacDonald and Eddy, neither very good actors but terrific singers, would be together playing up the "innocence" and "clean-cut" romance that they were known for. After that you may need a cold shower, not because there are any steamy scenes here, but to get rid of the memory.$LABEL$ 0
+To be honest I watched this movie only because of my pubert needs. I mean, I couldn't get women at my age (I was 9 or 10) so I thought watching Elvira's cleavage was the closet thing to sex.I ended up having a great time with this cult classic about horror comedy, Halloween parties, sassy humor, and some sexy evil displayed by Elvira.They just don't make movies like this anymore... It had the feeling of an amateur effort mixed with a late night cable talk show host style. The truth is that it generated plenty of fans because of it's humor and the ability to perform by Cassandra. This is classic that reminds me of the good days of USA Up All Night.$LABEL$ 1
+Seriously! You've just got to see this movie to understand everything that is wrong with it. It came out during the time period where everybody was trying to make family movies that everyone could enjoy (The little rascals; Mr. Nanny, etc.) yet it lacked any charisma or enthusiasm. Every single character in the movie is driven by rage, with the exception of Trixie's mother, who shows only aggravation and weariness, possibly at the tired cliché's this movie enjoys. To put it simply, the biggest flaw in the film was not the acting, nor the filming, but most notably the writing. The lines we receive are reminiscent of Disney classics, although this film lacks the whole-heartedness IL' Walt managed to pull off. Junior's Dad, (John Ritter) makes you mad without even doing anything, simply because he allows Junior to run around unsupervised, and only gives him a stern warning when he tapes a 200-pound behemoth to a chalk board. Also, Junior's grandfather is particularly excruciating. For those of you who saw the first one, found it nauseating, and thus, did not see the second one, "Big Ben Healy" as he is referred to in this movie, is still a total douche. He basically barges into John Ritter's house uninvited, settles himself in Junior's room, even though he says that he hates Junior, and basically does nothing to accelerate the film's speed, or to support the film in any way. Rather, he ticks off the audience by being a lazy free loader.Finally, we are introduced to a wide variety of new characters, such as the smug, obnoxious, Trixie, who carries dynamite in her backpack, which she first lights, then hands, to Junior, who simply stares wide eyed at. Also, Gilbert Gottfried returns in this film, this time playing the obnoxious principal at Junior's new elementary school. If Gilbert Gottfried ain't enough to get the point across, I will put it simply: This film reeks!2/10 stars, because the actor's convictions shine through the film, even though the script sucks.$LABEL$ 0
+Nothing could be more appealing than the idea of a good love story featuring Kristin Scott Thomas and Harrison Ford. The cool, refined English beauty and the warm-blooded American male -- what could possibly be more lovely? Well, this is not that movie. Right away they ruin it by casting Kristin Scott Thomas as an American Congresswoman. That's like casting Hugh Grant as Babe Ruth. Or Colin Firth as Al Capone. Kristin Scott Thomas is exactly the sort of woman you don't picture shaking hands with greasy ex-junkies in filthy slums, or squeezing into smelly crowds and kissing babies. She would have been far better cast as the English born widow of an aristocratic Senator, the kind who belongs to the hunt club and goes to flower shows but has no idea how the other half lives.Then there's Harrison Ford as a regular guy cop. Certainly he's tough enough for the role. But the idea that he's going to romance this stunning high society beauty is a bit hard to swallow. Why couldn't he have been, say, a tough but wealthy reform politician with blue-collar roots who inherits Kristin's late husband's Senate seat? The two of them are initially quite cool to each other, but for duty's sake Kristin is cordial to him, and he in return starts showing her some of the rawer side of life -- things her husband sheltered her from. Her political awakening coincides with the jolting passion of a newer, more blue collar, lover -- one who appreciates her polish and refinement far more than her aristocratic husband. Now that's a love story! Instead of that, though, you get a blank, meaningless "thriller" where the action drags and nothing happens. Well, there is one ghetto style "drive by" scene where Harrison almost gets killed, but it's so abrupt and unexplained it's really more like welcome comic relief.The sky is always gray in this movie, and our refined, lovely Kristin always looks a little chilled. When she's supposed to be dreaming of passion, she looks more like she's dreaming of a wool blanket and a cup of tea! She also looks a bit sleepy most of the time, like she'd really rather be napping in the bed than screwing Harrison Ford.All things considered, I'd say you can't blame her.$LABEL$ 0
+OK, yes I know I'm a Philistine, and I have no knowledge of, nor love for opera. I readily admit that I might feel differently about this film if I did. But I don't. So, for those of you like me, skip this one unless you want to look at the pretty (sometimes unclothed) girls. For what it's worth, I thought the first segment with Theresa Russell (who I didn't recognize) was the best of the lot.$LABEL$ 0
+"Lies" tells about an affair between an 18 year old bucktoothed female student and a scrawny 38 year old married man with the pair of protags spending about half the screen time engaged in naked sex and hokey whipping and the other half meandering through the pathetically naive storyline which seems little more than an excuse for the sex scenes. With very poor production value including obvious sanitary appliances and phony softcore sex to a story which is a messy mix of comedy and drama, "Lies" quickly becomes redundant ad nauseam. With an almost 2 hour run, subtitles, and so little substance, "Lies" is simply not recommendable. (C-)$LABEL$ 0
+Honestly, I was expecting to HATE this one, and really only checked it out because Jenna Jameson is in it...but I have to say I got a kick out of EVIL BREED. A group of college kids and their teacher go on a "field trip" to Ireland. Their lodgings are located near the woods where it is rumored that strange things happen and tourists often disappear without a trace. The group of post-teens is warned by the property's caretaker not to venture into the woods - but being the stupid B-movie characters that they are - of course they pay no attention and pay for their mistake one-by-one... First off, there is plenty wrong with EVIL BREED. The acting/dialog is pretty weak, and my major gripe is that a film that has Jenna Jameson, Chasey Lain, Ginger Lynn, and Taylor Hayes should have FAR more gratuitous nudity than was on display here - and Jenna's role in this production is grossly over-hyped, as she has a combined total of about 2 minutes of screen time. Even less with Chasey, and Ginger Lynn shows no skin and has the worst Irish accent ever. Also the last scene of the film makes absolutely no sense and feels like it's thrown in just to end the film. Those gripes aside - there is some good stuff as well. Richard Greico and Chasey Lain are both dispatched early on, with Greico's nude torso ending up on a roasting spit and Chasey's guts hanging out from being torn in half (though how she ends up this way isn't shown on-screen)...not bad for the first 5 minutes. The other kill scenes are pretty inventive, including Jenna's forced breast implant removal, a guy getting his colon pulled out through his ass, a knife through the face, and a few other notables. The implant and colon scenes also have uncut versions that are on the special features and it's a shame the producers made them chop 'em, so to speak. Also the film moves along at a pretty good clip once it gets moving so you don't really have too much time to be bored. The "creature" FX are also done competently which definitely helps. Overall, EVIL BREED was not NEARLY as bad as I expected. This one, along with SATAN'S LITTLE HELPER have ALMOST renewed my interest in American low-budget straight-to-video films. I usually steer clear of them as a whole, but these two have been decent enough to give me some faith. EVIL BREED is no masterpiece, but it is a decent way to blow 90 minutes - might not hurt to suck on a bottle of cheap bourbon while you're at it - I know I was, and I'm sure it didn't hurt the experience. 7.5/10$LABEL$ 1
+Directed by Brian De Palma and written by Oliver Stone, "Scarface" is a movie that will not be forgotten. A Cuban refugee named Tony Montana (Pacino) comes to America for the American Dream. Montana then becomes the "king" in the drug world as he ruthlessly runs his empire of crime in Miami, Florida. This gangster movie is very violent, and some scenes are unpleasant to watch. This movie has around 180+ F-words and is almost three hours long. This movie is entertaining and you will never get bored. You cheer for the Drug-lord, and in some scenes you find out that Montana isn't as evil as some other Crime Lords. This is a masterpiece and i recommend that you see this. You will not be disappointed. 9/10$LABEL$ 1
+The cinema of the 60s was as much as time of revolution as the politics and the music. Filmmakers were daring to make avant-garde films discussing taboo subjects only permitted before in exploitation films. Starting with both "Breathless" and underground American cinema (such as Kenneth Anger), films became more and more experimental. All of this accumulated when Hollywood realized they had mass commercial appeal with "Easy Rider". One of the best (and most surprising) outputs of this era was also one of the least successful initially. "Head" was made when The Monkees career was seriously waning, which is what damned one of the best psychedelic films ever made.The plot? Well, there really isn't one, as many have said. It involves The Monkees going from one surreal scenario to the next one. However, these sequences are all obviously LSD-tinged and basically mock how The Monkees were sick of being confined to their light pre-fab reputation. Its a shame that the film found no audience. The teeny boppers who loved them had moved onto a new fad as they always do. The psychedelic / Haight-Ashbury crowd to whom the film was garnered would never be caught dead at a Monkees movie. Its all their loss. This film may be plot less, but it is certainly not without meaning and is very intelligently put together. The crew later made both "Easy Rider" and "Five Easy Pieces". The film was later revived at a 1973 Raybert retrospective and it gained a very positive response, which granted it the cult following it had deserved for a long time. Ironically, The Monkees would fall victim to the same commercialism they protested in this film with their later 80s reunion. (10/10)$LABEL$ 1
+Although it has been off the air for 6 years now, Promised Land was one of those shows that comes along once or twice in a generation. Good cast, supporting cast(among them, Richard Thomas and Ossie Davis) and crew. The plot is believable with McRaney packing up his family and just saying "to hell with it all" after being subjected to so many disappointments and incidents since his return from Vietnam years earlier. I think a lot of Vietnam-era veterans, myself included, could really relate to McRaney's thought process in finally deciding on his course of action. Many of us did precisely the same thing in real life, after returning from that war and finding that America was not the same place we left. The show imparts not only values but a glimpse into what took place in one veterans life. In those two respects alone, I think it is one of the more poignant TV series of our time. Why this program only ran for 3 years is beyond me.$LABEL$ 1
+Spooks is enjoyable trash, featuring some well directed sequences, ridiculous plots and dialogue, and some third rate acting.Many have described this is a UK version of "24", and one can see the similarities. The American version shares the weak silly plots, but the execution is so much slicker, sexier and I suspect, expensive.Some people describe weak comedy as "gentle comedy". This is gentle spy story hour, the exact opposite of anything created by John Le Carre.Give me Smiley any day.$LABEL$ 0
+AG was an excellent presentation of drama, suspense and thriller that is so rare to American TV. Sheriff Lucas gave many a viewer the willies. We rooted for Caleb as he strove to resist the overtures of Sheriff Lucas. We became engrossed and fearful upon learning of the unthinkable connection between these two characters. The manipulations which weekly gave cause to fear what Lucas would do next were truly surprising. This show lived up to the "Gothic" moniker in ways American entertainment has so seldom attempted, much less mastered. The suits definitely made a big mistake in not supporting this show. This show puts shame to the current glut of "reality" shows- which are so less than satisfying viewing.The call for a DVD box set is well based. This show is quality viewing for a discerning market hungry for quality viewing. A public that is tiring of over-saturation of mind-numbing reality fare will welcome this gem of real storytelling. Bring on the DVD box set!!$LABEL$ 1
+"Pitch Black" was a complete shock to me when I first saw it back in 2000. In the previous years, I was repeatedly disappointed by all the lame sci-fi movies (Ex: STARSHIP TROOPERS) and thought that this movie wouldn't be any different. But to plainly put it: This movie freaked me out... in a good way. I wasn't aware that I was still afraid of the dark till I watched this movie; I must have buried my fear in the back of my subconscious when I was a kid and it rightfully deserves to stay there.The alien creatures sent shivers up my spine; the individual(s) who designed them have a twisted but brilliant and creative imagination to come up with something so impressive and grotesque. I loved how the writers gave each main character a history and showed their flaws and strengths without much confusion.Riddick's (Vin Diesel) gift for escaping out of any impossible situation and putting up a hell of a fight was jaw dropping. At first, you figure him out to be a coldly intelligent villain but in some brief moments, you can see something humane behind his animal side. But as soon you discover it, he does something maliciously devious. He certainly keeps you guessing right up to the very end. I didn't know whether to despise or admire him... he's definitely a love/hate type of character.Johns (Cole Hauser) was a perfect example of a character that puts up a good front but through a need for greed, shows his real intentions and what he's willing to do to survive. John's knack for knowing what buttons to push and the right words to say makes him as devious as Riddick.Fry (Radha Mitchell) is a character who, as Johns so nicely expressed, looked to her thine own ass first before considering the consequences. But what's endearing about her is that she quickly realizes the errors of her ways and tries desperately to pay penance, even while endangering her life when others discarded all human values and went for the dark hills running.Jack (Rhiana Griffith) simply wanted to have a hero and was the first one out of the whole group to look for that hero in Riddick; through a child's eye, good can be seen through the thick clouds of evil. I thought it was absolutely priceless when Jack shaves his head in ode to Riddick; you know what they say: Imitation is the best form of flattery.Imam (Keith David), like Jack, has the ability to see good in any evil. He uses philosophy to carry him through the hardships that he meets and when time permits, he rationally grieves his losses and then soldiers on. In a way, he served as a morale booster for the survivors even though most of the characters acted as though they weren't listening.The casting for this movie was positively perfect. Each actor shined brightly in their role and their talents blended wonderfully on-screen.This movie may have had a small budget but the director's leadership and the actor's performances made the movie work and allowed the audience to use their imagination instead of letting some outrageously expensive Special Effects do all the work for them. This movie is a definite Sci-Fi classic. Watch it and judge (with an open mind) for yourself. It will be well worth it.$LABEL$ 1
+I've seen a lot of movies in my time and this one really stands out as being the absolute worst movie ever made in the history of film making anywhere in the world. It took me 3 efforts to watch this movie. The first time I fell asleep after 15 minutes from boredom, possibly because I was already tired as it was late at night. The second effort I managed to get through 35 minutes but yet again I found myself asleep. I can go on and on like this but I think you're getting the point......nothing happens ever in this movie. A complete waste of time and money. This movie really sucks. Watch it and you will know what I am talking about. If you can get 40 minutes into this movie without shaking your head and wondering what the hell is the point of it all then you are indeed a masochist. The only reason I gave this movie a 1 out of 10 is because 0 was not provided as an option. I just thought the world needed to be warned before either hiring or worse yet...buying this trash. LATER!$LABEL$ 0
+This movie has everything going for it: Fully developed characters, a realistic portrayal of working Washington, bathed in warmth and humor that is uniquely Albert Brooks. The dumbing down of network news is even more of an issue now than it was in 1987. Remember, this was pre-cable! So satisfying to care about complex people attempting to achieve complex goals -- and it all moves along with lightning speed. Such a true to life depiction of friendships that teeter toward romance. See if you can spot John Cusack as the angry messenger! And do you recognize Peter Hackes from real life Broadcast News? Finally, if you're from DC, see if you agree with Holly Hunter's directions to cab drivers!$LABEL$ 1
+I've been studying Brazilian cinema since 2004, when I stumbled onto "Cidade de Deus / City of God". Let me tell you something, this movie is probably as good or BETTER than "City of God".The acting, cinematography and music supervision make this movie a unique experience. I have not been to Brazil yet, but this movie presents the harsh reality that is beset before the citizens of São Paulo.I recommend this movie if you enjoy good cinema. This movie is disturbing and you may feel a bit despondent after watching it.Something you want to watch, but nothing you want to go to sleep on.$LABEL$ 1
+This was very good, except for two things which I'll mention at the end. The animation is great, highlighted by Nick Park and company's trademark of exaggerated teeth and mouths of the characters, which make you laugh almost every time you see someone. The color was magnificent, too.The best part of the film, however, is the clever comedy woven throughout. This is another of these animated films in which there is so much to see and hear each frame that it would require many viewings to catch all the gags. It's just a funny exaggerated look at the oddball "Wallace" and his silent-and-smart dog "Gromit." Along the way, it pokes fun people who get carried away with their vegetable gardens, something akin to how the obsessive dog lovers were pictured in "Best Of Show."My only complaints were two typical traits of today's films, animated or not: 1 - let's make the cleric in the film look like a total idiot; 2 - let's overdo the final action scene with the predictable result but way overdone. Those aside, this is still a very amusing film that should provide a lot of laughs to many people and a movie to enjoy multiple times.$LABEL$ 1
+One wonders why this picture was made at all : the plot as such is totally unbelievable if not ridiculous, the characters (experienced loner cop versus younger one, quite fascinated) quite predictable, the ending totally murky and impossible to understand (maybe after several viewings but you'd have to have a masochistic tendency for that ; the idea being you have to read the book to understand fully what it's all about)and the acting is bad. Was the basic idea to show that French film makers are able to do as well as Americans in the genre that include "Seven" and "Silence of the lambs" ? If so, it is a total failure. It was quite a success though (and has a sort of cult-status as the first French serial killer film)and, it seems, considered as a good product to export. Strange.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this one at Sundance, and I can't figure out why it won the directing award. It was painfully slow and literally colorless. It's the type of movie that is only appreciated by film fest snobs who think any movie that a lot of people like must be beneath them.The jury at Sundance this year seemed to be making a conscious effort to reward the underdog, ultra-low-budget films. That's all well and good, but this wandering, dragging mess looks like a home movie. Mini-DV shot in a snow-covered gray winter results in a drab look for a drab movie.Certain motifs (snakes) are beaten to death in spite of the fact that they add nothing to the story and make no sense as symbols.Now, it wasn't all bad. Vera Farmiga is phenomenal in her role as a mother with a drug problem. She will be going places, and she deserves it. Her co-star Hugh Dillon also does a fine job. Frankly, there are many fine moments in this movie, but they just don't fit together very well.$LABEL$ 0
+James Cameron's 'Titanic' is essentially a romantic adventure with visual grandeur and magnificence, a timeless tragic love story set against the background of this major historical event... It's an astonishing movie that exemplifies hope, love and humanity... Leonardo DiCaprio is terrific on screen with big charisma... Conveying passion, trust, insouciance and ingenuity, he's a free-spirited wanderer with artistic pretensions, and a zest for life... Kate Winslet is absolutely lovely as the confused upper-class teen engaged to a nasty rich guy who finds herself, one night, plunged to the depths of despair...Billy Zane is an arrogant racist, abusive and ultra rich who would lie, cheat, steal, bribe with money or even use an innocent young child to escape defeat... He keeps a 56 carat blue diamond worn by Louis XVI...Kathy Bates is the legendary unsinkable Molly Brown, the richest woman in Denver, who is a lot less uptight than the other rich folk on the ship...Frances Fisheris is the impecunious cold snobbish mother who, deathly afraid of losing her social stature, forces her daughter to become engaged to marry a rich, supercilious snob...Victor Garber is the master shipbuilder, the real-life character who attempts to fix time, to measure it, in a sense, to make it into history... Jonathan Hyde is the White Star Chairman who wants the Titanic to break the Trans-Atlantic speed record, in spite of warnings that icebergs may have floated into the hazardous northern crossing...Bill Paxton is the opportunistic undersea explorer in search for a very rare diamond called the "Heart of the Ocean." Gloria Stuart is the 101-year old woman who reveals a never-before told love story... The nightmare, the horror and the shock are imprinted upon her deeply lined face... 'Titanic' is loaded with luminous photography and sweeping visuals as the footage of the shipwrecked Ocean liner lying motionless on the ocean floor; the incredible transformation of the bow of the sunken 'Titanic' that takes the viewer back to 1912, revealing the meticulously re-created interiors; the first sight of the Titanic steamed steadily toward her date with destiny; the Titanic, leaving the Southampton dock, and some dolphins appear jumping, racing along in front of the luxurious ship; DeCaprio and Winslet flying at the ship's front rail in a gorgeous magic moment; the intertwining of past and present as Jack was drawing Rose on his paper, the camera zooms closely on young Rose's eye, only to transform its shape into Gloria Stuart's aged eye...Chilling scenes: Titanic's inevitable collision with destiny; James Cameron—in one of the most terrifying sequences ever put on film— takes us down with the Titanic, finally leaving us floundering in the icy water, screaming for help that never comes...Winner of 11 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, James Cameron's "Titanic" is a gigantic epic where you don't just watch the film, you experience it! The visual effects are amazing, like no other film's... The decor is overwhelming... James Horner's music intensifies the emotions... The whole movie is hunting and involving, filled with a wide range of deep feelings... It's truly a moving tribute to those who lost their lives on that unfortunate ship...$LABEL$ 1
+one of the funnest mario's i've ever played. the levels are creative, there are fluid controls, and good graphics for its time. there's also a multitude of crazy bosses and enemies to fight. Sometimes the levels get frustrating, and if you leave out some of the hard levels and still, need to get more accomplished to fight a boss, it can be annoying. another complaint is the camera angle; though it works fairly well most of the time, it can be a pain in certain situations. if your a big time mario fan; this ones for you. even if your not a huge fan of him, i'd still recommend this one. its a big game, and getting what you need can take a while, but it's very satisfying. good for playing in short bursts of time. it will almost certainly hold your interest; it sure does hold mine!$LABEL$ 1
+I started watching the show from the first season, and at the beginning I was pretty skeptical about it. Original movie was kind of childish, and I was just looking for some sci-fi show while waiting for the BSG new season.But after few episodes I became a fan. I've loved the characters - the not-so-stupid-as-you-think-he-is Jack O'Neill, the not-only-smart Samantha Carter, the glorious Teal'c, women and kids favorite, and brilliant Dr. Daniel Jackson.Of course, stories sometimes not serious, sometimes even ridiculous, but mostly it's not about technology or space fighting - it's about helping your friend, even risking your life for him. It's about "we don't leave anybody behind". Struggling to the end when all hope is lost. About the free will, and all good qualities that makes a human - Human.And now it's breaking a record, going 10th season, and still doing good.$LABEL$ 1
+I have been searching for the right words to describe this film. At first I was inclined to simply skip to more significant matters, as the film does not rise to a level deserving comment.Yet, I stopped, puzzled as to how to describe such stuff and somewhat intrigued by the challenge presented by the question: "What can one say about such a film?" Rubbish? No, its not rubbish, rubbish can be recycled into something useful. Greenhouse gas? No, its not greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases help plants grow large and healthy.Finally, I struck on "Not even bad," a rework of the phrase "Not even wrong" used sometimes in theoretical physics to describe a theory that is hopelessly flawed and not even worthy of correction. That's it then, Georgia Rule: Not even bad.$LABEL$ 0
+One of my favorite villains, the Evil Princess is just the perfect villain for this movie. Full of space travel, horses, diamonds, mystical characters, colorful backgrounds, evil characters, etc etc. Very bright, full of action, you will not get bored. Great movie!$LABEL$ 1
+I knew nothing about this film until I watched it... my brother in fact suggested I take a look. Normally, his suggestions aren't much cop however, but I was stuck for something to watch so I watched it.Well, to cut a long story short, I give it 10/10.The film centers around two people, that meet whilst lodging at the same place. One is initially very dependant upon the institution around him, the other is a rebel. One does what he likes, the other as he's told.From the first moments of the film we quickly see the friendship between the two building, and see how they rub off a little on each other. It's a remarkable piece of work, that manages to tell a good story without twist upon twist, people leaping out of bath tubs, or superheros coming to save the day.There's a fair amount of grit and reality in there, not everything can ever go just right - not all gulfs can ever be spanned - and this film delightfully shows the lot.If you watch this film, and are not impressed..... I'd suggest that you don't watch anything again.$LABEL$ 1
+Father and son communicate very little. IN fact they speak different languages. BUt when the son drives his father 3000 miles for his pilgrimage's to Mecca, the conversations finally take place. they are difficult and growth is necessary on both parts.This movie takes us into the hearts of these two travelers, and it is indeed a grand voyage for the audience as well as the two principals. The imagery throughout is impressive, especially the final scenes in Mecca. It underlines for me once again how much different the world can be, but also at the same time, how similar. The same was true for the father and son in this film.See this movie. Tell your friends to see it. You'll be glad you did.$LABEL$ 1
+Bela Lugosi is a real enigma. In the early 1930s, he was on top of the world after appearing in Dracula. Yet, again and again, he made lousy decisions regarding his career. Perhaps he had a bad agent, perhaps his drinking and drug use had a part in it or maybe he was just crazy. Regardless, he ruined his reputation by appearing in pretty much any film--ranging from excellent horror films (such as THE RAVEN) to big-budget flicks (like NINOTCHKA) to grade-Z flicks for the cheapest and shoddiest of studios. Interestingly enough, although he agreed to do this terrible film, he actually turned down the role that later went to Boris Karloff in FRANKENSTEIN! As for this movie, it is a very silly an horridly produced WWII propaganda film that featured a dumb plot and wretched editing. Lugosi spends much of the movie murdering saboteurs--not a bad thing at all. But at the end, we find out that he is himself a Nazi plastic surgeon and all the American-looking men he killed were actually Japanese!!!! The funniest part of this is during a flashback. You see Lugosi talking to a group of Japanese men before he changes them to American-like men. When the camera scans them, the men are clearly Asian. But, on all the other non-close-up shots, they are all VERY Western looking--many with bald heads!! They looked absolutely NOTHING like Japanese men. I suspect the plot must have undergone a re-write and this might account for the obvious mistake. Or, it could just be shoddy production values and editing. In fact, early in the film, they show a street scene in the city and all the cars (circa 1942) are old Model T Fords--obviously from stock footage!!! The bottom line is that the film is bad but also very dull. Unlike PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, it's hard to laugh at the ineptitude--just be put to sleep by it.$LABEL$ 0
+Paul Reiser steps away from the standup comedy spotlight to write a warmly humorous and gently tender story about family - what we see and what we don't see, what we expect and what surprises us. THE THING ABOUT MY FOLKS doesn't set any new standards for film, but it is a fine little story well told that reminds us about the significant bonds that family represents.Sam Kleinman (Peter Falk) has been a workaholic, at times pushing his wife Muriel (Olympia Dukakis), his daughters (Mackenzie Connolly and Lydia Jordan), and his son Ben (Paul Reiser) into the background. One day Muriel leaves a note that after years of marriage she is leaving! Her daughters, along with Ben's wife Rachel (Elizabeth Perkins) immediately begin the search for her whereabouts, leaving the confused and hurt and disgruntle Sam to sort things out on a road trip with son Ben. The road trip becomes a time for the two men to learn who each other is and what they each mean to their status as father and son and as family members. Sam relaxes for the first time in his life and introduces the now workaholic Ben to the pleasures and fun of living. The trip comes to an end with a phone call about the whereabouts of Muriel and why she left and the regrouping of the wiser family draws the story's warm ending. All is not what it seemed: it's better and, well, different.Falk and Reiser play off each other like the pros they are, but in many ways the film belongs to the brief moments when Olympia Dukakis is on screen, reminding us that she is one of our strongest matriarchs on film. Well worth viewing. Grady Harp$LABEL$ 1
+1st watched 7/19/2003 - 1 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Ridiculously lame 3D movie which pretty much follows the plots of many 80's teen slasher flicks. Stupid kids go to a known murderous camp site, become hunted by an unknown masked man, and then we try to figure out who, if anyone, is going to live. We really don't care who's behind the mask but even that's not hard to figure out if you've seen any of these kinds of movies. What a waste of a 3D viewer despite somewhat decent 3D effects.$LABEL$ 0
+I won't waste a whole lot of time of this one because as far as I'm concerned it isn't really a movie to start with, just a careless mish-mash of borrowed footage and embarrassingly amateurish new footage made solely for the purpose of pasting the whole mess together and call it a "Boogeyman" sequel. Literally 80% of this film is stolen from its far superior predecessor "The Boogeyman", a film that the writers of this garbage apparently didn't even bother to watch because they couldn't even get actress Suzanna Love's original character's name (Lacy) right. And to add insult to injury the killer is invisible in the original footage and visible in the new footage, apparently they think their audience is as stupid as they are. 0 out of 10 and I wish IMDb's rating system went that low, the most callous and blatant attempt to rip off people's money I've even seen, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!$LABEL$ 0
+I think this movie deserves a 10 out of 10 because it is hilariously funny from start to finish. The plot is simple and straight forward but it keeps you watching and there are so many laughs that you really start to love it. When I went to see this movie I hadn't heard much about it and I didn't know what to expect. I thought it was going to be an old ladies' type of film like Calendar Girls or something but it took me completely by surprise. Even though I am still a teenager and the film was probably not directed at my age group, I still found it excellent and I think that people of all age groups would like it. I think it is a shame that it is not at all famous and it deserves more publicity so that more people will go and see it and realize what a great movie it is.$LABEL$ 1
+'Don't Look In the Basement' is so easy to knock but the truth is simply that Brownrigg is one of Horrors real underground stars and IMHO is vastly overdue some proper recognition. 'Don't' is his undisputed masterpiece. This scummy psychodrama snags the viewer straightaway into such an odd, disjointed, claustrophobic world of sweating insanity you have no real idea what the hell is going on. It succeeds in making you feel strangely dirty, just plain grubby, for Brownrigg's world is this mad, unwashed, scummy prison cell of rants, obsessions and all shades of mental illness. And he uses his low budget palette to wrap his grot blanket around you like a bad memory. There is just something so beautifully odd about the whole damn thing. In a word, classic.... Also, if you watch 'Don't' first then you will have some idea of the insane psychodrama style that marks Brownrigg's other films. In summary they really don't come any more esoteric than this - well, actually they do, track down Brownrigg's 'Keep My Grave Open'. Mad genius. Accept no substitute.$LABEL$ 1
+Vijay Krishna Acharya's 'Tashan' is a over-hyped, stylized, product. Sure its a one of the most stylish films, but when it comes to content, even the masses will reject this one. Why? The films script is as amateur as a 2 year old baby. Script is king, without a good script even the greatest director of all-time cannot do anything. Tashan is produced by the most successful production banner 'Yash Raj Films' and Mega Stars appearing in it. But nothing on earth can save you if you script is bland. Thumbs down! Performances: Anil Kapoor, is a veteran actor. But how could he okay a role like this? Akshay Kumar is great actor, in fact he's the sole saving grace. Kareena Kapoor has never looked so hot. She looks stunning and leaves you, all stand up. Saif Ali Khan doesn't get his due in here. Sanjay Mishra, Manoj Phawa and Yashpal Sharma are wasted.'Tashan' is a boring film. The films failure at the box office, should you keep away.$LABEL$ 0
+This review contains spoilers for those who are not aware of the details of the true story on which this movie is based.The right to be presumed "Innocent until proven guilty" is a basic entitlement of anyone in a civilised society; but according to Fred Schepisi's partisan but sadly convincing story of a famous Australian murder trial, it was not granted to Lindy Chamberlain, accused of killing her baby. The story suggesting her innocence was unlikely (a dingo was alleged to have taken it), but those implying her guilt even more so, and there was no solid evidence against her. But the Australian public was transfixed by the possibility of her guilt, and the deeply religious Chamberlains appeared creepy when appearing in the media (and the media themselves, of course, were anything but innocent in this process). So although cleared by an initial inquest, they were later prosecuted and convicted. Although Chamberlain was eventually released, this shamefully only followed the discovery of new evidence "proving" their innocence, something no defendants should have to produce.'A Cry in the Dark' is well acted throughout, especially by Meryl Streep, who puts on a convincing Australian accent (at least to this Pom's ears) and manages keep Lindy sympathetic (to us) while still conveying how she managed to become a national hate figure. The scenes where she actually gets imprisoned are simple but heartbreaking, because we believe in the characters as real. Regardless of the accuracy of its portrayal of this story (something I can't comment on), the wider theme of this film will ring horribly true to anyone with a passing knowledge of the British popular press and its ruthless habit of appealing directly to their readership's least charitable instincts. No legal system will ever be perfect; but the current cry against asylum seekers in contemporary British tabloids comes from exactly the same pit of evil as the voices that put Lindy Chamberlain away. I'm not a religious man, but the Bible still contains some killer lines (if you'll excuse the pun). "Judge not lest ye be judged" is one of them.$LABEL$ 1
+Probably encouraged by admirers of her much-better "Orlando", Potter here delivers a vehicle for herself in the worst way: she writes, directs, stars, and actually co-writes the music, including a mawkish love song. The film strongly resembles a high school or college project by a teenager convinced that her own intimate loves and melodramatic obsessions are as fascinating to us as to her. But Potter's character is as unsympathetic as the object of her romantic obsession is unlikable, and the whole film is an embarrassing display of narcissism masquerading as a celebration of the tango. Perhaps if she hadn't cast herself it might have worked. She just can't act, whether playing herself or not. Pretentious, over-ambitious, dull, and silly.$LABEL$ 0
+Has anyone else noticed that this version is basically a scene-by-scene remake of the 1933 version, with some of the scenes taken out? It makes me think less of a film that does that, showing a definite want of creativity. In all fairness, I tend to be biased in favor of Katharine Hepburn, but this version of the film seems like cinematic plagiarism. The 1933 version was nice and sweet, though a little awkward in presentation and transition at times, and then this version took the script, the music, and even a fair amount of the scene blocking from the earlier version. I don't understand the point of making the film again when the method of remaking it was to basically redo George Cukor's film with everything the same except the people working on it.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie (unfortunately) because it was the only option at that time and because David Zucker was the director. I saw his previous "Naked gun" (both parts), Airplane and Top secret!, and I liked, at least I had a good time and laughed. I'm not saying that the movies I mentioned were master pieces, but were OK. I don't recall any other more stupid movie than this. It's incredible how Hollywood industry is in total decadence. If some studio spends any money to produce this awful picture, then is not a surprise that this kind of histories are more common on these days. This is a clear reflect of a decadent civilization where sex symbols and stupid plots are produced to entertain the common people. I don't have any good to say about this film. If you are planning to rent it or buy it, please don't waste your money or your time, avoid it no matter what. Even if you are fan of one of the actors, does not worth it. In fact this could be a very good example of what a Director should avoid. I won't see a Zucker movie again. (He is planning to direct the fourth sequel of Scary movie, imagine that!). Pathetic. Awful.$LABEL$ 0
+When I was young, I'd get up early every Saturday morning not to watch cartoons but to turn on the local channel for what was called 'Kung Fu Theatre.' It wasn't as if these films were works of art. It wasn't as if these films all came from China, Japan, Korea, or any country in particular; if the story had to do with fighting – be it swordplay or fisticuffs – and if the fighting didn't resemble much of anything going on in any American gym class, then that was good enough. It wasn't as if they were really even very good. They were just great action flicks with incredibly over-dramatic music where the hero reaped his vengeance over a whole host of bad guys, and then the credits would roll."Sword in the Moon" is much like these films of my youth, arguably a bit of a thematic throwback given a welcome twist by muddying the characters up enough that it becomes increasingly difficult to tell the bad guys from the good.Yun (Cho Jae Hyun) is known throughout the kingdom as 'the human butcher.' He kills quickly and mercilessly on behalf of the Chun Dynasty, the chief bodyguard of an Emperor who spared his life and the life of his men in exchange for his service. However, an equally merciless rebel and his lovely sidekick appear in the countryside and start murdering imperial ministers, and Yun agrees to find these rebels and kill them. His task becomes one of personal discovery when he learns that the two rebels are Choi (a friend from his past) and his former love, Shi Yeong.Sadly, "Sword" doesn't have much to distinguish itself from other action films. Some stunning cinematography is nearly entirely wasted on shoddy editing with portions of the film put together so loosely its hard to believe that what inevitably made it to the film was what anyone intended. While the atmosphere and story tend to gravitate toward a dark mood, the tone is almost sacrificed to the never-ending parade of flashbacks as each of the main characters is given a healthy story arc. What should've been a quick and easy action film gets weighed down by far too much personal baggage, and the film suffers as a result.I've read that this film marks Korea's first real foray into the world of art-house action pieces along the likes of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." Next time, I'd strongly suggest that the producers stick with a little more 'martial' and a little less 'art.'$LABEL$ 0
+First off, the editing of this film consisted of one major flaw which I don't understand how was missed - you consistently see the overhead microphones bobbing in and out of the film. The first time I saw it I just said "well, mistakes happen" and brushed it off. After about the 10th time, it began to get incredibly irritating and distractingly funny. If you haven't seen the film yet, try counting how many times you see the microphone; might make for pretty interesting game.Now, about the film. This movie started out with the makings of a pretty solid "ghost" story; however, the plot twist at the end just ruined it completely. You begin watching the movie under the assumption, alluded by the TV commercials, that the haunted house consists of ghosts which can only be seen by children; particularly young children, which makes it even more freaky as they will be unable to effectively warn the family of the impending danger. The opening scene did a good job of misleading the audience that this would remain the premise of the film. **(SPOILER)** The movie starts with the family being stalked and ultimately killed by an "unseen" force in the home. The idea that only children can see these ghosts is set in motion when the daughter, at the beginning of the movie, asks her little brother to tell her where "it" is right before "it" grabs her and drags her screaming into the cellar. The young boy also witnesses this supposedly "unseen force" kill his mother after she tells him to hide under the bed. After his family is killed, the boy attempts to run and hide only to be snatched away as well.As I said, this movie started out with the makings of a pretty spooky movie in which the family would be stalked by an "unseen force" with their only hopes of survival resting on sightings by a two-year-old. This began to be ruined less than halfway into the film as the daughter began to see the ghosts as well; completely ruining the "only children can see" illusion set forth by the commercials and opening scene.Regardless of this, the movie didn't actually get "ruined" until the plot twist at the end. In which the man who had been helping the family cultivate the farm turns out to have been the man responsible for killing the family at the beginning of the movie. All of a sudden, after being attacked by a swarm of crows, the man snaps and tries to kill the mother, daughter, and son while having a psychotic breakdown in which he believes them to be HIS family; which he killed at the beginning.The whole plot twist at the end just created a whole list of unsolved questions and left me going wtf. First, why was the family's souls trapped in a house? If the director was going for a Ju-On (The Grudge) approach in which the family, after dying in a fit of rage, would haunt the house and kill whoever enters, why did the haunting stop after the father was "captured" by the ghosts of his family? If the ghosts only wanted to kill the man that killed them, why were they attacking the new family? Here's another one for you. It takes several months from the time you sow seeds until the plants fully blossom in time for harvest. This tells me that the man who killed his family at the beginning, the man that the ghosts apparently had a grudge with the whole movie, was living on the property for months. During all this time, why didn't the ghosts just go kill him? This movie included a lot of clichéd "horror movie" scares as well as an obvious combination of ideas from other horror movies. However, I'm telling ya, this movie still could've pulled off okay if not for the plot twist at the end. It's like they just ran out of their budget and just threw together something for an ending. For this movie to have been a success, they should've stuck with the "only children can see them" premise and ended with either the family barely getting away or being killed off like the family at the beginning (would've opened the door for possible sequel,too).$LABEL$ 0
+Watching Midnight Cowboy is like taking a masterclass in acting/ directing/ cinematography/ editing/ writing. I was too young to watch it when it was originally released, and only saw it for the first time a couple of years ago, but it has absolutely stood the test of time, and I have watched it several times since. Everything about this film is brilliant, from the poignant performances from Voight and Hoffman (even though I know this movie well, I still find myself welling up every time Voight flashes one of his innocently pained looks, or Hoffman coughs in his sickly and ominous way) to the stunning cinematography and superbly edited dream sequences. It's a shame that more of our contemporary filmmakers aren't prepared to take a risk on making movies that are as visually and aurally interesting as this one. Midnight cowboy should be required viewing at all film schools. 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+This film actually works from a fairly original idea - I've never seen nymphs that were thrown out of heaven in a horror movie before anyway. However, the way that it executes this idea isn't original in the slightest; we follow a bunch of kids that, for some reason decide to go on a trip into the forest. The fact that the forest is inhabited by these nymphs make it more interesting than merely another forest filled by rednecks/nutcases/zombies etc; but really, the monsters are just a variation on the common horror in the woods theme. Many films of this ilk don't have a single good idea - and it would seem that this one has worn its brain cells out with just that one. The only real asset that the monsters bring to the table is the fact that they're beautiful women that the characters lust for, rather than being hideous grotesques that they want to run away from. This is good up until a point; but it soon gets boring, and the almost complete lack of any back-story surrounding the central monsters ensures that the film is never going get itself out of the 'horror trash' category.It's been years since The Evil Dead made the woodlands a prime horror location, and in spite of films like The Blair Witch Project; it still makes for an excellent horror setting. This is one of the film's major assets, as the forest presents a good impression of the unknown - the only problem is that Forest of the Damned doesn't ever seem to have much up its sleeve. The death sequences show a distinct lack of imagination, and the fact that all the characters are clichéd in the extreme doesn't help, as you're more likely to be looking forward to seeing them get killed rather than hoping they can get away. The cast is made up of kids mainly, but there is a role here for Tom Savini; who unfortunately doesn't get to have fun in the special effects department. The only real highlight the film has where personnel are concerned comes from the nymphs themselves. The naked ladies tend to look great, and if it wasn't for them, this film would get very boring very quickly. There's nothing to recommend this film for really; but if you want a daft little horror film that harks back to the style of eighties woodland flicks, you might find some enjoyment here.$LABEL$ 0
+This is not a film you can really analyse separately from it's production. The audience became the film-makers to an extent unprecedented in the history of the American film industry; we felt so involved that viewing it becomes like watching the work of a friend. How is it possible to be objective? This is our movie, isn't it? Or is it? There may be nothing more disingenuous than a film-maker who promotes himself as the audience's friend, giving them all the naughty treats that the nannyish critics would deny them. Just look at that prime self-publicist Eli Roth, promising gore-hounds all the viscera missing from literally gutless mainstream horror films, only to churn out a watered down and technically incompetent piece of work like 'Hostel'.David R. Ellis may not have spawned the monster that was the internet response to his film, but he was, quite understandably, quick to engage with it. He took the carnival-huckster school of film-making to a new level, getting the fans to build what they would eventually buy. So many have enthused over this interactive, democratic approach to film-making that they seem to have missed the point - that this is the most cynical form of film-as-marketing. Nothing is included that the film-makers know the fans won't buy, and any old suggestion that will get bums on seats is incorporated. The fact that the pitch became the title tells you all you need to know.Isn't this just the evolution of the focus group approach? Individual creativity, talent, craft, ideas, all are sacrificed before the inane chatter of the masses. It's a critical commonplace that focus groups and test screenings don't make for good movies - why should the preemptive intervention of internet enthusiasts be any different? Because we happen to be film fans? Well, thank god for us, because otherwise I might not have seen a topless woman get her nipple bitten by a snake.So, yes, I had fun at the movie - a midnight showing, fresh from the pub and with a bucket of ice-cream - but it actually had relatively little to do with the film, and quite a lot to do with the atmosphere. Like Christmas, everyone seemed determined that they would have fun, no matter what. There was laughter, but I don't know if it was with the film, or at the film. With a film as calculated as this one, is that even a meaningful distinction? There are some genuinely good aspects to the film. Samuel L. Jackson gives a well-judged performance, pure self-parody but with a real sense of pleasure. Rachel Blanchard and Lin Shaye are decent in limited roles, and there are one or two inspired moments - the fate of the lap dog is genuinely funny black comedy that the rest of the film fails to emulate.The stock characters are to be expected, but the total lack of suspense isn't. What's the point of a film that combines two great phobias if there's no creeping menace? There are several snake-jumps-out moments, but they're incredibly badly staged. Only the annoying British man gets a decent pulpy death scene - the other killings are oddly flat. The demise of the honeymoon couple, for instance, is shamefully botched. Most of the actors fail to make an impression; it's a shame that a charismatic actress like Julianna Margulies should seem so tired (when she tells two kids to close their eyes and pretend the turbulent flight is a roller-coaster, she could be talking to the audience - the film falls far short).There are worse movies, but there are many, many better; another reviewer on this site compared this film with 'Lake Placid', and it's as apt a contrast as any I can think of. That film worked so magnificently because the performances were excellent, the jokes were funny, the suspense sequences were scary, and it wasn't devised by committee. That the characters had a little depth and shading was an unexpected bonus. I don't need a post-pub midnight showing to have a good time with that film.This film will, in time, fade to become a mere footnote in film history. If it sets a precedent, however, I'm genuinely worried about what might be crossing our screens in a couple of years time. In all probability, nothing much will come of it. Perennial popcorn favourites - 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', 'Alien', 'Halloween' and of course, 'Star Wars' - just aren't produced by group-think.In the mean time, I'll tell you what - I haven't half got a craving for some Ingmar Bergman.$LABEL$ 0
+I watched it some years ago. I remembered it as very mysterious situations, and a mixture of melancholic things, like the fate of Dorothy and the personal future of Bogdanovich.I turn to watch on my VHS copy and then I was reviewing it more and more. Nowadays I am waiting for the DVD version, at any price, please!The country and easy listening music is very well chosen from the very first second, a bit of blueish, but also happy.All the characters are great to me, with funny situations, great acting and a lot of dialogs that have turn this as a cult movie to me and a lot of people I met on the Internet or cinema clubs. This may not be casualty.I think that the title is a hope about life! You have to be happy and laugh as much as possibleI know that this may be a particular comment for the movie, but the fact is that I like it very much, I think that movie marked me and I will never forget it.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was a monument to inept filmmaking on a colossal scale. I'm a huge Burt Reynolds fan, but even he was horrible in this film. The only redeeming quality of this film was the chick that smoked all the time. She was kind of attractive to look at. Otherwise, what a waste of time and energy...$LABEL$ 0
+I picked this film up at my local library. Having met the director at a film festival late last year, I was curious to "check out" his work. I was pleasantly surprised.The film takes a fresh look at familiar subjects, love, infidelity, friendships, jealousy. It can be a bit 'talky' at times but never so much as to completely sink the film. I enjoyed watching a love story with characters that CLEARLY belong together and watching them make conscious decisions rather than haphazardly "falling" into something as important as love.The contrast between this film and the average low-budget shoot-em' up black film is quite distinct. Check it out. If you're lucky, your copy will come with a copy of the soundtrack like mine did. Good stuff!$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was, as Homer Simpson would have put it, "more boring than church." Maybe I don't understand it well enough, and I thought it started out pretty well, but after (START OF SPOILER) Hermann Braun is sent to jail and Maria starts working/sleeping with her boss it just started to drag, and I struggled to keep awake. Again, maybe it symbolizes something, but the explosion at the end seemed very forced and out of place. (END OF SPOILER). In the end, I fail to see why others think it's so great, as I found it extremely boring. By the way, I did not watch this movie by my own free will, as I was required to see it for a Film class.$LABEL$ 0
+Oh my GOD. I bought this movie and...I...watched...the...whole...thing. . . Okay, it's going to be alright... I'l know I'll be okay in a month or two. Some time soon I hope to be rid of the flash backs. I was going to eat something after the movie but I just can't seem to get up the courage to try and hold any food down at the moment. Bad? Yes bad. Very BAD. BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD. Wait, bad doesn't seem to get the message across in quite the right way. Hmm... There isn't a word to describe just how awful.... not awful... Hmm disgustingly horribly casted/acted/filmed/directed/written. Now I don't know what to do but throw it out. Possibly burn it I wouldn't want it to end up at the bottom of an architectural dig a thousand years from now. The worst movie ever since "Hey Happy"$LABEL$ 0
+How is bear´s paw, elephant´s trunk or monkey´s brain for dinner? Let Tsui Hark tell you in this wonderful and lighthearted comedy about the art of cooking the traditional(?) Chinese way.This movie shares the common structure of an American sports movie, but instead of focusing on baseball it centers around cooking which makes it all the more interesting. I even think Leslie Cheung´s character look a lot like Charlie Sheen in Major League...This movie also contains a bit of Zhao Wen Zhao vs Xiong Xin Xin fighting (love seeing more of that after The Blade) and a quite funny in-joke concerning a Leon Lai pop song...Perhaps not the ideal movie for the strict vegetarian though.$LABEL$ 1
+After seeing 'Break a Leg' in Vancouver at the release party I thought it was a very enjoyable film.I had a few outright belly laughs and some of the cameos (Eric Roberts in particular) were a scream. I haven't heard word about actual release date although I've heard it's close.The story is simple but is mainly a vehicle for the characters and situations. The script is smooth and seamless, the plot develops effortlessly and the acting is comfortable yet fresh. This film has won at least one award from EACH of the film festivals it's been in, which is around 10 - 15 or so.I highly recommend 'Break a Leg'.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm sorry but I can't agree that this was a good movie. Yes, it looked good visually, but it's the story that drives the movie and I must say the story sucked big-time. How in the world did they manage to slip some of those plot-holes past the critics. Better story and I would've gave it a higher vote but I was impossible to do that and still be able to live with myself. I have always been a fan of scary movies, and the previews really had me fooled. All the scary scenes were shown in the previews. And why did the family that got killed stay to haunt the house? Why did the father come back again? WHy did he decide to kill in the first place? Why were the kids the only ones to see the ghosts first? To many questions, not enough answers. If I could've gave it a zero, I would've.$LABEL$ 0
+Apparently SHRUNKEN HEADS was the last movie that Julius Harris had a role in. I have not seen all of his movies, but Julius Harris was in many good movies, and I remember him best from "Live and Let Die" where he played Tee-Hee and which was full of Voodoo references, something that is common here in South Florida! I always thought LIVE AND LET DIE was a great movie because it had some atmosphere and mystique, unlike most of the 007 movies. In SHRUNKEN HEADS, Julius Harris is back in his Voodoo persona! He has a great style for mystery and the occult, and his part in this movie is excellent. Sadly, the rest of the movie is something of a comedy. SPOILERS: Three kids who look like they were fired from the cast of THE LITTLE RASCALS get killed by a neighborhood hoodlum who looks like he got fired from the cast of FAME! or as a dancer on DICK CLARK'S AMERICAN BANDSTAND. In other words, these kids give LOW BUDGET another dimension. Julius Harris goes to the mortuary-Funeral Home, cuts off the three kids' heads (and nobody notices) and then takes them to his Condominium Unit where he has a giant cauldron of boiling liquids. The three heads get tossed in, along with some herbs, spices, and Voodoo items. At some point Mr. Harris has the ugly little heads on a table and he spills his blood on them, and they come to life as talking heads! They can fly, make jokes, roll their eyes, and exact vengeance from the Evil-Doers. They usually look pretty funny flying around, but the effects are not bad. For some reason, one of the kids always has a switch-blade in his mouth, and he uses it to slice people's necks and to cut holes into tires. This movie is weird and funny, but only the first time you see it. Meg Foster is in this movie and she looks fatter than Rosie O'Donnell and Meg plays a masculine leader of the local gangsters. Strange movie.$LABEL$ 0
+First of all the movie, is an ingenious work of art(movie). The plot was filled with surprises, a little kid pretends to be a grown up inherits one million dollars and how he spends it. I mean how whacked out is this. Walt Disney really outdid themselves this time. The comedy is most of the times expected but the other times unexpected. I mean was this movie OK or was this movie OK. It also teaches a lot about wise youths and I this kid is really wise and a bit time smart pants. But also it sucks. How the heck could a guy like that kid get a hot police babe and his dad let him go free. That's like let a killer get bailed free for ten years. If I were to do that I'd get beaten with a 'suble jack'(a huge stick that stings when used to bench your butts really hard). That kid is really lucky. Back to the story. The movie makers really knew what they were doing when they made this movie but still it's not perfect. The acting was good and bad. The kid and woman had no chemistry neither did the father but the bros were excellent'. The special effects on the other hand was lame. Plus this movie isn't based on reality. I hated and loved it at the same time.$LABEL$ 1
+Documentary starts in 1986 in NYC where black and hispanic drag queens hold "balls". That's where they dress up however they like, strut their stuff in front of an audience and are voted on. We get to know many of the members and see how they all hold together and support each other. As one man says to another--"You have three strikes against you--you're black, gay and a drag queen". These are people who (sadly) are not accepted in society--only at the balls. There they can be whoever and whatever they want and be accepted. Then the film cuts to three years later (1989) and you see how things have changed (tragically for some). Sounds depressing but it's not. Most of the people interviewed are actually very funny and get a lot of humor out of their situations. They're well aware of their position in society and accept it with humor--just as they should. We find out they all live in "houses" run by various "mothers" and all help each other out. The sense of community in this film is fascinating.When this film came out in 1990 it was controversial--and a big hit. It won Best Documentary Awards at numerous festivals--but was never even nominated for an Academy Award. Their reason was "Black and hispanic drag queens are not Academy material". Fascinating isn't it? Homophobia and racism all together. Seen today it's still a great film--and a period piece. It just isn't like that anymore--the NY they show no longer exists. The balls are still held but not in the spirit we see here. Also drag has become more "accepted" in society (for better or worse). And I've heard the houses are gone too. That's kind of sad. I WOULD like to know where these characters are now--I know two died of AIDS but I have no idea about the others. And what DID happen to that 13 year old and 15 year old shown? Still, it a one of a kind documentary--fascinating, funny and riveting. A must see all the way! A definite 10. Where's the DVD???$LABEL$ 1
+John Heder was absolutely horrendous in this movie. I felt like I was watching a bad college kid act for the first time in a student film. Anna Farris was par for the course, not good, but not horrible (plus she's cute). Dianne Keaton should have known better. Jeff Daniels was the only saving grace in this movie (even though it was poor judgement on his part as well). All in all, I would avoid this at all costs. I'm just glad I didn't pay to see it! John Heder will forever be stuck in the typecast role of' the dorky kid,' unless he does some SERIOUS work on his acting chops.$LABEL$ 0
+A very strange and compelling movie. It's about a very awkward and tightly wound man who attempts to navigate his life as a door-to-door fundraiser/salesman. The director was able to capture a very unnerving tone that really served the story well. Original and unsettling while also finding a great deal of humor in the pain that accompanies life. There is a sequence at a testing facility that really stood out and made me laugh out loud which is not something I do as frequently as I should. One of the more memorable films I've seen in a long while. Hasn't left my mind and I look forward to future efforts by Bronstein. Fantastic performances all around. The simple line "I really appreciate it." is now iconic to me.$LABEL$ 1
+The premise is interesting and the cast does the best it can, but the script and the directorial effort are so poor that it is not surprising that this film was buried--which is fitting given the screenplay. As I watched this, I could not decide which was worse, the screenplay, or the directing. The actors are over the top, the art direction looks like a Disney movie, the music is contrived, and the sentiment so sweet that it gives viewers cavities. It's a bad attempt to imitate "FOur Weddings And A funeral". If one wants to watch comedy that is as flat as a pancake and how poor direction can turn a story into cavity sweetness, this is a good one to watch.$LABEL$ 0
+When this play was first shown by the BBC over 30 years ago, it would have been something quite different for the time. So therefor some people would have found it quite scary, and may well have been impressed with the special effects?Looking at the play in this day and age, It doesn't seem to be all that scary anymore, even the special effects can leave a lot to be desired.Would a train really be allowed to pass a RED LIGHT into a dark tunnel? I don't think so......but if you watch this play again, you will observe that the first train that enters the tunnel, rushes straight through the RED LIGHT! (maybe that's how it was in dickens time)?You will also notice that the footpath that leads down to the Signal Box is very steep and in a poor state. Surely there would have been a series of proper steps with handrails for the Signalman to climb up or down into the cutting. (i can't help but notice things like that)I will not take anything away from the acting, both Denholm Elliott (signalman) and Bernard Lloyd (the traveller) gave wonderful performances.I am not at all sure what is going on......I mean was the ghost the traveller, or what??? Does anyone really fully understand this rather confusing story??? (well maybe i am the only one that don't)???To sum up.....The play has a wonderful atmosphere throughout, with great character. It suffers from not being that scary these days, and a little if not very confusing in places, and has some rather unusual signalling practises....Thanks for reading my review.$LABEL$ 0
+This was only the second version of the classic story by Charles Dickens I had seen, and sadly it turned out to be one of the worst. The film opens with a quick live action piece where Simon Callow as Charles Dickens begins the story of A Christmas Carol, and then obviously it goes to animated story itself. You probably already know it, Ebenezer Scrooge is the grouchy cold-blooded businessman who refuses charity and hates Christmas. He is visited by Jacob Marley (Nicolas Cage) who warns him of the visits of the other three ghosts of Christmas Past (Jane Horrocks), Present (Sir Michael Gambon) and the silent Future/Yet To Come. After all this he obviously realises the true magic of Christmas, and promises to be nicer in future. The only changes I noticed to the story were Scrooge having mice as friends (a stupid idea), Scrooge's ex-love Belle (Kate Winslet) needing to see him to help at the orphanage, the Ghost of Christmas Present showing the two kids, "want" and "ignorance", Scrooge still gets haunted after being turned nice, and he's worried he can't keep his promise to stay nice. Also starring Rhys Ifans as Bob Cratchit, Juliet Stevenson as Mrs. Cratchit, Iain Jones as Scrooge's nephew Fred and Colin McFarlane as Fezziwig. The animation is not great quality, the actors have wasted their voices for a worthless piece of garbage. The only good thing that comes from this film is the good voice of Kate Winslet, singing the closing song "What If", as for the rest, it is just excruciatingly awful. Very poor!$LABEL$ 0
+I just recently bought "The Big Trail" {1930}. It's an awesome, amazing film. I knew it by reputation but never expected it to be so magnificent. My version is the one shot in 35mm and I'll speak of that again later. When one thinks of the Western Myth in film the names that come to mind are John Ford and John Wayne. Well, you have only half the team here, but the entire Myth is present. Raoul Walsh has given us a remarkable epic in which the true plot is the struggle of the westward expansion of the nation. There is a plot centering on a romance between Breck Coleman {Wayne} and Ruth Cameron {Margaret Churchill} with the main villain, Red Flack being memorably played by Tyrone Power, Sr. But this has an almost incidental quality as the wagon train struggles forward against incredible obstacles—both natural and human. Examples are the crossing of the river, the Indian battle, and traversing the burning Desert. The aftermath of the battle is given a sombre touch when a doll is placed on the grave of a child killed while a faithful dog lies down on its master's grave.Magnificent panoramas are filled with energy and activity. The opening scene as the wagon train prepares to leave, the Square Dance interlude and the great Buffalo herds are some that spring to mind. Marvellous use is made of location shooting throughout. Another feature of this splendid film is the fact that men and women are given equal credit for their parts in the great struggle Westward. Women work, fight, and confront the terrible hardships with the same fortitude and strength as their male counterparts. The finale has a powerfully uplifting experience as Coleman and Cameron meet in the gigantic towering Sequoia forest to start their new life. The acting is quite acceptable throughout. I've already mentioned Tyrone Power's scene-stealing performance. Tully Marshall is excellent as Coleman's sidekick, and Marguerite Churchill convincingly portrays a woman who develops an inner strength as she encounters her own problems as well as those external to herself. The comic-relief is the weakest aspect of this film, but these scenes are not common and are swallowed up in the tremendous sweep of the film.I've read much criticism of Wayne's performance—some even going so far as to blame his "wooden acting" for the failure of the film at the box-office. I think this is unfair. Wayne was in his first major role and certainly had not developed the charisma of his performance in "Stagecoach". But he still does a serviceable job in a role which is certainly going to play second fiddle to the great over-arching theme. After "The Big Trail", Wayne played in a large number of low-budget B Westerns. I have a number of these and one can see the developing actor in them. When "Stagecoach" came he was ready for it and "The Big Trail" was a significant part of that apprenticeship.I mentioned earlier that my version is the one shot in 35mm. It's still impressive, but to get some idea of the effect of the 70mm version I set the TV screen to 16:9 which doesn't cause any distortion. While not having the complete effect of the Grandeur version, it was good enough to make me want to get the latter. {in addition, the film shot in 70mm has a few extra scenes not in the form made for ordinary theatrical showing}.All-in-all, this film deserves to be in any list of the greatest Westerns ever made.$LABEL$ 1
+I didn't expect a movie as good as "In The Line of Fire" or an episode of "24", but it looked like this movie was made for TV and did a mediocre job at best. The (good) cast couldn't disguise the fact that the plot was all too predictable and actors had to struggle (they really try their best I think) through their lines of bad script, giving their rather flat characters any extras. When I watched the movie I got the feeling that I had seen most of this in other (better) movies. In it you had car chases, big shootouts, romance, plot twists etc. etc; This movie has none.** Spoiler** As soon as you see another woman talking into the phone to Cuba's character, you know who's behind all this and all the hints you're being given ("you stand too close to the president, see it from my perspective.." ) sound silly. If it were up to me (and maybe it's a good thing that it isn't) I would rewrite the plot like this:First lady orders the murder of her husband because she is sick and tired of writing checks to Cuba all the time.$LABEL$ 0
+Most people, when they think of expressionist cinema, look to the b&w German films of the silent and early sound eras--films that emphasized canted angles, extreme contrasts of light and dark, exaggerated performance, and occasional uses of surrealism to create a dreamlike atmosphere in order to diverge from traditional, naturalistic modes of cinematic representation. If we're willing to accept that the Germans were not the only filmmakers to create expressionist cinema (and that those above-mentioned characteristics are not prerequisites for expressionist film), then I would argue that Dodes'ka-den (DKD) is a prime example of this type of film. Like Dreams, DKD is a little unhinged for a Kurosawa film, dabbling, as it does, in the unreal. However, DKD is also, unlike Dreams, a great film and probably my favorite Kurosawa picture. Why? Mostly, I think, it's the colors. This was, I believe, Kurosawa's first color film, and the man saturates the movie with vibrant primary colors, creating a completely unreal contemporary Japan. We are used to the neon lights and gleaming Tokyo skyscrapers; we are not used to a city that appears to have been colored with crayons. DKD is, as I said, a peculiar film inasmuch as many of its characters live in a junkyard, appearing to live in an alternate universe. That is, I think, the point--these are the Tokyo outsiders, the people left behind during the great move forward following World War II. The film also represents one of Kurosawa's more heartfelt movies; there is genuine sentiment here and genuine pathos (such as when the boy's father describes their dream home). It's an amazingly moving film from a man better known for stunning, John Ford-like vistas and samurais. Everyone should have known Kurosawa had in him a movie as touching and thought provoking as this (Ikiru foreshadows the emotional resonance of this film in many ways). I will also argue, to the last, that this is Kurosawa's greatest achievement. His samurai films, though capable pictures, pale in comparison to works by Kobayashi (Hara-kiri is the greatest, most intelligent samurai film committed to celluloid). Rashomon, Hidden Fortress, Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, Kagemusha, and Ran are all fine films, but they're merely good (and, frankly, I think that word is too generous for Hidden Fortress and Kagemusha). DKD is a great movie, as is Ikiru. They are the crown jewels that show Akira was not a one-trick samurai pony. They reveal his artistry and mastery of cinema.$LABEL$ 1
+This is available on a "Drive In Double Feature" from Dark Sky Films, and since I just had finished up "Barracuda", I watched this too. This is a film that proves to be incredibly ambitious and inept at the same time.We begin with two young ladies wandering the streets of some foreign town, but where exactly are they? They stop to look at necklaces from some Chinese vendor, and try on Chinese-style clothes at a shop, but then we see some Aztec dancers? And all the while, these girls are being followed by two guys, who eventually drop whatever stealth they didn't have to chase the girls on a wild run though the town, and they finally catch them.It seems that one of the girls has a coin on a string around her neck, and these guys want to find the loot, and where did she get it? So, in flashback, we go back to find out. And how did they know she had this coin? Hard to say, really.Now, back in the day, when these two women were 10 years old, they were out with their sisters and their sister's boyfriends on a boat, and after stopped to get air in their tanks, they tow this young boy back to his home dock, only to have his grandpa come out & invite the "young 'uns" up for herbal tea with granny. But not everyone has the tea, Todd has gone back to the boat to check on the young girls, and then when they're away from it, the boat blows up, and when they get back to the house their friends have mysteriously disappeared. Well, it seems as though these "kindly folk" raise their own vegetables but they wait for the meat to drop by for a spell, and serve it herbal tea.But the girls and Todd did leave the island, but now, they're returning, escorted by their captors, and they're there to find the treasure, despite the fact that no one ever showed the girls where it was BEFORE. There also seems to be someone else on the island, and the thugs mysteriously begin to die, one by one, and since there's only three, it doesn't take long. And there's even a sort of happy ending, which will leave the viewer every bit as baffled as they were throughout the rest of the film.The two thugs seem to be speed freaks with anger issues, and combined with no acting ability they're borderline hilarious. The hillbilly-type family is also devoid of acting ability, despite the fact that the grandpa is Hank Worden, who appeared in many films and TV shows. The action is confusing, the locales are even more confusing, and the island looks like Southern California.So what the hell IS this? I'm not sure, but it certainly is worth seeing once so you can think (or say), huh? 4 out of 10, very bizarre.$LABEL$ 0
+A bunch of American students and their tutor decide to visit the ugliest part of Ireland in order to study ancient religious practices. Despite being repeatedly warned about the dangers of straying off the beaten path (by the local creepy Irish guy, natch), they do just that, and wind up with their insides on the outside courtesy of a family of inbred cannibals (the descendants of the infamous Sawney Bean clan, who according to the film's silly plot, upped sticks from Scotland and settled on the Emerald Isle).If you think that porn stars plus low budget horror automatically equals tons of nudity and terrible acting, then think again: Evil Breed is bristling with adult stars, but in fact, there's not nearly as much nudity as one might expect given the 'talent' involved, and the acting, although far from Oscar worthy, ain't all that bad (with the exception of Ginger Lynn Allen, who we know can do marvellous 'French', but whose Irish is lousy).Evil Breed opens in superb style with the brutal slaughter of a couple of amorous campers: after some brief under-canvas sex, the silicone enhanced hottie is dragged from the tent and torn in half; the guy has his arms and legs cut off and is roasted on a spit. It's a very gory start, and bodes well for the rest of the film.Unfortunately, after this promising beginning, things start to go seriously downhill: we are introduced to the main characters, an annoying bunch of twenty-somethings just begging to become cannibal chow, and are subjected to a fair amount of time wasting in the form of some terrible false scares, a lot of blarney about murderous druids from local Irish weirdo Gary (Simon Peacock), and worst of all, some sub-Scream, post-modernistic conversation about the conventions of horror films (how clever!).Then, just as it looks as though the film is never going to get any better, director Christian Viel decides to get serious: a guy gets a knife rammed through his head and there's a gratuitous sex-in-the-shower scene featuring lovely blonde Gillian Leigh (NOT a porn star, but I'm sure there's a career there waiting if she wants it). After that, things improve rapidly as the cannibals kick into top flesh-eating gear, and the film is transformed into a veritable bloodbath: Gary has a machete rammed up his ass (about time!), and is strangled with his intestines; Ginger Lynn kick-boxes a mutant; Jenna Jameson is torn open, eviscerated and has her silicone breast implant gnawed on by confused cannibal; a guy gets decapitated by cheese wire; and Taylor Hayes is seen bloody, bruised and naked with a dead foetus between her legs (apparantly, she's been captured and used as breeding stock).All of this is so outrageously gory that it makes sitting through the less interesting stuff worthwhile, and earns Evil Breed a final rating of 7/10.NB. A very troubled production and studio meddling resulted in Christian Viel eventually abandoning the project. Re-shoots were done and the gore was heavily trimmed for a US release. The good news is that although the film doesn't flow as well as it might have, and is cursed with a terrible ending, the UK DVD (the version I watched) seems to have been left relatively intact as far as the splatter is concerned (only 13s were cut from the film in total).$LABEL$ 1
+Christopher Guest is the master of the mockumentary. Werner Herzog is one of many documentary greats out there. Zak Penn isn't good at either but he could certainly take a lesson from the other two. Guest often plays around with reality and fiction but the line between the two is always clear in his films, sort of an essential with a mockumentary. Penn could also take a lesson from the The Blair Witch Project. Even though you knew it was a fake documentary going in you totally bought into the world the filmmakers created. It seems to the audience as if the whole thing is real even though you know, deep down, you're watching fiction. In other words, it was fiction successfully disguised as truth. In fact many early audiences watching it, at Sundance and other premiere audiences thought it was real. Penn, whose forte, by his own admission, is screen writing, should probably stick to that. Documentary or mockumentary film-making (and it's hard to tell where one begins and the other ends with this film) is obviously not. Penn sets the stage for what he tries to sell as a legit documentary on the filming of a documentary, sort of a meta-documentary. Penn, however, confuses the audience, and loses their trust, from the get-go as he enters Herzog's house before the filming of Herzog's film, "Enigma of Loch Ness" about the myth of the Loch Ness monster (a film which apparently was never finished – probably because of Penn's interference). Even though Penn is apparently the director of the film we're watching, he starts it by looking at the cameras and saying, "What is the film crew doing here?" and starts shying away from them. He does this on a couple other occasions as well. He will stop and tell the cameras to stop filming, thus forcing the camera guy to hide in the shadows to pick up snippets of dialogue between Herzog and Penn. It seems to be a gimmick, but that is never made clear, and Penn is apparently keeping us in the dark intentionally. This leaves the audience scratching its head wondering, "Who is in charge here?" If Penn is working against his own film crew what kind of a world are we a part of? This is just one of many examples of how he confuses the line between reality and fiction. Penn seems to only fully enter the fictional world (I think) when the crew has sightings of what appears to be the Loch Ness monster. But by the time the monster makes its first appearance we have totally exited the fictional world Penn has attempted to create, so it all just seems silly and pointless. This is a potentially fascinating movie and a real missed opportunity in that Penn has a chance to document a master at work, but completely loses focus and it becomes a movie about Penn and his antics instead of the filming of a documentary. Penn's presence begins to pervade and overshadow everything else in the movie. The Herzog interviews are convincing and we actually believe he isn't acting. We even start to wonder if he and others on his crew are being duped by Penn, much the way the audience is, but you're never sure of even that. Penn, in his interviews to the camera, attempts to be quirky and unintentionally funny, like the characters interviewed in a Guest mockumentary, but he only succeeds in being annoying. In a Guest film this effect is hilarious, while here it falls flat because you're never sure what Penn is about. As a result we, the audience, start to dislike him as much as the crew apparently does. Aside from the beautiful scenery and the superfluous appearance, out of nowhere, of a beautiful model, thrown in to give the movie spice, there is little to recommend here. Perhaps its only redeeming quality (an unintentional one at that) is that it's a great example of why the audience is important; and by completely ignoring the conventions of storytelling your doing them a disservice. For that reason alone I think this would be a good film to show to film students – sort of a "what not to do" kind of movie. I have nothing against a movie told in an unconventional way as long it's done skillfully, with a thematic base to give it substance. This film is completely lacking in that.I'd like to call it a valiant effort at something, but I'm not sure what it is, other than a complete mess and ultimately a waste of time. (As a side note: It seems like bad art always calls to mind good. This film made me think of the book "Picture" by Lillian Ross. Ross followed John Huston around during the filming of "The Red Badge of Courage" and brilliantly documented it for the New Yorker. It would make a great movie in fact. If you want a great example of meta-art, read it.)$LABEL$ 0
+I must be honest, I like romantic comedies, but this was not what I had hoped for. I thought Ellen Degeneres was having the biggest part, which should have been, because I didn't like the two struggling bed partners. It was awful. Poor Tom Selleck!! He had to act with someone who was that much in the picture while it should have been him and Ellen to be in most of the film. They were the only believable ones. And the only really funny parts starred them, not Kate Capshaw and that Everett guy.. Cool that mummy is coming out of the closet, I thought that was a nice surprise. I'm just glad I saw it on the cable and I didn't pay any money renting it..$LABEL$ 0
+So many early British sound films that I've seen on video suffer from either poor print transfer quality or poor sound or both. Fortunately, I was able to obtain a copy of this movie on a video of excellent quality, enabling me to focus on the story itself.And, an excellent story it was. At first sight, the passengers on the ill-fated bus looked like a pretty boring lot (except for the always lovely Jessie Matthews). But, as the film went back to show each passenger's story on the day before the accident, I discovered that the cast, contrary to initial appearance, was a talented group of performers, skillfully directed so as to bring a real individuality to their distinctive characterizations.Viewers may have different preferences as to which two passengers are going to meet a tragic end and which ones will survive. But, the movie holds your interest as it keeps you guessing. This film deserves a much wider audience - a real gem of early British Cinema.$LABEL$ 1
+Geez! This is one of those movies that you think you previously reviewed but you didn't. I mean, you didn't give a crap about it but somehow it came to your mind.To be honest and brief; this is one of the worst, boring, and stupid slashers ever made. I can't say anything good about this piece of crap because there are barely decent sequences that could tell it's made by professional film makers.The death scenes are horrible, bloodless, stupid. The plot is somehow good taking in account that it copied "Popcorn" from 1991.To make things even worse, this isn't a movie so bad that it's good. It's just plain bad.Molly Ringwald tried to do her best but it wasn't enough.$LABEL$ 0
+I watched this on Sky TV late one night, as I am a Vampire fan. I must admit I half expected it to be a B-Movie disaster but I was pleasantly wrong.Subspecies is about a family of Vampires. When a Vampire Lord dies, his two sons, the handsome and Noble Stefan, and his brother, the Evil, hideous Radu start a war with each other over their birth right, the Bloodstone. The bloodstone is a holy grail of sorts for Vampires and it bleeds the blood of saints, which give the vampire who drinks it an ultimate High.The fight for the Bloodstone takes an unexpected turn when 3 College Students turn up in the Brothers' territory on a school trip and Stefan has to protect them from his brothers Lusts.Like, I said, I went into this film not expecting much at all but it was one of the best low budget movies I have ever seen. The sets and locations (Romania I think, been a while since I've seen it) are very nice and the music score did the film justice.Most of the acting was adequate, but its Anders Hove as the evil radu that steals the movie (and all the subsequent Sequels). Hove's performance as the twisted Vamp is truly breathtaking and bumps the film simply from okay, to pretty d@mn good!$LABEL$ 1
+DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING (Lucio Fulci - Italy 1972).Definitely a prime candidate for the most insane movie title ever conceived and that's quite an achievement in giallo-land. Originally, the film was titled even more absurdly, "Don't Torture Donald Duck", literally translated from its Italian title. A small Donald Duck figure features briefly as a toy, but hardly enough to render a title like this, but, apparently, it was changed in fear of legal ramifications by Disney. I railed quite a bit against Fulci's earlier LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN (1971), but here all the right ingredients are present. A surprisingly effective mystery, a good cast and imaginatively shot against an unusual rural setting. Everything just clicks. I think it's justly hailed as one of the director's most accomplished achievements.The story is set against the backdrop of a small mountain-side town in Sicily, where someone is killing young teenage boys. Among the suspects, the most obvious one is a young woman, Maciara (Florinda Balkan), a self-proclaimed witch who is seen suspiciously unearthing the skeleton of a baby and sticking pins into way effigies. Guiseppe, the village idiot is under suspicion as well, since he made a feeble attempt to profit from the disappearance of one of the boys and walked right into their trap. By the time a quick-witted newshound (Tomas Milian) arrives from Milan to cover the murders, he immediately begins to question the authorities' assumptions, when he meets two other potential suspects: Don Alberto, the local priest (Marc Porel) with a high-minded attitude, and Patrizia (Barbara Bouchet), a bored young woman from the city with a troubled past of drug offense, who also fancies having sexual relations with the young boys in town. Talk about your prime red herring.Fulci nicely contrasts modernity and tradition with the newly constructed elevated highway meandering through the Sicilian hills, past old towns where life is still firmly rooted in tradition and superstition. One could debate about the film's political stance as The North versus The South, or as commentary on small-town virtues - society's conventions in general - that are all too often dangerously close to tipping over into moral disintegration, chaos and - ultimately - self-justice by the populace. The film has often been lambasted because of its anti-catholic tone, but it's hardly an important element here, except for obvious plot-related reasons, which would be giving away too much. It's actually rather tame compared to a film like Joël Seria's DON'T DELIVER US FROM EVIL (1971). Probably, the film's rather unflattering portrayal of small-town Sicilian values (when another boy is killed, the local populace are depicted as a retarded lynch-mob) might be cause for some offense in Sicily, but - considering Sicily's problematic relation with the rest of Italy - hardly problematic for other Italians, I would think. The film vanquished into obscurity far too quickly to have much impact anyway.When talking Fulci, the amount of gore is usually a prime subject for discussion. Although eyes-gouging scenes are lacking, the film does contain two very graphic scenes. In the gross-out finale, the killer falls of a cliff, smashing his face along the rocks on the way down with gruesome results (albeit, not very realistic). And the chain-whipping sequence with Florinda Balkan in the graveyard shows Fulci's penchant for sadistic violence and typically, he's not holding back at graphically showing what most film-makers would merely hint at. Surely, one of the most horrifying scenes in Fulci's repertoire. Above all, this is a taut, well-written, effective little mystery, nicely lensed by Fulci, with an impressive cast of genre-regulars like Barbara Bouchet, Marc Porel (not very convincing as a priest), Tomas Milian and Florinda Balkan (mouth-foamingly crazy as the town's witch).Camera Obscura --- 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+It makes the actors in Hollyoaks look like the Royal Shakespeare Company. This movie is jaw dropping in how appalling it is. Turning the DVD player off was not a sufficient course of action. I want to find the people responsible for this disaster and slap them around the face. I will never get that time back. Never. How is it possible to create such a banal, boring and soulless film? I could not think of a course of action that would relieve the tedium. Writing the required ten lines is incredibly difficult for such a disgraceful piece of cinema. What more can you say than reiterate how truly awful the acting is. Please avoid.$LABEL$ 0
+A 'Wes Craven presents' movie from 1995, directed by Joe Clayton and starring Lance Henriksen. A group of scientists save a dying man they find by their desert stranded government outpost by injecting him with their experimental virus, of course, one of their colleagues goes overboard and the virus transforms the man into a near unstoppable monster with them trapped inside. Lance Henriksen plays the morally offended researcher who leaves the project before all this, but returns after receiving a call for help to save the man (pre-unstoppable death machine mutation).Deciding to combine two trips in one he brings his family along with him (they're going on vacation afterwards) and proceeds to give them entry to the top secret government facility, thus putting them right in the middle of the chaos within. In case you can't tell, this one relies on the viewer to work with it a little and put aside some petty (see: major and blatant) details.Overall though: Watch-able with mild bits of enjoyment. Note: The Outpost is commonly known under the title 'Mind Ripper'$LABEL$ 0
+The beginning was decent; the ending was alright.Sadly, this movie suffers from complete and utter shallowness of the characters, unrealistic confrontations/fight scenes, lack of anyone intelligent outside of the shuttle. This makes for an awful middle screenplay. Stuff to look for: overly obvious foreshadowing, fast-healing cuts, overly smoky fires, fun seatbelts, delayed reactions.I did give it a 4, not a 0, because the start of the movie had some nice elements of happiness and basic character development. The relationship between the main, dark-haired girl and her fiancée is touched upon briefly, and the placement of the blond friend's impact on that relationship is present, though awkwardly so. The business discovered at the end is becoming more mainstream and decently done, though, as another commenter pointed out, not unexpected. ~viper~$LABEL$ 0
+Specks of white and various shapes, a beautiful nude, random images. That is what this little experimental short film is.It's kind of interesting to think how in the early days of film such images could be transferred onto film, but despite my love of a lot of surreal images and films, and a fascination with the bizarre, this film just didn't do it for me.I'm not sorry I watched it, but if there is any underlying meaning in it, I don't get it. Visually, it is not that outstanding, in my humble opinion. As an example of dadaism, I suppose it would fit in quite well, since it seems to reject any semblance of logic or reason, though I would have preferred that it do it in a more visually interesting way.But to each his own.$LABEL$ 0
+This horror movie, based on the novel of the same name, suffers from flawed production and choppy, amateurish direction, but it's nonetheless strangely compelling. Unlike shocker horror flicks such as The Exorcist, this movie takes the viewer on a slow yet relentless dip into a pool of evil. It drifts into horror, which dawns on the audience with the same dreamlike slowness as it dawns on the poor girl who's been unwittingly chosen to be the next sentinel. Her appointed task is to sit at the gates of hell and prevent evil from erupting into the world. This falls on her in atonement for her attempted suicide earlier in her life.The story is true to the book, which was riveting, but the way it's edited can lose the viewer. There are subtleties in the plot that are shaved away and never explained satisfactorily, which hurts this film. That's a pity. The Sentinel is not an edge-of-your-seat kind of flick; it's more a watch-and-squirm uncomfortably. Like a bad car wreck, there's a compulsion to look even when it becomes unbearable. This movie isn't all bad, and still has a capacity to shock.The cast was competent. Christina Raines was captivating as Alison, the vulnerable girl under spiritual attack from both sides, a pawn in the never-ending battle between good and evil. Chris Sarandon was good as her caring but ultimately self-centered boyfriend. Eli Wallach and a very young Christopher Walken are the detectives struggling to unravel the bizarre puzzle they've been handed. Ava Gardner is elegant as the realtor unaware of the horrors lurking in her rental property. The gaunt elderly John Carradine, with his arthritis-twisted hands, is excellent as the dying sentinel who must be replaced. The devil is played to charming perfection by Burgess Meredith; he's so sweet and yet so evil. There are future stars hidden in this film: Beverly D'Angelo and Jeff Goldblum as friends of the poor girl, and Jerry Orbach playing successfully against type as a jerky television director. The damned souls at the end are portrayed by actual sideshow freaks and geeks. Whoever thought to do that was a twisted but brilliant genius.The horror that pervades the movie bubbles up unexpectedly, such as when Alison opens a door and finds something that evokes a flashback to when she found her father with his two whores. She relives her first suicide attempt, faces a pair of strangely dysfunctional lesbians, and sees a cat cut up as a cake. Time and again, she's yanked back and forth through reality and fantasy, through dreams and waking nightmares, all the while lacking the means to cope. In truth, the devil is trying to drive her insane enough to kill herself before becoming the next sentinel. Will he succeed...? In summary, slow-moving yet indescribably creepy, well-acted but poorly directed, and a very typical 70's horror film before the real shockers cut loose. (No pun intended) This movie may not work for those with a short attention span, but it can still send chills up the spine, and still can provide some low-key shock value. It remains a strangely compelling and entertaining dip into the realm of evil.$LABEL$ 1
+Stanwyck at her villainous best, Robinson her equal - as ruthless land barons in this fairly ordinary western.Some good action scenes, strong use of location, colour and Cinemascope. But why the obvious use of stock footage in the stampede scene?Ford is dependable as always and Foster is strong as Robinson's daughter, but it is the baddies' film. And it's not just Stanwyck and Robinson - Brian Keith makes a surprisingly dashing villain as Stanwyck's lover, and Richard Jaeckel is unforgettable as a cold-hearted killer.See it for the camp value.$LABEL$ 1
+"The Bat People" is a proud resident of the IMDb Bottom 100. Every once and a while the movie suddenly vanishes from the infamous list, depending on whether there are new movies with Paris Hilton in the lead or documentaries about American Idol stars, but it always reliably returns sooner or later. And why? Because, unlike the majority of crap in that list, "The Bat People" is a legitimate bad film and it deserves to be on there regardless of any media influences or internet buzz! This nearly isn't the worst film ever made, since the basic concept definitely has a certain charm and ingenuity, but it's still indescribably difficult to sit through the whole thing. The script is incredibly boring, with absolutely unnecessary padding footage and gigantic gaps in continuity, and yet the main characters still remain total strangers throughout the entire film. Other than a sensible screenplay, the film also lacks spectacular killing sequences and the make-up effects – although courtesy of a young Stan Winston – are ludicrously inept and remain largely unseen until the end of the film. The film's title is inaccurate, as "people" refers to a number in plural whereas the story actually just revolves on one Bat Person. Much more than Bruce Wayne, the real Batman plays in this movie and he as well has a genuine Bat-cave and a Bat-mobile (a stolen ambulance)! The plot introduces a young couple on their honeymoon-weekend exploring caves. They wander off from a guided tour group and he gets bitten by a bat whilst trying to protect his wife from the animal's vicious attack. Worried that he might be infected with rabies, he undergoes an intense treatment at the local hospital, but still this doesn't prevent him from slowly transforming into a bloodthirsty bat creature. He kills random people at night and toys around with the suspicious police sergeant whilst his loving wife is still vastly convinced the awkward behavior is exclusively due to allergic reactions to the rabies treatment. Sure, honey! The script never explains why a bat would attack people and how come John always changes back into a normal human being at the dawn of a new day instead of gradually turning into a permanent state of bat-guano. So basically, "The Bat People" is a variation on the good old werewolf-theme, but obviously not a very interesting one. The concept showed a lot of potential, but somehow the sub plots center on whiny drunks and perverted Sheriffs instead of on ghastly monsters. Some of the settings and exterior filming locations look impressive, the misfit song playing during the credits is strangely catchy, there's a nice bit of gore during the climax (finally!) and main actress Marianne McAndrew is ravishing to look at (though not to listen to). This truly bad and boring film's current listing in the bottom 100 is spot number 80, and personally I hope it sticks somewhere in that region. The list simply wouldn't feel and traditional without "The Bat People".$LABEL$ 0
+The best Treasure Island ever made. They just don't make filmslike this anymore, or ever. No one makes films like this. Morethan a novelty, this film is funny, frank and fascinating, yet moody,mysterious and morose. This is one of my favorite pictures. Thedirector must have had some idea what it is all about, but hecertainly leaves room for your own impressions and interpretations, while leaving little left to the imagination. Why hehas not made more films like this, I have no idea. Whilereminding me of some of the best noir, it is one of a kind. But thisis not for the lazy or simple.$LABEL$ 1
+Fair drama/love story movie that focuses on the lives of blue collar people finding new life thru new love.The acting here is good but the film fails in cinematography,screenplay,directing and editing.The story/script is only average at best.This film will be enjoyed by Fonda and De Niro fans and by people who love middle age love stories where in the coartship is on a more wiser and cautious level.It would also be interesting for people who are interested on the subject matter regarding illiteracy.......$LABEL$ 1
+This movie rocked!!!! saw it at a screener a coupla weeks ago. Kinda a strange story, where James Franco plays this jerk who marries Sienna Miller just to get out of the country and they go to Niagara Falls for their honeymoon. Don't wanna give it away cuz the movie isn't released yet but its totally cool and you would never expect the stuff that happens. I kinda thought I would hate it cuz its a romance but its also kinda twisted and stuff which I like a lot. The acting is really good and Sienna Miller is totally smokin' and plays this really sweet girl. I think she should do more roles like this. James plays a jerk but you end up liking him and the end of the movie is really good. David Carradine plays a cowboy and he is good. I gave this movie a 10 because I came out of the movie really liking it and wanting to see it again which I didn't expect and my girlfriend really liked it and cried. good date flick$LABEL$ 1
+and anyone who watches this film will agree. This film was directed in the days when plot, character believability and theme actually mattered.Jean Peters, Widmark, and Thelma Ritter steal the spotlight. Ritter is in top form as informer "Moe" she survives in the Bowery section of NY, acting as a stool pigeon for NYC police.The only other film in which I have seen Peters is "Niagara", and she certainly proves her acting ability here, complete with Brooklyn accent. Widmark is appropriately menacing, as the anti-hero who must discern what the right thing is, despite his need for cash.The photography is brilliant. The neon, the subway station (though it looks cleaner than the real thing!) the harbor shack where Widmark lives as a transient. Excellent use is made of the city, with "Lightning Louie" in Chinatown; the many flavors and appetites of the city are addressed here; the political climate of the time is a haunting backdrop. 10/10.$LABEL$ 1
+It's like someone took a fantasy-type video game and put it in a blender, and the resulting scene mishmash is what we have to sit through.Now let me go on record by saying how much I love Chinese fantasy films. From the fun and silly, to those focusing on martial arts, to the more dramatic and romantic types—it's a genre I very much enjoy. Films like "A Chinese Odyssey: Pandora's Box" and "A Chinese Odyssey: Cinderella" (both of which were written and/or directed by Jeffrey Lau); "The Bride with White Hair"; "Butterfly & Sword"; "Green Snake"; "A Chinese Ghost Story"; "Swordman II"; "Zu: Warriors from the Magic Mountain"; "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"; and others. Which is why I was looking forward to "A Chinese Tall Story." One of the film's characters is the "Monkey King" (aka Sun Wukong), an extremely well-known character in Chinese mythology, first told in the stories of the "Journey to the West," the epic adventure written about 500 years ago. (The story of the Monkey King and his disciples is also the focus of the "Chinese Odyssey" films, amongst many others). Other familiar characters that appear in the film are Zhu Wuneng (the pig character) and Sha Wujing.So how does it all go wrong? Well, let's take an example familiar to Western audiences. How about the Robin Hood mythology? A well known story from ye olden days. Let's say that our Robin Hood film starred Wesley Snipes as Robin Hood, and Haley Joel Osment as Friar Tuck. Maid Marian is none other than Rosie Perez. Let's give Sir Robin an Uzi as well, because you never know when you might have to waste the Sheriff of Nottingham. They might need rocket packs also, and while we're at it, give them a tactical nuclear weapon because that sure could come in handy. If you think this sounds like a really neat retelling of the Robin Hood tale, then "A Chinese Tall Story" is the movie for you! As I indicated above, this movie is a jumbled mess. In the first 30 minutes, we are introduced not only to Sun Wukong, Zhu Wuneng, and Sha Wujing, but also to the monk Tripitaka (who is actually the main protagonist), kidnapped children, a "millennium bug demon" (which shoots laser beams), an underground Tree God, a lizard imp tribe, an angelic girl in an intergalactic egg, the Lord Chancellor Tortoise, a Sea Dragon King, a ever-morphing magic golden staff, a chatterbox imp girl, wormholes in space, and the Four Heavenly Knights. All this wouldn't be too bad--the tales and myths passed down over the years certainly do have all sorts of fantastical elements. But I guarantee you the Chinese mythology does not include much of the stuff we get subjected to in the last half of the film. (Helpful advice to the filmmakers: Just because your computer effects guys CAN come up with cool looking spaceships and depictions of intergalactic war, does not mean they SHOULD).You know your Chinese mythology movie is on the wrong track when the director asks (and I am not making this up—it's a direct quote from the commentary) "I asked the composer whether or not we can have a more rock-and-roll type music when she transforms into some kind of android-like thing." Is there a story hidden in here somewhere? Yes. Yes, there is. Most of the adventure follows Tripitaka (played by Nicholas Tse—"Gen-X Cops," "Time and Tide," "My Schoolmate the Barbarian") and Meiyan, the lizard imp girl (played by Charlene Choi and a computer). Choi is the best thing going in this film. You may know her as half of the Canto-pop group "Twins" and from other films such as "The Twins Effect" (a fun flick) and "Just One Look" (a surprisingly good drama/romance/comedy). Poor Choi, being a lizard imp and all, is hardly recognizable with her warts, snagged out teeth, doughy nose, and hunched back. That is until the computers get a hold of and beautify her, which somehow makes it worse. Tse is passable, but all of the supporting actors were abysmal. A couple of recognizable faces in bit parts are wasted.At one point I was debating with myself if "A Chinese Tall Story" was a spoof. I was almost able to convince myself that it was when the intergalactic egg girl (played by a very pretty Fan Bing-Bing) got out and lit up a Marlboro (!) while talking with Tripitaka who was practicing martial arts dressed in a Spider-Man costume (!!). But it is not a spoof. Of course there is the typical Hong Kong silliness, but the movie takes itself seriously enough, with enough scenes of romance and pathos (scored with a sledghammering of violins and evocative cellos) and rousing action and adventure.You might think that you could watch this on a Netflix rental and it wouldn't cost you anything. (Oh, but it'll cost you, all right).Is there anything good to say? Sure. The colors are vibrant (they are the best thing about this movie). And the filmmakers certainly were trying very hard. Too bad all that effort went into a movie that is not much more than a bad video game.$LABEL$ 0
+It seems that no matter how many films are made on the subject, there is no shortage of stories that emerge from the Second World War. It stands to reason that a conflict on such a scale as global warfare would capture the imagination of filmmakers everywhere and provide them with ample material on which to base a story. Heading in a different direction than most mainstream movies about the war is Dark Blue World, a film that does not deal with the traditional major battles of the war, does not tell the story of many of its major figures, and does not even focus on soldiers of any of the major allied or axis powers. Dark Blue World instead ventures into the world of refugee soldiers fighting in exile for their occupied nations.The film does a marvelous job of portraying the challenges faced by Czech pilots flying under the British Royal Air Force, expressing the frustration that they felt both at the language barrier between them and the other fliers, but also at being restrained from achieving vengeance against the Germans until being re-trained.Dark Blue World also works quite well outside the arena of the war film as being a story about human relationships. A love triangle develops between the two main characters and an English woman that complicates the teacher-mentor relationship of the two exiled soldiers. This relationship is extremely well acted throughout, developing into almost a father and son relationship at many points.The aerial combat in the film is among some of the best and is also very interesting in exploring the cultural challenges mentioned above as the men struggle to fly their machines, fight the enemy, and relay commands and replies in an unfamiliar language. The tension and struggle of these scenes continues the tension between the men on the ground, just as the tension on the ground continues that felt in the air.This may not be a film for everyone. The hardcore war film buff may find its exploration of relationships a bit off-putting, but it is on the whole an excellent film regardless of the bellicose element or not.$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of those strange, self-important, self-indulgent movies which tries too hard to be profound. It isn't. Instead, it spouts cliches that try to pass for Profundity. Typical is the scene where Peter (Kelsey Grammer) explains to protagonist and best friend Adam (Dwier Brown) how man starts life breast feeding, then moves on to sucking the breast of his girlfriend, and finally his wife, thus concluding ultimately that life sucks. So deep. We are treated to a variety of characters who offer their perspective of life, the universe, etc. during Adam's travels through the Mojave Desert on foot. (He abruptly leaves L.A. the day of his wedding and his family, friends, and fiance assume he's dead when his car was found in a military test range smashed by a rocket.) Some characters are more entertaining than others. The best by far is an escapee from a mental hospital who only speaks through the voices of others. The actor, James Kevin Ward, does some great impressions, including Nicholson, Popeye, and several characters from the original Star Trek. But once the interesting characters leave the screen, we're stuck with Adam again and his pursuit of the profound. It's a long trip, which drags in many places. In fact, it's the longest hour and a half movie I've ever seen. And the finale hardly makes it seem worth while, at all.I discovered this movie playing on HBO one day by waking up too early and clicking on the TV. That'll learn me. Next time I'll try harder to sleep in.$LABEL$ 0
+This was director von Stroheim's third effort - it is quite crude and shows none of the exceptional flair for the camera and editing mastery he would display a few years later with his masterworks, GREED and THE WEDDING MARCH. Essentially we have a trio of grifters, masquerading as a Russian count and two Russian princesses who have rented a villa in Monte Carlo. Their aim is to use counterfeit money at the gambling tables and win a fortune. Part of that plan is for the Count (von Stroheim) to insinuate himself between a visiting American ambassador and his "foolish" wife, wooing her and hoping to gain some money by playing on her weaknesses. He makes the mistake of also taking the life savings of the maid, whom he has promised to marry. When she sees them together, she sets fire to the room, (von Stroheim and his prey are on the room's balcony). Here von Stroheim first establishes his persona as "the man you love to hate." He is thoroughly bad and his character flaws eventually bring him to a very bad and deserved end. The film is crude in its cinematography and editing and not worth seeing unless you are fascinated by the director. There is a cute bit- when he first attempts to meet the Ambassador's wife, she is reading a book - we see the title - FOOLISH WIVES by Erich von Stroheim. This was originally envisioned as a 210 minute film, cut down to 140 minutes by the studio and finally released at 70 minutes. The restoration on Kino Video restores surviving footage (damaged in some way in most scenes) from the alternate earlier version to give us a 107 minute print.$LABEL$ 0
+Some movies seem to be made before we are ready for them. As I watched this film, made in 1988, in 1999, I thought I was watching the O.J. Simpson debacle (although I have very different opinions about the innocence of the individuals in each situation).The Australian news media, if this movie is to be believed, devoured the case of a possible infanticide and truth was left as an afterthought. It was scary to see the scenes of invasive, swarming media hordes, ridiculous accounts of half-truths and lies and debates over the supposed merits of the case by persons at all levels of society.Equally appalling is the media's depiction as indifferent and uncomprehending of the technical information in the case. I do wish more was made of the issue of religious prejudice in the case (the accused are Seven-Day Adventists).Today these circuses have become common but that makes the lesson only more important.Streep is excellent as usual, and this is the best I've ever seen Sam Neill. The Aussie accents get a bit thick at times but not incomprehensible.$LABEL$ 1
+And a perfect film to watch during the holiday season as the winter/Xmas atmosphere that Burton creates for Gotham City is way cool. It's weird that Warner decided to release this as a summer film. It doesn't fit.But what's even weirder, when you consider the content of this film, is that it was aimed at families. An upper-class family throws their mutant baby down the sewer, a socio phobic billionaire dresses up in leather as a flying rodent, a lonely secretary dresses up in leather as a feline and a freak runs for political office. And S&M and bondage are presented in a very perverted way. But Burton got away with it. His visual style in this film is at it's best.This and Batman: Dead End are the only true live-action incarnations of the comic-book character. True, the animated series was the closest to the source material, but compared with Batman Forever and the un-nameable one after that, Batman Returns is the best of the four.Darker and more violent than the first movie, the sense of Gothic pathos reaches a new high. I was quite keen on Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne (don't even get me started on George Clooney!), he displayed the right balance of weirdo loner and cool crime fighter. Michelle Pfieffer is great as Catwoman (much sexier and more 'realisticly' cat-like), she wears that leather outfit better than Halle Berry. And Danny DeVito was so convincing as the Penguin that his scenes became disturbing to watch. And Christopher Walken is brilliant as the spooky Max Shreck (if you think you recognise Chip Shrek it's none other than a very young Leatherface/Butterfinger).Danny Elfman's score is also even better than it was first time round. His powerful and engaging themes are way better than the dross that followed in the later 2 Schumacher movies. This movie is the Batman phenomenon at its Zenith. Forget the following sequels and stick to the animated series after this. Let's hope that Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale can bring some integrity back to the live action Batman with their movie next year.This DVD was one of the first ever DVDs released by Warner (almost 7 years ago!!!) and as a result there are NO features and the case is a snapper. Pick it up cheap like I did and hope for an SE in the future.$LABEL$ 1
+Everybody just seems to be raving about the subject, and not really noticing how the movie was made. The deaf, mute guy is fine, the underdog wins - that's good, the cricket aspect is great, but the movie is average overall. I think it could be made much much better than it is.The plot is too predictable for a movie that is not based on a real life event. I'm sure the movie could have been made more interesting. The songs are just stuffed in there, and I had to literally forward the scenes where the same thing would be shown from different angles.Good acting, though. Watchable.$LABEL$ 0
+TV churns out dozens of true-crime movies every year. You can see 3 or 4 every Saturday on Lifetime, and Court TV can be relied on for a few every weekend. So I started watching The Morrison Murders thinking I knew very well what to expect: a more or less competent retelling of a real-life family murder. What I got was a subtle, beautifully acted drama that engrossed me from start to finish.Both the brothers were totally convincing, and Jonathan Scarfe was perfect in the challenging role of Luke. The look and feel of Georgia was in almost every frame. If I had any complaint, it was Gordon Clapp as the sheriff. He just doesn't look or act like a small-town Southern lawman named Byron Calhoun. He looks and sounds like Medavoy, and Medavoy is not right for this part.But this is a minor quibble: The Morrison Murders is well worth watching, and not just on a rainy Saturday afternoon. If you're going out, tape it. You won't regret it.$LABEL$ 1
+Primal Species (1996, Dir. Jonathan Winfrey) International terrorists get a surprise when their cargo turn out to contain living dinosaurs. The army commando team now have to think fast, if they want to prevent the extinction of the human species, instead of the reptiles.You look at the cover and you gain your first impressions of the film. That is pretty much it. The acting is only just acceptable from a few characters. The story is poor, with the whole film based on the army and the marines trying to kill the dinosaurs. This film came out three years after 'Jurassic Park'. Instead, this film looks to have come out 13 years before 'Jurassic Park'. The dinosaurs costumes are so poorly made, and i do mean costumes. There are obviously people dressed up, and this film makes no attempts at hiding this. A scene when a dinosaur runs down a corridor is created in a way, in which it looks like someone is riding the creature. The is one good thing, which comes out of this film. The short running time. At only 1 hour and 15 minutes, it doesn't waste too much of your life, but still try to avoid it altogether."It's like a Friday the 13th Nightmare." - Officer (Brian Currie)$LABEL$ 0
+Oh my God, I was so expecting something more entertaining than this when I downloaded this movie, seeing as 1903 was one of my fave years for movies ever, but it sucked! The "plot", although I'd hesitate to call it that, is about some dumb elephant. It slowly makes its way onto some platform and gets electrocuted to death. Lame. Even for a short film, the plot was too thin to keep my attention. Edison is, like, the worst director ever. Plus, the elephant has no screen presence whatsoever. And the ending? Wow, that wasn't predictable at all. *sarcasm*The picture quality is horrible too. You can barely tell what's going on most of the time. The only positive thing about this movie is that unlike most other un-scary horror flicks this didn't spawn eleven sequels. Other than that this is a complete waste of money and 1 minute of your life you'll never get back.$LABEL$ 0
+As a low budget enterprise in which the filmmakers themselves are manufacturing and distributing the DVDs themselves, we perhaps shouldn't expect too much from Broken in disc form. And yet what's most remarkable about this whole achievement is the fact that this release comes with enough extras to shame a James Cameron DVD and a decidedly fine presentation.With regards to the latter, the only major flaw is that Broken comes with a non-anamorphic transfer. Otherwise we get the film in its original 1.85:1 ratio, demonstrating no technical flaws and looking pretty much as should be expected. Indeed, given Ferrari's hands on approach in putting this disc together you can pretty much guarantee such a fact.The same is also true of the soundtrack. Here we are offered both DD2.0 and DD5.1 mixes and whilst I'm uncertain as to which should be deemed the "original", the fact that Ferrari had an involvement in both means neither should be considered as inferior. Indeed, though the DD5.1 may offer a more atmosphere viewing experience owing to the manner in which it utilises the score, both are equally fine and free of technical flaws.As for extras the disc is positively overwhelmed by them. Take a look at the sidebar on the right of the screen and you'll notice numerous commentaries, loads of featurettes and various galleries. Indeed, given the manner in which everything has been broken down into minute chunks rather than compiled into a lengthy documentary, there really is little to discuss. The 'Anatomy of a Stunt' featurette, for example, is exactly what it claims to be, and the same goes for the rest of pieces. As such we get coverage on pretty much ever aspect of Broken's pre-production, production and post-production. And whilst it may have been preferable to find them in a more easily digestible overall 'making of', in this manner we do get easy access to whatever special feature we may wish to view.Of the various pieces, then, it is perhaps only the commentaries which need any kind of discussion. Then again, there's also a predictable air to each of the chat tracks. The one involving the actors is overly jokey and doesn't take the film too seriously. Ferrari's pieces are incredibly enthusiastic about the whole thing. And the technical ones are, well, extremely technical. Of course, we also get some crossover with what's been covered elsewhere on the discs, but at only 19 minutes none of these pieces outstay their welcome. Indeed, all in all, a fine extras package.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie features an o.k. score and a not bad performance by David Muir as Dr. Hackenstein. The beginning and end credits show along with the most of the actors and the "special effects" that this is a low budget movie. There is nothing in this movie that you could not find in other mad scientist, horror/comedy, or low budget movies. Not special for any nude scene buffs or bad movie lovers either. This movie is simply here. Anne Ramsey and Phillis Diller are nothing to get excited about as well. If you are curious as I was and can actually find this, you will realize the truth of the one line summary.$LABEL$ 0
+Gordon Parks, the prolific black Life magazine photographer, made a true ticking-timebomb of a movie here - one that does not mess around! Based upon the true story of two NYC cops - later dubbed Batman and Robin - who singlehandedly employed radical tactics to clean up their precinct neighborhood of drugs, this is a cop-buddy movie before that term became a repetitive formula. Lightning paced, there is not one unimportant throwaway scene here.Man, early '70s NYC must have been a terrible place to be a police officer, from the looks of movies like this and "Serpico." These two cops start out as safety-division rookies, busting dealers in plainclothes in their spare time. But instead of receiving applause from the city police department, they receive nothing but resistance and antagonism from their peers. They have to singlehandedly navigate a minefield of police and legal corruption, boneheaded assignments meant to keep them from their work on the streets, ruthless drug kingpins, and a nasty ghetto neighborhood.Both David Selby and Ron Leibman are fantastic in the leads; part of the entertainment is watching Leibman's eyes darting around crazily in every scene in what is a flawless comic performance, and Selby's acting is low-key and wry. These two make all the comedy aspects of the story work - displaying a palpable frustration mixed with gutsy determination. Director Parks, who was already known for his coverage of controversial subjects in his photography, does not shy away from the grittiness of the story. Rather, the movie is uncompromising in portrayal of the toughness of the world of police and streets criminals that these two men inhabit. Adding to this realism is the fact that the real Hantz and Greenberg acted as technical advisors for the film, and even appear in surreal cameo roles as two fellow officers who ridicule the protagonists. It is a real tribute to the effectiveness of Parks' direction that he manages to perfectly balance this depressing mileu with bright comedy.Why has MGM/UA let this sit on the shelf for 30 years - barely giving it a home video or DVD release in the U.S? It is a minor masterpiece from the 1970s.$LABEL$ 1
+OK, it was a "risky" move to rent this flick, but I thought I had nothing to lose.Well, I was wrong. This is, next to "Bloodsurf", the worst "horrormovie" I have ever seen. Crappy actors, crappy technical output, crappy story and so on. The soundtrack though, isn't to bad. That is why I give it a 2 on the vote and not just a 1. And of course the cats are a positive surprise. By far the superior actors in this movie..... Do not rent or buy it. Stay away from it and hope that this horrible, horrible film will vanish to some obscure existence and not become a "cult classic". It most definitely do not deserve any recognition.$LABEL$ 0
+The movie uses motifs that could be plagiarized from "Wait Until Dark" (1967), a much better movie by Terence Young, starring Audrey Hepburn. "Dead Silent" is a pale paraphrase. There is nothing new here -- the hidden object in the doll, the bad men wanting it, the bad guy posing as a good guy. The disability, though, has shifted : Audrey Hepburn couldn't see, the child in DS cannot speak. But both stories hinge on the handicap. Where "Wait Until Dark" built up unbearable suspense, "Dead Silent" lets you guess the outcome, the story being such a stereotype.$LABEL$ 0
+Dear me... Peter Sellers was one of the most oddly talented actors there has been. But his choice of films, say, after 1964, was very unfortunate. He didn't seem to realize how to use his talents. He would have been better off working with more of the Kubricks of the film world than the people he did. Of his later films, only "The Optimists of Nine Elms" and "Being There" have impressed me of those I have seen.That said, the Boultings and Sellers had made a few films prior to this that hardly sound that bad - I have yet to see "Carlton Browne" and "Heavens Above!" - at least in the sense of using Sellers well to a degree. But, "There's a Girl in My Soup" really is a poor film and a dire choice on Sellers' part in terms of character. In his films from 1955-64, you can usually expect at least some very inventive twist and always an enigmatic conviction in his roles. Here, you have Peter Sellers trying to play a typical romantic lead. It's almost Sellers playing a Niven cad without the joviality. He certainly does not convince, try as he might, or create an interesting character. He should have left such parts to masters of suavity such as Cary Grant, and concentrated on those intriguing dramatic and comic roles that he was famed for.Hawn and Sellers really do not establish any genuine chemistry; this is no easy, genial romance of the like perfected by William Powell and Myrna Loy. It is very artificial seeming, all the way through - I know that it is part of Danvers' character that he is a dry procurer of ladies, but he doesn't really change from that in a way that convinces. Sellers has a very grating way of playing "charm" as well... this character really has no depth, and really does not gain the viewer's sympathy or interest. Sellers goes through the motions in a way one would not think possible when remembering the magnificence of his shifty, iconoclastic performance in "Lolita".There really is nothing to say about the plot, direction or characters, as frankly they leave little or no impression. This is truly one of the most anaemic, complacent, misguided and lightly dull films I have ever seen. A nonentity of a "vehicle" for Sellers' undisputed talents.Rating:- * 1/2/*****$LABEL$ 0
+I am a huge Rupert Everett fan. I adore Kathy Bates so when I saw it available I decided to check it out. The synopsis didn't really tell you much. In parts it was silly , touching and in others some parts were down right hysterical.Any person that is a huge fan of a personality of any type will find some small identifying traits with the main character. (Of course there are many they won't, but that is the point)If you like any of the actors give it a watch but don't look for any thing too dramatic it's good fun.I might also mention you can see how darn tall Rupert is. I mean I knew he was 6'4" but he seems even more in this film. He even seemed to stoop a bit due to the other characters height in this. He is tall! I mean tall!!!! And for you Rupert fans there is a bare chest scene...WONDERFUL!$LABEL$ 1
+You know how sometimes you can watch a crappy movie with friends and laugh at all the shortcomings of the movie? Well this was beyond that. I bought the DVD at Tower Records because it was like $3.00 and I'd heard this was a movie you could laugh at. It is really nothing short of pathetic. About 30 minutes into the movie, my friends started asking me to turn it off. Around 45 minutes they begged me. After an hour, we compromised to fast forward to the end, so we could see how the conflict was resolved (and because we had been watching the whole time for Matt Walsh). Seriously, don't watch this movie. It is beyond painful.$LABEL$ 0
+Will some company PLEASE make a (good+) DVD of this film!??? Aside from being a wonderful film about relationships and friendships, "Four Friends" is the ONLY film I've ever seen -- And I have, literally, spent *years* of my life watching films! -- that captures the essence of the 60s experience (and I was there!): the idealism, the hope, the freedom, the confusion, the betrayals, and ultimately its upbeat but bittersweet denouement. And all of this is accomplished without being a story about any of the numerous upheavals of that era, although many are just touched upon... as part of the tapestry. But the story is primarily about the characters and their friendship over about 10~15 years... and that those survived and deepened, despite the tragedies of that turbulent decade. Absolutely a joy and must-see film... even if one's not an old hippie!!!$LABEL$ 1
+Central Airport is the story of a pilot named Jim (Richard Barthelmess) who has one bad flight in over 4000 hours and is forced to give up commercial flying. He meets a beautiful girl named Jill (Sally Eilers) and the two start up an act involving flying and stunts. The two start a relationship, but when Jim is hurt, his brother (Tom Brown) takes over the act for a while and falls for his brother's girlfriend. From there, things get exciting and terribly terribly sad.This film is a pre-code because of several reasons. First, Jim and Jill have consummated their relationship without being married and with no intention of having a wedding. Second, Eilers is shown in her underwear, and absolutely restricted scene when the Production Code came into effect.This film does not skimp on the dramatic love triangle and in consequence ends bittersweetly.$LABEL$ 1
+Under no circumstances watch this film. It is terrible for a number of reasons:No plot No structure No direction No acting to speak of No visual style No tensionIn a word - no.Best thing about it the box and the fact it eventually ends. Who would have thought 85mins could feel so long.Once again: Under no circumstances watch this film. It is terrible.No plot No structure No direction No acting to speak of No visual style No tensionIn a word - no.Best thing about it the box and the fact it eventually ends. Who would have thought 85mins could feel so long.$LABEL$ 0
+Is this a good movie? No, certainly not. But for Jolie lovers it's must-have. Her non-polished acting and semi-nudity scene will please her fans for ages to come. The current rating however (3.2) is too low. The movie might lack a good storyline, and isn't a great sf-movie altogether but the acting is good enough (and like mentioned before, Jolie's acting is nice and raw), the movie is shot very direct, with a lot of close-ups. The scenery is bizarre. And last but not least, leaving van Damme out was a very good choice. Presumably, non of the Jolie lovers would like to see her having sex with him. This movie has all the potential of becoming a cult movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Saw this movie on its release and have treasured it since. What a wonderful group of actors (I always find the casting one of the most interesting aspects of a film). Really enjoyed seeing dramatic actress Jacqueline Bisset in this role and Wallace Shawn is always a hoot. The script is smart, sly and tongue-in-cheek, poking fun at almost everything "Beverley Hills". Loved Paul Bartel's "doctor" and Ray Sharkey's manservant. This was raunchy and crude, but thank god! Unless you're a prude, I heartily recommend this movie. FYI for anyone who likes to play six degrees of Kevin Bacon, Mary Woronov & Paul Bartel were in "Rock & Roll High School". Mary Woronov and Robert Beltran were in "Night of the Comet" together. They were all three in "Eating Raoul".$LABEL$ 1
+The fact that there are positive comments about Dan in Real Life on the IMDb just makes me realize that their junket staff are hard at work trying to get people to watch this utterly horrific film.I have no words, no idea where to start to describe the truly awful film I sat through last night - Dan in Real Life. Steve's characters in previous films led me to believe that I would feel something for his character and enjoy the dialog but like other posters I felt uncomfortable and embarrassed for the cast.The dialog was so contrived, the family was this cookie cutter Walton's family and the film has been so many times before that I am shocked someone thought it was an original idea.Do yourself a favor and take a pass on this terrifyingly bad movie and don't believe everything you read on the IMDb since the first comments were clearly written by folks sitting in a different theater watching a GOOD film.$LABEL$ 0
+I am still trying to determine whether the previous installment was worse than this one, or vice versa. Being that it is nearly fifteen years since I saw this film, the fact that I remember so little about it does not bode well. Perhaps it is simply because I only watched it once or twice, but I doubt it. If there was anything worth remembering about this film, you can rest assured I would remember it.At the time this film was released, the franchise was still entering its dying phase, so a lot of media coverage was allotted to it. It's never a good sign when teenie pop magazines contain explanations of the plot basics. One such article had to explain that Freddy was left too weak to infest the dreams of grown humans, so he decides to go after Alice's unborn son. So far, so good, but this is the job of the writer or the director to explain to the audience. It should not be left to some unrelated publication.Making use of the trivia given in part three about Freddy's conception, one could half expect scenes that would lift this joke out of the "horror for infants" category, but alas, that was not to be. It goes to show the sheer idiocy of the American ratings system that a piece of B'harni-esque garbage like this could get the same rating as a genuinely frightening piece like the original.By this time, the franchise could not attract anyone with an active career. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, Lisa Wilcox was there to provide a quotient of competent acting. Or perhaps she just looks competent by comparison to the rest of the cast. Either way, given that her last role was in something called The All New Adventures of Chastity Blade, I doubt she really had anything else going for her. Even poor old Robert Englund has been in better productions than that in the past fifteen years.Given that box office returns were in a steady decline, and not just for this franchise, at the time, one would have thought that the studios would realize neutering their films does not make them more saleable. In fact, this particular film, like its immediate predecessor, was so neutered that not only did it fail to attract a new audience, both succeeded in alienating the core audience that originally supported the franchise. Despite this, part five must be given some credit for not having the bright, luminescent feeling that made part four so insulting to look at.I gave A Nightmare On Elm Street Part Five a one out of ten. By trying to appeal to everyone, or the MPAA's idea of everyone, it succeeds in appealing to noone. Like parts two and four, one could erase it from the continuity entirely, and nobody would notice the difference.$LABEL$ 0
+I was impressed by the beautiful photography in this film, which was shot on location in Alaska. Although technically a melodrama, we see lots of activities Eskimos are involved in, such as hunting, dancing, building igloos, etc. And their customs, such as offering their wives to visitors, are routinely in the story. The hunting sequences were sometimes from stock footage, as it was easy to recognize some rear projection scenes of animals, but even these were fascinating. Spear fishing for salmon, hunting for walrus, caribou and even a polar bear and a whale made it seem like a documentary at times. There was no cast listing, which reinforced the documentary flavor. The film-makers tried to make it seem very authentic, with the natives speaking only in an Eskimo language that was either translated by someone on screen or by intertitles. The introduction stated that except for the white traders and the Royal Mounted Canadian Police, there were no actors in the film, but this was not strictly true. The two leading characters, played by Mala and Lotus Long, were Eskimos by birth, but were professional actors with credits for earlier films and you could see sometimes they had makeup on. But they were excellent in their roles and they went on to have Hollywood careers. All in all, the film is definitely worth a look.$LABEL$ 1
+I found this film to be extremely homophobic... the main character doesn't know he's gay until he realizes that he likes Barbra Streisand and has a limp wrist!!! I was so offended that after the screening at the Toronto Film Festival, I went up and spoke to the screen writer to complain about this film. This is the sort of film that GLAAD needs to work to have banned.$LABEL$ 0
+Things to Come is that rarity of rarities, a film about ideas. Many films present a vision of the future, but few attempt to show us how that future came about. The first part of the film, when war comes to Everytown, is short but powerful. (Ironically, film audiences in its release year laughed at reports that enemy planes were attacking England--appeasement was at its height. Wells' prediction was borne out all too soon.) The montage of endless war that follows, while marred by sub-par model work, is most effective. The explanatory titles are strongly reminiscent of German Expressionist graphic design. The art director was the great William Cameron Menzies, and his sets of the ruins of Everytown are among his best work. Margaretta Scott is very seductive as the Chief's mistress. The Everytown of the 21st century is an equally striking design. The acting in the 21st century story is not compelling--perhaps this was a misfired attempt to contrast the technocratic rationality of this time with the barbarism of 1970. Unfortunately, the model work, representing angry crowds rushing down elevated walkways, is laughably bad and could have been done much better, even with 30s technology. This is particularly galling since the scenes of the giant aircraft are very convincing. This is redeemed by Raymond Massey's magnificent speech that concludes the film--rarely has the ideal of scientific progress been expressed so well. Massey's final question is more relevant now than ever, in an era of severely curtailed manned spaceflight. The scene is aided by the stirring music of Sir Arthur Bliss, whose last name I proudly share.Unfortunately, the VHS versions of this film are absolutely horrible, with serious technical problems. Most versions have edited out a rather interesting montage of futuristic workers and machines that takes us from 1970 to 2038. I hope a good DVD exists of the entire film.$LABEL$ 1
+This film isn't supposed to be funny, but it made me laugh.It isn't designed to be sad, but my heart felt heavy through a number of the vignettes.It isn't written as action adventure, but my pulse raced more than once.Just like life, this movie doesn't manipulate your emotions and tell you how to feel. It simply is, and you react.If you don't find it funny or sad or moving, I suspect that says more about you than the film.It amazing and refreshing to see a director so wholeheartedly celebrate that we are all human, and embrace that we are all trapped here, doing this "life" thing, over and over for as long as we must.Tomorrow is another day.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is simply excellent. For some reason it wasn't a success at the box office in India. In New York, however, I have yet to come across a person who disliked this movie. This is definitely the funniest movie to come out of India. Everyone gives a good performance; Amir Khan; however, just takes over and puts the movie over the top.$LABEL$ 1
+One of my favorite movies. I like horses, I like happy endings, and I like Walter Matthau. I miss him and am glad to have a great film like this to remind me why he was so wonderful. Watch it with your kids (or your horse).The story of an old hard boot horse trainer with kids, and down on his luck. If you have ever had or appreciated horse racing you will appreciate the rags to riches storyline. It may be a little below "Seabiscuit", but not a lot. The story is the same one, except it is the quarter horse version. Well acted, correct racing terms and equipment, and nice racing scenes. Don't take my word for it, get it and make up your own mind.$LABEL$ 1
+I don't know anything of the writer's or the director's earlier work so I hadn't brought any prejudices to the film. Based on the brief description of the plot in TV Guide I thought it might be interesting.But implausibility was piled upon implausibility. Each turn of the plot seemed to be an excuse to drag in more bloodshed, gruesome makeup, or special effects.The score was professional and Kari Wuhrer seems like a decent actress but the rest was more than disappointing. It was positively repulsive.I will not go through the vagaries of the narrative but I'll give an example of what I think of as an excess of explicit gore.Chris McKenna goes to an isolated ranch house and pulls the frozen body of his earlier victim (Wendt) out of the deep freeze. McKenna had killed Wendt by biting a chunk out of his neck. Now he feels he must destroy the evidence of his involvement in Wendt's demise. (What are the cops going to do, measure his bite radius?) McKenna unwraps Wendt's head and neck from the freezer bag it's in, takes an ax, and begins to chop off Wendt's head. Whack. Whack. Whack. The bit of the ax keeps chipping away at Wendt's neck. The air is filled with nuggets of flying frozen flesh, one of which drops on McKenna's head. (He brushes it off when he's done.) McKenna then takes the frozen head outside to a small fire he's built. He sits the head on the ground, squats next to it, takes out some photos of a woman he's just killed, and shows them to Wendt's head. "Remember her? We could have really made it if it hadn't been for you guys," he tells the head. "Duke, you've always liked bonfires, haven't you?" he asks. Then he places the head on the fire. We only get a glimpse of it burning but we can hear the fat sizzling in the flame.I don't want this sort of garbage to be censored. I'm only wondering who enjoys seeing this stuff.There's no reason to go on with the rest of the movie. Well, I'll mention one example of an "implausibility," since I brought the idea up. McKenna has been kidnapped and locked in a dark bare shack. He knows he's going to be clobbered half to death in the following days. (He's literally invited the heavies to do it.) What would you do in this Poe-like situation? Here's what McKenna does on what may turn out to be the last night of his life. He finds a discarded calendar with a pin-up girl on it and masturbates (successfully). Give that man the Medal of Freedom! A monster who looks like Pizza the Hut is thrown into some unnecessary flashbacks. The camera is often hand held and wobbly. The dialog has lines like, "Life is a piece of s***. Or else it's the best of all possible worlds. It depends on your point of view." Use is made of a wide angle lens that turns ordinary faces into gargoyle masks. A house blows up in an explosive fireball at the end while the hero, McKenna, walks towards us in the foreground.Some hero he is, too. He first kills a man for $13,000 by bashing him over the head several times with a heavy statue, then a potted plant, before finally tipping a refrigerator over onto the body. (This bothers him a little, but not enough to keep him from insisting on payment.) Then, I hope I have the order straight, he kills Wendt by ripping out part of his neck. Then he kills the wife of his first victim by accident and blames the heavies for it, although by almost any moral calculus they had nothing to do with it. Next he burns the head honcho (Baldwin) alive. Then, having disabled the two lesser heavies, he deliberately blows them up, though one of them isn't entirely unsympathetic. And we're supposed to be rooting for McKenna.These aren't cartoon deaths like those in the Dirty Harry movies either -- bang bang and you're dead. These are slow and painful. The first one -- the murder for $13,000 -- is done clumsily enough to resemble what might happen in real life. It isn't really easy to kill another human being, as Hitchcock had demonstrated in Torn Curtain. But that scene leads to no place of any importance.Some people might enjoy this, especially those young enough to think that pain and death are things that happen only in movies. Some meretricious stuff on screen here.$LABEL$ 0
+As a Michigander, I got the Michigan jokes. Very funny - make fun of Pontiac, Ann Arbor, all those lame suburbs of Detroit. Yes, yes, I've heard these jokes a million times. I'll give them credit for accurately depicting the lameness of Grosse Pointe. It couldn't get more White. Did you hear those lovely Michigan nasal accents? Where the girls talk so fast you can't understand one word that comes out of their mouth (nose)...? As much as I love Michigan, I hated this movie. I have never met one person from Grosse Pointe that I liked. Listen to that awful live band and that annoying and horrid background music! What is that? One of your Gross Pointe homeboy's band? Probably. Wow, what a great "Detroit scene" you guys have over there. Funny how people from Grosse Pointe always say they're from Detroit. They're so White and rich, they wish they had something to complain about.Anyway, this movie blows. All the way from the lame jokes about girls in thongs to the terrible character development. Oh wait a minute, you mean the entire basis for a character is that he says the f-word a lot? What a deep personality. Great job, Grosse Pointers! And I love all the sexist lingo, like how the narrator calls the first girl who gets killed that we never even hear speak a "naive b*tch". That's really lovely.And those homemade masks with the Marilyn Manson contact lenses are really great. And I love how it made perfect sense as to why the bikers came by and killed people. And how their narrating master had such a obvious role in the movie... ?? The main boyfriend dude was so boring I fell asleep looking at him. The three idiot guys (or was it two or four? how can I tell, they all look and act the same!) were so desperately trying to make me laugh, but Beavis and Butthead already got out my butt humor laughs back in 1994. And what's with the gay jokes? No wonder this movie sucked - everyone involved must have some minor problems with their masculinity, eh boys?The only saving grace to this film was the main girl. Despite what the other people on here have said, she actually was a good actress. Teenage girls talk the way she talked. They really act the way she acted. Her acting was very natural and believable. I really thought she was a Grosse Pointe convenience store employee. .. maybe she is! And yeah she had big boobs, most the women here do. Michigan is the fattest state in the union, you know. In all aspects.So, those of you who think this is a representation of Detroit, it's not. It's the suburbs of Detroit. They are very White and full of aimless teen angst. Limp Bizkut, ICP (yes, ICP is from one of our suburbs) and $75 baggy khaki pants all the way! Lame rich kids who are mad because they have lots of money and nothing to complain about. And they make bad movies, too.$LABEL$ 0
+Contains SpoilersBut if you weren't dropped on the head as a child and then used as a football then you'll agree with me that this is one of the worst and yet hilarious series ever made. Centreing round a woman who as a young girl was beaten by her father who also killed her mother, she spends her time drawing, but wait for it, then she becomes her superhero drawings and goes on to fight crime, therefore being "drawn by pain", so clever. The story itself is actually OK, but it's just how it's done, Jesse the writer and director has no idea how to write a script, just listen to a monologue featuring the 8 year old version of the hero and it sounds like it was written by a 30 year old man, while her dad, who sports a great moustache, just walks around the house all day while looking angry, just showing how bad the characterisation is, especially the bit where he gets angry in the first episode and begins repeating the phrase "no more" while holding his wife's head before killing her using the marble work surface. The following bang sound effect and just his terrible acting as all he can convey is angry just is brilliant, including after where he goes to beat his daughter using his belt which is all done with him moaning and looking angry in slow motion. The episodes themselves could contain easily a good clean script ranging over 5 minutes, but oh no Jesse doesn't want this. Little Jesse, is shitting out post modernism as if he'd just eaten Donnie Darko and then douched himself to death. Pointless camera jerks, all at weird angles, overly repeated lines and even pointless sequences just muddled up every now and again to fill the overlong episodes. In conclusion the idea isn't bad it's just how it's done, also there is a great character of a fat guy on a bench who doesn't come up enough and is great, i just wanna hug his Lil chubby cheeks cause they look so soft. The character development is non existent as the main character just says the first philosophical sounding thing that comes to her head although they all contradict one another. But all in all, mainly s**tIndiana Jones 4 however is much better, Type "Jeeharv" into you-tube as well, the results may make you weep at the beauty of the world also you'll hear a lot of cheap sex jokes, mostly gay ones.$LABEL$ 0
+You Are Alone is a beautiful, almost delicate film, smart directed, crisply written, with two complex and riveting performances, and a twist of an ending that no one will see coming, but will make you want to see the film a second time to go back and catch up on all the clues you misread.The story, about a highschool girl who drowns her depression and awkwardness by working a few hours a week as a $500 an hour "schoolgirl" escort, and the depressed next-door neighbor who discovers her secret and hires her for an afternoon call in a downtown New Haven hotel, features breathtaking performances from both Jessica Bohl, as the girl, and Richard Brundage, as her neighbor.Bohl as Daphne gives a breakthrough performance on par with Maggie Gyllenhaal in Secretary. She so captures a teenager's angst of growing into her own skin, and when she talks about always being in control, you start to realize she's not in control at all, but in danger of going over the deep end, which I guess in a way she does.Brundage as Buddy is depressed, angry, heartbroken, a shell of a man. But it isn't until the film's startling conclusion that you grasp a full comprehension of his pain.After a very brief opening segment, which will hook most independent film lovers, and have the religious right running towards the exits, we are brought into the hotel room. At first you're not sure about these people, or the film-making style. Shaky, annoying...like the characters. Until you realize their back story, told in short flashbacks. They're confrontational at first for a reason, and so is the camera. But as they open up, as the story settles down, likewise, so does the camera. And, I don't know, 20 minutes in, give or take, you find yourself unable to take your eyes away from the screen.Having just seen the world premiere screening at the Brooklyn Film Fest -- where the director asked the audience if anyone expected the ending and not one person answered yes – I almost wish the film were already on video so I could watch it again. Because thinking back now on some of the conversations in the film, particularly a very candid dialog regarding fantasy and climax, I really thought things were going in a very different direction. But I realize now so much of their conversation meant something completely different than what I imagined. I need to see it again!!! But as dark and sexual as much of the talk is, blunt to say the least, I found myself laughing more than I might have expected at some of its candor, which definitely falls into the "things we think, but lack the nerve to say out loud" category. It's very blunt, especially when you realize so much of it has a completely different meaning. Some of it will make you uncomfortable, especially if you're watching You Are Alone with a partner. You'll definitely have something to talk about – perhaps argue about – afterwards. Perhaps it should come with a warning: You SHOULD be alone when watching! The music is amazing. I would have come home, and purchased the soundtrack at my favorite online music store if I could have. The film looks as good as anything shot on film. After the screening director Gorman Bechard was asked what sort of process he used to get the digital footage to look so good. His answer: none. They couldn't afford it.I have to give Bechard credit. I am a big fan of his two shorts, The Pretty Girl and Objects in the Mirror, but even they could not have prepared me for the complexities and surprises of this film.To everyone involved: bravo.$LABEL$ 1
+I understand there was some conflict between Leigh and the great Maggie Smith during the filming. Understandable when you put one of the world's greatest actresses of all time (Smith, of course) with one whose performances seem to get worse with each subsequent film.$LABEL$ 0
+Dead Man Walking, absolutely brilliant, in tears by the end! You can not watch this film and not think about the issues it raises; how can you justify killing (whether it be murder or the death penalty) and to what point is forgiveness possible (not just in a spiritual way). Don't watch this film when your down! But WATCH IT!!!$LABEL$ 1
+Yay!... I think. It's hard to say. It's hard to have an emotion about a movie that has no emotion. This movie is as sterile as a surgeon's scalpel. For a setting, it has a few stone pillars, some stone seats, a couple stone crosses and some stone actors. They have no emotion! The only thing that saves this movie is the fact that it is Hamlet, and Hamlet is a terrificly written piece of literature. The dubbing really wasn't all that bad though. The voices stuck true to the dull, gloomy, dreary, life-sucking atmosphere the movie gave forth. I have seen this version of Hamlet on the fabulous Mystery Science Theater 3000 three times, and each of the three times, I was on the brink of turning off the TV, despite it being MST 3K.Not an uplifting production of a drama that deserves so much better.$LABEL$ 0
+So, has it really come to this? Are we, as consenting adults, to blame for the next generation of cinema-goers lack of cinematic understanding and celluloid capability? Concerning the Wayans and Co. latest addition to the moving pictures scenario; Little Man. This United Kingdom P.G. (Parental Guidance), anyone under the age of twelve must be accompanied by a responsible adult, certificated movie, is the epitome of what has now developed into the worse case of dumbing down since cigarettes were "wiped out" from pictures of movie icons of the 1950's.The predominantly under twelve's audience here who, some without grown up supervision too, sat there, obediently, taking it all in, oblivious to their subject and the partly grown up features that Little Man portrays, in part at least too. Movies, in general, can do better than this poor attempt, while this nonsense is getting them in while they are still young and fresh, the biggest fear for the future of Cinema is that a child's ignorance just might carry on through to a grown up bliss. Cinema deserves more than this, and so do its ever growing, and in the literal sense too, audiences, this blatant cash cow feeds on the ever-impressionable minds of the young.There is no Cinema experience here, no open eyed wonder, no awe-inspiring respect to the magic of movies'. There is nothing but bewilderment and contempt, for the lack of substance, originality and its delivery of mind less tedium and parody of everything that is so now ultimately wrong with the Hollywood machine, for the sake of a quick buck, we must endure our future cinema audiences to the likes of this archetypal disaster movie.Will this have the likes of Hitchcock, Fassbinder, Leone, Kubrick and Schaffner reeling in their graves? Money they all liked, no doubt, but talent and exuberance for perfection and quality, and to a vast degree, respect for their profession and audience, they were never short off. We are seeing, once again, with the works of the Wayans clan another cliché of bad taste, while the likes of White Chicks (2004) were in no doubt a stab at the bourgeoisie of American society. The irony here is that the two leading protagonists, played yet again, by the Wayans brothers, are so much undercover, that all recognition is non-existent, this makes for a better movie too, and it is the actor Terry Crews that gives White Chicks its substance and personality, not the Wayans.Yet again, with their pastiche of 1970's Blaxploitation movies, as with the 1988 movie I'm Gonna Git You Sucka, this to can be seen as a comical and amusing movie, with heavy weights as Isaac Hayes, Jim Brown, Bernie Casey and the gorgeous actress Ja'net Du Bois. The point being, that Little Man has absolutely no persona of any kind what so ever, he is shallow and narcissistic, with no appreciation or value toward his followers, he quickly dives in takes your money and before we know it, has hidden himself within the cogs of commercialism. There is no recognisable effort as to where our money has been spent, after Scary Movie (2000), things could only have gone up, but alas they did not, no great pondering of artistic value and no doubt that the instalment from these intrepid movie moguls' next movies shall be straight to video, one can only hope.The Wayans seem to have created a movie genre all by themselves, to a certain extent; they have bludgeoned to death the movie parody, they have watered down each and every avenue and with their inevitable style. They have slowly destroyed the reputation of the last one hundred years that Cinema have given us, may the ghosts of movies past be ever so humble in their judgement, as their growing audiences, so far, seem to be, for when the bubble bursts, may they be as understanding too.$LABEL$ 0
+STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning Alice, having defeated Freddy at the end of the last film, is now trying to re-adjust her life. But her unborn child is carrying a demonous presence- Freddy, trying to come out into their world again.It's interesting to note the directors who got their big breaks directing Freddy films- Charles Russell (Eraser, The Mask) Renny Harlin (The Long Kiss Goodnight, Cutthroat Island, Cliffhanger, Die Hard 2) and here Stephen Hopkins (Lost in Space, Predator 2.) But while Russell and Harlin made a good job of it, Hopkins IMO has made something of a podge with this entry, that should be quickly forgotten.The story is clearly being stretched as far as it can go here, with Freddy ludicrously a father himself and the ridiculous looking demon baby. Even at about an hour and a half, it all gets rather tiresome, and of course, not scary at all.The "bon appetit, bitch" catch-phrase is the only memorable point of this other wise very forgettable entry. *$LABEL$ 0
+This was just horrible the plot was just OK, but the rest of the was was bad . I mean come on puppet and then they even tried to make the movie digital and that made it even worse! Normally I would like low-budget movie but this was just a waste of time and almost made me want to return the set that it came on. I have about ten low-budget movie set with like 6-8 movies on them and I would have to say this is the worse movie out of all of them. Also the wording is off and they use a fake plastic machetes that doesn't even look like a real one, they could of used one that looked even a little close to a real one so save your time and money and don't watch this horrorible movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Seriously, it had everything you could want in a movie, everything! Screw you scalawags who like Gone With The Winds, and screw you Titanic fans even harder! Tenacious reins supreme, forever and ever, amen!Climb upon my faithful steed, Then we gonna ride, gonna smoke some weed. Climb upon my big-freaking' steed, And ride, ride, ride.What's the name of the song, Explosivo! Don't know what it's about, But it's good to go. What's the name of my girlfriend I don't know, But she's built like the best And she's good to go, go, She's good to go, She's good to go.We are fueled by Satan, Yes we're schooled by Satan. Fuelled by Satan! Writin' those tasty riffs just as fast as we can. Schooled by Satan!We were the inventors of the cosmic astral code. We've come to blow you away, We've come to blow your nose. We've come to freaking' blow, We've come to blow the show. We've come to freaking' blow, You know it, you know it!What's the name of the song, Explosivo! Don't know what it's about But it's good to riddle-ah!I am not one of you. I come from an ancient time. I am known as The Kicker of Elves. I am also known as The Angel Crusher!Explosivo.$LABEL$ 1
+If there has ever been a worse comedy than 'Gray Matters' I am unaware of it. The New York Jewish comedy's 'funny' premise is that siblings Sam & Gray are mistaken for a couple and so decide to fix Sam up with a girlfriend, only to find that Gray is equally attracted to their target - Charlie. The revelation that Gray is secretly gay is apparently only a surprise to her. There is a deeply offensive wedding sequence, a deeply embarrassing 'drunk act' from Moynahan and Graham, and a performance that would embarrass forests everywhere for its woodenness from Tom Cavanagh. Sissy Spacek demonstrates a complete inability to do comedy and will want this excised from her resume. Molly Shannon plays the homely friend with lumpen insouciance. Only Alan Cumming emerges with any credit but is seriously under-employed and given nothing with which to work. The whole disaster is cemented by Graham's bizarre eye-rolling performance culminating with the penultimate scene where she wears a comedy hat and an overcoat despite the scene being set in a lesbian bar. It is astonishing that this film was ever released it has no redeeming feature and should be avoided at all costs.$LABEL$ 0
+I've never seen a show with as much story, mystery, suspense, and hard-hitting excitement before. i barley watch TV anymore but i own every season of this show and it's amazing. every episode is extremely well-acted, written and plotted. towards the end of the show i felt that the stories were getting too far-fetched for being in a prison, but the actors pulled it off. Sopranoes sucks huge compared to OZ. in fact, any show that is on a cable network, HBO or not just cant hold a candle to OZ. i wish it would come back for one more season. if it did happen, they would probably kill off every character on the show, but hey, we all gotta go sometime. as far as the characters, i'd say O'Reily and Alverez were my favorites. both were hardley in a scene together, but their individual stories i thought were the strongest of anyones, except Beechers of course, but still... anyway, best show ever, best network ever, some of the best actors ever, PERIOD!$LABEL$ 1
+Losing Control is another offering in the erotic thriller genre which could be considered as the pulp fiction of the film world. Usually, they involve a roundabout route to murderous intent, interspersed with copious disrobing. This is not a complaint, especially when it is done by the stunningly beautiful women who invariably inhabit this make-believe world.Kim Ward (Kira Reed) is suffering a bout of writer's block. Just by chance, (or is it?) she meets a man (Doug Jeffery) who engages with her in ever more risky sexual encounters. The man refuses to divulge any information about himself, yet Kim steadfastly refuses to stop the affair. Her agent, Alexa (Anneliza Scott) thinks it will do wonders for her book sales. As in most films of this type, the denouement comes near the end but some things do not add up. I have seen enough of this kind of film to think, no change there, then - but I like them. They are so undemanding.Performances of the cast vary. Doug Jeffery carries the film as the psycho/sociopath you do not want to cross. Kira Reed looks good but fails to convince as the woman in peril. Clay Greenbush as the PI did not convince either.Finally, a note of caution about the DVD under review. Both the cover and the disc state R-rated and running time as 93 minutes but the run time is less than 86 minutes. This probably explains why the sex scenes appear truncated and why Jennifer Ludlow's performance is cut short just as she's getting started. 4 stars.$LABEL$ 0
+I have long tried to understand why people like Shakespeare so much and every few years I give him another go. I was hoping that this play/film (my 6th different Shakespeare play) would unlock the lucky casket and marry me to the riches of this literary Demigod. Bah, I clearly chose the wrong key.Once the phrase "pound of flesh" had been uttered 10 minutes into the film, the main parts of the plot were transparent, which grinds along with a languid script and lifeless acting. At every step, the plot is laid bare two scenes in advance. The concept that a dying aristocrat would persuade his daughter to choose her future husband by means of a lottery is incredulous. It is no surprise who wins the matrimonial jackpot because Bassanio's a main protagonist in the play.... and he's the third man to try .... and there are three caskets to choose from ... and his friend risks his life to pay the dowry. The only genuine surprise that I had watching this film is that it did not end immediately after the resolution of the court case. However as soon as the ring treachery began it was immediately apparent what would transpire.OK so I know that millions of you love Shakespeare not for the surprise in the well known stories but for the depth and passion of the characters. But I felt nothing for the characters. Rather than gripped with suspense and admiration during the court scene I sat there impassionately hoping that it would be over, soon, please.One day, I might just find a Shakespeare play that does something other than bore me.$LABEL$ 0
+This was a wonderful little American propaganda film that is both highly creative AND openly discusses the Nazi atrocities before the entire extent of the death camps were revealed. While late 1944 and into 1945 would reveal just how evil and horrific they were, this film, unlike other Hollywood films to date, is the most brutally honest film of the era I have seen regarding Nazi atrocities.The film begins in a courtroom in the future--after the war is over (the film was made in 1944--the war ended in May, 1945). In this fictitious world court, a Nazi leader is being tried for war crimes. Wilhelm Grimm is totally unrepentant and one by one witnesses are called who reveal Grimm's life since 1919 in a series of flashbacks. At first, it appears that the film is going to be sympathetic or explain how Grimm was pushed to join the Nazis. However, after a while, it becomes very apparent that Grimm is just a sadistic monster. These episodes are amazingly well done and definitely hold your interest and also make the film seem less like a piece of propaganda but a legitimate drama.All in all, the film does a great job considering the film mostly stars second-tier actors. There are many compelling scenes and performances--especially the very prescient Jewish extermination scene towards the end that can't help but bring you close to tears. It was also interesting how around the same point in the film there were some super-creative scenes that use crosses in a way you might not notice at first. Overall, it's a must-see for history lovers and anyone who wants to see a good film.FYI--This is not meant as a serious criticism of the film, but Hitler was referred to as "that paper hanger". This is a reference to the myth that Hitler had once made money putting up wallpaper. This is in fact NOT true--previously he'd been a "starving artist", homeless person and served well in the German army in WWI. A horrible person, yes, but never a paper hanger!$LABEL$ 1
+If you're an average guy like me and enjoy good acting, good plot, good scripts, novel ideas, or being entertained, you might want to skip this one. I was honestly bored from the opening credits to the very end, but tried to give the film a chance, and watched it all the way through -- only to be disappointed at every turn.The acting was unbelievably sub par, but I'm not sure if the actors themselves are to blame or if it was the ridiculously wooden and horrible dialog coupled with an even worse script. The plot is very vague and underdeveloped and I think the audience is supposed to derive some kind of deeper meaning from it, or be able to look past it in some way, but honestly to do so would be a waste of time.The film has a kind of crude sexuality to it which doesn't serve any purpose other than to show off some tattoos and lingerie. No one seems to have any motivation except making money off of some kind of "investment" deal that is never really explained. The connections between the characters aren't terribly clear, and there is little to no character development.This is either some kind of sub-culture film meant for a very specific audience to enjoy or absolute crap, but you can decide for yourselves.I gave it a 2 because it is definitely one of the worst films I've ever seen, but probably not THE worst.$LABEL$ 0
+These days, writers, directors and producers are relying more and more on the "surprise" ending. The old art of bringing a movie to closure, taking all of the information we have learned through out the movie and bringing it to a nice complete ending, has been lost. Now what we have is a movie that, no matter how complex, detailed, or frivolous, can be wrapped up in 5 minutes. It was all in his/her head. That explanation is the director's safety net. If all else fails, or if the writing wasn't that good, or if we ran out of money to complete the movie, we can always say "it was all in his/her head" and end the movie that way. The audience will buy it because, well, none of us are psychologists, and none of us are suffering from schizophrenia (not that we know about) so we take the story and believe it. After all, the mind is a powerful thing. Some movies have pulled it off. But those movies are the reason why we are getting more and more of these crap endings. Every director/writer now thinks they can pull it off because, well, Fight Club did it and it made a lot of money. So we get movies like The Machinist, Secret Window, Identity, and this movie (just to name a few).$LABEL$ 0
+LE GRAND VOYAGE is a gentle miracle of a film, a work made more profound because of its understated script by writer/director Ismaël Ferroukhi who allows the natural scenery of this 'road trip' story and the sophisticated acting of the stars Nicolas Cazalé and Mohamed Majd to carry the emotional impact of the film. Ferroukhi's vision is very capably enhanced by the cinematography of Katell Djian (a sensitive mixture of travelogue vistas of horizons and tightly photographed duets between characters) and the musical score by Fowzi Guerdjou who manages to maintain some beautiful themes throughout the film while paying homage to the many local musical variations from the numerous countries the film surveys. Reda (Nicolas Cazalé) lives with his Muslim family in Southern France, a young student with a Western girlfriend who does not seem to be following the religious direction of his heritage. His elderly father (Mohamed Majd) has decided his time has come to make his Hadj to Mecca, and being unable to drive, requests the reluctant Reda to forsake his personal needs to drive him to his ultimate religious obligation. The two set out in a fragile automobile to travel through France, into Italy, and on through Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, and Turkey to Saudi Arabia. Along the trip Reda pleads with his father to visit some of the interesting sights, but his father remains focused on the purpose of the journey and Reda is irritably left to struggle with his father's demands. On their pilgrimage they encounter an old woman (Ghina Ognianova) who attaches herself to the two men and must eventually be deserted by Reda, a Turkish man Mustapha (Jacky Nercessian) who promises to guide the father/son duo but instead brings about a schism by getting Reda drunk in a bar and disappearing, and countless border patrol guards and custom agents who delay their progress for various reasons. Tensions between father and son mount: Reda cannot understand the importance of this pilgrimage so fraught with trials and mishaps, and the father cannot comprehend Reda's insensitivity to the father's religious beliefs and needs. At last they reach Mecca where they are surrounded by hoards of pilgrims from all around the world and the sensation of trip's significance is overwhelming to Reda. The manner in which the story comes to a close is touching and rich with meaning. It has taken a religious pilgrimage to restore the gap between youth and old age, between son and father, and between defiance and acceptance of religious values. The visual impact of this film is extraordinary - all the more so because it feels as though the camera just 'happens' to catch the beauty of the many stopping points along the way without the need to enhance them with special effects. Nicolas Cazalé is a superb actor (be sure to see his most recent and currently showing film 'The Grocer's Son') and it is his carefully nuanced role that brings the magic to this film. Another fine film from The Film Movement, this is a tender story brilliantly told. Highly recommended. Grady Harp$LABEL$ 1
+David Cronenberg, much like colleague David Lynch, is an acquired taste. A director who plays with themes like reality, perversion, sex, insanity and death, is bound to get the most extreme reations from audiences. He proved this with films as The Fly, Naked Lunch, Crash and eXitenZ (capital X, capital Z) and more recently, Spider. It's best to see eXistenZ with a clear mind. Try not to read too much about the plot, or it'll be ruined for you. What I can tell you is that Cronenberg takes you on a trip down into the world of videogames that acts as a metaphor for any kind of escapist behaviour. Living out fantasies is something people always dream of, but how far can you go into it, before reality gets blurred and the fantasy takes over and turns into a nightmare? Those are the themes touched in eXistenZ, an exploration of identity, the human psyche, physical bodies being invaded by disease and most importantly, reality itself.The story and directing are excellent. Cronenberg knows his trade very well and succesfully brings to life an artificial world, avoiding the usual pitfalls and clichés linked to stories such as this. The film shows some pretty disgusting stuff, but is unusually low-key in the gore department in comparison to Cronenbergs other work. The shock effects he plays on are never over the top and the plot progression is very intelligent and creative. It's not the most intellectual movie ever, but it will leave you thinking about it, wondering and pretty confused.The acting gets two thumbs up as well. Both protagonists, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Jude Law, play their parts perfectly and cleverly portray their character's shifting moods and identities. The dialogue may seem a little stale and clinical at times, but that is part of the effect Cronenberg was going for, to create a disaffected and alien atmosphere that puts you quite at unease. Supporting actors as Ian Holm, Don McKellar and an especially creepy Willem Dafoe lift the movie even higher with their disturbingly familiar performances.This movie takes some getting used to, but if you can appreciate the dark tone, blood-curdeling imagery and existentially warping story, you'll love it.$LABEL$ 1
+A lot of promise and nothing more. An all-star cast certainly by HK standards, but man oh man is this one a stinker. No story? That's okay, the action will make up for it like most HK action flicks. What? The action is terrible, corny, and sparse? Dragon Dynasty's releases up to this point are by and large superb and generally regarded as classics in Asian cinema. This is a blight. They managed to wrangle a couple of actors from Infernal Affairs, but they can't bring life to a disjointed script. There are scenes of dialogue where two or three lines are spoken with a cut in between each and no continuity in what the characters are saying. You almost feel like they're each giving a running monologue and just ignoring the other characters. Michael Biehn is made of wood, really? Sammo Hung uses a stunt double? No way. Yes way. Stay away.$LABEL$ 0
+In the 60's Cleveland television audiences could watch a episode of "Flash Gordon" as part of the Ghoulardi Show (11:30PM Friday). This was the best mockfest material any of us in junior high had ever seen. We would have regular "sleepovers" (although we did not call them that) just to get in on the fun of watching this stuff with a group of friends. Then the next week we would quote our favorite cornball lines from the latest episode.Watching it today provokes much the same reaction. But if you can stop laughing at the dialogue, the lame creatures, the silly costumes, and the horrible spaceships long enough, there are some good things I did not appreciate the first time through. The production designers built some excellent sets, both the rooms and the laboratory devices. Charles Middleton's "Ming the Merciless" character was the all-time best screen villain, certainly up to that time and arguable better than anyone since. Jean Rogers is staggeringly beautiful.Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.$LABEL$ 1
+Acting is horrible. This film makes Fast and Furious look like an academy award winning film. They throw a few boobs and butts in there to try and keep you interested despite the EXTREMELY weak and far fetched story. There is a reason why people on the internet aren't even downloading this movie. This movie sunk like an iron turd. DO NOT waste your time renting or even downloading it. This film is and always will be a PERMA-TURD. I am now dumber for having watched it. In fact this title should be referred to as a "PERMA-TURD" from now on. Calling it a film is a travesty and insult. abhorrent, abominable, appalling, awful, beastly, cruel, detestable, disagreeable, disgusting, dreadful, eerie, execrable, fairy, fearful, frightful, ghastly, grim, grisly, gruesome, heinous, hideous, horrendous, horrid, loathsome, lousy, lurid, mean, nasty, obnoxious, offensive, repellent, repulsive, revolting, scandalous, scary, shameful, shocking, sickie, terrible, terrifying, ungodly, unholy, unkind$LABEL$ 0
+You'd hardly know that a year later MGM put Norma Shearer in THE DIVORCEE which glows with MGM technical know how. How far they came in one year. CHENEY is a very stagey early talkie. The camera hardly moves. Shearer is her usual charming self and Rathbone does well in a romantic leading role. They are all very careful to speak clearly and slowly into the microphone source which does mitigate against a naturally flowing dramatic scene, but the play is a sturdy and fun warhorse so one can enjoy oneself if one's expectations are not too high. Oh, by the way, the plot involves a ring of upper class jewel thieves who infiltrate themselves into society to prey on their victims. There are some clever twists in the script and true love conquers all. An Oscar nom for Best Screenplay Adaptation.$LABEL$ 0
+I rented this movie hoping that it would provide some good entertainment and some cool poker knowledge or stories. What I got was a documentary type look at an average guys life who happened to be really good at cards. Do I want to see the romance with his wife? NO Do I want to see about everything that went on in this guy's life except poker? NO. Well thats what you get with this film. The acting is good for such a low budget piece of crap. The film never tries to break the mold or do anything original. It simply sleep walks its way through the script. The ending is disappointing and never really looks deep into Ungar's mind. Instead it focuses on what was already obvious. He was a drugged out card player with an average life not unlike any other average joe in vegas. The movie focuses on the aspects of his life that were UN extraordinary rather than the Extraordinary. The poker scenes in the entire film add up to about 4 minutes of footage. Ungar's achievements of winning the WSOP 3 times seem life after thoughts. A 10 year old could do a better job directing this movie.. or maybe it was the script being a piece of crap from the beginning that doomed this joke of a movie.If you want to see a film about gambling watch Rounders. It at least has style.$LABEL$ 0
+If you're in the middle of a ferocious war and it's still not clear that you're going to come out on top, among the things you'll be concerned with is to keep up the morale of the civilians...to demonstrate that our troops have the bravery, the resourcefulness and the dedication to overcome all the odds in a noble cause. And that's just what director Anthony Asquith provided the British with 1943's naval war film, We Dive at Dawn. After more than 60 years, it's not surprising that some of the movie is dated. It doesn't help that the class stereotypes which help define the enlisted men from the officers can be jarring. Here, as in so many other British war films, the men invariably have thick regional working class accents while the officers speak with an educated fluency that would place them at home in England's finest ruling-class establishments. In this movie, Freddie Taylor (John Mills), the captain of the submarine Sea Tiger, is clever, confident, resourceful, aggressive, in control, good with his men, humorous with his peers, quick to make a decision. And it helps that he's lucky. His men are jolly tars, for the most part, competent at their jobs and always ready with a joke when things get tense. Although we spend the first third of the movie getting to know these people while they're on leave, after that things get tense quickly. Taylor and his sub are ordered to destroy the Brandenburg, a new German battleship. They just miss the ship when it enters the Kiel Canal and heads into the Baltic. Taylor assesses the risks and decides the Sea Tiger will go after it, through mine fields, anti-sub nets and with a real risk of not having enough fuel to return to home base. After several tense situations, the confrontation takes place. The Sea Tiger lets loose six torpedoes but has to dive, not knowing if it had done its job. After a clever subterfuge, Taylor outfoxes a couple of German destroyers but then realizes there is not enough fuel. He plans to scuttle his sub and surrender when, just at the last moment, James Hobson (Eric Portman), a seaman who had been sullen and a loner and who speaks German, says there is a small Danish coastal village that had been a fuel depot. He thinks it might still be for the Germans. The last third of the movie is a rousing action sequence as the crew of the sub attempts to hold off the Germans long enough to pump in enough fuel to get the Sea Tiger back to Britain. This is a wartime propaganda movie, so don't expect failure. And did the Sea Tiger actually put the Brandenburg down? Are the men reunited with their wives and sweethearts? Did Hobson have a reconciliation with his wife and small son that left him smiling for once? Did Freddie Taylor finally have a chance to make use of all those female names in his little black book? You'll have to see the movie. There are propaganda war movies and there are propaganda war movies. Some, like Powell's and Pressburger's One of Our Aircraft Is Missing and The 49th Parallel, still stand up to viewing today because the stories are solid and unexpected and the creators didn't use obvious shorthand clichés. Others, like We Dive at Dawn, were made with enough clichés that when watching we have to remind ourselves how dire the time was when the film was made. Still, Asquith can build a lot of suspense even with a few clichés. The Sea Tiger's forcing its way through a sub net was tense. The stalking of the Brandenburg and the plotting needed for the torpedo firing was realistic; John Mill's no-nonsense attitude while he prepared to attack was well-handled. The fake-out preparations to make the Sea Tiger look as if it had been destroyed by depth charges was as realistic, inside the sub as well as out, as you could hope for, and the battle for the fuel depot was dramatic and exciting. We Dive at Dawn is not a classic war film, but it's a well-made, well-acted example of its type and time. John Mills, it's worth noting, had a long, long career. Especially in the Fifties he played in a number of serious-minded films looking back at those WWII days. He had the quality of showing grit, cheerfulness and perseverance, but of also being trustworthy, a man England could be proud of as he fought the war. Top-billed in this movie was Eric Portman, a fine actor with a unique voice and the ability to give stares so cold you'd want to put on a sweater. Everyone on the sub is very much in the joking but stiff-upper-lip mode, but Portman manages some complexity for his character. Mills and Portman did fine jobs working together on this film.$LABEL$ 1
+This film has little to recommend it, though that little being the breathtaking scenery, cinematography and direction of wildlife, it is difficult to bring up its weak points in the company of such rave reviews. It is precisely these things, however, that make the lack of a satisfactory plot and its execution so disappointing. I watched this with my children and none of us was too impressed by the end. Yes, the pictures were great, the broad landscapes across the forest and mountains magnificent, but what was going on in the foreground? The rather dull narration of the stupidity of an insipid girl who learns all too slowly a very basic lesson about befriending wildlife - and gets off quite easily given the track record of that sort of thing. It is certainly not a new story, in fact there is nothing remotely novel about the way it is told, and we have all seen this before, and, indeed, much more eloquently by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.The only thing really to be gleaned from this film is a sense of how to work with these wonderful lenses and forest lighting; the rest is a waste of time.$LABEL$ 0
+I had just finished reading the book, and was really looking forward to seeing this TV adaptation which was broadcast on the Hallmark Channel on Monday night (5/30/05). The key to the whole book was the manifesto which was stolen by the man with steel teeth, but I watched for an hour (out of 3 1/2) and I saw the man with the steel teeth but I never saw him steal a manifesto. I saw someone steal some virus but what did that have to do with the book? It's too bad because this film had great production values and a good cast, but isn't the idea of turning a book into a movie (TV or film) to get the people who read the book to be part of the audience. They only kept me for an hour. I thought the premise of the book was great and what did they do but throw out the whole premise. This book had a great McGuffin (to paraphrase Hitchcock) but they ignored it. And it said in the titles that Forsyth was involved in the production. They sure must have paid him a LOT of money.$LABEL$ 0
+I am embarrassed to say that I missed "The Mother" when it was in theaters. I saw it this evening on DVD. I gave it a 10 vote, one of the very few I have given here. This English independent is filmed with such great care and quality. It drew me in relentlessly. The story, low-keyed and purely human, is brutally honest and utterly absorbing, thanks to the acting of Anne Reid, Daniel Craig and Cathryn Bradshaw. The cinematography is stunning. The score is hard-wired to the plot. The storyline is epic, brilliantly clothed by writer Hanif Kureishi in mundane lives. This story addresses big issues with the subtlety of an impressionist painting. And some of those big issues are highly controversial, which probably explains the lack of awards won, despite many nominations. It is simply one of my all-time favorite films.$LABEL$ 1
+"The China Syndrome" could not have been released at a better time: twelve days after its release, the infamous screw-up in Three Mile Island happened. But even if that (and/or Chernobyl) had never happened, this movie remains an important look at what could happen through mismanagement of nuclear facilities. Jack Lemmon turns in a five star performance as the supervisor trying to expose a cover-up at his nuclear plant, with Jane Fonda playing the reporter trying to investigate, and Michael Douglas plays her cameraman.I don't know whether or not the current threat of a terrorist attack makes "The China Syndrome" more disturbing, but either way, it's still definitely a movie that everyone should see.I hope that those people who spent years pushing nuclear power saw this movie just so that they could know that their views and ideals are completely defunct.$LABEL$ 1
+If you like me enjoy films with plots and convincing actors then Alien Vs Predator- Requiem is probably not the way to go. In summary, alien lands in typical American town, Predator lands in American town, both have a bit of a fight, US government blows up town, some people get away.....I'm sorry I think I might have spoilt the ending. Its easy to criticise someone who's being critical; people cry out, I bet you couldn't do any better! I bet I could ! Having made this film,watched it and then turned to congratulate each other with a pat on the back and a job well done; there must surely have been the spectre of lunacy in the room.$LABEL$ 0
+I was going to say this was the worst gay-themed film I've ever seen, but I can honestly say this is the worst film if any genre I've ever seen.You know you're in trouble when a movie starts with a "personal note" from the Director, asking for the audience's "understanding" for the "many challenges" facing a first-time Director. The audio track is so bad in many scenes it's almost impossible to follow the dialogue, and this from a DVD version. Bad lighting, bad sets, bad photography, poor script, generally bad acting all add up to make this "film" unwatchable. I did make it through to the bad ending after several attempts, and immediately gave away the DVD I foolishly purchased. I'm sure there are many challenges facing a first-time Director. But, don't try to palm off this lame attempt as a finished product. I see from IMDb details that this was not only the first Directing attempt of Richard Natale, but also the only. That's the one positive thing I can say about this alleged "movie".$LABEL$ 0
+Back in the day, I remembered seeing dumb Nintendo Power comics that had the same artwork as this show... and then word came up that this show was a coming to a television near me! I was not estatic, but curious... I was curious about how bad this show was gonna suck. My friends all said that this show had no real meanings and was too silly for straight people like me to enjoy (i'm actually gay), so I decided to watch the show with low expectations.WHAT A HORRIBLE EXPERIENCE!!!!!!!!!!! First off, I hate the new characters. Tiff and Tuff are so dumb and I hate how so many fanboys drool over Tiff, it's sad. I also hate how they made Chef Kalasaki (or whatever his nonstraight name was) a good guy who owned a restaurant. Bad move, 4Kids TV! Escargoon is nothing but a loser adviser to the King Dedede (who sucks big time in this show) and I hate the face of that one company that keeps supplying Dedede with those awful weapons to destroy Kirby. So stupid, I hate this show.I then began to hate Kirby even more since it was obvious Nintendo was just aching to get Kirby some popularity. Kirby'll never beat Mario in the fight for coolness, and Kirby will always be nothing but a tiny little cream puff of gayness. NUF SAID!!!$LABEL$ 0
+My roommates & I nearly shorted out our TV from the numerous spit-takes we did while watching this hilarious piece of 1970s self important pseudo-zen dreck. I'd read about this campfest for ages and scanned my local late night TV listings for YEARS in search of this elusive turd. Several years ago our local ABC affiliate was known for showing cool flicks for its late night weekend flick (ie "Frogs", "Night of the Lepus", etc). Then one day it happened: at 1:40am on a Saturday night (over 5 years ago) there it was! We had over 15 folks over and the flick did NOT disappoint!See! Andy Griffith as the silliest & most unthreatening bad guy since Jaye Davidson in "Stargate"!See! William Shatner sport a variety of things atop his head that only faintly resemble human hair (or anything organic for that matter).Hear! jaw droppingly inane 1970s psychobabble that makes "Chicken Soup For The Soul" sound like BF SkinnerFeel! Content that any decade was better than the 70s.For those still reading...the plot surrounds a bunch of middle class mid level a--holes who decide to suck up to their s---head boss (Griffith) by joining him on a cross dessert race that spans California & Mexico. They all wear leather jackets, looking more Christopher Street than anything else. Along the way they stop at a Cantina, get drunk, smoke joints (the sight Robert "Mike Brady" Reed smoke a joint is an image you won't soon forget), start a fight, attempt rape, and just act like a bunch of suburban middle class jack offs. Although I have an excellent copy that I taped off TV I WISH this one would be released on video so the whole world could enjoy its half baked goofiness.$LABEL$ 0
+Embarrassingly, I just watched this movie for the first time, 13 years after its release. It's a story that any father or brother can relate to... one brother is a bit 'wild,' the other brother is the typical older child. Craig Sheffer is a little too unemotional as the oldest brother, but Pitt is amazing, and Skerritt is perfectly cast as the father. The fishing scenes that were filmed in Montana are absolutely breathtaking... I had no idea that fly fishing could be so attractive. The movie closely follows the book, with only a few modifications to make it more appropriate for a movie format. Unlike most book to movie stories, this one measures up. It's a perfect movie for anyone who wants a quiet night with a powerful and somewhat emotional movie.$LABEL$ 1
+i wasn't a fan of seeing this movie at all, but when my gf called me and said she had a free advanced screening pass i tagged along only for the sake of seeing eva longoria and laughing at jason biggs antics.overall it was actually better then i expected but not by much. this was like a hybrid of how to lose a guy in 10 days and just like heaven. a typical romantic comedy with its moments i guess. the movie was quite short though (around 85 min.) but it was enough to tell the whole story, build some character development and have a decent happy ending. the whole idea of a ghost haunting its former husband was a interesting plot to follow. eva did a good job of keeping up the sarcasm and paul rudd and the rest of the supporting cast (especially jason biggs) kept the laughs coming at a smooth pace.overall i liked the movie only because it had a good amount of laughs to keep me going otherwise i would have given this movie a lower rating. hey its a chick flick and i'm reviewing this movie from a guy's persepctive alright, it would be more of a fair fight if females reviewied this movie and gave there thoughts about it.$LABEL$ 1
+Monarch Cove was one of the best Friday night's drama shown in a long time.I am asking the writer to please write a long series and air it on Lifetime, SOON.Each person was very interesting and did a wonderful job with their lines to make the plot come true. However, the movie needs to continue for a long time. I would love to see Bianca and Jake's child grow-up and get a major role in the movie, along with the new grandparents planning for her educational future. Also, bring kathy back to see her niece and help foster her life.It was great seeing the grandparents work out their problems, but the family business needed to be restored to working status,and let us see how Jake and Bianca survive through the marriage years.$LABEL$ 1
+Watching "Ossessione" today -- more than 6 decades later -- is still a powerful experience, especially for those interested in movie history and more specifically on how Italian filmmakers changed movies forever (roughly from "Ossessione" and De Sica's "I Bambini Ci Guardano", both 1943, up to 20 years later with Fellini, Antonioni, Pasolini). Visconti makes an amazing directing début, taking the (uncredited) plot of "The Postman Always Rings Twice" as a guide to the development of his own themes.It strikes us even today how ahead of its time "Ossessione" was. Shot in Fascist Italy during World War II (think about it!!), it depicted scenes and themes that caused the film to be immediately banned from theaters -- and the fact that it used the plot of a famous American novel and payed no copyright didn't help. "Ossessione" alarmingly reveals poverty-ridden war-time Italy (far from the idealized Italy depicted in Fascist "Telefoni Bianchi" movies); but it's also extremely daring in its sexual frankness, with shirtless hunk Gino (Massimo Girotti, who definitely precedes Brando's Kowalski in "A Streetcar Named Desire") taking Giovanna (Clara Calamai), a married woman, to bed just 5 minutes after they first meet. We watch Calamai's unglamorous, matter-of-fact undressing and the subtle but undeniable homosexual hints between Gino and Lo Spagnolo (Elio Marcuzzo - a very appealing actor, his face not unlike Pierre Clémenti's, who was shot by the Nazis in 1945, at 28 years old!)...In a few words: sex, lust, greed and poverty, as relentlessly as it had rarely, if ever, been shown before in Italian cinema.All the copies of "Ossessione" were destroyed soon after its opening -- it was called scandalous and immoral. Visconti managed to save a print, and when the film was re-released after the war, most critics called it the front-runner of the Neo-Realist movement, preceding Rossellini's "Roma CIttà Aperta" and De Sica's "Sciuscià". Some other critics, perhaps more appropriately, saw "Ossessione" as the Italian counterpart to the "poetic realism" of French cinema (remember Visconti had been Renoir's assistant), especially Marcel Carné's "Quai des Brumes" and "Le Jour se Lève", and Julien Duvivier's "Pépé le Moko". While "Ossessione" may be Neo-Realistic in its visual language (the depiction of war-time paesan life in Italy with its popular fairs, poverty, child labor, prostitution, bums, swindlers etc), the characters and the themes were already decidedly Viscontian. He was always more interested in tragic, passionate, obsessive, greedy characters, in social/political/sexual apartheid, in the decadence of the elites than in realistic, "everyday- life" characters and themes, favored by DeSica and Rossellini. In "Ossessione" we already find elements of drama and tragedy later developed in many of his films, especially "Senso" (Visconti's definitive departure from Neo-Realist aesthetics) and "Rocco e Suoi Fratelli"...Even in his most "Neo-Realist" film, "La Terra Trema", he makes his fishermen rise from day-to-day characters to mythological figures."Ossessione" is a good opportunity to confirm the theory about great artists whose body of work approaches, analyzes and develops specific themes and concerns over and over again, from their first to their last opus, no matter if the scenery, background or time-setting may change -- Visconti may play with the frame but the themes and essence of his art are, well, obsessively recurrent. "Ossessione" is not to be missed: you'll surely be fascinated by this ground-breaking, powerful film.$LABEL$ 1
+Within the first 17 minutes of director Bradford May's "Darkman III: Die Darkman Die", we have already been subjected to a silly recap and accompanying voice-over on the first two films, hilarious over-acting, about three minutes of footage simply ripped from the second film and re-edited slightly to seem like new footage, and a lengthy advertisement the scarred and tormented title character watches about Universal Theme Parks- Universal being the company that distributed this film. Yes, "Darkman III: Die Darkman Die" is quite the handful when it comes to cheap cash-ins on the success of a previous film.This time around, the disfigured anti-hero Peyton Westlake (aka, "Darkman"; portrayed by "Mummy" actor Arnold Vosloo) locks horns with evil crime-lord and lousy husband Peter Rooker (played in a brilliantly over-the-top performance by Jeff Fahey), and over the course of the 87 minute film grows to develop an affection for Rooker's wife and daughter, once again learning to care for another person.Blah. Blah. Blah.This film is basically just a silly way for the studio to make some more money off of Sam Raimi's original film, which I consider to be a great action-suspense film.Oh yeah, and there are also a number of silly sub-plots, including a villainess who supposedly was one of the original doctors to save Darkman following his scarring, and her seducing our hero into thinking she is an ally before revealing her nefarious plot to help Rooker create more super-human powered thugs like Darkman. Apparently, she can't just do the same procedure on the thugs that she performed on Darkman. Why? I can't really explain it, because the movie certainly doesn't.There's also an assassination sub-plot involving a District Attourney who is threatening to bring down Rooker's organization, and some other very silly things going on.But it doesn't really add up. This film feels like two or three episodes of a television show edited together more than an actual film. The direction alternates between pretty good and downright sloppy (a scene where Darkman rides his train-like vehicle and dodges a rocket-launcher is just plain silly), and the editing is a mixed-bag. The film just moves too quickly for anyone to really care what's going on. And without spoiling it, the final 15 minutes of this movie, and indeed, the entire series is just kinda... I dunno... Another 15 minutes of mixed-bag footage.In fact, commenting on the editing, one of my favorite things in this film is watching for footage re-used from the previous films, and then looking for footage within this film that is repeated multiple times. Yes, it's that cheap. It's one thing to do a re-cap at the beginning of the film, and maybe repeat a shot or two, but in the sheer volume they do it (minutes of footage repeated from previous films), it's just sloppy and amateurish.Also, I have to say that Darkman's psychedelic montage freak-outs are a bit overdone in this film. They are so stylized and overdone that they do work, but only in light doses and in proper context, as Raimi did in the original film. Here, there are at least four or five, and they feel very abrupt and out-of-place.That being said, the film is not without some good points. A few action scenes are well-done. The cliché story of Darkman yearning for a real life works suitably for a direct-to-DVD feature. Some of the acting is nice, particularly from Rooker's wife, portrayed by the beautiful Roxann Dawson. Also, while no Danny Elfman, composer Randy Miller composes some nice music that builds off of Elfman's original themes.But overall, the film is too quick, cheap and silly to be taken seriously. Arnold Vosloo seems alternatively bored and exuberant from scene to scene, and Fahey, while a joy to watch as an over-the-top villain, just doesn't quite fit in with the series.Like "Darkman II", I would recommend this to fans of the original, who will surely get a laugh. Otherwise, you need not apply. A four out of ten.$LABEL$ 0
+Unfortunately for me, the first Busby Berkeley movie I ever watched was "42nd Street." I then expected all of his stuff to be that good. I found out that wasn't necessarily the case, even here, with my all-time favorite classic-era actor James Cagney.Oh, the musical numbers at the end are as spectacular as always, but the story is like many of the others and quite tiresome. They seem to always involve screaming, unhappy show producers. In this film, it's Cagney who winds up shouting things out so often that he gives me a headache after awhile and his character wears thin....fast!Even the songs in here are anywhere near "42nd Street" class, songs you could hum for years and years - decades, I should say. The songs in this movie are not memorable. No, this is one of the few early Cagney films - and Berkeley films - I totally dislike and was very disappointed with while watching.$LABEL$ 0
+Any film school student could made a film 1,000 times better than piece of garbage. As someone who had read the book, I expected even a straight re-telling of the book would make this a fair film. There was a chance that a talented director could go beyond Woodward's narrative and make a great film.Well the director did go beyond Woodward's narrative. He added a hip Hispanic angel named Velasquez that was not in the book. He had Bob Woodward interview the dead Belushi in an exchange in the morgue. The film had all the insight of someone stoned on PCP staring at his navel.If this is a spoiler to you, you will thank me for it because it is absolutely the worst movie ever made.$LABEL$ 0
+Daddy's girls Florence Lawrence and Dorothy West receive some terrific news at the local post office, unaware they are being stalked by burglar Charles Inslee. Meanwhile, father David Miles receives a message (from young Robert Harron) which necessitates daddy leaving home; so, when the young women return, they can be… home alone. As the vulnerable pair bed down for the evening, the local "Grand Ball of the Black and Tans" gets underway; and, a dark-skinned drinker portends additional danger for D.W. Griffith's dynamic duo… Mr. Inslee has one of his better Biograph roles, stealing the film from "The Girls and Daddy". Ironically, Director Griffith appears as one of the black-faced extras at the "Black and Tans" ball. "Biograph Girls" Lawrence and West are suggestive of later "Griffith Girls" Lillian and Dorothy Gish, especially in "Orphans of the Storm" (1921); and, they are excessively affectionate in bed! The racist tone is unfortunate, since the story of a burglar redeemed by saving his potential victims from a greater danger, is intriguing. *** The Girls and Daddy (2/1/09) D.W. Griffith ~ Florence Lawrence, Dorothy West, Charles Inslee$LABEL$ 0
+"Terror in the Aisles" might look like the ultimate treat for horror fans but it has, in fact, very few to offer. Granted, it presents a decent and versatile (too versatile?) selection of horror/thriller fragments that are considered classic but ...what's the point? This documentary primarily aims for the horror-loving public so we've pretty much seen all these clips already, haven't we? The only thing really praiseworthy about this project is the editing. If you're into scream-queens, chases by vile murderers and that sort of things, "Terror in the Aisles" has some neat compilations of the most famous sequences. All these different scenes hang together by a lame wraparound story starring Donald Pleasance and Nancy Allen sitting in a movie theater. In between two sequences, the address the viewer and "explain" why we love horror so much. Those speeches naturally are soporific and rather obvious (it's in our nature to be afraid ...bla bla bla) and I fail to understand why many people love the concept. This is worth a peek in case you're a loyal horror fan but it certainly isn't essential viewing. On the contrary: in case you still have to see a classic genre title, beware that bits and pieces of it here don't spoil your future viewing. The main reason why I overall disliked it is because it shamelessly ignores a lot of lesser known, but fundamental (foreign) titles endlessly focusing on "Halloween". This does result in a cool inside joke, however, when Donald Pleasance screams to the screen at his own character.$LABEL$ 0
+I love Dracula but this movie was a complete disappointment! I remember Lee from other Dracula films from when i was younger, and i thought he was great, but this movie was really bad. I don't know if it was my youth that fooled me into believing Lee was the ultimate Dracula, with style, looks, attraction and the evil underneath that. Or maybe it was just this film that disappointed me. But can you imagine Dracula with an snobbish English accent and the body language to go along with it? Do you like when a plot contains unrealistic choices by the characters and is boring and lacks any kind of tension..? Then this is a movie for you! Otherwise - don't see it! I only gave it a 2 because somehow i managed to stay awake during the whole movie.Sorry but if you liked this movie then you must have been sleep deprived and home alone in a dark room with lots of unwatched space behind you. Maybe alone in your parents house or in a strangers home. Cause not even the characters in this flick seemed afraid, and i think that sums up the whole thing!Or maybe you like this film because of it's place in Dracula cinema history, perhaps being fascinated by how the Dracula story has evolved from Nosferatu to what it is today. Cause as movie it isn't that appealing, it doesn't pull you in to the suggestive mystery that for me make the Vampyre myth so fascinating. And furthermore it has so much of that tacky 70ies feel about it. The scenery looks like cheap Theatre. And i don't say that rejecting everything made in the 70ies. Cause i can love old film as well as new.$LABEL$ 0
+Hail Bollywood and men Directors !Really this is the ultimate limit in utter sacrifice made by Indian Woman !!Viewing the current state of affairs in India where The wives are becoming more vicious day by day and are very possessive about their husbands - the Directors ..also can be called Uncle Scars (refer movie The Lion King) came up with a very new concept on how both the kept and the wife can live together happily ever after sharing everything between themselves ...including the spermikins !!Story line : Married couple - very happy - but accidentally a mishap happens and wife has a miscarriage - lost the foetus along with the capacity of ever becoming a mother !Now in in India, the in- laws usually drive away the daughter- in- law if she fails to give them an heir ! So the wife hits upon a major plan - surrogate mother...but the scientists intervened - "Sure artificial insemination" - NO said the artist (Director actually) - "Neighbourhood will come to know that the daughter - in - law is barren so they are going for surrogate mother !!Neighbours ! society !! gosh the same ones who watch Fashion TV day and night - watching girls between the age group of 14 to 40 ...al in bras and panties - well those neighbors suddenly take an upper hand in family planning and decision making !!SO the wife sends away her husband to a beer bar where girls are dancing on the stage - all mostly uneducated and illiterate - but men love such women as they can satisfy their egos a lot !He hires the lead dancer in the pub - asks her to bear his baby - in exchange for money - she agrees - she comes home - becomes pregnant - wife and kept - both co-exist in the same house - in the mean time the prostitute also gets a taste of household life - so much caring people around - she misses them all and cries silently !! In the mean time - no one in the family comes to know that the real daughter in law is roaming around with a pillow beneath her petticoat !!- the mother or other elderly people never took her for check-ups - nor did they try to feel the baby's movements in the womb !!$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was over-shadowed by 'The Jackal' (Bruce Willis, Richard Gere) which was released the same year. Having seen both films, I can honestly say this is the superior film.Granted, the production value of 'The Jackal' was very good, it probably had a substantially bigger budget. However, 'The Assignment' is well written and has a fascinating story. Aiden Quinn is flawless in dual roles. Aiden Quinn and director Christian Duguay did a great job of establishing a deep and multi-layered relationship between the title character and his family. I particularly liked the ending.I was reminded of the Jack Ryan character in the Tom Clancy movies. Both are Naval officers thrown into unbelievably dangerous roles as they covertly work on behalf of National security. And yet, both Harrison Ford and Aidan Quinn reveal their respective characters as heros who manage to be both virile and gentle. They have a genuine tenderness and vulnerability in their relationships with their families. What I don't understand is how the opinions of all who have posted on this movie (myself included) can be so much more positive than the luke-warm reception the film has received. This is a movie that has enough complexity and subtlety that it remains compelling after multiple viewings. If you are a fan of espionage-genre films, I recommend 'The Assignment' enthusiastically.$LABEL$ 1
+The 1978 adaptation had all the ingredients of a potentially wonderful film. It is based on an absolutely charming book by Charles Kingsley. It has a truly talented cast from the likes of James Mason, Bernard Cribbons and David Tomblinson, not to mention the vocal talents of David Jason and Jon Pertwee. There is also Lionel Jeffries, the director of wonderful classics such as The Railway Children and the Amazing Mr Blunden, and while the film is good on the most part, it was also a little disappointing. I had no problem with the performances, particularly those of Mason and Tomblinson as Grimes and Sir John Harriet respectively, and Tommy Pender and Samantha Gates are believable as Tom and Ellie. The voice cast is also commendable, especially Jon Pertwee, voicing charming characters in their own right. I also liked the incidental music it is so haunting and beautiful, and the script was fairly faithful and in general well-written, particularly at the beginning. The characters, especially the Water Babies are very charming, and the villains are sinister and funny at the same time, I loved the part when Tom and his friends help the Water Babies escape, seeing the shark chasing the electric eel with an axe was very funny. However, I will say the film does look dated, especially the animation sequences, the live action parts weren't so bad, if you forgive the rather dark camera-work. The character animation was rather flat, and the backgrounds sometimes were a little dull, though there were some nice moments, like the scene with the Krakon and of course the first meeting with the Water Babies. I also had mixed feelings about the songs, the Water Babies's song was beautiful, but I found the first song forgettable, when Tom ends up underwater. Hi-Cockallorum is an example of a song, that is like marmite, you either love it or hate it. I personally don't know what to make of this song, it was fun to listen to at first, but once it's in your head, it is perhaps annoying. As much as I like Lionel Jeffries and his films, his direction just lacked the wonder and the magic it usually does. All in all, certainly not a terrible film, but could have been better artistically. 7/10 Bethany Cox.$LABEL$ 1
+Me neither, but this flick is unfortunately one of those movies that are too bad to be good and too good to be awful, which makes it utterly pointless and a total waste of time. There's nothing more uninteresting than a mediocre movie, and My Name is Modesty: Whatever the subtitle is takes mediocrity to a new level. It's full of B-actors but isn't any fun whatsoever because it takes itself seriously. It sets itself up as a thriller but then turns into some kind of growing-up drama, flashback style. The beautiful Alexandra Staden, smothered beyond recognition under makeup, more resembles a cast member from Top Model than Modesty Blaise. I'm not one of those die-hard comic book freaks who wants every adaptation of his precious "graphic novels" to be pitch-perfect - in fact I've never even read Modesty Blaise - all I wanted was a decent movie to watch. But this wasn't it. The film feels half-finished, with a weak and very unexciting conclusion to a rather weak plot. It also takes its audience for idiots, explaining every tiny detail of the plot to us and showing flashbacks of things that happened three scenes ago (I guess they think we all have Alzheimers).Now I love a good B-movie - what's better than just turning your brain off and swallowing the cinematic equivalent of a Calzone? - and "Modesty" is directed by none other than Scott Spiegel, who brought us the wonderful splatter crap flick From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money! I loved From Dusk Till Dawn 2 because it brought everything a bad B-movie should bring to the table - nudity, gore, guns, you name it. "Modesty" is just dull. The flashback concerning Modesty's life isn't interesting. The acting isn't bad enough to be laughed at. In fact, I kinda liked Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau's (hey buddy, pseudonyms are your friends!) performance as the baddie.So overall it's just lame. Weak. Uninspired. Call it what you will. Don't watch anything because Tarantino presents it, people. This is just a very forgettable, half-hearted thriller, and it never tries to be more than that. Allow me to round off this review with a very lame pun (seriously, even I'm cringing): My Name Is Modesty: A Modesty Waste of Time - 4/10$LABEL$ 0
+I found this to be an entertaining account of the challenges an independent film maker might encounter (something I never even thought about). The film managed to keep my interest the entire time and I actually laughed out loud more than once! I'm not a film maker so I know nothing about the technology but I though it was well edited and flowed smoothly telling the story. As a disclaimer, I contributed to this effort after the fact providing music for the soundtrack but I was not involved in the creation of this film and I could not tell you a thing about Repo Man except that I remembered seeing it way back when (I'm not really a sci-fi fiend). I enjoyed the comparisons the film made of punk rock file making to punk rock music. My wife went with me to see the film and she did not know a thing about it before hand and we had a great time.$LABEL$ 1
+Just because an event really happened doesn't mean that it will make a good screenplay/ movie. The Cat's Meow, by Peter Bogdanovich claims to be based on actual events which happened on a cruise hosted by William Randolph Hurst. The writer paid more attention to creating a bizarre cast of characters than taking time to create a story for the bizarre characters to inhabit. The key moments of the story seem implausible; for example, when Hurst accidentally shoots the producer, believing him to be Chaplin. Basing a key element of a story on someone wearing the wrong hat is trite and contrived. The story attempts to be a dark comedy, but The Cat's Meow misses an important piece of this equation, comedy. There is also a lack of empathy for any of the characters. It hardly matters who is shot, who is killed, who is guilty and who is innocent. There is not a strong character to cheer for. As a result the conflicts are difficult to care about and the eventual outcome is incidental.$LABEL$ 0
+I found this on the shelf and swooned with joy !! I danced up to the counter, slapped down my money and ran home! You know what?! I fell asleep less then half way thru! Tried again the next day...YAWN!! What the heck !?!! I could NOT watch it! I love all the other stuff he's done (I didn't see the one with the monster in it yet). What gives? Is it me? Or him? So sad. Boo hoo. P.S, I did like the camera work.$LABEL$ 0
+The Beguiled was one of the few early Eastwood films I hadn't seen until I gave the DVD a spin today. And from it's opening sepia-tinged shot to the macabre climax I was utterly enthralled. Too many film-makers these days substitute special effects, fast editing and dizzying camera-work in place of character-driven stories, but Director Don Siegel knew how to get the maximum effect from this relatively simple plot, and the characters are believable and compelling.The story concerns a ladies finishing school which happens to be situated on the edge of various skirmishes during the American Civil War. The south-supporting ladies find a badly wounded Union soldier (Clint Eastwood); nursing him back to health he begins to manipulate the sexually frustrated women for his own ends.Geraldine Page is excellent in the role of the headmistress with a secret, and her descent into madness is subtly conveyed. For a film that virtually takes place in a single location it never loses visual interest. There's even a chance that the normal status quo, long abandoned when Eastwood's machinations are uncovered, could return; but the mistresses and pupils descend upon a darker road...This is a totally different style of film from the same Director's Dirty Harry, made in the same year, and yet they are both equally superb. Eastwood is great playing against his usual stoic anti-hero image, yet there's also some mysterious quality attached to his character. We never really learn much about him prior to his incarceration, and the viewer is free to decide upon his well-shaded persona. Villain or Victim? Whatever you think, all I can say is that I thoroughly enjoyed it.$LABEL$ 1
+Ahista Ahista is one little small brilliant. I started watching it, and at the beginning I got a little bored since the pacing was slow and the main idea of one guy meeting a girl who is lost was not really new. But as the film went on, I started getting increasingly and gradually engaged by the film, the fantastic writing and the charming romance. The film was extremely simple and natural and after some time I felt I was watching a real documentation of one guy's life. There's one very good reason the film got this feel, and it's the fresh talent called Abhay Deol. He is extremely convincing as the simple, kind-hearted and struggling Ankush, whose new love motivates him to make amends and fight for a better life. Throughout the film, he is presented as an ordinary mischievous prankster, but also as a helping and loving person, who, like anyone else will do anything to protect his love. Deol portrays all the different shades of his character, whether positive or negative, naturally and with complete ease.Shivam Nair's direction is very good. His depiction of the life of people in the rural neighbourhood is excellent, but what gets to be even more impressive is his portrayal of Ankush's relationships with the different people who surround him, including his friends and his love interest Megha who he is ready to do anything for. I also immensely liked the way Nair portrayed his interaction with his friend's loud and plump mother whom he calls 'khala' (aunty). He likes to drive her crazy and annoy her on every occasion, yet we see that she occupies a very special place in his heart and is like a mother-figure to him as evidenced in several scenes. Except for Abhay, the rest of the cast performed well. Though Soha Ali Khan did not stand out according to me, she was good and had some of her mother's charm. The actors who played Ankush's friends were very good as was the actress who played Ankush's 'khala'.Apart from the performances, the film's writing was outstanding. The dialogues were sort of ordinary yet brilliant, and the script was also fantastic. That's mainly because despite a not-so-new story it was never overdone or melodramatic and there were no attempts to make it look larger-than-life. The film's biggest weakness was Himesh Reshammiya's uninspiring music which was unsuitable for this film. Otherwise, Ahista Ahista was a delightful watch and it got only better with every scene. The concept may not be new, but the film manages to look fresh and becomes increasingly heartwarming as the story goes by. The ending was bittersweet, kind of sad yet optimistic. In short, this movie really grows on you slowly, and this can be easily attributed to the wonderful writing, the moving moments, the charming romance, the realistic proceedings, and of course Abhay Deol's memorable performance.$LABEL$ 1
+My first impression when I read the synopsis for the upcoming movie was that it was going to be very, very different from the book. The movie trailer said that the movie is supposed to take place when Vivian is 19 years old after her parents were killed in a fire in America. She meets Aiden, an aspiring graphic novelist. Working in a chocolate shop in the day, she must accept that she will never be normal, because every full moon, she becomes a loup-garou--a thought-to-be mythical creature that can be closely compared to a werewolf.Most of the little changes didn't sound too bad to me, even though I am a fan of the book with the shared titled by Annette Curtis Klause. I knew it would be different, but I wanted to see it to support the book, thinking that an age change, a setting change, and a few little occupation changes wouldn't impact the storyline as a whole enough to make me want to tear my eyes out of their sockets and leave myself bleeding on the movie theatre ground.The movie unnecessarily killed off many important characters, one being Esme, Vivan's mother, right off the bat in the fire that was supposed to have killed her father. I pushed that aside and ventured forth into the movie, weary and slightly annoyed. Running through Romania, the camera angles were decent, the scenery was beautiful, and the music was... interesting... but it left me with the impression of, "Why does Vivian look like that, and why is she wearing a hoodie?" Jumping to later parts of the movie, I must say that I am surprised that the screenplay writers seemed to support incest in a way and rather than sticking to the character relationship from the book between Vivian and Rafe, the leader of The Five now became her cousin through her (surprise!) Aunt Astrid, who, in the novel, was the bitter and hated rival of Vivan's mother, and, might I add, no way related to either of them.To top off character distortions, Gabriel had somehow become the leader of the pack and obsessed over Vivian being his mate so they could fulfill some nonexistent prophecy. Not only did his physical appearance take a complete 180 from the description in the book, he was, apparently, also the father of Rafe. Yes, that's right, it's a nice little incestuous knot of wolfies all bundled up tight.Little things that irked me were scenes like the forest hunts. There was a red-head that stood out from the rest of the crowd, the one who "kissed their enemy" before their prey was set free to run and be hunted. Why was she there? Why did she look like Astrid? I suppose my mind is not vast enough to understand why such a character had to exist in the movie without any explanation as to WHY she existed other than to kiss pretty victims.I loved how the Amoeba was completely cut out of the movie. I loved how legally entwined Aiden's past was, what between the supposedly dramatic scene where he was telling Vivian about how his father wanted him to learn self-defense, and then beat his father up "in self-defense" to make him seem like such a tragic character.Character 180s are a lot of fun when they are completely unnecessary. At the end of the movie, I felt as if some person skimmed over the novel, scribbled down half the list of character names, drew a few connections here and there, mentioned that Gabriel was a bit of a jerk, Vivian fell in love with Aiden, he fears her when he finds out she is a loup-garou of the legends, and "somebody" is "killed by a silver bullet" and there is some sort of happy ending because Vivian finally feels accepted by somebody who loves her for who she is.I gave this movie a 2/10 because the camera shots were relatively decent, and the casting could have been worse, but as far as directing goes, why do the loup-garous leap into the air in human form as if they want to fly (with their arched backs and penchant to leap from high places), shimmer briefly, and then fall onto the ground as wolves? The only aspects of this movie that even had me watch it through to the very-sordid, sorry ending were the wolves, the beautiful scenery, and the eye-candy boys.All-together, I must say that in order to enjoy this film at all, one must be ready for misconceptions, strange happenings that are not always explained, incestuous innuendos, and have either not liked the book, or have not read the book.$LABEL$ 0
+An excellent example of the spectacular Busby Berkeley musicals produced in the early 1930's. Audiences must've been very surprised to see James Cagney in this type of vehicle. Quite a contrast from his "Public Enemy" 2 years earlier. Cagney does add spark & interest to a rather routine tired out formulated storyline & plot. But the highlight of the movie is the 3 elaborate production numbers back to back. First with the conservative "Honeymoon Hotel" number,then followed by the very spectacularly eye dazzling "By A Waterfall" sequence,followed by the closing "Shanghai Lil" sequence, Cagney only participates in the last number hoofing it up on top of a bar counter with Ruby Keeler. The "Shanghai Lil" number with Cagney is excellent but a bit of a comedown & anti climactic after the more exciting & incredibly mind boggling "By A Waterfall" choreography.If I was the director I would've inserted the "Shanghai Lil" number in the middle & close with "By A Waterfall",which blows the other 2 numbers out of the water so to speak & in my view the best of the 3 numbers. The 3 production numbers are the frosting on the cake & James Cagney's performance is added decoration to the cake. An outstanding musical achievement,a 4 star movie, the ultimate musical,well worth watching,you won't be disappointed!!!!!!!!!$LABEL$ 1
+To soccer fans every where -- stay away from this movie. It was so baaaaddd! Lame acting, lame script, lame soccer and no directing! I rented this movie during my stint in Asia and was appalled that this was considered one of the better Singaporean films. It was just nonsensical and thoroughly boring. There are thousands of rich, exciting stories in Asia. Why write a bad story about over the top and stereotypical Singaporeans?$LABEL$ 0
+This is the best piece of film ever created Its a master piece that brought a tear to my eye. Ill never forget my experience watching it. I don't understand why people don't think as I do The dinosaur turns in a performance reminiscent of De Niro in Raging Bull, Pacino in Scarface, and Crowe in Gladiator combined. This should be released on DVD in Superbit format so I can fully enjoy it like it was meant to be enjoyed when they produced and filmed it. Whoppi Goldberg truly turns in the performance of a lifetime as a tough, gritty cop who is against her will teamed with a hot shot dinosaur as her partner then the hi-jinx ensues to say the least. By the way I'm saying the complete opposite of what is true this movie is utter garbage.$LABEL$ 1
+What a brilliant film. I will admit it is very ambitious, with the subject matter. At a little over two and a half hours, it is a very long film too. But neither of these pointers are flaws in any way. Cry Freedom, despite the minor flaws it may have, is a powerful, moving and compelling film about the story of the black activist Steve Biko in his struggles to awaken South Africa to the horrors of the apartheid. It is true, that the first half is stronger than the second in terms of emotional impact. People have also complained that the film suffers from too much Woods not enough Biko. I may be wrong, but although it is Biko's story, it is told in the perspective of Woods, so Woods is an important character in conveying Biko's story to the world.Cry Freedom visually looks amazing. With the show-stopping cinematography and the stunning South African scenery it was a visual feast. The opening scenes especially were brilliantly shot. George Fenton's music brought real dramatic weight to most scenes. It was subtle in scenes in the second half, but stirring and dramatic in the crowd scenes. The script was of exceptional quality, the courtroom scenes with Biko were enough to really make you think wow this is real quality stuff. The first half with Biko as the main focus constantly had something to feel emotional about, whether it was the police's attack of the South African citizens or Biko's death. The second half entirely about Donald Woods carries less of an emotional punch, but is compensated by how it is shot, performed and written. And there are parts that are genuinely suspenseful as well. The performances were exceptional from the entire cast, from the most minor character to the two leads, there wasn't a single bad performance. Regardless of the accents that is, but it is forgiven so easily by how much the performances draw you in. Denzel Washington in one of his more understated performances, gives a truly compelling performance as Biko, and Kevin Kline shows that he can be as good at drama as he is at comedy, for he gave a suitably subtle performance to match that of Washington's. And the two men's chemistry is believable and never strikes a false note. Penelope Wilton is lovely as Donald's wife Wendy, and she is a great actress anyway. Out the supporting performances, and there may be some bias, two stood out for me. One was Timothy West, who relishes his role as Captain DeWet. The other was the ever exceptional John Thaw in a brilliantly chilling cameo-role as Kruger. Lord Richard Attenborough's direction is focused and constantly sensitive as usual.Overall, a truly wonderful film. Ambitious and long it is, but never ceases to be compelling, powerful and achingly moving. A definite winner from Lord Richard Attenborough, and worthy of a lot more praise. 10/10 Bethany Cox$LABEL$ 1
+This is a review of 'Freddy Mercury The Untold Story,' theatrical release, Chicago Int. Film Festival, 2007 One of the phoniest, uninspired and most tedious biographical documentaries I have seen. If the film I saw in a movie theater was originally released on TV, I would plead with its producers and distributors to not fool a paying audience with the false promise of a cinematically worthy documentary feature. Even as a made-for-TV documentary, the sentimental piano solos accompanying interviewees sitting in front of flower arrangements in hotel rooms and the pompous, pseudo-literary narration rang more true of a sleepapedic bed Infomercial. The only redeeming aspects of this "The Untold Story of Freddy Mercury" -- or, uhm, was it "The Untold Story of Princess Diana" are the original concert, video and TV footage -- unabridged Freddy Mercury and Queen. Testimonial interviews with irrelevant eye witnesses with insights, such as: "He was a free spirit," (really.. I thought Freddy Mercury was a company man...) belittle those Freddy testimonials, by Brian May or Montserrat Caballe that shed new and affectionate light into Mercury's complex life and character. And... what up with the Harry Potter-like boarding school segments? How did the interview with the first girl-crush ("...who now works in a travel agency") and members of Freddy's first school band contribute to what I really want to know about Mercury? Vital milestones of his personal life, his sexuality, his artistic style and growth, Queen, the band remain unexplored. These filmmakers don't ask a single, provocative question, nor do they engage in independent or visionary research of their subject, instead delivering a tedious montage of politely clean and vastly empty comments about an enigmatic and brilliant rock legend, who doesn't deserve to be remembered by this History Channel biography your grandparents can doze off to on a Sunday night.$LABEL$ 0
+"The Mother" is a weird low-budget movie, touching at least two uncomfortable themes not usually explored in the cinema: denial of love of mother for their own son and daughter, and lust and passion in the third age.The characters are awful: May is a disgusting old lady and I believe it is impossible to feel any kind of sympathy or sorrow for her. She confesses that she did not love her son and her daughter. She cheated her husband twice with an intellectual. She steals the beloved man of her daughter, not to protect her from a guy without moral, that does not love her, but just because she feel horny with him. She is trying to organize her life after the loss of her husband in the worst possible way, destroying her daughter delusions. Paula, her daughter, is a fragile loser, who accepts her life the way it is. Her brother Bobby is a man who lost his savings because of his wife, who insists in having her shop, a terrible business indeed. Darren is an amoral addicted jerk who does not like anybody, even himself.The acting and direction are excellent: the actresses and actors have outstanding performances and the direction is very precise. I liked this movie, but I recognize that it is recommended for very specific audiences. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "Recomeçar" ("Re-Start")$LABEL$ 1
+A lecture over the life of the tormented magician named Ray Charles. His pulses on the piano made fire music and his nostalgic voice created exciting, cool tunes. Each barrier that Ray was facing never kept him down, and he found his way all over conflicts. A real lesson. A great team of producers help recreate the era and armed with great costumes, hairs and settings one will follow Ray's story believing its true, direct filming! An icy music freezes and goosebumps the audience with clever sound editing. But, the most important part of the movie is Jamie Foxx. His acting is really superb, the most diamond polished acting ever seen. He lives his role. He is the Ray of Light.$LABEL$ 1
+Only Connery could bring that particular style with a line like that… Fatima crashes into Bond's arms when she water-skis up to the super agent in Nassau and apologizes, 'Oh, how reckless of me. I made you all wet.' The super agent replies, 'Yes, but my martini is still dry.'Barbara Carrera makes a great villain, stealing the show as SPECTRE executioner Fatima Blush… Fatima is number 12 in the SPECTRE chain of command, and is a gorgeous assassin who takes intense sensations of pleasure in killing… Fatima assumes all the deadly characteristics of Fiona, proving to be one of Bond's toughest adversaries… She is a victim of her vanity… She's good at what she does, and wants the world to know it… But her vanity is her downfall… Using every possible approach to eliminate 007, Fatima is a wild and cunning woman who makes love to the man she is about to kill… Austrian actor Klaus-María Brandauer (Largo) does not make a very formidable opponent for 007… Referred to as number one in the SPECTRE chain of command, Largo resides in the Bahamas, and travels aboard his super yacht, the Flying Saucer… Max Von Sydow becomes the fourth actor to appear as SPECTRE chief Ernst Stavro Blofeld, once more plotting to put the world at ransom… Kim Basinger takes the part once owned by the lovely French actress Claudine Auger… She is Domino, the mistress of Largo, who soon falls deeply in love with her rescuer… Black actor Bernie Casey becomes the sixth actor to play CIA agent Felix Leiter after Jack Lord, Cec Linder, Rik Van Nutter, Norman Burton, and David Hedison...Edward Fox portrays the new, unsympathetic 'M.' Pamela Salem is the third actress to play Miss Moneypenny. Lois Maxwell was the first and Barbara Bouchet was the second.Valerie Leon is the sexy lady in the Bahamas who fished 007 out of the blue water and saved his life by making love to him in her own room… Valerie was the Sardinian hotel receptionist in 'The Spy Who loved Me' when Bond and Anya arrive seeking Stromberg…Prunella Gee is Shrublands physical therapist Patricia… Saskia Cohen Tanugi is Nicole, Bond's Secret Service contact in the South of France… Gavan O'Herlihy is Jack Petachi, the U.S. Air Force communications officer who duplicates the President of the United States' 'eye print' and arms two cruise missiles with nuclear warheads… Rowan Atkinson is the bumbling foreign officer Nigel Small-Fawcett; and Alec McCowen is Algernon, the armorer who provides 007 some formidable items… If you like to see Connery playing a tense battle of wills, disguised as a masseur, attacked by robot-controlled sharks, giving away a considerable amount of money for a tango dance, thrown into a medieval dungeon, don't miss this second of only two "unofficial" James Bond films…$LABEL$ 1
+(Possible ?? spoilers included, but nothing critical given away.)I just watched this classic low budget movie on video, and was knocked out by the level of energy present on screen. All the actors do themselves proud, especially John Daniels, must see another of his films. Not only does this movie boast great performances, but manages stylish sequences, like when the baron throws someone out of a window and we see shards of glass falling into a swimming pool which erupts from the impact of the fallen man, i love the way slow-motion photography was used in 70's cinema, dreamy and hypnotic. Cool and witty black dudes spout great one liners while slimy seedy lumps of white trash come to unpleasant ends. I love it, my rating 10 / 10. If this ever comes out on dvd, count me in for a purchase.$LABEL$ 1
+Excellent episode movie ala Pulp Fiction. 7 days - 7 suicides. It doesnt get more depressing than this. Movie rating: 8/10 Music rating: 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+My god how bad this is. Who is this impostor pretending to be Ali G? Avoid this at all costs. It replaces the smart multi-layered satire and humour of his show with down and out toilet humour.This was obviously an attempt to get him known in the States before he released his show there on HBO.One commentator here pleads that we not judge the movie on the merits of the show due to the difference in the mediums. While it is true that the standard format of the show could never have been transferred to the big screen Mr Sacha Baron Cohen could have ensured the smart use of his comic style in a more conventional movie storyline. Instead we have this mess, which in all honesty has nothing at all to do with Ali G except for the packaging.Terribly disappointing. Go seek out the DVD's of Innit, Aiiii, or Bling Bling for some real Ali G.$LABEL$ 0
+I don't usually comment on films since I am in the movie distribution business, but I have to say that this is one of my favorite films of all time. The acting is fantastic and the script is even better. There were no cheesy speeches or exploitation of handicapped people to try and make this movie more "Hollywood". James McAvoy is such an outstanding actor, I could not look away from him if I tried. I was impressed with Steven Robertson as well. I cannot believe this is his first real film. Brenda Fricker plays a small role, but as usual, she is outstanding. This is a movie for everyone to see just how lucky we all are. If you like Awakenings and Mask, you will enjoy this story. You owe it to yourself to check this film out.$LABEL$ 1
+An interesting movie based on three of Jules Verne's novels. Considering the special effects and computer enhanced animation of today, this movie stands as an historic marker of cinematic resourcefulness and imagination. Karel Zeman has brought to life the lithographic images of the original Jules Verne texts. this is a must see for classic science fiction and history buffs.I give this movie 9 out of 10. Enjoy!!$LABEL$ 1
+When I saw the elaborate DVD box for this and the dreadful Red Queen figurine, I felt certain I was in for a big disappointment, but surprise, surprise, I loved it. Convoluted nonsense of course and unforgivable that such a complicated denouement should be rushed to the point of barely being able to read the subtitles, let alone take in the ridiculous explanation. These quibbles apart, however, the film is a dream. Fabulous ladies in fabulous outfits in wonderful settings and the whole thing constantly on the move and accompanied by a wonderful Bruno Nicolai score. He may not be Morricone but in these lighter pieces he might as well be so. Really enjoyable with lots of colour, plenty of sexiness, some gory kills and minimal police interference. Super.$LABEL$ 1
+Where to start? Some guy has some Indian pot that he's cleaning, and suddenly Skeletor attacks. He hits a woman in the neck with an axe, she falls down, but then gets up and is apparently uninjured. She runs into the woods, and it turns out there's the basement of a shopping center out there in the woods. She meets a utility worker and Skeletor attacks again. Luckily, like any good utility worker, he's got a gun and shoots at the guy. Doesn't work, everything starts on fire.Cut to some people walking through the woods. Even though they've been hiking together for some time, they sit down and introduce themselves to each other. Wouldn't they have probably done that when they first met? Anyhow, they're "undercover" Delta team members (undercover, I suppose, because that way they don't have to pay to dress them in uniforms). The cute girls are various things such as a sniper school instructor and, oh, I can't remember the rest. It doesn't matter. Eventually they all take their guns out and immediately start aiming them at various things. ? Anyhow, they meet an old Indian who is sitting out in the woods. He wants beans. You know, like pork and beans? He mumbles some stuff, I can only assume that it's the premise of the movie. I relied on having heard the premise from the commercials, because you can't really understand anything he says.So, they walk around the woods some more. All the dialogue is a load of quasi-military, macho BS. I mean all of it, as in every single word. Like "This reminds me of when we were in Kabul" or "This reminds me of when we were in Laos". Skeletor attacks again. Let me give you a rundown of a basic attack. One of the female characters is crouched behind a tree and she aims her gun at the approaching guy on the horse. For some reason, she doesn't fire but yells several times for someone else. Then as Skeletor approaches, she jumps out from behind the tree so that Skeletor can stick her with his spear. Then everybody starts shooting. The bullets cause sparks to fly from the trees. Apparently the folks who made this movie never shot a tree with a bullet. They don't make sparks.Then Casper Van Diem is all of a sudden driving a semi-truck, trying to run over Skeletor. He misses, and the truck slides to a stop. Van Diem is injured, apparently he slid across the seat and bumped his hip on the window crank or something, so he crawls out of the truck and it explodes. Later he's in the woods dying and everybody says a bunch of quasi-military, macho BS. They meet a couple guys in the woods and blow their "undercover" status by immediately identifying themselves as being from the Army. They beat on the guys for some reason, then they go away.Some other stuff happens, people mumble, the camera shakes, etc.I think it comes to an end eventually.My theory is that the Sci-Fi Channel is getting a little annoyed with everyone bashing their movies, so they put this out to remind us all how bad movies can really be. Like, you think our movies are bad? Well, you haven't seen bad. HERE'S BAD!!! Okay, now that we've got that out of the way, the rest of our movies are pretty good in comparison, right?Well, it's just a theory.$LABEL$ 0
+Since my third or fourth viewing some time ago, I've abstained from La Maman et la putain while I wait for the DVD. In the meantime, I've read the french screenplay as well as Alain Philippon's monograph on Jean Eustache. The latter ends with a frustrating filmography, eleven films, fiction, doc, and in-between, impossible to see or, in the cases of Mes petites amoureuses and Le Père Noël..., re-see.A few questions that hit me this moment: Polish Véronika's French is plenty colloquial (un maximum d' "un maximum d'"). Even so, does she have an accent? I think I can tell she does. What does the absence of color add, especially at the single spot the fringe of the city is glimpsed? How does this fringe differ from the sleep and journey that separates worlds of The Tempest and The Winter's Tale? Ditto Alphaville. We may imagine the elapsed years since have done it, but does Eustache deliberately circumscribe the film's milieu? Is this an enchanted isle? Is Alexandre's a fairy tale? Alexandre's always choreographing himself, worrying about how or where to stand or walk, what to say when, announcing these decisions to who have to care less than he does what he does. Or is this his way of trying to choreograph others by doing it to himself? How different is he from Vertigo's Scottie? (I say, I think, very.) What's the difference, and is there one, between Eustache's Léaud, and Truffaut's, and Godard's? How different is the present Léaud? Isn't he still doing it, whatever it is, in recent roles, Irma Vep, Le Pornographe, whatever, approaching old age? Once I arrived early for one in a series of mostly Antoine Doinel (Léaud's character) Truffaut films. For a long while, every three or five minutes, down the aisle would come a twenty-something male in scarf, tweedy coat, Léaud hair, with a direction-seeking nose. I have no idea whether this was conscious or unconscious mimicry. I was that age, but have no idea what I myself looked like then. No scarf, at least. I do have a brother, though, who seems to have learned his carriage from Bresson.$LABEL$ 1
+So.. what can I tell you about this movie. If you cheated a lot in high school, you do recognize some cheattips...This is the best thing i can tell you about this film!If you like American-teen movies, maybe you also like it!But i don't see this kind of movies as something funny.. sorry to say but if you are older then 10 years, i shouldn't advise you to watch this.Because there is one shot with a couple of beautiful women (girls.. in this movie) i'll give it a rate of: 2!so.. deal for yourself! good luck$LABEL$ 0
+The cult movie for every true Russian intellectual. Everything is brilliant, especially acting: it's beyond any praise. The movie, as the book, is full of symbols: my favorite one is the brightest symbol of Razrukha (colloquial Russian word for "devastation", often signifies the period of lifestyle chaos after the 1918-20 Civil War) -- the wide-opened dirty door in the bricky wall squeaking in the snowy wind and the pitch-black hole of the doorway behind it.Now the film is released on DVD with fully restored image and the 5.1 sound, there are well-translated English subtitles too, though some obscene words of Sharikov were replaced by the more mild versions in the translation. I don't know is that DVD available abroad but if you'll find it grab it immediately, it's really worthy of watching.And, in conclusion, a fact: about the 50% of Russians today, mostly youth, can be identified as Sharikovs in a considerable degree. It's the post-Soviet effect: Soviet people appeared to be wholly unprepared for the informational attack of the Western civilization, TV-producers and movie makers have made the entertainment industry and the mass media amazingly aggressive, soulless and thoughtless so that it abetted the darkest instincts of every Russian. Even among the Internet users every third one uses the obscene language in forums and chats because it's amazingly common in colloquial speech.$LABEL$ 1
+This new movie by Jeskid is awesome! Check it out and you'll be amazed. The story of Emily Waters, once a girl from a broken home, whose only means of escape from an abusive father was through her sketchbook. Until one night her drawings manifested into reality and saved her, and now using this power she fights against those who would do evil. Both live action film and hand drawn animation blend together to create a unique and original experience that will shake your soul and blow you away. The music is incredible as well, it really intesifies the emotional experience and draws you deep into the conflict. Directed by Jesse Cowell and animated by Erica Langworthy, starring the beautiful Marissa Parness, with music by Nico Audy-Rowland, Daniel Collins, Jeff Strathearn, Matt Sisco, and Selcuk Bor. Support this film and support Jeskid, he is a very talented guy. Go see his film Shades of Grey as well.$LABEL$ 1
+Part of the movie's low rating is the emphasis on unemployment and the suffering we have to endure. While this is good for drama, in comedy, we know the pains it need not be emphasized. As a result Fun with Dick and Jane is not an appropriate title and I was just plain disappointed failing to see any fun with Dick and Jane. It is true that this is a copy from the movie of the same name, but it fails on the execution and the title was not appropriate for the story line.However, if the movie was retitled to be "The Art of the Steal" and the emphasis on bungling slapstick comedy more takes on the robbery and the plans to steal (stupidly of course) would have given the movie a major boost. While, at the same time the movie should show the CEO at least in the beginning to be a crook, so it will be easier to project the pains to someone responsible early on and just leave it at that. The movie suffers a viewpoint issue and with that in mind, a comedy cannot work if the viewpoint is not done properly. A scheming husband character who is that of a Wile E. Coyote on the Road Runner would be more funny, including the slapstick comedy. But in this case, a steal instead of the capture of the bird with complicate contraptions would be extremely funny here. I mean you can make many of these and put them in the movie. But since the viewpoint was done wrongly, the robbery part had to be limited.You will enjoy the movie the first 15 minutes (during Jim Carrey's great rise), but to make the problems they had to faced to be more comical since it is a comedy, that is the part that needs a major overhaul. It can be funnier, if problems were faced more like John Travolta's Civil Action during the downfall. That movie was a serious one but the problems they faced were somewhat comical.$LABEL$ 0
+Before there was Crash, there was this interesting film called Grand Canyon. Released about 14 years sooner than the former film, Grand Canyon was a movie about two people from different backgrounds who come together as friends over a lifetime. To me Crash was still a slightly better film, but Grand Canyon was no slouch either.Taking place in Los Angeles, an upper-class lawyer named Mack (Kevin Kline) takes a shortcut through the seedier side of town only to have his car break down at the worst time. He calls for a tow truck, and has to wait for awhile, only to soon be threatened by a group of dangerous people who want his car. Soon the tow truck driver arrives at the perfect moment, and out steps Simon (Danny Glover) to take the truck away. Both men are threatened, but Simon manages to get himself, Mack, and the car out of dire straits. It is from here on out that a friendship develops between the two men over a lifetime with Mack helping out Simon just as Simon had helped him out of a dangerous situation earlier. You see Simon's sister Deborah (Tina Lifford) is living in a dangerous neighborhood with her two children, and fears for her oldest son who seems to be roaming the streets at night with some bad people. Mack offers them a better place to live as well as hooking Simon up with his secretary's friend Jane (Alfre Woodard).This is the main plot of the film, but there are other smaller plots involving the same secretary mentioned above (Mary Louise Parker) as well as Mack's wife, (Mary McDonnel) who discovers an abandoned baby not long after their son Roberto (Jeremy Sisto in his first movie role) has gone to camp for the summer, and will likely be moving on with his own life soon. The details of all these plots are brought together into one complex movie which uses a police helicopter as a metaphor for life and as a bridge to entwine all the different scenes. This simple plot device works very well and helps greatly with the flow of the story.The director Lawrence Kasdan, whose biggest movie to this date was The Big Chill, has created a splendid movie here. The cast is excellent, and most of the ideas are well thought out, but alas it falls short of greatness because some points, that would've made the film even stronger, are glossed over. The story involving the secretary is one, and the second involving Simon's nephew is the other. These scenes should've been more apart of the entire story, and then maybe Lawrence Kasdan's views of life between the upper and lower classes would've been more on a superior level instead of just very good. Still Grand Canyon exceeded expectations, and yes you will get to see a view of the canyon that this movie was named after. There is also a small role for Steve Martin as Davis, a producer of violent films, who offers his own views on life, and has a small part to play in this movie's ideas.$LABEL$ 1
+DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!I had to see why all the critics fawn over this movie. I have seen it and still don't get it. The Plot is thin, very thin. After the movie was over, I still did not know the female lead characters name and one of the two male characters did not even have a name in the credits, he is credited as "the farmer". I did not care about the characters, so I did not care about the movie.The scenery and cinematography were brilliant, but so is the stuff on National Geographic or The Discovery Channel.I can not recommend this movie to anyone.$LABEL$ 0
+Alice(Claire Danes) and Darlene(Kate Beckinsale) have been best friends since forever and after they graduate they decide to take a trip to Thailand. Due to a incident, they meet a young attractive mysterious stranger who invites them to go with him Hong Kong for the weekend. But at the airport, Alice and Darlene are mistaken for drug smuggling heroine and they are sent to prison. Now it's time for ultimate survival and true friendship. This was a pretty good movie, i've seen it a couple of times and after a while you notice that they are a few holes in the plot but the movie still keeps you entertained. Claire Danes did a great job as usual, she is a great actress. I would give Brokedown Palace 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+A mean spirited, repulsive horror film about 3 murderous children. Susan Strasberg is totally wasted in a 5-minute cameo, even though she receives star billing. If your a Julie Brown fan, you'll want to check it out, since she's naked in a couple of shots. All others,avoid.$LABEL$ 0
+The movie appeals to public due to charisma of Ben Stiller and notoriety of J. Aniston. It seems that we have here a recipe for a successful title, but there's nothing successful in this movie.Polly is very well played by Aniston, no doubt. This is the kind of character which suits her perfectly. Bem Stiller is the same troublesome guy like in " Meet the parents", but in this movie the comic scenes are few compared to the title mentioned above.The script is very poor with nothing special at all. With this two well payed actors the things could get a lot better - but what can they do when there is such a poor story and script.4 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+The arch title doesn't fit this gentle romantic comedy. Donna Reed and Tom Drake don't have much chemistry -- but their characters aren't supposed to. Both are extremely likable and attractive.The supporting cast is a dream -- with the exception of Sig Ruman's annoying faux Russian.$LABEL$ 1
+i think the team behind this film did a very good job with the limitations they had. only £300,000 and 7 weeks to write, film and edit the whole thing which i think is an achievement in itself. although this film is not for the masses (as a young innocent teenage girl is killed and there is homo-eroticism involved in the story) i think that this film is a heart wrenching tragedy and the more deeply involved you get in the story, the more sadness you feel. more so towards Heaton because of the love he feels but is not returned.this is one of my favourite British films that i enjoyed very much and would watch again. i think that it's a shame that is film is not very well heard of at all.$LABEL$ 1
+It must be so difficult to tell a story where not much happens, yet still grip the viewers attention. I think this short film achieves this with effortless quality. Rutger has an amazing voice that is very soothing, wise and fatherly, (I'm not gay) it reminds of the qualities that Robert Redford has in narrating. The end is very sad, but beautiful. One wonders how long Harry has left, will he be lonely and will he get to say his goodbyes? Also one gets annoyed at Mr Hauer for not getting involved in more work of this caliber. Lets hope he continues to do fine work in Holland and stays away from Hollywood.Worth Watching$LABEL$ 1
+This is a hard show to watch. It's not something to sit back and relax to. It kept me on the edge of my seat for several seasons. People get screwed over, raped, tortured and die like flies. There are male organs everywhere, there is excrement, puke and blood. Oz is a brave show. It brings up issues like racism, homosexuality, prisoners reality and most of all; -capital punishment. It is, in my opinion also successful in doing so, unlike for example, the single-tracked "Medium".It bored me sometimes. It had some weird story lines and they spent to much time on characters that just didn't interest me. Strangely enough, I found season 1 to be quite boring. If I had watched it while it aired I think I wouldn't have continued to watch it. I love seasons 2 - 4. Season 5 and 6 are watchable, (although I think it shouldn't be allowed to utter the words "Cyril" and "Death Row" in the same sentence)There are so many marvelous characters to root for. The old guys Bob and Busmalis, who I absolutely fell in love with from day one. Said, Adebesi, Pancamo and Schillinger, four very strong and charismatic leaders in their own way. Augustus Hill, who's monologues tied the episodes together so efficient. The staff with people like Sister Pete and Ray Mukada-also brilliant. Also minor characters that was only in for a couple of episodes or a few seasons, but left a good impression as well.My favorites are the O'Reily brothers. Their relationship was the most gut-wrenching and warmest I seen on television. If there is anything I will always remember about this show it's them. There will never be another "pairing" or what to call it, that will make me ache so much. Thats why, when the ends come for them as well, it almost hurt to much. I wish it would never have happened. I wish I had never watched it.But good one Fontana. I do recommend it.$LABEL$ 1
+wow! i watched the trailer for this one and though 'nah, this one is not for me'. i watched my husband and our friend's faces during the trailer, and knew this was a 'boy movie'. i mean, hallo! a bunch of chick barmaids that dance - another striptease?then, i started watching it, it didn't look all that bad. so i carried on watching. i watched it right to the end. what an awesome movie. if anything, this is a chick-flick. these girls have attitude. it is really a feel-good movie, and a bit of a love story. really leaves you with a nice feeling.basically, the story of a small-town girl making it big in the city, after going through the usual big-city c**p. there have been a couple of these, it is almost a new urban legend. but it also makes you think of your life, and what you have achieved. well, me anyway. i think it is because the whole working in a bar scenario is very familiar, not just for me, but for many people i know. Don't trust the trailers for this one - it is aimed at bringing the men in.$LABEL$ 0
+This is an incredible movie that begins slowly. It leads you along in thinking of it as a typical maudlin family drama. Then, in the second half, there is a plot twist that utterly transforms this into a profound tale of global scope.If you are unaccustomed to films from India, with song and dance routines seemingly grafted on for no reason, stick with this movie. Especially beginning with the second half, you will find this movie an amazing experience.*********** Minor Spoiler Here ************* I have but one complaint with the movie. The dialog at the end (between Amudha and MDS) seemed very weak and missed the opportunity to bring in the war as a force that transforms people's lives. It was implied all along, but there should have been something about the importance of the struggle for MDS.$LABEL$ 1
+'Presque Rien' ('Come Undone') is an earlier work by the inordinately gifted writer/ director Sébastien Lifshitz (with the collaboration of writer Stéphane Bouquet - the team that gave us the later 'Wild Side'). As we come to understand Lifshitz's manner of storytelling each of his works becomes more treasureable. By allowing his tender and sensitive love stories to unfold in the same random fashion found in the minds of confused and insecure youths - time now, time passed, time reflective, time imagined, time alone - Lifshitz makes his tales more personal, involving the viewer with every aspect of the characters' responses. It takes a bit of work to key into his method, but going with his technique draws us deeply into the film.Mathieu (handsome and gifted Jérémie Elkaïm) is visiting the seaside for a holiday, a time to allow his mother (Dominique Reymond) to struggle with her undefined illness, cared for by the worldly and wise Annick (Marie Matheron) and accompanied by his sister Sarah (Laetitia Legrix): their distant father has remained at home for business reasons. Weaving in and out of the first moments of the film are images of Mathieu alone, looking depressed, riding trains, speaking to someone in a little recorder. We are left to wonder whether the unfolding action is all memory or contemporary action.While sunning at the beach Mathieu notices a handsome youth his age starring at him, and we can feel Mathieu's emotions quivering with confusion. The youth Cédric (Stéphane Rideau) follows Mathieu and his sister home, continuing the mystery of attraction. Soon Cédric approaches Mathieu and a gentle introduction leads to a kiss that begins a passionate love obsession. Mathieu is terrified of the direction he is taking, rebuffs Cédric's public approaches, but continues to seek him out for consignations. The two young men are fully in the throes of being in love and the enactment of the physical aspect of this relationship, so very necessary to understanding this story, is shared with the audience in some very erotic and sensual scenes. Yet as the summer wears on Mathieu, a committed student, realizes that Cédric is a drifter working in a condiment stand at a carnival. It becomes apparent that Cédric is the Dionysian partner while Mathieu is the Apollonian one: in a telling time in architectural ruin Mathieu is excited by the beauty of the history and space while Cédric is only interested in the place as a new hideaway for lovemaking.Mathieu is a complex person, coping with his familial ties strained by critical illness and a non-present father, a fear of his burgeoning sexuality, and his nascent passion for Cédric. Their moments of joy are disrupted by Cédric's admission of infidelity and Mathieu's inability to cope with that issue and eventually they part ways. Time passes, family changes are made, and Mathieu drifts into depression including a suicide attempt. The manner in which Mathieu copes with all of these challenges and finds solace, strangely enough, in one of Cédric's past lovers Pierre (Nils Ohlund) brings the film to an ambiguous yet wholly successful climax.After viewing the film the feeling of identification with these characters is so strong that the desire to start the film from the beginning now with the knowledge of the complete story is powerful. Lifshitz has given us a film of meditation with passion, conflicts with passion's powers found in love, and a quiet film of silences and reveries that are incomparably beautiful. The entire cast is superb and the direction is gentle and provocative. Lifshitz is most assuredly one of the bright lights of film-making. In French with English subtitles. Highly Recommended. Grady Harp$LABEL$ 1
+*Spoilers and extreme bashing lay ahead*When this show first started, I found it tolerable and fun. Fairly Oddparents was the kind of cartoon that kids and adults liked. It also had high ratings along with Spongebob. But it started to fall because of the following crap that Butch Hartman and his team shoved into the show.First off, toilet humor isn't all that funny. You can easily pull off a fast laugh from a little kiddie with a burp, but that's pretty much the only audience that would laugh at such a cliché joke. Next there are the kiddie jokes. Lol we can see people in their underwear and we can see people cross-dressing. LOLOLOL!!! I just can't stop laughing at such gay bliss! Somebody help me! But of course, this show wouldn't suck that bad if it weren't for stereotypes. Did you see how the team portrayed Australians? They saw them as nothing but kangaroo-loving, boomerang-throwing simpletons who live in a hot desert. But now... Is the coup de grace of WHY this show truly sucks the loudest of them all... OVER-USED JOKES!!! The show constantly pulls up the same jokes (the majority of them being unfunny) thinking it is like the greatest thing ever! Cosmo is mostly the one to blame. I hated how they kept on mentioning "Super Toilet" (which also has a blend of kiddish humor in it just as well) and Cosmo would freak out. And who could forget that dumb battery ram joke that every goddamn parent in Dimmsdale would use in that one e-mail episode? You know, the one in which every single parent (oblivious to other parents saying it) would utter the EXACT same sentence before breaking into their kid's room? Yes, it may be first class humor to some people, but it is pure s*** to others.If I'm not mistaken, I do believe Butch Hartman said something about ending the show. Thank God! Everyone around my area says it's, like, the funniest Nickelodeon show ever. I just can't agree with it… I think it's just another pile of horse dung that we get on our cartoon stations everyday, only worse.$LABEL$ 0
+I just got this movie for Christmas and have already added it to my favorites list. A cute and simple story which makes a beautiful movie. Who could not love Uncle Felix or not have their mouth water at the sound of all that food. Definite points go to Sydney Greenstreet for his performance of Alexander Yardley and also to Reginald Gardiner who played John Sloane, the impossibly boring fiancee. Truly a gem to be watched every Christmas.$LABEL$ 1
+Despite a decent first season this series never came close to realizing its potential. Set as a prequel to the original "Star Trek" series it was doomed almost from the start by an executive producer, Rick Berman, who felt compelled to artificially limit and constrict the definition of what a "Star Trek" series could be (which made this futuristic show increasingly anachronistic from a dramatic standpoint). The actual show-runner, Brannon Braga, didn't help matters by his uninspired and tired rehashing of previous Trek episodes and careless disregard of the franchise's internal mythology (it was painfully obvious early on that he was in it only for the paycheck). Never have I seen a series' that so consistently did a disservice to a cast of talented actors (Jolene Blaylock excepted)last so long. It is as if this entire series was produced in bubble existing outside the contemporary television landscape where the audience (even a Trekker audience) is more demanding and sophisticated in their dramatic wants and desires. Unfortunately it appears as if Berman and Braga have succeeded in convincing the higher ups at Paramount that "Enterprise" suffered from "franchise fatigue" and that its core audience was did not walk away but was driven off. Produce a quality offering that lives up to the high ideals and standards of its predecessors and they (the audience) will come.Simply put, In a TeeVee universe where we are given shows like "Battlestar: Galactica" and "The Shield" the powers-that-be must give the viewing public a "Star Trek" that measures up and is dramatically competitive. It is just that straightforward and easy.$LABEL$ 0
+Simply but imaginatively filmed studio-set performance short, a perfect match of music and images that defines the very coolness of cool and the hipness of hip. The precise visual and musical arrangements give the lie to its claim to be a record of a jam session: what it is, is a pop video - every bit as stylised and knowing as that implies, and all the better for it. Among the very best music films ever made, and almost certainly the most cinematic. These cats are solid gone, daddy-o ...$LABEL$ 1
+When a rich tycoon is killed in a plane crash, his spinster twin sister, Martha Craig (Madge Kennedy), doesn't believe he grabbed the controls in a suicide dive (even though self-snuff runs in the family) but his three beautiful daughters couldn't care less. The pilot, Jim Norton (John Bromfield), goes to work for Valerie Craig (Kathleen Hughes) who soon coerces him into helping her wrest control of the estate from her troubled sister, Lorna (Sara Shane) and the family lawyer (Jess Barker). Valerie wants Norton to seduce Lorna when he's not fending off the advances of another sister, the nymphet Vicki (Marla English), but her plans are thrown into a tailspin when Norton falls for his prey. All bets are off as a world of woe -including corporate chicanery, seductions, suicides, blackmail, a murder plot, the Mann Act, double-crosses, disfigurement, and poetic justice- befall "Craig Manor", an imposing mansion on a bluff overlooking the sea...This preposterous potboiler would have made a perfect second feature for WRITTEN ON THE WIND, also from 1956. Douglas Sirk's saga of a powerful (and powerfully dysfunctional) oil clan was said to have inspired the 1980s night-time TV serial DALLAS but the Craig's low-brow excursion into insanity seems right out of it's sinful sister-soap, DYNASTY. All three siblings (only one of whom is really bad) are great beauties but it's Kathleen Hughes' cartoon villainy that stands out. Valerie is relentless in her quest to inherit the family fortune and her unbridled enthusiasm for evil is one of the movie's many guilty pleasures. Teenage sister Vicki is quite a piece of work as well, reminiscent of Carmen Sternwood in THE BIG SLEEP. When they first meet, she pulls the equivalent of trying to sit on Norton's lap while he's still standing by coming on to him with the line "I graduated summa cum laude from Embrace-able U." Whew!THREE BAD SISTERS, produced by schlockmeister Howard W. Koch, is a terrific trash-wallow in exploitation excess and the cast is B-Movie Heaven: Marla "She Creature" English, 50s hunk John "Revenge Of The Creature" Bromfield (once married to French sexpot Corinne Calvet), Universal starlet Sara Shane (discovered by Hedy Lamarr), Jess "Mr. Susan Hayward" Barker, Kathleen "It Came From Outer Space" Hughes, and former silent screen star Madge Kennedy give it all they've got -however much or little that is. Future Eurotrash star Brett Halsey (TRUMPET OF THE Apocalypse) is seen briefly as one of Vicki's victims.B-Movie rating: 10/10 Marla (and her body English) made marvelous movies! THREE BAD SISTERS was recently seen on the big screen as part of the Palm Springs Film Noir Festival but the jury's still wiping soap suds out of ...aw hell, it's noir (5/10 on the noirometer).$LABEL$ 1
+Kennedy-Miller could hardly have done a better job at tackling a very challenging exercise: making dry political events work as human drama, and providing an even-handed representation of explosively controversial subject matter.The key to its success on the first count is brilliant acting, although I was less impressed by Max Phipps' performance as Gough Whitlam than some other commenters here. The clear standouts for my money were John Stanton as Malcolm Fraser and Bill Hunter as Rex Connor. The latter must have been one of the easiest casting choices in history - Hunter could not have been more perfect for the role. On the second count, the series avoids the "myth of objectivity" trap through a narrator who articulates the sympathies of the director (Phillip Noyce, who more recently demonstrated his left-wing credentials in Rabbit Proof Fence), while being carefully even-handed and sympathetic in its dramatic portrayal of all parties. The adherence to the Lady Kerr/Lady Macbeth theme popular among Labor partisans was perhaps a little partial, though not ruinously so. In particular, credit is due for the sympathy shown to Kerr and the extraordinarily difficult position he was placed in, whatever one might think of his actions.However, there is one sour note for which the producers were perhaps not entirely to blame - the portrayal of the Jim Cairns/Juni Morosi affair. Those who come to the series with no background to these events will get the impression that Cairns and Morosi were the innocent victims of a smear campaign by a prurient gutter press. The producers may have been restrained in this respect by Australia's stultifying defamation laws, and the recently demonstrated willingness of Cairns and Morosi to use them against those who suggested their relationship was sexual (which Cairns would eventually admit to a year before his death). However, more could have been made of the bizarre fashion in which Morosi managed Cairns's office as Treasurer.Speaking of defamation, there are a couple of disorienting occasions where dialogue is obscured due to injunctions taken out by offended principals - by a beeping noise on one occasion, and a very loud telephone ring on another. A further curiosity: the DVD release excises a line from the comic relief scene where a customs officer (played by the late Paul Chubb) serves Tirath Khemlani on his arrival at Sydney Airport. Next in the queue is a dishevelled looking hippie, who now receives only a disapproving glare from Chubb when he presents his paperwork. In the original version, Chubb said something along the lines of: "drug bust in Bali, eh?". Obviously this line no longer rings true in the wake of the Schapelle Corby case, which dramatically illustrated that those busted for drugs in Bali can expect far worse than deportation.$LABEL$ 1
+A handful of critics have awarded this film with positive comments. I don't wish to argue with their opinion, but I strongly disagree. When I first watched this film I was mildly impressed. But after comparing it with other films, particularly with the late master, Bruce Lee I quickly changed my mind. In fact, if it wasn't for the title of the film, I would never have bought it. Game of Death 2 doesn't relate to the original Game of Death, (except it shares one character, Billy Lo.)I was stunned to see how similar Game of Death 2 was compared to Enter the Dragon. The plots have striking similarities: Both Bruce Lee and Bobby Lo are on a mission to avenge a relative. The two locations are similar, in which they both are very isolated and are surrounded by thousands of Blackbelts. There is an element of prostitution in both films (women are sent two the guests rooms in both films.) Both Han (Enter the Dragon) and Lewis's henchman have a hand missing. Their is an underground drug operation in Enter the Dragon, believe it or not, there is one in Game of Death 2. Han has a pet cat in Enter the Dragon, the director has used his imagination and awarded Lewis with a pet monkey! The list continues. Regarding other aspects of the film, such as the script and the acting, I felt it was very poor. It seemed to me that the director was looking for a group of martial artists to star in the film and prayed they could act. On a positive scale, I cannot deny that the choreography is impressive. Although the fighting sequences have strong elements of acrobatics in them, they are none the less skillfully performed. However, as the plot is insufficient, i couldn't relate to the characters, therefore the fighting sequences were more exhibitions rather than having a meaning to the film. In conclusion I would say this film is recommendable to any martial-arts fans, but for those who enjoy a solid action film, with a good storyline and strong characters, I seriously wouldn't recommend this film. My opinions towards this film may seem very bias and one-sided, but when Bruce Lee set a new standard in the martial arts cinema, particularly after his masterpiece: Enter the Dragon, this film failed to rise to these standards. If anything they imitated a truly brilliant martial-arts film, in hope of achieving the same level of fame. In reference to my evaluation, awarding this film a very harsh 1 out of 10, the film is barley watchable, and must be thankful that it had the fighting sequences it did.$LABEL$ 0
+The writer/director of this film obviously doesn't know anything about film. I think the DP on this project was tied up and replaced with a monkey, because every seen was either too dark or had the hotter hot spots than the sun. The story was awful, the characters were very one dimensional. For someone to have said that this film was made for poker fans and not film fans, that someone is kidding their self (it was probably the writer/director). No poker fan in this world likes this movie. Even your money man hates this project. To go into a casino and play a few hands doesn't give you the experience to write about poker. Keep your day job. And if it's playing poker, then you must be hurt'n.$LABEL$ 0
+Oh it really really is. I've seen films that I disliked more, due to whatever reason, but never have I seen a film that just fails in every single aspect of film making. It even fails to fail at film making, in a Way the Hercules in New York could be said to do. It's not the film I like the least, but it is the very worst film I've ever seen.The acting is the first thing that strikes you. I've never seen a worse acted film outside of pornography. In fact I've plenty of pornographic films that are acted a damn site better than this. It really is awful.Technically, it's terrible. The camera-work is amateurish. The editing is nonsensical. I presume they couldn't afford proper sound equipment, and this meant that every scene in a car (and there's a lot of them) has them driving at about three miles per hour and every scene set outside by the same patch of woods (and there's a lot of them too) is actually dubbed from a studio, again lending more to the bad porn vibe.The plot is nonsensical, as many have pointed out. I'll defend vampires walking in daylight by the fact that despite it being popularized by Nosferatu, this was never originally an intrinsic part of the vampire mythos.Speaking of vampire mythos, the writer had evidently read Carmilla, or at very least seen The Vampire Lovers. I'm not sure how I feel about this, swaying from impressed that a movie this dire has at least some aspirations to a Gothic novel I'm very fond of; or annoyed by its at best sledgehammer references and at worst total desecration of source material. At very least 'the General' is an insult to Peter Cushing though.It gets two stars however, merely because I can't bring myself to vote one star for a film that has, or at least purports to have, both vampires and zombies in it. Incidentally I watched Lifeforce (another film that tenuously has vampires and zombies in it) on the same day as this, and despite being a rather flawed film itself, really comes out a masterpiece compared to this.So in the end, this is not a film so bad it's good, or so bad it's in any way enjoyable, even drunk. It's just a mess, and worth no-one's time watching.$LABEL$ 0
+I felt like I was watching an example of how not to make a movie. I think the director filmed it in his back yard! There was no real plot. Terrible script.Terrible acting.The worst production I have ever witnessed. A couple of bad CG effects and then the rest of the movies was spent walking around in what looked like a junk yard.I don't normally write reviews to movies but was moved to warn everyone about this one.Life is to short to waste your time with this movie!$LABEL$ 0
+"Spin it!"The 90s opened up with a clever Disney favorite, "TaleSpin," the TV cartoon series that featured characters from "The Jungle Book." Join Baloo and Kit Cloudkicker as they fly the Sea Duck like you've never seen it before: out of Cape Suzette, to Louie's, up mountains, through jungles, on water, in volcanoes, looking for adventure, looking for treasure, looking for fun, all in one action-packed cartoon adventure!!!!!This was a favorite of mine as well as my family's. This ran on The Disney Afternoon the entire first half of the 90s until the original cartoons moved to the Old Disney Channel in 1995, which I have seen on vacation once in 1996 before getting cable in March 1997.And good news: today the DVDs are here!!!!! Relive the fun and excitement of "Dun, dun, dun, TaleSpin!!!!!"10/10$LABEL$ 1
+This amazing Oscar winner (4 in total) and John Ford's first Academy Award winner, is simply spellbinding with a pounding score by Max Steiner. Called an Art film, because Ford had very little money to make this great story about guilt and retribution, and greed and stupidity. But what makes this movie such a classic, is the direction and astounding photography and use of fog and lighting, that was so different from the usual American film, and more in the tradition of German expressionism. And the Oscar winning performance by Victor McLaglen as the drunken Gypo is simply unbelievable. Basically the movie takes place in Ireland, and Gypo turns in a friend in the rebel movement to the English to collect 20 pounds to give to his girlfriend. But having all that money, he starts blowing it on an all night drunk and giving it away, while the leaders of the movement are trying to track down the informer. The whole movie is one night in a dark and foggy Ireland, and a cast of characters that are memorable but all along, the whole world of Gypo is closing in on him, both psychologically. If I had to pick maybe three directors to have ALL their movies on a deserted island forever, and nobody elses, John Ford would certainly be one of them. What a truly remarkable movie...$LABEL$ 1
+I myself am a physics student, and I have to say I think this is one of the best 'popular' introductions to string theory that's out there. The Elegant Universe manages to make the entire topic of string (although it's actually M) theory accessible to a wider audience.Some 'popular science' programmes feel that the best approach is just to throw the audience in at the deep end, throwing technical jargon at them without so much as an explanation, and presenting the theory in a boring, stale style. This programme goes through concepts such as general relativity and quantum mechanics, and explains the issues that need to be resolved between the two so we have a coherent theory that can be applied to the universe on both a large and small scale.I suppose some could say it's slow and takes too long to get to the interesting stuff like extra dimensions and wormholes, but the thing is: that's against the point. Explaining string theory from the start is nigh on impossible without at least mentioning the physics at its base, and the way it's explained in The Elegant Universe is clear and entertaining.Whether you'll like this program really does depend on if you're willing to perhaps be initially dumbfounded by some of the ideas that Greene presents: extra dimensions and warping of spacetime aren't exactly prevalent in everyday life, are they? But, if you persevere with some of the more exotic concepts in this programme, you'll find that it will give you an insight into the research that drives the world of physics today. And if you're studying physics, well, it's great entertainment as well as you'll be likely able to follow this and appreciate it even more!$LABEL$ 1
+It's easy to see how this below-average screenplay got by in the early sales-pitch meetings at Regency Films (and later with Fox): cross the superhero genre with a comedic take on "Fatal Attraction"...voilà! I don't know how on earth a talented director like Ivan Reitman got involved, unless the pay was just too tempting. A dateless employee at an architectural design firm in N.Y.C. meets a girl on the subway and asks her out; despite the fact she's distracted and unpleasant, he eventually gets her into bed--only to find out later she's the Big Apple's resident superhero, G-Girl. This distaff Superman, with powers bestowed upon her by a fallen meteorite, isn't a fantasy heroine, however...screenwriter Don Payne has conceived her as a needy, possessive, vindictive bitch (he telegraphs this to us from miles away, though Uma Thurman still plays the role for sassy laughs). This is the kind of worthless movie that can't let an insult slip by. Our introduction to leading man Luke Wilson, talking with Rainn Wilson on the train, is accompanied by a sour dig at gays (it prods at us to be assured these two buddies are strictly ladies' men). After being approached by G-Girl's nemesis, who wants to zap her powers, Wilson is told this will make her just an ordinary woman scorned...and isn't that better after all? Thurman's early performances in films like "Henry & June" and "Jennifer 8" showcased an intelligent woman with angular grace and hypnotic poise; her films with Quentin Tarantino helped expose her sinewy hardness and intensity, but that came at a price (the actress has seemingly lost her graceful touch). The picture is exceedingly well-produced and shot, with expensive-seeming special effects, yet nobody bothered to find the humor in this scenario. It's pushy, leering, ugly, and badly-cast. Bloated, frozen-faced Wilson can't tell any of his co-workers that he's dating G-Girl because she made him swear he'd rather have a chainsaw stuck up his rectum. I wonder if writer Payne actually thought that was hilarious...or, indeed, if anyone involved did? * from ****$LABEL$ 0
+Oh dear, what a horrid movie.The production was so cheap and nasty... Remember the shot from "the Natural", where the lightning hits the tree (leaving a glowing stump) that Roy Hobbs makes a bat from?? Well the producers of this movie used that same scene to prefix a scene where a tree branch slammed into the house.I wonder if they paid to use the footage from The Natural, or did they just hope that no-one who would watch the film would pick it up ?Then at the end where they were getting trying to get away in the truck. Such over-acting in the cabin. A really bad film, a really bad film.$LABEL$ 0
+A Scanner Darkly, Minority Report, Blade Runner, Sin City and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow – if you are a fan of any of these then this will be well worth checking out.French animation project 'Renaissance' took seven years to make on a shoestring budget and tonight I finally got to see it at a private screening for the International Film Festival in Stockholm. My spontaneous reaction is awe; my further reflection is 'huh, neat' and closer analysis regrettably gets a resounding 'meh'. It is a gorgeous science fiction triumph on the surface, but scratch it or even poke it a little and its unnecessarily complex plot becomes glaringly apparent, as do the flat characters. Nevertheless it is clear that the people at Onyx films have done something spectacular with the aforementioned surface. The visuals are staggering. They have used live action motion capture fitted into key-frame animation, with stark jet black and bright white contrasts and a heavily shadowed rotoscoped background. For those of you who are not down with the 'technical lingo', the film looks like a fully-animated Sin City. Its fluid, transparent, dark and stylized template is complemented by great lurid lightning. It's a vision. Yet much credit is also due to the crisp sound effects that take the form of humming futuristic weapons, suspenseful music, heavy raindrops and glass shards breaking. It's every tech-nerd's wet dream...The film zooms in on an eerily-lit, bleak, futurescape Paris in which a major corporation called 'Avalon' has begun to interweave in the lives of the citizens with surveillance (think the fluid transparent screens from Minority Report) and genetic engineering. The latter leads to a mysterious kidnapping of young researcher Ilona (voiced by the lovely Romola Garai). Cut to our hard-boiled cop-on-suspension and protagonist Karas (Daniel Craig) – a man who takes the law into his own hands – who is assigned the case of finding and retrieving Ilona. During this case, he is being aided by Illona's sister with whom he also begins a love affair. A very half-assed love affair, if I may say so.The world of Renaissance is remarkable. Director Christian Volckman takes a fair jab at melting the noir themes and the result is an urban jungle filled with cads, rats, femme fatales and lonely detectives that hide in the shadows of the seedy slum. The problem is that the creators undoubtedly felt the need to have extremely clear and spelled-out archetypes in the story, or the film would have been "too surreal" for mainstream audiences, owing to its lurid animation format. It follows then that we have a multitude of clichéd characters such as evil-laughing villains, sleazy crime bosses and butch tough-chicks who blow smoke every chance they get. It shoves noir in our faces, and it isn't necessary.What is worse is that the dialogue is a little contrived. It seems as though every line exists for the sole reason of propelling the plot. This is nothing fatal because the plot is so complex once it gets going that it needs some clear direction. Daniel Craig helps here too by bringing a no-nonsense attitude to his hard-edged cop character. At one point in Renaissance, he is seen in a vivid car-chase that surely is one of the most adrenaline-pumping and top notch sequences of the film. Unfortunately, the novelty of the sci-fi visuals have worn off post this car chase and 'Renassaince' could benefit from being slightly shorter. In summary, a very interesting but flawed futuristic comic book experience.7 out of 10$LABEL$ 1
+Audiences back in 1936 must have been stunned at what they were watching: a full-fledged, beautiful full-length Technicolor film. I can't say for sure, but this might have been the first one (3-strip). At any rate, it still looks beautiful over 70 years later on DVD. In fact, just how good it looks is amazing.Kudos for that have to go out to Director Richard Boleslowski, Director Of Photography Virgil Miller, Selznick International Pictures and, for the DVD - MGM Home Entertainment. All of them combined to give us one of the best-looking films of the classic-era age.I thought the story was so-so: excellent in the first half, stagnant in the second. It gave a nice message in the end, even though a lot of people might not have been happy with it. I can't say more without spoiling things.Marlene Dietrich never looked better, I don't believe, and certainly never played such a soft-hearted character ("Domini Enfilden"). Heart-throb Charles Boyer was the male star and Domini's object of affection, but some of the minor characters were the most interesting to me. People like Joseph Schildkraut as "Batouch;" John Carradine as "The Sand Diviner;" The most memorable, to me at least, was the dancer "Irena," played by Tilly Losch. Wow, there is a face and a dance you won't soon forget! I've never seen anything like it in the thousands of films I've viewed. Just seeing her do her thing was worth the price of the DVD. Looking at her IMDb resume, she was only in four movies, but they were all well-known films.Basil Rathbone, the actor who really became famous for playing "Sherlock Holmes," also is in here as is C. Aubrey Smith, another famous British actor of his day. Schildkraut, by the way, will be recognized by classic film buffs as the man who played the arrogant sales clerk in the big hit, "The Shop Around The Corner," with Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullivan.The beautiful direction, photography and color, and Tilly's dance, are the things I'll remember best about this movie which is a lot of good and not-so-good things all rolled into one. Had the last half hour been better - although I admire the ending - I would have rated it even higher. It's definitely one film collectors want to add to their collection.$LABEL$ 1
+'Apocalypse Now Redux', Francis Ford Coppola's war opus is probably the most beautiful war film I have ever seen. Capt. Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen) is a Vietnam soldier who is tapped to head a very dangerous and highly classified mission into Cambodia to 'terminate the position' of Col. Kurtz (Marlon Brando), a highly ranked and highly regarded army man who seemingly has gone completely insane and defected from the army, setting up his own little society and helped by a cultish following of soldiers. Escorting him up the river to Cambodia is a handful of navy men, and along the way, they encounter several interesting people (most notably is Robert Duvall's Kilgore, a badass lieutenant colonel with a few screws loose) and some horrifying situations. 'Apocalypse' is less historical war film than a philosophical and psychological study. It is more 'Full Metal Jacket' than 'Platoon'. The running time of 'Apocalypse' is over three hours, but the film is so wonderfully paced and compelling that when the end of the film arrived, I was actually surprised at the amount of time that had passed. The beautiful cinematography is surely what stood out the most for me, however. After seeing this film, I am convinced that Coppola is one of the masters of light and photography in film history. The 'Godfather' films were all tinged with an almost sepia tone, and shadows created the feeling of a Baroque composition. With 'Apocalypse', there is an incredible usage of natural light, and the shadows, particularly in the scenes involving Brando and Sheen, almost become a living character, they are so pervasive and effective. Another gorgeous scene was when Cpt. Willard and Jay Hicks (Frederic Forrest) were in the jungle looking for mangoes, and come across a tiger. The sheer enormity of the surrounding foliage (leaves as big as a house) made the characters almost Lilliputian, but the colorization of the scene was incredible. While everything else was almost a muted grey, the leaves were an incredibly vibrant green, an effect that was particularly striking. Another really minor positive moment in the film was the great scene when the helicopters carrying Duvall and company attack the small village while playing Wagner. This could have just been an ultra-dramatic underlying soundtrack to the scene, but instead Coppola turns the song into an actual part of the scene, with Duvall mentioning that he likes to play it while they are approaching to 'scare the hell out of them'. The performances in 'Apocalypse' are first class. Much has been made of the amount of money Brando earned for the film, and the amount of trouble he caused. Regardless of this, he turned out a powerful performance for a relatively short amount of screen time. Sheen is completely outstanding - this is the first time I have seen him really unleash in a film – and Duvall is a lot of fun to watch as the loony Kilgore. 'Apocalypse Now' is a film that is so pervasive in pop culture by now (most know several choice lines from the film, 'I love the smell of napalm in the morning' et al) but I knew little enough about it that there were plenty of surprises left to experience. I have not seen the original cut of 'Apocalypse Now' so I cannot compare it to this newer cut, but this is a film that should most certainly be experienced. 8/10--Shelly$LABEL$ 1
+Identical twin sisters Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen climbed to fame in sitcoms like "Two of a Kind", I had never seen them in anything before, but I had an idea of what to expect, but it was much worse. Basically the Hunter sisters Charli (Mary-Kate) and Leila (Ashley) are in Rome for a Summer Intern Program, but not long after starting their jobs they are immediately fired for a series of mishaps. But the man who owns the company they are working in, Derek Hammond (Julian Stone), gives them their jobs back, and they they do slowly prove themselves useful assets, and talented (fashion) artists, and help stop a mean man taking over the company. Also starring Leslie Danon as Jami, Derek Lee Nixon as Ryan, Ilenia Lazzarin as Dari, Archie Kao as Nobu, Valentina Mattolini as Heidi, Michelangelo Tommaso as Paolo and Matt Patresi as Enrico Tortoni. You can tell that this film was made to go straight to video, the camera-work is completely mismatched, and it doesn't help when you want to admire the sights of Rome. In fact the background is the only good thing to watch, the twin sisters are two of the most annoying celebrities around, I knew before watching that they weren't going to interest me in any way (their not even that pretty), this is awful gush of rubbish film. Pretty poor!$LABEL$ 0
+As a longtime admirer of the 2001 film "Moulin Rouge" and a more recent admirer of Jean Renoir's film-making, I knew that I'd inevitably watch his "French Cancan" sooner or later. The movie tells a fictionalized story of the opening of the Moulin Rouge nightclub. The impresario Danglard (Jean Gabin) tries to turn Montmartre laundress Nini (Françoise Arnoul) into a cancan star, without arousing the wrath of his tempestuous mistress, the belly-dancing Lola (Maria Felix). This is just one of several love triangles in "French Cancan"--true to stereotype, these French showbiz folk are always falling in love.Renoir directs with his typical gentle humor and attention to supporting characters, and also wrote the lyrics to a beautiful waltz song prominently featured in the movie. Gabin perfectly incarnates the aging French playboy hero. Arnoul is a cute redhead who holds her own in the dance numbers, except for a few trick shots where a double is obviously used."French Cancan" is billed as a musical comedy and while there are lots of musical numbers that take place on the nightclub stage, etc., only one character, Casimir, ever breaks into song in the middle of conversation. The actor who plays him, Philippe Clay, is fun to watch--a really tall, skinny young man who sings, dances, and does contortions.The movie ends with a long cancan sequence, as all the characters learn to triumph over their problems and make art together. The dancing is much more brightly lit and coherently edited than in "Moulin Rouge"; in fact, if I have one complaint about "French Cancan," it's that the whole thing is a little too Technicolor. Even when Nini experiences heartbreak or someone sings a melancholy song, the lighting is bright and flat, no shadows intruding. Yes, the result is a cheerful and warmhearted musical comedy; it's just that I can't help thinking that things weren't ever this colorful and innocent in real life.$LABEL$ 1
+You, the Living (2007)Mordant. I've never written that word before but it comes to mind here. Let me look it up. Well, it's part of it--corrosive, but also funny as heck. So corrosively funny. This is a dour film, for sure, with so much dry dry dry wit and quirky humor it's impossible not to like it on some level. Filmed in a very spare style, often with a static camera and really balanced, stable compositions, like theater stages, we see a short enactment occur.But that makes it seem ordinary--which it is not. Ordinary life is shown to be frumpy, ironic, delightful, coy, and depressing. And impossible. We, the living, must live, and since we're alive, we may as well take note. Something like that. I think it was Ebert who said you find yourself laughing and don't know why. Exactly. And the promo material somewhere said it was a cross between Bergman and Monty Python, and what they mean is it has the dry, silent, probing look of Ingmar Berman's famous Swedish films, but it has the zany, somehow touching elements of the British comedians. I'd say, definitely, definitely watch at least half an hour of this. There is part of me that thought I was through by then--the rest continues in a similar assemblage of little skits and moments, and they do gradually evolve, but there is no great plot to follow or climax of the usual kind. There are some great moments later, even just the attention to the thunderstorm, which takes us out of the mundane human events nicely. The filming is gorgeous in its classical control, almost like a series of Gregory Crewdson scenes (and outdoing the photographer, actually). And the acting, with all its very ordinary, non-glam folksiness, is right on. A startling, beautiful, odd experience.$LABEL$ 1
+Julie Delpy stars in this horrific film about a sadistic relationship between a father and a daughter in France of the 14th Century. The film attempts to shatter the romantic chivalry image of the heroic medieval knight, by showing a rather dreary image of the period, defined by psychological dysfunction, and violence. The movie opens with a child, François, growing up in the shadow of the Hundred Years' War, told by his father to keep his mother safe and to wait for his return. François takes action when he discovers his mother with a lover in bed. François murders him in the name of defending his father's honour. Like father like son, François grows up, and leaves his family, also to go to the same war. This setting is somewhat of an explanation for the events to come, as on his way home, we already notice that something is wrong with François. The war has not done well with him, he has changed.The daughter, Béatrice de Cortemart (Delpy), awaits her beloved father, to return from captivity of the English. She is pure of heart and she was left to take care of the estate while her father was gone. In her father's absence, Béatrice needs to deal with financial difficulties, which strengthens Béatrice's hope that her father will return to save her. But, upon his return, she notices that he lost the will to enjoy life, and he tortures and humiliates everything around him, even his own daughter. From this points the film depicts various ways how François torments his family. Starting with humiliating his own son, and ending with the rape of his own daughter, Béatrice.Setting the film in the Middle Ages supposed to soften the blow, as the viewer may tell himself, that these kind of violent acts were held in difficult times. And indeed, many films on the topic of Incest, such as Tim Roth's "The War Zone (1999)" which are contemporary were more shocking because of that.Delpy appears in this film in several daring nude scenes. Indeed she appears to be angelic and beautiful.I was annoyed when I saw some animal torture scenes. I believe, and this is not confirmed, that some birds were killed for the making of this film, which really upsets me. The quality of a film drops when real violence is used towards animals. I would hope that this movie will be re-released without those cruelty scenes. Those scenes do not contribute much to the film storyline.Overall, the movie is too long. The script is problematic. We don't get to see François and Béatrice before the war, we don't really get the answer why is he changed to such extreme. I would have pass on this film, however, I have to mention a few scenes that made this film worth watching:* Scenes of a young child being able to murder in cold blood is truly shocking. I saw it first time on "City of God (2002)". Here, François, murders his mother's lover, while his father away at war. Excellent scene and very graphic. * The scenes from Béatrice being raped by her father till she finds out she is pregnant from him are truly shocking and interesting. The scene after the rape, where Delpy burns her cloths and cleans herself. She asks her brother to kick her in the stomach with hopes to have a miscarriage.* The brother humiliation scenes where the father dumps his son's head into the food - humiliating him then ranting about the war. Later, dressing his son with women's cloths.The film won the César (French Oscar) for Best Costume Design, I agree, the costumes here really make the film look authentic for the time period. The movie location is Château de Puivert, a real 12th century castle and a historical monument, located in Aude, South-Central France. Beautiful castle and mountain view, really helps you set into the period of this film. The film also nominated for 3 more César awards, but they were all snatched to the widely successful French film "Au revoir, les enfants" ("Goodbye, Children", 1998).--- Released as "Beatrice" in New York City, March 1987. Only to be screened in France on November 2007. Watched it on YES3 on 3 May 2007, 17:45, at work.$LABEL$ 0
+this movie is awesome. sort of. it dosent really say much, or do much, but it is an awesome movie to watch because of how stupid it is. the high school is taken over by evil ms.togar that hates the one thing that all the students love, rock& roll. riff randle get everyone tickets for the ramones show, and this movie peaks with a take over of the school led my riff randle & the ramones. this movie has everything, a bad script, questionable directing, bad actors(ie clint howard & p.j. soles), an awesome soundtrack,extreme campyness, these elements & much more come together to make this what it is,a classic.note - during the live ramones set, notice that darby crash of the germs is in the front of the crowd. neat-o.$LABEL$ 1
+After a summer full of retreads and disappointments, Nurse Betty is a breath of fresh air. The film is like no other I have ever seen. Director Neil LaBute proves that he can direct more then disturbing pictures of men and women and how they approach sex (his previous two films were the brillant In the Company of Men, and the almost brillant Your Friends and Neighbors). Renee Zellweger gives the best performance of her career as Betty, a waitress who, when she witnessing the brutal death of her asshole husband (LaBute mainstay Aaron Eckhart), and gets lost in a fantasy world. Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock play the hitmen who killed her husband and are now on her trial. The trick to the film is that Freeman and Zellweger are really parallel characters. While Zellweger falls in love with the image of the handsome and polite Dr. Dave Ravell on a soap opera, Freeman idealizes Betty. Nurse Betty is a brillant film, full of life, humor, love and graphic violence. My Grade: 10/10.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is not worth seeing, at least not at a cinema. The story is hard to follow and understand (it starts with 10 minutes of something happening 3 years earlier). It's hard to know if this movie is trying to be a comedy or just is so bad/weird that it sometimes seems like it. American sirens and lights on Swedish police cars is just one example. The acting of Persbrandt and Bergqvist is good as usual, but I think Jenny Lampa acting as Jasmin acts very poor. Zara Zetterqvist acts pretty well, she's not been seen as an actor in Swedish movies for a long time. If you still want to see it, wait until it's released on DVD or is shown on TV.$LABEL$ 0
+A man and his wife are not getting along because of the wife's jealousy and drinking problems. When the wife disappears, her sister begins a vigorous search involving the local police, state government, and a television crime show. What she finds out stuns the entire community. Good drama with lots of fine performances; based on a true story.$LABEL$ 1
+Like a lot of stars of the big screen as their careers wound down, so many turned to television where probably they secured their reputations for posterity. Donna Reed is a case in point.I don't think Donna Reed ever thought that Donna Stone was anything challenging, not to a woman who had won an Oscar for playing a very different type in From Here to Eternity. She was certainly better prepared to play wife, mother, and homemaker Donna Stone after having played Mary Bailey in It's A Wonderful Life. Donna was always beautiful and wise and ever helpful with the problems of her kids and her husband. Carl Betz was not an idiot, he was a pediatrician who had his office attached to the house. Talk about the man being ever ready in a crisis.Though this was the Donna Reed Show because Donna's husband at the time, Tony Owen produced it. Yet it lasted as long as did because of the popularity of the two children, Shelley Fabares and Paul Petersen. Fabares had that best selling teen record Johnny Angel which she introduced on the show. She successfully made the transition to adult star, most known for her role in Coach as Craig T. Nelson's wife.But Petersen was a bubblegum teen idol back in the day. The Donna Reed Show dare I say got most of its viewers because of him. It's forgotten now, but Petersen also had a best selling record, My Dad. Didn't do half as well as Johnny Angel. Now Paul Petersen runs a support group for former child stars like himself. So many of them end so tragically, it's good work that he's doing. The Stone family was the quintessence of Middle America. They lived in a suburb near Chicago, they led wholesome lives. Mom and Dad were always there for the kids. Of course the problems they had usually were nothing more than breaking curfew. It's this series I believe was the model for the TV town of Pleasantville where Tobey Maguire and Reese Witherspoon are sucked into. I have pleasant memories of The Donna Reed Show. Easy to take, but not too seriously.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie raises a number of pressing questions in my mind. Firstly, how has Jennifer Tilly managed to sustain a film acting career for all these years based on that ridiculous squeaky voice and the very limited range of hammy facial expressions she employs? Secondly... what on earth were the people responsible for making this offensive and deeply repulsive film thinking of? And thirdly... given that there were people perverted enough to decide to make dreck like this, shouldn't there have been someone in the system - the studio, the distributors, or somewhere - sane enough to prevent it actually getting completed and released. You really would have to search a very, very long way to turn up another movie as profoundly nasty as this... and it isn't even billed as a horror movie - which, inasmuch as it can be seen as belonging to any legitimate film genre, it certainly is. The movie wallows from beginning to end in the sickest kind of madness, violence and abuse, and has essentially no redeeming features at all. I'm not actually advocating censorship (which I don't believe in)... but I really can't see how anybody could conceivably draw anything positive from watching a film like this.$LABEL$ 0
+I generally like this movie a lot. The animation is supreme: meaning they took to trouble to animate the hair and fur on animals and people. And being an amateur at graphics and animation (self teaching myself through books. For those who are curious on the same matter, I use the program Gmax by Discreet. It is a high quality free program that can be downloaded from the internet) I see that the quality of animation shown here is of high standards.The plot of this movie is good. Though this movie lacks character development, this story is still understandable. Generally, I believe that this movie is primarily should be watched by people who are fans of the game as its plot closely follows the game. As for me, I do not play the games and therefore I don't have the wowing effect it probably does on fans of the game.For those who like the game, I suggest this movie to you, and if you haven't played the game, I would still recommend this movie to you.$LABEL$ 1
+This film can not even be said to be bad for it is sadly, just painfully mediocre. Lacking any real wit or imagination, a thin plot is stretched to the absolute limit and the `jokes' (which are predictable and threadbare) are spun out to such inordinate length that boredom and yawns quickly overtake the viewer. Another notch to mark the sad decline of John Waters and a reminder that what `shocked' or amused us 30 years ago doesn't work quite the same way now. We've seen it all before, and it no longer breaks any taboos because they have long since evaporated. A major miss.$LABEL$ 0
+First, I would like to admit that Chokher Bali was not my cup of tea. This movie was evidently not targeted toward the masses. It's the type that critics would enjoy watching. The hype and publicity were quite misleading.I was expecting something very dramatic like Devdas. Understanding that the story and time-period demand it, I found the movie extremely slow-paced.I'm a die-hard Aishwarya fan, and I regret to say that I thought she was miscast. The role of Chokher Bali required an actress who can portray herself as subversive, not innocent and naive. Everyone else gave a good performance. Tagore's depiction of the human condition does come across the celluloid to give the movie an interesting theme.$LABEL$ 0
+Master director Ching Siu Tung's perhaps most popular achievement is this series, A Chinese Ghost Story 1-3. Chinese Ghost Story stars Leslie Cheung in some distant past in China as a tax collector who is forced to spend a night during his "collecting trip" in a mysterious castle in which some strange old warriors fight and meet him. Beautiful actress Joey Wang/Wong is the ghost who lives in that castle and is under a domination of one powerful demon, a wood devil who collects human souls for herself/itself with the help of her beautiful ghosts. Leslie and Joey fall in love, and even though ghosts are not allowed to live with humans, they decide to break that rule and live happily together for the rest of their lives. This is not what the wood devil thinks and our protagonists have to fight for their lives and their happiness.This film is no less full of magic than other films by Ching Siu Tung. His masterpieces include Duel to the Death (1983) and the Swordsman series, which all have incredible visuals and kinetic power in their action scenes. Ghost Story is full of brilliant lightning and dark atmosphere, which is lightened by the strong presence of the beautiful and good willing ghost. The effects are simply breath taking and would work at their greatest power in the big screen. The camera is moving and twisted all the time and it adds to the fairy tale atmosphere this film has. There's plenty of wire'fu stunts, too, and even though some think they are and look gratuitous or stupid when used in films, I cannot agree and think they give motion pictures the kind of magic, freedom and creativeness any other tool could not give. When people fly in these films, it means the films are not just about our world, and they usually depict things larger than life with the power of this larger than life art form.The story about the power of love is pretty touching and warm, but the problem is (again) that the characters are little too shallow and act unexplainably occasionally. Leslie and Joey should have been written with greater care and their characters should be even more warm, deep and genuine in order to give the story a greater power and thus make the film even more noteworthy and important achievement. Also, the message about love and power of it is underlined little too much at one point and it should have been left just to the viewer's mind to be interpreted and found. Another negative point about the dialogue is that it's too plenty and people talk in this film without a reason. That is very irritating and sadly shows the flaws many scriptwriters tend to do when they write their movies. People just talk and talk and it's all there just to make everything as easy to understand as possible and so the film is not too challenging or believable as it has this gratuitous element. Just think about the films of the Japanese film maker Takeshi Kitano; his films have very little dialogue and all there is is all the necessary as he tells his things by other tools of cinema and never talks, or makes other characters talk too much in his movies. This is just the talent the writers should have in order to write greater scripts.Otherwise, Chinese Ghost Story is very beautiful and visually breath taking piece of Eastern cinema, and also the song that is played in the film is very beautiful and hopefully earned some award in the Hong Kong film awards back then. I give Chinese Ghost Story 7/10 and without the flaws mentioned above, this would without a doubt be almost perfect masterpiece of the fantasy genre.$LABEL$ 1
+I remember my dad hiring these episodes on video. My whole family loved them, and now that I have moved away from home and have my own life I am trying to share these fabulous Jim Henson creations with my Husband and stepson but as I am starting to find out not everyone is a Henson fan. Which is a pity since it means they will just have to put up with me searching for this series. But even though they don't find these interesting, I would highly recommend anybody getting hold of the Storyteller. You will be lost in a world of tales from a time when people could only talk about unexplained situations through stories and how people need to care if they were ever confronted with these situations.$LABEL$ 1
+It seems like an exciting prospect, a modern-dress "Othello" with Christopher Eccleston, who was so frighteningly good in "Shallow Grave" and (especially) "Jude," and Eamonn Walker, who brought such intensity and introspection to his pivotal role on "Oz." One would think them both natural Shakespeareans, but both performers misfire: Walker's Othello is a fairly cookie-cutter take on the part, with a whispery delivery that doesn't make much of an impact; and Eccleston hams it up appallingly as Iago, winking at the camera in almost an outrageous parody of the role. It's likely he was egged on by his director, whose florid approach might have worked better with Elizabethan language, but who seems a jarring, pretentious choice for this modernized screenplay. And the screenplay itself is less disappointing in being modern than it is in being obvious – it's as if Andrew Davies sketched out the famous plot and then just wrote whatever dialogue first popped into his head. All in all, a failure. 4 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+American war movie fans might be bored out of their skulls by this movie, but that boredom is born of ignorance. Guerrilla suppression operations are always like that. Sit around and wait, get some hookers, get drunk at the base, wheel and deal with the businessman, kick a prisoner around, cover up the killing of the street merchant by the green private. Then, boom, there goes two fuel trucks, and for 10 minutes a small-arms battle with one high-caliber machine gun. Then wait for brass to plan a way to knock out their stronghold, and then end up killing a few civilians in the process of doing it. If reality doesn't work for Western viewers, there's always Top Gun or Rambo (Top Gun realistic? nope)The best part of Afganskiy Izlom's realism was the way all the planes dropped flares like confetti. They had to do that because Carter and Reagan gave the Mujahedin so many missiles. Also, the wave of Mi-24's was excellent, a better helo attack even than Apocalypse now. The sight of their missiles dropping and shooting was a scene of impending "death from above" for whoever they were aimed at.It's funny how the Soviets were able to make an honest Afghanistan movie within a year after their departure, but it took the US six years. Afganskiy Izlom is just as real if you apply it to NATO's occupation too. Someone will always pick up the gun and shoot you cause they care more about the land. It's a movie Westerners should watch. Unfortunately I don't think anyone has ever made English subtitles; I might have to make some.$LABEL$ 1
+The actors play wonderfully, especially Kenneth Branagh himself. It's good that Robin Williams got the comedy role of Osiric, otherwise it could be a bit strange to see him in such a production. It is really great that Kenneth decided to use the fullest version of the text, this happens definitely not too often... Thanks to that the viewers can see the whole, not the chosen - by the director - parts. Also - thank God that the film is in a classical form; NO to surrealistic fanfaberies ! Although "Tytus Andronicus" was impressive nevertheless, but still Hamlet is a different story, at least that's my point of view.$LABEL$ 1
+Well, I have to disagree with Leonard Maltin on this animated short. He loves it and claimed it was hilarious. I enjoyed it but didn't see any humor. He doesn't even like hockey or know anything about it, and still loved the story. Living right across the border from Canada, I have watched hockey for 50 years both there and in Buffalo....but I didn't think much of this cartoon. Oh, it was interesting and I know what would happen if you wore a Toronto jersey up in the Quebec area - disaster! That especially holds true in the glory years of Les Canadians. However, that doesn't make the story funny. Back in the 1950s, everyone in the Quebec provinces idolized the Montreal Canadians and their star player, Maurice Richard, and everyone wanted to be like him. When his mother orders a new sweater, it has the Toronto Maple Leafs emblem on it, so the kid doesn't want to be caught dead wearing it.. When he finally does and heads to the local rink, he gets ostracized from the rest of his hockey buddies. What's so funny about that? I could see the same thing happening to a kid in Boston who is Red Sox die-hard and his mom gets him Yankees shirt! Horrors! You couldn't wear it, and vice-versa.Maybe to someone who doesn't follow sports at all, like Maltin, this situation seems odd and humorous to him...but it's a fact of life or any bit-time sports fan and his favorite team. It was an interesting story, and totally believable, but nothing that made me laugh.The art was fun to look at throughout, almost like looking at a long series of crayon paintings done by a talented school kid. The French Canadian accent was good, too. This movie was part of the DVD "Leonard Maltin's Animation Favorites From The National Film Board Of Canada.$LABEL$ 1
+Ring! Ring! Have-been horror directors hotline, how may we help you? Um…yeah…Pronto! I mean hello, my name is Rugge… err, call me by my initials R.D! Okay Mr. R.D, what seems to be the problem? Well the reviews on my latest movie "Dial: Help" were all negative and harsh and, frankly, I myself feel like my career has seen better days as well. Okay Mr. R.D, and why do you suppose that is? Well, I gained fame and a well-deserved cult status thanks to my controversial and shocking movie about savage tribes of cannibals devouring a film crew and another one about relentless thugs terrorizing wealthy people in a house at the edge of the park, for which I borrowed the idea from Wes Craven, but "Dial: Help" revolves on … err… never mind! No no, Mr. R.D, go ahead and tell me what the film is about. Um, it's about a spiritually possessed phone line stalking a sexy model and killing the people surrounding her. Ah, I see. That premise does indeed sound a little silly and not as petrifying as cannibals or rapists, but I suppose there are deeper themes in your film, right? Oh yeah, sure… Um, what do you mean by that? Well, isn't the phone line symbolism for another kind of terror? Or perhaps it's all just happening in the mind of your female heroine? Um, nope… It's just about a phone going berserk and murdering people with the cord, vibrations, electricity or even ordinary coins. Interesting, Mr. R.D, but how do you explain all this supernatural stuff to the viewer at the end of the movie? You see, I figured the slowly unraveling phone-mystery plot wouldn't be that important or relevant, so I just concentrated on processing all possible phone-gimmicks I could think of. Phone gimmicks? What do you mean? You know, like wind blowing through the horn, mind-penetrating dial tones, and turn-tables catapulting into the air! Very original, Mr. R.D, but not exactly horrific and as an experienced director you must know that, in the end, people expect a reasonable clarification of all these events. Oh, but there is! It all has to do with negative and unreleased energy, if I remember correctly! It's all a bit fuzzy, I admit. Hmm… I see. Oh well, as they always say, a good motion picture relies on more elements than just the story. Did you at least process some of your regular trademarks into the film, so that your fans at least recognize your style? I tried! Lord knows I tried, but the murders and bloodshed are simply not shocking anyone! That's a pity indeed, Mr. R.D, but what about sex? Everyone likes a good portion of sleaze and nudity in their horror films and you said yourself the film centered on a sexy fashion model in peril! Yes, but … But what, Mr. R.D? Well, to tell you the truth, we kind of promoted "Dial: Help" as an erotic thriller with revealing shots of Charlotte Lewis on the cover, but in reality there's no sex in the film and Charlotte even refused to go topless. Mr. R.D! Now I'm really disappointed, that's just shamelessly ripping people off and lure them with false promises! I know, I know, and I'm ashamed, but I just wanted everybody to rent "Dial: Help" and love it! Well, to round up I can comfort you by saying that every major director is entitled to a few erroneous decisions without it affecting his/her career immediately, but be more cautious next time and do some research first, okay Mr. R.D? I will; thank you! You're welcome. Tell me, have you got any ideas for upcoming movies already? Yeah, as a matter a fact, I do! I was thinking about making a Giallo with a murderous washing machine! Doesn't that sound fascinating? Hello? Hello?$LABEL$ 0
+When I first saw this DVD in a bargain bin for three dollars, I really couldn't believe my luck: a Christmas movie starring Tori Spelling, William Shatner, AND Gary Coleman??? Needless to say, I snatched it up immediately and considered it a worthwhile investment.The movie itself was just as bad as any movie you'd expect to be combining Christmas and the three aforementioned "celebrities." The dialogue was inane, the characters were one dimensional, and Carol's character arc was completely unbelievable. The movie itself was a lifeless piece of boring that refused to end and made me feel used as a human being when the end did finally come.My advice: Don't watch this movie unless you have to and then only under the influence of some serious holiday eggnog.$LABEL$ 0
+What more can be said? I have not been this fascinated with a young actress since Cate Blanchett burst upon the scene over ten years ago. And although both Blanchett and Blunt have played Queens now( seems to be the benchmark for up and coming actresses), the roles are complete polar opposites.Simply put if you are looking for high passion, compelling drama, and Machiavellian intrigue, this is not the movie for you. This isn't to say that the script or direction was bad, its just that the subject of the film did not lead too dramatic a life when compared to other notable royals like Elizabeth I, Anne Boylen, Henry VIII, Henry V, Henry II and Elainor of Acquitane. These are people whose lives were the stuff such as good soap operas are made of and whose policies and decisions altered the course of British ,and in most cases, world history. Victoria, in contrast, ascended the throne without incident, she quasi-governed a nation that was fast becoming a global power due to industrialization and the rise of the Navy, her State had a stable government led by competent and dynamic politicians, and she married young had a harmonious family life. The facts of her life are not the Sturm und Drag such as powerful dramas are made of.The heart of the film, aside from the attempt to dramatize her stultifying upbringing and the machinations surrounding her throne, is the story of the one thing that was truly shocking and surprising about her reign- a love story. Marriage made for financial or political reasons is with reason not necessarily the place to look for world shaking passion, yet Victoria will always be remembered in history as being sort of a Patron Saint marital fidelity, happiness and ideal family life. Thus, central to the film is the budding love of Victoria and her Prince Albert. I was very taken with Rupert Friend's characterization of Albert whom he portrayed as a kind, patient, somewhat earnest and maybe a touch naive young man, looking to" do good in the world and help". In short, he is a good man with a good heart, not the most dynamic figure to base a drama around, but as that is not the point of the story, that does not matter. The heart of the character shines through thanks to Friend's understated yet earnest performance. As for the Queen, well..Emily Blunt is sublime. Her beauty cannot be denied, but she is more than something pretty to look at; her face is like quicksilver because of her expressiveness. The slightest arch of the eyebrow, glance of the eye or slight wry smile delivers so much. Again, this is not a bombastic performance of heavy speeches and impassioned pleas, its not that kind of movie. But what Ms. Blunt does do with the role is show the simple humanity of the character with potent subtlety. For example, we see the joie de vivre that has been kept in check by Victoria's mother ( Miranda Richardson) and her scheming adviser/lover Conroy expressed in the simple things like Victoria trying to sketch her dog. We see her delight and fascination upon first meeting Albert by her eyes being continually drawn to him. We see her nervous and overwhelmed when addressing Parliament upon her Ascension. And my favorite scene of all in the film- we see her nervous, happy, and hopeful as she steels herself to do what really most women never have to do in their life- ask the man she loves to marry her, a proposition so ridiculous for those times( and some would say now) that Victoria bursts out in nervous laughter before she can even say "marry me". Again, this is not a movie for over the top larger than life expressions, but more a study in the subtleties of a character and making the little things say so much.So, overall, I judge the film by what it is and what it tried to do and as such I give it a 7. I felt that some of the politics could be better explained and that some very fine actors were wasted with little do and little character development, namely Miranda Richardson as the Duchess of Kent, and the characters of Conroy and Lord Peal. Again, the film need not have spent a large amount of time on those characters, but a little more exposition would have helped to explain the political environment. Also I would have loved to have seen more of the adjustment to married life between Victoria and Albert, but that may be just my greed for more scenes between Friend and Blunt. In summary, don't view this film in terms of a historical drama but for what it really is, a love story between two characters that happen to be historical figures. I give this film a solid 7 for wonderful lead performances, brilliant costumes and scenery and the magnificent Victoria of Emily Blunt. And anyone who has any shred of romance left in them, you will be touched by the end of this movie. God save the Queen.$LABEL$ 1
+To quote Clark Griswold (in the original Christmas Vacation): "WORSE? How could things get any worse? Take a look around here, Ellen. We're at the threshold of hell." Little did Chevy Chase know that he was describing the "sequel" to one of his best films. Christmas Vacation II sets a new high (or maybe it should be LOW) in bad movies. My wife bought this DVD thinking it would actually be a sequel to the original, but we were severely disappointed. This film is LAME. It bears no resemblance to the original, is an absolute waste of film, and an embarrassment to the otherwise good actors who had the misfortune to be part of it. It must have set a record on IMDb for the most bad reviews. I really think we have a good case to win a class action lawsuit to recover the money we consumers wasted on this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+This dumb comedy really does a good job of wasting comedic talent. In particular, Dan Aykroyd and Howard Hesseman are misused badly here. I might have chuckled once or twice during this film, but in general, it's a boring movie, with a little bit of stupidity thrown in for good measure. The premise, although routine, still wasn't bad, but once the plot was set, the film went nowhere. Don't waste your time with this misfire.$LABEL$ 0
+I don't like using the word "awful" to describe any work of the cinema for which a great deal of time, effort, talent and money is spent in its creation but Zefferelli's attempt to adapt Charlotte Brontë's novel 'Jane Eyre' is a total waste of time.The script is lacking in finesse and power, everything explained to the viewer in no uncertain terms, leaving little to the imagination. The lead actors are woefully miscast, clearly hired for their star names, and the musical score drippy and dull. Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt have absolutely no chemistry with one another at all. She is like a wet noodle, worse even than Joan Fontaine, who at least was capable of some modicum of emotional involvement in what should be a story of frustrated passion. And William Hurt acts the entire film on one tone and that tone is flat and devoid of energy. Of course the limp and vapid script does not aid any of these otherwise fine actors in their efforts to bring any whiff of life to this flick.Joan Plowright's Mrs Fairfax is like some Disney creation who keeps popping up to sweeten scenes in which she would have been best left out. There is no mystery surrounding the story of Rochester's first wife. The role of the would-be second wife, played like a Barbie Doll by Elle MacPhearson, is an empty cipher.Fiona Shaw, a very great actress, is completely wasted as Jane's Aunt, Mrs Reed. She would have been better-cast as Mrs Fairfax. Only Amanda Root, as Jane's beloved school teacher, evokes any authentic sympathy or believability. I saw this version of 'Jane Eyre' after viewing Robert Young's for British television, made in 1997, starring Ciaran Hinds, Samantha Morgan and Gemma Jones. There is no comparison. Young's vital, romantic and deeply moving version is like an exploding nova compared to Zefferelli's wet squib.I will be interested now to see the 1970 version with Timothy Dalton, about which I've read some very good things on this web-site. I am amazed at how many people liked Zefferelli's Yorkshire picture book. About all I can say good about this film is that the house is beautiful and the cinematography vividly colored, beyond that it is a complete dud.$LABEL$ 0
+This cheap and rubbish film is about a NASA test rocket that is sent into space with a cargo of animals. It vanishes for a while then unexpectedly returns, crash landing in a forest, unleashing a vicious mutant creature.Like many films of this type, Night Fright, features dumb teenagers boogieing on down to 60's surf music before being killed. None of the murders, however, are even remotely memorable, as we don't really see anything. One thing we do see, however, is that one of the teenagers appears to be about 40 years old and sports a quite impressively silly haircut.For a creature feature to work, it really has to present its monster to the viewer properly. In this film, however, we only get the briefest glimpses of the monster. It seems to sort of resemble the alien from Robot Monster. But I'm not sure; as the photography was so dark I simply couldn't make out what the hell was going on a lot of the time. Although, my gut feeling was that I probably wasn't missing very much.$LABEL$ 0
+An interesting look at the immigrant experience, told as a fable with some very weird imagery.I got drawn to this movie because it tells of immigrants from Sicily who traveled to America. I imagine much the same as my Grandfather did at that time. Travelling in steerage to provide ballast for the ships, I cannot imagine it was very comfortable, as shown in this film.Laws restricting immigrants existed. I would guess that these laws were more strict on those who came from the Mediterranean and Africa. Immigrants had to be free from contagious diseases or hereditary infirmities. In the film, we see physical and mental exams, the latter because of the view that low intelligence is heritable. Single women could not enter the country, on the presumption that they would become prostitutes, so most married single men already in the country, as arranged beforehand, at Ellis Island before entry.This is the story of a British immigrant (Charlotte Gainsbourg), who arranges to marry a poor Sicilian (Vincenzo Amato). He is trying to get his family through with a son that is mute and a mother (Aurora Quattrocchi) that is considered feeble-minded. She was fantastic in the role, by the way.You will also see character actor, Vincent Schiavelli, in his next to the last appearance. I don't know if his last film has been released. He plays a matchmaker, and is also very good.It was a strange, but enjoyable film. It's not for everyone, as I imagine those who don't have some interest in the immigrant experience would find it rather slow.$LABEL$ 1
+I rented this movie to get an easy, entertained view of the history of Texas. I got a headache instead. The depiction of history in this movie is so comical that even mad TV would not have done a better job.$LABEL$ 0
+I for one was very anxious to watch this movie.Though I knew it was going to be another type of movie in the style of Revenge of the Nerds, I was still impressed.There is plenty of truth to the fact of this type of learning and believe very strongly that it should be allowed in a "new style of schooling".Conventional teaching methods do not always teach students what they need to know or should know or want to know.This approach to teaching should be further sought out in true academic courses.While there still was too much of the partying scenes, it obviously had to be thrown in there - for Hollywood's sake of making a comedy about college...even though we all know that life isn't really like that by any means.A touch unbelievable, still funny and with a killer ending.Awesome ending. Crucial to the entire story and very surprising.Without the final scene, the movie would have been half as good.I liked this movie and it didn't have to have overly amounts of swearing or nudity or gross out jokes for it to be good.Great crew and cast, story and even the generic typecasting of the obligatory "Hampton frat members" was well done.American Pie 1, 2 3 and American Wedding or whatever clones it makes doers not measure up to this by 1/3.Far better than most comedies about first year College with no demeaning stupid jokes to make somebody throw up with.I liked it, even though it was simple...it was interesting and even had heart...my only regret for watching this movie is that it wasn't longer.$LABEL$ 1
+Before the WWF became cartoon with Hulk Hoagan leading the way, the events of WWF TV broadcasts of the very early 1980s resembled the wild, wild west with all kinds of grudges and vicious acts of violence performed by some of the wrestlers that are known today to be the WWF's most beloved stars. Some of these seemingly very real moments stand out. A maniacal Sgt. Slaughter whipped then champion Bob Backlund with a riding crop after Backlund showed him up in a fitness test. Welts were all over Backlund! Sarge made the Iron Shiek look like a daycare provider! Slaughter also issued a challenge to anyone who could break his dreaded cobra clutch hold. This led a legendary and bloody alley match with commentator Pat Patterson. Hall of Fame member Blackjack Mulligan with Freddie Blassie came into the WWF with a claw hold that was censored on television. He claimed he was the true giant at 6'7" and challenged Andre long before Big John Studd in 1984. Adrian Adonis used his ominously named "Good Night, Irene" sleeper to take out the competition. A New Yorker clad in black leather, he was an ominous figure. George "the Animal" Steele was far from a crowd pleaser, as well. Even Jimmy Snuka was a fearsome sight as he set out maim opponents until Ray "the Crippler" Stevens delivered a piledriver onto the cement floor leaving Snuka a bloody mess. All these encounters took place a decade before hardcore wrestling was ever spoken of.$LABEL$ 1
+Why?!! This was an insipid, uninspired and embarrassing film. The embarrassment comes from being from the city where they made it...Pittsburgh PA! Why did they let these people do such a BAAAAAD movie there?When this movie was originally to be released...it was more of a romantic comedy...and no ROBO-anything. That all got changed along with cuteness courtesy of Disney. WHY???? They did a terrible interpretation of this classic comic character. Seeing Matthew Broderick make fun of his own movies was not fun either. Sheesh!!$LABEL$ 0
+This is like a school video project and a propaganda film that puts the whole class as well as the teacher to sleep.Utterly boring long silent(yes, silent) strings of unrelated video clips.Instead of this movie watch the paint dry or the grass grow- it will be more interesting unless you enjoy seeing Arabs being malicious to everyone around them.Sulieman (the Director) should be embarrassed of this lame waste of film.It deserves a one for the movie quality, a zero for the ridiculous propaganda message and a negative number for the script (or lack thereof.)$LABEL$ 0
+A chemist develops a fabric that never gets dirty or wears out, but it is seen as a threat to the survival of various industries. In this delightful Ealing Studios comedy, Guinness is marvelous as the mild-mannered but persistent chemist. Greenwood, with her sensual voice, plays the love interest; Parker is her harried father. Thesiger is amusing as a patriarch of the fabric industry. While telling an engaging story, the film also raises some intriguing questions about science, the economy, and politics. It is adeptly directed by Mackendrick, who would go on to make "The Ladykillers" and the sublime "Sweet Smell of Success" later in the 1950s.$LABEL$ 1
+I was trying to work out why I enjoyed this film?? Its not because of money spent on it that's for sure!! Did I see a painted water pistol in there? Maybe they don't have the same sort of visual effects houses in the Scotland? Or maybe they just didn't have any money? The making of clearly shows a gang of very plucky guys making a movie against the odds. Awesome! But what I really liked was the grit of the performances. Mike Michell and Patrick White play the lead parts like 2 normal guys. No Hollywood histrionics here.OK, so the effects work isn't very good. The spaceships just don't look as good as they should in todays FX world and I've seen much better free stuff on youtube. But the film holds together very well once they get to the Planet. Was this filmed in Scotland or just by a Scottish crew? Or is it just better effects work? Did they edit out the water? By the end I kinda loved this film and was disappointed when they all died.$LABEL$ 1
+"And the time came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom" - Anais Nin Marcel Proust says, "The real voyage of discovery lies in not seeing new landscapes but in having new eyes." Author and screenwriter Antwone Fisher joined the U.S. Navy to see new landscapes but the demons of his past prevented him from seeing the world through new eyes. Based on his autobiography "Finding Fish" written many years after the events, his story is dramatized in the film Antwone Fisher, Denzel Washington's first directorial effort. It is a heartfelt if somewhat formulaic look at the painful process of moving from being consumed by one's past to being able to live life in present time.Required to attend therapy sessions after several outbursts of anger at the base, the painful aspects of his childhood are shown in flashback as the grown up Antwone (Derek Luke) recounts his life in sessions with Navy Psychiatrist Jerome Davenport (Denzel Washington). He is at first unwilling to talk, but when he begins, the floodgates are opened. After his father was shot to death by a girlfriend and Antwone was abandoned by his mother after being released from prison, he was placed in a foster home where he lived for fourteen years, suffering humiliation and sexual abuse. According to Antwone, the treatment by his foster mother Mrs. Tate (Novella Nelson) who referred to him only as "nigga" and by his cousin Nadine (Yolonda Ross) was in fact much worse than shown on the screen.The only friend he has is a local by named Jesse (Jascha Washington) who, later in the film, only adds to his feelings of abandonment. It is difficult to build a film around psychiatric sessions but it was done successfully in Ordinary People and Good Will Hunting with a great deal more dramatic interest but it succeeds here because of the dominant performances of Washington and Luke, though the film's attempt to compress eleven years into a few months seems a bit too facile. Davenport's humanity and warmth, however, allows Fisher to feel safe enough to discuss his difficult past and Cheryl (Joy Bryant), his new girlfriend who is also in the Navy, supports him in his struggle to achieve a breakthrough.With Cheryl's help and Dr. Davenport's counseling, Antwone develops enough self-esteem to return to Cleveland and begin the journey to try and find his mother in order to complete the past. What comes through in Derek Luke's incredible performance is Antwone's longing for acceptance, dramatized in a heartbreaking dream shown at the beginning of the film in which he is the guest of honor at a banquet filled with people who love him. Comedian Mort Sahl once said that "people just have to remember what we're all here for: to find our way home..." Antwone Fisher touches not only on the longing of one young person to find his way home but reaches all those who have cried themselves to sleep, not knowing the joy of being loved.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm a fan of B grade 80s films in which the hero is a bit of a bad guy, a strong male, who finds love - and this film delivers!Towards the finish you do not know how Sharky will not be killed (and doesn't he take a beating! Realistically portrayed I believe). However he does and it's not via some overdone 'Die Hard' stunt. The 'past it' team he works with comes together, hence the title. His team are all characters - people on the sideline at work because they don't quite conform. These portrayals are funny and sympathetic - they have a real feeling to them. They're up against an iceman of an assassin, with a good team of his own. The result is a great film noir.$LABEL$ 1
+Robert Taylor definitely showed himself to be a fine dramatic actor in his role as a gun-slinging buffalo hunter in this 1956 western. It was one of the few times that Taylor would play a heavy in a film. Nonetheless, this picture was far from great as shortly after this, Taylor fled to television with the successful series The Detectives.Stuart Granger hid his British accent and turned in a formidable performance as Taylor's partner. Taylor is a bigot here and his hatred for the Indians really shows.Another very good performance here was by veteran actor Lloyd Nolan as an aged, drinking old-timer who joined in the hunt for buffalo as well. In his early scenes, Nolan was really doing an excellent take-off of Walter Huston in his Oscar-winning role in The Treasure of the Sierre Madre in 1948. Note the appearance of Russ Tamblyn in the film. The following year Tamblyn and Nolan would join in the phenomenal Peyton Place.The writing in the film is stiff at best. By the film's end, it's the elements of nature that did Taylor in. How about the elements of the writing here?$LABEL$ 0
+When I first heard about the show, I heard a lot about it, and it was getting some good reviews. I watched the first episode of this "forensic fairy tale", as it so proclaims itself, and I really got hooked on it. I have loved it since. This show has a good sense of humour and it's fun to see a good show like this. The cast is excellent as their characters, and I wouldn't want to change them in any way.For those unfamiliar with this show, Pushing Daisies centers around a man named Ned (aka The Pie Maker, played by Lee Pace) who discovered a special gift when he was a boy: He could bring the dead back to life with the touch of a finger. He first did so with his dog, Digby. However, there is the catch: If he keeps a dead person alive for more than one minute, someone else dies. He learned this when he brought his mother back to life, and his childhood crush's father died in Ned's mother's place. The other catch is if he touches the person again, they're dead again, but this time for good. He learned this when his mother kissed him goodnight. His father took him to boarding school, and when he left, Ned never saw his father again.Almost 20 years later, Ned owns a pie bakery, cleverly titled "The Pie Hole." A co-worker of Ned's, Olive Snook (Kristin Chenoweth) has a crush on Ned, but Ned rejects her moves, trying not to get close to anyone, learning from past experiences. Private Investigator Emerson Cod (Chi McBride) discovered the gift that Ned has, and decides to make him a partner in solving murders. Ned touches the victim, asks who killed them, and when the minute is up, he touches them again, and they solve it. That's how they usually solve it. Throughout the episodes, the murders have very interesting plots and be what people least expect.One day, Ned discovers that his next murder to solve is his childhood sweetheart, Charlotte "Chuck" Charles (Anna Friel). He brings her back to life and decides to break the rules and keep her alive. In her place, the funeral director, who stole jewelery from the corpses, died. When Emerson finds out, and when Chuck wants to help with solving the murders, he doesn't agree a bit--for a while, we hear him call Chuck 'Dead girl'. This is all kept in secret from Olive, Chuck's aunts Vivian and Lily (Ellen Greene and Swoosie Kurtz, respectively), and everyone else for that matter, in case anyone recognized her from obituaries, the news, etc. Vivian and Lily, formerly synchronized swimmers, hadn't left the house in years. Emerson, Ned, and Chuck agree to work together. Ned and Chuck grow to love each other, though they can't touch each other ever again.This show is funny, has terrific characters, contains great plot twists, and will definitely get your spirits up. I hope it doesn't get cancelled at 13 episodes.$LABEL$ 1
+Original Movie lovers can actually love this show, if they just stop complaining all the time.The Emperor's New School brings up some old jokes from the movie, like pulling the lever to Yzma's lab and Kuzco pausing the episode. But since it's a kids show, it's just classic and is in their right places. Even though the style is much more simple, the animation and characters keeps their personalities very well and it surprised me, actually. Eartha Kitt makes excellent voice acting for Yzma and J.P Manoux does a wonderful job for Kuzco's voice instead of David Spade, who played Kuzco in the movie. Great plots, hilarious moments and Kuzco's amazing looks makes this show worth watching. (Just stop complaining about everything!)$LABEL$ 1
+I think I would probably not hate this movie if I spoke Polish. I selected the English version at the first menu, but it gave me Polish dialogue with English subtitles, just as the Polish version did. Maybe the dialogue was so disjointed because the person that did the subtitles could not translate it into English very well. To exacerbate the issue, some of the dialogue had no subtitles at all. The acting was pretty bad, especially the female lead, who was melodramatic about everything! One scene that bothered me was when a German woman was caught stealing and as the mob was jostling her around, her shirt opened and the director showed close-ups of her naked breast for the next 15-20 seconds. I couldn't see how her breast added to the drama of the scene or the film. Maybe the director was trying to increase the numbers of teenage boys in the audience. Much of the film takes place in an extermination camp liberated by the Americans. First, the "American" uniforms did not look anything like U.S. Army uniforms. Second, none of the extermination camps in Poland were liberated by the Americans. I would think that a Polish film director who turned 19 in 1945 would know better than an American born in 1966 that all six extermination camps were liberated by the Russians. All in all, it's just not a very good film if you don't speak Polish.$LABEL$ 0
+"Witchery" might just be the most incoherent and lamentably scripted horror movie of the 80's but, luckily enough, it has a few compensating qualities like fantastic gore effects, an exhilarating musical score and some terrific casting choices. Honestly the screenplay doesn't make one iota of sense, but who cares when Linda Blair (with an exploded hairstyle) portrays yet another girl possessed by evil powers and David Hasselhof depicts a hunky photographer (who can't seem to get laid) in a movie that constantly features bloody voodoo, sewn-shut lips, upside down crucifixions, vicious burnings and an overused but genuinely creepy tune. Eight random people are gathered together on an abandoned vacation resort island off the coast of Massachusetts. The young couple is there to investigate the place's dark history; the dysfunctional family (with a pregnant Linda Blair even though nobody seems to bother about who the father is and what his whereabouts are) considers re-opening the hotel and the yummy female architect simply tagged along for casual sex. They're forced to stay the night in the ramshackle hotel and then suddenly the previous landlady – an aging actress or something who always dresses in black – starts taking them out in various engrossing ways. Everything is somehow related to the intro sequence showing a woman accused of witchery jump out of a window. Anyway, the plot is definitely of minor importance in an Italian horror franchise that started as an unofficial spin-off of "The Evil Dead". The atmosphere is occasionally unsettling and the make-up effects are undoubtedly the most superior element of the entire film. There's something supremely morbid and unsettling about staring at a defenseless woman hanging upside down a chimney and waiting to get fried.$LABEL$ 0
+This is the Neil Simon piece of work that got a lot of praises! "The Odd Couple" is a one of a kind gem that lingers within. You got Felix Ungar(Jack Lemmon); a hypochondriac, fussy neat-freak, and a big thorn in the side of his roommate, Oscar Madison(Walter Matthau); a total slob. These men have great jobs though. Felix is a news writer, and Oscar is a sports writer. Both of these men are divorced, Felix's wife is nearby, while Oscar's is on the other side of the U.S. (The West Coast). Well, what can you say? Two men living in one roof together without driving each other crazy, is impossible as well as improbable. It's a whole lot of laughs and a whole lot of fun. I liked the part where when those two British neighbors that speak to both gentlemen, and after Oscar kicked out Felix, he gets lucky and lives with them when he refused to have dinner with them the night earlier. It's about time that Felix needed to lighten up. I guess all neat-freaks neat to lighten up. They can be fussy, yet they should be patient as well. A very fun movie, and a nuevo classic. Neil Simon's "The Odd Couple" is a must see classic movie. 5 STARS!$LABEL$ 1
+Wow. I LOVED the whole series, and am shocked at comments by people who thought it ended badly. Perhaps it waffled a bit in seasons 4 & 5, while remaining better than anything else on television. But 6 and particularly 6b were beautiful permutations on the themes developed in the more muscular first three seasons. 6B started with such a sombre mood and Janice's always keen insight into the family angst - that doom-filled line about knowing Tony's penchant for sitting and staring. Anyone who missed the implications of that for the rest of the series does not know Tony. Melfi's discomfort over the psychiatric study and its references to the sociopath's self-deluding sentimentality for pets and animals goes back to the first episodes of the series, say, with Tony's panic attack over the ducks leaving his pool and resonates with Phil's "wave bye-bye" line to his grandchildren before the coup de grace of the final episode (not to get into Chase's dark humour).I could go on and on, but I'll just add that I thought the final show - starting with the opening strains of Vanilla Fudge to supply the ironic foreshadow ("You Keep Me Hangin' On") to the terminal moments where Tony fades back into complacency with his family in tow or blasts apart like AJ's SUV or Phil's head were, utterly, utterly PERFECT. The best TV ever. Pretty good in a dying medium pathologically supplying the "jack-off fantasies" AJ derides (and then into which he promptly subsides). A tip of the pork pie to Mr. Chase.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is bad. Really bad. So bad it made me want to shoot myself in the forehead. I hated this movie. First off, the plot went absolutely nowhere and anything shocking about this movie was seen in the 30 second teaser trailer. Secondly, Anyone who saw the original in 1979 knows that it was a bad movie too and completely unworthy of a remake. By far the best part of the movie is the house it takes place in. Which is not saying much for the actual movie. There were parts in the movie when the music gets very suspenseful and you're positive someone is around the corner and it turns out to be the maid or the cat, but when someone actually is around the corner it is impossible to be even startled because you've been expecting it all movie. So save yourself the money, save yourself the time, save yourself the headache and just watch the trailer. There is absolutely no point in seeing this movie, not in the theater, not on DVD, not on TV, never.$LABEL$ 0
+I, being a fan of Rupert Grint, rented this film a few months ago. I thought it was a very well written movie with a bunch of great actors. It was entertaining, and showed that Rupert Grint could play more than his most well known character of Ron Weasley. His subtle portrayal of Ben and everyone else's great acting made this film very likable.Ben, a very shy boy with a extremely religious and sensitive mother, is looking for a job. He finds one and becomes the, I guess you could call "assistant" to Evie, a retired actress. At first, it is just a way for him to earn some money. But after a while, he and Evie seem to develop a friendship. Evie helps Ben break out of his shell a little and gets him to have fun and be happy with himself, and in the end they both seem to need each other.Whether you are a fan of Rupert Grint or not, this movie is a really entertaining one with some very cute and moments. I highly recommend it to anybody who wants to see a great movie with great and talented actors.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm disappointed that Reiser (who wrote the film) felt the need to use so much profanity for no reason whatsoever. Maybe that's his idea of "adult" films, plenty of nasty words with bathroom humor thrown in? I thought better of him and think less of him for this movie.Falk's acting and some moments of humor as well as some possibly important themes are what made me give it such a high rating.This might be a good movie for adult children to watch and laugh over about their own folks and their foibles. But the lack of consideration for audience families seriously detriments what could have been a family film but fails. Certainly not worth spending money on, though it might be worth a watch for free on television.$LABEL$ 1
+Sorry to disagree with you, but I found the DKC series to be quite engaging. So much so that I invested in the SNES system and my own copies of the games. This is, mind you, almost ten years after the initial release of DKC 1. The graphics were ground-breaking for their time, the first vector graphics games for home systems. The music and characters are all memorable, and the games brought myself and my girlfriend dozens of hours of entertainment. True, the second game was better than the first, and the third was perhaps lacking the 'edge' of the second installment. But all three offered different play, and I enjoy them to this day. By the way, I'm old enough to remember when there were NO video games whatsoever (and TVs were black and white!).$LABEL$ 0
+It is sad that Schwarzenegger was the best thing about this production, especially considering the fact that he had not yet come into his own, and was still as stiff as cardboard in his dialog delivery.Actually, this isn't as bad as some critics say, but it isn't good, either. It IS amusing, and DOES play like a poor country cousin of the Conan line, making it a conflicted, uneven, poor work. And speaking of poor, the quality is terrible, due to the era in which this was filmed, but that is not the only reason.The story herein is inferior, even to the Conan line, but moreover, it loses itself in the "Red Sonja must be dominated by big strong Schwarzenegger" ploy, and entirely forgets its purpose, if it ever had one.It's entertaining, but in a low-budget, guilty-pleasure "B" kind of way.It rates a 4.2/10 from...the Fiend :.$LABEL$ 0
+just watched it, me and my better half could not believe how awful and badly acted it was. If anyone else thinks its good then you must be easily pleased. I actually gave up a night out to watch this, its all been done before. IE. hostel springs to mind, but at least that did not make you cringe with the bad acting and lack of story line, same old stuff, re-hatched,i read so much about this film, i even recommended it to my mates, my fault,someone said it was good! no more gory,horror or reeling back in disgust than your average "scary movie" it has to be said, please don't bother with this movie. get mary poppins. now thats scary! I'm off out now, go to the cinema and watch something scarier than this, little miss sunshine maybe$LABEL$ 0
+I'm sure this is a show no one is that familiar of and might not think good of it; after all it is almost close to Baywatch Hawaii. With the cast, the location, style of the directing and its publicity – shows women walking around on the beach and all that. No wonder people have misconception and decide not to watch it.It was wrong of them to do that. Cause after I decide to watch the show, there are actually more thing going on, real juicy story and conflict, turn out to be really exciting to watch and pretty much – addictive.The story of the hotel clerks, the manager, the owner and their complicated love life. Also enter the troublesome hotel's visitor and powerful man trying to steal the hotel. It actually more exciting than it sounds here.I won't deny that the acting suck but it ain't that bad that you'll look away. The story is not so consistence but good enough. The soundtrack is fitting pretty well with the scenario and the action is all the time. I took me couple of episode before there is actually anything happen solidly so be patience.Recommendation: I Really Do Enjoy Watching This. Zillion Times Better Than Expected.Rating: 7.5/10 (Grade: B)Please Rate My Review After Reading It, Thanks.$LABEL$ 1
+The first few minutes of this movie don't do it justice!For me, its not funny until they board the sub and those hilarious characters begin to gel. I was born and raised in Norfolk Virginia and met my share of "different" sailors- I even married one! Most of my favorite movies are just funny, not topical, not dependent on sex or violence and funny every time I see them. Groundhog Day, Bruce Almighty and Down Periscope are still funny even after I know the dialog by heart. Kelsey Grammar with his "God I LOVE this job!"was sincere, genuine and lovable. Rob Schneider is hysterical as the crew gets back at him for being annoying. I am still amazed at the size of that fishing boat next to a sub! I can see why folks who live this life would notice the uh-oh's but its not a documentary after all its a comedy and I just love it!$LABEL$ 1
+Dream Quest was a surprisingly good movie. There were some noticeable goofs, but that can be expected in a movie like this that was made in such a short time. I did not feel any urge to fast forward during the movie and I found it pretty entertaining. It gets kind of silly at times, but overall I recommend it. They probably used up all the glitter in the nearby stores, and some of the costume designs were pretty good.$LABEL$ 1
+WOW! Pretty terrible stuff. The Richard Burton/Elizabeth Taylor roadshow lands in Sardinia and hooks up with arty director Joseph Losey for this remarkably ill-conceived Tennessee Williams fiasco. Taylor plays a rich, dying widow holding fort over her minions on an island where she dictates, very loudly, her memoirs to an incredibly patient secretary. When scoundrel Burton shows up claiming to be a poet and old friend, Taylor realizes her time is up. Ludicrious in the extreme --- it's difficult to determine if Taylor and Burton are acting badly OR if it was Williams' intention to make their characters so unappealing. If that's the case, then the acting is brilliant! Burton mumbles his lines, including the word BOOM several times, while Taylor screeches her's. She's really awful. So is Noel Coward as Taylor's catty confidante, the "Witch of Capri." Presumably BOOM is about how fleeting time is and how fast life moves along --- two standard Williams themes, but it's so misdirected by Losey, that had Taylor and Burton not spelled it out for the audience during their mostly inane monologues, any substance the film has would have been completely diluted. BOOM does have stunning photography---the camera would have to have been out of focus to screw up the beauty of Sardinia! The supporting cast features Joanna Shimkus, the great Romolo Valli as Taylor's resourceful doctor and Michael Dunn as her nasty dwarf security guard...both he and his dogs do a number on Burton!$LABEL$ 0
+It's been a long time since I saw this mini-series and I am happy to say its remembered merits have withstood the test of time. Most of the components of 'A Perfect Spy', the adaptation of LeCarré's finest novel, in my opinion, are top-drawer. Outstanding aspects of it are the musical score and the masterful screenplay, the latter written by Arthur Hopcraft who was also, I believe, the screenwriter for 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' with Alec Guinness a few years before.The actors are mostly very good, some superb, like Alan Howard's Jack Brotherhood and Ray McAnally's Ricky Pym. Peter Egan is fascinating to watch because his face changes with every camera angle. The passage of time and the effects upon the physical appearances of the characters is very believably done. So much so that I wondered exactly how old Peter Egan was at the time of filming. The only jolt comes after the character of Magnus Pym is transferred from the very able hands of a young actor named Benedict Taylor to those of a noticeably too-old Peter Egan, just fresh out of Oxford. But this is a minor and unimportant seam in the whole.Egan has trouble being convincing only when the text becomes melodramatic and he needs to be "upset" emotionally, ie cry. None of the actors have a very easy time with these moments, aside from the wonderful Frances Tomelty who plays Peggy Wentworth for all she's worth and steals the episode with ease.Jane Booker is annoying as Mary Pym. She has part of the character under her skin but often displays an amateurish petulance that diminishes her as a tough cookie diplomatic housewife, which Mary Pym is. Rüdiger Weigang is splendid as Axel, amusing, ironic and brilliant. I also enjoyed Sarah Badel's camp turn as the Baroness.The British view of Americans is vividly rendered in some dryly hilarious scenes. When the Yanks have come abroad to confab with Bo Brammell (head of MI6) the American contingent are portrayed as empty-headed buffoons who appear to have memorized a lot of long words out of the Dictionary and spiced them liberally with American jargon and psycho babble, much to the bemused scorn of the English. The humor and sadness are subtly blended. LeCarré has a knack for mixing disparate elements in his stories and Hopcraft has brilliantly captured the melancholy, yet wistful, atmosphere of the original.Not a perfect production (what is?) and yet the best of the LeCarré adaptations to reach film or television to date. Highly recommended to all spy-thriller lovers and especially LeCarré fans. DVD available from Acorn.$LABEL$ 1
+The basic story idea of ENCHANTED APRIL is excellent--two very unhappy wives meet and decide to pool their funds to rent an Italian villa for a month. To further defray costs, they get two other strangers to come along. What makes it interesting are the relationships both before and during this vacation--in particular, showing how this beautiful setting actually changes their outlooks on life. Unfortunately, this good idea is totally spoiled by two key performances in the ensemble cast that are so bad that they ruin the film. Ann Harding plays the most important role in the film in a manner that makes her seem ridiculous. Her "doe-eyed" expression and vacant stares really make you wonder if this isn't a zombie movie or she's just meant to be an idiot! And to make it worse, Reginald Owen plays a character so obnoxious and bombastic that I was very close to turning off the film--he was that awful and unbelievable. I noticed that at least one reviewer gave this movie a 10--which is very, very difficult to understand. Sure, the film has great ambiance and a good plot, but these two glaringly silly performances cannot be overlooked as they undermine the rest of the picture. Sorry, but this film was aching for a re-make!$LABEL$ 0
+Man were do I start,everything about this Cartoon from the Episodes,to the Stories,Script, an Animation is to me the Stupidest,Dummest and Most Annoying Cartoon that Walt Disney Television Animation ever CREATED and MADE ,Im so glad that Both Toon Disney (2006) and Disney Channel to Stop Airing it in the U.S. as Of This May 2008.Believe me it's A wise choice to skip this out cast and black cloud of A cartoon,if you watch it don't say I did not alert an warn you.Your in for A Boring and Down right Dull and Confusing Time,I wish and pray I never even saw 1 Episode of this Cartoon Buzz Lightyear Of Star Command. If I could I would have the Part of my Brain removed that Remembers watching it,yes it is and was that Bad.$LABEL$ 0
+It's about jealousy, it's about racism, it's about manipulation, but the underlying message is love. Geoffrey Sax tried to pull off Shakespeare's Othello, by bringing it to modern day context. However, the actors were not convincing enough to pull this off. There were extra bodies to help put everything in to perspective, however, John Othello, played by Eamonn Walker, over reacted a lot in this film, causing for the down fall of Keeley Hawes, Dessie Brabant, eventually ending in Dessie's death. Ben Jago, played by Christopher Eccleston, was seen as the main character in the film. He didn't give enough evidence for Dessie to be cheating on Othello, with Michael Cass, played by Richard Coyle. Instead he just played a friend to all and gave one reason as to why she "was" cheating. In the play, it took a lot more convincing from Iago to make Othello even suspect anything. This change made the movie more about rage for the wrong reasons, than what the book was based off of. However, the movie did have a few good points. It turned the army scenes into more a racist group toward blacks, where Othello is the main chief of the police squad. These scenes are made believable by the raging crowds, and burning fires. You are able to sense the amount of racism in the movie, more so than you can in the book. This book plays up the modern day scenes by making it much easier to understand, than the Shakespearian times it was written in. In the play Iago (Jago) gets tortured at the end, but in the film he gets his satisfaction, and gets Othello's position. He never gets what he deserves and is never caught for telling the lie to Othello until it is too late. I saw this as a downfall in the movie, because I feel that the villain is granted his treasure of the promotion out of lying, and in the book, he is found out by Rodrigo. Overall, the movie could have done a better job based on the play than what it did. I feel that the director of the movie left out some of the most important parts of the play that were mentioned or there to make the play flow, or make it more of a tragedy. I would say that you should read the book first, in order to understand all of the events that happened in the movie, otherwise you may find yourself lost, and confused.$LABEL$ 0
+they (dueringer, dorfer) are good stand-up comedians, young, not ugly, have money, the girls love them, the audience is appreciating everything there doingand then they made this film ...no story at all, some jokes were old in the fifties, the acting is awful. save your money for something useful, like a gift for your girlfriend.$LABEL$ 0
+I remember seeing this on TV in the late 70s - and it stayed with me! It's charming, loud, colourful - a great kids film. I put it on for some friends at a party recently - and naturally they thought I was mad and expected something sick to happen to the puppets a la "Meet the feebles" But no - its wholesome clean fun.jack wild is in fine form, as is mama cass, and the somehow attractive witchy poo.If you like the banana splits and you are in your 30's this will re-create that surreal childhood Saturday morning vibe!Even if I've realised now that Puf himself is a bit crap - as all he does is get captured and run away! Quality TV movie - if, like me, you are into death metal - you'll love it!$LABEL$ 1
+To experience Head you really need to understand where the Monkees were when they filmed it.This was as their series was coming to a close and the group was near break up. Their inventive and comedic series (sort of an American Idol of their day) took four unknown actors and formed a manufactured supergroup around them.This is their take on their "manufactured image" and status as the 2nd tier Beatles. They always felt they were in a box, trapped, and unable to find credibility despite their talents.It is also a hell of a musical-trippy, inventive (I have the soundtrack) and full of surprises.See it with an open mind.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm a fan of Judy Garland, Vincente Minnelli, and Gene Kelly, but this movie just left me cold. I was expecting another American In Paris from Minnelli, so perhaps I was expecting too much.The movie was short on songs and short of impressive dance numbers. I was impressed by the very expressionistic Kelly dance as Mococo on the ship. I was also impressed by the Nicholas Brothers in Be a Clown, too bad the song was so annoying. I also enjoyed Judy attacking Kelly with bric-a-brac. Check Lorna Luft's autobiography for some interesting information on that scene.Actually, the movie has what must be some of Cole Porter's most annoying songs, especially "Nina". Also, Judy and Gene yell constantly like screechy children.The plot is thin--which is par for the course for musicals--but it is not saved by impressive dance numbers or by memorable songs. I suspect the best parts of this movie were left on the cutting room floor. Please, some movie restorer, find those bits of film and show us what the movie could have been!$LABEL$ 0
+"Mr. Harvey Lights a Candle" is anchored by a brilliant performance by Timothy Spall.While we can predict that his titular morose, up tight teacher will have some sort of break down or catharsis based on some deep down secret from his past, how his emotions are unveiled is surprising. Spall's range of feelings conveyed is quite moving and more than he usually gets to portray as part of the Mike Leigh repertory.While an expected boring school bus trip has only been used for comic purposes, such as on "The Simpsons," this central situation of a visit to Salisbury Cathedral in Rhidian Brook's script is well-contained and structured for dramatic purposes, and is almost formally divided into acts.We're introduced to the urban British range of racially and religiously diverse kids (with their uniforms I couldn't tell if this is a "private" or "public" school), as they gather – the rapping black kids, the serious South Asians and Muslims, the white bullies and mean girls – but conveyed quite naturally and individually. The young actors, some of whom I recognized from British TV such as "Shameless," were exuberant in representing the usual range of junior high social pressures. Celia Imrie puts more warmth into the supervisor's role than the martinets she usually has to play.A break in the trip leads to a transformative crisis for some while others remain amusingly oblivious. We think, like the teacher portrayed by Ben Miles of "Coupling," that we will be spoon fed a didactic lesson about religious tolerance, but it's much more about faith in people as well as God, which is why the BBC showed it in England at Easter time and BBC America showed it in the U.S. over Christmas.Nathalie Press, who was also so good in "Summer of Love," has a key role in Mr. Harvey's redemption that could have been played for movie-of-the-week preaching, but is touching as they reach out to each other in an unexpected way (unfortunately I saw their intense scene interrupted by commercials).While it is a bit heavy-handed in several times pointedly calling this road trip "a pilgrimage," this quiet film was the best evocation of "good will towards men" than I've seen in most holiday-themed TV movies.$LABEL$ 1
+Della Myers (Kim Basinger) is an upper-class housewife that lives in a private condominium in the suburbs with her twin children and her abusive husband Kenneth (Craig Sheffer). Della gives all the attention to the twins, neglecting their house and her appearance and upsetting Kenneth. On the Christmas Eve, she drives to the local mall in the night to buy wrapping paper for the gifts, and she does not find any parking space available. When she sees an old car parked on two spots, she leaves a message to the owner calling him "selfish jerk". When the mall closes, Della's car is hold by the driver of the old car and she is threatened by four punks – Chuckie (Lukas Haas), the Afro-American Huey (Jamie Starr), the Chinese-American Vingh (Leonard Wu) and the Latin Tomás (Luis Chávez). When the security guard of the mall protects her, he is shot on the head by Chuckie, Della speeds up her car trying to escape from the criminals. However she crashes her truck nearby a forest while chased by the gang. She takes the toolbox and hides in the wood, fighting against the gang to survive.A couple of days ago, I saw the trailer of "While She Was Out" and I was anxious to watch the DVD. Unfortunately the trailer is better than the movie, and I am totally disappointed with this dull and implausible collection of clichés. Della Myers is presented as an insecure and neglectful housewife and inexistent as wife; the motherhood is her only interest in her concept of family. She is chased by four mean criminals but she defeats them with a toolbox that seems to be the Batman's utility belt. Therefore, the plot is so absurd that irritates. The gang of criminals is formed by the favorite cliché of American movies, with an Afro-American, a Chinese-American and a Latin together with an American lord to be politically correct. Kim Basinger has a decent acting, but their children are too young for a fifty-five year-old woman. My vote is four.Title (Brazil): "Enquanto Ela Está Fora" ("While She Was Out")$LABEL$ 0
+I hired this movie expecting a few laughs, hopefully enough to keep me amused but I was sorely mistaken. This movie showed very minimal moments of humour and the pathetic jokes had me cringing with shame for ever hiring it... Aimed at an age group of 10-15, this movie will certainly leave viewers outside of these boundaries feeling very unsatisfied. Worth no more than 3 votes highly unrecommended for anyone not wanting to waste 2 hours of their lives.$LABEL$ 0
+I bought a set of 4 DVDs for 10 bucks at my local Suncoast, which contained this movie and three other trashy horror flicks (including its sequel "Witchcraft XI"). So basically I paid the rock bottom price of $2.50 for this movie, if you do the math. I can't exactly say I was ripped off. I have a thing for trashy horror movies, but this is the kind of trash that gives trash a bad name. The budget couldn't be over $1,000 (though it appears as if they spent a total of $1.50). I know it's a low-budget film, but that's no excuse for totally uninspired camerawork. The film "Blood Cult," though not very good, was made for an extremely low budget and still had fairly good camerawork and acting. The acting in this movie is the definition of "effortless," especially from that muscular guy with the Texas accent. Everyone is pretty much reading their lines off the page. You can take that figuratively or literally. I wouldn't be surprised if the script was off-camera as they were performing. I said before that I've never seen a bad English actor. This movie has quite a few bad ones. And though English movies aren't always good, they always seem to have at least a level of sophistication, which is why I don't see why any Englishman, or Englishwoman, would volunteer to do a home-video-style schlock flick like this. Did Merchant Ivory put a hold on their casting calls? Usually, I think people are too hard on directors and actors. Even some of the worst movies in Hollywood have some level of professionalism in the directing, acting and cinematography departments. Even when you watch a movie like "Glitter" you can't honestly say it looks like a third-grader shot those scenes (though a third-grader could've written the script). I've seen home movies that are shot better than "Witchcraft X," and that's no exaggeration whatsoever. Even the gore is minimal since the filmmakers only had money to buy some fake blood on sale at Party City. Not a single effort was put into making this movie--let's just sum it up like that. You get the picture. There's a good deal of nudity, though that doesn't save it. However, I must say that girl with the red-orange hair, who's either naked or wearing a cleavage-popping outfit throughout the film, is really hot! My score: 1 (out of 10)$LABEL$ 0
+I am still trying to figure out what the target of this movie was: 1) Whether to show how stupid, disorganized, unprofessional and arrogant the police is (I surely could add various adjectives here, but I think my point on this is clear). 2) Whether to show how a twisted-minded crook that does not know what he wants from himself can create chaos. 3) Whether to show if a persistent detective will solve a case just by asking the criminal the same stupid question over and over again till the criminal answers? 4) Or was it just to show that any 90 minutes of filmed material can still be called a MOVIE…This was one of those movies, that in a way - did not disappoint me. From the first 10 minutes I kind of figured out that this movie will not be nominated for the best movie award, and surprisingly enough – this was consistent throughout the whole time. It was stupid enough to be worth the wait to see how stupidly it will continue and end – and I was not disappointed there either. Was it a complete waist of time? YES. Which raises your question – WHY DID I WATCH IT THROUGHOUT? Well, I was trying to fall asleep, and I thought this was a great candidate for that, but unfortunately I had too much coffee before that…$LABEL$ 0
+For those not in the know, the Asterix books are a hugely successful series of comic books about a village of indomitable Gauls who resist Caesar's invasion thanks to a magic potion that renders them invulnerable supermen. There have been several animated features (only one of them, The Twelve Tasks of Asterix really capturing the wit and spirit of the books despite being an original screen story) before a perfectly cast Christian Clavier and Gerard Depardieu took the lead roles in two live action adaptations that proved colossally successful throughout Europe but made no impression whatsoever in the English-speaking world. The uncut French version is great fun, but sadly does not appear to be available in a version with English subtitles outside of the UK DVD. While there's still no sign of a US theatrical or DVD release, the Miramax version of Asterix et Obelix: Mission Cleopatre is also on that DVD (and has played on UK TV), and you'll never guess what - it's been completely re-edited (at least 21 minutes gone) and dubbed into English. Maybe Harve mistook it for a Hong Kong movie - after all, he never saw a foreign film he didn't think couldn't be improved by heavy re-editing and shelving for a few years.Whereas Asterix et Obelix Contre Cesar was lovingly dubbed into English from a particularly good translation script by Terry Jones but otherwise left unaltered, that sort of thing really isn't the Miramax way. The results ain't good. The film was the best attempt to get the books mixture of slapstick, anachronisms and highbrow classical humorous asides to the screen, but a lot of the classical references are gone (such as the great Raft of the Medusa sight gag or the Cyrano de Bergerac references from Depardieu), alongside anything that seems too French or might slow the picture down, with the result that the first 20 minutes are now a real slog. Several punchlines to sequences are missing, Depardieu's part has been trimmed (his part was already fairly small because of his serious health problems during the shoot: the US version has been partially digitally regraded to change the unhealthy pallor of his face in the original!), and as usual with dubbing, because literal translations into English don't fit properly, lines are either rushed so much they're not funny anymore or the dialogue has been changed completely (a couple of these changes are admittedly funny, like one character dreaming of a world in which he could move his lips in French and hear the words in English).Not a total disaster, but very disappointing considering how good the full-length version is. It would be nice to think that Miramax would do a Shaolin Soccer and release both versions, but since they've shelved both films for two years since paying $45m for them (another classic case of Harvey's notorious chronic buyer's remorse: gee, wonder why Disney were so p****d at their overspending) and still have no release plans, that may just be too much wishful thinking.It's a real pity that such an accessible and entertaining film will now only be available to non-French speakers in such a clumsily bowdlerised version. It seems the plucky Gauls may have been able to defeat Caesar's legions but are no match for the Miramax jackboot.$LABEL$ 1
+What's this? A Canadian produced zombie flick that I have never heard of before. A mortician works on the body of a recently deceased young man. This allows for an extended flashback that show how the guy got there. Basically, he and friends went to a cemetery on Friday the 13th and raised the dead thanks to his silly chanting. Cut back to the morgue where our dead body comes back to life and kills the mortician and owner (who gets his eyes popped out). The final WTF? shot has the funeral home owner in a straight jacket and screaming, "I'm not crazy!" Amazingly, he has his eyeballs back.Running a scant 58 minutes, this is certainly one oddity in zombie cinema. It feels a lot longer, but put me in some kind of trance where I couldn't stop watching. The film also has one of those "if you see this image, turn away from the screen" gags. It is the image of an old man getting sick in a theater (prophetic?) and when he pops up (only twice) the blood begins to flow. The scenes are pretty damn gory for the time period. There is a great gaffe where a zombie chops off a girl's right hand with a shovel, but - when he pulls the fake hand into the frame to chomp on - it is a left hand.$LABEL$ 0
+The full title of this film is 'May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows you're dead', a rewording of the old Irish toast 'May you have food and raiment, a soft pillow for your head; may you be 40 years in heaven, before the devil knows you're dead.' First time screenwriter Kelly Masterson (with some modifications by director Sidney Lumet) has concocted a melodrama that explores just how fragmented a family can become when external forces drive the members to unthinkable extremes. In this film the viewer is allowed to witness the gradual but nearly complete implosion of a family by a much used but, here, very sensible manipulation of the flashback/flash forward technique of storytelling. By repeatedly offering the differing vantages of each of the characters about the central incidents that drive this rather harrowing tale, we see all the motivations of the players in this case of a robbery gone very wrong. Andy Hanson (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is a wealthy executive, married to an emotionally needy Gina (Marisa Tomei), and addicted to an expensive drug habit. His life is beginning to crumble and he needs money. Andy's ne're-do well younger brother Hank (Ethan Hawke) is a life in ruins - he is divorced from his shrewish wife Martha (Amy Ryan), is behind in alimony and child support, and has borrowed all he can from his friends, and he needs money. Andy proposes a low-key robbery of a small Mall mom-and-pop jewelry store that promises safe, quick cash for both. The glitch is that the jewelry story belongs to the men's parents - Charles (Albert Finney) and Nanette (Rosemary Harris). Andy advances Hank some cash and wrangles an agreement that Hank will do the actual robbery, but though Hank agrees to the 'fail-safe' plan, he hires a friend to take on the actual job while Hank plans to be the driver of the getaway car. The robbery is horribly botched when Nanette, filing in for the regular clerk, shoots the robber and is herself shot in the mess. The disaster unveils many secrets about the fragile relationships of the family and when Nanette dies, Charles and Andy and Hank (and their respective partners) are driven to disastrous ends with surprises at every turn. Each of the actors in this strong but emotionally acrid film gives superb performances, and while we have come to expect that from Hoffman, Hawke, Tomei, Finney, Ryan, and Harris, it is the wise hand of direction from Sidney Lumet that make this film so unforgettably powerful. It is not an easy film to watch, but it is a film that allows some bravura performances that demand our respect, a film that reminds us how fragile many families can be. Grady Harp$LABEL$ 1
+This picks up about a year after the events in "Basic Instinct". Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is now in London. While having sex with a soccer player while speeding about in a car going at 110 miles/hour (don't ask) she goes off the road and ends up in the Thames. She survives--he doesn't. The police hire psychiatrist Michael Glass (David Morrissey) to see if she's mentally competent to stand trial. Naturally she starts playing with his mind instead and plenty of murders and sex follow.This movie was doomed before it even opened. It took forever to get a cast and director, script problems were constant and the cast was not happy (Morrissey complained about the movie often). Still it's not too bad. It's a lot like the first--there's a lush music score, beautiful locations, plenty of sex and nudity (this had to be edited for an R), a nicely convoluted plot and good acting--but there's no impact. It feels like a retread of the first. People are being killed here with a choker leash (I believe)...just like people were being killed by an ice pick in the first. In one cute moment Stone picks up an ice pick and looks at it longingly. She's also playing mind games with a man and might be getting him implicated in murders. The similarities are too apparent.This is also VERY R rated--there's plenty of explicit sex talk, male nudity (Morrissey looks a lot better nude than Michael Douglas), female nudity (Stone still looks great) and some bloody murders. The acting is good across the board. Stone is just fantastic here; Morrissey looks miserable but is OK; Charlotte Rampling and David Thewlis are good in supporting roles.So--this isn't at all bad but feels like a remake of the first. Still I recommend it. People just attacked this because Stone is not well liked and they thought it was stupid to do a sequel to "Basic..." 14 years after it was made.$LABEL$ 1
+Simply well written, directed and acted... Woody's best of the 2000's if not his best since the 80's!! Hugh Jackman was the perfect pick for his roll. Scarlett Johansson's banter with Woody proves how well rounded an actress she has become.It's refreshing to not being in a romance on screen with the leading lady. He plays the perfect bumbling magician.There have been a few reviews maligning this movie. Don't let them stop you from seeing the wonderfully done film. People in the crowd I saw this with were laughing so loud at some lines i missed the next line. If you like Woody Allen films of the 70's, you'll regret missing this one.I suggest you go to watch this film with an open mind, if you do, you might walk out smiling.$LABEL$ 1
+Well OK, I watched this movie a little over 2 years ago and now I pulled it out of the dusty shelf to watch it again and I must say, I actually think this movie is good. This movie caught a buzz as the bootleg I Know What You Did Last Summer 3, much like Final Stab was to Scream 4, and well this movie isn't that bad. I mean it had flaws and of course it would be laughable to release this in the theaters but still for a midnight popcorn flick, this movie is not half bad. It has some scares, and some really hot women I might add. Plus it shows off Joey Lawrence's new beefy look though obviously even that hasn't won him any big Hollywood roles either......I feel bad for the man, he had such a career in the early and mid 90's with blossom, some Disney movies and the everlasting Lawrence brothers show.....Joey Lawrence was a bit player in the sitcom scene, but then like in a 360 degree turn, his career went south only doing low budget movies like this one.The movie also throws you off guard in, it makes you think between the crew, there really is a secret that someone knows, to only be disappointed in the end to find out the secret. It also throws you off on who the killer is, I had an idea but still woulnd't think the killer was who he was, but his motives combined with the secret was a huge letdown. Now, had there been a secret that was let out? This movie could've been one of the better b rated movies. But also I am a sucker for college themes and I also in college went on spring break in a mansion sized beach house similar to the one in here so it just made me feel sentimental about this movie.A so-so slasher flick. Good for a midnight movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Here's an interesting little movie that strictly gives the phrase "low budget" a horrible name. Our physics teacher who has about nine kids creates a strange serum that causes "molecular reorganization". Students are hopelessly killed from fake coincidences of submarine sandwiches and flying school supplies. Sounds like a resurrection of classic B-movies from the 50s, right? Nope! It's not an example of high camp fun, which is way, WAY off the mark. A glamorous showcase of breasts and butts ensues our desire for pleasure, opposing the horror that should have had 99.44% more in the first place. Bottom-of-the-barrel entertainment at its best, aided by pints of red blood and dead student bodies. Atrocious movies like this would make the ultimately catastrophic GURU THE MAD MONK (1970) the work of an intelligent genius who has a Master's degree in film production! It's an automatic "F", so rest easy!$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie for the first time when Quentin Tarantino showed it to a bunch of us at the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin. He prefaced it with how freaking awesome he thought he was and how funny it was and in the context of his explanation, it was HILARIOUS. I can see how it would be damaging to some audiences, and the subject is not funny at all, but there are at least three lines in the film that had me laughing so hard I thought I'd pee. They don't come until after the halfway point, but when they do, oh God...you will die. Oh and Jim Brown is brilliant. He's not in a lot of the movie, but when he's there, you know whose movie it is. Naturally, the best line in the movie (and the funniest) is his; you'll know it when you hear it.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this Hallmark television movie when it originally aired. I lost interest in the story because a character was said to be a witch. I just was not in the right frame of mind to watch this film. But Hallmark stands for the best, quality films. Now, there is a reason to give this film a second look. Clive Owen who plays "Damon Wildeve" just might have a chance to be selected as the next James Bond 007 when Pierce Brosnan passes it on. Clive Owen might have to wait until the year 2008. The other reason is the female lead is Catherine Zeta-Jones is now a celebrity (she was an unknown at the time) and became an Academy Award winner for Outstanding Supporting Actress in 2003. Joan Plowright as "Mrs. Yeobright" is also in this film. I like the opening line in this film: "Deliver my heart from this fearful, lonely place. Send me a great love from somewhere or else I shall die, truly I shall die."$LABEL$ 0
+It's not my fault. My girlfriend made me watch it.There is nothing positive to say about this film. There has been for many years an idea that Madonna could act but she can't. There has been an idea for years that Guy Ritchie is a great director but he is only middling. An embarrassment all round. $LABEL$ 0
+With a humor that would appeal to an exclusive, small audience, the average viewer will find it pointless and monotonous. When Cartoon Network advertised this show, it was made to look as if it was a major drama or event, complete with a real rain scene and government officials trying to catch the Sheep.When it came out on the air, I was disappointed at how all the characters were so one-dimensional and a totally bland animation. The only thing that put it to anything close to humor were the names of the characters like "Private Public" and "General Specific", a few vague references to cultural aspects, and how Lady Richington pummeled Sheep with her steel wig.Slightly off topic, but I don't see why would Sheep fall in love with that ball of dirty cotton balls called "Swanky." It was hideous!$LABEL$ 0
+Never viewed this film until recently on TCM and found this story concerning Poland and a small town which had to suffer with the Nazi occupation of the local towns just like many other European Cities for example: Norway. The First World War was over and people in this town were still suffering from their lost soldiers and the wounded which War always creates. Alexander Knox, ( Wilhelm Gimm)"Gorky Park" returns from the war with a lost leg and was the former school teacher in town. He was brought up a German and was not very happy with the Polish people and they in turn did not fully accept him either. As the Hitler party grew to power Wilhelm Grimm desired to become a Nazi in order to return and punish this small Polish town for their treatment towards him which was really all in his mind. Marsha Hunt,(Marja Pacierkowski),"Chloe's Prayer", played an outstanding role as a woman who lost her husband and was romantically involved with Whilhelm Gimm. There are many flashbacks and some very real truths about how the Nazi destroyed people's families and their entire lives. The cattle cars are shown in this picture with Jewish people heading to the Nazi gas chambers. If you have not seen this film, and like this subject matter, give it some of your time; this film is very down to earth for a 1944 film and a story you will not forget too quickly.$LABEL$ 1
+"Back of Beyond" takes place at a dive diner/gas station in the middle of the Australian desert run by Tom McGregor (Paul Mercurio), a shy guy who suddenly finds himself in a spot of trouble when some visitors unexpectedly arrive. We get what, at first, confusingly seems like a flashback in which he and his sister (though their relationship to each other is better understood later in the film) are speeding through the desert on his motorcycle. Afterwards, he appears as a terribly quiet, and sometimes, moody character in the presence of the arrivals.We know one thing is for sure and that is McGregor's sort of spiritual sense, his foresight of danger and such--his clairvoyance only slightly relevant to the story, the bulk of which concerns three diamond thieves who's car breaks down and who rely on Tom to help them out of spot without getting in their way. Of course, Tom falls for one of the thieves, a young woman named Charlie, and suddenly, it pits all three already mistrusting allies against each other. But not in a way that really results in anything of much mystery or action. In fact, the whole movie all the while seems to want to build up to something significant, but really fails to do so. Even the ending, of which plays out like a trite campfire tale (and one that really reveals a lot of narrative flaws), is almost just as ridiculous.It may be worth trying if you don't mind the terribly slow pacing, but are in the mood, at least, for something a little different than the usual.$LABEL$ 0
+While the new Pride & Prejudice film is gorgeous to view, and the soundtrack is lovely, we are not seeing Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The film is for some reason set back in the early 1790's, rather than the Regency period where the novel is set, as scholars have long shown. The Bennets' Longbourn estate is ram-shackled and looks like Cold Comfort Farm. Yet the Bennets in the novel are gentry class; they own a farm, but the pig does not walk through the house, nor is the farmyard of manure and chicken droppings contiguous to the home. Scenes are re-set from the novel,and lest we forget, Jane Austen placed scenes in certain locations for a reason. For example, the film puts the big Darcy proposal scene outside in a storm in front of a Neoclassical temple, as opposed to inside the Collins' parsonage: Why did Jane Austen put it in the parsonage? Because while Lizzy and Darcy speak with total, if brutal honesty to each other in this scene, the Collinses have never shared an honest word. Why the rain and the outdoor proposal? It looks like Jane Eyre meeting Rochester! And when Elizabeth walks across a windy field to stand on a cliff and view the panorama, one expects her to cry, "Heathcliffe" at any minute! Austen has been Bronteized! Judy Dench is a GREAT actress, but Lady Catherine is supposed to be tall and striking. The petite Tom Hollander is a brilliant actor: but Mr. Collins is described in the novel as tall and heavy-looking, which suggests that his terrible dancing with poor Lizzy is elephantine. Matthew MacFayden is another favorite of mine from MI-5 on A&E; in P&P, however, he is more the young Heathcliffe, never smiling--though Austen observes in the novel that Darcy smiles at Lizzy quite a bit, and she realizes this when she sees his wonderful smiling portrait at Pemberley--a portrait that in this movie is for some reason replaced by a sculptured marble bust.And much of Austen's dialogue is changed to modern speech. Mr. Bingley has been turned into such a clown that one wonders why Darcy would have him as a friend and why Jane Bennet would love him. The bottom line is that while this is a great movie to watch and hear, it deviates from Jane Austen's novel so much that any student who watched it, thinking she could substitute viewing for reading, would fail!$LABEL$ 0
+Michael Is King. This film contains some of the best stuff Mike has ever done. Smooth Criminal is pure genius. The cameos are wonderful, but as always, the main event is MJ himself. He is the best, hands down.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a very exciting and romantic film. I have seen it several times and never get bored with it. Everything is realistic and it is a good plot. The actors are excellent Liam Neeson, Jessica Lange, Tim Roth and Brian Cox.I actually prefer this film to Braveheart as Braveheart contain so many historical misstakes. There is many exciting scenes - watch out for the Bridge Scen and the last fencing scene. This is really good and surprising scenes.The music are lovely...it really suits to the movie. The setting is amazing.$LABEL$ 1
+Well, maybe not immediately before the Rodney King riots, but even a few months before was timely enough. My parents said that they saw it and the next thing you know, the police got acquitted and LA got burned to the ground. It just goes to show the state of race relations in America. The plot has white Mack (Kevin Kline) and African-American Simon (Danny Glover) becoming friends after Simon saves Mack's life in the black ghetto. Meanwhile, movie producer Davis (Steve Martin in a serious role) thinks that gratuitous violence is really cool...until he gets shot. There's also some existentialism in the movie: Mack and his family come to realize that they aren't living as they really want.It seems that "Crash" has somewhat renewed people's interest in race relations, but this one came out much earlier. Maybe we'll never be able to have stable race relations in this country. But either way, "Grand Canyon" is a great movie. It affirms Kevin Kline as my favorite actor. Also starring Mary McDonnell, Mary-Louise Parker and Alfre Woodard.$LABEL$ 1
+The Slackers as titled in this movie are three college friends Dave, Jeff and Sam(Devon Sawa, Michael Maronna and Jason Segel respectively), who are about to graduate from university without sitting through an honest exam but making it end successfully. This continues until the very end when unlikeable but the most likable character of the movie Nathan(Schwartzman) figures out what they are up to. Nathan starts blackmailing in order to make up with his dream girl as he cant pursue that in normal conditions. The only problem is when the trio starts to work on it, Dave falls in love with the gorgeous and good hearted Angela(James King) Unfortunately, not a brilliant genre movie. Schwartzman makes to watch the movie easy as his performance is brilliant. King's performance is average, I think she was hired just to be around with her gorgeous look. The Slackers is reminiscent of American Pie with a different direction. Jokes are as shallow as in American Pie. But aren't they all used? I think this movie is a warning to the filmmakers of the genre that they are running out of originality. Overall, a few smiley moments but a horrible movie in terms of acting(except for Schwartzman) and subject. * out of *****$LABEL$ 0
+The Angry Red Planet (Quickie Review) Like "The Man From Planet X," this is a bizarre science fiction tale culled from an era where fantasy and science fiction were still damn near the same thing. Meaning, we have some highly laughable special effects and rampant pseudo-science masquerading as science fiction. And yes, it's another "classic" released in a high quality transfer with a crisp picture and sharp sound--by Midnite Movies.So, the main reason to watch this film? Oh, it's definitely the whole time our space crew is on Mars. (What, you thought "Angry Red Planet" referred to Neptune?) Prior to that is some rather poor quality space crew boarding a space ship, inside of which they smoke and toss around sexist chauvinistic banter aimed at the "puny female" member of the crew. It'd be somewhat offensive by today's standards if it weren't so damn funny. But Mars is the real reason we're watching this thing. The film is generally black and white, but Mars, well Mars is screaming bloody red. It's filmed in this bizarre red plasticy sheen giving the angry red planet quite an interesting look of overexposed redness. It's really quite a sight—as are the (ha ha) aliens viewers are to witness. The best being the "ratbatspidercrab." You think that's a joke? That's what they call it in the movie! It's a gigantic chimera (small puppet) of a thing combining traits of rats, bats, spiders, and crabs. It bounds along all puppety and scares the sh*t out of our "heroic crew." There are other weird, and poorly imagined, aliens to be seen, but that one takes the cake. Eventually, after their harrowing experience on Mars, the sexist crew boards their "ship" and returns to whatever planet it was they came from.This ain't for everyone. Science Fiction film buffs & curiosity seekers, and some general film buffs. Fans of Mystery Science Theater 3000 will have a field day with this one (if they never got to it on the show).2/10 Modern score, 6/10 Nostalgia score, 4/10 overall.(www.ResidentHazard.com)$LABEL$ 0
+A real let down, the novel is such a brilliant stomach churning journey into madness but this made for TV movie style nonsense is turgid and painfully slow. Stick to Mike Hammer. I find it hard to believe that no body has made a brilliant version of this book, Kubrick gushes over it on the cover, he should have taken over the reins on this one. Stacey Keach is too soppy as Lou Ford, and the whole thing has the same production values as that seventies TV spin off, of Planet Of The Apes. I thoroughly recommend that you go out and buy lots of Jim Thompson novels though, actually The Grifters isn't done too badly, thats one of his, starring Jon Cusak.$LABEL$ 0
+I was very skeptical about sacrificing my precious time to watch this film. I didn't enjoy the first one at all, and the last Jean Claude Van Damme film I liked was Blood Sports! After managing to sit through it all? Avoid, avoid, avoid!!$LABEL$ 0
+Three sergeants in the British army stationed in India, are sent out to stop an uprising of a tribe of murderers known as the Thuggees. One of the sergeants, Cutter, leads away from the camp in search of a golden temple and is captured by the Thuggees lead by the sinister Guru. Gunga Din, the regiment's water boy, goes back to the camp for help and the other two sergeants go after him, but are also captured. Now the major sends a full detail out after the three, but do not realize that they are walking into a trap set by the Thugees. It is though, Gunga Din who saves the day. Excellently made buddy film, even though it is today politically incorrect. Grant, McLaglen, and Fairbanks do give very humorous and thrilling performances with Jaffe very well in the title role and Cianelli very sinister as Guru. Rating- 10 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+If anyone ever assembles a compendium on modern American horror that is truly worth it's salt, there will *have* to be an entry for SF Brownrigg's ubiquetous exercize in Asylum Horror. Every time I watch this movie I am impressed by the complete economy of the film, from the compact, totally self-contained plot with a puzzling beginning and an all too horrible ending, the engaging performances by what was essentially a group of non-professional actors, and a prevading sense of dread and claustrophobia that effectively consumes the narrarive with a certain inevitability which is all the more terrifying because the viewers know what is going on long before the hero[es], with the only question being when are they going to wake up & smell the coffee?Shot on a dental floss budget in Brownrigg's native Texas at an old palatial manor that nicely serves as the setting for a private sanitorium, DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT is another intriguing twist on the good old Edgar Allan Poe tome about inmates taking over the asylum just before an otherwise "normal" outsider unwittingly joins the ranks without realizing until it is far too late that not all is what it seems, they are totally cut off & beyond any outside help, and inevitably find their own sanity questioned as the madness spins out of control -- The Original STAR TREK TV series had a go at this with their WHOM GODS DESTROY episode from 1968, Juan Moctezuma gave the proceedings a peyote fueled Mexican psychedelic trip in DR. TARR'S TORTURE DUNGEON in 1972, and tangentially related is Fernando Di Leo's ASYLUM EROTICA/SLAUGHTER HOTEL, which injects the elements of an unknown killer and an ending that can only be defined as "Splatter Cinema" -- Brownrigg may not have seen or been thinking of SLAUGHTER HOTEL, but he sure came up with some similar ideas.Legaliciuos former Playboy Playmate Rosie Holotik plays Charlotte Beale, RN in Clinical Psychology, who has just left her nice job as a supervisor at a major hospital to travel way out into the middle of some god forsaken waste right out of a Peckinpah movie to work with a Dr. Stevens at his private sanitorium. Dr. Stevens has pioneered a new form of therapy based upon basically encouraging the emotionally & psychologically scarred to face their inner obsessions, bring them to the surface and hopefully rid the patients of whatever has fried their sense of reasoning. Nice idea, but arming a 6ft 250 pound utterly insane man with an axe and telling him to pound out his aggression AND THEN TURNING YOUR BACK ON HIM probably isn't the smartest idea, and Dr. Stevens is dispatched before Ms. Holotik even appears onscreen with a good whack to the lower portion of his skull.This event leaves the sanitorium effectively in the hands of one Geraldine Masters [actress Annabelle Weenick, who also served as the script supervisor & production manager], a woman of startlingly professional demeanor who quickly defuses the situation with the help of Sam, the film's wonderfully unlikely hero, a lobotomized African American boheomouth played by an actor named Bill McGhee who was sadly robbed of a supporting Oscar nomination for his turn as a mass of muscle with the brain of an 8 year old boy. Sam's one wish is to have someone help him put his prized toy boat "in the water", and his continual asking of the various female cast members to do so [and his nonstop consumption of chocolate popsicles] as *SOME* kind of underlying theme, though we will avoid such here because the kids might still be up. There is also a quick subplot about a staff member who has decided to leave after being threatened by one of the patients, but I'll leave the details of that to your discovery.Ms. Holotik arrives just as Dr. Stevens has been effectively laid to rest and is quickly won over by the snappy professionalism of Ms. Masters, who reluctantly allows the leggy young nurse to stay on in spite of the tragedy that has just happened, oh, TWENTY MINUTES AGO, which you must admit was rather sporting of her. Holotik's Nurse Beale begins to demonstrate symptoms of not being the sharpest meat cleaver in the drawer, however, when informed that she shares living quarters with a bunch of maniacs and there are no locks on the doors & doesn't trudge off for the nearest Ace Hardware Store to pick up a hasp and padlock to secure herself, and we are treated to a couple of truly creepy scenes where some of the inmates sneak into her room & do stuff like smell her hair, try to kill her with butcher knives and caress her neck with axe heads. But that's all a part of working in such a radical psychiatric health care environment, Ms. Master's informs her, and she goes about her oddly defined "rounds" that consist of wearing as leg defining a nurse outfit as you can find in a 42nd Street fetish boutique and getting to know the inmates.Allysson is a obsessive compulsive nymphomaniac with homicidal tendancies who likes to take off her shirt & provide the film with some T & A between fits of histrionics; Harriet is a young former mother who let her child die in a stupid accident and now dotes on a beat-up old doll that she is also homicidally protective of; The Seargant is an actual seargeant [and implied Vietnam vet] who's negligence led to the death of his platoon, and now watches from the window with binoculars for the approach of an unseen enemy; Jennifer is a Phish fan who couldn't score a ticket to the New Year's Eve Show and went insane & likes to scarf down nembutols and other barbituates when nobody is looking, and likewise has hidden homicidal tendancies linked to her inability to find a bra; Judge Cameron is apparently a homicidal pervert who became obsessed with his own sense of power and now likes to chop things up with axes; Ms. Callingham is an aged poet who serves as a sort of soothsaying old hag from MACBETH before the cat gets her tongue; and Danny is an insane idiot who was included in the cast as the random element that the plot cannot control, and who's antics serve as the real catalyst for the series of tragedies & murders that ultimately take place in this dark, old, creepy house in the middle of nowhere.The house itself is a wonderful set, with a threadbare early 1970's decor that is remarkable in it's unremarkableness, with a fantastic use of color achieved by subtle ambient lighting. The house is a series of hallways and rooms with shiny brown wooden floors, twisting, confined stairways, secreted closets and passageways leading to the different larger areas, and of course the basement mentioned in the title -- visited only once, but boy it sure proves to be a doozy! I love the frosted old freezer where Sam keeps his stash of popsicles, the utterly plain exteriors that remind me of a summer home our family used to visit every year & force us to swelter in the heat: Everyone is covered with beads of persperation and looks exhausted, and even the ever cheerful Sam at one point begins to suspect that bad things are happening, though he cannot understand what it all means and Rosie H. is too firm in her belief of her profession to even suspect what has really happened, and while Ms. Holotik's limitations of an actress may have diminished the effectiveness of her Big Revelation scene, she's a great screamer when all Hell starts to break loose, and Brownrigg indulged of some nice camera shots of her in various suggestive poses or stages of undress that show off what a pretty lady she is without exposing anything more than her contract stipulated. Too bad!The real show stealer is Sam, however, and fans of what I have been taught to refer to as Splatter Cinema will not be disappointed by the rather shocking finale, and there is something moving about how Sam runs to the protection of his friend and brutally kills everyone within arms reach in a matter of seconds that either suggests he was one mean motha before his lobotomy, or the film is CUT. In any event you won't be prepared for the ending the first time you see it, even though you as the viewer know what the score is long before anyone else in the film has put it all together.Except for one person: Rhea MacAdams' uproariously stereotyped old coot Mrs. Callingham [who seems to be inspired by the Donald Sutherland Old Woman character from the Michael Reeves' 1964 Christopher Lee film CASTLE OF THE LIVING DEAD, in addition to a rather nasty death by round spike to the eye], who not only predicts the future, but has the film's most laugh out loud amusing bit of dialogue while on a walk in the garden with Ms. Holotik that runs something like this --"It's really beautiful out here. Do you get out much, Mrs. Callingham?" asks Holotik, to which the old woman replies"It's YOU who needs to get out."Hilarious, and one of those things you gotta kind of see for yourself to "get". DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT is available on at least a half dozen "bargain bin" codefree DVD releases by companies like Brentwood Home Video, Diamond Entertainment, VCI and Platinum Disc Corp.'s HORROR CLASSICS series; I kind of like Alpha Video's sexily gorgeously decorated $6 release from 2003:Dig through those bargain bins! But make sure you get one with the 89/90 minute print contained therein; an older 83 minute version is downright confusing due to some of the trims, and you really need to see the ending credits as intended to bring this sick, twisted and surprisingly entertaining yarn to it's end.Masterpiece? Maybe not compared to THE EXORCIST or ROSEMARY'S BABY, but it is a very uniquely American horror film, and a genuine classic of the drive-in age that deserves to be rediscovered by anyone looking for something made with more than just a little bit of brain juice, and not a penny more than they absolutely needed.***1/2 out of ****$LABEL$ 1
+I had such high hopes for this film because I loved the original so much. It seems that Disney, however, is trying to perfect the art of crappy straight-to-DVD sequels. They deserve a razzie. Several, in fact. I thought the idea had merit, but the music was absolutely awful and the story wasn't much better. What happened to the great music Disney used to have in their films. Mary Poppins, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King...even Hercules and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. They've made so many great movies over the years that it's really sad that they've sunk to point of making sequels that aren't even good enough to put in theatres.I hope this movie is not an indication of things to come for the Walt Disney Corporation.$LABEL$ 0
+Well, I generally like Iranian movies, and after having seen "10" by Kiarostami the night before, I was expecting a great movie. I was very disappointed. This is by far, the worst Iranian film, and one of the most boring Asian movies I have ever seen. If you have never seen a Kiarostami movie before, watch "Ten" instead. If you want some good Iranian movies, you may also try "Sib", aka "The Apple". This movie is divided in 5 parts, and only the fourth, featuring some funny ducks, is worth watching. If this is the first Iranian movie you see, you probably won't want to see any more. I don't blame you, but you will miss some great movies.$LABEL$ 0
+STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning One time heroin addict Frankie Machine (Frank Sinatra) gets out of prison to his bumbling jailbird partner Sparrow (Arnold Stang), needy cripple of a wife Zosch (Eleanor Parker) and bit on the side Molly (Kim Novak.) He's trying to make it big as a drummer in a band, but until his big break comes along he's stuck doing the only other thing he was any good at other than being a junkie- dealing cards in high stakes games. And try as he might, even prison hasn't cured him of his addiction to the devil's drug- causing him to lie to and deceive all those around him and driving him to desperate measures to feed his habit. His yearning to come off it is his only motivation towards a happy ending.When people think of Frank Sinatra they generally think of classic high pitched songs like Under My Skin, New York New York and It Had to Be You. But lest anyone forget he was actually a renowned actor too and, if his performance in the acclaimed From Here to Eternity wasn't enough, he will also be remembered for this cutting edge drama, dealing with what was at the time the ultra taboo subject of drug abuse.The film is often listed as one of the first to feature graphic heroin use (probably the reason behind the 15 certificate) in a time when it was a subject that was still very much pushed underground. In his portrayal of the main protagonist, Sinatra is fine, perfectly conveying the despair, desperation and sincerity of a man losing every second chance that is being given to him. His cold turkey scene is much more intense than Ewan McGregor's in Trainspotting. The first co-star to make an impression is Parker as Machine's demanding, needy cripple of a wife, using her husband's guilt and sense of duty to all the effect she can. Novak as his secret lover still manages some strong moments but is less of a star than Parker. Stang does his usual comic relief thing, as the bumbling sidekick who trails the leading man around with his waspy New York accent.Director Otto Preminger does allow the pace to drag a bit sometimes but this is still a powerfully absorbing film all the way, with plenty of unexpected twists and turns and which should be admired for being one of the first films to bring such a grim subject so powerfully to life. ****$LABEL$ 1
+Dog days is one of most accurate films i've ever seen describing life in modern cities. It's very harsh and cruel at some points and sadly it's very close to reality. Isolation, desperation, deep emotional dead ends, problematic affairs, perversion, complexes, madness. All the things that are present in the big advanced cities of today. It makes you realize once again the pityful state in which people have lead society. The negative side of life in the city was never pictured on screen so properly. I only wish it was a lie. Unfortunately, it isn't. Therefore...10/10.$LABEL$ 1
+William Hurt may not be an American matinee idol anymore, but he still has pretty good taste in B-movie projects. Here, he plays a specialist in hazardous waste clean-ups with a tragic past tracking down a perennial loser on the run --played by former pretty-boy Weller-- who has been contaminated with a deadly poison. Current pretty-boy Hardy Kruger Jr --possibly more handsome than his dad-- is featured as Weller's arrogant boss in a horrifying sequence at a chemical production plant which gets the story moving. Natasha McElhone is a slightly wacky government agent looking into the incident who provides inevitable & high-cheekboned love interest for hero Hurt. Michael Brandon pops up to play a slimy take-no-prisoners type whose comeuppance you can't wait for. The Coca-Cola company wins the Product Placement award for 2000 as the soft drink is featured throughout the production, shot lovingly on location in a wintery picture-postcard Hungary.$LABEL$ 1
+There can be no denying that Hak Se Wui (Election in English) is a well made and well thought out film. The film uses numerous clever pieces of identification all the time playing with modernity yet sticking to tradition – a theme played with throughout the film Where John Woo's Hong Kong films are action packed and over the top in their explosive content as seen in Hard Boiled (1992) and when Hong Kong films do settle down into rhythms of telling the story from the 'bad' point of view, they can sometimes stutter and just become merely unmemorable, a good example being City on Fire (1987).Election is a film that is memorable for the sheer fact of its unpredictable scenes, spontaneous action and violence that are done in a realistic and tasteful (if that's the right word) manner as well as the clever little 'in pieces' of film-making. It's difficult to spot during the viewing but Election is really constructed in a kind of three act structure: there is the first point of concern involving the actual election and whoever is voted in is voted in – not everyone likes the decision but what the Uncles say, goes. The second act is the retrieving of the ancient baton from China that tradition demands must be present during the inauguration with the final third the aftermath of the inauguration and certain characters coming up with their own ideas on how the Triads should and could be run. Needless to say; certain events and twists occur during each of the three thirds, some are small and immaterial whereas some are much larger and spectacular.Election does have some faults with the majority coming in the opening third. Trying to kill off time surrounding an election that only takes a few minutes to complete was clearly a hard task for the writers and filmmakers and that shows at numerous points. I got the feeling that a certain scene was just starting to go somewhere before it was interrupted by the police and then everyone gets arrested. This happens a few times: a fight breaks out in a restaurant but the police are there and everyone is arrested; there's a secret meeting about the baton between the Triads but the police show up and everyone gets arrested; some other Triads are having a pre-election talk but the police show up and guess what? You know.Once the film gets out of that rut that I thought it would, it uses a sacred baton as a plot device to get everybody moving. The baton spawns some good fight scenes such as the chasing of a truck after it's been hotwired, another chase involving a motorbike and a kung-fu fight with a load of melee weapons in a street – the scenes are unpredictable, realistic and violent but like I said, they are in a 'tasteful' manner. Where Election really soars is its attention to that fine detail. When the Triads are in jail, the bars are covered with wire suggesting they're all animals in cages as that's how they behave on the outside when in conflict. Another fine piece of attention to detail is the way the Uncles toast using tea and not alcohol, elevating themselves above other head gangsters who'd use champagne (The Long Good Friday) and also referencing Chinese tradition of drinking tea to celebrate or commemorate.Election is a good film that is structured well enough to enjoy and a film that has fantastic mise-en-scene as you look at what's going on. Some of the indoor settings and the clothing as well as the buckets of style that is poured on as the search and chase for the baton intensifies. The inauguration is like another short film entirely and very well integrated into the film; hinting at Chinese tradition in the process. I feel the best scene is the ending scene as it sums it up perfectly: two shifty characters fishing and debating the ruling of the Triads all the while remaining realistic, unpredictable and violent: in a tasteful manner, of course.$LABEL$ 1
+Not all, but most of this story is Buster being mistaken for "Dead Shot Dan," a notorious criminal. There really is no story, just a series of adventures to show off Buster's physical talents, which are amazing, and his comedic timing. The 27-minute film is basically one adventure after the other mostly involving someone chasing our hero.Earlier, it's a couple of policemen on their beats racing through the streets after Keaton and later it's "Big Joe" Roberts, a rotund cop - and father a girl Buster is interested in - who chases him. Those latter scenes were the best I thought, with a lot of clever gags involving the hotel elevator where Big Joe and his daughter live. That was Keaton at his best.It's just a madcap half hour that makes little sense, but cares? It's Buster at his slapstick best, or near it, and so it serves its purpose: to entertain us. Just think: 85 years after this film was made there are people (like me) still discovering and enjoying these silent comedy classics! Cool!$LABEL$ 1
+Sky Captain is possibly the best awful movie I've seen in a long while. Rife with amazing CG and special effects, studded with an A-list cast (Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and the infinitely likable Giovanni Ribisi) and racing along with an overused but Indiana Jones-esquire storyline, this should have been a great movie to watch.'Should have' being the key term here, of course.Jude Law plays Joe the Sky Captain with a dashing accent and plenty of over-the-shoulder, heart-melting smirks, but you can't make something out of nothing, and even his flippant deliveries and boyish good looks can't save the movie's stone dialogue. (If he had slapped Giovanni Ribisi on the back and said, "Good boy, Dex," just ONE more time, I might have barfed all over the guy in front of me.) Gwyneth Paltrow, as Polly Perkins, is nothing less than nerve grating. Her nasal whining and not-quite-sarcastic comments get old in the first ten minutes of the movie. Perhaps she put too much effort into playing the stereotypical 30's comic book heroine- who knows? I expected more from her. An example of how a similar character was played (and played well) is in the late 90's flick "The Phantom," starring Kristy Swanson and Billy Zane. Rent the movie and you'll know what I mean.Giovanni Ribisi and Angelina Jolie were the saving graces in the film. (Angelina Jolie was incredibly hot in that eyepatch. I'll admit it.) In just a few short scenes, both actors somehow managed to rise above the tired material and deliver a more riveting performance than their dry, two-dimensional castmates.The plot and steady story progression were old, boring, and basically just a monotonous combination of every good scene from an action movie in the past thirty years. The pace is rapid-fire in the first half of the movie, and a snail's pace in the second, giving the audience enough time not only to guess the eventual conclusion of the film, but to figure out who the key villain is as well. The pairing is rather clichéd, also- Polly Perkins and Sky Captain apparently reunite after several years of separation from a bitterly-ended romance, and their story isn't so much charming and eclectic as it is annoying and mismatched. When they finally come to terms with their mutual feelings towards the end of the film, nobody's surprised, and nobody really cares either.Props to the director for appreciating Bai Ling enough to dress her in skintight vinyl for the entirety of the film, and also for the intriguing sepia tones that served as coloration throughout. But Sky Captain, despite having all the essential elements of being a great movie, falls flat on its face. Not even worth the $2.75 I paid to get into the theater.$LABEL$ 0
+Anthony Wong stars in both this and the original (far superior) Untold Story, but the similarities stop there. Wong doesn't reprise his role obviously, and instead plays a bumbling policeman who gets involved with a rather suspicious female, Fung (1994's Miss Singapore, Paulyn Sun) who's a repressed nut-job, sure. But her tame jealous "wanna be with a guy who's with a girl" killer is no where near as compelling as what Wong played in the first one. The movie itself seems tired and by the numbers. Yeung Fan as the physcho's love interest's unfaithful girl tries to keep one from total boredom by stripping down whenever possible, and Sun does have a nice ass, but even that can't save this dud.My Grade: D Mei Ah DVD Extras: Sub-titled interviews with Cheung Kam Ching & Paulyn Sun; Anthony Wong filmography; a very brief synopsis; Theatrical trailer for the film; & trailers for "Chinese Erotic Ghost Story" and "Twenty Something"$LABEL$ 0
+Seven Pounds, this was the movie where I was just convinced Will Smith is really going for the "I'm going to make you cry" films. One thing I can give him a ton of credit for, the man can cry. My only thing is, as moving as the story is, Will Smith has proved time and time again that he can act, so why is he taking this extremely depressing story? But nevertheless it's still a good movie. I do have to admit it made me cry, but I felt that the stand out performance was Rosario Dawson, I absolutely love this girl, ever since I saw her in 25th Hour with Ed Norton, I knew this girl was going to go far. She's beautiful, charming, funny and talented, can't wait to see how much further her career is going to go. But her and Will Smith, not so sure if they had the great chemistry that the film needed that would've made this into a great film.Two years ago Tim Thomas was in a car crash, which was caused by him using his mobile phone; seven people died: six strangers and his fiancée. A year after the crash, and having quit his job as an aeronautical engineer, Tim donates a lung lobe to his brother, Ben, an IRS employee. Six months later he donates part of his liver to a child services worker named Holly. After that he begins searching for more candidates to receive donations. He finds George, a junior hockey coach, and donates a kidney to him, and then donates bone marrow to a young boy named Nicholas. Two weeks before he dies he contacts Holly and asks if she knows anyone who deserves help. She suggests Connie Tepos, who lives with an abusive boyfriend. Tim moves out of his house and into a local motel taking with him his pet box jellyfish. One night, after being beaten, Connie contacts Tim and he gives her the keys and deed to his beach house. She takes her two children and moves in to their new home. Having stolen his brother's credentials, and making himself known by his brother's name Ben, he checks out candidates for his two final donations. The first is Ezra Turner, a blind vegetarian meat salesman who plays the piano. Tim calls Ezra Turner and harasses him at work to check if he is quick to anger. Ezra remains calm and Tim decides he is worthy. He then contacts Emily Posa, a self-employed greeting card printer who has a heart condition and a rare blood type. He spends time with her, weeding her garden and fixing her rare Heidelberg printer. He begins to fall in love with her and decides that as her condition has worsened he needs to make his donation.Seven Pounds is a good film and no doubt worth a look, I would just recommend going for the rental vs. the theater. Will Smith pulls in a good performance, but not his best, just most of the film required him crying in every scene, but the last one with him is a doozy. But I loved the ending, it was beautiful and really made you appreciate life and to not take it for granted. There is still good people in this world and Ben's character reminds you to value life and to give to those who are in desperate need. Although he went a little far, but it was still a beautiful story.7/10$LABEL$ 1
+"A lot of the films I've made probably could have worked just as well 50 years ago, and that's just because I have a lot of old-fashion values." - Steven SpielbergSome points..1. Though this film is a loose remake of "A Guy Named Joe", it also borrows heavily from "A Matter of Life and Death" and "Wings of Desire".2. This was Spielberg's second attempt at being Frank Capra. 3. Spielberg has often said that he wishes to make a "Frank Capra movie" in the vein of "It's A Wonderful Life" and "Mrs Smith Goes To Washington". Judging from his recent attempts to get a "Harvey" remake off the ground, it seems as though Spielberg still holds this dream, the director rightfully not satisfied with his last 3 ventures into Capracorn.4. Critics at the time bashed "Always", stating that the elaborate action sequences distracted from the film's romance, but that's really not the problem at all. The problem is that "Always" needs a lot more special effects to distract us from the fact that Spielberg can't film any line of dialogue that doesn't end in an exclamation point.5. The film is filled with comedy that just doesn't work. Spielberg's comedic tastes aren't very sophisticated, and seem to be ripped right out of 1950's screwballs and Looney Tune cartoons. These exaggerated antics may work in a cartoon universe, but in a film it just seems like an odd marriage.6. The film's lead couple come across as brother and sister, not lovers. Spielberg's films have always being apprehensive toward sex and intimacy, but this film goes to extreme lengths: she's a wisecracking tomboy and he's a wisecracking old man. They're more irritating than endearing.7. The film contains one good scene, in which John Goodman argues with Holly Hunter, but for the most part the film's characters are too annoying. There's no subtlety, every emotion overplayed, every joke over designed, every sequence filled with unnecessary busyness.8. "Always" and "Hook" taught Spielberg how to con audiences. After their failure (and the twin financial failures of "The Color Purple" and "Empire of the Sun") Spielberg dumped the goofy colour cinematography of "Color Purple" and "Empire of the Sun" in favour for the more desaturated "black and white" worlds of "Schindler's List", "Munich", "Minority Report" and "Saving Private Ryan". From here on, "less light" and "dark cinematography" became equated with "serious topics".9. After the financial success of each "dark film" Spielberg reverts back to his colour cinematography, and falls flat on his face once again. "Amistad" followed "Schindler's List", "AI" followed "Ryan" and "Lincoln" will follow "Munich". These "colour" films are always bashed for being too tacky, sentimental, corny and hokey, but the truth is, if you removed the desaturation, all these "serious" films would feel the same way.10. Since the 70s, Spielberg has tried to differentiate himself from the other brat pack directors (Scorsese, De Palma, Coppola etc), by pretending to be an "optimist" and "humanist". He would himself state this repeatedly during many interviews in the late 70s. The reality, though, is that he is probably the biggest sadist of all these directors, the very form of his films often undermining their content, their very box office performances always proportionate to their dazzling displays of carnage. 11. The failure of Spielberg to connect with any of the characters in "Always", and the relish he shows, instead, for filming forest fires, air-planes crashing etc, perfectly encapsulates the rest of his filmography. People running from dinosaurs, sharks, Nazis, tripods, rocks etc...this is what Spielberg delights in. The moment his characters stop to speak, however, everything self-destructs. A film like "Amistad" failed, in other words, because not enough blacks died and too many whites talked.12. The film's flying scenes aren't up to the standard's set several years earlier in the mega-hit "Top Gun". Of course, when your "enemy" is a forest fire, it's hard to make things cinematic.13. Failures like "1941", "Hook", "Always" etc are often more illuminating that Spielberg's more successful films. They reveal the steel skeleton beneath the technique. They show what the amusement park ride looks like when its not working, revealing the vacuum beneath the broken machinery.5/10 – There's one good sequence here (two actors in a room, simply improvising), but this is mostly an annoying picture with a predictable script.Worth one viewing.$LABEL$ 0
+Summary- This game is the best Spider-Man to hit the market!You fight old foes such as Scorpion,Rhino,Venom,Doctor Octopus,Carnage,...And exclusive to the game...Monster-Ock!Monster-Ock is the symbiote Carnage On Dock Ock's body.Storyline- Dock Ock was supposedly reformed and using his inventions for mankind...supposedly...He was really planing a symbiote invasion! See the rest for yourself.Features- You can play in numerous old costumes seen throughout the comics.Almost every costume has special abilities!You can collect comics in the game and then view them in a comic viewer.And last but not least..............Spidey-Armour!Collect a gold spider symbol to change into Spider-Armour.It gives you another health bar!Graphics- Great!Though they they can be rough at times.But still great!Sound- Sweet!Nice music on every level and great voice overs!Overall- 10 out of 10.This game rocks.Buy it today!$LABEL$ 1
+Technically abominable (with audible "pops" between scenes)and awesomely amateurish, "Flesh" requires a lot of patience to sit through and will probably turn off most viewers; but the dialogue rings amazingly true and Joe Dallesandro, who exposes his body in almost every scene, also gives an utterly convincing performance. A curio, to be sure, but the more polished "Trash", made two years later, is a definite step forward. I suggest you watch that instead. (*1/2)$LABEL$ 0
+i really love this movie , i saw it for the first time when i was working a video store. when i went to buy it they told me it was out of print and i couldn't order it so i just today thought i would look. and then i found it they put it out in Spain on DVD under the name "Algo Mas Que Amigos" and you can buy there it is in English and Spanish on the DVD....hope this helps ..... i know how hard it is to find movies that we love that they haven't Released to The U.S Market. best of luck..oh For more info here is one place to look.... HTTP://www.zonadvd.com i think it going for 10 dollars usd on eBay as well.$LABEL$ 1
+What else can you say about this movie,except that it's plain awful.Tina Louise and Adam West are the reasons why to see this,but,that's it,but their talents are wasted in this junk.I think that they used a double in some of Adam's scenes,like when he's running because you can't see his face.If Adam was embarrassed in being in Zombie Nightmare,just think what he must've felt about appearing in this??? If it was before or after,I'm not sure,but,still,Zombie Nightmare is a classic(check out the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version first and last)compared to this.The gang is very annoying and over-acting by some of the actors.A rip-off of The Wild One starring Marlon Brando,of course.Tina looks stunning though.I hope her and Adam got a good paycheck!! Pass!$LABEL$ 0
+I never thought I would absolutly hate an Arnold Schwartzeneggar film, BUT this is is dreadful from the get go. there isnt one redeemable scene in the entire 123 long minutes. an absolute waste of time thank yu Jay harris$LABEL$ 0
+I know sometimes its really really corny... But the acting is amazing and Melissa Joan Hart is as cute as a button. I love this show a lot, and I'm almost embarrassed that I do b/c the show has a rep. for being really corny, but it makes me feel good. My only problem is that sometimes it can be pretty low budget - sometimes actors change and you just have to deal with it... Like Sabrina's father is 2 different guys throughout the course of the movie... I mean, couldn't they just say he was an uncle or something? Still, I can't help but loving this show. Harvey and Sabrina make a really cute couple and Salem is absolutely hilarious. I definitely recommend it if your looking for some light and funny entertainment... My favorite episode is "Pancake Madness"... a HILARIOUS episode. The best season is probably 3... I'm not really a fan of some of the seventh season twists... Once you get to college, Morgan joins the group and her dialog is painful and very poorly acted... Plus she is ugly, so the jokes about how she is only surviving off her good looks were lost on me... But I think it was set up to have a really good eighth season and I was really sad to see one of my favorite shows canceled!$LABEL$ 1
+This series continues to frustrate and annoy. How are they going to drag this out for another year? Each episode offers up more and more questions, whilst providing the answers to very few. To quote another very popular website, I believe that this show has now jumped the shark!Will, I keep watching it?Probably,Will they manage to keep the show on-air till it ends?Probably not...How did two qualified doctors fail to notice that Naomi was still alive? How did 30 plus people not notice a corpse wake up and walk off with a knife still in her back? How did someone have enough strength to create two trails and climb up a tree to ambush Kate?We've now introduced a ghostbuster...Same time next week? yep!$LABEL$ 0
+Now I get it. The title refers to each audience member's immediate post-reaction after 68 minutes of mental torture. Trying too hard to be terrifying, lacking good dialogue even any fear for that matter really makes The Screaming Skull more like A Snoring Dull. Albeit, the mansion and property set in black and white does set a dark tone for the movie, but that's about it. The only scary thing about this flop is that people actually made money on this! Remember the coffin guarantee in the beginning? That may be the funniest thing I have ever witnessed on screen. Sad thing is that viewers probably hoped director Alex Nichol was forcibly placed in a coffin, nailed shut, and buried alive for his lame effort. Jenny placed in this unfortunate horrific situation never really draws any sympathy you would feel for a woman whose anxiety is blamed on a haunted, cranial receptacle. Also, her husband John comes off as a condescending wannabe smooth talker, but this doesn't work and he ends up proving how tough he is by slapping a helpless cripple around! Ah, Mickey…the days before you could get a restraining order against estate caretakers like him. This guy's approach is not very good or maybe too much airplane glue. Still, despite his strange persona, Mickey probably is the only good thing going for this movie providing a slight sense of entertainment and I can't get enough of a guy saying "It was Mary!" and rummaging through pots in a greenhouse.$LABEL$ 0
+It's important to keep in mind the real meaning of the phrase "Inspired by a true story" when watching Pride. It's sort of like "You could save up to 50%," which can quite literally be translated to "You can't save more than 50%." It all sounds great until you realize that the lower part of "up to" is "zero." Similarly, "inspired by a true story" means that someone heard a story and it made them think of this one. The only certainty is that the real story and the one you're about to see are not the same thing.There is a real Jim Ellis that began coaching the swim team at the Philadelphia Department of Recreation in the early 1970s, but I have a feeling that the real Jim Ellis must not have been able to conceal some feelings of disappointment at the way the movie turned out. Clearly, it takes wild liberties with the story of his life, and I just picture him responding to the strange looks of his friends who wonder why the movie is so much different than the man they know.At any rate, one thing that he will surely be proud of is that he is portrayed by Terrence Howard, one of our finest actors, who starred alongside Bernie Mac who, despite the lack of an original and powerful story, still gives a heartfelt and moving performance. The movie takes place in 1970s Philadelphia, a time and place where racism was the norm, not the exception, and the educated and professional Jim Ellis, who is also an accomplished swimmer, is having trouble finding a worthwhile teaching position, until finally relegated to a falling apart recreation center, which he is assigned the task of cleaning up before its demolition. We can certainly understand his feeling of belittlement. When we first meet Elston, the maintenance man (Bernie Mac), he is a disillusioned grump who sits in his office surrounded by piles of junk that touch the ceiling and watching daytime TV on an old, dusty television set. Needless to say, when Jim shows up to start cleaning the place up and clearing it out, Elston is not exactly friendly with him. He knew his rec center was being closed, and all his anger about that transferred quite smoothly onto Jim. Given his past as a college swimmer, Jim takes a special interest in the pool, which he cleans and fills and brings to top shape. A group of black teenagers who play basketball just outside the rec center take interest in the pool when their basketball rim is taken away and the heat remains stifling, and soon the group have a developing swim team on their hands, which they enter into a citywide swim meet. To call them underdogs, of course, would be something of an understatement. They're unorganized, unprofessional, insufficiently trained, and have no idea how to behave at a swim meet. That doesn't matter, of course. The movie is your standard underdog sports story, so the first athletic outing is totally unimportant as anything other than a learning experience, a catalyst to drive their much harder and much more focused training that will lead up to the final athletic outing, the one that matters. By now, the only thing a sports movie has going for it is that the protagonist(s) do not have to win at the film's climax, we only have to understand the meaning and significance of their effort. Sadly, the movie has all of the character development of an old Seagal movie. The good guys are the good guys because they're just supposed to be, and the bad guys are the nasty white swimmers who laugh and jeer and make racist jokes at our team. Oh, and there's one scene where one of the white guys kicks one of the black guys underwater while in the middle of a race. I didn't know it was really possible to kick someone underwater like that, but you get the idea of how deep the character development is.We understand that this is the group of kids that Jim Ellis turned from kids hanging out on the streets doing nothing with their lives and into an organized and competitive team of swimmers, but other than that we don't really get to know anything about who they are.But the biggest problem is that the only real statements that the movie makes are that effort and organization lead to success and racism is bad. Both of these are so obvious that when a movie is made with them alone it ends up feeling empty and unnecessary. Racism was so much more powerful in America in the 1970s that it feels like an enormous loss that the movie dealt directly with that issue but didn't really say anything about it. It's sort of a feel- good movie, but when it's over and you realize how much it should have said is much bigger than what it said, the feel-good sensation turns into a sad disappointment.$LABEL$ 0
+In what is a truly diverse cast, this show hits it's stride on FOX. It is the kind of sitcom that grows on you. If you just watch 1 show you might not like it much, but once you watch two or three- you get hooked.This is because some of the jokes hit & some miss depending upon how you view them. As is usual today, the themes are very mature. The humor is usually very mature too. Often the most funny parts are the parts where the mature themes collide with the innocent ones.Red (Kurtwood Smith) a veteran actor does some very good deadpan type of humor on this show. Debra Jo Rupp plays well in this ensemble cast too. Danny Masterson, the oldest actor of the "kids" is very good too. Laura Prepon (Donna) looks better in the earlier shows as a natural redhead (who got the idea of making her a blonde?). She shows very good talent & comedic timing often. She looks good without make up too.This is one of the better entries on FOX in the sitcom department & it's most successful live action one since Married With Children$LABEL$ 1
+A handful of nubile young college sorority sisters decide to go camping with a professor. A giant druid want to sacrifice them to prevent the apocalypse come the year 2000, they also have to contend with bikers, an Indian and a loch ness monster type thing. Worth watching for only 3 reasons, George 'Buck' Flower (a sadly unsung B-movie staple) is on hand as a hobo and the other 2 belong to the stunning Savannah (in one of only 3 non-porn roles she had). Both have very small roles. Too bad everything else in the movie is horrendously bad.My Grade: D- Retromedia DVD Extras: Original Trailer Eye Candy: 4 pairs of breasts, 2 asses$LABEL$ 0
+This is the episode that probably most closely relates to it's partner law, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," in that it directly brings up the ever controversial issue, "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong?" This issue is presented in two parts within the episode: before the killing, when the film shows the dichotomy between the idealistic up-and-coming lawyer and the street thug so caught up in his ways that his life is merely a representation of what he's supposed to do, followed by the period after the trial and before the execution, when both are made to suffer for the deaths they feel responsible for and thus share.One of the great things about the way these episodes work are in the both small and big ways the story is fully developed, so that we understand both the motivations and histories of characters we're only able to spend slightly less than an hour with. For all his criminal intentions and mockery, the killer is still very sympathetic, revolving the most important part of his actions around a history of accidental death. His way of killing is more a desire to control death than it is any desire to actually destroy. Similarly, the lawyer's idealistic naivety shows one unwilling to allow death to happen in a world where he can't control it. Their meeting is, indeed, important; they both have to give in to it while not propagating it.As an aside, it's interesting how much this episode affects viewing of Rouge, Kieslowski's later completion of the Trois Colours trilogy. One of Kieslowski's biggest influences seems to be the idea of justice, and considering that the Decalogue is a meditation on something that represents Divine Justice, this one seems almost the most self-conscious.--PolarisDiB$LABEL$ 1
+During the whole Pirates of The Caribbean Trilogy Craze Paramount Pictures really dropped the ball in restoring this Anthony Quinn directed Cecil B. DeMille supervised movie and getting it on DVD and Blu Ray with all the extras included. It is obvious to me that Paramount Pictures Execs are blind as bats and ignorant of the fact that they have a really good pirate movie in their vault about a real pirate who actually lived in New Orleans, Louisiana which would have helped make The Crescent City once again famous for it's Pirate Connections. When the Execs at Paramount finally get with the program and release this movie in digital format then I will be a happy camper. Paramount Pictures it is up to you to get off your duff and get this film restored now !$LABEL$ 1
+This terrible moovie is fun on many levels - the moost obvious is the lame, fake-looking bird puppet which floats around the cheap sets, without ever flapping it wings (like it was on a string, perhaps?), attacking model trains and toy cars. The "science" is asinine - a masonic atom gun?? And what's up with the enormous amounts of Brylcream in everyone's hair? I guess the 50's were the Slimeball decade! Well, this bird puppet apparently comes from "some god-forsaken anti-matter universe", and it's here to build a nest & lay eggs in New York. Seriously. That they manage to kill the puppet is almost a shame. I give it 1 hoof out of 4 - it's silly and stupid, but moore fun than Armageddon. :=8)$LABEL$ 0
+Once again, I've been duped by seemingly intelligent reviews making seemingly intelligent comments about an obviously crappy movie. I actually put my shoes on, got in my car, burned expensive gasoline and drove to the nearest rental place AFTER reading said reviews and paid the requisite 4 dollars and change to rent this thing. I'm telling you, this one's not worth the minuscule kilo-calories spent on lifting one's index finger to switch channels on a TV remote. I even gave it a few more minutes after seeing all the tell-tale signs of a pedigree dog-pile. These presented as clinical symptoms of a director who is a. going senile or, b. is only marginally interested in the film he/she is obligated to create. I saw similar deterioration with John Carpenter's string of ridiculous caricature's over the past number of years.Here are a couple of scenes as incriminating evidence. The priest is having a disturbing dream...supposedly a harbinger of nastiness to come since he seems hell bent on opening the archaeological feature which houses the demon. The dream is a goofy collage of disjointed images right out of the Twilight Zone's stock footage. A ticking clock careens through the dream scape's blackness implying, what?, the unfathomable mystery of Time?....big deal! A disembodied head, painted in demon features with convenience store quality Halloween make-up, flickers back and forth in a convulsive frenzy. Every time I see this effect, a big fat rip-off from Jacob's Ladder, it pisses me off. This, in itself, almost instantly discredits a film. The whole build-up of the archaeological dig itself is laughable. Everything is so obvious...so tired and over-wrought...the only possible response is boredom. At one point in the dig, the priest comments on finding the statues of Angels surrounding a sarcophagus...they're all pointing down toward the crypt with their weapons. He queries "Look at these surrounding statues....It's as if they are holding..something..down!" This is supposed to build tension...critical mass..but it doesn't even come close! How can there be suspense if you treat the audience like a bunch of morons having to EXPLAIN the suspense as you go along. The imagery is over-done in the first place but the added comments only add insult to injury in my opinion. Soon thereafter, the tomb is "decorated" with the remains of the soldiers placed there to guard the main atrium (another shameless rip-off of The Keep, btw). Who, for crying out loud, did the make-up effects for this film??! The blood actually had that pinkish quality one might see in 70's Tromaville flicks. At this point I became almost convinced that they simply forgot the make-up and had to go to Wal-Mart in the interest of time and money.DON'T listen to glowing comments on this one! I'll be keeping a suspicious eye on Schrader too. Looks like it might be time to hang up his gloves. Perhaps a close friend will offer a gentle admonition to quit while there's still dignity in memory of films gone by.$LABEL$ 0
+As has been well documented by previous posters, the real stars of Rockstar: INXS - and, indeed it's sequel, Rockstar: Supernova - are Paul Mirkovich, Rafael Moreira, Jim McGorman, Nate Morton and Sasha Krivtsov. Don't know who they are? They are the awesome, tight, rockin' House Band whose music savvy and talent made this show something more than a sad American Idol clone.Remember the "strings" night? That was musical precision and perfection if ever I've seen it. Suzie McNeil's epic rendition of Queen's 'Bohemian Rhapsody', Ty Taylor's memorable cover of the Stones' 'You Can't Always Get...', JD Fortune singing "Suspicious Minds". The common denominator here is the awesome House Band.As good as INXS were in their prime, they are sadly a shadow of their former selves, though JD's live performance has somewhat breathed new life into their music, this show is all about the HB.Memo to producers: Season Three (if we're blessed enough to have it happen) should be Rockstar: House Band. Get those boys a good lead singer and they are going places.$LABEL$ 1
+... mainly because Ju-on 2 boasts an outrageous FORTY minutes' worth of material literally taken straight out of the first Ju-on - and when you consider that the sequel only runs for 76 minutes, that leaves you with 36 original minutes' worth of film. Ho-hum. I found that deeply irritating - as if viewers simply wouldn't remember the same stuff! - not to mention dull, having to watch it all over again.OK, that complaint aside, the byline for Ju-on 2 was that it was supposed to explain a lot of the unanswered questions from the first movie, which frankly, over 36 minutes, simply doesn't go far enough to making any kind of sense of the original's highly convoluted storyline.There are, however, some really nice new horror sequences which show how good the film might have been, had it had some time to develop; and some of the questions raised by the original - some, but not all - are answered.So in conclusion - if you loved the first original movie and want to see some further developments on the story, go for it - but just remember to keep your remote control to hand with your finger on the fast-forward button for forty minutes.$LABEL$ 0
+Watching "Kroko" I would have liked to leave the cinema very much for the first time in my life. I would not recommend to watch this movie: flat main characters - absolutely no development e.g. Kroko the metaphoric German problem child remains a pure metaphor without any capability of positive involvement despite several plot-wise chances to do so. Uninspired actors, non-evolving plot. I guess the movie attempted an environmental survey but did not succeed: camera appeared shaky rather than motivated. Pictures were low - contrast, gray and dark - i am sure deliberately but the components did not add up to a convincing impression of the social milieu. The story had certain potential though, it could have made a good short story.$LABEL$ 0
+My children watch the show everyday that its on. Its a great program for younger children. However they need to stop showing re-runs and do some more actual shows and get rid of Rooney's and Deedee's YELLOW TEETH. Moe is the only Doodle bop with clean white pearlie teeth and the children notice these things and ask if the 2 don't ever brush their teeth? Does the show ever make its way to the United States and if so where can we find its schedule at. And one other thing if we might be able to add. Moe you need to stop hiding so much. Sometimes when you pop up out of no where you scare the younger children and whats with the pulling of the rope? What does that signify? other then getting wet all the time. They need to add newer things to their show instead of the same ole same ole. Kids loose interest that way.$LABEL$ 0
+Trio's vignettes were insightful and quite enjoyable. It was curious seeing so many soon to be famous actors when they were very young. The performances and attention to detail were wonderful to watch.Observation. In film it isn't necessary that source material be in alignment with the contemporary era to be interesting or worthwhile. "Small morality" storytelling is quaint (or coy) only in the eye of the beholder--thankfully. Story content--well told--can overcome it's time, subject or place.Ironically, there are quite a few contemporary films today that have not overcome the conventions or cutting edge mores of the present era. Inserting "small morality" content--occasionally--might provide a dimension lacking.$LABEL$ 1
+On a flight back from London, I watched She's the Man; apparently Air Canada has a crap movie policy. Perhaps that's not the best way to start a review of this movie. Amanda Bynes plays a girl who loves soccer so much that she pretends to be her twin brother to get on a team at a boarding school across town. Even if you check your mind at the door (on a 6 hour flight you have to), the story is implausible and ridiculous. There are some moments of humor, mostly from comedian David Cross as the principle, but the intricate love polygon doesn't really inspire emotion, although is is cleverly mixed (with the caveat of mindless plausibility). The ending is just as ridiculously mindless as the rest. I guess if I was a 12-year-old girl, I might have really enjoyed this one.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of those films that explore the culture clash of Eastern born people in Westernized cultures. Loving on Tokyo Time is a sad film about the inability of opposites to attract due to major cultural differences. Ken, rock n'roll fanatic, marries Kyoto, a Japanese girl, so that she can stay in the United States when her visa expires. The marriage is only expected to be temporary, that is, until Kyoto gains legal status again. But, Ken, who seems to be lost in every relationship, takes a liking to Kyoto and tries very hard to make things work out. This, despite his friend's urging that dumping Kyoto and getting rid of all commitments to girls is bad for rock n' roll except to inspire some song writing about broken hearts and all of that.But Kyoto comes from a strict traditional Japanese upbringing, and doesn't expect to be married to Ken all that long. Not only that, she is homesick and wants to return to Japan. It's sad in that this is finally someone Ken thinks he can love and be with and all that, except the one time he thinks he's found someone to feel that way about, the girl isn't expecting to stay that long. It's not that she doesn't like Ken, it's just that she's used to a whole 'nother way of life. She says, "I can't tell him the way I feel in English, and Ken can't tell me the way he feels in Japanese." It's a rather sad love story with a killer 80s techno-nintendo soundtrack.I picked up Loving on Tokyo Time because it reminded me of one of my favorite 80s films, Tokyo Pop. And, for those of you who enjoyed Loving on Tokyo Time, check out Tokyo Pop (a New York singer goes to Japan and joins a Japanese American cover band), except it's a movie with a happy ending.$LABEL$ 1
+Trying to catch a serial killer, did they ever think of tracking the license plate number of the black van or fingerprint the video tapes he sent? Oh brother the plot of this movie was so full of holes it was pathetic. Now I know why there are bad movies in the world. This one however was one of the worst.$LABEL$ 0
+Pretty twisted Horror film, that has a few good moments here and there, with some creepy Blood transfusion scenes, however it's just too dull for it's own good. All the characters are OK, and the story while had a lot of potential is rather dull, however the blood transfusion scenes looked frighteningly real, and as a result they were extremely disturbing. It's well made and decently written, and it started out really interesting, but it just couldn't keep up the pace, plus I found the ending to be disappointing. Linnea Quigley has no more then a very small role in this so, I was also disappointed about that, and Stephen Knight does a good job as the lead, as he was pretty twisted, plus I got this in a DVD Horror set called A Taste Of Evil, along with a bunch of other Horror films. There is lots of blood,however it's not all that gory, and for it's low budget it was pretty well done, however as I said it just couldn't sustain it's interest. This is a pretty twisted Horror film, that has a few good moments here and there, with some creepy blood transfusion scenes, however it's just too dull for it's own good, I would pass,but I guess it's worth a watch if you have nothing better to do. The Direction is OK. Elly Kenner&Norman Thaddeus Vane do an OK job here with decent camera work, and doing a good job on it's low budget, however the pace is too inconsistent for my liking. The Acting is actually alright. Stephen Knight is great as the lead, he was creepy, twisted, sick, and gave a very creepy performance, the most creepy thing about it though was he seemed like a normal person. Linnea Quigley did well in her small role. Christopher McDonald is OK I guess sin his short time. Rest of the cast are OK as well. Overall I would pass, but I guess it's worth a watch if you have nothing absolutely better to do. *1/2 out of 5$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of may all-time favourite films. Parker Posey's character is over-the-top entertaining, and the librarian motif won't be lost on anyone who has ever worked in the books and stacks world.If you're a library student, RENT THIS. Then buy the poster and hang it on your wall. The soundtrack is highly recommendable too. I've shown this film to more library friends than any other -- they all fall in love with it.$LABEL$ 1
+I think that this film was one of Kurt Russels good movies. Kurt russel is my favorite actor so I think that he is a good actor in any role he plays. But this movie had a lot of action in it and I know that it should have more then a 5.6 out of 10 on the meter but many people did not like this movie. Oh well I thought it was good so I think that every one should see this movie. If you see this movie and like it I think that you should see Back Draft also with Kurt Russel. I give Soldier *** 1/2 out of *****$LABEL$ 1
+i see hundreds of student films- this is tops. james cox is a fantastic director- he moves the camera, tells the story and uses music in a way that is far advanced for his years. no wonder he got a feature from this film.$LABEL$ 1
+Wow, what a total let down! The fact people think this film is scary is ridiculous. The special effects were a direct rip-off of "The ring." The story? Was there one? Not in my opinion..Just a bunch of flashy imaging. The entire film was a boring, stupid, mess. I guess there is always a market for bad films with good marketing campaigns. However, this is the worst horror film I have seen in years. And that Buffy chick? Well, she's a bad actress! As plastic as Barbie and just as talented..No, wait, that would be an insult to the talents of Barbie! I suppose many kiddies helped this film at the box office as it was PG-13, and had it been rated R, it would have bombed IMO! Stupid movie!$LABEL$ 0
+A brilliant Russian émigré devises the ‘Stanislavsky' system for winning at contract bridge - which makes him and his beautiful wife the GRAND SLAM Sweethearts of America.What could have been just another silly soap opera is elevated by fine production values & excellent acting to the status of a very enjoyable little comedy. A few unexpected touches are thrown in to keep the viewer's attention engaged - the way in which the principle cast is introduced as faces on a deck of cards; the introduction of a zany acrobat into the plot for no other reason than to enjoy a bit of lunacy; and the way in which a wide variety of different kinds of Americans are shown to be transfixed by listening to the broadcast of the concluding game.Paul Lukas & Loretta Young do very well as the Bridge Sweethearts - Lukas suave & sophisticated and Miss Young passionately loving and beautiful (even if the script keeps her puffing on a cigarette a bit too much). They are fun to watch, even when their behavior is not always the most believable or compelling.Frank McHugh gives another good performance as a relentlessly cheerful ghost writer who adores Miss Young. The delightful Glenda Farrell eschews her customary wisecracking persona in a small role as McHugh's ditsy gal pal. Roscoe Karns handles the fast-talking dialogue as a brash radio announcer. Diminutive Ferdinand Gottschalk is wonderful as a snobbish bridge expert.Movie mavens will recognize Dewey Robinson as a belligerent nightclub patron; Emma Dunn as a sob sister reporter; Paul Porcasi as the owner of the Russian nightclub; Charles Lane as a Russian waiter; and Jimmy Conlin as a kibitzer at the final bridge game - all uncredited.The film takes advantage of the fad for contract bridge which had swept across the country since its development in the 1920's. It expects the viewer to have a basic knowledge of the intricacies of the game and makes no attempt to explain anything to the uninformed.$LABEL$ 1
+The movie " Inhabited" is about a family of four moving into a new house not knowing that dangers are lurking.The daughter befriends the dangerous creatures as they gain her trust. When they do they use it against her. A man who use to live there as a child or a teen, knows about the creatures and try's to warn them. The creatures steel and take shiny objects to make new stuff out of them , mostly weapons.They has a cat and it murderously disappeared. The man that tried to warn the little sister was tricked by them and end up into a Psyciatric ward. She then help them defeat the creatures and destroy the man one. After they do they leave for good with nothing but each other and something happens to the doctor$LABEL$ 1
+Okay, this film is about Bedknobs and Broomsticks, it's one of the most charming, delightful movies you'll ever see as a kid. It's the unforgettable movie about two adults and two spunky kids on an adventure for fun. It may be a little deniable to watch, but try it, I neither my mother didn't think it was bad, I was very enthused with the movie and the animation, they were all quite good.It is a delightfully wondrous comedy for the whole family to enjoy; even the kids. Ages 7 years and up will enjoy this wonderful, musical comedy with you and your family especially the animation. The animation movements and layouts are really nice and deserve a thumbs up. It's a terrifically good musical for the whole family so what are you waiting for? Go to the video store and rent Bedknobs and Broomsticks NOW.$LABEL$ 1
+This film had a great cast going for it: Christopher Lee, Dean Jagger, Macdonald Carey, Lew Ayres -- solid b-movie actors all. But this downer of a movie didn't use any of them to any sort of advantage, with none of their characters even meeting on screen (though Christopher Lee does get to play opposite himself in several scenes).The motivations for the aliens in this movie seem to change at the drop of a hat. First, they just want to repair their ship and leave, then they turn on the main character by killing most of his friends and not releasing his wife after he gets them the crucial part they need. Then, out of nowhere, this "peaceful" race decides they have to destroy the planet because it causes too many "diseases" (though they do offer the main character and his wife a spot in their society).Most of the film is spent watching the man and wife drive or walk or stand around or sit at desks doing nothing. You almost wish they had gotten taken out with the rest of the planet at the end, just in vengeance for boring us to death.Unless you really like Chris Lee or seventies low-budget sci-fi, I'd give this one a miss. It falls into that narrow range of wasted celluloid between Star Odyssey and UFO: Target Earth.$LABEL$ 0
+... And it's a not very good documentary either American MOVIE seems to have confused some people into thinking this is a spoof documentary ( " Mockumentary ) and even some newspaper TV listings described it as such . I'll not laugh out loud at that because it's easy to mistake this documentary as one big wind up ala THIS IS SPINAL TAP What seems to have caused the confusion is that the documentary centres around budding film maker Mark Borchardt who is .... How can I put it ? Rather self deluded ? Yes but that's not necessarily a bad thing since if we had no dreams we'd all still be living in caves and the fact that Mark is obsessed with horror movies is not to be taken as a criticism since both Sam Raimi ( Yes that one ) and Peter Jackson ( yes that one ) both started out doing low budget horror comedies so again it's not a criticism . No it's just that Mark Borchardt ( yes that one ) is a parody of American trailer trash Remember in THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY Ben Stiller gives a lift to a dodgy hitch hiker ( " Come into my office because you're f***in' fired " ) ? Well that's who Mark resembles along with most of Jerry Springer's guests so it's very easy to see why some people thought this wasn't a real documentary . It's also not a very good documentary since Mark and co give me the creeps . Did you know that someone thought Mark would grow up to be a serial killer ? Does anyone else think there's plenty of time left for this to happen ?$LABEL$ 0
+This is another of Eastwood's many movies mixing intrigue, action, and a dollop of romance, along with "The Gauntlet," "Firefox," and so forth. Clint's acting range by now is pretty familiar. In this one, he's taciturn and a bit outrageous, especially with women and superiors. There are no surprises in his performance. But the film itself is something of a surprise; it's above average. Clint is Frank, a Secret Service agent who, perhaps in a moment of doubt, failed to catch the bullet that killed JFK. He then took to drink, which drove his family away, and now plods along in the bureaucracy until he is contacted by John Malkovitch, calling himself "Booth," who strikes up a sort of skewed relationship with him based on their shared, disillusioned conviction that everything is meaningless except the impulse to escape dreariness and predictability. Now, this is rather an anfractuous set of attitudes for a performer like Clint to project, but he does rather well, less robotic than usual. And he does seem to carry around with him, like a burden of stone, the memory of that moment in Dallas. He's tested again halfway through this movie. He is hanging from the roof of a tall building, grasping Booth's hand, and he pulls his pistol and points it at Booth, who asks him if he is really willing to shoot. If he does, of course, he saves the president from an attempted assassination by a CIA-trained murderer, but he does so at the cost of his own life. Booth twits him about the situation as they hold hands in midair. And Clint even has a short speech, talking to Renee Russo, about his failure to save the president in Dallas. "If I'd have reacted quickly enough, I could have taken that shot . . . and that would have been alright with me." It's underplayed, but his voice chokes slightly, his eyes water, and his lip trembles. It's one of the few scenes in any of Clint's films that might properly be called "moving." We know from his newfound resolve that given another chance he would take the bullet this time. (The irony is that he doesn't like the current president. Who could? He gives pompous speeches in Colorado about how they "carved a nation out of the wilderness." Didn't they do the same thing in Las Vegas?)It's often said that a movie is only as good as its villain. It isn't true, nothing is that simple, but an argument could be made for its truth value in this case. The reptilian John Malkovitch with his Tartar eyes is marvelous.Talk about disillusioned. Okay, he can ham it up a little, sniffing with disdain even as he plugs two innocent hunters between the eyes, but he's fascinating on the screen. Renee Russo has little do to. Fred Thompson, as the chief White House aid, is now back in politics, a relief for movie-goers. If Clint's acting range is limited, Thompson's is something less. In every film he's been in, he wears the same solemn and dissatisfied expression, as if constantly plagued by some form of volcanic digestive disorder.The direction by Wolfgang Peterson is as good as it was in "Das Boot," which is pretty good. There is a great deal of the usual suspenseful cross-cutting in the final shootout. And when Clint and Russo fall into an impassioned embrace in her hotel room and scuttle backwards towards the bed like two weasels in heat, Peterson playfully shows us their feet along with a succession of objects dropping to the floor -- not only the usual garments but handcuffs, guns, beepers, palm pilots, Dick Tracy wrist watches and other impedimenta. Interrupted, Clint lies back on the bed and sighs, "Now I have to put all that stuff back on again."Well written and worth watching.$LABEL$ 1
+This British film is truly awful, and it's hard to believe that Glenn Ford is in it, although he pretty much sleepwalks through it. The idea of a bomb on a train sounds good...but it turns out this train ends up parked for the majority of the film! No action, no movement, just a static train. The area where the train is parked is evacuated, so it's not like there's any danger to anyone either. In fact, this film could be used in a film class to show how NOT to make a suspense film. True suspense is generated by letting the audience know things that the characters don't, a fact apparently unknown to the director. SPOILER: the train actually has two bombs on it, but we are led to believe there is only one. After the first bomb is defused, it feels as if there is no longer a reason to watch the film any more. But at the last minute, the villain, who has no apparent motivation for his actions, reveals there are two. Nor are we certain WHEN the bombs will go off, so we don't even have a classic "ticking bomb" tension sequence. A good 10 minutes or more are spent watching Glenn Ford's French wife thinking about leaving him, and then wondering where he is . She's such an annoying character that we don't care whether she reconciles with him, so when she does, there's nothing emotional about it. Most of the other characters are fairly devoid of personality, and none have any problems or issues. It's only 72 minutes, but it feels long because it's tedious and dull. Don't waste your time.$LABEL$ 0
+This music is totally out of touch with the film, showing up now and then as wagnerian bombast and Lone Ranger hurry-up, otherwise nonexistent. The acting, outside of the two principals, is nonexistent. It would have been an excellent student film. The Russian soldiers are just models trying to act. The constant interruptions with wow-explosive-camera angles and monocolor clips of pieces of people were quite irritating, but that's just a personal feeling. The story line isn't worse than others, actually not worse than most, completely ignoring logic and reason and reality. At least nobody walked in front of a machine gun for three minutes without being hit. The three top-level bad guys were campy.$LABEL$ 0
+"Written on the Wind" is a Douglas Sirk's melodrama. Douglas Sirk was rediscovered by the "Cahiers du Cinema", Fassbinder etc.. that hailed him as a master director - I think that it is because of the sophistication of his cinematography - "Written on the Wind" offers luscious color images and gorgeous decors. But I ask myself: Is this enough to carry a film? The acting in "Written on the Wind" ranges from weak to fair (excepting Robert Stack - he is convincing as the weak & spoiled playboy). Lauren Bacall, normally a powerful presence in the screen, is miscast in this film. Dorothy Malone as the seductress, the care-free "femme fatale" is OK, but she lacks the strength for the role. Rock Hudson is efficient but vapid .The plot has very interesting ingredients. The main characters are: A rigid patriarch his alcoholic son Kyle (Robert Stack) (never loved by the disappointed father) his frustrated and nymphomaniac daughter Marylee (Dorothy Malone)Lucy (Lauren Bacall) - a woman of principles, formerly a secretary and now married to Kyle Mitch (Rock Hudson) - brought up together with Kyle and loved by the patriarch. Secrets beyond the door, a love triangle, frustration, fistfights, laughter, death etc. - well, when I read the story summary on the back cover of the DVD I thought that I was in for a treat. My mistake! Why? I'll try to explain: "Written on the Wind" takes itself seriously and tries to tell a dramatic story. As I said before the acting, in general, is not good enough - the intensity is lacking. There are many strong scenes in the story, but the actors just do an efficient job. I think that maybe with Italian or Spanish actors those scenes would have been explored fully - they would end (for us) in an explosion of laughter or tears .What remains to us is the beautiful cinematography of Douglas Sirk. For me this is not enough. If you want to enjoy a good melodrama, see "Aventurera".$LABEL$ 1
+Now this is the sort of film we used to get weekly . Now-a-days it is rare to see a drama that depends on the cast talking to each other.There are no explosions, car chases or any chases,there are implied sexual situations.This is not film for the younger crowd, It is for those that appreciate people talking to each other,They do argue a lot as we have married couple having mid life problems.Emily Watson & Tom Wilkinson are seemingly a very happy middle aged loving man & wife. Now living in this same small London suburb, handsome, Rupert Everett returns home to visit his wealthy father.He of course meets Emily Watson, It would be easy for anyone to be smitten by Emily. I say no more, except that as the credits begin there is a fatal accident,the rest of the film is about the repercussions of this accident & all the lies the various characters tell..The acting by this trio & the others is excellent.Julien Fellows wrote the screenplay based on a novel by Nigel Balchin. He also directed, this was his first directorial attempt & he did very well. The entire production is first rate.The film had a few month theatrical run in late 2005, is under 80 theatres. This to me is a shame, Stupid comedies open on at least 2000 screens but real good drams as this & many others open in only a few.By the way there are some very funny lines regarding certain situations.Ratings: ***1/2 (out of 4) 95 points (out of 100) IMDb 9 (out of 10)$LABEL$ 1
+If I ever write movies or make them, i would want one of them to be like this one. I enjoy the goof-ball sense of humor and jokes contained within. This movie does stupid things without looking like it. The names of the places and characters are priceless, Generic New York High School, Squid Calimari (George's sister), etc...genius. I've seen this movie so many times because it was a cable tv staple while I was growing up, of course I didn't get all of the jokes back than but it was still funny.This movie is a time-less classic.$LABEL$ 1
+There are some movies that are loved by almost everyone who you come across and yet happen to be box-office failures. Andaz Apna Apna, an intelligent and hilarious comedy falls in that catogory. For once, an Indian director has kept in mind the sensibilities of the audience, and not churned out a Kader Khan type stereo-typical hoax. The movie is about two guys who dream of riches, and try to accomplish that by wooing a millionaire's daughter. A humorous drama unfolds while a lot of complexities surface in the story. The complexities add to the sheer comedy of the entire plot. Aamir Khan plays the a street-smart guy, while Salman Khan gives an unexpectedly good performance as the dumb guy. The villian played by Paresh Rawal,and his henchmen, Junior Ajit and "Kaliaa" make you laugh in your sleep. Although the movie borrows from a lot of other movies, despite shoddy camerawork, and despite being "loud" at times, it remains one of the scarce "funny" movies Bombay has come up with after movies like Padosan, Golmal and other Amol Plaekar movies. It is sad that it didn't do well at the box-office, for that means producers turn back to formulas and creativity is abandoned.$LABEL$ 1
+During WW2 in the Philipines, Japanese soldiers are starving, dying, growing weak, and becoming more and more insane. A small group of soldiers, trying to stay alive, have eventually resorted to cannibalism. This film perfectly portrays the insanity that overtakes people under extreme conditions. There are a few humorous parts in this movie, but the majority of it is just a very slow moving and realistic film. It follows these soldiers from one painful moment to another, and eventually to death. A very interesting film, showing the death, and the horror, of what may have been the worst war the world has ever seen.$LABEL$ 1
+This film had such promise!! What a great idea, an underdog paintball team struggling for recognition and personal glory, only to lose it's speed due to bad dialoge, poor editing and a half-written story. The characters in the beginning were interesting, only to lose steam half way through to become one dimensional people sputtering out tired one-liners.Maybe if they spent some more time on the story and dialoge it would have been a great movie, instead of a almost afterthought effort.$LABEL$ 0
+You can't really blame the movie maker for glorifying Che because the industry is all about money. Most of the stories you hear about this "freedom fighter" are absolute tripe fabricated by the communist Cuban government after Che's death. Che was a murdering scumbag from day one. Here's a list of the great things Che did for Cuba 1) Executed thousands of innocent Cuban Men, Women, AND CHILDREN to satisfy his lust for power.2) Destroyed Cuba's economy and good standing with the rest of the world. The Cuban peso used to be equal with the American dollar. Now it's basically worthless.3) Continually failed at all things that involved diplomacy, economy, and the military. He never made it past his first year in Medical School, and he was only in one real battle, in which he surrendered with a fully loaded gun.4) He took over the largest estate in Cuba to set up for himself. He had a Yacht, a 60" custom made TV from America, a swimming pool, and a view of the Ocean. So much for shunning the materialist life style.Cuba today is an absolutely destitute country, and you have no one but Che and the Castro brothers to thank for it. If you go to Cuba today you will not be allowed out of the tourist areas. If you did manage to get out of what you're meant to see, you would find slums, beggars, and prostitutes.If you think any of what I'm saying is untrue then go do some studying. Compare Cuban exports from 1950/60 to those of today; talk with people who survived or who had parents in the so called Cuban "revolution" of the 1960's; read all of the reports of murdered innocents; read the reports from people who served under Che and Castro and fled because of what an evil, disgusting human being he was.And please, please, always remember to read or watch EVERYTHING objectively. Stop taking everything at face value and THINK ABOUT IT.$LABEL$ 0
+I think this TV film was first aired the same week that Manchester Utd played in the Champions League Final (1999), they run a lot of football related items that week and this one was an absolute standout.It played on all the clichés that are churned out every season during the FA Cup ie, plucky underdogs, lucky clothing/mascots, name on the cup etc and turned out to be brilliantly funny.I'm surprised it has never been repeated prior to other big football occasions, even now with the world cup just getting underway. A few previous posts from non-football fans have said they still love it, but a football fan will find it hilarious imho.$LABEL$ 1
+Absence of a GOOD PLOT, absence of decent ACTING, absence of good CINEMATOGRAPHY, absence of decent looking SPECIAL EFFECTS...need I go on? Review MAY contain SPOILERS. The actors appear to be READING their lines, and not very well at that. Most of the "actors" were acting like they were in a SECOND GRADE play. The story appeared to have been written by one of the aforementioned second graders...it's not really all that convoluted...it's just so SIMPLE and DUMB, that a person thinks they must be missing something so they think it is convoluted. Nope it's not, it's EXACTLY as SIMPLE as you think it is. I UNDERSTOOD the "film", that's how i KNOW that it STUNK! MOST of the film just had people sitting around talking(reading their lines), TRYING to look sinister. The narrator was ANNOYING. The "special effects" were LAUGHABLE. I love low budget movies. I also like Carolyn Munro, Tom Savini, Jack Scarry, and Michael Berrymore...just not in THIS movie...you can tell they weren't getting paid, or weren't getting paid much, because neither their hearts NOR their talents were in it. I LOVE Tony Todd...however, he was only adequate in this movie. In fact, Tony Todd's performance is the ONLY reason I gave it 3 stars instead of 1...and Tony was only in it for a whole TWO MINUTES (seriously)! I would suggest to fast forward the DVD to the two minute Tony Todd segment. If I had gone to the theater, and paid more than a DOLLAR to see this "film" I would have been P.O.'D and demanded my money back. Hopefully the people who made this will do better next time.$LABEL$ 0
+I recall seeing this movie as a kid. I don't recall where I saw it. I must have been around 14 years old. I thought the movie was incredible and wished to see it again. It came on the Kung Fu channel once, but I missed it. I was really bummed. It is the best special-effects Kung Fu movie that I've seen to date! I highly recommend it, and now that I've discovered where to get it, I can enjoy it once more and for years to come. I also have to check out this Return of the Venom movie of which some have spoken so highly.$LABEL$ 1
+My only minor quibble with the film I grew up knowing as STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN, is the fact that the wonderful RAYMOND MASSEY is relegated to the last twenty or so minutes in the trial scene. And the trial itself, IMO, is the least interesting portion of this fascinating fantasy.David NIVEN and KIM HUNTER are wonderfully cast as the young lovers, but it's ROGER LIVESEY who gives the liveliest and most credible performance. French accented MARIUS GORING is a delight (he even gets in a remark about Technicolor) as the heavenly messenger sent to reclaim Niven when his wartime death goes unreported due to an oversight. Goring has some of the wittiest lines and delivers them with relish.Seeing this tonight on TCM for the first time in twenty or so years, I think it's a supreme example of what a wonderful year 1946 was for films. The Technicolor photography, somewhat subdued and not garish at all, is excellent and the way it shifts into B&W for the heavenly sequences is done with great imagination and effectiveness.The opening scene is the sort that really draws a viewer into the fantasy aspects of the story--and Niven's tense talk with radio operator Hunter while his plane is crashing toward earth, unexpectedly leads to a memorable romantic encounter. Truly a marvelous film from beginning to end, another triumph for Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger.$LABEL$ 1
+This may actually the finest film of 1999. No I'm not kidding. This documentary directed by Chris Smith captures the very spirit of artistic compulsion. Smith does the smart thing any documentary filmaker should do: he keeps invisible and refuses to judge his subject. As the viewer watches Mark and his efforts, no matter how funkily aggressive they may prove, to finish his films. He refuses to compromise and suffers repeatedly as a result. But lest we forget, remember Speilberg, Scorsese and others started just as humbly.And what a great subject he chooses. Mark, his family and friends are all fascinating characters, far more than any character created in last year's fictitious cinematic products.This film oscillates on the dime between comedy, tragedy, touching sympathy and leads us ultimately to inspiring any viewer with an urge to create, despite talent issues, to get off their butts and make something.The film is about maverick artists and their passions. It is also about families, no matter how co-dependent and disfunctional they may be and how unique and beautiful that organism truly is. Mark proves in the film to be utterly devoted not only to his dreams, but also to his family as well- and they to him. Why this film was not nominated for documentary of the year is beyond me and criminal (that is assuming it was eligible last year). This film is to be sought out and treasured.$LABEL$ 1
+Dull, flatly-directed "comedy" has zero laughs and wastes a great cast. Alan Alda wore too many hats on this one and it shows. Newcomer Anthony LaPaglia provides the only spark of life in this tedium but it's not enough.One of those scripts that, if you were a neophyte and submitted it to an agent or producer, would be ripped to shreds and rejected without discussion.$LABEL$ 0
+Not only is this a great African-American classic comedy, but one of many great American cult classics.I have recently purchased the collection edition of Rudy Ray Moore.If you love the old school karate movies and black comedies, this is for you! They don't make movies like these anymore. My entire family are movie buffs, so this site is an extreme help on solving many debates. I am deployed in Iraq right now. This helps me to stay connected to world that I know in the states. Thank you IMDb.I recommend this site to all my friends. Dolemite rules! Don't just take my word for it, check them out for yourself. Ten lines is a lot for commenting on one movie I think, but if it gets the point across, I'm all for it!$LABEL$ 1
+This is a great movie that I don't think gets enough credit as Saturday Night Fever or Grease in John Travolta's career. He plays a man who is in love with a girl but is too pig headed to admit his feelings to her. Instead, he wants to engage in mechanical bull riding because he thinks it will show his manhood. Even though it was made in 1980, it is still timely today. The great country music soundtrack is terrific. 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+Burt Reynold's Direct's and star's in this great Cop film, Reynold's play's the Sharkey of the title, who is a tough cop whilst working in undercover a drug bust goes wrong, and is demoted to vice, The machine of the title refer's to the motley crew Reynold's's assemble's to bring down a crooked governor who is involved in high class prostitution Cocaine and contract murder,The motley crew is played by Brian Keith, Blackploitaion favorite Bernie Casey, Richard Libertini,(as alway's quirky as an ace sounds-man) Charle's Durning, as the chief, The beautiful English rose Rachael Ward play's Dominoe a $1000 dollar's a night hooker whom Reynold's's protect's and eventually fall's for, When staking out an apartment used by the governor.Italian actor Vittorio Gassman, play's the High stake's pimp, who has a deadly gang of triad's at his disposal, And Henry DeSilva, play's His psychotic brother hit man who is highly strung On prescription painkiller's and angel Dust,The action packed finale see's the remaining member's of the 'Machine' Engaged in a deadly shootout with Desilva, which culminate's in one the Most spectacular stunt's ever put to Celluloid,Alas Hollywood has ran out of idea's and is contemplating a remake of Sharky's Machine! Why bother a 25th Anniversary Special Edition DVD would be ideal, not a silly ass remake,$LABEL$ 1
+1st watched 11/07/2004 - 1 out of 10(Dir-Jon Keeyes): Over-the-top rehash of 70's supposed horror flicks like Friday the 13th(versions 1 thru whatever…). I can't think of much redeeming here except(or can I think of anything?)…The story revolves around a bunch of stupid people listening to a radio program one year after some kids were slayed in the woods as an 'homage' to this, supposedly. But, lo and behold, one of the stupid people, have connections to the actual event because her sister was one of the ones murdered(again, how stupid is this that she would even be a part of this). Guess what? The murderer is at it again and we're tipped off from the very beginning who it is(so there goes any mystery whatsoever). And besides all this, where are the 'cops' and why doesn't someone call them. I can't believe this movie was financed by someone and made. You would think that by now the American people would be judged a little higher, at least in their movie-going experience, but not so by this filmmaker.$LABEL$ 0
+This film shows up on the premium cable channels quite often and, I find that I keep watching it over and over again. The performances are wonderful, and the material has so much happening that there is always something new to take away from the film.Maybe I am too often distracted when watching films at home, you know the drill, the dogs bark, the phone rings, the popcorn finishes during the credits. But this film is about people and what motivates us, what enlivens us, what causes rifts between us, and what inspires us.For me, it is films like The Love Letter that keep me taking a chance on new films. Frankly, I am surprised that the film is not better known. I would love to see Blythe Danner and Geraldine McEwan in many more roles. They are a delight to watch. Kate Capshaw is wonderful and I had no previous idea that she would be. Ellen DeGeneres plays a role that is much more complex than simply being the comic relief.This film provides interesting visuals as a proper background to the characters and their interactions. I find it refreshing every time I take the time to watch it.$LABEL$ 1
+As a child growing up in the Sydney of the 1950s, I can readily identify with the content of this fine film. Each week I visited the Wynyard Newsreel cinema on George Street to watch the Cinesound (and usually 3 Stooges) shorts. Never has there been a better blending of B/W and colour in a film. Faultless production values round off a never to be forgotten movie experience.$LABEL$ 1
+For me, "Late Chrysanthemums" was interesting not only because it was my first film of Naruse I completely enjoyed, but because it was technically as modern and innovative as his 30s work I've seen. This doesn't mean innovative editing in the way Godard would introduce it with "Breathless" in 1959, but quite the opposite.The editing was as fluent as in the best of Hollywood films from the 30s/40s, but at the same time incredibly fitting regarding the way he was telling his story. Unlike them, it never purposefully accentuated anything or tried to make itself "invisible" but, together with the cinematography, made me feel like I was traveling on a gentle stream, constantly feeling the waves beneath me, like a gentle stroke of the hand or the almost unnoticeable rocking of a cradle. In this sense the film was comparable to Ozu's and Mizoguchi's work, but somehow even more subtle.What was so modern was the fact that the editing seemed almost a character in itself, similar to the remarkable camera-work in Dreyer's Ordet (1954) or Vredens dag (1943) which is revealing us a deeper understanding of the film and its characters rather than simply showing them to us.I feel that Naruse's editing and cinematography are the most interesting aspects of his films, elevating the stories significance beyond the obvious. The wonderful sets and settings shouldn't be forgotten either! I found the story itself to be rather conventional.The narrative and its characters were introduced in a very interesting way, and I thought that the first half of the film was setting up a delicately ingenious spectrum of emotions and interrelations. Unfortunately the second half of the film and its resolution were rather didactic and and formulaic compared to the set up (though by itself it would have been perfectly fitting in any other - less complex - film). Somehow I felt that he failed a bit in trying to dissolve the many layers he had woven. Maybe he should have kept them intact. This criticism might seem a bit harsh to a viewer of this film, especially since the procedure is again reminiscent to the way Ozu dealt with the plot in his films. Unfortunately I haven't yet the feeling that Naruse was able to elevate the story and its characters in his films' conclusions in a similarly sublime fashion. The best efforts I have seen to date - Ukigumo (Floating Clouds / 1955) and Midaregumo (Scattered Clouds / 1967) - sustained the energy he had built throughout the narrative, while delivering poignant and resonant endings.This is already more than most director's are able to do, and in my opinion the basis for a real mastery of the cinematic medium. In this regard, and considering the resonance of the last two films I've seen by him, he may have already become one of my favorites.The only problem I have at the moment, is where I'm going to see more of his films on the big screen.$LABEL$ 1
+An interesting comedy, taking place on a train from Stockholm to Berlin, December 1945. One can't help to feel sorry for the poor writer/critic who quits his job and jumps on the train to Berlin. His ambition is to make a difference, and to participate in building the new unified Europe after the war has ended.I like the black and white format of the movie, as well as the closed scenery of a train in motion.Robert Gustafsson makes a classic "Gustafsson-role" in this movie. If you're a fan of him, this movie is for you!The philosopher Wittgenstein, through his saying "One can never assume that anything is what it seems to be", is referenced several times in the movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Can A-Pix ever, ever, ever do anything right? This movie was meant to be seen on TV in a letterbox format. Since A-Pix doesn't even believe in pan and scan, we see whole scenes where a shoulder on the left side of the screen talks to a shoulder on the right side. Of course, not that you are missing much. This movie is incredibly bad. It's very hard to enjoy a film where characters are screaming at the top of their lungs during 80% of the movie for no reason.$LABEL$ 0
+I really think that this movie is great, personally. But, in every movie there is a downer. Now, some of you may not have watched Hilary Duff's 'Raise Your Voice', but If you think about it, those two shows are very very similar, if you know what i mean. In 'Brave New Girl', Holly wants so bad to get into Haverty Conservatory. In 'Raise Your Voice', Terri wants to go to a conservatory in L.A.(don't remember the name of the conservatory there). They are both in the music field, and they both have to sing at the ending of the semester. It's really funny how these two films are alike. I personally like 'Brave New Girl' better than, 'Raise Your Voice' though.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm a bit conflicted over this. The show is on one hand awful, the acting is terrible (even when we get actual name actors like Brad Pitt and Bill Moseley in one episode), the dialogue is moronic and the premise/moral of each episode feels like something lifted out of a 50s educational short. There's no way you'll be scared for a moment from any of these episodes, and Robert Englund's cameos are short, pointless and corny in a sort of a Bob Saget on America's Funniest Home Videos kind of way.On the other hand this is one of the funniest things to ever be on television. The 80s fashions, the soft focus makes the actors look like their on the set of The View at all times, the premises lend the material more to self-parody than scares, so we're left with an episode where a high school kid is afraid if he fails his SAT's his girlfriend will dump him and his parents disown him, another is afraid she'll be locked up in prison because she's a substandard mom (her husband is played by Brad Pit), another is afraid that all the parents in the world are in league against him when he runs away from home, another is afraid she'll be confused with her socially-retarded twin, another is afraid if he doesn't break up his mom and step-dad he'll get killed for having a party at his house. The list goes on and on.Being that these are dreams I suppose you could look past the ludicrous plot points and devices, but they're so out of left field that there's no opportunities for the writers to actually scare the audience. You have characters dressed like something out of a 80s-themed nightmare wandering around delivering bad dialogue in very hammy fashion and making illogical decisions that serve no other purpose but to move the story to the next weird plot point (typically watching as a peripheral character does something uncharacteristic of a sane person while our main character stares aghast and too shocked to do anything about it).If you're looking for something that'll scare you stay away. If you're looking, on the other hand, for one of the funniest things to come out of the 80s ever. Watch it.Its been showing on Chiller TV lately (pretty much every day) and I've been watching, earlier out of morbid curiosity, and now just so I can get a good laugh in each day. With Arrested Development and Extras off the air this is officially the funniest thing on television right now.$LABEL$ 1
+Here's another movie that should be loaded into a satellite, fired into space and pointed in the direction of the galaxy Andromeda to show distant possible civilizations the best of humanity. This movie is so endearingly stupid and revealingly honest in being little more than a rip-off of the already bad movie classic KING KONG from 1976 that it not only manages to upstage that film in terms of sheer belly laugh idiotic goofiness, but successfully predicted much of Peter Jackson's miserable 2005 computer cartoon bearing the same name, as far as a "romance" between the giant (here a Yeti) and a gorgeous human female (Antonellina Interlenghi of Umberto Lenzi's CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD, who is very easy on the eyes).The film was made for kids so aside from some innuendo over fish bones and a bizarre nipple tweak to say goodbye you can forget about sex -- the Yeti even has a sort of giant jock strap to cover up his monstrous package, the result being even more amusing than anatomical correctness. But as a trade-off you DO get a wacky old scientist, two inquisitive kids, Tony Kendall in a rare turn as a duplicitous bastard of a villain, a helpful intelligent collie dog who gets to have her own adventure (Dog Adventure movies were big in Europe for a while) and of course emerges as the hero at the end for saving the Yeti, who turns out to be the good guy, glorious stuff like front end loaders decorated to look like giant ape hands, a monster who's size literally changes scale from shot to shot, some inappropriately horrible deaths that will make the carnage in GODZILLA VS THE SMOG MONSTER look tame by comparison, crowd reaction shots a-plenty made up of either Spanish, Italian or Canadian extras depending upon scene (you can sort of tell where they were shooting from how the extras are dressed), and some of the most enthusiastically staged but inept special effects work ever in a giant monkey movie.It's here that the film won me over: It's enthusiasm just for being made. Frank Kramer is actually the same Gianfranco Parolini who brought the world SARTANA in 1968 and GOD'S GUN the year before this & was a very important director in the Spaghetti Western and action/adventure genre film scene from the 1960's/1970's and by the time of YETI he was probably delighted to get the work. I would say that this is his most adventuresome movie ever, or rather the one he took the most chances with, and may have felt more comfortable taking those chances with the film aimed at kids & families. The movie has a kind of reckless abandon to the way it was made that renders the technical errors or inconsistencies totally meaningless. Or rather they are part of the fun, and if the movie had been played seriously it wouldn't have worked -- WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY PETER JACKSON'S MOVIE SUCKED. He forgot to have fun with the material and let it dictate the outcome using his army of stupid Power Macintosh pod people animators, and with all it's faults + clunkiness, Kramer's YETI is actually closer to the spirit of why we watch movies like this, which is partly to see actors in ape suits tearing apart miniature sets on sound stages, not seamlessly animated vapid hours of nothing other than hard drive space. I'd rank this up there with KING KONG VERSUS GODZILLA and IT! CURSE OF THE GREAT GOLEM as one of the most enjoyably improbable giant rampaging monster movies ever. Because the movie looks so "fake" you can get over the story and just have fun watching stuff get wrecked, trampled, tossed about and smashed. Knowing that and armed with a fertile, energetic enthusiasm for having the chance to make the movie, Parolini pulled out all the stops and delivers a full bodied adventure that might get a bit rough for some of the small tykes but is the first movie I will ever share with the grandkids someday when their stupid parents leave them with me for a weekend. This is stuff for the ages and one of the most telling expressions of humanity to ever be committed to celluloid.10/10, it's about ten minutes too long but who cares, you only come around once and I'd rather go out with a smile on my face.$LABEL$ 1
+"Balance of Terror" is still one of the best Star Trek episodes ever made. It was inspired by the film "Enemy Below" (starring Robert Mitchum), a movie that deals with a cat-and-mouse game between two captains during World War II. In this episode, Captain Kirk and his crew play similar game with a Romulan vessel. This is the program that famously introduces the war-hungry Romulans, who are distant relatives of the Vulcans. It is an incredibly suspenseful episode, tightly constructed for maximum effect. It is also interesting to see how the episode contains a series of subplots that add extra layers of meaning to the story. Mark Lenard makes his Star Trek debut as the Romulan Captain (he will later play Spock's father Ambassador Sarek). A must-see episode!$LABEL$ 1
+I've watched this movie a second time to try to figure out why it wasn't as successful (commercially or artistically) as it should have been, and discovered considerable artistic merit--which may ultimately have been its commercial undoing.First of all, this movie attempts "serious" science-fiction, social commentary, more than action-adventure. There is action in it, but that's not really what it's about. If you focus on that, you'll end up with (as others have noted) a bad "Aliens" clone. But, again, that's not what it's about.The movie is really about Todd's (Kurt Russell) transformation from human to near-machine and back to human (mostly *back*). But because it's not trying to give you a typically glib Hollywood style answer, Kurt Russell must make this transformation without speaking, and largely without broad expressions. And he really does a wonderful job--it can take two viewings to appreciate it.The surrounding "social logic" is flawed and it's never adequately explained whether Todd's ability to hold his own against an army of supposedly superior troops comes from his experience on the battlefield or his newfound human-ness or what, but the movie still makes a marvellous showcase for Russell's (easy to underestimate) talent.$LABEL$ 1
+"Crossfire" is remembered not so much for the fact that its three stars all had the first name "Robert" but as being one of the first Hollywood films to deal with anti-semitism.The story opens with the murder in silhouette of a man whom we later learn is a Jewish man named Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene). Pipe smoking police Captain Finlay (Robert Young) is assigned to the case. An ex-soldier, Montgomery (Robert Ryan) comes upon the murder scene and we learn through flashback that he had met Samuels in a bar along with other soldiers who were in the process of being mustered out of the service following WWII.According to Montgomery, he and pal Floyd Bowers (Steve Brodie) had followed Samuels and Cpl. Arthur Mitchell (George Cooper) to Samuels' apartment for drinks. Montgomery tells Finlay that Mitchell left the apartment first and that he and Floyd followed soon after with Samuels still alive and well.Unable to locate Mitchell, Finlay suspects him of the murder. He enlists Sgt. Peter Keeley (Robert Mitchum) to help him locate Mitchell. Mitchell meanwhile has been wondering the streets in a dazed state. He meets prostitute Ginny (Gloria Grahame) in a bar and strikes up a friendship. She gives him a key to her apartment and he goes there to rest. Unexpectedly a man (Paul Kelly) turns up looking for Ginny. Mitchell, still in a daze, leaves and goes back to meet Keeley and his pals. Keeley manages to keep him from the police and hides him in an all night movie house.From Mitchell's perspective we learn that Montgomery hates jews and is probably the killer. Finlay begins to focus his investigation on Montgomery trying to prove his guilt. He arrangers to have one of the soldiers, a kid named Leroy (William Phipps) set a trap for Mongomery."Crossfire" is considered to be one of the best of the "film noire" genre. In fact it garnered several Academy Award nominations including Ryan and Grahame for best supporting actors. It was made on a modest budget in about three weeks.It has all of the elements of classic "film noire", the shadows, low key lighting and the story playing out mostly at night. The requisite "femme fatale" of the piece is Grahame's Ginny who plays a minor role but is nonetheless your classic "femme fatale". The unnamed character played by Paul Kelly (in an excellent bit) has been chewed up and spit out by Ginny and was she about to do the same to Mitchell?Robert Ryan steals the picture as the brutal Montgomery although it would type cast him in similar roles for years to come. Robert Young makes a good low key detective but Robert Mitchum has little to do other than befriend the Mitchell character. Others in the cast are Jacqueline White as Mitchell's wife, Lex Barker (who would go on the following year to play "Tarzan") as one of Mitchum's soldier pals and Richard Powers (who was previously known as Tom Keene) as Finlay's assistant.Director Edward Dmytryk would shortly run afoul of The House Un-American Committee as having communist affiliations and spend a couple of years in jail.$LABEL$ 1
+Having not seen this film in about 20 years I am still impressed with it 's hard -hitting impact and stellar acting. Of course, one Mr. Mickey Rooney is indeed, INCREDIBLE in his role as the ring-leading "Killer".(In reference to another review here-none other than Orson Welles evoked Mickey Rooney's name as the greatest movie actor,also.) I also recall the jazzy-brassy score and the bare black and white photography. I love the Mick's last line before he goes out for his dose of lead poisoning.(I think the Stranglers lifted it for a line in one of their songs-Get a Grip on Yourself.)This is a great film and unjustly buried film. Let's get it out ! Side note-a recent Film Review magazine gave a big write up on Don Segal's "Babyface Nelson" ,made a couple years before "Last Mile" and also starring Mickey Rooney. Another rave of the Mick's intense and sympathetic performance.Perhaps it's the start of a groundswell of a appreciation for some truly superior cinematic performances.$LABEL$ 1
+The opening credits are pure poetry and I have watched it several times. It had a corny 20's adventure feel to it. Of course Kathy is gorgeous, but that voice! Did she realize this was a talkie. One word--voice coach. Great film for chronic insomnia (along with a bottle of scotch).$LABEL$ 0
+Ivan Reitman is something of a savior. The most tired plots (Ghostbusters, Evolution) come to life in his skilled hands. Even his occasional flop (Six Days, Seven Nights) show signs of life and humor that make it worth viewing. So I was disappointed that Reitman could not take a fairly original plot (man dumps superhero, superhero gets superpower-fueled revenge), and shape it into something enjoyable. "Girlfriend" is an exercise in pointlessness. The one-trick pony plot is long in the tooth after the first 20 minutes. The film can't decide whether to be romantic comedy or superhero drama. The result is a film the flip-flops between both, with neither aspect being very well done. Uma Thurman is tops, as usual, and Luke Wilson pulls off his role too, though his slacker antics quickly grow tired. What's even more maddening is that, in certain scenes (such as when a very turned on Uma knocks a headboard through a wall), you sense a witty, raucous Reitman opus practically screaming to get out. But seconds later, the magic is lost, gone as quick as the superheroine whose movies disappoints in almost every way.$LABEL$ 0
+I don't know about the rest of the viewers of this movie but personally I'm dead sick and tired of Steven Seagal films. When Above the Law came out, it was a great action film. Wahoo. Now in the Patriot, Steven Seagal plays Steven Seagal from Above the Law. I get tired of seeing no character changes. It's the same character, time after time, after time. He needs change. This movie was probably one of the worst action films I have ever seen. Calling it an action movie is giving it almost too much credit because there's too few action scenes and they're spread far apart throughout the film. I guess they wanted to go for some drama but it was a meaningless try as the film portrays nothing but the regular squinty-eyed-Steven-Seagal we've seen thousands of times over. Get a new look and lose the pony tail is all I have to say, I definitely do not recommend viewing this film in any form, go out to eat, heck, rent Barney goes to Vegas but do not under any circumstances rent this movie under the precept that Seagal will make a great performance.$LABEL$ 0
+I didn't have HUGE expectations for this film when renting it for $1 at the video store, but the box at least showed a little promise with its "killer cut" of "more gore! more sex!" Can't go wrong there! Well... needless to say, the box is a fraud. How in the hades did actors and actresses of this caliber sign on for a film this low?It all opens with a drunken college girl walking out of a frat house or some other building like that and saying some useless crap to her boyfriend (?) as a camera on a bad steadicam follows her. Then she gets chased by some dude in a clear plastic mask and grabbed by another. They slit her wrists for no real reason and you can see when they "cut" her that someone drew the cuts with what looks like a crayon.From there, repeat the same theme of the girl getting chased/killed unbrutally by two guys for about 84 more minutes. Add in one tit shot. That is Soul Survivors.I wouldn't have had a problem with this film had the box not frauded me into renting the flick. If I rent a bad film that claims to have more violence and sex.... I want more violence and sex! One full frontal shot in 85 minutes from a chick who is clearly androginous and gore that would not scare a child does not cut it. If this is the Killer Cut, what is the Theatrical Cut?! Of course, I doubt this garbage was actually put into theaters in the first place. Shame on the actors in this film. I could see them making their screen debuts in here because they have not done anything before, but they were all established before this was released. I don't know if it was filmed before they had all been established and the studio sat on the film until they were semi-big names or not. But what i want to know is.... they really spent $14 million on this film?!$LABEL$ 0
+I remember watching "Gung Ho" as a child with my mother, and wondered why she would always cry in the last few minutes. I, of course, found the entire movie hilarious, particularly the mannerisms of the characters. It wasn't until I was much older and watched it again that I realized how much deeper this show actually is.Michael Keaton and Gedde Watanabe shine in their roles as the reluctant mediators. Keaton ceases to amaze me with his real-life style of line delivery, and Watanabe adds humor and pathos to the mix. I also thought that Patti Yasutake (Umeki) was simply fabulous in her role as the comic relief.I think this movie is one of the most underrated films of the 80s. We can all learn a lesson from the merging of the American and Japanese workers in this film...sometimes you really *can* have "the best of both worlds." And now I understand why my mother felt the way she did in those closing moments. I'd rather have one of those cars, too.$LABEL$ 1
+Not really worth a review, but I suppose it's my duty to warn you all - especially since there are some pretty good reviews of this Canadian bomb floating around out there... Bad acting and a slow moving, absolutely atrociously boring 'coming of age' tale in which 3 boys lives are turned upside down when a man on the run shows up at their clubhouse in the woods. At firs the boys make good with the intruder and at one point even view him as some sort of a role model... However all this changes... and you still won't care. You will recognize Chris Penn, whose biggest cinematic impact is Corky Romano, and a young Devon Sawa, whose career peaked at 'Casper'. I was hoping for a '12 and Holding', 'The War', or 'Lie' and all I got was a waste of time. This film struggles to keep it's audiences attention and never makes an impact or maintains a note of anything remotely interesting.$LABEL$ 0
+if you're a fan of the original ten commandments, this movie will make you weep inside. granted, i'm only about 1/2 hour into it currently, but it's so painful, i felt it was my duty to warn away real ten commandments fans before they are subjected to this bastardization. i didn't think it was possible to actually make the special effects worse than they were in 1950s when the original was shot, but this 2006 remake proves me wrong. i can forgive some lame special effects, but the craptastic dialogue, melodramatic lifetime movie-style schlockiness, and the stilted we-are-wax-figures-come-to-life acting makes me hope they'll rewrite the plot and drown moses in the red sea.$LABEL$ 0
+I'd always wanted David Duchovney to go into the movie business, and finally he did, and he made me proud. This movie lived up to what I had hoped for. Duchovney played his character very well, managing to remain consistent with something new, instead of playing the Agent Molder we are used to. Therefore, I give him extra credit for his role, also because I could not see anyone else playing that particular character. David was great, but nothing compared to the psychotic Timothy Hutton. A brilliant performance that you don't get tired of throughout the movie, because he never fails to surprise you. He has weaknesses, and strengths, making the story all the more believable. I also very much enjoyed the narration, it added to the story a good deal, and had some very memorable quotes that i still use to all the time. This movie also had a wounderfull score. I recomend this for anyone who likes drama, and doesn't mind blood.$LABEL$ 1
+SUcks. That's all I got to say about this sorry excuse for a film. Sucks. Sucks. Sucks. I mean, what the hell were they thinking? The idiots involved should never be allowed to make another films. The acting was so bad that it even failed to entertain on a bad level. The attempt at a "lesbian scene" was sad. I felt so bad for the ladies involved. This movie sucks! Sucks! Sucks!I heard rumors of a sequel.GodHelpUsAll$LABEL$ 0
+Made and released at the time when the internet was just becoming huge, this is a storyline Hitchcock would have loved.Sadly, Hitchcock wasn't around to make it, and we're left with an occasionally suspenseful but mostly silly thriller, that is held (barely) together by Bullock's intelligence.It was released in 1995 but is already dated, and the amount of mistakes and inaccuaracies regarding computers must be seen to be believed, and you don't even have to be a dot.com person to spot them!$LABEL$ 0
+Normally BBC productions of Jane Austen are pretty good but Northanger Abbey is just odd. What were they thinking? This film has little of Austen's charm and ironically mimics the Gothic novels that Austen so wonderfully mocked. Not only that, the "gothic" sequences are tacky, over-the-top, and frankly silly. The actress playing Miss Morland is poorly cast with no obvious appeal to attract the attentions of an eligible bachelor, and though I rather liked the creepy Peter Firth as Mr. Tilney, he is not a bit like the novel, even when delivering dialog straight out of the book. Robert Hardy as General Tilney turned in one of his few terribly "ham" performances. This film was so bizarre and strange that I actually watched it again just to savor how freakishly wrong it was.$LABEL$ 0
+I love this film 'Spring and port wine'. I was born in Leigh, a town about 7 miles away from Bolton, I moved to Bolton in 1965 when I was 20. My place of work was daily via Little Lever through Farnworth, sometimes on a bike but then by car when I could afford it.The film brings back all the memories of the working class neighbors who were almost always broke but who would always help you if they could. Fred Dibnah was round the corner from Bromwich St. were my bedsit was. If you didn't see the film when first released then you may be forgiven for comparing it to a soap such as Coronation St, well I agree it is a soap, but then, it was called 'Kitchen Sink Drama!' Watch this film for the talented cast who shortly afterwards became household names from frequent roles on TV, I watch mainly for the shots of the locality and the feel good factor of people being poor but happy!$LABEL$ 1
+"People stranded in a country house during a storm discover that the home was the sight of an unsolved murder years before. During a dinner discussion of the incident, the lights go out and, when they come back on, they discover that one of the guests has been killed. Fearing for their lives, the guests attempt to find out the secrets behind the death before others can occur," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.There are a couple of clever twists in this murder at the "Old Dark House" story, with the "Play within a Play" being its most interesting feature. However, the direction is rather ordinary, which serves to highlight a certain cheapness of production. Like most movies of this type, there is (or, should be) an ensemble of intriguing characters. Herein, only old-time Broadway producer Richard Carle (as Herman Wood) and his fey secretary Johnny Arthur (as Homer Erskine) maintain interest.**** The Ghost Walks (12/1/34) Frank R. Strayer ~ Richard Carle, Johnny Arthur, John Miljan$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is a gay love story disguised as a tale of graffiti and friendship. Not ONE review described this movie as a gay romance film, and that's the weight of the plot. I don't know if this was to trick people that would otherwise be uninterested to sit through it, expecting the film to be as it was marketed... The film is out of touch with graffiti culture, abuses and defames graffiti culture, and the acting is abysmal. Oh yeah, the graffiti sucks too. This movie was a clever way to hide the agenda of portraying young boys getting gay. Just look at the rest of the movies the director's been involved with, all contain the same subject matter. Boring as hell, not what I expected.$LABEL$ 0
+If you read the book by Carl Hiaasen, the movie follows pretty much true to form, with a few minor changes for Hollywood. In my opinion this is a great family movie. Luke Wilson (Officer Delinko)pretty well steals the show from an all-star cast that includes Robert Wagner and Jimmy Buffet. The kids in the movie do a great job led by Logan Lerman, Brie Larson, and Cody Linley.Brie Larson is maybe a little too petite to play Beatrice. I pictured a bigger girl, maybe 6 foot, 175 lbs, in the role of Beatrice. This might have made her more believable in her role of beating up Dana. They should have developed her "tough girl" character more, and had her bite through a tire, or kick a soccer ball through a person. She is very pretty, and I understand why she was cast, she is a box office attraction.This is about as PG as a movie gets these days, no sex, and very little violence. This movie is a parents'dream come true, a movie with a strong environmental message, with kids that have deep appreciation for the beauty of Florida and its wildlife. It shows how adults have fallen short in the stewardship of our planet, and that our children can demand better. One of my favorite lines in the movie is when Mullet Fingers says, "Florida could use some mountains like Montana. Florida is so flat there is nothing to stop developers from clearing it coast to coast". Also, the photography of Florida wildlife spoke volumes without dialog. As a family movie with kids ages 5-15, this is a great movie! As a bonus parents' will be entertained, especially if they're "parrotheads".$LABEL$ 1
+Only saw this movie late last night. I remember the hype of it's release and to be honest had I viewed it back then I maybe wouldn't have been so generous. I hate hype, it can ruin a movie. I think the movie glossed over the characters and put too much emphasis on Woody. He was good too - although kept wondering if he was stoned the whole time. It never went too deep. Redford was dark but not too dark and his character let me down in the end. To me he should have been more confrontational with Demi - throwing her out perhaps or telling her that she was paid for. After all he would have investigated them before he made the proposal - that's not shown in the movie, but no one in his perceived position would have made an offer to just anyone. He was cruel to the point of breaking them up and the last straw was the house and yet Demi fell for him? The passages giving an insight to Demi and Woody's relationship were the best part of the movie. There was a keen deepness that outshone the shallowness of John Gages character. He really could have been a lot stronger and as other people have alluded I think the movies draw-card was Redford and they didn't want tarnish his "image". I say what the hell Robert was old in this movie! Woody and Demi's characters were naive in a sense, but I think that was very intentional to draw you to their plight and champion their decision. But the reality is, they were losing their dream home and where did they go? Las Vegas? to gamble what little they had left and then accept a proposal from an insanely rich billionaire. I found their naivety when Redford was seducing them a little too unrealistic. The movie could have been so much more and other actors would have made a difference, but having said that on late night TV - it was enjoyable and I if you don't think too much - also palatable$LABEL$ 0
+I have always been a fan of the show so I'll admit that I am biased. When the show's run ended, I felt like too many questions remained unanswered. This movie to me felt like closure. To see all the people I'd followed over the past few years together at last was most rewarding. I have heard that this is probably the only Homicide movie that we can expect. If that is so, this is the appropriate way to go out. This movie is sometimes poignant, sometimes upsetting, but always satisfying. If you are or ever have been a fan of the show, watch this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Korean cinema has the ability to turn genres on its head, and the latest by the celebrated director Chan-wook Park is a tale of a good pious priest who becomes a vampire. Add a temptress leading him astray and a cast of eccentrics and you have a wonderful recipe.Directed in part in a style similar to the "Sympathy" trilogy it's as sumptuous as it is dark. Steering clear of cliché it does offer some new tricks in the overdone vampire genre. Its an existential movie trying to capture the moral conundrum of how exactly a person has to choose to live with their conditions rather than revel in the blood lust. However, the film doesn't take itself too seriously and there is boundless humour throughout.Our leads play their roles to perfection, playing with our emotions and revelling in the dark humour. There are moments of reflection on the whole moral conundrums involved in the film but its never preachy. Some might find it overlong and it can lull at points but it's worth giving it a chance to the end.If you like left field films then there are fewer better than this one of late. Dark and engrossing, it will pull in a crowd. One I'd recommend you give a try.$LABEL$ 1
+The daughter's words are poetry: "I can't go on another year. I got to get to a hotel room." "I lost my blue scarf in a sea of leaves." "The marble faun is moving in...he just gave us a washing machine. That's the deal." "I'm pulverized by this latest thing." "..raccoons and cats become a little bit boring for too long a time." "..any little rat's nest, mouse hole I'd like better." And there is wisdom in the mother's words: "...yes the pleasure is all mine." "This little book will keep me straight, straight as a dye." "Always one must do everything correctly." "Where the hell did you come from?" "...bring me my little radio I've got to have some professional music." "I'm your mother. Remember me?" The mother/daughter relationship is drawn in this magnificent film. This is a Mother's day film.$LABEL$ 1
+I quite enjoyed this movie for two reasons. The first is that it gives an insight into the world of loyalism in northern ireland, which is very rarely treated in movies, most of which tell us about the republican struggle. The second reason is the performances of the actors. I thought they gave very honest and convincing portrayals of a very seedy underworld that not many people hear about outside my native shores.All in all, it is an entertaining ganster movie with stellar performances from a who's who in northern irish actors cast. It wont move the earth, although it may slightly open some peoples eyes to the murky world of loyalist paramilitaries.$LABEL$ 1
+Lesbian vampire film about a couple on holiday who are staying on the grounds of what they think is an empty manor house but is really being used as a pair of lesbian vampires. As the vampires bring in the occasional victim the couple go about their business until the two groups come crashing together.Great looking film with two very sexy women as the vampires there is nothing beyond the eye candy that they provide to recommend this cult film. Yes its a sexy vampire story. No it is not remotely interesting beyond the women. To be honest there is a reason that I've been seeing stills of this film in horror books and magazines it looks great, but other than that...For those who want to see sexy vampires only.$LABEL$ 0
+As far as I can tell you, in spite of earlier comments posted by other commentors, this film IS currently available on DVD. I found it only a few weeks ago.It is on the Value DVD label and I paid the grand total of 98 cents plus tax for it. I found it at a 98 cent store among racks of plastic bowls and disposable chopsticks. Now don't you people who shelled out beau coup bucks for the super-duper Swedish import limited edition version feel like you were had??? I thought so.This film was indeed well worth 98 cents. 99 cents, I might start to argue with you. But clearly worth 98 cents. And remember that saying about getting what you pay for. For slasher film mavens only.$LABEL$ 0
+"The Tenant" is Roman Polanski's greatest film IMO. And I love "Chinatown", but this one is so much more original and unconventional and downright creepy. It's also a great black comedy. Some people I have shown this film to have been *very disturbed* by it afterwards so be forewarned it does affect some people that way. Polanski does a great job acting the lead role in "The Tenant" as well as directing it.$LABEL$ 1
+"Direct-to-video" is a phrase that never sounds promising to the consumer unless its a direct-to-video sequel to something that went direct-to-video in the first place. Despite this, studios have insisted on releasing numerous direct-to-video sequels over the years to cult hits. I don't think it even needs to be mentioned that these sequels rank among some of the worst titles of all time, including THE HITCHER II, STARSHIP TROOPERS 2, and CRUEL INTENTIONS 3. It's fitting that ROAD HOUSE 2 was helmed by Scott Ziehl as he was also the man in charge of ruining the Cruel Intentions series. Like his entry in the Cruel Intentions trilogy, Ziehl takes elements that made the first ROAD HOUSE a great guy flick, and rehashes them with no success whatsoever. This is no sequel, this is a remake all the way. Various lines from the original are repeated, plot points cut and pasted, and scenes are replicated almost shot-for-shot from the first one. The one thing that could not be duplicated were the amazing fight scenes, which made ROAD HOUSE what it was. Here, we get clumsily directed fight sequences that are either too short or too long and seemingly planned out and shot within an hour. Compare that with its predecessor's fight scenes that look like they took months and months to prepare. Ziehl is capable of directing action as he did well with the 2001 remake of EARTH VS. THE SPIDER, but none of the talent shown there comes through in this mess. It's not completely his fault, as the screenplay is very, very poorly written and clunky. I don't care if something goes direct-to-video, a good script is still required. Someone should keep that mind while continuously churning these low-budget, direct-to-DVD movies out. Skip it entirely. 1/10$LABEL$ 0
+I was in second grade, 12 years ago. I remember it clearly. We were learning about space. All little kids want to go to space, right? Well, after I saw this, I was so scared to death that I would 'accidentally' get flung into space by some psychotic robot with a one track mind. I had no idea that this was a movie. I thought it was some news program or something. I guess it was my own version of when people were freaked out by the radio program 'War of the Worlds.' So, recently, I get this movie again to watch, realizing my favorite actor, Joaquin Phoenix was in it (then known as Leaf Phoenix). I can tell you, I was laughing at the dramatic parts and laughing even harder at the acting. I mean, when Andy is in space, she moves in slow motion, did you ever notice that? I don't think being in space makes you talk that slow or think that slow.The best part is when Andy is knocked unconscious by the oxygen tank, and begins to float backwards as the security doors close. Little Max is trying to pull her in. Suddenly, we get a major close up on Max's face as he shouts (in slow motion) "Whaaaaatttt'ssss happpeniiiinngggg?!?!?" I had no idea.$LABEL$ 0
+A group of hunters track down a werewolf, kill it, decapitate it and then sell the head to unethical Dr. Atwill (played by director/writer Tim Sullivan), who runs a private clinic specializing in corneal transplants. Research chemist Rich Stevens (Mark Sawyer), whose eyes were destroyed when acid flew into his face during a lab explosion, is the unlucky recipient of the werewolf's eyeballs. It takes awhile to get to the first full moon, so first we get a tender love story between Rich and his compassionate, big-breasted nurse Sondra Gard (Stephanie Beaton). Sondra is so compassionate that she strips off her clothing and starts riding Rich in bed before he even has a chance to remove his bandages! After a month in the hospital, Rich returns home to icy wife Rita (Deborah Huber), who promptly tells him "You look pretty ugly" before speeding off in her Kia. Our hero soon discovers that Rita is not only a bitch, but an adulterous skank who's been carrying on an affair with his supposed friend Craig (Lyndon Johnson). Finally, the full moon rises and Rich finds himself in a hairy predicament as he transforms into a (very silly looking) werewolf creature. Predictable carnage ensues.After ripping out Craig's throat on a beach, Rich wakes up in the brush the next morning with his clothes tattered and vague recollections of the evening's events. He makes friends with dwarf psychic/occult expert Andros (Kurt Levi) and is hassled by both local author Siodmak (Jason Clark) and lesbian-police-detective-in-a-pants-suit Justine Evers (Tarri Markel). When Rich confronts Dr. Atwill, the doctor sends his sadistic bald henchman Kass (Eric Mestressat), who gets a kick out of dismembering corpses with a machete at the clinic, after him. With help from Sondra, Rich manages to escape. Sondra takes him back to her place and basically rapes him on the couch during an overlong sex scene that lasts about five minutes. Will Rich be able to control his lycanthropy or find a cure for it before he claims more victims? Shot on the cheap with a camcorder, this homemade werewolf flick has a somewhat unique premise with the eye transplant angle, but trots out cliché after cliché otherwise. The sets are sub porn level - the clinic scenes seem to have been filmed inside someone's home or apartment. The wolf transformation scenes don't even look as good as the time lapse photography used way back in the 1940s. Instead, they employ ragged editing. Throw some hair on the actor. Cut. Throw on some more on. Cut. More fur... and fill his mouth full of white gunk he can spit out. Cut. No need to worry about continuity! There's no fade, no dissolve, nothing. It's pretty sloppy. Once fully transformed, the werewolf costume (designed by Jeff Leroy, who also edited and shot the movie) is pretty awful. It has red, glowing Christmas bulb eyes, fur that looks like shag carpet and a plastic face that's almost completely immobile. There are several times you can see the cameraman's fingers in front of the camera lens, and does the moon really stay full five nights in a row? As far as the cast is concerned, they're amateurish, but tolerable. And as far as B horror flicks are concerned, there are worse out there. This one is paced fairly well, is only 70 minutes long and does provide plenty of the red stuff during the attack scenes, as well as the aforementioned T&A from Ms. Beaton.It was produced by David S. Sterling (CAMP BLOOD), who was one of the first to ride the wave of digital video right when it was first starting to dominate the low-budget/independent horror genre scene back in the mid/late 90s. Many of his notoriously awful productions were released by Brain Damage Films, a label to avoid like the plague for the most part. Fx guy Jeff Leroy (who is listed as co-director here at IMDb, but not in the film's actual credits) and Vinnie Bilancio (who appears in a small role as one of the hunters) went on to make the much more fun and polished exploitation flick WEREWOLF IN A WOMEN'S PRISON in 2006, which had a similar-looking creature on display (red glowing eyes and all).$LABEL$ 0
+Across the country and especially in the political landscape, people with any kind of political ambition, should take time out to see this film. The movie is called " City Hall " and with little imagination, its synopsis can take place anywhere in America. It just so happens to open in New York. Here we have the story of a popular politician named Mayor John Pappas (Al Pacino) with enough savvy to run a major metropolitan city with very little effort. His right-hand man is none other than Deputy Mayor Kevin Calhoun (John Cusack) an equally bright individual who's ambitions are tied to his mentor and both seemed destined for higher office. Everything points in that direction, until a police shooting ignites an investigation spearheaded by Marybeth Cogan (Bridget Fonda) who believes the guilt points towards city hall and the mayor. A six year old boy and a police officer's death are blamed on a career criminal who's questionable freedom leads to an apparent cover-up by political pay-offs and city corruption involving union leaders like Danny Aiello played by Frank Anselmo, corrupt judicial officials like Judge Walter Stern. (Martin Landau) and mafia bosses like Paul Zapatti (Anthony Franciosa) who are deeply involved. Also implicated, are party officials like Larry Schwartz (Richard Schiff) who works for the probation office of New York. But it is the bond between the mayor and his deputy which is taken to task by the accidental shooting. A great vehicle for Cusack and a sure bet nominee to become a classic. ****$LABEL$ 1
+I am a big fan of Stephen King's work, and this film has made me an even greater fan of King. Pet Sematary is about the Creed family. They have just moved into a new house, and they seem happy. But there is a pet cemetery behind their house. The Creed's new neighbor Jud (played by Fred Gwyne) explains the burial ground behind the pet cemetery. That burial ground is pure evil. Jud tells Louis Creed that when you bury a human being (or any kind of pet) up in the burial ground, they would come back to life. The only problem, is that when they come back, they are NOT the same person, they're evil. Soon after Jud explains everything about the Pet Sematary, everything starts to go to hell. I wont explain anymore because I don't want to give away some of the main parts in the film. The acting that Pet Sematary had was pretty good, but needed a little bit of work. The story was one of the main parts of this movie, mainly because it was so original and gripping. This film features lots of make-up effects that make the movie way more eerie, and frightening. One of the most basic reasons why this movie sent chills up my back, was in fact the make-up effects. There is one character in this film that is truly freaky. That character is "Zelda." This particular character pops up in the film about three times to be precise. Zelda is Rachel Creed's sister who passed away years before, but Rachel is still haunted by her. The first time Zelda appears in the movie isn't generally scary because she isn't talking or anything, but the second time is the worst, and to be honest, the second time scares the living **** out of me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this movie, it is almost perfect. Pet Sematary delivers great scares, some pretty good acting, first rate plot, and mesmerizing make-up. This is truly one of most favorite horror films of all time. 10 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+I just saw it at an advance screening I haven't read the book, but heard many good things about it.The movie was absolutely fantastic, very moving. With a roller coaster of emotions you totally connect with the characters. Shaun Toub was great, it was a complete departure from his usual roles, and his acting for those who understand Persian/Dari was incredible.One thing to notes it that Khaled Hosseini actually loved the film which is unusual for book adaptation movies. Even after seeing the movie several times "he was sobbing".Also the animation from the intro was exquisite, with names displayed as if it were Persian calligraphy, very unique! At times the translation was not clearly conveying the message efficiently, but all in all this was a great movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Anton Newcombe makes the film and he is the main subject. Watching him knock up a song if not a whole album quickly showed the guy to be a real talent. He thinks he is god but is so prollific and interesting. The DW are not really that interesting in comparison musicly or otherwise. "Hey, do you haver a drivers license?" ,Anton says to the cameraman, "Well lets go pawn this guitar!". Great use of archive/ home video material. Great to see rock docs still being made. A cool doc about the creative process. If you like this go see Nirvana Live! Tonight! Sold Out! on DVD. A good experience Anton is this film. 8 out of 10$LABEL$ 1
+I must admit, when I first began watching this film I had no clue what was going on. So the beginning was a bit confusing for me. However, that did not diminish my enjoyment of the movie. The characters reveal themselves to be more complex than they may first appear, and that is what makes this a memorable film. At first I heard this was a real "Hollywood" movie. Although it obviously lacks the stereotypical "guns and fists" element, the convincing performances of talented actors such as Martin Sheen and Sam Neill more than make up for it. I'd rather see a film with more substance than shooting any day.$LABEL$ 1
+Loaded with fine actors, I expected much more from "Deceiver" than was delivered. The plot is extremely contrived and manipulative. The many flashbacks only add to the confusion. Believability flies out the window and with the ending becomes unbearable and downright ridiculous. I would strongly advise anyone who likes their movie plots to be based on something that is at least possible to avoid "Deceiver" because you will be very frustrated. Maybe I am just not hip enough to get it, but my suspicion is that many others were totally confused by the story line and especially by the ending. Blurring the line between reality and lies simply does not work because the entire movie made no sense. - MERK$LABEL$ 0
+Hercules: The TV- Movie Hercules - A very twisted and molted version of the story about the Greek superhero. Paul Telfer makes a good attempt to play this hero. Sean Astin rehashes his Sam Gamgee image by playing Lupin, a thrown in character to make the whole thing a buddy-movie picture. I almost expected his to say at one point "We're in a bad situation Mr. Frodo, uh I mean Hercules. An unexpected good performance comes from Timothy Dalton (one of the lesser James Bonds) as Hercules's father. Herucles's love interest looks like Paris Hilton, something which just turned me off right away. Unfourtunetly someone has twisted and molted the original story into somewhat of a murky and sometimes incomprehensible story. The special effects don't help either. While the Hydra scene does the original story justice, the Nemean Lion and Harpies are just....well lame. I believe the creatures and effects from Power Rangers flashed across my mind at least twice. And the Golden Hind felt rushed and very computer generated. And they took out Cerberus! One of my favorite parts of what was originally a very cool story. The movie can't decide whether it's Greek, Roman, or American. And it almost ruined the original story; a classic epic. Don't bother looking for this one on the direct to DVD. - C$LABEL$ 0
+This one is a cut above the usual softcore T&A, with the spirit of a dead actress returning to claim the film role she believes is rightfully hers, and using the body of an aspiring young actress to do so.As always, the gorgeously sexy Amber Newman the is main attraction; her sensuous presence overshadows the mildly attractive, Shauna O'BrienPlot: *1/2 out of ****Sex/nudity: *** out of ****$LABEL$ 0
+I don't know what the Oscar voters saw in this movie, but they must of seen some pretty hard stuff to see in it to be able to award it with the best picture Oscar. All I know is that fortunately there was Gene Kelly to play in it or this would have been twice as bad as I believe it is. First of all, I don't think Leslie Caron was really fit to play such a role. She isn't that talented, she isn't a great dancer and she's not good looking at all. It's a shame that one actor or actress may ruin a movie just like by playing in it because if Leslie Caron hadn't been in this, it might have made a terrific movie. The story was intelligent, the directing wasn't bad, and, as I said, Gene Kelly was pretty good. Now I'm not saying all this stuff about Leslie Caron just to criticize her, I'm just saying it because I think that's what the worse part of the movie is. She's probably a good actress but I can't tell because I haven't seen her in anything else but I think she was pretty bad in "An American in Paris". So if you want to see it, go ahead but I'm telling you, you're way better off watching "Singin' in the rain".$LABEL$ 0
+Graphically, it is the same game as the first one just different levels and some new features added for fun.The PS1 version still has an issue with giving skaters enough air for some ground tricks. The Dreamcast version, which is rarely seen anymore, was the best version of the 4 versions (Xbox eventually came out with a 5th with 2x), it had the clearer resolution and the skaters looked better and more detailed the PS1 and N64 could handle.The levels are really amazingly done, from start to finish, like the first one, the school was my favorite, i enjoyed that level so much, not only for the golf cart that would sometimes run you over but for the length. That's what i liked about the first two games, they don't make these games graphically enhanced, they just focused on length of levels, which is cool.Overall, just as good as the first one, and well worth playing.$LABEL$ 1
+Yes, the first "Howling" was a classic. A rather good werewolf movie that I admit started slowly, but gained momentum along the way to have a rather good finish then the anchorwoman changed into a cute werewolf only to be gunned down on camera. Yes that made for an entertaining horror movie to be sure...well forget all of that as this movie has nothing to do with that film. Oh sure, they kind of make it out that the anchor woman is the same and that her brother or something is wanting to find out what and why things went down as they did, but they go from the little cozy retreat from the first movie to Transylvania or somewhere here where they must battle evil magician werewolves or something. I often wonder what in the world Christopher Lee was doing in this movie, however I read the trivia here where it says he had never been in a werewolf movie before, but still read the script before you take a role. Maybe you could have gotten into "An American Werewolf in London" hell that could have been possible. It was set in London after all. Heck, werewolves do not seem to figure much into this movie except for a rather bizarre and prolonged sex scene. In fact, the most memorable death in this movie for me was when the one gal started talking loudly and this one dude's ear's started bleeding.$LABEL$ 0
+First, I rated this movie 10/10. To me, it's simply one of the best I saw since I was born (I'm 23, but I saw numerous films). The story is cruel, but reality is, too, not ? It went deep into me and stirred my bowels. I saw it about 5 or 6 years ago and it still shakes me - and I still remember it !Second, there is no 'national preference' (this expression is a direct translation from the French) for this movie. I mean it's not because it is a French movie that I put it so high : it has really caught me when I saw it. Furthermore, I don't know well Marcel Carne's filmography, so I don't know if it is or not his best movie, but I know it is not his most famous : Hotel du Nord, Quai des Brumes and Les Enfants du Paradis are the most famous.Third, the movie's in B&W, but it deals with inter-temporal problems of youth (not acne) like love, friends and studies in a modern way. It could even be remade frame-by-frame with actual young actors, a Dolby(tm) sound and special effects (a car crash), it would still be a great film !Problem : Maybe is it a film to be seen by young adults (from 16 to 25 years old) - and above, of course - for its message to be well understood... Did I say it was a great movie ?$LABEL$ 1
+The movie starts with a pair of campers, a man and a woman presumably together, hiking alone in the vast wilderness. Sure enough the man hears something and it pangs him so much he goes to investigate it. Our killer greets him with a stab to the stomach. He then chases the girl and slashes her throat. The camera during the opening scene is from the point of view as the killer.We next meet our four main characters, two couples, one in which is on the rocks. The men joke about how the woman would never be able to handle camping alone at a double date, sparking the token blonde's ambition to leave a week early. Unexpectedly, the men leave the same day and their car breaks down.. They end up arriving in the evening. When the men arrive, they are warned about people disappearing in the forest by a crazy Ralph doppleganger. They ignore the warning and venture into the blackening night and an eighties song plays in the background with lyrics about being murdered in the dark forest. The men get lost.In the next scene we realize that this isn't just another The Burning clone, but a ghost story! The women, scared and lonely are huddling together by the fire. Two children appear in the shadows and decide to play peeping Tom. Well they are obviously ghosts by the way their voices echo! Their mother appears with blood dripping from a hole in her forehead and asks the two ladies if they've seen her children, before disappearing of course. The children run home to papa and tell him about the two beautiful ladies by the river. This causes quite a stir and he gets up, grabbing his knife from atop the fireplace. "Daddy's going hunting," The little girl, exclaims with bad acting. It is apparent here, that the dad isn't a ghost like his children.Freaked out by something in the woods, the token blonde splits, running blindly into the night, carrying a knife. She encounters the father who explains he's starving and it will be quick. This doesn't make sense because of the panther growls we heard earlier (Maybe he's allergic! Are panthers honestly even in California?) She ends up wounding him slightly before getting stabbed in the head. A thunderstorm erupts and the men seek shelter, which turns out to be where papa resides. Clearly someone lives here because there's a fire and something weird is roasting over it. The children appear and warn them of papa, who shows up moments later. They disappear as soon as he arrives.For whatever reason, our killer only goes after females. He invites the men to have something to eat and tells us the story about his ex wife. We are given a flashback of his wife getting caught cheating. The old man doesn't tell them however that he kills her and her lover afterwards, but daydreams about it. We aren't given the reason for the children's demise. The men go to sleep and are left unharmed. The next morning the men discover the empty campground of their wives. After a brief discussion they split up. One is to stay at the campsite, while the other goes and gets help. The one that is going back to his car breaks his leg. We are then reunited with the children as they explain to the surviving woman that they are ghosts who killed themselves from being sad about their mother. They agree to help the woman reunite with her friendsThe following scene defies the logic of the movie when papa kills the guy waiting at the campsite. He was also dating or married to the blonde. Somehow the children realize he is murdered and tell the woman about it. She decides to see it for herself and obviously runs into the killer. Luckily the children make him stop by threatening to leave him forever. You know where this is going.Overall the movie deserves four stars out of ten, and that's being generous. For all its misgivings, the musical score is well done. It's still watchable too. There are some camera angles that look professional, and some of the sets are done well. The plot is unbelievable. There is such a thing as willing suspension of disbelief, but with the toad 6 miles away; I can't imagine the token blonde would take off like that in the middle of the night. I mean, come on!- Alan "Skip" Bannacheck$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the greatest sports movies ever made by Hollywood. What a wonderful story about one of the great sports figures of American history. What makes the story of James J. Corbett especially interesting is that Mr. Corbett introduced the style of boxing that continues to this day. In that respect James J. Corbett was truly innovated. But getting back to the movie, all the performances were excellent. Alexis Smith was beautiful. Indeed, she looked like Nicole Kidman. And although it's a period piece, the story withstands the test of time; it has not gone stale. Ward Bond's portrayal of John L. Sullivan has to be one of the great portrayals of an actual sports figure in the history of movies and the boxing scenes are realistic, well-staged and highly effective. That coupled with a great script makes this movie a must.$LABEL$ 1
+I've Seen The Beginning Of The Muppet Movie, But Just The Half. Because I Only Watched It At Mrs Kelly's Friend's House. The Songs Were The Best And The Muppets Were So Hilarious. They Learn That If They Believe In The End Of The Rainbow, Anyone Can Make It, No Matter How Small, No Matter How Green(Which Was Included In The Trailer).Kermit Is My Favorite Protagonist(Which Means It Describes The Main Character) And So Are The Other Muppets. Mel Brooks Was Amazing When He Played Professor Max Krassman. The Scene Where Miss Piggy Saves Kermit By Doing Kung Fu On Those Guys. It Was So Cool.The Muppet Movie Is The Best Jim Henson Film With The Most Hilarious Characters And People Will Cherish For His Successful Film.$LABEL$ 1
+Verhoeven's movie was utter and complete garbage. He's a disgusting hack of a director and should be ashamed. By his own admission, he read 2 chapters of the book, got bored, and decided to make the whole thing up from scratch.Heinlein would have NEVER supported that trash if he'd been alive to see it. It basically steals the name, mocks politics of the book (which is a good portion of it), and throws in some T&A so the average idiot American moviegoer doesn't get bored.This anime isn't perfect, but it's at least mostly accurate, as best I can tell.$LABEL$ 1
+On second viewing of this movie, I like it even more than the first time. It is full of nuances and a perception of life as being quite ordinary and often fearful but what lifts this movie to a height rarely realized is its focus on the little incidences in our lives to which we normally only offer the briefest of attention spans. Here the movie spins into the celebration of these incidences, the meeting of a tow truck driver and client, the jogger hearing a baby's cry from the bushes. The dialogue, acting, casting and direction are superb. No two by fours, no grand revelations. What I did observe was how true the characters were to their basic natures and how enhanced their lives became when these were celebrated. Kudos to all involved in this, we need more "Grand Canyons" in our lives. 9 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+The first two hours of the televised version are full of character and plot exposition -- after an early brief sequence of Las Vegas being hit by tornadoes, the action doesn't really start until the second two hours. Still, some character relationships don't become clear until the second part. The actors turn in competent performances, but nothing special (however, better than those in "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York"). An exception is Randy Quaid, whose character is superfluous and incredibly annoying. The plot is a pretty standard mix of parts of "Independence Day", "Speed", "The Day After Tomorrow", "Earthquake", "The Towering Inferno" and several other films. You can predict what will happen next, and come close to predicting the dialog, word for word. The special effects are unbelievably bad. Despite the effects in "Twister", the tornadoes in this film seem less realistic than the one in "The Wizard of Oz" and other effects were obviously done for less money than such series as "CSI" and "Cold Case" spend on the totality of a single episode. If you have to see a made-for-TV disaster film, see "The Day After", "Asteroid", or "Special Bulletin" instead -- you'll get better plots, acting, and effects.$LABEL$ 0
+I like the phrase "British post war suburban paranoia" that one of the reviewers used. It describes so well the kind of films John Mills excelled in ("The October Man" (1947), "The Long Memory" (1952)) in between "big" pictures ("Scott of the Antartic" (1948) and "War and Peace" (1956)).This distinctly "Eric Ambler" style plot had John Mills playing Dr. Howard Latimer, who promises his friend, Charles, (unseen) to meet a visiting German actress, Frieda Veldon (Lisa Daniely) at the airport. A creepy "reporter" Jeffrey Windsor (Lionel Jeffries) is in his consulting rooms at the time and offers to give him a lift but while he is tracking the actress down Windsor informs him she is already in the car waiting!!! (something fishy is going on!!!). Howard is dropped off for his date and thinks no more about it.The next night he finds her body when he arrives home from work, further more, he finds his friend Charles could not have rung him as he is still in New York and Windsor doesn't seem to exist. Earlier on a patient, Mrs Ambler(Rene Ray) who has been referred to him by Doctor George Kimber (Mervyn Johns) tells of her recurring dream about finding a dead body and a brass candlestick with a square base. It is a nightmare that is coming true for Howard but of course when Detective Inspector Dane (Roland Culver) interviews her, she denies all knowledge of the conversation - the candlestick is later found in the boot of Howard's Daimler.When Howard is lying low, Robert Brady (Wilfred Hyde-White) visits him. He calls himself a "friend" - he has a photo of Windsor that he wants to trade for a box of matches Frieda gave Howard at the airport. Howard returns to the flat, Charles rings and while Howard is on the phone an unknown assailant knocks him out and steals the matches!!! Who can he trust - who hasn't something to hide!!!This is a top thriller - not quite in the same class as "The October Man", but with John Mills doing what he does best - playing ordinary men caught up in impossible mysteries!!!Highly Recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+This is such a crappy movie I have no idea how it got on the shelves, they must have paid the movie store to make them put it there, seriously! The story makes absolutely no sense unless you are on some seriously heavy drugs, you would definitely have to be on something in order to watch this total piece of garbage, so much so that you would not care what was on the TV because you're almost in a coma. The writing sounds like it was done by a 5-year-old and the acting is worse than grade school plays. The hideous special effects they were trying to do look so stupid, what did they spend a whole $5 to make the entire movie, it looks like it! Oh my, that scene with the old woman who has an 80's hairdo and the ugly girls in the rubber suits, me and my friends laughed so hard. Did someone actually think it was a good idea to make this into a movie? I find that hard to believe!$LABEL$ 0
+I thought it was a New-York located movie: wrong! It's a little British countryside setting.I thought it was a comedy: wrong! It's a drama.... Well, up to the last third, because after the story becomes totally "abracadabrantesque", the symbolic word for a French presidential mandate. It means, close to nonsense even it the motives would like to bring a sincere feeling.What Do I have left? Maybe, a good duo of actress: Yes, I know, they are 3 friends, but the redhead policewoman is a bit invisible for me. The tall doctoress surprises by her punch, and McDowell delivers a fine acting as usual, all in delicate, soft and almost mute attitude. This gentleness puzzles me, because as other fine artists or directors, the same pattern is repeating over and over. In her case, it's like, whatever the movie, it's always the same character defined by her feelings, her values, who lives infinite different stories. I still don't know how to set the limit (or the fusion) between the artists and the works.Another positive side of this movie is its feminine touch & the interesting different points of view. The women have each their own way of living, even if they are all single. It brings a lot of tolerance and learning to witness how a same and unique reality can be perceived in as many ways as people.Finally, the movie is quite viewable, but the great final cuts the desire of a next vision.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of Jackies best films that is him without opera buddies Sammo Hung and Yuen Biao it has one of the best openings in any action film and it carrys on in that way with Jackie showing some high quality stunts the only critisim is that in the middle it gets a bit slow but it shows up for a frantic last 25 mins in the film and the end credits show what a crazy fool jackie chan is just to keep us film addicts happy$LABEL$ 1
+This is the 2nd time I've seen this movie in about 12 years. These remarks come from someone who finds Kane and Ambersons to be amazing, worthy films. But the remainder of Welles career is, unfortunately, squandered on material unworthy of his talent and too flimsy to withstand his filmic embroidering. And when he makes a potboiler like Shanghai, the lack of anything substantial to hang his filmic tricks on, is just kind of sad. I couldn't tell you what he was exploring here. It's all as mannered as Welle's godawful Irish brogue; which takes a lot of effort, but adds absolutely zero to the film. Several Welles projects became this overdeveloped and baroque. Mr Arkadin (pick a version, any version) is a similarly belabored project. The material is inconsequential. It just can't bear the weight of all this noodling. For a director trafficking in reality-based drama (as here), he never feels any pull to tie his bundle of conceits back to reality; or to a coherent story. The murder-for-hire scheme is ridiculous. Kudos to Welles though, for having Hayworth cut her hair, and getting that performance out of her. The camera loves her. She's the classiest, most upscale, sultry and ravishing femme fatale ever put on film. But her treachery comes so late in the film it feels like some desperate decision, made so the movie will have some genre it fits into. The movie can't be saved by a noir convention deployed in the last 60 seconds.When all is said and done in L.F.S., the convolutions are all for what?; to convince you you've seen something thoughtful? to give Welles more to do? to make you roll your eyes? Welles has no sensitivity to the scale of a story, or to telling a story directly. One wonders what Shanghai has to say to anyone who isn't a crippled billionaire, arranging a quadruple-cross murder-for-hire scheme, or a fanboy in love with filmic conceits devoid of meaning or substance. Overwrought, preposterous, unengaging.$LABEL$ 0
+The Minion is about... well, a minion. A servant of Satan and whose goal is to get the key that will unlock the door where his master is trapped. He is some sort of demon who possess human beings and when the body dies will possess another. Anyone who happens to be possessed will go on some berserker rage. Dolph Lundgren plays Lukas, a member of a secret order of Templars, who is tasked to keep the key away from the minion. The movie begins a thousand years ago, in the Middle East where a couple of knight templars flee from the minion. Then flash forward to 1999, where the key winds up somewhere underground in New York. An archeologist is assigned to study/dig the place where the key was found. Needless to say, the minion is after the key, and the movie becomes a long winded chase scene between the minion and Lukas and archeologist.The movie, is just that, a low budget B-movie flick. The movie lacks energy, and just trods along. You'll follow the chase but you won't ever feel involved in the story which willfully takes ideas from previous movies (especially The Terminator films). The fight scenes with the minion is troublesome, in that you never get the sense of how good or how bad a warrior this demon is. It "skillfully" becomes a one-man army when fighting a squad of templars but sucks when it comes to one-on one. And it's supposed to be around for a long time. All this goes to show that any sense of logic is just thrown down the drain for convenience. The whole idea of a secret order of Templars, a door to hell, and the key isn't well explained. We are merely to accept that they just exist. The movie seems to have been made with the feeling there's not much potential to the story but only enough to make a few bucks. Dolph Lundgren sure looks like he wish he were somewhere else.The verdict: 2 of 5 stars.$LABEL$ 0
+Claire Denis' debut is both a brave and self-assured one. In this depiction of life towards the end of French colonialist Cameroon, she explores the relationships between men and women, black and white.With the black servant 'Protée' as the film's primary object of desire and oppression, the film enters taboo territory from the beginning. Denis builds a picture of life through a series of character relationships that keep the informed viewer fixed to the screen. The mood of the film is captured perfectly by the camera-work and (lack of) lighting.A great discourse.$LABEL$ 1
+We, as a family, were so delighted with 'The Last of the Blonde Bombshells' we purchased a copy for our home video library.The acting is A1 and the cast contains many favorite actors and singers. The theme is unusual and the script well written. The music/songs are timeless and takes us back to our young days when we sang the songs at the top of our voices. To outline the story here would spoil the 'plot' as it is really nice to sit back and enjoy the story as it unfolds.Full marks to this most enjoyable and uplifting production and we heartily recommend it to anyone who is looking for a belly-laugh and lots of music.$LABEL$ 1
+"Whipped" is one of the most awful films of all time. It is a mean, hateful piece of garbage that had me forcing myself to stay in the theater more than any other movie of 2000, besides maybe "The Grinch." It is not, as people have called it, an insightful portrait of modern relationships. That would be a little film called "High Fidelity." Whereas that movie was honest and sympathetic, "Whipped" is hostile, cynical, misanthropic cinematic poison. Avoid this like so many plagues, unless you want to see how truly bad a "comedy" can get.$LABEL$ 0
+A noble effort, I guess, but ultimately a poor one. Before seeing this film, I felt "Bartleby, The Scrivener" was unfilmable. After seeing it, I still do. Unfortunately, I think only those who have read the story will understand what is going on, and they will be upset at the film's needless revisions (updating from 1850 to 1970, moving from New York to London). Even the superb talents of Paul Scofield can't salvage what looks to me like a well meaning but misguided effort to film Melville's metaphysical classic.$LABEL$ 0
+Before we start, may I say I hope you've already eaten when you're reading this. Why? Because, after I'd seen this film for the first time, the bird's look and sound made me want to eat chicken after the words 'The End' had appeared on the screen. So don't say you weren't warned.Fred Sears might have directed "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers" (an okay film and one of the bigger examples for Tim Burton's "Mars Attacks"), but "The Giant Claw" is not that giant a film. Yes, it's a prehistoric monster that flies in the air, attacks planes and cities and occasionally treats itself to a man on a parachute. The beast is giant except in the scenes where it's considerably smaller, but who needs consistent proportions in a movie? Scary? It could have been, but not if the plot is hopelessly silly and the monster looks like like a puppet that ran away from Sesame Street.$LABEL$ 0
+I remember flipping through channels on HBO and saw this. This, my friends, is one of the worst TV movies I've ever seen. There is no excitement in this film.The story starts out with Drew Summers(Candice Cameron Bure) driving to a small town while in a trance. She stays with a couple who coincidentally, had a daughter named Laura Fairgate who looked exactly like her and is played by the same actress. Even the townsfolk agree that they looked alike. Thing is, Laura was killed over a year ago. Her boyfriend went missing around the same time she was murdered, making it look like he had killed her.While settling in this town for a while, Drew starts to have visions and nightmares. These visions and nightmares might prove that the boyfriend of Laura isn't the killer after all. Throughout the film, you find out that Ray Ordwell Sr.(Denis Arndt) is the one that raped her frequently over a period of time and killed her.The movie is too long and very boring. The film just drags on and on and on and on. Amazingly, I saw another TV movie after this called (Cloned) 1997 which was good but I'll review that one later.I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Avoid this TV movie. It is not worth your time. This is the worst TV movie of 1997!$LABEL$ 0
+One of our all time family favorites. When we need a laugh...we just put this one in and laugh all way thru like it is the first time we've seen it. This film has good, clean family humor. Pauly Shore is brilliant! With no plans for the thanksgiving holiday, Crawl (Shore) is invited to spend the holiday with a conservative coed, Becca. Crawl, being a big city boy, must adjust to the farm life if he is to fall in love with Becca. But, Crawl isn't the only one who is learning new things. Crawl teaches Becca and her parents how to be more open about their feelings and accepting others. This is fun for viewers of all ages.$LABEL$ 1
+As there was nothing wrong with the acting etc etc the writing for the episode is way off for this series phantom or no phantom. It was a waste of 42 minutes to see the martian man hunter. You have to know that in the middle of the 6th series no matter what happens it is not true what is going on and really brings nothing to the story of the series except meeting the martian man hunter again and to waste 30 minutes to do this is by far another case of bad writing in the soap opera of smallville. I really like the show but mainly due to the cast and the 3 or so good episodes each year but who ever is on the writing cast that works or used to work on the soaps needs to be canned. This was by far one of the worst. With in the first 4 minutes you know that what is going on is bogus and anything happening is a dream based on Clark's infliction obviously caused by a phantom zone character and when he wakes up he will win and blah blah blah so the writers don't have to really create a villain that will progress the story line any this week. May as well have added another villain to die in the last episode the martian man hunter was in and made him fly away again or come back and tell Clark he forgot his sunglasses to get a closer look like in this episode and call it a day.$LABEL$ 0
+Well to do American divorcée with more money than brains buys a rundown villa in Tuscany. (Much more money; whilst having to dicker over the price, she subsequently manages to cook sumptuous buffets for her workmen and wander around Italy indefinitely with no job or apparent means of support.) Interminable boredom and the inevitable Italian lover ensue; this is a chick flick in the most pejorative sense of the term. Lane acts like an unskilled clueless teenage ingénue throughout - which dynamically clashes with her seriously fading looks - along the way smashing into a variety of (mostly Italian) cardboard stereotypes, dykes, divas, senile contessas and gigolos among them. Bloated with unnecessary scenes, the most ridiculous being a clumsily inserted and pointless recreation of the fountain scene in 'La Dolce Vita'. (A similar conceit was used in an effective and appropriate narrative context in 'Only You', Norman Jewison's vastly superior ode to Italy and romance). 'Tuscan Sun' may be the most vacant piece of cinema of the last decade, despite its admittedly well-lensed panoramas of Italy. Bonus negative point for the extraneous lover parachuted in at the last minute to provide requisite Hollywood ending for its targeted audience of Oprah-brainwashed housewives. Avoid at all costs, unless, of course, you view Oprah and Dr. Phil as pinnacles of intelligent discourse.$LABEL$ 0
+"Escape from Hell" is not made with enough artistry to disguise what it is: crass exploitation. The direction and writing are both sloppy: for example, the camera-work during the fight between Cintia Lodetti and Ajita Wilson is so bad that you can barely make out what's happening; also, if the alcoholic-but-kind-hearted doctor hadn't killed the warden, the guards would never have followed him and the girls after their escape - the "fake plague" plan had worked fine until then but he just had to ruin it. I would have given this film a 4 out of 10 (the sweaty lesbian scene is not bad and Christina Lai has an amazingly beautiful face and body), but a particularly disgusting scene of abuse forced me to cut 2 more points. Of course some sickos will take that as a recommendation. After all, one thing even more disturbing than this film is that some people actually gave it positive reviews!$LABEL$ 0
+this movie makes me laugh by even just thinking about it. such a smart comedy! very precise yet easy. the casting can not be any better. all actors are the best choice of their roles and they all play precisely the best, and there is no stupid laughs or shouting through out the whole movie. layers and the progress of story work perfectly together and the rhythm flow smoothly. the greatest of all is when the Village People's YMCA is cued in, it brings out the importance of the Indian's statute which was only briefly brought up previously in the movie, which makes the smartest and funniest climax among many comedies. I give it a ten especially a lot of times comedies are so underrated.$LABEL$ 1
+As a long-time fan of Superman from the comics, through the 1950s series, the first two of the Chris Reeves films and Lois & Clark, and finally Smallville, I was *really* hoping for something clever with "Superman Returns".Instead we got Lex Luthor making *another* attempt at real-estate conversion, another Superman-beaten-up-while-wearing-kryptonite sequence, and internal inconsistencies: he couldn't stop himself falling into the ocean when stuck with 6" of kryptonite, but when Lois breaks off 3" of it, *leaving the rest embedded in him*, he can lift *a continent* into space?? Really, the only hero in the story was Lois' partner - I can't remember his name off-hand. He did all kinds of life-saving, heroic things with nothing but guts and skill - no superpowers, no invulnerability...just a normal human.They keep making Superman so small. Why can't we have Superman battling Brainiac or fighting to save the universe from General Zod instead of Lex's petty schemes. Oh, I forgot...they're doing that in Smallville.Yeah...I think I'll stick to Smallville...You probably should, too...$LABEL$ 0
+If you appreciate the renaissance in Asian horror, don't bother with Gawi. The film scarcely deserves mention alongside A-list work such as Ringu, A Tale of Two Sisters, Cure, and Ju-On (or even such good material as The Eye or Inner Senses). Those films brim with subtleties, unexpected imagery, rich characters, and a decidedly non-Western take on what's frightening. Gawi is strung together with the leftover limbs and organs of everything that has made American horror lousy for the past twenty-five years.The film tries to blend Asian ghost story and Hollywood slasher flick, but it's a bad fit. One aesthetic is bound to smother the other; guess which? Having no story of their own to tell the filmmakers loot Ringu for an evil-child subplot, but the situation is hopeless. Clichés, crap characters, witless plotting, a dull ghost, ho hum.$LABEL$ 0
+After seeing Big Fat Liar, I think Jason learned a lot more. When he told the truth about Marty stealing his story, it was like the boy who cried wolf. People heard him, but they didn't believe him. Nobody did anything to help him. Besides, not only Marty's movies stink, so does his advice. The truth is not overrated. I am so glad he got exposed for what he really is. Everyone found out that he stole from that boy, including his parents. Not only he stole from that boy and lied about it, he gave them someone else's work and tried to call it his own, which is plagiarism. Doesn't he know that it is illegal to plagiarize someone's idea? Another reason why he got fired. He is not trustworthy. He's a liar, a cheat, a thief, a crook, and a plagiarist. You got that Marty? You're a plagiarist. Plus, you got everything that you deserved.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is all about entertainment. Imagine your friends that you love spending time with, the ones that you know inside out becoming a bit silly and perhaps taking on a character or two. That's what this film is about. An inventive script and brilliantly performed. It's not about pleasing the masses with this one, it's about having fun with a bunch of brilliantly talented people. Which is what I'm sure they all thought when they signed up for it. The above review sounds completely unfair and I think that the person who wrote that was in the wrong frame of mind when they watched the film. In a lighthearted moment, there is great dignity in it if you care to look.A job well done, I thought it was a great film. I'd watch this before the North American norm any day.In a nutshell, it's not the best film you're ever going to see but it has a hell of a lot of moments. I haven't laughed that long in an age.$LABEL$ 1
+Hidden Frontier is a fan made show, in the world of Star Trek. The story takes place after Voyager has returned from the Delta-quadrant . It has some characters from the official Star Trek shows, but most of them are original to the show. The show takes place on the star base Deep Space 12 and on several space ships, which gives it opportunities the official shows don't have. The characters have the opportunity of a rising in the hierarchy, which characters in shows with only one ship doesn't have. The show has good computer animation of spaceships, but the acting takes place in front of at green-screen and it gives a green glow around the actors. Not all the actors are equally good, but most do fine. The episodes are character driven and the characters develop over many episodes. That is a bit more like in Babylon 5, than in most official Star Trek shows. Hidden Frontier takes taboos that even the official series has shrunk from using. All in all I enjoyed watching it.$LABEL$ 1
+In one of the many Bugs Bunny-Daffy Duck cartoons, Elmer Fudd is out hunting, and Daffy tries to get him to shoot Bugs. Needless to say, Bugs has his own agenda. Moreover, "Rabbit Seasoning" makes interesting use of word order and pronouns (warning: it just might hilariously and royally mess up your speech).I think that probably my favorite aspect of this cartoon is the costumes worn by Bugs and Daffy. One of them seems like it would have been risqué for 1952 (especially in a cartoon), but they pull it off perfectly, as they always did. All in all, this just goes to show what geniuses the people behind these cartoons were.$LABEL$ 1
+I am always so frustrated that the majority of science fiction movies are really intergalactic westerns or war dramas. Even Star Wars which is visually brilliant, has one of its central images, a futuristic "gang that couldn't shoot straight." Imagine your coming upon about 600 people with conventional weapons, most of them having an open shot, and they miss.I have read much science fiction, and wish there were more movies for the thinking person. Forbidden Planet, one of the earliest of the genre, is still one of the very best. The story is based on a long extinct civilization, the Krell, who created machines which could boost the intelligence of any being by quantum leaps. Unfortunately, what they hadn't bargained for, is that the brain is a center for other thoughts than intellectual. The primitive aspect of the brain, the Id, as Freud called it, is allowed to go unchecked. It is released in sleep, a bad dream come to corporeal existence. Walter Pigeon, Dr. Morbius, is the one who has jacked his brain to this level, and with it has built machines and defenses that keep him barely one step ahead of the horrors of the recesses of his own mind. His thoughts are creating horrors that he soon will not be able to defend. The Krell, a much superior species, could not stop it; it destroyed them. The landing party has never been of great interest to me. The rest of the actors are pretty interchangeable. Ann Francis is beautiful and naive, and certainly would have produced quite a reaction in the fifties adolescent male. Her father's ire is exacerbated by her innocence and the wolfy fifties' astronauts (for they are more like construction workers on the make than real astronauts). They are always trying to figure out "dames." The cook is a great character, with his obsession for hooch. Robbie the Robot has much more personality than most of the crew, and one wonders if Mr. Spock may not be a soulmate to the literal thinking of this artificial creature. The whole movie is very satisfying because the situation is the star. Morbius can't turn back and so he is destined to destroy himself and everything with him. There are few science fiction films that are worth seeing more than once; this is one that can coast right into the 21st century.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this movie in the early 70's when I was about 10 yrs. old on TV. It was on after school, and as I watched, I was so drawn into the whole idea of the two astronauts going on a mission to another undiscovered planet, that I asked my mom if I could get the cassette recorder out. She let me. So I wrapped the cord of the mic around the Channel knob, so the mic was hanging in front of the speaker. This movie is the first one I ever paid enough attention to - and cared enough about to record. (Just the audio - there were no VCRs at the time.) The plot will have you hanging onto every word.. every minute of this film.. The ending will blow your mind. After watching the Journey to the Far Side of the Sun.. You will Have flash-backs in your mind about it for a long time. I did replay the audio recording for many years... and "saw" it over and over in my mind. Then - maybe 15 years later.. when VCR's were common, and they sold tapes in stores.. I always looked for it.. but never found it. But when the Internet came along one day I searched for it and purchased it in a second. So.. after about 30 years after seeing it for the first time - I got to see it again. WOW!~~ It was spectacular! Just for reference.. I must have watched it 50 times since.$LABEL$ 1
+Anyone who watched "Alien vs Predator" must've known that the conventions of the "Alien Quadrilogy" were not exactly adapted for the film. Amongst some of the unusual elements, the rapid growth of the Aliens over seemingly a matter of minutes, Aliens with extremely long tails, and so on. However the idea of the Predator species providing the impetus of city and temple building to create a hunt for would be warriors sounded so appealing that I couldn't resist.I had hoped the end of the film would not be the impetus of this sequel, and unfortunately I was wrong. For those who forgot how the first film ended, the dead Predator had an Alien burst through his chest which carried the traits of both species'.For this film, I'm going to just go through a list of "good" and "bad" traits.The Good: Lots of gorgeous people, especially the men. The Bad: Lots of gorgeous people get munched by both the mutant Predator/Alien, and the Predator.The Good: An interesting idea of the Predator planet. The Bad: An inconsistent scale of a town. Its a small town without many opportunities, but with a very sophisticated (read: big city) sewer system, and homeless. Is it a small town, or a city? The police force is one Sheriff and three Deputies, or so I counted.The Good: Um.... The Bad: Why do these mutant Aliens/Predators grow so fast? In a matter of five minutes, they seem to grow to their full size. I mean, c'mon...what are these things...Chia Pet Aliens??? And while we're on this subject, why is it that an Alien inside a Predator's body mutates, but an Alien in a human's body doesn't? Does that make sense?The Good: Still thinking... The Bad: Why would only one Predator come? And why does it pour acid over all the remnants of the "Aliens," but it decides to murder a cute deputy, and then skin him and hang him upside down. I mean, so much for being incognito!The Good: Ah...I'm stuck. I guess there's lots of loud sounds! The Bad: How do these mutated Alien/Predators procreate? Apparently they find a pregnant woman and in a kiss type of motion, they deposit several offspring into the woman's body. Yeah, just what you'd like to see, eh? Pregnant women having their bodies explode into mutant aliens- as if the previous way wasn't gross enough!!!. I mean, there isn't even an Alien Queen.The Good: Did I say that the guys in this movie are gorgeous? The Bad: When a nuclear device blows apart buildings, how does a helicopter manage to survive the blast? And how tacky is it for one of the passengers to mockingly chide the pilot "I told you not to crash!" I mean, given the nuclear fallout, when he wakes up in the morning, he'll have no hair left!!!I could go on and on, but I think you get the message. Mutated Alien/Predator bursts through dead Predator's body, grows over the matter of a couple of minutes, kills all the Predators and manages to get crashed on earth. More mutant Alien/Predators are created, while ONE measly Predator comes to earth to destroy this new mutant species. Predator kills humans. Mutant Alien/Predators kill humans. Humans kill humans. Sucks to be a human in this movie, eh?If you're impressed by lots of bangs and bumps, you'll love this movie.If you liked the first, I suggest you skip this sequel.$LABEL$ 0
+OK, don't let my summary fool you. This movie SUCKS HARD. But the worst movie ever? This movie was terrible in ways people shouldn't have to rack their brains to describe. But it is in no way worse than Manos: the hands of fate, hobgobblins, horrors of spider island, or a small handful of movies. As a review the movie sucks, it's terrible. Don't see it with out MST or you may develop health problems. But there are worse movies.$LABEL$ 0
+After hearing that some of the people behind the low-budget flicks "Terror in Rock'n'Roll Önsjön" and "It came from outer space... and stuff" were involved in making this movie, I decided to buy it unseen on DVD. I wish I hadn't. The other movies were funny, tongue-in-cheek and kinda stupid. While Kraftverk 3714 is devoid of any humor at all. And it is so god-awful that I'm getting angry just thinking about it. The worst actors possible, the worst script possible, the worst special effects available. And the most unsexy sex scene ever. Uhhh. And the whole thing goes on for 2 hours and 45 minutes. Please, do not ever make another movie.$LABEL$ 0
+I am awed by actress Bobbie Phillips and her superb skill as an action star! This movie is propelled by her wonderful acting and terrific action prowess. I am a fan of sci-fi but I must say that this film exceeds most science fiction films in it's cinematography and mostly it's utilization of an actress whose presence supersedes the plot which is fine but is nothing new. Even though it looks as though this film was made for television, in my opinion it is better than most theatrically released films of its kind.$LABEL$ 1
+I found the movie at my local video store and I was surprised to see it on DVD. I had heard about the explicit sex scenes, gruesome violence, and the notorious debauchery. I sat and watched and I began laughing! The set decorations and art direction was cheap and fake; the nudity was sardonic and incredibly unsexy; the story was poorly written and it was just a parade of incredibly beautiful and talented actors being held hostage to quote the worst dialogue ever written! The incestuous relationship between Caligola (Malcolm McDowell) and his serenely beautiful sister Drusilla (Theresa Ann Savoy, a vulnerable beauty) can't be taken seriously...it's not even shocking or repulsive! Peter O'Toole and John Geilgud were obviously held hostage during the making of this film luckily they die in the first thirty minutes of the film. The cinematography was a joke and I was even more amused when they used a quote from the Bible! The book of Mark no less. If you are looking for shock value, this movie will disappoint you. If you are looking for camp cult value, you will be even more disappointed. I know I was. I have seen shocking and this is two hours of your life you will never have back.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is on cable sporadically, and I never really watched it, thinking it would be similar to the Bruce Willis film "Ïn America", with the usual trite story about American freedom, etc. But it was not; it was so much more!.Of course, Martin Sheen is excellent; (I have never seen him in a movie I haven't loved, even if the script is bad, because he is so talented). Kathy Bates is the overbearing mom, and does a great job. The real surprise is Emilio Estevez, who has not always been in the greatest films, but also directed this movie. Please don't stereotype him from the "Breakfast Club" movie; he is so much better in this, and I wish he would do more non-commercial, atypical Hollywood movies.The film is realistic, as we see Emilio home from Vietnam, during Thanksgiving. Kimberly Williams is passable as the sister, who feels she is "disgraced and embarrassed" by the returning soldier, her brother; he is quite alienated from the family, and, especially at this time in US history, this story is VERY relevant.I learned a great deal about post-traumatic stress, and you will genuinely empathize with this character; This is not a violent, journalistic portrayal, like "Platoon" for example, it is more of a character study, which leaves us even more intrigued and concerned about the effects of war, especially when one considers the young age of the soldiers who are victims. With today's violence, it is rare that a movie causes one to genuinely feel sad, and shed a tear; this does it, and deserves recognition.$LABEL$ 1
+I've seen this movie n I can say that this is really a bad movie. The director's gone nuts... of course.. he does know a lot about the army, but then he certainly is a cheap guy. There are a lotta technical flaws in the movies as well...Okay... here's my doubt- in the end when they rescue the family (including a girl who was just raped)... why do they leave them there outside their place? I didn't see any ambulance around! There are a lot of aspects in the movie that are real... but then I just wish the Major had narrated/helped/assisted some other good director n made the movie.Mohanlal surely does deserve a better director!$LABEL$ 0
+Cowboys and Indians is an excellent film. The writing, acting, directing could not have been better. This was a story that begged to be told, and this group of talented individuals and teams did a superb job of doing so. Stories like this one are not pleasant ones, but serve to remind people of the social injustices that exist all around the world. It is my hope that when this film is seen that attitudes and prejudices will be changed. A film that can do that is a rare a special thing. Andrew Berzins is an excellent writer, and his talents and expertise in this field came shining through in this film. Thank you for telling this story!!!Ruby$LABEL$ 1
+BEGIN SPOILER: Fitfully funny and memorable for Mr. Chong's literal roach-smoking scene: Chong coolly mashes a stray kitchen cockroach into his pipe's bowl, lights up, coughs and hacks violently for a seeming eternity,then with perfect aplomb and not skipping a beat, re-loads the bowl properly, re-lights, re-tokes. END SPOILER. Alas, I began to lose faith less than half-way through the proceedings. It occurred to me that the lackadaisical duo are way obnoxious and less than relatable. I have come to appreciate the relative sophistication of contemporary stoners, Harold and Kumar. I simply prefer brighter company. Yet, the movie is probably a perfect fit for baked frat bros or those viewers who are so feeble-minded as to be outwitted by a stoner when they-- the former are sober. Notable guest appearance by Paul Reubens spouting obscenities in pre-Pee-wee form.$LABEL$ 0
+I had high expectations of this movie (the title, translated, is "How We Get Rid of the Others"). After all, the concept is great: a near future in which the ruling elite has taken the consequence of the right-wing government's constant verbal and legislative persecution of so-called freeloaders and the left wing in general, and decided to just kill off everyone who cannot prove that they're contributing something to the establishment (the establishment being called "the common good", but actually meaning the interests of the ruling capitalist ideology).Very cool idea! Ideal for biting satire! Only, this movie completely blows its chance. The satire comes out only in a few scenes and performances of absurdity, but this satire is not sustained; it is neither sharp nor witty. And for an alleged comedy, the movie has nearly no funny scenes. The comedy, I assume, is supposed to be in the absurdity of the situations, but the situations are largely uncomfortable and over-serious, rather than evoking either laughter or thought.The script is rife with grave errors in disposition. The action should have focused on the political aspects and how wrong it would be to do such a thing, but instead oodles of time are spent on a young woman who was the one that wrote the new laws for fun, and who's trying to save everybody, by organizing a resistance that ships people to Africa. All this is beside the point! A movie like this should not pretend to be so serious! It's a satire! A political statement. But it doesn't even begin to actually address the problem it's supposed to be about. Maybe it was afraid of going too far? How cowardly. That's not art. It's not even real satire.Søren Pilmark, a very serious and by now one of Denmark's absolutely senior actors, was very good. He largely carried what little entertainment value the movie had. Everybody else: nothing special (well, perhaps except for Lene Poulsen, who did supply a convincing performance).In fact, a problem with most Danish movies is that the language never sounds natural. Neither the formulation nor the delivery. Why is it so difficult to make it sound right? Why must it be so stilted and artificial? I hope, when people look at these movies fifty years from now, they don't think that this was how people talked in general Danish society.3 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+I've seen hundreds of silent movies. Some will always be classics (such as Nosferatu, Metropolis, The General and Wings) but among them, my favorite is this film (it may not be the best--but a favorite, yes). In fact, when I looked it up on IMDb, I noticed I immediately laughed to myself because the movie was so gosh-darn cute and well-made. Marion Davies proved with this movie she really had great talent and was not JUST William Randolph Hearst's mistress.The story involves a hick from Georgia coming to Hollywood with every expectation that she would be an instant star! Her experiences and the interesting cameos of stars of the era make this a real treat for movie buffs and a must-see!$LABEL$ 1
+It's the Sooooouullltakaaaa!Wow. What a skin peeling bad movie. Honestly, this is one of my favorite episodes of MST3K.... Just some things to point out...1) The incestuous lesbian mother-daughter exchange was weird. I do need counseling now.2) There is no God, there is just Dude.. I love that quote from Crow.3) Whatever did happen to the Nuns that took the bus home, will we ever know? I have a horrible emptiness in my stomach.4) Lastly, don't watch this movie un-MSTied... It has Joe Estevez as the main star.. Yikes..1/10 for un-MSTied 8/10 for MSTied.$LABEL$ 0
+My girlfriend and I were stunned by how bad this film was. After 15 minutes we would have called it quits except we were too curious to see if the film could possibly redeem itself. It didn't.I can't understand the praise given to this film. The writing was downright awful and delivered by some of the worst acting I have seen in a very long time.One thing that especially annoyed me about this film was that often when people were talking to each other there was an unnatural pause between lines. I understand using a pause to create a feeling of awkwardness (like in Happiness). This was not that type of pause -- it was just simply bad directing. This film might actually be much better with subtitles, and maybe the overseas market is the best one for this film, because then the innane dialogue and bad acting wouldn't be noticed as much.I generally like these types of small quirky films (The Real Blonde, Walking and Talking, Lovely and Amazing), but this one failed on so many levels that I consider it one of the very worst films I have sat through in the last few years.$LABEL$ 0
+Of the three remakes on W. Somerset Maughan's novel, this one is the best one, and not particularly because what John Cromwell brought to the film. The film is worth a look because of the break through performance by Bette Davis, who as Mildred Rogers, showed the film industry she was a star. Finally, her struggles with Jack Warner and his studio paid off royally.The film is dominated by Mildred from the start. We realize from the beginning that Mildred doesn't care for Philip and never will. She doesn't hide her contempt for this kind soul that has fallen in love with the wrong woman. He will be humiliated by Mildred again, and again, as she makes no bones about what she really is.Poor Philip Carey, besides of being handicap, is a man who is weak. When he tries to cling onto Mildred, she rejects him. It is when Mildred returns to him, when she is frail and defeated, that he rises to the occasion, overcoming his own dependency on this terrible woman who has stolen his will and his manhood.Bette Davis gives a fantastic portrayal of Mildred. This was one of her best roles and she ran away with it. Her disgust toward the kind Philip is clear from the onset of their relationship. When she tells him she washes her mouth after he kisses her is one of the most powerful moment in the movie. Leslie Howard underplayed Philip and makes him appear even weaker than he is. Frances Dee, Reginald Denny, Alan Hale and Reginald Owen, are seen in minor roles.This is Bette Davis show, and don't you forget it!$LABEL$ 1
+---what happened to these unlikeable people. Alan Arkin was, as usual, unfunny and just walks through the role. The kids are all a mess. Mariesa Tomei probably wishes this role had never come her way. And what are Carl Reiner and Rita Moreno doing in this really bad, mean movie? If you enjoy watching losers wallow in their disfunction, and not try in any way to do better, this is your film. All others, take a walk, read a book, or see something else.Jane$LABEL$ 0
+Again Stacy Peralta is true first to the people who lived the story. By letting those involved in the genesis of big wave surfing tell us their stories, how it felt and what they thought, you get the feeling of having been there. The film carries you from the fifties to the near present by focusing on three primary architects contributing to the evolution and development of the sport. Candid "home movie" like videos of themselves and their contemporaries take you further into their world. The layers of music, culture, technical information,a pure view of the participant's athleticism, and fabulous big wave images you get a full scope perspective of this aspect of surfing.Thoroughly worth watching.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie can be interpreted on many different levels. Don't listen to the other comments bashing the movie and saying that it is a played again story or w/e and that it is just about drugs. It has very overt superficial metaphors about drugs; however, the rest of the movie (and why I think it was personally made) is really not about that at all. It is really mocking psychology and the conditioning of society. It shows, for a split second, that the main character's brother is watching those sick videos online. Why? My interpretation is that it is to demonstrate that all of this gruesomeness that we are exposed to makes it easier for us to be mechanical in our professions instead of seeing people as people. As far as the scene about logic, it is also reaching out to the people who were in the federally mandated 1% smart classes who are confused and frustrated because life isn't as predictable and mathematical and logical as it seems on a macroscopic level. You have to apply Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (along with all the other laws and principles of uncertainty) not just to physics but to life and leave room to change your plans and adjust along the way. One of the best movies I have ever seen. It just might go way above your head; it isn't for you it is for those people who are are having trouble coping with life not working out like a math problem. When you are critically analyzing a movie or writing your critical review's try not reading the back cover first (written by marketers and parapsychologists)$LABEL$ 1
+This picture's following will only grow as time goes by. Better than any of the best picture nominees in 97 and it rewards repeated viewings. I've seen it three times now so I know. Anderson was compared to some of the great American directors (Altman, Scorcese, Tarantino) and he may have those influences but chances are, after a few more films, he'll be considered part of that short list himself.One last note: Julianne Moore's "Amber Waves" will resonate in the memory long after other 90's movie characters have faded. THE best performance of the year -in any of the four categories.$LABEL$ 1
+Unfortunately, the realism is boring. This movie, I thought it would never end, would have been better if all the characters would have been nuked in the first five minutes. Where's Blade when you need him? While as dismal as COMBAT SHOCK, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM and as nightmarish as BOISE MOI, DEAD CREATURES isn't nearly as entertaining as any of the aforementioned bleak movies. While the gratuitous cannibalism might make the wannabe Jeffery Dalmers hearts race a little faster, it wasn't nearly as interesting as RAVENOUS. Really, I found it about as interesting as late-night infomercials, and as exciting as a trip to the dentist. If you have strong masochistic qualities, you might be able to endure this, otherwise, for no one. I was really surprised that this one wasn't made by the people at Brain Damage as that was the quality of Dead Creatures.$LABEL$ 0
+Besides all of the technical mistakes ....How about a female flight attendant who's able to kill, all by herself, 4 out of the 7 terrorists (including ex marines), 2 of whom without even using a gun. Then, she lands the plane perfectly. We're not talking about Sigourney Weaver or Linda Hamilton; we're talking about a regular, frightened, yet very well composed flight attendant. :D How about the leader in charge of the assault/rescue squad, having a full-proof (according to the logic of the script) plan of sleep-gassing everyone and having someone from his team fly the plane. Only he decides at the spur of the moment to change plans and instead lead an attack on the terrorists, guns blazing, not knowing where the terrorists are, or how many, and not securing a position of advantage, so that his whole team gets easily wiped out. Yeah, that's using the old noggin. Only later to decide to use the sleep gas anyway. And it turns out useless for all intensive purposes.Bad as this movie was, though, I couldn't stop myself from watching and wondering, what next? :D I can't help but imagine all the excellent, unemployed script writers thinking to themselves, it's not fair. lol! :D$LABEL$ 0
+Hallelujah!!!! …Finally, a true Colombian film crosses the border(s) to shows how Bogotá and Colombia really are! I am an American of Colombian and French heritage sick and tired of seeing Colombia so perversely and ignorantly portrayed by Hollywood and others.How many of you are aware that Colombia is the second oldest, uninterrupted democracy in the world (after the USA), or that it has a vibrant film and television industry (-to say nothing of Ugly Betty), that it's capital, Bogota (Pop. 9 Million) is the "world Capital of the Book," or that this beautiful city is host to the world's LARGEST International Theatre Festival? I hope that Doug Liman, Simon Kinberg (-Mr. & Mrs. Smith), Robert Zemeckis, Diane Thomas (Romancing the Stone) one day visit Bogotá, to see how wonderful it really is, and focus on Bogotá's cultural vitality and diversity, instead of myopically producing films such as Maria Full of Grace from which Joshua Marston profited greatly (for this terrific film) without ever thinking-through about the ontological damage his film would help to perpetuate upon the "unfairly tarnished image" of Colombia.-Anyway, you will at least enjoy Bluff very much! -Oh, and thanks IMDb for your invaluable/great work!!!$LABEL$ 1
+So totally unique and entertaining! Another great Canadian invention. A regular "Joe"(Dan) and a bunch of misfit delinquents (aka Puppets), all share residence at a half-way house. Its Dan's job to keep an eye on four 'menaces to society' and help them to rehabilitate. Bill, the homicidal dummy, Rocko the cigarette smoking dog, Buttons, the nympho teddy bear, and Cuddles the comfort doll. The five of them find themselves in all sorts of odd predicaments. Despite their homicidal, and often overtly perverse sexual tendencies, it's hard not to find them lovable.I give this show a 10/10 simply because it provides good entertainment, without needing a huge budget, and exudes a Canadian flair that makes me proud.$LABEL$ 1
+There is something about Pet Sematary that I never felt anywhere else. Maybe the fact I was a kid when I first watched it made this experience so memorable. But as I keep watching it over and over again, it never gets old, and I never get bored. From the opening credits with that creepy opening song to the very chaotic ending, there is something insane, sad and scary at the same time, and it keeps ringing in your head: sometimes dead is better! I don't think it would be useful to relate the whole story again. All you need to know is it starts from point A (the most perfect situation for a happy American family) and step by step drowns to point B (which is, believe me, the very end of all joy). The music is perfect, the story makes sense, the special effects are cool, and the Pet Sematary is the last place on earth I would be. Like I said, sometimes dead is better!$LABEL$ 1
+What a great actor to have in such an awful story...The film and its production, however, is quite good, even though set in London but with exteriors in Bristol. No matter – see one cathedral, you've seen 'em all, sort of.The story however...is about a man born with the power to wreak death and destruction upon anybody and anything, should he so wish. With just a passing reference to true life instances of telekinesis, the narrative builds a picture of a man misused and misjudged as a boy, a teenager and finally as a man; so much so, in fact, that he exacts vengeance at will, literally. Over time, he comes to the conclusion that the whole world is heading the wrong way and thus sets out to destroy the lot – just by thinking about it!The trouble with the narrative, however, is that it tries to mix genuine scientific data about strange mental powers and merge it all with quasi-religious claptrap to produce a hodge-podge theory about it all. Mixing fact and fantasy in this fashion rarely works – and I'm afraid Richard Burton had to overact awfully on some occasions when trying to sound convincing. His very best scene, however, is when he gave his wife and her lover a verbal pasting as they left his home: sharp, witty and deadly dialog, delivered as only Burton could.A good supporting cast helps to make things look and sound a lot better, though, beginning with Lino Ventura, whom I last saw in Garde A Vu (1981), as Inspector Brunel; Harry Andrews as Assistant Commissioner; the much under-rated Lee Remick as Dr Zonfeld; Derek Jacobi as a publisher, Towney, and a few other well known character actors.I liked the way the story was presented, as flashback within flashback to fill in the back story and thus solve the immediate mystery of the attempted murder of Morlar (Richard Burton), the writer with the killer disposition. Up till that point, it was a good piece of visual detective work by Brunel and his English sidekick. Still, it was very predictable as it became quickly very obvious to me about the identity of the would-be murderer.Then, they went and spoilt it all in the last fifteen minutes. If you want a clue about what that is, think Samson and Delilah (1949), from the illustrious Cecil B. de Mille, and how Samson got the bad guys in the end. And, the very last scene is just plain stupid. Why? Because there are at least a hundred ways that Morlar's rampaging could have been stopped, absolutely.Shame, actually, because this could have been a lot better story and movie. I guess Burton really needed the money.If you're Burton fan, then spend the time to see that scene I mentioned above. Otherwise, don't bother.$LABEL$ 0
+there is one of the best movies directed by andrzej wajda,that story told about young writer who is seekin' his place after a second war(he's survive german camp).excellent true atmosphere(action goes in camp for displaced placed),main hero(played by one of the best polish actor daniel olbrychski) finally fall in love ,but unfortunately his lady has been killed .there was beautiful scene,when he is talking with american soldier and says (about death his girl)"nothing is happen,simply you're shootin' to us now... he's condition of soul has been destroyed. 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+It was a serious attempt to show the developing sexuality of two schoolgirls and did not try to exploit its fact… Even by today's standards, the film is interesting and provocative… Therese and Isabelle are both attending the same girl's school… Therese is energetic, intelligent, and becomes a mentor for the innocent, naive, sweet Isabelle… She guides her through a number of exotic experiences, including a trip through an exclusive brothel, into her first lesbian liaison, and indirectly into her first heterosexual experience… The film does not exploit any sex, nor is there an abundance of nudity... The imagery is effective, but sometimes the camera lingers too long, and the story goes slowly… The director, Radley Metzger, went on to make a number of explicit erotic films under the name of Henry Paris… He always has extremely detailed stories, good acting, and very high standards of cinematography...Artistically, however, this is perhaps his most complete… His later attempts supplied for entertainment, whereas "Therese and Isabelle" was a study into the nature of youthful eroticism...$LABEL$ 1
+On June 14 1905, during the Russian Revolution of that year, sailors aboard the Russian battleship Potemkin rebelled against their oppressive officers. Frustrated with the second-rate treatment they receive, and most particularly the maggot-infested meat that they are forced to eat, the ship's crew, led by the inspirational Bolshevik sailor Grigory Vakulinchuk (Aleksandr Antonov), decide that the time is ripe for a revolution. And so begins Sergei M. Eisenstein's rousing classic of Russian propaganda, 'Bronenosets Potyomkin / The Battleship Potemkin.'The film itself is brimming with shining examples of stunning visual imagery: the spectacles of an overthrown ship captain dangle delicately from the side rope over which he had been tossed; the body of a deceased mutineer lies peaceful upon the shore, the sign on his chest reading "KILLED FOR A BOWL OF SOUP;" close-up shots of the clenching fists of the hundreds of spectators who are finally fed up with the Tsarist regime; a wayward baby carriage careers down the Odessa Steps as desperate onlookers watch on with bated breath (this scene was memorably "borrowed" by Brian De Palma for a particularly suspenseful scene in his 'The Untouchables'); the barrels of numerous canons are ominously leveled towards the vastly-outnumbered battleship Potemkin.However, the film itself is best analysed – not as a fragmented selection of memorable scenes – but as a single film, and, indeed, every scene is hugely memorable. Though divided into five fairly-distinct chapters, the entire film flows forwards wonderfully; at no point do we find ourselves losing interest, and we are absolutely never in doubt of whose side we should be sympathetic towards.The film is often referred to as "propaganda," and that is exactly what it is, but this need not carry a negative connotation. 'The Battleship Potemkin' was produced by Eisenstein with a specific purpose in mind, and it accomplishes this perfectly in every way. Planned by the Soviet Central Committee to coincide with the 20th century celebrations of the unsuccessful 1905 Revolution, 'Potemkin' was predicted to be a popular film in its home country, symbolising the revitalization of Russian arts after the Revolution. It is somewhat unfortunate, then, that Eisenstein's film failed to perform well at the Russian box-office, reportedly beaten by Allan Dwan's 1922 'Robin Hood' film in its opening week and running for just four short weeks. Luckily, despite being banned on various occasions in various countries, 'The Battleship Potemkin' fared more admirably overseas.The film also proved a successful vehicle for Eisenstein to test his theories of "montage." Through quick-cut editing, and distant shots of the multitudes of extras, the audience is not allowed to sympathise with any individual characters, but with the revolutionary population in general. Eisenstein does briefly break this mould, however, in a scene where Vakulinchuk flees the ship officer who is trying to kill him, and, of course, during the renowned Odessa Steps sequence, as our hearts beat in horror for the life of the unfortunate child in the tumbling baby carriage. The accompanying soundtrack to the version I watched, largely featuring the orchestral works of Dmitri Shostakovich, served wonderfully to heighten the emotional impact of such scenes.One of the greatest films of the silent era, 'The Battleship Potemkin' is a triumph of phenomenal film-making, and is a significant slice of cinematic history. The highly-exaggerated events of the film (among other things, there was never actually any violent massacre on the Odessa Steps) have so completely engrained themselves in the memory, that we're often uncertain of the true history behind the depicted events. This is a grand achievement.$LABEL$ 1
+Once again I have seen a movie made by people that know nothing. I just recently reviewed Baby Face Nelson. Now I've seen Dillinger and I've had it.This movie is garbage. I don't know how anyone in their right mind could compare this to a classic like Bonnie and Clyde. This movie is far from a classic. Someone called it brilliant. That's an insane thing to say. This movie can't get any facts straight and it has the worst casting I've ever seen. I don't know whose dumb idea it was to cast Warren Oates as John Dillinger. First of all he looks nothing like him. Second of all, by the time John Dillinger was killed he was 31. When Oates made this he was 45! You could even tell that he's older than the real Dillinger just by looking at him. Not only was he too old, but so was Ben Johnson as Melvin Purvis.They show Baby Face Nelson die, then Homer Van Meter, and finally John Dillinger. John Dillinger was killed before both of them. The last one to die out of the three was Baby Face Nelson. Not only do the writers not know when they died, but they also don't know how they died. Baby Face Nelson was not killed after he escaped from Little Bohemia in a robe. Homer Van Meter was not killed by farmers with shot guns. Homer Van Meter was cornered by the police in St. Paul and gunned down with machine guns. Another member of Dillinger's gang, Harry Pierpont is shown being shot by police in this movie. Pierpont wasn't shot. Harry Pierpont was captured and sentenced to die in the electric chair. I go into what happened to Baby Face Nelson on my Baby Face Nelson review so I'm not going to go into it again here. Let me also add that Richard Dreyfuss' portrayal of Baby Face Nelson is pathetic. There's a scene where he attacks Dillinger and then gets a bad beating. While Dillinger was beating him he was crying like a baby and screaming, "Leave me alone!" Baby Face Nelson and John Dillinger never fought. Maybe Dillinger didn't agree with Nelson's bank robbing methods, but they never fought. Nelson also never cried like a little girl while getting beaten. They keep calling him Lester "Baby Face" Nelson. He was never in his life known by that name. Nelson's real name was Lester Gillis and he changed his name to George Nelson. The black guy that escaped from jail with Dillinger was Herbert Youngblood, but in this movie he is known as Reed Youngblood. John Milius doesn't know anything. Where the hell did John Milius get his information? I could probably make a better movie than him.Finally the way they showed John Dillinger die is outrageous and inexcusable. The movie shows Dillinger walk out of the Biograph with the Lady in Red and his girlfriend Billie Frechette. By the way, Billie Frechette wasn't even there that night. But a girl named Polly Hamilton was. Melvin Purvis yells, 'Johnny!' Dillinger pulls out his gun and is blown to hell. It is a proved fact that Dillinger did not have a gun that night. The FBI gave him no chance to surrender and as soon as he was in sight they blew him away. They didn't even have to shoot him. They were so close that powder burns were found on his face. It was murder. They also say that the man killed that night was not John Dillinger. After killing tons of civilians in the Little Bohemia incident can you imagine the FBI reporting that they had just killed another innocent unarmed man? The gun they had on display that was supposedly on Dillinger was also proved not to have been manufactured until after Dillinger's death. I could go on and on how the man they killed wasn't John Dillinger, but I'll stop here. If you would like to know more check it out hereSee the Dillinger version with Lawrence Tierney if you want, but don't waste your time with this inaccurate piece of garbage movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Despite the solid performance of Penelope Ann Miller, this movie was an awkward mess. The lead character's American accent was ridiculous and he never seemed comfortable as a result. There was no chemistry between the two actors and I'm still not sure what Ann-Margaret was doing there.$LABEL$ 0
+Dramatic license - some hate it, though it is necessary in retelling any life story. In the case of "Lucy", the main points of Lucille Ball's teenage years, early career and 20 year marriage to Desi Arnaz are all included, albeit in a truncated and reworked way.The main emotional points of Lucy's life are made clear: Lucille's struggle to find her niche as an actress, finally blossoming into the brilliant comedienne who made the character Lucy Ricardo a legend; her turbulent, romantic and ultimately impossible marriage to Desi Arnaz; Lucy & Desi creating the first television empire and forever securing their place in history as TV's most memorable sitcom couple.As Lucille Ball, Rachel York does a commendable job. Do not expect to see quite the same miraculous transformation like the one Judy Davis made when playing Judy Garland, but York makes Ball strong-willed yet likable, and is very funny in her own right. Even though her comedic-timing is different than Lucy's, she is still believable. The film never goes into much detail about her perfectionistic behaviour on the set, and her mistreatment of Vivian Vance during the early "I Love Lucy" years, but watching York portray Lucy rehearsing privately is a nice inclusion.Daniel Pino is thinner and less charismatic than the real Desi was, but he does have his own charm and does a mostly decent job with Desi's accent, especially in the opening scene. Madeline Zima was decent, if not overly memorable, as the teen-aged Lucy.Vivian Vance and William Frawley were not featured much, thankfully, since Rebecca Hobbs and Russell Newman were not very convincing in the roles. Not that they aren't good actors in their own right, they just were not all that suited to the people they were playing. Most of the actors were from Austrailia and New Zeland, and the repressed accents are detectable at times.Although the main structure of the film sticks to historical fact, there are many deviations, some for seemingly inexplicable reasons. Jess Oppenheimer, the head writer of Lucy's radio show "My Favourite Husband" which began in 1948, is depicted in this film as arriving on the scene to help with "I Love Lucy" in 1951, completely disregarding the fact that he was the main creator! This movie also depicts Marc Daniels as being the main "I Love Lucy" director for its entire run, completely ignoring the fact that he was replaced by William Asher after the first season! Also, though I figure this was due to budgetary constraints, the Ricardo's are shown to live in the same apartment for their entire stay in New York, when in reality they changed apartments in 1953. The kitchen set is slightly larger and off-scale from the original as well. The Connecticut home looks pretty close to the original, except the right and left sides of the house have been condensed and restructured. There's also Desi talking about buying RKO in 1953, during Lucy's red-scare incident, even though RKO did not hit the market until 1957. These changes well could have been for dramatic license, and the film does work at conveying the main facts, but would it have hurt them to show a bit more respect to Oppenheimer and Asher, two vital figures in "I Love Lucy" history? The biggest gaff comes in the "I Love Lucy" recreation scenes, at least a few of them. It's always risky recreating something that is captured on film and has been seen by billions of people, but even more so when OBVIOUS CHANGES are made. The scene with the giant bread loaf was truncated, and anyone at all familiar with that episode would have noticed the differences right away! The "We're Having A Baby" number was shortened as well, but other than that it was practically dead on. By far the best was the "grape-stomping" scene, with Rachel York really nailing Lucy's mannerisms. The producers made the wise decision not to attempt directly recreating the "Vitametavegamin" and candy factory bits, instead showing the actors rehearse them. These scenes proved effective because of that approach.The film's main fault is that it makes the assumption the viewers already know a great deal about Lucy's life, since much is skimmed over or omitted at all. Overall, though, it gives a decent portrait of Lucy & Desi's marriage, and the factual errors can be overlooked when the character development works effectively.$LABEL$ 1
+I think that Mario Van Peebles movie Posse is a very important film. It is an excellent entry point film to a side of history many are not aware of. This is a story of early black settlers, cow boys and infantrymen returning from the Spanish-American War with a cache of gold. The main character Peebles is haunted by memories of his murdered father. The racism applied to the new black settlers and infantryman is explored in this film with excellent casting including Melvin Van Peebles (Marios father), Billy Zane, Stephen Baldwin and a wonderful performance by Big Daddy Kane. One senses that Peeples strived to use as many notable black (and some not so notable - smile) actors as possible : ) Perhaps too many, some notable persons (Issac Hayes, Pamela Grier) are only scene in cameo, others briefly such as Tone Loc. The sentiment and efforts of Peebles efforts to expose these actors will be understood by some. The large cast (a feat for any director) work well and do a good job of telling the story in the classic "revenge and fight vs justice" western.Most noteworthy was the wonderful narrative role of veteran actor Woody Strode (from Once Upon A Time In The West), who's own life was a barrier-breaker, within the context of a previous era not yet completed faded from memory. No other actor could have done this role better. Read the mini-bio on Woody Strode here as a primer: http://imdb.com/name/nm0834754/bio The film does a good job of balancing action with a bit of sardonic humour. The dialog was excellent if a bit contemporary! And as others have mentioned the profanity was not accurate to that period. The sex scene was a bit much -- not really needed. There are some historical inaccuracies such as the seeming electronic branding of the cattle etc. But Posse is a good effort to hopefully open the door for more historical and creative works reflective of other untold stories and events. The actual photos of real cowboys at the end credits was very nice touch.$LABEL$ 1
+There aren't enough gay-themed movies and there aren't enough `coming out' movies. Every one is a welcome addition to the genre. Although the production values are high(the movie `looks' good, Matthias Freihof (Philipp) looks REAL good in a pair of jeans) this is a bad one. It is a period piece: gay life under an oppressive regime(East Berlin, 1989) a life that seems 40 years behind the west. In a way we're seeing our own history; what it might have been like for gays in the 40's and 50's here(it often reminded me of `Last Exit to Brooklyn :the book not the film).But it is unremittingly depressing and SLOW in a contrived way that evoked an old SCTV send up of Ingmar Bergman. It is so sloppily edited I wonder if the director just didn't hack at random. Yes, it is a miracle that this was filmed and released before The Wall came down and yes, life behind the `Curtain' was hard for gay people. A good director could have shown all that without stupefying the audience. A good director would have had me mark this one as one of the great coming-out movies and not one of the misses.$LABEL$ 0
+Despite what the title may imply, "Pigs Is Pigs" does not star Porky Pig. Rather, it features a young swine with an appetite more insatiable than John Belushi's character in "Animal House". His mother repeatedly scolds him, but it does no good. So much so that he goes to another house where a deranged scientist force-feeds him more than any mere mortal can handle (but there's a surprise at the end).I would mostly say that this cartoon seemed like a place holder in between the really great cartoons (Daffy Duck debuted three months after this came out). But make no mistake about it, they do some neat things here. The whole force-feeding sequence looks more relevant today, given the obesity epidemic overtaking our country.Anyway, not the greatest cartoon, but worth seeing.$LABEL$ 1
+Some people say the pace of this film is a little slow, but how is this different from any other Hitchcock movie? They all move very deliberately and, as a point, have spurts of suspense and brilliant montages injected through it. This movie gives us just the right amount of comic relief which make the suspense scenes seem all the more suspenseful. The Albert Hall scene is one of the best examples of Pure Cinema that exists in Hitchcock's collection (the best probably being almost all of "Rear Window"). Pure Cinema for Hitchcock meant a series of usually small pieces of film fit together without dialogue, in order to tell the story visually. This is, of course the basic definition of the Albert Hall sequence, as well as the shorter staircase sequence at the end of the picture. Not many slip-ups by Hitchcock here, and the acting is superb especially by Doris Day in a rather surprising serious role.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm not one of those folks who bemoans everytime a film based on an old TV show comes out. Rather, I usually run out and see it (If I had watched the show) and try to get nostalgic. But if anyone feels like running down films based on old shows, this is exhibit A (So you can actually say something more than just "McHale's Navy"). "Mod Squad" is dreary, tiring, and lethargic. At least the original series was angst riddled long before anyone knew teens could be so glum, making it groundbreaking. This is just tedious. Claire Danes is nice to look at, but does nothing else but mood swing and sneak around spying on the baddies. Giovanni Ribisi's acting extent in this flick is that Droopy the Dog look for an hour and forty five minutes. And Omar Epps looks like he wants to flee the set, but the script's chlostraphobia has trapped him. Sure, the production is nice, with the now seemingly obligitory "rave" nightclub opening action sequence and shootouts galore. Oh, and the kids yell and get mad at each other and their superiors a lot too. It's kind of like deciding to use the Scooby Doo Mystery Machine to go on a family vacation to Hollywood with your teenage kids who you and your spouse know need heavy therapy and prescription drugs. I really wanted to like this movie, and there were promising moments, but the next scene would suck the life out of it. You can knock another Spelling remake, "Charlie's Angels", all you want, but at least that film knew it wanted to have fun with itself. "The Mod Squad" makes you wonder where the inspiration from the original series went.$LABEL$ 0
+I was so excited and hyped up about watching this film when the promos first came out in November! It looked awesome and the songs! I was quite disappointed when I went to watch it! This is a film which weaves 6 couples together. It has a multi cast of 12 people! A huge amount of stars have worked on this film. I think the director, Nikhil Advani, has not managed the situation well and should not have had many people in this movie as this would of made it easier for him. Compared to Nikhil's directorial Debut 'Kal Ho Naa Ho' , 'Salaam-e-Ishq' falls quite behind. I think Nikhil should have a smaller star cast. I think the best factors of this film is the songs! The songs are excellent and I think that all of the songs are awesome, Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy done an excellent job and have done an excellent jobs over the years. I think the ratings of this movie may go up because of the excellent songs! One thing I was disappointed with, is that the director should not have included nudity in this film which is done by Sohail Khan and Isha Koppikar. I found this extremely rude watching this with family! Although, some may find this nude as comedy, it is not something you would want to watch with parents! I think the best acting was performed by Salman and Priyanka Overall, I think its an alright movie!$LABEL$ 0
+Rarely have I witnessed such a gratuitous waste of talent. There is almost nothing constructive to be said about this hopeless swamp of a film. What few interesting strands the film seems to promise initially turn out to be little more than red herrings. Actors of stature - Robert Duvall, Robert Downey, Jr. - are deployed in roles which go nowhere; a director of occasional genius produces a film which looks like it is filmed through a coffee-stained camera lens; a writer (John Grisham) who has never produced anything of merit, discovers new depths of under-motivated incoherence. The film has a cheap, lecherous feel about it - but barely at the level of commentary - its really part of the aesthetic. Normally, I come on to the IMDb to write balanced, generally appreciative comments. This egregious disaster of a film just makes me want to produce an endless, bilious rant. I won't, but only because I no longer want to occupy my "mind" with this trash.$LABEL$ 0
+STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning Unorthodox journalist Mike Sullivan (Vinnie Jones) flits away his time winding up the local constabulary and trying to romance a member of police personnel. But everything changes when the landlady of the Thames side pub he frequents is found murdered and a transcript of an unpublished novel cum confession by legendary writer Charles Dickens is found. As he digs deeper into both mysteries, he is plunged further into mystery and danger than he bargained for.In 1998, former footballer Vinnie Jones shot out of nowhere and took everyone by surprise with his gangster cult classic Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Okay, no one was blown away by his acting ability, but his presence as a hard man looked set to ensure a decent career as a movie tough guy. But it all proved to be a one hit wonder, and all he really achieved after this was supporting role status amongst far more acclaimed actors in films like Gone in Sixty Seconds and Swordfish, before descending into the realm of straight to DVD hell, the latest being this muddled and labourous thriller, which might have been okay had he not taken other acclaimed and promising new talent stars like Derek Jacobi, Julie Cox, Vanessa Redgrave, Jason Flemyng and Mel Smith along with him. What caused him to fall from the dizzying heights of success so quickly (apart from maybe being a one trick pony) is anyone's guess (a dodgy personal life being a possible guess) but here he is.A script as far fetched and incomprehensible as this would have been a task in anyone's hand, but with a miscast looking Jones in the lead, it's even more of a task to fathom. Jacobi's juxtaposing roles as a former thesp tramp and Dickens himself talking directly to the camera through-out are obviously hints building up to something and the script is predictable in other areas too. Add to this cheap looking production values through out and debut director (also writer) Brendan Foley has made a bad first impression.What exactly did I expect with something that came free with The Daily Mail? *$LABEL$ 0
+I have seen cheesy kung fu fight films. Living in Taiwan they come on in lieu of sitcoms in America. I have seen movies make fun of themselves, but this film belongs in the sad category of fight films that try too hard with awful actors, awful props, and awful music to be taken seriously. I seriously felt pity for the person who composed the music for this movie. How sad it must be to be a composer who has to churn out crap like what I thought should have been titled "Generic Ninja Fight Scene, Op. 1" or "Variations on A Bad Guy Pointing a Gun at a Girl's Head When Backed into a Corner" or the daring "Flight of the Helicopter". Then the fight scenes were over and the credits rolled. Those actually had me in tears laughing. If the "special effects" weren't proof enough that this was low-budget, the fact that only two or three of the crew members, presumably locals which although good for the much-needed Phillipino economy was probably done solely to save money, have ever done anything since this series of movies. They rented equipment, despite making sequels to this movie. That was pretty funny too. The thing that really had me going though, was not the music (which left me half expecting an animated Sargeant Slaughter from G.I. Joe to pop up), but the ending...I suppose this would be a spoiler if there was really a plot to spoil, but when the American Ninja drops the girl into Jackson's arms and then takes off his mask, I wanted to see him jump off the roof and Jackson drop the girl to catch him.I think that would have been the perfect punchline for this joke of a movie.$LABEL$ 0
+A group of obnoxious teens go to a former funeral parlor for a Halloween party. They get trapped inside, and become possessed by demons that they have accidentally awakened. The possessed teens start killing the others off and seem to be led by Angela (Mimi Kinkade) who floats and talks in a really deep voice. The remaining teens that haven't been possessed yet are forced to fight off the demons and try to escape the house.This is a pretty decent horror film with great special effects which include Linnea Quigley (who has a couple nude scenes as usual) gouging out a guy's eyeballs and pushing a tube of lipstick into her nipple. There's also a scene where a couple has sex in a coffin and a guy getting his tongue bitten out. This is a great film to watch with a bunch of friends late at night while eating some pizza. The terrible acting and atrocious dialog almost ruins it though. Overall, I would give it a 7 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+First thing I noticed in this movie of course, was the unnecessary amount of nudity. It's not oozing nudity or anything, but a lot that was not needed. Annik Borel plays a disturbed woman believing her families ghost stories that her ancestor who eerily resembles her was a werewolf, and believes their fate are destined to be the same. Which actually I found quite interesting. The original Wolf Man was intended to be a completely psychological movie, but Universal threw in the actual Wolf man you were never supposed to see for n extra buck or two. I find this concept of someone not really being a werewolf interesting. Unfortunately this is not the film I was searching for.Instead we know shes not a werewolf from the beginning, so there's no thrill or twist, also they attempt to make the film seem like a this really happened scenario. They fail there too adding one or two parts of the film referring to this being reality. At first I was excited upon reading the description of the film. But I slowly realized it was a cover just so they could expose the main characters breasts as often as possible.Annik Borel is either a decent actor playing a great psychotic role, or a really bad actor playing a psychotic role. Since the character Danniele has no brains and is just a nut who runs around insane and snarling and snapping like a wolf, it takes little skill to play. She has moments were her performance breaks through for a creepy moment but is quickly ruined by the poor camera work and light. The idea is great, but hideously executed throughout the film. 3/10$LABEL$ 0
+I remember when this film was up for the Academy Awards and did not win in any category. For the life of me, I cannot remember what it was up against, but one thing I can say: It was one of the best movies I have ever seen. And the fact that Steven Spielberg directed the film did not persuade me one bit.Essentially, it is about a black woman's trials and tribulations as she is growing up from a girl to a woman. There are a lot of insinuations that are disturbing and horrifying, but all of them are needed to see how much this woman has put up with. Along the way, we see other women who have had to put up with their hardships and walk with them to redemption. Whoopi Goldberg gives her best performance ever in this movie. Danny Glover should have also gotten at least nominated for his role in this film. And the best part of this movie is that it treats its subjects humanely, not like some sideshow freak shows like the more recent "Beloved" did. I encourage anyone of any race to see this film. 9/10$LABEL$ 1
+Not only do I think this was the best film of 1987, it's probably in my own amorphous list as one of the 10-20 best films I've ever seen. For whatever reason, I really connected with this movie, and it is one of the most personal films I had seen at that point in my life (I was 26). For better or worse, I strongly identified with the Holly Hunter character (and I'm a guy!). She plays an extremely bright, loyal and intense woman who couldn't figure out romantic relationships. There were so many things that she said in this movie that were things that I would say or have said to others in similar circumstances. And the ending of the movie I find to be so very, very sad.Obviously, this role was the big break for Holly Hunter. Clearly, I was not the only one to think so highly of it.$LABEL$ 1
+(WARNING - CONTAINS MILD SPOILER) A movie almost designed to make you pause and check your recollection of it - it's confined to an almost empty motel where the huge courtyard resembles a circus ring and the rooms seem like temporary withdrawal points rather than refuges; as the characters become increasingly preoccupied by the past, the present increasingly falls away, until the ultimate incendiary appearance of the Countess in the black Mercedes marks the fusion of reality and fantasy. Whether or not their stories are true, and whether Stanton is truly the father or just a crazy old man stepping into their stories, seems impossible to determine. The theme seems to be how love of an extreme and unconsidered nature messes with stability to the point where reality itself breaks down; where exotic, misplaced fantasy becomes dangerously tangible. The image of the burning motel - a symbol of dislocation beset by destruction - is an appropriately weird ending for this strange but effective, startlingly imaginative, movie.$LABEL$ 1
+To sum it up in a nutshell, this film was disappointing and could have been shortened by twenty minutes.The acting was sub-par, the only decent actors of the bunch being Trisha, the killer and Molly. The music was slightly lame but fitting and the special effects were much too overused. The story/scriptwriting was poor, the unnecessary torture/romantic scenes being dragged on for way too long and a disappointing ending.The start of the film was rather slow, the fake-looking gore not much of interest. Trisha arrived at the house, and there was some premise for a good storyline.Trisha started to receive the threatening phone calls, which heightened the suspense. This momentary suspense, the best feature of the movie began to build, but then the friends crashed the place, wrecking all potential suspense/horror in the film.The plot then becomes obtuse from here on. Chemistry sparks between the two couples, and then the killer picks off Frank and the other girl. This scene was dragged on and unnecessary.The killer then makes her way for Trisha and ties her up. There is an overdone torture scene which goes on for at least ten minutes too long. As the gore is done badly this is not entertaining at all, and it bores more than shocks.In summary, the first thirty minutes of this film sound promising but then poorly written dialogue and general lack of plot ruins this film.3/10.$LABEL$ 0
+If you see the title "2069 A Sex Odyssey" in the video store, BEWARE!! The cover has Tori Wells and three other "80's" porn stars, and has a copyright of 1986. If you're like me (and I hope you're not) you'll think "80's porn? Tori Wells? Alright!" Trickery!! It was made in 1974 and has dubbed German stars! There's nothing inherently wrong with 70's German porn, but it's not my cup of tea, and it's nothing like what the cover leads you to believe you're getting. Once I got past my rage about the blatantly misleading jacket, I watched it anyway. It's a bad, bad movie. Sorry, I guess I didn't really get past the rage.$LABEL$ 0
+Mickey Rourke is enjoying a renaissance at the moment... and fair play to him. I always liked his image and his acting ability in such fare as Angel Heart and Johnny Handsome. You know what you are going to get with Rourke - mean, moody, dirty. But this film gives you much more - and you don't want most of it.First and foremost - this whole thing just doesn't make sense. Rourke is a hardened IRA killer who after killing a bus-load of schoolchildren flees Ireland for London. He is on the run from the cops and from his own Army comrades. He has also vowed to never kill again. It looks like the bus full of kids finally did it for him.However, when he gets to London he is tracked down by a local mobster (Bates - looking like his eyebrows and hair came straight off a Burton's dummy) to kill his main competitor in turn for £50,000 and a boat trip to the US. Rourke reluctantly agrees to do it but is seen by a priest (Hoskins) and confesses the crime to him in the confessional in order to keep the priest's mouth shut. He figures it is better than killing him.A wealth of things arise here which just don't add up : 1. Why pick Rourke to off your competition? As is illustrated by a scene whereby an employee is pinned to a wall by a couple of heavies with what look like awls - these London guys are tough enough anyway to do their own killing. 2. Not only that but the Mobster gets a guy to follow Rourke and witness the killing with his own eyes. Why didn't that guy simply kill the competitor and save all the hassle of dealing with Rourke? 3. Hoskins sees the murder take place and the police let him go off - without protection, I may add - to take confession? No way. 4. Rourke hangs around the church (right next to where he carried out the murder ) immediately after the crime takes place to go to confession. Why aren't the cops checking the place out? 5. Rourke hangs around the church and Hoskin's blind niece in particular, for days afterwards without anybody bothering him. What? He's on the run and he stays put by the very place where he committed another murder? Stupid. 6. The cops actually meet Rourke in the church "fixing" the organ and have no idea who he is. Do they not know he is on the run for the school bus bombing? They don't even check up on him? 7. Why get Rourke to kill for you, and then tell him to wait around for a few days to get on the boat? You'd think you'd want to get rid of him immediately. Or kill him. One or the other? 8. Why does Bates' brother suddenly decide to rape the blind niece in the midst of all the waiting? Could he not restrain himself for a few days? At least until Rourke has been safely offed to the States? Ridiculous. 9. Rourke suddenly has inner turmoil after all his years of killing and wins over the blind niece immediately - even after she knows he is a killer, she still loves him? Again - utterly ludicrous. And besides - she falls in "love" with him in record time - a few days !!!! 10. The whole bomb thing at the end is just plain silly from Bates point of view. 11. Things happen in parts of this film that just do not make sense or are simply in there to help the storyline (and I say that in jest) along. Bates' houses Rourke in a whorehouse until the boat is ready to sail and Rourke suddenly displays a moral high ground to respect the whore in the house - but yet will bed a blind girl. 12. Rourke asks a henchman on the boat where Bates is - and the henchman practically spurts out the entire movements of his boss in less than 10 seconds. It was embarrassing - the guy was telling Rourke far more than he even asked. 13. Hoskin's priest is an ex-army guy and we see him beat up three henchmen behind a pub. Totally uncalled-for and yet another cringe-worthy scene.I'm gonna stop there at unlucky 13 without mentioning Rourke's hair (so falsely red it is laughable), his accent (which to be fair is not too bad sometimes but deteriorates to a barely heard mumble at other times), his clothes, walk, looks to the heavens etc. Nor will I mention the music and the choppy editing style.Oooppps - I have just mentioned them.Overall - a disaster of a film with some obvious religious imagery thrown in (Rourke on the cross, preaching from a pulpit) which would embarrass a first year film student never mind a top star and director.4/10.$LABEL$ 0
+Whatever the producer was going for, he missed entirely. The Lone Ranger is not camp, but "the" icon for good-doers all over the world. And it's a total violation of the spirit of the character that the only real Lone Ranger, Mr. Clayton Moore, was forbidden to wear his mask in public appearances when this movie was released.Whelp, long story short, the single saving grace of this gross (and poorly done) distortion was that in that year, I had the honor of meeting Mr. Clayton Moore in Columbus Ohio, as part of a tour resulting from the bad press over Mr. Moore's treatment. Needless to say, Mr. Moore's character, integrity and presence far outshined the movie.Some things cannot be done better. There is only one Lone Ranger.$LABEL$ 0
+Her Excellency Madam Shabana Azmi has worked in countless movies over life time. I think best is yet to come.Fire is ok.But still good days are yet to come.Hopefully, in Water I will be able see her better.Thanks and Regards.PS: India doesn't have a director to make best use of her.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is the worst film, but it ranks very high for me. It is how a slasher movie should be. It takes place at a university in which there only seems to be a handful of students. The teachers are dumber than a sack of hammers. It is filled with good Catholic priest, sexually repressed humor. Bad hair, bad clothes. The dialogue is so cliched it is hard to believe that I was able to predict lines in quotes. The slashings have some creativity and seem to revolve around stabbing people in the genitalia. A lack of continuity in the soundtrack and characters that deserve to die because they are so bad, I recommend this film for a fun time. Get a case of cheap beer and some friends, watch it and laugh.$LABEL$ 0
+my friends and I are always on the lookout for chuck norris films to just bash and make fun of. One of our favorites so far is Lonewolf. i went to a wal-mart Christmas shopping and i came across this movie in the 5.99 bin. i had to get it. i had high hopes for this movie and although being absolutely hilarious at times, we agreed that bells of innocence is the worst movie we've ever seen, made, produced, thought up, etc... who the hell would think this is a good idea. not only is it confusing at times, but the acting is just hard to watch. the man who plays oren has acting i can compare to my own vomit, and chuck took a dive on this one, he's not the greatest actor, but this was terrible. and what kind of names are oren, conrad and jux........ jux. come on people. if you honestly thought this movie was at all watchable, great for you because it was hard for me and i seriously had a headache and stomach pains after watching it. I'm telling you now if you haven't seen this movie, DON'T!!. For the love of god please do not subject yourself to such a horrible 90 minutes of your life.$LABEL$ 0
+*WARNING* Contains MANY SPOILERS!Let me start by saying I have a huge respect for Gillian Anderson's incredible talent as a varied and versatile actress - which is why I cannot comprehend her reasons for agreeing to make this film once she saw the script (or lack thereof.) The premise of the film was, in my opinion, a great idea and there were some genuinely thought-provoking themes in there but it ended up like a collapsed soufflé. It exemplifies why I hate 99% of British cinema. It feels too long, it's tedious, for the most part, and not a lot happens after the first twenty minutes. Just when you think there's a chance of it picking up some speed it disappoints like Paula Radcliffe running a marathon. With little imaginative directing and a minimalist plot, there isn't much to keep the audience from nodding off into their popcorn. As for the script I can only surmise that the writer was trying to save a few trees, with the average scene reading something along the lines of "Alice: F*** OFF! (Adam stares. Adam runs off into woods)(Alice follows) Alice: ADAM! ADAM!" I suspect that, word for word, the actors probably got paid more than Kate Moss did for her Virgin Mobile adverts. What few lines there were didn't have a lot of variation with a frequent use of the f-word that would make Bridget Jones's friend, Shazza, proud. There is little establishment of the main characters before the main sordid event which leaves the audience lacking much sympathy for the characters beyond an automatic 'Oh that's terrible' reaction.Alice isn't the kind of woman who courts sympathy either. She's got a great job, an expensive London apartment with roof space to die for yet she comes across on screen as conceited, bitter and dissatisfied before her life takes a turn for the worst. After the attack a few layers are peeled back which sort-of explain why she is this way to start with; she grew up with a tough-as-old-boots soldier who thought that teaching her how to shoot his gun was the ultimate expression of love so, instead of following in his footsteps, she ran away to the big city in search of something to make her feel like her life is worth living. Instead she found a group of stereotypical middle-class Toffs who look down on anyone not rich enough to drive a Lexus and the luxuries that come with an integrated security/entertainment system (i.e. becoming Mrs Robinson to a wanna-be Cockney wide-boy electrician) Someone pass me a tissue. The one saving grace of this character is that she is played by Gillian Anderson. In the hands of a lesser actress she would've been intolerably one-dimensional but Ms Anderson actually manages to inject a few fleeting moments of humanity into this otherwise lifeless human being, most notably when she's sincerely apologising for her road rage in a vain attempt to stop her attackers from continuing their assault.I can't say that Adam fared much better either. Danny Dyer played him well as a fish-out-of-water Jack the Lad but a good performance couldn't save him from both the lack of a script and the total absence of any character background. This film relied mostly on shock value but the timing was off and it felt far too engineered from beginning to end. As for the shock, the most shocking thing about this film is the unashamed demonstration of how painfully thin Ms Anderson has become; it was almost as unsettling to see as the brutal attack scenes. On a side note, only in a British film would a gang of violent sex attackers take the time to offer each other contraception before continuing to cheer their mates on - talk about stiff-upper-lip taken to the extreme! If this is the kind of film that the National Lottery is donating money to make then I'm not surprised that fewer and fewer people are choosing to spend their pound each week. Saying that I hated this film is giving it too much credit, I didn't care enough about any of the characters to warrant that strong an emotion. I want that one-and-a-bit hours of my life back, please!$LABEL$ 0
+I love how everyone treats this show like it was the next great American sitcom. I watched five episodes of this abomination, and the only person that came close to an actual teacher was the old guy that sort of loved and hated his job. The rest of them were just pretty people trying to read the lines written by people who never actually went inside of a real classroom. I loved how every episode consisted of the two idiots (one who got laid and the other who didn't) getting into some form of zany trouble that indirectly involved their students. The British girl who thought she found an likable quality in the main idiot, but in the end was somehow shocked that he turned out to be a jackass. The hot chick that was there for the particular purpose of being hot, and the principal and her lackey that served to somehow move the almost non-existent plot forward. I loved how almost all the teachers on this show were very young, but I ask you to think back to your high school days and remember the teachers that you had . . . did they look like that? Or did you go to the high school that had middle-aged people teaching in it? That is the high school that everyone else went to. The show lacked any form of research into what goes on in schools. In public schools, principals do not have the power to higher and fire teachers, the school board does, but in every episode that I watched the principal made threats to fire her teachers. Think back to your history class . . . . . or think of any history class, did you ever see an incredibly hot British chick teach an American History class? No. Did you ever see a teacher's lounge that is so huge that you could actually play basketball in? No.Teachers could have been a great show had it actually of based itself in some form of reality. What makes teaching funny is the stories that you get from interaction with students, and the teachers find it funny because they deal with the students day in and day out. The overemphasis on their lives outside of teaching just made it another four camera sitcom that had unrealistic people in an unrealistic environment saying unrealistic lines, and I'm sorry, I just didn't buy it. The show could have modeled itself after other currently successful sitcoms and used a single-camera format, and it should have centered more around the teacher's relationships with their students and not with each other.It gets a star for trying and a star for the hot chick (she was really hot).In the end, it was a failed sitcom that will go down in history as a hacks attempt to understand a profession. I only hope that if they make another sitcom based on teaching that they learn from their mistakes so that a monstrosity such as this never touches the television screen.$LABEL$ 0
+I cannot believe I actually sat through the whole of this movie! It was absolutely awful, and totally cringe-worthy, and yet I sat through it thinking it had to get better. It didn't, and I have wasted 2 hours of my life. Will Smith is much better in action movies - I loved him in I, Robot, Enemy of the State and Independence Day - and I don't think he can really be expected to carry off an entire movie as the romantic lead in the way that Cary Grant could. Then again, the script was unbearably awful, and the dialogue was so cheesy. I disliked everyone except for Albert's character, and even that I found was done with a heavy hand. If you want to watch a modern feel-good romantic comedy, watch something like How To Lose A Guy In Ten Days, or When Harry Met Sally. The 40 Year Old Virgin left me with a smile on my face. I even preferred Music and Lyrics above this - and yes, I know it's cheesy, but at least it didn't take itself seriously, and was sweet. I also disliked the main female lead - and wasn't convinced of the chemistry between her and Will Smith's character. In all, I think there were two scenes that I liked (and definitely not the ending, which was nauseating and unconvincing!) - Hitch calling Sarah when she hadn't given him her number was quite sweet, and - no, sorry, that's the only thing I liked about the entire film. Don't waste your time.$LABEL$ 0
+I found Tremors 4:The Legend Begins, to be dull and boring.All the action scenes were stupid.The so called "GRABOIDS" are reduced to the size of a modern day house cat, if not smaller.The acting was horrendous, and this film was just an unnecessary movie in the Tremor saga, because even though it tells the story of how the graboids were formed, the story is so dumb and useless.Also, if you want to tell a story WAY back in time, make sure you use the SAME ACTOR(Michael Gross), to be someone in the past, when he's someone in the present in the other Tremor movies.Geez...If you haven't seen this film, don't waste your time.Stick to Tremors, 1, 2, and 3, for a good time.This film however, make sure you're remote is sitting right next to you with the STOP button working for a quick retreat away from this nonsense.$LABEL$ 0
+To preface my remarks on the film, I know the topic is horrendous and words can't adequately express the compassion any decent person would have for people dealing with the post-horrors of an atomic bomb dropped near them. However, this film doesn't really deal with in a horrific way except for the first 10 minutes. Some of the images there are horrifying, and should be as a reminder what devastation nuclear weapons can produce. Seeing burned people walking around aimlessly or man combing his hair and clumps of hair coming out, etc., is not a pretty sight. But after the first dozen minutes, this Japanese film concerns people dealing with the aftermath of Hiroshima in the mid-to-late '40s. I actually found the story developing quickly into a boring soap opera. Almost all the story occurs five years after the bomb and deals mainly with one family's problems at that point. This is why it became more of a melodrama than some shocking story of nuclear disaster. It's simply a story about how these people got on with their lives from about 1950 on, whether one of the women was permanently damaged and if so, should she marry? This could have been a real impact film but it didn't go in that direction$LABEL$ 0
+One of the commentators on the subject of Lil' Pimp (dbborroughs of Glen Cove), got it right when he/she stated that the movie is really bad but I take exception when he/she commented on the animation.The animation wasn't bad because of Macromedia Flash. It was bad animation because it was directed wrong. Flash is just a tool. In the right hands, an artist can create animation as full and fluid as any Disney film and, in the wrong hands, it can look as bad as the stuff on the internet, which is where Lil' Pimp originated and should've stayed there.Studios such as Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Disney, and Warner Bros., create wonderful animation using Flash (i.e., Puffy Ami Yumi, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, Mucha Lucha, etc.).Lil' Pimp was an ill conceived piece of tripe that was made because Revolution Studios bought Media Tripp and Lil' Pimp was one of the properties included. Roth and company thought they'd make a quick buck exploiting a turd like Lil' Pimp and the sham was perpetuated by it's producer, Amy Pell. The reason for this third trimester abortion of an animated film is that none of the executives at Revolution Studios had the pragmatic brains to sideline Mark Brooks and Peter Gilstrap (they really tried their best but were way in over their heads), and hire real writers, directors and at least a semi-competent producer. They did one thing correctly though, they hired some of the best storyboarders, designers, and animators in LA, but as Lil' Pimp demonstrates, one can buy the best sports car on the floor but if you're a moron, you'll wreck it for sure.$LABEL$ 0
+I was forced to read this sappy "love story" between a German 24 year old POW and a 12 year old Jew. That has "political correctness" written all over it. Its kind of like the movie "SPIRIT" in which a horse wants to be free but those "evil" Americans wont let it because they need it. Well i have good news the Americans are "evil" in The German soldier and his summer book. Why!!! Horses where given to us by god and if the Americans needed a horse the can darn well use it. In the same sense the German had been trying to kill Americans, but this book/movie makes it seem OK! The casting is absolutely awful!!!!!!!!!!!! The girl is Hispanic the mother is white the dad it probubly from mostly white descent and the little sister is "shirley templish." The acting is pretty bad too, the serious parts become comedy! Concluson-Bad movie, bad book, but both have different endings, don't read or see either one!$LABEL$ 0
+this movie is, despite its "independent" status, a stupid hollywood version of a nauseating mother-daughter relationship. it wasnt that bad at first, but somewhere during the course of the movie--around the time that the daughter goes out with that guy, i think--it turns into a cheesey mother-daughter bonding movie. im sorry, but i dont know of any mothers who have that kind of relationship with their daughter...its probably better that way, though.$LABEL$ 0
+This collection of eleven short stories in one movie is a great idea, and presents some great segments, but also some disappointing surprises. Based on the tragic event of the September 11th 2001 in the United States of America, eleven directors were invited to give their approach to the American tragedy. The result of most of them is not only an individual sympathy to the American people, but mainly to the intolerance in the world with different cultures and people.Ken Loach (UK) presents the best segment, about the September 11th 1973 in Chile, when the democratic government of Salvador Alliende was destroyed by the dictator Augusto Pinochet with the support of the USA.The other excellent segments are the one of Youssef Chahine (Egypt), showing the intolerance in the world, and the number of victims made by USA governments in different countries along the contemporary history; and the one of Mira Nair (India), showing a true story of injustice and prejudice against a Pakistanis family, whose son was wrongly accused of terrorism in USA, when he was indeed a hero.Some segments are beautiful: Samira Makhmalbaf (Iran) shows the innocent Afghans refugee children preparing an inoffensive shelter against bombs, while their teacher tries to explain to them what happened on the other side of the world; the romantic Claude Lelouch (France) shows the life of a couple in New York nearby the WTC; Danis Tanovic (Bosnia-Herzegovina) shows the effects of their war in a small location and the lonely protest of widows; Sean Penn is very poetic, showing that life goes on; and Shohei Imamura's story is probably the most impressive, showing that there is no Holy War but sadness and disgrace.The segment of Idrissa Quedraogo (Birkina Faso) is very naive, but pictures the terrible poor conditions of this African nation.The segment of Amos Gital (Israel) is very boring and manipulative, showing more violence and terrorism.The segment of Alejandro González Iñárritu is very disappointing, horrible, without any inspiration and certainly the worst one.My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "11 de Setembro" ("September 11")$LABEL$ 1
+Miserable film. Not even to be compared in one breath with "To Kill a Mockingbird," or "In the Heat of the Night."Yes, there is racial prejudice but the film is at most ridiculous. Come now. Would you really have Elizabeth Patterson, of all people, guarding a jail so as to avoid a lynching? Patterson, in her day, played everyone's mother and was the landlady in "I Love Lucy" before Fred and Ethel Mertz bought the building.Imagine exhuming the body so that it will not come out that the black man's gun killed a white man?Claude Jarman Jr., who was so fabulous in 1946's "The Yearling" appears in this mess. He still had those sad eyes. My eyes would be sad too if I appeared in this awful film.To me, this was nothing more than a Faulkner flop all the way.$LABEL$ 0
+The Japanese have probably the most sadistic movies around the world,and this is one of the strongest examples.With a running time at about an hour,it contains enough sexual violence and gore to disgust every single sane person on earth(even those who are hunting this type of movies).Three men and a woman are making a porn film.After some normally shots(which are pixelated),the girl is tied up,and the madmen cut her food,arm and tong.After that,they make a hole in her abdomen and a man has sexual intercourse with her intestines.He is knocked unconscious too and has his penis cut off.The special effects are good for an obviously low budget production(only the tong cut scene looks fake),and we can't talk about acting,direction or screenplay.After hearing a lot about this film,I was very happy when I finally found it.The first part is pretty boring,but the second one totally f***k up my mind,the torture and killing scenes being some of the most extreme and disturbing I have ever seen.The gore hounds will be satisfied by "Tumbling Doll of Flesh",but an unknowing viewer shouldn't even read the synopsis.$LABEL$ 1
+So this guy named George is sitting home alone on his birthday when two women show up. George's wife is at a hospital taking care of their son so when the wife is away George gets in the bubble bath and makes love to both of the girls. It isn't that great of a scene because it really doesn't show anything. After that the birthday boy wakes up the next morning and the girls are still at his house. They make him a nice breakfast but George isn't hungry. George isn't very happy and he tries to ditch them but when he gets home the girls are still at his house. The girls have had enough with old George and no longer want to cook for them. They both turn out to be major psychopaths and use George in their little crazy game. I liked that the girls just did what they wanted and messed up George's house. George wasn't really that great to his two guests. When George said he was a married man, he really didn't seem to mean it. George looked like Tom Tucker on Family Guy. I was for the two girls the whole time.$LABEL$ 0
+It was tough watching Harrison Ford obsessing over nothing. Kristin Scott-Thomas should have slapped this guy and told him to take a hike.Save your money. Don't even bother with a rental fee, unless you need a good nap.$LABEL$ 0
+You're waiting to see if the remake is better or worse. I rated the Audie Murphy movie a 3 (I'm a harsh grader), the second lowest I ever gave Audie (the worst being "Battle at Bloody Beach" if you're curious). I give this movie a rating of "8" (and I'm a harsh grader) It's the Civil War story of renegade "soldiers", if you want to call them that, against the North. People like Quantrell, and the men who rode with these outlaws.The original was a watery version, very clean cut, while still depicting the horror of what these men did. Actually, movies such as the older version are best viewed by mature audiences, who can discern the story. I would be more apt to rate the original "R" and this one, with it's gruff nature, a GP, because the newer movie gives a very honest version, a message more easily deciphered by a juvenile than the older version.Film makers since the early sixties have boasted about "Realism", but few of them deliver. Instead, they just give the drab scenery, drab costumes, and drab events, but with comic book cardboard stereotype characters, the weakness of the spaghetti era.Modern film makers have realized this mistake. It is evident in a superior style of Western we usually see today. This movie is an example. It gives the realistic settings, but also gives us characters we can believe exist in that era.It has a few lulls, which makes a complete sit through a bit hard, and it has some unexplained situations. But unexplained situations are okay as long the entire movie holds up, and the characters are intriguing enough.It begins a bit campy, but really improves. The main character is one we can identify, and at least have some sympathy for. The Audie Murphy character of the early movie really evokes no sympathy, and is too self righteous without motivation.The character in this movie follows the lines of a true anti-hero. There is motivation, and a method to his madness. We never feel he is truly "right", but we can understand where he comes from.There is plenty of action in the movie. There is also some humor. One good scene is when the heroine tells the hero she wouldn't lie to him, and he mulls that over.This movie succeeds in doing what film makers have been trying to do for decades. This director and writer team got it right.Recommended. Complete success.$LABEL$ 1
+John Rivers' life as an architect and family man has taken a turn for the worst when his wife has disappeared and has been concluded dead after a freakish accident that involved changing a tyre on her car. During the days she has been missing, he confronts a man that's been following and he tells him that his been in contact with his dead wife from the other-side through E.V.P - Electronic Voice Phenomenon. Naturally he doesn't believe it but then hear gets weird phone calls from her phone and so he contacts the man to find out more about E.V.P. Soon enough John is hooked onto it, but something supernatural doesn't like him interfering with the dead, as now other then contacting his wife, the white noise is foretelling events before they happen.Since this DVD has been sitting on my shelf for a while now, I thought I better get around to watching it since it wasn't my copy. But then again I don't think the owners were in a hurry to get it back, as they haven't question me about it. Oh well. So I decided to give it a play, as I was in an undemanding mood. After hearing and reading all the bad press on it, I wasn't expecting anything remotely good, but I was kept entertained for 90 minutes. Well, more so the 60 minutes, as the last half-an-hour was pretty much a blur of confusion. The film is nowhere as good as it could have been, but the time breezed by quick enough even though it's a rather tepid supernatural thriller. I thought it wasn't all a waste. The first hour I found some effective sequences rather interesting and there's a spooky awe generated with a slow progression of subtle stillness and tragedy that haunts you, but sadly that comes to a crashing halt later on in the film. That's when the predictably forced jump scares come into their own and somehow it just doesn't fit in with the context. It becomes rather hectic, loud and very muddled with its MTV style editing and kinetic camera-work that gets to close into the action. I couldn't understand what was going on within choppy and abrupt climax. The whole explanation how everything fits into the bigger picture is pure hokey. It's a very unsatisfying conclusion because it goes for something big, but hits rock bottom. I thought they did fine job up until that point with the lighting and showy camera-work. Other then the distinctively stark lighting, the score kept this flick atmospherically gloomy. All of it is very slickly done with its glossed up and fancy hardware, which makes it come across as very sterile and empty.You can easily see that the film's heart is in the technical components and not in expanding the characters and story. There's just no connection and lasting sentiment within this flimsy material. After a while, it just tries too hard to convince you that it falls into manipulative thrills and popping in many blood-curdling stuff from beyond the grave. It just got rather repetitious watching someone watch a fuzzy TV screen after while. The E.V.P machine was the star on the show. Well, it did have more impact than the limp performances. Michael Keaton is more than capable actor, but lately his disappeared off the map and here he provides a modest performance as the dangerously obsessed John Rivers. He really deserves much better, though. Everyone else is pretty brittle and forgettable. Not because of the performances, but of the lack of depth in their characters. This clunker wasn't bad to begin with, but it does go pear shape by falling away drastically.I wouldn't care to see it again and I wouldn't recommend to anyone, unless you got a interest for the subject matter and enjoy the recent crop of Hollywood produced horror/thrillers. It's just a damn shame that this over-produced flick couldn't put it together successfully, as it had promise in its idea and a more than decent cast on hand. I didn't hate it, but what a disappointment.$LABEL$ 0
+Without question, the worst film I've seen for a long while. I endured to the end because surely there must be something here, but no. The plot, when not dealing in clichés, rambles to the point of non-existence; dialogue that is supposed to be street is simply hackneyed; characters never develop beyond sketches; set-pieces are clichéd. Worse, considering its co-director, the photography is only so-so.Comments elsewhere that elevate this alongside Get Carter, Long Good Friday or Kaspar Hauser are way way off the mark; Lives of the Saints lacks their innovation let alone their depth and shading. In short, their craft. A ruthless editor could probably trim it down to a decent 30-minute short, but as it stands it's a 6th form film project realised on a million-pound scale; rambling and bloated with its own pretensions. That it received funding (surely only because of Rankin's name) while other small films struggle for cash is depressing for the British film industry.$LABEL$ 0
+We bought the DVD set of "Es war einmal das Leben" (German) / "Once Upon a Time... Life" (English) for our bilingual kids because everyone loved the "Es war einmal der Mensch" (German) / "Once Upon a Time... Man" (English) series (us parents had seen it as kids) and it has exceeded even high expectations! The series is very well made, does not show its age, and our kids at various ages really like to watch it. At the same time, they learn things us parents didn't know until way, way later. The series covers everything to do with the human body from organs, all senses, blood, infection, antibodies, and much more in animated 20-25 min episodes. Topics some people may find "sensible", such as digestion and reproduction are covered in a tasteful, discreet and child-friendly manner (the reproduction episode starts coverage mainly where the baby starts growing), while still (as typical) informative and fun.Children are usually fascinated with how their bodies work and through the episodes gain an understanding of this in the context of their environment. The format of the episodes switches between the outside world (a family with 2 children) and the inside of the body. For example, in the episode covering infections, the boy cuts himself accidentally and the wound gets infected and the episode covers how the body reacts to this. Similarly, the episodes on the senses, e.g. hearing, seeing, link what happens inside the body to the context of the outside world and the episode on respiration and circulation of oxygen in the blood covers the complete lifecycle including (briefly) where the oxygen comes from (plants).This is one of the best ever children's programs - I would say it's a must see for every family with kids!$LABEL$ 1
+Never having seen an Oliver Stone film before, nor any films starring Eric Bogosian, I didn't know what to expect from this film. Having toyed with the idea of buying it for a while, I finally got it for free as a supplement with a Sunday newspaper and I was hugely impressed.It tells the story of Barry Champlain, a talk radio host who can be incredibly rude towards his callers, often putting them in their place before they realise what's going on. Though this is what has made him a popular radio show host, it has also earned him numerous enemies.The acting in this film was hugely impressive with not one dud actor in it. Eric Bogosian is brilliant as Barry Champlain, the troubled talk radio host with Alec Baldwin turning in a strong performance as Barry's boss, Dan. It also features the voice of, and cameo appearance by, Michael Wincott (my reason for wanting to see this).The story was really well written as, despite his arrogance, you feel for Barry as more about his troubled life is revealed and you see how vulnerable he really is.I'd recommend this film to anyone as it is captivating and, more importantly real on numerous levels, two of which being that is was inspired by the life of an actual talk radio host and the fact that you do actually get radio show hosts, and callers, like the ones featured in the film in reality.High recommendation and 10/10.Aye yours, Cat Squire$LABEL$ 1
+Writer/Director/Co-Star Adam Jones is headed for great things. That is the thought I had after seeing his feature film "Cross Eyed". Rarely does an independent film leave me feeling as good as his did. Cleverly written and masterfully directed, "Cross Eyed" keeps you involved from beginning to end. Adam Jones may not be a well known name yet, but he will be. If this movie had one or two "Named Actors" it would be a Box Office sensation. I think it still has a chance to get seen by a main stream audience if just one film distributor takes the time to work this movie. Regardless of where it ends up, if you get a chance to see it you won't be disappointed.$LABEL$ 1
+Let me start of by saying that I never wanted to see this movie in the first place; I had to watch it one day, and I figured that I guess I can lighten up and enjoy it for what it is, and it might turn out to be entertaining. What I got going in with that expectation was one of the worst movies I have ever seen, bar none. First of all, there was nothing humorous in the least bit. The creators expected humor to be laughable/passable if they include sarcasm in every line that comes out of Underdog's mouth and use scene after scene of bland, played out aspects to "charm" the audiences light-hearted side, while still making them "ooh" and "ah" for more with boring action scenes and insipid, lackluster performances that made me want to yell at everyone in the audience that was enjoying it. The acting was dull, the humor was tedious and the characters/plot felt like they spent about 10 minutes creating their entire personalities which gave the uninspiring actors/actresses no range on how to portray their characters with the least bit of depth. This movie is plain and simply awful in every field and really only kids under the age of 10 will be able to enjoy it, which even though that's what age range it was aimed at, that does not excuse it for being so poorly daft and causing me to feel so penitent. Parents, spend your money on Up, Wall-E, The Spiderwick Chronicles, The Water Horse or Hotel for Dogs for the best, recent family/kids flicks, or even Alvin and the Chipmunks is better than this filth!$LABEL$ 0
+i am an avid ff7 fan, for instance i have the game then sell it(bad mistake) but then buy it again (good mistake...erm)anyways, yes this film is very good, the fights are very cool, music very good, and the cgi you cant falter.only thing disappointing with the film i felt was the lack of other character involvement, it was almost all cloud which although is a great character, u cant beat a of cid and barret.but despite that the film was great in my opinion, and a must watch.overall a great film give and will give it 9/10 squaresoft, make more films like this and you'll be worshiped more so than you already are!!!!$LABEL$ 1
+This was truly a deeply moving movie in every sense of the word. I myself was a Mormon missionary and I know first hand the wanting to complete my mission but at the same time hiding the fact that I was gay. Like the character Aaron, I was sent home for being found out and excommunicated, but being the only Mormon in a family of Catholics wasn't as big a shame as it was for the lead character. This movie really took me back to those days and helped me to realize, years later, how fortunate I was to have a family that accepted me and understood what I was going through. I found myself applauding the end of a movie when Aaron and Christian find each other again by shear chance at Lila's Restaurant. I was truly moved to tears. I highly recommend this movie to all who read this review and also declare it a must buy.$LABEL$ 1
+I was ready for a Crouching Tiger style movie and all I got was the worst movie i've seen in years. It was almost as bad as Baron Von Munchhuasen. Dead script. Dead acting. Dead everything. Granted there was some good fight scenes but the positive side ends there. If this movie arrives in your house run screming to a phone and dial 911 and say, "Please help there is a movie in my house meant to force people to commit suicide"$LABEL$ 0
+First off, the title character is not even the main character of the movie. He is the sidekick of the cult leader. The actor who portrays Igor believed that screaming loud, laughing hysterically, and having a crooked smile while bugging out your eyes would be an excellent way to scare people. Igor also had the annoying habit of yelling (because he never actually just spoke) in a high pitched voice. He would also say idiotic one-liners. For example when the cult leader murders one of his followers with a buzz saw, Igor upon seeing this, yells out "Paul! No Paul! Why'd you do it? I could have cut her clean! So clean!" In another scene Igor tells a victim that she would have to 'get her own tools for surgery because right now, it was his time to operate.' Aside from the bad acting, the ending did not make sense because while the story builds up what little steam it has towards the climax, which is Igor getting a crossbow arrow to the head and the rest of his lunatic buddies being killed, he shows up again two more times to kill the remaining 'good guys'. The movie offers no explanation of this, only telling the viewer that Igor escaped from the mental hospital. What??? Bottom line is do not waste your time watching this movie. I wish I could get back the moments I lost watching this.$LABEL$ 0
+Gordon Scott with his well coiffed hair, hourglass figure and weird pidgin English has to be the worst of all the Tarzans. As for the other actors in this mess, they're on a par with any 4th grade elementary school drama class. I've seen Used Car Dealers in TV commercials who can act better. They make Clayton Moore look like Laurence Olivier! And where does Jane (the dull Eve Brent) get her lipstick and eyebrow pencils in the jungle? I realize these were made for kids but Wow! The plot line seemed OK but the director should have required more from his actors. I realize even the Weissmuller films have a few flaws but this one seemed so "low budget".$LABEL$ 0
+You don't need to read this review.An earlier review, by pninson of Seattle, has already identified all the main shortcomings of this production. I can only amplify its basic arguments.Bleak House was a relatively late Dickens novel and is much darker than his earlier work. This is taken too literally by the director, Ross Devenish, who piles on the gloom and fog too much. When Ada, Rick and Esther appear, half an hour into the opening episode, it is a relief just to be in daylight for the first time. In some of the murkier scenes it was hard to see what was actually on my TV screen. I watched the whole thing in one day, starting in mid-afternoon. As daylight faded this became less of an issue, but I have a pretty good TV and I have never encountered this problem before at any time of day.The pacing is very deliberate (i.e. slow). I am sure this was intensional, but it is overdone. There are numerous shots of people trudging though the muck and gloom of Victorian London that are held longer than is necessary to establish the mood and atmosphere. A good editor could probably take several minutes out of each fifty-minute episode, without losing a line of dialogue, just by trimming each of these scenes slightly.I don't want to overstate these two problems. You soon adjust to the look and pace of this production. The more important issue is that it doesn't always tell the story very effectively. Earlier Dickens novels are as long as Bleak House, but are not nearly so intricately plotted. For example, I recently re-read Nicholas Nickleby because I was intrigued to see how Douglas McGrath crammed an 800 page book into his two-hour movie. The answer is simple: the book is full of padding. McGrath cut great swathes of the novel while still retaining all the essential story elements. This would not be possible with Bleak House. This production needs its seven hours. Probably, it needs even longer, because many elements of its convoluted plot are not sufficiently clear, or as well handled, as they need to be. A few random examples will illustrate the problems.The maid, Rosa, appears from nowhere with no background, so Lady Dedlock's attachment to her is largely unmotivated.Sergeant George's acquiescence in Tulkinhorn's demand for a sample of Horton's handwriting is somewhat fudged.It is not made clear enough that Esther is actually in love with Woodcourt when she agrees to marry John Jarndyce. Neither is it clear that they have agreed not to announce their engagement, or why.Ada and Rick's secret marriage is omitted. In one episode they are merely lovers, in the next, people are suddenly referring to them as husband and wife.Mrs Rouncewell is only introduced at a late stage in the story and Sargeant George's estrangement from his family is left unexplained - as is the means by which she is discovered.Tulkinhorn's dedication to maintaining the honour and respectability of the Dedlock family is understated, so his motive for persecuting Lady Dedlock is more obscure than it need be.The involvement of the brick makers with both Tom and (later) Lady Dedlock is somewhat opaque.It is not obvious that Guppy renews his offer to Esther because her smallpox scars have all but vanished.This is only a selection: there are others. They are not major problems and the main thrust of the story is clear enough. Nonetheless, they are minor irritations that detract from its power: you shouldn't have to puzzle over little plot points. However, there are more important structural problems that do weaken the story in its later stages.The whole business of Tulkinhorn's murder is somewhat thrown away. Bucket immediately pinpoints Hortense as a suspect, which undermines the suspense of Sergeant George's predicament and the importance of finding Mrs Rouncewell. It also diminishes the impact of the sub-plot in which suspicion is thrown on Lady Dedlock and weakens the scene in which Hortense is unmasked in front of Sir Lester.A more serious problem is that the murder, its investigation and the subsequent search for Lady Dedlock, dominate the story for over an hour, during which time we completely lose sight of the other main plot strand: the legal case and its effect on Rick. His failing finances, his gouging by Vholes and Skimpole, Ada's despair, his declining health and so on, are all put on hold for an entire episode. This may be how Dickens wrote the book (I haven't read it for years) but a good screenplay should keep the different plot strands moving forward together.Finally, Smallweed's role in the story is so diminished that he is almost superfluous. His discovery of the new will, that triggers the final phase of the story, is also thrown away. It happens off screen.Despite all of this, it is still a very good production. Many of the performances are outstanding. Individual scenes are beautifully realised. Its accumulating sense of tragedy is very powerful. I would still be recommending it as a superb adaptation of a great book, had it not been for the 2005 production. In fact, I probably wouldn't be fully aware of its defects if I hadn't seen how Andrew Davies did it better. I have been critical of Davies's Jane Austen adaptations, but I have to admit that he really knows how to tame Dickens's sprawling books.This is an impressive and gripping drama and well worth seven hours of anybody's time. Nonetheless, its probable fate is to be viewed mainly as a cross-reference to the near-definitive 2005 version.$LABEL$ 1
+The soul of an ancient mummy is transferred to one of his followers so that he might punish everyone involved in the desecration of his tomb. The soul transference makes the young man age at a tremendous pace until he himself resembles a mummy. One by one, the blood is drained from those involved in the dig.To be as brief as possible, Pharaoh's Curse is quite the lackluster affair. While the movie does present a few good, original ideas (blood sucking mummy's, soul transference, interesting make-up effects, the arm ripping scene, etc.) and a few atmospheric moments, the direction and pace are the very definition of plodding. To make matters even worse, the first 15 of the film's relatively short 66 minute runtime consist of nothing much more than padding. I usually go for these slow moving mummy movies, but Pharaoh's Curse tests even my patients. The cast helps very little. With only one exception (Ziva Rodann is the lone bright spot – wish the movie could have focused more on her mysterious character), the cast is as dull as the screenplay. Finally, I don't know whose idea it was to put the mummy-looking servant in what appears to be pajamas, but it's a laughable, ridiculous look for a creature that supposed to instill fear in the audience.Despite my mostly negative comments on the Pharaoh's Curse, I'm going to rate it a 4/10. Not a good rating to be sure, but generous given all the problems I have with the movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Endearingly silly anime, only six episodes in duration, about a hapless delivery boy called Kintaro (well, he's called a delivery boy, though he is meant to be in his 20's), and the adventures he has on his travels. Each episode sees him arriving in a new town, acquiring a new job, developing something of a love interest before each episode ends with him leaving.Gently sexist, juvenile, very immature at times, this is the kind of anime that just puts a smile on the face.Not one to start with if you are not a fan of anime, as this certainly won't convince you about the genre, but for those who are already converted, this is entertaining fluff.$LABEL$ 1
+The movie starts off relatively well and seems to be getting somewhere when an African American passenger sues an airline for negligence. There is one scene in which his pet dog gets sucked into the engine and thats really a sad thing. But the way it is portrayed makes it difficult for one to figure out if that was an attempt at crude humor or really a tragedy to reflect on the extent of negligence? After this point, they clearly ran out of ideas. If you stuck around long enough, you will soon be treated with one of the worst movies ever made. It is basically a highly racist sequence of smoking dope, toilet humor, styling of each and every segment of the aircraft to reflect African American pop culture and pretty much nothing else. You'd think that the only 3 white passengers onboard would lead to some hilarious consequences but nothing of the same happens. They were basically just added to show how badly they could initially be treated and later be accepted into the hood if they behaved. Avoid.$LABEL$ 0
+this movie was rather awful Vipul Shah's last movie was good this one was just bad although it's a good story and is handled in a great way Aatish Kapadia who adapted this movie from another gujarati play "Avjo Wahala Fari Malishu" made a good but slow pianful 2 and a half hours to watch there are a lot of flaws in this movie but it's still a entertainer songs are rather bleaked out and don't work well but they're still good overall not a movie you would enthusiastically watch it's still a story to take in to account and it's good if you're the relationship type pretty good movie with loads of flaws and humor that's really not needed even one bit$LABEL$ 1
+Now out of all the shark movies I've seen, this one takes the cake! The plot of the movie was good, but the excitement factor sort of took a nosedive afterwards. Antonio Sobato, Jr. does an excellent role as a son who seeks the shark who killed his father. A megaldon is one of the biggest sharks of all and the most dangerous one as well. The view of the shark was indeed scary in some angles, but the effects were a blur, and the scenes were a little weak in some places. With the mini-sub's weapons there, that would take out a whole school of sharks there. It was great that the son would get the exact revenge on that monstrosity, although it would indeed cost him his life as well. Like they say revenge has it's price, but was it worth it? That answer could go on and on, and this movie was a major letdown. The beginning was fine, and at the end, it went like the Titanic. 1 OUT OF 5 STARS!$LABEL$ 0
+When naïve young Eddie Hatch, a window dresser at Savory's Department Store, falls for a statue of Venus and gives her a chaste kiss, Venus steps off her pedestal and gives Eddie more than he bargained for. This creaking example of what Hollywood can do to a Broadway musical manages to emphasize the inane story and eliminate most of the first-rate songs. The purpose was to make a safe, popular movie without too much investment while capitalizing on Ava Gardner's upward mobility to super stardom. Robert Walker as Eddie gets lost in a thankless role. Eddie's not just naive, but dithering and hapless. Gardner is gorgeous, but the only things that give the movie any life are Olga San Juan as Eddie's loving but jealous girl friend, Tom Conway as the suave owner of Savory's and Eve Arden as Savory's long time, wise cracking secretary. It's a role Arden could play in her sleep, and she's good at it. The musical opened on Broadway in 1943 and made Mary Martin a big-time star. The only point of a musical, however, is to have music. Since One Touch of Venus was intended to be a social satire of sorts, Kurt Weill, composing, and Ogden Nash writing the lyrics, came up with a series of stylish, witty songs and one masterpiece. Without the satire, or the clever songs or Martin (or an equivalent showstopper), the movie becomes just a weak comedy fantasy where much of the comedy is predictable and the fantasy is worked to death. Not only did the producers of the movie toss out almost all the Weill/Nash songs, they brought in the movie's music director, Ann Ronell, to write new lyrics for one of the songs that survived, turning sharp observation into lovey-dovey romance. Ronell was no hack; she wrote Willow Weep for Me. Wonder what she thought about while she replaced or tweaked Ogden Nash's clever work. The one bright spot in the movie is that Weill/Nash masterpiece. "Speak Low" is as great a love song as anyone ever wrote. It's given one of those ultra-professional and lifeless treatments by Eileen Wilson dubbing Gardner. Dick Haymes contributes a chorus. As for Ann Ronell, she was one of the few women in Hollywood to become a major music director, as well as composer and lyric writer. Yours for a Song: The Women of Tin Pan Alley is a fascinating documentary of some of the women who made it in the business, including Ronell, Kay Swift, Dorothy Fields and Dana Suess. And for those who would like to hear what little of the Weill/Nash score was recorded by the original Broadway cast, you might be able to track down the CD, One Touch Of Venus (1943 Original Cast) / Lute Song (1946 Original Cast). The music is paired with Lute Song, another Broadway show that starred Martin.$LABEL$ 0
+The plot of "In the Mood for Love" is simple enough: A married man and a married woman (though not to eachother) slowly develop a romantic attachment to one another. The film's pace is numbingly slow and precious little actually happens between the two. Yet the backdrop of Hong Kong in the early 1960s and director Wong Kar-Wai's keen sense for capturing the beauty of the setting as well as the principal characters make this film a joy to watch. Actors Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung are both excellent and Wong Kar-Wai has done an extraordinary job in capturing the feel and nostalgia of the past (something so many films and directors try to do but usually fail miserably). There are so many little details that add charm to the film (a trademark of the director) and the colors and cinematography are what send this otherwise simple story over the top as a marvelous cinematic achievement. 9/10.$LABEL$ 1
+Sergeant Ryker is accused of being a traitor during the Korean War, a hanging offense. A long drawn out court-marshal ensues during which time the Sgt. must remain in a military jail. After much investigation the defense attorney attempts to exonerate the doomed non-com with an eleventh hour ploy. Very good picture.$LABEL$ 1
+What kind of a documentary about a musician fails to include a single track by the artist himself?! Unlike "Ray" or countless other films about music artists, half the fun in the theater (or on the couch) is reliving the great songs themselves. Here, all the tracks are covers put on by uninteresting characters, and these renditions fail to capture Cohen's slow, jazzy style. More often, the covers are badly sung folk versions. Yuck.The interviews are as much or more with other musicians and figures rather than with Cohen himself. Only rarely does the film feature Cohen reading his own work (never singing)-- like letters, poems, etc. The movie really didn't capture much about the artist's life story, either, or about his development through the years. A huge disappointment for a big Cohen fan.$LABEL$ 0
+I don't get this. The movie obviously has a pretty good budget. It has very good cinematography. It has nice pacing, good editing and pretty good directing too. Then WHY OH WHY didn't they hire someone to do a final rewrite of the script so it would not be so damn cheesy and WHY OH WHY did they hire such lousy actors that can't act their way out of a paper bag? This movie could have been good. At most times it LOOKS good and FEELS good but in the end, you realize that the movie was no good at all.So I would say it's a good production but a bad movie. Too bad actually.And eels? Come one, really!$LABEL$ 0
+by saying that,I mean that this is not a well made movie but it's a very good version of the real event and the best depiction so far.and if you are a WW2 buff then this is a treat for you,cause there are three out of four saboteur members playing roles in this movie. It's theater acting at best but then this is still as said before a semi documentary.Me personally am a die hard fan of our nearly over-human heroes of the second world war,and there should be hundreds of these movies showing us what they did so it won't get forgotten by next generations.Cause nowadays kids doesn't read books,they watch movies.So if you want a action extravaganza,rent Private Ryan,this is the truth about lingering pain,outrageous endurance and the will to fight when all seems lost.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a film by Oshima, the director of the notorious "In The Realm Of The Senses", a film so sexually brazed and unabashedly controversial it was banned for a while. This film takes place initially in 1895 in Japan and stars the very pretty Keziko Yoshiyuki as Seki, the wife of a rickshaw driver who falls for a much younger man who woos her in kind. That man, Toyoji, comes to her as she was sleeping and seduces her, though she soon is rather willing to be seduced. Soon they are having an affair and plot to kill Seki's husband, to be together forever. They do, and throw him down a well. However, they didn't count on the ghost of the dead husband haunting Seki and others in the village! This film is visually very stunning, the use of shadows highlighting this tale of murder for passion. Ms. Yoshiyuki (who is still active as an actress) is especially very good in her role. Its sexual at times, but not like "In The Realm Of The Senses". Some of what ensues is up to our imagination. I found this film to have a consistency of mood that makes it very watchable. A little creepy but that goes with the territory. I'd recommend this.$LABEL$ 1
+In the groovy mid 70's a scruffy bunch of brash young Venice, California adolescents from broken homes and the bad side of town known as the Z-Boys turned the previously staid world of professional skateboarding on its ear with their fierce punk attitude, radical unconventional riding style, and unbridled spirit of pure in-your-face aggression, revolutionizing the sport in the process and paving the way for the many extreme variations on sports that popped up in their influential wake. Director Stacy Peralta, who's one of the legendary Z-Boys himself, relates the incredible exploits of this amazing ragtag crew in a ferociously punchy and visceral manner that's both informative and wildly entertaining: the snappy rapid-fire editing, ceaseless speedy pace, and raw, gritty photography deliver one hell of an infectiously kinetic buzz, projecting a sense of sheer joy and full-on bustling energy that's a total pleasure to behold. Better still, this documentary neither sanitizes nor romanticizes its subjects: These rough'n'scrappy lads were so fiercely competitive and out for themselves that they all went their separate ways when the lure of fame and fortune manifested in their lives. The ultimate fates of certain guys is poignant and heartbreaking, with gifted and spontaneous ace skateboard rat Jay Adams rating as the saddest and most tragic: He blew his chance at the big time and wound up doing time in jail. The other dudes are very colorful and personable as well; charismatic ball of cocky and defiant fire Tony Alva in particular comes across as one arrogant, yet impressive piece of furiously assertive work. Marvelously narrated with delightfully easy'n'breezy nasal nonchalance by Sean Penn. The terrific rock soundtrack likewise seriously smokes. But what really makes this documentary such a winner is its refreshing complete dearth of pretense: It's every bit as dynamic, exuberant and larger-than-life extraordinary as the gloriously outrageous Z-Boys themselves.$LABEL$ 1
+This is an anti-Serb propaganda film made for TV."The Muslims are good; the Orthodox Christian Serbs are BAD." That's the message.Using "entertainment" to get across a propaganda message is nothing new.This movie lays it on thick.And apparently many viewers and reviewer lap it up.I know better.The Serbs, under General Draza Milhalovitch and his Chetniks, saved over 500 shot-down US fliers from the Germans in World War II.Churchill decided to betray Milhalovitch and put British backing behind communist Tito. Roosevelt followed suit and as a result, after the war ended Yugoslavia was delivered over to communist Tito.And US ally Milhalovitch has been smeared by the media ever since.This movie is part of the anti-Serb propaganda campaign engineered by George Soros and his International Crisis Group (ICG) which culminated in the Kosovo "War," in which Serbia was bombed by NATO because of totally false claims by the ICG of "mass graves" in Kosovo filled with "victims" of the nasty Serbs. The fact that there were no such mass graves and the Albanians (Muslims) had no business being in Serbia's Kosovo are facts that most of the media won't print.I chose this movie to watch because the one-sentence description on the video cover looked interesting.Imagine my disgust when I discovered I had been fooled into renting another branch of the propaganda machine aimed at Serbia.Instead of this propaganda someone should make a movie about the unwillingness of the Clinton Administration to come clean with the Congress and with the American people about its complicity in the delivery of weapons from Iran to the Muslim government in Sarajevo.I won't hold my breath waiting for such a movie.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one worth watching, although it is sometimes cheesy, it is great to see a young Sean Astin, and this ends up being quite an entertaining and humorous action movie. I watched it many times when I was young, and now still enjoy it when I pop the old vhs into the machine (I happen to own a copy). So sit back with this movie, let reality go for a little while, and you will be able to have a few good laughs and an enjoyable hour and a half.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is the worst excuse for a motion picture I have EVER seen. To begin, I'd like to say the the front cover of this film is by all means misleading, if you think you are about to see a truly scary horror film with a monster clown, you are soooo wrong. In fact the killers face doesn't even slightly resemble the front cover, it's just an image they must have found on Google and thought it looked cool. Speaking of things they found and thought it looked cool, there is a scene in this film where some of the gang are searching for the friend in the old woods, then suddenly the screen chops to a scene where there is a mother deer nurturing it's young in a glisten of sunlight... I mean seriously WTF??? How is this relevant to the dark woods they are wandering through? I bought this film from a man at a market hoping it would be entertaining, if it wasn't horror then at least it would be funny right? WRONG! The next day I GAVE it to my work colleague ridding myself from the plague named S.I.C.KBottom line is: Don't SEE THIS FILM!!!$LABEL$ 0
+Pointless boring film with charismatic Mercurio completely wasted. Released for a minute on a Thursday in maybe one local cinema and avoided by the entire population of Sydney except me and four others BACK OF BEYOND is a project seemingly created by a producer looking for a fee. Local actors like John Polson and Terry Serio deserve better (well Polson has morphed into a Director of lame thrillers like SWIMFAN and HIDE AND SEEK) and Terry Serio seems never to get a guernsey apart from thug roles. But Paul Mercurio should have become one of Australia's greatest exports on screen. Roles like this are major disappointments and films like this are just a waste of talent and time.$LABEL$ 0
+I wanted to like this one - the situation was rich, and the setting unusual and interesting. But the story is swamped with childish female gothic romance elements that are hard to swallow. The director is unfairly prejudiced against the 'goy' characters -- content to let them be grotesque cardboard caricatures -- and inexplicably indulgent towards the homewrecking behavior of the heroine. The potentially interesting power struggle between the inventor and the governess is not really dealt with.Feminist film makers will get more credibility when they stop manipulating situations to throw all the sympathy to the heroine, and start dealing honestly with issues. This movie more closely resembles 'The 7 Pieces of Gold', another earnest failure, more than 'The Piano' - a real tale of passion.$LABEL$ 0
+Director Vincenzo Natali's Cypher is a complex and imaginative thriller which, although requiring some suspension of belief and plenty of concentration, manages to be a thoroughly entertaining experience.Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), a stay-at-home husband with an overbearing wife, decides to add a bit of spice to his mundane existence by getting a job as an industrial spy at high-tech company Digi Corp. His job is to travel to conferences across the country (under the assumed identity of Jack Thursby) and secretly broadcast the speeches given back to his bosses, via a nifty little electronic pen-gizmo.In reality, however, the speeches are merely a cover for far more nefarious activities. Morgan, along with his fellow conference attendees, is being brainwashed. The drugged water they are drinking puts them into a temporary coma, during which they are told to forget their pasts and permanently adopt their new identities. Once they are totally convinced that they are someone else, they are told to apply for jobs with rival companies, where they are able to indulge in corporate espionage without suspicion.But Digi Corp's plans are scuppered by the intervention of shady operative-for-hire Rita Foster (Lucy Liu), who opens Morgan's eyes to what is really happening. She gives Morgan an antidote to the mind altering drugs so that he can resist the brainwashing techniques. She also warns him that if Digi Corp suspects that he does not fully believe he is Jack Thursby, then he will be 'eliminated'. Morgan plays along, and applies for a job at rival business Sunways.However, arriving at his new workplace, he is given a polygraph test and is immediately rumbled as a spy. Fortunately, the bosses at Sunways see this as an ideal opportunity to feed false data to Digi Corp and Morgan becomes a double agent.From hereon in, things get progressively more complicated; the plot twists and turns and poor old Morgan ends up not being able to trust anyone. In an exciting finale, all eventually becomes clear (but only if you've been following events very carefully).Director Natali handles proceedings confidently and certainly has a great ability to produce a classy looking film for a relatively low budget. He manages to get some great performances from his talented cast; Jeremy Northam,in particular, is fantastic—his portrayal of the initially somewhat nervous Morgan is played to perfection.Cypher is another fascinating movie from a director who is willing to take chances and I eagerly look forward to his forthcoming projects, High Rise and Necropolis.$LABEL$ 1
+Turgid dialogue, feeble characterization - Harvey Keitel a judge? He plays more like an off-duty hitman - and a tension-free plot conspire to make one of the unfunniest films of all time. You feel sorry for the cast as they try to extract comedy from a dire and lifeless script. Avoid!$LABEL$ 0
+Joe Don's opening line says everything about this movie. It takes place on the island of Malta (the island of pathetic men) and involves Joe Don Baker tracking down an Italian mobster. Joe Don's character is named Geronimo (pronounced Heronimo) and all he does in this movie is shoot people and get arrested over and over agin. Everyone in the movie hates him, just like everyone hates Greydon Clark. I liked an earlier Greydon picture, "Angel's Revenge" because it was a shirne for thriteen year old boys. Avoid this movie at all costs!!$LABEL$ 0
+This is a typical late Universal Horror flick: its technically comptent, if by the numbers, with a cookie cutter plot and some serious overacting. The most interesting part of this film is its stunt casting of Rondo Hatton, a man with a bone disease as the film's "monster". Its sad to see this man exploited, but he probably made good use of the money they paid him. Hatton is less horrifying than the studio hoped, as I more often felt pity over fear or even loathing. Martin Koslack is on board as the film's mad artist, and he is very amusing in this part. I for one enjoy seeing Koslack in just about anything; for some reason the man amuses me. The only other part of the film that entertained me is the film's absurd take on the art world. Here we are shown evil art critics who revel in their ability to break artists; this is side by side with the film's male "hero" who is an "artist" who paints...get this...pin up girls. Somehow our hero's work is reviewed side by side with the villan's absurdist sculpture. Also amusing is the film's chief nasty critic, who at one point claims that he despises the hero's pin up art because "women like that don't exist" to which our heroine replies with an assurance that the critic just doesn't get out enough. Finally, there's a bit of a subplot about the heroine's (who is an art critic herself) domestication by the leading man....completely anti-feminist and ridiculous to witness. Overall this film is a rather mediocre picture with a few amusing elements.$LABEL$ 0
+The Ramones, whom I consider the founders of modern punk rock, lend their then-unique sounds to a terrifically twisted movie about a rowdy rock fan (P.J. Soles) who faces off against a merciless, joyless principal (Mary Woronov) for the right to rock.Featuring a soundtrack brimming with incredible music, RRHS is fascinating in concept and execution. It's chock full of riotous sight gags (like the mouse experiment), teenage spirit (probably my all-time favorite film opening), and bizarre, off-the-wall moments (the straitjacket scenes). If you're looking for a movie that seems to be made of pure fun on a molecular level, look no further. But if you're looking for a nice, dignified, dramatic epic, maybe you should look a wee bit further."Hi everybody, I'm Riff Randell, and this is Rock & Roll High School!"$LABEL$ 1
+The Camals Are Coming is a rather disappointing British comedy from 1934. I purchased this because I like desert adventures and states on the box that it is a drama. It certainly isn't.It is about a couple who head for Egypt to capture some desert drug smugglers.This would have been much better if it had been done as a drama instead of a comedy, which lets it down a lot. It is quite silly in parts. Depsite this, there are some good action and location scenes.The cast is lead by Jack Hulbert with Anna Lee as the love interest.One viewing is enough for this movie. Overall, a disappointment.Rating: 2 stars out of 5.$LABEL$ 0
+It is in the opinion of this reviewer that the best time to be a child was in the 1990's, a period when cartoons were not heavily censored and talented and creative minds were responsible for some of the best family entertainment to hit the air-waves. The best producers of Saturday morning animation were at Warner Brothers Television, who experienced a major Golden Age with the dream-team of Steven Spielberg, Tom Ruegger and Paul Dini. Along with serious and dark series like Batman, they also revived zany, outlandish cartoons made famous by the Looney Tunes. Animaniacs was the biggest hitter with its dark adult humour and homages to the celluloid of yesteryear and today, but Tiny Toon Adventures was equally popular by re-inventing the Looney Tunes for a new generation, while still keeping that crazy cartoon violence and intelligent comedy that can hold onto any age group, no matter how old. Even when the Tiny Toons were stretched to a feature-length with How I Spent My Vacation, it did not feel like a longer episode of the television series, a curse that so often plagues other feature-length adaptations of popular animated shows.The Tiny Toon Gang are young off-springs of the classic cartoon characters who made audiences laugh back in the 1940's and 1950's and are currently learning cartoon comedy to "earn their Toon Degree." Summer Vacation has started and each character has their own idea of what to do. Buster Bunny (Charles Adler) and Babs Bunny (Tress MacNeille) start a water gun fight which ultimately leads to Acme Acres getting flooded and them both sailing down the Mississippi. Plucky Duck (Joe Alaskey) joins Hamton Pig (Don Messick) on a cross-country car trip to the Happiest Theme Park in the World, but Hamton's family proves to be more difficult than he imagined. Meanwhile, in other stories scattered throughout, Elmyra Duff (Cree Summer) tries to find a cat to hug and squeeze, Fifi Le Fume (Kath Soucie) attempts to go out on a date with her favourite skunk star and Shirley the Loon (Gail Matthius) goes to the cinema with a loud-mouth Fowlmouth (Rob Paulen).While the premise sounds thin for a feature-length film, the many directors and screenwriters make all the stories work well together. The best of these is Plucky's unfortunate road trip, which utilises a golden comedic opportunity very well: feeling pity for somebody, while also laughing at their predicament. Plucky's annoyed reaction to all the bad things that happen to him are a perfect blend of script and animation, all in the confines of a small car stuffed with pork. Elmyra's story definitely ranks second just to see how a little, almost innocent girl can cause fear into so many jungle animals. The aforementioned cartoon violence definitely comes to the fore-front with Buster and Babs' story, which makes us smile not only due to the hilarity of the outcomes, but also nostalgically, since Ruegger and company would probably not be allowed to show half of what they do in that segment. Practically half of that segment plays as a parody and homage to Deliverance, including a clever twist on the dueling banjos scene, featuring the unforgettable Tiny Toon Adventures theme song.Part of the universal appeal of the Tiny Toons is that the humour proves to be very intelligent as it targets subjects with a ferocity that proves that it does not at all deserve the title of "children's fare" that people seem to slap it with. An entire segment featuring Fowlmouth's poor etiquette at the cinema pokes fun at yappers in a note-perfect way, along with an additional jab at Lucasfilm's THX logo. That scene is done so perfectly that it should be featured before every cinema showing. There are also a couple of moments that poke fun at Disney World, cinematic plot holes and even Warner's legal department. The fact that today's cartoons are bland and un-creative makes those intelligent moments even more treasuring as there probably will not be another animated series that will come close.After watching How I Spent My Vacation for the first time in many years, I can say with all certainty that they do not make cartoons quite like they used to. With the ongoing censorship that today's family entertainment receive, one wonders whether anything like this will ever be made again. This review is not only a recommendation of a truly smart film, but also a plea for Spielberg, Ruegger and Dini to team up again and bring forth a magical creation to our minds once again. Lord knows that the children of the twenty-first century is in need for something with the intelligence of Tiny Toon Adventures. This is not a simple cash-grab, it is a wonderful film with full of spirit, madcap mayhem and hilarity.$LABEL$ 1
+"Nada" was the most inadequate follow-up to "Les NOces Rouges" which,with hindsight,appears now as the last good movie of Chabrol's golden era (1967-1973) "Nada" is Chabrol's first real attempt at a wholly political movie;its previous work "les Noces Rouges" had also political elements but it was more a psychological thriller with the usual look at society in French provinces."Nada" includes terrorists,ambassador,hostage-taking,a lot of blood,not really Chabrol's field.A heterogeneous cast gives the movie the coup de grâce :only Duchaussoy,who had already played with the director ,and Maurice Garrel are up to scratch.Viviane Romance ,one of Duvivier's actresses ("la Belle Equipe" "Panique") ,is wasted as a madam (Gabrielle).Italian actors (Fabio Testi,Lou Castel)are awful.With "Nada" this a second period of barren inspiration for Chabrol .It would be "Violette Nozières" before he was again at the top of his game.$LABEL$ 0
+A DAMN GOOD MOVIE! One that is seriously underrated. The songs that the children sing in the movie gave me a sense of their pain, but also their hope for the future. Whoopi Goldberg puts in a good performance here, but the best performance throughout the whole movie is that of the actress who plays the title character. I wish she was in more movies.This movie should have a higher rating. I give it a 10/10.$LABEL$ 1
+Well done melodrama that tells the story of Sally, tomboy dancer in the circus, raised by sideshow performer McGargle (played by W.C. Fields), he of the top hat, little mustache, checkered pants, and proficiency as juggler, pickpocket, and runner of carnival con games like Three Card Monte and the Old Shell Game. McGargle has raised Sally, who worships him as her "real father" since Sally's mother (kicked out of her home by her father, a judge, when she married a "circus man") died and left Sally orphaned. Sally is feisty and loyal to McGargle no matter what he gets up to - but McGargle seems to feel a bit of guilt over keeping her in the circus instead of with her own family all these years. When they end up performing in a carnival in the town where her wealthy grandparents live, McGargle uses the opportunity to "investigate" Sally's real family, with the idea that he may restore her to them. But grandfather the judge takes an immediate disliking to Sally 'cause he doesn't like a "show girl" - what a stern, narrow-minded man he is, a real piece of work that guy! And meanwhile Sally is busy being pursued by a handsome and rich young man, son of the man who helped grandpa get his riches.This is a very good film with a few laughs here and there and a sort of odd editing style (I don't know how to describe this other than it shows long shots, then sort of jumps back a few seconds or changes angle suddenly as a close up is shown). Carol Dempster, who plays Sally, is delightful here - quite cute and comical in her performance. W.C. Fields, even without his famous voice, is very funny - just the way he moves and his amusing, comical reactions to things (like a small dog seen in one funny scene), we even see him juggling briefly in this. I love the few peeks at the old-fashioned circus and carnival that is shown here. The print of this featured on the DVD is very nice looking, tinted a light sepia tone, and the piano score for this is really excellent, performed by Philip Carli based on the original cue sheets.$LABEL$ 1
+This is not really a proper review since I did not see most of the film. I stopped watching it. The film is very violent, with nasty drug dealers and street punks, but that is not why I stopped watching.Here was the problem: I watched just enough to be introduced to several characters, all of whom were not interesting. Everyone was a tedious, despicable psychopath, with no engaging personalities, giving me nothing to look forward to. I found myself not the least bit curious about what they would do next or what might happen to them.If there had been even one person of interest, and I don't mean good or nice person, I mean an interesting person, I could have stayed with it. Watch "State of Grace" to see what I mean. In that film the Gary Oldman character is a complete lunatic, but he is *very* interesting. Al Pacino perhaps did a good job in Scarface, but his character just did not engage me.$LABEL$ 0
+All y'all hatin' on the fact you'd probably neva make the cut for "Second String" need to save it. If more guys out there took their sorry behinds to the gym for once...maybe y'all have a chance....well,...maybe. Take Shawn Woods' "HOOK" physique for a "perfect" example...and I stress the word "perfect" Put that in your pipe and smoke it...!!! You couldn't look better Sha-Shawn$LABEL$ 1
+I have to admit I was deceived by the title and the summary on the back of the box. So I popped it in the vcr and kept waiting... and waiting... and waiting for something good to happen. But of course, it never does. The makers of this film should be tied to a chair and made to watch "Saving Private Ryan". Maybe they would learn something.$LABEL$ 0
+While the original titillates the intellect, this cheap remake is designed purely to shock the sensibilities. Instead of intricate plot-twists, this so-called thriller just features sudden and seemingly random story changes that serve only to debase it further with each bizarre development. Worst of all, replacing the original spicy dialog is an overturned saltshaker full of unnecessary four-letter words, leaving behind a stark, but uninteresting taste.There was promise--unfulfilled promise. The prospect of Michael Caine pulling off a Patty Duke-like Keller-to-Sullivan graduation is admittedly intriguing. Unfortunately, this brilliant and respected actor only tarnished his reputation, first by accepting the role in this horribly re-scripted nonsense and then by turning in a performance that only looks competent when compared to Jude Law's amateurish overacting.If you haven't seen the classic original, overlook its dated visuals and gimmicks. Hunt it down, watch it, and just enjoy a story-and-a-half. As for the remake, pass on this insult to the original.$LABEL$ 0
+A less-than-subtle poke at the beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church is given a darker shade of death near the end of the show. Throughout the show, dark humour plays a medium through which several commonly heard rhetoric questions are asked, especially "If God is so good, why does he allow evil to exist in the world?"Diane Keaton is excellent in her role as an exaggerated version (though some might disagree) of they stereotyped religious teacher who spouts the "company line" and condemns half the world to burn in Hell. To celebrate her school's 25th anniversary, she invites her first students to return and perform their Christmas pageant.However, when the quartet "update" their play to parody Sister Mary's "fallacious" teachings, the nun is pushed over the edge, sending the story spiralling into a chain of unhappy events. The ending finally leaves the audience with a sick feeling in their hearts.Not recommended. Go watch the play instead.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie on mystery science theater when it was called "It lives by night". That title is much less misleading than "Batpeople". In fact it would more accurately be called Batperson. This movie is about a doctor who studies bats I am thinking because he wants to make a better cure for rabies. This is not really clear. What is clear is that he and his wife take a tour of a cave and he gets bitten by a bat. Why a scientist needs to take a tour to study bats is beyond me. Shouldn't he be able to go in by himself. Well after being bitten he and his wife go on their honeymoon where he starts having fits. They go to the worst doctor ever. The guy stays in the hospital and kills a nurse. In the end the guy kills 3-4 people and his wife stands by him and you are supposed to be rooting for him instead of the sheriff investigating the murders.$LABEL$ 0
+I was a huge "SNL" fan back in the days of Chevy Chase, John Belushi, Dan Ackroyd, Gilda Radner and many other memorable stars. But every time I've tried to watch it in the past more than ten years I've been very disappointed and sometimes even disgusted with it. Ten years ago I believed the show couldn't possibly survive, since it had become so utterly bereft of the sort of humor I could understand, and yet it kept plugging along, which I've always found dismaying, wondering how in the world anyone could possibly find its lame humor at all funny. Whenever I've tuned in over the past decade I've never once been glad that I did. Indeed, I've always been annoyed at myself for staying up and wasting my time. For me, the absolute low point came several years ago when a popular young male actor I liked a lot was the guest host. At one point that night he played a big star, perhaps himself, and in the skit, the character "Mongo," I think, played by Chris Kattan, again I think, ended up in the backseat of a car with him. What followed was Mongo being forced up and down and up and down on the actor's lap, with him screaming hysterically as he was presumably sodomized. The audience was laughing their heads off and I'm shaking my head, amazed that they could find that remotely funny, amazed that NBC would even broadcast such a thing. In the years since then I've repeatedly tried to approach the show with an open mind, hoping that it might regain the sly sense of humor I adored for so many years. But, up until just a week ago, for me, it hasn't done so. Not even close. One exception: During the 2008 presidential campaign, I thought that Tina Fey was fantastic, and she was the one performer who kept me tuning in. But those Sarah Palin skits, while hysterical, were still not enough to save the rest of the 90 minutes and I would always regret not turning it off as soon as I heard the familiar "It's 'Saturday Night!!!'"$LABEL$ 0
+Style over substance. But what a style it is. "The Cell" is the internal version of most serial killer movies. Unfortunately, the story hardly supports the visuals.Psychotherapist Catherine Deane (J-Lo) goes into her patients' dreams via artificial means to discover and help them over come their phobias and obsessions. A new patient whose fallen into a coma, is brought to her attention by the FBI. He's a serial killer who drowns his female victims then poses their bodies in grotesque scenarios like mannequins. Deane must enter the killer's mind and navigate through his sick fantasies in order to find and save his latest victim. Director Tarsem Singh has incredible visions and set pieces for this production. Each dream sequence is like a nightmare-ish painting in motion, from the landscapes to the costumes. But the plot suffers from lack of history of its characters. Stargher is the only person with a thorough background and he's the last person you want to care about. Without him, you basically have a movie that moves in the present tense only, which is a shame since the movie is so visually stunning and genuinely scary. Lopez is wasted but she's not that amazing an actress anyway, though she's as gorgeous as ever. And Vince Vaughn? I don't even know why he was chosen. This is not his forte and he overacts to boot. He tried too hard to become his character and it showed. Stick to comedy, Vince! Even so, this movie is so visually frightening, I still watch this movie with the lights on and can never fall asleep right away afterward.$LABEL$ 1
+If, unlike some of the commenters here, you are not staging a class war and don't mind seeing the lives of other people who are fairly successful, extroverted, bohemian (gasp) and not being terribly English at a party and getting into all sorts of trouble as a result this is not a bad film, closer to Euro cinema rather than an imitation of the usual slick American crap... I believe the minimal sound design and cheap camera is a conscious decision rather than bad film making, I'd defend this, the film isn't any worse as a result, and it puts the spotlight on the cast, some of whom are really good (Kate Hardie- think that's her name, as the sarcastic drunk is spot-on) the one exception being David Baddiel, who should never be allowed to appear in serious stuff!! It's light, and we don't go for this kind of anatomising-of-relationship crap in this country, but if you don't have any real friends to go to a party with than you could do worse than to sit in and watch this.$LABEL$ 1
+along the history of cinema, there's been a few films that deceived the viewer, such as hitchcock's "stage fright", alejandro amenábar's "abre los ojos", David fincher's "the game" and this one "ausentes" ("absent"). to begin with, i don't like this kind of films, i feel like somebody is trying to pull my leg.furthermore, after seeing this film one doesn't know what happened, is such a confusing film. kubrick's "the shining" may be a better or a worse movie, but definitely is more honest than this load of pretentious and dubious situations.technically is fine -nice photography, fair performance and so on, but the script is so poor i wonder what did the producers see to carry on and shoot this crap.and this film remarks the 3 guys that wrote the script (calparsoro, loriga and quiroga) are lost in cinema trying to make a masterpiece -or trying to do something to fulfill their stomachs, awaiting for more personal projects.$LABEL$ 0
+Firstly, I'll admit I haven't seen Vampires: Los Muertos, but I've seen the original Vampires film and love it. I rented this film having heard nothing about it. I didn't expect to be impressed. I wasn't.I love the idea of shifting the action to the far east, which should have opened up a lot of new avenues for the action sequences as well as the story line, but not enough was made of this. The fight scenes and the motorbike chases were painfully boring. There were some parts I liked, like the way the slayer team weren't shown as heroic good guys, as they were in the first movie.I'd been hoping since I saw the old Hammer movie Legend Of The 7 Golden Vampires a few years ago that someone would one day make another good Asian-based vampire film. This was not it.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie when it aired on the WB and fell in love with Riley Smith immediately. I would recommend the movie to people of all ages who just feel like being entertained and not much more. I wish they'd air it again or cast Riley Smith in another movie!$LABEL$ 1
+This is my all time favourite movie ever!!!I remember seeing this when I was younger and since then I have been in love with it. I used to rent it so often from this one video store that used to carry it, and when we moved I couldn't find it any where so I kep going back tot he far away store just so I could watch the movie again!Finally i found it for sale and I bought it and watched it over and over again.... great movie!Since then though it was my very first DVD that I got after I got my DVD player... OK well I got them at the same time, the quality on the DVD is way better I couldn't believe it! You Gotta see this one!$LABEL$ 1
+This movie moves and inspire you, it's like you are one of the family. Just to see and witness life during the depression era, makes you feel humble and grateful. Jonathan Silverman delivered well, so convincing and very witty! A must see for Teens!$LABEL$ 1
+When many people say it's the "worst movie I've ever seen", they tend to say that about virtually any movie they didn't like. However, of the nearly 700 movies I can remember ever seeing this one is one of two that I walked away from feeling personally insulted and angry. This is my first movie review, by the way, and I registered with IMDb just to rave at this movie's badness. I went to see it when it was in the theaters (myself and my two buddies were 3 of 5 people there), and after 15 years I can't remember very many specifics, but my attitude upon leaving the theater is still crystal clear.---Spoiler alert---Oh my, where to begin. Fat loser left at altar, goes on ski weekend, meets blonde bombshell who takes an interest in him, takes him home to meet the family, they're all cannibals and he's the main course, pathetic attempt at a dramatic escape, kicks all their butts and runs off with the brother's girlfriend, they live happily ever after. Puke. Firstly, the gags are so bad that it took me a while to understand that they were trying to be FUNNY, and that this was a COMEDY. The special effects, what few there are, look like they were done 15 years earlier. The big dramatic ending was so hokey and poorly acted that it was nearly unbearable to watch (he knocks out the entire cannibal family with rakes laying in the lawn, that stand up Tom and Jerry style when they step on them). I'm sure that there's much, much more, but I have no intention on seeing it again for a refresher.$LABEL$ 0
+I cannot begin to describe how amazing this movie is. Suffice it to say, anytime I'm depressed about how unfair or futile things seem, this is the movie I go rent to put me in the right frame of mind. The background music makes you realize the easiness of existence and how simplicity provides for the greatest happiness. The Indian girl that sings is but one example of a character in this film who does not try hard, and is happy as a result. Persifina, the laundry co-worker of Ruby's (Ashley Judd) is another=-her eyes and smile could make the hardest person's day. I watch this movie and I dream of better days to come or of a good conversation with friends, and I realize that being alone--Ruby is alone quite often--isn't the same as being lonely. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a thoughtful lull of a movie.$LABEL$ 1
+In the process of trying to establish the audiences' empathy with Jake Roedel (Tobey Maguire) the filmmakers slander the North and the Jayhawkers. Missouri never withdrew from the Union and the Union Army was not an invading force. The Southerners fought for State's Rights: the right to own slaves, elect crooked legislatures and judges, and employ a political spoils system. There's nothing noble in that. The Missourians could have easily traveled east and joined the Confederate Army.It seems to me that the story has nothing to do with ambiguity. When Jake leaves the Bushwhackers, it's not because he saw error in his way, he certainly doesn't give himself over to the virtue of the cause of abolition.$LABEL$ 1
+this film is terrible. The characters are completely unbelievable, and wildly inconsistent. The plot is awful and some of the classroom scenes are cringe-worthy and make for uncomfortable viewing.In fact the quality of the script and characterisation would suggest that this film was written by high school students, only the utter lack of credibility to the school environment would suggest that, in fact, the writers probably never went to high school. The acting in most cases was weak too, although a lot of this was down to a poor script and plot, i am not sure that any actors could have made this film watchable.having said that the sound track was OK, and the cinematography was nice in places (although the editing was poor).$LABEL$ 0
+Young Mr.Lincoln is a poetic,beautiful film that captures the myth of one of the most revered figures in American history. Henry Fonda had the difficult task of portraying a mythical figure and at the same time make him human enough for people to care about. It is perhaps the actors best performance.Watch how he singlehandedly stops a lynching-mob.Alice Brady is fantastic in the role of a simple farmer woman.Most of the last part of the film plays out in a courtroom,and there lies the only negative thing I can say about this movie.Most of the characters from judge to spectators are given so many folksy humorously lines that distracts from the serious trial that is on hand.But I'm quite used to this because the humor is a Ford trademark. Supporting parts by Ward Bond and Donald Meek are very good.$LABEL$ 1
+Holden and Jones SIZZLE in this movie, but not in the way we think of sizzling today -- it's very subtle and under the surface -- yet palpable. Jennifer Jones, in particular, is SO SEXUALLY HOT in this film (much more than a caricature like Monroe EVER was) because she creates a real woman -- with ALL facets of womanhood: She's intelligent, intuitive, graceful. She's desiring AND desirable. There's a scene on that famous hill, where she's lying down in the grass, looking up at Holden, and the expression in her eyes is X-rated, yet in the context of the scene and character, in makes complete sense. You don't need to have it all said in the dialogue -- spelled-out like the crude obviousness in most modern films. It's all there in her eyes -- sexy yet elegant. What a stunning, under-rated actress she was. (I saw her MADAME BOVARY for the first time recently and was equally blown away.) I'll take her over Bergman, Davis, or the two Hepburns any day.$LABEL$ 1
+In the final days of the year 1999, most everyone in Taiwan has died. A strange plague has ravished the island. Supposedly spread by cockroaches, the disease sends its victims into a psychosis where they act like the insects. Eventually, they die. The Hole takes place in a crumbling apartment building (which is especially well created; kudos to the set designer!). Its two protagonists live right above and below each other. The woman is on the lower floor, and the pipes above her apartment are leaking fiercely, threatening to destroy her food supply, not to mention her sanity. She calls a plumber to go check it out, and he accidentally pokes a hole through the floor of the man's apartment. The two have never met before, and they come into contact through the hole.The script is quite brilliant. Few films are simultaneously this funny while remaining completely human, deeply exploring the human condition, especially feelings of loneliness and despair. Tsai's direction is simply beautiful. Like a lot of other Taiwanese directors, he uses a lot of long takes. But unlike, say, Hou Hsiao-Hsien, Tsai doesn't overuse them. In fact, I don't know if I've ever seen them used better. They're always effective and never tedious. It would be wrong to review this film without mentioning the musical numbers. Yes, The Hole is also a musical, and a great one, at that. In the film's best scenes - which is saying something, considering how good all the other scenes are - the man imagines that the woman is a singer, almost a cabaret singer. These numbers are fully choreographed, often with backup dancers and singers. In a stroke of genius, Tsai has these elaborately produced numbers take place in the crumbling building, the signs of apocalypse and decay unhidden. This provides both a sense of pathos and absurdity.The Hole is a film that begs to be seen. It ought to be a cult classic, if nothing else. Before I went to see this, I was told that it was a decent film, but probably Tsai Ming-liang's least good one. Well, if that is true, I just cannot wait to see another one! 10/10.$LABEL$ 1
+Connery climbs aboard the Moore buffoon train in this stinker of a movie. Tossing away everything that made Bond successful in the first place, this movie further degrades the Bond character throwing him into the category of Inspector Gadget. Get Smart this ain't. There is no style here, only second rate actors performing on cheap sets. It's a shame that Connery couldn't lend an element of class here but it doesn't come across. Everything here reeks of mediocrity, including Connery's bad toupee. Perhaps if I was snowed in and given the choice between watching "Never Say Never Again" and "Howard The Duck" I would choose the former. If you want the real James Bond, pick up any Ian Flemming novel.$LABEL$ 0
+This series and Elon Gold were being HYPED as "the next big thing" in sitcoms for NBC. Well, they weren't. Dennis Farina was terribly miscast as the father in-law. He just seemed so uncomfortable and out of place here. The term, "Private 'convo' time!" was supposed to become the "Dyno-mite!" catch phrase of the 21st Century. Well, it wasn't. People were asking then, as they still are today (When his name comes up.), "Who the hell is Elon Gold?" I saw him on an episode of "The Mentalist" this evening. I mentioned his name, and my girlfriend asked, "Who?" Not funny. Total waste of airtime. NBC had really HIGH hopes for this show, but it just fell flat.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is about a group of people who are infected by a powerful man-made virus. They are pursued by government men into the desert.The premise of the film is quite interesting but is hampered by the fact that the delivery is extremely boring. At no point does the film engage with the viewer on any level. Granted, the miniscule budget is a problem but is not the reason for the film's failure. Much more at fault is the very po-faced delivery. There is a great deal of narration but, unfortunately, the narrator has an annoyingly over-dramatic voice. Very little seems to happen to these people and well before the end you will be rooting for the government men - the sooner they kill the protagonists the sooner the movie will end. A much better title for this film would have been Four People Run About In The Desert With Some Stock Footage Of A Helicopter. Overall, very tedious.$LABEL$ 0
+I've seen both movies and I saw without a doubt the re-make is the best, I know a lot of people would disagree those who have become fans of the original will most probably not like this re-make, but i thought it was well thought out and definitely scary, It was so good I'm going to see it again tonight, the original creeped me out because they kill the children, i mean who does that in movies anyway....but in this one the children have at least half a chance...The only bad part about this movie is when the babysitter (Jill) Walks towards the sounds she hears and runs outside into the bushes to check for someone, clearly no one in their right mind would do that whilst babysitting, so that is the only thing i found wrong with the movie, and even so they probably had to put that in there to build suspense, i don't want to give too much away for all those who have not seen it, i recommend you do instead of listening to all these people saying its crap and worse than the original, it would be a better movie for teenagers, as it displays things that most of us are scared of, but when i was in the movies there were at least 10 adults over the age of 70 in there watching it, and they enjoyed it, if they enjoyed it i think you will to! I give it a 9 out of 10!$LABEL$ 1
+If you are the sort of person who can get a kick out of a very bad movie, then I highly recommend this one. If you aren't, stay away. This is an astonishingly cheap-looking movie, and at times you may find yourself wondering if it isn't just a prank someone is pulling on you. The most positive comment I can make about it is that the people responsible seemed to realize that it was super-low-budget nonsense, so there is at least a sense of fun here.But this is as amateurish as it gets. Their idea of giant killer mushrooms are simply guys covered with beige colored sheets with what looks like trash can covers on their heads. It's obviously not meant to be taken seriously (to say the least), but even with that disclaimer you'll find yourself shaking your head at the awesome cheesiness of it all. Or laughing out loud frequently, as I did.$LABEL$ 0
+Famous as the British film so bad it had to be given away for free with a newspaper, the quality of this sub-Children's Film Foundation "thriller" can be guessed from the abnormal number of 10/10 votes it gets and the large number of rave reviews from posters with no posting history and no other reviews to their name. The regulars know what this mean, the gullible might be conned. If they do dip into the waters of this one they won't last long before it drags them under. Technically inept with the boom mike getting into shot or the reflections of the crew visible it just goes on forever in a forgetful sub-DAVINCI CODE on $5 a day way. The end is just insulting but don't worry. It's not as if you'll get that far!$LABEL$ 0
+MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS is a mesmerizing 1945 B thriller from Joseph H. Lewis, arguably one of the very finest directors of Hollywood noir films. This 65 minute Gothic oddity from Columbia Pictures came after Lewis' lengthy apprenticeship as the helmer of a string of poverty row westerns, East Side Kids comedies, horror melodramas (including the incredibly bizarre Bela Lugosi shocker THE INVISIBLE GHOST) and standard studio B product (SECRETS OF A CO-ED, BOMBS OVER BURMA, THE FALCON IN SAN FRANCISCO, etc)---all of which set the stage rather nicely for what was to come from the enormously talented and inventive Mr. Lewis. MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS (as well as SO DARK THE NIGHT from the following year) introduced a director who had mastered the rare and delicate art telling a dark and probing tale swiftly and efficiently on the most modest of budgets. Later Lewis productions like GUN CRAZY (1949) and THE BIG COMBO (1955), despite the expanded scope of their narrative structure, continued to rely upon deft, lucid camera work and effective low-key lighting. And very modest resources.MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS probably owes more to the tradition of British mysteries (it's set in a studio-bound England) than it does to conventional film noir attitudes and trappings. A young woman (Nina Foch) agrees to take a position in the home of an elderly woman (Dame Mae Witty). Two days after her arrival she awakens from a deep sleep in a completely strange house and, mysteriously enough, with a brand new identity---that of the old woman's daughter-in-law. Told that she's been the victim of a nervous breakdown, she struggles to grasp the utter and seemingly hopeless nature of her predicament. But before long she begins to piece together the strange and troubling truth behind this dark mystery, that her "husband" (the always menacing George Macready) most probably murdered his real wife and that she's been duped into participating in a harrowing and sinister scheme. Much of what distinguishes this otherwise modest tale are the indelible touches that Lewis brings to the production, marking it as the first of his truly serious endeavors as a film director.$LABEL$ 1
+I bet you Gene Simmons and Vincent Pastore negotiated in advance how many episodes they would be willing to appear in. Isn't just too contrived for Gene to switch to the ladies team and then throw himself on his sword? And Big Pussy? What the hell was that "look at me, I'm a rat!" double episode crap? All that cliché mafia banter- COME ON! The big names voted off just happened to already have received money for their charity and got a custom tailored exit. Hmm... This is not reality but staged drama! Mark Burnett's other show, "Survivor" also raised questions for me when Johnny Fairplay stages his departure when he clearly had just a short time before his child is to be born.Yuk!$LABEL$ 0
+That was one of the lines in a trailer about this film and for once the publicists did not exaggerate. All six of the featured players here are on the screen 99% of the time, so they have to be good.It's always fascinating how certain plot premises can be worked for either highballing comedy to a deadly serious situation. Mary Boland of the ditzy and Charlie Ruggles of the henpecked play their usual characters who are planning to motor all the way to California. To share expenses they advertise for someone to share the ride. They get Burns and Allen and a monster of a dog. That same premise was a deadly serious one several generations later in Kalifornia.Of course if you're traveling with Gracie Allen you know you're going to be going absolutely nuts trying to figure her Monty Pythonesque reasoning about the whole world. And if that ain't enough you get to run into W.C. Fields, part time sheriff and full time pool hustler who's living in sin with Alison Skipworth. But back then we didn't delve into such things.A real classic comedy from the thirties, not to be missed.$LABEL$ 1
+This was a hit in the South By Southwest (SXSW) Film festival in Austin last year, and features a fine cast headed up by E.R.'s Gloria Reuben, and a scenery-chewing John Glover. Though shot on a small budget in NYC, the film looks and sounds fabulous, and takes us on a behind the scenes whirl through the rehearsal and mounting of what actors call "The Scottish Play," as a reference to the word "Macbeth" is thought to bring on the play's ancient curse. The acting company exhibits all the emotions of the play itself, lust, jealousy, rage, suspicion, and a bit of fun as well. The games begin when an accomplished actor is replaced (in the lead role) by a well-known "pretty face" from the TV soap opera scene in order to draw bigger crowds. The green-eyed monster takes over from there, and the drama unfolds nicely. Fine soundtrack, and good performances all around. The DVD includes director's commentary and some deleted scenes as well.$LABEL$ 1
+People may say I am harsh but I can't help it. The movie is so bad I was absolutely stunned. The first movie was bad enough if you ask me. It was greatly exaggerated and silly but this one, despite the creepy scenes, has a seriously ass-stupid story. They actually went deep into investigating Kayako's past and found out that she had a mother (Who miraculously speaks English) who was an exorcist and "fed" evil spirits to her daughter. Stupid? Yeap. OK, it started out with Kayako who was an ordinary housewife who had an affair with some bloke and got herself dead. This part is still OK. Because of this moment of rage, she became a vengeful spirit who kills anyone who enters her house. Acceotable. Now, her killings began to stretch a little where she actually had the opportunity to travel throughout Tokyo just to finish her victims. (Her victims were travelling, weren't they?) This struck me hard. Now if a ghost could actually do such a thing like travelling throughout a country without paying public transport fares, I wouldn't mind being. Ask someone to come kill me then *snorts*. And to crown things all up, the ghost who was once depicted as a very vengeful one (In Ju-on: The Grudge, which was way better than this trash) is now depicted as some spectre who truly enjoys herself and felt that it is her mission to finish of people. Things became worse (For me, the viewer) when the ghost became coming in forms of large strands of hair. I mean, ??? If a ghost had such power, I seriously dun mind being one. I never really liked movies depicting ghosts as MONSTERS cause they're not. The overall results is just plain bad. Like The Grudge 2. With a better storyline and less exaggeration, this show would have been better$LABEL$ 0
+Man, the '90's really were an horrible decade for movies. The movies are lacking in a good style and also the storytelling is often lacking.This 6th entry into the long running Halloween-series is certainly a bad one. You just never really get into the story because it isn't a very well constructed and build-up movie.It's simply a poorly done film, that also suffers from its imagine-less writing and non-compelling characters that are in it. Dr. Loomis seems to be in it just for the sake of being in it. It's a real shame that this had to be Donald Pleasence last film-role. It's nice and also sort of suiting that his last role is in an Halloween movie but he definitely deserved to be in a better one.There is never a sense of real danger in the movie and the character of Michael Myers just never comes across as threatening or scary. Perhaps it's because he's featured too prominently throughout the movie, from pretty early on already. He does his usual stuff again but without too much class or originality. Also the attempts to uncover Myer's past don't really work out, for the main reason that it just doesn't get explained very well. It's obvious that the script went through various re-writes before- and also very possibly during filming. Several scenes even got re-shot or added after the first cut turned out to be far from pleasing. The movie more often looks and feels like a made for TV one. This is also due to the lack of some real good gore. As an horror movie it really is lacking in basically everything to make this a good or even original one to watch.So far the worst out of the series!3/10$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this series in 1999 in London TV and was blown away. Like another user commented - This is what i would have liked to see when i first watched "Jurassic Park" - Life and death of Dinosaurs in their natural habitat as a documentary. The CG are very lifelike, and the diversity of dinosaurs and habitats shown makes it also very educational.The series takes everything factually known about dinosaurs, adds a lot of good ideas on "what it could have been" to make up what then looks like a documentary series. What i missed was some small bar-graph constantly in one corner of the screen, moving between "fiction" and "fact" along with the narration and the pictures, because you often wonder how much is educated guessing, and how much is pure fantasy.To some clues on facts & fiction, you have to see the 50 minute "Making Of", which is not only very educational about the CG process and collecting and including the paleontologists knowledge into the series, but which also is very funny (Dinosaurs smoking cigarettes and complaining about CG animators).I highly recommend to watch this series before going into the upcoming Disney Dinosaur movie or watching any Jurassic Park (like) movie again. It will surely make you much more critical towards those movies. The Disney Trailers looked especially bad.$LABEL$ 1
+On the way home from a day at the beach, four young people seek shelter from a torrential downpour at the home of Lord and Lady Alexander after their car runs out of gas. They don't know it, but the house they're staying in is to be the site of a Satanic ritual. Jane (Camille Keaton), the only female of the group, is to be sacrificed. As her male companions rush to her aid, one of them accidentally kills Lady Alexander. Things really get out of hand and everyone else attending the black mass is also killed. The four try to make an escape, but soon discover there's no escape from what they've witnessed. One by one, they meet their fates.Gong into Tragic Ceremony, I was positive I would enjoy it. Slow-burn Gothic horror is right up my alley. I'm also quite fond of some of Riccardo Freda's other movies like The Horrible Dr. Hichcock, The Ghost, and I Vampiri. Tragic Ceremony seemed to be a sure thing. Unfortunately, things don't always work out the way they should. The biggest tragedy with respect to Tragic Ceremony is the time I spent watching this mess of a movie. With a few minor exceptions, nothing about the film appealed to me or worked for me. The characters are unlikeable, the plot is incoherent and schizophrenic, and the pacing is terrible. There's a subplot about some cursed pearls that goes nowhere and only serves to confuse things even further. In addition, nothing interesting happens for most of the movie. By the time the four leads realize they're in danger, I was well past the point of caring. And I don't understand the reviews I've read that praise the acting of Camille Keaton. I suppose it's a terrific performance if you consider an emotionless daze to be acting. The three male leads are the very definition of nondescript. They do nothing to stand out. The supporting cast includes some genre favorites like Luigi Pistilli, Luciana Paluzzi, and Paul Muller, but none is given anything to do. In fact Muller's main contribution is a two minute long monologue at the end of the movie that attempts to explain what happened in the previous 80 or so minutes. It's a weak attempt to provide a wrap-up to a very weak movie.$LABEL$ 0
+I heard legends about this "film" (quotes used so as not to insult films) for a while, so when I finally got the DVD with it, I impatiently started watching it. By the end, I *had* to fast forward through just a few of the most moronic, ineptly made, nonsensical scenes of this pointless childish mess to make it end quicker.This may be the worst film I've even "touched" - and I used to be associated with Troma for a while. "Manson Family" makes the bottom of Troma's entries look like daring and groundbreaking art-house filmwork. I could go on and talk about the syphilitic skeleton of a "plot" it has, the revoltingly bad "acting", the painful, inept "directing", the sets and props with their "dollar ninety nine" look (I especially "loved" the plastic toy guns used in the Tate murder scene!) or the nauseating look and feel of this whole bag of garbage (I think it was supposed to represent a drug-induced hallucination; I have absolutely no idea how a drug-induced hallucination looks or feels, nor do I want to find out - but I guess drug junkies with burned out "brains" will love this "film" (they seem to be the ones who made it) I've seen many films from various "Worst 50" lists, traditionally opened by Eddie Wood's ones - and Eddie Wood would be appalled by the sheer ineptitude and talentless of van Webber (or whatever his name is; I certainly don't want to remember it) I've never seen "Superbabies" or its sequel, but I strongly wish that "Manson" joined them on IMDb's rating. Fortunately, this obscure garbage probably won't be seen by enough viewers to warrant it sufficiently many "1" votes - and so much the better!$LABEL$ 0
+I checked this out for free at the library, and I still feel ripped off. Yes, Sandra Bullock is actually in it, but only in five scenes totaling up to barely 5 minutes, and even those are fairly painful to watch. The rest of the movie is so bad that you'll spend most of the time hoping it will end soon, but only if you're one of those people who have to finish a movie once they start it. Everyone else will just turn it off. Don't worry, you aren't going to miss anything. Bullock's lines (assuming that you were tricked into watching this because her name is plastered on the case) are essentially just parroting of other characters lines, like this dialog:Lisa (Bullock) - "Danny, please tell me what is going on."Danny - "I don't know." Lisa - "Whaddaya mean you don't know?" Danny - "I don't know - it's something to do with my Dad." Lisa - "Whaddaya mean your Dad?" Danny - "I don't know - he ****ed up or something." Lisa - "Why am I here?" Danny - "I'm sorry Lisa. I don't know." (moments later) Danny - "Some army buddies of my Dad . . . " Lisa - "Whaddaya mean army buddies?"See what I mean? Bottom line - Just say no.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm sick of people whining about Ewoks! True, they're not the best thing that ever happened to Star Wars, but they DID happen, so deal with it! Besides, they ARE cute, and I don't care if they're marketable. Yubb Nubb!This movie always leaves me in tears. It's perfect. The end could not be better. I'm excited for The Phantom Menace because it will suddenly throw the focus of the whole story from Luke to Anakin. I love how he is revealed at the end - it would be too unresolved any other way. So those of you who are complaining that Vader's helmet was removed, take a moment to think about it. It's very effective. Vader, the man who hid behind a mask for 20 years, is finally revealed as a sick-looking man. He is not entirely machine - he's vulnerable.I don't know how the casting director happened to pick such good actors in A New Hope. They all do so well. They are believable characters. Hamill does an excellent job with his dramatic character development. Fisher does a fine job being a female role model (I mean, come on! She killed Jabba even when so many others had failed!). Harrison Ford - need I say more?The music is once again brilliant. It's so very touching and significant when you can pick out character themes at different parts of the movie. The best climax is when Luke shouts "NOOO!" and jumps out to fight his father in the Final Battle. John Williams is nothing short of a genius! What an amazing man!Already, the movie has so much more meaning for me because of Episode I. I can't wait to finally see it in the theatres (CAN I WAIT???) and then watch the original trilogy yet again.Bravo!$LABEL$ 1
+I really like Traci Lords. She may not be the greatest actress in the world but she's rather good in this. She play the dowdy, conservative, reporter to a 'T'. It's a great little thriller which keeps you guessing for a good while. Jeff Fahey is also good as Traci's boss. I think given a decent break Traci could be a top actress. She's certainly no worse than some of today's leading ladies.$LABEL$ 1
+Low budget horror movie. If you don't raise your expectations too high, you'll probably enjoy this little flick. Beginning and end are pretty good, middle drags at times and seems to go nowhere for long periods as we watch the goings on of the insane that add atmosphere but do not advance the plot. Quite a bit of gore. I enjoyed Bill McGhee's performance which he made quite believable for such a low budget picture, he managed to carry the movie at times when nothing much seemed to be happening. Nurse Charlotte Beale, played by Jesse Lee, played her character well so be prepared to want to slap her toward the end! She makes some really stupid mistakes but then, that's what makes these low budget movies so good! I would have been out of that place and five states away long before she even considered that it might be a good idea to leave! If you enjoy this movie, try Committed from 1988 which is basically a rip off of this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+I was really horrified by this eerie movie. What an unusual dark atmosphere. And such a creepy musical score. Really promising! Indeed, after ten minutes you really start sweating, and feeling uncomfortable, for you start fearing the worst. This movie has the atmosphere of a true nightmare, and what's worse-it all comes out. For one hour and a half I have been trying to fight complete boredom and falling asleep, but the monstrous soundtrack kept me awake. Nuit Noire is a truly horrifying picture - for your eyes, your ears, your intelligence, and most of all: your wallet, since the thought of spending precious money on a movie ticket for this cheap amateuristic homevideo is the biggest horror of all.$LABEL$ 0
+This was a truly bad film. The character "Cole" played by Michael Moriarty was the biggest reason this flopped, the actor felt that conjuring up an unbelievably awkward southern drawl would make this character more evil, it didn't. After about 20 minutes I had wished for a speech therapist to make an appearance, this would have added some sincerity.- 1) badly acted - 2) unsympathetic characters - 3) razor thin plot lineYuck!$LABEL$ 0
+TANDEM is an odd slice in the Japanese pink genre-as it has the requisite sex-scenes and misogynistic tone that is all but required for these types of films-but also throws in a disjointed drama/dark-comedy storyline that seems like it'd have been better suited for a different type of film. The film starts with two lone guys at a restaurant-each daydreaming about a previous sexual encounter. One is a mutual subway groping, the other a pretty typical (for this type of film) semi-rape scenario. The two pervs meet and start talking after one lends the other a cigarette. They hang out for an evening and talk a bit about their respective sex- lives. The film is inter-cut with flashback scenes of both of the men's interactions with the women that are central in their lives. The two men have a falling out and the film ends on a weird but predictable note... I really don't know what to make of TANDEM. It sorta comes off as a soft-core, 'odd couple' type of anti-buddy-film, but doesn't really explore the subject-matter to any satisfying degree. There's also not much of the typical extreme sleaziness often so prevalent in these types of films-so I can't really figure out what the point was. I also cant quite tell if the film was supposed to be funny, depressing, or both.  I think that TANDEM could have had some potential as a more serious drama film with a dark-comedy edge- but as a soft-core sex film that tries to be too 'smart' for its own good-it just doesn't work.   Can't say I hated this one-but can't say there's anything notable about it either. 4/10 $LABEL$ 0
+I had the pleasure of seeing this film at the Rhode Island International Film Festival and was very impressed. Tess Nanavati is clearly a great screenwriter and I would love to see more of her films. If she could do what she did with the budget of this film, I'm very anxious to see what she can do with a major picture. Kudos to the cast for their terrific performances (that little girl was gold), and to whoever composed the music. The warped "Row Your Boat" blew me away. Very creative film all around....I really hope to see it come out on video or DVD because I'd buy it in a second. If you get the chance, you should definitely see this film.$LABEL$ 1
+Okay, let's start off by saying this film is not an exact rendition of the crimes and legal pursuit of Andrei Chikatilo. While it may have been "official policy" in the Politburo that the USSR had no serial killers, in actuality the legal system had handled others, and "Killer X" (as he was actually called) was already being sought when Fetisov brought Burakov onto the case. In fact, as soon as it was realized they had multiple murders on their hands, the authorities assigned a task force of dozens of officers to track down and end the killing spree of a man that did not fit into what is perceived as normal serial killer parameters. It's good the director and writers consistently remind the viewer that the story is only "based upon actual events," for a docudrama this ain't.***SPOILERS FOLLOW****That said, this is a damn good example of a fast-paced Hollywood-style thriller that still gets across the basics of what happened. It is easy to follow and has just enough truth behind its version of events to make for compelling viewing. Yes, Chikatilo raped and murdered both children and adults, both male and female. Yes, shoddy lab-work set him free to continue killing for years. Yes, innocent men were accused of the murders and "confessed" to their crimes at police urging. Yes, the gay community was harassed while the crimes were being committed (albeit with Burakov's committed assistance). And yes, Chikatilo was brought to confession not by the haranguing of the special prosecutor, Gorbunov, but by the gentle understanding of a psychiatrist named Bukhanovsky (though Gorbunov was really nowhere near the egotistical martinet portrayed in this film). Quibbles about truth and veracity aside, all of these events are dramatized in a manner that consistently tightens the tension and fear.It doesn't hurt that director and co-writer Chris Gerolmo has a pitch perfect cast. Stephen Rea's growing emotional involvement in the killings and developing expertise in detecting clues, Donald Sutherland's snarky manipulation of the Soviet party hacks and subtle spine that becomes evident when it is needed, Jeffrey DeMunn's seething undercurrent of rage hidden by a fear-filled demeanor, Max Von Sydow's boyish excitement at being part of a criminal investigation all enhance the sharp dialog and crisp editing in ways that cannot be underestimated.Taken for what it is, "Citizen X" is almost pitch perfect (the "almost" due to one moment of self-congratulation at the end that just does NOT fit). Highly recommended as fiction well-told, not fact being presented...but considering the junky "serial killer" movies that Hollywood usually spits out, that's good enough for me.$LABEL$ 1
+I was very curious about Anatomy (aka Anatomie) and if I was going to see it, I was going to have to buy it since no video stores in my area carried the film. Since it was not a low-priced DVD, I did take a chance and thought I'd take a peek at other comments on IMDb. Many of the comments didn't give me enough hope of forking out lots of bucks for a film I had never seen nor had any clues about. I basically got the idea it was a sexy youth-oriented romp being compared to many cookie-cutter teen thrillers. Well, something in the back of my mind told me to ignore those types of comments and buy it! I did, and was I pleasantly surprised!If it is going to be compared to any other films, I would say it's a variation of Coma and Extreme Measures. I couldn't see any comparison to films like Scream, Urban Legends, et al. Yes, the cast is young (that's because they're med students! At least they aren't the increasingly boring high school type characters), and yes, some are lusty (basically the character played by Anna Loos is, and it is handled quite tastefully in the German language version), but Anatomy is well constructed, there is a tense mood throughout, the sets are amazing, the makeup effects are a wow, and Franka Potente is very credible in her role. I found myself enjoying all of it despite a few gaping holes in the plot! The story of a student discovering a sort-of secret society doing autopsies on still-living patients is a rather creepy scenario and what happens to those patients afterwards is quite clever. Sure, you could ask why didn't she just GET OUT OF THAT TOWN? Okay, but then the film would be over within a half hour.This was the first effort from the German part of Columbia Pictures, and it's actually quite an impressive one. There was a bit of care in the production and to actually offer some genuine thrills is an accomplishment. It is a bit mature in mind, as it doesn't resort to constant opportunities for sexual encounters(a breast fest) or juvenile drug jokes. Anna Loos' character, while often making sexual remarks and looking for some fun, was actually a nice touch--having a character that was a woman more intelligent than any of the men in the school. She found that sex was really just a distraction for her and the men rather lacking.THE IMPORTANT STUFF: Watching this film in the original German language with English or French subtitles is the BEST way to enjoy it. I saw the theatrical trailers dubbed in English and was disgusted by the change it made in the film's tone. I have never seen a properly dubbed film in my life--they never can find voices that suit the film's actors or characters. Sure enough, I tried to watch some of Anatomy dubbed in English and the intelligence level of it dropped severely, making it seem more like a comedy. A good example is when one guy was freaked out at being cut open and screamed to be sewn back up--hearing it in German he sounded frantic, but dubbed in English he sounded like a comedian. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing people say they can't handle reading subtitles or watch a "letterboxed" film. Anatomy comes off as silly with dubbed voices that seem octaves too high for any of the people you see in the film, and Anna Loos' sexual comments then just sound like awful remarks right out of Fast Times At Ridgemont High. I wonder if the negative comments about Anatomy are from people who watched it dubbed, it just doesn't seem like the same film at all! This is not a cheap horror film and deserves to be viewed as it was created. Interesting to note that some of the English subtitles are different in scenes in the feature and the "making of" supplement.As it turns out, I gambled and won with Anatomy. It's a competent thriller with likeable characters and doesn't try to go for cheap thrills.$LABEL$ 1
+John Leguizamo is a great comedian and storyteller. Every time this has been on HBO I've had to stop and watch it. John tells the story of how he grew up (probably some fact and fiction) and adds hilarious stories in the midst. If you like John's comedy I would have to say this is probably his comedy at his best.$LABEL$ 1
+By 1945, and after a string of solid WWII propaganda pieces, Errol Flynn’s hold over U.S. box office had started to decline so, in spite of the increased burden of waning looks, he embarked on a series of films pertaining to that genre which had earlier made his name: the swashbuckler. The first of these was a good one actually – ADVENTURES OF DON JUAN (1948) – but it also proved to be his last big-budget Hollywood starring vehicle. The rest of his sword-wielding days were spent wandering all over Europe: in England for KIM (1950), THE MASTER OF BALLANTRAE (1953) and THE DARK AVENGER (1955), in France for ADVENTURES OF CAPTAIN FABIAN (1951) and Italy for the aborted THE STORY OF WILLIAM TELL (1953) and the little-seen CROSSED SWORDS (1954). However, Hollywood did beckon him one last time to his old seafaring ways – albeit for a modestly-budgeted Universal picture rather than a Warner Brothers ‘A’ production to which he had been accustomed when at his peak… Still, the glorious Technicolor cinematography leaps off the screen here and, while an older and flabbier Flynn may look like the pale shadow of his former self, his red-headed leading lady Maureen O’Hara has a field day as a tomboyish buccaneer leader who deep down craves romance and wants to be treated like a lady. Anthony Quinn was still a few years away from his larger-than-life starring vehicles, so here he is typically seen as the baddie – the pirate captain Roc Brasiliano, a role he attacks with gusto. Like THE BLACK SHIELD OF FALWORTH (1954) – a viewing of which preceded this one – AGAINST ALL FLAGS takes me back to my cherished childhood days of constant TV viewing when vintage Hollywood movies were the order of the day on both the local and neighboring Italian channels.For all I know, this might well have been the very first pirate movie I’ve ever seen and I cringe at the thought of today’s generation of youngsters supposedly believing that the grossly overblown PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN trilogy is what buccaneering is all about! As I said earlier, AGAINST ALL FLAGS might not be the finest pirate yarn ever brought to the screen but it’s a solid example of this prolific genre all the same. Nowadays, the amorous persistence of the child-like Indian princess (Alice Kelley) towards her pirate captor Flynn may strike one as being awfully silly but the rest of it – despite clearly not scaling the heights of THE SEA HAWK (1940) and THE BLACK SWAN (1942), to mention the finest seafaring ventures of its respective stars – is briskly paced and reasonably engaging. Incidentally, the film would later go on to be remade as THE KING’S PIRATE (1967) with Doug McClure! For what it’s worth, the unprecedented box office success of that unappetizing modern franchise is most probably what induced reluctant movie studios to dust off their catalogue swashbuckling titles and release them on DVD and, as a matter of fact, AGAINST ALL FLAGS itself was the one gem in a poorly-thought out “Pirates Of The Golden Age Movie Collection” set from Universal which also consisted of obscure dross like BUCCANEER’S GIRL (1950; with Yvonne De Carlo), DOULE CROSSBONES (1951; with Donald O’Connor) and YANKEE BUCCANEER (1952; with Jeff Chandler)! Value for money, perhaps but, so far, I have only acquired the Errol Flynn flick from other sources; even so, if the mood strikes me in future, I might wish to lay my hands on similar marine adventures like Edward Dmytyk’s MUTINY (1952), the afore-mentioned YANKEE BUCCANEER and PIRATES OF TORTUGA (1961).$LABEL$ 1
+I really wanted to like this movie. I absolutely love kenny hotz, and spenny rice has a charming side to him. Not that I like spenny at all. Spenny ruins this movie. He should of let kenny and his hot girlfriend pitch the movie.Anyways, it's pretty boring aside from a scene with Roger Ebert in it. There really isn't too many celebrities in this movie, and most don't seem to say more than one line. Overall this movie was disappointing. I would only suggest watching it if you got it with the season 1 DVD of kenny vs spenny (it comes for free on the 3rd disc). Regardless of this production, I am still very excited to check out The Papel Chase.$LABEL$ 0
+Acting 10, Script 1. "Hurlyburly" is from that unfortunate postmodern school of theatre that has declared anything resembling a story or plot is forbidden. While people may get away with this on stage, on film it becomes deadly -- or at least deadly dull. We're left with a bunch of great actors spouting dialogue that, while brilliantly written, adds up to nothing. Even worse, every character speaks with the same voice despite their backgrounds. The only attempt to differentiate is to have teen-waif Anna Paquin use the word "ain't."Never mind that the characters are unsympathetic losers to the extreme, the camera work is plain sloppy and (for LA residents) the attention to geography is laughable. (Hint: the view out Sean Penn's front window is about eight miles away from the view out his back window, and you can't drive south through Hollywood and wind up in Glendale pretending to be Burbank.) Okay, suspension of disbelief and all that -- and normally I wouldn't pay attention to little things like that, because they are just vagaries of production. But, the fact that they did stick out so much despite the thespian pyrotechnics on screen says a lot about the weakest element of this enterprise -- the script.In short, skip this one, even on video. Rabe picked the wrong quote from the Scottish Play for his title; Hurlyburly would have been better named "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." A bit long for the marquee, perhaps -- but at least it would be honest advertising.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie accurately portrays the struggle life was for the typical East German. Watched by the secret police, friends and coworkers, most easterners simply existed.The Strelzyk's and the Wetzel's were two families that decided they weren't going to take it anymore. Despite the extreme danger involved in escaping to the West, they feel the rewards far outweighed the risks. John Hurt and Beau Bridges, portraying the respective family heads hit upon the idea of flying over East Germany's heavily fortified border. There are tense moments as they gather and jimmy-rig the necessary materials for the flight. They work their day jobs and construct the balloon at night, right under the noses of the authorities, one of whom is Strelzyk's neighbor (Klaus Loewitsch). The first attempt, involving only the Strelzyks, ends in failure when the balloon crashes just a few yards from the border. The crashed balloon is discovered by border guards and an relentless search begins for the conspirators who are determined to try again. With sales of materials being closely monitored Peter and Guenter still manage to procure bits and pieces of cloth with which to construct a second balloon for their nail biting escape to freedom. The film also features a heartwarming and effective soundtrack by the late Jerry Goldsmith.$LABEL$ 1
+It seems that Dee Snyder ran out of ideas halfway through the script. The second half of the movie is basically just a rehash of the first, which makes the film very boring. To sum up: Cop's daughter is suckered into party via chatroom where she is sexually molested/tortured by psychopath (played by Snider). Cop rescues her, psychopath is put in therapy/jail. Psychopath is released four years later and the whole thing is played out AGAIN. Within all this are many unexplained plot elements: Why was "Captain Howdy" psycho in the first place? What's with the one-time personality detour to bible-thumper? How does he kidnap all the adults and manage to sew their mouths shut without a struggle? And perhaps the biggest unsolved mystery of all... how does a 6'2" man with pink hair hide himself completely behind a 5'6" average build woman? These are just some of the questions I had watching this film.It seems that Snyder was trying to make some kind of commentary on a) the "dangers" of online chatrooms, b) the hypocrisy of Christian sexual mores, and c) the effect our twisted puritanical society has on us as individuals. If that is so, he failed. The movie is just too poorly done to entertain, never mind convey social messages. The torture scenes are stupid and boring, bordering on silly (especially when Snyder goes into one of his "pain and death" monologues), and everything else is just plain dumb. The "call tracing" scene is really lame... when are the cops gonna get caller ID and *69? The young partner of the main cop character is particularly awful... he shouldn't be working as an actor, basically. And the audio in the final showdown scene is really poor. I guess they couldn't afford two boom mikes?The rest of the acting is not awful but it's not good either. The cop is pretty one note, and his detached quality is not quite believable. Dee Snyder is actually not too bad, but he snarls and sneers way too much. Robert Englund (who deserves way better) puts in a somewhat amusing performance of a hypocritical redneck. If you're a big Robert Englund fan the movie is probably worth seeing just for him. Everyone else is forgettable.In conclusion, we've seen all these plot elements done before and done better, in films like SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, HELLRAISER, and TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. I suggest you rent one of those instead of watching this turkey. 3/10.$LABEL$ 0
+Phantom of the Mall is a film that fits best in the "easily forgotten" category. It's a pretty lousy variant on the famous story by Gaston Leroux, the Phantom of the Opera. Not a bad idea to itself, but the plot and production of this movie are way to weak to bring a decent homage to that story. On the bright side, Gaston Leroux doesn't has to turn over in his grave just yet. It could have been a lot worse. Phantom of the Mall has too many useless flashbacks in it and way too many boring sequences to make it memorable. Also, the scriptwriters wanted to give too much draught to the story than necessary. And even though there's a lot of mystery getting build up about the character of Eric ... the basic plot is ordinary and déjà-vu. ***SPOILERS*** It's about a young couple that brutally gets torn apart because the boy gets killed in a fire. That fire was set to his house because he and his parents refused to sell their home in order to make room for a huge mall to be build. The boy survived the fire and he has hidden himself in the mall to avenge himself. Meanwhile he guards his girl who now works in the mall and tries to forget her loss ****END SPOILERS*** This pretty simple - but rather effective - plot gets thickened by lots of pointless elements and annoying conspiracy theories. While it should just be an entertaining horror movie, it desperately tries to be an intelligent thriller...and that's not what the fans look for. There are a few innovative killings but they're not satisfying enough for people who want to see a relaxing horror movie. And besides, Phantom of the Mall could have used at least a bit of humor!! This entire production - the cast included - takes itself way too serious. I'll try to finish with a few positive aspects...Like for example, it stars Ken Foree !! Die-hard horror fans will certainly recognize him as Peter for Dawn of the Dead! That's like the horror milestone that yet has to find an equal. Even though his role in this movie is limited and even completely unnecessary...it was good to see him again. TV-movie fans will also recognize Morgan Fairchild as the mayor, she's a fine actress and an elegant lady. Pauly Shore is also in this but I can't stand him...so my opinion about him may be a bit biased. And finally, a bit of praise for the leading actress named Kari Whitman. She's an extremely beautiful girl and she does have a bit of talent...too bad she never made it to the top. Actually, this movie is her biggest achievement and that says enough about her career...$LABEL$ 0
+Makes the fourth theatrical release (the one National Lampoon took its name OFF of) look like a comedy classic. A complete mistake and a sad attempt to capitalize on a once-proud franchise. Painfully unfunny and unwatchable...even for a TV movie! The Cousin Eddie character has become progressively less amusing, from the original Vacation when it was fresh and unique, through Christmas Vacation when it was starting to wear a bit thin, to Vegas Vacation where it was actually annoying to see come on-screen (but, in fairness, there were a LOT of things that were annoying to see come on-screen in that movie!). But this attempt to move the character up to lead status is unfortunate to say the least. The Vacation movies themselves met an ugly death in Las Vegas, and this hope at reviving even the thinnest thread of the series for television was thoroughly misguided. Chevy Chase and company put together a great trilogy back when he was in his prime; now let's just pull the plug and let the title rest in peace. (One tiny note of interest: The original Audrey Griswold--Dana Barron, the first of four actresses to play the part, including Juliette Lewis--returns to the role 20 years later! One is left only to wonder...WHY?)$LABEL$ 0
+Monstrous mother-son-duo (Alice Krige and Brian Krause) sucks life-force of virgins, and their newest target is pretty but lonely Tanya (Madchen Amick). However, these monsters are allergic to cat's scratches... I have never been fan of sleazy, overrated bestsellerists like King, Koontz or Barker, but this B-movie, written by Mr Dung himself, is actually not near as bad than it could be. Yes, it is sometimes jaw-droppingly atrocious, but there is actually some surprisingly impressive touches: good old-fashioned graveyard, eerie soundtrack and candlelit-Gothic-house-scene, mirror showing the monstrous form of the villains, etc. Of course, the film is polluted by Mr Dung's potty-mouthed dialogue and all-tactics-of-toilet-seat obsession to vilify fat people, leading to totally pointless subplot of rapist teacher, but there is roses among manure.$LABEL$ 1
+I was a 20 year old college student living with the folks when I first saw this, and I've never forgotten it. I'm a huge Joan Hackett fan, and this film was perfect for her remarkable talent. I'm so glad to see that so many other people have such a fond memory of seeing this. Naturally, it's not available on any media! It would be perfect to show on Lifetime, but because of its age, they won't. You never see anything there before the mid-eighties. I can still remember what made me watch it when it was first run: Rex Reed reviewed it in The New York Daily News, and he said that it was like a throwback to the great Hollywood films of the forties, and had it been made then, the Hackett and Grimes parts would have been played by Stanwyck and Crawford. Think about that! P.S. So sad that Joan Hackett left us so tragically young.$LABEL$ 1
+Just watched this and it was amazing. Was in serious doubt about renting the DVD or not. So if you are...and like watching other than brainless action-movies...don't hesitate any longer. Don't let the dull cover put you off. The script is one of the best ever. Inteligent, funny, original, touching and keeps you at the edge of the seat through the whole movie. I had already watched another movie right before this one and was really sleepy, and usually I get bored on watching a second movie in one night, but this one really made me wake up and didn't have any boring moments. It also made me rethink a lot of things in life and gave me a really good feeling.Also the acting is great (one of Kevin Spacey's best roles). The visuals are beautiful and the use of music is very well-chosen. If I have to come up with something negative to say about it....well....I can't really find anything......Enjoy! 10 out of 10$LABEL$ 1
+This is the one major problem with this film, along with a good deal of québecois' biggest movies: Done in a pretentious way by pretentious people.It's really sad, but "big shots" movie makers (driving Dodge Stratus...) from this province believes They Got the Thruth, They Know What the Little People Like.We're not a rich province, every time a big movie like this (30 millions?!!?) is made, it's cutting off a lot of others who won't see their movie made because of lack of governmental help. So it generates mediocrity; only movies from "friends of the family" are going to be made.I sound angry and I am. I went see Nouvelle-France expecting a journey in the lives of my ancestors, but i found myself stuck in a pool of inconsistencies: french accent (we gotta please our cousins, so f*** our québecois' language)and lack of historical research is only a few. Add a campy love story and the same music score playing again and again and dumb québecois' viewer is gonna open up and ask for more. I'm glad this pretentious piece of s*** didn't do as planned by the Dodge stratus Big Shots... It's gonna help movie makers who aren't in the very restrained "movie business" of Québec.Rent Cruising Bar instead and have a real good time.PS: I'll never forgive them for ruining such an awesome title.$LABEL$ 0
+This Film is the One which you fall in love with. Alfred Hitchcock shall always remain over the top of any directors of his time. The most influential aspects about his films are sheer Simplicity & Gripping Drama. The another best thing about Hitchcock's films is a Definite & Gripping End.Any thing said about "The Man who knew too much" is less. The Cinematography, Acting, Dialogs & Camera Works are magnificent in this Movie. The Song "Que Sera Sera" at the end shall remain in our memories for life time. The film is so enjoyable from start to end that we never know when it ends. Rarely would Hitchcock include humor in his films, this film has comic scenes which fits in to the movie. This film is absolutely brilliant & as good as Vertigo.$LABEL$ 1
+Hilarious film, I had a great time watching it. The star (Cuneyt Arkin, sometimes credited as Steve Arkin) is a popular actor from Turkey. He has played in lots of tough-guy roles, epic-sword films, and romances. It was fun to see him with an international cast and some real lousy looking pair of gloves. If I remember it was also dubbed in English which made things even more funnier. (kinda like seeing John Wayne speak Turkish).$LABEL$ 1
+This is by far the best stand-up routine I have ever seen. John Leguizamo's one man show tells the supposed story of his life in a barrage of lines and situations. By far better than any other comedy out there.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie changed my life! Hogan's performance was nothing short of incredible, and I still haven't recovered from his exclusion from the 1990 Oscar nominations. And as brightly as the Hulkster shines in this movie, you can't discount the brilliant writing and direction that vaults this masterpiece in to the highest strata of achievement in film. If you haven't seen this movie, drop what your doing right now and get yourself a copy. I guarantee it will blow your mind. And if you don't like it, then I just have one question for you.... Watcha gonna do when the 24 inch pythons and Hulkamania runs wild on you!!!!$LABEL$ 0
+I read some comments on the internet about this film like "...harder then Hostel...", "the camera never screens of when it's getting really brutal...". But none of them is true. The camera never screens of, because there is nothing to screen of. The same scene is repeated hundred and hundred times again. Women lies on a table, killer rapes women a few times, killer cuts women into pieces (you never see this during the whole film!). Police come and arrested him. Killer fools the jury. Film over. In Germany we would say :"Viel Lärm um Nichts". All in all, one of the most boring films I ever see. Absolutely non-recommendable.$LABEL$ 0
+*Spoilers - sorry!* The first word that sprung to mind whilst watching the film is 'Gremlins'. It's the only critters movie I have seen from the four movies, but I enjoyed it. It wasn't too complicated as I hadn't seen the past two, but I thought it was quite a good movie all the same. Critters starts with a man, his son and daughter stopping off on the way to a vacation (although it turns out that they end up at their own home - which I have no idea what the hell went on) The girl meets up with a boy (played by Leo DiCaprio) and they go hang out in a nearby forest. They meet this weird guy who tells them to be careful and stuff because of the critters. He seems a bit psychotic and if I was in that situation, I would not speak to him. The critters steal a ride of the girl and boy's car and end up in their flat thing. They hide out in the basement and end up killing this lazy jerk. They then nearly kill this fat woman and the girl's dad. They are chased higher and higher up the flat until they hide in the attic. The critters eat stuff in the kitchen (Spoof of the gremlins kitchen scene???!) And I can't remember (not a good thing) but I'm sure they have to go back for something/someone. Anyway they end up getting out and saved. The psychotic guy comes back and before he kills the last two critters he is told he can't because they are endangered and so he sends them home.The ending was disappointing and I was annoyed that only the lazy guy died as there were quite a few annoying characters I would personally have killed off. It's a thrilling, exciting movie worth a watch. But, if you're looking for a better version of this genre I recommend the gremlins movies. Sorry!$LABEL$ 0
+This film is an excellent military movie. It may not be an excellent Hollywood Movie, but that does not matter. Hollywood has a reputation of sacrificing accuracy for good entertainment, but that is not the case with this movie. Other reviewers have found this movie to be too slow for their taste, but – as a retired Soldier – I appreciate the pace the movie crew deliberately took to tell their story as completely as possible given the two hours and nine minutes allotted. The story itself has been told and retold several times over, but it remains for a professional soldier – and an African American at that – to report on the story as presented by the movie crew, and as it presents the US Navy to the world. The story of Brashear's work to become a Navy Diver, and his life as a Navy Diver beyond his graduation, is not the only story that is presented. There I also the story of how Master Chief Petty Officer Sunday defied the illegal order of his Commanding Officer that Petty Officer 2nd Class Brashear not be passed in his test dive no matter how well he did, and paid the price of a loss of one Stripe and a change of assignment. It also told the true story how Brashear found the third Hydrogen Bombs lost in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Spain in the 1950's, and how he saved the life of another seaman who was in the line of the snapped running line that would have snapped him in two if Brashear had not shoved him out of the way and took the shot himself. This was a complex story that was worth telling, and I will admit that two hours and nine minutes was not enough to tell the full story, and I can tell from the deleted scenes on the DVD that the crew tried their best to tell a story as full as possible. As a professional soldier, I was proud to see such a great story told in such a comprehensive manner, and to see the traditions and honor of the navy preserved in such a natural and full manner.$LABEL$ 1
+I've always been a fan of Jackass, as well as Viva La Bam and Wildboyz. And when you're a fan of something, your expectations are high to whatever your "heroes" might star in. And if there's one thing I've learned about expecting a lot from the people you simply love to watch and listen to, it's never to expect to much, 'cause in 99 out of a 100 times, you'll get disappointed.Although, when I heard there was a Jackass 2 coming up, I thought "Not even I can turn down my expectations for this movie", and as a result of that I sat down today, ready to laugh, but also ready to say in the end "Well, it was OK, but I'm a little disappointed". How wrong was I! Every single member of the Jackass crew brings this movie way over the first one, showing you the one crazy ass stunt after the other, making the whole world see that there's nothing they wont do to try to harm themselves - and that's what we love! I cried my eyes out laughing from the first minute and till the very last second of the movie, at some times even shouted in laughter, not able to control myself! Stunt after stunt, prank after prank, and hilarious comments on the flow - it can simply not get any better than this! Amazing from start till end, guaranteed to make you laugh your ass off. I've got two things left to say; WATCH IT, and PLEASE God, let there be a Jackass 3 - these guys clearly has a lot to offer!$LABEL$ 1
+A lot of other reviewers here, including many whose opinions I respect, hold this slice of European sleaze horror in high regard. Personally, I didn't like it at all. Its an incoherent attempt at a atmospheric period cross between sex and violence. Jess Franco at his best makes these kinds of films very well. Unfortunately, the infamous exploitation filmmaker Joe D'Amato does not. D'Amato's most well known films are infamous for their high gross-out quotient. This, an early film by him, doesn't have the constant disgusting scenes that his more notorious "Anthropophagous" and "Beyond the Darkness" did. Ultimately, its an incoherent film that doesn't manage to involve the viewer in any way. Without the sleaze factor either, it becomes very boring. As I said, others have enjoyed this film, but I just found it to be a perfect example of incredibly lazy writing.There are a few pluses for the film. Ewa Aulin (from "Candy") is in it, and she looks pretty hot and is often naked. However, cult film icon Klaus Kinski is completely wasted in a subplot with no connection to the main film. He seems bored with the role and doesn't have the manic intensity he does at his finest. The music score is nice and there are some brief moments of unintentionally funny gore. Still, this is a pretentious and pointless film that manages to be incredibly boring. (3/10)$LABEL$ 0
+1 let's suspend belief for a moment and let's stop pretending we could, might or ought know "how it is" or "ought to be" there in space. Human knowledge in that area is probably primitive as say middle ages maps are compared to today's satellite maps, so we really have no clue. 2 considering this is "just" a BBC TV docu-simulation, it gets much better than many big budget Hollywood blockbusters, and that is just incredible. 3 all in all, a show worth watching as it portrays the CGI enhanced and fictionalized account of what we know of the solar system this far. 4 probably fictionalizing and CGI-ing the whole thing is the only way to make it palatable to a large public. Ever watched clips from REAL space missions and REAL space probes? The quality is generally average to poor and the comparison would be between looking at a chest x-ray (and what it tells about the human body ) and compare it with a CGI-ed cyborg movie...which one would be most entertaining? Yet the chest x-ray is real, while the cyborg flick is just fictionalized SFX. 5 actors do a good job. None i'll tell my grandchildren about, but very fair for it being a BBC docu-simulation.$LABEL$ 1
+THE SECRET OF KELLS may be the most exquisite film I have seen since THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE. Although stylistically very different, KELLS shares with TRIPLETS and (the jaw-dropping opening 2D sequence of) KUNG FU PANDA, incredible art direction, production design, background/layout and a richness in color that is a feast for one's senses. KELLS is so lavish -- almost Gothic in its layout (somewhat reminiscent of Klimt), wonderfully flat in general overall perspective, ornate in its Celtic & illuminated design, yet the characters are so simplistic and appealing -- AND it all works together beautifully. You fall in love with the characters from the moment you meet them. You are so drawn to every detail of the story and to every stroke of the pencil & brush. What Tomm, Nora, Ross, Paul and all at Cartoon Saloon (& their extended crews) have achieved with this small budget/VERY small crewed film, is absolutely astounding. The groundswell of support amongst our animation community is phenomenal. This film is breathtaking and the buzz amongst our colleagues in recommending this film is spreading like wildfire. Congratulations to KELLS on its many accolades, its Annie nomination as well as its current Oscar qualifying run. They are all very well-deserved nods, indeed...$LABEL$ 1
+The first time I saw this "film" I loved it. When I was 11, I was more interested in the music and dancing. As I've grown older, I've become more interested in the acting as well. While the first half is just a retrospective of Michael's career (from the Jackson 5 up to "Bad"), it was still entertaining to watch. The "Badder" sequence could've been left out, though the kids were pretty good. "Speed Demon" and "Leave Me Alone" were funny, especially when the police officer tells Michael, "I need your autograph right here", after stopping him for dancing in a no-dancing zone. But it's "Smooth Criminal" that's the icing on the cake. Joe Pesci did an excellent job as the toughie (and that hair was wild). The dancing is perfect, and so are the special effects. The only thing I could have done without was the spiders. Any fan of Michael's should see this, if you haven't already. I give it a 10+!$LABEL$ 1
+Below average movie with poor music considering a movie based on music??? Ordinary Script & Direction with full of blunders. Salman Khan was at his usual acting. Ajay's performance deteriorating with time as his looks,especially his styles as a Rock Star were pathetic. Asin was just a showpiece only. Overall I felt like wasting my money in cinema. Salman Khan remains as immature as 10 years ago compared to Aamir Khan. There were many songs in the movie all boring except "Man Ko Ati". The Most Important Song to impress the UK Music Sponsor was most unimpressive. "Khanabadosh" can be very easily understood by an English Music Sponsor. The other movie I saw last week was "Wake Up Sid" which was simple slow love story with good direction & acting despite average music$LABEL$ 0
+It sounded so promising in the Rental Store, the premise sounded great and I couldnt wait to get home and watch it. It was Apalling the Diologue is Dreadful, The Action is Extremely badly Scripted and the Plot takes a nosedive from the beginning. Gutenberg puts in a pathetic performance, Sean Bean tries his best but with a script this bad there wasnt much he could do.This isnt even worth watching, even if you can get it for free (borrow it off a friend for instance) Dont as you will regret it and waste 90 Minuites of your life.0/10$LABEL$ 0
+Batman Returns It is my opinion that the first Batman of the Batman series was only half the movie that Batman Returns is. In the first Batman by Tim Burton we had only Batman and The Joker both played wonderfully by Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson.In Batman Returns we have what I feel is the most perfectly cast Batman movie (yes even better then Dark Knight). Keaton returns as Batman and is perfect in the role never going to far over top with the character of Batman, which is perfect in this film when it comes to the two villains that he's up against. First you have Danny DeVito who is delightfully insane as the Penguin. Then you have Michelle Pfeiffer as Cat-Woman, who I dare to say is one of the most interesting and complex villains in the Batman movies. I feel this way about Pfeiffer because of the way she becomes the Cat-Woman she starts off as the rather pathetic mousy Selena Kyle and then truly dives into the dark side of her mind and what you get is a brilliant performance of a woman who goes from trying to be a hero to a villain and then I suppose back to a hero in the end. Also in this amazing cast you have the evil businessman Max Schreck played by the amazing and legendary Christopher Walken. While in a supporting role there's something about this role that I love and maybe it's the look of Schreck in the film that makes his performance all the better then it already is.Story wise I have to say that Batman Returns has so much more going on this time around as opposed to the first Batman. Part of the reason I loved this story so much is the fact that Burton dared to go in a much more darker and twisted direction as opposed to Nicholson's over the top antics. You have the story on the Penguin and how he tries to deceive the people of Gotham into making him the new hero and mayor of the city. Then you have Cat-Woman and her struggle to decide just who she really is and what she should do with her new persona. When it comes to Batman I feel that in this one he's more the ring leader that holds the two stories together but of course kicking ass at the same time.Cinematography was the film is dark and atmospheric just like the story that's taking place within it. Gotham City never looked as good as it does on Blu-Ray and HD so if you have the chance to see it this way then by all means do because it truly adds to the overall experience of Batman Returns.So all in I truly feel that of all the Batman movies Batman Returns believe it or not tops the Dark Knight for me because while I enjoyed that movie for Heath Ledger's amazing performance as the Joker I felt that the movie was lacking something. Batman Returns lacks nothing, so if you want to see an amazing film with what I feel is a perfect cast then this is the Batman to light the Bat signal for.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this gem of a film at Cannes where it was part of the directors fortnight.Welcome to Collinwood is nothing short of superb. Great fun throughout, with all members of a strong cast acting their socks off. It's a sometimes laugh out loud comedy about a petty crook (Cosimo, played by Luis Guzman) who gets caught trying to steal a car and sent to prison. While in prison he meets a `lifer' who tells him of `the ultimate bellini' – which to you and me – is a sure-fire get rich quick scheme. It turns out that there is a way through from a deserted building into the towns jewellers shop – which could net millions. Sounds simple? – well throw in all kinds of wacky characters and incidents along the way and you have got the ingredients for a one wild ride!! – word passes from one low life loser to the next and soon a team of them are assembled to try and cash in on Cosimos `bellini' lead by failed boxer Pero (Superbly played by Sam Rockwell – surely a star in the making) and reluctant crook Riley (William H. Macy) who is forced to bring his baby along with him as his wife was locked up for fraud!!.Based on the Italian film I Soliti ignoti (Big Deal on Madonna street) which also inspired a similar film to `Collinwood' – `Palookaville'. This knocks spots of the latter effort and although its written and directed by the Russo brothers it definitely has shades of the Coen Brothers about it. Produced by Steven Soderbergh and George Clooney, who has a small yet hilarious part as a crippled safe breaker.$LABEL$ 1
+Although released among a flock of revenge-minded action flicks (KILL BILL VOL. 2; THE PUNISHER; WALKING TALL), MAN ON FIRE works as well as it does thanks in large part to the always-watchable Denzel Washington, one of the best actors around today.In MAN ON FIRE, based on A.J. Quinnell's 1980 novel (first filmed in 1987, with Scott Glenn), Washington plays a down-on-his-luck ex-mercenary who has now stooped to drinking from a flash of Jack Daniels, until his old partner (Christopher Walken) offers him a chance at redemption. He is hired on as a bodyguard to the 10 year-old daughter (Dakota Fanning) of a Mexican businessman (Marc Antony) and his American-born wife (Radha Mitchell). While he and Fanning work like oil and water first (not mixing very well), he really gets to form a bond with her, encouraging her to do better at swimming, while he at the same time attempts to deal with the demons of the past. It is that very bond that will force Washington back into his old line of work when Fanning is kidnapped and held for a $10 million ransom, and he is nearly killed. With almost any other stock action hero (Schwarzenneger; Segal, etc.), the subsequent bloodbath would be the same repetitive schlock we've seen a million times before. But Washington's character, though he's killing for a reason, does not particularly enjoy doing what he does. Still, he gets help from a very intrepid Mexican newspaper reporter (Rachel Ticotin) out to expose "La Hermanidad" (The Brotherhood), the kidnap gang responsible for Fanning's abduction.MAN ON FIRE is flawed to some extent because of the hyper camera work, nearly headache-inducing montage editing, and various film stocks that are par for the course of its director Tony Scott (TOP GUN; CRIMSON TIDE), but which are not necessarily unique to him (witness Oliver Stone's use of montage in JFK or Sam Peckinpah's in his classic 60s and 70s films). Still, Scott gets a very good performance from Washington, as well as Fanning, who comes across as far more than a typical movie-brat kid. Harry Gregson-Williams' south-of-the-border Spanish guitar score is enhanced by soundtrack splashes of Chopin, Debussy, and even Linda Ronstadt's classic 1977 country-rock version of "Blue Bayou." Although the film overall is quite violent, it is no worse than most action films of the last ten years, and overall it is much better than most.$LABEL$ 1
+Louis Gossett Jr returns to the well one more time as Chappy Sinclair who goes to Doug Masters (Played by Jason Cadieux who is in for Jason Gedrick who wisely declined) to teach a new band of recruits however this time they discover corrupt air force pilots who deal in toxic waste. This is a series that just keeps getting worse with each subsequent entry, this one however doesn't have any of the zip or even the action to make this even worth seeing on cable. Iron Eagle IV is directed with such indifference that the dogfights come off as if we were watching a playstation 2 game played by two lobotomized teenagers. It is horrendous to watch and Gossett Jr who has made his share of turkeys seems to have bottomed out here. And I saw Cover-Up, Firewalker, Aces:Iron Eagle III, Toy Soldiers and Jaws 3D. What is mysterious about Louis Gossett Jr is that he seems to be like Christopher Walken in his quest to do anything as long as he's working. As I look at his post Oscar win. Some of his better movies include Iron Eagle, The Punisher and The Principal. Considering that the latter two movies have him co-starring with Dolph Lundgren and James Belushi it is indeed something to say that three guilty pleasure action flicks are in the running for his better work. Of course Enemy Mine and Diggstown remain his best post-Oscar win work.* out of 4-(Bad)$LABEL$ 0
+Kenny Doughty as Jed Willis is sexier in this role than any male porn star, even though he keeps his pants on.The movie tore at my heart reminding me of the intensity of the big explosive love of my life. I don't think I can think of another movie, except perhaps Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet that captures that giddy joy that well.The other draw of the movie is the very English eccentric characters enjoying the scandal vicariously. In that sense it is much the same appeal as Midsomer Murder or a Miss Marple mystery, without the mayhem.This is a great antidote to the mock horror currently popular in the USA an any relationships between people of different ages.$LABEL$ 1
+Is this a stupid movie? You bet!! I could not find any moment in this film that was creepy or scary. Stupid moments? Plenty. Stupid characters? You bet. Bad effects? Everywhere! Rick Baker may have gone and done bigger and better things, this is not one of them. Oh well people gotta start somewhere. Dr. Ted Nelson is cheesed. He is the most whiny doctor I've ever seen. He's got a melting man running amok out in Ventura County somewhere, he's not overly happy that his wife is pregnant (probably cause she's 55 years old and weighs 90 lbs) and there's no crackers to be found anywhere. Plus he's got the not-too-helpful general on his hinder wanting to find astronaut Steve. And the local sheriff wants to know what's going on even though Mr. Nelson can't tell him anything. There also some random characters thrown in for good measure who encounter the melting man. Eventually the movie ends and out monster gets scooped into a trash can to become compost. In the end it's just what you need for a great MST episode.$LABEL$ 0
+This is the best 3-D experience Disney has at their themeparks. This is certainly better than their original 1960's acid-trip film that was in it's place, is leagues better than "Honey I Shrunk The Audience" (and far more fun), barely squeaks by the MuppetVision 3-D movie at Disney-MGM and can even beat the original 3-D "Movie Experience" Captain EO. This film relives some of Disney's greatest musical hits from Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, and others, and brought a smile to my face throughout the entire show. This is a totally kid-friendly movie too, unlike "Honey..." and has more effects than the spectacular "MuppetVision"$LABEL$ 1
+I remember a time when the only thing that did exist where clubs, drugs pubs and parties. This movie came out a couple of years after i started going clubbing. If i had never discovered the ravier side of things this movie may not have made sense to me. That night when i watched it for the 1st time, with some mates, i was completely blown away. I had never watched a movie that hit so close to the reality of where i was in my life at that time. Almost everything i could relate to in some way. There was never 1 character i could fully relate to but more a combination of all of them in one way or another. My mates where no different and i remember us all saying that they where us or we where them. We had all been out that weekend together doing exactly what the crew do in HT. We where coming down while we watched and when the movie "came down" i remember actually coming down a bit further. it was actually quite depressing in our room during those "low points". Thats what's so good about Human Traffic. it really taps the whole situation.its a unique movie in the way its not plot driven, but then its not completely character driven although the characters are important. it always seemed to be based on the situations. Situations as a group and as individuals. Each character is lost in life, for their own reasons. yet each of them responds to the lostness in the same way. work any job to make money to pay for the weekend and escape it all. for them its their holiday. But the reality is you cant truly escape. Another situation they all have to face.Me and my mates where no different from these guys. We all had our own stuff going on. Human traffic helped explain to us what we didn't understand about our selves. It does it in a way that doesn't talk down to you. It made us feel like we weren't the only ones out there like us and that the lessons learned where ones many others, from all over the world, had gone thru. it wasn't until my lifestyle changed from party popper to career driven that i would fully understand this movie. these days i watch HT, every now and then(as i just have), and reminisce the old days. No other movie can do this. I was peter popper, i was jip travolta, i went to never never land with my chosen family. i'd have $200 in my back burner and i wax the lot! No worries!$LABEL$ 1
+My kids picked this out at the video store...it's great to hear Liza as Dorothy cause she sounds just like her mom. But there are too many bad songs, and the animation is pretty crude compared to other cartoons of that time.$LABEL$ 0
+I absolutely loved this series, and was very sad to see it go. Yes, it's Christian based, and traditionally as well. It deals with some tough issues, as the other reviewer points out, but I guess it depends on your viewpoint on these matters, and as a teenager growing up and now as a mother myself, I was so happy to see a TV series that was clean and, well, quite frankly, wonderful! I, unlike the other reviewer, was heartened to see how they dealt with the condom deal. Instead of hearing the typical wishy washiness about condoms, they showed the son actually working at being chaste and applying it to his later relationships, which were pure and Godly because of it, and A lot safer because of it (100%!).After watching this entire series, you become extremely attached to all the characters in the family and outside the family (once they settle down more permanently), and the moral values they teach in each episode are just priceless. I found Touched by an Angel (made by the same producer) to be cheesy here and there (although overall I liked it), but this series, in my opinion, was a lot better made and had better acting and was more interesting as well. It was good for the entire family and was interesting for the entire family, which was a huge plus. The family wasn't outstanding, they had their own faults, but in the long run they did what was right and you saw them grow and change and struggle like any true family does. It was my favorite show at the time and will always be near the top of my list, I hope it comes out on DVD!$LABEL$ 1
+During a Kurt Weill celebration in Brooklyn, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? was finally unearthed for a screening. It is amazing that a motion picture, from any era, that has Weill-Gershwin collaborations can possibly be missing from the screens. The score stands tall, and a CD of the material, with Gershwin and Weill, only underscores its merits, which are considerable. Yes, the film has its problems, but the score is not one of them. Ratoff is not in his element as the director of this musical fantasy, and Fred MacMurray cannot quite grasp the material. Then, too, the 'modern' segment is weakly written. BUT the fantasy elements carry the film to a high mark, as does the work of the two delightful leading ladies - Joan Leslie and June Haver. Both have the charm that this kind of work desperately needs to work. As a World War II salute to our country's history - albeit in a 'never was' framework, the film has its place in Hollywood musical history and should be available for all to see and to find its considerable merits.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm just getting the chance to dig into past Austen films, and I picked this up because Persuasion is, has been, and always will be, my favorite work by Jane Austen, and Anne Elliot my favorite Austen heroine. So it was with great anticipation that I popped the disc into my player.I wasn't disappointed, either. I knew there were bound to be some draw-backs, so I'll state them, and try not to be too thick about them. Anne Elliot is the most introverted of Austen's characters; she is the least talkative and the least witty. There are passages in the book where Anne says nothing - only her feelings are described. This works fine in print, but how to successfully transfer this to the big screen? Short of doing thoughtful voice overs (which would grow tedious over four hours) you're left with a long succession of shots where the heroine says little or nothing, and must communicate all by her facial expression. This can leave the feeling that the film is slow, and lacking in purpose. If you need a more overt style of Austen, then certainly this film is not for you; but if subdued is more your style, and you tend to pick up on unspoken 'vibes', this will fulfill all expectations.Anne Firbank (as Anne Elliot), is, thankfully, an actress whose face can convey much. She looked as I had always imagined Anne Elliot would look: not a knockout - Anne wasn't supposed to be the elegant one of the family - nor in her first youth - which is also highlighted occasionally by the lighting and make-up. What you see is someone who is very like Austen's character: someone whose appearance you might pass over once; but hear her speak, and look more closely, and she grows more attractive the better you know her. This is Anne Elliot, as brought to life by Anne Firbank.Captain Wentworth's portrayal is ably handled by Bryan Marshall. The bitterness is never apparently obvious (save at the concert scene); and, yes, I found it hard to believe he wound find Louisa Musgrove interesting as she was shown. But that is another point of Austen's book: he did not find her interesting, he TRIED to find her interesting, and, ultimately, failed (sigh of relief). So this, too, fits with Austen's original story.I especially liked the portrayal of Lady Russell, who I thought in the book was not portrayed as TRULY bad; this also comes out in this adaptation.So this is one film which closely followed the book; I could write much more about how faithfully everything was reproduced, but I'd run out of space here. Charles Musgrove remained one of the most buoyant characters (good fun), Mary the most annoying (I was dying to have her just shut up - but I had that feeling when I read the book, too), captains and the admiral I thought charming.The cinematography I thought a trifle stiff. There was little or practically no fade from one screen to another - perhaps this is due to it being a TV movie. One scene - CHOP! - the next scene, the actors enter from right, proceed left, and - CHOP! - another scene, where the same thing happens. This was the only part of the movie which I felt cheated me a little. A Low Budget has to show itself somewhere, I suppose.And, as I said earlier, if you like some pace to go with Jane Austen, don't bother with this one, as you'll find it way too slow. I enjoyed it enormously, though, as it brought a wealth of detail (the sets were richly elegant!) to an excellent adaptation of my favorite Austen novel. I highly recommend it!$LABEL$ 1
+I grew up in Southern West Virginia; I'm about the same age as (or maybe a year older than) Homer Hickam, author of "The Rocket Boys," the book forming the true-story basis of this heart-warming film.And so I relate closely to the West Virginia coal-mining theme, and to the stunning effect Sputnik had at that time (October 4, 1957) on all of us. The Rocket Boys went on to make great lives for themselves. I went on to get my degrees in Physics and Computer Engineering. All because Sputnik woke up a lot of young people to the "Science Gap" the U.S.S.R. had on the U.S. in those Cold War days...This is a wonderful film for everyone, of all ages. But if you grew up in West Virginia in the late 1950's, it'll touch the core of your being.Everyone: Get it; watch it; recommend it to your friends... who'll thank you many times.$LABEL$ 1
+I've seen a lot of stupid plotlines in my time, but this one is among the worst. After catching some disease in space, an astronaut comes back to Earth and starts melting. He then goes on a rampage, killing people (how is beyond me; I just watch them, I can't explain them.) This is the kind of movie that shouldn't have been made in the first place.$LABEL$ 0
+As I mentioned previously, John Carpenter's 1978 classic is one of the first two movies I can remember seeing and being heavily influenced by (the other being the classic Conan the Barbarian). It so truly scared me that the only monster under my bed was Michael Meyers, whom I eventually befriended (imaginary friend) to keep him from killing me in my sleep. Now that is terror for a 10 year old.It is a horror classic and I am sure my modest review will not do it the justice it deserves. The most surprising thing of all is that the movie still works, perhaps not in the guttural reaction but more of a cognitive possibility or immediate subconscious. This all could happen. It isn't in the realm of impossibility or located in a foreign country (as most modern horror is, i.e. Hostel, Touristas, Cry Wolf, Saw,etc). At times it is graphic while the rest is relegated to our imaginations. I believe it is this element that keeps people terrified or at the very least wary of going outside at night with the signature soundtrack still vivid in their head. It still works because we can substitute implied or tertiary killing with anything more terrifying that our mind can create. So we ourselves are contributing to our own fears and anxiety.Carpenter weaves a simple story about an everyday, middle class, suburban and relatively benign child who snaps on Halloween and kills his sister. He then spends the next 15 years in an institution (which we thankfully do not experience) only to escape and return to his hometown, the infamous Haddonfield. On his way he kills and kills. The child's name is Michael Meyers, though he is not a person. John Carpenter uses Michael Meyers as a metaphor against the implied safety of middle class suburbia. In the bastion of American safety and security, chaos can still strike.Michael ceased to be a person once he killed. He is not a serial killer, human being or psychopath. He is as unstoppable force. The generic overalls, bleached-white Shatner mask, and lack of any dialog other then some breathing, helps to dehumanize and complete Michael's generification. This is the source of all his power. He is faceless, speechless and unremarkable in any way other than as a source of unrelenting chaos. This is helped by the cinematography (post card effect), a lack of information/motivation/explanation and the veteran narrative experience of Donald Pleasence (Dr. Loomis). His over the top performance and uneasiness sells "the Shape". This is also the first film performance by Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode, the innocent girl who deters chaos in the face of overwhelming odds (at least for a little bit). Though this isn't the first movie of this new niche of horror films (Black Christmas came out 4 years earlier), it is the most successful and does not diminish upon reviewing. If you haven't been scared by horror movies in a long time (like me), this will probably make the hairs on the back of your head tingle at the first chords of the signature soundtrack. I highly recommend this movie as a must see horror movie and as one of the pinnacles of John Carpenter's career.$LABEL$ 1
+Bill and Ted are back, only this time an evil dude from the future has sent back an evil Bill and Ted to destroy them, thus destroying 'Wyld Stallions' and the basis for human society in the future. This time Bill and Ted have to travel through the afterlife 'Totally Bogus' and save humanity 'Excellent'With much of the same zany humour and some wonderful new characters like the grim reaper, station and robot Bill and Ted (stations creation) Bogus Journey once again entertains, and is worth watching for its soundtrack alone.7/10 A most triumphant sequel Party on Dudes! Hehe$LABEL$ 1
+I had heard this film was a study of a landscape photographer's art by presenting the beauty in man's deconstructing the natural landscape. It certainly showed the laborious activities to find locations, setup shots, and capture stark images whose final destinations were art studios worldwide. Put together in moving pictures it is truly a horror show.This film oozes by you supplanting the shock of ghastly images with gentle waves of a wonderful industrial soundtrack that guides you like on slow moving river. Each sequence stands on its own, but in combination you get deeper and deeper into the feeling of overwhelming inevitability. There are few words, this allowing the grandeur in what is shown to preach in its own way. An awful, massive factory filled with human automata who live in hopelessly lifeless dormitories. Individuals dying early while rummaging for recyclable scraps in mountains of our E-waste. The birthing of gigantic ships and their destruction by hand in giant graveyards. The construction of the Three Gorges Dam, the largest industrial project in human history and likely for all time. The time lapse as a city dies and is simultaneously reborn into a replica of modernity that purposefully destroys all relics of the culture that was.The most terrifying image for me was a dam engineer explaining that the most important function of the dam was flood control. The shot shifts to the orchard behind the spokesperson where you witness the level of the last flood by the toxic water having eaten the bark from the trees, demonstrating that nothing but the most hideous vermin could be living in the waters.The obvious not being stated is far more powerful than your normal preachy Save the Earth documentaries. The artist Edward Burtynsky explains the method wonderfully. 'By not saying what you should see … many people today sit in an uncomfortable spot where you don't necessarily want to give up what we have but we realize what we're doing is creating problems that run deep. It is not a simple right or wrong. It needs a whole new way of thinking'. The subtlety of this descends into an either/or proposition, but the film images scream that the decision has very much been made in favor of the dark side.Though never stated directly in any way, as the waves of what you witness wash away from your awareness and you contemplate, there is only one conclusion possible … we are doomed. The progress of mankind that is inexorable from our natures leaves behind carnage that this artist finds terrifying beauty in. What he is actually capturing are the tracks of we the lemmings rushing unconsciously toward our own demise. Unlike most films with environmental themes, this one ends with no call to arms. It argues basically what's the point, but makes certain you place the blame properly on all of us equally.$LABEL$ 1
+Not often have i had the feeling of a movie it could be visionary. But clearly this movie has the seed of a premonition.We should not tend to be alarmists and see armageddon in something because it seems to fit our emotions of the moment. But, didn't we say this of "1984" ? Had James Orwell known the Internet becoming reality not long after 1984; In fact it was in 1994; he might have reconsidered writing his story the way he did. Hindsight rewarded.It doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that we often regard ourselves as superior to our surroundings but indeed become emotional about a "love apple" when necessity knocks at our door. A snapshot of ourselves at old age.Whatever the time-line will prove to be for us, I know for a fact we haven't seen the beginning of it yet.$LABEL$ 1
+I like this movie and have watched my copy twice since acquiring it a few weeks ago. But you have to view it in the right context.I haven't checked on the dates, but I bet this movie came out after and certainly around the same time as the Collier and Walt Disney popularisations of the vision of spaceflight being promoted by W.Von Braun. This is reflected in the attempt to seem factually correct and scientific. However, whilst certain ideas are put across ( step boosters, for example ) roughly correctly, other things are hilariously wrong.For example, we are told that a rocket ascends to an altitude and then turns ninety degrees to enter space...like reaching the top of a flight of stairs and turning onto the landing! Then we are told that by turning in the direction of the Earths rotation the total velocity of the ship is increased accordingly.This is an hilarious misunderstanding of what really happens. Most space launch centres are located as near the equator as possible where the Earth and anything on its surface is rotating at roughly a thousand miles per hour, including any rocket departing to space, in an Eastward direction ( the same as the rotation of the planet ). Of course, if the ship turned to travel westwards once in space, its speed in relation to the surface of the Earth would be greater, but it would add nothing to the actual velocity of the vehicle. Decsribed in this movie as "air speed"! Similarly, we are told that the travellers only feel free-fall, or "weightlessness" when they reach some thousands of miles from the Earth, outside of the planets gravitational field. Again, comically incorrect. Most crewed spacecraft travel no higher than a couple of hundred miles up, but as long as they ( and, their contents, including crew ) are travelling at an adequate velocity that their momentum in an outward direction balances the pull of gravity inwards, they will orbit in free-fall. Of course, travel far enough from Earth and even a slow object will coast outside the Earths gravity well, but in order to leave Earth orbit, outwards ( towards the Moon for example ) requires the attainment of "escape velocity", around twenty one thousand miles per hour. So the vehicle will have already attained "orbital velocity" ( and "weightlessness" ) by definition.But the movie has vastly more hilarious stuff than this. Someone decided it would be more fun if they missed the moon due to a technical problem, fell asleep for a few days and then woke up to find they had accidentally gone to Mars! The captain then ruminates to the effect that this must have been divine intervention! At which point, any pretence to being scientific is torn into little pieces like confetti and thrown upon the wind amid the merry dance of an increasingly barmy plot.The strength of a film like this in fact is in illustrating "how far we've come". Not least in attitudes to women. The patronising drivel heaped upon the female crew-member is both hilarious and also shocking.To think that such attitudes were so recently "normal".As I said at the start, I find this film very entertaining, as a late night, lights out romp through the romance of travel in outer space, from the perspective of the days before it had actually happened. An antidote to the cold routine of spaceflight as it has now become in the Twenty First Century.I won't reveal the ending. It is both brave and shocking for a movie of this vintage and character.$LABEL$ 0
+This is the worst film I have ever seen, bar none. From the flimsy-looking, poorly lit sets, to the laughable acting, to the infantile plot and shoddy, drawn-out action sequences, this film is so bad, its hilarious. For about ten minutes. After which you will be reaching for the remote or the power socket to end this film non-experience. Although it was obviously made with the entire production and acting staff's collective tongue rammed in cheek (please God), I found Jack Frost 2 so dreadful as to be unwatchable for more than a quarter of an hour. If you have not had enough of it after this time, you must be indulging in drug abuse.$LABEL$ 0
+Please, do not waste your time and money with this stinker of a turkey.This is an over-the-top melodramatic love story set against the background of New France (aka Quebec in the 18th century). Or is it an historical saga of New France with an epic romance thrown in? I don't know, and at this point I don't care anymore.There is a rich story to be told out there about the intrepid French adventurers, rogues and other assorted characters who settled Canada and parts of the US. This is not it. The characters are total clichés, the story is overblown, breathless and devoid of any charm, and before long all the viewer wants to do is get the heck out of the theatre, have his or her head checked, and get hold of his or her anger at being taken in by the hype.This film was the biggest disappointment of my year in terms of cinema, especially since, as an historian and a French Canadian or Canadian of French descent (or whatever) I am a) a believer in the fact that the story of my people in this country has yet to be told as well as it could on film b) interested in this subject c) a film-lover who thinks cinema these days could do wonders with this grandiose and tragic story.As I said, do not waste your time with this frustrating bit of claptrap.$LABEL$ 0
+In 1990 I saw Kathy Ireland in person - I was at UNT in Denton during the filming of "Necessary Roughness." Strangely enough, the voice she's using in this film isn't too far off from her real speaking voice.Anyway, the plot goes like this: Kathy gets a letter telling her that her father's fallen into a bottomless pit in Africa. She goes and investigates the site of her father's death, only to get sucked into a subterranean world that's part dystopian nightmare, part uninspiring fantasy, and inhabited by rejects from the Plasmatics. This movie really wastes the talent of Linda Kerridge, who, in my opinion, could have been someone had she gotten that one big role that was right for her. Anyway, the main hero of the story, Gus, is a very lame Mark "Jacko" Jackson rip-off. The original is annoying enough to begin with, but this guy really is torture to watch. Eventually the nebbish Wanda comes out of her shell and ends up wearing a bikini top and a sarong at the end. If you're going to have Kathy Ireland in a film in skimpy clothing, it'd better be a bikini. Anyway, the film was just all around bad and rightfully skewered by MST3K.Avoid this one if possible.$LABEL$ 0
+Only children below the age of 12 should be allowed to see this film. The rest of us should take a book, MP3 player, or just take a nice nap to endure the experience of this event. This can be best summed up as a "blown-up" TV movie being distributed into theaters. Children will want to see this film, and they will like and be amused by the movie.$LABEL$ 0
+This film tells the stories of several couples coping with Post-WWII life. Through many moving accounts the audience learns how the War has changed people, while their human spirit went on to triumph.My favorite scene is where a young service man, who returned home as a double amputee (after losing both arms up to the elbow) is sure that he would be no good to his sweetheart, who still wants to marry him. His girl simply said that she would help him with the things he wouldn't be able to do, but that they would be fine together. Moved by this true demonstration of love, the man embraces his fiancée in tears.The scene where a service man asked for a bank loan is also a highlight. When he is initially refused as a "high risk", a higher ranking bank official takes over saying "You fought for our country and kept us safe--that's good enough for me. Your loan is approved!" "The Best Years of Our Lives" won 6 Oscars, including a special statuette for the disabled actor who showed us all that life goes on and will continue to be worth living, even with a severe handicap. This film is a joy to watch over and over again. A true classic! Highly recommended!$LABEL$ 1
+It is often only after years pass that we can look back and see those stars who are truly stars. As that French film critic, whose name escapes me, said: "There is no Garbo. There is no Dietrich. There is only Louise Brooks"; and there is, thank heavens! Louise Brooks! This is the third of her European masterpieces. But it is also an exceptional film for being one, if not the, first French talkie, for following a script written by famed René Clair, for reportedly being finished (the direction, that is) by Georg Pabst, and for incorporating the voice of Edith Piaf before she was well known! So much talent working on and in a film, how couldn't it turn out to be a masterpiece?! And that's what this film is. It's a shame Louise Brooks was blackballed by Hollywood when she came back to the States--so much talent cast so arrogantly by the wayside! In the film, in addition to getting to watch Louise Brooks in action, it's great to see pictures of Paris ca. 1930 and to hear Piaf's young voice. I never get tired of this film!$LABEL$ 1
+People who actually liked Problem Child (1990) need to have their heads examined. Who would take the idea of watching a malevolent little boy wreak havoc on others and deem it funny? The movie is not funny, ever, in any way, beginning to end. It wants to be a cartoon, but the writers don't realize that slapstick isn't funny when people get attacked by bears, or hit with baseball bats. It may be funny in cartoons, but not in a motion picture.The film's young hero is Junior (Michael Oliver) who, since he was a baby, has been placed at the front doors of foster parents for adoption. The families reject him, because Junior tends to give them a hard time.He is then thrown into an orphanage, where he terrorizes the nuns, and writes pen pal letters to the convicted Bow-Tie Killer (Michael Richards). He is soon adopted by Ben and Flo Healy (the late John Ritter and his wife, Amy Yasbeck), who are dying to have a child, in order to be just like every other parent in their neighborhood.Junior becomes a member of the Healy household, and "Little" Ben takes an interest in him, despite the fact that he destroys a camping trip by luring a bear onto the site, or throws a cat at his father "Big" Ben (Jack Warden), a bigoted politician.I think that we're supposed to care for Junior so that we can root for him when he gets his revenge on people. His new mother, Flo, is a bitch, his grandfather is completely selfish, and one little girl--who despises adopted kids--is such a spoiled brat.But what Junior does to get the last laughs isn't funny- -it's mean, cruel, and sometimes life-threatening.And what is the film's message? That kids should resolve problems with violence and vandalism? That they should seek friendship by writing to convicted killers? They definitely don't what it's like to be a bad kid. Junior isn't a one--he's just a sadistic, little twerp. There used to be a time when it was bad for kids to beat up others. Now, everybody's laughing when Junior beats up kids with a baseball bat.It's a shame that this movie has been marketed as a "family comedy." What's worse is that Problem Child is rated PG. What was the MPAA thinking when they saw this? There's a lot of profanity and mean-spirited pranks here, that one may wonder about the dividing between the PG and the PG-13.Kids will enjoy this, but parents will be shocked at what is being depicted on screen. And to most people, Problem Child will be considered a "guilty pleasure" classic; a film that someone will shamefacedly admit to liking, even though the prevailing opinion, as put forth by more serious viewers, is that the movie is a piece of crap.$LABEL$ 0
+When childhood memory tells you this was a scary movie; it's touch and go whether you should revisit it. Anyway, I remembered a scary scene involving a homeless person and a cool villain played by Jeff Kober."The First Power" is not a very good movie, sad to say. It's chock full of those cop clichés and a very poor script with holes a truck could drive through (along with countless convenient "twists" that help the story run along). Lou Diamond Phillips is the over-confident bad ass cop who sends baddie serial killer Kober to the gas chamber only to find out he was a minion of Satan himself and now has the power of resurrection along with the power of possessing every weak minded person who he comes across. Through in the mix a very poorly realized psychic who helps with the case.Ahhh, this is trash. But enjoyable as such, especially if you have fond memories of it. It scared me as a kid and that scene with the homeless person is still pretty good. As for any kind of logic here; forget it, just about every scenario is thrown in for good measure and you end up with a cross between a Steven Segal action flick and a 70's demonic flick. And who on earth thought it was a good idea to cast Lou Diamond Phillips in the lead here? Needless to say he's not convincing at all but he tries his best and I've never had the problem with the guy so many reviewers here seem to have. As for Tracy Griffith as the psychic, the less said the better. But Kober is pretty good as the killer; always liked that actor."The First Power" may be just what the doctor ordered after a hard day's work and a "brain switch-off" is needed. Beer will most likely enhance the viewing experience and I'll definitely have loads of it the next time I give this movie a spin. All in all; not a good flick but a somewhat guilty pleasure for nostalgic fans who were easily scared as kids. "See you around, buddy boy"!$LABEL$ 0
+This is a really old fashion charming movie. The locations are great and the situation is one of those old time Preston sturgess movies. Fi you want to watch a movie that doesn't demand much other then to sit back and relax then this is it. The acting is good, and I really liked Michael Rispoli. He was in Rounders, too. And While You Were Sleeping. The rest of the cast is fun. It's just what happens when two people about to get married meet the one that they really love on the weekend that they are planning their own weddings. I know... sounds kooky... but it is. And that's what makes it fun to watch. It will make your girl friend either hug you or leave you, but at least you'll know.$LABEL$ 1
+No matter how much it hurts me to say this,the movie is not as good as it could have been.Maybe I was misled by the countless exaggerated reviews here on IMDb,but I expected so much more...Sure,the idea is a good one,the violent scenes and the camera-work are outstanding,the imagination of genius Dario is breathtaking, but the movie is "soiled" by a couple of mistakes that I find unforgivable. First of all, am I one of the few people who feel that the Heavy Metal music played in the most intense scenes simply rips the atmosphere apart??? With a different kind of music (Goblin????) during the "needle" scenes,it would have been SOOOO intense!... Instead,the soundtrack destroys any chance for tension... Secondly, the final killing scene and the last few moments of the movie are simply silly and uninspired. I don't want to say "amateurish", cause I love Argento's movies.The ending left me feeling empty.Talk about a final impression! This is hardly what happens in most of Dario's films! Though,admittedly,Suspiria also suffers from a rushed finale (even if most of it is brilliant)....In short,watch this movie,try to make the most of its good points,but be prepared for some bad ones as well. This is NOT a perfect movie by ANY means.$LABEL$ 1
+How can a major German TV station broadcast a mess like this? It's amazing how the main actors avoid every acting talent - Even the well-known Gottfried John is acting very poor - especially in the double murder scene - how amateurish.......! The screen plan is very , very extended - perhaps to fill out 2 parts of the movie. Be careful not to fall asleep while watching! The set is obviously very often a blue screen, f.g. the scenes on the ship with unreal sea in background...! In the German version the sound and the dubbing is very poor - probably reason: different languages of actors - but: other international productions do handle this much more professional. Advice: Do NOT watch - it's a diabolic waste of time!$LABEL$ 0
+I first saw this film during and International Film Studies course. I am a 'non-traditional' student, and, perhaps for reasons of years-lived or wisdom-accrued, appreciated the slow, reflective pacing of the film's narrative. Languorous with the heat and dust of an arid clime, the story is deeply psychological, replete with multi-layered symbolism, and an articulate inversion of the theme of being the 'Other' in a land that one does not understand. the understanding that does come is fraught with the unresolved memories and subjectivity of the outsider. Made nearly 20 years ago, it is also a forerunner in a genre of numerous other international films that explore the themes of colonials in colonized spaces, clueless to the nuances of the cultures into which they have entered. Much more lavishly filmed---and heavily financed--- works that have been made since reflect the same themes: Indochine, Nowhere in Africa are two that in comparison perhaps make Chocolat seem pale and boring. It has no adrenaline-pumping action or extreme violence. The struggles are mental, emotional and subtle. But, that being said, it is a fine film, worth a viewing.$LABEL$ 1
+Crack House (1989) was one of the few film during the 80's that falls into this genre. What's supposed to be an anti-drug film turns out to be nothing more than some white-exploitation exercise in depravity. There's nothing wrong with that however. The video presentation even has an anti-drug message from one of the stars of the show Richard "turncoat" Roundtree,The movie follows two young lovers in high school. One of them is a quasi tough guy and the other is his girl. One of them get's turned out by a mutual friend whilst the other is given a trip to the slam and is later on given a chance to get back at his ex-friends. Jim Brown appears as the movie's "Mister Big", he's one bad dude who still can punk-out anybody and is a very sadistic guy who likes to smack his hoes and beat the tar out of those who try to defy his word. Luke from General Hospital makes a guest star spot as well.If you like hard edge sleaze then this movie's for you. Sadly, Hollywood doesn't make these any more and when they do, it's neither exploitative nor entertaining.Recommended for sleaze fans.$LABEL$ 1
+David Lynch's new short is a very "Lynchian" piece, full of darkness, tension, silences, discreet but very textured background music, and features again two beautiful actresses, a blonde and a brunette, a recurrent theme in his work.Both characters create a very intriguing slave-mistress relationship that could be seen as a direct follow up to the same kind of relationship featured in Mulholland Dr.Beautiful. For Lynch fan's.$LABEL$ 1
+Good lord.I'm going to say right off the bat, I only watched 20 minutes of this movie. As I am a hardcore Eraserhead fan, the "what, you can't watch a wierd black and white movie with little-to-no dialogue?" defense does not apply. I simply can't watch TERRIBLE weird black and white movies with little-to-no dialogue.This movie is what happens when you give an angsty goth-child with no talent and nothing to say a camera and budget, and let him/her put as much meaninglessly offensive imagery on screen as possible. It was clear from the start that this film should have been 5 minutes long (assuming it should exist at all). Shots that should last a few seconds drag on for minutes, because the director has "I-Just-Love-The-Sound-Of-My-Own-Voice" syndrome, and refuses to cut to another shot until the entire piece of footage has been viewed. From the moment the girl in the mask started masturbating the corpse of "God" (the opening scene of the film! joy!), I knew it was only a matter of time until I turned off the tape. After at least 10 minutes of a different corpse being pulled around, twitching, on a rope, by a gang of cloaked mystery-men, I knew it was time to give up. Rarely do I give up on a movie. I sat through the entirety of Blair Witch 2: Book Of Shadows, albeit not happily. This did not deserve the 20 minutes I gave it.If you're an Eraserhead fan, do NOT let simple-minded comparisons to said film con you into renting this piece of amateur trash. Allow me to refer you to Tetsuo: The Iron Man, for a watchable and enjoyable piece of incoherent black and white weirdness.$LABEL$ 0
+I wanted to like this movie, but there is very little to like about it. It starts out with Jean Stapleton and a Randy Newman song in Iowa (Northwest Iowa, I guess), reminiscent of Norman Lear's Cold Turkey, which was one of the best movies ever made, according to people on IMDb. So far, so good. And the idea of the archangel Michael living at Pansy Milbank's motel on earth? Well, give it a chance, it's supposed to be a comedy. Okay, so far, so good. But Michael does things that an angel not fallen would never do, and that completely blows any credibility the movie might have had. The other characters in the movie don't have much appeal, either. Michael brings a dog back to life, and we're supposed to be in awe of that. The people make up corny country songs. In the end, Stapleton dances with Travolta. Big deal. If she was smart, she wouldn't even be in this movie. When it was over, I thought, "Gee, what a stupid, tasteless, boring, corny, sacrilegious movie!" It's not fit to be seen by children or anyone else.$LABEL$ 0
+This is the underrated Kellie Martin's best role. Based on a true story, it tells the story of Fusia's attempt to save the members of the Diamant family and other Jews she meets over time. One of my all-time favorite movie scenes involves an heroic act by Fusia's little sister. All children should see this scene-role models like this are very few and far between. The movie is well written and acted. I am a movie lover and this movie I rate a 10 on imbd's rating system. It is on my top 25 movies of all time and should be put out on video.Mike Porter$LABEL$ 1
+It's really rather Simple. The Name of the Movie Is Death Bed, The Bed that Eats. If you are anything like me, You already know if you are going to like this movie. I stumbled across this gem at Best Buy the other day and picked it up for Ten Bucks. I got ten bucks worth of enjoyment out of the title, and the box alone.I'm a huge fan of B movies. This is in my opinion one of the greatest B movies i've ever seen. Now, it's not for every one.Granted, it's not even for most people. As a matter of fact, i suspect their are only going to be a handful of us who truly enjoy this movie.For those of you who like B movies though, this film is a Diamond in the rough. It has a great premise, A bed... That eat's people. It doesn't walk, it doesn't move, it doesn't have a siren call to attract people. It pretty much relies on people wandering by and sitting on it.I loved every inch of this movie and have already seen it three times in the scant weeks i've owned it.Like I said, After reading the title of the film, You already know if you'll like it. If you laughed or smiled, Then give it a go. it's worth it.$LABEL$ 1
+After the across-the-board success of MY NAME IS BARBRA, CBS television permitted Barbra to create an even more elaborate follow-up as her second special. Streisand wisely knew, in order to follow in the ground-breaking success of MY NAME IS BARBRA, that her second special would indeed need to raise the bar even further in inventiveness and spectacle. Not surprisingly, she succeeded once again. Even more impressively, Streisand managed to mount this large production without sacrificing the intimacy and vision of MY NAME IS BARBRA.Once again, the special is divided into three distinct Acts. Filming on location at Bergdorf Goodman's department store was so successful in the first special, that Streisand and company decided to film on location once again for the first Act of this second special. The decided-upon location this time was the Philadelphia Art Museum, which would allow endless chances for Barbra to "enter" different art works that would correspond with the songs being performed. In addition to the numerous artistic possibilities that this location made possible, the museum would offer the perfect opportunity to take advantage of filming in color.After the recording of "Draw Me a Circle" that is set against the opening credits, Barbra then dashes around the museum in a maid costume to the strains of Kern and Harbach's "Yesterdays." She stops to admire various paintings and statues, often becoming the character that is depicted and singing a thematically appropriate song. Streisand performs a bittersweet rendition of Hammerstein and Romberg's "One Kiss" as Thomas Eakin's CONCERT SINGER, delivers a hilariously campy performance of Chopin's "Minute Waltz" as Marie Antoinette, embraces abstract art with the frenetic rhythm of Peter Matz's "Gotta Move," and performs a wrenching rendition of "Non C'est Rien" as a distraught Modigliani girl. The high point of Act I, however, is when Streisand compares profiles with the bust sculpture of Egyptian Queen Nefertiti, while singing a tour de force rendition of Rogers and Hart's "Where or When." The Act II circus medley allows Streisand to interact with various farm and circus animals, while singing various songs with farm/circus/animal themes. Some highlights include Barbra singing "Were Thine That Special Face" to a baby elephant, performing "I've Grown Accustomed to that Face" as a serenade to a piglet, the campy "Sam, You Made the Pants to Long" sung to a group of baby penguins, and Barbra comparing profiles with an anteater while crooning "We Have So Much in Common." Streisand also swings on a trapeze and leaps from a trampoline to the chorus of "Spring Again," and then slows things down by performing a haunting version of "I Stayed Too Long at the Fair" while seated alone on stage. Barbra also gets the chance to show off her pet poodle Sadie in this segment, and even speak a little French.The Act III concert is once again the high point of the hour. Dressed in a slenderizing white wool dress, the concert segment is performed on a uniquely-designed stage with a partial staircase that leads nowhere. Streisand opens the Act with a sultry rendition of Harold Arlen's "Anyplace I Hang My Hat Is Home," before launching into heartfelt versions of the familiar standard "It Had to Be You" and the rarely-heard "C'est Si Bon (It's So Good)." Streisand then really amazes the audience with a breathtakingly powerful, octave-soaring performance of the Sweet Charity ballad "Where Am I Going," of which Streisand delivers the definitive rendition of. Streisand also introduces the then-newly written Richard Maltby, Jr.-David Shire ballad "Starting Here, Starting Now," which contains an impassioned vocal from Streisand that ranks among the very best vocal performances of her long career.More than anything else, Color Me Barbra was a showcase for Streisand's ever-increasing, mega-watt star power. Despite the presence of even more visual razzle-dazzle, Streisand herself is always the main attraction. Her voice sounds as beautiful as ever, and this special was the first to showcase how strikingly she photographs in color. As with MY NAME IS BARBRA, COLOR ME BARBRA was another rating-smash and spawned yet another Top-Five, Gold-selling soundtrack album. Simply put, COLOR ME BARBRA defies tradition and emerges as a sequel that is nearly on par with a classic original.$LABEL$ 1
+I thought this movie was really awesome! One of Drew's best. I am also a fan of Michael Vartan so I thought he was so hot in this movie. Why all the bad reviews. I would want to watch this movie over and over again if I could. I also loved the ending. This movie clearly has shown a smile on my face! I was also surprised that James Franco and Jessica Alba were in it. I love them both so I also highlighted this movie. At the end, when Drew is making the huge comment about the truth it really told the truth of what sometimes happens in High School. Again, the movie was amazing. Defiantly a 10/10. Hope this comment was very useful to any IMDb readers.$LABEL$ 1
+This is possibly one of the worst giant killer animal movies I have ever seen. It follows the typical premise of a laboratory experiment gone wrong and a giant crocodile with a rapid growth chemical in it escapes. The monster looks way to much like a dinosaur, having big Tyranosaurous-like hind legs, when it should just look like an over-sized crocodile. Everything about this movie is unoriginal and it constantly oozes "cliche", minute after minute. Why are there always two drunken redneck hunters out after dark who separate? Plus, there's always a guy and girl who share a lame, obvious love interest while they are in life threatening situations. To much has already been said by me and I feel as if I'm wasting my time writing this...$LABEL$ 0
+This show is possibly the biggest, ugliest, most generic steam pile I've seen in children's programming that's actually become successful. The lead character, Johnny, while I understand he's supposed to represent an ordinary kid, isn't likable or even tolerable. The jokes are lame, overdone (i.e. the "Whoa! Didn't see that coming" gag. Come on, that wasn't even funny the first time. It's not even cute) and lack any form of primitive wit or inspiration. And lastly... it's just plain ugly to look at. While kids aren't especially critical of artistic talent, they still prefer eye candy. I can't stand watching the show, because in a way, the art style is just...gross. Hideous, in fact. Just plain crummy. I just can't stand that this is getting so much airtime. While I understand that nostalgia can be a little irrational and I shouldn't be getting my hopes up on it coming back... I really miss the old cartoons. Bring back Dexter's Laboratory, The Powerpuff Girls... anything but this crap. I guess it's just wishful thinking though.Simply put, I advise you don't waste your time on this show. I believe that truly good cartoons are able to be enjoyed by the big kids, too. And this doesn't cut it.$LABEL$ 0
+This delightful, well written film is based on a New York stage play bearing the same title where Sir Aubrey (knighted Sir Charles Aubrey Smith in 1944) originated the role he plays in the film. Here, in 1931, we see him in the early part of his acting renaissance in the very early era of "talkies" and in the character role that he would make his own until his death in 1948 after finishing his last performance in Little Women which released in 1949.This engaging play is about an elderly British aristocrat who locates his illegitimate children and introduces himself to them, having brought them to his manor in England.Marion Davies plays his daughter-by-error and it's a tour de force for her. She is all at once endearing, impatient, shallow, enchanting, wise and compassionate while creating an indelible and beguiling character that remains well ensconced in the memory.The 26 year old Ray Milland appears here in a small but prominent role having already appeared in seven other pictures then only in films for a bit more than two years.The film should be enjoyed as a representative of 1931 Hollywood factory production of course and as such is not flawless. However, it's a charming pleasure from first scene to the last.$LABEL$ 1
+In a sport that prizes quirkiness and treasures it's characters, one of the greatest of them from the 1930s was pitcher Dizzy Dean. He was so colorful a personality he was probably elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame on the strength of that as opposed to his pitching statistics. After all part of the Dean story is that early end to his career.In the Pride of St. Louis Dan Dailey successfully captures the character of Dizzy Dean, at least the Dean I remember. I'm not old enough to remember him pitching, but I do remember him broadcasting Baseball Game of the Week during the 1960s. For that's part of the Dean story as well, being a pioneer broadcaster on radio and later television. Now that announcers are in the Hall of Fame, there's no question Dizzy belongs there.Jerome Herman Dean was one of a tribe of sharecropper's kids who had very little schooling, but an amazing talent for throwing a baseball at blinding speed. In fact he had a younger brother Paul Dean who was a pretty good pitcher himself.Richard Crenna plays Paul in this film and it's one of his earliest film roles. Paul Dean in real life was a quiet retiring sort who's career was also cut short by injuries. Because of that Crenna isn't given much to work with. During the Dean heyday, sportswriters tried to pin the nickname of Daffy on Paul, but it never took. Joanne Dru, taking a break from playing, western gals in gingham dresses and corsets is first rate as the wise, patient, and understanding Patricia Nash who met and married Dizzy while he was playing for Houston in the Texas League. In the 1937 All Star Game Dizzy started for the National League. Facing Cleveland's Earl Averill, Dean was hit on the foot by a line drive smack at him. Refusing to listen to medical advice, Dean came back to pitch too early. He'd broken a big toe and put too much of a strain on his arm. He was never the same pitcher and his refusal to accept that is part of the story. Had he had a career of say ten to fifteen years who knows what pitching statistics he might have rolled up. Dean was the next to last pitcher to win 30 games in 1934 and after Denny McLain(who was something of a character himself)did it 1968 it hasn't been done since.Dean went into broadcasting and while he was not the first former player to go into the broadcast booth, his colorful game descriptions made him an instant hit. He started broadcasting for the other St. Louis team, the Browns, and the Browns were a pretty miserable team with not much to cheer about. Dean became a star attraction there.Of course part of the Dean story is the trouble he got into because of his lack of education and his colorful way of expressing himself on the air. That's part of the story I won't go into, but in the film it's handled with tact and humility and your eyes might moisten if you tend to the sentimental.A fine baseball film, a real tribute to an American success story.$LABEL$ 1
+Once in the Life means that once a hoodlum, always a hoodlum, and nobody gets in or out of `The Life' for free. Neighborhood hoodlums in New York sell drugs and run scams because they can't make it in the legitimate world, maybe because they have a criminal record, or a drug habit, or because they're just lazy. This simple story with a couple of twists about mostly despicable characters manages to draw compassion out of the audience for its main players because of their loyalty and compassion for each other. The film is written, produced, and directed by Laurence Fishburne, who also stars as 20/20 Mike (all hoodlums have nicknames), and is based on his play, `Riff Raff.' It feels like a play from beginning to end, especially during the longest scene where the three main players square off to decide who can be trusted. Often times the dialog comes very fast, much faster than it would on stage, and I think it's the film's biggest flaw. Mixed in as flashbacks throughout the film are poems from the street, a sort of iambic pentameter rap, that is violent and evocative of the world this movie discloses. The poetry makes it difficult to dismiss these men, these hoodlums who murder, cheat, and betray each other, as unworthy of our attention or below our contempt. The disturbing thing about this film is that its realism shows us not only how these people live, but how they suffer for the same reasons as us all. One is too stupid, another a junkie, and the last suffers from conscience while the audience wonders, or even laughs, at the irony of executioners demanding from him hanging in the gallows to tell jokes in the midst of his demise.$LABEL$ 1
+Honestly I can't understand why this movie rates so well here, nor why Bakshi himself thought it was his finest film. I'm a huge fan of Bakshi's earlier work - particularly 'Heavy Traffic' and 'Wizards', but frankly 'Wizards' (1977) was the last good film he made. After that he turned to the mainstream, beginning with the diabolical 'Lord of the Rings' and then knuckling down with sword and sorcery heavyweight Frank Frazetta, for 'Fire and Ice'.What can I say? The story is puerile, the animation is TV quality - I insist that it's considerably worse than his 70's stuff - and whereas 'Wizards' had real imagination, quirkiness, some gorgeous background art, and an underground, adult sensibility, 'Fire and Ice' is just designed for 14 year old boys, and has the intellectual clout of Robinson Crusoe on Mars.Yes, if you liked the Gor books, you might like this. In my view though, this was just another blip in the slide in quality after 'Wizards' from which Bakshi never recovered (though he's done some decent TV stuff fairly recently)4.5 out of 10$LABEL$ 0
+urgh! 3 things a movie needs: a good script, a good plot and good casting. i watched this movie expecting it to be hilariously terrible and was unfortunately disappointed when it was just plain terrible. I lost the will to live halfway through. The only thing which stopped me from stabbing my eyes out with a fork was Rose Byrne (who was the reason for me watching it in the first place). She did a good job as Rastus and her appearance hasn't changed much since she was 13. it was a fantastic first effort in a movie. the dog was also very good. both did a great job with such awful material. Sandra Bernhard i think was the biggest mistake of the movie. she was completely miscast, and i don't think she ever quite got the character.I give the movie 2 out of 10 - and thats only because of Rose.$LABEL$ 0
+Released in December of 1957, Sayonara went on to earn 8 Oscar nominations and would pull in 4 wins. Red Buttons won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in his role as airman Joe Kelly who falls in love with a Japanese woman while stationed in Kobe during the Korean War. Oscar nominated for Best Leading Actor, Marlon Brando plays Major Lloyd Gruver, a Korean War flying ace reassigned to Japan, who staunchly supports the military's opposition to marriages between American troops and Japanese women and tries without any success to talk his friend Joe Kelly out of getting married. Ironically Marlon Brandos character soon finds love of his own in a woman of Japanese descent. This movie highlights the prejudices and cultural differences of that time. Filmed in beautiful color and with stunning backgrounds I found this movie to be well worth watching just for these effects alone. Good movie, gimme more...GimmeClassics$LABEL$ 1
+Not one of Keaton's best efforts, this was perhaps a veiled attempt to revenge himself on the family he married into - the Talmadges. A Polish/English language barrier and a series of coincidences leads Buster into a marriage with a large Irish woman, who (along with her father and brothers) treat him shabbily until they think he may be an heir to a fortune. Mistaken identities abound here - gags are set up and but for the main fail to pay off.This Metro short does have at least two real laughs - Buster's cleverly turning around his lack of dinner by using the calendar on the wall and the basic ignorance of his adopted family to literally bring the meat to his plate. The other is a family photo, with the entire group slowly collapsing to the floor as the tripod of the camera loses its stability.The yeast beer overflow could have been the catalyst for a massive series of gags built upon gags, but stops short (for all the buildup) of development.Kino's print is crisp and clear and the score is one for player piano, drums and sound effects. Not one of Buster's best efforts, but worth a few laughs.$LABEL$ 0
+"Riders of Destiny" was the first of several westerns Wayne made for the Lone Star arm of Monogram Pictures between 1933 and 1935. In this entry, the producers try to make the Duke into a singing cowboy called "Singin' Sandy Saunders with hilarious results. Any Wayne fan knows that the Duke couldn't have carried a tune if his life had depended on it. His voice was apparently dubbed by Smith Ballew whose deep baritone sounds nothing like Wayne. Wayne looks awkward and uncomfortable in "performing" the musical numbers. Thank heavens the singing cowboy experiment soon ended.As for the movie itself, it contains a standard "B" western plot of the fight over water rights between the villain (Forrest Taylor) and the local ranchers. Duke, of course plays the hero. He had not yet developed his on screen character and still looked like a poverty row cowboy.Also cast in the film were George (pre-Gabby) Hayes as the heroine's father, Cecilia Parker as the heroine and Yakima Canutt as "one of the boys" who performs his "falling from the racing horses under the wagon" stunt while doubling Wayne. Both Canutt and Hayes would go on to appear with Wayne in most of the other entries in the series. Canutt, in particular would have a profound effect on Wayne's future development teaching him, among other things, how to move, fight and look comfortable on a horse.As "B" westerns go this one isn't too bad, however, I have to give it a failing grade because of the "singing".$LABEL$ 0
+I've read a lot of reviews about Showtime on IMDb and many seem to miss the mark. I've noticed a lot of reviewers calling this the typical "buddy" film. De Niro is in no way Murphy's buddy throughout most of this movie. In fact, part of the comedy of this film is De Niro's reluctance to be friends with anybody.Murphy really shines in this one. He is back at doing what he does best, acting like a complete ham. He is a cop who wants so much to be an actor and enjoys being in the reality show. De Niro is perfect as the straight man who thinks the entire thing is stupid. I thought the two of them had great chemistry and were a perfect casting choice. Rene Russo is also great as the TV producer. Of course, she loves everything Murphy does and tries so hard (along with Murhpy) to get DeNiro going too.A lot of reviewers have touched on the hilarious scene with William Shatner, reprising his role as TJ Hooker to train Murhpy & De Niro how to "act" like cops. But, my favorite scene involves Murphy in the "confessional" hoping he could get a Wesly Snipes-Like cop to team up with instead of De Niro. Man, that was hilarious! Comedies often depend on your personal tastes. Sure you could poke holes in the plot, most often you can with a comedy. I was psyched to see the pairing of Murphy and De Niro...I think it brought out the best in Murphy, which was nice to see him at the top of his game again. I can only imagine it was a great honor for Murphy to be paired with the great De Niro. Rating 8 of 10 stars.$LABEL$ 1
+Has the proliferation of relatively high quality shows on the proliferating TV networks made it possible for people to produce, direct, finance and/or star in their own films who might otherwise not have been able to? Is that a good thing? This film does not answer the latter question either way, but it does appear that without Curb, Jeff Garlin would not have been able to make I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With. Like most new producers/directors, Jeff Garlin's independent piece heaves a heavily more sensitive sigh than the vehicle he is primarily known for (Curb). And yet, is it a sensitive guy film? He isn't really a sensitive guy. Likable, sure. Relatable, indeed. What this film really is about is a bit hard to say, I can only relate what I took away from it. I rented the film because of the trailers, particularly the scene of a counselor portrayed by Amy Sedaris informing James Aaron (Garlin) that a particular woman is interested in him mainly because she is a "chubby chaser." I just about fell out of my seat. Based on that scene alone, I ran to my computer to write a note to myself to rent this movie. The reason - I thought the school counselor (Sedaris) was talking about Beth, portrayed by Sarah Silverman. I imagined a lightish romantic comedy between the foxy Silverman and the fat Garlin. I didn't think the story would be anything original, but that the dialogue would be snappy and the scenes would move along at a satisfying pace. In short, I thought it would be a comedy. It was intriguing that the film started out that way but then took a much much more realistic turn when Beth gives James the heave ho because "I've never really been with a fat guy before." That is how brutally we live life, and it was completely realistic. I applaud the decision. It just meant that Beth has now left the building and with her, the one snappy person in the film.James's relationship with his mother was also interesting. That part made me wonder if the whole concept did not start out as a play. It had that intricate feel to it. (The whole "Marty" movie within a movie thing was utterly lost on me, as I have never seen that film.)There were serious doubts I had about the character of James Aaron, though. Is it really possible that at 39 he had not had a serious relationship? And he is an actor? That did not really square with me. To me, his persona was less actor-y, and more corporate. I could not really buy his ordinariness either. No doubt he was extremely disappointed that things with Beth did not work out. We felt that. But then, did he really care? Another thing - how in the world can both he and his mother afford to move out at the same time? Hasn't he just lost his job? The last one he had? That was one reason he did not seem ordinary to me. Where's the funding for his life coming from? And yet, I have read reviews that talk about the realistic portrayal of urban loneliness, so there is that. Yes, it is very realistic, the way we must be satisfied with what we have because it is all that we have. The way we sort of disappear from ourselves and each other in interactions (James and Stella), some kind of self-effacement that takes place just to move on to the next moment. That, contrasted with the possibility of defining ourselves through our moments, our thoughts the way James had with Beth, it's really crushing.Very well done.$LABEL$ 1
+If you make a suspense movie it is kind of important that the "villain" not be more sympathetic than the "victim". And this fails miserably. It was so terrible and frustrating to watch that I was actually moved to register and comment. OK, so the husband is rich and cocky. There are worse vices, and the cabana boy and wife display plenty. The husband is a jerk because he - um, didn't approve of the cabana boy physically assaulting that woman - the witch one which had absolutely nothing to do with the plot BTW. The cabana boy threatens the husband and repeatedly attempts to seduce the wife. He then forces himself on her - which the woman finds so hot she stops thinking rape and starts thinking she wants him. Uh huh. The misogynistic, inferiority complex thoughts the director displays are just revolting. It is one thing when a fine film like American Psycho deliberately tries to get us to empathise with the villain but in Survival Island I felt like I was watching a movie about Ted Bundy but the director failed to make him unlikeable and instead made us hate his victims. What was he thinking???$LABEL$ 0
+"When a Killer Calls" is an unusually nasty slasher flick, with some very unpleasant and unsettling sequences. The decision was clearly made to try and cash in on the remake of "When a Stranger Calls" by pretty much putting in -- almost word for word -- the phone call sequences from that movie. They seem very forced.Additionally, the filmmaker commits the cardinal (but all too common) sin of having the heroine's friends being repulsive jerks. So for the beginning of the film, we really like and are rooting for the babysitter (a nice believable job by Rebekah Kochan), but then she's joined by standard slasher-flick teenage friends and the mood is ruined.The flick sort of works, but it probably a lot more unpleasant than you'll be expected, so be fore-warned.$LABEL$ 0
+This is high grade cheese fare of B movie kung fu flicks. Bruce "wannabe" Lee is played by Bruce Li...I think. Of course, let's show quick clips of Bruce and do closeups of his eyes and if you quint at the right angle during a certain time of the day during the winter solstice, it kind of looks like Bruce. You'll laugh in awe at how the film splicing isn't very good, but some cool deleted scenes from Enter the Dragon are thrown in the mix. According to the movie, Bruce Lee was killed by a dart while hanging from a helicopter. Of course, they think this can excuse Bruce Li for trying to be Bruce even though his character is supposed to be Bruce's brother (who for some reason still mimes Bruce's gestures and fighting style - very POORLY). See Bruce go one-on-one with the cowardly lion. The props department stopped by Kay-Bee, you see. Bruce also finds nothing wrong with savagely beating up a crippled man. Towards the end, the director decided "let's throw a flashback" for a scene just shown 3 minutes ago!! They must've thought that only one-celled organisms with attention deficit disorder could fully understand this film.$LABEL$ 0
+Four stories written by Robert Bloch about various people who live in a beautiful, old mansion and what happens to them. The first has Denholm Elliott as a novelist who sees the killer he's writing about come to life. Some spooky moments and the twist at the end was good. The second has Peter Cushing becoming obsessed with a wax figure resembling his dead wife. The third has Christopher Lee who has a child (Chloe Franks) and is scared of her. It all leads up to a pretty scary ending (although the ending in the story was MUCH worse). The last is an out and out comedy with Jon Petwee and Ingrid Pitt (both chewing the scenery) and a cape that turns people into vampires! There's also a cute line about Christopher Lee playing Dracula.This is a good horror anthology--nothing terrifying but the first one and the ending of the third gave me a few pleasurable little chills. Also the fourth one is actually very funny and Pitt makes a VERY sexy vampire! Also the house itself looks beautiful...and very creepy. It's well-directed with some nice atmospheric touches. A very good and unusual movie score too. All in all a good little horror anthology well worth seeking out. Try to see it on DVD--the Lions Gate one looks fantastic with strong colors and great sound.$LABEL$ 1
+A very well made film set in early '60s communist Yugoslavia. The five young actors who are the teenagers at the center of the story give strong, sincere and emotionally deep performances. A clear depiction of how the natural trust and naivete inherent in teens can be easily manipulated and how that impacted the rest of their lives. Highly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+That reviewers liked this movie surprises me. The plot is a muddle. The characters are wooden. Michael Bowen spends most of the film spying on the other characters and misjudging all of them. No one has any redeeming quality or point-of-interest. This is not an edgy work. It is not imaginative. It is not ironic. It is no clever. There is nothing straight forward about this tedious work. That is missed theatrical release is not surprise. That the "This Network" airs it diminishes that venue. I definitely recommend turning to a rerun of the Garden Smart show on PBS or even a good informational if you encountered this mess on late night television. If you encounter it on daytime television, take a long walk. Even if you walk in smog, you will feel better not having suffered through this shambles. Life is short. This movie is long.$LABEL$ 0
+I first saw this movie on TV back in 1959 when I was eight years old. I knew nothing of westerns then but recognized Ben Johnson from the movie "Mighty Joe Young." What attracted me to "Wagon Master" were the great songs sung by the "Sons of the Pioneers." Merian C. Cooper, who produced the movie, was the first to commission original music to fit the mood of a specific scene and so created the modern movie soundtrack. Cooper hired Max Steiner to create the mood for his classic creation King Kong. Steiner would later win an Oscar for the theme for "Gone With the Wind.' Cooper was also the producer of "Mighty Joe Young." If you remember, music was important to the big ape which would only respond to the sound of Stephan Foster's "Beautiful Dreamer." In 1947, Cooper would partner with John Ford, who directed "Wagon Master." Of all of Ford's famous westerns, this one is my favorite which features his brother Francis and a sullen Janes Arness.$LABEL$ 1
+In the ten years since Wildside aired, nothing has really come close to its quality in local production. This includes the two series of the enjoyable but overrated Underbelly, which have brought to life events in the recent criminal history of both Sydney and Melbourne. The miniseries Blue Murder (which also starred Tony Martin, but as someone on the other side of the law) may be the exception.Wildside is currently being repeated late at night on the ABC. Having not watched the show in quite a while, I'm still impressed by its uncompromising story lines and very human characters. The cast is excellent: Tony Martin as a detective haunted by the disappearance of his son, Rachael Blake (who later hooked up with Martin in real life) as a community worker struggling with alcoholism, and Alex Dimitriades as a young cop whose vice is gambling. Equally good support roles are provided by Aaron Pederson, Jessica Napier, Mary Coustas (yes, Effie herself), and a young Abbie Cornish.The ABC inexplicably released only the first three episodes on DVD a couple of years ago. The logic of this sort of marketing is beyond me, but I'm guessing it may have something to do with licensing disagreements with the original producers.A great series which has aged remarkably well. Here's hoping the ABC's DVD department gets its act together.(According to a moderator on an ABC message board, some sort of further DVD release is due in December 2009)$LABEL$ 1
+I can't help thinking that this is Franco's 'hamage' to the Marquis de Sade's "One Thousand Days of Sodom". People (in this case women) abducted to serve as slaves to a privileged elite? Check. Kinky sex? Check. Torture including whipping? Check. Victims chosen at random to be killed? Check.Thank goodness Franco didn't go the whole hog and introduce cinema audiences to the delights of coprology (and indeed coprophagy), another perversion that crops up repeatedly in de Sade's tediously long and disgusting saga.I rather hoped that this film would fall into the 'so bad it's good' category. But even the acres of naked flesh and numerous sexual encounters didn't make up for the dismal dialogue, dreadful acting, elusive plot and - just to put the tin hat on it - dubbing AND English sub-titles (a belt and braces approach missing from the women's costumes). The Alsation gave a very professional performance though.Of course I could be wrong about the de Sade angle. After all, I failed to realise that the actor playing the head warden at the 'prison' was a trans-sexual. I must pay more attention to the size of people's hands in future.According to another reviewer, the film was banned in the UK. Well it clearly isn't any more, though I fancy that the nipple-needling scene was cut to satisfy the censors. On the DVD I watched, it was only clearly visible on the Spanish trailer (which, in case you're wondering, I watched to compare it with the English one).The DVD also features an interview with Jess Franco, though you'll need better Spanish than mine to understand it. Unless I'm much mistaken it's neither dubbed nor sub-titled. And it points out that the person sodomising the character played by Franco is Ajita Wilson disguised using a moustache. Kind of ironic, given that (s)he had had the requisite appendage surgically removed.$LABEL$ 0
+Watching this movie really surprised me. I have never found myself to stop watching a movie in its entirety because 3 dollars to rent a movie is a good amount of money and darn it, I should at least watch the whole thing and get my moneys worth. I made it through about 30 minutes of this absolutely crappy movie when I thought to myself, I am now a little more dumber after watching this movie. I can't believe that the director and actors in this movie actually had that low of respect for themselves to allow this to be released! There's nothing I can say that hasn't been said by the other reviewers, but even in the worst of films there are usually one or two decent performances...not in this piece of pathetic garbage. I've seen better acting in high school plays. Every, and I mean every 'actor' is bad beyond belief, and what's truly amazing is the uniformity of the badness...gosh, it must have been the director. Where did they get these people?This is possibly one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. Although entertaining in places due to its laughable script and even weaker acting, and I use that term very loosely, it is unfortunate that this film was not consigned to B movie hell for all eternity. What could have been a good idea has been ruined by an ultra low budget, poor sound and effects and actors who probably earned their wings in children's television, and poor children's television at that. Please, STAY AWAY from this movie. Not even worth a minute of your time.$LABEL$ 0
+'Intervention' has helped me with my own addictions and recovery. I'm a middle-aged married father of two. I'm quite functional in my personal and professional life. Still, I have pain from my past that I use addictions to soothe, and issues from which I am slowly recovering. When these addicts and their families share their lives with me, they help me to improve my life and my relationship with my family.The show, unlike many others, digs into the past of the addict and reveals events that probably caused their addiction. Many of us suffer because it's too scary to go back and do, as Alice Miller says, "the discovery and emotional acceptance of the truth in the individual and unique history of our childhood." The show deserves a lot of credit for at least getting this process started. This digging is painful and difficult, but worth it. So much coverage of addiction -- fictional and non-fictional -- seems to ignore the underlying issues. Often it's assumed that the addict just one day started to shoot up or whatever for fun or pleasure or self-interest, and now they can't stop. Not so: addictions are about killing pain. I can relate to the different events and hardships in people's lives. There are common themes, and surprising exceptions. Many addicts have suffered miserable abuse. Some kids simply respond badly to divorce. To those who think that addiction is an over-reaction to a hardship, I would just say that different people respond differently. Although some kids handle divorce well, others, like Cristy in the show, "collapse in a heap on the floor" and have their lives forever changed by the event.For example, last night's counselor said that pretty young Andrea seeks validation from men. She strips for cash for a 75-year old neighbor and lets men abuse her. Sound familiar to anyone? The series is filled with information that we can use to understand our own motivations and make adjustments to our lives. Often it's those of us with smaller issues who suffer the longest. As they say, even a stopped watch is right twice a day, but a slow watch can go undetected for quite a while, until it's made your life miserable.To the producers: Thank you for making the show, for digging into the past, for the follow-ups. Also, the graphics, the format, and the theme music are brilliant.To the addicts: thank you for your courage to share. Whether or not you have helped yourself, you have helped me.$LABEL$ 1
+First of all, I liked very much the central idea of locating the '' intruders'', Others in the fragile Self, on various levels - mainly subconscious but sometimes more allegorical. In fact the intruders are omnipresent throughout the film : in the Swiss-French border where the pretagonist leads secluded life; in the his recurring daydream and nightmare; inside his ailing body after heart transplantation.... In the last half of the film, he becomes intruder himself, returning in ancient french colony in the hope of atoning for the past. The overall tone is bitter rather than pathetic, full of regrets and guilts, sense of failure being more or less dominant. This is a quite grim picture of an old age, ostensibly self-dependent but hopelessly void and lonely inside. The directer composes the images more to convey passing sensations of anxiety and desire than any explicit meanings. Some of them are mesmerizing, not devoid of humor though, kind of absurdist play only somnambulist can visualize.$LABEL$ 1
+Ugly women-of-the-cellblock flick rakes the bottom of the midnight-movie barrel, combining pulpy sleaze with the hoariest of girls-in-the-shower clichés. Linda Blair plays an innocent sent to jail (we learn offhandedly she was involved in running over some guy with her car), facing hard time in the Big House with some of the nastiest characters this side of a Russ Meyer pic. Blair is continually pawed at, punched, raped, humiliated and harassed. The dialogue is four-letter-word disgusting throughout, and the flick offers no let-up from its barrage of violence and stupidity. Still, some viewers see this as a camp classic, though perhaps its tongue isn't far enough in cheek. * from ****$LABEL$ 0
+OK, just what the HELL is all this supposed to mean??? Halloween 6 (let's just call it that, OK?) is, without a doubt, the most CONFUSING film in the series (and from what I've heard, seeing the original "producers cut" doesn't sound like it makes things any less bewildering than the "official" release). What a mess.This isn't a really bad film, as some have said. It has its scary scenes and some rather intense moments - it just DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE! Don't tell me that Michael was "engineered" from the beginning to be evil and kill and destroy, and blah blah blah. It was bad enough when they turned Michael into Jamie Lee Curtis' brother (just so they had an excuse to keep her in the second film) - this is too much.It would seem this is another case of the creators of the film trying to be "too smart" by coming up with a new premise that will shock and impress us all. Bad move, guys. We're not looking for an explanation of why Michael kills, so please don't try and feed us this crap. Show me Michael looking menacing and killing a bunch of people. Show me Dr. Loomis trying to track him down and, as always, coming up just short. Don't waste (what turned out to be) the last performance of Donald Pleasance by telling me (in the most confusing way possible) that Michael was "created" by some cult from hell and that his "seed" will be passed on to another and... oh, brother.Halloween 6 has its moments, don't get me wrong, and we all know there have been FAR worse sequels than this (Hellraiser, anyone?) so get what you can out of it (the scene toward the end of the film with Michael charging down a deep red corridor is particularly effective) and try to ignore the screwball plot. Hopefully one day we can all see the "producer's cut" and maybe get the chance to make (a bit) more sense out of all of this. Till then, this will have to do...-FTM$LABEL$ 0
+When the film began, I was shocked to see it was filmed using a cheap video camera! In fact, the camera shakes and looks worse than the average home movie. Even direct to DVD films should have production values better than this! Heck, a large percentage of the home videos uploaded to YouTube have better production values! All too often, the film seriously appears to be made by sticking the camera on a tripod and turning it on--with no camera person! Closeups and anything resembling camera-work are absent in some scenes where they might have worked and in others there are too many or poorly framed closeups. Yecch! The film is about two gay men who want to become married. As if was made almost a decade ago, their only option was marrying in Vermont--times have definitely changed. However, the recent acceptance of gay marriage cannot in any way be attributed to this film--if anything, it set the gay marriage supporters back instead of helping as the movie stinks and never really tries to seriously address the issue. According to the film, religious people are one-dimensional idiots who carry Bibles EVERYWHERE and shoot people as well as wives who have gay husbands are narrow-minded when they learn their spouses have been living a lie--go figure. I'm sure glad it gives an honest chance to both sides on the issue! The bottom line--nothing about the film shows any professionalism at all and I even hesitate to call this a film. It's more like a home movie and doesn't even merit a listing on IMDb or even inclusion on IMDb's Bottom 100 list of the worst rated films of all time. The acting is horrible, the writing is horrible, the direction (if there even is any) is horrible, the camera-work is horrible and the plot is horrible. It's a home movie!! There is nothing positive I can say about this in any way except that it makes the films of Ed Wood seem like Oscar contenders in comparison and I am sure the ghost of Mr. Wood is smiling every time someone watches this mess! I don't care if you are gay or straight--this film is not worth your time and I don't know how they managed to create DVDs of it. I assume one of the actors burns them on his home computer during his free time! Seriously, this gives new meaning to the word 'bad'!By the way, if the one lady in the film WAS a real lawyer, wouldn't the ability to read be an important prerequisite?! I'm just sayin'.Finally, with gay marriage being such a serious and important topic, can't we have a film that's BETTER than THIS that addresses the issue?! This one, sadly, only invites laughter.$LABEL$ 0
+An Asian blowgun assassin takes out victims in Niagara Falls and New York City before getting run over by a car. Sheila Morris (former Miss Sweden Janet Agren, given a hilarious "Southern belle" dub to show she's from Alabama) finds a connection between these killings and the disappearance of her sister Diana (Paola Senatore) and sets out to investigate. This brings her to New Guinea where she promises a sleazy guide (Robert Kerman i.e. American porn star R. Bolla) 80,000 dollars to help locate her sister. After barely making it through a jungle full of bloodthirsty cannibals, they finally locate Diana, who's under the control of Jim Jones-type cult leader Jonas Melvyn (Ivan Rassimov). Jonas does the typical mad guru-style things, like passing out LSD, initiating group suicide, threatening to kill anyone who disobeys him and raping Agren with a giant dong dipped in cobra blood. Every once in awhile a character will look to the right or left and see a gory scene lifted directly from JUNGLE HOLOCAUST or MAN FROM DEEP RIVER (both of which were also directed by Lenzi). I'm pretty sure they also use at least two scenes from CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST as well. Here we get the expected animal slaughter scenes (gutting a gator; natives eating live snakes), plus some additional nudity and a castration. Me Me Lai shows up to give her breast implants another workout playing a widow who is gang banged by three of her brother in laws on top of the ashes of her freshly cremated husband. Mel Ferrer briefly appears as a professor and isn't given much to do.So anyway, with MANGIATI VIVI! you pretty much get a promise fulfilled with all the nudity, gore, dead animals and bad taste you expect with one of these titles, so if you're a sleaze hound, by all means watch it. Personally, I got bored with it about midway through and just wanted it to end. The original (heavily cut) U.S. release in 1985 was titled THE EMERALD JUNGLE in order to trick people into thinking they were actually renting John Boorman's EMERALD FOREST. It was also called DOOMED TO DIE and EATEN ALIVE BY CANNIBALS!$LABEL$ 0
+It's impossible for me to objectively consider this movie. Not that I haven't tried, mind you - but I sit down, and I pop in the aged VHS, and I watch the opening...and suddenly I'm five years old again and clutching my very own Care Bear and watching the movie with open eyes and an eager heart.I can see, objectively, that this movie is a BIZARRE combination of cuddly baby merchandising-mascots and creepy prepubescent children with evil powers that has a thin story and uninteresting animation. But my inner five-year-old goes, "Yay! Care Bears!" every time I think about it. So - I'd only (cautiously, reluctantly) recommend this movie for those who saw it during their early youth and can call on the awesome power of nostalgia while watching it (like me) OR those lovably cynical Gen-X/Y-ers who deliberately seek out the wonderfully bad/strange (a category in which this movie...definitely belongs). To those actually looking for a compelling movie or wholesome family entertainment: You might want to keep looking.$LABEL$ 0
+This film is awful. Give me the dentist anytime! Can you believe that one of the main TV stations here in Arabia had this as their Christmas film! I can only assume they expected to entertain the crowds with Dudley Moore rather than this. The last time I looked at my hot water bottle it had more acting, better plot, more drama and a lot more interest than this waste of celluloid. Don't even watch it if you're drunk!$LABEL$ 0
+Incredibly ARTISTIC NOBODY COULD MAKE THEM NOW I THINK.It seem to be perfect the biggest and the greatest musical ever made listen to the beautiful songs the are quite poetry.I'M Italian AND ADMIRED BY American MUSICAL. why can't you do something like that now?American were the best and for that i absolutely show my devotion to you with this movie.there are words to describes the perfection of this movie. all of a sudden my heart sings, what makes the sunset? i fall in love to easily,jealousy...and the scene with Tom and Jerry. the greatest without reserve. if you you doesn't know your eyes are not open my friends you must see it and appreciate...wake up!$LABEL$ 1
+I'm a fan of C&C, going back to their records, and liked this movie, but at one point in the mid-1980's on cable television in San Jose California, it was aired with an alternate plot line that destroyed the entire point of the movie. All references to marijuana were replaced with "diamonds". The bag that "Red" drops to Chong has diamonds in it instead of marijuana, but the conversation still remains the same ("...it's worth ~$3000/lb"). There is also a subplot in which clips of aliens on a ship were added observing C&C, and talking to each other about getting the diamonds. At the end, instead of "space coke", it's something else. I'm not sure who created this version, but it was horrible, and obvious that they were attempting to make it family/child friendly. It would have been better if that network had not aired it at all.$LABEL$ 1
+I can't believe some of the comments here in the reviews. The film is dated of course, and from our comfortable viewpoint in the age of CGG a lot of the special effects are deeply unconvincing now. But even allowing for this, Helen of Troy is so bad that it is almost laughable. The scripting is awful, just awful, with no characterisation at all. The performances suffer as a result, you can see the likes of Hardwicke and Andrews writhing in an agony of embarrassment as they deliver the most ridiculous shallow trite codswallop lines. The writers seem to feel the need to explain almost everything in a dreadful didactic screenplay that allows the viewer to decide nothing for him/herself at all. The beginning of the movie spells out the historical background as if no one had ever heard of ancient Greece; I know they had American audiences to take into consideration, but the patronising way we are told everything twice to make sure we understood the action is really awful.I honestly can't believe the comments above describing this movie as a great epic film. Even allowing for the comparatively primitive cinematography and the relative sophistication of today's audience, this movie truly stinks.$LABEL$ 0
+I don't know why, but when I am asked about bad movies I have seen, I often think of "The Air Up There". I know that technically, lots of movies are horrible compared to it, and I have seen worse acting. it's just that it's so bland, so predictable. In a word: mediocre.$LABEL$ 0
+Creating a comedy is like walking a pretty thin tight-rope. It either works, or it does not. Grandma's Boy is one of those movies that does not work. It may have a few very funny parts, but for the majority, it's just a terribly unfunny comedy from the usual supporting characters in Adam Sandler films (sans Sandler himself, he's just a producer).Alex (Allen Covert) is a game tester. He's 35, and is the best tester and game player at his otherwise kid-filled workplace. He ends up getting his apartment and his stuff taken from him for not paying the bills (as it turns out, his roommate had just been spending the rent money on Philipino hookers and not paying the landlord). Desperate, he moves in with his grandmother, Lilly (Doris Roberts of Everybody Loves Raymond) and her two roommates.That's the basic plot of the film, thrown in with subplots about a hot new girl named Samantha (Linda Cardelli, unrecognizable from her days as Velma in Scooby Doo) trying to get the testers to complete a new game as fast as they can, a robot-like game creating prodigy J.P. (Joel Moore) who works with Alex and wears much of the same clothes as Neo in The Matrix, and of course, all sorts of sex and drug related jokes. That's it.The problem with the film, besides the fact that the real conflict in the film occurs and is resolved within the last fifteen minutes of the film, is that it just is not funny. It is totally mind-numbingly boring, and only sparingly funny. Nothing really happens at all. No emotion, no real sense of direction, and a whole ton of intense swearing. You find yourself maybe laughing at a few funny quips that the actors say, but otherwise sit in complete boredom, wishing you had not even bothered with the film. How this film was greenlit and how Fox thought it could make money will always remain a mystery to me.There's just no entertainment value to come from it. None of the actors are actually putting in good performances, they are just acting like idiots for the camera, and hoping for the best. Stoner comedy has been done before multiple times, and on occasion, actually works (Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle and Dazed and Confused come to mind). Here, it just makes for making the film even less funny than it is already. The random inclusion of a monkey and a pair of bare breasts really does not make the film any better either.Other than a few funny one-liners, this movie should just be out-right missed altogether. It's not very funny, the entire plot is silly, it's boring, and it just makes for one horrendous film. Avoid it like the plague.1.5/10.$LABEL$ 0
+Ben (a fine Charles Bateman), his young daughter K.T. (a cute Geri Reischl), and his new girlfriend Nicky (the extremely attractive Ahna Capri) are on their way to a birthday party for K.T. They unexpectedly get waylaid in a remote Southern town where no-one is able to leave, and with the exception of Ben, K.T., and Nicky, no-one can get in either. To top that off, children are disappearing and adults are being murdered at an alarming rate. Ben helps some of the locals - Sheriff Pete (L.Q. Jones), Tobey (Alvy Moore), and Jack (Charles Robinson), the local priest, try to solve the mystery.This early 70's devil-themed horror movie actually predates "The Exorcist", and combines a "Bad Day at Black Rock" type plot of a rural town with a great big skeleton in its closet with horror elements, for interesting results. It actually sent a few chills down my spine this viewing, as it inexorably moves along its ominous path. The moody and solemn atmosphere is established quickly and holds for the duration; the ever-growing sense of panic gives it a real kick. Some memorable set pieces include the bizarre opening of a toy tank turning into a real one and squashing a car flat, not to mention Nickys' twisted nightmare, vividly and stylishly realized by director Bernard McEveety and crew. Jaime Mendoza-Navas' music is subtly sinister and gives it that extra sense of eeriness.The steadfast and professional cast does some fine work, especially the ever engaging Strother Martin as the affable Doc Duncan, and producers / actors L.Q. Jones and Alvy Moore.Just the fact that the whole plot is right under the noses of our heroes makes it that much more scary. Jack the priest starts leading them in the right direction, but will they be in time to put a stop to things? It's an enjoyable little chiller worth re-visiting; just speaking for myself, I was able to appreciate it a lot more after giving it a second chance. I can say now that yes, it is indeed under-rated, telling a good story in an interesting, unconventional, and effective way.8/10$LABEL$ 1
+The premise of this awaited sequel was really good and after the huge success of the remake I expected a lot sincerely.The sad truth is that this movie is really absurd and inept. The situations are dumb and beyond reason and the acting is truly awful.This time there aren't likable characters or violins unlike the remake. Also, the gore is not that abundant and when it happens it's truly bad.The violence is minimal and it's a shame because there are many arguments that make you think that there's room for heavy violence. I mean, there's a SWAT team that is hunting a family of cannibal mutants. You surely expect something different! When I watched it on the movies I wanted my money back.Anyways this is a clear example of how rushed out movies turn out to be a mess and demonstrate poor quality on all aspects.A mess that let down the fans of the remake like me. That's why sequels are never welcomed; at least this movie isn't as terrible as the 1985 sequel to the original.$LABEL$ 0
+Without Kirsten Miller this project needn't have been completed. However with the awe inspiring beauty and talent that is Miss Miller I would definitely recommend it. It looked as if the other actors were only playing to her strong performance. Wagner's dismal attempt to honor this film was a bit disappointing, but his few scenes didn't detract from being entertained. Mostly my criticisms are with the writing and plot line, the group of talent assembled did a heroic job of salvaging what should have been a disaster. The charismatic Miller delivery and timing were impeccable and believable. She plays that fine line between assertive and bossy but never offensive she is in fact the structural engineer she claims to be. I wish I had seen this on the big screen but alas I was fortunate to rent it before it was lost.$LABEL$ 1
+My college professor says that Othello may be Shakespeare's finest drama. I don't know if I agree with him yet. I bought this video version of the film. First I love Kenneth BRanagh as Iago, he was perfectly complicated and worked very well in this adaptation. SUrprisingly, he didn't direct it but played a role. Lawrence Fishburne shows that American actors can play Shakespeare just as well as British actors can do. not that there was a British vs. American issue about it. In fact, if we all work together then Shakespeare can reach the masses which it richly deserves to do. Apart from other Shakespeare tragedies, this is dealt with the issue of race. Something that has existed since the beginning of time. The relationship between Iago and Emilia could have been better and shown the complicatedness of their union together. While Othello loves Desdemona with all his heart, he is weak for jealousy and fears losing her to a non-Moorish man like Cassio. It's quite a great scene at the end of the film but I won't reveal the ending. IT's just worth watching. I think they edited much of the lines to 2 hours but they always edit Shakespeare.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was very good, not great but very good. It is based on a one man play by Ruben Santiago Hudson..yes he played most of the parts. On paper it looks like stunt casting. Yes let's round up all the black folks in Hollywood and put them in one movie. Halle Berry even produced it. The only name I didn't see was Oprah's ,thank god because it probably would of ended up being like a Hallmark movie. Instead this movie was not some sentimental mess. It was moving but not phony, the characters came and went with the exception of her husband, Pauline and the writer in question. The movie revolved around the universe of Nanny, Mrs Bill Crosby and how she raised the writer and took in people. Now being a jaded New Yorker when he said she took in sick people and old and then we see them going to a mental institution to pick up a man, I'm thinking looks like sister has a medicare scam going. Getting folks jobs and taking the medicare/caid checks But no she explains to Lou Gosset she just wants 25 bucks a week and did not want the money ahead of time. I think that part was put in the movie just for us jaded New Yorkers so we know she is not scamming the poor folks.(g) It was written by a New Yorker so he knows the deal(g).. She almost seems angelic and looking through a little boys eyes I can see why. She is married to a ne'er do well who is 17 years younger and fools around on her. Terrence Howard was born to play these type of parts. He was good but I would like to see him play something different. Markerson who plays Nanny is also very good. But for some reason the person who stood out to me was a small role played by Jeffery Wright. Where is this mans Oscar? He already won a Emmy and a Tony. He was in Shaft and he stole the movie. I did not even know who he was in this movie. He is a chameleon never the same. I never seen him play a bad part yet. This was a 5 minute role and he managed to make me both laugh and cry. I re-winded the scene few times ..one time because I didn't know who he was. His wife Carman Ejogo was excellent. I have seen her in roles before mostly mousy stuff. But she is so good here. I actually know people who act just like her. So it was very real to me Macy Grey who had one of the bigger parts was also very good. I was very happy that they did not kill Nanny off. I thought she was a goner in the beginning of the movie. BUT she was able to go home and start her old routine of taking care of people. There are women like that in most of our lives. People we might know or even lived with. Thank god for them, I do not know how they do it all of the time. I have a friend who lost 2 children and been through a lot of stuff but whenever I am feeling selfishly sorry for myself I call her and she always puts me in a good mood. THis movie is a tribute to all of those people. I only wish they they told us what happened to some of the characters like the the one armed man, Paulines boyfriend who is played by one of my favorite actors on HBO's The Wire, Omar, Rosie Perez's character and Richard the lesbian and Delroy Lindo's one arm man, he was mesmerizing in another small role.$LABEL$ 1
+Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II starts at the Hamilton High School prom of 1957 where Mary Lou Maloney (Lisa Schrage) is cheating on her date Bill Nordham (Steve Atkinson) with Bud Cooper (Robert Lewis). Bill finds out & is devastated, meanwhile Mary Lou is announced prom queen 1957 & takes to the stage to accept her award. Bill, still hurting, decides to play a practical joke on Mary Lou so he throws a firecracker on stage but the still lit fuse catches Mary Lou's dress setting it & her on fire, within seconds Mary Lou is toast. 30 years later & Hamilton High is soon to hold it's annual prom night. Bill (Micheal Ironside) is now the principal & has a teenage son named Craig (Justin Louis) who is dating Vicki Carpenter (Wendy Lyon) & are both planning on going to the prom together. Bud (Richard Monette) is now a priest, that terrible night 30 years ago still haunt both Bill & Bud. One day Vicki is looking around the schools basement when she discovers a large trunk which she opens, this turns out to be a bad move as the vengeful spirit of Mary Lou is set free & is intent on claiming her crown as prom queen & in her spare time sets out to avenge her untimely death. First up is Jess Browning (Beth Gondek) whose death is put down to a suicide, Mary Lou begins to posses Vicki's body as the night of the prom draws nearer. After disposing of some competition in the shape of Kelly Hennenlotter (Terri Hawkes) who tries to fix the prom so she wins. Mary Lou in Vicki's body is crowned Hamilton High prom queen which allows Mary Lou herself to come back from the dead to make an unexpected appearance & really liven the party up...With absolutely no connection to the original Prom Night (1980) & directed by Bruce Pittman I thought Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II wasn't a particularly good film. The script by Ron Oliver concentrates more on supernatural elements rather than cheap teen slasher themes, whether this was a good or bad decision will depend on your expectations I suppose. Personally I found these different elements didn't really gel or work that well together at all. The whole film was far to slow to be really enjoyable, after the opening sequence where Mary Lou dies no one else is killed until the half hour mark & then the film plods along for another half an hour until Vicki is finally possessed & the film finally picks up momentum for the climax where an evil Mary Lou kills a whole one person at the prom before she is supposedly defeated, come on horror film fans you did expect that clichéd 'killer not dead & ready for a sequel' ending didn't you? Don't expect a hight body count, just five throughout the entire film & none particularly graphic although I did like the way Monica (Beverley Hendry as Beverly Hendry) tried to hide in a shower room locker which Mary Lou crushed & resulting in poor Monica's blood oozing out. The supernatural side of Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II is depicted by Vicki having lots of hallucinations for the first hour & Mary Lou controlling objects during the latter stages including a couple of creepy shots of a rocking horse which comes to life, the blackboard scene is quite good as well as it turns into water & zombie hands drag Vicki into it. The slasher side of Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II isn't outstanding, I did like Mary Lou herself as she churns out the obligatory one-liners & she made for a good villain even if she didn't get to kill enough people. Oh, & yes I did get the running homages to various other horror film director's with almost all of the character's sharing last names with one, this obviously adds nothing to the film but is a nice little touch I suppose. The acting is OK but the normally dependable Micheal Ironside looks lost & uninterested almost as if he's asking himself what he's doing in this & if he'll ever work again. Forget about any gore, someone is hanged, there is a stabbing with a crucifix that happens off screen, someone is impaled with a neon light, a computer goes crazy & electrocutes someones face(!?) & Mary Lou bursts out of Vicki's body at first as a rotting zombie which was quite a cool scene. There are some full frontal nudity shots in the girls shower as well, if that's your thing. To give it some credit Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II is OK to watch, has reasonable production values throughout & is generally well made. Overall I was disappointed by Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II, it was just too slow & ultimately uneventful to maintain my interest for nearly 100 minutes. I'm not sure whether it deserves a 3 or 4 star rating, I'll give it a 4 as there's nothing specifically wrong with it I suppose & I've sat through much worse films but it just didn't really do anything for me I'm afraid.$LABEL$ 0
+The title above is used to introduce the film "Gen" to its audience. Gen is about a young doctor(Doga Rutkay) with an ill mother. The film starts with her leaving her mother behind to start her new job. While she drives, we realise that she is not that close home as the hospital is in a remote area. As soon as she steps into the garden of the hospital, she sees the death body of a patient. This is the beginning of a nightmare for the next few days.Two policemen comes to the hospital so as to investigate the suicide. In fact, they will have to stay in the hospital because all roads are cut off due to bad weather conditions. All their communication with outside world is cut off too. There is no way out!! In those few days, there will be more nasty murders. Now everybody suspects from each other.In my opinion, the idea is brilliant. It could have been very scary indeed. There are positive sides of the movie of course. I really like the beginning of the movie. Especially, when she drives to the hospital and her first moments in the hospital. Actings are okay. Some of them are trying too hard to be mysterious and scary though. I think the final shock should have been spread into the through out of the movie. What I am saying is, it was a good twist but instead of showing it as a parody in the end, we should have realised that was coming when we see what is happening. The director needed to explain it altogether which I think didn't work well. Also the most dangerous patient in the movie is supposed to be at least 48 years old but his body looks so young and fit for someone who spends most of his life in this hospital. Lastly, I would like to say a few things about the director. I am sure he will improve. This is his first attempt. I have recently found out that he is only 21 years old. That made me feel more positive about him and his future films. I am not going to rate this film * out of ***** though.$LABEL$ 0
+Worst Movie I Have Ever Seen! 90 Minutes of excruciating film-making. All the ingredients to make this movie a true work of CRAP. Bad acting, bad directing, bad storytelling, bad makeup, bad dialogue, bad effects, and bad reasoning behind certain actions taken by the characters. It also threw in a terrible naked shot of a dumb blond, and a breast shot of a stupid Asian girl, and both attempts were just scary, since these girls are ugly. Some good horror movies came out of the 80s, but this could never be considered one of them. Kevin Tenney also committed one of the greatest sins in storytelling: he introduced characters at the end of the movie (an Old Man and Old Woman). I would vote for it below a 1 out of 10 but the voting system doesn't work that way apparently. Right from the title sequence I knew it would suck and I would return my DVD but Best Buy doesn't refund DVDs, or consumable products as they call it, or so my receipt says. I have "The Dunwich Horror" and that was truly god-awful, but I still feel that "Night of the Demons" (an obvious Evil Dead RIP-OFF) was far worse than "Dunwich Horror." This is just like "The Howling," how in the hell could sequels get milked out of this anorexic cow??? Save your money and get the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (just don't get any of its sequels though) or "The Evil Dead" or "Dawn of the Dead." "Night of the Demons" is a very, very, very bad investment. Every second of it was just maddening, excruciating pain for the audience, because the whole movie all-around was horrible! Do yourself a favor, DON'T SEE IT! You'll be saving some brain cells.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of those films that you watch with a group of people. You will have the best time. It's really, really bad, like Showgirls bad but without the quality of Showgirls.You've got the best mix of bad actors, bad director and bad script here. Everything that can possible be wrong that can make for an entertaining evening, you have here. The first being the tag line is "a bunch of teenagers..." These people are as much "teenagers" as my grandmother.The director has zero sense of suspense or tension. The 30 year old "teenagers" are standing around and the "monster" comes out and attacks and this pretty much happens throughout the movie when the monsters are revealed. There is no suspense building up to this or surprise or anything. It's more like when you were kids pretending to be chased by monsters and just kind of made up stuff as you went. And when I use the word "monsters" I exaggerate. More like a couple guys in Halloween masks bought at the .99 cent store.There is no doubt this script was spun off in a couple days, no rewrites and I can only imagine how bad and poorly formatted it looked on the page because it was clearly written by an amateur with no clue. It's another example of one of the bad things about this day and age: anyone can make a movie.But of course the best bad thing about this film is the acting. It's as bad as you can get. There isn't one person in this who has the slightest skill at acting and the lead is the absolute worst. He delivers every line in this monotone manner without any expression and you have to wonder how someone this bad could possible get a part in any movie, no matter who he knows. When he had to "cry" when his girlfriend was killed, it was one of the funniest scenes I've ever seen in a movie. Watching these people reciting some of the awful dialog is very very funny. But when the black guy said "tell her...tell her...I love her..." before his death scene, there was a huge laugh among our group. Funny, funny stuff.My only hope is this movie gets bad enough ratings to take its place where it belongs: in the IMDb lowest rating 100 movies. We can do it, folks!PS. Is it any surprise that the one "great" comment this movie got in here was from someone in Virginia (who has one comment, only on this movie and nothing else). And guess where the movie was made? Virginia. I've said it before and I'll say it again: people who work on the movie should NOT be allowed to comment on it.$LABEL$ 0
+It's a mistake to refer to any film of this era as a horror film. Most early German films with supernatural themes are not so much horror films as they are dark fantasies borrowed from the works of early German Romantics like E. T. A. Hoffman and others. In Fritz Lang's "Der Mude Tod" (also from 1921) Death personified takes a young man away from his sweetheart, but in Lang's film the characters' destiny cannot be mitigated by behavior. Neither of the young lovers deserves to die, but they are destined by circumstances to be reunited only in death.In Victor Seastrom's "Korkarlen," however, repentance is always an option. Destiny can be altered - and death deferred - through the characters' choices. Although scenes of the Phantom Carriage collecting souls are genuinely eerie, these horrific images of Death as the great leveler are compromised by Death's offer of redemption to the real monster of this tale, David Holm, a brutal drunk who, because of a perverse hatred of humanity, spreads tuberculosis and emotional misery to everyone he comes in contact with.One New Year's Eve Holm is struck down in a fight with a drinking companion. As the first person to die on the stroke of midnight Holm must become the driver of the Phantom Carriage and collect souls during the new year. The Phantom Carriage, driven by an old acquaintance who had started Holm on his road to ruin, comes for his soul and takes him on a journey of self discovery. Along the way Holm sees the horror he has inflicted on his family and the people who tried to help him.Perhaps my disappointment with the film's ending is a criticism of the Selma Lagerlöf novel on which the film is based. But I would have preferred to see David Holm unable to escape his destiny, and to see his repentance come too late to prevent his wife from poisoning his two children and herself, and to see Holm suffer for the consequences of his sins by being made to collect their souls. It would have been a fitting punishment and a horror more immense than witnessing the abuse he inflicted on others. In the film, however, the unalterable nature of destiny isn't the message; redemption is. The driver of the carriage allows Holm's spirit to return to his body, and he rescues his family in the nick of time. His repentance smacks of Scrooge's repentance in "A Christmas Carol." If the trite and sentimental ending does not offend you, there is still much to admire in the film's images. The special effects are astonishing when measured by the standards of the day, and still hold up, which is more miraculous when you consider that these double exposures were created inside a hand-cranked camera. Also, the restored film on Tartan's new DVD looks fabulous.$LABEL$ 1
+Like most people, I was interested in "More" solely because of the Pink Floyd soundtrack, which has turned out to be the only Pink Floyd album that I still listen to after all these years. It was quite a surprise to run across the film in a local video store, in a digitally remastered version. It was an even bigger surprise to find that it is a pretty good movie.Visually it is quite beautiful, especially when the two main characters are cavorting on the rocks on the Spanish island of Ibiza. And the use of the soundtrack music, which as far as I can tell is exclusively by Pink Floyd, is excellent. It was a joy to watch the film with my copy of the album alongside me, mentally ticking off each track as it was used in the film. Dave Gilmour's brief "A Spanish Piece" was the only one I didn't hear, and several tracks are used quite prominently, especially "Cymbaline," "Main Theme," and "Quicksilver." That latter track is tedious on the soundtrack album but works very well during the title sequence of the film, resurfacing at least once later on. Maybe now I can appreciate it on the album, now that I have some visuals to accompany it in my mind.The plot of "More" is a little hard to take at times, especially in the early going, when the film appears to be merely a vehicle to demonstrate the hipness of those involved in making it. But eventually the film proves that it has much more than that to offer, as the plot becomes more focused. Why does Stefan take heroin? Why does ANYBODY take heroin, fully knowing the possible consequences? The film does not attempt to answer that question directly, but Stefan's heroin use seems a logical extension of his single-minded pursuit of pure pleasure.I strongly recommend this film to any Pink Floyd fan who has an appreciation of the vastly underrated "More" soundtrack. I also recommend it to anyone who has an interest in sixties counterculture and how it was portrayed in the media. I have no idea how realistic this movie is, since I am too young to have experienced the sixties firsthand, but it does seem to capture the spirit of the times in a way that no other movie does.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw One Life Stand when it premiered at the 2000 Edinburgh International Film Festival and was blown away by it. Made on a micro budget, this black and white digital movie is very much a European film and succeeds brilliantly in spite of the limitations of DV. The film works because it's in the indie tradition - dealing with complex issues, yet moving and relieved by touches of understated humour. One Life Stand avoids falling into the trap of other UK realist films, with ordinary working people portrayed as either hopeless victims or comedic stereotypes. The performances are strong, particularly Maureen Carr as the mother, Trise. I understand the film has recently been released on DVD and I would definitely recommend it. The rating on this site is misleading, which is why I gave it a high score because the filmmaker, May Miles Thomas obviously put her heart and soul into it and deserves better than 2.8 for her amazing achievement.$LABEL$ 1
+The Cowboys could leave you a little sore in the saddle. Definitely not one of Johns best movies. Don't get me wrong, with any John Wayne move there is always some good spots. And this one has it's fair share. But over all the picture moves slow and just doesn't live up to the aspirations it could have been. Bruce Dern again does an outstanding job as the villain. Roscoe Lee Brown is another bright spot in the movie. The kids in the movie were average but could have been cast better. This would be a good movie for the eight to fifteen year old movie goers.This would be a good family move to watch with your children. Just be aware, there is a couple of scenes that you may want to take a look at before you let the young ones see it. But most kids that I know who have seen the movie like it. Maybe it's because they get to see kids their age do all the grown up work.$LABEL$ 0
+This show comes up with interesting locations as fast as the travel channel. It is billed as reality but in actuality it is pure prime time soap opera. It's tries to use exotic locales as a facade to bring people into a phony contest & then proceeds to hook viewers on the contestants soap opera style.It also borrows from an early CBS game show pioneer- Beat The Clock- by inventing situations for its contestants to try & overcome. Then it rewards the winner money. If they can spice it up with a little interaction between the characters, even better. While the game format is in slow motion versus Beat The Clock- the real accomplishment of this series is to escape reality. This show has elements of several types of successful past programs. Reality television, hardly, but if your hooked on the contestants, locale or contest, this is your cup of tea. If your not, this entire series is as I say, drivel dripping with gravy. It is another show hiding behind the reality label which is the trend it started in 2000.It is slick & well produced, so it might last a while yet. After all, so do re-runs of Gilligan's Island, Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies & The Brady Bunch. This just doesn't employ professional actors. The intelligence level is about the same.$LABEL$ 0
+Lame B-horror that takes itself too damn seriously considering its subject matter concerns an aging old dear who has been turned into a creature of the night by a lodger who has come to rent a room from her. When said lodger is killed off, Mom has to go out to feed on her own and that causes some family strain and also garners some attention from the authorities.My main complaint is that this film should have brought THE FUNNY. It failed to do so although it did have some mild gore and schlocky creature makeup effects to keep the B-movie crowd happy. I've seen worse but I wouldn't give this one a rec--4.5/10.$LABEL$ 0
+The best bit in the film was when Alan pulled down her knickers and ran the cut throat razor over her bum cheeks and around her bum hole. It was also brilliant to see Alan's bum going up and down like a fiddler's elbow later on in the film.Alan was tough as hell in it like when he got annoyed and pushed the four eyed wimp onto the sofa.I've been laughing for days about the cut throat razor bit. A brilliant idea by the script writers. Alan must be brought back into Eastenders so he can do the same to Peggy.Alan is back, and this time he's armed with a razor. Watch out if you're a girl and he finds you and pulls your knickers down.$LABEL$ 1
+Cates is insipid and unconvincing, Kline over-acts as always, as does Lithgow while butchering an English accent (at least, I assume that's what he's attempting), and the tone staggers uneasily between farcical and maudlin. As with most pet projects showcasing a celebrity couple, it's a relief when this shoddy piece grinds to it's forced and jarring conclusion.$LABEL$ 0
+As soon as the credits rolled on Saturday night you could feel it in the air that the doctor was most definitely back!Watching those iconic moments where Christopher Eccelston met Billie Piper was the beginning of a huge long adventure.With this new series it brings with it substences in which the previous version of the show lacked. For instence, the emotion between the Doctor and his companion which they seemed to dismiss in the old series, as well as the doctor actually falling in love with a companion and receiving her love in return. Yet as we know, the doctor shall forever remain lonely as the end of Season 2 proved, he could not stay with a companion forever. Watching those moments, your eyes filling with tears as the doctor says his final farewell to the only companion he has ever loved, were moments beautifully written and acted.This show however proved it can live on as the doctor meets many other companions along his lonely yet exciting journey through his never ending life.Openeing new doors and secrets every episode it's a sure show for the family to enjoy...As Christopher Eccelston once described the show... "The journey of a lifetime."$LABEL$ 1
+The memory banks of most of the reviewers here must've short-circuited when trying to recall this Cubic Zirconia of a gem, because practically everyone managed to misquote Lloyd Bochner's Walter Thornton, when in a fit of peevish anger, he hurls the phallic garden nozzle at his new wife, Jerilee Randall-Thornton, (a nearly comatose Pia Zadora) which was used to sexually assault her earlier in the movie...but I'm getting ahead of myself. In any case, poor Lloyd could've been snarling that line at the speechless audience as much as he was his put-upon co-star.Hard as it is for most of us to believe, especially these days, nobody in Hollywood sets out to INTENTIONALLY make a bad movie. This is certainly not the most defensible argument to make, since there just seem to be so damn many of them coming out. But then again, there is that breed of film that one must imagine during the time of its creation, from writing, casting and direction, must've been cursed with the cinematic equivalent of trying to shoot during the Ides of March.THE LONELY LADY is in that category, and represents itself very well, considering the circumstances. Here we have all the ingredients in a recipe guaranteed to produce a monumentally fallen soufflé: Pia Zadora, a marginal singer/actress so determined to be taken seriously, that she would take on practically anything that might set her apart from her peers, (which this movie most certainly did!); a somewhat high-profile novel written by the Trashmaster himself, Harold Robbins (of THE CARPETBAGGERS and DREAMS DIE FIRST fame); a cast who probably thought they were so fortunate to be working at all, that they tried to play this dreck like it was Clifford Odets or Ibsen; plus a director who more than likely was a hired gun who kept the mess moving just to collect a paycheck, (and was probably contractually obligated NOT to demand the use of the 'Alan Smithee' moniker to protect what was left of his reputation.) Like Lamont Johnson's LIPSTICK, Meir Zarchi's I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, Roger Vadim's BARBARELLA, Paul Verhoeven's SHOWGIRLS or the Grandmammy of Really Bad Film-making, Frank Perry's MOMMY DEAREST, THE LONELY LADY is still often-discussed, (usually with disgust, disbelief, horrified laughter, or a unique combination of all three), yet also defies dissection, description or even the pretzel logic of Hollyweird. Nobody's sure how it came to be, how it was ever released in even a single theater, or why it's still here and nearly impossible to get rid of, but take it or leave it, it IS here to stay. And I don't think that lovers of really good BAD movies would have it any other way.$LABEL$ 0
+I wish I could give this movie a zero out of ten. Before going to this movie the day after it came out, I came on IMDb to check out the comments. A comment called the movie predictable and cheesy with terrible dialog. I never go by other people's opinions, so I wasted seven dollars for this crap movie. It had to be one of the WORST movies I've ever seen.The person who wrote the script should be pushed off a cliff. Since when do scary movies have sappy scenes? I swear, I'm amazed there weren't any GROUP HUG ^-^ moments.I think I jumped. Once. And that's because I zoned out, thinking about my research paper for English. The clichéd, birds/cat popping out of nowhere thing when you THOUGHT something was gonna happen.And the characters were STUPID. My friend and I almost DIED laughing when the alarm went off and the main character said, "I have to get my mom's shawl!!!" You. Idiot. Screw the shawl! Safety is just a few steps away, but NO, my mom's shawl (that didn't match the dress By the way) is WAYYYY more important than my health and safety. And to top it all off, they take her BACK to her house, knowing that the killer knew where she lived. God.My friend and I also predicted the ENTIRE movie. And not just the, I bet he's hiding under the bed, moments. It was the, "HE stole the bellhop's clothes and sneaked out of the hotel" and "It's the detective coming down the hallway, not the killer!" moments. Movies should NEVER be THIS predictable. Disney movies aren't even this predictable.I'm gonna complete my rant now by saying, this was a terrible movie. I'm glad I went to see it in theaters so I wouldn't buy it for $15.00 and then hate it. It was just bad. It would've been better if only one thing would've happened. If, after being shot by the detective, the killer would have fallen down in the same position he got shot in. Knife in hand, falling and stabbing the girl on his way down. Oh, how lovely that would've been.Don't waste your time or money. Go see a GOOD movie.$LABEL$ 0
+The Impossible Planet and The Satan Pit together comprise the two best episodes of the 'new' Doctor Who's second season. Having said that, it should be obvious that much of the story basically transposes the plot of Quatermass and the Pit (1967) to an outer space setting, with the history of the universe intertwined with that of the Beast 666. These episodes cement the emotional ties between Rose and the Doctor, whilst also highlighting Rose's increasing self-confidence, establishing her as a not-quite-equal-yet-but-getting-there partner with our beloved Time Lord. Also of note is Matt Jones elegant screenplay, which decreases the occasional over-reliance on one-liners for the Doctor, and the performances of the entire cast, most notably the excellent Shaun Parkes as acting Captain Zachary Cross Flane.$LABEL$ 1
+SciFi has been having some extremely bad luck making quality movies lately (such as Minotaur or Dog Soldiers). Grendel is supposed to be based of the great epic Beowulf, however, it deviates so much (and offers so little in comparison) that the advertisements on television might as well have titled it 'some shitty Christopher Lambert movie'. I wasn't expecting it to be as accurate as a full blown Hollywood production, but I did however expect the 'artistic integrity' to not interfere with the actual story (even if a little bit was changed to make a two hour storyboard flow nicely in the allotted time slots).Did the director and producers have any idea about what they were doing (did any research go into this?). Obviously not, as one could tell from the massive horned helmets that Beowulf and his crew (save for mullet boy) are wearing. One major problem I have though was with the very look of Grendel…if Beowulf is supposed to wrestle him, shouldn't he not have been sixteen feet tall and weigh 2 tons? Grendel's death segment was also lacking in every way – in my opinion the one in the epic was actually better than the made up junk on the script; for example: Grendel is supposed to have his arm ripped out from the socket by Beowulf – not cut off at the forearm after he was set on fire by an exploding arrow from a crossbow that looks like it weighs 300lbs! And Grendel's mother…did they just combine her with the dragon at the end of the epic where he eventually dies when he succumbs to his wounds? And honestly, what the hell was with that mullet? If you want to see this movie because its connection to the epic….don't, as there really isn't one (other than character names). The only way I could recommend this film is if you liked the movie Druids (directed by Jacques Dorfmann) – although I don't recommend watching either.$LABEL$ 0
+This was honestly the worst movie i have ever seen. the acting was god awful, the story line also was bad. it was however a good idea. if this movie would have had better cinematics, and a lot better actors, i might of had something better to say. edgar allen poe was a great Gothic writer, and this movie just destroyed it. why do people always have to kill good stories by making bad movies. the only good part was when the killer put the head under the floor with a tape going, that was pretty good. the swinging axe was just horrible, there was absolutely no suspense. and also when the killer is chasing everyone around in the end, he was going from one place to another in just seconds, it makes absolutely no sense.$LABEL$ 0
+Don't understand how these animated movies keep coming out, and no matter how good (or bad) it is people love it.I saw this movie with my two kids (5,7). They like pretty much anything animated (like most people who rated this film). The theater was almost full, and I looked forward to seeing the movie with its superb cast. To tell the truth I was bored silly. It was unbelievably predictable and just plain unfunny. There were a couple chuckles throughout the film and that was it. Of course they tried time and time again to get the cheap laugh, but just didn't work. My son almost always says to me that he wants the DVD after we see an animated movie, but not on this one. My daughter fell asleep half way through. Also, the kids thought the character animation looked weird. I haven't heard that from them since seeing The Polar Express, which gave my daughter nightmares.Trust me, I'm not the type who looks for the negative in everything. But quality is quality, and like so many animated movies they throw out there, it has very little.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is the Latino Godfather. An unlikely mobster bridges the gap to some unlikely alliances and forms an empire. I enjoyed the action and gunfights along with the brash acting and colorful characters. This movie is no Oscar winner, but definitely entertaining. Hey, who needs an Oscar anyway? Chapa has got some balls to direct& act ( I think he produced it too?) this movie. Reminds me of another filmmaker who likes to do it all, Robert Rodrigez. Keep it up, is there a sequel in the works? There are a bunch of strings that need to be tied. Son comes back and avenges dads death?$LABEL$ 1
+This sci-fi adventure is not the best and by no means the worst. I agree with the statement that bad sci-fi is comical. Bizarre pink tinting and unusual special effects make this a favorite for the late, late, late show viewers. Space explorers on the planet Mars fight off strange giant amoeba-like monsters and other strange creatures. Pretty cool.The cast includes Les Tremayne, Naura Hayden, Gerald Mohr and Jack Kruschen. Get comfy and enjoy. Don't feel bad if you nod off for a moment. I agree with adding this to the list of cult classics to not miss.$LABEL$ 0
+Granted, I'm not the connoisseur d'horror my partner is, but a well put together, clever flick is worth the time. My quibbles, in brief:- Dialog often weak and at times unbelievable coming from the given character.- Unconvincing acting.- Storyline never really caught fire.The writers plucked choice bits from half a dozen mainstream films, tossed into a kettle, simmered not nearly enough and tried feeding us poor saps the resulting mess, al'dente.Long and short, while not absolutely terrible, it was definitely not worthy of absorbing one of my NetFlix rentals.$LABEL$ 0
+Michael (played by Steven Robertson) has cerebal palsy, and lives a quiet, and dull, life in Carrigmore Residential Home. When a newcomer to the home, Rory (McAvoy), befriends him, he proceeds to show Michael how to live past the disability. Despite, or maybe because of, Rory's crippling disability (unable to move all but his head and a few digits on his hand), Rory is fiercely independent, and extremely rebellious. His affect upon the quiet and reserve Michael is spectacular, and the two soon leave the care home to set up lives in the outside world, where they recruit the help of Siobhan (Romola Garai) as a care assistant.This film is one of the gems of the year! Much like last year's In America, the film goes from being extremely funny, to distressing, touching, upsetting, and truly moving without once seeming saccharine sweet. Knowing exactly where to tug at the heartstrings, and where to simply let the story, and characters, do their thing, O'Donnell has crafted a wonderful film which tells us all to look past the surface, and see what lies within.The true strengths of the film come in the lead actors. So convincing are their characters that you truly do believe that they are disabled. To further manage to convey humor and sorrow on top of the already great performances is amazing. The pair really seem close friends, and as their tale unfolds you care completely for them.This is definitely one of the finest examples of film this year, telling a very relevant story in a simple way. If this film fails to touch your heart, then you must contain pure ice inside.$LABEL$ 1
+A BUSTER KEATON Silent Short.Poor Buster becomes THE GOAT ("scapegoat") for a dangerous escaped murderer.This is a wonderful, hilarious little film with Keaton at his absolute best. In what is essentially a series of chases, Buster gets to exercise his endlessly inventive imagination. Big Joe Roberts appears as the highly suspicious police chief.Born into a family of Vaudevillian acrobats, Buster Keaton (1895-1966) mastered physical comedy at a very early age. An association with Fatty Arbuckle led to a series of highly imaginative short subjects and classic, silent feature-length films - all from 1920 to 1928. Writer, director, star & stuntman - Buster could do it all and his intuitive genius gave him almost miraculous knowledge as to the intricacies of film making and of what it took to please an audience. More akin to Fairbanks than Chaplin, Buster's films were full of splendid adventure, exciting derring-do and the most dangerous physical stunts imaginable. His theme of a little man against the world, who triumphs through bravery & ingenuity, dominates his films. Through every calamity & disaster, Buster remained the Great Stone Face, a stoic survivor in a universe gone mad.In the late 1920's Buster was betrayed by his manager/brother-in-law and his contract was sold to MGM, which proceeded to nearly destroy his career. Teamed initially with Jimmy Durante and eventually allowed small roles in mediocre comedies, Buster was for 35 years consistently given work far beneath his talent. Finally, before lung cancer took him at age 70, he had the satisfaction of knowing that his classic films were being rediscovered. Now, well past his centenary, Buster Keaton is routinely recognized & appreciated as one of cinema's true authentic geniuses. And he knew how to make people laugh...$LABEL$ 1
+This has been put out on the DVD market by Alpha, and it's for die-hard Boris Karloff fans (like moi) only. It's not a horror flick, but a drama where Boris is a struggling scientist agreeing to kill a wealthy woman's husband in order to gain the fortune needed to continue with his work. But once the dying victim changes his will and leaves his spouse nothing, all hell breaks loose.It's appeasing enough seeing Karloff as another selfish sinister type, and some of the acting is unintentionally hilarious (especially from the leading lady Mona Goya who is absolutely a laugh riot as the double-crossed wife).But proceed with much caution.$LABEL$ 0
+Well don't expect anything deep an meaningful. Most of the fight scenes are pretty decent. The two leading ladies are quite endearing but their lack of HK action background shows at times. The ending maybe lacks something but I quite enjoyed it none the less. The cheesy humour isn't probably going to appeal to anyone who hasn't watched a bunch of HK films but if your down with that sort of thing and have a couple of hours to fill with something meaningless you could do a lot worse than this. (OK so you could do better but.......)Certainly on a par with most of the Hollywood blockbuster action drivel.7/10$LABEL$ 1
+The Sentinel is a movie that was recommended to me years ago, by my father, and i've seen it many times since. It always manages to entertain me, while being effectively creepy as well. The flashback scenes are what really made it for me. Cristina Raines's father running around all creepily, with the two creepy woman, always manages to send chills down my spine. it's your typical good vs evil thing, but at least it manages to be entertaining. The ending I consider to be one of the finest in Horror history. It has plenty of shocks and suspense, seeing Burgess Meredith do his thing as Chazen, had me on the edge of my seat. The Sentinel has the perfect build up of tension. We are never fully comfortable whenever Allison is on screen. We know something terrible is always awaiting her, and that made things all the more tense. This movie is often neglected among horror fans, but I personally think it's one of the better one's out there, and it certainly has enough for all Horror fans, to be satisfied.Performances. Cristina Raines has her wooden moments, but came though in a big way for the most part. She's beautiful to look at, and her chemistry with Saranadon felt natural. Chris Sarandon is great as the boyfriend, Michael. He had an instant screen presence, and I couldn't help but love him. Martin Balsam,José Ferrer,John Carradine,Ava Gardner,Arthur Kennedy,Sylvia Miles,Deborah Raffin,Jerry Orbach,Richard Dreyfuss,Jeff Goldblum and Tom Berenger all have memorable roles, or small cameos. Burgess Meredith is terrific as Chazen. He looks like a normal old man, but what we find out, is absolutely terrifying. Eli Wallach&Christopher Wlaken do well, as the bumbling detectives. Beverly D'Angelo has one chilling scene, that I won't spoil.Bottom line. The Sentinel is an effective Horror film that Horror fans, sadly tend to neglect. It will give you the thrills and scares you need to be satisfied. Well worth the look.7/10$LABEL$ 1
+I was fortunate enough to catch this film at the Phoenix Film Festival and I must say that I very much enjoyed it. When I asked the Director if he had attended Film School I was very much impressed that he had not. Films like these don't come from people without talent. To get a start in commercials and then produce a heart felt family comedy like this shows real range. I'll certainly be keeping an eye on what he does next. As a good indie movie should, the film is very character driven. As apposed to your average Hollywood movie, which are mostly plot driven. The Film centers on a Jewish family in New York, the Applebaum's, who have all been invited back for their fathers "suicide" party. The film is stock full of witty, quick, jabbing, dialogue. The fact the small Jewish family is obsessed with being Jewish and anyone who is Jewish grounds the unrealistic situation of a "suicide" party in reality. Director Jeff Hare does a wonderful job at pulling the characters out of the actors and bringing them to life on screen. The production design brings the sets to life with lots of attention paid to small details making the setting feel like a home that's been lived in for 40 years. The editing keeps up with the dialogue in such a way that it makes you sit on your seat wondering who's going to stab who with the next witty phrase or punch line. And when appropriate the film slows down to let the audience dive a little deeper into the meanings and motivations hidden inside these lovable characters. If you're a fan of Woody Allen or films like "As Good as it Gets" go see this film.$LABEL$ 1
+I watched the first show of each series just to see and what a waste of time. The girl from Emmerdale she was fat so yeah she should be in fat friend but no one every lost weigh.Like Itv made a big mistake with this.Bad Girls is 100times better.I feel that the whole show was just about large people trying to loose weight but never did then they tried to have love storyline oh my god what a a waste of time and also air time. This show has not been repeated on ITV2/3/4 yeah thats how good it is.I would say do not by th box sets just a waste of money.BEWARE$LABEL$ 0
+Remnants of an ambushed Army unit hook up with a group of cowboys to fight their way through Indians on the warpath. Sounds like it could be an exciting western, but this one is dull, dull, dull. It moves like molasses, the action scenes are uninspired, the acting is pedestrian, the writing is flat, even the photography isn't very good. Eastwood, in a very early role, plays an ex-Confederate who doesn't like the idea of fighting on the same side as Yankees. That's about the only remotely interesting situation in the whole movie, but Eastwood wasn't experienced enough an actor to pull it off, and his character comes across as petulant rather than angry or embittered. A very ordinary western. Actually, a very less-than-ordinary western. Worth a look if you're a die-hard Eastwood fan and want to see him at the very beginning of his career. Otherwise, don't bother.$LABEL$ 0
+Debbie Vickers (Nell Schofield) and Sue Knight (Jad Capelja) want to become one of the cool girls in their high school. Uncool and ugly girls had two options, be a mole or a prude! Debbie and Sue imitate them by using their cheating practices in an exam. Two of the cool boys, Garry (Goeff Rhoe) and Danny (Tony Hughes) ask them for their answers and they all get busted. After a bawling out from the headmaster (Bud Tingwell) the cool girls meet them outside in the playground and confronted them about whether they "dobbed" on them all. As Debbie and Sue hadn't the cool girls invited them to the "dunnies" for a smoke. They then start to hang with them on weekends at the beach, watching all the boys surf. Sue ends up going out with Danny and Debbie with Garry. A lot of usual teenage action takes place including sex, drugs and rock and roll. Garry has an eventual overdose of heroin which makes Debbie face the inequalities of life and she decides to learn to surf instead of just watching the boys. They are not happy but watch her, calling names, and eventually Debbie masters the board. A cool early 80s Aussie film.$LABEL$ 1
+While I thought this was a good film about JFK Jr it was a little hard to follow the timeline. It jumped around quite a bit without ever mentioning what year they were in. Otherwise not great acting, and not really a great film, but it was nice to learn a little more about who JFK Jr was.$LABEL$ 1
+Wow, what a racist, profane piece of celluloid garbage, and what an insult to the great genre of Westerns.Exploitive? Sex scenes abound, profanity abounds, violence and gore abounds.....everything that gives modern movies such a good name, especially among those who prefer classic-era movies. This is the kind of sleaze that gives the old folks ammunition against today's films. Somehow I just can't picture nude male bathing scenes in Randolph Scott or Gene Autrey films. Nor can I picture hearing "motherf---er!" exclaimed here and there. I sincerely doubt that word was even around over 100 years ago. Yet, the f-word is so prevalent here you'd think you were watching a story centered in today's urban areas, not the old west of the 1800s.Prejudice? Well, what if all the white characters were good guys and every black person was the nasty, brutal villain? Do you think someone might complain about a racist movie? Home come we don't hear an outcry when the reverse - as demonstrated in this film - is shown in hundreds of theaters across the country?Mario Van Peeples wrote, directed and starred in this bomb. Remember that name. Apparently, he is the "Ed Wood" of today's filmmakers. Even Spike Lee wouldn't be this racist. You can't get much worse than this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Well it is about 1,000 years in the future and we have finally breached traveling the vast distance between galaxies!! But sadly we still use guns that shoot bullets, black men are still calling each other brothers, and getting high, stoned, fighting etc.. Common stereotypical urban black men are still getting the short end of the stick! Babes in tight black rubber pants that look like they're from Baywatch share close quarters with the captian and crew. Crippled people still require wheelchairs to move, no fancy cures, implants, or robotic legs. Dracula still looks and acts gay. Need I go on... In short this move was shot on a typical sci-fi set low budget props, actors, and no real special effects to speak of. The beginning, the middle, and the ending was pathetic. I have to go off and shoot myself now there is nothing left to live for.$LABEL$ 0
+What happened? Those were the first words to come to mind after this awful movie finished for the first and last time on my computer screen. Nightmare on Elm St. had gone noticeably downhill after it's cult-classic of a first film, but I doubt anybody expected this horrible aberration. Nobody expected this cosmic joke of a film, and nobody is more distraught about it than I am.This is by far the worst ANOES film of the lot. It doesn't seem too bad at the beginning, with a genuinely creepy intro and a rather elongated shower scene featuring Alice. But then we hit rock bottom right at the beginning with bad acting and a jumbled sequence of events. I mean, sure, Freddy movies are supposed to be dreamlike and creepy, but this one is like a train-wreck in it's poor sequencing of events and awful plot setup. It feels like you're coming down with a terrible headache, not like you're getting scared. So the directing totally fails. None of the suspense and well crafted horror from previous sequels is found here, and even the death scenes are mostly just crass and moronic (the death by food especially), except for that one cool scene that's crafted like a comic book battle. That's why this movie gets a point.The storyline...lame, lame, lame, LAME. It was an excuse to gross people out and to make the MPAA mad, and nothing more.The acting...should I mention how Freddy has been turned into a childish boogey-man-like clown figure? How his rebirth scene made him look like a monster out of a 7 year old's horror book instead of the foreboding and nightmarish dream killer we've all known and loathed since the first film? That arm waving and stupid chuckling as he appeared again...ugh. And his one liners, too. Throughout the whole movie, they suck. Badly. A grade-schooler could come up with funnier stuff then the vomit Freddy spews throughout the 90 minute duration of the film. Hell, a chimpanzee could come up with much funnier lines than what Freddy's been told to say here. Who wrote the script for this? This movie is really irritating, too. It seems so pointless. Like a gnat buzzing around your head, a gnat that just WON'T go away. Freddy is just an annoyance now. We've seen him so many times before. This one's nothing different, and a lot of the time you just want him to take his awful one-liners and get off your TV screen. Alice, instead of the thoughtful and quiet girl from the last movie, seems annoying and very shallow, and this is obviously due to the horrible, horrible script this movie was fitted with. Lisa Wilcox may be a great actor, and sometimes it shines through the cracks here, but she can't save this movie. The other actors just suck, mostly.The last 15 or 20 minutes of Freddy's existence in this film are awful and embarrassing. I hope Englund was ashamed of this. Who wants to see Freddy running around like a mutated gorilla with his limbs stretched out, laughing like a cartoon villain? This movie destroyed anything positive I felt for the Nightmare series. I can't ever watch them again without this image running through my head; of the mangled cartoon abomination that Krueger became. He was slowly becoming a jokey, retarded pop culture icon, but this is the lowest of the low. This is rock bottom. Nobody will ever take Freddy Krueger seriously again after seeing this film. He's naught but a joke, a clown that is long overdue for retirement. Pathetic.Of all the movies I could hate, why did it have to be Nightmare on Elm St, a series which I once adored and liked a lot? The Dream Child represents the death of a legend, and the shattering of any hope I had in the Nightmare on Elm St. series. Freddy would go on to continue his downward spiral into clown status in the next installment, Freddy's Dead (which was more entertaining than this was, actually), and then he would go on to bring down the mood in Freddy VS Jason, and finally he would putter out into nothing, which is for the best.I know this has mostly been a rant about why Freddy sucks now, but this movie is overall, horrible, and one of the worst movies ever made. Not recommended to anyone, and even ANOES completionists won't want to see this one again.$LABEL$ 0
+Zu Warriors most definitely should've been an animated series because as a movie it's like watching an old anime on acid.The movie just starts out of nowhere and people just fly around fighting with metal wings and other stupid weapons until this princess sacrifices herself for her lover on a cloud or something.Whether this princess is a god or an angel is beyond me but soon enough this flying wind bad guy comes in and kills her while the guy with the razor wings fights some other mystical God /Demon/Wizard thing.The plot line is either not there or extremely hard to follow you need to be insanely intelligent to get this movie.The plot soon follows this Chinese mortal who is called upon by this god to fight the evil flying,princess killing bad guy and soon we have a very badly choreographed Uwe Boll like fight scene complete with terrible martial arts on a mountain or something.Even the visuals are weird some might say they are stunning and colorful but i'm going to say they are blurry and acid trip like (yes that's a word!).I watched it both dubbed and with subtitles and both were equally bad and hard to understand....who am i kidding i didn't understand it at all.It felt like i was watching episode 30 of some 1980's anime and completely missed how the story began or like i started reading a comic series of 5 at number 4 because i had no clue how this thing started where it was going or how it would end i was lost the entire time.I can honestly say this was one of the worst film experiences ever it was like watching Inu-Yasha at episode 134 drunk...yeah that's right you don't know what the hell is going on.Don't waste your brain trying to figure this out.$LABEL$ 0
+Saving Grace is a nice movie to watch in a boring afternoon,when you are looking for something different than the regular scripts and wants to have some fun. I mean,the whole idea of this movie and all the marijuana in it is such a craziness! It was the first movie I watched with this theme(drugs/marijuana) that is not really criticizing it,only making jokes about it. Grace Trevethyn is a widow,who lives in a small town in U.K. and has many financial problems because of her dead husband, who committed suicide since he was full of debts. The problem is that Grace, who imagined to have some money saved for her, discovers that she needs to pay all of her husband's pounds in debts to not lose all of her things, specially her house that she loves so much. She never worked before, and is in a tragic situation until Matthew,her gardener who is very found of smoking pot, decides to make a partnership with her in selling marijuana in large scale.$LABEL$ 1
+Clearly my rating for this is not to suggest it compares with the classy horrors of the likes of Argento but with other 70s low budget, drive in fare and in that department it truly is a classic. The lack of money shows, (Does anyone care too much?) the acting is adequate rather than professional, (Does that make it more realistic?) but unlike so many other movies, and not just low budget ones, this does not drag for a moment. Crap it may be but non stop crap, in your face crap and although inevitably a bit campy at times, this is a must see for anyone who has any idea what I'm talking about. At times quite delirious, this crazy little film filled out with crazy characters is clearly made for fun and fun indeed it is to watch.$LABEL$ 1
+It appears even the director doesn't like this film,but for me I think he's being a bit harsh on himself.Sure it's not perfect, but there are some atmospheric shots,and the story is good enough to keep you interested throughout.It's shot in what appears to be quite a pretty village which adds to the atmosphere as well.If you like horror films shot in England, give it a go.I have just seen a trailer for this directors latest film 'The Devil's Chair' which looks quite amazing.There aren't enough English horror films for me, so any that come along deserve our attention, and this one isn't as bad as you may think$LABEL$ 1
+I rented this film thinking it was the sobbingly sad 1959 version I saw as a kid. It was not. I was therefore very disappointed with what I felt was marginal acting, poor character development, and most of all, failure to highlight the relationship between the boy and his dog. In this version... the "Dog of Flanders" is just a cute "aside" to the movie. Get the 1959 version!$LABEL$ 0
+This is not a film is a clever, witty and often heart touching movie. It's a retrospective of a failed relationship between Michael Connor (Michael Leydon Campbell) and his estranged Irish girlfriend Grace Mckenna. Michael down on his luck decides to make a documentary replaying his whole relationship and what went wrong. He exploits his friendship with an actor he met at the gym Nadia (Nadia Dajani) who he gets to play Grace. The concept of this film is very original. Michaels relationship is shown from every point whether it's a high or low. Michael Leydon Campbell pulls off a fantastic performance that makes you want to help him find Grace. If fact most of the characters pull off great performances except the puzzler. The puzzler is needed to move the plot along yet seems too surreal to exist in a coffee shop. His monologues are often overdrawn and pointless. This is proved when he says "Out of this chaos, we're all trying to create order. And out of the order, meaning. But in reality there is no such thing as meaning. Something only has meaning if we make it have meaning."The commentary saves this movie. The commentary is done in the vain of This is Spinal Tap and has Michael and his brother explain the problems they had while making the film. Michael offers a very funny self conscious commentary that makes for some very good belly laughs.Overall I'd give this movie a 7/10.$LABEL$ 1
+Before I review this film, I must make a confession that is rather a bold statement to make as a film reviewer. Anyone who has already read any of my previous reviews may know that I've always been controversial in a low-key sense, giving high marks for flops such as "Captain America" and 1985's "Creature" and panning such film classics as Alistar Sim's "A Christmas Carol" and "Shakespeare in Love." With that in mind, this confession might not come as a surprise:The simple fact is, Christopher Lambert is probably one of my favorite actors. Woah, now, don't start getting crazy on me just yet. Let me explain myself: I by no means think he's the greatest actor in the world. I clearly confess that he is not. He is certainly no Morgan Freeman or Anthony Hopkins, but I would say that his acting ability is probably somewhere up there with at least Bruce Willis. What I admire about him, however, are the human qualities that he brings into his action heroes. He is just an average guy who laughs and cries and bleeds, who is a hero because he has to be, not necessarily because he wants to be. It takes a lot, in my opinion, to be able to bring out those qualities in a character (especially in the movies he's worked in), and Lambert's heroes are a far cry from Schwartzennegger's or Stallone's. Quite frankly, Lambert's characters are easier for me to relate to. Hence, he's not the greatest actor in the world....He's just a personal favorite.I can't say that same, however, for his films. However much I appretiate his acting, it would be foolish not to confess that his choice of films leave something to be desired. Most of them are, quite frankly, terrible, and any ridicule that he's gotten over the years from me isn't due to his acting, but rather his bad choice in scripts.With that in mind, I can say that his debut film, "Tarzan," is one of his best films and probably his greatest performance. As I mentioned, it is effective becasue of the humaness he brings to the role, and for how seriously the director, writers and actors handle the material. This is a far leap from the B-movie action adventures with Johnny Weismeller from the 1940's. In fact, I would hesitate to call it an action movie. Instead, it is a serious drama that takes all of E.R. Burrough's material seriously, showing Tarzan's quest to discover his real family in Scotland after realizing that he doesn't fit in as a "white ape." He is torn in between his old family and his new one, which includes a wonderful Sir Ralph Richardson in his final role. In an attempt to adapt to humans, his ape instincts also kick in, and he can't decide what he loves more: His real family, or the one that he's always known. All in all, it is a wonderful commentary on society, and a wonderful character study.If nothing else, it launched Lambert into international stardom, which continued will into the 1980's with films like "Highlander" and "he Sicilian." Unfortunately, it didn't last. But just wait a while....His latest career moves such as "Gideon" and "Resurrection" have proven that though he still have a long way to go, he's a competent enough actor to be able to perhaps make a... ahem.... comeback if he'll just pick his roles better.For now, however, here's the verdict on his first film:*** out of ****$LABEL$ 1
+I walked into Blockbuster, itchin' to watch some good old fashion action movies. So i browsed around the action section until this movie caught my attention because the cover had in big bold letter SANDRA BULLOCK. An action movie with Sandra Bullock in it and it's rated R!? YAY! Although I will admit i prefer her in a comedy but if this is anything like 'Speed' then i was sold. Sadly Sandra really is not in this movie, her role is minor: "Panicky kidnapped girlfriend" (She is in fifth place on the actors listing for Jeebus shakes!) Apparently this was her first movie role (and after watching this movie, i figured as much) Sandra is the only living human in this movie, everyone else might as well be a Zombie in a B-Horror Flick. This movie deceived me saying Sandra was the lead . . . i fell for it like Biff from 'Back to the Future' when Marty yells "WHAT'S THAT . . .!!!" God, i wish i watched that instead of this.Sandra is the only bright side of this movie, every time she is on camera it is like she is picking up shock paddles and yelling "CLEAR!" to get this movies going but it flat lines no matter how hard she tries. More on Sandra later . . . The Movie is dull. Very Dull. Think of the Dullest moment in your life then imagine living through that moment for 110 minutes (for me, it is this movie). This movie even somehow makes Gun Fights and Bullet time effects boring, so boring that Elephant Tranquilizers are put to shame. And this movie's idea of Bullet Time is a close up of an AK in slow motion which mocks you as the caps spitting out of it represent each second of your life as it slowly ticks away. And I knew i was watching a bad movie because i found myself fast forwarding "THROUGH-THE-ACTION!" The plot? . . . there was a plot? Music? . . . even by 80s muck standards is Bad but at least it's the one thing that kept me awake. Acting? Sandra Bullock was good and . . . ummm . . . moving on. Is it any good since it IS rated R? No, unless R stands for Ridicules-snooze-fest.And it is really 80s Cliché when a movie opens with an overhead view of a city (rocking guitar licks or power ballet) and ends with a gun fight in a grim factory complete with steel walkways and assorted pipes. Both of which this movie satisfies. At least this movie establishes what era it's from which was unnecessary since Sandra's hair was screaming "1980s!!!!" And a movie gets really ham fisted when you watch an assassin stripper kill a nerd in the bathroom and stuff his body in a box, which you respond to sadly saying: "that is probably the most action that poor sap ever got." Another Hammy moment is at the beginning when some-Secret-Agent-Dude caps a crowd of people and apparently this movie thinks people jump into the air and fall to the ground when they die. All that scene needed was the Mario death ditty or maybe Contra sound effects but Nintendo might have sued.And it is sad when the main action hero of this movie rips off other BETTER movie icons. Before the big gun scene, Da hero is found standing in a boxing ring ('Rocky' anyone?), sporting a leather fedora (not 'Indiana Jones' too) with an ominous spotlights behind him (Terminator the 2nd before owning T-1000) What is really REALLY sad is that people on Youtube or Dailymotion can film better quality videos (with a crappy webcam no less) then this movie. I'm serious, most Rant videos recorded with bad audio and blurry picture are more entertaining then this movie. I cannot even call this movie by it's given name for it's very name bring back horrid memories of watching this cruel and unusual punishment (a freaking violation against human rights!) The only bright speck in this dark abysmal abyss is Sandra's career started taking off thanks to this movie. But oh Sandra . . . why did you have to be in such a nightmare? The paycheck better been worth it. The DVD also graces you with a little back story on Sandra as an extra, seen how she is the only one from this movie who end up being a house hold name. Which explains why this movie uses her name as bait for unsuspecting movie buffs, Crafty little critter.I don't have much experience with bad films but i know BAD when i see it. I could bounce back from 'Mazes and Monsters' with a good old campy Bruce Willis Comedy. But not even Bruce could cheer me up after this movie. I have yet to see any Ed Wood or Uwe Boll but I think I'm amped for them now. For i can't even fathom a movie worse then . . . "GAG" . . . 'Hangmen' . . .$LABEL$ 0
+First off i'll give this movie a low scoring 4 out of 10! It was nothing more than a wannabe film. I felt very let down watching this film. I was lead to people it would be more drama and more facts about the true story it's based on. Instead i spent over an hour watching middle aged mean break the law and take drugs.It's abit like football factory but with no real storyline and not a good ending. After watching the film i was left wondering "What was that film all about?" If you like films with no real storyline and a lot of drug taking and swearing then this is the film for you.I'm a BIG fan of mob and gangster movies but this film did not live up to the hype. I can see where the writer was trying to go with the film but it never reached it's destination.One of the worst British films that i have ever watched. If only the movie had more of a storyline this would have bad an excellent movie.$LABEL$ 0
+This is the worst movie I have ever seen and believe me I've sen a lot of bad movies. I love cheeesy horror but this was just terrible. There was not one scene in this film where I felt scared. All the actors must have been people that they found at a bus stop 20 minutes prior to shooting. I wish that Blockbutser would have given me my 99 cents back. The acting was terrible. The writing was incredibly bad. Someone had to screen this movie before it was released and had to know that it was terrible. I'd be embarrassed to have my name associated with this monstrosity. Don't rent this movie. If you do, don't return it so no other poor souls will ever make the mistake of renting it.$LABEL$ 0
+I had no expectations when I started to watch this movie. How surprised I was! This is a great, beautiful, twisted movie which will give your mind a good work-out! It's not simple. If you only enjoy Police Academy style, no-brains movies, this is not for you. The Cell is a deep, complex film with influences from movies like Cube, Silence of the Lambs and The Lawnmower Man, along with lots of completely new ideas. Wonderful, twisted environments, good acting and a compelling story makes this one of the best films I have seen in a long time! Be open-minded, and you will love it!$LABEL$ 1
+It seems like anybody can make a movie nowadays. It's like all you need is a camera, a group of people to be your cast and crew, a script, and a little money and walla you have a movie. Problem is that talent isn't always part of this equation and often times these kind of low budget films turn out to be duds. The video store shelves are filled with these so called films. These aren't even guilty pleasures, they're just a waste of celluloid that are better off forgotten. Troma Entertainment is known for making trash cinema, but most of their films are b movie gold. However, some of the films they've put out they had nothing to do with making and some, like 'Nightmare Weekend,' didn't deserve any form of release at all. Pros: The cast members do the best they can with the lousy material. Some unintentional hilarity. Moves at a good pace (Should at 81 minutes).Cons: Awful writing, which includes putrid dialogue and countless plot holes. Poorly lit, especially the night scenes and the ending, which you can't make out at all. Doesn't make a lick of sense. Badly scored. Cheap and very dated effects. Total lack of character development and you won't care about anybody. This is supposed to be a horror film, but it's lacking in that area and isn't the least bit scary. Nothing interesting or exciting happens. Loaded with unnecessary padding.Final thoughts: I never expected this to be some forgotten gem, but I never imagined it would be this bad. I don't know if it's the worst film ever made, but it's a definite contender. Troma should have let this film rot instead of giving it a release. Don't make the same mistake I did and let your curiosity get the best of you.My rating: 1/5$LABEL$ 0
+Despite being a sequel to the more potent original, this is more of a comical remake of Friday THE 13TH concerning the further antics of psychopathic Angela, killing more nubile teens for their "immorality" at a camp.Pamela Springsteen (sister of Bruce) looks great. There are some pretty darn funny sex scenes with some pretty darn attractive girls, but the movie's so (unintentionally) comedic rather than suspenseful, it's a stinker.* out of ****.MPAA: Rated R for graphic violence and gore, nudity, and for some sexuality, language, and drug use.$LABEL$ 0
+The plot of this terrible film is so convoluted I've put the spoiler warning up because I'm unsure if I'm giving anything away. The audience first sees some man in Jack the Ripper garb murder an old man in an alley a hundred years ago. Then we're up to modern day and a young Australian couple is looking for a house. We're given an unbelievably long tour of this house and the husband sees a figure in an old mirror. Some 105 year old woman lived there. There are also large iron panels covering a wall in the den. An old fashioned straight-razor falls out when they're renovating and the husband keeps it. I guess he becomes possessed by the razor because he starts having weird dreams. Oh yeah, the couple is unable to have a baby because the husband is firing blanks. Some mold seems to be climbing up the wall after the couple removes the iron panels and the mold has the shape of a person. Late in the story there is a plot about a large cache of money & the husband murders the body guard & a co-worker and steals the money. His wife is suddenly pregnant. What the hell is going on?? Who knows?? NOTHING is explained. Was the 105 year old woman the child of the serial killer? The baby sister? WHY were iron panels put on the wall? How would that keep the serial killer contained in the cellar? Was he locked down there by his family & starved to death or just concealed? WHO is Mr. Hobbs and why is he so desperate to get the iron panels?? He's never seen again. WHY was the serial killer killing people? We only see the one old man murdered. Was there a pattern or motive or something?? WHY does the wife suddenly become pregnant? Is it the demon spawn of the serial killer? Has he managed to infiltrate the husband's semen? And why, if the husband was able to subdue and murder a huge, burly security guard, is he unable to overpower his wife? And just how powerful is the voltage system in Australia that it would knock him across the room simply cutting a light wire? And why does the wife stay in the house? Is she now possessed by the serial killer? Is the baby going to be the killer reincarnated? This movie was such a frustrating experience I wanted to call my PBS station and ask for my money back! The ONLY enjoyable aspect of this story was seeing the husband running around in just his boxer shorts for a lot of the time, but even that couldn't redeem this muddled, incoherent mess.$LABEL$ 0
+When the Grinch came out I was excited though I thought it was going to be a happy go lucky film and it was. Though it did have a little Nightmare before Christmas touch to it. You know kind of dark and spooky. I loved this film because it helped fill people with the Christmas spirit. So mostly the Grinch saved Christmas. And what happened then well in Whoville they say that the Grinch's small heart grew three sizes that day. MERRY GRINCHMAS!$LABEL$ 1
+This started out as a good sketch comedy. The first few shows were very good and I was looking forward to a long run. What was really funny was the Mariah Carey imitation and the take off on Beverly Hills 90210 featuring the hair fight. The Delta Burke vs William Conrad heavy weight battle was also good. Unfortunately the following shows went downhill relatively quickly. The writing became uninspired and oh so predictable as if the show had acquired a cult following in it's young tenure. Nothing fresh was being offered and the recurring skits were boring. One example is the gun family (or whatever it was called) which became a weekly feature. This sketch was not all that funny to begin with let alone being a regular feature. An example of a quick promising start then a sudden fall.$LABEL$ 0
+This is bad movie. There is no denying it as much as I'd like to. Tommy Lee Jones is about as good as he possible can be with the script they gave him, and he had a couple of decent action sequences that felt really out of place due to their acceptable quality.Somewhere along the line someone figured that all of the shortcomings of script could be counteracted if they were to hire every single workhorse actor in the business, unfortunately even truly, deeply talented actors like Goodman, Beatty, Sarsgaard, Gammon, Steenburgen, MacDonald, Pruitt Taylor Vince, and lest we forget Mr. Jones himself can't fix the wooden dialogue, and plot progression that went absolutely nowhere.In fact at one point I looked up, sure that the movie had been running for the past 2 hours only to find that I was 51 minutes into it.Perhaps the most painful point of the movie was the subplot about the ghost confederate soldiers that seem to be of little to no help to the story. Other than slightly detracting from the confusing business at the end with the picture. *if you haven't seen this movie disregard this past statement which may seem tantalizing and know that it is not, you will not understand it any better after having watched the movie.The most interesting thing about this movie may be that it is actually a sequel to the movie "Heaven's Prisoners" starring Alec Baldwin in the same role carried by Tommy Lee Jones in this movie. I may have to watch it now, first to see if it is as bad as In the Electric Mist, and second because I can't seem to (no matter how hard I try) break my man crush on Alec Baldwin.$LABEL$ 0
+A routine mystery/thriller concerning a killer that lurks in the swamps. During the early days of television, this one was shown so often, when Dad would say "What's on TV tonight?" and we'd tell him "Strangler of the Swamp" he'd pack us off to the movies. We went to the movies a lot in those days!$LABEL$ 0
+If TV was a baseball league, this show would have a perfect record! With an excellent cast, and a perfect plot, this show gave 8 amazing seasons and a great joy to TV after dinner. With the constant changing of relationships and finding out who Hyde's real dad is, this show was a hit when it started in August of 98, though it was set in 1976. And hanging out in Foremans basement was always the thing to do back then, and it still is today, along with circles.This show gave great laughs in premieres, and it still does during re-runs. If you watch a few episodes of this show, you will get everything and want to get more. Now only is this show one of the best ever created, it is clever and funny.$LABEL$ 1
+As one who frequently goes to the movies, I have to say that this has been one of the most impressive movies I have seen this year. Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding Jr. gave outstanding performances allowing viewers to get lost in the various emotions and really feel for the characters. It is nice to occasionally see a movie that does not depend entirely upon special effects but allows the characters of the story to touch the human psyche on many levels. I wish Hollywood would produce more movies of this calibre.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was on the Romance channel, and I thought it might be a goofy 80's movie that would be enjoyable on some level, so my brother and I watched it. Boy did it suck. Boy gets crush on girl--correction, his *dream*-girl (apparently there is a difference; and I'm surprised he realized she was his dream girl--he was smitten with her from over 30 feet away. I guess that just goes to show the power of dream-girls), boy ends up masquerading as a female to be near dream-girl (creative in the sense that it's a far-out plan, but un-creative in the sense that there are probably better solutions one might think up), awkward situations ensue, a match is made (all of which takes seems to take place around late afternoon--either the location was somehow responsible for this odd lighting, or the actors had to wait until they got off of their day-jobs to come to the set; I suspect the latter). Very clumsily done, very pathetic. It's almost never even amusing *accidentally*, so there really is nothing to redeem it. Unless you're interested in seeing Chad Lowe's early days, before he finally got his piece of the pie with his role as the HIV-positive gay guy on the series "Life Goes On", or Gail O'Grady who was on NYPD Blue and probably got to stare at Dennis Franz's buttocks). But those are unlikely motives--I'd say "systematic derangement of the senses" would be a more justified purpose. I'm surprised I watched it all. I guess it's the kind of thing where, halfway through, you find yourself *still* watching due to some morbid, self-flagellistic inner-issue, and think you might as well finish it so you can tell your friends and family that you actually sat through such a horrible movie, on the off-chance that it'll garner you some sympathy for the questionable state of your mental health. Can *You* Take the Challenge?$LABEL$ 0
+This film shows a serious side to the often thought of as gore-fest works of fulci. Not a lot of blood and guts here , but a fine tale about murder and the lives affected by it.A real find, considering it was made in 1972 and will soon celebrate its 30th anniversary.Check this one out, but be warned it is hard to find!Ron$LABEL$ 1
+Celebrity singers have always had a tough time breaking into the movies (the cinema is littered with failed attempts), and one can go on and on speculating why John Mellencamp never made it big as an actor. Instead of taking small parts in heartfelt projects, Mellencamp dives right in playing the lead in "Falling From Grace", which he also directed, and the results are as awkward and unbecoming as that title. Story of a famous singer returning to his hometown in the sticks, opening up old family wounds, boasts a screenplay by Larry McMurtry, but the meandering film goes nowhere slowly. The supporting cast is decent, including Kay Lenz (whom it's always nice to see), Mariel Hemingway and Claude Akins (who share the one really strong scene in the picture). As for John's acting, he doesn't look particularly comfortable, despite apparent efforts to make him look at home; he seems to be ducking the camera most of the time, and he never connects with the audience in an immediate way. *1/2 from ****$LABEL$ 0
+Based on Mika Waltari's Book,This Second CinemaScope movie ever made is full of rich color,beautiful music and panoramic spectacle.The Plot sometimes gets muddled in contrite wording,But all in all it has a strong social content:Man is ruled by his emotions,and that every action has an equal consequence.But to truly enjoy this film,First see the movie,then read the book.Although different,it sheds light on a whole lot of things that were not seen on the screen,and gives breath to some more of the depth of Sinuhe.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this on the big screen and was encapsulated with it. The period of Queen Victoria's younger years are a mystery and this is a perfect description of how a young girl was thrusted into one of the highest roles in the world.The script is perfect, the acting is amazing, the history and attention to detail is out of this world. Emily Blunt is perfect as Victoria. Funny how her mother is played by Elizabeth the 1st and William IV is played by Prince Albert! (Think Blackadder).This portrayal of Victoria shows that she was a rebellious young woman once - I'm sure she would have been on Jeremey Kyle Show if it had been around then: "My mother and her boyfriend are trying to steal my life".A Perfect piece of a major part of British and Commonwealth history.$LABEL$ 1
+Every role, down to the smallest, has been cast and acted with bravado.The extraordinary Jena Malone never takes a misstep. Her two co-stars are equal to her in this film. Ryan Gosling may be the best actor of his generation. Chris Klein gives his best performance to date. This is a thought and conversation provoking film that should be seen by teens and young adults. You'll think and talk about this film for days. Highly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+...in an otherwise ghastly, misbegotten, would-be Oedipal comedy.I was the lone victim at a 7:20 screening tonight (3 days after the movie opened) , so there is some satisfaction in knowing that moviegoers heeded warnings.The bloom is off Jon Heder's rose. The emerging double chin isn't his fault; but rehashing his geeky kid shtick in another bad wig simply isn't working. It would be another crime if this were to be Eli Wallach's last screen appearance. Diane Keaton will probably survive having taken this paycheck - basically because so few will have seen her in this, the very worst vehicle she's chosen in the last few weeks.Sitting alone in the theater tonight I came alive (laughed, even) whenever Daniels was given the latitude in which to deliver the film's sole three dimensional character. He really is among our very best actors.In summary, even Jeff Daniels's work can't redeem this picture.$LABEL$ 0
+Four Eyed Monsters follows the relationship of a shy, reclusive videographer and an equally estranged struggling artist, who, both living in the Big Apple, develop an unlikely romance with the help of an internet dating site. This in itself is not so unusual, but what is, is their method of communication. Foregoing the verbal, they take to writing notes and later communicating through video.The film is based upon the creator's (Arin Crumley & Susan Buice) own relationship, who besides writing and directing, take to acting as the lead characters as well. With elements of avant-garde, anti-plot, and docudrama, the film scatters itself to the wind with an undecided structure nestled neatly between narcissism and self-indulgence.As the movie wears on, a brief separation and deterioration of their once intriguing form of communication grow old as the couple face the hardship of reality. Focusing solely on inner conflict, or the woes of relationship, the film struggles through a stagnant narrative that is neither original, nor poignant. This could have been easily circumvented with the addition of subplot and external conflict, and a third act, to which there is none - just a montage of melodrama that leads nowhere.What is even more aggravating is the film's descent from story into reality that abruptly concludes with an open ended and unsatisfying finish. This would have been all fine and dandy, but there is no question asked and no meaning to be discovered or pondered.(On a side note, the film contains beautiful animation and a vivid and moving soundtrack, one of the more interesting aspects of the production.)But as always, watch the film and decide for yourself.$LABEL$ 0
+Lovely piece of good cinema. This is one of those films that you see smiling and you do not know why. Well, one of the reasons could be that we are before one of the most surprising directors today, and he is able to film emotions.When you are watching the film you can feel what Mr. Straight was feeling when he took the decision to go to visit his brother with his "marvellous" John Deere. What changed in his mind?, what changed in YOUR mind when you watched this film?A beautiful fraternal love story.$LABEL$ 1
+This multi-leveled thriller kept my attention throughout. It is disturbing and informative to see how perverse human behavior can be. It is also instructive as to what past wounds can motivate present behavior. No one, save Sandra Bullock's partner, is very likable. However, all are believable. Sandra did an excellent job. Her character, Cassie, comes alive with all her pain and fear and defenses. She is a survivor and so her life experience finally brings her to a healing moment. I enjoyed this movie very much. Tom Landers$LABEL$ 1
+Well, I'm an Italian horror big fan and I love movies from directors such Argento, Fulci, Bava Sr and Bava Jr, only to quote the most famous. "La villa delle anime maledette" is one of the most unknown movie of this genre, shot when this kind of cinema began its crisis that continues still today, and director Carlo Ausino sounds totally new to my ears (althoug he directed six movies... this is the price Italian directors have to pay to not work in Rome...) . But the film is not so bad. And it's absolutely not correct to talk about "trash". OK, the plot is not so original; it reminds me stuff like the Amytville series (the year is the same of "Amityville Possession" by Damiano Damiani) or "Shock", the last work of Mario Bava. But you have to think that this is the movie of a cinematographer (like Mario Bava movies); so the most important thing is the atmosphere, not the story or the characters; atmosphere very well created by the use of light and by the camera movement. The rest remain in the background. I think the movie works; not so good, but works; it's surely better than a lot of Hollywoodian production like "the Haunting" which have a bigger budget, but not bigger ideas...$LABEL$ 1
+The eight Jean Rollin film I have watched is also possibly the weirdest; the intriguing plot (such as it is) seems initially to be too flimsy to sustain even its trim 84 minutes but it somehow contrives to get inordinately muddled as it goes along! A would-be female vampire (scantily-clad, as promised by the title) is held in captivity inside a remote château and emerges only to 'feast' on the blood of willing victims (who are apparently members of a suicide club) As if unsure where all of this would lead him, the writer-director ultimately has the human villain – actually the blank-faced hero's kinky father – ludicrously revealed as a mutant(?!) from the future! The languorous pace and dream-like atmosphere (the cultists wear hoods and animal masks to hide their features from the sheltered girl) are, of course, typical of both the film-maker (ditto the seashore setting at the {anti}climax) and the "Euro-Cult" style, as are the bevy of nubile beauties on display. Personally, the most enjoyable thing about the whole visually attractive but intellectually vacuous affair was watching familiar character actor Bernard Musson (who appeared in six latter-day Luis Bunuel films) crop up bemusedly through it from time to time!$LABEL$ 0
+This gets a two because I liked it as a kid, but it became so redundant that I just started to hate it... I can't give this a descriptive review because it would be restating one thing after the other, I probably wouldn't say anything that everyone else didn't say already.The only other thing about this show is that it's pretty nasty, with the kid with the boil to that twisted babysitter to the stupidity that runs around and about in it. I have a cousin that loves this show and he's the strangest and dumbest person I have met. This show should be pulled from the air. It's always the same thing over and over... They need to put better shows on Nick. I'm getting really really tired of stuff like this.$LABEL$ 0
+Feroz Abbas Khan's Gandhi My Father, a film that sheds light on the fractured relationship between the Mahatma and his son Harilal Gandhi. For a story that's as dramatic as the one this film attempts to tell, it's a pity the director fails to tell it dramatically. Gandhi My Father is narrated to you like that boring history lesson that put you to sleep at school. Now the film aims to convey one very interesting point - the fact that Gandhi in his attempt to be a fair person, ended up being an unfair father. This point is made in the film many times over, and one of the examples given to make this point is that scholarship to England, which Gandhi twice denies his son. Instead of showing us how exactly Harilal dealt with this betrayal and what went on in his head, the director just moves along with the story, thus never letting us be witness to the growing resentment Harilal feels towards his father. Which is why when we finally see an outburst from Harilal, it comes off looking like he's over-reacting. The point I'm trying to make here is that we never really get to understand exactly why Harilal became the rebel that he did. We never really understand why he turned to Islam, and then back again to Hinduism. The thing is, we never really understand Harilal at all. And that's because the director of this film is too busy focusing on Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and his role in the freedom struggle, a story most of us are already familiar with. To put it simply, Gandhi My Father promises to examine the strained father-son relationship, but it doesn't so much as show us where the cracks in this relationship first set in. We understand Harilal had to live with the burden of being Gandhi's son, but show us why that was a burden to begin with. Show us incidents of their early conflict. For example, it's not enough that Gandhi merely says he's opposed to Harilal's early marriage, tell us why this opposition? It's not enough that Kasturba blames her husband for the way her son turned out - for constantly shuttling him between schools in Gujarat and South Africa, for making him relocate every time Gandhi needed to relocate. Words are not enough, show us how these incidents shaped the character of Harilal Gandhi.What's more, instead of sticking with the prickly theme of this tenuous Gandhi versus Gandhi relationship, the film goes off on too many tangents, thus diluting the impact of the central theme. This was never meant to be a film about the struggle for Independence, and yet on many occasions that's exactly what it seems like, because the director feels almost obligated to take us through all the main events leading upto that historic moment, even though much of it has no relevance to the film's basic premise - the stormy father-son relationship. So you see the problem with this film is not that it's a bad film, but it's certainly a very confused film. What happens to Harilal's children after his wife's death? Does he ever have relationship with them? Where do they suddenly vanish after that one scene in which we see them with the Mahatma and Kasturba? None of these questions are answered in a film that's basically meant to be about relationships in the Gandhi family. The film version of an immensely popular play directed by Feroz Abbas Khan himself, Gandhi My Father is a disappointment, no questions asked.Cinematically, it struggles to translate the filmmaker's ambitious intention to the screen. Practically every single scene in the film opens and closes with fade-ins and fade-outs, never quite seamlessly leading into each other. On the positive side, there is inherent nobility in the film, which you recognise. The filmmaker makes every effort to deliver a balanced narrative, trying hard not to take sides, never once judging either father or son, painting neither as the villain. What the film does do, however, is make clear the fact that Gandhi was a difficult patriarch whose ideals may have shaped the nation, but evidently alienated his family. Of all the actors in the film it's only Akshaye Khanna who really shines in the role of the luck-deprived Harilal Gandhi. It's a wonderful performance, and it's not easy since the role covers virtually the entire lifespan of the character. But Akshaye brings a rare concoction of innocence and despondency to that part and succeeds in making Harilal a pitiable figure. Just watch him in that scene in which he discovers his wife's dead, and you'll realise how much he conveys through body language alone. Darshan Jariwala, meanwhile, who plays Gandhi Senior, adopts a caricaturish approach to playing the Mahatma in his later years, but it's the way he humanises the man in his early years as a barrister in South Africa that is the actor's best contribution to that role. The abundantly gifted Shefali Shah plays Kasturba, the woman who's meant to be torn in this father-son conflict, but if she's unable to bring across that feeling of helplessness then it's really not so much her fault as it is the fault of a rickety script. Much effort's gone into the making of this film and that's evident throughout, but the film suffers from that inevitable flaw that is eventually what you'll remember about it when you leave the cinema - it's just so boring.Director Feroz Abbas Khan's Gandhi My Father is a sincere effort yes, but also a film that could have done with a much tighter screenplay. What we learn from the film is that Gandhi and Harilal made each other very unhappy. And with this film, the director makes us too.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this movie on the strength of the single positive review and I can only imagine that guy is a shill.The acting of the female lead is actually quite good, but the entire film is just so excruciatingly boring I could hardly bear to sit through it. This is the very definition of dullness.So far, this film is rated as 8 out of 10 on 7 votes. That must mean the director, director's girlfriend, producer, actress and drinking buddies have given their own film a 10.For the rest of you, who simply want to be entertained or enjoy a good story, avoid this.This man on the street shall give it a 2 out of 10.FDA note: while this movie can be used as an aide to obtaining a good nights sleep, no medicinal value is implied or offered.$LABEL$ 0
+The movie has the longest, most tortured and agonized ending of any movie I've seen in a long time. Unfortunately it starts right after the opening credits. January Jones gives such a wooden performance, I was surprised she didn't go up in flames when she got near the candles in the film. I don't really remember her from the other films she's done (a blessing I have to believe. I never criticize an actors performance because in film there are too many things which can affect it but in this case,it is so bad that it actually stands out from the ATROCIOUS script. Granted she's given lines and situations Meryl Streep would have trouble with but I swear at times shes reading from a cue card off set. At other times I thought she might actually be learning disabled or slow in some way. For REAL! The plot, dialog and pacing are as bad as you'll ever see but there is still no excuse for this performance nor for the director that let it be perpetrated. I feel sorry for the other actors. Cruel intentions/ 10 little indians/breakfast club shoved into a rotten burrito then regurgitated by a grade school writer- director. Take that back this has Studio exec crayola all over it.$LABEL$ 0
+I was watching this movie at one of my usual time, which is real real late at night. Usually if a movie doesn't interest me, I start falling asleep and have to raid the fridge to stay awake.At first I thought that's what I had to do since this movie's pacing started off slow, along with the fact that its shots tended to linger with the character for a long time. But after a bit, I start getting more into the movie, as more is revealed about the main character through his story telling. By the end, you feel like you've known him your whole life. The movie kept my interest so much that I didn't even know the sun was about to rise.Not much of Lynch's bizzare style, but there is enough of quirky characters to make the film amusing.$LABEL$ 1
+Full House is a great family show. However, after watching some episodes over and over again I've realized that they're incredibly boring and they seem to shelter themselves from the outside world a lot. Yes, there is a lot of comedy, but there are times when it's incredibly cheesy. It's not like I hate it, but just don't watch them over and over again because they get old quick. Probably the best season is the first.Full House is about widower Danny Tanner(Bob Saget)and his three daughters D.J. (Candace Cameron) Stephanie (Jodie Sweetin) and Michelle (Mary-Kate and Ashley). When Danny's wife dies the he is in need of some help. So, his best friend Joey (Dave Coulier) and the girls' Uncle Jesse (John Stamos) moves in with them. Once they live there together they find they can't live without each other. Full House reminds you just how important family is and that you can always go home again.$LABEL$ 1
+Excellent documentary, ostensibly about the friendship and subsequent rivalry between two West Coast retro rock'n'roll bands: The Dandy Warhols and the Brian Jonestown Massacre. What it actually turns out to be is a portrait of a borderline psychopath - Anton Newcomb - and his tortured relationship with the rest of the world. Interestingly, for a music documentary, there is hardly any music. What there is - snatches of songs, more often than not aborted by the performers - is incidental rather than central. Although the protagonists are musicians, the story is not about music but rather about a particularly American version of a British myth of a cartoon lifestyle, ie, one where nobody has to take responsibility for behaving like spoiled adolescents on a full-time basis. Tantrums, drugs, violence, grossly dysfunctional attitudes, egomania on a truly epic scale - all of this is excused or positively encouraged because it conforms to some collectively held idea about what rock'n'roll is about. As a film this is a first-class documentary but it raises more questions than it answers. For example, why is Anton's music so conservative? For someone so wild and outrageous (and he IS wild and outrageous) his music never seems to have progressed beyond the most obvious derivations of his 60s idols (The Stones, Velvets etc.) For someone who claims to be able to play 80 instruments he has never bothered to learn to play any one of them beyond the most rudimentary level. Similarly, the Dandy Warhols burning ambition is based on a vision of rock'n'roll which is astonishingly fossilised in 1969. Nothing wrong with pastiches, of course, but surely there's more to musical life than perpetually acting out a cartoon from the late 60s. Why don't they take some risks with their music - in the way that their role models did? Because, one suspects, this is not about music. Music is just an accessory, a prop, or an excuse, to lead completely dysfunctional and irresponsible lives. But why? In the Dandy Warhols case, the answer is obvious: to make lots of money and be famous. Big deal. Anton Newcomb's case is more interesting. He is obviously very talented, but every time he is given an opportunity to reach a wider audience he sabotages it, usually in the most dramatic way possible. He is terrified of success, and at the same time, deeply resents anyone else who has it - especially his former friends the Dandy Warhols. Fascinating movie. Highly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+Not only does the film's author, Steven Greenstreet, obviously idolize Michael Moore, but he also follows in his footsteps by using several of Moore's Propaganda film-making tactics. Moore has expertise in distracting the viewer from this focus though, while Greenstreet is obviously less skilled here.Having been privy to all of the issues surrounding Moore's speech at UVSC, I was disappointed to see that the major complaints of the community -- that Moore was being paid $40,000 of the State of Utah 's educational funds to basically promote John Kerry's campaign and to advertise his own liberal movie -- were pushed to the background by Greenstreet while lesser issues were sensationalized.The marketing methods for this video have been equally biased and objectionable... promoting the film by claiming that "Mormon's tried to kill Moore". Not only is this preposterous, but it defames a major religion that Greenstreet obviously has some personal issues with. I followed Moore's visit very closely, and all of the major news agencies noted that Moore's visit came and went without any credible security problems or incidents in Utah.Greenstreet has banked on this film to jump-start his film-making career to the point that he has even dropped out of film school to help accelerate this. This seems to have been a severe miscalculation though, since Moore's visits to roughly 60 other colleges and Universities across the country in 2004 diluted interest for this rather common event. Greenstreet's assumption that American audiences would be interested in this film due to the promoted religious and conservative angles doesn't seem to be well founded.Even the name of the film, This Divided State, is somewhat of a misnomer since Utah voted overwhelmingly for Bush's re-election and thus appears to be more politically unified than any other State. The division in the movie title seems more indicative of the gulf that exists in Greenstreet's ideological differences with his religion and State. If anything, I find a humorous correlation between the religious angle of this supposed documentary and Woody Allen's hilarious contention in Sleeper (1973) that, "I was beaten up by Quakers".$LABEL$ 0
+I just wanted to write a quick response to all those people who give this film a bad review because they think it isn't funny or that it's boring. Here's the trick --- the film is not meant to be just a comedy. It's got some depth to it. Like many Demme films it deals with people living in some of the odd corners of our society who are trying to work out how to put together a fulfilling life for themselves. Unfortunately, the movie and home video industries don't deal well with subtlety and drop this in the "COMEDY" bin. It IS funny, but a lot of the humor is off-beat. However, the heart of the movie is not about the humor but about the people in it.It may not be one of the greatest films in the world but it is solid and entertaining. And the cast is one of those that shows why casting is an art unto itself. Michelle Pfieffer is great and this may be the film that showed she had some acting chops to add to her beauty. Mercedes Ruehl is a big hoot and gets to chew the scenery in the way only she can, in a role which requires it. Throw in Oliver Platt, Joan Cusack in smaller roles and the talented Dean Stockwell ... and even Chris Isaak and you've got a great cast throughout which here, as usual, makes a great difference.Matthew Modine is fun, but more important, he's a major hottie in this movie. Hot, cute and sexy.Sit back, expect the unexpected and let the movie take you where it wants to go and you should have a great time.$LABEL$ 1
+This isn't a bad movie. It's fun to watch for the first time. However it has absolutely no replay value at all. When you try to watch it again it gets so boring you have to turn it off. I give this movie a 6 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+Moonwalker is probably not the film to watch if you're not a Michael Jackson fan. I'm a big fan and enjoyed the majority of the film, the ending wasn't fantastic but the first 50 or so minutes were - if you're a fan.I personally believe the first 50 minutes are re-watchable many times over. The dancing in each video is breathtaking, the music fantastic to listen to and the dialogue entertaining.It includes many of his finest videos from Bad and snippets from his earlier videos. It also includes some live concert footage.If you're a big fan of Michael Jackson this is a must, if you're not a fan/don't like Michael Jackson, steer well clear.9/10$LABEL$ 1
+This sci-fi great fortunately has little to do with the first one. Elias Koteas,Jack Palance play good roles Angelina is hot and gets naked.Billy Drago appears in this and is cool as usual + a cameo by Sven ole Thorsen helps make this a very enjoyable movie with good acting and a decent budget.$LABEL$ 1
+I can't remember the worst film I have watched.Total waste of actors and audience time.If you prefer sitting by your TV and think when will be this film over,then this is the right film for you.Maybe this film is recorded to make people believe that Moscow has some mystique past. But I must say I have not expect anything else from Rade Serbedzija,but I have expected more from Vincent Gallo.The film lacks a plot, character,development,denouement.Entire movie is about underground tunnels and how they are mystique.I must be fair there is some camera effect but even that is too poor.Over and over are the same pictures.Total waste of time.$LABEL$ 0
+I watched this film with my family over a long Thanksgiving holiday weekend. I am thankful that someone insisted that we watch it, though I didn't pay much attention until the end of the film when a head shearing seems promised, but, alas, doesn't happen.On the other hand, I watched this movie some years later and loved its liveliness, absurdity, sparkle, and just plain fun. I think that the film has a female tone. Women are not exploited in it even though I am sure that someone might think that the movie is pure exploitation. I think the movie plays with tropes of the period.I keep thinking someone ought to remake it. And flesh out some of the implications in the original.$LABEL$ 1
+Well, this is new...Famous Italian horror director Lucio Fulci shoots a film about a famous Italian horror director called...Lucio Fulci. After years and years of witnessing gruesome horror sequences, it becomes hard for Lucio to separate reality from fiction and he often hallucinates about committing violent murders. He quickly descends further into a seemly endless spiral of madness and unverifiable venom. Even the dedicated psychiatrist can't seem to keep Fulci on the right track... Now, when it comes to pure fun and entertainment value, Cat in the Brain certainly is one of Fulci's most pleasant films. The gore is overpowering and copious, to say the least. The amount of filthy massacres is impossible to describe, especially when you manage to get your hands on the fully uncut version (referred to with the aka:"Nightmare Concert"). Decapitations all around, victims ' intestines are spread on all sides of the screen and the chainsaws are working overtime! The film also becomes unintentionally funny quite soon (since it's so exaggerated) and a perfect experience to watch with a group of friends when there's beer in the fridge. Of course, from a more professional viewpoint, this production can't exactly be called a masterpiece! There's not the least bit of tension or atmosphere to detect and the characters are completely empty-headed. In order to make more room for the gore, characters are just being introduced for 5 seconds and subsequently die a horrible death. Especially compared with Fulci's highlights - like "The Beyond" or "Don't Torture a Duckling" - this film looks like a quickly warmed up snack. The best way to interpret "Cat in the Brain" is like a personal statement made by Fulci and a direct attack towards censorship. Perhaps after seeing so many of his films – especially the latter ones – being cut by censorship committees and bashed by pseudo-artistic critics, he wanted to avenge himself by delivering a gory mess that simply can't be cut! If you take out all the explicit violence and the truly sick make-up effects, you only got about 10 minutes of footage left! Especially because the insane killings re-occur later in the film as Fulci hallucinates about them again. You can almost hear our director think stuff like: "Let's see how you're going to censor this now!" Even the entire development of the murder investigation happens in the background. Are the victims missed by any of their friends or relatives? Are there any police officers looking for clues that'll lead them to the killer? You don't know and Lucio doesn't bother to inform you about that, because that would lead to sequences that don't require cutting. Oh, and it's pretty damn pretentious as well! The name "Mr. Fulci" or even "Lucio" is mentioned every 3 minutes (34 times throughout the entire movie, to be exact) and our director clearly enjoys being in the spotlights for a change. Hey, I certainly don't blame him...After over 30 years of delivering amusing movies; he deserved to have a little extra fun. You're a God, Mr. Fulci!$LABEL$ 1
+Otherwise it is one of the worst movies I've ever seen - and I mean ever. My wife and I were both bored out of our minds within 10 minutes. Not to mention being boring, it is entirely unbelievable. Women (non-lesbian) don't bathe together - nor do they "accidentally" kiss. Brothers and sisters don't live together well into their 30s and run around swing dancing together and engaging in footraces in central park. Men don't find out their wife and sister romantically kissed the night before the wedding and then never discuss it with said wife. Absolutely ridiculous.Heather Graham is possibly the worst actress in films today. She smiles when she should be crying and vice versa. The only movie she has ever been good in is Boogie Nights - and that is because she wasn't acting.I cannot stress enough how bad this movie was.$LABEL$ 0
+Watching the last 2 episodes i remembered a TV add from my childhood. It showed the wild west, very dusty and dry, and there is a small saloon, a man enters the bar/saloon, he is thirsty as hell, lips cracked etc...., he has just walked through the Nevada Desert and hasn't drunk water for days. He croaks to the bartender "gimme a packet of potato chips" While he is eating it we can feel how thirstier he is getting, we hear a voice in the background saying.... "Keep building that thirst, build it till you cant hold it any more............. then blow it away with TEAM" The man drinks TEAM (a soft drink) It feels like a few dozen bags of potato chips the thirst is so intense that i cannot hold it any more, Season 2 has even more twists and turns then season 1. The ending answers a lot of questions but asks many many more questions hopefully we will know the answer in season 3, but i doubt it because i feel LOST has the momentum go a lot further then 3 seasons, if the people behind the camera keep up their good work.I for one will keep watching.From Pakistan with Love$LABEL$ 1
+Not only Why? But "What were they thinking?" This must have been somesort of payback to Gus Van Sant, because this is one of those odd moviesthat never should have been (re) made. It purports to be Hitchcocks filmframe by frame, but without the magic or the tension or the great filmmaking. Rent the original instead, spare yourself.$LABEL$ 0
+It must have been excruciating to attend the dailies as the shooting continued on this failure of a film. Probably Cruise, the Exec. Prod., saw what was happening and had Towne use much, much more of the nude footage in the final cut then Towne wanted to, to make up for the disaster he saw looming.(Maybe Cruise even thought of "Titanic".)A few items: Colin Farrell can't act his way out of a paper bag. But he's one of the flavors-of-the-decade, a producer's darling and one is forced to avoid the embarrassment of watching him by not attending his films. He has so many moments of not believing in what he's doing and you can see it in his eyes. I think he would have been at his best as a film actor, albeit not as rich or famous as he is now, playing second banana to dynamic leads who can act. The trap of spending a lot of money for period sets, costumes, cars, et al and photographing them as if they just came from the dry cleaner or car wash/wax. No one seems to want anything to look, well, worn. Or dirty. Is this because the production designer was told by the line producer to make sure they didn't ruin the stuff because then the company wouldhave to pay for the ruined items?This was a story about the depression-thirties folks, not a Disney Broadway musical about that era. How about doing it in black and white or better yet, given Caleb Deschanel as your D.P., have him desaturate the colors during the mix to suggest some of the actual grime and poorness of the times. It should have been, after all, a bit depressing to live so desperately as these folks did, in the Depression. More on Farrell. Did anyone for a moment believe this guy was a writer? H.L. Mencken on the wall; did I see his eyes roll at one point? Hayek and Farrell as a sexually dynamic duo? Sending a boy to do a man's work? Perhaps in the book, which I haven't read, the story was about an older woman and a youth. I cannot delve too deeply into the middle to latter parts of the film because I bailed out early on. But the memory of the scenes I did see made me think that someone was doing a not-too-amusing parody of a noir movie. Sort of what Saturday Night Live has been like for the past decade: not funny. (In my mind I kept thinking of a Guy Noir sketch, music and all.)$LABEL$ 0
+Good movie, very 70s, you can not expect much from a film like this,, Sirpa Lane is an actress of erotic films, a nice body but nothing exceptional savant to a pornographic actress from the body disappears, but the '70s were characterized a small breasts and a simple eroticism. Not demand a lot from these films are light years away from the movies today, the world has changed incredibly. The plot is simple and the actors not extraordinary. And the brunette actress has a single body, has one breast slightly bigger. Be satisfied. Papaya also is not great but at least these films have a certain charm ... Download them again but then again who knows what you pretend not to them.$LABEL$ 1
+One of the most unfairly maligned programmes of all time, 'Terry & June' was also one of the most popular sitcoms of the '70's and '80's.It started life as 'Happy Ever After', but when Eric Merriman decided he didn't want to write any more, it changed into this, hence the dropping of 'Aunt Lucy' and the Fletcher's becoming the Medford's. Yes, it was cosy, domestic, middle-class stuff; the plots ran the gamut of clichés from the boss coming to dinner, the vicar organising a jumble sale, and unwanted relatives coming to stay for the weekend. It was certainly not 'dreadful lazy comedy'. As for it being 'not clever', it was not meant to be. It was funny and well performed, and that was enough! I too loved the 'alternative' boom of the '80's ( 'Spitting Image', 'Black Adder', 'The Young Ones' etc. ) but also enjoyed conventional stuff such as this. If nothing else, it provided alternative comedy with something to be an alternative to. I found it sad though when the likes of Ben Elton took against both this and Benny Hill. Well, family oriented comedy has all but vanished from our screens, but where has it left us? Take a look at the latest T.V. schedules. All soaps and reality dross. The few comedies left are aimed at teenagers, meaning they are jam packed with swearing, bodily function jokes, and explicit sexual references. And they are not remotely funny either.The 'alternative comedy' boom was good in many ways, but had a dark side. It made conventional sitcoms appear old fashioned, drove away talented writers and performers such as Spike Milligan, and ultimately led to such unspeakable drivel as 'Little Britain' and 'Tittybangbang' ( heaven help us ). If it ain't broke, don't fix it!$LABEL$ 1
+Oh, well I thought it should be a good action, but it was not. Although Jeff Speakman stars there is nothing to watch.Only two fight for almost 1,5 hours, yak.A lot of talking and everything is so artificial that you could not believe it. The plot is clear from the beginning. If you want good action don't rent this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+This is what a movie should be when trying to capture the essence of that which is very surreal. It has this hazy overtone that is rarely captured on film, it feels like a dream sequence and really moves you into a dark haunting memory. The Kids were extremely believable and I do expect some things to come of them in the future. Very natural acting for such young ones, I don't know if Bill pulled it out of them or there just that good, but no the less excellent. Bill scored as far as I'm concerned and for the comment by KevNJeff about Mr. Paxtons bad acting, what can one do in that role. He played the part rather well in my opinion. This is coming from someone who said Hamlet was good (The Ethan Hawke Version?) Wow......... Do not listen to his Comments. Great flick to make you feel really uncomfortable, if that's what you want? Cinematography gets an above the average rating also.$LABEL$ 1
+Alistair Simms inspired portrayal of Miss Fritton transcends drag. It is one of the great comedy characters in film. Equally wonderful is Joyce Grenfell's character - Ruby Gates.This is a movie you should curl up on the sofa with on a wet Sunday's afternoon and be transported to a time long ago when terrifying, rampaging school girls only gained our respect - not our ire! I hear that a remake is in the offing with Rupert Everett as Miss Fritton? He will have a hard job competing with the master - or should that be mistress? - Alistair Simms.Go and rent it - it beats so much of what today goes for comedy.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a lovely tale of guilt-driven obsession.Matiss, on a lonely night stroll in Riga (?) passes by a woman on the wrong side of a bridge railing. He passes by without a word. Only the splash in the water followed by a cry for help causes him to act. And then only too little and too late.The film chronicles his efforts at finding out more about the woman. On a troll of local bars, he finds her pocketbook. He pieces more and more of her life together. His "look" changes as his obsession grows. He has to make things right. In a marvelously filmed dialog with the "bastard ex-boyfriend" he forces Alexej to face up to the guilt that both feel.Haunting long takes, a gritty soundtrack to accentuate the guilt, barking dogs. Footsteps. Lovely film noir with a lovely twist. A good Indie ending.$LABEL$ 1
+GREAT MOVIE! Chucky is by far the funniest character in a movie. Jennifer Tilly (Tiffany) makes this movie even better! Well before Chucky died Tiffany and him were together. But like ten years later Tiffany gets Chucky back (as a doll) and brings him back to life. It was a great movie!Scary and definetly funny (only because Chucky!)10/10$LABEL$ 1
+MISSISSIPPI MERMAID is a disturbing and unsettling examination of what it means to be in love with the "wrong" person.Truffaut's directing is his usual outstanding work. Although this is far from his best. Deneuve is very, very beautiful. Despite the character she portrays.$LABEL$ 1
+I must admit, out of the EROS MOVIE COLLECTION, this has to be the one that I love the most as well as one other that I have also reviewed. The story is something that really keeps you watching. A lot of the EROS films have a plot that looks like a hammer broke it in pieces before production when you watch it. All centering around sex, and who can get with how many different people come the end of the film. And oh dear god, never watch one of these films when someone pulls out a gun. It does not work that it is almost laughable, but you do not want to waste the energy to do so."Losing Control" is exactly as its name comes on. The protagonist, the leading character (the wonderfully talented and beautiful Kira Reed). The control is the control a person has over their senses, their body and feelings. And one man changes everything for her, makes her a different woman almost. But the mirror is shattered at the same time. This makes for a great film that I wish I had come up with first!!10/10$LABEL$ 1
+Despite, or perhaps in part because of the clever use of music to underscore the motivations and ideologies of each of the major characters, stereotypes are in, and verisimilitude and characterization are out in this not-too-subtle cinematic screed.One gets the sense that John Singleton was dabbling in post-structuralist literary theory because it was the flavor of the day, and "Higher Learning" was the tendentious result. The low point of the movie is the "peace" rally, in which the symbols of the 1960s "free love" movement are reappropriated for what much more closely resembles a "Take Back The Night" rally with live, stridently identity-conscious musical acts in tow. Perhaps in his prim revisionism the director was trying to assert that identity politics is the new Vietnam? Ooh, how Adrienne Rich of him—and Remy's firing into the crowd is a nice touch, if you're into Rich's sort of political posturing.I wish I could give this movie negative stars. I can recommend it only to those interested in the 1990s as history, a time when radical feminists brought the academic trinity of race, class, and gender to popular culture and declared man-hating "a viable and honorable POLITICAL option". Where's Camille Paglia when you need her?$LABEL$ 0
+This film is notable for three reasons.First, apparently capitalizing on the success of the two 'Superman' serials, this low budget feature was made and released to theaters, marking George Reeves' and Phyllis Coates' initial appearances as Clark Kent / Superman and Lois Lane. Part of the opening is re-used in the series. Outside the town of Silby, a six-mile deep oil well penetrates the 'hollow Earth' allowing the 'Mole-Men' to come to the surface. Forget about the other holes (those in the plot).Second, unlike most SF invasion films of the fifties, the hero plays a dominant (and controlling) force in preaching and enforcing tolerance and acceptance of difference against a raging mob of segregationist vigilantes. No 'mild mannered reporter' here! Clark Kent, knowledgeable and self-assertive, grabs control of the situation throughout ("I'll handle this!"), even assisting in a hospital gown in the removal of a bullet from a Mole-Man! As Superman, he is gentler than Clark towards the feisty Lois, but is also the voice of reason and tolerance as he rails against the vigilantes as "Nazi storm troopers." Third, you will notice that the transition from the Fleisher-like cartoon animated flying of Superman in the two serials to the 'live action' flying in the 'Adventures of Superman' had not yet been made.$LABEL$ 0
+This was just telecast here in the U.S. Others have commented on the faithfulness (or lack of same) to the novel; the 1983 BBC version is far superior on this and all other counts. Given the scope of the novel, it should not have been condensed to 85 minutes. Key sections have to be rushed or alluded to, or omitted; there barely enough time just to get in the chronology of events, so character development has to be sacrificed: we cannot get much of a sense of who the people are, which robs us of what makes Austen so great.One major negative for me was the cinematography, which I thought was just awful, and quite literally sickening. The camera is constantly doing ultra-closeups, and swirling around and around in circles. Maybe on a small TV box this is OK, but on our 40" hi-def screen it was so literally dizzying that both my wife and I had to look away from the set repeatedly (my Dramamine supply had run out). Of course, this did distract from the rather lackluster I'm-just-reading-what's-in-the-script acting (isolated scenes are nicely done, but not enough to save things).Adding up the score so far in the Complete J.A. Sweepstakes: I'd rate "Northanger Abbey" a success, because of superior direction and production values (and the story lends itself better to short treatment), "Persuasion" OK (though not the equal of other versions, with condensation again being at fault), both far ahead of this attempt. I will hope for better in the two remaining novels in this TV Reader's Digest Jane Austen; like others, I am thankful they left P & P alone!$LABEL$ 0
+** CONTAINS SPOILERS ** The truly exquisite Sean Young (who in some scenes, with her hair poofed up, looks something like Elizabeth Taylor) is striking in her opening moments in this film. Sitting in the back of a police car waiting to signal a bust, her face and body are tense and distracted. Unfortunately, once the bust is over Young's strained demeanor never changes. This is one fatally inhibited actress.One has only to compare Young to the performer playing her coworker and best friend, Arnetia Walker, to grasp what is missing in Young. Walker is open, emotional, and at ease at all times...in that there's no apparent barrier between what she may be feeling and her expression of it. She is an open book. Young, on the other hand, acts in the skittish, self-conscious way you might expect your neighbor to act were they suddenly thrown into starring in a film. Basically, she doesn't have a clue.With this major void looming at the center of the movie, we're left to ponder the implausiblities of the story. For instance, after Miss Young is kidnapped by the criminal she's trailing and locked in a closet, she breaks the door down when left alone. Granted, she's dressed only in a bra and panties, but in a similar situation, with a psycho captor due to return any moment, would you head for the door...or take the time to go through his dresser, take out some clothes and get dressed? I would guess that this and other scenes are trying to suggest some sort of mixed emotions Miss Young's character is experiencing, but Young can not convey this type of complexity.There are a few affecting moments in the film, such as the short police interviews with the criminal's past victims, but overall this is an aimless endeavor. It's too bad Miss Young was replaced while filming the pair of comic book style films that might have exploited her limitations with some humor (BATMAN and DICK TRACY), because her floundering while attempting to play actual people is oddly touching. Watching Miss Young try to act, at least in this "thriller", is a sad spectacle.$LABEL$ 0
+I very well remember the bad press this film got because of the producers' court order against Clayton Moore using the name "Lone Ranger" or donning his black mask at personal appearances. Quite apart from any consideration of the film's quality, this was the absolute height of nearsighted arrogance and stupidity on the part of the producers and their attorneys. And I suspect that the lesson was well-learned after this film tanked, which was widely perceived as some sort of karma for the jerks responsible for the court order against Moore.In more recent times it has become the custom, when reviving a legendary film or TV project, to invite the original star or stars for cameo appearances, and rightly so. Show some respect, you idiots! And even if they turn up their noses at the prospect, which has happened, at least the offer was made. This is proof positive that film producers, studio executives, and entertainment attorneys are not quite too stupid and arrogant to be taught by example.$LABEL$ 0
+This self-indulgent mess may have put the kibosh on Mr. Branagh's career as an adapter of Shakespeare for the cinema. (Released 4 years ago; not a peep of an adaptation since.) I just finished watching this on cable -- holy God, it's terrible.I agree with the sentiment of a reviewer below who said that reviewing something so obviously and sadly awful is an ungenerous act that comes across as shrill. That being said, I'll take the risk, if only because *Love's Labour's Lost* is the perfect reward for those who overrated Mr. Branagh's directorial abilities in the past. Branagh has always been a pretty lousy director: grindingly literal-minded; star-struck; unforgivably ungenerous to his fellow actors (he loves his American stars, but loves himself more, making damn sure that he gets all the good lines).Along those lines, the sad fact remains that *Love's Labour's Lost* is scarcely worse than the interminable, ghastly, bloated *Hamlet* from 1996. In fact, this film may be preferable, if only because it's about 1/3 the length. Branagh decided it would be a good idea to update this bad early work of Shakespeare's to the milieu of Cole Porter, George Gershwin, Fred Astaire, yada yada. So he sets the thing in 1939, leaves about an eighth of the text intact in favor of egregious interpretations of Thirties' standards (wait till you see the actors heaved up on wires toward the ceiling during "I'm In Heaven"), and casts actors not known for their dancing or singing (himself included). The result is a disaster so surreal that one is left dumbfounded that they just didn't call a horrified stop to the whole thing after looking at the first dailies. I don't even blame the cast. To paraphrase Hamlet, "The screenplay's the thing!" NO ONE could possibly come off well in this hodge-podge: the illustrious RSC alumni fare no better than Alicia Silverstone. Who could possibly act in this thing?Branagh's first mistake was in thinking that *Love's Labour's Lost* was a play worth filming. Trust me, it isn't. It's an anomaly in the Bard's canon, written expressly for an educated coterie of courtiers -- NOT the usual audience for which he wrote. Hence, there's a lot of precious (and TEDIOUS!) word-play, references to contemporary scholastic nonsense, parodies of Lyly's *Euphues* . . . in other words, hardly the sort of material to appeal to a broad audience. Hell, it doesn't appeal to an audience already predisposed to Shakespearean comedy. The play cannot be staged without drastically cutting the text and desperately "updating" it with any gimmick that comes to hand. Which begs the question, Why bother?Branagh's second mistake was in thinking that Shakespeare's cream-pie of a play could be served with a side-order of Gershwin's marmalade. Clearly the idea, or hope, was to make an unintelligible Elizabethan exercise palatable for modern audiences by administering nostalgic American pop culture down their throats at the same time. But again, this begs the question, Why bother?$LABEL$ 0
+After I couldn't ignore the hype about the show, I started watching season one and it struck me as really good and I was hooked.... for about 5 episodes, then it started to spiral downwards. Why? First, Ethan Suplee is scripted to act as a complete idiot confirming that very obviously by spewing out semi-random stuff in great expectations of it somehow becoming the next best joke.Jaime Pressly's got stunning looks, but if she thinks stretching lips to explore parts of the face to which they normally never go to and making strange grimaces to accentuate everything she says is hilarious, she's way off track. Maybe she thought her character would be too flat, faded and she wanted to make it colorful and spicy, but made a flood of colors, overkill of spices and screams out loud for attention and it hurts my eyes, ears and intellect.I really, really wanted to love this show, like I said, the premise is great, (comes from the same shelf as The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulain) and Jason Lee is doing a pretty good job here, along with some of the other actors but there is no way no how I would get 'sucked in' and forget that this is just a show, because Pressly's and Suplee's surreal, extreme characters abruptly wake me when they show up. It's worth to note that their characters and acting would be fine if this wasn't a 70 something-part series and if they didn't get that much screen time.$LABEL$ 0
+Blank check is one of those kids movies that could have been a great suspense thriller for the kids but instead it's a tired lame home alone ripoff that isn't worth a dime. Quigley is a criminal who just escaped from jail and gets his hidden million dollars from a big score and then we meet Preston a frustrated kid whose room is taken over by his brothers to start a business and obviously dad treats his brothers better because they make money the same day he goes to a kid's birthday party and since his dad is a cheapo he goes on little kids rides while the other kids go on roller coasters then he receives a birthday card and a check of 11 bucks how cheap is this family? So he goes to the bank to open an account and meets the gorgeous Shea Stanley were her parents mets fans? he finds out he needs 200 to open a account meanwhile quigley gives his million to his banker friend and finds out the bills are marked so he will send a lackey named juice to get the unmarked ones when Preston leaves his bike gets run over by quigley he's about to write a check when he spots the cops and bolts back home his parents scolded him about his busted up bike and gets grounded what? their kid got almost run over and they worried about a bike? So Preston forges a million dollar check via his computer and comes back only to be escorted to the banker thinking that he's juice he gives Preston the money but the real juice came and realized they been duped by a kid! So Preston buys a mansion under the name Macintosh gets a limo driver who says unfunny jokes and goes on a epic shopping spree then he spots Shea and talks about opening his account kid you're loaded and you're talking about opening an account? We soon realized Shea is actually an FBI agent tracking down quigley and his two other accomplice's then he told his cheapy dad he's got a job working for Mr Macintosh and spends the day riding go karts playng vr games and hanging out with his limo driver buddy then he goes out on a date with Shea in a fancy restaurant what a 10 year old wining and dining a 20 something FBI agent? Afterwards he takes her to a street geyser and playing around in the water messing up Shea's 300 dollar dress yet she takes it well if this was a bit realistic she would slap him for messing up her expensive dress so quigley and the others still mad interrogates a little kid and quickly spills the beans and Preston is being chased by quigley in a scene taken from the original script and afterwords he is hosting Mr Macintoshs birthday which is really his birthday when he discovers he couldn't pay for the party he sits in his chair and dad talks to MacIntosh which he doesn't know it's his son he's talking to and talks about Preston should be a real kid and has his whole childhood ahead of him and wants Preston to go home early what? an hour ago you were grilling him about his finances! so Preston asks everyone to leave and sits alone pondering when quigley and the others break in to the house to make Preston pay and so he faces then in a finale that rips off home alone quigley gets spun around in a ball while Preston is driving a go kart juice gets hit in the groin and more antics ensue until the trio get Preston cornered and when it seem all hope is lost Shea and a bunch of SWAT guys come to save the day and so quigley and his crew get sent to jail but is there any hope for Preston and Shea? there is and she kisses him in the lips what? what? what? A grown woman kissed a kid in the lips. come on is she mentally disabled? I mean an FBI agent who knows the country's laws would risk her career to kiss a kid? she could get arrested on the spot! and the most creepiest part of all is that isn't goodbye and she'll see him in 6 or 7 years! oh dear and so he comes home to his family celebrating his birthday so the moral of the story is love and respect can be bought? What are they smoking? The bottom line is that is a waste of time the morals are whacked it's flat as a tortilla the kid is annoying the villains are lame the comic relief isn't funny the brothers are unlikable the dad is even worse the romantic subplot is creepy the plot's shallow and the only saving grace is the cinematography from bill pope which went on to shoot the matrix trilogy and two of the spider-man films so people don't waste your money and go watch home alone instead. This has been a Samuel Franco review.$LABEL$ 0
+How can such good actors like Jean Rochefort and Carole Bouquet could have been involved in such a... a... well, such a thing ? I can't get it. It was awful, very baldy played (but some of the few leading roles), the jokes are dumb and absolutely not funny... I won't talk more about this movie, except for one little piece of advice : Do not go see it, it will be a waste of time and money.$LABEL$ 0
+In order to rate this movie fairly you have to think about the genre it's supposed to be: children's. They had more guidelines to follow in order to make this movie (meaning it could not get away with some of the humor and or language from the 1st) taking all that in this movie was fun and enjoyable to watch. Sequels usually make me nervous, however this one did pretty well for itself. Knowing that it didn't have the star power of Fraiser as George they capitalized on the humor and i believe Showeman did pretty well as the lead. The plot being easy to follow and maybe campy at times fits well for a younger audience, if you want to watch a movie and hope for academy award honors this is not it, but if you want to watch a simple, fun, energy filled movie you would make a good choice with this one.$LABEL$ 1
+I argued with myself whether to rent this or not. I'm always afraid of renting something I've never heard of (don't remember this being in theaters). Great cast...that's what tipped the scales. 30 minutes in, I almost stopped watching it. The first few minutes are fun to watch, but unbelievable. It only gets worse after that. The writers of this movie could do a little research on future projects if they want to make their movies even a little better. Or they could just try writing something just a little bit believable. I give it a 3....a 1 for the writing (only because there are words)and a 2 for being able to get so many good actors to agree to do this movie despite having to read the script. Oh my god this movie sucks.$LABEL$ 0
+I rented the dubbed-English version of Lensman, hoping that since it came from well-known novels it would have some substance. While there were hints of substance in the movie, it mostly didn't rise above the level of kiddie cartoon. Maybe the movie was a bad adaptation of the book, or it lost a lot in the dubbed version. Or maybe even the source novels were lightweight. But for whatever reason, there wasn't much there.I noticed lots of details that were derivative, sloppy, poorly dramatized, or otherwise deficient. Some examples: The opening scenes looked borrowed from the 2001 "star gate" scene and the Star Wars image of hyperspace. The robot on the harvester looked like an anthropomorphized "R2-D2".It starts out trying to borrow its comic relief style of Star Wars, but mercifully (since the humor doesn't work) gives up on comedy and plays it serious. In that sense, it's superior to the Star Wars franchise, which started with a clever sense of humor, and eventually deteriorated to Jar-Jar's annoying silliness.The agricultural details were apparently drawn by someone who had never seen a farm. The harvester was driving through the unharvested middle of a field, dumping silage onto unharvested crops, rather than working from one side to the other and dumping the silage onto already-harvested rows or into a truck. Corn (maize) was pouring out the grain chute, but the farm lands were drawn like a wheat field.When it was time for Kim's father had to face his fate, there wasn't any dramatic weight to the scene. That could have been partly the fault of the English-language voice actor, but the drawings didn't show much weight either. Kim's reactions in that scene were similarly unconvincing.Similarly, when a character named Henderson was killed, Chris showed very little reaction, even though they were apparently supposed to have been close. (Henderson's death is no spoiler; his name isn't revealed until his death scene.) She seems to promptly forget him. Someone's expression of sympathy shows more feeling than she does. I think the voice actor deserves most of the blame in that case; there's at least a hint of feeling in the drawings of Chris.On several occasions, villains fail to accomplish their orders. A villain leader often punishes those failures with miserable deaths. I can't say whether that's lifted from Star Wars, or if that comes from an earlier source -- possibly the Lensman books.There's a scene where a space ship crash-lands. As it plunges toward the ground, parts are break off the ship. But so many pieces are fall off that there should be nothing left of it by the time it lands.While in most cases Chris seems like a competent, tough space hero, there's a scene where she shrieks like an incompetent damsel in distress. Someone tough enough to get over Henderson's death so quickly should at least be able to shout, "help, it's got me and I can't reach my gun!" instead of just shrieking.The character with the most personality (almost too much at times) is D.J. Bill. He sounded like Wolfman Jack, the D.J. in American Graffiti. I wonder if he's as well-voiced in the original language.Two planets in the movie exploded. The explosions were unimpressive, and appeared to owe a lot of inspiration to Star Wars. To its credit, however, the cause of the explosion was completely unlike the Death Star's primary weapon. The dialog had a good, interesting explanation for the cause. Many other explosions in the movie did look good, just not the planetary explosions.Some of the sound effects are very cheesy, as if borrowed from a late 1970s video game. Some of the images look like primitive video games, and some influence from Tron is visible too. On the other hand, the sound effects are often pretty decent, although that emphasizes the cheesy-sounding parts. The art is good too, particularly when it stays away from the often cheesy-looking computer graphics.Finally, there's the story. If a movie tells a good story, it can get away with a lot of production shortcomings. But the plot here was pretty lightweight. A naïve boy tries to help someone on a crippled space ship, and acquires a great power he doesn't understand. He and his band of very virtuous companions struggle against a powerful, unredeemably evil enemy. He makes friends, learns about his special power, and grows into a young man. If he is persistent and virtuous enough, he might even defeat the evil enemy. Details along the way can make such a story rise above the simple outline, but there's very little more than that in this movie.In the end, it's just a kiddie cartoon. But then, since it looks like the primary intended audience is older children, maybe it doesn't need to be anything more than that.$LABEL$ 0
+Claire Denis has demonstrated repeatedly that film does not need to tell a story, that it is sufficient to create an experience that allows the viewer to take the ingredients and make of them what they will.Ostensibly the idea within the framework of a most non-linear film is the older man living on the French-Swiss border, a man devoted to his dogs, who still has a lover, but whose cardiac status increasingly threatens his life. He has a son with a little family who infrequently meet with him, but when he discovers he is in need of a heart transplant he opts for going to Tahiti via Japan to obtain a heart transplant on the black market and to rekindle a long lost relationship with a son he had form a Tahitian women years ago.What Denis does with this outline of a story is use her camera to explore the loneliness of the soul, the vastness of nature, man's interaction with people vs animals, etc. Much of the time the 'film' doesn't make sense, but that is because we try too hard to connect all the dots laid out before us in beautiful pictures. Life is sort of like that: we look, see, observe, integrate, process, and make of it what we will.In using this form of film making (much as she did in the strangely beautiful 'Beau Travail') Claire Denis has developed a signature technique. Whether or not the viewer finds the finished product rewarding has much to do with our individual methods of processing visual and conceptual information. This is an interesting and visually captivating film, but many viewers will find it an overly long discourse about very little. Perhaps watching again will change that. Grady Harp$LABEL$ 1
+It is finally coming out. The first season will be available March 2007. It is currently airing on ABC Family from 4-5 pm eastern time Monday through Friday. The last episode will air on December 19th at 4:30. I missed it the first 100 times around. I wish I could buy the whole series right now. Who does she pick? I have to write 10 lines in order to reply to the first comment. What am I going to say. La da da de de. La da da de de nope only up to 8 how do I get to 9 almost almost awww 9 now I need 10 - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, I missed counted this is only number 8. Punky Brewster is pretty awesome too. Almost to 10 almost awwwwww.$LABEL$ 1
+This satire is just really, really dead-on, and nobody is spared. But even though this movie has plenty of laughs within the silly story and the grotesque imitation of Hitler (here cleverly renamed as "Hynkel", and speaking in a hilarious kind of pseudo-German), the general tone is pretty sad, maybe because of the movie's place in history. And the actors aren't even exaggerating that much I suppose. One of the greatest movie moments of all time must be the Jewish barber's ending speech, if only things could have ended in that way. It's not even really the character talking anymore, it's Chaplin saying something he really wanted to say. If you ignore the technical aspects, the movie doesn't feel dated or old, it actually moves at a pretty nice pace. And the sharp humor we find everywhere in this work will never die, the only thing I don't care for is the slapstick, but that just comes with the era I suppose. This is an incredibly daring, harsh take on fascism, it's so hard-hitting still after all these years.$LABEL$ 1
+There are plenty of reviews on this page that will explain this movie's details far more eloquently than I could; but I would like to offer a simple review for those who occasionally go to the movies for more than entertainment. Raising Victor Vargas is so true you will believe it. This flick gets inside your head.$LABEL$ 1
+Quite what the producers of this appalling adaptation were trying to do is impossible to fathom.A group of top quality actors, in the main well cast (with a couple of notable exceptions), who give pretty good performances. Penelope Keith is perfect as Aunt Louise and equally good is Joanna Lumley as Diana. All do well with the scripts they were given.So much for the good. The average would include the sets. Nancherrow is nothing like the house described in the book, although bizarrely the house they use for the Dower House looks remarkably like it. It is clear then that the Dower House is far too big. In the later parts, the writers decided to bring the entire story back to the UK, presumably to save money, although with a little imagination I have no doubt they could have recreated Ceylon.Now to the bad. The screenplay. This is such an appallingly bad adaptation is hard to find words to condemn it. Edward does not die in the battle of Britain but survives, blinded. He makes a brief appearance then commits suicide - why?? Loveday has changed from the young woman totally in love with Gus to a sensible farmer's wife who can give up the love her life with barely a tear (less emotional than Brief Encounter). Gus, a man besotted and passionately in love, is prepared to give up his love without complaint. Walter (Mudge in the book) turns from a shallow unfaithful husband to a devoted family man. Jess is made into a psychologically disturbed young woman who won't speak. Aunt Biddy still has a drink problem but now without any justification. The Dower House is occupied by the army for no obvious reason other than a very short scene with Jess who has a fear of armed soldiers. Whilst Miss Mortimer's breasts are utterly delightful, I could not see how their display on several occasions moved the plot forward. The delightfully named Nettlebed becomes the mundane Dobson. The word limit prevents me from continuing the list.There is a sequel (which I lost all interest in watching after this nonsense) and I wonder if the changes were made to create the follow on story. It is difficult to image that Rosamunde Pilcher would have approved this grotesque perversion of her book; presumably she lost her control when the rights were purchased.$LABEL$ 0
+The mission to see the movie "The Cave" was a dream of a friend of mine after witnessing the highly dramatic trailer, full of flashes of a creature lurking in a cave, some young cave divers, and not much else. It's too bad that the movie didn't change much more than the trailer did.The immediate allure of a movie like this is the creature. What's he going to look like? Why does he live in a cave? How is this one supposed to be different from the other creatures we've been shown in movies like Alien and Predator and the Relic? The cave "demons" do not look far from the skeletal creature in Alien: Resurrection and even has the sight of Predator. Shame that's a total ripoff...Well, let's look at the plot: very confusing and jumps to more and more totally improbable twists as a team of cave divers is sent to find a cave and its dwellers in the Carpathian Mountains. The casting was very much clear that we want young, hip, tough chicks, chiseled guys, and the girls who have brains also have to be hot. We also have to have one of every racial background in case the audience thinks that the film-makers are biased to a certain viewpoint. Totally been done, and I'm totally tired of it.The other main problem was the ending, as if to say there might be a sequel. Plase shoot me if there is one. The tagged on ending made me wretch.I gave this movie 3/10 stars. The points that it did get were more or less appreciation points towards the creature-builders for their high-quality job spent on the costuming and design for the monsters who dwell within, even when they looked totally ripped off. And there's an interesting (yet labored) documentary on the DVD on underwater cave diving. Go check it out only if you love new creations of monsters and creatures, but be warned that you've probably seen this movie before, and it was better the first time.$LABEL$ 0
+Two sisters, their perverted brother, and their cousin have car trouble. They then happen about the home of Dr. Hackenstein whom conveniently needs the body parts of three nubile young women to use in an experiment to bring his deceased lover back to life. He tells them that he'll help them get home in the morning, so they spend the night. Then the good doctor gets down to work in this low-budget horror-comedy.I found this to be mildly amusing, nothing at all to actually go out of your way for (I stumbled across it on Netflix instant view & streamed it to the xbox 360), but better then I expected it to be for a Troma acquired film. Most of the humor doesn't work, but their are still some parts that caused me to smile. Plus the late, great Anne Ramsey has a small part and she was always a treat to watch.Eye Candy: Bambi Darro & Sylvia Lee Baker got topless My Grade: D+$LABEL$ 0
+I loved this movie! Yes, it is rather cheap and I'm sure plenty of reviews will be snooty about that. But my goodness what a lot they pack in for the cash involved. I was reminded of the early work of Sam Raimi. Yes it is rough, but has good energy and plenty of fun. The acting ranges from the very good in Scott Ironside and Shawn Paul Hasser, to the not so good in some of the lesser parts. Is it a cult movie? Well it grew on me. First time I liked it but by the 3rd viewing I was loving it. The movie is probably a 7 out of 10 but I'm giving it 8 for sheer cheek. Anyone who can pull this off for 8 grand is worth watching. Almost makes me want to visit Scotland!$LABEL$ 1
+This game is one of the best horror/shooter games I've ever played. The plot is a little choppy, but the game never fails to send you plenty of chills and excitement. Many people shelved the game when they found that there are no cheat codes for it and very little health potions and ammo to be found. But actually, after you've gone through the game once, you are more familiar with the monsters and different rooms, so you can easily get by the second time around. The puzzles are great, not too hard, not too easy. There are tons of different monsters so you never get bored. And there are plenty of gaming areas. You really feel like you're in a good Stephen King novel as you play. It's nice and creepy. Pick this game up cheap and have some fun.$LABEL$ 1
+Good story and excellent animation. The influence of Frazetta and Bakshi are obvious, and that's a good thing. Anyone that enjoys Conan the Barbarian or the game Dungeons and Dragons should enjoy it. The battle between good and evil is clear cut even though it may appear that at times our hero is neutral. Most often in fantasy movies Elves are usually portrayed as having white skin and blond hair and goblins and orcs have dark skin and hair. Anyone familiar with Frazetta's, Bakshi's, or even Tolkien's work know they are not racist. Anyone that enjoys Fantasy movies should like this movie. It is not for young children due to violence and sexual innuendo. The casting was well done and the scenes and music are first rate. I hope someone puts this gem on DVD soon. I consider myself lucky to have a VHS copy in good condition.$LABEL$ 1
+I found this movie really hard to sit through, my attention kept wandering off the tv. As far as romantic movies go..this one is the worst I've seen. Don't bother with it.$LABEL$ 0
+Coach Preachy or Straight Sappy. It's bad writing combined w/even worse acting. You can choose to drink the Gatorade of this after school special, but I didn't, not even on it's 20th Toby Robbins/Islander philosophy, motivational moment. It's too much posturing to be entertaining and not substantive enough to be informative. I have respect for the coach and the program this movie is inspired by, but the move itself is awful. As someone who has played rugby for nearly 20 years in the States I had hoped for a better rugby movie (even one that has something loosely to do with rugby). And I can tell you that the Haka performed by a bunch of Haoles and Islanders is not intimidating (much like when it's performed today by the All Blacks, seriously boys, everyone has seen it,it's time to put it away). If you want real intimidation, line up across from a bunch of South Africans (the real eye gouging convicts of rugby). This is a fake and badly done movie about being a genuine and good person.$LABEL$ 0
+I go to a lot of movies, often I bring my 5 year old son, I am so glad I did not bring him to this one. There are many references to sex and a skinny dipping scene, however, that is not the primary reason I would not take him to it. The trailers lead you to believe it is a light-hearted comedy; nevertheless, virtually all of the funny moments are in the previews. I kept waiting for it to get interesting, funny, or anything but serious; however, I nearly fell asleep as the plot-less story dragged on. I understand that dogs can be great company, that being said, the entire story focused on a poorly behaving dog that the owners were not savvy enough to train. If a human caused this much damage and mayhem that person would be banned. The worst movie I've ever seen with Jenifer Aniston or Owen Wilson, a waste of their talent. The best way to sum up this movie is, couple gets unruly dog, couple falls in love with dog, dog dies, couple sad. The End.$LABEL$ 0
+I've been writing hardboiled crime fiction for a number of years now. When a writer develops a story he always has a character/actor in mind to bring the story to life. Last weekend I found a new one in Paul Vario playing uncle Benny in Eddie Monroe. This was a slick film highlighted by Vario's presence both on and off the screen (as his voice-over narration is also heard). I also especially liked the actress playing Benny's niece and Eddie's ex-wife, although everyone did a fine job in this exciting movie about playing with bad guys and the double-crossing that goes with it. A nice job all around ... and Mr. Vario shined brightest. He's gotta be my Tony Gangi someday ...$LABEL$ 1
+I regard this loving, and sensitively written story, to be one of the screen's true masterpieces. After having seen this film, originally on the silver screen with my mother, in Los Angeles, California when it first came out, many years passed before I would have the opportunity to experience it again. The beauty, quiet simplistic elegance and tranquility of the film to me, set it aside from many, many others of its kind. Yes, tears still come to my eyes when I see it, and hear the refrain of that once in a lifetime song. perhaps still, today my number one all-time most beloved film. I would hope, this classic love story will be enjoyed, and appreciated, by our future generations.$LABEL$ 1
+Dennis Hopper is without a doubt one of the finest underrated American actors of our time, and it was interesting to see how he would play out his role as a cop on the case of a child serial killer. Most movies Hopper has always played to psychotic menace threatening to blow up stuff or go on a killing spree, but in this movie, Hopper tried his best to keep that intensity and emotion while carrying a shield. Once I got into the plot of the movie, I was hooked, but it's just the little things that ultimately murdered the film.The concept of the film is great - not only are the cops on the move of catching the killer, but we get a chance to see how the gangsters operate in catching the killer. The subplot of the football stadium is kinda ridiculous, but necessary to involve the gangsters in the killer hunt.That's about all that is good you can say about the film. Although Hopper did try to act like a tough, experienced street smart cop, I can't help but feel his acting was below par, and there wasn't enough conviction that he was truly attached to the case. The directing was also terrible - it didn't have the feel of a true film, but rather a TV-movie production. This is most evident when the gangsters meet for the first time to form an elite team to hunt the killer down. When the leading gangster shoots the other mouthy gangster in slow motion, the acting was weak, predictable and terribly unexciting. That's when I knew that 1st of all, the action is going to be atrocious.The angling of the camera was amateurish, and the recalling scenes or haunting images of the killer's little sister had no true distinctive effect. If it was supposed to be scary, it wasn't. Everyone's acting was terrible, and even for Hopper, I didn't feel for his character, and I just didn't really care too much about his relationship with his daughter.The final thing that bothered me the most is the swat team. Once I saw the swat team in action, I was thinking, finally, something good. But I was wrong. 1st of all, the entire swat team consisted of 4 guys. That is just impossible. 2nd of all, apparently the swat team has no training whatsoever because many times in the film they carry their HKA4 submachine guns with one hand. Had the killer been hiding near the staircase with a shotgun, these 4 idiots would've been blown to bits because they weren't even aiming at anything or paying close attention. They should have had both hands on the gun aiming forward, but it just looks like they're not taking the job seriously and are just flaunting around. 3rd, SWAT team members do not yell out commands such as "Keep your eyes open, watch out for yourselves, are we good to go...etc." In reality, they use hand signals or have radios. But they're literally yelling at each other - how are you supposed to catch the killer when he can hear you're coming??? And to top it all off, these guys have no plan - apparently they're just running up and down going on a wild turkey chase. Eventually they end up doing nothing. That was the last straw. I'm no expert on special forces, but basically what I've just outlined, is pretty common sense. When the audience knows the movie is terrible, the action pretty much becomes the life-saver of the movie - when you can't even make an effort to make the action great, the movie is lost.I give 2 stars for the concept, but the rest cannot be credited. If you want to watch a crime thriller, don't bother with this one. There's plenty of crime in the movie - but it has the lack of thrill.$LABEL$ 0
+I found this movie to be a simple yet wonderful comedy. This movie is purely entertaining. I can watch it time and time again and still enjoy the dialog and chemistry between the characters. I truly hope for a DVD release!$LABEL$ 1
+We went to the cinema expecting a biggish budget release and got an art-house movie. The movie was projected digitally onto about two thirds of the screen real estate with sloping edges classic of digital projection, and had a limited stereo soundtrack which was wasted on the cinema experience.The content of the film was the same old historical content we have all seen before, but heavily sanitized to prevent the audience being sick. Live action scenes what little of them there were, were re-used constantly in classic documentary style, which became annoying after a while.I was somewhat amazed that only 4 people turned up to watch it, guess the rest knew something we didn't.I suspect the producers made the film to recognize the ninetieth anniversary of Gallipoli. I have to question whether they should have bothered.Seven out of Ten for trying, and out of respect for the ANZAC's.$LABEL$ 1
+During a lifetime of seeing and enjoying thousands of films, Feeling Minnesota is absolutely the worst (**major film with A-list stars) that I have ever seen. Bar none. This movie totally fails on every level. It's poorly photographed and edited. There's uninspired acting, the kind where the actors appear bored out of their minds. Just collecting paychecks, perhaps? And worst of all, the sludgy script appears to have been written under the influence of some unpleasant substance found only in sewers. I can't even begin to comprehend how the writer/director could ever have found anyone to finance this project, let alone attract any of the stars that it did. I truly wish I could get back the time that I wasted watching this piece of garbage. If possible, I would have given this film a grade of zero. Better yet, a negative number.$LABEL$ 0
+My guess is that the producers of this low-budget space/horror film wanted a serious movie but the director had his heart set on a parody. So...this is what we get. Set in an abandoned spaceship 1000 years in the future and peopled with characters and props right out of the 90's. The set is some industrial complex, maybe an oil tanker, whatever. They use is AS IS so the controls consist racks of old TV equipment. One location is obviously the employees lunchroom and sports an old TV and VCR as well as a water cooler with plastic demijohn. Tiny Lister and Coolio get the best lines, arguing throughout the story. The dialog is packed with terms that are pretty dated even now ("A-OK, Daddy-O") but then maybe the 30th century is very retro? When the captain declares the ships cargo is a load of coffins from "The Transylvania Station" you know this is all a put-on. Its a bit of Alien, part JasonX, shameless rip-off of all the best sci-fi and horror titles. At one point Casper VanDien even tells his pilot to "make it so" with a straight face. This film would have been better if they had just let everyone run with the satire but they keep attempting to make the story serious....maybe the backers were on the set that day. Anyway, not a bad boredom killer if you aren't too picky. FX are as good as the sets are bad.$LABEL$ 0
+First off to get my own personal feelings out of the way let me start by saying that I hate so called comedies where every single character is written and played as being so stupid that you wounder if they're all the result of inbreeding.Now I will say this I did see the first three American Pie movies and while they weren't the most amazing movies that I'd ever seen they were all right (and outright masterpieces compared to the three "American Pie Presents" films), I still feel compelled to ask what the hell were they thinking when they made this movie?I also have a few other questions too.Who thought that this was an acceptable use of studio funds and production resources? who approved the final script (and what was that person smoking when they approved it)? And lastly why did anyone think that it deserved to be released into theaters where the average cost of admission is between 10 and 15 dollars depending on where you live when it should have gone straight to the discount bin at Blockbuster or Wal Mart?There is so much wrong with this movie that I can't write a really comprehensive review of it because it would exceed the maximum allowed words on this forum so I'll just touch on the biggest things wrong with it.The plot is generic uninspired and stupid and characters are all about as interesting as watching paint dry for eighty minutes but the biggest thing that I can see wrong with this movie is the acting.While most of the cast are talentless no namers who will probably be forgotten in a few years,the one and only big name in this movie is Eugene Levy who spends almost all of the time he is on screen with this knowing smirk on his face that says to the viewer "I know this isn't funny and I'm wasting my talents but hey I'm getting payed for it so who cares" he doesn't even try to make any of his jokes funny (he really deserves better than this garbage). As I mentioned above most of the rest of the cast are horrible even though some of them have been in some really great TV shows, Tyrone Savage (from the classic Canadian series Wind At My Back) plays a character who is so unbearable unlikeable and irritating (there are things that he could teach to tropical skin diseases)that you almost wish he'd die a slow and painful death on screen, Christopher McDonald (NCIS, Law & Order) just hangs around on screen and wastes what talent he does have by being in this film.Maybe the next film in this series will just be a soft core porn with a story line so they can get around the MPAA and get an R rating this movie goes all out with pointless nudity vulgarity and pointlessly offencive sexual content that it should have gotten the X rating (the ratings board must have been drunk or on drugs when they reviewed this film for its rating). It's interesting that twenty five years ago when Wes Craven submitted A Nightmare On Elm Street to the MPAA for a rating review they forced him to cut twenty five seconds of footage (I believe that it was part of a death scene that had a silicone casting of a breast in it) to avoid getting an X rating and he had no other choice but to do it or the film wouldn't have been released, but this kind of needlessly offensive trash can get the R rating today because it's all done in the name of comedy, if this movie was a drama or horror film with this kind of content there would have been a huge stink over the content and it would havegotten the dreaded X rating.The last thing that really annoys me is the writing, this movie is written to play out like the wet dream of some twelve year old kid with an extremely overactive sexual imagination its quite juvenile and extraordinarily crass, nearly every expository situation that is supposed to move the corpse that this movie calls a plot along is so telegraphed that any intelligent viewer can see it coming a mile away and and the so called characters are just stereotypes of stereotypes of stereotypes, never mind the often repulsive sexual references and constant unnecessary scenes of deviant sexual behavior it feels like this film was written by some incompetent first year hack in a low rent film school script writing class.the long and short of it is its time to kill this series before it gets any stupider more crass and offensive, this pie is filled with road apples.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie, supposedly a thriller, had about five sub-plots that developed simultaneously to climax at the end, but it ended up more as a yawn.The writing was trite, the pace was slow and disjointed and the characters were boring. George Clooney looks like he needs to get into a gym, Matt Damon hammed it up and the others seemed to read their lines from a teleprompter.The worst part of this movie was that it was carefully crafted to be politically correct and so it ended up saying nothing at all about big business, oil and the Middle-East. I have seen documentaries provide more excitement. Watch it only if there's absolutely nothing else to do.$LABEL$ 0
+After putting a mummy in a local museum goes through the cat-scan, a metal object in it's brain reacts adversely to the procedure, thus freeing the spirit,or phantom if you will, of the mummy, Belphegor. Due to convenient circumstances, Lisa, who lives close to the museum finds herself possessed by the evil spirit. Soon enough she's stealing the museum's Egyptian treasures out from under their nose. Detective Verlac comes out of retirement to catch the supernatural thief.This is a serviceable enough, if you haven't seen any other incarnations of "Belphégor" before. If you have, I recommend skipping this particular version as it can't help but pale in comparison to the others despite the nice locals and scenery.It plays out like a (slightly) higher budgeted Sci-Fi Original film, and I don't really mean that as a compliment.Eye Candy: Sophie Marceau shows ass & side boob My Grade: C- DVD Extras: none$LABEL$ 0
+Rented and watched this short (< 90 minutes) work. It's by far the best treatment Modesty has received on film -- and her creator, Peter O'Donnell, agrees, participating as a "Creative Consultant." The character, and we who love her, are handled with respect. Spiegel's direction is the best he's done to date, and the casting was very well done. Alexandra Staden is almost physically perfect as a match to the original Jim Holdaway illustrations of Modesty. A terrific find by whoever cast her! Raymond Cruz as a young Rafael Garcia was also excellent. I hope that Tarantino & co. will go on to make more in the series -- I'm especially interested to see whom they'd choose to be the incomparable Willie Garvin!$LABEL$ 1
+Bill and Ted's bogus journey is possible the most excellent film I have ever watched. Though the acting and scenery etc is poor, who cares. The story line is brilliant and the jokes and words they come up with are most excellent, the ideas are great as well. I recommend anyone to see this classic. The best part is obviously when they 'melvin' death, i was cracking up for 10 minutes and missed the next part of the film. This is so much better then the first one, which was great as well. Possibly the funniest movie of all time!!!!! I think the best parts of the film however, are when Bill and Ted shout excellent and play the guitar solo, it was hilarious. Rock on Bill, Ted and Eddie Van Halen, bring out a 3rd film!!$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is the best movie I have seen in a long time. It is also the best movie seen that uses a drama to tell history, without going to speculation such as with JFK,Nixon or Hoffa. It deftly depicts the clutches that Belgium had on the Congo. It also teases out easily for us the European and American forces that were behind the power the inflict the Congo today. The film was sure to specifically implicate the U.S., rightly so, in the murder of Lumumba. This film could never be made in the U.S. for U.S. film rarely criticizes itself in acts of imperialism and murder. (Save Stone's JFK) It also lets us in on the problems that were present with the inner conflict of the Congo, between Lumumba, Mobutu and Katanga. We can see how precarious countries sit in establishing new governments when their history is one of colonization and those who were the colonizers continue to pull the strings of power and force. The film is excellently shot with Eriq Ebouaney an excellent Lumumba. The cast is great and they really draw you into the feeling of the climate in the Congo during that time.Again, this is a must see for those who love drama with a correct historical background. See my notes on Quilombo.$LABEL$ 1
+The above profile was written by me when I used the nick of OldWereWolf56 which is still my email address. I still believe Andy Devine's character of Frisky is the best Twilight Zone's episodes ever and I watch this episode at least once a year as I consider Frisby to be a fortunate man as he has many friends who love him dearly. In case many of you are too young to remember, I'm 61, Andy Devine hosted a children's entertainment show in the 50's I believe called Andy's Gang. On it he had three assistants: a cat named Midnight who played the violin, a mouse named Squeaky who played an a hand organ and a devilish toad named Froggy who's could appear and disappear at will embarrassing many of Andy's funny guest stars like Billy Gilbert.$LABEL$ 1
+I managed to record THE DION BROTHERS, off broadcast TV, (with the commercials), back in the early 80s. I've loaned it to many friends, all of whom agree it's one of the best B "bandit" movies ever made. One day, while walking to my NYC apartment, I saw Stacy Keach shooting a scene for his TV series, Mickey Spilane. We had a moment to chat, and I told him how much I enjoyed THE DION BROS, and considered it a pure classic. He thanked me, and said it was one of the best, and most memorable film experiences of his career. He was very friendly, and sincere, and I was grateful for the few moments he took to chat with a fan. This is one classic that needs to be on DVD.$LABEL$ 1
+The Polish brothers are unique film artists, and they've really pushed the envelope here. A fantasy that has points in common with "Wings of Desire," "Northfork" tells the story of a '50s era small town in the middle of nowhere that is two days shy of being inundated and submerged thanks to the U.S. government's desire to make a reservoir on the place where the town stands. It's a wry parable about loss and remembrance, featuring angels, dreams, premonitions, and the most hilarious government reclamation functionaries since "Repo Man." The performances are all outstanding, especially Nolte and Woods. I've noticed in reading down some of the comments that there are people who were offended simply by the fact that the Polish twins use elliptical storytelling tactics, and I want to say, that's one of the things that makes this film so great: its willingness to embrace the mysterious as an aspect of everyday life. David Mullen's cinematography is stunning. Highly recommended; if you've suffered a meaningful personal loss, such as the death of a parent, I would even call this film necessary viewing. - Ray$LABEL$ 1
+Recap: Since the warrior queen Gedren raised and slaughtered most of Sonja's family, she has trained in the art of sword fighting. Now, Gedren has taken a very powerful talisman, that threatens to destroy the world if not destroyed, killing Sonja's sister in the process. Now Sonja is out for revenge, and to save the world. Along the way, she meets the very Conan-like (but not Conan, no!) Kalidor, the child-prince Tarn and his bodyguard Falcon. At first Sonja declines all help, but is later forced to accept it, and together they go to save the world.Comments: When you watch a movie like this, and you think that it is the story that the is the best element in this movie, the movie is in big trouble. Because 1) a movie like this should draw its strength upon good swordfights and effects, and 2) the story is really, really bad. It is simple, and uncomplicated and really offers nothing in way of character development or even suspense. It is predictable and boring, and the obvious couple, Sonja and Kalidor, has no chemistry at all. And the kid is just annoying. And most of the scenes is drawn out so long that they become boring. Though the movie is not very long, it has not material enough to fill its time. And so back to point 1). The fighting is slow, uneventful and really bad. It clearly shows most fighters clearly blocking the opponents strokes far ahead of the opponent has even begun to strike. In my honest opinion, I believe most kids, fighting with sticks, creates more exciting fights playing knights than this movie did. All in all, this is a really bad spin-off, that should be avoided by all who liked the Conan-movies.2/10$LABEL$ 0
+Tom and Butch Cat fight over the capture of Jerry Mouse because the one who doesn't catch Jerry gets kicked out. The two cats dress in their master's clothing to disguise themselves and lets the other have it! Confused, Tom and Butch whack their master's rear and all three of them get kicked out.$LABEL$ 1
+you can be fooled by your first impressions. as in, initial reactions to a movie, for example. as in, the first time i saw this movie i was bedazzled by the idea of it (first of all, i love black comedies). could even - despite being male, myself - empathise with the feisty girls' fervor to see their husbands deceased without delay. was tripped up by my own face-value (and, i do mean "face-value") response to nicolette sheridan and a couple of the other delicious dames in the picture. it just goes to show you that you've gotta step back from a situation sometimes and see that it's bad (and not "bad good," either): the reason i'm giving this movie a "4" rating is because of ms sheridan and her gams (the rest of 'er is pretty good, too); but this movie has all the hallmark TV movie characteristics - which means you'll be disappointed if your a lover of movies made for the big screen. the story contains plot holes you could run a tunnel through - and i'll generally overlook holes in a plot if the overall thing does it for me; and i just experienced an incredible letdown the second time i saw it. i don't think it's a total waste of time, but....$LABEL$ 0
+The sun should set on this movie, forever.It goes on forever (which isn't usually a bad thing - The English Patient, Schindler's List) but is SO tedious. The aging of the actors is unbelievable and so is the drawn-out never-ending story line which really seems to go nowhere.In short, a waste of talent and film.$LABEL$ 0
+Every once in a while , someone out of the blue looks at me a little sideways and asks "What's with SNITCH'D" ? I know immediately they have a case of barely-hidden amusement + horror. You see, I was the cinematographer on the film.Let me clarify some points regarding this "interesting life experience".Originally, SNITCH'D was called ONE HARD HIT. I met James Cahill in July of 1999, a day after I wrapped TRIANGLE SQUARE, a great little 35mm feature that like so many indie features of the era never got distribution despite festival accolades...it fell eternal victim to the fine print of SAG's notorious Experimental Feature contract. But I digress...I though I was on a roll, and when James asked me to shoot his little gangster flick in 16mm with a shooting budget of about $25,000, not wanting to break pace, I took it. After all, CLERKS, EL MARIACHI... I too believed the myth back then.Let's just chalk it up as "film school" for many involved, myself included. SNITCH'D was shot over two weeks in August, 1999, in Aliso Viejo and Santa Ana, CA. Cahill taught Drama at a High School in the latter city ( yes, he is a Drama and English teacher...consider THAT while watching the film, or even observing the use of apostrophe in title ), hence the locations and cast.Of note in his cast were the only known dramatic appearance of L.A.'s Channel 2 Morning News weather girl Vera Jimenez, and of greater impact, the debut of Eva Longoria, who had just arrived in Hollywood and was as eager as I to get a film under her belt. I must say her professional dedication, focus and "let's do this" attitude kept me inspired and was a foreshadow of her stardom-yet-to-come. SNITCH'D suffered from poor optics, few lights or electricity, several boom operators du jour, and delivery of an uncorrected offline for duplication. None of that overshadows the actual content, which speaks for itself.Anyway, by 2003, the film was sold to distributors ( at a net loss, I understand ) who inexplicably had no photos of Eva on the box ( by then she was a rising, working name ) but who did manage to obtain a clear photo of what appears to be an authentic Latino gangster to lend credibility to SNITCH'D. Since Cahill's other passion is antiquarian book dealing, it appears to confirm he believes you can, in fact, judge a book by it's cover... as so many have picked up this DVD based on it's sleeve. ----------------- One year later, Eva, now on a soap, and I met James for one day to shoot a simple short film he had concocted, SPLIT SECOND, which I think has never seen any play despite festival intent. 6 years later, I was hired to shoot another Cahill film titled JUAREZ, Mexico. I though he had worked out the process; my participation was contingent on casting, script and crew control, and the resultant film actually looked promising in dailies, for what it was... a cheap detective story surrounding the mass murders of girls in Juarez; despite claims here and elsewhere, the film has NEVER appeared in any festival or venue, although Cahill has repeatedly claimed the film has distribution and was simply awaiting release to coincide with the DVD release of two studio pictures on the same subject, VIRGIN OF JUAREZ and BORDER TOWN.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm sorry, but this movie is just way to shallow for me. In it, Perez is a taxi dancer with boyfriend Keitel trying to make it as an actress. First of all, what the hell is a taxi dancer? Even after sitting through this, I still don't know. Oh yeah, Perez also inspires DeLorenzo to follow her like a lovesick puppy. There's no reason behind the love, it just kind of happens. There are times when the characters and events really try to pull at your heartstrings, but it rarely works. The only character you really do feel anything for or with is Keitel's character, and that's only because he does such a good job with it. Any other actor and the character would have been just like the others.The script is basically an uninspired rehashing about how hard it is to make it as an actor/actress. It's been done and said before, the language and dialog sounds like it was written by a street pimp. The ending is...well, I don't want to spoil it. Let's just say it feels unsatisfying. I'd be more upset if the story was any good to begin with. The directing is average with nothing truly wonderful, but nothing that is really painful to watch either. To reiterate the acting, the only one that does anything worth watching is Keitel. Though I could have lived on without seeing him in tiger print bikini underwear.Oh yeah, Eddie Bunker shows up. As random as that mention is, that's how random it is in the film. And Tarantino does his director buddy a favor by showing up for about 20 seconds.$LABEL$ 0
+I have noticed that people have asked if anyone has this show. I have all 26 episodes that aired in the U.S. and will be willing to share these with anyone interested. All I require is that you supply the VHS tapes or Blank DVD's I have them on both formats and pay for shipping. My email is creator67@pipinternet.net, just send me an email and your request and I will notify you and we can make the arrangements. The quality is very good and they are very enjoyable to watch especially if you have not been able to see them since they aired in the 60's. It was one of my favorite shows as a child and hold a very special place in my heart because it brings back a lot of memories of my childhood as well as other shows like Ultraman and Astroboy.Peter$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this movie, and I do like horror movies.I did not know what to expect, but as soon the movie was on his way it was nice to watch it. The idea was pretty original and the acting was nice. Especially Jenna Dewan as the exciting/evil Tamara.The hardest thing about horror movies, is to make a good ending. But there the movie failed. For a change, a end-scene in a hospital, where suddenly all employees are gone. First you see doctors and nurses running around, but then they all went home?No cries for help while being chased by Tamara, Escaping to the roof (also a smart move...not) and off course a kind of open ending.No....the movie started great, the main part was nice to watch, but they really messed up the ending using all clichés from bad horror movies. Jeffrey Reddick failed in my eyes with this movie, after making some really quality movies like Final Destination 1 and 2.If you like a good horror full of cliché endings, Tamara is a good movie to watch. For me, I like movies which surprise me.$LABEL$ 0
+I very nearly walked out, but I'd paid my money, and my nearly-as-disgusted friend wanted to hold out. After the endearing, wide-eyed innocence of "A New Hope" and the thrilling sophistication of "The Empire Strikes Back," I remember awaiting "Return of the Jedi" with almost aching anticipation. But from the opening scene of this insultingly commercial sewage, I was bitterly disappointed, and enraged at Lucas. He should have been ashamed of himself, but this abomination undeniably proves that he doesn't have subatomic particle of shame in his cold, greedy heart. Episode I would go on to reinforce this fact -- your honor, I call Jarjar Binks (but please issue barf bags to the members of the jury first).From the initial raising of the gate at Jabba's lair, this "film" was nothing more than a two-plus-hour commercial for as many licensable, profit-making action figures as Lucas could cram into it -- the pig-like guards, the hokey flesh-pigtailed flunky, that vile muppet-pet of Jabba's, the new and recycled cabaret figures, the monsters, etc., etc., ad vomitum. Then there were the detestably cute and marketable Ewoks. Pile on top of that all of the rebel alliance aliens. Fifteen seconds each on-screen (or less) and the kiddies just GOTTA have one for their collection. The blatant, exploitative financial baiting of children is nauseating.Lucas didn't even bother to come up with a new plot -- he just exhumed the Death Star from "A New Hope" and heaved in a boatload of cheap sentiment. What an appalling slap in the face to his fans. I can't shake the notion that Lucas took a perverse pleasure in inflicting this dreck on his fans: "I've got these lemmings hooked so bad that I can crank out the worst piece of stinking, putrid garbage that I could dream up, and they'll flock to the theaters to scarf it up. Plus, all the kiddies will whine and torture their parents until they buy the brats a complete collection of action figures of every single incidental undeveloped, cartoonish caricature that I stuffed in, and I get a cut from every single one. It'll make me even more obscenely rich."There may have been a paltry, partial handful of redeeming moments in this miserable rip-off. I seem to recall that Harrison Ford managed to just barely keep his nose above the surface of this cesspool. But whatever tiny few bright spots there may be are massively obliterated by the offensive commercialism that Lucas so avariciously embraced in this total, absolute sell-out to profit.$LABEL$ 0
+One of the many vigilante epics that flooded the market by the mid-80s. The routine plot has echoes of "The Magnificent Seven" (believe it or not), the action scenes are lamely handled and the special effects are non-existent. You COULD do worse....but the film is still just a waste of time. (*1/2)$LABEL$ 0
+I think this was a HORRIBLE mistake on Disney's part. First off, Kuzco does NOT need to pass "emperor school" to become emperor! That's never happened before. Secondly, the new voices don't sound like the originals at all. Very poor redo. And while I adored the movie The Emperor's New Groove, the New School is just stupid. Like all the jokes are the same, and many are from the movie. The plot gets redundant, always Yzma (is that how you spell it?) trying to become empress, Kuzco stopping her, etc. Or Kuzco learning to become a better person. I think Kuzco gets annoying with his constant complaints and questions. He is a spoiled brat and it bothers me. I do not think this is worth five minutes of your time, much less a half hour.$LABEL$ 0
+as a 'physically challenged' person (god, how i hate that phrase) i just happened to catch this on cable where there was absolutely nothing else to watch - overall, it was a fantastic movie. yes, i was a little disappointed upon finding out that neither actor is disabled, and yes, i was a little disappointed that more of the movie wasn't filmed from the 'true' point of view of the disabled (can you imagine what it's like always being the tallest person in the room and then having to live the rest of your life with a view of nothing but other people's asses and crotches? having to always wait for the idiot to stop reading the newspaper in the only handicapped stall, enduring everyone else's rude bodily expulsions while you wait?). and the scene with him driving the car was absolutely me! been there, done that, literally. but the movie was true enough to matter - while i've never lived in a home or assisted residence, there were plenty of times throughout the movie where i found myself nodding and saying to myself "yeah, that's true.... that's happened to me...." what impressed me is that some of the commentors on this board expressed the fact that the movie made them view life a little differently and with a little more insight as the lives of a silent 'minority' - can't ask more than that out of a movie, that it makes you think and view life differently, so by virtue of that alone, the movies was tremendously successful. should be required viewing of every kid in junior high school.pretty much for every person that's severely physically disabled, independence is one of, if not the most important focus of our daily lives, from working to socializing to recreating. for those of you who felt the movie was 'cliched,' try living our life for a single day - you'll see that the movie was 'cliched' because..... it's true. the challenges the actors faced only skimmed the surface of what happens to us every day - if we're lucky, we experience the same emotional and personal growth that the three characters (including the girl) did. every day presents obstacles for us to overcome - it's just that there's no swelling, dramatic music to accompany our lives, unless it's in our ipods.... lol!$LABEL$ 1
+This film proves you don't need a Hollywood budget to make something fun to watch. What stuck with me is how the crew from different locations was able to pull together with no promises of riches to make something just because they believed in it. I think anybody who makes low budget movies can relate to certain scenes such as actors who just can't get that one line, being bothered by the police, and having most of the crew disappear after the first week. Nobody got paid for this which says a lot for the people who had to travel cross country and for the long hours spent editing. After watching Stuie sell his personal property, use his own money, and trash his house to make the movie I am a bit curious how close his wife may have come to leaving. Good job to all.$LABEL$ 1
+It's difficult to precisely put into words the sheer awfulness of this film. An entirely new vocabulary will have to be invented to describe the complete absence of anything even remotely recognizable as 'humor' or even 'entertainment' in "Rabbit Test." So, as a small contribution to this future effort, I'd like to suggest this word: "Hubiriffic" (adj.) A combination of 'hubristic' and 'terrific'; used to describe overly ambitious debacles like the film "Rabbit Test."Joan Rivers and "Hollywood Squares" producer Jay Redack have severely over-reached their meager abilities to amuse in this 82-minute festival of wretchedness. Trying to put together an Airplane! style comedy with a moldy collection of gags, (Note to Joan: German doctors haven't been funny since Vaudeville) disinterred from their graves in the Catskills - that's is bad enough. But compounding this cinematic crime is River's directorial style, which can best be described as 'ugly', and a cast of once-and-future has-beens so eager to please they overplay even the weakest of throwaway gags.Adrift in this Sargasso Sea of sap is a hapless Billy Crystal in his film debut role as the film's hapless protagonist Lionel. Watching Crystal in this pic is much like watching a blind person take a stroll in a minefield; eventually the cringe reflex becomes a semi-permanent condition as cheap joke after cheap joke blows up in his face.I can only speculate about the sort of audience who might actually like Rabbit Test. Cabbages, mollusks and mildly retarded lizards are all likely candidates. But for self-aware, thinking humans - I'd enthusiastically recommend pouring bleach in your eyes before I'd recommend "Rabbit Test."$LABEL$ 0
+Prior to watching "Dahmer," I thought no movie could be worse than "Freddy Got Fingered." I was wrong. To sum "Dahmer" up, it's a story about a gay serial killer which features almost no killing and almost entirely consists of Dahmer's encounters with gay men before they were killed. There is no plot to be found, and it serves no purpose as far as telling us anything about "Dahmer." All you'll learn about Dahmer from watching this movie is that he liked to have sex with men. Horrible acting, horrible directing, horrible writing, horrible everything... If you have to choose between watching "Dahmer" and projectile vomiting for three hours, go with the vomiting .... it wll be less painful.....$LABEL$ 0
+This was a favorite of my childhood - I can remember seeing it on television and thrilling to it each time. Now that I'm grown up and have a kid of my own, I wanted to introduce him to this classic movie. We watched it last Friday, and he liked it. During Abu's fight with the giant spider, my son's hand crept over and took hold of mine - he was genuinely scared. "Is he gonna beat the spider, Poppa?" Just watch, you'll see. He has no historical frame of reference to speak of (eight years old), so Bagdad under the grandson of Haroun al-Raschid might as well be Oz under Ozma.I think he especially liked how much of the heroics and derring-do were perpetrated by the boy-thief, and not the grown-up king. In fact, if you deconstruct the film's narrative a bit, the king is the thief's sidekick, not the hero at all - which must be very satisfying to imaginative, adventurous young boys. It's definitely a period piece - I suspect that by the time he's eleven or twelve, my son will find it 'corny' or whatever word the next generation will be using by then. The love story is barely one-dimensional - as a cynical friend commented, "Why does Ahmad love the Princess? Because the narrative demands it." The willingness of Abu to put himself in jeopardy (repeatedly) for the clueless, love-struck deposed king is equally improbable. But to quibble about such things while accepting flying mechanical horses, fifty-foot genies and the Temple of the All-Seeing Eye would be fatuous in the extreme. The satisfaction of seeing the prophecy fulfilled at the movie's climax is tremendous, as is the final shot of Abu triumphantly flying away on his (stolen) magic carpet, seeking "some fun, and adventure at last!"$LABEL$ 1
+Okay, I'm sorry to the cast and crew for this review, but this movie is by far the worst I've seen yet...First off, the acting was okay. It could of been better (especially in some parts), but it was "okay". Then, there was the cheapest video camera (which they used). The violence was pretty good. If it were paced faster, it would be awesome, but they didn't (*sigh*)...Scares. The scares were well written (in the script), but not well done. For instance...(SPOILER HERE!) In the loft, a girl is half way in it and the other half is in the dark, bottom area of the barn house, then she gets it. The monster yanks her down and then you hear someones guts getting ripped out. The scares could have been better if the music wasn't ripped from a cheap horror sounds CD. The blood effects were pretty good, but the blood was like that of "Kill Bill". K.B. pulled it off, because it was meant to resemble old kung-fu movies, but when the crew can't tell the difference between red and pink....it's sad. The ripped up bodies in the movie were good, but the scarecrow costumes were something you would see for 25 bucks at a halloween store. Don't let the cover fool you, the costumes suck! My overall grade is a 3/10. If you are interested in independent movies, are easily satisfied, or just have 3 bucks burning a hole in your pocket, go to Blockbuster and see the horror of failure.$LABEL$ 0
+Star Trek: Hidden Frontier is a long-running internet only fan film, done completely for the love of the series, and a must watch for fans of Trek. The production quality is extremely high for a fan film, although sometimes you can tell that they're green-screenin' it. This doesn't take away from the overall experience however. The CGI ships are fantastic, as well as the space battle scenes... On the negative side, I could tell in the earlier episodes (and even occasionally in the newer ones) that some of the actors/actresses are not quite comfortable in their roles, but once again, this doesn't take away from the overall experience of new interpretations of Star Trek. The cast and crew have truly come up with something special here, and, as a whole,I would highly recommend this series to fans of The Next Generation and Deep Space 9.$LABEL$ 1
+Well, first of all, excuse me for the lame pun in the title. I was browsing for movies to rent the other day and saw this. I heard something about this so I picked it up and looked on the back and there was a short little review blurb on it from John Fallon AKA Arrow in the Head! At that moment I thought "Well if he likes it then I gotta like it!" So I rented it and just finally got around to watching it last night (college keeps me so busy). Oh and I might wanna add that I read a little of Arrow's review and it turns out that out of 4 stars he gave it 1 and a half. So my expectations from this movie went from very high to iffy. Well after watching this, I once again agree with Arrow (and turns out that quote from the review was the only positive thing he said about that!) Wow, did this film stink or what? Where do I begin with why it did so? Well, the film was so dull in my opinion. Not even the cool gore bits excited me and when a decapitation doesn't excite you in a movie, that's bad! The characters I hated a lot and from the beginning I could tell who would die and who wouldn't. Actually the film proved me wrong at some points, but the worst thing is that one particular character I wanted to die didn't! What the heck? And the chemistry between the main girl and the guy she met? Didn't feel it. He obviously was just there to be eye candy and give her a love interest, otherwise I thought he was a waste! And as a horror fan I should know that doing the "dumb horror movie" sometimes gotta happen or else there wouldn't be much of a movie, but the ones in here ticked me off! Hello? Why are you making out in the room of the killer nun when you should be on the lookout from her? And it was done by the supposedly smarter characters no less. The twist....ah, it would have been alright, if it hadn't been done a billion times and I didn't have to sit through this wast of film to reach that point! My main point: Stupid movie that sucked me in with some words of my favorite (actually my only favorite) movie critic. Jerks!$LABEL$ 0
+Actually there was nothing funny about this monstrosity at all!! This movie was a complete abomination. The absurdities in this movie almost made me want to vomit!! I think that the people responsible for this movie took advantage of their viewing audience. They took a relatively decent series of movies (I did say decent, NOT GOOD!!) and totally trashed it by trying to put money in their pockets. The making of Airplane! was a way for Hollywood to make up for this crappy flick. The worst part about it is that either nobody in 1979 realized the asinine events of the movie (such as Concorde's door popping off at some ungodly high altitude or Patroni shooting a flair gun out the window at Mach 2 to avoid a NUCLEAR WARHEAD!?!?!?....what were they thinking???)were totally unrealistic or they just didn't care! I think that it is the latter of the two. The writers and director of this "film", if you want to call it that, really tried to suck the Airport dynasty dry with this crap!$LABEL$ 0
+I rented this movie today thinking it might be a good football movie, since I'm a big football fan. Boy, was I wrong. This movie is way too religious and preachy and is REALLY unrealistic. This movie pretty much says that if your a Christian you can get anything you want in life easily, like become a great football player! You don't become a great football player by becoming Christian and asking God, you do it through practice and hard work. All you gotta do is ask God and he'll give you anything....puh-lease. Thats not true at all, duh. I laughed several times because of this embarrassment. The only part that was funny was when they were being dumb (Shultz the cartoonist? no, the dude that flew over the Atlantic, etc etc..) but really this movie wasn't that great. I don't recommend it, especially if you aren't a Christian, lol.$LABEL$ 0
+This film resembles in many ways `Enemy of the State' with Will Smith and Gene Hackman, as we have an innocent (black) man being pursued by the `government' with all the modern technology known to man. Usually when storyline is copied like this the result is a disaster. That does not apply here. Of course I love everything David Morse does, so maybe my comments are not fair, but there were more good things about this film then that. The main baddy, played by Doug Hutchison, was brilliant, and the story flowed with excellent extras such as David Paymer and Robert Pastorelli. Our hero, Alvin Sanders (played by Jamie Foxx), was however irritating most of the part. He is so out of place, cracking bad jokes, evoking no sympathy from the audience. Or not to begin with, the strange thing is that he kinda grows on you (and on his followers as well!). I didn't expect much when I rented it, but was surprised with a good solid action movie with comedy bits. 7/10$LABEL$ 1
+One of the biggest French success of the year 2002, "l'auberge espagnole" was also very well greeted abroad which is quite extraordinary for a French film. It is not difficult to define the reasons of this success. This movie made by one of the most interesting French film-makers of these last years, Cédric Klapisch, presents students coming from all over Europe and gathered all together under the same roof in Barcelona. These students are described like the ones you imagine or you see in everyday life: either untidy, either serious or with a sense of humor. I guess that if the movie worked so well, it is because a lot of students must have recognized themselves in the main characters' portraits and especially Xavier's.We follow the movie and so his experience abroad as an Erasmus student through his eyes. Xavier is really an ordinary student with his qualities, his faults. An intelligent making with quite a lot of ingenious ideas perfectly expresses his lost mind and his anxiety about the world and being an Erasmus student. On that subject, the best examples can be found in two sequences. The first one is when Xavier asks a woman at university for the papers he has to send to prepare his DEA. When the same woman informs him about the different necessary procedures, all the papers appear on the screen when she is naming them! In the next sequence, Xavier's voice-over confides to the spectator his vision of the modern world. Now, where to find the second example? Well, the scene where Xavier has a thorough medical examination during which Klapisch films his visions is widely sufficient to speak of itself.Moreover, the director wasn't really interested by his main character's studies. He left this point low-key. He rather put a lot of effort into Xavier's private life, of course, in his love affair with Anne Sophie but also and especially in his relations with his fellow tenants. It is a real friendship story that Klapisch shows us with its moments of happiness but also its arguments and its tensions. Through Xavier's adventure and at the end of his stay, he will have been initiated into life which will make him more mature. The message that the author wanted to transmit isn't difficult to guess. You naively believe that you live in an untidy and complicated world. You mustn't give up but intensively search to get what you want even if it is difficult.Apart from this, we could also fear that with the topic, Cédric Klapisch wouldn't avoid a trap: the clichés. Let's be frank about it: they are included in the screenplay but the director does his best not to spread them too much in his movie. Then, the screenplay contains convenient and predictable moments: at the airport and before boarding we see Xavier shedding a tear after he left his family. But fortunately the shortcomings of the script stop here. Quite funny dialogs and cool young actors perfectly at ease in their roles make up the whole.In spite of its weaknesses, "l'auberge espagnole" is to be taken for a success in the movie of young people. Besides, the whole atmosphere it brings out lets us think that this movie is directed primarily to a young audience. Ultimately, the end of the movie and its big success let us suggest that Klapisch succumbed to a fashion that goes right for American cinema: the elaboration of sequels. And indeed, the film-maker currently works on a sequel entitled "les poupées russes". Let's hope that it will be as good as "l'auberge espagnole".$LABEL$ 1
+Finally!!! A good movie made on the most demented serial killer in history. For those less familiar with Ed Gein, he was basically the madman who was known for grave robbing and skinning his victims (which most horror fans ripped off). Shot in a period style that reflects the bleak plains of Wisconsin perfectly, this is easily the most atmospheric horror film yet to depict Gein and his gruesome killings. Kane Hodder (Jason from Friday the 13th series) and Michael Berryman (Hills have Eyes I & II), deliver chilling performances in this serial killer opus that easily leaves behind the lackluster former Gein attempts. So far I'd say this is one of the better horror films released this year (Turistas = 0).$LABEL$ 1
+This story documenting the rise of China's first emperor and his efforts to unify the empire was the most expensive movie production in Chinese history.It's worth every penny. Visually dazzling cinematography, a sweeping score and outstanding characters make this one of the finest epics ever put on film (foreign or otherwise.) Please do not miss the opportunity to see this on the big screen.$LABEL$ 1
+Avoid this movie. If you are expecting "The Poseidon Adventure" (1972), you may experience nothing more than a case of the 'bends'. This film offers nothing more than two extremely-long, and drawn-out, hours of complete boredom.The cast members act as if they are angered by the irritation of a bathtub of water overflowing on a bed of an insignificant's petunias. The script is totally unrealistic, and the film does not even have the feel of a disaster movie. In fact, everything about this movie is bad, with the exception of Tom Courtenay. It is unfortunate that such a fine actor got swept away, by a flood of misrepresentation, to appear in such a washout. When this movie was being made, the Poseidon must have turned over, in its watery grave, in a sea of shame. And, Shelley Winters will rise again, from the dead (direct from the Poseidon), to haunt anyone who dares to see this pathetic movie. I rate this film a 1 out of 10, but it really deserves a zero. This movie will make you want to avoid, or completely turn against, water. And, it will leave a bad taste in your mouth. It may even make you want to see "Jaws" (1975), and befriend a great white.$LABEL$ 0
+This was the first movie that Joan Crawford and Clark Gable made together and they would go on to make several more. Crawford stars a young rich girl who's father is wiped out in the stock market crash and there is nothing left for her and her brother. They have never worked before and the brother, William Bakewell, gets a job with Gable, who is a gangster and Bakewell thinks it will be an easy job but gets in over his head pretty quick. Crawford becomes a reporter at a newspaper but wants to work on the big stories but is given worthless stuff to work on. Their is a massacre in which several of Gable's men are killed and Crawford was a witness to the whole thing. It's a good movie but not one of their best.$LABEL$ 1
+'Before the devil knows you're dead' is one of the best movies I've seen in along time. The acting fromthe excellent ensemble cast is incredible. Philip Seymour Hoffman putting in an outstanding performance and is electrifying every time he's on screen. Ethan Hawke matches him scene for scene and Albert Finney simply chews up the screen. Marisa Tomei is, however,criminally underused, but looks amazing for her 42 years. The script is excellent, the story-line non-linear but easy enough to follow. Sidney Lumet, although not known for his blockbusters, has turned out a gem with this one!$LABEL$ 1
+This movie (even calling it a movie is an overstatement) is ridiculously horrible. Normally a huge fan of Eric Roberts in "B" list movies, this tragedy of a flick makes me question his real B list clout! And Charlie, please go back to hoping for a Diagnosis Murder revival rather than this.....you can't blame the nameless eye candy (uhhum...beauty pageant members) for participating in this weak movie, but YOU are a former TV star man! Pull yourself together. Don't even get me started on Stuart Pankin. For the sake of all that is good Stuart, you should have seen this was not necessarily a real movie! Bryan Michael Stoller exemplifies absolute genius only in the fact that he was able to dupe anyone into investing in this picture (money or time).Really, this was no parody or spoof movie although it tries on a 2nd grade level. Mostly, it is poor writing and acting and camera work and editing and....well poor everything. I watched it because I read an article in some mag about agent MJ's involvement and my interest was peaked due to the lawsuit in which he was involved. I now wonder if the only reason they show him from the shoulders up in the movie is because he, like at the trial, showed up wearing pajama bottoms and barely lucid (wait a second, is he ever really considered lucid?...I digress). And Agent MJ? Is that the best they could come up with for a name for his character? Sheez. What a startling piece of originality! Or, maybe that was supposed to be funny? Putting Marriott into the movie was a nice touch at first, but overdone and annoying after all is said and done.Spare yourself the grief of watching......don't say I didn't warn you.$LABEL$ 0
+(Some Spoilers) Facing a mid-life crisis and fed up with his marriage to Cindy ,Teddi Siddall, who seemed to have more say in what he did and where he stayed then the Air Force,USAF elite Red Beret Sgt. Major Davis Bay, Gary Cole,decided one morning to just walk away from in all and start a new life as a civilian. David first got this idea when he met at a Halloween party sweet and adoring Alyson, Karen Sillas. Keeping his background secret from her by telling Alyson that he's in a top secret military outfit was the perfect cover for him. Back at Jackson AFB outside of Austin Tex. David starts to review his life's options with Cindy and the USAF and decides to change his identity by running away from it. David then calls Alyson, who only met him once, and makes a date with her. Before you know it David, now using the name Haywood,is engaged to be married to her.Faking his death in a bicycle accident Dave purposely leave his wife and kids out in the cold and deserts his military obligation to his country.It didn't take long for Dave to find out that civilian life just doesn't appeal to him. It's now too late for Dave to go back to his first wife Cindy and his two boys with him facing the brig and a military court-martial if he comes back to the USAF. Dave takes up the only job that he could do to support him and Alyson and their infant son Chris: using his skills he learned in the Red Berets to rob banks.Based on a true story "Lies He Told" has Dave Bay/Haywood living three, not two, different lives. One of a hard working family man one as a ruthless bank robber and yet another one as a dead and highly decorated, by the President of the US and Prime Misnister Of GB, All-American hero. Gary Cole is very effective as both Master Sgt. David Bay&husband David Haywood. Davids actions are, even though unforgivable, understandable in the case of his depression over his marriage to Cindy. The pressure of her nagging him got to the point where he just wanted to get lost and away from her and the kids. But he should have sought professional counseling from the US Air Force, which he would have been gladly provided with, instead of choosing the easy way out. Which in the end lead him straight into Levenworth Ferderal Prison. It may have been that the overly macho Dave thought it would have been a bad mark on his career, as well as his ego, to get help for his problems.Karen Sillas as Alyson is the glue that keeps the film together with her at first going along with her new husbands explanation of his frequent disappearances, some for as much as two weeks, as him doing covert action in keeping the country safe from domestic and foreign terrorists. The real reasons for his long absences were the result of him casing out planing and robbing banks. Which was the only way he knew how to earn a living given from what he learned, in subversive actions, all those years in the elite Red Berets.Alyson tracking down Dave's mom Carolyn Bay(Linda Goranson), who he told her was dead since he was a small boy, in Portland she finds out the truth about the double, or triple, life that he's been leading since he married her. This lead to Alyson finding out about his marriage to Linda and the two sons that he had with her as well as his faked death, and now AWOL, from the USAF. Being that it's a true story the ending was anything that you would have guessed it to be in a standard Hollywood, or made for TV, movie. That's what makes the film "Lies he Told, a lot better then what you would have expected it to be.$LABEL$ 1
+I hate to be too critical, but this one really was bad. I like the Baldwin brothers, I just wish there was more talent evenly spread between them. I did like the general plot, but there was just too much 'trying' and not enough actual 'doing' as far as quality acting was concerned. My favorite character out of the whole thing was bald cop. He reminded me of Dmitri Valtane ( Jeremy Roberts, I believe ) from Start Trek 6: Undiscovered country. Just, without the hair.If you have Hollywood Video's MVP program and are really trying to get your money's worth, then through this in with one of the three MVP movies you pick up. It's worth it for a few laughs.The single most impressive special effect in the whole show is the sound of Stephen Baldwin's rifle firing. I suppose that lets you in a bit on the quality and excitement of the rest of the show.$LABEL$ 0
+A remarkable piece of documentary, giving a vivid depiction of a country deeply divided within itself (for further evidence, check out some of the comments on IMDb...!). Compares extremely favourably with Oliver Stone's "Comandante" (which is mainly an in-depth examination of Fidel Castro's nostril hairs). I don't know whether Chavez is everything he presents himself as being, or yet another in the long line of populist Latin-American "caudillos". Nor do I know whether he will be able to make good on the huge expectations he has clearly built up among the poor majority of Venezuelans. It's hardly reasonable to expect a film like this to be able to answer such questions - but I've certainly now got a pretty vivid idea of what's at stake, and what it feels like to be caught up in the middle of a coup. Someone says in the film "we're making history", and that's exactly what the film feels like it's capturing. Outstanding stuff.$LABEL$ 1
+I love cheesy horror movies, I think dead alive and bad taste are great and I think slumber party massacre II (not even related to this movie) are hilarious. But this movie absolutely stank, I didn't laugh, I didn't even enjoy it.. you can see all kinds of mistakes that aren't even campy. The best take of the scene where the woman leans out the window is the one where she smacks her head on the sill? Give me a break.Don't rent this thinking it's related to the slumber party massacre series. It's awful and I don't even have a clue how it got any distribution. Rent it with a fake name and burn it, do everyone else the favor.$LABEL$ 0
+I knew it was going to be awful but not this awful!!, as it's one of the most boring movies i have ever seen, not a damn thing happens!. All the characters are dull, and the story is stupid and incredibly boring!,plus The ending is especially lame!. The only reason i rented this piece of crap because i am a big fan of Michael Dudikoff, however he is wasted here, and looks extremely bored and shows no emotion what so ever!, plus i cheered out loud when the movie was over!. It's like the movie had no plot and it was all about nothing, and Ice-T is god awful(even though he is OK in some stuff), plus Dudikoff and Yvette Nipar had no chemistry together at all. There's one scene that the director tried to make emotional but he fails miserably as Yvette Nipar didn't really show all that much emotion, however there is a decent Car chase scene, but that's not enough for me to recommend this god awful film!, plus the dialog is atrocious. Avoid this movie like the plague not a damn thing happens, please avoid and trust me on this one you may thank me afterwords. The Direction is horrible!. Fred Olen Ray does a horrible job here, with shoddy camera work, laughably cheap looking set pieces, terrible angles, laughable use of stock footage, and keeping the film at an incredibly dull pace. The Acting is terrible!. Michael Dudikoff is nowhere near his usual amazing self, he looks extremely bored, and shows no emotion what so ever, his character is also extremely dull, as i can't believe he signed on for this piece of garbage, he also had no chemistry with Yvette Nipar(Dudikoff still rules!!!). Ice-T has barely anything to do and also looks bored, and he didn't convince me one bit. Hannes Jaenicke is not very good here, he had somewhat of a wimpy character, i didn't like him. Yvette Nipar is pretty but was really terrible here, she didn't show much emotion, and had no chemistry with Dudikoff, and as a result i didn't give a damn about her character!. Art Hindle,(Owen Marsh),Kathy Harren(Katharine Marsh), and the rest of the cast are bad as well. Overall Please avoid like the plague!, Fred Olen Ray and Steve Lathshaw should be ashamed of themselves!. BOMB out of 5$LABEL$ 0
+This is one great movie! I have played all the Nancy Drew games and have read the books, and I never expected the movie to be so exciting and funny! If you never heard of Nancy Drew, read the first book (Secret of the Old Clock) so you can kinda' get used to Nancy, then you can watch the movie, because in the movie, they don't really introduce the characters' names fast. ;) My whole family enjoyed it and the plot was extremely interesting. This is an ultimate come-back from the previous Nancy Drew movies, which the Nancy Drew actor didn't seem to match. This movie is much like Alex Rider: Stormbreaker. It's so cool! Nancy Drew lovers, you must watch this!$LABEL$ 1
+Since Jason and his ilk took over horror films circa 1980 most every horror film has involved a group of hormonally charged teenagers being chopped to bits with the focus on the chopping and not the suspense.This little film is different. Made in the early 80's it does what every good horror film should do - bring your worst fears to life while you sit around just knowing that these horrors are just around the corner. Then, you make those horrors simmer, just don't turn it into a lesson on the biology of butchering.The story features Meg Tilly right before she had a short-lived turn with fame starting with "The Big Chill" and then slipped back into obscurity in the early 90's. Meg plays an outcast teenager who is just dying to get into the good graces of some classic mean girls. They tell her she can be part of their little group if she spends the night in a crypt. The mean girls intend to scare her and cause her to leave the crypt thus giving them a double reward - further tormenting the outcast girl and having an excuse to reject her.Meanwhile famed occultist Karl Rhamarevich has died a bizarre death shortly after having claimed to have discovered a way to return from the grave and upon his return command great magical powers. His daughter doesn't believe this at first, but she listens to a tape about her father's experiments which included his successful animation of small dead animals and of his plans to emerge from the grave with the power to animate bigger game and draw further power from these animations. She also learns that she may have inherited her father's power and may be the only person who can stop him should he actually rise from the dead. I think you know where this story is headed, so I'll stop here. Did I mention the magician was entombed in the same crypt in which Meg Tilly's character is spending the night?I will mention that the commercial DVD containing this film does look somewhat degraded compared to what you would expect from a film that was made so recently. I saw it on TV in the mid 1980's and I remember it looking better than this. The problem is that the original negative of the film was never located so the DVD had to be created from a print. This means it comes complete with dirt and scratches.This is worth checking out for any horror fan. It was an independently made film and an example of the kind of unusual stuff that you could commonly find on late night TV until the infomercial turned that time slot into a vast wasteland circa 1986. Only TCM Underground airs this kind of film anymore.$LABEL$ 1
+Underneath the dense green glop of computer graphics there gleamed the astounding art and skill of Ichikawa Somegoro. Alas: it got lost in all the goo. The scenes of Old Edo -- with the courtesan, drifting on the Sumida, rehearsing and acting in the Nakamura-za -- were all exciting and engaging, taking you back to an interesting and rich era. The action on the Kabuki stage, in which Somegoro excels and excites, was more enriching than any of the absurd high jinks that followed. The skill, the energy in the audience, the colors of the sets, were far more satisfying than all the nonsense that took over plot and performance. What a wasted opportunity! One of the best kabuki actors alive, and he gets lost in the dreck.$LABEL$ 0
+Well, to each his own, but I thought Gibson's Hamlet was the most god-awful rendition I had ever witnessed... as subtly nuanced as a paper bag, and as inspired as a telemarketing call. The only reason I watched the movie through to the end was that I held out hope that either it would get better or become unintentionally funny. No luck.No disrespect for the supporting cast or for Zefferelli's staging, but nothing can make up for the bungling of the main character. I have seen Hamlet well-portrayed as an African prince, as an animated lion, as a rough-and-tumble warrior, as a romantic poet, etc. etc. etc. . But IMHO this portrayal was just a plentiful lack of wit together with most weak hams.$LABEL$ 0
+Mercifully, there's no video of this wannabe western that a stay-afloat vehicle for Big Frank at a time when his career was floundering. The story of a weasel who lives on the reputation of his big gun brother and who gets run out of town by bad guys only to return to rally his townfolks with a new found courage must have been written by a back-room writer. All in all, this show stinks. The story is basically boring, ill-conceived and so naive that it can offend your intelligence. I must depart complete from the other reviewer who found it "...underrated..." The critics slammed it at the time and deservedly so. You'll have to catch it on the last show, if you up late and having a bout of insomnia. But, if you can sit through it, you've more fortitude than most of my movie buff friends.$LABEL$ 0
+Rather foolish attempt at a Hitchcock-type mystery-thriller, improbably exchanging espionage for archaeology and based on the Robin Cook novel; incidentally, I’ve recently acquired another adaptation of his work – COMA (1978) – in honor of the late Richard Widmark. For the record, director Schaffner had just made THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL (1978) – a similarly fanciful but much more engrossing suspenser and, unfortunately, SPHINX was a false step from which his so-far impressive career would not recover.Despite its scope and reasonably decent cast, however, this one proved a critical and commercial flop – mainly because the narrative just isn’t very thrilling: in fact, it’s quite dreary (feeble attempts at horror – the archaeologist heroine having to put up with entombment, rotting corpses galore, and even an attack by a flurry of bats – notwithstanding). Lesley Anne-Down is the lovely leading lady, stumbling upon a lost treasure – it’s actually been hidden away by a local sect to prevent it from falling into the hands of foreigners, who have appropriated much of the country’s heritage (under the pretext of culture) for far too long. Sir John Gielgud turns up in a thankless bit early on as the antique dealer who puts Down on the way of the loot, and pays for this ‘act of treason’ with his life.Typically, it transpires that some characters are the opposite of what they claim to be – so that apparent allies (such as Maurice Ronet) are eventually exposed as villains, while an ambiguous figure (Frank Langella, whom I saw at London in early 2007 in a West End performance of “Frost/Nixon”, which has now been turned into a film) goes from Down’s antagonist to her lover and back again, as he determines to keep the wealth belonging to Egyptian high priest Menephta a national treasure.$LABEL$ 0
+Oh dear, just what we need another Essex -Cockney garbage effort chronicling the rise of the UK footy hooligan/ rave gangster who did of course follow West 'am (East Londan/Essex style). Didn't anybody tell you that they won the world cap!? And then of course the inevitable decay into UK rave culture underworld. Blah blah blah. Why how and who would want to fund a film like this i do not know but lets pray that it was from Private financiers (lets see ex drug dealers, merchant bankers -we all know what to call them, and the rest of the mockneys) rather than publicly funded means. Hopefully with the recession we will not see the like of this again. If we do we will be calling the death knell for British films and of course we will all be able to blame Britains number one Mockney Country gent wannabee gangster Guy Ritchie.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is most possibly the worst movie I have ever see in my entire life! The plot is ridiculous and the whole "Little Man" crap is just so stupid. The entire movie is unrealistic and dumb. Let's face it, It's just a "Black Comedy". This is just a pointless horrible piece that should have never made it to theaters. The jokes are not funny and the acting is horrendous. Please, I beg of to you save your money than see this worthless piece of crap. I had to endure sitting through Little Man for an hour and a half wishing my eyes would bleed. I am disgusted that something like this would even be thought of! Who writes this crap? The actors have NO talent what so ever, how do these people get into Hollywood? They are making money off this junk!$LABEL$ 0
+If you are a Crispin Glover fan, you must see this. If you are a Sean Penn fan, you must see this. If you are a movie fan in general, you must see this. If you have no idea who Crispin Glover is and you have no idea who Sean Penn is, this film will probably still have a lot of value, but the more work you've previously seen by Crispin or Sean, the better.This movie is so funny, but it is also pure genius. There is nothing that I know of that resembles this film. It is its own genre. I doubt that anything like it will ever be made again. I cannot say anything more about exactly why without partially spoiling it, and some of the other reviews here have already done a good job at doing that. In response to any of the reviewers here that gave it a bad review, I ask that you view the film again. In reality, there is no point at which this film could fairly be called "boring." This is possibly the funniest, most entertaining, and least boring film ever made. And it only gets better with age and repeated viewings. A timeless classic that, unfortunately, very few will be able to claim to have seen.Beaver Trilogy is the brilliant work of director Trent Harris, also responsible for the amazing Rubin and Ed, which Crispin Glover also stars in.Unfortunately, copies of this film are rare and hard to find. I managed to find a VHS version after some diligent searching though, and there are a couple of ways to find it that I know of. But I really wish someone would put this onto a DVD.$LABEL$ 1
+I had seen this movie when it got released, and when I was 12 years old :) And I still vividly recollect the wonderful scenes of how the hero/heroine escape every time when faced with danger :) And the best feature of the movie was the portrayal of the villain! I think many so-called action movies copied a lot many "escape scenes" from this movie!! And not only does it never impress me when I see such copying, it always increases my appreciation for this masterpiece! :) The lead actors have acted wonderfully. The slow and realistic development of the chemistry b/w the hero and heroine was extremely natural and wonderfully portrayed. As children, we felt that the love that developed b/w them was very natural :) The way they face and overcome all their trials and tribulations together was something that can make even kids realize the value of true love, sacrifice and caring. I recommend that every person see this movie when given a chance!! --Vijay.$LABEL$ 1
+A clever and bizarre angle to "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". At times you think this is campy and over the top, but the underlying poetic soul comes across strong and believable thanks to the performances of the two leads. One worth tracking down.$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of those films that looks so "dated" that being that way is part of the fun. You see and hear things you would NEVER see or hear on the silver screen today. Some of that is good; some it too corny for words, some of it bad (depending on your viewpoints on certain cultural issues.)For instance, in this short (68 minutes) 1931 film you have:The grandpa of the family that is featured in this story extolling the value of patriotism and why one should speak up against criminals for the good of the United States (picture that in today's films!)A district attorney (Walter Huston) almost begging for death penalty sentences and the populace shown as supporting it 100 percent (once again, picture that in modern-day movies.) Along the way you have some shocking violence, such as a young boy being picked up a few times and literally thrown head first into a closet, and his father being picked up and swung repeatedly head-first into a wall. This is a tough stuff, to say the least. Yet the film is dotted with comedy, mostly by the patriotic grandpa, memorably played by Charles "Chic" Sales. There are a bunch of laughs for all those who view this unique crime film. And, for soft touches, there are the two young boys, one of whom - Dickie Moore - went on to become a pretty famous child actor in his day. Here, he is just a little tyke of about 5 years of age who, understandably, is far from being a polished actor, but you can see stardom for him on the horizon. In fact, he did just that the following year with a solid performance in "Blonde Venus," starring Marlene Dietrich.Anyway, this is an entertaining film because of an effective mixture of violence, comedy and sentimentality....and it has a nice feel-good ending and a thought-provoking message. It was up for an Academy Award, too, for "Best Writing, Original Story." I am sorry to say it is only available for viewing on cable TV as it has never been put out on VHS or DVD.....and that's a shame.$LABEL$ 1
+I have seen this movie many times, (and recently read the book the movie is based on) and every time I see it, I just want to slap all four of them. The fact that they don't clue in to the fact that Tom Hank's character is flipping into his D&D(oops M&M) :) persona ("Oh, he's just acting in character.") outside of the gaming session. That and the fact that after three months of therapy, let's just destroy all that and feed his delusions! These kind of people are what give RPGs a bad name.Also the corny 'love ballad', and the music done by 'cat on a piano' and 'stop us if we get too annoying' are almost enough to set your teeth on edge!$LABEL$ 0
+this film is absolutely hilarious. basically, the plot revolves around a serial killer being somehow turned into a snowman through some B-movie chemical accident. he then heads for town and starts terrorising the locals. its up to the local police chief and some other characters to try and stop him. its made on a wee budget and it certainly shows, but the great thing about this film is it knows that its rubbish. the improvisations of Styrofoam and polystyrene mimicking the giant killer snowman are classic, and this is clearly the intention - its one of the few films that has its budget as its main selling point. alongside the comic tackiness there are some other great comedy moments - listen out right in the beginning for the voice over of a dad scaring his kids to death, and the funniest rape scene ever committed to film. fantastic tacky fun$LABEL$ 1
+Thriller is the GREATEST music video of all time !!!!! Performed by the GREATEST artist of all time ! Thriller really sent music videos going, and other artists have been trying to copy Thriller in one way or another ever since ! IT'S A THRILLER !!!!!!$LABEL$ 1
+Several years ago when I first watched "Grey Gardens" I remember laughing and finding it hilarious camp. Years later I still laugh out loud when I watch it, but after many viewings I've come to see the beauty in the strange, twisted relationship between the inseparable "Big" Edith Bouvier Beale and her daughter "Little" Edith Bouvier Beale.Mother and daughter living together in their decaying 28 room East Hampton mansion add a whole new meaning to the term "Shabby Chic". With innumerable cats, raccoons and opossums as roommates this Aunt and Niece of Jackie O. allowed filmmakers Albert and David Maysles into their mansion to film them living life day to day. The result is a hilarious, beautiful, sad and moving account of true love and anarchy rule.The relationship between Big and Little Edie is a testament to the unbreakable bonds of love. And their lives an example of drive, determination and free-will. This movie has more to recommend it than I can put down into words. It is a rare experience that you must see for yourself.$LABEL$ 1
+I normally do not take the time to make comments that few people will read, about movies few will see. However, in this case, I feel I must warn all those who might consider wasting time on it. I just finished watching it only five minutes ago. This is, quite simply, one of the worst movies that I have ever seen in my life. The acting is horrible, a plot is nonexistent, and production values are poverty level at best. I know that even a low budget movie can be great, but not this one. There is only thing that could have saved this movie for any horror fan's purposes--more on-screen gore and slashing! The grand total of three times that this occurs is off-screen. While it is effective and reasonably disturbing when it happens--especially the end scene--there is simply not enough of it. The movie is just too long for it's minimal content, too dialogue heavy, and consequently almost impossible to watch. What happens? To put it all in a nutshell with room to spare, three teenage girls irresponsibly and knowingly go out driving through an isolated area where over 20 girls have previously been abducted and murdered. Their car, of course, breaks down, and they are taken to an old boring house inhabited by three crazy people--one of whom is the psychotic killer. All three are eventually murdered, one by one, off-screen, after what seems like an eternity of boring, slow-paced nonsense. As I said, the only things worth watching even once are the murders. Please don't buy it or rent it just for that, and don't be fooled like I was by the misleading box art and movie description. Save your money and your time.$LABEL$ 0
+This was easily one of the weirder of the Ernest movies, especially in regards to the production design. What was up with the pink guard uniforms? Sadly, this film probably destroyed the Ernest series, turning the series into a straight-to-video series. However, Jim Varney gave one of his better performances by playing Nash, his criminal alter ego. A misstep in the series, but wasn't too bad in most regards.(the Electro Man routine was classic)$LABEL$ 1
+I missed it at the cinema and have rented it on DVD. If you get the chance I would recommend it as it´s better than nearly everything I´ve seen at the cinema or on DVd this year. That isn´t to say it´s one of the best films ever or anything, it´s just I´ve seen a lot of rubbish :)Can´t really add to what´s already been said except 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+And a made for TV movie too, this movie was good. the acting in it and the plot was just so great. this one of the only movies I've seen that I felt warped my mind because after seeing it I was afraid of Reaper coming to kill me through my computer screen. There were just a few minor things wrong with this movie, but it's very easily over looked.Antonio Sabbato Jr did an excellent role in this movie along with Janine Turner and Robert Wagner. this movie just has so much suspense and it made me wanting more because I never thought a low budget TV movie could be so powerful. After viewing this I read the novel this movie was based on (four times) and it too kicked was great. If you ever see this movie come on TV, I'd watch it. The effects in this movie were pretty well done, I honestly don't know what a live calcifying human would look like but with the way the FX team did this movie I was impressed and all it shows is that all these bad made for TV movies out there with low budgets shouldn't suck so bad.watch it. It's really good, no really, it is!$LABEL$ 1
+A group of tourists are stranded on Snake Island after an unfortunate accident with their boat. They are forced to spend the night and as you probably suspected, it isn't called Snake Island because it's just soooooo much fun to say - it has a history of people disappearing one by one because of the large snake population, which is just what happens with these poor dumb souls. This is a very boring and typical movie with tons of off screen snake attacks and lousy performances from NOBODY actors. The only somewhat entertaining scene was an absolutely unnecessary and forced strip scene which ain't anything couldn't see in a PG13 rated movie, folks. If you are into snake movies than check out SSSSSSS, but don't torture yourself with this crap.$LABEL$ 0
+I have never seen the TV Series or the previous movies. Probably that's the reason why I didn't enjoy it much. Boring and just not funny, sums it up nicely.Considering the budget the movie seemed to have, it's embarrassing they couldn't do an even passable job.We went to the cinema with no exceptions' at all and the hope to see a somewhat funny movie that wouldn't be too taxing on the mind. My friend fell asleep halfway through the movie and I spend the next 2 hours hoping that it would finally pick up. A hope, which died with the end credits.$LABEL$ 0
+I just picked up the DVD release of this movie while on holiday in Norway where it has been released with English subtitles.The film is beautifully photographed and powerfully acted. The youngster portraying 'Frits' the lead character has an astonishingly open face which mirrors with painful accuracy the tragic events which unfold around him.Early on in the film we see that the father whom Frits loves so much has mental health problems and this is brought up when the brutal headmaster denies assaulting the boy and suggests it was his own father.The climactic scene where Frits refuses to show any respect to the headmaster; simply standing his ground and repeating 'Liar' as he is brutally assaulted in front of his classmates is a scene you are not likely to forget.The films only weak point is the rather clichéd 'Flower Power' teacher who uses every 'friendly teacher' trick in the book. Other than this I feel sure that this is a film you will really enjoy.$LABEL$ 1
+While sleeping, Mr. Eko is assigned by his brother Yemi (Adetokumboh McCormack) in a dream to go with John Locke to disclose the meaning of the "?" symbol. With the pretext of chasing Henry, Mr. Eko brings John with him and they find a second hatch called "Pearl" underground the question mark symbol marked on the field, where a video explains that the other hatch is a psychological experiment and people behavior pressing the buttons of the computer every 108 minutes are actually subjects. Meanwhile, Jack unsuccessfully tries to save Libby.In this episode, John Locke loses his faith in the island when he finds that they have been monitored in the hatch. The disgusting Michael sees the anguishing Libby wishing that she was dead, while Hurley, Jack, Kate and Sawyer are suffering her pain, in a deep emotional contrast. My vote is eight.Title (Brazil): Not Available$LABEL$ 1
+The orange tone to everything was just yucky. Oh yeah, the main character lives in a ghetto that is all orange-tinted with orange-tinted people. Meanwhile, to mentally escape from this crushing poverty of the body, she plays a full-immersion video game (which sucks in that no rules are clear and no logic follows the gameplay). She apparently earns an income playing the game but she is revealed to not be an employee of the game company?. Lots of non-speaking pauses later the story drags on slowly. She uses a glitchy orange computer interface with an operating interface that is so visually annoying and I can only suspect a Microsoft future release.Meanwhile, I the viewer, ask basically why she is wasting her precious time in some moronic game when she barely has the necessities of life? Oh yeah, playing games is fun, but what is the point when you're almost starving? While she is piddling her life away playing some lousy even-more-orange-tinted lame full-immersion video game her dog runs off (probably looking for an owner who pays at least a moment of attention to it and feeds it regularly) or is stolen from the woman (while she is ignoring her lousy orange-tinted reality).Meanwhile she obsesses over some game her game-playing team lost the entire uninteresting movie. Yawn. So she wants to be the best of the best, go get them Ash Catchem (got to bore us all). Golly, this main character sucks as a human being as well and has no redeeming qualities aside from her physical beauty (which she could barter for some manner to escape her crushing poverty).So she reaches the "Real" level and it, at least, not sucks horribly and she is sent to kill a former comatose teammate mentally living in the "Real" level. Finally the sucky boring bland orange-tinted movie is no longer a tedious chore to watch, but has the potential to say something along the lines "the main character is trapped in imaginary computer-generated poverty and she is actually in the real world now". Perhaps she will do the murder deed and live in the real world now? Well, she kills the guy and he vanishes in a digital effect. Wow! Thanks idiotic director. You suck, you suck so very much, director.Here the director had an iota of a chance to redeem himself slightly by burying this lousy lame moronic cruddy movie with a philosophical twist.The director could have said, "The REAL WORLD is there and if you live in it and contribute to it to make it better, it won't be some cruddy orange-tinted poverty land." A clever way to make this suck-tacular movie a agonizingly slow lesson on basic civic pride (for the 1% of the viewers that haven't found something actually entertaining to watch at this point or are movie-masochists).Nope, director. The director had to screw this all up by tossing in some cruddy digital effect and ruin all chances of redemption for this awfully lousy movie which was a waste of money, a waste of time, and a waste of viewer trust.After that, it ends. Good riddance. I hope the director chokes on it. I'm putting this HACK on my "avoid at all costs" list for any other films his name is attached to.$LABEL$ 0
+Not to be confused with Lewis Teague's "Alligator" (1980) which actually IS an excellent film, this "Il Fiume Del Grande Caimano" laboriously ends the exotic trilogy Sergio Martino made around the end of the seventies (including the rather watchable "L'Isola degli uomini pesce" and the not so good "La Montagna del dio cannibale"). Tracing outrageously the plot of "Jaws", the script fails at creating any suspense what so ever. The creature is ludicrous and its victims are simply despicable. Stelvio Cipriani's lame tune poorly illustrates the adventures of these silly tourists presented from the very beginning as the obvious items of the reptile's meal. No thrill out of this, rather laughters actually! And we could find this pitiful flick quite funny if the dialogs and the appearance of the natives were not so obviously inspired by pure racism. Very soon the giggling stops in favor of a sour feeling witnessing such a patronizing attitude. We could excuse badly made films and poor FXs, but not that kind of mentality. Never!$LABEL$ 0
+They had such potential for this movie and they completely fall flat. In the first Cruel Intentions, we are left wondering what motivated the lead characters to become the way they are and act the way they do. There is almost NO character development whatsoever in this prequel. It's actually a very sad story but this film did nothing for me. It was as if they left out good writing in place of unneeded f-words. And the end makes absolutely no sense and doesn't explain anything. The writing was just terrible. Another thing that bothered me was that they used at lease 3 of the EXACT SAME lines that were in the original. Such as "down boy", or the kissing scene, and a few others I can't remember. I was not impressed at all by Robin's acting, but Amy did a great job. That's about the only thing that reconciled this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+A series of random, seemingly insignificant thefts at her sister's boarding house has Miss Lemon quite agitated. A ring, light bulbs, a rucksack, a lighter, a stethoscope, a shoe – there seems to be no rhyme or reason to any of it. Miss Lemon asks her employer, the great Belgian detective Hercule Poirot, to look into the matter. But what Poirot sees is something far more sinister than Miss Lemon could have imagined. And Poirot's fears are confirmed when one of the students living in the boarding house if found murdered. It's up to Poirot to bring a killer to justice.Hickory Dickory Dock is a solid, but not spectacular, entry in the long running Poirot series. I appreciate how faithful the script is to Agatha Christie's original story. I realize that certain liberties had to be taken, but I appreciate the effort nonetheless. The major points of the mystery are all there – the petty thefts, the boarding house, the students, the ripped rucksack, and, of course, Poirot's ability to see something sinister going on before it actually happens. With a few exceptions, the cast of students is almost as I pictured them. Damian Lewis and Jessica Lloyd standout among the group. As mush as I always enjoy David Suchet's Poirot, I get a real kick out of the episodes with Phillip Jackson's Inspector Japp and Pauline Moran's Miss Lemon. This episode is a real treat as Miss Lemon gets more screen time than usual. Finally, I enjoyed the use of the ever present mouse as an observer of the activities in the hostel. It's a fun little play on the Hickory Dickory Dock title.I realized while re-watching Hickory Dickory Dock just what a tremendous influence Agatha Christie's work was on the highly stylized Italian mystery films, or Gialli, of the 60s and 70s. Take the murder of Mrs. Nicoletis as an example. If you were to bump up the graphic nature of the scene, you would have something straight out of an early 70s Giallo. In fact, the entire plot of Hickory Dickory Dock could have been used in a Giallo. It's just convoluted and interesting enough to have worked.$LABEL$ 1
+This was a very well scripted movie. Great fun if you just want a stupid film. Not great production value (ok, the sound really sucked) but the performance of Danny Masterson more than makes up for it.Watch this movie and laugh out loud!$LABEL$ 1
+I rated this one better than awful because I liked seeing Jonathon from Buffy in something again -- even if it was the same role.First, the concept is kind of cute for a short, but not an entire movie. The writing was forced and contrived. I have the feeling that the movie suffered the most during editing.Second, Amanda Bynes always looks like her eyes are crossed -- even when she's not trying to do it. She's just not funny. She always plays some sort of misfit girl who triumphs by being herself -- ironic, considering Amanda seems to always be a caricature. I would actually like to see her in something serious. I really want to give her a chance, but she is always cast in these trite roles where she wiggles and makes faces and somehow that's a good thing?Finally, the whole "I'm a Dork" segment was ripped off from Revenge of the Nerds. There was nothing in this movie that was unpredictable.Shame, shame, shame.$LABEL$ 0
+Slash flicks come few and far between now a days, so when I heard about Cut I had high hopes and heard good things about it. Those good things I heard were all wrong..very wrong! This flick is bad and I mean BAD. It's just plain stupid. Everything about it. Especially the killer's origin and how he stays alive and how he is taken care of in the end. There is nothing original or outstanding about this flick. Just another slasher wannabe with those "Hip," "Self aware." "Movie savvy" characters. I'm so sick of that crap. Someone do something different cause the slash genre needs new blood, literally.$LABEL$ 0
+This film infuriated me for the simple fact that it was made only because Shepherd was gay. The men who murdered him are clearly wicked. What happened to the poor man was truly horrible and a tragedy. However, where was Hollywood when four religious white kids were executed, after being forced to perform a host of sex acts on their killers and each other, by two evil black men in Wichita just two years ago? The celebrities only mug for the camera when it serves a political purpose. Also, Laramie is portrayed in a poor light by this pseudo-documentary, which of course is hardly surprising because they are the backward hicks who must be educated by omniscient and enlightened Californians. Still, it's always a treat to see Laura Linney.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a masterpiece. 'The Big Snit' is a crazy, weird, hilarious and eventually touching look at an old married couple and their quiet life, who argue over sawing and scrabble while a nuclear war rages on outside. Everything in this great animated short stands out as memorable: The eye shaking of the wife, the vacuuming binge, the husband's saw fetish (keep an eye on those backgrounds!), the very verbal cat, the demented game show, the "informative" news anchor, the "beautiful" accordion serenade and the moving and memorable ending. I am so glad I found 'The Big Snit', which is hands down one of the greatest works of film ever produced.$LABEL$ 1
+I don't think I need to tell you the story. For it has been told for years and years. So I will just share my feelings. I first saw Cinderella was when I was five years old. From then on I was a Disney child in a good way. The animation now seems childish and old fashioned, but that is part of its charm now. Now, in the age of High School Musical and computer generated images, it seems like people have forgotten the genius and magical essence of early Disney movies. Thankfully I was born before that so I was introduced to this classic. And it seems no matter how old I get, I turn back into that five year old watching it on VHS. Which is the true magic of Disney.$LABEL$ 1
+First, before reading further, you must understand that I'm not neo-nazi, I'm just trying to understand correctly Hitler to be sure nobody like him take power again.I've seen this series and found it awful. I mean, OK, it's interesting to look, but is it real? I searched for answers and found one: absolutely not. First, Hitler wasn't angry all his life, the series shows an angry Hitler, even when he is a child. Second, Hitler never wanted to abuse his daughter, in fact, it is highly probable that Hitler, in reality, was gay and fought all his life to choke this secret. Third, people will hate me but it's true: Hitler was charming. How do you think he managed to get to power if he was so hateful and ugly? Because he was charming. That's a common point I found in the interviews of people who live near or far of him (of course, not Jews).This series was awful because if you think that Hitler was just an angry bastard, ugly, and of course, not charming at all, you're wrong. If you think that, you will let people like him take power in countries and you don't want that. If you really understand how Hitler managed to get into power, and stop thinking he was just awful, you'll be able to find dangerous politicians like him (of course, remember he was elected) and stop theme before it's too late.Life is important to protect, this series is just awful to show us the truth, if we continue to see Hitler like that, another one will take place exactly as the first did.$LABEL$ 0
+This is without a doubt the STUPIDEST movie of all time.I don't know who I'm angrier at--the idiots who made this or my video store for actually carrying this piece of crap!!I can't even begin to name all of the things wrong with this horrible wanna-be movie.All of the dialogue sounds like it was made up on the spot, and the acting is the worst I have ever seen in any movie-EVER!!There is nothing about the script that would appeal to any decent person, in fact I don't think they even had a script, they just made up everything as they went along--and you can tell.The "women" (i.e. men dressed up in drag trying to look like women) in the costumes looked so ridiculous, I guess they were trying to be sexy but--NOT SO MUCH!! Especially that old woman-disgusting.There is nothing scary about this movie, the only thing scary is that somebody else might actually rent it and have to watch it.No brain required for watching this, you must be a total loser to want to see this movie.Don't forget-- I WARNED YOU!!!$LABEL$ 0
+This is a great show despite many negative user reviews. The aim of this show is to entertain you by making you laugh. Two guys compete against each other to get a girl's phone number. Simple. The fun in this show is watching the two males try to accomplish their goal. Some appear to hate the show for various reasons, but I think, they misunderstood this as an "educational" show on how to pick up chicks. Well it is not, it is a comedy show, and the whole point of it is to make you laugh, not teach you anything. If you didn't like the show, because it doesn't teach you anything, don't watch it. If you don't like the whole clubbing thing, don't watch it. If you don't like socializing don't watch it. This show is a comical show. If you down by watching others pick up girls, well its not making you laugh, so don't watch it. If you are so disappointed in yourself after watching this show and realizing that you don't have the ability to "pick-up" girls, there is no reason to hate the show, simply don't watch it!$LABEL$ 1
+The only reason that this movie is rated a 1 is that zero is not one of the selection options. With a plot thinner than depression era cabbage soup, horrific acting, and special effects that look like they came out of the "Thunderbirds" TV series, it is amazing that Widmark didn't kill the director for putting this black mark on his resume. Even by 1950's standards, the special effects are atrocious, except for a couple of underwater submarine sequences. I can only assume that it was nominated for best special effects because, except for 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and THEM!, there wasn't anybody else doing effects. It was certainly no contest for Disney that year if this was their only competition. I wouldn't recommend the film, even for hard core submarine movie buffs, as the most realistic scene on the submarine was limited to one shot where seawater can be seen dribbling down the up-raised periscope. There are other, much better, sub films that you can enjoy from this era, like the aforementioned 20,000 Leagues or Torpedo Run.$LABEL$ 0
+SILVER CITY (2+ outta 5 stars) As a huge fan of John Sayles' work for many years now I feel safe in saying that this is the worst movie he has ever done. That said, the movie isn't exactly *terrible*... just very uninspired. Sayles throws in familiar elements from his previous movies (corrupt politics, illegal immigration, the selling out of youthful ideals) but fails to bring them together in any new or meaningful way. Even the dialogue (usually Sayles' strong point) is disappointing this time around.. sounding clichéd and forced in almost every scene. The movie looks and sounds like episodes from a TV series that didn't make it past its third episode. There are tons of big stars on hand... and they try their best to make their bit parts come alive... but the material just isn't there this time around. While filming a campaign spot a governor-hopeful (a poor and obvious George W Bush stand-in) fishes a dead body out of a lake. An investigator is hired to try and warn away people who may have deliberately set this up to discredit the candidate... but he soon finds out that there are deeper and darker (and more clichéd) secrets to be discovered. Sayles has made similarly-themed movies so much better in the past ("Lone Star", "Matewan", "Return of the Secaucus Seven", "Men With Guns"). It's a shame that he went to the well one time too many and came up with tainted water. One good line, delivered by Richard Dreyfuss: "Danny, you're a loser. That's already been established beyond doubt. So just try and be a good one, okay?"$LABEL$ 0
+It's always interesting to catch a line in a film that winds up being somewhat prophetic for the future of an actor. In this case, I was intrigued by Edward G. Robinson's statement to Barbara Stanwyck - "I promised you the Valley", as he discusses the lone hold outs to his attempt to control all the land in Logasa. Ten years later, Stanwyck would star as the matriarch of the Barkley Family on "The Big Valley". Somehow I thought she might have looked older in the earlier picture; I guess all those bright gowns and fancy riding outfits have a way of bringing out one's youthful side.As for my summary line above, that's Lee Wilkison's appraisal of John Parrish (Glenn Ford), one of those hold outs mentioned earlier, shortly after Parrish uses his knowledge of military tactics to take out a number of Wilkison hands after they raid his ranch and torch his home. I liked the way the film explored his character, starting with the way he dealt with foreman Wade Matlock (Richard Jaeckel) in a calculated showdown. The set up for the ambush was also a clever maneuver, diametrically opposed to the strategy of rushing the bad guys head on with both sides fighting it out to the last man standing. For that, Parrish also had something to say - "Never meet the enemy on his terms"."The Violent Men" is a good title for this film, and was probably at the head of it's class in the mid 1950's, though by today's standards doesn't come close to the blood letting one will find in a "Tombstone" or "Open Range", where the bullets exact a nasty savagery. But it's shaped by fine performances from the principals, with a sub plot exploring infidelity that seemed almost ironic considering it was Stanwyck's character who was cheating.$LABEL$ 1
+and laugh out loud funny in many scenes.The movie's basic plot is well chronicled, a story of opposites trying to find a way to survive each other in close proximity.This is unquestionably Lemmon and Matheau's best film as co-stars, and the interaction between the sloppy Oscar and the OCD Felix are classic.The scene where Oscar lines up a double date, leaves the room briefly, and comes back to find Felix and the two girls all crying is pricelessly funny.For any fan of intelligent comedies, The Odd Couple is a "go out of your way to see it" film.$LABEL$ 1
+Kevin Spacey again picks a winner with K-PAX, an endearing movie that expresses profound revelations at human existence via the Prot character's naive, yet at the same time unquestionably wise, point of view.It's enjoyable trying to work out 'if he is or he isn't' as the plot expands and the Robert Porter character gets fleshed out. However some may find the ending a little unsatisfying but in reality it couldn't have been any other way.My few issues with the film revolve around the rather cartoony and over simplified portrayal of mental patients. I was surprised because the films plot shows a great deal of intelligence and I don't feel it would have lost anything by being more honest regarding how people with mental health problems behave.That said, I realise this was a movie and not a documentary and the film itself is exquisitly shot and the story unwraps at a pleasing rate. Bridges is great and Spacey delivers a languid and relaxed performance, more like a stand-up than an alien.A good film that will get you talking with your friends.$LABEL$ 1
+This is absurd - aside from the fellow Australian who has reviewed this flick, I can't help but think that everyone else who has submitted a review so far was some way involved in the production of Elektra, considering how generous they were with their praise.Admittedly I'm not really a fan of comic-book-to-movie conversions so I didn't go in with many expectations, yet still I found Elektra to be incredibly underwhelming. The thing that irked me the most was the fact that there was SO MUCH in this film which went by unexplained, that left you thinking "huh, what relevance does that have to the plot?" or "so how did that aspect of the character come about?" I can only hope that these are things which are perhaps explained somewhat in Daredevil, which I have no intention of seeing.Furthermore, the behaviour of the characters in this film appear to do an about-face at random moments to suit the storyline, and don't even get me started about the utterly pointless romantic sub-plot. I'm also (still) scratching my head over the fate of Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa's character, which seems to have gone by unexplained.If I can give kudos to this movie for anything it would have to be the fantastic locations in which it was shot, but otherwise I gained little enjoyment from Elektra. I know we're supposed to suspend our disbelief for fantasy/action films, but almost everything in this film was so improbable or confusing (even by action film standards) that it simply frustrated me.Well, hell, at least Jennifer Garner looks damn good.$LABEL$ 0
+As seems to be the general gist of these comments, the film has some stunning animation (I watched it on blu-ray) but it really falls short of any real depth.Firstly the characters are all pretty dull. I got a hint of a kind of Laputa situation between Agito, Toola and the main antagonist Shunack. However maybe my mind wanderd and this was wishful thinking (Laputa being my favourite animé, original Engilsh dub). The characters are not really lovable either and as mentioned in another post they fall in love exceptionally quickly, leaving poor old Minka jealous and rejected (she loves Agito, who seems oblivious of this). However she promptly seems to forgive Toola at the end with no explanation for the change of heart other than it makes the ending a little bit more "happy". There is also a serious lack of explanation. Like who are the druids really? Are they people? and who are the weird women/girls who seem to hang out with them and run the forest? There is nothing explaining why they are there and how they can give regular humans superpowers. The plants coming from the moon still does not fill in the blanks about this. It is almost like a weird version of The Day of the Triffids.And who does call Toola? why bother with this if it wont be explained?I really wanted to like this film but I found the plot no where near as deep as a film like Ghost in the Shell or having any real character like those of Miyazaki. I do not resent watching it but I do sort of wish I hadn't bought it. My advice? Give it a go if you have a couple of hours to spare, but borrow it, or buy it cheap! Perhaps if your new to animé films and don't have much to go by you will enjoy it. It certainly is visually pleasing.$LABEL$ 0
+Despite the patronage of George Lucas, this captivating and totally original fantasy in "Lumage" (a combination of animation through live action cut-outs) is about as far removed from the usual kiddie fare as anything made by Ralph Bakshi in his heyday. Brilliantly conceived characters such as the shape-shifting dog Ralph (one of a duo of bumbling, rejected heroes), Synonamess Botch (the hilariously foul-mouthed villain) and Rod Rescueman (the pompous novice superhero) breathe life into a uniquely clever concept: Frivoli vs. Murkwood or, the eternal fight between dreams and nightmares. In this context, the MOR-infused songs on the soundtrack ought not to have worked but somehow they do. It's a real pity, therefore, that I have had to watch this via a truly crappy-looking boot (culled from a TV screening) of the uncensored version – there is also a milder variant that toned down the language for its VHS release – since the film is otherwise unavailable on DVD. Interestingly, both Henry Selick and David Fincher worked on this picture in subordinate capacities.$LABEL$ 1
+I was a little afraid when I went to the cinema to see this movie. Indeed, it is always tough to make a movie from a comics and the first episode of the adventures of the French two greatest heroes was good but not fantastic. Finally, it is very funny from the beginning to the end with unexpected gags, some cartoon scenes, no timeouts, great FX, a great cast, great landscapes, great everything !!!However, I wonder how they will manage to translate all the French names in English or German, because it is certainly funny in French but how will it be in another language ???$LABEL$ 1
+I wish Depardieu had been able to finish his book and see it become a dazzling success. At least he'd have wound up with something.The film struck me as pointless, rambling, and very stylish, like some other recent French films. Not to knock it. Most recent American films are pointless and rambling and have no style whatever. We should be grateful, I suppose, for photography that evokes a European city in the midst of a wind-blown Continental winter, and for elliptical conversations that challenge our ability to understand what's up.But there can be too much of a good thing. Golubeva is found stumbling around near the sea in the middle of the freezing night, carrying on in a bad accent about dreams and such. (There are a few sequences of dreams that include things like swimming in a river of blood. You'll love it if you're Vlad the Impaler.) Lots of people die. Catherine Deneuve dies in a suicide by motorcycle. I don't know why. Golubeva's young girl dies too, and I don't know why she dies either. She gets slapped in the face, falls to the pavement, and dies.There is supposedly an explicit sex scene too. I'll have to take their word for it because, although it is stylishly photographed, it is stylishly photographed in almost complete darkness. Don't worry about the kiddies being shocked. They'll probably be asleep by this time anyway.Depardieu isn't a bad actor. As we see him deteriorate from a carefully groomed handsome young man -- well, handsome except that his nose can't seem to get out of his way -- to a limping, murderous, hairy physical wreck, we feel sorry for the guy. Golubeva has a wan pretty face, with enormous half-lidded eyes and wide cheeks, like a doll. Her next movie should be a remake of Lewton's "I Walked With a Zombie." Then there is this mysterious guy who leads a band. I guess it's a band. As far as I could make out, the band is made up of about a dozen drummers and a dozen musicians playing electric guitars. Every viewer will find the resultant sound interesting but uncultivated listeners fond of "easy listening" might not enjoy it. If you don't like the music, there's a payoff involved because the sinister composer and leader gets whacked over the head with Depardieu's walking stick.I must say, I found it barely worth sitting through. (And it's a longie, too.) At times it was like waiting in your car at a railroad crossing while a long long freight train rumbles slowly by, sometimes stopping entirely. I wish it had had a few jokes.$LABEL$ 0
+I am a huge Willem Dafoe fan, and really sought out this film (I had to get a Region 5 Chinese DVD of it!). But, it is truly one of the worst that I've seen in quite a while.The acting (except for Dafoe) is horrible. Dafoe and Colagrande BOTH wrote and directed this ( though he isn't credited as a director), and they have NO discernible talents for writing or directing. (Stick to acting Willem; Giada get out of the business, PLEASE!)Absolutely nothing happens. Except a series of completely unconvincing, totally without believable motivation, acts by these two people (that just met) in this house. Colagrande's sleepy, I couldn't care less expression practically NEVER changes. And the sex scenes are downright lame. I actually cringed twice at one of them. Yuck! They're definitely not the least bit erotic, and yet are the only time the film isn't putting you to sleep. Then, it's busy repulsing you.Just awful.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is great. Simply. It is rare that you find a comedy with levels, and this is a bloody good example of such. When I saw this movie first, as the credit rolled, a friend and I looked to one another and asked... 'did you just catch that?' For those doubters, look at the levels. See the comparisons between Vick and the people in the club, the DNA! See the diverse characters, each jostling for position, and if you see nothing else, see the connection between the cure of Vick and the path through the film. IT'S ALL IN VICK'S HEAD! The opening line about Vick's world. The closing scene with the camera going into Vick's head, and inside, a whole universe! Thoroughly quotable, wonderful cartoon gangsters, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful!$LABEL$ 1
+This version is pretty insipid, I'm afraid. Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books and has been since childhood, but William Hurt's weary, throwaway acting style is completely unsuitable to the bold passion of Edward Rochester and poor Charlotte Gainsbrough looks like a bored, petulant teenager whose dental braces hurt! I also can't believe that they eliminated Edward's great marriage proposal scene from the end of the book, one of the most moving moments in literature. I do appreciate that they finally used such a young, plain woman to play Jane, a character who is supposed to be a worldly 18, but if you want to see a version that closer approximates the personalities and passions of the novel, please see the 70's version with George C. Scott and Susannah York. York was too old, tall and pretty to play Jane, but no one has touched Rochester's character the way that Scott did.$LABEL$ 0
+If you are thinking of going to see this film then my advice is - dont.For me the film failed to make the grade at every level and was a reminder of how dire most British (& Irish)films are. Forgettable tripe is the best i can say. If it had been on telly l would have wandered off to do something more interesting five minutes after the start. I saw this film with a group of friends and having read the press previews went along prepared to not be critical and hopefully pass an amusing 90 minutes. But, oh dear.....As a comedy it wasn't funny, as a thriller the stupid story was sloppy and lazy. As a love story totally unbelievable. Most of all as a piece of 'gloriously over the top whimsy' it lacked both style and charm. Gambon and Caine did what they needed to do to earn their money playing er..... Gambon and Caine. Is it just me, but other than playing east end gangsters and jack the lads, does Michael Caine leave you cold?In fairness, some of my friends thought it was 'ok' but if you do go, my advice is have a few drinks (or puffs) beforehand and leave your critical faculties safely locked up at home.$LABEL$ 0
+As long as you don't mind paying a little more attention than you normally might for other films, this is one of the best "thrillers" you'll ever see. The film portrays an incident that might occur in real life; nothing in it seems fictional at all, in fact. It also portrays how people might react in real life.In fact, it portrays these so well that is seems like real life. Combine that with the lack of a soundtrack, and you've almost got the best news-like movie you've ever seen. Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon are particularly good in this late-seventies masterpiece, evoking concern on her end and genuine tragic pity on his end. I highly recommend it to anyone who likes thrillers.$LABEL$ 1
+Buddy is an entertaining family film set in a time when "humanizing" animals, and making them cute was an accepted way to get people to be interested in them.Based on a true story, Buddy shows the great love that the main characters have for animals and for each other, and that they will do anything for each other.While not a perfect movie, the animated gorilla is quite lifelike most of the time and the mayhem that occurs within the home is usually amusing for children.This film misses an opportunity to address the mistake of bringing wild animals into the home as pets, but does show the difficulties.A recommended film which was the first for Jim Henson Productions.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is a huge steaming pile. I have no idea why anyone felt that the Garland/Mason version needed to be redone, nor why Striesand would have been a first choice to star.For that matter, I have no idea why our people (Gay Americans) tend largely to regard Striesand as some kind of treasure. At least in my opinion, she had peaked professionally with with Funny Girl, and Bogdanovich's What's Up Doc. Do yourself a favor and rent the Judy classic, or even the original (a fine film in its own right), but please, Please, PLEASE skip this stinkpot!$LABEL$ 0
+Bled starts as young female artist Sai (Sarah Ferooqui) meets a mysterious yet charming man named Renfield (Jonathan Oldham) & they end up back at her studio apartment where he gives her the bark of some sort of tree which is used as a hallucinogenic drug when melted down. Sai quickly becomes hooked as she is whisked into an alternate fantasy reality which involve Vampiric creatures. Sai's photographer friend Royce (Chris Ivan Cevic) becomes concerned about her as she drifts further from reality as she becomes addicted to the drug, can Royce her kick the drug or will it end up ruining her life & why did the mysterious Renfield get her addicted to the stuff in the first place & do the elaborate fantasy dream like trips have any significance?Co-produced & directed by Christopher Hutson this anaemic arty Vampire flick is pretty much 95 minutes of tedium & is throughly deserving of all the bad comments. The script was written by the interestingly named Sxv'leithan Essex (how the hell do you even pronounce that anyway?) who is also credited as production designer & his unusual name is actually more interesting than anything that ever happens in Bled, I would guess that the makers set out to make a very serious fantasy based horror film with a strong moral message about the dangers of drugs, drug addiction & date rape drug at it's core. The majority of the film is spent on the drug issue with Sai's initial introduction to the drug, how great the first time was & how she becomes hopelessly addicted which eventually destroys her, her life & her friends lives. It's never explained where she keeps getting this drug from as Renfield only gives her a little bit during their initial meeting but hey, who cares? The first twenty odd minutes of Bled are really boring & dull, the following hour or so aren't much better before a mess of a final ten minutes which involve a Vampiric monster & Renfield making a reappearance. The moral elements are patronising, the fantasy elements seem like an afterthought & the horror is none existent. There's also the dialogue which is awful, every sentence tries to be profound, have loads of hidden depth & just tries to have so much meaning that it becomes tiresome to listen to.The concept of the film is terrible & so is the execution as there's absolutely no gore or violence to speak of & the entire thing is set inside an apartment that doesn't appear to have any lights. The fantasy setting looks a little better but it's sparsely seen & underused. There are no scares here, no atmosphere & to make matters even worse the makers have decided to used muted very faded colours which I just hate & find annoying, what's wrong with a nice colourful image? It seems to me to be a fad with current filmmakers who seem to think that it automatically makes a film cool or adds atmosphere which it most certainly doesn't, more often than not it just makes your film look dull & drab as evidenced here with Bled.This probably had a low budget & was shot in Los Angeles & it has reasonable production values but it's all so dull. The acting didn't impress me, I didn't care for or about anyone which is never a good sign.Bled is a terrible Vampire film that goes for psychological horror as well as physical with all sorts of parallels to real life dug addiction & what it can do to little or no effect because the whole thing is so dull. There might be an audience for a film such as this but considering the other comments not that big a one.$LABEL$ 0
+It is hard to describe this film and one wants to tried hard not to dismiss it too quickly because you have a feeling that this might just be the perfect film for some 12 years old girl...This film has a nice concept-the modern version of Sleeping Beauty with a twist. It has some rather dreamy shots and some nice sketches of the young boy relationship with his single working mother and his schoolmate... a nice start you might say, but then it got a bit greedy, very greedy, it tries to be a science fiction, a drama, a thriller, a possible romantic love story, fairy tale, a comedy and everything under the sun. The result just left the audience feeling rather inadequate. For example, the scene when the girl(played by Risa Goto) finally woken by his(Yuki Kohara) kiss, instead of being romantic, it try's to be scary in order to make us laugh afterwards... it is a cheap trick, because it ruin all the anticipation and emotion which it was trying to build for the better half of the film.I have not read the original story the film is base on (it is the well-known work by the comic-book artist Osamu Tezuka is famous with his intriguing and intricate stories) I wonder if all the problems exsist in the original story or did it occur in the adaption? It is rather illogical even for someone who is used to the "fussy logic" of those japanese comic-book. For instance, how did Yuki Kohara's character manage to get to the hospital in an instant(when its suppose to be a long bus-ride away)to run away Risa Goto's character in front of the tv cameras right after he saw her live interview on the television?There are also some scenes that is directly copied(very uncreative!) from other films and they all seem rather pointlessly annoying ie. the famous "the Lion mouth has caugh my hand" scene from "the "Roman Holiday"The film tries to be everything but ends up being nothing... it fails to be a fairy tale and it did not have enough jokes to be a comedy... and strangely there are some scenes that even seem like an unintentional "ghost" movie. Nevertheless, one should give it credit that it has managed to caputured some of the sentiment of the japanese teenager.It is by watching this film I have a feeling that there might be some films that should have come with a warning label that said "this film might only be suitable for person under the 18 of age", it would have definitly been on the poster of this film.$LABEL$ 0
+Prior to Airport 79' these movies were rather good. They had decent special effects, all-star cast, and good acting. This movie destroyed the franchise, and there are many reasons for it. Lets talk about the special effects WOW!!!! they are horrific, what was the director thinking about. I know it's only 1979, but lets look at other very good special effects movies such as Star Wars(1977),and Moonraker(1979). I like the idea of the Concord and this could of been the best Airport movie, but they did too much with it. How about Joe Patroni(George Kennedey) shooting a flare out of the cockpit window, to prevent a heat seeking missile from hitting the concord. Also he is doing 90 degree dives and loops. This completely far fetched, and unrealistic WOW!!!!!! Believe me the special effects don't help this scene, and really are beyond poor.... They almost look like a cartoon, and this is how the whole movie is!!!Finally lets talk about the acting which in my opinion is extremely poor to fair at best.... Over acting is a major issue in this movie, especially George Kennedy.. Which I really like as an actor, but just doesn't cut in this movie. The full blame has to go on the director, who did a very poor editing job, and really whacked out the Airport Franchise. Too bad the Concord isn't still used today it was a marvel of Air travel...$LABEL$ 0
+The last of the sequels,not counting Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein which was more or less a spoof.this time count Dracula (John Carridine)takes center stage seeking a cure for his vampirism from a kindly doc(Onslow Stevens).well good ole Larry Talbot(Lon Chaney Jr)shows up also seeking a cure.the good doc succeeds in curing Larry's werewolfism,but Dracula tricks the doc and ends up contaminating his blood and makes the good doc a crazed lunatic.oh and all this time big Franky(Glenn strange)lies on a table awaiting his electricity fix so he can wreak some havoc.this was kind of a short movie,around 70 minutes and some change,but the action is there,and the great actors are there as well.Lionel atwill turns up as a police inspector,heres some trivia,Lionel atwill appeared in son of Frankenstein,ghost of Frankenstein,Frankenstein meets the wolf-man,and house of Frankenstein. and then this one.if there was another in the series they May have added the creature from the black lagoon to the line up,I'm giving house of Dracula 8 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+*!!- SPOILERS - !!*Before I begin this, let me say that I have had both the advantages of seeing this movie on the big screen and of having seen the "Authorized Version" of this movie, remade by Stephen King, himself, in 1997.Both advantages made me appreciate this version of "The Shining," all the more.Also, let me say that I've read Mr. King's book, "The Shining" on many occasions over the years, and while I love the book and am a huge fan of his work, Stanley Kubrick's retelling of this story is far more compelling ... and SCARY.Kubrick really knows how to convey the terror of the psyche straight to film. In the direction of the movie AND the writing of the screenplay, itself, he acquired the title "Magus" beyond question. Kubrick's genius is like magic. The movie world lost a great director when he died in 1999. Among his other outstanding credits are: Eyes Wide Shut, 1999; Full Metal Jacket, 1987; Barry Lyndon, 1975; A Clockwork Orange, 1971; 2001: A Space Odyssey, 1968; Spartacus, 1960 and many more.The Torrences (Jack, Wendy his wife and Danny, their son) are living in the Overlook Hotel for the winter; Jack has been hired as the caretaker. It is his job to oversee the upkeep of the hotel during the several months of hard snow, until spring when the Overlook reopens its doors. It seems there are many wealthy and jaded tourists who will flock to the Colorado Mountains for a snow-filled summer getaway.The Hotel was an impressive piece of architecture and staging. It lent to the atmosphere, by having a dark, yet at the same time "welcoming" atmosphere, itself. The furnishings and furniture was all period (late 70's - early 80's), and the filmography of the landscape approaching the hotel in the opening scene is brilliant. It not only lets you enjoy the approach to the Overlook, it also fixes in your mind how deserted and isolated the Hotel is from the rest of the world.The introduction of Wendy and Danny's characters was a stroke of genius. You get the whole story of their past, Danny's "imaginary friend," Tony, and the story of Jack's alcoholism all rolled into this nice, neat introductory scene. There was no need in stretching the past history out over two hours of the movie; obviously, Kubrick saw that from the beginning.Closing Day. Again, the scenic drive up the mountains to the Hotel (this time, with family in tow), the interaction between Jack and Danny was hilarious while also portraying a very disturbing exchange.The initial tour through the Overlook is quite breathtaking, even as the "staff" is moving things out, you get a chance to see the majestic fire places, the high cathedral ceilings and expensive furnishings, dormants and crown moldings in the architecture. "They did a good job! Pink and gold are my favorite colors." (Wendy Torrence) Even the "staff wing" is well designed and beautifully built.The maze was a magnificent touch, reminiscent of the Labyrinth in which the Minotaur of Crete was Guardian. When Jack Nicholson stands at the scaled model of the maze and stares into the center, seeing Wendy and Danny entering, it's a magickal moment; one that tells you right away, there are heavy energies in that house; there's something seriously wrong, already starting. "I wouldn't want to go in there unless I had at least an hour to find my way out." (The Hotel Manager)Scatman Cruthers, as Dick Halloran, was genuine and open in his performance. His smiles were natural and his performance was wonderful. You could actually believe you were there in the hotel, taking the tour of the kitchen with Wendy and "Doc." His explanation of "the shining" to Danny was very well delivered, as was his conversation with the child about Tony and the Hotel. It was believable and sincere.The cut out and pan scan of the hotel itself, with the mountains looming behind, the cold air swirling about, mist coming up from the warm roof of the snowbound hotel, adds so MUCH to the atmosphere of the movie. It also marks the "half-way-to-hell" point, so to speak; the turning point in the movie.Shelley Duvall's portrayal of Wendy Torrence was masterful. (So WHAT if she also played Olive Oyl?! It just shows her marvelous diversity!) Honestly, before I saw the movie on the big screen in 1980, I said," What? Olive Oyl? *lol* (Popeye was also released in 1980.) But I took that back as soon as the movie started. She's brilliant. In this Fiend's opinion, this is her best performance, to date! (Although I did love her in Steve Martin's "Roxanne," 1987.)Once Kubrick has established the pearly bits of information of which you, the viewer, need to be in possession: the Torrence's past; Danny's broken arm; Tony; the history of the Hotel itself; the fact that Danny is not "mental," but rather clairvoyant instead, and the general layout of the Hotel; all of which you get in the opening 3 sequences; the movie never stops scaring you.The two butchered daughters of the previous caretaker, Delbert Grady (the girls having appeared several times to Danny, first by way of Tony in the apartment before the family ever left for the hotel) were icons with which Danny could identify, and of which he was afraid, at the same time. They were haunting (and haunted), themselves and showed Danny how and where they were killed, in a rather graphic and material way.Kubrick's Tony was written as an attendant spirit, like a spirit guide which he acquired as a result of his arm nearly being wrenched off his body by his own father. He was..."the little boy who lives in my mouth." He would manifest in the end of Danny's finger and physically spoke through Danny in order to speak TO Danny. NOT like in the book, I realize, where Tony was intended by Stephen King to be the projection of Danny as an older boy, trying to save his father. Kubrick left out that little twist and it somehow made it more frightening when Tony "took ... Danny ... over." The idea of Danny's older self projecting back to his younger self isn't...scary.The "Woman in the Shower" scene, done by Lia Beldan (about whom I can find no other credits for having done anything before, or since) as the younger woman and Billie Gibson (who ALSO appears to suffer from a lack of credits for works before or since), was seductively obnoxious and thoroughly disgusting. It was dramatic, and frightening. Abhorrent and scary. When Nicholson looks into the mirror and sees her decomposing flesh beneath his hands; the look of sheer terror on his face was so complete and REAL.Jack quickly embarks on his trek from the "jonesing" alcoholic to a certifiable insane person. The degradation of his character's mental state is carefully and thoroughly documented by Kubrick. Jack's instant friendship with Lloyd the Bartender (as only alcoholics, would-be mental patients and drug addicts do) portrays his pressing NEED of the atmosphere to which Lloyd avails him; namely, alcohol ..."hair of the dog that bit me." (Jack Torrence) In Jack's case, it's bourbon on the rocks, at no charge to Jack. "Orders from the house." (Lloyd the Bartender) Nice play on words.When Wendy find's Jack's "screenplay" is nothing more than page after page of the same line typed over and over, albeit in 8 or 9 different creative styles...when he asks from the shadows, "How do you like it?" and Wendy whirls and screams with the baseball bat in her hand...is so poignant. It's the point where she realizes how messed up the whole situation is...how messed up Jack is. It's very scary, dramatic and delivers a strong presence. That coupled with Danny's visions of the hotel lobby filling with blood, imposed over the scene between Jack and Wendy, and with the confrontational ending to this scene, make this possibly THE strongest scene of the movie.The "REDRUM" scene. Wow. What do I say? What mother would not be totally freaked by awakening to find their young, troubled son standing over them with a huge knife, talking in that freaky little voice, exclaiming "REDRUM" over and over? Even if it HAD no meaning, it would still be as scary as the 7th level of HELL. It was something everyone could (and has) remember(ed). Speaking of memorable scenes...Nicholson's final assault on his family with an axe was perhaps one of the scariest scenes of movie history. His ad-libbed line, "Heeeeere's Johnny!" was a stroke of brilliance and is one of the most memorable scenes in the history of horror. It also goes down in horror movie history.The ending..? Kubrick's ending was perfection. I felt it ended beautifully. No smarm, no platitudinous whining, no tearfully idiotic ending for THIS movie. Just epitomized perfection. That's all I'll say on the subject of the ending.Who cares what was taken out?! Look what Kubrick put IN. Rent it, watch it, BUY IT. It's a classic in the horror genre, and for good reason. IT RAWKS!!*Me being Me* ... Take this movie, and sitck it in your Stephen King collection, and take the 1997 "Authorized" version done by King and stick it down in the kiddie section. That's where it belongs. .: This movie rates a 9.98 from the Fiend :.$LABEL$ 1
+This film promises much but delivers little. The basic problem has to do with the inclusion of Charlotte Gainsbourg's character in this film. Immigrants from Sicily did not need a redheaded Anglo in any way--the movie may have needed her, but new citizens certainly did not. In my opinion,the decision to include her destroys the continuity of the film. This is particularly troubling since it seems to demean not only the characters in the movie, but also the history of immigration itself. Immigrants themselves were heroic figures, fully capable of getting along without having to satisfied what I believer to be a veiled image of "the white man's burden." I wonder if someone will make a movie of Irish immigrants which will include a Sicilian woman as a major character. The Left Elbow Index considers seven aspects of film--acting, production sets, dialogue, artistry, film continuity, plot, and character development--on a scale from high of 10 for excellent, 5 for average, and 1 for needs help. Both film continuity and plot rate a low of 1. The continuity as discussed above is further degraded by the surrealistic ending. Does not a film of such important historical significance deserve more than a conclusion which reminds one of Marc Chagall? The plot is simple enough, until it seems to become entangled with too much time in the old country, too little time on the ship, and too much emphasis on the ending. The acting and character development is average since all the characters are fixed throughout the film, and the inclusion of the Anglo-Saxon speaking perfect English almost turns the movie into a satire. Where's Groucho when you need him? The production sets, the dialogue and the artistry are very good, each rating a 10. The sets in Sicily, on the ship, and on Ellis Island are as good as one can find. The dialogue is marvelous, and the ethic singing is superb. I agree with Scorsese that listening to the Sicilian dialect is a pleasure. Note that the immigrants speak of "America", not the "United States"--the ideal vs. the political reality. The are many good artistic scenes, with dreams of America, gold coins raining, and giant veggies among the best. The average Left Elbow Index is 5.25, raised to a 7.0 when equated with the IMDb scale. One other notion seems to run through Ellis Island experience: the tribulations of pass immigrants was grueling, later, in 2006, one only had to pay a coyote or boat owner and sneak into the county under the darkness of night, no questions asked! The movie is worth seeing, but it appears that what one sees is problematical.$LABEL$ 1
+Yash Raj films are so funny, whatever works they follow it yet they are called the best production house?Seeing Bhatt films working they copied the formula, bikini and everything plus casting low actors like Uday and TanishaaThe film is so horrible it makes you cringethe jokes are so bad and horny it makes you slap them Uday resembles a gay plus a monkeyTanishaa resembles an idiot The director thinks we all are idiots Arjun Sablok takes the audience for granted Music is saving grace Camera-work is goodUday Chopra hams like an idiot, Tanishaa looks like Kajol in K3g if Kajol was annoying der then Tanishaa is worse the rest are okay$LABEL$ 0
+I found this family film to be pleasant and enjoyable even though I am not a child. It is based on the concept of a high school girl, Susan (Elisha Cuthbert) discovering that the elevator in her upper class apartment building becomes a time machine when a key on a key chain she got from a blind scientist is turned in the elevator lock. She learns how to control the machine (with some uncertainty about time of day).The film is not a work of serious science fiction. You have to ignore the usual instability paradox associated with altering the past through time travel, i.e, the past is changed to prevent the 1881 Walker family from becoming poor, but the change means the family never got into financial trouble, so Victoria wouldn't have told Susan about the financial problems her mother had, which means that Susan shouldn't have had a reason to change the past in the first place! But other than that, there are some nice touches in the story, such as the old elevator panel, found in the apartment of the woman who secretly invented and installed the time machine, not having a space for the lock that activates the time machine feature. As in many stories for children, we need to also suppose that a child will not share startling information about a time travel device with a parent or other adult but instead hide the time traveler.It also requires disregarding some poorly staged scenes and uninspired performances by some of the adult actors. (The child actors (Elisha Cuthbert, Gabrielle Boni, and Matthew Harbour) all were very convincing in their parts.) In one scene in the 1300s native Americans notice Susan observing and photographing them. But they don't register surprise in the sudden appearance of this blond, white skinned girl in peculiar dress. Their response is to simply stop what they are doing and to walk calmly towards Susan. In the same scene an Indian mother is carrying what is supposed to be a baby but is so obviously a doll (its white skinned and its head flops around).Timothy Busfield, the award winning actor who originally came to fame in TV's old "Thirty Something," gives a somewhat uninteresting, sometimes listless, performance. In the other extreme Michel Perron hams it up as the Italian building superintendent (janitor), as does Richard Jutras in his role as a nosy neighbor. (The neighbor's name is Edward Ormondroyd, which is the name of the author of the novel the film is based on.) I suspect that these problems may be the fault either of the director or possible of a low budget.Despite these flaws, I recommend the movie for kids. In addition to the interesting story, it also has some educational value, in that it points out how much both technology and social norms have changed in little more that 100 years.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is likely the worst movie I've ever seen in my life -- surpassing the previous most god-awful movie, "Spawn of Slithis," which I saw when I was about 10.Bad acting, stilted and ridiculous dialog, incomprehensible plot, mishmashed cut scenes, even the music was annoying. Did I leave anything out? Well, the special effects weren't bad -- but CGI does not a decent movie make.I can't believe I actually spent money to see this movie. If anyone has the contact info for Hyung-rae Shim (the director), please forward it to my user name "at gmail," and I'll contact him to personally demand a refund.$LABEL$ 0
+I have spent many years studying all the great directors, like Kurosawa, Lean, Fulci, Lenzi, Deodato, Peckinpah, Kubrick and admire them greatly. My favourite film is Once upon a time in America.I have only recently become a fan of D'Amato, and while he was no horror master, his films were extreme whether it be soft core, hardcore or extreme.Porno Holocaust is now one of my favourite films, the way its shot is brilliant and the music is catchy.Joe D'Amato, wasn't a horror master, he's no Fulci or Bava, but however he was a master of erotica, no other director could shoot erotic films like him, he also never tried making any films outside of these genre's either.Long live Joe D'Aamto-Master of Porn and Erotica!$LABEL$ 1
+When I first saw the trailer for Prom Night, I have to admit, the trailer looked good and like this would be a fun horror movie. So my friend and I saw Prom Night last night and I have to say I must be growing up because this was such a ridicules film, not to mention I am so sick and tired of the typical horror slasher movies with the loud noises as an excuse to scare people. There was no tension, the characters, how was I supposed to care about them? They had no development what-so-ever, the killer?! Oh, my God, this was very possibly the most stupid serial killer that has ever existed, I know it's a film, but why would a man who never(or at least we know of) killed any one before, kill a girl's family and friends that he's just obsessed over? I mean, was he going to kidnap her or was he going to kill her? I have no idea, because this film made no sense and is too predictable and insulting to true fans of horror.Donna's family was just brutally murdered by her teacher, who has become very obsessed over her, he was captured and put in jail. It's been 3 years and she's just now getting some peace in her life, she's even going to her senior prom. But the killer has escaped and still has Donna on his mind, he follows her to her prom which means bad news for her friends, and the hotel maid, and the bell boy, because it is such a good idea to kill the maid and bell boy so no one become suspicious enough to check to see where these employee's are. Donna is in big trouble because also this killer who is clearly human can apparently get into houses un-noticed and can kill people so silently, just, wow.I'm sorry, I really did want to love this movie, we haven't had a good slasher flick in a long time, but this was just a stupid movie that I was not impressed with. Just the situations were unbelievable and the actors were obnoxious. I know that this was a PG-13 movie, but I just love how someone was brutally stabbed to death and they only have just a little blood on their clothes? Not to mention no stab holes? I wouldn't recommend this movie for anyone unless you're a teen, this movie was made for the teenagers, not adults, and not for those who know a real horror movie, no offense to those who did enjoy this film, but I don't understand how anyone could.2/10$LABEL$ 0
+Okay, I know I shouldn't like this movie but I do. From Pat Morita's loveable interpretation of a Japanese stereotype to Jay Leno's annoying yell, I laughed throughout this movie.As long as you take into account that this is not the best movie in the world, it's a good mvie.My favorite part is Morita talking to his boss in Tokyo with the drinking a close second.$LABEL$ 1
+Sogo Ishii can be a skilled filmmaker under the right conditions, but Gojoe tells the story of a warrior monk and his only rival, a scion of the Genji clan. The film-making has the main hallmarks of a low-budget production, including blurry fight scenes and clumsy montages (the kind you might find in an under-produced dorama). The monk Benkei informs his spiritual teacher that his destiny lies in defeating the mysterious spirit that guards Gojoe bridge at night, but he doesn't realize that this decision will bring him squarely into conflict with nearly every element of society at that time - but which could earn him enlightenment. There's no absence of ambitiousness, however, in its depiction of the conflict between the holy and the worldly. Artsy flourishes in some of the photography and editing help to compensate for the loose film-making style. A disappointment.$LABEL$ 0
+No one better spoil this piece of work! Awesome movie! Written expertly by the likes of Ira Levin and depicted with the best performance of Christopher Reeve's career and one of Caine's very best, this is simply excellent. I wish I could catch a staged version somewhere...maybe someday I will. I hope this grossly underrated, overlooked film has not become too difficult to locate because it a 'must' for any Hitchcockian, Agatha-phile or lover of great film. One of very few movies I couldn't instantly solve or predict and worth a second or even third viewing, "Deathtrap" gets a 9/10 and earns every iota of it. We need and deserve more movies like this!$LABEL$ 1
+One cannot help but be impressed with the intelligence and scale of this film, and simultaneously disappointed by the lost opportunities.I found the script to be excellent, and the vocal talent of Edmund Purdom quite impressive. However, as an artifact of its time, the film suffers from too many Hollywood-isms, especially poor casting, too much lushness of the sets, and too much pretentiousness. Edmund Purdom (who plays the title character) is so obviously awkward with physical acting, I suspect he had primarily been in Shakespearean theater before this.So if movie people are reading this, I propose this as an excellent candidate for a remake, especially if you cast real Egyptians as Egyptians!$LABEL$ 1
+Like too many recent British films, this one takes a great cast and gives them a flimsy, cliched script to work with. The performances save it from total disgrace, and it has some charm but it certainly didn't make me laugh. Where are all the great British writers hiding?$LABEL$ 0
+Tempest is based on the classic Shakespearean work of the same name, but bears little resemblance to its source material.It masquerades as being as cerebral as its namesake, but instead is a jumbled, convoluted, and hackneyed exercise in tedium. The original probed the premise that people have an evil side, which would be destructive if unchecked. Here you just get an uninteresting mid life crisis (yawn) goof ball who is having everything go wrong in his personal and professional life. He becomes endowed with a supernatural power that he uses to try to control his environment; in other words: to get his own way.Every few minutes, after something else in his pathetic life goes wrong, he finds a secluded place and starts babbling "Show me the magic!" while waving his hands around and making a "serious concentration" expression. From the way these scenes are shot, it looks like he's trying to turn bugs into other kinds of bugs. Turning a spider into a cockroach, maybe, but by this time, you really don't care.The story has him bolt from his life with his daughter to a Greek island somewhere, then have a awkward relationship with some girl he meets, one of the dullest romances ever committed to film. The story just bogs down and moves at a slower and slower pace. You are never given any reason to like or dislike anyone.I'll give this a 2 because of the beautiful Greek location shots and the semi-optimistic conclusion (although it isn't clear if the tempest power brought this ending about or not). The spirit of Shakespeare's work has been captured much better in other movies; one notable example is "Forbidden Planet," which gave credence to how the power gets out of control.As for this "Tempest", its only magic is to cure insomnia.$LABEL$ 0
+Ernesto is a man that makes a living out of duping other solid citizens of their hard earned money. Together with Manco, an older man with a lot of experience, he pulls out capers that allow him to make a decent living, but that is not making him a rich man by any means. Enter Federico, an older man who is more experience in the art of deception. Together with the younger Ernesto they prove a winning combination. That only lasts until Pilar, Federico's former love interest, appears in the picture.This Spanish film directed by Miguel Bardem, is light in tone and pleasant to sit through. Other, better made caper films have been made with much clever plots than this one, but the film is easy to take, and at times, it has a lot of funny situations.This viewer will see Federico Luppi in anything, even reading the telephone directory! He is an actor's actor. We have had the privilege of having seen him in the Buenos Aires stage doing excellent work before his international film career. As Federico, he does what he does best. It's impossible to imagine anyone better in his role. Ernesto Alterio, the son of Hector Alterio, is a young actor who promises to have a great career. Victoria Abril makes Pilar fun as she gets involved with these con men. Miguel Alexandre, a veteran actor, is also good as Manco.$LABEL$ 1
+This was the beginning of it all! Granted, this is not Friends at its best, but this was the show's pilot, let's not forget and not a bad one at that. We're introduced to the gang and Central Perk, where our story begins. Even from this first episode we get a sign of the Ross-Rachel relationship that will come over the next ten years, when Ross says: 'I just want to be married again' and Rachel storms in with a wedding dress on... probably not intentional as at the time the writers were going for a Monica-Joey relationship but fits nicely now when looking back. Something else.. in this episode Rachel is introduced to Chandler as if the two have never met before but in later episodes, the so-called 'flashbacks' this is contradicted as the two have met on three previous occasions. Nevertheless, the point is this a fine start to a great show. This episode may not be the usual Friends as we are accustomed to them, with the cast still a bit inexperienced but over the next few episodes we see why the show came to be what it was! Keep watching, first season is a blast!!$LABEL$ 1
+Having only seen two of his pictures previously, I've come to terms with Altman. Before, though, I always labeled his style of film-making "boring." You just have to be in the right mind to appreciate his crazy genius."HealtH" is fairly underrated, and very questionably out of print. In fact, I don't think it's ever even been issued to VHS. Why is that? When all of these crappy films get DVD releases daily, this one is left behind for no good reason? Honestly, I had no real problems with this film. It was, for the most part, consistently amusing and funny. Almost all of the scenes are mysteriously interesting for some reason, be it the wonderful dialogue or the subtle performances. There is real skill here.And Paul Dooley's stint on the bottom of the pool halfway through is fascinating.If you can, try to find a copy of this forgotten little gem. It's not perfect, but it's much better than most of the sludge out there getting DVD releases. Hell, I'd be happy with a nice VHS copy of this thing.It's often on the Fox Movie Channel, though, so look out for it.$LABEL$ 1
+too bad they showed palm trees that could not be more inaccurate for Connecticut in October ... this was filmed in New Zealand ...This Martha Moxley case had been 'cold' for 20-25 years ... her family worked hard to keep it alive and when Mark Fuhrman decided he did not want to be remembered only for his involvement in the Nicole Simpson case .... which could have been deleterious to his reputation (if it already hadn't)... Anyway, he followed along as the police tried to get enough information to write a book. ... with the use of flashbacks we can see the relationships Martha formed .... Unattended boys coming of age without a mother around to help and a dad who was always looped ...Plus the fact that they portray the real Martha as if she were a movie star... she was a cute sweet girl next door type. Other than that, the other characters were really great, especially Jon Foster and Toby Moore, who played as Michael Skakel and Tommy Skakel respectively. They were good as well, the costumers had to keep it all in the 70s look and back up to the 90s ....It kept my interest even when I caught on about the Skakel guy ....$LABEL$ 1
+This movie tries to say something profound; I'm just not sure what it was. Too much is left unresolved in the end for me to figure out the main point. A couple scenes really have me wondering what was left on the cutting room floor. I don't think the wall was very well developed I never got what was actually going on there. When the mother finally unveils it I just couldn't make any connection to the boy's silence. What was the point of the boy not talking? Was he just delusional or did he acquire some sort of power. What was the scene with the burnt girl all about? Another power the boy has or what? I don't understand how that developed any character or moved the plot. I got the bully bit but what happened to the dog? Did the dog come back or did mom get rid of Fido for good somehow? There were several additional plot elements that were more clutter than use. Like the radio talk show in the background discussing the Iraq War. I think that was supposed to create some sort of comparison to the grief and insecurity the mother and Addison were experiencing but for me it was distracting and strained. I didn't buy the link very much. I also found the teacher getting on Addison about not saying "here" for roll call a bit much. The mom seeing the doctor was pointless, how did it serve the plot? Was that to show how desperate the mother was getting, or was it something about the medicine that I didn't get? Was that the dad coming back in the last scene, or just some guy? So did writing on the wall work? What happened to the Dog?$LABEL$ 0
+Why was this film made? What were the creators of this thinking?!?! The first 8MM film at least had a plot that made sense and was potentially interesting. The first film was about the snuff film industry. This sequel is about... hold on... the porno industry!! Yes, as if the snuff film industry, an industry in which people are supposedly killed on film for entertainment, were at all in the same league with the adult film industry, an industry in which people film other people engaging in unstimulated sex acts and situations for eroticism. The idea alone should warn you about how poorly conceived the idea for this film alone is. It isn't helped by a lack of plot, character, acting, direction, script, logic, theme, or even sound design. This is a remarkably boring film that never once held my attention. Literally nothing works. Why would a mystery thriller film about the porno industry involving assassination and betrayal work anyway? I don't have much of an interest in adult films, but I certainly have watched them before. Why would somebody make a film about the evils of it and that they would make it in a sequel to a film about snuff movies? I don't even know if there is an industry involved in snuff film making, but I hope it doesn't. The idea of a snuff film alone is horrific and only people who are truly sick and bad would be a part of it. I don't think that the adult film industry revolves around murder and torture. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people make pornographic films for good intentions rather than to hurt and kill people. It is never okay to hurt another human being. The adult film industry isn't about hurting people. It's about creating films that are, to me, a diversion and a waste of time. What is this film trying to say? It doesn't work.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a stupid movie. Like a lot of these karate movies it is badly written, awkward, and sometimes just stupid. The action really isn't all there and the movie overall leaves much to be desired. Everyone here is talking jive, doing bad karate and doing a very bad job of acting. Watch for Scatman Crothers in a small role, he is too good for this movie overall. Jim Kelly is good at karate, but he is a terrible actor. Gloria Hendry is real bad. All of them are, there are just so many parts to this film that make absolutely no sense. The supposed love/running away scene with Hendry and Kelly, what the hell was that? They destroyed that man's guitar, for no reason! And then there was the mandatory girls on trampolines!!! Now what was that? They were in the movie for five seconds, then you never heard from them again!!! Then there is the whole racially charged element of the movie, which is cool and all, but in this movie it goes absolutely nowhere. Like I said, this is good for a laugh one time, but don't watch it again.$LABEL$ 0
+The most ridiculous thing about this ridiculous movie is its conceit that if one becomes a saint, he or she and his or her family and his or her significant other live forever. Let's forget that in order to become a saint, the saint must be dead, and saints don't have significant others. That, for a millennium, Nick has been the Jolly Elf to Fred's Scrooge is never even hinted at! Open on Nick learning how to make toys, then on Fred learning how to run numbers; Nick giving a sick child a dolly, Fred repossessing the dolly, along with the family farm! After a few more such episodes, morph to present-day Fred venting his spleen at Siblings Anonymous as his fellow losers nod in empathy. There, I just wrote a more cohesive storyline than this idiocy!This Santa, who is one "ho, ho, ho, ho, ho" away from a massive coronary, is a neurotic wuss saddled with the Queen of the Harpies, an operation straight out of Mega-Mall Hell, and answers to a Board (huh?) which just gave the Easter Bunny his pink egg. Oh, and his right-hand man is a ditzy blonde in a skin-tight mini-dress and go-go boots. Ho... ho... ho... ho... ho!But what really sent me over the edge was Slam being named #1 on the Naughty List. Shouldn't a Naughty List be reserved for the future Hitlers and Stalins? Children who are the true embodiments of evil? Nope, to Old Sausage-Fingers, a good boy who lashes out because he is unwanted and unloved is the Demon Seed!The nimrods behind Fred Claus should be boiled in their own pudding! Bah!$LABEL$ 0
+Widely known as "Don't Look in the Basement" - this is pure 70s horror, B-movie goodness that could actually pass as the genre's version of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". Though the movie seems to go nowhere throughout the first hour+ of it's runtime, I enjoyed this particular batch of quirky crazies and their various personalities and deficiencies - such as the former army sergeant, a chick obsessed with caring for a plastic doll, a lovable man-child, and a loony nymph. After their head-doctor is murdered by a patient, a small sanitarium hires a new nurse onto their under-staffed facility, who becomes immersed in the resident's different "ticks" and outbursts. Things gradually become stranger, however, when patients start acting far more abnormal than usual... You never really know, or care, where the movie is going, 'cause it still entertains up until it's completely whacked-out ending! Several of the "twists" felt a little too forced and I could have used a tad more blood, but I really dug this much too under-rated blend of humor and horror. Check it out...$LABEL$ 1
+I think the comments regarding the show being cheesy are a bit too exaggerated. When a person comes to watch a TV show, what does he look out for? It is to enjoy that he watches a show, unless he/she is a critic or a person who analyzes story. But most of us are not so and watch the shows to relax and enjoy. FULL HOUSE is an ideal show to watch after having a heavy day in the office/school. It makes you laugh and it is not just humor.Yes, the Tanner family is a perfect family, a perfectly hypothetical family. If any such family existed in real world, it would be a role model for us to follow. But this is a TV show, and not a real family, and there is nothing wrong in depicting a hypothetical family on television. The very fact that the show could run so long shows us that people enjoyed watching it, whatever be the comments later on.Another good point about the show is that any person of any age would not only enjoy watching it, but would take back a message however childish that message be. Those Jesse's talks with Michelle are extremely touching, if one doesn't think of it as childish.Overall I would say after watching every show of Full House, there is a contentment in your heart that is rarely present after many other shows.$LABEL$ 1
+Wow, don't watch this thinking it's going to be a relaxing circus evening! It will keep you on the edge of your seat all the way through. Circus has never been more colourful, more exciting and more breathtaking! The whole concept is truely amazing. You're taken into the world of Cirque Du Soleil and are left with a thousand thoughts when you leave. There's only one thing left to do: get the CD and/or DVD and live through it again and again and again. Get addicted! It's well worth it! Must be next to the most beautiful thing on earth and one of Cirque Du Soleil's best programmes.$LABEL$ 1
+Escaping the life of being pimped by her father(..and the speakeasy waitressing)who dies in an explosion, Lily Powers(Barbara Stanwyck, who is simply ravishing)sluts her way through the branches inside a bank business in big city Gotham. When a possessive lover murders who was supposed to be his next father-in-law(and Lily's new lover), the sky's the limit for Lily as she has written down her various relationships in a diary and subtlety makes it known the papers will receive it if certain pay doesn't come into her hands. Newly appointed president to the bank, Courtland Trenholm(George Brent), sends Lily to Paris instead of forking over lots of dough, but soon finds himself madly in love after various encounters with her in the City of Love. This makes Lily's mouth water as now she'll have reached the pedestal of success seducing a man of wealth and prestige bring riches her way. Though, circumstances ensue which will bring her to make a decision that threatens her successful way of achieving those riches..Trenholm, now her husband, is being indicted with jail certain and has lost the bank. He needs money Lily now has in her possession or he'll have absolutely nothing.Stanwyck is the whole movie despite that usual Warner Brothers polish. Being set in the pre-code era gives the filmmakers the chance to elaborate on taboo subjects such as a woman using sex to achieve success and how that can lead to tragedy. Good direction from Alfred E Green shows through subtlety hints in different mannerisms and speech through good acting from the seductive performance of Stanwyck how to stage something without actually showing the explicit act. Obviously the film shows that money isn't everything and all that jazz as love comes into the heart of Lily's dead heart. That ending having Lily achieve the miraculous metamorphosis into someone in love didn't ring true to me. She's spent all this time to get to that platform only to fall for a man who was essentially no different than others she had used before him.$LABEL$ 1
+Good grief sethrp-1, you COMPLETELY missed the point. The girl was only seen briefly specifically BECAUSE she was the one who was going to kill herself...everyone else was so wrapped up in their own stories they didn't notice her, nor did we. As one of the other students says at the end - we're all so wrapped up in our own problems we don't notice what's going on for someone else. The director himself said if he had killed off one of the others, it would've suggested their problems were worse than someone else's. The whole point of killing Kelly was that she was unnoticed by all of us. Get it now??$LABEL$ 1
+You sit there for a half an hour and watch a story, believing it all, then watch another half an hour of the same story utterly unraveling... and then put back together again. Brilliant.One of the most exciting feature films at the San Francisco International Film Festival is a documentary. I don't know if - other than Andrew Jarecki's "Capturing the Friedmans" - there has ever been anything like Anna Broinowski's "Forbidden Lie$." It features, exposes, defends, reveals, and questions everything about Norma Khouri, author of "Honor Lost," the acclaimed and lambasted 2001 bestseller about honor killings in Jordan.What is quite incredible and what makes the film so exceptional is that this "exposure" of Khouri is made with Khouri's full participation.For the initial portion of the film, Khouri presents her story about the supposed honor killing of a friend of hers in Amman, the story of the book. She sounds completely believable, convincing.Then her story is taken apart, exposed, by eminently believable and convincing people, such as women's rights activists in Jordan, investigative reporters there and in Australia, where Khouri lived for a while.Khouri comes back and denies the accusations, taking a successful lie-detector test in the process. There comes another segment of devastating exposures - not to be specified here because that would lessen the shock value... and then Khouri comes back and faces the accusations (not all, but the essential ones in the matter of the book).And the Houdini act continues, with round after round in this heavy-weight, seesaw prize fight, surprise after surprise - and there is no "happy ending" in the sense of resolution. Brilliant.$LABEL$ 1
+I still wonder why I sat through this entire thing. It only had about 3 minutes of actual entertainment, the rest of it was just a total bore. The acting isn't that great and the action scenes are soooo cheesy it's not even funny. I kinda wish I could say something good about this film but I can't think of anything right now. There probably was somethings in it some can enjoy but the ending of it is gotta be the dumbest idea ever. What type of person would get a little toy remote controlled helicopter with a burned in machine gun in it to assassinate the President? This idea could have never been done in the first place let alone have anyone dumb enough to try it, I guess the writer must have been to obsessed with the toy car scene in The Dead Pool but actually tried to make this look serious.$LABEL$ 0
+It's been said before--Strangers on a Train is Hitchcock's best movie--and he's made so many good ones! Like other Hitchcock, Strangers on a Train requires your full attention to really appreciate it, but once you can...you will.$LABEL$ 1
+and this IS a very disturbing film. I may be wrong, but this is the last film where I considered Burt Reynolds an actual actor, who transformed the role, and delivered a message.Jon Voight and Ned Beatty are also excellent. They are unassuming and unaware; businessmen wanting to enjoy the country. Little did they know what would happen next.The photography and sets are realistic and natural. This was before the days of Wes Craven.What is most disturbing about this film is the fact that places like this still exist. In America, country folk still detest city people; it is almost a century and a half since the Civil War.You will enjoy this film. It was filmed in the rural sections of South Georgia, which still exist. Just don't drive past that to Mobile, Alabama; That area still has not been repaired since Hurricane Katrina. 10/10.$LABEL$ 1
+It has a bit of that indie queer edge that was hip in the 90s and which places an explicit sell-by date on the visual style. Characters are uniformly apathetic and farcically deadpan. Street hoodlums in Greece wear new clothing out of the box without creases or stains. They all appear to visit the same marine hair dresser. All uniformly exhibit the same low IQ when making their dispassionate underground business deals. When things go wrong its all because they aren't real Greeks - they're pastoral sunshine boys caught in a strange night city world. Makes a big whine about disaffected immigrants but never bothers to actually investigate the problems with Russian/Kazakh/Albanian cultures. If Giannaris had the proper perspective on this project it might have made a wonderful Bel Ami production. The fleeting glimpses of toned boy-beef is the only spark in this generic small-time mobster programmer.$LABEL$ 0
+I just saw this movie on Flix after timer-taping it. I grew up watching F Troop and had a major hard for Wrangler Jane so I was shocked, literally shocked, to find out after seeing this film that the degenerate homicidal nurse was Melody Patterson, who looks pretty good but also looks completely different and is unfortunately poorly photographed. I would never have guessed it was her in a million years. What the hell is she doing in a picture like this? I agree with the guys here that the movie lacks what it's pushing. No sex, no gore, no tease. It's also a remake of the Atomic Brain aka Monstrosity (1964 or thereabouts). Most of the action is tedious; the main character spends enormous amounts of time running around the crazed doctor's house and basement, and the neighborhood in general, or being roughed up by the cop, all of it boring and time-filling. Now if the Italians would have made this, half the film would have been the Slingblade/Uncle Ernest/Jack Elam henchman fondling the unconscious nude girls. But you only get that for 20 seconds.$LABEL$ 0
+Totally forgettable and almost unwatchable. If you enjoy bad acting, thin plots and predictably weak outcomes, pull up a chair. Of passing interest to see Bridget Fonda look-a-like Suzy Amis.$LABEL$ 0
+I was one of the many fools who were sapped out into paying for this at the theater, even though I payed 4 bucks for matinée (before 6pm) prices.The remake's story was ho-hum, the CGI Morlocks were lame, the Eloi were rastafarian to mimic today's fads (no I did not think the chick was hot at all), the re-killing of the hero's modern girlfriend was somewhat cruel, overall just a sad, bad remake. I'll take Rod Taylor, Weena, and the fat glowing eyed surfer Morlocks over this junk any time. My estimation is that many of the reviewers who like this awful remake are young kids, which does not account for either good taste or a true value of the old classics which are largely unappreciated by today's confused and ever-wanting-more youth. When the 60s version came out (I first saw it in the 70s for summer fun) it was pretty damn impressive and still holds up. You don't have to have an over abundance of CGI in a movie for it to be better. Too much of this looks fake. I can't say enough of how disappointingly bad the Morlocks looked and they ran and jumped around like they were in a child's video game. 3 stars out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+Watching this movie again really brought back some great childhood memories . I'm 34 now, have not seen it since I was 12-14. I had almost forgotten about this movie, but when I watched it again recently, some scenes literally brought a tear to my eye! That little robot "Jinx"(friends for ever!). It was just like revisiting my childhood. It was an absolutely amazing experience for me. I will always cherish this movie for that reason. I hope some of you readers can relate to my experience, not for this particular movie, but any movie you have not seen in a long while. Very nostalgic...-Thanks for reading$LABEL$ 1
+The other lowest-rating reviewers have summed up this sewage so perfectly there seems little to add. I must stress that I've only had the Cockney Filth imposed on me during visits from my children, who insist on watching the Sunday omnibus. My god, it's depressing! Like all soaps, it consists entirely of totally unlikeable characters being unpleasant to each other, but it's ten times as bad as the next worst one could be. The reviewer who mocked the 'true to life' bilge spouted by its defenders was spot-on. If anyone lived in a social environment like this, they'd slash their wrists within days. And I can assure anyone not familiar with the real East End that it's rather more 'ethnically enriched' than you'll ever see here. Take my advice - avoid this nadir of the British TV industry. It is EVIL.$LABEL$ 0
+I found this film to be an interesting study in cause and effect but little more than that. The basic plot follows the lives of a handful of people and how their actions (deliberate and otherwise) effect the lives of the others. The film's premise holds great promise but I feel it fails to deliver on its promise. Too much time is spent telling the audience about chaos theory and too little time actually showing it. As a result, I never got a true feel for any of the characters and never made a good connection with them emotionally. By the end of the movie, I had a "so what" attitude about all of them. A stronger direction in character development would have made this movie great, but as it stands it is merely so-so$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is about as underrated as Police Acadmey Mission to Moscow. This movie is never funny. It's maybe the worst comedy spoof ever made. Very boring,and dumb beyond belief. For those people that think this movie is underrated god help you. I give this movie * out of ****$LABEL$ 0
+The 2002 version of "The Time Machine" is just the latest in a string of terribly disappointing Hollywood remakes that fall flat on their face despite extravagant special effects. What a lousy, uninspired bland story, with no imagination. Why so totally rewrite such a wonderful sci-fi classic? Are today's movie audiences too hip for the H.G. Wells writing largely as is? The 1960 George Pal version told a much more endearing story, even with clunky low-budget effects, beach-party looking Eloi, and Morlocks that looked like Smurfs on steroids.The 2002 version must have H.G Wells turning in his grave:1. The idea that the time traveler is motivated by the desire to change the past and trapped in a time paradox is an old sci-fi cliché. This totally distracts from the love affair with Mara (what happened to Weena?!) that made the 1960 version so endearing. This sets an unfortunate and distractive tone early on that makes the whole movie dour. If Guy Pearce's character was so brilliant either he or his buddy Einstein would have realized the time paradox dilemma – not have it dawn on him 800,000 yrs in the future – from a Morlock no less, Doh!! What's wrong with time-traveling just for fun & adventure & curiosity -- as embodied in the 1960 version?2. Only if you saw the first movie would you realize at all what Pearce was doing with the time machine when you first see it. The George Pal film carefully explains the whole weird idea of 'travel' though a 4th dimension.3. The director goes out of his way to make Pearce's character look geeky, a worn out old stereotype of scientists. In the 1960 version Rod Taylor was a little nerdy too (at least around Weena) but managed to be swashbuckling, playful and charming.4. Among the key themes of the 60's version -- abandoned in the remake -- is the idea that endless war leads to the bifurcation of humanity. Blowing up the Moon to destroy humanity is pointless -- and doesn't do much for science literacy. For over 4 billion years the Moon has suffered vastly more powerful asteroid impacts, which would make any nuclear device look like a firecracker. Yes, science fiction needs artistic license, but this is just plain dumb and meaningless.5. Destroying the time machine is stupid too. Apparently our time traveler invented the neutron bomb to power this thing. Blowing up the machine to kill Morlocks is sort of a cop-out 'machina ex machina' Disappointingly, Pearce never comes back to the 1800s to tell his tale to his incredulous friends, a key part of the Wells story with the irony that in a week the time travels goes into the far future and back.6. Having Morlocks running around in the daytime totally ruins H.G. Wells' wonderfully spooky, ghoulish portrayal of them as shadowy creatures of the night. A true cinematic opportunity lost. Also, Wells depicted the Eloi as frail and childlike. These guys in the movie looked like they could take on Morlocks, if they weren't such big baby wusses.7. The one smart Morlock – kind of a bleached-out Star Wars Evil Emperor -- had potential, but is so lame and aloof he tells Pearce to take his machine and go home ?! Boy, what a dramatic high point! In the book the Morlocks steal the machine because they are so fascinated by it, and fight to keep it.8. The goof ball hologram at the N.Y. Public Library is too much. It makes light of the idea of human cannibalism. the 1960 version simply had the "talking rings" that delivered a chillingly somber eulogy for humankind. Derailed evolution is serious stuff.Its sad the wonderful effects in this movie can never make up for a weary contrived clunker of a script. Save the cost of a ticket & popcorn and go rent the DVD when it comes out (soon no doubt), at least you can fast-forward thought the dull parts, just like our time traveler.$LABEL$ 0
+Like the first one,the team of JACKASS are back to try to kill themselves with whatever manner they see fit.Either,it's fitting yourself in a tractor tyre and rolling down a slope.Or getting yourself deliberately smashed by a bull.Or something even worse.The first one was crazy,and that's how you can describe it.It was also really hard laughing film.But this one is completely nuts.It's got even more dangerous stunts,and even harder laughs.So,I think watching dumb idiots getting themselves killed is gonna be the funniest thing this week.So,before BORAT comes out,I shall laugh my A** out.$LABEL$ 1
+EXTREMITIES Aspect ratio: 1.85:1Sound format: MonoA woman turns the tables on a would-be rapist when he mounts an assault in her home, and is forced to decide whether to kill him or inform the police, in which case he could be released and attack her again.Exploitation fans who might be expecting another rough 'n' ready rape fantasy in the style of DAY OF THE WOMAN (1978) will almost certainly be disappointed by EXTREMITIES. True, Farrah Fawcett's character is subjected to two uncomfortably prolonged assaults before gaining the upper hand on her attacker (a suitably slimy James Russo), but scriptwriter William Mastrosimone and director Robert M. Young take these unpleasant scenes only so far before unveiling the dilemma which informs the moral core of this production. Would their final solution hold up in a court of law? Maybe...Based on a stage play which reportedly left its actors battered and bruised after every performance, the film makes no attempt to open up the narrative and relies instead on a confined setting for the main action. Acing and technical credits are fine, though Fawcett's overly subdued performance won't play effectively to viewers who might be relying on her to provide an outlet for their outraged indignation.$LABEL$ 0
+Not many people remember "The Carey Treatment", and I can't say I blame them.Blake Edwards did this during his lean years (i.e. - between "Pink Panther" movies.) and for a story of a doctor turned detective (Coburn) working to solve a murder in his hospital, it's actually pretty forgettable.Coburn is dependable as always and O'Neill is beautiful as always but there just seems to be something missing from the proceedings. The story twists and turns aren't very involving and even the climax, which is supposed to be nerve-wracking, is gut-wrenching instead.A missed opportunity altogether, and an unfortunate one at that, since it was based on a Michael Crichton book. Oh well, at least Crichton didn't write a sequel to it.One star. "Carey" on, Coburn.$LABEL$ 0
+Hollywood always had trouble coming to terms with a "religious picture." Strange Cargo proves to be no exception. Although utilizing the talents of a superb cast, and produced on a top budget, with suitably moody photography by Robert Planck, the movie fails dismally on the credibility score. Perhaps the reason is that the film seems so realistic that the sudden intrusion of fantasy elements upsets the viewer's involvement in the action and with the fate of the characters. I found it difficult to sit still through all the contrived metaphors, parallels and biblical references, and impossible to accept bathed-in-light Ian Hunter's smug know-it-all as a Christ figure. And the censors in Boston, Detroit and Providence at least agreed with me. The movie was banned. Few Boston/Detroit/Providence moviegoers, if any, complained or journeyed to other cities because it was obvious from the trailer that Gable and Crawford had somehow become involved in a "message picture." It flopped everywhere.Oddly enough, the movie has enjoyed something of a revival on TV. A home atmosphere appears to make the movie's allegory more receptive to viewers. However, despite its growing reputation as a strange or unusual film, the plot of this Strange Cargo flows along predictable, heavily moralistic lines that will have no-one guessing how the principal characters will eventually come to terms with destiny.$LABEL$ 0
+Good sequel to Murder in a Small Town. In this one Cash and his police Lt. buddy unravel a sticky plot involving a Nazi criminal, a philanthropic witch, and a family of screw-ups and their wierdo helpers. As in the original, the viewer is treated to a nice little mystery with distinctive sights and sounds of pre-war America. Go see it.$LABEL$ 1
+Fantastic movie. One to excite all 5 senses. Is not a true historical report and not all information is to be taken as factual information. True Hollywood conventions used, like playing A list and VERY attractive actors as the 'heroes', such as Naomi Watts (Julia Cook - Ned Kelly's lover), Heath Ledger (Ned) and Orlando Bloom (Joe Byrne - Ned's right hand man), and unattractive (sorry Geoffrey Rush) actors play the drunken and corrupt Victorian Police Force. This also instills a very unreliable love story into the mix between Ned (Ledger) and Julia Cook (Watts) to entice all the romantics, females being especially susceptible. Even from the first scene, when Ned saves the fat youth from drowning and his dad calls him "sunshine" and had a "glint in his eye as he looked down at me, his hand on me shoulder," it is very romanticized and persuades viewers to side with Ned Kelly, the underdog. Besides, don't all Aussies love an underdog?$LABEL$ 1
+After some further thought about this film, I find it's far too easy to dismiss this as the Boy's dream. I have actually received some spiritual strength from Northfork.......Angels do exist....we definitely are entertained by Angels....most of the time we aren't even aware of it..... At a point of spiritual and emotional turbidity in my life, I personally really needed this film. Yes, as I wrote before, it speaks to so many......can't wait to get to Heaven..."Being so sick of all of the FX and Formula stuff, I found this film to be genuine Cinema. All I can say is it touched me in so many ways, that I still am sorting it all out. North Fork is a wonderful film. One that brings the viewer's mind out of the gutter and into the heart. The spiritual aspect is so very intriguing to me. Pay attention, as you'll need to use the brain and heart God gave you to follow the story. I think it's possibly a bit over the heads of some, but I feel those are the individuals it speaks to most importantly. I want to view it several more times, just so I can take it all in!The Industry needs to study this film to realize we do exist.My thanks to all involved in the making of this film."$LABEL$ 1
+EA have shown us that they can make a classic 007 agent and make you feel in the 60's world. The graphics of the game are outstanding and also the voice recording is very professional. I got this game April 2007 (two years after release), and I am still impressed with the gameplay. It's a shame that EA will no longer make 007 games.I give this game 10/10 for the levels it contains, especially the "consulate" level. I would recommend this game to anyone from the age of 13 and over. The only thing I didn't like in the game is the Russian boat level, it was too much pressure. On the whole I like the game A LOT!!$LABEL$ 1
+Ned aKelly is such an important story to Australians but this movie is awful. It's an Australian story yet it seems like it was set in America. Also Ned was an Australian yet he has an Irish accent...it is the worst film I have seen in a long time$LABEL$ 0
+Hi guys, this is my first review and I would had to have picked the worst movie to review. As I only watched 5 minutes of it but trust me you could see this movie was going nowhere. The acting was deplorable, the camera work and lighting looked as though it was shot and run by a pack of 10 year old's. No offence to 10 year olds.I just couldn't take anymore I got off my couch, took the The House of Adam DVD out of the DVD player and threw it in the garbage. Maybe if you are a Colin Farrell fan this movie may interest you, because the character in the movie, Anthony, is a Colin Farrell look a like. But that is as far as it goes, he certainly will never have col's acting abilities. I gave this movie a rating of 1 (awful) only because there were no minuses in the drop down list cheers.$LABEL$ 0
+This film is an entertaining, fun and quality film. The film very cleverly follows the guidelines if the book, and tries to stick to the exact lines. The actors are all suitable, and you would expect them to be the part. They use some famous actors which give a great effect on the film. The graphics is a bit dodgy in some parts, and there are quite a few mistakes throughout the film. There is no such thing as a Yellow Spotted Lizard, for example. The camp is not as gruesome as explained in the book, and they tend not to show the goings on in the camp as much as the book. All of his group are mentioned a lot in the book, but are not in the film. Overall, a great film for a rainy afternoon$LABEL$ 1
+Of all the kids movies I have seen over the years this was probably the worst. I took four kids aged from 7 to 11 and none of them liked it.The script seemed to be based on a Willy Wonka style story but it just didn't have anything to it.If you are considering seeing this movie dont waste your time, it is bad.They are making a sequel, so it may be worth watching to see if they can even make a worse movie, but I don't think it is possible.$LABEL$ 0
+Sitting, Typing… Nothing is the latest "what if?" fest offered by Vincenzio Natali, and starring David Hewlitt and Andrew Miller as two losers. One is having relationship problems, got canned from his job (because of relationship problems) and the police are out to get him (because of his job and his relationship problems). The other guy is a agoraphobic who refuses to go outside his home, is met by a bothersome girl guide who calls on her Mom to claim she was molested when he doesn't buy cookies from him. Oh yeah, the police are after him too, after the Mom of the girl scout call them in to arrest him.Man, what a day.What if you could make all of this disappear? That is the whole premise behind 'Nothing'. The two fools realize, the cops, the girl scout, the cars, the lawn, the road, everything… disappear. There's nothing but white space! This is an interesting concept I thought. I also looked at the time of this, 30 minutes had gone in the movie, and I still had an hour left in the movie. Could the 2 actors make this work and keep us entertained for 60 minutes? Although the actors try, 60 minutes IS a long time and there is clearly dead air in places of this movie. But the two actors, whom are life-long friends with each other and the director, have such great repertoire with each other, that it was fun to watch for the dialogue and improve goofing around the two do. There are lots of supernatural elements, but it's more of their response to these elements that ultimately make this film worth seeing.$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of the better sci-fi series. It involves character development, a few really tensionate moments and reasonable episode scripts. As one other commentator said here, it looked as if it were a mini series, not a full blown series with filler episodes and low budgets.The problem with the show, which in short is a Godzilla series, is that it started too big, with incredible monsters, fantastic science, then it all boiled down to local Americans doing stuff. Then, the show ended too soon, since the Olympics were coming and hey! a sci-fi show is a sci-fi show, but half naked athletic people running around aimlessly is much more important. So they only did 15 episodes instead of the expected 22. The audience was small, too, as people didn't really caught it on at 20:00. In the end the suits did it. Trust a marketing plan to destroy anything that looks remotely original and promising.Conclusion: you have a show with good special effects, stuff like huge monsters killing people or destroying boats, then going into genetic engineering, transforming people, human clones, end of the world, tsunamis. Also, the only fillers are scenes with aggressive rednecks or other annoying people being killed for their stupidity. The down-side is that after 15 episodes that prepare something huge, the show ends. No real ending, no closure, just a bitter taste of cloth in one's mouth, as if you just swallowed a piece of suit.$LABEL$ 1
+This film really got off to a great start. It had the potential to turn into a really heartrending, romantic love story with cinematography that recorded the love between "Harlan" and Tobe in long, poetic and idyllic scenes. It really didn't need to be anything more than that, and for a moment there I became excited that someone was finally making a beautiful film for its own sake, another timeless classic, a modern myth perhaps. Why, oh why, then mess it up halfway through by making the lead character (Norton)another psycho? Maybe I'm missing the point, but do we really need another film about psychos? Or is this need in Hollywood to portray the sick side of human nature indicative of a more general malaise in the movie industry? For a moment there, I was going to make a mental note of the director's name; now I'm left feeling indifferent. At least it should be added in the film's defense that all the actors seemed to invest in their roles. Also, Evan Rachel Wood is really lovely to look at and a good actress with lots of potential.$LABEL$ 0
+This isn't a good movie. Plain and simple. Take out the hardcore sex scenes and what you have is a mediocre plot, average acting (at best), plodding direction, and dull dialogue. Add in the grot and you've got mediocre plot, average acting, plodding direction, dull dialogue, with lashings of hardcore porn. Trouble is the porn's nothing special either. So it's not a good movie, and nor is it a good porno. It fails on both counts. They can say that women made this movie and they were intending to do this with it, and that with it, etc. But talk's cheap, the end result is what counts, and what we have here is a mediocre movie with some sex thrown in for shock value to try and con you into wasting your time watching it. One of those movies where you'd rather have the time you spent watching it back.$LABEL$ 0
+Long, boring, blasphemous. Never have I been so glad to see ending credits roll.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a great movie to look at, since it so nicely directed by Andrzej Wajda but at the same time I wished the movie would had some more depth in it, in terms of its story. It's an historically relevant movie about the last days of the French revolution but yet the movie forgets to focus on the character's motivations making the movie perhaps a tad bit too shallow to consider this a brilliant and relevant movie to what.Somehow it doesn't make the movie any less great to watch though. It's made with passion and eye for detail. every aspect about the movie is good looking, such as its settings, costumes and camera-work.Also the story still works out as powerful, though at the same time it could had been so much better and more powerful with a just bit more character development and insight historical information. Guess if you're completely familiar with the French Revolution and the stories of Danton and Robespierre in particular, this movie will be a perfect one for you to watch.It's somewhat typical for a French movie to tell a story slowly and subtle, without ever stepping too much in detail. Often this works out charmingly but in this case the movie could had really done with a bit more depth. Other than that, this movie is still one fine example of French cinema, despite the fact that it's being directed by a Polish director and stars lots of Polish actors in it as well.Gérard Depardieu is great in his role, though the movie also decides to concentrate a lot on many other different characters. The movie perhaps has a bit too many characters but each and every performance is a great one, so this doesn't really ever become a big complaint, other than that it slows done the story a bit at certain points.A great movie that could had been brilliant.8/10$LABEL$ 1
+here was no effort put into Valentine to prevent it from being just another teenage slasher film, a sub-genre of horror films of which we have seen entirely too many over the last decade or so. I've heard a lot of people complaining that the film rips off several previous horror movies, including everything from Halloween to Prom Night to Carrie, and as much as I hate to be redundant, the rip off is so blatant that it is impossible not to say anything. The punch bowl over poor Jeremy's head early in the film is so obviously taken from Carrie that they may as well have just said it right in the movie (`Hey everyone, this is the director, and the following is my Carrie-rip-off scene. Enjoy!'). But that's just a suggestion.(spoilers) The film is structured piece by piece exactly the same way that every other goofy teen thriller is structured. We get to know some girl briefly at the beginning, she gets killed, people wonder in the old oh-but-that-stuff-only-happens-to-other-people tone, and then THEY start to get killed. The problem here is that the director and the writers clearly and honestly want to keep the film mysterious and suspenseful, but they have no idea how to do it. Take Jason, for example. Here is this hopelessly arrogant guy who is so full of himself and bad with women that he divides the check on a date according to what each person had, and as one of the first characters seen in the film after the brief history lesson about how bad poor Jeremy was treated, he is assumed to carry some significance. Besides that, and more importantly, he has the same initials as the little boy that all the girls terrorized in sixth grade, and the same initials that are signed at the bottom of all of those vicious Valentine's Day cards. It is not uncommon for the audience to be deliberately and sometimes successfully misled by the behavior of one or more characters that appear to be prime suspects, and Jason is a perfect example of the effort, but not such a good example of a successful effort. Sure, I thought for a while that he might very well be the killer, but that's not the point. We know from early on that he is terrible with women, which links him to the little boy at the beginning of the film, but then in the middle of the film, he appears at a party, smiles flirtatiously at two of the main girls, and then gives them a hateful look and walks away, disappearing from the party and from the movie with no explanation. We already know he is a cardboard character, but his role in the film was so poorly thought out that they just took him out altogether when they were done with him.On the positive side, the killer's true identity was, in fact, made difficult to predict in at least one subtle way which was also, unfortunately, yet another rip-off. Early in the film, when Shelley stabs the killer in the leg with his own scalpel, he makes no sound, suggesting that the killer might be a female staying silent to prevent revealing herself as a female, rather than a male as everyone suspects. But then for the rest of the film, we just have this stolid, relentless, unstoppable killer with the emotionless mask and that gigantic butcher knife. Director Jamie Blanks (who, with all due respect, looks like he had some trouble with the girls himself in the sixth grade) mentions being influenced by Halloween. This is, of course, completely unnecessary, because it's so obvious from how badly he plagiarizes the film. The only difference between the killer in Valentine and Michael Meyer's is that Michael's mask was so much more effective and he didn't have a problem with nosebleeds. This stuff is shameless. At the end, there is a brief attempt to mislead us one more time as to who the killer is (complete with slow and drawn out `and-the-killer-is' mask removal), but then we see Adam's nose start to bleed as he holds Kate, his often reluctant girlfriend, and we know that he's been the killer all along. Nothing in the film hinted that he might be the killer until the final act, and these unexplained nosebleeds were not exactly the cleverest way to identify the true killer at the end of the film. Valentine is not scary (I watched it in an empty house by myself after midnight, and I have been afraid of the dark for as long as I can remember, and even I wasn't scared), and the characters might be possible to care about if it weren't so obvious that they were just going to die. I remember being impressed by the theatrical previews (although the film was in and out of the theater's faster than Battlefield Earth), but the end result is the same old thing.$LABEL$ 0
+I've seen several of these body snatcher type movies, but none was nearly as bad as this one.No thrill, no FX, bad acting, bad photography, bad sound, bad everything.Blue Jello eats'em all!$LABEL$ 0
+Spoilers.First off, nothing really happened in this movie, other than a woman bleeding inexplicably. Second, it wasn't scary. Third, it had the worst soundtrack of any movie ever. Let me elaborate. The sound was edited by either Beavis or Butthead – I'm not sure which, so let's just go with Beavis. The movie gradually gets more and more quiet and the people mumble and mutter, forcing you to turn up the volume (I watched this at home). Then Beavis blasts some really loud sounds with supposedly scary/shocking images, forcing you to quickly lower the volume again. This occurs many times until, mercifully, the movie ends. I can picture Beavis laughing vulgarly from behind the two-way mirror while watching the test group franticly reaching for the remote each time. If you have children and prefer to watch scary movies after they fall asleep, this one is a big mistake. But then it's a big mistake anyway. Here's a thought – if you're going to make a horror movie, at least add a gratuitous beheading, a 19-year-old blond girl who screams at the top of her lungs just before she can take off her sweater, the shadow on the wall of someone being eaten alive just out of the camera range, a cat being thrown at the camera to scare the audience, some drifty weirdo with a maniacal laugh, or a monster who looks like a stage hand covered in aluminum foil (a la TV's Lost in Space). These people didn't even try to scare me. They just wanted to hurt my ears.$LABEL$ 0
+Just when I thought nothing could be as offensive and/or irritating as a Billy Mays infomercial, I had the intellectually shattering experience of renting this piece of garbage. Peter Barnes and John Irvin should be brought up on criminal charges for smuggling this script into the public venue. The actors need to be charged as accomplices, serving no less than a lifetime away from the public eye.This production offers the disclaimer, "For dramatic effect, we have taken poetic license with certain facts", or some such inadequate statement to fully brace you for the absolute repugnant rewrite of a Bible story which needed no drama added. What they did add was enough to make your I.Q. drop three full points for every five minutes of viewing time.The "poetic license" taken, invents characters so bizarre, you'll recognize nothing but the names of a few, and, of course, the ark.For some reason, Noah and Lot are both living in Sodom, so maybe Abram was vacationing in Switzerland on a skiing trip. Lot's wife, played by Carol Kane, is a harpy, and when she's turned to a pillar of salt, Lot breaks off her finger and carries it around in what appears to be an empty baby food jar. If that's "poetic", I'm a kumquat.When Noah - who has now begun drinking wine in quantities that could help float the ark - whines about the tough job of the building project, he awakens one morning to find that God has delivered enough precut lumber to lighten his burden. At least I think it was God. It looked like a delivery from 84 Lumber, neatly stacked and bundled. Maybe 84 Lumber is really an agent for God????? Rather than bore you with the cargo being loaded, I'll regale you with the account of the pirate attack on the ark. Incongruous, you think? This movie is filled with such insulting nonsense. After an untold time on the waters, Noah spies a pirate ship heading right for them. And who might the salty sea-captain be? Well, duh, it's Lot, of course! My only surprise was that his uncle Abram wasn't aboard. If you're going to slaughter a plot line, slaughter all of it. The piracy attempt is unsuccessful, and the swashbuckling was pathetic, not poetic. I think it was around this mark that my nausea prevented me from punishing myself anymore.An ugly, senseless, moronic distortion of anything remotely resembling a Bible account. On a scale of 1 - 10, this movie is premeditated mind abuse. Stupid and insulting, you'll be more entertained by reading the Yellow Pages.$LABEL$ 0
+Let start off by first saying that I have been a punk fan most of my life. I always kind of had a lack of respect for the LA scene of the early 80's, which The Decline of Western Civilization documents, with the exception of X and Black Flag, being more of New York and English punk guy. After I saw this movie that completely changed. The people shown may look like a bunch of idiotic, strung out kids who think they might accomplish something beyond street-Cree through their lifestyles, but it is a great display of hedonism at it's best, coupled with some fun, loud rock n roll. One of the best scenes, and actually most insightful, is the interview with Claude Bessy of Catholic Discipline, or 'Kick-Boy' as he was known to Slash magazine readers. Originally from France, he rants about punk like a dirty old Frenchman and clues in viewers to many aspects of the punk, or DIY, attitude to music, politics, and life in general. Darby Crash of the Germs comes off as a complete idiot most of the time, but the Germs' performance of Manimal is pretty decent, complete with a young Pat Smear. Black Flag's performance with Chavo Pederast on vocals (it was filmed a couple of years before Henry Rollins joined the band) is decent, and X and FEAR give the best performances in the movie. Look out for the interviews with the young punk kids. You'll hear some of the funniest things you have ever heard in a documentary. Highly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+'Checking Out' is an extraordinary film that towers above most film production. Its refreshing, witty humor is never an excuse to remain superficial. To the contrary, the film explores multifarious facets of the human spirit and human relations. Its warm approach promotes tolerance and acceptance of diversity and recognition of that which unites all people. The characters are charming and amusing, reflecting those idiosyncrasies that we can all laugh about in ourselves. The quick dialog and witty banter will keep you on your toes, and you may find yourself trying to contain your own laughter, as you won't want to miss a single phrase! You'll probably want to see it in the cinema and then again (over several more times) on video, and each time you will discover something new. After each viewing, you are sure to feel warm and uplifted.$LABEL$ 1
+This game show lasted just one season, but was intriguing to audiences because it required visual aptitude and a steady hand. One false move would disqualify the contestant from winning the prize, even though it was clear the contestant knew the correct answer. It was always exciting as the contestant began drawing, wondering if they would complete the drawing or be buzzed out; allowing the other contestant to easily win the contest. It was a light-hearted show, but it was clear that the contestants were often times embarrassed from a silly mistake made unintentionally. Rarely seen, the game show did not survive past one single season. Only a seasoned game show addict will remember this show, as it proved to be quite unpopular, even though game shows were making a big return to the TV screen after the scandals of the 1950's game shows. But it was a unique concept for a game show, and one that has as yet never been seen again.$LABEL$ 1
+Comparing this movie to anything by Almodovar is an insult to Almodovar. The best thing I can say about it is it tries desperately to be like an Almodovar movie and fails miserably. The script is dreadful, the characters are one-dimensional, and the performances are the quality of high-school drama (except Marcia Gay Harden's, which is pretty good, given the material she has to work with). Furthermore, the cinematography does absolutely nothing to convey the whimsical beauty of Gaudi's architecture or the infectious charm of Barcelona. If you enjoy the grit, pathos and dark, quirky comedy of Almodovar's movies, you'll find none of them here. Spend your money on something other than this waste of celluloid.$LABEL$ 0
+Lin McAdam (James Stewart) wins a rifle, a Winchester in a shooting contest.Dutch Henry Brown (Stephen McNally) is a bad loser and steals the gun.Lin takes his horse and goes after Dutch and his men and the rifle with his buddy High Spade (Millard Mitchell).The rifle gets in different hands on the way.Will it get back to the right owner? Anthony Mann and James Stewart worked together for the first time and came up with this masterpiece, Winchester '73 (1950).Stewart is the right man to play the lead.He was always the right man to do anything.The terrific Shelley Winters plays the part of Lola Manners and she's great as always.Dan Duryea is terrific at the part of Waco Johnnie Dean.Charles Drake is brilliant as Lola's cowardly boyfriend Steve Miller.Also Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson are seen in the movie, and they're played by Will Geer and Steve Darrell.The young Rock Hudson plays Young Bull and the young Anthony (Tony) Curtis plays Doan.There are many classic moments in this movie.In one point the group is surrounded by Indians, since this is a western.It's great to watch this survival game where the fastest drawer and the sharpest shooter is the winner.All the true western fans will love this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Spoilers of both this and The Matrix follow.I liked the original Matrix a great deal. It was not a deep movie, despite Fishburne's attempts to philosophize, but it was fairly well paced, fun, and I have a soft spot for Hong Kong fights.In the original, Neo was the secret life of the rather unhappy cube worker Anderson. By day, corporate drone, and by night, brave hacker. Eventually, he eventually is forced to choose between these lives by his actions - does he become an outlaw fighting the machine, or does he go back to the safe, forgettable world he started in. Interestingly, he discovers that once one is shorn of illusions, life rather sucks. He has his girl by his side and his boon companions, but he eats processed swill, dresses in sweats, and lives in a truly skungy bit of machinery. Still, the truth makes him free.At least part of the fun of that first movie lay in the "what if it were me" questions raised in the viewer's mind. What if _I_ were capable of the impossible? What if I were "The One". It does not even matter that much what you are The One example of, with a cool title like that.Further, agent Smith made a wonderful bad guy, as he embodied all of the fear of authority that we carry with us. He was as unstoppable as a terminator, and as merciless.At the end of the Matrix, Neo must return to the Matrix to share his good news of freedom.This movie fails to completely to carry through on the ideas of the original movie, and it does so with such lack of gusto, such poor scriptwriting and such poor editing that I cannot believe they had planned these changes. When the dialog is at a fifth grade level, with various long words dropped in randomly, I find it hard to believe that they understand what they are saying.My short list of characterization failures:The Oracle goes from mildly helpful, if deceitful to utterly obstructionist without any real reason.Major "personalities" of the matrix are introduced without need - the keymaster, for example, was a cute idea, but just not that interesting a character.Fishburne loses his "advisor" role, and gets nothing to replace it with.The people of Zion are not particularly likable, nor would you really _want_ them running the world.Special effects problems:The fight scenes are pointless and intermitable. In The Matrix, you felt Neo could lose, and that he had to become something greater in order to survive. In The Matrix Reloaded, he is merely the viewpoint character of a particularly poorly plotted video game.The fight on the freeway looked quite fake, and not that interesting.Pacing problems.As I mentioned above, the fight scenes were interminable.The rave went on too long - everyone in my row at the theater was looking at their watch. Not because we mind good dancing and good orgies, but because we did not know about the people pictured, nor did we care.Whatever hack wrote the creator's soliloquy should be blacklisted from the business. It meandered, used words that the scriptwriter clearly did not understand, and was a waste of time and a pacing killer. The creator's speech could have been done in a tenth the time, and with more peril as "Zion exists to give rebels a place to go so they do not destroy the Matrix. There are now too many people who do not believe; the matrix is in danger of crashing and killing every person hooked up to it. Further, the earth cannot support even the people in Zion, let alone these others. You may choose one person from Zion to form the new Zion, while I wipe the memories of the people currently in the Matrix."Instead, we got a long, drawn out bunch of twaddle. If someone argues that it is deep, ask for a transcript, and try breaking down the sentences. Each one is too long by several clauses, and uses words with clearer, shorter synonyms.So, in summary, not worth seeing.I have seen the third one, and despite what a number of reviewers have said, skip it. It does not save this turkey.The reviewers who feel that the second and third movies were "deep" should go see some truly deep movies. Perhaps read a book or two on rhetoric and debate, and perhaps a bit of philosophy. This movie is just not hard to understand, but it is hard to stomach.Scott$LABEL$ 0
+Any story comprises a premise, characters and conflict. Characters plotting their own play promises triumph, and a militant character readily lends oneself to this. Ardh Satya's premise is summarized by the poem of the same name scripted by Dilip Chitre. The line goes - "ek palde mein napunsaktha, doosre palde mein paurush, aur teek tarazu ke kaante par, ardh satya ?". A rough translation - "The delicate balance of right & wrong ( commonly seen on the busts of blind justice in the courts ) has powerlessness on one plate and prowess on another. Is the needle on the center a half-truth ? "The poem is recited midway in the film by Smita Patil to Om Puri at a resturant. It makes a deep impact on the protagonist & lays the foundation for much of the later events that follow. At the end of the film, Om Puri ends up in exactly the same situation described so aptly in the poem.The film tries mighty hard to do a one-up on the poem. However, Chitre's words are too powerful, and at best, the film matches up to the poem in every aspect.$LABEL$ 1
+Doesn't anyone bother to check where this kind of sludge comes from before blathering on about its supposed revelations? Ask yourself a question: Is my skull an open bucket that I allow anyone to dump their propaganda into? Do yourself a favor and take a look at the bomb-shelter mentality of pathtofreedom.com before you waste your time with this screed.These sorts of Mother Earth/People's Republic of Berkeley urbanite fruitcakes that openly despise a way of life only because it doesn't match theirs must believe their case fails miserably on facts and objectivity. Else why resort to willful distortion and blatant one-sidedness? Pathetic.Don't be a sap. Take two seconds and cast a skeptical eye before falling for yet more 'end of the world' hysteria from it-takes-a-village types with a political agenda that's probably even to the left of your own. Mi. Moore (rather his unthinking followers) have really opened the floodgates with this kind of one-sided political trash passed off as a *cough* documentary. But apparently they understand the sentiment of an ever-gullible public: "If it's on a movie screen, it must be true." God gave you a brain - act like you know what you're supposed to do with it...$LABEL$ 0
+Well, Tenko is without doubt the best British television show ever, the performances, the directing, the casting, the suspense, the drama..... everything is fantastic about it.Although the show fell a little later in its final season, this ending movie picked up the threads nicely and wove a superb story for fans of the show and newbies. I cannot recommend this movie more, find it and watch it. But I do advise watching the series first, as the first 2 seasons are even better than this fantastic movie.An obvious (10/10)$LABEL$ 1
+Michelle Rodriguez is the defining actress who could be the charging force for other actresses to look out for. She has the audacity to place herself in a rarely seen tough-girl role very early in her career (and pull it off), which is a feat that should be recognized. Although her later films pigeonhole her to that same role, this film was made for her ruggedness.Her character is a romanticized student/fighter/lover, struggling to overcome her disenchanted existence in the projects, which is a little overdone in film...but not by a girl. That aspect of this film isn't very original, but the story goes in depth when the heated relationships that this girl has to deal with come to a boil and her primal rage takes over.I haven't seen an actress take such an aggressive stance in movie-making yet, and I'm glad that she's getting that original twist out there in Hollywood. This film got a 7 from me because of the average story of ghetto youth, but it has such a great actress portraying a rarely-seen role in a minimal budget movie. Great work.$LABEL$ 1
+For loyal Duran Duran fans who want to watch a good music video, skip this one. The producers decided to get creative and make this 80's video something of a sci-fi story, involving the evil Barbarella villain from which the band got its name. What makes this idea fail is that right in the middle of some great 80's Duran Duran songs, confusing and annoying cut scenes take place showing the fictional antagonist trying to stop the band at one of their concerts. Not only is the good music repeatedly interrupted, but we have to suffer through some cheap spin-off story hosted by an evil Dr. Mario. It's almost too much to bear. 2/10$LABEL$ 0
+Something strange is happening in Loch Ness. The water is crystal clear, nor cold. A giant robotic plastic monster emerges and kills Scots! What is this movie?! First, I love reading stories about Nessie, sea monsters in general. When i saw this for sale, i thought it was a cheap rip off of jaws. No. It was terrible! The story was pointless, acting was 100% garbage, the only up side was the cool mechanical Nessie they used. It was full of inaccuracy, wrong locations, and bad everything. Not worth your while, just leave it on the shelf (or garbage can) you found it on. On second note, This film was shot in Cailifornia, not Loch Ness, a major diss to Nessie fans.$LABEL$ 0
+Wow, just caught this movie from Blockbuster and I love finding gems like this. While it was definitely shot on a budget and misses a little bit in clumsy editing (i.e. accident, hospital scenes, second to last end scenes), for a first directorial effort, I give this 10 stars! I absolutely loved the thought provoking concepts brought forth and if you're a free thinker and open to ideas outside the box, I highly, highly recommend this movie. I think the director and writer, Jay Floyd, should be given some attention and more opportunities in the film industry. Based on his credits, he may be another Quentin Tarantino.$LABEL$ 1
+If this is film noir, then noir must be French for glacially slow. Take a cast of completely unlikeable characters, give them nothing to say, punctuate the whole thing with gratuitous ultra-violence, and you've got the formula for an aggravated Dash. Could be subtitled "Sleazy Hollywood types attempt to make money from Chinatown rip-off". Bruce Dern's one minute part is orders of magnitude better than anything else in this flick. By the way, I didn't like the film.$LABEL$ 0
+i can't believe i actually watched this but i guess i just wanted to know if this movie would get unintentionally funnier and funnier towards the end. and it did. the climax was the poorest performance ever given by the defence lawyer - so out of real life that even for a fictional story it was far too weird. no way anyone on this planet can behave in front of a court like she did. and probably the worst prosecutor on earth. why was he in court anyway? he did nothing and absolutely nothing to prove her guilty. a simple search of her house would have resulted in the find of the rings. but no go. he preferred to say "objection" 2 or 3 times during the whole trial - that was it. the blonde lunatic was given a truth-drug to prove her innocent but not Brett. the lunatic almost had an altar of Brett in her home that could have proved her sick obsession. but again no go. during the court scene i felt the silent urge to take the needlepoint out of her hand and bang it several times against her head. even real weirdos do not look that silly fake "i am innocent" like she did. and what does this movie tell us? never marry a woman with a life insurance: as soon as she falls down the stairs her husband will be thrown into jail, guilty or not. evil, evil men.$LABEL$ 0
+Grey Gardens is a world unto itself. Edith and Little Edie live in near total isolation, eating ice cream and liver pate in a makeshift kitchen in their (apparently) shared bedroom. Cats loll about while mother Edith insults her daughter's elocution. This is a Tennessee Williams play come to life and should inspire screenwriters and playwrights, as the bizarre and overlapping dialogue is 100% real.The situation in the house reminds me exactly of how my grandmother and her 50-ish daughter lived for a decade (other than that they were poor and clean). They would bicker all day, grandmother talking about her gloriously perfect past while her daughter continually blamed her for missed opportunities with men, work, and self-expression.This film is a must-see for anyone writing a mother/daughter relationship of this kind. It is sad and voyeuristic, but the filmmakers did an amazing job getting the Edies comfortable enough to expose themselves so recklessly. It is rare to see true life this way and all the more special considering the context--remnants of a powerful family fading into nothingness in the skeleton of their own mansion.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was horrible, and it doesn't even deserve to be called a movie. The way I look at it, it's more like three mediocre day-time Disney cartoon episodes strung loosely together to make a single video that pretends to be the sequel to the first Atlantis movie, which was way more well-made and enjoyable. And where do i even begin with the problems of this DVD? The story? The characters? The pictures/animation? To me they're all bad and unwatchable. Firstly, the story in this direct-to-video DVD is ridiculous and pointless. The only good thing about it is that it is consistent--that is, consistently bad, from the beginning to the end. After the film's over i still don't know why Milo has returned and how the incidents occur in the three small stories are related to each other or to Atlantis itself. And all I could remember about this movie was how bad it makes me feel after seeing it. The characters feel wooden and lack personality, and the drawings look a lot different than that in the first. You can tell they're obviously not from the hands of the same animators from the first one. As the DVD played on, i found myself caring less and less about what might happen to the characters and just hoping the film would end soon. Besides the story and the characters mentioned above, the picture quality is poor in this one too, probably one of the worst in those direct-to-video products that Disney has ever released. As a fan of the the original Atlantis: the lost empire, I couldn't be more disappointed in Milo's return, which is a total waste of time and money. Thank goodness I rented it first instead of buying it. Even so, I still wish I'd never seen this crap or even known its existence.$LABEL$ 0
+This was one of the most contrived, tedious and clichéd films I have ever seen... and, yes, I've seen Pearl Harbour. Even the likes of Gina McKee couldn't act their way out of the appalling dialogue. It has been described as 'art-house', this can only be a euphemism for dull, dreadful and, quite frankly, artless. Why is it that when a film is devoid of plot, critics feel it deserves to be called art? But far more baffling, why did America love it? Without you, this film would have remained on the shelf where, perhaps, it belonged.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm sorry, but I cannot understand what people were smoking when they wrote how great they thought "Ethan Mao" was. I have seen better acting, character and plot development in pornos! WARNING: I am going to give away a key element to the "plot". After holding his family hostage overnight, Ethan lets his vile, evil, hated step-mom go to the bank - ALONE!!! - to retrieve the piece of his late mom's jewellery which he so desperately wants. Guess what? She calls the cops! Wow ... what a twist! I couldn't see that coming at all.The only good thing about this movie was that it was less than 90 minutes.Pure, unadulterated rubbish!$LABEL$ 0
+First this movie was not that bad.It was entertaining...at least to me for probably all the wrong reasons. I have never seen the original so can't compare the two.This movie reminded me of that weird Christopher Reeve movie Village of the Damned. THe two movies have different plots, but that creepy disgusted feeling and unwanted comedy exist in both.The wicker man is suppose to be a mystery/thriller/men please don't anger the women movie. I don't know the whole pagan thing and sacrifice was a little off.Nicholas Cage, his glorious bad self goes to a secluded Island called Summerisle when he receives a letter in calligraphy from his long lost fiancée who claims her daughter has been taken and hidden by fellow islanders. Cage is a police officer and being the weary policeman he is he goes to the semi uncharted island leaving no word of his whereabouts to anyone who is located in the real world. Stupid.Things get weirder when the large Amish-esquire women who populate the island snarl at him and lie about the whereabouts of the missing girl. His fiancée is no help who seems to be elusive and weary the whole time. Cage stays on the Island when he learns that the missing girl is his daughter and he is the lucky man tricked to come to this island as a sacrificial victim during the islands sick harvest festival.In this movie males do not fare so well. A sick twisted display of feminism? I found the movie laughable at times particularly when cage punches some women and runs around in a bear suit. I think there were too many potholes in this movie. I find the whole concept of angry women secluding themselves on an island without any care for males quite entertaining, but the way it was portrayed in this movie was just weird. While most women have had some jerk hurt and anger them this is clearly a form of sexism. I would have turned the movie off in disgust if the roles were reversed. This movie is something to watch maybe just once or twice. It is NOT a thriller it should be categorized as just strange.$LABEL$ 0
+Hardly a masterpiece. Not so well written. Beautiful cinematography i think not. This movie wasn't too terrible but it wasn't that much better than average. The main story dealing with highly immoral teens should have focused more on the forbidden romance and why this was... should have really gotten into it instead of scraping the surface with basically "because mom says we can't." Some parts should have been dropped altogether or reworked to have more importance to the plight of the two main characters. Couple times i was wondering if the writer/director was a fan of George Lucas' classic American Graffiti. Not that it's wrong to be a fan of that movie but to make your movie at times look like that, i mean come on! Worst part of this was that Madchen Amick had such a small part, i mean double come on!! She was the only one, in one or two lines, who actually tried a southern accent. (Take a good listen, it was there even though her character was from California! DOH!!) Maybe if she was the star others could have followed and we would have had a more authentically sounding movie. Oh well, what can ya do when you have a director who's just a director and not an artist, also. Too bad. Overall i give this a B- and that's being a little generous 'cause i'm partial to Ms. Amick.$LABEL$ 1
+(spoilers?)while the historical accuracy might be questionable... (and with the mass appeal of the inaccurate LOTR.. such things are more easily excused now) I liked the art ness of it. Though not really an art house film. It does provide a little emotionally charged scenes from time to time. I have two complaints. 1. It's too short. and 2. The voice you hear whispering from time to time is not explained.8/10Quality: 10/10 Entertainment: 7/10 Replayable: 5/10$LABEL$ 1
+Rock n' roll is a messy business and DiG! demonstrates this masterfully. A project of serious ambition, and perhaps foolhardiness, the filmmaker is able to mend together seven tumultuous years of following around two unwieldy rock groups. With that said, the abundance of quality material ensures the film's ability to captivate the audience. If you've ever been interested in any realm of the music industry, this movie will undoubtedly be an arresting viewing. the music in the film, although it suffers minimally from requisite cutting and pasting, is worth the price of admission alone. the morning after i saw DiG! i went straight to the record store to pick up a Brian Jonestown Massacre album (i was already initiated to the Dandy Warhols' sounds). Primarily defined by its exploration of rock music, the film succeeds at other profound levels. DiG! is a sincere, and sufficiently objective, glance into the destructive and volatile nature of the creative process and the people that try to wrangle those forces.$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of my favourite martial arts movies from Hong Kong. It is one of John Woo's earliest films and one of only a few traditional martial arts movies he directed. You can see his influences from working under Chang Cheh in this film. The action is good, the fight choreography is conducted by Fong Hak On who appears as one of the bad guys in the movie. It stars Wei Pei of "Five Venoms" fame and a whole host of faces familiar to fans of Golden Harvest and Shaw Brothers productions. The story line is interesting, there are a few decent plot twists and the build up of the characters and their relationships with each other is cleverly done. This film has only had a VHS release in the UK. Media Asia have released a region 3 DVD and there are versions of it on DVD available from the USA. The film is lovely to watch in either it's original language or in it's English dubbed version. I highly recommend this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+I always have a bit of distrust before watching the British period films because I usually find on them insipid and boring screenplays (such as the ones of, for example, Vanity Fair or The Other Boleyn Girl), but with a magnificent production design, European landscapes and those thick British accents which make the movies to suggest artistic value which they do not really have.Fortunately, the excellent film The Young Victoria does not fall on that situation, and it deserves an enthusiastic recommendation because of its fascinating story, the excellent performances from Emily Blunt, Paul Bettany and Jim Broadbent, and the costumes and locations which unexpectedly make the movie pretty rich to the view.And I say "unexpectedly" because I usually do not pay too much attention to those details."Victorian era" was (in my humble opinion) one of the key points in contemporary civilization, and not only on the social aspect, but also in the scientific, artistic and cultural ones.But I honestly did not know about the origins from that era very much, and maybe because of that I enjoyed this simplification of the political and economic events which prepared the landing of modern era so much.I also liked the way in which Queen Victoria is portrayed, which is as a young and intelligent monarch whose decisions were not always good, but they were at least inspired by good intentions.I also found the depiction of the romance between Victoria and Prince Albert very interesting because it is equally interested in the combination of intellects as well as in the emotions it evokes.The only fail I found on this movie is that screenwriter Julian Fellowes used some clichés of the romantic cinema on the love story, something which feels a bit out of place on his screenplay.I liked The Young Victoria very much, and I really took a very nice surprise with it.I hope more period films follow the example of this movie: the costumes and the landscapes should work as the support of an interesting story, and not as the replacement of it.$LABEL$ 1
+It's difficult to criticize a movie with the title like 'Deathbed: The Bed that Eats' and involves a ghost narrator who's trapped behind a 2-way painting he drew and a bed that snores and – if I'm not mistaken, masturbates. (Now, that's getting back at its human companions!) Furthermore, it foams up (in orange, for whatever reason) to absorb edibles lying on its surface, including apples, wine, fried chicken and, of course, people. Again it's suffice to say, that don't expect too much when you see what I guess is stomach acid – the final remains of anything that orange suds takes – dissolving only certain things. It'll drink the wine, but the bottle's okay and it'll eat away at the chicken bone, but the bucket's just fine. Heck, the bed even replaces the unused containers. Hilariously, at one point it downs Pepto-Bismol. I had to laugh at that one. I don't think they really wanted you to take any of this seriously. It's low budget, and it's extremely easy to see where they cut costs and saved oodles amounts of money. I thought, in a world where there can be a killer 'Lift' and a 'Blood Beach,' this 'Deathbed' might be amusing to watch. For reasons that might involve cost, 90% of the film is voice-over, no one screams or shows extremely low signs of fright/confusion on why a bed would attack (I can think of one – and I never was one of those kids that jumped on the bed) and you'll have to suspend your disbelief beyond belief. (A victim loses all flesh on his hands, barely saying "ow.") Only one scene, that went on too long, was minutely tense – a woman attempts to crawl away only to be dragged back, using a sheet. Where are the MST3k guys?$LABEL$ 0
+I'm sorry, perhaps this is part of the wave of praise for fireman since 911, perhaps it's an old fashioned story, perhaps it's not meant to knock your socks off but I'm sorry, this film is awful. As in the title, cliché 49, I think it has at least that many clichés. It's a dreary story (impressive managing to be dreary when there's dangerous fires and lives being saved) about a fireman. And his dreary life, told in a pointless, 'scene from now' flashback to the past style. We begin the film with the hero in peril in a collapsing burning building. The entire film is about trying to get us to love this guy so we squeeze a few tears out when he meets his end in the finale of the scene from the start of the film. I found it hard to care and wished he'd gone up in smoke earlier. Clichés abound such as - death of best friend, love at first site, hazing in a new job, firstborn, a worried wife with a husband with a perilous job, a father figure boss/superior, 2.4 kids (well 2 but close enough), sacrificing your life to save others, awards for bravery....on and on. It's every fireman's life, every police officer, nurse, doctor in some way. It was lazy, if it was meant as a 'life flashing before his eyes' as he died, then God help the poor chap, I'm surprised he didn't suck in more smoke to go quicker. The flashbacks are mostly mundane and predictable, dully acted and with a soundtrack that could put The Laughing Cow out of business it was so cheesy, it actually sounded like muzak or copyright free elevator stuff!!! To be avoided at all costs unless you need something to watch with granny of a Sunday evening. Or maybe if your related to a firefighter - warning - your life will end horribly or you will be scarred for life if you are a brave fireman according to this movie. Unless your John Travolta (strange Velcro style hair in this one!!)$LABEL$ 0
+I actually felt bad for the actors in this thing. No doubt a high school drama class could do a better job or at the very least as well a job. The actors must have thought this would be their big chance working in a film, it certainly was not. Besides the terrible acting the stories were boring and for the most part predictable. The one about the remote control didn't even make any sense. To bad cause it had the best premise in the bunch.I'm all for supporting low budget films and giving new film makers a fair chance, but this turkey is a waste of time and an insult to the viewer. I only watched it because of some good comments posted here. They must have been planted by people with ties to the film. You may fool people into watching this, but you can't fool them into liking what they saw.I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 because at least the boxer story tried to be heart warming. Sure it failed miserably, but it tried. I reserve 1 s for the worst of the worst.Do yourself a favor and skip this dribble. I wish I had.$LABEL$ 0
+I came away from this movie with the feeling that it could have been so much better. Instead of what should be a gripping, tense story of a boy's fight for survival in the wilderness, it comes off as a National Geographic documentary meets Columbia sportswear ad.The film begins with Brian (Jared Rushton) preparing for a journey by plane to see his father. His mother fortuitously gives him the curious choice of a hatchet as a going-away gift (what's wrong with a Rubik's Cube?), little knowing how badly he will soon need it. Once in the air, the plane's pilot (a blink-and-you'll-miss-him cameo by Ned Beatty) suffers a fatal heart attack, leaving Brian helpless as the plane crashes into a lake. Extremely lucky to walk (or rather swim) away virtually unscathed, Brian must find shelter, food and hope for rescue.Here is where the main problem with the movie begins. By the very nature of Brian's solitude, Jared has very few lines to speak, and so the film ought to have compensated by ratcheting up the tension of each scene. Instead, he is shown walking around, sitting around, and so on, with only a minimal sense of danger. As a result, too much reliance is placed on flashbacks to the parents' troubled marriage as the source of tension. These scenes merely get in the way and don't particularly add much to the story. Even worse, occasionally Jared – his face covered with mud - lets out a primal scream or two, which conjures up unfortunate parallels to `Predator.' Speaking of unfortunate, we could have done with being spared the sight of his mullet, but it presumably helped keep him warm at night.Another disappointment is Pamela Sue Martin in a totally ineffectual performance as the mother. Both she and the father have very little impact in the movie. For instance, we are never shown how they react to news of Brian's disappearance, how they might be organizing rescue attempts, and so on. This is just one source of tension the film-makers would have done well to explore instead of spending so much time on events that happened before Brian embarked on his journey.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm not saying anything new when I say that "Ray" was magnificent. As I proceed to laud this movie I have to mention something that sets it apart from other films. Very rarely is a film made entirely by the actor(s). "Ray" quite simply was made by Jamie Foxx. Without the wonderful performance of Jamie Foxx, "Ray" would just be another interesting and informative biopic. I always thought Foxx was funny, stemming from his days with "In Livin' Color" and "The Jamie Foxx Show", and I also knew that he was talented, as he used his own show ("The Jamie Foxx Show") to show off his musical talents. But never did I imagine that he could pull off a role like this. I don't know much about acting and what they go through to get into character or other things like that, but what I saw from Jamie Foxx was extremely impressive. He wrapped himself into that role and made us see Ray Charles rather than an actor portraying Ray Charles. The story of "Ray" was great yes, but it was given life by Jamie Foxx.$LABEL$ 1
+My jaw fell so many times watching this flick, I have bruises. Okay, granted, I really wasn't expecting the quality of, say, The Others or even Thirteen Ghosts (the new one, which was just dreadful and is still head and shoulders above this insanity). Someone else noted the thin characters...I wouldn't call them "thin". "Thin" implies there might be something to them. How about almost non-existent? In no particular order we have: The Girl Who Will Scream; The American Who Will Figure It All Out; The Macho Guy Who Will Just Bull Through Everything Until He Gets Killed: The Wise Black Man Who Will Die Early; The Extra Guy Who Is There To Die First; The Extra Woman Who Is There To Play Tough. That's it. That's your character list and that is what they are and what they remain from beginning to end. If they were "thin" they might, at least, change a little bit from beginning to end. But they don't. Well, okay, the American guy decides he's going to stay with the fieldwork at the end and the Screaming Girl goes back to wherever she came from. That's the change. Other than that, they all act according to their assigned roles and rarely betray any real emotion when they finally meet up with the menace.Now, the producers get props for an original menace, I will say. I had understood the story was going to be "Tremors" but with ants instead of giant worms. I give the writer credit: these are very cool, very scary ants and what they do with bones is excellent. (The first time the "bone snatcher" appear, I admit I jumped a few feet.)Unfortunately, the very cool concept becomes Alien in the Desert very quickly. We get a lot of commentary on ants that may or may not be true, but we don't get much of the mythology on which the menace is based. And we get every monster movie cliché ever made. People go into places they know they shouldn't and when they have no compelling reason to. Moronic characters try to hinder our heroes and die for it. One character does double duty as "scientist who doesn't want to kill the monster but study it". A Very Cool Gadget is introduced only so the American can tell everyone something about ants that, gee, I hope everyone knows anyway. Then the gadget is broken. Our heroes run out of the one thing that can keep the menace at bay. And then there is that final, annoying moment when we know the menace is still with us--and wonder exactly what and how the hey the hero or heroine came by it. It completely renders everything that went before as useless and false.Three stars for the cool use of ants and bones. Nothing at all for clichés, clunky dialogue and dim bulb characters.$LABEL$ 0
+This was such a beautiful film. Such an amazing performance from Joseph and Brad. Very innocently written and performed. A must see !! I cried my eyes out almost through the entire movie. This is a movie that every family should sit down with their children to watch, it does teach us all a very important lesson in life and how we should be approaching the harsh subject of AIDS, how we should be teaching our children to cope with it and people around them. Not only with AIDS, but with any terminal illness. I hadn't even heard of this movie until I scrolled through t.v. one day and happen to run across it. I recommend everyone to watch this, just don't forget your box of tissues. More movies should be made like this one. Extremely heartwarming.$LABEL$ 1
+The film is a joy to watch, not just for the plot, which is gripping, but also for the superb performances of the actors, Deneuve and Belmondo. Though considered a 'flop' on its first release it has become a critical success, and it is clear to see why. Deneuve's acting style suited the film brilliantly. she constantly gives the impression that she is holding back or hiding something, and her character in this film is. I will not spoil it with saying what, though it is divulged fairly early on. Belmondo is lovable as the fairly naiive but in love tobacconist. I would recommend this film to all Truffaut or Deneuve fans. It is a brilliant Hitchcockian style thriller with exciting twists and interesting relationships and characters that develop as the film does. The film is approx 2 hrs, so you feel that you have not been sold short. Deneuve steals the show in this film, and it is clear that at the time of making the film Truffaut was very much smitten with her. A definite must see for any cineaste or moviefan. 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+"Embarassing" is the only word to describe this laughingly awful production. From the blatant disregard of the source material (sure to infuriate anyone remotely familiar with mythology) to the predictably insufficient production value, this entire mini-series is a train wreck.The cast (which includes some good actors, whom I pity) delivers the illogical dialogue in the same generic "European" accent so common to bad epics. Worse is the lack of originality in almost all other aspects, from costume and set design (blurring together styles from across time and space) to the score (which seems to poorly mimic many recognizable classical tunes as well as "Lord of the Rings"). Most offensive of all are the visual effects, which single- handedly prove that if you can't afford to do them well, WRITE THEM OUT.It pained me to see yet another legendary tale bastardized by a cheap "adaptation." Maybe one day, someone will do it right.$LABEL$ 0
+Rating: 4 out of 10As this mini-series approached, and we were well aware of it for the last six months as Sci-Fi Channel continued to pepper their shows with BG ads, I confess that I felt a growing unease as I learned more.As with any work of cinematic art which has stood up to some test of time, different people go to it to see different things. In this regard, when people think of Battlestar Galactica, they remember different things. For some it is the chromium warriors with the oscillating red light in their visor. For others, it is the fondness that they held for special effects that were quite evolutionary for their time. Many forget the state of special effects during the late 70s, especially those on television. For some the memories resolve around the story arc. Others still remember the relationships how how the relationships themselves helped overcome the challenges that they faced.Frankly, I come from the latter group. The core of Battlestar Galactica was the people that pulled together to save one another from an evil empire. Yes, evil. The Cylons had nothing to gain but the extermination of the human race yet they did it. While base stars were swirling around, men and women came together to face an enemy with virtually unlimited resources, and somehow they managed to survive until the next show. They didn't survive because they had better technology, or more fire power. They survived because they cared for and trusted each other to get through to the next show.The show had its flaws, and at times was sappy, but they were people you could care about.The writers of this current rendition seemed to never understand this. In some ways he took the least significant part of the original show, the character's names and a take on the story arc and crafted what they called nothing less than a reinvention of television science fiction. Since that was their goal, they can be judged on how well they accomplished it: failure. It was far from a reinvention. In fact it was in many ways one of the most derivitive of science fiction endeavors in a long time. It borrows liberally from ST:TNG, ST:DS9, Babylon 5, and even Battlefield Earth. I find that unfortunate.Ronald D. Moore has been a contributor to popular science fiction for more than a decade, and has made contribution to some of the most popular television Science Fiction that you could hope to see. One of the difficulties that he appears to have had was that there could be no conflict in the bridge crew of the Enterprise D & E. That was the inviolable rule of Roddenberry's ST:TNG. Like many who have lived under that rules of others who then take every opportunity to break the rules when they are no longer under that authority, Ron Moore seems to have forgotten some of the lessons he learned under the acknowledged science fiction master: Gene Roddenberry. Here, instead of writing the best story possible, he has created a dysfuntional cast as I have ever seen with the intent of creating as much cast conflict as he could. Besides being dysfunctional, some of it was not the least bit believable. Anyone who has ever been in the military knows that someone unprovokedly striking a superior officer would not get just a couple of days "in hack," they could have gotten execution, and they never would have gotten out the next day. It wouldn't have happened, period, especially in time of war.The thing that I remembered most of Ron Moore's earlier work was that he was the one who penned the death of Capt. James Kirk. He killed Capt. Kirk, and, alas for me, he has killed Battlestar Galactica.$LABEL$ 0
+Disney (and the wonderful folks at PIXAR of course) offer a nice, humourous story combined with the best of computer animation. I admit that maybe the 'faces' of the bugs were a little more static than in 'Antz' and they only had four legs (in 'Antz' six...). But backgrounds were superb and animation was breathtaking. But let this be a lesson: it was not the computer who made it such a success : it was the man behind the machine, who added the nice little twists, which I missed in 'Antz'. Some highlights were of course the 'bloopers' at the end (So keep watching at the end, it's worth it!), which were highly amusing and original. The line 'Filmed entirely on location' was intended for the more attentive viewer.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a great German slasher, that's often quite suspenseful, and creative, with a fun story and solid performances. All the characters are cool, and Benno Fürmann is great as the psycho killer, plus Franka Potente gives a fantastic performance as the main lead. It did take a little while to get going, but it was never boring, and it had some good death scenes as well, plus the music is wonderfully creepy. I was lucky enough to get the subtitled version, instead of the dubbed, and I thought all the characters were quite likable, plus it's very well made and written as well. It has some really good plot twists too, and the effects are extremely well done, plus the ending is great. The finale is especially suspenseful, and Franka Potente was the perfect casting choice in my opinion, plus I wish Arndt Schwering-Sohnrey(David) didn't get killed of so soon, because he was a really cool character. There were actually a couple of moments where I felt uncomfortable but in a good way, and I must say this film deserved all it's praise, plus while it does have plot holes, it's not enough to hamper the film. This is a great German slasher, that's often quite suspenseful, and creative, with a fun story, and solid performances, I highly recommend this one!. The Direction is great!. Stefan Ruzowitzky does a great! Job here with excellent camera work, very good angles, great close ups (see the opening sex scene), doing a great job of adding creepy atmosphere, and just keeping the film at a very fast pace.There is quite a bit of blood and gore. We get cadavers cut open,plenty of very gory surgery scenes,lots of bloody stabbings,people are dissected while still being conscious, severed finger, self mutilation, gutting's, bloody slit throat, lots of wicked looking frozen corpses, plenty of blood and more.The Acting is very solid!. Franka Potente is fantastic as the main lead, she was very likable, remained cool under pressure, was vulnerable, easy on the eyes, and we are able to care for her character, the only time she seemed to suffer, was when she had to spurt out some bad dialog here and there, but that wasn't very often, she was wonderful!. Benno Fürmann is excellent as the psycho killer, he was simply chilling, and wonderfully OTT, he really gave me the creeps, and was one effective killer!. Anna Loos played her role very well, as the smart slut, I dug her. Sebastian Blomberg was great here as Caspar, he was quite likable, and had a mysterious character,his chemistry with Potente was also on, and there was a great twists involving him at the end. Holger Speckhahn was good as the Idiot Phil and did his job well. Traugott Buhre is good as Prof. Grombek. Arndt Schwering-Sohnrey was great as David, he had a really cool character, and I wish he didn't get killed of so soon. Rest of the cast do fine.Overall I highly recommend this great German slasher!. ***1/2 out of 5$LABEL$ 1
+Please, If you're thinking about renting this movie, don't. If you're thinking of watching a couple of downloaded clips, don't. If I had my way, nobody would even have to read this summary.The acting, despite being one fo the high points of the movie was still pathetic. The director was probaly a sadist. The witty one liners were something you'd expect from a room of highly paid anti-social 7 year olds that eat paint-chips for breakfast.The problem with this movie, is that it tries to be a movie like "Evil Dead 2"(do not under any circumstances associate these 2 movies) in that it's so bad it's funny. But it also tries to be funny at the same time, and fails so overwhelmingly to do so, that your sense of humor is left too crippled to do anything but set off your gag reflex in an attmept to save itself.I could go on for much much more, detailing just how awful it really was, but I think it would strip me of my will to live just to continue to think about it. If you need me, I'll be off trying to boil myself so that I might feel clean again...$LABEL$ 0
+Me and my girlfriend went to see this movie as a "Premiere Surprise" that is we bought at ticket to the preview to a movie before it opened here in Denmark. We sat through the 1st hour or so and then we left! The point of the movie seemed to be simply to portray the era (and club 54), but it did so at the expence of character development, of which there was none, and plot of which there was little.Seldom have I been so indifferent to the characters in a movie!The music was good though. So if you like to hear some good music and get a fix of that 70ies mood I guess it is OK. But don't expect to get a plot of believable characters.$LABEL$ 0
+A truly accurate and unglamourous look into modern day life. It could be set in any town in the UK. I live in a housing estate in Glasgow and can relate to this film very well.Sadly the situations and characters are all too realistic but not predictable.The actors are scarily believable, I felt as if I was spying on my neighbours. It was an intimate dip into the lives of fragile and hopeless people. I was very moved by a few scenes.I loved the way this film was shot.Overall this film IS a must see.$LABEL$ 1
+I like the most of the Full Moon Pictures so I ordered this movie from the USA, because in Germany you can't get it anywhere. I thought it would be so nice and amusing like the Subspecies or Puppetmaster Series, because they were full of atmosphere.I was glad when the movie finally arrived.But after watching this cheesy movie, I was very disappointed. The actors ( I think you can't even say actors) are boring and untalented. The story was a poor performance and even the set and the monster were very cheap and lousy.I hope no one ever make a sequel or remake of this terrible movie. :-)$LABEL$ 0
+Yeah, the archetype of a simple but inspirational movie. The very end when the entire crowd in the stadium gets up and the people raise their hands gives me a chill whenever I see it. That's just brilliant. Joseph is wonderful as the lonely and sad kid who has so far been disappointed by anyone and anything in his life. The way he interacts with Danny Glover and tries to make him believe in the magic and the angels is funny and exhilarating. A very nice family movie with - I concede - a rather corny happy end. But hey, it doesn't really matter, the movie retains its basic quality by the good acting and the inspirational themes.$LABEL$ 1
+Like almost everyone else who has commented on this movie, I can only wonder why this has never appeared on video.I recall seeing it at about age 12 on the "The Late Show," circa 1972. I too recall the poison gas attack and the weirdly garbed horses. (I don't recall the more horrific bits I've seen described here; they were likely cut out for the TV audience.) But the scenes I REALLY liked were the ones involving the death of Lord Kitchener aboard the HMS Hampshire, almost exactly 90 years ago. The scenes of the doomed cruiser approaching the minefield in the storm were really chilling, as I recall.Don't recall the musical score, but the comments of the others now have me curious. Get this one out on video!$LABEL$ 1
+Overall I would have to say that I liked the movie. Some of the fight scenes are really good. Especially the fight against Leung Ka-Yan. One point that really bothered me was the fact that they used an Asian to play a black man. I mean really. Talk about bad taste. During a fight scene, you see one of the fighters on the floor is laughing. Otherwise, Sammo copies Bruce Lee's fighting moves perfectly. 5 out of 10 Stars.$LABEL$ 1
+Personally, I find the movie to be quite a good watch. It outlines the actual situation of triads in Hong Kong and gives the viewer a glimpse of how triads are organized.Not only that, it also shows the viewer how the Hong Kong police control the triad situation and why the police don't just go all out and wipe out triads.Overall, the movie is rather violent due to the gangland methods of killings & torture. Nevertheless, the movie stays true to the real world, thus the violence on screen is just a reflection of what really happens.I'd recommend this movie to any Triad/Mafia movie fan. Another good watch would be Dragon Squad. That movie has more guns than this, as in this movie there's more knives than guns (in fact I don't remember seeing a single gun).$LABEL$ 1
+The Ator series is a shining example of what B-movies should be. They fail in every aspect, but in such a hilarious way that they are funny rather than sad. "Ator l'invincibile 2" aka "The Blade Master" aka "Cave Dwellers" shows us Europe's favorite Conan clone, Ator where we left him in the first movie- after showing us a lengthy recap of all the events of the first film. This time the world must be saved from "The Nucleus", a kind of bomb, represented on screen as a bright light (I guess they couldn't afford a prop). This one features invisible attackers and samurai. As with the first film, lots of stock footage is used (including one rather obvious bit from "Star Wars"). Thoroughly laughable and unforgettably bad- this is an exception B-movie.$LABEL$ 1
+This is one you can watch over and over and laugh just as much each time. We have been on a Keaton fest around here after purchasing some of his films. In this one Buster is mistaken for an escaped murderer and there are lots of chase scenes and crazy scenes but also what is best about Buster - his creativity. The opening scene is really funny and it just keeps going from there.$LABEL$ 1
+Why do the powers that be continue to cast Jennifer Lopez in unbelievable roles? She was excellent in Selena, and pretty good in Money Train, which both cast her in roles where she could basically be herself. However, roles like this just draw the line. I could never see Lopez as an FBI agent (see Out of Sight for that unremarkable performance), but as a psychotherapist? Give me a break!Basically, Lopez plays the aforementioned psychotherapist, who is involved in virtual reality experiments in which she enters the minds of her patients in order to help them sort out their issues. When she enters the mind of a comatose serial killer to help save one of his victims, she breaks all the rules to try and crack the insanity of his inner mind.Lopez's acting here is typically below average. I can't get over that high-pitched squeak of a voice she has. She's no Julia Roberts, but yet she comes across on screen as though she believes herself to be on the same playing field. Well, she's not even in the same stadium. Sure, she is a very sexy lady; however, that isn't going to carry a film, and it certainly doesn't carry this one. With anybody else cast in her role for this film it would have been excellent, especially if it was cast with someone who could lend more credibility to the character.Having said all that, this film is visually stunning. The colors are fabulous, and the story line isn't half bad in a B-movie kind of way. The audio here is superb as well. This movie gains some points for the fairly original storyline, and major points for how it looks and sounds. Unfortunately, the acting and poor casting bring it down a few notches.My Rating: 6/10$LABEL$ 0
+For all the hoopla, respect and recognition this film gets from Kung Fu historians, it still lacks glaringly in a couple critical areas: action and fight scenes. But I must say that the plot is probably the best and most original I've ever seen in a martial arts film. Five Deadly Venoms without a doubt is a must see, not only that, a movie you can watch again and again; but I also must say that after watching it you feel it could have been even better. It somehow leaves you wanting something, you want more. The producer Chang Cheh sets up the storyline beautifully for a potential masterpeice but doesn't follow through with giving us more of the action we want. The fighting styles in the movie really captures the viewer (Centipede,Snake,Scorpion,Lizard,Toad) and they are shown, but battles are noticeably short. The Toad and Snake styles are particularly intriguing and should have been showcased much, much more, in fact the Toad is killed off by the middle of the movie. Interestingly enough with this movie, the absence of constant action or fighting leads to development of a great plot, this is one of the few kung fu films where you are really interested in the storyline and care about the outcome. This movie has a dark and vicious tone to it and you are drawn into the vibe. Sinister weapons and torture tactics are used throughout the movie and adds to the movies feel. To start off the movie and to introduce the Poison Clan producer Chang Cheh takes us to a grimy dungeon. The ending fight scenes are certainly good but seem muffled and somehow you expected more. Still though this movie is one of Shaw Brothers best and is quite enjoyable. My overall impression of the movie would conclude with this: The styles the fighters used are merely shown to us and not showcased in detail, sad thing is , the director had the goods for something extraordinary right at his fingertips and didn't expand on it. I am left wondering what could have been with this movie, still one of the best though. 8 out of 10 on the scale.$LABEL$ 1
+Not only was he invariably annoying to listen to, but he had NO jokes. I swear, some fobby Asian guy telling yo momma jokes would've been funnier than Leary's crap. (Well, maybe funny for a couple minutes but at least I'll be able to laugh at least once!) Leary claimed he stopped taking drugs during one of his "jokes"... apparently he was still high on something; he was just some crackhead imprecating rants mostly drug related. One of his jokes was something like, 'I wouldn't use crack, especially having the same name as between my ass' - Oh man, how did he come up with that one?! I swear the only guy that needs to shut the f**k up is Denis Leary. Thank god I didn't have to see him live. This guy totally sucks.If you're easily amused by swearing, and "jokes" where you can come up with yourself, then waste your time with this junk.$LABEL$ 0
+Basically a road movie. The gay, transsexual, and other gender-bender themes are rather disturbing, particularly when the child is involved. You do have to hand it to the costume designers. As for the actors, the only one I was familiar with was Terence Stamp. I suppose it was a very good performance, out of his (or anyone's) normal range. The movie as a whole was shallow, just a vehicle for the clever, bitchy banter. All in all, I don' recommend this one.$LABEL$ 0
+A surprising rent at a local video store, I was pleased to find a media satire worthy enough to challenge Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers." And almost as disturbing. I think it went well with my viewing to be in late 2004 watching the Republican Machine do it's magic on the majority of America's television viewing populous. It brings up the question "Are we really that manipulative?" It definitely skewed my view. There was also a larger theological question being provoked- the story of Christ. Could word of mouth and overwhelming dependence on something exploitive as television produce a messiah? Could the story of Christ been exaggerated? Could it have been completely fabricated? It's something the movie puts in a extremely perceptive light.$LABEL$ 1
+There are films that make careers. For George Romero, it was NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD; for Kevin Smith, CLERKS; for Robert Rodriguez, EL MARIACHI. Add to that list Onur Tukel's absolutely amazing DING-A-LING-LESS. Flawless film-making, and as assured and as professional as any of the aforementioned movies. I haven't laughed this hard since I saw THE FULL MONTY. (And, even then, I don't think I laughed quite this hard... So to speak.) Tukel's talent is considerable: DING-A-LING-LESS is so chock full of double entendres that one would have to sit down with a copy of this script and do a line-by-line examination of it to fully appreciate the, uh, breadth and width of it. Every shot is beautifully composed (a clear sign of a sure-handed director), and the performances all around are solid (there's none of the over-the-top scenery chewing one might've expected from a film like this). DING-A-LING-LESS is a film whose time has come.$LABEL$ 1
+The other reviewers are way WAAAAY off as to why the Farscape show has been (temporarily) put to rest. It has NOTHING to do with the quality of the shows 'slacking'. In fact, the exact OPPOSITE is true. They kept getting better and better! :) I have seen every episode and when you simply watch them in order you really become in awe how much cooler it gets as they move on and on, and the wormhole & Aeryn subplots are really very interesting and gave it MORE vibe, not less. Before it was sort of chaotic, slow, and rather aimless. They spent like the first two seasons running from this foe type, but in the second two they were actually trying to DO something :) Also I have never seen such a great fun blend of sexy gals and attitudes in Sci-Fi. The blue girl - Zahn - was cool, but not 'sexy'. They literally got to the point where the gals were running around in leather corsets and high heels blasting aliens - now tell me, what could be cooler than that??? :))The real reason Farscape went off for a bit is because it was costing too much - and that is a GOOD thing for the fans, because the show, watched end to end, is really like a 60 hour long epic movie, with all the cinematics of the blockbuster stuff (ok ok they do use similar sets a lot, but the CG is great and the gals are sexxxy).Blah blah - the real reason is because TV shows are about PROFIT. It is a BUSINESS, and the Sci Fi channel or whoever was not getting as big a return on this expensive Farscape show as they could with junk shows like 'Stargate'. Lexx was actually cool until they got rid of the hot German girl and replaced her with this bizarre fat-lipped oddity.Anyway yes, remember this: Farscape kept getting better and better, until it was really like a little real movie each week. Then the networks decided 'hey people will watch any old piece of drek we shove on the air as long as it is the only sci fi thing on at that hour, so why are we spending all this money on Farscape, let's shove cheesy low-budget 'Stargate' down people's throats and call it a 'hit series' because it's like all we play every darn night LOL :))That's the way it goes. Also I gotta tell ya that Claudia Black is a really cool actress. After she got her facelift (got the baggy eyes tightened) she was looking really cool - one of those dynamic types like Judy Davis, and sometimes hot looking, sometimes ugly - like a roller coaster ride. I'd par Claudia Black with Lucy Lawless in style and substance - both VERY fun to watch - not just Chrichton :) And yeah you may say the pregnancy thing was cheesy, but how many sci fi shows have a BELIEVABLE and DEEP romantic subplot that actually goes somewhere and progresses?? It was legitimately cool as a romance story - the actors on the show are great. It really is a shame the show is in limbo for now, but I hope it comes back in more episodes soon and movies as well, because I will deffinately buy them! :-D$LABEL$ 1
+My favourite police series of all time turns to a TV-film. Does it work? Yes. Gee runs for mayor and gets shot. The Homicide "hall of fame" turns up. Pembleton and nearly all of the cops who ever played in this series. A lot of flashbacks helps you who hasn´t seen the TV-series but it amuses the fans too. The last five minutes solves another murder and at the very end even two of the dead cops turn up. And a short appearance from my favourite coroner Juliana Cox. This is a good film.$LABEL$ 1
+I love this movie, first and foremost because of Mark Wahlberg is in it and secondly because the end justifies the means. There is something about this film that sucks you in and allows you to feel all of the emotions the characters are feeling. Jen Aniston is great as the girlfriend in this movie. It takes a look at the Rockstar lifestyle that so many hardcore rockers lived back in the day (perhaps these days they have gotten just abit smarter). It takes through a rainbow of emotions and has a lot of subtle facets to allow the light through. Like a diamond, this movie shines. You won't waste your popcorn on this one. Semi-chick flick but my husband enjoyed it too. There's some laughs thrown in too.$LABEL$ 1
+Put the blame on executive producer Wes Craven and financiers the Weinsteins for this big-budget debacle: a thrash-metal updating of "Dracula", with a condescending verbal jab at Bram Stoker (who probably wouldn't want his name on this thing anyway) and nothing much for the rest of us except slasher-styled jolts and gore. Christopher Plummer looks winded as Van Helsing in the modern-day--not just a descendant of Van Helsing but the real thing; he keeps himself going with leeches obtained from Count Dracula's corpse, which is exhumed from its coffin after being stolen from Van Helsing's vault and flown to New Orleans. This is just what New Orleans needs in the 21st Century! The film, well-produced but without a single original idea (except for multi-racial victims), is both repulsive and lazy, and after about an hour starts repeating itself. * from ****$LABEL$ 0
+*** WARNING! SPOILERS CONTAINED HEREIN! *** This is a semi-autobiographical look at what might happen to Madonna if she were ever to be stranded on a deserted island. There's absolutely no challenge to Madonna in this role, and it shows. She's just Madonna playing Madonna, and she can't even get THAT right. I know what you're saying, you're saying, "How do you know this is what Madonna is really like, you've never met her!" Correct, I haven't, but we all remember "Truth or Dare", don't we? I know Kevin Costner does. You would think, in the year 2002, that Madonna might have learned something, one way or the other, from the "crossover" ladies that have also made their way across the silver screen. For goodness' sake, hasn't Madonna seen "Glitter"? Mariah Carey showed the film world HOW IT IS DONE!!! Mariah kicks Madonna's trashy butt to the curb in beauty, talent, screen presence, charisma, characterization, you name it! All we see from this glimpse into Madonna's world is she's the only one in it.  If there's one thing to be said for Madonna, it is that she's consistent. When she was an MTV darling, she set the world of women's fashion back 20 years. Now, in film, she has set women's roles in film AND society back 20 years, by glamourizing all the most hated, horrible, reprehensible, odious qualities women have been reputed to have locked away inside them, qualities they have been so desperately trying to prove they really don't possess. ***HERE'S THE SPOILERS!!! DON'T READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW...*** Here's the one good thing I will say about this film, and I really was impressed by it. They didn't go for the "Hollywood Ending" - Madonna's character lives. In the typical, happy Hollywood ending, Madonna's character would have died on the island, and her long-suffering, oppressed, whipped husband would have been free to finally settle down with a good, decent woman, a woman who would be the exact opposite of his deceased wife, and they both live happily ever after. But in this extremely depressing conclusion, she is rescued, and once more, this poor victim of a husband is once again saddled with his demon of a wife, and his life will once again become a living hell. *** HERE ENDETH THE SPOILERS ***$LABEL$ 0
+"Family Guy" is probably the most ballsy sitcom ever produced. It relentlessly skewers everything it can think of, from TV shows to family drama. Best of all, it's one of the few TV shows on today that's actually funny.The show revolves around the Griffins: Peter, the obese father whose schemes are limited by his lack of intelligence. Lois, the mother who is more or less the head of the family, even though Peter considers himself to be that. Chris, the fat teenage son who has just as few brains as his dad. Meg, the black sheep of the family that is the but of everyone's jokes. Stewie, the baby who has plans for killing his mother and taking over the world. And Brian, the family dog, who is frequently the voice of reason, but is frequently corrupted."Family Guy" employs many tactics to get laughs from the audience. Most notable are the frequent cutaways that spoof what has just been said. They are effective because of the impeccable timing, and in how they play out. "Family Guy" uses spoofs to get humor as well, most commonly from 80's TV shows. What really makes the show so great is that a person doesn't have to be familiar with what it's spoofing. I'm sure it would help, but the material is funny enough in its own right. But the show doesn't stop there. Not only does it spoof just about everything, it skewers its own spoofs! The show is filled with off-color humor. The only reason why people aren't up in arms about the show is probably because it makes fun of every race, sex and other generality equally. There is nothing sacred here, and no one and nothing is immune from "Family Guy's" satirical jabs.Putting on musical numbers in a film takes a lot of time and effort, and it's a very big risk. But "Family Guy" contains some great songs. All well-written and performed, and of course they are hilarious (perhaps the most famous one, "The Freakin' FCC" is both catchy, and hysterical because it hits the ratings board where it hurts).The voice characterizations are right on the money. Seth McFarlane is tremendously talented. He provides the voices for Peter, Brian (which is his own natural voice), and Stewie. Not only are the voices consistent and creative, he can alter their pitch at will, so it really seems as if they are spoken by three different actors. Alex Borstein brings a nasally drawl to Lois that is perfect for the character. Seth Green is unrecognizable as Chris (had I not looked on IMDb, I would have never known that it was him). Lacey Chabert originated the character of Meg, and while she was good, Mila Kunis really elevated the character with her sharp voice. Kunis gives Meg a new, sharper edge that she didn't have with Chabert."Family Guy" has been compared to "The Simpsons," and that's entirely understandable (and not just because they are produced by FOX). Both are satires of blue-collar life, and while "The Simpsons" is good, "Family Guy" contains are sharper edge. The show is utterly fearless. There is no real sacred cow. The show lampoons handicaps (physical and mental), ethnicities, TV shows and movies, celebrities, politicians, religion (especially catholicism), drug use and addiction, sexual humor of all kinds (including S&M), and some that's just beyond description. Not everything "Family Guy" throws at the audience works, but as a whole, the show is consistently amusing and frequently hilarious.If there's any flaw with "Family Guy," it's that the jokes run on far too long sometimes. Particularly with the "awkward moment" jokes, the sequences are stretched for so long that not only does it cease to become funny, it becomes so irritating (and long) that a fast-forward button is warranted. These can be effective at about 10 to 15 seconds, but the show sometimes stretches these to beyond two minutes. One could argue that the show rewrites its rules to suit the plot, and it often does (for example, Brian frequently acts like a person, but he still acts like a dog when the story requires it). But that's not a problem because the show still works.Some people have argued that the show has stopped being funny. While I agree that it's not as edgy as it used to be, I think the blame lies with FOX, not McFarlane and his crew. The show originated with FOX, but after some lackluster ratings and viewer turnout, it was canceled. However, DVD sales were large enough for it to be picked up by Adult Swim. The show became an instant success, and it was once again bought by FOX. However, because the show is so big now, FOX is afraid to let the writers experiment and try new things. While it's still funny, the humor is not as fresh and edgy.Definitely check this show out. It's awesome.$LABEL$ 1
+Having avoided seeing the movie in the cinema, but buying the DVD for my wife for Xmas, I had to watch it. I did not expect much, which usually means I get more than I bargained for. But 'Mamma Mia' - utter, utter cr**. I like ABBA, I like the songs, I have the old LPs. But this film is just terrible. The stage show looks like a bit of a musical, but this races along with songs hurriedly following one another, no characterisation, the dance numbers (which were heavily choreographed according to the extras on the DVD) are just thrown away with only half the bodies ever on screen, the dance chorus of north Europeans appear on a small Greek island at will, while the set and set up of numbers would have disgraced Cliff Richard's musicals in the sixties!Meryl (see me I'm acting)Streep can't even make her usual mugging effective in an over-the-top musical! Her grand piece - 'The Winner Takes It All' - is Meryl at the Met! Note to director - it should have been shot in stillness with the camera gradually showing distance growing between Streep and Brosnan! Some of the singing is awful karaoke on amateur night. The camera cannot stop moving like bad MTV. One can never settle down and just enjoy the music, enthusiasm and characters. But what is even worse is how this botched piece of excre**** has become the highest grossing film in the UK and the best selling DVD to boot? Blair, Campbell and New Labour really have reduced the UK to zombies - critical faculties anyone???$LABEL$ 0
+I was giddy with girlish-glee when I found out about this movie shortly after seeing Spirits Within.After years of anticipation, they gave November 2005 release date. Well, November came. And went. Followed by December. Oh, look, today's January 31, 2006. No US release as of yet.Oh well, I'm so glad I had a friend with a bootlegged subtitled copy. ;DWell, the cg was great. Not as good as expected, but near perfect. I cringed, however, at the unnatural movements made by the children throughout the movie. I had thought that we were passed this by now. Also, I didn't really care for the anime look given to their faces. I was under the impression that they were shooting for a realistic look to the film, and yet most of the characters have larger-than-norm eyes, especially the girl characters. They had personality, though, I'll give them that.Even though I'm not a big fan of anime, I do have to say I was impressed with the wild fight scenes. They were animated beautifully and had me hanging onto the edge of my seat.For about the first two.And there-in lies Advent Children's biggest flaw. It's mostly just a bunch of hyper-stylized fight scenes.A FF7 sequel of epic proportions had been promised for years. Instead, they gave us a pretty piece of cg with barely a plot to excuse it's just-under-two-hours running time.Where Final Fantasy is famous for its intricate stories, this movie falls short. You don't really get to know the characters. The only way you'd have any understanding of most of what occurred in the film would have been if you had played the game. We barely got to see them before they were battling it out with whatever current threat.What hurts the fans even more is the awful cameos that the majority of FF7 characters were given. They were nothing more than Cloud's "I'll call if I need you, but I probably won't" back up singers. And, to add to the hurt, they had each character individually throw Cloud higher and higher. This little part here was so cheesy I almost turned it off. I would have been much more impressed if he had just simply jumped up all on his own, ricocheting off of walls to get himself up higher.It hurt even more when they reduced the Turks to less-than-just comic relief. That was fine for the game, but this is cinema. People do not act like cartoon characters in a harsh battle. They took away their dignity :/And, spoiler (yeah right, most of you probably already know, anyhow). Who remembers Darth Maul being hyped up in SW: Episode 1? Yeah, now, picture that, but with Sephiroth. That's right. He had maybe 5 minutes of screen time. Maybe that. End Spoiler :PIf this movie was made for the fans, then way to go Square. If this is any indication of the direction you're taking the FF series, I doubt you're going to be seeing much of my money. I played your games for the wonderful story and the excellent characters.You had a chance to make something epic. Something truly beautiful, a masterpiece that flies in the face of all of the Disney CG films.Instead you gave us a pretty piece of flesh with hardly anything underneath to hold it together. Way to go.And I'm sure if the rest of the fans paused for a moment and tried to just pay attention to everything but the CG they'd know what I'm talking about. Well, I was gonna rate this a 5/10, but after thinking about it while righting this, I'm giving it a 3/10 because they could have done better. They have done better. And this is just sad.If they're gonna remake anything FFVII, they need to do this one first.$LABEL$ 0
+Pola X is a beautiful adaption of Herman Melville's 'Pierre; or, the Ambiguities'. The comments on here surprise me, it makes me wonder what has led to the overwhelmingly negative reaction. The shock value is the least appealing thing about this film - a minor detail that has been blown out of proportion. The story is of Pierre's downfall - and the subsequent destruction of those around him - which is overtly demonstrated in his features, demeanour and idiolect. The dialogue and soundtrack set this film apart from any other I have seen, and turn a fundamentally traditional storyline with controversial twists into an unforgettably emotional epic.I can't stress enough the importance of disregarding everything you have heard about this film and watching, as I did, with an open mind. You will, I hope, be rewarded in the same way that I was. I felt on edge and nervous from around the half-hour mark, however the film is far from scary in any traditional sense. It will leave you with 1,000 thoughts, each of them at once troublesome and thrilling. I know I'm gushing here, but I feel the need to make up for the negative perception of this film. It's the best I've seen all year.$LABEL$ 1
+I went to see this movie with my 17 y.o. daughter. I insisted we go the matinée showing, not because I'm a tightwad, but just feeling I had. In the NASCAR spirit, this is a sponser's dream. SO much blatant advertising, it almost qualifies as an info-mercial, if it weren't for the so-called acting. Keeping with tradition, the Herbie franchise continues with its cheesy story lines, the car is only a 'vehicle' (no pun intended)for this cornball of a motion picture. Earlier Herbie installments (although cheesy as well) were produced during more serious times, making them a little easier to digest. Ms. Lohan, Disney's reigning drama queen, has little acting ability. I was surprised that Mr. Keaton and Mr. Dillon would get involved in such a project. Only the snack bar, was a bigger ripoff!$LABEL$ 0
+Directed by E. Elias Merhige "Begotten" is an experiment with a few interesting ideas that don't quite succeed in what they were trying to do. The film is a 76 minute ultra slow, questionably effective, irritating experience that tries to present an intriguing philosophy about the creation of the Earth and human nature.It opens with god presented as a chair-bound psychopathic man who tears open his stomach using a knife. From the guts, blood and human waste Mother Nature emerges. She proceeds to impregnate herself with the dead god's semen. Later she gives birth to the Son of the Earth. A retard who is constantly abused a group of cannibalistic people whom I believe to be the representation of mankind."Begotten" takes a twisted and disturbing look on the origin of life. Demonstrating the self-destructive nature, violence, lust and greed that have become a trademark for mankind. The problem in the movie come from two points. One is that the film is just too slow in it's exhibition. What we get is a good thirty minutes spent on showing how the Son of the Earth is constantly shaking naked on the ground while at the same time being molested and tortured by mankind. Such tasteless prolonging gets boring pretty fast and lacks the punch in delivering a blow to the viewer's senses.Another point is "Beggoten's" visual appearance and sound. The grainy, inverted, black and white low frame cinematography enchants the disturbing factor of the plot, but such novelties often work in only short periods of time. Then gradually begin to lose their effect as the audience becomes accustomed to the look. The audio suffers from the same problems. It's constant repetitive and similar sounds become annoying so fast I had an urge to turn off the volume. "Begotten" loses it's charm shortly after it begins. It tries to be original and creative but it fails to expand on the ideas hinted by the vague plot instead it repeats the same scene again and again.The conclusion is that "Begotten" is stuck in one moment. Even though plot-wise it tries to move forward, the visuals and audio remain the same throughout. Showing the same action in a slightly different way with just slightly a different sound. A gimmick cannot alone make a movie. It also needs pace and variety, something Merhige seems to have forgotten.$LABEL$ 0
+Simply the best Estonian film that I have ever seen, although it is made by a Finnish director Ilkka Järvi-Laturi. Tallin Pimeduses is an entertaining thriller about a bunch of gangsters who are trying to steal a huge amount of gold, a national treasure that belongs to the republic of Estonia. But at the same time it is some kind of a summary of the conditions of many Eastern European countries at that time. In the early 90s Soviet Union fell into pieces and many countries, such as Estonia, became independent. Now the conditions may be better in most of those countries. But in the beginning of the 90s many of those new nations had to fight against corruption and organized crime that the Soviet era had left them as inheritance. (And many of them still do...at least on some level...) Tallinn Pimeduses is a very realistic film of that era with believable characters and with a well-written script. The actors are also very good, especially Jüri Järvet (perhaps the best known Estonian actor, plays Snaut in Tarkovski's Solaris), playing and old gangster who's slowly becoming tired of his way of life. But the most astonishing performance comes from Monika Mäger, a child-actor playing Terje, a boyish girl in her early teens, whose presence in the plot is quite essential. (and her name is not even mentioned in the IMDb-credit list!!!)wThere are not many films in the world that manage to be entertainment and artistic at the same time. But Tallinn Pimeduses does that. Unfortenately Järvi-Laturi's other films are far from this kind of achievements. His first one, Kotia päin was too artificial and his latest, History is Made at Night was just a weird mess.$LABEL$ 1
+This film plays in the 60s and is about an Italian family: Romano, his wife Rosa and their two children Gigi and Giancarlo emigrate from Solino in Italy to Duisburg in the Ruhr area. I like this film, because I think it is quite realistic: it shows problems which many foreign families have when they come to another country: they have to get used to a new culture, a new environment and this can be difficult: especially if you don't know the language.... It is difficult for the family but they find a way: they open a restaurant which offers typical Italian food, and it is named "Solino", like their hometown. The film also shows different conflicts - Gigi and Giancarlo fall in love with the same girl, and although Rosa has to work very hard, Romano refuses to pay money to engage more workers, etc. etc. But stop, I don't want to tell you how it goes on. You should watch the film yourself, it's a nice one - I have also made a Referat about it and examined scenes which show different cultural attitudes. And there are a few...$LABEL$ 1
+I watched this movie and the original Carlitos Way back to back. The difference between the two is disgusting. Now i know that people are going to say that the prequel was made on a small budget but that never had anything to do with a bad script. Now maybe it's just me, but i always thought that a prequel was made to go set up the other movie, starring key characters and maybe filling in a bit about life that we didn't know. Rise to Power is just a movie that has Carlito's name. There should have been at least a few characters from the original movie, the ending makes no sense in relation to the original. In the end of this movie he retires with his sweet heart but how the hell do we get him coming out of prison in the next movie? And his woman isn't even the same woman that he talks about as his only love in the original. I would say the movie is mildly entertaining in its self, with a few decent bits but it pales when held up to it's big brother. Don't lay awake at night waiting to see this, watch the original one more time if you really need a hit.$LABEL$ 0
+Hayao Miyazaki has no equal when it comes to using hand-drawn animation as a form of storytelling, yet often he is being compared to Walt Disney. That is just so unfair, because it becomes apparent by watching Miyazaki's films that he is the superior artist. He really has a gift of thrilling both grownups and children, and Laputa is indeed one awesome ride.But where can I begin to describe a movie so magical and breathtaking! Miyazaki's works have never cease to amaze me. Laputa is an adventure of a grand scale and I wonder how a film can be so packed with details and imagination. Ask yourself this question: if you are a kid dreaming of an adventure so grand in scope and so magical, what would it be like? The answer would be to strap yourself in some seat and watch Laputa, because it's truly a childhood fantasy come true. Every minute of the movie is rich and engrossing ... from the train chase to the amazing air-flying sequences... and to the wonderous sight of the floating castle itself. Not to mention the excellent score by Joe Hisaishi! Everything you ever possibly want from an adventure movie is here.$LABEL$ 1
+I swear I didn't mean to! I picked this out only since it looked good on the back! This movie wasn't scary at all and actually was very confusing. The demon wind was only actually used a couple of times and people were killed off pretty cheesily. The one major bright spot was seeing Sherri Bendorf from Slaughterhouse play in it. Seeing what happened to her, however, made up my mind for this little turkey of a film. A 3 out of 10. NEXT!$LABEL$ 0
+I love this movie and never get tired of watching. The music in it is great. Any true hard rock fan should see this movie and buy the soundtrack. With rockers like Gene Simmons and Ozzy Osbourne you can't go wrong.$LABEL$ 1
+The best horror/sci-fi movie i have ever seen. I was myself in the Arctic, working for Canadian government , in a small northern station when I see this movie for the first time; needless to say I was in the mood...$LABEL$ 1
+this is by far one of the most pretentious films i have ever seen. it is a tight slap on the face of some Indians who speak in English and were looking at the mirror. disgusting. the bubble gum version of the 1970s politics of the north Indian plains. the message - the educated English-speaking Indian tried to save the poor beggars of India in all earnestness. it ignores the fact that the poor beggars are also capable of and are saving themselves on their own.as a love story its okay. the problem is that the love story and character development is based upon a completely fraudulent version of politics.$LABEL$ 0
+Everyone involved (and the audience) should seek out "The Candidate" to see how good this movie could have been. What happened the South American story? What were Julie Christie and Kate Capshaw thinking to allow their roles to be cardboard cut-outs. Up to now I have liked every Gene Hackman performance and/or movie. He was either disinterested (which I can hardly believe) or dreadfully miscast. I have also liked and defended Richard Gere (and been vilified for it). But here he had no "power". He was never intimidating and only occasionally persuasive. All in all I was very disappointed. I really expected much more from this director and cast. If you can't find "The Candidate" watch "Wag the dog" again or even "Bulworth".$LABEL$ 0
+SPOILER WARNING: There are some minor spoilers in this review. Don't read it beyond the first paragraph if you plan on seeing the film.The Disney Channel currently has a policy to make loads of movies and show one a month on the cable channel. Most of these are mediocre and drab, having a few good elements but still being a disappointment (`Phantom of the Megaplex,' `Stepsister From Planet Weird,' `Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century'). Every once in a great while, they make something really, really great (`Genius,' `The Other Me'). But once in a while The Disney Channel makes a huge mistake, and gives us a real stinker. This month (December 2000) The Disney Channel featured `The Ultimate Christmas Present,' which I thought was terrible due to poor writing and worse acting. Apparently, `The Brainiacs.com' was rushed out a few days before Christmas to get a jump on the holiday, because the plot has to do with toys. They even paid for a feature in the TV Guide, so I thought it must be better than the norm. I was in for a complete shock. Only Disney's `Model Behaviour' has been worse than this.The plot was more far-fetched than normal. I usually let that slide, but here it just goes too far. Matthew Tyler gets very sick of his widowed father spending most of his time at work. His father owns a small toy factory that has taken out large loans at a scrupulous bank to stay afloat. Time and time again, his father has to skip out on the plans he makes with his son and daughter. Matthew decides that the only way he can spend time with his dad is if he becomes the boss and orders him to stay home. He gets a hair-brained idea to create a website where kids all around the world can find and send him a dollar to invest in a computer chip that his sister is inventing. That whole concept is full of fallacies. When kids send in millions of dollars, Matthew opens his own company's bank account and buys up most of his dad's business's stock. He is the secret boss, but he doesn't reveal this to his dad, but instead presents himself at board meetings as a cartoon image through a computer. That image itself is so complex (and ridiculous) that it isn't possible for someone to create it at home, much less someone who comes across as stupid as Matthew. To make a long plot short, Matthew orders his dad to spend more time having fun and doing stuff with his kids, but a federal agent shows up inquiring about Matthew's company, as it is fraudulent.There's so much wrong here. As mentioned, the stuff they do here is impossible even for true geniuses, which these kids are not. The website, the cartoon image, the computer chip, even the stuff they are being taught in school, are far too advanced for these kids. The acting by most of the cast, especially Kevin Kilner, is terrible. Some familiar faces are wasted. Dom DeLuise plays the evil bank owner, but his part is a throwaway. He has one good scene with Alexandra Paul (who shows she has the ability to act) in which he explains his motives, but nothing more. And Rich Little is wasted in a small role as a judge. There's even some offensive and uncalled for anti-Russian jokes. But the greatest atrocities are the hard-hammered themes. These themes show up in many of The Disney Channel's films, but never before have these ultra-conservative messages been pounded so strongly. The typical `overworking parent' idea is really pushed hard, and after delivering it inappropriately in `The Ultimate Christmas Present,' seeing it again sours my mood. Family relations are important, but Disney must stop this endless preaching, because working is important to maintaining a workable family, too. Except for cancelling activities thanks to work, the father didn't come across as that bad, but I found it offensive when the grandmother told him `I don't like what I see.' Just as bad is the preaching of the idea that all single parents MUST marry if they want to raise their kids right. Enter Alexandra Paul, whose character, while important to the plot, is there solely to be the love interest for the father. This offensiveness only proves that the Disney brain trust lacks the brains to avoid scraping from the bottom of the Disney script barrel. Instead of letting this movie teach your kids how to commit serious fraud, wait for the next Disney Channel movie. It has to be better than this. Zantara's score: 1 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+I've just watched this again on the BBC Channel 4. It's not Jane Austen's best novel by any means but the film is a reasonable interpretation. I suspect the Assembly Rooms at Bath would have been rather more crowded than shown; perhaps they couldn't afford the extras. Also why does everyone shut up so that the dancing couple can have an audible conversation? I've never heard anything anyone has ever said to me when I've been dancing and I suspect it would have been the same in the 18/19th century in Bath.I cannot believe the US/Canada reviews; they completely miss the ironic element that is in the film throughout. The "gothic" scenes are quite cleverly presented but you need to read them properly. I'm sure Jane A would be mildly amused by those reviews. A propos of nothing, does anyone else think that Peter Firth gets to look more like Colin Baker (a former Doctor Who) or vice-versa the older they both get?$LABEL$ 1
+I sat through almost one episode of this series and just couldn't take anymore. It felt as though I'd watched dozens of episodes already, and then it hit me.....There's nothing new here! I've heard that joke on Seinfeld, I saw someone fall like that on friends, an episode of Happy Days had almost the same storyline, ect. None of the actors are interesting here either! Some were good on other shows (not here), and others are new to a profession they should have never entered. Avoid this stinker!$LABEL$ 0
+Lulu (Louise Brooks) works as a typist and is missing something in her life. She enters a Miss France contest against the wishes of her boyfriend Andre (Georges Charlia) and she wins. She sets off for the Miss Europe title leaving her boyfriend behind. She wins again but returns home to Andre because he has asked her to. Once back together, her life becomes mundane again so one night she writes a note to him and leaves to experience the fame that is waiting for her as Miss Europe. Andre follows her.....This film is a silent film with a piano music-track all the way through. It is also sped-up so everything seems fast. Limited dialogue has been added on afterwards and it is very phony. The cast are alright bearing in mind that it is a silent film. The best part of the film comes at the end but the story goes on a little too long. After watching this, I'm not really sure what the big deal was over the looks of Louise Brooks - she has a terrible haircut that makes her face look fat. I don't need to watch it again.$LABEL$ 0
+Don't waste your time or money on going to see or even renting it. It is by far the worst move I have ever seen. Its two hours (WAY too long) of your life you're never getting back. If you're looking to be scared, go see something else. We went with someone who still has nightmares about the Gremlins and she wasn't scared in the least.There are so many things that make this movie an incredibly poor attempt at making money. Now before I begin, let me say that I loved the first Grudge! However the second one is something of a different story. The plot is very in-depth and intricate. However in the end you are wondering "what the heck was this or that all about." The acting would be considered poor in a B list pornography film. I could site several examples but I don't want to spoil it for those that are glutens for punishment, but I can sum up two horrible hours in two simple words.... it's spreading.$LABEL$ 0
+I watched the DVD of this movie which also comes with an excellent commentary track (in English). It seems in Cambodia (the subtitles in English say the character is speaking Thai but the movie says Cambodia)a very violent evil man is raising boys to be killers using starvation and training them to fight and kill. He sends Pang to kill some people in China and during the killings a cop's partner is killed. The cop Wai is a loose cannon who is worried about his father who is also a cop who was shot and is in a coma. Wai's chief is his dad's friend and is worried about Wai's erratic behavior. He doesn't know Wai was the one who caught his dad in dealing with drug dealers and shot him and put him into the coma. Pang escapes and hides in a squalid landfill shack where he meets a woman who came here to find her mother and keeps repeating her father won't let her leave (Pang doesn't speak Chinese and doesn't understand this but saves her from her father who appears to be having sex with her maybe this is the reason for Cat III). Wai becomes more and more obsessed with getting Pang but Pang is almost unstoppable. Even after Pang steals a boat and takes the woman to his home where they are married and she becomes pregnant Wai follows and joins the evil man (who's training the boys)making a deal to fight and train so he can get Pang. There is a big showdown between Wai and Pang with the terribly abused woman the major victim and leaving Wai dead and Pang cutting out his child from the dead mother only to die and leave him as the possible next boy to be raised as a killer. This film is beautifully photographed with an excellent soundtrack. There are many very brutal violent scenes. The woman having a long nail pulled out of her foot. Knives to the neck and torso. Guns fired directly to the head. And several very intense beatings. It maybe grim intense and downbeat but it is definitely worth seeing.$LABEL$ 1
+In case you're a self-acclaimed connoisseur of cult cinema and/or bad movie-making, there comes a certain point in life – preferably sooner than later – that you have to watch "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes". It's an inescapable certainty, as this is one of the most notoriously awful cult movies ever made. One tiny but essential detail, however, is that "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is deliberately awful. Right from the opening message already, mocking Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds", this is clearly intended as a zero-budgeted parody and I can't escape the impression that writer/director John De Bello never expected for his film to become such a hit. The film spoofs the contemporary popular trend of so-called "eco-horror" movies (plants, animals and nature in general revolting against humanity) and introduces the least menacing type of vegetable imaginable as undefeatable killing machines. A secret government agricultural project to produce bigger and tastier tomatoes goes horribly wrong and soon there are reports about tomato-attacks coming from all over the country. The president puts together a Special Forces team to battle the juicy enemy, which includes secret agents with very specific areas of expertise and scientists with horrendously dubbed voices. The first half hour of "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is very entertaining. As silly as it is, the sight of normally shaped vegetables jumping up from the sink and attacking hysterical housewives is quite original and funny. The first half hour also contains numerous memorable moments like the catchy theme song, the "Jaws" homage and the infamous unforeseen helicopter crash (see the trivia section for more details) that made it to the final cut. After that, however, the whole thing turns into a tedious, unstructured and insufferably amateurish mess. The quality level of the jokes goes from fresh and inventive towards embarrassing and downright not funny and there are too many characters and sub plots. Personally, I prefer the late 80's and early 90's sequels (which I saw before seeing the original) because they benefit from slightly better production values, incredibly over-the-top tomato special effects and the presence of veteran actor John Astin ("The Addams Family") as the mad scientist Dr. Gangreen. But, as said before already, the original inexplicably remains obligatory viewing material at some point in your life.$LABEL$ 0
+Any evening with Jonathan Ross now means to me his wit in first hassling and upsetting with carefully chosen words a 78 year old man by phone and then suggesting he and Russell Brand should house-break and masturbate him while he slept as a way to say sorry for making obscene phone calls to him. Kinky! And illegal. For a really big laugh maybe next time he should try it on someone he knows well, like his Boss? Or a follower of Abu Hamza? Would he be amused if someone did it to one of his daughters?Over all the years I've perhaps seen less than 30 minutes of BBC Star Man Ross's chat show because I find him so loathsome, some of the guests I saw were OK though - probably most of them who ever appeared were OK for all I know. As a chat show it seems pretty poor though – what's so chatty about asking Tory leader David Cameron on this TV programme whether he ever masturbated to photographs of Margaret Thatcher? He chatted up Gwyneth Paltrow by simply asking her if she wanted to f*** him. However, Ross's yob mentality was finally totally exposed with the above revelations, and I thought I'd take the opportunity to warn the few decent folk around the world who might not know just how vile this man is and to steer clear of him and his - unless you think all comedy should be "edgy" ie obscene/vacuous. We're not yet all the same here, although BBC and Channel 4 are jettisoning all standards.In October 2008 Ross with fellow tosser Russell Brand made a series of premeditated sexual obscene phone calls to Andrew Sachs' answer-phone (Manuel from Fawlty Towers), had it broadcast as intended on BBC national radio against Sachs' request and then tried to get Sachs' granddaughter to burn the evidence in case they got prosecuted. A significant number of people over here (probably most of them non BBC license fee payers) found it hilarious and/or that the national scandal had been overblown, but many people apparently still knew right from wrong and 42,851 eventually complained to BBC about the incident. Many unrighteous media fools and others snickered about these 42,851 never having heard the radio programme (and never wanting to) - using their argument they presumably also consider an event such as the Holocaust justified because at the time relatively few people complained to the media, and none of us here now should be horrified by it because we weren't there. The 2 BBC producers initially involved in passing it for broadcast thought it was "very funny and brilliant" comedy and only 2 people complained about Brand's radio programme at the time - which I'm afraid only indicated the moral level his 400,000 weekly listeners had sunk to with the help of BBC expertise. Highly moral BBC tried and failed to use it in mitigation in the later OFCOM investigation. Roll over Aristotle, tell Lord Reith the news! Sachs' agent complained to BBC but was ignored by them until a Tory national newspaper got hold of the story. The penalty for any ordinary pervert doing this would normally be sacking and prosecution, maybe even prison, but while Brand and the Head of BBC Radio 2 were both eventually ordered to resign the multi-millionaire Ross was given a 12 week holiday by BBC's Boss (I suppose that he asked Ross's permission first though if he could dock Ross's pay by £1,500,000, to prevent him from suing) to come back to this programme afresh in 2009 before his contract runs out. All that time to think of more smut and/or more insulting witlessness for his 4,000,000 viewers to admire - but at least he could still chortle his way to the bank as usual to keep his spirits up. Some people think that his position will be untenable and he won't be able to carry on. I think his skin is so thick because the stakes are so high that he will come back unbowed and re-energised with pent up vitriol. (Update 23.01.09: I've just watched the first 5 minutes of his new series - the "most enormous cock-up" - to use his referential phrase - is continuing to allow this sniggering unrepentant law-breaker to take the public's money like this.) But who knows: maybe in the future after the slimy British film & TV industries have comforted him for the moral stance taken by the 42,851 and showered him with awards he will become a Sir for his services to Perversion by the perverts in Government. At the least I hope this pair of edgy deviants sign up with other perverted commercial TV and radio stations and stay there, so I won't be paying for their flouting the law and spouting illegal obscenities in the future. In 2009 OFCOM fined British TV license-fee payers £150,000 for this "sorry" affair - Thanks Ross for offering to pay! Not.To the apologists: Get a life/sense of humour/sense of proportion! It's not the end of the world having a pair of talentless perverts as your heroes and there's far more important things to worry about in this world, like the price of real cheese! To sum up family man Dross: a comedy genius to apparently millions of people (especially himself), merely a nasty obscene phone caller receiving an obscene wage packet from an obscene multimedia company to others. So much for our society of Political Correctness and Respect! As you should've guessed, it doesn't apply to the rich and famous and never will, but only to the poor. To sum up BBC: Stumbling blindly on from Huttongate, Campbellgate, Dykegate, Springergate, Crowngate, Phonegate now Rossgate I hope its next crisis will be Abolitiongate. I also hope anyone who thinks comedy should be always challenging and pushing back boundaries ie offensive aren't challenged or offended by my opinion of this particular law-breaking pervert, his perverted programmes and his current perverted employers.$LABEL$ 0
+Well, this may be one of the worst movies ever, but atleast there are some nice t*ts in it. The movie is a very bad spoof of The Blair Witch Project, and should be watched only by those wanting to see some t*ts, and NO point other than to flaunt them.$LABEL$ 0
+I had the opportunity to see this film twice at the 2006 Moving Picture Festival In Birmingham, Alabama. I enjoyed it so much that I watched it a second time when they had an encore screening.When I think of the films that are shown at festivals, I usually expect them to be edgy and offbeat, often with the feel of an elaborate student project. There's nothing wrong with these types of projects of course, and I enjoy the unique styles of independent films, but sometimes I want to see a more mainstream approach to independent film-making. By "mainstream," I mean more like a film produced for national release - In other words, a movie that you would see in a regular movie theater.The writing, directing, cinematography, casting and acting in this movie are all totally pro. There is nothing typically independent about this film. As an aspiring director, I am always looking for movies that will motivate me to stop procrastinating and push harder to get my career going. This is one of those films. As I watched The Big Bad Swim, my motivation level was incredible. I felt like my adrenaline had kicked in. The reason I felt this way was because I was so impressed with every aspect of this production. I left the theater excited and ready to start writing that long put-off project. When a movie makes me feel like that, I know it's really good. This is the first feature-length project from Ishai Setton and I found myself wishing that It had been my project. For me, that's really rare.See this film. It's beautifully shot and directed, and the casting is excellent. Paget Brewster delivers a very believable and likable performance. She has a quality about her, a charisma, that really draws you in and keeps you focused on her any time she is on screen. She makes you feel like you know her personally as a friend. That's a gift. I think the industry is really missing out by not utilizing her acting abilities more often. Jeff Branson and Jess Weixler also did top-notch jobs. I can not say enough nice things about The Big Bad Swim. I look forward to future projects from all of those involved in its production.$LABEL$ 1
+Eh oui, impossible n'est pas gaulois.Well paced, highly entertaining film. Pretty good command of the French language and knowledge of modern France (and history) are recommended. I don't think this film really works in any other language. The film is incredibly much better than the previous one (In search of...). Apart from great actors and savvy camera handling it's the wit and firework of allusions, word plays etc. that make for a really great movie. The cartoon vorlage is recognizable but the film is very emancipated. The cost of the film is put to good use. Indeed, all the special effects fit 'naturally' into the movie, you never feel choked by them.Bref, oui, les 2CVs, ça traîne un peu mais à part cela, Imhotep!-A neighbour from the other side of the Rhine$LABEL$ 1
+A hard to find film which coasts on the still pervasive mythology of Senator Joe McCarthy as a political demon king. Boyle (as Joe) gives a compelling but historically inaccurate portrayal of the Wisconsin Senator, the caricature McCarthy many take as the real one. Meredith, as wily Army lawyer Joseph Welch, who outsmarted McCarthy at the Army hearings in 1954, is very good, as always.In fact, McCarthy and Cohn were quite right in worrying about the appalling security situation in the Army, and the 1954 Army hearings became enmeshed in the smokescreen used by the Army to deflect the investigation away from their security failings, which the committee were investigating, by counter-charging that McCarthy and Cohn were trying to get favours for their staffer, David Schine, whilst in the service.The film is self satisfied agenda driven polemic, based in the pervasive myths which have passed for the truth with many people for decades-that the "red scare" was essentially phony and McCarthy, HUAC etc were always blasting away at the wrong targets, being no more than lying, career ruining publicity hounds, who were trampling over the constitutional rights of startled innocent liberals, who were accused of being security risks/communists.People who know little about the matter still feel confident in repeating misinformation on McCarthy and the "red scare" to this day-Clooney's Murrow hagiography is an example. The misinformation is pervasive, no wonder people have swallowed it. A recent obit of Budd Schulberg in the serious left wing UK newspaper "The Guardian" headlined that the Hollywood writer "named names" "to McCarthy"- perpetuating the lie that McCarthy "investigated" Hollywood as head of HUAC-the truth being that McCarthy was never even a member of HUAC and he had little interest in the politics of Hollywood types-his investigations were confined almost exclusively to arms of the US government.The mythology about the "red scare" being baseless is now completely exploded by recently opened Soviet and US government documents, if anything McCarthy and co underestimated the sheer scale of Soviet and fellow traveller infiltration in the US, but decades of public misinformation about this period will be hard to correct.One day maybe some really brave Hollywood soul will make a movie telling the truth about how many American men and women clandestinely aided the mass murderer Stalin, and worked to impose his vicious system of government on the western world, giving an accurate account maybe of Joe McCarthy's career-but I won't hold my breath. Till then, we have this mythical, drunken lying scoundrel of popular imagination so familiar in the media...."Tail gunner Joe".$LABEL$ 0
+THE RAP, the book this movie was 'based' on was one of the most difficult books I've ever read. Yet I could not put it down. Raunchy, crude, foul, lewd...you name it, it had it. It also had some of the best characterizations of any novel I've ever read.Well, as for the flick...it was deplorable. I mean, Tim Mcintire as Wasco? Wasco was the baddest mutha...talking 'bout WASCO...Mcintire as Wasco is like casting Tim Conway as Charles Manson.What happened to the MAIN character in the book? Little Arv. He doesn't even exist in the movie...Fast Walking WAS NOT the main dude in the book. Why even name credit this thing with THE RAP? None of the spirit, atmosphere, nastiness, or drama of the book was captured in this movie.For me it was not only a disappointment, but a total waste of time and celluloid.$LABEL$ 0
+Like A Streetcar Named Desire (also directed by Gadg both on stage and screen) Panic In The Streets depicts a New Orleans in which its major claim to fame - the birthplace of Jazz - doesn't even rate a mention. It was Richard Widmark's seventh film and arguably went a long way to establishing him as the fine actor he really was rather than merely a psychotic killer. Gadg himself appears in an uncredited small role as a morgue attendant but the film is rich in talent beginning with Jack Palance (still being billed as Walter Jack Palance)as the local Mr 'Big' followed side-kick Zero Mostel, Barbara Bel Geddes, Emile Meyer, Tommy Rettig plus the rock-solid ever reliable Paul Douglas as the cop who comes round to doc Widmark's point of view. It's a very rewarding movie more so for being little seen. Catch it if you can.$LABEL$ 1
+Slashers.....well if you like horrors its definitely one to see, otherwise don't even bother.It is completely obvious that this film has an extremely low budget, For instance it looks as if the entire film has been shot in a warehouse somewhere, and on numerous occasions you will see the mike boom shadow and the camera mans shadow, trust me you wont need to look for them.Also try to ignore the cheesy actors, if thats what you call them!!The basic outline is a few people decide to go on a game show where they have to survive a night in a big maze due to their being 3 killers on the loose and whoever live's at the end gets rich. Now there is something about this film that keeps you watching and rarely do you find that with a cheap budget horror these days,For example when i watched it i thought to my self i would'nt mind having a go at this game! especially for $12.000.000. so anyway i would recommend you watch it and make up your own mind.$LABEL$ 0
+The story of Farewell to the King is intriguing. An American "deserter" (I had the impression he and his 3 comrades were only trying to escape capture in the Philippines as their desperate escape by raft to Borneo is not your classic desertion). But no sooner do they come ashore when they are discovered by the Japanese. Nolte's character (a sergeant) has only moments earlier walked down the beach alone and was not noticed. And incredibly, no one noticed his footprints in the sand which would have led the Japanese right to him. But anyway, Nolte is taken in by a tribe of headhunters and becomes their king after defeating another tribesman. So he's out of the war. Then the British commandos show up and want the tribe to assist them in fighting the Japanese.Unfortunately, Nolte's incessant hamming ruins an interesting story. Instead of acting like a former soldier thrust back into the war, now with a tribe of warriors under his command, Nolte acts like he was raised by the tribe. He speaks as if English is almost a foreign language, rarely using contractions. He makes sweeping gestures when he talks, and acts like he is one with nature, as if he was raised in the jungle.There is plenty of action and many interesting scenes with the British interacting with Nolte and the tribe. But Nolte's character is never believable. It always looks like he's overacting. He needed to be a little more of an American soldier and a lot less of a tribesman. As it is, he comes across, not as a regal king, but as a lunatic who has forgotten who he really is. But that is not the intent of the film, as the script has him being admired and trusted by the British commandos. There is never any suggestion that the British thought his behavior was strange. He is simply viewed by the British as the defacto leader of the tribe. Thus, it always seems that Nolte's character isn't fitting in with what's supposed to be happening in the film.Another actor might have done a great job with the role, delivered his lines believably, and made it an outstanding movie. But Nolte ruins the film by hamming up every scene and appearing to not understand what his character is supposed to be.What a waste.$LABEL$ 0
+Many people like to point to this TV movie when arguing with the vast legions of Hanks-philes out there that Tom did in fact make crappy films (I think "Bachelor Party" was great, but that's another story). The movie focuses on a "Dungeons and Dragons-style game" that eventually drives our young Gump to hallucinatory madness. The story is charmingly early 1980s, focusing as it does on the imminent threat to our youth posed by those evil role-playing games.I, however, prefer to view "Mazes and Monsters" as the turning point in the "Whatever Happened to Chris Makepeace?" story. we all remember him as 'Rudy the Rabbit' in "Meatballs" and as the hapless Clifford in "My Bodyguard", where he gave us all a vicarious thrill by beating the crap out of Matt Dillon. Few could argue (especially those of us who read "Dynamite!" on a regular basis) that great things were in store for him.And then came Rona Jaffe. The line between bad acting and bad writing is razor thin, so I leave it to you to decide whose fault Makepeace's performance in this is. All I know is that the last major release I saw him in was "Vamp", and that was 1986. He had a small role as Sean Penn's brother in "Falcon and the Snowman", but by that time the Brat Pack torch had been passed to others with straighter hair and flashier resumes.I can't in good conscience recommend this movie. Watch it if only to see a younger, more idealistic Chris Makepeace, before Rona Jaffe feasted on his soul.$LABEL$ 0
+It was probably just my DVD---but I would not recommend that anyone try to watch this picture on a DVD.I had to turn up the volume on my TV to the highest possible level, in order to hear about 80 percent of the dialog. Some of the talking still remained sub-audible. If you're from Scotland, you might have a chance, albeit a slim one.Peoples voices were drowned out by nearly all ambient sounds, including unwrapping a package, footsteps, even puffing on a cigarette. With the volume turned up to a level at which voices can be heard, I can guarantee that at least one of your neighbors will phone the police when the scene changes to a loud environment, such as a disco. And that you will injure yourself diving for the remote to turn it back down.There is art and there is art, even in the field of audio mixing. But this effort, in a time of war, would meet international criteria to be classified as an atrocity.After about a half hour, I gave up, having seen nothing else redeeming in the picture, either.$LABEL$ 0
+I hate to even waste the time it takes to write 10 lines on this atrocity. Hyung-Rae Shim is lucky that bad film-making isn't a capital crime or he'd be put to death twice for writing and directing this disaster. I'm amazed that this film had a $75m budget, but actually glad in the sense that it was such a tremendous flop, that Shim will hopefully, never get to make another movie the rest of the life and, therefore, not waste any more of filmgoers time. I would think the actors would have gotten together and lynched him by now.With the effects resources available to them, a great film could have been made with this budget. As usual, the failure should have been spotted at the very beginning with the terrible script and story. "Transformers" was another visual feast with a weak script, but this makes it look like "Citizen Kane".$LABEL$ 0
+WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS The ripples in the wake of the first "Jaws" movie were still prominent in the 1980s as well as beyond. Movie monsters went from being radioactive monstrosities to unknown and voracious beasts lurking in the unexplored corners of human experience (ie: the ocean, deep space, genetics). Although "Jaws" was a milestone in this particular realm of film horror, few films have been able to match the visceral impact of the original. "Shark rosso nell'oceano" (aka Devil Fish or Red Ocean), is a dutiful follower of the original "Jaws" formula. After several hapless boats and seagoers are brutally murdered by some ocean creature, there is an initial drive to discover the beast, then a failure to study it without horrible results, and a final push to destroy it. Although the filmmakers attempted to inject some fresh life into the equation by adding elements of technology and corporate conspiracy, the result is nothing short of disastrous. This movie sinks under its own weight of ghastly editing, brittle acting, and cheap scares. The most sickly compelling feature of "Devil Fish" is its cookie-cutter editing. From the onset of the film when 3 different scenes are mashed together, the viewer gets a sense that the film lacks any technical credibility. It appears as if the editors cut the scenes around a set musical score instead of cutting the film and then making necessary changes to the music. Furthermore, every cut is an intercut and it would appear as if the editors had never heard of the terms "fade", "wipe", or "dissolve". The impact of scenes can never settle in because they are immediately cut short after a final line and a new scene begins. Silly camera tricks abound such as when two of the principle characters share a private moment on the beach and a sort of time-lapse image of their act is composited over their bodies. The music is equally bland. The creature theme is a hopeless duplicate of the "Jaws" theme with slight variation. Although I like to keep my reviews devoid of MST3K influence, Mike most aptly described the somber score as "soft core porn music". Failing to produce tension in a film that relies so heavily on it is a death blow to "Devil Fish". The acting is stale, the relationships baffling, and the whole conspiracy is laughable. The question remains that if genetics had advanced to such a level to create a huge chimera of a sea monster to protect oceanic interests, why couldn't a more practical use be administered to better mankind? One of the few positive aspects of this film is the idea of the monster, even though its film presence is less than stellar. Overall, this movie is bad enough to dip below mediocre. If "Jaws" had never been made, then the film could be described as average because its subject matter would be new and exciting even if it was executed ineffectively. Sadly, as a carbon copy of Spielberg's original thriller it sits most comfortably on a garbage heap of cheese.$LABEL$ 0
+When I bought 4 DVDs for £5.oo in a local shop it should have been warning enough that this movie was not up to the usual standard of David Selznick Productions. With a cast containing such names as James Stewart and Carole Lombard I was looking forward to a real treat. As many other commentators have said it is an odd mixture of plot and scenes that doesn't quite convince. HOWEVER, I am so glad that I did view this film as I now have the memorable saying 'Never let the seeds stop you from enjoying the watermelon.' to live by. This should sum up everyone's life. Pick out those seeds or spit them out or swallow them - and then enjoy the watermelon - life itself.$LABEL$ 0
+back in my high school days in Salina Kansas, they filmed something called "The Brave Young Men Of Weinberg" locally, and the film crews were rather prominent for weeks. eventually, we learned that the film was "Up The Academy", and was a bit ummm, "lower brow" than we had been led to believe. I had to see it, since I was there, and the local audiences seemed less than pleased at the showing. I was 17, and thought it was a rather artless attempt at a post "Animal house" type of comedy, right down to the fart jokes. Watched it many times since, and my opinion has mellowed a bit. it's dumb, but at times it catches a bit of the "mad" magazine humor, at least as well as most "Mad TV". Ron Liebman might hate it, but he is nearly perfect, and unforgettable. For me, my favorite moment would have been a brief scene on Santa Fe avenue, where I had parked my car, while I was buying some guitar strings. Too bad my Pinto's brief appearance, usually seems to get cut for TV. haven't seen the new DVD, but if my old pinto is visible, they've got a sale.$LABEL$ 1
+"House of Games" is a flawlessly constructed film, and one of the few films I have seen that had me gaping at the screen in astonishment at how cleverly and unexpectedly it ends. I first saw it on video a few years back after reading Roger Ebert's review, which proclaimed it the best film of 1987. I had my doubts, mainly because it is not quite as well known as other films from that year. Boy, was I in for a surprise. This was one of the smartest, most well-written movies I had ever seen.The screenplay is quite a piece of work, not only in terms of the plot (which twists and turns and pulls the rug out from under you just when you think you have it all figured out), but also in terms of character development. On my second viewing, I began to realize that Mamet's screenplay succeeds not only as a clever suspense film, but that each plot development contributes to our understanding of the characters and their motivations. The climax of the movie is particularly effective, because it is absolutely inevitable. It stems naturally from what we know about the characters, and it is therefore much more than just an arbitrary twist ending. The performances by Lindsay Crouse and Joe Mantegna also add enormously to the film. I cannot picture any other actor besides Mantegna playing the role of Mike, and Crouse plays her role with just the right amount of restraint to suggest a repressed criminal mindset. Their work, plus Mamet's extraordinary screenplay, combine to create one of the greatest films of the 1980's. It is truly a must-see.$LABEL$ 1
+One of the cornerstones of low-budget cinema is taking a well-known, classic storyline and making a complete bastardization out of it. Phantom of the Mall is no exception to this rule. The screenwriter takes the enduring Phantom of the Opera storyline and moves it into a late '80s shopping mall. However, the "Phantom's" goal now is simply to get revenge upon those responsible for disfiguring his face and murdering his family. The special effects do provide a good chuckle, especially when body parts begin appearing in dishes from the yogurt stand. Pauly Shore has a small role which does not allow him to be as fully obnoxious as one would expect, mostly due to the fact that his fifteen minutes of MTV fame had not yet arrived. If you're looking for a few good laughs at the expense of the actors and special effects crew, check this flick out. Otherwise, keep on looking for something else.$LABEL$ 0
+Now, I flicked onto this just out of curiosity and had to keep watching - in the same way that you watch a car crash...I appreciate the fact it's a spoof, but that should not stop me from criticising the god-awful directing, acting and dialogue. Seriously, this rated as one of the poorest movies I have seen - it looked more like an episode of Tales from the Cryptkeeper, and a poor one at that...Okay - a few criticisms (1) when the doctor had his heart attack in front of the monster (we never see the monster attack him, so we assume its a heart attack), the army then launch shells, rockets, bullets at the monster - which was feet from the doctor - yet the doctor is not touched by any missile and is still alive (2) the army attack from about 100 yards away, and we see a flame-thrower being used - geez, those things have a range of no more than 30 metres! (3) when the monster tries to take the professor, the soldiers run into the classroom and fire into the ceiling; the monster drops the kid, and the soldiers don't try to shoot the monster??? come on! (4) the monster looks like it something out of Power Rangers! (5) there is one scene where the five "good guys" (the priest, the girl, the doctor, the reporter and the kid) all look shocked and we get reactions (along the lines of hand to mouth) one after the other - so natural! (6) the general just runs away, time after time (7) the general refuses to try electricity and wouldn't listen (8) the acting is awful (9) did I mention the rubber suit monster???? (10) that god-awful music, non-stop!$LABEL$ 0
+This is primarily about love in WWII, yet we must remember that it's also a biopic for Dylan Thomas and those around him at this particular stage in his life.The movie's timing is just great. It really captures what I think would have been the spirit during those times; smiling and hoping you're not going to get bombed. While it may prove boring to some, the movie does have a particularly dangerous edge to it.At one point, my heart was racing towards the end as the movie hits its climax. It really does feature some poignant moments that are handled with skill by the four main actors. Cillian Murphy is on fine form here, as is Matthew Rhys. Both are polar opposites and it makes for an interesting watch. The relationship formed between Sienna Miller and Keira Knightley's characters is wonderful and we have the acting to thank (and watch out for a cameo by Suggs of 'Madness'). Despite all of this, it's a rather slow movie. Coupled with the fact it's just shy of two hours, it's quite a slog to get to the conclusion.Overall, it's a solid non-fiction war movie with many wonderfully crafted moments that were no doubt helped by the splendid number of well-known British names behind the scenes. But it really does drone on for too much at times. Still, a worthwhile watch. 7/10$LABEL$ 1
+Man oh man! What a piece of crummy film-making! But this is a guilty pleasure from my childhood even though I hate to admit it. They showed this movie on my basic cable system all the time. Where I grew up in San Jose, California (right on the border of Cupertino) we had this thing called The G Channel on our cable system. And they basically showed the same one movie over and over and over again. Wanda Nevada was one of those movies. I fell in lust and love with the young Brooke Shields and loved her dopey adventures in the Grand Canyon in the 1940s. The script makes almost no sense, the direction is poor, the few highlights are that Henry Fonda makes an appearance, a lot of dialog that's so bad it's good and a nice Carole King song played over the end credits. Maybe you have to be stoned to truly enjoy this flick. And hey, everybody knows there ain't no gold in the Grand Canyon!$LABEL$ 0
+To sum this movie up, it is LaBute carrying his sadism over into the realm of comedic farce. The predictable result is that he is constantly stepping on all the jokes by insisting on surrounding them with blood-curdling violence and extremely hateful characters. There is also evidence of his continuing efforts to insult and ridicule everything in sight but then to apologize for it with weak gestures to the PC. Basically the movie just doesn't work, its plot is beyond contrived, the characters are one-dimensional cliches, there is no consistency or development of anything, and the comedy (where it is not totally out of place) is the worst kind of High Concept drivel.Morgan Freeman and Renee Zellweger are completely wasted on characters that seem like parodies of studio-driven audience pandering--no matter what, make them likeable, neutral (and neutered), and full of moral platitudes. Crispin Glover is in here just long enough to convince you that he doesn't belong in movies anymore. Chris Rock actually has negative chemistry with fellow hitman Freeman--it's as if they are acting in different rooms even when they are two inches away from each other. In effect, Chris Rock seems like a digital insert. At least he isn't as annoying as Jar-Jar.LaBute's 15 minutes may well be up by now. It's already looking like he's overstayed his welcome.$LABEL$ 0
+Cave Dwellers, or The Blade Mater, or whatever it's called, is in one word: VILE! I saw this on MST and I laughed not only at the great running commentary, but at the inept film making that was demonstrated. Sunglasses, tire tracks and where did Ator get a hang glider? Then they lift a few shots from another movie, Where Eagles Dare as Tom Servo points out. To show just how cheap this movie really is, watch the scene where Ator and Thong have to battle invisible swordsmen. Or even better, look for the giant hose dressed up like a snake that Ator must wrestle! And what exactly do those scenes in the credits have to do with the movie?$LABEL$ 0
+This one hearkens back to the days of the matinée, when kids with nowhere else to hang out took their dates to the balcony after dumping their younger siblings below. It didn't matter what was on the screen - the little kids would sit through it and the big kids would ignore it. The adults, of course, would never see it.But they put it on video, anyway, along with most of the other creaky, low-budget "B" horror flicks of the golden age...of television. This film's inherent and unintentional humor is derived from stale ideology (the "bad girls" harvested to replace poor Jan's crushed body - they had it comin'), overused plot (a mad scientist, trying to play God), violent yet conscientious monster (whose presence in the heretofore-normal-seeming scientist's rural lab is never fully explained), and acting that polarizes at wooden or over-the-top.This is a great party film, assuming your guests enjoy adding dialog and commentary to otherwise abominable cinematic exploits. In fact, should you or your guests prefer more passive entertainment, this film is also available on video in its "Mystery Science Theater 3000" treatment, in which the host and puppets of the cult TV series make the necessary additions for you.$LABEL$ 0
+I watched the show 10 years ago and loved it!!! Am now in possession of the DVD and was watching the series, and waiting for scenes I knew were in the show (when Lucas confronts Gail in his house)and realized it was missing - all of a sudden I was watching the seduction without the lead up. Then I went on line to check out all the BIOS of the stars and came across the comments about the shows being out of order. Thank You!!!!! But there seems to be some conflict. Some comments state "Strangler number 19 then Triangle 20, when another had them around the other way. And also Potato Boy 5, and Dead to the World 6, were reversed as well. Can someone clarify?????$LABEL$ 1
+For three quarters of an hour, the story gradually develops towards a pivotal point of some sort. Although it is overburdened with scenes that just seem to be intended to dull the viewer and lure him away from the actual plot, there is something happening. It is not much and it certainly is not obvious. The combination of palace impressions and story-driving scenes do not add any depth or insight to the whole cast of characters. In fact, they keep them sterile as there is no character development at all. Everybody just remains spinning and centered around their own cliché and role - the cute, kinda headstrong girl; the fighting überwoman, the snobby aristocrat. The male lead does not seem to have any distinction at all, he is a shallow presence, which, actually, doesn't even matter as he is only there because the storyboard required him to - it seemed like he was on vacation and got caught up. When the point comes of turning the corner in terms of what happening, the movie first snaps completely blank for a couple of minutes and then becomes ridiculous. It solves - or better, dissolves - itself with a by-the-book Deus Ex Machina, more clichés and some of the most crude plot devices and choices I have ever seen. It's history, alright. First the movie's a drama though it's supposed to be comedic, and then it turns into a farce. The protagonists do what they are expected to do, and there are no surprises. The first set of somewhat serious antagonists however gets replaced by a couple that literally was just bored. Maybe that was some kind of nod towards the audience.This movie does not get any bonus from me for underlying philosophical meaning (since there is none) nor for its technical realization. The animation and editing is fair and so's the sound mixing; but it is by no means outstanding or even above the average Japanese productions of the late 1980's. In fact, the visual treats seem static, un-inspired and un-original.Worst of all - it totally fails to entertain, even if you don't bother with characters and all that stuff. There's too little going on here, and the rest is corny at best. Get a real Ghibli instead, have a feast with it and keep your fingers off this one.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a film where the actors are all fine, especially Brigitte Bako and Erik Palladino, in a film where every one of the three couples meet in a situation that feels verrrrry forced to be either cute or to set the story in motion. In other words, it feels like they are contrived movie scenes, not like real life. Even if women who work at peep parlors ever go out with one of their customers, it just doesn't seem realistic at all the way it is written in this film. Also, when one of the characters meets the overweight woman in the film, it feels artificial, the way they look at each other seconds after arguing. Again, the actors are all good, and moments of this film are nice, but overall yet another indie that could have used some rewriting before production got rolling.$LABEL$ 0
+Martin Lawrence is not a funny man i Runteldat. He just has too much on his mind and he is too mad which trips his puns pretty early in the game. He tries to make fun of critics, which boils down to "f*** them". Then he goes on to rather primitive sexual jokes on smokers with throat cancer and it just goes downhill from there. 3/10$LABEL$ 0
+This is a thriller with a good concept, good acting, good photography and good intentions all around, but which is confused and disjointed in execution.Garcia stars as John Berlin, an L.A. forensic detective who has moved to a small California town at the behest of a friend of his on the force there. He soon becomes involved in the investigation of an unsolved murder which leads to his theorizing about the existence of a serial killer whom no one else believes in. The known victim is theorized to be blind, which leads to a romance with a blind girl - believed to be a witness - at a nearby school for the blind.Despite a basically intriguing story there were too many quantum leaps and plot holes in this movie where I found myself wondering, 'how the hell did we wind up here?' or 'how did we find this out?' I found it confusing and disjointed, despite the good acting, etc. John Malkovich has a small part toward the end as an F.B.I. investigator out to get Berlin.Not recommended.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was beyond disappointment. Well acted story that means nothing. The plot is ridiculous and even what story there is goes absolutely nowhere. It truly isn't worth a nickel, buffalo or otherwise..pun intended!$LABEL$ 0
+Doyle had never wanted to resurrect Holmes from his joint death with Professor Moriarty in THE ADVENTURE OF THE FINAL PROBLEM. However,financial considerations made him willing (in 1901) to write THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES, which is still considered his best Holmes' novel and possibly his best novel. But it was a "memoir" of the great detective, written before his death. Only a greater outcry from his public led Doyle to fully resurrect Holmes in THE ADVENTURE OF THE EMPTY HOUSE, published in 1905.It is not that the new short stories (and the last novel) are really bad. Maybe three of the stories are really terrible, but even the terrible ones are very readable. Several of the later ones (like THE ADVENTURE OF THE SOLITARY CYCLIST) are really very good. But the unevenness of production (in particularly after the stories in HIS LAST BOW (1917)) become increasingly apparent. He repeats past story lines, and he shows really negative aspects of Holmes. In the story THE ADVENTURE OF THE THREE GABLES Holmes shows a sneering sarcasm at a character who is of African ancestry. SPOILER COMING UP:THE ADVENTURE OF CHARLES AUGUSTUS MILVERTON deals with Holmes trying to recover compromising letters from Milverton, a hugely successful blackmailer. It is an interesting example of how Doyle could make a highly readable story with a minimum of plot for there is little real detective work in the tale. Holmes is hired to try to negotiate with Milverton regarding the purchase of the letters, but to get them back no matter what! Milverton proves not only unwilling to consider a smaller amount for the papers but prepared to protect himself from Holmes attempting a search of his person. Later we learn Holmes has gotten into the household of Milverton by romancing a maid while disguised. At the end Holmes goes with Watson to burglarize Milverton's home. He and Watson are in the house when they find that Milverton is awaiting some new business deal in his study (someone with information that Milverton can use). Carefully hiding, Holmes and Watson watch as a woman comes in, who turns out to be a victim of collateral damage from Milverton's past activities, and who shoots the blackmailer to death. Holmes and Watson are able to set fire to Milverton's collection of compromising documents before fleeing the house, and subsequently discover (for themselves) the identity of the woman. The police (under Lestrade) don't discover who the two mysterious men seen running from Milverton's home are, and they are so disgusted by Milverton's activities (they never were able to bring anything home against him) that it is obvious the murder will never be solved.The tale is not one of the fascinating ones with real detective work involved like THE ADVENTURE OF THE SPECKLED BAND or SILVER BLAZE. It is a tale of mood and late action - the issue being will Holmes and Watson get the papers or will they be caught by Milverton? It is not one of the best stories, but it is in the bulk of the tales as being really well told and interesting.At the time he wrote CHARLES AUGUSTUS MILVERTON, Conan Doyle had an experience with the police regarding his sometimes activities as a highly respected amateur detective/crusader. An artist was found murdered in his studio in London, and Conan Doyle began writing his opinions about how the killing was committed. Then he stopped - apparently warned by his friends at Scotland Yard that the murder did not bare looking into. The victim had been a homosexual, and the police were certain that it was a lover's spat gone horribly wrong. For the sake of the family of the Victim (this was in 1905) Doyle dropped his interest in the case. So he was aware that sometimes the British police behaved with restraint on matters that did not seem to justify their full probing - as Lestrade's restraint towards whoever did kill the villainous Milverton in the story.Given the description of the story it could have been told in the normal hour long version of the series. But the teleplay for THE MASTER BLACKMAILER spent some time showing the horrible dilemma Milverton's victims (in Victorian/Edwardian England) faced. We see a promising young aristocratic army officer kill himself when faced with a homosexual exposure because of Milverton's extravagant demands, all at the start of the teleplay. And it is not only homosexuals. Men and women of good reputation in heterosexual marriages could be smeared by uncovering illegitimate children or past indiscreet relationships. Indeed, in the story, the woman who kills Milverton is avenging the destruction of her husband (a prominent nobleman) destroyed by the blackmailer. Milverton is well played at his most poisonous blandness by that fine actor Robert Hardy, who even when confronted by the unexpected furies he has unleashed is totally unperturbed (he looks like he will just have the angry woman showed out of his home in a moment). Brett and Hardwicke do quite well in their Holmes and Watson roles, as to be expected.How serious was the loss of character by rumor or innuendo in 1905? In 1898 one of the heroes of the various imperial wars, and the leader of the last victorious charge at the battle of Omdurman that destroyed the Mahdist army (see FOUR FEATHERS) was Sir Hector MacDonald. He was governor of Ceylon in 1903 when he suddenly, unexpectedly resigned. Sir Hector returned to London, and shot himself in a hotel while awaiting some sort of hearing. It later came out that "Fighting Mac", frequently considered the most popular army commander in Britain, had been caught having sleeping arrangements with native boys. Milverton would have eaten him up very quickly...or his real life counterparts would have.$LABEL$ 1
+It was disgusting and painful. What a waste of a cast! I swear, the audience (1/2 full) laughed TWICE in 90 minutes. This is not a lie. Do not even rent it.Zeta Jones was just too mean to be believable.Cusack was OK. Just OK. I felt sorry for him (the actor) in case people remember this mess.Roberts was the same as she always is. Charming and sweet, but with no purpose. The "romance" with John was completely unbelievable.$LABEL$ 0
+"Life stinks" is a parody of life and death, happiness and depression. The black and the white always present in our lives. Mel Brooks performance is brilliant as always, and the other actors work is fine too. This movie has some Capra flavor, that´s why is so good.There are some unforgettable gags such as the one when Brooks tries to earn some money dancing in the street, and all the people passing by just ignore him, or when he meets a funny crazy man who believes is Paul Getty and then start arguing and slapping each other.If you haven´t seen it, you don´t know what you´ve missed.This movie tells us about the old and eternal struggle of the poor against the rich. The only difference between this movie and reality is that this movie has a happy ending, and reality hasn´t.Yes indeed, Life Stinks.$LABEL$ 1
+This was such a terrible film, almost a comedy sketch of a noir film.The budget was low compared to a blockbuster, but still higher than most.But its where they've decided to cut costs that is totally weird.Some actors are at least competent, while others look like they just been dragged off the street.One of them being the lead actor, hes so very bad that i cringed when ever he said anything (he talks through the ENTIRE movie).Then there's the weird costume choices.At the start of the movie all characters are wearing 1930's clothes.They drive a classic car, but the background is a modern day windfarm thats blatantly state of the art.And the costumes and some settings continue to follow this 30's film noir theme.Then BAM in drives a brand new escalade with 24 inch rims....WTF.Same thing again when a guy has a night scope on his rifle, you get a shot down its sight.Hes aiming at a guy with an mp5 and tactical gear on.In a even stranger contrast the locations are brilliant, and seem to have cost more than the rest of the entire film.The camera shots/angles a very good, and show these locations brilliantly in the scenes.The director has a keen eye for a good looking single shot, but no idea how to do much else.People who should be shot for this film▼The writer The director The casting agent The costume designerPeople who should be tortured to death for their monotone, monotonous nails on chalk board voice.▼Anton Pardoe- the lead actor, writer, producer If you ever seen the movie Hostel, i wish that would happen to this guy, but he doesn't escape.$LABEL$ 0
+Because I would have never ever seen this movie through to the end. Although there are some, but not many, funny moments in this movie I couldn't understand more than about 15%(the fancy English couple in the 3rd story included) of what people were saying. Three short stories, none with a real point, with just some of the most miserable and lifeless people I could have imagined and a load of foul language. Didn't find it funny, didn't find it amusing, didn't find any sense in it. 4/10$LABEL$ 0
+All of the X-Men movies were great. And I mean all of them, including the long hated X-Men 3. They had solid characters (Magneto and Xavier were the best ones, in my opinion), and a good story arch.I was all excited when I heard this movie was on production, and my expectations grew bigger and bigger until I saw the movie. I was so disappointed.Hugh Jackman is not a bad actor (his best movie is The Fountain, although you won't hear about this movie when they talk about the actor), and his acting is not what screws the movie up.The whole film is plagued with lots of meaningless characters that add nothing to the plot (like Blob or Gambit), which were tossed there to make fans believe that the film makers had read the original comics.I am a fan of XMen, I have read many, many of their stories and this movie respected none of them. None. Not even the continuity. It doesn't respect Weapon X project, or the relationship between Wolverine and Sabretooth, or Emma Frost, the motivations for wolverine are plain stupid and seen in millions of movies: Revenge for the death of a loved one.Oh. What I was expecting the whole darn movie was a Berseker moment for Wolverine similar to the one he has in X2 in the school when Stryker men come in and he alone decimates the enemy forces, but hey, this is Fox, this a family flick and you will not see explicit violence from the most violent and gruesome Marvel hero.Besides, I had a feeling of constant dejá vù with this movie because Wolverine's Origins are already explained in X2, we already know how he got his adamantium skeleton so it kind of does not make sense to make a movie of something we already know.I personally believe that wolverine is one of those few characters that does not need a solid back-story because mystery is the nature of the character. Do we really want to know how the Joker got his scars?$LABEL$ 0
+This film takes a lot of liberties with the known historical facts.Even little things like Flynn licking one stamp after another, when he almost certainly would have used a moistened sponge, is one of the annoying things. Flynn was never tried of manslaughter or murder. He is not known to have caught his mother making love to another man, and is not known to have had an homosexual relationship with anybody, and he did not end up on skid row in Sydney. He did not get his twopenny-halfpenny role in In the Wake of the Bounty by imposture and this role did not turn him into a well-dressed film star. This is just a mediocre film where the name of Errol Flynn has been tacked on just to sell more tickets and more videos.$LABEL$ 0
+Some amusing humor, some that falls flat, some decent acting, some that is quite atrocious. This movie is simply hit and miss, guaranteed to amuse 12 year old boys more than any other niche.The child actors in the movie are just unfunny. When you are making a family comedy, that does tend to be a problem. Beverly D'Angelo rises above the material to give a funny, and dare I say it, human performance in the midst of this mediocrity.$LABEL$ 0
+I feel really bad for reviewing this movie because I wish that I had only watched it as a concept production. The Covenant looked like it could have been a really original piece, but sadly they lose the great idea in the translation to the screen.The story follows four (five) teens that are the descendants of the families that started the town of Ipswitch a survivors of the Salem witch trials. They also happen to be a part of the secret sect called "The Covenant". Their power must be used sparingly as it drains their life-force in small amounts and is highly addictive. In theory this would make a pretty good action sci-fi movie…or at least an interesting teeny flick.But there were just too many glaring downfalls that don't allow this movie to reach its plot's full potential. That acting wasn't good, the sound track was mediocre and we found a lot of unnecessary sync issues. For sure the biggest issue is the poor editing job. The movie has little to no coherent flow and makes one fight to keep a mental timeline or any feel of pacing.The movie has it's moments, but overall was a little disappointing.A witchy 4/10$LABEL$ 0
+Book of Revelations starts very well. Daniel, an egomaniac dancer is kidnapped, abused and sexually raped by three masked women.After that, nothing else really happens. There is some hint of rediscovery but the movie gives nor explanation nor a real ending. Daniel reactions after the abuse are very basic. He quits dancing, has sex with every women around and finally starting a relation with very simple and common woman.I have seen a good share of art-house movies but this has something missing in it.The main leads are fine; but some characters does not seems to be completely defined.$LABEL$ 0
+It's boring.It's slow.Where are the nasty and brutal murders? Where is the tension that is supposed to scare us? This is like watching Sesame Street without the funny characters of Ernie and Bert or Grover.It's really lame.Maybe it was the writing...maybe the direction...maybe the acting, maybe the editing, maybe the cinematography, maybe the special effects, maybe the makeup.Maybe all of the above brought this to something barely able to keep your eyes focused on.I wanted to get scared...not bored.This didn't scare me...it didn't even interest me...I had more fun watching the time on the microwave instead of watching this film.Don't bother to buy it..and if you see it on television by some freak chance, there is no need to tuck the kids asleep.$LABEL$ 0
+Another lame attempt to make a movie "gritty" and "thought provoking"- whatever the hell that means. They have Al Pacino say a lot of words like - "Television killed football." Yeah whatever. This is another movie that showcases Oliver Stone's Delusions of Grandeur. If Stone is trying to show us that football will be our downfall or something, why does he insist on romanticizing the sport with his stilted camera movements and Kid Rock songs? He even throws Cameron Diaz into the fray for purely aesthetic reasons. It's a shame that Diaz and Pacino have to meet in a movie that is so bad.Ever since "Scent of Woman," writers and directors have used Pacino to romanticize their pathetic lines. His characters are nothing more than loudspeakers - their voices covering up what would normally be redundant and trite. He needs to reinvent himself, showing how he can act without yelling. He has to stop feeling sorry for hokey scripts with cheesy lessons like "Organized football is messed up," and act out a good story.$LABEL$ 0
+A delightfully unpretentious send up of Romeo and Juliet. Approach with no expectations other than having a good time and you will enjoy this one. A talented group of comic actors let go and have a riot in this light-hearted performers' vehicle. Bad reviews were due to a snobbishness about treatments of Shakespeare. Some people feel that all film must be "important" ---If you share those views, don't bother. The credits read "introducing" Angelina Jolie, which is not even close to being true, but she is astoundingly beautiful as the Juliet character, and, as always, her acting is wonderful--- and, considering her age at the time, even her dialect is pretty good. Recreating this classic tale with feuding Italian families in the catering business in New York results in great fun. See it in the right frame of mind and you will laugh out loud.$LABEL$ 1
+Ostensibly a story about the young child of Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day. The kid gets kidnapped to keep his parents quiet. They know something about a plot to assassinate the ambassador of an unnamed country during a performance at Albert Hall in London.The movie is rich in Hitchcockian incidents. A friendly but opaque Frenchman seems to grill the innocent Stewart -- a doctor from Indiana -- a little too intensely to be merely idly curious. Later the Frenchman shows up in Arab disguise, a knife in his back, and whispers some information about the murder plot to Stewart. Stewart tells his wife -- Doris Day looking very saucy indeed -- but refuses to cooperate with the police and risk his son's life.Instead the couple try to track down the assassins, buy them off, and get their son back, taking them from Morocco, where Hitchcock has given us his usual tourist's eye view of the customs, locations, and food, to London. There is a hilarious wild goose chase involving a set-to between Stewart and the staff of a taxidermy shop. The staff are more concerned about guarding their half-stuffed specimens than anything else, and they shuffle around protectively holding the carcasses of a leopard and a swordfish. In the course of the scuffle, Stewart manages to save his throat from being cut by the swordfish bill, but is bitten on the hand by a stuffed tiger, the action boosted along by Bernard Hermann's bumptious score. The scene ends with Stewart rushing out the door. Hitchcock ends it with a shot of a lion's head gaping at the slammed door. There is also a running gag, well done, about some visitors waiting around the couple's hotel room in London, waiting for things to be explained.There are two serious issues that are lightly touched on. One is the relationship between Stewart and Day, which is not as rosy as it ought to be, considered as a bourgeois ideal. She's been a stage musical star for some years and is internationally known. And she's given it all up to marry an ordinary guy who happens to be a doc. That's understandable in, say, a nurse or a flight attendant or almost any woman other than an international star with a promising career in her own right. It isn't delved into, but the edginess is noticeable, as it was not in the original version. It reminds me a little of an exchange between Joe Dimaggio and his then-wife Marilyn Monroe, who had just returned from entertaining the troops in Korea. "Oh, Joe," she gushed, "did you ever see ten thousand people stand up and cheer?" "Seventy thousand," muttered Joe, former hero of the New York Yankees.The second problem is one of allegiance. Who is of greater social value? One's own young son? Or an unknown ambassador. Do we put ourselves or our loved ones at risk for the sake of national stability? Day is faced with this dilemma in its starkest form at the climax in the Albert Hall. Her solution opts for allegiance to political stability, although her motives are problematic. Does she scream to save the ambassador's life, or does she do so just to release the anxiety that is overwhelming her? (Cf: Alec Guiness falling on the detonator at the end of "The Bridge on the River Kwai.") The photography is extremely good, and the settings can be menacing, even on a quiet street in a residential neighborhood of London. It's mid-day, and Stewart is alone and determined, but frightened too. There are footsteps echoing on Gulliver Street from someone, somewhere. Is he being followed? Is his life in danger? And where the hell is everybody who lives on this street? Hitchcock pays such close attention to location details that we can make out the garden wall bonding of the bricks beside him.The director had a rare disagreement with Francois Truffaut while being interviewed for Truffaut's otherwise laudatory book. Truffaut argued that the earlier version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" lacked the depth of the later version. Hitchcock replied, "It seems to me you want me to make films for the art house audience," but finally agreed that the 1930s version was the work of a talented amateur and this version was the work of a professional. No argument there.This is Hitchcock pretty much near his zenith.$LABEL$ 1
+Just saying you've got a movie about John Holmes is a guarantee to get some folks in front of the screen, but writer/director James Cox delivers oh so much more. A "Rashamon" of the sleazy Hollywood set, the film splitters the July 1981 Wonderland murders through a variety of angles (and film stocks), but mostly through the filter of John Holmes' coked out weasel brain. In a film full of bad guys Holmes is either the most vile, the most pathetic or both. Several versions of the story emerge and merge as Cox flashes jump cuts and twisting title cards amid effects and emoting. The dialogue is fast and naturalistic and never once rings false. While the film takes places two years after Holmes had fallen out of porn and into a truly wicked drug fueled depravity, Kilmer relentlessly exudes a sexuality so intense it can be measured in inches. This sexuality at its edges creates a sense of foreboding that hangs over the entire film almost as heavily as the violence at its center. Those murders are teased at through the whole film though are never clearly shown, not even at the climax,though the violence of them relentlessly infuses the whole picture and much blood is splattered across walls and crime scene photos. Once again Val Kilmer as Holmes shows he can act wacko better than anyone else working. Strutting, cringing, bragging or begging, Kilmer is constantly in character and the character is constantly a fascinating car wreck. Stand out performances beside Kilmer definitely include Ted Levine as the lead cop in the investigation and Lisa Kudrow as Holmes estranged wife. The trio of criminals Holmes falls in with include the frighteningly high energy Josh Lucas, the ever interesting Timothy Blake Nelson and an absolutely unrecognizable Dylan McDermott in a pivotal role as the teller yet another version of the murders. Cox suggests that no matter how much we learn about Wonderland, there is always a worse version possible, but looking through the debauchery surrounding it is much more fascinating than understanding the truth.$LABEL$ 1
+If you feel like wasting 86 minutes on a film that makes no sense, is badly written ,with a bad plot and bad acting then this little gem is for you. Recommended for those who are about to fall asleep. Major annoyance will be felt by the awake viewer. Do not pay to see this movie!$LABEL$ 0
+Poor Whoopi Goldberg. Imagine her at a friend's dinner party, and she adds a comment to the in-depth political discussion going on. People just look at her and say, "Oh what would YOU know, you were the star of 'Theodore Rex'". How could anyone take her seriously after she lowered herself to be the star of this appalling piece of crap? Even little kids would be cringing in horror at this Thing. It reminded me of a particularly bad episode of 'Sigmund And The Sea Monsters'. Actually, come to think of it, 'Sigmund' was vastly superior to this.And however did it get made? By plying the producer with an illegal substance before telling him about it? Watch this hideous abomination at your own peril.$LABEL$ 0
+Despite a great soundtrack and the presence of the ever amazing Rappaport and Woods, this is another one of those moronic comedies where New York throws itself at the hero in an effort by the writer and/or director to show what a zany place it is. Yeah there's some other stuff in the movie that sucks too, but that's what's important. The trend for New York independent filmmakers seems to be "I don't need to be talented, I have NEW YORK!" Okay, to be fair, the movie has its moments. The flashback bit about why the one guy is called Wacky Jack was pretty amusing. The script isn't a story or a plot, it's a bunch of not-good scenes tied to each other by featuring the same character.One of the worst things is that there's no motive behind what the characters do. Uncle Sam has the kid deliver the drugs, why? If its so important why didn't Sam do it himself? Then the lead character lies his ass off in scene after scene with absolutely nothing to gain from lying. The guy falls in love with a flight attendant with neither of them having any reason to fall in love. The characters are a bunch of pawns for the writer to move around to see if he can get anything zany to happen.If you're easily amused or like watching bad indie movies because they make you feel smarter than watching bad mainstream movies, watch this. If you want to see what a GOOD light hearted crime movie looks like, watch Takeshi Kitano's "Brother". "Kicked In The Head" is the perfect example of why so many people hate offbeat indie movies: A LOT OF THEM SUCK. And a note to the director: Don't be afraid to excite, amuse, enlighten or entertain the audience now and then. Being boring doesn't make you a better filmmaker than the ones who can interest me.$LABEL$ 0
+I was impressed with this film because of the quality of the acting and the powerful message in the script. Susan Sarandon plays the part of a flighty, irrational and possessive mother, who constantly gives her daughter the message that they must stick together. She removes her daughter from a dysfunctional but loving family in Indiana to pursue an exciting acting career in Hollywood. The daughter is dubious, but at first she has no choice--- the bond with mother is pathologically strong.In time the girl sees that the mother is off into flights of fantasy and does not have her feet on the ground. She sees her mother go head over heels for a handsome, seductive guy who loves 'em and leaves 'em. She sees that the mother doesn't get it. So how can she look to her mother for guidance?The mother directs the girl to a drama try-out and sees the daughter act out the part of the mother in such a way that a shockingly painful mirror is held up to the fly-by-night mother. This causes a period of depression and the girl is horrified at the impact on the mother and is apologetic, but the lesson takes hold.There is character-growth as the mother realizes her selfish claim on the daughter and eventually is persuaded to let the girl go. It is a touching scene and a valuable lesson, that parents, however emotionally dependent, have to let the child go and become her own separate person.$LABEL$ 1
+Ariauna Albright is a really good actress but why she participated in this lame written travesty is a mystery. What could have been entertaining winds up as classic boredom. The unique thing about Ariauna is that she can act as well as look real sexy as opposed to her partner Lilith Stabs who looks fine but it is obvious she spent the money for acting school at the spa or beautician. This was a production that cried out for some T & A & with a imaginative script writer could have achieved it in the flow of things. However Ariauna does what she can under the circumstances & to a extent salvages her reputation. The Tempe company should be aware that when you dress two attractive women in skimpy fetish cop uniforms the viewers will expect some fetish play & T & A. Nough said.$LABEL$ 0
+The original "Assault on Precinct 13" is gritty, witty, and - perhaps most importantly - short. This remake is mercilessly padded out and talky. Worse yet, the African-American hero of the first movie is here replaced with handsome white boy Ethan Hawke, which makes this "Assault" less progressive than the 1970s one. God, how I miss John Carpenter and his improbable plot line and his weird sense of humor. I even miss his B-list actors, who are leagues better than Hawke and company.I can't say I care for the new villains in this version - they stretch what little credibility the story ever had to the limit. The female characters are useless, the criminals are all generic hoods, and Gabriel Byrne gives another of his bored performances. The music's all wrong, too - it's bland action stuff that actually detracts from the tension. Simply awful.$LABEL$ 0
+First off, let me start with a quote a friend of mine said while watching this movie: "This entire movie had to have been a dare. You know, like, 'DUDE, I BET YOU COULDN'T MAKE THE WORST MOVIE EVER'". With this movie, they've made a good effort at achieving that title. The effects are, of course, poor. The plot/dialogue is like a collage of of bits stolen from every B horror movie ever made. The actors, I'm assuming, are supposed to be in college. Yet parts of it (especially at the beginning) make it seem like they're supposed to be in high or middle school. It makes no sense. The Scarecrow going around killing people isn't the least bit enjoyable. (SPOILER: At the end, when they chant Lester's name and he reappears, the black guy and Scarecrow are both laughing, probably out of relief they were on their last scene, and at the cheesy dialogue.)$LABEL$ 0
+I was quite impressed with the narration by Martha and how it pulled on the emotional heartstrings of the audience as well as how it must have impacted the family. The forward-backward motion of the storyline was well-done, and normally I don't enjoy movies with the flash-back/flash-forward effects. I felt during the whole evolution of the movie that "surely Tommy did it". It leaves you with a sense of how these people lived their lives almost totally devoid of each other and the consequences of not having any desire to answer the question, "It's 10 o'clock. Do you know where your children are?" And furthermore, "What the heck are they doing?"!! Or "Do I care?"!! Rich, spoiled brats literally getting away with murder. Or so they thought.......$LABEL$ 1
+This in-name-only sequel to the classic ROADHOUSE has a DEA agent (John Schaech) coming to the rescue of his uncle (Will Patton) when the uncle is badly beaten up by a local drug gang, headed by that Wooden Indian of an actor Jake Busey. The gang wants to take over the poor guy's bar for nefarious reasons. Patrick Swayze is sorely missed here. Schaech is an indifferent actor and not convincing as an ass-kicking lawman. The fights here are intermittent and not nearly as powerful or vicious as the fights in ROADHOUSE. The finale is equally weak. Some good-looking women keep things afloat for a bit. There is a terrific fight between a Daisy Duke-type who turns out to be handy with both fists and weapons, and a nasty-looking babe of Busey's who is handy with sharp implements. There's also a scantily dressed gal at the beginning who is a fellow agent of Schaech's, but unfortunately she never reappears in the film. Too bad. She does a brief lap dance for Schaech that had my full attention. If nothing else, ROADHOUSE 2 kicks off with a strip club scene that comes darned close to what a real strip club looks like, a rare circumstance in any movie. The rest is snooze time.$LABEL$ 0
+The main problem with 9th Company (9 Rota) is that it is not sure whether it wants to be Saving Private Ryan or Full Metal Jacket. The attempts at Spielberg sentimentalism are embarrassing, such as the burley sergeant crying in a field of red flowers!!! The training sequences have none of intensity or realism that Kubrick gave them in his masterpiece.A further bone of contention is that the Afghan fighters are called Ghosts because they strike and are hardly ever seen. Here they attack a Russian strong hold almost in formation with no attempt to use cover. I am sure tactics have move on since Waterloo.Every scene in this film has been seen before in other war movies and done considerably better. I have to ask: Why do all talented marksmen need to chew on a match?Finally, I am always suspicious of a film that starts with no narration yet needs to qualify the end."We won!" ...errrr....... no you didn't.$LABEL$ 0
+The only reason The Duke Is Tops, one of several "race movies" made during the times of segregation, would be worth noting today is because it made the film debut of a 21-year-old singer named Lena Horne. She plays Ethel Andrews, a singer who has to leave her producer mentor Duke Davis (Ralph Cooper) in order to branch into the big time. Davis, however, has to fake having taken the money for her services in front of her so she won't feel sorry for having done so. He then teams up with Doc Dorando (Lawrence Criner) for a series of medicine shows throughout the south. Meanwhile, in New York, her new producers have bombed big time because they made her the whole show instead of simply the specialty act. Davis finds out from the radio and offers his services as producer and band leader to bring his lineup of other specialty acts, many of whom make their one of their few or only film appearances here, for his chance at the big time with Ethel next to him. Guess what happens? While the plot is the kind you've seen in thousands of other movie musicals during this time, the fact this was made for a certain audience makes this one of the more fascinating features I've seen during this Black History Month. Ms. Horne's singing is on good display here and it's interesting seeing her so young before her professionalism takes full hold later in her career. Among other supporting players there's an unconfirmed, according to IMDb, appearance by Lillian Randolph, Annie in my favorite movie It's a Wonderful Life and sister of Amanda Randolph who I just saw in the musical short The Black Network, as the woman with Sciatica who complains of not being cured after taking the Doc's medicine before Duke explains it's for the feet! And as a longtime Louisiana resident, I'd like to take note of two players from here in this movie: Joel Fluellen from Monroe as a tonic customer and Marie Bryant from New Orleans as the sexy dancer who appears near the musical climax. So for just Lena Horne alone, The Duke is Tops is worth seeing at least once.$LABEL$ 1
+Once again Bronson's talent is mostly wasted on this shock value 1984 thriller which (uncut) is far more disturbing than most of what is out even today. The fact that "The Evil That Men Do" is very disturbing (in its verbal and visual depictions of torture) is not the problem. It is the shameless gratuity in which it is presented. Interestingly, this film seems to symbolize that latter part of Bronson's career in which he has tortured many of his fans with the same egregiously predictable and uncreative plots. One hopes this fine actor will rise again.$LABEL$ 0
+Garlin did a great job. Nice concept well executed, and tightly produced. Came across as a very sincere story. As a fan of "Curb Your Enthusiasm", where Jeff was pretty much the straight guy role, I was delighted with how much depth he brought to this role in a simple yet effective portrayal.Much of the humor was understated and subtle and drew on poignancy, which I really liked, rather than being slapstick or over-explained. And there were some nice little surprises and twists. The convenience store vignettes were a delight.When I say it is a wonderful "small" film, I don't mean budget or quality. It is simple, intimate and hand-crafted. It tells a highly believable everyday story. Relax and go see it. Let it wash over you, and you will feel good for having done so.$LABEL$ 1
+Wow, not only is this film a "new lesson in real bad taste," but also a lesson in "real bad film making." Don't get me wrong, I appreciated the concept of 'Zombie '90: Extreme Pestilence,' but at the same time one must realize when a movie is terrible. In case you missed out on the storyline, the plot of 'Zombie '90' is about a government plane carrying toxic chemicals that so happens to crash into the wilderness, causing the chemicals to spill, turning locals into hideous looking zombies. The next thing you know, zombies are all over the city eating people alive, while a goofy-looking doctor and a government agent are trying to figure out the disease that's making these people eat one another - hence the name "Extreme Pestilence." From then on, all we see is zombies having a field day on every local in sight - nothing but extreme and sickening disembowelments and dismemberments accompanied by endless buckets of guts and gore. Since this is a German film, the film had to be dubbed into English and when you're not laughing at the feeding frenzies of the zombies, the voice-overs are quite hilarious and entertaining as well. As user UnratedX mentioned *SPOILER* *SPOILER* *SPOILER*, there is a scene in the film that crosses the line between what's acceptable and not acceptable, hence the scene in which a woman, who is carrying her infant baby, is being wheeled around in her wheelchair by some dude and a horde of zombies come out of nowhere and attack them. One zombie grabs the baby and rips it into pieces, eating its organs as you hear the baby crying. Wow, that is a new lesson in REALLLLLLLLLY bad taste. Atrocious I tell you, atrocious.$LABEL$ 0
+A great ensemble cast! A fond remembrance of younger carefree days. This movie takes me back to when I went to summer camp. Indian Summer, while full of practical jokes and pranks, is about growing up and coming to terms with life with middle-age life. My family & I thoroughly enjoyed this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Illudere (to delude) comes from Latin verb 'ludere' (to play), so you're warned about the 'spy game' as a cruel and yet elaborate and intelligent (!) activity stemmin' from a complex and as it may appear absurd and vain personal history, whatever it may be; and yet I feel fascinated by the mechanism of treason and loyalty, the raw material of any relationship, from the personal to the social; after, many years ago, I was ABLE to finish the book it was a revelation! At the beginning I was so bored if not for the surprising style of the writing (I really started to LOVE Le Carre after that novel). The main character is not wavering at all: he has made a choice to redeem his weakness by following the path of faith to friendship and love, or is he not? After this novel you can clearly understand the darker version of Green's 'Our Man in Havana' wrote by LeCarre with 'The Tailor of Panama'; there is no game left, there it ends either in tragedy or in a grotesque comical way, or both. There is no Smiley here to upheld decent human qualities in 'the service', or at least there is no point to introduce him in this case. The BBC has done a superb work with these series from LeCarre's novels: the actors are excellent, as are the locations and sets; of course the script here is brilliantly adapted. Be warned though, even if someone may find it laughable, the after taste IS bitter.$LABEL$ 1
+A glacier slide inside a cavernous ice mountain sends its three characters whoosh down a never-ending wet-slide tube that has enough kick to dazzle kids the same way mature audience may be dazzled by the star gate sequence that closes 2001: A Space Odyssey. Miles apart in vision, but it is a scene of great rush and excitement nonetheless. A magnificent opening sequence also takes place where a furry squirrel-like critter attempts to hide his precious acorn. You've probably seen this scene in the trailer, but as it takes place he starts a domino effect when the mountain starts cracking and, results, an avalanche. The horror just keeps going as the critter tries to outrun the impossible. The movie traces two characters, a mammoth named Manfred (Ray Romano) and a buck-toothed sloth (John Leguizamo) as they try to migrate south. They find a human baby they adopt and then decide to track the parent figures down to return to them. They are joined by a saber tiger named Diego (Denis Leary) whose predatory intentions is to bring the baby to his tiger clan, by leading the mammoth and the sloth into a trap. Diego's meat-eating family wants the mammoth most of all, but Diego's learned values of friendship make easy what choice to ultimately make at the end. There are fatalistic natural dangers of the world along the trip, including an erupted volcano and a glacier bridge that threatens to melt momentarily that is reminiscent of the castle escape in Shrek. Characters contemplate on why they're in the Ice Age, while they could have called it The Big Chill or the Nippy Era. Some characters wish for a forthcoming global warming. Another great line about the mating issues between girlfriends: `All the great guys are never around. The sensitive ones get eaten.' Throwaway lines galore, whimsical comedy and light-fingered adventure makes this one pretty easy to watch. Also, food is so scarce for the nice vegetarians that they consider dandelions and pine cones as `good eating.' The vocal talents of Romano, Leguizamo and Leary make good on their personas, while the children will delight in their antics, the adults will fancy their riffs on their own talents. There is some mild violence and intense content, but kids will be jazzed by the excitement and will get one of their early introductions of the age-old battle of good versus evil, and family tradition and friendship are strong thematic ties. The animators also make majestic use of background landscapes that are coolly fantastic.$LABEL$ 1
+One of the oddest, most strikingly eerie and creepy horror films to come out of the 70's, "Tourist Trap" even by the loose, free-wheeling, convention-defying "anything goes" standards of its time rates as a real weirdie. Yet, it's the picture's very strangeness -- a masterfully mounted uncanny atmosphere of pervasively off-kilter supernatural dread which from the get-go registers as powerfully spooky and becomes more increasingly opaque and frightening as the film progresses, offering up ample shocks amid a few scattered moments of surreally lovely dream-like elegance and ending on a bitterly ironic, crushingly nihilistic note with a haunting final image that's hard to shake -- which makes it such a unique and singularly unnerving experience.Five teenagers traveling through the desolate California desert by car get hopelessly lost. They stumble across "Slausen's Lost Oasis," a seedy, rundown roadside dive that's one part gas station, three parts crummy wax museum, and all parts ratty and foreboding. The joint's lonely, seemingly friendless and harmless owner Slausen (juicily overplayed with infectiously hammy brio by Chuck Conners) turns out to be a deranged psychic killer with lethal telekinetic powers. Slausen brings his freaky assortment of uncomfortably human-like mannequins to life and picks off the kids one by one so he can add them to his ever-growing collection of victims.Director David ("Puppermaster," "The Arrival") Schmoeller adeptly wrings every last ounce of tension he can squeeze from the pleasingly ambiguous and open-ended script he co-wrote with J. Larry Carroll. (Said script's stubborn refusal to provide some rational excuse for all the bizarre stuff which transpires throughout the movie, often wrongly criticized as one of the film's principal weaknesses, is actually the movie's key strength, giving the picture the scary, anything-and-everything-can-happen, common-logic-be-damned quality of a true nightmare come horrifically to life which never would have been achieved if there was some kind of credible explanation offered for what's happening.) Pino Donaggio's beautifully chilling, understated score, Nicholas von Sternberg's shadowy cinematography, and Robert A. Burns' grubby, cramped production design add immensely to the film's profoundly unsettling mood. Excellent performances are another significant plus, with the pretty, perky Jocelyn Jones (Ellie-Jo Turner in "The Great Texas Dynamite Chase") particularly fine and personable as the most resilient and sympathetic of the endangered teens. Even Tanya Roberts fares well as a luckless lass who has a knife levitated into her head. Offbeat and unusual, "Tourist Trap" is well worth visiting.$LABEL$ 1
+Arthur Hunnicutt plays a very stereotypical role as a mountain man (probably the Ozarks) who goes hunting with his favorite coon dog. However, the dog appears to be drowning when Hunnicutt jumps in after him. It becomes obvious pretty soon that despite Hunnicutt and his dog roaming about after leaving the water that they both died in the water--as no one responds when he talks to them and sees and hears people talking about his and the dog's death. Yet, oddly, Hunnicutt is REALLY slow on the uptake and it takes him a while to understand they are talking about him! I think this was actually done as padding, as there really wasn't enough material to fill the half hour time slot.Later, in the "surprise twist", he comes upon Heaven--or at least his concept of the place. He's invited in, but since they won't allow dogs, he has other ideas! Overall, reasonably well acted but of dubious spiritual value! With no twists or irony, this episode is a bit dull--not "Twilight Zone-y" enough for my tastes.$LABEL$ 0
+Watch it with an open mind, it is very different, nothing's cutesy about this. Very well done realistic tale of Tarzan. The animatronics chimpazees are well done for '84, Christopher Lambert was brilliant imitating chimpazee language and behavior. I wouldn't be surprised if he took lessons from Jane Goodall.$LABEL$ 1
+I had the privilege of being one of the Still photographers on the set of "Grand Champion" and enjoyed every minute of the 42 days I worked on the movie. I have been in the Photography business for 25 years and have worked on 16 movies and I can't think of a time when I enjoyed providing my craft more. The Kids were wonderful to work with and little Emma Roberts has so much energy she's a real trip. She even grabbed one of my camera during the stockshow scene rehearsal and started shooting. Some of her images were used for PR. I could have made more money working for a production with a bigger budget but I doubt I would have had the fun and been around so many great actors and the great people of West Texas as I was.$LABEL$ 1
+Despite a tight narrative, Johnnie To's Election feels at times like it was once a longer picture, with many characters and plot strands abandoned or ultimately unresolved. Some of these are dealt with in the truly excellent and far superior sequel, Election 2: Harmony is a Virtue, but it's still a dependably enthralling thriller about a contested Triad election that bypasses the usual shootouts and explosions (though not the violence) in favour of constantly shifting alliances that can turn in the time it takes to make a phone call. It's also a film where the most ruthless character isn't always the most threatening one, as the chilling ending makes only too clear: one can imagine a lifetime of psychological counselling being necessary for all the trauma that one inflicts on one unfortunate bystander.Simon Yam, all too often a variable actor but always at his best under To's direction, has possibly never been better in the lead, not least because Tony Leung's much more extrovert performance makes his stillness more the powerful.$LABEL$ 1
+Meatballs is a classic comedy with so many laughs that it's impossible to count.In what was merely a precursor of what was to come, Murray rules the screen in what can only be described as comic mastery. Tripper Harrison is one of the greatest comedy characters in the past 50 years. Sarcastic all the time, smart when he has to be, stern when he needs to be, and caring when it suits him, Murray infuses Tripper with that SNL glint in the eye.The C.I.T's are merely in awe as they cower beneath the comic genius that is Mr. Murray.Summer isn't summer without a viewing of Meatballs. One of the best comedies to ever grace the screen.$LABEL$ 1
+It's telling that as of the entry of this comment, NO females have submitted a vote of any kind for this movie. Not surprisingly, cheesy science fiction doesn't appeal to them quite as much... If you like a good "B" movie, and especially if you like to satirize them as you watch, you will like this. If you don't have fun watching bad movies, this one's not for you.$LABEL$ 0
+Much has been made of Rohmer's use of digital technology to 'fill in' the background. At times it works well, the scene where Grace and her maid witness from afar the King's execution is particularly striking. At other times it gives the film a strangely amateurish look, resembling a home video. However, the major failing is that the sheer artificiality of the mise en scene creates an alienating effect in the viewer. We know that what we are watching is not real so how can we feel for the characters? To be frank, I did not care at all what happened to the Lady or the Duke.The other major failing, I regret to say, is the performance of Lucy Russell in the leading role. She is in virtually every scene and the success or otherwise of the film rests on her performance. OK she is speaking a foreign language but she is incapable of expressing real emotion. Her emoting in the scene where she recounts to her friend Mme de Meyler (an excellent performance by the debutante Helena Dubiel) seeing the head on a pole caused some embarrassed laughter in the audience. Also, watch her hands when she is expressing emotion!All in all a very disappointing film, particularly given the positive reviews on this site.$LABEL$ 0
+The old man mouse in this cartoon would have you believe that all men are created equally EVIL............so if we have to kill men in order to stop Hitler..........we are just as bad as Hitler was killing the Jews........ Well.....I don't buy it Mr. Mouse............but I guess it paints a pretty picture and makes a cute cartoon.......but it wasn't the reality then and it ain't reality now.$LABEL$ 0
+The pace of this movie is quite slow. It takes about 70 minutes to get Katie to China (which we know that she will) and leaves 30 minutes to wrap things up. The storyline is so predictable that you know everything after about 5 minutes. Nothing surprises you. I guess that the movie is a coming of age movie but the movie is full of stereotypes that are quite over the top:Katie - A beauty that realizes that looks, boys and shopping isn't everything. She realizes that she can "feel" and "see the real world". Touching.The mother - high strung, nervous, screaming mother (wow very innovative) that need taking care of by a strong man.The father - patient and always understanding and takes care of the incapable woman.The boyfriend that only wants to get into her pants.The comedian clown Chinese guy that doesn't know how to speak English properly and made a laughing stock. Thought Hollywood dropped those characters in the mid fifties.The nurse that at times knows everything how to get around in China that in the next moment is a carbon copy of The mother i.e. a woman who cant handle the situation or knows anything.The deformed Chinese girl that with the help of us westerns get help and become a beautiful girl. Because in China (a third world country according to the film) don't have anything and hence needs our charity. Gah, wake up and smell what you are shoveling.Sure that there are some poverty in China but the portrayal of the aid from western countries (read USA) is so shallow and happy ending-ish that it is sad and revolting. Shanghai (where the movie is set) is the most expanding and evolving city in the world at the moment.The Chinese father that is so nice and goodhearted that in the end has one wish ... to be a cowboy with a white hat ...The teacher (Sean Astin) that has this really heart ripping story (not) that he tells without feel. Why Sean? WHY!?Etc etc. It is difficult to actually finding a "real" person in the entire movie.This is nothing but a feel good movie for Americans below age 15. If you want to learn anything about the world watch e.g. Hotel Rwanda instead. For a better life story or coming of age movie I suggest you watch the Italian "Cinema Paradiso" that won the best foreign film academy reward some years back.The only nice thing in the movie were the small town sceneries that truly capture some (not all) of the beautiful Chinese country side. I have been there and seen some of it.$LABEL$ 0
+The funny sound that you may hear when you eyeball this execrable version of Jules Verne's classic "Journey to the Center of the Earth" is Verne spinning in his grave. The only thing about this 80 minute opus that has anything to do with "Journey to the Center of the Earth" is the title. Otherwise, everything else in this lackluster production is new and not worth watching. In fact, the director has written here at IMDb.COM that he directed only eight minutes of "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and the studio tacked on part of "Dollman" helmer Albert Pyun's sequel to his own "Alien from L.A." with Kathy Ireland. Evidently, the producers ran out of money and to satisfy overseas contractual obligations, they grafted Pyun's sequel onto director Rusty Lemorande's movie. Please, don't rent or buy this wretched piece of garbage.Unlike director Henry Levin's period piece "Journey to the Center of the Earth" (1959) with James Mason and Pat Boone, Lemorande's "Journey to the Center of the Earth" takes place in contemporary times in Hawaii. Two fellows, a British nanny, and a dog are brought together for the adventure of a lifetime purely by coincidence. Richard (Paul Carafotes of "Blind Date") and his comic book obsessed brother Bryan (Ilan Mitchell-Smith of "Weird Science") are going out to explore a cave. The heroine, Crystina (Nicola Cowper of "Underworld"), works for a domestic service called 'Nannies R Us.' Being a nanny has been Crystina's life-long dream, but she has made a less of all five of her nanny jobs. Nevertheless, her sympathetic supervisor, Ms. Ferry (Lynda Marshall of "Africa Express"), sends her to Hawaii. Crystina's new client, rock star Billy Foul (Jeremy Crutchley of "Doomsday") who is scheduling one last concert to revive his flagging career, has a dog named Bernard. Foul wants Crystina to take Bernard to a doggie day spa. Crystina is waiting on the arrival of her taxi when a careless motel attendant accidentally puts the basket that conceals Bernard in Richard's jeep. You see, Foul has hidden his canine in a basket because motel management strictly prohibits pets on their premises. Foul has disguised the dog as a human baby. Anyway, Crystina catches a cab and tells the driver follow Richard.After she catches up with them to get her dog, the cabbie cruises away and abandons her. Crystina demands that Richard drive her back to town, but he has other plans. Unhappily, Crystina joins the guys and they get lost, and then find themselves in the lost city of Atlantis, a police state ruled by a dictator, at the center of the Earth. The rulers of Atlantis repeatedly notify their citizens that life on the surface does not exist. Our heroes and heroine stumble onto Atlantis quite by accident. Atlantis resembles a disco and everybody looks like they are straight out of a punk rock opera. The ruler of Atlantis, General Rykov (Janet Du Plessis of "Operation Hit Squad"), is orchestrating a raid on the surface with clones of the first human, Wanda Saknussemm (Kathy Ireland of "Necessary Roughness"), to visit Atlantis. Predictably, General Rykov machinations to rule Atlantis and overthrow the Earth fails, and our heroes and heroine save the day."Journey to the Center of the Earth" is an abomination. The movie seems to be a comedy despite its superficial satire about dictatorships. Albert Pyun is one of my favorite low budget action directors, but he blew it on this lightweight shambles of a science fiction saga.$LABEL$ 0
+As noted by other reviewers this is one of the best Tarzan movies. Unlike others however, I like the beginning of the film as it feels like a pretty accurate depiction of what a trading post must have been like. Plus the exposition is needed so we know why Harry wants to go back into the jungle. In addition the beginning of the film contains one of the most thrilling and terrifying chase sequences ever made.This occurs when Harry's safari group has to outrun a tribe of cannibals. The pre-censorship production values add a lot of realism, genuinely depicting the terrible dangers that awaited Europeans going into the jungle. The film also offers, though perhaps antecedently, an accurate account of how horribly treated the native Africans were by their white employers. In addition sexy Jane, thousands of elephants , some great sets and two chetas! Not to be missed an adventure classic.$LABEL$ 1
+*** Contains Spoilers ***I did not like this movie at all.I found it amazingly boring and rather superficially made, irrespective of the importance and depth of the proposed themes: given that eventually we have to die, how should we approach life? In a "light" way, like Tomas; in a "heavy" way like Tereza; or should we find ways not to face that question, like Sabina? How much is fidelity important in a relationship? How much of the professional life can be mutilated for the sake of our loved ones? How much do we have to be involved in the political life and the social issues of our Country?Unfortunately, I haven't read Kundera's novel but after having being let down by the movie I certainly will: I want to understand if the story was ruined by the movie adaptation (which is my guess) or if it was dull from the beginning.I disagree with most of the positive comments that defined the movie as a masterpiece. I simply don't see the reasons why. What I see are many flaws, and a sample of them follows.1) The three main characters are thrown at you and it's very hard to understand what drives them when making their choices.2) The "secondary" characters are there just to fill the gaps but they don't add nothing to the story and you wonder if they are really necessary.3) I did not like how Tomas was impersonated. Nothing is good for him. He is so self-centered and selfish. He is not human, in some sense. But when his self-confidence fails and he realizes that he depends on others and is emotionally linked to someone, I did not find the interpretation credible.4) It's very unlikely that an artist like Sabina could afford her lifestyle in a communist country in 1968. On top of that, the three main characters are all very successful in their respective professions, which sounds strange to me. a) how can Tereza become effortlessly such a good photographer? b) how can they do so well in a country lacking all the economic incentives that usually motivate people to succeed?5) The fake accents of the English spoken by the actors are laughable. And I am not even mother tongue. Moreover, the letter that Sabina receives while in the US is written in Czech, which I found very inconsistent.6) Many comments praised the movie saying that Prague was beautifully rendered: I guess that most of the movie was shot on location, so it's not difficult to give the movie a Eastern European feeling, and given the intrinsic beauty of Prague is not even difficult to make it look good.7) I found the ending sort of trivial. Tereza and Tomas, finally happy in the countryside, far away from the temptations of the "metropoly", distant from the social struggles their fellow citizens are living, detached from their professional lives, die in a car accident. But they die after having realized that they are happy, indeed. So what? Had they died unhappy, would the message of the movie have been different? I don't think so. I considered it sort of a cheap trick to please the audience.8) The only thing in the movie which is unbearably light is the way the director has portrayed the characters. You see them for almost three hours, but in the end you are left with nothing. You don't feel empathy, you don't relate to them, you are left there in your couch watching a sequence of events and scenes that have very little to say.9) I hated the "stop the music in the restaurant" scene (which some comments praised a lot). Why Sabina has got such a strong reaction? Why Franz agrees with her? I really don't see the point. The only thing you learn is that Sabina has got a very bad temper and quite a strong personality. That's it. What's so special and unique about it?After all these negative comments, let me point tout that there are two scenes that I liked a lot (that's why I gave it a two).The "Naked women Photoshoot", where the envy, the jealousy, and the insecurities of Sabina and Tereza are beautifully presented.The other scene is the one representing the investigations after the occupation of Prague by the Russians. Tereza pictures, taken to let the world know about what is going on in Prague, are used to identify the people taking part to the riots. I found it quite original and Tereza's sense of despair and guilt are nicely portrayed.Finally, there is a tiny possibility that the movie was intentionally "designed" in such a way that "Tomas types" are going to like it and "Tereza ones" are going to hate it. If this is the case (I strongly doubt it, though) then my comment should be revised drastically.$LABEL$ 0
+It is unusual to see a film where the performance of a single actor is so good that one can feel that the film would be of little interest, if any, without his presence.Despite a not outstanding direction - in fact, there are many scenes that seem to have been shooted too quickly and carelessly -, a seemingly low budget, a strange plot about a man who wants to take the place of a defrocked priest and another week points, the presence of Pierre Fresnay is so impressive that one gets shocked from the very begining to the terrible end.I have never seen nor can iomagine for future a better performance, even Paul Scofield acting in "A man for all seasons".Actually the end could be considered even ridiculous if Fresnay were not playing the transtorned priest who returns to Church by performing a crime."Je suis Maurice Morand, prètre catholique" ("I am Maurice Morand, a catholic priest")is said with such a brilliancy that one may forget the madness that conducted to that end.The other impressive thing this film has is a single scene in wich Morand - who despite being a defrocked one is stil a priest - consacrates in a cabaret a huge amount of vine turning it into Christ´s blood.Gérard - the man that wants to return Morand to the Church or replace him by himself - has to drink it if he doesn´t want to leave it in the cabaret. He does so in mid of cheers and applauses from people who think that he is simply drinking three of four litters of vine.In next scene, the dialoque between Morand and a garbage collector is also remarkable. "Do you carry away men too?" asks Morand, who hates himself for what he has just done. "That would be too much work" is the smart answer.The rest of the film is not worth commenting but it is certainly worth seeing due to the very strong and strangely emotive atmosphere created all the time.I think that "Le défroqué" is a very strange film, but has to be seen by all viewers - if the are good catholiques it is mandatory - because it is a very rare jewell in film history.$LABEL$ 1
+This overheated southern Gothic "mellerdramer" has a few decent moments --but is too often spoiled by a novice director piling cliché upon cliché, and a star who apparently decided to take it upon himself to turn the picture into his personal showcase, rather than allowing writer/director Gabel to update Inge or Williams as a sort of contemporary "Midnight Cowboy" meets "Lolita" tearjerker.Close your eyes, listen to the exaggerated southern accents, and try to decide if you're witnessing a feature film, or an acting class -- full of eager amateurs. Johansson is for once tolerable (i.e. less pouty than usual) -- though by no means good, Macht is decent, though a little too pretty-boy cute to be believed, and Travolta chews the scenery as never before (with the help of a decent editor and some directorial restraint, his performance might have been really touching; as it is, he -- and almost everyone else -- is too unlikable to ever move us past the point of boredom or revulsion). Kara Unger is perhaps best of all; had her role been developed beyond a few lines, she might have even found herself with a Best Supporting Actress nomination. Pic is almost saved by Leonard Cohen-style growling theme song, decent production design and locations, and continual reference to literary works (which has earned the otherwise standard screenplay reviews such as "poetic.") Also helpful are a few old pros in the cast like Sonny Shroyer, and perhaps most importantly, Soderbergh cameraman Elliot Davis -- whose fine work will no doubt be credited to the first-time director, who, ten or twenty years from now, may actually learn how to direct.But probably not.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm a sucker for a decent superhero movie. (I'm not counting super bug budget, no storyline Batman's either)A couple of my favorites are The Phantom and a budget movie called The Demolitionist. The Black Scorpion can be added to that collection.If you've seen the Demolitionist then get this movie. It's basically a copy of that heroine. (It even stars the same guy in both movies)If you haven't, then let me explain...a cop's father is murdered and she seeks vengeance. She laces up the black outfit (a sexy catwomanish, skimpy outfit that looks absolutely great on Joan Severance) and goes out to kick some booty.It's a fun, action packed movie, mind you, you may not wish the kids to see it...without screening it first to see if you approve of the pretty graphic sex scene Severance has in it. Which in my opinion, was a bonus (alright, give it an extra star <grin>)$LABEL$ 1
+This film is very interesting. I have seen it twice and it seems Glover hit the nail on the head with what he claims to he wants to accomplish. I for one can relate to the outrage that the filmmaker clearly expresses against the current thoughtless corporate drivel that is an onslaught in our every media center, and the things that we as a culture are supposed to not "think" about due to corporate media control. The outrage that Glover expresses through the "outrageous" elements in the films is both clear in its visceral aggressiveness and beautiful in its poetic potency. I am glad I saw this film and it is even clearer that Glover is up to something interesting with part two of what will be a trilogy. It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE. See that also. People that dismiss this film as "thoughtless" or "pretentious" are really missing the boat. This is an intelligent films. If you can see it with his live show he performs before with his books, that is also very wroth while. The way you get in to his mindset is really something. You will have an experience!$LABEL$ 1
+I watched this movie after having so much of trouble in downloading it through rapidshare. And I have to say, it did not deserve it.Parinda was so hyped, that I was really looking forward to watch it.Parinda is one of those movies which fail to satisfy the standards set by other good Indian film-makers, despite having a great story. It was even more pathetic to know, that the story itself was not original, it was loosely based on the classic "On the Waterfront".Anil Kapoor was irritating, especially when he comes from America. The direction lacked quality many a times, except a few in-between scenes.Give this script to any of them - Ram Gopal Verma, Deepa Mehta, Mahesh Bhatt, Sudhir Mishra, and I'm 100% sure, they'll make a mind-blowing movie out of it.I'm not saying Parinda was bad. It was just not good enough.$LABEL$ 0
+I didn't even know this was originally a made-for-tv movie when I saw it, but I guessed it through the running time. It has the same washed-out colors, bland characters, and horrible synthesized music that I remember from the 80's, plus a 'social platform' that practically screams "Afterschool special". Anyhoo.Rona Jaffe's (thank you) Mazes and Monsters was made in the heyday of Dungeons & Dragons, a pen-and-paper RPG that took the hearts of millions of geeks around America. I count myself one of said geeks, tho I have never played D&D specifically I have dabbled in one of its brethren. M&M was also made in the heyday of D&D's major controversy-that it was so engrossing that people could lose touch with reality, be worshiping Satan without knowing, blah blah. I suppose it was a legitimate concern at one point, if extremely rare-but it dates this movie horrendously.We meet 4 young college students, who play the aptly named Mazes and Monsters, to socialize and have a little time away from mundane life. Except that M&M as presented is more boring than their mundane lives. None of the allure of gaming is presented here-and Jay Jay's request to take M&M into 'the real world' comes out of nowhere. It's just an excuse to make one of the characters go crazy out of nowhere also-though at that point we don't really care. Jay Jay, Robbie, Kate and Daniel are supposed to be different-but they're all rich WASPy prigs who have problems no one really has.But things just continue, getting worse in more ways than one. The low budget comes dreadfully clear, (I love the 'Entrance' sign and cardboard cutout to the forbidden caverns) Robbie/Pardu shows why he's not a warrior in the oafiest stabbing scene ever, and the payoff atop the 'Two Towers' is unintentionally hilarious. Tom Hanks' blubbering "Jay Jay, what am I doing here?" made me laugh for minutes on end. Definitely the low point in his career.Don't look at it as a cogent satire, just a laughable piece of 80's TV trash, and you'll still have a good time. That is, if you can stay awake. The majority is mostly boring, but it's all worthwhile for Pardu's breakdown at the end. At least Tom Hanks has gotten better. Not that he could go much worse from here.$LABEL$ 0
+This is, without doubt, one of my favourite horror films ever! I really cannot believe that it didn't gain much more popularity when it was released, especially when the main contenders at the time were the usual Wes Craven sequels and copycat horrors, Mute Witness has all the style, suspense and quickfire plot twists of a Hitchcock/DePalma movie, coupled with some very sharp black comedy and a great plot. It never promises to be any more than a good popcorn-and-hot-dog movie, but it is difficult not to just enjoy the film for what it is.The plot centres on Billie Hughes - a mute girl working on the set of a horror film being made in a Russian factory. By a series of events, she finds herself accidentally locked in, and stumbles on the filming of a snuff movie.One of the best things about the film is the lack of screaming that seems to invade every horror film ever made. As the main character is mute, she cannot make a noise - something which is a blessing at some stages of the movie, and a curse in others.The director seems to have studied his Hitchcock very well, Even the opening scene is a tongue-in-cheek nod to both Hitchcock's "Psycho" as well as fairly generic slasher movie scenes.While the acting can be hammy at times, the whole film does hold it together, not only throwing in a couple of excellent scenes that put you right on the edge of your seat, but a few neat little questions about how the film is going to end.All in all, a hugely overlooked, well-paced and action packed psycho-thriller which I would recommend for any jaded viewer looking for something a little different from the usual Freddy/Jason/Scream/Michael Myers/Damien regurgitation's at hallowe'en.$LABEL$ 1
+Kar Wai Wong's incredibly impressive romance that is to me, perfect. Set in 1960's Hong Kong. As we are shown, this is set in a turbulent time. Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung play Chow Mo-wan and Su Li-zhen Chan. A man and a woman who meet each other in a Hong Kong apartment, in which they both move in. Chow Mo-wan works for a newspaper company. Su Li-zhen Chan is a secretary. Two very different people. Chow Mo-wan and Su Li-zhen Chan create a special bond after they both find out their spouses, constantly away are committing extra-marital trysts. With each other.The characters of Chow Mo-wan and Su Li-zhen Chan are nothing short of amazing. Both Leung and Cheung manage to strike such amazing chemistry with one another, it's better than any Hollywood romance that is put out today. Combined. The film is all about the focus of the two leads and their feelings after the infidelities of their partners. Kar Wai Wong manages to create such strong character development between these two characters, you really start to feel for them. Leung and Cheung are both wildly amazing, are better than any Hollywood pairing shown on the screen today. Combined.There's nothing much else to describe Fa yeung nin wa other than beautiful, energetic romance that also features a moody, atmospheric piece with gorgeous cinematography. So much elements of this movie help create it to be flawless. As well as Kar Wai Wong and the acting, the cinematography from both Christopher Doyle and Pin Bing Lee is haunting. Beautifully understated. The shots from Kar Wai Wong help makes your mind create a world of it's own. A world that creates these characters. Original, melancholic and nostalgic. This film is incredibly unforgettable.The costumes created by Kar Wai Wong regular William Chang are absolutely beautiful. Cheung, who wears an elegant, ankle-deep, beautifully patterned dress in every scene. She's a scene-stealer. Her costumes say a lot about her character and an emotion is fitted in all of her dresses colours which are vividly and smartly used. Highly original. Chang, also the production designer creates a brilliant setting for the movies moody piece. Especially with the help of the marvellous music used in scenes and masterful film editing, again by Chang. William Chang seems to be incredibly versatile and is an unsung hero for this movie.Overall, this movie is one of the best from this millennium. Incredibly compelling and filled with nostalgia. The shots are mesmerising and haunting. Kar Wai Wong somewhat proves to be a master at the top of his game. The acting; music; cinematography; editing; production; costume and direction all help create ONE small, little perfect film. A masterpiece in romance film-making. Visually spectacular. Overall, a masterpiece to film-making. A film that reminds me of old classic Hollywood, was the one that never was. Never forget Fa yeung nin wa. I know I won't.$LABEL$ 1
+Chuck Jones's 'Hare Conditioned' is a fast paced, often hilarious cartoon. Pitting Bugs Bunny against a strange, yellow-skinned apartment store manager who wants to have him stuffed, 'Hare Conditioned' takes full advantage of its multi-purpose setting. The chase takes Bugs and his pursuer through a variety of departments, leading to an inspired gag in which they quickly emerge from various departments wearing whatever clothes are associated with that part of the store. This great gag is trumped, however, by a truly inspired sequence involving elevators in which Bugs, disguised as an elevator boy, tricks the store manager into relentlessly getting on or off elevators at the wrong time. It's a brilliant climactic set piece which unfortunately gives way to a not very funny final gag. By that time, however, 'Hare Conditioned' has made its mark as one of the great chase films, bursting with wild energy. As Bugs was becoming more refined in some of the other cartoons from this period, 'Hare Conditioned' showed that he could still be just as appealing as a more anarchic character.$LABEL$ 1
+First week of May, every year brings back the memories of the holocaust, through movies on televisions. Among many movies they showed, this was the one I had not seen.The story is about Hilter's life and how he came to power. It starts with his childhood and ends with his holding the top most position of power in Germany.The movie was earlier presented as a TV series and later converted into a movie format. Scottish actor Robert Carlyle plays Adolf Hitler with great guts, conviction and flare to give a real portrayal of this man.It is a good screenplay and narrative, that educates the audiences on the main events that lead Hitler into power, and also tries to show the probable psychological make up of Hitler. The movie is a biased viewpoint of the director Christian Duguay – who shows Hitler as a one-track, menacing, angry, and shouting person – who had such a strong hold on the Germans and people around him. Hitler is not shown as someone having charishma and attraction, and there the movie fails to convince Hitler's portrayal.Even though the venture was for TV, all the ingredients of production are first class and at par with any main stream movie. The production value, sets, costumes, etc. were perfect.There is a lot of criticism of this movie, in the authenticity about the historic events that is presented. But still the movie is gripping, every engaging and entertaining. Robert Carlyle overpowers and dominates the screen as no one else does. He is amazingly good – brilliant! I would have liked a more balanced view of Hitler's life, because I think, Hitler was able to bring out the dormant feelings of million of Germans and it is not only him who should be blamed for the holocaust. As I have told several times, that – very sadly - our society loves to garland or prosecute one person, as a representative of the society's good or evil respectively.$LABEL$ 1
+...in a TV-movie 70's kind of way. It's one of those movies that show up in the wee hours, but rarely because more modern late-hour schlock movies bump it off. It has likeable performances by Graves and Wynn. Generally, it's just a harmless little piece of nothing that doesn't offend too badly. Nothing good, a lot that's mediocre.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this in the market place at the Cannes Film Festival. It's a real cheapo prod - nothing wrong with that but you have to make up for it with a bit of sex or gore or both. Think Larry Cohen. Sean Young is an interesting actor - well done to the producers for hooking her I guess.The opening scene in the space-ship coming down is hilarious - you could picture all the crew hands shaking it around! Ha ha - but I wish the people who made this well - at least it's not pretentious.$LABEL$ 0
+... And being let down bigger than ever before. I won't make any direct references or anything here, but to say the least, this film is pathetic. If you're military trained, don't bother watching. I put it on the DVD with 2 friends wanting to watch a somewhat interesting action / war flick. Why couldn't I just have read the reviews first.Already at the first "bomb" scene the film has huge glitches, and they continue to show and become bigger and bigger. My 2 friends, not connected to the military in any way spotted a couple of the filmmaker's mistakes almost as fast as I myself did and asked me if some of the things going on we're realistic. Well, as you might have guessed, they're not - at all.Avoid this movie unless you're able to overlook these completely idiotic and re-occurring mistakes being made. 2/10 for catching my interest at first.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this film at the Toronto Film Festival, where it received a standing ovation! This film tells a story that to my knowledge has never been told before--namely about the Rosenstrasse (a street in Berlin)uprising of German gentile women who were married to Jews at the end of the Second World War. As such, it is a unique story, and what's more, is the only film about the Holocaust that I have ever seen that shows that there were GOOD Germans (the helping family in "Anne Frank" for instance was Dutch) who did NOT support the Nazis, and, in fact, had the fortitude to stand up against their own country's immorality and brutality during the Nazi regime, at the risk of their very lives. The acting is great across the board, the framing story in New York interesting and intricate, the direction from Von Trotta masterful in every scene, and the production values, including the gorgeous cinematography, outstanding. Of course the family in New York could be speaking German. Many immigrants in this country choose to speak in their native tongue with their family--a common occurrence. So that criticism is unwarranted. To say more would spoil the experience. The film is long, but I did not look at my watch once. I am hoping this film gets some distribution is North America, for not only is this film a masterpiece, but it can actually help heal any animosity people have towards the Germans because of their support of Hitler. If this film is playing in your area, I URGE YOU TO SEE IT! You will be glad you did!$LABEL$ 1
+I'll start off right at the beginning by saying "I like this movie." It's sweeping, it's grand, it's gripping and it's fun. Sinhue the physician,sits in front of his small stone hut writing his memoirs. And what a story it is! Taken from a river and reared by an elderly couple who doted on him, he becomes a physician to the poor. He befriends Horemheb who sees glory while Sinhue sees healing. And both run into the future pharaoh Anknaten (forgive my spellings), who endures an epileptic fit.And this pharaoh has another "flaw": He believes in one god instead of a pantheon of gods. Back then, this was totally revolutionary. Sinhue and Horemheb grow up. One night, Sinhue sees a woman who makes him lose his senses. He gives up his practice, sells his parents' home and even their tombs just to spend a night with her. Does he? I won't tell. Meanwhile, Merit, a tavern maid played with sweet simplicity belying strength by Jean Simmons, falls in love with Sinhue. She falls under his spell and under the spell of the belief in one god.Victor Mature overacts perfectly as Horemheb. Edmond Purdom is sincere as Sinhue the lost physician (does he find redemption? Stay tuned). Even Bela Darvi, the woman who steals Sinhue's heart isn't as bad as everyone has said. The fact that she was Daryl F. Zanuck's mistress had nothing to do with the casting - right? Yeah, right...still, she wasn't that bad _ I've seen worse. I think she did better in "The Egyptian" than many of today's young actresses have done in anything. I said it before and I'll say it again -- I like this movie. I recommend it. It makes you think despite some hammy acting. Have fun with this movie; it's worth it.$LABEL$ 1
+Young and attractive Japanese people are getting on the wrong side of some curse again, this time it involves mobile phones. Various people die until the disgruntled spirit behind it all is unearthed, so essentially if you've seen more than 2 recent Japanese horror films you can plot this film in the dark with your hands tied.The main attraction here is the fact that Takashi Miike is behind the camera. So far I've been more impressed with his low key works like City of Lost Souls, however as One Missed Call plodded along I was yearning for his more renowned envelope pushing of Dead or Alive or the overly pseudo-Cronenberg style of Audition. Despite a lot of his films being essentially empty, at least they do have merits such as these, or at least something to keep your attention like Tadanobu Asano prancing about in shiny suits impersonating Johnny Depp. There's none of that in One Missed Call; there's just very little of credit: the acting is bland and average, there is very little (nothing, in all honesty) in the way of scares or suspense, and in places it's just downright boring.However, there are moments where Miike's glacier-like sense of humour seeps through the bland commercialism; most notably with the instance of the TV show intent on filming the demise of one of the cursed subjects, and the TV programmer more concerned about his ratings than the girls' life. But aside from this there is nothing to suggest it is Miike behind the camera; most notably his usual visual flair has vanished without a trace (and that includes his famous gore), although it's more likely he just didn't have any enthusiasm for the project, and I can understand why. One Missed Call isn't offensively bad. It's just frustratingly average.Miike obviously loves directing. With his huge yearly output it's obvious he isn't going to be 100% concerned about all his projects. But even with this in mind, One Missed Call felt like he was just paying the bills.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a good film, no doubt, but with some odd aspects. Without spoiling anything it takes place in 3 places only- a Sicilian farm, the boat,and Ellis Island New York. All shots are close up so we never see a broad sweep of anything. I wonder if this was to save money? No street scenes anywhere, and we don't even see the boat except in close ups. And the music...what on earth was going on with playing Nina Simone songs, decades before they were out? I could have done without the milk river business too......But hey, before you think of me as a pure misanthrope, let me repeat, this is a very good film, with heartbreakng moments, wonderful photography, great characters and more accuracy than the usual (American) efforts at the immigration experience.$LABEL$ 1
+THE D.I. (4 outta 5 stars) Wow, I certainly did not expect to be enjoying this movie as much as I did. I had never even heard of it until I saw it sitting in the discount video bin one day. I figured Jack Webb playing an army drill instructor might be good for a chuckle but figured the drama would pale in comparison to such recent movie D.I.s as portrayed in "Full Metal Jacket" or "An Officer and a Gentleman". Boy, was I wrong. This is probably the best work Webb has ever done... far and away better than his one-note "Dragnet" performances. The delivery of his tough guy dialogue is just brilliant... done in his patented deadpan monotone and yet you *know* that the guy means every word of it. The story might seem a little hokey compared to the grittier military movies that have followed but I still found the movie fascinating and compelling. Even a completely unnecessarily musical interlude in an army nightclub had me hooked. Anyone know where I can get a copy of that terrific Ray Coniff song "If'n You Don't, Somebody Else Will"? Webb plays the toughest dang drill instructor ever... and he's under pressure to kick out the deadbeat Private Owen but, by golly, he sees a man buried somewhere in that sissyboy and he's gonna drag him out kicking and screaming! Great stuff!$LABEL$ 1
+I enjoyed this film very much. I found it to be very entertaining for me in that I feel that it captured the romanticism of turn of the century Irish-American culture. There's no messages. There's no violence and there's no overt sex, just wholesome 1947 style entertainment and Dennis Morgan had a chance to sing some really good songs. A really good movie.$LABEL$ 1
+As a writer and a lapsed Orthodox Jewish woman, I was let down tremendously by this movie. The dialogue is hackneyed and wasteful, the characters, too engaged with lines ranging from the wrackingly prosaic to the stunningly melodramatic, aren't allowed to expand into genuinely textured individuals. The one-trick musical score tries to make up for the blandness, swooping portentously into the silence to jar the viewer and the script out of protracted catatonia.Like an adolescent revolutionary on a self-righteous tirade, this film is blown away by the wisdom of its revelation--patriarchy is wrong--and thoroughly squanders its energies, hammering on this point. The resultant artistic crime is a complete lack of imaginative development; the moral crime is the reduction of human beings to caricatures: martyrs and grotesques.$LABEL$ 0
+This was the second of two filmed "Hamlets" in the nineties, the first being Franco Zeffirelli's, starring Mel Gibson, from 1990. Zeffirelli's version, like Laurence Olivier's from 1948, was based upon an abridged version of the play, with much of Shakespeare's original text being cut. (I have never seen Tony Richardson's 1969 version, but as that ran to less than two hours, shorter even than Zeffirelli's, I presume that was also abridged). Kenneth Branagh was attempting something much more ambitious- a film based on the complete text of the play, with a running time of around four hours.With his "Henry V", Branagh claimed Olivier's crown as the cinema's leading Shakespearean, confirming his claim with his brilliant "Much Ado about Nothing", a rare example of a great film based on a Shakespeare comedy. "Hamlet" was his third Shakespeare film as director (he also acted as Iago in Oliver Parker's 1995 "Othello") and, as one might expect, it is very different to "Much Ado….". The earlier film, shot in a villa in the hills of Tuscany and the beautiful surrounding countryside, is a joyous, summertime film about everything that makes life worth living."Hamlet", by contrast is set in the depths of winter. (The flowers in the description of Ophelia's death suggest that Shakespeare himself thought of the action happening in summer). The look of the film is particularly striking, both sumptuous and chilly. It was filmed at Blenheim Palace, possibly England's most grandiose stately home, but also a rather forbidding one. The snowy exterior scenes are cold and wintry; the interior ones formal and elaborate. The action is updated to the mid nineteenth century; the female characters wear the elaborate fashions of that era, while the principal male ones mostly wear splendid military uniforms. (There is a contrast here with Zeffirelli's film, where both the interiors and the costumes were deliberately subdued in tone). The play is dominated by images of corruption and decay; Branagh's intention may have been to contrast a splendid surface with the underlying "something rotten in the state of Denmark".The film is notable for the large number of big-name actors, some of them in very minor roles. (Blink, and you might miss John Gieldgud or Judi Dench). Apparently, an all-star cast was required by the production company, who were nervous about a four-hour film. Some of the imported Hollywood stars, such as Robin Williams' Osric, did not really come off, but others, like Charlton Heston's Player King or Billy Crystal's First Gravedigger, played their parts very well. Yorick, normally only seen as a skull, is here seen in flashback, played by the British comedian Ken Dodd. Brian Blessed, who often plays jovial characters, is cast against type as the Ghost, and makes the scenes in which he appears genuinely frightening.Of the major characters, perhaps the weakest was Kate Winslet's Ophelia. Branagh's leading lady in his first two Shakespeare films was his then wife Emma Thompson, but their marriage ended in divorce in 1995. I did, however, find myself wishing that Thompson had been cast in the role; although Winslet came into her own in the Ophelia's mad scenes, she seemed weak in the earlier ones where her character is still sane. (I preferred Helena Bonham Carter in Zeffirelli's version). Richard Briers plays Polonius with a greater dignity than he is often given, a wise and experienced counsellor rather than a prating old fool. Julie Christie also brings dignity to the role of Gertrude; there is no attempt here, as there was with Gibson and Glenn Close in the Zeffirelli version, to suggest an incestuous attachment between her and Hamlet. (An interpretation which owes more to Freud than it does to Shakespeare). The age difference between Christie and Branagh is great enough for them to be credible as mother and son, which was certainly not the case with Close and Gibson. (Olivier's Gertrude, Eileen Herlie, was, bizarrely, thirteen years younger than him).Branagh stated that his intention in restoring those scenes which are often cut in cinematic versions was to "reinforce the idea that the play is about a national as well as domestic tragedy." Much stress is placed upon the war with Norway and the Norwegian Prince Fortinbras- a subplot ignored altogether by Zeffirelli. This emphasis on national tragedy is perhaps best shown in the character of Claudius, sometimes played as a one-dimensional villain. There is something about Derek Jacobi's performance which suggests that Claudius could have been a good man under different circumstances, but that he allowed himself to be led astray by ambition and lust. He could have been a good and loyal servant to his brother, but chose to rule as a bad king. Although he is tormented by guilt, he can see no way to make amends for the evil he has done.Branagh, a wonderfully fluent speaker of Shakespeare's verse, is superb in the main role. Like Gibson, he has little time for the old concept of Hamlet as indecisive, passive and melancholy. His is an active, physical, energetic Hamlet, something best shown in his fatal duel with Laertes. His guiding principle is not world-weary despair, but an active disgust with evil and corruption.It was a gamble for Branagh to make a four-hour epic, and the film did not do well at the box office. It was, however, praised by many critics, James Berardinelli being particularly enthusiastic. My own opinion is that, whatever the financial returns may have been, Branagh's gamble paid off in artistic terms. By concentrating on the full text, he was able to bring out the full meaning and full emotional power of Shakespeare's most complex play. When I reviewed his "Much Ado…", I said it was the greatest ever film of a Shakespeare comedy. His "Hamlet" may just be the greatest ever film of a Shakespeare tragedy. 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+Zombie movies are hot, I love 'em. Can't get enough. Why I would purchase a film of this caliber goes without explanation, I just really love zombies. Surprise, this really isn't much of a zombie movie; low-budget I can handle, being duped just irritates me.A group of horror-film clichés hold up in a warehouse/lab/who-knows-what to escape a fire storm outside. Panic, yelling, low-light, and (eventually) zombies ensue.I kind of feel bad for the film makers, as it is obvious that they really thought they were putting together something good; a serious, scary horror film. It isn't, far from it, it's a boring mess of wooden acting, cheesy FX, poor lighting, excessive dialogue, and over editing.Things first go awry when it takes a good 10+ minutes for the characters to ever sit down and start to figure out what is going on. It gets worse when another 20 minutes go by and they are still sitting around trying to figure out what is going on. All of this is littered with non-acting and bad dialogue.Finally some one gets attached (not by a zombie though) and hope flickers just a touch before the characters are again lounging around whining (the only emotion any one every generates) about how much this sucks. Me too guys, me too.Finally zombies are in the mix, but no one watching cares any more. I think there was some blood and gore tossed in, but I was too busy praying for the credits to roll to notice. And when the screen finally did fade to black I felt even more cheated by the pointlessly 'Cube' inspired ending.I will give credit for trying very hard, even if it failed miserably. That and the punk chick was very hot if totally under used.Can't really recommend this to anyone, save for film students looking for 'no-no' pointers.4/10$LABEL$ 0
+I don't remember the last time I reacted to a performance as emotionally as I did to Justin Timberlake's in "Edison." I got so emotional I wanted to scream in anguish, destroy the screen, readily accept the hopeless cries of nihilism. Timberlake is horribly miscast; in fact, casting him is like casting Andy Dick to play the lead role in "Patton," or Nathan Lane to play Jesus. But that is almost beside the point.Timberlake is simply a bad actor and he would be equally terrible in any role. I used to have problems with Ben Affleck's acting talent, but Timberlake makes Affleck look like Sir Ian McKellen or Dame Judi Dench. With his metrosexual lisp (read lithp), his boyish glances and emotional expressions which derive from something like "The 25 Cliché Expressions for Actors," he poisons the screen upon which he is inflicted mercilessly, and no matter how you slice it, I do not and will not buy his role as an amateur-turned-crusader-for-justice journalist. It simply will not fly.However, Timberlake alone isn't to blame for his failure. Director David J. Burke puts him not only in the (essentially) primary role, but also places him aside Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, John Heard, Dylan McDermott, Cary Elwes and (I'm surprised he was as good) LL Cool J. I can imagine one almost physically suffering watching some of this cast interact with Timberlake.There is an upside to this of course: the moment any of these actors interact without Justin there it feels like a double relief. A pleasure, if you will. Freeman and Spacey may not have more than 10 minutes of screen time alone together, but that ten minutes is blissful in contrast to their scenes with our so-called hero. Dylan McDermott is also a breath of fresh air.But enough of Timberlake bashing - words aren't enough in this particular case to do the trick. "Edison" is a very, very run-of-the-mill corruption story. It's plot ranges from cliché to simply preposterous. I do, however, admire the motivation behind making it, which I interpret as an homage to films like "Serpico," or "Donnie Brasco," or maybe even "Chinatown." Don't get me wrong - "Edison" is not even in the same ballpark as these films, but I can stretch my suspension of disbelief to admire its reason for existence, perhaps to justify my sitting through it.The script, in and of itself, features some surprisingly bad writing. Yes, it has some decent interchanges, but any conversation between Piper Perabo (who is wasted here) and Timberlake seems like it was lifted straight out of a Dawson's Creek episode. It's your typical far-too-glib-for-reality, let's-impress-the-audience-with-how-well-we-articulate (and fail) dialogue. This dialogue, mind you, is punctuated by great music at the wrong moments - sometimes it feels like "Edison" wants to morph into a music video, where the emotion of the scene is not communicated through acting, but precisely through the badly chosen music and variant film speeds (read slow-motion).Thinking about it, "Edison" is a curiosity. It's sure as hell got a cast to kill for but the performances are marred by Timberlake who simply doesn't work. In film as in most art, if one thing is off, the whole thing feels off. Directors must make tough choices. David J. Burke missed the mark here. Some of the scenes play well in and of themselves, but as a whole, they don't seem to fit like puzzle pieces from different puzzles forced into one incoherent picture. And it's not particularly an exciting puzzle to begin with.$LABEL$ 0
+In the beginning and throughout the movie, it was great. It was suspenseful and thrilling. Yet in the end it gave no answer to what had happened. They mysteriously turned into zombies by a raven or crow? It did not answer the questions that we all had and therefore, was not as good a movie as I thought that it was going to be.$LABEL$ 0
+Ever once in a while I run into a movie that is so embarrassingly bad I wonder why movies exist. This is one of them. This is a terrible attempt to parody The Godfather with annoying cartoon sounds, and bad dialogue. Eddie Deezen is just plain annoying as Tony, an annoying twit who upon his father, Don (William Hickey)'s request, takes over the family business. Tony, as I said, is an annoying little twit. This makes the whole movie a complete mess. The movie is terribly daffy. It's too cartoonish. The main point I'm trying to make is that you can't make a parody of an acclaimed drama like The Godfather with so much cartoonishness. It doesn't work that way. Believe it or not, you have to take a parody of a dramatic movie seriously. If you don't take it seriously, it will feel too much like a parody. The thing about doing a parody is that you can't seem too much like you're doing a parody. You have to make it seem like you're taking the movie at least a little bit seriously. It also feels like they're just mocking Woody Allen, and that's what makes this movie absolutely terrible.$LABEL$ 0
+When I first saw this movie, the first thing I thought was this movie was more like an anime than a movie. The reason is because it involves vampires doing incredible stunts. The stunts are very much like the Matrix moves like the moving too fast for bullets kinda thing and the jumping around very far. Another reason why I the movie is good is because the adorable anime faces they do during the movie. The way Gackt does his pouting faces or just the way they act, VERY ANIME. I think that it's a really good movie to watch. ^_^ The action in this movie is a 10 (not to mention Gackt and Hyde too are a 10). ^_~ If you are Gackt and Hyde fans, you have to see it.$LABEL$ 1
+Worst horror film ever but funniest film ever rolled in one you have got to see this film it is so cheap it is unbeliaveble but you have to see it really!!!! P.s watch the carrot$LABEL$ 1
+I loved Dewaere in Series Noir. His talent is trivialized in "The Waltzers" aka "Going Places". Okay, it's a couple of guys flaunting convention in the most absurd and irredeemable ways; many folks find such behavior amusing. This was a boring, pointless exercise designed to shock. I find the smirk on Blier's face, the face behind the camera, annoying. Series Noir was a valid expression of personal liberty and licentious behavior. From the first moment when we see Patric Dewaere prancing in the abandoned lot we get an idea of the bewilderingly beautiful anti-hero we'll be spending time with for the next couple of hours. When we see him chasing the hapless middle aged female with his buddy Depardieu in "Going Places" we have fair warning that two hours spent with these chaps will be soul-draining. I have trouble eking even a "3" for this annoying distraction.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie when it was first released and thoroughly enjoyed it. What a movie. I am in my 40s now and have 2 teenage kids and I would like them to see this movie. I would recommend it to anyone who loves a romance movie or older Elton John music.I have searched most of the stores that sell both new and old movies but have not come across any.I bought some old movies like " Melody" in Hong Kong, who had quite a collection of old movie, but they did not have this. I am also looking at the sequel, Paul & Michelle.Can anyone please tell me how to get a copy of the VHS or DVD or VCD.Really appreciate it.Many Thanks.$LABEL$ 1
+this movie delivers. the best is when the awkward teenage neighbor tries to bike away from the babysitter and in the background looks like he's never been anywhere near a bike in his life as he attempts not to fall off.but this movie doesn't stop there, when less than 5 minutes later it delivers a scene of nothing but an arm reaching through a fence and into a cooler pulling out a beer. stereotypical grilling dads, several plot lines that go nowhere, and a former seaQuest actress with a bluetooth cell phone all add up to making this the perfect Saturday night at home.$LABEL$ 0
+I read all of the other comments which made this movie out to be an excellent movie. I saw nothing of the excellence that was stated. I thought it was long and boring. I tried twice to watch it. The first time I fell asleep and the second time I made it to within six minutes of the end and gave up. I suppose that it was mainly my fault going in with great expectation, but I don't think that this would have completely ruined the movie for me. The movie was just bland. It had nothing that was spectacular or unique to it. The plot was not half bad, the action sequences were non-existent, the dialogue forced and the movie just went on forever. I would not recommend seeing this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a comedy version of "Strangers on a Train". It works pretty well. I am a harsh grader, so the 3 rating reflects mostly on the characters and plot. The performances are extremely good, all of them. Of course, the two stars, DeVito and Crystal, shine most. Each performer acts well enough to play off of. The comedy works in a level just short of slapstick. DeVito characters work best when depraved. His character, portrayed as a writing hack, would probably be more real if he was published and lauded as much as most hacks are. His character would, in real life, have a great agent and multiple solicitations. The characters are one dimensional, which is okay in comedy. But Crystals's character is not written very well. His desire to kill the "moma" all of a sudden makes no sense at all. It looks like a pitiful attempt at humor. The pitiful attempts are not too often, and the movie flows fairly well.$LABEL$ 0
+Unfortunately this original mix of action and laughs is kept from cinema fans as it sits rotting in the Columbia vaults for all eternity. A shame since this may be Jack Starrett's strongest film and features a witty script by a young Terrence Malick and fully realized performances by its two leads Stacey Keach and Frederic Forrest who turn to a life of crime so they can get the money to open a seafood restaurant. Many standout scenes include interrogation by bathtub and electric razor, and an intense shootout in an abandoned building as it's being torn down by a wrecking ball!$LABEL$ 1
+The brainchild of comic strip pioneer Alex Raymond, "Flash Gordon" was the grand daddy of all sci-fi epics. This serial is the first time Flash was brought to celluloid life. Despite it's low budget, this is a great space opera.The story begins with Earth doomed to apparent destruction, when the Planet Mongo comes hurtling through space on a collision course. Maverick scientist Dr. Zarkov is headed off for the approaching planet in a self-made rocket ship, convinced he can do something to stop the runaway celestial body. He gets some last minute recruits in the form of resourceful athlete Flash Gordon and beautiful Dale Arden. Once they reach Mongo, their problems really begin. They run afoul of dastardly Emperor Ming the Merciless, conqueror of his world, who has some ambitious plans for Earth.The rest of the serial revolves around Flash's desperate attempts to save the earth; the assorted alien cultures he encounters; the allies he makes; space ships he flies; the battles he fights, and the monsters he slays.Brilliantly conceived by Raymond, "Flash Gordon" features classic archetypes from legendary myths and fables of antiquity. Echos of famous tales, like the sagas of Troy and Camelot and Sherwood Forrest are seen here. You have the dashing, handsome hero, on a quest to save the kingdom (Flash); The evil king (Ming); The old wise man (Zarkov); The lovely damsel in distress (Dale); the seductive siren (Aura); loyal allies (Thun, Barin, Vultan); Plus monsters, dragons and assorted beasties.Flash is a modern Robin Hood, Jason or Beowulf. Ming is Prince John or Aggamemnon. Dale is Helen of Troy or Gwenevere or Maid Marion. Zarkov is Merlin or Odysseus. (Or Gandalf) Thun/Barin/Vultan are the Merry Men or the Knights of the Round Table.You get the idea.You can't help but notice how many ideas from "Flash Gordon" would later reappear in STAR WARS. The cloud City; The ice World; The forest moon; The scrolling opening text (From the second serial); There are others, but you get the gist. The whole sci-fi genre owes a great debt to this timeless classic.Buster Crabb is the perfect action hero, and I personally think he's better at this sort of role than any of the current crop of action stars. He also played Buck Rogers and Tarzan.Charles Middleton is the embodiment of diabolical nastiness as Ming. Sure, he seems a bit melodramatic today, but that was what audiences expected from their bad guys in the 30's. Jean Rogers is our hero's love interest Dale Arden, and I had such a crush on her when I first saw this as a boy. I can readily understand why Flash always rushed to her rescue. She's the quintessential good girl, to counterpoint the seductive manipulations of Aura, the quintessential bad girl.The supporting cast seemed perfectly chosen to emulated their comic strip counterparts, and despite the now-silly looking FXs, there was a lot of thrilling action in this groundbreaking serial.An all around fun romp and the beginning of the sci-fi genre in cinema.$LABEL$ 1
+This is easily the worst Presley vehicle ever, which would bring us pretty close to the worst film ever made. It is measurably worse than even the revolting "Happy Ending" song at the end of "It Happened At The World's Fair", and here I thought that moment when Elvis buys all of the vendor's balloons for his girl, and then the balloon vendor gets jiggy to the marching band was the epitome of bad cinema and could not be topped. I usually enjoy the random Elvis flick if for no other reason but the memories of a time when we were innocent enough to sit through it. This one, however, ought to be called "Live a Little, Wish You Were Dead a Little", and makes "Stay Away Joe" look like Olivier playing Othello.Here, Elvis plays Greg, who is essentially a hippie free-lance photographer except for the Establishment haircut. After a fun morning of reckless driving, he ends up at the beach where he is abducted by a woman who's name changes depending on the scene and who is speaking to her. Clearly Michele Carey was selected for her resemblance to and ability to mimic Elizabeth Taylor (if I watched this without my glasses, I would have thought it was late 1960's Liz playing the female lead). She sics her dog on Elvis until he runs into the water and catches convenient movie pneumonia, then she keeps him doped up out of consciousness in her beach pad so long he loses his job and his apartment so she moves his stuff into her house before he awakens without even telling him (the audience does not know about it either, until Elvis tries to go back to work and his boss has him beaten up for no reason except he deserved it for making this movie, and tries to go home and finds some hateful woman in a slip living in his house).Rather than having her arrested for kidnapping, larceny and assault, he goes out and gets two jobs to repay the back rent Miss Crazy Pants had to spring for when stealing all of his belongings. Job one is working for Don Porter at a Playboy type magazine, job two is upstairs working for Rudy Vallee at a snobby fashion magazine. I think the two-job shuffling is supposed to be the comedy, too bad it isn't the least bit funny, unless you'd laugh the 100th time you saw someone run up and down stairs in fast-motion to silly music. The predominate obstacle that keeps Greg from falling for his abductor is her other love interest, the dreadfully miscast Dick Sargent (let's face it, either Porter or Vallee, even given their advanced ages in 1968, would have made far more believable competitors for Miss Crazy's affections).There are a variety of uninteresting and unfunny twists and turns, I kept waiting for something, anything to happen that would make all of this make sense. It never did. Entertainment totals approximately three minutes and is comprised of Elvis' rendition of "A Little Less Talk" (which I can listen to on CD without this painful movie inflicted upon me) and a funny five second bit where Elvis flops on the couch and Crazy Pants has apparently disassembled it so it flies all to pieces when he lands on it. That's it, folks, busted furniture, the only laugh in this entire film. No amount of mod sixties clothing, music, or décor can salvage this high-heaven stinker and it should be avoided at all costs. Viewing this can create an unnatural desire on the part of the audience toward the self-infliction of grave bodily harm.$LABEL$ 0
+Even though this was set up to be a showcase for some kickboxing and swordplay, "Vampires: The Turning" (VTT) could have aspired beyond that. Because it doesn't even aspire to be a good vampire movie, VTT fails to deliver any punch that it may have been attempting to.Using the idea of an 800-year-old thai vampire was interesting, but the story about progeny she mistakenly brought into existence (and now must wipe out) actually reminds me of Gizmo and his plight in "Gremlins," and that isn't a good thing when it come to a vampire flick.Stephanie Chao is attractive and serves as the "good" vampire very well, but her lack of any accent grates when you realize that she's an 800-year-old vampire. Added to that, when she tells Connor he's "a young soul," she doesn't deliver the line with much of the weight you would expect from an "old" soul. Attractive, but not believable.Meredith Monroe was more believable in her role but, for a "Dawson's Creek" alum, you would think she would have more screen time. The question of whether Amanda succumbs and "turns" is the most compelling reason to continue watching this movie, and you never get it. You get a tease of it, but you never actually get any type of development out of the characters for that plot device. It's a cheap way to play your audience, folks.If you want something that is a good vampire movie, go find Lugosi's "Dracula," and if you want a sexy vampire movie, you have dozens of flicks from Hammer with a lot more strength than this one. In the end, if you want good or sexy, this isn't the place. This is just forgettable.$LABEL$ 0
+And that's why historic/biographic movies are so important to all of us, moreover when they are so well done, like this one!Before I saw "The Young Victoria", I knew a few things about Queen Victoria, but in the end I got much more knowledge about it. Emily Blunt is simply GREAT as Victoria (Who would guess that!) and She probably will get a nomination at this years Oscar's. Personally, I'm cheering for her...For technical issues, I am pleased to say that is a very successful production, with wonderful Art Direction/Set Decoration and, of course, like It was expected to be, a terrific periodic Costume Design! The one drawback is that I want to see more and know more about this interesting queen, but foremost, incredible woman and mother! BRAVO: 9 out of 10!$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is just plain bad. It isn't even worth watching to make fun of it. The lunatic professor is just plain annoying. Even suspending disbelief to allow for invisibility (which I glady do for the sake of good bad movies) and allowing for exceedingly stupid victims in a horror movie, this movie asks for even more than that. If you are looking for women's locker room shower scenes, and random sexual encounters, get a porn, if you are looking for a good-bad movie, get something else. If you want to simply waste your time on an annoying bad movie, rent this.$LABEL$ 0
+...left behind when the ostensible heroine's Venus flytrap makes any man whose sexual advances are forced upon her--ahem!--disappear. Fiona "This IS my career!" Horsey is an attractive enough screamqueen ingenué, although I found her acting chops to be suspect. With better direction, and a better vehicle, she might improve. Likely as not, her leading man, Paul "Mine, too!" Conway, never will, proving to be one of the most unlikeable, unattractive love interests I've seen in a film in recent memory. There's some nonsense involving Siamese twins, a frying-pan-to-the-head-obvious hot dog joke, a reasonable amount of bare boobies, production values in the low-budget-to-laughable range, scripting that would make Syd Field cry, acting that by and large only an Ed Wood could love, and camera-work a step above pedestrian. The vagina dentata gimmick might well have made for an interesting horror movie, but "Angst" botches the premise. Strictly for stoned-out viewing, and even then, you could do much better. Sturgeon's Law (or Revelation) still holds.$LABEL$ 0
+If you made a genre flick in the late 80s, you basically had a 50/50 chance it would either be set underwater or in a prison (sadly, we never got an underwater prison flick). Framed for murder by mafia boss Moretti (Anthony Franciosa), Derek Keillor (Dennis Cole) ends up on death row, right alongside the mob boss' brother Frankie (Frank Sarcinello Jr.). But this is the least of Derek's problems as rogue government agent (and mob stoolie) Col. Burgess (John Saxon, who also directs) is using the prison as a testing ground for a new supervirus. This is the only flick Saxon directed during his storied career. For a guy who has worked with tons of directors, it appears the only ones he picked up any tips from were the cheap-o Italian ones. Sure, it is low budget, but that can't excuse the stilted staging, shooting gaffes, or clumsy exposition in the first 15 minutes. To his credit, Saxon did make it slightly gory and he works in a hilarious nude scene (our lead falls asleep during a prison riot only to fantasize about a female scientist). Cole, who looks like a more rugged Jan-Michael Vincent, is decent as the stoic lead and Franciosa - sporting a really bad rug - gives it his all as the cliché mob boss. The end takes place at Marty McKee's favorite location, Bronson Canyon. Retromedia released this on DVD as ZOMBIE DEATH HOUSE.$LABEL$ 0
+.... may seem far fetched.... but there really was a real life story.. of a man who had an affair with a woman, who found out where he and his new wife were staying,, and she killed the wife,, making it look like a murder rape.......in her delusion she had told everyone that the man had asked her to marry him.. so she quit her job in Wisconsin... and moved to Minnesota..........last I heard she was in a mental institution, Security Prison....she was still wearing the "engagement ring." that she has purchased for herself... and had told everyone that he had bought it for her.The events took place in a small town in Wisconsin,,,,,,, and the murder happened in Minnesota......There even was a feature story in "People" magazine... Spring of 1988, I want to say on Page 39. I remember this as I was in college at the time,, and a colleague of mine had met the individual in the Security Hospital....$LABEL$ 0
+Certainly this film is not for everybody---but for anyone with a sense of humor and love of period film Ð buy this immediately! Where else can you get a run down of 70Õs fashion, a period vocabulary primer, karate trained hookers, crime, a rap about the TitanicÕs sinking, shoot outs, and a co-star named Queen Bee (watch for her moving crying scene early on in the wardens office!) With a filming style thatÕs a cross between a porno movie/Dawn of The Dead/ and Car Wash, you cannot go wrong. This is one to watch over and over againÉafter you put the kids to bed.$LABEL$ 1
+I don't know what this movie is about, really. It's like a student's art school project. They never say why the world is dark, but it is always darkness except for seconds a day. There are long, interrupting shots of insects of all sorts for no reason. What little dialogue there is in the movie is as inane and nonsensical as the images. A black woman enters the main character's apartment. Somehow she becomes pregnant overnight, then gets shot in the head. The main character takes care of the body until it becomes a cocoon after which a white naked woman emerges. I have never been so blown away by how bad and pointless a movie can be. Honestly, I would like someone to watch it so they can tell me what they think it's about. But I wouldn't wish this level of hell on anybody else.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie surely has one of the strangest themes in history -- right up there with Ed Wood's impassioned defense of cross-dressing in "Glen or Glenda?"The subject: playing bridge. The Park Avenue set plays it; the Bohemians play it. The Russians -- who speak very questionable "Russian" and have most unconvincing accents when they speak English -- play it at the restaurant where they work.If one isn't interested in bridge, one -- even despite the great cast -- isn't likely to be much interested in this bizarre movie.Loretta Young and Paul Lukas are fine. (Well --Frank McHugh is an unlikely ghost writer -- as Lukas is an unlikely Russian.) But they are all sunk by the fetishistic script.$LABEL$ 0
+The true life story of perhaps the greatest football coach the game has ever known. Knute Rockne led the game of football out of the "stone age" with innovations such as the forward pass and offensive formation shifts. But he is probably best known for his motivational locker room speeches. Along the way, he brought fame and glory to a tiny, little, unknown Catholic school in Indiana. Pat O'Brien is incomparable in his role as Rockne. Terrific cast that includes Ronald Reagan who gives a great performance as Notre Dame's first, true superstar, George Gipp.For Football aficionados, this is the greatest football movie ever made. Do yourself a favor and rent the black and white version. (Some versions have deleted scenes for some reason) If you got the good version, look for a brief cameo by the immortal Jim Thorpe as he sticks his head in the locker room telling Rockne and the team they only have a few minutes left before the 2nd half begins.$LABEL$ 1
+Now, it would be some sort of cliché if i began with the bit about the title, so i'll wait on that. First, this movie made me wonder why kids do stupid things like wander around in labs and break bottles. Then i realized it, this is a movie with a message, that message is beat kids and things like this won't happen. Things like what you ask? Things like a giant insectish monster growing up and causing a bit of mayhem before dying in the typical "kill the monster indirectly" fashion. Now, as promised... Blue Monkey... has nothing Blue in it nor any Simian of any kind. Now it snot like i was cheated or anything. The picture on the cover had a giant bug/crab/idiot/thing on the front chasing some screaming nurses. That kinda happened but i wanted apes! having just enjoyed MOST EXTREME PRIMATE a few nights before(half drunk on Cask and Creame's brandy mind you) i was in the mood for more monkey hijacks 80's style. Not so much. If you like snow boarding apes or blue things this movie is not for you. If you like bugs and good reasons to hit kids, rent this.$LABEL$ 0
+John Huston was seriously ill when he made his final achievement,and it's thoroughly his testament:uncompromising,difficult ,a thousand miles away from crazes and fashions,it will stand as the best "last film" you can ever dream of.A very austere screenplay,no action,no real hero,but a group of people coping with the vanity of life,the fleeting years and death.The party doesn't delude people for long.Admittedly,warmth and affection emanate from the songs and the meal,complete with turkey and pudding.But the passage of time has partly ruined Julia's voice,first crack in the mirror.Then the camera leaves the room where the guests are gathered and searches the old lady's bedroom.For sure,hers seems to have been a happy life,but it's a life inexorably coming to an end-A shot shows towards the end of the movie Julia on her future deathbed-.Maybe an unfulfilled life,because she remained a spinster,with no children to carry on .Only some poor things,yellowish photographs,bibelots and trinklets.... But are a human being's hopes and dreams all fulfilled?Look at Gretta.She 's a married woman ,about thirty-five,she's still beautiful and healthy but she knows something is broken.What Julia is today,she will be tomorrow,that's why,in her stream of consciousness,she goes back to her past,only to find out how harrowing her memories are: a young man committed suicide for her,a symbol of her youth now waning.The final monologue,if we listen closely to it,involves us all in this eternal tragedy,the doomed to failure human condition,John Huston's masterly lesson.$LABEL$ 1
+Yes, I admire the independent spirit of it all, but it's like Road Trip with a bad cast and no budget.I chuckle when I watch American comedies, I don't laugh. This movie made me laugh, but only because of the abundantly obvious attempts to simulate high-budget American high school/pot-flicks.If you want good independent American comedy with pot-references, go watch Kevin Smith or Richard Linklater flicks or something. Don't waste your time on this piece of sh't movie.I mean, how can you take these comments seriously when most people are complaining about the characters not smoking pot!And by the way: in Norway it's called "Dude, Where's My Pot"!$LABEL$ 0
+Perhaps I missed something, but I found GOYA'S GHOSTS to be a tedious costume melodrama. As to the story it was trying to tell, I found that a confusing mish-mash that went off in all directions. And perhaps it should have been made by a Spanish director with the appropriate languages subtitled rather than in unconvincingly accented English. I can't judge the historical veracity of the story but it seemed to move along with a similar "artist's model's tragic fate" plot line as GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING. Was the movie a commentary on the religious injustices of the Inquisition, false piety, torture then and now, or what???? I never seemed to be able to figure that one out. Natalie Portman's various characters also seemed ridiculously stereotypical. And ultimately the movie was crowned with the concluding melodrama of a disheveled Bardem's head and body hanging on the edge of cart heading off into the sunset…with Ines and Goya following along behind………Can't Milos Forman do better than that?$LABEL$ 0
+I clerk in a video store, so I try to see the movies we're about to put out each week. I don't have a problem with this; in fact, I sort of feel it's a privilege. Not so with this film . . . After an hour and a half of our hero whining and growling his way through scene after scene, I was truly wondering if they planned to get to the point. I felt like I should be getting paid for watching this at home, in my free time. And if I'd known there was another hour to be endured, I might have given up right then. I didn't care about the characters, the filming was unremarkable, and Ford made kissing look like a chore. Even the score was incongruous and jarring. What a waste.$LABEL$ 0
+This wasn't funny in 1972. It's not funny now.Unlike a lot of other people, I'm not bashing the film because it is incredibly sexist - I quote enjoyed that bit, or rather I enjoyed the reaction it generates in annoying PC people - I'm bashing it because it is poorly written and acted.The only really memorable character is Blakey, which British people 25 years old will recognise immediately since he was a favourite with impressionists for a long time.Avoid.$LABEL$ 0
+When I was a little girl, I absolutely adored The Swan Princess, it was reliving the same fairy tales of Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella, the princess and her prince who saves the day is always a timeless story that will never die, well, hopefully. But I figured that I would check out the sequels for The Swan Princess to see what they were like and unfortunately, this is the typical cartoon sequel that just disappoints more than entertains. The only character I found still very amusing was the Queen, she was very funny in this movie and had the best part. But with the voice changes, they were noticeable and also bothered me quite a bit, I don't mean to be picky, just it was too weird for me. The story also was just more or less borrowed from the first Swan Princess, just the villain in this movie is following Rothbart's footsteps.Odette and Derek are about to celebrate their one year anniversary, but Derek has been too preoccupied with fighting for his kingdom to keep it safe. With his mother's birthday also coming up, he forgets about that since there is a new villain in town, Clavious, who is hoping to go above and beyond where Rothbart's powers went and kidnaps the Queen on her birthday. But Odette must change back into her swan self in order to help Derek fight him and save his mother.The Swan Princess 2 is of course more than alright for the kids, that I never mind, it's good clean fun for them. The reason why these sequels are disappointing though is because it is usually just for the kids, that is the audience they aim for, but it's more enjoyable when the jokes and story can be enjoyed by everyone. Now there are a few laughs and giggles here and there, but this wasn't as clever in my opinion to the first Swan Princess. I would recommend it for the little one's, but if you're looking for a fun cartoon movie, I'd recommend staying with the first Swan Princess.4/10$LABEL$ 0
+I think Lion King 1 1/2 is one of the best sequels ever as if not the best out of the three Lion King movies! In the movie Timon and Pumbaa tell us where they came from and having trouble fitting in with others such as Timon having trouble digging tunnels with other Meercats! Timon and Pumbaa journey off into finding their dream place and find it and soon find it and also Simba who they raise but soon they must choose between their dream place or helping Simba face his evil Uncle Scar and proclaim his right as the Lion King of Pride Rock! Filled with wonderful new characters like Timon's Ma(Julie Kavner) and Uncle Max (Jerry Stiller). I think my favorite character was Uncle Max because he was very funney and was voiced by a funney comedian Jerry Stiller the father of Ben Stiller. Disney was smart to cast Stiller in that role! Filled with wonderful characters, animation, and story and music Lion King 1 1/2 is in my opinion the best of any sequel and better than Simba's Pride even though I will admit I really did like that one too! Lion King 1 1/2 is a great Disney sequel the whole family can enjoy! It's got a good story and is very funney! 10 out of 10!$LABEL$ 1
+I gather from reading the previous comments that this film went straight to cable. Well, I paid to see it in a theatre, and I'm glad I did because visually it was a striking film. Most of the settings seem like they were made in the early 60s (except for the shrink's office, which was dated in a different way), and if you leave the Neve Campbell sequences out, the whole film has a washed- out early 60s ambience. And the use of restaurants in the film was fascinating. For a first-time director whose background, I believe, is in writing, he has a great eye. Within the first ten minutes I felt the plot lacked plausibility, so I just willingly suspended my disbelief and went along for the ride. In terms of acting and the depiction of father-son, mother-son, husband-wife, parent-child relationships, the film was spot-on. William H. Macy, a pleasure to watch, seems to be filling the void left by the late Tony Perkins, if this and Magnolia are any indication. Tracey Ullman as the neglected wife was quite moving, to me. It was a three-dimensional depiction of a character too often viewed by society as two-dimensional. Of course, Donald Sutherland can add this to his collection of unforgettable portrayals. The depiction of the parents (Bain/Sutherland) reminded me, in an indirect way, of Vincent Gallo's BUFFALO '66, although toned-down quite a bit! I would definitely pay money to see a second film from this director. He has the self-discipline of a 50s b-crimefilm director (something P.T.Anderson will never have!), yet he has a visual style and a way with actors that commands attention.$LABEL$ 1
+If your a fan of Airplane type movies this is a must see! Set in the 1920's and 30's Johnny Dangerously has not only great actors but great lines. "knock down dat wall,knock down dat wall and knock down dat #@$%#@$ wall." "You shouldn't hang me on a hook johnny" or "Sounds like Johnnys getting laid". Its definitely a spoof of the old James Cagney Movies and references them a lot. There's a great scene when Jhonnys walking down death row and has a priest set up for his escape. Listen closely to the fake priests readings, its pretty funny. Another great scene is when Dom Delauise plays the Pope. Watch his reaction to Johnny after he tips the Pope, a lot said without making a sound.I recommend this movie to all who love to laugh or are old movie buffs.$LABEL$ 1
+One of the best if not the best rock'n'roll movies ever. And it's not just mindless fun. There really were a lot of clever jokes in it. Of course I love the Ramones. But with all the "anarchy" and the "I hate high school" themes, the film doesn't at all take itself too seriously,which is what's great about it.I first saw the movie in the Spring of 1980, and I saw it again recently. Since I went to high school in the late 1970's, it made me kind of nostalgic. Like I said, this film doesn't take itself that seriously and isn't pretentious like so much other teen fare of the seventies, eighties, and nineties. And to speak of, it's not really dirty or disgusting either. Only PG rated. That's rare for a movie in this category. A great cult classic and a truly incredible time capsule.$LABEL$ 1
+This is the page for "House of Exorcism", but most people have confused this film with the Mario Bava masterpiece, "Lisa & the Devil", which explains the ridiculously high rating for this, "House of exorcism." When "Lisa & the Devil" was shown at film festivals in the early 70's, it was a critical success. Audiences responded well to that gorgeous, Gothic horror film. Unfortunately it was a bit ahead of it's time, and was considered too unusual, and not commercial enough for mass consumption. No distributor would buy it. So producer Alfredo Leone decided to edit 'Lisa', seemingly with a chainsaw, by removing just about half of the original film, and adding new scenes, which he filmed two years after the original product! It is important to note that Bava had little to do with these new, hideous additions, so technically "House of Exorcism" is not a Bava film. The original product is a slow, dreamy, classy production. A few minutes into the film, the viewer is jarred out of this dream world, as suddenly we see Lisa, (two years older, and with a very different haircut), begin to writhe on the ground, making guttural sounds and croaking epitaphs like "suck my co@k", etc. Subtle, huh? And the film continues like this, jumping back and forth between a beautiful, visual film, and a grade Z "Exorcist" rip-off. Leone was trying to incorporate these shock scenes, while keeping some semblance of a story intact. He failed miserably. When the choice was made to basically destroy "Lisa and the devil", Bava himself refused, saying that his film was too beautiful to cut. He was right, and it must have been quite sad for this artist to see all his work destroyed and flushed down the toilet. It was many years before the original "Lisa and the Devil" was seen again, re-surfacing on late night television. I had seen "lisa" long before i saw this new version, and it was downright disturbing to witness one of my favorite films "vandalised" in this way. Worth seeing only for curiosity sake. Otherwise avoid this insidious disaster like the plague.$LABEL$ 0
+Another chapter in the ongoing question, whatever happened to Mel Brooks's sense of humor? It starts out nicely enough, with Mel as Trump-like mogul Goddard Bolt ("You can call me God"), who accepts a bet that he can't live on the streets for 30 days. But the moment the movie hits the streets, it turns into a pathos-laden mess, with occasional "funny" bits interjected (Mel sees a black kid break-dancing for money and tries to do a vaudeville buck-and-wing, yuk, yuk). Leslie Ann Warren is nothing short of wasted. The worst part is this movie's musical number, in which Brooks and Warren do a silent dance to Cole Porter's "Easy to Love." Brooks's musical parodies are usually the highlights of his movies; here he plays the whole thing straight, like a dancing excerpt from an aging guest star on "The Carol Burnett Show" (on which Rudy DeLuca, this film's co-writer, began his career). Go rent Charlie Chaplin's THE KID, which covered the same ground 70 years before and did a lot$LABEL$ 0
+this became a cult movie in chinese college students, though i havnt watched it until it is broadcasted in channel4, UK.full of arty giddy pretentions, the plot is mediocre and unreal; the 'spirit' it wants to convey is how independent artists 'resist the commercisliation of music industry' and maintain their' purity of an artistic soul' and wouldnt 'sell themselves for dirty money'. that is really giddy and superficial; the diologue are mainly pathetic. acting is poor. sceenplay is full of art pretention. it is a fantasy movie for kids and that;s all$LABEL$ 0
+I walked into the movie theater, with no expectations for the film I was about to witness, "Everything is Illuminated". I walked out with a joy I have barely come to feel with American films. The directorial debut of actor, Leiv Schreiber, the film follows a man on his journey through the past, accompanied by an eccentric group including a brake-dancing barely English-speaking punk from the Eukraine, his grandfather who believes he is blind, and their crazy dog. The first half of the film is funny and smart with an extremely European flavor in the usage of small but wonderful characters, while the second half of the film descends into a somber story of discovery and the holocaust. This little movie brings out so many emotions, and so many colors, with such a wonderful conclusion and is more than just a story of illumination, but also of relationships and connections. The acting is incredibly powerful, the story mysterious and interesting, and the artistic appeal of the cinematography, to die for. With some brilliant and absolutely touching scenes "Everything is Illuminated" managed to capture my heart.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm glad that this is available on DVD now. This film is an excellent example of the triumph of content & style over empty-headed flashing lights & constant loud noises.Essentially, if you have a short attention span or lack the wit & imagination to engage with literary narrative you won't like this film. The reasons for this are quite simple, but unfortunately rarely achieved: Matthew Jacobs has done a fantastic job of transposing the story of Catherine Storr's novel 'Marianne Dreams' successfully to a screenplay. An unenviable task as anyone who has seen a film of a book will undoubtedly know.The casting is excellent, allowing director Bernard Rose to use the actors in a way that is rarely seen now; they indulge in the craft of acting! I know, I know, actors doing their job & acting instead of resorting to mugging inanely at the camera lens whist a kaleidoscope of car chases, explosions & fire fights break out around them is a genuinely rare treat, but it does actually happen in this film.This brings me to the final reason that this is a film for the imaginative thinker & not the spoon-fed tabloid reader - Apart from a solid script, direction & acting, it relies on atmosphere, suspense & implied horror. If it is to be categorized as horror then the presentation of 'Paper House' is more in the vein of Sophocles than Tobe Hooper.In conclusion then, if you like lots of loud noises, explosions, constant cuts, & bright flashing colours you'd be better off watching 'Transformers', but if you like a suspenseful story which unfolds through a skillful & evocative use of narrative without insulting your intelligence by force feeding you cacophonous nonsense then this might just be your thing.$LABEL$ 1
+Don't waste your time. One of those cool-looking boxes that you pick up at Blockbuster on a hunch, but not even worth that. You will NOT say, "It's so bad, it's good." Just, "It's bad." The Greatest American Hero is a writer who rents a cabin on African island, called Snake Island. Some other tourists are on the boat that drops him off, but they are not staying on the island. They just stop there to let off the writer. Then the boat is stranded there, and --in true Hollywood originality-- the one and only radio on the island is busted. So they start walking around and see a bunch of snakes. Like hundreds of them, which really became annoying and you knew the plot would go nowhere. It's not like there ever was ONE main snake. Like a giant mutated snake or an extra poisonous king of all snakes. Instead, there are just a bunch of ham-and-egger snakes of all kinds of breeds. Their only goal, then, was to escape the island...as opposed to having to conquer the enemy. Because there were so many snakes, you knew they couldn't possibly try to kill them all, and they didn't try. I've seen a similar movie where a town was haunted by snakes and they lead all the snakes into a cave then blew it up. At least then you get the feeling that the good guys killed the bad guys and it was a normal ending. In Snake Island (by the way, every single character was shocked to see snakes on the Island...duhhhhh, it's NAMED Snake Island for a reason), there was no plan other than trying to get gas for the stupid boat. Oh, they never do get gas by the way. They "just happen" to find another boat on the island already gassed up.$LABEL$ 0
+Making a movie about a Comic is hard to do. Making a good movie about a Comic is extremely hard to do. Making a good movie about Asterix & Obelix has been done.This movie shows that the french do know how to make an : a) funny , b) hilarious , c) beautiful , d) superb movie. The acting is no less than superb , the sunny feel to the whole movie is perfect .. A MUST see ! This just has to be the funniest thing to come out since we started the new millenium.. 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+First of all, I became dissy after watching this movie for five minutes (cause of the bas screenplay). I don't think this movie has any purpose. It's boring from the first minute to the last. I don't understand why this movie scores so high. I gave it 1/10 but actually it's not more wurth then 0/10.$LABEL$ 0
+The portrayal of the Marines in this film is spot on. The action scenes are some of the best ever produced in accuracy of content. The uniforms and weaponry of both the U.S. and German troops were perfect. The costumes and weaponry of the Berbers were perfectly accurate as well. This film could easily be used to teach militaria of the period and has been used by the USMC Academy for this purpose. The scenes depicting Roosevelt shooting and the rifles he was using was beautiful. Procuring so many period weapons in such good shape is testament to the attention to detail and presentation this film should be noted for. Millius is a genius.$LABEL$ 1
+Yet another Die Hard straight to video rip off with cardboard villains… How many more of these god awful cheaply (and badly) made rip off of the more popular action movies of the late 1980's and early 1990's are there still lurking out there? For the record (not that you will care really) this one is yet another blatant rip off of a combination of Die Hard, Under Siege and Speed 2 complete with a full complement of clichés and predictability.The non descript villains are the usual selection of cardboard cut out gun toting thugs who are dispatched by various means as the film progresses, the hero naturally is an ex cop or something that has family and attitude problems and of course he brings along to the party not only the usual emotional baggage but also a matching piece of eye candy and his annoying son.The supposed luxury cruise liner that is running between Florida and Mexico is carefully described as a cross between a liner and a ferry – this goes someway to explaining how come they appear to be larking around on a rusty cross channel ferry – in New Zealand! The acting is as wooden as the deck, the script woeful, the one liners predictable, the villains utterly inept and the plot has holes in it you could sail a boat through.There seems to be a never ending tide of this sort of rip off straight to video rubbish polluting the late night slots of television and the DVD bargain bins of supermarkets everywhere (although even this film is so bad it has yet to see a DVD release yet but give it time!) Is there any chance of something at least half decently made, semi believable and most important ORIGINAL?!? No, I thought not…..$LABEL$ 0
+Garam Masala is one of the funniest film I've seen in ages. Akshay Kumar is excellent as the womaniser who has affairs with 3 girls and engaged at the same time. John Abraham is Amusing at times and this is one of his best works so far. Paresh Rawail is superb as usual in most of his films. The director Priyadarshan has delivered great Movies in the past. Hera Pheri, Hungama and Hulchul being some of the Best. Garam Masala is his funniest film he has made. The three newcomer actresses are average. Rimi sen doesn't get much scope in this movie. I was impressed to see how Priyadarshan made a movie with a simple storyline of a guy having a affair with 3 girls at the same time. All 3 girls have a day off in the same day and end up in the same house. Packed with loads of Laughs, this is one Non stop Entertainer.$LABEL$ 1
+Week after week these women just sweep all the men of their feet. Get real. None of these women are "Knockouts". Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) looks like the type of woman men would pick up at !:45am before the bar closed after their vision and standards were equally impaired by ten or eleven martinis. Yet she's the queen bee, a super-sexy man-killer. The other three don't fare much better. And their constant foul mouthed comments.....not to mention that they jump in and out of bed with strange men and never catch a disease. This show is pathetic .and creepy.I don't think any man would be terribly attracted to any of these women, even if he popped Viagra like Tic Tacs while on shore leave.$LABEL$ 0
+This documentary has been aired on both RTE and BBC in the last number of months. Having seen it twice now I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in media and documentary film making.Initially this documentary was meant to detail the political life of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The Irish crew set off with those intentions. What happens when they get to Venezuela is startling as they witness first hand the attempted overthrow by rebel factions (particularly the oil concerns in Venezuela) of Chavez and his government. What we the audience witness is just how the media manipulates the situation and in effect backs the overthrow of Chavez by distorting events that transpire as the coup heightens.It really is an excellent documentary and a remarkable piece of work by a couple of novice filmmakers.$LABEL$ 1
+Or maybe that's what it feels like. Anyway, "The Bat People" is about as flat as a rug, bland as a sack of flour and as exciting as a rock...and as intelligent as all three combined.Okay, plot in a nutshell (fitting vessel, that...): a doctor (Moss) gets bitten by a bat while checking out a cave with his wife (McAndrew) and subsequently turns into a bat - well, not exactly a bat but a bat-like creature that looks more like a werewolf who kills his victims in a first-person camera viewpoint....But then there's the business of the sheriff (Pataki), who is about the WORST kind of sheriff: the hick kind. He hassles people, he leers at married women, he steals handkerchiefs from haberdasheries (the FIEND!), he smokes with one of those cigarette holders in his mouth and talks at the same time, making him look and sound like Buford T. Justice in "Smokey and the Bandit" and (this is the worst part)... HE'S THE MOST LIKEABLE CHARACTER IN THE WHOLE FILM!The whole film, though, is just TV movie-of-the-week-like crapola (guano, in this case). It's an AIP, for crying out loud! What did you expect, Oscar caliber stuff?And what else can you say about a film that not even MST3K can save?How about...no stars for "The Bat People", full version OR MST3K version!By the way, if there's ever a sequel for this movie, I'm burying my TV.$LABEL$ 0
+Warning: Spoilers Galore!Tim Burton remaking this sui generis movie is about as sensible as remaking Psycho - oh, that's right, some idiot already did that - I rest my case.Movie opens with chimpnaut blundering a simulation, proving he's not that smart from the outset. Marky Mark appears in shot without his characteristic underpants showing, then is turned down by a plain woman who prefers the touch of chimpanzees.The perfunctory establishing shot of the space station orbiting Saturn for no apparent reason, interior of ship a-bustle with genetic experiments on apes. Must we travel 1,300 million kilometers to Saturn to conduct these experiments? The special effects team decrees it.Marky's chimp gets lost in that staple of 60s sci-fi cinema - the Time Warp. Marky then demonstrates the space station's mind-boggling security ineptness by stealing a pod without anyone noticing, while simultaneously demonstrating his abject stupidity in mounting a deep-space rescue mission into a worm-hole for an expendable test chimp, with a million dollar vehicle with limited fuel and oxygen supplies.Before anyone can say `Pointless Remake' Marky has surfed the worm-hole, crashed on an alien planet, removed his helmet without any thought to the lethality of the atmosphere and is being chased through a sound stage that almost resembles a lush rainforest, if it weren't for the kliegs backlighting the plastic trees.Surprise! It's APES doing the chasing - or at least, it *would* have been a surprise if no one saw Planet Of The Apes THIRTY-THREE YEARS AGO.Since Marky Mark did not get to show his pecs, take down his pants, or bust his lame whiteboy rap, he was characterless. Michael Clarke Duncan's gorilla teeth being inserted crookedly helped immensely in establishing *his* lack of character. Helena Bonham-Carter (aka irritating chimp activist), at a loss without a Shakespearean script, did a fine job of outdoing both Marky and Clarke as Most Cardboard Cutout. Paul Giamatti, the orangutan slave trader, secured the role of token comic relief and interspecies klutz. Though I have grown bilious in hearing puns relating to this movie, one review headline captured the essence of this Planet Of The Apes `re-imagining': `The Apes Of Roth'. While everyone else minced about looking like extras from One Million Years BC or Greystoke, Tim Roth, as Chimpanzee Thade, chews massive amounts of scenery and hurls kaka splendiferously. As entertaining as his portrayal of the psychotic Thade was, his character lacked a behavioral arc: Thade is mad when we first meet him... and he's pretty much at the same level of mad at film's end. Nice twist.The original POTA (1968) featured a leading character, Charlton Heston's Taylor, who was so disenchanted with mankind that he left earth for space with no regrets - yet as that film progressed, Taylor unwittingly found himself locked in a battle to prove mankind's worth - as their sole champion! The original film was ultimately a tale of humiliation, not salvation: when Taylor discovers the Statue of Liberty, he is forced to realize that his species had NOT prevailed. Is there anything that cerebral or ironic to Marky Mark's Leo? Or Roth's Thade? No, but there's lots of running.The slogans cry: Take Back The Planet .but it's the APES' planet. In this movie, humans and apes crash-landed here together, the humans having degenerated to cavepeople, allowing the apes to acquire speech and sensual body armor; the apes DESERVED to inherit the planet! Along comes Marky Mark, in true anthropocentric arrogance, taking it for granted that humans HAVE to be the apex predators, simply because they're there. `Taking it back' is as ludicrous as apes landing here in 2001, complaining, `A planet where men evolved from APES??!!' and then causing trouble with their overacting and hairy anuses.Heston was cast in the 1968 POTA because he had established his reputation as a maverick: he WAS Ben-Hur, Michelangelo, Moses! To cast him as the mute, dogged animal in an alien society was to stupefy an audience's expectations: how crazed must a world be where Our Man Charlton cannot command respect? Marky Mark has currently only established that he has tight underpants.Though Heston was denigrated constantly by the ape council, he dominated the screen with his charisma and stupendous overacting. When Marky Mark tries to instill fervor in the mongoloid humans, it's like that unpopular guy in school suddenly being made classroom monitor, who tells you to stop drawing penises on the blackboard and you throw a shoe at him. Burton tries to elevate Marky to humanity's icon, but he comes off as a chittering deviant. In the original film, the apes deem Taylor a deviant, yet he was, to audience and apes alike, an icon of humanity. That irony again.It was apt that a man who elevated scene-chewing to an acting technique - Heston - should play the father of this film's primo scene-chewer, Thaddeus Roth. As Roth's ape-dad, Charlton utters his own immortal lines, turned against the HUMANS this time, `Damn them! Damn them all to hell!'The movie gets dumb and dumber towards the end. While Thaddeus is giving Marky an ass-beating lesson, a pod descends from on high with Marky's chimpnaut in it. Apes demonstrate their hebetude by bowing in obeisance to this incognizant creature, while Marky proves his own hebetude by muttering, `Let's teach these monkeys about evolution.' Firstly, they're not monkeys, you ape! Secondly, it was genetic tampering and imbecilic plot fabrications which brought the apes to this point, not evolution. And what you intend to teach them by blowing them away with the concealed lasergun is called misanthropy, not evolution.Giving away the twist ending would only confuse viewers into believing that Estella Warren's half-nekkid role was actually integral to the plot (be still my pants.).No matter that he was humankind's last underpanted hope; in the end, cop apes take Marky away to Plot Point Prison where he was last heard ululating, `It's a madhouse! A MADHOUSE!!...'$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is a fascinating example of Luis Bunuel's storytelling abilities. This is a comedy that is not a comedy, and a social drama that is not a social drama. Even though I don't think it was particularly funny, it made me laugh. Also, despite the fact that you can never take Bunuel too seriously, the movie made think about religion and its importance in some people's lives. Bunuel tells the story of a Catholic priest, devoted to his faith like no one else and the viewer witness what happens when the priest's undying commitment to serve others is put to test. As usual, Bunuel's target is Catholicism, but I don't think he tried to mock the church as he often does. At least I didn't take the film as a mockery of the institution. I think he is trying to make an interesting point about how religion could be a nuisance in today's modern society. Not because faith in itself is bad, but because people always mange to bastardize the concept. Message aside, I think this is one of Bunuel's most clever works. Francisco Rabal is superb as the priest. Definitely, one of the filmmaker's best movies.$LABEL$ 1
+Saw this again recently on Comedy Central. I'd love to see Jean Schertler(Memama) and Emmy Collins(Hippie in supermarket) cast as mother and son in a film, it would probably be the weirdest flicker ever made! Hats off to Waters for making a consistently funny film.$LABEL$ 1
+OK, to start with, this movie was not at all like the book. I read the book when I was 13 and since then it has always been my favorite. When I'm waiting for a different book to come out, this is the book I turn to to fill in the time. I have 3 copies for god's sake. anyways, I knew this was not going to be anything like the book but come on! They could have done a little better than this. I mean seriously if I wanted to watch American werewolf in Paris or London than I would watch those movies. They took a perfectly good story and twisted it around into a copy of a story that has been told over and over again and quite frankly I'm tired of watching it. I mean hello the best part of the whole f*****g (sorry) story is she ends up with Gabriel. He doesn't die. What was that about? And he's old in this movie. Gabriel is supposed to be only 24 not 44 da** it. Awww. And Astrid who the he** came up with the idea of Astrid being Vivian's Aunt no no no no. Astrid and Vivian hate each other. Awwww. Anyways yeah that was my little rant seriously pi**ed off. hope this helped.$LABEL$ 0
+Directed by a veteran Hollywood director Henry King who began his career still in 1915, Love is a Many Splendored Thing was one of his last great films. It was based on a bestseller by Han Suyin called simply A Many Splendored Thing the phrase that was borrowed by the author from the poem The Kingdom of God by Francis Thompson where that many splendored word `love' was used in quite a different and rather transcendental context meaning the love of God. Made in the ‘50s, the film marked along with works by such directors as Douglas Sirk and Vincente Minnelli a sort of renascence of melodrama, its florescence and reaching yet again a peak of popularity.  The story begins when a handsome American reporter Mark Elliott played by William Holden yet once again typecast in one of his irresistible `playboy' roles comes to the Hong Kong and meets there a young and pretty Han Suyin (Jennifer Jones) of half-Chinese half-English origin who is working as a doctor at a hospital and whose husband was recently killed by the Chinese communists. Instantly Mark feels a rather strong attraction towards her but at the beginning his deep feelings are not quite reciprocated by Han's heart left cold after the death of her husband (`I believe in human heart now only as a doctor'). But very soon she yields to the persistent courting of tempting as hell Mark and both of them enter a passionate relationship apparently stoppable by nothing, even by the fact that Mark is unhappily married and his wife doesn't want to give him a divorce or social differences and prejudices caused by Han's Chinese origin. But still it's the fate that has a final word to say in determining the fairness of the eternalness of such a blissful loving relationship for no matter how enduring the two assume it to be the merciless time is waiting in a rather alarming form of death, prepared at any given moment to prove its impermanence. Undoubtedly one of the most romantic films ever made, Love is a Many Splendored Thing features fine performances from William Holden and Jennifer Jones, wonderful Academy Award winning musical score by Alfred Newman and extremely romantic, touching, heart-warming but ultimately heart-breaking story. Don't miss that many splendored film. 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+Phoned work sick - watched this in bed and it was so awful I would have went back to work if I could have gotten out of bed. The dog ran off with the remote so I was stuck.I'm positive Hammer was grooming the eldest daughter to become his beeeatch.Horrendous to watch - made me vomit more than what I was doing anyway. So there you have it - this would be the film that they play in the waiting room of Hell before you go in. Or maybe your stuck in the film for all eternity with the Hart kids. Just remember to take a gun with you....$LABEL$ 0
+There is not one character on this sitcom with any redeeming qualities. They are all self-centered, obnoxious or two dimensional. My husband watches it, claiming that there is nothing else on, but I would rather watch nothing.The only sitcom that I can think of that was worse was Yes, Dear. At least that one didn't get 9 seasons.Being overweight does not make a comic genius, and Kevin James does not have the talent of John Goodman, Jackie Gleason or John Belushi. Leah Remini may have talent, but if so, she is wasted on the shrewish wife. Jerry Stiller is convincing as an annoying old man. Maybe there is a reason for that.This is a perfect example of why sitcoms are derided.$LABEL$ 0
+The wife and I saw a preview of this movie while watching another DVD and thought "Jon Heder, Diane Keaton, Jeff Daniels and Eli Wallach, it's gotta be better than summer reruns, so I ordered it from local library. Well, any episode of "Lawrence Welk" would bring more laughs than "Mama's Boy". I actually felt sorry for the actors for having to read the script in the privacy of their own homes and I couldn't imagine what it must have been like for them to have to actually say their lines in front of a camera. Perhaps, at least, maybe next time they're offered a movie of this sort, they'll "Just Say No!' A one anna two....$LABEL$ 0
+I haven't seen the first two - only this one which is called Primal Species in England. I don't think I'll be bothering to look them out though.This is an awful film. Terrible acting, bad dialogue, cheap rubber monsters. Everything about it is so nasty. The most sympathetic characters die really quickly and leave you with the annoying ones, especially one called Polchak, who is an incredible jerk. No-one like that would survive 5 minutes in the army. He lasted for ages but I was pleased when he finally got his head got chewed off - I was having nightmares he was going to survive. The Colonel was rubbish too - all moody pouts and clueless shouting. And the specky Doctor looked and acted like she was out of a porno. I was waiting for her to take her glasses off, shake her hair and turn into a vamp, but she didn't. Pity that, as it would've livened the film up no end.Didn't Roger Corman used to make half decent films once?$LABEL$ 0
+This mess starts off with a real tank running over a car, intercut with images of a toy tank. This is followed by a family driving home from a birthday party without saying anything. The unexplained tank and the untalkative family take up, I swear, over 10 minutes of film. Finally, the family sees a car after it has been in a wreck and decides to report it to the proper authorities, only to find that the citizens of the town are all hiding in their houses, and the cops are hiding in the police station. Interesting? Almost. When the town folk come out due to the family's presence, we learn that both the writer and editor are conspiring to substitute suspense with incomprehensible storytelling techniques in the hopes that the audience's inability to tell what's going on will somehow bring unease upon the audience... and it works! ... but not in the way they thought it would. I was very uneasy with how bad this movie was, but not scared at all. The dialogue is composed of things that make little sense. Not in a fun David Lynch sort of way, but a sort of I-walked-in-during-the-middle-of-a-boring-conversation sort of way. Over the course of the next hour, we learn that the movie-makers try to bore us into being afraid by showing tediously mundane scenes combined with the above-mentioned "what's going on?" type scenes.The plot involves something along the lines of gentle-looking old folks putting children into a trance through the power of Satan and then bringing them to a party to play with toys, and an even more sinister intention, and it's up to a group of white men (everybody's white in the movie) to grab their guns and save the day, and a tag-a-long eye candy woman who whines at the drop of a hat. They look for the kidnapped children by looking in random places and yelling the kids' names.This is a great horror movie for any person who has never seen a horror movie because that person is frightened by the mere thought of Satanism, Paganism, Wicca, or even Catholicism due to a lifetime diet of brainwashing from the Trinity Broadcast Network. This represents Satanism as elderly folks in Halloween costumes with candles while mingling at a party, in front of an Ankh. Replete with a priest spouting completely made-up nonsense about Satanists, while calling them "Witches." The message that anything that isn't Protestantism can be all thrown into the same category for easy condemnation.About 30 minutes of footage is wasted to show mediocre elderly actors awkwardly babbling overwrought pseudo-Satanic gibberish corny enough to make a teen Goth blush, almost always in Olde English, and sometimes in Latin that may or may not be made up words.Highlights include a guy laughing at the idea of little green men for a solid 3 minutes, a family staring out of the windows of their car without talking for 10 minutes while listening to elevator muzak. A priest studying Satanism for 4 minutes with ooh-so-scary drawings of demons to scare the Church Lady crowd. Random shots of dolls. Random shots of children. Paint instead of blood at every chance. Film School level dream sequences. Introduces unimportant characters who do nothing before they exit. Sometimes, they act as if the Nothing that they're doing is a big deal.The directing is sloppy at best. An example of the directing includes a scene at the beginning where a man and woman are kissing and the man pulls away to look lovingly into her eyes and some dark red paint falls on her cheek. Looking up, they see that it's not blood, but droplets from a girl's snowcone. Snowcones are ice and colored / flavored water, and would not have produced droplets of the same texture as paint, not to mention the fact that her snowcone was a bright reddish-orange. Hackneyed writing, certainly, but made even worse by the bad directing. It then cuts to an alternate shot of the man, woman, and girl and shows that she's standing about four feet away from them, so the snowcone wouldn't have dripped on the woman even if she'd held her snowcone out over the woman's face. Way to go, editor! Of course, the acting is blah. The acting by the whole cast could be put on a scale and balanced perfectly between overacting and underacting.The director's most offensive technique is to give the actors no motivation and then go out for lunch as the unblinking eye of the camera leers as the actors make fools of themselves.And, FINALLY, after all that, we get to an ending that would've been great had it been handled by competent people and not Jerry Falwell.$LABEL$ 0
+I really like Ryan Reynolds and Hope Davis and I actually had high hopes watching this last night on DVD. Mainly as I try to avoid reviews until I watch something myself and form my own opinion Big mistake! My 2 /10 is for the first segment which in fairness is actually quite decent and if they had made the movie about the characters in section 1 alone it may have risen above the 5/10 mark.Once it moved into TV 'reality show' territory it stank to high heaven. Ryan Reynolds captured the essence of an actor on the edge wonderfully but as a gay TV writer and famous games creator / devoted family man he was definitely less effective. From the blurb on the box I expected a flashback thriller along the lines of 'Memento' - unfortunately this is nowhere near that standard of movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Theres not much you can really say about this film except that it was crap and probably the worst film i have ever been to see!! Take my advice don't watch this film it just wastes your money and time!!I gave this film a 1/10 which is doesn't deserve.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was awesome. It's a documentary about how surfing influenced skateboarding in the early days. It has interviews with skaters such as Tony Hawk(my idol)=), and Stacy Peralta to name a couple. Dogtown is a so called "ghetto" part of California, where there used to be an amusement park that was torn down. People started riding alongside the dangerous ruins of the park. Soon, the Zepher Surf team was formed. That led to Skateboardings first real start in Dogtown. The Z boys were a team of ragtag teenagers who loved skateboarding and started the phenomenon known as vert skating. They started it by skating in drained swimming pools. That's just a bit of the story behind it. It even contains rare footage from Charlie's Angels of Stacy Peralta making a cameo. I think you should buy this movie if you are a skater. It'll teach you that skateboarding wasn't always popular. Even if you are not, BUY!$LABEL$ 1
+To preface this review, I must say that I was, I suppose, a little curious about this movie.. However, I probably would not have seen it had I not had my arm slightly twisted.In my opinion, this movie shows just how depraved man can be. In my eyes, the worst thing about this whole Springer phenomenon is not that type of people on the "Jerry Springer Show" act as they do (which in itself is eminently reproachable), but that many people are so curious and excited to watch them and hear about their lives (yes, I suppose that includes me.. to whatever extent it is true). If not glorifying that kind of behavior (as some might say) at the very least we may be subtly corrupting our minds and/or desenstizing ourselves to this type of behavior.But enough soapbox (sort of). Here's the skinny: the movie has an R rating, and while it may deserve only that (I did look away at some scenes, so I'm not completely sure), I feel that an NC-17 (tip of the hat to the other reviewer) might be a little more appropriate for the immense sexual content (a cynic might comment that the movie was just one big excuse to show sex on the big screen). The plot is very bizarre, tying together the stories of an absolutely dysfunctional family and a group of stereotypical blacks upset who will appear on different Springer shows. At the end, the movie leaves one with some resolvement- and Springer rhetoric about the need for us to see the real world (evidently as seen through his show). I agree with him there- it is important to know how the world really is so that we can seek to effect positive change. Having said that, let me just tell you- the world's pretty bad- glance in a newpaper or the news to see that, but let's not shell out good money to support the kind of sensationalistic and perhaps formulaic titallition that Springer seeks to give us.$LABEL$ 0
+Let's see: what are the advantages to watching Piranha, Piranha? Well, if you've never seen anything to do with Venezuela, there's a lot of travelogue footage of both Caracas and the countryside (and jungle-side), and of the various native peoples at work and play, as well as plenty of indigenous wildlife. If you like William Smith, he plays a bit of a git (as he has always been wont to do).And that's about it. If it wasn't for William Smith, this could probably pass as a fund-raising film for Save the Children or some other organization that benefits the "third world". The only time you really see the fish of the title is during the opening credits. No mutant killer fish like in Roger Corman's singly-named Piranha. You'd figure with twice the fish in the title there would be twice as many monster fish preying on the characters, but alas, this is not the case.The story starts with a photojournalist and her brother coming to Venezuela to do a story on one of the last untouched places on the planet, but their motivation quickly changes to one of wanting to find diamonds, which are apparently fairly plentiful there.There's not a lot of real action or danger in this movie. What could've been an exciting motorcycle race is dulled by the mass of landscape and animal footage that is inserted in it to draw out the films running time. There's not a whole lot more action until the last fifteen minutes or so of the movie (which is probably about how long the movie would last without all the traveloguery).In my view, the only ways that a movie can really be a BAD movie is to be boring or incredibly stupid. Piranha, Piranha certainly qualifies for that former badge, and is pretty damn close to the second. The only reason I won't rate it a "1" is that the added footage is more interesting than the rest of the movie.$LABEL$ 0
+For one thing, he produced this movie. It has the feel of later movies with international casts that are dubbed. The opening credits tell us it was filmed in Vienna.Bey was a delight in the Universal adventure movies of the 1940s. He was also superb in a movie I saw maybe ten years ago but have never heard of since: "The Amazing Mr. X." Maybe it was Dr. X. I remember it as a thrilling and frightening movie.This one is pretty wooden, unfortunately. The plot isn't easy to follow. When I got the hang of it, I was disappointed anyway.Francis Lederer looks great as a concert pianist. He was a very handsome leading man ten or 15 years earlier. He never really caught on as a major star, though he should have.This isn't terrible but it's pretty heavy going.$LABEL$ 0
+Massive multiple chills down the spine! I'm surprised there's people who didn't like it! I saw it at 10 o'clock in the morning and still got scared stiff! And I've seen hundreds of thrillers/horror movies! For crying out loud,I'm 22!!! I mean, OK, voice acting, not particularly good, probably even b-movie-ish. But the genuine look of terror, the sound effects, the flow! From the very start, hitting you again and again with relentless, unforgiving, terrorising scenes! So many clichés yet none fails to surprise/scare! You know it's coming, it's coming, it's coming, BOO! and you still jump off the chair. Grab a pillow and a blanket, call your closest friend over and do not watch it at night! Hats off to the Japanese!$LABEL$ 1
+Contains spoilers The movie plot can be summarized in a few sentences: Three guys go hunting in the forest. Two of them along other people get shot in the head without explanation. The last guy can stand in the clear, shout and do anything without getting shot. He gets to walk through an old factory and has the evil people walk right into his scope without a struggle. The villains are conveniently dressed in black and look like villains.That is the whole story, not summarized but in detail. Everything is drawn out with a guy standing ringing a door bell. We wait with him. Long shot of guys being bored in the woods and sleeping. We can take a nap with them. The one drawn out shot of following a female jogger could have been redeeming, if we could see her butt or boobs bouncing.There dialog is less then Terminator and it is not because there is so much action. The characters just don't talk. And, then they don't even have something corny to say like 'I'll be back.' If my buddy shot this on the weekend, I'd cheer for him, because it is quite a feat to figure out the camera controls. To pay money to rent this as a DVD is totally inappropriate.The one thing that is a little funny is the extra with the director telling, how they local police didn't realize that they were shooting and treated them like a random guy walking around with a gun. If they'd have filmed that, I'd be sure it would be more fun to watch then the movie.$LABEL$ 0
+This is the best dub I've ever heard by Disney, as well as the best adaptation since the biggest abuse ever on soundtrack, themes, characters, dialogues in Kiki Delivery Service. UrrrghhhThis one has different atmosphere, especially the deviation from the common heroine. This one has both hero and heroine (although I don't really endorse the use of hero & heroine here, since Miyazaki is out from the stereotype & common theme). As usual, after being introduced by Spirited away, amazed by Mononoke, troubled by Grave of Fireflies, and deeply touched by Majo no Takkyuubin , this one start with a bit doubt in my part. Wondering if this will be the first Ghibi's dud. Well, in the end just like Only Yesterday and Whisper of the Heart, I ended up giving 10 rating. I'd give 9.8 rating, but the additional 0.2 is there to share the good feeling by encouraging people to see the movie.SPOILER Somehow I see this as a sad movie, people die in this one, the lonely robot, the abandoned place, and it ends with destruction. It is as if mankind really can't live with too much power. The collapsing scene gave me patches of Metropolis ending. It's just sad somehow. The plot is apparent in most reviews and the soundtrack rules as well (as always). Joe Hisaishi really belongs to Uematsu, Kanno, Williams caliber.People who can brings a movie, a game, an event to life, even to be a lingering moments by astounding composition.This is a feel good movie that used to be part of US cinema in the classic days (It's a Wonderful Life etc etc). Well, things change....$LABEL$ 1
+Featuring a fascinating performance by Will Smith and a story that tugs at your heartstrings harder than a rock guitarist mid-solo, "Seven Pounds" races past the director's previous collaboration with the actor (The Pursuit of Happiness), a flick which I also loved. Remember Gabriele Muccino's name because some of his movies may skip by unnoticed if the actor attached to the project isn't quite so high-profile. Too bad I figured out Will Smith's scheme early on, I put two and two together when he calls in his own suicide in the first scene and the scene when Rosario Dawson's character is introduced as having an incurable heart-disease.However, I still think the writer/director made the right choice putting the bookends (bookends are the first and the last scene) in that way, it's the source of urgency and tension in the movie, finding out gradually how exactly a man can be driven to that ultimate sacrifice, and it was heartbreaking to see the relationship between Smith's and Dawson's character flourish and develop, knowing in the back of the mind always what was in store for these unlucky two.One of my friends with whom I saw the movie thought Smith's character could have a divine gift, and I understand why: his performance is almost angelic when in the presence of his seven elected ones, yet at other times he could be harsh and scary, and when he's alone the full weight of his situation got too much for him and he breaks down completely. It's quite a versatile performance.Lastly I can't forget to mention the crash scene re-enactment, which was really quite stunningly done in terms of cinematography paired with music. Put this on your list.$LABEL$ 1
+After high school Track & Field athelete, Laura Remstead, dies of natural causes during a race (an event that is shown multiple times, in slow-motion none-the-less), an unknown killer is murdering all the people who were on that same aforementioned team close to Graduation Day (hence the name)in this laughably inept slasher flick.It brings absolutely nothing new (or even good) to the slasher table, instead opting to merely unleash the most god-awful song I've heard in quite some time with ' Gangster Rock' being played in a roller-disco party that went on far too long.Eye Candy: Denise Cheshire & Linnea Quigley get topless My Grade: D-$LABEL$ 0
+If there's one theme of this film, it's that people can cope with hardship by having a good imagination. This family is poor, their father works graveyard, and their mother works double-shifts, and Peter is constantly picked on for a variety of reasons, and becomes increasingly frustrated that he is often mistaken for a girl. He is just starting to approach that age of 10 or 11 where your perceptions start to change, and thinks like your appearance start to matter. The backdrop of this story is the 1967 World's Fair and the Centennial of Canada. The film's greatest moments come during the various fantasy sequences where we see just how they cope. Watch the flim, and if you've ever had a childhood friend that you dreamt with, and then for some reason, lost, you'll really like this film. Perhaps kids will like this film, but only adults will truly appreciate it, including its references to bolshevik's and what parent's will do for their children.$LABEL$ 1
+The summary pretty much sums it all up. This is nowhere near as good as the original. With a script co-written by both Stallone and James Cameron (at the same time he was also writing Aliens). Most of the action was written by Cameron and the political aspects were written by Stallone.Sly was in the best condition physically as he was making this and Rocky 4 and he does look in great shape or jacked up to the eyeballs on steroids, depending on your own viewpoint or opinion.Rambo starts off in prison and is visited by Colonel Trautman who asks him to go on a special mission that could earn him a Presidential pardon. He eventually agrees and goes off to the briefing camp run by Charles Napier playing a Washington suit trying to pass himself off as former ex-forces to placate Rambo.The mission is to find out if there are any missing POWs still alive in camps in Vietnam. Rambo was chosen as the camp he was checking was somewhere he had previously been a prisoner himself. He is told it's not a rescue mission and he is there to take recon photos only.After a bad attempt at parachuting from a plane he loses most of his kit, meets his contact (who turns out to be a cute woman) and travels down river with pirates to the camp.He finds there are still prisoners and rescues one. As the 3 flee from half the Vietnamese Army on their river boat they are betrayed by the pirates but Rambo kills them all and they are forced to carry on to the pick-up point on foot after their boat is rammed and blown up with Rambo almost on board.Rambo is betrayed again and abandoned as Napier orders the recall of the rescue helicopter. It is clear as Trautman returns to base to berate him that no survivors were expected to be found.Steven Berkoff turns up as a Russian Spetznatz Colonel and Rambo is tortured and eventually escapes only to be pursued by more Vietnamese troops and Spetznatz. Killing many of them, Rambo finally steals a chopper and rescues most of the prisoners to return to his base.He resists the urge to kill Napier for abandoning him but destroys the Ops Centre.A weak plot and very weak ending as Rambo walks off into the sunset as a free man.$LABEL$ 0
+Dead Man's Bounty (the film's American title) has the look and feel of a classic Italian western. The cinematography, costumes, and sets look great. The cast is rugged, not a pretty face among them. At the beginning I was preparing for a pretty cool movie but what I eventually witnessed was an absolute disaster.The script was perfectly dreadful. There was no suspense whatsoever and very little action or worthwhile drama.Despite looking great, the cast spoke (English) with heavy European accents that were often unintelligible.The final nail in it's coffin was the broad streak of pretentiousness that paints most of the picture, focusing heavily on the character of the barmaid who's featured in a couple of very awkward sex scenes. Also her speech near the end was pretty repugnant!The only novelty comes from the stunt casting of Val Kilmer in the role of the dead man, continuing his recent string of DOA performances!$LABEL$ 0
+1st watched 2/25/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-George P. Cosmatos): Predictable action thriller where any frequent movie goer could guess what was coming next. Charlie Sheen is the good old boy to the President who just happens to be not liked by the rest of the presidential staff. Of course, he gets involved in a situation where he's framed over and over again and he has one friend in the White House, played by Sutherland, who naturally doesn't stay that way for very long. His other friend is a reporter played by Linda Hamilton(who has very little to do or say in this meaningless role), and of course his biggest and bestest friend is the President himself(Sam Waterston) who stays his pal till the end despite everyone else being killed around him. Brainless yet action-packed meaningless trife despite loads and loads of acting talent(all pretty much wasted.)$LABEL$ 0
+Beautiful art direction, excellent editing and wonderful stories make this some of the best television ever produced. The fact that it was relatively short lived is sadly reflective on the state of television. I highly recommend snatching these up as they're released, you'll love them.$LABEL$ 1
+This is Wes Craven at his worst! this is the very worst horror, if you can call it horror, you will ever watch, esp from one of the masters of horror Wes Craven, Poor Direction, Poor Acting, Poor Set, Poor Atmosphere makes this the biggest pile of rubbish ever! the bad guy is totally unconvincing, you couldn't even feel sorry for the guy! the gore, and horror involved in the film is laughable, it's just plain rubbish! the only good points i can think of is, It stars Natasha Gregson Wagner, Giovanni Ribisi, and Lance Henriksen, but not even that cast, could stop this from spiralling out of control, and into one of the worst horrors ever. If you still ain't watch it yet, don't bother, you'll only hate it.$LABEL$ 0
+While a pleasant enough musical, what stuck with me about this movie was the unexpected comedic chemistry between Basil Rathbone, as the has-been composer, and Oscar Levant as his assistant. Playing a high strung, distracted artistic type (a far cry from his more familiar roles as either menacing villains or the coolly logical Sherlock Holmes), Rathbone's character looks like he couldn't find his way out of bed without help. And that help is Starbuck, played with his usual droll humor by Oscar Levant. Upon hiring Crosby's character as his ghost song writer, Rathbone introduces him to Starbuck by saying, "He does all my thinking for me.", to which Levant responds, "Ah, it's only a part-time job." Of course this goes right past (or over) Rathbone, who's too busy fretting about where his next hit song will come from. As another reviewer said, who knew Rathbone could be so funny! Too bad he didn't have more opportunities to display his comedic talent.$LABEL$ 1
+As with most Rosalind Russell movies, this one is very entertaining -- it's fun all the way through. It's definitely one of the last of this genre of film -- just good wholesome entertainment. Give it a try - I don't think you will be disappointed.$LABEL$ 1
+Terrible acting by Potter and a flat plot with no tension what so ever. And as for the feminist polemic, it's laughable. I saw this garbage when it was first released and though I found it tedious beyond belief I'm glad I did go to see it. That's because I now have an immediate answer to the question 'what's the worst film you've ever seen?' Plus, I have the comfort of knowing that every film I see for the rest of my life will be better than The Tango Lesson. But I have to admit I was impressed with the way Potter wrote a script that would garner the maximum number of arts council grants from around the world (as is revealed in the closing credits).I only very recently saw Orlando and I can see how Potter learnt the wrong lessons from making that film. All it took was a bunch of frilly costumes, a few hard stares to camera by the leading lady, and a loose plot to seduce the cinema going public. So why shouldn't she think she could get away with the self-indulgent nothingness that is The Tango Lesson?$LABEL$ 0
+Probably somebody heard of Alberto Tomba. A former policeman, a former sky champion, and, now, a TERRIBLE actor. "Alex L'Ariete" was planned to be a TV "mini serial", but the Italian television itself refused to show the movie on its channels. Now it's a, believe me, ridiculous movie. The script it's simply hilarious (it's supposed to be a dramatic movie), something like a 5 years old kid work. But what really blows you away it's the amateurish acting: Alberto Tomba, who actually was not believable as a policeman himself, plays terribly a totally silly character: a special operations italian policeman specialized in smashing doors open! ("ariete" is "ram"). This super-guy will try to save a young nice girl life (an actual italian "little" TV showgirl, married to the singer Eros Ramazzotti): nice but absolutely inept in the acting. Lose this one and make yourself a favour. A movie that is a shame to Italian cinema industry: only John Travolta in Earth Attack got close..$LABEL$ 0
+I have never commented on a film before. I watched this movie with my girlfriend last night. I've read comments saying this movie stays with you. It does. It's been almost 24 hours and I am still completely affected. This movie left me questioning my own self. How can I possibly compare myself to a character such as Ben who is totally selfless. I loved this movie. I love movies that keep me guessing and wondering until the end. I feel two emotions predominantly, happiness and sadness. An amazing feel good movie and a very sad one too. I so wanted Ben and Emily to be together, but in the end, they were, forever. If you haven't seen this movie, get it and watch it. Just make sure you have no distractions. You'll want to see every nuance in this picture. One for my library.$LABEL$ 1
+The Kid was born retarded. It pulls in a half-dozen directions, features dialog and action lifted from much older and better-known flops, and might be funny -- if only the writers knew what funny is.Disney stuff has gotten a lot better in the last couple of decades, but don't let that fool you. They should have given The Kid a wide berth, sang it a lullaby, then ran the train into a ravine. Mercy killing.$LABEL$ 0
+I don't understand how "2 of us" receive such a high rating... I thought that the first half dragged on and the second half didnt make sense, followed by an unresolved climax which was not worth the trouble. However, I did like Jared Harris' performance of John Lennon which was worth the wasted 2 hours.$LABEL$ 0
+Good Deaths. Good Mask. Cool Axe. Good Looking Girls....But Watch Out!!! No Plot and Little Scares Completely lower it's Standards. They Tried to make an "I Know what you Did Last Summer", but ended up making A "Scream". But Hey, What do people Expect From a Horror Movie? Answers Totally Vary. Rent It If You Want, but I Regret Ever Seeing It.$LABEL$ 0
+A gem from Japan, where so many of the world's best films are being made today. Stylistically, this isn't anything all that special. It's just a simple drama (with some comic overtones) about recognizable people going about their lives. Yuko Tanaka, best known for voicing the character Lady Eboshi in Princess Mononoke, plays a 50 year old spinster. She's takes pride in her health, spending each morning in a vigorous workout as she delivers milk up and down the steep hills of Nagasaki. After she is done with this part time job, she works her regular job as a clerk at a grocery store (called S-Mart, which made this Army of Darkness fan giggle). Along her milk route lives a 50 year old man, whose wife is dying. It turns out the milk woman and the man, a child services worker, dated in high school, and each apparently still have something of a crush on the other. The film actually has some major narrative problems. When the screenwriter actually wants the two unrequited lovers to unite, he uses a pretty unbelievable deus ex machina technique. The climactic sequence is also really forced. But most of the film is beautifully small and observant of the two main characters, as well as many side characters. The film also has several subplots that seem like they will eventually weigh the film down, but never end up doing so. I think the best thing in the film is Tanaka's heartbreaking performance as the lonely milk woman, who has resigned herself to being alone for the rest of her life. Whatever the problems were, the film mostly transcends them.$LABEL$ 1
+Visually cluttered, plot less, incredibly mind-numbing rubbish. Not even close to Greenaway's better work. Avoid at all costs!The overlapping 'split screen' effects do nothing more than confuse, the film is very dark for a lot of the time and the 'artistic' composing of images is pretentious in the extreme.There is absolutely nothing to recommend about this film; even the nudity is incredibly unerotic, which seeing it fills a large part of the film soon gets very boring.Plus, how anyone can say that the acting of Ewen MacGregor is brilliant is beyond me. He showed more ability in the Star Wars series, and that's saying something.I've not been so unimpressed with a film since I saw 'Darby O'Gill and the Little People'!$LABEL$ 0
+OK,so this film is NOT very well known,and wasn't very well publicised.I discovered this fairly brutal gangster gone good movie by complete accident on one of Skys millions of movie channels late on some boring evening,but I'm glad i did!The opening sequence to this film is fantastically comical in a very dark way.This in fact sets what i think is the general tone for the movie.I think a lot of critics and movie fans that have actually seen this film have been a bit unfair to just write it off as a lower budget gangster movie in the Reservoir Dogs vein.OK,so there are undeniable similarities between Thursday and some other crime genre films that it has been compared to,but in all fairness,i think this film takes a much more darkly comic look at this type of film,and the end result is a engrossing,well made,funny,if not totally original film.Tom Jane is good in this,and deserves the recognition he will now hopefully get thanks to the The Punisher.His performance as the bad guy gone good is realistic,funny and just cold enough to make you believe Casey really was a bad ass before he reformed.Thats another thing that makes this film stand out for me,the characters.In Nicks gang you get the strangest trio of criminals ever assembled,a smooth,charismatic but very cold leader(Nick),a trigger happy blood loving sexually predatory bitch of a woman(Dallas)and a psychotic hill billy with brains with a penchant for torture(Billy Hill).Throw in the most bizarre police detective ever seen on screen,beautifully over played by Mickey Rourke,and you've got a recipe for...well for Thursday really.Its at times darkly comic,sometimes brutal,sometimes unoriginal,but always engrossing and worth watching.8/10$LABEL$ 1
+Reeves plays Haji Murad, a hero in 1850's Russia.This is a badly dubbed movie, with June Foray doing some of the voices. Unfortunately who ever was suppose to sync the voices to the lips was blind since the words never match the lip flaps. Anyone who says that Japanese films are bad have never watched this film.The film's plot is instantly forgettable and so I've forgotten it in the time its taken the movie to end and for me to sit and write this down. Perhaps it has more to do with the fact that the film is one of the many that Reeves made in hopes of moving away from action to more plot driven sort of films. It may have been a good thing for Reeves, but its deadly for the audience who have to slug through nooze fests such as this, where its all court intrigue with very little action.In Reeves defense, he was a good actor, he just had no real luck in picking films that were any good. They all looked great, but very few of them didn't put the those watching them into a coma for the film's running time.This film will put you in a coma. Watch it only if you have the need for sleep and all other gentler means have failed.$LABEL$ 0
+My brother-in-law and his wife brought the movie over one night to watch on video. This should have given me the first clue that it would be horrible. It was. From the very first frame to the last this movie is terrible. It does not even quite register as a "B" movie. Maybe an N or a P. One of the worst 5 movies I've ever seen. From the rubber raptor-on-a-stick to the still-breathing corpses in the car to the beyond horrible closing lines, this movie isn't worth watching if you've received it for free.Skip this one altogether--unless you want to play Mystery Science Theatre with your friends, it will provide good ammunition.$LABEL$ 0
+Now, I'm a big fan of Zombie movies. I admit Zombie movies usually aren't all that good, but I like them anyways. Despite the crappy acting and worthless dialogues that occur in almost all Zombie movies, this one is by far the worst. See, there are a few ground rules with zombie-movies. 1. Zombies are suicidal. Tactics is seldom used, and NEVER do they act like a boxer. They don't dodge a blow to the head, they take it with a ugly smile. They don't try and hit you in the face, they grab a hold of your arm and bite it! 2. Zombies can't speak. Only in Evil Dead. Otherwise, they DO NOT SPEAK. 3. You don't fight zombies with melee-ranged weapons. You loose in a melee fight against zombies. Firearms are used. In this movie however, melee is the way to go, which is wrong. Very wrong.It had NO redeeming qualities.If you wish to see a Zombie movie, see one with an average score higher than 3 on IMDb.com$LABEL$ 0
+I'm amazed that "The Hospital" has been so well-received by the critics and the public. I found it dreary, visually ugly and generally meaningless. After the first virtually unwatchable 40 minutes, the film does improve (relatively), but it remains WAY too far-fetched (not to mention unfunny) to be successful as a satire, and has too little substance to succeed as a drama. The film's uncertain tone is its biggest fault, overshadowing even Scott's terrific (as usual) performance.$LABEL$ 0
+Okay, as a long time Disney fan, I really -hate- direct-to-video Disney sequels. Walt HIMSELF didn't believe in them. He believed in "AND THEY LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER" being the end of it. But this one...REALLY ticked the taco. There were so many ripoffs of other Disney films in this, it wasn't funny. Quick summary, if you don't already know...: Melody, the daughter of Ariel and Prince Eric, is born. Ursula's sister, Morganna (who basically looks like Ursula, if she were to dye herself green and go on the Ally Macbeal starvation diet) shows up and, after trying to do the newborn tyke in, and failing, prophesizes doom for the characters. After that ordeal, Ariel goes into a lapse of being like her father, and refuses to tell Melody about her mermaid heritage, and later on, forbids her to go near the sea. Well surprise surprise. Melody finds out, being the stubborn brat she is, and runs away, then makes a deal with Morgana to become a mermaid, in exchange for something. (Gee does THAT sound familiar?) She becomes one, but in her half of the bargain, has to retrieve her granddaddy's Trident and bring it back to the sea witch. While doing THIS, she runs into a couple of outcast animals, a penguin and a walrus named Timon and Pumb--huh? wait...no! that's not Timon and Pumbaa! or is it? Could of fooled me. Anyway, i'd like to reveal more, but pretty much anything that could be guessed to happen does. OK so...long story short. This movie "borrows" too much from other (better) Disney films...and does it horribly. Come on...Tip and Dash? Why not just make Dash obscenely flatulent and make it an even more obvious ripoff! Ugh. Not to mention, the total character butchery of Ariel's persona. She's gone from being a freespirited, headstrong woman, to a clone of her father. Not good at all...they're basically telling us the sweet, firey little mermaid we've known to grow and love is dead. Plus Melody herself isn't such a great character either...she's damned annoying! And bratty! Not to mention what they've done to Flounder. Ugh...anyway if you decide to see this piece of created-mainly-for-profit-reasons, no-imagination, Eisner-sponsored c******t, I suggest maybe waiting 'till its on the Disney channel or some other tv station. Because, it's not even worth the price of a rental. * out of ***** stars.$LABEL$ 0
+What was an exciting and fairly original series by Fox has degraded down to meandering tripe. During the first season, Dark Angel was on my weekly "must see" list, and not just because of Jessica Alba.Unfortunately, the powers-that-be over at Fox decided that they needed to "fine-tune" the plotline. Within 3 episodes of the season opener, they had totally lost me as a viewer (not even to see Jessica Alba!). I found the new characters that were added in the second season to be too ridiculous and amateurish. The new plotlines were stretching the continuity and credibility of the show too thin. On one of the second season episodes, they even had Max sleeping and dreaming - where the first season stated she biologically couldn't sleep.The moral of the story (the one that Hollywood never gets): If it works, don't screw with it!azjazz$LABEL$ 0
+Cast to die for in a movie that is considerably less. Vanessa Redgrave is dying but before she goes she begins to tell her daughters the story of her life and of her secret love...This is one of those movies which has the look and expectations of being a great film simply because they have so many great actors and actresses in it so it seems to be about something other than the potboiler that it really is. Not bad as such but with Redgrave, Toni Collette, Glenn Close, Meryl Streep, Clare Danes,Natasha Richardson,Eileen Atkins, Patrick Wilson,Hugh Darcy and others (all giving fine performances) you expect more than a weepy story thats a bit more than a harlequin romance.Wait for Cable.$LABEL$ 0
+An "independant" film that, from the back of the box, promises twists, adventure and an emotional adventure we will never forget. This film also fools us into watching it by flaunting Rachel Lee Cook with a starring role. After the first twenty minutes, you realize that this movie is going to give you NOTHING. The story goes on aimlessly, revealing nothing new or important to keep us interested. All three "disturbed" characters have only small grains of back story to force us to care. Just as you reach the end, everything about the story is altered and instead of helping the audience catch up, you are left with no idea, and more importantly, no interest in "why". The director, who also thought it would be a good idea to co-star, seems to come into the film with no prior experience or knowledge of useful filmmaking. The entire piece looks like a college "art" film crafted by a freshman film student trying to hide a lack of true talent.$LABEL$ 0
+I just finished watching this movie. It wasn't ridiculously bad, but I'm really disappointed with it. I'm not really sure why someone would make a movie like this. It was marginally entertaining, but I feel like the people making it had a lot of disagreements on what they were making. Monday, the writer was in charge; Tuesday, the director; Wednesday, the guy who gets the coffee; etc. It almost seems like they really wanted to make a couple different movies, but only had the time and money to make one.Someone else commented that the acting was really good, but I'd have to disagree. Then again, if the actors were able to keep a straight face during the filming, perhaps they're better actors than I give them credit for.The back of the DVD gives the impression that the movie would be a mystery... something along the lines of a historical Law and Order or National Treasure. It starts off like that, but then, out of nowhere it takes a turn towards a bad episode of the Twilight Zone, or... what was that other show that wasn't as good... A bad episode of The Outer Limits.My main complaint about the movie is that it is just so played out. There's the evil guy with spiked white hair. There's the love interest, who, when she first appears, the wind actually blows through her hair. Seriously. Once you realize it's a Christian movie, the end is also pretty easy to spot.The cinematography was poorly done, especially in the opening scenes - way to put your best foot forward. It wasn't atrocious for most of the movie, but there was the occasional ridiculously bad shot of an old lady, praying, arms up in a dark room while lightening is striking - the sort of thing that just makes you a little bit embarrassed to be watching the movie.$LABEL$ 0
+LL Cool J. Morgan Freeman. Dylan McDermott. Kevin Spacey. John Heard. Cary Elwes. Roslyn Sanchez. Justin Timberlake -- wait a minute. Justin Timberlake? And he's the star? I should have known better than to rent EDISON FORCE. In fact, I did know better. But in a moment of absolute weakness, I rented this STV. When you have big names like Freeman and Spacey in an STV, you know it's one of two things: an indie or a dog. As in sat-on-a-shelf. Which this did. And with good reason. The plot as such involves a squad of corrupt killer cops a la MAGNUM FORCE, and "journalist" Timberlake is the only one brave enough to uncover them. He is targeted for his efforts -- or maybe I should say for his horrible acting. I turned it off after one of the bad guys was shot through the forehead and still had the forethought to turn to his shooter and smile before collapsing. Just awful. The real tipoff to how bad this flick is to see Freeman on the cover and throughout the movie sporting an unruly beard, looking like nothing so much as a hobo. You just know the director was not in control. Freeman is clearly slumming.$LABEL$ 0
+Very heart warming and uplifting movie. Outstanding performance by Alisan Porter (Curly Sue). I saw this movie when it was first released and enjoyed it immensely. I just caught it again on the Mplex channel, and Curly Sue touched my heart again.$LABEL$ 1
+Dude, really!!!! where have you guys been the past 20 years, this is shocking in all kind of ways, horror ? This is a joke, there is nothing wrong with being low budget, but this is a laugh, If you want to look at the classics, Freaks of Tod Browning, the victims of Dracula and Frankenstein, the Undying Monster, Ernest Thesiger, Paul Wegener's The Golem and the passengers of The Ghost Train, you can't compare it, it gives it a bad name, bad acting, bad screenplay etc. Total waist of money and free time, have watched a lot of movies, were as horror is my all time favorite, I really am speechless, have nothing more to say that please don't do the effort to watch something so daft, please understand$LABEL$ 0
+Guy Pearce almost looks like Flynn, and this resemblance is the only one this film can claim. Nowhere in Flynn's autobiography is the Klaus Reicher character mention, the homosexual encounter is speculative fiction, and the movie's claims that Flynn treated native labor badly are groundless. Director Frank Howson hasn't made any memorable films, and I find it lame for him to groundlessly slander Flynn to further his unremarkable career.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was pretentious, foppish and just down right not funny. The filming technique reminded me of MTV. I am a fan of Hartley. But what was he thinking of? So much more thought could have gone into this movie, considering the subject matter. This could have been a true theoretical battle over good and evil, but Hartley, it appears used the stand technique of psyching out the viewer.$LABEL$ 0
+This is the second movie about 1985, the other one was 'The Wedding Singer'. Whilst the 'Wedding Singer' was portraying the pop side of the 80's, 'Rock Star' is all about metal.Mark Wahlberg plays a talented singer in a tribute band of some famous rock act of the time and Jennifer Aniston plays his girlfriend. When his fixation rewards him, his whole life changes in a day.The story doesn't get too dramatic and it only scratches the surface of the life of a rock star. Sex and drugs are very limited in this movie, but it is full of Rock'n Roll! The music is fantastic and the concerts are directed brilliantly! The whole concert feeling is very well captured, since they used real audiences (no cgi here).Great direction and a brilliant performance by Marky Mark, who acts like a true metal dude!'Rock Star' is all about fun and if you had anything to do with the old metal scene, you are going to love this movie!10/10$LABEL$ 1
+OK,I've seen over 100 Troma films, and some of them are pretty bad. "Sizzle Beach U.S.A." was horrible, and "I Was A Teenage TV Terrorist" was unwatchable, but this is THE WORST FILM IN THE TROMA LIBRARY!A bunch of women are kept in a prison and tortured as they try to escape.This is really terrible. Even as exploitation films go. Doris Wishman and Hershall Gordon Lewis would probably kill the director if they saw this poor excuse for an cult film. Avoid this movie at all costs.$LABEL$ 0
+This fake documentary is flawed on a lot of points, it's badly made, has uninteresting characters but the biggest problem I have with it is the basic premise.This film uses the idea that H.P. Lovecraft has traveled to Italy and that some of his work is based on real supernatural events that he witnessed. I'm willing to go along with the notion that he traveled to Italy (only for suspension of disbelieve) but that some of his work is based on reality and that Insmouth exist is total nonsense.First of all, Lovecraft didn't believe in the supernatural, in his letters he clearly states that he considered himself a mechanical materialist, his monsters where there to show that humans weren't so special after all. Another myth used in this film is that Lovecraft was an expert on the occult, he wasn't, all his knowledge on the subject came from the most basic sources.So we end up with a film about people jelling at each other a lot and when we finally see the monster, it's so bad that you can't even laugh at it, you just feel a pain in your love for horror.After seeing the film Frankenstein Lovecraft said that he felt sorry for Mary Shelley because he felt that her work was butchered. I feel sorry for Lovecraft.$LABEL$ 0
+For a long time, this was my favorite of the Batman films. It had the best cinematography and an edgy feel to it with two wild characters - Catwomen and The Penguin - along with the always-interesting Christopher Walken. However, after the last viewing it finally slipped in my ratings and, frankly, I now prefer the last Batman: Batman Begins, with Christian Bale.THE GOOD - Nonetheless, this is still the most intriguing of the five latter-day Batman films. The stylish cinematography in here is the best of any of the Batman movies. Director Tim Burton is known for his films which feature stunning visuals, as this is a great example. The three characters listed above are all very different and very interesting, almost fascinating. Of the villains, I preferred Catwomen, finding her the most fun to watch before and after she changed. Violence is not overdone here as it was in several of the other Batman stories but one is never bored watching this. As he did in the first film, Michael Keaton does a fine job playing Batman/Bruce Wayne.THE BAD - For a movie based on a comic strip that mostly kids read, I still think these first two Batman movies, both done by Burton, were too dark and the profanity was definitely not appropriate. Although, unlike the first movie, there was no usage of the Lord's name in vain in here, there still was profanity and both villains made too many sexual remarks. That would have been okay if they hadn't marketed this film for kids as well as adults. Danny DeVito's "Penguin" is downright gross in spots. "Grotesque" I can handle, but who wants "gross." Few guys, meanwhile, complained about the beautiful Michelle Pfeiffer playing Catwoman. Generall too much darkness and some cheap shots on Christian- bashing also made me re-consider my previously-high rating of this film.OVERALL - Fabulous visuals and memorable characters make this the most interesting in the Batman series, but too-dark an edge, too gross and too much anti-religious bias all finally turned me off after a half-dozen looks at this film. Sorry, but I prefer a kinder-gentler Batman movie. After all, it's just a cartoon. Most will disagree, but I was glad to see the series lighten up after this one.$LABEL$ 1
+Starting off, here's a synopsis: Porno queen Alta Lee (Lynn Lowry) is murdered by her pornographer lover Max (George Shannon) in a game of sexual Russian roulette. Alta's other lover, icy lesbian casting agent Camila Stone (Mary Woronov), provides an alibi for Max. But Camila has an agenda of her own, and a plan involving the seduction of innocent actress Julie (Lynn again) in a web of sexual mind games. When the lookalikes' identities are sufficiently blurred, the stage is set for vengeance as passionate as the most heated carnal encounter.Though this movie is quite obscure and never got much attention, I find it to be a sexy, suspenseful gem. Cult goddess Woronov has one of her best-ever roles, and she and sexy-innocent Lowry play off each other well. The unsettling music provided by Gershon Kingsley, plus two original songs ("All-American Boy," "You Say You've Never Let Me Down") and the Jaynetts' "Sally, Go 'Round the Roses" compose a memorable soundtrack. Theodore Gershuny's direction is sharp, with everything photographed in muted earth tones that perfectly suggest unsavory business bubbling under society's upper crust. With tons of great New York atmosphere, Ondine (Woronov's friend and fellow Warholite) giving a great performance in a small role, and exotic Monique Van Vooren as Max's ex-wife in a comic sub-plot. This sub-plot, though amusing, looks like it belongs in another movie altogether. However, I'm not complaining, as the film is smooth even as it changes gears and is a hell of a lot more interesting that the erotic-thriller garbage currently being cranked out.Trivia: Sugar Cookies was originally rated X (soft-core) and released by General Film Corporation in 1973. I am the proud owner of an original one-sheet poster--lucky me! In 1977, the movie was cut for an R and re-released by Troma Team, which now offers it uncut on videotape. Mary Woronov was the wife of Theodore Gershuny at the time, and was reportedly uncomfortable performing the graphic lesbian simulated sex scenes with him leering behind the camera. She can also be seen in two of his earlier productions, Kemek (1970) and Silent Night, Bloody Night (1972).$LABEL$ 1
+He pulled the guys guts out his butt! That's a spoof right?! No one really writes that it just happens like improv gone horribly wrong. I think any way. This movie must be a spoof because who would say they wrote that script otherwise. Can anyone imagine the entire cast sitting around as the director and writers go over the storyboard.Director says, "next our inbreed villain uses his 24 inch machete to disembowel our token creepy neighbor. Get this, he is going to pull the guts out his bunghole""Brilliant!" the entire cast proclaims.No way can that happen, nobody writes that stupid! Gotta be a spoof.I loved the part where the skinny introspective gal beats the inbreed freak to death with the cast iron skillet she finds on the floor of the cave. I wasn't sure the inbreed cannibal types bothered to cook much. Maybe that explains why the skillet was lying on the floor in the dark at just the right time to kill the malformed hulk. Seems ironic that after the freaky guy had bested martial arts expert porn queens and a couple out doors type jocks he falls so easily to the frying pan of a skinny defenseless girl next door. What the heck is that Richard Greco guy doing in this? Did he fire his agent or something? Can anyone explain the ending to me please because I didn't get it either? I can't quite figure why the nice hero girl wanted to kill the funny lady who was making her some tea. Never mind I don't want to know.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie promised bat people. It didn't deliver. There was a guy who got bit by a bat, but what was with the seizures? And the stupid transformation? Where was the plot? Where was the acting? Who came up with the idea to make this? Why was it allowed to be made? Why? Why? I guess we'll never know.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw the film many times, and every time I am more and more disappointed,which is shame because the films from EX YU are usually very good. The shame here is, that Holiwood tried to make film about the place and people it has no idea. My self coming from the Balkans(Macedonia) found this film disappointing.Simply that the Bosnian characters are not really understood and not truly portrayed. To understand the mentality of a person from EX YU, you need to know their background, way of live, what makes them cry and laugh.And the director of the film didn't took that as guideline. When we(EX YU) make films, lots of symbolism is build in it, which makes the characters recognisable and likable, and mostly portraying the truth(if it is based on true story) The films like "Pritty village, pretty flame", "Tito and Me', "Underground',"No mans land', "Before the Rain","Black cat, white cat","Otac na sluzbenom putu",(When father was away on business),"Ko to tamo peva"(Who sings over there?)Rare the masterpiece of the Balkan cinematography,and nothing can compare to it. Not the half baked story of and Holiwood studio. As somebody from the panel mentioned the story jumps from one end of town to the other with no real connection. I am sorry but when the film is made is not only for the American armchair variety of viewers but for the rest of the World too, and some of them live on the Balkans and Sarajevo too. And to add insult to the injury, half of the things are shoot in Bitola ,Macedonia where I come from. Imagen my shock when I saw the Broad st. of Bitola in the opening scene of the film, when the bride is shoot from the sniper.And what was that inserting real footage of the news covering in the film? Anyway very disappointing, as the truth is far away from the film. Shame that nobody consulted the real people how is to live in Sarajevo under fire, before they shoot the film. book is one thing and real life is other, and this film lets down both.$LABEL$ 0
+I loved KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER since I saw it on the night it premiered on September 13, 1974. I loved the monsters which seemed scary at the time and the cool music by Gil Melle (hey, where's the soundtrack guys?) and have often thought about what makes this show work for me so completely and have finally concluded that the reason it endures when many others do not is one simple, important element it has that almost no other scary show seems to have and that is a main character that most people can relate to on an everyday level. When Darren McGavin's Carl Kolchak starts to discover odd situations, he reacts like most people would. He finds them odd and as he gets closer to danger, he is frightened, even if he knows he must move forward to try to defeat whichever menace is being showcased in that episode. It's rare that he is brave enough to stand up against some superior supernatural force. He's usually set a trap and is hiding or waiting in the wings to see if it works. Sometimes, he seems as surprised that he managed to defeat a foe as we are. In one episode, he goes to find a monster in a sewer but when he first sees it, he runs to get out of there but is trapped so reluctantly, he must go back and defend himself. He's heroic because he is willing to do things most of us probably wouldn't do but that doesn't mean he probably wouldn't much rather someone else did it instead of him. He's a regular guy, doing a job, trying to make a buck, not a monster-hunter. He just gets wrapped up in things involving the supernatural, which he has an interest in but he doesn't want to be hurt or killed anymore than any of the rest of us do. If his plan to defeat the creature didn't work, you will often see him running for his life to get away from it, which is of course what I would do in the situation. That's why I was often watching the climax of the shows through my fingers as a kid. Kolchak was likable and you cared if something bad happened to him. You were scared for him and for the other characters too. The producers and writers obviously knew that anyone can create a monster suit, scary music and direct a suspenseful scene but it's all for naught if you don't care about the characters. Darren McGavin said that the reason why the show only lasted on season was because he got tired of doing a "monster of the week" show and he decided not to continue. I can tell you I mourned when this show was canceled when I was a kid but, as an adult, I can see why it couldn't go on in that formula for very long. I still love the 20 episodes and two movies that starred McGavin as the bumbling, determined and brusk but good-hearted reporter for the INS, known as Carl Kolchak. I seriously doubt anyone who makes shows or movies will ever really understand why I loved the show. It's not the monsters, darkly-lit sets, creepy music or goofy guest stars, although they are all vital ingredients. The secret to it's success is right there in the title - "Kolchak: The Night Stalker". Without McGavin's lovable, bumbling Carl Kolchak to root for and to care for, then it just ain't a Night Stalker.$LABEL$ 1
+This feels as if it is a Czech version of Pearl Harbor. It has a same story, both guys fall in love with the same woman. And add to the twist, the woman is actually a married one whose husband has been missing for a year. I don't think that the story line is too strong. The younger guy is quite naughty, that is cute. It kept me watching because of the emotional music, and the pleasing scenes one after another. It also has some strong visual special affects. Best of all, the love stories is seamlessly integrated with the story. I think that if it was in English, it would be such a big shot all across the states. It is too bad that not that many people are open for foreign movies.$LABEL$ 1
+When, oh, when will someone like Anchor Bay or Blue Underground release this on widescreen DVD??? Le Orme, which I only know because of my rare/vintage video collecting habit, is a film in my collection that I would not only sit through, but actually enjoy watching. The fact that Klaus Kinski is top billed, but is only in small parts of the film, means little to me. (Though several comments expressed disappointment in his rather limited screen time.) I cannot say that this is a good horror film, a good mystery, a sci-fi epic or anything of that nature. It is simply unclassifiable in the "genre" sense of things. It is more like a confusing, frightening (though not particularly violent or bloody) dream, filled with great visuals and mystery. It relies on visuals and emotion, much like Bava's "Lisa and the Devil". Both films are beautiful in almost every sense, but almost impossible to describe in a logical manner; they both occur in such a dream-like atmosphere. Don't be deterred by Force Video's synopsis on the back cover. It is infinitely more complex and intriguing than that. Though Force Video's release from 1986 (the only one in the US, that I know of) is cropped to full-screen on tape, even in that format it is still great. Releasing it remastered and/or letterboxed would make it magnificent (hint, hint... DVD companies).$LABEL$ 1
+"Just before dawn " is one of the best slasher films.It very realistic and atmospheric.It reminds me Tobe Hooper`s "The Texas chainsaw massacre " and "Deliverance ".Deborah Benson very good plays the heroine and director Jeff Lieberman created very creepy and dark movie."Just before dawn " is beautiful photographed and soundtrack is very disturbing.I neverliked slasher films or gore except with this one.Very impressive and convincing movie ( at least for me )$LABEL$ 1
+A very courageous attempt to bring one of the most intricate books of literature to the screen. The story manages to get most of Conrad's basic messages across and the acting is superb. The liberties taken by the script often deepen the meaning and do seldom distort it. Compliments to writer and director.$LABEL$ 1
+If 1977's "Exorcist II: The Heretic" did him no favors, it's hard to imagine what thespian extraordinaire Richard Burton saw in this drab exercise in non-thrills. You've seen it all before: Burton plays a writer who discovered at an early age he possesses the power to move inanimate objects through force of his mind (and you thought "Carrie" had no impact on Hollywood!). Though adapted from a novel by Peter Van Greenaway, "Medusa" plays like recycled goods, though the special effects in the cathedral finale are solid (if typical). Lee Remick is somewhat present as a doctor, but otherwise the supporting cast is extremely weak. Burton is hammy but weary...not even telekinesis could save him at this point. *1/2 from ****$LABEL$ 0
+The Movie I thought was excellent it was suppose to be about romance with a little suspense in between.Rob Stewart is a wonderful actor I don't know why people keep giving him a bad rap. As for Mel Harris she is a great actress and for those who thinks she looks too old for Rob it's only by five years.Rob had a lead role in his own TV series as well as one on the Scifi channel. I'm sure you remember Topical Heat aka Sweating Bullets and PainKiller Jane.He also starred in a number of TV movies and is now making a TV Mini series.They need to give him more leading roles that is what he is best at.$LABEL$ 1
+Now I'll be the first to admit it when I say something that may be blasphemous or unfair, so I would like to apologize in advance for my ranting about how much I disliked this movie.That about sums it up too. I disliked this movie. To be more specific, I disliked the concept of this movie. The cinematography was good. The mood was nice. And the acting was satisfactory. However, the story is fatuous, unacurate and misleading. It is also offensive.I am a quarter Cree Indian, and for some reason I feel insulted, on a personal level, by the nature of Whitaker's character. First of all, he's a black guy. And this isn't a racist remark, I swear. The thought of a White, Hispanic or even Native American swinging a katana on a rooftop offends everything that the katana represents. The katana represents the soul of a Samurai, imbibed with the souls of his ancestors who guide and protect the Samurai. For Ghost Dog to use his guns instead of the Katana is also an insult to the blade and the souls inside, and where the heck did he get a Katana anyway? It must be one of those replicas, which insults the Samurai caste even more.Also, Ghost Dog showed no honor. Near the end of the movie, he shoots a bodyguard in the back through a window and then assassinates a man by shooting him in the face through a faucet drain. Not only is this a cowards way to kill an enemy, it's more like a ninjas way; silent assassins; a group that samurais deny exists, but hates none-the-less.Then he tries to kill his boss, when he finds out his boss is a baddie. You know what a true Samurai does when he learns his master is proven bad or dishonorable? He kills himself, to prove that he would rather die then lower himself to the level of his doggish master.Everything about the character was a giant contradiction to the real code that all Samurai adhere to: Bushido.So, we have great cinematography, good ambiance and so-so acting encompassing a satiricle plot and premise, (which unfortunately is the most important aspect of it) , making it an unsatisfactory overall film, and an insult to everything a honorable bushi(samurai) holds dear. 2.5/10 Bleah$LABEL$ 0
+This film captured my heart from the very beginning, when hearing Quincy Jones' first notes or seeing the wonderful color of purple of the flowers in the meadows. This is truly a film to cry and die for...! The whole cast gives the best performance in a film I've seen in years and Spielberg has really outdone himself! Whoppi Goldberg, Margaret Avery, Oprah Winfrey(oh lord!), Danny Glover, and the others, all give us their best and you can feel it - almost touch it! Goldberg IS Celie, she gives her that insecurity and feeling of inferiority that is needed for the character, and we grow with her, we grow strong together with her, throughout the movie, and we triumph with her. Margaret Avery is wonderful as Shug Avery, even when she's at her most arrogant, and shows us that "sinners", indeed, "have souls too". The always sympathetic, charming Danny Glover makes a marvellous job at making people hate him and the magnificent music of(I'd say sir)Quincy Jones adds even more beauty to this splendid film! The photography, the music, the director and the music makes this beautiful, soulful movie into an experience of life. You don't want to miss it! "Sista'...remember my name..."$LABEL$ 1
+This film made John Glover a star. Alan Raimy is one of the most compelling character that I have ever seen on film. And I mean that sport.$LABEL$ 1
+I really enjoyed Girl Fight. It something I could watch over and over again. The acting was Fantastic and i thought Michelle Rodriguez did a good job in the film. Very convincing might I say. The movie is showing how women should stand up for what they want to do in life. She had so much compassion and yet so much hate at the same time. Dealing with a ignorant dad didn't really help her much. Even though he loved her he was really hateful. Her mother died when she was younger and that also put some sadness in the role. The love story was a part that i really enjoyed in the movie also. I felt the passion the y had for one another. Then again drama sets in and then its like she is choosing between her boyfriend and her life long dream. I thought it ended just right. It was the kind of ending where you have to decide what happened in the future for them.For all you people who likes a movie based on a sport with a good plot i 'd suggest that you check this one out$LABEL$ 1
+Jimmy Stewart brings the story of Charles Lindbergh to life as he almost narrates the entire film while he crosses the Atlantic. It well edited with flashbacks over Lindeberghs life. Franz Waxman score is shear brilliant and truly gives the picture a heroic feel. One of Stewarts finest roles and this film can deliver time after time. Look for appearances by Murray Hamilton ( The Mayor in the JAWS Movie) as Bud Gurney.Comes out on DVD 8-15-06 with the release of a few more of Stewarts classic films. I consider Jimmy Stewart to be Americas greatest Actor and never tire of seeing him in any film I see, watch this picture and you'll agree.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is the best film ever. I can't remember the last time a movie has drawn tears out of me. with a tear in my eye, I admire this movie. It has all the elements that a good movie must have: Excellent Dialogues, Music, Acting, Story/Plot. A story of friendship, courage, kindliness and loyalty between a Street performing who famous to The King of Masks and a little girl that sold as a boy in serf bazaar. Little girl liked to be his granddaughter and King of Masks liked a grandson. They were not conventional in real. Every scene they were together was priceless. The camera work is flawless and grips you. The acting is inspired. Xu Zhu was Excellent as The King of Masks. Renying Zhou "Doggie" looks pretty and played her character very well. Zhigang Zhao as Liang Sao Lang was great. He played his helpful and kindhearted character extremely well. If you have't this movie, try it once, Do watch it.$LABEL$ 1
+Saw this film on DVD yesterday and was gob-smacked and flabbergasted. The unaffected acting of DDL just blew my mind, and I was surprised by the whole cast and its superb acting. All of the character were so authentic to me, I really took DDL for Christy Burns and Brenda Fricker for his mom. Go and see it! You'll cry your heart out, but you'll experience a wonderful catharsis! Besides, it teaches you one important lesson: Determination is everything. You may be a cripple in the poor suburbs of Dublin, but when you are headstrong enough you will have no problems at all. If you can only operate your left foot you are still good enough to be a painter or a writer. The worst thing you can do when you are mentally challenged is to indulge in self-pity. It won't get you anywhere and the only person who'll pity you will be yourself.$LABEL$ 1
+Quick summary of the book: Boy, Billy Tepper, about 12 years old is school's main trouble maker, and if he gets kicked out of one more school he'll be sent off to boarding school. His upscale boy's school in Switzerland (or somewhere like it) gets taken over by Arab terrorists, why I'm not really sure. Billy has no friends, and likes to use his laptop to hack into his school's database. He, with the help of two teachers thwarts the terrorists' plans, and save the entire school. The book wasn't bad, but was sooooooo cliché.Now about the movie; they switched Arab terrorists to Cuban terrorists, and make Billy about 17 and the leader of his group of friends. They like to get into trouble, but normal teenage stuff. This movie was believable. Maybe not realistic, but the characters are real. You can watch Billy, Joey, and the rest of the guys and see real kids acting out the way they did (or at least wanting to).Great action scenes. Not everything goes as planned for either side. Overthrowing the terrorists was messy, and good guys did get hurt. I won't say who, but it is heart wrenching (I know, I use that word a lot). Sean Astin is excellent. As a teenager he usually played the dopey best friend. This movie proved once again that he could play the leading man, kid, whatever. The only performance that may have upstaged his was Wil Wheaton's, who played the only son of a New Jersey mafia man. He hated his father, and everything he stood for. (A far cry from Wesley Crusher) Usually this genre of film is one I watch for the soul purpose of making fun; but not Toy Soldiers. The story line flows, the dialogue is usually believable. I can't think of a single moment where I found myself shouting at the TV "Oh that would so not happen" Great movie that should be in everyone's collection.$LABEL$ 1
+I really, really didn't expect this type of a film outside of America. How anyone can take the subject of sexually abusing children and turn it into a "thriller" is just sick. Auteuil (whom I had previously admired) going around like some sort of child-saving Rambo was ignorant and insulting to all the children being sexually exploited around the world.What's doubly depressing is that the stunning and ground-breaking film "Happiness" came out the year BEFORE this film. Menges and his cohorts should be ashamed of themselves. It's admirable to read some of the comments by the more intelligent viewers out there. They were able to see the shoddy and ridiculous handling of this topic. Those of you who think this is great cinema display a disgusting amount of ignorance and you need to watch "Happiness" to open your minds to the true horrors of pedophilia.Do you think your child is more likely to be kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery or be molested by a neighbor, teacher, friend or even a relative? Hmm...I wonder. If they are going to make a film about international child slavery of whatever kind they owe it to everyone to make it realistic and emotionally involving instead of this button-pushing crap. 1/10$LABEL$ 0
+Jack Higgins' straightforward thriller about a guilt-ridden IRA bomber forced into "one last job" (where have I heard that plot before?) gets a snarky treatment from cult director Mike Hodges. Mickey Rourke, with alarming red hair, confesses all to the priest (Bob Hoskins, of all people) who accidentally witnessed the shooting. The rules of the church keep Father Bob from talking, but then Rourke goes and falls in love with the priest's blind niece. They bond at the church organ. What? Really, that's the plot. Alan Bates is around as the top dog mobster who's calling the shots (literally) and he seems to be the only actor who's on to the jokey tone Hodges is aiming at. Bates is all set to do a sort of U.K. PRIZZI'S HONOR, but no one else, including an effortlessly charismatic Liam Neeson in a supporting role, has been informed.$LABEL$ 0
+I just finished watching Dog Watch. I thought parts of the movie were hokey with more than a few implausibilities. The acting wasn't too bad and the plot wasn't bad. BUT, as the saying goes, the devil was in the details.Some examples:1) The bleed-through on Charlie Falon's (Sam Elliott) bandage was shown to be coming from the back of his hand while it was his knuckles that were bleeding.2) Would a detective dispose of his murder victim from a very well-lighted area? This seemed very silly to me.I am not unusually picky about a movie but, in my humble opinion, this one is definitely NOT recommended by me.$LABEL$ 0
+Carrie Fisher has stated on more than one occasion that she made this movie during a period of her life when she had a heavy cocaine problem, and she doesn't remember very much of it. That would explain why she made this film, but it doesn't explain why anyone else in the cast or crew did; I can't believe that EVERYBODY had a coke problem. This has to be one of the absolute worst movies ever made, and that's saying something. The blame can't be laid at the feet of "director" Tim Kincaid or "writer" Buddy Giovinazzo, as it is obvious that this picture wasn't written or directed by anyone. Apparently it just spontaneously came together, as there is little evidence of coherency, consistency, design, plot, sense, intelligence or anything else. What is really amazing is that there were some actual professionals who were involved in this glop. Co-star Robert Joy has done good work in other films, and composer Jimmie Haskell and cinematographer Arthur Marks are both industry veterans, Marks also having been a director, and not a bad one. Why they got involved in this steaming pile of offal is beyond comprehension. Tim Kincaid, the alleged "director", has made quite a few low-rent sci-fi and horror films, and, having seen most of them, I can tell you that not a one of them is any good. This one, though, is by far the worst thing he's ever done, and that is a major accomplishment on his part. Everything, absolutely EVERYTHING, about this movie is 12th-rate--at best. The cinematography is terrible, the acting is laughable, the "special effects" make "Plan 9 From Outer Space" look like "Spider-Man", the story is trite, derivative and stupid. Don't waste your time even looking at the video box cover, let alone renting it. A complete, utter, annoying, total dud.$LABEL$ 0
+At school I was taught how some shots were called and there were two directors constantly mentioned : Orson Welles and Sergei M. Eisenstein. I didn't care that much then (I was a kid!) but now I know why, Eisenstein is a genius and it is a shame to see what was possible in 1938 where as almost more than a half century we're stuck with countless blank movies! Some say this movie isn't worth the genius of Eisenstein (then they have to watch it over and over till they can say anything bad) or even worse that it is just some propagandamovie for the Russians. Let's say it as it is, it is indeed pure propaganda for patriotism but isn't "Saving private Ryan" or "The longest day" so? I could sum up so many movies in where America is being raised to the top so why not Russia, and besides every war is fought for itrs patriotism why else would they raise flags? Aleksandr Nevsky is a must for anyone who cares about cinematography as almost every shot is a sublime picture. Perhaps it's all overseen but I am in wonder why this isn't included in IMDB's Top 250 where as there is so many overrated Oscarcrap in it as well.$LABEL$ 1
+"Love is a Many-Splendored Thing" is set in Hong Kong in 1949-50, and tells the story of the relationship between Mark Elliott, a white American journalist, and Han Suyin, a half-Chinese half-European doctor. This story of a mixed-race love affair was quite a daring theme for the fifties, and, as it often did, Hollywood tried to soften the blow by casting a white actress as the supposedly non-Caucasian woman who falls in love with a white man, something that would be regarded as politically incorrect today but was quite acceptable then.. (Think, for example, of the casting of Ava Gardner in "Show Boat" or Natalie Wood in "West Side Story") The setting of the story in a British colony was also perhaps a way of exploring racial issues in a way that would cause less controversy in America. Suyin loses her job in a Hong Kong hospital because her British superiors take exception to the fact that she is dating a white man, whom she is unable to marry because his estranged wife will not grant him a divorce. As was sometimes the case, European colonialism was made the whipping-boy for some of America's own failings. Imagine the furore that would have been unleashed had a similar film been made about a black or mixed-race woman doctor in a hospital in Alabama.Besides racial issues, the film also raises questions of international politics, referring to both the Communist seizure of power in China and the outbreak of the Korean War. Han Suyin was a real person and a well-known author of the period; in reality she tended to support Mao's Communist regime, but here she is shown as firmly anti-Communist. This is not, however, primarily an "issue" movie about either racialism or politics, but rather a romance, a good example of what would have been known at the time as a "woman's picture". Such films, although mostly made by male directors, were mostly aimed at female audiences. They dealt with love and romance- often unhappy romance- from the woman's point of view, and had a strong female character in the leading role. The genre often provided roles for actresses older than the heroines of standard romances. Earlier examples were normally in monochrome, but by the fifties they generally, as here, used lush, sumptuous colour.Although a Chinese or Eurasian actress would have been more convincing in the role, Jennifer Jones, does a very good job as Suyin. I found William Holden, as Mark, rather uncharismatic, but this does not matter much as Suyin is very much the dominant figure. She is screen much more than Mark, and the film examines her family and professional life much more than it does his. Although Jennifer was still strikingly beautiful, she was in her mid-thirties, rather older than most romantic heroines of films of this period. Holden was about the same age, unusually for the fifties when "boy-meets-girl" often meant "older man meets girl".The film is not particularly profound, but is well-made with some attractive photography, particularly of Hong Kong itself, reflecting the growing trend in the fifties for shooting on location rather than on studio sets. Seldom can Hong Kong have looked so beautiful; the view from a hill overlooking the city takes on a special meaning, as this is where Suyin and Mark go for their romantic assignments. The overall mood is one of poignant, doomed romance, a mood heightened by the atmospheric photography and the musical score, including one of the most memorable movie themes ever written. 7/10$LABEL$ 1
+black tar can't be snorted there's a documentary: dark end of the street about s.f. street punks and b.t. abuse - not bad - quite heavy. in wasted there's this stuff that looks like coke but should be something else... no big deal. black tar can't be snorted there's a documentary: dark end of the street about s.f. street punks and b.t. abuse - not bad - quite heavy. in wasted there's this stuff that looks like coke but should be something else... no big deal. black tar can't be snorted there's a documentary: dark end of the street about s.f. street punks and b.t. abuse - not bad - quite heavy. in wasted there's this stuff that looks like coke but should be something else... no big deal.$LABEL$ 1
+I rented Dark Harvest (the first one) because it looked like a cheesy monster-on -the-box type of thrill ride. Scarecrows also freak me out. The movie had an effective title sequence, but what followed was pretty lame (flat, bad lighting, acting, editing, direction...). Recently, I noticed that DH 2: The Maize had a pretty extensive ad campaign. I thought maybe the first one was marginally successful, so they upped the ante on this one a bit, possibly delivering some bigger budget scares and fx from the killer scarecrows. Well, there are no scarecrows in the video... Not a problem. The problems start in DH 2 with a title sequence that looks like an unfinished concept, with strange shapes and bars wiping away titles and whatnot. As far as the actual photography... every time the sun shines in a shot, you'd have all these blown out whites, confirming that you're watching some ultra-low budget mini-DV project that some Midwesterner filmed at his Uncles farm. The acting was not acting at all. The cheap rip-off of The Shining twin girls was below freshman film student standards. The editing was extremely amateur and lazy. The sound was jarring and choppy. (e.g.- every time the editor would cut to a new shot, you'd here the sound change perspective with it). It's as if someone gathered their friends and family (actors), took a video camera out in a cornfield for three days, put a light on top of it for the night sequences (no joke - that's what they actually did), burned through some tape, stuck the footage in their computer, cut a (very) rough version, tossed in some music, bypassed any imaginative sound work or mixing, burned it directly to DVD, and threw it on the video store shelf. Any horror fan should be insulted by this type of direct to video work that is void of ANY skill or style. Just because a person owns a video camera and is able to get somewhat of an image on tape, doesn't mean it should be released to the public. If I could give this a rating lower than a ONE, I would.$LABEL$ 0
+Harrison Ford playing a playing a cop in a crime thriller. The perfect ingredients it SEEMS for top entertainment with Harrison back to his Indy and Han Solo best, protecting a witness from ruthless and merciless murderers. How easy it is to be fooled. If the film concentrated on the main, supposed, themes of crime and suspense instead of putting up barns and shoving ice creams in peoples faces it possibly could have been more worthwhile. Unbelieveably predictable with the best method of despatching of a foe is with corn.$LABEL$ 0
+Jude law gives Keanu Reeves a run for his money as the most wooden actor around, Renee Z's character is straight out of the Beverly Hillbillies, and the two leads have about as much chemistry as Darth Vader and Queen Amedala. The "bad guys" are the worst kind of cliche, and there's not a subtle moment in the film. Incredible that some critics actually liked this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+pardon my spelling. This is probably the funniest horror movie that ever existed. Think evil dead * 1000. The acting is horrible, you can see the makeup line on a certain lady's face. there is a lesbian scene, which makes no sense at-all. And the ending, haha ohhhh the ending... be prepared to have your stomach hurting from laughter. Now if you watch this film for more then 5 minutes and are still expecting something, take a look at your self, and ask what the hell is wrong with you. This is a very bad movie, meant to laugh at and enjoy for its pure silliness.Don't forget to watch all the outtakes after the movie, you can see just how low budget the whole thing really was. All in all this movie is a rare gem in demonstrating the pure and udder lack of talent/care/ability/money/ and anything else you would ever need to make a successful film. But its definitely worth watching.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie sets out to do something very particular, it also sets out not to do certain things. In short it has a definite premeditated trajectory - to deal with the idea of facing death (with very few choices and all of them bad) as grave and real rather than something casual or amusing. In search of that realism it has eschewed certain conventions such as obvious character arcs and hooks. It not about the characters so much as about the human condition. Never mind what the actors would do... what would YOU do in their situation? Open Water may have been a starting notion for this movie but it goes a lot further. Unlike that film it doesn't cheat the audience in the end when you find out there aren't really any sharks to speak of at all. This has a real monster, not just the idea of a monster and not just an animated stand in. It also has fine production values given what these very resourceful filmmakers had to work with. And again in contrast to that other film it has some exhilarating and brilliantly rendered action at it's climax. And let's not forget the, shall we say 'dazzling', screen presence of its youngest star. She may prove to be quite a discovery.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a great film. If this is any indication, than Hong Sang-Soo really is "Asian cinema's best kept secret". It's very similar in style to Tsai Ming-Liang and Hou Hsiao-hsien, and covers a lot of the same ground as them thematically, but I think I actually enjoy this more as a whole than any single one of their films. The overt minimalism is slightly less pronounced here than in their work, although it still completely fits that style (the camera never moves even once), and somehow I found the film less self-consciously "slow" than Tsai Ming-Liang or Hou Hsiao-hsien, which I think is part of the reason I enjoyed it more. Plus, it doesn't keep it's subjects quite as detached as Hou does. I felt like the film was also somehow more "complete" and less open-ended (just barely) than some of their work, although that's not to say it had much of anything resembling a forward-moving plot. I would have a hard time believing that Sophia Coppola wasn't directly influenced by this film for "Lost in Translation" (scenes of a young woman wandering around by herself, and languishing in her hotel room wearing punk panties can't help but seem familiar).$LABEL$ 1
+How does David Lynch do it? Unlike the legions of thick-black-framed-glasses-wearing types and pretentious movie critics who praise his name, I just don't see how this guy keeps getting paid to make such tripe. How can Lynch sloppily cobble together leftover footage from a failed TV pilot into a nonsensical, poorly-acted mess & have critics rave about it & actually include it on Year's Best lists?I'm baffled. If you're looking for a good film noir, rent "Bound" instead. If you're looking for a good "puzzle" movie try "Memento." But beware of this over-hyped stinker unless your idea of a fun night is throwing away 2 1/2 hours of your life & $3.50 of your hard-earned cash.$LABEL$ 0
+Here is another great film critics will love. The problem is that it is not a very good movie.The films premise is simple. Nine convicts escape a prison after the tenth one goes crazy and tells them where the treasure is.The first half has a lot of slapstick some of it very broad while the second half is a character driven descent into fantasy and melancholy.The two halves simply don't mix. Individual scenes do work very well (The guys crashing a friends house who has a new Filipino bride is hilarious While a later scene with the big guy working in the restaurant tugs at the heartstrings.) They simply don't mesh with each other.The movie as well is missing entire set-ups. One scene shows the guys desperately looking for change under a deserted vending machine to buy a snack. The very next scene has the whole crew in drag sitting down in a restaurant. Where did they get the dresses and wigs? (The crew includes both the big guy and a midget) How did they get all the clothes and money to buy the meal? And most puzzling is why are they in drag? They are clearly guys in drag and lets face it is there anything more memorable to witnesses than a big guy and a dwarf eating a meal dressed as women? I mention the big guy and the dwarf because besides the old guy everyone else seems to blend into each other. (In fact they wear matching white jumpsuits throughout most of the movie) The movie has very little character development in the first half and as a result the second half really lacks an emotional punch. As we are often trying to figure out who is who in their individual payoff scenes.Speaking of a drag the second half has all those wonderful sweeping camera shots and big emotional moments and great symbolism that makes a great film. It is also excruciatingly slow which makes for a boring movie.9 Souls is a big disappointment, the reviews gush about a great film and it's in there somewhere, good luck finding it yourself.$LABEL$ 0
+Most who go to this movie will have an idea what it is about; A man loses his entire family and even his dog in a flight from Boston that fateful morning of September 11, 2001. What you probably won't know before seeing this film is this: How that would feel; What do you do with that; and how would that affect you and the way you relate to every waking day? The story unfolds painfully slow from the gate and then warms up nicely as it gains a little speed while the recently renewed relationship between dentist Alan Johnson, (Don Cheadle) and ex-college roommate Charlie Fineman, (Adam Sandler) solidifies and begins to take shape. Characters appear in this film whose presence initially seem obligatory and not well developed but in fact, stay with this story, and you find that the simplicity of each character is what makes this story believable - and accurate. Real people inhabit a real situation whereby they can do little but stand aside while one amongst them disintegrates. The pain inside Charlie's soul is subtly evident from first introduction and grows as we learn more about his character –brilliantly revealed by Sandler, as layers of an onion – one layer at a time with lightness and weight combined. It's so subtle a performance that he sneaks up on you and gets inside your head while you are watching him on screen. Cheadle's Alan Johnson is equally subtle and very Don Cheadle. Always watchable, the ease that's apparent when Cheadle's on screen speaks to his consummate acting skills. Alan's relationship with Charlie Fineman is delicate in texture, just as the situation would demand. Fineman doesn't want friendship, nor anybody intruding into his cloistered life and yet, the likable quality that Alan owns is simple and honest enough to intrigue even a recluse like Charlie. It is Alan who has the task of gingerly opening up Charlie's carefully sealed life. There is inherent danger in the process. The more Alan nudges Charlie to open up, going so far as engaging the services of friend and psychologist Angela Oakhurst, (Liv Tyler) the nearer the danger of pushing Charlie over the edge. It's an abyss that Charlie teeters on each and every waking moment and one he has learned to navigate through sheer dint of denial. He has denied everything that priorly existed for him in order to exist with his loss. Unfortunately, his grief is one thing he cannot deny. Sandler withdraws so deeply into his character's pain during the story's unfolding that, by the time he meets his demons head-on, the viewer shares his pain almost equally. Alan stands beside Charlie throughout this exacting process at the risk of lousing up his own perfect home-life - run with admirable grace and efficiency by wife Janeane. (Jada Pinkett Smith) While tending to Charlie's recovery, Alan looks inward and recognizes his own silent screams at the death of the independence he once owned and the boy he has lost becoming a man. His reward for helping Charlie is helping himself reconnect with what he has lost. The theme is much like The Fisher King; another story of a man who isolates himself to the point of madness from sorrow and loss. Like The Fisher King, the story concludes with the traditional, there is someone for everyone theme. Reign Over Me's Lidia Sinclair, (played by the wonderful Amanda Plummer in The Fisher King) is Donna Remar, (Saffron Burrows) a woman on the verge of breakdown and sketchy patient of Johnson's, who turns out to be the just unstable enough to complement Charlie's borderline insanity. It's a good ending to the story, but the one element probably least likely to ring true. Then again, maybe there really is someone for everyone. Devorah Macdonald Vancouver, BC$LABEL$ 1
+Watching this film for the action is rather a waste of time, because the figureheads on the ships act better than the humans. It's a mercy that Anthony Quinn couldn't persuade anyone else to let him direct any other films after this turkey.But it is filled with amusement value, since Yul Brynner has hair, Lorne Greene displays an unconvincing French accent, and the rest of the big names strut about in comic-book fashion.$LABEL$ 0
+The only good part about this film is the beautiful scenery. This movie was long and boring. The minister should have retired from the pulpit the time his son Paul strayed from the teachings he proclaimed. How many times can his boys take the Lord's name in vain in this film being from a Presbyterian background? It doesn't fit. I wished Paul was swept down the river without a boat at the very beginning to spare us the silly, smirkish, selfish story of Paul (Brad Pitt). So Norm becomes a teacher and Paul becomes a compulsive gambler who Norm wants to rescue but doesn't-so what. It's very uninteresting. We see the prejudiced whites being stood up to by Paul because of his native American girl. That was the only part that had some interest and maybe could have been developed into a real 'wild western'. What we only see is a sleepy town where the two minister's sons have nothing to do but 1. Norm chase a lame girlfriend and deal with her family and 2.Paul make up dumb stories at the newspaper shop while scratching his head and take a lot of swigs and tie a lot of flies. I'd rather watch a show about fishing that that film again-which will be never.$LABEL$ 0
+Honestly, this is easily in the top 5 of the worst movies I have ever seen. Partly, because it takes itself so seriously, as opposed to regular light hearted trash, this movies wants you to be emotionally involved, to feel for the characters, and to care about the alleged conspiracy. None of this ever even comes close to happening.****MILD SPOILERS******There are 3 main reasons why this movie is so terrible: 1.) Incoherent and totally non-sensical plot. 2.) Annoying style-over-substance "MTV" camerawork. 3.) Moronic characters and plot holes.Allow me to elaborate.1.) Apparently, when this movies was being made, they couldn't decide whether to make a movie about church conspiracies, the stigmata, or possession. So, guess what? They combined them! An aetheist gets possessed by a dead person, who then makes her exhibit the stigmata so as to expose a church conspiracy. How a regular person is able to transcend death and possess another human being through his rosary is never explained, nor even talked about. Now, instead of just saying what he wants to say, he gives her the Stigmata. WHY? Why not just spit it out? Instead, we get treated to scenes of screaming things in harsh voices, carving cryptic messages on cars, and writing messages on walls. Apparently this priest was also a violent guy, because the possessed young lady also wigs out on one o f the characters, while talking in that cliched, harsh, "possessed" voice that we all have heard countless times. This also starts to tie into my second complaint, because whenever the young lady gets the stigmata, she also defies the laws of gravity by floating into the air, and tossing everything and everybody around her as if they were in an earthquake? Why does this happen? Who knows!?! My guess is that the director thought it looked "cool".2.) This movies contains dozens of shots, in slow motion, of course, of birds showing up out of nowhere and flying off, and most annoyingly, of water dripping. This woman's apartment is constantly dripping water! CONSTANTLY! Logically, the place would probably fall apart with this many holes. To sum up this complaint, towards the end, and for absolutely no reason, the camera cuts to shots of water dripping, in slow motion, in reverse!! WHY!?! I have no idea! It has no relevance to anything, and once again, I'm betting it's because the director thought it looked "cool".3.) One of the main characters says he became a priest to explain away holes in science. This doesn't make sense to me. I would think that going to church would be enough, but no, he has to go through the entire rigamarole of becoming a priest. I just don't buy it. Secondly, there are lots of plot holes, a few of which I will elaborate on below. For starters, when she first gets the stigmata, the scene ends with her laying unconscious, bleeding. Next, she's in the hospital. Who called the ambulance? Another one is towards the end, when the previously mentioned "scientific priest" character is talking to the spirit who is possessing the girl. He says, "Take me as your messenger!" Not a word for word quote, but you get the idea. His response? "You have no faith, only doubt!" So, because of this, he possesses an aetheist! An aetheist has no faith, far less then any scientific priest! And then, there's the fact that the object of this movie's conspiracy, this Lost Gospel (of St. Thomas, I believe) is available at local bookstores. The characters are willing to kill to supress this document, but you could walk down to a bookstore and buy it. Maybe this is supposed to take place in an alternate history, where it isn't wide known, but the movie never tries to tell us this, or to even hint that this is an alternate happening of that document's uncovering.In closing, this movie is terrible to a spectacular degree. It is my arch-nemesis, which I feel the need to insult every chance I get. I loathe it. Final Grade: F$LABEL$ 0
+K Murli Mohan Rao made the much better BANDHAN in 1998 This film is an awful remake of THE WEDDING SINGERBasically in short, the film consists of: Salman Khan who in those days used to have the role of a dejected lover who looses his girl and also he had his comic scenes where he hammed badly even today he does well he does it all here too and also looses his shirt in scenesJackie Shroff- wasted, bored and tired, his role is so stupid He is shown as a lover of Pooja Bhatra then in 1 scene he is shown as a womanizer?Inder Kumar- confusing characterization againRani Mukherjee- boring, overweight and does nothing special Pooja Bhatra- tall, fair and actress worthy but lacks talentKashmira Shah- says a dial as if a poetryMohinish Behl- poor fellow the 2 kids were awful tooThe story is the same and has awful comic scenes, a sudden love story and boring drunken scenes plus a forced comic track of Shakti KapoorDirection is poor Music is decentSalman khan just goes through the motions, Jackie is bad, Rani is as usual, Pooja is bad, Mohinish and Kashmira are nothing great Inder is awful$LABEL$ 0
+I just saw The Drugs Years on VH1 and I love it. I think it reflects the drug history very well and most importantly IT HAS A STRONG MESSAGE TO THE ALL GENERATIONS. There is woodstock, there are Joplin's, Hendrix's and Jim Morrison's deaths, there are many many examples of drug use and drug abuse. It completely cover the time line and evolution of drug use in America in both good and bad ways. In my opinion this documentary is well done and I would like to congratulate to its creators because this is exactly what is needed to be playing in the TV in these days. I am waiting for the DVD release. You should definitely see it!!! This movie is stunning-- BIG TIME!$LABEL$ 1
+This is a total waste of money. The production is poor, the special effects are terrible. In my country they had the courage to put this film on video named as "The Mummy" because of the success of Brendan Fraser`s film. I`m sure that you can find better horror movies.$LABEL$ 0
+Why I disliked the movie, apart from the sheer ugliness of the actors themselves, is that someone might actually believe such crap.First of all, The Second Coming of Christ will be at the end of words, and when Jesus Christ will come on Judgement day he will not come as He did before, in human form. He will come in His full Glory as God and we shall be judged not only for our sins, but also for the consequences of our actions. Everyone will! Secondly, I have seen the eternal Gay pride illustrated in this movie with the all unquestionable "I read the Bible last night and it's not written anywhere". Well, it is. Moses cites on 3 different occasions that men who make love to other men, or women who make love to each other as if man and wife should be killed because these will never inherit the kingdom of God as they are foul! If it truly were for us to follow the Bible word for word there would be executions now, wouldn't there? But I think misinforming people does more harm than this would... That was the in the Old Testament.There are lots of lunatics in psychiatric wards who think they are The Son of God, but to make a movie after it truly makes you think of how many idiots out there can make a movie.$LABEL$ 0
+I resisted seeing this movie and I understand why it was not a big hit in theatres. "October Sky" feels and looks oh so familiar. And it is. All plot contrivances and emotions have been explored before in other films -- and possibly even better. But despite it's familiarity and resistance to all formulas Hollywood, this movie is winning and likeable at every turn. Sputnik is the inspiration for this journey of the heart, mind and soul. Just as the characters from Steven Sondheim's musical MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG stood agape atop their apartment roof hoping it would launch their new generation ("What do you call it? You call it a miracle."), Sputnik has a similar affect on the young rocket boys of this true tale. While jaded townsfolk of their 1950's coal town dismiss the event, Homer Hickham sees Sputnik as his ticket out of a life in the mines.Masterful direction and casting make the journey of rocket boy Homer and his pals seem fresh and new. Especially affecting are subplots concerning Homer's ailing young school teacher. Remarkable restraint is shown in depicting their delicate relationship. Also remarkable is the father / son supblot that anchors the film. Perfectly played all around. Even Homer's mom gets her moment without cliche or intrusion. Her ultimatum to her husband is both dignified and heatbreaking. "Myrtle Beach" says it all. A major video chain I despise has a sign next to this film stating that you'll love this film or they'll refund your money. For once, I agree with them. You'll never look at the October sky quite the same again.$LABEL$ 1
+Following up the 1970s classic horror film Carrie with this offering, is like Ford following the Mustang with the Edsel. This film was horrendous in every detail. It would have been titled Beverly Hill 90210 meets Mystery Science Theater 3000, but both of those shows far exceed this tripe. This film was scarcely a horror film. I timed about 3 minutes of gore and 90 minutes of lame high school hazing and ritual. Wow, what a surprise, Carrie's weird friend commits suicide! Wow, Carrie misconstrues her love interests affections! Wow, the in-crowd sets up Carrie! Wow, the jocks have a sexual scoring contest! What this film needed was way more action and far less tired teen cliches. This film is totally unviewable.$LABEL$ 0
+When I was young, I was a big fan of Chuck Norris. I just begun getting out all his old movies on video so I can see them through adult eyes. I remember that I really liked this one in particular, and thought it was one of his best. Now that I'm a little older, I can say that although it's thoroughly average, I still consider it one of his better films. In an acting stretch for him, Norris plays a cop haunted by his participation in the arrest and capture of a dangerous serial killer movie. Serial Killers are all the rage nowadays, and people would like to think of them as a wholly 90s invention. In contrast, it's good to see where the current infatuation has sprung from, most obviously, action movies (as well as stalk n' slashers) of 70s and 80s. While Norris attempts at both humour and any form of human compassion are ham-fisted and laughable, nobody could kick someone in the head quite like Chuck. Being a big fan of Steve James also, I can recommend this film, ditto for genre legend Billy Drago, as well as seeing Mitch from The Blue Brothers in a supporting role. Not great, but it's better than anything Norris did in the 90s.$LABEL$ 0
+Philo Vance (William Powell) helps solve multiple murders among the wealthy after a dog show.Usually I hate overly convoluted mysteries (like this) but I LOVE this movie. It moves very quickly (only 72 minutes), is beautifully directed by Michael Curtiz (he uses tons of camera tricks that just speed the narrative along), has a very ingenious story line (including a solution to a locked room murder that was just incredible) and has a very good cast. Powell is very suave and great as Vance--he doesn't seem to be acting--he IS Vance! Mary Astor isn't given much to do but she adds class and beauty to the production. Everybody else is very good too, but best of all is Eugene Pallette as Detective Heath. He's a very good actor with a VERY distinctive voice and some of his lines were hilarious.Basically, an excellent 1930s Hollywood murder mystery. Well worth seeing.$LABEL$ 1
+Let's face it, this is a pretty bad film.However if you go in ready to make fun of it you can survive the experience.Okay, you'll scream in agony a lot.African jungle fun in a dopey kind of way.Tom Conway (who spends most of the film wearing a funky chapeau) is using the local witch doctor and mad science to create a "perfect" being.It looks like a varmint that has been on a six week drunk and is in a sack dress.Ugly is being kind.But it won't kill for him because he's using a good girl as his subject.He needs a bad bad girl.Marla English and Lance Fuller are two petty crooks in search of African gold.Acting lessons for Ms English should have been at the top of the search list.She's a bad girl and lets everybody know it in a performance worthy of a junior high school play.Mike "Touch" Connors is the white guide English & Fuller con into leading the expedition.English & Conway finally meet and it is a match made in hell.She is the perfect subject to become his voodoo creature because she'll do anything (stress anything) to get what she wants.You will do anything to stop the agony of this movie at this point.What made this movie interesting for me was Conway wearing that funky tribal hat/headdress/floral piece!Still trying to figure out what kind of dead animal it was.Guess he thought if he pulled it down low enough over his eyes nobody would recognize him.Truly bad cinema.$LABEL$ 0
+"Are You in the House Alone?" belongs to the pre-cable TV days when the networks were eager to offer an alternative to popular TV shows. It is well-made thriller with a talented cast and credible situations. Kathleen Beller plays a High School student who gets a series of threatening letters. Everyone seems to think that it is nothing more than a prank but Beller is really scared. Tony Bill and Blythe Danner play Beller's parents, Ellen Travolta (John's sister) is the High School Principal and Dennis Quaid has one of his earliest roles as a cocky rich kid. It's a competent chiller with a still relevant social message. Beller is lovely - if you are 30 or older, you will remember that she was very popular among youngsters. Blythe Danner, who I usually don't like, gives a truly moving performance. Nice little film.$LABEL$ 1
+I recently bought this movie for three bucks at a garage sale, and while I'm glad I didn't have to pay the usual $19.99 for this DVD, I was pleasantly surprised by how good the film was.It's set up like a horror anthology, broken up into 5 tales, including the 'connector' story which involves four teenagers who's car breaks down a dark, lonely road in the middle of the night. Apparently, these kiddos like horror stories, because that's what they decide to do until morning - tell spooky stories around a campfire. Each character takes their turn telling a story, after which their own story is wrapped up with a nice little twist.The first story, "The Hook" is kinda a waste of time, a bit bland and dull. Luckily, this is not one of the main stories and only lasts maybe 5 minutes. It's intended merely to introduce the film and it's easy to overlook the unoriginality of this piece.The second story, "The Honeymooners" is, eh, okay. It's about - you guessed it - two people on their honeymoon! They're traveling around in an RV headed to Las Vegas. They decide to stop somewhere for the night, but they're quickly warned by a mysterious stranger to leave the location, or risk being attacked by some dangerous, unknown creatures. This story has a pretty good setup, but just merely an 'ok' delivery. Basically, it's fairly entertaining and mysterious till the monsters show up, then it's just kinda iffy.The third story, "People Can Lick Too" is my personal favorite. It involves a young girl who's parents are going out for the night and who's older sis is ditching her for a party. So, she's going to be all alone - a fact she makes known to an internet buddy of hers. Trouble is, that internet buddy? Is not exactly a thirteen-year-old girl. This story's conclusion is slightly less climatic than I might have liked to have seen, but still pretty dang good.The final story, "The Locket" is definitely the one packed with the most atmosphere. Set in a creepy mansion on a dark, rainy night, it's the tale of a young man (played by Glenn Quinn!) traveling around on a motorcycle who stumbles across this house just at the time that he conveniently has a problem with his bike. He meets the mute girl who lives in the house, and falls in love with her at first sight. Unfortunately, not everything is all fine and dandy - and it might have something to do with that locket hanging around her pretty neck...After the stories are wrapped up, we're presented with a twist involving the four teens in the car, a twist which, in retrospect, should have been obvious, but which it didn't really see coming, and it's a quite pleasing conclusion to film.So, all in all, a good movie. Rent it if you can, because unfortunately, I don't really think it has a lot re-watching value. But next time you're in the mood for a vaguely scary litte flick in the same vein as "Tales of the Darkside" or something, grab this movie and some popcorn, turn off all the lights, and treat yourself to this surprisingly nifty little flick.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is the last straw in a list of films I have seen this week that have pushed me over the edge and forced me to join IMDb and spread some warning to the public. It was absolutely horrible. The film was drawn out and painfully boring. The sound, effects, and even picture quality seemed like they came from Willow (1988) or maybe even Conan the Barbarian (1982). The battle of Bannockburn was absolutely absurd. This "largest filmed reconstruction of medieval battle ever staged in the British Isles" made me snicker. There wasn't even a coherent formation at all, just a few guys with spears and horses running right through them. The scenes of Douglas, especially in the last battle, were simply horrible, as was most of the acting in the film.$LABEL$ 0
+Jason Connery is not an actor; he is the son of an actor. His Macbeth is the worst I have ever seen. Oh yes, he murders king Duncan, but he also kills William Shakespeare. His wife is even worse. Please, give me Polanski's version on DVD, so I can forget this monster. Jon Finch, Orson Welles, Laurence Olivier, there you have ACTORS!$LABEL$ 0
+Twins Effect, starring some of HK's most popular stars provides one of the most enjoyable film experiences to come out of HK in sometime. It has something for everyone, action, comedy, horror, romance, and some drama. This film can't be taken too seriously, otherwise you'd go in dissapointed, but if you leave your brain at the door, and just watch the film for some fun, you're bound to enjoy it.Great special effects, excellent action, cute Twins, cool HK actors, FUN film!I'd recommend it to anyone!$LABEL$ 1
+wow...this has got to be the DUMBEST movie I've ever seen. We watched it in english class...and this movie made ABSOLUTELY no sense. I would never, EVER watch this movie again...and my sympathy to those who have ever PAID to see it.$LABEL$ 0
+OK, I would give this a 1, but I'm gonna give it a two because I laughed while watching this film...First of all, I can make a much better movie than this one...in a week...The special effects made this film look like a joke. One shouldn't make such films with horrible special effects because then people won't take it seriously. The acting and direction was also horrible. The screenplay had many plot holes and the whole film wasn't believable at all. This has to be the worst Indian film ever. The songs were also bad. The acting was bad and artificial. Need I say more. Don't watch this movie unless you are curious to see how bad it is. That's why I watched it. I am going into film and I wanted to see how bad a bad film can get. Trust me, I watched one of the worst films in history if not THE worst film.$LABEL$ 0
+I felt this movie was as much about human sexuality as anything else, whether intentionally or not. We are also shown how absurd and paradoxical it is for women not to be allowed to such a nationally important event, meanwhile forgetting the pasts of our respective "advanced" nations. I write from Japan, where women merely got the right to vote 60 years ago, and female technical engineers are a recent phenomenon. Pubs in England were once all-male, the business world was totally off-limits for women in America until rather recently, and women in China had their feet bound so they couldn't develop feet strong enough to escape their husbands. Iran is conveniently going through this stage in our time, and we get a good look at how ridiculous we have all looked at one time or another. Back to the issue of sexuality, we are made to wonder what it may be intrinsically about women that make them unfit for a soccer game (the official reason is that the men are bad). Especially such boyish girls, a couple so much so that you even get the feeling that lesbianism is on the agenda as well. I think one point is that not all women are the same, and the women the police are trying to "protect" are not the ones who would try to get in in the first place. The opening scenes of the approach to the stadium makes you appreciate the valor of the young women trying to get in -- and each one separately -- at all. It is a brutish man's world. Any woman brave enough to try to go should be allowed! The world of sexuality is not one-size-fits-all.Meanwhile, the apprehended criminal girls bond inside the makeshift pen awaiting their deportation to who-knows-where, and in a much more subtle way, begin to bond with the guards keeping watch over them. These had definite ideas about women and femininity, which were being challenged head-on. The change in attitude is glacial, but visible.Since the movie is pure Iran from the first moment, it takes a little easing-into for the foreigner, but the characters have a special way of endearing themselves to you, and you end up getting the whole picture, and even understanding the men's misunderstandings and give them slack. The supposed villain is the unseen patriarchy of the Ayatollahs, which remain unseen and unnamed, and likely unremembered.Knowing that this movie was filmed during the actual event of the Iran-Bahrain match gives me a feeling of awe for all involved.$LABEL$ 1
+A hilarious comedy by the best director ever, Oz Scott. The list of eighties TV icons goes on and on. Milano (Who's The Boss), Yothers (Family Ties), Stone (Mr. Belvedere), Robinson (Night Court), Jackee (227), D'abo (Wonder Years), Walston (Mr. Hand!!!). It is one of the funniest movies ever. Great lines, meaningless subplots, cheesy, bad acting. It is about a group of high school kids who need to pass drivers' ed. Mac from Night Court needs them to pass their final exam, or he'll be fired. Great performance by Brian Bloom as the jerk/kinda cool guy Riko Conner, but is nothing compared to B.D. Wong's Kiki (pronounced kee-chee). A great movie for all ages, so bad it's good.$LABEL$ 1
+Director Todd Verow's unexpected turn into sentimental coming-out drama yields a predictable result: Nothing new to see here. Attractive but unconvincing leads - these 20-somethings are supposed to be in high school? - dribbling out banalities about confused, adolescent sexuality doesn't strike me as the best way to explore the promise of Anonymous, which was equally self-involved, but also honest, raw and, by comparison, not all that maudlin. I have no idea what to make of this drab and uninspiring movie other than to hope that Verow finds another career. Sure, it's unpretentious, but so's Mike Huckabee.No single attribute, however, is as awful as Jim Dwyer's chintzy, electronic score, which grates non-stop, wall-to-wall for the full length of this movie. If I'd seen this, and heard this, in a theatre, I would have walked out. Thankfully, on my laptop, I could scrub and hit mute.$LABEL$ 0
+This was truly a tense and dark episode. Excellently executed, wonderful acting and atmospheric directing, 'Ice' is one of my favorite episodes. Along with 'Pusher' 'Grotesque' 'Wetwired' and 'Home' (these are quite good in dark atmosphere in my case) It seem quite realistic to me, their paranoia, their suspicion and their ever growing rage was perfectly executed by the great actors. However, 'Ice' had a problem that I got over after a few watches: IT WAS TOO SHORT! I WANTED MORE!Overall, 'ice' had what 98% of all X Files episodes have: Excellent acting, Intense story-writing, gritty directing. All the works.10 out of 10$LABEL$ 1
+OK, this movie starts out like a cheesy Lifetime movie and doesn't get better till almost well through the movie. The script is full of 'cheese' and 'fluff' and cast is not well directed for the most part. For the first half of the movie the little girl grated on my nerves. I do not think this is one of her best acting jobs. The only reason I bought the movie is because it was on sale and had Ellen Burstyn in it. She's terrific but this is also not one of her best acting gigs. The story is based on true events and that helps the movie. Actually, I didn't even like the movie at first and was getting disgusted when I saw stills of the balloon traveling, I mean..let it get where it's suppose to go and be done with it! But all is forgiven by the time it does reach it's destination and the story comes to a close. If this doesn't bring a tear to your eye, nothing will! It's cheesy and predictable but also makes you feel good about the world again.$LABEL$ 1
+I wasn't expecting the highest calibre of film-making with Joel Schumacher directing this one, so I was surprised that TIGERLAND wasn't a complete waste of time.In technique, it's often derivative of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN with the shaky camera work, grainy shots, the film occasionally running like it's skipping a sprocket---all those techniques Speilberg used to make his film seem more realistic but in the end was more distracting than anything else.But unlike SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, the emotional component wasn't as weak, as the characters in this film seemed more like real people and the story less contrived, not so wrapped up in the American flag (Speilberg gets an 'F' in subtlety).Next to the first section of Kubrick's FULL METAL JACKET, this is the most realistic portrayal of boot camp that I have seen in a film, and for that I think it's worth watching.It's not a great film, but neither is it a bad film.$LABEL$ 1
+I finally got hold of Lifeforce on DVD with the widescreen format intact and rousing Henry Mancini score to the max. After having viewed Lifeforce for fifteen years on tape, I have to say that the 'uncut' DVD version was both great and disappointing. The U.S. version is so *much* better than the DVD (European?) version. The U.S. version of lifeforce moves much faster (the editing on the DVD version is terrible. Feels like an unfinished cut). And the many scenes not seen in the American version add little or nothing to the final problem. In fact one "new" moment almost destroys the entire movie, when Caine (peter firth) meets the male alien at the cathedral. I love this scene, in the U.S. version though. On the DVD, the male alien speaks to Caine and what he says is soooooo hilarious. It's the pinnacle of hilarity:"It'll be much less terrifying if you just come to me!" the male alien says, in a deep 1950s style voice. I was floored when I saw this. It just doesn't belong in the movie. That scene is pure camp in an otherwise super serious flick. I'm glad Hooper (or whoever) cut that scene when the movie was released in North America. There are several changes that were made for the U.S. version that make Lifeforce that much better and I wished the DVD had the U.S. version. The editing is sharp and frenzied without being annoying and some spots that were already boring in the U.S. version are even more boring on the DVD version because of added scenes. And the opening credits on the DVD is terrible. Much better in the U.S. version. More subtle.I love this film. It's basically aliens making a pit-stop over earth and sucking up as much Lifeforce as possible. The film has too many flat, uninspiring sequences (talk, talk, talk) but when the action goes to London, it's fun. The film really shines in these scenes. One can see Hooper finally doing what he's great at: chaos, savagery, horror! Lifeforce should have had more of these chaos scenes. They're the best Apocalyptic scenes ever put on film. It's also the best zombie movie ever. The zombies are hungry (for lifeforce, not flesh) and they're crazed and agile and terrifying. Not the slow moving bores of other zombie movies. Also, a lot of people have criticized the ending but I love it. It leaves you high and dry, like one of the lifeforce-drained victims.And to think this movie came out during the cute and cuddly 80s, when people flocked to E.T. or Cocoon or other sweet and boring, feel good sci-fi movies. No wonder it bombed because it was way ahead of its time with its super nihilistic point of view!As for the DVD, well, it ain't great. The image is muddy and grainy and there are no extras whatsoever. But it's great to see the movie in its widescreen format. I just hope that they'll release a clean, crisp U.S. version on a DVD, and with commentary by Hooper and Dykstra.$LABEL$ 1
+It was hard for me to believe all of the negative comments regarding this all-star flick. I laughed through the entire picture, as did my entire family. The movie clearly defined itself as an old time gangster comedy--the players were hysterical--I'll bet they had a good old time while making it. Of course Goldblum and Dreyfuss were great--and how about those Everly sisters, each of the two Falco's, and the divine music throughout. Rob Reiner made a great laughing limo driver, and Gabriel Byrne a laughable neurotic. Not to mention Gregory Hines, Burt Reynolds, the Sleepy Joe character and the whole mortuary and grave digger references. Paul Anka was his usual entertaining self, with the added attraction of running scared after Byrne decided to make a duet of his "My Way" welcome home to Vick performance.I am of the opinion that this movie was a comical tribute to Frank Sinatra and friends; Dreyfuss imitated him well. I am also of the opinion that no one, of any age, would even think of imitating the actions which occurred in this movie--it's a joke--not a terrifying "gangsta" film. The cars and clothing were impressive, as was the decorative, "Vic's Place."Truly, I think of "Mad Dog Time" as a musical comedy, less harmful than many cartoons, TV crime dramas, and talk shows. I would recommend the video for an evening of family entertainment.$LABEL$ 1
+I had a heck of a good time viewing this picture, and was splendidly surprised at its more erudite features. First off, the film is undeniably cheaply-made with its cardboard sets, limited settings, and creative scientific props. The acting ranges from very poor(the two strippers), barely professional(Herb Evers as the leading man), gothic overstatement(Leslie Daniels as the assistant Kurt)to first-rate with Virginia Leith in the title role as the headless victim alive against her will for the benefit of science and her fiancee's lustful passions. The scripting though is very good and the dialogue is fantastic for a movie of this ilk. Issues abound about what role science and medicine have in our lives and what their boundaries should be. This film is a thinking film in many ways. However, don't be too fooled by its real intent. It is a sleazy story about a man obsessed with his aptitude in medical science who wishes to fuse together his dead girlfriend's head with the perfect body, thereby creating the perfect woman for a man with the best of both body and soul. One other very bright aspect of the film is the sax music which resonates strongly every time the doctor scours town for female beauties.$LABEL$ 1
+Surely no Saturday morning TV kids' show was ever done this poorly. After all, those producers had to count on the audience coming back. Well, in this awful offering, they could at least count the money they saved on sets. The script could have been a reject from some long-forgotten space opera serial, with a few smarmy lines added for cool-dude Gerald Mohr to murmur to Naura Hayden. No director could have done anything decent with such a loony storyline, so the action just plods boringly along. The spaceship props are absurd--a Bulova wall clock and portable typewriter, for example--but the planet sets have got to be some of the worst in cinematic history. Most are crude drawings, and it's all bathed in an often misfocused red light. Even Mohr's bare hairy chest is used as a prop. And it's a bad one--as rib-thin as the plot. Any viewer who can make it to the end of this movie will hear a message from the Martians--and will probably agree completely!$LABEL$ 0
+Bogdonovich's (mostly) unheralded classic is a film unlike just about any other. A film that has the feel of a fairy tale, but has a solid grounding in reality due to its use of authentic Manhattan locations and "true" geography, perhaps the best location filming in NYC I've ever seen. John Ritter reminds us that with good directors (Bogdanovich, Blake Edwards, Billy Bob) he can be brilliant, and the entire ensemble is a group you'll wish truly existed so you could spend time with `em. One of the few romantic comedies of the last 20 years that doesn't seem to be a rip-off of something else, this is the high point of Bogdanovich's fertile after- "success" career, when his best work was truly done ("saint jack", "at long last...", "noises off".$LABEL$ 1
+The "Trivia" page on IMDb claims the filmmakers protested because this film was re-cut by the studio to "simplify the plot". If so, that effort was a total failure, as this is one of the most incoherent narratives I've ever seen in a film -- I'd hate to have seen it before the plot was "simplified."It's sad to see Warren with so little character to go on that even he can't do anything with the inept material. It's interesting to see Caron in '70s mode instead of her Hollywood-era glamour garb and persona, but it's sad to see her haplessly wander through this doing-a- favor-to-her-producer-husband dreck. She would actually later hook up with and marry the director, instead -- who, you'll note, never directed anything again, but did strictly 1st or 2nd A.D. work in TV from here on out. That oughta tell you enough right there.I call this "interesting" because I have an automatic fondness for American films of this period, and this role does add perspective to Oates' otherwise fantastic 1971 output (Two- Lane Blacktop, The Hired Hand). But the "1940s detective as fish-out-of-water in 1970s L.A." theme, which is the only thing the movie really has to say, is sold in way too heavy- handed a manner. A similar theme would be far more effectively handled two years later in Altman's The Long Goodbye. And as far as Oates playing a hard-bitten guy on a doomed errand, three years on, he would give his definitive performance in Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia. If you haven't seen those, don't waste your time with this!$LABEL$ 0
+I must admit I am a big fan of South Park and was expecting Basketball to be funny but nowhere near as good as it turned out to be! I think this is what happens when you mix David Zucker, Matt Stone, and Trey Parker together. This movie has so much replay value and at no point bothers to take itself seriously. The slap stick style humor mixed with Stone and Parker just works flawlessly. The kind of humor present in Basketball was not popular upon the time of it's release and had it come out today it would be a hit. Don't bother trying to be critical, just leave your brain at the door and expect endless laughs to come. Recommended to anyone with a good sense of humor.$LABEL$ 1
+At first sight, Who's Singing Over There just seems to be an absurd and excellent comedy… with only a kind of unusual, quiet and slow motion : what a mistake ! Beginning with two singers on a desert landscape, then a bus and a wonderful bunch of actors, it hides a gem !The folded story, and a false rhythm induces you to think, yes it is comic, but just lets you guess it will be a gentle kind of movie. Not at all : very funny by instant, dark subtle cynical on others, its development surprises you all along the story… Very ingeniously and cleverly presented, all the characters are important, and the actors give them full life.And what is astonishing, it's based on deep observation, great mastering of the camera work and has a great meanings, and really everything, the general direction and how also the details are presented, that it simply makes you forget it's a movie: it is like to watch a kind human society, you yet don't know,shot by a friend behind a camera.And you're the one behind him. It is simple, and simply exceptional !Don't misunderstand me; in no way that would means the script , the quality of picture, the music score have a kind of amateurish way, no, no ! It's great Art ! Because it flows like a river… From high up in the mountain, down to the sea, with all the different sort of grounds and peregrinations that a real river will face on its journey to the sea… from a tiny thing to a main stream.This metaphoric image I used is the very best way I can find to explain all the charm that has Who's Singing Over There. For me, again, I take the hammer : simply exceptional...I've seen that The Director is the one who made Chat Blanc/Chat Noir, which I know is quiet famous… But as I yet didn't see it, I had no idea about this gentleman.Others reviewers wrote dithyrambical comments on that film, I fully agree !European Eastern Cinema is not well know because seldom translated, but I am lucky to have this exemplar one in original language, with good English subtitles. All in all : deep, delicious and exceptional...For fast and empty exploding types and special effect buffs, avoid it at any cost, it may be too subtle and good for you !But if you're interested in different genres and/or classics, I guess you won't regret this one, and in case of buying, it will have good companionship in your personal DVD library, with such no less than merited big names like Billy Wilder, Lubitsch, or Sacha Guitry among some of my preferred directors . At least for this movie !***A film is never really good unless the camera is an eyes in the head of a poet Orson Welles***$LABEL$ 1
+Though I saw this movie about 4 years ago long before I started commenting on IMDb, I decided to review it now which is unusual for me since before now I often reviewed something just after seeing it. What can I say? Well, the best performance is that of the late Peter Boyle as the title character who, after finding out about a man's killing the drug-dealing boyfriend of his daughter, wants to bond with him even though he's a Madison Avenue executive who has nothing in common with the very lower-class conservative Joe. In fact, there are plenty of funny scenes of Joe at this guy's party making smart alecky remarks there. Oh, and it should be noted that the actress that plays the daughter who they're looking for after she disappeared from the hospital after overdosing on some drugs is none other than Susan Sarandon making her film debut! This was a pretty hard-hitting movie for the time it was made (late '60s-early '70s) and was compelling work from scripter Norman Wexler (later of Saturday Night Fever) and director John G. Avildsen (later to do Save the Tiger, Rocky, and The Karate Kid). Certainly the ending packs a wallop even today after all these years! Highly recommended for anyone curious about the counterculture of that time. P.S. Among the cultural artifacts seen here are a Raggedy Ann doll, a box of Ritz crackers, a bottle of Heinz ketchup, and, unique for the era, a Nixon poster asking, "Would you buy a used car from this man?"$LABEL$ 1
+What can be said, really... "The Tenant" is a first-class thriller wrought with equal amounts of suspense and full-blown paranoia. It's an intricately-plotted film--every detail seems included for a reason--even though the plot seldom makes sense, and much of it is never even addressed in an objective manner. Therefore we are left with the increasingly unstable Trelkovsky (Polanski)--a meek Polish man who has obtained an apartment due to the previous tenant's suicide--to guide us through a world of escalating fear and uncertainty. After an apartment-warming party thrown by a group of obnoxious coworkers, Trelkovsky comes under increased, seemingly inexplicable scrutiny by the fellow occupants in his building; the rest of the film chronicles his mental deterioration and gives us a thorough mindfu*k on par with the later efforts of David Lynch. "The Tenant," however, is more brooding and sinister, laced with unexpected comic relief, fine performances, and a truly haunting score. It's a movie that's better experienced than described, so hop to it.$LABEL$ 1
+Is it possible to give a 0 out of 10 rating? Because this one deserves it. While I'm not a big fan of Jane Austen's books, I sat through this one with two women who are. Well, at least we had a big laugh about how bad this film is. Robert Hardy was the only actor with any charisma in the whole thing, though he overdid it as he usually does (nearly as bad as William Shatner). But that wasn't enough to save this stinker from total suckitude. It's often hard to separate the girl's dream sequences from what is "really" happening, and so many holes are left in the story that you can barely figure out what is going on. Too many loose ends and the ending feels like a "tune in again next week" climax. The lead actress is too ditsy and weird-looking to be a heroine, the leading man is too goofy-looking and effeminate to be a convincing hero and the music sounds like some kind of cheap new-agey pet project of the director's hippy daughter (I mean saxophone??? mixed in with some kind of spacey operatic female wailing?). So, in conclusion, I suggest you blow the budget and order a DVD of this one as soon as possible. Especially if you like disappointment.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is a loose collection of unintelligible analogies and ill conceived plot devices.Movie history: The director of this film was a pervert who drove around town filming random women. When his wife discovered the film reels, he was forced to quickly contrive a story. He claimed he was making a movie called "The brain that wouldn't die." Eventually, his wife demanded that he show her his "so called movie." That night he quickly filmed some extra scenes with a friend and "The Brain that wouldn't Die" was born.I hate this movie! Plot Synopsis: The main character's fiancé is killed in a horrible car accident(that he caused by ignoring the clearly posted road signs). He grabs her head from the wreckage and reanimates it. After reanimating the head, he goes and picks up a bunch of hookers. That is pretty much what happens for the rest of the movie. At the end, he fights and is killed by a monster that lives in the closet. The monster appears with little to no explanation. However, the monster saves a hooker and I assume that they live happily ever after.Side notes: The end credit screen claims that the movie is called "The Head that wouldn't Die".I hate this movie!$LABEL$ 0
+Okay, that was just brilliant. I wish that the rest of Season 1 had been this strong. It really needed more episodes like this. The cast worked perfectly, even though they were all nobodies back in the day. Writing was fantastic and so was the editing. Great job in all accounts. The episode was thrilling, suspenseful and just kept you guessing until the very end. Which is what most MOTW episodes had tried, but failed until now. The first FIVE star episode for me. Really good, almost like a movie. I didn't even remember it being this good. I think it's even better than the great horror movie called 'The Thing'.$LABEL$ 1
+The beginning voice over sounds like 'The Wind' could be quite an intriguing movie, but as the story unfolded I knew it was downhill from there. The major things about this movie that blew were the terribly bad acting jobs all the main characters did, (except for a few scenes involving the inner turmoil of Mic), there was a total lack of character development and absolutely no point to the plot - What were the writers thinking?Michael Mongillo won 2 'horror/sci fi' awards for 'The Wind'. HUH? What was so scary about this movie? NOTHING! Except for the resident evil 2 video shots, the rest was more of a 'made for t.v thriller' - it wouldn't even have to be edited. If you want a far better movie about 'murder among friends' rent "Shallow Grave" instead.'The Wind' */*****$LABEL$ 0
+After the opening credits over a black sheet of paper with spots of white paint sprayed onto it, oh OK I'll be generous and call it a star field, we witness an alien spacecraft crashing into a meteorite and being forced to land on earth. A terrible looking model spacecraft lands on a terrible looking model field. Three nearby campers investigate. From the burning spacecraft a reptile like looking alien, the 'Nightbeast' emerges, OK so I lied it's a guy in a dodgy rubber monster mask and silver spacesuit. The campers are quickly killed by the Nighbeast's laser gun which shoots awful special effects at people. The towns Sheriff Jack Cinder (Tom Griffith) is informed. He alerts his deputy Lisa Kent (Karin Kardian) and gathers a posse of men together to investigate. Meanwhile the Nightbeast has killed an unlucky motorist who stopped on the side of the road for a leak. His two annoying kids run for help. They approach a house, inside two young people are kissing, the girl says "someones running towards the house". The guy gets up to take a look and is attacked and gutted by the Nightbeast, it kills the girl as well. Then it manages to kill the two kids with his laser, maybe the Nightbeast ain't so bad after all. Once the Sheriff and his men arrive at the scene they have a gun/laser battle with the Nightbeast. After possibly the most unexciting gun fight in film history only the Sheriff, his deputy and a local man Jamie Lambert (Jamie Zemarel) survive. But the Nightbeast is still alive, bullets seem to have no effect on it. The next day the Sheriff visits the towns Mayor, Bert Wicker (Richard Dyszel) and his girlfriend Mary Jane (Eleanor Herman) to get permission to evacuate everyone in the town. He refuses saying a party he is holding for the Governor (Richard Ruxton) cannot be cancelled, and that he doesn't want to create a panic situation. The Sheriff evacuates the town anyway. Two doctors, Steven Price (George Stover) and Ruth Sherman (Anne Firth) are attacked by the Nightbeast before they can leave. However, they manage to scare the Nightbeast away and survive. Together with the Sheriff his deputy and Jamie they decide to stay behind and fight the alien. Written and directed by Don Dohler this has to be an amateur film, made with family and friends, look at the credits and see how many Dohler's are involved. For that reason I should probably cut it some slack but that still doesn't stop it, or excuse it from being a throughly awful film in every department. It has no story or purpose, things just happen to waste time, whats with Drago (Don Leifert) strangling his ex girlfriend Suzie (Monica Neff)? This and many more scenes add nothing to the film. The script has no logic either, why does the Nightbeast stick around the town once it's been supposedly evacuated? The special effects are embarrassingly bad, just look at the effect when the Nightbeast shoots someone with his laser, a computer effect an 80's spectrum would be ashamed of. There's not really much blood or gore in it, a ripped open stomach, a severed arm and a decapitation but they all look predictably poor. Credit where it's due, the Nightbeast itself looks alright for the most part. There's a sex scene between the Sheriff and his deputy which has to be seen to be believed, music that even a porno would be embarrassed about and two really ugly naked people make this a difficult sequence to watch. Less than stellar acting, photography, music, lighting and editing make it a real chore to sit through. And the worse thing about this film? It commits the mortal sin of being boring and not fun in the slightest. Sorry Don mate, but don't give up the day job! Definitely one to avoid.$LABEL$ 0
+Whenever this film gets a mention, usually the discussion begins and ends with the wonderful collection of cars and drag scenes, often overlooked are the at times eclectic characters that populate the film around the three central charactersOne character that stands out is Rebel played by the great veteran Australian actor Max Cullen. Rebel is a blind drag racer, who nearly runs down the hero and his group in the middle of the night because he is not using any headlights.In the back story we discover that Rebel master builder of street racing cars, and he and his wife seem locked in a time warp of the 1950's. Rebel goes on to play a small but pivotal role in teaching Mike, played by Terry Serio, the almost spiritual truth about street drag racing. It is not speed, reaction times that make a great racer. It is the one who feels the car best who will become the greatestThis is best exemplified as Rebel explains to Mike after a test drive "You got all the agony, just missing the style"Graham Bond, is another well credited actor lending his talents as a crooked police officer looking to get in on some of the financial action being generated by the street racing. The confrontation between Bond and Fox played by Richard Moir adds tension to the story. Bond not only expects results but also Fox to drum up racing businessFor most of the movie Fox displays a real manipulative and evil side, yet in the climax he presents a sense of honor that turns the final few minutes into an extremely tense and memorable ending. It is almost as if the film is refocusing on its true intention, to show us the culture of street racing rather than the day to day activities of peopleOne of the major complaints about the film is the script. Although it is nothing exciting, I believe the complete lack of any chemistry between Mikes girlfriend played by Deborah Conway and his mechanic played by Vangelis Mourikis has more to do with the problem. Any scene in which these two interact simply should have been cutLastly in terms of the actors, one truly standout performance is delivered by Kristoffer Greaves, who plays a deaf and crippled member of Fox's inner circle. His back story is never explored, was he injured in a race, born that way, what is it that Fox sees value in to keep him around The reality of the film is simple, it is about street racing, and the culture behind it. When the cars are flying and action sequences are in motion it is the only time Director John Clark and his writer Barry Tomblin seem really comfortable with what they are doing.So if you are looking for an in depth exploration of human relationships, moments of life defining drama, then this film is not for you. If your pulse races at the thought of a blown 57 Chev or the iconic GTO Phase 3 blazing away on the streets of Sydney, then you wont find much better than this film$LABEL$ 1
+Dan Duryea, a perfectly decent B-movie actor who made lots of lookalike noirs in the 1940s, can't do much with this one: young man is accused of murdering an unhappily married singer; when he's sentenced to die, his wife decides to solve the case herself with help from the dead woman's husband. After a dazzling opening shot, flick quickly settles into B-movie formula. It certainly looks good, but the twist finish is colorlessly handled and the cast (including Peter Lorre and Broderick Crawford) is just a bit stiff. Based on a Cornell Woolrich novel, and passable for a single viewing. ** from ****$LABEL$ 0
+Only the most ardent DORIS DAY fan could find this one even bearable to watch. When one thinks of the wealth of material available for a story about New York City's most famous blackout, a film that could have dealt with numerous real-life stories of what people had to cope with, this scrapes the bottom of the barrel for lack of story-telling originality.Once again Doris is indignant because she suspects she may have been compromised on the night of the blackout when she returned to her Connecticut lodgings, took a sleeping potion and woke up in the morning with a man who had done the same, wandering into the house by mistake.Nobody is able to salvage this mess--not Doris, not ROBERT MORSE, TERRY-THOMAS, PATRICK O'NEAL or LOLA ALBRIGHT. As directed by Hy Averback, it's the weakest vehicle Day found herself in, committed to do the film because of her husband's machinations and unable to get out of it. Too bad.$LABEL$ 0
+Though this series only ran a season, it has stayed with me for 20 years. It was by far and above my all time favorite cartoon ever. I would give nearly anything to have it on DVD or whatever format I can get. If you find any means of seeing this series I suggest you take full advantage. This series was the first one (in my opinion) that had a truly coherent storyline that spanned across multiple episodes. It also made me truly care about the characters and what happened to them. Heck the character Goose actually scared me sometimes. He was just that odd at the time. Also the leader of the group reminds me a lot of a combination of Clint Eastwood/Tommy Lee Jones. If anyone has any way of contacting the creator/holder of the rights to the series and can get them put out on DVD please by all means do so!!!$LABEL$ 1
+The idea of bringing Dracula to contemporary times isn't bad--after all, it might revive the series a bit by injecting a new story element into a series that Hammer has all but exhausted in a long series of generally excellent movies. However, because the present day turned out to be the crappy early 1970s, the results were pretty silly and looked more like LOVE AT FIRST BITE (a deliberate comedy). Seeing Christopher Lee in a film filled with 70s hip lingo and electric guitar chords and laughable rock music just seemed beyond stupid. To make matters worse, the acting is much more over-the-top here--with an intense and silly performance by "Johnny Alucard". I also thought it was really funny that it took Van Helsing's grandson to notice that "Alucard" is "Dracula" spelled backwards--no one else figured this out for themselves! Wow, what cunning!! So because so much of the movie was bad, why did it still earn an almost respectable score of 4? Well, when the story came to the expected showdown between Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) and Drac (Christopher Lee), it was exciting and ended very well. Additionally, and I know this will sound very sexist, but if I had to watch a bad film, at least Stephanie Beacham's character wore some really nice outfits that revealed her ample...."talents", so to speak. So at least it was a pretty film to watch.By the way, the film ends with the phrase "may he rest in FINAL peace" at the end, though this was not the final Hammer Dracula film with Lee. He returned for "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" just a short time later and it was in many ways even worse than this dud of a monster film.$LABEL$ 0
+The first time I came upon Delirious, I only heard it. I listened to the entire comedic performance and never have I laughed so much in my life. Eddie's ability to paint hilarious pictures in our minds and do great imitation is captivating. When I finally got to see him perform this act, I had to have it. Eddie Murphy's performance on Delirious shows his genius! With it being the new millennium, his acts in 1983 is just as funny today as it was then. My parents loved it as teenagers and I (age eighteen) love it as well. From that point on, I had to view Murphy's other movies such as Coming To America and Harlem Nights. There will be no other comedian like Eddie.$LABEL$ 1
+Hayao Miyazaki's latest and eighth film for Studio Ghibili, "Gake No Ue No Ponyo" (Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea) is a wonderfully fun and imaginative look at childhood. At a time when it seems that film animation has been dominated by Disney/Pixar's CGI masterpieces, it is both refreshing and comforting to know that Miyazaki is still relying on traditional hand-drawn animation to tell his charming and enchanting stories. The story revolves around the friendship between a magical sea sprite/goldfish and the human child that she encounters during a curious outing to see the human world. The human child, Sosuke (Doi Hiroki) lives in a small house on a cliff overlooking a small port city in Southern Japan (based on Seto Island) where he lives with his young mom, Lisa (Yamaguchi Tomoko). Sosuke names the strange goldfish "Ponyo" and takes it to the daycare/nursing center that Lisa works at. Ponyo is definitely not your typical goldfish and soon begins to adapt and take on human aspects (she develops human speech and an appetite for ham meat) by sampling some blood from a cut on Sosuke's finger. Yet just as Sosuke and Ponyo begin to develop a bond, Ponyo is taken back by her father, Fujimoto (Tokoro Joji) who is a former human who has rejected the surface world and is now attempting to collect and develop magical elixirs taken from the sea that aid him in repairing and rejuvenating the world's oceans.Ponyo's desire to become human has become so strong however that Fujimoto is unable to contain her anymore and she takes on a more human appearance and breaks free from her water world home and goes back to see Sosuke. During her breakout, Ponyo unintentionally releases Fujimoto's cache of magical elixirs which unleashes all sorts of magical sea creatures that causes a violent storm in the seas surrounding Sosuke's town. Desperate to resolve Ponyo's rebellion, he soon calls upon the help of his beautiful wife, Ponyo's mother - the water elemental, Mother/Lady of the Sea (Amami Yuki). As with his past films, Miyazaki's "Gake No Ue No Ponyo" touches upon various themes of ecology and environmentalism, this time focusing on the health and vitality of the world's oceans. The opening sequence is at times sobering when Ponyo encounters a drudging vessel which is scraping the ocean's floor, uncovering mountains of garbage and debris. One can understand the anger and frustration of the character of Fujimoto who has spent his lifetime trying to repair the damage civilization is doing to its oceans, yet finding it an daunting and almost fruitless endeavor.Enough can not be said of the remarkable animation in this film. It is at times bizarre and outrageous but at the same time charming and curious. Clearly Miyazaki wanted to capture the sense and style of a child's imagination. The art style has the appearance of crayon/pencil drawings and is wonderfully colorful and fanciful. It is almost like a child's color book come to life.Child actors Nara Yuria and Doi Hiroki do great work as Ponyo and Sosuke. They bring adorable charm to their roles. Nara Yuria in particular sounds so darn cute as Ponyo that it is little wonder that Doi's Sosuke falls for the magical girl. Former campaign girl/model and actress Yamaguchi Tomoko (Shichinin No Otaku, Swallowtail) is also very good in her role as Sosuke's modern mom, Lisa. I was a bit confused at first by her character as I initially thought she was Sosuke's older sister. It also didn't help that Sosuke kept referring to her as "Lisa" rather than Mom but I guess it is perhaps a sign of the times and an indicator of the modern Japanese family (in the anime series Crayon Shinchan, Shinnosuke also refers to his mom by first name as well).80s comedian Tokoro Joji sounds totally different as the serious Fujimoto but wisely doesn't make his character sound cartoony villainous or goofy menacing. While we don't get to know his character more, former pro-baseball player and actor Nagashima Kazushige ( who portrays Sosuke's father Koichi) also delivers some nice voice work. The opening theme "Umi No Okasan" by Japanese soprano Masako Hayashi is simply beautiful and stirring. In contrast the Fujimaki Fujioka and Nozomi Ohashi "Geke No Ue No Ponyo" theme is light and amusing and evokes images of a traditional Japanese nursery rhyme. During one brilliant sequence the soundtrack takes on an almost Wagnerian operatic sound with music that sounds like "Die Walküre".The film is not perfect however and does suffer from moments where the central story of Ponyo and Sosuke takes a back seat to some of Miyazaki's overwhelming fantastical visuals. I also had wished we had more time to explore Fujimoto's back-story as well as the relationship between Sosuke and his father.Like "Kiki's Delivery Service/Majo No Takkyubin", "Howl's Moving Castle", "Princess Momonoke/Momonoke Hime" and "My Neighbor Totoro/Tonari No Totoro", "Gake No Ue No Ponyo" is another Miyazaki classic that is a marvelous feast for the eyes. Like a modern day fairytale, the film tells a timeless story of friendship and love that will surely be cherished in years to come.$LABEL$ 1
+One of the most boring slashers ever.. If you can even call it that. I wouldn't watch this if it even ended up being some kind of porno movie, which it completely resembles. The fact that you're watching a small group of middle-aged people in the woods is really unbearable. They made these kinds of movies for teens, so who were they really aiming for when they made this sleep-fest? My favorite part of this movie is the cover art and it's the only reason I chose to seek out this movie, which happened to be part of a Suspense Classics 50 Movie Pack.. and after seeing the other movies in this 50 pack, you'll realize that it belongs nowhere else. So if you're in the mood for a decent slasher in the woods, I recommend Just Before Dawn and The Final Terror.$LABEL$ 0
+This is the worst piece of crap I have seen recently. There is nothing good about this movie. The plot is plain stupid, dialogs don't make any sense, humorous scenes never heard anything about the real humor. Actors just don't play, the worse they don't even try. The script itself is somewhat which is in the same league with Ed Wood and Uwe Boll. There is only one good thing in this flick, the fights. They are well choreographed as one would expect of the Hong Kong guys, and are the only reason to watch Prince of the Sun. Although I believe the fights are just supposed to fill the empty space so that the screenwriter didn't have to bother thinking about the storyline. However, this weak and absurd plot may prevent you from watching it to the end. Avoid it unless you are fan of the dragon lady Cynthia Rothrock.$LABEL$ 0
+Ah, I loved this movie. I think it had it all. It made me laugh out loud over a dozen of times. Yes, I am a girl, so I'm writing this from a girl's perspective. I think it's a shame it only scored 5.2 in rating. Too many guys voting? It was far above other romantic comedies. Just because I'm female I don't enjoy all chic flicks, on the contrary I prefer other genres. Romantic comedies tend to be shallow and not as funny as they meant to be. But like I said, this movie had it all, almost, in my opinion. Great script, good one-liners, fine acting. Although Eva Longoria Parker's character reminded very much of Gabrielle from Desperate Housewives, but so what? It was awesome. I will keep this film for rainy days, days when I feel low and need a few laughs.$LABEL$ 1
+For a scientifically-engineered super-dog that was supposed to be the answer to petit crime, CHOMPS was a chump.All I ever saw Chomps do was sit, or walk, or run. Or run, then walk, then sit... and then get back up again and stretch, and then walk, and then jog to K-Tel dance hits. And sometimes it had all the answers to the daily Jumbo. But mostly it just sat a lot.All I am saying is: In a Celebrity Death Match, Chomps couldn't take out Mr. Bigglesworth.$LABEL$ 0
+this is a teen movie and while u watch it expect some nonsensical stuff added here and there but overall the movie is effective very effective it makes you question and leaves you thinking the story is kinda far fetched but is believable and makes you feel good in sequences, its not like its the usual done and tried path. the characters are pretty well defined and are convincing. Justin long stands out among all the others and watch out for his speech in the end he will convince anyone with that speech he is simply brilliant in that speech. he needs to take on some more serious roles, he is worth more than just teen movies. etch this movie and get liberated$LABEL$ 1
+If you are a Pauly Shore fan, you will laugh your butt off. If not, this is a silly mess wasting some very good talent. A cute coed(Carla Gugino)from South Dakota invites her California college dorm counselor(Shore) home to share Thanksgiving. Notable cast members: Lane Smith, Cindy Pickett, Mason Adams and the drop dead gorgeous Tiffani-Amber Thiessen. Watch where you step.$LABEL$ 0
+Not only is The Great Rock N Roll Swindle thoroughly inaccurate, but when it comes down to it, not much about it is interesting or even entertaining. Malcolm McLaren apparently squandered the majority of the Sex Pistols earnings on this waste of film, which makes it that much more obnoxious. The intention, from the beginning, was to create a monument to the "genius" of McLaren, who to this day takes full credit for creating punk music, creating the Sex Pistols, and at times even writing all the songs. Viewers follow McLaren to various settings, where he tells his story to his sidekick, a female dwarf, and simply takes credit for one thing after another. One particularly irritating scene has McLaren in an abandoned airplane hangar, waiting for a plane, being hounded by reporters and giving them their "big story". The most entertaining elements of the film are the animated short pieces, however, even these reek of McLaren's overbearing self-importance.Even as a farce, this film doesn't work. Little about it is entertaining, except for Steve Jones, who is surprisingly decent as a pseudo-detective type person. 20 years later, Julien Temple, who wrote and directed this film, also directed the Sex Pistols documentary "The Filth and the Fury". While that movie is much better and more interesting than "Swindle", it still is full of Temple's "artistic flourishes" that just don't work, like interviewing band members in shadow, as if they are some kind of crime witness trying to hide their identity. An interesting bit of trivia: Film critic Roger Ebert was one of the original scriptwriters for the movie "Who Killed Bambi?", which eventually became "Swindle".$LABEL$ 0
+It was 1983 and I was 13. I watched Valley Girl on HBO one night when my parents were working. After it ended I wanted to talk with someone about it immediately. Turns out my best friend watched it too and it became our favorite movie. Every weekend after that we watched it until we could recite it. We woke her parents up late at night laughing hysterically. We began to worship the main character, Julie, played by the beautiful Deborah Foreman. I am not saying this is a great classic. Although it is for me personally. And I understand that the whole Valley Girl talk becomes annoying but that was the 80's. But deep down at the heart of the movie-it is a love story, and a familiar but good one. Girl meets boy and there are sparks from both sides, an instant connection. Julie's friends don't like him-he doesn't fit in, doesn't go to their school, doesn't have money. They like her better with her ex-boyfriend the football player even though he is a jerk. She makes the ultimate sacrifice-her own happiness for her friends' happiness. And she has these really cool supportive hippie parents. It is one of Nicholas Cage's first movies and his first starring role. One minute he is absolutely hilarious and the next incredibly touching and romantic. His friend Fred is pretty funny too. If you were a teenager in the 80's you will love this movie or at the very least it will bring back memories. It is no longer my favorite movie but it is still one of my favorites, probably in my top 10. I am eagerly awaiting it's release on DVD if they ever release it. You can go to Deborah Foreman's website to sign a petition to get it released on DVD and there are 2 soundtracks from the movie that are must haves if you like 80's music.$LABEL$ 1
+I usually love teen/high school genre flicks, but this film was really lacking in originality. The only premise this film has is four friends cheating their way through high school and the strain it puts on their friendship. There's just not enough depth in the story or the characters to keep the viewers attention for the full length of the film. The acting isn't all that bad although the actors don't really have much to work with as the dialog is tripe and cliché'... After watching this movie, one must wonder how on earth a producer could come across a project like this and think, "I MUST make this film." No wonder it couldn't get a theatrical release. Andrew Gurland is a hack, avoid or burn.$LABEL$ 0
+I would have enjoyed this movie slightly more had not been for Jason (Herb) Evers constant harping on experiment. Many early reviewers of The Seven Samurai accused Toshiro Mifune of overacting. Yet, as more and more critics viewed that film they saw it as being purposefully done. Jason Evers is obviously not Toshiro Mifune, and his overacting is exactly that.Most of the actors in this B classic were rather good actors, minus Evers and the showgirls. If you watch this movie, you would have noticed Evers shouting almost every line, that is until he is smoking and blowing the smoke coolly out his nose. The special effects were par for the course in a B movie such as this one. In hindsight, there isn't much that stands out in my mind as fantastically good or bad for this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Such a delightful movie! Very heart warming. One can't help falling in love with the character of Gigi. He's adorable as a child and grows into a sensitive artist. The whole movie revolves around him. He lives in a wonderful world – living all life – curiosity, desire and anticipation. There is an elder brother who tries to steal his glory but really remains in the shadow all his life. The father is very stereotypically Italian and so is the mother. I wanted the father to come and reunite with the mother in the last scene – and have them cry and laugh. I also wish that there was at least something redeeming about the elder brother. His personality seems to have been trashed entirely. Passion and ardour – that's the key to life. And looking through the camera – focusing on small details and savoring the delicate details of life.$LABEL$ 1
+While I agree that this was the most horrendous movie ever made, I am proud to say I own a copy simply because myself and a bunch of my friends were extras (mostly in the dance club scenes, but a few others as well. This movie had potential with Bolo and the director of Enter the Dragon signed on, but as someone who was on set most every day I can tell you that Robert Clouse was an old and confused individual, at least during the making of this movie. It was a wonder he could find his way to the set everyday. I would also like to think that this might have been a better movie if a lot of it had not been destroyed in a fire at Morning Calm studios. I can't say that it would have been for sure, but it would be nice to think so. I was actually surprised that it was ever released, and that someone like Bolo would attach his name to it without a fight. Oh well. Also look at the extras for pro wrestler Scott Levy, AKA Raven. He was a wrestler in Portland at the time...nice guy, very smart.$LABEL$ 0
+Highly enjoyable, very imaginative, and filmic fairytale all rolled into one, Stardust tells the story of a young man living outside a fantasy world going inside it to retrieve a bit of a fallen star only to find the star is alive, young, and beautiful. A kingdom whose king is about to die has said king unleash a competition on his several sons to see who can retrieve a ruby first to be king whilst a trio of witches want the star to carve up and use to keep them young. These three plot threads weave intricately together throughout the entire picture blended with good acting, dazzling special effects, and some solid sentiment and humour as well. Stardust is a fun film and has some fun performances from the likes of Claire Danes as the star(I could gaze at her for quite some time) to Michelle Pfeiffer(I could gaze at her at full magical powers even longer) playing the horrible witch to Robert Deniro playing a nancy-boy air pirate to perfection. Charlie Cox as the lead Tristan is affable and credible and we get some very good work from a group of guys playing the sons out to be king who are constantly and consistently trying to kill off each other. Mark Strong, Jason Flemyng, and Ruppert Everett plays their roles well in both life and death(loved this whole thread as well). Peter O'Toole plays the dying killer daddy and watch for funny man Ricky Gervais who made me laugh more than anything in the entire film in his brief five minutes(nice feet). But the real power in the film is the novel by Neil Gaiman and the script made from his creative and fertile mind. Stardust creates its own mythology and its own world and it works.$LABEL$ 1
+Although George C. Scott is the only actor in this version of ACC without a British accent, he more than makes up for it with his over-the-top and larger-than-life interpretation of Ebenezer Scrooge.Particularly effective is when he confronts Bob Cratchit in his office at the movie's end. As Scott stands before a large window, sunlight casts a glowing mantle over him; all you can see is his silhouette. Augmented by Scott's voice, a ponderous growl, the effect is galvanizing...much like Marlon Brando's first scene in APOCALYPSE NOW. "The Horror," indeed! However, as they say, the very thing that works for you can also work against you. Because Scott displays such gleeful ferocity throughout the movie, it proves infectious. To put it another way, the "before" Scrooge is almost as charismatic as the "after," even though he really shouldn't be. It's what you might call the "Doctor Smith" effect, since Jonathan Harris used a very similar approach when playing that role and numerous other heavies (stage and screen alike).Actually, I myself don't consider Scott's glib rage a liability. But other "Christmas Carol" purists might. See the film and judge for yourselves.$LABEL$ 1
+There's really not a whole lot to say about this. It's just really, really bad. The acting is bad, the script is bad, and the editing is probably one of the worst jobs ever. It's so sloppy and choppy that it serves only to confuse the audience. There's no real to plot to speak of, mostly it's a really fake looking monster fish attacking Europeans trying to pass themselves off as Americans. Pass on this one.$LABEL$ 0
+CHRISTMAS IN AUGUST is a perfect movie. A flawless movie about all the flaws of humanity. On the outside it may look like a movie about death, but is in fact a movie about life. I simply cannot recommend this movie enough. And be not afraid, dear readers, it is not a depressing film. As stated, it's a movie about the brightness of life coached under the guise of death. You will laugh. You will cry. You will realize that life is fragile and short. And you will leave the viewing with a better understanding of how precious life is.10 out of 10(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of this movie and reviews of other foreign films)$LABEL$ 1
+This was a wonderful film. How these women tried to save their husbands. I thought that the performances of the actors were great. I had to think about the film for a very long time. I think that every student should see this film so that they can think about war, relationships, friendship and love. I liked the film because it told and showed me how strong love can be. I wish I could be so strong as a woman. I really liked it because it told me something about relationships and that is what I like to see in a movie. I think you can compare the film with Der Untergang, The pianist. If you put these three films together, you have a great sight of what happened during the war. We should remember something like the war forever.$LABEL$ 1
+I felt that the movie Skammen, directed by Ingmar Bergman, was very dry. It shows the things people will do to survive during a war and the shame that comes out of these actions; however I feel that it was not complete or attention holding. He never fully got into the plot or deep into the character emotions or reasons behind their actions. The only thing that I found rather attention holding in the movie was the transformation of the two main characters, Jan and Eva. Many times during the movie was just the two main characters sitting around or doing their daily chores and not even having a conversation. I understand this was to show the reality of these people however I feel there are other ways to show reality and have it be entertaining. I think that Ingmar Bergman could have filmed this movie in a more riveting way.$LABEL$ 0
+In my opinion the directing, editing, lighting, and acting(minus Franco) were very good. I must admit, I was pleasantly surprised and impressed with this film. I wasn't expecting much, in way of camera angles, sound, etc, but in these areas the film wasn't bad at all.After seeing the film, I personally felt frustrated with both characters because I wanted so badly for these two characters to reach out to one another. And I felt like the Travis(Franco) character wasn't really affected or changed in the end after Terri commits suicide. Although, this is probably due to the lack or inability of James Franco to express emotion(of any kind) very well in this movie. I've seen a few of Franco's other films, and to me he just can't pull it off when a scene calls for real emotion or facial expressions. The only positive he brings to the film, is the possibility of more people watching this movie.On the other hand, Rachel Miner's portrayal of Terri was well done, and she looks to have a bright future ahead. I could really see and feel the sadness and emptiness in her character, and it made me feel for her. I only wish I could have seen more into Terri's life before the film ended.For a short film, this movie was good, but it leaves you wanting more in the end. I only wish it could have been just a bit longer, to see the characters develop a little more. In spite of that, I hope to see more films from the director and crew in the future.:)$LABEL$ 1
+Oh my god, it just doesn't get any worse than this!!! I always love silly little sci-fi B-movies that are so stupid they are funny and I thought that this would be one of those, but this was just so stupid I found it absolutely deplorable that it was allowed to be released. What were these people thinking? They are obviously not real filmmakers and I really hope that they have gone back to their day jobs after realizing that this is the best they could do! The acting and the not-so special effects were nowhere near the standard of even the lowest budget B-movies. And what is with the men dressed up as women, could they not find any women that wanted to appear in this crappy thing. No, probably not.I would give this a "0" if possible, it does not even deserve a "1" for awful. Do not waste your time (and especially not your money) on this horrible loser of a non-film!$LABEL$ 0
+Before watching this movie from beginning to end, I happened to just catch the last half hour. Ordinarily I don't watch a movie if I haven't seen it from the beginning, but a friend had it on and once I started watching it I couldn't stop.I'm really surprised this movie didn't get a wide theatrical release. This is quite a funny movie (often gallows humor) , and the monster and monster truck in it are quite menacing. The monster makes Leatherface look pretty, and the monster truck is a like a cross between a World War I German artillery vehicle and a giant coffin.A timid twenty-five year-old virgin guy is on a long drive to stop the woman he loves from getting married. His ex-best friend tags along and rags on him constantly. They're menaced on the road by a vintage black hearse and the aforementioned monster truck. They also pick up a hitchhiker, played by the very sexy Aimee Brooks.I also watched the animated trailer with the director's commentary, and the electronic press kit and I found those both to be interesting. I would bet that the feature commentary with the director and the two male stars is pretty enjoyable too, but I have so many other movies to watch I've never seen before....$LABEL$ 1
+How did so many talented or at least charismatic actors wind up in this baloney? Nothing is very good about this movie but the worst things probably are the screenplay and the directing.Apparently this is director Damian Niemans heart-piece as he's both written and directed it (and acted in as well). He's a card magician himself and seems to have named characters in homage of other famous magicians. This was his first feature film as far as I know, and chances are it's his last.It's hard to point to exactly what makes it so poor – but I'd say the story and character's are not believable (the screenplay) and the directing doesn't give it any boost (the director). Plus – the poker scenes are bad in the worst Hollywood manner (super-hands, Hollywood rules)! The supposed twists in the movie are either totally predictable or totally unbelievable. They just end up tying a knot to a story that at best can be described as "a few decent scenes"!$LABEL$ 0
+This is without a doubt the worst movie I have ever seen. I say this without hyperbole, and believe me, I've seen a lot of bad movies. It's embarrassing and annoying that millions of dollars went into this film and that hundreds (thousands?) of craftspeople spent so much time working on what the writers and producers MUST have known would be a colossal failure.When a 90 minute film feels this long, drawn out, boring, and incomprehensible, you know that something went wrong somewhere. Also, Jamie Kennedy (whose work I've enjoyed elsewhere) is simply terrible in this role; he was obviously never given a screen test, because no producer in their right mind would consider him entertaining in any way, especially in the guise of The Mask. Simply awful.Personally, I can't wait to see the reviews by the major film critics, because I know they're do a better job than me at tearing this train wreck to shreds.The producers of this film should be embarrassed, and more importantly, NEVER be allowed to make theatrical films again.$LABEL$ 0
+I am a Christian... and I feel this movie is awful.Nobody but hard-core, Bible-belt Christians are going to like this movie. The message is just too in your face. If you want to touch a wider audience, you have to be way more subtle. You can't have the dad waving the bible around and carrying it with him in EVERY scene. RIDICULOUS! Poor direction. The reveal of people missing should have been terrifying, but it was laughable. They leave their clothes on the ground? It reminded me of old Ed Wood movies: "Oh my God! People are missing!" That scene in the plane is just stupid. Think about it: if you found your relative's clothes next to you, you wouldn't just scream "oh my god. they disappeared! they're missing!" and start crying and yelling. You would first be in denial... you just wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Watch Jodie Foster in FLIGHTPLAN. My favorite shot is the dog sitting out on the lawn with a pile of clothes and boots sitting next to him. I about fell off the couch I was laughing so hard.The music was so bad and so distracting. It was as if the composer was in his own world scoring his own movies. "here's my chance to do a thriller", "here's my chance to do action!" STOP TELLING ME HOW TO FEEL JAMES COVELL! A good score supports what's happening on the screen... this movie needed more of an UNDER score, but instead it was as much in your face as the message was.The writing was bland. So was Captain Christian Kirk Cameron. Chelsea was the worse: "you don't understand! People are missing!". Brad Johnson was laughable. The two stand out performances came from the Anti-Christ and the older guy (sorry, can't remember their names) In watching the "making of" (to answer my question of "what were they thinking???"), the producers and filmmakers and actors are just deluding themselves... saying "we're gonna reach wide audiences" and "brad Johnson is amazing" and "this is just like a Hollywood movie". I came to the conclusion that they just don't know what the "heck" they are doing.I commend the effort. Getting the message to a wide audience is a fantastic idea. Film is the best medium possible to do that. Look at movies like WIDE AWAKE, SIGNS, CONTACT, PASSION OF Christ, even O'BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? The bottom line is that the film needed to be made by people who have talent and vision. Unfortunately, it was not.$LABEL$ 0
+For all the viewers who have seen 'The Cure' would agree with me on this comment that it is a superb movie and is very heartwarming. Joseph Mazzello and Brad Renfro prove their star quality in this movie, along with Dexter's (Mazzello) mother Annabella Sciorra.When i first watched The Cure on TV, i didn't know what to expect, but as i watched this masterpiece it soon became clear what it was about. Dexter an 11 year old boy who is plagued with AIDS, sits around his backyard playing with his toys when one day he meets his next door neighbour Eric, which at first is a little awkward for the 2 boys, but they soon became good friends.During the film, i kept wondering what would happen to the two boys, as they kept me wondering. I wondered how the heck they would get to New Orleans sitting a door with a sea biscuit under it pulling an inflatable crocodile behind it. There were other great scenes throughout the movie.But the part that reached out to me was the part when Dexter's health started to deteriorate. You just couldn't help but wonder if he was going to make it but towards the end you find out. I thought at the first prank they played, that Dexter was really dead he obviously wasn't, silly me. But when they play the third, something is very wrong. Dexter doesn't get up to laugh nor does he show any kind of laughter. At that point the victim of their prank soon announces that poor Dexter had died. At that part i lost it. I balled my eyes out, and from that scene onwards i was crying. You just have to. As the end nears you start to understand Eric's loss and then the movie ends on a nice note with Dexters shoe floating ever so slowly down the river.Overall this movie was excellent. It has laughter, adventure, emotion and sadness etc. When you put that in a blender you get an excellent, must watch film. Peter Horton has done a great job directing this film and i believe its certainly one of his best. But for now, i will try to search for this movie on DVD, if it exists that is. Once again a superb movie that will take you on an emotional rollercaoster.$LABEL$ 1
+If you were to judge based on the movie alone, the committee that gave the stage musical "A Chorus Line" a Pulitzer Prize, and Broadway audiences that kept the war horse running for 15 years, were all on heavy narcotics, because one singular sensation this film certainly is NOT.What possessed anyone to think that Richard Attenborough was the right fit for this material utterly mystifies me, but he makes a musical that is almost entirely about movement just sit on the screen like a lump of clay.Not content with the original score the way it was originally written, someone decided that what the film really needed was a brand new song to give the movie some zip. Thus we are assaulted with the Oscar-nominated(!) "Surprise, Surprise." Well surprise, surprise, the song stinks, and so does the movie.Grade: D$LABEL$ 0
+The film starts with a manager (Nicholas Bell) giving welcome investors (Robert Carradine) to Primal Park . A secret project mutating a primal animal using fossilized DNA, like ¨Jurassik Park¨, and some scientists resurrect one of nature's most fearsome predators, the Sabretooth tiger or Smilodon . Scientific ambition turns deadly, however, and when the high voltage fence is opened the creature escape and begins savagely stalking its prey - the human visitors , tourists and scientific.Meanwhile some youngsters enter in the restricted area of the security center and are attacked by a pack of large pre-historical animals which are deadlier and bigger . In addition , a security agent (Stacy Haiduk) and her mate (Brian Wimmer) fight hardly against the carnivorous Smilodons. The Sabretooths, themselves , of course, are the real star stars and they are astounding terrifyingly though not convincing. The giant animals savagely are stalking its prey and the group run afoul and fight against one nature's most fearsome predators. Furthermore a third Sabretooth more dangerous and slow stalks its victims.The movie delivers the goods with lots of blood and gore as beheading, hair-raising chills,full of scares when the Sabretooths appear with mediocre special effects.The story provides exciting and stirring entertainment but it results to be quite boring .The giant animals are majority made by computer generator and seem totally lousy .Middling performances though the players reacting appropriately to becoming food.Actors give vigorously physical performances dodging the beasts ,running,bound and leaps or dangling over walls . And it packs a ridiculous final deadly scene. No for small kids by realistic,gory and violent attack scenes . Other films about Sabretooths or Smilodon are the following : ¨Sabretooth(2002)¨by James R Hickox with Vanessa Angel, David Keith and John Rhys Davies and the much better ¨10.000 BC(2006)¨ by Roland Emmerich with with Steven Strait, Cliff Curtis and Camilla Belle. This motion picture filled with bloody moments is badly directed by George Miller and with no originality because takes too many elements from previous films. Miller is an Australian director usually working for television (Tidal wave, Journey to the center of the earth, and many others) and occasionally for cinema ( The man from Snowy river, Zeus and Roxanne,Robinson Crusoe ). Rating : Below average, bottom of barrel.$LABEL$ 0
+PROBLEM CHILD is one of the worst movies I have seen in the last decade! This is a bad movie about a savage boy adopted by two parents, but he gets into trouble later. That Junior can drive Grandpa's car. He can scare people with a bear. He can put a room on fire! It is a bad movie as much as BATTLEFIELD EARTH. A sequel is an even worse fate. Rent CHICKEN RUN instead.*1/2 out of **** I give it.$LABEL$ 0
+This is probably one of those films too many commented but undiscovered... This is probably one masterpiece of Spanish cinema like some Buñuel's masters-piece. "15 days with you" could be the better "now and them" re-visitation from others films of long-time ago: could be "Midnight cowboy" but could be also "Les amants du Pont-Neuf" or a realistic and non-spot-look (but most realistic) "trainspotting". This hard story has place to humour, love and obviously dramatic sense. In the new social Spanish cinema this little diamond could be the resurrection of the Italian neo realism mixed whit the best Ken Loach films.Probably the better film I discover in the last 10 years.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is based on the true story of Iowa housewife Lucille Fray, who got breast cancer after the birth of her 10th child. Realizing that the state would take the children away from her ineffectual, alcoholic husband, she devoted the last year of her life traveling around the state to find new homes for each of the children. A terrific script - which still holds up 20 years after it was first made. The grown children, many of whom had not seen each other since their mother died in the late 50's, were reunited on "That's Incredible," prior to the film's airing in 1983. Barbara Stanwyck won the Emmy for best actress in a TV movie or mini-series, but during her acceptance speech, she went out of her way to single Ann-Margret out for her moving performance.$LABEL$ 1
+I classify this as the worst movie of all time.If there ever was a movie I would wish upon my enemies, this would be it. The plot is ridiculous, there are only 2 characters, and the coincidences between these characters just completely strain belief.These factors combined to make this an extremely boring movie.My wife and mother walked out on the movie about 15 minutes in. I figured that a movie this boring and slow *must* have some cool interesting plot twist, and a was quite disappointed when nothing exciting materialized.I briefly considered sending the filmmakers a bill for my 2 hours of lost life.$LABEL$ 0
+If not the best movie ever made, "Babette's Feast" is certainly among the most loving. This is a wonderful exploration of the meaning of artistry, generosity, loyalty, and grace. Humor is mixed with tender longing; characters are treated with searching honesty but also deep respect. There are meditations here on memory, fate, old age and faithfulness. Marvellous camera work by cinematographer Henning Kristiansen: seldom have wrinkled faces looked so luminous in the candle-light. The meal is accompanied by delicious period music, Brahms, Mozart and simple folk hymns. Enjoy this feast for the eyes and the spirit, for as the General says: "Mercy and truth have met together, and righteousness and bliss shall kiss one another."$LABEL$ 1
+This film Evil Breed: The legend of samhain contains very little thought or effort. It is ridiculed with specs of ultra fast "slasher" style death and plain disgusting acts of death. The acting was rated a D as the actors show very little ability, and the stupidity of them in the film is too questionable. The way they portrayed what people their ages act like was incredibly different. The odd split of porn is fit in thought it really doesn't offer much, and any area that is respectable but is quite quickly run down with absolute gut wrenching death. Example is the poor fellow whom is disemboweled from his anus, and the scene lasts for about 5 minutes. It is terribly obvious of how little of a fight the kids put up. This film is a good choice for someone who likes to watch some awful deaths and practically torture.$LABEL$ 1
+This obscure de Sica delivers the goods. And it is said "the meek shall inherit the earth." This tale of classes on the surface but really an allegory for all the homeless people that populated Europe after the great war. They are homeless but cheerful, in a societies too impoverished and selfish to care for or acknowledge them, footmats for the Italian carpetbaggers. de Sica chooses to tell it as a fairy tale, a Cinderella story. I have not read the book it is based on so I cannot foresay if the deus ex machina is the construct of the writer or Vittorio. It begins with the words, "Once upon a time..." to exemplify the timelessness of its tale, for the story could be set anywhere and everywhere. Caricature sketches of the aristocracy that cut to the bone, whimsical nature of the homeless especially when they begin to grant their wishes and an ending right out of a Spielberg picture makes this boulange a delight for all. De Sica's most accessible picture is also one of his best. Abandoning neo-realism, he always dallied between that and pure good old film-making, he creates a movie that breaks the heart and at the same time fills it with the yearning of hope that one needs to continue leaving in this world. Gracias Vittorio! Gracias! Gracias!!! Gracias!!!!!!!!!!!!$LABEL$ 1
+I get the feeling that the producers of this mess were out to make the most painful, ridiculous Western ever made. "PAINFUL" is the best word I can think of to describe it.On the plus side you have nice color photography and beautiful and well-spoken Rhonda Fleming. My sympathy goes to Jacques Aubuchon (who played the cripple), who acted well enough in an annoying role, written so atrociously that no actor could give an enjoyable performance. The production values were quite good, which only served to highlight the terrible story and screenplay.Things I hated: Stewart Granger looked so little like a western figure, what with his British accent, neat tailored outfit, and silly immaculate always-white kerchief tied around his neck. It got tiresome the way the townspeople and his son were constantly haranguing and insulting Granger, and he never spoke up or replied back. I know we are supposed to suspend disbelief and appreciate Westerns as symbolic morality plays, but this one broke the spell with it laughably unrealistic and predictable scenes, the worst being at the end where Granger miraculously, speedily and single-handedly plants dynamite around a canyon pass that the bad guy's cattle will pass through, and then Granger plants himself in the perfect spot so he can shoot the dynamite from a very far distance to create rock slides to bury and spook the cattle and bad guys, seemingly destroying them all, save the two main bad guys. Next worst is everything about the plot, which is loaded with soap opera scenes. Nothing in the movie seemed believable: I couldn't believe what all the conflict was about. The bad guy was driving his herd through to market and wanted the cows to chew some grass along the way; I don't see why something couldn't have been worked out. You need a land ownership dispute for that? Don't bother to see it.$LABEL$ 0
+Just do a little research on the making of this film. Something so simple as a Google search. It was funded by the US Army and promoted just in time for the elections. It is a great idea, but I'd much rather see a DOCUMENTARY, not something edited by the Bush Administration and told its reality. The timing of the movie's release, its tone, and the fact that MS&L promoted it, raised questions about the intent of the movie. "According to MS&L Managing Director Joe Gleason, he and his colleagues also deliver key targeted messages about the war in Iraq to specific constituencies," wrote Eartha Melzer. "Was the left-leaning art house crowd one of those constituencies? Is the government hiring documentary filmmakers to propagandize the U.S. population? Nobody involved with the film is willing to say who initially put up the money for the film or how they ended up represented by the Army's PR firm."$LABEL$ 0
+As one other IMDb reviewer puts it, "...imagine 2001: A Space Odyssey in the desert" and you wouldn't be far off from a brief summarisation of what to expect from this piece of cinema (I deeply hesitate to use the word "film"). A lecture on philosophical views on creationism, the mythos surrounding humanities existence, the before and after, that was has been, the what is and the what will be. This for some maybe a "2001" on sand, but they tackle different philosophical viewpoints, one about evolution and the future, the hope and potential for mankind, while Fata Morgana itself is a somewhat more metaphysical trek. I only hope I can convey it effectively enough.Herzogs style will not to be everyones liking, and those who are not of a perceived hardcore branch of cinematic viewing may, and most likely will, find this extremely hard going, and may not even see it through to its finale after 72 minutes. Fusing together a montage of footage from the Sahara, including villages, villagers and various other places for a somewhat surrealist ending, music of various genres and an almost mythical narration, Fata Morgana is severely slow paced but ultimately hugely rewarding. Opening with a montage of various filmed shots of planes landing for nigh on five minutes, you already arrival at the introduction of the film immensely confused, and the sense that this will not be like anything you have seen before echoes clear in your mind. Divided into three sections, creation, paradise and the golden age, Fata Morgana attempts, and succeeds, in being able to juxtapose images of the natural beauty of the desert with the man made instruments that taint it. Its three segments are narrated by different persons each pertaining specifically to the particular section they are voicing and provide extra emphasis on the long soliloquy's and desert montages.Fata Morgana is a film dealing with the existence of man on our Earth. It looks at the natural beauty the Earth was designed for, and concurrently looking at the potential beauty we have within us, more notably shows us our negative contributions to the world in which we live. Each shot has been purposefully constructed, using what can only be described within the context of this film as 'The Holy Trinity Of Filming' in pictures, words and music. Each part of these three pieces provides something notably to each shot, but when brought together they create something greater than the whole of their parts, they create unbridled beauty and deep thought within our minds. I will not be able to do this film the justice it deserves with mere words alone, perhaps if I had pictures and a score, and I do know this will not be appreciated by the masses, but this a profound and I will not use the term "art film" because this is simply just art. This is moving art which moves the mind and stirs the soul. Whether or not creationism is your want is irrelevant, because this film is about intelligent design.$LABEL$ 1
+Back in the cold and creepy early 90's,a show called "Family Matters" aired and became an instant classic.The trick was to buy a manual in standard family situations and their solutions and insert some attempts to sarcastic remarks in it and you had yourself a lovely little stealing-is-wrong,parents-are-right-show. So that worked out fine, so Bickley-Warren had a new ambitious plan: making the exact same show again.Here's the difference though: "Family Matters" had Urkel. "Step By Step" has the guy from those "Kickboxer"-sequels nobody saw. He says things like "dudette" and "the Dane-meister", and somehow the audience is still not supposed to hate him. I mean seriously, "dudette"? How can you even get that across your lips?The rest of the people were mostly white versions of the whole Winslow-bunch, combined with some more one-or-zero-dimensional characters, like the dumb guy (JT. Well, Eddie), the smart girl (Laura), and a pretty girl who spends her days looking pretty(in theory).The character development was just awful in this show. Grover and The Cookie Monster have more depth than the Lambert family. Everybody just milked their stereotypes for what they were worth. They weren't worth much.Powered by a massive laugh-and-cheer tape stolen from something funny,this show aired for a whopping 7 years,which was humiliating for the competition.Although,you'll have to note that this is the time where family sitcoms were pretty much all big hits,everybody just ignored their crappyness because well,it was the 90s,one more crappy show didn't hurt.$LABEL$ 0
+I remember when this NBC mini-series aired when I was in high school. After reading the novel, I thought I'd check out some adaptations. Didn't expect much out of a TV mini-series, but now I might have to check out some more. This is actually excellent, and the best possible film version that could be made. Writer Simon Moore, who wrote the teleplay for the original Traffic mini-series, upon which the Soderberg film was based, came up with a brilliant narrative conceit which helps the story flow very smoothly: he frames Gulliver's adventures as flashbacks, with the actual story beginning as Gulliver first returns home (everything having happened on one journey). Gulliver, played by Cheers' Ted Danson, is sort of crazy-seeming when his wife, Mary Steenburgen, welcomes him back into his home. Unfortunately, the house is now owned by the local doctor, James Fox, who has designs on Steenburgen. Gulliver seems merely disturbed at first, but when he starts telling stories of tiny people, that's all the evidence Fox needs to throw him into an insane asylum. All four of Gulliver's travels are related in this version, in the same order as the novel (the only time this has been done on film). I love the way his present situation reflects his flashbacks. Gulliver's small son, whom he has never met before, reminds him of the Lilliputians. The doctors who observe him in his cell from a mezzanine loom above him and remind him of the Brogdingnagians, and the doctors' scientific inquiries remind him of the insane scientific experiments and theories of the Laputans and the professors at the Academy. Finally, when he is put on trial he is reminded of the Houyhnhnms and the Yahoos. The cast of this thing is amazing, and includes Peter O'Toole, Ned Beatty, Alfre Woodard, John Gielgud, Kristin Scott Thomas, Omar Sharif and Warwick Davis. The biggest flaw of the mini-series is that the acting is really uneven. You have all these fine actors, but the lesser characters are often played by actors who were probably fine in episodes of L.A. Law, but don't do well in a costume drama. Ted Danson isn't especially great, although he has a few sequences where he excels. It's probably better that he didn't attempt one, but all the other characters of the film speak in an English accent. Steenburgen is actually pretty good at it, and is quite good overall. Another flaw the series has is that the adventures happen a tad too quickly. It's not believable that Gulliver spent eight years away from home, as is claimed. But, in general, it captures Swift's tone and purpose very well, while, with its structure, adding a new emotional level.$LABEL$ 1
+"Match Point" and now "Scoop" have both convinced me that not only is Woody Allen doing a neat job making movies in England (and that Scarlett Johansson is the right cast member), but corroborated what I have known for years: he shouldn't focus on neurotic rich New Yorkers. In this case, Johansson plays journalism student Sondra Pransky, whom magician Sid Waterman (Allen) puts in his disappearing box, where she meets the ghost of murdered reporter Joe Strombel (Ian McShane), who tells her that the serial killings that have plagued London were committed by millionaire Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman). So, she gets to know him, and...well, I don't know how much I can tell you without giving it away. But I can say that this is probably Allen's funniest movie in years. There's his ubiquitous unique style of humor (especially the line about his religion).So, you're sure to like this movie. If nothing else, it'll make you fall in love with London. But mostly, it's just so damn hilarious. Even if you don't like Woody Allen, you gotta love this one.$LABEL$ 1
+I had to walk out on this film fifteen minutes from the end... having passed through the cringe stage and into pure boredom. What really horrifies me, I mean truly disturbs me, is that there are people referring to this aimless drivel as 'delightful' or a 'must see.' I would feel deep pity for those so afflicted were it not for the distinct impression that most of the positive comments about this shallow and humourless travesty were written by industry plants.The truth is this is a lame film that does nothing to entertain nor enlighten. It is decidedly unfunny, poorly scripted and has all the pace and energy of cold, canned rice pudding. To be kind to Ms Kramer, the best one can say is it was a missed opportunity, for having read the synopsis before I watched it, I had expected something more challenging. The possible misinterpretations of a close brother and sister co-dependence, the unexpected awakening of 'sisterly' sexuality, and the comic potential in such sibling rivalry (for the affections of the same girl) were all obvious subjects for refreshing comedic exploration, yet which at every turn the movie frustratingly shies away from.Instead, the audience is subjected to a meandering series of uninspired and insipidly drawn situations, with clichéd characterisations and dull performances from a cast struggling for belief and obviously in need of much tighter direction. The lack of directorial control seems astounding; on the one hand, Moynahan, Cavanagh and Spacek all give very pedestrian performances, while Heather Graham and Molly Shannon - the latter in particular - veer towards embarrassing over-compensation at times. One could lay the blame for this on the director - maybe Sue Kramer hopes that if her actors over-act, they will force a bigger laugh from the audience. But then again, the cast is a veteran one; one would expect them to do better.Sue Kramer really needs to think carefully what kind of movies she wants to make, and for whom. Given the possible issues Gray Matters alludes to, and given her inability or unwillingness to fully explore them in the context of a comedy, perhaps she should consider writing dramas instead. I know it is never easy to make films about women and women's issues, especially when one hopes to reach a wider audience than women alone, but whatever direction she takes, inconsequential and flimsy characters like Gray are not going to cut mustard.$LABEL$ 0
+This had a good story...it had a nice pace and all characters are developed cool.I've watched a whole bunch of movies in the last two weeks and this had to be the best one I've seen in the two weeks.Jason Bigg's character was the best though.Even though it was small, it was cleverly crafted from the very beginning.This may be a romantic comedy and I don't like most, but the writing, direction, performing, sound, design overall in all capacity just was really thought out pretty cool.This film scored pretty high out of all the movie's I've seen lately - and the rest were big budget or better publicized.Good job in writing.$LABEL$ 1
+In 1967 I saw an outstanding Musical at the Wintergarden in New York City where Angela Lansbury lite the stage as Mame. But did Hollywood give her the lead ???? No Lucille Ball great as Lucy was given the role. She killed the film. What a mistake There was no chemistry as there was on the stage Bea Arthur and Angela what a twosome when they sang.. It is too bad a producer does not put these two together even today$LABEL$ 0
+Without a doubt, this is the big momma of all music videos!!! Unlike most music videos that are either "dance videos" badly storied and/or badly interrupted lyrics this was done right. Jackson was co-writer and by evidence of VH1 heavily choreographed and directed this masterpiece. In fact you could say Thriller is creepier then most horror movies with that last second sparkling eye. To me this music video is what you judge all other music videos on. You can easily see the ominous influence M.J. had on early break-dancing with the zombie march number. Because of the dancing, comedy, storyline, and yes horror. I give it a 5 of 5.$LABEL$ 1
+Who in the world told Harrison Ford that this was a good role for him???And Josh Hartnett...how does a 19 year old who can't fire a gun become a cop? Over used cliches plus zero character development and about 15 pointless music industry cameos equal a surprisingly bad film!!!$LABEL$ 0
+The film is pretty confusing and ludicrous. The plot is awful...but on the plus side the acting is pretty good, with a few good shouts and rants. Sharon stone is OK this time...not even half as good as the original mind you. The murders aren't as gory as the first one either, which is a shame. Its not the unpredictable mess everyone say it is though. The sex is pretty graphic at times while others it is clear it is fake (they are fully clothed). The script is weak most of the time, but the scenes with banter and arguments between Dr.Glass and Washburn are highlights. The plot twists a few times, but the ending is awful. The tension is always constant with a huge dollop of 'Oh my god!'. The chase sequences are brilliantly directed, and shots and camera angles are impressive and bring a bit of class to an otherwise, rush-felt film. Sharon stone is a bit old for this too. The bits where we see her breasts were, in the first one, delights. This time around, they are too horrid to describe. The films its self is rather average, but it is worth a go. Mainly because the film does deserve some good buzz...with the opening sequence being a highlight. Not to be critical, but if you liked the first one - leave this one. Don't ruin the run. You'll be glad you left this stone unturned.$LABEL$ 0
+Humm, an Italian movie starred by David hasselhoff and Linda Blair, I wasn´t expecting very much, to be honest and in fact, I took even less than I was expecting. It doesn´t mean this movie is the worst I have seen because I have watched worse things than this but the plot was most of the times confusing and uninteresting and some good gore scenes are the only thing saving this. Apart from that you are going to love some special effects, they are really cheesy and bad. Now I only want to watch "Troll 3" by this same director, sure it is not going to be worse than that.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a movie about a man everybody thinks is Jewish.This is a movie about Lawrence Newman, who lives in Brooklyn in the 1940's, at the time of WWII.One day, when he gets himself glasses, people start thinking he's a Jew.And that only, because he looks like one.And he lives in a very antisemitic neighborhood.So some people start treating him like dirt.They make that judgment, being a Jew, of Larry's fresh wife, Gertrude Hart, too.That makes their lives unbearable.Neal Slavin's Focus (2001) is a fairly good look at the antisemitism.That's a problem that won't go away.The movie is based on Athur Miller's novel, which, I admit, I haven't read.But the movie is really good, so I'm sure the book would also.The actors do good job.William H.Macy is always good, and his work as Larry Newman is brilliant.Laura Dern is Gert Hart and she's magnificent.Meat Loaf is almost scary as the neighbor who wants to keep Jews out by any means necessary.David Paymer's character as the Jewish shop-owner Mr. Finkelstein is the most sympathetic in the movie.Paymer is the perfect choice for the role.One of the greatest scenes is in the end when Mr.Finkelstein and Newman fight against those Nazi-like people with baseball bats.They join together to fight the evil.The Christian and the Jew.$LABEL$ 1
+Left Behind is an incredible waste of more than 17 million dollars. The acting is weak and uninspiring, the story even weaker. The audience is asked to believe the totally implausible and many times laughable plot line and given nothing in return for their good faith. Not only is the film poorly acted and scripted it is severely lacking in all the technical areas of filmmaking. The production design does nothing to help the credibility of the action. The effects are wholly unoriginal and flat. The lighting and overall continuity are inexcusably awful; even compared to movies with a tenth of the budget. However none of this will matter in that millions of families will no doubt embrace the film for it's wholesomeness and it's religious leanings; and who can blame them. However it is unfortunate that they will be forced to accept 3rd rate amatuer filmmaking.$LABEL$ 0
+Joe is the movie about the dark side of the force of the 1960's in America, and Susan Sarandon had nice boobs. This movie scared me so much when I saw it in the theatre that I never liked Peter Boyle until Young Frankenstein and was still quite leery of him even after that comedy. Looking back now from today's experience, this film seems current again in being direct and to the point of half the electorate's approval of John McCain's "Joe The Plumber" typecast and their fear of electing a black man as President of the USA in the coming weeks. A black Prez would be seen as sweet revenge of the "niggers" but bound to again bring fire to many minds if not the streets, this time by Joe enthusiasts. So, the spirit of Joe in the film is resurrected in the campaign of Joe The Plumber! Still, I love to be American and be terrified at both and by the knowledge that they illustrate what ironically Gregory Peck said our civilized law also is: "a living, breathing reality!" God help us.$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. Not just the story, but the acting is shockingly bad. The dialog sounds like someone reading the news.This is rated as comedy/drama/romance, it's not of those things ! It's a little action, that's it. There's really NO comedy and drama at all.If you went to the cinema to see this I feel sorry for you. I would not recommend it at all. Pretty much anything else that you choose to look at will be better. This is pretty much a action/crime movie. The actions scenes sucked, and crime story part of it was very predictable.If you are not really interested in a good story, or good acting. And you simply want to look at a 'foreign' film for the appeal of being foreign. Then this might be for you.$LABEL$ 0
+I was looking forward to this flick. Being an old Robert E Howard fan, mainly from a Conan stand-point. I was not expecting a great deal and thought they could not mess it up too much.... Oh dear - how wrong was I....The main flaw was it was fairly dull. It needed to zip along with a nice helping of supernatural goings-on, sword-fights and the like.You got some gore, but everything else was just pretty life-less. The middle section just seemed to involve 40 minutes in a muddy forest with slow plodding horse-drawn carts and even slower dialogue and character development!On the plus side = Costumes and effects were fine, but not enough to keep your interest.I think it would have been better to tone down the gore, up the tempo, and go for a 12A rating. As a Ten Year old boy, I may have liked this movie. Probably about the age I was first reading the Conan stories funny enough. Perhaps that says a lot about my anticipation of the film?Or....... Go really "Art-House" with tone, direction, etc. But that's fairly high-risk as far as Box Office is concerned.Oh well.... Perhaps the next Conan movie will make up for it?$LABEL$ 0
+This was the worst Wrestlemania in history. The only good matches were Ricky Steamboat vs. Hercules Hernandez, and the tag title match between the British Bulldogs and the Dream Team (this one bordered on classic). Everything else was either poor or awful. The idea of having three host cities was unnecessary, confusing and messed up the fluidity of the show. The celebrity guests were terrible on commentary, especially Susan Saint James.If you're interested in the mid 80's WWF, you're better renting or buying Wrestlemania 3, or just about any other PPV for that matter.$LABEL$ 0
+Completely overlooking the whole movie adaptation of a video game, this is another terrible movie by Mr. Boll. How he continues to be hired to make movies is a constant surprise to me and obviously most of the movie going community.As a whole I will say that this attempt was fractionally better than so many of his previous attempts. Some of the dialog was even half way decent in Far Cry though he still misuses some phrases and in some cases he doesn't even use the phrases correctly.Now besides the fact that Jack Carver is supposed to be American and not German, Til was still entertaining in this role. One exception is the laughably lame lines he uses to get in bed with the girl. And we are supposed to believe that she is ready to have sex with him so casually after such minimal dialog? Emile? Simply there for comic relief I am sure and still lame. Jack's character looks old and tired yet is still capable of the extreme acrobatics needed to avoid one of the altered super soldiers in the lab.Don't watch this one for the Far Cry adaptation. But you might just waste an hour and a half watching it if you have nothing better to do.$LABEL$ 0
+Even by the lowered standards of '80s slasher movies, this one stinks. The usual gaggle of oversexed teens heads for a "forbidden" part of forest, which burned in the 1940s and apparently left a sole angry survivor. Fast forward (actually, you'll want to fast-forward through much of this mess) to the present day, where a couple of campers are butchered; the teens follow in their wake, while a semi-concerned park ranger (a sleepwalking Jackie Coogan) and his healthier cohort (who spins a lot of time tuning his banjo) succeed partially in steering our attention from yards of run-of-the-mill nature-footage padding. Finally, more killings--but nothing you haven't seen a zillion times before. If you want to see the kids butchered, opt for SLEEPAWAY CAMP or the first FRIDAY THE 13TH over this$LABEL$ 0
+In 1913, in Carlton Mine, Addytown, Pennsylvania, the cruel owner of a mine uses poor children in the exploration and after an explosion, a group of children is buried alive. On the present days, Karen Tunny (Lori Heuring) has just lost her husband after a long period of terminal disease when the family savings have been spent in the treatment. Without any money, she moves with her daughters Sarah (Scout Taylor-Compton) and Emma (Chloe Moretz) to an old house in the mountains that belonged to her husband. Karen is advised by her neighbors to stay at home in the night, and Sarah hears that there are zombies in the area. When Emma becomes friend of Mary, he mother believes she is an imaginary friend. However, when Sarah's friends are attacked and eaten alive by zombie children and Emma vanishes, Karen and Sarah chase her nearby the mine."Wicked Little Things" is not a totally bad movie: the acting is good; the make-up is creepy; and the cinematography and the music score are excellent. However, the story, and consequently the screenplay, are very weak, indeed a bad collection of clichés. The beginning is reasonable, with a widow moving to a house in a remote location because the family spent all their resources with the illness of the patriarch. But when she arrives, coincidently the little zombies attack people without any consequences, for example, families do not search the missing persons. Then the wicked Mr. Carlton comes to the place with the most disgusting attitudes, a typical clichés that he will die in the end. There is no explanation why the children attacked innocent people and why they should stop after killing Mr. Carlton. When Sarah is running away with her mother and says that she is tired and cannot run anymore, it is one the most stupid lines that I have ever seen in a horror movie. My vote is four.Title (Brazil): "Zombies"$LABEL$ 0
+This is a very chilling, and for the most part, a well thought out drama. I am very impressed at the film, not just for the plot and superb acting, but that such a unique movie was made. Most movies involving a spy or a war are filled with a slick talking Brit or a mighty battle, but not this. This isn't about this kind of war, its about the war between a man and his position in life, an American spy in Germany, posing as a supporter of an evil no one will ever forget. When the war is over, Campell thinks he will come home as a hero, but his true heroic stance must remain a government secret. Going back to America, Campell meets Nazi supporters as well as Nazi haters, providing for interesting conflicts, both internally and externally. Nolte more than pulls off the role, and fits the plot quite well for what it's asking.$LABEL$ 1
+Dieter Bohlen, Germany's notorious composer and producer of slightly trashy pop hits like "You're my heart, you're my soul" felt the need to tell his story - and gracefully he decided to hire a ghost writer. The result was a funny book about his life. Well, more or less a fuzzy image of it. He didn't deny that he is a selfish asshole but the whole story was twisted to fit his image of himself. No word that he has probably beaten up his former wife and she ended up in hospital. However it was written in a funny style and a huge success after his appearance as jury member of the German version of "American Idol" - especially his unforgettable comments.This should be the end of the story - really. In the hype of the mentioned "Idol" TV show called "Deutschland sucht den Superstar" (abbreviated DSDS) somebody must have come up with the terrible idea to make a movie out of the book. The result is "Dieter - der Film"I have rarely seen a movie which tries so desperately to be funny and fails so completely. None of the gags really hits the point. Naddel's voice and style of talking was getting on my nerves right away although Verona's voice should have done that more. Obvious, childish, predictable and lengthy gags destroy any motivation to watch this movie to the end within a few minutes. The content of the movie is a sloppy film adaption written sloppily down by a ghost writer based on Bohlen's sloppy idealized memory. They could have used this freedom to do almost everything. It was supposed to be a satire, but they failed. The story is totally uninteresting and the fact that the background voice is Bohlen himself guarantees that the whole film has nothing satirical at all.It's no wonder that it was considered to bad for a cinema release. The probability that this thing would have rotten in some archive was quite high until recently when the current season of DSDS turned out to be a mediocre success. With the "friendly" help of Germany's biggest yellow press newspaper "BILD" and the desperate situation for the TV station RTL to have something in the program while the still unbeatable show "Wetten dass... ?" is running on Channel 2 the movie finally arrived in television - unfortunately.Watching this movie is a waste of time - there are certainly better cartoons with much more fun and a story actually worth looking at.Therefore: 2/10$LABEL$ 0
+Jackie Chan is considered by many film and martial arts movie fans as one of the greatest action stars ever to grace the silver screen and Police Story cemented his reputation as the likely successor to the late, great Bruce Lee. If Enter The Dragon bared the so-called bench mark of Lee's greatness in the 70s, then the same can be said about Police Story and Jackie Chan in the 80s.Forget about the Rush Hour trilogy, or any of his US efforts- the one film that really typifies Chan's excellence, not to mention kick starting his status as a high kicking, bone-crushing kung- fu talisman, as well as his movie career was this, Police Story- the first in a series of successful cop films, set in mainland, present day Hong Kong.I've seen many of his efforts- likewise the US-based Rush Hour, Rumble in the Bronx, The Medalian and The Tuxedo to name- and frankly many of them pale into insignificance compared to Police Story. In those movies, we saw a less 'dumbed down' version of Jackie, of whom didn't get the opportunity to utilise his fighting abilities to the maximum, not to mention the fight sequences were no where as good as those in such efforts as Drunken Master, Police Story to name. The stunts in this movie are extraordinary and are the best featured in any action movie. The shopping mall scene is literally one of a kind and has to be seen to be believed: the flying shards of glass, Chan who is left dangling outside the bus only by his walking stick as a madman frantically drives through the streets of the town, and Chan successfully making usage of all sorts of inanimate objects and prop devices as weapons to fight the bad guys with. Considering he is known for injuring and breaking every bone in his body and putting himself in harm's way, Jackie's persistence in showing his versatility as a stuntman himself by not relying on one, is somewhat of a testament to his reputation as a kung fu expert. Especially as he has the bruises to show for it. Thus, he has proved that he is no one-trick pony when it comes down to devising and coming up with various and clever looking moves.Story-wise, there is not much to discuss but what it lacks in narrative, it makes up with its end-to end action and fight sequences. As for the dialogue, well it's not a really huge aspect of the film- which is why most fans of Jackie's and martial arts films are more interested in action, as opposed to the story.Unlike say The Matrix, there are no wires or CGI, or any form of computer trickery involved. What you see is what you get- and what you get with Police Story is a great Jackie Chan epic, full of action and pulsating stunts.It is miles better than Rumble In The Bronx, Rush Hour and all his other American efforts.Police Story is an excellent film and one I'd definitely recommend to anyone who is a novice Jackie Chan fan, but of whom are unsure which one they should watch first.$LABEL$ 1
+Poor Tobe Hopper. He directed an all time horror classic "Texas Chaimsaw Massacre". Since then everything he's done has been horrible. This is probably the worst...and that's saying a lot. It's about a man (Brad Dourif) who has the ability to make things (and people) catch fire...or something like that. Hardly an original idea (anyone remember "Firestarter"?) It's a real mess...literally EVERYTHING is done wrong! Pathetic acting (even Dourif!), asinine script, loust production values, crappy special effects...everything is BAD!!!!! A must miss...not even good for laughs.$LABEL$ 0
+With Nurse Betty (2000), acclaimed indie film-maker Neil LaBute (In the Company of Men, Your Friends & Neighbors) makes his breakthrough into the big-budgeted (Betty's $24 million as opposed to Company's measly $25,000), mainstream realm -- and yet remains true to his roots. While his cast is now composed of A-list Hollywood names (Renee Zellweger, Morgan Freeman, and stand-up comedian Chris Rock), his material remains just as bizarre and quirky as his first two features, proving that he just may be the next big thing. Nurse Betty is one of the darkest comedies to be advertised towards a mainstream audience in years, and considering its moderate box office and critical success, perhaps moviegoers weren't as dumb and brainwashed as we though they were. The story follows (both figuratively AND literally) a naive waitress (Zellweger) who has fallen in love from afar with a handsome soap star (As Good As It Gets's Greg Kinnear) but is trapped in a loveless marriage to a slimy car dealer (Aaron Eckhart, who made his big-screen debut in Company). When her husband is gruesomely murdered by two hitmen (Freeman and Rock), she's sent into shock and obliviously sets out for Hollywood to meet her object of affection -- unaware that he's only an actor. When Freeman and Rock discover that the car she took contains 10 kilos of cocaine, they hit the road as well and outrageousness ensues. Fans of LaBute's previous work might have a hard time figuring out how this could possibly be the same guy who directed In the Company of Men -- a tragicomedy about two cruel sexist pigs who play a practical joke on a deaf co-worker --, but when you think about it, the connection is rather clear: in Company, a vulnerable woman is unaware that she is being ruthlessly taken advantage of. In Betty, a vulnerable housewife is unaware that the man she's chasing thinks her genuine adoration is nothing more than a joke. Some might begin to wonder if LaBute is really some sort of misogynist himself -- considering that his recurring theme involves the downfall of innocent women. But personally, I think he's coming to the defense of the fair sex and dealing far more harshly with the abusers in his pictures than the abused. One of the many charms of this film is that it's absurdity is full-fledged: most directors, when handling a script such as this one, would leave the story at two hitmen chasing a woman chasing a dream. But LaBute knows better, and has one of the hitmen (Freeman) fall obsessively for Betty as well. This was an interesting role for Freeman to take, because it allowed him to play off of his trademark `this-is-the-last-time' character (see Unforgiven, Se7en, and 1998's stinker Hard Rain); the supporting cast also includes the likes of famed weirdo Crispin Glover (Back to the Future), Allison Janney, and `Mad About You's Kathleen Wilhoite. The script, written by first-timers John C. Richards and James Flamberg, is deliriously over-the-top (honestly: have you ever seen a comedy -- or ANY movie, for that matter -- in which a man is scalped in his own dining room?). You could argue that the ending is a little too perfect, but it's really not worth denying everything that's great about the film for one trivial complaint. If Nurse Betty is any sign of what LaBute has in store for us next, you can bet that I'll be lining up for whatever he decides to follow it up with.Grade: A-$LABEL$ 1
+This film is so lovingly made you want to be part of it forever. The flics are straight but not without malice, the goods are transparent and evildoers are hardly there. Even the "cabaret" are so naive they'll make you daydream with nostalgia in comparison to anything available on TV. Blier is fine, if a bit one sided. Louis Jouvet is perfect, you just can't have a better copper. He has the best line: "My dad cleaned other people's dirt, and I do the same". Susy Delair is unbearable, but I guess in part it's the songs, wardrobe and hairdo. Simone Renant, on the contrary, makes a great femme fatale, if a bit silent. I didn't realize she may be a lesbian as IMDb user dbdumonteil and others rightly suggest.$LABEL$ 1
+Sappy.I liked how they went to the "Haaavaad baaa" to quote books at each other to impress the ugliest girl there.Probably the janitor at my school is a genius too but is waiting to land that big construction job.Just because you keep your nose to the grindstone is no reason to try to cut a steak with it. "Do you like apples?"the guy nods or something."Well, how'd ya like DEM APPLES!" Wow, that IS genius.Duh, Minnie Driver would give her number to anybody. Robin Williams can't paint and keeps the good books on the top shelf. And there's a professor who always wears a priest scarf for no reason.$LABEL$ 0
+While walking to buy cigarettes, the professional dancer Daniel (Tom Long) is abducted and forced to have kinky sex along many days by three hooded women. When he is released, the director of his company Isabel (Greta Scacchi) has already replaced him in the play and his girlfriend gives a cold reception to him. The disturbed and humiliated Daniel leaves the dance company and travels obsessed to seek out the abductors. Daniel has sex with many women that he suspects that might be the kidnappers. "The Book of Revelation" is a weird movie with a promising beginning that loses the initial power and becomes a sort of too long erotic soap- opera or soft-porn chic. The production is classy, the cover of the DVD is awesome but the characters are not well-developed and the trauma of Daniel seems to be excessive since most of the men would fantasize with the dream-situation that he was submitted – to become sexual object of three sexy women. The melodramatic development with the illness of Isabel does not add any value to the plot; the open conclusion is very disappointing and there are no explanations for the motive of the women or the title. It is very clear that the screenplay about a man's feelings was written by a woman. It was good to see the still beautiful Greta Scacchi again and her make-up in the end is impressive. There is a saying in Portuguese that could be translated to English as follows: "If the rape is inevitable, relax and come." Daniel should have done this and spared me of watching almost two hours of a pointless story. My vote is four. Title (Brazil): "O Livro das Revelações" ("The Book of Revelations")$LABEL$ 0
+Any chance to see Katharine Hepburn in something I haven't seen or from her early movie career is a treat, and on that level the film is amusing, but she's horrible miscast as a Hill Billy. Her famous New England enunciation slips through, making lines like, "I'd better rustle up some Vittles" pretty ludicrous. She's so pretty and so young… it almost overcomes this major flaw. The story is an old fashioned melodrama, and there fore, a younger generation may think this pretty corny stuff, but this was the staple of American Entertainment well into the 1940's. It has its moments, but you might need to be a die-hard movie buff to appreciate it.$LABEL$ 0
+The movie 'Gung Ho!': The Story of Carlson's Makin Island Raiders was made in 1943 with a view to go up the moral of American people at the duration of second world war. It shows with the better way that the cinema can constitute body of propaganda. The value of this film is only collection and no artistic. In a film of propaganda it is useless to judge direction and actors. Watch that movie if you are interested to learn how propaganda functions in the movies or if you are a big fun of Robert Mitchum who has a small role in the film. If you want to see a film for the second world war, they exist much better and objective. I rated it 4/10.$LABEL$ 0
+This film is titled "Junior Pilot" here on IMDb but "Final Approach" at Netflix. Go figure! The movie is a delight for both the target youth audience and for adults who can suspend their maturity long enough to watch this film through the eyes of their own youth. For the adult, the story is quite predictable, and perhaps trite and melodramatic; whereas the tale may seem new and creative to youngsters who have not yet seen or read many films or books with such a story line.In any case, credit must be given to the film's creators, particularly the director James Becket and the cinematographer Denis Maloney, for making this most entertaining and visually interesting film. The cut-aways to the young protagonist Ricky's fantasy thoughts are hilarious as well as delightfully filmed.The young actors give uniformly believable performances, seemingly quite invested in their roles--silly as many scenes are. Jordan Garrett plays the protagonist "Ricky" with quite well, having excellent camera presence. Jeffrey Tedmori creates a delightfully soft and sensitive "Shashi" who of all ridiculous things thrives on hot sauce. Skyler Samuels and Adam Cagley give solid performances as well.As is typical of his always fine acting, Larry Miller creates a solid parental figure around which the children's part-real, part-fantasy world revolves. Compared to his father-figure, the other major adult roles appear to be shallow and one-dimensional, intentionally and quite humorously so, to be sure.This movie is a simplistic youth-targeted story, of course, yet it is quite entertaining, perhaps repeatedly so to the targeted youth crowd, but also for at least one viewing by adults who retain the ability to view such a film from their once-youthful perspective.$LABEL$ 1
+I was very disappointed with this series. It had lots of cool graphics and that's about it. The level of detail it went into was minimal, and I always got the feeling the audience was being patronized -- there was a lot of what seemed to me as "This is extremely cool but we're not going to explain it in further detail because you won't get it anyway. Let's just show you some pretty pictures to entertain you." The host would drop interesting-sounding words such as "sparticles" and "super-symmetry" without any attempt at explaining what it was. We had to look it up on Wikipedia.Furthermore, I know quite a bit about superstrings (for a layman) and I found their explanations were convoluted and could have been so much better. They could have chosen MUCH better examples to explain concepts, but instead, the examples they used were confusing and further obscured the subject.Additionally, I got so sick of the repetitiveness. They could easily have condensed the series into one episode if they had cut out all the repetition. They must have shown the clips of the Quantum Café about 8 times. The host kept saying the same things over and over and over again. I can't remember how many times he said "The universe is made out of tiny little vibrating strings." It's like they were trying to brainwash us into just accepting "superstrings are the best thing since sliced bread."Finally, the show ended off with an unpleasant sense of a "competition" between Fermilab and CERN, clearly biased towards Fermilab. This is supposed to be an educational program about quantum physics, not about whether the US is better than Europe or vice versa! I also felt that was part of the patronizing -- "Audiences need to see some conflict to remain interested." Please. Give me a little more credit than that.Overall, 2 thumbs down :-($LABEL$ 0
+If it were possible to distill the heart and soul of the sport--no, the pure lifestyle--of surfing to its perfect form, this documentary has done it. This documentary shows the life isn't just about the waves, but it's more about the people, the pioneers, and the modern day vanguard that are pushing the envelope of big wave further than it's ever been.Stacy Peralta--a virtual legend from my early '80s skateboarding days as a SoCal teen--has edited reams of amazing stock and interview footage down to their essence and created what is not just a documentary, but a masterpiece of the genre. When his heart and soul is in the subject matter--and clearly it is here--his genius is fraught with a pure vision that doesn't glamorize, hype, or sentimentalize his subject. He reveres surfers and the surfing/beach lifestyle, but doesn't whitewash it either. There is a gritty reality to the sport as well.There is so much that could be said about this documentary, about the surfers, the early history of the sport, and the wild big wave surfers it profiles. Greg Noll, the first big wave personality who arguably pioneered the sport; Jeff Carter, an amazing guy who rode virtually alone for 15 years on Northern California's extremely dangerous Maverick's big surf; and, the centerpiece of the documentary, Laird Hamliton, big wave surfing's present day messiah.There is tremendous heart and warmth among all these guys--and a few girls who show up on camera--and a deep and powerful love for surfing and the ocean that comes through in every word. I found the story of how Hamilton's adopted father met him and how Hamilton as a small 4- or 5-year old boy practically forced him to be his dad especially heartwarming (and, again, stripped of syrupy sentimentality).If you like surfing--or even if you don't--this is a wonderful documentary that must be watched, if only because you're a student of the form or someone who simply appreciates incredibly well-done works of art.$LABEL$ 1
+I'll admit I've only watched a handful of episodes, but each one seemed completely different from the next. It seems after the first season, the producers decided to completely retool the show, drop characters, introduce new ones, and rewrite the entire show dynamic.As you have probably surmised already, the show is about quirky, unpredictable teenager Holly (Amanda Bynes) who moves in with her high strung sister Valerie (Jennie Garth) in New York City. Decent enough premise: odd couple + fish out of water + high jinx.While I miss the sitcoms of yore, this show unfortunately misses the mark on funny repeatedly, and it's sad because they have some decent talent.On top of everything, they insisted on changing the show (Val was living with a cast regular bf one season, then he was suddenly gone, so she opens a bakery? what?) When things change that drastically, you get the feeling that even the *show* knows it's bad. I mean, completely new sets, characters written off and new show regulars!On a side note (this is just nitpicking), I know this is a television show and not real at all, but Val and Holly end up living in a HUGE loft duplex (there are stairs) with a terrace... in MANHATTAN! Are you serious!?$LABEL$ 0
+This is a movie that gets better each time I see it. There are so many nuanced performances in this. William Tracey, as Pepi, is a delight, bringing sharp comic relief. Joseph Schildkraut as Vadas, is the only "villian" in the movie, and his oily charms are well used here. Frank Morgan, is delightful as the owner of the title shop, Mr. Matuschek, and his familiar manner is well used here. I especially liked the performance of Felix Bressart, as Pirovitch. Very believable in every facet of his role.The two leads are equally accomplished, with Margaret Sullivan doing an outstanding job of portraying a slightly desperate, neurotic, yet charming and attractive woman.This movie belongs to Jimmy Stewart though. The movie is presented from his point of view, with the action rotating around him. Mr. Stewart is more then up to the task of carrying the movie, with an amazing performance that uses a wide range of emotions. Just watch Stewart, when he is fired from his job, because of a misunderstanding. He is able to convey the shock, anger, fear and embarrassment that so traumatic an event causes, so perfectly. In my estimation, James Stewart is, without question, the greatest film actor in the history of the medium. There is no one else that has ever been captured on film that is able to so completely convey what he is feeling to an audience. At the time he made this movie, he still had most of his career ahead of him, yet he is completely the master of his craft. This is one of Jimmy Stewarts best movies, and also one of the sweetest, most enjoyable romantic comedies you will find. I greatly recommend this movie, especially for those that appreciate the work of Stewart.$LABEL$ 1
+This was surely the stupidest, crudest, most repulsive film I have seen in quite some time. I was tempted to turn off the VCR, but, as in the fascination watching a horrible car accident, I literally found it COMPULSIVELY HATEABLE in every conceivable way and slugged it out through to the end. I am by no means a prude who objects to the comedic portrayal of sexual antics on the screen. Animal House, Porky's, There's Something About Mary, both American Pie movies, and even the notorious Freddy Got Fingered I have found highly enjoyable on their own crude terms. Mamie Van Doren's breast-baring sponge bath is the most horrifying appearance by a naked geriatric since The Shining. Ineptly edited and shot, with incredibly annoying performances from Devon Sawa and Jason Schwartzman, the film ended, without the benefit of having made me giggle once. The only useful purpose for the film is as a textbook example of how not to make a gross out picture. Oh, and it would also serve nicely as a lawn fertilizer.$LABEL$ 0
+When I rented this movie, I half expected it to be a low budget, plot less Indy film, but thought I'd give it a try. I started watching Part 1 and couldn't pull myself away till it ended 3 hours later. It was by far one of my absolute favorite films of all time. From the writing to the directing to the performances, I was laughing, crying, and singing all the way through Nan Astley's rite of passage from innocence to adulthood. Rachael Stirling is phenomenal in this film. I had never heard of her before, but now I will forever remember the vulnerability and strength I felt in her performance. She, Keeley Hawes, and Jodhi May are incredible as they guide you through the emotional turmoils that most feel as they deal with an alternate form of sexuality. The fact that the film is set in the 1890's not only educates the audience about homosexuality in that time period, but makes a statement about our society today. You must see this film and, probably like myself, you'll be making a trip to the store to add it to your collection.$LABEL$ 1
+Meester Sharky, you look so ... normal. You would never get a table in this fancy cocktail restaurant/bistro. I, on the other 'and eat grapes and pate 'ere every day. You like my fur coat with all the fine trimming? My enormous golden rings of gold? Or maybe you like these blonde, 'ow you say?, bombshells, who are all qualified in aerobics and naked petanques, who decorate my long, maroon velvety sofa like so many soft boiled larks on a plate of pan fried foie gras and figs. You like? You can't have! Zey are all mine.You will never possess 'er as I possessed 'er. Domino was the best, apart from Maman. You do not understand the art of lovemaking. Just look at your inferior moustache. It is almost funny to me, non, to think of that ludicrous protuberance on your silly face, as you snuffle around Domino's love hillock like the piggy seeking the truffle in the forest, the forest heaving and swaying in the hot winds of desire! You lose again Sharky.When I make love to the women zey know, Sharky, zey know. Zey learn, zey learn until zey become the teacher. Not nano-maths, the arts of love. Domino was the seedling which I watered. I watered her so very often. Everywhere Sharky. Her scented petals, her proud stalk, everywhere. She will wither under your ridiculous hose, like the soufflé removed from the oven five minute too soon.I must go now Sharky, you bore me so with your disgraceful behaviour. It is you who will be flushed down le pissoir like the smelly thing.Bon chance!$LABEL$ 1
+As a Christian, I found this movie to be completely embarrassing. The actors sucked, the writing sucked, the cinematography sucked, and the story was so typical. I couldn't say this is a great witnessing tool, because I'd be too embarrassed to show any of my unsaved friends. Hollywood has much better stuff, and that's because they invest the best into it. Christians put out sh*tty work and think it's OK because "it's for the lord". In the old testament, people spent huge amounts of money to bring offerings to God. David (or Saul.. I don't remember) spent what would be equal to about $50 Billion in todays money on building a temple for God. But these days, spending what would appear to be about $30,000 tops on making a movie to "witness" to people with is just pathetic. It's the person, not the product that affects someone. Don't waste your time trying to convert your friends with this waste of an hour and a half. If you want to make a positive impact with people, show them movies like The Matrix, American Beauty, Braveheart etc.. movies that have something to say and actually get it into you.$LABEL$ 0
+Hear are some of the interesting things our combat hero faith healer Pat, his son Gordon (T.V. ministry seems like a family business.) and Terry Meeuwsen (Won Miss America in 1973 by wearing a swimsuit and showing her legs. Oh my goodness gracious!) say when our poor viewers are sick and need help.1. Someone with an "abscessed right tooth"has just now been healed.2. Someone with "twisted intestines" has been healed.3.Then Terry said there was a person with a "strange condition",(You mean God doesn't know?) a burning in the legs,who has just been healed.4. Then Gordon said there's a man(That narrows it down!) with swelling of the sinuses in his right cheek, with much pain behind the right eye,but he is now healed.5.Someone with a problematic right hip,limited mobility from a stroke, is now able to walk. 6. Terry said she saw someone with severe with severe stiffness in the neck bone, but didn't know the exact ailment(God doesn't know?)-that the person is now healed. 7. Someone paralyzed on the right side, particularly(Not exactly?!) the right side of the face has now been healed.8. A man (That narrows the world population down again.) with a plate in his skull is having a continual problems, and the doctors just don't know what to do. Terry said she saw the bone reforming around the plate(The funny bone?!)and the mans pain is gone,he was now healed.Hers how our war hero Pat helps our sick and poor people. 1. There's a woman in Kansas City (Missouri or Kansas but that narrows it way down.) who has a sinus the lord is drying it up now thank you Jesus. 2. There's a man with a financial need- I think a hundred thousand dollars.(I think their god needs to go to school or something!) That need is being met met right now,and within three days,the money will be supplied through the miraculous power of the holy spirit.Thank you Jesus. 3.There is a woman in Cincinnati with cancer of the lymph nodes. I don't know whether its been diagnosed yet (Ask your vengeful god Pat!) but you haven't been feeling well, and the lord is dissolving that cancer right now!(What?!)4. There is a lady in Saskatoon(I assume Canada.) in a wheelchair-curvature of the spine, The lord is straightening that our right now, and you can stand up and walk!(If you have this condition ignore Pat!) Just claim it and it's yours. Thank you Jesus! Amen, Amen!When Pat Robertson had prostate cancer did he go to Peter Popoff?, Oral Roberts?,Benny Hinn?,Terry or Gordon? No! On February 17,2003 Pat went to a REAL DOCTOR to have his surgery! (You mean he doesn't trust his faith healing friends, Terry or his own son Gordon?!)When LT Pat Robertson was in the Marines during the Korean war He was a liquor officer, responsible for keeping the officers supplied with liquor. He was known to drink himself and frequent prostitutes and he feared he contacted gonorrhea.(Should of asked a faith healer for help!)The reason Pat got out of combat was because his daddy Absalom Willis Robertson (D Va from 1946-66) was Chairman of the Senate Military Appropriations Committee.Terrorist Attacks, September 11, 2001 We have imagined ourselves invulnerable and been consumed by the pursuit of health, wealth,(Pats worth between 150 and 200 million dollars folks!) material pleasures(A mansion in Virginia beach Virginia with a helicopter launching pad!) and sexuality(He had had sex with his future wife before marriage which they had a son!). It (terrorism) is happening because god is lifting his protection from us.( Statement released on September 13, 2001.) Pat Robertson reminds me of Burgermeister on Santa Claus Is Coming To Town and his evil vengeful god reminds me of Venger on Dungeons And Dragons.Spoiled brat Gordon does what daddy Pat tells him to and Terry is a paid yes woman who neither have minds of their own!This will really grab you! The September 5 2005 edition of The 700 Club included a report Christian Broadcasting Network correspondent Gary Lane from outside New Orleans Convention Center which has housed mostly impoverished black disaster victims throughout the weekend."A number of possessions left behind suggest the mindset of some of the evacuees"Lane said"they include this voodoo cup with the saying"May the curse be with you." A shot of a plastic cup souvenir cup from one of the New Orleans countless trinket shops appeared on the screen. "Also music CDs with the title Guerrilla Warfare and Thugs 'R' Us." Lane stated, pointing out a pile or rap CDs strewn on the ground.( His bigoted daddy Absalom has taught Pat racism well!)If any of you good people ever think of donating to these sexist bigoted people please in the name of God don't! Sponsor a softball or basketball team,give to a food shelf, be a big brother or sister to a child but please don't give to these people because they have been around for over 40 years and solved nothing.If you still don't believe me type Pat Robertson overheard during commercial break on the web and hit search and once you hear what hes really like, I know for sure that you will not give one cent to these conning liars! And by the way Terry once had a divorce and Pat has talked against divorce many times on his shows.I like to say hello to the folks in Dover Pennsylvania, Orlando Florida, and to the nice folks who got hit by hurricane Katrina and I hope its a pleasant day. Has Operation Blessing been helpful to New Orleans?(I doubt it!) Please let our readers know! I do! By the way folks if your sick, go to a real doctor and lets everybody laugh at these liars and someday Burgermeister Pat,Gordon and Terry can go someplace else and take their angry god Venger with them!$LABEL$ 0
+"Once again, we have a movie that packs about 20 minutes of entertainment -- much of it involving the band's occasionally funny lyrics -- into a 90-minute package." For anyone old enough to remember, this is along lines of the first "Bill and Ted" WITHOUT the story line. If that doesn't say enough as to how brainless this movie is, think about Jack Black singing for about 20 minutes of the movie and that being its selling point. If you actually like listening to Tenacious D because of their musical prowess, then knock yourself out and buy the soundtrack. Don't waste your time with this though. If your a stoner looking for a good bad movie filled with laughs, you're still barking up the wrong tree. No matter the potency of your buds, you'll still be left wishing you'd popped in Grandma's Boy again instead.$LABEL$ 0
+Although I'm not a golf fan, I attended a sneak preview of this movie and absolutely loved it. The historical settings, the blatant class distinctions, and seeing the good and the bad on both sides of the dividing line held my attention throughout. The actors and their characterizations were all mesmerizing. And I was on the edge of my seat during the golf segments, which were not only dramatic and exciting but easy to follow. Toward the end of this movie, "Seabiscuit" came strongly to mind, although "The Greatest Game Ever Played" is far less complex a story than that film. In both cases, the fact that the events really happened deepened my interest.$LABEL$ 1
+(Some Spoilers) Dull as dishwater slasher flick that has this deranged homeless man Harry, Darwyn Swalve, out murdering real-estate agent all over the city of L.A because of the high prices that they charge for their proprieties. Looking like an extra from a Clint Eastwood "Spaghetti Western" Harry who's been living in abandoned houses eating dog food get's very upset where his quite lifestyle as a squatter is interrupted. This happens when a number of real-estate agents invaded his space in an attempt to sell the houses, that he's staying at to their potential clients.Joseph Bottome stars in this bottom-of-the-barrel horror movie as radio talk-show host Dr. David Kelly the handsome and popular host psychologist of the KDRX survival line. DR. Kelly is being sued by the family of one of his callers,Tracy, who ended up blowing her brains out while on the air with the doc who couldn't do anything to help her survive her ordeal of taking to him.The real-estate killer gets to talk with Dr. Kelly on the air about his adventures and the police try to get the doc to get his phone number and address, by keeping him on the line, but he refuses to in order not to hurt his rating by having potential callers not call in in fear of being monitored by the LADP. Kelly also is having a hot and heavy affair with a real-estate manager and agent the busty Lisa Grant, Adrienne Barbeau, who's office of sellers are Harry's main victims in he movie. Harry also gets to murder Lisa's main competition in the housing business the chubby and outrageous Barney Resnick, Barry Hope, who threatened to put Lisa out of business by any means possible even if he has to kill her. Getting Berney alone and with his pants down Harry slices his head off while he's being entertained by one of his clients, a hooker, whom he leaves dead and hanging together with the headless Barney. The movie ends with the deranged Harry taking Lisa hostage and having Dr. Kelly try to come to her rescue only to have Det. Shapiro (Robert Miano), looking like e hasn't slept in a week, pop out of nowhere and blow Harry's brains out. Harry quickly come back to life minus the gay matter between his ears and gets himself killed for the second time in the movie by being thrown from a balcony and landing on the ground as a dozen members of the LAPD, M16 cocked and ready, come on the scene.Nothing in the movie "Opean House" worked with the tension laughable to almost non-existent. Even the hot sex scenes between Dr. Kelly and Lisa didn't save the movie since there were far too few,only two, of them and and sexy Adrienne Barbeau was a bit too underexposed, with not enough light and too much clothes on, in all of them.Harry the killer in the movie was also a bit to comical to be taken seriously in trying to make a point, to Dr. Kelly on the phone and in person, about the high rents and real-estate prices in the country and how people like himself find it almost impossible to find a decent place to live in. You can sympathize with Harry's concern about the high cost of living but be very critical of him in how he crazily went on in correcting it.$LABEL$ 0
+I was one of those "few Americans" that grew up with all of Gerry Andersen's marvelous creations. Thunderbirds was a great series for the time and would have made a great action/adventure movie if only the writers could have figured out where to target it.I expected it to be a romp, but I did not expect it to aim at such a low age group. Like Lost in Space, this could have been both visually stunning and exciting. It should have focused on more action/adventure and the goal of the original series... saving people in trouble.Instead, it focused on Alan saving the day instead of his brothers (who were cast too young anyway vs. the original). The breakout part was Lady Penelope and Parker. I didn't care too much for the characters in the original, but I was grateful for them in the movie. They stole the show!I always enjoyed Thunderbirds more for the high-tech than the stories, and even that did not get enough screen time as far as I was concerned. I would have enjoyed seeing more of the cool gadgets.But then, I'm just a big kid... ;)$LABEL$ 0
+How can the viewer rating for this movie be just 5.4?! Just the lovely young Alisan Porter should automatically start you at 6 when you decide your rating. James Belushi is good in this too, his first good serious role, I hadn't liked him in anything but About Last Night until this. He was pretty good in Gang Related with Tupac also. Kelly Lynch, you gotta love her. Well, I do. I'm only wondering what happened to Miss Porter?i gave Curly Sue a 7$LABEL$ 1
+Maybe in its day this movie was special. But five decades later it seems quaint, just another cinematic relic of the dreadful 1950s. Stereotypes abound in this fluffy story about three female gold diggers who set up shop in a Manhattan penthouse, in an effort to attract wealthy husbands.I don't mind the shallow theme. But the film's premise is lame. And the execution is worse. It's a romantic comedy, but I found little to laugh at. The plot point about an extremely nearsighted bimbo is about the only clever element of the story. Overall dialogue is flat, and so too is the delivery. And the script structure is disconcerting. The plot keeps jumping back and forth among the three ladies. It's as if the writer couldn't quite blend the ensemble roles. The result is a plot that seems choppy.Marilyn Monroe was a good choice for her role. But Lauren Bacall was too old for the role she played. And Betty Grable, with her squeaky voice and awful hairdo, was just plain annoying.Color cinematography is conventional. But there were lots of shots using rear screen projection, contributing to a dated look. The visuals are made even worse by costumes that reek of cheesy 1950's "glamour"; they are just awful. Viewers must endure a fashion show, a plot point that amplifies how the film's director was smitten by those trashy glad rags.And then there is that orchestra. In what is arguably the worst film opening in cinema history, the first part of the film has an orchestra playing some dreary-sounding tune. At first, I thought I was watching the introduction to coming attractions. But no, it's actually part of the film. And the orchestra plays on, and on, and on. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, whatever to do with the story. What were they thinking?I enjoyed Marilyn Monroe, with her breathy voice, as she bimbos her way through the plot. But the film would have been far better if they had dumped the other two ensemble roles, dumped that orchestra, enhanced the comedy dialogue, and downplayed those gaudy, cheesy costumes.$LABEL$ 0
+Lets get one thing out of the way. I am a HUGE Bruce Campbell fan, I have the Evil Dead series, have the action figures, and have seen Bubba Ho-Tep. I am a fan of cheesy, laughable horror flicks and know how to appreciate the whole "it's so bad it's good" deal. I wish I could say the same about this movie. I watched this movie with high expectations, I wanted it to be good, campy, something from the BC we have all come to know and love. It started out promising enough, but after the first 20 minutes I resided to watching the rest of this sorry excuse of a movie as if I had just been shot with tranquilizer darts. The idea itself isn't a bad one; two men, don't get along, both killed by the same psycho woman, half of one man's brain is transplanted into the other's head, they argue, disagree and the comedy ensues. What killed me is how extremely unorganized and boring it was! It had potential, even as a camp flick to be so much better than it was. The plot was boring, even Bruce's zany physical slap stick couldn't make it work. Word's cannot even properly express the ridiculous robot that Bruce's wife's brain ends up getting put into. Easily the worst looking robot I have ever seen anywhere (even for a B movie.) The whole idea is dumb. What the hell was going through Bruce's mind when he made this steaming pile is beyond me. Why Ted Raimi didn't go running to his big brother asking him to slap some sense into Bruce and not to mention some lessons about making an enjoyable movie on a budget is beyond me.Shame on you Bruce!!!$LABEL$ 0
+This movie tells about the real life story of Ramon Sampedro, who lived for 27 years lying in bed after having broken his neck, and fights a battle to get legal permission for someone that can assists with his death.Javier Bardem is one of best actors of his generation. Consider this: he has to carry this movie with only his face! Unbelievable that he didn't even got an Oscar-nomination. Now we can all see that the Academy is a joke! The supporting cast was terrific! The optimistic Rosa, his lawyer Julia, the rest of the family...Each and everyone has his/her own opinion about the fact that Ramon wants to die.Whether your for or against euthanasia, put your opinions aside, because this movie deserves to be seen by people all over the world! Half way through the movie I started crying and it didn't stop until the credits rolled. This movie is so heartbreaking but also wonderful to watch and I can't wait to see it again. I give it a 9/10, and in my opinion it is by far the Best Film of the year so far.$LABEL$ 1
+** possible spoilers **I like this film and have no problem staying awake for it. It reminds me of me at 20, except this is even better. Like Veronica says, two chicks at one time. It brings out the horniness in me, the casual conversation, these two real life chicks, rather than hookers, teasing us every step of the way. I get into the conversations too. Even if they are utterly b.s. at times, so what? Every chick, just about, that I've ever talked to and is high on herself is usually full of the same unreasoned rambling gratuitous self-centered b.s. philosophy. It's just a bunch of nonsense, and about as sensible as that other b.s. philosophy chicks are often into: astrological charts. The only deal with this movie is the guy is almost as feminine as the women, he's into the same b.s. and moodiness. The brunette chick is actually the most masculine person there.I think it's kind of funny that the brunette chick gets so obviously turned on by Veronica. She'd love to pull the little blonde away from Alexander, but Veronica plays her all the way. She's brilliant. She gets the brunette thinking there's something up between them, and then she steals the boy-child/man, which is only appropriate since they appear to be from the same age group. The brunette knows she's been had by the end, when she's dropping her face into the palms of her hands while Marlene Deitrich sings in the background that, paraphrasing, there are a million couples in Paris tonight, but I only have this refrain.But do they get married in the end, Alex and Veronica? Mmmm? I can only imagine a super-tumultuous relationship ending in a pre-marriage breakup. They are too selfish to be anything to each other than stepping stones.I like the film though. It kept me entertained, it's got a nice look, and it's sexy.$LABEL$ 1
+How important is the director, anyway? In this film, made in the politically tumultuous times of the late 60s where questions of social organization were prime conflicts, asks that question by making a movie that turns the camera away from the action and only begs to reveal the director, William Greaves. It is an important work, as it shows like no other movie shows the difficulties in blocking, organizing, and setting the scene; it reveals the role of the crew, something most directors frankly would like to disappear completely and that the invisibility of is essential for suspending disbelief; and it also puts into consideration the role of performance and scripting and how they match/don't match reality and what that has to say about how the director ultimately influences reality (if at all).The documentary, or pseudo-documentary, or fictional narrative (whichever you prefer, via your interpretations of the themes) has its brain in the over-educated, over-intellectual crew, its guts in the lost performers struggling to understand the vague and ambiguous directions, and its heart in the director, who stands in as the desire to portray, to represent, to express without any idea how to do any of those things or why he wants to do it. It's a film that purposefully repeats banalities just to see if they can become more than banalities. It's a film that sometimes shows the multiple shots simultaneously, just to leave the editing to the audience and also reveal how disturbingly different shots change perspective.It's an important work, and something that everyone interested in the industry and process of film-making should watch and understand. It, like many experimental films, has no real mass-audience appeal--it's not for them. It's for the industry, and its for the 60s, asking what to do with a group-effort medium that still relies on a single "voice" and "author".--PolarisDiB$LABEL$ 1
+I like CKY and Viva La Bam, so I couldn't resist this when I saw it for £1.99 in Gamestation. It is Bam Magera's debut scripted film, penned by himself and Brandon Dicimaillo, and stars the entire CKY crew (Ryan Dunn, Raab Himself, Rake Yohn, Jenn Rivell, Don Vito etc etc). Brandon also is in charge of the artistic direction - which is one of the film's greatest merits - its quite CKYish in its colour style - but also shows progression.Basically it follows (very loosely) Ryan Dunn's break up with girlfriend Glauren (played by Jenn). Vilo (played by Bam, named after Vilo Valo by any chance?) and Falcone (Bran) play his best mates who reek havoc by doing various stunts.Its a bit like the CKY films but with a linear storyline (which is very basic indeed) and poor acting. Its strange, the usually super charsmatic gang seem to have the life sucked out of them when they know what their meant to say next.The acting and script is pretty appalling for the most part, but the second half of the film is much better than the first (90 mins is a stretch for the flick though), and there are a number of redeeming factors, such as Tony Hawk's cameo, Dicimaillo's sub plots such as 'The Futurstic Invention Awards' and 'The Diamond Bike', the soundtrack is also very strong (its not ALL cKy and HIM - in fact Bomfunk MC's steal the film in terms of its use of music). In the second half of the film the sense of fun is much more real - especially since Don Vito has a fairly prominent role in the latter part - and he seems to steal every scene he is in.The film will appeal to those who like the CKY antics, but only because of the core material and not the filler or story line bullshit. Oh, and will someone tell Bam that skating montages, especially in films, is sooo 1998.However, the best part of the package on the DVD is not the film - but the 40 mins 'Making Of' doc.The last 20 minutes of the documentary deal with Raab Himself's alcholism and the crew's real feelings towards each other amazing candidly (as usual Bam comes across as a bit of a dick, especially towards Raab's drink problem and Ryan Dunn comes across as a really nice down to earth guy). The last ten mins of the documentary deal with a friend (who is an infrequent CKY member) trying to kick heroin whilst staying at the Magera household with the crew - and a caring unitary side of gang (espcially Ape and Ryan) really comes across - a startling gem in an otherwise dull DVD.For £1.99 I'm very satisified - although I hope Bam stays to the improvised and short skits from now on.$LABEL$ 0
+This is probably the funniest thing I have ever seen - from start to finish it was perfect in timing, atmosphere, punch lines, background music, fighting sequences and every other possible aspect you can think of. To be absolutely honest i find this movie as funny as their (Rik & Ade's) sitcom "Bottom" - maybe even funnier. I laughed constantly throughout the whole movie and can only recommend seeing this film... However, if you watch it without knowing (or liking?) the type of comedy Rik Mayall and Ade Edmondson has done before, you might not think it's funny at all - but I REALLY can't understand those who dislike it - THIS IS HUMOUR FOLKS!!! (People getting hit with frying pans, guys running around wearing red rubber lingerie, green vomit filling the hallways, guys getting kicked in the b******s and getting candlesticks in the eyes - HOW can this NOT be funny???) 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+A young scientist is trying to carry on his dead father's work on limb regeneration.His overbearing mother has convinced him that he murdered his own father and is monitoring his progress for her own evil purposes.A young doctor uses reptilian DNA he extracts from a large creature and when his arm is conveniently ripped off a few minutes later,he injects himself with his formula and grows a new murderous arm...Admittedly the special effects in "Severed Ties" are pretty good and grotesque,but the rest of the film is awful.The severed arm is behaving like a snake and kills few people.Big deal.The acting is mediocre and the climax is silly.3 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+I recently rented the animated version of The Lord of the Rings on video after seeing the FANTASTIC 2001 live action version of the film. The Lord of the Rings live action trilogy directed by Peter Jackson will undoubtably be far better than George Lucas' Star Wars "prequel" trilogy (Episodes 1-3) will ever be as the real fantasy film series of the 21st century!I remember seeing the animated version as a child, and I didn't quite understand the depth of the film at that time. Now that I have read the books, I understand what the whole storyline is all about. To be sure, some of the characters are quite silly, (Samwise Gangee is particularly annoying, almost as much as Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars Episode One, (AWFUL!)) but, I have to say it follows the book rather closely, and it goes into part of book two, The Two Towers. The good things are that the action is somewhat interesting and some of the animation is quite remarkable for it's time. The bad things are that it ends upruptly halfway through The Two Towers without any result of Frodo's quest to destroy the one ring, and the animation looks quite dated compared to today's standards. Overall, not AS bad as many say it is. BUT, the 2001 live action version is the new hallmark of The Lord of the Rings! At least Ralph Bakshi took the script seriously! Peter Jackson has said that the animated version inspired him to read the books, which in turn caused him to create one of the greatest fantasy series ever put on film, so we can at least thank Ralph Bakshi for that matter! I'll take the animated version of Lord of the Rings over the live version of Harry Potter anyday!A 7 out of a scale of 1-10, far LESS violent than the 2001 live action version, but NOWHERE near as good! For diehard fans of the books and film versions of The Lord of the Rings.$LABEL$ 1
+Here is a movie that almost gets it all right, with good performances from everyone, and three strong leading performances from Hanks, Seymour Hoffman, and a fine turn up from Julia Roberts that had me spell bound from the first few seconds, these are performances that lift the production to the stars, and keep it there for the duration. Apart from one or two very minor factual problems with the script, the only thing that lets this movie down, is the technical direction, there are far too many bad cuts (fudged continuity)and a number of camera "cheats" that simply do not work. This is surprising for a movie of this stature, and is a little annoying to watch, but it does not destroy an otherwise beautifully crafted film.$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of the very best films i've seen in ages... it's right up there with the likes of trainspotting and pulp fiction. It just epitomises teenage culture today. The soundtrack is absolutely amazing... overseen by Pete Tong. It's a must see!$LABEL$ 1
+This is the kind of film that everyone involved with should be embarrassed over. Poor directing, over the top acting and a plot that rambles on with no point other than to show violence. I thought when I first saw it that it would be perhaps a satire of the media and how it shows violence but it's not. I'm not sure what makes the film worse. Oliver stone does his worst directing ever. From scenes where Woody Harrelson's face morphs for no reason or Robert Downey Jr's dreadful performance as Wayne Gale who is a reporter who seems totally bonkers, this movie is simply a mess.$LABEL$ 0
+The point of the vastly extended preparatory phase of this Star is Born story seems to be to make ultimate success all the more sublime. Summer Phoenix is very effective as an inarticulate young woman imprisoned within herself but never convincing as the stage actress of growing fame who both overcomes and profits from this detachment. Even in the lengthy scenes of Esther's acting lessons, we never see her carry out the teacher's instructions. After suffering through Esther's (largely self-inflicted) pain in excruciating detail, we are given no persuasive sense of her triumph.The obsessive presence of the heroine's pain seems to be meant as a guarantee of aesthetic transcendence. Yet the causes of this pain (poverty, quasi-autism, Judaism, sexual betrayal) never come together in a coherent whole. A 163-minute film with a simple plot should be able to knit up its loose ends. Esther Kahn is still not ready to go before an audience.$LABEL$ 0
+Although perhaps not as entertaining as some of Herzog's work, Little Dieter is another fine film by one of the world's greatest film artists. Departing from Herzog's usual themes, Little Dieter is a fascinating and uplifting character study about a brave man and his efforts to go on living after a life-alteringly traumatic experience. Dieter Dengler wanted to fly from a very young age, and the Viet Nam war gave him that opportunity, but instead of spending the war soaring in a cockpit, he spent most of it grounded as a POW. Dieter tells most of his story eloquently and passionately, with occasional help from Herzog. Herzog does very little voice over this time, but contributes a lot of subtly powerful soundscaping and visuals - which should be no surprise to those familiar with him.Dengler is a fascinating and extremely likable person. As human and as alive as they come, I found the story of his life and his incorrigibly upbeat personality to be inspiring. Thanks to Herzog for (re)introducing him to us.The scale of the film is not as sprawling, and the drama is not as fierce as many of the early films that made Herzog a force to be reckoned with. Nevertheless, I strongly recommend this to his fans and to those who enjoy documentaries. It's a very interesting and well executed film.$LABEL$ 1
+This might be the WWE's 2nd best PPV of the year after Wrestlemania it was a good suprise! John Cena had an excellent match in which he upset Chris Jericho. Jeff Hardy retained his IC title in a short sloppy match with Willam Regal. Bubba & Spike Dudley won a fairly violent tables match over Benoit & Guerrero. Jamie Noble had a really good match with Kidman which was suprising to me. Booker T defeated The Big Show in a no dq match, at one point Booker T gave the scissors kick to Big Show and sent him right through the table. In a stupid decision by the WWE Christian and Lance Storm, the jealous anti-americans defeated Hogan and Edge with a lot of help from Test and Jericho. RVD and Brock had the match of the night it was filled with great high spots and RVD got to retain his ic title through a DQ so I was happy he kept the title. Triple H also signed with Eric Bischoff and Raw which means little to nothing. And in the main event the Rock became the first ever 7-time WWE world champion defeating both Kurt Angle & Undertaker in a triple threat match. Overall this is probably the WWE's 2nd best PPV of 2002! 7/10$LABEL$ 1
+Having seen most of Ringo Lam's films, I can say that this is his best film to date, and the most unusual. It's a ancient china period piece cranked full of kick-ass martial arts, where the location of an underground lair full of traps and dungeons plays as big a part as any of the characters. The action is fantastic, the story is tense and entertaining, and the set design is truely memorable. Sadly, Burning Paradise has not been made available on DVD and vhs is next-to-impossible to get your mitts on, even if you near the second biggest china-town in North America (like I do). If you can find it, don't pass it up.$LABEL$ 1
+Alfred Hitchcock's more assured telling of a film he made twenty-one years earlier is infinitely superior to the original. Hitchcock said himself that his first version was the work of an amateur, and although it certainly isn't a bad film, he does appear to be right. That being said, this remake, although definitely better, still isn't among Hitchcock's best work. That's certainly not to say that it isn't good, it's just more than a little overindulgent, and that drags it down. Hitchcock seems all too keen to drag certain elements out, and these are parts of the film that aren't entirely relevant to the plot, which can become annoying. Some of these dragged out sequences, such as the one that sees James Stewart and Doris Day eating in a Moroccan restaurant are good because it helps establish the different culture that our American protagonists have found themselves in, but for every restaurant scene, there's an opera sequence and it's the latter that make the film worse.The plot follows a middle-aged doctor and his wife that go to Morocco for a holiday with their young son. While there, they meet a French man on the bus and another middle-aged couple in a restaurant. However, things go awry when the French man dies from a knife in the back, shortly after whispering something to the doctor. The holiday then turns into a full blown nightmare when the couple's son is kidnapped, which causes them to cut it short and go to London in order to try and find him. The film has a very potent degree of paranoia about it, and it manages to hold this all the way through. In fact, I would even go as far as to say that this is the most paranoid film that Hitchcock ever made. Like most of Hitchcock's films, this one is very thrilling and keeps you on the edge of your seat for almost the entire duration, with only the aforementioned opera sequence standing out as a moment in which the tension is diffused. There is also more than a little humour in the movie, which gives lighthearted relief to the morbid goings on, and actually works quite well.The original version of this story was lent excellent support by the fantastic Peter Lorre. This film doesn't benefit from his presence, unfortunately, but that is made up for by performances from the amazing James Stewart, and Doris Day. James Stewart is a man that is always going to be a contender for the 'greatest actor of all time' crown. His collaborations with Hitchcock all feature mesmerising performances from him, and this one is no different. (Although his best performance remains the one in Mr Smith Goes to Washington). Stewart conveys all the courage, conviction and heartbreak of a man that has lost his child and would do anything to get him back brilliantly. In fact, that's one of the best things about this film; you are really able to feel for the couple's loss throughout and that serves in making it all the more thrilling. Doris Day, on the other hand, is a rather strange casting choice for this movie. She's definitely a good actress, but she's more associated with musicals and seeing her in a thriller is rather odd (even if she does get to flex her vocal chords a little).As I've mentioned; this is not Hitchcock's best film, but there's much to enjoy about it and although I'd recommend many Hitchcock films before recommending this one, I'll definitely give it two thumbs up as well.$LABEL$ 1
+Somewhere between the Food Court and Zip's, the mall in this filmhas an explosives store. This is the only place the title charactercan purchase the bomb he plants in the mall in the dull finale.A fictional town has a new mall, built on some land that wascondemned. Cute Girl (I didn't catch her name) gets a job as awaitress there. She lost her boyfriend in a fire at the site where themall stands. The villainous mall owner hires the arsonistresponsible for the fire as a security guard after his first securityguard ends up dead. Rob Estes, eons before "Silk Stalkings," is aphotog/reporter trying to find a story. He hooks up with Cute Girl,and their mutual "funny" friend Pauly Shore, and try to find out if Ericis still alive. He is, living in the mall basement (?) and travelingthrough the air ducts and offing different people who upset hisformer girlfriend, including the arsonist. Eventually, he kidnaps herand the finale involves the bomb and everyone running from thescene before the big kablooey. Morgan Fairchild is along for theride as the mayor...yes, she's the mayor.Of course, you probably did not need a plot sketch since the entirestory is in the title. Someone named Eric is taking revenge againstpeople as a phantom of a mall. This also means there is nosuspense. We know Eric is behind this, but we still have to seeEstes and Cute Girl go through the motions of a silly investigation.Watch as Fairchild, who we know has been in cahoots with themall owner all along, pull a gun on our heroic duo in the middle ofa crowded party, yet no one says a word as she leads them to heroffice, and her eventual death. The fictional town is huge, yet nary apoliceman is ever called, everyone relies on mall security for order.Eric has been hiding since the mall was built, but I am not surewhere. He seems to live in a basement area, but you would thinksome construction worker would have found him. He also hasfurnished his love pad quite well, and found a few outlets, since hehas electricity. It might be nicer than your own apartment!Pauly Shore fans, both of you, take note. He tricks a security guardout of his booth by mooning the camera. Yes, stop scanningCelebrity Skin and Playgirl, this is where you get to see a grainyblack and white shot of Pauly's south shore, although no weezil.This is just junk, and proof positive that I am down to renting justabout anything at the video store to stay in the horror section. Thisfilm is not Eric's revenge, it is the film maker's revenge for mebeing dumb enough to watch it. Here is my revenge: I do notrecommend it. That'll show 'em!This is rated (R) for physical violence, some gun violence, gore,some profanity, some female nudity, brief male nudity, and somesexual content.$LABEL$ 0
+If you have read the books then forget the characters that Tolkien built in your head. The representation of hobbits, dwarves etc have had the 'disney' treatment. The dark riders are excellent, and as I had always imagined from the books.Cinematically this is an excellent film, mixing live motion and animation to produce amazing effects for the year. I only wish he (Bakshi) had been given the money to complete his epic.It's worth having the video as they will be worth a bit after the 2001 Lord of the Rings !!$LABEL$ 1
+I have been a fan of Pushing Daisies since the very beginning. It is wonderfully thought up, and Bryan Fuller has the most remarkable ideas for this show.It is unbelievable on how much TV has been needing a creative, original show like Pushing Daisies. It is a huge relief to see a show, that is unlike the rest, where as, if you compared it to some of the newer shows, such as Scrubs and House, you would see the similarities, and it does get tedious at moments to see shows so close in identity.With a magnificent cast, wonderful script, and hilarity in every episode, Pushing Daisies is, by-far, one of the most remarkable shows on your television.$LABEL$ 1
+For a made-for-TV "horror" movie the movie started off very interesting. I was really intrigued by the story and the mystery of the film. But the ending was a total dissappointment. The movie was going along fast-paced and was building up to, it seemed like anyway, to a very climatic end. But guess what there is no end. The movie is just over and after almost one-and-a-half hours the audience is just left wondering what happened. Why were all the unanswered questions in the film left unanswered. There was no explanation at all about any of the key points in the plot. This film is like watching a murder mystery and then never finding out who did it. Very dissappointed. This film looks like the producers just ran out of money and never completed the film. A real BOMB!$LABEL$ 0
+Scott is right. The best 2 person sword duel ever put on film is in the middle of this movie. The sword fights with multiple fighters are not the best although quite good. However, the fight in the middle is the best even compared to Japanese samurai movies. Chinese swordplay scenes in my opinion have never surpassed the Japanese in terms of entertainment value. Especially in scenes where one guy must battle a group of enemies, Japanese movies excel, example being the Lone Wolf and Cub series. Even though duels in Japanese cinema last only seconds or a minute at the most, the sheer intensity of those moments made them better. But, this is one example where Chinese swordplay surpasses the Japanese. The scene in the middle of this film was a five minute long fight with the most amazing choreography ever. The other fights in this movie are good too but even if they sucked this movie would get a 7 for that one scene. If you haven't seen it, you have to. John Woo is the man.$LABEL$ 1
+Gung Ho tries to express many ideas and entertain us with a wiseguy comedy at the same time. The result is uneven, but generally entertaining. Keaton balances all three aspects of his lead character quite well. Wantabedde is even better. One warning: George Wendt is very poor in his supporting role. Otherwise, this is quite enjoyable time capsule.$LABEL$ 1
+I found this film the first time when I was searching for some works in witch Stéphane Rideau had participate, still in an extraordinary ravishment caused by the astonishingly beautiful «Les roseaux sauvages» (in Portuguese, Juncos Silvestres), by André Téchiné. I was searching for similar movies, in the come of age line. I found then «Presque Rien», a movie where the director Sébastien Lifshitz deliciously amazes us, earning a nomination by the Cannes festival in 2000. The story is about two guys, the kind «boy next door», Mathieu (Jérémie Elkaïm) and Cédric (Stéphane Rideau), who meet during the summer vacations. In a land far from where he lives, Mathieu spends is days at the beach with his sister. There he meets Cédric, a local, with whom he starts this estival and revealing relationship, much by means of the sensual and seducer personality that Stéphane Rideau gives his characters, (in «Les roseaux sauvages», 6 years younger, he still preserves the innocence of the sweet seducer, witch matures here in experience). Exemplar in directing, in the amorous sequence, in the intimate and confessing description that is made about a boys first facing his (still ambiguous) sexuality and great love. The first love, in its terrible progression ecstasy-despair. The best of the film is the best of France: the fervent passion, the hot and excited rationalism, the brownish beauty, the simple and natural acceptance made by the families, although not without surprise and first anger. Still, there is the beach, the luminosity, the lightness e simplicity of summer, the freshness of breeze, the surge&#8217;s melody, and the expressive eyes of an introverted Elkaïm (hesitant, hurt, puzzled, passionate). The sex is not avoided nor exploited, it is treated as it is, with no exhibitionist intention. In virtue of pure talent, this is a work of drama of uncommon quality, without cheap sentimentalism, showing an inevitably real image of two homosexual in their prime youth as any ordinary person, although with a social fear of rejection and shame. It is well worthy being seen, especially by those who adore French movies (although the DVD front cover is very lame, with the two actors in between tens of stars, greased with brilliantine). A movie witch, in my opinion, deserves an 8-9!$LABEL$ 1
+Assault on Precinct 13: 3/10: Let us forget for a moment that Assault on Precinct 13 is a remake of a classic action movie. Taken completely on its own merits Assault is a debacle. Lets start with the Rio Bravo style scenario. About a dozen people are trapped in a decaying police station in Detroit (If the Detroit location is giving you Robocop warm and fuzzies stop right now. It could have easily said Topeka in the opening credits and nothing would have changed. In fact the last bit in the forest would have made more sense.) Surrounding them are our bad guys; corrupt cops.Now I know what your thinking. Corrupt cops? Were the Nazis and drug cartels busy that weekend? Of course these are no ordinary cops. These guys are right of the cover of the latest Tom Clancy video game. Yup we have body armor; helicopters; laser sights; night vision goggles the works. So we have thirty S.W.A.T. members/Special Forces armed to the teeth verses 4 cops (drunk mind you it's new years eve), 2 girls in party dresses and half a dozen criminals. So how do our heroes defend themselves? Truth is they can't. They all should be dead within ten minutes tops. (Not to mention the characters inside have an annoying habit of walking past the windows.) Now an illogical scenario is no reason to completely pan a movie esp. a B style action film. However with the exception of Laurence Fishburne and Ethan Hawke all the other characters seemed to be comic relief. (At least I hope they were) While Ja-Rules and Leguizamo's characters are bad enough. It's Aisha Hind's minstrel show that takes the cake. Rarely has a more stereotypical African American character appeared on the modern screen. Her performance resembles a frat boy in blackface and drag acting ghetto. In the original Assault a gang member takes over an Ice-Cream truck and drives around the neighborhood shooting little girls in the head. I have had an irrational fear of ice-cream trucks ever since. After this Assault I have a perfectly rational fear of remakes.$LABEL$ 0
+The Clouded Yellow is a compact psychological thriller with interesting characterizations. Barry Jones and Kenneth More are both terrific in supporting roles in characters that both have more to them than what meets the eye. Jean Simmons is quite good, and Trevor Howard makes a fascinatingly offbeat suspense hero.$LABEL$ 1
+Pretty bad movie offers nothing new. The usual creaks and moans attempt to make-up for a muddled, but thin story. Acting is barely above pathetic. Why Liam Neeson signed on for this is anyone's guess. Owen Wilson truly turns in one of the worst performances in recent horror-movie history. Catherine Zeta Jones is fun to look at and not much else although Lili Tayor did an above-average job. The special effects were fairly memorable and the house itself was breathtaking and hauntingly gorgeous. However they can't makeup for the poor acting and the storyline which appears to have been thrown together at the last minute. Don't bother.$LABEL$ 0
+It would appear that some previous reviewers may have had their expectations set a bit too high going into this film. I found it scanning the satellite channels for something (not knowing what) and happened upon it. I thought by the title it might be one of the myriad soft-core porn flicks appearing regularly on the movie channels but I was pleasantly surprised. Although there was some male frontal nudity (in fact, more than your typical soft-core title -- go figure!), this was not the focus of the film. It was just fun.Don't be deceived by my tastes: my recent screenings have included Before Night Falls and Europa, Europa (both geat, IMHO). But I also enjoy total mental shutdown when watching a movie. Virtual Sexuality did this for me and that's not a bad thing!$LABEL$ 1
+Such a film of beauty that it's hard to describe. Maybe it's the absence of superfluous dialogue, or maybe it's the absolutely stellar soundtrack, or maybe it's just Meena Mumari's feet, but it's a joy to watch this movie again and again. I've never seen another Indian movie that comes close to it, and few from any country rival its perfection.$LABEL$ 1
+The making of The Thief Of Bagdad is quite a story unto itself, almost as wondrous as the tale told in this film. Alexander Korda nearly went broke making this film.According to the Citadel Film series Book about The Great British Films, adopted son of the United Kingdom Alexander Korda had conceived this film as early as 1933 and spent years of planning and preparation. But World War II unfortunately caught up with Korda and the mounting expenses of filming a grand spectacle.Budget costs happen in US films too, only Cecil B. DeMille always had a free hand at Paramount after 1932 when he returned there. But DeMille nor any of his American contemporaries had to worry about enemy bombs while shooting the film. Part of the way through the shoot, Korda transported the whole company to America and shot those sequences with Rex Ingram as the genie in our Grand Canyon. He certainly wasn't going to get scenery like that in the UK. Korda also finished the interiors in Hollywood, all in time for a release on Christmas Day 1940.The spectacle of the thing earned The Thief Of Bagdad four Academy Award nominations and three Oscars for best color cinematography, best art&set direction for a color film, and best special effects. Only Miklos Rosza's original musical score did not take home a prize in a nominated category. Korda must have been real happy about deciding to shoot in the Grand Canyon because it's impossible to get bad color pictures from that place.The special effects however do not overwhelm the simple story of good triumphing over evil. The good is the two young lovers John Justin and June Duprez and the evil is Conrad Veidt as the sorcerer who tries to steal both a kingdom and a heart, both belonging to Duprez. This was Veidt's career role until Casablanca where he played the Luftwaffe major Stroesser. Of course good gets a little help from an unlikely source. Beggar boy and thief Sabu who may very well have been one of the few who could call himself at the time an international movie star. Literally rising from poverty working as an elephant stable boy for the Maharajah of Mysore he was spotted by Alexander Korda who needed a native lead for one of his jungle features. Sabu captures all the innocence and mischievousness of youth as he fulfills the Arabian Nights fantasy of the boy who topples a tyrant. Not a bad message to be sending out in 1940 at that.The Thief Of Bagdad holds up remarkably well today. It's an eternal tale of love, romance, and adventure in any order you want to put it.$LABEL$ 1
+As a horror-movie fan I try to watch all significant novelties of this genre, especially those which are the products of my native cinema. And I can say that that the "Power of Fear" (or "Vedma" as the Russian title of it) is one of the weakest film among them. Firstly, it can't scary even a little kid, it paces so slowly and so predictable that there is no place for the real horror. Frankly speaking, it's bad in all points: from the goofy plot (I don't know why the Russian producers/director decided to transform the classic story about Ukrainian witchcraft into some lame and ridiculous modern-day-America thriller. I absolutely agree with the previous reviewer – it doesn't thrill a bit) and to the terrible and cheesy actors' work. All actors including the leading Valeri Nikolayev and Yevgeniya Kryukova who are quite famous in Russia look like wooden dolls or something like that and it seems to me they didn't even bother to play at all, only spoke their English lines without any expression. And at the end I don't really understand why they filmed this flick in English with Russian actors? I think it was their wrong turn. At least they could cast some American or English actors for the leading parts to make them look more convincing. The same I can say about so called "small American town backgrounds" which were shot in Estonia and look like it. The only positive moment I found in the "Power of Fear" is the visual effects. They are not excellent but rather good for the Russian film. And the music is OK, at least it doesn't irritate me. That's why I give it two stars. Overall, if you want to see good horror film – don't waste your time and money on this boring flick. And if you are looking for something that claims to be a Russian horror I'd advise you to find a copy of "Viy or The Spirit of Evil". It's really the terrific movie based on the same novel as "Power of Fear" but much, much better.$LABEL$ 0
+A film that dramatized an understandable reluctance to face the inevitable coming of the the second world war, when a Spanish Republican, sent by his soon to be overthrown government, (Charles Boyer) infiltrates himself into England looking for support for his cause by trying to influence wealthy mine owners not to sell coal to the fascists back in Spain. He upsets the locals, getting convincingly beaten in one scene, and later in the film facing an angry crowd of miners who see him as yet another threat to their shaky livelihood. Notwithstanding socio-economic hierarchy, xenophobia, and world politics, this film expertly delves into a dark and suspenseful intrigue involving unfaithful compatriots played by Katina Paxinou and Peter Lorre, and is expertly filmed in numerous darkly lit scenes set in a dreary hotel by James Wong Howe, and manages more than once to get under your skin.$LABEL$ 1
+The MTV sci-fi animated series "Æon Flux" is brought to life with Charlize Theron playing the title character, a freedom fighter who fights oppression in the walled city of Bregna, 400 hundred years into the future. For her latest mission, she has been sent to kill the city's leader Trevor Goodchild (Marton Csokas), but she uncovers secrets along the way.Aeon Flux falls under the category of good premise, mediocre execution. Interesting story yet the film was a little dull. A lot of people are saying that this is one of the worst movies of the year and that's not true at all. It may be a disappointing film but it's an average film at best. I have never seen the cartoon version of the movie so I can't compare the two. It's probably better because they have a chance to explain the story more. The film is not that confusing but it's easy to get lost if you're not familiar with the material. The acting was alright, nothing special. Charlize Theron gives a good performance and seems dedicated to the film. The rest of the cast also give decent performances including Jonny Lee Miller, Frances McDormand and Marton Csokas. There are also more than a few interesting characters in the film including Sithandra, Aeon's friend.The problem with Aeon Flux is that it takes itself too seriously. It carries the same serious tone throughout the entire film and that gets a little tiring. There's no humor and the film becomes a little boring at times. This is the same problem that Elektra had. Because the film is so serious, the dialog sounds cheesy and the serious scenes seem forced. The action scenes are pretty good but that's not what the film is really about so don't go in expecting just an action movie. The twist at the end isn't mind blowing but it's still a nice ending and better than other thrillers that have come out this past year (Hide and Seek). The costumes are little weird but still look nice and interesting. The visuals were are also done well so the film at least looks nice. So, the movie may be a case of style over substance. Interesting to look at but may not hold your attention for a very long time. In the end, it's not the best film out there but it might for a decent rental. Rating 4/10$LABEL$ 0
+Obviously a film that has had great influence not only on the buddy genre but action genre as well. George Lucas had to be a fan of this flick as so much of his Star Wars series seems to a homage to Gunga Din. The characters that Grant, McLaglen, and Fairbanks play are just precursors of Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, and Chewbacca. Even Sam Jaffe's Gunga Din morphed into C-3PO and R2-D2 and like him or not: Jar Jar Binks.Today this film is viewed as non PC but there is a speech by Eduardo Ciannelli as Guru the leader of the Indian opposition to the British raj that could can be echoed in the sentiments of many today. To a young boy this was a great film. Three strong male leads and only a hint of romance. There was a time when young boys deemed kissing the girl in Saturday matinee film was just mush. Not like today when the more skin is greeted with delight. Too late to lament lost innocence.Hopefully this film will not be forgotten and a few who are channel surfing will stop at TCM and catch a film with action, adventure, and a cast of thousands instead of CGI actors.$LABEL$ 1
+Yes Pigeon and Coburn are great, and it's interesting to watch them, although Coburn seems rather restrained and dull here. It's enjoyable to view Seattle, Victoria and Salt Lake City of 1970's, and the period cars and clothing. That's all the good in this boring film. The dialog is incredibly bad, as is most of the acting. Ray and Sandy's motivations seem forced and unlikely. I've seen this "training to be a pickpocket" routine several times before. There's a long build up, leading to nothing. Better to catch an episode of "Streets of San Francisco", or one of the many great crime/caper movies. To name a few, there are Bedtime Story, remade as Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, The Lavender Hill Mob, The Grifters, Paper Moon, The Sting, and best of all, House of Games.$LABEL$ 0
+Yes. I'll admit it. I believed all the hype surrounding this piece of work, about the trials and tribulations of 6 people, living in Mexico City concerning their sexual lives. And so, I was really expecting to finally see a Mexican movie (in ages) that was both popular and interesting to watch. Unfortunately the film was utterly disappointing. The story presents us with two couples, both with very obvious marital problems. When a third party comes into the life of each couple, their problems reach a pivotal point. Or absolute absurd. The plot then turns into a battle of the sexes. The stance taken by each group (yes, they literally group, girls with girls and boys with boys) is blatantly stupid and childish (I guess the humor was supposed to be there). And it all goes from bad to worse. The performances range from good (Miss Zavaleta) to mediocre (Mr Bichir), with Serrano doing an acceptable job on his opera prima. However, the flat circumstances that make up the plot, the one-dimensional characters, the very poor (if not stupid) perception of what sex represents in a mature relationship etc, make the movie fail. Miserably. SPyL has had an (impressive) good reception at the box-office. Believe the hype at your own risk.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the best ensemble comedy/musical "B" film's that I have seen (and since I'm in my 40's now and only seeing this now, I am not an expert but I have seen all the well known films out there). When there are a ton of actors getting their lead for minutes at a time, usually the comedy interferes with the musical bits, and very often the musical pieces interrupt the comedic flow. Call me in a crazy kind of mood but when I saw this on TCM Europe, I was laughing out loud with pleasure! So who delivered the laughs for me? Without a doubt Mischa Auer delivered me some terrific gut busting laughs, he even steals the ending, it was great! Speaking of which, I think why this movie works is because although L & H are a selling point (and why I got hooked to watch this one (them and Hal Roach), I love them in their early Hal Roach stuff), this keeps them at a minimum and stays squarely on ADULT fare (by 1930's standards, and not that far from today's standards if you read between the lines). Jack Haley is also great to watch, I admit that I only know him from W O OZ and I loved him there, and I also laughed out loud here at his waiter bit in the show. Patsy Kelly is the only "ugly" femme in the 30's movies that actually turns me on (something tells me she was a spitfire in real life); and the musical numbers have a real professional production (Busby Berkley'ish) quality, that blew me away from what I am used to in this genre. I could go on and on, but rest assured I really enjoyed this movie. 8 of 10 I saw it on TCM Europe and will record it to watch again with my wife on TCM USA. Good Stuff!$LABEL$ 1
+What a shame. What a terrible shame. The table was set, the candles were lit, the guests had arrived... and then...... well nothing really. Just pretentious drivel. It could have been great, OK maybe not great, but it could have been very good. All the elements were there but at the end of the day the bottle was empty: NO LIGHTNING! How that happened is a mystery with everything at the director's disposal...... the story was quite brave although it certainly needed considerable work with possibly several finishing rewrites to fix the story and tighten up the characters a lot (the only thing that was consistently and constantly and unnecessarily tight was the cinematography, but i'll get to that). But the direction was lousy, the acting was just that: _a-C-T-i-n-G_ with a heavy side of cheese and lots of ham, and then the cinematography......well that was something to behold! But only if you are in film school's "Cinematography 101 how to never ever use a professional movie camera under any circumstances". Obviously the student had fallen asleep through part of the lecture's introduction and only heard "... use a professional movie camera..." then blissfully back to la la land as the sentence finished off.What can i say; amateurish and pretentious to the last! I can only see this film meant to appeal as a Chick Flick because it's supposed to be sad, but then falls flat and just ends up being 'sad' (as an excuse for a movie)... so that even those 'Chicks' wouldn't be fooled by this schlockenspiel! PS. I felt bad for Miss Diaz. She's a lot better at her craft than what this film allowed her to be, even though she was totally TOTALLY miscast. Actually i feel sorry for everyone in this movie except the director and (you guessed it) the cinematographer! I say '1st against the wall for them when the revolution comes!' OK, not really, after all "it was only a movie" but perhaps a good "tar and feather and running out of town" might be more satisfying or at the very least a lot more entertaining!!!TTFN :-($LABEL$ 0
+A film that reveals the unease of modern men and women in life when confronted to death. We are beyond the simple religious belief in the afterlife, and what's more in any kind of hell or heaven. Religion is declared dead. Yet human beings are more obsessed than ever by death, especially since we can push it away for quite a long time. What's more the scientific and technological development of our societies leads us to believe we can explain everything, know everything and do everything. That was quite typical of the end of the 20th century. Today things are changing, especially when the president of the United States himself, Barack Obama, in a public speech to journalists speaks of their search for truth and qualifies that truth as being of course relative because it is more a quest than a final end, objective or achievement. The film shows the end of the good old metaphysical thinking that was starting to evolve into a truth obsession, an obsessive conception that truth was unique and irreversibly reachable. Post modernism had not reached Hollywood yet, though today it seems to have reached the White House. So some young doctors and medical students decide to go into death and come back. Technically it is possible but the result is not surprising. It reactivates old guilty feelings and frustrations that had been buried into the unconscious. One has to do with a drug addicted father of a Vietnam veteran who commits suicide, another with a young boy who was stoned to death by some others the death tripper included, another still with a young black girl who was victimized and bullied in grade school out of racism, sexism and hatred if not fear in front of her shyness. It is so naïve that you could cry out of shame for these young adults who are highly qualified and behave like babies who are crying for their bottles of edulcorated fruit juice. The film though is interesting but in something quite different. The setting and the shooting and every single detail or treatment of any detail is baroque, morbid, decadent, quite in the style of "Death in Venice" or Greenaway, or some other works of art that deal with making friends with the basic enemy that death is. Of course that does not save the film but at least that makes it worth watching.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, CEGID$LABEL$ 1
+I started watching The Apprentice about 4 years ago(maybe 5) and I really really liked it. The first thing that strikes you about it is the refreshing format, which though similar to a lot of other reality shows at its core, is still very entertaining. Donald Trump is wonderful as the host and the main judge of the show as well. The casting coup with intelligent people having good looks being picked as contestants is appreciated as well. But the best part of the show is New York city. Mark Burnett may have made a lot of crap in his time but his handling of the cinematography is excellent as he makes NYC look like a character unto itself. The jazz tunes coupled with some great camera-work make New York look spectacular.The Apprentice will easily alway make my top 3 reality shows of all time(The Amazing Race is no. 1,however).But just like the amazing race this show is always best watched in moderation. If you keep watching it for a while the originality of the show will wear off fast(the same case as with TAR).Star World, the broadcasters in this country, did a bang up job in presenting the show. The first three seasons were shown in a row, then after 2 years the next two seasons were shown, which kept the concept fresh.In conclusion, you will love this show, especially the first 2 seasons. However if you keep watching the show continuously, thereafter its charm WILL wear off and FAST.$LABEL$ 1
+I watched this film with a bunch of friends at a Halloween party last night. I got to say that the sarcastic comments were never ending and I have to say that they were well deserved. Though I felt that the directing was done well, the craziness in their dialogue is just a little too much cheese. I think I got about an hour into this before I even started to realize what it was the point was that they were trying to drive home. You catch on pretty quick that this whole family is pretty quirky and something is off about them, it's just a little too slow. This movie could easily have been about 45 minutes and been a lot better. The only thing that made it bearable was the two bottles of wine that I downed during the course of the flick. Bring on the slasher films folks, because at least I know what to expect out of them. This was not my thing, too much dark humour, and the subject material of cannibalism was a bit explicit and gross. I have to say that Randy Quaid played the part as well as it could have been, and I will give him props for that as I normally see him as a drunken goofball or a washed out fighter pilot who likes to kill aliens.In conclusion I give this horror/comedy film a very generous 3 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+Panic is a sneaky little gem of a film - you think you have it figured out by the first half hour only to realize, with great pleasure, that Henry Bromell is a much better writer/director than that. The film builds slowly, with one quietly devastating scene after another, all enacted perfectly by William H. Macy, Donald Sutherland, Neve Campbell, Tracey Ullman, John Ritter, and the most remarkable child actor I've seen in a long time, David Dorfman, as Macy's son, who delivers his lines as if they're completely unscripted thoughts being created in his mind. Rich and rewarding, this film will stay with you long after the credits have rolled.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was very good because it remember when I was young when I maked snow castle. It was so fun. This movie is interessant. This is a good quebeker movie with no much money and is also a magical movie because their wonderfull castle is very big and beautiful.$LABEL$ 1
+Well, there is a plenty of ways how to spoil a political thriller. Usually they are derivative or too ambitious, often they feature a conspiracy that is totally paranoic and unbelievable. But City Hall does not do neither of the above mentioned. The plot is cleverly crafted, story is believable. As far as characters go I would say this movie is a solid average. No character seems out of place and Al Pacino is brilliant as always. His portrayal of a charismatic NYC mayor is superb and proves again that Al Pacino belongs to the absolute top of American actors nowadays.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is great! This movie is beautiful! Finally, a movie that portrays Moslems as PEOPLE, no stereotypes here. This movie is driven by the story, by the acting and above all by its theme, that of cultural affirmation and discovery. They may seem like clichés but they are not, at least not in this movie. The vista of the Grand Mosque of Mecca is absolutely stupendous and the audience is given a glimpse of a side of the Moslem world that is rarely of ever shown in the West. Here the people are caring, supportive, devout, tolerant and devoted to each other. What a welcomed and way overdue departure from the usual negative portrayals of Arabs. Outstanding movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Nice description of the situation in the US, it explains different kinds of Islam, not just show terrorist and extremist. Islam can be other thing that killing, they show why some people become terrorist and how to be Muslim without being extremist. It is a great series that Muslims and no-Muslims should see. Now we hope that other series or films will be done to change the idea of all Muslims are terrorist and all Americans want to destroy Islam. It gave me the interest to discover what Islam is exactly and what the US and also European government do to help cohabitation between people of different religion.$LABEL$ 1
+OK, plain and simple, if you are a fan of the other Tomb Raider games (yes, even AOD) KEEP AWAY FROM LEGEND.It is, without doubt, the most disappointing TR game yet. It looks very nice, it sounds very nice, but it is totally unplayable and I've given up. I feel like I've been robbed by Eidos.It's very simple. TR was a PC game before anything else. You control Lara using the keyboard. In 6 Tomb Raider games the controls were standard. In AOD they were 'tacky', but still the same general control sequences. In Legend they have changed her movement and control methods completely and she is totally uncontrollable.I have seen comments elsewhere from people who say 'Use the mouse'. No, why should I? Others say 'Use a gamepad'. No, why should I? Others say 'But this has been the standard for 3rd person controls for years' Well, I don't care, it is not the standard for any other TR game so why mess with it. Oh, I know, because they couldn't care less about their original, loyal fan base, they want to cash in on the new kids who hadn't even heard of the series until the movies came out and make lots more money. Pathetic.My advice to any serious TR fan is keep away from this game, and if you do buy it complain to Eidos. I have seen masses of other posts, mainly on the Eidos forums, from people telling them how rubbish it is, perhaps they will listen.$LABEL$ 0
+I imagine when Hitchcock scholars and experts find themselves together, the talk is not of the Master's great films like "North By Northwest" or "Strangers On A Train", but a lesser-known effort like this one from 1931, obscure and seriously flawed, which showcases the great director in fledgling form.Emily and Fred Hill (Joan Barry and Harry Kendall) are a middle-class London couple scrimping to stay ahead. He begrudges their lot; she accepts it. Change comes in the form of a letter from an uncle, saying he will set them up so they can enjoy a life of globetrotting luxury. They make plans for a world cruise. But their problems have only begun.Just ask Richard Hannay, Roger O. Thornhill, or Marion Crane. Well, Marion's indisposed at the moment, but you get the idea. Travel and Hitchcock go together like moths and candlelight, setting one up for a perilous journey at best. This is perhaps Hitchcock's earliest foray into this theme, and not his most successful or memorable. Hitchcock tries to mix comedy with another element, in this case domestic drama rather than suspense, but the two do not cohere, at least not here.The Hills are a dull, flat couple, with no chemistry or personality. When they find themselves at the Folies Bergère, in the form of cross-cutting with footage that looks ten years older than the rest of this film, they are abashed at the outfits of the female performers. "The curtain's gone up too soon!" gasps Emily. "They aren't dressed."When the Hills drift away from each other on an ocean cruise, it seems a mercy killing more than a tragic thing, even if the people they partner off with are drips, too. Emily's man, Gordon (Percy Marmont) carries around photographs of himself sitting next to empty chairs, which he suggests be filled by Emily. Fred's girl "the Princess" (Betty Amann) has Clara Bow's eyes and Wallace Beery's five o'clock shadow. There's also an obnoxious fellow passenger, a dowdy spinster whom Hitchcock always introduces with a cartoonish horn cue. Subtlety was still to come.Everything is shot in an abrupt manner, with confusing blocking and strained dialogue. Hitchcock tries for some early comedy with Fred and his umbrella that doesn't come off, and Kendall seems to aim for laughs while Berry plays for tears. When Fred and Emily break off, they are seen being jostled on a pair of wedged-together rickshaws, one of many clunky attempts at symbolism.Emily's the only vaguely sympathetic character, in part because she really cares about her husband and agonizes over her affair with Gordon, but mostly because she's among the first of Hitchcock's many magnetic blondes, her platinum ringlets whipping around her face like a Botticelli aboard the open deck of a Chinese junk near the film's conclusion.Matters conclude with a dangerous situation as set-piece for the protagonists to come to grips with, and presumably repair their relationship. Only they aren't active participants in the resolution, and except for the fate of a friendly cat, nothing about the ending resonates.At least you get some enjoyable views of London in the early 1930s, and a chance to see Hitchcock when he was still working for food. "Rich And Strange" is Hitchcock paying his dues, and learning his trade, one for scholars but not casual film goers.$LABEL$ 0
+One the whole, this movie isn't perfect. It doesn't 'hang well' together as the story line is basically a bunch of hooks to hang jokes.Some of these jokes are a little 'too 80s' and tend to date the picture.But some of these jokes are classic.You know a movie has something special when you and your friends still reference silly quotes from it over 2 decades later.Plus, there are a bunch of familiar faces; Michael Keaton, Danny Devito, Joe Piscapo, Peter Boyle, Marilu Henner, Maureen Stapleton, Bob Eubanks, Griffin Dunne, and one of the last roles of Alan Hale Jr., the Skipper from Gilligan's Island.Also, there are some great absurdist moments, like when Johnny is labelling the puppies with a pricing gun, or the Pope making an appearance in Johnny's neighborhood. Also, the scene where the fake priest makes up a lot of words in Latin is excellent. ("Summa cum laude, magna cum laude, the radio's too louda... Post meridian, ante meridian, uncle meridian").Other Classic Scenes include Ramone Maroney butchering the English language Danny Devito urging Griffin Dunne to 'Play Ball' Peter Boyle thinking he lost his manhood The fake VD movieThis movie is no home run. But like 'Porky's', it has enough classic comedy bits to make it memorable.$LABEL$ 1
+Horror fans (I'm speaking to the over 12's, although if you're under 12 I apologise for what you might deem an insult): In short, if you appreciate having your imagination disturbed by well written, original storytelling, punctuated by unpredictable well planted scares, and delivered via convincing performances, then I can heartily recommend - AVOIDING THESE STEAMERS - made by directors who have apparently long since past their sell by date. It's no accident that almost every episode feels as if it were made in the 1980's. Not to put blame squarely on the shoulders of some of these old boys (or indeed the 80's) because where would we be without certain movies from the likes of Argento, Carpenter, Landis, Dante and Barker (Actually Clive, WTF are you doing in there?! Glad to see Romero had the good sense to give it a miss as I'm sure he was asked to partake...). More perhaps we should point the finger at creator Mick Garris whose credentials include the logic defying and depressingly ill-advised TV remake of Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 'The Shining'.Perhaps it is an indication of the state of television today. Are we so starved of good TV horror that we applaud any old sloppy schlock that the networks excrete onto our sets? Sadly, maybe so.Normally I wouldn't see the point of adding a comment that doesn't argue the faults and merits of a production, I'd just rate it accordingly. However, as this series is woefully lacking in any merit (with perhaps the sole exception of the theme tune) I write this as more of a warning than a review: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME AND MONEY. If you disagree with me then it's more than likely that you haven't seen enough decent horror. Perhaps the earlier films of some of these directors would be a much better place to start, but if these 'Masters' of Horror were being assessed on these works alone, they'd never have been allowed to graduate with even their Bachelor's degree. Unless of course they were studying for a degree from the University Of S**t.$LABEL$ 0
+I can remember seeing this movie when I was very young and several times on TV since then. I have always liked it. I have noticed on the print shown on local TV that one scene has reversed film. It is the one where they are hiding behind the rock outcrop(it looks like Vasquez Rocks near Los Angeles) watching the Indians ride by. If you look carefully, you will notice that suddenly all the soldiers are left-handed! It is only a short segment and I have to admit that it took me years to notice it.As far as history goes, there were often expeditions to rescue white captives from the Indians. The direct connection for the final battle scene is the Battle of Beecher's Island. In that action, a group of volunteer scouts equipped with repeating carbines (Spencer carbines not Winchesters) were surprised by the Indians and retreated to an island and held off several charges. In the last charge, they killed Roman Nose, one of the more famous Indian Chiefs. I have no idea if the writer of the script had this in mind but it does fit fairly well.There are several Guy Madison movies that I hope come out on DVD someday and this is one of them.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie's only redeeming factor was the fact that it was on TV for free, and that it probably helped the Romanian economy. Other than that, Hallmark needs to re-evaluate this division of their empire, and maybe keep their movies more oriented towards bizarre love affairs between cancer-stricken hemophiliacs in Mississippi. To go into details about how mindless this movie is would give credit to it for being memorable. It wasn't. I remember the act of watching it, there being vampires (some of them teenage) and some very bad dubbing. Whoever worked on the dubbing track of this movie needs to be relocated to another sector of society...maybe food service, to the deaf. If you have the opportunity, watch this movie, just because it makes so many other really bad movies seem Oscar-worthy in retrospect. Then again, if you actually ended up at this movie's profile, I imagine that it may be too late...$LABEL$ 0
+When i saw the preview for this on TV i was thinking, "ok its gonna be a good werewolf movie" but it was not. it was not scary at all! acting was good, plot was horrible, the military bid was just plain stupid. I think the SCI-FI channel could of done better than this piece of crap. The movie made it sound like Arron was going to turn into a werewolf, instead he turned psycho and bit some doctor's throat out. If you have read some of my other reviews on other movies, there all positive, but this one is not simply because the story was terrible. One out of 10 max. Im sure you all were expecting some werewolf flick, but i bet you didn't expect this. Beyond Loch Nes was way better than this movie, heck, any movie thats on the sci-fi channel is better than this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Tobe Hooper (fresh off mainstream success with 'Poltergeist') aims for the skies this time around. 'Lifeforce' is an adaptation of Colin Wilson's 'The Space Vampires'. The script by 'Alien's Dan O' Bannon and Don Jakoby) varies a bit I was told: the futuristic storyline was made contemporary and Hailey's Comet was added to coincide with its actual passage by Earth a few weeks after the films release (so I've read).The story concerns a shuttle mission (commander by Steve Railsback) sent to investigate Hailey's Comet as it passes by Earth. All goes off without a hitch but upon reaching the comet it is discovered that an alien ship is hidden in the coma of the comet. The team investigates the massive structure and discovers desiccated bat-like creatures. Looking deeper into the ship a chamber is found that contains three humanoids (two naked males and one rather fetching nude lady too) in odd stasis coffins. The crew returns to the ship with the humanoids and a bat creature in tow.A bit later the ship returns to Earth but no contact can be made by NASA and another shuttle is launched to ascertain the status of the mission. Upon docking with the Churchill it is discovered that a massive fire has seemingly killed the crew and all data concerning the flight. But the three humanoids remain. However it is learned that an escape pod had been launched but whose whereabouts are unknown.Soon they make the discovery of the alien's origin when the very attractive space vampire queen arises from her slumber to easily seduce the lifeforce from the men around her. If you suck face with her she makes you like them and if you don't feed after two hours you will dry out and become dust. The goal of the three is to drain enough of the population's essence to power and sustain them and their ship for the trip to the next planet to lay waste to them as well.Thankfully the Commander survives re-entry in the pod (crash lands in Texas no less) and now has a psychic link to her royal hotness, the queen and is able to use it to find the hidden queen as she and the surviving male attempt to bleed London dry of their souls.Tobe Hooper (of 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' (1974)) does an admirable job in what has to be his largest production to date. The production assembled many fine technicians from all over the movie industry. Production Designer John Graysmark (fresh off 'The Bounty (1984)') uses every bit of four stages at Elsree Studios to create the spacious interiors of the ship and such. Cinematographer Alan Hume returns to science fiction after a stint on 'Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi' (1983) and three consecutive James Bond episodes. Hume uses every bit of the widescreen frame with the great effects. Oscar winner John Dykstra innovator of the groundbreaking effects of the original 'Star Wars' (1977) manages to push the envelope once again a creating some highly creative and spectacular effects using lasers. Heck even maestro Henry Mancini drops in to give the film a very memorable title theme that gives this sci-fi / horror hybrid a touch of an adventurous feel. In the acting department it pretty much falls onto the shoulders of Steve Railsback and newcomer Mathilda May (vampire queen). Railsback always brings an edge to the characters he plays and can play nuts like nobody's business. That comes in hand as his mind deteriorates when the queen's grip tightens on his soul. Gorgeous French actress May doesn't have a heck of a lot of lines (were there more than ten?) but her frequently nude presence never gets old and you gotta give her kudos to having the jingle bells to pull it of. Pretty much all the queen is there to do is feed and to do so she needs to seduce you with her sexual presence. Job accomplished and where do I sign up to be victim? I really enjoyed how they tweaked the old vampire clichés and still managed to make it seem fresh but still easily recognizable. Almost everything is accounted for here: bats (their true form resembles a large bat), coffins {the stasis fields resemble these), transformations (they scan your mind and can be anything), massive sexual appeal (Miss May….duh) not to mention they even include the old standby stake-through-the-heart (this time a bit of a lead dagger to the energy center slightly below the heart). The only thing they didn't touch on was religion but I think that the vampires using the cathedral at the end as home base might just be a bit of a wink and a nod.In short (yeah right 800 words later) 'Lifeforce' is an excellent science fiction and horror combination that pays homage to the vampire theme while adding some neat different wrinkles. The effects and scale of the production are enough to keep summer movie types engaged (at least at the time) and horror and sci-fi fans engaged. 4 of 5.$LABEL$ 1
+In addition to the fact that this is just an abysmally made film (imagine giving a camcorder to the average high school drama club) the people who think that there is anything "real" about this legend need to grow up. This is the 21st century. Guess what: ghosts don't exist. Most people learn that from their mother when they're about 5 years old. You guys seriously need to grow up.The fact that a fraud was perpetrated nearly 2 centuries ago does not make it any less a fraud. The fact that a large number of inbred hillbillies from Tennessee believe it doesn't do it either. Go to college. Or at least finish high school.$LABEL$ 0
+Fate puts a pair of priceless items in Ernest's hands and he gets kidnapped and taken to Africa because of it. This was my first Ernest film so I can't compare it to his others, but I thought it was fairly amusing. Good stuff if you like slapstick humor and plain old clowning around.$LABEL$ 1
+I was about 7 when this DIRE MONSTROSITY of a film was released. In the UK it was advertised on the TV in the summer of 1977 for weeks, as if it were some incredible blockbuster film. It was actually the first film I ever saw at a cinema, and I was put off going for years to come. The following week I was invited to go and see the new film "Star Wars" and I declined. To this day I have never seen it, in protest at having to watch Sasquatch! Seriously, even at the age of 7 I could tell that I was watching garbage. It's just so bad, it's almost unbelievable. Rambling nonsense that should NEVER have made it to a cinema. I was however amused to read all these years later that the director never directed again, just as well as far as I'm concerned. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!!!$LABEL$ 0
+Basically this is about a couple who want to adopt a second child. At the adoption agency they meet a mouse (Stuart) and they decide to adopt him. If you think that this is stupid, hold it, because it's getting worse.Stuart arrives to his new home, where he is treated like a human child. (Spare me!) The rest is pretty much the usual cliché, about family problems, jealousy from the elder "brother", and at the end all issues are resolved and they are all a "happy family". Boring and worn out as this is, it is also shown in the most blunt and unsophisticated way.I don't know if the director believed that he was being creative by introducing a mouse to the cliché, or he was just trying to fill in minutes, but he only upgraded the cliché from boring to abhorrent.Then why I gave a 3 and not a ZERO? Because of the family cat, who loves Stuart as much as the "brother". And because of some funny gigs, where Stuart makes good use of his small size.On the overall I believe that the film would work reasonably well if: a. Stuart was a PET and not a "sibling". b. It had kept to the funny gigs, like Stuart trying to outwit the cat, and had left out boring clichés which don't even match with anything else.$LABEL$ 0
+The limited scenery views were the only saving grace to an otherwise uneventful and boring movie. The acting was borderline absurd which I blame on the script and screenplay. Nicole Eggert didn't look the part, didn't act the part, and was totally unconvincing as a mountain guide. After watching this I was left with the feeling that some friends had some free time and decided to make a movie. It must have been produced on a budget of pocket change. The plot was thin at best and with the low caliber of acting at times it begged the question to be asked, "Why are we doing this?". I managed to sit through the entire movie but also asked myself, "Why?".$LABEL$ 0
+I went to see this movie with a lady freind of mine, who doesn't like heist movies. But she enjoyed it. I missed bits and pieces of the movie all the way through It is a story about Edward Norton and a crew stealing some gold, and Norton deciding he wants it all to himself. Then the people he betrayed want to get back at him. It is a well put together, intellegent, funny, and action packed film that I need to see again... the whole way through. One of my top movies of the Summer so far.A big help to the entertainment factor is Seth Green. I dont know anyone who doesnt like Seth Green, and he adds to the flavor. He plays a guy who says he created Napster, and his roomate stole it from him. He is a computer genious who is a wonder to watch.It was said that Norton didn't want to do this film.. but If I were him, I would have wanted to sign on.The only problem is that it is very predictable. Any movie go-er should be able to say in their own mind what is happening, before it happens.My biggest complaint with the film, is Eddie Nortons choice of facial hair. The thick, yet thin mustache, and a small pike on his chin... he looks like an 80's porn star for gods sake.$LABEL$ 1
+Around 1980, the name Godfrey Ho was attached to a series of low-comedy action films starring an actor with the unlikely name Elton Chong". Although no masterworks of the genre, they remain surprisingly entertaining films for those with a high tolerance for silliness.It is altogether unclear why Ho (or whomever) would want to make a film that would attack Jackie Chan's Drunken MAster, the film that legitimated the making of comedy-action films in Hong Kong. But that's what this is, a savage attack on the Chan film (the imitation Chan who stars in this movie learns to cause his opponents to laugh themselves to death - a pointless gimmick in any genre).Along with all the flaws one expects from a Godfrey Ho film of this period - no continuity, no motivation, incomprehensible plot line, irrelevant and unbelievable characters - the film suffers from two unforgivable faults that effectively make it unwatchable: the fight scenes stink, and the comedy isn't funny.Pointless.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was really awful. It was not in the least bit frightening, or even startling. I went to see it with a bunch of friends and by the end of the night we were saying "The Ruins ruined my night." I would not recommend seeing this movie in theaters, renting it or even watching the movie on television by accident.It is an absolute waste of an hour and a half. The plot was nearly non-existent, the characters were horribly underdeveloped, and they gave no back story whatsoever for anything that was happening, and then left it completely open at the end as if preparing for a sequel.$LABEL$ 0
+"Happy Days" was produced and broadcast from the mid-1970's to the early 1980's and seems to get more ridiculous with age. At the time of its broadcast, most viewers who grew up in the 1950's were in middle age with families, and the scenes at Mel's Diner probably brought an artificial nostalgia to them. The Fonz was of course the coolest of the cool (although the actor Henry Wrinkler to this day has never learned how to ride a motorcycle). Richie Cunningham was the all-American blond-haired kid who would probably be elected student body president. Potsie was Richie's best friend--the star of the show has to have a best friend, I guess. And Ralph Malph was the bumbling sidekick to the Fonz, if not the entire group. I loved it when the Fonz would beat up on poor Ralph Malph. And there was Mel, the middle-aged lug who ran Mel's Diner. And of course who could forget the appearance of Mork? Was this really the 1950's? Ironically, films produced during the 1950's, such as "Rebel Without a Cause" and "The Wild One" have gotten better with age and portray the period more honestly than this show which was produced 20 years after the period it portrays.Unfortunately, the TV show "Happy Days" is not in the same league as "Rebel Without a Cause" or "American Graffitti" for that matter. "Happy Days" may have captured some aspects of the 1950's with its burger diner, juke boxes, cool cars, and tacky plaid shirts, but it is more a nostalgic idealism done strictly for laughs rather than an honest portrayal. "American Graffitti" had something to say about young Americans in the 1950's whereas "Happy Days" seemed more about what middle-aged people of the 1970's wished the 1950's had been like. The result was a kind of watered down fabrication that really has nothing to do with the 1950's. "Happy Days" is, at best, a comedy-fantasy with some of the artificial culture of the 1950's as its backdrop. As pointed out by another reviewer, the all-American kid Richie Cunningham would probably have been chastised for befriending the likes of a drop-out like Fonzie. And Mel would probably forbid Fonzie from entering his Diner.A quick history: "Happy Days" was originally a pilot called "Love in the Happy Days" that was rejected for broadcast. Comedy pilots that had themes concerning sex and romance that did not make it to pilot airing sometimes appeared on the infrequently broadcast show "Love American Style" which was often aired in place of baseball games that had rained out or other unexpected programming cancellations and/or alterations. In short, "Love American Style" was a throw-away show that contained all these one-episode comedy pilots that never made it to a slotted debut. "Love in the Happy Days" did appear as a "Love American Style" show sometime in the early 1970's, but at the time TV executives could not foresee how a show about 1950's young people would be popular, particularly during the hey-day of comedy shows centering around middle-aged people, such as The "Mary Tyler Moore Show" (and its subsequent spin-offs such "Rhoda"), "The Bob Newhart Show", and "All in the Family". (How things have changed since now most TV sitcoms are about young people and the industry avoids most shows about middle-aged people like the plague!) Subsequently, one of the young stars of "Love in the Happy Days", a child actor from "The Andy Griffith Show" named Ron Howard, got the chance to star in a film about young people taking place in 1959 called "American Graffitti" directed by the relatively unknown George Lucas whose previous "THX 1138" had bombed miserably at the box office. Even when it was premiered to movie executives, again the studios could not see how a movie about young people in the 1950's could become popular because it didn't "fit" with what had been popular in the past, although they didn't realize that much of the movie-going audience had been young in the 1950's. As everyone knows, the movie was a huge hit, and studio executives recognized that they had completely misjudged their audience. Somewhere during the theatrical run of "American Graffitti", TV executives realized they had a comedy pilot in their vault that was a lot like "American Graffitti". They brought it back with the original cast, plus Henry Wrinkler as "The Fonz", re-titled it "Happy Days" and the rest is TV history as it became one of the most popular shows of the 1970's."Happy Days" now seems ridiculous. The characters are flat and cardboard, never being more or less than what they superficially are. The issues they deal with are trivial. And their reactions appear mindless and even silly. Nowadays, the character of the Fonz seems to be a caricature of, well, The Fonz. Was the idea to be a kind of parody of Marlon Brando's character in "The Wild One"? Looking on the show with fresh eyes, I feel the producers really missed out on a great opportunity to present the 1950's with depth and realism that still could be fun and entertaining. Instead the producers decided on cheap laughs for quick bucks. This is definitely a show that has not withstood the test of time. "American Graffitti" has many of the outward appearances of "Happy Days" but it had an edge. It had an honesty about the characters and their issues. "Happy Days" took the look of "American Graffitti" but failed to take its heart.$LABEL$ 0
+I can hardly believe I watched this again last night after more than 25 years...Some time back, I watched 6 Fu films in a row... Boris Karloff, and all 5 Chris Lees. The last 2 Lees, both directed (and I use that word loosely) by Jess Franco, were abominable. At the time, I skipped this one, remembering that, in some ways, it was EVEN WORSE.Well, I watched it. NEVER again. You know what's worse that an abominable film? A really WELL-MADE piece of S***. And that's what FIENDISH PLOT is. It is a VERY good-looking movie. GREAT production design, sets, costumes, music, photography, editing, mostly good cast, some decent acting......and absolutely, positively, one of the WORST SCRIPTS in movie history!!!!! AAAUGH!!!!! The first minute of the film is so deceptive... one might mistake this for a decent movie. And then they start singing "Happy birthday to Fu"... and it goes downhill. Having Burt Kwouk (of whom his master says, "Your face-- is familiar.") accidentally pour out Fu's elixir vitae to put out a fire, resulting in his being condemned to torture, burial and having one of his ears cut off, was the closest thing to funny they had. It was like someone decided they wanted to do a "campy" film-- so ridiculous it would be funny. RIDICULOUS, it is... FUNNY... it AIN'T. At all.It's sad, because it's clear in the first few minutes that someone did a LOT of research into the Fu Manchu series in order to get so much of it "right". With a different script-- either a really FUNNY one, or a dead SERIOUS one, they might have-- could have-- SHOULD have-- had a classic on their hands. A film that could have made one forget the horror of those Jess Franco atrocities... instead of making one want to dig them out as masterpieces, by comparison.There was a period in the late 70's when a whole slew of classic 30's characters were revived in movies that were universally awful. Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Tarzan, The Lone Ranger, Charlie Chan, even Doc Savage. I'm not sure, this one may be the worst of the lot. It took great self-control not to fast-forward over whole sections of it, especially any scenes containing Sid Caesar (FBI chief who was also Al Capone's cousin-- you see what I mean?). It isn't just that the ideas in the film aren't funny... they often make NO SENSE whatsoever. Like when they "audition" police officers to impersonate the King and Queen, and we wind up seeing people "audition" dance-hall routines like singing, dancing, and riding a unicycle. How many drugs did the writers of this thing have to take for any of this to make sense to them? As I said, a shame... and a real waste of all that talent, including that of Peter Sellers (who played both Fu and Nayland Smith), Burt Kwouk (who'd been in a Chris Lee Fu film in his time), Helen Mirren (the police woman who shockingly falls in love with the villain and damn near steals the last half-hour of the film!). I begin to wonder if anyone will EVER make a "proper" Fu Manchu film, or if fans will have to settle for Karloff's being almost the ONLY one?$LABEL$ 0
+okay... first to Anne rice BOOK fans....sure lestat's eyes are not blue...sure he isn't blond in this movie... but even though Marius is not lestat's maker...even though they COMPLETELY altered the story.....how can u say its not a good movie..this movie...is the BEST vampire movie i ever saw...and lestat is pictured perfectly in it....maybe not his features...but i don't think one can find a better lestat....the way he speaks...and the way he looks at mere mortals...his arrogance..and sheer love for fame is pictured flawlessly.if u for once...consider it just a movie..and not try and relate every scene to the book...u will love the movie as much as i do.now...to the non readers..be prepared to fall absolutely in love with this movie....it has every thing....and the goth music...is like an added treat... the dialogues...are beautiful...and catching...and even though its a vampire movie..u will find yourself smiling...at the wit of the characters...and u will find yourself sympathizing with the vampires..overall...one of my fav movies...!!10/10$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is horrible. THe acting is a waste basket. No crying, no action, hopeless songs. Though the scenery is great. I have always wanted to go to Greece.Anyway, as for Saif, you'd expect a great performance, but even he let down the people.Akshay Kumar, recognized as the pimp of Bollywood and the voice of Singhs. He was sensational in this movie. For only this performance, Filmfare should introduce another award. The toiletries award for the worst performance. By the way the trophy should be a toilet seat.Kareena Kapoor. She first of all is not comparable to her sister Karisma. In acting, in looks, or in body. She now wants to prove to herself that she surpasses her. She comes into this movie wearing bikini's and tank tops and short shorts. I really wonder why Saif Ali Khan is letting his wife-to-be dress like that. But, she must've impressed some people dressing like that. And if you ask how, then consider every man is having an erection watching this movie. They are dreaming of having Kareena Kapoor in bed naked with a condom. Including me. Personally I think that she dressed like a whore, but I really liked it.I am forced to give it a 1/10, but I'd really give this movie a 0/10. An unachieved film.$LABEL$ 0
+I am an Australian currently living in Japan. I saw this movie on TV here and was very impressed by the accuracy and honesty in the portrayal of Western and Japanese ideologies colliding. Whoever wrote the screenplay, and directed this film must have a good knowledge of what it's like to be a foreigner living in Japan. The only part I thought was too Hollywood-y was when Tom Selleck's character kisses the woman in the middle of her office and she lets him. Public displays of affection are not really acceptable here. Finally a movie that highlights the true 'gaijin' experience! 9/10$LABEL$ 1
+This is a really interesting film. It's the first time I have seen the relationship between an older woman and a younger guy on screen without it being sensationalist. For the director of Notting Hill this is a bold move to something serious$LABEL$ 1
+I was expecting a little something from "K-911", I mean it did look like a cute movie that I could get into. I always did love the dog comedy movies. But it looked like it was supposed to be Jame's movie, not Jerry Lee's. The plot was pretty lame and the two love interests really didn't have chemistry to begin with. Not to mention that James seemed to have a total sexist view in the movie despite the fact the writer wasn't going in that direction. James just really ticked me off for more than half the film. The dogs were the true stars and that's pretty sad that they out shined the actors.So, I'm glad it's not just me on IMDb who agrees that this was a pretty stupid movie. But hopefully, James will realize it was his brother Jim who was the talented one, no offense, but not everyone can be their star sibling. Don't you wish Ashlee Simpson would take that same advice? :D 3/10$LABEL$ 0
+This stinker is in mystifyingly frequent rotation on one channel here, and I've found myself watching in horror again and again. The script is like something one would come up with friends over several too many drinks, and the production values match admirably.It's meant to be a children's movie, but features a grotesque (and poorly explained) kidnapping scene; the star dog has a lack of star quality equaled only by the other actors; and it in general has the look of being filmed in someone's backyard (the climactic soccer game features no more than three dozen extras sadly cheering in the background).It even all wraps up with a budget-ran-out voice-over sequence when the story, to one's relief, simply stops. The high-raters here must be either the producers - or the majority of the extras from the soccer game!$LABEL$ 0
+A letter to the guys. I tried guys, I really tried! I tried so hard not to watch this movie. I would leave the room when it was on or jump on the computer when the wife watched it. This is her second favorite movie, the Godfather being first (which I love).I ended up catching little bits of this movie and finally after maybe a year I was actually sitting down watching it with her. I can't believe I am saying this, but I loved this movie. Dalton plays a great Rhett and has his cockiness down pat. Whalley plays a delightful Scarlett. Full of fire and brimstone and NOTHING is going to stop her.My favorite scene is when she is overseas in (Ireland?) and the government is going to tear down a peasant's house because they are behind in the rent. Scarlett gets all mad at this and pays the entire debt, thus making a huge name for herself around this small town.All I'm saying guys is you might want to try this movie... especially if you are a fan of Gone with the Wind. It does take a little bit to get used to the new actors, but I think you will find them refreshing.$LABEL$ 1
+I picked this DVD up for 3.99 at rogers video in order to get enough points to get a better movie for free. I never actually was planning on watching this but it started poking at my curiosity and i finally decided to pop in it the DVD player. The effects in this movie are horrible and cheap. Some of the dialog in this movie sounds like it was written by a swear happy 12 year old boy. The acting is really cheesy in some parts, and the "action" scenes are completely laughable. You'll burst out laughing at some parts which was a positive for me because it kept me mildly entertained. The plot is some girl has a curse on her which causes her to vomit snakes so some shaman has to get her to Los Angeles, there are also two girls trying to smuggle drugs there and a few other people that are unimportant to the plot, not that there really is a plot at all.Don't expect anything from this movie and don't listen to the cover, there are not 100 passengers and 3,000 vipers, there are 10 passengers and 20 random snakes.As for the DVD, there is a trailer which is almost as laughable as the film, a blooper reel which is just one shot over and over of one actor trying to say train, and the deleted scenes are really pointless, if they weren't good enough to stay in this movie they must be pretty bad. There is also a really bad making of featurette which doesn't really show much at all except that the people involved with this movie were kind of idiots. I can't recommend it unless you want a really bad movie that you can laugh at with friends. I give it 2 kitty cats out of 5.$LABEL$ 0
+I watched this movie for the first time ever on the Sci Fi channel and I must say.. it was simply awesome. For those of you whom loves 'The Never Ending Story' this is one that would bring back memories of that movie. Even though it is a 1996 movie it has a hazy like setting and look which makes it feel like it is, a fantasy. The acting was brilliant and the music was great especially the beginning battle song and end song. To those of you who have yet to see it, WATCH IT! I recommended completely!$LABEL$ 1
+right the hospital scene with Holly and Shannon was done brilliantly it starts off with Piper On A gurney looking very badly injured, the docs race her into a resuscitation room & they move her from the gurney onto a bed and Prue Holds Her Hand from that point on it is obvious that Piper is having a lot of trouble breathing and her lungs are failing, as she turns to beg of Prue to not leave her side she gaps "don't go i love you and then her pulse drops and she goes into cardiac arrest & the monitor shows a clear flat line & the nurses go into full out trauma mode & bring in a defibrillator Prue Steps back from the bed in horror as the doctors desperately try to shock her dying sisters heart but there is no response and she is tragically pronounced dead well great scene well done girls$LABEL$ 1
+Mankind's Self awakening is the theme of "2001: A Space Odyssey", a process that unfolds along a space-time continuum. We "see" our primordial past, and we "infer" a cosmic future. The powers of intuition thus become the doors of perception, in our ongoing collective journey.From this transcendental perspective, a conventional, egocentric plot seems superfluous. Our frenzied conflicts and self-important dialogue are consumed in evolutionary change, and are irrelevant in a cosmos that is vast beyond comprehension. It's a tough lesson for a vain and aggressive species. Not surprising then that some of us huff and puff about the film's slowness and minimal story. For perceptive viewers, the remuneration is an inspirational sense of wonder and awe.In this film, which is mostly visual, geometric symbols guide our intuition. Circles and arcs represent nature. Right angles represent conscious intelligence. Some people think the sleek, black monolith is a Von Neumann probe. Maybe. Without doubt, the monolith is a visual metaphor for an extraterrestrial intelligence whose physical form is never shown. Mystery is more profound than explanation."2001 ... " is unique among films in content and scope. The cinematography is out-of-this-world, the special and visual effects are breathtaking, and the classical music is sublime. I rarely use the word "masterpiece" to describe a movie. But Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" is art in the highest sense, like Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa", or Vincent Van Gogh's "The Starry Night".$LABEL$ 1
+A very carelessly written film. Poor character and idea development. The silly plot and weak acting by just about the ensemble cast didn't help. Seriously, watching this movie will NOT make you smile. It may make you retch.$LABEL$ 0
+Well that's 90 minutes of my life I won't get back. This movie makes teen tv show "California Dreams" look like "Almost Famous". The acting was horrid and storyline unrealistic. Don't even get me started on the actual band at the forefront of this story, lame songs, look etc.. You had to believe that they were one of the hottest bands in the country, and there isn't enough irony in the world to accept that one. The guitarist is seen to be a heroin user, not that I blame him, if I was around such a putrid band with stale songs and wooden acting I'd be injecting the horse too.If you take music remotely seriously, avoid this at all costs.$LABEL$ 0
+This was a great romantic comedy! Historically inaccurate (Einstein had no nieces or nephews as noted elsewhere in IMDb) but he made a great matchmaker. He brought together two very nice people played by two of the best actors working. The supporting cast (Lou Jacobi, Joseph Maher, Gene Saks, Stephen Fry, etc.) all clicked on screen and made this a great viewing experience. The fact he drove a car to get around seems to contradict all those images and posters of him riding a bicycle to get around. And did he wear socks in one scene...reportedly, the professor never wore socks! (Two new entries for the IMDb goofs section.) Historical inaccuracies and inconsistencies aside, this was a great movie to watch with a great cast. I give it an 8!$LABEL$ 1
+This Metro film is episodic, but nearly a constant series of chases, mainly trying to escape police, whether real or imagined, as Buster is mistaken for an escaped criminal. It is consistently inventive and entertaining. Its greatest value is in its documenting what Hollywood looked like in the early twenties, since 95% of it is shot outside among the streets and building exteriors of the time. One gem moment and one gem sequence are present here.The great moment is when a train at a great distance quickly approaches the camera and finally stops just short of it - with Buster glumly sitting on the cowcatcher and thus moving from a long shot to a close-up within seconds.The great sequence is with the phone booth next to the elevator - one constantly being mistaken for the other with races from floor to floor - one of the great Keaton gags.Kino's print is sharp and clear - almost pristine. There is a violin/piano score accompaniment. This is one to seek out and enjoy.$LABEL$ 1
+Well to answer one persons's question of "why doesn't anyone remember this film?" it's because really,not that many people saw it in 1978 and it's not been shown much on TV since. (If it's on video that'd be news to me!) Even in the era of sometimes mindless comedies that was the '70s,movie-goers had the smarts to avoid this film. Unless they love Billy Crytal,Paul Lynde or Joan Rivers "that" much! Paul Lynde was funnier on "Bewitched" or "Hollywood Squares" than here. Joan Rivers at this time in her career was getting laughs making cruel jokes about singer Karen Carpenter's lack of weight! Har-har Joan! It also seems like every "somewhat" famous name from the era is in the cast. (Most surprising is Doris Roberts later of "Everybody Loves Raymond".)Anyhow,a somewhat good idea for a storyline,a man getting pregnant instead of the woman goes to waste here. With help from a male friend Crystal gets set up with a hooker to finally lose his virginity but because she was "on top" instead of him,he gets pregnant! (A commentary on women taking positions of power away from men).Crystal's stomach grows,he goes through all the female emotions and related feelings. Unfortunately,he is now a socially misunderstood outcast! He's attacked by a mob who wants him rubbed out (I guess).He's forced to go into seclusion to have his baby...in a barn. Or if you will,a manger (God only knows where it may have exited from! Ewwww!) It turns out (no shock here) to be a girl! Everything else about this movie is worthless and forgettable,the humor is high school level or less.2 stars for a good idea and a few good touching & relevant moments w/ Billy Crystal. Ignore the rest of Rabitt Test,it flunks big time!I can't believe Roddy McDowell signed on either! (END)$LABEL$ 0
+Henry Thomas showed a restraint, even when the third act turned into horrible hollywood resolution that could've killed this movie, that kept the dignity of a redemption story and as for pure creepiness-sniffing babies?$LABEL$ 1
+"The Foreigner" is a tale of foreign intrigue with Seagal at the center as a deep cover operative who has a package which everyone wants and are willing to kill to get. The flick is uninspired with less of the usual action stuff which put Seagal on the movie map (fire fights, hand-to-hand combat, pyrotechnics, stunts, etc.) and more of a story which is convoluted, uninteresting, and full of meaningless filler. What action there is seems token and gratuitous while Seagal, looking more and more like a pork chop, meanders through this insipid flick expressionless and bored while manifesting no improvement in acting ability. Somewhere around "The Glimmer Man" or "Fire Down Below" Seagal flicks took a nose dive and "The Foreigner" is just an continuation of that trend. Nothing here worth watching except for the most die-hard Seagal fans. (C-)$LABEL$ 0
+I just got it and it is a great movie!! i loved it! Although Jane Brightons voice n the beginning is so annoying because of her braces she don't open her freaking mouth...but ya have to watch it cause its a great movie!! the things he says in here are so funny and extremely cute!! and I'm sure Aaron would probably say some of the things in real life cause i don't know, it just seems that way!! ha ha there is a part in tha movie that is really funny...its wen Jane's little sister meets him...but i cant tell ya what happens cause ill just have to let u see for your self!! i went to go see Aaron n concert and it was so much fun!! n he smelled so good ha ha...i still cant believe i got to meet him!!! i have pictures if anyone wants to see them!! Steph$LABEL$ 1
+Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are the most famous comedy duo in history, and deservedly so, so I am happy to see any of their films. Professor Noodle (Lucien Littlefield) is nearing the completion of his rejuvenation formula, with the ability to reverse ageing, after twenty years. Ollie and Stan are the chimney sweeps that arrive to do their job, and very quickly Ollie wants to get away from Stan making mistakes. Ollie goes to the roof to help with the other end of the brush at the top of the chimney, but Stan in the living room ends up pushing the him back in the attic. After breaking an extension, Stan gets a replacement, a loaded gun, from off the wall, and of course it fires the brush off. Stan goes up to have a look, and Ollie, standing on the attic door of the roof, falls into the greenhouse. Stan asks if he was hurt, and Ollie only answers with "I have nothing to say." Ollie gets back on the roof, and he and Stan end up in a tug and pull squabble which ends up in Ollie falling down and destroying the chimney. Ollie, hatless, in the fireplace is hit on the head by many bricks coming down, and the butler Jessup (Sam Adams) is covered in chimney ash smoke, oh, and Ollie still has nothing to say to Stan. The boys decide to clean up the mess, and when Stan tears the carpet with the shovel, Ollie asks "Can't you do anything right", and Stan replies "I have nothing to say", getting the shovel bashed on his head. As Ollie holds a bag for Stan to shovel in the ashes, they get distracted by a painting on the wall, and the ashes end up down Ollie's trousers, so Stan gets another shovel bashed on the head. Professor Noodle finishes his formula, and does a final test on a duck, with a drop in a tank of water, changing it into a duckling. He also shows the boys his success, turning the duckling into an egg, and he next proposes to use a human subject, i.e. his butler. While he's gone, the boys decide to test the formula for themselves, but Ollie ends up being knocked by Stan into the water tank with all the formula. In the end, what was once Ollie comes out, an ape, and when Stan asks him to speak, all Ollie ape says is "I have nothing to say", and Stan whimpers. Filled with wonderful slapstick and all classic comedy you could want from a black and white film, it is an enjoyable film. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were number 7 on The Comedians' Comedian. Very good!$LABEL$ 1
+Two things -- too long and totally lacked credibility. This movie didn't make any sense and was excrutiating to sit through. I am usually pretty patient, but man... It just doesn't keep your attention at all! I think I am being nice here even! You keep thinking it's almost over only to find out it's still got another half hour! Good actors.$LABEL$ 0
+I was intrigued by the title, so during a small bout of insomnia (fueled by my curiosity...), I stayed up and watched it. I then checked my TV listings and watched it again! There is one very obvious realization that occurred to me when I saw this film- in spite of politics, traditions, culture, etc., teenagers everywhere are virtually the same. The characters of the kids from Belgrade could have been transported to, let's say, somewhere in the American Midwest during the same time period, and language differences aside, would be impossible to tell apart from any of the local teens of that era. They certainly displayed the same growing pains and preoccupations, politics aside: Music, sex, movie idols, music, drinking, sports, music... As a matter of fact, much the same things that occupied my time growing up in 1970's Southern California.This was a bittersweet story, but the joy of youth made it very enjoyable. The characters, especially the young actors, were completely believable also. I won't say this was the Yugoslav "American Graffiti", but I will say that it fits in nicely with other 50's-themed movies.$LABEL$ 1
+For me,this is one of the best movies i ever saw.Overcoming racism,struggling through life and proving himself he isn't just an ordinary "cookie" ,Carl Brashear is an amazing character to play ,who puts Cuba in his best light,best performance in his life.De Niro,who is a living legend gives THAT SOMETHING to the movie.Hated his character in movie,but he gives so much good acting to this film,great performance.And appearance of beautiful Charlize was and as always is a big plus for every movie. So if you haven't seen this movie i highly recommended for those who love bravery,greatness who seek inspiration.You must look this great drama. My Vote 9/10.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this ego-centric "effort" at achieving a film of "epic" status in the company of several native Russian family members. Five people gave 5 different reactions, from Mikhalkov worship to my cynicism.I saw a movie that looked like Mikhalkov took a lot of "Canal +" money, put some of it in his (and other's) pockets and turned the project over to a bunch of film students. I counted at least 4 different "styles" in the movie. There is no way that the same director is responsible for these different scenes. Contrast these for yourself:·Cadets polishing shoes with a dog.·Train station scene (saying goodbye to Andrei).·Outdoor panorama shots.·Ormond talking through the keyhole.·Initial attempt on the Grand Duke and later chase scenes to get Andrei back to sing in Figaro.·Fencing sequenceJulia Ormond is faster than superman. Learning about his transfer belatedly, she gets all the way across Moscow in one minute to say goodbye to Andrei.The Russian natives felt that the impression given of Russian life was "caricature" and not history. They called it "tourist postcard" Russia.They were all proud that a Russian director/producer/fixer has managed to break into the "big time" and be able to waste over 30 million dollars of other people's money while maybe putting a little into local pockets during filming.If you want to "think" you have seen Russia go see this movie. Drink some coffee before you go.$LABEL$ 0
+I haven't seen this film in years, but the awful "taste" of Quaid's performance still lingers on my tongue. Some have commented on how Quaid has Jerry Lee Lewis "to a tee" but the fact is he only appears to have the most extreme stage Jerry in mind. Nobody acts that way all the time, and the performance comes off as hopelessly clownish, reducing Lewis to a buffoonish caricature. The nuances of a man's life are lost in the rubble of sheer over-acting.The author of the book this is based on (Nick Tosches) is a good writer, who has written several fine musical bios (I particularly liked "Dino" on Dean Martin); in the books Tosches gives us a full human being, both separate from and involved in the "biz." Quaid's acting seems to imply that Jerry never acted like a human being. If people were like this, no one would bother to hang around them. As cartoons go, it is mildly amusing, but otherwise it is one of the most egregious, film-destroying performances I have had the "honor" of viewing. Terrible...$LABEL$ 0
+TOM HULCE* turns in yet another Oscar-worthy performance as Dominick Luciano, the brain-damaged garbage man who's helping put his brother (Ray Liotta as Eugene) through medical school.This is a must-see for all movie lovers and all lovers of life and people!===========> *From the small studder to the eratic dancing, to the repeated words "Oh, Jeez" whenever Nicky is in a bind, the belieavablitly of Tom's performance is so excellent that you will have to concentrate to remember that it's an actor on screen!$LABEL$ 1
+If you have sons or daughters who love action, adventure, intrigue, and imagination - without the need to break into song every twelve minutes - then this is the Disney movie for you! My sons loved every minute of this film, and I have to admit that I laughed out loud many times throughout the movie. There are no sappy songs to get in the way of a wonderfully told story, and the characters are all lovable and identifiable in their own right. This should go down as one of the Disney "classics" because of its beautifully illustrated scenery and its non-stop excitement!$LABEL$ 1
+This is by far and away the stupidest thing I have ever seen on celluloid. I mean, we started watching it assuming it was a "skinemax T&A flick", but aside from a couple boobs, that was it. I mean, I get the point of making stupid movies in order to show some sex scenes, as they are the sole reason for a movie of that kind to be made. This movie, however, has no sex scenes, and really has no point at all. There is no linear time, the scenes travel around like a fart in the wind, people show up for no reason, then leave, and it is never explained, the plot is never advanced, and nothing happens. I have never been as flabbergasted at how bad a movie was until I saw this. Has the director even been to a film school? Has he ever seen a movie? I don't know, but from the looks of it, he seems to have made some moron proud with this piece of crap, as he is still working. I literally walked away from this movie dumber, but I still recommend watching it, as it should be shown in every film school of the country as an example in what not to do when making a film. Move over PLan 9 from Outer Space, you have a new contender for worst movie ever made.$LABEL$ 0
+This documentary was boring, and quite stupid.I mean... the documentary maker obviously does not even know what how Darwinian evolution works? It is a theory, and the name is just plain dumb. Reading a college biology text-book could have told the documentary maker what Darwinism really is. Darwinism is a good theory, but evil if it is done as politics.Also there was no real evidence in this documentary just interviewing some people... no expert testimonies, and shady leads...The documentary was also boring. I mean it could have been edited down to 35 minutes, and then it would have been lots better.There are a lot better documentaries than this... this was not worth watching... you can get better information from Wikipedia =D DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY AND TIME!$LABEL$ 0
+Here is a favorite Tom & Jerry cartoon perfect for Halloween. I know it dosen't have much creepiness, but has the 'trick' as in "Trick or Treat," as Jerry did to Tom with the window blind and the vacuum-cleaner with a collared-shirt hanging on it to make it like a ghost; but still like to put it on my list of Halloween cartoons. In this short, Tom was listening to the "Witching Hour," a ghost-story program on the radio, and being frightened by the horror story being told. Halfway into the story, the dramatics (hair standing on end, heart leaping into throat, icy chills on spine) begin happening to Tom . . . literally. And Jerry has been observing the whole thing and laughing to himself, thought he highen Tom fears by scaring him.I love the ending, it was a little funny. And you know, This short is the first of four cartoons in which Tom attacks Mammy Two Shoes; the others being The Lonesome Mouse, A Mouse in the House and Nit-Witty Kitty. And also This short is the first of twenty-five cartoons where Tom speaks. The others are The Lonesome Mouse, The Zoot Cat, The Million Dollar Cat, The Bodyguard, Mouse Trouble, The Mouse Comes to Dinner, Quiet Please!, Trap Happy, Solid Serenade, Mouse Cleaning, Texas Tom, Mucho Mouse, and The Cat Above and the Mouse Below directed by Chuck Jones.$LABEL$ 1
+I first saw this back in the early 90s on UK TV, i did like it then but i missed the chance to tape it, many years passed but the film always stuck with me and i lost hope of seeing it TV again, the main thing that stuck with me was the end, the hole castle part really touched me, its easy to watch, has a great story, great music, the list goes on and on, its OK me saying how good it is but everyone will take there own best bits away with them once they have seen it, yes the animation is top notch and beautiful to watch, it does show its age in a very few parts but that has now become part of it beauty, i am so glad it has came out on DVD as it is one of my top 10 films of all time. Buy it or rent it just see it, best viewing is at night alone with drink and food in reach so you don't have to stop the film.Enjoy$LABEL$ 1
+This is a documentary about homeless women. It was interesting in the sense that this focused on women who are engaged socially - having jobs and lasting friendships - but are in situations where they can not afford housing.I found some of the women covered to be interesting, but there was little focus or progression in the story. The direction and editing failed to maintain my attention. There were differences in the stories of these women, of course, but the message was essentially the same and could have been told by focusing on any one of them in more depth.I made it to the end of the movie, but it was a rather boring journey.$LABEL$ 0
+The first 20 minutes were a little fun because I don't think I've seen a film this bad before {acting, script, effects (!), etc....} The rest of the running time seemed to drag forever with every cliche in dialog used to no effect. These people seemed to not really like horror movies or how to make them or any other movie. There's no adult language, a bit of brief nudity, and no gore except fake blood smeared over no open wounds, etc.. It would have been rated PG in the early eighties and PG-13 nowadays. I'm not sure how it got an R rating or if it really did. I saw the American International release titled Hospital Of Terror. I've seen 100 horror films in the past 12 months and this is probably the worst film I've ever seen. Here's an example of how bad it is: There's one scene where something green comes through the door. I'm not sure what it's supposed to be but what it is on screen is some kid's green crayon scribblings {I'm not exaggerating} super-imposed over the film, semi-moving inside the door, then its supposed to do something to Nurse Sherri to possess her I suppose. I could not believe they had the lack of pride to show this embarrassment.$LABEL$ 0
+I had the privilege of watching Scarface on the big screen with its beautifully restored 35mm print in honor of the 20th anniversary of the films release. It was great to see this on the big screen as so much of it is lost on television sets and the overall largesse of this project cannot be emphasized enough. Scarface is the remake of a classic rags to riches to the depths of hell story featuring Al Pacino as Cuban drug lord Tony Montana. In this version, Tony comes to America during the Cuban boat people immigration wave in the late 1970s, early 1980s. Tony and his cohorts quickly get green cards by offing a political figure in Tent City and after a brief stay at a Cuban restaurant; Tony is launched on his horrific path to towards total destruction. Many of the characters in this movie a played in such skilled manner that is so enjoyable to watch I have forgot little of this film over the last twenty years. Robert Loggia as Tony's patron, Frank Lopez is wonderful. His character is flawed by being too trusting, and as Tony quickly figures out, soft. Lopez's right hand, Omar Suarez is portrayed by one of our greatest actors, F. Murray Abraham (Amadeus.) Suarez is the ultimate toady and will do anything for Frank; it is like he does not have a mind of his own. Tony quickly sees this and he constantly battles with Suarez, but really only sees him as a minor problem to get through on his way to the top. The character that always comes back to me as being played so perfectly is Mel Bernstein, the audaciously corrupt Miami Narcotics detective played by Harris Yulin (Training Day.) Mel, without guilt extorts great sums of money form all sides of the drug industry. He plays Tony off of Frank until it catches up with him in a scene that marks the exit from the film of both Frank and Mel. It is priceless to hear Frank asking for Mel to intercede, as Tony is about to kill him only to hear Mel reply, `It's your tree Frank, you're sitting in it.' This is from the man who Frank had been paying for protection!Tony's rise is meteoric and is only matched in speed and intensity by his quick crash and burn. After offing Frank and taking his wife and business Tony's greed takes over and he never can seem to get enough. As Tony plunges deeper into the world of drugs, greed and the inability to trust he eventually kills his best friend and his sister who had fallen in love and married. This all sets up the ending in which Tony's compound is stormed by an army from his supplier who feels betrayed because Tony would not go through with a political assassination that was ordered. This all stems form a compassionate moment when Tony refused to be an accomplice in a murder that would have involved the victim's wife and children.All in all this is a great depiction of 1980s excess and cocaine culture. DePalma does a nice job of holding it all together in one of the fastest moving three hour movies around. The violence is extremely graphic and contains a few scenes that will be forever etched on any viewers mind, particularly the gruesome chainsaw seen, the two point blank shots to the head and the entire bloody melee that ends the movie. This is a highly recommended stylistically done film that is not for the squeamish, or for those who need upbeat endings and potential sequels; DePalma let it all fly right here.$LABEL$ 1
+I bought this film on DVD so I could get an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. Thankfully, Mike, Crow, and Tom Servo are watchable, because the film itself is not. Although there is a plot, a story one can follow, and a few actors that can act, there isn't anything else. The movie was so boring, I have firmly confirmed that I will never watch it again without Tom, Crow and Mike. As summarized above, however, it was better than the film featured in the MST3K episode that preceded it; Mitchell.$LABEL$ 0
+After huge budget disaster films set in America like The Day After Tomorrow and Deep Impact, it was refreshing to see something on a smaller scale like Flood.Using mainly unknown actors and actresses and actually focusing on England it was a welcome change of pace to seeing The Empire State Building being demolished.However, this is not a strong film on any basis. Whilst being fairly shocking seeing all your favourite London landmarks being demolished by a very fake CGI storm surge, Flood doesn't really deliver on anything else.The performances are bland, being saved from the pit of hell by David Suchet and his refreshingly calm performance as the Deputy Priminister. He is perhaps a little too calm for what is going on in the film, all that fake water gushing around London must have made him pretty annoyed.It is understandable that the effects weren't going to be as good as TDAT and DI, but the CGI was at best, average.Bland, disappointing and sometimes even tiresome. Watch it if you must, but watch something else straight afterwards.$LABEL$ 0
+"ASTONISHING" Screams the LA Times from the front of the DVD box. They must have been referring to the fact that such a sorry piece of crap was ever released. The film revolves around a bunch of girls who have a disease which forces them to become cannibals, and murder innocent people just to stay alive. Their skin peels off throughout the film, we also see severed legs, heads etc that are about as convincing as a Halloween Fuzzy Felt set. There is an awful lot of talking b*ll**ks, a bit of human cuisine and some weird zombie hunter chap who imprisons the sufferers of said skin illness in his closet strapped to a chair, before stabbing them in the head, chopping them into bits...You get the picture. Considering there is no acting talent on display at all, and the gore is laughably unrealistic, what is the point of this whole farrago? Again looking at the video box, the guy responsible for it is an "underground cult director". Would that be like those weird religious cults where they brainwash you into thinking one way when clearly the opposite is true? Because that's the only possible reason I can think of for anyone to derive pleasure by watching this tax write-off. Then, on the same paragraph he compares himself to Mike Leigh, Ken Loach and George Romero. HAHAHAHAHA oh stop it. Now you're just being silly.Do you enjoy this film? Are you offended by the above opinion? If so, you must be a member of said cult. Do they pocket your wages? Do they let you see other family members? Do they force you to watch Andrew Parkinson films till you think he's the best director since A.Hitchcock? Do tell... this sounds like a Panorama special brewing to me. And say hello to the critic of the LA times when you return to your colony, will you? 0/10$LABEL$ 0
+I broke my own rule buying this movie from the $5.88 bin at Walmart. Basically, if a movie has a big star in it, and you've never heard of it before, it's usually for a reason. Well in the case of this movie, the reason is because it SUCKED! They plaster Sandra Bullock's photo and name all over the cover of the DVD as bait, and it reeled this little fishie right on in. I was thinking of donating the disc to charity, or giving it to the library, but I don't think I would want to subject anyone else in the world to this movie. Worst lines: "What do you mean army buddies?" "What do you mean your dad?"$LABEL$ 0
+I consider myself a huge movie buff. I was sick on the couch and popped in this film. Right from the opening to the end I watched in awe at these great actors, i'd never seen, say great word. The filming was beautiful. It was just what I needed. I hope that this message is heard over any bad comments written by others. The Director has a heart and it beats with his actors throughout. Thanku for making a film like this one. Just wonderfully awkward, beautiful kind characters who are flawed and graceful all at once. Just great. I can't submit this without 10 lines in total so I will simply go on to say that I wish for more from this director, more from all the actors in this film and more from the writer. I didn't want it to end. The end$LABEL$ 1
+Tremendous black--and-white nighttime cinematography, and plenty of it, highlights this supposedly-true life account of a 1950s murder in Kansas in which an entire family was wiped out by two men.The story was written by Truman Capote, so you get the very Liberal anti-death penalty message at the end of the film, which is ludicrous knowing the facts of this case. Robert Blake and Scott Wilson play the two atheist losers who have twisted outlooks on life and who unnecessarily murder this nice family. Despite the annoying slant at the end, this is a riveting story from the start and the cinematography makes this even more fascinating. Famed photographer Conrad Hall did a fantastic job on this. It makes me wish more modern-day films were made in black-and-white. See it on DVD.Blake, Wilson, John Forsythe, Jeff Corey and the entire supporting cast are excellent in here. My third viewing of this film came in early April of 2005, shortly after Blake, in real life, was pronounced innocent in the murder trial of his wife. One can't help but look at Blake and this film differently after that.$LABEL$ 1
+I love Sarah Waters's Fingersmith, and was worried about the TV adaptation as I'd been disappointed by the BBC's version of Tipping the Velvet (which although beautiful to look at was let down by Keeley Hawes not being able to sing, and Rachael Stirling not being able to act). Fingersmith is a very tightly plotted novel with breath taking twists and turns and I wondered if this could be done justice to in just 3 hours.I needn't have worried. The adaptation was excellent, very little cut out, and went along at a cracking pace (although I did wonder whether if you hadn't read the book, would you miss things?). It had the look and feel of a BBC classic costume drama and i kept having to remind myself that this is a contemporary book.The acting was stellar. Sally Hawkins acting her heart out as Sue Trinder, and Elaine Cassidy, a slow burner, who by the end of the story was incandescent as Maud Lilley. The love, the passion, the realisation of the acts of betrayal both would have to perform, were written on their faces. It was a joy to watch.I hope Rachael Stirling was watching: that's how you play a Sarah Waters character!$LABEL$ 1
+Hitchcock made at least 11 films about the ordinary man, wrongly accused, on the run (sometimes really running, sometimes not) to prove his innocence in a situation beyond his control, the first one being "The 39 Steps", which really made him popular in Great Britain. It really is his signature theme.Others include "Young and Innocent", "Saboteur", "Spellbound", "Stage Fright", "Strangers on a Train", "I Confess", "To Catch a Thief", "The Wrong Man", "North by Northwest", and finally "Frenzy". "Saboteur" starts Robert Cummings as Barry Kane, a wartime aircraft plant worker during wartime accused of murdering his co-worker and best friend during an act of sabotage on the plant. He meets up with model Patricia Martin, played by actress Priscilla Lane, during his run from the law, and later, of course, the various Nazi/Fascist sympathizers along the way."Saboteur" is mainly like "The 39 Steps", even including similar plot devices such as handcuffs, the blonde who doesn't trust the main character in the beginning, a race across the country (in one case London to Scotland, and in the other California to New York), and meeting the "colorful" locals along the way. And so, just like "The Man Who Knew Too Much", I believe this is an American remake of one of Hitchcock's earlier works.I think Robert Cummings was chosen because he comes across as a very ordinary American, sort of an "everyman" with whom the audience can identify. I like Priscilla Lane because her character is a more involved in the action than Madeline Carroll in "The 39 Steps" and Ruth Roman in "Strangers on a Train". As mentioned elsewhere, though, Otto Kruger steals the show as the villain. I also liked Vaughan Glaser's performance as the blind uncle; his lines are great. There are some funny touches all along the way for some comic relief, such as road signs featuring Priscilla Lane's character on them, and circus sideshow performers, and the truck driver, Murray Alper. Contrary to other opinions here, there aren't too many characters who believe Barry Kane's innocence immediately.There are some slow parts, mainly when the action first moves to New York, but it picks up quickly when the last planned act of the fifth columnists gets underway.It's one of my favorite films from Hitchcock (I put it in my top 5), especially in these days of the new war on terrorism. I think it hits home.It makes you think, "Could my coworker be involved in something evil?" In fact, one of the movie posters for "Saboteur" proclaimed "Watch Out for the Man behind your back!" Imagine how that played in the mind of adults during the Second World War.$LABEL$ 1
+Forbidden Siren is based upon the Siren 2 Playstation 2 (so many 2s) game. Like most video game turned movies, I would say the majority don't translate into a different medium really well. And that goes for this one too, painfully.There's a pretty long prologue which explains and sets the premise for the story, and the mysterious island on which a writer (Leo Morimoto) and his children, daughter Yuki (Yui Ichikawa) and son Hideo (Jun Nishiyama) come to move into. The villagers don't look all too friendly, and soon enough, sound advice is given about the siren on the island, to stay indoors once the siren starts wailing.Naturally and slowly, things start to go bump, and our siblings go on a mission beating around the bush to discover exactly what is happening on this unfriendly island with its strange inhabitants. But in truth, you will not bother with what's going on, as folklore and fairy tales get thrown in to convolute the plot even more. What was really pushing it into the realm of bad comedy are its unwittingly ill-placed-out-of-the-norm moments which just drew pitiful giggles at its sheer stupidity, until it's explained much later. It's one thing trying to come up and present something smart, but another thing doing it convincingly and with loopholes covered.Despite it clocking in under 90 minutes - I think it's a horror movie phenomenon to have that as a runtime benchmark - it gives that almost two hour feel with its slow buildup to tell what it wants to. Things begin to pick up toward the last 20 minutes, but it's a classic case of too little too late.What saves the movie is how it changes tack and its revelation at the end. Again this is a common device used to try and elevate a seemingly simple horror movie into something a little bit extra in the hope of wowing an audience. It turned out rather satisfactorily, but leaves a bad aftertaste as you'll feel cheated somewhat. There are two ways a twist will make you feel - it either elevates the movie to a memorable level, or provides you with that hokey feeling. Unfortunately Forbidden Siren belonged more to the latter.The saving grace will be its cinematography with its use of light, shadows and mirrors, but I will be that explicit - it's still not worth the time, so better to avoid this.$LABEL$ 0
+The film "Cross Eyed" by Adam Jones propels the viewer on a ride of redemption as the main character takes back control of the wheel and sets his life in order. Adam Jones has found an imaginative and refreshing way to empower his character and actualize what matters most. These truths become apparent to both the characters and viewers as you laugh and gag to the credits with them. The simple yet attractive settings\costumes keep you guessing about what you will see next. You can't help but smile and laugh at the antics that take place in this movie. I can't wait for his sophomore effort. It is only a matter of time before Jones strikes again. Bravo!$LABEL$ 1
+This is the first movie i've seen of John Singleton and he is a pretty good director. The movie starts out with a bunch of incoming freshman and it shows what happens to several of them. Omar Epps plays a track star with a partial scholarship and having a hard time keeping up with his work. He is friends with Ice Cube and beings dating Tyra Banks. Kristy Swanson is a rich girl who is date raped and becomes friends with Jennifer Connelly, who is a lesbian, and isn't sure about which way to go. Michael Rapaport is a kid from Idaho who falls in with a group of Neo-Nazis and their leader is Cole Hauser. Those are the three main characters and Laurence Fishburne is a political science professor who tries to help them. It's a great film and it's unfortunate that the studio had to make several cuts to the movie.$LABEL$ 1
+I don't expect a lot from ghost stories, but I do expect a story to make a bit of sense! Is that asking too much from the screenwriters and filmmakers? When the bad guy, all of the sudden, becomes a homicidal maniac solely because a bunch of crows start pecking him, then I have a problem spending $9.00 for a ticket! Alfred Hitchcock would be spinning in his grave. Didn't anyone learn anything in their college Film 101 class? A good movie has at its roots an INTERESTING story!Here are some of the ridiculous messages in this movie: If you have desperate financial problems move from Chicago to the middle of no-where in North Dakota to grow Sunflowers (I kid you not!). If your toddler has serious neurological problems from a car accident move away from some of the best hospitals and speech therapists in the country to an isolated small town, which, at best, has a community hospital. Hire a drifter to live & work with you, out of the blue, without checking any references, when you have a teenage vixen daughter, a wife and toddler. ( I'm glad they're not my parents!) A town where everyone knows everything would have no problem missing a triple homicide, just outside of town. And, of course, blame the man's lunacy on a bad crop of Sunflowers! (Doesn't anything else grow in North Dakota?) A couple of days after you buy your rundown house - with huge vines growing everywhere - that it reminds you of Jack and the Beanstalk, a guy from the X-Files, ala Smoking Man, (I'm glad to see the cigarettes didn't get him, I guess he doesn't inhale!) will just suddenly sneak up on you while you're working to offer you the sale price of your home, plus 15% more, for absolutely no reason!I think you get the picture. I have seen so many godforsaken awful movies in the past month, it just blows my mind! Is it that difficult to make a movie that doesn't treat the audience like an idiot? I'm glad at least the crows in this sorry film turned out to have the some brains! I wish I could say the same for whomever thinks they are going to make money off this celluloid piece of trash!$LABEL$ 0
+"Girlfight" is much more of a coming-of-age-story than it is a fight flick. And what a relief to have one in an urban school, with naturalistic, realistic Latinos and believable use of Brooklyn project settings. It made me realize that virtually all Hollywood high school movies are set in luxurious suburbia or small towns. (Even the somewhat comparable "Love and Basketball" which focused on teen African-Americans was set in suburbia.) While these kids share some of the same peer problems, those issues shrink compared to the other struggles of these kids, where high school graduation could be the major accomplishment of their lives.The feminist element here is riveting in its originality, as you hold your breath to see if she can have a relationship--and a victory-- on her terms. A lots of audience sympathy goes to the guy who is challenged to rise to a gender-bending-expectations situation.The movie does drag a bit here and there, but this is no cheap thrills "Rocky" fight movie, as the practices and fights have complex outcomes, and all the relationships--especially with fathers and father-figures-- take more center stage than the center ring. There were lots of interesting music credits listed at the end, but I hadn't really noticed the songs.(originally written 10/7/2000)$LABEL$ 1
+In this excellent Twentieth-Century Fox film-noir, the metropolis is a labyrinth of despair in which scavengers and predators survive by living off one another. Brooding cityscapes lower over puny humanity in bleak expressionist symbolism.A prostitute has her purse snatched on the subway. It contains a microfilm, and a communist spy ring will go to any lengths to recover it. Two parallel investigations unfold as both spies and cops hunt down the precious information.Anti-hero pickpocket Skip McCoy is played with scornful assurance by Richard Widmark. He knows the cops to be his moral equals and intellectual inferiors, so he taunts them: "Go on," he says to captain Dan Tiger (Murvyn Vye), "drum up a charge. Throw me in. You've done it before." In this pitiless world, the cops are just one more gang on the streets. Just as Candy the hooker bribes Lightning Louie to get a lead, so the police are busy paying stool pigeons for information.It is hard to believe that when Widmark made this film he was already in early middle age. The 39-year-old star, coming to the end of his contract with Fox, plays the upstart Skip McCoy with the irreverent brashness of a teenager. Today it may not be acceptable for the romantic lead to punch his love interest into unconsciousness then revive her by sloshing beer in her face, but by the mores of the period it signified toughness - and Candy, after all, is a fallen woman.Jean Peters is radiant as Candy. Here, right in the middle of her five-year burst of B-movie fame, she is beautiful and engaging as the whore with the golden heart. She is the story's victim, a martyr to her beauty as much as anything else. She means well, but is constantly being manipulated by cynical men - Joey, Skip and the cops.The real star of this movie is New York. Haunting urban panoramas and snidering subway stations offer a claustrophobic evocation of the city as a living, malevolent force. Like maggots in a rotting cheese, human figures scurry through the city's byways. Elevators, subway turnstiles, sidewalks - even a dumb waiter act as conduits for the flow of corrupt humanity. People cling to any niche that affords safety: Moe has her grimy rented room, Skip his tenebrous shack on the Hudson River. As the characters move and interact, they are framed by bridge architecture, or lattices of girders, or are divided by hanging winch tackle. The personality of the city is constantly imposing itself. The angles and crossbeams of the wharf timbers are an echo of the gridiron street plan, and the card-index cabinets in the squadroom mimic the Manhattan skyline. When Joey's exit from the subway is barred, it is as if the steel sinews of the city are ensnaring him.A surprising proportion of this film is shot in extreme close-up. Character drives the plot, as it should, and the close-ups are used to augment character. When Skip interrogates Candy, the close-up captures the sexual energy between them, belying the hostility of Skip's words. Jean Peters' beauty is painted in light, in exquisite soft focus close-ups. The device is also employed to heighten the tension. The opening sequence, the purse snatch, contains no dialogue: the drama relies entirely on close-up for its powerful effect.Snoopers, and snoopers upon snoopers, populate the film. Moe (Thelma Ritter) makes a living as an informant, and her place in the hierarchy is accepted, even by her victims. When Skip observes, "she's gotta eat", he is chanting a recurring refrain. Just as 'straight' New Yorkers peddle lamb chops or lumber, the Underworld traffics in the commodity of information.And yet even the stool pigeons are superior to Joey and his communist friends. Joey's feet on Moe's bed symbolise a transgression of the most basic moral code. Joey is beyond the pale. Moe will not trade with Joey, even to preserve her life: " ... even in our crummy business, you gotta draw the line somewhere.""Pick-Up" was made in the depths of the Cold War. Richard Nixon had just been chosen as the Republican vice-presidential candidate, having made his name with his phoney Alger Hiss expose - bogus communist microfilm and all. The McCarthy show trials were a daily reality. We see the cops in the movie inveigh against "the traitors who gave Stalin the A-bomb".New York can be seen as a giant receptacle in which human offal cheats, squeals and murders. Containers form a leitmotif throughout the film. Moe carries her trade mark box of ties, and candy's purse, container of the microfilm, is the engine of the plot. Skip keeps his only possessions in a submerged crate, symbolising his secretive street-wisdom. The paupers' coffins, moving down the Hudson on a barge, are containers of just one more cargo being shifted around the pitiless metropolis.The film is a masterpiece of composition. Candy is shown above the skulking Skip on the rickety gangway of the shack, signifying her moral ascendancy. When the gun is placed on the table, the extreme perspective makes it look bigger than Candy - violence is beginning to dwarf compassion. The lovers are eclipsed by the shadow of a stevedore's hook, reminding us that their love is neither pure nor absolute, but contingent upon the whims of the sinister city. Enyard the communist is a shadow on a wall, or a disembodied puff of cigarette smoke. He is like the lone alley cat amongst the garbage - a predatory phantom of the night. Camera shots from under taxi hoods, inside newspaper kiosks and through the bars of hospital beds constantly reinforce in us the awareness that we are all trapped in the metropolis. We are civilisation's mulch.$LABEL$ 1
+A beautiful shopgirl in London is swept off her feet by a millionaire tea plantation owner and soon finds herself married and living with him at his villa in British Ceylon. Although based upon the book by Robert Standish, this initial set-up is highly reminiscent of Hitchock's "Rebecca", with leading lady Elizabeth Taylor clashing with the imposing chief of staff at the mansion and (almost immediately) her own husband, who is still under the thumb of his deceased-but-dominant father. Taylor, a last-minute substitute for an ailing Vivien Leigh, looks creamy-smooth in her high fashion wardrobe, and her performance is quite strong; however, once husband Peter Finch starts drinking heavily and barking orders at her, one might think her dedication to him rather masochistic (this feeling hampers the ending as well). Still, the film offers a heady lot for soap buffs: romantic drama, a bit of travelogue, interpretive dance, an elephant stampede, and a perfectly-timed outbreak of cholera! *** from ****$LABEL$ 1
+I'm sorry to say that, but this is actually one of the worst documentaries i have EVER seen.Due to its name "Darwin's Nightmare" i expected a documentary on problems relating to the Nile perch in Lake Victoria.What I actually saw in this "documentary" is a loose accumulation of individual stories, most of which have no relation to neither fish nor lake. And for a large part you can hardly call them stories - it's more like some accumulated scenes that lack a meaningful connection...Why does this movie waste time on: - Showing us non-relevant information on the families of the Russian pilots (several minutes are wasted for example on their private digicam snapshots of wives and daughters) - Mourning the death of an African child who got bitten by a crocodile (as if that could not have happened without the Nile perch) - Showing us about 100 times how planes land and start at the airport - Showing us strange religious events for several minutes - Discussing in detail the life and death of a whore at the airport - Talking to kids about their mothers, fathers - what they work and/or how they died (well, guess what: some died of HIV - who would have guessed that?) Those are just some examples, i could go on for several pages...This movie is absolutely unfocused, and does not know at all what it wants to tell the viewer. If you have never heard of Africa and have no idea that this continent has Social/Health/HIV/Violence/War problems then this movie might be right for you. If you haven't had your eyes closed for the last decades 90% of what this movie shows won't be new to you - and the way it's presented here will try its best to make you fall asleep.Perhaps my expectations on this movie were to high, but i really didn't like it even though this is a topic that I would generally find interesting. If this movie wants to show how the poverty is related to the Nile perch, than it perhaps should have spent some time on discussing that matter...$LABEL$ 0
+Since was only a toddler when this show originally aired I just recently picked up the DVD set and am wishing there were more episodes filmed. This show was a 70s version of the poplular 90's TV series "X-Files"- but with a bit more of a comedic/light hearted approach. But don't get me wrong, some of these episodes have full on horror themes, many in which have some pretty greuesome plots (left to the imagination of course- this was the early 70s television).Some of the plots where a bit silly as well as the acting, but that is the charm and attraction to this series. Whether you like mystery crime dramas, comedies, or sci-fi/horror themes, this series brought all that together. Each episode clocked in at around 50 minutes or so (1 hour with commercials) and that 50 minutes goes by quick always leaving me wanting more. A great classic show that is underrated in my book!$LABEL$ 1
+Scary Movie 3 (2003) was a bad idea to begin with. The last film was a mediocre effort. Put it next to this load, it's a comedy classic. Whilst part two was filled with a lot of dated humor and cheap shots, at least it was funny. There's nothing funny about forced humor. Jokes, pratfalls and sight gags are supposed to be naturally funny. Hitting the viewer over the head with tired jokes is not cool. The humor in this film was caters to juvenile imbeciles who'll laugh at anything. When they catered to the junior high school crowd, any sense of self respect was tossed out the window. Ring parodies are not funny. I have watched them in comedies since 1998. They're so dated. Michael Jackson jokes are not cool either. What's even worse is making fun of two broken down has been "performers" whose best days were NEVER.The death of American cinema has been a slow one. Films like this are the nails that are being pounded into it's coffin. Whatever happened to real humor? I haven't laughed out loud in a movie theater in a long time. Too many bad movies rot the brain. You want proof? Go to your local mega chain video rental store and see what's on the shelves. This movie is bad. Don't believe the hype. I would rather watch Scary Movie 2 in a continuous loop than to suffer through this poor excuse of a comedy ever again!Definitely not recommended (unless you have a handful of brain cells).$LABEL$ 0
+I have come out of several years of lurking on these boards due to the sheer lack of intelligence that is communicated through the reviews that periodically appear on this film's IMDb space. I saw this movie courtesy of subway cinema's new york Asian film festival (which had an otherwise excellent selection of movies this year, see vital, snake of june, CHA NO AJI, Survive Style)and have regretted every day that a scene from that movie disengorges itself from the back of my mind, and becomes a vivid memory.I'm sure that you can read a laudatory summary of the film off of Subway Cinema, which is probably why I made the mistake of dragging my friend to the film. The description built up the kind of horror film that I had longed for for a while, one that relies on sheer terror rather than cheap scares. P was in fact different. It relied on cheap laughs.The incredibly annoying announcer described this movie as "Lesbians team up to fight monsters." Completely untrue. There is a subplot built up in this film to make it seem like the relationship between the girl and Pookie is actually going somewhere. More lies. This film seems like a short made for "Are you afraid of the dark?" The story is ridiculous, and only succeeded in eliciting laughter and confusion from the audience after they finally rescinded their attempt to view this film with any semblance of seriousness and try to forget the $9 that they wasted at the door. I almost wish paul spurrier was in the audience so that I could laugh at him and ask him why he wasted 5 years in thailand to make a bad softcore horror-cum-porn that belongs on the spice channel, which only succeeded to get the actress excommunicated from her family, and caused a minor stir at the belgium film festival. The only stir that this caused was a gurgle in the lower intestine as it couldn't extract itself from the sh*te that it is. Anyway, I hope I can dissaude anyone from making the grave mistake of seeing this film, it was truly one of my top 3 worst movie experiences, knocking out soulplane for the number 2.$LABEL$ 0
+. . .but it was on a UHF channel and the reception was very fuzzy. I'd really like to own the movie since the reason I watched it in the first place is because I am a bus driver and at the time I saw this movie, I was driving that model bus. It was only (during his murder trial some 15 years later) that I remember vaguely that OJ was one of the stars in it. I only recall that he was the driver and of the bus' being shot up and driven wildly. I've been looking all over for this movie to no avail, since viewing it in the mid-80s. I liked the movie, I don't usually watch thrillers, but after reading the summary in the TV guide, and viewing its beginning (although fuzzy) I stayed for the whole thing.$LABEL$ 1
+Another Aussie masterpiece, this delves into the world of the unknown and the supernatural, and it does very well. It doesn't resort to the big special effects overkill like American flicks, it focuses more on emotional impact. A relatively simple plot that Rebecca Gibney & Co. bring to life. It follows the story of a couple who buy an old house that was supposedly home to a very old woman who never went outside, and whose husband disappeared in mysterious circumstances a century ago. Strange things begin to happen in the house, and John Adam begins to turn into the man who disappeared, who was actually a mass murderer. Highly recommended. 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is amazing. The plot was just...wow.I was very surprised by Gackt's and Hyde's performance, after growing up in the American world of the actors who can't sing and singers who can't act.In this movie, a young Sho (Gackt) comes across a vampire, Kei (Hyde). Over time, they form an unlikely friendship. Kei is suffering because of how he is forced to live off others, the half-life of a vampire.It's a sad movie, but not sappy. The plot was very unique, and contrary to your typical vampire flick. The storyline was thick with twists and turns and very entrancing.The only fault I would say the movie had, despite it's lack of a happy--albeit peaceful—ending, would be it's multiple languages. I had the unsubdued version (I'm lucky that I understood it all save some of the Cantonese), so I would recommend getting something with subtitles.All in all, the movie was just awesome.$LABEL$ 1
+Everyone's favorite trio of bumbling imbeciles run amok in a hospital in this incredibly raucous and often hysterically funny romp. These guys are without a doubt the single most incompetent bunch of doctors to ever fumble their way across the screen. Comic highlights include the Stooges constantly breaking a glass pane in a door, their encounter with a deranged patient who claims that rats used to come out of the buttonhole of his shirt, the Stooges riding through the hallways on a giant bicycle, a huge horse, and miniature race cars, and our sublimely stupid threesome accidentally leaving instruments inside a hapless patient's abdomen after they finish operating on the poor fellow. Director Ray McCarey relates the frantic comic shenanigans at an appropriately nonstop hectic pace and stages the broad slapstick gags with considerable gusto. Moe Howard, Larry Fine, and Curly Howard are all in peak loopy form, with sterling support from Dell Henderson as long-suffering hospital supervisor Dr. Graves, squeaky-voiced Jeanie Roberts as a hiccuping nurse (the scene where the Stooges do an absurd impromptu group singalong with this gal is absolutely sidesplitting!), Ruth Hiatt as a whispering nurse, Billy Gilbert as the ranting crazy patient, and "Little Billy" Rhodes as a feisty tiny patient. The spirited lunacy never lets up for a minute, thereby making this beautifully berserk baby one of the Stooges' best-ever outings.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is brilliant! It touches everyone who sees it in an extraordinary way. It really takes you back to your youth and puts a new perspective on how you view your childhood memories. There are so many layers to this film. It is innovative and absolutely fabulous!$LABEL$ 1
+Purple Rain... what else can i say, the title speaks for itself. But i think all the actors were well picked. The movie had a great story. I loved it! Ever since i watched that movie, i've been stuck in the eighties, and I'm only 13! My favorite part of the movie was when his father died and he was picking up all of his music compositions, and the Apollonia was sitting on the stairwell with his earing in her hand. Critics say that its a drama but i think its more of a romance. Murphy Brown also did a great job in the movie, he actually acted like himself. I'm so glad I've seen this movie. The song Purple Rain, beautifully sung, was so heartfelt. I cried more than once.$LABEL$ 1
+this movie is outrageous. by outrageous, i mean awful. i had more fun watching the paint dry at my local hardware store on an august day while suffering from a migraine and heat stroke. the acting got progressively worse as the "movie" advanced, and the directors use of euphoric drugs became apparent as the final scenes approached. when misty was shot to death she decided that it would be prudent to blink post mordem. that was not intelligent. truthfully, stevie wonder could have caught that with his eyes closed. if you are deciding between playing with a nail gun while intoxicated and watching this movie, bear in mind that the nail gun will probably give you a better story to tell your friends.$LABEL$ 0
+Can't grade this very well, because I can't say I liked it. But it is the story that bothered me, not the realization of the film. The acting, directing, atmosphere, music were all good. It's just that after you see a bunch of people doing things you can't truly relate to, the movie ends. It is educational in the way that it shows the horrors of war as seen from home and the way feelings don't need to make any sense at all and still be strong, but that's about it.The plot covers a period of a few years in which the poet Dylan Thomas is taken under the roof of a former ex-girlfriend. He is married, brings his wife and later the kid, while the ex (Knightley) marries some other guy. But the tension is there, Dylan is a self obsessed jerk and the new husband comes back home from the war with a slight case of PTSD. Add in some pretty temperamental characters and you have your hands full.Bottom line: you have to be "in the mood" to like this film. The hard part is defining this mood. I don't think I've ever been in it yet. Ever. So it is probably better watched by adults with a grasp on weird complex human behaviour and maybe a curiosity about Dylan Thomas.$LABEL$ 1
+Carter Wong plays a noble hero on a quest for a book of healing which leads him seeking ultimate vengeance! The pacing is good in this film and there are a lot of fight scenes to keep the movie going. The flying guillotines look wicked and the main villain has no problems using them. Although the story isn't strong, the action is fun and draws you to the very end (which I felt could've had a sequel).Campy and dark, this is great ol skool kung fu!!$LABEL$ 1
+So this was an HBO "Made for TV Movie" eh? Is that an excuse for such a pathetic plot and terrible acting? Such a shame to see Jim Belushi reduced to a role so repetitive (shot at, survived, lies, beaten up, survives, shot at, lies and so ad infinitum. Call that a script? As for the Brits, embarrassing to see Timothy Dalton's pathetic (or was he just taking the p***, depends how much he was paid I guess?) attempt at a Southern Sheriff). As for that other Brit, the bleached blond one, what a w***er! There is a trend towards glorifying these "English speaking" (sic) super-violent thugs lately, perhaps thanks to Mr. Madonna's two movies succeed in entertaining and justify the violence by skillful use of irony and humour, like Pulp Fiction does. However, this movie discredits and devalues the genre. definately one to miss.$LABEL$ 0
+You know you're in trouble when the opening narration basically tells you who survives. It all goes downhill from there. Unnecessary, "Matrix"-influenced bullet-time camera work. Pointless cuts to video game footage. Crusty old sea captains and wacky seamen. Ravers who become skilled combatants in the blink of an eye. Even the zombies are boring.I was hoping for at least a "so bad it's good" zombie movie, but this one is "so bad those involved with its creation should be barred from ever making a movie again".$LABEL$ 0
+This depiction of forlorn Japanese forces in the Philipines is a tour de force in the utter meaninglessness of war. It is an effective representation of Japanese pacifist views after WW II. In the movie, Japanese soldiers have been left to fend for themselves in the jungles of the Philipines. Faced with impending starvation they resort to cannibalism and gradually lose what little humanity they have left. To call this film depressing would be something of an understatement. The viewer is left with an utterly despairing sense of life's lost value in modern combat. The final scene is almost too nihilistic but the film is a worthy statement none-the-less. Highly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+solid documentary about edgey kids who first surf then skate in the face of the american dream. sadly some of the youngest and most gifted succumb to the lure of drugs while others become slaves to the crass marketing of their go for broke instincts. few come out on top. but the die is cast and fruit of it all is the new national pastime, skateboarding (the New York Times notes that "it was once considered a snub to authority. Now, however, skateboarding has its own summer camps, video games, magazines [actually it always had these] and corporate sponsors.") commercialism co-opts another kid birthed cultural node.$LABEL$ 1
+I went into this movie expecting it to be really god-awful. And it was. I really felt sorry for the star-studded cast- Kathy Bates was a wonderful actress... before she made this movie- Vince Vaughn and Paul Giamatti were disappointing as usual but Miranda Richardson couldn't put in one of the fabulous performances I know and love her for. Fred's dad, played by Trevor Peacock (of Vicar of Dibley fame, amongst others), had about one line.The plot was predictable and all over the place, and the humour was... lacking. (However, there was one part of the movie where Santa enters the house of a Jewish family... that made me laugh just because their expressions were classic) Don't see this movie unless your only other alternative is having a head-on collision with a train (actually- maybe the train would be better...)$LABEL$ 0
+You know, I really have a problem with movie lists. I was reading Maxim magazine a while ago and they had a list of the 50 Greatest B-Movies of all time, and knowing me, I of course have to go through and watch them all and write reviews of all of them. This is why you see reviews of movies like Gator Bait and Barb Wire and Coffy on my list. So I noticed H.O.T.S. at the video store the other day and recognized it from Maxim's list of the 50 greatest B-movies, and I decided to rent it and check it out. My only consolation is that I rented it because I recognized it from a list of B-movies, so I already knew it was going to suck. Given the type of movie that it is, I can't say that H.O.T.S. is a total failure, since it is nothing more than a late 70s T&A film, and it never pretends to by anything else. The only place where it strays widely from its objective is in a ragged subplot involving a couple of ex-cons who have stashed a lot of stolen money in the house that the self-named H.O.T.S. move in to, because this subplot has absolutely no place in the movie. Despite the fact that the rest of the movie is as well, this subplot is completely superfluous and unnecessary. The story is based on a couple of rival sororities at the beloved F.U., which exists as one of those Universities that contains a grand total of one sorority until the rejects form their own in order to get back at the snobs in the other one. This new sorority, Help Out The Seals (H.O.T.S.), is a sorority supposedly based on helping seals (the seal subplot is another one that doesn't really belong in the movie, and little attention is paid to the meaning of that name beyond having a seal running around here and there throughout the movie). This is going to sound weird, but there was actually one scene that I was pretty impressed with in this movie. One SHOT that I was impressed with, I should say. About midway through the movie, one of the girls in Pi, the rival sorority, is pouring alcohol into the punch, and she pours some for herself in a glass and drinks it. Oddly enough, what she does as she drinks that alcohol reminds me of something that Charlie Chaplin would do, which really brightened up the movie. Obviously, nothing in this movie comes close to anything that Chaplin ever did, but that shot alone raised my score for the movie from a 2 to a 4.As a whole, however, the movie is exactly what you would expect it to be, a lot of people running around looking for excuses to take off their clothes (I liked how the remove-one-piece-of-clothing-for-every-score in the football game at the end was one of the GIRLS' ideas. Riiiiiiiiight…), and not much thought is put into much of anything else. There is, for example, a scene early in the film when a couple of the Pi girls pour hot sauce into the refreshments at a H.O.T.S. party, accidentally getting caught in an incriminating photograph (the girl taking the picture didn't realize that she photographed them at the time), although the photograph never comes up for any reason later in the film. I've seen movies like this before, it's kind of like Gator Bait but without the violence and the rednecks and Coffy wasn't far off. Even Barb Wire is much the same, just with a bigger budget and more silicon. Thankfully, Maxim's 50 B-movie list contains only a few more comedies, because while these cheesy teen T&A films are entertaining every once in a while as bad movies with the occasional semi-nude scene, after watching H.O.T.S. I think I've decided that I like the bad horror movies better than the bad comedies. I'd rather watch a lot of terrible actors pretend to be scared than pretend to be funny.$LABEL$ 0
+I found this little gem as an extra feature on my DVD of Vampyr-Der Traum Des Allen Grey, and didn't expect all that much from it. It looked like it might be an interesting little short though, so I turned it on.I am so glad that I did. It was really incredible! Despite having been made more than 70 years ago, the animation was, in my view, better than some of that done today with all the computer effects and experience available now.The story is quite simple-a newly put together toy dog hears its owner's laments about not being able to afford an orange and goes on a quest to find her one. In the process, it runs into a toy's underworld with all sort of nefarious creatures and toys overseen by none other than the devil himself, who all want the dog's orange for themselves as well.This film precedes, but reminds me a lot of Mad Monster Party? (1969, Jules Bass)-a movie which I have always really enjoyed-and to a lesser extent, some of Tim Burton's animated works-The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993, Henry Selick) and Corpse Bride (2005, Tim Burton). Fans of any of these movies will, I am sure, also love The Mascot.Overall, an incredible piece of short animation which is well worth watching.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is one of the many "Kung Fu" action films made in Asia in the late '70s - early '80s, full of cheap sound effects, dubbed dialog and lightning fast martial arts action. But unlike most films of this genre it also has a decent plot and lots of great comedy. When workers of a dye factory are forced out of their jobs by Manchu bullies, they hire a con-artist (Gordon Liu) to try to scare them off. When his attempt fails miserably, he cons his way into a Shaolin temple to learn to fight for real. But instead of making him a Kung-Fu student, the Master instead orders him to build a scaffolding to cover the roofs of all 36 chambers. Well, it turns out that while he's performing these menial tasks (stacking and tying bamboo poles) that he's learning the skills to be a Kung-Fu expert! It's sort of like in Karate Kid when Mr. Miagi teaches Daniel the basics of karate by having him do routine household chores- "Wax on, wax off" et cetera. There's lots of great comedy from beginning to end, and plenty of action at the end when Gordon Liu once again faces his Manchu tormentors. "This time it's not just tricks- it's the real thing!" Liu declares, proudly thumping his chest. If you like classic Kung Fu films you don't want to miss this one!$LABEL$ 1
+If you liked the Grinch movie... go watch that again, because this was no where near as good a Seussian movie translation. Mike Myers' Cat is probably the most annoying character to "grace" the screen in recent times. His voice/accent is terrible and he laughs at his own jokes with an awful weasing sound, which is about the only laughing I heard at the theater. Not even the kids liked this one folks, and kids laugh at anything now. Save your money and go see Looney Tunes: Back in Action if you're really looking for a fun holiday family movie.$LABEL$ 0
+OK well i found this movie in my dads old pile of movies and it looked pretty good from the cover but the movie actually sucked!! OK the first story with the swimmer was pretty good but it took a while to get into, then the one with the boy was completely retarded! It wasn't even scary! His dream sounds like a little kid's bedtime story. Then the news girls one was completely retarded too. I'm sure someones going to call up the news guy and ask him to go out with you. But that one ended cool where she stabbed him and she was in the hospital and she saw him on t.v and he said all that junk to her. Next was that pretty gay story about the guy who brought back the dead people..OMG its so stupid I'm not even going to say any more about it.The last one was the best. It wasn't that scary but the idea of the story was pretty cool..uh yeah the girl gets possessed and she kills all her classmates or something. Then when they're all done telling their dreams to each other the losers get on the bus (TO HELL AHAHAHAH) and they see all the people from their dreams on the bus(Ha). The End.$LABEL$ 0
+This must be one of the worse movies that I have ever seen. On a par with Blair Witch and just as annoying. The flashing helmet lights made things difficult to see and I think that epileptics should take heed as there are moments with strobing that makes this movie even more annoying. I think if they had been quieter they might have found a way out. Then when you think the geek might come up trumps even he resorts to a nervous breakdown. Oh and when is the guy who is having sex realise that when the girl says she can hear something. She Can Really Hear Something. One of these guys must have at least seen Scream (where they draw your attention to such things) It is also a big let-down when a premise offers so much promise and then someone writes the script. So sorry folks I got this on weekly at the video shop and I would still like my money back.$LABEL$ 0
+This engaging (which it shouldn't be) low-grade Spanish exploitation (quite tame I might add) looks good, but huh? Let me phrase that again 'huh?'. Actually the word 'huh?' would be going through your mind quite a lot. Nothing makes sense, nor does it try too. I just don't know if its complicatedly cryptic or just a convoluted muddle, but there's no denying how laconically uneventful, strange and wordy it feels.Unrelated sequences tied (like that nasty opening involving a little girl, dead cat and fire) in to a sparse story involving photographer Mario (played by a chest-puffing John Caffari, who's mustache is a dead ringer for Nintendo's iconic Mario. What's the odds?) that ditches his girlfriend at home and encounters a young lady (a gorgeously fixating Patty Shepard) who he asks to come with him on an photography assignment, where at this remote mountain retreat they come across some hooded witches.Look past the unhinged plot structure and wallow in what is simply a moody piece of atmospheric mechanisms and growing unease. Raul Artigot directs few jarringly unusual visuals and creepy passages, but for most part seems sporadically non-existent and unfocused just like his writing. Ramon Sempere's striking cinematography lenses the gracefully rich scenery as we take in the scenic views and let the time leisurely grind away. However there are certain areas where it was too dark to see what was going on. Fernando Garcia Morcillo's hauntingly bombastic and overwrought score blends terrifically with compulsively dense atmosphere created. The leads are capable, but there's also a sturdy bunch (the pick being Víctor Israel) of secondary performances.Slow with little in the way of interest, but this dreamy set-up (that seems to go on and on) manages to keep you watching until its closing.$LABEL$ 0
+Calling this a "Sunday School" movie might be generous, because, even as a Christian, I found the religious message so one-dimensional that I wouldn't want to see it at my church. The message is, "Read your Bible, go to church and sign up for fire insurance, so you won't get left behind at the rapture." There was no love. I guess when you get right down to it, I don't believe in the god portrayed in this film. The guy who was supposed to have all of the spiritual answers came across like Count Dracula.Aside from the spiritual/religious element, the script was tedious--saying the same thing over and over. That might have been to make up for some of the acting, which was unable to deliver a convincing line the first time, so they just said the same thing over and over.I did enjoy the final scenes. I thought it made a point without hitting someone over the head or stooping to a Sunday School formula. The movie wasn't all bad, just most of it.I am in favor of more clean movies that are well-done and that present truth in a non-preachy way. This wasn't one of those, I am sorry to say. I took my family to this film, wanting to support that kind of movie. Now I'd like my money back.$LABEL$ 0
+First off I must stress how rare it is that I take the time to comment on a movie that I have seen, it takes a very special case for me to take the time and write about how I felt about a film. That said, of the hundreds of movies I have watched I have seen some of the most brilliant, Shawshank, the scariest, The Woman in Black, the funniest, Shark Attack III: Megaladon, and now the worst: Vampires vs. Zombies.The first thing that must be said is that this movie is not funny! For those that are looking for a light hearted movie that will just be fun or at the very least so bad that it's funny, look elsewhere. It is true that a movie such as this is not trying to be subtle and brilliant, with a title such as this you should know what you're getting into. That said, there is no excuse for a movie to abandon any and every rule that governs the movie making world. This is not an argument between the traditional movie making process and newer and more "artsy" methods to creating a film, this is an argument between bad directors and companies being held accountable for making terrible movies.This movie suffers from the over used saying "I don't know where to start." Truly everything about this movie is broken. From the acting and to the editing there is no reason any movie should ever fail to deliver a cohesive series of events such as Vampires vs. Zombies. Some of the following problems are; 1. Scene misfires- It's clear that the director, the camera crew and the actors were not on the same page. In one scene in particular the scene begins with the camera resting on the ground looking at the passenger side door of a car. You are expecting the person inside to get out, but there is a, and this is NO exaggeration, 10 second, at least, delay between the camera comes on and the director says "action" to where anything happens on screen. The viewer is left staring at a car door for the entire time with no sound, no movement, just the stereotypical "dead air" that radio or TV commentators dread. Where was the editing? 2. Acting- A forgivable offense in most cases, you can't expect a movie like this to have Oscar winners after all, but Vampires vs. Zombies takes bad acting to a whole other level. These "actors" were barely able to read their scripts obviously because anyone with any ability to read and to speak would have been able to pronounce the lines better than these fools. My only comparison for acting would have to be the opening scene from Resident Evil on Playstation. But that acting was even better.3- Story- Wait, what? Story? Again you can't expect this to be The Greatest Story Ever Told, but is it too much to ask that we have some semblance of a narrative? Why the Vampires? Who are the characters? Who are the bad guys? Are there good guys? Why all the lesbians? But most importantly, what's the deal with the zombies? If you have seen this movie then you will understand what I mean, but to those who haven't I'll be plain, there are no zombies in this movie aside from maybe five minutes of it. It was almost as if the director forgot about the name of the movie and was forced to throw some zombies in without explanation at the very end.There's so much more, but I hope I've done enough to keep anyone from seeing this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie when it first came out in 1973 and loved it. Since then I've searched for a video but never found it until now, 33 years later, when I ordered it from Moviehunter. Sorry to say it doesn't hold up. This glamourized version just can't rise up to the 1937 production level. I love Burt Bacharach's musical score, that is if listend to by itself, and I even bought a CD of it, but for my taste it doesn't lend itself well to this mysterious and compelling story. Just doesn't fit. Michael York is lost here. Sally Kellerman tosses off a fine performance but Olivia Hussy is just ridiculous and not worth lugging through the Himalayas. The best performance is Charles Boyer as the head Lama.$LABEL$ 1
+The One is a very aptly name show, mostly because it comes close to being the only network shows on in prime time that barely more than one person is watching.When I first heard of The One, I thought to myself "Weee!! Another sing-song show! We don't have enough of those!" and then proceeded to strap on my helmet and run about my home hitting my head on blunt objects and sharp corners. Because in all honesty, the constant, year round pain and suffering inflicted by having only one or two "talent" based reality shows running just isn't enough. We needed another one. And not just any one - "THE" One. The one with slightly less attractive contestants with slightly less talent. The one with slightly less of a point, though it's hard to imagine a scenario in which that's possible. The one with pointless footage of the contestants when they're not performing included. Because I care what Johnny Sings-a-lot does in his off hours! I really do! Now, you may be thinking "Hey! On the entire continent of North America less than 4 million people watched the first episode. Doesn't that mean this show sucks?" Well, to that I say less than 4 million people in North America have syphilis, so sometimes low numbers bring good news now don't they?. Think about it.In the end, The One may be horribly unoriginal, a show that even the airing network couldn't be bothered to promote because they too realize how absolutely worthless it is, but it's still not syphilis! Yay!$LABEL$ 0
+It's a rehash of many recent films only this one has fewer stars, lesser complications and a more fuzzy feel to it. Abhay and Ritika (played by Fardeen Khan & Esha Deol respectively) meet at a friend's wedding where their own marriage (unbeknowst to them) begins its process of being arranged. Within no time the two strangers are married and sent of to a honeymoon camp where they meet other couples going through the motions similar to theirs. As they spend time together, secrets are revealed, hearts broken and/or mended and love blossoms.If you've seen Honeymoon Private Limited and/or Salaam-e-Ishq, then you've seen this film. The plot twists are the same, there is not a single element of surprise in the entire two and a half hours of the film. Everything is predictable. I only enjoyed it because I had seen 'Darling' (also starring the leads Deol & Khan) earlier in the day and enjoyed their chemistry in that so I said "why not" when my sister suggested we rent 'Just married' as well.See it: Because Kirron Kher co-stars and is her usual darling self in it.Skip it: Because you've had enough of all this couple-fest nonsense! C+$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of the shallowest episodes in that the plot really seemed like an excuse to just have fun. BUT, I appreciated this light-hearted approach and this is truly one of the best episodes to see on a purely fun level. Think about it--the crew members have encounters with the white rabbit and Alice from Wonderland, a Bengal tiger, a samurai warrior, a knight on horseback who kills McCoy, and a host of other seemingly bizarre events that just don't make any sense at all until the very end. Despite all the danger, you just can't take everything very seriously--it's just too fun and the whole episode seems very surreal. So, on a purely non-aesthetic level, it's great stuff.$LABEL$ 1
+Never heard of this movie,saw it on DVD.Great movie,perfect example of a movie that took every cast member to make it work.No overhyped typical Hollywood movie with the same old overhyped actors.No current Quote "A" list actor could have pulled off any performance in this movie.Brought back memories of my own post Vietnam war military experiences.It concentrated on the people who were sent to fight.As was portrayed by the characters who had fears and emotions even if some volunteered for service.They were regular people too,some just weren't cut out for military life,I remember a few in my experience--to put it mildly couldn't adapt to military life either-but I'll never forget them-should have stayed in touch.I highly recommend it and then think about those serving present day in Afganistan.Basic training is a trip, notice those drill sergeants aren't morning people and maybe they need "sensitivity training" HA!HA!HA!$LABEL$ 1
+Originally supposed to be just a part of a huge epic The Year 1905 depicting the Revolution of 1905, Potemkin is the story of the mutiny of the crew of the Potemkin in Odessa harbor. The film opens with the crew protesting maggoty meat and the captain ordering the execution of the dissidents. An uprising takes place during which the revolutionary leader is killed. This crewman is taken to the shore to lie in state. When the townspeople gather on a huge flight of steps overlooking the harbor, czarist troops appear and march down the steps breaking up the crowd. A naval squadron is sent to retake the Potemkin but at the moment when the ships come into range, their crews allow the mutineers to pass through. Eisenstein's non-historically accurate ending is open-ended thus indicating that this was the seed of the later Bolshevik revolution that would bloom in Russia. The film is broken into five parts: Men and Maggots, Drama on the Quarterdeck, An Appeal from the Dead, The Odessa Steps, and Meeting the Squadron.Eisenstein was a revolutionary artist, but at the genius level. Not wanting to make a historical drama, Eisenstein used visual texture to give the film a newsreel-look so that the viewer feels he is eavesdropping on a thrilling and politically revolutionary story. This technique is used by Pontecorvo's The Battle of Algiers.Unlike Pontecorvo, Eisenstein relied on typage, or the casting of non-professionals who had striking physical appearances. The extraordinary faces of the cast are what one remembers from Potemkin. This technique is later used by Frank Capra in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town and Meet John Doe. But in Potemkin, no one individual is cast as a hero or heroine. The story is told through a series of scenes that are combined in a special effect known as montage--the editing and selection of short segments to produce a desired effect on the viewer. D.W. Griffith also used the montage, but no one mastered it so well as Eisenstein.The artistic filming of the crew sleeping in their hammocks is complemented by the graceful swinging of tables suspended from chains in the galley. In contrast the confrontation between the crew and their officers is charged with electricity and the clenched fists of the masses demonstrate their rage with injustice.Eisenstein introduced the technique of showing an action and repeating it again but from a slightly different angle to demonstrate intensity. The breaking of a plate bearing the words "Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread" signifies the beginning of the end. This technique is used in Last Year at Marienbad. Also, when the ship's surgeon is tossed over the side, his pince-nez dangles from the rigging. It was these glasses that the officer used to inspect and pass the maggot-infested meat. This sequence ties the punishment to the corruption of the czarist-era.The most noted sequence in the film, and perhaps in all of film history, is The Odessa Steps. The broad expanse of the steps are filled with hundreds of extras. Rapid and dramatic violence is always suggested and not explicit yet the visual images of the deaths of a few will last in the minds of the viewer forever.The angular shots of marching boots and legs descending the steps are cleverly accentuated with long menacing shadows from a sun at the top of the steps. The pace of the sequence is deliberately varied between the marching soldiers and a few civilians who summon up courage to beg them to stop. A close up of a woman's face frozen in horror after being struck by a soldier's sword is the direct antecedent of the bank teller in Bonnie in Clyde and gives a lasting impression of the horror of the czarist regime.The death of a young mother leads to a baby carriage careening down the steps in a sequence that has been copied by Hitchcock in Foreign Correspondent, by Terry Gilliam in Brazil, and Brian DePalma in The Untouchables. This sequence is shown repeatedly from various angles thus drawing out what probably was only a five second event.Potemkin is a film that immortalizes the revolutionary spirit, celebrates it for those already committed, and propagandizes it for the unconverted. It seethes of fire and roars with the senseless injustices of the decadent czarist regime. Its greatest impact has been on film students who have borrowed and only slightly improved on techniques invented in Russia several generations ago.$LABEL$ 1
+Malcolm McDowell has not had too many good movies lately and this is no different. Especially designed for people who like Yellow filters on their movies.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a great film - esp when compared with the sometimes wearisome earnestness of today's politically-minded filmmakers. A film that can so easily combine sex, gender relations, politics and art is a rarity these days. While the bouyant optimism of the 1960's can't be regained, I think we can at least learn a lesson from the film's breezy energy and charm. I don't know what those who label the film "boring" were watching - there's so much packed into it that it never remains the same film for more that 15 min at a time.$LABEL$ 1
+Let me make one thing clear….for the most part, the mentality of those who run the show in Hollywood frankly p*sses me right off in general and even more specifically in relation to its treatment of much loved, iconic characters from the pages of comic books. Why? Well let's take a typical Hollywood executive board meeting scenario to illustrate shall we…..Executive no.1 'Hey there's lots of dollars to be gleaned from superhero flicks these days.' Executive no.2 'Good point, let's make one with haste then! – We'll do a lucky dip in a hat and pick out a superhero at random to base a film upon!' (The dip takes place and a famous superheroes name is pulled out) Executive no.1 'Great! Now who can we get to play the part?' Executive no.2 'Who's a big box office star at the moment?' Executive no.1 '*name of big actor* is the in thing this week.' Executive no.2 'But does he really suit the role? I mean he doesn't resemble the character whatsoever.' Executive no.1 'Who cares?! He's a big name; We'll make the film with him in it anyway.' Executive no.2 'You're quite right! And besides we'll fill the entire film so chock full of glitzy special effects to appease the moronic masses that no one will ever question it anyway!'The above scenario clearly illustrates one of the reasons I generally loath most modern superhero movies. All style, no substance and simply pathetic casting of the iconic leads. Of course to be equitable, there are exceptions to the above rule; when Hollywood does get it right – take the casting of the original (and still easily the best!) Superman; Christopher Reeve and more recently Patrick Stewart and Sir Ian McKellen in the X-Men films.But back to the general negative traits displayed by Hollywood today…..wouldn't it be wonderful if our studio executives were to ALWAYS choose actors who actually suited the roles? Well in this less than ideal world, one filmmaker does just this believe it or not, by casting actors based upon their genuine resemblance to their comic book counterparts. His name is Sandy Collora. Sadly (but typically) Hollywood has not as of yet allowed Collora to direct a full length film but luckily for us, he has given us tantalizing glimpses of what the finished outcome would likely look like in the form of two (as of yet) famous super hero short features. One is the superb Batman:Dead End and the other is this mock trailer for an entirely fictitious film called Worlds Finest.Well, let's not mince our words here – this is absolutely awesome stuff!The casting of Mr. Universe winner and male model Michael O'Hearn, (who looked similarly awesome but was utterly wasted in the lackluster Barbarian) makes for the most perfect choice to play the iconic man of steel. In fact, in terms of physical resemblance, there has undoubtedly never been a closer approximation to the comic character.Added to this Clark Bartram is back fresh from his splendid portrayal as the Dark Knight in Batman:Dead End; Again, yet another hugely judicious piece of casting!What can I say? – If only this was indeed a real, full length film! Hollywood studio executives – take note! THIS is how it should be done!As a final note, I am once again intrigued by the vastly split reactions this short film has evoked from fans. Tellingly, the most acerbic and vehemently adverse reactions against it clearly come once more (as similarly with Batman: Dead End) from a younger, less cinematically experienced audience; a fact betrayed by their somewhat grammatically primitive rants and liberal usage of base diction. Such an unfortunate state of closed mindedness is indeed a sad phenomenon albeit one that our aforementioned studio executives in Hollywood, will no doubt derive great satisfaction from. After all, these very same misguided individuals are in all probability the exact same sort of CGI addicted, popcorn stuffing imbeciles that revel in the majority of crap that Hollywood churns out by the deluge these days.$LABEL$ 1
+The number of goofs in this episode was higher than the first 9. They don't follow their own rules about spirits where destruction of the body makes the spirit dissolve. This one dropped a second body. That body, and Dean, drop about 20 feet from Sam but then they are right with Sam. Flashlights go out in an unlighted asylum, at night, and we can still see everything. It's night but light is streaming through the windows. A ghost that died in 1960's is making cell phones calls? Come on! There is no way Sam could get a psychiatrist to see him in the same day he makes an appointment and the doctor talks to Sam like it wasn't his first visit. Sam and Dean knew there were other bodies in the asylum and innocent spirits still lurking and didn't do anything to help them. That doesn't seem like a thing the Winchester boys would do. Oh and after crawling around on a dirt filled mattress and all around a nasty asylum the girls' makeup and hair is perfect and not a smudge on her white shirt. While the implementation of this episode had problems the premise was good and a few times I was not creeped out but nervous as Dean sat reading Elicots' journal. I just knew that an object so intensely personal to the ghost would draw it to the person violating it's sanctity. Elicot didn't appear. Maybe that is a fault for such an important object or place (like Elicot's office) should draw the spirit when a living being touches or enters. When they separate I want to scream... 'that's how you die! Always stay together and watch each others backs!' but they don't listen to me :o The Elicot spirit and his special ability was a very nice touch. It's prime-time show but I do wish the horror of Elicot strapping one of his victims down and using anticipation of torture to creep us out further.Especially because of the lighting goofs I gave this a 4. Sudden darkness or the flickering of the whole scene's lighting as the flashlight flickers is all that more terrifying. The lighter coming or the flashlight reviving and instantly a spirit is in their face is shocking. I understand the directors wants us to see his scene but then make a mention or obvious connection by Elicot touching an electric socket and the lights coming on. Have the characters respond to the fact an asylum with no power suddenly has lights in the one room. Blue white lights flickering as electric arcs just like Elicot's finger power. Seriously, MCG could have done better.$LABEL$ 0
+The idea of nine stupid prisoners escaping and going on a road trip sounds pretty good for a movie. Especially because it's meant to be funny and I guess heart-warming in some weird way. The problem is, the movie was very rarely funny and often just seemed pointless and needlessly gross. It was as if jokes or interesting scenes were being set up again and again but no one bothered finishing any of them--there was just no payoff. Also, the movie was just brainless and had the crooks meandering across Japan even though they left so many crime victims alive that it's impossible to believe they wouldn't have been caught almost immediately--especially since they continued to keep using the same stolen camper for days on end. And as far as being gross goes, I just didn't need to see scene after scene after scene of guys peeing along the side of the road. Plus, believe it or not, there is a scene where four of the guys are out raping sheep!All in all, I really hated this movie. And it's a shame, as I almost always love Japanese films--just not poorly made and uninteresting ones like this one.$LABEL$ 0
+"Checking Out" is a very witty and honest portrayal of a bizarre family that happens to be Jewish. Judaism plays virtually no role in the film, but American Jewish culture & behavior gets thoroughly sent up... it a loving way. I wish the movie dealt with the religious perspective on the topics it explores, because I think that would have been interesting. I've never been a Columbo fan so I wasn't familiar with Peter Falk - he's a lot of fun to watch. It's great to see Judge Reinhold, Laura San Giacomo & David Paymer again - why don't they work more? They're all hilarious. The script is terrific with a lot of memorable one-liners I'll be sure to use with my own family. Watch for Gavin McLeod (Captain Stubing!) as the doorman.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a must for All but especially African Americans. It is about time there is a movie that expresses and shows the concerns going on in African American relationships. It also allows other cultures to see in a fictional humorous manner how positive African American relationships are and the outcomes of them instead of the undesirable stereotype that plagues the African American community. I love this film a must see!!$LABEL$ 1
+Sorry to go against the flow but I thought this film was unrealistic, boring and way too long. I got tired of watching Gena Rowlands long arduous battle with herself and the crisis she was experiencing. Maybe the film has some cinematic value or represented an important step for the director but for pure entertainment value I wish I would have skipped it.$LABEL$ 0
+this independent film was one of the best films at the tall grass film festival that i have ever seen there i loved it there are so many things that was great about the film on top of all that the cast and crew that i had the opportunity to meet were absolutely phenomenal.I thought that Avi did a great job in his role. and Ricky Ullman was absolutely true to his role for a Disney actor i was amazed at his talent to be able to go from cheesy teen comedy to such an adult role with no problems the talent in the film was just amazing the cinematography was just great if you want to see an independent film this is one really that you should see.I think that Mr Gruver would have been so proud to have such a submission in his festival and his parents loved the movie so much when it won the audience favorite they went and saw it again. this truly was a great film it was dark and funny and sad and truly emotional it was just fabulous. I am honestly just so enthused by this film and i really don't want to spoil it for any one just see it and truly be amazed at it i think that these film makers really have what it takes to go places and I hope to see more work from them in the future.$LABEL$ 1
+all i can say is that each time i see CONRACK, dir. Martin Ritt, DP. John Alonzo, i feel an utmost sense of inspiration and enlightment in what the power of cinema is possible in such a simple film.the motion picture Conrack is set in 1969. It is based on a true story. It is a story about a white man (Jon Voight) who teaches a group of young black children how incredible the world is outside of their little South Carolina island.The story places the job of a teacher as noble cause in changing children's lives.I highly recommend it.$LABEL$ 1
+While the soundtrack is a bit dated, this story is more relevant in the U.S. now more than ever. With not only blue collar jobs but everyone's jobs being outsourced by U.S. corporations while the government profits and American suffer.Peter Strauss is Emory, a steel worker who works the same job his father did for 35 years. His wife is well-portrayed by Pamela Reed, who is very realistic, trying to support the family with two children when Emory loses his job. The mill is closed under the pretext of mismanagement, but there is also embezzlement and cheaper wages where they can pay one steelworker in one month (outsourcing) what they would have to pay Strauss/Emory in a day. Never mind that these men are all good loyal workers who have values and try the best for their family.John Goodman, Gary Cole (as Strauss' brother) and a few other co-workers are also affected. It is very disturbing and realistic. Some scenes between Emory and his father are moving. Emory hopes his local union will be able to re-open the mill, as they promise to do so.Emory's brother, Lee already sees the writing on the wall. There are no jobs left in the rust-belt (Ohio) and they must move on. However where in the U.S. can they move to?. Where will it be better for a blue-collar steel worker?.There is a triumphant scene at the end where Emory and his crew fill the loading dock with steel products. The guard allows them to do this as a final gesture, one of the men committed suicide and he has empathy.Overall, a good message film about hard times right here in America. Something that few care to face until personally affected. 8/10.$LABEL$ 1
+Edmund Burke said that "all evil needs is for good me to do nothing." Hollywood often gives us trash because not enough families go to see quality films. This movie was uplifting story of the loss and restoration of faith. It had no violence, no lewdness, and did not deserve a PG rating. The western scenery was filmed well, and some of the vistas were simply breathtaking. Actors were a bit young for their parts, but otherwise believable and talented. Music score was too loud, and in some places drowned out the dialog completely. I'm seldom surprised by movie endings any more, but I was pleasantly surprised by this one. Sometimes the good guys do win, and they win by honest efforts. We liked the movie and the message, and would recommend it for the entire family.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm a huge Randolph Scott fan, but this film is a dud. The whole thing has a canned, fake, soundstage feel to it, with truly awful rear-screen projection. It has a good plot idea that the screenwriter has successfully buried in a nitwit script, which makes it impossible for the audience to become immersed in the action and truly care about any of the characters. The directing is pedestrian, and only accentuates how bad the script is instead of helping to improve it. I've seen plenty of thoroughly enjoyable "soundstage productions" before, but this is not one of them. All it does is make you appreciate the gritty Scott/Boetticher films all the more.Randolph Scott is tanned, trim, and shines that million dollar smile throughout. He's always a pleasure...even in the worst of his films. Aside from Scott, the other main reason I wanted to see this movie was due to how much I enjoyed Ms. Wymore in Errol Flynn's movie, "Rocky Mountian". In "Man Behind the Gun", she is just as beautiful, and you can tell she's a good actress, but she was forced to say some pretty dumb lines, and the blocking she was given by the director was truly awful. I've only seen Phil Carey in "Operation Pacific", and he plays the exact same character here...an arrogant pain-in-the-butt you want to beat into unconsciousness. I guess it proves he's a good actor...he made me hate him. There are some lame attempts at comic relief that only detract from the film, in my opinion. Although there are many elements to knock, I must say that I found myself truly enjoying the two Spanish songs sung in the musical numbers...but that's not why we go to see Randolph Scott movies, right?There are definitely worse Scott films out there, and this one certainly isn't unbearable, but it also certainly couldn't be deemed anything beyond mediocre.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a good film for 99% of the duration. I feel that the ending has occluded this film from higher acclaim.It is shot in a rather naive fashion. This is clearly done to create a more chilling feel to the film - a feeling of isolation becomes apparent very soon on due to this filming technique.The gruesome characters are very well acted and presented especially the 'nutcase' called Joe. However, the wholesome (normal) characters are a little too pathetic for my liking - granted, they are supposed to come across as pathetic but this is done a little OTT.The film starts slowly (and the naive camera work smacks of 'B' movie to start with) and very normally but you soon get a feel of the impending brutality that is about to occur. This is one of the most 'twisted' movies with respect to cold-hearted violence.After the abrupt and unbelievably lazy ending I was left feeling disappointed. I would have given the film a 9 if the ending was in keeping with the rest of the film but as it is it gets only a 7 on the strength of the 'eeriness' and nail-biting scenes earlier on in the film.Give it a watch and excuse the ending!$LABEL$ 1
+"House of the Dead 2: Dead Aim" (2005) is the sequel, though you really don't need to see the first "House of the Dead" to get this film. That said, the production value is definitely here, with great zombie effects and it's edited quite nicely, with very effective sound design. However, that said, that's about all that's good here.The story and script are awful . . . there's blatant plot holes everywhere. It's also funny how the soldiers don't mind if they get blood on their faces (unlike in 28 Days Later where blood in any part of the body will infect you). Also realistic how there's little order with the soldiers here unlike the usual US Military discipline.A 4 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+Valley Girl is an exceptionally well made film with an all-around great cast. Even though the dialogue is a bit dated now, when the movie was released it was very hip. To this day, I know many people (teenagers included) that cannot form a sentence without using the word "like". That is without a doubt the legacy this movie will leave. A rating of 8 was given for this, like, most excellent movie.$LABEL$ 1
+This film has to be one of the most boring films ever made. The only thing I liked is using Argento-esquire lighting in most of the scenes. The music is awful and the pace is so slow that you can watch it at 2x the speed and even then it would be slow. The story doesn't exist. It doesn't even have any shocking scenes.It is classified (on this site at least) as a horror, but it's not. It's a sort of an art film exploring the dark side of the human nature. If you are into that kind of thing and can stand the slow pace, then watch it, but I'd rather recommend you something Japanese (e.g. Ichi the Killer) I think that the only reason this film was never in theaters is a fear of audience committing collective suicide caused by the huge amount of boredom generated by this movie. These 80 minutes of it's length would've been better spent watching the paint dry.I gave it 1/10 simply because there is no 0 in the pull down menu$LABEL$ 0
+This movie introduces quite an array of characters and their relationships in the first half-hour or so. None of them generate any interest or positive response. I waited for the intrigue to begin, hoping things would get better and ended up sticking around until the bitter end, but there was no reward for doing that.If you want a synopsis, look elsewhere. To me the action isn't worth recounting. Not that the story was that bad, I guess you could say I had some problems with the script--i.e. I thought it stunk. A look at the credits will show you that there's a pretty strong cast here, used to no avail. Most of the old pros in this flick do good jobs; of the actors I hadn't seen much of before I especially liked Deborah Kara Unger. That's about all that I can find good to say about this picture.$LABEL$ 0
+This is like "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" in a more surreal, fantasy setting with incredible special effects and computer generated imagery that would put Industrial Light and Magic to shame. The plot may be hard to follow, but that is the nature of translating Chinese folklore to the screen; certainly the overall story would probably be more familiar to its native audience. However, an intelligent person should be able to keep up; moreover, the martial arts scenes potency are amplified by eye popping CGI.$LABEL$ 1
+Wow, I hated this movie. The subject matter should have resulted in a really fine film, and the lead actor was definitely sensitive and talented enough to handle the topic, but the script - if there even *was* a script - is a mess. This is less a movie than a random slide show that goes nowhere. I'd say it goes nowhere fast, except that it's actually the longest 81 minutes you'll ever sit through. As I've mentioned, the lead actor is good. So is Faruza Baulk (SP?), as his sometimes-harsh-but-ultimately-loving-and-accepting mother. The film makers have a lot to answer for here, because this is a mess. A real shame,because I really wanted to like this movie, but it's basically out-takes from a movie that never got made. Skip this one - it wasn't even worth the $6 I shelled out for pay-per-view.$LABEL$ 0
+first off, i'm amazed to see that this film has got a rating of 7 on this site. at first i thought it might be industry people logging in to IMDb and jacking up the rating. but after looking on rotten tomatoes and seeing that this film has something like a 76% approval rating, it seems that maybe folks have just been duped again into mistaking pretentious crap for profundity. i mean, this film is simply awful. the acting is simply terrible, but the rest of the film is worse. at least the acting provides some (unintentional) laughs. the plot involves a teenage skateboarding boy who is being questioned along with his friends for a murder that happened by a park where they skate. and that's about it. the rest of the film consists of the aforementioned terrible acting, terrible dialog, slow motion shots of people walking, of people's faces, of people skating, often set to music that does not fit the scene. perhaps that was done to be "cool" or experimental or hip. or perhaps it was done in hopes that it would fool people into thinking that it is somehow profound, but it does not work. nothing in this film works. it's pretentious garbage. i can't not recommend it enough.$LABEL$ 0
+Normally I love finding old (and some not-so-old) westerns I haven't seen, to be the entertainment for the evening. It's such a great way to sit back, relax and escape the politics and world problems for a few hours. But this was not to be the case with this version of The Magnificent Seven. The casting and storyline of this series closely follow the Hollywood formula for politically correct entertainment; good old get-your-mind-right, revisionist history, where the 'bad guys' must all be white, male, Confederate (in this case), and preferably Christian (if it can somehow be worked into the script). It's sad, really. The best movies out there, are now and have always been about simply telling a good story up on the big screen - not about forwarding someone's political ideology.$LABEL$ 0
+I've heard a few comments, particularly from prisoners of war, that CHANGI is not historically accurate, and that it is disappointing. Perhaps it is for those who actually had to live through this stuff, and much worse. But for the rest of us, who really have no idea of how prisoners were treated by the Japanese during World War II, CHANGI is a remarkable introduction. But CHANGI isn't a war documentary - if it had have been, then the historical accuracy aspect would have been paramount. It is a miniseries drama, with fictional characters and fictional situations (though based loosely on actual events I've heard and read about) - and at the centre of the story is the ideal of mateship. This group of young Australian soldiers, taken prisoner by the Japanese and held in appalling conditions for years, became mates through adversity and the strength of their friendships continued throughout their lives after the war. It is also a cultural study of the differences between the Japanese of the time and the western world, with its music, games and entertainment: in part 5, when it is becoming clear that Japan will lose the war after Germany has surrendered in Europe, the Japanese prison camp colonel insists that his country must study the culture of their prisoners - in order to defeat a people, one must defeat their culture - and to do this, one must understand it. All in all, Australia continues its rich tradition of producing exceptional television miniseries, and is an unrivalled world leader in this regard: vyeing for the AFI Award with CHANGI is MY BROTHER JACK, the adaptation of George Johnston's novel, and also a worthy winner. Miniseries in recent years include DAY OF THE ROSES (the story of the investigation into the Glanville train crash), KINGS IN GRASS CASTLES (the adaptation of Mary Durack's historical account of her pioneering ancestors), KANGAROO PALACE (about a group of friends from a country town in Australia who travel to London and change and grow apart), and the (somewhat disappointing) adaptation of Bryce Courtenay's powerful novel, THE POTATO FACTORY. Less recently: Nancy Cato's sweeping saga of life on the Murray - ALL THE RIVERS RUN; Cusack & James' brilliant novel about postwar life in Sydney - COME IN SPINNER; Colleen McCullough's outstanding pioneering saga - THE THORN BIRDS; THE RIVER KINGS; Ruth Park's novel THE HARP IN THE SOUTH; BODYLINE; EUREKA STOCKADE; ANZACS; etc..., etc... (Of course, there have been some not-so-good productions - for instance, MOBY DICK, DO OR DIE, ON THE BEACH, THORN BIRDS: THE MISSING YEARS; etc...) Generally, though, if an Australian miniseries comes your way, make sure you see it - and this goes double for CHANGI, a superbly directed masterpiece. Rating: 9/10.$LABEL$ 1
+I have some great memories watching "Robin of Sherwood" on TV as a kid (but I think I only saw Michael Praed´s episodes, by some reason). And recently my brother bought the new released DVD-boxes of the complete series. It was great to see it again, and it is the best of all the Robin Hood movies and TV-series. The cast is great, and the locations mixed with Clannad´s music adds this very special feeling. I personally think that Praed is the best of the two Robins, but Jason Connery was a great choice to continue the series with. Ray Winstone, Nicolas Grace and Robert Addie is terrific in their roles as Will Scarlet, The Sheriff of Nottingham and Guy of Gisburne. It´s a pity that a fourth season never got made, and I´ve also heard that the writer Richard Carpenter actually had plans to make a feature film following the events of the series. Robert of Huntingdon (Connery) could finally have married Marion (Judi Trott), or maybe Herne the Hunter could resurrect Robin of Loxley (Praed), and he could take his revenge against the sheriff. As have been mentioned before; if the producers of "Robin Hood: The Prince of Thieves" would have been smart, they would have got the cast from "Robin of Sherwood", and made the movie to a sort of sequel to the series. As Ray Winstone puts it in the DVD bonusmaterial, it would have been great to see them as old men, just like in Sean Connery´s "Robin and Marian". Who knows, maybe we will se more of this perfect interpretation of the legend in the future. In any case, we can now watch our favorite series over and over again!$LABEL$ 1
+Why does this have such a low rating? I really don't get it... Is it because of the bad acting? The bad dialogue? Well, who cares about these things in cheesy low-budget horror movies? Seriously, the acting and the dialogue isn't important in those movies. People who hate movies only because of bad acting and bad dialogue shouldn't be allowed to rate cheesy low-budget movies. Those movies shouldn't be taken seriously. Period.Anyway, time to talk about the movie, right? Well, I loved it! I bought it because I expected a gorefest, but it's not a gorefest and the gore is pretty bad (most of the time it's just animal guts placed on the body of the actors and that's lame), but I didn't really care because the movie is hilarious! The characters are hilarious, the acting is hilarious (bad acting is a GOOD thing in cheesy low-budget horror movies), the dialogue is hilarious (bad dialogue is a GOOD thing in cheesy low-budget horror movies), the zombie rapist with a huge dick is hilarious, the flying demon baby is hilarious and I could go on and on and on, but I don't want to say too much... BUT I have to mention that there's a scene in which a girl masturbates a sex doll like it's alive lol! Oh and the zombie rapist falls in love with the sex doll lol!Best lines in the movie:Detective Manners: *sniffs coke* Detective Sloane: What the *beep* are you doing, Manners? What the hell did you snort? What the hell is that? Detective Manners: It's nothing man, it's... Ehh... Cold medicine...Detective Manners: *injects heroin in his arm* Detective Sloane: What the *beep* are you doing, Manners? Are you *beep* insane? Detective Manners: It's cold medicine.Detective Manners: *repeatedly kicks a random guy in the face* Detective Sloane: What the hell's going on, Manners? What are you doing? Detective Manners: This maniac was rambling about demons and then he started smashing his head on the rock! He just started smashing his head on the rock! I think he's on PCP or something!LOL!$LABEL$ 1
+Everyonce in a while,4kids brings new shows to it's company. For the past few years, they brought pure gold like Kirby: Right Back at Ya! or Mew Mew Power. But Recenetly, 4kids has been off. CatDog is one of the examples.It's hard to write a negative comment without bashing the show, but in truth, Weekenders is pure garbage. It revolves around A group who with an over active Brain. The catch though is anything he thinks up comes bad. It may sound good on paper, but after watching it, you'll realize how far from good this show is.The Pizza Guy is an extremely dumb character. He's very 1-dimensional, there's really not much to him. He's hyper-active, end of story. Though many feel all the character are a rip off of the South Park, I think just the contrary. Mechazawa from cromartie High-School is an interesting character, and he's able to make me laugh. Tino fail to do either of the two.The cast for the show isn't any better. Like Tino's Mom they suffer from lack of character. They only stick to one characteristic and thats it. The only redeeming quality is the fact that the show can cause you to smirk. Whether it's that the scene may actually be funny, or you may just smirk because how stupid it is.Thje Weekenders is a very crappy show from Disney/4kids. Though it does seem to love some fans, it should really be left to the kids.$LABEL$ 0
+Inspired casting, charming and witty throughout. Much like the currency in the opening moments of the film, the story floats along magically until you are emotionally "invested" in its outcome. The city of Buffalo has never looked better! Kudos to the Burton Sisters and the entire cast for a job well done.$LABEL$ 1
+Van Damme. What else can I say? Bill Goldberg. THERE WE GO. NOW we know this movie is going to be really horrible.I saw the first five minutes of this movie on TBS, knowing it would be bad. But not even I thought it would be THIS bad. The plot is awful, Van Damme is getting old (finally), but unlike Arnold, his movies are as well.Forget this movie. Don't see it. Ever. I wouldn't even be paid to see this film.1/5 stars - at its heart lies a wonderful, action-packed thrill ride. Well, maybe not, but the marketers would sure like us to think so, wouldn't they?John Ulmer$LABEL$ 0
+I first saw this film when I was flipping through the movie channels on my parents DirecTV. It was on the Sundance channel and was just starting. I love music, especially late 60s and this is what the BJM sounded like (The Dandys are alright). Everything about the Brian Jonestown Massacre intrigued me from the music, to Anton and Joel's personalities, to the illicit drug use. It was funny because as I was watching the first party scene when everyone is doing lines my parents walked by and decided to watch (The look on their faces were priceless). Anyways this is definitely one of my favorite movies because it introduced me to The Brian Jonestown Massacre who is now my favorite band of all time.just watch it... seriously$LABEL$ 1
+Wings Hauser and son, Cole Hauser team up to make a film about Neo-nazi thugs targeting a gay man, and terrorising a city. Wings plays the hero, and his real-life son is the villain. Fairly low-budget film that has not many redeeming features, and for some reason, no one has seen it! Perhaps because it is quite a laughable and ridiculous film, and the studio realised this! Maybe Wings Hauser himself prevented the distribution of 'Skins', after seeing it himself! Maybe people just didn't want to comment on such a bad film! Oh well! I generally like Wings and Cole as actors, but this was a film that they both should have skipped. Wings directed, wrote and was the lead actor in 'Skins'! An extremely bad and stupid film! 1/2 out of *****!$LABEL$ 0
+This movie has it all. Sight gags, subtle jokes, play on words and verses. It is about a rag tag group of boys from different ethnic and social classes that come together to defeat a common enemy. If you watch this more than once, you will find you are quoting it like Animal House (and yes I love Animal House also). I put in the top 15 funniest movies. The Major at a boys military academy is paranoid that every kid is bad and wants to cause trouble (in this movie he is right). He is sadistic, uncaring, cruel and has to be taken down. The group of boys that do not get along at first, end up teaming together to survive and get rid of the Major with a wacky plan only Mad Magazine could of wrote. A must see - you will love it!$LABEL$ 1
+I am an avid fan of Lucio Fulci, and yet I must say that "Zombi 3" (aka. "Zombie Flesh Eaters 2") of 1988, which he made with two other directors, Bruno Mattei and Claudi Fragasso, was quite a disappointment. Especially compared to its great predecessor, Fulci's very own Gore classic "Zombi 2" (aka. "Zombie Felsh Eaters"/"Zombie") of 1979, this is vastly disappointing. Sure, the low rating of 4.5 already suggests that it's not a good film, but, these low ratings usually come from people who are not into Italian Zombie flicks, and as enthusiastic fan of Italian Horror films and low-budget Exploitation cinema, I love many films that have only been rewarded with much lower ratings. Also, many of my fellow Italian Horror buffs seem to think of this film as underrated, which I sadly cannot agree with. Not that the film was a complete disaster. It has some redeeming qualities, above all Fulci's nauseating gore effects, that are always a pleasure to watch for an Italian Horror/Gore buff. The basic idea behind the film is also not bad (allthough far from original) and I liked the ruthless portrayal of the military. Sadly, that's about it. While the great predecessor "Zombi 2" was extremely gory, but beyond that also genuinely creepy, this is not creepy or scary for a minute, and the nauseating and often grotesque gore is the only true reason to watch "Zombi 3". The film is sometimes fun to watch, but only for the gore, and as an unintentional comedy. I guess that it was mainly the gore that came from Fulci, and the disappointing rest that came from Mattei and Fragasso, the first of which was involved in a bunch of nasty cult-flicks (such as D'Amato's "Porno Holocaust"), and the second of which is responsible for one of the worst movies ever made, the god-awful "Troll 2". Overall, this is definitely watchable for the gore, but, out of all Fulci films I've seen so far, this is definitely the worst, and I've seen the majority of this great filmmaker's repertoire. I am a Fulci fan, and I always will be, but this sure isn't his magic moment. It may be fun for the gore, but I recommend to watch any other Fulci film before this!$LABEL$ 0
+Norman, Is That You? was (this is all third hand, so take it with a grain of salt) adapted to an African American family from a Jewish one, when it made the transition off stage and onto screen. Also, it was one of those movies originally filmed in video, so the prints from the theater can't have been that great. Still, performances by Redd Foxx and others were pretty good. What I wanted to tell you all is that the movie is a PERIOD PIECE: it reflected the attitudes in the mid to early 70s about finding out you have a gay son or daughter in your family. For that reason alone, it's pretty interesting- if not a little "hollywood". Don't believe me? Check out lines about curtains, etc. Very stereotypical. Not too deep.But... the movie really shines in a couple of areas. There is a side splitting scene when Redd Foxx is trying to find his wife, who's run away with his brother (!) to Ensenada in a souped up Pinto. The phone conversation across the border is really memorable. But... the best scene in the movie is when Wayland Flowers and Madame did his/their gay routine that he used to do in gay bars and nightclubs. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only time that routine was filmed. And, it's a slightly cleaned up and much shorter version, I'm told. Still, it's vintage Madame, and shouldn't be missed. People are still stealing lines from Wayland; the man was truly gifted. Enjoy the movie!$LABEL$ 1
+For me too, this Christmas special is one that I remember very fondly. In 1989, I snatched up the 2 CDs I found of the soundtrack recording, giving one to my sister and keeping the other for myself. It's part of my family's Christmas tradition now, and I would love to be able to actually see the show again rather than just remember it as I listen.It has been noted elsewhere that John Denver made a number of appearances on the Muppet Show, and they did more than one special together. The good rapport between Denver and his fuzzy companions comes through clearly here, in a charming and fun show that is good for all ages.$LABEL$ 1
+Against my own better judgment I went to see this film today, and God I wish I hadn't. Awful. The first AvP film looks like a classic compared to this, it's THAT bad. These guys actually make Paul WS Anderson look like a master storyteller. In fact, this is what I'd expect an Alien and/or Predator film to look like if it was made by Uwe Boll! This movie actually offended me, and Lord only knows what would transpire if Ridley Scott or HR Giger were ever forced to watch this piece of crap. I can't understand how any fan of either franchise could like this film.Truly I don't know where to begin. I mean, the first AvP was poop, but it at least a semi-interesting story and setting, and occasionally some genuine tension. It didn't take itself overly seriously and it could at least be semi enjoyed on a purely "leave your brain at home" basis. But this one, it felt to me as though the people behind it thought they were making the next horror masterpiece. One after the other was a contrived 'suspenseful' scene in a dark room or corridor with creepy music playing, essentially bashing you over the head saying "be scared NOW". As James Cameron once said, you can't be told to be scared, you can only have your own senses heightened. The guys that made this film obviously weren't paying attention because they tried everything in the book to force you to be scared rather than letting you come to that level yourself. It's a cliché for internet nerds to say "God, I was so bored from this movie and felt like leaving", well this is exactly how I felt, even in the middle of the action scenes. They took this film totally seriously, which removed any possibility of enjoyment. Even the gag about how governments don't lie to their people was played without a hint of irony.As for the characters, I knew going in that the human characters were going to be completely pointless to this film but seriously if they're going to be on-screen at least have them doing SOMETHING that is relevant to the story. I don't care about this guy being beaten up by his dreamgirl's boyfriend, I don't care about the mother who's "own daughter doesn't even know her, boo-hoo!" (a pair of night-vision goggles for a present? Give me a break!) or the released criminal just trying to make a decent living and set an example for his brother, what a guy. Hell, even the obligatory hot-chick-in-panties moment was more contrived than usual. I get the feeling they expected the audience to be so shocked at the ending, as well as seeing chestbursters come out of kids, expectant mothers being raped and the like, that that would make up for everything. I don't think so.Then we move onto the stars of the film, and again very little to write home about. Were the aliens well-designed? I wouldn't have a clue because you can never see the damn things. All you see is one of a mouth, a head, a tail or a really dodgy cg outline climbing a wall, and barely enough to actually process that it is in fact an alien before Mr "I cut Marilyn Manson and NIN music videos, think I'll do the same thing here" Editor goes at it with the slice tool. Also, notice how hack action directors always set their films at night and in the rain? Hmmmm. The Predator could've been fighting giant sea monkeys for all we knew! Yes, the Predator was more impressive this time around, and I did think some of the new weaponry was cool, but that was about it. Also, since when does a Predator sound like a dinosaur from The Lost World? There were a couple of things that I kinda liked though. One was the use of sound effects and music from the original films (I also giggled a little bit at "Get to the chopper!"), although other references were stupid (The main character's name being Dallas, give me a break). I also liked the visual FX for the Predator's vision, as well as how the hybrid alien looked (certainly beat the one from Resurrection). But really, those are the only positive things.Overall I found this movie inane, pointless, insulting and above all else offensive to the vision of the original creators of both creatures. That they've left the door open for another one leaves me almost depressed.If they had any decency they'd remove Dan O'Bannon, Ron Schusett and HR Giger from the credits of this film. They've done nothing to deserve this.$LABEL$ 0
+Maybe I'm biased to foxes, fox stories and all but I thought this was wonderfully done.I really enjoyed that it was shown when Lily wasn't comfortable, such as the fire and the room (trying not to spoil too much here). I think that's important for kids to see and try to understand.After reading a few others comments I'm a bit confused, one says that at the end -spoiler- the mother and her son appear, as she's been the one telling her son about her story. The movie I saw did NOT have the mother or son at the end, merely a painting of a girl with a fox. Can someone enlighten me on that? Anyway I really enjoyed this movie, although some scenes can be a bit slow which might be difficult for high energy kids to sit through. Still worth it if they can sit still.$LABEL$ 1
+I think scarecrows are creepy, so it's a pity this movie doesn't make more of them. A bunch of robbers do an emergency parachute from a plane into a enormous field with scarecrows. One of them goes missing with the loot and so the rest chase him down while being set upon by inexplicably evil scarecrows. The acting is hammy and the scarecrows unimpressive (when they move). On the positive side, the director does get some suspense out of the static scarecrows. It is as Alfred Hitchcock says, "A bomb under a table goes off, and that's surprise. We know the bomb is under the table but not when it will go off, and that's suspense."$LABEL$ 0
+Shocking, well-made chiller is an undervalued tale of atrocious murder and evil forces.Small town doctor tries to discover who, or what, is committing a series of violent sexual murders.Incubus is a tight mystery, with some horrific murder sequences, that builds to an off-beat and eerie climatic twist. The murder scenes are intense and gory, so this isn't a film for the squeamish! The direction of John Hough, along with a bizarre music score, combine to create a dark atmosphere of dread that runs through out the film. It also carries a kind of Gothic vibe as well. Nice filming locations and some stylish camera work also highlight.The cast isn't bad either. The great John Cassavetes does a solid performance as the new doctor in town. Also good are the performances of Kerrie Keane as the local reporter, Helen Hughes as the town historian, and Duncan McIntosh as a tormented psychic teen.All around Incubus is a forgotten horror film that needs to be re-discovered and re-evaluated.*** out of ****$LABEL$ 1
+argh! this film hurts my head. and not in a good way.maybe it's just my growing hatred for the action genre, but even as a kid when i would swallow tripe like Navy Seals, i still regarded this film with dislike. now i utterly despise it.take one fairly good fast-paced story. keep the title and throw the rest away. instead use some half-assesd future gladiators storyline thats so full of plot holes the whole things in danger of collapsing (why is there a rebel base in the middle of the arena, what about the cameras? why have clearly marked footage of what really happened at bakersfeild in an unguarded room?)the whole film screams eighties, from the truley awful score to the goofy shiny costumes. ugh.don't watch this film. i know some people liked it, but some people get off on being peed on and i don't understand them either.$LABEL$ 0
+I've seen this film several times in a variety of short-film festivals and it always causes me the impression that i have seen a movie trailer! For a school-film is very well produced and directed, but the story... well it needed something else to be a bigger and interesting film. The character named Tim Watcher needed some in-dept approach. This is something that lacks in some Portuguese short films - the script is always superficial.But still... i liked this movie...Parabens! (congratulations!)$LABEL$ 0
+Ed Gein: The Butcher of Plainfield is set in the small American town of Plainfield in Wisconsin during 1957 where loner Ed Gein (Kane Hodder) lives by himself on a farm after the death if his mother & brother. The local police have had a spate of grave robberies to deal with & when local barmaid Sue Layton (Ceia Coley) suspicions grow that something nasty is going on. Ed is a violent sexually deviant man who kidnaps girls & murders them, will the police figure the truth out in time to save Erica (Adrienne Frantz) the Sheriff's (Timothy Oman) daughter...Written, produced & directed by Michael Feifer this was an attempt to base a horror film around the true events surrounding notorious serial killer Ed Gein & turns out to be pretty crap. The real life Ed Gein was only ever convicted of two murders & died in 1984 but several films have been inspired by him including The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), Deranged (1974) & Ed Gein (2000) with this fairly recent addition possibly being the worst Gein film ever. Even though Ed Gein was real next to nothing in this film is based on fact, Gein never had an accomplice, none of his victims were related to any of the investigating officers, there was no car crash victim, although Gein keeps his name other people have had name changes, the kidnapping & murder of the two women depicted here actually happened four years apart in reality but in this film it happens over the course of a couple of days & while here Gein is shown as a large hulking muscular man in reality he was a scrawny, thin, old & quite short. As a factual drama Ed Gein: The Butcher of Plainfield is worthless & as pure entertainment it's no better with a deadly dull pace & feel to it, the character's are all boring & when he isn't killing someone Gein is shown working or just walking around & it's very dull. There's no suspense because we know who the killer is & it's just a tedious wait until he gets caught at the end. There is no real attempt to get into Gein's mind with the makers giving him no more motivation than him occasionally having hallucinations of his domineering mother.There isn't much gore here, there's a scene with a woman hanging on a meat-hook, there's a really badly edited scene of Gein cutting a leg off, there's the usual jars of bodily organs & skulls lying around as well as a bit of blood but there's really not much here to get excited about. The film was obviously processed to bleach a lot of the colour out of the picture as it's not far off black and white at times, I personally think the lack of colour makes it even duller to sit through.With a supposed budget of about $1,500,000 I can't really see where the money went in a very forgettable production. Although set in Wisconsin this was filmed in California. Kane Hodder is all wrong for the role of Ed Gein, just from a physical point of view Hodder doesn't look even remotely like Gein & he gives a pretty poor performance to as he just stares at the camera a lot making silly faces.Ed Gein: The BUtcher of Plainfield is crap & it's as simple & straightforward as that. As either a factual drama or pure exploitation entertainment this is total tripe from start to finish with nothing to recommend it.$LABEL$ 0
+I mean, I thought I heard this dialog in the movie, but it was so bad and out of place that I can't really believe it. I was laughing so hard at what must have been the worst writing and acting in human history, i was seriously worried that I might have a heart attack and die right there in the theater.So this is the scene I am talking about, the "hero" just watched his brother crash and his brothers car exploded right there just feet away from him (the hero). The "hero" was throwing the expected "fit" at seeing something so tragic and people were trying to hold him back from running into the burning car.In the middle of his fit and his uncontrollable rage/emotional break down he says "I am so sad" - he said that right? Am I crazy?$LABEL$ 0
+Like I said its a hidden surprise. It well written well acted and well cast. I liked everything in this movie. Look its Hollywood all right but the brighter side. Angelina Jolie is great in this and I'm totally watching every movie with her in that I can get my hands on. Well worth a look.$LABEL$ 1
+Some people might consider this movie a piece of artwork - to be able to express your imagination on film in order to create a movie filled with antagonizing pain and death.. I personally think that this movie is a disgust, which should have never been released. This movie is repulsive, illogical and meaningless. Not only is it a complete waste of time but it makes you sick for days to come. The appalling images shown in the film not only make you grasp for air but they set in your mind and it takes days to forget them. Such a shame that people waste their imagination on such inhumane suffering.. "Kill Bill" would be another example but at least "Kill Bill" has its purpose, meaning, climax and resolution..$LABEL$ 0
+This film tackles the subjects of loss, personal struggle and transformation in such a smart, artful, sensitive, and visually stunning way that I was completely transported. It is a rare gem of a film in the way it honors beauty and women. You'll have to see for yourself. Dreya Weber (Jane) masterfully portrays the subtleties of a remarkable if not somewhat broken personality, in a way that every woman will relate to. I found the honesty of the emotional interactions among characters to be very refreshing and profoundly engaging. There was nothing in this film that said to me "low budget" as far as quality is concerned. Nothing. The fact that it is a low-budget film is a tribute to the film's creators. The final sequence during the credits will also knock your socks off. It is a brilliant celebration of Jane's choice. Unexpected and inspiring.$LABEL$ 1
+After starting watching the re-runs of old Columbo movies, I thought they would all get about the same vote from me (6). But apparently I'm now starting to see differences in the movies. It happened in some of just previous episodes, that showed some pretty genius directing, and it shows in this one, but in the negative way.The movie was so boring, that I sometimes found myself occupied peaking in the paper instead of watching (never happened during a Columbo movie before!), and sometimes it was so embarrassing that I had to look away. The directing seems too pretentious. The scenes with the "oh-so-mature" neighbour-girl are a misplace. And generally the lines and plot is weaker than the average episode. Then scene where they debated whether or not to sack the trumpeter (who falsely was accused for the murder) is pure horror, really stupid.Some applause should be given to the "prelude" however. In this episode, a lot of focus is given on how the murderer tries to secure his alibi and hide the evidence etc. I really liked that. But alas, no focus on how Columbo reveals all this. And the "proof" that in the end leaves Columbo victorious is the silliest ever.Rating: lies between 4 and 5$LABEL$ 0
+This film is hilarious. Brilliant comedy, but only because of one actor. Chris Farley. The best 'comedy-actor' I have ever seen. It's something special about him. He is just so funny.What a shame he is not with us anymore. He will sorely be missed.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a fantastic series first and foremost. It is very well done and very interesting. As a huge WWII buff, I had learned a lot before seeing this series. One of the best things this has going for it is all the interviews with past individuals back when the war was relatively fresh in their minds, comparatively speaking that is. It is nothing against the men that you see getting interviewed in the programs of today, it is just that most of these men weren't really involved in the upper echelons of what was happening then. One of the best parts is the narrating by Sir Laurence Oliver. I would recommend this to anyone that wants to learn about WWII, but really think only the die-hards (such as myself) will want to buy this or watch it more than once. My only real complaint about this entire series is that some of the facts aren't quite as accurate as we now know. Especially with the information about Soviet Union is exaggerated or just plain inaccurate in places. That information is now different we now know because of the fall of the USSR. Overall a fascinating look at WWII and a must see for any serious WWII historian professional or personal alike.$LABEL$ 1
+Lizzie Borden's Love Crimes is an important film, dealing with the dark side of female sexuality (and including full frontal female nudity, which sure beats the male kind). It flirts with sadomasochism and the captive falling in love with captor theory.This treatment of feminine libido is sometimes shallow and jerky, but Borden has travelled well beyond feminist dogma of females gaining power through their insatiable lust.One striking scene exposes the female fetish for horses, when the antagonist, a counterfeit fashion photographer, is seducing an older woman wearing breeches by asking her to show how she rides a horse. He shoves a riding crop between her legs, pressing it against her crotch, and this greatly increases her excitement.Then suddenly he leaves her home and she swears abjectly at the closed door.Patrick Bergin plays the con artist, and though he falls a long distance from handsome, he picks on plain Janes and has enough screen presence to make one believe the women could swallow his line. By all reports, Sean Young proves a weird person, and she is scarcely beautiful. Yet in this film as the district attorney her intense face and long-limbed slender body and accentuated hips and periodically disjointed movement alchemize into erotic fascination. Her performance is forceful and complex.Borden possesses an intriguing worldview, and the fact that it stands so at odds with the modern feckless zeitgeist I truly appreciate.$LABEL$ 1
+This could be well have been THE definitive film noir of all time, had not the Columbia Studios cut so much of Orson Welles's original. What we are left with is a flawed, yet brilliant film that showcases the overwhelming talent of Welles as an actor/director and Rita Hayworth as a serious dramatic talent.'The Lady From Shanghai' is film noir at it's most sizzling and confusing. Welles, with an uneven accent, portrays Michael O'Hara, a journeyman Irishman, who, after a fateful encounter with the seductive, dangerous Elsa Bannister (Hayworth, in a GREAT performance)finds himself virtually coerced into accepting a job as a crewman on her and her crippled husband's (Everett Sloane) yacht. Elsa, or 'Rosalie' as Michael likes to call her, plays the innocent, helpless doll very well, ensnaring O'Hara in her web. As the lovers conduct a not-so-secret affair at sea, Arthur Bannister's partner in his law firm, George Grisby (Glenn Anders)comes aboard. He is a weird, untrustworthy figure who offers Michael a unique proposal: He will get $5000 to assist Grisby in the faking of Grisby's death, so it looks murder. The plan is for Michael to get off a technicality, and run off into the sun with Elsa. But things do not go to plan.Hayworth delivers us one of the best femme fatales of all time in a very ambiguous portrayal. At times she seems genuinely vulnerable and child-like, at others brutal, world-weary and hard. Always she is brilliantly beautiful, whether he situation calls for her to be dripping wet in a swimsuit or dressed in black, brandishing a gun. Hayworth is beautifully photographed here, and she is a far-cry from her famous 'Gilda' role. Her then-husband Orson Welles cut off her trademark auburn locks for a dyed blonde crop (angering Columbia boss Harry Cohn). It was a terrific marketing ploy, and he change suits her changed attitude wonderfully. She is not the sympathetic femme fatale that 'Gilda' is, here- instead she is a predatory, black-hearted dame who sees murder as a very useful option.The Welles and Hayworth pairing came at a time when the couple were having extreme difficulties in their marriage. They would divorce after the film was made, so this is also a curiosity for providing some view into the complicated relationship. They are hateful, not romantic, lovers in this, so it's hard to gauge whether or not they had real chemistry on screen. Certainly every encounter is potent and filled with raw sexuality, with Welles as the 'fall guy' (he even admits it himself in the film!) and Rita as the double-crossing babe.Welles character is the typical noir 'drifter' with not much sense. As Welles voice-over proves to use, O'Hara indeed does not use his brain very much 'expect to be thinking of her (Elsa)'. Welles usually played intelligent, charismatic fellows, so his turn here as the dim-witted Michael is unusual and very interesting. Indeed, Welles was an actor of fine talent and he pulls off it well.Everett Sloane is suitably slimy as Hayworth's crippled husband. One wonders why he hires Michael. It is obvious that his wife is interested in him romantically, so why does he invite a 'threat' on board? One interpretation could be that Michael provides the 'service' to his wife that Bannister cannot in his crippled state. There is definitely something to that theory, with a lot of implications toward Elsa's behaviour before she met her husband (was she some sort of prostitute?)and Grisby's knowledge of Bannister's most intimate secrets being hinted at in several scenes.This is a jumbled, convoluted film with a plot that is ultimately flawed. We are more interested in the love triangle than the murder plot, as with most noirs. Welles provides us with many of his usual brilliant cinematic touches, including the justifiably famous 'hall of mirrors' climax. It's a terrific scene, one ending that can almost obliterate the faults earlier on in the movie and lift it into greatness. This fun house scene is visually stunning, with a Dali-like feel to the painted sets (apparently Orson painted them himself). Subtle visual imagery utilized throughout the film by Welles enhances the plot and makes this a thought-provoking experience.The dialogue is scorching and confusing, delivered superbly by Rita's alternately breathy low voice and helpless, high-pitched little-girl voice. Hayworth proves her acting capabilities in this one, and proves that SHE is the ultimate femme fatale of 'noir'. It's a pity (only a slight one , as Rita was a brilliant dancer) that she did so many delightful yet frothy and often forgettable musicals for Columbia in the 40's instead of darkly-themed noir like this. She was a brilliant actress when given the chance to show off her talent.9/10.$LABEL$ 1
+One Crazy Summer is a fun and quirky look at love through the eyes of Hoops McCann. what could have been hokey and dull is one of the freshest and most energetic comedies ever. Savage Steve Holland reteams with John Cusack to make the ultimate summer movie!$LABEL$ 1
+While a bit preachy on the topic of progress as the saving grace of mankind, this is still a stunning film that presages the science-fiction special effects blockbusters that would take another 40 years to arrive on the silver screen. It predicts the global chaos of WWII, but expands on the premise by having the conflict last 30 years, and then tells the epic tale of man's struggle out from under the rubble and into the wilds of space. The acting seems wooden and strangely sterile, but this is perhaps a result of its contrast with the visuals which must have been utterly breathtaking at the time of the movie's release, and which still impress today. This is a film not to be missed by anyone at all interested in the SF genre.$LABEL$ 1
+Cuba Gooding Jr. and Ed Harris are touching. This movie is really surprising. It was enjoyable from start to finish.The story is about mentally challenged man who helps out with a football team.$LABEL$ 1
+Brokedown Palace is the story of two best friends, Alice and Darlene, who go on a spontaneous trip to Thailand and wind up in prison after being caught with planted drugs in their luggage. In this way, the movie had the potential to turn into a serious and moving film, such as "Return to Paradise", but instead, the movie chose to focus little on the girls' situation and more on their friendship.Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale both turn in excellent performances, and the movie is much more about the interplay between them - the suspicion, the jealousy, the questioning and testing of their friendship and ultimately the sacrifices made in the name of friendship. This movie chooses not to delve too deeply into politics or even into the harshness of prison life (which is a bit glossed over), and focuses more on these friendship issues.There were some plot holes here, and some parts that just didn't seem believable or realistic. We didn't feel the real fear or hopelessness of their situation as well as we might have. And we get very little feeling of life outside the prison walls, with Bill Pullman playing the supposedly sleazy lawyer who actually turns out to have a heart of gold. In short, this should, by all rights, have been a much darker movie than it was.But overall, I enjoyed it. The acting was good, the soundtrack was perfect, and the storyline had enough twists and turns to stay interesting. Worth seeing.$LABEL$ 1
+This was the worst acted movie I've ever seen in my life. No, really. I'm not kidding. All the "based on a true story/historical references" aside, there's no excuse for such bad acting. It's a shame, because, as others have posted, the sets & costumes were great.The sound track was typical "asian-style" music, although I couldn't figure out where the "modern" love song came in when Fernando was lying in his bed thinking of Maria. I don't know who wrote & sang that beautiful song, but it was as if suddenly Norah Jones was transported to the 1500s.The Hershey syrup blood in Phycho was more realistic than the ketchup spurted during the Kwik-n-EZ battle scenes.But the acting. Oh, so painfully sad. Lines delivered like a bad junior high play. If Gary Stretch had donned a potato costume for the County 4H Fair he may have been more believable. Towards the end he sounded more like a Little Italy street thug. At times I half expected him to yell out "Adrian!" or even "You wanna piece of me?!".Favourite line: When the queen says to her lover (after barfing on the floor) "I'm going to have a baby." He responds "A child?" I expected her to retort "No, jackass, a chair leg! Duh."$LABEL$ 0
+Publicity for this film suggests that it is shocking and sensational. Well, we opera lovers see some strange sights in opera houses so we are not shocked by the Duke of Mantua urinating during his reprise of La Donna è Mobile, nor is it sensational to see Gilda sing Caro Nome in the bath. It is just crass and boring. What stands out about this film is its lack of imagination. Director Corina Van Eijk sets the Duke's palace in a seedy swimming pool. In fact, he is not the Duke, he is just a character named Duka, so it's difficult to see why he has lots of hangers-on and his own jester, Rigoletto. Rigoletto lives in a council flat that is furnished with the orange sofa and decorated in the spotted wallpaper that is de rigeur among avant-garde directors.The Duke's, sorry Duka's heavies ride around on motor scooters (Yawn). Concepts imposed on an opera like this can produce unexpected, and unintentional humour. What can we make of the fact that Gilda has a maid, even though she lives in a council flat.? When the call goes out that Monterone is being taken to prison we see him being marched out of the swimming pool by two attendants in pink shorts. One imagines that he is going to be charged with urinating in a public swimming pool.It was common for opera films to be lip-synced 20 years ago but there is just no excuse for it today. A dubbed opera is like soft porn. You don't believe in what is happening because the performers are not making enough effort. The actress in Gilda's role does not seem to have learned her lines properly. She barely moves her lips when she is supposed to be singing. When she sings Caro Nome in the bath she lies back with her legs slightly parted. It is difficult to tell which orifice the sound is supposed to be emanating from. The Duke, later caps this by singing while engaging in cunnilingus with Maddalena, giving a new meaning to the phrase yodelling in the canyon.The ambiance of the sound never seems right with the orchestra sometimes sounding as though it is being played through a transistor radio. Fairly slow, rumpity-tumpity tempi are preferred so that the overall effect is of a karaoke in your local pub.This is a film of a production by Opera Spanga. Spanga is a village in Friesland in the Netherlands. They normally perform in a tent in a field. If I had been watching this performance in a tent in a field in Friesland I would have been fairly indulgent. By filming this production and giving it a worldwide audience, the villagers also hold themselves open to worldwide ridicule.$LABEL$ 0
+I really love this show, it's like reading a book and each chapter leaves you wanting more. It gets you thinking about what is going to happen in the next episode, and the struggle of trying to maintain their friendship throughout the years. After each episode ends it leaves a sweet bitter taste in your mouth knowing that: One - The show was good, you can't wait for the next episode and it really gets you thinking about what actually happens to the friends throughout the twenty years. And two - the fact that the show has been put "on hiatus" and we will not see the show finish in it's entirety. Fox obviously do not know what they have done, they claim that they are losing viewers in the 18 - 49 category they clearly do not know what people want to see if they got rid of a good show such as "Reunion". I have one query though that I would like to raise. If they were to bring the show back and it went on for another season how would it work since each episode is done in the period of a year and the story is based on what happens in the span of twenty years? Your answers are most welcome. Bring back Reunion! Bring back Reunion!$LABEL$ 1
+An atrocious offense to the memory and genius of Welles, this senseless assemblage of self-indulgent improvisation on a grand theme should have been locked up in storage along with a number of other unfinished Welles' projects no one has ever seen. Now we know why! To add additional insult to prior injury, the appalling English language dubbing by amateur America dubbing actors and even the great man himself only heightens all the sloppy mistakes in story-telling and construction. It's as if every weekend some good hearted Spanish soul gave Orson a few pesos, a 35mm camera and some short-ends of negative film left over from some other production and told Welles to drive out to the Spanish countryside and just keeping shooting anything and everything until the film stock ran out. It's true that if Orson had really shaped this film himself instead the notorious Jesus Franco, he might have thrown out 85% of what he shot, but we will never know. As Welles never took the time to edit his own work here, and somewhere along the way he or his heirs sanctioned someone else to do so, he is not entirely blameless for the debacle. Those who wish to prove that in his early days Welles was the luckiest of young men because he surrounded himself with the likes of John Houseman, Herman Mankewiecz, Greg Toland, Bernard Hermann and Robert Wise need no better proof of his adult inadequacies than this mess of a film. In his sad old age Welles was capable of doing anything when he needed a few bucks or pesos, including selling his artistic soul. The devil certainly got his due with this one!$LABEL$ 0
+I'm glad I didn't pay to see 'The Wog Boy'.I sat there hopefully waiting for something original and/or funny to happen.It reminded me very much of those predictable English comedies of the 1970s.I won't bother with a synopsis of the plot, I suggest you do something else for 90 minutes$LABEL$ 0
+Calling this a romantic comedy is accurate but nowadays misleading. The genre has sadly deteriorated into cliches, too focused on making the main couple get together and with very little room for ambience and other stories, making it formulaic and overly predictable.The Shop Around the Corner does not suffer from these illnesses: it manages to create a recognisably middle/eastern-European atmosphere and has a strong cast besides the (also strong) nominal leads; I avoid using the words 'supporting cast' as for example Mr. Matuschek (Frank Morgan) has a central role to the film and his story is equally if not more important than the romance.The 1998 film You've Got Mail borrowed the 'anonymous pen-pal' idea from this film and has therefore been billed as a remake. This is not correct and in fact unfair to the new movie - it shares the genre and borrows a plot element, but that is all.$LABEL$ 1
+Having seen the short a number of times at horror movie marathons, I believe it to be a humorous parody that slices to the main point of its reference.Though the themes are crusty and stale to today's viewers, it is by no means a crumby waste of time.Though being a student film gives little rise to an excuse, the proof is that it appears crafted with care on a budget of little to no dough.As noted by another reviewer, it is less than ten minutes which is plenty of time to cleanse the viewing palate with a toast of joy, sit back and loaf idly through the film.I think this short-bread of a film should be enjoyed as an appetizer for the title reference and the viewer should relax and roll with it.$LABEL$ 1
+This game has the(dis)honor of being the first game that I have stopped playing right in the middle of and felt like smashing into bits and then burning. Congratulations. FIRST and LAST Tomb Raider I will ever play I assure you.Plot: Just typing that word made me laugh. There isn't one. Neither is there character development. We finally have a girl heroine who can take care of herself,who isn't a *beeping*mary-sue,but unfortunately she dresses like a slut and her breast are huge. They had to attract the sexist boy gamers you see. Anyway all she does is go in tomb after tomb shooting things as she goes along. Why she does this I have no idea. I had subtitles on and the t.v. as loud as I could and I still didn't understand a damn thing. The development(or lack there of) for her, her two friends and the*villains*were laughable. There also will be levels that you have to go through that do-not give you any hint on what you have to do next and you literally will be in most of the boring as hell tombs for HOURS trying to figure out what the hell you are supposed to be doing. There is one course(out of two) in particular with her on a motorbike(Believe me it is not at all fun)that you will be on for ATLEASE an HOUR with NO save point in sight. That means you get hit by the other motorist and guys in vans shooting at you or you hit a tree you start the hour long trek OVER.Boss Stupid F*ck: You know lets makes the levels very long, have basically no save points, have no story, no character development, give no variety in game play, have most of the music on the longest levels ear-bleeding,and give no hints whatsoever to the player so they can stay even longer in a place instead of getting to the nonexistent plot.Stupid F*ck one: Those sound like bang up ideas.Stupid F*ck two: I concur. Who needs character development ,plot, or unboring game-play.Todd: I'm sorry sir,but these ideas seem like they will extremely p*ss the player off.Boss Stupid F*ck: Shut up Todd. You're fired.Game-play: All she does is shoot. Of course she can flip while SHOOTING, jump while SHOOTING, or kick while again SHOOTING.But flipping, jumping, and kicking does not erase the fact that all she is ultimately doing is SHOOTING. BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Music: The intro music is extremely beautiful. I love listening to it. The in game music goes from tolerable to wanting to cut your ears off.Visuals:Considering this game was made in 2006, I was expecting the visuals to blow me away.Well I was blown,but definitely not in a good way.Bottom-line: This game is a plot-less, no character development mess with a barely dressed unmarysuish(THANKFULLY)young women in the lead that goes through boring tombs for some boring reason(what that might be I couldn't tell you)with unimaginative shooting gameplay. STAY FAR AWAY FROM THIS B.S.!!!!!!!!It's gets two stars for having a women who isn't a damsel in distress(No matter how scantily clad she might be) and the beautiful into music.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie has too many things going on. Another reviewer comments on the disjointed, episodic nature of the film as reflecting the director's memories - that's fine, if that is how it was written and performed. Instead, what we get is straight-forward narrative - some of the time - that jumps around, under and over, leaves us dangling in some instances, interrupts the flow with unnecessary digressions in other instances, and otherwise simply doesn't work. There are also some plot details that just don't work. For example, why drag a body onto a beach in an urban area in broad daylight, as opposed to night time? Why leave your flat sheet on the body? Why would an artist who knew the Joe character for a brief time decide to leave him "everything" (even if it wasn't much)? This sub-plot was poorly developed to make that point work. For that matter, why even have the man be an invalid or an artist other than to provide the money and the gratuitous nude posing scenes? He could just as easily have been a photographer, or a opera composer? For that matter, how does someone rate an apartment in an Opera House - particularly without some clear connection to the Opera? The coincidences are also both too obvious and to unclear and unexplained. Why would the guys take everything in the warehouse and "disappear." If Tim was a 10 year old school mate in a town as small as Bangor, how could Joe lose track of him for 8 years, especially if they knew each other well enough that one would recommend the other for a job. Some of the other subplots (like the mother and her boyfriend(s) and the sister wanting to escape felt like padding. There's some good ideas that might have made a feature with full development or could have been interesting shorts. As completed, this movie made little sense and offers even less.$LABEL$ 0
+For years I hesitated watching this movie. Now, I know why. It was even worse than I'd expected. Ashton Kutcher makes the worst movie mistake of his career, since 'Dude, Where's My Car?' Tara Reid co-stars as the girl of Ashton's dreams, who asks him to babysit her father (and his boss)'s pet owl for the weekend. The rules: 1. No shoes in the house. 2. No people in the house. 3. The boss' son stays out of the house. 4. Don't touch the furniture.Well, you can pretty much guess by the end of the first twenty minutes, how the rest of the film is going to turn out.You know, there are films like, "Meet The Parents", where bad things happen to someone, but it's entertaining to watch, and it's delivered in a way, that you can't wait to see what happens next. This, is not one of those films. You know right from the start that bad things are going to happen, and they're mostly stupid things that would never actually happen. It's an extremely frustrating movie to watch, and there were about three times when I nearly turned it off, because it was so bad. But, I paid the rental fee, and figured I had to watch it now.Tara Reid was good, and I would like to see her in more films. Though, I'm not surprised if this had a hand in hurting her career.The end result is a happy ending...but of course with the kind of film it is, you would expect nothing short of that.Don't watch it. You'll sincerely regret it!$LABEL$ 0
+Sure this movie wasn't like. 16 blocks, inside man, an American haunting. etc...But It was a great mystery that can happen to anyone of us.. i found this movie really great and scary.I live exactly where they filmed this movie "san pedro, California" And we have heard true stories based on incidents of this movie.I dunno if you've heard of the famous boat in long beach "Queen Mary" Well that boat is haunted. i believe in spirts, illusions, and parallel or however u spell that. is real. everybody's in there own universe.and the mind is a powerful thing.i recommend to watch this movie. it's great, and not bad directing at all.for those who rate it a 1. they don't understand the film. its meaning. its plot, its view. and how bad the ocean life can be for each and everyone of us.Ty.Victor$LABEL$ 1
+Working girl Kitty (Sothern) is engaged to Bill (Kelly), who neglects her by working long hours at his garage in order to save money for their marriage. After being stood up on her birthday, Kitty goes on a double-date/blind date, where she meets department store heir Bob Hartwell (Hamilton). She falls in love, but leaves him when his protestations of love appear to cover a desire for her to be his mistress, rather than his wife. Faithful Bill rallies 'round to comfort her, and at last she gives in to his repeated requests to reinstate their engagement, pressured in part by Bill's support of her family after she loses her job. When Bob returns, however, convinced that he wants marriage after all, will Kitty follow her heart or her conscience? This film was a lot better than I'd expected it to be. The character of Bill at first comes off as the sort of loud comic Irishman type that Jack Carson played so often. But Kelly (and the script) infuse the character with real compassion and love, and Bill turns out to be the best person in the entire group. Viewers may find themselves rooting for him against the feckless Hartwell! The tone of the film wavers, however, between light-hearted romance and a much darker side, especially in the depiction of a dance marathon and a rather horrific accident at Bill's garage.The cast is rounded out by the dependable Jane Darwell as Kitty's mother, an impish but not yet thoroughly obnoxious Mickey Rooney as Kitty's younger brother, and Spencer Charters as Kitty's ne'er-do-well father.$LABEL$ 1
+Comedy? What's so funny about watching an ugly deadbeat alcoholic attending 6 sessions (by the time I turned it off) of alchoholics anonymous? Set off by a woeful script of grunts and mumbles and drunken slurrings. Served up with lashings of Hollywood's religious "God will Save you" redemption drivel Another Reviewer mentioned the "Sassy dialogue" of Tea Leone - well I managed to watch nearly an hour of this boring film and I still haven't seen any sassy yet - in fact my 80 year old grandmother has more amusing comebacks than Tea's character in this rubbish. Tea is more stony faced and shows less emotion than Keanu - in fact one wonders if she too isn't addicted to something - maybe botox her face is so wooden? Save yourself from being killed with boredom from this film.$LABEL$ 0
+I've loved this movie ever since it first came out. I was about nine years old, and now I'm 27. I remember playing the video game on Sega Genisis. I had so much fun, I would love to show my son this movie. He likes Michael Jackson as well and I know he will love this movie just as I did when I was a kid. Even though he's much younger than I was when I first saw it. I can't wait for it to come out on DVD! I hope it comes out on DVD! Please let it come out on DVD!! I'm dying to see it again!!! Well that is my comment I hope that one day soon I'll get to view this movie again. I love all of the videos in this movie. My favorite mini-video is Badder!$LABEL$ 1
+This cartoon was strange, but the story actually had a little more depth and emotion to it than other cartoon movies. We have a girl at a camp with low self esteem and hardly any other friends, except a brother and sister who are just a miserable as she is. She reaches the ultimate low point and when the opportunity arises she literally makes a pact with a devil-like demon. I found this film to be very true to life and just when things couldn't be worse, the girl sees what she's done, she feels remorse and then changes and then she helps this dark, mystical creature learn the human quality of love. The twins improve too, by helping the little bears and then they get a sense of self worth too. A very positive message for children, though some elements of the film was strange, it was and still is a rather enjoyable film. The music from Stephen Bishop (Tootsie songs) made the film even better$LABEL$ 1
+Now i have never ever seen a bad movie in all my years but what is with songs in the movie what physiological meaning does it have. WOW some demented Pokémon shows up and they multiply i can get a seizure from this. Animie is pointless the makers of it are pointless its a big marketing scheme look just cut down on songs and they will get a good rating i reckon that this movie would have been fine if they put out a message you must see all the Pokémon episodes to understand whats going on and it is not a film. It is just an animation it should be on video.Ps: i'll give it a 1 because i just got 5 bucks i could not give it a half because there's no halves.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was one of the worst I've ever seen, it did not left out a single clichee one could imagine about a Hollywood-so-called-Thriller. The protagonist is a loving father & a private investigator who is engaged in a special task: finding out if a suspected "snuff" movie is real.Certainly, he get's involved deeper & deeper, smeary pornoshops (run by mexicans) & sex theatres are his field of investigation as he's searching for the murderers of the woman in the "snuff" movie. Assisted by a "smart" (he read a book) sexshop employee, he's catching up with a murderous bondage-film producer and his personal perverts who are responsible for the film... ...and what do you expect? They are portrayed as the simple evil, no need for explanations, backgrounds, history: they are the bad ones, and he's the purifier. Boom. Killer of the killers. End of film. Is it that bad? Yes, I'm afraid so.Ironically, "machine" (the mega-pervert who did the killing) is even pointing at his ridiculous character: In the last scene, our hero forces "machine" to put off his leather mask (yep, of course he's wearing one) and recognizes that "machine" looks just like the normal 08/15 guy from the street. Then "machine" says: "blablabla I'm not a monster, my parents never abused me, I had a nice childhood, I just love to do what I do!"I just love to kill people. Yeah, sure, "everybody loves killing people" (Bender). It's not only the total lack of character what made this film so boring, it's also it's ugly "I have to kill these people"-attitude which makes you sick. In one scene, our hero has tied up one of the killers and tries to shoot him...but he can't. So what does he do? He calls the mother of the killed woman, says that her child is killed and asks her whether she loved her child so much that she wishes to see the killers dead. The mother cries yes, she'd love her child, he goes back to the tied killer and slaughters him.To come to the point: This film is breathing the foul air of lynchmob-supporters (certainly the police does not play any role in it), moralizes in a ridiculous form against pornography, does not take it's characters serious and wastes your time with a stupid plot. Probably the only good thing about this film is that it does not try to pseudo-psycho-analyze ... even that would be too much plot.Don't waste your time with this.$LABEL$ 0
+Before I comment about this movie, you should realize that when I saw this movie, I expected the typical crap, horror, B-movie and just wanted to have fun. Jack Frost is one that not only delivers but is actually one of the best that I've seen in a long time. Scott McDonald is great as Jack Frost, in fact I think he has a future in being psychopaths in big time movies if ever given the chance. McDonald is a serial killer who becomes a snowman through some stupid accidental mix of ridiculous elements. As soon as that snowman starts moving around and killing people, though, you will find it hard not to laugh. The lines that are said are completely retarded but really funny. The fact that the rest of the cast completely over-acts just adds to stupidity of the film, but it's stupidity is it's genius. The scene where the snowman is with the teenage girl is truly classic in B-movie, horror film fashion. I truly hope there is a sequel and I'll be right there to watch it on whatever cable channel does it. Of course it's only fun to watch the first few times and it's not exactly a good work of motion picture technology, but I just like to see snowmen kill people. I gave it a 7 out of 10, this is a great movie for dates and couples in the late hours.$LABEL$ 1
+The movie is really about choices. In the oppressed state of affairs as seen in Fire, where good women had to be obedient and do what was correct in the eyes of tradition, there seemed few options for Radha and Sita. However, granted that it was not their only option. What is life without desire, Radha questions Ashok. Yes, it's true that life provides us with a number of options but how many we can take depends on a number of external factors. When your world is confined to a small Indian household, being a dutiful daughter-in-law to a silent but observant still powerful matriarch, a dutiful wife of 13 years to a man who has taken a vow of celibacy due to your not being able to have a child, a man who only wants you lying next to him to prove his strength in eliminating his desires. I felt the ladies had little choice but to find solace in each other's company. I guess the fact that so many women applauded Ms Mehta's work, was because it provided them with an option to think for themselves. An option to do what was perhaps unacceptable. The lesbian scenes I felt was merely to put that point across. Every scene in the movie from the first at the Taj Mahal to the last at the Mosque, is etched in my mind. How frustrating to be a prisoner of your feelings and desires. To feel that you had to forgo the human touch to be a dutiful wife just because it is expected of you. To have to suppress any desire you might have and to crave for the human touch. What then is the meaning of our existence one wonders. In the scene where Sita is crying alone in the room and Radha comes in to comfort her, their lips accidentally brush against each others and it awakens a feeling in them. Something they have both been deprived of.Bravo to Ms Mehta in translating her vision so clearly. I especially like the flashbacks to the young Radha trying to 'see' for the ocean. It is a metaphor for freedom. Freedom to choose, freedom to transport ourselves to places we would normally be unable to reach. In those scenes, it is gently told to us that her sense of duty has also been passed down from her mother who I assume lives within the rich Indian traditions of duty in marriage. The movie is beautifully filmed and enhanced by the musical score by A.R. Rahman. Since the film, I have become ardent fans of the two lead actresses and the director. I look forward to more of Ms Deepa's future productions.$LABEL$ 1
+If you want to waste a small portion of your life sit in front of this predictable zombie film. It fails at the first post by not being scary OR funny. It is a dull grey movie that I guess went straight to video. Hammy and tongue in cheek acting leave a sour taste in the mouth. If you want to watch a poor but still watchable recent zombie film watch Diary of the Dead. Poor special effects, school level script. Zombie films work if they have a moral point or even a political point . This movie has nothing, there is no worthy point that zombification underscores. This is as thrilling and convincing as a Republican Convention, no sorry watching the Republican Convention would be a better example of a Zombie movie.$LABEL$ 0
+It looks like people involved with this movie are stuffing the ballot box to boost its ratings. The good news that apparently only 18 people have seen it. I suppose that makes me the 19th. I have no involvement with the flick and don't know anyone who did and I'm a long-time IMDb user (check my vote record and reviews over the past seven years), so I promise I'm giving an honest and unbiased opinion. It's coming to you from a 30-year horror fan who has also appeared in a couple of low-budget flicks himself.Aside from a couple of interesting video effects, "Frankensteins Bloody Nightmare" is incoherent, boring, and technically flawed beyond all reason. It was apparently shot on silent stock and the audio then dubbed in; most of it sounds like it was recorded with a tin can and a piece of string, anyhow. More than three quarters of the dialog is inaudible.I watched this from beginning to end and have no idea of what the story was, or even if there was one. It seems like the director is mostly impressing himself with long, panning shots of the corners of table and dead black spaces that do nothing but pad the film out. That would be a problem if one were actually developing a plot and making a film that had some sense of pacing. In this case, though, the rule doesn't apply. It doesn't matter how scenes are shot because they don't add up to a story.Watching this video is an exercise in futility at every level. Whatever people who worked on it are writing and however they're trying to influence the ratings here on IMDb, this is just bad, tedious stuff.That's the honest truth. If you're thinking of spending your money or time on this one, think again. It's easy to find something better because you won't find much worse.And that's the unbiased, unvarnished truth.$LABEL$ 0
+Never mind the serious logic gaps, never mind the achingly cliche character portrayals, never mind the haphazard writing, and you might like this movie. The main character Alyssa was supposed to be endearing, the heroine who you root for to be saved,(or in this case, save herself) But instead she merely grates, and makes one wonder, are all pro ballerinas really that stupid? Her busybody mother was obviously only necessary to further propagate the illusion that ballet companies are evil monsters ready to snatch your poor, innocent, young girl from your grasp, with an ever present, biting artistic director/villain. And the cliche's! Not only does she become anorexic, bulemic, an over the counter junkie, and a pathological liar, but all in the course of a few months. It's like the writer read every horror story he could dig up about ballet and decided to see how much he could cram into two hours, (with commercials).Believe it or not, but I am a dancer. This "uprising" or "resurgence" of anorexia and bulemia that is happening is nonexistent at all of the dance schools I have attended. In fact, the teachers are so scared to even suggest that a girl might stand a better chance a few pounds lighter, most of the dancers in my classes would be actually considered minorly overweight. I'm not saying eating disorders never occur, but not to the extent as it was portrayed in the movie.Another annoying problem this movie had was the means-to-an-end writing style. Her on again off again boyfriend probably had all of half an hour total screen time, all in the first half. The other supporting characters were merely props, decorations to further the story. Given the right dialogue, this would have been a very intricate mind study of a psycological problem. As it is, it turns into a one woman show, and Kimberly McCullough doesn't have the chutzpah to pull it off.To a non dancer, this movie would be a supposed "insight" into what really goes one behind closed doors at a ballet company. To a dancer, this is a very insulting movie, which portrays ballerinas as stupid and parents as pushy and ill informed. Those adjectives more correctly describe the people who got this on the air in the first place. 3/10$LABEL$ 0
+The Presentation is VERY shabby. (to my notion) as documentaries often are. Michael Moore's "documenatry" - Farenheit 911 is FAR more convincing but has FAR too much media and political influence. Cant wait till Saturday when I get to see the docudrama "The Game of their Lives" . IFC goes right of center. I have started a collection of IFC movies from off the internet due to "TGOTL" *** out of ********** on "Decade". Wanna see good documentaries? Stick to the History Channel.. Or try docudrama. You cant go wrong with them my friend. Cant go wrong. The seventies were ten years of reruns. Or so the old times would have you to believe. Disco died and it is gone forever. When Elvis died o yes we all did grieve$LABEL$ 0
+I caught up with this movie on TV after 30 years or more. Several aspects of the film stood out even when viewing it so many years after it was made.The story by the little known C Virgil Georghiu is remarkable, almost resembling a Tolstoy-like story of a man buffeted by a cosmic scheme that he cannot comprehend. Compare this film with better-known contemporary works such as Spelberg's "Schindler's List" and you begin to realize the trauma of the World War II should be seen against the larger canvas of racism beyond the simplistic Nazi notion of Aryan vs Jews. This film touches on the Hungarians dislike for the Romanians, the Romanians dislike of the Russians and so on..even touching on the Jews' questionable relationships with their Christian Romanian friends, while under stress.As I have not read the book, it is difficult to see how much has been changed by the director and screenplay writers. For instance, it is interesting to study the Romanian peasant's view of emigrating to USA with the view of making money only to return to Romania and invest his earnings there. In my opinion, the character of Johann Moritz was probably one of the finest roles played by Anthony Quinn ranking alongside his work in "La Strada","Zorba the Greek" and "Barabbas". The finest and most memorable sequence in the film is the final one with Anthony Quinn and Virna Lisi trying to smile. The father carrying a daughter born out his wife's rape by Russians is a story in itself but the director is able to show the reconciliation by a simple gesture--the act of carrying the child without slipping into melodramatic footage.Today after the death of Princess Diana we often remark about the insensitive paparazzi. The final sequence is an indictment of the paparazzi and the insensitive media (director Verneuil also makes a similar comment during the court scene as the cameramen get ready to pounce on Moritz).The interaction between Church and State was so beautifully summed up in the orthodox priest's laconic statement "I pray to God that He guides those who have power to use them well." Some of the brief shots, such as those of a secretary of a minister doodling while listening to a petition--said so much in so little footage. The direction was so impressive that the editing takes a back seat. Finally what struck me most was the exquisite rich texture of colors provided by the cameraman Andreas Winding--from the brilliant credit sequences to the end. I recalled that he was the cameraman of another favorite French film of mine called "Ramparts of Clay" directed by Jean-Louis Bertucelli. I have not seen such use of colors in a long while save for the David Lean epics.There were flaws: I wish Virna Lisi's character was more fleshed out. I could never quite understand the Serge Reggiani character--the only intellectual in the entire film. The railroad station scene at the end seems to be lifted out of Sergio Leone westerns. Finally, the film was essentially built around a love story, that unfortunately takes a back seat.To sum up this film impressed me in more departments than one. The story is relevant today as it was when it was made.$LABEL$ 1
+This film basically try to portray the heroism of firefighters by making the whole movie revolve around a American dad with a good heart that puts others before himself. Now I know they try to show Jack Morrison(Joaquin Phoenix) as a typical American father that is a firefighter but like there is just nothing interesting in about him what so ever, thus when the movie gets to the climax there is just little to no emotion. This movie basically tries to make the life of a firefighter exciting but it just comes off as boring as any other jobs except you save lives or property by extinguishing the fire. John Travolta plays the captain of the fire station but anyone could have played his role and he is a dull character as the rest of the film. What could have been a good film is that the firefighter are put way up as heroes because they are firemen and turns the whole scenario into a uninteresting melodrama.4.9/10$LABEL$ 0
+Only the Antichrist could have been behind such a disaster. One only hopes that this irony was the motivating force behind the "film"! This movie was so bad, it forced me to register with IMDb, finally, just so I could trash it. What makes this movie all the more tragic is that it had such GREAT source material! I have never seen a movie where all the elements were so grotesquely mediocre as to render the result less than the sum of its parts.It may seem insignificant, but I'd like to start with the score. As the proud owner of a music degree, I must register my indignation! I was torn between laughter and dry heaves as I listened to what John Scheffer did to Goldsmith's brilliant score; it was far more gruesome than any of the burlesque death scenes, and almost as inadvertently comedic. It was by far the most inappropriate score I've heard since, well, I really can't think of a worse one. Maybe JAWS 4?As for the plot... I'm sorry. New Age mysticism??? What ever happened to the gritty realism of the original trilogy? In those films (more so in the first two than the third, but still!!) the supernatural was for the most part implied, and it was this subtlety that made the movies so eerily believable. Here we have crystals going black (calling all Skeksis and Mystics!!) and inverted crucifixes galore, even though in certain scenes the crucifux would be perfectly normal but for the camera angle. Gone is the refined psychlogical manipulation tapping the malaise inherent in our collective psyche: in its place a boorish "slap in the face" of recycled cliché and transparent incompetence. Add to that a lead "actress" so unbelievably ANNOYING that you fervently thank the director for those scenes from which she is absent. Never have I seen a little girl so fundamentally irritating since little Stephanie ruined ALL IN THE FAMILY.Other than that, I have no strong feelings on the subject ;-) Luckily the first three films are sufficiently adroit as to render this train-wreck of wasted celluloid inconsequential or, at the very most, a study in how NOT to make a film. Viewer beware! May induce vomiting if you're lucky.$LABEL$ 0
+Kate is a jaded young woman who has trouble meeting and dating guys. Throughout the movie, you get to meet several of her loser boyfriends. And throughout the movie, you are subjected to Kate's cynical negative outlook on love and relationships. This negative viewpoint is continued throughout and presented as Ultimate Truth. I had a real problem with this. Why would anyone want to be taught about love, life, and dating from someone who is obviously so messed up? It would work if that was the joke, but it is not. For the jokes in the movie (which are neither funny nor original) to work at all, you have to believe what Kate is saying: that all relationships inevitably end up with bad or no sex, that the highest level a relationship can evolve to is when you are able to fart in front of your partner... You get the idea.There is no movie in recent memory that comes close to upsetting the stomach as much as Love & Sex. Why did the filmmakers waste their time on such trash? Every joke in Love & Sex is something that I have experienced in another movie or in my own life. There is NOTHING original or creative about the story, the production, or the style. It is cynical, dumb and pointless. Mind numbing!$LABEL$ 0
+In this film I prefer Deacon Frost. He's so sexy! I love his glacial eyes! I like Stephen Dorff and the vampires, so I went to see it. I hope to see a gothic film with him. "Blade" it was very "about the future". If vampires had been real, I would be turned by Frost!$LABEL$ 1
+Stay Alive has a very similar story to some Asian horror films which include technology on the story.Some of this Asian horror films are One Missed Call,Ringu and Pulse.So,the idea of Stay Alive is very clichéd and obvious but the filmmakers behind it did not know how to put something new or interesting to the clichés in Stay Alive.This film is totally crap.But a very big crap.All the elements of Stay Alive belong to the worst class of ''horror'' films:shallow characters,nothing of suspense,stupid ''horror'' which makes laugh and light violence.It's easy to note that the ''director'' is incapable to create something original or disturbing.I do not wanna loose more time writing about this pathetic film.I just give you an advice:do not see this film.I really hated it.$LABEL$ 0
+Having seen three other versions of the same film, I am afraid for me this is by far the weakest, primarily due to Scott's rather dull and leaden performance. His emotions throughout are so bland it makes it difficult to engage in the film. Alistair Sim portrayed the role infinitely better. When Scrooge was at his meanest, you don't get the sense Scott is saying the dialogue with much conviction and when he undergoes his metamorphosis he is similarly unconvincing. I cannot think of any actors in this film who match those from the Alistair Sim version. Even the musical version (and frankly the Muppets) take on this are better executed. Very disappointing.$LABEL$ 0
+I have seen this film three times now, and each time I see it, it becomes more personal and more emotional to watch.The acting is amazing, which is not hard to believe since it is Daniel Day Lewis, who is an amazing actor. Brenda Fricker is the surprise wonder in it, though. She captures your heart as the mother of a physically disabled boy, who is not able to walk, or speak until he is in his late teens.I can't say enough good things about the movie, but I will stop here. I recommend it to anyone who enjoys movies that are based on actual events, or just enjoy good dramas in general.$LABEL$ 1
+Ik know it is impossible to keep all details of a book in a movie. But this movie has changed nearly everything without any reason. Furthermore many changes have made the story illogical. A few examples: 1) in the movie "Paul Renauld" really meets Poriot before he dies (in the book Poirot only gets a letter), telling him he is afraid to be killed. This is completely stupid because if Renaulds plan would have succeeded, Poirot would have known that the dead man would not have been Renauld.(Poirot was in the morgue when Mrs Renauld identified the victim). 2) The movie has "combined" two persons into one! "Cinderella" has been removed by the movie. The girl Hastings falls in love with and the ex-girlfriend of Jack Renauld are one person in the movie! Why for god's sake? 3)Hastings finds the victims cause he is such a bad golf player. Totally unfunny and stupid. 4) The movie tells secrets much too early (for example at the very beginning). So you know things you shouldn't know. 5) The murderer gets shot at the end by a person who doesn't exists in the book. Perhaps because the person ("cinderella") who stops the murderer does not exists in the movie. 6)The book is very complex. The movie takes only about 90 minutes. Sure it is difficult to include all the necessary details but it is impossible if you include stupid things which were not in the book and have no meaning (e.g. bicycle race).$LABEL$ 0
+So, neighbor was killing neighbor. Reminds me of Iraq. As I watched the American flag (50 stars in 1864?) being dragged behind the horse, I realized why burning that piece of red white and blue doesn't upset me as much as our destruction/indifference to the Bill of Rights. I'm a Southerner, and must have some historical memory.Watching the Tobey McGuire character learn to respect the dignity of a former slave, as he looks at the scalps of blacks and Germans (his ethnic background) being wagered at a poker game.....was interesting. Many twists in this movie. The wife, who is forced into her marriage, shows both lust and a strong will, characteristics we're not used to seeing in 'respectable Victorian southern belles'.The crazy wacked out renegade southerner gave me some insight into why my cousin, head of the Copeland Horse-thieving Gang, Inc. in Mississippi, was hung about that time. Bands of homeless men were roaming the countryside, armed. Remind you of Iraq? And how similar we are underneath the facade of religion and ethnic background? And why southerners are STILL fighting that civil war today.Too bad we can't use that same knowledge in our handling of the country we've just invaded and are occupying, fomenting civil war everywhere. That's Mesopotamia, now called Iraq, who happen to have the misfortune to sit on oil. The wild-eyed killers in Missouri, raiding Lawrence, Kansas could as easily be the insurgents we're fighting now with no success.Another anomaly was the father's tribute to the Yankees who move into Lawrence and erect a school "even before they erect a church. And for that reason, they'll win." Huh????? I was taught history in Birmingham, Al and we were taught that the North was much more industrial and richer.....that's why they won. Course, they also LITERALLY had God on their side. As you see here, when the freed slave indicates that he's cutting out to free his mother, sold into slavery in Texas. God, what a horrible legacy slavery gave us.Acting pretty good, lots of blood and gore as the warriors ride gleefully into battle (but didn't hear any rebel yells, so reminiscent of football games in Alabama). You also get a real feeling for how stupid the war was, as the bushwackers and jayhawkers gather their forces for another raid. They have lost sight of why they're fighting, and so do we. Just more mindless slaughter.You're also brought up to date with the limbless kids coming home from Iraq, as the bushwacker (ahh, what connotations) first has his arm seared shut, trying to save it, then has it amputated, and then dies. So much suffering for such a stupid cause.The cinematography is fantastic. Now I have to get back to the DVD and get the production notes, one of my favorite parts of any movie. I suspect that this movie was written by a Gore Vidal, as the spoken language is of a type you would associate with that era, if you knew History. The dialogue is definitely thought-provoking. Not your ordinary blood and guts war movie, by any means. You see the wounded but still active-duty soldiers, still fighting cause they have nothing else to do. You see the southern raiders, living off the land, stealing indiscriminately. Yet, at the beginning, you've seen the battle stop, so the women could be evacuated from danger. As I read the escalating number of women and children dying in Iraq, I'm thinking, "Where did we lose our sense of honor as a people?" I have forgotten why I sought this movie out and bought it after 20 years, but some book somewhere lauded it. With good reason. Tobey at his best, pre-Spideyman. Buy the DVD or rent it. And tell me why others laud this, not just liberals cest moi.$LABEL$ 1
+Beautiful film, pure Cassavetes style. Gena Rowland gives a stunning performance of a declining actress, dealing with success, aging, loneliness...and alcoholism. She tries to escape her own subconscious ghosts, embodied by the death spectre of a young girl. Acceptance of oneself, of human condition, though its overall difficulties, is the real purpose of the film. The parallel between the theatrical sequences and the film itself are puzzling: it's like if the stage became a way out for the Heroin. If all american movies could only be that top-quality, dealing with human relations on an adult level, not trying to infantilize and standardize feelings... One of the best dramas ever. 10/10.$LABEL$ 1
+In World War II, a badly burned amnesiac known only as "The English Patient" is found in the African desert and is transported to Italy, where he joins a convoy of medical troops and others at an abandoned monastery. Among them are Hana (Juliette Binoche), a Canadian nurse whose lovers generally meet unpleasant ends; Kip (Naveen Andrews) and Hardy (Kevin Whately), two explosives experts who search the monastery for bombs; and David Caravaggio (Willem Dafoe), a Canadian soldier-of-fortune who knows the identity of the English patient and has a score to settle.Through flashbacks we learn the story of the Patient: he is Laszo Almasy (Ralph Fiennes), a Hungarian explorer who, in the late '30s, falls in with a group of British cartographers, including Geoffrey Clifton (Colin Firth) and his wife Katharine (Kristen Scott-Thomas), while mapping the deserts of North Africa. After Clifton leaves them on government business, Katharine and Clifton fall in love with each other in the desert, resulting in an affair that, naturally, has a less-than-happy ending.If one is able to overlook the illogical parts of the story line (such as, why would a patient found in Africa be sent to what is essentially the front line of the war in Italy?), then you can appreciate "The English Patient" as a throwback to the intelligent, layered, sweeping epics of David Lean in the '60s. Much more than "Titanic" or other epic romances of late, this movie puts one in mind of "Doctor Zhivago" and "Gone With the Wind" - an epic love story set against a huge historical backdrop. You shouldn't expect a war film, though there are some striking (if all-too-brief) scenes of violence that stand out more than the romantic sections, as is usually the case (Caravaggio's interrogation by a sadistic SS officer (Jurgen Prochnow) in particular).The movie is very ambiguous, in regards to pretty much everything. The central question of the film is: How far are you willing to go for love? As critics of the movie are fast to point out, Almasy is, on the surface, a far-from-likable character - he has an affair with a married woman and betrays his country by giving maps and intelligence to the Germans, causing the death of his friend Madox (Julian Wadham) and the torture of Caravaggio, and actually killing a British soldier who has him under arrest at one point. The fact that Almasy is in many ways reprehensible is kind of the point - he's in love with Katharine, and sees the world narrowly in terms of his love that loyalty to country (or anything else for that matter) is secondary; as Almasy says, he hates "Ownership. Being owned." The two engage in a rather bold love affair (shagging within ear shot of hundreds of people at a Christmas party) and it's clear that Katharine is more drawn to the mysterious, exciting Almasy than the comparatively boring Geoffrey.The 1944 subplot is somewhat shaky and seems superfluous; the romance between Kip and Hannah is never completely believable, and I feel the film could have done without it. But those sequences do add an interesting texture of mystery and complexity to the film, so I won't complain too much.Like the epics mentioned above, the film is able to convey time and place through simple devices like crowd scenes, strategically placed posters, and military presence. We do not need to dwell on the fact that it's 1938 in Cairo, but it's helpful to know. The direction of Anthony Minghella and the desert cinematography by John Seale are absolutely gorgeous; the sand dunes, sand storms, and haunting caves of the desert are captured in beautiful detail. Gabriel Yared's score is haunting and atmospheric.The acting is generally solid. Fiennes gives a very layered performance as a character who is mysterious, complex, and haunted. The difference between the Almasys of 1938 and 1944 are remarkable; one exciting and somewhat carefree, the other haunted and reflective. Kirsten Scott Thomas is effective as Katharine, the female explorer looking for adventure, and Colin Firth gives one of his best performances as Geoffrey, who realizes early on that he's no competition for the exciting Almasy. Willem Dafoe does nice work as Caravaggio, the shifty, hunted thief-turned-spy driven by revenge. Jurgen Prochnow gives a performance reminiscent of Jose Ferrer in "Lawrence of Arabia" (and a similar character too): very brief, but more memorable then some of the major characters. Some of the 1944 actors are unremarkable: Juliette Binochette is nothing special, while Naveen Andrews is good but unremarkable. Kevin Whately, as Kip's ill-fated partner, does what he can with a rather smallish role."The English Patient" is not a perfect movie by any means, but the vituperative attacks on it by much of the movie-going public are not deserved at all. Maybe it's a show of how film sensibilities have changed since the era of the Leans and Kubricks, or maybe people were expecting something simple to understand. Complex to fault, brilliantly directed and shot, "The English Patient" is a wonderful modern-day epic.8/10$LABEL$ 1
+I rented this movie about 3 years ago, and it still stands out in my mind as the worst movie ever made. I don't think I ever finished it. It is worse than a home video made by a high school student. I remember them doing a flashback to 1970 something and in the flashback there was a man with a polo shirt, oakley sunglasses and a newer SUV, like a Toyota Rav-4 or something (I don't remember). I don't understand how they could have possibly said that to be in the 70s. He might have had a cell phone too, I cant remember, It was just horrible. I returned it to the video store and asked them why they even carry the movie and if I could get the hour of my life back. To this day it is the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen some pretty bad ones.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm a Boorman fan, but this is arguably his least successful film. Comedy has never been his strong suit, and here his attempts at screwball farce are clumsily done. Still, it's almost worth seeing for Boorman's eye for talent: this is one of Uma Thurman's first starring roles, and as always she is ravishing to watch. (On a sad side note, Boorman wrote the script with his daughter, Telsche, who died a couple years ago.)$LABEL$ 0
+We've all got to start somewhere, it was in films like Escape In The Fog that somebody like Budd Boetticher could learn his trade before turning out good films. In fact the film was dated before it even hit the movie going public on June 25, 1945.The war on Europe was over for almost two months, of course not even Harry Cohn could control the events of history. So I'm wondering why even back then the public didn't question why a Nazi spy ring was helping out the Japanese. Another very bad historical inaccuracy was that the FBI had nothing to do with the Pacific or Asian theater. The cloak and dagger stuff was the territory of the OSS in that part of the world.When you're an FBI man like William Wright it sure good to have a psychic girl friend like Nina Foch. He's about to go on a mission to the Orient to deliver the names of key underground leaders to start a general uprising in China against the Japanese occupation. Germans who've been bugging Otto Kruger's house learn of this and the whole movie is spent with these guys who've already lost the war trying to help their allies. Who, by the way, they refer to as 'Japs'. When Foch is sideswiped by a speeding car and knocked unconscious she dreams about Wright's danger and sees what is about to happen to him on the Golden Gate Bridge. She goes there and foils the plot. All the stuff you'd expect from a nice noir film is there, the foggy atmosphere of San Francisco, the dimly lit sets, Budd Boetticher tried his best as did the cast. But they just weren't convincing, probably because they didn't believe this claptrap themselves.It's possible, but not likely that Nina Foch's dream and its psychic consequences might have been more developed and the developments were left on the cutting room floor. I think it was just a lousy screenplay. And Budd and Harry Cohn at Columbia Pictures had the fast moving events of history going against them here.$LABEL$ 0
+I can't believe this isn't a huge cult hit. Perhaps people in 1968, thinking of the Monkees as a silly factory-made pop band rip-off of the Beatles, refused to see it. That cynicism probably covered it from sight ever since. Don't make this mistake. _Head_ is an amazing film that most open minded people will appreciate. It is very funny and very intelligent (and very trippy).$LABEL$ 1
+When I was younger, this movie always aired on Friday night in the summer on Channel 40 (this was the years before Fox was a network and took over the programming). I always looked forward to it. I'd go grocery shopping with my parents, then sit down with my Swanson's TV dinner and a Lady Lee Cola(the only time of the week I was allowed to drink cola, and enjoy. Sure, the script is predictably late 70's (like Little Darlings), but it's a fun movie, and I loved Rudy and Tripper. Bill Murray coasts with little effort in the movie, but he is charming. Gotta love Spaz and those taped glasses (pre Revenge of the Nerds). Chris Makepeace is pretty much the same character he played in "My Bodyguard" but he does it so well.$LABEL$ 1
+The title doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not sure what door in the movie shouldn't have been opened.The movie starts uneventfully, with a conversation between a man and a woman in a room that looks like a richly furnished train car, complete with the sound of the train traveling. In fact, the man's house is a train car, and he has a cassette of train sounds. The woman leaves, and calls a young woman. The young woman tells her boyfriend, a doctor, that she's been told her grandmother is ill, and she needs to return to her home town. She hasn't been there in thirteen years.Flash back to thirteen years ago. A shadowy figure enters a house. He caresses a sleeping young girl, then goes into another room and stabs the girl's mother. The girl wakes up and enters her mother's room and finds her dead with a knife in her. She screams, and an arm comes out of nowhere and claps a hand over her mouth. She looks up in fear. That early scene in the movie of the killer muffling her scream, and the girl's look is one of the few effective shots in the movie.It doesn't have much going for it in the visuals department. Occasionally there's some strange use of sound, and there's some weird lighting in an attic scene where many of the panes of glass are red and blue.Back to the present day. The young woman arrives in her grandmother's house. An old doctor is there, who she doesn't trust, along with the man from the opening scene "Judge" and Kearn, the town's museum operator. She doesn't trust any of them, and it's true they don't inspire any trust. She's rather crabby throughout the whole movie. She wants to check her grandmother into a hospital. The men in the town want her house, and the museum operator wants the things in it (his museum is already filled with many of the grandmother's things). Inexplicably, the woman wants to keep the house.The young woman starts getting phone calls from a man speaking in a sinister whisper. He makes various threats, and wants her to do things to arouse him. Such scenes recur often. Unfortunately, there are so few characters in the movie, that the possibilities of who it could be are limited. Worse still, we see right from the beginning who is making the phone calls. So, while the young woman doesn't know (even though the caller occasionally drops into his normal voice), the audience always knows: no suspense. Each call rattles her more and more.The ending was unexpected for me, so maybe gets points for not going with the obvious, but I'm not sure I cared for it.$LABEL$ 0
+What can I say? I couldn't sleep and I came across this movie on MTV. I started watching it with every intention of changing the channel if it started to get lame as so many anti-drug movies do but I got sucked into this movie and I couldn't stop watching. Nick Stahl did an amazing job with his character, and in my opinion he really made the movie something worth watching. I was interested in purchasing the soundtrack to the movie (or even the movie itself) and MTV.com was no help at all, but believe it or not Amazon.com is taking pre-orders for the August 5th release of the movie on DVD. I know I had a hard time tracking it down, and I'm sure other people might have had the same problem. I'm buying my own copy so I can drool over Nick Stahl while bawling my eyes out at the same time thanks to the emotional storyline!$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was a major disappointment on direction, intellectual niveau, plot and in the way it dealt with its subject, painting. It is a slow moving film set like an episode of Wonder Years, with appalling lack of depth though. It also fails to deliver its message in a convincing manner.The approach to the subject of painting is very elite, limited to vague and subjective terms as "beauty". According to the makers of this movie, 'beauty' can be only experienced in Bob-Ross-style kitschy landscape paintings. Good art according to this film can be achieved by applying basic (like, primary school level) color theory and lots of sentiment. In parts the movie is offending, e.g. at a point it is stated (rather, celebrated by dancing on tables) that mentally handicapped people are not capable of having emotions or expressing them through painting, their works by definition being worthless 'bullshit' (quote).I do not understand how the movie could get such high rating, then again, so far not many people rated it, and they chose for only very high or very low grades.$LABEL$ 0
+Will Smith is perfectly endearing as the "Relationship Doctor," here to heal all your relationship woes.I expected this to be a standard RomCom with little to amuse. I'm happy to report that I was wrong. Will Smith is delightful and unexpectedly "fresh" in this Andy Tennant vehicle. Surrounded by a great supporting cast, an interesting story, and fed with witty dialog, I was thoroughly engaged.We found this one cute, quirky, and inspirational without being preachy.It rates a 7.4/10 from...the Fiend :.$LABEL$ 1
+The Ballad of Django is a meandering mess of a movie! This spaghetti western is simply a collection of scenes from other (and much better!) films supposedly tied together by "Django" telling how he brought in different outlaws. Hunt Powers (John Cameron) brings nothing to the role of Django. Skip this one unless you just HAVE to have every Django movie made and even THAT may not be a good enough excuse to see this one!!$LABEL$ 0
+"Don't bother to watch this film" would be better advice, if you like Marilyn Monroe in her other roles. This was a huge disappointment considering the great cast, not just Marilyn.The story was just nothing, certainly nothing like described on the VHS box, of course. There simply was no suspense, precious little excitement and too many dull spots, most of them trying to show why "Nellie" (Monroe) was so messed up. This was not a good role for Monroe, even though I didn't need to see this character to know she could act. "Some Like It Hot" alone was good enough evidence for me. But this role just didn't fit her and it's no surprise it wasn't one of her more popular films.It's also too bad a film had the waste of the talents of actors like Richard Widmark, Anne Bancroft, Elisha Cook Jr., Jeanne Cagney, Donna Cocoran and others. Summary: it's not entertaining and entertainment is the name of the game.$LABEL$ 0
+As a youth pastor I heard good things about this movie. Then I watched it. The acting wasn't the best. That's forgivable. It's the message that's not: Give Jesus your life and everything will change - you'll tackle better, make amazing catches, stop fumbling, start making touchdown passes, and even make the playoffs. All because Jesus magically turns horrible undersized weaklings into All-American athletes. I laughed out loud when a coach quoted scripture to explain to the kicker why he was missing field goals. But wait, that's not all. You'll get a brand new truck, a $6000 raise, and you and your wife's struggle with infertility will suddenly end in pregnancy - twice. THEN you'll win the state championship because God helps a weakling kick the winning field goal 12 yards further than he's ever kicked before - and into the wind, no less - all because "God wanted him to make it." Then you'll win the state championship again the next year. None of this good stuff would have happened if the team hadn't chosen to follow Jesus will all their hearts.Here's what I took away from the movie: God can do anything he wants to do whenever he wants to do it - and it's all about making our lives better, easier, and more enjoyable. He chooses his favorite team and helps them win games. Which bible is this story based on? I'll bet Saint Stephen wished he'd known the keys to such a safe life before he was stoned to death. Someone should have made this movie before 10 of the 11 apostles were killed for following Jesus. It would have saved them all a lot of trouble.$LABEL$ 0
+The 1994 film production of Heart of Darkness was in no way capable of living up to the outstanding book. The film contained unnecessary scenes that confused the viewer rather than aiding them in understanding what was going on. The director was obviously not experienced, and if he is, then he didn't show it. On top of that, scenes from the book were left out or changed, scenes that were rather important. The movie left me feeling rather bored and was a complete waste of my time. The characters acted as though they had no idea what was going on, and the actors did not portray the emotions that Marlow and the rest revealed in the book. Overall, the movie was terrible and completely lacked the suspense that was otherwise necessary to make it even remotely interesting.$LABEL$ 0
+I don't know, maybe I just wasn't in the mood for this kind of movie, but it was full of trite melodrama. It was too long and seemed at least mildly disjointed (granted, I didn't pay full attention...). For a more entertaining depiction of the battle of Stalingrad, see Enemy At The Gates. True, some pretentious folks will scoff because it's a Hollywood film, and doesn't show "the gritty reality of war" like this "wonderful foreign film" does, but it has better flow and is all around just more fun to watch. Besides, there are already enough contrivedly "gritty" war movies, and this one just seemed amateurly done. But hey, you might like it, so go right ahead; it just wasn't for me.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the most underrated movies of the 1990s. If you allow yourself to identify with the Patricia Arquette character, you will find it to be a very moving story of a woman regaining a sense of purpose to her life, and finding a new will to live.Arquette's performance is brave because it is purposefully "wooden" -- it's a way of defining her character's spiritual death, her complete lack of a desire to be alive. She moves through life like a zombie because her family has been murdered and she can't see the point of living. What is moving is how in the course of the story, she is reawakened -- by the Burmese landscape, by the beautiful quality of its people and landscapes, and by the primal choices she is forced to confront.Boorman supports this visually (and Hans Zimmer supports it with one of his most gorgeous, haunting scores) with an often static camera and with a propensity to shoot through glass, windows, windshields, etc. We are on the outside looking in, just like Arquette.... until she finds herself deep in the jungle and is forced to choose whether or not to fight for her life.I recommend the 1954 movie THE PURPLE PLAIN as well. It's a similar story in a similar setting, and makes for a fascinating comparison.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is truly amazing,over the years I have acquired a taste for Japanese Monster movies and am well aware that early examples of this genre can be poor. However this one reaches a new low, as it follows the adventures of Johnny Sokko(?), a young boy who controls a Giant Robot, and his fight against the evil Gargoyle Gang, who seem to have an endless supply of horrid giant monsters at their disposal.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was excellent. It details the struggle between a committed detective against the dedicated ignorance of the corrupted communist regime in Russia during the 80's. I give this movie high marks for it's no-holds-barred look into the birth and development of forensic investigation in a globally isolated (thanks to the "Regime") community. This is a graphic movie. It presents an unsensationalized picture of violence and it's tragic remains. Nothing is "candy-coated" with overdone blood or gore to separate us from the cruel reality on the screen. This movie is based on Russian serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. I'm familiar enough with the true story to have a very deep appreciation for how real they kept the film. It's not a comedy, but for those who appreciate dry and dark humor, this movie is a must-see.$LABEL$ 1
+The picture is developed in 1873 and talks as Lin McAdam(James Stewart) and High Spade(Millard Michell)arrive to Dodge City looking for an enemy called Dutch Henry(Stephen McNally).The sheriff Wyatt Hearp(Will Ger)obligates to leave their guns.Both participate in an shot contest and Stewart earns a Winchester 73,the rifle greatest of the west but is robbed and starting the possession hand to hand(John McIntire,Charles Drake ,Dan Duryea).Meanwhile the starring is going on the vengeance.First western interpreted by James Stewart directed by Anthony Mann that achieved revive the genre during 50 decade. The film has an extraordinary casting including brief apparition of Rock Hudson and Tony Curtis,both newcomers. The picture is well narrated and directed by the magnificent director Anthony Mann who has made abundant classics western:Bend the river,Far country,man of Laramie,naked spur,tin star. Of course, all the essential elements western are in this film,thus,Red Indians attack,raid by outlaws,final showdown.The breathtaking cinematography by Greta Garbo's favourite photographer Willian Daniels. James Stewart inaugurated a new type of wage,the percentage on the box office that will imitate posteriorly others great Hollywood stars. Although the argument is an adaptation of ¨Big gun¨ novel of Stuart L.Lake and screenwriter is Borden Chase,is also based about real events because 4 July 1876 in Dodge City had a shot competition and the winner was rewarded with a Winchester 73 model 1873 with ability shoot 17 cartridges caliber 44/40 in few seconds.$LABEL$ 1
+This can be one of the most enjoyable movies ever if you don't take it seriously. It is a bit dated and the effects are lame, but it is so enjoyable. There are giant crabs that attack a girl. oh, and the crabs sing Japanese. It is amazingly bad. And the ending, which has been telegraphed throughout the entire film is hideously awesome. Predictable, but seeing the final fight will leave you rolling in your seat. Don't even give this film a chance and you will love it. Susan George is fun to watch and yes, she does appear naked. Her daughter isn't quite worth putting up with, but she does get attacked by giant crabs. They are the size of large cats. This is a 2, but I love it. As a movie, my God, but for entertainment, I give it a 7. Did I mention there are giant crabs?$LABEL$ 0
+After their star cross-country runner dies after a race, the members of a track team are stalked and killed by a mysterious masked murderer seeking vengeance for the girl's death.From the beginning of this film, it was quite obvious it was not going to be very good (at least as far as true quality goes). The 'dramatic' track race at the end of the introduction scene was one of the least believable sporting events I've ever seen in a film. It would seem that the winner of the race had never actually run before in her entire life. Not just run track. . . but, run at all. Ever. From there, we get a horribly unrealistic female Navy member who was breaking numerous appearance rules with her jewelry and make-up, not to mention the fact that her hair was hanging loose onto her collar while in uniform. Ridiculously awkward camera angles, pathetically done gore effects, and acting that ranged from frighteningly over-the-top to boringly under done (all in one actor, mind you) all help to make this film one of the most unintentionally hilarious horror films ever made. On the other hand, the writing wasn't all that terrible and the story was actually okay. But, the direction was horrible, made worse by offensively bad cinematography. The acting ranged from acceptable to just plain abysmal. Regardless of all the embarrassingly bad elements, however, there's something here, whether it be cheese or something else that I can't figure out, that makes the film extremely enjoyable and very worthy of a watch. Maybe it was just Vanna White.Obligatory Slasher Elements:- Violence/Gore: Death scenes were fun enough, but the gore was just awful: blood squirts from impossible angles, no actual gashes or wounds from knives, etc. But, this film has the first 'death by football' scene I've ever seen.- Sex/Nudity: There was a bit of nudity (I mean, Linnea Quigley is in it, after all), and some overly horny high schoolers, but nothing to excess.- Cool Killer(s): If you think leather gloves, stop watches, track suits, and fencing masks are cool, this one is for you.- Scares/Suspense: Not really any at all. There is one moment that takes place in the girls' locker room that I was preparing myself to be scared at. . . but, it just led to some typical stupidity and was ruined for me.- Mystery: A little, but if you can't figure out the killer's identity about 20 minutes into the film, then I'm not too sure about your powers of deduction.- Awkward Dance Scene: There's a great impromptu jam session ("Graduation Day Blues") with a guitar & harmonica that leads to some awesome 80s bopping. This is followed shortly by some kind of weird blend of 70s disco and 80s break dancing that was probably the scariest part of the film.Final verdict: 4/10. Don't take it too seriously and you might enjoy it (just like most everything else Troma touches).-AP3-$LABEL$ 0
+The movie Jennifer with Ida Lupino and Howard Duff is film noir magnificence.This is a mostly unknown movie that all film noir fans should see.Jennifer was filmed with the most unusual camera angles for that time, which made the movie have a surreal like quality at times. I love the stark black and white film noir movies.Film noir in color is not as good.The cast and script is excellent.The rather creepy music is fun to listen to.Ida Lupino is one of the best and talented actresses to ever grace the screen.I have never seen a production that she was in that I did not like.She was not only breathtakingly beautiful,she was a fine actress.The first movie that I remember seeing Ida Lupino in was Roadhouse with Richard Widmark and Cornel Wilde.I never forgot the movie,or her. I saw her last films like Food Of The Gods and Women In Chains, and even though the movies were not her usual fare, she was still delightful in them as an actress.Howard Duff is always terrific to watch.I highly recommend this masterpiece to everyone.I have this movie on VHS tape.$LABEL$ 1
+Historical drama and coming of age story involving free people of color in pre civil war New Orleans. Starts off slow but picks up steam once you have learned about the main characters and the real action can begin. This is not just a story about the exploitation of black women, because these were free people. They may not have had all the rights of whites but they certainly had more control over their destinies than their slave ancestors. The young men and women in this story must each make their own choice about how to live their lives, whether to give into the depravity of the system or live with optimism and contribute to their community. I enjoyed all of the characters but my favorites were Christophe, Anna Bella, and Marcel.$LABEL$ 1
+Soylent Green IS...a really good movie, actually.I never would've thought it. I don't really like Heston in his sci-fi efforts. He's one of those actors who, like Superman, manages to come across all sneery and invincible most of the time. I prefer more vulnerable heroes. And indeed, he sneers his way through much of Soylent Green, too, but as he's supposed to be playing an overconfident bully I don't really mind.I can understand why some people would turn their noses up at this movie. Soylent Green makes no effort whatsoever to create futuristic visuals (what do you know - it looks just like 1973), and it's lacking in action. But I admired the film's vision of a complex, corrupt, and highly stratified society, and I was so pleased to see that Edward G. Robinson had such a moving, funny final role. Nice little character moments - like when he shares some precious food with Heston - really make the movie.The message of Soylent Green is pretty relevant these days, when nobody seems to know what the hell the government or corporations are up to. Funny, isn't it, to see Heston in a prototype Michael Moore movie...$LABEL$ 1
+The only thing I expected that this film didn't have was an intelligent, talking motorcycle.This film is just plain awful. I gave it 1 star, which of course, means I enjoyed it tremendously. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing, bad fight choreography. The only real actor in this movie is Martin Landau, who of course does a good job playing the villain, although the character is your standard cardboard cutout evil CEO/Villain. Even the so-called "plot twist" at the end was no shock.There was so much to make fun of in this movie, I enjoyed it a lot. And it did have a few impressive car wreck stunts.Like bad movies? Check this one out, ouch. Want a good movie? Not here.$LABEL$ 0
+I love these actors, but they were wasted in this flick.I can only wonder, what WERE they thinking agreeing to this crap???Debra Winger just phoned it in; Dennis Quaid and Arliss Howard were caricatures. Some people thought it was deep. Well, if you liked "Breaking the Waves", you'll probably like this too. I hated both. 3/10$LABEL$ 0
+There are no spoilers here... Because there is no plot to spoil. Madchen Amick is living proof a face can make a living acting-- no talent required. The only bright spot are a few really good one-liners delivered very nicely by Alice Krige, but then again, she IS Alice Krige. Her soft dreamy voice gives the only hint at just how seductively dangerous these odd creatures can be. She is believably creepy in this otherwise unbelievable plot. How they got her to agree to this project remains a mystery. The screenplay writers must have been medicated when they submitted this script. It has major continuity problems, superficial stereotypical characters, horror formula writing, and simply falls short of making any sense what-so-ever. The creatures, while they have neat skills like going "dim", the question of where they come from and what they are is never so much explored. Don't waste any time on this one.$LABEL$ 0
+For the most part, I only enjoy the kind of movie that allows one to escape the current time into the future or past. This movie is pure escapism. The dancing starts almost immediately, and Debra Paget in her "purple harem" bikini dress simply has no equal in film in my opinion. Her dancing, while sultry, is surpassed by her dance in Fritz Lang's Tiger of Eschnapur, available on DVD, where she played the temple dancer Seetha.One problem with the movie is the closed setting. There are few outdoor scenes shot, and they as well as other scenes are a bit claustrophobic. The same locations are used over and over again, but with some interesting secret passages and waterways. Her secret double identity is totally unbelievable with beauty of that magnitude. Debra even wields a sabre and holds 2 enemy soldiers at bay on a staircase, she could do it all.What does work is Debra Paget as a princess. With her beauty, she certainly would be the center of attention anywhere at any time in history. This movie, when hopefully it becomes available on DVD, will be a must buy. Overall, taken with a bit of humor, I loved it.$LABEL$ 1
+I originally posted the first user comment on this movie,and claimed it was crap and it didnt make sense.I DIDNT MAKE SENSE. Campfire tales is a thoroughly enjoying film (now that im 2 years older and watched it last night).The actors were famous but not TOO famous. The acting itself was more than acceptable,it was rather good.I will rate the movie per segment of films.1)The black and white scene (A.K.A-"The Hook") This one was rather pointless,it looked good,but didnt hold much grip at all,the only disappointing one,i dont think it was even included as a segment.Here is the scare-o-meter.------(Poor)2)The R.V Story (honeymooners stuck in woods) Possibly the most entertaining of all tales,the acting was good in this one too,dissapointing bout the typical caravan sex scenes.Yet it was intruiging,you think "WHo was knocking on that door".It had suspense,and not too gory.Liked this one--------------------------(Very Good)3)Internet Chat Tale (Little Girl Meets Psycho) This was a smart addition,gore left at a minimal,frights left at EXTREME.Although dull at times,the last few minutes were most entertaining,dont get me wrong it was still fun to watch.Real creepy,and could happen to anybody,so watch who youre talking to.---------------------------(Very Good)4)Ghost Tale (Man kisses ghost)?? Not the best,it wasnt too atmospheric for a ghost tale.This one was strange,the aspects were rather good,playing music and the screaming,but everything was too real to be ghastly,although it was good,it was quiet bloody,and could have been better with that idea.-------------(Acceptable)5)The Ending (the 4 lost teenagers) These are the 2 attractive gals and guys telling the tales through-out the film.The best thing about the film is definantley the ending,it set a great impression,the ending was totally un-expected.Watch it,it was so well done,the realism was spectacular.-----------------------------------(TOP NOTCH)6)THE FILM OVERALL Campfire tales was more than i used to take it for,i actually like it so much now im buying it on video,cause its a truly entertaining horror movie forget the trash you see these days,like many,im dissapointed that this didnt really go nowhere,it was straight to video,to me it was better than all the hype "horror" you see these days. Overall for Campfire Tales----------------------------- (Very Good)8 out of 10$LABEL$ 1
+I disagree with much that has been written and said about this supposed "masterpiece" of the German New Wave: 1) There are major flaws in simple exposition, in the basic communication of critical plot points, as relating to Maria's abortion and the secret contract between Oswald and her husband. How many viewers understood that the husband agreed, in exchange for substantial financial remuneration, not to return to and reclaim his wife until Oswald was dead?2) The ending is highly unsatisfying because arbitrary and accidental. The original screenplay called for Maria to commit suicide after the reading of Oswald's will, on finding out that her husband had in effect sold their marriage to Oswald. In the final version, however, Maria only runs water from a faucet across her wrist in a gesture of suicide. Maria is then summarily blown up, rather than having to confront and live with the consequences of her self-delusion and moral compromise.3) Fassbinder seeks to forcibly superimpose the public on the private, the political on the personal. Contrary to what the critics and "experts" assert, I don't think it works. Merely intruding historic radio news or the sound of the jackhammers of German reconstruction in the soundtrack on the dramatic events of the movie does not make those historical events integral to the drama. The selfish ambition of Maria's rise from poverty to prosperity is meant to parallel the so-called economic miracle of postwar Germany. Maria is thus intended to be a woman specific to and reflective of her time and place, but is in reality unoriginal and nonspecific. Women have been asserting their independence by using sex for self-advancement for ages. 4) Lastly, there are several instances of inexcusable sloppiness and amateurishness -- Fassbinder's drug addiction and consequent impatience and inattention have had their effect. Unknown people talk off screen without ever being seen; music is clumsily intrusive in places; and melodramatic posturing sporadically substitutes for acting.Strangely, for a movie condemning a country for willful collective amnesia of the holocaust, it itself never mentions it once.$LABEL$ 0
+Snakes on a Train is a movie I rented due to the pure amusement of the thoughts I had, about the movie. Snakes on a Plane was an enjoyable Action film, so obviously the film makers wanted to cash in on the success, with this low budget effort. At 85 minutes, Snakes on a Train is almost unbearable to witness. I had to keep pausing the film to do something to entertain myself, due to the lack of happenings in the film. Throughout the duration of the film, it's never fully explained why this girl has this curse, or why she keeps coughing up this green/purplish goo constantly. Not only that, there is endless boring dialog of the two main characters, Brujo and Alma discussing how to get rid of the curse. I can appreciate low budget film-making. I'm truly not picky on movies, i'm open to any genre or budget, but Snakes On A Train is truly one of the worst Horror films I have ever seen. Were the writers on Acid or something at the end of this film?. Why did the woman suddenly turn into a giant snake? and most importantly how on earth was it able to devour the train?.Bottom line. Snakes on a Train is a movie that needs to be avoided at all costs. Don't be intrigued like I was by the title, this is a movie that's seriously bad. Let's put these snakes to rest0/10$LABEL$ 0
+I've always found the dilettante Man Ray and his artistic efforts to be deeply pretentious, and I've never understood why his work attracts so much attention. Apart from his Rayographs (which he invented by accident, and which are merely direct-contact photo prints), his one real contribution to culture seems to be that he was the first photographer to depict female nudity in a manner that was accepted as art rather than as porn. But surely this had to happen eventually, and there's no real reason why Ray deserves the credit. The critical reaction to Man Ray reminds me of the story about the Emperor's New Clothes."L'Étoile de merde" ... whoops, "de mer" ... features a lot of blurry photography and a recurring visual theme of a starfish, which is never explained. Starfishes have the fascinating ability to regenerate lost limbs -- and even to regenerate entire duplicate bodies -- but, if that has anything to do with this movie's theme, Ray neglects to say so. I was much more impressed by this movie's title cards, which (in French) manage to include rhymes, a pun ('Si belle, Cybele') and some portmanteaux.As so often in Ray's work, there is indeed a beautiful young woman seen in this movie. Unfortunately, the photography is (largely) so blurred that we have little opportunity to appreciate her. I'll rate this mess one point out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+Greenthumb Grace is left penniless after her husbands death so she turns to ganja-growing in order to pay the bills. It sounds promising and the ever-reliable Brenda Blethyn doesn't disappoint but the material is sitcom-thin. There's actually a scene where Grace asks her young gardener to "Give me one" (a toke) and he thinks she's asking for sex and acts all awkward. Yes, it's humour so twee a nun would be bored. Saving Grace doesn't seem to know what it wants to be: the stunning cinematography and stately pace evoke memories of Ryan's Daughter whilst the light-hearted whimsy of the country townsfolk could be lifted from any episode of Antiques Roadshow. It does speed up after the first hour but by then it's too clichéd to care. The climax manages to be unpredictable only by introducing the most shameless Deux ex Machina I've ever seen.$LABEL$ 0
+When HULK hit theaters in 2003, it wasn't long before DVDs of the old Incredible Hulk TV show popped up in an attempt to cash in on the craze. We saw a similar occurrence a year prior when Spider-Man cartoons appeared on DVD to coincide with that hero's big screen debut. Companies leap at the opportunity to ride on the financial coattails of a hot brand.So the fact that this picture never surfaced on the shelves of Wal-Mart as its featured heroes clobbered the box office in the summer of 2005 says a lot. I guess everyone involved would just rather forget. To be fair, THE FANTASTIC FOUR is not as bad as everyone says. Let me rephrase that. It's not as unentertaining as all of its negative reviews might suggest.Veteran television actor Alex Hyde-White (no, you don't remember any of his roles) leads the way as Reed Richards, the brilliant scientist who, along with his crew, gains bizarre powers after an outer space mishap. He's left with the ability to stretch and contort his body to outrageous lengths. His future wife, Sue Storm (Rebecca Staab), can suddenly turn invisible, while her brother, Johnny (Jay Underwood), may now ignite himself at will. Then there's poor Ben Grimm (Michael Bailey Smith), the lovable lug whose body morphs into a mass of craggy, orange rock.Just as the friends are becoming accustomed to all of this, they are called upon to rescue the world from certain chaos. It seems Reed's old colleague Victor von Doom (Joseph Culp) is living up to his name, and that villainous Jeweler (Ian Trigger) isn't exactly helping old ladies cross the street, either. Can our heroes save the day? Of course they can; like any superhero movie, it's just a question of how and when.What's striking about THE FANTASTIC FOUR is how amateurish it is in virtually every aspect. The dialog is so lame and tired it sounds like it was written by a junior high drama class. The acting is so unpolished it makes a third-rate afternoon soap opera look like Shakespeare. The special effects are surprisingly good considering the minuscule budget, but there are still some positively embarrassing moments. When The Human Torch fully ignites his body, for instance, the entire movie briefly turns into a cartoon. I can just hear that production meeting. "Oh, no one will notice. They'll be too intrigued by the action!" I mean really, a cartoon? At least give me a mannequin on fire held up by a string! Prior to that, the scene in which the foursome come to on earth after their spaceship crashes is pure teens-in-the-backyard fare. The crew simply found a field and lit a vaguely-spaceship-like object on fire. That's the only remnant of such a major disaster?Of course there wasn't a whole lot to work with in the script. There is a fairly coherent story here, but it's all so simplified. When Reed and Ben decide to go into outer space, they simply drop by the Storms' house and ask if they'd care to join them. Is it really that easy? Don't these sort of things require, oh, I don't know, years of training and expertise? Not in the world of these writers, who seemed to be inspired by the underrated genius on display in FULL HOUSE reruns. But as bad as that may be, nothing can compare to how painfully clichéd Dr. Doom is. He was pulled right out of those awful superhero cartoons from the 1960s, right down to the evil laugh and slamming his clenched fist down on the table to punctuate his remarks. No comic book, least of all Fantastic Four, has ever featured a villain so obscenely one dimensional.Ultimately, THE FANTASTIC FOUR is saved from being a complete turkey because it's just so damn innocent. You can tell the people involved, as little talent or experience as they had, really tried. They didn't know the final result would be so embarrassing. They were under the impression that this was their big break, that people would flock to the theaters. It bears repeating that they had virtually no money to work with (and I'm sure half of that was eaten up by the cool Thing costume). All things considered, they did well, and for its many flaws, the finished product is a fair amount of fun for comic book fans.$LABEL$ 0
+***SPOILERS*** Well made and interesting film about the alienated youth of America back in the 1950's. Back in those days many parents caught up with making big bucks and living high on the hog forget that their children, especially teen-agers, needed a lot more then a car and and hefty allowance in order to feel part of the family. They also needed love and attention, to their growing up problems, which is what 16 year-old Hal Ditmar, James MacArthur never got from his successful movie producer dad Mr.Tom Ditmar, James Daly.Never really connecting with his dad Hal grows more and more distant from both him and his caring mom Helen Ditmar, Kim Hunter, as well as from society. After his dad put Hal down about him wanting to borrow his car, a late model luxury sedan, he and his friend Jerry, Jeffery Silver, drive in Hal's beat up and barley operational 1930's jalopy to the local treater to catch the latest western flick.Feeling like striking out at the world Hal acts like a real first-class jerk sticking his smelly feet almost into the faces of a couple, Eddie Ryder & Jean Corbett, sitting in front of him and Jerry trying to watch the movie. This leads Hal, as well as his friend Jerry, to not only be kicked out of the theater but with him belting the theater manager Mr. Grebbs, Whit Bissell. It turned out that at least Hal was willing to leave the theater, without even getting his money back, but when Grebbs tries to grab him Hal wheeled around and belted him right in the kisser.Hal now in real hot water, he's charged with assault and battery, put's on his "James Dean" act, at the local police station, making like he's either too cool or just plain stupid to realize what he's done; almost knocked Mr. Grebbs teeth out. It's when Sgt.Shipley, James Gergory, tells Hal that his dad is coming to pick him up when he finally sobers up to the fact of what he's done.The rest of the film has Hal try to straighten himself out but is unable to do that because the low esteem that his dad has of him. Begging his father to understand that what he did, in belting Mr. Grebbs, was in self-defense Hal's father acts as if he's been there, at the theater, and saw the whole incident with his son Hal acting like a street thug instead of of a young man being grabbed and pushed without provocation.Not excusing what Hal did, in laying out Mr. Grebbs, he in fact was willing to admit his hooligan behavior but he wanted both Mr. Grebbs and his dad to at least treat him with an iota of consideration; Gebbs in the fact that he provoked Hal and Mr. Ditmas in not even bothering to hear him out! Feeling like a wanted criminal without anyone, but his mom, to really turn too Hal slowly loses it only to later have both Sgt. Shipley and Mr. Grabbs agree to drop the assault charge. You would think that by now Hal's has finally learned his lesson but the real lesson, more then a stretch behind bars, that Hal's so desperately needed was a lesson that his father totally ignored! Being there when his son needed him most and in that Mr. Ditmar failed with flying colors.Things do in fact straighten out for everyone in the movie only after Mr. Grebbs gets belted, ending up with a butte of a shiner, again by Hal who, going back to Grebbs theater, tries to get him to phone his dad and tell him that Hal was only defending himself when he first, not the second time around, clobbered him. In the end Hal learned a real lesson in getting along with people an not letting his problems become other peoples problems. But most of all Hal's father Mr. Ditmar learned the most valuable lesson of all in how to understand his frustrated and alienated son and act like a father toward him instead of a combination jail-keeper and a sugar daddy. Like the song says "All you need s Love" to get things on the right track and it was both love and understanding for his son Hal that Mr. Ditmar, until the very end of the movie, lacked the most off.$LABEL$ 1
+He really lost the plot with this one! None of his distinctive trademarks here at all, an uninteresting plot and completely terrible acting make this his worst film (in my opinion). Even his trademark gore is gone, bar one scene in an operating theatre. Oh well, at least his next film 'Nightmare Concert' showed that he could still shock when he wanted to...$LABEL$ 0
+Being a fan of Saint Etienne and the City of London, I was very excited to see this movie on the list of the Vancouver International Film Festival. This movie has great shots, an absolutely excellent soundtrack and interesting insights into a 'not so well known' London.The movie is held completely in 'dark' colours, which I personally don't like too much. Furthermore the narration was a little too British and the comments sometimes got a little flat. Other than that, there are some great comments by Londoners and excellent shots. FINISTERRE doesn't glorify London by showing all the great attractions of the city, but rather gives deep insights in what London is really like. From the East end to the vibrant centre with its music scene as well as the 'special little retreats' for Londoners.All in all:+Great Soundtrack +Nice shots +great insights-Narration -Tiering to watch at times -Very dark pictureWorth watching! I give it a 7/10$LABEL$ 1
+I laughed out loud several times during this film though give it a cursory glance and you would think it was something else altogether. I adore the pace and the way it slowly burns into you as you are presented these gobsmackingly beautiful tableaux. Andersson gives us something else here. Shows us something I had not seen since his last film. He is compositionally exceptional and via his method of fixing the camera and allowing action to take place before us, he opens the door on humanity and we peer into a place that reflects our own lives, our little lives. It is powerful stuff. It is the simplicity with which he allows the events to take place that creates the opposite feeling of complexity. Everything in front of the camera is anything but simple. Andersson's attention to detail is extraordinary. I believe most scenes, if not all, are sets built from scratch according to his designs. I cannot recommend this film highly enough. For me it took me to a place and I came out of it having witnessed a world frayed and beautiful, starched and pained, barren and splendid. At once alien and familiar. This film is brilliant and life affirming. I know because I came out smiling feeling wonderful. It has taken him seven years to make this. If he only made this one film he would still be up there with the greats.$LABEL$ 1
+'Moonstruck' is a love story. There is not one romance, there are at least three, but they all have to do with the same family. Loretta's family. Loretta (Cher) is about to marry Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello). She doesn't love him, but he is sweet and good man. When he leaves to visit his dying mother in Italy Loretta meets Johnny's brother Ronny (Nicolas Cage). He and Johnny haven't spoken each other in five years and Loretta wants to invite him to the wedding. Of course they fall instantly for each other.How this story and love stories of Loretta's parents and uncle and aunt develop is something you simply have to see for yourself. Every seen is a delight to watch, with Cher as the bright star in the middle of everything. She won and really deserved the Oscar that year. Cage is pretty good, and goofy as well, and Olympia Dukakis as Loretta's mother and Vincent Gardenia as her father are terrific. This movie is funny, charming and therefore highly enjoyable.$LABEL$ 1
+College students, who are clearing out a condemned dormitory, are stalked by an elusive killer.The Dorm That Dripped Blood (aka Pranks) is a bit of a mixed bag for slasher fans. The movies production values are pretty low and the story for the most part is pretty routine, there's even a creepy bum hanging around for a red herring. In fact much of the story's build-up is pretty forgettable, save for one or two brutal murders. But the movie is really made better by its surprisingly intense climax (in an atmospheric setting) and one fairly bold, unconventional conclusion.The cast is lackluster for the most part. Stephen Sachs is the best of the lot as he does a pretty nice turn in character. Also look for a young Daphne Zuniga as an ill-fated student.Over all this is a pretty standard B slasher effort, but the finale is well worth savoring and for this viewer saved the movie from being a complete ho-hum.** out of ****$LABEL$ 0
+Don't you just hate them slashers that never seem to get started? It sometimes takes them a full hour of lame red herrings before some real action takes place. "Tourist Trap" isn't like that! If it's typically gruesome slashing you want...than it's typically gruesome slashing you'll get! Plenty of it AND constantly from start to finish! This movie contains what is probably the greatest opening sequence in 80's horror cinema when a teenager, on a stroll after engine trouble, is trapped in a deserted house and assaulted by a creepy collection of wax statues. Four other lambs to the slaughter arrive at the house and encounter an utterly insane maniac that looks somewhat like a mixture of Leatherface (from "Texas Chainsaw Massacre") and one of those mad sculptors from old wax-museum movies. "Tourist Trap" is exciting horror entertainment, with some genuine suspense, grisly images, ultimate weirdness, morbid humor and terrific make-up effects. The plot twists aren't always original and the acting is pretty lousy but, seriously, who cares? The fast pacing and the groovy killer-icon caused this "Tourist Trap" to earn a spot amongst my 5 favorite slashers. A bit surprising is the total lack of nudity, though. Too bad, because all the girls look ravishing and after only 10 minutes, the obligatory line "Who needs a bathing-suit?" is spoken.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is being described as a comedy, but it wasn't a comedy at all. Like any Panahi film, it was a very realistic drama depicting the common thread of social inequity and hypocrisy. But it was very funny; much lighter than the director's dark and serious The Circle (my favourite Iranian film). The resourcefulness of the girls and the banter between them and the soldiers was both completely believable (as if it were a documentary) and completely hilarious.The filming the actual match and aftermath was astonishing. It added a realism much like Australia's Kenny, of course a very different film.The performances from all the non-professional actors – soldiers and girls – were very credible. It was very moving to see the passion, disappointment and excitement of these girls. Anyone in this country who thinks Muslim girls wearing a chador are any different to their own daughters should go see this film – it will be a real eye-opener.To me, the soldiers represented the current paradigm. They started out with stock-standard official policy responses to all the pleas of the girls. As the film progressed, they found it more and more difficult to maintain this stance. When what seems like all of Teheran breaks out into wild celebration, everyone is caught up in it, and the ridiculousness of the current policies is obvious to one and all.It was a very moving and unexpected ending, and gave the film a really nice blend of emotions, frivolity, drama and social commentary. Though it's adult cinema, I think mature-minded children from about seven onwards would really appreciate this film (as long as they can read subtitles).It is remarkable that a repressive country like Iran is able to produce films of such quality by the likes of Panahi and Kiarostami. Perhaps the constraints there force directors to be extremely resourceful. Australian (and other) film makers could take a leaf out of their book.$LABEL$ 1
+What is the most harrowing movie ever made? The gynaecological nightmare of 'Cries and Whispers'? The acid psychodramas of Fassbinder? The discomfiting black comedy of 'Last House on the left? I'm sure for that portion of the film-loving public that tie their masts to the good ship Buster Keaton, there is only one answer - any one of his sound films. I don't know what flayed my soul more poignantly in this movie - the grounding of Keaton's intricate and expansive physical art to humdrum slapstick; the painful hesitation of this master filmmaker with dialogue - not that he hasn't a lovely, comic voice, or that he can't make dialogue funny; it's just that the studio don't seem to have given him enough takes, and so he seems to be trying to remember his lines before he delivers, which only makes him - Keaton, not his character, look silly; or is it the humiliation of seeing Keaton caught up in a tawdry sex farce, when he has given us some of the richest accounts of romantic frustration in film? No, I know what was most disturbing - having to watch Buster Keaton, cinema's greatest comedian, sit aside to observe Jimmy Durante doing his schtick. It is horrors such as this that get yer Dantes composing yer Infernos.MGM seem to have got the curious idea that the best way to adapt Keaton to sound was to turn him into a Marx Brother, complete with verbal pedantry, elaborate, tedious 'clowning', shambolic slapstick, theatrical setting, triumph through chaos, and Thelma Todd. Keaton was just not that sort of comic, and where Groucho's malicious tongue and gleeful opportunism might just have made this plot work, Buster's socially inept professor can't, he is too studied and predictable. What Buster needed was to be allowed experiment like Lang in 'M', or Rene Clair; he would never have tried to hold back the tide like Chaplin. When a film like 'The General' is alluded to - messing about with trains - the loss becomes even more apparent. And the thing is, in patches amid the flat direction, the film isn't all that bad - there is an excellent jolt when a camera on the bus leaves Keaton alone at a railway station; and the denouement, if hardly original, is at least livelier than what went before. There is something almost endearing about the way Keaton slows down a plot that needs all the zip it can get. There is a film in here about loneliness, emotionally paralysing order, the numbing effects of education etc., struggling to get out. The best way to appreciate this film is to watch not the narrative of Professor TZ Post, but of emasculated genius Buster Keaton, trapped in a prison of mediocrity, confounded by new technology, mocked by a malevolent fate (in this case the studio), retaining a stoical grace. Looked at like that, it becomes a kind of masterpiece.$LABEL$ 0
+I watched all three segments and am so disappointed in the story line. Zahn spends so much time mimicking Duvall he does nothing else in the show. And Tommy Lee Jones would never be so weak as a young man, unlikeable yes but weak never. We never see how or why they go to back to Lonesome Dove...which is a dirt hole in the original...why would they ever leave Austin where they are hero's...for doing nothing during the whole movie...I was rooting for Blue Duck by the end of the movie and he was totally miscast. There is no warning about how many segments there are...it just ends. This mini-series could have been "somebody"...tragic. It looked like it was directed by the Parrot and the Jag$LABEL$ 0
+well done giving the perspective of the other side fraulein doktor captures both the cost and the futility of war. excellent acting especially when german high command refuses in the name of chivalry to present medal kaiser ordered struck. the scenes of carnage are probably too intense for effete US minds who'd probably prefer some silly speeches and senseless abstractions like 14 points or the league of nations. real americans might appreciate the story line and the action. for all the action and intrigue, fraulein doktor compares favo(u)rably to Jacob's Ladder.$LABEL$ 1
+This is the worst sequel on the face of the world of movies. Once again it doesn't make since. The killer still kills for fun. But this time he is killing people that are making a movie about what happened in the first movie. Which means that it is the stupidest movie ever.Don't watch this. If you value the one precious hour during this movie then don't watch it. You'll want to ask the director and the person beside you what made him make it. Because it just doesn't combine the original makes of horror, action, and crime.Don't let your children watch this. Teenager, young child or young adult, this movie has that sorta impact upon people.$LABEL$ 0
+I just rented this today....heard lots of good reviews beforehand. WOW!! What a pile of steaming poo this movie is!! Does anyone know the address of the director so I can get my five dollars back???? Finally someone bumped "Stop-loss" from the 'Worst Iraq War Movie Ever' number one spot. To be fair, I don't think there are any good Iraq war movies anyway, but this was REALLY bad. I won't get into any technical inaccuracies, there's a hundred reviews from other GWOT vets that detail them all. If the director bothered to consult even the lowliest E-nothing about technical accuracy however they could've made the movie somewhat realistic....maybe. I guess the writer should be given the "credit" for this waste of a film. He or she obviously hatched the plot for this movie from some vivid imagination not afflicted with the restraints of reality. Does anybody but me wonder what the point of this movie was? Was there a message? Seriously though.....WTF????I'm pretty amazed at all the positive reviews really. This film is hard to watch as a vet because of all the glaring inaccuracies but even if one could overlook that, the plot sucks, characters are shallow (to say the least) and the acting is poor at best. It's ironic, I suppose, that this movie is supposed to be about Explosive Ordinance Disposal, because it's the biggest bomb I've seen this year.$LABEL$ 0
+Forget Jimmy Stewart reliving his life and opt for this smart comedy of errors instead. I suppose only institutionalized sexism explains why this flick and Stanwyck's other great Christmas story, "Meet John Doe" aren't revered with the same level of love as...well, you know it's name.Stanwyck plays a food writer for a McCall's-type rag who has been lying for years to her pompous publisher about the folksy setting for her recipes. She's an ace b.s. artist until the day Morgan's sailor is pulled from the ocean after 18 days afloat & 6 weeks recuperation in a Navy hospital. Released the last year of WWII, the film is dusted with subtle patriotic gestures and holiday nostalgia but never sinks to sentimentality. Stanwyck is sexy and sassy as always and meets her match in the hunky Morgan with whom it's love at first sight. Unfortunately, she has to play married to Gardiner's prissy architect who actually has been seeking her hand for years at his farm in CT, just to fool her boss.S.Z. Sakall adds a great deal of Hungarian malaprop & double-entendre humor in support as Babs' true source of culinary talent & Una O'Connor is hilarious as Gardiner's obnoxious Irish housekeeper.$LABEL$ 1
+Patricia Arquette plays American doctor Laura Bowman, who takes a holiday to Burma in an attempt to heal her spirit after the murders of her husband and young son. She is left behind in Rangoon during a military crackdown and leaves the city with an aging man who works as a "tour guide." But he is no simple tour guide; he is a professor who introduces her to the life outside of the tourist traps ... the two of them get caught up in the political upheaval and Laura sees with her own eyes how the government betrays and oppresses its own people.This movie is one of my favorites because of its themes. First, it's informational (describing some of the injustices that are occurring in Burma). Secondly, it's about a woman's struggle to find meaning in life after an incredible loss. Thirdly, it's about compassion and sacrifice, and people coming together - without even knowing each other - to endure pain and fear.Just about every beautiful scene in this movie is important; nothing is wasted here. It's an earnest and moving film. There is also a very emotional score composed by Hans Zimmer which complements scenes nicely.A definite recommend, especially to people concerned with human rights ... and people who want to know, "What purpose can I serve?"$LABEL$ 1
+It might be a stretch saying this as a die-hard Carlin fan, but the material, both written and as performed, in It's Bad for Ya is some of the best late-era material yet. At 70 Carlin bounces back from the level of despair (and some of the stumbles in the act itself) from Life is Worth Losing to a special that is firmly structured but loose and playful- or as much as the "old f***" can get- and is continuously, ceaselessly, funny. And funny as in reminiscent of what some of us had going on when watching Back in Town or 'Diseased' the first time. The material, even if sounding at times a tinge of the previously done (i.e. the whole bit on children in school and camp like the Children segment in Diseased), is always fresh and with such a sting of truth to everything that it scalds the mind while (here goes) tickling the funny bone.Going from the topic of death (how long to wait to scratch off a name from the book? six weeks, unless if on the computer scheduler), the facets of communication, looking down from Heaven, spots of God (naturally), kids, and just troublesome gestures involving hats in religion and if people really have "Rights" make up the bulk of the special, centered around the premise that what's bad for you, plain and simple, is BS. Total, complete BS, which as we also learn (or if you've really learned it you're like the kid waiting at the street corner for a week following dropped off not-quite randomly by the parent) holds the country together. Carlin isn't necessarily angry though, even if disdain seems to spout out at most turns, even just to observe how horrifying children's teeth coming in look. It's skepticism tinged with the feeling that everything is NOT going to be "fine".What it comes down to is this: Carlin is to dirty, witty, cautionary stand-up comedy what Yoda is to Jedis everywhere, which is a small spark of hope via crystal clear wisdom in a world where it's pretty damn hard to get any. At the least, we get classic GC - outrageous lines and bits from the man's 13th (or is it 14th) comedy special, including as far as an eyebrow-raising observation on people who play Mozart music during a birth!$LABEL$ 1
+I can't believe they even released such a movie. The only good acting came from the water in the movie. This has to be one of worst (if not the worst) movie I have ever seen.The only scary part of the movie is the bad acting, me giving this movie a 1 is me being to kind, this movie deserve a 0.The storyline, and if you can call it the plot of the movie, seems to have been written by an high school kid. Ofcaurse you have to ask yourself if it may have been better with better actors in it.Do yourself a favor, wait for it to show on TV. AND EVEN THEN WATCHING IT WILL BE A WAST OF TIME.$LABEL$ 0
+I was rooting for this film as it's a remake of a 1970s children's TV series "Escape into Night" which, though chaotic and stilted at times was definitely odd, fascinating and disturbing. The acting in "Paperhouse" is wooden, unintentionally a joke. The overdubs didn't add tension they only reinforced that I was sat watching a botch. Casting exasperated the dreary dialogue which resulted in relationships lacking warmth, chemistry or conviction. As in most lacklustre films there are a few good supporting acts these people should be comforted, consoled and reassured that they will not be held responsible. Out of all the possible endings the most unexpected was chosen ... lamer than I could have dreamt."Escape into Night" deserves a proper remake, written by someone with life experience and directed with a subtle mind.$LABEL$ 0
+How is it in this day and era, people are still dumb enough to think that other dumb stuff is smart? Maybe dumb people like watching stuff that makes them feel smart. Such as 'The War At Home'. 'Cuss it's even dumber than the dumb people who watch it. There are no jokes, only half-jokes and slight gags that barely even warrant a tiny internal smile. The acting is your typical, unsubtle, idiotic, standard sitcom flailing-limbs type acting. And why oh why did this crap replace arrested development? Well you gotta hand it to Fox. They know that they need to have stupid shows to attract all the stupid viewers. You see, the reason Arrested Development wasn't massively popular was because it was so smart. It was so smart that it made dumb people feel bad about being so dumb. And of course, if a dumb person encounters a smart person, the dumb person will hate the smart person. Most of the time anyway. Either that, or try and mooch off of the smart person. If you like this show, and are one of the dumb people, I truly cannot fathom what it must be like not to have open eyes and open minds. I cannot fathom what it must be like to be mindless, laughing drones, influenced by every little thing. Basically, people who laugh with a laugh track are parrots. Trained, obedient, mindless parrots. Maybe I shouldn't insult parrots by comparing them to you. You know who you are. (If I seem like a bastar* in this review, it's because I'm so annoyed at AD being canceled.)$LABEL$ 0
+"It wasn't me! It was, er, my twin brother Rupert!" Bobby says to Dugan when confronted about being over at Sally's place. I have used this line dozens of times over the years (no one has yet to believe it, though).This movie is one of the all-time best for sheer fun and nonbelieveability. Steven Oliver was perfect for the part of Dugan, so much so that he was in 1978's "Malibu Beach" as the same character (not nearly as much screen time, though)."Nobody calls Dugan a turd!" is another line for the ages. This classic film was definitely worth the price of admission.$LABEL$ 1
+Great documentary about the lives of NY firefighters during the worst terrorist attack of all time.. That reason alone is why this should be a must see collectors item.. What shocked me was not only the attacks, but the"High Fat Diet" and physical appearance of some of these firefighters. I think a lot of Doctors would agree with me that,in the physical shape they were in, some of these firefighters would NOT of made it to the 79th floor carrying over 60 lbs of gear. Having said that i now have a greater respect for firefighters and i realize becoming a firefighter is a life altering job. The French have a history of making great documentary's and that is what this is, a Great Documentary.....$LABEL$ 1
+I'm going to write about this movie and about "Irreversible" (the (in)famous scene in it). So you are warned, if you haven't seen the movie yet. This are just my thoughts, why I think the movie fails (in the end - pun intended).Acting wise, Rosario Dawson is really good and almost conveys portraying someone almost a decade younger (a teenager in other words). The villain guy is good, but loses his "evil" touch right before the end. If he really never changes, then why would he let a woman tie him up? He wouldn't, period. Then we also have the bartender/2nd rape Dude. Actually I don't think you would need him. At least not for the 2nd rape, but more about that later on.Let's reprise the story. Rosarios character is sexually insecure, might even have lesbian tendencies (see her scene with a female friend). This wasn't intentional, as Rosario states herself, but there is sexual tension between them. Rosario's character meets a guy, who is a sexual Predator, in all the bad senses. But he makes an impression on her.Rosario commented that her character had a boyfriend before. I beg to differ. Because she acts, as if it is her first boyfriend, which also underlines her phone conversation with her mother. Talking about her mother, here's another problem. After the first rape takes place, Rosarios character doesn't tell anyone what happened. Seiing that her relationship with her mother is a very close one, nothing of that gets explored after that. If Rosarios character wouldn't call her mother anymore or would behave strangely, the mother would be worried like crazy. There was so much potential here. Also her female friend: We see her at the party, it's obvious there is something going on and "boom" she is gone.The first rape is almost unbearable to watch. But feels like a pinch, when you compare it to the ending (rape), which feels like you're getting hit with a sledge hammer! After rape no. 1 we get too stretched out scenes. Threads are opened (such as her construction work is an indication that she might be lesbian, as one guy states who tried to hit on her ...), but left in the open. No real social contact is established, if you leave the bartender guy out, who is involved in the 2nd and last rape scene. It's apparent that he isn't a "nice" guy and his character get's fleshed out a bit. But when Rosarios character meets her rapist in class again, his being in the movie seems pointless. We get the point that Rosarios character isn't the same anymore, that she went "bad" and is able to hurt people. (Too) Many scenes show exactly that, her being without emotion just doing drugs and other stuff. Back to Rapist #1 who cheats on a test, gets caught by Rosarios character and they decide to hang out together again (really?). As absurd as that sounds, the guy meets up with her, not without us having seen him beforehand, with another girl (very likely that he raped her too, although we never see anything of that, fortunately) and his football career. Well career is a stretch and he is bullied. This is an attempt to give his character some depth and it almost works, but then again is too cliché to stay with you. So Rapist #1 submits to Rosarios character ... why exactly? Because he promised her, it was her day? Again, really? A guy like that never loses control, especially with a woman he raped before ... I guess this is supposed to show us how stupid he is. The bartender guy would have worked as someone who could have hit him over the head or something, but letting him submit like that, just feels wrong. Another possibility would have a drug in his drink.So rapist #1 undresses and get's blindfolded and let's Rosarios character tie him on a bed .... seriously, that's just crazy! But what comes next, is even crazier. First she talks to him, then she "shuts" him up and forces an object into him. This is as difficult to watch as rape scene number one. This isn't about what this guy deserves or not, it's just intense. And of course that was what they were aiming for. Now after she is "done" the bartender guy comes in and rapes ... rapist #1. If this really should work as a revenge movie, it would have been better if Rosarios character herself would have been doing all the "revenge". Having a henchman doing the job, takes away everything that was built up.This isn't supposed to be entertaining/enjoyable, it's a hard watch & it is Art-house. But the 10 minute (I didn't count ) rape scene at the end, just smashes everything. Rosarios character is more or less, only watching what happens. Which brings me to the biggest disappointment.Irreversible comparison: "Irreversible" had the rape scene, but the movie went on (even if it was back into time). Rosario is looking into the camera in the end and says something about having to get over this. First, that comes a bit too late, that should see her say that after the initial rape. And secondly and most importantly, this is where the Art-house movie should've come in. It is more interesting seeing were Rosarios character would go after the second rape scene and how she would cope, with what she had done. But then again, she didn't actually physically do that much (see above) ... a broken character that the movie cuts off ...Good intentions (Talia and Rosario had worked before), but failing to convey most of the things, they set out to do (even if you can see what they meant, it has to be convincing, otherwise it doesn't work) ... not to mention the overlong rape scenes as they are ...$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is best described or compare to "Big Fish" (the movie by Tim Burton). But it's a less glamorous and more in you face tale. And of course here it's not the father, but his grandfather who tells the stories.The movie's narrative also moves back and forth (so the story outline here at IMDb, might tell you more than you would like to read, before watching the movie). It's funny and engaging enough, even though you get from one story to another and have some dramatic moments too. It also surprises you here and there, with things you wouldn't expect. A nice little movie then, that deserves your attention, especially if you like movies like that! :o)$LABEL$ 1
+The final installment sees Sho Aikawa and Riki Takeuchi (looking cooler than ever in his reversible overcoat!) pitched against each other for one last battle, this time in the future. The plot owes a lot to Blade Runner, but done in Takashi Miike's low budget, frenetic, comic style. I did feel that it was the weakest of the three DOA films, and although the ending was still outrageous, it lacked the shock value of the previous two. Compared to the likes of Ichi the Killer and Visitor Q, DOA:Final is nowhere near as extreme, but is faithful to the other two films in the trilogy. That said, fans of the first two (and fans of Miike) will get a lot from this as it ties all three films together and gives a final explanation of the relationship between the two protagonists.$LABEL$ 1
+FOLLOWING the business coup of the year of 1941, Max and Dave, the Brothers Fleischer were removed from their own Studio by Paramount Pictures Corporation. Former employees such as Seymour Kneitel and Izzy Sparber were put in charge of the new operation, now renamed Famous Studios by Paramount. Early on, the finished product of Famous was indiscernible from that of the recent output by Fleischer. The existing series (Popeye, Superman) continued as if nothing at all had transpired.TODAY'S subject, JAPOTEURS is one of the earlier Famous Studio's SUPERMAN Shorts.AS had been the custom, the SUPERMAN Cartoons were a great combination of fine, fittingly fashioned music in the score. That goes for the theme (overture) as well as all the multi-mood background (incidental) music. It was if each cartoon short had its own background music, as all was kept fresh by apparently recording it anew with each picture.WITH regards to JAPOTEURS, we must remember that this was filmed during the first year of the United States' involvement and the characterization of the enemy was very stereotypical, short-handed and outright evil. The dialogue and personality of the villainous Japanese saboteurs was strictly from the stock characters of the old pulp magazine stories, with their every word being said in a sarcastic, totally insincere politeness as the characters would flaunt their cold bloodedness as they made the most demonic of threats and outrageous acts toward the occidental world.JAPOTEURS is visually bright and uplifting, stunningly laid out and makes use of some multi plane or table top animation in order to give its flying sequences a real depth.MAKING good use of the tie-ins between the animated cartoons, the SUPERMAN Radio Show then heard over the Mutual Broadcasting Network; the cartoon bears a close resemblance to the Comics Page and uses the very same talents of voice actors Bud Collyer and Joan Alexander from the Radio Show.WE rate it with a *** ½ stars.POODLE SCHNITZ!!$LABEL$ 1
+There are good movies, and there are bad movies, and then there's Moscow Zero, a film so utterly bad it makes spending a month in solitary with an insurance salesman an attractive entertainment alternative.With an incomprehensible plot about the gates of Hell opening within a labyrinth of tunnels under Moscow, the film is a mess of repetitive and nonsensical shots of a little girl running through tunnels, red lights floating about, and strange wall shadows, none of which serves to mount any fear or tension, but instead elicits the reaction of "here they go again with the girl (or lights)" from the viewer.Directed by María Lidón, who for reasons I can only conclude as shame, was billed as Luna, the movie stars Vince Gallo as Owen, an American priest who travels to Moscow in search of Sergei (Rade Serbedzija), a friend and colleague who has gone missing in the tunnels. He enlists the help of a series of locals who, with the exception of Oksana Akinshina, are all portrayed by Spanish actors trying with limited success to inflect Russian accents.Along the way they cross paths with members of some sort of underground leather-coated religious mafia headed by a portly Val Kilmer, whose career seems to be in such free fall that he's resorted to appearing in dreck like this, and henchman Sage Stallone (Sly's son), who seems to have been cast merely so the Stallone name can be included in the film's marquee.Apart from watching the troupe try to navigate their way through the tunnels with the aid of a comically drawn map, and repetitive shots of them being followed or eluded by a pale faced young girl, not much else goes on throughout. Dialogue routinely switches between English and Russian, with actors frequently taking turns in each language, and entire conversations are uttered half in one and half in the other with the only apparent reason being they felt like it, adding a frustrating dimension for the viewer, over and above trying to figure out the crazily cobbled together story.About the only thing Moscow Zero gets right, however, is its title, which could only have rendered a more accurate description of this movie if the word Moscow had been omitted.$LABEL$ 0
+The movie "MacArthur" begins and ends at Gen. Douglas MacArthur's, Gregory Peck, Alma Mata the US Military Academy of West Point on the Hudson. We see a frail 82 year old Gen.MacArthur give the commencement speech to the graduating class of 1962 about what an honor it is to serve their country. The film then goes into an almost two hour long flashback on Gen. MacArthur's brilliant as well as controversial career that starts in the darkest hours of WWII on the besieged island of Corregidor in the Philippines in the early spring of 1942.Told to leave he island for Australia before the Japanese military invade it Gen. MacArthur for the very first time in his military career almost disobeys a direct order from his superior US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dan O'Herlihy. Feeling that he'll be deserting his men at their greatest hour of need MacArthur reluctantly, together with his wife and young son, did what he was told only to have it haunt him for the reminder of the war. It was that reason, his escape under fire from death or captivity by the Japanese, that drove Gen. MacArthur to use all his influence to get FDR two years later to launch a major invasion of the Philippians, instead of the island of Formosa, to back up his promise to both the Philippine people as well as the thousands of US POWS left behind. That he'll return and return with the might of the US Army & Navy to back up his pledge!In the two years up until the invasion of the Philippine Islands Gen. MacArther battered the Japanese forces in the South Pafific in a number of brilliantly conceived island hop battles that isolated and starved hundreds of thousands of Japanese troops into surrender. The General did that suffering far less US Military losses then any other allied commander in the War in the Pacific! It was in 1950/51 in the Korean War that Gen. MacArthur achieved his most brilliant victory as well as his worst military defeat. After outflanking the advancing North Korean Army in the brilliant and perfectly executed, with the invading US Marines suffering less then 100 casualties, back door or left hook invasion of Inchon Gen. MacArther feeling invincible sent the US/UN forces under his command to the very border, along the Yalu River, of Communist Red China. Told by his subordinates that he's facing the threat of a massive ground attack by Communist Chinese troops Gen. MacArthur pressed on anyway until that attack did materialized cutting the US & UN forces to ribbons. The unstoppable wave after wave of attacking Red Chinese troops forced the US/UN forces to retreat in the "Big Bug Out" of 1950 with their very lives, leaving all their equipment behind, across the North Korean border even abandoning the South Korean capital city of Seoul! This turned out to be one of the biggest military disaster in US history with the US forces losing a record, in the Korean War, 1,000 lives on the very first day-Nov. 29/30 1950-of the Communist Chinese invasion!Shocked and humiliated in what he allowed, due mostly to his own arrogance, to happened MacArthur went on the offensive not against the advancing Communist Chinese and Noth Koreans forces but his own Commander and Chief Pres. Harry S. Truman, Ed Flanders, in him not having the spin or guts to do what has to be done: Launch a full scale invasion of Communist China with nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent its troops from overrunning the Korean Peninsula! For Pres. Truman who had taken just about enough garbage from Gen. MacArthur in him running off his mouth in public in how he was mishandling the war in not going all out, like MacArthur wanted him to, against the Red Chinese this was the last straw! On April 11, 1951 Pres. Truman unceremoniously relived Gen. MacArthur from his command as Supreme Commander of the US/UN forces in Korea! Pres. Truman's brave but very unpopular decision also, by not going along with MacArthur's total war strategy, prevented a Third World War from breaking out with the Soviet Union-Communist China's ally- who at the time-like the US-had the Atomic Bomb! Pres. Truman''s controversial decision to dump the very popular Gen. MacArthur also cost him his re-election in 1952 with his polls numbers so low-in the mid 20's- that he withdrew-in March of that year- from the US Presidential Campaign!In was Gen. MacArthur's misfortune to be around when the political and military climates in the world were changing in how to conduct future wars. With the horrors of a nuclear war now, in 1950/51, a reality it would have been national suicide to go all out, like Gen. MacArthur wanted to, against the Red Chinese with it very possibly touching off a nuclear holocaust that would engulf not only the US USSR & Red China but the entire world! It was that important reality of future war that Gen. MacArthur was never taught, since the A and H Bomb weren't yet invented, in West Point.Back to 1962 we can now see that Gen. MacArthur, after finishing his commencement speech at West Point, had become both an older and wiser soldier as well as , since his retirement from the US Military, elder statesman in his feeling about war and the utter futility of it. One thing that Gen. MacArthur was taught at an early age, from his Civil War General dad Douglas MacArthur Sr, that stuck to him all his life was that to a soldier like himself war should be the very last-not first-resort in settling issues between nations. In that it's the soldiers who have to fight and die in it. It took a lifetime, with the advent of the nuclear age, for Gen. MacArthur to finally realize just how right and wise his dad a Congressional Medal of Honor winner, like himself, really was!$LABEL$ 1
+I was reading in a Stuff Magazine about some of the goriest, bloodiest films that Asia had to offer and I immediately jumped to Netflix to quench my thirst. Boy what a mistake I made. This movie is one of the worst films I have seen. First and foremost no plot, what I expected to be the plot (see: "Revenge") turned into a series of events just happening in a effort to spend their special effects budget of $14.89 and waste studio time. They should have kept their money and not wasted their time nor yours.When a major plot twist occurs, Tetsuo II: Body Hammer is given a new identity and I wasn't buying it. A flashback is given that should answer our questions, but seemed to me like I turned on Showtime at 3:47 am and dropped ACID. The movie continues and spirals out of control with cheesy graphics and special (olympic) effects.Do I seem bitter about this film? Yes. Did I see Iron Man? No. Was there a plot? No. Was it so symbolic that I didn't understand? NO. Was there a Body Hammer? Beats the Hell out of ME. So take my advice and STAY away!!!!!! (I must admit though I have had so much fun writing this and laughing to myself about this film that if you want to laugh, WATCH IT!!!)$LABEL$ 0
+Few people realize it, but there was world literature in the ancient world before the Greeks came on the scene. Besides the literary remains that are in the "Old Testament" of the Jews, there were considerable works from Mesopotamia and Egypt. The summit of the former were the religious poetry and "The Epic Of Gilgamesh". The Egyptians produced many poems, but there main addition was a tale of adventure of a traveler and physician called "The Story Of Sinuhe". It is from this work (actually a fragment, that we don't know the ending of) that the novel "The Egyptian" came from.The story is unique (as is the movie). "The Egyptian" was a best seller in the early 1950s, and Darryl Zanuck decided to take a chance making it: yes he wanted a showcase for his girlfriend Bella Darvi as Nefer, as well as the rest of the cast (Victor Mature, Edmund Purdom, Peter Ustinov, Michael Wilding, and Gene Tierney), but he was aware that these films rarely made large box office. One can chalk up this as an example of Zanuck trying something different.The number of movies that deal with ancient Egypt are very small. "Land Of The Pharoahs", "The Egyptian", "The Ten Commandments" (both De Mille versions), "Moses", "Holy Moses!", "Cleopatra", "The Mummy" (all versions), "The Scorpion King". If there are 20 films about ancient Egypt it's is tremendous. But "The Egyptian" is unique. While the second "Ten Commandments" discusses Ramses the Great (Pharoah Ramses II - Yul Brynner) and his father Seti I (Cedric Hardwicke), and the films on Cleopatra deal with her, few other names of ancient Egypt crop up in film. Egypt's greatest Pharoah was Thutmose III, who conquered most of the known middle east of the era of 1470 B.C.E. or so. No film about him has appeared, nor of his usurping predecessor, history's first great female ruler Hatschepsut. But the only known Pharoah who attempted a religious revolution that approached what the Jews (and later the Christians) attempted - a type of monotheism - is the subject of "The Egyptian". This is Pharoah Akhnaton.In reality Akhnaton was practicing a personal form of monotheism that was not meant for public consumption. But it angered the priestly class who worshiped Amon, rather than Aton. Due to our uncertain historic records (although Akhnaton's official records - the "Tel-el-Amana" letters - are quite complete as far as they survive), we do not know if the Pharoah was killed in a palace coup or not. However he died, he was succeeded by a young brother or son of his whose name is better recalled than any other Pharoah except Ramses: Tutankhamon.This film is actually quite good as far as it goes. Wilding makes a good natured Akhnaton, who is too weak to be as effective as a religious reformer is supposed to be. Mature is good as the ambitious (and - outside the film - ultimately successful future Pharoah) Horemheb. Tierney and Purdom do well in their lead parts and Ustinov is good as Purdom's friend. Also good is Ms Darvi, in a large supporting part. In a wonderful cameo is John Carridine, as a philosophical grave robber. The film is certainly worthy of viewing, as one of the few attempts to show part of the history and culture of Ancient Egypt.$LABEL$ 1
+It's a shame that this piece of work wasn't acknowledged as a piece of work. It has everything a historical film must have: a serious historical research, outstanding performances of every actor involved and a discrete but great direction.When I saw the movie I knew it should be a prototype for every biographical movie.$LABEL$ 1
+When I was over at Hollywood video I looked through their clearance out movies and there was DEMONICUS for five buckaroos plus fifty percent off! I saw it only once before and couldn't pass up this great deal! The second viewing was much better than the first. The box is so cool and the music is very good. If you haven't seen Demonicus yet I recommend that you do or if you rented and hated Demonicus do give it another chance as another viewing of it may change your mind. If you seen a copy at Hollywood Video for the price I got it for don't pass it up as it is a great deal!Demonicus is well a very different but entertaining movie.Believe it or not is like watching a interactive video game with out playing it!It has very low budget and actors I'M sure that nobody is familiar with. We began the the video game uh I mean film with a guy and a woman some where in Italy and there is a cave that actually looks like a rail road/train track tunnel and she says don't go in there and what does he do?The normal stuff!HE DIDN'T LISTEN TO HER! He goes in there and find lots of gladiator artifacts and armor and a almost perfectly preserved body of a legendary gladiator named Tyrannous!Where did the chair come from that Tyrannous was sitting on and how did his body stay so good and where did the Cauldron Pot come from?So every cave is complete with a Caultron Pot?Tyrannous is wearing his armor,helmet,and has a weapon or two.He does the dumbest thing a person could do,he puts on the helmet and is taken over by the spirit of Tyrannous! From there he walks around just killing all of the campers near by to bring back the real Tyrannous.Now,I said before its like a video game.Its hard to explain but it just feels like it.The music even sounds like video games.The acting is really terrible.The actors say things like why is he doing this,oh he was nuts already and Fine since he's nuts i'm going home!Also the movie also has some major errors like a guy is running and trying to find his girlfriend in the night and is still running in the day time still searching for her with out taking a break!This movie has some errors but it isn't a classic like Werewolf but it is entertaining if you like really low budget error prone movies then you better see Demonicus!$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of Barbara Stanwyck's earlier films and it sure does have an unconventional theme. She's making money by dancing with men at a dance hall. She really doesn't like the work, but it's a living. Her boyfriend seems like a pretty nice guy, but she's also pursued by rich guy Ricardo Cortez. Well, after marrying, it turns out her "nice guy" is a thieving, womanizing weasel and rich Cortez turns out to be a heck of a guy. By the end of the film, Barbara simply has had enough, as any SANE woman would walk from this horrid marriage.In the 1920s and early 30s, Hollywood did pretty much anything it wanted and some of their films had themes or scenes that would surprise many today--such as nudity, adultery and bad language. While TEN CENTS A DANCE isn't a blatant example of this morality, it does have a theme that never would have been allowed after the toughened Production Code was created and enforced starting in 1934. In some ways the Code was great--after all, parents didn't need to worry about what their kids saw in films (such as nudity in BEN HUR, 1925). However, it also tended to sanitize some of the movies far too much--and there is no way this particular film could have been made and approved because it tends to glorify divorce--a serious no-no 1934 and thereafter. This is really a shame, as I don't think TEN CENTS A DANCE was bad at all to discuss this--especially since the star (Barbara Stanwyck) was married to a philandering thief. Even so, allowing the film to end with her divorcing him and marrying a man who himself was twice divorced just couldn't have been.Overall, the film is interesting and thought-provoking. Plus, it was well-paced and suited its relatively short run time. Give this one a look.FYI--Sadly, Ricardo Cortez was actually NOT Hispanic but changed his name because of possible prejudice because he was Jewish. He was an excellent leading man of his time, but today is all but forgotten.$LABEL$ 1
+Saw this film at the NFT in London where it was showing as part of the BFI's John Huston season. I wasn't really sure what to expect and the first few minutes of the film gave very little away. In fact the rest of the film continued to give little away! No real plot, no action, no suspense, very little drama and, except for a short section at the very end, no scenery.The result of lack of all of these features was, however, a wonderful film. I don't fully understand why, but I think that its understated nature made the film almost completely perfect. The acting, script and, most important of all, the casting were all spot on and I can't remember walking away from a cinema feeling so good, but I still can't work out why. I just know that I will be getting the DVD (this is one of those films that will, I am sure, be just as good on the small screen as the cinema experience, provided that you can find somewhere quiet to watch it!) and I will be watching it again soon. I will be also interested to find out what my family and friends think of it. I'm sure that it will not be everybody's choice but I am convinced that a large number will agree with my view.9 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+I wholeheartedly disagree with the other viewers of this wretched film. The only reason why I didn't rate it 1 for awful was due to the great talent of Carmen Miranda. The beginning and end are the best parents due to her gifted singing and dancing.The problem is with the rest of the picture. Alice Faye comes off quite hollow. Don Ameche has a great singing voice but with the wretched writing material, he comes off so terribly corny.The plot is a real stiff here with Ameche assuming two parts as a song and dance man and a baron not happily married to Faye.It seems that by playing the song and dance man, Ameche's marriage gets a second change to reignite. Some silly nonsense about the baron having to clear up business and being away allows him to play both parts.S.Z. Sakal is given little to do here and so his comedic gifts are not given the opportunity to shine. Ditto for J. Carrol Naish who actually appears uncomfortable in his role.This is a chica chica boom bomb of a film.$LABEL$ 0
+It WAS supposed to be the last Freddy movie (and it was for over 10 years)--you would think they would have tried to get a good movie done. But they turned out giving us the worst of the series (and that's saying a lot). The plot made no sense (I seriously can't remember it), all the main characters were idiots (you REALLY wanted them dead) and Freddy's wisecracks were even worse than usual. The only remotely good bit about this was a brief (and funny) cameo by Johnny Depp (the first "Nightmare" movie was his first).Also I originally saw it in a theatre were the last section (reaccounting Freddy's childhood) was in 3-D. Well--the 3-D was lousy--faded colors and the image going in and out of focus. Also the three flying skulls which were supposed to be scary (I think) had the opposite reaction from my audience. EVERYBODY broke down laughing. Looks even worse on TV in 2-D. Pointless and stupid--very dull also. Skip this one and see "Freddy vs. Jason" again.$LABEL$ 0
+This has got to be the WORSE move I've EVER seen!!!!! It was not only boring, it was "gag me with a spoon" dumb. Where'd ya find the actors ... on a street corner? Who did the special effects...Maaco? For God's sakes I could have made a better movie with my CELL PHONE. And if that wasn't bad enough, you even had extras at the end of the movie so we could see just how stupid the actors are in real life. Who ever did the makeup for the aliens...must have spent $5 at your local used costume store and called it a day. And who in the world wrote up the movie description on the back of the DVD case should be shot. PUHLEEZ!! It's not even 1/8 % of what it is described as. That description is just to suck people in to buying, renting or paying a ticket to see it. No wonder there was never a trailer to it....ya would have drove them all away!!!!!!!Bad Actors...$5 Special Effects...$5.50 Fake Fire....$1.89 (cigarette lighter) Time Spent Watching This Movie....total waste! (I should sue ya for my time watching it)$LABEL$ 0
+I really love this movie!!! I haven't played Final Fantasy VII but i still loved the movie, its really funny and I love the job the voice-over actors have done. The visuals are SO fantastic and all the lines are so well done.I have to admit i have a pretty good imagination so I was able to fill most of the gaps the movie presented, and I suggest you watch it twice because lots of things "suddenly" make sense.Also, (this is pretty funny) you should watch it with the subtitles on because what they say and what the subs say are sometimes completely different. Its really usually pretty funny but sometimes it helps u to understand what they say better.Watch it!!! love Marnie$LABEL$ 1
+We bought this film from a shop called Poundland. We were looking for more inspiration as we have previously bought the film No Big Deal an remade it.We expected this film to be badly inspirational so that we might remake it and put it on the tube. HOWEVER, this was shocking. BORING is the main word that comes to mind. The bad effects and script aren't enough to make you watch it. The main woman's body seems to be whipped out at opportune moments in a pathetic attempt to keep the viewer interested. However, it just makes you wonder, did they blow the budget getting her to take her clothes off? If so, I'd have asked for a refund! It looks like a homemade film, the shots don't even correspond with each other and the camera work is so amateur it makes our remakes of bad movies look professional. I CANNOT believe that this is being sold as a marketable product.IT IS JUST BORING and UGLY to watch. The actors are bad and there is no degree of professionalism about it. There are no words to describe how terrible it is.$LABEL$ 0
+Certainly one of the finest movies I have seen for quite some time. Exquisite direction and flawless acting make this a very entertaining and often moving film. Denzel Washington plays one of his most engaging and emotional roles to date, and the rest of the cast perform beautifully. Christopher Walken is of course superb in his part although he did not appear as often as I would have liked. A story of ultimate greed that backfires is offset against a childs innocence and love. This is also a film for action movie lovers as it has its fair share of bullets, rockets and revenge. The location of Mexico City adds a feel of seediness and corruption which in itself is an eye opener. All in all, a truly gripping film from beginning to end. Highly recommended!$LABEL$ 1
+It may not have had the big budgets, celebrities or endorsements of Scream, Urban Legend or I Know What You Did Last Summer, but Campfire Tales had one thing these three movies lacked: true horror.This film tackled the subject of urban legends a year before the aptly titled and less than enthralling Urban Legend did. It was intriguing, masterfully scripted and logical in a way I Know What You Did Last Summer could only dream of. Finally, it held its focus and finished with a flurry while Scream fizzled and died.What's most exciting about the film is the variety of horror that the writers and directors achieved. The overarching story of teenagers around a campfire was classic dread at the unknown (but certainly expected) doom that awaited them in the forest, but the tales themselves are where the movie really shined.The opening sequence is pure, fast-paced urban myth. It's based on a popular legend, and the director plays on this with the style and pace of the action, making it more enthralling because we know what's going to happen.The first campfire tale is a straight-forward thriller. Based on another popular myth, we don't actually realize this until the end, both because it blends so well into the story and because the action keeps our attention. Being the thriller of the trilogy, this one plays off our fear of the unknown and includes several well-done "jump" sequences that don't feel nearly as cheap or contrite as those in movies like Scream or Urban Legend.The second tale is more suspense. This time, though the characters still don't know what's going on, we do, and this provides the horror. No need for cheap thrills here.The final tale contains elements of the supernatural and uses a creepy/trippy atmosphere to scare the viewer. Because we can relate so easily to the characters and their situation, our fear comes from their intensity and what they can't explain. This is the true ghost story of the trio.I didn't expect to enjoy Campfire Tales when I rented it. I figured that if I didn't like its more acclaimed, bigger-budget counterparts, how could I like it?The truth is, though, this film succeeds where the others fell far short of the mark.$LABEL$ 1
+First of all, no one with any law enforcement experience (Not ER or EMT, but real law enforcement) takes this show seriously. Walker would be drummed out of any police force in the US for his illegal and totally unprofessional tactics. On top of that, he is a comic book character---no acting ability, incredibly trite lines, no character development. The fact that Alex Cahill loves him shows just how dumb blondes really are. And Trivett is the ultimate clown in black-face. Come on---if you think Walker is a heartfelt show without bias, then explain why JT is treated as a dolt, always is the subject of Walker's jokes, never is allowed to be the one to solve the crime, and never rescues Walker, who should be dead 50 times over for the stupid things he does. While it may be true that many criminals are even dumber than the detectives who go after them (and believe me, most cops are dumber than dirt), the smart ones Walker comes up against never seem to get the point that once Walker is captured, the jerk needs to be put of his misery. But then again, Norris produced the show as well as starred in it, so how could he willingly get rid of himself or even show how stupid his tactics are. As if six guys are going to wait around to take him one at a time. What a terrible series! It is more demeaning than any of the hokey westerns like The Lone Ranger, Roy Rogers, The Cisco Kid, and Wild Bill Hickock, though I would imagine that most of you on here are far too young to remember those shows. But like those shows, in the same way as those shows, Walker TR is just as insulting and just plain silly.$LABEL$ 0
+I really tried to like this film about a doctor who has the possibility of a new life with a young woman if he can comes to terms with the death of his wife. I suppose this was to play like a quirky light romantic comedy but the theme is a little uncomfortable for me.But putting that aside, I found the dialog was too much like a stage play despite being based on a novel and also,the mediocre acting was embarrassing to watch especially by the young lead Vincent Spano.I have been sort of trying to catch up on all the eighties movies I missed during that decade. It has been my pet peeve that eighties nostalgia buffs seem to focus on the same core canon of films usually featuring the brat pack actors and actresses and neglecting the other films like Creator that have fallen through the cracks. But in the case of this feature I have to say I can understand it. Not all of these eighties films were magical and Creator is proof of this.$LABEL$ 0
+I was at Wrestlemania VI in Toronto as a 10 year old, and the event I saw then was pretty different from what I saw on the Wrestlemania Collection DVD I just watched. I don't understand how the wwE doesn't have the rights to some of the old music, since most of those songs were created by the WWF they shouldn't have to worry about the licensing and royalty fees that prevent shows like SNL from releasing season sets. Its pretty stupid to whine about, but for me hearing Demolition come out to their theme music at a Wrestlemania in person was a memory that I never forgot, and it didn't exist on this DVD. What is the point of them even owning the rights to this huge library of video if they have to edit it so drastically to use it?$LABEL$ 0
+One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Acting was terrible, both for the kids and the adults. Most to all characters showed no, little or not enough emotion. The lighting was terrible, and there were too many mess ups about the time of the day the film was shot (In the river scene where they just get their boat destroyed, there's 4 shots; The sheriff and Dad in the evening on their boat, Jillian and Molly in the evening swimming, the rest of the kids in the daytime *when it's supposed to in the evening* at the river bank, and the doctor, Beatrice, and Simonton at night but not in the evening getting off their boat.) The best acting in the movie was probably from the sheriff, Cappy (Although, there's a slip of character when the pulse detector *Whatever that thing is when people die, it beeps* shows Cappy has died, he still moves while it can still be heard beeping, and while the nurse extra checks his pulse manually, then it shows the pulse again, and THEN he finally dies.) I guess it's not going to be perfect, since it's an independent movie, but it still could be better. Not worth watching, honestly, even for kids. Might as well watch something good, like The Lion King or Toy Story if you're going to see anything you'll remember.$LABEL$ 0
+The word 'classic' is thrown around too loosely nowadays, but this movie well deserves the appelation. The combination of Neil Simon, Walter Matthau (possibly the world's best living comic actor), and the late lamented George Burns make for a comic masterpiece. It is interesting to contemplate what the movie would have been like had not death prevented Jack Benny from playing George Burns' part, as had been planned. As it is, the reunion scene in Matthau's apartment is not likely to be surpassed as a sidesplitter. Definitely one of my desert island films."Enter!!!!!!!!!"$LABEL$ 1
+Cobb. It sucked. I learned nothing about the man I had not heard before. The performances were over the top. A scene where Cobb and Al are driving down a snowy road in search of women in Reno has to be one of the worst conceived scenes in recent memory. It's just plain STUPID and unentertaining. The flashback sequences were terrible. And they used the same sequences OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. If I saw the same shot of Cobb fighting with someone at a base one more time, I would have become physically ill. By watching this 'movie', we get to learn NOTHING of what it was like in Cobb's era. We learn nothing about his relationship with his players, nothing about his days as a manager, nothing about his relationship with his family members, other than that `they don't like him'. I thought when I sat down to view this film I would learn SOMETHING about the era of baseball in which Cobb played. Instead, all I got to see was a retread of how Cobb hated everything and everyone, and how they hated him. Boy, what a great movie (sarcasm intended). Cobb is portrayed as a constant liar in the film, so which one of his stories is supposed to be accurate? Who knows? Who cares? No one will after viewing this piece of crap. If you decide to rent this film, make sure the fast forward button on your VCR is working, as you will be tempted to use it repeatedly. Hopefully someday someone will make a GOOD film about Ty Cobb. I liked this film about as much as the people in it liked Cobb, which is to say - I HATED IT. Now I know why I found it in the RENT ONE GET ONE FREE section of the video store. I think I will ask for my fifty cents back from the video clerk, since I can't get back the time I wasted watching this trash. Oh well, what could I have possibly been thinking about a movie that would feature Robert Wuhl.$LABEL$ 0
+Though it had the misfortune to hit the festival circuit here in Austin (SXSW Film) just as we were getting tired of things like Shakespeare in Love, and Elizabeth, this movie deserves an audience. An inside look at the staging of "The Scottish Play" as actors call "Macbeth" when producing it to avoid the curse, this is a crisp, efficient and stylish treatment of the treachery which befalls the troupe. With a wonderfully evocative score, and looking and sounding far better than its small budget would suggest, this is a quiet gem, not world-class, but totally satisfying.$LABEL$ 1
+Through the years I've been very much interested in the life of this teenager who left such a profound, indelible mark on the world. My fascination has also been born of fear, as in, could this happen again.And throughout the ensuing years, yes, I fear 'it' continues to happen around us and of course 'it' was happening long before Anne. The 'it' of course is can a so-called civilized society turn on its own or on an innocent country/race/continent and murder citizens in cold blood on the flimsiest of excuses? I leave that question out there.At the beginning of the documentary there is a statement about the leader Adolf Hitler in that the one profound fact about Hitler that is never mentioned was that he was elected democratically and all of the atrocities committed were done as the result of a compliant poodle-press and fear-mongering propaganda played over and over again for a docile population.One of the atrocities was Anne Frank, who put a face to the death camps by the miracle of her diary's survival.Kenneth Brannagh does a wonderful job on the commentary and interviewing, he has that rare gift of minimizing his own persona thus allowing the subjects to speak for themselves.Many new facts and people never before interviewed are brought to life in the meticulous research, which I will not go into here as they add immeasurably to the reality and gut wrenching sorrow of the film.Glenn Close reads selections from the diary and her voice is perfect for the part, she brings a naiveté and freshness to the role.Old childhood friends of Anne's are interviewed at length and her last days before death are well recorded and witnessed along with her vibrant and mischievous personality.This is not to be missed. A wonderful and respectful film about the seldom seen Anne.10 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+Anyone who will pay to see Troma movies knows, and appreciates, what they are going to get. Having said that, I didn't think it was possible to make a movie this bad, and still be compelling. I found myself watching just to see how much worse it could get before the end. First off, it's an Indonesian action movie with an American main character who looks and acts like the bastard son of "Taxi"'s Christopher Lloyd and Rambo. He puts posters of himself dressed up like Sly's "Cobra" all over the place and even has a custom built firing range (with action-posed cutouts of his greatest enemies)in Jakarta although he's in the CIA and has just arrived days earlier. There is a lot of action involving gun-play(no muzzle-flashes on those M-16s, only sound effects), motorcycles(that bust through walls), karate(where no one makes physical contact) and even some sex(where all the actors are ugly). The main plot of an epic like this should at least be reasonably plausible, but not here. It involves the world's most dangerous drug cartel going all out to find a "drug detector device". Why would they need it? That is never revealed, why not kill drug-sniffing dogs? Makes no sense, but, it is taken seriously. The actors are to be commended because they really seemed to think this movie would make them all famous and tried hard to "act". Best line? "Now dance to your grave you dirty whore!" Best scene? Rambo jumps onto flying helicopter, pulls machine gun out of baddie's hand, let's go, falls, shoots helicopter as he's falling, helicopter blows up, cut to mannequin thrown in water. F**king genius! If you can't appreciate trash, don't watch it. If you can, it's awesome. One last thing, did I mention it was directed by the three Punjabi brothers?$LABEL$ 0
+Many of these other viewers complain that the story line has already been attempted. That may be so, but the addition of the narrator and Dr.Suess like scenery makes this show a must watch. With adult innuendo throughout the series and a touch of childhood through the set, the show is both reminiscent and invigorating. The investigative portion of the show is not what drags viewers in. The twisted plot and love lines scattered throughout this seeming paradise are what keep loyal viewers coming back for more. This is a success that ABC should never let go of. Bravo ABC. LOST was getting old, way to revitalize prime time. 9 episodes prior to the writers strike left audiences wanting more.$LABEL$ 1
+It's really annoying when good movies like this one go unnoticed. But I'm glad I did not miss it.They should re-release it with a lot more publicity. I do not think they did anything to promote it. Great work Paxton.$LABEL$ 1
+I didn't like watching DS9 compared to other Star Treks even Enterprise, but I didn't like Babylon 5, and now I know why. They are the same show. I just read the old news that Paramount stole the idea from the creator of Babylon 5, but they chose not to sue for a reason I don't know or care, but seeing as a Star Trek series is based off another even nerdier show is just to much to bare, now I will condemn anyone who even mentions the DS9 when talking about the series. Original, TNG, and Voyager are my favorites in that order. Before I didn't understand why everyone thinks DS9 is great and I didn't, but know I know. It's also because the captain has a real anger problem, and I hate people that act cool, but freak out, out of no where; and he seems to on every episode.$LABEL$ 0
+Leon Errol handles his double role of Uncle Matt Lindsay and Lord Basil Epping superbly, but I have trouble liking the "Mexican Spitfire" Series because they all are contrived to produce mistaken identities, and these are telegraphed way in advance. Errol is funny as the stuffy Lord Epping, but I would have preferred a lot more wit and much less repetition. $LABEL$ 0
+This is one of those "so bad it is good" films that you always hear about but never see! Unlike Troma films which are deliberately bad and campy (and I am not amused) this one is 100% pure serious.However with features such as a supposedly super-lethal killer robot that prances about like one of the Solid Gold Dancers on an acid trip and a magical first mate that calls down lightning and transforms into the Good Witch of the East the fact that it takes itself seriously pushes it so far over the edge of bad that makes it full circle around back to entertaining.Watcheable enough because of that.$LABEL$ 0
+This film, Blade Master, may be cheap, clumsy in appearance and it is sometimes, but it shares thoughts on problems that are way beyond the era this film is set in. Ator is the chosen one that has to protect the earth against a terrible weapon, that is compared in an unforgettable and unpredictable way to the atomic weapon. He goes through obstacles as a witful character who is just more than muscle power, although he has quite is lot. I would say this aspect of the movie makes it surpass a film like Conan the barbarian, which is the least I can say, quite brainless. It doesn't diminish in any ways the great adventure movie that is Conan, but it gives Ator his wholesomeness that he shares not with the barbarian. For a lower budget movie, this film does good in terms of setting and the fights are most of the time believable. Zor, the villain, has with is prisoner throughout the film one of the most interesting psychological confrontation that gives tension to the movie, even if Ator seems way too fit for the task to loose. What gives this movie that little extra are those scenes that may look quirky, but worth of mention. The fight with the serpent god, even though he is a gigantic puppet, is well handled as the snake, with good lightnings, remains a silhouette and the fight is quite convincing. The movie climaxes in a most unusual way, quite anachronic, but breathtaking : the deltaplane sequence. The scene itself is not introduced properly, read not at all, where did Ator get that machine, it's pretty unconvincing, but it leads to a really poetic and beautiful midair sequence, that standalone, is the culminating point in the movie, elevating Ator in a place where few human fantasy heroes have been. If Blade Master is not among the great fantastic movies of all time is no surprise due to its lacks, it's a bigger surprise, considering the philosophical way it chooses on the confrontation between good and evil, the truth it speaks and the heart it shows, that this movie is so unwlecomed. I suggest it for every fan of the genre and try take it seriously as an intelligent movie that's to be taken more seriously than it seems.$LABEL$ 1
+Loved it! This has to be the best horror flick of the 90's. Iwas at the edge of my seat. I jumped a couple times. Wonderfulacting. It is totally horror but it was funny when it was meantto be.$LABEL$ 1
+this is the most overrated show on television. i believe people continue to watch it because they feel they should, because it has become somewhat of a "cool" show to watch and talk to your friends about the next day at work or school. rarely does it actually elicit anything more than a chuckle and never provokes any sense of irony or thought from the audience. every joke is interchangeable with "punchlines" that seem to be drawn out of a hat. the complete lack of originality combined with the even somehow lamer spin off it has spawned (see: American Dad) makes me question the intelliegence of an audience that continues to keep this horrid show on TV. i award family guy no points and may god have mercy on its soul...$LABEL$ 0
+I watched Sleeper Cell with a bit of trepidation worrying over whether the terrorists would be glorified. This mesmerizing series not only handled the subject matter responsibly, it created depth and substance to almost every character. Oded Fehr just gobbles up the screen in every scene he's in—and even though his character is the charismatic leader of a jihad terrorist cell, he still has hypnotic appeal. Michael Ealy held his own well, though in some scenes I wondered why he wasn't shot on the spot because of the scowl he wore on his face.The pros of the series are the two leads, Fehr and Ealy, the well written characters--all of which were believable and tragic, and the disconcerting issues addressed in the story. Having been married to a Muslim myself, the atmosphere created was quite realistic. The cons, for me personally, were that the female T&A was overkill—most seemed gratuitous, as well as some of the sex scenes. Despite that, it is a raw gripping series that will make you think. Somebody give Fehr more juicy roles like this one and let him run with it. He's got incredible screen presence and a strange kind of innate power emanating off him.$LABEL$ 1
+I am shocked. Shocked and dismayed that the 428 of you IMDB users who voted before me have not given this film a rating of higher than 7. 7?!?? - that's a C!. If I could give FOBH a 20, I'd gladly do it. This film ranks high atop the pantheon of modern comedy, alongside Half Baked and Mallrats, as one of the most hilarious films of all time. If you know _anything_ about rap music - YOU MUST SEE THIS!! If you know nothing about rap music - learn something!, and then see this! Comparisons to 'Spinal Tap' fail to appreciate the inspired genius of this unique film. If you liked Bob Roberts, you'll love this. Watch it and vote it a 10!$LABEL$ 1
+Despite some occasionally original touches, like the "virtual sets" that provide the background for the Victorian interiors featuring Ada Lovelace and her circle, this film falls short and ultimately disappoints. Newcomer Francesca Faridany seems talented, but is wasted as Emmy, a character who by mid-film is reduced to nothing more than staring at a monitor watching Lady Ada narrate an autobiography. 'Conceiving Ada' takes off briefly when Lady Ada (Tilda Swinton) appears; the camera lingers on her facial expressions, mannerisms, even making her appear to be translucent or momentarily invisible, apporting into scenes to dramatize Emmy's "virtual" rendering of her.A straightforward biopic of Ada Lovelace would have been worthwhile, but this film unfortunately makes a hash of both Lady Ada's life, and that of a modern-day computer scientist (and her broadly-drawn, doltish boyfriend).$LABEL$ 0
+if i had watched this movie when i hit rock bottom i probably would have sunk into the deepest depression of my life, and may have been nearly desperate enough to try it, the only thing is in the real world, when you rob millions of dollars from unsuspecting individuals, everything doesn't come up roses (unless you are an investment banker or government affiliated) so how does that matter? i had been rejected from school after school, and it stings, so it is a brilliant topic for a movie, and when you give yourself over to the imaginary to let yourself watch this movie without applying real world ramifications, it can truly touch someone in that situation, and let them know they are not alone. overdone soliloquy completely tears apart the established educational system as we know it. really, all i can say is that as i am in college now, looking back on where i was, and watching this movie, i can truly appreciate it in a way i never would have been able to otherwise. it is juvenile and contrite yes, but it is an emotional and uplifting fantasy about freedom, and i cant think of a better way to end my night.$LABEL$ 1
+No matter how well meaning his "message" is - this film is a terribly made trainwreck - awful acting, lame camera work - I do not know why Carr agreed to try and pull off a stutter - he is lousy at it. You watch the extras on the DVD and the way he has a camera follow him around - he just soaks it up - he loves being the center of attention. He is a bad actor - he reminds me of another arrogant filmmaker - Eric Schaffer. Some how Carr has had this film shown at city Youth Centers and New Age churches - where damaged people looking for reinforcement and attention themselves babble on about how the film touched them and maybe it did - but as a film itself it is choppy, predictable and sappy.$LABEL$ 0
+''Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit'' is the same type of animation and from the same creators of ''Chicken run'', but the story now is other: Wallace, a inventor who loves cheese and his smart dog Gromit who is always helping Wallace in his problems,are trying to keep the rabbits away from everybody's vegetables,since there is in their town, an annual Giant Vegetable Competition. But when Wallace tries an invention he did, to make the rabbits avoids vegetable, the one who is going to be cursed is him. Before watching this movie I didn't knew that these two characters already existed and were famous.I loved Gromit, and I think he is one of the coolest dogs I already saw.aka "Wallace & Gromit-A Batalha dos Vegetais" - Brazil$LABEL$ 1
+The voyage here is a search for God, the big guy in the sky, the big cheese with a beard. Cunningly disguised as the thirst for ultimate knowledge. Taking over from Leonard Nimoy in the directing chair is The Shat himself, Captain Tiberius William Shatner Kirk. In an attempt at blending the fun corny aspects of the series with sci-fi histrionics {Klingon dialogue consultant, really?}, Shatner and his co-writers have only achieved what is almost an embarrassing parody of a parody. Where's the danger,? where's the brothers in arms spirit,? in fact where is our badly underwritten crew?. Star Trek humour is a wonderful thing, when it's in the right places and done with a straight lace so befitting what has come before The Final Frontier. Some light moments exist, but they do not compensate for the lack of serious moments. While do we really need another Spock revelation,? really?.Some nice sets and little knowingly Trek moments aside, The Final Frontier is just a bad movie experience. 3/10$LABEL$ 0
+Louis Khan was one of the most influential architects of our time, and this film speaks volumes about how little everyone really knew. His son's desire to find out who, and more importantly what he was is moving, and emotional.This film captures the spirit of what architecture is really about, what good design is, and the emotional price that is paid for it. Equally haunting is the sound track. If you see the film, and then listen to the sound track you can revisit the film simply by listening. As a practicing architect of over 30 years, my heart ached and rejoiced over the film and its very straight forward, albeit emotional honesty and sincerity.I had the honor of seeing this film previewed in Chicago at the National Convention of the American Institute of Architects. The film was introduced by Daniel, and he was kind enough to do a question and answer session afterward. During the entire presentation of the film, not a sound, not a cough, not one distraction took place. The entire audience sat mesmerized, and the real treat, was Daniel's mother was present during the showing of the film.I will always remember the film, and play it over constantly in my mind every time I listen to the soundtrack...$LABEL$ 1
+If I rate the film maybe a bit high, you can blame it on sentiment. This is one of the first movies that I remember seeing and totally loving. I saw it at the drive-ins here in California in the late 70s. I was already a big fan of "The Muppet Show" on TV so I was primed for the movie, and the movie did not disappoint. Basically it takes the whole absurdist ethos of the Muppet show and transports it from vaudeville into a road movie. Kermit the Frog is on a quest to become famous; not because he wants to take champagne baths and ride in a private jet, but because he wants to "make millions of people happy." Of course.Along the way he picks up all his beloved muppet friends, most endearingly Fonzie Bear who he meets at a seedy bar doing stand-up. They sing "Movin' Right Along", a song that has always charmed me with its upbeat melody and its theme of friendship and shared discovery. He also encounters enough Hollywood movie stars to fill a Stanley Kramer movie, including comedy luminaries like Richard Pryor, Steve Martin, Edgar Bergen, Milton Berle, and Mel Brooks. Brooks in particular has a rather dull bit, and you are left feeling that Henson could have cut a few of these cameos out if he wasn't afraid of offending the stars. Anyway, as befits a road trip movie like this the very first person he meets is Dom DeLuise.The ending is one of the more odd examples of literally breaking down the 4th wall that you will find in any "children's" movie. The Hollywood dream seems to be crumbling all about them, when a real rainbow pierces the Hollywood set with its authentic joy and mystery. I'm sure this was meant to relate to some of Jim Henson's own personal or spiritual experiences.This is the best movie with Muppets by a long shot. If you or anyone else was wondering why the Muppets were so popular back in the 70s, considering how poor the movies have been for the last few decades, I think this film has at least aged well enough to provide a clue.$LABEL$ 1
+All of David Prior's movies are terrible on all counts: bad writing, bad acting, bad cinematography, no budget (the director's brother is usually cast as the male lead). But they all have incredible entertainment value because of their unintentional hilarity. The plot of almost every David Prior "film" (as I like to refer to them) is basically the same. Manly all-American commandos team up to blow up Communist baddies. But unlike other Cold War-era garbage such as Red Dawn, Prior's movies are actually funny because of their over-the-top premises and acting. The best part of Jungle Assault is the scene in which Becker (or was is the other dude?) is being summoned by General Mitchell for a top-secret mission in South America. The funniest line in the movie is then delivered, something to the effect of "this is my roommate, I trained him well". WHAT. You trained your roommate? And apparently this is going to be their solution to avoiding eviction.If you can find these gems on video used anywhere, BUY THEM. They are all funny and even funnier after a few beers. Watch them with a group of your friends for a true MST3K-style experience. So far my friends and I have managed to get a hold of Night Wars and Aerobicide aka "Killer Workout". But the one I recommend the most over them all is Final Sanction, with the freakish-looking Robert Z'dar.$LABEL$ 0
+Wow! An amazing, lost piece of Australiana AND a lost 70s glam-rock film rolled into one. This film warrants viewing simply to see what can be done with next to no budget but a lot of enthusiasm. As a retelling of the Oz story, the film borders on becoming too obvious but it is saved by it's eccentricities. The chance for a glimpse at how glam rock manifested in Australia will delight fans of the genre. This film used to be double featured with the Rocky Horror Picture Show, an indicator of the type of film that Oz is. While not as frivolous or well constructed as RHPS it's hard not to have fun with Oz.Surprisingly, Oz has aged well- perhaps a by-product of how determinedly set in the real Australia of 1976 it is. The passage of history shows that many of the ideas being explored would eventually enter the mainstream. The willingness of the film to give prominence to gay characters is notable, especially as it dates to the 'revolution' period for the Australian gay rights push.The performances range from flinchingly amateur to finely nuanced brilliance. The direction is lacking in subtlety and much of the dialogue may have benefited from an extra draft or two. Somehow, these flaws add to the appeal of the film which is mercifully unpretentious. Much like Australia in the 1970s this film has a certain naive charm.There are several connections to the original Australian stagings of the Rocky Horror Show which will keep obsessives on their toes.Oz is most certainly a minor classic and a potential cult favourite worthy of review. Laugh at the atrocious 70s fashion, swing along with the AusRock soundtrack, leave ANY expectations at the door and Oz is likely to delight.$LABEL$ 1
+What a great movie!! It's a touching story about four high-school friends who grow up in the 1960s. Throughout the decade, the friends are somewhat separated, but they mnnage to see each other occasionally. There are many tragedies, but there are also a lot of happy moments that make you laugh and smile. It's a heart-filled tale of life, love and friendship. Definitely a must see for drama fans.$LABEL$ 1
+If I hadn't been forced to watch this for work reasons I never would have made it past the first 10 minutes. And even then I admit I fast forwarded through parts. The '63 film version was vastly superior in all regards. Yes, I've read this one is more faithful to the original play, but what a wise thing it was for the writer to change the script in '63! It's overlong, it drags, the songs that are in this version and not in the film version are boring and unimaginative. The version of "Kids" in the '63 version was very funny and a true classic of sarcastic parent humor. In this version the Kim is way too old, the Conrad is *absolutely horrible* to behold (when someone ripped his shirt off him I shuttered in disgust...the director of this version has no idea what sexy is.). This Conrad can't dance, can't sing (he can't even stay in tune) and is simply repulsive. If Elvis Presley had really been like that his career would have been over before it began. As for the other actors, well I kept waiting for Alexander's toupee to fall off as he danced and Daly was totally over acting as Momma. See Stapleton's performance in the film version to see the same role properly executed by someone who understands comic timing. This TV version is nothing but a total waste of anyone's time.$LABEL$ 0
+Strangeland (1998) D: John Pieplow. Kevin Gage, Elizabeth Pena, Brett Harrelson, Robert Englund, Tucker Smallwood, Amy Smart, Dee Snider (Twisted Sister), Amal Rhoe. Disturbing scenes of torture `highlight' this dark, disgusting movie about a sadistic psychopath who lures teens into his torture chamber via the Internet. Snider (from ex-80s rock band Twisted Sister) plays the putrid psychopath, who is a grimy `twist' (no pun intended) on Hannibal Lecter. Pena is wasted as one of the victims' mothers. Harrelson (brother of Woody) delivers one of the worst cop performances I have ever seen in a movie, and Rhoe proves why this is her only screen credit with an equally pathetic performance. The heavy metal soundtrack is ultimately numbing, the torture scenes very graphic and gross, and the ending just sucks. RATING: 3 out of 10. Rated R for graphic violence and torture, strong language, and sexual situations.$LABEL$ 0
+As long as you go into this movie with the understanding that it's not going to contain any historical fact whatsoever, it's not bad.It's on par with Sam Raimi's "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys", as far as plot, acting, humour, and production values are concerned. You'll see the similarities at several points. Most of the fight scenes are not as good however and the film suffers from that.Jack Palance commands the screen as well as ever, and at no time do you have the impression he's giving anything less than his level best. Same for Oliver Reed. The problem is that their strong performances make square-jawed Don Diamont's less-than-stellar acting skills seem even more awkward. Perennial bit player Cas Anvar was very good as well, playing a character much like Salmonius in the aforementioned Hercules.If you enjoyed the low budget swords-and-sorcery movies of the early 80s, you're probably going to enjoy this show as well. It's actually a shame they attached the Marco Polo name to it. It really has nothing to do with Marco's life, contrary to the expectations of most of the people who will want to watch this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+I had a bad feeling when I saw the cheap title work. It only took a couple of scenes to confirm that this movie is a real stinker! The only enjoyment I got out of this was to laugh at the technical flaws (example - the background "car sounds" audio just disappears during the scene with Danny and Dog in Dog's car). Production shows a total lack of imagination (example - slow motion machine gun fire repeats many times). Sandra Bullock plays essentially a bit part, completely unnecessary to the plot. To say that this movie actually HAS a plot is doing more justice to the writing than it deserves. The antique computer hardware is kind of interesting. This film was released in 1982 (not 1987 as the IMDb database indicates) and then current "high tech" was an amber screen on a 4.8 MHz IBM PC with floppy drives. Maybe the PC was the real star of the movie... at least it was interesting.We got this on DVD for a couple of bucks in the bargain bin at WalMart. As the other reviewer notes, we paid too much!$LABEL$ 0
+Seriously, I can easily stomach a lot of on screen blood, gore and repulsiveness, but what really makes this film disturbing & uncomfortable to watch is how the doctor character keeps on rambling about the physical damage done to raped women. He, John Cassavetes of "Rosemary's Baby", talks about ruptured uterus, dry intercourse and massive loads of reddish (?) sperm like they are the most common little ailments in the world of medicine. That being said, "Incubus" is an ultimately STRANGE horror effort. It isn't necessarily awful – although it isn't very good, neither – but just plain weird. The muddled & incoherent script initially revolves on the hunt for a rapist-killer of flesh and blood (even though the title clearly suggests the involvement of a supernatural creature) and it never seems to stop introducing new characters. None of these characters, especially not the main ones, come across as sympathetic and for some never-explained reason they all seem to keep dark secrets. The aforementioned doctor has an odd interpretation of daughter-love and continuously behaves like he's a suspect himself, the town's sheriff (John Ireland) appears to be in a constant state of drunkenness and doesn't even seem to care about who keeps raping & killing the women in his district, the female reporter is even too weird for words and the Galens (an old witch and her grandson) are just plain spooky. All together they desperately try to solve the mystery of whom or what exactly is destroying the towns' women reproducing organs. The sequences building up towards the rapes & murders are admirably atmospheric and the vile acts themselves are bloody and unsettling. Basically these are very positive factors in a horror film, but the narrative structure is too incoherent and the characters are too unsympathetic for "Incubus" to be a really good film. Also, there are quite a few tedious parts to struggle yourself through (like footage of a Bruce Dickinson concert!) and the usually very reliable John Hough's direction is nearly unnoticeable. The final shot is effectively nightmarish, though. For me personally, "Incubus" was a bit of a disappointment, but there are still several enough reasons to recommend this odd piece of early 80's horror to open-minded genre fanatics.$LABEL$ 0
+A movie theater with a bad history of past gruesome murders reopens. Of course, the bloody killings start anew. Written, directed, shot, scored and edited with an appalling lack of flair and finesse by the singularly talentless Rick Sloane (who later disgraced celluloid some more with the absolutely atrocious "Hobgoblins"), this horrendously ham-fisted attempt at a slasher spoof strikes out something rotten in every conceivable way: the excruciatingly lethargic pacing, the painfully static, grainy cinematography (there's a stinky surplus of drab master shots featured throughout), an annoyingly droning and redundant hum'n'shiver synthesizer score, the flat (non)direction, a tediously talky and uneventful script, the groan-inducing sophomoric sense of lowbrow humor, the bloodless murder set pieces, a pitifully unscary killer (he's just some wrinkled-up old guy in pasty make-up), the uniformly obnoxious and unappealing characters, a dissatisfyingly abrupt ending, and lifeless performances from a noticeably uninspired cast all ensure that watching this schlocky swill is about as fun and rewarding as eating rancid raw eels drenched with sour vinegar. This crud totally lacks the necessary crude charm and sleazy vigor required to be enjoyable junk. Instead it's just a bland, plodding and meandering stiff that never catches fire or becomes even remotely amusing in a so-shoddy-it's-smoking sort of way. Only a smidgen of nudity and the delightful presence of the always dependable Mary Woronov as a snarky, sardonic secretary provide a little relief from the overall crumminess of this lousy loser.$LABEL$ 0
+The first time I saw this film, I wanted to like it for so many reasons, but I simply did not. It just seemed a little dull. But there was a tiny question I had about something I saw near the beginning of the film so I watched it again… and then finally it clicked for me. I first watched the movie knowing the "surprise ending", and while I definitely wouldn't recommend having the ending spoiled for you, I have still thoroughly enjoyed the bulk of the film and discovering the many seemingly insignificant events that all unravel to point to a very sinister scheme.I don't think that everyone will love this movie, or even like it. If you like any of the actors, you'll like this movie because the acting is fairly strong and they all get a lot of screen time. If you like mysteries (namely Hitchcock) you'll like this movie. If you like independent or psychological films, you'll like this movie. It really worked for me on all of those levels. If you don't like the actors, mysterious plots or psychological elements, you might not like this movie. But that's your loss. Personally, the only thing that irked me a little was the accents. Good try, Alan Rickman, on the American dialect, but it wasn't much improvement from the scene in Die Hard. (The wonderful voice makes up for the weird accent though.) The medley of accents in the movie was a little odd, but it was not so distracting that it became difficult or particularly irritating. Also, the camera change from scene to scene was evident and might bother some people, but I actually think it added to the scenes (or scene… I can really only recall one scene where the change was severely different, but it worked).When you see this movie, see it at least twice. The second time you see it, I hope you realize how intricate the plot really is. Every time I watch this movie (it's under an hour and a half so multiple viewings are not difficult) I seem to notice something else about it and find myself wondering, "Why did that just happen?" or "Was that intentional?" I like movies that make me think. This one does. So just see it. Twice.$LABEL$ 1
+I have watched some pretty poor films in the past, but what the hell were they thinking of when they made this movie. Had the production crew turned into zombies when they came up with the idea of making it, because you sure have to be brain dead to find any enjoyment in it.I am a fan of most genres and enjoy "shoot 'em up" games, but merging the daft scenes from the game just made this ridiculous and unwatchable.As most have already said, there was hardly any script and the acting was weak. I won't waste my time describing it.Anyone who rates this film above 4 has to be part of the production company or Sega, or else they have a very warped concept of entertainment.I must say, I was more annoyed with the video shop, who gave this a thumbs up, which led me to rent it. Thank god I had a second film to watch to restore some of my faith in movies.Comic book guy would be right if he said "Worst movie ever"!$LABEL$ 0
+The fact that a film is on DVD doesn't guarantee that its quality is very good. The fact that a film's quality is threadbare doesn't mean you shouldn't buy it. This review actually applies to 2 films paired on a single DVD.The plots of these films are of little consequence. They are of interest only to people who collect Holmes films … anybody who merely wants a few of the better offerings would do well to purchase some of those made by Jeremy Brett … or, in a pinch, Basil Rathbone. There are a few other very good Holmes films featuring good actors on a one-shot basis – such as "Seven Per Cent Solution" or "Private Life of Sherlock Holmes". In any event, these films are considerably less estimable.Here we have a pair of films featuring some of the best actors to do Holmes, even if the results tend toward disappointing. This appears to be the only disc with these films on it (although "Deadly Necklace") appears by itself in the same version on other discs."(Sherlock Holmes and) the Deadly Necklace" dates from 1962, although it neither looks it nor sounds it. Some who have seen this may be surprised to learn that it was produce by Hammer Studios. Not that Hammer hasn't turned out some really schlock stuff, but where Christopher Lee was concerned, they usually did a better job. The print a direct transfer from a rather worn 1:1.33 copy in black-and white. The quality of the color suggests the original may have been in color, and the snipped ends of the film's aspect suggest it may originally have been 1:1.66 or more.The film is set in the early 20th Century – not improbable, since Holmes was still working then (and didn't actually die until 1957). However, the script is not adapted from any actual Doyle story. It involves an Egyptian necklace, and Professor Moriarty shows up as a world-famous archaeologist as well as the Prince of Crime. The plot is melodramatic and banal.The biggest defect of this film is that – for whatever unfathomable reason – Hammer filmed it in Germany. It was nonetheless filmed in English. It was then dubbed in German and then re-dubbed in English. So what you hear isn't Lee nor any of the other original actors, but a bunch of unknowns – not that, outside of Lee, I doubt anyone would know any of the other actors. This is too bad, since Lee (see his "Hound of the Baskervilles") makes a quite decent Holmes. As it is, his voice double is condescending and plain as bread pudding with no raisins nor cinnamon.The music for this film is primarily jazzy, in a possible attempt to be "period". Too bad nobody thought of ragtime. As it is, the music doesn't relate to what's happening on the screen, and often is at odds with the action.The other film is "(Sherlock Holmes and) the Speckled Band" from 1931, starring a young Raymond Massey. The quality of the picture and sound is fully up to that of the 1962 effort, and in fact a bit better. Massey makes a quite respectable Holmes, although he certainly doesn't own the rôle in the way Rathbone did and Brett does. The other thespians who take part in this production are unlikely to be of interest to modern readers. The acting – as is true of many films of this period – owes a lot to the post-Victorian stage and to silent films.It should be noted that, while "The Deadly Necklace" is available on DVD by itself, "The Speckled Band" is available only with the former film.There is very little else to be said of this film. The settings seem to be an odd combination of the 1890s (horse-drawn carriages) and the 1920s (electronic devices such as a primitive dictaphone). Taken altogether, it's an interesting curio and a sufficient inducement to buy the DVD with the pairing rather than a DVD with "Deadly Necklace" only.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm not a huge Star Trek fan, but I was looking forward to this. I was intrigued by the pre-hype descriptions of the Enterprise, its cramped-submarine styling and rough-edged technology compared to the Treks we are used to.I didn't see anything all that interesting in this pilot. I found the plot to be convoluted and confusing.I will admit that I did like some of the character development - the depictions of the humans as an 'adolescent' species ready to outgrow their britches was entertaining.And that Vulcan babe had one hell of an incredible rack.But I don't think I'm going to get hooked on this series.3/10$LABEL$ 0
+I loved the gorgeous Greek scenery but the story, which is not something you can follow anyway, was even harder to follow in the movie. I cannot imagine how anyone watching the movie can get any kind of grip on it if they have not read the book, and then, like me, they would probably wonder why Australian Allison turned into French Anne, and many other seemingly pointless changes in the story. The mysteries in the book seemed to be chopped up or left out in the movie. I saw it when it first came out and had the same problems with it then, since I had read the book several times. I recently watched it with my granddaughter (very intelligent at 20 and usually into movies I like) who was mostly amazed at how young Michael Caine and Candace Bergen were in it, but otherwise could not imagine why one would watch it except for the scenery.$LABEL$ 0
+I remember this game. It was always sitting on the shelves alone, until one day I decided to try something new for a change, and got this game. I stared in awe at it, since it was the first ever game for the PS1 that I owned that had 4 discs. When I played it, I couldn't put the controller down, seriously.The storyline of this game is so good and twisted, it's almost as good as the Final Fantasy VII Storyline, and that is hard to accomplish. When you play the game, you get so involved with the characters it's unbelievable that it's only a PS1 game, as It feels like a movie. And I believe it should be made into a movie.Too bad this game is a very unheard of game and barely no one has played or liked it, as it is one of those games that is sitting on the ends of the shelves, with a 50% off sign sitting on it, trying to sell. Well I am one of those people who always look at those on the ends, and try them out and most of them turn out to be really good. Heck, that is how I got into final Fantasy VII, looking in a catalog, and finding it. But this is different than Final Fantasy.Legend of Dragoon, is the only game or RPG that is better than most Square Enix games, surprisingly. I wouldn't be surprised if it was made by Square Enix but it's not. Hardly any games I play are better than the Final Fantasy series, or the Dragon Quest series, but this one is. But what really bugs me is why it is very little known and is not praised, which it should be.Graphics are pretty good for a PS1 game, but what can you expect from it? It's PS1 man, made in 1999. Story I have already mentioned is amazing, almost beats VII. Characters are a amazing, you get involved so much with them, and their actions.A definite 10 out of 10. Definitely deserved more praise, and a very well done RPG by a company other than Square Enix.$LABEL$ 1
+OK i own this DVD i got it new at amazon... i mean i think its badass and a pretty cool flick and melissa bale the slutty/bitchy girl they pick up is hot as hell ..., the acting sucks and the whole polt just sucks the clown is some huge guy wearing a mask and its disgusting but its OK i wouldn't recommend it if like u wanted to rent a good entertaining flick after a hard days work but if u have nothing else to do and ur obbsessed with this stupid movies like i am, watch it sometime, and i do not know how artisan DVD has S.I.C.K. in its DVD collection , s.i.c.k. is not good enough to be owned by a half way decent movie company OK well thats all$LABEL$ 0
+A splendid example of how Hollywood could (and still can) take a masterpiece of literary fiction and stupidly foul it up.In the case of "the Big Sky," writer Dudley Nichols and company arrogantly assumed they could improve upon a classic pioneer novel by the Pulitzer prize-winning author, A.B. Guthrie. In so doing, they removed the soul of the story and any edge and impact it may have had as a film adaptation.The epic nature of Guthrie's book and the evolution of its main character, Boone Caudill, from a naive, Kentucky lad into a hardened and competent survivor/mountain man, has been replaced with a downscaled riverboat farce that bears little resemblance to the author's intent. In the movie version, Boone's presence is nothing except underwhelming.Intriguing and even shocking plot elements that give Guthrie's novel impact and excitement have been removed for no apparent reason whatsoever. Most puzzling of all is the emphasis placed upon the Zeb Calloway character, who was an incidental, minor character in the book, only occupying a handful of pages. On the other hand, a very important and fascinating character, Dick Summers, the veteran pioneer, is missing altogether!!! It is also apparent that director Hawks decided the Zeb character in the movie, played by actor Hunnicutt, wasn't irritating enough. So Zeb/Hunnicutt was given a significant amount of time doing that obnoxious, voice-over narration that is the Hollywood short cut for incompetent screen writing, editing, and direction.Some movies have actually improved upon the books upon which they were based (William Wyler's "Ben-Hur" is an excellent example). But this is horrible and depressing not only as an adaptation of a novel but as a film unto itself.The story is dull and clichéd, and the characters - at least the ones that have not been edited out of the script - are just shallow and boring shadows of Guthrie's literary vision. And unfortunately, Kirk Douglas' star appeal, which could have helped lift this film, was scuttled by the milktoast role he was given.If you can believe it, the film version of Guthrie's Pulitzer prize-winning sequel, "The Way West," also starring Kirk, is even worse.In my opinion, "The Big Sky" further solidifies Howard Hawks' place as one of the most overrated, tepid directors in the history of cinema.$LABEL$ 0
+Attack Force has a horrendous title, and can almost certainly be judged by it's awful cover, because the film is horrible! A mish-mash of plot lines, a choppy mess, and a horribly stagnated pace, make the film hard to watch start to finish. I managed this and I'm proud. As a fan of Seagal's work (mostly of his old days), it's painful to see him star in such tripe. True Seagal's last half dozen movies or so, have sucked a lot, but some of them at least had some redeeming features. Attack Force is a mess. From conception to delivery this film has undergone many changes, from an alien plot line, to the current one about a highly addictive super drug, about to be unleashed on the Romanian (the film has several settings, none of which are Romanian, but all look like Romania because they are in Romania!) populace. The film is tacked together with little regard for whatever state the original shooting script was. Plot-holes and loose ends are abound in the film that's for sure. That's been a problem in Seagal's last few films as well, but never has the result been so boring. There's a whole plot line about the water supply being poisoned with CTX (that's the drugs cool name) that is never resolved! Of course in recent years the plot's haven't been the main draw in the Seagal canon so there was a big onus on the other departments, especially the action. Before I regard the action though, all the other departments are poor. The direction is poor, or perhaps better put, made to look poor. Who knows how director Michael Keusch originally intended this film? Between him finishing his job, the re-shoots by stunt man Tom Delmar, and the editing, a coherent auteur vision is completely lost. The best way to describe the film is that it's just all over the shop! The cinematography is dull, nearly inducing sleep, while the droning score (sounding like it was produced on the cheapest of cheap synthesizers) does nothing to excite matters. The cast too are poor, unable to salvage anything here. Seagal looks bored beyond recognition, and is dubbed through much of the picture, clearly when plot-points are being changed. He looks tired and overweight, and lethargic, unlike he's looked in previous pictures too (remarkable as the aforementioned have been key complaints in Seagal's recent pictures). The only redeemable cast member is Adam Croasdell as one of the villains, doing a slimy Brit routine. He seems to be a throwback to the alien plot line, because he's playing it inhuman. He seems like a cross between a body snatcher and a vampire (ditto to the lead villain played by some hot chick who appears on occasion, seemingly waiting for her husband… Dracula).Finally the action. Well it's poor. Poorly conceived, poorly shot. There's not much either, and there's even less featuring Seagal. Stevo doesn't really bring out the stunt double here, because there's so little to do. There's even a lengthy (repetitive and boring) action scene on the hour mark that inter-cuts occasionally with little flashes of Seagal's stand in because clearly Seagal wasn't there while the scene was being shot, and they wanted to have him feature in the action scene. Seagal eventually appears in person to shoot two guys in the head. Seagal has a producers credit here and a script credit, but from what I understand the film has been altered behind his back to the current state it's in. Seagal will apparently not be working with these people again, or with Castel Studio's who continue to deliver horrifically sub-Nu-Image (that's saying something), material.Overall this is one to avoid if you are not a Seagal fan. Seagal fans can also be safe in the knowledge that the big man probably won't want to do anything this bad again. Unfortunately his next film which has already been shot, with the same people, promises to be even worse than this. *$LABEL$ 0
+"The Secretary" is one of those cheesy, cliched, "thrillers" that one is subjected to watching on a Sunday afternoon, when there is virtually nothing else on. While the plot (a demented woman becomes jealous of all who succeed over her in the office and decides to do whatever she can to stop them) may be one of a kind, I recognized countless plot twists, probably taken from other TV movies that I had been subjected to for the very same reason.To make matters worse, I was not wild about the cast. Mel Harris is one of those actresses who appears in so many TV movies as either a "mom" or some sort of "victim" of foul play or abuse, that one must wonder the kind of life she leads. In this one, she gets the joy of playing a mom AND a victim of psycho secretary Sheila Kelly, who was not a very good choice as the villain. While Sheila Kelly has made some good career moves(Singles, Breaking In, and I guess, Law and Order), she is also beset by a string of pitiful TV movie roles, and this one just adds to it. As for the others, I don't have any clear memories of them, so that must say something.This one WILL play on the Lifetime network(I think that's where I saw it), but don't bother watching it, unless you are too bored for words. Not that it will make you any more excitied...$LABEL$ 0
+I've watched a lot of television in my 51 years, but I've never had so much fun week after week, as I had watching Oz. The acting by the entire cast was excellent. The writing was just perfect, with every character remaining consistent throughout the six year run. I also enjoyed the mayhem and the ultra-violence. It may sound odd, but it was at times, comical finding out how one of the characters would eventually end up dead. I particularly enjoyed the true romance and love between Beecher and Keller. Those two men really knew how to throw down, in every way possible. I truly hope that HBO will continue to show us re-runs of this great show FOREVER! I've watched every episode at least 4 times yet I still look forward to Tuesday and Thursday nights at 11 p.m. for an episode of this fun and very entertaining show.$LABEL$ 1
+I don't understand how this garbage got on the shelves of the movie store, it's not even a real movie! It was unbelievable, me and a group of friends decided to watch this one night and it was just the stupidest thing any of us had ever seen, I couldn't believe it! We watched the first 15 minutes in utter awe that somebody actually thought of this and then made it into a movie. Are they on crack? My guess is yes, in huge doses. I highly doubt that anyone could ever like this trash. Is this supposed to be sci-fi or comedy or what? I don't thing the idiots who made this even care, they just decided to make a movie about nothing and see how many suckers they could trick into watching it. Well, we put something on film so let's take it to the movie store and see if they actually put it on the shelf--no, no, no. This is not movie-making. The acting is like watching wooden puppets moving around and reading from a book, that's how bad it is. I feel like going to the movie store and complaining and getting my money back, nobody should have to endure this crap. So I am here to warn you--DO NOT RENT THIS MOVIE, it is the dumbest thing you have never seen!$LABEL$ 0
+First of all this was not a three hour movie - Two hours, ten minutes... last time i checked commercials aren't actually part of a movie! Perhaps, though, it should've been a two parter for a total of about 3 hours? Yeah, would have gotten more in, been able to explore some more emotion. Overall, though, it was an interesting look into the lives of Lucy and Desi. I watch I Love Lucy from time to time and love it but never have I read or seen a biography, never knew anything about their lives off the screen. Because of this movie I do now but I'm not so sure that's a good thing. Everything here no one really needed to know. This was essentially a movie that didn't need to be made. But it was made and the reason is because Lucy & Desi are still such huge stars and certain people in American society feel that the rest of society needs to know ALL about our tv and movie stars. That is definitely so not true and very, very sad.Anyway, what was shown here in Lucy was pretty good. Two complaints - the actress who played Viv Vance - not great casting at all. And the switch from Madeline Zima to Rachel York.... uhhh, like Lucy had plastic surgery and all of a sudden she's a whole new person!? That wasn't too great. But the story went on and focused on the rocky relationship between Lucy & Desi. No, the kids were not shown very much at all and that wasn't necessarily a drawback to this movie because like I said, this focused mainly just on Lucy & Desi. Had there been more time, had the story been more about Lucy's entire life, then maybe the kids woulda been there more. But they weren't so we got to see the likes of Gable & Lombard, Red Skelton and Buster Keaton very briefly instead. Wow, that was one thing about this story that I thought was really cool: his presence and influence in Lucy's life. Really neat and it's too bad that wasn't explored more. Oh well. What was explored was done well, for the most part. Honestly, I don't think I'll ever watch this again and I don't think this movie'll be that memorable. For someone who digs I Love Lucy but isn't an enormous Lucille Ball fan, this should be an interesting watch. My grade for this: B$LABEL$ 1
+The first noticeable problem about this awkwardly titled film is its casting. Ann Nelson plays the grandma here. Three years after this, she would star in "Airplane!" as the woman who hangs herself while listening to Robert Hays pine for Julie Hagerty. I could not get that image out of my head.Matt Boston is a fifteen year old with problems. He has headaches. His mother had a nervous breakdown. His grandfather had a massive heart attack. A chain smoking psychiatrist decides to find out what the devil is going on with this family. First she hypnotizes Grandma Nelson. Nelson tells a tale in flashback that fills the entire first half of the film.She and Grandpa bought an RV, cheap, and drive it around to all the tourist traps in desert California. The RV soon has a mind of its own, going off the road and such. Then, large boulders begin hurling themselves at it. The elderly couple are appropriately afraid, but stay in the vehicle in order to move the plot along.Eventually, Grandpa has a heart attack after being stranded on the RV roof when it goes for another unplanned ride.Boston's mom begins talking to some Native American mummies she has lying around the house. She fancies herself an author, and makes copious notes about the musty corpses. The psychiatrist reads the detailed notes, and uses her imagination to fill in the blanks. We see the mother semi-flip out, but her mental breakdown occurs offscreen, much like Gramps' heart attack.Finally, the patient de resistance, little Matt. Matt goes under the hypnosis gun and tells his own tale. He thinks mom is wigging out (this was made in 1977). Apparently, mom is making the astral bodies of the Native American mummies sort of fly through the air. One hits Matt like a bee hits a windshield, and Matt begins acting all crazy.The psychiatrist takes Grandma and Matt into the desert. Matt is inexplicably in a wheelchair now, and the trio confront the unseen (and unexplained) forces.Flocker has no sense of scene construction. The one pro here involves the RV stranded in a salt flat in the desert. In the distance, the couple notice some boulders rolling toward the RV. This is a pretty creepy little scene that is eventually overplayed. As the boulders begin hurling themselves toward the vehicle, the special effects become obvious.The scenes where the RV runs off the highway, then back on again, take forever. The scenes where Grandpa is trapped on the RV roof as it careens down a dirt road takes forever. Mom's conversations with the mummy take forever. Matt's out of body experiences take forever. This film takes forever.I was tempted to hit the fast forward button at least a dozen times. As scenes dragged on, it was obvious Flocker was padding. Cut the fat here, and this would have clocked in at an hour. The final "explanation," that the mummies' spirits were trying to kill those close to Matt never holds water. Did they inhabit the RV? The film maker never brings up the fact that the spirits are no good at their murderous ways, they never kill anybody!As I kept thinking of Nelson in "Airplane!," I also thought of other movies. Anything to keep me from falling asleep during this one. Boston is terrible as the kid, playing a fifteen year old as a cute ten year old who has a smart alecky line for all these adults who fall over themselves loving him.In the end, Flocker has written and directed a mess. The title is just the beginning of this exercise in making the audience feel ill at ease. This is not scary, and like the ghosts, you too can still walk...away from this tape at the video store.This is unrated, and contains some physical violence and mild profanity.$LABEL$ 0
+This has got to be the worst horror movie I have ever seen. I remember watching it years ago when it initially came out on video and for some strange reason I thought I enjoyed it. So, like an idiot, I ran out to purchase the DVD once it was released...what a tragic mistake! I won't even bother to go into the plot because it is so transparent that you can see right through it anyhow. I am a fan of Herschell Gordon Lewis so I am accustomed to cheesy gore effects and bad acting but these people take this to a whole different level. It is almost as if they are intentionally trying to make the worst movie humanly possible...if that was their goal, they suceeded. If they intended to make a film that was supposed to scare you or make you believe in any way, shape, or form that it is real then they failed...MISERABLY! Avoid this movie...read the plot synopsis and you've seen it!$LABEL$ 0
+A good picture is worth all the words. This film has the most poetic scene ever dreamed of about people with Down's syndrome. And I won't spoil it by telling you. You'll want to see it yourself.Pasqual Duquenne is an amazing actor. I did not need to understand a single word he said to understand his meaning.The film has a magic of it's own. After watching it I understood better that we put too much value on achievement and not enough on the people we love. Passion and simplicity is all we need.$LABEL$ 1
+I have just finished watching this movie, and for me.... it takes ages to finish because it is so boring.....and the storyline is extremely bad.now... where should i start....O.... the movie is called "sinking of japan" ....yeah yeah... it does show that japan is actually sinking but the action part is very bad. Compare to the movie "the day after tomorrow" i would have rate it at least 8/10.The "sinking of Japan" does not show much about the disaster that actually happening right in front of our eyes. there isn't much excitement at all...boring... all i can say...one more point... i would recommend this movie to have a better title... maybe something like "the romance of sinking of japan" because this movie does have lots of talkings (waste of time... talk nonsense) & the love story is extremely boring & have been dragging too long...honestly.. i almost get frustrated.Overall... this movie does not show enough details of the disasters e.g. many people running like hell to avoid death..love story part was extremely not touching enough for me.but hey... there is one thing we should appreciate about this movie though.... & its has got good songs!$LABEL$ 0
+I don't remember seeing another murder/mystery movie as bad as this. This movie, about a medical examiner who investigates his friend's mysterious death in a car accident, has the complete receipt for a bad movie: bad acting, boring story, lack of suspense, poor humor and no drama. I remembered seeing this movie on PAX, a TV station notable for dishing out low-budgeted and campy made-for-TV movies such as this one. TV movies, of course, do not have the edge factor or the suspense as movies from the Big Screen. But, this movie sure hit all sour tastes. The makers of this movie have missed out on an opportunity to making "Receipe for Murder" a great TV movie; the title does offer some suspense.So, if you want a good recipe, don't watch this movie. This movie alone can kill your TV appetite.Grade F$LABEL$ 0
+This is a weak sequel: it lacks the interest and light touch of the magnificent "Man Called Horse" in nearly every aspect and when compared to each other they hardly seem to be the same genre.The Return is almost a parody of the first and tries to evoke different Indian ceremonies but comes across as trying way too hard to bottle the magic of the first. In this film the tribe is lost and abandoned, having lost their homelands, modern life has encroached on paradise and they are living in abject misery and poverty. Perhaps this is the point: the first film took us to a place where we would want to be, a simpler time. This takes us to broken Indians in a miserable world and the White Man is the hero and savior which rather negates the whole idea of the film.The beauty of the first lay in the fact that the white man learnt and discovered that real civilization lies in values rather than western materialism. In the second film this is all but lacking and so we end up with a weak film.A huge disappointment.$LABEL$ 0
+The hysterical Hardware Wars is finally out on DVD. HW has earned its niche among parody classics and is not only a riotous little 20 minute short but a staple in low budget film production classes, which is where a lot of the film's cult status is derived from and resides. With the DVD, not only do we get a chance to revisit the original parody (4Q2, Cinnamon-Bun Head, Ballistic Toast, et al) that Ernie F. did in 1978, but there is a lot of additional material showcasing the Fosselius wit. Antique Sideshow is a dead-on parody that is very funny but makes a statement about the confluence of ignorance and greed at the same time. The Director's Commentary is also hysterical, as is the Creature Feature which parodies taking a film out on the talk-show circuit and actually IS based on taking HW out on the talk show circuit, albeit the public access circuit. I'd love to see Ernie, Michael Wiese and crew take on some other, contemporary overblown and overbudgeted targets to parody -- like just about any film that Hollywood churns out at $100 million a pop these days -- not so much the crafty films like Spider Man or Men In Black (actually parodies themselves!) but any number of overblown, overhyped, overwrought and overpriced features.$LABEL$ 1
+This was an interesting study in societal sexuality, as well as the "dark interests" of man.While I can't say the wife was a strong character - she was the wrong choice for the part, in my opinion - she was a rich kid in search of escaping her drool life. She was a rebel in fact, and never fully matured for her husband, a lawyer (Rickman). It's obvious he married her for her money and to cover his sexual desires, which is taboo. Rickman played his part to a tee, his flirtations with the young man, and very subtle undertones of gayness. The young man was gay to the hilt! When he did Marilyn impersonation that should have told the wife everything. He was perfectly cast as well. He has hustler written all over him.I was not crazy about the ending, as I knew what was coming. Overall though, the acting from Rickman was great, Reedus was good, Walker was okay but I had misgivings. For a gay themed movie, it was average, but not blatant at least. It's worth viewing if you don't have "Truly Madly Deeply" lying around for a spin.$LABEL$ 1
+I would give this a zero if they had that rating. Fun was no fun at all. I grew tired of the movie about ten minutes into but endured to the end thinking it had to get better - it did not. The others I watched this movie with also agreed. The acting was annoying. I am tired of Jim Carey's over the top ham acting. The supporting cast was no better. While this movie was a statement of corporate greed and the plight of the worker who gets stepped on when a large company goes under, the vehicle for this would have been better served another way. I actually disliked the leading characters (Dick and Jane) so much that their antics were never funny but pathetic. I am trying to recall one scene where I or anyone I was with laughed and cannot. A worthless movie and a total waste of time.$LABEL$ 0
+Apart from having the longest reign in British history (63 years), Queen Victoria also holds two other distinctions. She was, apart from our current Queen, the oldest ever British monarch, living to the age of 81. And she was also the youngest ever British (as opposed to English or Scottish) monarch, coming to the throne as a girl of eighteen. And yet whenever television or the cinema make a programme or film about her, they seem far more interested in the older Victoria than they do in the young girl; the version of Victoria with which modern audiences will probably be most familiar is Judi Dench in "Mrs Brown". "The Young Victoria" tries to redress the balance by showing us the events surrounding her accession and the early years of her reign. It has the rare distinction of being produced by a former Royal, Sarah Duchess of York, whose daughter Princess Beatrice makes a brief appearance as an extra.There are three main strands to the plot. The first concerns the intrigues of Victoria's mother, the Duchess of Kent, a highly unpopular figure even with her own daughter, largely because of the influence of her adviser Sir John Conroy, who was widely rumoured to be her lover. (According to one unfounded rumour he, and not the late Duke of Kent, was Victoria's natural father). The second strand concerns the growing romance between Victoria and her German cousin Prince Albert, and the attempts of King Leopold of Belgium, who was uncle to both of them, to influence this romance. (Leopold's hope was to increase the prestige of the House of Saxe-Coburg, to which both he and Albert belonged). The third concerns one of the strangest episodes in British political history, the Bedchamber Crisis of 1839, when supporters of the Tory Party (which had traditionally supported a strong monarchy) rioted because the young Queen was perceived to favour the Whig Party and their leader Lord Melbourne, even though the Whigs had historically supported a quasi-republican system of government, with the monarch reduced to a figurehead.Scriptwriter Julian Fellowes is known for his Conservative views, and at times I wondered if this may have coloured his treatment of political themes, as he seems to lean to the side of the Tories, the predecessors of the modern Conservative party. Their leader Robert Peel is shown as statesmanlike and dignified, whereas Melbourne, for all his dash and charm, is shown as devious and uninterested in social reform. There may be some truth is these characterisations, but Fellowes glosses over the fact that only a few years earlier the Tories had opposed the Reform Act, which ended the corrupt electoral system of rotten boroughs, and that they had benefited from William IV's unconstitutional dismissal of a Whig administration.Lessons in dynastic and constitutional history do not always transfer well to the cinema screen, and this one contains its share of inaccuracies. Prince Albert, for example, was not injured in Edward Oxford's attempt on Victoria's life, and Melbourne (in his late fifties at the time of Victoria's accession) was not as youthful as he is portrayed here by Paul Bettany. King William IV certainly disliked the Duchess of Kent (who was his sister-in-law), but I doubt if he would have gone so far as to bawl abuse at her during a state banquet, as he is shown doing here. I also failed to understand the significance of the scene in which the Duchess and Conroy try to force Victoria to sign a "Regency Order"; the Duchess's constitutional position was made clear by the Regency Act 1830, which provided that she would become Regent if her daughter was still under eighteen at the time of her accession. No piece of paper signed by Victoria could have altered the provisions of the Act.There are also occasional infelicities. In one early scene we see Victoria and Albert playing chess while comparing themselves to pawns being moved around a chessboard, a metaphor so hackneyed that the whole scene should have come complete with a "Danger! Major cliché ahead!" warning. Yet in spite of scenes like this, I came to enjoy the film. There were some good performances, especially from Miranda Richardson as the scheming Duchess and Mark Strong as the obnoxious Conroy. It is visually very attractive, being shot in sumptuous style we have come to associate with British historical drama. Jim Broadbent gives an amusing turn as King William, although he does occasionally succumb to the temptation of going over the top. (Although not as disastrously over the top as he was in "Moulin Rouge").The main reason for the film's success, however, is the performances of Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend as the two young lovers Victoria and Albert. Blunt is probably more attractive than Victoria was in real life, but in her delightful portrayal the Queen is no longer the old lady of the popular imagination, the black-clad Widow of Windsor who was perpetually not amused, but a determined, strong-minded and loving young woman. Her love for Albert, and their happy family life together, was one of the main reasons why the monarchy succeeded in reestablishing itself in the affections of the British people. (With the exception of George III, Victoria's Hanoverian ancestors had been notoriously lacking in the matrimonial virtues). Blunt and Friend make "The Young Victoria" a touching romance and a gripping human drama as well as an exploration of a key period in British history. 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+This film is a sleeper because Rod Steiger's is the only big name in the credits. Yet, all of the supporting actors fit well with his character. It was fitting that in his last film, Rod Steiger reminded us once more of his inventive power as an actor. He portrayed a grandfather's impulsiveness, stubbornness, and acceptance of the end of life in a characteristically individual and convincing performance. Because his character was close to death, the story brings us closer to the most precious things granted to us: the privilege of life, relationships with family members, and the empathy of those who care for us. His search together with his grand daughter for one of his sons provided enough suspense to keep me waiting, expecting a highly-charged climax such as the meeting of two long-separated elderly lovers who were also on the cusp of death in "Forever Young." I wondered how the meeting would be staged and how tightly my emotions would be wound by the time he and his granddaughter reached the end of his quest. I was delighted to find that the story brought more than I expected. The delightfully satisfying climax brought for me a greater appreciation of the value of the precious gifts of life, love, and family that are enjoyed today by me and by all of us.$LABEL$ 1
+Ah, Lucio Fulci, rest in peace. This infamous Italian is mostfamous for "Zombie," and the absolutely unwatchable "ThePsychic" and "Manhattan Baby." Well, add this to the unwatchablelist.The plot, as it were, concerns a nekkid woman who wears a goldmask and a G-string. She wants the power of a young dubbedstud who has a set of magic arrows and a bow. They are magicbecause they glow. Arrow boy teams up with a guy in a bad wig,and they spend most of the movie rescuing each other from flataction sequences. In the end, the nekkid chick is defeated, but notbefore taking the mask off and reminding me why I broke up withmy high school girlfriend.Fulci bathes every shot in an orange glow and fills the screen withsmoke. Nothing like a smoky orange action sequence to make youcrave Sunny Delight and a cigarette. The special effects arelaughable. In one sequence, our ambiguously gay duo areattacked by dozens of arrows that are obviously pin scratches onthe film itself. The majority of the effects budget must have beenspent on the Fulci-licious gore, which consists entirely of spurtingwounds. Hey, we can all use a good spurting wound once in awhile, but when you get into spurting wound overkill, it gets boring.I kept having to play with the brightness setting on my TV anywayjust to see what the heck was happening.There is lots of talk of fulfilling omens and prophecies, so let medo a little look into the future...if you find this movie and watch it,you will regret it. The scene on the video box (by Media) does notappear in the film in any context whatsoever. "Conquest" is a conjob. What MST3K could have done with this!This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, strong gore, femalenudity, brief male nudity, and mild sexual content.$LABEL$ 0
+The idea that anyone could of concocted such a trite, cliché, yet indeliberately comical movie is shocking. The final 20 minutes of this film are comical glory; with six men digging enough trench in 10 minutes to light the runway with gasoline for a 747, while a supposed 'major' perfectly lands the 747 in a 110mph crosswind - leading one to question the misnomer of calling this movie CRASH LANDING...Some of the dialogue was equivalent to rubbing sandpaper in my ears, while the only aspect that saved this movie for a 1 was the plethora of attractive women filling the screen a large portion of the time. Not exactly a consolidation for this pathetic excuse of a movie, but my mute button finally received a workout.View at your own risk! 2 out of 10$LABEL$ 0
+What can be said of the compelling performance of Tara Fitzgerald? She is utterly believable as the injured Mrs Graham, hardened by experience, sharp and strong-willed, yet not immune to the passionate attentions of Mr Markham. Through every mischievous glance and every flare of temper, every flicker of discernment in his eyes and telling facial expression, Toby Stephens is a master of his character. He is the force of passion and hope that will restore Helen's injured spirit. Graves' Huntingdon is a perfect performance of the unreformable rogue. Yet despite all he has done, there is an undeniable human dignity in his refusal to play the hypocrite at the end; he is at least aware of his own failings and how they have brought his ruin. Helen's attempt to save his soul-- after leaving him and taking their child at a time when this was unheard of--is a triumph of hope, hope and faith in the worth of every human life and soul, however misguided, however sinful that person may be. Markham's constancy may then be seen as her reward for her faith and unyielding moral character. Though the opinionated ideas of morality so strongly presented in Tenant seem outdated by today's standards, the story is imbued with integrity, passion, and conviction which still make an impact. Tenant is far more believable than Wuthering Heights or even Jane Eyre; here is an adaptation that does the novel justice. I highly recommend viewing it!$LABEL$ 1
+I watched this movie a couple of days ago in a small independent cinema in Paris. It was my last evening in the French capital and the best good-bye I could have chosen. These twenty episodes made me relive the impressions I had collected in Paris in a heart-warming manner without drifting off into kitsch or sentimental schmaltz. Each episode is full of surprise, strong emotions and suggestive pictures and each short-film is directed according to the rules of a good short story. To me this kind of movie demands a lot more talent and qualities of a director and a story board writer than any epic two hours drama and all of them succeeded in their task excellently! The stories were chosen carefully with regard to their matching Arrondissement and express the respective flair perfectly. Each episode was seen from a different ankle, had a different topic, a different style and still the twenty stories result in a harmonic orchestra of films. The most outstanding advantage with the concept of an episode movie in my opinion is based in the fact that you can switch in between a large variety of feelings and moods without the danger of overload, just the other way round: the melange of sadness, melancholy, pure joy, despair, wrath, anxiety, curiosity or passion gives this movie a unique freshness and harmony. And not to forget the all over topic of love! Love between the characters, love between the characters and Paris and also the love of the directors and actors/actresses for this project. I don't want to go into the details of the episodes since there are so many, but I must highlight the range of world famous actors and actresses from all over the world and their approach to this project. Some played with their image, some broke it completely and some interpreted the stereotypes connected with their home country or the roles they had played before, so intertextuality was given all through the movie. All in all I can absolutely recommend this great collage and will be looking forward to its release on DVD.$LABEL$ 1
+Ok, everybody agreed on what was the best season. The first. And killing off Boone was a bad desicion. Also killing off others was bad. Blame the directors and writers for it. Bad boys. BUT. I still think this is the best scifi series ever! Sorry guys I can't help it! I see that the quality of the series was decreasing after the first season. Still it's easy to accept Liam as the new main character, if you are over Boone. He is really... mysterious. The thing that shocked me most was when Lilli was written out of the story and how. That was something she didn't deserve! And what do we get? Some blonde chick called Renee, with absolutely no character! But these Taelons stay mysterious, and you stay wondering about theyre true plans till the end. True Suspence. The conversations between Zo'or and Da'an are sometimes brilliant.I understand that, when you jump in on an episode from the 3th,4th or 5th season, you may not understand this show. But when you watch from the beginning, you just cant break loose!The acting is great, the special FX are marvellous, the music is beautiful and the plot intriguing. Gotta see this, guys!$LABEL$ 1
+First off, I have been a fan of the show back when my PBS station started showing it back in 1981. I learned many things about the show and the people who were in or contributed to the show.This latest installment of Doctor Who made a great impression on me. The original series, aka classic series, was made fun of by the bad special effects and/or wobbly sets. Well, this is NO MORE TRUE. The special effects are awesome, but what is even better is the writing. You get a chance to learn more about our beloved Doctor and maybe a bit of a reason why he loves the planet earth so much. Without giving too much away, it is a very worthwhile series to watch. Christopher Eccelston brought a side of the Doctor that we never get to see, a bitter and angry one but yet lovable at the same time.A MUST SEE!$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of those movies that I've seen so many times that I can quote most of it. Some of the lines in this movie are just unbeatable. I particularly enjoy watching him stumble and fall while drunk, go out to the fancy restaurant drunk and the part with the moose.I don't know how many times I have seen this sequence but it's funny every time. From the moment Arthur gets to Susan's Dad's place to the bit with the moose, you pretty much laugh the whole time. I remember watching the out-takes regarding the bit with the moose. It went down just like I'd imagined it'd be like. They were all laughing so hard it was difficult for them to film it.The late Sir John Gielgud was a wonderful addition to this. His demeanor, his one-liners and the way he handled Arthur were all equally hilarious. It's always a funny moment when he whacks him over the head with his hat or tells him he's a spoiled little ____. I laugh every time I listen to the "I'm going to have a bath" and the lines that follow.$LABEL$ 1
+The coming attractions to "The Order" make it seem like a decent horror mystery/thriller, but what we get is a plot that has potential to be excellent all thrown together to form a pile of garbage.First off the whole movie consists of terrible dialogue and god awful special affects. The acting was also nothing to be proud of, but Keath Ledger (I think I spelled that right.) saved the movie in this category.For heaven's sake: DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE!$LABEL$ 0
+An absolutely baffling western featuring flash-forward sequences set in an insane asylum, South of Hell Mountain was one of the first films produced by the schlockmeisters at Cannon Film. Co-directed by William Sachs, who would later deliver such fan favourites as The Incredible Melting Man and Galaxina, the film tells the very dull tale of a trio of gold robbers who stumble upon a cabin occupied by two women who are hiding some secrets that aren't worth discovering. The cast (most of whom never made another film) try gamely, but are hamstrung by the screenplay, which generally makes no sense. The asylum scenes are edited in to little effect and are punctuated by ridiculous sound effects and tape loops. Ultimately, it's a lot of talk and little else.$LABEL$ 0
+Since starting to read the book this movie is based on, I'm having mixed feelings about the filmed result. I learned some time ago to see the movie adaptation of a book before I read the book, because I found that if I read the book first I was inevitably disappointed in the film. This would undoubtedly have been true here, whereas in the case of Atonement, which is probably the best filmed adaptation of a book I've ever seen, it would probably not have mattered.I'm trying to figure out what the cause is, and I suspect that I have to point my finger squarely at Michael Cunningham. Much as I respect him for The Hours (which I have not read but which I saw and was awed by) I cannot escape the feeling that he not so much adapted Susan Minton's book as he did take a few of the characters and the basic premise and write his own movie out of it.It's not that I dislike the movie. I actually love the movie, which is why, since I started reading the novel, I'm feeling disturbed about the whole thing. I feel disloyal to Ms. Minton for enjoying the movie which was so thooughly a departure from her work. Reading it, I can understand why she had such a struggle adapting it. Unlike what one reviewer of the movie said, it's not so much that some novels don't deserve to be a movie; it's more like some books just can't make the transition. Ms. Minton's novel operates on a level so personal and intimate to her central character, so internally, that it seems impossible to me to place it in a physical realm. Even though a lot of the book is memory of real events, it is memory, and so fragmented and ethereal as to be, I feel, not filmable. I think that Ms. Minton's work is a real work of literature, but cannot make the transition to film, which in no way detracts from its value.I cannot yet report that Evening, the film, does not represent Evening, the novel, in any more than the most superficial way, since I'm only halfway through, but the original would have to make a tremendous leap to resemble the film that follows at this point. I guess I'm writing this because I feel that if you're going to adapt a novel, adapt it, but don't make it something else that it's not. I'm not sure if Michael Cunningham has done anything wholly original, but from what I can see so far the things he has done are all based on someone else's work. We would not have The Hours if Virginia Woolf had not written Mrs. Dalloway, and we would not have Evening, in its distressed form, if Susan Minton had not had so much trouble doing what probably should not have been attempted in the first place. But it's too much to say that it would be better if Ms. Minton had left well enough alone, because Evening, the film, is a satisfactory and beautiful work of its own.Thus my confusion, mixed feelings, sense of disloyalty, and ultimate conclusion that, in this case, the novel cannot be the film and vice versa, and my eventual gratitude to both writers for doing what they did, so that we have both works as they are.$LABEL$ 1
+***spoilers***spoilers***spoilers***spoilersThere are bad movies and then there are movies which are so awful that they become affectionately comical in their ineptness. Such is the case with Columbia Pictures' 'The Grudge.' This cinematic atrocity began when an otherwise well intentioned American saw a Japanese made for TV film 'Ju-on' and was inspired to remake the movie in English. This began a virtual tsunami of bad decisions which circumnavigated the globe until it washed ashore in Orlando on October 21, 2004.The premise, and I use the word loosely, involves a house in Tokyo haunted by a skinny Momma ghost who looks like a cross between Margaret Cho and Alanis Morrisette, along with her ghastly sidekick a chubby, rambunctious but evil second grader. Is there anything scarier than a creepy 8 year old Japanese boy? Sure there is! Count Chocula comes to mind. With this whimsical bunch we must add a mysterious black cat who I have affectionately named Chim Chim. (Remember Speed Racer?) As you have already guessed, they were murdered in this domicile of doom and now desire to kill everyone who enters the premises. You see, as explained by a Japanese detective, when someone dies in a rage their ghost seeks revenge on everyone who steps on the property lines as defined by the county commissioner or something like that, I forget. The story begins innocently enough with acclaimed thespian Bill Pullman leaping to his death from a balcony. My guess is Bill Pullman got this job because of his kids begged him for a trip to Tokyo Disneyland. Next we endure the mildly interesting saga of Nurse Yoko, 'oh no don't go in there' screams the audience, but alas she heeds not the dire warnings and is predictably snuffed out like a magic lantern. About 30 minutes into the movie we finally see its American heroine Sarah Michelle Gellar as Karen. Sarah Michelle Gellar might be a competent actress but I could not help thinking of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, so much so that it was distracting. It is the equivalent to having Jennifer Anniston star in a movie about the adventures of six friends in New York. Try as you may, you just can't stop thinking about the other project which made her famous. But I digress, Karen, the nurse is hired as a replacement for the original care giver who disappeared at spooks r us. She snoops around, meets the ghosts, coma lady dies, and some other stuff happens. Watching the fair haired vixen searching for clues I half expected her to find the ghost and pull its mask off to reveal it was actually old man Gower who owned the abandoned amusement park! 'I would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling kids and that dog of yours!' Director Takashi Shimizu, who is vying to be the Ed Wood of Asia, made two unfortunate decisions involving sound. First, he choose to use a soundtrack only when someone is about to be killed. This is an excellent devise for obliterating any suspense because the audience gets a two minute warning to prepare for another miserably predictable murder. Second, he gave the ghosts a bizarre guttural noise that sounds like a gargling gopher. After the movie, I heard several people exiting the theatre making the sound and laughing.Sarah Michelle Gellar ends up being the sole survivor. And of course we learn that the fire she set to burn down the house was extinguished in time for the obligatory next chapter. However, considering the humorous reactions of the audience, they did not want a sequel but an apology. 'The Grudge' could be easily re-edited into a comedy, perhaps then it will be appreciated for its camp value. Baring that, this will go down as the greatest cinematic thriller since 'Godzilla vs. Megalon.' I would suggest waiting until the movie comes to your local discount theatre where it can receive the public ridicule it so richly deserves.$LABEL$ 0
+Well Folks, this is another stereotypic portrayla of Gay life however, the additional downside includes poor acting, horrible script, no budget, terrible sound and let us not forget the impossible storyline.It is Christmas in New York City and our story immediatly "focuses" on two male individuals, apparently lovers for some time. One of them has not let his parents (the right wing, religious zealot types) know that he is gay (adding to the impluasability of the story 'cause this guy is as efeminant as gay guys come these days) and his parents are coming to viusit him. They will stay in his New York apartment where he and his lover have just decorated for Christmas.The story continues to develop around the arrival of the parents, who noone will like anyway and - how through only obvious and predictable ways - they come to learn there son is gay. Tears are shed as was my interest in this movie.The cast of charecters, seemed like an intro acting course at the local community theatre. The lovers in this film are mismatched, and there does not appear to be any cohesion to their union.The landlord is flat and her attempt to be humanistic in the situation are undercooked and certainly didnt help move the plot any further.The dragqueen friend who steps to the aid of one of the lovers in his "time of need" is stereotypic and gives a bad name to the unique art of drag.Although some guys night find one of the lovers to have a nice body (again, stereotypic imagery) it does not help this story.Stay away from this film, especially if you are considering a purchase. You'll shoot yourself if you do!$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was SO stupid~!!! I could not bare to watch the rest of this movie..... To think that the spoiled bitch suggested to see other people, then walks right into another relationship 5 minutes after the agreement was made.... I really felt sorry for the guy, but then again, for a guy like that to even consider letting his fiancé see other people, to go along with her grand idea, well, I'm sorry but, he deserved what he got~! And she was definitely not the best fish in the sea either, he can do way, way, way better.... She had no tits.... to hips.... no nothing~! And you had to have known that she wanted this right from the start... 5 years~??? How on earth did they last that long~???$LABEL$ 0
+Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film$LABEL$ 0
+I just watched it last night and it was great.I can see why some ppl have ill feelings towards it from a rugby fan and maori culture point of view but other than that I have no idea what's so negative about it. The movie is great. It has a lot of heart. Very inspiring and encouraging to all ages. Great family movie! They did a pretty good job considering that it was a budget movie. I love movies based on true stories/events. I was raised around rugby all my life, it is a great game but I was never really taken to it because (please forgive me if I offend anyone, nothing personal this is just how I saw it) I thought, their trainings are not as ruthless or hard, the players are not as disciplined and don't seemed as serious like other sportmen and it looked like it's all just muscle and blooming tackling each other etc. But after watching Forever strong, I was like, wow! I was proud! It did good things for rugby (well it changed my view of rugby) and also the New Zealnd Haka. I actually cried. I am not even New Zealander and I was proud of their culture. Didn't even know what the chant meant until this movie. The movie is NOT about rugby techniques or rugby, it's not even about New Zealand All Blacks or the Haka or etc......Mother of pearls!!!!! hahaha SHUX!So to all you beautiful negative ppl, You are missing the point! I am sure if they had the means, it would have been better, the haka is in there because that was part of Highland Rugby culture, tradition or what ever you want to call it. So any new members on this site such as myself, please don't be put off by those negative comments. See it for yourself! Must see movie! There is a lot you can learn from this movie, ppl of all ages. It definitely makes you want to be a better person and be humble! This movie reminded me of a lot of things that I already know and was raised with but I kinda lost along the way! Loved it! Happy reading ppls and All the best!Muawha!$LABEL$ 1
+Although allegedly autobiographical, this movie demonstrates very little insight both into the protagonist's psychology (resulting in a flat, fragmented characterization) as well as into larger-scale historical processes, and my hope of either learning something new or improving my understanding of contemporary Iran remained unfulfilled. Instead, I found my sensibilities somewhat dulled as a succession of bearded Islamic villains replaced each other taunting, torturing or killing the wantonly victimized prototypical middle-class Iranian whose Western cultural sympathies were patent (and whose exoneration the movie quite blatantly seeks.) The deeper understanding the movie does seem to demonstrate is that of the mass-media market, as it serves to nourish prevalent occidental folk-ideologies (i.e. a "crowd pleaser"). What redeemed the movie from being outright boring was its creative animation - genuinely minimalistic imagery which, nevertheless, always kept the screen rich, expressive and unambiguous - no small fete for which I do give it some stars.$LABEL$ 0
+(spoilers??)I wasn't sure what to think of the movie. Not too much of a kids film. Definately should be watched with a parent because it includes death and dying. But I was surprised that I was a bit entertained by it.I was a bit disappointed by the 81 minutes of time we had. (even less without the credits) And the trailer gets you to think the rodent is a main creature. But alas, they torture him. Right until the end of the movie. Those two gripes docked the movie 2 stars. But I do recommend the movie. Even for a sequel.8/10Quality: 9/10 Entertainment: 7/10 Replayable:7/10$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this film when it first came out and hated it. I just saw it again 27 years later. I actually liked some of it... although Robin Williams was totally wrong for the role... What I remember most about hating the film is that it was almost the complete opposite of what I had understood when I read the book. Since I haven't re-read it, I can only give you my impressions from the past - but I am sure of one thing - the film is a paean to family life, whereas in the book, almost ALL traditional institutions - including, and perhaps especially, marriage - are shown to be strait-jackets that we would be well rid of. The only positive in the book is the wondrous nature of children...something that only the very beginning and ending of the film really captures (with that incredibly gorgeous baby floating in the air. Too bad Williams doesn't have a tenth of his charm!) My low mark is therefore from the fact that the film misrepresents the book. As a film on its own it fares better - but only for a few key performances. Mary Beth Hurt is wonderful - I think anyone watching it would fall in love with her. And John Lithgow as an ex football player who has had a sex-change operation is fantastic... he never once camped it up or made the character anything but commendable - and as such his performance had an incredibly integrity. I watched him closely during all of his scenes, and never once was he anything except womanly. Nothing in his performance ever came near the performance of a drag queen... and that made all the difference. In fact, of all the people in the film, his is the only one which is irreproachable. It is worth seeing this film only for his performance.$LABEL$ 0
+I've never saw the first three, but I know they're all better than this...trash. It's about some kid who throws a party. Wow. Sounds amazing(sarcasm). Is it? NOOO! It starts off with a kid laying in bed and he's getting woke up by his mom. So, the kid pretends to be sick so he doesn't have to go to school. He goes to his uncle's house and rounds up some people and throws a party. I didn't laugh at all while watching this trash. I can't imagine someone sitting down and writing down this dialogue thinking "Man, dis !@#$ is gunna be big, yo!" Makes me wonder if they even had a script for this movie. I watched this knowing it would be bad, but usually watching a bad movie makes me feel good because it gives me something to make fun of. This just disgusted me. TWO THUMBS DOWN!$LABEL$ 0
+Maybe we Aussies just have a totally different sense of humour and therein my lie the only problem here. I have a database of all the DVDs I own (including those received as gifts - which this was) and so, when entering a new one, I always refer to IMDb for such info as genre, runtime, director, leads etc. When entering this, I noted that it was a comedy and so I decided to watch it at a time when I wanted something light and a good laugh. Well, it was neither! There were absolutely NO laughs at all and an inordinate amount of gratuitous profanity (are there REALLY radio announcers allowed to broadcast the sort of filth that Steve Jones dishes out? What if a decent child happened to tune to his station?).Rather than enjoy a good laugh (or even a little giggle) I found the whole thing thoroughly depressing. I have given it 3 out of 10 but, to be honest, I don't know what those 3 are for! I suppose the basics of lighting and sound weren't too bad! We have an ostensibly stone-broke loser (Giovanni Ribisi) who still seems to be able to drive a reasonable car (who pays for the fuel?) and live in what could be a nice apartment (who pays his rent?) Given the opportunity of forming what might have been some sort of meaningful relationship with what turned out to be a nice girl, he even blew that! Perhaps it was she (Lynn Collins) who earned this movie the 3 points! The fact that she works as a stripper rather than a hairdresser is one of the few aspects of this movie that makes sense ("I make as much in one night doing this as I do in two weeks' hairdressing").Unless you want to get depressed and bored to the teeth, forget it!$LABEL$ 0
+Drive was an enjoyable episode with a dark ending. Basically a man and his wife are infected in their inner ear by a high pitched sound wave being emitted by some military equipment. Some favorite parts of mine from this episode are Mulder's dialogue in the car, and the scene where Scully goes in with the Hazmat team and find the little old deaf lady completely unaffected by what they thought was a virus. The ending of course is tragic in its realism because it leads the viewer to believe that they are going to actually be able to pull off this elaborate plan to save the victim but when Mulder arrives the man is already dead. 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+I have always been a huge fan of "Homicide: Life On The Street" so when I heard there was a reunion movie coming up, I couldn't wait.Let me just say, I was not disappointed at all. It was one of the most powerful 2 hours of television I've ever seen. It was great to see everyone back again, but the biggest pleasure of all was to have Andre Braugher back, because the relationship between Pembleton and Bayliss was always the strongest part of an all-together great show.$LABEL$ 1
+Unfortunately this film, 54 was a pathetic attempt of the true story of 'Studio 54.' The only thing that was good about the picture was 'Mike Myers' who was a joy to watch. 'Neve Cambpell,' although her role was little was unfortunately bad. The bottom line is that this film lacked a good performance from the actors, except one and that the conversion of the true story was a desperate attempt for a good screenplay.$LABEL$ 0
+This is another classic Seagal movie. He walks, no, cruises through the patriot just all the other Mega Seagal movies. Nothing even comes close to challenging Seagal in this movie except maybe the part where he has to find a cure for this so called 'plague' and he starts throwing things about the lab but it all works out, i mean lets face it, its Master Seagal, he's got to win. What about his outfit in the film, masterpiece, he must have picked it himself. Its great that everyone in the film is dying after being exposed to the virus but Seagal doesn't even get a cough. The incident at the end when he kills the fat guy with the broken glass, genius, i bet Seagal thought of that one as well. This film is class pure and simple. great plot, great characters, and Seagal.$LABEL$ 1
+The one who says that Lucio Fulci is not one of the most important names in the history of splatter is probably mad.The Italian director is a legend among hardcore-horror fans,and his work exceeds the barriers of the genre(who can forgot his western,crime or fantasy flicks).This is probably his goriest film,and unfortunately one the last.A horror director(Fulci as himself) starts hallucinating about gruesome murders.He goes to a psychiatrist,who makes him believe he is the criminal.In this time,the doctor begins a long chain of serial crimes.With such a plot,the movie should have been filled with something.And there are roting corpses,crashed or melted heads,stabbings,decapitations,chainsaw dismemberment and many others.Kind of boring sometimes,the film is saved by the excessive violence that will definitely please the gore addicts.$LABEL$ 1
+Rated E I never actually owned a Nintendo 64 but I have played one many times.In my opinion along with Conkers Bad Fur Day, Super Mario 64 is one of the best video games for the Nintendo 64 system.I have played this game plenty of times and its good every time.If you have an N64 and don't have this game you should try to find it.The original Super Mario Bros games were side scrolling video games but Super Mario 64 has a 3D Mario in a nice 3D environment.The game is sort of weird but there is plenty of things you can do in the game.You play as Super Mario and once again you must rescue Princess and the 120 power stars from Bowzer.Now you can do it in a 3D environment.Super Mario 64 is a very fun and good N64 game and I recommend it.10/10$LABEL$ 1
+Ok, I wrote a scathing review b/c the movie is awful. As I was waiting another review (for Derrida) of mine to pop up, i decided to check out old reviews of this awful movie. Look at all the positive reviews. They ALL, I say ALL, come from contributors have have not rated any other movie other than this one. Crimminy! and wait till you to the "rosebud" [sic] review.Checkout the other movies rosebud reviewed and had glowing recommendations for. Oh, shoot!, they happen to be for the only other movies by the two writers and director. Holy Window-Wipers Batman.Joe, Tony, you suck as writers, and tony, you couldn't direct out of a bad script. No jobs for you!ALWAYS CHECK POSITIVE REVIEWS FOR A LOW RATED MOVIE!$LABEL$ 0
+When you get your hands on a British film you expect some sort of quality. And when it comes to acting, camera work, lighting etc; this film does the business. It's done by highly skilled craftsmen. That alone can bring you an enjoyable one and a half hours. But when you look under the layers of professionalism, you don't really find anything. Apart from making you feel good and advocate a drug liberal view, there's really nothing there. The script is mediocre, the plot is predictable and the ending must be one of the worst east of Hollywood. In all it's English cosiness, it's just a shameful and cynical attempt to make another "Full Monty". Why they made this film? I haven't got a clue, apart from making money of course.$LABEL$ 0
+Featuring a few of Hammer's all-stars, this highly effective slice of British horror revolves around a house and the fates of it's previous tenants, whose stories are all told to a Scotland yard detective, in search of a missing actor.Story number one, which is probably the least impressive of the four, deals with a writer and his wife who've just moved in the house and plan to stay just for a short time so that he may write one of his horror novels. He creates a demented character named Dominic, who's a very creepy looking strangler, and soon finds himself going mad as he starts to seeing this beastly looking man everywhere he goes. After his wife convinces him to seek psychiatric help, a sub-plot is introduced which frankly, didn't really work for me. I won't spoil it for you.The next story (the best in my opinion) stars the wonderful Peter Cushing as Philip Grayson, a man who's moved into the home for his retirement years and soon makes his way to a nearby wax museum(that deals in the macabre) where he's very startled to find a wax figure that looks exactly like a woman from his past. Soon thereafter, an old friend(who also has a history with this woman) is in town for business and drops by to see him. The two men are in for a rude awakening as they soon discover that there was more to this woman than meets the eye.Story three stars one of my very favorites...Christopher Lee, who plays John Reid. After moving into the home with his peculiar daughter Jane, the nanny that he hires becomes awfully suspicious as to the way Reid suppresses his daughter. Well come to find out...if she knew what Lee did, she would have certainly understood.The final story is a rather light-hearted vampire tale that stars John Pertwee and Ingrid Pitt. After buying a cloak from a mysterious merchant, actor Paul Henderson finds himself turning into the very creature that he's portrayed several times in his career.Overall, the pacing and direction were very good, as was the most of the performances. There were nice Gothic touches here and there and an effective score to complement the ambiance. This one's a keeper, and comes highly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+"Xizao", is the tale about the clash of modern life and ancient traditions, and its effects on a family in China. Da Ming (Quanxiu Pu), is a businessman who returns home when a letter sent by his brother Er Ming (Wu Jiang) makes him believe that his father Liu (Xu Zhu), has died. He founds that his father is still alive, as well as his old neighborhood and his father old business, the public bathroom.The movie centers around Da Ming's family, and how he has to learn the importance of his father's job, something he always had considered an old tradition that had to die soon. Also, the movie explores his relationship with Er Ming, who is mentally challenged, and the problems of the small community and how the bathroom is a place that purifies not only their bodies, but also their souls.The two main themes of the movie, the family and the problems of progress, are incredibly well handled, and the movie never loses the point it is trying to make, both themes are very good developed and we get a glimpse of Chinese society and customs.The director, Yang Zhang, tells his tale in a simple way, letting the characters characters do the job. It is a very simple approach, but it fits the movie perfectly, and I highly doubt that another style would fit the movie this good. Zhang has enormous potential, as he can tell a story without the aid of visual flare or camera tricks.The acting is outstanding in its naturalistic approach, everyone acts in a very natural way and it almost looks as if they were real persons being filmed. The three lead characters give remarkable performances, and Wu Jiang as Er Ming surely steals the show.Even when the movie could had sticked to a patronizing "old days were much better" message, instead it takes an attitude of equilibrium, like saying that progress is good, and we must move on, but we must not forget where we came from, and keep an equilibrium between modern life and the traditions of old.An awesome, and touching film. 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+I normally don't like romantic films, but I love this film very much. The story is really touching, and the ending is very appropriate. I feel I really care for many characters in this film. I feel I can feel their feelings. While most romantic films always make me feel detached and bored, this one completely makes me feel involved, starting from the scene of Capshaw running along the beach with Scott until the ending scene. I want to rate this film 11 out of 10, because I want to give an extra one point for the ending. The acting part is very strong. Kate Capshaw has a good opportunity to show her talent. Though I'm not impressed with Scott in `Dead Man on Campus,' this film completely changes my viewpoint towards him. He's so irresistibly charming here. Geraldine McEwan is as terrific as ever. This film might not be as good, complex, deep, or believable as other films which deal a little bit with the same kind of relationship, such as `L'ecole de la chair' or 'Post coitum, animal triste,' but `The Love Letter' can still be proud of itself as it casts a rare different light on that kind of relationship. And that difference makes this film eminently enjoyable. By being unambitious and relying on great charms of small stars, Dreamworks, this time you really make my dream come true.$LABEL$ 1
+I loved this show but then I don't remember ever not loving anything he did, starting with "Americanization of Emily". A town sheriff who keeps trying to steal the town blind and ride off to Mexico, gotta love it. Like everything he does it has a tongue in cheek flavor that brands it as a Garner product. James plays the same character in lots of his shows and movies but somehow it never gets stale.P.S. re: Killing off the main characterIf I remember right the "good" brother was killed off and replaced with the "evil" twin in an effort to increase the ratings i.e.; make it more like every other western on TV at the time. I think this show was too far ahead of its time and I still miss it. TV without a Jimmy G show is missing something.$LABEL$ 1
+Now this is classic. A friend of mine told me about this flick, saying that it's incredibly lame, stupid, retarded, and moronic. He also said that I'd love it. To my surprise, I found it available from netflix and rented it at once. I'm just shocked that I had never heard of it before. If I could give it an eleven, I would.$LABEL$ 1
+This video guide was the masterpiece of the year 1995. Beautifully done! Matthew Perry and Jennifer Aniston have major on-screen chemistry when they talk about what the Start button does. I'm waiting for Microsoft to release a Special Edition DVD complete with deleted scenes, Bill Gates commentary, a documentary of how Windows 95 compares to Windows XP, and more!Overall: 10/10 (Should have won at least a Golden Globe)$LABEL$ 0
+Camp Blood is an absolutely atrocious slasher film. We're mixing Friday The 13th with the Blair Witch Project and adding....a killer in a clown mask.The budget for this film must have been very low, some of the actors played multiple parts and the camera used produced a picture equal to the colourised version of the original Night Of The Living Dead, which if anybody has watched that version will back me up that it is poor.This film was just so bad. There is nothing in the film even worth watching. The very fact I watched this all the way through stunned me. Just take my advice and don't buy or rent this film. It is appalling.$LABEL$ 0
+The cookie-cutter gets to work overtime in this obvious and unoriginal love story. The plot, such as it is, has been done before a trillion times so there is no need to recount any of it. Suffice to say that all 12 year old girls will love this movie while the rest of us will be forced to make a face. Even the soundtrack is awful! Its not that I dislike figure skating, although I don't, its that I dislike cliched, bad movies.$LABEL$ 0
+Note: After writing this review I see that this listing is indeed about the TV series and not the original film. My mistake. I thought IMDb for a database for movies, not TV shows. But since most people will look up this film under BAGDAD CAFE and not OUT OF ROSENHEIM, which, strangely, is the name this film is listed under on IMDb, I'll leave this comment here.Maybe I missed something, but when I read that other review it seemed to be entirely a review of the CBS series -- which must have been loosely based on this film. I did not see the TV series and I might like it or not, but one thing I am sure is that it is very different than this film. This film is NOT like a TV show at all and Whoopie Goldberg is not in it or any other famous Hollywood stars (other than Jack Palance, who was very charming in his role).This is a terribly sweet movie that totally thinks "outside the box." It is not at all like a Hollywood formula movie, which is probably why the (what's a nice word for idiots?) who decide to market movies or not decided not to market this one.First of all, this movie captured my heart and imagination from the get-go. From the music (which is just part of the time so you can't really call it a musical) to the cinematography to the really cool story.A German or Bavarian woman (very pretty and quite plump) gets in an argument with the other German or Bavarian man with whom she is traveling through the California desert with and parts ways with him --he taking off in the car and she left to fend for herself on a deserted and desert-like highway out in the middle of nowhere.She finds the small and dilapidated but charming Bagdad Cafe, in Bagdad, California and checks in. The rest of the story is magic. I don't want to try to describe this film because I want you to enjoy every surprise.Warning: If you are a racist or have something against big women you will not like this movie, as the main romantic lead is a big woman and characters of brown and red skin have large roles and are included as "part of the mix" without any racism involved.I gave this film a 10 for orginality, entertainment and sheer delightfulness.$LABEL$ 1
+Boring, predictable, by-the-numbers horror outing at least has pretty good special effects and plenty of (mindless) mayhem and gore to satisfy (mindless) genre fans. Mostly it's about giant rats chomping on a set of characters we don't care an iota about - if that's your thing, tune in. (*1/2)$LABEL$ 0
+After seeing only half of the film in school back in November, today, I saw that it was on Flix channel and decided to watch it to see the rest of it and to write a new review on it.The book that the film is based on, Hatchet, is OK. This is a terrible adaption of it though.Awful (and I mean awful) acting, bad dialogue, and average cinematography make up this terrible adaption of Hatchet.The film starts off Brian who is the cliché image of a late 80s teen (sporting a mullet, banging his head to cheap 80s rock music) and his mother driving in a car for him to get on a plane to fly up to see his estranged Dad (his parents are divorced...now cue the dramatic pause.) Now Brian has said goodbye to Mom and dog and is flying up to see his father. The pilot is a fat, ugly, rude man (wasn't like that in the book) who after 2 minutes in the air, has a heart attack and dies. In the book it goes into more detail with the pilot having more pains and it seemed to be that they were in the air much longer before the pilot had his heart attack.The plane (within another two minutes) has gone empty on fuel (leaving us, the viewers, to assume that he's been up there for hours even though the sun hasn't changed position and the scenery looks EXACTLY the same.) Now's he's crashed landed.This is the point in the movie where everything is a lot different then it was in the book. In the book it said his jacket was torn to shreds but in the movie it is perfectly fine with no tears or rips (looks like he just bought it), it never said he climbed a mountain, saw a wolf, and fell asleep up there on the mountain, it never said he was attacked by a bear (it said a moose but not a bear), it never said he eats the several bugs that he does, it never mentions the second tornado or that he learned to get those sparrows, skin them, and eat them or that little fish farm trap that he makes (that is destroyed by one of the tornadoes) nor does it mention him hurting his ribs from one of the tornadoes.I don't even think you can call what was depicted in the film a tornado. All it was was just a windstorm that knocked down several of his things.My favorite part of this camp fest was Brian's lame flashbacks (that are never mentioned in the book) especially the cliché scene of Brian waking up, walking over to the window and seeing his Dad (with all of his things packed that can all perfectly fit into just the back of his truck) leaving and screams "DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDD!!!!" (yet of course his father didn't hear him even though he was just right outside) and he punches his fist through the window (wtf?) The ending is the only thing that is close to what happened in the book (I said close.) In the book I think one of the key things that the rescue pilot said to Brian when he landed was "you're the kid who they've been looking for! They stopped months ago..." yet they left that line out in the movie.There's a pathetic epilogue with Brian (somehow without counseling or therapy) getting back to normal with his family. I think we were supposed to assume that they were getting together for Thanksgiving (because they had a turkey on the counter.) Then it shows his temporary home (for what, in the movie, seemed like three days, but in the book was for several months) and his hatchet, still in a tree where he left it (also didn't happen in the book) showing where he carved a message, so perfectly done: "HOME" (where we really supposed to believe that he carved that that perfectly with just that hatchet?) No quote can sum this movie up better then when Enid from Ghost World said "this is so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again." Perfect description of this movie.I wouldn't recommend it to somebody (who hasn't read the book) and are just looking to watch a movie nor would I to somebody who has read the book (because they'll be disappointed and bored to death.For those who have read the book, leave what your imagination created as the movie. This is awful and will bring down your thoughts on the book.1/10$LABEL$ 0
+After three hours in the Cinema hall,the strongest impression garnered was that their is something amiss. What was clear was that the Directors forgot to direct, the actors to act and most importantly the script writer to write. Evervbody shouted without reason and made one cringe. The script moved on and on with lots of avoidable twists and turns ending in now, too familiar Priyadarshan theory of Converging actors at a single point. This theory worked well in Hera-Pheri and Hungama but somehow managed to irritate this time, so did the habit of every actor's incapacity to answer asked of them directly. Simplest questions such as " what is your name would be repeated N times".Finally what was amiss was that the director forgot that his audience have something called intelligence.$LABEL$ 0
+Probably one of the prime examples of following a suspenseful, dramatic episode (in this case, the superb Balance of Terror) with a lighter affair, Shore Leave is the first true attempt on behalf of the Star Trek writers to produce a more entertaining piece of sci-fi, and while the formula isn't quite right yet in this entry (the true triumph is Trouble with Tribbles, in Season 2), the laughs come pretty fast as long as the viewer is willing to allow for all the silliness.Diverting from the show's tradition, the Enterprise isn't on any proper mission in this episode. Instead, Kirk has found a perfect planet for his crew to spend some time off duty: a well deserved break after three months of incessant work. The Earth-like planet (a budget-related fact) is very appealing, but it only takes a few minutes before something weird happens: Dr. McCoy starts having visions of a white rabbit that seems to come straight out of Lewis Carroll's work. Soon, other people begin experiencing similar things: a woman meets a Don Juan-like character, Sulu has a run-in with a samurai, and Kirk faces a double encounter with the past, in the shape of almost love and the guy who used to pick on him at the Academy. Throw in a freakishly real-looking tiger, and it's easy to see why Kirk and Spock are determined to figure out what's going on before anybody gets hurt.The idea is a classic one: idyllic place turns out to be far from heavenly. The episode's humorous take on the topic is rather successful, weren't it for a dark turn of events that doesn't sit well with the rest (of course, everything works out fine again come the end) and the cast's general unwillingness to show a funnier side of themselves (most notably, and ironically, the otherwise hilarious William Shatner). And yet Shore Leave deserves recognition for being another good example of the writers trying new, previously unseen things: the definition of Star Trek's success.7,5/10$LABEL$ 1
+Don't believe all of the negative reviews this movie receives. Yes, it is cheaply made. Yes, the gore is laughable. And, yes, the acting is sub-par. However, this is a textbook example of an early slasher flick, and if that is your "thing" (its mine!) then you will enjoy this one. There are enough good aspects to this movie to more than compensate for the drawbacks. For one, the score by a then unknown Christopher Young is very creepy and accents the violence perfectly. The ending is a welcomed break from the predictable upbeat endings of most movies. And last, but not least, the setting is what made the film for me. The makers of this film could have done a much better job "dressing" the set to make it more believable as a college dorm. However, if you can overlook this flaw, the setting is great. Four collegiates all alone in a huge, abandoned, condemned building just waiting to be torn down.... it reaks of possibility. When watching, allow your imagination to do some of the work and you may enjoy this film as much as I did.$LABEL$ 1
+Best show since Seinfeld. She's really really funny. Her total self centeredness, the hulking gay stoner neighbors, the departures into song or cartoons, make this the freshest show on TV. One of the few shows I make point of watching. The scene with the wise old black lady in the drugstore ("oh wait now that you're close you do look old" turns face with finger and walks away lol), the cough syrup overdose, sleeping with God, it's all so funny or so stupid it's just a lot of fun. The shows weak points are her sister and the cop-only because they're too darn normal!! I really can't wait until the next show, something I haven't felt for any show in a long time.$LABEL$ 1
+The first step to getting off of that road that leads to nowhere is recognizing that you're on it in the first place; then it becomes a matter of being assertive and taking positive steps to overcome the negative influences in your life that may have put you on that road to begin with. Which is exactly what a young Latino girl does in `Girlfight,' written and directed by Karyn Kusama. Diana (Michelle Rodriguez) is an eighteen-year-old High School senior from the projects in Brooklyn, facing expulsion after her fourth fight in the halls since the beginning of the semester. She affects a `whatever' attitude which masks a deep-seated anger that threatens to take her into places she'd rather not go. She lives with her father, Sandro (Paul Calderon), with whom she has a very tentative relationship, and her younger brother, Tiny (Ray Santiago). With her life teetering on the brink of dissolution, she desperately needs an outlet through which to channel the demons that plague her. And one day she finds it, without even looking for it, when she stops by the gym where Tiny trains. Ironically, Tiny wants nothing to do with boxing; he wants to go to art school, but Sandro is determined that his son should be able to take care of himself on the streets, and pays the ten dollars a week it costs for his lessons. When Diana convinces Tiny's trainer, Hector (Jaime Tirelli), to take her on, and approaches her father for the money, under the guise of calling it a weekly allowance (she doesn't want him to know what she wants the money for), Sandro turns her down and tells her to go out and earn her own money. Ultimately, with Tiny's help she finds a way, and the ring soon becomes her second home. It's an environment to which she readily adapts, and it appears that her life is about to take a turn for the better. And the fact that she will have to fight men, not women, in `gender blind' competitions, does not faze her in the least. Diana has found her element.	First time writer/director Karyn Kusama has done a terrific job of creating a realistic setting for her story, presenting an honest portrait of life in the projects and conveying that desperation so familiar to so many young people who find themselves in dead-end situations and on that road that leads to nowhere. And there's no candy coating on it, either; as Hector tells Diana when she asks him how he came to be where he is, `I was a fighter once. I lost.' Then, looking around the busy gym, `Like most of these guys, they're going to lose, too. But it's all they know--' And it's that honesty of attitude, as well as the way in which the characters are portrayed, that makes this movie as good as it is. It's a bleak world, underscored by the dimly lit, run-down gym-- you can fairly smell the sweat of the boxers-- and that sense of desolation that hangs over it all like a pall, blanketing these people who are grasping and hanging on to the one and only thing they have, all that they know.	Making her screen debut, Michelle Rodriguez is perfectly cast as Diana, infusing her with a depth and brooding intensity that fairly radiates off of her in waves. She is so real that it makes you wonder how much of it is really Rodriguez; exactly where does the actor leave off and the character begin? Whatever it is, it works. It's a powerful, memorable performance, by an actor from whom we will await another endeavor with great anticipation. She certainly makes Diana a positive role model, one in whom many hopefully will find inspiration and the realization that there are alternative paths available in life, at least to those who would seek them out.	As positive as this film is, however, it ends on something of an ambiguous note; though Diana obviously has her feet on the ground, there's no indication of where she's headed. Is this a short term fix for her, or is she destined to become the female counterpart of Hector? After all, realistically (and in light of the fact that the realism is one of the strengths of this film), professional boxing isn't exactly a profession that lends itself to, nor opens it's arms to women. And in keeping with the subject matter of the film, and the approach of the filmmaker, an affirmation of the results of Diana's assertiveness would have been appropriate.	The supporting cast includes Santiago Douglas (Adrian), Elisa Bocanegra (Marisol), Alicia Ashley (Ricki) and Thomas Barbour (Ira). Though it delivers a very real picture of life to which many will be able to identify, there are certain aspects of `Girlfight,' that stretch credibility a bit, regarding some of what happens in the ring. That aside, it's a positive film that for the most part is a satisfying experience. I rate this one 7/10.  $LABEL$ 1
+Seriously any film with John Malkovich is usually very good. And this includes Clint Eastwood, Rene Russo, John Mahoney (Frasier), Dylan McDermott (The Practice), and many more great actors.Clint is getting old now but thanks he is also an awesome director (in his own right).We are used to Wolfgang "water films" like Das Boot, Poseidon and Perfect Storm - this was really different but just as sublimely directed.The premise of the assassin is as serious as it comes, the film is well paced, some of the violence is a bit... But altogether recommended (but not for kids).$LABEL$ 1
+One of my favourite films. It has everything - rocking soundtrack, courtesy of Eddie Clark, ex Motorhead, loads of action, loads of laughs, totally ridiculous plot and the most wonderful '80's stereotypes as characters. Eddie, the put-upon nice guy, who just wants to be left alone to be different, Leslie (about as wet as they come), Nuke (the rock burn-out), Eddie's Mom (pathetic), Roger (the geek) and Ozzy as the preacher (surely he exists in America?). Then there are the boys (rich, vicious and stupid) and the girls (vacant, vain and stupid). What more could you ask for?Well, first of all, there's Sammi Curr, the rock star, an amalgam of every '80's badass rocker you can think of. What about that rocket firing guitar? Then there's the scene where Sammi pulls the old lady through the TV screen and smashes her up. And what does Roger do? Why, hoover her up, just like a good geek would. My favourite scene is where Tim Hainey gets his long overdue reward from Sammi via the wet finger in the plug - magic!If you were into rock in the '80's or just love ridiculous films like I do, then check this one out. It's available on DVD and very cheap so (trick or)treat yourself.$LABEL$ 1
+Having watched the first scene, I realized the acting was so bad that it couldn't possibly pick up later. Superficial and artificial, with frequent attempts to look professional through references to technology the way a five year-old tries to make it sound as if he knows what he's talking about. The second-to-second storyline is completely unrealistic and just about every single decision the screenwriter did, was the kind you expect from a below-average grade school student. The overall storyline was as unoriginal and predictable as a pack of sausages. The few attempts to make the dialogs sound intelligent, was limited to neurotic, apologetic behavior. A ten year-old might like it. But it would take a five year-old to accept the lack of realism; How does advanced cell function allow someone to bypass a code lock by touching it as if with a magic wand, pick out one out of 100s of voices through a ventilation system (thereby ripping off Superman), and repair a home computer by just sensing whats wrong instead of looking for faults? Actually, that scene is a neat example: The fault was that one of the cooling pipes (aluminum ribbons) on the CPU was broken, the way it would look if a exhaust pipe on a V8 engine is ripped off by an explosion. This is something that can't happen, and if it did, it wouldn't prevent the computer from working. There is no electrical current passing through this ribbon, but when he (without doing it himself, his arms worked by autopilot because the cells in his body was super efficient) put a push-pin into the rip, a desktop with icons appeared on the screen immediately without booting.And so it goes all the way. Like when he escaped an interrogation room in the NSA headquarters by lighting a lighter below a fire sensor, resulting in open doors throughout the building. Naturally, NSA didn't predict this sharp witted approach to escaping, nor did they put any guards outside his room (or anywhere else) to guard a living, walking breakthrough in military nanotechnology. So he walked out and got a cab. Examples like this one are not only numerous, there is in fact just about no single scene that makes sense. Also, the so-called great effects were terrible. He threw a basketball back to a kid in the park, and the kid was thrown back horizontally 20 feet into a tree. No acceleration or deceleration, but constant speed and height, like a motorized trolley. I'm sure if I paused and looked for the cables that kept the posture of this kid the way only cables can, they probably didn't know how to or bother to erase them completely. If someone is thrown that far into a tree, they would at least say ouch (or rather be hospitalized with broken bones), but the kid was just just confused and amazed.Moronic. That's the word for every creative decision made throughout the entire production. I'm going to put the director's name on my own personal blacklist, someone as poorly skilled as him cannot improve. I feel like demanding compensation for having wasted 45 minutes of my life for watching it, and the time it took to write this. Although it felt therapeutic, it was traumatic to realize how little it takes to get a pilot approved. The only excuse a slightly intelligent person could have to watch this voluntarily, would be imprisonment or lobotomy.$LABEL$ 0
+Eric Phillips (Don Wilson) is a secret service agent who prevents the assassination of a senator however along the way he finds a conspiracy and has a tracker on his tail. The tracker by the way is bent on terminating Phillips. The most obvious inspiration for this low budget cheeseball action flick, is of course Robocop and while that film had some imagination and real energy, this just has a real life kickboxing champ running away from a robot. The movie isn't so awful as it is just empty and repetitive. The story is written in clichés and the characters are set up to be cut down by the various gunfire. Don Wilson, as usual, is terrible in the lead role.*1/2 out of 4-(Poor)$LABEL$ 0
+I enjoyed watching Cliffhanger, at the beginning when that woman (Sarah) was full of terror when she was slipping, i thought that was a terrifying scene as i would think that when you see that see, your nerves in your body get to you because it makes you get full of fright and your heart beats faster. I did like watching Cliffhanger, i think Silvestar Stallone is a great actor and i think he'll be known as playing Rambo and Rocky.$LABEL$ 1
+After his earlier movie "Videodrome", which definitely shows similarities to this movie, director David Cronenberg again ventures himself in the world of virtual reality, in which truth and fiction mix. It's virtual reality taken to a whole other level."eXistenZ" is an highly original movie that is well directed and acted out but above all very well written. The movie features a fascination and well thought out concept, which gets greatly executed by director David Cronenberg."eXistenZ" is a movie that knows to constantly fool you. Just when you thought you figured things out, another surprise awaits around the corner. Things are never like how you think they are, especially when the line between truth and fiction gets explored. You just never really know what is the reality and what is the game-world, right till the ending. It makes the characters and events all very unpredictable and also provides the movie with a great ending that will leave you thinking even more.The movie has a perfect kind of game-play storytelling, mostly with its character appearances and its puzzling events. They have to complete a certain step or task first before they can continue in the world and find out what their purpose in the game is.The movie knows how to create a perfect balance between realism and surrealism, without ever going over-the-top with either one. The storytelling keeps the movie as simple as possible, though of course the movie isn't always that simple to follow because of its events, dialogs and unusual environments.The movie is not only just weird though. I was actually surprised to see that "Videodrome" has an higher rating on here, thought it's a far more inaccessible and 'odd' movie. The movie is also still made entertaining and has a good fast pace. It doesn't ever allow the movie to get stuck in its more philosophical moments and deeper meanings. It also makes this movie perfectly watchable for people who normally don't watch this sort of movies.The movie is good looking, with subtle effective special effects a great visual look, that also provides the movie with a certain required 'gaming' feeling.The movie is well cast, with Jude Law in a role you don't too often see him in, that of a shy insecure person. It once more shows how actually versatile Law as an actor is and that he is way more than just another pretty face from Hollywood. Jennifer Jason Leigh also was a great female lead. She hasn't really played ever that many big parts in big productions but with this movie she shows why she nevertheless always have been regarded as a big movie star. The movie also features some other well known actors, in much smaller roles, such as Ian Holm and Willem Dafoe.An highly original movie that is well worth watching, especially if you have seen "Videodrome" previously.8/10$LABEL$ 1
+Naturally Sadie is by far the worst show i have ever seen, it is such a piece of sh** and loaded with complete bullsh**. I didn't find any of the gags to be funny or somewhat clever, it was all awful jokes.The acting sucks, many of the characters sucked at acting, Charlotte Arnold (Sadie) is such a terrible actor, the other characters suck too (Magaret, Rain, Hal).The plot isn't unique and creative at all and the show is soo very much predictable. This is one of the worst shows made of all time, it shouldn't have even been made, the idiots who are responsible of writing this garbage should get fired (if they already didn't) The fist season was actually watchable but the second season was just a disaster, its too hard to watch this show, it is beyond awful.$LABEL$ 0
+I see a lot of people liked this movie. To me this was a movie made right of writing 101 and the person failed the class. From the time Lindsey Price the videographer shows up until the end the movie was very predictable. I kept on watching to see if it was going anywhere.First we have the widowed young father. Cliché #1 movies/TV always kill off the the mother parent if the child is a girl, or a brood of boys so the single father can get swoon over his dead wife and seem completely out of his element taking care of the children. Starting from from My 3 Sons to 2 1/2 Dads. These movies are usually dramas and comedies are TV shows.Cliché # 2 When a pushy woman has a video camera in her hand she will play a big part in the movie. And will always have solutions or even if that person is a airhead Cliché #3 If the person in peril is a foreigner they have to be of Latino origin. And they must be illegal. Apparently there are no legal Latino's and illegal Europeans, unless if there is a IRA element involved.Cliché #4 The said Latino must be highly educated in his native country. In this case he was a Profesor who made 200 per month. And the said highly educated Latino must now act like he hasn't brain in his head now and lets the air head side kick take over.Cliché #5 The crime the person committed really wasn't a crime but a accident. But because in this case he has lost all of the sense he had when he crossed the boarder he now acts like a blithering idiot and now has put his own daughter in peril by taking her along on a fruitless quest to the border with the idiot side kick.Cliché #6 One never runs over a hoodlum running from a crime , but some poor little cute kid. This is because the parents of the child have to play a big part of the movie, and because the the person who accidentally killed the child can have ridiculous interaction with the parents.Cliché #7 Name me one movie in which one cop is not the angry vet and they get paired up with a rookie. Even if they are homicide detectives who have to be the most experienced cops on a police Force. Sev7n and Copy cat and Law and Order come to mind right away. And the vet even though gruff on the outside has a heart of gold.Cliché #8 Let's go and round up some unemployed Soap Stars. Now I like Lindsey Price. But Susan Haskell IMO can not act her way out of a paper bag and when she use to be on One Life To Live as Marty he swayed from right to left every time she opened her mouth. It use to get me sea sick. She might be anchored on land better now, but she still cannot act.The movie might have been more insightful if it wasn't filled with clichés. I don't think a movie has to be expensive or cerebral to be good. But this was just bad.***SPOILER**** Now I am not going to spoil the ending. Oh heck I will because I feel it will be a disservice to humanity to let a person waste time they will never get back looking at this movie. It involves Cliché #6 and #7. Unless a person has never seen a movie before you had to see what was coming. The father makes even a dumber mistake runs from the cops at the end and gets shot by the angry veteran, who all of a sudden is very upset. You would think she thought the poor guy was innocent all through the movie and she shot him by mistake. When she didn't. Now for the little girl who the dad brought along with him. Guess what happen to her? Times up, she ends up living with the family whose child was killed by her father!! Come on! You all knew that was going to happen, because she is a replacement child!! That is why she did not go and live with the Lindey Price character. This movie was a insult as far as I was concerned. Because there were so many avenues this movie could of explored and went down but it chose to take the cliché ridden one. The 2 stars are for 2 of the stars, the little girl, who I thought was very good and Lindsey Price who character was annoying but she did what she could with it. My advice is take a vice and squeeze your head with it instead of looking at this dreck$LABEL$ 0
+I don't know how anyone could hate this movie. It is so funny. It took a unique mind to come up with this storyline. It's not your typical alien movie. These aliens are so stupid and confused. You need to rent it at least once.$LABEL$ 1
+I loved this thing. The most wonderful thing about Pink Flamingos is that it strives desperately to be in horrible taste, but has really gained a cult following world wide. Says a lot about us (us being people) doesn't it. Pink Flamingos succeeds because Waters made the film he wanted to make. A film need not be disgusting to succeed, but it may be. When you watch this film, you see things that are disgusting, but are ultimately brilliant because they are freely displayed. What we have here is an honest piece of personal creative expression. Everyone who ever cares to succeed as an artist, be it in film or any other media, should watch this film.$LABEL$ 1
+Gurinda Chada's semi-autobiographical film (2002) is a gentle, poignant comedy set in the ethnically diverse community near Heahthrow Airport in West London.Like the airliners which constantly arrive and depart from overhead, we follow the ups and downs of the two main characters Jess Bhamra (Parminder Nagra) and Jules Paxton (Keira Knightley) as they strike up an unlikely friendship which centres around their mutual passion for soccer and their technical infatuation with David Beckham.Much of the comedy grows out of the misunderstandings of the families of these two talented girls as they break all the expectations and conventions of their very different family backgrounds.Somewhere in the middle, as broker, peacemaker and blighted athlete, Joe (Jonathan Reece-Myers) - team coach for the Hounslow Harriers - intercedes in times of crisis, while at the same time remaining the main object of affection of both the main characters.Eventually, and not without many obstacles and triumphs on the way, we finally see our dedicated and beloved soccer heroines soaring away to realise their dreams.With great performances from Bollywood veteran Anupam Kher (Mr Bhamra), Shaheen Khan (Mrs Bhamra), Juliet Stevenson (Mrs Paxton) and Frank Harper (Mr Paxton) this really is a film that captures the urgent passion of adolescence and crosses all ethnic frontiers.Pinky Bamrha (Archie Panjabi) and (Taz) Trey Farley are struggling their own struggles, but nevertheless contribute greatly to our understanding of the main characters in the film.In it's own special way, this film tells an important story that in quite incidental the football. It celebrates the evolution in the understanding of ordinary people in ordinary families and the innate ability of the young to teach the old.$LABEL$ 1
+This is what I call a "pre Sci Fi; Sci Fi" movie. It gets no better than Lugosi/Karloff in this incredibly good "mood" type motion picture. These two genuine artists are at their very best, as is the story line.Karloff does an amazing job as a scientist that sees himself caught in a vise of vanity, pride, and scientific competition. I was caught up in the idea of watching a man as he drowns himself in the three previously mentioned concepts. I was saddened and at the same time fascinated with the two stars as they do themselves in. This is the sort of motion picture that begs for a remake. This time put Harrison Ford in the Karloff part and maybe Kieffer Sutherland as the Bela Lagosi role. It might be possible to do it almost as good.This is one of the very best that Hollywood EVER produced. As I said..it gets no better. No way.$LABEL$ 1
+Easily one of my favourite dramatic TV films, in many ways beautiful yet sad, heart-warming and thought-provoking, this is a superb dramatisation of a few years in the life of C.S. Lewis and his relationship with Joy Davidman. I found it to be incredibly absorbing with excellent and 'realistic' dialogue and situations. It all seemed very 'real', yet there were also 'magical' moments that almost leave you breathless with delight. Ackland and Bloom as the central characters were excellent, as were the supporting cast. It's one of those dramas that I find hard to criticise, simply because, for me, there is NOTHING to be criticised, it just works so well on so many levels.Very highly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+Here's the kind of love story that I do enjoy watching. And mostly, it's for two reasons. One, it concentrates of young people, VERY young people. People who are still in their teens and are experiencing love for the first time, or at least think they are. All of us have been there in our lives and "The Man in the Moon" is a magnificent reflection upon our memories, maybe adding on a few more details and enhancing it further than any of us have experienced. The second reason is that is a love triangle. And I do believe that as teens, it's the most dramatic. And the story is so well developed that you believe the characters could really be in love, or are just so new to love that they just strongly believe they are and after a tragedy or so occurs, will believe it for the rest of their lives.The cast of "The Man in the Moon" is full of great talented names. It stars Sam Waterston, who is truly a versatile actor, well capable of playing tough district attorneys as well as strict, yet caring and wise fathers as in this film. Also there is Tess Harper, Jason London, and a young, young Reese Witherspoon. You look at the young, talented actress as she is at age fourteen and you think that about ten years down the road, she's going to win the Academy Award. All members of the cast pull off great performances and with the dialogue of the compelling screenplay, they are enhanced into looking like real people in real situations. As if it all really happened. This the kind of movie that I would like to see come out more often. Love story or not. I would love to see films that make everything look real and is not phony or disbelievable in any way.$LABEL$ 1
+Cyber zone, as this DVD was sold in Oz, is about the worst B-Grade junk I have seen. Apart from a restrained deadpan act from Singer, indicating he knew how bad the movie was going to be, the other actors sway about genuine attempts at line delivery (Swanson and Quarry) or absurd imitations of classic movies scenes. Mathius Hues makes the most ham-fisted portrayal of dying since Jim Carrey's Mask. All of this with no real thread to suggest an attempt at a spoof by genre, period or any common vein is plain annoying. Don't even try to join the dots with the plot. It is Blade Runner, thinly disguised with no content, actors or scenery due to a very limited budget. "You gets what you pay for" is never more apparent. There is repeatedly annoying re-use of limited sets, with no attention to set dressing and a spew of special effects that would have hit the cutting room floor for Dr Who in 1976. The Helicopter explosion is worth a rewind to demonstrate my point. Of course there are masochists that will lap up this tripe but if you are watching this movie for a bet, make sure you get more than your pay rate. At $2 this DVD will make a cheap and interesting beer coaster.$LABEL$ 0
+Its taken a few viewings for me to really wrap myself around this one, but for me Tears of Kali is one of the horror highlights of the 00's and as far as independent horror goes a veritable masterpiece. An anthology horror, it takes on the story of the fictional Taylor-Eriksson Group, a cult of sorts based in India whose members set out in search of ultimate self knowledge and healing of the psyche, with unpleasant results that echo down the years. With bookend segments set in India the film is made chiefly of three stories set in Germany, illustrating the aftermath of the work of the Taylor-Eriksson Group, with some pretty nasty gore at times. Its an interesting set up as these things go, but what sets this film apart is the way the imagery is so carefully set up to develop the films horror. Bad things have been unleashed and the general course of the film is a look at how the quest for self knowledge and ultimate therapy brings horror to patients, healers and others and the film is loaded with smart visual clues to the power of the dark forces with which it deals, dark forces unbound by time, place or even personality. Good examples of this are found in the first story especially, dealing with a journalist interviewing a lady in a mental hospital. Previous to this story we have seen Lars Eriksson and notably his wonky (lazy?) eye, we also see him healing or at least comforting a patient. The lady mental patient of the first story is seen in the same stance as Eriksson healing a fellow patient, also as she wraps up the canvases from the art class that she runs among her fellow patients one of their pictures is seen, a face with lazy eye like Erikssons. There are also references to folk in minuscule roles, extras and walk ons having extra sensory perceptions of what is going on in the film, showing the badness that has been unleashed spreading and able to almost infect others. There is more to the film philosophically than just evil within, it is a film about death, suffering and possible redemption too all bound in a structure derived from Hindu beliefs in a fashion that seems like it might just be exploitation but has more relation to actual beliefs than one might expect (at least from the research that I did on wikipedia). Writer/director Andreas Marschall definitely deserves some significant credit for his skill in constructing the film. As well as being thoughtful, the film is pretty chilling too, the soundtrack of Bharti India and Panama John has a great eerie piano jingle and there are a couple of notable performances, Michael Balaun as a sinister doctor and Cora Chilcot as a freaky patient especially good. The third story also has a fine turn from veteran Mathieu Carrière as a faith healer. The biggest problem of the film is that it is not that involving a lot of the time so potential for fear is lost but these and a couple of other performances achieve involvement pretty well. So, the film isn't quite as gripping as it might be, the acting occasionally off and the pacing too, but mostly I thought it was pretty great, if a shade short of its possible brilliance. Well worth a look for adventurous horror fans I think.$LABEL$ 1
+Everything is relative seems to be the main theme from the outset by this set of eleven pieces by eleven directors. That is to say that what might be number one priority for people like Bush, Blair and Company, may not be so for a great many other people, ordinary people. From the opening scene in which an Iranian teacher is trying to impress on her little students the most important thing that has happened, with the result the children are not impressed, as the death of a neighbour and things like that evidently affect them much more closely than anything which may have happened in New York, USA, wherever that is, this series of almost documentary styled pieces establishes that not all things are as equal unto all men as some world leaders would try to prophess. Whereas, obviously, the attack on the WTC was a dastardly event by any yardstick, one does get the impression that both politicians and TV cameramen tend to blow up things out of all proportion - wonderfully manifested in one of these pieces. Would the same reaction at international level have occurred if the attack had been made on Lagos, say, or Djakarta, say, or even on Rio de Janeiro, say? I rather think not. News seems to suffer distortion depending on where things happen: much more TV time is given to an earthquake in Italy, say, than one ten times more destructive in Outer Mongolia, say. Greater distances seem to decrease the magnitude of the disaster. This series of eleven pieces helps to put things in better perspective - or, perhaps I should say, some of the pieces do, as each director with complete freedom has made up his own story, his own translated perspective, such that it is not possible to judge the whole merits, but individually for each eleven-minute segment. In no way should one deduce that this is an anti-American film: that would be a too simple reading of the diverse messages manifested through the segments. However, it is not pro-American either. The eleven segments adopt varied attitudes and the common link - if there is one - is that the disaster of the WTC attack has to be seen in perspective from different view-points. Only then will such people as George Bush even begin to comprehend the planet he is living on. Clearly stated in one segment is a belief of mine I have been harbouring for two years now: America has not learnt the lesson. And the lesson is that the USA has to share this planet with the rest of humanity - not dominate it by ruthless economical persuasion or just plain force. Instead of learning that the USA cannot continue just stamping all over everybody and everywhere, its political leaders, aided and abetted by Blair (and even Aznar) have become even more arrogant and even more intolerant, which is not doing any good to anyone in Afghanistan or Irak at present, let alone much elsewhere. The White House mentality is totally rejectable: the US and UK invaded Irak and caused all the chaos, and so should clear up the mess they caused - not insist on the UN and other nations to delve in with a helping hand and thus find an easy way out of the turmoil. Radical stances adopted by the US (or even Israel) is only going to be met by radical stances from Islamic people, who for years have been gearing up fanatical fundamentalism, if only to cover up their own macho uselessness, i.e., stoning women to death or simply shrouding them from the tops of their heads to the dusty ground. The world is in a terrible mess, fueled by the greed of a few rich countries who seem bent on not seeing or understanding anything from more multilateral perspectives. This film in eleven separate pieces accurately portrays this dismal and dumb posture.$LABEL$ 1
+There have been many movies featuring Bigfoot, the majority of which are not good but most at least have a goofy charm to them. Sasquatch Hunters doesn't even have that going for it. It's just a crashing bore.Sasquatch Hunters is about a group of paleontologists, primatologists, and forest rangers that venture off into a remote part of a Pacific Northwest forest. Bones belonging to some sort of abnormally large primate have been discovered in this region and since apes aren't natural to North America to begin with this leads to a scientific expedition. Sure enough, they soon discover a whole burial ground full of the skeletal remains of these enormous ape-like creatures. I think we all know what happens to people that disturb ancient burial grounds in the movies.The first half of the movie consists of uninteresting, interchangeable characters assembling their gear, hiking through the woods, stopping to rest, hiking through the woods some more, pausing long enough to investigate and discuss a few findings along the way, yet more hiking through the woods, looking for a group member that has vanished, even more hiking through the woods, digging through dirt, random theorizing, and gathering around a campfire to discuss what little they've done that day. When Sasquatch finally shows up it just turns into people stumbling around in the dark while being picked off one at a time (done in a blink and you missed it fashion and the actual killing occurs off-camera). All of this is excruciatingly boring.The movie wants to be taken seriously and the director is clearly trying to build suspense but there is none to be found, thus we are left with dull, drawn out scenes of people wandering around the woods just to get somewhere and wander around the woods at night trying to act scared. I'd be lying if I said I didn't make liberal use of the fast forward button to speed these scenes up.As for Sasquatch himself, much like every other character else in the movie, it doesn't have much to do and lacks a distinct personality. It looks like a shaggier version of King Kong, which isn't all that bad except in the scenes where they used CGI instead of a man in a Bigfoot costume, which is painfully obvious during the daylight monster scenes. A part of me can't help but feel that even using computer effects to bring Bigfoot to life is a tad sacrilegious. If there is any single movie monster that I believe should only be brought to life through situation, it's Bigfoot.This is one of those movies that doesn't so much have a plot as it does a premise. That's all it really is, a premise, which the people involved stretched out to make a feature length motion picture without bothering to add all the ingredients to make a worthwhile movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Y'know, it's very interesting watching this... half the people involved with it are now dead...Anyways, it's been a long time since I've watched anything Muppet related, but this stuff is pure gold. I'm a great fan of puns, and this movie has them quite well placed, but one of the amazing aspects of it is its pacing: it's not really high-speed children's pacing where the filmmakers just randomly decide to move the story along without giving the character's depth, it's just kind of moves along with the characters wherever they want to go.Kermit the Frog is just an awesome character. His voice and the expressions on his puppet-face are fantastic. But above all, he points out why he's popular--"he can sing and make jokes too!"--but more appropriately why he's so endearing--he, without any effort, inspires everyone to search for their dreams. In the meantime, he also has to deal with himself, which is an uncommon theme in family movies.It also contains quite an ensemble of comedians making appearances here and there, some to great effect, others to a little less (I think Mel Brook's part was just a bit overplayed, do you?). Some parts of the film are just kind of odd. But it's highly imaginative and takes itself to the same destination from a very different direction.Moving right along...--PolarisDiB$LABEL$ 1
+Aussie Shakespeare for 18-24 set.with blood ,blood and more blood.and good dose of nudity. this will not be for every one on may levels, to violent for some too cheap for most. done on low budget they try and do there best but it only works sporadically.and this macbeth just seem to be lacking ,its just not compelling. although there is some good acting on the part of most you don't get into there heads especially mecbeths. the best performance came from gary sweet and the strangest mick molly. if your into Shakespeare then see it,but if you like your cheese mature you will love it.it not a bad film but it not that good either. sam peckenpah would of loved it, that is if it was filmed as a western. i was expecting a lot from this, as i loved romper stomper. but this is was a vacant effort.$LABEL$ 0
+Horrible acting, horrible cast and cheap props. Would've been a lot better if was set as an action parody style movie. What a waste. Starting from the name of the movie."The Enemy" Naming it "Action Movie" would've made it better. (contributing to the parody effect). The cop looking like a 60 Year old player, the blond girl just having the same blank boring look on her face at all times. Towards the end of the movie him and her are working together to take down the bad guys and every time they exchange words it just feels like the cheap lines given before a sex scene in a porn movie. Horrible. Don't waste your time.$LABEL$ 0
+In the wake of the matrix this travesty of a film with loose connections to VR has been reissued with the tag-line "The Matrix just got Deadler!", in a box with a very Matrix inspired cover (still called "Expect to Die" though). Due to the choice of font however the tag-line looks to all the world like it says "Beablier". Anyway.To complete the transformation to Matrix wannabe they have mocked up a VR fight scene with a Morpheus-a-like on the back of the box. It may be important to know that this character DOES NOT FEATURE IN THE FILM.Overall this film is a travesty on every level. Jalal Mehri is an awful actor and does not impress with his martial arts. However his partner Stone is played by Evan Lurie, who in this film is simply the worst actor I have ever seen. Clearly he was chosen to make Jalal look good in comparison. Worst film I have seen for a long long time.$LABEL$ 0
+I enjoyed this series, but felt that the whole thing was let down by the sound recording/mixing.For whatever reason, they've had to employ an awful lot of what's called ADR, where the actors replace the original location sound with a re-recording of it in a sound booth.The reasons for doing this are usually due to problems at the location, or because somebody screwed up somewhere in the sound production chain.It wouldn't be so bad if the ADR was done well, but at times it's just plain distracting. It's not just the ADR that's the problem - the sound mix just doesn't match up to the quality of performances and the pictures.I'd be curious to know what went wrong.$LABEL$ 1
+Although too young to remember the first showing of the series (being just a baby) I later caught repeats of it on television in the late 80's, just when I was getting interested in the war and all of its aspects. It was my grandfather who first showed me the series and also gave me my first interests, relating tales of his time in the Royal Navy at Malta and later in the Pacific. Since then I have devoured many books and seen many television series about the World War Two era, with mixed opinions. The British television stations are generally very good at producing these, as The World At War can easily attest, with many gems made by both the BBC and independent companies. I strongly recommend such titles as "The Nazis - A warning From History", "Blitz" and the BBC series about Dunkirk. "Britain At War In Colour", with its companion series "Japan", "Germany" and "America" are of a very high standard. The World At War is by far the best and, despite its age, never fails to deliver. There will always be new revelations about the war that will keep cropping up that obviously aren't included in the series and of course World War Two took place over such a large canvas that to produce a series with EVERY detail would take more time and money then any other, even if such an undertaking was even possible. What I feel I must say to those who decry that it does not include everything is that The World At War can't physically do that as a series but it sure as heck can prompt you to do further research - and make it enjoyable. That certainly worked for me: I now have a very comprehensive library of books, videos, DVDs and tapes and CDs. Recommend to anyone with even a passing interest. The series was so well made that they'd find it hard not to agree that it is quality programming and highly informative.$LABEL$ 1
+I knew five minutes after the monster made his appearance where his was going. But when I saw the beginning credits, I said "oh my god, Bruce Boxlightner, Walter Koenig (from Star Trek). Gil Gerard (from Buck Rogers, and he's almost unrecognizable), then I saw John Callahan who used to star on my favorite Soap, All My Childen. Put on a few pounds but he can still act. Then there was Veronica Hamill. too bad I didn't sick around to see her in the film. I bailed out 20 minutes into he film. It was THAT bad. Never did see William Katt (from Perry Mason, and The Greates American Hero).All these stars and one lousy film. I hope hey got their paycheck.Bad Bad Bad$LABEL$ 0
+Notable only as the acting debut of future big-time Hollywood starlet, Sandra Bullock, this ludicrous action flick is so full of holes that one might easily suspect termite infestation. The storyline is incomprehensible and very poorly thought out. The production values stink of cheese. In fact, a total LACK of production values would have been better...at least the film might have seemed grittier that way. The ADR is laughably bad and omni-present in the film. It's debatable as to whether or not ANY of the dialogue tracks from the actual shoot were used.The performances are, for the most part, horrible, though there are a few exceptions. In those exceptions, however, the performances are undermined by the fact that the director was obviously giving the actors poor direction and making them act completely out of character at times. (i.e. characters going from passive to panicked in the blink of an eye. Bad Direction.) Also, the constant "weapon sound effects" (magazines being loaded, slides being cocked, etc.) are completely overused and, more often than not, totally out of sync with the on-screen actions. Add to this cheesy "Bad Guy" vocal distortion for the lead villain (mainly so that you KNOW he's the villain in this incomprehensible mess of a film), and you have a recipe for disaster.The situations in the film go well beyond standard "suspension of disbelief" and become downright laughable. One lead character spends a good portion of the film tied to a chair before he DECIDES to use the butterfly knife tucked in his sock in order to free himself. So, my questions are...why didn't he do this sooner, and why does he even HAVE the butterfly knife. He wasn't searched? RIGHT. This is one of a hundred examples of completely ludicrous situations which have somehow been crammed into this 90-minute package.In whole, "The Hangmen" plays like an unbearably bad R-rated TV movie from the '80s. If not for the subsequent success of Sandra Bullock, this would have NEVER found its way to DVD. But it has, so my only advice is to steer clear. Watching this film may actually impair your IQ.$LABEL$ 0
+It's very simple to qualify that movie: "A PURE MASTERPIECE". This opinion is formulated for the following reasons: the performance of the actors, they seem to be citizens of that epoch, 1100 B.C. They personalize perfectly the characters. A second reason is that the poetry expressed by Homere in his poem is well given by the production. Among others the narrations made by the chorus give a particular atmosphere that makes us party of the artistic rendition. Third reason: the reconstitution of the decor is absolutely perfect, in Mediterranean regions, where the action of the poem occurred. And most of all, the emotion is on the rendezvous. I repeat my appreciation: "A PURE MASTERPIECE".$LABEL$ 1
+OK...this MAY contain Spoilers...but who really cares? Do not, if you value the seconds in your life, waste your time on this pile of garbage. There is not one redeeming quality in this movie...and I say that as a full fan of the Vacation Series of movies. I LOVED the Cousin Eddie character from the other Vacation movies...but he only works well as a supporting character. Do I blame Randy Quaid for the failure of this movie? Not at all. I think he's a great actor...but this film lacks any cohesion...the pacing is off...it's just plain unfunny. And the actor who plays the "Third"...Jake Thomas...was just awful, more than likely due to a real lack of direction. I don't know why...but his whole character creeped me out.Some people say that this is a horrible movie because Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo aren't in it...that has nothing to do with it. The script, directing, acting...special effects...everything is a train wreck. With Orphans. And kittens. Oh...and the Train ran over some old people too.Please, whatever you do...stay away from this filth! I call it filth because it dirties the name of the Vacation Franchise.$LABEL$ 0
+Maybe it's just because I have an intense fear of hospitals and medical stuff, but this one got under my skin (pardon the pun). This piece is brave, not afraid to go over the top and as satisfying as they come in terms of revenge movies. Not only did I find myself feeling lots of hatred for the screwer and lots of sympathy towards the "screwee", I felt myself cringe and feel pangs of disgust at certain junctures which is really a rare and delightful thing for a somewhat jaded horror viewer like myself. Some parts are very reminiscant of "Hellraiser", but come off as tribute rather than imitation. It's a heavy handed piece that does not offer the viewer much to consider, but I enjoy being assaulted by a film once and awhile. This piece brings it and doesn't appologize. I liked this one a lot. Do NOT watch whilst eating pudding.$LABEL$ 1
+It's been a looooonnnggg time since I saw this comedy, and I'd forgotten just how idiotic it is. I'd place this easily in the lower two or three of Elvis Presley's very worst movies. Presley plays Joe Whitecloud, a half-breed Indian bull rider who returns home to Arizona and the broken-down shack where his family lives, and where his friends love to party all night long. His parents are played by Burgess Meredith and Katy Jurado, and his old Indian grandpa is Thomas Gomez. None of the three offer anything of substance , comically or otherwise. The government has invested in the family's cattle, but they're lacking a bull. Elvis gets to sing just a few utterly worthless songs, and is pursued by a young boy-crazy gal and her gun-toting mother. This is just a real slapdash of a mess, and the dilapidated surroundings practically stink of manure and don't make this much easier. The one thing that puzzles me, however, is that Elvis actually seems to be having a good time in the film. Hard to believe, considering he got so upset about being stuck making so many mediocre movies.$LABEL$ 0
+If there's one good suspenseful film, this is one of them. James Stewart puts on a dazzling performance as American Dr. Ben McKenna who, with his wife and son, are in Africa on tour. They stumble on a murder scene, and Dr. McKenna's son is kidnapped hours later.Before you can say, "Fasten your seat belts," Dr. McKenna finds out too much about a assassination attempt and tries to stop it. However, other people know he can be dangerous, (dangerous to them, that is) and try to dispose of him.Eventually, Hank, the son, is found alive and well.If you like suspenseful movies, this is the one to watch.My Score: 8/10.$LABEL$ 1
+An unconventional historical drama, with some fine battle scenes. Tobey Maguire gives an excellent performance, and gets some pretty good back-up. The script is literate and pretty original, and the film is kept mercifully free of heroes. That said, it does drag a bit, and the last reel is too much like a TV mini-series. Still, Frederick Elmes's camerawork keeps one interested in the dull bits (and every now and again you see a shot which reminds you he worked for David Lynch). Worth seeing.$LABEL$ 1
+I caught this show a few times when I was young and it was playing tilt, My parents loved it and now in syndication I feel what they feel. This show did what the original limits and twilight zone (new and old) couldn't do. This show used some old ideas and some truly original ideas.I still cannot believe Jonathan Glassner and brad wright did this. Those guys were producers on stargate sg-1. The show kept the audience entrenched in the story and set a truly scary atmosphere. This is what was not there in the new twilight zone. Rod serling coming in added to the scariness, forest coming in lightened the mood. The ending whether good or bad made for a scary time. You could never predict what was going to happen. I am still trying to find the seasons on DVD.$LABEL$ 1
+"All men are guilty," says the chief of the police. "They're born innocent but it doesn't last." Add this bit of nihilism to Jean-Pierre Melville's fascination with the idea of the crook's code of honor and you have Le Cercle Rouge. This code of honor among crooks, however, is not simply a cliché; it's a figment of the imagination even when film moralists -- realistic moralists by their viewpoint, romantic moralists by most others' -- began to make movies on the subject. Their theme is that it isn't what one does, but how one does it. We most often wind up with stories all about experienced men with their own sense of honor, stories where fate, fatalism and the code run things. For most of humanity, except screen writers and movie directors, this would seriously get in the way of living one's life, raising one's children and being a good friend. This mannered fatalism is something of a self-indulgent notion. Le Cercle Rouge is, in my view, a classic film for people who may secretly enjoy the adventure of just missing the last bus home. But where Melville's Le Samourai - Criterion Collection, in my opinion, is style dominating story, Le Cercle Rouge manages the great trick of combining style with a strong story and with compelling actors. The point of the movie, in my view, is nonsense...but the movie itself is a first-class experience. Melville's hopeless tale of three crooks -- Cory (Alain Delon), Vogel (Gian-Maria Volonte) and Jansen (Yves Montand) - is based on a bit of wisdom which is, maybe, attributed to the Buddha: That all men who are destined to meet, will...along with their destiny they cannot change. Maybe, because some believe Melville himself came up with the wording if not the thought. Either way, we know right at the start that this movie will not end happily, will depend upon fate and coincidence to set things up for us, and will leave us recalling the nihilistic philosophies we discovered and loved when we were in high school. Once Corey and Vogel meet and then gather in the unique talents of Jansen, we are off on a one-way ride to rob an exclusive, heavily protected jewelry story on the Place Vendome. The tension arises because we not only know the French police are after Vogel, we also realize that some determined crooks are after Corey. The great pleasure of the movie, for me, came from admiring the work that Delon, Volonte and Montand brought to their characters, and the intelligent ruthlessness that Andre Bouvril brought to his character, the police captain Mattei. Melville hooked me as he developed these characters and their own situations; he built me up emotionally and then released me when he brought me to appreciate their probable fate and let me see see it happen. Melville establishes his set pieces -- the escape from the train, the escape from the woods, the later shootout in the woods, the meetings with Mattei and a man who refuses to inform -- with intriguing possibilities. He builds tension in all these cases by taking his time; a rare trait in movie making and an even rarer trait now. And Melville takes the time to build up Mattei as an individual. Mattei is a rueful, experienced man. He's a loner. He has a set routine when he returns to his apartment -- he greets his three cats affectionately, he draws his bath and while the tub is filling he sets out food for them. I don't know who Mattei is destined to meet, but I hope it's someone who likes cats. Nihilism is always fashionable among some creative people and some critics. In most cases, I think it's a much harder task to set nihilism aside and to simply live one's life without damaging too many people. (And that's even more challenging to show compellingly in a film.) Le Cercle Rouge is a movie which, for me, tells me little, but it is in its own way, I think, a beautifully put together film.$LABEL$ 1
+I generally LIKE watching Burt Lancaster's films--especially when he is needed to go nuts with his imposing screen presence like in Elmer Gantry. However, his greatest strength, his magnetism, was occasionally also his greatest weakness as he rarely, if ever, underplayed ANYTHING. And it is this lack of subtlety that really hinders The Rainmaker. Now I understand that his character was meant to be a sort of showman but how Katherine Hepburn could fall under his spell is completely inexplicable. She is supposed to be smart but doesn't seem so when Lancaster's blarney is being thrown about the screen! In addition to this, the story is perhaps one of the most stagy looking films I have ever seen and it is way too obvious that this is a movie based on a play. It just looks like it was mostly filmed in a sound stage instead of in the great wide open West like it was supposed to be.Overall, a very overrated film.$LABEL$ 0
+Errol Flynn at his best as Robin Hood of the West, fighting military red tape, confederates , indians and carpetbagger business crooks singlehanded to his great and final heroic end. Not to forget the ever reliable O. de Havilland as Lady Mary of the west. Never try to link this story to the facts and the real persons, it doesn't work out. Just enjoy it, because nobody ever claimed to make documentaries when Raoul Walsh and Errol Flynn co-worked.$LABEL$ 1
+Used to watch this when i was very little, then used to watch my videos. Now i watch the DVDs, i love this. Ray Winston is 'The Dude', the rest of the cast is all good and even with the changing of Robin Hood it all works. Great stories, twists and the way it was shot - to the untrained eye (not that mine is trained) can be miss-interpreted as being ropey but it adds to the films absorption of the audience. With the green hillsides and the contrast of the lush sunny lit forest to the dark corridors and dungeons of the castles - Its great. Personally the definitive interpretation of the Robin Hood legend. I cannot stress how much i think you should watch this, if you get a chance then YOU MUST WATCH IT.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a title in search of a movie. It's a pitch that sounded lucrative to some studio executive and the rest be damned. When this film was made there were still two things that CGI did not do at all well: people, and fur. Furry people were thus not destined to look good when rendered by computer. This is the only example I can think of where effects for a well-funded sequel took a giant leap back landing well behind those of the original movie. For the record, the design of the werewolves doesn't help a bit. The film-makers apparently couldn't decide between quadruped and biped, tried to do both, and wound up with a creature that looks equally awkward either way. The transformations are anatomically nonsensical and the end result with a relatively high forehead and short snout looks like a cross between Ron Perlman and a hyena. But back to the crass part. This is a movie which exists PURELY to cash in on its forebear. I am not a fan of Landis' original film but boy, does it look good in light of this. If you thought some of Landis' humor was forced try some of the excruciating attempts here. The bubble gum scene, the corpse humor, the dog that...you know, you'll just have to watch that bit yourselves. Thomas Everett Scott is on vacation in Europe with friends and decides to take a break from acting the "ugly American' and bungee jump off the Eifel Tower in the middle of the night. This leads to him rescuing a young woman (Delpy - Julie it's not worth this just to become a star in America. Ask Rutger Hauer) from jumping to her death. She turns out to be part of a cult of werewolves who are plotting to...I'm not sure, something bad. Ghastly French stereotypes, gaping plot-holes, a muddled ending. No matter, the studio cared only that the title would likely fool millions of "American Werewolf in London" fans into handing over their cash. For the most part, happy to say, they were wrong.$LABEL$ 0
+If you're a long-time fan of the Doctor and you cringed when you heard they were making another series, rest easy -- it more than meets the high expectations of the original. The pacing is much quicker than the original shows, fitting more often into 50 minutes episodes rather than the average 90 minutes. The writing is excellent, the acting superb. The hardest - and best - thing to get used to is the production values of the new series. Compared to the original, it's got some now. (Although I will always have fond memories of bubble-wrap and hand-puppet monsters.) If you're not a fan, or if you tried the original and couldn't get a handle on it, jump in with both feet now! Everything you really need to know about the Doctor, they'll tell you as they go along. This series was written with minimal references to the Doctor's enormous back story specifically to encourage new viewers. Admittedly, I'm only seeing the first new series now as it's being shown on the Sci-Fi channel (in other words, probably cut to ribbons for time constraints), but I'm looking forward to future episodes either on broadcast TV or on DVD. (July 4th can't come soon enough!)$LABEL$ 1
+I have seen this movie and in all honestly was quite disappointed. And in my opinion this movie lacks heart. I frankly didn't care what happen to the characters by the end of the movie. There was so much there they could have done with the movie that they didn't because they were either so rapped up in trying to be obscure and make some deep comment on life, or trying so hard not to, that the characters and story were completely lost in all of it. I have seen another picture by this director and enjoyed it well enough. But I felt this film lack of the whimsy and heart of the other and I was left wondering what the point was, or if the point of the movie was that it had no point. Honestly, while I didn't feel like tearing my hair out during the movie, I did remorse the lost time on the sad little film.I have no doubt that some people will love this movie, but frankly I didn't.$LABEL$ 0
+For a "no budget" movie this thing rocks. I don't know if America's gonna like it, but we were laughing all the way through. Some really Funny Funny stuff. Really non-Hollywood.The Actors and Music rocked. The cars and gags and even the less in your face stuff cracked us up. Whooo Whooo!I've seen some of the actors before, but never in anything like this, one or two of them I think I've seen in commercials or in something somewhere. Basically it Rocked! Luckily I got to see a copy from a friend of one of the actors.$LABEL$ 1
+This Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle comedy is best remembered for featuring a young Buster Keaton, fresh from splitting with his family's roughhouse Vaudeville act, in his film debut. Buster gets quite a substantial part in this film and it's quite a funny one overall. "The Butcher Boy" has lots of laughs and is an example of pure old-fashioned slapstick done well, though it would seem to come from the brief era of two-reel comedies when filmmakers still imagined in one-reel segments as a matter of course.The first half of the film takes place in a general store, with Arbuckle as the the butcher boy of the title. It's an excuse to mine the many possibilities for fast physical humor that a general store provides, and Arbuckle really shows himself to be a 300-pound acrobat, demonstrating subtlety, skill, and grace in his performance of what might have been unremarkable slapstick routines that raise them to a different level. A running gag has him flipping a large butcher knife casually so that it spins accurately into it's proper position stuck into the cutting board, and I'm still stunned that Arbuckle really seems to do it each time. There's also a really nice gag that sees him leaning on his scale and confused as to why his cuts of meat weigh so much.Buster Keaton is a boy who comes into to buy some molasses, and performs deftly in a foot-stuck-to-floor routine that follows. Apart from the odd and almost unsettling half-smile, his idiosyncratic attitude and body language make him recognizable immediately as the Buster we know. He even has his eventually-trademarked flattened hat -- here destroyed for the first time when filled, of course, with molasses.The second half of the film moves into more situation-based comedy and Arbuckle and his rival Al St. John dress in drag to infiltrate Fatty's girlfriend's boarding school. A lot of the humor also comes from the generally surreal and mysteriously laugh-inducing sight of these two odd fellows wearing drag and trying to "be girls." buster is in this segment too, but mostly stands there in the occasional cutaway, helping St. John.The ending of "The Butcher Boy" becomes a little emptily frenetic, but on the whole and beyond its historical curiosity interest, it's a well-done comedy that gets just the knockabout laughs it is going for.$LABEL$ 1
+Interesting concept that just doesn't make it. I watched the whole movie, but had to read IMDb comments to find out what Code 46 meant. If/when it was explained in the film, I must have been in a coma, or possibly brain-dead by then. I only watched it for Tim Robbins. The fact that I did not know any of the other actors should have been a tip-off. We all have to start somewhere, but this film should not be it. As to the 'anti empathy virus virus'-Holy Utility Belt, Batman! Where were The Joker, The Riddler, etc? Also, why are the women all so damned ugly? If I want to see less-than-plain stick-figures, I'll just walk down the street. The best part of the film was the car crash. It was totally believable, and not over-the-top like most movie crashes.$LABEL$ 0
+The Frozen Limits is a big screen vehicle for the artists known as The Crazy Gang. They were a group of British entertainers who formed in the early 1930s. In the main the group's six men were Bud Flanagan, Chesney Allen, Jimmy Nervo, Teddy Knox, Charlie Naughton and Jimmy Gold. Hugely popular in the variety halls the group were also darlings of the then Royal Family. The plot here sees them as the Wonder Boys troupe who set off to seek their fortunes in Alaska after reading about a gold rush in the newspaper. Only problem is is that when they finally get to Red Gulch it turns out they are 40 years too late!I often cringe when I see the statement "it's very British" because it implies that those not of the British Isles may struggle to get it. The reason it bothers me is because in this www/internet age I have garnered a ream of non British film loving friends who have been known to split their sides at the best of Ealing, Will Hay and the imperious Terry-Thomas. So, then, is it true that something such as The Frozen Limits is unlikely to be appreciated by a non British audience? Well yes it's true, so much here is topically British, but really it has to be said that the classic movie fan is pretty well versed in history, and when all is said and done the visual mirth here is universal. With the anarchic "not" so wild west make over an absolute winner. A winner that has every chance of being more appreciated by an American audience now than it will be by a British audience. Not all the comedy works, and in truth the "big 6" are trumped big time by a film stealing Moore Marriott. But there are skits and parodies here that deserve respect and a nod of approval from more illustrious comedy acts. You are unlikely to nearly fall off your chair like I did because of an Ovaltine gag, but if you be a classic comedy film fan? I feel sure that you will at the worst acknowledge there's some very talented people at work here.Now then, dose the Mounties always get their man? 8/10$LABEL$ 1
+First off, I'm not here to dog this movie. I find it totally enjoyable in spite of the poor production quality. The acting herein is about as abominable as the monster stalking them, although the monster itself is quite well done...impressively well done, at that. He actually looks kind of other-worldly, like an alien family on vacation landed in the Himalayas and while dad was out taking a ... attending to nature's call, Spot got loose and they just didn't have time to hunt him down. That, or he's the Caucasian brother of the Wishmaster. I haven't decided which.Actually, this seems to have been filmed somewhere in snow country, yes, but more likely Canada somewhere than China anywhere. The trees and vistas say Canada to me, and it's okay that the set area never takes on the look or feel of uber-coldness one might expect to find in the Himalayas of China. It's a Sci-Fi Channel movie, so we can forgive the lack of location.Further, apparently (as we have just established) Sci-Fi directors do not travel often, as they are not aware that commercial planes fly above weather like what is featured herein and the subsequent crash actually would not have happened. But as I said, it's a Sci-Fi Channel movie so we must forgive a few things.The movie is pretty graphic at times, and rotates between "Alive" about the Donner Party, "Predator" about the alien in the woods, and any bad wushu movie where they fly about on wires. The Yeti apparently can leap about like Spiderman...or Super Mario...remember? "Run faster! Jump higher! Live longer!" Also, the Yeti has missed his teddy bear. He's searched high and low for it, but cannot seem to make a cadaver work. Poor Yeti! You can't help but feel sorry for it. It has survived and evolved thousands of years only to succumb to severe teddy bear loss. He's missed his bear. Or maybe it wants to mate, but that thought is BANISHED! Do ya hear me? Well, it does seem to be an unmated male. REBANISHED! And it's superhuman. Well, it's not human...it's super-Yeti! But then again, what's normal-Yeti? I don't know, but he has a definite Michael Meyers quality that is completely unsettling. And he's got this fabulous way of cleaning his fur. FABulous Dahlink! It's spotlessly white at times when it SO shouldn't be. He's fastidiously superhu-...super-Yeti.All in all? This was a lot of fun to watch, has some great kills and a few honest plot elements. In spite of the horribly gravel-like production style, this is actually quite entertaining. I can't help wondering if they're planning on another one? It rates a 6.0/10 on the M4TV Scale.It rates a 4.4/10 on the Movie Scale from...the Fiend :.$LABEL$ 0
+Why Jessie Matthews, one of Britains top musical stars, was in this movie in between her sparkling "The Good Companions" and the classic "Evergreen" is a good question? When I first saw it I was really disappointed. I wanted to see her sing and dance - she was billed as "Millie - the non - stop variety girl" but there was more stop than variety.Now I see it as a good little drama.It is about a bus crash and the stories, leading up to it, of the people on the bus.Apart from Jessie Matthews, who is great as Millie - Sir Ralph Richardson plays her fiancée ( yes, that's right).Edmund Gwenn - who went to Hollywood to co-star in Lassie movies and also with Natalie Wood in "Miracle on 34th Street", plays a grumpy businessman. Gordon Harker is his very annoying partner.Emlyn Williams - who wrote "Night Must Fall" was the black - mailing villain and Frank Lawton, who went to Hollywood and appeared in "David Copperfield" and "The Devil Doll" is the young man in trouble. Sonnie Hale who was married to Jessie Matthews at the time played the bus conductor.$LABEL$ 1
+"Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters" is a visually stunning production that handles complex issues with evocative ease. It is based on the life of controversial Japanese author Yukio Mishima, who committed suicide in the 1970s. It is not really a biopic - at least not one in the traditional sense - but an exploration of Mishima's iconoclastic oeuvre. The film succeeds in presenting abstract concepts in an unembroidered, totally engaging manner. Paul Schrader makes you sympathize with Mishima without having to deconstruct him or his work. It doesn't quite solve the puzzle but it does make you understand it. An added bonus: As we see Mishima's fury over the lack of tradition in a morally vacant modern society, Schrader gives us an excellent demonstration of the dichotomy between thought and execution in cinema. John Bailey's cinematography is spectacularly good. The grandiosity of composer Philip Glass' work is perfectly suited for the project. "Mishima" is the best film I've seen this year, so far.$LABEL$ 1
+this movie is trash because, out of many reasons, it is based on Mark Furman's book, which is also trash. let me must say that Mark Furhman is a racist pig that is just looking for another way to get himself into the spotlight - and others that right this type of trash belong in jail. for the movie itself, being based on the book, was horrible as well. the only reason that this murder case became such a big book and movie was because the guy is related, thru his aunts marriage, to the Kennedy family and it is ridiculous that people still believe that this family somehow has the ability to make and cover up murders - they are just a family and middle America needs to get over the obsession. this poor guy, and his family, have been hounded by the police for years, they couldn't get tommy so they went after Micheal. its amazing that he went to jail with all the evidence that supports that he Didn't do it, besides the facts that the statute of limitations, among other things, should have kept this trial from being brought back after TWENTY years for the love of god, don't watch this garbage$LABEL$ 0
+Jim Carrey and Morgan Freeman along with Jennifer Aniston combine to make one of the funniest movies so far this 2003 season (late May) and a good improvement on Carrey's past crazy and personally forgetable roles in past comedies. With a slightly toned down Carrey antics yet with just the zap and crackle of his old self, Carrey powerfully carries this movie to the height of laughter and also some dramatic, tearfully somber moments. Elements of Jim's real acting abilities continue to show up in this movie. This delightful summer entertainment hits most of the buttons, including dramatic elements along with the goofy moments that fit perfectly with this script. While still lacking in the superbly polished ensemble of comedy/drama, Bruce, Almightly deserves credit for being a great date movie along with a solid message and soft spiritual cynicism and parody that maintains its good-natured taste. Eight out of ten stars.$LABEL$ 1
+Barbara Stanwyck gives this early Douglas Sirk-directed, Universal-produced soap just the kick that it needs. Not nearly as memorable as Sirk's later melodramas, it's easy to see by watching "All I Desire" where Sirk would be heading artistically in the next few years. Stanwyck is a showgirl who returns to her family in smalltown, U.S.A, after deserting them a decade earlier. Her family and community have mixed emotions in dealing with her shocking return. Some of the cinematography is amazing, and Stanwyck is tough-as-nails and really gives this film a shot of energy. Overall, a fairly good show.$LABEL$ 1
+Great movie. Post-apocalyptic films kick ass. This one is no exception. Kept up the pace and interest without a speck of dialogue (mainly through some good character development). The fight between Reno and the Hero was tight. I also liked the use of cave paintings and medieval-like weapons to show how primitive and savage mankind had become without their technology and guzzaline. The connection between the beginning and end was a little spacey, that is, I had a hard time understanding the distances between the hotel and the opening sequence. In sum, kick ass character progression, design, story without the cushion of dialogue, and most importantly, the always appreciated desolate scenery of a post-apocalyptic wasteland.$LABEL$ 1
+But not too hip. And not too wisecracking. "Judas Kiss" nails the new noir thing just right. Great pacing and a nuanced score round out a twisty tale filled with sex, betrayal and sure-fire one liners. Inspiring work all around. Kudos in partcular to HalHolbrook (his best work ever), Gil Bellows (Ally Mc-what?) and Carla Gugino (the best famme fatale in ages... smart, funny and ultra HOT)... I give this a 9 (out of 10) and that's because 10 should be reserved for like, Humphrey Bogart and Coen Bros movies.$LABEL$ 1
+not many people outside poland have had an opportunity to become familiar with andrzej sapkowski's brilliant writings. he's very popular in poland for his fantasy short stories ( i believe none of them has ever been translated intrto english. alas!). to make a long story short, wiedzmin - the main character of sapkowski's books - is a traveling monster slayer, a man of extraordinary strenght and skill: he's pretty much your favourite tolkien-style cool guy. unfortunately, no one would figure this out after watching the film. 'wiedzmin' the movie is nothing but a collection of random scenes, featuring wiedzmin and other characters from sapkowski's writings, but not eben remotely resembling the plot and dramatic pace of the original. event the fact that some of the shots in the film show attractive naked women does not add any quality to it. the movie gets worse and worse with every minute, and does not even meet the requirements of 'so bad it's actually good' category. if you really are into fantasdy and want to learn something about wiedzmin, read the books instead.$LABEL$ 0
+A classy film pulled in 2 directions. To its advantage it is directed by Wes Craven. On the downside the TV film budget shows what could have been so much more with a larger budget. It moves along as Susan Lucci draws Robert Urichfamily into her clutches and trying to persuade him into the secret of her health club. His latest invention, a spacesuit which can analyse people or things becomes unexpectedly useful in his new neighbourhood. Anyone seeing this should pay attention to Susan Lucci. Her looks and performance had an unexpected repercussions a few years later. The actor, scientist and parapsychologist Stephen Armourae is a fan of this film and wrote a review of this film. Lucci became subject of a portrait by him followed as the basis for works of a sitter called Catherine. Lucci and Barbara Steele's portrait in 'Black Sunday' were used as references for the Catherine portraits which were immediately withdrawn by Armourae. Probably due to a personal nature between the artist and Catherine. So by seeing both films we can get an insight into another story and the appearance of unknown woman that would make an interesting film.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is the worst I've seen in the last 5 years. It is surprising how brilliant actors like two main characters in this movie has accepted to act in such worthless peace of trash. The film is rape/beating and revenge genre. Couple has gone to party and on the way back they hit a deer and he went out to finish it when a jeep full of bad guys comes. He didn't go to their car, instead he has been kicked and well beaten while she tries to run the car engine which betray her and she has been gang raped.Then somehow she is in her fathers house and one of bad guys is her neighbor so she took shotgun and wanted to kill him... So stupid scenario! Bellow Hollywood ! He was against that revenge but "She is raped" "They laugh to her" so she must kill them all... But once inside the house she was satisfied by pushing rifle's top in bad guys anus and went away while he has gone crazy and execute bad guy. Personally I think that director run out of money before finishing this because movie ends before they execute anyone else involved in this gang-rape and beating which is not big surprise because sponsor obviously has seen this and wanted to take back his money. LoL This movie is not even for people who enjoy watching rape because they won't see anything they are looking for... This director should be banned...It is for upsetting that this peace of trash has been made by British cinematography which I personally like and that is the reason I've watched this. Don't do it yourself you have better things to do that watching stupid scenario film ...$LABEL$ 0
+Above all, you must not take this movie seriously. It takes itself seriously, unfortunately, but that can't be helped. This anime ninja flic has to be the crowning achievement in spoiling what could have been an endearing, if unoriginal, story with bad plot twists, ridiculous time-killing cutscenes, and one outrageous guest appearance which will either make you laugh or groan (or both, like me).While I'm typically a fan of ninja/samurai anime (Ninja Scroll and Rurouni Kenshin to name a few), this one has to be the exception. For the record, from a technical point of view of its time, this movie was very well animated and constructed. It is just the plot that stunk. The authors of this movie clearly decided (for what rational reason I don't know) that they could somehow make up for the lack of a script if the character halfway around the world in search of a treasure that (he learns) his father fought and died for. In the process, he saves a black slave named Sam, meets a French girl who is living in an Apache village, makes friends with a ninja clan whose members then try to kill him, meets more family members then he knew he had in the weirdest places and circumstances (and whom all subsequently die at some point in the movie).Even so far, these ludicrous plot twists could be excused, but then come the two "guest appearances". #1: After having a ridicuously cliche showdown with two cowboys, Jiro meets a man who introduces himself as "Mark Twain". At this point, you're probably saying "What the ****?!!" This "meeting" serves one purpose: it entirely discredits a movie which tries to add to itself an educated historical background. I found it disappointing that the authors went to all this trouble to research the 1860s US and didn't manage to realize that "Mark Twain's" real name was Samuel Clemens. #2: When Jiro finally finds the treasure, it turns out that it used to belong to Captain Kidd. I can hear the groans of disgust now.Finally, there are the running scenes. These scenes show various characters running, with the landscape moving statically behind them, for several minutes, and there are a lot of them. It is these scenes which make this movie, 2hrs 12 min, to seem to last a week and a half.If you and your friends are looking for a bad subtitled movie that just asks to be made fun of, this is it. Feel free to poke fun at every possible aspect of it, and have fun. Just don't take it seriously. 3/10$LABEL$ 0
+Another made for TV piece of junk! This is an insult of a war movie (I use the word movie in it's loosest possible form!) I thought Telly Savalas's career had hit rock bottom when he did the voice over on that visit Birmingham video that's shown on Tarrant on TV on a semi regular basis, but then I'd forgot he was involved in this! I'd tried to push it into my subconscious memory, but cable TV brought the memory kicking and screaming out of me!! I like the bit (laughs sarcastically!) in the film which claims to be a scene from Liverpool in the forties, but it's blatantly a shot of Zagreb Cathedral in the late eighties. Also the steam train the Commando's are training on shows the JZ (Jugoslavia Zeleznice, or Yugoslav state railways) logo's on the side of the locomotive quite clearly, even though the makers have tried to black them out. Why not just film in the UK, if that's where most of the film is set? Cheap rubbish, and a waste of celluloid!$LABEL$ 0
+May I never have to go to this hospital [or hospice, if I want to be politically correct] [which ass coined this asinine phrase, anyway?], for anything other than directions on how to get out of town. George C. did a masterful job playing the burned out, over worked cynic who has come to the conclusion that his life has been a waste, but is helpless to change his environment or conditions even when given a golden opportunity [which probably wasn't so golden anyway]. I got several laughs out of this brutally black comedy, however at the same time was sobered and often chilled to the marrow because I fear this very atmosphere pervades most houses of healing even as I write.$LABEL$ 1
+Minor spoilersFirst I must say how rare and charming it is to find a movie with such basic messages in it: nuclear war will inevitably destroy all of civilization, and women are for making babies. It is absolutely incredible how well formulated the plot is to hit in these two points, as with a golden hammer. Essentially, everything about this movie annoyed me. The casual sexism, the character whose sole trait was coming from Texas, the mysterious choice of dying Mars orange, and of course the flawed science of it all. Then the martian woman screaming as if she had just noticed that she was blind? What was that? However, I will give it credit. The fifties did spit out some sillier things. But not much...$LABEL$ 0
+As a word of explanation, Disney's "The Kid" has absolutely nothing in common with the Charlie Chaplin 1921 classic of the same name. What we do have is a pleasant enough, though unbelievable, feel good family comedy as only the folks at Disney can provide. Bruce Willis, in a change of pace, plays a self-centered stuffed shirt of an "Image Consultant". He degrades, not only his clients, but those close to him as well. You know that he is going to have to change before the final credits. Into his life comes a chapter from his past in the form of Willis' character as a nerdy 8 year old played with cutesy pie conviction by Spencer Breslin (Disney always finds these kids somewhere). This forces Willis to come to grips with his past and well..you know the rest. Appearing as Willis' love interest is Emily Mortimer and Lily Tomlin as his Executive Assistant. Both have little enough to do as most of the movie involves the inter-action between the Willis and Breslin characters. "The Kid", though not the greatest of Disney movies is one nonetheless that you can sit down and watch with your family and come away from with a warm feeling.$LABEL$ 1
+Cruel Intentions 2 is bloody awful, I mean uber-bad. Words can not explain how bad it is, but I'll give it a go anyway.The plot of Cruel Intentions 2 is very similar to the first film. Sebastian (Robin Dunne), is kicked out of a private school and is forced to move to New York. There he decides to make a fresh start and just a life a normal life and settle down. Unfortunately he has to deal with his step-sister Kathryn (Amy Adams) wants to drag him down. Sebastain starts to fall in love Danielle (Sarah Thompson), the innocent daughter of the Headmaster of the school. Kathryn wants Sebastain to just sleep around with the whole school which had been describe as a 'whore-house'. Kathryn also wants to get revenge with Cherie (Keri Lynn Pratt), who humiliated her during the school assembly. Kathryn wanted to make the freshman into the biggest slut in the school, a similar sub-plot to the first film.Cruel Intentions 2 is basically a cancelled TV-show, which was turned into a prequel. There are so many problems with the film. It is poorly written, unfunny, and badly acted. Luckily for Amy Adams that the show never took off because now she is a fairly big actress. Whilst Cruel Intentions had a sense of realism and can been seen to be set in the real world, Cruel Intentions 2 is set in sitcom land and as described on amazon.co.uk 'a randy version of Saved by the Bell'. There were some dark themes involving sex and drug use in the first film, but in Cruel Intentions 2 tried to make it funny and some of the ideas in the film shouldn't be, such as Kathryn having an affair with a teacher. Other ideas also don't work such as the secret society where all the popular kids meet to discuss the downfall of other students. The film also had a major problem of sexualised 15/16-years-old. I know that teenagers do have sex, sometimes a lot, but when done on film or television, is treated very seriously. One famous sense was when Daneille encourages Cherie (who is around 14/15 in the film) to simulate sex on the back of a horse to the point where she has a orgasm. The idea of turning a girl around 14/15 into a slut is just very wrong with me, and shouldn't be made into a subject of comedy. The jokes in the film fall flat, whether if it's a verbal gag like 'she goes all moist when she sees you' to a visual gag where Sebastian pushes Kathryn face first into mud.There is a lot wrong with this film, which I don't have time to go into, but I say it should be avoid. Just watch Cruel Intentions, whilst not a classic, still is a decent film and treats the subject matter well.This film is just a pervert's wet dream, having school-kids having lots of sex with each other.$LABEL$ 0
+The ScareCrow was on of the funniest Killers I have ever seen in the act! Plus he's really bouncy most of the time he jumped around, which was awesome! Also he had an excellent voice I mean it was just perfect for him. The story lines was excellent too. I like how the kids soul was transferred into ScareCrow that was cool! Plus he did have a reason for all that killing I mean after what those people did to him.....I would be angry too! ScareCrows look was really good! his look gives that person an "OMG!" reaction when they see him! Which was great the stares he got were funny! Those people were stupid, who would stare for that long! They should of glanced and ran for their lives...even though that wouldn't of made a difference!$LABEL$ 1
+Being a fan of cheesy horror movies, I saw this in my video shop and thought I would give it a try. Now that I've seen it I wish it upon no living soul on the planet. I get my movie rentals for free, and I feel that I didn't get my moneys worth. I've seen some bad cheesy horror movies in my time, hell I'm a fan of them, but this was just an insult.$LABEL$ 0
+I used to like some of the Hollywood action blockbusters of the 80s. They had icons such as Arnie and Sly but I think the action movie in the '90s has plummeted to new depths. The worst of these, I believe, was Armageddon.The plot is shamelessly contrived and pulls off the worst cliches as it seeks to excite viewers. The melodrama is so cringingly saccharine and awful that you actually cannot wait for Bruce Willis to disappear from the screen. Liv Tyler, who had acted admirably in several fine independent features directed by such masters as Bernardo Bertolucci and Robert Altman, regrettably decided to jump onto the commercial bandwagon. This movie symbolises the new Hollywood aesthetic of grand special effects and precious little good dialogue or authentic melodrama. That is the norm these days and I begin to wonder if there is a role in Hollywood for screenwriters. It seems as though they just employ hacks and committees to write the facile scripts. The rest they leave to technology. There is not a single piece of grand, heartfelt human emotion in Armageddon. It just feels empty and bland. I can think of only one good aspect of this movie and that involves Liv Tyler's dad who doesn't even make an appearance in the film. Steven Tyler's band Aerosmith provide a theme song for the movie - a ballad that really soars and at least tugs at the heartstrings a little when the end credits come up.I weep for Western civilization if people like this predictable, cumbersome movie. It stands for shallowness, lethargy, and a decline in the human intellect. I would even prefer to watch the eighth Friday the 13th.$LABEL$ 0
+This Was One Scary Movie.Brad Pitt Deserved an Oscar for this.A traveling novelist (played by David Duchovny of the X-Files fame) and his girlfriend pick up two hitch-hikers(Juliette Lewis and Brad Pitt) on their way to California. On their way they stop at infamous serial killer murder scenes to photography the scenes for an upcoming book Duchovny's character is working on, little do they know that the most disturbed serial killer in the history of the country is sitting right next to them in the same car.$LABEL$ 1
+This picture reminds me of a Keneth More picture from 1957 called The Admirable Crighton" whilst on the boat he was a servant and on the island he became the master and upon being saved reverted back to servant. Madonna did OK in some movies however this one doesn't fire. If there is any picture that show Madonna can't act it is this one.I am not sure whether this was a subtle copy of "The Admirable Crighton" but it sure looks like it and if thats the case then Hollywood must be running out of ideas and that is sad. to provide a platform for actors to improve their career profile and just on that this fails in every corner and detail.The plot is loose and the acting is mediocre. The script should have been put thru the shredder before taking it on location. While many here have canned Madoona for all her acting I think that in films like "A League of Their own" was quite good and enjoyable and "Who's That Girl" showed a quirkiness of Madonna's style not shown before or afterwards. Other Madonna films are not as enjoyable and I would have liked a to see a Madonna Animation series with the character from "Who's That Girl" I like the music from these two films however "Swept away" remains at the bottom of the pile here and will remain so.everyone has a bomb right?$LABEL$ 0
+Anyone who has experienced the terrors of divorce will empathize with this indie film's protagonist, a scared little boy who believes a zombie is hiding in his closet. Is Jake (a mesmerizing Anthony DeMarco) simply "transferring" the trauma of two bickering parents to an understandable image? Or could the creature be real? Writer/director Shelli Ryan neatly balances both possibilities and keeps the audience guessing. Her choice of using one setting - a suburban house - adds to the feeling of desperation and claustrophobia.Brooke Bloom and Peter Sean Bridgers are highly convincing as the angry, but loving parents. However it is the creepy minor characters, Mrs. Bender(Barbara Gruen), an unhinged babysitter and Sam Stone (Ben Bode), a sleazy Real estate agent that linger in the mind. Jake's Closet is a darkly inspired portrait of childhood as a special kind of Hell.$LABEL$ 1
+The directing is brilliant, the casting is remarkable (though I would've loved to have seen a little more of Aaron Lustig (from Y & R fame), who played Paul Shaffer). I only have two minor quips about the film, as subtle as they are. One- Roebuck's Leno is excellent, but his stage presence (i.e. during what appears the taping of one of his late show episodes) is a tad underwhelming. Two- the distribution of the foul language. I am willing to tolerate foul language, so long as it is not used gratuitously, and to a degree, the film was gratuitous. The language seemed to be used as a tool to reduce the pathos of Bates' otherwise well-portrayed Kushnick by her frequent use of it, and served to make Roebuck's Leno a goody-goody by his lack of use of it (of course, if the characters really did behave this way, kudos to everybody). Nonetheless, the piece is an excellent one, as far as television and video are concerned. The film, I feel, had potential for the big screen, but would've required re-casting for the bit parts, and probably a different director, as well (the aesthetic feel is that of the Larry Sanders show, good for HBO, mediocre for cinematic purposes).$LABEL$ 1
+This is a children's TV series about a Mary-Sue who is at the same time, mean and bitchy. I couldn't bring my self to sit through 3 episodes of Zoey101. Not to mention that Jamie Lynn Spears can't act to save her life! What message does this show bring to kids? If you're not perfect like Zoey, you're unworthy *rollseyes*.It's absurd how Zoey's character is exactly the type of person who would be despised in real life yet she manages to become so popular. Then there is Chase who is basically a lovesick puppy who worships the ground Zoey walks on. Then there is the fact that all the other characters seem to have been dumbed down in order to stop them from outshining Zoey. I'm sorry but the characterization in this show = extremely unrealistic.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a pretty well known one so i won't get too deep into it. The basic story is about two teens who find out about a slimy alien blob of goo that arrives to earth via meteor. Human contact with this slime ball burns through flesh like acid. It also absorbs human bodies making it grow bigger. Nobody believes the teens (Steeve McQueen and his girlfriend) and when they finally do it seems that the blob can't be stopped. It's really well done for it's age and unlike a lot of other 50's flicks the pace is pretty fast. The story is very unique making it and a must see for any fan of old sci-fi and monster movies. If you can dig the gooey gore of 80s horror be sure to check out the remake from '88 as well.$LABEL$ 1
+Enough is enough...sometimes they just need to stop making movies based on a concept that is long dead. The first Tremors movie was great. The second one was ridiculous. The third one was nauseating. The tv series was depressingly awful. And this movie just drives the stake deeper.Basically another excuse for cheap computer effects and puppetry, now we have the series set in the Wild West, in the 1800's, and they fight graboids. Like a rehash of the first one, they have to learn how to beat them all over again. Mildly entertaining I suppose. Otherwise this straight-to-video release, just like Tremors 2 and 3, is just going way too far. Oh and I continue to wonder how there is never any record of these events taking place...did they just simply forget to record this unprecedented event? I think something like this would be history-making, so our pals in the first film wouldn't be so unprepared. Movies like this that ruin the original just make me crazy. Avoid this garbage.$LABEL$ 0
+This film was the first British teen movie to actually address the reality of the violent rock and roll society, rather than being a lucid parody of 1950s teenage life. In an attempt to celebrate the work of Liverpool's Junior Liaison Officers the opening title points out that 92% of potential delinquents, who have been dealt with under this scheme, have not committed a second crime. However, this becomes merely a pretext to the following teen-drama until the film's epilogue where we are instructed that we shouldn't feel responsible or sorry for such delinquents however mixed-up they might seem.Stanley Baker plays a tough detective who reluctantly takes on the post of Juvenile Liaison Officer. This hard-boiled character is a role typical of Baker. Having been currently on the trail of a notorious arsonist known as the firefly and does not relish the distraction of the transfer. However, as in all good police dramas he is led back full circle by a remarkable turn of events, back to his original investigation.His first case leads him to the home of two young children, Mary and Patrick Murphy (played by real-life brother and sister duo), who have committed a petty theft. Here he meets Cathie (satisfyingly portrayed by Anne Heywood) their older sister whom he eventually becomes romantically involved with. It quickly becomes obvious that the squalid environment of such inner-city estates is a breeding ground for juvenile delinquency.The elder brother of the Murphy family, Johnny, is the leader of a gang of rock and roll hoodlums. McCallum does an eye-catching turn as the Americanized mixed-up kid, who owes more to the likes of Marlon Brando, than any previous British star. One is reminded of Brando's character Johnny from 'The Wild One' who led a leather-clad gang of rebellious bikers in much the same way as this film's 'Johnny' leads his gang.Thankfully the preachiness of earlier Dearden crime dramas such as 'The Blue Lamp' is not so apparent. Instead we are presented with several well drawn-out characters on both sides of the law as the drama of the delinquents and the romantic interest between Heywood and Baker takes the forefront.The plot, whilst at times predictable, does deliver some memorable scenes. The disruptive influence that rock and roll music was thought to have had is played out in a scene where Johnny abandons himself to the music, leading a menacing advance on the police sergeant. The most grippingly memorable piece of film however is the climatic classroom scene where a bunch of terrified school children, including Mary and Patrick, are held hostage at gunpoint by Johnny. Obviously in the light of the real-life Dumblaine Massacre this scene seems all the horrifying. Understandably because of this the film is seldom aired or available to modern audiences.$LABEL$ 1
+Saw this film during the Mod & Rockers fest in August. I was so inspired and touched. Harry had an amazing life and one of the best and distinct voices ever recorded. For those of you who don't know about Harry Nilsson do a little research and you'll see that Harry has probably found his way into your life in one way or another - maybe it was his 70s special "The Point" or "Everybody's Talking" from Midnight Cowboy. For me it started with "people let me tell you bout my best friend" - the theme song from "The Courtship of Eddie's Father." Watching this film you can really feel the love and admiration from Harry's true friends and peers. Don't shed a tear for Harry - he had a ball...Brett$LABEL$ 1
+Take "Rambo," mix in some "Miami Vice," slice the budget about 80%, and you've got something that a few ten-year-old boys could come up with if they have a big enough backyard & too much access to "Penthouse." Cop and ex-commando McBain (Busey, and with a name like McBain, you know he's as gritty as they come) is recruited to retrieve an American supertank that has been stolen & hidden in Mexico. Captured with the tank were hardbitten Sgt. Major O'Rourke (Jones) & McBain's former love Devon (Fluegel), the officer in command & now meat for the depraved terrorists/spies/drug peddlers, who have no sense of decency, blah, blah, blah. For an action movie with depraved sex, there's a dearth of action and not much sex. The running joke is that McBain gets shot all the time & survives, keeping the bullets as souvenirs. Apparently the writers didn't see "The Magnificent Seven" ("The man for us is the one who GAVE him that face"), nor thought to give McBain even a pretense of intelligence. Even for a budget actioner, the production values are poor, with distant shots during dialog and very little movement. The main prop, the tank, is silly enough for an Ed Wood production. Fluegel, who might have been a blonde Julia Roberts (she had a far bigger role in "Crime Story" than Julia!) has to go from simpering to frightened to butt-kicking & back again on an instant's notice. Jones, who's been in an amazing array of films, pretty much hits bottom right here. Both he & Busey were probably just out for some easy money & a couple of laughs. Look for talented, future character actor Danny Trejo ("Heat," "Once Upon a Time in Mexico") in a stereotyped, menacing bit part. Much too dull even for a guilty pleasure, "Bulletproof" is still noisy enough to play when you leave your house but want people to think there's someone home.$LABEL$ 0
+this movie is not as bad as some say it is infact i think it`s more enjoyable than the original . maybe that`s why some people hate it as much cos they dont want to admit it`s a good (not great) movie.most if not all fx were done by C.G.I which i didn`t mind at all cos it was an enjoyable movie. Phil Buckman - (Chris) was in my opinion the best guy in the movie Julie Delpy was rather attractive she brought the sexiness to the movie.there were a lot of wisecracks in the movie which i thought were good. this movie is in my collection but the original is not because i dont like it as much as this one. i was not bored when i watched this movie it kept me watching unlike some horror movies i could mention like oh say = driller killer & suspiria (dario argento`s movie) thats to name but two.this is an ok werewolf film it should be in people`s collection if they like werewolf movies maybe i`ll get the original at some point maybe. i have only one complaint and that is Phil Buckman - (Chris) should have been in it more than he was but apart from that the movie was fine.rating for this movie 8/10 an ok werewolf movie not the worst one out there.$LABEL$ 1
+It is a shame that this series hasn't been remastered and produced on video by Warner or some other professional movie house.Copies of most episodes are available, but are usually of poor quality, being copies of copies of copies.As I understand it, 92 episodes were produced during its run, but only 15 are noted here.Some of the series writers, such as Richard Matheson, went on to become noted authors.Excellent series, well written, well staged and well produced.Michael Weldon,Udon Thani, Thailand$LABEL$ 1
+Martin Ritt's first film offers an exceptional existentialist answer (three years later) to Elia Kazan's more conservative "On The Waterfront." While "Waterfront" benefited immensely from an electrifying Marlon Brando, who inadvertently disguised Kazan's offensive theme of trying to justify naming names (as Kazan did eagerly before the House Un-American Activities Committee), "Edge of the City" boasts a young John Cassavetes and an upstart Sidney Poitier daring to confront issues that "Waterfront" failed to acknowledge, namely, workers' rights and race relations."Edge of the City" boldly dives into this (then) unknown territory, and although the quite appealing black protagonist (Poitier) may seem a bit Hollywood simplistic, the courageous struggle against thinly-veiled bigotry and violence has hardly aged at all. One wonders how shocked initial 1957 moviegoers were at such a bold presentation of white-black relations (if some of the bigoted didn't leave the theater early, they must of left dumbfounded, if not offended). The last reel of the film will still surprise audiences, as it refuses to sink into expected clichés, including those that tainted "Waterfront." Only the most jaded viewers will not realize what a radical and entertaining film "Edge of the City" ends up being.What's most disturbing about this lost classic: how it sadly remains unavailable on any format, for reasons that remain quite cloudy. This film should be required viewing in high school or college history classes across the country, yet one can only find it on obscure late-night TV, if ever at all.$LABEL$ 1
+And a rather Unexpected plot line too-for the era: there is Plague in the City of New Orleans-and only Richard Widmark can stop it! Elia Kazan's trademark subjects: waterfronts, working men, crowds, fugitives, blue collar folk, violence on a backstreet-are all showcased here.Jack Palance is quite effective as the ice-cold mobster out for a big score, Zero Mostel as Dom Delouise somewhat miscast but certainly watchable as his go-fer. I enjoyed Barbara Bel Geddes as the stalwart, cool wife-I thought she and Widmark were a believable couple.He himself always reminds me somewhat of Sinatra-in the face and in the intense quiet manner-and that is meant as a compliment if anything. I'd never even heard of this movie, and yes, you have to admire Widmark's performance. I also enjoyed Paul Douglas-he seemed to play this role many times, they make an unlikely but effective team.The plague itself is a McGuffin-and you gotta know it's not exactly done the way it would have been in Real Life-rather small-scale at the least no?-but I found it carried the plot along nicely.Check this out. It's good. *** outta ****$LABEL$ 1
+Being one of the founding fathers of my regions monkey movie club(this also includes apes/chimps and orangutans) I am reviewing this film from a monkey movie standpoint. Afterall it is a whole summer of monkeys, 100+ days for monkeys to do what they do best, cause mischief, shenanigans, hyjinx, solve human problems and teach us about ourselves.The story is simple enough. In short poor boy needs money for stuff he wants. Luckily there's a few monkeys(chimpanzees) that have a bounty on their head that would get Boba Fett or Dog's(Duane Chapman) blood flowing. As the boy tries to catch the monkeys he learns about himself, his family, his grandpa, the local weirdo, flirts with a girl twice his age and learns the beast way to deal with bullies is to have someone point a shotgun at them.There within lies the problem. So much focus is put on the boy that the chimps just don't get the screen time they deserve. The chimps are not as talented as the chimp(s) that play Jack from the M_P trilogy or the legendary orangutans that play Dunstin or Clyde(1 or 2). So don't watch this movie expecting to find the next big thing in the Chimp genre. The chimps hit some sweet flips which is what the film needed more of. There is an epic scene of the chimps breaking into the poor families house and destroys all the things they worked so hard for. Serious monkey movie enthusiasts will want to rent the film for this scene alone.So in closing this movie is not for the serious monkey movie enthusiast. I wouldn't recommend this movie to families as it encourages a childs rebellion against their parents. I can only recommend this film as a rental for hardcore monkey loving adults and well supervised children.$LABEL$ 0
+Also known as the Big Spook War. The Great Yokai War is Miike's attempt at a family film and damn fine job he does as well. The problem is that I can't imagine many parents wanting to subject their children to this movie. The best kids movies are the ones that are scary or have mildly disturbing imagery, Neverending Story and Return to Oz spring to mind, but in the case of the Great Yokai War Miike probably takes things a little too far. In fact at the screening I was at the person introducing the movie reiterated to the two families there that it was probably not very suitable.The film kicks off with the young hero of the piece introducing himself and explaining about his current family problems. This brief moment of mundanity is sharply broken as a cow gives birth to a calf with the face of a human whom screams that something horrendous is coming before falling dead like the abomination it is (it is quite possible that the sheer hideousness of the creature is some bizarre Quato homage).Following an incredible introduction for main baddie Kato, and his henchwoman Agi (a surprisingly attractive Chiaki Kuriyami), by way of an apocalyptic army raising. The story reverts to normal for a while, but it doesn't take long before any and all logic goes down the drain and the young boy teams up with a group of Miyazaki rejects to take out the evil sorcerer.The plot of the movie is fairly basic and surprisingly hackneyed at times, the entire chosen one just seems completely out of place in a movie which so regularly breaks clichés, but is aided by a simple awe inspiring vision of a magical world. This really is a Miyazaki movie made into a live action movie, albeit a much seedier and more vicious than usual Miyazaki movie.The film is simply a joy to look at the designs of the Yokai is colourful, and largely practical, while the evil robotic monstrosities while not displaying the best CGI in the world have a practicality and menace to them which gives them far more of a palpable threat than you would imagine.The cast is uniformly excellent, they just make their characters seem perfectly natural which is commendable when you consider that most of them are in full body makeup or latex suits. Even Agi lumbered with a ridiculous beehive comes across as sultry and deadly thanks to surprisingly excellent acting from Kuriyami.While the film does have many elements which put it firmly into family movie territory; cute creatures, junior heroes, a thoroughly evil villain, a sense of mischief and adventure, and a telling lack of violence. There are elements which make you question whether Miike should have directed such a movie.The robot army is a genuinely terrifying menace everyday items warped into monstrous beasts that look like T-101 sans skin and with added chainsaws. These beasts rip characters to pieces; suck creatures into their blood stained mouths, and abduct children from their homes by swiping them right from under their parent's nose before indulging in a little patricide.The creation of the creature is equally arduous for young minds. The Yokai, essentially the heroes, are feed into a giant furnace full of a liquidised form of hate which corrodes the Yokai's flesh and forces their angry souls to possess lumps of metal. If kids thought smouldering Anakin was bad wait til they see a man sized hedgehog burning to death in a vat of molten hatred for a minute before being turned into an abomination of a motorcycle. There is also limb severing, in one case a severed hand twitches in front of the camera dripping with blood, a fair amount of sexual energy (Agi wears one dress designed specifically for fan service and seems to only have sleeping with Kato as motivation, while the Princess of the Rivers wears next to nothing and gets her thighs groped by the young hero in several scenes), and general humour which will go right over the heads of those that this technicolour wonder was seemingly designed for.Spoilers An Example of this being that the Yokai only become interested in the final battle when they think it is a big party. The subsequent battle more of a festival than anything, complete with beer, crowd surfing and moshing. Also a scene where Agi beats the tar out of a cute furry creature seems designed to appeal to the masses jaded by pokemon overkill.End Spoilers At the end of the day The Great Yokai War is easily on of Miike's stronger recent films. While it lacks some of the perverse charm of say Gozu or Ichi it is just continually pushing the audience down a road of general insanity. In fact this is easily Miike's most deranged movie in that he embraces the sheer magic of the subject so wholeheartedly.Well worth a watch just for the occasional flash of Gogo arse.$LABEL$ 1
+The opening of "The Jungle" promises us a safari adventure with a science fiction element, but mostly what we get is a travelogue with lots of stock footage and padding (and the odd leopard attack). The movie is leisurely when you want it to be gripping, and tries to inject interest into the proceedings with badly staged matches between various wild animals (I had no idea that lions and wild boars were natural enemies in the wild, did you? I thought the big cats stuck to hunting herbivores, but apparently the producers knew better). As for the actors: Cesar does his usual great job of rocking the mustache, and Marie Windsor is reasonably believable as the progressively thinking rajah's daughter (nice eyebrows, btw!). However, Rod Cameron is barely watchable as the hunter returning as the sole survivor of his expedition. I'm sure he was in demand in his day, but here he comes off as a Rent-A-Center Bogart : rough looking, but with none of Bogey's range or timing. He spends the movie going back and forth from stoic anger to angry stoicism, and any time the screenplay attempts to crank up some romantic sparks between himself and Windsor, you just have to laugh. That crabbed, knobby face isn't a good vehicle for tenderness. The screenplay is not entirely without merit, although it does make some odd choices. Early in the first act, the screenplay makes a point of spending several moments where the heroes decide to bring along the obligatory clever young boy and monkey mascot, but then basically ignore them until ***SPOILER*** the monkey somehow gets hold of a live hand grenade during the mammoth scene and accidentally tosses near Windsor. This is so Cameron can prove his bravery by diving on it and saving her life at the cost of his own.***END SPOILER. It's possible that the Indian version of this movie (which I understand ran better than 2 1/2 hours), might have given the kid and the monkey more to do. Another thing that makes the film show its age **SPOILER**is the issue of the woolly mammoths (the plot device that sets the safari into motion in the first place). When they finally appear, the way the scene is filmed, it's obvious that the "mammoths" (obviously elephants draped in shag carpeting) aren't really "attacking" anyone, or even moving all that fast, and yet Cameron immediately sets to trying to wipe them out with hand grenades. These days, the idea of destroying the last known specimens of a species thought to be extinct would be unthinkable, especially when all they seem to do is roll through the jungle at a nice walking pace.***END OF SPOILER***So IMO, four stars, which is pretty good for a Robert Lippert production (normally Lippert hack jobs rate two or three stars at best). It's not a train wreck of a film, or anything; plus, it seems to mean well,with the rajah's daughter arguing for amelioration of the most repressive aspect of the "traditional ways" and the elements of "mixed race" romance that was pretty progressive in 1952. And there's some nice scenery and exotic spectacle. See it if someone offers to show it to you for free, but don't expect much except an interesting historical chapter of early fantasy cinema.$LABEL$ 0
+This film is one of the best of all time, certainly in the horror genre. The claustrophobic atmosphere is outstanding, the music is just as good as the film and the killer is as creepy as can be! Actors are fantastic, RIP Donald Pleasance you were fantastic as Dr Loomis, he made the film even better. Without him the film would be missing a vital ingredient. Jamie Lee Curtis is also superb as our beloved scream queen! Her innocence makes her unaware of the real evil that is after her until she finds her friends grossly murdered in the house, which of course is one of the films best scenes. She gives a tremendous performance. I loved this film since it scared me like hell back when I seen it in the very early 80's and I still watch it to this day as it is a marvellous movie that just brings you in to this world were you could be gutted like a fish at every turn! The fact that it is a simple format of a mad man in a mask whom has escaped from a mental asylum and ready to kill everyone in sight without them having any idea that he is there, is just shockingly terrifying and indulges you even more into the movie as the events though fiction could easily be come true. We all know that unfortunately evil does exist in this world and a mad man with a knife is certainly not uncommon, a very disturbing an deep fear for all of this. Death at any turn. Halloween of course shows this in it's most terrifying way. Horror should be believable, and that is what makes the film enjoyable. It's just a simple story that is made into an excellent and terrifying atmosphere. As well as Psycho's superb storyline, both of which I adore, I believe there formats are the best horror has to offer. To me Halloween and Psycho are the best films I have ever seen and I will watch them all my life and never grow tired of them. Halloween is undoubtedly one of the best movies of all time.$LABEL$ 1
+In celebration of Earth Day Disney has released the film "Earth". Stopping far short of any strident message of gloom and doom, we are treated to some excellent footage of animals in their habitats without feeling too bad about ourselves.The stars of the show are a herd of elephants, a family of polar bears and a whale and its calf. The narrative begins at the North Pole and proceeds south until we reach the tropics, all the while being introduced to denizens of the various climatic zones traversed.Global warming is mentioned in while we view the wanderings of polar bear; note is made of the shrinking sea ice islands in more recent years. We never see the bears catch any seals, but the father's desperate search for food leads him to a dangerous solution.The aerial shots of caribou migrating across the tundra is one of the most spectacular wildlife shots I ever saw; it and another of migrating wildfowl are enough to reward the price of admission to see them on the big screen.One of the disappointments I felt was that otherwise terrific shots of great white sharks taking seals were filmed in slow motion. Never do you get the sense of one characteristic of wild animals; their incredible speed. The idea of slowing down the film to convey great quickness I think began with (or at least it's the first I recall seeing) the television show "Kung Fu" during the early Seventies.An interesting sidelight is that as the credits roll during the end some demonstrations of the cinematographic techniques employed are revealed. There are enough dramatic, humorous and instructive moments in this movie to make it a solid choice for nature buffs. Perhaps because of some selective editing (sparing us, as it were, from the grisly end of a prey-predator moment) and the fact that this footage had been released in 2007 and is available on DVD it is a solid film in its own right. And you can take your kids!Three stars.$LABEL$ 1
+This is definitely one of the best kung fu movies ever, and may be one of the best movies ever... It's got a great plot that functions like a puzzle, with lots of intrigue and suspense. This film is full of cat and mouse games and deceptions, with people hiding their identities and their natures. The characters in this film live and breath much more than your average kung fu movie characters. They are all interesting and compelling and the movie does a good job at giving them scenes to show their personality's and desires.The fight scenes play out like little stories and many of them are very original and exciting. It has cool training sequences and martial arts skills that are so awesome they enter the realm of fantasy. There are 5 members of the poison clan each one with his own style that mimics the special skill of a venomous animal. The styles of each of these characters are fun to watch and you can see the techniques they use in training applied during the film... When this happens, The director uses quick cutting back to the training scene to draw a parallel. These cuts are accompanied by music changes and sound effects and the whole thing really works nicely.One thing about this movie that is very original is the way it treats death. The director Chang Cheh was obviously very concerned that the film not trivialize death. This makes some of the scenes in the movie much more effective. We actually care when people are killed in this film. This is because the camera lingers on the horror of death even when the bad guys are killed. Some of the sequences in this movie are truly gut wrenching. When characters go in search of vengeance you really feel their anger and pain.At the same time, this is also a fun movie. It has all the typical things you expect from a traditional kung fu film. There is bad dubbing, The characters are willing to fight at the drop of a hat. Some of the sound effects are hilarious and at times the behavior of the characters is incredibly unrealistic... all this just adds to the greatness of the film.And lets not forget that this director was a visual stylist much more gifted than most of his contemporaries. If you watch this movie closely you will notice that the technical prowess on display is virtuostic. Everything goes by so fast (because of the quick cutting style and the rapid camera movements of the genre) that it is easy to overlook how beautiful the movie really is. The lighting and composition are spectacular at times. The camera work and movement is extremely sophisticated along with very interesting fast paced editing... In the scenes that portray suspense and intrigue for example, imagine Hitchcock moving at about twice the speed. Chang Cheh was truly a master craftsman and artist who knew his genre and was able to produce important material while working within it's confines. He doesn't rattle the boat of the kung fu genre film, but in a subtle way his skills permeate every scene and every shot and they add greatly to the quality of the work. He is an important filmmaker who continues to influence many people.This is the real package A kung fu movie that delivers on every level. It's art, it's trash, it's emotionally moving, and it's fun, it has a true sense of morality, but doesn't allow that morality to get in the way of delivering good action. I recommend it to everybody whether you are a fan of this genre or not.$LABEL$ 1
+The girls might be prettier if you're their accompanist or a $#!+-faced onlooker. What I'm sayin' is that it'll take special circumstances for a non-whince reaction to this effort. The delivery of many lines appears to be distractingly unnatural for some actors. Lighting seems to be a problem, too, although failing eyesight may have accounted for my frequent squinting. And if you view this film, be open-minded enough to accept elements that no zoo or circus would reject: They are the above and below-ground creatures who feasted on dozens of campers near an empty Louisiana mansion. That's the discovery of a trio who is dispatched from their printed media to investigate the deaths. Then, two of THEM disappear, and the survivor is part of another threesome who take up the hunt. Eureka! I just realized what one of those aforementioned "special circumstances" would be - unconsciousness.$LABEL$ 0
+(Very light spoilers, maybe.) Normally a fan of Diane Keaton, I tried to watch this tonight. I had to switch it off before the second hour because I found myself with absolutely no sympathy for daughter or mother. Both came across as self-absorbed with little regard for others, with the daughter also adding in rude, disrespectful and reckless to the mix. When the daughter died, the only thing I thought was, "At least we won't have to watch her anymore." Keaton did a good job of moving into her stunned state and into the grieving, but it was too far gone for me by then. I simply wasn't enjoying it, so I stopped watching. If you want me to care for the protagonist, you need to get me caring about the characters much sooner--if it's nearly an hour in and I don't care, it's too late.The supporting cast was sincere and well played--I felt for *them!*--and the gay best friend was wonderful, but even combined, that wasn't enough to carry the film for me.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie pretty much surprised me. I didn't have very high expectations for it but I was wrong. Mary & Rhoda was very funny and well written. They didn't spend too much time rehashing the past so they weren't relying on the success of the old TV show to carry the movie. Overall it was very entertaining.My girlfriend commented that this could be a weekly sit-com and I think I might agree with her.$LABEL$ 1
+In a recent biography of Alec Guinness I couldn't find too much about To Paris With Love. I'm sure Guinness did the film to get a free trip to Paris out of it. The film has no other reason for existence.Paris of course is nicely photographed with that wonderful opening of Guinness and his son driving down the Champs Elysee with the Arc De Triomphe in the background. Unfortunately it goes downhill from there.There is just no chemistry at all between Guinness and the young girl who he has a brief fling with in Paris. According to the recent biography of Guinness by Piers Paul Read, Guinness positively disliked the girl, found her conduct unprofessional. As to what Odile Vernois thought of her co-star, no record is available. They have as much chemistry as two neutered cats.Guinness does have a good moment in the film which was straight from one of his Ealing comedies as he climbs a tree trying to retrieve a badminton shuttlecock. But I wouldn't wait through the film for it.At least Alec got a trip to Paris out of the deal.$LABEL$ 0
+Best of the Zorro serials and one of my favorite serials, period. This is a period serial set right after the birth of Mexico. The new nation is counting on the gold produced by this one town to keep the republic solvent. However a gold god, Don del Oro is stirring up the Indians and stealing the gold for himself. Its Zorro and his band of men to the rescue. Reed Hadley is a winning Zorro and he cuts a dashing figure as he gets into a nice selection of scraps (most all of which were reused by the later Zorro serials as well as other serials as well).The story moves and its nicely not clear who the real bad guy is. There is a reason that I've seen this the most of any serial I've seen, its simply a great action adventure film. The only thing I can compare it to is the Mark of Zorro with Tyrone Power or one of the other swashbucklers of the period. Its super and highly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+The show is about two sisters living together. Holly being the younger one has some teenage problems on the other hand her sister Val has job,boy friend,fiancé problems like most of the women on the planet. They try to support each other they make mistakes sometimes but they don't give up and continue. And the show is also about friendship. The priorities in life. I loved this show so much. It is funny and the actors are so good. I am really sad that the show is over. I still watch the reruns time to time:) Amanda Bynes is very talented. Jenny Garth may be new to comedy but she plays really well. She is one of the actresses i like watching. I like Vince and Holly's relationship they are very natural. Gary is a natural talent and makes you laugh each time he shows up. With Tina Holly found a real friend and i really like them hanging out. Lauren character is so funny and she is a natural talent. I would like to see her more. This show really takes you in and makes you laugh. I wish the show hasn't been over.$LABEL$ 1
+The line, of course, is from the Lord's Prayer - "Thy Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven". Sweden, especially its far north, is not my idea of heaven -30 degree C winter temperatures are a little on the low side for me, but the good folk who live there no doubt think they are in God's own country.The storyline here is a familiar one. Acclaimed international musician Daniel suffers health breakdown in mid-career, goes back to the little village in northern Sweden where he was born. Persuaded by the local pastor to help out with the church choir, he turns some unlikely talent into a class act, and they enter a contest held in Innsbruck Austria. There are echoes (sorry) of the band players of "Brassed Off" the models of "Calendar Girls" and the dancers of "the Full Monty". But of course he causes plenty of emotional upheaval as some of the more downtrodden villagers realise their worth and revolt against their oppressors. He faces hostile husbands and an increasingly dubious pastor, but nothing except death is going to stop him.Despite the somewhat corny story, we get to know and like many of the characters, who come across as people rather than caricatures despite many of them being recognisable "types'. I did wonder about the wife-beater being unpunished for so long – Sweden is one country in the world where such violence is pretty strongly discouraged (he was also a bit young to be one of the bullies of Daniel's youth) and the puritanical pastor with a secret passion for girlie magazines was a bit of a stereotype, but marvellously realised by Niklas Falk.Michael Nyqvist is simply wonderful as Daniel, the frail but driven musician, and there's some nice music as well. I was rapt for the whole two hours. The ending is what you make of it, I guess, but it's not spoiling it to say Daniel achieves what he set out to do.$LABEL$ 1
+I loved watching the original Azumi with its mix of live action manga, compelling storyline, cool soundtrack, directing (Kitamura rocks!), editing, and not to mention the beautiful Aya Ueto who filled the part perfectly. So I was really looking forward to seeing Azumi 2, but after finally seeing it I felt like i had won the lotto and lost the ticket:( Azumi 2 picks up where Azumi left off, however these are completely 2 different movies. The pace is a lot slower, the action is not as exciting and as well choreographed and there is not a lot of character development. This was apparently directed by the same guy responsible for further reducing the value of the TOHO monster franchise (if that is possible!). I agree with some other past reviewers who say that this was a lost opportunity. If only Ryuhei Kitamura continued with this installment. There is however some beautiful Japanese forest scenery to look at while the slow action unfolds and we are introduced all too briefly to bit characters who quickly get killed off. Even the real bad guys, get killed off too easily without too much of a fight. The fight with the Spider guy (straight out of an episode of Monkey!) in the bamboo forest was about the only memorable fight scene. Wheras in Azumi 1 we had a climactic fight scene with barrel camera effects, Azumi 2 brought us the Azumi cape cam!! Azumi's rampage at the end was unconvincing, but Aya still does an okay job. She looks great in the cape...but where did she get it from? I don't think i will be watching this one over and over again! ...what a pity.$LABEL$ 0
+Leaving aside the drawbacks and deficiencies of the film mentioned by other viewers I must say that it seemed to me a film about power,which is in my opinion one of the most luring illusions. I saw the drama of an emperor and people. It seems to me that the director wanted to pose a question of what the benefit of nation is and what the price of "happiness" for all is. Is there justification for the enforced benefit and "happiness"? How much can be forfeited for the nation's security and peaceful existence? Is the idea of a powerful would-be empire worth reducing to misery and killing thousands of its citizens now? It seems to me that the emperor himself does not know the answer and seeks to learn it all the time the film runs. He is desperately torn between these desires and at the same time psychologically harassed by the discovery of his true origin. He seems to half hate his subjects for having to renounce his father and his love, half love the people as a good emperor should. No wonder his actions are controversial and emotions confused. It seems to me that as another film presenting the problem of power of man over other men the film is a success.$LABEL$ 1
+I cannot argue with other comments that the story line focuses more on the romance between the Mary Martin and Allan Jones characters, much in the manner of "Showboat", than on the life of Victor Herbert. But in the 1930's, would that have been a box office draw? Instead of the Life of VH, perhaps it should have been the Music of VH. There is an abundance of this.For me, the thrill of the movie came near the end of the movie when Susanna Foster sings "Land of Romance". It has been over a decade since I caught this movie for a second time at a local 'old movies' theater. At first the audience was stunned; then it burst into spontaneous applause. I remember the shivers running up and down my spine. My trivia memory recalled the information provided to an inquiring public by a local journalist when the movie first came out back in the late 1930's. 'That note hit by Miss Foster was a far F above high C.'She may not have had four octaves a la Yma Sumac but the then teen-ager certainly had a range!$LABEL$ 1
+On the basis of the preview I'd seen, I went to "Shower" expecting a sweet little comedy; what I found was a profoundly touching drama of family life told in some of the most lush photographic images I've ever been privileged to see. In addition, later reflection made me appreciate the abrupt cuts to scenes from the past (in the arid countryside of Northern China, and in the high plain of Tibet): isn't this how memory often works? One moment I'm here, the next I'm in a landscape from the past, just like that....I would not only strongly recommend this film, I would place it among the two or three finest films I've seen in my 60 years.By the way, a couple of years ago another Asian "comedy" was released in the United States as "Shall We Dance?" (Japanese). Just as with "Shower," the preview gave not the slightest indication of the depth of that film, which turned out to be a subtle psychological study (albeit chock full of funny moments). Is there a fear, on the part of distributors, of making films appear too "important" or "deep" to appeal to U. S. viewers?$LABEL$ 1
+If you like rap or hip-hop, watch this movie, although it's funny if you don't get the references, as a straight comedy.Haven't seen much of the much hyped CB4, but what I did see didn't have the heart that this little stormer has.Haven't heard from the people involved since, which is a surprise. The film is very similar to Spinal Tap, which is no bad thing, and I think a lot of the dialogue, while priceless in Tap is funnier here, probably because I'm more into rap than rock theses days, so my own judgment does cloud that point.The rap songs are funny as hell, and it's basically spot the reference for most of the film, not all of them are in-your-face, which means the physical comedy and the one-liners get priority over the take-offs.Great fun, one to watch twice if there ever was a movie.$LABEL$ 1
+*I mark where there are spoilers! Overall comments: If you can take a serious movie, go see this. Have an open mind and you will enjoy it. Don't leave the theater because you get confused as to what is going on! The movie fits together nicely in the second half. I will be taking my mom to see it again when the movie officially opens. I was lucky to see this at a screening a couple of weeks ago, when Will was going around promoting the movie. He was great--spent a lot of time with the fans. Thank you for the picture Will! About Will's performance: A lot of times when you see a movie with an actor really famous for some other movie/show, you always think of them in their current performance much like you think of them for their past performance. This is not the case with Will Smith in this movie. I didn't picture the Fresh Prince (lol) when I was watching this movie. He was completely and utterly convincing in this very, very serious role. He has grown immensely as an actor. I think he will at least get an Oscar nod for this performance.About his character: Ben is very conflicted and tormented. He's sad...guilt-ridden...very determined, but very scared. Very true to himself. His character has a lot of depth...and somehow, Will managed to bring that to life.About Emily (Rosario): Rosario did a nice job portraying Emily, a woman very much behind on her taxes. Maybe she's not the shining star Will is in this movie, but she was very convincing. I think her character just did not have as much to work with as Will's did.About the plot (no spoilers): I admit that I did NOT like the movie until the second half of it. I knew absolutely nothing about the movie going into it, and nothing made sense until the second part of it or so. But when things eventually fit together, wow. Surprisingly well written and well thought out. It's an extremely intense movie that really sticks with you.It actually takes a lot out of you to watch. In the theater I was in, most people were crying towards the end--even grown men. When you realize what Ben is doing, and why, it's a very powerful moment...******* Minor SPOILERS***** Which is why it's really hard to talk about the plot without giving major things away. I feel like knowing too much about this movie really ruins it. There was a lot of symbolism in the movie that I enjoyed, though. I will mention some of it here (without trying to give a lot away).-The fish that Ben was keeping in his hotel room. At first, it makes no sense whatsoever. There was a LOT of chatter in the movie theater when people realized the reality of the fish.-I hated Ben at the beginning of the movie. By the end of it, I loved him and hated him. That's how convincing Will was. I thought Ben was being a huge jerk to Ezra, a blind man just trying to make his way in the world. Why he was treating Ezra like that also became abundantly clear later in the movie. Wait it out though. Everything in this movie: wait it out.-Ben is a fundamentally good person who made a big mistake that he won't forgive himself for. It's still unclear to me if he was doing what he was doing because he was trying to rid himself of his own guilt, or if he genuinely wanted to help people. I think it's a little bit of both...I think he wanted to help people but also rid himself of his past. I love his character. You love him and hate him because you realize that what he is doing is nothing short of amazing. You hate him because of what he is doing to himself (as a very good person), both physically and emotionally. Nice job Will.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is not funny. It is not entertaining. It does not contain one single second of originality or intelligence, nor does it lead you to take the slightest interest in the characters or situation. Added to that it's about as juvenile a movie as anything in recent memory. It's as if a group of 14 or 15 year old high school kids who had never actually met or had any type of relationship with a real girl had sat down and wrote a movie based on their incorrect fantasies about what being an adult man would be like. This movie is boring, obnoxiously mind-numbing, and at times offensive and disgusting. At most, it contains one or two moments that make you laugh. Also, it seems twice as long as its 85 minute running time.$LABEL$ 0
+Evening is an entertaining movie with quite some depth. All the actors and actresses turn in spectacular performances. With the tremendous cast, though, one expects stellar acting, but in this movie the expectations are exceeded. One can relate to personalities and situations in ones own family. As one watches the interaction of the family members one's own family memories are immediately brought to mind. This is one of the few movies that inspires one to read the book. Usually it is the other way around; one reads the book and then wants to see the movie. I will definitely obtain a copy of the Susan Minot book and read it. The Rhode Island scenery is spectacular as is the soundtrack. Any car buff will enjoy the apparently expertly restored period automobiles. Needless to say now, but I recommend Evening highly. See it you will enjoy it.$LABEL$ 1
+There can be no questions of spoilers for this movie, the director beat us all too and spoiled this movie in oh so many ways.A blatant rip-off of stuff like Critters and Gremlins, this movie fails on so many levels to recapture the humour and horror of those better made films. It ends up a sleazy waste of time, where bad actors deliver bad dialogue in front of an idiot director, who occasionally tosses stuffed toys at them. They wrestle with said toys in much the same manner as old Tarzan films used to use rubber crocodiles, shaking them whilst screaming and trying their best to make it look slightly threatening. It's painful to watch, and not helped by the mental 80's fashions worn by the cast.Basically, some crazy little aliens who have been trapped by an aging security guard in a film lot finally get free after umpteen years confinement, and begin to telepathically screw around with peoples minds. The guards new recruit, the idiot who let them out despite repeated warnings, gets his gang of 80's friends together and they go off and have minor adventures together while trying to recapture the Grem... Hobgoblins.All life is here, with the gang consisting of a knucklehead jock, his 80's slut girlfriend, the 'hero's frigid and prissy girlfriend, and the young hero, lacking in confidence and wishing his girlfriend would put out anyway.First off comes the infamous rake fighting scene, where the ex-military jock shows how he was trained in the army to be a bully, poking the nerdy hero with the wrong end of a rake for what seems like hours. Then there's some running around, terminating in a real pie-fight style ending in a scuzzy nightclub with comedy hand-grenades blowing up everything except the people standing right next to them. Then the film sorta ends, and alls well that ends well.It's not. This is like watching a train wreck, you cant take your eyes off it, it's so bad. Perfect fare for Mystery Science Theater, but god-awful should you try to watch it alone and uncut. The Fashion Police still have a number of outstanding warrants for the cast, and I dare anyone not to laugh in outright derision at the rake fight. This scores 2 out of 10 at most, on a good day.$LABEL$ 0
+If you are used to seeing Gabriel Byrne in serious roles such as Tom in Millers Crossing or Keaton in The Usual Suspects I recommend you take a look at this film. Even if you are not a fan of Gabriel Byrne in particular, all the actors in this film give really great performances. If you've got about eleven bucks (that is close to nine quid) I say order it online, or rent it from you favorite movie rental place. Guaranteed to make you laugh, whether or not you normally like gangster type movies. Mad Dog Time/Trigger Happy is one of those movies you never forget, and find yourself watching over and over. You will talk about it so much your friends will be begging to borrow it.$LABEL$ 1
+Besides Planes, Trains and Automobiles and Uncle Buck, this is John Candy's funniest movie. When he gets hypnotized with the playing card (similar to the Manchurian Candidate) and becomes a horny guy who does not know what he is saying, he makes two very memorable quotes (Both deal with the male anatomy). The love scene involving grocery items has to be seen, it cannot be described.$LABEL$ 1
+This was a great movie but it had the worst ending I think I have ever seen!!! The actors were great and displayed wonderful talent. The entire story was twisted and unexpecting, which, is what made it entertaining. As good as the movie was, the entire film is judged by the ending, which was terrible! Maybe a sequel could eliminate this bad ending.$LABEL$ 1
+It's difficult to know where this adaptation starts going wrong, because I think the problem begins with the books themselves. Alexander McCall Smith has worked out that you read them not for the detective stories, but for his deeply condescending and completely spurious vision of an Africa that does not exist. He's done for Botswana what Borat did for Kazakhstan - not as successfully, but based in as much fact.Once I realised this, it ceased to gall me that Jill Scott, an American singer/actress, is cast as Mma Ramotswe. If she is to represent a land that is not Africa, how appropriate that she is a black woman who is not African? She's not the only American on the cast; Mma Makutsi is played by Anika Noni Rose. Both women are far, far too young for the roles they're playing, and far too glamorous. Both brutally murder the local accents, and both focus so entirely on this brutality that they fail to offer much in the way of acting. Scott's Mma Ramotswe is bouncy, cute and soft. Rose's Mma Makutsi is an annoying motor-mouthed bitch.The result is almost unwatchable. The principal cast is redeemed only by the presence of Lucian Msamati, who turns in a decent performance as Mr JLB Matekoni. Hes comes off smarter and more intense than in the books, but I find myself unable to blame Msamati for this - he's a shining light in an ocean of suckage. The contradictions between his performance and the books are clearly laid at the feet of whichever committee of butchers wrote the script.To me, McCall Smith's writing has always been highly entertaining yet notoriously bad. He refuses to be edited. As a result, his books contain experiments in grammar that border on the scientific, and characters that change name mid-sentence. It is therefore something of an achievement that the writing team on this project actually made it worse.The dialogue is now largely Anglicised. Characters speak of "opening up" and "sensitivity to needs". Mma Ramotswe and Mr JLB Matekoni flirt openly. Mma Makutsi moans about not having a computer, but given her constantly restyled hair, makeup and jewellery, I'm surprised she doesn't have a MacBook in her handbag along with her Visa card.So what are we left with here? It's difficult to be upset with this crappy adaptation because honestly, most of the things I like about the original books are apocryphal anyway. McCall Smith paints a fictional Botswana populated with cute, non-threatening black people who are full of amusing and palatable wisdom-nuggets. It reads well despite linguistic travesty, but it is a vision of how a certain type of white person wishes black people were. It just isn't true.Given that, it's hardly surprising that this show sucks as much as it does. It remains to be seen whether European and American audiences will even notice, however.$LABEL$ 0
+Watched this film at a local festival, the Silver Sprocket International Film Festival Florida . What a lovely film. A simple, uncomplicated morality tale about a young care free young man having to take responsibility for his actions. It neither pretentious or flashy my two teenage daughters loved it and for a change I wasn't embarrassed by any of the film content or language. A real family film and the best British comedy film I've seen since Billy Elliot.The film went on to win not surprisingly the top festival awards of Best Film and Best Director. Ten out of ten.$LABEL$ 1
+Though it hardly compares to other sci-fi film giants like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, LIFEFORCE does work as a totally berserk and bizarre melding of science fiction and horror elements. Somehow, despite dialogue that approaches the ridiculous and acting that does the same, it manages to work because of a few highly different elements.Loosely based on Colin Wilson's 1976 novel "The Space Vampires", this film from director Tobe Hooper (POLTERGEIST; THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE) focuses on a joint US-British mission aboard the British space shuttle Churchill to study Halley's Comet. Led by an American commander (Steve Railsback), they discover an alien spacecraft in the comet's coma. And when they investigate the interior of the spacecraft, they find alien occupants that look like giant bats. Later on, the Churchill reaches Earth's orbit, but no response is given from radio calls issued from the mission's home base, the Space Research Center in London. Columbia is launched to rendezvous with Churchill, but they find the entire ship gutted by fire--all except for the alien beings encased in glass who, far from being untouched by the fire, look absolutely perfect. The aliens are bought back to Earth...and that's where the incredible happens.These space vampires escape from the Space Research Center and, instead of draining their victims of blood via bite wounds, suck their victims' lifeforce totally out of them. One of them is the Space Girl, a thoroughly nude vampiress played by Mathilda May. Railsback, the only actual survivor from Churchill, is bought in by the SRC's chief (Frank Finlay) and a British special agent (Peter Firth) to track May, who is in telepathic contact with him. Pretty soon, however, the vampires have turned London into a scene of pure holocaust; people are either being dessicated or turning into zombies, and the threat by NATO to sterilize the city with thermonuclear radiation looms large. Railsback finally catches up with May, and sacrifices himself by impaling her with a large metal sabre.Undoubtedly disjointed, unquestionably uneven, but nevertheless worth watching, LIFEFORCE, despite the frequent incoherency of its script and its acting, benefits from some drop-dead excellent special effects work by John Dykstra (STAR WARS), some of the best ever seen. The other working element, and a surprise one it is, is the incredible orchestral score by Henry Mancini, almost Wagnerian in the same way John Williams' score for STAR WARS was--and Mancini, like Williams before him, uses the London Symphony Orchestra, to boot!Largely forgotten these days, and a critical and box office disaster in 1985, LIFEFORCE, if for no other reason, should still be seen for anyone with a taste for the bizarre. There had never been a film quite like it before, and there will certainly not be anything like it again.$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of those topics I can relate to a little more than most people as I hate noise & have no idea how those in big cities, New York especially how people get any sleep at all! It astounds me that people can stand all the noise out there these days. The basic plot of the film is that it makes for an interesting topic. It's too bad that's about it. Tim Robbbins is decent although except for a couple of scenes (especially with the absolute supermodel looking Margarita Leiveva) he didn't seem to really be altogether there. My biggest hope for this film is that casting agents will see the absolutely stunning & talented actress to boot, Margarita Levieva. She doesn't have a lot to do, but she is supermodel beautiful. Even when they are trying to make her look at more girl next door. It makes me sad that there can be people such as Paris Hilton & Kim Kardashian in the world w/no redeemable skills or talent, to have more fame and success than this talented beauty. I didn't care for much of this film because the script isn't very good, but am glad I got to see some new talent. I hope that producers & directors think about Margarita when they need a beautiful new actress to be in there big budget film. If they can make Megan Fox a star (c'mon she isn't that hot, & her acting "talent" is worse than made-for Disney channel TV shows) from 1 film, it should happen easily for her, as she is gorgeous & has talent! I'd recommend her changing her last name so we can pronounce it and make it more marketable. Here's hoping this makes her career, & if there is any justice she can pop up on some big summer movie or two in the next couple years.$LABEL$ 0
+How often do you see a film of any kind that has a talent show with refreshments? Waldo's Last Stand is a refreshment. Here Waldo is selling lemonade but isn't making any money. Alfalfa, Spanky, Darla, Mickey, and Buckwheat come to visit him which is ironic because in both 3 Men In A Tub and Came The Brawn where there was competition between Alfalfa and Waldo for Darla's affection. Back to the story: The Gang taste the lemonade to see if Waldo made it right. One funny moment is when Alfalfa gets a glass cup for lemonade and Waldo fills is and gives it to Darla and Alfalfa has an angry expression on his face. Spanky proposes a floor show to go with the lemonade and even Mickey agrees ever so cute. When the floor show begins there is no one at the barn but then a customer comes in (Froggy). Spanky asks him if he wants lemonade but all he does is nod no. Spanky asks him numbers of time in the short and every time Froggy nods no Spanky displays many expressions on his face which is funny. Spanky tries many ways to make him thirsty. One way is when after Mickey said ever so cutely "Those crackers are salty and they made me thirsty". There is also many entertain musical bit is this short. The opening number is by Darla which she tap dances and sings. The second includes Alfalfa singing off-key (as usually) with Mickey, Leonard, Spanky, and Buckwheat about "How dry I am!" (I believe they sing that to make Froggy thirsty. It also made me laugh.). The closing number includes boys and girls all dressed up in an old fashion way. This was Waldo's last Our Gang short. A grand musical short that is a pure 10 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+First of all, this movie is 34 minutes long, which means you could watch it three times in a row and still have spent less time than you would have watching most other movies. Second of all--you need to do this. This sensational short film explores the potential of animation through a world of playful or horrifying but always powerful images. Cats riding in and drinking out of a water elephant, a circus featuring a bird that has consumed the sky, and pigs eating their own fried flesh--that's only the beginning. The scenes and images, extraordinary on their own, flow together without obvious causal links in a way that demands re-watching. Furthermore, the DVD includes an amazing director's commentary, which, given the extremely spare dialog, only enhances the viewing. The commentary gives a few interpretations of scenes, but also provides priceless quotes on the crafting of Cat Soup, along the lines of: "well, the artists were asking what we should do in this scene, but I didn't know myself, so its hard to say why it turned out as it did" (that's a bad paraphrase by the way). Also, the sound throughout the film is very high quality, very precise, and very moody. In all, the absolute minimum viewing experience should go as follows:First viewing: Watch the DVD without the commentary. Second viewing: Watch the DVD WITH the commentary. Third viewing: Rewatch without the commentary.Once you've watched it three times, however, you're not going to stop there...$LABEL$ 1
+The 60's is a great movie(I saw it completely in one night) about the hippy movement in the late 60's. Although the title would suggest otherwise the first 5 years of the 60's are not really important in this film.The main character of the movie is Michael,a political activist who goes on the road in the US against the Vietnam-war. There he meets his girlfriend,Sarah.Michael's brother,Brian,goes to Vietnam to fight(what a surprise!).He comes back from the war and changes in a "Tom Cruise Born on the fourth of July" look a like and then into a Hippy.His dad is a pro-vietnam war type of guy(what a surprise!!).Michael's sister Kate gets pregnant from a Rock & Roll artist and runs away from home and goes to San Francisco during the summer of love. The ending is very poor(father becomes a liberal and everybody is happy),but I let this slip away from my vote(the rest of the movie is very good!). The performances by the actors are pretty good and the soundtrack of the movie is absolutely brilliant. All the main events of the sixties are in the movie,like the murders on JFK and Martin Luther King aswell as the big hippy protests,the summer of love and Woodstock! Look closely for Wavy"Woodstock Speaker"Gravy(What we have in mind is breakfast in bed for 400.000!) as a first aid employee at the Woodstock festival!In the end,the 60's is a beautiful movie about a beautiful decade! 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+I think I've seen all of the Grisham movies now and generally they're all very poor, except for The Rainmaker, but this one is so bad it's unbelievableWARNING SPOILERISHIt's one of those movies where the character does the stupid irrational things that no one would ever do. He's a lawyer for Christ's sake. Why when his children go missing does he not call the Police. Oh yes it's because all the Police hate lawyers so they're just ignore him and let him be attacked.When he's arrested for murder they just let him go free, he would be locked up in a cell pending a bail hearing. Why would you drag your kids halfway across the country when you could easily protect them at home.The Police don't bother to try and find an escaped mental patient, they don't bother to interview his daughter.As for the ridiculous ending….In summary, silly, very unrealistic and a complete waste of time.0/10 – One of the worst films ever made.$LABEL$ 0
+First when does this storyline take place? It has to take place after the first movie because Kuzco knows Pacha and Chicha has her third child but it can't take place after the second movie because doesn't Kronk get a girlfriend or wife or something? You never see her in the show.Also, why is Kuzco going to school? The whole plot of the show is that Kuzco is going to school so that he can be emperor. But wasn't he emperor before this? And who's emperor while he learning to be emperor? Shouldn't that be Yzma? Or was Yzma fired in this time line already? And if that true why is waiting for him to fail to become empresses? Plus, you know in the first movie he said he was trained from birth to be an emperor by private tutors. So he should kinda know what he's doing.Kronk. Why is Kronk a student? He's around 25 they stated that in the first movie. He's an adult going to high school. Does everyone think he's a moron? I really like Kronk but I think because of his age and because everyone know that he is working for Yzma he should have been a teacher. Being a Home Ec teacher would be right up his alley.Malina, is very unlikable. She suppose to be Kuzco's love interest/moral compass. But a lot of time, she comes off bossy and know it all. She commonly says thinks I like "I should be proud because I am pretty and smart". She has ESP when it comes to Kuzco and knows whenever he's in trouble, when he's cheating, or even when he sings the Hot Hot Hottie song in his head even though she does cheer leading, school newspaper and keeps straight A+ in all of her classes. She seems more interested in using her prettiness to get Kuzco to do the right thing and do well in school then dating him. In fact, she seems more motherly to Kuzco then a love interest.Yzma. As I bought up before Yzma is trying to get Kuzco to fail so she become empresses. Not sure how that's suppose to work with being fired and all. Yzma seems to be reliving the first movie in every episode. In almost every show that she appears in she turns Kuzco into an animal in hopes of having him fail a class. (There are only 3 times that I can think of that that didn't happen.) The jokes about Yzma being old aren't as clever in the show as they were the movie. And classic jokes about Yzma are used to death in the show (like the "Pull the level, Krunk!", roller-coaster, and the lab). Also, some other points that don't make sense in this series. The fact that whenever Kuzco is assigned something everyone acts like this assignment will make him pass or fail the class but he seems to pass every assignment given to him. So why does one assignment matter so much?Seriously, who is ruling the kingdom while this is going on? Do they have a consul or a steward? You never see anyone ruling the kingdom unless Kuzco has weaseled his powers back or Yzma is empresses.Why is Kuzco going to a normal peasant school? Shouldn't he learning about how to lead a country, what to do in case of war or something that will be useful to him in the future? I could see taking some normal classes on like farming (so he would know how to prepare the country for a famine or something like that) but knot tying? How is that helpful?Now I know that someone is going to say "But it not suppose to make sense; it's suppose to be funny." Then they should have more funny things in there. All the funny things about the show have been done already in the movie. Also, if they notice some of these huge plot holes why don't they poke fun at them like in the movie? (For example, when Yzma and Kronk get to the secret lab before Kuzco and Pacha and Yzma and Kronk can't explain how they got their first.)There are some good points, it is nice to see some of the characters from the first movie in the series like Bucky and monkey with the bug. Pacha and his family are still very good characters with a good down earth feel. I feel that this series would be amusing for younger children. In conclusion, the series is not as good as the movie that it based on but it may good for younger children.$LABEL$ 0
+Another Raquel Welch Classic! This Picture hit the theaters November 10 1969 starring Raquel Welch as Michele, James Stacey as Joe and Luke Askew as Alan Morris. Nikki is on her way to meet with her girl friends Michele and Jackie. While on her way there, she runs into her ex husband who wants a second chance. Nikki walk away from him goes to the table where she sees Michele and Jackie. Alan approaches her again and she starts to walk away when Alan shoots her in the back. Nikki is taken to the hospital while Michele and Jackie go to the police station. Michele goes to the hospital where she meets up with Jackie only to find that Nikki died. Alan then goes after Jackie who he hits with a car and then tries to run Michele down. Michele jumps into her car and heads for Los Angeles. When she gets there, she calls Lloyd her boss in Las Vegas to let him know that she was all right. Lloyd tells her to go to the club called the losers to see Jeri about a job. However, there's one problem! The bartender has a drug problem and Alan knows it so Alan and the bartender have a little talk. Back in Los Angeles Michele not only gets a job as a dancer with Jeri but also hooks up with Jeri bouncer Joe. Now some thoughts on this picture! This picture was far better then Raquel last, and this one had nonstop action. Luke Askew did a fine job of playing Nikki ex husband. He was your typical murder with the look that goes with it. As for Raquel Welch performance, the only word that comes to mine is fantastic. She was awesome in this movie and her beauty stood out and shined like never before. The outfit that she wore on stage to dance was breathtaking. In fact, all the outfits she wore in this movie were breathtaking. Of course, it doesn't matter what Raquel had on because she looks good in everything or nothing. I give this movie 10 weasel stars for two reasons. The first and by far is Raquel Welch who's the leading actress and deserves 10 stars. The second reason is that this movie was wall-to-wall excitement from beginning to end.$LABEL$ 1
+This stalk and slash turkey manages to bring nothing new to an increasingly stale genre. A masked killer stalks young, pert girls and slaughters them in a variety of gruesome ways, none of which are particularly inventive.It's not scary, it's not clever, and it's not funny. So what was the point of it?$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the most satisfying of the book to TV adaptations. The actress who make us believe that a Borg could be sexy makes us believe that a spy and traitor can have some redeeming qualities.The TV plot line does not follow Cornwell's story exactly but is both exciting and rewarding as a retelling of a darn good yarn. If you have a yen for romance in uniform there is a lot of sexual energy sparking between our man Sharpe and the lying hussy. Made me wish her role was closer to that in the books. But no matter there is enough hero wronged, hero redeemed, hero in rage, hero in flight and hero in battle to keep you clued to your DVD play.$LABEL$ 1
+I agree with the comments regarding the downward spin. The last view shows have been a little better, but surely the writers need some more direction. I think the characters are still interesting, although sometimes they spin into the "white trash" things a little too much. Subtlety and nuance goes a long way on shows like "Office". I would think the target audience is somewhat similar being they are both on the same night and lineup. One would think that Karma and the whole eastern religion thing is a big enough topic to bring some different and interesting shows, but they only scratch the surface of the subject. In my opinion it shows the contempt that many people have in Hollywood about the level of intelligence of the masses. We can handle more heady content. It has been proved before in many other shows.$LABEL$ 0
+So many people loved this movie, yet there are a few of us IMDb reviewers who found Mirrormask excruciatingly uncomfortable to watch and arse-clenchingly boring. I fall into the latter of these two camps, and I will try to explain what it was that made my toenails curl so unpleasantly.Firstly, to set the record straight - I like Neil Gaiman's books. I sometimes find his knowing, sarcastic, 'wry asides' humour a little geeky, and I actually prefer his work when he is playing it straight and leaving the jokes alone - but, even with his occasional lapses into crap 'dad' gags, I find his creativity and imagination to be something a bit special.Interestingly, one of Gaiman's strongest works is Coraline, a Gothic fairy story for kids that is very low on jokes and high on tension and creepiness. His latest novel (Anansi Boys) overdoes the funnies, and tends to read at times like Terry Pratchett does the Sisters of Mercy (not the nuns but the band). Mirrormask inhabits similar territory to Coraline, and when I saw the stunning visuals in the trailer, I got a bit excited that somebody had managed to transfer Gaiman's spectacular vision and imagination to the screen.In praise of the film, some sequences do look stunning. However, the visual effects are occasionally ruined by CGI animation that looks like a Media Studies student project. Backgrounds and scenery are often incredible, but some of the character animation looks clumsy, amateur and cheap. In an early dream sequence, the spider is animated beautifully, but the book-eating cat-beast looks poorly rendered and very 'computer generated'. Compared with the standard of animation found in productions such as 'The Corpse Bride', Mirrormask occasionally looks very amateur indeed. However, in Mirrormask's defence, the budget was tiny for such a grand vision, and a few creaks in the effects can be understood and forgiven.What cannot be forgiven is the stilted, stagy, cringeworthy and pretentious dialogue. The actors struggle desperately with the dialogue - and there is so much of it that they are constantly hampered and stumbling over it. Conversation is rendered completely unnatural, the jokes fall flat time and time again, and the turgid speeches appear to be the writer's only method of plot exposition. Combined with the fact that the actors are working against a blue screen (which always adds an element of 'Phantom Menace') - this renders the film almost unwatchable. In such an unreal setting the actors need to work twice as hard to be believed, and in the main they fail terribly. The girl who plays the lead role puts in a valiant struggle against the impossible stage-school dialogue, and occasionally shows real promise, but it is never enough. The god-awful cod-'Oirish' of the Valentine character (with whom she is forced to spend an inordinate amount of screen time) puts paid to any chance of this young actress rising above the material. It appears to be Valentine's job to explain the plot to younger viewers, and to add a bit of light relief. Personally, I wouldn't want him anywhere near my 15 year old daughter.What else is wrong with this film? Answer....Rob Brydon. What's annoying (for us Brits, anyway) is we know Rob Brydon can act! We've seen him hold the screen for half-an-hour on his own (doing those 'Marion & Geoff' monologues), and in the first 'real world' bit of the film he is fine. However, stick him in front of a blue screen and he loses all sense of character and turns into the worst am-dram-ham I've seen in years. A real shame.What else is wrong? Answer... the wanky slap-bassing, sub-Courtney Pine saxing and unlistenable, too-high-in-the-mix soundtrack that never shuts up. God, the music is incessant, loud, distracting, irrelevant and, if that isn't enough, has wanky slap bass wanking all over it. It makes the dialogue very hard to hear, but that could be a blessing in disguise.What else is wrong with it? Answer.... The whistling mime artist. In modern society there should be no place for mime, apart from certain secret places in France. Every moment the camera lingers on the gurning, whistling, moss-juggling, yogurt-weaving idiot, I understand why the Edinburgh locals get a bit anxious and fractious when Festival time comes round again.My final criticism is that the film is pretty dull. Surrealism often is dull – it either requires its audience to slip into a dreamlike, Zen, accepting state, or for the audience be constantly wowed by bigger and grander surprises. A story with a bit of pace involving characters that we could believe in and care about would have gone a long way to giving this film the emotional centre that it sadly lacked, whilst stopping the eyelids from drooping.Finally, apologies to all those who found depth, meaning and wonder in this film. You have managed to suspend your disbelief, you have seen past the creaky CGI, ignored the crappy dialogue and the abysmal performances that resulted, and understood the maker's grand, imaginative vision. I wanted to, but I couldn't see past the real-world failings that dragged it down.I hope Neil Gaiman gets it right next time, if he gets (or even wants) the opportunity.$LABEL$ 0
+New Year's Day. The day after consuming a few too many vodka martinis and Cosmopolitans mixed with a bunch of bubbly at midnight, my wife and I discovered the local cable company is offering up the digital specialty channels for free for the month of January. We had a choice - do we make use of the freebie channels or do we start watching the eight seasons of X-Files on DVD that we received from our daughter for Christmas?We elected for the digital freebie since the DVDs are going nowhere and we need something like ten twelve-hour days to watch all the X-Files beginning to end. The Drive-In channel was offering a horror classic three movie marathon: Asylum (1972), House of the Damned (1996) and The Pit and the Pendulum (1961). Asylum is well-reviewed here and the Pit and the Pendulum was on too late for us to watch which meant we could really only be properly critical for House of the Damned.To be honest, we tried to be serious about the movie since its stars have reasonably good acting credentials - Greg Evigan (William Shatner's over-written Tekwars) and Alexandra Paul (the only Baywatch babe who could act although she has the body of a ten-year-old boy). Unfortunately, we soon dissolved to giggles, under the influence of a little hair-of-the-dog, as we each shouted out the names of movies from which this dog borrowed its scenes: Poltergeist, The Shining, Hell House, House On Haunted Hill, Ghost Busters!The acting, especially by Evigan's real-life daughter, wasn't too bad considering the silly script they had to work with. The CGI, for 1996, was hilarious - at its worst point in the final scene when it should have been the most horrific it was so bad my wife and I dissolved in laughter.Overall: Acting 4/5, Script 2/5, SFX 0/5$LABEL$ 0
+It seems that Hack has been described as un-realistic... but that's what TV is. TV is meant to provide an escape from everyday life and I feel Hack does a great job in that regard. Add to this the slow process of revealing his past and engaging/interesting plots; you just can't seem to get enough. Plus, with such great actors as David Morse, Andre Braugher, and even little Mathew Borish, what more can you ask for. So if you are looking for an involving experience and have a liking for "underdog" characters, I suggest giving Hack a chance, especially now that it's finally getting off its feet.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is just about as good as the first Jackass, but with slightly more disgusting skits. I wouldn't say this was as good as the first, but it came very close. Jackass fans will not be disappointed, but if you didn't like the first movie, you will hate this one. There are scenes that will be seen as Jackass classics (the elderly suits with "additions", the "cab ride", and many others), and those that you will wish you never watched (eating crap, drinking semen, etc...) Overall this movie was a good watch, and I am glad I got to see it. I'm sure this movie will not have the best rating due to critics that rate it (I sat in the press section and most of the older viewers seemed disgusted), but don't let that stop you from enjoying it.$LABEL$ 1
+In one respect, it's like 'The Wizard of Oz,' with Paris in black-and-white and the Riviera in color. But it's supposedly about possessive love, destructiveness and moral decadence, while actually being about designer gowns, shots of the Riveria, lots of big expensive cars, and music-and dancing interludes that suggest Vincente Minnelli on one of his off-days. Watchable, but a remarkable example of desperate, dark plot material and glitzy style heading in opposite directions. (Was this the model for 'The Talented Mister Ripley? Does anyone sense an affinity between Jean Seberg and Matt Damon?)$LABEL$ 0
+Black Water, co-directed and written by David Nerlich and Andrew Traucki, is very simple in its execution yet effective. The film is a low-budget Australian movie that will unfortunately not get the recognition it deserves because as far as creature features go, this is one of the best out there. The setup is rather basic; Grace, her husband Adam and her younger sister Lee are touring some mangroves in the Northern Territory when a saltwater crocodile flips their boat and leaves them stranded in the trees. The whole movie is about their survival while the crocodile is lurking below waiting to strike.Unlike Greg McLean's Rogue (another killer croc movie released earlier in 2007), Black Water is not about the audience having fun guessing who's gonna be eaten next, it is about hoping and praying that the three people will get out safely. The three unknown actors do a great job with pretty demanding roles, considering it was filmed on location with a real crocodile instead of CGI. The characters act realistically in the situation and the dialogue seems natural and not forced. Suspense is built up throughout the entire film, we do not see a lot of the creature but just knowing it is near is terrifying enough. This is edge-of-your seat stuff and highly recommended if you enjoy original and (most importantly) scary horror films.4/5$LABEL$ 1
+L'Homme Blesse is not for an impatient, adventure-seeking audience. There are no explosions nor is the drama straightforward. Like the films of Lynne Ramsey, the director is working more deeply with mood than with storytelling in a manner that is effective and incredibly moving. Because it does not rely on gratuitous nudity, or superficial pop-cult. story lines, this is quite frankly one of the best gay foreign film I have seen (also, see Francois Ozon, Pedro Almodovar). Nicolas Roeg's "Don't Look Now" gets a lot of bad press because it is sold as a horror film. That film, like L'Homme, is more than what the box might lead you to believe. If you are in the mood to sit back and be absorbed by the subtle, transformed powers of cinema, you'll love this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Though I've yet to review the movie in about two years, I remember exactly what made my opinion go as low as it did. Having loved the original Little Mermaid, and having been obsessed with mermaids as a child could be, I decided I'd take the time to sit down and watch the sequel.Disney, I've got a little message for you. If you don't have the original director and actors handy...you're just looking to get your butt whooped.In the sequel, our story begins with a slightly older Ariel and her daughter, Melody. My first big issue was that Eric and the rest of the crew sang. Yes, I understand that Disney is big on sing-and-dance numbers, but really, that's what made Eric my favorite prince. He was calm, collected, and a genuine gentleman that knew how to have fun. And he DID. NOT. SING.And then there's the villain. Oh, how could we forget the shivers that coursed down our spines whenever Ursula slunk onto the screen, terrifying both Ariel and audiences around the world? Unfortunately, that gene was not passed on to her seemingly useless sister, Morgana. Nothing was ever, EVER said about Morgana in the first movie; she just pops out of nowhere, trying to steal the baby. Oh, how cute. The younger sister is ticked off and instead of going after the trident, decides to kidnap a month-old baby. Gag me.Other than being a flat character with no sense of originality in her, Morgana was just very unorthodox. The same plan as her sister, the same minions (who, by the way, did not scare anyone. I had a three year old on my lap when I watched this movie, and she laughed hysterically.) She had no purpose being in there; I'd like to have seen Mom be the villain. I'm sure she would have done a better job than Little Miss Tish over there.King Triton held none of the respect he'd earned from me in the first movie, and don't even get me started on Scuttle, Sebastian and Flounder. Triton was a stern but loving father in the first movie, and in the second, it's almost like he's lost his will to knock fear into the hearts of his subjects. Scuttle, once a comic relief that made everyone laugh with his 'dingle-hopper' (yes, I'll admit it; I did call my fork a dingle-hopper from time to time after that). In this film, Scuttle's all but forgotten. A supporting character even in the first, he at least added something to the movie. He was rich with a flavor the others didn't have, and in the sequel, they all but stripped it from him entirely. Sebastian was still the same, but twice as worrisome as before. Disney, don't do that. Don't even try to mess with our favorite crab. Or our favorite little fat fish, who becomes a dad and has a multitude of very annoying children. He's fat, and he's bland, and he looks like he's going to flat line any second.The walrus and penguin were unneeded, and after a while, you just start to resent everyone. Especially Melody, who has no depth to her whatsoever.And one of these days, Disney, I'm kicking out of my life.If I didn't love your originals so much.$LABEL$ 0
+I really liked TWO COYOTES. One of my friends rented it the other night and we were really impressed with how good it was and how cool the main guys were. I wonder if they are thinking of making a sequel because that would be excellent!TWO COYOTES ROCKS!$LABEL$ 1
+Here we have the inimitable Charlie Chaplin forsaking his slapstick past to tackle the serious subject of anti-Semitism, and intolerance in general. He portrays two characters - the sweet, innocent Jewish barber - a war veteran, and the raving and ruthless dictator, Adenoid Hynkel. The Jewish ghetto in this country is not safe for long, due to the whims of Hynkel and his armed thugs, who routinely rough up its residents, or leave them alone, dependent upon his mood that day or week. The barber is among them, but is befriended by his former commanding officer, Schultz (Reginald Gardner), who seems to keep things quiet for a while, until Hynkel condemns him to a concentration camp. He seeks refuge with the Jews in the ghetto, most specifically the barber, and the feisty young woman, Hannah (Paulette Goddard). The premise will be - who will be the one among these Jews to put their lives on the line to get rid of Hynkel and his cronies? We needn't guess too hard to know the answer; the barber is a dead ringer for the dictator, and he is outfitted in his image, accompanied by Schultz, also in full military gear. Hannah escapes with several of her ghetto friends to the country of Osterlich, where Mr Jaeckel's (Maurice Moscovich) cousin has a farm, and they can live peaceably for a while. At this point, Hynkel himself has been arrested by his armed forces, thinking him to be the notorious barber. The latter, meanwhile, has been escorted with Schultz to a podium, to make a speech announcing the conquest of Osterlich. The ensuing ten minutes is pure Chaplin himself, speaking from his heart of tolerance, love and freedom, and denigrating greed and hatred. Albeit Chaplin started production on the film in 1937, it can be forgiven some naivete. He was allegedly unaware of the gravity of this persecution and hatred, and said had he known the full extent, he would never have made the film, because he most likely believed it would have trivialized the situation. He has a marvelous supporting cast: Reginald Gardner, Henry Daniell as Garbitsch, his aide-de-camp, the always wonderful Billy Gilbert as the bumbling Herring, Paulette Goddard, Jack Oakie as the dictator Napaloni, his rival for conquest, veteran European actors David Gorcey (Leo's father), Maurice Moscovich, among others. The scene he choreographed with globe, with just a musical accompaniment is sheer, luminous inspiration, and luminous, as well, is Paulette Goddard at the film's end, smiling through her tears. I have seen this film before, but there is always something new in it for me. Last evening, when it finished, I sat there in tears. I defy anyone not to be moved by it.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie moved me more than I was expecting, and I was fully prepared to cry. The acting mainly carried this film, with superb performances from Jude Law, Nicole Kidman and Renee Zellweger, as well as the supporting cast. These actors portrayed characters so intensely human that they lingered the remainder of the night with me, and I had trouble shaking this war drama. The costumes and cinematography were also magical, but didn't get carried away with themselves. They didn't take focus, but added to the whole effect. Cold Mountain could never become my favorite movie, as that title will always belong to The English Patient, but it's in the top five. The story itself was well developed, and stayed fairly unpredictable. I did not find myself guessing what line came next. A heart-wrenching story about humanity and war. In fact, this movie was so strongly real that it was barely noticeable it took place in the 19th century. It seemed to apply to all times.$LABEL$ 1
+A small pleasure in life is walking down the old movies aisle at the rental store, and picking stuff just because I haven't seen it. A large pleasure is occasionally taking that movie home and finding a small treasure like this playing on my screen.Long before Elia Kazan turned himself into a brand cranking out only notable movies (not good ones), he made this better than average drama. Watching it you begin to notice how many decent, good or nicely observed scenes have accumulated. Contrast that with his later films where the drama is writ large... preferably large, and unsubtle, and scandalous. Kazan was eventually more of a calculating promoter than a director. (um. No thanks) His future excesses are hinted at here only in the plot. The plague is coming! But here's an atypical Richard Widmark playing a family man in 1951 and avoiding most of the excesses of that trope; here's an almost watchable Barabra bel Geddes, with her bathos turned way down (well, for her); they're a couple and they share some nicely-written scenes about big crises and smaller ones. Here's an expertly directed comic interrogation with a chatty ships-crew; here's a beautiful moment as a chase begins at an angular warehouse and a flock of birds shoots overhead punctuating the moment. These are the small-scale successes a movie can offer in which a viewer can actually recognize life; something Hollywood, in its greed, now studiously avoids. These are the moments that make me go to the movies and enjoy them. It's a personable, human-scaled film, not the grotesque, overscaled production that he and others (David Lean) will later popularize, whose legacy is still felt in crap as varied as Pirates of the Caribean and Moulin Rouge.I just watched it twice and I'll be damned if I could tell you what Jack Palance is seeking in the final scenes, but it doesn't seem that important to me as a viewer. This reminds me of both No Way Out a Poitier noir with Widmark as the villain, and Naked City, which you should really get your hands on.$LABEL$ 1
+The Order starts in Rome where the head of a special order of priests who deal in ghosts & demons named Brother Dominic (Francesco Carnelutti) is found dead, cut to New York City where one of his order Alex Bernier (Heath Ledger) is contacted by top-brass Cardinal Driscoll (Peter Weller) who ask's him to investigate the mysterious circumstances surrounding Dominic's death. Along with his girlfriend Mara Willims (Shannyn Sossamon) & fellow priest Thomas Garrett (Mark Addy) Alex travels to Italy to delve into his mentor's death, as the truth begins to emerge it appears that Dominic was a 'Sin Eater' someone who absorbed other's sins & lived with the burden of them so they could die peacefully & that the Church wasn't happy about his activities. Alex must do what's right even if it goes against what he believes...Also know under the title The Sin Eater this American German co-production was written, produced & directed by Bian Helgeland & didn't really do that much for me if I'm honest & I usually am, honest that is. Anyway lets start with the mess of a script that has some OK ideas but it's throughly predictable, excruciatingly dull & boring, really silly at times & it takes itself far too seriously. The whole concept is daft & while it thinks it's clever with it's oh so neat twist ending that ties everything up & brings the story full circle I thought it was the most obvious & lazy way to end things. There's the usual religious themes here, morality, sin, forgiveness, faith, belief, prophecy's, blah, blah, blah you know the sort of thing. Then there's the twists which aren't hard to see coming, there's the abuse of power by high ranking clergymen, corruption, greed, evil, etc. you know the sort of clichéd Hollywood ideals & themes that get reused every time it deals with the Church. The Order has nothing new to say & as a serious piece of film-making it sucks, a lot. I'm not too sure who The Order is meant to appeal to, as a die-hard horror fan I didn't see much horror in this at all, as a thriller it's less than thrilling, as a mystery it's too predictable & there's nothing here to really grip or maintain ones interest & for some reason I cannot figure out the IMDb also lists The Order as an action film which is absurd as it's as exciting & action-packed as the average episode of Sesame Street (1969 - present), harsh maybe but it's what I think...Director Helgeland does an OK job, the film seems to have a very soft lighting scheme & it all looks a bit drab, grayish & dull. For a supposed horror film The Order is very light on scares or horror elements, in fact there aren't any of either apart from two evil kids who can turn into a flock of birds for no apparent reason, don't ask. Forget about any gore or violence as there isn't any which is fine but it would have helped at least make The Order somewhat watchable. According the IMDb's 'Trivia' section the release date of The Order was put back so some of the special effects could be improved because they looked unintentionally funny, all I can say is judging by the finished film the effects must have been really bad to start with because they aren't exactly brilliant as it stands now.I was amazed to see The Order had a budget of about $28,000,000 which is a hell of a lot of money & I just can't see where it all went apart from the sets & production design which are good. The whole film looks & feels very average & utterly forgettable. The acting is OK although the annoying fat guy who seems to be some sort of foul-mouthed comic relief irritates, a good actor such as Peter Weller deserves better than this.The Order, I prefer the title The Sin Eater actually not that it matters too much, misses all of it's intended targets by the proverbial mile as far as I'm concerned & is a pretty dull way to waste 100 odd minutes of your life so don't do it! Not recommended.$LABEL$ 0
+Stu Ungar is considered by many to be the greatest poker / gin player of all time - an extraordinary self-destructive force of nature - tiny in stature, but a huge heart for the game.What we have here is a kind of Hallmark film about the dangers of gambling. Sure, he wins, he loses, he blows it all on sex, drugs, and more gambling we get it, but where is the real play - where is what made him the greatest card player of all time.Much too flat, and frankly boring in places, this gets a four because we get to learn something about Stu the man, but Stu the card player, nada.Nicely shot and presented up to a point this is the perfect example of how not to make a film about cards: honestly, ESPN's coverage of the World Series is more watchable than this.A waste of a great chance.$LABEL$ 0
+Deathstalker is directed by John Watson and it stars Rick Hill, who is some kind of body builder and famous of that, if I have understood right? The plot follows as Deathstalker (Hill) tries to get something back from the evil lord, and he has to travel to the lord's cave. He meets many dwarfs and monsters during his journey, and the settings are very close to Tolkien, and of course Conan the Barbarian. This is a rip off of huge success of Conan, and even though this is very stupid film, it has many nice trash merits and is recommended for trash fans and tolerating film junkies!There are no many cinematic merits in this film. Couple of scenes are almost atmospheric and fascinating, but what Deathstalker concentrates to show, are nude females and huge muscles of Hill. Females are usually helpless victims and very stupid, too, so this is very macho film and thus may not please many feminists! The fight scenes are nothing special and pretty dull, and the monsters are not either anything special. And all the other aspects of the film are also very amateurish and badly done, but what did you expect from low budget effort like this? This tries to be as great as Conan but fails pretty miserably. As I said, this can please fans of turkey cinema but no one else. This belongs to the category it's so bad it's great!Deathstalker is still not as near as bad as it could be, and as a turkey film, I appreciate this almost as much as other turkeys, enjoyable ones of course! If bad films are your cup of tea, then try this and have fun, but if you don't understand "enjoyably bad films" then stay away. And if somebody can't stand large amount of nudity, then stay away as well. There is more nudity here than violence, and due to these scenes, the film has an R rating. Otherwise this could be some safe PG family film!4/10$LABEL$ 0
+A vastly underrated black comedy, the finest in a series of grand guignol movies to follow 'Baby Jane'. Reynolds and Winters are mothers of young convicted murderers (a nod to 'Compulsion') who run away to hide in Hollywood. They run a school for would-be movie tots, a bunch of hilariously untalented kids attended by awful stage moms. Debbie, in her blonde wig ('I'm a Harlow, you're more a Marion Davies' she tells Winters) leads the tots at their concert and wins a rich dad, Weaver. She also does a deliciously funny tango and, over all, gives an outstanding performance, unlike anything she'd done before. The atmosphere is a fine mix of comic and eerie. It looks wonderful with great period detail (30's). Lots of lovely swipes at Hollywood and the terrifying movie tot. Micheal MacLiammoir has a ball as the drama coach: 'Hamilton Starr', he purrs, 'two r's but prophetic nonetheless'. See it and love it.$LABEL$ 1
+Slipknot is a heavy metal band from the great city of Des Moines, Iowa in which the rockers wear their own distinguished mask (I know someone already said this, but I need to fill up space for this review). The band members are Joey, Mick, 133, Sid, Clown, James, Corey, Chris, and Paul. This band is one of the best new heavy metal bands in my opinion and should be heard by everyone that loves hardcore rock. Another good movie is called "DISASTERPIECES" which shows the band's performance at the London Arena. The "My Plague" video was shot there and is included on the DVD. The most kick ass song they made is also on there (Sic). So if you love the band you need to see this and if you love heavy metal music then you have to hear this band.$LABEL$ 1
+I was shocked by the ridiculously unbelievable plot of Tigerland. It was a liberal's fantasy of how the military should be. The dialogue was difficult to swallow along with the silly things Colin Farrell's character was allowed to get away with by his superior officers.I kept thinking, "Hey, there's a reason why boot camp is tough. It's supposed to condition soldiers for battle and turn them into one cohesive unit. There's no room for cocky attitudes and men who won't follow orders." I was rooting for Bozz to get his butt kicked because he was such a danger to his fellow soldiers. I would not want to fight alongside someone like him in war because he was more concerned with people's feelings than with doing what was necessary to protect his unit.--$LABEL$ 0
+The `plot' of this film contains a few holes you could drive a massive truck through, but I reckon that isn't always top priority in horror. Two elderly sisters in rural England keep their brother in the cellar since more than 30 years. Now, he escaped and started a killing spree, focusing on militaries that are homed nearby. `We only did we thought was best for him' they keep on repeating and – strangely – all the army officers love these women and don't doubt their sincerity, even though 5 of their men died. I don't know whether to find the revelation near the end suspenseful … or tedious! In a way, this film reminded me about `Arsenic and Old Lace'. In that black-comedy classic, two half-insane siblings mother their goofy younger brother as well, yet they do the killing there. The old ladies in `The Beast in the Cellar' are by no means less crazy, though. The `horror' in this early 70's film is very amateurish and cheap, but there are a few neat attempts to build up the tension. Too many `old-ladies' talk about the good ol' days, though and that rarely is something you seek in a horror film with such an appealing title. Flora Robson, who may be recognized by classic film buffs, plays one of the sisters. She gave image to the Queen of England is the legendary Errol Flynn swashbuckler film, the Sea Hawk.$LABEL$ 0
+I remember seeing this one in the theatres when it came out, having no idea what it was going to be about and being so pleasantly surprised that I vowed to buy the video when it came out. While I won't go too far into dissecting this film, I will say that I gave it an 8/10, for all the reasons you can read in the other user's reviews.What I will say is this: The first 10 minutes of this film are incredible. It's as close to a textbook audience grabber as I've ever seen. I once put this movie on at a party, where everyone was winding down and getting ready to leave. I just wanted to see what would happen if I showed them the first ten minutes.Everyone, who watched the opening, stayed to the end.$LABEL$ 1
+some would argue this is better mainly because of the acting; but it is indeed far worse for reasons that outweigh the improvement.the source from which all the problems stem; the story. aside from one of them people being shot point blank, with a shotgun, in the chest and surviving for hours without medical attention, there is a bigger problem. Nic, the gangsta with the golden heart is willing to do anything for the friend he just met that day; and that includes asking an evil spirit for help. Ce-Ce, who comes out of nowhere with a past in voodoo, is willing to summon Killjoy, so long as Nic can "hook her up." the acting, while improved, is still horrid. these people couldn't convey emotion out of a paper bag. the script doesn't help them either. stupid lines, and i can only assume no direction from the director. this script was read like Shakespeare in high school with a teacher whipping them as they went.while this movie (if you can call it that at its 80 min. run time (thankfully)) is perhaps even funnier than the first because of all these things, it is definitely more painful to watch. 1/10.$LABEL$ 0
+If you loved Long Way Round you will enjoy this nearly as much. It is educational, funny, interesting and tense. Charley shares the screen with two interesting teammates, two tired mechanics, two excellent cameramen and too much Russ. Ewan makes a few appearances but Charley really pulls it off alone. He is funny, engaging and still a puddle of stress and doubt. Great stuff!The series wraps up in 7 episodes. Like LWR, the preparation is nearly as interesting as the race. Though they cover the ins and outs of the race well, there could be a bit more explanation of the trucks and cars, which are merely mentioned and rarely even seen racing. It is a motorcycle movie though and anyone on two wheels will love this. The series features stunning photography as well as a few interviews of peoples mouths. Yikes. There is another extremely catchy theme song like LWR but this one is not nearly as good as the Stereophonics.If you live in the US god knows when it will be released so buy it on Amazon.uk and watch it on your computer as I did. Oh, and be prepared to buy another motorbike.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie makes me want to throw up every time I see it. If you take the first movie, and reverse the plot (ariel wants to leave the sea, her daughter wants to go to the sea), take the same characters and give them new animals and new names, and then throw in crappy animation and the biggest suck factor, possible, you get the little mermaid 2. Its basically a copy of the first movie with a reversed plot. I'll take you through the horror of it step by step. These are the people from the 1st movie: First of all, Prince Eric is still prince eric, with about 3 lines in the whole movie. Ariel is uptight, annoying, and is not the carefree, headstrong spirit we saw in the 1st. In fact, she is the exact opposite. Sebastian is still sebastian only less cute, less convincing as being stressed out, and the jokes just aren't funny anymore. Flounder has about 2 lines. He now has kids and he talks with a dumb nasal voice. Scuttle is still dumb scuttle only not funny. King Triton's character is probably the best, he still retains the intimidation and love for his daughter, Melody. Ariel and Prince Eric appear not to give a hoot about their daughter. Like i said, all they did was use the characters from the first movie and copy them. This is what they did: Ursula- The new evil villain is Morgana, Ursula's sister who feels like she always lived in Ursula's shadow. I wouldn't be scared of her if she showed up at my doorway with a knife. She can't do anything right and she's a failure as a villain. She has the same voice ursula did. Sebastian & Flounder - Have been replaced by probably the most stupid sidekicks, Tip & Dash, a walrus and a penguin. They try to be hero's but always fail when trying. the plot is so predictable. They become heroes at the end. Yawn. Flatson& Jetsom- Now replaced by a shark who was turned about 10x smaller by triton. Hes really bad too. Morgana and the shark (sharkbait, I think was his name) have no chemistry, good or bad. Ariel-Ah, Ariel. Our lovely mermaid was replaced by her un-lovely daughter, melody. Melody cannot sing, her voice is about 2 octaves higher than it should be, and you want to punch her in the face because shes so fake sugary sweet. She wants to go to the sea, she is clumsy and the kids make fun of her, she has to go find herself. yawn.Not only is the movie boring and unoriginal its so simplistic when you watch this movie you will gasp at how bad it is. Certain parts of the movie make you want to call Disney up and demand why such a horrible movie was made as a sequel to such a wonderful original.Basically, comparing the little mermaid 2 to the little mermaid is like comparing and Ed Wood movie to Casablanca. Don't ever watch this, not even when your bored.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this on the Sci-Fi Channel so I knew it would be bad to start with but I was surprised at how much worse it was than expected. The CG effects on the dragon were terrible, even for the Sci-Fi channel and the writing was pathetic. I couldn't tell if this was supposed to be that stupid as a joke or if it just came out that way. The only redeeming quality of this movie is that it's so terrible it's almost funny, especially the part where Patrick Swayze's knight character goes home to his Knight father who has retired after losing his legs and is now bed-ridden in his armor for the sole purpose of letting the audience know he was a knight. The majority of the movie focuses around an enormous dragon egg that hatches into a not-so-enormous baby dragon with some of the worst CGI I've ever seen. This was just awful.$LABEL$ 0
+I enjoyed this movie okay, it just could have been so much better. I was expecting more action than what I got...which was more of a comedy than anything else. Granted, it was serious in parts and it had a good fight scene here and there for the most part it was more romance and comedy with some action and no horror at all. Which is hard to do with a vampire movie. A vampire hunter loses his partner and must train another, his sister is going through a difficult break up, but she is being pursued by a vampire of all things. Granted, this vampire is rather nice and not into sucking blood. So that is all there is really to it except for a plot of another vampire after certain royal vampires so he can gain ultimate power. Some of the problems with this movie is that its plot went here and there and the movie had a very uneven flow to it, that and it seemed to shift genres a bit much too. One minute action, the next pure comedy. However, the girls were cute, there is good action, the comedy was worthy of a chuckle or two and Jackie Chan makes a rather energetic appearance or two. This movie probably just needed more development in some areas such as the villain who is basically not really explored at all. So for a movie with a few good fights and a chuckle or two this is rather good...though why was it rated R? I have seen stuff we have made that is PG-13 that is a lot worse than this.$LABEL$ 1
+When one thinks of Soviet cinema, the propaganda masterpieces of Eisenstein or the somber meditations of Tarkovsky generally come to mind. They're great films sure, but generally not the most entertaining material out there. However, the countries within the Iron Curtain apparently enjoyed their escapist musicals just as much as the states had. In fact, from the 1930s up until the 70s, forty of these song-and-dance extravaganzas were released to much adoration by the public. However, they are completely unheard of in the West, so this documentary attempts to rectify that situation. It does a terrific job of both showcasing these films and putting them into the proper cultural context. Despite the fact I've never been a fan of musicals, I found this documentary to be completely compelling from beginning to end. It goes to prove that, no matter how many films you manage to see in your lifetime, you're only skimming the surface of whats out there.As for the film clips themselves, they're very entertaining. While some of the musicals are blatant propaganda showing workers singing of how much they love working under the regime, some of the films (particularly the later ones) look quite accomplished from a production standpoint. Plus, they are all extremely campy because of how alien they are to my western eyes. There's a few similarities between them and the American musicals I'm used to, but the presence of strict government enforcing of a message gives them a surreal edge. They certainly don't resemble the musicals made in the West. This documentary is both one of the most bizarre and entertaining films I've seen in recent memory, and its an absolute must-see for any film buff. (9/10)$LABEL$ 1
+Sigh... what can I say? Why does a horrible script such as this gets approved in the first place. Its not wrong to have a complicated plot but its not explained to the audience properly!To have the wife explain the plot via flashbacks is bad bad bad. To have such a tight editing for the fight scenes is bad too! Such fanciful editing only appears in trailers. It cheapens the whole look!And who are the Russian guys at the top of the movie? Who is the guy being tortured? Is he with the CIA? This film deserved not to be released in theatre. But it doesn't deserve to be produced in the first place. Its a joke to Hollywood.$LABEL$ 0
+Been lurking for a couple of years or so. I have never been moved to post on here before, so perhaps this movie is worth a star for that, but I doubt it. I just watched it on DVD, having missed it in the movies due to illness and never got around to watching it till now. I had not read extensively about it, certainly not even thought about the movie in some months. It was just what the buddy picked up in the store, so it got watched.Bad mistake.The shot I spoke of in the the summary up top is in the trailer and on the poster. Right from the off, Jason Statham has hair. Like in no other GR movie. Or any JS movie that I've seen. At least not in the quantities on display here. And Ray Liotta in underpants SHOULD be advance warned. It's scary and funny but not in a ha-ha-humour way. Its more in an almost-TheOffice-but-slightly-mutated-and-so-failing-sort-of-humour way. They each say the same thing: "This movie is not like anything you expect this movie to be."Now, based on previous, extensive, movie-watching experience, I expected this movie to be a few things. Like:() Coherent,() Interesting or engaging,() Not a complete and utter farrago of navel-gazing,() Something more substantive than a motley bunch of badly-realised fables from what is just a standard eastern mystic ideology dressed up as a "cool, modern, self-aware art-form",() Hopefully better than "The Idiots".As you may have guessed by my tone, it thoroughly failed to check any box above. Instead it was:(x) Badly edited {pace all over the shop, 70s-amateur high-8 style jump cuts, incomprehensible "plot" "twists!!!" delivered through hackneyed flash-back montages, I could go on...},(x) Shot as if by a depressed 14yr-old goth who'd just spent the weekend watching Truffaut and Godard with the drapes drawn(x) So up its own behind with the whole "I'm really smart, me" motif/ message, that it feels determined to repeat it every 20 minutes or so, just to make sure the dumb people (ie: everyone who doesn't like it) in the audience make sure they get the point,(x) A genuine waste of my time.As for the undoubted ability of some people to "get" something from this, fine. I'm glad you enjoyed it. One poster said something that caught my attention: under-25s probably understood it better because of the editing. Maybe, but editing is supposed to make your work more accessible, not less. As for the "Genius is only recognised by the enlightened" brigade out there, go suck an onion and grow up. There is nothing more presumptuous and self-serving than people who say the reason another person doesn't know great art is because they don't understand the 'craft /materials /moon cycle /filaments of supreme rational thought' which the 'auteur /poet/ artist/ palm reader/ idiot savant' is using to explain his or her 'vision /grand scheme /oneness with Gaea /great big bucket of dog-sick'.For me and many, many more people, its garbage. Movies, art, stories, poetry, anything designed to be viewed by another human is supposed to be engaging and moving. In some direction be it metaphorical, spiritual, emotional or whatever you're having yourself.The only way this moved me was forward in time, two hours closer to my own inevitable demise. "The greatest trick He ever pulled was making You believe Any Part of this movie meant Anything at All"And now, please, by all means, toast my buns for me.$LABEL$ 0
+Milla stands out in this movie because of her personal sense of style and the way the clothes hang on her. I have learned to hate that crumpled little three-year-old face she makes whenever she pretends to cry. It makes any points she is trying to make as a serious actress drop off quickly. Of course, in a movie with a BALDWIN and Denise, she still shines as a mature actor person. David seemed to be doing Woody Allen by way of Howdy Doody. Not a single word or gesture in the entire movie seemed sincere or even sincerely acted. "How Harry Met Sally" and "Two Weddings and Funeral", even "Sleepless In Seattle" had scripts, locations and ACTORS. The script seemed to be a string of bad and crude gags separated by a LOT OF TALKING. The locations seemed to be within a few blocks of each other. There are only two actors in this dishrag of an indie flick, Milla and the lady who played the chick who was into the stars. I watched most of this through the first time with the sound off, just watching Milla. That subscript gag was old the first time I saw it and it's a silly rip off of a song in "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying".$LABEL$ 0
+I enjoyed this film. The way these mutants looked, along with the tone of the film, is very good. Plus, David Cronenberg as Philip K. Decker was great! It makes me wonder if his personality is exactly the same in real life (except for the killings of course).I was impressed with the creatures for this film, although this movie probably had a somewhat low budget, the mutants/creatures/monsters looked great, especially from 1990. This is definitely a unique film and not crap. It makes me want to go find a read the novella it's based off of. This is an interesting film because it shows how humans can be monsters and the "monsters" are the one with humanity.$LABEL$ 1
+It's important to check your expectations when you see HATCHET. The *buzz that has been generated on this site far surpasses the real impact of the movie. What may help someone about to see the movie is to realize that it is --not supposed to be scary--. It is pure camp and an attempt at fun. It is not --funny--, just campy. Don't expect something like SHAUN OF THE DEAD; nor something like Friday THE 13TH (Part II through infinity).HATCHET does possess passable actors. The cinematography is straight Ed Wood. Creature effects and make-up are silly - probably on purpose. Gore and blood is something between Romero and DEAD ALIVE. HATCHET is a movie of betweenness. It's between SHAUN OF THE DEAD and LESLIE VERNON. It's between campy and comedy (there's a difference). It's between ultra violent and violent comic book.Instead of "capturing the essence of American Horror," or whatever other silly jargon that has been used to describe the movie, it tries to capture something between seminal --American-- Horror like Friday THE 13TH and new Horror like SHAUN. It thankfully stays away from Torture Horror.In the end HATCHET is between a bad movie and a decent movie.*I think it is happening more and more that people involved in movies are flocking to sites like IMDb to rate and comment on the movies that they are involved with. At very least there is campaigning going on for people associated with the associates to leave positive feedback and ratings. There is no other reason for this movie to have stared out in the high 7s with 600 votes and quickly fall after wide release. This movie is on just better than the HorrorFest releases and should not be so bloated.$LABEL$ 0
+From the late Sydney Pollack comes a grown up love story about human nature,pain,passion and betrayal. Police Sergeant Dutch Van Den Broeck(Harrison Ford)is devastated when he learns his beloved wife has been killed in a plane crash,he's even more upset to learn of her affair with the husband of a famous congresswoman Kay Chandler(Kristen Scott Thomas).He arranges to meet her and see if she knew or like he had no idea.They start to befriend each other then out of their mutual pain and distress begin an intense affair(which could be seen as healing for them both).However will the memories of the dead and pressures from their respective jobs drive them apart and cause more harm than good or can they escape the past?well you'll have to watch Random Hearts and find out.A moving and well acted film with a great cast.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm not sure what. I just couldn't laugh at it. I had an open mind. I didn't want to be a tight-@ss about it. But I seriously just couldn't laugh at this film. It was just not funny to me. Some parts it seemed like Ben Stiller and Jack Black tried too hard. Just because you put two very funny men together doesn't mean that this is going to be an excellent comedy. Some movies just shouldn't be made. This is one of them. Because it does a lot of old jokes and the acting was just stupid. I know, I know it's a comedy. Sort of at least. But I was just not impressed. I'm sorry, but I cannot give this anything lower than a two. And that's all I'm giving. 2/10$LABEL$ 0
+Pandora's Clock is among the best thrillers you will ever read and this is one of the best thrillers you will ever see. A highly faithful adaptation of John J. Nance's novel ,which had a frightfully real scenario in the novel,is made even more so here. Despite being made for TV, this is first rate entertainment. The cast is great and slips into characters from the novel so well that you would think they were reading the novel. Richard Dean Anderson steps way outside the shadow of Macgyver and gives the best performance of his career to date. Jane Leeves is great her role as an ambassador's assistant in a role that proves she can be a fine dramatic actor. Daphne Zuniga is great as Dr. Sanders and despite the character being a man in the book, it works incredibly well. Robert Loggia, Edward Herrmann, Robert Guillaume, and the rest of the supporting cast are top notch and fit their novel counterparts tot he letter.There are changes to the story of course (including and a slight change in the ending) but those changes are for the better when compared with the novel. The plot is realistic and very see to believe in the way its presented making this the best airplane set movie since the original Airport movie. The production values are high and though the special effects might look as good as they did a decade or so ago, they work fine. Sets are great, especially CIA HQ and the Oval Office showing that the filmmakers spent a lot of time to make this work.It doesn't matter if you see this first and read then read the novel or vice versa. Just do both and you won't regret losing four hours to this film and however long it takes to read the novel. This will leave you breathless.$LABEL$ 1
+I wasn't able to last ten minutes on the this terrible film. In and age of DV cameras, it looks to have been shot on VHS without aid of any color correction or microphone.As a filmmaker myself, I know the constraints of indy film-making and, even keeping those things in mind, I'm amazed films can be made this poorly.The only praise I can offer is that this film got distribution as I've seen considerably better films still seeking modest domestic or international release. I'm guessing the box is what sold it...it does have good box art, but it all goes downhill from there.Side note: It seems the director has 11 friends since no one on the this planet would give this film a "10".$LABEL$ 0
+A message movie, but a rather good one. Outstanding cast, top to bottom. Interesting in that Bette Davis's plot line is essentially back story! The extremely negative reviews (name throwing at the screenplay/playwright, associating this somehow with extremely negative comments about 'Angles in America', etc. etc.) object to the movie being too preachy about Germany in WWII. Gosh, that is just a bit too sophisticated an understanding of morality for me.Theatrical and movie-making, and acting styles vary over time and of course 70 years later this particular movie would not be made in this way. Yes Casablanca is a better movie (I guess), but although made in the same year and both having Nazis in them, Casablanca is primarily a love story. The love story in this movie takes second seat to the spy plot--more of a thriller. Both have a rather large number of somewhat cheesy accents and wonderful character actors. The children ARE a bit tedious and could have been edited$LABEL$ 1
+In Michele Soavi's confusing art-house zombie film, Dellamorte Dellamore, Rupert Everett plays Francesco, a caretaker in a cemetery where the dead don't stay buried for long. Aided by his simple assistant, Gnaghi, Francesco deals with the cemetery's zombie problem by either shooting the undead in the head or splitting their skulls with a spade.However, soon after falling for the mysterious beautiful widow of one of his recently interred, Francesco finds himself busier than ever before…Having garnered some particularly favourable comments from some of IMDb's more respected horror officianados, I decided to see what the fuss was all about. I've just finished watching the film, and I can honestly say that I haven't been this disappointed by a horror film for quite some time.With its dreary, muddled pseudo-philosophical plot, and an extremely bland performance from leading man Everett, Dellamorte Dellamore is an irritating and plodding mess that not even some splattery gore (courtesy of Sergio Stivaletti) and welcome gratuitous nudity (from busty Anna Fialchi) can save. I am at a loss to understand the amount of in-depth analysis and discussion that this pretentious bilge has received from its misguided fans.$LABEL$ 0
+It's Showtime! Showtime is simply a bump in Eddie Murphy and Robert DeNiro's careers. It's an entertaining movie and a guilty pleasure but not quite up to the actors' standards, especially not Robert's. Showtime is directed by Tom Dey and features some small roles from guys like William Shatner and Mos Def.Showtime is about two very different cops, Mitch Preston (DeNiro) and Trey Sellars (Murphy). One takes work seriously in a low profile, quiet manner while the other is more easy-going and wants to have more fun than felons in his back seat. They are both after the same felons behind a huge caper of televisions, VCRs, etc. They then cross paths and a TV station wants a new reality TV show so they fight crime while they are on TV. Mitch hates the publicity while Trey loves it with his line, "It's Showtime!" Their TV antics and methods are shown on TV and they are the new "Cops" show. The fun begins.Overall, Showtime is a fun action comedy. A good film but not quite up to the actors' expectations and standards. However, it's rolls along as it treads and parodies reality TV shows. A good break from shows like Cops. Truly at the end, just a guilty pleasure.My Rating: 7/10Eliason A.$LABEL$ 1
+I will commend it in only one respect.. it was innovative. Innovative doesn't mean it's a good film, it means that it can give you an idea of what you can take and implement in your own films.The simple plot is.. well.. simple. I got to the point where I didn't care if they destroy the building or not. If I had to hear that girl's annoying giggle one more time, I swear I would hurl the DVD out the window. And there's also the protagonist. They try to make him lovable, but he's a freakin pervert! Sniffing the girls bra, sneaking peeks at her when she's naked, putting her bra over his eyes when he sleeps, putting her bra on a blow up sex doll (which she takes her panties off while hes asleep and slips them on his doll.. umm)What irritates me even moreso is that crappy tinting. In the photo gallery on the DVD, you can see what the film looked liek before they greyscaled it and put in a color tint (digitally too).. The film looked a LOT better without the effect.. so they sacrificed it being a good film just to be artsy... bah. I could understand using gimmicks like that if the film quality was crap..I think most people who liked this film just liked it because the chick was naked for a good 5 - 10 minutes. This doesn't compare to Delicatessen ( like so many are tryign to do). Delicatessen has characters you can get into and like.. these people here just grunt and giggle.Lastly, I would also liek to point out that this was also tryign to be like a German Impressionistic film liek the old silents. One of the problems with most foreign, especially artsy, films is that thety focus on making an artsy composition and forget about the 'space' of the scene. It results in the audience not really understanding what;s going on because they don't get a sense of the space of the surroundings.Anyway, it's rubbish. The short film on the DVD, Surprise, was a heckuva lot better.$LABEL$ 0
+Oh, Yawn. Not another chick flick where the men are all pigs and the women will get even for the abuse they suffered. The only difference is that, in this film, everybody's a pig or has mush for brains. I hated this film for the moral issue of why it's right to send a man to prison for life for a murder he didn't commit. Is that a more immoral act than his abuse and deviousness. This movie shows all the situational ethics of bad writing. I saw it on the CBC's "Best of Britain" series. If this is Britain's best, no wonder the British film industry is in trouble.The only bright spot in this film was David Tennant, He plays his character as so despicable that I'm likely to spit on the next person who speaks with a Scottish accent. Kate Ashfield tries to play the victim but comes off in the end as immorally devious as David Tennant's character. They deserve each other.In the mush for brains category are the parents who see nothing wrong with the obviously psychotic Brendan. English policemen are made out to be so incompetent that they're unfit to give out traffic tickets. The British Policeman's Union should sue the makers of this film for defamation.This film isn't worth the electricity it takes to run your DVD to watch it.$LABEL$ 0
+This waste of time is a completely unnecessary remake of a great film. Nothing new or original is added other than Perry's backflashes, which are of marginal interest. It lacks the documentary feel of the first film and the raw urgency that made it so effective. Also painfully missing is the sharp Quincy Jones soundtrack that added to much to the original film. I can't understand any high ratings for this at all. It's quite bad. Why does anyone waste time or money making crap like this and why did I waste time watching it?$LABEL$ 0
+Utter dreck. I got to the 16 minute/27 second point, and gave up. I'd have given it a negative number review if that were possible (although 'pissible' is a more fitting word...). Unlike the sizzle you could see and practically feel between MacMurray and Stanwyck in the original, the chemistry between dumb ol' Dicky Crenna and whats-her-face here is just non-existent. The anklet becomes an unattractive chunky bracelet? There's no ciggy-lighting-by-fingertip? And I thought I'd be SICK when they have a mortified-looking (and rightly so, believe you me) Lee J. Cobb as Keyes practically burping/upchucking his way through the explanation of his "Little Man" to Mr. Garloupis. No offence to the non-sighted, but it looks as though a posse of blind men ran amuck with the set design of both the Dietrichson and Neff houses. The same goes for those horrid plaid pants that Phyllis wears. And crikey, how much $$ does Neff make, that he lives overlooking a huge marina? This, folks, again, all takes place in the first 16 and a half minutes. If you can get through more of it, you have a much stronger constitution than me, or you are a masochist. But please, take some Alka-Seltzer first, or you WILL develop a "little man" of your own that may never go away. Proceed with caution, obviously.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a terrible movie, and I'm not even sure why it's so terrible. It's ugly, for one, with that trendy 1970s visual style that maybe seemed like a good idea at the time but which now enables one to instantly recognize a film from that time period as being a 70s product. The film retains the story and songs that made the stage version of the musical such a hit, but the songs sound lifeless on screen. But mostly, the movie sucks because of the wan performance of Lucille Ball, who you'd think would be able to make something of this larger-than-life character if anyone could. She sleepwalks through the movie like a terrified actress choking on her opening night, and the film sinks with her. Even Bea Arthur, who I bet was hilarious in the best friend role onstage, can't breathe any life into this stinker.Avoid at all costs.Grade: D$LABEL$ 0
+Nickelodeon has gone down the toilet. They have kids saying things like "Oh my God!" and "We're screwed"This show promotes hate for people who aren't good looking, or aren't in the in crowd. It say that sexual promiscuity is alright, by having girls slobbering over shirtless boys. Not to mention the overweight boy who takes off his shirt. The main characters basically shun anyone out of the ordinary. Carly's friend Sam, who may be a lesbian, beats the snot out of anybody that crosses her path, which says it's alright to be a b**ch. This show has so much negativity in it that nobody should watch it! I give it a 0 out of 10!!!$LABEL$ 0
+The 1960's were a time of change and awakening for most people. Social upheaval and unrest were commonplace as people spoke-out about their views. Racial tensions, politics, the Vietnam War, sexual promiscuity, and drug use were all part of the daily fabric, and the daily news. This film attempted to encapsulate these historical aspects into an entertaining movie, and largely succeeded.In this film, two families are followed: one white, one black. During the first half of the film, the story follows each family on a equal basis through social and family struggles. Unfortunately, the second half of the movie is nearly dedicated to the white family. Admittedly, there are more characters in this family, and the story lines are intermingled, but equal consideration is not given to the racial aspects of this century.On the whole, the acting is well done and historical footage is mixed with color and black and white original footage to give a documentary feel to the movie. The movie is a work of fiction, but clips of well-known historical figures are used to set the time-line.I enjoyed the movie but the situations were predictable and the storyline was one-sided.$LABEL$ 0
+More entertaining than all the gay orgies in "300" combined. More heartbreaking than a Shakespearian tragedy. More poetic than even the most melodramatic poems about lost love and blah blah blah. And on top of all that, the greatest trash ever made.A black comedy testing the limits of the human senses, John Waters's cult movie "Pink Flamingos" is a story about the conflict between two families that ends in humiliation, death and of course the eating of dog feces (yeah by the way that is not actually the humiliating part). No no, this is not about the impossible love, there are no Romeos or Juliets on these 90 or so minutes. This movie is about the battle for prestige if you could call it that. The battle for the title - Filthiest person alive.On one side we have Divine (played by the cross-dressing Waters regular... umm... Divine) a caring daughter, good mother, cannibal, murderer, pervert and current owner of said title. She loves her son Crackers a bit way too much. Crackers himself sports a sexual attraction to both chickens and young ladies sometimes mixing them up in threesomes. Family friend and loyal accomplice Cotton gets her satisfaction from watching Crackers during some of his... acts involving the mentioned earlier objects of attraction. Last but not least Divine's mother and grandmother to Crackers, Edie. A 400 hundred pound woman, sleeping, eating and basically living in a baby cradle. She is addicted to eggs and loves the egg-man (the man who brings the eggs...lol).The four of them live peacefully in a caravan outside the city until the moment when they become a target for the Marbles. Exhibitionists, manipulators, cheaters, very evil people actually. Their main source of income comes from the kidnapping and impregnating of young women. For the impregnating part they use their trusted and loyal cross-dressing butler to provide the semen. After that they sale the birthed child to the highest bidder.It was the Marbles's envy towards Divine and her title that will lead to an inevitable confrontation between the two families. An Epic battle of filth, perversion and violence."Pink Flamingos" is an unsurpassed masterpiece in the trash-movie genre. Loaded with oddities and strange acts, John Waters's movie is loathed and hated by traditionalists, critics and the average movie-going audience. But for the few that remain unscratched by these generalizations the Flamingos is an unforgettable experience. Funny and sick, violent and poetic. It truly is an exercise in poor taste$LABEL$ 1
+I do agree that though this story by Melville just might be unfilmable, this isn't even a credible try. To move the story into the 20th century just outrages the original story's intent and nature; possibly you might have been able to move it over to England, but it must be a period piece. Even our story narrator--the proprietor--tells it in a flashback, going back even further, somewhere around 1800. Towards the end of the 19th century, a strangely disobedient worker would be discarded without a thought. And the 20th century? Come on! Give me an expletive deleted break!!! Even around 1800, such behavior didn't work very well, in view of the ending. And the movie's ending? I don't know what it was, because I didn't watch the entire travesty--I had to stop. This was like setting "Streetcar Named Desire" in Elizabethan England.$LABEL$ 0
+My wife is a mental health therapist and we watched it from beginning to end. I am the typical man and can not stand chick flicks, but this movie is unbelievable. If you want to see what it is like for someone who is going through these type of struggles, this is the movie for you. As I watched it I found myself feeling sorry for him and others like him. ***Spoiler*** Plus the fact that all the individuals in the movie including the people in the mental institution were the actual people in real life made it that more real.A must see for someone in the mental health profession!$LABEL$ 1
+Without being really the worst science fiction film ever made, or the worst I have seen, 'Time Under Fire' is still much under average. The premises and the first 10-15 minutes are not that bad, it starts as a X-Files story, combining Bermuda triangle mysteries with time travel. Pretty soon elements of other genres (too many) mix together, but the story never takes off beyond the level of interest of a TV series. Soon, 'Time Under Fire' quickly degenerates into a series of clichés, not only mixing altogether too many genres but also being unable to create anything memorable in suspense or special effects that would help viewers remember the movie until tomorrow. Acting is bad, and the rhetoric lines in the script do not help at all.$LABEL$ 0
+Generally speaking, I'm a an admirer of Jess Franco's film-making but, for some of this movies, I really have difficulties understanding the motivation behind them or even their reason of existence. Like this sick puppy, for example. "Sadomania" has absolutely no cinematic value, it's poorly made without any sort of plot and featuring some of the most ill-natured sleaze footage ever captured on film. This is another filthy women-in-prison film where rape, lesbian-action and violent torture games are daily routine. The guards are crazier than the prisoners and the institution is protected by an impotent governor who only gets sexually aroused when he spots a girl having sex with a dog (!). The girls are all very beautiful and naked throughout the entire film, yet you can't really enjoy this sight with all the perversion going on. The dubious highlights include a barbaric hunting game (you can guess what he prey is), a duel-to-death between a guard and a prisoner and the image of a poor girl having a needle injected all the way through her nipple. Auch! Avoid this sick mess and you'll save yourself the trouble of taking TWO baths in order to wash the filth off.$LABEL$ 0
+I mean really. This is not going to help the Australian film industry to make this kind of film with no values of any kind. Okay, if you're a stoner and have nothing better to do, then maybe. I think film-makers from here should try to show the rest of the world what great talented people we have, and this is not the vehicle for it. Come on now, this film is just tacky.$LABEL$ 0
+Why did they change the cute, Rugrats television show we all know and love into a lame attempt to target teens? They don't have to do that. All ages watch the regular Rugrats. When I heard about this, I thought, "Hey. They made a TV series about the movie. Except, they're really grown up as a teenager! This is going to be better." When I saw it, it was just as if I was watching As Told By Ginger, except they made it suck. Great job.When in the Rugrats series has tommy been a director? Never. Basically all the episodes in this attempted series is about Tommy's love of directing. I don't like that. I rather watch plots that change every episode. Not the same thing over and over. Also, when did in the old series have each character have their own sides of the story? Never. This series did that. I didn't like that everyone separated. I don't want to see Angelica's side of the story. I hate her.I do not recommend this show if you like As Told By Ginger and the Rugrats.$LABEL$ 0
+When the movie first started I thought cheesy. The first ten minutes were really boring. After the slow beginning and some of the soap opera antics, I started liking it. The plot was different than anything I had ever seen. Now, was it a horror? Not really. It shouldn't have been classied as a horror or the producers should have put more money into the movie to make it scary. As it was, the creatures where only there for a short time. I can only assume this was for money reason.The good side was that the movie was very entertaining. It held my interest (after the start) and did make me wonder about creatures from another dimension.It was obvious that this was a first time movie for the director, but there were a couple of highlights. By the end, I was hooked. Too bad Hollywood didn't put more money behind this.$LABEL$ 1
+This is by far the most awful movie I have ever watched. I have never before rated a movie 1 out of 10. My advice is don't watch it. This doesn't even classify as a movie.You'd be better off sitting on the couch bored rather than watching this movie. Acting was terrible but what was worst by far was the storyline. Highly unlikely sequence of events which aren't even funny. They are actually very lame and stupid. Very foolish choice by Ashton Kutcher and Tara Reid to act in this movie. Might even upset their careers a little.When I walked into Blockbuster, the main focus was on this movie , so I decided rent it. I sincerely regret it.Once you're 10 or 20 minutes into the movie you could basically predict what was going to happen. I was hoping it would get better , but instead it got worse.I am not exaggerating this. The movie is terrible. Don't watch it. Hope this helps.$LABEL$ 0
+For getting so many positive reviews, this movie really disappointed me! It is slow moving and long. At times the story is not clear, particularly in the evolving relationships among characters. My advice? Read the book, it's a fabulous story which loses it's impact on screen.$LABEL$ 0
+Before I'd seen this movie I've heard a lot of praise about it and quite many exclamations about how "horrific" it was. Not to take any credit away from this movie, I think it wasn't all that horrible or even shocking. It's just a movie about people living in the darker side of the town. And a good one at portraying the point.There's some great acting here and a well-thought of manuscript. Paavo Westerberg is a renowned writer in the Finnish movie scene and he's the best in what comes to describing the contemporary Finnish culture (albeit he's not the only one writer for this movie, but I dare say he's the main-writer anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong).The casting is excellent, except for Jasper Pääkkönen (the pseudo-main character, who in my opinion should have stayed in the soap opera scene), and the sets, the cuts and sounds are very well done as well and give great atmosphere to this movie.This movie is a story about loosely interconnected sad destinies that according to a famous Finnish band's very well known song (Eppu Normaali's "Tuhansien Murheellisten Laulujen Maa", which VERY roughly translated to "Paha Maa") throughout the whole Finnish society lead to a sad, dark end accompanied with booze, lonesomeness and the bad choices. And it's the side of everyday Finnish life about 80% of the population have no awareness of, unless movies like this are made.$LABEL$ 1
+The moral of this show is that bad eating habits give people bad hair, bad taste in clothes, bad posture, bad jobs, and on and on. They are obviously miserable and loathe themselves. However, if they learn to eat broccoli, they will be wealthy, successful, and attractive. TLC ought to be ashamed of themselves for this blatant exploitation of parental fears and guilt. If nutrition is really that important, they should be able to develop a show using honest and truthful methods. If they really believed in their computer simulations, I'd like to see them do a double-blind test by finding some 40-year-olds, finding out what their eating and exercise habits were as children, and age-progressing the kids' photos. Then compare to the real things. Hey, that sounds like a project for Mythbusters! Discovery Channel--are you listening?TLC must stand for Tabloid Lies and Cons.$LABEL$ 0
+I thought this movie was LOL funny. It's a fun, not to be taken seriously, movie about one man's twisted views on life, love, and... well, ladies "from the lowly bus station skank, to the high-class débutante... bus station skank." Tim meadows plays a guy (Leon Phelps) who was raised by in a Playboy-style mansion by a Hugh Hefner-esquire father figure, surrounded constantly by beautiful porn models and actresses. When his "father" kicks him out on the street he must learn to fend for himself with nothing but the chauvinistic outlook on life that his youth has taught him... that and an unfathomable, nearly mystical level of charm and dumb luck. And so the hijinx begin! If you haven't seen this movie and you enjoy a light-hearted, semi-mindless, comedy/love story, then I highly recommend renting "the Ladies' Man".$LABEL$ 1
+i don't know why, but after all the hype on NPR i thought this was a new movie.....all the best footage has been used for BBC docs and NatGeo projects that you have seen if you are interested in nature programs...it has been repackaged with sappy narration and over-dramatic music for Disney to take advantage of Earth Day-there are great moments, and it is always nice to listen to Darth Vader.......oops,........... James Earl Jones speak, but I had hoped for a ground breaking movie , considering the new camera technology used in the making of this film......it has been sanitized for a child audience, so one can actually see better footage for free on youtube ....i feel that we are due for something as ground breaking as Koyannisquatsi (sic) and this movie is certainly not it$LABEL$ 0
+Comment? Like my comment is necessary? We are talking about all time masterpiece, for all seasons and all generations. This is only type of movies that i still have patience to watch. In this, like in other Disney's movies is some kind of magic. All characters are in some way, "alive" and "real" so it's easy to understand message, even if you don't understand language, (like i didn't understood when i first watched movie, because i was about six years old). Maybe my English is not so good, but i learned what i know mostly from this kind of movies, and this is one more great dimension of this kind of movies, which in present time are rare. But there is a one big shame. In my country is now impossible to watch this, or any other Disney's movie! We don't have copyrights, so our children are disabled to enjoy and learn from this kind of movies. So, we will watch this movie again "Once upon a dream" or...?$LABEL$ 1
+This is at least the third remake of this movie so if while watching it, there is a sense of deja vu, don't be surprised. All they did was change the setting of the story and tell it differently but the differences are not significant. And it doesn't get any better because the plot is flawed to begin with. It never works. And like its predecessors, the acting is mediocre.The plot has a unique ending which will surprise any one who has never seen the movie before but the ending doesn't fit the story. Had this movie ended ten minutes earlier, it would have worked and have been very satisfying and I would have thought it more worthwhile. But here is the spoiler and that in the end crime does pay because the criminal is not caught. I never like this message resulting from a movie.$LABEL$ 0
+- A small time hood tricks the local mob boss out of a lot of money. Of course the mob boss wants his money back and doesn't care who he has to kill to get it. The punk enlists his friend and an old mobster to help him save his life.- If this sounds ridiculous, it is. The whole idea that this Izod-wearing, dune buggy-driving punk could hold off one of the most powerful mobs in Rome is just plain silly. His friend may be good with a gun, but he's up against a group of trained killers. The old mobster is little more than comic relief and no real help when it comes to the face off with the mob. There's also a sub-plot about how the friend's father was killed years ago by the mob boss, but there's little made of it and it doesn't help the movie any at all.- The mob boss, Mister Scarface, is played by Jack Palance. I suppose he got the name because he has what looks like a shaving nick on his cheek. Palance is as ineffective as the rest of the cast, doing what he must to get a paycheck.- I've seen some pretty good Italian crime/cop flicks recently, but Mister Scarface isn't one of them. Check out Syndicate Sadists or Revolver instead.$LABEL$ 0
+Steven buddy, you remember when you said this: "Try to find the path of least resistance and use it without harming others. Live with integrity and morality, not only with people but with all beings." you have not been doing that, you have mortally wounded your fans and their morality with these "films" I wouldn't even bother if I didn't know you are so much better than this, I've seen the videos of you teaching, you are so much better than this why why brother why...steamroller productions has been steamrolled I promise bro i am not afraid of you I will tell you the truth to your face so we can fix it.well I like some others fell asleep 90% in, but to be fair i was tired and had a large meal just an hour before hand Sensai, what are you doing. 12 million? really? do you have any idea what we could have done with $12,000,000 It could have been in the theaters and a blockbuster hit, if you wanted we could have donated money from the huge profit to a homeless shelter or something. These post production people are ripping you off man the choreography was non existent, we can do better man, the eye blinking thing was from the men in black movie, i half expected will smith to appear or tommy lee Jones to tell your they were gills not eyelids.Seagal you are an Aikido master, why are you doing this to yourself, to us? when you came on the scene, you had such a fresh direct style, and it was obvious you are a teacher cause the way your moves were so clear and crisp, watching your first three movies i felt like you were teaching me something, now i feel like you are just being ripped off or something i feel like I need to save you buddy, this time you are the one who was killed and I'm gonna go and get revenge for you by helping you make the best movie ever. bro i know who you really are, i know the truth about the Nico movie. let's talk.contact me man i got some fresh ideas I am a nit picker, I swear you will not be disappointed with my attention to detail and we'll do it for the fans man, your fans deserve better, we're hanging on, but the strand is about to snap. I swear I will not let your movie out the door with a single mistake in it I'm still trying to figure out if that was the worst dubbing ever, or you have laryngitis, but i promise you i can do a better impression of your voice than the lame **** who didn't even try. I sure hope you kicked him in the nuts as his payment. i can come up with a story and a plot that can be matched to your avenging the death of your student/daughter/wife/dog/house plant niche and I promise you we will bring you back, I promise, also I want to go in the direction, that makes people think, if you let me in i promise we will make a movie that people will walk away and have to have a discussion about it, a serious thought provoking, perception altering experience.Steven Seagal This is my official in writing permission for IMDb to release my contact info to you for the purpose of resurrecting one of the best martial arts heroes I have ever seen also, for the record hes not Italian, hes Irish and Jew so you call it bad acting i call it terrific acting, because you have believed for 20 years that Seagal is Italian :) kinda changes your perception doesn't it.$LABEL$ 0
+Given the title and outlandish box art, I was ready for just about anything. Perhaps my expectation were forced just a bit to high, because I was left a little dry.A film crew working on a soft-core sex movie end up at a strange house when they get lost in the fog and decide the best way to spend the evening is to have sex. Where hasn't this set up been used before? The difference here is the uber-perverse nature of the sex. Not allowed to show all the goods (groin shots were illegal in Japan for a long time, what is shown is fogged out) the movie tries as hard as it can to show the viewer just how unnatural sex can be.Amidst all the kinky goings on, a mud monster (whose origin I can't fathom) shows up and begins murdering the men and raping the women...then murdering them too. Some of the sights are a bit much, most notably a woman having her intestines pulled out through her vagina or another woman spitting out a mouthful of...stuff, but otherwise the gore is pretty standard fare.Ultimately the film is pulled down by it's own designs; it's too over-sexed to be a strait horror picture and too gruesome to work as a sex flick. The mediums can work, but there need to be a balance.4/10$LABEL$ 0
+This parody is cleverly done: from the songs (Express Yourself becomes Expose Yourself, Like a Prayer is now Party in my Pants and Vogue is now Vague) to the fake interviews of the cast of the show, this movie is hilarious. Remember Madonna saying she didn't know about the rain season in Asia? In this one, she doesn't know about the volcano season. It is a precious jewel. They got a lot of money on that spoof, and it pays off. Highly recommended!!!$LABEL$ 1
+I was having just about the worst day of my life. Then I stumbled on this cute film, watched it, and now I'm ready to go out & kiss a streetlamp.I have to admit, I only watched it for 2 reasons: VERA-ELLEN'S LEGS. But it's really so much more. The plot is actually quite clever and creatively woven. It's almost like a Shakespearean comedy with all of its delightful misunderstandings. And of course there's also... VERA-ELLEN'S LEGS.The only unfortunate aspect of this film is that the version I purchased (the "100 Family Classics" collection by Mill Creek Entertainment) doesn't have the best video quality, and I've heard the same about the Alpha release. The brightness and contrast are a bit too high, so a lot of the scenes seem bleached out especially when Vera is dancing in a white dress. But I suppose you can fiddle with the controls of your TV set to compensate. I can only imagine how it looked on the big screen back in '51. The stage sets, costumes & colours are otherwise dazzling & delightfully creepy--sort of in a "Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" vein.As far as the romance goes, this is just perfect. Not sappy, not contrived, not melodramatic. Just 100% ahhhhhh. Too bad, you poor schmucks, your miserable lives will never be as charming as this. Har har har. Wait, what am I laughing at? My life sucks just as bad as yours. Oh hell. Time to watch this movie again.$LABEL$ 1
+"This might mean the end of the white race!" gasps a general as a dozen Native Zombies wander around the battlefields of Europe during the "Great War". An expedition sets out tor the long-lost, back-projected city of Kennif-Angor to stop this sort of thing and keep the battlefields clear for decent honest white people to slaughter each other by the tens of thousands.It is a bit hard to tell when people are zombies or not in this film as the acting is so wooden. Even by 1936 standards the acting in this film is bad. From a previous decade. It looks like it came out of a correspondence school text book on 'How to Act' ------------- Chapter Three: Emotions -------------"How to express fear and loathing (Female) Clench both fists. Place fist of one hand on heart. Open mouth as it to scream. Place other fist, palm out, against mouth. Hold pose for 10 seconds longer than is comfortable then quickly turn head 90 degrees away from direction of loathed object and sob"."How to have difficult, heavily emotionally charged scene with ex-fiancé explaining your love for someone else. Do NOT make eye contact. Do not move. Do not show any emotion. Do not move your eyes too much as you read your lines off the studio wall." To give us a respite from the leaden acting the director cunningly cuts in long pauses where nothing much happens except that film keeps running through the projectors. Thus 35 minute's worth of story is padded out to 60ish minutes.The revolt of the zombies when it comes is so slow! Released from mental bondage the armies of ex-zombiefied minions turn on their former master by ambling slowly up hill and then sort of stabbing a door a bit and smashing a window. "Yea... let's... oh, I dunnno yeah. Let's get him grrr. Frankenstein must be destroyed - manana." (though I have just found a bit of hidden symbolism. Jagger is shot by a Native as some sort of ironic counterpoint to all the Natives being shot by the Germans at the start of the flick. see, even downtrodden Natives don't want the end of the White Race!) The chase (it you can call it that) through the back-projected swamp is hilarious and worth the admission price alone. Roy D'Arcy has a hell of a time camping it up, but is totally wasted, as Col. Mazovia.There is one interesting moment in this film. A nice little montage of the zombied natives and white cast members falling under the evil eyes spell. face after face, cross-fade into one another. It works, though there is a strange little blip in the middle of each close up like a frame has been cut. I guess these must be Neg Cutters' frames between the fades.Best watched with friends and in a silly mood.$LABEL$ 0
+Francesca Annis, Michael Kitchen AND Robson Green!! Wow, what a trio...OK, so this is no Anna Karenina, but it is a good love story, very well-written and well-acted by all. Even a few 'laugh-out-loud' moments mixed in with some pretty serious observations on fidelity, age bias, and parental aging/Alzheimer's issues.Quirky guitar music added to the story as well.While I have been a fan of Ms. Annis' since 'Lillie' (in the '70s) and Mr. Kitchen's since 'The Buccaneers' and 'Enchanted April', I have only recently discovered Mr. Green ('Me and Mrs. Jones', 'Touching Evil', etc.), making me ask the question - why had I not seen 'Reckless' until recently??!! Admittedly more of a 'chick flick' than something a man will sit through, it is perfect for a rainy afternoon's lazy viewing.$LABEL$ 1
+The school nerd Marty (Simon Scuddamore) is sexually humiliated by a bunch of classmates and then is in a lab explosion (set by them also) where his face is scarred by acid. Years later all the jerks get invited back to the high school (since closed) for a reunion. What they didn't know is that Marty is inviting them back to kill them. Then a storm starts, they're locked in the school and Marty starts to take revenge.Pretty silly. The murders are inventive and gory and there are some creepy atmospheric shots of the deserted school--but that's about it. The humiliations inflicted on Scuddamore are more than cruel (he's stripped, has his head dunked in a toilet AND gets burnt) and are just uncomfortable to watch. Considering Scuddamore committed suicide shortly after this was released make them almost impossible to view. Also this movie goes out of its way to have nudity. There is full frontal of Scuddamore (surprising for any movie) but one girl decides to take a bath alone...AFTER they know a killer is wandering around after them! And then there's the couple that has to have sex. This is the type of film where the killer seems to know where everybody is going to be and can teleport himself to them. It ends with a twist which had me groaning and rolling my eyes then ANOTHER twist which had me wanting to throw something heavy at the TV! The acting is bearable--not good, but bearable. Caroline Munro is in this too. She's a very beautiful woman but not much of an actress.This gets a 3 for some effectively gory murders and atmosphere. Otherwise it's run of the mill and forgettable. Scuddamore's tragic suicide has given this film more attention than it deserves.$LABEL$ 0
+THE KITE RUNNER is one of those modern epics that one is occasionally graced with. Spanning two continents, multiple family generations, and many decades, this film touches on a myriad of items including friendship, love, loss, and, ultimately, redemption.It's prime mover is young Amir (Zekeria Ebrahimi), a native Afghan boy who often plays with the hired help; mainly young Hassan (Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada), a Hazara boy who's family is supposedly inferior to the ruling Afghans. But the two form a bond of friendship based on education (Amir teaches Hassan to read), closeness in Amir's house, and, of course, kite flying.But bad times are on the way for the city of Kabul. The communists are invading and Amir and Hassan have separated due to an impossibly brutal act of prejudice by an Afghan boy against Hassan. The two may never see each other again.Amir's father races to get himself and his son out of Afghanistan, eventually finding their way to America. Here the two set up a gas station and live hand to mouth by selling at niche markets. And as Amir's father gradually becomes ill, a new revelation will strike to the heart of Amir; one that he cannot ignore and requires his return to his beloved Kabul.A study of friendship, war, and reconciliation, The Kite Runner is truly a fantastic piece of cinema. The story is never inappropriately spoken in English whenever we're in a foreign country, and only broken English whenever we're in America. This was refreshing and lent itself to a sense of realism.The acting was on-par with the best you'll see, too. Particular note must be made of Homayoun Ershadi who plays Baba, Amir's ailing father and strong patriarch. Also lead Khalid Abdalla as the older Amir is played well, especially when returning to Kabul to find it in ruin; quite the contrast from when he'd left.The cinematography of Afghanistan during Amir's escape and ultimate return are nothing short of breathtaking, with snow-capped peaks that will cause your mouth to slacken (I'm not sure exactly which mountain range they used in the film, but wherever it was I want to go there and film it myself!) But it isn't the cinematography nor the acting of one or two people that makes this film a success. It is a simple story told very well that makes it worth any movie watchers' while. Highly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+I have seen many good Korean Movies including thrillers and movies with darker overtone, but this one sucks. The director seems to be a sadist, who happened to get someone to produce some junk. The movie lacks any sort of entertainment value and is not even a thriller. I can't believe someone really made such a movie. Even though acting is OK, the story line and the feeling it leaves is awful.I am sure, I am not going to see any movies of this director. No sense of movie making, and utter disappointment in having thriller moments. All this has is showing scenes with psychopath wasting the reels with badly shot scenes and showing more blood and violence thinking that makes it thrilling. Very disappointing movie and I strongly recommend skipping all the movies of this sort.$LABEL$ 0
+I love this film. It's one of those I can watch again and again. It is acted well by a good cast that doesn't try too hard to be star studded.The premise of a newly widowed housewife who turns to selling pot to make ends meet could have been made into an Americanised turd of a movie or an action thriller. Either would have killed the film completely.The film plays out like an Ealing Comedy with a terrific feel-good factor throughout.It is worth watching just for the scene with the two old ladies and a box of cornflakes... (no that's not a spoiler!)$LABEL$ 1
+I stumbled across rerun syndication of this show several years ago, and fell in love with it. It features Téa Leoni and Holland Taylor and kept me laughing, one episode after the next. I guess it didn't make it so big, and was cancelled after a few seasons, but I believe it was a good run, and would suggest watching it...if the opportunity arises.$LABEL$ 1
+To paraphrase Thora Birch: "I kind of like this movie. It's the exact opposite of everything I hate in a film".This obscure film was too low key and intelligent to get a theatrical release, any chance for success would have needed a costly promotional campaign. And a coming of age story where nothing spectacular happens - where instead the focus is on character development, has a limited target audience. Whoever heard of a mature teen movie?But if you have an opportunity to see this or if you can part with a few bucks for the DVD, you could do a lot worse. "My Teacher's Wife" is nothing revolutionary but it has a lot going for it and holds up well to repeated viewings.Jason London (as high school senior Todd Boomer) is the star and fits this character as well as his parts in "The Man In the Moon" and "Dazed and Confused". He is helped out by exceptional work from his supporting cast. Tia Carrere in the title role is a revelation (she can act) as Todd's calculus tutor and love interest. Christopher McDonald as the teacher in a nice self-parodying performance. Zak Orth and Alexondra Lee as Todd's best friends, and Jeffrey Tabor as his father. As someone commented earlier, this is a "mature" teen movie because the romantic relationships are universally unsuccessful-at least by traditional happy ending standards. Even Todd's parents are indifferent to each other, with his father panting after the title character and his mother (Leslie Lyles) literally on the telephone during her entire time on screen (a device that provides increasing comedy relief with each successive appearance). The London-Carrere romance has unexpected charm and is far more believable than any other older woman storyline you are likely to find. But the real strength of the film is the evolving relationship of the three friends. There is no overwrought melodrama here, just three immature people who alternate between testing and trusting each other, subject to all the dynamics that three young people can bring to this kind of thing. They actually manage to pull off a "believable" three-person relationship, perhaps the first one in cinema history. Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.$LABEL$ 1
+"You're not going to shoot those little creatures. In the first place, they haven't done you any harm. In the second place, they may be radioactive." Ah, the joys of no-budget 50s sci-fi… Yet despite the odd gem like that, Superman and the Mole-Men is pretty uninspiring going even with a lean 58-minute running time. It's beyond cheap (the one shot of Superman flying is an incredibly inept few frames of animation) and pretty dull with it, though it has a surprisingly altruistic message – the mute Mole-Men, diminutive actors with enlarged skulls and fur coats who look more like Mr Mxyzptlk without the hat than subterranean critters, released from their underground world by oil drilling are not malicious, merely misunderstood, and George Reeves' Man of Steel tries to prevent the local small-town mob led by Jeff Corey from killing them. An interesting counterpoint to the paranoia of the day, perhaps, but with little more than good intentions to recommend it.$LABEL$ 0
+Loony Tunes have ventured (at least) twice into the future. The first time was with the brilliantly funny "Duck Dodgers". The latter time was with this … um … effort. "Loonatics Unleashed" isn't without merit, and might be considered a good product were it not that it isn't up to Warner Brothers quality. WB cartoons are noted for their cheeky humor, appealing at least as much to adults as to children. These pedestrian superhero episodes, on the other hand, cannot fail to convince adults to pass them up.The premise of the series is that 6 ordinary individuals (2 bunnies, a Tasmanian devil, a duck, a roadrunner, and a coyote) live on the "city-planet" of Acmetropolis and acquire super powers when a meteor strikes the planet in 2772. What's confusing is that the titles section features these individuals with a count-up to 2772 from the 21st Century. Cute, but frelling stupid.In each episode, the super sextet – amid mildly amusing but essentially banal banter – fight various super villains. For the most part, these are types that appear in every mediocre superhero adventure series and even some of the better ones. Like many mediocre superhero series, this one takes its villains far too seriously for the context. And of course these guys are the only characters that laugh – the usual evil laugh, of course. Why is it that villains in predictable superhero adventures always – ALWAYS – laugh evilly at every opportunity? Animated material of this sort seems to leave laughter exclusively in the province of villains and (occasionally) their henchpeople and/or henchthings.In point of fact, the makers of this series missed their best bets right from the get-go. The superpowers of the characters are sometimes based on their previous normal abilities, but sometimes not. The problem here is that we don't see enough WB looniness. Lexi and Ace have fairly ordinary biologically generated energy weapons and have virtually no personality traits one could describe as "Bugs-like". What we have here is basically the silly and drekish "Teen Titans", including its overly "modern" animation "look", but with animals. Feh.The other misstep by the program's creators is (or are) the villains. As noted before, these are not terribly imaginative and do the evil-laugh bit excessively. Amazingly, the writers totally missed the obvious technique of making villains from stock WB characters as well as the protagonists. Adding to the fun could have been, say, Jupiter Sam – as well as The Fudd, still hunting wabbits – as well as Tech E. Coyote converted into a really neurotic villain – and so on. Ah, the sadness of missed opportunities….Sadly, this whole production has gone into too much overtime (that is, a 2nd season). Nevertheless, we can rejoice that there's something new out there for the 14-going-on-9 crowd. The rest of us can hope for a 3rd season of Duck Dodgers.$LABEL$ 0
+Back in the 1960's, those of us who were bad movie aficionados thought that "Plan Nine From Outer Space" was the worst movie ever made, and would remain so for all time. To put things in perspective, though, we also thought that $3,000 was a lot to pay for a new car.As we grew older, our innocence was gradually stripped away as we were exposed to movies like "Hercules in New York" and "Overdrawn at the Memory Bank," which completely redefined the "bad movie" genre. In this context, last night, my son and I saw "Alien From L.A.," which pushed the envelope to an extreme unimaginable just a generation ago. To call this movie "bad" (or wretched or execrable) completely fails to do it justice, as does any other label existent in the English language. Even if there were words with which to accurately describe this movie, it would be of no consequence, since they would be banned in civilized society.The Alien referred to in the title is played by Kathy Ireland, who apparently took some time off from modeling swimsuits for Sports Illustrated, to kick off her cinematic career. Her casting might seem some sort of recommendation, until you actually see the movie. The makeup artists earned their money by making Kathy look so drab and unappetizing you would not want to touch her with the far end of a broomstick -- no mean feat. To put it bluntly, in this movie she has a face that would freeze Medusa. Even worse than her look, though, was her voice, which was so raucous that I initially failed to credit it as originating with a human being. Throughout the movie, I found myself longing for a chalkboard to drag my nails across to cover the screechy twang of her dialog. At the end of the movie, Kathy finally gets a makeover and finds herself in her beloved swimsuit. I suggested to my son that the movie would have been better if they had put her in the swimsuit at the beginning of the movie, so at least we would have had something to watch. My son perceptively pointed out that if they had then removed the swimsuit and stuffed it into her mouth, it would have considerably improved the movie on two counts. I defer to the plain brilliance of his observation. If you have any doubts, compare this dreck to "Barbarella," in which a competent filmmaker shows how to exploit the assets of an ethereally beautiful leading lady in the fantasy genre.Of the plot, itself, there is little on which to comment, since there was so little in evidence. It is said that if a million monkeys typed unceasingly for millions of years, eventually one would come up with "Hamlet." By the process of elimination, the rest of the time they would come up with something approximating this screenplay. Imagine, if you will, a modern-day Alice falling into a hole and dropping 500 feet onto a rock slab, following which she gets up, dusts herself off, and starts looking for her long-lost father in the city-kingdom of Atlantis. Once in Atlantis, she spends most of her time running, fighting, or climbing stairs and ladders, and basically trying to keep out of the hands of a general who seems to have no soldiers to do his bidding, and who would make Tiny Tim look macho. This summation, as abbreviated as it appears, is probably longer than the shooting script.On the plus side, as you revel in the production values and take in whatever you can of the sets and costumes through the smoke and haze, you realize that this is one movie in which you can actually see on the screen where all $20 of the budget went.The thought that kept going through my mind was that filmmakers ought not be given access to drugs and alcohol while they are shooting a movie, or perhaps prior, if it leads to results like "Alien from L.A.," though in fairness I have to acknowledge that I don't know whether they were actually involved in substance abuse, or were simply brain dead at the outset of the project.$LABEL$ 0
+Yes, I am just going to tell you about this one so don't read if you want surprises. I got this one with the title Christmas Evil. There was also another Christmas horror on the DVD called Silent Night, Bloody Night. Whereas Silent Night, Bloody Night (not to be confused with Silent Night, Deadly Night) had lots of potential and was very close to being good, this one wasn't quite as good. It started out interesting enough watching the villain (if you can call him that) watching the neighborhood kids and writing in books about who is naughty and nice, but after awhile you are looking for some action and this movie doesn't deliver. You need character development, but this goes overboard and you are still never sure why the heck the guy snaps. About an hour in he kills three of four people while a whole crowd watches in terror, and the guys he kills aren't even his targets they are just making fun of him. This is one of many unsuccessful attempts by the killer to knock of the naughty. He then proceeds to try and kill this other guy, and he tries to break into his house by squeezing himself into the fireplace. He promptly gets stuck and barely manages to get out. He then enters through the basement and then tries to kill the guy by smothering him in his bedroom. He can't seem to kill the guy this way so he grabs a star off the tree and slits the guys throat. What the heck was a tree even doing in the bedroom in the first place? Oh yeah, the killer before this kill stopped off at a party and had some fun too. Well that is about it except for the town people chasing him with torches and the unresolved part with his brother and that tune he wants to play. What was that even about? He kept talking about something that was never really explained. How does it end you ask, well since I have spoilers I will tell you. He runs off the road in his van and proceeds to, well lets just say it was lame!!!!!!!!!!!!$LABEL$ 0
+I hope that Matt Dorff's original script for this was much better (there are signs of it - dialogue that should happen well before big f/x scenes (to introduce characters) that would make sense much earlier, is jammed in later in the time-line; perhaps the original script was for a longer running-time. But maybe not -- in any case, this reeks. Every character is uninteresting, and *everybody* speaks expository passages as if they are speaking the word of god. There are characters that are entirely expository -- Dianne Wiest's "Secretary Abbot" is just awful, explaining things to her assistant (and incidentally us), in endless speeches that NO ONE would say to anyone, ever, in real life (when she isn't explaining things to her assistant that she already knows, her assistant explains things to HER that SHE already knows._ There are characters who are entirely one-dimensional -- the evil power company guy; the pilot who will just NOT SHUT UP about his personal life and concentrate on his job. The "well-meaning" power-company superdooperuber hacker-guy who can crash*everything* in Chicago (including the phones) -- and then gives the oh-no-what-have-I- done speech (but not leave himself a back door?). The crusading reporter who abandons her principles at the drop of a hat? The power-company shift supervisor who ABANDONS HIS POST in the middle of the worst crisis in Chicago since the Fire -- with no consequences? Hospitals ABANDONED by the doctors and nurses during the crisis (I'm not kidding, that's in the movie.) Oh yeah, and it's filled with Hollywood morality clichés -- generally women are good, men are evil, unless influenced by a woman (the ultimate is the punk with the gun -- deprived of a woman's influence, he literally goes insane); an evil stupid act (like what the reporter did with hacker-bozo) is all right, so long as you 'mean well'. Evil men die, capitalist evil men die as horribly as possible, everybody else lives (well, except Randy Quaid). And did I hear someone say that the nuclear electrical power generating stations had to shut down because there wasn't electricity to run the safety systems (think about that one)?There is one ray of sunshine (if you'll pardon the expression) -- Randy Quaid basically plays his character from "Independence Day" (you know -- "Hello boys - I'm baaaack!") -- this time as a storm chaser with an infinite-range SUV and superdooper batteries for his camcorders. Nevertheless, they kill him -- mostly, it seems, so that the audience will appreciate that tornados are pretty dangerous things (kinda shallow, that.)Give this one a pass.$LABEL$ 0
+I think they really let the quality of the DVD production get away from them. I rented this DVD from 2 movie stores and the second time I finally got it to play on the 3rd DVD player I tried.Anyone else have this issue? It's really hard to give the film an un-biased review after going through such a hassle to play it. For one, I've never seen a Finnish horror film before so I was sort of bummed that the movie was done in English. Also since it's never made clear what is wrong with Sarah, she just came off as retarded and therefore I really just hoped someone would shoot her in the face and make all the horrific happenings go away.$LABEL$ 0
+Oliver Stone is not one to shy away from a movie or theme for that matter. He is eager to confront people with their fears or show them their ugly faces in the mirror. Look on his CV for proof! This movie is not an exception, quite on the contrary, it is another gem, that unfortunately not many have seen.As controversial movies go, this is one that you should be thankful for. A movie that should encourage you to think about you, the people next to you. The prejudices that do exist and that everyone of us has in one form or another. Either we like to admit it or not, but it is easier to categorize people and be like "Ah he's 'xyz', yeah he must be like ...". Now I might be reading too much into it, but I don't believe that. I believe that Oliver Stone is a very intelligent filmmaker and that he was aiming for those things. And if that's something you want to explore (as a movie or within yourself), than watch this film and be excited!$LABEL$ 1
+Oh my god! The Beeb hit a new low with this gutless act of political correctness, A mixed race family living in Birmingham with a disabled kid thrown in for good measure. Whoever commissioned this tripe should be hunted down and thrown to the dogs. The usually funny Jasper Carrott is about as funny as piles in this show and don't get me started about the others. They have the timing and subtly of a Nuclear bomb. I only hope comedy will get better but with the likes of Little Britain and Catherine Tate about I severely doubt this. I think you'd be better off getting the box set for a decent comedy from yesteryear such as Fawlty Towers or Bottom if you want a laugh.BAN THIS SQUEAKY CLEAN RUBBISH!$LABEL$ 0
+Anthony Mann's westerns with Jimmy Stewart are slowly gaining for that director a position with John Ford and Howard Hawks as the best film director in that genre. He certainly knows how to give dimension to nice guy Stewart - in Mann's films there is an edge to Jimmy that is slowly demonstrated to the audience. In WINCHESTER '73 it was the relationship of Stewart to his brother and how it twists him into a figure of vengeance. Here it is a "I trust only myself" attitude, which leads to one complication after another. Even before the film properly begins he (as Jeff Webster) kills two of his hired cowboys who were helping on a cattle drive to Seattle because of some dispute (we never are clear about it - either they wanted to leave the cattle drive, or they tried to steal the cattle). He meets his match in Skagway, the port he has to get to in order to take his herd to Dawson. Skagway's boss is a so-called law man named Gannon (John McIntyre) who reminds one of the real boss of Skagway in the "Gold Rush" Jefferson "Soapy" Smith and Judge Roy Bean. The problem is that neither Smith nor Bean would have gotten quite as sleazy as Gannon in turning every opportunity into a chance to make some money. Stewart's herd interrupted a public hanging - so (as a penalty fine) the herd is confiscated (to be sold later for Gannon's profit). Stewart is partner with Ben (Walter Brennan - who oddly enough won his last Oscar playing Judge Roy Bean). They are also joined by Rube Morris (Jay C. Flippen) and also meet two women, the sophisticated Rhonda Castle (Ruth Roman) and the friendly and helpful Renee Vallon (Corinne Calvert). Rhonda works closely with Gannon, but had helped Jeff earlier in fleeing the authorities in Seattle. However, she has a similar "I only trust myself" attitude to Jeff. She does offer him employment to get supplies for herself to Dawson. He, Ben, and Rube go but at night (while the others are asleep) they go back and steal back their cattle. Renee follows and warns them that Gannon and his associates are following. Jeff holds off Gannon long enough for the cattle herd to be brought over the Canadian border, although Gannon points out that since Jeff has to return by way of Skagway Gannon can wait until he does to hang him.The reunited party of Rhonda and Jeff split over the trail to take to Dawson, Jeff opting for a longer and safer route. After he is proved right, they go by his route and reach Dawson only to find there is a lawless element threatening the community due to the gold fields. The herd is sold to Rhonda, and Jeff, Ben, Rube, and Renee start prospecting. There is soon two groups in the town of Dawson. One led by Connie Gilchrist and Chubby Johnson want to build a decent town. But the Mounties won't be setting up a station in Dawson for months. The other, centering around the "dancehall" run by Rhonda, are in cahoots with Gannon who has a vast claim jumping scheme using his gang of gunslingers (Robert J. Wilke - really scary in one sequence with Chubby Johnson and Jay C. Flippen, Jack Elam, and Harry Morgan). Jeff wishes to steer clear of both, and head with his new wealth and Ben for a ranch they want in Utah. But will they get there? And will Jeff remain neutral?The performances are dandy here, including Stewart as a man who is willing to face all comers, but would otherwise be peaceful enough. Brennan is playing one of his patented old codgers, whose love of good coffee has unexpectedly bad results. Flippen is a drunk at first, but tragedy and responsibility shake him into a better frame of mind - and one who has a chance to verbally stab Stewart in the heart using Stewart's own words against him. McIntyre would achieve stardom on television in WAGON TRAIN replacing Ward Bond, but his work in Mann's films show his abilities as a villain (such as his trade post opportunist who outsmarts himself in WINCHESTER '73). He is, as is said elsewhere on this thread, really sleazy - but he has a sense of humor. Roman is an interesting blend of opportunist and human being, whose fate is determined by her better feelings. And Calvert is both a voice of conscience and a frontier "Gigi" aware that she is more than a young girl but a budding woman.Best of all is the Canadian Rockies background - as wonderful in its way as the use of Monument Valley by John Ford. Mann certainly did a first rate job directing this film, and the viewer will appreciate the results.$LABEL$ 1
+"Zen and the Art of Lanscaping", written and directed by David Kartch is a short film about a young man named David (his friends call him Zen) and what transpires in one strange day of his life. Zen works as a lanscaper for an upper-middle class family. The lady of the house tries to get Zen to help her cheat on her husband. Unfortunately, her son walks in on them instead of her husband. From this point on the movie starts to speed through many revelations between the characters along with the eventual involvement of the man of the house. "Zen and the Art of Landscaping" is witty, smart and overall very well written. The comedic timing of the actors is also very strong. It's a fun, light movie that I would strongly recommend.$LABEL$ 1
+The TV show was slow moving and the 'offbeat' characters were sometimes irritating. Only through the miracle of fast forward was I able to make it through the first 2 hours. The write-up indicates that it's some kind of comedy/mystery but I didn't see much of either. If it really picks up after the first 2 hours, please let me know, because I doubt that I will watch the rest without a recommendation.This review is supposed to be without spoilers so I will continue in a vague, non-spoiler, fashion. I found the two main characters uninteresting and unsympathetic. I found myself asking 'Would a normal adult do that?' The man with the hedge trimmer looking out the window was irritating and when the male lead interacted with him, he looked pathetic. Would a normal adult put up with someone as irritating as him?$LABEL$ 0
+It has been said, "a city on hill cannot hide itself" and Virginia City, Nevada, perched on the side of Mt. Davidson at 6200 ft. west of Tahoe, is a prime example, or in the context of the movie, should be. Virginia City exploded in the American dream as a shower of gold and silver, suspiciously the same year the Civil War began. It was the birthplace of the dean of American letters; it was where a young reporter named Samuel Clemens began using the name "Mark Twain" and went on to become America's most famous writer. It was also the birthplace of the great Hearst fortune, and the launching pad of John Mackay, who became the wealthiest man in America, the third wealthiest man in the world. Hey, they should have made the movie about him! In the 1860's Virginia CIty was THE boomtown of all boomtowns, the home of the big bonanza, at one time the largest "metropolitan" area west of St. Louis and East of San Francisco. But Virginia City (the movie) misses all that and is more about a hogwash North/South duello between the characters played by Errol Flynn and Randolph Scott. Flynn is Capt. Kerry Bradford, a Union officer who is a POW in a concentration camp run by a mean Confederate commander named Capt. Vance Irby, played by Scott. These two are always getting in each other's way. Bradford escapes and then tries to stop a shipment of gold bullion being "snuck" out of VC by who else other than . . . Irby! "Hey, what's he doing here!?" Horrible. Bogart plays a laughable Mexican bandit who can't decide who's side he's on. Miriam Hopkins plays a murky character named "Julia Hayne", obviously a historical lunge at the town's first lady, Julia Bulette, who in real life a celebrated prostitute. She goes to Washington and talks Honest Abe about saving BRADFORD (not Irby) from hanging and blah blah blah. Go figure. They shoulda hung the writer. In "real life" Twain reports that on the last day of the War, the setting sun caused the American flag atop Mt. Davidson to appear to the puzzled residents to be weirdly on fire, kind of like the movie. Three days later they discovered that on that day the South capitulated. One interesting quirk in the film is how sidekicks Alan Hale and Guin Williams flick their pistols forward when they shoot, like they're fishing, or trying to make the bullets go faster. Not a bad idea for the movie. The same kind of goofiness is lathered over sap and corn throughout the movie. Gosh, how could they miss the gold madness, profligate wealth, gun battles in the silver mines, Mark Twain getting run out of town and beat up after a showdown, the crooked railroad, the Opera House fire, Artemis Ward, Bulette's huge funeral, the Chinese tongs, the black saloons, the Auction . . ? All this high on a mountain surrounded by desert? The truth was unreal. Did its fabulous wealth actually spark the great American holocaust? Well, if you count this movie, it wouldn't be the first debacle to come out of Virginia City. It's a disappointment for Virginia City fans because it misses what made the town a "city of illusions," where it is said evil seeps out of the ground . . . Okay, other than that it's a fun movie. Flynn and the gang are always great no matter what history they're destroying. If Flynn would just play his rotten self I'd double my rating.$LABEL$ 0
+I love low budget movies. Including those that are intentionally or un-intentionally funny,excess fake gore,violence etc.This,however is beyond stupid. Once you see the ending you'll say,what the hell was the point of all the killing scenes with no one around(except in a couple) to witness them.AND how did the ending actually come about(I won't give the WHOLE story away for those dumb enough to actually watch this) Granny is like a psychic Jason. First she's outside the window with a body and 15 seconds later she's in the living room knitting. The whole thing is a setup for a newcomer. They pull off graphic kill scenes,the knitting needles in the eyes,that only Chris Angel Mind Freak could pull off. And again,the very end was Pre-posterous. 56 min waste of time. I've seen one of the directors other films and it was almost as bad. Give me 20 grand and I could do better. This really deserves a big fat 0.$LABEL$ 0
+I never really watched this program before although it came highly recommended by members of my family. Funnily enough, my girlfriend lives in Hadfield (the filming location) and she pointed out a few landmarks when I first visited.This got my interest going so I bought the 1st series on video and sat down to watch. Besides recognising some of the locations, I found myself not in the least bit surprised. Once again the BBC were responsible for producing another example of the finest comedy in the world. TLOG easily ranks up there with Red Dwarf, Fawlty Towers and Monty Python as probably the best.Suffice to say I am hooked on the program now. The characters are superb and show unusual depth while retaining a scarily realistic edge. The look and feel of the program is perfect and reflects the sometimes bleak feeling of the North (no disrespect to Hadfield which I have found a very welcoming and warm place).I only hope that it continues its originality throughout its run (which based upon the 2nd series which concluded its rerun in the UK last night, it certainly is).Well done the BBC!!$LABEL$ 1
+I went into this movie perhaps a bit jaded by the hack-and-slash films rampant on the screen these days. Boy, was I surprised. This little treasure was pleasantly paced with a somber, dark atmosphere. More surprising yet was the very limited amount of blood actually shown. As with most good movies, this one leaves something to the imagination, and Bill Paxton did a superb job at directing. Scenes shot inside the car as are well done and, after watching the "Anatomy of a Scene" episode at the end of the video tape, It was good to see that some of the subtle, yet wonderful things I had noticed were intentional and not just an "Oh, that looks good, keep it" type of direction. This is a moody movie, filled with grimness. Still, for the dark subject, a considerable portion of it is filmed in daylight, even some of the more disturbing scenes. The acting is exceptional (Okay, I've always been a fan of Powers Booth), and never goes over the top. Au Contraire, it is very subdued which works extremely well for this type of film. If there is any one area where this film lacks, it is in the ending, which seems just a bit too contrived, but still works on a simpler level without destroying the mood or the message of the movie. What is the message? It's something that each individual decides for themself. Overall, on the 1-10 scale, this movie scores an 8 for those who like the southern gothic genre (ie: "Body Heat" or "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil"), and about a 5 for those who don't.$LABEL$ 1
+Sholay: Considered to be one of the greatest films. I always wondered if they would ever remake being the classic it is. That was the time RGV announced this movie and I was somewhat excited to see it. I always thought that maybe this will be a good movie, but every week we would here RGV change something. And the movie is a very B-Grade movie, something that I had not hoped.I really tried looking for positives, but I promised to keep Sholay out of my mind. The cinematography is awesome. The movie tries to be its own. But that is the up side. The action sequences are weak. The screenplay had potential. The biggest flaw is editing. None of the scenes excite you. For example, the comedy sequences felt very out of place and forced. Ironic because comedy was just as entertaining in the original. And none of the characters are developed. And no scenes will linger until the end. And the ending was very disappointing.The biggest question is acting. Amitabh Bachchan was good as Gabbar Singh, nothing great. It seemed as if they concentrated too much on his look, that the character only looks menacing, but you don't get creeped out. Mohanlal is barely in the movie, but he impresses in his few scenes. Ajay Devgan was decent. It wasn't so much the performance, he gave it his all, it was the weak script. Prashant Raj is very confident, and has potential to make it far with better movies.I had most expectations for Sushmita Sen, who was probably the best of the lot. She was expressive, but this still was not enough. Nisha Kothari surprised me. She seemed disinterested for the most part, but her emotional scene after her friend's death was quite good. Seems as if she needs to find a director who will help her talent, not her cute looks. But what disappointed me most was chemistry. Ajay Devgan and Prashant Raj didn't look like friends. Ajay-Nisha were not a strong couple. No passion was to be found between Sushmita and Prashant. And Amitabh and Mohanlal did not the hateful passion they needed.As for songs, they pretty much suck. Urmila's Mehbooba was too overblown and I pretty much slept through it. It was however nicely danced. The Holi number was enjoyable, but not memorable. Same went for the other songs. For someone who looked forward to this movie, I was heavily disappointed. I had high hopes for RGV because of his Jungle, but seems as if he lost his talent during the shooting of this movie. But hopefully he regains his talent for Sarkar Raj. But this movie is best forgotten. All the positives still do not make up for the boring movie it is.$LABEL$ 0
+It gets really bad. The only half-way redeeming quality is the effects from the thousands of bullets used during the film. There are context errors everywhere. The acting is horrible, save Kirk. The story is as holey as the grail, and the belief that the movie is a video game in itself just kills the movie, if it wasn't already a corpse. So all in all it's a waste of your life. I would have given this a zero had that been an option on the rating scale.$LABEL$ 0
+This DVD is barely 30 minutes long, and has dull interviews that reveal that the average Slipknotian has an IQ of around 30. But these aspects are the least problematic here.The real trouble is that Slipknot is one of the least talented metal bands to ever sell over 100,000 units of their crap. (The only reason I say "one of the" instead of "the" is because System Of A Down are even worse.) Much like Ed Gein's girlfriends, this band's music is pieced together from age-old metal clichés, which are to be found in both their image and their ultra-dull music. In fact, their image is kind of fun; their videos are like snippets from cheesy horror films hence they fulfill at least some purpose as entertainment.Their music, however, consists of nothing of quality - whatsoever: just a bunch of gimmicky, heard-them-a-million-times-before played-solely-at-the-guitar-neck riffs that are in no way related to each other and yet are randomly grouped together to form "songs" that have no cohesion, no highlights, no nothing. But if the riffs are truly bad, then the vocals are even worse: Slipknot's singer has a stereotypical hence uninteresting "evil" growl - the kind 90% of all metal bands today have - but that is nothing compared to when this deluded hick starts trying to sing! Still, what could one expect? Rule no.39 of the "Nu Metal" handbook says quite clearly: "You will alternately growl and sing. Ignore the fact that the two styles don't mix well, because most of your fans are so tone-deaf they will love you even if you **** into the microphone." Slipknot are at their absolute worst when their "singer" starts belching out "melodies".But back to their image. It's stolen, copied, ripped off, nicked, borrowed, taken without asking from none other than Mr.Bungle. You've never heard of them? Of course you haven't. You only listen to nu-metal, and Mr.Bungle is quite far from that, and beyond any categorization anyway. They too wore masks - grotesque, horror ones, similar to those of Slipknot, I might add - in the late 80s and early 90s. This band, whose frontman is Mike Patton from Faith No More, never hit it big because their music wasn't directed toward the average music fans (to put it mildly).So, basically Slipknot aren't even original in the image department. They have nothing at all new to offer hence will be forgotten in several years: once the masks become boring to the legions of their zit-faced fans, which is when Slipknot will be forced to compete in the music market solely with their generic music.Speaking of Mike Patton, it's interesting that a number of nu-metal bands often site his singing as a major influence. Predictably - and thankfully - Patton is not flattered by this and has denied being in any way proud to have been an influence for one of the worst metal sub-genres ever...Having said that, enjoy this short DVD and the cheap thrills it might provide to the untrained ear and bored eye... And then polish those Slipknot posters, because in a few years no-one will be taking care of them, the poor dears.Having seen Corey in the documentary "Get Thrashed", I finally understand why he wears a mask: he is a blue-eyed baby-faced ginger, looking like Dave Mustaine's younger brother! Not exactly scary.For more of my music-world rants, go to: http://rateyourmusic.com/collection/Fedor8/1Please punish me hard, very HARD, by clicking "no" below. That'll teach me...$LABEL$ 0
+"Nuovomondo" was a great experience. Many filmmakers tell their stories to a big extent via dialogue. Emanuele Crialese directs his film very visually driven. For everything he wants to tell, he finds powerful images that are able to stand for themselves. Thus, he understands film as a medium that primarily tells its stories over the pictures on screen. Particularly European cinema is often very dialogue-driven (and many of the young US-American directors are strongly influenced by that). Crialese's opposite attitude was really the point, that made this film special for me. It has also a very interesting topic that is wrapped up in a quite unusual story and told with humour. Vincenzo Amato is outstanding as family head Salvatore, as well as the amazing Charlotte Gainsbourg, who I enjoy watching in every single one of her movies. There are many great sequences in this movie. Just to pick one: When the ship leaves Italy and the people just quietly stare. This scene is great, particularly if you consider the pop cultural references that go with it (Titanic!).$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is terrible. Carlitos Way(1993) is a great film. Goodgfellas it isn't but its one of the better crime films done. This movie should be considered closer to THE STING Part2 or maybe speed Zone. Remember those gems! The only reason this movie was made was to capitalize on the cult following of the original. This movie lacked everything De Palma, Pacino and Penn worked so hard on. There wasn't a likable character and that is the fault of everyone responsible for making it. I hope RISE TO POWER wins every RAZZIE it possibly can and maybe even invent some new categories to allow it be a record holder. After I watched this S@*T FEST movie, I sat down and watched the original Carlitos way to get th bad taste out of my mouth. After watching this I wish Pachanga came and whacked me out of my misery.$LABEL$ 0
+The beautifully engaging song with the same name as the film won the best song Oscar in 1955.Love is a many splendored thing.It's the April rose that only grows in the early spring.Love is nature's way of giving a reason to be living.That golden crown that makes a man a king.Once on a high and windy hillIn the morning mist two lovers kissed and the world stood still.Then your fingers touched my silent heart and taught it how to sing.Yes, true love a many-splendored thing.How can we forget such a beautiful song. Henry King, the director, had the privilege to work with Jennifer Jones twice that year for this film and the greatly under-rated film "Good Morning, Miss Dove." Jones was nominated for "Splendored Thing" but she could have been easily nominated for Miss Dove as well.William Holden is just great as the war correspondent sent to report on the Communist revolution in 1949 China. His love for Jones, an oriental doctor, was endearing and so memorable to watch.While the ending is not pleasing, this is still one of the greatest romances ever put on the screen.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is really nerve racking Cliffhangin movie!Stallone was good as always!Michael Rooker put on a surprising performance and John Lithgow play a excellent villain!The music is fantastic especially the theme!The movie is action packed and never dull!If you are a Stallone fan then watch Cliffhanger,you won't be disappointed!$LABEL$ 1
+Incredible. Does it get any dumber than this? Not a chance. The stupidity in this movie would shame even Ed Wood, De Palma, and Woo. If the first part in the series had mediocre dialog and the second one had bad dialog, then this one has cretinous dialog. Amazing. But this time the story has been lowered to the level of the dialog, too. In spite of the acting and the dialog, I liked the first two films, but "Cube Zero" will surely kill the franchise. The utterly moronic plot so obviously stems from the pen of a frustrated left-winger.I sometimes wonder if such leftists even themselves realize just how anti-democracy and pro-dictatorship they are. In this movie they obviously target the US – a democracy. Why don't they target Korea, Iran, Syria, China, Zimbabwe etc. in anti-military movies? Sure, most of these places are hardly likely to produce a cube like this any time soon, but that's beside the point. It's obvious: writers of garbage like this actually admire these kinds of regimes, whether they are aware of it or not. I would even go as far as to say that ANYONE who adamantly attacks US foreign policies all the time, has anti-democratic beliefs in his core.Back to the movie: apart from being so far-fetched that it isn't even funny any more, the film has many obvious illogicalities. For example, for some reason the two men who supervise the cube have done it for a while and are oblivious to the pain and sadism that the project entails, yet the first one than the other suddenly turn against the system! Anyone who has any idea at all about human nature will see right through this idiocy. Or how about that cretinous character, the one-eyed evil bureaucrat who talks as if he's in a bad Mel Brooks comedy. In fact, as soon as this creature appears the movie loses ALL seriousness and hence any chance of being exciting: it really does become a comedy.$LABEL$ 0
+This, without any doubt, is the greatest spin off to Jackass ever made, hell, it even blows Jackass out of the water.Picture this: You have a group of guys who just didn't want to grow up, throw in a ton of money, and some seriously cool stunts, and you have Viva La Bam.This show, it's such a family-based one, and it's not just "the gang" running around being complete jerks (like in Jackass). For example: Bam's parents, April and Phil, are in every episode, with appearances of Bam's obese uncle, Don Vito to boot! The reason why the Margera family makes us laugh is simple: Somebody in our family can relate. April: The woman who wants to live life by the book and follow tradition. Phil: The guy who tries to be a good father, and finally, Bam: That son that never grew out of high school.The pranks and jokes in every episode will give you a guaranteed laugh, and buying the DVDs is definitely recommended! Another thing which is surprising to see, is how casual Margera is over the whole thing. He's said in interviews that for the majority of episodes, he isn't acting, and is just acting off instinct.What I liked the most about the whole thing, however, is the amount of influence Margera has over MTV. He wanted Slayer to play in his backyard, MTV did it. He wanted to hang with Dani Filth for a day and have a Cradle Of Filth concert in his backyard, it happened.Add to this his passion for the love-metal (and debated as emo) band H.I.M and his brother's garage band CKY, and there's a whole lot of head banging going on.If you liked Jackass, you'll fall in love with this. I borrowed Season 1 from a friend last year, and I would give up my legs to meet the Viva La Bam Crew. You will not be disappointed, and I can promise you'll be in stitches by the end of it all!$LABEL$ 1
+Enough talent and sincerity went into making this film that I wish it turned out better. Everyone is clearly doing their best to be true to an intriguing premise, but it's too deep a vision, too involved attempt at disentangling mental delusion to survive a transition to the screen. It is an attempt to capture the dimensionality of gossamer patterns on celluloid -- the result is muddled and slow. I give it a 10 for effort, but a 5 overall.$LABEL$ 0
+Kristine Watts (Molie Weeks) is broken apart, missing her lover; she is not able to overcome her love for him that is lost in the past. She hires a stranger (Douglas Davis) and gives a list of her mistakes to him with things to fix. But time is irreversible and sometimes the cure for the pain is a tragic end.The first point that impresses in "The Cure" is the stylish cinematography that alternates black and white with color. The concise and sharp screenplay is capable to develop a tragic and bleak tale of love with an unexpected plot point in the very end in less than eight minutes. The soundtrack is beautiful but the volume is a little loud and associated to the fact that English is not my native language, in some moments I needed to repeat some words whispered by the narrator. The unknown lead actress has magnificent performance and is extremely gorgeous. I hope to have a chance to see her again on the screen. Last but not the least, the debut of the director and writer Ryan Jafri could not be better. My vote is nine.Title (Brazil): Not Available$LABEL$ 1
+As a geology student this movie depicts the ignorance of Hollywood. In the scene where the dog grabs the bone from inside of the burning house, it is less then a foot from lava which has an average temperature of 1,750 degrees Fahrenheit. This stupidity is witnessed again when "Stan" goes to save subway 4. His shoes are melting to the floor of the subway while the rest of the team is standing just feet away from the flowing lava. And to finish off this monstrosity of a film, they come up with the most illogical solution, stopping a lava flow with cement K rails. Earlier in the film a reporters voice can be heard saying that nothing can stop the flow fire fighters have tried cars and CEMENT. Common sense dictates this film is a preposterous and gross understatement of human knowledge.$LABEL$ 0
+I really didn't like this movie because it didn't really bring across the messages and ideas L'Engle brought out in her novel. We had read the novel in our English class and i absolutely loved it, i'm afraid i can't say the same for the film. There were some serious differences between the novel and the adapted version and it just didn't do any credit to the imaginative genius that is Madeleine L'Engle! This is the reason i gave it such a poor rating. Don't see this movie if you are a big fan of L'Engle's texts because you will be sorely disappointed. However, if you are watching the movie for entertainment purposes (or educational as was my case) then it is an alright movie!$LABEL$ 0
+The sight of Kareena Kapoor in a two-piece bikini is about the only thing that wakes you up from your sleep while watching Tashan — the mega-disappointing, mind-numbing new film at the cinemas this weekend. Bad films are bad films and we see some every week, but Tashan is not just a bad film, it's a terrible film. Terrible because it takes its audience for granted, terrible also because the filmmakers expect to get away without a plot or any common sense only because they've got big movie stars onboard.Written and directed by Vijay Krishna Acharya, Tashan is what you'd describe as a road movie, but one that's going in all the wrong directions. Saif Ali Khan stars as Jimmy Cliff, a call-centre executive who's hired to teach English to Bhaiyyaji - that's Anil Kapoor playing an ambitious UP gangster, desperate to go cool. Jimmy's got his eye on Pooja, the gangster's pretty young assistant (played by Kareena Kapoor), who uses Jimmy to swindle her boss of 25 crore rupees. Determined to recover his money and also to punish both Jimmy and Pooja, Bhaiyyaji recruits his most trusted henchman to do the job. So you have Akshay Kumar as Bachchan Pandey, the gangster's faithful aide from Kanpur, who tracks down the culprits and recovers the stolen money that's hidden across the length and breadth of the country.Much like those bad eighties potboilers, Tashan too is held together by a threadbare script centred on a vendetta plot. But the treatment's so over-the-top, so indulgent that it fails to establish any connect. Instead of a coherent screenplay or a traditional three-act structure, you get a handful of set pieces around which most of the scenes are loosely constructed. That garish item song in the desert, the bullet-dodging action scene at a Rajasthani fort, Kareeena's bikini moment, even that ridiculous climatic action scene complete with shaolin monks, a water scooter zipping through a dirty naala, and believe it or not, even a Dhanno-style horse-driven tonga. In all fairness, not all these set pieces are badly done - the item song in the desert is quite neat actually - but very little of it makes any sense in the larger picture, because you're just going from one piece to another without any help from the script really. Little do you expect in a seemingly fast-paced road movie, to find a sickeningly sentimental flashback track about childhood sweethearts.You see the problem with Tashan is nobody associated with this film knew what film they were making. What's more, I don't think they cared either - the film reeks of arrogance. Arbitrarily packing in elements of every genre without actually bothering to stop and see if the mix does work, Tashan is like an overcooked stew.There are films that kill you softly, and then there's Tashan, a film that kills you with excess. Packaged snazzily with glossy-finish camera-work, exotic locations and fancy costumes, every frame of the film probably cost lakhs to put together, but it still feels like a hollow piece in the end because the story doesn't hold. Borrowing narrative from Tarantino and style from Stephen Chow doesn't help either because they don't blend with the film's wafer-thin plot. One may have complained a little less if the characters were more engaging, but Anil Kapoor's grating Hinglish dialogue makes you want to slit your wrists, and Saif Ali Khan fumbles through the film foolishly, unable to find his feet. Kareena Kapoor, meanwhile, queen of over-the-top delivery, does a decent job. But of course, if Tashan is salvaged to some extent, it's thanks to Akshay Kumar's irresistible presence and his spontaneous approach to the character. You cringe when he's cupping his crotch repeatedly, and you scowl when he delivers those double-meaning dialogues, but not for a moment can you take your eyes off the screen when he's up there.Despite some good music from Vishal-Shekhar, the songs seem like they're only prolonging your misery. Well that's because Tashan is a test of your patience. In case you didn't know, Tashan means style. I'm sorry to say, this film has none.$LABEL$ 0
+this film was just brilliant,casting,location scenery,story,direction,everyone's really suited the part they played,and you could just imagine being there,Robert Redford's is an amazing actor and now the same being director,Norman's father came from the same Scottish island as myself,so i loved the fact there was a real connection with this film,the witty remarks throughout the film were great,it was just brilliant,so much that i bought the film as soon as it was released for retail and would recommend it to everyone to watch,and the fly-fishing was amazing,really cried at the end it was so sad,and you know what they say if you cry at a film it must have been good,and this definitely was, also congratulations to the two little boy's that played the part's of Norman and Paul they were just brilliant,children are often left out of the praising list i think, because the stars that play them all grown up are such a big profile for the whole film,but these children are amazing and should be praised for what they have done, don't you think? the whole story was so lovely because it was true and was someone's life after all that was shared with us all.$LABEL$ 1
+John Cassavetes' "Opening Night" is fantastic and fascinating; fantastic because it plays with the deepest fears we have inside our imagination, fascinating because it never ceases surprising us. With its very long duration of two hours and twenty minutes, anyone who appreciates characters won't be able to take their eyes off the screen.The story of an unstable actress, Myrtle Gordon, (Gena Rowlands) trying to put herself together for a play, fighting her demons; "Opening Night" is not only about a woman on the verge of a breakdown but also about the complexities of the lives of theater actors and the theatrical world. All of Cassavetes' characters here are experienced people that know about the world of theater; so half of the film takes place on a stage, either where the performers do their job or at backstage, where producers and writers and directors do their job.Cassavetes is so harsh with his characters that this unkindness turns towards the audience, but the audience in the cinema. Because there is another audience, in the theater of the film, that doesn't know what is really happening and laugh because they think everything is performance. And that's essentially what it is; it's just that the audience in the theater doesn't get to see 'backstage' the way we do. They don't experience Gena Rowlands' exuberance before she goes out to that stage, but most importantly; they don't know the reasons why she acts the way she does.I always thought that it would be difficult to be friends with an actor. Myrtle (Rowland) says she's an actress and that's the only thing she knows how to do; and I imagine that if I had a friend who was a professional performer, it would be really difficult to tell when he's saying the truth because I would know he's an actor and he can fake anything at any time. A lot of the things that Myrtle does during the awful experiences the film puts her through…We suspect if she's being real; the rest of the characters suspect too.There is the writer, Sarah (Joan Blondell), who can't understand why Myrtle doesn't understand the character she's written for her. There's the director, Manny (Ben Gazzara), who can't accept the fact that his best actress might be losing it; the producer David (Paul Stewart) who doesn't know where to stand and Myrtle's co-star Maurice (Cassavetes himself), who can't deal with the love they have for each other.When she witnesses the death of a teenager, a fan; all of this comes together and affects Myrtle, but no one knows if her delusions are for real. They don't say anything because they don't want to upset her, but the movie enters in a state of subconsciousness that only Myrtle accepts. At times, we can tell that everyone has had it. During these moments, Cassavetes' brilliant script depicts a scary brutal honesty in the words the characters say in a discussion backstage; and not only what everyone tells Myrtle but also what she says to them.Here are people who are not afraid to speak their mind and constantly change what they are thinking, just like Cassavetes' way of making cinema. And in this aspect, the performances are more important here than in "Shadows", because the characters are involved in a bigger picture; a bigger story that steps out of the trivial.But in another aspect, the actual way of making cinema, this movie is no different from "Shadows". There's a beautiful thing in the way Al Ruban's camera shoots the characters. When someone's talking, the camera doesn't focus on him, it shoots the person who is listening; so we can see how he or she reacts to the things the other one's saying. Sometimes they don't care, sometimes they are happy, sometimes devastated.Improvisation might still be there, though, among all these wonderful performances. Near the end, there's an unexpected scene where Cassavetes and Rowlands start talking, non-stop. Whether this was improvised or not is not something we have to wonder. We have just got to watch; and watching both of them exchanging life experiences and seeing words come truly alive in a conversation that means a lot more than what it shows…It doesn't get more natural than that.$LABEL$ 1
+The Daily Mail's Christopher Tookey had some choice things to say about this film, among them "watch it all the way through its 82 miserable minutes, and I guarantee you'll be shaking your head and asking: 'Have we really descended to this?' Yes, we have, for if ever a movie testified to the utter cynicism, tastelessness and moral corruption of those who commission and make British movies, it is this abomination". Tookey continues "aimed squarely at oafs with unwashed underwear, filthy minds and knuckles that graze the pavement when they walk, this sex comedy is so sordid, unfunny and malodorous that it is enough to put you off sex, and indeed films, for life", before concluding "Sex Lives of the Potato Men is not merely a truly vile film, it is symptomatic of a new national culture of instant self-gratification, yobbishness and sadism that is now being celebrated on screen". Normally I don't listen too closely to the critics, but in this case, Tookey was bang on the money. This film goes beyond bad, indeed, it goes beyond being merely unfunny and enters some bizarre parallel universe where every painful minute drags on for an hour and where the definition of 'hilarious' seems to be 'saying tw*t in a Brummie accent'. It's depressing to anyone with half a brain who grew up with the Goodies, Monty Python, Spitting Image, Not the Nine O'Clock News and Fawlty Towers.Ideally, Sex Lives Of the Potato Men would have quietly vanished after its cinema release and joined the equally dire Vix spin-off The Fat Slags (2004) and the ill-starred All Saints vehicle Honest (2000) in the celluloid graveyard, but as it seems destined for endless late night schedule-filling screenings and misguided "best film EVER!" raves from people who should know better, so I must apologise in advance for trying to right a wrong that the British film industry, in all its wisdom, has inflicted onto an undeserving world. Yes, I really am sorry to bring this one back from the celluloid dead, but I actually remember thinking "It can't be as bad as the critics said it was"...but, as God is my witness, it was WORSE.Acting - dire from start to finish, special mention to Mackenzie 'Albert Steptoe's legs on a young man's body' Crook.Soundtrack - cut and paste 'ladrock', mostly ska-based lager-lout-friendly pub jukebox piffle which brought back horrible memories of seeing those chirpy cockernee doin' the Lambeth Walk to a watered-down imitation of the Specials knob-shiners Madness on every single comedy / variety programme in the eighties...and 'Ace Of Spades' by Motorhead as the title music? What the hell...trying to evoke memories of one of the most genuinely exciting scenes ever offered by The Young Ones, indeed, ever offered by ANY comedy show?! Cheap shot, way below the belt.Script - written by a 12 year old who's just read every single back issue of Smut and Zit in one long Red Bull-fuelled session...SURELY? C'mon, no real, proper, worldly, grown-up person could possibly set this kind of retarded hogwash on paper? And Mark Gatiss was in it...Mark Gatiss...the least annoying member of the League of Gentlemen and Goodies fan taking part in such a towering heap of fly-blown cinematic excrement? 'One of the brightest British comedy stars'? Not any more he's not! On the subject of League Of Gentlemen, somebody give me a pair of lead-lined diver's boots and Steve 'face like a collapsed rectum' Pemberton and a long weekend in a soundproofed room before I die...PLEASE...Cinema, British or otherwise, just doesn't come much worse than this. Kent Bateman's The Headless Eyes (1971) is a new-wave masterpiece compared to this repugnant smut.$LABEL$ 0
+The fact that this movie is bargain basement quality is a real shame, but back in the 1940s, that was about the only type of film made for theaters catering to Black audiences due to segregation. So, while MGM, Warner and all the other big studios were making extremely polished films, tiny studios with shoestring budgets were left to muddle by with what they had. And from seeing this movie, it's obvious that a lot of energy went into making the film, even if it is a pretty lousy film aesthetically speaking. Some of the actors weren't particularly good (especially the French guy), the sets were minimal and the plot totally silly BUT the film also had some good music--of varying styles from Classical to Jazz to Rhythm and Blues. This is thanks to many talented but pretty much unrecognized Black performers.Now as for the plot, it was totally stupid and silly but still watchable in a kitschy way. I loved seeing Tim Moore ("Kingfish" from the AMOS 'N ANDY TV show) in drag, as he made the absolute ugliest woman in cinema history (this includes the Bride of Frankenstein and many others)--this is probably due to the fact that when NOT in drag, he was a pretty ugly but funny guy. If the man pretending to be a woman actually looked remotely like a woman, I doubt this movie would have worked as well. Seeing this ugly and rubber-faced man with a cheesy wig STILL being ardently sought after by three suitors was pretty funny.This isn't a great film but from a historical point of view, it's fascinating and excellent viewing for young adults to know what America was like for Blacks in this era. A very interesting and funny time capsule.$LABEL$ 0
+I guess this movie will only work on people who were all turned off by the giant hype of Lord of the Rings. Well, so I was. And so I really love this movie. Especially I like all those flawless superheroes from LotR being so perfectly and disrespectfully parodied. Most brilliantly is the counterpart of Gandalf (the brave and wise and completely humorless know-it-all wizard): Almghandi, the cowardice and brain dead transvestite. Sauron's counterpart ("Sauraus" from East Germany, of course) is wearing a simply bucket with eye holes as a helmet. Aragorns alter ego is yet another accident prone idiot who tries to fix his broken sword ("Ulrike" the legend) with scotch tape. And "Strunzdumm" (the counterpart of Wormtong) indeed has some strong resemblance with Brad Dourif! And don't forget Grmpfli and Heidi... huh-huh$LABEL$ 1
+I feel conflicted about this film - it is one of the most beautiful films I've seen, and provides insightful looks into a lost culture. There was an early scene of men in caps and moustaches sitting around a table, with a woman serving, and an accordion playing, that brought tears to my eyes, just because of the way it captured a way of life that must be incomprehensible to many today. It presents the lives of the characters as being inextricably bound up with the life of the village, another lost concept in today's world. Symbolism is always fun but it seemed a little dated. The fatal flaws of the movie to me were the lack of any compelling dramatic drive, and a total lack of humor. I never felt like I knew any of the characters beyond very basic universal things like grieving over the loss of a loved one, etc. The people were stick figures in the director's tableaux involving natural disasters, war, etc. The film was just one beautiful tragic scene after another, with no involving narrative thread and no humanity. As a result, it seemed very abstract, irrelevant to the lives of real people. In the end, I was too bored to finish watching it.$LABEL$ 0
+The acting was very sub-par, You had Costas Mandalar acting like Triple H's dumber forest ranger brother, a Scott McMahon look-alike as his depute who I guess your supposed to care about but there is no emotional involvement anywhere. You have the Stupid lesbian, Not that I have any thing against lesbians, i don't just stupid ones who keep running around in a punisher like shirt and a grunge like hat who keeps asking if anyone saw her dead lover.The Villain could be scary and there is a morality tale somewhere about trying to fight age and death but it is lost in this movie. Costas Hurst Helmsley points out to the soon to be victims the way back into town, while obviously there are city lights behind him.Also A mispronunciation of Ed Gein but pronounced it Gine. As a citizen of Wisconsin. We have had our share of Monsters Gein,Dahmer, and McCarthy, but if your going to use it pronounce it right.God Why do i watch all these terrible films. Oh yes I am a glutton for punishment and I watch these so you don't have to.$LABEL$ 0
+Drawn by Pain is easily one of the best pieces of cinema I have ever seen. Here are my reviews of the episodes released so far: Episode one was even better than I expected and from everything I had heard about it, I expected quite a lot. I am very impressed with the actors already. The father was creepy and played perfectly. The little girl is so expressive, she uses her eyes to convey such emotion. The animation was superb. The cinematography was amazing, each camera angle capturing the feeling of the scene perfectly. The editing was done so well, each scene blending seamlessly into the next. The music captured the emotions quite well and drew you into the story. I just can't say enough about how wonderful this episode was. It definitely whets my appetite for more! Episode 2 was even better than the first one! Everything I said about the first episode carries through, only you get to see even more of the character development. I can not wait to finally see episode 3, or the rest of the series for that matter. What is developing is an intriguing, character driven storyline with all the trappings of a big Hollywood production, but without the pretension. So much is said, with so few words. This series is something like you've never seen and perched to become a real success.This episode was FREAKING AWESOME! No other words describe it! WOW! Everything that I've said about the previous episodes holds true for this one, and yet it was even better! I don't know how you manage to take something amazing and make it even better! The further character development proves that this is a completely character driven piece. The cinematography excels as it always has and draws you into Emily's pain, fear, hate and emotional roller-coaster. I can't wait to see Episode 4... or the rest of the series for that matter. You have truly outdone yourself!As much as I have loved the other episodes, episode 4 is the best yet. I love the character progression. I feel like we are really coming to know Emily, her pain, and her internal struggle. The other themes I've stated in past reviews are continued. GREAT cinematography, the writing is superb, the actors are right on with their portrayals and have made the characters their own, and the animation is simply amazing! Another great job from the DbP crew!$LABEL$ 1
+When the trailer for Accepted first came up, many people began to get excited about seeing it... really excited. Who could blame them, it looked like fun. But that's exactly the thing. People went into Accepted looking for a good movie, but if you think about it, Accepted isn't the type of film destined to be a good movie. It's meant to be a film that pleases its crowd without too much effort being given. That being said, for those of you who expected a great film, you need to think about what could be made of a comedy like this one. Think that, and you will truly enjoy the film (because you'll rid yourself of your idea that the movie will be fantastic.) BOTTOM LINE: Watch the movie, and have fun, but don't look for anything groundbreaking.$LABEL$ 1
+Greetings again from the darkness. Insight into the mind and motivation of a wonderful artist. How strange for most of us to see someone who MUST work... no matter the conditions, else his reason for living ceases. To see Goldsworthy's sculptures come alive and to see his reaction to each is extremely voyeuristic. This artist creates because he must - not for money or fame. It is his lifeforce. When you see his failures, energy seems to expel from his body like a burst hot air balloon. It is not the dread of beginning again, it is that he takes his energy from his work. Watching him create just to have nature takeover and recall his work is somewhat painful, but nonetheless, breathtaking. He discusses flow and time in the minimal dialog and there appears to be little doubt that the artist and the earth are one in the same. When he says he needs the earth, but it does not need him ... I beg to differ. Only complaint is the musical score seems to slow down further a pace that is relaxing at best.$LABEL$ 1
+I really enjoyed this movie. It was edgy without being sociopath. Vin Diesel brought the Riddick character to life and made you feel good and bad about him on different levels.I also saw Iron Giant and Vin is perfect. (The snowmobile movie - oh yeah, it's called "Triple-X," or "xXx" - was a weak example of his work.) In Pitch Black he plays an anti-hero to the max. I don't think you can go wrong when Vin stars in a movie. Unfortunately, Hollowood might type cast him as an adventure action movie star - wrong! I think the script for "XXX" was weak for which Vin couldn't act down to it.Anyway, Pitch Black is a great scifi - see it!-Zafoid$LABEL$ 1
+i would have given this movie a 1 out of 10 if it weren't for ms. Claudine Barretto's performance. and i will take this time to overlook that Kris Aquino's here. and... end.i really AVOID watching Pinoy horror movies because stories lack originality and i really think that (some) writers don't give enough attention to the characters (and their progression) in their stories (redundant??). it was as if they 'pushed' the movie onwards when their storytelling stank. and my goodness, creative exhaustion led them to rip-off other movies. why?? why did this movie get a good review?? i wouldn't give it that much merit. the movie was KIND OF scary, but the movie seemed more freaky as it deals with Filipino folklore... it goes into my list of 'most likely to happen' category. i just wished they spent more time improving the story lines and fix those flash back sequences, never mind if the lighting sucked, it wouldn't matter much if the content would blow you away.. SAYANG.$LABEL$ 0
+I basically skimmed through the movie but just enough to catch watch the plot was about. To tell you the truth it was kind of boring to me and at some spots it didn't make sense. The only reason I watched this movie in the first place was to see CHACE CRAWFORD!!! He is so hot, but in this movie his hair was kind of weird. But still hot.However, despite how hot CHACE is, it really did not make up for the film. I guess the plot isn't that bad but what really threw me over was the fact that they cuss in like every sentence. Is it that hard to express your anger without saying the F word every time?The cussing was annoying and the whole flashy, camera shaking thing gave me a headache.All in all, although the plot was OK, I found the film to be a bore and over dramatic. That's why I only cut to scenes with CHACE in it. LOL Anyways, not worth renting unless your a die-hard fan of a specific cast member like I was. Oh yeah the cast was Hot. The girls were HOT!!! But CHACE IS THE BEST!!$LABEL$ 0
+This is a clever story about relationships and a display of three main categories of players in the game of relationships: playboys (Max), manipulative women (Alice) and the fools who may be indeed in love (Lisa, Muriel and Lucien).Max and Alice are very unlikeable and perhaps despicable characters but who are always in control in the game leaving their partners around in the dark. But as the profusely discussed ending tells us, as veteran players as Max and Alice were, they would be happy to part ways anytime they see fit as if the game was just announced to be over and each one of them could not care less to get on with his or her own life and play another game with some other anonymous people when another opportunity presented itself. Lisa, Muriel and Lucien might be the ones who felt like investing something real in a relationship, only not being able to realise that they were the baits in the game and the ultimate losers (as far as what we were shown is concerned....who knows if they are also advance players of some sort in their worlds not shown to us on screen).This is a very fast-paced, delicately crafted and seductively witty story with an enticing execution by the cast. It also deserves some deeper thinking: how much is real in a game of relationship?$LABEL$ 1
+That is the best way I can describe this movie which centers on a newly married couple who move into a house that is haunted by the husband's first wife who died under mysterious circumstances. That sounds well and good, but what plays out is an hour of pure boredom. In fact one of the funny things about this flick is that there is a warning at the beginning of the film that promises anyone who dies of fright a free coffin. Well trust me, no one ever took them up on that offer unless someone out there is terrified of plastic skulls, peacocks, weird gardeners, and doors being knocked on. And the music is the worst, it consists of constant tuba music which sounds like it is being played by some sixth grader. And you will figure out the terrible secret that is so obvious that you really have to wonder what the people in this movie were thinking. Someone dies while running and hitting their head and the police are never called to investigate. Yes in the end this is a slow paced (which is really bad considering the movie is only just over an hour), boring little tale, that is easily figured out by the average person. Apparently none of the characters in this flick were the average person.$LABEL$ 0
+I appreciate the need to hire unknowns for these kind of 'horror' movies, but they should at least hire some proper actors. The sergeant especially is guilty of using his monotone to bulldozer every single line he has. But let's face it, the lines aren't really important. There isn't really a recognisable plot, so most of the writing involves the words f**k, s**t, m*****f****r and other assorted bad language in place of proper dialogue.The 'story' as it is, is mostly made up of seemingly random gore and death, with a couple of cringe-worthy 'surprises', which happen around 10 minutes after you see exactly what's going to happen. Not only this, but there are several glaring plot holes and continuity errors (Why are they going in there? Didn't he have a weapon? Wasn't he dead?), so it makes the whole film seem as if it has been cut down by the several hours it would take to fix them.Another film which simply relies on blood and gore instead of any real cinematic experience.$LABEL$ 0
+"Escanaba in da Moonlight" is the first showcasing of Jeff Daniels writing and directing talents.I've seen worse debuts but this one isn't that great."Escanaba in da Moonlight" starts off like as a decent parody of this part of American culture. As we follow Rebuen Soady (Jeff Daniels) on the eve of deer hunting season 1989. He is getting close to the record of oldest Soady to never bag a buck.The film takes places in the upper regions of Michigan and has all the normal cliche characters. But there is a warmth there that tells you, this isn't being mean spirited.Well, Reuben is heading off to The Soady Deer Camp and before his wife (Kimberly Norris Guerrero) gives him a Native American necklace, his lucky hat, and two-forms of liquid you probably don't want to know about.Anyway, she is really the only one who believe in him. He finally gets to the camp where his Dad, Albery Soady (Harve Presnell) is waiting and his brother Remnar (Joey Albright) is soon to show.Okay, let's fast forward this. In here there are some laughs, a few moments when I chuckled a loud. But most of the jokes here are used a few to many times.But the biggest draw back is the spiritual/Native American happenings. Just when you settle in with the characters these strange things occur. But the special effects are so cheap all it is, is a big flash of light and then head quickly bobbing back in forth. And the ending, well it is worthless.The move itself wasn't bad, the quirky character, and fun parody were good. But it should've stayed at that. Instead of having stupid spiritual awakenings that look like rejected scenes from some demon possession movie.I give "Escanaba in da Moonlight" a 4.5 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+I happened into the den this morning during the scene where Ed was engaged in the 3-Way and thought my wife was catching up on some early morning porn! Much to my surprise it grabbed my attention and I rewound it and we started watching it at 4:30 in the morning! What a very entertaining, rich, funny and well developed plot line and script. We both thoroughly enjoyed it, my wife so much that she shared the experience with her girlfriends at work! Going on to recommend it and say what a "kick" she got out of it. I am in my late 40's and she in her early 50's. I think this movie would have appeal to both young and old. An unexpected, very enjoyable surprise. Nice work! Thanks! Two thumbs up!$LABEL$ 1
+The third film from the Polish brothers is their best, most beautiful, imaginative film yet. Though many audiences will have a problem with Northfork's lack of traditional dramatic structure, "Stick with it, Jack!". The plot is difficult to summarize, so just know that the story includes: agents trying to evacuate a city, God in a cowboy hat, the selling of angel wings, and a sick orphan (but it all works). M. David Mullen's extraordinary photography makes almost every frame exciting and wonderful to look at. The performances of the actors, working with the Polish Brothers' inspiringly offbeat script, are pitch-perfect and give the film its emotional punch. The strong-willed audience member will be moved by the mythology and folk tale of the story, the comic and moving actors, and finally the incredible courage and command that Michael Polish shows behind the camera. Again all of these incredible and seemingly disjointed elements come together magnificently in one of the most incredible things you should run out and experience. A great, great, great movie!!!$LABEL$ 1
+What makes this one better than most "movie movies" is that it doesn't feel phony. The film the story of the hot-headed director and his rise and fall and rise, by using real recognizable names and events during the silent and early sound eras. Instead of the generic "sound will put us out of business" business, they actually SHOW Jolson and "The Jazz Singer". The acting is really quite good, with believeable performances from Don Ameche, Alice Faye and J. Edward Bromberg in particular.$LABEL$ 1
+Streisand fans only familiar with her work from the FUNNY GIRL film onwards need to see this show to see what a brilliant performer Streisand WAS - BEFORE she achieved her goal of becoming a Movie Star. There had never been a female singer quite like her ever before, and there never would be again (sorry, Celine - only in your dreams!), but never again would Streisand sing with the vibrancy, energy, and, above all, the ENTHUSIASM and VULNERABILITY with which she performs here - by the time she gets to that Central Park concert only 2 or 3 years later, she'd been filming FUNNY GIRL in Hollywood and her performing style has become less spontaneous and more reserved, more rehearsed (and, let's face it: more angry) - there's a wall between her and the audience. Live performing was never what she really enjoyed - she did it because she knew it was her ticket to Hollywood, and once she no longer had to do it she's done it as little as possible (and oh, that legendary stage fright provides such a good excuse!).Her vocals here and on her earlier Judy Garland Show appearance are incredible: Streisand could truly make an old song sound new again, and composers such as Richard Rodgers and Harold Arlen loved her for it. But by the 1970s Streisand was trying to be a "rock" singer, her albums pandering to the younger audiences, with over-wrought shrieking of songs that were unworthy of her effort or her voice. In the '80s she came back with that brilliant "Broadway Album," but went on and on about what a struggle it was to get it done, how "they" told her not to do it, etc. Oh please - when has anyone told Streisand what to do? She could have been doing good stuff like that all along, bringing audiences UP to her level instead of stooping to what she thought the young public wanted. (The "Back to Broadway" sequel wasn't nearly as good, as Streisand seems to feel it necessary to improve on other composers' work: if he were alive at the time, would Richard Rodgers have even recognized his own "Some Enchanted Evening"? Rodgers, notorious for taking singers to task for playing around with his melodies, would undoubtedly have been after Streisand to sing what he'd written! She also blows Michael Crawford off the CD in their duet of "Music of the Night" - apparently reminding him just whose CD this is. Why does she insist on taking songs that are duets and singing them by herself, and songs that aren't duets and singing them as duets with someone else who she then goes on to diminish?)Supposedly Judy Garland took Streisand aside and advised her, "Don't let them do to you what they did to me," advice Streisand wasted no time in heeding - despite her protestations to the contrary, surely it looks like it's always been her way or the highway. Just imagine - SHE told the CBS brass how her first TV special would be done - no guests, just HER.But nobody can argue with the results that are so evident here. Treat yourself to this brilliant musical phenomenon BEFORE she was a legend - you'll be absolutely amazed at the difference!PS - I watched this again last night (12/01) after not having seen it for many years - it was even BETTER than I remembered! The 1st Act begins with "I'm Late" and includes "Make Believe" and "How Does the Wine Taste," and Barbra's homage to childhood, "I'm Five" - it climaxes as Streisand appears with full (and I mean FULL) orchestra to sing "People" - she wasn't bored with the song yet and although it's a somewhat shorter rendition it really soars - compare it to some of her later "auto-pilot" versions. The 2nd act (after Streisand's "kooky" schtick-patter, which hasn't changed much over the years) is the famous series of Depression songs set amidst the extravagance of Bergdorf-Goodman's.The 3rd Act is the stunner - call it "Streisand, the Orchestra, and the Audience" (although we never see the audience that supposedly witness this historic event). With her fear of audiences and dislike of such performing, this may have been the toughest part for her, but if so, to her credit it doesn't show. She tears through "Lover Come Back to Me" and the torchy "When the Sun Comes Out" (though I can't remember in which order!), the poignant "Why Did I Choose You? (one of my all-time favorite Streisand performances) and offers a medley of FUNNY GIRL songs, including (of course) "Don't Rain on My Parade" and my favorite song from the score, "The Music That Makes Me Dance". Explaining that "Fanny Brice sang a song like that in 1922, and it made her the toast of Broadway", Streisand then sings "My Man", and it's almost a dress-rehearsal template for her later screen rendition in the FUNNY GIRL film (the main difference being that the black gown here is sleeveless - her film gown had long sleeves and against the black background all we saw were her hands and face), but the vocal here is more urgent and charged than her later film vocal. (Her performance of the song has everything to do with Streisand and nothing to do with Fanny Brice who, of course, never sang the song in such an all-out manner as Streisand does here or in the film - see THE GREAT ZIEGFIELD for a glimpse of Brice's more understated version.) The show ends with Streisand singing "Happy Days Are Here Again" over the credits.When it was over I said to the friend I was watching it with, "She has NEVER, EVER, done anything better!"And she was TWENTY-THREE YEARS OLD!$LABEL$ 1
+Oh, the horror, the unspeakable horror of this film. If you can even call it a film. This looks like some first-year art school project, hastily cobbled together.The "talents" here will subject you to a painful mix of under- and- overacting, and practically all the scenes were terribly contrived and pretentious.The film in no way reflects Malaysian culture or social conventions - nobody even talks that way over here. I live in Malaysia, BTW.Spinning Gasing seems tailor-made to pick up an award in the foreign film category of some western film festival. And unfortunately, that ploy seems to have worked. Some reviewers would no doubt describe it as "exotic", but a more accurate word would be "atrocious".$LABEL$ 0
+I wish I was first exposed to this in a movie theater when it was first released, as some of the commentors had been. It really is a treasure. To be fair I have not seen any other version of Goodbye, Mr. Chips and neither do I want to. To me this stands as a perfect version. I first saw it on TCM years ago and never forgot it. I had the pleasure of watching it with my girlfriend yesterday, although I had recorded it from TCM days earlier. There were portions of the movie in which both of us were teary-eyed, it really is a moving movie.And shouldn't that be what movies are all about?The music is beautiful, the film was shot wonderfully. The acting is top notch. And the story is delicate and timeless.One of my favorite movies of all-time.$LABEL$ 1
+I loved the story. Somewhere, a poster said there are no families like the one portrayed in this film. Well maybe there ought to be. I thought everybody seemed really human and believable. What a top notch cast. What great music on the soundtrack. What a nice this, and what a nice that, but most of all, I will say two words to recommend this film.Steve Carell.He really showed a nice, subtle depth that touched me. He was truly commanding as a widower who had dedicated himself maybe a little too much to being a good dad first, at the cost of denying his own needs.Did he act like a petulant ass? Why, yes he did.And you see, that's what was perfect about this film. The actor who played this character made me believe he was FEELING something, and not simply ACTING like he was feeling something, and he conveyed to me perfectly what it was that he was feeling, and what he was feeling was denied.Denied happiness.Denied fulfillment.Denied love.Losing your love is painful beyond belief, and many who do so will never feel something like that again.Beautiful film.I gave it an eight out of ten.$LABEL$ 1
+You know, after the first few Chuck Norris movies, I got so I could tell that a movie was produced by Golan-Globus even if I tuned in in the middle, without ever looking at the credits or the title. What's more I could tell it was Golan-Globus within a minute of screen time. Something about the story structure, the goofy relationships between the characters, the mannered dialog, the wooden acting (spiked with the occasional outright terrible performance), the scene tempos and rhythms that made Albert Pyun look like John McTiernan, the paper-thin plots and not-ready-for-prime-time fight choreography...Golan-Globus has been incredibly consistent over the years in style, subject matter and point-of-view.What can you say, it must work for them, since they've produced literally dozens of movies. You go to one of their productions, and you know exactly what you're getting. And it ain't brain food, folks."Ninja 3" is another piece of hackwork in a long line of products from the G-G sausage factory, and offers the typical limited pleasures to the movie-goers' palate. You've got a Bad Ninja, slicing up cops and criminals and anyone else who gets in their way. You've got a Good Ninja, pledged to stop him. You've got a Westerner thrown into the mix so we Americans can identify with him (or her in this case) and be reassured that "We can still beat those pesky Orientals at their own game." You've got a Love Interest (who is usually also the worst actor/ress in the film) fencing with the Hero. You've got your endless string of assaults, assassinations and lingering shots of men gurgling in agony while an arrow or throwing star sticks unconvincingly out of their eye, neck, or chest. You've got your Beefy White Guy/Bodyguards in Suits calling a Ninja a 'Son of A B*tch' and throwing a roundhouse punch, only to get his *ss handed to him. You've got a Final Confrontation between the Good Guy and The Bad Guy which goes on for 20 minutes and just sort of stops like a RoadRunner cartoon instead of reaching a climax or a resolution.Ninja 3 is a little different, in that the plot revolves around a scrappy female athletic type getting possessed by the Bad Ninja, so she ends up killing a lot of the cops and criminals and Beefy White Bodyguards in Suits while under his spell. But all the other elements are there, as formal in their way as a Kabuki play or a Noh drama.I actually thought Lucinda Dickey was pretty likable in this film. She's nicely muscled and curvy, has great cheekbones and some athletic 'ooomph' to her movements, and you can actually suspend belief enough to accept that her character could do some of the feats she pulls off in the movie. She can almost, but not quite, carry this thing. One extra start for her participation and good energy.Naturally, Sho Kusugi is in here, and he pretty much dominates the last 10-15 minutes of the movie. And just to show you how 3rd-rate and uninspired G-G movies are, the director and editor inter-cut the last climactic fight between Kosugi and the Bad Ninja scene with numerous reaction shots of Dickey and her boyfriend watching the life and death battle with an expression of mild bemusement. I'm serious...for all the emotion and reaction they show to the proceedings, they could be looking at a sea turtle in an aquarium at Marineland. I can only imagine how Dickey must have felt when she saw the finished product - she probably wanted to run the editor through with a katana for real because those reaction shots make her look like a complete idiot. An enjoyable waste of time...but it definitely IS a waste of time. Maybe if you are a Sho Kusugi fan, or even a Linda Dickey fan you'd find it worth your while.$LABEL$ 0
+I took part in a little mini production of this when I was a bout 8 at school and my mum bought the video for me. I've loved it ever since!! When I was younger, it was the songs and spectacular dance sequences that I enjoyed but since I've watched it when I got older, I appreciate more the fantastic acting and character portrayal. Oliver Reed and Ron Moody were brilliant. I can't imagine anyone else playing Bill Sykes or Fagin. Shani Wallis' Nancy if the best character for me. She put up with so much for those boys, I think she's such a strong character and her final scene when... Well, you know... Always makes me cry! Best musical in my opinion of all time. It's lasted all this time, it will live on for many more years to come! 11/10!!$LABEL$ 1
+I decided to watch this movie because it has been noted as the "scariest movie ever" so, that's what I expected. Unfortunately, what I found out is that the movie didn't have a single scary moment in it (and I'm the kind of person who jumps very easily). The movie was nothing but terrible clichés and every time there was a jump-moment it was incredibly obvious. The pros of this movie would be the music and the odd scene thats actually shot well (like the very last scene when she opens the door and you see Tun in the reflection and when it swings back to him you see the ghost on his shoulders). Overall, this movie really added nothing new to the J-Horror genre and all-around lacked creativity and scares.$LABEL$ 0
+83 minutes? Nope, this thing is 72 minutes, tops.If you cannot guess the killer in this movie, you had better throw your TV out the window, because you ain't learned nothing in 20+ years of cinematic slasher history.And how come the plain star who never gets naked is always the one you want to get naked?$LABEL$ 0
+"Death Lends A Hand" is one of the pivotal early episodes of "Columbo" that helped define the show for the next thirty years. It marks the first of Robert Culp's four appearances (three as a murderer), playing much the same role in each show.In this case Culp plays Brimmer, the head of a large private detective company who is asked to investigate whether the wife of a wealthy newspaper magnate, Mr Kennicut, is having an affair. Although she is, Brimmer decides not to tell Kennicut, in the hope that he can blackmail his wife in return for snippets of information about her husband's business associates. She reacts badly to this suggestion, an argument ensues which rapidly turns violent as Brimmer whacks her across the face. Because he is wearing a large ring, the blow knocks her to the ground and kills her.There are some really priceless moments in this episode. One of my favourite scenes is where Columbo pretends to be into palm-reading, although this is in fact a ruse to discover the shape and size of Brimmer's ring without admitting that he knows the killer wore a ring. Columbo being Columbo, he only reveals what he really knows when the time is exactly right to turn the screws a little. So initially he goofily plays the part of a rather simple-minded man who gets excited by the "lifeline going over the mound of the moon", or some equally ridiculous palm-reading mumbo-jumbo.Another great scene is when Brimmer tries to offer Columbo a job for his firm, effectively bribing him to stop poking his nose around. Again, Columbo doesn't reveal that he knows what's going on, he pretends to be honoured and excited by this job offer.And there's another where Columbo says to Kennicut, in front of Brimmer, that he wishes the murderer could hear their conversation. He wants to hint to Brimmer that he is onto him, without directly accusing him, so he rather cruelly (but understandable in the circumstances) decides to play mindgames on Brimmer in order to spook him into panicking and doing something stupid. Which of course he does! All the while, the grieving Kennicut is unaware of the subtext of this conversation. It's only near the end that Columbo explains all to Kennicut (not shown on screen).I won't reveal how Columbo finally nails the killer bang to rights, but let's just say there's a potato involved... A really really good episode, possibly the very best of the first series. If you liked this then you'll like "Double Exposure" too, also featuring Robert Culp.$LABEL$ 1
+John Boorman's 1998 The General was hailed as a major comeback, though it's hard to see why on the evidence of the film itself. One of three films made that year about famed Northern Irish criminal Martin Cahill (alongside Ordinary Decent Criminal and Vicious Circles), it has an abundance of incident and style (the film was shot in colour but released in b&w Scope in some territories) but makes absolutely no impact and just goes on forever. With a main character who threatens witnesses, car bombs doctors, causes a hundred people to lose their jobs, tries to buy off the sexually abused daughter of one of his gang to keep out of jail and nails one of his own to a snooker table yet still remains a popular local legend an attractive enough personality for his wife to not only approve but actually suggest a ménage a trios with her sister, it needs a charismatic central performance to sell the character and the film. It doesn't get it. Instead, it's lumbered with what may well be Brendan Gleeson's worst and most disinterested performance: he delivers his lines and stands in the right place but there's nothing to suggest either a local hero or the inner workings of a complex character. On the plus side, this helps not to overglamorize a character who is nothing more than an egotistical thug, but it's at odds with a script that seems to be expecting us to love him and his antics.There's a minor section that picks up interest when the IRA whips up a local hate campaign against the 'General' and his men, painting them as 'anti-social' drug dealers purely because Cahill won't share his loot from a robbery with them, but its temporary resolution is so vaguely shot - something to do with Cahill donning a balaclava and joining the protesters which we're expected to find lovably cheeky - that it's just thrown away. Things are more successful in the last third as the pressure mounts and his army falls apart, but by then it's too late to really care. Adrian Dunbar, Maria Doyle Kennedy and the gorgeous Angeline Ball do good work in adoring supporting roles, but Jon Voight's hammy Garda beat cop seems to be there more for American sales than moral balance, overcompensating for Gleeson's comatose non-involvement in what feels like a total misfire. Come back Zardoz, all is forgiven.$LABEL$ 0
+Strictly a routine, by-the-numbers western (directed by genre-mainstay Andrew V. McLaglen, so is that any wonder?). Army colonel Brian Keith spars with smarmy bandit Dean Martin, who has just kidnapped the colonel's wife (Honor Blackman, who never found her niche after playing Pussy Galore in "Goldfinger"). Fist-fights, shoot-outs, stagecoach robberies and Denver Pyle in a supporting role...in other words, absolutely nothing new or original. Talking in a low monotone throughout, Keith gets to dally with a prostitute (something of a shock after his run on TV's "Family Affair"), but otherwise this low-rent material wastes Keith's amiable talents. It's also bad news for Dino, who doesn't seem to notice or care. Hack direction, poor writing and several unfunny attempts at lowball humor. * from ****$LABEL$ 0
+Without doubt the best of the novels of John Le Carre, exquisitely transformed into a classic film. Performances by Peter Egan (Magnus Pym, The Perfect Spy), Rudiger Weigang (Axel, real name Alexander Hampel, Magnus' Czech Intelligence controller), Ray McAnally (Magnus' con-man father) and Alan Howard (Jack Brotherhood, Magnus' mentor, believer and British controller), together with the rest of the characters, are so perfect and natural, the person responsible for casting them should have been given an award. Even the small parts, such as Major Membury, are performed to perfection. It says a lot for the power of the performances, and the strength of the characters in the novel that, despite the duplicity of Magnus, one cannot help but feel closer to Magnus and Axel than to Jack Brotherhood and the slimy Grant Lederer of U.S. Intelligence. I have read the book at least a dozen times, and watched the movie almost as many times, and continue to be mesmerized by both. If I had one book to take on a desert island, A Perfect Spy would be the choice above all others.$LABEL$ 1
+There is absolutely nothing to redeem this movie. They took a sleazy story, miscast it, miswrote it, misfilmed it. It has bad dialogue badly performed in a meandering and trashy story.As badly as it fails as art, it fails even worse as commerce. Who could have been the target market for this. What age group? What interest group?Someone should make a movie about how and why they made this movie. That I would pay to see.I've seen thousands of bad movies, and this ranks with "Sailor Who Fell from Grace" and "Manos" ... my choices as the three most unredeemably bad movies I've ever seen. Everybody associated with it should be forced to make conversation with VanDamme for all eternity.I challenge you. Watch this movie and perform an academic exercise - how could you take this and make it worse? I can't think of one way.$LABEL$ 0
+Sammi, Curr a metal rock god, they tried to stop him, they tried to ban him, the tried to censor his music!! (much like the real life Dee Snider, from Twisted Sister,[Tipper Gore] or Ozzy Osborne) Killed in a fire, Sammi Cure was suppose to play on halloween at his old high school for a dance.. Now Eddie Weinbauer , his #1 fan, and the only one who knew how sammi was, and what he felt (or did he?) Nuke, the d.j. at the local radio station (Gene Simmons) has and gives the only copy of Sammi's last record Eddie.. But when Eddie tries to play the record backwards, he finds Sammi talking to him from the dead, and telling him what to do to get back at the bullies at his school that hate him and his music.. Everything works out until, Sammi starts to kill!! A great movie and must see for heavy metal hairband fans, with a great sound track by Fastway, and just in case you don't know what The songs sound like or know Fastway and doesn't like them, they changed there voice a bit and there style as well to sound like the more known Cinderella, or Ratt.. Is the movie a true horror movie? Well that depends on what you call a horror movie, To me a true horror movie is a slasher, with lots of killing, or just plain be scary.. This movie is neither, not enough deaths, but it can't be called a action, comedy, drama, suspense, or thriller, so that is why I would guess it has to be a horror.. So if you wanna "Rock N' Roll, Rockin' on the mid night steel your soul!!" Than Sammi Curr and Trick or Treat is the for you.. I mean "what are you afraid of? It's only Rock 'N' Roll!?!"$LABEL$ 1
+I thought that this movie was pretty lame. If you're looking for cheesey, you may like this. I, myself, don't mind a fair amount of cheese, but this was ridiculous. The progression of the movie bored me and the storyline was very weak.The only thing entertaining about this movie was the day-glo zombies, but even that isn't reason enough to see this flick.$LABEL$ 0
+One of my favorite movies to date starts as an adventure through the wild side of a team of four men from Atlanta. The idea of living the Chulawasse river before it's turned into a lake comes from Burt Reynold's Lewis, who unconsciously drowns his fellas into their worst nightmare. But if the first half of the film appears rather like an action movie, the second half carries the viewer into a totally different story, with our men forced to make a decision that (they know) will change their lives forever. In very bad ways. At the end of the movie, each person is gonna be forced to deal with the scars of what had just to be a quite week-end on the river but muted into a fight for survival. The movie (except some pretty evident goofs) is very well directed and beautifully shot into a paradise of nature that steals your breath. The photography is excellent as well. Voight, Reynolds, Cox and Beatty are all excellent in showing how a single event can ruin in different ways four different lives only tied to the same mistake.$LABEL$ 1
+This was a great movie, I would compare it to the movie The Game. You get to the end of the flick and cant move... your brain has been removed and shaken (not stirred) and put back in your head. Dont plan anything after this movie, you will need time to think about what just happened.Dont come to this movie expecting the Matrix style multi millions spent on special effects, this movies special effects come from the actors, they keep you involved, no, they suck you in and dont let go for the entire duration of the movie. Great acting, great plot... very enjoyable film, I cant say enough. Also very original plot, plenty of twists and ideas that I would have never thought of. The ending is abrupt and leaves you hanging wondering, was that real? Is this really the end? Good ending, not saying that it is bad... just leaves you wondering, and a little frazzled.Great movie for those who like action, like a good plot (dont get up for a bathroom break on this movie, you will come back lost) and like mind games, because thats exactly in a nutshell what this is.$LABEL$ 1
+Can't believe that Bostock's Cup isn't available on a proper video or DVD yet. I've only seen it once, on a dodgy copy taken off the TV and despite not being a footy fan (at all,) thought it was one of the funniest things I've ever seen.The famous sloping pitch of wherever it was, the clueless coach driver ("Ponty-this, Ponty-that", "I'll take the next exit"), the pointless plot; it all added up to aching sides.Being stuck in the US I'm desperate for some good British humour but not quite enough to spend the amount that the production company are asking for. C'mon, get it out on kosher DVD pronto.$LABEL$ 1
+I absolutely adored this movie. For me, the best reason to see it is how stark a contrast it is from legal dramas like "Boston Legal" or "Ally McBeal" or even "LA Law." This is REALITY. The law is not BS, won in some closing argument or through some ridiculous defense you pull out of your butt, like the "Chewbacca defense" on South Park.) This is a real travesty of justice, the legal system gone horribly wrong, and the work by GOOD lawyers - not the shyster stereotype, who use all of their skills to right it. It will do more for restoring your faith in humanity than any Frank Capra movie or TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. And most importantly, I wept. During the film, during the featurette included at the end of the DVD - it's amazing. Wonderful film; wonderfully made. Thank God the filmmakers made it.$LABEL$ 1
+I am writing this after just seeing The Perfect Son at the 2002 Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Film Festival in Sydney, Australia.When their Father dies, two estranged brothers meet at the funeral and after discovering that one of the brothers is dying from AIDS, they enter on a heart warming journey of reconciliation. The two leads do a magnificent job of creating the gradual warmth and respect that builds up between them as the movie progresses. I do have one qualm about the movie though - whilst the brother who is dying acts sick, he doesn't look it. A person of 0 T4 cells would look quite ill - not even a make up job to make the actor look ill was employed. A small gripe, but one that makes it a bit less realistic. Despite that one small gripe, The Perfect Son is a wonderful movie and should you have the chance to see it- do. I'm hoping for a DVD release in the near future!$LABEL$ 1
+James Gandolfini is a good actor so what ever did he take a role in this piece of unfunny rubbish. Affleck is just a lightweight who just can't cut it, the rest of the cast are truly unforgettable. I saw this in the USA in an empty theatre, I soon knew why the place was empty after about 10 minutes. I walked out before the end it was so bad, so imagine my surprise when back in England I saw the movie had a glowing report from that yoyo "Paul Ross" in one of the down market Sundays. I always rely on Ross to save me money on cinema tickets, if he says the movie is good, I get straight on this very website to check it out. This movie should have gone straight to £1.99 DVD in a supermarket near you.$LABEL$ 0
+A tight-knit musical family, cranky-benevolent father and four vivacious adolescent daughters, is up-rooted by, first, the appearance of Felix, a dashing young composer, and, secondly and most profoundly, Mickey, his insolently attractive orchestrator friend.It takes a while for Michael Curtiz to get this piece of Americana floating. The first part looks almost like a paraphrasing of a cereal commercial, not without a certain quaint, highly bourgeois charm, and then John Garfield enters the scene as the doomed Mickey, making his first appearance in motion pictures, with mussed-up black curls, sleepy, hung-over eyes, rude and disheveled, the absolute opposite to Jeffrey Lynn's smoothly persuasive, madly charming Felix. Garfield is in complete, and DIRELY needed, counterpoint to the rest of the household ("Nothing I would do would surprise me", he muses), and suddenly the movie becomes interesting, although I agree with critics that find the plot-turns insufficiently motivated.The four sisters are rather blandly played and seriously underwritten, but Claude Rains as the pater familias has his moments.Watch it for Garfield, though, he is the only really lasting thing about it.$LABEL$ 1
+Somewhere, on this site, someone wrote that to get the best version of the works of Jane Austen, one should simply read them. I agree with that. However, we love adaptations of great literature and the current writers' strike brings to mind that without good writers, it's hard for actors to bring their roles to life. The current version of Jane Austen's PERSUASION shows us what happens when you don't have a good foundation in a well-written adaptation. This version does not compare to the 1995 version with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds, which was well acted and kept the essence of the era and the constraints on the characters (with the exception of the bizarre parade & kissing in the street scene in Bath). The 2007 version shows a twitty Anne who seems angst-ridden. The other characters were not very developed which is a crime, considering how Austen could paint such wonderful characters with some carefully chosen understatements. The sequence of events that made sense in the novel were completely tossed about, and Mrs. Smith, Anne's bedridden and impoverished schoolmate is walking around in Bath - - twittering away, as many of the characters seemed to do. The strength of character and the intelligence of Captain Wentworth, which caused Anne to love him in the first place, didn't seem to be written into the Rupert Penry-Jones' Wentworth. Ciaran Hinds had more substance and was able to convey so much more with a look, than P-J was able to do with his poses. All in all, the 2007 version was a disappointment. It seemed to reduce the novel into a hand- wringing, costumed melodrama of debatable worth. If they wanted to bring our modern emotional extravagances into Austen's work, they should have done what they do with adaptations of Shakespeare: adapt it to the present. At least "Bride & Prejudice" was taken out of the historical & locational settings and was fun to watch, as was "Clueless". This wasn't PERSUASION, but they didn't know what else to call it.$LABEL$ 0
+The satirical movie website Dateline Hollywood joked that "Son of the Mask" was all a practical joke star Jamie Kennedy played on New Line Cinema for his show "The Jamie Kennedy Experiment." If only. And if only the movie had been half as funny as that satire piece."The Mask" was the ideal vehicle for the face-pulling Jim Carrey that so many viewers dote on; it also delighted males over the age of 12 by introducing Cameron Diaz. So having a followup minus both of them was not a good idea, plus you'd have thought New Line would have learned their lesson after "Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd." But no... though to be fair, having an all new cast is in keeping with the original comic (in which the Mask went from owner to owner). As written by Lance Khazei and directed by Lawrence Guterman, however, there's nothing there in return, except a steady stream of admittedly decent FX by the usual squadron of houses (Industrial Light and Magic improving on the "Ally McBeal" dancing baby and their own "Baby's Day Out," with the Tippett Studio, Giant Killer Robots, Digital Dimension and so on in support) and an even greater pandering to cartoon fans by having our hero work at an animation company (responsible for such gems as "Siamese Popes"), naming his character after Tex Avery, and working in not just references to classic cartoons but actual clips.The trouble is that last approach doesn't really work, partly because most of the attempts to bring cartoon trappings to live action fall flat (especially the cars getting in the party mood) and mostly because the tributes to the Flintstones, Woody Woodpecker, "Duck Amuck" and especially "One Froggy Evening" show up how weak this movie is in comparison. Plus the movie fits in shambolic slapstick alongside strained sentiment (the underlying theme of the story is family; our hero isn't ready to have a son, and his nemesis - Alan Cumming as the Norse god Loki - is far from the apple of Odin's eye... and what Bob Hoskins is doing here as Odin, even after "Super Mario Bros.," is beyond me), and Kennedy just isn't in the same league as Carrey in the zany stakes - though it's not like he gets any help from the script. Also note that unlike Diaz, the very cute Traylor Howard (as the mother of the son of the Mask) doesn't get much to do; giving HER the Mask might have helped the movie.Further points are lost for throwing away Cumming, Hoskins, Steven Wright and Magda Szubanski; for a suspiciously abbreviated running time (which would account for some gaping plot holes and scenes that seem to be missing); and for an incredibly bad attempt at an inside joke when our hero fails to sell the concept of the "green guy" as an animated TV series - "The Mask" did become an animated TV series in real life, and was a far better follow up than this sequel. The fact that this actually opened in Britain before the US should tell you everything... what with this and "Blade: Trinity," New Line seems intent on cornering the market on dreadful sequels with cast members from "Two Guys And A Girl." What next, "The Butterfly Effect 2" with Nathan Fillion?Somebody stop this.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was Jerry Bruckheimer's idea to sell some records . No seriously it was . The thinking behind it is that if you made a film full of pop songs you could stick the tracks on a LP , sell it and make even more money for the studio . You could also release a few tracks as singles and intercut the promo video with clips from the movie so that when MTV play a track you're actually getting free advertising for the movie . This is a good business deal but an artistic disaster because many of us still have nightmares about Hollywood movies from the 1980s and I rate the mid 1980s as the poorest time in artistic terms for American film making and FLASHDANCE opened the door to this " Let's make a 90 minute pop video instead of a movie " type film makingJennifer Beals plays Alex Owens a dancer who works as a welder to make ends meet and right away logic disappears with this career choice . Welding is a fairly sophisticated trade , it's not something you walk into and learn in five minutes . There's other gaps in logic like ballet dancing and " flashdancing " being somehow similar . ie if you apply to be a ballet dancer and do some hot , dirty flashdancing the male judges might want to meet you after the audition but you won't get the job . it's kind of like saying that screen writing , novel writing and play writing are somehow the same when they're not But I guess none of this mattered to Jerry when he asked director Adrian Lyne to make the movie . Actually Lyne almost makes a very sexy movie , JenniferBeals is very sweet and innocent looking . Fortunately I sussed out why her face is brightly lit in close up while her silhouette is darkly litin long shots except when the camera cuts to close ups of her heavenly toned body . That's because a body double is used most of the time and frequently the body double is a man ! I bet there's a few naughty boys who are feeling guilty not to mention slightly disgusted to know that$LABEL$ 0
+Some kids are hiking in the mountains, and one of them goes into a large tunnel and discovers some old mummified gladiator. He puts on the gladiator's helmet and spends the rest of the movie killing all the other hikers.This thing is just so utterly senseless it's maddening. Here's a short list of things that don't make any sense:1) A guy and a girl are in their tent and they think they hear something outside. The guy goes out to investigate and finds another hiker outside. Then he hears his girlfriend scream so they head back to the tent - arriving the next morning?!? He was only 50 feet away!2) These two dunderheads then hear another girl scream (What, 100 feet away?), but don't investigate because they're afraid they'll get lost.3) Another guy and a girl are walking around, and in about their 10th scene together the girl informs the guy that due to the circumstances, protocol no longer requires him to address her as professor. I mean, what the...? First off, that's just a really stupid thing to say, secondly he never called her professor in the first nine scenes they were in together.4) A wounded girl attacks Demonicus and he stops her, telling her that part of his gladiator training taught him how to wound without killing. Um, yeah, we kinda noticed she's wounded and not dead because she's up and walking around. But, thanks for that tidbit of information.5) One girl is tied up in Demonicus' lair, and when someone attempts to free her, she instead instructs this person to go and get help. Um, look, idiot, if she set you free, which would take about 5 seconds, there would be no need to get help.And it just goes on and on. The whole middle part of the movie is spent with the two idiots getting lost in the woods, then they fight, then they pitch a tent and ignore the screams of their friends, then they wander around some more. It's just so damned boring and pointless that I turned the DVD off halfway through. None of these characters are sympathetic, especially the ones that get the majority of the screen time. Demonicus himself made me laugh out loud every time I saw him - he looks like a kid in a Halloween costume, scrunching his face up to look evil. He runs, or should I say scampers around like he's gay. The special effects are comedic, the acting is for the most part awful, and nothing makes any sense.Overall, maybe this concept could have produced an enjoyably campy film if they put some more time and effort into it, getting rid of the ludicrous dialogue, creating characters with actual likable personalities, having some sort of logical flow to the action, and maybe even making Demonicus a female character in a sexy gladiator outfit. But no, instead we get this senseless pile of nonsense that will bore you to death.$LABEL$ 0
+I found this movie to be very well-paced. The premise is quite imaginative, and as a viewer I was pulled along as the characters developed. The pacing is done very well for those that like to think--enough is kept hidden from the viewer early on, and questions keep arising which are later answered, producing a well-thought out and very satisfying film, both cerebrally and from an action standpoint.It seems some people were looking for a non-stop roller-coaster ride with this film--one of those that comes charging out of the gate. This would be more analogous to one of those coasters that first takes you slowly up the hill--creating a wonderful sense of anticipation--and is ultimately, in my mind, more fulfilling for the foundation initially laid.Excellent film.$LABEL$ 1
+For me personally this film goes down in my top four of all time. No exceptions. James Cameron has proved himself time and time again that he is a master storyteller. Through films such as Aliens, The Abyss and both Terminators it is clear that he was a brilliant and confidant director as far as action and science-fiction goes. He sees a story and adds a strange quality to the film. But Titanic is so much different to his other strokes of brilliance. The film is exceptionally moving and allows room for surprises, plot development and interesting character developments in a story that everyone knows. The story of the famed voyager sinking on her maiden voyage is legend so the challenge was for Cameron to make a truthful, interesting and entertaining film about it. The acting is wonderful as Leonardo DiCaprio who plays Jack and Kate Winslet who plays Rose became superstars overnight with the release of this film and in most films I get annoyed when the supporting characters aren't given a lot to do but in this film it is more purposeful because as an elderly Rose (Gloria Stuart) tells her story it is quickly apparent that it is Rose's and Jack's story alone, no one else. Emotionally it is entirely satisfying and can leave no dry eye in a theater or home. The music has become iconic and legendary. It is composer James Horner's finest soundtrack ever and evokes so much from the film and the audience. The song after so long has become annoying but I still appreciate it for the phenomenon it is and this film is. Only one problem, the usual James Cameron problem, is the dialogue which is memorable but in a bad way as in how cheesy it is at points but all that aside. James Cameron has delivered a masterpiece and a romantic epic that sweeps you away on a journey of a lifetime. My heart won't go on from this one.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is definently a horror movie and if you do not get scared than you must not be watching this movie. It works on the old techniques but throws something new into the mix. This movie grips and runs and hides within your mind. The movie has a point to it unlike other horror movies. Watch it for a thrill and shock to your system.$LABEL$ 1
+After watching the Next Action Star reality TV series, I was pleased to see the winners' movie right away. I was leery of such a showcase of new talent, but I was pleasantly surprised and thrilled. Billy Zane, of course, was his usual great self, but Corinne and Sean held their own beside him. It was also nice to see Jared and Jeanne (also from the competition) in their cameo roles. Sean's character, not Billy's, is the hunted, and his frustration at discovering new rules in the game is well played. Corinne walks the tightrope well between her character liking Sean's and only being in it for the money. I loved how the game was played right to the last second. And then beyond! Not a great movie, but an entertaining one all the way and a great showcase for two folks on their first time out of the gate.$LABEL$ 1
+I LOVE the Doodlebops. My son has been watching them for over a year. We went to the Doodlebops concert last year as well as one concert yesterday (connecticut). He LOVES them. The doodlebops do not teach the alphabet or numbers but who cares? are you being serious? the TV isn't suppose to teach your children about numbers or the alphabet. the parents should. Get over it. The Doodlebops actually CAN sing. Deedee has a beautiful voice and in concert you can tell all 3 of them have nice singing voices and do NOT lip sing. Imagine, they dance, jump around and STILL sing. they have talent, the kids love them i even enjoy watching the show. This show is by far the best show on TV for kids. AND a rock band for children. How amazing is that? Why are people saying Chad (rooney) is gay? where did you hear that from? Whether he is or not, He is awesome! Leave him alone. Its not like he or anyone else is promoting homosexuality to our children!$LABEL$ 1
+They changed the title of this atrocity to An Unexpected Love. The only thing worse is the film itself. The script contains dialogue that would be laughed out of a third grade play recital. At one point when the wife leaves the husband, a bad cover of All by Myself plays over the soundtrack! No kidding. The actors try but are defeated by the inept, unbelievably terrible script. Direction is staggeringly bad. No wonder Lifetime has such a bad reputation. How do things like this get made. I'm turning off the television before it's over!$LABEL$ 0
+This is a film that everyone should watch. Quite apart from raising hugely important points (while South Africa is on the road to recovery there are still many countries in similar situations now), it is superbly directed while Denzel Washington gives, in my opinion, the best performance in his career so far. Kline also gives a good performance, although perhaps not as stunning as Washington's. John Thaw also puts in a good turn as the Chief of Police.There are so many possible areas where a film on apartheid could fall down, but all of these have been avoided. It would be easy to simply portray white people as the bad guys and black people as the good guys, but Attenborough has not done this. Sure, there were some white characters who seemed inherently evil, such as the Captain at the Soweto uprising, but to add extra dimensions to all the characters would make the film unbearably long. Some people complain about the length of the film as it is, but I think it needs the whole two and a half hours to tell the whole story, for it really is an incredible one.The best scene in the film is that of Steve Biko's funeral. When the whole crowd begins to sing the South African national anthem, it is probably one of, if not the most moving scenes I have seen.If you haven't seen this film already: watch it. It may not be comfortable viewing, but it's certainly worth it.$LABEL$ 1
+IT IS So Sad. Even though this was shot with film i think it stinks a little bit more than flicks like Blood Lake, There's Nothing Out There & . The music they play in this is the funniest stuff i've ever heard. i like the brother and sister in this movie. They both don't try very hard to sound sarcastic when they're saying stuff like "My friends are going to be so jealous!" Hey, whats with the killer only wearing his mask in the beginning? Thats retarded! I practically ignored the second half of this. My favorite part about this movie is the sound effect they use when the killer is using the axe. The same exact sound for every chop!$LABEL$ 0
+The word "1st" in the title has more ominous meaning for the viewers of this film than for its crime victims. At least they don't have to stick around and watch this interminable film reach its own demise.1st should refer to: 1st draft of a script; 1st takes used in each performance in the final film; 1st edit in post production; etcetera, etcetera.The movie is not cast too badly, it's just that everything about the film come off as worse than third rate, from the goofy script, to the wooden performances. And while suffering through this cobbled together film, by the 2 hour mark you want to be put out of your misery. At 160 minutes long it is readily apparent that it should have been edited to under 2 hours.Going into details concerning the lame script and acting serves little purposes. Even in the equally awful, Lake Placid, at least the performances Bill Pullman and Bridget Fonda constructed out of an extremely weak script, were nuanced enough to make you laugh at the movie. In 1st to Die, one ends up grieving only for the time lost in waiting to see what happens after the opening scene of the preparation of the female lead's suicide.The editing is so bad one is never introduced to one of the main characters, who I think (were never quite told) is a D.A. She just appears in one scene in the middle of a conversation. Obviously the scene where she is introduced to the viewer was dropped on the editor's floor. And no one realized that a character appearing out of nowhere was an unusual film ploy.In a word, don't waste your time with this one. My wife and I wish we didn't. But at least we created our own diversions by commenting in various places in the film like it was Mystery Science Theater. "Meanwhile, in Cleveland . . . ." !!!!$LABEL$ 0
+Time and time again, I've stated that if people don't want remakes or sequels made, they should stop seeing them and instead venture into the world of independent film. Having said that though, the last time I saw an independent film myself must have been easily six months ago. So here's a review for an indie that I had my attention drawn to on Youtube; the Cure.Right away, you can tell that the film is going for an avant-garde film approach which is telegraphed in its use of extreme close ups, scopophilia and fast editing. It is proud of the way it looks - and it has a right to be. For the most part it is a very nicely composed little piece, save for one inexcusable disregard for the 180 degree rule and a comically bad gunshot effect which is a phenomenon that seems to be THE calling card for self funded projects.Still, despite these amateurish mistakes the majority of the shots are actually a pleasure to look at. We're presented with a good use of props and locations, good visual acting and some very atmospheric, fluid editing, which is made more commendable as this is definitely something you won't see very often at all from a Youtube submission. The plot is fragmented and although the basic premise is fairly simple some may find it hard to follow exactly what is happening, but what we are seeing here is avant-garde storytelling at work; you can't really expect a straightforward three act structure and if you do you might not be ready for this kind of movie.Where the film is unfortunately let down however is the sound. What you're going to hear throughout is a distorted voice-over which often sounds insincere and worse still is the continuous background music, which goes through minimal change and doesn't add much to anything. So much attention is paid to the visuals that the audio frankly sounds neglected, and this becomes really apparent when you realize you've just missed about four sentences of the narration and have to backtrack to pick up what slipped past your attention.So, give it a watch, but do it with the sound turned off.Last thought; was anyone else reminded of the cover for Doug Naylor's Red Dwarf novel "Last Human" early in the film? If you have the book you know what I mean.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this movie in the theatre and it was a terrible movie. The way Michael Oliver who now turn even worse in the sequel is the biggest intolerance I cannot bare. Junior upset his father because he would not go to school which got his father Ben madly insane. Also the Crazy Dance ride operator is not fair to Junior for not letting him go on the ride. And that Lawanda Dumore is as horrible as a serial killer to Junior because she made threatening insults to Junior which is why I cannot tolerate this movie. Even if the movie is re-released back into theatres in the extended version, I still would not see this movie because this movie is not something I can even tolerate. In fact, it stinks!$LABEL$ 0
+By the time the Hellraiser franchise was reaching it's forth film the premise was wearing a bit thin. Dr. Paul Merchant (Bruce Ramsey) is a scientist in the future, whom while prisoner regales his captor of the story of how his ancestors (all played by Ramsey) had first built the evil Lament Configuration puzzle-box that sets evil upon the world and how his bloodline had subsequent dealing with said box. The film is a awash with lack of continuity in regards to the other films and lack of coherency in this one. Yes, this could be due to a combination of rewrites, massive cuts in the original version of the film, or what have you. But I'm reviewing the film as is, and not what it was or could have been. And as it is now it's a mess. Sure the franchise will go on indefinitely with direct to DVD sequels, but this one was pretty much a death-nail to it's chances of getting a new one released theatrically ever again.My Grade: D-$LABEL$ 0
+The opening flourishes left me purring with delight at their inventiveness - the altered version of the Archers' logo, the introductory disclaimer, the way the camera pans over the cosmos. It's strange to think that `It's a Wonderful Life' came out in the same year. No great coincidence: the 1940s was awash with heaven-and-earth films; but the glowing cotton wool nebulas and cutesy angels of the competition look tattered, something best passed over in silence, when placed next to Alfred Junge's vision.It continues to look great all the way through, as more and more striking ideas are sprung upon us. I'm not a great fan of mixing colour with black and white in general. One of the two visual schemes almost always looks ugly when placed next to the other. Not so here. Powell dissolves colour into monochrome and monochrome into colour as if it's the most natural thing in the world, a mere change of palettes. Both the colour photography and the black and white could stand on their own.As for the story ... this may be Pressburger's best script, or at least it would have been had the conclusion been a more logical outcome of preceding events. Other than that it's tight, yet with more going on than I can possibly allude to here. Was the heavenly stuff real or imaginary? (Or both? Perhaps Carter dreamt up a fantasy that was, as it so happened, true.) Everyone says we're meant to neither ask nor answer this question, but I don't see why. I'm sure we ARE meant to ask the question. The film even gives us clues as to what the answer is - indeed, the problem is that there are too many clues and they seem at first to be pointing in different directions. The fact that other things ought to occupy our attention as well doesn't mean that this shouldn't occupy us as well. There is, as I've said before, a lot going on.Consider the scene in which Abraham Farlan (Heaven's prosecuting lawyer) plays a radio broadcast of a cricket match, and contemptuously says, `The voice of England, 1945.' Dr. Reeves (the defence) acknowledges the exhibit with a great deal of embarrassment, and then produces one of his own: a blues song from America, which Farlan listens to as though he's got a lemon in his mouth. Reeves looks smug.Snobbery? Well, I don't see why it's snobbish to condemn blues music - and that's not what Powell and Pressburger are doing, anyway. As the song is being played, we get a shot of the American soldiers listening to it: several of them nod their heads to the rhythm, perfectly at home. THEY don't find it incomprehensible. There's something valuable about the song and neither Reeves nor Farlan knows what it is. Reeves probably realises as much. All English audiences (and all Australian, Indian, etc. audiences as well) know without being told that there is something of value in the cricket broadcast, too; and that while Reeves understands THAT, he is unable to explain it to Farlan - hence the blues broadcast, which shows that people can understand each other without sharing an understanding of everything else. It's a clever scene.One last thing. I found David Niven a bit cold, without the charisma he would acquire later in his career; but even so, I don't think a film has grabbed my heart quite so quickly after the action began, as this one did.$LABEL$ 1
+The Merchant of Venice is a fantastic movie. It's very true to the original Shakespeare play. If you saw Jeremy Irons in Casanova and liked his performance, this is a movie for you! If you saw Joseph Fiennes in Shakespeare in Love and you enjoyed his performance, this is a movie for you! If you saw Al Pacino in Donnie Brasco and liked his performance, this is a movie for you! It is a very enjoyable movie and if you're studying Shakespeare like me, this is a great movie to see!! The only problem with this movie is that you can't let the little ones see it because is has a wee bit of nudity in it. But other than that, it's a really good movie!!$LABEL$ 1
+Ok first of all, this movie sucks. But lets examine why. The proposition that a machine is capable of transforming matter into energy, storing it, and then transporting it and reasembling it is at the least intriguing. But that's as far as they take this premise. Instead of delving into what could happen if someone made this kind of machine, they break the damn thing. This could have been a good premise. Living with the responsibilty of this kind of power, and dealing with the constant temptation, ie.. the invisible man. But no.. they break the damn thing. And Lembach wants to leave. So then the doctor jerry-rigs the thing back together, and trys to transport himself. Only to have it goofed up by his beautiful but dumb secretary, (duh). Which wouldn't happened if Lembach hadn't decided to leave. So now he is roaming the country side killing people because his little experiment failed, and they wouldn't give him money. Wah. Then to make the movie worse, throw in a dry British relationship between the two semi-competent professors hired to assist him. Between their loving sessions, they make a couple of half-hearted attempts to find him while he kills off half of London. All of this could have been headed off by not breaking the damn machine, which would never have happened if Lembach hadn't left. This movie tried so I give it an honest 2 stars for effort, but it would have been better if they hadn't broke the damn machine, making Lembach leave, making him try it again. Damn you Lembach!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$LABEL$ 0
+I liked most of the dialogue, I liked the cast, I thought it was well acted. I particularly enjoyed Ellen DeGeneres' perfect deadpan performance.What didn't work for me was: (1) the drawn-out affair with the younger man (too long, too seemingly out of character for Helen), (2) the seemingly endless cinematic cliches, mostly visual but including interminable voiced over re-readings of the love letter itself (its contents should have a mystery); (3) a young woman feminist-scholar and, ironically, a fireworks scene (no wonder this reminded me of that horrid How to Make an American Quilt movie); (4) the bumbling "gotcha" cop who smells "dope" everywhere (no cliche there either!); and (5) a nauseatingly romanticized small town setting.I would have preferred the film to more persuasively explore the source of (or even glorify) Helen's bitterness, to have included much more of DeGeneres' character, to have eliminated or reduced the various intergenerational artifices, and to be a little less uncritical of small town life.Had it been developed as a play first, those criticisms might have been addressed before committing the material to this film, which unfortunately is decidedly mediocre.$LABEL$ 0
+i am a big fan of karishma Kapoor and Govinda. I watched this film after i had seen Fiza, which was absolutley brilliant.There are films that are bad, and there are films that are cr*p. but this film just takes the biscuit.We were so annoyed that we were conned out of paying our money expecting a decent film.avoid at all cost, dont even rent it.1/10$LABEL$ 0
+Terrible action movie in which lead Franco Nero exchanges his cowboy hat, gun belt and the coffin he dragged around in DJANGO (1966) for an all-white Ninja outfit with all the snazzy paraphernalia that goes with it! Despite virtually non-stop action, the film is utterly clichéd and unintentionally funny - with a campy villain, to boot, in Christopher George. Susan George (no relation) is the attractive woman with a washed-up husband, Nero's wartime companion, whom the villains are trying to push off her oil-rich land - but the latter haven't counted upon Nero's martial-arts (and stunt-heavy) gymnastics. The solution to their problems is to hire a similarly-skilled Ninja for themselves who, as it happens, turns out to be Nero's deadly enemy (played by Sho Kosugi, who appeared in two more sequels and is currently engaged in another!). The climax takes place inside an arena where one-man army Nero 'eliminates' George and what has remained of his gang from previous confrontations; the subtle way in which he despatches his nemesis, however, is effectively done.$LABEL$ 0
+Lame, cliched superhero action movie drivel. I had high hopes for this movie, and the genre of HK buddy cop actioneers is one that i don't despise, but very rarely do i see a storyline as trite and ludicrous as this one was. This would have been forgivable, as it always is in these kinds of movies, when the action compensates, unfortunately, it did not. The action does carry the trademark surreality and over the top nature of HK action, but it's not very involving, obscenely gory, and in fact often completely incoherent (perhaps this is due to re-editing for american release, it does show signs in many places of patchwork). I was very disappointed.$LABEL$ 0
+I really wanted to like this movie, but it never gave me a chance. It's basically meant to be Spinal Tap with a hip hop theme, but it fails miserably. It consistently feels like it was written and acted by high-school kids for some school project, and that's also the level the humor seems to be aimed at. There is no subtlety and, more damningly for a mockumentary, it never once feels like a documentary. And while the lines aren't funny in the first place, an attempt at dead-pan delivery would have helped -- certainly, anything would be better than the shrill overacting we are subjected to.I'd recommend this to people who like "comedies" in the vein of "Big Momma's House" or "Norbit"; people who think that words like "butt" are inherently hysterically funny. Other people should stay away and not waste their time.$LABEL$ 0
+Another reason to watch this delightful movie is Florence Rice. Florence who? That was my first reaction as the opening credits ran on the screen. I soon found out who Florence Rice was, A real beauty who turns in a simply wonderful performance. As they all do in this gripping ensemble piece. From 1939, its a different time but therein lies the charm. It transports you into another world. It starts out as a light comedy but then turns very serious. Florence Rice runs the gamut from comedienne to heroine. She is absolutely delightful, at the same time strong, vulnerable evolving from a girl to a woman.Watch her facial expressions at the end of the movie. She made over forty movies, and I am going to seek out the other thirty nine. Alan Marshal is of the Flynn/Gable mode and proves a perfect match for Florence. Buddy Ebsen and Una Merkel provide some excellent comic moments, but the real star is Florence Rice. Fans of 30's/40's movies, Don't miss this one!$LABEL$ 1
+A top notch Columbo from beginning to end. I particularly like the interaction between Columbo and the killer, Ruth Gordon.As an avid Columbo fan, I can't recall another one in which he doesn't set up the killer at the end as he does in other episodes. In this one, as he's trying to determine the correct sequence of the boxes and the "message" that the nephew left behind, it finally dawns on him.The music in this episode is very good as well, as it is in many of other ones.$LABEL$ 1
+When I saw on the voting panel that some people had given this film a score of 10 I assumed they were unaware that the score wasn't out of 100. This is a disaster movie in the real meaning of that term. Poorly written and weakly directed with so-called actors unable to act, but able to grimace when ordered to. For the first 60 minutes the story appears to be going in one direction, then it changes tack and gets involved in a power fight, with extremely poor special effects. Unable to work out an intelligent way for the hero with limited powers to beat the villain with super powers, the "writer" cheats. It is obvious that the father was added to the so-called story-line because it was easier than working out an acceptable denouement. Not that the write would even know the word "denouement." Some movies go directly to DVD. This one should have gone directly to the dustbin.$LABEL$ 0
+I had watched "The Eye" before I watched this one. I really liked "The eye", it was one of the best movies of the recent Asian horror-cinema. So, I picked this "Bangkok haunted" because it was the same director, and it was kind of popular round here. But man, what a disappointment... "Bangkok haunted" are three stories about love, revenge, ghosts, etc. that are no scary at all, not even disturbing (as "The eye" was)... no nothing. I can't even fill the 10 lines required for the comment... 100% boring.*My rate: 2/10$LABEL$ 0
+To be totally honest I wasn't expecting much at all going into 9 Souls even after reading heap upon heap of praise plied upon it but to say I was surprised would be a major understatement, in short I was totally blown away.The basic plot is as simple as they come, nine prison inmates ranging from a drug pusher all the way up to multiple murderer's escape from prison and go in search of a secret stash presumed to be forged money hidden by a tenth inmate who cracked and was dragged away by guards shortly before their escape but it's the direction that director Toshiaki Toyoda takes this simple story that is so brilliant and original perfectly blending drama, comedy and violence creating a truly one of kind movie that deserve's to be seen not only fans of Asian cinema but cinema in general.Superbly acted, emotional, funny, violent and at times very surreal this is a movie has it all.$LABEL$ 1
+I loved this movie. Great storyline and actors and good movie sets. It told the story in a way I can easily understand and pay attention to without falling asleep. I would like to know where I could get the soundtrack. I can not find it anywhere. Please email me if you know where I could get the soundtrack. Other than not being able to find the soundtrack I thought the movie was fascinating. Swayze did a great job. I think this is some of his best work. His past movies were OK, but this one really told a story for a change. This will go down in history as being one of the best TV films ever aired. Congrats to the producers and writers of such a great piece of work.$LABEL$ 1
+I do have the `guts' to inform you to please stay away from `Dahmer', the biographical film based on the real-life story of the grotesque serial killer. `Dahmer' strays more in relation to the mentality of its focused subject. Jeffrey Dahmer, who murdered over 15 young males and ate some of their body parts, was probably the most incongruous serial killer of our generation. However, the real sick individuals are the filmmakers of this awful spectacle who should have had their heads examined before deciding to greenlight this awful `dahm' project. This is not an easy film to digest, even though Jeffrey would have easily digested it with some fiery `brainsadillas' appetizers or even some real-life `Mr. Potato skins'. * Failure$LABEL$ 0
+Not a `woman film' but film for the gang. One of the worst films ever made by a male director about woman. Director Andy McKay simply doesn't know woman. Peaks of bad taste, American Pie's humor style, crude story, no sense, groundless story, refuted characters. Vulgar fantasies came to life on screen. Insulting and definitely not funny. I wonder how three good actresses accepted to take part in it.$LABEL$ 0
+With so many horrible spoof movies, this is sadly a breath of fresh air to the genre. Compared to classics like Airplane or the Naked Gun, this is awful, but compared to recent spoof movies like Meet the Spartans and Disaster Movie, this is very clever and original. Don't get me wrong, though, this was not a good movie in any way. I laughed a few times, and there are a few inspired gags, but any pop culture reference falls flat on it's face, as does most jokes in the movie.Lambeau Fields (David Koechner) was a bad coach in the past, but now he's brought back to teach college football, and this time he'll do a good job. His wife (Melora Hardin) is feeling distant from him and his daughter is dating a football big shot to spite her father. Spoofs of various recent movies come into play, as do a lot of sight gags and nonstop stupidity.The best parts of the movie are the gags not relying on reference to recent movies. Spoofs of Radio, Rocky, Dodgeball, Friday Night Lights, Invincible and many other sports movies are not funny in the least. It's mainly the smaller gags that get a few laughs, like a bizarre crotch scratching scene, or a chewing tobacco spitting joke. These little throwaway giggles cannot carry the movie, and by the end, it's hard to watch. The last 20 minutes are grueling to sit through.The characters are surprisingly developed for a sports spoof movie, however, I'm sure the characters were built on clichés from the genre. Nonetheless, they're not too bad. David Koechner can pull lead actor in a movie off. Too bad they gave him so much crummy material to work with. Matthew Lawerence has fine comedic timing in a not always so comedic role as a ballet dancing football player with a cross dressing father. Carl Weathers rounds off the cast, once again playing in a sub-par sports movie (Not the Rocky movies...Happy Gilmore!) Overall, this is a goofy comedy. At times, it's funny, but more often than not, it's just very annoying and predictable.My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 90 mins. PG-13 for language, sexual humor and drug humor.$LABEL$ 0
+"The Ballad of the Sad Café" worked hard at its image, but when it came down to crunch-time, it was left standing in its own self-created dust.One cannot image saying this out loud, but if Vanessa Redgrave's Amelia were to fight John Wayne or even Clint Eastwood, my hard-earned dollars would have to go to Redgrave. Her portrayal of Amelia was as close to perfection and consumed with more detailed dedication than most actors are willing to give to any multi-million dollar contracted persona. Redgrave gave Amelia this soulful drawl that was a blend of her own unique voice and a hard-earned woman from the south. To the average viewer, this could be construed as annoying, but as the film progressed it became her – Miss Amelia transforming this stage beauty into a roughneck. It was Redgrave's performance, as well as her interaction with the other characters, that made this film stand tall – but not the tallest. The others following her performance were needed, but not stellar. As we moved past the murky cliché image passed on by every set designer hired for the post-Depression South job, the minor characters felt like poster board. The image was needed to set the scene, but the characters of the town had no other purpose. Take for example Rod Steiger's vision of some old, wild spoken preacher. His scenes alone will make any viewer question the validity of this off-the-beaten-path town. The main two players who surrounded Amelia battled with charm for the admirable top scene-stealing moment, but due to the lacking direction – it just seemed faded. The most absurd of the two (albeit both rank high among the questionable sanity line) is Cork Hubbard who plays Amelia's "cousin" who shows up randomly one night. His character is never quite defined, he lacks true motive, and his loyalties remain uncertain. He plays no vital role in this film outside of forcing us, the viewers, to question his sanity and honesty. Can you create a character simply by sticking out your tongue, flicking your ears, and punching your chest and head? Finally, there is the other end of the absurd – Keith Carradine. Callow's close-ups of this tormented man build character, but our lack of understanding between him and Amelia causes his purpose to flounder. These were the characters, as cliché Southern as they were – some stood forward and attempted to create an absurdist period piece, and I cannot argue that they failed.Where "Ballad of the Sad Café" failed to rise above mediocrity was in the cinematography and narrative. This film was about Amelia, and her need for other souls in her life. The audience's level of comfort with the arrival of her midget cousin was entertaining – one couldn't help but wonder if he was honest or merely a confidence man attempt to leech off a warm heart. Cork Hubbard's character is never quite understood, but we do accept him with brief shots of him and Amelia doing small things together. It is his idea that transforms from a recluse businesswoman to a bona-fide café owner. The problem is that director Callow never quite takes us to that dramatic take level between Cork and Redgrave – is the man crazy or does he represent all of Amelia's family? I needed something from Callow that brought these two out of the David Lynch-esquire relationship that they had. Then our pool gets even deeper with the addition of Carradine as Amelia's "love interest". Using the technique of a flashback within a flashback, we see the two wed, but never consummate their love – which Amelia's anger against their love drawing him into the world of madness. Why was Amelia so angry? Why was there no connection between Carradine and Redgrave? Why was this even in the film? With the lack of focus towards these characters's connection, the eventual scenes between the two made no sense – throw in Cork's choice and it just gets completely discombobulated. While there were a few beautiful choreographed scenes that Callow created, the inability to transfer his characters from point A to point B. I lost focus, interest, and my care for the characters plummeted when I didn't understand the ultimate question – "why"? Overall, "The Ballad of the Sad Café" began with a bang, but ended with a very small crack of a firecracker. My emotional feel of this film swung up and down, up and down, and eventually stayed further down mainly due to the lack of understanding of the motives of the characters. Redgrave did a phenomenal job as Amelia, and while the other characters (outside of the random Steiger) tried their best, I just didn't quite understand who they were. Their motives were so muddled that when the emotional ending finally occurred, I was apathetic. Director Callow seemed to have been lacking importing connecting scenes that would allow us to understand the dynamic relationship between all of our main players. Callow created some beautiful scenes where faces seemed to overlap the scenery, which allowed us to focus on Amelia – or Carradine, but nothing was explained or developed. The film played out with anger, discover, happiness, flashback, anger, anger, anger, fade out. Without the comparative connectors, this transformed from distinguished period film to actors playing parts in front of camera. It was a shame, because "Sad Café" had the promise, it just couldn't deliver.Grade: ** ½ out of *****$LABEL$ 0
+**SPOILERS**Actually based on the novel "The Brick Foxhole" about a gay man who was murdered by a GI on leave because of his sexual orientation. The movie "Crossfire" is about a violently anti-Semitic GI who because of his own failures and frustrations in life takes it out on those of the Jewish persuasion. Whom he obviously feels threatened by.Getting himself tanked up at a local ginmill in D.C barley sober US serviceman Montgomrey, Robert Ryan, spots Joseph Samuel, Sam Leven, and starts to get a bit overly, yet sarcastically, friendly with him. It seems that Montgomery is a bit ticked off at Samuels because he's talking to his best friend and GI buddy Arthur Mitchell, George Cooper. Samuel is also getting through, which the Neanderthal Montgomery can't, to the sensitive young GI who's into the arts, he's an artist and painter on the outside, about war, WWII the war that just ended. As well as the shaky peace, if that's what it is with the dawn of atomic bomb, that's now following it in this very dangerous and unstable world. What really outrages Montgomery more then anything else about Samuels is that he's obviously Jewish. That more then anything else is enough reason for the racist Montgomery to want to do Samuels in. Samules Inviting Mitchell to join him and his lady friend Miss. Lewis, Marlow Dwyer, at his apartment to have a couple of drinks and continue the very deep and stimulating conversation that they started at the bar. This has a, what seems like, very jealous and feeling hurt and rejected Montgomery together with his also inebriated but somewhat clueless, in what Montgomery's plans for Samuels are, friend and fellow GI Floyd Bowers ,Steve Brodie, later that night go uninvited to Samuels' place. With the party already ended, with Mitchell and Miss Lewis gone, the two very drunk GI's unceremoniously crash the place. The fact that Samuels, in Montgomery's sick and anti-semitic mind, stole Mitchell away from him had him whip himself up into a white hot frenzy. Montgomery and Bowers break into Samuel's home raiding his well stacked liquor cabinet with Montgomery taking a couple of swigs, against Samuels' strong objections, of Samuels' very expansive and refined wines and spirits which is very unlike the watered down and cheap booze that the uncouth Montgomery is used to guzzling. This all soon lead to a violent and brutal assault on Samuels by the angry psychotic and drunk Montgomery, with Bowers out cold on the sofa from all the liquor he consumed, who beats the poor and innocent man to death.The movie "Crossfire" then goes into a long and tedious, since it's obvious from the start who Samuels' killer is, investigation into why Samuels a wounded and decorated WWII veteran, who got the purple heart in the battle of Okinawa, was murdered with Montgomery acting like he's really interested, yeah sure, in finding Samuels' killer, which in reality is himself. This so-called voluntarily action on Montgomery's part in order to throw off suspicion on himself that he may be the man who killed him. Montgomery is so ridicules and even, for someone who smugly considers himself to be very smart, stupid in him constantly opening up his big yap and spewing out anti-semitic and racist epitaphs and slurs about the murdered Samuels! That only throws suspicion on himself and no one else. I guess that guy just couldn't help it.It's not enough that Montgomery murdered Samuels who in his sick mind was one of "them" he even murders his friend the scared to death, in being implicated in Samuels' murder, Bowers! Who in Montgomery racist way of thinking is one of "us"! Just because he was afraid Bowers would talk to the police in order to save his own sorry neck and thus have the spotlight put on Montgomey in Samuels' death. It doesn't take that long for the detective on the case Capt. Finlay, Robert Young, to see through Montgomerys obvious lies and deceptions and then has him set up by having another GI "friend" of his Leroy (William Phipps), who was the butt of all his dumb and racist hillbilly jokes, set the arrogant creep up. This has Montgomery coming back to the scene of his crime, where he murdered Bowers, where a trap has been set up for him. That was all Capt. Finlay needed to get Montgomery to panic, when Montgomery saw that the jig was up, and make a run for it straight into the crossfire of a police ambush.Dated a bit now but very hard-hitting back in 1947 when it was released. "Crossfire" addressed the horrors of anti-Semitism when it at the time was kept under the covers, and out of sight, in almost every post-WWII Hollywood movie about the evils of racism in the US, and in Europe. Even after the Second World War and with what happened to the Jews in it. When it should have been given the very full and honest exposer, to the movie going public, that it so rightfully deserved.$LABEL$ 1
+The Buddy Holly Story is a great biography with a super performance from Gary Busey. Busey did his own singing for this film and he does a great job.$LABEL$ 1
+The only reason I haven't given this film an awful rating is because I feel that it was such an awful film in every aspect that it deserves at the very least a 2/10; for not trying. The plot is the least of your worries as you are slapped in the face with over the top language and scenes like 'the singing arse-hole' in a poor attempt to shock and disgust. Seen as the main aim of this film is to shock and the main body of it didn't achieve this, the final scene disgustingly manages to erase the memory of this shockingly pointless film and fulfil its aim to be the most filthy film ever.A really low budget film, awfully acted and the dialogue is shockingly bad.I give it 0/10 really !!!$LABEL$ 0
+The Cameraman's Revenge is an unusual short not because of the subject matter (adultery) or because it's animated (Winsor McCay had introduced Little Nemo on film by this time) but because it depicts bugs to tell the story! Ladislaw Starewicz had originally wanted to film actual bugs fighting but couldn't get them to do it on camera because of the hot lights they suffered through so he took dead ones and started using stop-motion techniques to manipulate movements to his satisfaction. This short does a good job of putting human characteristics on little creatures such as riding motorcycles, painting, filming, kissing, and dancing. Starewicz would also make Frogland (1922) and The Mascot (1933) but his first notable work would be this one. If you're interested in this and the other shorts mentioned, check your local library to borrow the DVD The Cameraman't Revenge and Other Fantastic Tales from Image Entertainment.$LABEL$ 1
+The movie has a great written genre story. It features all of the usual Columbo ingredients; The way Lt. Columbo approaches and bonds to his suspect, the way the mystery unravels for him, Columbo's dog, the cat and mouse play, which is great in this one and luckily as well some good relieving humor, mostly involving the Columbo character. It's all written despite the fact that it doesn't even have a truly original concept. Columbo hunting down a detective/murder novel writer had been done more than once before in a Columbo movie.It's also an extremely well directed movie from James Frawley, who after this directed 5 more Columbo movies, in the '70's and '80's. He provided the movie with style and some truly great and memorable sequences.It's one of the slower moving Columbo movies, despite not having a too long running time. This style and approach doesn't always work out well for a Columbo movie but in this movie it does, which is perhaps not in the least thanks to the acting performances of the movie.Most Columbo movie either starred a big well known star or a star from the early days of film-making, as the movie its murderer. This movie stars the rather unknown 81 year old Ruth Gordon. She didn't starred in an awful lot of movies throughout her career but she is still well known to some, mostly for her role in "Rosemary's Baby", which also won her an Oscar. She had a realistic and somewhat unusual style of acting, which some people might not like though. It earned her 4 more Oscar nominations throughout her career, prior to her win for "Rosemary's Baby", in 1969. She has some great interaction as well with Peter Falk in their sequences together.The movie also stars a still young G.D. Spradlin. I say young because I only know him from his latest productions out of his career, despite the fact that he already was 57 at the time of this Columbo production. He is still alive but retired from acting, ever since 1999.An even better than usual Columbo movie entry.8/10$LABEL$ 1
+This reminded me of Spinal Tap, on a more serious level. It's the story of a band doing a reunion tour, but things are not harmonious between them. I was especially impressed with the performance of Bill Nighy as Ray. You felt sorry for him, yet he had a certain creepiness about him. It's a great movie to watch if you have ever seen your favorite band get wrinkly,old and pathetic.Bittersweet, highly recommended..$LABEL$ 1
+Generally I like something light and fun, so this film shouldn't have appealed to me. But it grabbed me from the start. The story of a family's choices and challenges seem obvious, but it raises the question over and over: "What if it was my family? My choice?" I cried and laughed when they did because I really felt what the people involved felt. It was in places difficult to watch, but more difficult to turn away. The story is true, and life is sometimes difficult to watch! It shows what film-makers can do without sex, violence, or special effects: a good story is a good story all by itself. The best and most unpredictable stories are all true ones. Like real life, you really don't know what'll happen next, or why people do the things that they do!$LABEL$ 1
+A antique shop-owner in NYC, played by Joanne Whalley(Valerie Alston)gets put on a US District Court jury, on a trial of a known Mafioso Armand Asante(Rusty Pirone), and most of this very slow-paced film revolves around attempts of Pirone attempting to get Whalley to acquit him of murder, by threatening to kill her son, and herself. Much action ensues, involving gruesome mob-rub outs, interspread with Willam Hurt as the go-between. Much of this silly, disjointed mess surrounds Hurt and Asante's obsession with Whalley, courtroom scenes that we've all seen time and again, and an ending that is unbelievable. 3/10 is probably going easy on this waste of time.$LABEL$ 0
+The Chasers War On Everything. 5 words that I love to watch. The chasers war on everything is an excellent Australian comedy. As the name suggests they wage war on everything. They seem to love hitting the politions most of all.The Chaser is one of the best comedies I have seen and is the top of the line in Australia. It is on the Australian Broadcasting Corparation (ABC) which is where some of the best comedies are.It has won the Australian Film Industry (AFI) awards but did not win the best comedy at the logies. Last Year (2006) the chaser was aired on ABC on Friday nights when everyone was out so no one could watch it. Well they have been moved to Wednesday nights at 9pm (a heaps better timeslot) and the best thing is if I miss an episode or even just want to see it again i can download it from www.ABC.net.au/chaser.$LABEL$ 1
+I almost stopped watching Hindi movies because of the mediocre quality and story lines. One exception for this is Ramgopal Verma movies. This is a nice movie with great performances from the star cast. This is must see movie for those who are sick of watching stupid dancing and love stories. The adaptation of the story and characterization was exceptional good.You should watch this movie for Nana Patekar. based on the life of Mumbai cop Daya Naik this movie deals in a more realistic way. The film delves into the life of the common man, which he has apart from being an encounter specialist. I rate this as one of the best movie of the year$LABEL$ 1
+George Cukor's The Women remains one of the glittering gems of 1939, Hollywood's most golden of golden years. The film crackled and sparked and it's absence of males was a subtle touch, hardly noticed because of all the fine entertainment.Flash forward. We see Fifth Avenue in New York City, in front of Saks. Large crowds bustle along the Avenue...but something's off. The shot reveals only well dressed (attractive and young) women. Creepier than I Am Legend, the visual concept continues, inside the store and later at a large fashion show. What NYC fashion show doesn't have at least 5 gay men? The "no men" rule is rammed down our throats creating an alien world, off balance and distracting.Enter Meg Ryan, first seen digging in her garden wearing a ridiculous get-up complete with her retro curls and flailing arms. I immediately sympathized with her husband and could understand why he looked elsewhere. Later in the film she morphs into an older Jennifer Aniston look and keeps her arms at her sides. This seems intentional as if to say "Look! I can still be relevant!" Ryan's character is loaded down with a coven of miss-matched friends (insert Sex and the City comparison here) who, if it were real life, would despise each other. Annette Bening plays the power bitch, who during the course of the film realizes her life's dream doesn't really make her happy. Jada Pinkett Smith is the power lesbian, all atitudinous with no use for any of the men who aren't there. Debra Messing is some sort of baby factory that eats a lot. Eva Mendes is an odd choice for the bad girl to say the least. She looks fake, acts fake and any humor she tries to demonstrate falls flat. Someone's comment on here that she looked trans-gender was spot on. Other various stars show up, to rearrange the furniture on this Titanic.The only thing that would have saved this would have been the brilliant casting of Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie. They could have named their price, tucked their tongues firmly into their cheeks and pulled off something very clever and profitable. But no, Hollywood thinks of itself way too highly for that kind of exploitation. Instead we're given this thing that lumbers along awkwardly with no sparkle. Entire sections of dialog from the original are lifted and plopped down into a scene with awful results. At one point Ryan exclaims something along the lines of, "This isn't a 1930's movie!" No Meg, it's not.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm not a stage purist. A movie could have been made of this play, and it would almost necessarily require changes... comme ci, comme ca. But the modest conceits of this material are lost or misunderstood by the movie's creators who are in full-on "shallow blockbuster" mode. It would be hard to imagine a worse director. Perhaps only Josh Logan & Jack Warner could have ruined this in the same way Attenborough did.Onstage A Chorus line was a triumph of workshopping as a production method. Dancers answering a casting call found themselves sitting around shooting the crap about their stage-career experiences (very 70s!). Then Bennett and Hamlisch took some time, handed them a song and cast them as themselves. ...astonishing! Unbelievably modern. The 'story'of ACL is (in turn) about answering a casting call for a play we never have a complete view of, because the play doesn't matter. It was meta before the idea was invented, 25 years before Adaptation noodled with a similar idea. ACL was also another in a reductivist trend that is still alive, & which is a hallmark of modern creativity: that technique itself is compelling... that there's more drama in an average person's life than you could ever synthesize with invented characters. What a gracious idea. The stage play had one performance area (an empty stage) and three different ways to alter the backdrop, to alleviate visual tedium, not to keep viewers distracted. The space recedes and the actors stories are spotlighted. It worked just fine. That was the point. All these ideas are trampled or bastardized. Set-wise, there wasn't one, and no costumes either until the the dancers came out for their final bows, in which the exhilarating "One" is finally, powerfully, performed in full (gold) top hats and tails, with moves we recognize because we've watched them in practice sessions. The pent-up anxiety of the play is released --- and audiences went nuts. After Grampa manhandles this, it's like a mushed, strangled bird. He clearly has the earlier, respected All that Jazz (and Fosse's stage piece Dancin') in mind as he makes his choices. Hamlisch's score was edgy & interesting for it's time, but time has not been kind to it. It's as schmaltzy as "jazz hands." And that's before Attenborough ever touches it. He's remarkable at finding whatever good was left, and mangling it. A simple question might have helped Attenborough while filming this, "Could I bear spending even a few minutes with people like these?" A major issue for any adaptation of the play is how the 4th wall of theater (pivotal by it's absence in theater) would be addressed in the film format. There's never been a more "frontal" play. The answer they came up with was, "I'm sorry.. what was the question?" The cast has been augmented from a manageable number of unique narratives, to a crowd suffocating each other and the audience, and blending their grating selves together. I was well past my annoyance threshold when that annoying little runt swings across the stage on a rope, clowning at the (absent) audience. The play made you understand theater people. This movie just makes you want to choke them.Perhaps Broadways annoying trend of characters walking directly to stage center and singing their stories at the audience (Les Miz, Miss Saigon) instead of relating to other characters started here. But the worst imaginable revival of the play will make you feel more alive than this movie. A Chorus Line is pure schlock.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm amazed that I have a real affection for this one inasmuch as I'm not an action and adventure lover. But hey... It's pretty tough to go wrong with a Robert Carlyle film. I've read several poor or temperate reviews on this film, pulling it apart for it's period errors or unlikely plot development, but no one seems to mention the rather intriguing character transition which features how a hardened, down-on-his-luck scoundrel (Carlyle) transforms into a rather noble, selfless hero and how the pretty-boy, cowardly vagrant (Miller)develops a real taste for the life of a highway man once he "gets the feel of it." Filled with lots of bad-boy humor, lavish scenes (particularly the use of "fireworks" by former apothacary Plunkett) and a charmingly ecclectic musical score, Plunkett & Macleane is a fast-paced,highly enjoyable piece of film making. It's certainly worth your viewing time FOR THE CLIMAX SCENE ALONE! Shoot 'em up, boys!$LABEL$ 1
+As many of today's movies are guilty of, the plot isn't exactly stellar, the movie doesn't move anyone, and certainly this won't warrant any award (outside of Blockbusters' perhaps)...but then again, who really cares.Eddie Murphy and Robert De Niro team up to produce a very funny, at times hilarious, movie that I really enjoyed. Russo and Shatner played their small parts well as well. Man, I hope in the future my wife ages as well as Miss Renee has.Moving along, this "buddy" cop-flick produces high laughs in a reasonable amount of time. The movie is enjoyable enough to avoid the wait for video/dvd release and instead to go ahead and check it out.Eddie Murphy is at his usual top-form and is downright enjoyable to watch. De Niro has molded into this type of role perfectly.I really enjoyed this movie and think that any true movie fan in need for a good movie or just a good laugh will really enjoy Showtime.Top Performance: Murphy. Hilarious. Enough said. Directing Job: Nice. Nice action scenes, used Murphy and De Niro together like a charm, Russo fed off in a nice supporting job.My Rating: 7 out 10. It's not going to move you or anything...but it's an extremely enjoyable movie.It's Showtime...was a great success.$LABEL$ 1
+I really enjoyed watching this movie! Only a few parts were slow, but it was only setting the mood and building up to the action. I thought this movie was very educational, it taught me more about my Croatian heritage. I also learned more about Louise Arbour, and I can say she has a very great influence on me. Time magazine named Louise Arbour one of the world's 100 most influential people in April of 2004. I recommend this movie to people that like historical movies (obviously). This movie was very dramatic, but still told the truth of events in the former Yugoslavia. Louise Arbour is a brave hero, and I'm glad they made a movie honouring her. If you see the movie, I hope you'll like it.$LABEL$ 1
+Yeeee-Haa! I have seen it argued that most American Movies are cowboy movies in disguise; that Hollywood is so in love with it's only truly original creation that it keeps reinventing the cowboy myth. I'm not sure I totally buy that argument but Slipstream is evidence in support of the theory; it's a cowboy movie with aeroplanes. Actually it goes one better than that. It's a Spagetti Western with aeroplanes! Substitute the planes with horses, make the android a priest and this movie would be indistinguishable from any one of a dozen Italian Spanish semi-arty "shoot-'em-ups with pretensions" of the Seventies.The film isn't as BAD as I had been lead to believe by some of the reviews I had read here but it certainly wasn't good.$LABEL$ 0
+A friend of mine loves tacky horror films so I often get to see low budget stuff like this. This is, however the first time I have been compelled to write a review of one...Put simply this is probably the worst film I have ever seen! Even worse then Boggy Creek II!The entire budget for the film seems to have been spent on a brief scene in the middle when Dr. Klaus stands in this chamber thing & turns all vampire-ish.The only good thing to say about it is that it was hilarious after a few beers (but for all the wrong reasons).$LABEL$ 0
+Cage (1989) was another one of those low budget "buddy" action flicks that were produced during the 80's thanks in large part due to the films such as 48hrs. and Lethal Weapon. This one stars Reb Brown and Lou Ferrigno as to former Vietnam Vets who happen to run a local dive bar. Reb takes care of Lou because he saved his life in 'Nam. But Lou was shot in the head and is now pretty soft. Although he's huge, Lou has the brain of a child. One day some ruffians throw their wait around in the bar and Lou and Rebb beat the tar out of them. But payback's a mother. They crash the bar leaving Lou and Reb with nothing. That is until these two thugs come into the picture (one of them's a real nice guy) who have a plan in mind.The film's a waste of time. Maybe if they went all they way and made a hard core action flick instead of trying to tone down the gruesomeness of the situation perhaps it could have worked. Alas, it doesn't and the audience is left holding the bag. Oh well. It's too bad because you have all the elements for a great B-movie. Better luck next time, I guess.Not recommended.xxx$LABEL$ 0
+4 Oscar winners, Karl Malden, Sally Field, Shirley Jones, Michael Caine. Great character actors Telly Savalas and Peter Boyle. 1 hour 54 minutes of sheer tedium, melodrama and horrible acting, a mess of a script, and a sinking feeling of GOOD LORD, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?Irwin Allen was just trying to cash in on the popularity of the original classic disaster film with a grade D minus script, the actors were obviously just in it for the paycheck as well,... the horror, the horror!How insane are the characters that Caine, Savalas, Malden and Field are playing? Go into a potentially deadly sinking ship that's 1. on fire 2. Hot from steam 3. Slippery from water and oil, 4. boilers that are exploding every 5 minutes, etc., all for the love of money? Greed? 5. They have very little equipment, not even a pair of gloves or work boots in sight, much less a grappling hook, rope, etc.Stupidity!What were they thinking?Peter Boyle overacts so much that I just wanted to smack him! Stop it! And what's the deal with the bad toupee? Also, there is no way you can believe his character was a WW2 veteran.Caine, Field and Malden find all that gold and money and they are happy--whoopee! We're rich! (We may not live to spend it, but hey...)And yee haw, it's the great character actor Slim Pickens!Survivors galore! Jack Warden and Shirley Knight, too!The final dramatic sub plot about that scary plutonium never really went anywhere, it's like they forgot, sort of? Lots of holes in the script.This film has an illness that the strongest pill couldn't cure. I'm surprised Alan J. Smithee's name wasn't on the script, I'd be embarrassed to have penned this one!Oh the insanity, Oh The humanity! Oy Vey!The Horror, The Horror!It's like a bad two hour TV movie.At least the sets were made from recycled material from the first movie.The script needed to be on the compost heap...$LABEL$ 0
+Anna Christie (1931)On its own terms, this version of Garbo's Anna Christie, shot a year later in German with a whole new cast, is just toned down and refined enough to work better than the English version (both are American MGM productions). Garbo is if anything more commanding (or more beautiful as a screen presence) and her acting is more restrained. And she seems frankly more at ease, probably for a lot of reasons, but we can speculate that she was no longer making her first talking picture, so had adjusted quickly.Without comparing always one film to the other, this Anna Christie is still the same O'Neill play with too many words. His themes of a woman wanting love without losing her independence are here, but it comes off as oddly old fashioned anyway. There are some scenes missing--the Coney Island section is shortened and isn't as good--but overall it's a direct echo of the first film. The director, Jacques Feyder (Belgian-French), is simply redoing what was done already, which I assume must be a frustrating experience.It's interesting to see both films in succession because they are blocked out exactly the same way (not only the sets, but the shots, are all the same). There is an occasional scene lifted from the earlier film--some of the storm, understandably, but also a brief scene where Marie Dressler (from the English language version) is walking with her friend on a plank over a canal, drunk as can be. But they are just silhouettes, and when the next scene shows their faces, we see the German actors taking their parts. There is no replacing Dressler, for sure, but for me the German father is more believable and honest in his performance.Clearly the themes--immigration, wayward fathers, daughters turning to prostitution, and the troubles of finding true love--have strong currents back then, especially with European threads (Garbo, appropriately, plays a Swedish young woman).$LABEL$ 1
+the first toxie film was dark, gory, and hillarious. This film is un-gory battles to cheezy jazz music, no real gore at all, and the worst toxie mask I have ever seen! His deep voice is now a light, happy voice, characters from part 1 reappear by actors that look NOTHING like them (Claire, Mom Junko), characters names change (Claire or Sara?). It is lacking all the brutal violence, dark humor, and political incorrectness of the first film. If it weren't for nudity, this movie could have been rated PG. Really lame. I am a HUGE fan of part 1 though, just cant stand this one.$LABEL$ 0
+OK Clara Bow silent film from 1927, it's a spin-off of Rain, with Bow playing the half-Hawaiian wild daughter of the local pineapple king who falls in love with the staid English engineer--Clive Brook. Bow competes with the local widow (Arlette Marchal) for his attentions, but both women get a big surprise when his wife shows up (Patricia Dupont). The predatory wife is ready for a divorce until she discovers he might be on the verge of a fortune. Bow settles her hash fast.Bow has personality to spare and has a few great scenes: her opening nude bath, her hula in a grass skirt, and the dog rescue scene with Bow and Brook doing their own stunts.Note: the IMDb credit list is wrong. The film credits (from the DVD I have) list Patricia Dupont as playing Mrs. Haldane---not Margaret Truax as listed on IMDb.$LABEL$ 1
+Asterix and the Vikings is the first animated asterix movie in over 12 years since the 1994 "Asterix conquers America". It also has the honor of being the first digitally colored asterix animation, which makes the largely entertaining story a lot more breathtaking to behold.Every scene of this movie is vividly rendered in bright cheerful hues adhering closely to the color schemes of the comic books it was based on. The character designs also stick relatively close to the comic, for better or for worse, preserving the simple but unique look of the characters. Being simple in terms of character design, this allows for more time and effort to be spent on the actual animation, which by the way surpasses many other big screen theatrical animated movies. Character movements are very fluid and possess a quality that looks way beyond what a modest budget would usually produce; there is always something moving in every scene and no evidence of the usual cost cutting animation short cuts. 3D computer images are incorporated seamlessly with the traditionally animated 2D art. If anything, the style of shading makes the 3D elements look more like traditional comic book paintings than CGI models.The storyline takes much of its elements from the "Asterix and the Normans" comic, and this is where its main flaw lies. As an adaptation of said comic, "Asterix and the Vikings" takes way too many liberties with its source material. Long time fans of the comic would no doubt find much to dislike about the movie's story and its lack of adherence to the source.On the other hand, one can see this story as a really fun one if taken on its own without comparing it its source material. Highly comedic, well written jokes pepper the upbeat script. The funniest parts were the numerous pop culture references and jibes at modern day 21 century life. Mobile communications, the shopping channel, commercial airlines and even sports cars are spoofed to great effect. Excellent chemistry and acting by the cast (I watched this in English by the way) though a couple of voices like Cacofonix I found really irritating (but I guess it is all part of his character).If there is anything to criticize about the story, it is the lack of "asterix". This story seems to be more like Justforkix's story of teenage romance and "coming of age" with Asterix and Obelix merely playing supporting roles. This gives a pretty big sense of staleness since much of the story's elements are the usual staples of such teen movies. Derivative and clichéd at times, only the witty comedy and traditional "Astrix" elements (the Romans, the pirates etc) manage to save this film from falling into plain mediocrity.While not the best installment in the Asterix animated movie library, it is certainly one of the funniest, the best scripted and the most beautifully animated. DVD seems a little hard to come by though…………$LABEL$ 1
+Not since Bette Davis's 1933 vehicle "Ex-Lady" have I seen a film that was so much better than its star said it was! Most of the bum rap "Atoll K," a.k.a. "Utopia," a.k.a. "Robinson Crusoeland," a.k.a. "Escapade" has got over the years has come from the horror stories Stan Laurel told of its production. Given that he suffered a stroke during filming, looked like death warmed over through much of it (from the opening two-shot of them together you'd never guess that Laurel survived Hardy by eight years) and was subsequently diagnosed with diabetes (once he adjusted his diet accordingly he restored himself to health), one can understand why Laurel didn't think this film was the most pleasant experience of his life. Yes, it's flawed: the cheapness of the production shows through, the dubbing is awful and Laurel and Hardy were too old to do the energetic slapstick of their greatest films. But it's still genuinely funny, and Léo Joannon's story introduces elements of political satire (sometimes libertarian, sometimes communalist) one would expect to see from more socially conscious comedians like Chaplin or the Marx Brothers but never from Laurel and Hardy. The film deserves credit for being different (though its debt to the Ealing Studios' classic "Passport to Pimlico," made just a year earlier, is pretty obvious) and for integrating the Laurel and Hardy comedy into a rather edgy context completely different from anything they'd used before. This isn't a great movie, but it's certainly better than the eight dreary ones for Fox and MGM they'd made in the early 1940's. I suspect only the film's technical crudity kept it from earning the cult following among anti-establishment baby-boomer youth the Marx Brothers' "Duck Soup" acquired in the late 1960's/early 1970's.$LABEL$ 1
+Probably the most accurate Stephen King adaption yet. Not surprising, since King himself wrote the screenplay. The story follows the Creed family moving into a beautiful Maine house. One of the other residents is Jud, a pleasant old man who knows a few things about the area. One is the highway that runs right through their frontyard. The other is a path leading to the Pet Sematary, where children for decades have buried the animals killed by the highway. Soon enough, Ellie Creed's cat, Church, is found dead. Luckily, this happens while the family, with the exception of Louis(the father), is away for Thanksgiving. Jud takes Louis to another burial ground, beyond the Pet Sematary, where Church is to be buried. Later, Louis is greeted(not so politely) by Church. He's returned, appearing to have chewed his way out of the bag he had been buried in. Maybe he was buried alive. Maybe not. Nothing more I can say without ruining the story.Of all the King adaptions I've seen this would be the most terrifying. The characters are real and the situations are normal. Mary Lambert does a great job directing the proceedings. Suspense is kept fairly high throughout the film, due in part to the plot development. The scene where Gage is killed will stick in your mind forever. Then, of course, we have the conclusion. Easy to determine what's going to happen, but Lambert pulls off some genuinely scary, and sometimes disturbing, moments.Overall, this is a good film and an excellent adaption. If you enjoy being scared and don't mind being haunted by some occasionally disturbing images then "Pet Sematary" is just what you're looking for. Non Horror fans will want to avoid this.$LABEL$ 1
+the actors cannot act. all dialoague was plagued with bad accents and loss of character. Channing Tatum never moves his lips or changes his facial expression... EVER.the story is nothing new at all. some kid from the street gets involved in a professional world of dance and it turns his life around. that coupled with the whole incident involving the little kid is taken straight from You Got Served and Save the Last Dance (I'm not saying that those movies were any good either, but that is to say that this movie brought nothing new to the table).and the dancing... THERE WERE ONLY 3 DANCE SEQUENCES IN THE ENTIRE MOVIE AND 2 OF THEM WERE TAKEN STRAIGHT FROM THE COMMERCIAL. perhaps i'm being overly critical because i am a dancer, but maybe thats what needs to be heard. Channing Tatum is NOT by any means a b-boy. his little solo in the parking lot had little style, technique, or any wow factor, all of which are part of a street dancer's criteria. All of the jazz and ballet in the movie had nothing to offer except bad technique and a few acceptable twirls, but nothing more. the grande finale left me thinking "... OK, now they're gonna get serious" all the way through the end when i realized it never was going to happen.i'll admit that im sure it is difficult to make a good dance movie, but Step up is no exception to the rule. You Got Served, with the exception of its inconsistencies with street dance culture at least had the dance aspect. Save the Last Dance was garbage, and so was just about any musical from the past 10 years (although i was impressed with Moulin Rouge)... look to Center Stage for Ballet, look to Beat Street for Hip-Hop$LABEL$ 0
+Love Trap is not a short, it's quite obviously a full length feature film with a running time of 105 minutes.While I'm writing this, I might as well talk a bit more about Love Trap. I'm frequently asked what makes Love Trap different... this is how I respond to that question: 1) It introduces characters - one in particular - that have never been seen before in film, period.2) It reveals more truth about love, and delves more deeply into the very concept of love, than any other U.S. film ever made, in my humble opinion.3) Structurally, as in the way the story is told, it is unlike any love story you've ever seen.4) It offers extremely timely insights on various cultural issues, both within and outside the Black community.Over time, people will come to see Love Trap as about as wholly an original work as possible in this era, delightfully refreshing, authentic and honest. It is a rare morality play full of food for thought.Please visit www.lovetrapmovie.com for complete and accurate info about this film.$LABEL$ 1
+Beats me how people can describe this adolescent exercise as film noir. True there's a gun & a bottle & a dame & the lead is a private eye, but that ain't what makes the genre, folks. This thing plays like reheated TV cop show stuff - lots of bloody beating & lousy continuity - with a dash of Chinatown memories thrown in. Pretty hard to watch beyond the first 10 minutes. You want contemporary feel, watch anything by John Dahl.$LABEL$ 0
+From the start this film drags and drags. Clumsy overdubs explaining the history, monochrome acting, boring sets, total lack of any humanity, verve or style. The actors look as if they are drugged. Potentially an interesting story completely wasted. Surely somebody realised how bad it was at some point in producing it?$LABEL$ 0
+This was a pretty good movie, I liked it. I thought it was a pretty accurate look at bulimia and how it's not about dieting, it's about having a pain so deep that they have to find a way to deal with it and they choose this. Beth was a very accurately drawn character and in the scene where she confronts her mom about the eating disorder you can see the pain inside her and hear it in her voice and you know how deep the pain is that she is feeling. I also think one of the best lines in the movie is where Beth yells the words, "It's not about you." to her mother. Those words were so true and added so much to that scene in the movie. I think that that scene was definitely the most important scene in that movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Scarecrow is set in the small American town of Emerald Grove where high school student Lester Dwervick (Tim Young) is considered the local nerdy geek by teachers & fellow students alike. The poor kid suffers daily humiliation, bullying, teasing & general esteem destroying abuse at the hands of his peers. Unfortunately he doesn't find much support at home since his mom is a slut & after Lester annoys one of her blokes he chases him into a corn field & strangles the poor kid. However something magical happens (no, the film doesn't suddenly become good), Lester's spirit gets transfered into the corn fields scarecrow which he then uses as a body to gain revenge on those who tormented him & made his life hell...Co-written, co-produced & directed by Emmanuel Itier who according to the IMDb credit list also has a role in the film as someone called Mr. Duforq although I don't remember any character of this name, I suppose anyone who ends up looking at the IMDb pages for Scarecrow will probably already be aware of it's terrible reputation & I have to say it pretty much well deserved since it's terrible. The script by Itier, Bill Cunningham & Jason White uses the often told story of one of life's losers who gets picked upon & tormented for no good reason getting their revenge by supernatural means in a relatively straight forward teen slasher flick. We've seen it all before, we've seen killer scarecrows before, we've seen faceless teens being killed off one-by-one before, we've seen one of life's losers get his revenge before, we've seen wise cracking villains who make jokes as they kill before & we've seen incompetent small town Sheriff's make matters even worse before. The only real question to answer about Scarecrow is whether it's any fun to watch on a dumb teen slasher type level? The answer is a resounding no to be honest. The film has terrible character's, awful dialogue, an inconsistent & predictable story, it has some cheesy one-liners like when the scarecrow kills someone with a shovel he ask's 'can you dig it?' & the so-called twist ending which is geared towards leaving things open for a sequel is just lame. The film moves along at a reasonable pace but it isn't that exciting & the kills are forgettable. You know I'm still trying to work out how someone can be stabbed & killed with a stick of corn...Director Itier doesn't do a particularly good job here, the kill scenes are poorly handled with no build up whatsoever which means there's never any tension as within two seconds of a character being introduced they are killed off. Also I'm not happy with the killer scarecrow dude doing all these back-flips & somersaults through the air in scenes which feel like they belong in The Matrix (1999) or some Japanese kung-fu flick! To give it some credit the actual scarecrow mask looks really good & he looks pretty cool but he is given little to do except spout bad one-liners & twirl around a bit. Don't you think that being tied to a wooden stake in the middle of a corn filed all day would have been boring? I know he's a killer scarecrow but I still say he would have been bored just hanging around on a wooden stick all day! There's no nudity & the gore isn't anything to write home about, there's a decapitation, someones face is burnt, someone is killed with a stick of corn, someone gets a shovel stuck in their throat, some sickles are stuck in people's heads, someone has their heart ripped out & someone has a metal thing stuck through the back of their head which comes out of their mouth.With a supposed budget of about $250,000 this was apparently shot in 8 days, well at least they didn't waste any time on unimportant things like story & character development. Technically this is pretty much point, shoot & hope for the best stuff. If you look at the guy on the floor who has just had his heart ripped out you can clearly see him still breathing... The acting sucks, the guy who played Lester's mum's bloke is wearing the most stupid looking wig & fake moustache ever because he played two roles in the film & the makers needed to disguise him but they just ended up making him look ridiculous & don't get me started on his accent...Scarecrow has a few fun moments & the actual scarecrow himself is a nice creation with good special make-up effects but as a whole the film is poorly made, badly acted, silly, too predictable & very cheesy. If you want to see a great killer scarecrow flick then check out Scarecrows (1988). Not to be confused with the Gene Hackman & Al Pacino film Scarecrow (1973) or the upcoming horror flick Scarecrow (2008) which is currently in production. Scarecrow proved popular enough on home video to spawn two more straight to video sequels, Scarecrow Slayer (2003) & Scarecrow Gone Wild (2004).$LABEL$ 0
+Anna Christie (Greta Garbo) returns to see her father Chris (George F Marion) after 15 years. He is the skipper of a boat and she stays to travel with him. During this time, she meets Matt (Charles Bickford) and they fall in love. Matt and Chris don't see eye to eye and Anna has a secret to confess.....................What a boring story......it starts badly with George F Marion and Marie Dressler playing drunks in a bar. The scene goes on forever and they are both terrible. Its also hard to understand them. In fact, its difficult to understand the whole cast. I missed whole sections of dialogue between Bickford, Marion and Garbo because it is incomprehensible! Garbo is obviously something special as you are drawn to her every time that she is on screen and her presence gives this film the 4 stars that I have given to it. But nothing really happens - its a boring story with atrocious accents. You'll do well to stay awake.$LABEL$ 0
+I did a screen test and read the script for this turkey in 1988. It was awful then and even worse now - I spotted it on VHS at the local HollowWood Video and said, "oh, what the hey, for auld ang sine". Yech.They had to shoot most of it in Mexico after they ran out of money, a couple of the "stars" pitched bitches because they ran out of some kind of exotic fruit drink crap. The movie's plot is OK, I suppose, but I happen to know that the writer intended for it to have a spy catcher thread running throughout.Dr O ended up being a cartoon character. He must still be whirling in his grave over in the Kremlin Wall.Technical errors were all over the movie, not only with the infant atomic technology but with the uniforms, insignia, and military jargon. They were too cheap to hire a professional military adviser, of course. Even Mr. Newman's august and expert presence couldn't have saved this bird from being stuffed for Thanksgiving.$LABEL$ 0
+This film is really quite odd. Clearly certain *events* portrayed identify the main protagonist as the Dublin criminal known as "The General" but almost everything else is just wrong. We are not talking of a distortion of ancient history...but a complete distortion of irrefutable, documented facts. The question indeed is why? The garda are shown as latter day Keystone Cops, his gang as non-menacing, and the man himself as..well Kevin Spacey. Almost pure fiction anyway, why bother to try to give a semblance of realism? Having said all that, it is a poor exercise *any* way you want to look at it. Not worth a second of anyone's time.$LABEL$ 0
+I am sure I'm in the minority (I know I am among my friends), but I found this movie long, boring and gratuitous. The fact that the role played by DENIS LEARY is the most likable character (the only other time I liked him at all was in "A Bug's Life"!) speaks volumes. Rene Russo's character was irritating beyond belief and Thomas Crowne himself was flat and stereotypical. To say he was two-dimensional may be a little generous. (No, the scenes with his psychiatrist did NOT help make him real.)With the exception of two wonderful scenes (both involving the museum caper and NOT involving Rene Russo), this movie made me wish I were at home watching televised golf.$LABEL$ 0
+What a strangely wonderful, if sometimes slight and bulky, big-budget fantasy this is. Takashi Miike had already proved, by the time he got to The Great Yokhai War, that he could dip into other films aside from his supposed niche of the crime/yakuza genre (Visitor Q and Andromedia showed this, the former great the latter lesser). But here Miike, in his first and only co-screen writing credit no less, proves that he can deliver the goods on a post-modern soup of mythical fantasy conventions, and with it boatload of CGI, creature-effects and make-up, and an epic battle that is more like a "festival" than something out of Lord of the Rings. The comparisons can be made far and wide, to be sure, and the most obvious to jump on would be Miyazaki, for the seemingly unique mixture of kids-as-big-heroes, power-hungry sorcerers looking for the energy of the earth as the main source, machinery as the greatest evil, and many bizarrely defined, flamboyantly designed creatures (or Yokai of the title). But there can also be comparisons made to Star Wars, especially to the Gungan battle in TPM, and to the whole power-play between good and evil with similar forces. Or to anime like Samurai 7. Or, of course, to Henson's films. And through all of these comparisons, and even through the flaws or over-reaching moments, it's Miike all the way with the sensibilities of effects and characters. Here, Ryunosuke Kamiki plays Tadashi, the prototypical kid who starts out sort of gullible and sensitive to things in the world, but will become the hero in a world going into darkness. The darkness is from an evil sorcerer, who gets his energy from all of the rage and wretched vibes in the human world, and who is also starting to put to death the spirits and other creatures, the Yokhai, into a fire that sends them into gigantic robots that have only one mission- to destroy and kill anything in their paths. Tadashi gets as pumped up to fight Sato the sorcerer as the Yokai once Sato's main minion and cohort, Agi (Kill Bill's Chiaki Kuriyama, another great villainies) steals Tadashi's little furry companion, a Sunekosuri. Soon, things come to a head, in a climax that brings to mind many other fantasy films and stories, but can only be contained, up to a point, by Miike and his crew. I would probably recommend The Great Yokai War for kids, but in the forward note that it's not some watered down fantasy in American circles. This has creatures galore, including a one-eyed umbrella stand, and a walking, talking wall, not to mention a turtle, a fire serpent, and a woman who became cursed by Sato. So the variety is on high on that end, and one might almost feel like the creatures and effects- which grows to unfathomable heights when the "festival" hits with the Yokai reaching hundreds of miles in scope. But there's also a sense of fantasy being strong in both the light and the dark, and Sunekosuri becomes perhaps the greatest emotional tool at Miike's disposal (and not just because it's cuteness squared); where else to get an audience riled up than over a little furry ball of fury, who ends up in a tragic battle with Tadashi in robot form? Yet through all of this, the sense of anarchy that can be found in the brightest spots of Miike's career is here as well, which distinguishes it from its animated, Muppet and sci-fi counterparts. There's the bizarre humor as usual, including a song dedicated to Akuzi beans at a crucial moment in the climax, and more than a few flights of fancy with the creatures and fight scenes (I loved, for example, the guy with the big blue head who has to make it smaller, or the anxious turtle-Yokai). The biggest danger with Miike's access to bigger special effects and computer wizardry, which he flirts with, is overkill on this end. He's got everything down, I'm sure, with storyboards, and he creates some memorable impressions with some compositions (one of them is when all is said and done, and Tadashi and the 'other' human character are in the middle of the Tokyo rubble in an overhead shot), but the CGI is sometimes a little unconvincing with the robots, and the interplay skirts on being TOO flamboyant, and some visuals, like the overlay of the Yokai spreading the word about the big festival on the map, just seem weak and pat. I almost wondered if Miike might dip into (bad) Spy Kids territory, quite frankly.But this liability aside, The Great Yokai War provides more than a share of excitement, goofy thrills, and innocent melodrama that came with many of the best childhood fantasies. It owes a lot to cinema, as well as traditional Japanese folklore, but the screws are always turning even in its most ludicrous and veeringly confusing beats. It's not the filmmaker at his very best, but working in experimentation in a commercial medium ends up working to his advantage. It's got a neat little message, and lots of cool adventure. 7.5/10$LABEL$ 1
+I was attracted to this film by its offbeat, low-key, 'real life' story line. That is, a twenty-something guy flops in the Big Apple and comes back home to live with his parents and even more floppy brother. It just might have worked but there's a problem. And that problem's name is Casey Affleck. Casey Affleck is nearly catatonic in this film. His acting mantra must be "exert as little effort as possible at all times". Or "why speak when you can mutter?" Or maybe "put yourself into a coma as soon as the camera rolls". Lips moving when speaking? Barely. Facial expressions? None. Muscles in face? Atrophied. Something? Nothing. ANYthing? Zip.$LABEL$ 0
+If this is not heavily featured on every list of "what not to watch", it should only be because those keeping that particular list are not aware of its existence, which, as long as that remains so, is the acceptable alternative. I'm not kidding you, this is a *bad* "movie". Joseph Meeker returns from the dead, with various vague, undefined supernatural powers, the most employed of which would seem to be appearing in new, increasingly comical-looking and ridiculous(and never scary or creepy... in general, when this goes for the latter of those, it winds up just being bizarre, and attempts at the former just don't work, period) outfits and stereotypes/archetypes, and he is portrayed by David Keith(whom I respect in... well, at least Daredevil), doing a more often than not terribly inconsistent(which could also have to do with script) and often over the top performance. A character or two have personalities so unbelievably irritating that they're painful to watch. The editing thinks it's considerably more clever than it really is(and what on Earth was with the red tint for the flashbacks?). Cinematography... oh, dear. Framing, coverage, effective use of angle(that one could be attributed some to editing, too, perhaps), please, guys, stop me when I say something you've ever heard about the existence of. As far as the technical side goes, this is a pretty lousy excuse for something more worthwhile to put in the projector than unexposed film. But why stop there? The plot is just poor. The basic idea's been done, and it's been done so much better than this(The Crow would be one). The way it's told is gimmicky, and while there is some explanation behind the flashbacks, it still doesn't satisfy. Pacing is about non-existent. The lead is distinctly unlikeable, and there's more personality in a barn door, not to mention that those are also considerably less wooden. Kelly Perine and Thomas Ian Nicholas? What in the name of all that is good and just(pun intended) are you doing in this? Perine, you were already funny before this, on The Drew Carey Show, Nicholas, well, I haven't seen you in anything preceding American Pie, but if nothing else, you *were* funny later on, and in those productions, the amusement was intentional. Dialog is... the less said, the better. Language is unrestrained, and tends to be stupid. The violence is shoddily done, and they don't even seem to care to try to hide it(hinting at it might have been the smarter strategy). Characters, don't get me started. Why spend so much energy on portraying unexciting, at times utterly illogical, events? The more you think about this, the worse it gets. It's not even passable as a "bad horror flick", or a B movie(it may very well pass through the rest of the alphabet, and go further still), it couldn't scare you on the scariest day of your life if it had an electrified scaring machine. I recommend this only to people who want to disprove how bad this is, and don't say I didn't warn ya. 1/10$LABEL$ 0
+While being an impressionable youth when first experiencing the Gundam Wing series, upon re-watching the series, I have reconfirmed my belief that this series is not only beautifully animated, but the plot, the gundam design, character design, and character depth are masterfully executed. While at first appearing like a boy band of sorts, the stylish attractiveness of the characters can partly be credited to just great art, with individual personalities creating clear and endearing distinctions among the characters. Consequently, it is extremely easy to become to drawn to any particular character. Personally, I liked Heero because of his stoic personality. While I may be biased with a sentimental attachment of this show to my childhood, I can objectively say that Gundam Wing addresses the deeper questions of war and life in general (how can we obtain peace?) while providing action packed battles in large robot suits, which, to say the least, is excellent.$LABEL$ 1
+I may not have the longest of attention-spans, but this is the second movie I have refused to see all the way through, and I even bought it on DVD because of its "classic" status. At first, I thought that the director was playing a big joke, so I kept waiting for a resolution, something to laugh at, something to keep my interest, but this resolution never came. Rather, the writing was laughably amateurish, the movie dragged on and felt disjointed, like someone cut a TV series to feature-length. The Academy must have been on drugs when they nominated this movie for no less than eight Oscars.Once again, I repeat myself. This is the second movie I have refused to watch all the way through. The first was "Exterminator". I hope this gives you an indication of how bad it really is. 1/10$LABEL$ 0
+Linking story: another first-time viewing for me and, again, this is one of the most popular of the Amicus anthologies - and it's easy to see why, though I realize how the film's rather meaningless title could be misleading for some; I certainly fancied director Peter Duffell's choice - DEATH AND THE MAIDEN (which, incidentally, is a classical piece by Schubert that is heard in the film during the Peter Cushing episode) - a great deal more. Though the linking device itself is not all that great, the episodes are all equally compelling and enjoyable. Production values come off as very respectable indeed for the budget Duffell had to work with. The latter infuses the film with a great deal of style which is not so common with this type of film and, frankly, it makes one regret the fact that he wished to distance himself from the genre (though more so as not to be typecast rather than because he felt it was beneath him).Now to the individual stories themselves: "Method For Murder": the opening segment does not offer any real surprises but, to make up for this, it's quietly suspenseful and appropriately creepy at times (Tom Adams' 'fictitious' villain looking like the long-lost brother of Boris Karloff from THE OLD DARK HOUSE [1932]); also, it ends with a satisfactory DIABOLIQUE-type twist, and features a fairly intense role for Denholm Elliott in the lead. That's all we need out of it, really."Waxworks": for the second story we are introduced to a curiously romantic mood which is quite unusual for this type of film; Peter Cushing and Joss Ackland are both excellent (as well as impeccably dressed) in their roles of two jilted lovers of a woman who continues to obsess them even after such a long time, and whose friendly rivalry can only lead them blindly and inexorably to a fate that is literally worse than death; an ominous hallucination scene with Peter Cushing is quite well done in view of the limited resources at hand, and Ackland's inexplicable inability - or unwillingness - to leave town somewhat recalls the house-trapped aristocrats of Bunuel's THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962)."Sweets To The Sweet": this is perhaps the finest episode of all - with his ambiguous role here, Christopher Lee continues to demonstrate his versatility and he is matched by an understanding Nyree Dawn Porter and the deceptive innocence of Chloe Franks (who appears as Lee's daughter). The film's treatment of the occult here is both subtle and mature, culminating in a powerful and extremely chilling 'curtain'. Trivia Note: Chloe Franks appears as a grown-up in the featurette included on the disc, and when I saw her I felt an immediate familiarity with her face but couldn't quite put my finger on it. Later, on reading her filmography, it was revealed to me that she had played one of the leads in the long-running stage adaptation of Agatha Christie's "The Mousetrap" in London's West End, which my brother and I were fortunate enough to catch while we there on holiday in the Summer of 2002! Needless to say, we had no idea then that she had once created such a delicate - and delicious - portrayal in sheer evil, mainly by virtue of her peculiar look and a devilish smile!! "The Cloak": a wacky but oddly reverent vampire tale (that still manages to debunk many of the myths attached to the subgenre, while inventing some new ones!) which takes in some wonderful digs at exploitation cinema and, at one point, Christopher Lee himself!; Jon Pertwee is marvelous as the campy horror star who gets more than he bargained for when he attempts to bring a measure of authenticity to his work; Ingrid Pitt sends up her image nicely though her role is somewhat subsidiary to the proceedings; Geoffrey Bayldon (made up to look like Ernest Thesiger) also has a memorably quirky bit; the 'silent-cinema' style of the ending was a pretty audacious one to pull on an audience, I suppose - and, while some of the humor comes off as heavy-handed a' la THE FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS (1967) or THEATRE OF BLOOD (1973), it's also rather infectious and certainly ends the film on a high (and highly unusual) note! Video and audio quality are relatively satisfactory, considering I had no other version to compare it with; the main culprit is some noticeable print damage but this is never so nasty as to affect one's enjoyment of the film. As for the extras, beginning with the Audio Commentary: frankly, this is one of the finest chats about a genre film that I can remember listening to; Jonathan Rigby gets to butt in with his opinion more than is usual for a moderator but his effort certainly allows director Peter Duffell to touch on every aspect of the production (whereas with some other films, you're left rather expecting there to be more!) and, as such, it's an extremely pleasant track that complements the main feature very nicely indeed. The featurette "A-Rated Horror Film" is a worthwhile effort with Peter Duffell again at center-stage but this time backed up with valid, if all-too-brief, contributions from producer Max J. Rosenberg and stars Chloe Franks, Ingrid Pitt and Geoffrey Bayldon. We also get film notes, reviews, bios and a poster/stills gallery which, again, are wonderfully assembled (with the contemporary reviews being something of a novelty - and a welcome one at that).$LABEL$ 1
+I fell asleep on my couch at 7:35pm last night watching Larry Sanders (I usually DirecTivo it, but not last night). Woke up at 3am (invesment banker on the west coast), and was fascinated to see this on HBO2. I was shocked on how poor this 'movie' was. Seriously. shocked. So shocked that I had to write a commentary on iMDB. This is really really bad. the writing is boring, but the directing and editing are simply below those of a freshman at a film school.Yes it is shot video. Mind you, that is shot on VIDEO, not DIGITAL VIDEO. It does look like a soap opera. The clips from skateboard videos have a more 'film' feel to them then this horror.I wanted to describe the poor directing but i honestly cant remember anything. The shots and blocking are stupid. yes, i chose the word 'stupid'. not unconventional, not daring, not bold, not boring, just stupid. I know people reviewing this review will say "well give me an example". I cant. It was 3am. but trust me, I know you will watch it anyway, you will be drawn by the horrible reviews.$LABEL$ 0
+I have seen this movie plenty of times and I gotta tell ya, I've enjoyed it every single time. This is Belushi's pinnacle movie in my opinion. Belushi and Lovitz are so likable and identifiable with the common man that you can't help but get involved once you start watching. The movie has a wonderful cast of stars, some already were big, and others were just getting started. It's billed as a feel good movie, and that's exactly what it is. This movie teaches you that life isn't always so bad after all. Sometimes you've just gotta look at stuff in a different perspective to fully appreciate what you already have. When you're done watching, you'll appreciate the things you have a lot more and you'll also be smiling. You can't ask for much more from a movie in my opinion, not to mention it's a hilarious movie and you'll never lose interest. Very Very underrated movie here folks.Rating from me: 10 I am out!!!$LABEL$ 1
+This movie had a very unique effect on me: it stalled my realization that this movie REALLY sucks! It is disguised as a "thinker's film" in the likes of Memento and other jewels like that, but at the end, and even after a few minutes, you come to realize that this is nothing but utter pretentious cr4p. Probably written by some collage student with friends to compassionate to tell him that his writing sucks. The whole idea is … I don't even know if it tried to scratch on the supernatural, or they want us to believe that because someone fills your mind (a very weak one, btw) with stupid "riddles", the kind you learn on elementary school recess, you suddenly come to the "one truth" about everything, then you have to kill someone and confess…. !!! What? How, what, why, WHY? Is just like saying that to make a cake, just throw a bunch of ingredients, and add water… forgot about cooking it? I guess these guys forgot to, not explain, but present the mechanism of WHY was this happening? You have to do that when you present a story which normal, everyday acts (lie solving riddle rhymes) start to have an abnormal effect on people. Acting was horrible, with that girl always trying to look cute at the camera, and the guy from Highlanders, the series, acting up like the though heavy metal record store (yeah, they're all real though s-o-b's). The "menacing" atmosphere, with the "oh-so-clever" riddles (enter the 60's series of Batman and Robin, with guest appearance of The Riddle) and the crazies who claim to have "the knowledge" behind that smirk on their faces… just horrible, HORRIBLE.I'm usually very partial about low budget movies, and tend to root for the underdog by giving them more praise than they may deserve, in lieu of their constrictions, you know, but this is just an ugly excuse for a movie that will keep you wanting to be good for an hour and a half, and at the end you will just lament that you fell for it.$LABEL$ 0
+(Warning: May Contain Spoilers) Let Rosalina help Mario lead the way and smile because this game will brighten your day. 120 stars will require luck and skill, but 60 will bring you as much of a thrill!Blasting through stars show Mario and Luigi and what travelers they now are! Walking upside down has never been more fun, especially a final battle with Koopa near the Sun! This is truly a super awesome game and it absolutely deserves a place in Nintendo's Hall of Fame!$LABEL$ 1
+I just watched this today on TV. It was on ABC's Sunday Afternoon Movie.This wasn't a very good movie, but for a low budget independent film like this, it was okay. There is some suspense in it, but there are so many bad qualities that really bring the movie down. The script is pretty lame, and the plot elements aren't very realistic, such as the way a 911 operator would laugh and hang up when someone is reporting a murder. I don't know what the writer was thinking when they came up with that idea, but it isn't very realistic.I thought this movie was going to be a good suspense thriller, because there were a few scenes that seemed like they would lead to something good, but unfortunately, they never did. There were a few plot elements that have been used in other movies similar to this, and in the end, didn't prove to be very creative.If there is something good about this movie, it is the cast. Every actor in this movie did good with what they had to work with. The terribly underrated actress Elizabeth Pena was great in this movie. She is very sexy, and has an incredibly sexy voice. However, if you want to see a movie of hers that is really good, watch the excellent animated movie The Incredibles. In that movie, she put her sexy voice to good use.What can I say, this movie isn't really worth your time, but the actors were good. Unfortunately, they were all wasted on this movie, which is a real shame. This movie tried to be a good suspense thriller, but in the end, it fell flat. If you want to see a good movie that is similar to this, but much better, see The Hitcher. If you want to see something with the cast members of this movie, watch any of their other movies. You can real easily pass on this movie if you ever get the chance to see it.$LABEL$ 0
+I love this film. It is well written and acted and has good cinematography. The story blends action, humor, mysticism, and tenderness with great sets and beautiful location shots. See it, buy it, show it to your friends.The acting is good and Murphy especially does a fine job portraying the reluctant/unlikely hero. I enjoyed all the characters and found them to be interesting and well developed with dynamic interactions.I cared what happened to these people and, while the outcome was pretty predictable (the good guys win, the hero gets the astonishingly attractive girl and the holy child saves lives--who doesn't see that coming?), it still made me happy when everything worked out well in the end. Thank God this film's dignity was never ruined with a crappy sequel. Grab some popcorn, cuddle up on the couch, and watch this fun, happy and entertaining film.$LABEL$ 1
+Oh dear... as an Englishman, and a small part Welsh, a fan of Anthony Hopkins' work in the industry..... to date, I am truly disappointed. You see I am a nobody, who hoped for better. So my comments are as 'straw in the wind'. But, that's the point isn't it? - I have no axe to grind on the commercial value of a work. I, a full member of the great unwashed, go to see a movie to be transported to another place. To yes, suspend belief for a brief period. But not to enter a state of total disbelief.Had this been by an unknown author and director, I would guess that this 'production' would have been castigated into oblivion. Unfortunately, its not, and I was left wide eyed and confused. Having seen some of the rave reviews given this work I am faintly worried....Perhaps its that I try, without prejudice, to view each movie on its own merits. Regardless of author, director, studio or even the notoriety of the content.My advice, as many before me: Don't Write and Direct the same production. It is fraught with danger. Movies need to be moderated to retain a semblance of credibility.As they say in school reports "Could and can do better..."$LABEL$ 0
+OK, first of all, who in their right mind would remake Hitchcock and second, who would do it shot for shot? I admit I had no intention of ever watching this movie for that very reason. The original Psycho is one of my favorite films ever and this just seemed like a degrading photocopy of it. I did watch it because my girlfriend wanted to compare it to the original and we both agreed less than five minutes into this crap that it was awful. First, as mentioned, they did it shot for shot. Where's originality? Why remake a movie that is almost perfect EXACTLY the way it was done the first time? Why remake such a movie to begin with? If you ARE going to remake something, remake something that doesn't work and make it BETTER!Second, they used the exact same script from the 1960 version. The dialog no longer works. It works fine and sounds perfect for the 1960 version, but seems odd and stilted coming out of modern actors. Why not update the dialog? Hitch didn't write the script, you could have rewritten. This film had some very good talent and they were wasted by imitation of the original actors. The actor who played the car salesman seemed like he was just playing John Anderson's performance as the car salesman in the original. All the actors seemed like the only direction they were given was be the characters from the original movie. Vince Vaughn may have seemed a little creepier than Anthony Perkins, but in doing so, you loose the sympathy you are supposed to have for Norman. Having Norman masturbate while watching Marion undress was going too far and lost the innocence of the character that I think Tony Perkins captured so well in his performance. Viggo Mortensen's accent was annoying and Rita Wilson was far too old to play Caroline. Her lines came off as someone desperate rather than just young and fun like Patricia Hitchcock's performance. The only good thing I saw about the film was that Gus Van Sant was able to open the movie with the shot Hitch had envisioned. Hitch wanted to open with 1 long shot going over Phoenix but couldn't at the time so he had to settle for a series of shots cross-dissolved together. This film fulfilled that vision with a helicopter shot going into the window of the hotel. After that, though the film became a worthless waste of celluloid. If you are curious about how to destroy a wonderful film, watch this, but do NOT under any circumstances watch this BEFORE you watch the original. This is a faded photocopy of the original and should never have been green-lit. Stick to the master's film, not the imitation.$LABEL$ 0
+I just watched The Convent for the second time. I had enjoyed it previously and figured it would make for a good drunken Friday night film, some gore, some style, bit of humour and suchlike. I was saddened to find that I could no longer appreciate it much. It seemed like someone had set out to revisit cheeseball epics like Night of the Demons for a modern audience but lost the things that made the original worthwhile. For the record I'm not even a huge fan of Night of the Demons, but there were some things I really dug about it. The Convent does the cheese but the not the goodness so much. Apart from the main girl (likeable performance from Joanna Canton), the goth girl and a sweet cameo from Adrienne Barbeau pretty much all the characters were excruciatingly unlikeable, festering at the absolute lowest levels of moronic, offensive jockhood. The film is then gravely hampered by the complete lack of gratuitous nudity which means that, given the awful dialogue, it is difficult to watch the characters and harder to appreciate the good points of the film. The evil nuns are original in design and get lots of good scenes, though not scary their certainly kinda cool, and the film also fields a fair amount of neat gore. Towards the end, when Adrienne Barbeau is on the scene the film becomes quite entertaining cause all the obnoxious people are dead and its an evil nun bashing frenzy. The stylised direction also occasionally yields good results, although sometimes the camera just moves too fast. All in all, this was a film where for me the shining good points just can't make up for the things I hated. Those more fond of this kind of film may well enjoy it a lot more, but for me it wasn't a good time.$LABEL$ 0
+I got interested in this movie because somebody had made a beautiful video for Björks "Bachelorette" with clips from it. So I watched the movie. And it is indeed stuningly beautiful. A masterpiece of animation.Unfortunately, the story doesn't keep up. It starts out well, with interesting plotlines about people fencing for the possession of the Rose Bride, but suddenly elevators fill up with water and looses their walls, people float away, and finally for no reason whatsoever, Utena is tranformed into a car, and a highspeed chase ensues.I like much Anime for it's ability to make alternative universes, but this universe is just stupid. If you are gonna watch this movie, turn of the sound, it's better that way.$LABEL$ 0
+Linda Blair has been acting for forty years now, and while she will never escape the part of Regan MacNeil in "The Exorcist", few of her subsequent horror films have used her legendary status to such great effect as "Witchery" does. She plays Jane Brooks, a pregnant single woman who travels with her family to an abandoned island hotel that her parents want to purchase. They are accompanied by a couple of real estate agents (Catherine Hickland and Rick Farnsworth) and upon arriving at the island they meet a photographer (David Hasselhoff) and his writer girlfriend (Leslie Cumming) who are illegally squatting in the hotel while investigating the legend of a local witch (Hildegard Knef). It seems that a long-ago witch-hunt resulted in her suicide, and she was with child at the time. Unaware of the danger, Jane has recently dreamt of the witch's dramatic death, and Jane's little brother Tommy (Michael Manchester) has been more directly visited by her spooky, black-clad spirit, which he calls 'the lady in black'. The group's time at the island inn begins quietly enough; unknown to them, however, the Lady in Black has already dispatched the captain of their hired boat (George Stevens). Before long, the isolation and cold begin to affect everyone, and it is during this period of moodiness and tension that the Lady in Black begins her reign of terror. She plans to avenge her own fate by possessing Jane and sacrificing her companions and her unborn child. Each of her other victims fulfills an aspect of her vengeful curse - greed, lust, and the blood of a virgin. As the sun goes down and the sea becomes wild, she haunts them one by one in gruesome, horrifying ways. The island location is effectively scary, and the inn is very creepy and hauntingly shot. It's such a colorful film that it reminds me of Dario Argento's work. The lighting is excellent, and the set decoration is perfectly spooky. The soundtrack is very effective and unique. The horror effects are extreme, terrifying, and unforgettable. The cinematography is great, and it is this that brings us back to Linda Blair. The creative team behind this film shoots her like a horror star should be shot: lots of dramatic push-ins, lingering close-ups that subtly detail Jane's incremental possession, and moments that are reminiscent of other great horror films. There are hidden homages to "Rosemary's Baby", "Jacob's Ladder", "The Shining", "Black Sunday", and of course "The Exorcist". She does a great job, and absolutely steals the show with her moody and understated performance. That isn't to say that the rest of the cast disappoints; Catherine Hickland is sexy and very good, and veteran performer Annie Ross is memorable as Jane's bitchy mother Rose. Hasselhoff gives it his best, but he is not essentially a film star, and his television persona gets in the way of his performance. Blair and young Michael Manchester have a wonderful chemistry together. The film is otherwise so violent and creepy (in a good way) that it desperately needs their warmth (Blair also played a mother in 2003's "Monster Makers", and her maternal scenes in that film have the same tender feeling to them). Lastly, Hildegard Knef (in one of her last roles) plays a great witch, and she has the most amazing voice and accent. Along with Blair, she was also perfectly cast. But it's Blair's movie all the way. Jane Brooks also seems to have some psychic ability, and this aspect of the film hearkens back to "Exorcist II: The Heretic". I think "Witchery" is up there with "The Exorcist", "Exorcist II", "Hell Night", and "Summer of Fear" as Blair's best genre work to date.$LABEL$ 1
+... The reason I like this movie so much is because of the spirit it has. It's a genial summer camp movie, so the jokes aren't mean minded in a lasting way that makes one character the permanent butt of ridicule. Pranks do take place, but you get the feeling that the respective fall-guys would be able to look back and laugh, having been dopey enough to fall for them - and without being too cheesy, it's actually kinda nice that everyone still remains friends in the end!It's an extra special bonus when the ringmaster of all these jolly japes is Bill Murray. For me, he's still looked upon as the comedy god without peer when he gets a chance to cut loose. No one's better at generating a sense of freewheeling wacky anarchy without really hurting anyone. The tone of the entire film has the same style as its leading man, established with a great opening scene showing the Murray way of getting ready for the day. Everything's silly, yes, but more important than behaving like an adult is to have a whole lot of good-natured fun. "Meatballs" promises such and ultimately delivers a nourishing watch.$LABEL$ 1
+Parrots? PARROTS? I have been around this old earth longer than most and have seen nearly all the westerns that have have produced. Old West history is my passion. Comanche Moon is one of the most poorly produced, directed and acted stories I have ever seen. There was very little historical accuracy but then, it is obvious you were operating on a shoestring budget whichplayed a distinct roll in this insult to intelligence. I am happy that I TIVO'd this show. It was bad enough having to sit and watch the movie plus put up with the inane commercials. Once again, there was not one actor that came anywhere near convincing. I kept hoping it would improve as the three days progressed. WRONG! I'm ashamed to say I wasted 4 1/2 hours of what precious little time I have left.$LABEL$ 0
+who's responsible for these "behind the scenes" things? who are these actors? did they crawl out from beneath rocks? 'yuks, lots of yuks!' no. no yuks for me. only loathing and shame that i am a human being. i have to avert my eyes from the set, it's so embarrassing. in fact, i changed the channel.i've always had a problem with robin williams' non-stop 'i forgot my lithium today' rantings, but at least he's funny once in a blue moon. watching someone who isn't funny at all impersonating robin williams is like having each tooth in your head pulled slowly and sadistically, without novocaine, for all eternity.please stop making these absolutely horrifying TV movies. please.$LABEL$ 0
+Lt. Claude (Claudio Cassinelli) and several prisoners from his sunken ship wash ashore on an island owned by Edmond Rackham (Richard Johnson). Following a few random prisoner deaths, Rackham takes in Claude and his two remaining prisoners. Luckily for everyone, Barbara Bach just happens to be on the island too! Unluckily, there are some crazy fishmen who like to kill people.This Italian produced exploiter seems to have it all - a touch of CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON mixed with DR. MOREAU with a dash of WHITE ZOMBIE voodoo and Atlantis stuff. Despite some wonky looking fishmen costumes, the film does benefit from some beautiful location photography and a nice twist about halfway through. All of the actors are good and Joseph Cotton even pops up as a old biologist. Director Sergio Martino handles himself well enough as there is action ever 10 minutes or so. That can't be said for his belated follow-up THE FISHMEN AND THEIR QUEEN (1995), easily one of the wackiest and most off-base sequels since HIGHLANDER II.$LABEL$ 1
+Leos Carax is brilliant and is one of the best film and camera guys in the business so it should come as no surprise that Pola X is an almost perfect filming of the most gut wrenching story ever. Seriously. If I could have figured out some way to climb inside my video monitor, I would have thrashed Pierre to within an inch of his life. No one has the right to be that self absorbed and that stupid, both at the same time, except maybe Heathcliff in Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights. After spending 134 minutes with Pierre, I need a large glass of brandy. Never have I been so angry at a main character. Ok, having said that, Pola X is a stunning movie with one of the few totally honest sex scenes I've ever seen in any film....which means another piece of brilliant filmmaking....and I'm talking graphic here, by the way. Pola X will beat the hell out of you, though, so make sure you're up for it if you decide to watch it.$LABEL$ 1
+I don't know where this movie was shot, but because it was shot on location, it has the authenticity that this story deserves. It is the story of a young English woman who is taken prisoner by the Japanese in southern Asia at the beginning of WWII, with a group of other English women. There is no prison camp for women so they are forced to march for months from place to place, because the Japanese don't know what to do with them. The courage and resilience of the English women, and the bravery of the Australian soldier who tries to help them, is the core of the movie. This movie is very long, maybe 10 hours, so you can watch it as it was shown on PBS, as a series, which actually adds to the feeling of the endless journey this woman makes from England, across this remote island, and finally Australia. Story, cinematography, location and actors combine to make this a movie not to miss. My only question is why this hasn't been released on DVD!$LABEL$ 1
+Back in my days as an usher "Private Lessons" played at the 4-plex I was working. It was a sleeper hit selling out Friday and Saturday nights for several weeks. I never got around to seeing it but saw that it was on cable this last weekend, so I decided to give it a shot. What I witnessed for the next 90 minutes was one of the worst movies I have ever seen and one that made me terribly uncomfortable to watch.The basic story is a teenage boy lusts after his sexy maid (Sylvia Kristel). She, too, seems to feel an attraction towards the boy but for more sinister reasons. So we get scenes of the boy watching her undress and her inviting him in to watch. And it goes from there.Eric Brown, as the teenage boy, has to be one of the worst actors I have ever seen. His "scared" reactions to every time Sylvia takes off a piece of clothing or when she touches him are horrible. I didn't laugh a single time during this piece of junk.And let's not get started on the subplot of the maid and chauffeur planning to extort money from the kid. Let's just say it involves faking a death, burying a body.... I could go on and on but it gets more ridiculous.The sex scenes are the worst I have ever seen. Even though Eric Brown was older then he looked, the fact is he looks like a baby. It appears he has no idea how to kiss a woman (if THAT was acting then maybe I should re-think my criticisms of Brown) and it just came too close to bordering on child pornography to be erotic. I have never been so turned off by a sex scene even though Miss Kristel is quite beautiful with and without clothes.**SPOILER WARNING** I must make mention of the last scene. To me it's just plain sick but I can remember audiences cheering as the film freeze framed and dissolved into credits. Our hero returns to school and begins a flirtation with one of the female teachers. He asks her out for dinner and she gives him a look as if Tom Cruise has just asked her out. She nods affirmatively and he walks away, smiling at the camera in triumph. GIVE ME A BREAK! Yes I am sure teachers all over would just risk everything for a plain looking teenage kid.I will never understand the appeal this film had in 1982. Certainly it was more then the nudity because there were plenty of teen sex comedies with nudity that bombed at the box office. And to think that these same teenagers that cheered that movie 22 years ago are now working their way up corporate ladders and possibly helping to run this country. THAT is a scary thought.$LABEL$ 0
+I readily admit that I watch a lot of really bad movies. But there are very few that I can think of that are quite as bad as When Women Had Tails. It's a stinker of epic proportions. What should have been a sexy comedy about a group of cavemen discovering a woman for the first time is instead a dull, lifeless affair without a single laugh to be had. The comedy is extremely weak. I suppose if you think bashing someone in the head is funny, you might find a laugh or two. The guys in this movie make the Three Stooges look like high art. And there's just not enough of a plot to hold the thing together. It seems to drag on and on and on.Well, you may be asking yourself, "If it's as bad as you say, why haven't you rated it lower than a 3/10?" Good question! And I've got two answers. First, the movie is not without its curiosity value. I do find a bit of interest in an Italian spoof of movies like One Million Years B.C. with Raquel Welch. I'll give When Women Had Tails a point for its historic "value". The other two points are for the mere presence of Senta Berger. I know it's not much of an explanation or reasoning for a rating, but what are you going to do? It's the best I can come up with.$LABEL$ 0
+There are 21 comments as I add mine to this list and there is barely a criticism. This is because this film is terrific entertainment and has a bit of everything in it.It is perhaps a little frightening for younger children but my 15-year old son thought it was fantastic in every way from the action, to the humour and even to the beautiful music score.I buy DVDs only when I know that they are going to be regularly watched and now that this is finally available in the UK, I will certainly be adding it to my collection.$LABEL$ 1
+'A Smile LIke Yours' is a pathetic comedy that actually makes no sense. I don't mean that the story was complicated, but the entire plot is based on one thing: a couple's desperate and expensive unsuccessful attempts to conceive children. People who tried that hard must've forgotten of the option of the adoption, to which this movie is not kind to.Lauren Holly plays Jennifer Robertson, a complete contradiction to anything offered by the women's liberation movement, exhibiting almost no sense of independence. She is quite a boring character as the dreamy housewife with absolutey nothing else on her mind but to have kids. Like a dumb 50's romance comedy, Greg Kinnear is her submitting husband who likewise displays no personality, no independence, and from us, no interest.They are the two most boring and often annoying characters, and they hardly make for topics of a comedy that should present itself with many mishaps, which should arise from a couple doing all they can to get pregnant. Except, they really don't do anything except go to a fertility clinic and shell out a whole lot of money to do what they could do in the privacy of their own (except for that in vitro fertilization number). The plot hardly allows for any mishaps, because well, the couple don't do anything to create any sort of bizarre situation. They just go to this clinic. So what?The subplots are meant to test the faithfulness of the couple, a necessary moral element of the story since the couple does plan on conceiving children together. Jennifer works at a new age shop with her friend (played by Joan Cusak), and they are in the business of developing aphrodesiacs. Christopher MacDonald plays the intrested buyer and Jennifer is the promising negotiator of a pretty price for her and her friend's product. The subplot hardly offers much to keep you interested (although Joan Cusak is pretty funny in the restaraunt scene).Danny (Kinear) is an architect, who finds an opportunity to make some extra money to cover the clinic bills, by taking on a job in Seattle, where his boss is the crass seductress (also another hopeless, helpless female character) who tries to influence Danny (as dumb as he is) to have an affair with her once things are conveniently rocky with him and his wife (for reasons I don't care to give away). Jill Hennesy is good in the role, but her character is too predictable, and too formulaic as a much needed element to create conflict for Danny. It is stupid and once again, hardly interesting. The overall movie itself is utterly boring, and hardly funny at all (save the restaraunt scene and the airline flight). The plot offers nothing that is really attention-grabbing. Even if the story was entirely about two people trying to conceive, the writers could've figured out several hilarious mishaps to develop out of that. Second, the main characters are completely boring. They are complete silouhettes of dumb 1950s comedies with happy wife and clueless husband. So, even without mishaps present in the plot, the characters themselves offer nothing interesting, let alone funny.Joan Cusak should've been in the lead and someone else should've taken Kinnear's part. Cusak would've made even a lousy story outrageously funny (as she sometimes does in her co-starring role here). This is definitely one to pass up.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a movie that should be seen by everyone if you want to see great acting. Mr. Torn and Ms Farrel do an outstanding job. I think they should have it on TV again so a new audience can enjoy it. Wonderful performances.It gives you a real feel of what the pioneers had to go through both physically and emotionally. Great unheard of movie.It was done when Ms. Farrel was very young. I had always thought of her as a comedian, but this certainly is not a comedy and she is just wonderful. There is very little dialogs, but that just make it seem more real. Mr. Torn as always is a great presence and just his breathing has great feeling. I must see movie.$LABEL$ 1
+A buddy and I went to see this movie when it came out in 1980. It was playing in a huge theater and we were the only two people in the place. It lasted two days in the theater before they stopped showing it. It was so bad that we laughed all the way through it. Since that time, we rate movies based on Kill or Be Killed as the worst movie of all time. Like other reviewers have mentioned, it is so bad that it is funny. It isn't worth a second look that's for sure. I just can't bring myself to give it more than a 1 because I don't think the makers of the movie intended for it to be so bad and I can't give credit for an accident. Sorry.$LABEL$ 0
+Why every horror director wants to imitate "The Exorcist" is a complete riddle to me, as William Friedkin's "classic" is a very overrated film and, in my opinion, not all that tense or shocking. And yet here's another clean rip-off, a Spanish one this time, that shamelessly repeats the story of a young girl that gets possessed by pure evil and turns against her own family. Paul Naschy (who I must admit looks quite hot here) plays the honorable priest who gets approached by John Gibson because his sister Leila's behavior changed drastically since she met her new boyfriend. At first the priest doesn't believe it but when John's body is discovered with its neck twisted, Leila's demonic behavior becomes more noticeable... "Exorcism" is not only very unoriginal, it's also an insufferably boring film! Here Naschy and director Juan Bosch had an open opportunity to make a religiously themed exploitation flick full of shocks and gore, and yet the result is a tame and overall bloodless drama that'll nearly put you to sleep! The last twenty minutes contain some atmospheric moments, albeit very stupid, and there's quite a lot of stylishly filmed female nudity and sleaze. The absolute lack of budget is no real excuse since Paul Naschy already proved before that he has enough imagination to make up for a shortage in money. This is just an awful film, end of story. Other European "The Excorcist" rip-offs are "The Antichrist" and "Beyond the Door" and they suck as well!$LABEL$ 0
+I can't believe that so much talent can be wasted in one movie! The Gingerbread Man starts of on the right foot, and manages to build up some great expectations for the ending. But at some point the movie turns into one of the worst stories I've ever wasted my time on. It's just so unbelievably how the bewitched Mallory Doss manages to pull Kenneth Branagh's character around by his nose. The movies climax is as uninteresting and flat as a beer, which has been left out in the sun too long. The Gingerbread Man is probably the worst Grisham-movie ever and this isn't changed by the fact that talented stars crowd the movie. Don't waste your time here!$LABEL$ 0
+I've watched the movie actually several times. And what i want to say about it is the only thing that made this movie high rank was the Burak Altay's incredible performance, absolutely nothing but that. Not even those silly model named Deniz Akkaya and some of these popular names at times in the movie... Burak is definitely very talented i've seen a few jobs he made and been through. Even though this is kind of horror movie, he's doing really good job in comedy movies and also in dramas too. I bet most of you all saw Asmali Konak the movie and TV series, those two would go for an example... All i'm gonna say is you better watch out for the new works coming out from Burak then you'll see.. Keep the good work bro, much love..$LABEL$ 1
+François Villon was a real-life poet and rogue who lived in Paris in the 15th century. However, most of what is portrayed in this historical film is actually fiction--from a play created at the beginning of the 20th century. Whereas in the film he met and became friends with Louis XI, in reality he died in his 30s and was never involved in all the intrigues like he was in this film. In reality, he wrote some lovely verse and was frequently on the wrong side of the law--not the combination of a patriot and Robin Hood-like character like he is in the film. Provided you know that the film is nearly 100% fiction, then it's well worth seeing--just don't assume it's a good history lesson.In THE BELOVED ROGUE, Villon is played with wild abandon by John Barrymore. I was also pretty excited to see that his three friends were all played by very familiar faces. Angelo Rossitto, who was the plucky dwarf, played in tons of films over the years and had a very long career. Slim Summerville was a character actor known for adding a touch of comedy to films. Mack Swain is best known as the silent film foil in many of Chaplin's short films and played his partner in THE GOLD RUSH. All four of these men did a nice job and have no complaints---even with Barrymore's rather over-the-top treatment that was rather reminiscent of a Douglas Fairbanks performance. However, the performance I had a serious problem with was Conrad Veidt as King Louis XI. To call this "unsubtle" would be a gross understatement. He played the role like a high schooler who thought he was supposed to be the stereotypical Richard III--skulking about and acting like a demoniacal caricature. While Veidt was wonderful in many, many films (both silent and sound) but here he is just ridiculous.As for the story, it's full of lusty adventure and action--like a swashbuckling film minus the sailing ships. The sets worked out well for all this, as they'd been used the previous year for THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME. Both films were set around the same time period.Overall, it's one of the last great silent films. There's a lot to like and the film is a lovely combination of romance, comedy and action. Well worth seeing, though it loses a couple of points for Veidt's overacting as well as the way the film plays fast and loose with history.By the way, this film was also made twice as IF I WERE KING (1920 and 1938) and apparently these two films are closest to the original play. However, in total, six films have been about Villon and tell, more or less, variations on the same tale!$LABEL$ 1
+I agree that this film is too pretentious, and it is not easy to know where it is going. I have been teaching literature and film for many years, and I find this film to be one of the most over rated, according to some of the previous reviews here. However, let me remind you that this is the same director who has L'ora di religione (Il sorriso di mia madre- My Mother's Smile) to his credit -- a gem of a film! Was he trying to outdo Fellini's 81/2 here???? The scene with the dogs, which has also been pointed out, is absurd and excessive – just one example. Others would take too much space, and some reviewers have already noted them. Overall, a most frustrating and annoying experience!$LABEL$ 0
+Not since Spongebob Squarepants have i seen a greater cartoon on TV. The colors are great, the voices could't be better, the characters are so original, great great cartoon. Hope Nickolodean continues to develop this cartoon. Hope the Season DVD comes out soon!!! I love cartoons like this and I hope more people tune in to se this great cartoon. It is very hard to find the Season DVD, so if somebody finds a store that is selling it please let me Know. The only Catscratch merchandise available on Nick Shop is a great lookin shirt, but very very very expensive!!! If you love Spongebob; and who doesn''t?; you'll love Catscratch too!$LABEL$ 1
+Don't get me wrong, Dan Jansen was a great speed skater. If there was one guy who deserved his gold medal at the Olympics it was Dan.But how can it be possible that Bill Corcoran has made such a bad movie about the incredible Dan Jansen story, because the real Dan Jansen story is truly incredible! Especially when you look at this movie through the eyes of a sportsman everything is wrong, the way Matt Keeslar and the other actors skate, their technique, the dimensions of the speedskating oval, it is all wrong!Shame on you, Bill Corcoran, Dan Jansen deserves better, a lot better!1 out of 10$LABEL$ 0
+The answer.....No, sadly not. Though miller and the sweep has to be hailed as a most whimsical cinematic treat.The drama, suspense,romance and the unidentified crowd at the end all add to the films complex storyline which must have been too much for the audiences of 1898. A enlightening experience, one for all the family!$LABEL$ 1
+There needs to be a 0/10 option for bilge like this. It was painful to watch, but strangely compelling all the same. Compelling because it seemed unbelievable that a movie could actually suck this much. I kept thinking "it must get better." It got worse. And worse. How on earth were people conned into producing such a categorical piece of junk I'll never know. The most surprising thing of all though, is all these reviews I see of people actually loving the movie. Yes, the acting was good, but the movie was very very very bad. Worst movie ever!$LABEL$ 0
+This is how i felt while watching this film. I loved it. It was hilarious. But i did feel a like i was getting sneaky view into somebody's psyche and then laughing as it got twisted around to make an interesting point. A friend put it this way:"I feel like we broke into somebody's house and are now watching their awful home videos without their knowledge".Another one of those fact is stranger than fiction pieces of film. "Groovin' Gary", the original "Beaver Kid", is a small town guy who turns up at a nearby TV station in the hope of getting on film - and he certainly does, though not, perhaps, as he initially expected. With high hopes of fame and significance he invites Harris to come and film a truly awful talent quest that he has organised in his home town - headlined by his own drag act "Olivia Newton-Don". Director, Trent Harris, does a brilliant job with this slowly evolving story. Some footage of an awkward kid who wants to be someone morphs, over two subsequent reinterpretations, into the story of freedom from repressed sexual identity in small town America. Harris simultaneously critiques the attitudes of small town America, the cult of celebrity, and the exploitative practices of the film and television industry.Both Sean Penn and Grispin Glover pull out stunner performances. a young Sean Penn is the most evocative - so closely does he follow the actual 'Gary footage', but with strong nuances given to push the sense of the interaction the way Harris wants it to go.In the end the wide-eyed naivety the original Gary is what moved me - when contrasted against these possible interpretations of his situation.A film not to miss. I have not seen anything else like it.Jacob.$LABEL$ 1
+Extremely disappointing film based on the James Michener novel.What was even worse was Marlon Brando's performance. His southern drawl was ridiculous. I found myself laughing when he spoke as he sounded like an elderly southern lady coming home to roost. Brando, so great in previous films, was reduced here to a laughing stock. Tyrone Power, in "Witness for the Prosecution," should have been nominated for best actor instead of Brando here.The film, dealing with racism, dealt with the U.S. government's attempt to avoid marriages between U.S. soldiers and Japanese women.Brando was stone-faced throughout the movie. His moving from anti-these relationships to a pro one occurs when he finds love with an Asian woman. His emotions and talk made it difficult to see how he could espouse such new views.Only the lord knows why Red Buttons and Miyoshi Umeki received supporting Oscars for their performances. Nothing about either performance was equally impressive. Umeki's appearance on the screen was short and without much of anything being depicted on her part. A better performance in this film was done by Miiko Taka, who did nicely as Brando's love interest. She showed great emotion as the anti-American who found love with the Brando character. Her face was etched with the unhappiness she had for losing her father and brother in World War 11. She realized that her dancing was not her way out of this existence that she was living.Martha Scott went from the Hebrew mother Yochobel in "The Ten Commandments" to the bigoted mother of Brando's love interest at first. Her performance together with the one of Ricardo Montalban was wasted. Patricia Owens, as Brando's first love, showed depth and conviction in her performance.$LABEL$ 0
+Not having seen the film in the original theater release, I was happily surprised when the DVD arrived, since this film did not have the wide distribution it merited.Denzel Washington directorial debut and the finished product have nothing to envy other films about the same theme by more accomplished directors. The film has a very professional look. It shows that Mr. Washington has learned a lot being on the other side of the camera. He brings a different angle to this film.One of the best things the film has is, without a doubt, the fine performance by Derek Luke. He is an actor who, with the right guidance, will go far, no doubt. His take on the troubled young man, at this point of his life, in turmoil and suffering for a bad hand life, up to now, has dealt him, is very true. His Antwone is a fine portrait of a man in pain who is basically very good and has so much to give, but no one seems to see that side of his character.At the worst time of his despair, Antwone is sent to Dr. Davenport, played by Mr. Washington, in a very sober, if somehow subdued manner. Because of the angst within Antwone, he misses the opportunity of opening himself to this man, who wants to help, but because of the constrains placed on his office, just have three sessions and then has to dismiss his patient.Things work out, as Antwone is able to convince the doctor to keep on working with him. Antwone's past is revealed in detail. The abuse he suffers at the hands of Mrs. Tate, his foster mother, is brutal, to say the least. The attempt at the hand of an older woman in the Tate's household of a sexual molestation, gives Antwone a bitter taste that stays with him throughout his adult life, as he has been scarred by the shame he carries with him.Antwone finds love at last with Cheryl, who is patient enough to make him see a different world by the love she and support she gives him.The lead performances are very good indeed. Denzel Washington's Dr. Davenport has his own problems too. He is not a happy camper either. He can help Antwone, but he cannot help himself, or his relationship with an adoring wife. The talent in the film is incredible. Joy Bryant makes a fine Cheryl. Novella Nelson, who is a fine actress is superb as Mrs. Tate, the abusing foster mother.The reunion of Antwone with his unknown family is a bit too sugary and sentimental, but of course, if one is to believe that Fisher finds happiness at last, one has to accept that part of the film as well.$LABEL$ 1
+This is an excellent documentary about a story I hadn't heard about before. The first solo, non-stop sailing race around the world took place in 1968-69 and involved a handful of racers. It's a truly fascinating story about man vs. nature and man vs. himself. The story focuses on Donald Crowhurst, the tragic figure in this story. The film elegantly combines interviews with footage which was shot by the sailors themselves aboard their boats. The story is very suspenseful and sad as we learn the details behind the history of Donald Crowhurst. This is one of the best documentaries of the past few years. It has true human emotion in it as the men face this almost impossible task of navigating the world non-stop on their own.$LABEL$ 1
+Very good except for the ending which was a huge disappointment.The script was very good as was the acting. The visuals were often very grainy but this in a way added to the film as the snowy features were in good places that helped create a mood towards the film. This affect was ruined by the extremely unbelievable ending. I was going to give this film an 8 out of ten but the ending knocked it down a point to 7 because it seemed to depart radically from the first 75 minutes of the movie and seemed quite forced at the end to make the film makers look clever. This movie though was much better than films with quite a lot larger budgets and seemed to be filmed like a home movie with some extra equipment. Not much in the way of special effects as these go but for suspense it was very good.$LABEL$ 1
+I read a lot of high hopes from readers of the book that this would be a faithful adaptation of Nora Roberts' story. Not having read the book, I don't know if this adaptation was faithful but I do know it wasn't good. Actually, the screenplay was the best part of the movie so kudos to Nora Roberts.I planned ahead and watched Carolina Moon because of Claire Forlani. I've never been sure if she's a good actress. She's been decent in some movies, average in others and really bad in this one. But, Forlani wasn't alone. The performances were all over the place. Oliver Hudson was wooden and boring. Josie Davis was hammy. Then, amidst all this B-rate acting, there's Jacqueline Bisset! She didn't have a lot to do other than portray bitterness but, even sleepwalking through that, she was miles ahead of the others.Still, Forlani remains one of the most breathtaking women in movies and I was not disappointed in that capacity here. I believe Forlani can be more than eye-candy but, until she turns in a good performance in a good movie, she continues to excel at that. And, I'll continue to faithfully watch everything she participates in. Fandom is fun that way.This movie though, Carolina Moon, was pretty bad. In addition to the bad acting (fake Southern accents are really distracting) the direction was pedestrian. It wasn't horrible. It was just the boring made-for-TV caliber you're used to seeing on Lifetime.If you're a fan of any of the stars you can probably enjoy Carolina Moon for that reason, as I did. If you're a fan of the book you might enjoy seeing the story on the screen, albeit in a lackluster form. Otherwise, this movie is unremarkable.$LABEL$ 0
+"Bye Bye Birdie" isn't one of the best musicals of all time, but it's great fun, and accessible to many audiences. The original film could have been wonderful, with Dick Van Dyke reprising his signature Broadway role, but instead they tinkered with the plot, so the film is very unsatisfying. This re-make, which aired on ABC in 1995, is far more faithful to the original script, and includes some original songs as well that were used in a national tour which this film took off from which starred Tommy Tune and Ann Reinking (who choreographed this film.)Jason Alexander is a very different type from Dick Van Dyke, but he is well cast as Albert, (before his "Seinfeld" days, he started in Musical theater.) Vanessa Williams is a perfect fit for Rose. Their is also great work from Tyne Daly as Mae and Mark Kudisch as Conrad Birdie ( a role he played on the national tour).This film is not without it's problems though. A major liability is Chynna Phillips, who, however appealing, simply looks and seems too old to be teenage Kim. And George Wendt is somewhat bland as her father, somewhat throwing the number "kids" away (a number original cast member Paul Lynde stole the show with.)But all in all, this is a delightful, well-done film which the material deserved.$LABEL$ 1
+Saw this as a young naive punk when it was first released. Had me snifflin' like a baby as I left the theatre, trying not to let anyone see. So, when I saw it again now in '07, I knew what to expect & the sobs were ready & primed as their required moment approached. Thankfully this time I was at home.What I hadn't remembered from my youthful viewing- or perhaps hadn't noticed because of it, was the technical brilliance of this movie. The use of flashbacks which tell so much story without resorting to dialogue. The camera work which seemed to place the viewer, together with the characters in the scene. Think of the opening when Joe is crossing the street to the diner, the camera pans behind the woman & child sitting on a bench in the foreground, framing the street scene. The story itself, & the characters - seedy, sad & brutally real. It is very touching to be drawn so closely into a human drama such as this with people most of us would likely spurn. Then again, Joe & Ratso could be any of us. Must have been '70 when I saw it. I recall that upon leaving the theatre I was impelled to find the company of friends. All these years later, I'm glad I'm not alone tonight. This is one hell of a great movie.$LABEL$ 1
+The Bermuda Triangle ,we are told in this waste of celluloid, is the portal to another time and dimension and can be crossed using cheap special effects by bad actors spouting inane dialogueI simply was unable to decide who the makers of this excresence thought would be its target audience as it seems impossible anybody could derive even a modicum of pleasure from the outcome Avoid-its not even bad enough to be good.$LABEL$ 0
+After watching this on the MST3K episode, I have to wonder how many movies this film borrows from. It seems to combine elements of Logans Run, Farenheight 451, Final Sacrifice and at least several others. At one point I was really expecting Cris Makepease to call Lee Majors ROWSDOWER. I wonder if the director has any clue how many holes there are in the plot. like the fact that, even though gas is unavailable, there is plenty of it in abandoned gas stations, and the stations are located close enough together to keep an F1 race car going all the way across the country.$LABEL$ 0
+Boring movie. Poor plot. Poor actors. The movie happens in a room supposed to be in Morocco but actually in some American city! The "Arab terrorists" are the patriots the blonde patriot is the "Arab terrorist"...DAMN!There is something good about this movie though (that's why the score is 2 out of 10). The director turns the ridiculous stereotype about terrorism the media feeds us every day into the real thing, the terrorists are Americans (or western people if you like).The movie is divided into two parts. The first part of the movie concerns the Dutchman travel (15 seconds) while the second part is about the staying in the amazing dark brown room (1 hour and something).The Dutch guy is going to deliver money in Morocco to some "charity organization", gets off the plain, takes the bus and ends up kidnapped in a dark brown room. He is kidnapped with another guy that is shot after telling "They will not shoot at us". The Dutch survivor is forced to play chess with a Morpheus-like Arab guy for so long that you'll learn how to play chess too! At the end the dutch guy reveals his plot not because they cut four of his fingers off but because he is tricked by such a lame game you should watch the movie for!Good when you are so tired you can't sleep.$LABEL$ 0
+This is not a boring movie, the audience might stay on its chair fascinated by this selfish character, Miles Berkowitz, both film-maker and actor here. The storyline is simple : after a divorce and ten years of a hollywoodian non-career, the author plays is quest for love in front of the camera. The first question is about how true is all that : what is written, what came by chance ? Both answers, "yes" or "no" portrays M.Berkowitz as a low average human beeing. If you look for a self-fiction about love like this one, I recommand you to read some independant comic books : Chester Brown, Joe Matt...Beside of this, I felt quite disappointed to hear so much against my country, France. I know american people usually say that the french are arrogant (that might be true then), etc., and for sure the french (and the whole world) have lots of griefs against america, but why so much hate ? Don't think I couldn't like this movie only because of that anyhow.$LABEL$ 0
+i tried to sit through this bomb not too long ago.what a disaster .the acting was atrocious.there were some absolutely pathetic action scenes that fell flat as a lead balloon.this was mainly due to the fact that the reactions of the actors just didn't ring true.supposedly a modern reworking of the Hitchcock original "Lifeboat".i think Hictcock would be spinning circles in his grave at the very thought of it.from what i was able to suffer through,there is nothing compelling in this movie.it boasts a few semi big names,but they put no effort into their characters.but,you know,to be fair,it was nobody's fault really.i mean,i'm pretty sure the script blew up in the first explosion. LOL.it is possible that this thing ends up improving as it goes along.but for me,i'm not willing to spend at least three days to find out.so unless you have at least a three day weekend on the horizon,avoid this stinker/ 1/10$LABEL$ 0
+Joe D'Amato might have made some other notable movies in his very long and very prolific career- prolific, of course, by turns of making VERY cheap Z-grade movies in Italy's big exploitation boom of the late 70s early 70s- but Porno Holocaust isn't one of them, or at least shouldn't be. Granted, I should not expect much from a movie with such a title, but I thought considering the back of the box's description that it might have some fun horror scenes with the "horny, mutant, cannibal zombie". Turns out the zombie doesn't appear until more than halfway into the movie, and at every turn we get instead a tawdry sex scene as hardcore as one can imagine. Which is fine. But it's not very enjoyable, except in the most "what the f*** is this BS" kind of way. There's laughable dialog involving lobsters costing more from mail-order Japan than in Paris, hot, slim women play biologists and zoologists who have particular sexual hang-ups (letting the door be unlocked to be raped, and a bi-polar kind of enjoyment out of getting gang-banged).It all leads up to the island, where the "main attraction" is a guy who early on just spends an absolutely pathetic (forget ludicrous) amount of time just staring at the newcomers to the radioactive wasteland of the shot-on-Caribbean island, and once revealed has a face like one of the guards in Jabba's palace and has a sweet potato for a main genital. But much dumber than anything before it is the "relationship" that develops between the monster and a dark-skinned lady who has an inordinate amount of time to escape, but just sits there, blank-faced, as the monster brings gifts and for what must be a racially-motivated exploitation move on the part of the filmmakers the monster ONLY rapes and kills the white women, and not her. And it ends, of course, with a "happy" ending. I use quotes, of course, out of a kind of shock that this could have any kind of legitimate ending at all.Bottom line, this is NOT what you might expect, as possibly being a bloody horror movie with plenty of tacky but cool looking Italian monster-zombies devouring human flesh. If anything what violence is in the film is done on a shoe-string; a log hit to the face is immediately cut to the bloody aftermath, which is like the aftermath of a tomato hitting someone. So really, the last part of the title is meant more for market sake. Yet even as a porno movie it has little to go on except as a reason for the cast and crew to get a paid vacation to the Caribbean (as an interview with George Eastman suggests, this was just one of a few quickies made while on the island). Its got penny-bought schlocky camera-work and similar actors, filled with genitalia about 3/4 of the whole time and with wretched lip-syncing and music like Nino Rota forced at gun-point to make something snappy in a bordello, and it's STILL a piece of celluloid dung all the same; all of this could be an immense guilty pleasure, but it isn't.$LABEL$ 0
+I made the big mistake of actually watching this whole movie a few nights ago. God I'm still trying to recover. This movie does not even deserve a 1.4 average. IMDb needs to have 0 vote ratings possible for movies that really deserve it like this one. A 1.4 is TOO HIGH.I had heard how awful this movie was, but I really did not think a movie could actually be that bad, especially in this day and era. I figured all of the cheesy god awful movies were only from the 1950s and 1960s. My god was I wrong. Trust me folks, this movie REALLY IS THAT BAD. It is beyond horrible; it is beyond pathetic; it is beyond any type of word that I can think of for it. BATTLEFIELD EARTH looks like Best Picture of the Year compared to this movie. SNAKE ISLAND (which up until now was the worst movie I'd ever seen) looks like it deserves a few Oscars compared to this pathetic effort.I seriously can not believe that the makers of this movie thought this was a legitimate serious effort of producing a Hollywood movie. This has no business being called a movie. In the first 25 seconds of the film, I seriously thought I was watching some high school theater class attempting to make a short movie. Or better yet, I thought it was some Saturday night Live ripoff skit of the real thing. I mean, it looks exactly like that. The acting is horrible; the whole movie almost looks like it was shot with a 20 year old VHS video camera. the special effects.......well good lord Bewitched from back in the day had better special effects than this movie. The scene where he gets shot at the door is beyond laughable and beyond cheesy. I mean seriously, my Intro to Acting class from 4 years ago in college, all of us could have put together a better movie than this. And the worst part of the entire movie, where Arthur is naked in the bathroom. Oh my god I almost thew up right there. I have a strong stomach, but wow that was horrible. Some people should never be naked, and he's one of them. The plot of this movie just seems to go absolutely nowhere. They talk about legal issues that we never hear about again; Ben talks about getting into music that we never hear about again; arthur says he is looking for a job and money for college and the next thing we see is he's running a porn shop. Everything about the movie is just horrible.This really doesn't have much to do with my critique, but just so everyone knows, I am not a gay man. I DO however support gay rights and believe we should all be treated as equals. And I would support any gay person in my church, unlike the cruel priest in this movie, who by the way seems to cuss every other word. (WHERE IS THE F*(#*ing white out?) hahaha But I didn't want anyone to think I hated this movie just because of it being about two gay guys. It has nothing to do with that: This would have been just as horrible of a movie if it was Ben & Jill instead of Ben & Arthur.I just watched this movie to see if it really was as bad as they say. And yes it was even WORSE than I had read. Let this be a warning to everyone: ONLY watch this movie if you want to just sit back and laugh at how pathetic some movies in the 21st century can still be. If you watch this movie and are actually expecting a good movie or some entertainment, I have no sympathy for you whatsoever.On a final thought: How in the world are there 7 movies ranked BELOW this on IMDb? There is no way there are 7 movies out there that are worse than this!$LABEL$ 0
+I love to see a female protagonist, in this movie her name was Rose. Rose brought out a lot of interesting questions in her journey of fulfillment.Is is possible to attain peace and internal fulfillment through external means? Does our society teach this? Can one be a victim of memory which may lead to victimizing others? Is one responsible for being a product of one's environment? To what extent can one control or take control of one's environment? How is a "typical" human alike or different than Rose? Lastly, would the outcome or story change if it were from another country like France or Italy? I loved that this movie provoked all of these questions in me, while it entertained, stimulated, and kept me guessing to the end! Every time I've watched it, I have learned more about the film and myself.$LABEL$ 1
+*** Contains spoilers ***A lovely film this, starring Brad Renfro and the ever wonderful Joseph Mazzello. I like Joseph Mazzello, out of all his films I've seen to date I've loved every single one of them for many different reasons and The Cure is no different. Brad Renfro does very well in this movie as well. The Cure is a drama/coming of age movie from the viewpoint of an ill child and his friend.The basic idea is: Dexter (Joseph Mazzello) has AIDS. He ends up befriending the kid next door (Brad Renfro) but Erik's mum is very narrow-minded, ill-informed and somewhat "thick" when it comes to Dexter's illness. She thinks AIDS is contagious like the Common Cold so doesn't want her son going anywhere near Dexter.After many attempts at making their own cure with no success, the boys go on their way to New Orleans to find the cure after reading a pamphlet about it. After getting their kicks from Playboy magazine, Dexter's health goes south shortly afterwards and as his health detoriates, there's still enough life in the boy alongside Erik for two pranks of pretending to stop breathing. Unfortunately, poor Dexter does indeed die from his illness, leaving poor Erik behind to wonder why he couldn't find the cure. Throughout the movie he ends up bonding more with Dexter's mother than his own.It is a very heartwarming movie to watch and is not absolutely perfect (movies rarely are) but you won't care less about that as you get involved in the film more. A must for Joseph Mazzello fans, one of his best performances ever. Very well recommended must-see movie - if you can find a copy :)$LABEL$ 1
+This animated movie is a masterpiece! The narration, music, animation, and storyline where all remarkable. My girlfriend and I saw it again for a second time and we got more insight from it. We invited a couple friends to see Spirit with us and they really enjoyed it a lot. When I asked them to come along to see it, they thought it was a movie about horses, but afterwards they realized it was more than that. I liked Esperanza, Spirit, Rain, and Lil' Creek, who reminds me of Nathan Chasing Horse who is Smiles A Lot in Dances With Wolves. Spirit has deep symbolic meanings and metaphors that I found to be empowering and inspirational.I saw Spirit for a third time and I want to go see it again. I enjoyed "Spirit" tremendously because its portrayal of American Indians is realistic, dignified, and non-stereotypical unlike the movie "The Road to El Dorado", which was a total farce because it portrayed American Indians in a disrespectful and stereotypical way. But Dreamworks has redeemed themselves by making Spirit a great movie that I found to be acceptable! I hope they continue to make more animated movies like Spirit, and I would like to see sequels or spinoffs to Spirit if its done respectfully and without stereotyping American Indians.I highly recommend this to others who have an open mind to go and pay to see Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron.$LABEL$ 1
+SPOILER - This film gives away plot points and discusses the ending. I hated this film - mostly for political reasons, but also for moral and aesthetic reasons. Politically, this film glorified war and military technology - blowing things up real good. We are led to cheer as the music swells and the Afghans use our weapons to blow the Ruskies to bits. And no U.S. soldiers put their lives on the line - so it's a fun war. Aesthetically, there isn't a touch of real human emotion in the film, just smug, privileged people being sarcastic, feeling superior, and doing whatever they want regardless of the consequences. And speaking of consequences, the film only makes a few small hits at what the arming of the Afghans actually led to. I had read an earlier draft of this script, and it ended on 9/11 - with Charlie Wilson realizing that things had gone horribly wrong. But that wouldn't leave the audience feeling good. This is a feel good movie about killing Ruskies. And it made me sick.$LABEL$ 0
+In comparison to other "sand and sandal" fare, The Egyptian leaves much to be desired. The film is very LOOSELY based upon Mika Waltari's well researched novel, which centers around the Egyptian physician Sinhue's adventures at the court of Akhnaton as well as his travels throughout Canaan, Minoan Crete and Africa. Unfortunately, due to the moral strictures of the time, much of Sinhue's story (which is rife with romantic and sexual exploits) remains on the cutting room floor and instead, the audience is treated to reels and reels of Victor Mature's wooden acting. Even Gene Tierney – a leading lady "staple" of the time – can not manage to look nor act her best in this flick and gives a rather somnambulistic performance which can only be justified by the fact that the actress was having some serious psychiatric problems at the time. There is a great deal of rhetoric and theological machinations over the idea of monotheism vs. polytheism, but Michael Wilding is so tiring as the revolutionary Akhnaton, that one is surely cheering for someone to off him and restore the old religion before the second reel. My advice: buy the book from E-Bay, rent something more entertaining like Solomon and Sheba and then call it a night!$LABEL$ 0
+Why do all movies on Lifetime have such anemic titles? "An Unexpected Love" - ooh, how provocative!! "This Much I know" would have been better. The film is nothing special. Real people don't really talk like these characters do and the situations are really hackneyed. The straight woman who "turns" lesbian seemed more butch than the lesbian character. If you wanna watch two hot women kiss in a very discreet fashion, you might enjoy this. Although it seems like it was written by someone who doesn't really get out in the world to observe people. Why am I wasting my time writing about it?$LABEL$ 0
+It is like what the title of this thread say. Only impression I got from that movie is that Marlee Matlin's character was always angry, so cynical, and so pathetic. Her character's first date with William Hurt's character where they were dancing were dumb. All in all, I've tried to finish watching the movie four times, and of all four times I fell asleep. I would keep watching that movie with one intention... to beat my problem with insomnia, because all it do is to put me to sleep. Sweet dream.$LABEL$ 0
+If you're looking for a movie that puts you to sleep, then Heart of Darkness is the movie for you. The book wasn't what I expected to it to be, and the movie disappointed me even further. The cast list was pitiful, and the all around plot was pathetic and was not like the book, except for a few scenes. I understand that everyone has their own point of view as they read Heart of Darkness, and they create their own movie in their head, but they director cuts important scenes and adds pointless ones. If there was someone in the movie who was supposed to be of a certain culture, they should've used an actor that was of that culture. There are actors from every where, and I'm sure that they could've found better ones to fit the roles. Joseph Conrad was a respectable man and created a book that will entertain you if that's what you're looking for, but the movie was cheap and pointless, and someone who could make the movie as respectable as the book should've done it. If you want a movie that drags you into darkness, then Heart of Darkness is the movie for you.$LABEL$ 0
+I picked up this movie and was horrified to find out that the movie is based on a rape of a little girl that the parents knowingly take their daughter to. My first thoughts were that I have never been more ashamed to be an Indian as well as a Hindu. I found this movie to be down right appalling. Please don't waste your time. As for the music, there are at most 2 horrible songs and the film used is cheap. The beautiful scenes are not what India is known for. I just hope that I have shed some light on how disgusting this movie really is. Yes it may highlight how evil people in power especially when it comes to religion may be, but to sit down and watch almost 2 hours of this movie can make almost anyone gag. If your up for a good Indian movie watch something by director Mira Nair.$LABEL$ 0
+This is not great cinema. The film is cliche ridden and in many places it is a copy of the original Carrie. The parallels with the original film are striking but with an added improbability about the telekenetic powers being congenital.I can't say that I disliked the film because it at least passed a couple of hours ... but these were passed as one would read an undemanding book on a long train journey. That book would not be great literature but would absorb one for a while and be forgotten soon afterwards in that it would blend in with the numerous other cliche ridden books. Likewise the film was okay whilst it lasted but is perhaps forgettable. At least I think it is. I cant remember much about it now!!$LABEL$ 0
+Personnaly I really loved this movie, and it particularly moved me. The two main actors are giving us such great performances, that at the end, it is really heart breaking to know what finally happened to their characters.The alchemy between Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson is marvelous, and the song are just great the way they are. That's why I didn't feel surprised when I learned it had won 5 golden globe awards (the most rewarded movie at the Golden Globes), an Oscar and even a Grammy. This movie is a classic that deserves to be seen by anyone. A great movie, that has often been criticized (maybe because Streisand dared to get involved in it, surely as a "co-director"). Her artistry is the biggest, and that will surely please you!$LABEL$ 1
+First, the current IMDb plot description seems to be misleading, the movie is about a group of girls who pick up a misogynistic hitchhiker, who plans to kill them all. They stop at a small motel, where he holds them hostage, but develops an intense attraction for one of the girls. Violence ensues.I picked this up by mistake thinking it was the other 2007 movie "The Hitcher". Not that The Hitcher is any better, and I was looking for a crummy movie to watch anyway, but this was almost unbearable at times. I think I could have vomited on a piece of paper and come up with a better plot than this.I can't even count how many movies I've seen with virtually the same storyline, so this was almost painfully predictable at times, but what really made it awful were a few scenes that ... well let me give an example. At one point a door is covered in (what is very obviously) blood, and two police officers, at the scene because of a 911 call, are looking at it from 30 feet away, see a man, also covered in blood, walk out of the door, agree that it looks suspicious, but decide to not investigate further.But, however ridiculous it may be, the movie was never boring, was well produced, directed, and acted, complete with good special effects, gratuitous nudity, and violence. I probably would not recommend actually spending 90 minutes of your life sitting down to watch this movie, but it turned out to be perfect to have on while I cleaned my basement. Also highly recommended for fans of crummy movies, and would be a good movie to watch with friends when you plan on doing more talking than watching.$LABEL$ 0
+If you want a serious laugh pain, watch this movie, and the things Bruce inflicts on his fellow newscaster. The deleted scenes are priceless. I don't know why they didn't include them in the original movie. It can't be because of time, since the movie is only 101 minutes long. Morgan Freeman is a brilliant actor, who has been overlooked for too long. Jim Carrey needs meds!$LABEL$ 1
+Carlito Way, the original is a brilliant story about an ex-drug dealer who hopes to leave his criminal past and so he invests in a club and the deals with the trouble that comes with it.This film was....I saw the trailer and knew instantly it was going to be bad..But after dismissing films in the past and finding out they were great( Lucky Number Slevin, Tokyo Drift)...I gave this a shot and it failed within the first five minutes...The script is something a teenager would come up with if given five minutes to prepare...It was weak, with weaker dialogue. It seems there is an instant need for romance in a gangster movie. So Brigante decides to beat a guy up for the girl....and she say's 'Yes!' And if you need to act bad just throw racism around...As we learn from the 'Italian mobsters'...The acting was terrible to say the least...I found 'Hollywood Nicky', hilarious.I absolutely hate all these musicians turning to movies. Lets face it the only reason P Diddy did this movie was so he could play a gangsters...The actress who plays Leticia was weak but beautiful. The sex scene was weak but we got to see her..which was okay...But overall I expected it shed light on how Carito ended up in prison and the love of his life...And the assassin towards the end completely added to the horrendous movie that is...Carlito's Way: Rise to Power..$LABEL$ 0
+The lovely Eva Longoria Parker plays Kate, who dies after an ice angel crushes her before the "I do's" with fiancé Henry(Paul Rudd). After two years Henry has yet to move on and his sister Chloe(Lindsay Sloane)is very concerned. Chloe arranges for Henry to talk with an attractive psychic Ashley(Lake Bell). Ashley is to contact Kate's spirit hoping to help Henry get on with his life. When the psychic starts getting attracted to Henry, Kate's ghost appears to nip the romance in the bud. There are some funny situations; but if you've seen the trailers you have seen the substance of the film. Also in the cast: Stephen Root, Jason Biggs, William Morgan Sheppard and Wendi McLendon-Covey. I personally thought that Bell stole the show from Parker. And Biggs as usual a pain in the butt. Still this movie was over-hyped.$LABEL$ 0
+If this is based on the true-life relationship, as purported, between Ms. Curtin and Mr. Levinson, I'm thrilled I do not know them personally. This is painfully slow, and both characters take stupid pills liberally throughout the movie while the theme song gets played into the ground. Many stupid scenes with people acting stupid does not make for a comedy.$LABEL$ 0
+More like psychological analysis of movies, but Psycho does sound better as a header. The man in charge of the movie (the narrator if you will) does depict movies here in his own way. Most of them are classics, but all of them are listed here at IMDb and I'd strongly advise you to see them (especially the Hitchcock movies, Solyaris, Conversation & and the Lynch movies), because Slavoj Zizek will reference them! Or in other words, he might spoil them for you. I don't remember if he spoiled more than those I've listed (I think the Chaplin movies too), but as I wrote it'd be best if you watch them all beforehand! In the IMDb listing there is a movie missing, that I did report to them, so it might get up there pretty soon. It's a Meg Ryan movie, but it's a only a brief snippet not big of a deal anyways.Zizek views and opinions are crazy and fun to listen to, if you're open minded to see things through another perspective (even if that does destroy your favorite movie a bit for you ... it doesn't mean it will do that, but it could)!$LABEL$ 1
+This is a straight-to-video movie, so it should go without saying that it's not going to rival the first Lion King, but that said, this was downright good.My kids loved this, but that's a given, they love anything that's a cartoon. The big shock was that *I* liked it too, it was laugh out loud funny at some parts (even the fart jokes*), had lots of rather creative tie-ins with the first movie, and even some jokes that you had to be older to understand (but without being risqué like in Shrek ["do you think he's compensating for something?"]).A special note on the fart jokes, I was surprised to find that none of the jokes were just toilet noises (in fact there were almost no noises/imagery at all, the references were actually rather subtle), they actually had a setup/punchline/etc, and were almost in good taste. I'd like my kids to think that there's more to humor than going to the bathroom, and this movie is fine in those regards.Hmm what else? The music was so-so, not nearly as creative as in the first or second movie, but plenty of fun for the kids. No painfully corny moments, which was a blessing for me. A little action but nothing too scary (the Secret of NIMH gave my kids nightmares, not sure a G rating was appropriate for that one...)All in all I'd say this is a great movie for kids of any age, one that's 100% safe to let them watch (I try not to be overly sensitive but I've had to jump up and turn off the TV during a few movies that were less kid-appropriate than expected) - but you're safe to leave the room during this one. I'd say stick around anyway though, you might find that you enjoy it too :)$LABEL$ 1
+A combat veteran, fresh from completion of ninjutsu training, reunites with an old friend in Manila and gets caught up in a power struggle with a ruthless land baron.But, do you really care about that? If you're even reading this page, you must know something of what to expect. It's your typical chop-socky, complete with ridiculous dialouge, mega-corny villains, apocalyptic sound editing, and a camera that begs for your attention. The only reason for being seen in public with this film is the fight sequences, wonderfully choreographed by Mike Stone and true master Sho Kosugi. Franco Nero ain't no slouch either, assuming you can see around the mustache.Well, I'm being too harsh. There are some good laughs--enjoy Christopher George repeatedly screaming "Ninja!" and delivering arguably the goofiest death scene ever captured on film.$LABEL$ 0
+This was the second MST3K'd movie I ever saw, and still holds a place in my heart as one of the most hilariously awful film experiences you are ever going to have. Miles O'Keeffe (sp?) is in this, using his chiseled physique to score another payment on the mortgage on his condominium. He's stiff, wooden, and unconvincing, but he still comes across as a cool, likable guy, and at least he's photogenic. That's the only decent I can find to say about the movie, so I thought I would get it out of the way right up front. The fact that he is in the movie adds another point to the score and saves it from being a "1 out of 10". In no particular order, examples of how badly put together this film is:1)OK, the Tanya Roberts clone (Mila) quests to 'the ends of the earth' to find Ator, which takes 3 minutes of screen time, including the time she spends stumbling around dying from a poisoned arrow in her shoulder (which I assume would have slowed her down quite a bit). So Ator heals her up, and takes his trusty aid Thong and sets out to go back to the her castle...and proceeds to take the next 50+ minutes of the movie recovering the ground that Mila traversed in 3 minutes. How does that work??? I know that the intrepid crew is being harassed by magical forces and enemies etc. on the way back, but still...!2)Apparently the writer/director felt the need to add 'depth' to the film by adding a running debate/Socratic dialog/game of 20 questions between Zor (the mean John Saxon wannabe) and the wise man Akronas (the Richard Harris wannabe). But Joe Damoto apparently got his philosophical training from Hallmark cards, T-Shirts and bumper stickers, and he doesn't understand tempo, pacing, or timing...and neither do the actors. (Crow's remark during one of these exchanges is the tag line for my entry). The scenes with these two drag on and on, bringing the movie to a screeching halt and killing any momentum or excitement generated by the sword-fighting and questing of the heroic trio.3) Once Ator arrives at the castle (and is captured), things go even farther downhill. Zor decides to feed a bunch of women victims, along with Ator and Mila, to the Serpent God he keeps in his basement. This scene had some potential for excitement, so the director immediately kills this potential by instilling the scene with all the drama of people waiting in line at the DMV to pay their traffic fines. Ator proceeds to have a big battle with the Serpent that is barely more convincing than Bela Lugosi's battle with the rubber octopus puppet in "Bride Of The Monster". 4) The climactic scene, in which Ator invents the hang glider out of twigs and animal skins, is so patently silly that it completely blows the viewer out of the movie and makes you roll on the floor, laughing until your sides hurt. 5) Oh, yes, and the filmmakers decided to include stock footage of an atomic explosion at the end, with the moral that Ator decided to destroy the 'atomic nucleus' McGuffin that drives the movie because mankind was 'not ready'. ("Zzzzip! MESSAGE COMING IN!!!") Just like "Bride Of the Monster" again, come to think of it. All it needed was a bystander to observe, "They tampered in God's domain."6) For some reason, the version of the movie I saw features introductory and closing homo-erotic credit sequences that have absolutely NOTHING to do with anyone or anything else in the movie. I have no idea where this footage came from, but it is actually WORSE than the actual movie it bookends. Watch this only if you are a big fan of Miles, or if you enjoy the way MST3K skewers material like this.$LABEL$ 0
+Wagon Master is a very unique film amongst John Ford's work. Mainly because it's the only one that is based on a story written by John Ford himself, the story that was elaborated by Frank Nugent and director's son – Patrick Ford and turned into a screenplay, and because of director's personal opinion regarding it, Wagon Master is the film John Ford called the one which `came closest to being what I had wanted to achieve', to say so is not to say a little, but as Ford confessed once to Lindsay Anderson, his favourite was nonetheless My Darling Clementine and not any other. Wagon Master has all ingredients one might expect to find in a John Ford's film. Wonderful cast delivering his best, thou not featuring any major stars, except the most `fordian' of all actors – Ben Johnson. Very peculiar small characters, who provide an obligatory comic relief, and Wagon Master has quite a few of them such as horn blowing Sister Ledyard (Jane Darwell) in her shot but very inspired gigs. And last but not least legendary Monument Valley with John Ford's fifth passage through it after Stagecoach, My Darling Clementine, Fort Apache and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon. The film starts with two friends cowboys Travis Blue (Ben Johnson) and Sandy Owens (Harry Carey Jr) being hired to be Wagon Masters or guides for a caravan of Mormon settlers who are headed to Silver Valley, a place that's for them like a promised land. On their way they are joined by a very peculiar Dr. Locksley Hall (Alan Mowbray) with two beautiful women, who are supposedly his wife and daughter and who call themselves actors. They are headed in the same direction simply because they were recently driven out of the nearest town and have no other place to go. Nothing particularly unpleasant happens till they bump into Cleggs, a dangerous family gang consisting of father and his three sons who are on the run from the Marshal of the town where they recently committed murder and bank robbery. Overall Wagon Master is no more nor less than one more precious pearl in a necklace of John Ford's wonderful Westerns. A must see. 9/10$LABEL$ 1
+This is a cute and sad little story of cultural difference. Kyoko is a beautiful Japanese woman who has run to California to escape from a failed relationship in Japan. Ken is a Japanese American manual laborer with aspirations of rock and roll stardom but little concrete to offer a potential partner. Kyoko "marries" Ken in order to be able to stay permanently in the U.S., with the understanding that although they will live together until she gets a "green card" the marriage will be in name only. It soon develops that the parties are not on the same wavelength - or perhaps in the same "time zone", hence the title of the movie. As an immigration attorney I have seen such "arrangements" take on a life of their own, so I was pleased to see how well the filmmaker developed the dramatic possibilities of this situation.$LABEL$ 1
+The film is a pathetic attempt to remake Ingmar Bergman's "Autumn Sonata"(1978) starring Ingrid Bergman,Liv Ullman and Erland Josephson.It did not take me more than 5 minutes to figure that out.It is time Film journalists like Khalid Mohammad took out time to do some creative thinking. It makes me sad when potentially good film-makers waste their talents by making substandard remakes of Hollywood and European films.You've got to give the film-maker something though. The film he picked for copying is one of Bergman's classics, and easily one of the finest instances of the portrayal of a strained human relationship in European cinema.$LABEL$ 0
+oh boy !!! my god !!!! what a movie this one !!! this is probably the best movie by Sean Austin and Louis gosset Jr !!! i have seen all the comment for this movie...and most of them loves this movie very much!! but i don't really understand why it only got 6.1 in IMDb list??? this one should above 7.5 !!! the plot and the script are completely perfect !! the acting are superbly well acted!!! Sean Austin...will wheaton...Louis gosset Jr....have given an incredible and awesome performance in their career!!! this movie contain a lot of action!!!just one thing i gotta say....WATCH IT !!!!!!!!!10 OUT OF 10 STARS !!$LABEL$ 1
+This is probably the worst movie I've seen in a long time. Independent or not, solid writing is a must. Ditto for directing and acting. I know these actors can act (I've seen them in Sporanos and more...) but this movie is very bad, very bad. Maybe it's the script, maybe it's the director. Probably a little of both.....Probably a LOT of both! Technically OK, Just bad, bad, bad... I have a theory that the backers for this movie also own the Poker magazines, because I saw a very favorable review in one of the magazines. " Hey' we made it, so it's gotta be good, right?" Not so fast Bucky. I know it takes a lot of hard work and money to even get a movie made, much less sold and distributed, and for that I commend these folks. But the final product, leave a bad taste in my mouth.P.S. I won a free rental and chose this movie from Blockbuster. Tomorrow I'm going to get my money back.$LABEL$ 0
+Geesh, I never, ever, ever thought I'd write the above four words. But, actually, she's the highpoint of this little flick.As the movie was packaged when I rented it, it supposedly is a comedy about a girl who is kidnapped but doesn't have her medication, which keeps her stable. It sounded like a cute concept. For years, all we ever saw of Spelling was as Donna Martin in 90210 and an endless parade of dull, lifeless TV movies. It sounded like a chance for her to stretch a little, and considering that with her TV success and her rich daddy, she couldn't have any financial reason to do this movie, I figured she took the part because this must be a low-budget jewel.Wrong.Instead, Spelling's part is small, and the bit about the mentally unbalanced kidnap victim is just one of several storylines. When she's not on the screen, the movie crawls so badly, I could've sworn it was longer than the 85 minutes that were listed on the tape. This would've worked so much better if Spelling's storyline had dominated, and it had been changed into a romantic comedy with her and Phil, the least irritating kidnapper.$LABEL$ 0
+Cliché-ridden story of an impending divorce - or is it? - through the eyes of a 6 year-old child. Corny dialogue, cardboard characters, stock situations, a red herring zombie sub-plot and, worst of all, absolutely no payoff, either emotionally or dramatically.Does no-one teach creative writing any more? The true sign of a weak storyteller - when you cannot create any kind of satisfying denouement - just end the story. I'm compelled to ask, "what made you think this was a story worth telling in the first place!?" Good, but wasted, debut by child actor Anthony De Marco - the rest of the cast was, at best, forgettable. And they wonder why no-one watches indie films! This is ninety minutes of my life I will never get back.$LABEL$ 0
+John Thaw, of Inspector Morse fame, plays old Tom Oakley in this movie. Tom lives in a tiny English village during 1939 and the start of the Second World War. A bit of a recluse, Tom has not yet recovered from the death of his wife and son while he was serving during the First World War. If you can imagine Inspector Morse old and retired, twice as crochety as when he was a policeman, then you've got Tom Oakley's character.Yet this heart of flint is about to melt. London children are evacuated in advance of the blitz. Young William (Willie) Beech is billeted with the protesting Tom. Willie is played to good effect by Nick Robinson.This boy is in need of care with a capital C. Behind in school, still wetting the bed, and unable to read are the smallest of his problems. He comes from a horrific background in London, with a mother who cannot cope, to put it mildly.Slowly, yet steadily, man and boy warm to each other. Tom discovers again his ability to love and care. And the boy learns to accept this love and caring. See Tom and Willie building a bomb shelter at the end of their garden. See Willie's joy at what is probably his first ever birthday party thrown by Tom.Not to give away the ending, but Willie is adopted by Tom after much struggle, and the pair begin a new life much richer for their mutual love.In this movie, Thaw and Robinson are following in a long line of movies where man meets boy and develop a mutual love. See the late Dirk Bogarde and Jon Whiteley in "Spanish Gardener". Or Clark Gable and Carlo Angeletti in "It Started in Naples". Or Robert Ulrich and Kenny Vadas in "Captains Courageous". Or Mel Gibson and Nick Stahl in "Man Without a Face".Two points of interest. This is the only appearance of Thaw that I know of where he sings. Only a verse of a hymn, New Jerusalem, but he does sing.Second, young Robinson also starred in a second movie featuring "Tom" in the title, "Tom's Midnight Garden", which is based on a classic children's novel.$LABEL$ 1
+Deliverance is a stunning thriller, every bit as exciting as any good thriller should aspire to be but also stomach-churningly frightening. Though it is not a horror movie, it is just as terrifying as any classic horror film. The very thought of being a normal red-blooded male enjoying an adventure weekend miles from any form of civilisation, only to be captured and sodomised by a couple of violent hillbillies, is surely the worst nightmare of 99.9% of the world's population. It would have been easy for Deliverance to slip into exploitation territory, but John Boorman has cleverly avoided the temptation to go down such a route and has made a film that explores, questions and challenges the very meaning of masculinity. With so many films, you come away wishing to heaven that you could step into the hero's shoes, performing heroic deeds and saving the day and getting the girl.... but with Deliverance, you come away praying to God that you'll never have to experience what these four protagonists go through.Four city guys - Ed (Jon Voight), Lewis (Burt Reynolds), Drew (Ronny Cox) and Bobby (Ned Beatty) - head out into the wilderness to spend a few days canoing down a soon-to-be-dammed river. The guys are riding the rapids in pairs, and Ed and Bobby inadvertently get a little too far ahead of the others so they pull in to the riverside and await their pals in the adjacent woodland. Here, they fall foul of two local woodlanders (Bill McKinney and Herbert Coward), who tie Ed to a tree, while one of them strips and rapes Bobby instructing him, perversely, to "squeal like a pig". Lewis and Drew arrive unseen and Lewis, being a fair archer, kills the rapist while the other hillbilly beats a hasty retreat into the forest. Under great emotional stress, the four canoeists decide to conceal the event and get out of the area. But they find the river increasingly dangerous to negotiate as they journey downstream, and the risk to their lives heightens when the surviving hillbilly returns to take shots at them with his rifle from some unseen vantage point in the rocky cliffs beside the river.Deliverance is very powerful as a survival tale, but even more powerful (and disturbing) as a study of macho attitudes being torn apart and left in humiliated tatters. Though all the performances are remarkable, one must take particular note of Beatty's efforts in a role that many actors would've turned down. The film is very similar thematically to the 1971 film Straw Dogs - both films deal with terrifying sexual violence in isolated locales, and in both the eventual violent revenge exacted by the victim does not result in any sense of satisfaction. The backdrop of the rugged countryside in Deliverance is beautiful to look at, but it also adds to the tension by placing the four canoeists in a setting where they are at the mercy of the hillbillies and the landscape, with nobody to rely on other than themselves. This truly is suspenseful film-making at its finest.$LABEL$ 1
+I was mighty impressed with Nurse Betty all the way through. It has a great ensemble of characters, an origional plot, and an ending I shoulda seen coming but didn't and pulls at your heart strings.If theres any one thing about this movie that got me the most it was Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock's interaction. These two are great and it warms my heart to see Rock isn't going to do crappy Big Hollywood fare like Lethal Weapon 4 for the rest of his life. Freeman is as always the man, really there shouldnt be any need to critique his work anymore. Hell, Kiss the Girls was watchable with him in it.Renee Zellwegger does the best she can with her role, and Kinnear is good as her obession.Sweet movie with a nice touch of gratuitous violence in it to satisfy the bloodlust of the male. 9 outa 10$LABEL$ 1
+I cant believe it! I thought this is a good sequel when Jim carry in the film has a baby but instead its a film with crappy actors, stupid plot and stupid scenes. This should be in 'crappest films of sh*t in earth'. Thank god the same director did not make this because this is so stupid with some cartoonish parts like the fart was not funny, not the pee and not the dancing! I laughed at this because of how stupid the person made this like homer Simpson making a movie about a doughnut! I wish someone makes a remake of son of the mask with a plot like this! The mask guy (Jim carry) and his wife have a son which is a normal baby. When the baby finds another mask he became the mask, too and the mask guy tries to get his mask back! This is very crap so i'll give it a 1 out of 10. Fu*king sh*t!$LABEL$ 0
+Impressed! This is the worst SRK movie and one of the worst Bollywood movies I ever saw! I didn't like the novel, but this movie made it worse! Very bad music, even worse actors (apart from SRK of course, though even he doesn't manage to save the movie), and not much sense. The director makes it all look very confusing, God knows why... Maybe it's because he's trying to make it all look very surrealistic, and yet credible. Well, he manages neither.Even if you've got a few hours to loose, don't watch this movie, please! (Saying this for your own welfare!) Keep searching, you will find something else to watch!$LABEL$ 0
+An unoriginal, overly predictable and only mildly entertaining low budget rehash of a sci-fi formula that we've all seen a hundred times before - a group of scientists in isolation confronting some unknown alien something, and in of all places (surprise, surprise) Antarctica!The film features James Spader and an almost nameless supporting cast (with the exception of Carl Lewis, who's actually not that bad for a non-actor) - who deliver ho-hum performances that do little to invigorate the script's unimaginative dialogue. To make things worse the film's pace is slow, there's almost no subplot, and the few action sequences are stereotypical and not that exciting. Its little wonder that this thing went straight to DVD. What is a wonder is why Spader - an excellent actor at times, who won the Cannes Best Actor award for `Sex, Lies and Videotape', and did a splendid job in the innovative sci-fi flick `Stargate' - chose to sign onto this lackluster project. Or maybe not, if you look at his career, for it seems he has invested his talents in more misses than hits.The most remarkable thing about `Alien Hunter' is how they managed to cram in so many elements from so many great sci-fi films, and still have the thing turn out so listless and contrived. There are huge borrowed bits from `The Thing' (both Howard Hawks' original and John Carpenter's excellent 1982 remake), `Contact' and `Outbreak'; a few hints of `Alien', CE3K', `The Andromeda Strain', `Kubrick's `2001' (i.e. the `alien black box') and `Mission To Mars' (i.e. the mystery message); and even a little dash of `Sneakers' and `A Remarkable Mind' (although not sci-fi films, they share a `cryptology' connection). Hell, there's even cornfields and Antarctica, just like the recent `X Files Movie'. And the luminous translucent spaceship at the end looks exactly like something that was plucked from an outtake from `The Abyss'.Its all been done before and done a whole lot better, although I will admit there were a few mild surprises towards the end. I could say a little bit more about the plot, but there's absolutely no need. You already know over half this movie without ever seeing it. (5 out of 10)$LABEL$ 0
+Look at the all the positive user comments of this movie, then check to see how often each one posts user comments. They post once. It seems companies are probably paying for services which post junk pro-movie comments on IMDb.This movie was awful. The plot was stupid. The acting was poor. The jokes weren't even funny. The movie included minor nudity from what looked like porn actresses but none of the other characters.It was clear from the first 15 minutes that movie wasn't funny. There was some slapstick here and there but most of humor was supposed to be derived from the characters talking behind each other's back and spreading rumors. This isn't even done well. Every joke is obvious and you see it coming.The movie is worthy of fast forwarding or better yet not watching.I regret watching this movie and if I could charge the studio and distributor for 1.5 hrs they stole from me I would.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie yesterday and thought it was awful; it was pointless and just plain stupid. the supposed plot concerned a prospective bridegroom too caught up in the problems of the world to relate to his bride and the other people in his life. He disappears on his wedding day (in a tux no less) and hooks up with an assortment of weirdos.We saw it with a bus-load of people on the way down to Atlantic City and everyone agreed that it was a terrible movie. It was trying to be profound but it wasn't; it was stupid and offensive. If I wasn't on a bus I would have walked out on the movie. Anyone considering seeing the movie or renting or buying the video you have been forewarned.$LABEL$ 0
+Do not be mistaken, this is neither a horror, nor really a film. I firmly advise against watching this 82 minute failure; the only reason it merited a star was the presence of Chris Pine.Nothing happens. You wait patiently in the hope that there may be a flicker of a twist, a hint of surprise, a plot to emerge - but no.The characters take erratic turns of pace in their actions and yet don't have the time to develop - thanks to the thrifty editors and frankly ashamed writers - before returning to an idyllic and playful (bring on the teen rock montage) state. The only thing that could have made it worse would be adding the perishable token ethnic 'companion'.Their encounters with obstacles (be they human or physical) are brief, confusing and entirely pointless.Chris Pine fights to keep himself above the surface whilst being drowned by a misery of a lightweight cast. Lou Taylor Pucci couldn't be dryer if he spent the summer with Keanu Reaves combing the Navada desert.Watch 'The Road', watch '28 days Later', watch day time TV...anything but this; I implore you. Suffer the boredom, unlike you may be led to believe in the film, this film is no cure.$LABEL$ 0
+I usually don't categorize a moving as boring. I am not big on action flicks and my senses do not need to be stimulated during a movie. In fact I enjoy a good rational logical dialogue and story line. Unfortunately, this movie has none of those characteristics. Diane Lane is the only saving grace in this movie and even her beauty cannot save it. Terrible overbearing music equals the moronic dialogue and acting. None of the actors actually connect with each other and as a result the movie does not connect with the audience. I guess the scenes where the townspeople are marching somewhere were suppose to add to the story but it seems that they were inserted just to fill space. The scenes appeared choppy and incoherent. There were some nice shots of the ocean and the beach which were beautiful.$LABEL$ 0
+SPOILER WARNINGWe've all heard the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" legend. But what if the wolf was a person in the modern world. Well it might be something like Big Fat Liar. Fourteen-year-old Jason Sheperd ( Frankie Muniz from "Malcolm in the Middle" ) is always lying to keep himself out of trouble. One day he is pressured to write an English essay, but it winds up in the hands of sleazy film-maker Marty Wolf ( Paul Giamatti ) who plans to turn Jason's story into a Hollywood blockbuster. No one believes Jason when he for once tells the truth and he ends up in summer school. However Jason is determined to prove to his parents the truth and travels to L.A. with his friend Kaylee ( Amanda Bynes ). When Wolf refuses to admit he ripped off his story, Jason plans to make Wolf's life a living hell. B.F.L. is no masterpiece but it's a nice way to spend 90 minutes of you're time. I wished they could've made it a bit longer though and there aren't that much pranks although they are clever enough ( I like the pool-dye the best ). I might not have liked this as much as I do if it weren't for Paul Giamatti. He is simply hilarious in this. If you have 90 minutes to kill try this out. You might just enjoy it.$LABEL$ 1
+I don't know where to start; the acting, the special effects and the writing are all about as bad as you can possibly imagine. I can't believe that the production staff reached a point where they said, "Our job is done, time for it's release". I'm just glad the first two in the series never made it as far as the UK. I would actually recommend watching this film just so you can appreciate how well made most films are.I don't know how any of the other IMDb users could find it scary when the "terrifying" dinosaurs waddle down corridors with rubber arms flailing around.$LABEL$ 0
+Thomas Edison May Have Done Lots Of Great Inventions But WTF Is This!!!! I Am Sorry But This Movie Is Simply Awful. The Plot Is That This Elephant Walks To A Certain Point & Gets Electrocuted. Okay The Picture Quality Looked Like Someone Used It For Toilet Paper. I Thought That The Early Charlie Chaplin Films Were Awful. Okay Thomas Edison May Have Been An Inventor But Why Did He Make This Film He Could Have Filmed A Baby Being Fed & It Would Have Been Better. People Might Say I'm Being Harsh On The Times But Would You Enjoy Something Like This From What I Have Said Edison May Have Made The Lightbulb But Why Did He Make This Particular Movie. Well I Might Sound Like A Complete A##hole But Watch This On Youtube Then You Will See This Abomination. I Still Can't Believe This Film Is Completely Awful. All In All The Worst Short Film I Have Ever Seen.Rating: 1/10$LABEL$ 0
+I first saw this movie when I was a freshman in high school, and the film has stuck with me through the years. It's not about the soundtrack, or cinematography, or even the dialogue and somewhat bad acting, it's about the educational purpose, and the message behind that is the most important. It's not a sin to have a child when you're a teenager and still in high school, and it's not really a bad thing, either, but it is a problem. Tons of girls I knew are all having children now, and I guess they never watched this great movie, and if they did, they clearly didn't get the message behind it all. It's about not taking chances when you're in a sexual relationship. Any girl can get pregnant the first time. It's not a myth. You don't necessarily lose out on your dreams, but they do have to take a backseat in your future because you have a child to think about first.This movie has a clear message behind it: JUST SAY NO!$LABEL$ 1
+This is a painfully slow story about the last days of 1999 when a strange disease breaks out and... I stopped caring. This is suppose to be about two people who live over or under each other in an apartment complex. There's a leak and a plumber put a hole in the man's floor so you can see into the woman's below apartment. Also since there is a crisis going on much of the dialog is actually news reports...Sounds promising?Not really.I became distracted and started doing other things which is deadly in a subtitled film. Basically I started not watching, which made events seem even more surreal when I did look up.It may work for you, it didn't for me.$LABEL$ 0
+Joel schumacher Made a heck of a choice when he decided on this cast and this script. The story is well written and well laid out, and this entirely new cast of 10 or 12 central characters was absolutely brilliant. It seemed that there were 6 "leads" and about a half dozen supporting, and by far this is the best thing about the movie, the fresh young faces of tomorrow. It has been a long time since hollywood has touched the controversial vietnam war films,which says something for the"story that needed to be told"(as stated by schumacher) and Tigerland lands in that handful of top war movies period. Yet it can not be labeled as a war movie because it seemed to be based more on the human spirit of Bozz and the others. I Think anyone who just wants to see a good film with out all of the special FX, but just good, gritty drama should go see Tigerland, obviously Shumachers Best works in the past 8 years.$LABEL$ 1
+An interesting slasher film with multiple suspects.Includes typical girl flashing her breasts (Denise Cheshire) as she changes into her swimsuit, creepy suspect - any one of them could be doing the deed, expected breast baring to get a passing grade (Linnea Quigley), a very unusual forward pass, more bare breasts, a track and field event that will NOT be in the summer Olympics, and a ghoulish secret.It all comes to a crashing ending. No, there's more. Won't this guy die? I bet Anne (Patch Mackenzie) doesn't plan any more visits home anytime soon.If you like teen slasher films, can you possible be a pervert, even if all the actresses are over 18?$LABEL$ 0
+i watched this series when it first came out in the 70s.i was 14 years old and i watched it at my best friends house as my dad didn't want to watch it.it became a weekly ritual every Sunday, and as anyone will tell you for two fourteen year olds to watch a documentary in almost reverential silence must mean that this was something special.the broad sweep of the events of world war 2 makes for a difficult subject to document.so the makers broke it down into what they considered to be the most significant key happenings and devoted one episode to each.some episodes covered long periods such as 'wolf pack' which covered nearly all six years of the battle of the Atlantic.while the battle of Stalingrad had one episode to itself.this documentary could not be made today quite simply because most of those interviewed are dead.the list of significant players appearing gives an amazing insight into the thinking at the time.Anthony eden the foreign secretary,Carl donnitz,head of the u-boats,Albert speer,pet architect confident and later armament minister for Hitler.in one of the later episodes we see traudl junge, Hitler's secretary,who was with him in the bunker and it was to her that he dictated his last will and testament-she left the bunker after Hitler's suicide and escaped through the Russian lines.these and many others play a major role in the realism of the events portrayed.if i have any criticism of the series it is that the code-breakers of bletchly park are not included but the revelations of their part in the war only emerged after the series had been made so i cannot blame the programme makers.the opening titles and music are magnificent,and Lawrence Olivier's narration lends a natural gravity to the script.the best documentary series ever made? without doubt.unmissable$LABEL$ 1
+Once again Jet Li brings his charismatic presence to the movie screen in the film Black Mask. In this film Li plays Tsui, an escapee from a super soldier program who seeks to regain the humanity that the program had taken away from him. To do this Tsui decides to become a librarian in order to live a normal and peaceful life, but fate demands that he clean up problems from his past before he can continue to seek peace. Other members of the super soldier program had escaped at the same time as Tsui, but they want to get even with the world rather than find inner peace. Thus Tsui becomes the only thing that can prevent his former team mates from releasing information that could cost many innocent people their lives. This film screams across the screen at a frantic pace and never lets its audience go. The martial arts is amazing, but because it uses wires it may not be appreciated as much as it deserves by American audiences. If you like action movies that have an interesting story and demand good acting performances because they deal with psychological as well as physical conflicts, then Black Mask is for you. I am glad to see that some of Jet Li's movies are finally getting main stream release in the United States and look forward to seeing how the changes that that release will require (things like dubbing and soundtrack) will affect the film. This is one of Li's best films, go out and see it on May 14 when it is released in America.$LABEL$ 1
+I rented this movie, after hearing Chris Gore saying something to the effect of "five stars!" on that Attack of the Show show. Well when I turned around the DVD and it showed the 3 stages of hell, well I had to buy it. Just to see the spectacle of a mother yelling at her son to drop her other son into a flaming pit.I wasn't expecting ECW or CZW for an hour and eighteen minutes, but I was expecting at least a summarized version of what seemed to be the main highlight of this movie. Well sadly there wasn't anything like that. The 3 stages of death part happens right from the beginning, and its pretty much downhill from there. Nothing really happens in this documentary. It was pretty raw, bare and unbiased. Not a bad thing, but there is a narrator in this one. You'd expect him to have opinions on the subject of this documentary, but he doesn't. Which would of been nice to have, a message or reason for this doc.There was no real reason to have a narrator, there should of been just text explaining some of the less obvious scenes.It doesn't really explain the lives of these wrestlers either. It shows a few moments of some dramatic scenes, which sound interesting, but the reality isn't as great as it sounds. For instance mom watching her son wrestle with light bulbs and tacks, for the first time, at a public park. instead of seeing her reaction to the wrestling, They show her reacting to the camera, instead of say a interview later on, or just actually witnessing her reactions.Legitamit document wise, this one ain't. The source material was flimsy to begin with. Nothing truly profound or interesting really happens. No conclusion to a few of the more interesting stories, No real point or final thought to backyard wrestling, edited together badly, and its and its basically a cheap, failed rip off of Beyond the Mat.Wrestling wise, this is pretty boring. the better bumps are at the beginning, and slowly become less amazing and shocking. If you have seen Japanese wrestling, Indie wrestling, or even Backyard Wrestling Dvds, than this wont shock and awe you. If you want wrestling don't make the same mistake I did and see this one. Go get some CZW ECW or XPW Dvds instead.The only thing I got out of this documentary was how stupid people can be. Not for supporting self mutilation or doing dangerous stunts, but their reasoning for committing these acts. The backyarders seem stupid for wrestling. Most of them are jobless, and probably have a few issues in their head, and wrestling is a type of therapy for them. Than the supporters seem even more idiotic. Mothers basically take the whole "if ya cant beat em join em" reasoning to cope with the fact that their sons are basically killing themselves. School authority figures support their students in their dangerous stunts because its an alternative to joining gangs and to a lesser extend doing drugs, which is kinda funny since that segment took place in a rural town, where like people live 20 miles from one another. People are stupid. Thats what I extracted from this documentary.If you want to see the reasoning and thoughts to someone brutalizing themselves in wrestling and basically what the back of this DVD promises, get UNSCARRED: the Life of Nick Mondo. Its more amazing, and interesting than the Backyard, and a lot more entertaining. Oh and its actually good.$LABEL$ 0
+This was a big disappointment for me. I think this is the worst Mastroianni-movie ever made. Cosmatos tries too hard to make this movie a masterpiece and that makes this movie a typical "art"-movie. I give 4/10 for this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Not a movie for everyone, but this movie is in my top 10. I am a lover of black comedy. With a cast including Richard Dreyfus (Vic), Jeff Goldblum (Mick), Larry Bishop (Nick) and Gabriel Byrne (Ben 'Brass Balls' London) in the leads, the lines can't help but be dry. The supporting cast is nearly dead center. Counting the minor flaws in the movie: Ellen Barkin's make-up gave her face has a washed out look; there were a couple of gimme cameos by Joey Bishop and Richard Pryor that served no purpose, and Michael J. Pollard's screen time was too short. Over all, the cast was just incredible without egos to wreck a fine script. If you have seen Larry Bishop's (writer, director) film, Underworld (a dark crime flick), you will enjoy this one. His next outing (writer, director, actor) is Hell Ride with Michael Madsen and Quentin Tarantino.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is not your typical Hollywood fare, though the pickings are so bad I often tend to stay away from movies rather than be disappointed. However, this little low-budget gem is thoroughly loveable and enjoyable and definitely a keeper. The actors are as varied as the characters they portray, the Buffalo setting is charming (what a pretty city), and the story sparkles. The lack of gratuitous violence, sex and the "f" word doesn't detract in the least! Take the kids, take grandma, take a break from Hollywood! I give it an 11 out of 10!$LABEL$ 1
+RKO Radio Pictures made a real classic in 1947 and even managed to get it nominated for the Best Picture Academy Award. The acting, script, continuity, et cetera, are all just about perfect; and the story is well worth the viewer's 82 minutes. Although the picture soft-petals the true life story by making the murder victim a Jew rather than a homosexual, most viewers will see the victim as a Jewish homosexual -- such disguises never work, perhaps weren't intended to.I could nit-pick about a few details, but just for fun. There was no all-night movie house in Washington, DC in 1947 --- and if there was I wish Robert Mitchum and his pal wouldn't talk through the show. There weren't any bars where a GI could pick up a pretty blonde. NONE! If Robert Ryan wanted to read the latest murder scoop he ought to have bought the Daily News; not the Times-Hearald, Evening Star and certainly not the know-nothing Washington Post. But these little things take nothing away from this classic.The film benefits a lot from the absolute lack of a musical score, except during the credits. I've only seen this done in a few films.On the negative side, since 1995 it comes with a TMC introduction where some liberal blabs about what the public was "ready for" in 1947... blah, blah, blah! As if this fool has any business judging his betters. I'd say the ex-GI's in 1947 -- the Greatest Generation -- were much smarter --and had better values -- than some commentator, film historian, or other wise-mouth in 1995. Put a sock in it!$LABEL$ 1
+"Transylvania 6-5000" is an insignificant but occasionally funny and charming mid 80's horror parody with some very familiar names in the cast and a handful of genuine opportunities to chuckle in the script. Two bozo journalist of a gossipy tabloid newspaper are sent, very much against their will, to Transylvania to do a story on the alleged return of mad scientist Frankenstein. There are some adorable little gimmicks and details to discover left and right in the film, like a little guillotine for hard-boiled eggs and laboratory test tubes that are being used to put in cream and sugar at the breakfast table. The wholesome of the film, however, is not as successful as it could and should have been, with jokes and parody situations that are way too overlong. The Roger Corman production "Transylvania Twist", which came out four years after this, is a lot funnier and much more recommended. The film is particularly parodying the classic Universal milestones of the early 30's, so you better make sure you've seen those if you want to grasp all the tiny gags and references. There's a pretty original twist indicating that the Frankenstein character only behaves like a mad-raving evil scientist when he enters his laboratory. It's also revealed that he's actually more of a Father Damien sort of messiah who's only concerned with the condition of exiled monsters. Michael Richards, the freaky guy who plays Kramer in Seinfeld, stars as a psychotic butler who appears and disappears at the most inappropriate moments. I'm pretty sure John Turturro's character in "Mr. Deeds" was inspired by Richards's role here.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a very good, under-rated action/drama/and slightly historical movie.The basic story concerns Rob Roy's borrowing of 1000 pounds, its theft, and the problems it causes for his family and indirectly his clansmen.Cunningham( Tim Roth) is an amazing villain and character in this story. Brutally cold and if you watch his face he seems to be able to turn his eyes off and look completely evil.Rob Roy (Liam Neeson) is excellent too, but i think the writers used the word "honour" 1 too many times.The rest of the cast is strong, and the whole movie is very well acted and filmed.The Action is exciting and the sword play very realistic, but not too gory. The story is good and you really want Rob to win.All in all just shy of a classic.$LABEL$ 1
+I almost made a fool of myself when I was going to start this review by saying " This movie reminded me of BILLY ELLIOT " but then I looked up the resume of screenwriter Lee Hall only to find out that he was the guy who wrote BILLY ELLIOT so it's Mr Hall who's making a fool of himself not me Am I being a bit cruel on him ? No because Lee has something most other aspiring screenwriters from Britain don't have - He has his foot in the door , he has previously written a successful British movie that won awards and made money at the box office and what does he do next ? He gives the audience more of the same Young Jimmy Spud lives on some kitchen sink estate . He is bullied at school and no one loves him . The only thing keeping him going is that he has aspirations to be a ballet dancer . No actually he has aspirations to be an angel but considering his household he may as well be a ballet dancer . He has a macho waster of a father who thinks " Ballet dancers are a bunch of poofs while his granddad says " Ballet dancers are as tough as any man you could meet . I remember seeing the Bolshoi ballet ... " Yup Ballet is a main talking point on a run down British council estate those days - NOT . Come to think of it neither is left wing politics which seems to be the sole preserve of middle class do gooders who live in nice big houses , so right away everything about this set up feels ridiculously false Another major criticism is that this is a film that has no clue who it's trying to appeal to . I have often criticised Channel 4 for broadcasting movies at totally inappropriate times ( THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT at 6 am for example ) but they showed this at 2 am and for once they've got it spot on . Considering the story involves politics , ballet dancing ( Gawd I hate it ) lung cancer and poverty there's no way this can be deemed suitable for a family audience but since the main protagonist is an 11 year old child and features angels and ballet dancers ( Don't blame me if I seem obsessed with the subject - there was no need to refer to them ) there's not much here for an intelligent adult audience either . Of course if Lee Hall had been told at the script development stage by the producers that he should write a story featuring a schoolboy and an angel and had flatly refused saying that he wanted to write about other themes and stories then I will apologise but throughout the movie you do get the feeling that once the film was completed it was going to be marketed to the exact same audience who enjoyed BILLY ELLIOT$LABEL$ 0
+"You got any beans? Beans is good. You just eat them and you go." I couldn't help but laugh at that bit of dialog. Beans are the musical fruit, you know. The more you eat them, the more you go toot, toot, toot.Hmmmm... OK, i can understand why the actors were in this because they needed paychecks to pay their bills with, but i'm not really too sure what the intentions of the director and the writer were. Even after watching the making-of documentary in the DVD extras.Mike Rooker gave this a performance it really didn't deserve. I've seen him in other movies MUCH better than this one. What would have vastly improved this movie was to throw everything out, keep Rooker and instead made another entry into "The Substitute" franchise. Rooker would have made for a terrific substitute teacher who instructs naughty and morally-impaired youth regarding the error of their ways and how they can become more useful and productive members of society.Casper, you really shouldn't be just pushing through the undergrowth like that as you could get poison oak. Whoops. Never mind. I guess poison oak is the least of your worries now. Well, at least this time your croaking wasn't done by the tail of giant python. There are few things more embarrassing than being skewered through the chest by a giant snake. At least the death scene in this movie had a bit more dignity to it. As well as a more liberal smearing of karo syrup and red food dye. Nothing says sad and tragic death like the liberal use of karo and red dye!First time i've seen a monster wear a shiny rayon cape with a fur collar ruff. First time for everything, i guess. Just to be nitpicky, though, if this was an Indian ghost, how come it looked exactly like a monster out of European culture and folklore? Wouldn't the monster have been more sort of more indianish?While i did watch this all the way to the end credits, i don't realistically believe that i could in good faith recommend it to others.$LABEL$ 0
+These immortal lines begin The Jack Starret directed masterpiece,'The Dion Brothers'. The plot centers around two blue collar West Virginian brothers (Stacy Keach and Frederic Forrest) who commit robberies in hopes of using the money to open a seafood restaurant!!? What follows is quite an adventure, and many comedic events ensue. The action scenes are all top notch and consist of some nicely realized shootouts. The latter of which is absolutely amazing and occurs in an abandoned building being demolished by a wrecking ball! The film was written by now famous director Terrence Malick and features an early appearance by Margot Kidder. All in all, an excellent hidden gem of the 70s and easily one of the finest action/comedy hybrids every made. Hopefully it gets a decent widescreen DVD release soon.$LABEL$ 1
+When this movie was first shown on television I had high hopes that we would finally have a decent movie about World War I as experienced by American soldiers. Unfortunately this is not it.It should have been a good movie about WWI. Even though it was made for television it is obvious that a real effort was made to use appropriate equipment and props. But the writing and directing are badly lacking, even though the makers of this movie obviously borrowed freely from quite a few well made war movies. War movie clichés abound such as the arrogant general who apparently does not care a flip about the lives of his men. When will Hollywood realize that, even though there have been plenty of bad generals, most combat unit generals have seen plenty of combat themselves and are not naive about what the average grunt experiences? The first part of this movie appeared to be "Paths of Glory" with American uniforms. Except that "Paths of Glory" was emotionally gripping. Later on there was Chamberlain's charge (except uphill) from "Gettysburg" and even the capture of the American soldier by a ring of enemy soldiers from "The Thin Red Line". But in "The Thin Red Line" the soldier was alone when captured. In this movie a ring forms around the new prisoner in the middle of a battle.If this movie used a military adviser they ignored him. Even though the actors (and I never could forget they were actors while watching) mouthed military tactics I didn't see very much of it. The American soldiers would stand up to be shot while the Germans attacked. And the infamous Storm Troopers, who were apparently blind, appeared to use no tactics whatsoever in their attack. In the real war, the tactics were what made storm troopers so effective. But the silliest scene was the attack of the German Flamethrowers. In this scene the German flamethrower operators walked in a broad line towards the defending Americans. If that had been real they would never have gotten close enough to use their flamethrowers before they had all been dropped by the defender's bullets.Okay, so most war movies are unrealistic when it comes to the tactics shown. But it is still disappointing. But what really turned me off to this flick was the typical anti-war anti-military angle that movie makers seem to think is important. True, war is hell. But most American soldiers, even though they grumble and gripe, tend to believe in what they are doing and can be rather gung-ho about it. My Grandfather served in World War I. And even though he died four years before I was born I have been told how proud he was of his service.$LABEL$ 0
+These type of movies about young teenagers struggling with their own sexuality were something unique and daring and daring a couple of years ago but more and more movies like this got made over the past few years, making it hard for the movies to still stand out really.Also this movie received little publicity, aside from the usual little film festivals that featured this little French movie, as well as the big festivals that are always fond of these type of little movies about everyday subjects that aren't being handled too often in movies. The film premiered at Cannes in 2007 and actually won some awards there as well.The movie doesn't really stand out from others, since it actually features little new once you've already seen some similar movies such as this one but this however really doesn't mean that "Naissance des pieuvres" is a bad one to watch. The movie is certainly a good watch, that handles its subject well and tells its story steadily and therefore also effectively, in a typical somewhat slow French cinematic pace.It's a coming of age movie, that focus on the life of mainly 3 totally different mid-teenagers. Sexuality is a big theme within the movie, which gets handled delicately and subtle. It makes the movie and its story overall a pretty realistic one, though perhaps a bit predictable, since the movie doesn't quite offer anything original enough within its genre.This type of French movie will probably scare off a lot of people because of the reason that they probably expect it to be very arty, with deep layers and meanings to it. "Naissance des pieuvres" however is a very accessible movie for everyone and you really don't have to be into Euro-teen movies to appreciate this movie. It's a sweet and somewhat sensual kind of movie, due to its subject and visual approach.The movie is also being made realistic by its actors, who don't had and have a lot of experience within the movie business but are authentic looking and feeling within their roles. The strong individual characters provide the movie with some nice themes and good moments.A good movie on its subject.7/10$LABEL$ 1
+I am not sure who recommended Surveillance to me, but I think I have an idea: one of the "Fat Guys At the Movies." The person said they were astonished by how great it was and said it was one of the goriest/disturbing movies. (I'm paraphrasing and doing this only by memory, so forgive me if I misquoted.) At any rate, I made the decision to watch it. So I take full blame for my own miscalculation in watching one of the most horrible, predictable and STUPID movies I've ever seen. Strange, I doubt I've ever called a movie "stupid" but that was the first word that came to mind about one-third in and stayed in my mind until the end.Where to begin? Unbelievable premise and reactions, incredibly brain-dead characters (could blame the writing or the actors, or I'll just blame both) and enormously bad acting. I'd sooner believe Bill Pullman as President of the USA than a FBI agent here. (Of course, there's a reason for that, and I'll partially go into that.) And to top it off, if you can't figure the so-called shocking "twist" in the first 5 minutes, then you must have arrived late to the theatre or came into the room to watch it late. Don't worry, they'll tell you the "twist" every five minutes thereafter.There's been some serial killer(s) on the loose in the most depressing town in the county, or world. But there's more to the story! Some dumbass and corrupt cops like to blow out tires for their own amusement. Could there possibly be more? Oh, yeah, there's a family, well maybe not, but there are four humans, one boy, one girl and an adult couple. The girl says she sees things with much less conviction than Cole sees dead people in The Sixth Sense. There's gotta be more to this than what I mentioned! That's what makes a movie interesting! Adding as many subplots that may/may not be developed is the way to go! Okay, then I'll continue. We have goofy FBI agents that made me laugh. A pair of giggling druggies who's shocked at first their dealer OD's but then resorts to robbery. A gosh-tooting great-guy cop who must've been put in for comic relief who's always battling an angry/suspicious cop. And finally, (poor, poor) Michael Ironside who didn't just phone his performance in, he barely text it in.None of these work. They're all told in various forms of presence tense or flashbacks, and believe me, you'll lose all sense of caring after the first of many subplots begin. In addition, the reaction some of these characters are the most shocking of all. I guess I'm referring mostly to the cops, but mainly the girl who did or did not just lose her family and barely blinks.This stupid, stupid movie stinks. It's barely gory as the person that recommended it said it was, unless his exposure has been limited to Goosebumps stories. And what's with the title? Surveillance? Oh, I get it; it's because it was used in 1/50 subplots just to film interviews. Since that's so random, it might as well been called COP CAR, BULLET or COFFEE. Just stay away from this horrid mess.$LABEL$ 0
+This really is a movie that you need to see twice. When I first saw this film I was really drawn into the story. While the majority of the story takes place inside of a hotel room, the stories that Buddy (Nick Drake, wonderful allusion) and Daphne share take you outside of their room and into their world. Through their conversations you get a feel for the loneliness and pain that each feels. The soundtrack accompanies the movie perfectly, dark, lo-fi and intriguing. When you see the film the second time around you can pick up all of the clues that you missed the first time around leading up to one of the best ending I have seen in a long time. I hope to see this movie find a distributor for the DVD so that it will be more accessible. Great movie, you won't be disappointed.$LABEL$ 1
+My friend made me sit down and watch this film. This is out there material. "God the Devil, Heaven Hell... and a restaurant thrown in for good measure.Four guys and a prick. Who dies? When and how?is That's the story. You'll never guess the ending for this one. A skillfully realized little gem of Aussie cinema. Hats of to the team that made this one.10 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+My boyfriend and I both enjoyed this film very much. The viewer is swept away from modern life into old Japan, while at the same time exposed to very current themes. The characters are realistic and detailed; it has an unpredictable ending and story, which is very refreshing. The story is made up of mini-plots within the life of several geisha living together in a poor city district. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who is interested in a realistic romance or life in old Japan.$LABEL$ 1
+Flashes of lightning; a sprawling cemetery; the name of Adam 'Batman' West: all pop up on screen before the opening credits are even over, and yet, despite these rather naff elements, One Dark Night isn't as cheesy as it might first seem.Meg Tilly (Jennifer's sister) plays pretty student Julie, who reluctantly agrees to spend the night alone in a mausoleum as part of her initiation into exclusive high school clique The Sisters. What Julie doesn't realise is that the other 'sisters' plan to freak her out with some ghoulish pranks—or that the most recent body to be interred in the mausoleum is that of 'psychic vampire' Raymar, who feeds off the life force of scared young women.Admittedly, this isn't the most original of set-ups, but thankfully there are enough inventive touches to help set this film apart from the competition, my favourites being the macabre sight of everyday objects embedded in the walls of Raymar's apartment, and the creepy manner in which mouldy corpses float through the cold marble corridors of the mausoleum during the excellent finale. Hal Trussell's impressive steadicam cinematography and Tom Burman's wonderfully macabre special effects also add immensely to the chilling atmosphere.$LABEL$ 1
+Let me be clear. I hate these kinds of movies. I do not like anything where the protagonists are all bourgeoisie English. I find this kind of literature and film awfully pretentious. You will never get me to read a Jane Austen book willingly. That said, the only reason I read W. Somerset Maugham's book and watched the subsequent film was for a class.Mary Panton (Kristin Scott Thomas) is a beautiful English woman living in a borrowed villa in Florence before World War II. One night after dinning with some of her rich royalty related friends, she willingly picks up an Austrian refugee, has sex with him and ditches, and then he kills himself. As the movie gets further and further, you really want to dislike Mary.What a load of crap this movie was. First of all, there were many subplots and characters invented in the movie that weren't even in the book. I doubt very much the late Mr. Maugham would've appreciated them. The characters, though wealthy, were some of the most superficial and self-centered people I have ever seen.The only reason I didn't give it anything less than three stars was because the acting was the only thing redeemable. The always talented Kristin Scott Thomas is perfect for the role of Mary. In fact, I couldn't picture anybody else filling her shoes. Sean Penn and Anne Bancroft also had supporting roles, that were just as good as the lead.Save yourself the pain of watching this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+If you're familiar with the work of auteur Johnny To and his band of filmmaking cronies over at Milky Way, you know what to expect with this latest production. All the familiar elements are in place: the strong camaraderie between two characters: usually a cop and a baddie, the coincidences and chances that turn on a dime and pay off handsomely in the end, and the humor that arises even in the most dire of situations.Andy Lau plays a man who has 72 hours to live and decides to rob an insurance company. Lau Ching-Wan (also brilliant in other Milky Way films like "Longest Nite," "A Hero Never Dies," and "Where A Good Man Goes") portrays a hostage negotiator/cop who is on the robber's tail, even as the robber sets up a series of tricks and clues that he must follow in order to get his man.Funny, poignant, and cool while being subtle, "Running" is actually one of the most entertaining Milky Way films to date. Don't miss the performances by the two leads, esp. Andy Lau, usually considered an average actor who has rarely been this natural and fun to watch. This film is one to go out of your way to see.$LABEL$ 1
+This was one of my favorite movies from childhood. I watched it so many times,eventually my tape wore out. I was a huge fan of this show and still am.The thing I love most about this movie is that it appeals to so many people, both young and old. I watch this movie now and laugh just as hard as I did the first time I saw it. I am now able to appreciate all the adult jokes that I never got as a child. My favorite characters are Elmyra and Foulmouth. Almost fifteen years later, my dad (a huge fan of the movie as well) and I are still quoting lines from this movie. I love the part where Foulmouth and Shirley go to the movies. "You save the seats, Shirl and I'll snag the dadgum snacks." I also loved the storyline of Plucky and Hampton and his family going to Happy World Land. Wade Pig reminded me a lot of my dad. I love the part when they finally get to Happy World Land and all they do is ride on the monorail. This movie is hilarious and appeals to children and kids. The animation, jokes and everything about it are top notch. If you have not seen it, rent it. You won't be sorry.$LABEL$ 1
+Previously, I wrote that I loved "Titanic", cried at its ending (many times over), and I'm a guy in his 60's. I also wondered about why this great movie, which won so many awards and was applauded by so many critics, was given only a 7.0 rating by imdb.com users.Well, I looked at the breakdown of the user ratings. While 29.0% of all votes gave it a 10 rating, 10.7% gave it a 1 rating. These 10.7% of these irrational imdb users, in effect, pulled the overall rating down to 7.0. In my previous comments, I blamed this very unusual voting pattern (a sudden surge in 1 ratings, with a high 10 rating, dropping only gradually and then suddenly reversing course and jumping at the 1 rating level) on only one thing: hatred for Leonardo DiCaprio. Believe me, I've tuned into enough chat rooms to see the banter by young people (young men, mostly), who defame him left and right. They absolutely hate the man, and they will have no part in giving him any credit in "Titanic". (To answer one other user: I am NOT talking about someone who just really doesn't like the movie that much, and gave it a 5 or a 6, etc. Everyone has, and is entitled to, his/her own taste. But no one can convince me that the imdb rating of only 7.0 overall for "Titanic", pulled to that level by an inordinate number of ridiculous 1 ratings, is a fair reflection of the overall motion picture.)Let me demonstrate my point by comparing the imdb user voting pattern of "Titanic" to 5 randomly chosen box office and critical "bombs" (there are many more, but these 5 will prove my point). "Heaven's Gate" (1980) was pulled from the theaters quickly after a very poor box office showing, and imdb voters' ratings were: 23.2% 10 ratings and 9.2% 1 ratings (overall rating of 6.1). "Big Top Pee-wee" (1988) got 4.3% 10 ratings and 9.9% 1 ratings (overall rating of 4.5). "Cat People" (1982) got 6.1% 10 ratings and 2.6% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.8). "Blind Date" (1987) got 3.0% 10 ratings and 2.8% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.3). "Jumpin' Jack Flash" (1986) got 4.4% 10 ratings and 3.7% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.2). WHAT DO ALL OF THESE FILMS HAVE IN COMMON WITH "TITANIC"? ALL OF THE PERCENTAGES OF THEIR 1 RATINGS ARE LOWER !!!! THAN "TITANIC", AND NONE OF THESE STINKERS EVER WAS NOMINATED FOR A SINGLE AWARD. Again, "Titanic" got 10.7% 1 ratings! Compare that to the other 5 movies I just mentioned.Can there be any explanation other than the hatred of Leo factor?$LABEL$ 1
+This movie probably never made a blip on the radar screen, but it's got quite a bit of quality. It's pretty lifelike, yet you think "It's only a movie." Duvall and Close portray common people, and you'd never even realize they are now big-name actors. It seems that the jerk in this story is a little too old to be chasing Eugene's girlfriend, but I guess it's possible. It seems unlikely that the kid would travel from Montana to Nevada by himself, but I guess it's possible. You might think that the family troubles in this movie would never happen in your own family, but I guess it's possible. I remember Glenn Close saying something like "You think the work you do is the hardest part of your life, but it isn't."$LABEL$ 1
+The dazzling seventeen-minute dance sequence of George Gershwin's 1928 orchestral piece, "An American in Paris", is an indisputable masterwork. Choreographed with precision and unparalleled flair by Gene Kelly, the vibrant combination of color, music and dance is still eye-poppingly startling as the piece is broken down into scenes inspired by selected master artists - Dufy in the opening Place de la Concorde piece, Manet in the flower market, Utrillo in a Paris street, Rousseau at the fair, Vincent Van Gogh in the spectacular Place de l'Opera piece, and Toulouse-Lautrec for the Moulin Rouge where Kelly wears his famous white bodysuit. The 97 minutes that precede this finale are not as exciting, not by a long shot, but there are certain charms to be had in viewing the entire 1951 Oscar-winning musical.Director Vincente Minnelli and screenwriter Alan Jay Lerner have fashioned a surprisingly sophisticated if rather slight romantic story focused on Jerry Mulligan, a former G.I. who has remained in Paris after the end of WWII trying to make a living as a painter. With his braggadocio manner and athletic dancing style, Gene Kelly can be concurrently ingratiating and irritating as a screen personality, but he seems to find his oeuvre as the carefree Jerry. The love-triangle plot is focused on Jerry's involvement with Milo Roberts, a self-proclaimed art patron but a sexual predator when it comes to young artists. On their first date in a crowded Montmartre nightclub, Jerry unapologetically falls for Lise, a young woman who turns out to be the fiancée of Henri, a professional entertainer and friend of Jerry's pal, Adam, an out-of-work concert pianist. Romantic complications ensue until the inevitable ending but not before several classic Gershwin songs are performed.The best of these is the most imitated - a swooningly romantic song and dance to "Our Love Is Here to Stay" along a faux-Seine River in a blue hazy mist with yellow fog lights. The way Kelly and Leslie Caron circle each other is transcendent as they approach each other tentatively at first and then synchronize beautifully to the music leading to the final clinch. Few films have so elegantly and succinctly shown two people falling in love. "I Got Rhythm" and "S'Wonderful" spotlight Kelly's nimble tap-dancing and agreeable singing, while "Embraceable You" is danced impressively by Caron in a five-scene montage of Henri's all-over-the-map description of Lise to Adam. Designed to show off Caron's dancing versatility, the sequence is similar to the one in "On the Town" where Vera-Ellen showed off her considerable dancing skills when Kelly's sailor character described his multi-faceted vision of Miss Turnstiles.As Lise, the nineteen year-old Caron (in her first film) dances superbly throughout and handles her role with unformed charm with her acting talent not to bloom for several years. Looking quite glamorous, Nina Foch plays older as the manipulative Milo and manages to be likable enough for us to care about her fate, while Oscar Levant is just his sardonic self as Adam. Performing an elegant "I'll Build a Stairway to Paradise", George Guétary plays Henri so agreeably that you feel bad that he does lose the girl at the end. This is not the best all-around MGM musical, but there is certainly enough movie magic to make this quite worthwhile. The 2000 DVD contains a fairly pristine print but little else in terms of extras.$LABEL$ 1
+This show is amazing! I love each and every episode. Carrie is a spitfire and Doug is a lovable and at times a moron. Arthur, Spence, Danny, Deacon and Carrie's Boss add just a nice end touch to the show, tying up all of the funny, pee in your pants moments. In one of the seasons, Doug tries to get Carrie drunk, because she is nicer when she is drunk. Nice husband right? Carrie isn't much better, when her boss needs a IPS driver to testify in a small case at her job, Carrie hesitates, because she views Doug as a slob and doesn't want him to embarrass her, so she hires Doug's friend instead. Wife of the year. But, who i believe to be funniest is yell-at-random Arthur. He is drop-dead hilarious, and angry. Hey, you would be too if you had to live in a basement where the mold has a funny smell and makes you dizzy. This show is hilarious, and if you haven't seen it yet, then you haven't lived!$LABEL$ 1
+This Columbo episode is probably noted more for the director, Steven Spielberg, as one of his early films. It should be looked at for Jack Cassidy's role as the murderer who kills his partner in writing to maintain his lifestyle. Jack Cassidy would appear in a later Columbo. After all, Columbo meets his match in Jack Cassidy's character. He is a mystery writer who plots to perform the perfect murder. After his first murder, his next victim would be the annoying general store owner/widow who would blackmail him for money. Rather than losing more money, he kills her. It is very entertaining to watch Cassidy and Falk as always. Falk's familiarity as Columbo makes him watchable after viewing this episode repeatedly over the years. What television today forgets about the success of years is that people will want to watch the shows again and again if they like the characters. It's not about who does it, how and why, it the familiarness of Columbo and his likability which scores high with viewers like myself.$LABEL$ 1
+Jonathan Rivers (Michael Keaton) suddenly becomes a widower when his wife dies. Soon after, he's approached by a Dr. Price, an expert in Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP), who claims he's been receiving messages from Jonathan's departed wife Anna via sundry electronic gadgets. Is Anna trying to tell Jonathan something? Is this merely a hint of something on a larger cosmic or otherworldly scale? It's good to see Keaton in a leading role, but the story he's stuck with is convoluted and absurd at points; it's as if the movie doesn't know how to answer any of the questions it brings up, so it just distracts the viewer with new, unrelated questions.Keaton himself is pretty good, convincingly cast as the bereaving widower desperately trying to communicate with his late wife. He's matured quite a bit as an actor, leaving behind the frat-friendly waacky-hijinks roles he played 15 or so years earlier. He looks a little craggy, with a perhaps few more wrinkles than one might expect, but he's lost none of the guile and panache that he's shown during his quarter century in Hollywood.So it's not that Keaton turns in a mediocre performance, it's that the script itself is subpar. Written by Niall Johnson, the plot gets more confusing as it progresses, each tortuous path ending in another tortuous path. This is all well and good if the path leads to some sort of acceptable denouement, something that ties more or less everything together and explains... something. But not White Noise; I knew less about what had happened to Jonathan than I did before I'd first seen him.Keaton's really the only reason to watch this junk, although he gets fine support from Ian McNeice (as Dr. Price) and Deborah Kara Unger as the requisite love interest.$LABEL$ 0
+The sound in this movie is a nightmare. That is the best I can say for this movie. Any chance of a good story is lost once this films starts. The premise of the film sounds good. A playboy who comes to terms with the people around him. The plot is predictable and very dull. The wet T-Shirt contest may be the worst scene I've ever watched and is almost worth watching in a Mystery Science type of deal. The sound is at times hard to hear and the main actor seems to not know how to speak clearly. His accent makes him very hard to understand. The only bright sport is the acting of Penelope Ann Miller. Her role is underdeveloped but she plays it well. In short, do not waste your time.$LABEL$ 0
+*Spoilers* Some people claim that Natural Born Killers is brilliant criticism of the media obsession with violence. But this contention ignores the actual content of the film. Oliver Stone could have shown his serial killers as vicious, inhuman murderers of innocent people and contrasted this with a morbid media fascination. Instead he lends them justification. The movie portrays just about every victim as someone who deserved to be hurt. Engaging in vicious stereotyping, Stone presents the victims as unpleasant caricatures - dumb rednecks, broken-English speaking immigrants, lazy fat people. The one person that the homicidal lovebirds is also a stereotype. Of course they befriend the old, hallucinogen-using American-Indian - because they're trendy, dude? Let's make him an admirable character. Fat, Chinese clerks and "hicks" are uncool, so let's make it seem like the deserve to die. Instead of twisted,hateful that are corrupted by their misdeeds, their rampage makes them happier and more in love. Mickey and Mallory are made sexy and cool and surreal visuals are bound to entice more impressionable people. Justice is mocked. The police and prison officials are portrayed as brutal, ugly and scowling compared to the GQ murderers. Again, this is not in the media reports within the film but in the "reality" in the film. There is no nuance or subtlety in the film - just overblown performances and visuals. The film says nothing new or specific about the obsession with violence. The proof that the film fails in its message lies in actual real world reactions to it. Some impressionable young people who saw this movie cited it as inspiration for murders that they committed. The film's "message" is a failure because it inspires people in the opposite direction with horrendous real-life results. The clever message is nowhere to be seen.$LABEL$ 0
+I bought this movie at a thrift store. Months before, my friend told me about it when we were talking about dumb movies we've seen. Once I spotted the cassette, I knew I had to have it. I watched it that night. I could tell it was going to be very cheesy and cheaply done. . . That's what drew me to it. I popped it in and I laughed the whole way through. I recognized Gregory (The Ice Cream Man), but I didn't recognize his name and I couldn't remember where I saw him. Later, while watching the Andy Griffith Show, Clint Howard (Ice Cream Man) was featured as an extra since he is Ron Howard (Opie Taylor)'s brother. I saw the credits and I gasped. I turned to my mom, who was also watching the show, and said, "That's the Ice Cream Man!!" She, too, gasped. This movie is great, but only for laughs and criticalness. It is the perfect example of a cheesy horror flick. If you feel like laughing as well as poking fun at low-budget movies, rent this video.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was perhaps the biggest waste of 2 hours of my life. From the opening 10 minutes, I was ready to leave. The cliches there slapping you in the face, and the plot was not only predictably stupid, but full of more holes than swiss cheese. I am considering suing for that lost 2 hours, and $6.25 along with the fact that I am now stupider for watching this waste of film. The T-Rex's must be flipping in their graves, so to speak.$LABEL$ 0
+I first saw this movie on television some years ago and frankly loved it. Charles Dance makes one of the most terrifying villains anyone can imagine. His sophistication is such a perfect contrast to the crudely good hero. I have never been much of an Eddie Murphy fan but find his irritating portrayal here a winner: a bit of "Axel Foley Through the Looking Glass". Charlotte Lewis is, to utilize a hackneyed phrase but the only one applicable, luminously gorgeous. Some scenes are wonderfully created: the dream sequence, the bird, the silly fight scenes, and the climactic confrontation. Through it all Murphy is the modern man suddenly dropped into an oriental myth, a stunned and quieter version of Kurt Russell in his oriental fantasy romp. Like that movie we have James Hong, the incomparable actor whose scenes, however short, raise the quality even of Derek. Since 1955 Hong has defined the fine supporting actor, the "class act" of his profession. "The Golden Child" is silly; it is not perfect; but it has so many redeeming features that it is an enjoyable and amusing fantasy, well worth watching. After four years I have seen "The Golden Child" again; I enjoyed it even more! It truly is great fun.$LABEL$ 1
+A few thoughts before I get to the heart of the film: 1) I have never seen so many bare breasts in a film before, displayed in so many non-sexual scenes -- it was weird; 2) Joseph Fiennes, where have you been? You charmed us in *Elizabeth* and *Shakespeare in Love*, and then you went away for awhile. Mainstream American wants more! Okay, I'm a college English professor, I have read this play many times, and this is probably the best film version I've seen of it. While individual aspects of other productions may have stood out, this is the overall package put together well. Pacino is no Olivier, but he doesn't need to be, so get over it! The film's cinematography is stunning and not just because of the bare breasts. Venice is portrayed amazingly, and you do get a feel for really being there. Portia's residential island is amazingly beautiful, and the lighting is always tinted the proper way for the scenes' appropriate moods.The anti-Semetism in this film/play is hard to watch, especially at the end. Pacino's dropping to the knees and clutching his religious artifact is perhaps the most powerful moment of his on film since *The Godfather Part III* (when Michael's daughter is gunned down on the opera steps). Is the play anti-Semetic? Sure. Is *Othello* racist? Sure. Take it for what it is: a commentary on the Elizabethan era, not a commentary on today.Fiennes is underutilized in the film, but still a pleasure to watch. The women in the film are alright; no one really stood out here, but they do blend in nicely with the scenery. Jeremy Irons and Pacino are excellent in the two juiciest roles, adversaries until the end. I've always felt Irons was underrated (I still get chills when I hear his voice from *The Lion King*), and Pacino is Pacino.$LABEL$ 1
+this is the worst film i have ever seen and what disappoints me the most is that this is yash raj film so at first when you see the promos you think yes thats definitely another yash raj hit But when you see the film your eyes will water with disappoint the storyline is stupid and dumb we've seen it many times boy is soon to marry and falls in love with a girl blah blah blah. if you do see this pathetic film don't go with you family there is too much exposure and kiss scene. i don even see why you would go to see it on your own. overall this is a disgraceful disgusting and anything else which is bad and starts with a d film don't go to see it you'll end up hating yash ji and yash raj films$LABEL$ 0
+This is a movie about the music that is currently being played in Istanbul. Istanbul was the center of the two Old World superpowers, the Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Today, it is a megalopolis of almost 10 million. So it is to no ones surprise that a lot of music is being played in Istanbul, with a great variety of voices, styles, and influences from everywhere on the globe. It is Turkish music, of course, and I was fascinated by Turkish music ever since I bought my first record long time ago. The movie features different singers, instrumentalists and bands. Spoken comments from the musicians nicely illustrate the music being played, and the social context in modern Turkey. For my perspective, the most interesting comments were from Orhan Gencebay. Furthermore, the movies shows urban scenery mainly from Istanbul which is very pleasant to watch."Crossing the Bridge" is listed as a documentary and it includes music from minorities, e.g. Kurds and Roma. Other important topics are omitted such as Turkish jazz music, or music of the Armenians and Greeks.This movie is strongly recommended for lovers of the music and culture of Turkey, the Balkans, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Middle East. It may also be worthwhile for those with a keen interest in the global effects of musical styles such as Rock and Roll or Hip Hop.$LABEL$ 1
+The stories were pretty weird, not really funny and not really cunning. I'm not sure what the point of the stories was .. The first story was actually mostly sick, the second was just really really pathetic and the third was only weird (the fake baby was actually quite badly made).$LABEL$ 0
+The various Law & Order and CSI franchises had better be glad Dolomite doesn't pass through. The lady cops,ADAs,and coroners would all be enthralled and the males be subject to such soul shivering,badge melting warp speed kicks ( Wouldn't you just love to see David Caruso's Horatio and that know it all on CSI get Dolomite's Hush Puppies pulled from their respective asses)Ice T might start crying and get back on the Playa Trail.Low low budget,bad but enthusiastic acting,and a vision at what gutbucket nightclubs offered to its patrons;funk bands soul singers,the last vestiges of old style Chitlin Circuit entertainers( that weirdling dance troupe)James Brown,Wilson Pickett,Otis Redding,and a host of others came from those clubs to glory, while their peers labored on in local or regional stardom. Rudy Ray Moore came from that background and the character of Dolomite is a mix of the bold Black badasses who strutted through. He shouldn't have went to the joint, the swine didn't have a warrant, how his middle aged ,blubbery self maintained a loyal stable of kung fu wenches is a mystery only a student of cults can explain, but all that is beside the point. It's a glorious home movie of a legendary performer that compared to the mirrors of actors ranging from Established Hollywood to indie film snorefests,hits its mark. A fun dumb movie!$LABEL$ 1
+There are actually some good reasons, why a person should take the risk of going totally insane by watching this show. The breasts are nice, even though some of them aren't that real, but they usually come in pairs, which is good. Watching the beach on your screen is also a very relaxing experience, as it is an ideal place for just taking it easy and not worrying too much about getting eaten by a rubber shark. It's always good to remember, that David Hasselhoff is a god. Not the god, but a god. It's not so much about his acting skills, since there are none, but his chesthair does a lot of talking. Also, there's no KITT hanging out in this series, which is good, since Mr Hasselhoff told in an interview, that he always thought KITT was gay. Naturally that might make him to look like an idiot, but considering the other statements he has made lately, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone.In a nutshell, this is the kind of show, that is totally harmless to people. It gives us a lot to stare at and a lot to laugh at, which is something many intentionally humoristic shows really don't give us. I have to say, it's no wonder that Borat fell in love with Pamela Anderson. I enjoy watching the show. No, it's not a great show, actually it's quite horrible, but I enjoy watching it. It's basically like a B-movie stretched to last for a decade.$LABEL$ 0
+Dig! I would say to anyone even if you don't like Metallica to see 'some kind of monster' it is a spinal tap type documentary about one of the biggest bands in the world acting like mental kids during a breakdown of sorts. It's fun and fascinating. Along the same lines comes dig! A film about 'the Dandy Warhol's' and 'the Brian Jonestown massacre' two Portland bands who start off a kind of music scene in there home town only for one of the bands to become huge and one to fall by the wayside into the musical history books. Right from the start the two bands pull in opposite directions just on their ability to make decisions whether good or bad. Filmed over seven years and at times painful to watch we see the dandy's meteoric rise to fame (thanks to that vodaphone ad!) and the Jonestown seminal fall from scene instigators to bickering wannabes. As the bands become more disjointed the friendships are stretched tension tight and at several points snap into arguments and even on stage fights. All of this is half funny and half tragic and believe it or not is perversely watch able. Like I said at the beginning you can watch the Metallica film even if you have no interest in the band. Dig! on the other hand is slightly different and is more enjoyable and a whole lot easier to watch if you have a passing interest in either band. Still a good film and more a testament to not be in a band than encouraging that as a career path. Dig! Is a mad ride on rock and roll's coat tails and a fine example of the pitfalls and pleasures of being or wanting to be famous.$LABEL$ 1
+I happened upon this film by accident, and really enjoyed. Timothy Busfield's character is without redeeming qualities, and at one point, Busfield and star Meloni ogle women as they pass by...Meloni's take on the parade is different from Busfield's. Janel Maloney is terrific...She looks very much like Tea Leone, but the major difference here is that Janel can actually ACT. Some very nice things in this film and well worth your attention when it's on cable.$LABEL$ 1
+Just finished this movie... saw it on the video shelf and being a Nick Stahl fan I just had to rent it. In all honesty, it probably should have stayed on the shelf. The concept was an interesting one and there were several fairly smart twists and turns but somehow I guessed almost all of them before they came along. And the movie just went a little too far in the end in my opinion... if you have to suffer through a viewing of it you'll see what I mean!On a positive note, Nick Stahl's acting was great (especially considering what he had to work with). Eddie Kaye Thomas was also good but he always plays the same type of character... too much Paul Finch from "American Pie" coming through for my liking.And finally, the worst part of this movie has to be January Jones' emotionless performance... I guess a pretty face really is all that matters in Hollywood.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie when it first came out. It was an official selection for the Temecula Valley International Film Festival and I voted for it for best picture.Justine Priestley is hot as the psychotic, but complex Amanda. This is not your ordinary psycho movie. Lots of interesting and original slants on the genre. Sort of a "Fatal Attraction" for the younger set with some great blues music mixed in as the object of Amanda's affection is married to an up and coming blues singer who has less time for her husband as her career takes off.$LABEL$ 1
+As over the past ten years or even longer the whole world is flooded with so-called sitcoms (actually only very few deserve this title 'cause they're so predictable), King of Queens is a very original, unique and astoundingly funny alternation. It's about the daily life of a deliveryman and his wife who works as an attorney's assistant in Manhattan in Queens, NY. With them lives Carrie's father Arthur, a picture-book extrovert, who is played by the fantastic Jerry Stiller and who steals the show from all the others every time he appears. Other important people are their best friends Deacon and Kelly, a married couple, and their other friend Spence who's almost 30 and still lives with his mother. What makes this show so unique and funny is, above all, that every single character seems so real and Carrie's cynical, sarcastic attitude is the total opposite of Doug's good-natured, slightly dumb optimism.And Arthur's the one who makes it absolutely unpredictable with his strange ideas and habits. He often gets himself into trouble and Doug and Carrie have to drag him out of the mud. Even if in my opinion the quality of the show decreased a little within the last years it's still one of the best daily sitcoms ever made. It takes a little time to get into the characters and relate to them, but after that's done, you get some unstoppable laughs from it. Although I think I couldn't survive one day with Arthur in a closed room without beating the guts out of him, I really adore him in this show. Watch and have fun, I give it a 9 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+In this 'sequel' Bruce is still called Billy Lo (get it? Bruce= Billy, Lo= Lee. No?) But apart from that, that's all it has in common with the other movie. Billy doesn't seem to be an actor anymore. He seems to be in another country. He's more like a spy. He's the only cast member to return and sadly, they kill him off to make way for a new character, his brother, Bobby. Sadly, when Bruce dies, the movie pretty much dies with him. This was extremely poorly made. It seemed like they were writing the script as they were filming. The footage works for a while (it's not too obvious at first) but soon Bruce is always shown in the dark all the time (he kicks out a light at one stage for no other apparent reason to hide the fact that it's not Bruce playing the part). Sadly when he dies the movie changes. I can't help but wonder if they were filming as they were writing and may well have planned to keep Bruce alive, but later decided to kill him off because it would not have been plausible as Bobby does not appear until Billy is dead. It's hard to change the lead character halfway in the movie and Bruce is a hard act to follow so it's hard to now accept Bobby as the star. Bruce is never seen again in this movie. I think they should have made this sequel without Bruce he has a lame role in this movie. People hoping to see a new Bruce Lee movie will be disappointed to see that although he's given the top billing, he only has a featuring role. Even the worst movies have at least one memorable bit. If there was one bit about this movie people seem to talk about, it's the scene where Billy fights in a plant nursery. Ironically it doesn't even use Bruce Lee footage. Mind you, they did it more convincingly in No Retreat No Surrender. Not one of the other actors here ever made anything else memorable. Bruce's girlfriend (Colleen Camp) is never mentioned. My advice is to turn it off as soon as Bruce is finished writing his letter to his brother. Nothing else in the movie is worth watching. I found it really sad to see Bruce die. I don't see how a small budgeted movie like this could get enough money to use footage from Enter The Dragon. This was a cheap way of trying to cash in on Bruce's name. Oddly this and the original are credited in Bruce's filmography. Thankfully so far, no one has tried anything like this again. 1981 was the year of Bruce's last movie appearance. It was a sad way to end it, but thankfully this is proof that Bruce's movie career should be left alone.$LABEL$ 0
+A young man, who never knew his birth parents, receives an old farm in an isolated section of West Virginia upon the death of his natural father. He visits his property with a cross-section of potential victims including the comic relief black guy and a trendy lesbian couple. (Hmm, will there be skinny dipping? Take a guess.) Unfortunately, the party comes to an end when the spirits of drifters killed by his evil great-grandfather and used as scarecrows come back for revenge. This film starts out well. An artful montage of depression-era photographs and phony newspapers set against a speech by FDR - this, I believe, is his first appearance in a killer scarecrow movie- establishes the mood. I developed some hopes for the film, which were partially realized. The story was serviceable enough. The setting was sufficiently bucolic. The photography was mostly in focus. The acting, while no great shakes, was slightly above par for horror movies in this budget range. The film might've actually worked within the narrow demands of the genre if the scarecrows were scary. But they weren't They looked cheap. They weren't frightening at all. The better the monster, the better the movie. These scarecrows wouldn't scare Dorothy, let alone Toto.$LABEL$ 0
+C'était complètement minable : à fuir absolument! This was an idiotic attempt to destroy classic source material, and thoroughly succeeded!Do not see this film under any circumstances unless you wish to have your ten euros torn up and shoved up your nostrils by a bunch of vapid, atrociously unamusing characters.This type of film clearly illustrates the gulf that still unfortunately divides directors and audiences. If the individual (heaven forbid a collective could have conceived this dross) behind this had been considerate enough to watch the version currently playing in French cinemas, he or she would have endured what I was forced to endure, and mercifully rewritten it or just scrapped it altogether. The vein of adult humour being mined here dates, to my mind, back to Fritz the Cat but lacks that film's avant-garde status or even its base attempt at social commentary.With the proliferation of remakes and increasing reliance on pre-existing source material to fund storytelling these days, one would hope that choosing Snow White, and thus not having to worry about conceiving characters or a radically new story, would have allowed more time for, oh I don't know, interesting animation, smarter jokes, perhaps a coherent film that has something to say and doesn't telegraph its vacuity from the opening frame? A manifestly appalling production.$LABEL$ 0
+A French film Ester Williams would love. But the synchronized swimming was only a hook for the story of three girls in a Paris exurbia finding themselves. No question where Sciamma's sympathies lie as all the boys are depicted as "animaux" but actually only the 3 girls are in focus, and for the entire time, with the few adults and the other adolescents being mostly in the background. Marie is a stick of a girl, unattractive, but determined. She wants to be a swimmer and forces herself on Floriane ( a Renascence quality beauty per one reviewer) and she is also a friend of convenience to Anna: not unattractive, but for her, the time of her body's perfection was short, and now she is an adolescent in a women's body. What ensues is a journey to self-realization without a road map but there is a glumness about the three that is un-natural: where is the gaiety and mindless chatter of youth? While the dénouement was breath taking, with Floriane's self-absorption beautifully portrayed, as well as the equally beautiful union of Marie and Anne, it all seemed abstract, Sciamma's puppets.$LABEL$ 1
+and a 30,000$ budget and this movie still looks like it was made for 50$. You can tell from the first frame to the last that he didn't care one bit about the movies continuity or plot, he was just happy to be making a zombie movie. What the end result shows is a lazy film maker who loves zombie movies. It could have been great if he just had of given a care. The end result is endless zoom ins on poorly done gore, and even more poorly produced metal plays over it.What happens when you combine high hopes, big dreams, a decent budget, hard work, and one idiot behind the camera.$LABEL$ 0
+OK, why complain about this movie? It's fiction. Deal with it. If you want to see the biography, go watch it. This is an original, fictionalized version of what happened in Wisconsin. People who are obsessed will complain about this, as they do every other deviation of the facts. Sad but true. I think making Kane Hodder the man in which the film is named after was a great idea. I thought it wasn't so good at first, I'll be honest. But that just made it even scarier. If you like Kane Hodder, Ed Gein or movies based on real events, I think this is a good movie. But if you're obsessed (like some other people) stay away from this movie and all others.$LABEL$ 1
+Music videos are often completely disregarded in any discussion about film, with most people considering them to be a lesser art form. While a great majority are merely flashy clips to advertise a popular performer's latest hit single, a precious few really do rise above the rest, becoming works of art in their own right {anything directed by Spike Jonze or Michel Gondry is always worth watching}. While "art" isn't precisely the word I'd use to describe Michael Jackson's 'Thriller (1983),' it is an intensely-likable hybrid of schlock horror and music, and an outrageously-campy short film that remains remarkably endearing nearly 25 years later. The thirteen-minute music video, both the longest and most expensive ever at the time of its release, was directed by John Landis, a filmmaker I'm not terribly familiar with, though 'The Blues Brothers (1980)' is a classic, and I hear that 'An American Werewolf in London (1981)' is a stupendously entertaining horror/comedy.Whether or not 'Thriller' actually qualifies as a music video is certainly up for debate, taking into account its extensive length {though Jackson bettered this effort with 1997's 'Ghosts,' at 38 minutes} and the fact that the title song comprises less than half of the total running time. The video opens with a brief film-within-a-film, as Michael, on a quiet and brightly-lit night, reveals to his girlfriend (Ola Ray) that he is "different" from other guys, transforming into a hideous werewolf as the nighttime clouds part to reveal a full moon. As he presumably decapitates the unfortunate heroine, we come across Michael and his girl in the movie theatre, actually watching this drama unfold in a horror picture. When the girl becomes frightened, they both leave cinema and begin to walk home, at which point Michael begins to sing the opening lines of his latest song, "Thriller." However, when a hoard of blood-thirsty zombies emerge from the local graveyard {their entrance ghoulishly narrated by Vincent Price}, the situation begins to get interesting.It's difficult to quite put my finger on why 'Thriller' is considered one of the greatest of all music videos. It can't simply be that the song itself is a lot of fun, and Michael Jackson – though he has since become the butt of all comedians' jokes for his peculiar personality and doings – there's no doubt that he is an excellent singer and performer. Perhaps a decent explanation for the film's popularity is the incredible amount of work that must have gone into it; nothing like it had ever been seen before, and it still remains something of an oddity in the world of music videos. The gruesome monster make-up effects were engineered by Rick Baker, and are surprisingly graphic for a music clip, though it's all carried out with a good sense of fun. Several moments make for some genuinely exciting suspense, successfully capturing the atmosphere of the films which it is parodying {though always with a cheesy twist on the usual formula}. Simply put, you'll never look at a zombie movie in the same way again!$LABEL$ 1
+If you went to this movie to see some huge academy award presentation...oh well..but if you wanted to see a funny delightful adaptation of an old classic, you will love it..Jim Carey was incredible as usual. The story line was great, a few parts added like the history of the Grinch made it even better. Ron Howard never misses a beat..But although there were a few ADULT comments and cleavage added, this is supped to be a kids or family show. Try not to lose sight of that ..if you do you really wont enjoy the movie...and as for the comments about Ron Howard, try to direct a major motion picture and see how you do..its not easy as it looks ...$LABEL$ 1
+Ed (Kel Mitchell) is a teenager who lives for his job at Good Burger, a small but friendly neighborhood hamburger stand, while his buddy Dexter (Kennan Thompson) also works there, but lack Ed's single-minded devotion to his job he's there because he accidentally destroyed the car of his teacher Mr. Wheat (Sinbad) and has to raise money to pay the damages. When Mondo Burger, a mammoth fast-foot chain, opens across the street, it looks like Good Burger is history, until Ed formulates a secret sauce that brings hundreds of new customers to their door. However, the monomaniacal manager of Mondo Burger, Kurt (Jan Schweiterman), is determined to get his hands on the sauce and put Good Burger out of business. Meanwhile, Ed and Dexter must rescue Otis (Abe Vigoda), the world's oldest fast food employee, from the Demented Hills Asylum, and Ed might just find love with Monique (Shar Jackson) if he could take his mind off the burgers long enough to pay attention to her. Good Burger is a comedy directed for kids, decent story, acting, and overall a pretty harmless kids movie.$LABEL$ 0
+THE BROKEN is part of the After Dark Horrorfest III. Not a slasher or filled with gore. Plenty of broken glass and mirrors in this edgy thriller from France and writer/director Sean Ellis. A successful radiologist Gina McVay(Lena Headly)inters a strange world as her life seems to spiral out of control. While attending her father's(Richard Jenkins)birthday party, the guests are stunned when a mirror crashes to the floor for no obvious reason. Things get really strange when she witnesses a woman that is the spitting image of herself driving down a London street in a car identical to her own. Gina sneaks to her doppelganger's apartment and finds a photo of herself with her father. She drives away and is involved in a head on collision. Then mysteriously her boyfriend is not the same; to be exact family and friends are not easy for her to trust. Is Gina beside herself? Is she in a parallel world? Her nightmares become more horrific...is she broken?Kudos if you can figure this one out...it won't be easy. Editing couldn't be any tighter. Lighting is questionable. Other players: Melvil Poupard, William Armstrong, Michelle Duncan and Ulrich Thomsen.$LABEL$ 0
+I totally disagree with the other reviews.All basically negative.I took a chance on this movie and was glad that I did.Glad indeed.I couldn't find anything wrong with it.Nothing period.The script is original.The actors are all likable and convincing.Dee Smart reminded me of Marcia Brady from the Brady Bunch.But this gal truly can act.The setting in the Australian Outback is perfect.Incredible scenery.Great soundtrack i.e Paul Kelly.God bless Paul Kelly.The Cranberries are also here.I have seen this movie twice in less than 24 hrs.I will probably watch it again.It is that interesting.It makes one think.It is(was)probably better than nine-tenths of the so-called Hollywood blockbusters that were also out during this time.Back Of Beyond is a likable.Well photographed film.I couldn't find anything wrong with it.Check it out!My first review!$LABEL$ 1
+A blockbuster at the time of it's original release (it was the second-highest grossing film of 1976), the third screen version of A STAR IS BORN has always divided critics and fans alike. The film open to scathingly negative reviews, however, $5.6 million-budgeted picture went on to gross over $150 million at the box office and won an Academy Award and five Golden Globes. It's not without some irony that Streisand's most commercially successful film would also remain her most controversial. For every ten fans who state that STAR is Streisand's best film, there are always ten more who claim it is the weakest film in her filmography. Although both sides have some merit to support their claims, it should still be noted that the seventies take on A STAR IS BORN remains one of the most touching and highly entertaining showbiz dramas that Hollywood ever produced. For my money, it's the best version of the often-told tale.The film is solidly enjoyable and throughly absorbing. Changing the setting from the old Hollywood studio system to the competitive world of the music industry was actually a great idea, and the screenplay forges a realistic contrast between the characters' romance and their careers. This is the main area that the 1976 version of A STAR IS BORN actually surpasses it's classic predecessors. For example, the film is especially successful when depicting the clashing personal and professional difficulties during recording sessions and the never-ending phone calls that interrupt Kristofferson's songwriting attempts. This version of the story is also more believable in it's portrayal of the lead characters. For example, the female leads in the two previous versions were so virtuous and self-sacrificing that they came off as saints. On the other hand, Esther, the female lead in this version, is not only portrayed as being strong and passionate, but also flawed and conflicted. This makes her feel more "real" than the Janet Gaynor or Judy Garland characters felt in the previous films, and makes the story that much more effective.The performances are all on target, even if some of the supporting characters aren't fleshed out enough. If you're looking for an actress/singer who can walk the fine line between tough and vulnerable without making herself seem like a script contrivance, Streisand is definitely the girl you want. She's one of the few film stars who can make even the most banal dialogue seem fresh and natural, and, as usual, she manages to make a strong emotional connection with the viewer. Simply put, her Esther is a fully-realized, three-dimensional human being. Kris Kristofferson may not get much respect now for his laid-back characterization, however, he's always interesting watch and displays a magnetic charisma here that he seldom displayed elsewhere in his career. Kristofferson actually received rave reviews at the time from NEWSWEEK, TIME, and even the NEW YORKER's usually vicious Pauline Kael. Gary Busey and Paul Mazursky also give believable performances, but both have a fairly minimal amount of screen time.The film's soundtrack recording was also a massive success, hitting the #1 on Billboard's Hot 200 and selling over four million copies in the US alone. The Streisand-composed "Evergreen" (with lyrics from Paul Williams) is unarguably one of the most gorgeous songs in contemporary pop, brought to even-further life by an absolutely incomparable vocal performance from Streisand. The rest of the film's original songs (mostly composed by Williams and Rupert Holmes) are pretty good as well, and Streisand sounds fantastic - her live solo numbers remain in the memory long after the rest of the movie has faded. Streisand's vibrant performances bring "Woman In The Moon" and "With One More Look At You" to thrilling life, and make even sillier numbers like "Queen Bee" work far better than they have the right to. Kristofferson's solo numbers sound somewhat tuneless, however, that may have been intentional since he is playing a singer in decline.Though naturally dated in some respects (it definitely does reflect the decade in which it was made), the seventies take on A STAR IS BORN still holds up remarkably well. The film is well-mounted and slickly produced, the chemistry between the leads is extremely powerful and always feels genuine, and Streisand has two emotional scenes near the finale that are both aching effective. In conclusion, A STAR IS BORN is not only entertaining and moving, but it also transcends all criticism.$LABEL$ 1
+This was a disappointment - none of the nuance of the original. The Brits just seem to be able to make a truly unsettling film with none of the over-the-top histrionics of the American version. The original series combined both creepy stories and subtlety of performance with great attention to lighting and settings. I have watched the series many times and am still enthralled.Just another poor adaptation along the lines of the dreadful adaptation of "Cracker". Get hooked up with BBC America or BBC Canada and watch for such delights as Waking the Dead, Spooks, Silent Witness, and Judge John Deed. Watch the original Touching Evil, then look for "Wire in the Blood" for more of the truly understated, elegant performance of Robson Green. Hollywood needs to have a look at this actor!$LABEL$ 0
+Not to be confused with the above average supernatural thriller "The Sentinel". The Sentinel was a big bore of a movie for me, not delivering the consistent action, a couple of critics promised on the back. To me it seemed like everyone was Halfassing it, and only there to make some quick cash, because this felt very much like a made for TV film. The Sentinel is a rehash of several better films, like "In The Line Of Fire" this does not have any originality in it, and watching Michael Douglas run around, felt kinda silly in my opinion. The Main problem besides it's unoriginality, had to be the poor pace. I often got distracted while trying to view this movie, while looking how much run time was left, more then once. Not only the miscasting with Eva Longoria, who couldn't convince worth a lick.Performances. Michael Douglas is usually a dependable actor, here is obviously going through the motions. He does not convince as a man on a run, or a secret agent. His chemistry with Bassinger, was also off. I'm a big fan of Kiefer Sutherland, but here he is only OK, nothing more then that. He tries to come across as a gruff, but managed to be more bland then anything else, and to be honest, he didn't seem that interested. Eva Longoria Parker is pretty mediocre. She does not convince in her role, and was pure eye candy. Kim Basinger is pretty terrible as the 1st lady. She looks bored to tears, and her role is a throw away, more then anything else. Martin Donovan has a big part in the end, but not enough to matter for me.Bottom line. The Sentinel is yet, another political thriller, that bored me to tears. It's too old, too tired, and most importantly the lack of effort sucked. Not recommended.4/10$LABEL$ 0
+This is an example of why the majority of action films are the same. Generic and boring, there's really nothing worth watching here. A complete waste of the then barely-tapped talents of Ice-T and Ice Cube, who've each proven many times over that they are capable of acting, and acting well. Don't bother with this one, go see New Jack City, Ricochet or watch New York Undercover for Ice-T, or Boyz n the Hood, Higher Learning or Friday for Ice Cube and see the real deal. Ice-T's horribly cliched dialogue alone makes this film grate at the teeth, and I'm still wondering what the heck Bill Paxton was doing in this film? And why the heck does he always play the exact same character? From Aliens onward, every film I've seen with Bill Paxton has him playing the exact same irritating character, and at least in Aliens his character died, which made it somewhat gratifying...Overall, this is second-rate action trash. There are countless better films to see, and if you really want to see this one, watch Judgement Night, which is practically a carbon copy but has better acting and a better script. The only thing that made this at all worth watching was a decent hand on the camera - the cinematography was almost refreshing, which comes close to making up for the horrible film itself - but not quite. 4/10.$LABEL$ 0
+I had never seen such an incredible acting job in a motion picture as I did when I saw Daniel Day-Lewis play Christy Brown in My Left Foot. In fact off the scene his role wasn't even over. He played the role of Christy Brown or at least disabled like him all through the filming of the movie and needed surgery because of the damage his superior acting had done to his back. To me that is remarkable and through all the pain he put up with to act that role I believe it is quite true to say he put on the most Oscar worthy performance in history. He was so masterful in this tough a part that I believe no one could have done it better or with more of an impact than him. Although I cannot say it is the greatest movie of all time I can say that how he played this impossible a role and then kept on acting it until it wasn't even acting anymore is without a doubt the greatest feet I will ever seen an actor do. Probably a man too for that matter.$LABEL$ 1
+Jill Dunne (played by Mitzi Kapture), is an attractive, nice woman, over-whelmed by a smart-mouthed teenage daughter, Liv (Martha MacIsaac) and a petty, two-timing husband, Sean (Rick Roberts), both of which were tediously self-centered, and obnoxious.This was advertised as a troubled family stalked by a crazed killer during a relentless storm.The storm doesn't even happen until about the last 5 minutes of the film, and then it isn't anything to send anybody running to the storm cellar.The stalking, likewise doesn't get intense until almost the end of the film.Most of the film we spend listening to Jill and her insufferable daughter, Liv, argue until I just wanted to back slap the daughter into next week.Jill's problem with Liv is that she has taken up with Zack, a boy of questionable character, and they are constantly making out--in fact Jill comes home to find the two of them on Liv's bed.The rest of the time we spend listening to Jill's husband Sean either whine at Jill or criticize her.Sean was not at all appealing--since his face is so covered in freckles you could play connect the dots.The story begins with Jill being notified of an out-standing bill on their credit card for a hotel she has never been to, and that she thought Sean had never been to either.Jill goes to the hotel where she meets the owner & manager, Richard Grant (Nick Mancuso), a very nice, older, divorced man, who is sympathetic to her. In fact, when he spots her husband there again, he phones Jill and tips her off.Jill returns to the hotel, sees Sean with another woman. She is upset, leaves without Sean seeing her, and does absolutely nothing. In fact, she doesn't even say anything to Sean when he arrives home. This made no sense to me.Jill has given Richard her business card, and so he calls her and she is apparently in real estate. She shows him a condo. Afterwards they have a drink, and things get cozy between them.Richard and Jill are getting it on, hot and heavy. In fact, he seems a bit more aggressive than necessary, when Jill suddenly decides to cut out.Jill and Sean have a confrontation about his cheating. Sean whines about how Jill has been letting him down since her father died. Apparently his lack of any morals is all her fault. Eventually Jill confesses her own lack of morals and near adultery to Sean--and of course that's all her fault too, as far as Sean is concerned.The little family decides to go on a camping trip--which means more whining and grousing among them, especially from the spoiled daughter.I was so rooting for the stalker to get everybody, but Jill.3 stars$LABEL$ 0
+There's a thin line between being theatrical and being just plain forced. Forced acting. Forced takes. Forced plot. Even forced photography. There's people who say "the movie develops that way because it's from Asia" but I don't see any kind of forced elements on Seven Samurai or Sonatine. There's a thin line between being fiction (and every work of art it is, in it's way, fiction) and being just unlikely.In a more personal way, I just don't feel anything with the movie, it doesn't take me anywhere, and I just can't believe in the fictional world it is proposed. It just doesn't feel right, there's something in it or through that just doesn't click.$LABEL$ 0
+Life is comprised of infinite possibilities; some known, others a mystery and destined to remain so. And what of the vast unknown, the realms beyond which knowledge has no established boundaries or parameters? Who is to say what exists or what is possible? Valid questions, all of which are raised and explored in the story of a particular individual's personal journey, a strange and dramatic odyssey that defies facts and logic, in `K-PAX,' directed by Iain Softley, and starring Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges. In the wake of an incident in New York's Central Station, a man named Prot (Spacey) is transported to a psychiatric hospital in Manhattan, where he is delivered into the care of Dr. Mark Powell (Bridges), who attempts to uncover the truth about his patient, who claims to be from the distant planet K-PAX. It quickly becomes a challenge for Dr. Powell, as Prot, with his calm, direct, forthcoming manner and a propensity for produce (he eats bananas peels and all, and Red Delicious Apples are his favorites) is quite convincing. But it's Powell's job, as well as his nature, to be skeptical. Prot's claims, however, remain intact and stand up even under the most intense probing and the watchful eye of Dr. Powell, who finds himself in something of a quandary-- Prot even tells him the exact date and time that he will depart for K-PAX, a scheduled return trip that allows Powell but a short time to sort it all out. And Powell just can't seem to get his mind around the idea that he is dealing with a real alien being; and it's something he is going to have to resolve quickly, if he is ever going to know the truth. And he has to know. The truth, after all, is the only thing that is going to set him free in his own mind.	Softley has created and delivered a sensitive, thought-provoking film that challenges the viewer by sustaining the mystery surrounding Prot while forcing you to reflect upon your own concepts of what is, in fact, possible. And as you never know for sure about Prot until the denouement, you are able to identify with Powell, seeing the situation from his point of view and trying to solve the riddle right along with him. Softley creates an atmosphere of wonder and a real sense of being confronted with something that is truly unique as the story unfolds and you begin to realize that Prot just may be what he says he is. And in the context of the reality to which the film is disposed, it's an engrossing matter to try to wrap your mind around. How do you react when all of the evidence is contrary to the physical limitations we've set for ourselves? While at the heart of the film there is a resounding depth of humanity that is evident, not only in Prot, but in Dr. Powell, as well. All of which makes for an extremely engaging and gripping drama.	As we've come to expect, Kevin Spacey gives a brilliant performance as Prot, presenting his character from the inside out, emotionally deep and physically convincing at the same time. This is a unique individual, and Spacey brings him to life with care and the ability to share those moments that are particularly revealing, which adds to the believability of the character and the credibility of the story itself. For this film to work, it is essential that we believe who and what Prot is; we do, and it does. Spacey simply pulls it off magnificently. It's a memorable performance, from which evolves a character that will stay with you for a long, long time.	Jeff Bridges, meanwhile, emerges on equal footing with Spacey, adeptly making a very real person of Dr. Powell. It's a fairly straightforward role, and the challenge for Bridges was to take this very normal and ordinary character and make him unique in his own right, which, opposite the character of Prot was no small task. And, again, for this film to work it was necessary for Bridges to rise to the occasion. And, with exceptional skill and being the consummate professional that he is, he succeeds without question. Bridges infuses Powell with an underlying complexity, and is so giving in his performance, that it makes the interaction between Powell and Prot vibrant, and at times intense. It's a demonstration of two of the finest actors in the business doing what they do best, creating a dynamic that is alive and inspiring. It's a great job by Bridges, who never attempts to steal the spotlight from Prot, which serves to raise the level of the film to an even higher notch.	The supporting cast includes Mary McCormack (Rachel), Alfre Woodard (Dr. Villers), Ajay Naidu (Dr. Naidiu), Vincent Laresca (Navarro), Kimberly Scott (Joyce), Conchata Ferrell (Betty) and Saul Williams (Ernie). An entertaining, emotionally involving film, `K-PAX' is a dissertation on possibilities, as well as an examination of the ever evolving complexities of the human condition. It's a film that demands an open mind and rewards those who are able to approach it on it's own terms and embrace it. In the end, it makes you realize just how real K-PAX is; and it makes you appreciate Prot's journey, and just how much we all share and have in common with those around us, human or alien. And it may just make you reflect upon your own journey-- where you've been and where you're going. And that's the magic of the movies. I rate this one 10/10. $LABEL$ 1
+The concept for Sarafina appears to be a sound one, that is aside from the musical perspective. It attempts to combine upbeat African music with a story describing the atrocious conditions and atmosphere that black people were forced to endure at the time the film was set. The contradictions of each of the two elements are too glaring and the film never justifies such rapid shifts between jubilation and terror. Had it simply been a drama reflecting these conditions it may have been a good film, however the scenes of school children being shot down by soldiers don't exactly sit well next to the songs. Aside from the poor premise the acting isn't the best either, Goldberg gives a mediocre performance as does the remainder of the cast. Overall a disappointment.3/10$LABEL$ 0
+Unfortunately, this film is typical of the watering down of a good film by numerous sequels. Universal made several serial monster films in the 1940s, which were pale imitations of the original. The intelligent Egyptologist Imhotep has been replaced by a leg-dragging Frankenstein in mummy wrappings, who exhibits no signs of intelligent life. This film is entertaining in spots but if you have seen The Mummy (1932), you will be disappointed.$LABEL$ 0
+Proud as i am of being a Dutchman, i'm truly shocked by flicks like these. Why? why this cheap acting? Why this storyline that just sucks? why a dozen sequels? why o why? they add a lot of hot Dutch chicks in an effort of saving this movie from redemption, and guess what? all the underaged breezergirlies in Holland go and see it. I was forced to watch it at a party. all the girls were going crazy when Daan Schuurmans entered the screen, all the guys took a another beer and grumbled... But the thing that really bothers me, is the fact that this kind of flicks are the only sort of movies Dutch filmmakers can produce... (apart from "Van God Los" and "Lek") This doesn't prove our superiority to other countries.. It doesn't add anything to our imagination... It just F**ks up the brains of little 13 year old girls... Johan Nijenhuis, I hope you will burn forever!$LABEL$ 0
+In 1987, John Hughes wrote and directed 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles', which was a hilarious and poignant comedy – the best thing he's ever done. Ten years on he's reduced to again recycling the plot of 'Home Alone' in this second sequel, which is not connected to the other films but is equally uninspired and sadistic. The four crooks – that's right, four! And one of them is a girl! Congratulations, Hughes, for introducing this revolutionary change to the series! – are electrocuted with metal chairs, brained with barbells and blinded with paint, ha ha ha haaaaaaaa ha, while the new kid is even less charming than Culkin. You'd think that the departure of almost all the key players from the first two films would stop Hughes from fossilising the same old routines, but the only surprise is that not even he turned up for 'Home Alone 4'.$LABEL$ 0
+Perhaps it's me and my perverted ways, or the fact that I tend to have a very sick mind, but I rented this film at random one very weird night and to my great surprise, I enjoyed it. Yes, I read the synopsis on the back of the DVD box and read that it had been banned for 25 years and figured I was prepared for anything it would offer. I was clearly deceived after seeing...well...everything, to cut a long story short. I can see why it was banned, not only for such explicit sex scenes, but for beastiality. Of course, as it is freely based on the classic fairy tale of Beauty and the Beast, a personal favorite of mine, it tells the story of a girl's sexual awakening over a dream about a duchess being chased by a whatever-the-hell-that-thing-was-like beast with an enormous erection and a substantial amount of ejaculation. Of course, the beast gets what he wants and the duchess decides she likes it and they continue frolicking in the woods. But that's not all. Oh, there is so much more! Not only do we get to see interspecial sex, but there's also humping horses, the babysitter who gets down and dirty with the slave when she's not humping the bed to get her...er...satisfaction and the daydreaming girl masturbating with rose petals. Creative and enjoyable, but it did take a while for my father to talk to me again after he watched it after I went to bed...I was 15. Words of advice when watching this film: make sure you're the only one who knows you have it and watch it with the curtains closed. It may be fun, but I doubt there are other porn films like this one.$LABEL$ 1
+I simply give this a three because it fulfilled what my buddies and I hoped it would do: entertain. I wasn't stupid enough to rent this thinking it would be a zombie film up there with the likes of Romero or Fulci, but what I rented it for was a laugh. If you are looking for a film for amusement, or a film to make you shake your head in embarrassment, go for it. This is perfect for junior- "Mystery Science Theater" fans, but the only downside is that it is so bad, it makes fun of itself. I, personally, think it is a shame to relate this to any other Hollywood title that we may know, because when a film sucks like this, it has its own genre.$LABEL$ 0
+The critics didn't like this film. It bombed in the States and as a result received only a limited showing in Britain. Which was a great shame, because it represents British rather than American humour and should have been shown in Britain first.Nicole Kidman looks stunning and is a totally convincing Russian. Ben Chaplin is the Dustin Hoffman character from 'The Graduate', and 'Birthday Girl' has at least 4 scenes which remind the viewer of that 1960s classic (despite being a totally different story!).Sure it changes tack a number of times from comedy to black comedy to thriller to adventure - but it's memorable, moving and a weclome breath of fresh air compared to the average mega-budget blockbuster.See it with an open mind!$LABEL$ 1
+I've seen this movie when I was young, and I remembered it as one of the first films I have truly liked that was not an action movie or a comedy. So, in my later years I decided to watch it again and see if it was just nostalgia or was there really something in that movie. To my surprise, the movie held to my every expectations. It's a great movie. Emotional in the right amount, some jokes, nice songs (not great though, and that actually explains why I did not remember it was a musical) and all in all a great use to my time. I was surprised because the last movies from my childhood that I have revisited did not even pass my minimal demands of a decent movie and yet this movie, which I first saw in the second grade, made me cry today just like it made me cry then. Maybe that's because my dog died recently and maybe not, but the important thing is that it made me feel, and that's why filmmakers make films (that and the money, of course). Yes, there are continuity glitches. Yes, the script has holes, but it doesn't matter. The movie itself is fun and smart. So don't be fooled by cynical people who always look for the bad things in life, because nothing is perfect, and this movie gets a 10 not because it is perfect. It gets 10 simply because it made me feel.$LABEL$ 1
+Plot in a nutshell - Duchess (voice of Eva Gabor) is the well polished single mother cat of three little kittens. When their owner, the wealthy elderly woman known as Madame Adelaide, realizes that her time is running out she decides to write up her will, leaving everything she has to her cats, which will then go to her butler Edgar when the cats pass on. Edgar overhears this and is deeply offended by the idea that the cats would get everything before him, and plots to destroy Duchess and her kittens; he drops sleeping pills in their supper one night and then leaves them stranded in the French countryside. Out of their element, Duchess and her kittens befriend a street smart stray cat known as Thomas O'Malley (voice of Phil Harris who did the voice of the big bear Balloo in the Jungle Book); after making a pass at Duchess, unaware that she is a single mother, O'Malley decides to escort them back home, with Duchess genuinely falling for O'Malley as the usual codependent surrogate family bond develops; chaos and mayhem ensues, culminating in a violent clash between O'Malley, his brother cats from the streets and Edgar. Also features appearances by British geese, American southern hound dogs (what they were doing in France is anyone's guess), a mouse who sounds a lot like the rabbit from "Alice In Wonderland" (he was in fact voiced by the same guy who voiced Winnie the Pooh) and a horse. Sometimes slow paced but still enjoyable Disney venture. Features the memorable "Everybody Wants To Be A Cat" musical piece sung by the late Scatman Crothers (better known to 1980s fans as the voice of Jazz on Transformers). Of course, if this was being made now, it would probably be a dark social commentary on class division represented by the divide between well bred & well fed Duchess and the street born O'Malley.$LABEL$ 1
+Brilliant adaptation of the largely interior monologues of Leopold Bloom, Stephen Dedalus, and Molly Bloom by Joseph Strick in recreating the endearing portrait of Dublin on June 16, 1904 - Bloomsday - a day to be celebrated - double entendre intended! Bravo director Strick, screenwriter Haines, as well as casting director and cinematographer in creating this masterpiece. Gunter Grass' novel, The Tin Drum filmed by Volker Schlöndorff (1979)is another fine film adaptation of interior monologue which I favorably compare with Strick's film.While there are clearly recognized Dublin landmarks in the original novel and in the film, there are also recognizable characters, although with different names in the novel. For example, Buck Mulligan with whom Dedalus lives turns out to be a then prominent Dublin surgeon. This film for all of its excellence is made even richer by additional viewings. Brian invinoveritas1@AOL.com 15 June 2008$LABEL$ 1
+There are a lot of 'bad' films out there. Tune in to Channel 5 every night of the week and you might just be treated to a daily, shocking effort from one filmmaker or another. There are possibly films that have caused me more pain - were harder to sit through - than this, but in terms of writing, acting, direction, cinematography and the bare basics of cinema Inbetweeners is a truly, truly appalling effort and should be avoided at all costs. The only laugh it gave me was in the behind the scenes documentary on the DVD, in which the film's geeky director Darren Fisher explains how it was his script that attracted the 'talent' to the project! Never underestimate the power of self-delusion.Darren Fisher - Britain's answer to Edward D. Wood Jr.!$LABEL$ 0
+This movie starts out great, and sucks you in. Most acting is good until Patrick Swayze (with his Texas Twang- everyone else sounds British-like even the Muslim) shows up, and proves that he can't act. You can live with that until the first fight scene where all they all fall to pieces. Why does Patrick Swayze fight baddies with an ax when he just stuck his sword into the ground 5 minutes ago.There's further misplacing of swords a few minutes later, and people knowing about other people they shouldn't know about. Other reviewers mentioned "Troubled Production" and it shows.At the end I just didn't even care about the fight scenes, sure, the CGI Dragon was weak, but the storyline was the biggest letdown.$LABEL$ 0
+I just saw this movie (mainly because Brady Corbet is in it), and I must say that I was not pleased. Of course, the computer graphics were amazing, but the story line needed a little touch-up. Also, I think this movie would have done much better with more curses and blood, as well if it were rated PG-13. That would definitely attract more people to see it-->teens. What would also attract more teens (particularly teen girls), would be a large close up of Brady Corbet on the Thunderbirds poster! Even though the movie had it's down points, I still saw it and thought it was okay!$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is based on a Stephen King novel in which mysterious new shopkeeper Leland Gaunt (Max Von Sydow) offers each citizen of Castle Rock the item he or she most desires - but there is a heavy price to be paid for these transactions. Local sheriff Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) is soon forced to deal with a variety of brutal deaths and suspicious circumstances.Below average for Stephen King cinema: I can see why some people would think it was boring. It plods along without offering genuine scares and forces the viewer to spend time (yet again) with a bunch of repulsive losers whose hatred of each other is spooky.I do enjoy the novel and don't believe that this lackluster movie does it justice. There are too many unfortunate changes from book to screen.Von Sydow makes Gaunt much too charming. We're supposed to be SCARED of Gaunt at the right times, not amused by him. I also hate it that the sheriff's primary deputy (Ray McKinnon) is written and portrayed as such an annoying, Barney Fife-type moron. Star Ed Harris looks as if he was forced into doing this picture by his agent, but professional that he is, he really sinks his teeth into his dialog. Bonnie Bedelia (as Pangborn's love interest Polly) and Amanda Plummer (in one of her standard mentally unbalanced roles) come the closest to creating characters who are likable.Yet it is also foul and mean-spirited.Although I'll be darned if it didn't feel a little cathartic watching a bunch of unlikable movie characters tear each other to pieces. The climax has some good explosions.I often give movies a better rating than they probably deserve, but in this case I feel I should really be honest and just say: 3/10.$LABEL$ 0
+I first saw this as a kid (THE LITTLE RASCALS first went on TV the year I was born) and fairly recently bought this on DVD. In between, I watched it on the occasions it was on and took careful notes at 1) the pie fight itself and 2) how racist some of these parts were: Farina as a Nubian slave, doing voodoo, for example. I think Roach and McGowan would have been beaten to death if they'd tried to do that now.Notice how the pie fights in The Three Stooges' HALFWITS' HOLIDAY and IN THE SWEET PIE AND PIE resemble this one...and this film came out a few years before their initial contract with Harry Cohn at Columbia Pictures. There was obviously some inspiration from SS and Laurel & Hardy's THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURY for these films...remember, at that time, they all stole from the best, each other!!! One more note: Laurel & Hardy buffs, that bake sale lady was none other than Dorothy Coburn, who also appeared in TBOTC-the 'flapper' getting into her car and getting it in the rear end. It always escapes me why she was never credited?$LABEL$ 1
+I loved this show. I was waiting for it to come out on DVD....it never has. Does anyone know how to get the show available on DVD? I have contacted Lifetime TV and a few others and nothing. Please let me know if there is a way we can have this series on DVD. Iwould be first in line to purchase it. I really got hooked on this show. I do not understand how a bunch of other TV shows are available on DVD but not Any Day Now. I am sure there are many of us out there who would love to have this series on DVD or even VHS. I thought of contacting the production company. Has anyone else out there tried to contact anyone for this information?$LABEL$ 1
+I had hoped this movie was going to be mildly entertaining, like other sorts of its genre. However, it was lame and I didn't find myself laughing very much. Watch it on HBO, maybe, or if you've got a free rental to waste and you need a movie to pass the time. But I don't recommend paying to see it.The plot is simple and straightforward, and it could have been funny, maybe, if the script was better. Jason Lee can be hilarious, and he gets a few laughs here and there, but the movie falls flat. Just don't go see this one. The directing is lackluster, but for what it is, directing isn't that important. I guess its main drawback is that it is just not very funny. See something else, don't waste your time here.$LABEL$ 0
+Knights was just a beginning of a series, a pilot, one might say. The plot (I really shouldn't call it that, there wasn't any plot) wasn't logical at all and there were many mistakes, like [warning, I'm summarizing the plot]:In the beginning of the movie someone said that there was only a couple of those cyborgs (the bad guys) but after the climax, Nea found out that there were many many more left of them. And it was told that cyborgs were hard to kill, but after a month's training, Nea could kill them with a single blow.The movie was just pure kicking. I wasn't surprised at all, when I found out that the leading star was a kick boxer.There was ONE positive thing in the whole movie: it really gave a great deal of laughter when watching it and talking about it with my friends. I recommend watching it, if you are in need of laughter.$LABEL$ 0
+This film held my interest from the beginning to the very end with plenty of laughs and real down to earth acting by the entire cast. Glynn Turman, (Preach Jackson) is the star of the picture playing the role of a smart guy who likes poetry and had a very sexy girl friend. Lawrence Hilton Jacobs, (Cochise Morris) was an outstanding athlete at the Cooley H.S. and even won a scholarship to a famous college. There are scenes in this picture with the Chicago Police Department chasing all these dudes in a Cadillac and a visit to the Lincoln Park Zoo with monkey dung being thrown around. The music is outstanding and there is great photography around the City of Chicago. Great Film, enjoy.$LABEL$ 1
+After a humiliating experience on an airplane, Nashawn Wade (Kevin Hart) sues the airline and uses the money he wins to start up his own full-service airline. What makes his different is that it has sexy stewardesses, an on board dance club and no less than Captain Snoop Dogg in the cockpit.Soul Plane is a very racist comedy except it is only occasionally funny. Soul Plane has been described as an "urban" version of Airplane. The problem is that Soul Plane doesn't even come close to achieving the laughs of Airplane. The jokes in Soul Pane are too offensive and they are mostly unoriginal. I would be lying if I said I didn't laugh since there were some funny moments. However, I was expecting more and I left the theater disappointed.I would compare Soul Plane to Airplane 2. The latter was just a rehash of the first film while the former is just a rehash of outdated, crude jokes. There is really no creativity behind the movie and there are only a few fun spots. However, I don't think Soul Plane is "bottom 100" bad. Right now, the movie is ranked at number 82 and that's a little harsh. I'm not saying this is a good movie but it isn't a terrible on either. The running time is only 86 minutes long so it isn't too much of a pain to watch. For stupid comedies, you can do a lot worse.No one in the cast is very good but they all seem to be having fun and this helps. Kevin Hart was very annoying as Nashawn. He had a few funny lines but he is a very poor leading man. Snoop Dogg, who was mildly funny in Starsky and Hutch, completely flunks here. Tom Arnold was actually tolerable and that was the film's biggest surprise. The most annoying person in the movie was Ryan Pinkston. He was not funny at all and he will never be funny. The funniest cast members were Missi Pyle and Mo'Nique. They gave the best lines and they made me laugh the most. In the end, Soul Plane may fit the bill if you're looking for a stupid comedy but it would probably be better if you just skip the film. Rating 4/10$LABEL$ 0
+To me, this review may contain spoilers, but I like watching movies with NO idea of what is going to happen, so therefore I think many of the other reviews here of this movie contain spoilers!I just watched this movie again, and I must reiterate that it has the BEST ending to any movie. Ever. Ever. Ever. The real translation, 'The Beating of the Butterfly's Wings', is oddly not used as the translated title. I suppose they thought most Americans wouldn't know what Chaos Theory is (except for those who saw or read "Jurassic Park"). The movie is based on chaos theory, and how one small event can affect the outcome of seemingly unrelated events, which all lead back to one event. The movie is a whirlwind of wondrous cause and effect, as we follow the chain of chaos as it intertwines between several characters (about 20?). In a way, the ending seems inevitable despite this, but if you think about it, it is a perfect ending. Think to yourself, "what else needed to be said"? It is at the same time a very brave ending. Too bad we have to go overseas for a gem like this one, but an ending like this would NEVER come out of Hollywood.$LABEL$ 1
+It does not surprise me that this short (91 minutes) B/W movie that was made 50 years ago in the Soviet Union during the short period called "ottepel'" or "the thaw", has gained so much love and admiration among the movie lovers over the world. It is sublime and beautifully filmed. Some scenes feel like there were made way ahead of their time. Sergei Urusevsky's camera work and creative discoveries were included in the text books and widely imitated. The film tells the moving and timeless story of love destroyed by merciless war but eternally alive in the memory of a young woman. It is also the film about loyalty, memories, ability to live on when it seems there is nothing to live for; it is about forgiveness, and about hope. The film received (absolutely deservingly) the Grand Prix at Cannes Film Festival and Tatiana Samoilova was chosen as a recipient of a special award at Cannes for playing Veronika, the young girl happily in love with the best man in the world in the beginning of the movie. After separation with her beloved who went to the front, the loss of her family in the bomb ride, and the marriage to the man she never loved and only wished he never existed, she turned to the shadow of herself, she became dead inside. Her long journey to redemption, to finally accepting death of her beloved and to learning how to live with it, is a fascinating and heartbreaking one and it simply won't leave any viewer indifferent.For me, the movie is very personal and dear because I was born and grew up in the city where its characters lived and were so happy in the beginning. I walked the same streets, squares, and bridges over the Moskva River. Every family in the former Soviet Union had lost at least one but often more than one family member to a combat or to the concentration camp or to the ghetto or to hunger, cold, and illnesses during WWII and my family is not exception. My mother and grandmother knew the horrors of war and never healing pain of losses not just from the movies and the books. "Cranes are Flying" speaks to me clearly and honestly and touches me very deeply. It is a masterpiece of movie making but it is a part of my life - my background, my memory, and my past.$LABEL$ 1
+Michael Jackson's Thriller (1983) has to be the greatest video ever made. Dude you have Zombies, gore and a catchy tune, what more can you ask for. John Landis mixed elements from Night of the Living Dead and American Werewolf in London and out came this video. What starts out as a nice evening for a young couple turns into a date from hell, literally. You have dancing zombies, a werewolf in a funky jacket and Vincent Price "rapping". A cool video to a song that everybody in the neighborhood marked out to.I have to give this one a high recommendation because it has to be the best music video ever made. There hasn't been another one like it.Check out the "making of Thriller". The documentary has some "interesting" stuff in it.$LABEL$ 1
+When this was first aired on Masterpiece Theatre, it had a profound effect on me. It's beautifully filmed and acted. I immediately read the book by Mary Webb, and it remains one of my all time favorites. Janet McTeer is wonderful as Prue, and I fully expected her to become a regular on the British drama scene. I guess she chose to focus on the British stage instead. I was hoping that with the American success of Janet McTeer years later(with Tumbleweeds) this film would again become available to us. Alas, it has not yet been released on DVD. If anyone out there is listening, please make this available again!$LABEL$ 1
+Nicolas Cage and Deborah Foreman provide stunning performances in this 80's tour de force! A great 80's movie akin to Fast Times at Ridgemont High! I highly recommend this movie to any child of the 80's who hasn't seen it. It's a cult classic.$LABEL$ 1
+OK...this one's a weirdy....Honestly, I can't tell you all the inner plot-points of THE BEAST, cuz I started losing interest when nothing happened during the first 45 or more minutes - but just wait, it definitely does "pick up"...The plot involves something about a monster in the woods that some French aristocrat chick screwed back in the day. Eventually you see "THE BEAST", which looks like a guy dressed in a giant rat-bear costume with a horse cock attached to it. The scene takes place with the aristocrat woman running around the forest looking for a lost sheep. The sheep ends up dead and the woman gets scared. THE BEAST pops up, rapes the chick and shoots 400 gallons of spunk all over her. Eventually the chick starts to enjoy the beast's "attention" which results in some pretty novel simulated sex scenes, including an unnervingly erotic foot masturbation scene where the woman jerks the beast off with her feet while the monster shoots more huge loads everywhere (yeah, I've got a twisted foot-fetish - so sue me....)...The whole film is told in flashbacks and long-winded dialog scenes that tended to be a bit tedious. A "shocking" but predictable ending concludes this extremely strange film...THE BEAST is a film that I find kind of hard to rate. The cinematography itself is quite eye-catching and the sets, costumes and locations are elaborate. The plot is a little convoluted and seems to take it self awfully seriously for what ends up being such an unintentionally hilarious film about a chick boning a rat-bear. A good bit of tits, ass, and hairy 70's French bushes to help make up for the dull first half of the film. I have to honestly say, that if it weren't for the graphic scenes of the BEAST spackling all over the willing maiden, this film would have been a real bore - that is unless you like dull dialog and some graphic horse sex (the beginning has a VERY up-close and personal scene of two horses boning, including a pulsating and spunk covered female horse vagina...YUM!!!). But the BEAST sex scene is so strange and such a refreshing change from the rest of the film, that I have to say that those scenes alone make up for what otherwise would have been a real snoozer. I have to recommend this one to anyone who thinks they've seen it all - the BEAST rape really is out-there and something to be witnessed. Also recommended to any fans of 70's/80's sleaze films - this one ranks pretty high with them. Worth a look for you sick rat-bear beastiality lovers out there (like me)...8/10$LABEL$ 1
+Barney is about "IMAGINATION" what you guys do not have if my preschooler never wanted to play pretend like they do in that show then i would be worried. What 2 or 3 year old actually gets all that anyways its all about the colors and the singing. For those of you saying that all they do on Barney is eat junk food and recommend Sesame Street better well what about "cookie monster" thats all he eats but i haven't seen anyone comment that one. I do agree that sesame is a better educational show but barney is just like a show for fun don't be too serious if you didn't like your child watching TV and worried about them understanding things you don't believe then you shouldn't be propping them down in front of the TV in the first place because all of that is fake everything is fake actors are fake so why don't you take your fake brains and put it to use and think if you have a problem with a fake television show for kids then turn it off and play with them yourselves and teach them what you want them to learn not BIG BIRD or Bert & Ernie or barney someone who used to watch all those shows and turned out fine.$LABEL$ 1
+From the stupid "quaint African natives" travelogue footage with our badly-superimposed principals acting as narrators, to the horrible fake ears which transform docile Indian elephants into African elephants, to the utter lack of any logic at all, to Maureen O'Sullivan's incessant whining of "Tarzan! Tarzan!", there is nothing about this movie which deserves classic status.4/10$LABEL$ 0
+Claudine is a movie that is representation of the american system at it's worst. The welfare system was initially set up as a stepping stone for those families who needed that extra hand to get back on their feet.The movie showed an accurate portrayal of how the welfare system breaks down the family unit. In other words if the father or any male figure is in the lives of the women and children their financial support from the system would be jeopardized if not terminated. The struggles of the poor can be seen throughout the world. I would like to see a reproduction of this movie back in the stores for all to rent or buy for their library collection.$LABEL$ 1
+I first saw this movie on IFC. Which is a great network by the way to see underground films. I watched this movie and was thinking it was going to be pure drama and a story line that doesn't hold water. But it really was a worth while watch. The main character is in such rough shape, and you hate to see him deny help, but no matter what you just can't hate him. His devotion to The Beatles and John Lennon is a great metaphor for his life and the helplessness he feels. The atmosphere of the film is also great. At times, you feel like you can see what he sees, feel what he feels in some situations. This movie does not leave you wanting to know more, or disliking a loophole in the plot. There are NO loopholes (in my opinion). I have always been a fan of foreign films, especially now with movies being made so poorly in America. I really enjoy the foreign settings because I feel it can take you on a trip, and sometimes understand a different culture. This movie did all those things to me and more. Please watch this movie and if you're new to foreign films, this is a great start.$LABEL$ 1
+I got this movie from eBay mainly because I'm gay and I love Til Schweiger. However, it's one of those movies that, when you watch it a second time, you never say to yourself, "Hmm. I forgot about this boring part. I'll go make popcorn." It doesn't have that part. It's a very fluid and constantly interesting film. And, yes, Til Schweiger is worth it, if nothing else. But, it's a great movie even for straight guys.$LABEL$ 1
+Halfway through Lajos Koltai's "Evening," a woman on her deathbed asks a figure appearing in her hallucination: "Can you tell me where my life went?" The line could be embarrassingly theatrical, but the woman speaking it is Vanessa Redgrave, delivering it with utter simplicity, and the question tears your heart out.Time and again, the film based on Susan Minot's novel skirts sentimentality and ordinariness, it holds attention, offers admirable performances, and engenders emotional involvement as few recent movies have. With only six months of the year gone, there are now two memorable, meaningful, worthwhile films in theaters, the other, of course, being Sara Polley's "Away from Her." Hollywood might have turned "Evening" into a slick celebrity vehicle with its two pairs of real-life mothers and daughters - Vanessa Redgrave and Natasha Richardson, and Meryl Streep and Mamie Gummer. Richardson is Redgrave's daughter in the film (with a sister played by Tony Collette), and Gummer plays Streep's younger self, while Redgrave's youthful incarnation is Claire Danes.Add Glenn Close, Eileen Atkins, Hugh Dancy, Patrick Wilson, and a large cast - yes, it could have turned into a multiple star platform. Instead, Koltai - the brilliant Hungarian cinematographer of "Mephisto," and director of "Fateless" - created a subtle ensemble work with a "Continental feel," the story taking place in a high-society Newport environment, in the days leading up to a wedding that is fraught with trouble.Missed connections, wrong choices, and dutiful compliance with social and family pressures present quite a soap opera, but the quality of the writing, Koltai's direction, and selfless acting raise "Evening" way above that level, into the the rarified air of English, French (and a few American) family sagas from a century before its contemporary setting.Complex relationships between mothers and daughters, between friends and lovers, with the addition of a difficult triangle all come across clearly, understandably, captivatingly. Individual tunes are woven into a symphony.And yet, with the all the foregoing emphasis on ensemble and selfless performances, the stars of "Evening" still shine through, Redgrave, Richardson, Gummer (an exciting new discovery, looking vaguely like her mother, but a very different actress), Danes carrying most of the load - until Streep shows up in the final moments and, of course, steals the show. Dancy and Wilson are well worth the price of admission too.As with "Away from Her," "Evening" stays with you at length, inviting a re-thinking its story and characters, and re-experiencing the emotions it raises. At two hours, the film runs a bit long, but the way it stays with you thereafter is welcome among the many movies that go cold long before your popcorn.$LABEL$ 1
+One of Starevich's earliest films made in France is possibly his only political satire. The story of The Frogs Who Wanted A King mirrors its title as a group of high "croakers" feel that democracy has gone flat so they demand a king from Jupiter to rule their land. When he sends down a stump, the frogs ask for another king, saying the stump is but "political timber." Jupiter sends down a hungry stork this time whose frog lusty eyes devour the town's residents. As the original "croaker" is about to slide down the stork's beak, he speaks his moral: "let well enough alone." This film features a few beautiful crowd scenes of dozens of puppet frogs. Starewicz tricks the audience into believing they are all moving at once by keeping the background in constant motion and animating only about six frogs or so at one time. The slightly corny dialogue and problems with lighting in a few places diminish the quality of repeat viewings, however its historical significance in Starewicz's life make it of importance to watch. His feelings towards government immediately following his flee from Russia are likely expressed in this film. In addition, the technical accomplishments of animating so many characters at once in a stop-motion film is astounding.$LABEL$ 1
+I know that to include everything in the book, the film would have to have been several hours long, so I think they did their best to include things that were crucial and pivotal to the story. I thought the casting was great, the children who played Amir and Hassan were very good actors. And the guy who played Amir as an adult was great! The scenes between him and Baba were especially touching. I thought the locations they used were interesting... scenes set in Afghanistan were shot in China, and one scene that took place in Fremont, CA (the graduation scene) was actually shot on Treasure Island in San Francisco. I worked one day as an extra on "Kite Runner" and it was that day, the day they shot the graduation scene. We reported to Treasure Island in the morning, they checked everyone's wardrobe to make sure it looked like the late 80s, an then we took our places in the audience. They shot the scene over and over again until they were happy with it. It was cool to see the actors up close and also to see the book's author, who was on hand as a story consultant. I thought this book was excellent and I recommend both the book and the movie to anyone. This is a moving story about friendship, love, guilt and eventual redemption. "There is a way to be good again."$LABEL$ 1
+The Man with the Golden Arm (the movie) is a decent career vehicle for Frank Sinatra, but fails abysmally as a good adaptation of a fantastic book. You always hear about how books are "changed" when they are made into films- things are cut out, dumbed down, etc. Well, you can't even say they "changed" anything with the movie- they just told a completely different story. The characters and setting are the same sure- but not the ambiguous characterization, the depth of the men and women of Polish Chicago in the book. As for the setting, it's become merely a play stage, complete with the unnecessary "supporting role" players walking all too busilly down the claustrophobic, interior exterior streets. The movie is a dumbed-down, completely different take on Frankie Machine and drug addiction. When this happens, Zosh, Frankie, Sparrow, all lose their psychological edge. Frankie's drumming, a modest dream in the book, becomes his full passion in the movie (probably because Sinatra is a musician). And drug addiction is treated as shlock, exploitavely. The acting is decent, especially the snakelike Louie, who is more menacing in the movie than the book. But it's just a shame this kind of movie can be heralded as a classic alongside the book it is "based upon," the real story of Frankie Machine. The movie just goes to show Hollywood can' get anything right without dumbing it down and adding a happy ending. In this case, they just changed it completely, cheapening an important and realistic story into Hollywood fluff. I'm sure as hell biased because I read the book first, so I can't really treat the movie honestly by knowing how good the book is. I actually thought about turning the movie off (and I never do that), just so I wouldn't get its silly plot confused with the beauty of the book. But this is an overrated film, and while it's not so bad, the book should come first, as it was the first. And it should have remained the only story of Division Street and Frankie Machine.$LABEL$ 0
+Ten years ago I really wanted to see this movie on the cinema. But I missed it, and then forgot about it. Oh boy, am I glad this movie didn't get to ruin my teenage eyes back then.I saw it yesterday, and seriously, this must be among the 10 worst movies ever made. And I'm talking about movies which has had too much attention, such as those wonderful trailers on TV, and too much money spent on actors and the making of the movie.The script sucks and the acting sucks even worse, do I need to say more?Please, Hollywood, NO MORE ARNOLD!!$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was strange... I watched it while ingesting a quarter of psilcybe cubensis (mushrooms). It was really weird. Im pretty sure you are supposed to watch it high, but mushrooms weren't enough. I couldn't stop laughing.. maybe lsd would work. The movie is a bunch of things morphing into other things, and dancing. Its really cheesy for todays standards but when it was released im sure it was well... one of a kind. I could see how some people would think this movie was good, but I didn't think it was very interesting, and I was on mushrooms at the time. If your having a party or something and everybodys pretty lit, pop it on you'll get a few laughs.$LABEL$ 0
+With Goldie Hawn and Peter Sellers in a movie you figure this one won't go wrong. But what can I say? This was a horrible misfire. The movie is about Peter Sellers as an older gentleman who suddenly finds himself in a relationship with a really strange young not to mention attractive hippie in Goldie Hawn. The movie is incredibly disjointed and I did not understand anything about it. Peter Sellers and Goldie Hawn are very funny people but this movie does not prove it.That song about ‘arabella Cinderella' is pretty cool, but that is it. I only recommend this movie to people that like to watch an extreme novelty movie, this is almost the definition of one. I guess this movie more than anything else is a sign of the times, in terms of it's definite experimentalism and all around unconventionality, the problem is the quality is completely shot and the writing, not to mention the direction is just so out there. Peter Sellers in particular is very hit and miss, he will go from Dr. Strangelove and Being There throughout his career, to dumb movies like this and the Magic Christian, which was very similar to this one in context and style, but that movie did have a few funny moments. This one is senseless, and I am sad that someone as great as Peter Sellers was in this movie. Not recommended for anyone.$LABEL$ 0
+"Phantasm" of 1979 was a highly atmospheric, creepy, scary and very original Horror flick, and, in one word, cult. The first sequel of 1988 was gory, witty, action-packed and highly entertaining. After the first sequel however, "Phantasm" creator Don Coscarelly apparently lacked new ideas. "Phantasm III - Lord Of The Dead" of 1994 is certainly not a complete failure, it even is quite entertaining, but there is no more originality, and the desperate attempts to bring in something new, are at times tiresome, which makes it quite disappointing in comparison to its predecessors. - SPOILERS - Quite in the beginning, we are introduced the secret behind the mysterious sentinel spheres (the brain-sucking flying silver balls) is unraveled. Thenceforward, a number of unnecessary and annoying new characters (such as Tim, a "Home Alone"-style little kid who happens to be great at shooting, an Rocky, a tough and super-cool nunchaku-swinging black chick with a crew cut) are introduced. The film also has its qualities - Reggie Bannister is again very cool as the pony-tailed, guitar playing Reggie. Angus Scrimm is still quite creepy as the Tall Man, but the fact that the Tall Man talks a lot more in this film, makes him loose some of his creepiness. The character of Mike is played by A. Michael Baldwin again (he had been replaced by James LeGros in Part 2), which, in my opinion, doesn't make much of a difference. The gore also keeps the film interesting enough to watch, but it is still a disappointment, especially because the attempts to make up for the lack of ideas get annoying quite quickly.All things considered, "Phantasm III" is an acceptable time-waster, but it is definitely disappointing compared to its predecessors. Fans of the first two "Phantasm" films can give it a try, but I recommend not to set your expectations too high.$LABEL$ 0
+I had to rent a couple of movies for my little cousin for New Year's and she picked out The Swan Princess: The Mystery of the Enchanted Kingdom and The Little Mermaid 2 and we just watched both films, while she's sleeping, I figured I could get a couple comments in. :) While this is a very cheesy cartoon, it really wasn't that bad. You have to admit that for children, these plots are new to them and it could be a great introduction of these stories to them.Odette finds out that Derek has been secretly keeping the magic secrets of Rosthoe and she tells Derek to destroy them immediately, but him being a guy, typically he does not do so and tells her that no on could achieve the magics without his help. When a witch named Zelda gets her hands on them, she finds out that Derek tore off the last words of a spell she wants to use to destroy everything, and she kidnaps Odette in order to retrieve this information.The Swan Princess: The Mystery of the Enchanted Kingdom is silly and predictable, but for the kids I would honestly say it's a go. It's so rare we have these clean cut cartoons now a days, so I'm going to cut the film some slack. It was just weird seeing all the voices change all of a sudden, I grew up with the first one, so I guess it was just stuck in my head.4/10$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie on Comedy Central a few times. This movie was pretty good. It's an interesting adventure with the life of Sunny Davis, who is arranged to marry the king of Ohtar, so that the U.S. can get an army base there to balance power in the Middle East. Some good jokes, including "Sunnygate." I also just loved the ending theme. It gave me great political spirit. Ten out of ten was my rating for this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Excellent Warner Bros effort starring Errol Flynn in one of his best screen performances. It's often cited as his best, and I can't really judge fully until I have seen his "Dawn Patrol". However, his work in "They Died With Their Boots On" takes some beating. I'm a big Flynn fan (he's my favourite actor after James Mason--it also helps that he's an Aussie) and I think he's just marvellous, a great screen presence and also a great actor. He is the centrepiece of "Gentleman Jim" as the legendary boxer with the fancy footwork, but he is also backed up by a literate, warm and funny script, and Raoul Walsh's direction. Every Walsh film I have seen never loses a beat of it's pace, he truly was a born film-maker. Walsh directs the ring scenes beautifully, as he does with the lighter moments and that poignant, great final scene between Ward Bord and Flynn. Add to that great production values (the "Gay Nineties" never looked better!) and a lovely supporting cast and it's pretty much perfect entertainment. Alan Hale usually played Flynn's sidekick, but here is his father, and it still all works. Alexis Smith is Flynn's love interest. The pair are head over heels in love with fighting with each other.$LABEL$ 1
+I've just seen this film in a lovely air-conditioned cinema here in Bangkok. And since the temperature outside is hovering somewhere around 37C with very high humidity, my 100Bt was not wasted.Failing that, I haven't seen such a piece of extremely well-made junk in a long time. This is the kind of film that provides a test of taste, as it were. Anyone who claims to like or love it goes immediately onto the same list of tasteless phonies who still go around talking about the superiority of British television. At least the gormless old broad in the wheelchair was good for a few guffaws.Pseudo-profundity and fat lips, while characteristic of much French cinema, really do not a good movie make. I'd rather watch Independence Day 10 times in a row than sit through this stinker one more time.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was portrayed in the trailer as a comedy. It is an extreme tragedy. It left me sick to my stomach. I hated it. I think if they want to make a movie like this than they should be man enough to reflect the true intentions of the movie in the trailer. I would not have seen this movie if I would have known. I think the trailer should reflect the theme and intentions of a movie. I am tired of it. I really wanted to have a fun comedy and I am extremely disappointed. It has been several days now and I still have a bad taste in my mouth from this movie. I have never been more disappointed in a movie, nor have I ever written a comment on a bad movie. I really think that true deception was involved in this trailer because if they showed the true intention of the movie, no one would have seen it.$LABEL$ 0
+How can a movie be both controversial and gentle? This one does it with a near-perfect structure. No one wants their daughters to be athletes. Apparently most cultures don't want their daughters to be small-breasted, either. Here we see a bunch of superb actors we've never heard of before portray folks of different cultures living fairly humdrum lives until their female children want to, and have the potential to, become professional soccer players. The structure around the parallelism of the two cultures is wonderful. There is no condescension. Both cultures are seen as modern and valid. (And yes, both are silly, too). One flaw: the Hindu wedding ceremony seemed to involve hundreds of relatives but not one child among them.$LABEL$ 1
+Scintillating documentary about how a small group of idealistic young men have used music, art and dance to unify and heal the community of Vigario Geral, one of the most violent slum neighborhoods in Rio ("favela" means neighborhood in Portuguese), offering to its young people a positive alternative to the lethal gangster world of drug traffickers.In their feature film-making debut, Zimbalist and Mochary have crafted a movie that is breathtaking because it works on so many different levels. As social document, it gives the facts we need to know to have a context for understanding the significance of the particular story told here. The story itself is well developed, with a strong narrative arc, and, for added measure, it is shot through with keen suspense. There's an arresting, charismatic central protagonist, Anderson Sa: he's a savvy natural leader, articulate, courageous, spiritually evolved, a talented performer, a visionary who walks his talk.There's also plenty of music and dancing to entertain. There are talking heads – mainly Sa and his closest associate, Jose Junior - but they are presented with imaginative cinematic brilliance. The editing nicely mixes footage of differing themes, punctuated only occasionally by a few fact-filled still texts. The pace is as lively as the music. A lot gets accomplished in 78 minutes.Grupo Afro Reggae, the neighborhood social club that Anderson, Junior and a few others formed in 1993, deploy music and dance as the weapons to go up against the drug lords and the duplicitous police. They teach percussion skills to any kid who wants to join a class, along with dance, martial arts, a community newspaper. The only requirement for kids to belong is no smoking, no drinking, no drugs. There is a subtle, soft sell spiritual fabric running through the movement, loosely based on the Hindu God Shiva, the destroyer of old habits.Jeff Zimbalist, who also was the lead cinematographer and the editor, is a Modern Culture and Media student at Brown University. He burnished his chops editing feature documentaries for PBS and others, and he teaches film at the New York Film Academy and elsewhere. Matt Mochary, like Andrew Jarecki ("Capturing the Friedmans") did a few years ago, recently came to film from the business world.Zimbalist and Mochary together won the award for best new filmmakers at the 2005 TribBeCa Film Festival, and "Favela Rising" was tied for the best film of the year in awards made for 2005 by the International Documentary Association. I could go on for pages about Afro Reggae, Sa, and this movie. A way better idea is simply for you to go see it! My grade: A 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+"I thought I'd be locked away in a padded cell and they'd throw away the key" (Thus is a paraphrased snatch of dialogue from "State of Mind".One wonders in what tangled forest Paula Milne and her co-writer found the magic mushrooms they must have eaten, to create this feeble "whodunnit" and bring such rubbish to our screens. A padded cell should indeed be left available.Niamh Cusack did her best, (as did the other actors) but surely her talent deserves a better vehicle than this. The height of absurdity has been reached, and this particular "State of Mind" is best buried and forgotten, and certainly not just "placed in a box and locked away in a drawer".$LABEL$ 0
+You'd have more excitement cutting off your testicles than watching this, clearly a trick to get you to rent "Descent" instead of "The Descent", which is a much better movie.This is a total rip off of "The Core" and much, much worse as regards special effects, I could do better with a box of cornflakes and a roll of tinfoil, I mean come on!....that "Mole" thing, bore more resemblance to a vibrating dildo than a subterranean vehicle .Don't watch it - if you do you'll find the room your in has a funny smell for days after and you'll have this nagging feeling in the back of your head that you should go kill yourself or something.$LABEL$ 0
+I have always said that some plays by their very nature just can't be translated to film, and this one is a prime example.As a play, this is a very funny farcical satire of the Catholic church, with a razor wit and a central character who is so shockingly unreal we have to root for her even when she starts murdering her parishioners (one of whom made the fatal mistake of admitting he had not sinned since his last confession, so she feels she is sending him straight to heaven).That's just one example of how far outside of reality the play goes, and in the make believe world of the theater, it works. However, that kind of heightened reality rarely works on film, and it certainly doesn't here.Director Marshall Brickman has assembled a fine cast who do great work, but by presenting all this absurdity in a realistic fashion the comedy becomes tragedy and you are left with an empty feeling in the pit of your stomach.Seek out a production of the stage play instead, you won't be disappointed.$LABEL$ 0
+One of John Ford's best films 'The Informer' doesn't feature any grand scenery of the American West. Instead the intense drama Ford was known for plays out on the no less rugged terrain of British character actor Victor McLaglen's face. The former prizefighter, who once faced Joe Louis in the ring, delivers an Academy Award-winning portrayal of disgraced IRA soldier Gypo Nolan on the worst night of his life.The plot is gracefully simple: In 1922 Dublin, a starving and humiliated man who's been thrown out of the IRA for being unable to kill an informant in cold blood, himself becomes an informant. For £20 he betrays a friend to "the Tans" and for the rest of the night he drinks and gives away his blood money in rapidly alternating spasms of guilt, denial, self-pity, and a desperate desire to escape the consequences of his actions. It is the remarkable complexity given to the character of the seemingly simple Gypo that is the film's most impressive achievement. In most movies a burly lout of Gypo's type would be cast as the heavy, he'd have at best two or three lines and be disposed of quickly so the hero and the villain could have their showdown. In 'The Informer' Gypo himself is both hero and villain, while the showdown is in his inner turmoil, every bit of which is explicitly shared with the audience.Because Liam O'Flaherty's novel had previously been filmed in 1929, RKO gave Ford a very modest budget. The director and his associates, particularly cinematographer Joseph H. August, turned this to their advantage in creating a claustrophobic masterpiece about a man at war with himself. In addition to McLaglen's Oscar 'The Informer' also won John Ford his first along with wins for Best Screenplay and Best Score.$LABEL$ 1
+Don't get me wrong, I assumed this movie would be stupid, I honestly did, I gave it an incredibly low standard to meet. The only reason I even saw it was because there were a bunch of girls going (different story for a different time). As I began watching I noticed something, this film was terrible. Now there are two types of terrible, there's Freddy vs. Jason terrible, where you and your friends sit back and laugh and joke about how terrible it is, and then there is a movie like this. The Cat in The Hat failed to create even a momentary interest in me. As I watched the first bit of it not only was I bored senseless, but I felt as though I had in some way been violated by the horrendousness of said movie. Mike Myers is usually brilliant, I love the majority of his work, but something in this movie didn't click. One of the things that the director/producers/writers/whatevers changed was that they refused to use any of the colors of the original book (red, black, white) on any character but the Cat. Coincidentally or not, they also refused to capture any of the original (and i hate to use this word, but it fits) zaniness of the original. The book was like an Ice Cream Sunday, colorful and delicious, and the movie was about as bland and hard to swallow as sawdust.Avoid this like a leprous prostitute.$LABEL$ 0
+I remember watching this movie with my friends when we were 4 years old, but the weird thing is that I never watched it after that. The other day I was babysitting and my cousin never saw All Dogs Go To Heaven so we rented both movies and watched them together today and he really loved these movies. So many memories came back watching this movie once again and I have to admit I even cried a little. I'm 22 years old and the ending still gets to me. All Dogs Go To Heaven is one of the most touching animated films and I'm shocked honestly by this rating of 5.8, I thought this movie would bring back good memories for others as well. I admit the animation was a bit typical but the story is just so charming and fun.Charlie is a gambling dog who gets killed by another gambling dog, Carface. But when Charlie wants revenge he comes back to Earth with a watch that can't stop ticking or that's the end of his life again. When he and his best friend, Itchy, look for Carface and spy on him they find out how Carface gets all his money, he has a little orphan girl who talks to animals and finds out who is going to win the races. Charlie takes the girl, Ann-Marie, and makes fake promises in order to get the money. But he ends up learning that maybe he should put Ann-Marie first before himself when Carface goes back to him with a vengeance.All Dogs Go To Heaven is the perfect family film, it's not Disney, but this is an excellent family film to watch. Not to mention that it's just so cute and touching. I know it's ridicules and some people call me crazy, but this movie for me when I was a kid made me believe that dogs have souls. How could they not? They're just so loving, and I think I'm going to cry again. But anyways, I would just recommend this movie for anyone, it's a fun movie to watch.7/10$LABEL$ 1
+I know that some films (I mean: European films), that are very bad films, are being regarded as great cinema by certain "critics", only because they're non-American. I saw the 8.1 IMDB score for this film and noticed the fact that this was being selected for certain big festivals. Don't let this fool you! Unless you're one of those people that likes mind-numbing films like this, and call it great art afterwards, skip it! The film contains one hilarious scene after another (a similar, Italian, film popped into my mind, the terrible PREFERISCO IL RUMORE DEL MARE (I prefer the sound of the sea)). The problem with these films is that they're not only boring, like some other strangely praised films, but that they almost play like camp. I mean, let's face it, the acting is horrible (I mean: soap opera-level), the story has not one surprise (this has been done endless times before, connecting several storylines: SHORT CUTS, MAGNOLIA, PLAYING BY HEART, only much better), not one realistic character in it (some true freak-seeing along the way, notice the hilarious zombie-like daughter), and so on and so on.As if that's not enough, the film is 135 min. (count it!) long, and at the end the director opens his can of sentimentality. After a film with such hilariously bad dialogue and scenes that made the public at the preview screening laugh at so much incompetence, well... This is an insult to cinema, and only receives high ratings because it happens to be in "another" language, in this case Spanish. Strange world we live in...3/10$LABEL$ 0
+I found this gem in a rack the local video rental store had of tapes which are exchanged among various rental outlets. 'The Man who Skied Down Everest'. Hmm... never heard about it. The box reads of some Japanese fellow who always wanted to ski down Everest and actually did it. Sounds interesting. I rented it. As expected it was documentary style. The first part can be summarized so: "I always wanted to ski down mount Everest". This is followed by some footage of preparation for the event. LOTS of preparation footage. OK, I suppose it takes a lot of preparation. Then we are treated to a protracted piece on the skier, Yuichiro Miura's philosophy on life etc. More filler follows and I begin to wonder where the skiing fits in to this show. More preparation is shown and they begin to make the trip to the mountain. More philosophy is shown. At last they arrive at the mountain and maybe perhaps he will get around to skiing down the friggin' thing. Lots of climbing footage later there is a description of the parachute device intended to slow Miuras' speed on the steep slope. Finally he straps on the skis and gets ready to go.He's off... He skis about twenty feet and his skis shoot out from under him, he deploys the parachute and tumbles in an inglorious bundle for some distance down the mountain and that's that. End of story. What the heck was that?OK I can buy that he always wanted to ski down Everest, made extensive preparations and actually tried it with camera crew in tow. It didn't work and he ended up tumbling down and almost killing himself, so what egregious hubris would inspire the man to release a film of it and call it skiing down Everest? Perhaps the title,"The Man Who's Feet Shot Out From Under Him and He Slid On His Ass Down Everest" was just too long for the tape box.$LABEL$ 0
+DRACULA 2000 is a horror film that was continually shown on Sky Movies in Britain and considering it seemed to be screened about three times a week for a whole year I have absolutely no idea how I managed to miss it until it`s first broadcast on network television tonight . Actually seeing as I`m not much of a fan of horror movies the reason was probably down to my theory that this was going to be tripe . My theory was proved right for the most part !!!!! MINOR SPOILERS !!!!!What makes DRACULA 2000 such a bad movie is the amount of dumb scripting involved . For example early in the film the bad guys are flying Dracula`s coffin from London to America ( In a twin engine turbo prop plane ! ) and one of the bad guys is left alone in the cargo hold where Dracula comes to life . A fight breaks out , there`s lots of noise but the bad guys in the cockpit don`t hear a sound until the script demands it . It also appears in this segment`s climax that Dracula can control the weather but this seems forgotten about as the film progresses . Sloppy scripting , and there also seems to be a problem with the structure where there`s numerous scenes of characters being at the New Orleans mardi gras then the characters being at a different location such as police station in the following scene then they`re back at the mardi gras the scene after that which means the lack of credibilty in the plot is enhanced There`s something else that yanked my chain - Product placement . There`s umpteen scenes where the logo for a certain record label/retailer chain is in full view . I won`t dare publicise the company brand ( Except to say they also run a train company which is a national joke in Britain ) but I was under the impression this type of advertising was against British broadcasting guidlines and I`m surprised the BBC showed this movie if that`s the case There are some positives in DRACULA 2000 like the visuals for example . This is actually a good looking movie with a good looking cast and boy were those vampire chicks hot , but it`s something we should expect from Hollywood over the last few years - A very good looking movie that`s very dumb$LABEL$ 0
+One of the things that I like about PT Anderson, is that he has the guts to take talent that most people push to the side or have pushed to the side and makes them stars. Case in point, a washed-up... Burt Reynolds delivers a great performance in this film. And if proving Adam Sander can be a great actor (Punch Drunk Love) wasn't enough... here comes Mark Whalburg... like you've never seen before.I think many people pass up "Boogie Nights" cause they are anti-porn, or just flat out hate the adult industry and can't overlook that aspect of this film. But underneath that is a great story about characters losing everything and battle to regain themselves. There is a beautiful film... and it's too bad that enough people see that.$LABEL$ 1
+Normally when I go on a raid of the local Hollywood Video I head towards the B-Horror movies. To me the basic principals behind a B-Horror movie is it's camp value, Heavy Gore, Lots of needless Nudity, and special effects that anyone can put together with a pack of corn syrup and latex. I rented Cradle of Fear strictly because I've been a fan of the band since they released they're first Demo in 1995. The movie started off on an interesting note and then when I saw Dani Filth stomp on an extremely obvious latex mask I LAUGHED. When I saw the Lesbian sex scene for the sake of a Lesbian sex scene I LAUGHED EVEN HARDER. I spent pretty much the entire movie laughing and when I wasn't laughing I was shaking my head thinking about how a multi-million dollar rock star would want to make a movie that seemed like it was on a budget of multi-hundreds of dollars. The whole point of this movie to me seemed to attract the "Hardcore Goth kids who think death, destruction, sex, blood, and Satan are the greatest things invented since Lava Lamps. That was really it. To me this movie seemed like 80.5% of the things that happened in this movie just happened for the sake of being Satanic. This movie had a lot of potential and really could have been a real good movie but in the end this "Movie" really is just an extended Cradle of Filth Video.$LABEL$ 0
+In a world where humans can live forever you spend the entire movie wishing they would die. First off if you insist on watching this movie do two things first put it on mute, don't worry you miss a plot, hell they don't even talk for the first 70 min of an 87 min movie, after putting on mute you must now hit fast forward till the main chick dies don't worry even if your paying attention you won't know why or how she died. Once you get to the "good part" take it of mute. Oh, how will you know the good part, wait for an elevator scene with two morons in space suits with WWII weapons. These weapons won't seem like much till you realize that the first protagonist had a laser tag pistol and a bandoleer of CO2 cartridges. The only remnants of a plot take place between a glowing ball and a semi hot chick who looks like she was attacked by Wolverine. After listening to the "plot", you will wish they went back to not talking. Of the four people that are in this movie none of them can remotely act, not even a little bit, you will have better luck witnessing acting at a kindergarten theater.To comment on the special on the special effects, let me just say "Wow", no really you will spend the entire movie saying to your self "Where did this movie's 1.8 million dollar budget go!" Seriously it will leave you in aw of the magnitude of ineptness. The best "sets" are basically windows wallpaper backgrounds. The Ships are basically flying wrenches, Wait some are barges that kinda look like whales . I have never heard so many made up words in my whole life. They have buttons on their wrist(large pedometers) that can put them in "fight mode" and super runing mode (makes them super blurry). This will seriously drain their power reserves but they find bits of wires to chew on to regain their strength. The explosions were less impressive than my fourth of July, I only had sparklers.So the plot as far as I can figure goes something like this "mother" is a space ship captain and goes to the desert for a while rides a rocket dies. Then her daughter 6000 years in the future ( no I am not exaggerating) recalls her mother's memories through some sort of capsule. Anyways they jabber on for another 10 min and then the cause a big bang. Yes the Same "Big Bang" that started our solar system. It's explained how she goes back in time or something, it does not really matter it happened i guess. Roll Credits Seriously the whole script was mercifully on one sheet of paper, unless that actually detailed any of the dreadfully fight scenes.After watching the credits I have now laughed more than I did the entire movie, the jobs the created like catering supervisor "galactius sarcophagus" and then the special thanks to George Lucas was just the best.I really wasn't expecting that much for a movie I paid 99 cents for but seriously some body owes me for this. Most frequent comment heard after the movie "I want my life back". You have to admire that some but put time and effort in to this movie but seriously, why ?$LABEL$ 0
+You have to start worrying when you see that Michael Madsen is leading the Cast of any movie. I wont go through the list of shame that is his movie career.I watched 45 minutes and still was not sure what really was going on. The movie consisted of a love hate relationship between Madsen and Argento, Which basically was Madsen insulting her, threatening violence and generally treating her like dirt. She on the other hand loves him, then shes doesn't, then she does, the she desires him, then she loves him again......whats wrong with you woman !!!! The Script is awful, lousy soundtrack and pointless aggressive and crude sexuality which i believe was added to entice some viewers as the movie has little else to offer. I would have given the movie a 1 but it just about managed a 2 with a little excitement in the last 20 minutes. It did actually answer one question in the final few minutes but i am not going to share that, i will make you suffer for the full movie like i did.$LABEL$ 0
+Guilt and redemption are two of the staple emotions and plot elements of the heavy, powerful dramas that the Oscars love so much (which is kind of funny since "The Kite Runner" was only nominated for Best Original Score-the lack of nominations was perhaps unjust). While most film adaptations of books (or any other means) are usually inferior to their literary counterparts (and "The Kite Runner" is NOT an exception), Marc Forster's film adaptation is a good one.Most people are familiar with the story, the book having been read by millions, so I won't go into the plot except to say that the book stays pretty faithful to its source. That being said, if you don't know the plot, see the movie, or better yet, read the book.The best thing "The Kite Runner" has going for it (other than its story) is director Marc Forster. Forster is a director with epic scope and unique vision that is perfectly utilized in bringing Khaled Hosseini's book to the screen. A small part of me worried that he would use the same dreamy images that were included in one of Forster's earlier features, "Finding Neverland." Don't get me wrong, "Finding Neverland" is a wonderful film, one of my favorites actually, but the visual trickery he used in there doesn't have a place here. Fortunately, Forster understands that, and the brilliance of his direction shows his versatility. Though the lack of a Best Director nomination for his work here is not exactly a travesty, I see a number of statuettes in store for him down the road.Also of note is the screenplay adaptation. It remains faithful to the source, but it leaves room for Forster's vision to interpret the material. The dialogue is not dumbed down, and it. along with Forster's direction, moves at a solid pace. Like Forster, the lack of recognition at awards time for the screenplay was not an outrage, but I wouldn't have complained if it was at least nominated.The dividing line here between this film being great and outstanding lies with the acting. Most of the performances are solid, but there are some that don't quite make the cut, and it hurts the film. The most notable weak performance comes from Zekeria Ebrahimi, who plays the young Amir. It's not that it's bad, it's just that it's not as effective as it could be. He just can't translate the guilt that consumes Amir to the audience. In fact, I think I might have been a little lost at this point in the movie at this point had I not read the book because of this. He looks somber, and at times resentful, but we can't feel his emotions. This is a difficult part to portray, and for the most part young Ebrahimi holds his own, which is especially surprising since this is his first film role.The best performances come from Khalid Abdalla, who plays the adult Amir, and Shaun Toub, who plays the wise Rahim Kahn. Abdalla may not be a known name (though he was in Paul Greengrass's "United 93"), but his work here is amazing. He's a quiet, modest man, and he emotes perfectly when needed to. A lesser-capable actor could have made the character of Rahim Khan into a cliché, but Shaun Toub uses enough subtlety and care in his performance that he creates what the clichés are trying to portray.Forgive me if I go on a rant here, but this is something that I must address, and that is the film's PG-13 rating. The fact that this film received such a low rating is outrageous. There is no justification for it. Some could argue that the rating was bent because of the need for everyone to see it, like the gore in "Saving Private Ryan," which some say should have earned the film an NC-17 rating. But that exception cannot be applied here. The only purpose the scene serves is to tell the story. Forster (probably at the behest of the producers) tried as hard as he could to tame the film's most painful and disturbing scene to allow the film to sneak by with a PG-13 rating, but the subject material is too disturbing to be depicted in any way and get less than an R rating, regardless of if how "tasteful" is may be portrayed. Worse, this editing robs the scene of much of its power, and by trying it make it less disturbing to get the lower rating is insulting. Furthermore, some scenes of violence are incredibly disturbing as well. In terms of how much time these scenes take of the movie, it doesn't add to much, but what is there is well deserving of an R rating at the very least. The MPAA, whose system of rating movies has always been corrupt, has sunk to a new low by giving this film such a low rating.But one shouldn't fault the film for this. The film is a solid film that is well-worth seeing, especially if they are fans of the book.$LABEL$ 1
+"Shade" tries hard to be another "Sting", substituting poker for horse racing as the means by which to bring down an enemy, but it fails miserably.I watched the whole thing and still never could quite understand why the young kid wanted to double-cross his partner. Was it because his partner stole his girl? Is there a woman in the world who is worth going to that much trouble over? If there is, it certainly wasn't this shrew. She had no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and really now, did she actually have a special room set up so that a surgeon could remove the kidney from whoever tried to pick her up in a bar? Dina Merrill makes a short appearance as a rich woman who hosts, of all things, pay-the-rent poker parties at her palatial home. And then the players say things like, "I'll see your thousand and raise you another five thousand." Give me a break. You can't call ("see") and raise, you do one or the other. Any kid playing for nickels and dimes at the kitchen table knows this; you'd think grown men playing for stakes this high -- or at least the knuckleheads who wrote the script -- would know it too.One of the other posters mentioned how no high-limit poker game would allow players to actually deal their own cards and I agree. You don't allow two of the best-known car cheats into a game where the buy-in is $250,000 and then let them deal to each other. That's not poker; that's just seeing which one can cheat better. And I'd like to know what person in his right mind would buy in to a game in which two of the best-known card cheats are playing and expect that he might have a chance at winning? And most of all, what Mafia boss would run such a game? Every time Melanie Griffith came on the screen I was so mesmerized by those gigantic fluorescent red lips of hers that I completely lost the storyline, and seeing her and Stallone together was more like a public service announcement for plastic surgery gone wrong than a love connection. Stallone mentions that she used to be a grifter before she bought the restaurant she now runs, but we don't know what kind of grifter she was and we never see her working with Stallone in their younger days so we are left to wonder, if we even care that much.Jamie Foxx is the best character in the whole movie, but he gets killed off right off the bat and we're left with cardboard cut-outs who all sound like they're reading their lines off a teleprompter just off-camera.The ending makes no sense either. The kid gets his cut from the game and just walks down the street with a briefcase full of money and his partner is nowhere to be seen? The Mafia isn't watching every move he makes? Everyone else just shrugs their shoulders and quietly accepts the loss of millions of dollars without trying to recoup any of it? I don't think so.Most of all, this movie does a great injustice to professional poker players all over the world, insinuating that the only way to win is by palming cards and playing with "juiced" decks. And why is it they're always palming kings and aces? Sometimes you need a three or a nine to fill a straight or full house.The best parts of the whole film are the sleight-of-hand tricks during the beginning and ending credits; everything in between is ridiculous.$LABEL$ 0
+When a small hobbit named Frodo Baggins inherits a magic ring from his uncle, the wizard Gandalf investigates and discovers that the ring is an ancient creation of an evil dark lord. Should the ring end up back in his hands, he will regain his power and destroy Middle Earth. Frodo and his loyal friends set out on a a quest to destroy the ring with a band of warriors. This is an underrated adaption of the classic novels as it only covers the first half of the story. Regardless, this is an epic and wonderfully animated film.The animation is superbly done with rotoscope, which is tracing over live action footage. Ralph Bakshi worked well with the low budget he was given. The film also boasts a grand music score by Leonard Rosenman that fits every scene. There are a few plot holes with the script, but that has to be excused, considering the original deal was to make the book trilogy into two films, much had to crammed in the first one. My biggest gripe is some of the character design, Samwise was a bit too goofy, while the other hobbits act completely normal. The other characters are actually well written for the screen, and the voice actors do a great job, I was pleased that Legolas is actually a bit more helpful to the plot. The rotoscoped orcs are more comical than frightening, while the ringwraiths are eerie and nightmarish.Another problem is that the evil wizard Saruman is called Aruman, thanks to the writers. Overall, I think a little more money and better writers would have done this a lot of justice, but there is something charming about it. Ralph Bakshi made a valiant effort of making screen adaption of these classic stories. The film suffers terribly from being overshadowed by the live action films, but it's still a great movie for animation lovers of all ages.$LABEL$ 1
+I am a guy, so i was very hesitant to watch the movie because i know that Richard Gear likes to be in tear jerker movies. I would rather watch action/adventure/sci fi. I was right, the movie is definitely a tear jerker. Diane tended to over act a few times, as did richard, but they brought it around and made it work. The daughter was a suppressed teen with huge attitude, so you started out hating her. The movie is way too predictable, but for entertainment purposes, it was a masterpiece. Go rent it, see if you don't shed a tear.lol If you like the notebook, you will love this one. The beach scenes were immaculately shot. even though the hurricane scenes were a little off sequence, it was still a bit panicy to watch them react to it.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie has such inexorable B class cheapness to all its scenes, effects etc as to make you think they spent 80% of their budget on Connery. It's like watching some Wing Commander stuff after Star Wars (quite apart from content).Story can be described in one word: FLAT. And oh my God I can't remember a villain so uninteresting since long long ago. We're given neither a reason he's so wicked (an inborn defect, we're lead to think:) nor any real convincedness or flair to his wickedness.If you're out for Connery rather go rent `Hunting Forrester'.$LABEL$ 0
+Easily one of the best shows ever made, & it just gets better with age.For me , one of the chief reasons for this was the English adaptation done by David Weir.A Japanese friend of mine once told me that the show in it's original language was more whimsical & less flat-out hilarious that the version we all know.The fact that the show resonates so strongly for its non-Japanese fans is , I think, largely because of Mr Weir's inspired efforts & some winning voice-over work.Well done, sir!$LABEL$ 1
+This film is not really a remake of the 1949 O'Brien film (which is excellent). It borrows the main premise--a man has been poisoned and spends the rest of the film trying to find his killer. But I like that the writers chose an English professor, instead of a private dick, as the protagonist. The plot is also quite original. In general, the film moves along fast enough to keep you awake. But what mars this film is a strange dated quality about it (probably due to the horrendous 80's original music score)combined with an affected "noir" feel. Dennis Quaid grins inexplicably throughout the whole film at odd moments, but he's still compelling in a general way. Meg Ryan is fine as the student helper/love interest. When the film gets sort of bad is when Dex (the prof) meets the British bodyguard/chauffeur and their duels are pretty laughable. The bodyguard works for the rich widow (played by lovely Charlotte Rampling), but those scenes are too self-consciously "noir" to help the film along, even though the family "plot line" is rather interesting. Dex also keeps showing up at the same place and finding this bodyguard, which is rather coincidental. In the latter part of the film,a man is shot by a window, and from the outside you see him jump out of it--that was pretty bad direction. But aside from some of these obvious flaws, I think it still holds OK. I certainly didn't predict the ending, so that was good--there is a twist, and although some posters here think they were misled, I thought it was a fine and believable ending. Dennis Quaid, with his weird smirks and black eyes, is more likable in The Right Stuff, Great Balls of Fire, Inner Space, and Cold Creek Manor. But here as Dex, he's supposed to be somewhat of a jerk, so he did fine. Fairly decent movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Having seen other Bollywood flicks with Salman Khan in them, I can say this is my favorite of the more recent ones. The songs are all quite fun, especially 'O Priya O Priya' which seems to have a nice mix of Beatles, Indian music and (dare I say this) a bit of Prince. The love stories are a bit more believable than, say, Chal Mere Bhai. The occasional focus on Prem's use of alcohol is at times troubling as it doesn't really seem to make sense to me, but it's played well by Khan--although his voice does become squeaky when he's portraying drunkenness.$LABEL$ 1
+"Inspirational" tales about "triumph of the human spirit" are usually big turn-offs for me. The most surprising thing about MEN OF HONOR is how much I enjoyed it in spite of myself. The movie is as predictable and cliched as it gets, but it works. Much credit goes to the exhilarating performances by both leads. It's a perfect role for Cuba Gooding, Jr., who's wonderfully restrained here. We have come to expect a lot from De Niro, and he doesn't disappoint. He creates a darkly funny portrait. Director George Tillman, Jr. set out to make an old-style flick and comes up with a winner.$LABEL$ 1
+Have you ever found yourself watching a film or documentary and having to hold yourself back from screaming things like "No! Don't do it!"? No? Well it's time you do. And undoubtedly DEEP WATER is the one to get you started.The story is based on that of Donald Crowhurst and his entry into the first round-the-world yacht race to be undertaken by individuals in 1968. That word "individuals" is important, as the men who set off on this nearly suicidal escapade head out alone.Most of the men are well-knowns in the sea-faring communities of England (where they launch from), but one of them is the "unknown dark horse," and his name was Donald Crowhurst. Struggling financially, Crowhurst enlists a backer who can take everything from him should he fail to at least attempt to make it through a large portion of the race. He could take his home, his property, everything.Crowhurst now finds himself between a rock and ...well ...deep water: either attempt the race with an unproven ship and an unproven captain, or lose everything you own (which was significant since Crowhurst had a wife and several children). You'll note the term "unproven captain" in there, too. Not only was he unproven, he'd never been out on the open sea! Did I mention suicidal? Flicking between archival footage of the pre- and post-race, and those of Crowhurst's friends, family, and acquaintances of today, Deep Water is put together masterfully. Initially seen as a poor sap who got in over his head, the film gradually shows you the limited choices Crowhurst had after months and months out on the water. His ship leaks. Equipment breaks. Psyche stretched to the breaking point (and beyond). Crowhurst finds himself lost in an internal struggle with no successful way out. It is interesting, too, to see the psychological breaks that other racers have as they deal with their solitary confinement on-board their respective boats.The wave-like emotions that you'll feel as you watch this astounding documentary may make you a bit ill (not unlike trying to get your sea-legs). And you'll probably be frustrated at the choices being made; perhaps just as frustrated as poor Mr. Crowhurst.The ending is also amazing in that we get to see the actual ship that Crowhurst sailed, sitting deserted and rotting on a Caribbean beach ...not unlike other things that felt deserted and rotting toward the end of this poorly thought-out race.Incredible.$LABEL$ 1
+In The Lost Son, a private eye searching for a missing man stumbles upon a child prostitution ring. This film incorporates all of the worst stereotypes you could imagine in a worst-case scenario that exists only in the minds of Hollywood, the press and AG John Asscrap. If you get a chance to see this, you'd be better off getting lost yourself.$LABEL$ 0
+The story for the first-aired television installment of "Columbo" is simple: one-half of successful mystery-writing team does away with the other, frames an unseen Mafia group, is blackmailed by an admirer, does away with the admirer, and is tricked up by the stalwart Columbo.With that said, this is still one of the most entertaining in the show's history, benefiting tremendously by the work of the late Jack Cassidy and star Peter Falk.Besides the notability of being directed by a young Steven Spielberg, the episode also has a air of the macabre because of the future of two of its stars: Cassidy and Barbara Colby. The two share several scenes together and it is poignant that both would die tragically within a decade of this filming, Cassidy in an apartment fire and Colby at the hands of assailants, yet to be found after over three decades.Now, both demises are true-life MYSTERIES!$LABEL$ 1
+I was stunned by this film. I have been renting Antonioni's films/rediscovering them, and this film showed me the climax and fruits of his 50 years of directing. What an eye for setting, color, and detail! I have never seen such visual beauty and poetry filmed before. I had to stop after the first story and hold back the tears. Yes, beauty moves me, like it moved Keats to write Ode on a Grecian Urn. This movie is made for the mature, emotionally and intellectually, audience. Those hoping to see physical action and soap opera will be disappointed. I will have to see this film several times before I can truly appreciate it and judge it. This film should be required viewing for all cinematographers and directors.Possibly a truly great film, on the order of Kurosawa's Dreams.$LABEL$ 1
+I don't know if this exceptionally dull movie was intended as an unofficial sequel to 'The French Connection", but it does have many of the same drawbacks: the script is so confusing that the viewer remains uninvolved and feels left out of the picture, and the direction is so cold, so lacking in energy, that even the great chase sequence can't liven things up. (*1/2)$LABEL$ 0
+Misfit recruit private Owens tests drill instructor Sgt Moore's (Jack Webb) skills. No explosions or bloodshed or hip soundtrack or sex. It is set at the USMC's Parris Island S.C. boot camp and most of the cast were actual Marines. Memorable one-liners abound, and the closing credit's "dedicated to..." is intense. With such strong male and female characters, this movie could not be made in today's touchy-feely world.$LABEL$ 1
+I usually love these movies. Give me a good old B movie any day but this one was simply awful. The acting(?) was terrible almost to the point of my turning the movie off completely. I thought I saw the all time worst but this one is right up there with Attack of the Killer Tomatoes! In all honesty - it was the acting that did this film in for me.I found the actor's to be clumsy and the lead male/female were extremely dull. This movie had absolutely nothing going for it. I may be asking a ridiculous question here but why the nudity and sex scene? Did the producers think nobody would watch if they left them out? I think they were probably right! Oh where is Price and The Tingler when you need them?$LABEL$ 0
+It was originally meant to be a film that Gene Kelly would star in, but when the makers couldn't get him they got "the greatest actor in the world", and the result is pretty good. Basically Nathan Detroit (Frank Sinatra) is having trouble doing what he does best, setting up a high stakes crap dice game, because he needs $1000 to get the place. So to get the money he needs, he has a $1000 bet with old friend Sky Masterson (Marlon Brando) that he can't get Sergeant Sarah Brown (Great Expectations' Golden Globe winning, and BAFTA nominated Jean Simmons) to go with him to Havana. Meanwhile, Nathan is having trouble trying to get rid of the woman who wants him to ask her hand in marriage, Miss Adelaide (Vivian Blaine). Also starring Robert Keith as Lieutenant Brannigan, Stubby Kaye as Nicely Nicely Johnson and B.S. Pulley as Big Jule. An interesting romantic comedy musical, with Brando singing all his own songs, and Sinatra being smooth and cool. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design and Best Music for Jay Blackton and Cyril J. Mockridge, it was nominated the BAFTA for Best Film from any Source, and it won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical/Comedy. Frank Sinatra was number 43 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, Marlon Brando was number 30 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, he was number 11 on The 100 Greatest Sex Symbols, he was number 4 on 100 Years, 100 Stars - Men, Sinatra was number 35, and Brando was number 1 on The World's Greatest Actor, "Luck Be a Lady" was number 42 on 100 Years, 100 Songs for , the film was number 23 on 100 Years of Musicals, and it was number 36 on The 100 Greatest Musicals. Very good!$LABEL$ 1
+Not funny - how can anyone link this to Monty Python? That is absolutely ridiculous - there are no laughs. This is not funny. Over the top, but ugly, weird just for weird sake and it seems to me these people were on something all the time. Unfortunately something that did not make them funny.It should be given some points for effort etc. whatever. Actually it appears there is a laugh track - or is there one? Hummm.... Since there are barely any laughs that's a debatable question.Maybe I'm doing it injustice - maybe it's some sort of exercise. Some sort of art - in that case anything goes, never mind.But these guys playing women with high-pitched voices, turned-up noses. Come on !!! Not funny. There is only one heir apparent to Monty Pythons intellectual wit and that is Stephen Colbert, and maybe Jon Stewart.$LABEL$ 0
+The original story and funny compelling characters went over well for a teen girls slumber party movie (2 times now). I loved it, it was fun and moved quickly, no boring drawn out scenes. It is violent and has a little language (though most of it is covered up). Its a great movie. David Strickland was a terrific actor. Ron Eldard gave a wonderful performance. I watch it with the girls every time.$LABEL$ 1
+There's nothing new in this movie. Nothing you haven't thought about before, nothing you haven't heard before. The story of a gay man who is brutally murdered in a small town and the reaction of people can be broached in many ways, and this movie has chosen the most demagogic and slushy one. One of the biggest flaws in this movie is that it isn't neither a movie nor a documentary. The director has used the transcriptions of the original interviews and made the actors play them as if it was a movie. The result is weird. And finally, I read in previous comments that stated that people who don't like this movie are anti-gay. I'm pretty sure this comments come from people who consider themselves tolerant but don't tolerate that other people don't like this movie. This is a funny world.$LABEL$ 0
+Saying this movie is extremely hard to follow and just as frustrating to sit through is putting it very mildly. Also saying that the current available print is dark, dreary, scratchy, abysmally edited, painfully dubbed, seemingly censored and in almost unwatchable shape is also correct. This film is in dire need of a good remastering from the full, uncut, original negative and seeing how it's reasonably atmospheric (and won the director an award at the Catalonia Film Festival), it might actually be worth the trouble. Then again, maybe not... It's just impossible to tell in its current condition what kind of movie it actually is. It starts fairly interesting, if you can discount the completely senseless pre-credits opening sequence, which involves a deranged cat-killing, snake-loving little girl named Gerda. The girls mom, Carla (Mónica Randall, who should have laid off the eyeliner a little bit), splashes some gasoline around in the garage and torches the brat. Seemingly about as crazy as young Gerda, she goes to visit her estranged photographer (ex?) boyfriend Mario ("John"/Cihangir Caffari). He's on vacation from work, but so desperate to get away from Carla that he begs his employers to set him up on an assignment... any assignment. She scowls "You'll be sorry!" as he heads out the door. Well, Mario is assigned to photograph "Witches Mountain" (somewhere in the Pyrenees, I believe). Before he gets to his destination, he gets sight of a hottie on the beach named Delia (Patty Shepard) and snaps a few pictures of her taking off her bikini top. Only slightly peeved, she claims to be a single writer, the two flirt and then decide it would be a swell idea if they went on the trip up the mountain together. When they stop by her place so she can pack her bags, Mario suddenly hears loud, sinister music. Delia claims he's just hearing things.So the two begin their trip up the mountain, taking a stop at a local inn to spend the night. There they encounter a weird, partially-deaf, crazy-eyed innkeeper (Victor Israel) and Delia claims someone was spying on here through her window. The next day, under some trance, she wanders off up the mountain and is eventually located by Mario, who hops out of his jeep and runs after her. While he's finding out what's up, someone steals their wheels and they're forced to walk a piece, eventually finding the jeep undamaged at the foot of a small, ancient, seeming abandoned village... almost like someone was trying to intentionally lure them there. Well as we will see, that's exactly what has happened. In the village they encounter a friendly old woman named Zanta (Ana Farra) who claims she's the only person still living there and lets them stay in her home. Mario takes some pictures of the "abandoned" city and when he develops them they are eerily full of people. Slightly creeped out, he and Delia begin to leave and get stuck in "treacherous" fog and have to pull over and camp out for the night. The rest of the movie has to do with voodoo dolls, black cats transforming into sexy women, Satanic rituals performed by ladies in their bras and a deadly fall off a cliff. And yeah, coincidentally Carla the estranged wife turns out to be one of the witches, too. It all takes place in semi-darkness and to be quite honest, I didn't know what the hell was going on most of the time. The inconclusive "open" ending is just an additional slap in the face to anyone having to suffer through the rest of this senseless mess.Honestly, there are just a few things that stand out to me as being really good. The first is actress Shepard, who has that great Barbara Steele kind of dark, mysterious beauty. There's also an excellent music score (credited to Fernando Garcia Morcillo) and chanting songs, which aided immensely in making this film as atmospheric as it is. The location work is fairly decent, but as I said, the print is ugly as can be and it doesn't make a lick of sense, so proceed with caution on this one.$LABEL$ 0
+Robert Taylor as the mad buffalo hunter Charlie Gilson is the main character in this film. At the beginning I was thinking that Charlie would end up redeeming himself like John Wayne in The Searchers or James Stewart in The Naked Spur. But as the film goes along Gilson keeps doing more atrocities until you realize there is no hope for him. Stewart Granger is Sandy McKenzie, who wants to stop hunting because he realizes that the buffaloes will soon be gone and he becomes disgusted by the act of killing. Gilson is a natural killer who makes no distinction between animals or human beings. Debra Paget as the Indian girl is a surprising character considering the self imposed censorship of that time. She lies with Gilson in total resignation even though she hates him. The last scene of a frozen Gilson, is unforgettable.$LABEL$ 1
+At first the movie seemed to be doing great, they had the characters profiles set...the plot seemed to be going in the right direction... however, as the movie progressed it seemed the director focused on the wrong kind of things...or just a lot was edited from the movie. The characters' identities changed for the worse within the movie. Also, there seemed to be a lot of implicit meaning -- in other words -- they had things within the movie that didn't seem to fit the movie itself. AND the title... no where in the movie does the title fit the movie...I suppose the title works for the previews.... Actors did well with what they had.....if they had a better director and writer, maybe this would have worked out better. But it didn't. So now there's a new terrible movie coming out this Friday.... My opinion!....don't waste your time or money.$LABEL$ 0
+One of my favorite scenes is at the beginning when guests on a private yacht decide to take an impromptu swim - in their underwear! Rather risqué for 1931!$LABEL$ 1
+Okay. You saw the film and I saw the film. True? If not, there are plenty of plot summaries out there, and there is absolutely no reason for us to waste time on any feeble attempts of mine to create another.The most stunning aspect of the film is unquestionably the performances by the two young men and the young lady in the leads. Their emotional honesty was as compelling, if not more so, than any performances I've seen in recent months. I found I laughed, cried and cringed right along with them, and that's saying a great deal because I'm often called a jaded and cynical jerk.As one would expect, the story is rife with clichés and I suppose that's the Achilles heel of the picture. It's a story we've all seen many times before; we all know how it will end from the moment they introduce Rory. Though you may not know exact mechanics, you know there will be a transformative friendship, a bittersweet romance and a gut-wrenching conclusion. If it weren't for the strong cast and directing, this film would be nothing more than the soporific swill that comprises eighty percent of the Hallmark Channel's program schedule.$LABEL$ 1
+The Farrelly brothers, Bobby and Peter, are at it again. With "Fever Pitch" the creators of other films that have dealt with a lot of gross themes, abandon that tactic when they decided to bring Nick Hornby's film to the screen, something that it would have been hard to do. The novel, of the same title, dealt with a man's obsession with soccer, since it is set in England, where that sport consumes most of British sports fans. It's to the credit of the writing team of Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandell, to transform the book into a language that would appeal to most Americans, when they make their hero, a Boston Red Sox fan."Fever Pitch" is a film that presents an obsessive fan, Ben Wrightly, whose life revolves into the Red Sox season, and who is an eighth grade teacher with uncanny ways for involving his students into the subject he tries to teach them. When Ben takes four of his best pupils for a tour of a local firm, he meets, and falls hopelessly in love with the brainy Lindsey Meeks, a young woman who is going places, but at thirty, has no life of her own.The story follows the two lovers through the ritual of attending the Red Sox, at home games, in Fenway Park. This team's fans are probably the most loyal people in the world, having stuck with a team that does marvelous things but, until 2004, never won a World Series. In fact, the ending, from what we heard, had to be changed because that was the year in which they finally won the event that had eluded them for eighty six years! Drew Barrymore and Jimmy Fallon are perfect as the couple at the center of the film. Ms. Barrymore is a natural who always surprises in her appearances in front of the camera. Jimmy Fallon, a popular television comedian, turned movie actor, has a better opportunity here than in his last appearance in "Taxi", in our humble opinion.The Farrelly brothers film will satisfy their fans as well as baseball fans with this baseball tale.$LABEL$ 1
+Warning! Spoilers ahead! SPOILERS I've seen movie in German, so it might be, that I missed some clues. Despite some weakness in the plot, it's a movie that came through to me. I liked especially Lexa Doig's acting. Sometimes I got impression, that she *is* Camille. But I can't stop wondering, what happened at the end with Bob, Cassie and baby. I belive, she, after initially being set on Bob, eventually ended up loving him and regretting what happened with his brother and being forced to lie to him. Otherwise it's a bit strange, that she would carry his baby and love it. It's up to viewer to decide - and I don't like such endings. Dean Cain was as good as ever, Eric Roberts .. well, I've seen him better but also worse. I believe that the film is more an analysis of human relations and reacting in unexpected situations than a crime story. Bottom line is, I liked it very much.$LABEL$ 1
+I watched this film with a sort of dangerous fascination, like a hedgehog trapped in the headlights. There is no doubt that (even if you enjoyed it) it's a bad movie, but the important question is why? It has a good cast; it's lively; it's prepared to tackle sex head on, with some of the characters actually getting some of it here and there, which is unusual for a British comedy. It also has Johnny Vegas and Mackenzie Crook, Marmite performers agreed but they've have had their moments in the past.What it's principally lacking is charm. The characters are impossibly idiotic, unbelievable and alienating, so that instead of a film of Men Behaving Badly the producers have made Game On. Any mediocre writer wanting to make a film about the sexual attitudes of dozy, sexist British men would have got hold of a few copies of Loaded, Zoo or even Viz to read Sid the Sexist and the thing would have written itself. Instead, the producers clearly tried to make up some moronic, difficult to care about, characters. Character comedy - as opposed to slapstick etc - only works if the audience can recognise some human truth to the situation. But watching this film is like being told an annoying joke that you know is not going to end up funny but you can't stop it.Sadly, the film is also poorly made. The plot structure is weak, there's little character delineation or development, and many of the scenes aren't funny. Time after time the same lame reggae chips in to divide scenes, pointlessly and gratingly. There's a lot of needless repetition - when you've done one joke about parking outside a sex party you don't need to do it again. One wonders what the UK Film Council saw in the script.This is a world where most men are rakes, and most women are continually up for it. The Apartment and Alfie satirised much the same world view, but the producers of this film accept it without criticism. Thus they've ended up with a kind of inferior update of Confessions of a Window Cleaner. Somebody British needs to have another go at this kind of thing, and do it properly – a good next project for Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright I think...$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is excellent and I would recommend renting it for anyone whose local video store owns it. Or, even better, you could buy it because chances are you're going to watch this over and over. I can remember watching this movie as a kid and it was great back then. But after watching it again yesterday I've found it to be amazing.A good blend of comedy (although not as great as "Mr Magoo"-another one of my favorites) and action. This deserves 10/10 and I'm hoping that they will make a sequel soon (fingers crossed). If you do babysitting or have to look after young children for anything then I'd recommend renting this movie as it will keep them entertained for hours :).$LABEL$ 1
+I lost my father at a very young age.So young in fact,that I have no recollection of him.Over the years I have learned many things about him. One of those things was that he loved westerns,and watching Bonanza every Sunday evening was an absolute ritual for him.I,myself, remember the tail end of the series' run,having been 8 years old when the show ceased production in 1973.Watching this show over the years somehow makes me closer to my long ago lost father.It has all the right elements to make a show successful;laughter,tears,edge of your seat suspense,and it even angered you at times.My most vivid memory of the show's original run,came shortly after the death of our beloved "Hoss" Cartwright,Dan Blocker.One particular episode,and the end of the closing credits, flashed a picture of Blocker,and faded to black,and I can also recall my oldest sister with a tear in her eye at the sight of this.I can remember this as though it were yesterday.On behalf of my late father, who is not here to say so himself,we love Bonanza.Long live the Cartwrights.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this movie for the first time just a short while ago. If you ask me it does not get the credit it deserves. It is a little like American Pie meets Fast Times at Ridgemont High but with more depth. It handles the same issues as both movies, but in a way that holds with it some grain of truth. The ending is sad, but that is how life is. I think everyone should see it. I have it on DVD form, and it took such a long time to find it too. That should say something, heh and another thing I will add is that it is quite difficult finding the soundtrack. I believe they stopped it, but the soundtrack to this movie is amazing. It has songs by artists like The Commodores, U2, Devo, REO Speedwagon, The Cars, KC and the Sunshine Band, and many more.$LABEL$ 1
+The second attempt by a New York intellectual in less than 10 years to make a "Swedish" film - the first being Susan Sontag's "Brother Carl" (which was made in Sweden, with Swedish actors, no less!) The results? Oscar Wilde said it best, in reference to Dickens' "The Old Curiosity Shop": "One would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh out loud at the death of Little Nell." Pretty much the same thing here. "Interiors" is chock full of solemnly intoned howlers. ("I'm afraid of my anger." Looking into the middle distance: "I don't like who I'm becoming.") The directorial quotations (to use a polite term) from Bergman are close to parody. The incredibly self-involved family keep reminding us of how brilliant and talented they are, to the point of strangulation. ("I read a poem of yours the other day. It was in - I don't know - The New Yorker." "Oh. That was an old poem. I reworked it.") Far from not caring about these people, however, I found them quite hilarious. Much of the dialog is exactly like the funny stuff from Allen's earlier films - only he's directed his actors to play the lines straight. Having not cast himself in the movie, he has poor Mary Beth Hurt copy all of his thespian tics, intonations, and neurotic habits, turning her into an embarrassing surrogate (much like Kenneth Branagh in "Celebrity").The basic plot - dysfunctional family with quietly domineering mother - seems to be lifted more or less from Bergman's "Winter Light," the basic family melodrama tricked up with a lot of existential angst. It all comes through in the shopworn visual/aural tricks: the deafening scratching of a pencil on paper, the towering surf that dwarfs the people walking on the beach. etc, etc.Allen's later "serious" films are less embarrassing, but also far less entertaining. I'll take "Interiors." Woody's rarely made a funnier movie.$LABEL$ 0
+I regret every single second of the time I lost while watching this movie, really. Unhappily, I always find it hard to switch off a movie once I started watching it. Especially, when it's such a classic or what people use to call a classic. I think that this is one of those movies every movie-lover should have watched at least one time, so that was why I watched it. Don't get me wrong, I like Humphrey Bogart and his wife Lauren Bacall both as a couple and as actors, but this movie was a big fraud in my opinion. No really good plot, neither an espionage flick nor a romantic love story. Well, not even a convincing mixture of both of these genres. Only thing which caused tension was that it was uncertain whether 'Bogey' and Bacall would stay together in the end or part from one another. I think "To Have and Have Not" is very overrated and Bogart was in many better films during the 1940s.$LABEL$ 0
+Well after three times through I still have no idea what this movie is about because, quite honestly, it failed to generate any real interest or concern. But here it goes: A bunch of too old to be teen Teen Actors dressed in horrifying latter 1980's fashions (did WE look like that too??) decide it would be a really good idea to get in a motorboat and go visit the abandoned Alcatraz after one of them has nightmares of people being slaughtered in various horrifying ways that manage to rip off POLTERGEIST, THE EVIL DEAD, and Freddy Kreuger in one fell swoop. The dimwit even envisions himself being roasted over an open fire with some deformed freak slicing off strips of tenderloin. Good thing it was only a dream or it might have hurt, and good thing his dreams had a decent special effects budget. Mine are usually pretty lame: Girls, model space ships, blowing things up with a bazooka, etc.Once on the Alcatraz island they find themselves in a Slasher movie, and meet up with Tony Basil, who cannot help but break into a couple dance poses at times and had her own lighting crew (complete with a smoke machine for that 1980's smoky haze infused light look, which I kind of miss). And such reminded me that Ms. Basil helped choreograph David Byrne of the Talking Heads for some of his videos and performances. This of course has nothing at all to do with the film but kept popping into mind as the movie posed very little to actually think about. It sort of happens, and you can either watch or keep working on your page markup with it on the TV set off to the side. But since the film isn't really interesting, you'll keep deciding to finish one last thing instead of wasting time, the movie will keep ending, and you'll find yourself wondering what you missed every time you realize the end credits are starting to roll again, dammit ...*SOME* 1980's Teen Horror movies can survive such specialized viewing: Umberto Lenzi's GHOSTHOUSE, CHOPPING MALL & it's Killbots, the hard to ignore NIGHT OF THE CREEPS and the over-the-top SLEEPAWAY CAMP all come to mind. They are films that, like them or not, demand your attention and usually pay off with some good gore or T&A, and typos in your work as evidence that you were watching the TV instead of your keyboard. I am sure that HELL ISLAND (as the British version I glommed onto is titled) does indeed have some good stuff in there, but frankly I don't care. And nothing is more annoying that encountering art of any genre that doesn't inspire admiration, some decent dislike or even good old honest hatred for it. The film is content with simpering away 80-whatever minutes of time and never really accomplishing anything more than being a sometimes distraction in spite of my best efforts to try and give it a chance, but no dice.There is some offbeat production design going on, the use of lighting is striking at times, and the occasional outburst of mayhem will probably keep fans of 1980's Teen Horror interested. The rest of you be warned though: YOU WILL WONDER IF YOU DRESSED LIKE THAT IN 1987, and the answer is probably more hideous than anything which happens on screen. Try to watch it as a free rental if possible so that if disappointed you aren't stuck with the damn thing: Movies like this take up valuable shelf space that is often at a commodity these days, what with the world coming to an end & all ...$LABEL$ 0
+When this series aired I watched most of it. I think it was supposed to be a long running series in the vein of "The Fugitive" and "The Incredible Hulk" where the protagonist is being chased around the country looking for a solution to his problems. In this case the hero's problem is his progressive aging in reverse. I liked what I saw of these shows. The acting was good especially the sorrowful relationship between the lead character and his wife. Problem is: They cancelled it before it had a chance to end. (either that or I missed the last episodes).They never got a chance to wrap up the story either, knowing it had been cancelled. Poof it was just gone. However, like I said before I might have missed the last episodes. But my proof to the contrary is this: I rented the tape. Where I left off in the series. The lead character's wife dies in a fire started by a chase involving King's famous organization the Shop. While getting away hero is kidnapped. It ends with his friends realizing they have to go save him from the Shop. The end. Last episode. On the video: His wife does not die but escapes the fire with him. Right when he should get nabbed by the Shop, he and his wife share a weird moment then phase out of existence. Abrupt, silly and cheap to the extreme. They just wanted to put this video out and decided to tag on an ending not caring how bad it was. They might as well of just shown some stock footage of the first atomic bomb detonations. Almost Pythonesque.The show did have a cool opening title sequence set to the David Bowie song of the same name$LABEL$ 0
+"Sleeping With the Enemy" is a predictable, 'been there before' thriller that never seems to find any inspiration no matter how desperately cast and crew try. I can't believe a bunch of my friends talked me into seeing this at the movies some sixteen years ago.The complete lack of originality from the Ronald Bass screenplay (based upon the Nancy Price novel) does not help, nor does the stale direction of Joseph Ruben or the very average performance from Julia Roberts. The supporting cast including Patrick Bergin and Kevin Anderson do little to help.There really isn't a lot to say. Just give it a miss.Sunday, April 14, 1991 - Hoyts Cinema Centre Melbourne$LABEL$ 0
+Having read all of Sarah Waters books i was eagerly looking forward to a BBC adaptation of Fingersmith. Especially since Tipping the Velvet had been done so well by old familiar Andrew Davies.I was not disappointed with the results, in fact i think this might be on a par with TTV; both romantic and entertaining. And not as so many ignorant people would have you believe, a pointless lesbian romp. Having been a fan of Elaine Cassidy's since seeing her guileless turn in Felicia's Journey i thought she embodied both hard deception and a growing fragility as Maud. Her transformation was believable and impressive to watch. I recognised Sally Hawkins as Zena Blake from Tipping the Velvet, a small role primarily so i didn't have as many expectations but she was astounding in the role of Sue Trinder. Her eyes were mesmerising conveying everything from rage to absolute despair. The two of them acting together, combining these talents made this drama unmissable. Of course Imelda Staunton was amazing as usual, she is unmistakably a national treasure and the supporting cast were all of a high standard. Even the direction from the fairly unknown Aisling Walsh used contrasting yet beautiful shades of blue for Briar and brown for London.However as much praise must be given to Ransley the script writer. To turn a 600 page book where every line is of the highest quality into a three hour extravaganza is a huge feat. He illuminated the main revelations at a steady pace whilst giving us plenty of back-story and character development at the same time. He has my full admiration.In conclusion, a brilliant adaptation where all involved gave 100% and making this one of the best BBC dramas i've seen.$LABEL$ 1
+Spoilers !!! To understand what really happened first you have to be a warrior, to stay alive in real war, to think off-line,analytically,critically and not linear. Otherwise you will come to false conclusions that Maj.Gray was dumb or unstable person. Truth is something completely different. He was firm hardened veteran and only way he could be killed by Capt. O'Malley is that he wants her to kill him. It was his way out. He choose it. He was not man who will retire. If you've never been on a first line you can't understand it. He intentionally prepare his own suicide. First he seduced Mary Jane, than intentionally acted as a dumb, than stageed argue - shutting incident before witnesses (to protect her later after she done what he wants her to do if it comes to trial), than gave her son a bullets (to assure he could load her gun later), came that night, loaded her gun, woke her up, put her gun in her hands, acted as he was attacking her, after shot first time he raised knife and cried "One kill" so she shot him again and before died he put knife off like he was trying to took him back again after first shot. He also gave her a message with his last cry. "After first kill everything will change inside your mind and destroy your life, this is the the only way for me to die as a man, yet to be killed by somebody I love is my choice and my only prerogative, war and army is not what you thought so far, grow up finally and save your life till you can". She left military life at the end. She did understand him. And he did not die in vain. The man who helped him to prepare all that and after to carry out the trial and the outcome of that trial was Col. Sam Doran with help of Lt. Tim Macy. Macy didn't know what is really going on and what will be the outcome but did what he was expected to do. He took photos of Mary Jane and Maj.Gray by order of Col. Sam Doran who gave that order because Maj.Gray asked him to do that. After she refused to leave army (what Col.Doran asked her to do) Col. Doran convinced prosecutor to charge her with a premeditated murder (he knew she cant be found quilty) instead of manslaughter (there was some possibility to be found quilty) with taken photos. Col.Doran also suppress argue-shutting incident to escalate to prevent prosecutor to have any doubt about premeditated murder charge but let it be revealed during the trial what greatly influenced the jury. I have no doubt about outcome of that trial. Why Col. Doran did that way? Because he will do anything Maj.Gray ask him to do. Why? Because he saved his life on a battlefield. Why Mary Jane choose to go to trial? Because she was a person who have integrity, a principles. And that is why Maj.Gray choose her. It has to be somebody deserving, somebody honourable. Keeping his secret about what really happened that night she also prove her honour.Miroslav$LABEL$ 1
+***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** When I saw a preview for this movie I thought it was going to be atleast a slightly admirable storyline. But as most superstation original movies I was left disapointed. This gullible family ends up driving through this "deserted" town to take a brake and find this video camera showing these people doing everything their donig and finds out they all eventually disappear, the family goes through all these mysterious stages and never discovers or displays what the heck is stalking them. Their are more gaps than I can count and they don't explain anything that happens how or what. It ends where the family gets in a car accident and get posest or brainwashed or something( which is never explained). The next thing you know ur hoping they somehow find out how all it happened but it ends leaving you completely confused.$LABEL$ 0
+I accidentally happened upon this movie when I was looking for something to watch while eating lunch. I actually turned to the WE Network because it said it had the last 20 minutes of some movie about the importance of "sticking it" for some gymnastics team -- I figured cheesy goodness. Well, I got cheesy alright. First, I missed a good 20-40 minutes at the start of the movie. Luckily, most of it was recapped fairly quickly, especially in the bedroom scene where Crystal admits that she felt responsible for the death of her rapist.I love Jenny Garth and will watch her in just about anything. She's just so pretty, and I want my lipstick to look as perfect as hers always does. She looks great throughout this movie, and doesn't really age over what seems to be more than a decade. Overall, I felt bad for the actors as I watched this movie. All of them tried to sell their parts, but all were so poorly written that it was a constant struggle. Frankly, I was surprised to see Terry Farrell and Mitch Ryan (Greg's dad from Dharma & Greg) in this. But the writing was not the worst part of this movie. About a half-hour before the end, her mother dies, and when they show the headstone the death date is 1979. Having missed the beginning, I had gotten the impression from the wardrobe that this was taking place in the 80s. Not one leisure suit or bell bottom in sight. Shame on the person who did wardrobe for this film! Don't get me wrong -- all the outfits in this movie were beautiful, but they were completely wrong for the time period. It almost makes me wonder if they told the wardrobe person that it was a period piece.Bottom line -- good for a laugh or to feed a Jennie Garth fix. :)$LABEL$ 0
+Some Plot Spoilers Ahead.The Nashville Network's so-called rebirth as "The First Network for Men" is a complete disappointment, as was its block of adult cartoons. The new Ren and Stimpy was just plain awful, "Gary the Rat" mediocre at best, and "Stripperella" pretty unwatchable. This cartoon is mostly boring; if "Ren and Stimpy" suffered from gross-out overkill, "Stripperella" lacked any decent shock gags, funny witless gags, clever gags, or gags, period. The concept is bad to begin with: Pamela Anderson, a stripper-cum-superheroine, saves "The City" from an assortment of goofy supervillains. This cartoon seems like an homage to superior wacky superhero spoofs, like "Darkwing Duck" and "The Tick," but without those cartoons' wit and good writing---or even good storyboarding. "Agent 0069" tries to vacillate between being goofy and sexy, but she is neither, and this cartoon's failure to make her one or the other brings this series down.Watch your taped episodes of "The Tick," and see what a real superhero spoof cartoon is like.$LABEL$ 0
+Along with Fernando Fragata, João Mário Grilo, Abi Feijó, Leonel Vieira, étc...(other commercial directors), Diamantino Costa is one of the best Portuguese Directors; "O Lampião da Estrela" was his (Diamantino Costa) First movie, before he made several successful commercials. This title is starred by one of the best Portuguese comedians of all times, Herman José and José Pedro Gomes are great. Its a very funny movie!! (28/07/2000)BOA SORTE DIAMANTINO...$LABEL$ 1
+Kidman and Law lack the chemistry to make this sloppily directed, poorly written romance/melodrama work on any level other than grandiosity. Kidman pouts andpines wistfully for her absent lover Law. She's just met him when he's whisked off to do battle for the South in the Civil War, and they've only exchanged about 5 sentences and one kiss, yet they're totally smitten. Law's main direction throughout seems to be `Look vacant and shell-shocked, but sensitive.' Rene Zellweger is about the only spark in this dreary script, but she plays it way too broad and over the top, like she was starring in `Annie Get Your Gun.' Yee-hah boy howdy! Something about her character felt more like it belonged in a Monty Python sketch - the one from `Holy Grail' where the peasants spend all their time wallowing in muck making mud pies for no reason. Kidman is a smart enough actress to stay out of her way whenever she can. Their scenes together are like a comic book hidden inside a Victorian Era novel.Whenever the action bogs down into total tedium, which is frequently, all the writers do is shout `Cue the Simon Legree-type Villain!' and Teague (Ray Winstone) comes galloping out of nowhere to do his unspeakably dastardly acts, like kill and torture innocent God-fearing townspeople in the name of loyalty to a fast-fadingConfederacy. All other times, he's missing in action, which is preposterous even in this cornball script. There is a plethora of other talented actors who give credible performances in small roles. These are the characters Law meets as he does his Johnny Appleseed trek from the front lines, where he has deserted, to the hopefully loving embrace of Kidman back in Cold Mountain. Ultimately though, none of these characters matter. Law has no time for them or their lives. Each of these little mini-movies has the same tired theme: war is gol-durn heck, and turns otherwise decent Christian folk into rabid animals.And the script is far too predictable, too heavy-handed. Moreover, the pacing of the story is dreadfully slow. You spend the entire movie waiting for Romeo and Juliet's inevitable reunion, with Kidman wringing her hands and sighing, Law overcoming incredible odds and dodging bullets. And when it finally comes you just don't care anymore. You'll be looking at your watch wondering how much more of this clap you have to endure.I give it one star out of five for the battle scenes. There is a potent anti-war message here. The incredible lack of concern for the loss of life by the Generals on both sides of the conflict is powerful stuff. But it's only about 15 minutes of this 150-minute dog.$LABEL$ 0
+What an absolute joke of a movie. The case for this film would have you believe it is Duel meets Jeepers Creepers meets Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Three good films in their own right and you would think, using their blueprint, MM couldn't go far wrong. Well that's what I thought, and I was very, very mistaken! We follow two college students as they travel miles across the desert to reach a wedding. They pick up a girl (no she doesn't get her clothes off), then they get chased by a Leatherface rip-off in a Monster Truck, whom they aptly name F**kface (AKA Monster Man).The Monster Truck I will admit is a very cool vehicle, but the less than suspenseful chase scenes ruin it's potential.So MM decides he's got a bit of a grudge against these guys and chases them for a bit, they loose him for a while and stop at a bar full of amputees, then they go to a motel where lead character Adam sleeps with hitch-hiker Sarah (though they both wear underwear!). Then they are caught by MM, taken to his home where they escape death and try to kill MM, but fail, hence the set-up for the sequel. Apart from a minor 'twist', that's it.If you can get past the first 2 minutes – where Adam's friend Harley pops up from hiding in the back of Adam's car to try to scare him, with no explanation as to how Harley even got there, how long ago or how Adam even failed to realise – without thinking you hate it already, then you may just enjoy this film.Monster Man has very poor cinematography and direction which is immediately off-putting. This is the kind of movie that you'll be able to pick up as one of those films in a box set of 20 horror movies that you've never heard of.What is so irritating is Blockbuster stock so many of these poor quality films that are shot on digital by some amateur film students, and that's exactly what MM is (though IMDb states this particular director was born in 1961).The acting throughout this film is atrocious. The script, which the writer obviously considered to be funny, is irritating and childish. You get the impression only one draft was written before they started shooting. In fact, the script is do dire a lot of the film seems improvised, full of those boring, un-entertaining conversations that are only funny or important to the actual people involved. Imagine you filmed yourself and your buddies having a conversation, sure, points are funny – TO YOU, but mostly it's trash. That's what the script for MM is like.Don't watch it for the gore either – it's fairly minimal and there are much better gory films out there (Bad Taste, Evil Dead et al…) Jeepers Creepers 1 & 2, even with their cheesiness and plot holes, are far superior to this film. Compare the intro of Jeepers Creepers to the intro of Monster Man and you'll see what I mean.$LABEL$ 0
+As an avid fan of Christian film, and a person trying to maintain a keen eye for improvements in the realm of Christian film-making, I was excited to get a chance to see this film. I was ready to see something that would make a new mark in quality movies. I was left disappointed.The beginning scene is excellent, though a slight rip-off of Leon - The Professional on the angle, it showcases some great cinematography in the early goings... everything after that was pretty much downhill.I was barely able to sit through this one, I was tempted multiple times just to shut it off.The acting, while quite possibly sincere, was incredibly awful. But then again, the heart of the problem was the screenplay itself. The dialog was worse than anything I have ever seen, and even my amateurish screenplay "The Awakening" (soon to be an independent film) looked like a Hitchcock-thriller next to this. (Which isn't saying much.) The bright side of this film is that it was filmed on Sony's brand new High-Definition 900 cameras shooting in 24P. This film and Star Wars: Attack of the Clones were the first movies ever to use these new technology cameras that year. Unfortunately, the camera's performance seemed to be wasted with bad lighting, poor angles, and awkward handling.The only good feeling I got coming out of watching this movie was how good my rookie indie film is going to look next to it. ; ) 4/10$LABEL$ 0
+This 1973 TV remake of the Billy Wilder classic is inferior to the original. Surprise!First, the good things. Lee J. Cobb makes a terrific Barton Keyes. He's not as good as Edward G. Robinson, of course, but he's the only reason to watch this. This remake's only improvement over the original is that it cuts down the role of Lola Dietrichson, the step-daughter of the femme fatale, Phyllis Dietrichson.And that's it for the good things.The bad things are many. The director records everything in an indifferent manner: if you watched the film with the sound muted you'd hardly get the impression that anything especially interesting was happening. Because of modern bad taste, the film must be in color instead of black and white. Because of 1970s bad taste, all the sets are distractingly ugly. Walter Neff's expensive apartment, in particular, is hideous.The modern setting hurts in a lot of small ways. Train trips were a bit more unusual in the 70s than in the 40s, so Mr. Dietrichson's decision to take a train seems more of a contrivance. Men stopped wearing hats, which prevents Walter from covering up his brown hair while posing as the white-haired Mr. Dietrichson. Women in mourning stopped wearing veils, which robs Samantha Eggar of a prop Barbara Stanwyck made splendid use of in a key scene. (Oddly, Lola still has the line where she reveals that her stepmother was trying on a black hat and veil before she had need of them.)Stephen Bochco keeps much of the Billy Wilder-Raymond Chandler script the same. But he makes a lot of tiny, inexplicable changes to the dialogue which leave the script slightly flabby where once it was lean and muscular. Outrageously, the famous motorcycle-cop banter is gone, but look closely and you'll see what looks like a post-production cut where those lines should have been. Bochco may not be to blame.Richard Crenna is passable as Walter Neff. What might have made this version tolerable is a really splendid Phyllis Dietrichson. Instead we get Samantha Eggar, who comes off like a standard-issue villainess from "Barnaby Jones." But who can blame Eggar? With a director who barely seems interested in what's happening in front of the camera, how could Barbara Stanwyck herself have come off well?$LABEL$ 0
+A delightful little thriller opens with Trevor Howard in his Jag convertible and ends on a dockside in Liverpool. It's all thrills and spills as the ex-spy has to restart his career just as he's getting some serious R & R cataloguing butterflies (how British is that?).Trevor Howard and Jean Simmons frolic from London to Newcastle-upon-Tyne to Liverpool (via Ullswater) - he's just been thrown out of MI5 or something, and she, you guessed it, is on the run, wrongly accused of murder. There's seedy docks, rolling Lake District hills, sheep, country pubs, coppers getting lost, waterfalls, a bunch of amateur cyclists, rooftop chases, and lots of Chinamen (don't ask), and it's all very Hitchcocky and Hannayesque.....and a smashing example of British Noir...$LABEL$ 1
+NBC had a chance to make a powerful religious epic along the lines of "The Ten Commandments" and "The Greatest Story Ever Told," and instead they chose to make some halfhearted cartoon that was more like "Waterworld" than anything else. I don't recall a Bible passage where Lot turns into a pirate and attacks the ark, nor do I remember one where Noah's son develops a serious friendship with an orange, nor do I remember Noah being some crazy old loon who suddenly acts like he's commanding a naval fleet and runs around shouting nautical terms like "hoist the mainstay!" This was possibly the worst marketing decision in history. Obviously the majority of people watching this were going to be Jewish and Christian parents with their kids, so why on earth make the movie so offensive to those people? If they were intentionally trying to offend, why not advertise it that way and at least reel in the right audience?? I hope they make a REAL Noah movie someday, one done seriously and thoughtfully, one that actually appeals to people and makes money. Until then, don't waste your time with this trash.$LABEL$ 0
+Oh dear! The BBC is not about to be knocked off its pedestal for absorbing period dramas by this one. I agree this novel of Jane Austens is the difficult to portray particularly to a modern audience, the heroine is hardly a Elizabeth Bennet, even Edmund is not calculated to cause female hearts to skip a beat. However I must say I was hoping for an improvement on the last and was sadly disappointed. The basic story was preserved, but the dialogue was so altered that all that was Jane Austen's tone, manner, feeling, wit, depth, was diluted if not lost. If some past adaptions may be seen as dated the weakness of this one must be that it is too modern ('his life is one long party'?????) The cast was generally adequate, but I think Billie Piper was the wrong choice, it needed someone more restrained, I gained no impression of hidden depths beneath a submissive exterior, she was more like a frolicking child. I see I must wait for the BBC to weave its magic once again.$LABEL$ 0
+Well, if you are looking for a great mind control movie, this is it. No movie has had so many gorgeous women under mind control, and naked. Marie Forsa, as the busty Helga, is under just about everytime she falls asleep and a few times when she isn't. One wishes they made more movies like this one.$LABEL$ 1
+Something about the 40 Year Old Virgin and the other comedy hit of the summer, Wedding Crashers, is similar, but they are two different films in some respects. Both are romantic comedies that have that kind of over-the-top, crazy sensibility that keeps the teens and guys in their 20's along with the usual dating crowd to go see the films. Both have some sort of formula to the stories as well. But by the end of the 40 Year Old Virgin, I think I found overall it was more satisfying than 'Crashers'. Although one can guess where the relationship story with Steve Carrell's character Andy and Catherine Keener's character Trish will go to, it isn't too basic for one to figure out like with Crashers, and the characters both leading and supporting are realistic, more rounded than most of the one-dimensional or unexplained people in the other. And, perhaps, it may also depend on how much you identify (or just find the lunacy) in both.The thing is some people may go into The 40 Year Old Virgin not knowing Steve Carrell as well as Owen Wilson or Vince Vaughn, as Carrell has built up his cult status on The Daily Show (one of my favorite shows on now) and in small but unforgettably riotous roles in Anchorman and Bruce Almighty. This is his first starring role, but it's not treated like some third rate vehicle. He and co-writer/director Judd Apatow treat the character of Andy with a certain level of sincerity that keeps the audience on his side all the way, even early on as he talks to his action figures while re-painting them. It's also a tricky line to walk on- in lessor hands this could be no more or less entertaining than the Lackluster 40 Days and 40 Nights with Josh Hartnett (also about sexual dysfunction). As the title suggests, Andy is the 40 year old who is like the nice guy friend with still a little Pee-Wee Herman in him (the opening over the credits of his his apartment is hilarious, a good sign).So, his friends (among them Paul Rudd, Romany Mancoy, Seth Rogen, all very good comic foils) try and devise different strategies and tips to finally break the sort of curse over Andy's head to pop his cherry, so to speak. He almost gets with a overly drunk woman, he almost gets with a freaky kind of girl, and almost with his own boss (Jane Lynch, also very funny in the mockumentaries) as a (explitive) buddy. But this soon all starts to fade as he gets into a meaningful relationship with Trish, who works across the street from him. As they build on a relationship not based at all on sex, one might worry that the plot gear of "how is he going to tell her such and such" might get in the way of the comedy. It doesn't. In fact, if anything, Carrell and the cast build on it to a very high degree. For practically an hour and a half of the film's two hour length, there was barely a moment I wasn't laughing, whether big or small.The big laughs though make up for not just any kind of formalities with the plot, or one or two little stray stories (the fellow co-workers have their own relationship problems as well, Rudd's being the funniest). The big laughs come through because of Carrell's reactions, and that the people around him can either back up with their own sort of humor/charm, or that its with some truth. Keener gives a very good performance and makes it so that there is a genuine spirit to their relationship (and, un-like 'Crashers', there isn't as much that doesn't make sense character wise). For someone like me who loves it when a comedian can get laughs just from the way he looks on his face, Carrell gets very high points here. And like with a Farrelly brothers movie, the more raunchy or outrageous scenes are done with total absurdity; the 'waxing' scene (which was done for real, by the way) and the sort of Aquarius musical number towards the very end of the film (the way it comes out at first is a total, uproarious surprise). But if you're willing not to get offended by it, there's more where that came from. This is one of the funniest films of the year.$LABEL$ 1
+Whilst it is universally acknowledged that Fearful Symmetry was heavily influenced by the Kolchak episode They Have Been, They Are, They Will Be, whether this makes it a rip-off or a homage is an altogether more controversial point. As a huge fan of both series I subscribe to the latter belief, although the less charitable may not do. James Whitmore was brave to take on the task of directing such a difficult episode, invisible elephants and gorilla suits sounds like a recipe for disaster, but he pulls it off with style, the teaser being an absolute gem. Lance Guest does a great job of making a credible character out of Kyle Lang and Jack Rader seethes with menace as Ed Meecham. Forget Fearful Symmetry's dubious originality and just enjoy it as a deeply satisfying X File.$LABEL$ 1
+So well done. The photography, sound, music and the performances were the best. It's also an amusing story line that brings a smile to your face with each scene--I loved it and I'm a 60 year old heterosexual guy. Each character seemed to fit their part to a tee. It's the best performance that I've seen from Ms. Capshaw--she's been in more movies than I thought, but this was a wonderful achievement. I suppose it's a plus to have Spielberg money behind you allowing for a fat budget and all the best that money can buy technically. Two of the cast have successful T.V. shows of their own now--it's easy to see why. Tom Selleck does his usual good job.$LABEL$ 1
+2002's the Bourne Identity is one of my all-time favorite movies. however, many fans of the book have complained that the movie had very little to do with the book's plot.The Assignment is the real deal. It's odd that no-one on the "Bourne Identity" threads has mentioned this movie at all. (Well, I jst did.)Besides the excellent plot, I personally found this movie to be as good as any espionage movie I've ever seen, with the possible exception of The BourneIdentity itself.The action is all completely realistic. I especially liked the protagonists' training regimen, which was very inventive.The feel is dark and gritty. There are a few surprising plot twists. The acting is excellent. If you like this genre, I cannot recommend this movie highly enough.$LABEL$ 1
+Look as being Anglo-Irish I assure you this reviewer is anything but Bias. But I assure you this is very much an Irish Film - and not English as the last comment seems to have suggested. This film was written by Neil Jorden and Conor McPherson and directed by Conor McPherson too - both Irish. The Cast is almost entirely Irish - it was shot in Ireland with an Irish crew. Even Michael Gambon was born in Ireland - I remember him joking about it in an interview about this film.Michael Cane was evidently brought in to boost Box office takings abroad.Loved the film, I just wanted to correct a totally uninformed comment!Now on with the review - I loved Dylan Moran, have always been a fan of his, himself and Michael Cane formed a surprisingly good double act. It was great to see Morans range as an actor as he plays several different made up characters during the film. I would recommend this film to anyone with an interest in comedy - as it represents a fresh, quirky and inventive turn in Irish feature length chuckle films. I laughed a lot. what more could you ask for?$LABEL$ 1
+John Ford is one of the most influential and best remembered American filmmakers in the history of film, his name usually associated with the western film genre. However, John Ford's arguably best film is not a western at all but a seedy drama set in the Irish fight for independence in the early 1920s: 1935's The Informer.Times are tough on many in Ireland and the burnt out Gypo Nolan is caught in a web of poverty and desperation - and the walls are closing in. Gypo is big but he is not the brightest bulb on the tree, has a warm heart but a short fuse, and never seems to really think things all the way through but he is not a criminal or a self-centered pig. Walking the streets starving with no where to live, the hulking Gypo Nolan finds the prime lady in his life, Katie Madden, on the streets soliciting herself because of her own desperate situation and starts to dream about taking her to the United States if he only had the 20 Pounds to pay for it. As luck would have it, his friend Frankie is back in town with a 20 Pound price over his head and Gypo is desperate enough to inform the police of Frankie's whereabouts. Gypo, with the new 20 Pounds of blood money earned, finds this foggy night particularly foggier as guilt swells all over him and the IRA invests all their resources to find Frankie's informer.Victor McLaglen portrays the fallen Gypo Nolan and definitely deserved the Best Actor Oscar he was awarded for this film. His brutish, stupid, and tender turns give the character dimension and McLaglen is only second to Dudley Moore's character Arthur Bach from the 1981 film Arthur as the most entertaining cinematic drunk. Margot Grahame's performance as Katie Madden is also excellent but she and McLaglen are the only members of the cast who truly impress. Preston Foster is especially miscast as an IRA head, mainly because he is most obviously not Irish, and J. M. Kerrigan borders on irritating throughout his role in the film but this disappointing supporting cast is the film's only poor point.Often overshadowed by some of Ford's better known westerns like The Searchers or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The Informer is easily one of John Ford's best films - if not his very best. Beginning what would be a long career of Oscar nominations and wins for John Ford, The Informer won four Oscars including one for him for best director in 1936. Ford and company's use of shadows and light in the film is particularly engaging and vital to telling the story. Gypo's walk through the streets is narrated by the gloomy state of the town and the glaring accusations of the street lamps, each shadow constantly reminding him of his dark deed. Ford's command of this technique was amazing to watch; if The Informer was made 10 years later (thus making the genre requirements) it would probably be considered one of the best films noir of all time but that does not hinder it from being remembered as an excellent classic film.$LABEL$ 1
+In 1933 Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler sang and danced their way through three Warner Brother musicals that offered Depression era audiences a momentary distraction from their woes. Gold Diggers of 1933, 42nd Street and Footlight Parade were all set in the world of Broadway Theatre with basically the same theme of the show must go on. In addition to Keeler and Powell the films featured the kaleidiscopic choreography of Busby Berkeley, show stopping tunes and many of the same supporting players.All are arguably classics of their genre but I must admit a clear preference for Footlight due to it's pace energy and lead James Cagney. Warren William in Gold Diggers and Warner Baxter in 42nd Street acquit themselves admirably as the shows production heads- particularly Baxter as the burned out Julian Marsh in search of one last box office smash. Both lack the infectious energy of Cagney however, who perfectly compliments the frenetic pace of putting on a Broadway musical. He is an absolute whirlwind as he deals with production numbers, unscrupulous partners and a gold digging girlfriend.Of course Cagney alone does not make Footlight the classic that it is. The script crackles with some sharp double entendres delivered by a superlative supporting cast featuring Frank McHugh, Hugh Herbert, Guy Kibbee and especially Joan Blondell who cuts everyone down to size. Busby Berkeley's dance numbers are surreal, suggestive and risqué and done just in the nick of time before the arrival of the Hollywood Code in 34. Sadly, the thirties and sometime beyond would never see such a richly made musical with the verve and sass of Footlight again. Gentility and morality made sure of it.$LABEL$ 1
+***SPOILER*** Do not read this, if you think about watching that movie, although it would be a waste of time. (By the way: The plot is so predictable that it does not make any difference if you read this or not anyway)If you are wondering whether to see "Coyote Ugly" or not: don't! It's not worth either the money for the ticket or the VHS / DVD. A typical "Chick-Feel-Good-Flick", one could say. The plot itself is as shallow as it can be, a ridiculous and uncritical version of the American Dream. The young good-looking girl from a small town becoming a big success in New York. The few desperate attempts of giving the movie any depth fail, such as the "tragic" accident of the father, the "difficulties" of Violet's relationship with her boyfriend, and so on. McNally (Director) tries to arouse the audience's pity and sadness put does not have any chance to succeed in this attempt due to the bad script and the shallow acting. Especially Piper Perabo completely fails in convincing one of "Jersey's" fear of singing in front of an audience. The only good (and quite funny thing) about "Coyote Ugly" is John Goodman, who represents the small ray of hope of this movie.I was very astonished, that Jerry Bruckheimer produced this movie. First "Gone In 60 Seconds" and now this... what happened to great movies like "The Rock" and "Con Air"? THAT was true Bruckheimer stuff.If you are looking for a superficial movie with good looking women just to have a relaxed evening, you should better go and see "Charlie's Angels" (it's much more funny, entertaining and self-ironic) instead of this flick.Two thumbs down (3 out of 10).$LABEL$ 0
+Ghost Story has an interesting feminist revenge tale premise, A-list veteran actors, colorful flashbacks with nifty look-a-like youthful counterparts of the old men. scary staccato music heralding the approaching horrors, atmospheric New England winter weather, and an excellent charismatic actress in the title role. Ghost Story could have been much more effective in black and white and in eliminating some of the more lurid special effects, and to presenting a more cogent screenplay (we should not have to be wondering about why the two trailer-parkish acolytes are in the script) The biggest detriment of the film is Craig Wassan (definitely separated at birth from Bill Maher) who from perhaps editing or just bad acting, is totally ineffective. He seems to "specialize" in wide-eyed, wide-mouthed reaction shots; not a lot of personality here. The revelation however is Alice Krige, pale-faced, enigmatic, terrifying underneath the placid exterior. However, her Eva Galli is creepy even before she meets her fate; I mean, a young woman who says things like "I'd like to take a bite out of you" or "Dance with me, you little toad!" is already not in the land of the living. Ghost Story would have been much better in a low-key, Val Lewton mode. The overdone special effects completely undercut the chill factor.$LABEL$ 0
+Gake no Ue no Ponyo is a beautifully animated film and a relief from the many heartless soulless CGI movies being made. The pastel and color pencil backgrounds were a surprise after Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi(Spirited Away) and Hauru no Ugoku Shiro(Howl's Moving Castle) being so similar stylistically. The style worked well for the film and was done exceptionally well. The time and effort put in to animate this is greatly appreciated as it gives the characters so much more life, the detail and care it takes makes the movie turn out so much better. There are several great scenes throughout the movie that have lots of movement and action. The greatest to me being a scene were Ponyo's sisters transform into massive wave like fish while she runs on top of them. The story is simple but fairly well written and played out. The plot stayed focused around character relationships and while it wasn't played out as well as in Tonari no Totoro(My Neighbor Totoro) it is still great. I felt that each character had the an appropriate amount of screen time unlike Spirited Away which was so jammed with distinctive characters that it could have been stretched out into an entire series.(The Radish Spirit. There was a another whole movie right there!) My only real problem with the movie was the end. The way its worded in the English version at least makes it seem like there's going to be some great test given to Sōsuke which turns out to be just him promising Ponyos mother that he will love Ponyo. Though putting more thought into this leads me to think that translation may not be that accurate to the actual meaning in that the test is the promise and that deep down he really means it. The movie did seem to end abruptly though. Other than that the movie was great and I highly recommend it.$LABEL$ 1
+One Life Stand is an accomplished piece of film making which hasn't been given the credit it deserves. Its IMDB rating of 1.7 doesn't do it justice and is, perhaps, due to the very few screenings it has had rather than the quality of the film itself. Shot on digital in black and white, the film is well directed with production values that belie its shoestring budget. The performances are excellent, particularly that of Gary Lewis who gets better with every role. My only criticisms are that it is a bit on the long side and could have done with a touch more humour to offset the darker moments. Overall, though, it is a fine piece of work.$LABEL$ 1
+On September 11th, 2001, millions were killed; but 2,819 lives ended in an especially gruesome manner. They were the victim of a plane hijacking by extremists whose sole mission was to destroy buildings, but more importantly, people. This film takes an in-depth look at four people whose lives were cut short by this disastrous event and one man whose life was shattered by the loss of their lives.Charlie Fineman (played by Adam Sandler), a former dentist living in New York, loses his wife and three children on September 11th as they were on their way to Los Angeles. Emotionally annihilated by the events, he eventually loses touch with everyone who reminds him of his former life; including his in-laws and his best friend (played, respectively, by Robert Klein, Melinda Dillon, and Mike Bender). He goes into completely denial and does his best to forget about his former life. This continues until he runs into his old college friend Alan Johnson (played by Don Cheadle) who Fineman doesn't seem to remember. The two begin to catch up, but Fineman believes Johnson was sent by people from his former life to persuade him into finding help. Slowly, but surely, Fineman regains his trust for Johnson.While all this is happening, Alan Johnson's life is going down the wrong path. He is a self man (dentist) who helps start a dental practice. One day, a patient of his named Donna Remar (played by Saffron Burrows) attempts to make a move on him, telling him that she would like to perform oral sex for him. This is an unwelcome surprise to Dr. Johnson since he is a married man with two children. As he is coming home from work on a particular workday, he sees his old friend (Fineman) and tries to flag him down. He is unsuccessful, but he gets another opportunity and persuades Fineman to get a come of coffee with him to catch up, despite the fact that Fineman doesn't know who he is.One of the most interesting things about this movie is its use of music as a motif. One of Fineman's physiological crutches is music, particularly Springsteen and other classic rock artists. When Fineman is asked to open up about his past or to talk about things he finds unpleasant, he puts on his earphones and drowns out the world with things his music.When the film was over, I had me thinking: how would I cope with the loss of my family? How would I deal with such a tragic events. It's something we don't really think about too often. We always think they'll be there and we often take them for granted, whether we intend to or not. We usually realize how important they are when it's too late; and a blow like that can destroy someone physically, emotionally, and physiologically. I really don't know how I would be able to deal with something like that. Would I face the problem head on, cope, and move on with my life or would I just put my headphones on and block the world?$LABEL$ 1
+When I say " Doctor Who " you might conjure up an image of Tom Baker , or Jon Pertwee or maybe Peter Davison . When I say " James Bond " you`ll almost certainly conjure up an image of Sean Connery while a small handful of people may think of Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan . But when I say " Sgt Bilko " absolutely everyone will think of Phil Silvers . Unlike Doctor Who or James Bond the role belongs exclusively to one actor . And that`s the problem with this film version you`ll continually wish you were watching the old black and white show . In fact the whole idea of making a film version of BILKO without Silvers in the title role comes close to sacrilage$LABEL$ 0
+Chris Penn is hilarious as the all-time stoner brother of Jeff spicoli. This movie is great because it was a lot more real and funnier than fast times at ridgemont high. Casting was perfect and one of my favorite soundtracks of almost all Eddie van halen which went on to become songs on ou812 and unlawful carnal knowledge. This movie is one of the great stoner film heroes with cheech and chong. Fast times was more depressing than funny. Abortions, friends cheating on friends, jerking off in bathrooms, bad jobs, and failing school. Someone must hate the eighties to like ridgemont more than the wild life. The film even had great cameos like the maker of city limits Michelle schocked in the liquor store or Ben Stein in his first role in the sunny's surplus store.$LABEL$ 1
+I attended Camp Chesapeake. It was located at the head of the Chesapeake bay on the North East River in MD. It was a similar type summer camp with cabins. It was established by the Coatesville, PA YMCA. I started out as a young camper and later became a Junior, Senior counselor and later, the Waterfront director. If the camp had continued, I would have done anything within my power to become the camp director. Alas the powers of the YMCA decided to close down the camp and sell it to the state of MD. I visited the former camp some years later by boat and was dismayed by the neglect of the state of MD and natural destruction by mother nature. The 350 acre site served so many with all the benefits of contact with natures offerings. A black man by the name of Curtis Ford, and his family were residents and caretakers of the property. Mr Curtis was my friend and mentor. I idolized his every being. Even as he could not swim he was a waterman. If I asked him where the fish were biting, he would designate the spot, and I would have a ball. Ther was also a Family camp at the end of the summer. These memories will be with me for eternity.$LABEL$ 1
+I will always think of Mr. Firth as Dorian Gray, if I live to be 100.Perfectly acted and directed, bringing Oscar Wilde's insight, wit and humor alive with an absolute and utter perfection unusual in television.More proof that the BBC more than makes up in talent what it doesn't always have in money.A must have for all Wilde fans-and indeed for everyone else. Inspired and perfected, every one of the actors looked exactly right for the role and every shot was well done.By the end I found that I loved every single character in a way that no other movie of the type had ever inspired. Watch it, then try to watch another version. It's just not the same, is it?$LABEL$ 1
+Goebbels motivation in backing down was not explored. In the aftermath of Stalingrad the Reich had decided to go for 'total war'. This is referred to in the film. Part of this was to use women in the war effort, which Germany had not previously done to any great extent. An SS massacre of women would have faced Goebbels with a public relations disaster of massive proportion. His preference was to make the problem go away as quietly as possible, on the basis that the Jewish men could always be rounded up later. I understand the majority survived the war.His other problem was that the 'Red' Berlin had never been very enthusiastically behind the Nazi cause and had to be handled cautiously. Again a massacre of women could have cost the Nazis what mediocre level of support they had in their capital city.It was interesting that the majority of SS uniforms showed patches which indicated that the men wearing them were not of German nationality, but were from German origins in other countries such as Lithuania or Latvia$LABEL$ 1
+In Hollywood in the 1930's and 1940's, I think that every studio can make a western, except Warner bros. The few times they try, it always ridiculous (except, perhaps, for They Died with their Boots on - which is a cavalery western.) I have read that Humphrey Bogart, seing James Cagney with this big cowboy hat on his head, said that he looks like a mushroom. True! Cagney and Bogart are too urban, too XXe century to be credible in a western movie. The story here had no suprise, and it did't help. Every 10 minutes, I figure I can see Bogart and Cagney drops their little guns and put hands in a machine gun to get away from the set in a 1930's black car.$LABEL$ 0
+While The Twilight Zone was a wonderful show, it was also very uneven--with some great episodes, some lousy ones and many in between. Don't believe the die-hard fans--there were some stinkers and this was definitely one of them.In a plot that is obviously meant to be an attack on Fidel Castro, a near lookalike (Peter Falk in lots of makeup and a beard) obtains a magic mirror that allows him to realize who all his enemies are so he can liquidate them. While I do believe that Castro is a thug and dictator (and tens of thousands of refugees and political prisoners will attest to this), it's amazing how this sort of preachy episode actually makes audiences laugh at the American efforts to marginalize the creep and actually makes Castro seem okay!! Think about it--Serling and company wanted to hurt Castro but instead only seemed to be obvious, preachy and silly in the process.It's indeed bad--almost laughably bad when seen today.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm at a loss for words. This movie is beyond description. I don't believe there is a language on Earth that has a word that can describe how horrible this movie is. If you do attempt to watch it, be sure to stick around for the "suprise ending". I only made it about three quarters of the way through this piece of crap before I couldn't take it anymore. Fortunately(or unfortunately) a couple of my buddies stayed till the end. When they woke up from their coma and after a couple of weeks of therapy they were able to fill me in on what I had missed. This movie has no story, no plot, horrible writing, and even worse acting. If you enjoy watching train wrecks or auto accidents then this film is for you. I think my IQ dropped about 30 points from watching this (insert expletive here).$LABEL$ 0
+The Comeback starts off looking promising, with a brutal death scene by a mask wearing killer. The mask itself is pretty cool too, and looks almost identical to the one used in the 1990's slasher film "Granny". From then on the film is mostly boring. We get a few more deaths, which again are good, but there's not enough of them. The reason the deaths are so good is because they are frenzied and bloody. The story behind the film is actually rather interesting and would have worked very well had it not been so boring for the most part. I would avoid this unless you're a die-hard collector - there's not enough here to even make it an average slasher flick.$LABEL$ 0
+The new voices scare me! Kuzco doesn't have to pass some frickkin' academy to become emperor again! It's the same thing over and over, isn't it? This IS a kids' show, right? Yzma turns Kuzco into something stupid, like an animal. He learns a lesson. EVERYTHING IS THE SAME!!!!! David Spade and John Goodman never returned... *sniffle*! Nothing changes 'cause Disney won't do anything 'bout it. It's probably one of the most retarded shows ever! The first movie was so damn better! Malina's probably the only person I like. Kuzco's such a crybaby! Kronk is retarded! And Yzma's retarded-ER (if that's even a word)! What I meant to say is... How could you, Disney... why?$LABEL$ 1
+Murder by Numbers is a pretty good movie. Even though the plot rolls along at a snail's pace, what with Sandra Bullock's character getting all mixed up with her partner and the movie flashing back to a previous trauma situation she had been in, it does succeed in keeping the viewer involved in the film.Having said that, I do think that it does a good job in setting that eerie sort of "who done it" type atmosphere. It keeps you guessing at which one of the boys really was behind the murder, if not both of them. I think Ryan Gosling and that other kid (lol) do a good job of selling that bully versus dork relationship. Not sure about Gosling playing a bad-ass, but for a guy who would later star in a movie like The Notebook, he did a pretty good job. Once the movie gets rolling, though, I really found myself involved in the story, sort of asking myself, "Oh My God, what would I do if I were in that situation?" Like I said, a good CSI type movie, maybe not for the EXTREME crime drama movie junkie, but a good all around flick.8 outta 10$LABEL$ 1
+How this film was made with so many big stars is beyond me. This is a terrible cliché' ridden film with the worst acting any of these actors have ever done. It really surprises me that so many of these A list stars would agree to this unfunny film. What's even worse is the fact that is made almost 100 million here in the states. It does go to show however that big stars can pull in the bucks, even if the film is terrible. I felt sorry for everyone involved in this snore-fest. Billy Crystal tried his best with the what he was given and the rest of the stars seemed to be walking through the motions. Whatever you do, don't fall for the excellent cast because no one could have saved this.$LABEL$ 0
+An odd, willfully skewed biopic of Dyan Thomas in which we hear little more than a dozen lines of his poetry. Instead we have to endure a raw character exposée seen through the prism of his proto-bigamous relationship with wife (Sienna Miller) and childhood love (Keira Knightley). Matthew Rhys plays Thomas with sufficient charm to inoculate us against his otherwise repellent self-interest and Cillian Murphy makes up the persistently tense lovetet.The film never seems to decide on where it's going. There's no arc so much as a viaduct from one end of the war to the other. Maybury seems much more interested in his two female leads (who wouldn't!?) than in the man who brings them together and then divides them. Miller is the choice of the two (I found Knightley competent at best but then I have never found her sympathetic) but they both offer dreadfully inconsistent Welsh accents. Other funny decisions include too much for the inconsequential character of William (Murphy), arty production (eg double crossfades) that is neither impressionist nor symbolic and the old chestnut act of period footage which doesn't blend. 4/10$LABEL$ 0
+This was an excellent show. It came on PBS back home in Chicago and I remember Cindy Herron (From EnVogue) played the teen aged daughter. The show dealt with subjects such as sex, peer pressure and puberty. IT was about a middle class black family who had a teen aged daughter and son who moved to a middle class neighborhood from Oakland or somewhere (I can't remember). I remember several episodes but the one I remember most was when their cousin got her period for the first time. I was probably 7-8 when I first watched it and I was able to keep up with the program. This was a great show. I can't remember the name of the guy who played the son on the show, but I always got him confused with Kevin Hooks.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie has the look and feel of having been put together in a matter of days-kind of like Plan 9 From Outer Space. In spite of this, it's still a classic-ranking among my favorite Creature Features. *****POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD******* Count Dracula and Larry Talbot; aka Wolfman, arrive at the laboratory of Dr. Edelman seeking a cure for their nocturnal anti-social behavior, such as killing people. In the meantime, kindly Dr. Edelman discovers the body of the Frankenstein Monster. Becoming obsessed with bringing it back to life( a common character trait among scientists, mad or otherwise), he goes against his better judgement, resulting in monster mayhem and madness. One of the final Universal classics of it's time (Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein followed 3 years later), it rates a 10 with this reviewer. Onslow Steven steals the show as good doctor gone bad after being infected by the blood of Dracula and becoming a half- werewolf/vampire creature, coming to a tragic end. At 1 hour 7 min. it packs quite a punch. A worthy addition to my video collection.Rating: ***** out of *****$LABEL$ 1
+A lot of horror fans seem to love Scarecrows, so I won't be very popular in saying that I found it to be rather boring. The idea behind it was interesting, but it seems to drag so much. I think the main problem is that it is all set in darkness. Sometimes horror films set in darkness can work (such as Humongous), but Scarecrows is in darkness for the whole film. A lot of the time it's hard to figure out what's actually happening, and although some shots of the scarecrows were creepy, most were hard to even see. If a little more lighting had been used, perhaps it could've been better.There's not many films involving killer scarecrows to my knowledge, apart from Dark Night Of The Scarecrow, which is much better. I would recommend that over Scarecrows any day.$LABEL$ 0
+Is this a game FMV or a movie? In all honesty, I watched this one out of "choice-less-ness". It is a very big waste of time and money.It seems HK movies are heading in the opposite direction of the rest of the world.Try to put more effort and money into a production and make us want to watch, rather than something you want us to watch.The graphics are so horrible than they looked like something out of the early to mid-90s low resolution games (in comparison to today's).The way they made this movie is almost exactly what they did in the 90s' Wing Commander game, namely the third installment of the series. Stop regressing and make us Asian look so bad at this compared to the big guns in Hollywood.Sure! They have big budgets and better actors. But we have some of the oldest histories, the myths and the legends, the best technophiles and possibly the largest computer graphic talent base in the world! So what went so very very wrong? Did you start using the same old companies that have been working with you for so many films?! Please stop wasting our time and money. This is the reason why HK movies are heading downhill so rapidly. Didn't you claim to be the Hollywood of the Orient? Guess not.$LABEL$ 0
+Well, the movie was no terrible, but whomever created the screen play did not do a good job of even creating the essence of unger. This movie was slightly below average and did not tell the story correctly on one of the most interesting persons ever born. I suggest reading the book "one of a Kind" the real unger story. They left out huge parts of his life. They also at times did not understand the real caractor that he was. The actual facts of his life were at times out of order. And in the end they really did not portray the actual personality that he did have. So please don't watch the movie; read the book. By the way I'm not just some prick who feels you have to stay 100% to the real story, but they did not even come close!!!$LABEL$ 0
+I am not saying that Night of the Twisters was horrible, but it was far from great. Mediocre at absolute best. I seems though that every time one type of movie is released, a second must be around the same time. (Think about Armageddon and Deep Impact, Volcano and Dante's Peak) Night of the Twisters is really just Twister except worse and with mundane special effects.I have nothing against the actors who starred in it, even if they weren't great, it was the movie itself, the directing, the special effects, the whole storyline was just too strange to interpret. A series of tornadoes strike a town and basically the movie is about people trying to find family and friends and deal with the damage.I really don't know why it seems as though duplicates of disaster movies are released almost in sync with each other, but this one would have been better with Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt.$LABEL$ 0
+Pendragon Pictures' new film "H G Wells' War of the Worlds", the first faithful adaptation of the original novel, has been in development for about 5 years. A theatrical release was intended for earlier this year (March, 2005) but this never happened. The DVD was rushed out to coincide with the release of Spielberg's version, which hits theatres June 29.I liked this film, with certain reservations.How faithful is the adaptation? It's not quite 100% faithful to Wells' book, but 90 - 95% faithful is good enough for me. At least several scenes were totally new, such as Ogilvy the astronomer's confrontation with a farmer, and the unnamed writer/narrator awkwardly having tea with his cousin. But on the whole, this film follows the book very closely -- certainly much more than the classic 1953 version by George Pal.Its greatest fault is that it was obviously made on a very cheap budget. The majority of it seems to have been shot blue-screen and composited with digitally rendered backgrounds. This is particularly annoying during most of the interior shots, and scenes of crowded city streets. The overviews of 1898 London look like something from a video game. Numerous scenes in horse-carriages were faked -- I guess they couldn't afford to rent a horse. The only scenes shot for "real" seem to be those in open fields or forests.But within those budget restrictions, they managed to do quite a lot. Artistically, the film looks right. The Martians and their tripods are quite well done, and very true to Wells' descriptions. I was particularly impressed with the heat ray. Although the Thunder Child sequence, which should have been one of the film's highlights, is very disappointing. It's a great shame that they couldn't afford more actual sets, or better quality animation.The acting and direction won't win any Oscars. For the most part, they are competent, not bad, but not outstanding. The music is quite good also, though not on a par with any of the major Hollywood composers.I'm actually glad this didn't get a theatrical release, because the budget limitation would have made it look much worse on a big screen. As it stands, I would rate this similarly to a BBC-TV adaptation of classic literature.A few nitpicks: Most of the scenes are presented with various colored filters (mostly red). This may have been an artistic choice, but it is used very inconsistently, and seems more like a sloppy job of mastering the DVD. And the writer/narrator's obviously fake moustache mutates from scene to scene.Bottom line -- Is it worth seeing? If you can look past the technical and budgetary limitations, and get into the story, I think you will enjoy this, especially if you've actually read the original H G Wells novel. If, however, you are easily put off by cheap production values, you'd best pass on this (unless you're a MST3K fan). Be warned, however that the film runs a full 3 hours, so I don't recommend watching it all in one sitting.BTW: An entirely different version of War of the Worlds (aka "INVASION") came out on DVD the same month that Spielberg's hit the theatres: http://imdb.com/title/tt0449040/. This was also made on a budget, but is updated to the present day like the Spielberg film - but it's much better! And to top it off, Jeff Wayne is making an animated film of his best-selling album from 1978, but that won't be out until 2007.$LABEL$ 1
+During the Civil war a wounded union soldier hides out in a isolated Confederate ladies' school; where the head mistress and the teacher of the school decide to care for him and keep him about, until trouble starts brewing between the lonely and sexually frustrated women and girls. The soldier decides to take advantage of this situation, but it all comes at a price in the end. "Dirty Harry (1971)" (which was made about the same time of "The Beguiled") might be my favourite collaboration between Eastwood and Siegel, but after seeing this, I tend to think this to be the pairs' finest work together. A very atypical, savvy and stylish vehicle for Eastwood is always on the mark with richly controlled direction by Don Siegel and a hauntingly rousing music score by Lalo Schifrin. Standing out strongly is its sultrily lurid and bleak nature that's intrusively planted into the film's psychological makeup and manipulative strangle hold in sexual depravity. It's assiduously played out and makes it more the brooding and blood curdling when those random shocks and saucy intentions take hold with gripping tension. The way Siegel illustrates John B Sherry and Grimes Grice's alluring bold, slow-burn screenplay (taken from the novel of Thomas Cullinan) is effectively done through stark emotions and the script's tight, lyrical context. Siegel's strong direction captures the idyllically southern Victorian setting with such potently garnished photography and he sets up some strangely piercing imagery with great clarity and restrained. While the performances, are truly commendable and high of quality. Clint Eastwood as the smoothly suave, sweet talking chameleon union soldier is very impressionable and delightfully assured. A profoundly eminent Geraldine Page steals the picture as the hardened head mistress and the elegant Elizabeth Hartman adds a delicate sincereness to her innocent character. Mae Mercer is strongly tailored as the black maid and Jo Ann Harris is the pick of the crop from the young pupils with her seductively sly persona. Honestly while Eastwood's charismatic character plays the field for his own selfish needs, there's still mixed intentions there that the one's being played (where rivalry between the women creep in) turn out to be no better than their guest at the end. Throughout there's a perversely dark sense of humour and ironic touch settling into the material. What's demonstrated here, is simply more than your basic little minded shocker, but one that's thickly layered with intrigue and a sense of realism that's hard to shake. That also goes for its extremely eerie title and closing song. A effectively chilling, low-key item that's hard not to be tempted by it's swinging hospitality.$LABEL$ 1
+There are two movie experiences I will always cherish. The first was seeing "Star Wars" for the first time at the age of 10 with my little brother. A close second is sneaking into Halloween at the Tripple Plex with my good friend, Trevor, in late October 1978. Halloween left me breathless, speechless, and downright scared. Everyone knows the story. Young Michael Myers decides to kill his sister on Halloween 1963. He escapes a mental hospital 15 years later to return to Haddofield to wreck havoc once again. He spots Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis), a shy senior who enjoys babysitting, and begins stalking her. Her partying friends across the street are killed, one-by-one as Michael sets his plot to get her. Ironically, the young boy she tends on Halloween is afraid of the "Boogeman," and can see him outside. During the murder spree, Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasance) works hard to find Michael before he unleashes his fury. He has no proof, no evidence, just a hunch he has to sell to Sheriff Bracket (Charles Cyphers). As the plot unfolds, you have a suspense-driven movie instead of a cheap thrill scare. Alfred Hitchcock once said, "You can have four men at a table playing cards and they don't know there is a bomb and it goes off. That is a cheap thrill. However, put four men at a table who discover a bomb and discuss what to do about it--then it doesn't go off, then you have suspense." Director John Carpenter takes that advice to the hilt in Halloween. The audience will see glimpses of him outside, watching, stalking his victims. We gasp. Will he kill her? When will he kill her? Then, Michael disappears. Carpenter also uses the suspense in lieu of special effects that usually highlight the gore. This movie has little blood, but still provides good scares. One of the best scenes is Michael lifting Bob off the ground. He rears the knife back as it glints off the moonlight, then he drives it. All you hear is a loud thud, then the audience sees Bob's feet drop lifelessly. Carpenter was the first to use a vantage point from the scene of the killer. This also peaks our audience. What will he do? What's going on inside his mind? Finally, Carpenter's hauntingly masterful score adds to the tension. Moreover, the tandem screen writing he did with Debra Hill gives us a story which develops characters we care about. The teens are not "party mad," but merely going through the rebellious angst of teenage wasteland. Finally, there is some decent acting in this "B," low-budget thriller. Nick Castle who plays "the Shape" (Michael) adds something to the mindless killer. It is cold, merciless, and without any pathology. Moreover, the personality does everything the same way. He kills only when trapped, or to set up a trap. He splits the victims apart. He also relies on brute strength. And that mask used (a bleached William Shatner mask) gives an impression of something that has no soul or emotion. While Pleasance is melodramatic in his deadpan monologues, he comes across as someone scared, desperate, and determined. It made me wonder if he represented modernism's fading attempt to explain evil. The crown jewel, though, is Jamie Lee Curtis' debut. She plays the Laurie character as someone scared, but also determined and strong who fights back. The end is one that left me speechless. This was the first concept of an indestructible serial killer who could not be stopped. Movies like Star Wars have the advantage that it can be enjoyed numerous times. Halloween, and other scary movies, though, do not have that advantage. So if we could erase our minds of the first time we see a movie to experience it again as fresh and new, Halloween would be the movie I would choose.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a truly magnificent and heartwrenching film!!!! Ripstein's locations are spectacular, extremely detailed and well lit, the dialogue is extraordinarily García Márquez, no doubt about it. Fernando Luján and Marisa Paredes give us outstanding performances as the colonel and his wife.You must see it!!!$LABEL$ 1
+Great acting, great movie. If you are thinking of building see this movie first. The dollar amounts may have changed but everything else is the same. The humor is true to life and emotions are those that anyone who has built has felt.$LABEL$ 1
+1960's kid show with ex-vaudevillians playing handy men for hire. As you can expect they are a disaster at everything they do. Over the course of the 11 minute episodes (leaving 4 minutes for commercials in the 15 minute time slot), they do things like set up a fence between warring neighbors, help a magician on stage and deal with a found trunk and wallet.Growing up I had never run across this show (which appears to have been shot in New York). I thought I had run heard of or seen a most of the children's shows from the period either through having watched them as a kid or viewed them at nostalgia conventions. Until Alpha Video released it on DVD I had been completely unaware if its existence.The show plays like the Three Stooges mixed with Abbott and Costello as done by people aping the routines. (Indeed one of the pair claims to have created the legendary "Slowly I turned..." routine that Abbott and Costello perfected). Its not bad, but its really not good either since everything seems watered down. The timing is often off (Though that maybe due to bad direction) and the jokes were recycled years before the show first ran. Odds are you've seen it all before . On the plus side its the type of thing that would be perfect to introduce very young kids to the magic of vaudeville style comedy, however its going to be trying for parents to sit through even with the short episodes.For nostalgia junkies only. Everyone else should look to seeing an Abbott and Costello or Three Stooges original.$LABEL$ 0
+If you are looking for King Kong, you mispelled your search! This is a low-low budget movie that was soley >ment to entertain people in a comic sense. Here is the >most ordinary human who is the only 1 who can save the >world from a 185' 300 ton behmouth. Surely you can see the humor in that.$LABEL$ 1
+Birthday Girl doesn't know what it wants to be - is it a comedy,, is it a drama...it just doesn't know. What could have been a very funny or touching film ends up in no-man's land. The premise is original enough to have warranted a script full of interesting scenarios but hardly delivers any and ends up petering out. This is a real shame if you look at the cast - it's very solid all the way through but they don't get the chance to shine. Very disappointing.$LABEL$ 0
+The blend of biography with poetry and live action with animation makes this a true work of art. The narration by Sir Michael Redgrave is moving. The length of the work makes it easily accessible for class room exposure or TV/Video time slots.$LABEL$ 1
+(There are Spoilers) Driving down a lonely country road one rainy afternoon Joanna Kndall, Margaret Colin,is distracted for a brief moment and runs down a little girl riding a bicycle on the side of the roadway. Doing what she can to keep the injured youngster comfortable Joanna goes to call for help at a local service station. Before she can give her name Joanna hangs up the phone in order to get back to the girl and see if she's all right; it's then and there when the nightmare begins for Joanna. Heart-wrenching drama that can effect any one of us when you try to do the right thing but are influenced by the words and feelings of those around you. Getting back to the accident site Joanna sees it's cordoned off by the highway police. Before she can tell them what happened, and her involvement in it, Joanna starts to have second thought about turning herself in. What would at first have been a tragic accident turns out to be a hit-and-run with Joanna facing time behind bars, if caught. Even far worse she has to live with herself in what she did seeing almost every day the family of the little girl she ran down Kelly Corey, Dallas Deremer, who goes to the same school as her two daughters Mindy & Holly, Gretchen Esau & Kira Posey. Joanna's life starts to come apart as she tries to keep the truth from her friends and family, not to mention the Eaton Police, of what she was involved with in little Kelly's accident. You can easily see how the words of her friends and neighbors as well as her husband Doug, Drew Phillbury, about the hit and run, effected Joanna. It was those words that had Joanna unable to bring herself to admit what she did not just for her own concern but her two daughters and her husband as well. Feeling that they'll be shunned by the people that they knew as friends as well as neighbors for years. Joanna on the verge of losing her mind tries to implicate her friend Nancy Grayson, Sherry Hursey, in Kelly's hit-and-run accident by trying to plant her earing, that she lost in Joanna house, at the accident site. It's then that she realizes what she's doing and suddenly stops,keeping her from making an already bad situation even worse, not wanting to have Kelly's accident but also innocent Nancy's freedom and reputation on her conscience as well. Margraet Colin gives a stunning performance as the guilt ridden Joanna Kendall and you can really feel for her seeing how she's being eaten up inside and not knowing just what to do. Wanting at first to turn herself in to the police a series of miscalculations causes Joanna to become a fugitive from the law. When she eventually did Joanna became the most hated and despised person in Eaton. Not being herself, when still at large, Joanna's husband starts to feel that she's either back to smoking or even having an affair. Never in a million years would Doug have thought that Joanna was the person who ran down little Kelly and left her to die on that rain soaked road! The look on his face, with his mouth quivering, when he found out the truth said it all.The last few minutes of the movie took a lot out of you knowing what Joanna was going through, not to downplay the suffering of the injured Kelly Corey and her parents, and how she now has to face the music for what she did and have to live with it for the rest of her life.$LABEL$ 1
+And a self-admitted one to boot. At one point the doctor's assistant refers to himself as Igor.Working with the increasingly plausible idea that computers could be used to replace or reconstruct brain functions, this movie doesn't spend enough time exploring the premise. Most of the screen time is split between girlfriend-in-a-coma domestic strife and chasing down the brain donor's killer. It attempts to be a sci-fi/drama/thriller but fails to deliver on any of the three.As a Frankenstein remake this one is missing everything that made the original good. Nobody calls the doctor insane or even threatens to kick him out of the hospital. The transformation scene consists of a coma victim opening one eye and the amazing computer that makes it happen isn't even shown. When the experiment works there is no praise, and when it starts going wrong there is little reaction.Any suspense over who the killer might be is shattered by progressively showing him in the same room with all of the possible suspects. Finding the killer is as easy as opening one file and interviewing one person.San Francisco as a setting is both overplayed and underused. The opening sequence hammers home the point that this is happening in SF, a cable car plays a significant role, the leads live in a hilltop Victorian, Pier 39 makes an appearance, and the final showdown happens at Golden Gate Park. More specifically along ten feet of cliff side at the park - just enough to keep the bridge in the picture at all times. Once the obvious scenery bases are rounded no other attempt is made to explore the city.The acting is the only saving grace here. Keir Dullea shows a good range and pulls off a couple of genuinely emotional scenes. Suzanna Love portrays recovery from a coma well. Tony Curtis only gets a handful of lines and twice as many evil guy stares with most of the Frankenscience explained away by his assistant. The little blond kid hits his cues fairly well also.I also gave it one extra star for the scene where the husband drives south from the bridge, it cuts to a U-turn in an unrelated parking lot, and then he's instantly back on the bridge driving north. It takes a whole lot of something - bravery, ignorance, deadlines - to try and slip that one by the viewer during the one single car chase.$LABEL$ 0
+OK, last night I saw the world premiere of Paul Schrader's The Exorcist: The Beginning at the Brussels International Festival of Fantasy Films. With all the commotion around the film it was highly anticipated.The director was there and so were most of the stars (except Skarsgard).Unfortunately the movie sucked big time. It was a real disappointment for me because I'm a huge fan of both Shrader and Friedkin's (RIP) original 1973 film.What was wrong with it? Most of it actually. The FX (you would think that the Matrix and LOTR digital revolution never happened: it was so badly rendered!), the editing (no real pace or rhythm), the acting (only Skarsgard at times could convince). The script was a, IMO, set up to explain the African scenes in the original film. So the movie had the feel of a set up scene only it contributed nothing.The only thing that I did like was Vittorio Storaro's cinematography although I've seen better from him (Apocalyps Now).All of the time I was thinking this was just a rough cut, a work in progress. And that, given the (well known) circumstances, is probably what it is. But that doesn't change the obvious problems with the script.I had the chance to meet Schrader (very briefly) but I didn't have the guts to tell him what I thought of the film and I was so nervous (this is the guy who wrote Taxi Driver for Christ sake!!) that I forgot to ask him to sign my copy of his Taxi Driver script...$LABEL$ 0
+one word boring.the young demi looks good, but she's pregnant (- point for that =D) the movie is not scary at all...the first scenes looked little crappy, i could render better clouds with my laptop, and after effects. but that was then... and now is now. some movies do not get old well... this is one of them.not worth renting or buying... get something better instead like the exorcist, ...next =Doh the drama part in the beginning just and simply suxor =D$LABEL$ 0
+Be warned by the line on the back of the box that promotes a story involving "over sexed jocks". There isn't a thing redeeming about Carrie 2. The plot is absurd, the acting terrible, and the ending all too predictable.I wasn't expecting a masterpiece, but I was expecting to be entertained. I wasn't. The only way I could rationalize watching this movie was because I was at a relative's house while waiting for my car to be fixed. Unless in the same predicament stay well away from this film.$LABEL$ 0
+Loved today's show!!! It was a variety and not solely cooking (which would have been great too). Very stimulating and captivating, always keeping the viewer peeking around the corner to see what was coming up next. She is as down to earth and as personable as you get, like one of us which made the show all the more enjoyable. Special guests, who are friends as well made for a nice surprise too. Loved the 'first' theme and that the audience was invited to play along too. I must admit I was shocked to see her come in under her time limits on a few things, but she did it and by golly I'll be writing those recipes down. Saving time in the kitchen means more time with family. Those who haven't tuned in yet, find out what channel and the time, I assure you that you won't be disappointed.$LABEL$ 1
+The story line of a man's love for an innocent baby he finds with a malformed face and on the opposite side of the world a shallow self centered "valley girl" who shares a birth date with her and ends up making a big difference in both of there lives. What a great and worthy story line. But in this telling the screen writing and/or directing and/or editing is so poor as to take most of the joy out of the story. Linda Hamilton's character goes from understanding mom to wicked witch and back faster than a speeding bullet, and for what purpose? Conflict, conflict, conflict, at the drop of a hat. Katie (The California Girl) and her boyfriend, Katie's Mom and everybody, including the poor lady at the airport check-in counter, Lin's adopted father, who is the nicest, most considerate man alive, and his wife and biological son, all in constant conflict. I really wanted to enjoy a heartwarming story, but the only thing that made me SMILE was when all the hate and fighting were over. There were too many unexplained or illogical events, many of which don't add to the story. My wife and I kept looking at each other and asking ourselves how such a good cast and what should be a great story, could be crapped up so badly.$LABEL$ 0
+Hi there. I watched the first part when it came out, and I don't remember having left such a bad impression on me as this one.First, the animation is choppy, wooden, not worked on, lacks naturality - I understand the drawing style was to be of some 'atlantean' kind, but, it could be done with the usual Disney finesse... see "Tarzan" to see what I mean. If I didn't see the DISNEY logo in the beginning, I would never say it was a Disney movie.Second, the plot was more like a PC game style, like a good old quest. Not that it was bad, but it lacked a story that binds the viewer to the characters and their goals. It was inconvincing, at least. The film was meant for children, but this was waaay to childish at times.Third, the music... I would say it was improper, but it just fits the whole scene with the plot and animation...Overall, I think this was some kind of an amusement, just by-the-way kind of project by several apprentice animators, just to fill in the count for Disney movies. Sorry to hear that from myself, a big Disney lover...$LABEL$ 0
+I agree that this is ONE of the very best episodes of the entire series--my only detraction would be the somewhat jarring appearance of Mark Lenard as the Romulan Commander. My reasoning is this--if you were not around for the first run of this episode, then you know Mr. Lenard as Sarek, Spock's father. And for the 2nd generation Trekkie (or Trekker--your preference) it takes you out of the scene at first. Yet he's an excellent commander as well as opposite for our captain and this episode is strongly written and well-acted by all. There are excellent points made by both sides about the cost of war vs.the price of peace and certainly does remind one of some of the best of the WWII and later era movies. Those are not my favorite genre but I certainly would recommend a fan of such to view this episode through that filter. You'll see it holds up. I'll never understand why Sci-Fi gets so little respect--the best drama comes out of placing ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances.$LABEL$ 1
+No matter what you've heard, "Fame" is not a good movie. It's not worth the investment of over two hours to watch stereotypically troubled teens dancing, singing, learning, and staring at girls in the dressing rooms.Every cliché finds a cozy little home in this movie. There's a gay teenager looking for acceptance. That would have been great if it had been treated as anything more than a secondary plot point. There's a ghetto kid who has too much attitude-- what, was I surprised? And guess what? They all want to become big stars, finding fame and fortune, and they'd all be willing to crawl over their own mothers' smoking corpses to get it.Oddly enough, this film is remembered for its music. But in actuality, the only moderately good song is "Hot Lunch Jam," which is still too cheesy to be of any real quality. The two most popular songs are nothing, either. "Fame" is meaningless fluff drowned out by the sheer spectacle of a massive dancing-in-the-streets scene. And "I Sing the Body Electric" (what in Bubba's name does that even mean?!?!?!?!?) is just an incomprehensible joke.Bad acting, tasteless dialog, and hack direction (it is, after all, from the director of "Evita") are only marginally helped by Michael Seresin's appropriately ordinary camera work. But cinematography alone cannot carry a movie, especially one as uninspiring and pointless as this.$LABEL$ 0
+Really it's a dreadful cheat of a film. Its 70-minute running time is very well padded with stock footage. The rest are non descript exteriors and drab interiors scenes. The plot exposition is very poorly rendered. They are all just perfunctory scenes sort of strung together. There is no attempt at drama in scene selection but rather drama is communicated by the intensity of the actors. Please don't ask.The plot concerns a rocket radiating a million degree heat orbiting earth five miles up threatening to destroy the earth. It's a real time menace that must be diverted if a custom built H-bomb can be fashioned and placed in an experimental rocket within an hour. Nothing very much here to report except for a mad speech by a scientist against the project because there might be some sort of life aboard and think of the scientific possibilities but this speech made by the obligatory idiot liberal was pretty much passé by then.What saves this film, somewhat uniquely, IS the stock footage. I've never seen a larger selection of fifties jet fighter aircraft in any other film. This is by no means a complete list but just some of the aircraft I managed to see. There's a brief interception by a pilot flying, in alternate shots, an F-89 Scorpion and an F-86. First to scramble interceptors is the Royal Canadian Air Force in Hawker Hunters and F-86 Sabre Jets (or Canadian built CF-13s) and even a pair of CF-100 Clunks.Then for some reason there are B-52s, B-47s and even B36s are seen taking off. More padding."These Canadian jets are moving at 1200 miles an hour". I don't think so since one of them appears to be a WW2 era Gloster Meteor, the rest F-80s. The Meteors press the attack and one turns into a late F-84F with a flight of early straight wing F-84s attacking in formation.There's a strange tandem cockpit version of the F-80 that doesn't seem to be the T-33 training type but some sort of interim all-weather interceptor variant with radar in the nose. These are scrambled in a snowstorm.An angled deck aircraft carrier is seen from about 500 meters. It launches F-8U Crusaders, F-11F Tigers, A-5 Vigilantes and A-3 Skywarriors. The Air Force scrambles F-86s and F-84s and more F-89s then you've ever seen in your life as well as F-100 Super Sabres and F-102 Delta Daggers.The F-100s press their attack with sooooo much padding. The F-89's unload their rockets in their wingtip pods in slo mo. The F-86s fire, an F-102 lets loose a Falcon, even some F-80s (F-94s?) with mid-wing rocket pods let loose. There is a very strange shot of a late model F-84 (prototype?) with a straight wing early model F-85 above it in a turn, obviously a manufacturer's (Republic Aviation) advertising film showing the differences between the old and the new improved models of the F-84 ThunderJet. How it strayed into here is anybodies guess.There is other great stock footage of Ottawa in the old days when the capital of Canada was a wide spot in the road and especially wonderful footage of New York City's Times Square during one of the Civil Defense Drills in the early 50s. I think we also have to deal with the notion that this was filmed in Canada with the possible exception of the auto chase seen late in the picture as the Pacific seems to be in the background. The use of a Jowett Jupiter is somewhat mind-boggling and there is a nice TR 3 to be seen also. Canada must have been cheap and it is rather gratuitously used a lot in the background.As far as the actual narrative of the film there is little to recommend it other than the mystery of just who Ellen Parker is giving the finger to at the end of the picture. And she most definitely is flipping someone off. Could it be, R as in Robert Loggia? The director who dies before this film was released? Her career as this was her last credit?Its like the newspaper the gift came wrapped in was more valuable than the gift.$LABEL$ 0
+This is probably the best movie of 2002 regarding Romanian cinema. I do recommend it being an intense drama with no lack of action and thrills. The movie concentrates upon teen life in the Bucharest suburbs trough the main character, not focusing so much on the character's shape or definition but more on the anger that he and other characters feel. The title "Furia" means rage rather than anger, but could be regarded in the movie in both senses from the behavior of actors. The rather odd love story (not a typical romantic one, but rather a modern suburban conception) is well shaped towards the end. It is a captivating picture, and cinematography is pretty good in catching the suburban night life thus making it a nice movie to watch and.You won't get bored for a minute, i promise!$LABEL$ 1
+I know that the real story of Little Richard is a lot more thrilling than this maudlin and thoroughly average biopic. But then producer Little Richard was probably too reluctant to bring to light any sordid details of his life and just gave us a forgettable facsimile of his career highlights from the 50s and 60s.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is Jackie's best. I still cant get enough of watching some of his best stunts ever. I also like the bad guys in this movie (the old man looks like a Chinese version of John Howard). Unlike some of Jackie's other work, this movie has also got a great story line and i recommend it to all of Jackie's fans.$LABEL$ 1
+"Bar Hopping" seems to be trying to be about the stereotypical bar tender and lay "shrink" serving up pearls of wisdom followed by example vignettes played out by the cast. However, this turkey is a jumbled mess with a script full of simple-minded cliched nonsense: Hard to follow, herky-jerky flow, unsatisfying, and not worth the time. (D)$LABEL$ 0
+As a poker enthusiast I was looking forward to seeing this movie - Especially as it had Scotty Nyugen in it.Basically, Scotty Nyugens short spots in this film are all it has going for it.The characters are unlikeable and annoying, the soundtrack is awful and the plot, well, there isn't one.I honestly got a headache and found myself reading the barcode number on the DVD box after twenty minutes I was THAT bored. Its actually ashame that Nyugen was in this movie as otherwise I wouldn't have wasted $16 buying it off Ebay.Take it from me - AVOID like 7 2 offsuit!!! Dire. :($LABEL$ 0
+I gotta say, Clive Barker's Undying is by far the best horror game to have ever been made. I've played Resident Evil, Silent Hill and the Evil Dead and Castlevania games but none of them have captured the pure glee with which this game tackles its horrific elements. Barker is good at what he does, which is attach the horror to our world, and it shows as his hand is clearly everywhere in this game. Heck, even his voice is in the game as one of the main characters. Full of lush visuals and enough atmosphere to shake a stick at, Undying is the game to beat in my books as the best horror title. I just wish that this had made it to a console system but alas poor PC sales nipped that one in the bud.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this movie a time ago, because some of my friends wanted to rent it, and I got voted down.. I tried as best I could to get the story, because some moviemag had said that this would be a movie that would be for Rob Lowe, that Pulp Fiction had been for John Travolta... Well.. we can all see that he not only failed, but he fell aaall the way down. This is actually the worst film I've ever seen, and I've seen a great deal of bad movies.. it's just not even worth seeing for free on tv.$LABEL$ 0
+Don't get me wrong. "GoldenEye" was revolutionary and is definitely the best FPS game to be based on the 007 franchise. But the series had fallen into a FPS rut. Enter "Everything or Nothing", which puts Bond in third-person. When I wrote my earlier review for "From Russia With Love", I had finished FRWL and just started EON and judged EON a bit harshly. Even though FRWL definitely has the edge in nostalgia and capturing the essence of the movie franchise, EON definitely is superior in terms of in-depth controls and gameplay variety. Missions range from standard running-and-gunning to driving an SUV, driving an Aston Martin, driving a limousine that is wired to explode, commandeering two different types of tanks a la "GoldenEye", riding a motorcycle, flying a helicopter, repelling down a shaft guarded by laser tripwires, and free falling after a plummeting damsel. Sure, vehicle controls are a little clumsy, but the issue here is the variety.As movie adaptations, "GoldenEye" and FRWL were all that I could have hoped for. But EON's original storyline adds to the feeling of controlling a James Bond adventure. This is helped by the impressive cast list of Willem DeFoe, Shannon Elizabeth, Heidi Klum, and Misaki Ito. Judi Dench and John Cleese reprise their movie roles of M and Q, respectively, and Pierce Brosnan, while no Sean Connery, adds credibility to the game's proceedings. All characters resemble the stars, with the disappointing exception of Heidi Klum, who's in-game model doesn't do the real-life model justice. Mya's theme song is on par with at least some of the big screen Bond title tunes.The game also plays tribute to some of the older Bond movies. Willem DeFoe's character is a former colleague of Christopher Walken's baddie from "A View to a Kill". Richard Kiel appears as Jaws, the hulking henchman from "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "Moonraker" in three fight scenes, the first and best of which proceeds in the same fashion a fight in the movies would have.Single-player gameplay mainly consists of standard on-foot missions as Bond. Like Bond, you will be able to choose whether to use stealth or go out with guns blazing. The game provides plenty of opportunities to utilize stealth, with plenty of wall and object cover. Unfortunately, unlike FRWL, only one button in EON controls both crouching and wall clinging, so Bond may end up crouching low when he's supposed to be peeking around a corner, and vice-versa. The game also allows players to go into "Bond reflex" mode. While you browse your inventory, everything around you will go into super slo-mo, allowing you to analyze objects around you that can be interacted with. While this takes some getting used to, eventually this mode will allow you to perform many spectacular "Bond moments", such as shooting down a chandelier to take out four goons underneath, and greatly add to the Bond movie feeling.There are 3 available difficulty levels: Operative, Agent, and Double Oh. On Operative, you can breeze through in a few hours. On Agent, a few weeks. On Double Oh, a few months. The difficulty level can be changed for each individual mission. Garnering high scores on missions will unlock gold and platinum awards and effect features such as vehicle upgrades and the skimpy outfits the Bond girls wear. Some missions can be extremely frustrating due to a scarcity of checkpoints, but when all is said and done, no mission is any longer than a single action scene in a Bond movie.Multi-player, unfortunately, is not as thrilling. "GoldenEye" still has the best multi-player mode of any Bond game. EON's main multi-player is a co-op campaign mode that puts players in charge of lesser MI6 agents on a less important mission than Bond's. A more standard third-person death match can be unlocked from this mode. But the single-player mode is the most complete Bond experience to date. The ending, as with most Bond games, is anticlimactic. While the final mission is one of the most aggravating of the game, the final confrontation with the villain is disappointing. Also, levels that require Bond to be speedy become largely a matter of trial and error. Still, for any serious Bond fan, not playing this game is tantamount to missing one of the Bond films.$LABEL$ 1
+Being an Austrian myself this has been a straight knock in my face. Fortunately I don't live nowhere near the place where this movie takes place but unfortunately it portrays everything that the rest of Austria hates about Viennese people (or people close to that region). And it is very easy to read that this is exactly the directors intention: to let your head sink into your hands and say "Oh my god, how can THAT be possible!". No, not with me, the (in my opinion) totally exaggerated uncensored swinger club scene is not necessary, I watch porn, sure, but in this context I was rather disgusted than put in the right context.This movie tells a story about how misled people who suffer from lack of education or bad company try to survive and live in a world of redundancy and boring horizons. A girl who is treated like a whore by her super-jealous boyfriend (and still keeps coming back), a female teacher who discovers her masochism by putting the life of her super-cruel "lover" on the line, an old couple who has an almost mathematical daily cycle (she is the "official replacement" of his ex wife), a couple that has just divorced and has the ex husband suffer under the acts of his former wife obviously having a relationship with her masseuse and finally a crazy hitchhiker who asks her drivers the most unusual questions and stretches their nerves by just being super-annoying.After having seen it you feel almost nothing. You're not even shocked, sad, depressed or feel like doing anything... Maybe that's why I gave it 7 points, it made me react in a way I never reacted before. If that's good or bad is up to you!$LABEL$ 1
+Yes, this production is long (good news for Bronte fans!) and it has a somewhat dated feel, but both the casting and acting are so brilliant that you won't want to watch any other versions!Timothy Dalton IS Edward Rochester... it's that simple. I don't care that other reviewers claim he's too handsome. Dalton is attractive, certainly, but no pretty-boy. In fact he possesses a craggy, angular dark charm that, in my mind, is quite in keeping with the mysterious, very masculine Mr R. And he takes on Rochester's sad, tortured persona so poignantly. He portrays ferocity when the scene calls for it, but also displays Rochester's tender, passionate, emotional side as well. (IMO the newer A&E production suffers in that Ciaran Hinds - whom I normally adore - seems to bluster and bully his way throughout. I've read the book many times and I never felt that Rochester was meant to be perceived as a nonstop snarling beast.)When I reread the novel, I always see Zelah Clarke as Jane. Ms. Clarke, to me, resembles Jane as she describes herself (and is described by others). Small, childlike, fairy... though it's true the actress doesn't look 18, she portrays Jane's attributes so well. While other reviews have claimed that her acting is wooden or unemotional, one must remember that the character spent 8 years at Lowood being trained to hold her emotions and "passionate nature" in check. Her main inspiration was her childhood friend Helen, who was the picture of demure submission. Although her true nature was dissimilar, Jane learned to master her temper and appear docile, in keeping with the school's aims for its charity students who would go into 'service'. Jane becomes a governess in the household of the rich Mr. Rochester. She would certainly *not* speak to him as an equal. Even later on when she gave as well as she got, she would always be sure to remember that her station was well below that of her employer. Nevertheless, if you read the book - to which this production stays amazingly close - you can clearly see the small struggles Zelah-as-Jane endures as she subdues her emotions in order to remain mild and even-tempered.The chemistry between Dalton and Clarke is just right, I think. No, it does not in the least resemble Hollywood (thank God! It's not a Hollywood sort of book) but theirs is a romance which is true, devoted and loyal. And for a woman like Jane, who never presumed to have *any* love come her way, it is a minor miracle.The rest of the casting is terrific, and I love the fact that nearly every character from the book is present here. So, too, is much of the rich, poetic original dialogue. This version is the only one that I know of to include the lovely, infamous 'gypsy scene' and in general, features more humor than other versions I've seen. In particular, the mutual teasing between the lead characters comes straight from the book and is so delightful!Jane Eyre was, in many ways, one of the first novelized feminists. She finally accepted love on her own terms and independently, and, at last, as Rochester's true equal. Just beautiful!$LABEL$ 1
+A "40 foot long" giant mutant squid with five tentacles, razor fangs and the ability to reproduce it's own cells terrorizes a small Florida town. Various marine biologists, doctors and cops plot to kill it. Meanwhile, a human monster named Miller offs people who discover the "Devilfish" is a manmade creation used for the greedy benefit of some evil doctors! Miller attacks a female researcher, strangles her, drowns her in the bathtub, tosses in a hairdryer, then rips the panties off her dead body!Lots of false alarms are set when our heroes Peter, Stella, Janet and Bob set out on a high tech (high tech for 1984, anyway) "Seaquarium" boat to catch the creature, who is frequently seen in close up or hilariously obvious speeded-up film to seem more menacing. And only fire can destroy it, which leads to a flamethrower-armed posse vs. aquatic beast finale.This JAWS cash-in is pretty tame (other than a legless corpse and a decapitation) but watchable and benefits from an excellent Antony Barrymore score and a decent (again, for 1984) monster design. Luigi Cozzi and Sergio Martino wrote the original story.Score: 4 out of 10$LABEL$ 0
+Jean-Pierre Melville's Le Cercle Rouge follows the lives of two criminals: Vogel (Gian Maria Volontè), a murderer who gives the cops the slip while he's being transferred from one city to another by train; and Corey (Allain Delon), a thief just released from jail. Fate decides to join these two men to pull off a spectacular heist. In the background there is Matei (André Bourvil), the detective Vogel escapes from, implacable in his pursuit and sometimes ruthless in his methods. Along the movie the viewer meets other minor but fascinating characters, the best of which is Jansen (Yves Montand), a disgraced ex-cop and an excellent marksman.Melville has such a unique style one doesn't need to watch many of his movies to catch on. Le Samourai, Un Flic and Le Cercle Rouge are clearly made of the same cloth: the symmetrical angles; the long shots; the silences; the coats and hats and cigars; the quotes at the beginning; the amazing heists, the fatalism; the unglamorous and inglorious criminal life. Everything that's great in Melville is present here in top form.And his shortcomings didn't bother me so much this time: the illogical, perplexing behavior of his characters and confusing storytelling, which hurt my enjoyment of his other movies, are almost invisible here. Since Le Cercle Rouge preceded Un Flic that doesn't mean he got better with time; perhaps I'm just getting more used to it and reaching a mindset where it doesn't bother me anymore.Melville made unique crime movies. As old as they may be, they show more ingenuity, realism and grace than the modern techno-thrillers in which cool thieves use computer systems and James Bond-esquire gadgets to pull off impossible crimes. Melville's criminals aren't cool: they're lonely, socially awkward and probably aware they're not good for much more than planning heists. They're society's unwanted, living in the night, always one step ahead of the police in a game they know they'll lose eventually. There's nothing romantic about them.Amazingly for a movie of this type, the cops aren't complete idiots either. Matei is smart, crafty, patient and even compassionate. He's not an unlikeable villain or a cliché, he's just an old man doing his job and doing it right. He knows when to use force and when to use brains. Many movies could learn from him.It's this down-to-earth, unromantic style that makes Melville's movies such a joy to watch and puts him on a special pedestal as one of cinema's great crime masters.$LABEL$ 1
+One would think that with all the lavish care and expense that went into this made-for-TV movie, it would reflect something of the taste and manners of the upper class couple--Wallis Simpson and the Prince of Wales--instead of being a mawkish, unappetizing historical romance.Nor is it helped by the fact that JANE SEYMOUR and ANTHONY ANDREWS give stiff, rather uncomfortable to watch performances in which the events move much too slowly to hold attention.It's hard to understand why a star of OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND's caliber would wish to play the supporting role of Aunt Bessie since the role is so colorless she just about fades out of sight. At this stage in her career, Olivia was appearing in so many "nobility" roles requiring a regal presence but nothing more.A trivial movie best left forgotten among all the made-for-TV movies of that era.$LABEL$ 0
+I watched this movie when Joe Bob Briggs hosted Monstervision on TNT. Even he couldn't make this movie enjoyable. The only reason I watched it until the end is because I teach video production and I wanted to make sure my students never made anything this bad ... but it took all my intestinal fortitude to sit through it though. It's like watching your great grandmother flirting with a 15 year old boy ... excruciatingly painful.If you took the actual film, dipped it in paint thinner, then watched it, it would be more entertaining. Seriously.If you see this movie in the bargin bin at S-Mart, back away from it as if it were a rattlesnake.$LABEL$ 0
+"Everything is Illuminated" is a simplified interpretation of something more than half of the Jonathan Safran Foer novel. This version is more about changes in Eastern Europe from World War II through post-Cold War and how the younger generation relates to that history as a family memory. Debut director/adapter Liev Schreiber retains some of the humor and language clashes of the novel, mostly through the marvelous Eugene Hutz as the U.S.-beguiled Ukrainian tour guide. He is so eye-catching that the film becomes more his odyssey into his country and his family as he goes from his comfortable milieu in sophisticated Odessa to the heart of a cynical, isolated land that has been ravaged by conquerors through the Communists and now capitalists, with both Jews and non-Jews as detritus. As funny as his opening scenes are when he establishes his cheeky bravura, we later feel his fish-out-of-waterness in his own country when he tries to ask directions of local yokels. Shreiber uses Elijah Wood, as the American tourist, as an up tight cog in a visual panoply, as his character is less verbal than as one of the narrators in the book. He and Hutz play off each other well until the conclusion that becomes more sentimental in this streamlined plot. Once the grandfather's story takes over in the last quarter of the film, marvelously and unpredictably enacted by Boris Leskin, the younger generation does not seem to undergo any catharsis, as they just tidy up the closure.Schreiber does a wonderful job visualizing the human urge to document history. One of his consultants in the credits is Professor Yaffa Eliach and her style of remembering pre-Holocaust shtetl life through artifacts clearly inspired the look and it is very powerful and effective.The Czech Republic stands in for the Ukraine and the production design staff were able to find memorable symbols of change in the cities, towns and countryside, as this is now primarily a road movie, and the long driving scenes do drag a bit. Schreiber retains some of the symbolism from the book, particularly of the moon and river, but having cut out the portions of the book that explain those, they just look pretty or ominous for atmosphere and no longer represent time and fate. As W.C. Fields would have predicted, the dog steals most of his scenes for easy laughs. In general, Schreiber does go for more poignancy than the book. It is irresistibly touching, especially for those who haven't read the book, but less morally and emotionally messy.The film is enormously uplifted by its marvelous soundtrack, which ranges from songs and instrumentals from Hutz's gypsy band to traditional tunes to contemporary tracks to Paul Cantelon's klezmer fusion score. This is not a Holocaust film per se, being a kind of mirror image of "The Train of Life (Train de vie)" as about memory of a time that is freighted with meaning now, but will resonate more with those who have an emotional connection to that history.$LABEL$ 1
+Karen and her boyfriend Jerry move into their new Los Angeles apartment.They discover an old brass bed that Karen takes a liking to,unfortunately it has a really sinister history involving kinky sex murders."Deathbed" tries to be a creepy supernatural tale,but fails miserably.The action is slow,the acting is nothing special and there is no suspense whatsoever.Even the sex scenes are lame.The climax is pretty gory and violent,so fans of splatter should be pleased.However the first hour of "Deathbed" is deadly dull and offers some tired horror movie conventions and cheap scares.Definitely one to avoid.My rating: 4 out of 10 and that's being generous.Watch "Re-Animator" or "Castle Freak" instead.$LABEL$ 0
+I have seen this movie several times, it sure is one of the cheapest action flicks of the eighties. So, I think many viewers would definitely change the channel when they come across this one. But, if you are into great trash, "Dragon Hunt" is made for you. The main characters (the McNamara Twins) are sporting great moustaches and look so ridiculous in their camouflage dresses. One of the best scenes is when one of then gets shot in the leg and is still kicking his enemies into nirvana. This movie is really awful, but then again, it is a great party tape!$LABEL$ 0
+WARNING! Don't even consider watching this film in any form. It's not even worth downloading from the internet. Every bit of porn has more substance than this wasted piece of celluloid. The so-called filmmakers apparently have absolutely no idea how to make a film. They couldn't tell a good joke to save their lives. It's an insult to any human being. If you're looking for a fun-filled movie - go look somewhere else.Let's hope this Mr. Unterwaldt (the "Jr." being a good indication for his obvious inexperience and intellectual infancy) dies a slow/painful death and NEVER makes a film again.In fact, it's even a waste of time to WRITE ANYTHING about this crap, that's why I'll stop right now and rather watch a good film.$LABEL$ 0
+This documentary explores a story covered in Pilger's latest book "Freedom Next Time", which was published in 2006. It reveals the shocking expulsion of the natives of Diego Garcia, one of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean.The islanders are technically British citizens, as Diego Garcia is a British colony, much like Mauritius, the nearby island to where the natives were exiled, used to be. But the British government has ignored their pleas to return to their homeland, as the island is now a military base for the United States army, who have used it as a basis for the bombing of Iraq and Afghanistan.As usual, Pilger's coverage is shocking, especially as he documents the treatment and the current impoverished living conditions of the surviving islanders. His interviews all round are excellent, and his cornering of a Parliament representative where he uses the Government's own information to pin him down, ranks as one of his best.Pilger also uses dramatic reconstruction to dissect a series of recently released documents that fully illuminate the British conspiracy to evict the natives. The weaving of this footage with the interviews, and the islanders music, really heightens the film's impact.It is not easy viewing, but "Stealing a Nation" is John Pilger at his best. Recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+I only wish that I had the good sense to turn this movie off in the beginning when I knew it was terrible. Instead I gave it the benefit of the doubt and waited for it to get better. Don't make the same mistake I did. The title has nothing to do with the movie. The movie has nothing to do with the real world. The plot has nothing to do with a plot. The acting consists of a guy who wants to be John Cusack, but can't pull it off. The lead is a girl who tries to be Claire Daines. Sadly, she can't pull that off either. They are in love, although god only knows why. And by the end I was hoping that they would all kill each other off just so I could believe none of these kids would ever taint the world again.$LABEL$ 0
+I've never been a huge fan of Mormon films. Being a Mormon, I've always felt that the humor was too exclusive to the LDS community and made us seem like a bunch of obsessive wackos. I was hoping this would be the breath of fresh air, the Halestorm movie I could finally discuss with my non-Mormon friends.Boy, was I wrong.I figured, since this had B-list talent like Clint Howard, Gary Coleman, Andrew Wilson, and Fred Willard (one of my favorites), this would have to be at least a little funny. And besides, church basketball is ripe with potential for plenty of hilarious gags and such. But I must say, throughout the entire movie, it seemed as though no one knew what they were doing. Every joke fell flat, and every opportunity for a genuinely funny gag went ignored. The dialogue was bland, and the film had some of the worst character development I have ever seen. Every single character but Wilson's was less than one-dimensional. It's hard to believe that after nine re-writes the film was still as mind-numbingly stale as the train wreck I witnessed. I can't put into words the rage I felt sitting through this. My friends and I were extras in the final game scene, so we went to the premiere in Washington City, UT. Kurt Hale, the director, was there, and I must say, I avoided all contact with him after the show. He waited at the door, seemingly ready for feedback. I couldn't bring myself to tell him that his film not only ripped away a good hour and a half of my life, but it left a nasty, painful scar that I will never forget.Here are a few specific problems I had: There was a minor love story subplot between the janitor and the chubby piano player, but these two characters came out of nowhere, and were impossible to care about, so my friends and I were left constantly wondering why we were supposed to care about these two lame, uninteresting characters. There were many subplots that popped up every now and then, each promising the audience the chance for laughs, but each one came and went in a puff of smoke, ending before you could even start caring. This was pretty much how the whole movie felt.This film was a major letdown, and I feel bad for everyone who's expecting the first REAL funny Mormon movie. True, the jokes in this one aren't too exclusive to Mormons. Then again, it's hard to tell what was a joke and what was a loud ringing sensation in my ears.Please, do NOT see this movie. Keep in your mind the fantasy that this movie is hilarious. Spare yourself the disappointment I went through$LABEL$ 0
+I thought it was brilliant! It was great watching the presenter tracking each one of them down. Dwight Schultz still looked the same, he had hardly changed in looks, neither had Dirk Benedict, he still looked just as dishy! I thought that Mr T looked thinner though, but it was still great to see how he looked after all this time. I thought that it took some doing tracking down the other members of the cast, such as the one who played Decker, and the lady who played Amy. It was just a shame that Mr T could'nt make the actual reunion. Also it was a great shame that George Peppard had died, thereby leaving a gap so to speak. I only wish now that I had taped it to keep. Let's hope that they repeat it again.$LABEL$ 1
+As a fan of history, mythology, and fantasy "Mystic Knights" show pulled me in from the get-go. It has semi-decent scripting, the costumes are fantastic (there are exceptions), it has pretty good acting, and the heroes and villains all play well off each other.SCRIPTS--Half a script is pretty great, the other half falls flat, but its all mixed together, meaning many episodes turn out so-so. Also, some of the key players are repeatedly being given dead lines (King Conchobar and Angus for instance) they need to be given something... more. I'm not sure what but the writers should be able to come up with something. ACTING--Apart from some over acting by villagers (horrid lines they end up putting too much effort into), casting did extremely well in choosing their leads and so on. Everyone, good and bad, works well together! COSTUMES/WEAPONS--The everyday clothes that everyone wears are spectacular! Mystic Knight armor that falls short are Deirdre's and Garrett's. A chainmail bikini would probably have better protection in her case... and wouldn't look as plastic; his looks like bunch of snap-it-together pieces of brown plastic, when it should look bronze. Ivar's trident looks like it was bought at a discount store and while Garretts weapons look cool, they also look plastic.Recently "Mystic Knights" has taken on too many "Power Rangers" traits, if you watch the show, you'll know what I mean. As the series progresses, though, it should find its niche and perfect its style. Overall, it is a wonderful show that all ages should enjoy (most of my friends and I watch it and we're all 20+). The plot thickens and twists, though it gets a bit juvenile in places, and everything just keeps getting more interesting. It might be of some interest to fans of the movie "Willow" or the T.V. series "The Adventures of Sinbad". A lot of adventure, a dab of mystery, a dash of romance, a sprinkling of forces at nature... Check it out! (My Score: 7/10)$LABEL$ 1
+If the caper genre owes a lot to Walter Huston, it also has a debt of gratitude to Jules Dassin, a man that was ahead of his times and who suffered a lot because of his blacklisting when Edward Dmytryk accused him of being a Communist. The end of his American career would have meant the end of Mr. Dassin, but moving to Europe proved he was bigger than the same people that had contributed to his Hollywood demise."Rififi" is an elegant film in which all the right elements come together thanks to Mr. Dassin's vision. He decided to adapt Auguste Le Breton's novel because he saw the possibilities for turning it into a caper film that became an instant classic. Jules Dassin was penniless in Paris when he discovered the city that were going to serve as the background to his film. The bad weather paid off for Mr. Dassin as the streets were always wet and not much had to be done to show them that way.When we first meet Tony, he is playing cards. Tony appears to be in bad health; he coughs all the time and sweats profusely. After losing all his money, he goes to see Jo, the Swede, who tells him about a possibility for a robbery at Maupin & Webb, the fancy jewelry store at a tony section of Paris. They pass the idea through Mario, who suggests Cesar, the Milanese, an expert safe cracker.Tony, who has come out of prison recently, learns that Mado, his former lover is now with Grutter, a creep that owns a night club. Upon confronting Mado, instead of love, all he feels is contempt, and the meeting ends badly and he throws her out of his place. Grutter has no love for Tony, who is his natural enemy because of his connection with Mado.When the day arrives, the gang is able to get to the apartment building where on the second floor, right above the jewelry store, the owner lives, but he is away. Everything goes well and the gang gets away with the jewels. Cesar, the Milanese, a typical ladies' man, takes a ring as a souvenir, which in turn he gives the chanteuse at the Grutter's night club. This tactical mistake is the spark which unravels the well thought plan.Jean Servais made an excellent Tony. He showed a tired man who was possibly doing his last robbery. Carl Mohner, Robert Manuel and the director, Jules Dassin, are seen as Jo, Mario and Cesar, the quartet jewelry thieves. Marie Sabouret plays Mado. Marcel Lupovici plays Grutter with a subdued intensity. Robert Hussein, who would go to direct movies later on, makes an impression with his Remi, one of Grutter's men.The film best asset is the great camera work by Philippe Agostini, who captured the atmosphere of Paris and the locales where all these criminals operate from. Georges Auric's music plays well with the action in the film. Jules Dassin was peculiar in his choice of films that he directed, and unfortunately, that is our loss because this man was a genius as proved mainly with "The Naked City", "Night and the City" and "Rififi".$LABEL$ 1
+How many of us wish that we could throw away social and cultural obligations and be free? Most of us, I suspect. Shall we dance? is not a movie about dancing. It is about learning about ourselves, recognising what we are looking for in life and having the courage to go in search of it. Mr Sugiyama is a middle-aged member of a Japanese society where ballroom dancing is viewed as unsuitable behaviour. One day Mr Sugiyama sees a beautiful girl leaning out of the window of a dancing acadamy. he is fascinated by her and eventually signs up for dancing lessons. He is ashamed of his dancing and afraid of ridicule. He hides the fact that he is attending dancing classes from his colleagues and family.There is a hilarious scene in the mensroom at the office when Sugiyama and Watanabe, a workmate who also dances, are interrupted practising some dance steps. There are many other funny and warm-hearted scenes.The ending is not a fairytale, but it leaves the viewer feeling good.This movie helped me to understand the Japanese people a little better. It is a warm and very worthwhile film to see.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a plot driven movie and extremely entertaining. Nothing startling or original within the plot, but crucially, it moves along at a great pace and therefore keeps your attention. I didn't really notice the acting which I guess is a good thing. John Mills was fine but did seem to take everything in his stride somewhat considering how his life was falling apart around him. He would be clumped on the head, stand up 20 seconds later, dust himself down and carry on as if nothing had happened. A minor quibble in a film with a strong story, authentic locations and a plot that continually keeps you guessing right up to its conclusion.$LABEL$ 1
+All the funny things happening in this sitcom is based on the main character Jim being either a bad father, a bad husband or generally just enormously selfish. How can that be funny? Of course a character in a sitcom has to be flawed, but Jim's character is flawed in an extremely unsympathetic manner.And why it that? My guess is that it's because "he should now better". Jim's not a stupid guy, he can take care of things and he's got the opportunities to do so. But he chooses not to. It's a conscious choice he makes, when he chooses to not play with his kids, not go shopping because he doesn't want to buy "lady products" and it's a choice he makes, when he puts down his relatives.The other characters seems to only be in the series so Jim can have someone to be a jerk to. If the Cheryl character was a real person, she would have left him years ago, and not stay with the deadbeat for 8 years. But alas, she's just a catalyst for Jim's quirky middle-class extreme selfishness.$LABEL$ 0
+There are many good things about the new BSG: There's the multiple Cylon roles for Model 8 and 6, for example, which the two actresses played superbly. There's the old school feel of industrial design aboard Galactica ("My ship will not be networked, over my dead body!") Also, all the space battles, the special effects (even though the seasoned sci-fi watcher will acknowledge the cartoonishness of it all) The darkness of the characters, their essentially flawed nature.That makes it all the more bitter that the ending was so childish.Yes, the first part, the scenes in space, the raid on the Cylons and all that was very good. But the mushy ending? I always watch films and shows these days with the timer hidden, so I never know how much time is left until the end. So for me it was a special kind of torture, to see the end happen over and over again. Every time I thought, oh this is the final scene, the final shot, I got one more. Every frakking character got its complete ending! That wasn't really necessary.What really highlighted the schoolboy amateurishness of it all: The young Roslin scenes. Why is important for us to know that: {a} she lost her sisters and father in a horrible accident and {b} that she has a one night stand with a former pupil/student? What does that bring to the story? Where was the linkage? Now, I'm all for a more European-ish style approach, and a random acts of whateverness in films and shows, and all that, but this was just ridiculous. This didn't bring anything meaningful to the story.Also, I've seen the "Last Frakkin special" and in it Ron revealed his own cluelessness about the plot: he couldn't come up with a good ending for the story, so .... he just didn't! It's never as much about the characters as they made the last episode to be. The whole "this was thousands of years in the past" idea, the mitochondrial Eve thing, was also used in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, and believe you me, there are a lot of BSG watchers who know that particular H2G2 storyline. And speaking of Hera, now there's a storyline that WAS NOT worked out well, AT ALL. Instead we get Roslin is doing her former pupil who's 20 years younger. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for older women with younger men. The more power to them. But this ... just made no sense.All in all, (the writing in) this series is as flawed as they intended its characters would be. That goes even moreso for the last episode. I hope Lost and 24 do better, with their series finales.$LABEL$ 0
+For the sake of propaganda during World War II, Sherlock Holmes was moved into the then-present. One of the results is "Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon," starring a top Holmes, Basil Rathbone, along with Nigel Bruce, Lionel Atwill, Dennis Hoey and Kaaren Verne. It is Holmes' assignment to deliver a scientist, Dr. Franz Tobel (William Post Jr.) and his weapon design to the British government before the Germans can get him. Once the man reaches England, however, his troubles are just beginning. Can Holmes decode the message Dr. Tobel left before falling into the hands of the vicious Moriarity, save the weapon and possibly the scientist too? This is an effective Holmes story, set in the atmosphere of Switzerland and blackout England. The series worked just fine in the present day. It was not without its problems, but those problems had nothing to do with the time period. Whose idea was it to make Watson an idiot? Nigel Bruce's characterization - aided and abetted by the scripts - has always been the false note. I much prefer the characterization of Edward Hardwicke in the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes series - there, he's attractive, intelligent and a believable companion for Holmes. In the Rathbone series, Holmes is often condescending and treats Watson like the bumbling fool that he is. However, in this particular film, Watson has a chance to be quite helpful in several parts.I admit to being a complete sap for Rathbone's recitation from Richard II - "...this blessed plot, this earth, this England" - I can't imagine how much it meant to the Brits watching the film in 1942. Sherlock Holmes really served his purpose.$LABEL$ 1
+I haven't always been a fan, but the show grew on me. It wasn't until after season 5 that I started to see the richness of the show. They finally brought Daniel Jackson's search for his wife to an end and finally most of the Go,ould System Lords were killed by rival Lords, SG-1 or others.Towards Season 5, Stargate SG-1, was beginning to become stale. With the new writers and the close attention by Produer Peter Deleuise, the show became more and more solid.The characters had become stale as well. Colonel Jack O'Neill was the stereotypical hero with emotional baggage. After his son Charlie was killed in a shooting accident with O'Neill's weapon, he had decided to end his own life by going to Abydos in order to face off with the Go'ould RA. The character offers little growth for any actor and actor Richard Dean Anderson chose to play him straight raising emotional barriers to protect himself. only allowing his close friends in.Amanda Tapping joined the cast as Captain Samantha Carter. She was a feminist on the edge, ready to battle any man who would doubt her ability to do her job. Though this character had little area to grow, Tapping has done a great job of concentrating on Carter's strengths. She has taken the time to get a basic understanding of some of the things Carter talks about in order that she can present the character intelligently. Christopher Judge joined the cast playing the alien Teal'c. Teal'c was an alien called the Jaffa. Infant Go'ould, (snake like creatures) would embed themselves into the Jaffa until they had grown to the point when it would be inserted into another life form. The Jaffa would die. Teal'c was the First Prime of Apophis' army. Knowing that Apophis was not a god like Go'ould pretend, he realized the genocide that their armies had wreaked on the galaxy. Finally, having had enough, he and Jack O'Neill freed their team along with quite a few innocent people. After arriving on Earth, he realized that Earth was the planet he was looking for, who would help him fight the Go'ould. Christopher Judge has done quite a bit with a limited character. Teal'c is a wise warrior, much of which he learned was from his teacher Master Bra'tac. The show would not be complete without Master Bra'tac played by Tony Amandola. He is also a rock. In the end, he became adviser to most of SG-1, especially Daniel Jackson. Don S. Davil was there from the beginning playing Major General George Hammand. Davis has done an incredible job with Hammond making him sympathetic and normal. He does his job, has a wife, sons and daughters and grandchildren. You can really say, he is the anchor of the base. Simply, I would die for that man. If not allowed by his superiors to provide troops to support teams off world. He will go himself. He doesn't leave anyone behind.I saved Dr. Daniel Jackson for last, because this character, I believe has grown the most in the ten or eleven years it has been on. In choosing Shanks I don't think the producer realized how strong Shanks would be and now when people talk about Jackson, they don't talk about Spader, they talk about Shanks. In the early years, the Jackson character came off as a whiner. That's why I probably wasn't a fan. As the seasons pasted, the character became stronger. This gave him confidence. In the end, as of season 10, the Jackson character has matured to the point that he has become a self sacrificing hero. He still monitors the groups ethics. He still is lead at providing information that can move any mission forward. Acheaology, History, Culture and Exploration are part of his very being. He is determined. Though a man of peace, he has matured to the point that using his weapons may be the only way to solve a disagreement. Other characters include, most recently: Vala Mal Doran(Claudia Black) and Colonel Cameron Mitchell(Ben Browder), new lead of SG-1. Both actors come from a series called Farscape and why they were put together is any bodies guess. I see little difference between Mitchell and Crichton (Farscape character). Black's character is simply off the wall. Definitely different from her soldier like character Arin Soon.$LABEL$ 1
+When I heard that Adrian Pasdar was in drag in this movie, my expectations that I would watch the entire movie were low. The only reasons I gave it a chance were the magnificent Julie Walters and the recommendation of a friend.What i thought would be a broad "Mrs. Doubtfire" type of farce turned out to be a gentle and insightful comedy. Pasdar is entirely credible and empathetic as the ambitious business man who needs to release the female part of his being by cross-dressing on occasions. He transmits these needs to the audience in a thoroughly believable fashion. Julie Walters is magnificent, is as her habit, as the landlady who teaches him unconditional love.$LABEL$ 1
+(SPOILERS AHEAD) Russian fantasy "actioner" (and I use the term loosely) that I've been trying to watch for over a year. I've finally gotten to the end and now I wish I didn't put in the repeated effort.In an effort to save two hours of your life I'm going to tell you he plot- a guy who has the ability to project a long blade out of his arm returns home to see his mom. Things turn ugly after he is beaten up by the mafia boyfriend of an old girl friend. He takes revenge on the guy when he brings the girl home. The guys mafia mom sends her men out to get revenge while the cops begin looking for him as well.Very little is said. no explanation is really given for anything (like why they lock id girlfriend in an asylum) and the action, for the most part is all off screen. The film essentially consists of a guy who looks like Adrian Brody looking intense and not saying anything, killing people (off screen-most of the action happens off screen). It looks good, is well acted and had there been some form of reason for what is going on it might have been a good film. Hell, I would have liked some sense of real character development or back story (all we know is that the guy was picked on as a kid). The movie runs the better part of two hours and it feels like its six. If they weren't going to tell us anything they could have at least picked up the pace so it seemed like it was moving too fast. No instead we get the hero on a boat. The hero in a bus, the hero walking, the hero looking disturbed.Hero with his girl. It really annoyed me since I think this could have been a good film if they had simply done something or had someone actually say something meaningful other than give instructions to "get this guy".4 out of 10. Its about four hours (all my attempts to see this) I'll never get back. Only for those who want to see a brooding Russian action film with very little action$LABEL$ 0
+It's not a movie, but an experience!Not the usual eye candy I thought it would be. Too many things are happening at once, your senses almost couldn't handle it. A product of cutting-edge technology (we were torn between just sitting back to enjoy the show and putting our 3D glasses on and off to decipher the magic), the music is great (it's a concert!), the Disney characters are in it (and you get to BE part of their world), it's funny, it's magical, it's exciting--I know this is beginning to sound like an advertisement--but it really is that awesome! Beats Christmas in bringing out the kid in you!This attraction alone already makes going to Disney all worth it. ;)$LABEL$ 1
+Someone on these Boards has predicated that the whole thing is being dreamed by the best friend of the protagonist, albeit a friend he hasn't seen for some 20 years. I'm reluctant to dismiss this out of hand but it does raise some viable questions. Why WOULD a telephone engineer - or a shoe salesman or butcher for that matter - WANT to create a mythical world and weave it around a friend populating it in the process with a set of equally mythical supporting characters. With an imagination that good the friend should be WRITING not Dreaming. Dream or not SOMEONE, and the obvious candidate is director Paolo Sorrentino, has created a very watchable world in which Tony Servillo makes stillness a Fine Art. We are asked to believe that forty-something Titta La Girolomo (Servillo) 'upset' the Mafia some years prior to our meeting him and as penance he is a virtual prisoner in a small Swiss hotel from which each week he drives to a local bank with a suitcase containing nine mill large in used notes. Other than this weekly trip he is free to do as he likes and what he likes to do is smoke, play cards with a man who cheats and a wife who reminds the husband how far they have fallen socially, and ignore the friendly overtures of Olivia Magnani, who has spent two years trying to get a smile and/or a 'good evening' out of him. For reasons best known to himself and which are inconsistent with a man who has no interest in anything or anyone, Servillo spends a certain amount of time every day applying a stethoscope to the wall of his bedroom and listening to the private conversations of his card-playing partners. Eventually he does respond to Magnani - he has to do so or they would be no film. This is plot 6f: the one about Destry, who never wears a gun, or Sean (Duke Wayne), the 'Quiet Man' who refuses to rise to provocation and fight until the obligatory scene where the gun is strapped on and the fists cocked - but instead of contenting himself with a polite come stai oggi he removes 100,000 from the suitcase and buys her a car. The final inconsistency occurs when Magnani tells him she will pick him up the following day at 4 pm in her car and they will drive into the mountains to celebrate his birthday. We've established that she lives locally so why she is then seen driving from somewhere miles away, ignoring a police roadblock to drive off the road and overturn the car is anyone's guess. This inconsistencies apart this remains a fine piece of film-making with an excellent lead performance and a very good supporting one.$LABEL$ 1
+I tried watching this abomination of the cinema when I was five years old; I have never been the same since. Filled to the brim with drug-induced images that reek of the common ravings of your average asylum resident, this "movie", despite its colorful appearance, is not for humans, ESPECIALLY not children.It starts out innocently enough with a poor boy who ruins his classmate's drum by (wait for it) putting his head through it; yes, putting his HEAD through it. But fear not, my friends! He is quickly consoled by his chirping flute, which is weird enough, I'll grant you, but still acceptable.THEN: The movie morphs into a combination of Wizard of Oz and Where the Wild Things Are, but loses all the "warm and fuzzy" aspects of either of these two books.So, this seven-foot yellow relative of Barney, befriends this poor boy and plunges him even deeper into despair.And, to add the pleasant array of horrific themes, a carnivorous boat, formerly a friend of the motley crew of hobbling grandfather clocks and doped-up "dragons", is added to the mix of mayhem.The most comforting image in the midst of this chaos is the villain, aptly dubbed "Witchiepoo" (?). Of course, she has problems of her own: what with an obvious plastic mask constricting her facial expressions to having to deal with a broomstick whose gas level always seemed to be at its lowest at the most inopportune moments. As a result of this, one of her favorite pastimes was nose-diving into the body of water that separated the land of Pufnstuf from her degenerate, decaying abode (I don't know where I would have preferred to live).In summary, this movie is terrifying...If you want to watch the movie that has similar effects on its audience as The Exorcist, then this one is for you. Enjoy.$LABEL$ 0
+This film is perfect for over the top cheesy zombie lovers. its a film you can laugh at from the acting to the terrible zombie action. that being said, i gave this a 4 outta 10 for effort cos horror is a hard genre to make. going down the list the bad points of this film were as following.#Bad make up #terrible sound and sound effects #really bad continuity #cheesy dialogue #one song played through the whole film #stein couldn't act and in my opinion one of the worst I've seen #terrible ending #racist moment and stealing Simpson's character namedthe good points #good costume #police officers seemed to have the best acting exp #the actors with less lines or small roles did appear to be better #good attempt with gorei don't wanna bad mouth the film, its funny to watch cos of these bad points and i think thats what makes this film OK. if it was any better i don't think it would of made any difference but it wouldn't be interesting to see a remake with all the same cast as i believe they have possibly improved over the last 7 years.$LABEL$ 0
+This is another of Robert Altman's underrated films(let's be honest, the only movie he's made that really didn't work was Ready to Wear), and Sandy Dennis gives a spellbinding performance in it.She is far better here than she was in "The Out of Towners". The material, I will admit, is beneath the great director Altman and the extraordinary actress Dennis, but that hardly matters anyway.As long as there allowed to do their thing and do it well, just about any story will do.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a well directed film from John Cromwell who was not a great director but who did make some fine films including the 1937 version of 'The Prsoner of Zenda'. Set in a London that only Hollywood could manage, atmospheric but nothing like the real thing, it is a story of obsession and thwarted love, from the novel by Somerset Maughan.I was looking forward to seeing it on DVD as I had never seen it before and being a great admirer of Bette Davis wanted to see her in a role considered one of her early great ones. So I bought it. Well she looked fine but I'm sorry to say her London cockney accent just made me laugh. Bette Davis was one of the greatest film actors, make no mistake, but here she did make one. It was impossible to take her character seriously. It wasn't as gruesome as the Dick Van Dyke 'Mary Poppins' cockney accent but close.In the other major role was Leslie Howard and he did it superbly. He was a subtle and intelligent actor The supporting actors acquit themselves well. Worth watching despite Ms Davis' vocal gymnastics.$LABEL$ 1
+I was a little worried about actors and acting in Italy then "Le conseguenze dell'amore" and Toni Servillo came. It was a long time that i didn't see a so charismatic actor on screen. Paolo Sorrentino has written a wonderful story about loneliness and Tony has built one of the most unforgettable characters seen in movies in recent years. The movie is not completely perfect but 'Titta Di Girolamo' will stay with you for a long time after the vision of the movie. Toni please keep on acting in movies, you're for sure the coolest actor around today (and not just in Italy, his performance deserves international acclamation). I rate this movie 9/10.$LABEL$ 1
+You may want to know up front that I am not a Mormon, unlike a good number of those who have already reviewed this film. I mention this so you'll understand that the way I look at the film may differ greatly from those in the faith. For some, being critical of the film might be seen as being critical of the faith--and that is NOT my intention. So, my review is that of an outsider trying to look inside and learn more about who this man and his people were. Well, after seeing the film, I doubt if I have learned much at all. Since I have been a history teacher, I have a good basic understanding about Young as well as Joseph Smith as well as the teachings of the church. But anyone wanting to see this film to really learn anything will probably be disappointed because the film seems so gosh-darn nice--too nice and too unrealistic in its portrayal. Plus, you learn practically nothing about the church's beliefs other than they are nice people, work hard and some have many wives (and this latter part is only barely hinted at in the film). Instead, the people are almost cartoon-like in their simplistic portrayals. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and their followers are angelic, the non-Mormons were all devils and Brian Donlevy (playing EXACTLY the same sort of role Edward G. Robinson later played in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS) is the trouble-maker who claims to be a Mormon but just comes along so the film can have a bad guy. It's all so very simple....too simple. Almost like an indoctrination film or infomercial.Brigham Young especially was a very complex man--with many good points (an excellent organizer and visionary) as well as bad (don't even get me started on his views about Blacks within the church or intermarriage). To portray him in such vague terms is just plain silly. It's also a lot like how Gandhi was portrayed in the film with Ben Kingsley--only the facts that led to his being almost super-human were emphasized. Heck, now that I think about that, this is the trouble with most religious films--they often come off as one-dimensional, trite and bland. Let's have a full and more complete film of these men--one that will stick to facts and not emotional appeals.Now if you can ignore the fact that you won't learn very much about the faith or its second leader, the film is enjoyable enough. It's obvious someone at 20th Century-Fox really cared about the film, as they had a wonderful cast of both premier actors (Tyrone Power), up and coming actors (Linda Darnell, Jane Darwell and Vincent Price) and wonderful character actors (Dean Jagger, John Carradine and Brian Donlevy). The film also had wonderful location shooting and lots of gloss. It just didn't have a lot to tell us other than they were all "swell". Plus, there were plenty of factual errors and a few just plain dumb scenes. A few of the mistakes include Young taking over the helm immediately after the death of Joseph Smith (it was three years later), no mention of the various Mormon denominations and splinter groups, talk of "gold in California"--even though it was 1847 and gold wouldn't be discovered until 1948, as well as no specific mention of polygamy or Smith's many wives. Just plain dumb scenes include Carradine pulling out a gun and waving it about in the courtroom scene--and no one seemed to care--even though it was a very hostile audience! Don't you think at least the judge would tell him to put it away and stop threatening people with it?!One final comment. Do not, I repeat, do not watch this film when it's shown on American Movie Classics (a one great station that has sunk a lot in recent years). While I am critical of the film because of its simplistic message, I was horrified with the complete disrespect the station had for the church and its traditions. What I mean is this. The film was punctuated with ads for penis enlargement formulas as well as tons of pop-ups (some advertising a show that features the "sexiest cast"). Talk about disrespectful and gross and I would be just as offended if they did this for any other religious film. By doing this, they not only insult the faith but marginalize their market--after all, who is into hearing about these things AND the life of Brigham Young?! Is this a movie, in this form, that you can show to your kids or recommend to others?!$LABEL$ 0
+This was a nice film. It had a interesting storyline, that was executed pretty well in the later part of the film. The storyline kinda reminded me of The City of God. But this one is done in a more nicer way in comparison. It had what i really loved:a tinge of surrealism. Some pretty interesting cinematography (thru the wooden camera) I'm not sure if it was culturally correct, but it definitely widens you're view of south Africa. The actors were good (for 1st timers, most of them anyway), i especially liked Estelle character, which made this movie pretty enjoyable. What is interesting though, was that it makes you ask about your own life. Are you really doing what you really love? Or do you consent to the norm, the conventionalism around you. Definitely worth a watch.$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of the better Marion Davies talkies - and one of the few to allow her to exhibit her skill as a physical comedian which was so endearing in her silent films. OK, so she does a clunky tap number, but even Ruby Keeler's dancing from the era does not hold up for younger generations. The problem here is the script. The story falls into unbelievable melodrama in the last reel. It's quite stagey, and is obviously adapted from a play... but not well enough. Still, there is some snappy dialogue and slapstick throughout. Worth a look.$LABEL$ 1
+Jane Russell was an underrated comedienne and singer (see SON OF PALEFACE and GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES), but you'd never guess it from her display here. A real stinker, produced by Howard Hughes in his all-too-successful effort to kill off RKO Radio Pictures.The movie kills its first opportunity to show off sexy Jane when it places her in a bubble bath and then has her chastely singing "I'll Be Switched (If I Ain't Gettin' Hitched)"--and it's all downhill from there. In her autobiography, Russell apologized for the movie's number "Lookin' for Trouble" because it was supposedly so risque--nowadays you could show it on The Disney Channel. (By the way, said autobiography has a jaw-dropping photo of Russell in a bikini, far sexier than anything$LABEL$ 0
+To be honest, the movie was SO HORRIBLE that I loved it. Never in my life have a seen such a TERRIBLE movie. I was in shock. I mean, i don't even know what to say.The characters couldn't even keep their own guns, one minute a guy had an M16 and his friend had an MP5, then in the next scene they switched guns. (Don't ask, trust me I know my guns)And i will never understand how they got from a place that looked like Vietnam, to an Arizona highway, to my backyard, and then to a chemical plant in California, that is what i took from it.Why would you be afraid of a guy in a Halloween mask wearing a trash bag for a cape and shot plastic arrows at you? How is that frightening? I wanted to swallow arsenic halfway through the movie. I love how the "skeleton man" randomly decided to go on a killing spree at that particular day. But hey, whoever made this movie should be shot in the knees and fed to a mound of fire ants.Good day.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm a big fan of 50s sci-fi, but this is not one of my favorites. While the concept behind the movie was a natural vehicle for a classic teeny bopper sci-fi flick, the director counted too heavily on it to carry the movie. It's clear he was working with no money, because the entire movie is loaded with bloated dialogue that goes on and on forever. I have *never* seen so much time-killing in a movie.There are probably less than 60 seconds of "blob footage" in the entire movie, and most of the rest of it is people engaging in a lot of poorly-written, run-on dialogue. It was fun to see Steve M. and Anita C. together, but good heavens...how could casting have thought anyone in their right mind would believe them as teenagers?$LABEL$ 0
+This movie isn't worth going to the theaters to watch, i did and i didn't like it, the effects on the movie are really well done, and you get a laugh here and there, but the story is really bad, it seemed like they had run out of ideas, and what is that of loki and odin getting along? that totally destroys norse mythology, and i guess they forgot that loki's powers only worked during the NIGHT!! If you really MUST see this movie rent it when it comes out, don't go to the movies for this!They could have done a lot more with this than they did, it felt like they just wanted to do a movie to show off cool animation and effects$LABEL$ 0
+I didn't really concentrate on the larger Genocidal aspects of the story (although the horrific images at the beginning are very powerful). I was really taken with the human story of the girl and her family. Imagine living your life not knowing if you have a time bomb ticking away inside you. I was really wrenching to see Yasuko being rejected as "tainted" by the bomb. The image that stays with me most is when Yasuko stands before the mirror combing her hair, silently watching it come out in clumps.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm Egyptian. I have a green card. I have been living in the US since 1991. I have a very common Arabic name. I'm married (non-American but non-Egyptian, non-Arab wife). I have children who are born in the US. I have a PhD in Cell Biology from the US and I travel for conferences. I make 6 figure income and I own a home in the Washington, DC area. I pay my taxes and outside 1 or 2 parking tickets I have no blemish on my record since I came to this country in 1991. I look more Egyptian than the Ibrahimi character but my spoken English is as good as his.A couple of months ago I was returning from a conference/company business in Spain through Munich Germany to Washington, DC (Home). I was picked up in Munich airport by a German officer as soon as I got off the Madrid plane. He was waiting for me. He was about to start interrogating me until I simply told him "I have no business in Germany, I'm just passing through". He had let me go with the utmost disappointment. That was nothing compared to what happened at Washington, Dulles airport (Which was not nearly as bad as what happened to Ibrahimi in the movie). The customs officer asked me a couple of questions about the length and purpose of my trip. He then wrote a letter C on my custom declaration form and let me go. After I picked up my checked bag I was stopped at the last exit point (Some Homeland Security crap). I sat there for 3 hours along with many different people of many different nationalities. I was not told the reason for my detainment. I was not allowed to use my phone or ANY other phone. I was feisty at first asking to be told of the reason or let me go but decided to suck it up and just wait and see. I asked if I can call my wife to tell her that I'm going to be late but was told no. When I tried to use my phone and as soon as my wife said "hello", an officer yanked the phone out of hand and threatened me to confiscate it. When I asked about needing to call home because my family is waiting, they said "Three hours is nothing, we will make contact after 5 hours". When I asked to use the bathroom, an officer accompanied me there. It toilet was funny; I guess it was a prison style toilet that is all metal with no toilet seat. Finally, they called my name and gave me my passport/green card and said you can go. I asked what the problem was, they said "nothing"!! I know it was only 3 hours but I was dead tired and wanted to go home to see my wife and kids.As for the movie, it was very well made. Unlike most movies that involve Arabs and use non-Arab actors who just speak gibberish, this movie the Arabic was 100% correct. I assume the country is Morocco (North Africa).$LABEL$ 1
+Despite its pedigree, the most interesting things about this series are not the animatronics or puppetry, which, while charming, are little more than sideshows, at least in the story I saw, A STORY SHORT. In fact, loathe though I am to admit it, the programme's chief pleasure lies in that most ancient art, storytelling.John Hurt, in Rowley Birken QC-mode, grotesque, medieval make-up, relates a story about story telling, seated by the fire, accompanied by a cynical dog. One winter's day, starving and poor, he spots a fellow beggar thrown out of the Royal Kitchen by the nasty cook. The Story Teller tricks this latter into giving them an excellent soup. Furious, the Cook pleads with the King for permission to boil the villain, but, pleased with the Story Teller's wit, the monarch offers him a reprieve - for 100 nights, he must tell the King a new story: if he fails to do so, he will hand him over to the cook.The story may be old, but it's told with great gusto. Anthony Minghella's script is excellently dramatic (as befits a playwright), witty, and with some disturbing concerns beneath the fun, such as fears for the self, or the culturally self-generating power of storytelling, linked to the continuation of ideological power. For a programme aimed at children, it is bracingly self-reflexive (with little nonsense about film being the new oral culture); despite the Americanised style, there is a charming sense of medieval bustle, its grotesqueness and arbitrary terror, as well as its magic and power.$LABEL$ 1
+Charlie's Wilson's War demonstrates with deft veracity just how futile wars can be, especially to the very people who spend countless hours and finances to fund them. Virtuoso performances and remarkably memorable characters teamed with a riotously sarcastic script catapult the film, helmed by the continuously unpredictable Mike Nichols, to the top of the year's best. Politics has never been so much fun.Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) is a Texas congressman who is credited with almost single-handedly winning the Cold War. Hanging around plenty of drugs, women and scotch, he also takes an unexpected interest in the events in Afghanistan and the terrors of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Enlisting the help of Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) a renegade CIA covert mission expert and Joanne (Julia Roberts), a wealthy socialite, he raises money to provide Afghanistan with the rocket launchers and antitank weaponry they need to cause serious damage to Russian military. Eventually by the end of the 80s the Cold War would come to an end, and the funds would immediately be cut, thereby removing all help for the fledgling country to rebuild and recoup.The acting is exquisite, although it's to be expected from the more than accomplished cast. A large part of that however, should be attributed to the script, which allows each character to be undeniably well-developed and memorable. And a hearty helping of that credit goes to the novel of the same name, which is hilariously honest. Tom Hanks delivers yet another unequaled performance as Charlie Wilson, the man who did so much for so many and yet still remains relatively unknown. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Gust, a character that is vividly boffo in both his physicality and his wry cynicism; the inimitable Hoffman once again shows superb range in the characters he portrays. Julia Roberts is perhaps the only weak link of the film, with her generic snobbish character and not-subtle-enough accent. And then there's Wilson's "jailbait" squad of young secretaries that scamper about to keep him happy. Led by the always delightful Amy Adams, each supporting role has its mirthful moments.Defeating the Soviet Union was not an easy task, especially considering the many conflicting goals between the various political leaders. "Why is Congress saying one thing and doing nothing?" queries a disgruntled politician. "Tradition mostly", returns Wilson. Everyone appears to want the Cold War to end, yet a blind eye is being turned to the atrocities taking place in Afghanistan. It takes a trip to the war-torn refugee camps in Pakistan to motivate Wilson, as well as with his main financial source Doc Long (Ned Beatty). Wilson uses strategic ties with committees to raise funding of weaponry in Afghanistan from $5 million to $10 million with a simple command, but the president of Pakistan scoffs at the idea of winning a war for such a trivial amount. By the end of the Wilson campaign, $1 billion is sent to the Mujahedin to shoot down Russian helicopters - the first step toward victory, as Wilson predicted. Beyond the scope of the film, the unresolved turmoil in Afghanistan led to further, less ignorable problems, which Wilson presumably foresaw.During the course of Charlie Wilson's War, the main characters travel from the United States to Pakistan to Afghanistan to Jerusalem to Egypt, but wherever they go, sarcasm always follows. There's a surprising amount of comedy in the film, considering the political undertones are generally serious. Hoffman provides jokes with almost every exchange of dialogue, as does Hanks, with his naturally witty woman-chasing ideals. A scene early on featuring Gust being continually ushered in out of Wilson's office as he tries to straighten out a legal issue with his posse of gorgeous gals ("you can teach 'em to type, but you can't teach 'em to grow tits") reminds me of a slapstick routine from the Marx Brothers.With the press focusing on the drug allegations against Wilson, instead of the important issues of the Cold War, and the conflicting desire of officials to budget their help, it's clear that by the end of the film, the politicians are still oblivious to what's really necessary. And since the screenplay is so quick-witted and astute, some audience members may not be able to keep up with all of the dialogue-intensive events. But, as demonstrated by the politicians who are ignorant as to the difference between Pakistan and Afghanistan, it's essentially another argument to support Charlie Wilson's point.- Mike Massie$LABEL$ 1
+This was a pretty good film. I'm not sure if this is considered a spoiler comment, but I didn't want to take a chance. Anyway, near the end of the film, the prosecutor reads a Scripture verse and then quotes another from memory. I can't remember the first passage he reads, but the second one is Genesis 9:6. He says it's Genesis 9:12, but he actually quotes verse 6. This is a common passage that many use to defend capital punishment. It's too bad that prosecutors dare not quote the Bible today. Did anybody ever hear of John Jay, the first Supreme Court justice in the history of this country? He said that the Bible is the best of all books. Too bad we've lost that view in America.$LABEL$ 1
+I couldn't tell if "The Screaming Skull" was trying to be a Hitchcock rip off or a modernized Edgar Allen Poe tribute. These days, someone would have chopped it up a bit and presented it as one of those TV anthology episodes from the old "Tales From The Dark Side"...but only after an extensive rewrite.The sad thing is, there seems to be a nice, nasty little story trying to get out from under the rubble of this movie, and the actors are obviously doing the best they can with both their talent and the material they have to work with. But the director just didn't know how to stage or pace a dramatic scene; the special effects simply didn't work; the screenplay telegraphed its threadbare plot points so plainly that a bivalve could have seen them coming; and the soundtrack kept playing German "oompah band" music when it was supposed to be trying to scare the audience. They tried; they tried really hard. But this is of interest only as a period piece.I suppose someone very young who hadn't seen a lot of suspense or horror might get a charge out "The Screaming Skull", but someone that young probably wouldn't get most of the subtext or plot motivation. ("Mommy, why is that nice man trying to scare the twisty faced scaredy-cat lady??")$LABEL$ 0
+Let Freedom Ring was probably made with the best of intentions, but it sends out a curious mixed message in the final product.The folks at a western town where the railroad is coming through are overwhelmed by the arrival of immigrant railroad workers, working on the railroad being financed by robber baron Edward Arnold. There are a few ranchers and farmers whose land stands in the railroad's path and these folks are dealt with summarily by Arnold's hired men. One man who won't give in is Lionel Barrymore whose son is coming home from Harvard a lawyer and ready to take up the rancher's cause.Only Nelson Eddy decides the best way to fight is to go Zorro on the bad guys. But other than Charles Butterworth no one knows he's the Wasp (a very interesting choice of names by the way). What Arnold's done is used the tried and true methods of the political bosses of the east, getting the immigrants to vote. Nelson's idea is simple, if the immigrants only knew the truth about what a bad guy Arnold is, they'll vote with the original settlers and knock out the alien urban political machine in their midst. He kidnaps newspaper editor Raymond Walburn and takes him and the press to a mountain cave where some subversive newspapers are printed and distributed.The railroad workers are a real mixed bunch of immigrants, not the Irish working west or the Chinese working east as history has it. It's a real United Nations working on Arnold's railroad. The workers are kept in line by foreman Victor McLaglen and Nelson has the unenviable task of beating some sense into him like John Wayne did in The Quiet Man.Of all the films that starred Jeanette and Nelson and they certainly have come down in history as a duo, this was the worst of what they did at MGM. Nelson is about to be hanged along with Barrymore for crimes that are undefined at best, but certainly nothing worth being hung for. And Virginia Bruce who plays the Nelson's girlfriend saves the day with a rendition of My Country Tis of Thee that the immigrants join in with. In the face of a revolt by his paid for immigrant voters, Arnold quite rationally packs up and leaves town to build his railroad somewhere else.I kid you not, that's the ending here. Just what is the message, vote with the settlers and lose your jobs with Arnold? But somehow you'll get by here? I do wonder some times if 20 years from after the incidents of this film take place and the town as settled into a sleepy backwater of the west while some towns where the railroad has come through that are now cities, that the good citizens of that town haven't rethought about what Nelson Eddy did. If they did they're probably running him out on a rail.Nelson is of course in good voice and has a variety of concert and popular pieces to sing including a ballad to the immigrants written by Sigmund Romberg, Where Else But Here. The song is a heartfelt tribute from an immigrant who did make good in his adopted country. Too bad it didn't have a better venue.The almost platinum blonde Virginia Bruce I'm sure is dubbed here. And I'm sure Jeanette MacDonald was just as happy she wasn't accompanying Nelson on this trip west.$LABEL$ 0
+I watched this because I thought there were going to be a lot of car chases and cool cars to gawk at. Guess I was lied to. This movie is very boring.The movie starts out Kip Raines(Giovanni Ribisi) sitting outside a Porsche dealership checking to see if they have the right car. When they confirm it's the right one, Kip gets a brick out of the trunk and chucks it at the window, shattering it. He gets the Porsche while his friend gets the keys. They start up the car and take off into the night. They deliver it to a warehouse only to have been followed by the police. So, the whole crew ditches all the cars and go their separate ways. Then, we get a glimpse of Memphis Raines. He is giving a little speech to a bunch of kids at a go-kart track. Then, he is confronted by Atlee Jackson(Will Patton). Atlee tells Memphis that his brother Kip is in deep *bleep*. Memphis is known as one of the most notorious car thieves in Los Angeles. Memphis heads to a junkyard and meets Raymond Calitri(Christopher Ecclesten). This guy threatens to kill Kip if Memphis doesn't deliver 50 cars within 72 hours.There are a few problems with this film: 1.Story: The first 48 in-movie hours take place when Cage and Duvall are looking for a crew and planning everything out. The last 12 in-movie hours are a waste! 2. The Cars: You see maybe 10 cars out of the 50 as the movie advertises. So, where are the other 40 cars? Why don't we get to see them? 3. The Chase: The chase at the end of the movie was a joke. It was not suspenseful at all.4. The Dog: Somewhere in the movie, the dog eats the burgers and swallows three keys as well. This is impossible. The keys were flipped open. The keys would have severely damaged the dog's esophagus, stomach, and large intestines. The guys suggest giving the dog laxatives to help him poop it out. This won't work. The dog will get a lot of diarrhea but no keys. It was stated in Jackass after Ryan Dunne stuck a toy car up his rectum. Take laxatives, lots of diarrhea, but no car. Same case with the dog.5. The Cop During The Chase: When Eleanor breaks down for a few minutes, Nicholas Cage tries desperately to start up the car. You see a police cruiser behind him who isn't looking at his car at all. But, right when Nicholas Cage starts the engine up again, the police officer jerks his head to the right, sees the car, and immediately begins to chase after him. It is stupid. So, right when he heard the engine start, and saw the car, he knew that was the car he was looking for. How does he know it's the right car? He only sees the back of it.Overall, the movie is boring. There is no action. There are very few cars. The movie is stupid. I have never seen the original but I plan to.I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Get The Fast and Furious instead.$LABEL$ 0
+I believe Sarafina is a tremendous effort of Whoopi Goldberg. Besides her, there are no other stars in the film and her role is smaller than the title character, Sarafina. Since I work in a high school with urban children, I think this is an important film to show South African history of apartheid. Sarafina is a movie about education and a teacher's relationship with her student, Sarafina. I bought the video for practically nothing at a videostore. I watched it and fast forwarded through the musical numbers. But I strongly recommend this film to educators and their students to understand. Now while I don't know the other actors and actresses in the film, I assume that they are very popular in South Africa and I am glad that they filmed with a South African cast and crew with the exception of Goldberg in a small role but if it gets people to see this movie, than Whoopi reaches worldwide appeal.$LABEL$ 1
+Most complaints I've heard of this film really come down to one thing: It isn't Versus. Yes, the cast and crew is basically the same. Yes, Kitamura rehashes a few shots in the fight scenes that come in the film's second half, but that's about where the similarities end. Versus takes place essentially all outside, showcasing Kitamura's ability to craft an interesting B-movie in natural locations. For Alive, almost everything takes place inside. In small, cramped spaces. Here the art design is thrust into your face, and WHAT art design it is! We are treated to several very intricate and interesting spaces, and our characters are for the most part confined to those spaces. Also a key difference is that we don't get much action here until the end of the film. Versus was all about action and cool, here a LOT more emphasis is put on characters and situation and messing with your mind. Because of this, Alive is a far more interesting film than Versus. You may not pop it in and go to a random scene to watch five or ten minutes of cool zombie bloodshed, but you will sit glued to the screen for nearly two hours watching he interaction of a few genuinely interesting characters.I'm now ecstatic that I ordered the DVD despite some naysay. You should too! But be sure to realize this is a different animal from Versus - it's often slow, and requires a bit of thought to get the most out of it. I hope Media Blasters picks it up for subtitled R1 DVD release!$LABEL$ 1
+I know Anime. I've been into it long before it became a national phenomenon; i loved Ranma before most people knew what Dragonball Z even was. And just so you know I'm not bragging about my, let me say this: out of all the animes I've seen, Castle in the Sky is by far one of the best. It's obvious people say Spirited Away is the best, but I really disagree. Most people only know that movie because it one an Acedmy Award; this isn't an exaggeration - I've shown Princess Mononoke and Castle in the Sky to people who'd only ever seen Spirited Away, and they agree that the latter two are the superior of the three. Personally, I'd never thought that anything could compare to Princess Mononoke, until I finally saw Castle in the Sky. I still think that the prior is the better of the two, but Castle in the Sky is easily on par with it; in many ways, Castle has major elements that Mononoke was missing. In either case, if you've only seen Spirited Away, and think that that is Miyazaki's best film, be prepared to have your earth shaken.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is just not worth your time. Its reliance upon New-Age mysticism serves as its only semi-interesting distraction. The plot is one that has been re-cycled countless times.I was only prompted to even spend the time to put in a comment when I noted that some have tried to prop-up the reputation of this drivel. Their motivation & objectivity is dubious, since they encourage you not to look at the movies faults, but at its well intentioned message of New Age consciousness.So would it be alright for some twenty to thirty Evangelical Christians, or Islamic Fundamentalists to pour in positive ratings about movies/television that support their views? In spite of the poor qualities of production, or the lack of truth in any of its supposed historic basis? I hope not.I am sure the followers will come right behind me to say flowery things about this movie, in spite of the truth.$LABEL$ 0
+I recently (May 2008) discovered that this childhood favorite was available as a DVD. Although I've seen a great deal of high quality movies since then (late 70's (I was 10 in 1978)), this three-episode, low budget thing still stands strong.What's fun is that I now watched it with my 10 year old daughter, and she experiences just the same as I remember from back then: The creepy music (she had to hold my hand, even though she's been raised with watching LotR and Resident Evil), the ever changing theories of who the culprit actually is, and also complaining about the theatrical voices from an era before Norway discovered the difference between stage acting and movie acting.This is the one and only good science fiction movie (or series) ever made in Norway. And it's still worth watching.$LABEL$ 1
+Fun movie! Great for the kids - they found it very entertaining. Somewhat predictable, but there are a few surprises. Great movie to watch if you're looking for something just to entertain (don't expect to be seeing a classic!)$LABEL$ 1
+Utterly predictable silly show about a man who has killed his wife by mowing her down when driving and claimed he had blacked out. Why was he still driving a car? Why did he still feel able to drive a car having killed his wife with one? This question has not occurred to the writers. The story then witters on about a psychologist and her failing marriage which is tied into the failing marriage of wife-killing blackout driver. An omniscient mother and one dimensional child are thrown in for good measure, and the whole builds up to a predictable denouement and crashing finale. Are police psychologists so easily taken in? Deadful writing that the actors do their best with, but they are doomed to failure. This is on a par with a Harlequin Romance. Don't waste your time watching this one unless that's what you are aiming for.$LABEL$ 0
+A new side to the story of Victoria and Albert is brought to life by director Jean-Marc Valle. Most people's cursory thoughts of Queen Victoria is that of woman who reigned for several decades and lived her life in mourning. Emily Blunt is more than capable in the title role as she gives audiences a different perspective. She portrays Victoria in her youth, ascension to the throne, and early years. Blunt's Victoria both fresh and restrained throughout the film. Her strongest scenes are with Albert (Rupert Friend) and Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany). All the actors acquit themselves well including Miranda Richardson in what could of been a throw-away role.Though this is not a story of dramatic arcs and histrionic "acting" moments, the story is still interesting enough to make it worth viewing. There are a few historical liberties that has been taken by the screen writing, the film tries to stay true to the relationship between Victoria and Albert and of the social and royal structure of the time period. The set design and costumes are outstanding.This film will be most appreciated by those drawn to history, period dramas, and of Blunt and the other actors. Heartily recommend.Grade: A$LABEL$ 1
+If you've had drama in your life, either your own or by someone close to you, the stages of pain this woman (but, in my opinion, it could easily have been a man too)goes through are very very real. It is a movie about not being able to cope with your pain, about not knowing what to do to help yourself get through it. Obviously it then also is a movie about not knowing how to help someone close to you get through their pain. It is a movie that makes you realize that everyone is alone in their suffering. It is a movie that might push someone over the edge...which hardly sounds like a recommendation. I'm not sure I would recommend someone to go see this film, especially someone close, but for me...it is a movie that puts things into perspective, that shows real pain, and is therefore much relevant to being alive. It makes you realize that hey, you or the person close to you have lived through pain, that hey, all the things you worry about now are of so little importance$LABEL$ 1
+I wanted to see the movie because of an article in a film magazine. It wasn't a highly recommended one by the critic. The storyline is different and I am sure that it could have been a good movie if it was in right hands. Directing and acting were awful!! I had the feeling of watching a movie which was made a bunch of amateurs. Although the movie started promisingly, it got worse and worse. I think this is an unoriginal movie with awkward characters.. I still think that it is worth watching as I haven't seen films subjecting gay porn. Don't keep your expectations high though,then you will be very disappointed. * out of *****$LABEL$ 0
+It's heart-warming to see a movie that doesn't bash males. In this one the wife/mother leaves her family to "get in touch" with herself - or pursue her libido. The father stays with and nurtures the kids, letting neither his work nor his love life interfere with his love of and responsibility to them.$LABEL$ 1
+After having seen and loved Postal (yes, I actually loved Postal), I decided to try another Uwe Boll film and I picked out Seed because I happened to stumble on it in a local DVD-store and it's supposed to be one of his better films.While the first 10 to 15 minutes of the film were very promising and seemed like the beginning of a not too mainstream psychological thriller, it soon went downhill from there and eventually degraded into one of the most generic slasher films I've seen so far, including a massive amount of plot holes, unrealistic emotional responses and sub-par acting. It seems like Boll tried his best to come up with a decent plot but after a while just gave up on it. Maybe he should stick to comedy?! The few good things about this film is that he does manage to create an overall creepy atmosphere, that the special effects are better than I expected and the soundtrack does go well with the overall atmosphere, but the unbalanced pacing of this film combined with the utter generic nature thereof makes he last half hour quite tedious to watch, which ruined my experience altogether. There are a very fairly well done shocking scenes, but they seem to be there for the shock value alone. And let's not forget the camera work that was pretty nauseating at times.I hope Uwe Boll will one day learn what makes a good film, because between a lot of horrible films he does seem to make a decent film every now and then. Seed just isn't one of those.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie once on late night t.v. and knew it was the best movie ever. This is one of the few Kung-Fu movies with a decent plot. The progression of the main character is seamless. The whole movie is great!$LABEL$ 1
+Paul Bettany did a great role as the tortured father whose favorite little girl dies tragically of disease. For that, he deserves all the credit. However, the movie was mostly about exactly that, keeping the adventures of Darwin as he gathered data for his theories as incomplete stories told to children and skipping completely the disputes regarding his ideas.Two things bothered me terribly: the soundtrack, with its whiny sound, practically shoving sadness down the throat of the viewer, and the movie trailer, showing some beautiful sceneries, the theological musings of him and his wife and the enthusiasm of his best friends as they prepare for a battle against blind faith, thus misrepresenting the movie completely.To put it bluntly, if one were to remove the scenes of the movie trailer from the movie, the result would be a non descript family drama about a little child dying and the hardships of her parents as a result. Clearly, not what I expected from a movie about Darwin, albeit the movie was beautifully interpreted.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is famous for several qualities: a literate script, for once in partly-religious film-making, by Philip Dunne, some very good performances, a first-rate production in every department and its intelligent direction by veteran Henry King. If one were making a film, then getting such talents as Leon Shamroy as cinematographer, Lyle Wheeler as art director and Alfred Newman as composer of original music would guarantee a quality production. Add the cast of this film, including Gregory Peck and Susan Hayward as the title characters, James Robertson Justice, Raymond Massey, Kieron Moore, Jayne Meadows and John Sutton plus a dance by Gwen Verdon and expectations might be raised that the resulting film could be made into something special. But in a biblical subject script, usually a sub-genre prone to illogical motivations and miraculous interventions, everything would ultimately depend on the author's skills. Philip Dunne here has supplied human beings, a rare achievement in biblical films. David is a man in this film, many-sided, not someone doing mythical deeds on paper in the Old Testament. Gregory Peck makes him curious, passionate, self-controlled, self-deprecating and appealing. As Bathsheba, Hayward is scarcely the perfect choice but conveys a good deal of common-sense earthiness and emotional normalcy that helps one see why the King of Israel would risk so much for her. The rest of the cast is stalwart and capable by turns. The familiar storyline provides them little to work with, but author Dunne and the cast do as much as is possible with the human situations. David's youth is told in flashback; how he was chosen by a Prophet of Yahweh to be King of Israel, and earns his way to be second to the king, Saul, by defeating Goliath the Phiiistine in battle when all else are afraid to beard the giant warrior. Thereafter, he finally is driven from the court of King Saul of Israel, becomes a famous warrior, and returns to claim the kingdom and become the instrument of death of Jonathan, the King's son, formerly a friend. His wars are successful-- the film opens in fact with a successful attack scene; but his life is empty since his wife Michal, Jayne Meadows, is Saul's daughter and is cold to him. He turns to Bathsheba, whom he sees from the palace roof bathing naked; later she admits she had hoped he would see her. But she has a husband, Uriah; when she becomes pregnant, it becomes necessary for Uriah to come in from the battlefield and spend time at home; he instead asks David to set him in the forefront of the battle, even after being aroused by Verdon's dance. David agrees. He is killed, a war hero; but this does not solve the infidelity question. Drought comes to Israel, and the king's infidelity is blamed for the phenomenon. At last, David places his hands on the Ark of the Covenant, recently brought to Jerusalem and housed in a temple, which has caused the death of others who accidentally came in contact with it, inviting his god to punish him--and nothing happens...David exits the temple, and finds that rain has come to his parched land. This film is always interesting, varied in its types of scenes and physically beautiful. The director and author make use of the observer principle, and are frankly more successful in humanizing the characters than in almost any film outside the Grecianized- Near Eastern canon, wherein the feat is a bit easier since neither miraculous nor religious themes are made central in such adventures. . Well-remembered for its glowing realization, fine performances and intelligent dialogue, this dramatic effort bears repeated study.$LABEL$ 1
+Eh it's not really as good as the other Dragonballs. The villains are actually rip-offs of other Z villains like Cell, Frieza, and even Majin Buu. With Baby being Frieza's clone, Super 17 being Cell's clone, and the Shadow Dragons being Buu's clone(s). The story is also very bad as it deals with Goku shrinking. SHRINKING!! It deals with him SHRINKING to like the size of an eight year old just to get it going. Let us not forget how weak the characters become. Gohan can't go mystic anymore and is even weaker than Pan.(It's sad I know). Speaking of Pan she was so cute at the end of Z now she's lost all that cuteness and become an irritating,whiny little girl whose sole purpose in this series is to get in the way. Goten doesn't even have a purpose in the series and Trunks... well I don't know what to say about Trunks. GT is just an attempt to milk the popular Dragonball franchise. If you really like Dragonball then avoid this series. It doesn't even feel like Dragonball. I will be fair though as the ending however was really good and is actually pretty sad (At least to me) and the theme songs both ending and opening are better (Japanese, not American). Might've been better if Toriyama san worked on it.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the few films where I consider the film rendition to be an improvement on the original book. The story is clear, accessible, amusing and interesting and the musical numbers are without a doubt exceptional. I adored the cyclical rendition of 'The old home guard' and the charming 'Portobello Road', a great combination of early animation + real actors techniques which, though dated do not detract from the charm of the piece. The background of the Second World War worked well and was not omitted as the film got under way, which so often happens in 'evacuee' stories.An often far too underrated film, it produces no end to enjoyment for people of all ages. The performances from the actors are exceptionally well done and the entire text is neatly tied together and well designed. Guaranteed to put a smile on your face!$LABEL$ 1
+This film is regarded by some as a classic - I've no idea why. It is terrible to the point of being laughable. The only saving grace with this movie are the delivery of cheesy lines that are so toe curlingly embarrassing that you have no choice but to laugh at them.There are a couple of good songs and good choreography in this film, but SO WHAT! There is no plot, it is set in a theatre with no change of scenery, and Michael Douglas is as depressing as ever. My brother once forced me to watch this film, because he said I wouldn't believe how bad a film can get! He was right.Normally with a film this dreadful I would recommend that people shouldn't watch it, but in this case I think people should, as it will put every other bad film you've seen in perspective.$LABEL$ 0
+"Joe" is one of those movies where, although you think that it might go along smoothly, ends up hitting you like...I can't come up with an analogy. It showed not only that America's long-standing idea of unity was moot, but also the various aspects within our society. Melissa Compton (Susan Sarandon) is the ultimate flower child, while her father Bill (Dennis Patrick) is a clean-cut executive. One day, Bill accidentally kills Melissa's boyfriend. In the immediate aftermath, Bill gets acquainted with Joe Curran (Peter Boyle), an ultra-right-wing, rabidly racist working stiff. As a result, the two of them end up associating more and more with the hippies, whom Bill finds unpleasant and Joe outright hates. But in the end, everything has dead serious consequences.True, some parts of the movie are a little bit dated, but it's a good juxtaposition of America's two sides during the Vietnam War. And rest assured, the residual effects of all that will probably never go away.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was absolute trash. The director and stars(?)should be banished from making movies forever. The paper-thin plot concerns a sleazy director played by the sleazy director (now thats acting) advertising on the internet for women to star in a snuff movie. There's no horror at all, the girls look strung-out and bored, the direction is pointless, the music is misplaced (heavy metal in a library scene?), and the lighting is awful. The director should have cashed in a couple more shopping carts full of aluminum cans and gotten a script, sober actors, and a few light bulbs. As it is, this is one disgusting, nasty, worthless mess of a movie.$LABEL$ 0
+I am a big fan of horror movies, and know a lot of info on serial killers. Obviously the director of this one refused to research the film he was creating, because half of the movie was fictional. More than that, the character of Ed Gein was portrayed in the wrong light. I did not rent the movie to worry about the Deputy and his girlfriend Erica. I rented it to watch Ed Gein and his legendary story. This movie was awful, the only reason I gave it a 2 out of 10 is because the gore wasn't too bad. Acting= horrible Actors= sub par Movie= waste of time.A big upset all around, but i wont give up my search for a good horror movie.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a little slow-moving for a horror movie, but the quality is better than you might expect for a director's only effort on IMDb. The camera work and lighting were both surprisingly good, and the acting – although variable – is better than is often found in Indie genre flicks.As the lead, Robert Field is rather stiff, which is especially unfortunate given that his character, Claude, is the film's narrator as well as the centre of its action. However, it was the entry of Christopher (Brandon deSpain) that I considered the turning point of this film – and not in a good way. A twist is introduced in a clumsy fashion, and slow-moving becomes drawn out and overly wordy.On the up side, Pete Barker is consistently entertaining as Father William. He's the easy stand-out in what is a fairly ordinary offering. While the first half hour caught my interest, I ended up feeling quite disappointed in the way things played out.$LABEL$ 0
+All you could ever hope for if your a Jackass fan.As always Knoxville & his crew risk life & limb just for our viewing entertainment. If you are fan of the series & of the first movie you won't be let down like most sequel often do. The jokes they pull on each other as twice as funny,cruel,crude as ever before & the stunts & dares are twice as rough as any Jackass episode you have ever seen. If your a fan don't waste time go check it out for yourself because on Jackaass standards this movie is an easy 10 out of 10 just for the opening credits alone, I can't go into detail without spoilers but you've got to see it to believe it.$LABEL$ 1
+Astronaut Steve West (Alex Rebar) and his comrades undertake a space mission that sees them flying through the rings of Saturn. His comrades are killed instantly, but it would seem that they are in fact the lucky ones. Steve returns to Earth a constantly oozing mass of humanoid pulp; as he turns into a savage killer, melting every step of the way, he is tracked by his friend, Dr. Ted Nelson (Burr DeBenning).This is often so uproariously funny - with enough absurd lines and situations to go around - that it's hard for me to believe that the laughs are all unintentional. It seems to me to be kind of a goof on low-budget genre efforts from the '50's and 60's, and as such, it's a marvelously entertaining movie. That sequence with the nurse is simply hilarious. We're even treated to a split screen sequence that doesn't really add anything, but is still a gas to watch.Writer / director William Sachs deserves credit for coming up with this ingenious idea; his ultra-slimy character is a memorable one indeed. I think his pacing is a little off; some scenes (like the one with the elderly couple) go on a little long, but ultimately he delivers solid, schlocky, B-movie goods with a degree of panache. The climax is especially fun.Arlon Obers' music is enjoyably shuddery (yet also amusingly silly during some moments), and Willy Curtis's cinematography creates some really great shots at times. That brings me to Rick Bakers' fantastic and convincing makeup effects, which form a highly respectable centerpiece for the movie, right down to the ultimate final melt.Rebar is under the heavy makeup for almost the entire movie (Sachs also gets my praise for having the movie hit the ground running) and does what he has to do well enough. DeBenning makes for a rather oafish and silly hero, and Ann Sweeney isn't so hot either as his wife, but Myron Healey, Michael Alldredge, and Lisle Wilson are fine in support. It's also worth it to see folk like Cheryl "Rainbeaux" Smith (doing an appreciable topless shot), Janus Blythe (of Tobe Hoopers' "Eaten Alive" and Wes Cravens' "The Hills Have Eyes"), and even director Jonathan Demme in a bit part.This is a highly entertaining midnight movie with enough gore, chills, and laughs to rate it as worth catching for lovers of low-grade sci-fi / horror everywhere.8/10$LABEL$ 1
+Well, were to start? This is by far one of the worst films I've ever paid good money to see. I won't comment on the story itself, it's a wonderful classic, but here it feels like a soap opera. To start with, the acting, except for Eric Bana, is soap opera quality. I've always been a fan of Brad Pitt, but here every actor on The Bold and the Beautiful puts him to shame. The camera action doesn't help, either. How it lingers on him when he's thinking, it just takes me back to Brooke Forrester's days in the lab! Peter O'Toole has either had a really bad plastic surgery, or he is desperately in need of one. Either way, he looks more like Linda Evans than Linda Evans! And to end my comments, Diane Kruger is a cute girl, but she sure is no Helen of Troy. Peterson should rather have chosen Saffron Burrows for the role, since Elizabeth Taylor would be rather miscast by now.$LABEL$ 0
+***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Juggernaut is a British made "thriller" released in the US by First National. Karloff is Dr. Sartorius who has to leave his research because his funds have dried up. Karloff is forced to retreat to France and start up a medical practice. He is propositioned by a conniving woman who wants to get rid of her much older husband. She knows Karloff needs the money.Karloff agrees to the proposition and soon becomes the personal doctor of the husband. All the while, the wife is prancing about town with the local no good playboy. Karloff finally injects the old geyser with poison and he kicks off. However, his son (from another marriage) arrives a few days before the killing and finds out the will has been changed. When he spills the beans to the wife, she goes berserk and even bites the son's hand.Meanwhile, Karloff's nurse has misplaced the hypo Karloff used to kill the old man. When Karloff finds out he isn't getting any money, he asks the wife to poison the son. The nurse suspects Karloff and finds the missing hypo. Analysis shows poison, but not quite in time as Karloff kidnaps the nurse.To make a long story short, the nurse escapes, gets the police, and manages to save the son who is about to be injected by Karloff. Karloff instead injects himself and dies.This movie does have some good points. Karloff is possessed and plays the type of mad doctor he did in The Devil Commands and the Man Who Lived Again. It is peculiar, however, to see him walk around stiffly and slightly hunched over. We never find out why he is walking this way. I suspect the director thought it made him more sinister.The actress playing the 2-timing wife overacts something terrible. She has a French accent. Even though she overacts badly, you still manage to hate her (or maybe you hate her because of her acting...).A little below average for a Karloff vehicle. If you buy the Sinister Cinema VHS copy, the audio is a bit choppy.$LABEL$ 0
+Well, what can i say about this movie. I'm speechless. I could go on about how stupid this movie is forever though the one thing that REALLY pi*sed me off was the music. And to top it all off someone commented on how much they LIKED it. To them all I have to say is that it was ripped off from one of the best martial arts movies of all time Fistsof fury starring Bruce Lee. IF he was still alive and ever came across this movie he'd be horrified. the rest of the movie is absolutely ridiculous and a waste of tape. I say tape because a movie like that couldn't possibly have been shot on film.I now feel more stupid for wasting 30 minutes of my life watching it. The only reason why i even saw it was because my roommate downloaded it out of morbid curiosity. What is this world coming to.$LABEL$ 0
+There are so many puns to play on the title of the spectacularly bad Valentine that I don't know where to begin. I will say this though; here is a movie that makes me long for the complexity of the Valentine cards we used to give out in elementary school. You know, the ones with Batman exclaiming "You're a super crime-fighting valentine!"Valentine is a slasher movie without the slightest hint of irony, one of the few horror movies in recent years that ignores the influence of Scream. The villain is omniscient and nigh-invulnerable. The heroes are easily scared when people run around corners and grab them by the shoulders screaming "HeyIjustleftmycoatbehind!" The score is more overbearing than Norman Bates' mother.The flimsy plot follows several childhood friends, now grown up and extremely curvaceous. Since the film gives them nothing else to do, they stand around and wait until a masked stalker kills them one by one. This stalker appears to be former nerd Jeremy Melton, who was constantly rejected by women and beaten by men in high school. With Valentine's Day approaching, the women begin receiving scary cards foretelling their doom. Melton seems like the obvious suspect. Only problem is, as numerous characters warns, in thirteen years Melton could have changed his appearance to look buff and handsome. So (insert terrified gasp here) everyone is a suspect!Here's problem one. In order to have any sense of suspense while watching Valentine, you have to accept a reality in which a high school nerd is capable of becoming David Boreanaz. Nerds don't turn into Angel when they grown up, they turn into older, balder nerds. He's not a terrible actor, but the script, by no less than four writers, gives him and the rest of the cast nothing to do but scream and make out. Denise Richards (the bustiest actress in Hollywood never to star in Baywatch) is especially exploited; most shamefully in the blatant excuse to get her in a bathing suit just before a crucial suspense scene. Note to self: always bring a bathing suit to a Valentine's Day party. Just because it's February doesn't mean you might not feel like taking a little dip.The slasher in Valentine dresses in head-to-toe black with a Cherub's mask. Here's problem number two. The filmmakers clearly thought this would be a disturbing image to have on the head of someone who's whacking people in the face with hot irons. Plain and simple, it's not. Instead, it just made me wonder how a guy with a mask that covers his entire face, including his eyes and ears, can move so stealthily without bumping his shins on chairs or tables. Then again, given the things the Cupid Killer does, maybe he can teleport and his eyes are on his hands. Not only is the movie bad, it isn't even sure who the killer is; the final "twist" is more "Huh?" than "Hah!" When you're not scratching your head you're yawning, then groaning, then searching for the nearest exit. Do not watch this movie. Even if you're alone on Valentine's Day, find something, ANYTHING, else to do. You'll be glad you did.$LABEL$ 0
+Child´s Play made a new genre of horror,THE KILLER DOLLS,Some of this films has not got too much money for make it but I think that the only film that make shadow to Chucky is this.Ok it´s a tipical product direct to video or direct to tv but Pinocchio is not real and the killer is the little girl.The imagination of children are too big and this film play with it.The roles are good and Candance Mckenzie is great.$LABEL$ 0
+Madhur has given us a powerful movie Chandni Bar in the past. His next film Page 3 was one of the worst movies of all time. It apparently tells the story of some high class people in India. After seeing a scene where the man forces another man for sexual reasons to Star in a Movie. I felt like spitting and breaking the DVD. Coincidently i did. The reason why was the movie contains scenes of child pornography and molestation. I literally vomited and was shocked to see a movie showing naked children. Very disturbing stuff, there was no need to show the children fully naked. One of the rich guys likes to kidnap poor children and sell them to foreign people, British men in this movie. I am shocked to know this film was a Hit in parts of India, otherwise Super Flop in UK, USA and Australia. I'm from UK, and this kind of stuff makes me sick, shouldn't of been released in UK.$LABEL$ 0
+First off, the first thing that came to my mind after I finished this film last night was "Why the title of 8MM 2?", because I saw the first one obviously, and what did this have to do with the first movie's plot? The only thing that was similar was the fact that the couple had to go into the porno industry and that wasn't even needed in the plot, because after you see the ending that I will not spoil, it just didn't make any sense.A diplomat and his fiancée are in Hungary and notice a woman who is swimming naked in the pool area, she's very attractive, so when they see her at a club, they decide to have a little fun and have a steamy threesome. But things get extremely intense when the diplomat is mailed pictures of them all having the affair, fearing that it might go public and jeopardize his career, they pay off the guy who sent the pictures, the diplomat freaks out and "kills" the guy, leading into a murder case. He and his fiacee decide to find the girl they had the affair with, but things just get deeper and darker as they go further into what they got themselves into.What could have been an alright thriller, turned into an unexplained and not well thought out movie, which was sad. Like I said, the title really has nothing to do with the first one, so don't fall for it. It's just a sexual thriller that makes no sense, but it's good for those nights alone, because quite frankly this is one of those films where it's so close to porn that it might as well be labeled as soft core.4/10$LABEL$ 0
+"A Thief in the Night" is a film that was generally ignored by movie fans at large due to its low-budget (which was obvious) and its subject matter--the Rapture of true Christian church and the fate of those left behind. Nevertheless, it was a gripping story that held the viewer and definitely made him or her review their relationship with Jesus Christ. It touched everyone--showing even a pastor who preached the Word, but did not believe it, knowing exactly why he was left behind. This movie, and its sequel "Distant Thunder," are must see movies. Even with the new "Left Behind" series coming out, telling the same story with a much higher budget, the impact is still the same--"A Thief in the Night" broke the ground of this genre and will always be remembered.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was the worst i've ever seen.It doesn't seem to have a plot but the time you realize this is far beyond the beginning of the movie so you have to watch the shut for a long time to recognize the total incompetence of the director, aka the sloth that plays the tampon chick in the movie, and we do not believe the Willem Dafoe in this movie, he's a clone, because the real Dafoe, like we know from "apocalypse now" and "the boon dock saints", would never agreed to such a script.Duh, (Da)foe wrote this bill shut together with his twenty years minus baby. This movie starts with the credits of the two main characters, Dafoe and Colagrande, and then the two script writers, Dafoe and Colagrande, and then the director, Colagrande.Bottomline (the story); Widow meets guy, guy bangs widow, widow smashes windscreen with guy who banged her.Title in Netherlands; The black widow (different title, same bullshit).DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! It's a total waist of time!!!$LABEL$ 0
+Who the heck had the "bright"(?) idea of casting Lucille Ball in this film??? It should have been Angela Lansbury's baby all the way. At the very least Lucy should have had her singing dubbed. There is some compensation in the fact that Jerry Herman's score is pretty well kept intact except for "That's How Young I Feel", and we do get performances by the original Broadway cast members Jane Connell and Bea Arthur. I suppose Robert Preston had to be given a song, hence the inferior "Loving You". Overall, I think in this one the wrong redhead was cast.$LABEL$ 0
+The story by Norman Maclean is a masterwork; Redford's film is a mediocrity. He adds banal scenes of the Maclean brothers going over a falls and of them double-dating in a seedy bar that were not even hinted at in the story. The cipher, Brad Pitt, trying to play the charismatic Paul Maclean, a genius outdoors, proves either risible or depressing, depending on what the original story meant to you. Some of the fly casting scenes are beautiful. Also, Tom Skerritt as the father and Craig Sheffer as Norman are strong and masculine, as men were once expected to be. None of the women make an impression in the film, which is regrettable, because Maclean loved the women in his story and made this clear, even poetic.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a thoroughly enjoyable, well-acted film. It is funny and sometimes hilarious. The finale is a bit disappointing, since it tries to wrap everything up into too neat a package. The film is better remembered for its priceless vignettes: the Jane Austen staging, the camping trip as examples. B & H does not attempt to mirror the predominant attitudes toward homosexuality and bisexuality. Most of the characters are quite accepting of sexual diversity. In that sense it is a joyous vacation from homophobic society. And it is a celebration of a flexibility, a loosening of rigid sexual categories--perhaps a happy harbinger of things to come.$LABEL$ 1
+*Wonderland SPOILERS* July 1st, 1981: five people, Ron Launius (Josh Lucas), Susan Launius (Christina Applegate), Billy Deverell (Tim Blake Nelson), Barbara Richardson (Natasha Gregson Wagner) and Joy Miller (Janeane Garofalo) are attacked while they're asleep and brutally hit on the head with steel pipes in their home at 8763 Wonderland Avenue, Laurel Canyon, LA. Only Susan survives.Main Suspect: John Holmes (Val Kilmer), former king of porn, owner of a 30 cm long dick, and now a hopeless addict.Two investigators, Luis (Frankie G.) and Sam Nico (Ted Levine), are investigating on the case and try to crack it with the help of a witness that claims to know that John at the very least took part in the murders, David Lind (Dylan McDermott), Barbara's boyfriend, and trying to get a witness report out of Dawn Schiller (Kate Bosworth), Holmes' 19-year-old girlfriend and from Susan, who sadly doesn't remember anything more than shadows about the night her husband's head was bashed in and hers almost suffered the same fate, and the name of Eddie Nash (Eric Bogosian), a major drug kingpin (who is always around ladies such as Barbie (Paris Hilton)), comes into light as a suspect planner of the Wonderland massacre.But what did happen that night? And could Sharon (Lisa Kudrow), John's wife, know something about it? 'Wonderland' is a taught, intense thriller, a desperate love story and a story of a man's sad decline all in one; there is a clever use of the 'Rashomon' technique (we see the events of that fateful day and night from the eyes of David, John, Dawn, Susan (albeit very briefly) and Sharon), a nice direction and a great script, but is mostly compelling for the performances, especially Kilmer's, who takes central stage with his hopeless, tormented, sometimes childish Holmes, Lucas', whose Launius is strangely alluring, Kudrow's strong Sharon and Bosworth's innocent Dawn.Wonderland: 9/10.$LABEL$ 1
+As a horse lover one can only appreciate this movie. There are few movies that show horsemanship as this one does. I would love to know if Brian does his own riding in the film. Would also like to know if he enjoys horses. Brian has been in a lot of movies where he has ridden. Where did he learn to ride? The only part that is hard for me to take is that the riding scenes are always full tilt, like a horse can run forever at full steam. The camera-work is first rate and captures the horses in a way that shows how dangerous things can be on top of a horse. It would be very interesting to know how they went about casting this movie to find all of the very good horseback riders.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a great comedy, highlighting what it was like to live next door to racist bigot. But also shows that both main characters are actually as bad as each other. Based on the hit ITV comedy, this is very politically incorrect. And its all the better for it, comedy after all is to entertain. The movies only real drawback is there isnt much of a plot. However the cast are as great as usual. Jack Smethurst and Rudolph Walker make one hell of a team, playing off each other in a oneupmanship kind of way.It's been many years since i saw this movie and last week was finally able to buy it on dvd. The fact that the movie still contains genuine laugh out loud moments, means that i can recommend this movie, just like i would of back in the 1970's.$LABEL$ 1
+The cast is admirably chosen and well-balanced. This cinematography is excellent. The music is delightful as all of Burt Bacharach's music is, and is appropriate to the plot line. Making a musical version of Hilton's tale is a welcome change from a plodding re-make. We see seasoned actors who add real depth to the emotional content and significance of each scene. I cannot agree with the critics who overlooked this scintillating gem of a film. It is a treasure of the silver screen! Find it if you can - and let its magic carry you beyond the drudgery of daily worries, inspiring you to find your own "Lost Horizon".$LABEL$ 1
+The movie confuses religious ethics and ideals so much that it fails to create coherent argument against the death penalty on any level. By presenting the lawful execution of a convicted murder as the catalyst for the apocalyptic end of mankind the movie elevates a parent killer to the status of martyr for Christ. Somehow, according to the plot, god is outraged that society has chosen to rid it's self of a fanatic who killed his own parents by starting them on fire while they slept defenselessly in their beds. Yet this same god has no indignation for the acts of the killer. The lead character, an nonreligious pregnant suicidal woman, ultimately gives her own life in a defiant but implausible attempt to unsuccessfully save this convicted killer. In other threads of the underdeveloped plot Jesus comes back as a powerless and frustrated vagabond to symbolically unleash the wrath of God. The modern lackluster incarnation of Christ not just dehumanizes him but mocks the messianic ideal of all religions as well. He is unable to affect humanity for good and unemotionally skates the edges of life waiting for mankind to destroy it's self. Meanwhile, with little help from Jesus the mentally unstable pregnant woman finds herself with the ability to reincarnate herself into her newly born soulless child which somehow saves all of mankind from the wrath of the almighty. I also interpreted that as a statement in support of abortion on some levels. This movie which attempts to weave many religious themes into a thriller fails to make any religious point that I could clearly interpret except to mock people's beliefs. It raises many questions that it never even attempts to answer. It disregards the religious values of its audience while attempting to portray an asinine version of their fulfillment. Silly$LABEL$ 0
+this is seriously one of the worst movies i have ever seen. i love Japanese movies, and i think another film by the same director, electric dragon 80,000 v, is a masterpiece. i really wanted to like this movie - asano is a terrific actor and the storyline was immensely appealing. but i couldn't find anything entertaining about it.the movie takes forever for nothing to happen. and the effects the director used - like the constant percussion and the exorbitant use of slow motion - merely added to my growing annoyance at the fact that the plot was so mind-bogglingly slow and the actors were heinously overacting. a lot of the boredom was a result of extraneous additions that were completely unnecessary - like an hour spent on asano going around slicing buddha statues and proclaiming how he doesn't worship anything. this added nothing to the plot. a fellow Japanese film buff and i were both checking the time constantly. we couldn't believe this film was as terrible as it was. and the finale was awful. i thought the director would at least attempt to reward the viewer for managing to sit through this, but sadly i was mistaken.$LABEL$ 0
+If you want to see real evidence of what a misguided and unchecked government can do to "un-popular" people, this movie provides it. Read what some people are saying about the "Patriot Act" passed after 9/11 and then watch this movie. Is it worth it? Do we really want to give away our freedoms to these people? Regardless of what you saw on TV, you are not fully informed until you watch this movie. I apologize for quoting another reviewer, but it needs repeating: Roger Ebert of Siskel & Ebert said, "What's interesting is if you're looking for people who are unbalanced zealots... you don't find them among the Branch Davidians, you find them among the FBI and the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; those are the people in this movie who deserve to be feared, I think." I think every person responsible for 9/11 needs to be brought to justice, but I think the government has not shown a history of honoring it's duty to protect people's rights, and this movie proves it in dramatic fashion.$LABEL$ 1
+Greeted with derision by most critics when it first appeared, 'Frenzy' has recently done the rounds of UK TV. I remember seeing it on its original release, and thinking then that if Hitchcock wanted to parade some kind of screen confession about his ingrained misogynism, he couldn't have found a nastier little vehicle to do so.But Time alters perspective, and so what was nauseatingly bad in 1972 might, all these years later, be worthy of upward re-evaluation.Might. . . but not. 'Frenzy' is dross. The dross of an ageing director who desperately wanted to exploit the artistic freedom of 70s movie making without seeming to realise that freedom imposes its own obligations -- notably, the need to bring integrity to one's work.There's none here. And not much evidence of the earlier directorial brilliance, either -- the switch from spine-tingling implicit to odious explicit is neither shocking nor, for a supreme stylist, stylish: it's just banal (the prolonged murder scene is precisely that: prolonged, without pace, without reason, without purpose other than the cheapest of directorial desires to appear as contemporary an artiste as, say, that other acclaimed practitioner of cheap sleaze, Michael Winner).And it goes from bad to worse, with dialog that defies any human provenance (not least in the ludicrous diversion into the Home Life of Our Dear Wooden Inspector, and his wife's cooking).Perhaps the scene that best sums up 'Frenzy' (and endures as the most explicit indictment of Hitchcock's persona) is the clunking exchange between two lawyers in a bar, where they discuss the serial killings and then agree that at least the women had a good time first by being raped.I remember my revulsion at that scene back in '72, and it's still undimmed, because this wasn't Hitchcock being clever, or sardonic, or trying to make some universal point (big themes, big truths, were not Hitchcock's forte, nor personal preference.) It was just Hitchcock, allowing a reflection of his own distorted mirror on life to shine through the texture of the movie.Calling 'Frenzy' Hitchcock's last great masterpiece is to betray little if any understanding of just what Hitchcock actually achieved in the way of cinematic trickery, cinematic thrills, and dazzling cinematic mastery.'Frenzy' is therefore now what it always was: a cheap, nasty, and ham-fisted movie that did no service to any of those involved, or to the memory of a film-maker who really was, in his Hollywood days, one of the greatest there has ever been.$LABEL$ 0
+The story is about Ankush (Abhay Deol) - who is professional marriage witness, in short he acts as a witness for couples in marriage registration office - and Megha (Soha Ali Khan) who ran away from her home at Nainital to get married to her love interest Dhiraj (Shayan Munshi). The story starts with Megha waiting at the marriage registration office for Dhiraj to show up but for some reason he does not show up. So Ankush comes in the picture here, who had approached Megha with the intention of earning Rs. 200 for his Witness job and he ends up helping her by providing shelter to her. Ankush grows on his side by working in a bank as an Agent&#8230; Ankush falls in love with Megha and she too falls in love with him (or kind of love), both agree for the marriage and Dhiraj comes back in the picture. Unexpected circumstances happen, actually I should say, expected circumstances with unexpected reactions and then&#8230;.Actually the movie story is bit different than the movies we see and I do not think so it will be accepted by the masses but if you are a movie freak like me and love to watch something different, then you will definitely like the movie. The movie is just an innocent love story drafted very well by the characters of Abhay Deol and Soha Ali Khan. The characters are so natural that you feel as if things are happening to the guy next door. The background music of the film also plays a very good role, it is just too good. The way Delhi is shown is very good and gives a fresh feeling.so let's cut it out and sum it up.Story: A very common story carried very well and transformed to a wonderful experience.Music: Well, as it was Himesh Reshammiya creation, so I did not expect much but still I liked couple of songs of the movie including the Qawwali.Acting: Abhay Deol was the most impressive, very natural and innocent acting but he should stay away from singing in the songs. Soha Ali Khan, she is a doll, a very cute doll I must say. Again very innocent and natural acting and these both actors perfectly fit into their characters. Apart from these two, Shayan Munshi needs some acting lessons and may be few layers of fat to cover the bones. Other actors did their job well.Stars: I would also give it 3.5 stars out of 5. You will enjoy the movie if watched in the theatre, I would recommend watching it in theatre if you are a movie freak and accept uncommon stories. Otherwise wait for the DVD to arrive. The movie will definitely won't be liked by the masses and the business it can do is from word of mouth publicity.$LABEL$ 1
+Irwin Allen put all his talents behind this one: he's co-screenwriter, producer and director of this cartoonish "epic" about an atomic submarine and its efforts to reduce a ring of radiation circling the Earth. Potentially exciting story fails to take off, despite an eclectic cast. Varied players from Walter Pigeon and Joan Fontaine to Frankie Avalon and Barbara Eden are interestingly intermingled and provide a dash of color, but this soggy sci-fi is pretty cheesy. Good for a few stray laughs, but Allen didn't seem to know the difference between strong, solid adventure and campy nonsense. Later a popular TV series. ** from ****$LABEL$ 0
+I think that, deep down in the darkest, slimiest part of their heart, everyone likes Jerry Springer just a little bit. While his show is undeniably offensive and stupid, it also gives us a chance to see that, relatively speaking, most of us have it real good. When you look at the trailer park livin', dollar whiskey drinkin', incest lovin' people on the Springer show, it makes even your worst day seem like a walk in the park. Jerry is performing a public service, and we should be grateful. He ditched a political career to host the show, just for us.What we should not be grateful for in any way is the piece of garbage movie "Ringmaster". "Ringmaster" shows what life is like for people who wind up being guests on the show, or so they would like us to think. The movie follows the pre-requisite Springer story line: Love triangles. One triangle involves Connie, her daughter Angel, and her husband Rusty. The other involves Starletta, Vonda, and Demond. When the two hapless groups meet up in LA, their lives intertwine and collide head-on, all culminating in an explosive episode of the Springer show. It's like what "Short Cuts" would be if Robert Altman had had a severe crack habit."Ringmaster" is true to the show, as it is stupid and offensive from start to finish. It also makes me very glad that I don't live in the squalor it's characters do. But the movie has a problem. It's billed as a comedy, but it just isn't very funny. What laughs there are to be had are few and far between. Maybe some people watch this and laugh non-stop. If you think blow jobs and rape are funny, well then I guess you're one of those folks. Personally, I laughed two or three times and spent the rest of the movie in utter awe of the agonizing horrors of white-trash life.The Jerry Springer Show just isn't meant to make the leap from TV to the silver screen. What's funny in an hour long show (less, when you count commercials) isn't necessarily going to be funny in a ninety minute movie. Movies have to tell a story, and that's something else "Ringmaster" has trouble with. The story is threadbare. There are so many plot holes and continuity errors that any attempt at telling a cohesive narrative is quickly put asunder. And even if there weren't such problems, how much fun can you pull out of a story of stereotypical people in a stereotypical story? Even the Hollywood formula couldn't make this better. "Ringmaster: is so bad, it even screws up the best part of the Springer show: the Final Thought. Somehow, even the smartest and simplest aspect of the show wound up blowing harder than the slutty women the film is built around.The worst offender in all of this is Springer himself. He's such a bad actor that he can't even play himself convincingly. Watching Springer play Springer is sad. It's like he was going for a 'What if Woody Allen played Jerry Springer' vibe, and he failed. Miserably. He went to the trouble of producing this disaster, the least he could do is try to make it just that much better.Not that I'm saying everyone else in this movie put in an award worthy performance. Just the opposite. They all suck. Not so surprisingly, no one in this movie went on to greatness. The best any of them was did was Molly Hagan landing a job on a Nickelodeon sitcom. Apparently, Nickelodeon has no problem with hiring a woman who starred in the most vile film of the '90's to star in a children's program. It makes you wonder what kind of things the other adults on that channel have done in their pasts.Here are my Final Thoughts: What we have here is a group of people with no self respect and a man with money to burn, who have met and put their resources together to produce a film that shows how much they hate themselves and how little they think of the intelligence of their viewing audience. Should we accept people who make movies that treat us like severely brain-damaged lumps of goo? I say no. Somewhere out there, in this crazy, mixed up world, there is a perfect movie for each of us. We just have to keep looking for it. Until next time, take care of yourselves and your loved ones. And don't ever watch "Ringmaster".$LABEL$ 0
+This is probably my least favorite episode. I lived in Cape Girardeau for quite some time. I can tell you there is no ocean or shrimp boats, fresh crab or scallops anywhere near Missouri. Cape Girardeau is the only inland Cape, it's on the Mississippi River. It looked like the license plates were from Mississippi, which may explain why there was so much racial tension. Missouri and Mississippi are 2 completely different states that don't touch one another. There are many roads in and out of town and none of them are Route 6 or Route 666. This whole inaccuracy was very distracting. Also, Cassie did not seem like someone who would want to hang around Dean if she was well educated. I did not buy them as a couple and didn't enjoy the lengthy love scene. Jo was more Dean's style.$LABEL$ 0
+If you'd like a great April Fool's joke, then please by all means show this film to someone. However, it is important that you in no way criticize the film but instead talk about what an artistic triumph it is and how "they just don't make great films like this any more". As your victim watches many disconnected and nonsensical scenes (such as a cute dog getting punted for no apparent reason, a cow standing on the bed, a woman licking a statue's feet or Jesus apparently raping a woman), make lots of comments using words like "brilliance", "juxtaposed" or "transcendent"--all the while acting as if the film actually makes perfect sense and isn't a complete waste of an hour of your life. Also be sure to keep a straight face and feign shock when (and if) they say that they either didn't understand it or thought it had all the artistry of a cow patty. Then, to further mess with them, show them all the comments on IMDb, as nearly all (except for a few trouble-makers like almagz and rooprect) talk glowingly about what genius and artistry this film is! By the time you are done with this little charade, they'll most likely think they are idiots and will make an appointment with a psychologist. This, to me, is the ONLY possible reason to watch this horrid mess of a film!!! That, or you could show it to the prisoners at Guantanamo in order to get them to talk!If you ask me, the famous painting of dogs playing poker or a velvet Elvis painting are superior artistically.$LABEL$ 0
+This "documentary" is a proof of talent being used for mean purposes. The fact that it is financed by the venezuelan government gives it a lack of legitimacy in the purpose of searching for the truth of what really happened those horrible days of April 2002 in Venezuela, something even we venezuelans don't know for sure.There are ways of lying, and the directors of this stuff lie both by omission and by knowledge. The venezuelan political process is too complex to be easily understood by foreign audiences, and they take advantage of that. For instance *POSSIBLE SPOILERS* they show pro-Chávez demonstrators shooting at an empty street (what the hell they did that for?) in a way of saying they didn't kill anyone, but didn't bother showing the images we all saw here, of opposition demonstrators (and a journalist) falling dead or injured at the other side of that "empty" street. They can't explain why the chopper of the political police was the only one authorised to fly over Caracas that day and did nothing against the snipers that were all over the roofs of the buildings nearby the presidential palace, something that would exhibit how inefficient would be the security measures to guard the President. A few days after the "coup", the chief of the military guard in charge was asked at the National Assembly (our Congress) why didn't they act against the snipers and he said "'cause they weren't there to act against the president", isn't that a confession?There is so much more, the fact that the highest rank military announced that Chávez had resigned and 2 days later he said he had lied because "that's politics" and nowadays is the Minister of Internal Affairs of Chávez' administration.It would take me thousands of words to explain all the lies depicted in this "documentary", made with the intention of selling the world an image of the good old Hugo Chávez who rules for the poor and the bad rich opposition that wants him out at all costs, when the truth is that 60-70% of people rejects his government, and that percentage includes the poor.I hope those of you who have seen and bought this will be able to see a different version that is being made by a group of venezuelan people showing no less than 30 lies.Nazi propaganda has returned!$LABEL$ 0
+I wanted to watch this movie because of Eliza Dushku, but she only has a smaller part in it, and her character isn't very likable. However, the main character, played by Melissa Sagemiller, is extremely beautiful and a perfect delight to look at throughout the movie. This is really nothing but a showcase for her looks and talent. She does a very good job.The story itself is, on the face of it, pretty nonsensical. After a car crash, some friends are possibly dead, but keeps on living their previous lives, while all sorts of mysterious things happen. Some bad guys are after them, but we never really find out who they are (possibly they were the ones in the other car, but we certainly don't hear anything about why they are after them). The final scenes especially seem filmically ambitious, but I can't get anything coherent out of it. The opening scene, where the bad guys (who wear some strange masks) cut a blond girl's wrist and gather up some of her blood is never explained or followed up on. Unless the bad guys are supposed to be a representation of the surgeons who're trying to pull Cassie (Sagemiller) back from the dead... but no, that doesn't seem to work. The bad guys are just bad guys; they really just mess up a story that might otherwise have been interesting. In a supernatural story about death and love and sacrifice, who the hell needs bad guys?3 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+Christopher Guest need not worry, his supreme hold on the Mockumentary sub-genre is not in trouble of being upstaged in the least especially not by this extremely unfunny jab at RPG-gamers. The jokes are beyond lame. Not enough substance to last the typical length of a (particularly rancid) SNL skit, much less the 87 atrocious minutes I waisted watching this drivel. The great William Katt (Greatest American Hero, House) deserves much MUCH better. One thing and one thing alone makes the fact that I saw this worth it in my mind and that's posting about it on here so hopefully just hopefully I'll save someone such a bad experience.My Grade: D- DVD Extras: 2 Audio commentaries; 7 interviews with various cast members; 4 deleted scenes; & theatrical trailer DVD-Rom extras: 2 Wallpapers Easter egg: Highlight the eye in the picture on the main menu for a short scene$LABEL$ 0
+I didn't think it would be possible for Joe Don Baker to make a movie as bad as his stinkbomb 'Mitchell', but this one succeeds.I wouldn't recommend this if you're a fan of Joe Don Baker's MUCH better work. But,if you like to watch fat guys sweat and really, really drawn out gun fights, you'll love this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+So the Koreans are now knocking off American horror flicks. But they are doing so with style. DOLL MASTER is a close copy of PUPPETMASTER and DOLLS, and even has a little CHILD'S PLAY going for it. Several young adults are invited to attend a special event at a gallery filled with dolls, only to find they are targets of a vengeful spirit. The dolls come to life and do some pretty nasty things to the kids. The gore level is reasonably high, the photography and set design and production values are first rate, the acting isn't all that bad, and the scares are definitely there. DOLL MASTER may not be in the same league with A TALE OF TWO SISTERS or even DEAD FRIEND, but it's close. Give it a watch. You won't be disappointed.$LABEL$ 1
+Simply put, the only saving grace this movie has is settings, costumes and an OK punk concert. How H.R.Giger must feel about his cyborg picture on the cover of this movie, I wouldn't like to know. Right away, all I could do was make sardonic comments about the films protagonists, I was hoping that the "freaks" in this movie would execute them in gory fashion. I sense SPOILERS a comin'! I was wondering if this film in the spirit of the first 20 min. was intended to be as humorously half-baked as the rest of it? Examining all the obvious political outcries (Police trying to rape a "freak", the discussion of superficialities between the "freak" and the frat boy and the punk concert w/ the female vocalist) and the use of slow-motion in the fighting sequences (which screams "martial-arts coordinator") I just don't know. The character named "Steve" irked me since he tries to pick fights w/ people off the street (he shoulda been mugged and raped) and looks bad when he broke that guy's neck towards the end (want me to show you how to do it?) I must say this though, if they would've developed other characters better than they did "Splatter", this might have gone somewhere. If there was a 0 to give this movie, it would've got it, but alas it's a 1.$LABEL$ 0
+Starfucker (which reads Starstruck on my box) was the most amazing movie I have ever seen. I thought that it was one of the best movies I have ever seen. So why not a 10? Nothing is perfect. Jamie Kennedy proves why he is one of my favorite actors in this very interesting look at a darker side of Hollywood. I have forced a few others to watch the movie and they all agreed that it was an outstanding flick.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was just plain bad. Just about every cop movie cliché is present and accounted for. Bad guy gets away? check. Partner? check. Wacky personality clash with partner? check. Rookie with something to prove? check. Rookie shows up grizzled veteran. check. About the only ones it didn't touch on were idiot shoot themselves in the foot and retirony but I guess they're saving those old chestnuts for Dooley's next outing. Add in the battle of the sexes with Girl Power along with tired old sight gags and banal overdone material like Dooley's prize car getting trashed all the time and you have the recipe for one really bad movie. Avoid this one at all costs.$LABEL$ 0
+This is total swill. If you take The Devil's Rejects and suck all the good out of it, and add a lot of twisted, kinky bondage parts, a few rape scenes, and like one or two sincerely horrifying scenes, and you'd get this movie. People are calling this a ripoff of '86's The Hitcher, but I don't see that at all. Even the worst Hitcher ripoffs are still better than this. The main problem on display here is that there's really nothing here besides a few of the director's fetishes being showcased like circus exhibits. Is all you need out of a movie shots of girls being abused and tied up, cowering in fear? Well, then rent this movie!However, I'd rather just watch a good movie, which this is clearly not. The sad thing is, there are some really good thrills waiting to be uncovered here, but only a few. For instance, the suspense at the beginning before the bondage nonsense started...pretty damn good if you ask me. And the scene where the hitchhiker kills the nympho girl (can't remember names) is chilling, very brutal in a way, challenging even The Devil's Rejects for unbridled fury. How come the rest of the movie can't be that good? Huh? I really need to stop renting stupid crap like this. Closing message: Just let this gutter trash die and forget it forever. Not recommended.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a very long movie, indeed. But it is quite beautiful, and a good example to show why cinema can be considered art. A story easily told cannot be expected in Les Amants Réguliers, but every scene, every silence here tells much more than a hundred dialogs. Touching, different, perfect in its pictures and soundtrack, showing why the close brought by the cinema as one of its main features became the greatest innovation in any dramatic representation. Someone who is used to that kind of movies where everything is told, and action takes place all the time, will find this tiring. But it is worth watching, to find out other possibilities of feeling a story.$LABEL$ 1
+Like many of you I am a great fan of the real thing - the 1940s noir films - but Red Rock West was a real treat for all of us longing for the past. The term 'neo-noir' has been so often used inappropriately in the last ten years that it has lost its meaning and its impact. John Dahl's film on the other hand, truly deserved to be described as such. The casting is perfect all around and would have felt right at home with Tay Garnett or Jacques Tourneur. The plot is so tight that you are hooked within the first fifteen minutes. James M. Cain would have appreciated it. Many contemporary films leave me wondering why they don't make them like they used to, and I'm not even that old. Movies such as Red Rock West give us hope for the future while paying tribute to the past.$LABEL$ 1
+8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter had an auspicious start. The supremely-talented Tom Shadyac was involved in the project. This meant that the comedy would be nothing less of spectacular, and that's exactly what happened: the show remains one of the freshest, funniest, wittiest shows made in a very long time. Every line, facial expression, casting choice, scene, all wreaked of perfection. There was not one episode after which I thought, "Man that wasn't as good as the rest". Each one was a standout. Again, this is the kind of perfectionism that we've come to expect from Tom. For those who don't know, Tom Shadyac is the director of Ace Ventura (first movie), The Nutty Professor (first one) and Liar Liar. Quite a résumé. He's a producer here not a director, but his magic touch is felt in every episode.The family consists of:The Father: Paul Hennessy (John Ritter): nice, slightly neurotic, can be a pushover from time to time, works as a sports writer. John unfortunately passed away in 2003 leaving a fond memory and near-sure cancellation contemplations by the suits.The Mother: Cate (Katey Sagal): come on, who didn't fall in love with Katey when she played Peg on Married With Children? Al Bundy was our hero. We viewers gave him the respect and love he never had. But without Peg's nonchalant, parasitic, lazy lifestyle, Al would've probably been just another Chicago dad instead of the mess that Peg (life, actually) caused him to be. Katey was a MILF back then and still is: a brune now (instead of a redhead) and just as buxom as ever. Cate is the conservative mom and loving wife. I know it sounds boring, but comedically, she fits perfectly. The Ditzy Blonde Daughter: Bridget (played to perfection by Kaley Cuoco): almost never has an idiot been played so well. Aside of Gob on Arrested Development, Bridget may well be a shoe-in for any awards given to this archetype. Bridget is shallow, self-centered, not very bright and a tad slutty in his look. She plays the dumb blonde role better than absolutely anyone IMO. Perfection. One of the high-points of the show.The Overlooked Geeky Daughter: Kerry (Amy Davidson): a brune and a geek, she gets no love from life or circumstances. Feels overlooked, under-appreciated and neglected most of the time. She's Bridget's younger sister (in reality she's older than her) and the two's extremely opposite personalities and brains cause endless clashes, to much of our amusement.The Son: Rory (Martin Spanjers): was the second funniest character IMO before the passing of Ritter, then John passes, new characters come and Rory is not the wise-cracking verbal-trouble-maker that he used to: that went mostly to David Spade's character. Those characters were the main ones at the time of John Ritter. Unfortunately enough, the insanely hilarious Larry Miller (one of my favorites) did not get lots of screen time. He played Paul's co-worker/competitor. After an aortic dissection cost Ritter his life in 2003 (September 11th), the show was on hiatus for a while. No one thought it could come back, but it did later on, with a couple of new additions. This began the second phase of the show, and the new characters were:The strict, confident school principal: Ed (Adam Arkin): I saw Adam here and there on talk shows. This was the first time that I saw him do anything. Impressed, is the word I use. His performance was very impressive. Sad he wasn't brought in earlier. He also plays Cate's potential love interest after Paul passes. The gradual progress towards this point (which would've sounded crazy at the beginning) earns the creators lots of praise. It was done slowly, carefully and excellently, with constant respect paid to the Paul (Ritter).The Attitude Grandpa: Jim Egan (James Garner): a surprisingly welcome addition to the series, he was cannon fodder for endless 'old' jokes, mainly by...The 35-year-old unemployed wise-cracking half-brother of the mom: CJ (played to insanely funny heights by David Spade): I knew Spade was funny, I just didn't know he was THIS funny. Somehow, Spade's very familiar presence is sensed inside his character (as opposed to a separable character), which is understandable, since he's a comic and he's on a comedy show. This eerie feeling is kinda like seeing someone borrow lots of material from David Spade's appearances in movies, talk shows and functions (award shows, etc.) and delivering a superb impersonation of Spade's voice and comedy style, except, that it IS Spade. By that I mean you realize he's not trying to play someone else, or a whole new character: he's being the goofy, funny Spade we've come to know, and he takes this pleasantly humorous formula to the absolute top. Every line he uttered, every sarcasm he begot, all classics, literally. Spade was CRAZY-funny; so, SO funny.The show's humor and drama were both upped after the show was back, but audiences thought, "John passed, it ain't gonna be the same anymore". This is understandable, considering we are talking about a group of people (American viewers) who gave 'Yes Dear' a free ride but caused Andy Richter Controls the Universe to be cancelled in no time. As the show's quality increased, its ratings declined. Soon it was no more, sadly. And I saved the best for last: fans of Married With Children are in for a treat. And boy, what a treat it was. I still shiver just remembering it. It's a surprise so good that it would be crazy for me to spoil it, even if I legitimately do it under the "spoiler..." pretext. Suffice it to say that it's something you'll NEVER forget. I know I won't :-)$LABEL$ 1
+I really seldom give either one or ten stars to any movie, but this was so awful, I had to make an exception.I am a SciFi fan and have seen a few comedic takes on SciFi that I genuinely like. There just wasn't anything here to like.I realize this was started with an extremely small budget by a film student. But even considering that, the sets and effect are bad. The cinematography is mediocre, but may be the best part of the movie.The acting is bad. A sad state when the female voice-over for the computer is the best actor. The dialogue is bad. The script is very weak and the plot is incoherent and almost nonexistent.The humor is not just subtle and sublime; it's nowhere to be found. As an example, a whole 20 minutes, of the 80 minute film, is spent on a lame 2 punch combo joke with the alien mascot and the elevator.This was supposed to be a parody of everything from bad 50's SciFi to 2001. What we end up with though, is just a slightly updated version of an old 50's SciFi C-movie. At least those movies were funny because they took themselves seriously.$LABEL$ 0
+Dracula 3000 or Van Helsing "Dracula's Revenge" (Cheap cash in on another lame Vampire flick) as I saw it is a master class in how not to make a movie. A rag tag collection of misfit salvager's board a previously lost cargo ship "The Demeter" in the (cough) Carpathian System (which later is upgraded to the Carpathian Galaxy) and awake a relentless evil (in this case the script). The film is a bizarre bastardization of Event Horizon and whatever the lamest Vampire film of all time is.****Spoliers Follow**** After a plethora of production company logos and a credit sequence that most of the budget must have been blown on, we open with a cheesy exposition type speech from Casper (silly name) who plays Captain Abraham Van Helsing (sillier name) and in lieu of actual character development, goes on to describe the twisted, unintelligible oddities that make up his crew. Van Helsing himself sports a spray on stubble and wears a body warmer throughout in a sort of retro 80's tribute to Han Solo (I guess). Now and again the Captain of the Demeter pops up in some sort of mad video diary to tell us nothing of consequence in a pronounced German accent (subtitles sadly not included). Crewmember Mina boards the derelict ship (alone???) armed only with a gun shaped torch and thick east-European accent while conversing with Van Helsing on his ships bridge (which is basically a single glittery wall). Mina wearing a gas mask with rubber hoses glued to the front, encounters what can only be described as a skateboarder in a black cloak who continually glides by the camera. Why this happens as the Vampire is not yet made flesh is never explained. This leads on to a shaky camera chasing Mina down the hallways until she runs into Humvee. It's possible Will Smith could have been drafted in to write Humvee's lines as most of them consist of Humvee reminding us he is black every ten seconds and saying the word "ass" enough for a Guinness book of records entry while delivering all this in a "from DA hood" accent (this is the year 3000, does "DA hood" even exist?) One of the main problems with this film is that it insanely tries to pretend its set in the year 3000. Unfortunately anyone with healthy eyes won't buy this, as the Demeter looks suspiciously like a soviet style ocean going tanker. Possibly the film crew thought it would be okay to leave hammer and sickle symbols everywhere and a sexy poster of Lenin next to a bunch of lockers and explain it away as some sort of futuristic communist comeback special. The crew's clothes look as if they were raided from a Oxfam collection box (sealed since 1993) and they are armed to the teeth with latest in 20th century automatic weapons (with added year 3000 zing when fired) which of course are absolutely no use against vampires. Healthcare is a thing of the past (in the future) as the simpering Professor not only has glasses but is in a wheelchair??? My god what happened to all that genetic engineering stuff.The professor is an interesting character as he is a direct rip off from Alien Resurrection who had their own rag tag misfit crew with a guy in a wheelchair (who oddly wasn't killed). Fans didn't take to Prof as he appears scared in a lot of scenes If I were entombed in a non-wheelchair access soviet ship pursued by bad acting vampires, and everyone left me because I was such a whining wimp, I'd be scared too.During the UN-dramatic Mina chase scene the prof informs us (with feeling) "this is disconcerting". The rest of his lines are also disconcerting "bugger", and "We're all going to die" X 100, follows.Erika Eleniak appears as the Vice Captain (what happened to 1st officers?) in what I thought would be the tired, standard issue, hard nosed, no nonsense, "don't eye me up unless I tell you too", beat up 10 stuntman at one time super-babe, but this is a Z-flick so she basically wears a tight low cut top and even tighter leather trousers. Coolio's performance boosts the ham factor by 90% and is camper than a row of tents but luckily for us he dies soon enough. Although he seems to keep his heart on the right hand side of his body.After a lot of running up and down the same corridor, using clunky soviet style controls, and sitting in soviet style locker rooms the crew find themselves stranded as their own ship buggers off to find a more interesting crew (probably). Why Dracula is even mentioned is unknown as the main bad guy is called Orlock which is Space Transylvanian for "crimes against fashion" as he dandies about in a big puffy, frilly shirt and even bigger starched collar making Hammer Horror Vampires look slick by comparison. Orlock stops to explain his entire back story (off camera) to Erica Eleniak, but fails to kill her in another rip-off twist from Alien Resurrection. His back story is such a load of mince it's not worth repeating. As the budget can't afford fight coordinators, special effects, original music, script (not written by a chimpanzee) and even proper end titles (the first cast list I saw, were same characters but completely different and Italian names) the film begins to destroy whatever sanity you began with. The crew luckily are able to fight back with the help of a ships computer that contains obscure, millennium old references on how to kill fictional creatures and some handy 20th century pool cues they find in the ship recreation room (up yours "holodeck"). The ending is awful and a little suspect, either they ran out of money or the ex-soviets demanded their ship back. I walked into this film knowing it was bad but oblivious as to how bad it really was.$LABEL$ 0
+Lowe returns to the nest after, yet another, failed relationship, to find he's been assigned to jury duty. It's in the plans to, somehow, get out of it, when he realizes the defendant is the girl he's had a serious crush on since the first grade.Through living in the past by telling other people about his feelings towards this girl (played by Camp), Lowe remembers those feelings and does everything in his power to clear Camp of attempted murder, while staying away from the real bad guys at the same time, and succeeding in creating a successful film at the same time.I've heard that St Augustine is the oldest city in the US, and I also know it has some ties to Ponce de Leon, so the backdrop is a good place to start. Unfortunately, it's the only thing good about this movie. The local police are inept, the judge is an idiot, and the defense counsel does everything in her power to make herself look like Joanie Cunningham! I don't know whether to blame the director for poor direction, or for just letting the cast put in such a hapless effort.In short, this movie was so boring, I could not even sleep through it! 1 out of 10 stars!$LABEL$ 0
+Finally! Other people who have actually seen this show! It is the funniest anime I have ever seen, but most people have even heard about it. It is just hilarious. 'And so kintaro will continue to ride his trusty bike and maybe one day, he will save the world....or maybe not'. tare just some classic bits in it 'and so he will ride onto the next city...because he has no choice since his brakes are broken (study study study)' And some of the lessons that he writes down in his little notebook, 'today i had a very educational experience. I tried to look backwards, but unfortunately I was already looking that way. It hurt. Todays lesson, the human head cannot turn 360 degrees.'$LABEL$ 1
+Just came back from the first showing of Basic Instinct 2. I was going into it thinking it would be crappy based on preview critics and I was pleasantly surprised! If you liked the original Basic Instinct I think you will enjoy #2 just as much if not more. Great story that always keeps you wondering and thinking. The music is superb, reprising the original's theme. Don't go expecting Academy Award material, go to see it for enjoyment and fun. That's what movies are designed for -- escapism. I can't think of a better way to escape than to escape with Sharon Stone who is as sexy as she ever was. Am thinking about going to see it again this weekend. Go see it!$LABEL$ 1
+I'm fan of ART, I like anything about Art, I like paintings, sculptures, etc. This movie shows it, so I like it a lot, it shows how a woman wants to paint anything about Art, especially naked bodies, but she can't do it because of her strict family (father), at the beginning of the movie she painted herself naked, but she wanted a man for her paintings, but her family didn't let her paint naked men because it's against the moral. Even so Artemisia could paint her boyfriend and her art teacher completely naked. She falls in love with her art teacher, and it seems the art teacher is absolutely in love with her too, so at the ending he sacrifices his freedom for hers by lying. He said that he raped her, but it wasn't true. Artemisia fell in love with him, but if she says that she will suffer a lot, because in the trial in which Artemisia, her father and the Art teacher were, somebody was hurting her artistic hands to say the truth. I think this a great movie about ART, and an artistic love, It's worth watching. Valentina Cervi is great as Artemisia, she acts very well, I also like her performance in "The portrait of a lady" as Pansy Osmond. 8.5/10$LABEL$ 1
+Years ago I was lucky enough to have seen this gem at a >Gypsy film festival in Santa Monica. You know the ending >is not going to be rosie and tragedy will strike but it's >really about the journey and characters and their dynamics and how they all fit into what was "Yugoslavia". >While I am not Yugonostalgic and tend to shy away from >the current crop of "Yugoslavian" films (give me Ademir >Kenovic over late 90s Kustarica) I'd be happy to have the >chance to stumble on this film again, as it shines in my >celluloid memories. Ever since seeing Who's Singing Over >There" 15 years ago I still hear the theme tune, sung by >the Gypsies, ruminating through my head… "I am miserable, >I was born that way…" with the accompanying jew's harp and accordian making the tune both funny and sad. The late, great actor Pavle Vujisic (Muzamer from When Father >was Away on Business) was memorable as the bus driver of >the ill-fated trip in his typical gruff yet loveable manner. Hi$LABEL$ 1
+The only reason I elected to give this flick a shot was due to the presence of Oscar winner Ernest Borgnine. All I can say is, it was the greatest waste of a good actor ever put to film. As far as I could tell, Borgnine was the ONLY actor in it. The other performances were so uniformly terrible, I am amazed a studio would actually pay the "performers" to appear. Couple this level of talent in the acting department with a story so plodding and insipid that I thought my eyes were going to start bleeding by the time the credits rolled, and you have a perfect cinematic disaster. Obviously the movie was made to appeal to an audience of children, and to its credit, it was better than most of the original programing on the Disney Channel and similar kid-focused networks. But honestly, that is not saying much.$LABEL$ 0
+Ordinarily, I wouldn't waste the time on reviewing a film like "Human Pork Chop" (the 2001 version, not to be confused with the earlier film of the same title, which is probably better known in the West as "The Untold Story"), but since the reviews already here are quite vague as to what it actually consists of, I figured I'd best post something more detailed, so as no one actually gets tempted (as I was) into buying it because of the film's mystique. I honestly would just say STAY AWAY.**** MAJOR SPOILERS are contained below ****"Human Pork Chop", I was expecting to be like a Chinese interpretation of the popular Japanese "Guinea Pig" films. Anyone who's watched enough of that series can see where its makers are coming from. There's a strong sense of humour running throughout it - you can't watch the ludicrous "He Never Dies" without laughing and "The Making of Guinea Pig" is a fabulous turning of the whole thing on its head, proving it was just made, with some glee, by fairly good natured gorehounds. All the GP films have a punk rock, DIY, shot-on-video aesthetic, occasional flashes of genuine artistry ("Mermaid in a Manhole"), an angry political agenda and a warped, deranged zeal that sets them in a league of their own."Human Pork Chop" has none of the above.It's shot on 35mm film (with disarmingly good production values), it's 90 gruelling minutes long and it's utterly devoid of anything redeeming. The plot tells, in flashback at a police interviewing of the suspects, of the systematic torture, death and eventual dismemberment of Grace, a heroin-addicted streetwalker who is kidnapped and brutalised by her pimp and his henchmen when she steals money from him.Despite its fleeting attempts at being a morality play, the film possesses a detached, inhumane feel to it and one can't help but dwell on the mindsets of those behind it. Although it half-heartedly paints Grace as an innocent victim, the mean-spirited nature of its screenplay and the protagonist's constant, vicious dialogue veers towards a shocking, utterly unwelcome "she deserves it!" point of view which makes the whole thing almost impossible to watch. Far more time is spent detailing Grace's degradation and when her captors are eventually deemed guilty and jailed, it seems like a hurried afterthought on behalf of the writers who've long since stopped caring less.What makes it boggling as to why anyone would want to watch such a film is that even the kind of people who do REALLY get off on mindless sex and violence in the movies would be severely missing out. The torture is just a continuous stream of kickings, slappings, verbal abuse, psychological abuse and then increasingly bizarre displays of power on behalf of the captors use Grace's heroin addiction to make her do their bidding. And when I say that, don't get me wrong, incidentally. Unlike "Guinea Pig" with it's frequent barrage of nudity that gives an almost teenage feel of mock-titillation to the proceedings in spite of the ultraviolence, "Human Pork Chop" has no such sexual overtones. There isn't any actual nudity in the film and the violence is performed purely out of malice by the odious protagonists (who early in the film are seen stuffing a dog into a bag and banging it against a brick wall - don't worry, not real, just a cheap special effect!).The only actual bloodshed in the film is towards the end when they dismember Grace's body and boil the bones, all very poor special FX (nowhere near "Guinea Pig" level) and, by that stage, you'll probably be already feeling too miserable and sick to even care what's going on.The film is depressingly bleak and uncompromising along a similar line to Buddy Giovinazzo's "Combat Shock" and I guess could even be compared, at a push. Both movies deal with the gradual physical decline of an individual who exists in a nightmarish environment devoid of any social or morally redeemable characters and both movies 'climax' in a particularly visceral manner with the individual's inevitable, inescapable doom.In fairness, neither 'glamourises' it's violence (whereas "Guinea Pig" could easily be accused of this) but one can't help but wonder where the place is for a film like this. It fails to many any real points in its frank presentation of such brutality and with a leaden-pace, a virtually non-existent plot line and the aforementioned lack of any entertainment value, I just can't understand what would encourage anyone to watch something like this. I only made it to the end, purely for the purpose of being able to review it fairly... which I hope I've now done.Overall Score: 0 of of 10. Welcome to the bottom of the barrel.$LABEL$ 0
+Cinderella is a beautiful film, with beautiful songs of course. In fact, it's one of the best films of the 1950's.I think all the characters are portrayed amazingly. You can see the cruelness of Cinderella's stepsisters and her stepmother, the sweetness of Cinderella. The mice are funny and sweet too.I think they changed the tale a bit, but I think it's for the best. It's such a nice film, and I don't think anyone could resist it deep down.I give it a 8/10. I don't think it's the best Disney film. But it sure is a true classic.$LABEL$ 1
+This has to be one of the all time greatest horror movies. Charles Band made the best movie of 96' in this little seen gem. Highly realistic and , incredibly stylised- with a visual flair David Fincher would envy, its not hard to see why Band went on to make such classics as 'Killjoy 2: Deliverance From Evil', 'The Regina Pierce Affair', 'Virgins of Sherwood Forest', and 'Timegate: Tales of the Saddle Tramps'.With a highly sophisticated story- a tiny body with a large head controls a family of weirdos who perform experiments on naked women, this movie may be a bit too much for younger viewers and is only for the most educated type of viewer, but for those who see it, Band is able to convey subtle messages about the human condition through his masterpiece. The head is symbolic of the lost love and longing for one's inner self that we all must face at one point or another, and for this reason i was able to engage with this film on a deeply personal level. Although many earlier critics have compared Band's film to Re-animator and other lesser works, this stands head and heels above the rest. It is gorier, but not pointlessly. The gore in this film is well crafted and used to enhance the storyline, rather than to just get a cheap shriek out of the audience. Also, the special effects in this film are absolutely top notch, easily the best work done in a horror film since... well... ever! The work in this film makes Savini's effects look like the work of a blind, limbless hobo.The only problem i have with this film is the copious amounts of full frontal nudity, which were ultimately unnecessary in achieving the composer's goal- to create a timeless epic that would forever go down in history as possibly the greatest film of all time. If it were not for this slight problem i would have given this film a perfect 10.$LABEL$ 0
+I haven't laughed this much in a long time - or seen a film so ineptly made! Talk about so bad it made me laugh!Firstly, I estimate that for about 40 percent of the film's length, I couldn't tell what was happening, or indeed even what I was seeing. I can only describe the camera work as frenetic meets LSD. There are whole segments, minutes long, where all you can see are blurred flashes and fragments of cave wall, people and various other unidentifiable stuff. I spent half the film asking my teenage daughters what was happening, but they couldn't follow it any better than me.Then there are the "black" moments, when in an effort to scare us (woooooooo) everyone's lights go out and the screen turns pitch black - and I don't just mean for a few seconds. I think the longest lasted almost two minutes. I guess blank film is one way to keep costs down...I suspect the "director" had recently read a book on all the "must-do's" to make a scary movie, and decided to throw them all in - about 20 times each.There are three good things about this film: 1/ It's short at 90 minutes (though still an hour and a half too long!) 2/ All the characters die (after all, it's impossible to care about any of them). 3/ There was one genuinely good scene - when the group are looking up the shaft they came down, after discovering their rope fallen to the bottom (saw THAT coming), a large boulder is pushed across the opening, sealing them in. I WASN'T expecting that, and it was genuinely chilling.And what's with the early campfire scenes with the shot, after shot, after shot panning from behind the camp lights. I swear the director used almost the same shot about 20 times in 5 minutes.And I'm positive that after the first kill, the EXACT same footage of blood on the cave floor is used twice in about 90 seconds.All in all, a CRAP piece of film making. I'll watch almost anything, but this is close to where I'd draw the line.$LABEL$ 0
+Alicia Silverstone (pre-"Clueless") plays a modern-day crime-obsessed teenager attempting to solve the brutal slaying of a local girl. Pat Verducci wrote and directed this B-flick, which isn't especially well-made but is however surprisingly serious-minded in regards to its leading character. Silverstone is appealing and successful in carving out an interesting young woman here, despite the picture's kitschy undermining. The supporting cast (including Kevin Dillon and Michael Bowen) isn't bad, though the violence in the last act goes overboard. Not a cheesy camp-fest, but nothing exceptionally memorable either. *1/2 from ****$LABEL$ 0
+Watch on the Rhine is one of the best anti-nazi propaganda films made during World War Two. Paul Lukas was certainly deserving of his Oscar. Bette Davis shines brilliantly as the great actress and beauty she was. I would recommend this film to those interested in that era, and, of course, the fabulous films of the late, great, Ms. Bette Davis.$LABEL$ 1
+I agree with most of the other guys. A waste of photons and valuable time.Nearly no joke is worth the paper is was written on. The only highlight from my pov is Olli Dittrich as Pinocchio. ("Egal, ich muss eh Waldsterben") This reminds of old times with RTL Samstag Nacht. It is hard to describe the performances of the actors, since most of them don't even seem to have a good time during production and just "do their thing". Camera is OK, plot is laughable, I think you would be ashamed even if you discuss this with lots of beers.Apart from this I yawned all the time, wondered about how a script like this could even be considered for production and waited for the end.My 9 year old son was pleased, but then he is pleased by so little at this age :-)Anyway, a 1 point rating here nearly is 1 point too much...$LABEL$ 0
+The plot for Black Mama White Mama, revolves around two female inmates, at a women's prison in the Phillipines. One Black, and one White. These two women, are thrown together in the prison. Pam Grier is Lee Daniels Lee is incarcerated in the hellish women's prison, for dancing as a harem girl. Lee's boyfriend owes her part of his profits, from his drug-dealing activities. Lee is mainly interested in breaking out of the prison to get hold of her beau's drug money, so that she can leave the Phillipines and assume a better life. Margaret Markov plays Karen Brent, a white women from a privileged background, who is also a revolutionary. Karen has joined a group of revolutionaries, determined to change the corrupt Phillipino political system. She's captured by Phillipino authorities, and held as a political prisoner.The story-line takes-off, when Karen and Lee break out of the prison they were in together. The two of them also happened to be chained together at the wrist. As they flee, they also fight with each other, because they have different goals to pursue. Naturally, they hate being chained together. But they also realize that they must put aside their differences, to help each other survive while they evade capture.If this film seems very similar to The Big Bird Cage, it's because much of the cast in the two films is the same, as well as their location in the Phillipines. Roger Corman, has always had a consistent stable of actors, that he used in all of his 70s B movies. Besides Pam Grier, Sid Haig, Roberta Collins, Claudia Jennings, Betty Anne Rees, and William Smith, were also among the many actors that were frequently cast, in Corman's AIP films.Like The Big Bird Cage, Black Mama White Mama, relies on too much gory violence to be palatable. Pam Grier conveys her usual tough chick persona in this film, and shows her competence as a female action heroine. Margaret Markov is less effect, in her portrayal of the revolutionary Karen. She just seems to fragile and well-coiffed, to be a dedicated political guerrilla. Except for Sid Haig, as the colorful Ruben, the rest of the cast is forgettable.This film has little entertainment value, unless excessive, heinous acts of violence are your thing. Only the performances by Pam Grier and Sig Haig, make this film worth watching.$LABEL$ 0
+I agree with many of the negative reviews posted here, for reasons I will go into later on. But this miniseries is powerful and convincing because the talented cast really captures the dark truth of Hitler's world.Peter Stormare is perfect as Ernst Rohm, the brutal Brownshirt leader. Each scene he has with Hitler is explosive! Hitler is so evil he dominates everyone but the thuggish, primitive Rohm -- and he clearly digs Rohm for just that reason. The interplay between Stormare and Carlisle illuminates the way Hitler relished Rohm's brutality, but later sacrificed him for political reasons.Jena Malone turns in a heartrending performance as Geli Raubal, Hitler's doomed niece and the victim of his unspeakable perversions. Without revealing any of the sexual filth directly, Jena Malone plays out all the horror of the slow extinction of a young girl's spirit. She uses her eyes and voice to suggest all the horror that will be visited on millions in the years to come. And she's brilliant! Zoe Telford very nearly matches Jena Malone with her portrayal of Eva Braun. Eva is clearly sick, cruel and heartless -- but at the same time almost pitiably dependent on her Adolph's twisted tenderness. The aborted lovemaking scene between them (hinting at the spine tingling truth of Hitler's enormous self-loathing) is both chilling and erotic.Liev Schrieber gives a deliciously weasel-like performance as Putzi Hanfstaengel, the spineless man-about-town who is seduced by Hitler's promises of wealth and power. While a brute like Rohm simply loves the idea of crushing skulls under his boots, Schrieber's character is one of many Germans who abhors Nazi violence but can't resist the quick and easy route to money and power. His weak-willed fawning over Hitler soon loses him the respect of his wife, played with style and sensuality by the stunning and regal Julianna Margulies. They provide a true portrait of marriage and betrayal.These performances carry the mini series along, easily overcoming occasional weaknesses in the script. There is one exception. Regrettably, Matthew Modine's acting chops just aren't up to snuff. His noble lunk-haid journalist ruins every scene he has -- the viewer can hardly wait for Rohm's brown-shirts to stomp that smug, righteous look off his ignorant, corn-pone low-rent Hollywood golden boy face. But the story still works.Now in regard to the factual inaccuracies of the script -- Hitler's perversions and cruelty are rendered in a vibrant, compelling drama. But the battlefield record of Corporal Hitler is badly distorted. As if afraid the audience can't handle the idea of evil and courage in the same person, the writers make Hitler look like a whining coward who "begged" for an Iron Cross. As if anyone in the Kaiser's Army could get a medal just by whining about it! The movie makes it look as if Hitler were a coward in the trenches, when he was a fearless soldier. They also suggest his comrades despised him, when in reality he was widely admired by officers and enlisted men alike. The depressing thing is that the mini-series succeeds so well in representing Hitler as a monster in honest ways -- but they just couldn't resist the cheap shot.All in all, however, Hitler: RISE OF EVIL is a soaring success highlighted by powerful performances.$LABEL$ 1
+It only took one viewing of this dog, for me to say "Never again!" It's so profoundly unmemorable that I had to read other people's reactions to it before I could remember anything beyond (1) it was awful, (2) Connery should have quit while he was ahead, and (3) the film included a total gross-out bit involving faking a retinal scan through the most gruesome (not to mention horribly inefficient) means possible.Actually, I've never understood why anybody would prefer even the best of Connery's Bond films over even the worst Moore or Dalton outings. Or Lazenby, Brosnan, or even David Niven, for that matter. I personally found Octopussy and Moonraker, among other "canonical" Bond films, to be far more entertaining than this, and probably for the very same reasons why others deprecate the Moore Bond films, namely their wry humor, and their willingness to surrender to the preposterousness of the whole basic Bond milieu.$LABEL$ 0
+I do agree with everything Calamine has said! And I don't always agree with people, but what Calamine has said is very true, it is time for the girls to move on to better roles. I would like to see them succeed very much as they were a very inspirational pair growing up and I would like to see them grow as people, actresses and in their career as well as their personal life. So producers, please give the girls a chance to develop something that goes off the tangent a bit, move them into a new direction that recognises them individually and their talents in many facets. This movie that is being commented is not too bad, but as I have seen further on in their movies, their movies stay the same of typical plot and typography. When In Rome is good for audiences of younger generation but the adults who were kids when the twins were babies want to follow the twins in their successes and so hence I think we adults would like to see them make movies of different kinds, maybe some that are like the sixth sense, the hour, chocolat, that sort of movie - not saying to have just serious movies for them, humour ones too yes, but rather see them in different roles to what they have been playing in their more recent movies like this one and New York Minute. (Note: I am from Australia so excuse my weird spelling like reognise with the s instead of z)$LABEL$ 0
+THE OTHER is a supposed "horror" movie made during the 1970s. It is not to be confused with the similarly titled THE OTHERS, which starred Nicole Kidman.The plot is as follows - a woman with strange supernatural powers teaches her twin grandsons something referred to simply as "the game". One of these twin boys - Niles - is supposed to be "good". The other one - Holland - is supposed to be evil.The idea sounds interesting enough as an abstract concept and the movie was adapted from a novel. I can only hope the novel was interesting as the movie was incredibly boring from beginning to end.The execution of this movie is very much like a TV movie of the kind UK residents might see on Channel 5. In fact, this movie looks like it was made to be the daytime afternoon movie for this TV channel. A slight trimming to one or two scenes and this would be a U-rated movie of the kind Disney produce. But even the youngest of children are more likely to be bored than scared by THE OTHER.You don't need to check out the director's CV to realise horror is not his forte.Mr. Mulligan relies heavily upon the characters to drive the story. This is obvious from the get-go. I haven't seen any of his other movies but TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is a highly regarded crime movie on this site. Unfortunately in THE OTHER, the characters are given too little to do and the plodding script ensures the movie never really takes off in the way one might expect.The direction is as bland as you could possibly find. Almost every single scene takes place in the daytime! Think about this - a scene shot in the open landscape in rural America during daytime with the camera focusing on vast area. Does it sound scary or atmospheric? Believe me, it isn't. It comes across as something more akin to an episode of LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE than a horror movie. And yes, both the aforementioned TV series and THE OTHER were shot in California.There is a noticeable absence of danger or malice that makes the whole exercise seem rather pointless.The ending was clearly meant to be highly disturbing and perhaps influenced that of another movie from this time period. I won't reveal which movie but I'll give 2 clues - a young boy was a main character and the movie is well-known. And I'll add that the concept was used to much greater effect in the latter movie.The acting is actually quite good and is the only reason why I have awarded 2 stars. The actors playing the twin boys, along with the actress playing the grandmother, all try hard with the poor material they are given.Diana Muldaur is completely wasted in a thankless role as the mother of the twin boys. Do not be fooled by her high billing on the cast list. She gets very little screen time and her presence just comes across as a ploy to cash-in on her long established TV career in order to help attract TV viewers.I paid careful attention to the blurb on the back of the DVD cover (of the Region 2 version in the UK). Comparisons were made to THE EXORCIST, which I thought was a complete insult to that movie. There is no comparison. THE EXORCIST had everything this movie should contain but does not - suspense, tension, tongue-in-cheek humour, highly disturbing content, great acting, superb characterisation and viewer involvement. Ironically, THE EXORCIST was made only a year later but in terms of style and execution seems like decades ahead of the bland drama known as THE OTHER. THE OTHER comes across as a work that would have seemed tame in the 1950s let alone the 1970s!The 1970s was a great era for horror movies with classics such as THE EXORCIST, THE OMEN, THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE, THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, SALEM'S LOT to name just a few being produced. For this reason, THE OTHER proves an even greater disappointment.If anyone finds the synopsis of THE OTHER interesting, they might want to read the book or do a little more research on what the book was about. I would advice everyone to skip the movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Okay they tell you it's real. They don't list any screenwriters or directors, but one viewing of this movie will prove to anyone - It's not real in the way you were hoping for. The speaking rarely sounds like real natural talk...but also down not sound to be scripted. (possibly loosely scripted). To me it sounded much more like they were always trying to ad-lib. (which they almost always did poorly). Therefore, they knew they were making a 'movie', not just collecting real natural footage. So I'm sure these people knew what was going on, knew they had certain spots to look for things that were set up...and they were just told to ad-lib around it all.*************'Major Spoilers'**************** *****************************************Okay, it's so lame. Every item, spot or thing that could be strange or use d as a scare, is magically stumbled upon by these people. Let me list off the ridiculously obviously faked things that happened that I remember:1) Less than 2 minutes of entering the house, they turn a light switch on - the light sparks and a chandelier almost falls on a guy.2) They happen to find an old medical bag with a bloody butcher knife* in it, while exploring the cellar.3) They hear a noise in an armoire, so they open the door slowly - BAM - a cat happens to be in there and jumps straight at the camera while shrieking.4) Then they happen to notice there is a hole in the wall, so let's stick our hand in...wow, they pulled out a doll of a baby wrapped in mummy tape.5) Let's go to the attic, uh-oh it feels 'heavy' up here....BOOM - a chair flies across the room.6) Time to eat. Oh no ! The girl that was scared of bugs had a ROACH in her sandwich ! LOL !....ridiculous.7) Let's get out the Ouija board...oops one of the legs on the planchette fell off the side of the board. That couldn't be because the people were pushing it could it ? (they find out a ghost there is named Charles)8) Wait ! What was that noise in the chimney...CLINK - oh my shackles fell out "I think she* kept people up here".9) Now wimpy girl is going to brave looking up the chimney shaft...oh, what's this she sees something...and is asking people who aren't looking up the chimney what it is. SWISH - It falls off straight at her. (perfect camera shot) She moves just in time. It was more chain.10) Now we have to separate and each 'cleanse' our designated rooms - wouldn't it be something if things started happening one by one to these people now...okay:CHICK #1: Wow, suddenly her room is shaking...but no one elses does.DUDE #1: Actually says to himself "Charles, is that you Charles...it can't be you because you're just a figment of my imagination aren't you Charles". Well guess what, he gets knocked over and dragged across the floor. Another lucky camera shot.CHICK #2: Hears things..try to communicate ...and is standing there getting abrasions or something.DUDE #2: He was in the attic, reached his arm through a hole in the floor and got a splinter....I don't remember what else.11) Dude #2 runs, gets Chick #2...they hear chick and dude #1 screaming...they find them chained to a wall and strapped to a table.(*) They leave. Cut to black. Final text tell us they escaped safely, were treated for minor cuts. They have since had nightmares and insomnia, we also find out the next day a 911 call was made by they name a someone named "Charles".*************'Major Spoilers'**************** ******************over********************Okay, when I first heard this movie was being made, I couldn't wait. I thought it was going to be real. REAL, real. - and more professional, with more professional type people. I love the idea of this type of thing, I'd love to see real haunting footage. Before this movie was released I saw couple reviews of it by people online. They both claimed how fake it was and how stupid the people were.. time passed I forgot about the film....then I realized It was never released at theaters. So I found out it went straight to video, rented it....found that every brutal review was completely true. It's too bad, I really wanted this to be good.Random thought: The house didn't seem to have TVs, radios..kitchen appliances that I recall...which would make me think no one has lived there for a long time. Especially the house is truly known for being haunted...im pretty sure no one lives there. But it looks so clean and tidy...and what was a cat doing there ? The property does not have near by neighbors....All-in-all, you'll only want to rent this if you and your friends wanna sit there and make fun of it...or if you heard about it a long time ago and it intrigued you. (you will will be disappointed if you are expecting a good film...or real film)Random thought: I believe the producer says "The 'footage' you see is real". Well technically it is real footage isn't it ? Real footage of fake hauntings ? Maybe that was his loop hole.I give this this movie one star - strictly on the fact that they told the story of Madame LaLaurie. A real New Orleans story.The best performance was by the guy who teaches the participants about the ghost hunting equipment in the beginning. He was obviously actually real...or a good actor.$LABEL$ 0
+It kept my attention to the end, however, without spoiling the film for anyone....... when she fixed the fridge by getting a book from the library, you knew how the film would end when she went back to library for a book on self defence against and assassin. The film, for me, said nothing of worth.... is becoming an assassin really a remedy for mental illness or just another symptom.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a film that takes some digesting. On the one hand, we are offered a tough outward shell, a story that does not only derive the Catholic Church, but does so foolishly, and uninformed. On an inner layer, we are offered a story of orthodoxy over orthopraxis, and what happens when people follow blindly a faith that they must not understand.At first glance, it appeared this was supposed to be a comedy. If so, then Mr. Durang needs to open a dictionary, because he clearly does not know the meaning of the word. The jokes are pale; the humor is awkward and poorly delivered. In particular, Ms. Keaton's performance is flighty and over the top, well below the quality of her Annie Hall and Sleeper days. Jennifer Tilly is again the model of stridence, with her hi-pitched voice and whining style. All of this could be forgiven if it weren't for the last 20 minutes of this movie, that evidently was a controversial play made in 1981.***Careful, spoilers ahead***It all starts with the appearance of four former students of Sister Mary Ignatius (Ignatius, by the way, is a male name, and a nun would not adopt it after her vows under any circumstance simply due to that fact, just to show you how much tireless research went into the project to begin with.) When they all admit that they don't live up to the church's teachings, the sister proceeds to become irrational and abuse them in a manner the audience is to believe she did way back when in the corny, all-too-cliché sepia-tone flashbacks. When one of them admits to having two abortions, the nun becomes even more abusive, until the pupil pulls out a gun. After wrestling it away from her, the nun kills the pupil, presumably in self-defense. She then goes on a screaming rampage, killing a gay former student because of his sins. The last shot is of the dead female pupil lying in a Christ-like pose as a shadow of a cross hangs over her. Can you say `heavy handed?' I knew you could!I know there have been abusive nuns in the past, and I know many people have been emotionally harmed as a result, but this imagery is fed down our throats in almost every other shot in this train wreck of a movie. I have heard from the writer and the director that this is a film about hysteria and why one should not follow the orthodoxy so religiously, no pun intended. This explanation is hard to swallow, though, simply because we are never given an authoritative viewpoint that is not biased against the catholic faith in one way or another. This film is simply anti-Catholic tripe, which in the name of fairness and equality, is mean spirited and hateful.This is a film I would recommend for a catholic, namely to awaken him or her to the realities of what cynicism and ignorance they face today. If it were `Rabbi Ray explains it all' or `Imam Muhammad explains it all', there would be rioting in the streets and Showtime would lose all of its subscription. But, sadly, because this is a film that strikes out against what is perceived to be the majority, it is accepted and even applauded by those who share the same spiteful point of view.I certainly hope every member of that cast was a practicing catholic, so it wasn't just ignorance that brought them to make this film.I give it 1.5 stars out of 5, not because of its offensive nature, but because it was poorly written, poorly directed and just a bad movie in general. Don't even waste your time.$LABEL$ 0
+I actually joined this site simply to write in about this movie. I was sitting in my living room and this movie came on one of the local channels. I made it about an hour through before I simply had enough. Curious to see what the general movie-opinionated public thought of this movie, I looked it up on this site. I was absolutely shocked to see that there were an overwhelming amount of people that thought it was great. I needed to have my say, and here it is: This movie is absolute garbage. It was a chore to sit through. The "jokes" were uninspired rehashes from other, better shows and movies, and Leguizamo's manic portrayal of this obnoxious character should only appeal to age ten and below. That actually may be a stretch even for that age. I'm all for slapstick ridiculousness, but there isn't even the faintest hint of wit or cleverness. I have an idea, lets take bad uninspired obvious jokes and play them at twice the speed. Now that's funny. Ha. Ha.Movies that you should see that take silly humor and add comic timing and originality: The Marx Brothers' A Night at the Opera, Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut,...and the list goes on. Don't lose an hour and a half of your life on unmemorable crap.By the way, I can only assume that the reason that David Bar Katz (the other writer) did VERY little in film after this movie is because he was instantly blacklisted. I'm actually impressed that Leguizamo was able to recover after this mess.$LABEL$ 0
+This is yet another depressing and boring film about AIDS and tragedy. It begins very uneventful and predictable and continues throughout the movie. I kept waiting for it to pick-up, but unfortunately it never did. The acting is fair, but the script needs A LOT of work. And if you're looking for the nudity, don't waste your time with these not so hot actors. Due to the poor sound quality and lack of captions, I missed 1/8 of the movie. If you have never seen over five gay films, or have recently come to terms with being gay, you may find this film interesting, otherwise it's your run-of-the-mill low budget movie. It ranks as one of the worst gay films I have ever seen.$LABEL$ 0
+Channel 4 is a channel that allows more naughty stuff than any of the other channels, this show was certainly a naughty one. The presenter of this sometimes gross adult chat show, Four-time BAFTA winning and British Comedy Award winning (also twice nominated) Graham Norton was just the perfect gay host for a good show like this. It had one or more famous celebrities in the middle of it. They basically had an adult idea which would either gross, humiliate or humour the guest, but some are not for the faint-hearted. They had women playing the recorder with their parts, men using their dicks to play a xylophone, women weeing upwards in the bath, men with or without pants under their kilts, and many more gross but hilarious ideas. This is just for adults, but enjoy it! It won the BAFTA twice for Best Entertainment (Programme or Series), it won the British Comedy Awards for Best Comedy Entertainment Programme (also nominated), Best Comedy Talk Show, it won an Emmy for episode #18 (?), and it won the National Television Awards twice for Most Popular Talk Show. It was number 52 on The 100 Greatest Funny Moments. Very good!$LABEL$ 1
+I have watched this episode more often than any other TFTC episode, it is that enjoyable. And it is quite scary, but all in good, ghoulish fun. A woman kills her 2nd husband but runs into a problem when an escaped maniac in a ragged Santa Claus outfit decides to pay her and her little girl a visit at that very moment. Mary Traynor, who I seem to remember from SNL or some other TV comedy skit show, is the evil wife, and Larry Drake plays the lunatic in the dingy Santa outfit. I had forgotten Santa was played by Drake over the years. His Santa is an unstoppable force and quite frightening at times. You can probably guess how Santa finally gets into the house. The episode is played for laughs, but it also can be pretty intense at times.$LABEL$ 1
+"The Spirit of St. Louis" is Billy Wilder's film tribute to one of the best figures in aeronautical history, remembered for the first nonstop solo flight across the Atlantic Ocean in May 1927 with James Stewart (a little too old for the part) playing Charles Lindbergh...As a tribute it is eloquent enough and, although a few nice liberties may have been taken with historical fact, the motion picture describing the detailed odyssey before and after the Paris flight on May 20-21 in the monoplane "Spirit of St. Louis."Although the lengthy internal monologue employed during the journey may be disappointing to an audience, the truth is that it helps keep the picture focused tightly on its essential point... Stewart dignified the portrait of one of the greatest adventurers in the air the world has ever know, departing, in a highly modified single engine monoplane, from Long Island, New York to Paris, France...No action is depicted in the trip, only some flashbacks to break up the monotony of the long flight... But there is superb determination of the ordeal of a brave and talented pilot decided to fly alone... His equation is simple: less weight (one engine, one pilot) would increase fuel efficiency and allow for a longer flying range, but with so much risk... Lindbergh's claim to fame was doing something that many had tried and failed...Even though Wilder has bravely put it upon the screen in a calm, unhurried fashion, it comes out as biography of intense restraint and power... But it is James Stewart's performance (controlled to the last detail) that gives life and strong, heroic stature to the principal figure in the film...From it there, emerges an awareness of a clever, firm but truly humble man who tackles a task with resolution, plans as much about it as he can, makes his decisions with courageous finality and then awaits with only one thought in mind, to get to Paris... In his efforts to cut off the plane's weight, any item considered too heavy or unnecessary was left behind...The record-setting flight proved not only to be a fight with the elements and a test of navigation, but also a long battle against fatigue... A busy schedule and an active mind kept Lindbergh up all of the previous night... Still, he managed to stay conscious enough to keep the monoplane from crashing and landed at Le Bourget Aerodrome, near Paris, 33 hours and 30 minutes after leaving New York...Stewart gives an able portrait of a brave pilot who attains legendary status, emphasizing the intention and dominant resolution to fly nonstop 5,810 kilometers (3,610 miles) across the Atlantic...Photographed in CinemaScope and WarnerColor and backed by Franz Waxman's beautiful music, the film effectively captures the pioneering spirit of the era and the hero's ultimate achievement since he takes off, that day, from Roosevelt wet field, and clears telephone wires at the end of the runway...$LABEL$ 1
+As Americans, we have come to expect crapiness as "par for the course" when it comes to HORROR and unknown directors directing unknown actors acting for unknown writers. We truly expect this to suck & when they don't suck,it becomes an over night success.This is NOT an over night success, nor is it an over the weekend or over the month success. This blows from start to finish and my only recommendation is this: GO INTO THIS KNOWING IT SUCKS, enjoy it for what it is, for what it isn't & if you have something better to do, keep this on the back WAY BACK burner. It's entertaining in the way watching the elderly cross a busy street during rush hour, but don't expect much-they almost never get hit by an actual car, its just a lot of hoopla.$LABEL$ 0
+It is apparent that director, writers and everyone else knows nothing about their own religion or the people who practice it. This movie is endlessly flawed and overall a complete crock.For instance, there is a scene where the rabbi enters the woman's ritual bath while a naked woman is bathing, puts his hand on the head of a woman there and blesses her. This is complete mockery of the laws, in this scene alone some of the laws broken include: Modesty, a rabbi would never enter a ritual bath house while there are woman in it.Improper contact, a rabbi would never put his hand on a woman's head, not to mention that it is not the way a blessing is given.The woman from the ritual bath is dunking a naked woman by pushing her head under the water, the laws regarding ritual bathing require the entire body to make direct contact with the bath water; this means nobody should be in contact with the person bathing, certainly not pushing them under!There was more just in that scene alone, like dunking 13 times (where does that concept even come from?) not to mention the rest of the movie was a total fallacy. It is scary what ignorance can concoct!$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the most insipid, lackluster, unoriginal, and pointless movies ever made! It almost feels like everyone involved in this project didn't even try to make an appealing movie. This is nothing more than a continuation of a tiresome series of films that attempt to cash in on the success of Smokey and the Bandit, which I think is the best film of them all. As for this waste of film stock, Burt Reynolds sleepwalks his way through the entire movie, Jim Nabors is wasted, the other actors aren't given very much to do, the car races are obviously stock footage, the humor is uninspired, and many of the scenes are more dull and lifeless than staring at a wall for two hours. "Stroker Ace" is simply a superfluous film with nothing unique or distinctive about it.$LABEL$ 0
+This has to be one of the worst movies ever to come out of the Sci-Fi Channel. Here is how the movie starts, Women are the only humans on this planet due to the fact that in the not to distant future chemical warfare is A OK as long as it only targets soldiers (In case your wondering, Men) However the virus back fires (Big shock)and all the men on earth slowly die. Then all of male kind is condemned to die when the madam president is shot and killed by a man. now we are taken around 60 to 70 years from now, two female scientists are working on cloning a female baby and one of them says "Hey, why don't we bring men back?" The other one says no the world is not ready for that, but promptly ignores her and thus a man walks the Eath again.First off, this movie assumes that all men who are not genetically altered are blood thirsty monsters. Secondly, the writer forgot to mention that present day soldiers are a good mix of Male and Female officers so there is no real reason to have a virus like that. This is the biggest waist of time you can find. This movie managed to insult my intellect not only by the bad story, but with the Lifetime style acting. Avoid this movie at all costs.I give this a 1 out of 10 but only because I could go no lower.$LABEL$ 0
+i am 13 and i hated this film its the worst film on earth i totally wasted my time watching it and was disappointed with it cause on the cover and on the back the film it looks pretty good, but i was wrong its bad. but when i saw delta she was totally different and a bad actress and i really didn't know how old the 2 girls was trying to be i was so confused. the film was in some parts confusing and i didn't enjoy it at all but i watched all the film just to see if it was going to get better but it didn't, it was boring,dull and did i say BORING.and i don't think many other people liked it as well as me.boring boring boring$LABEL$ 0
+One True Thing proves that it's the characters which make a movie. Streep will surely receive an Oscar nomination for her role. A beautiful drama, One True Thing is a prime example of movie-making in the late 1990's - there are still people out there who care about making and watching movies other than the big blockbusters with million dollar special effects. It's no Best Picture or anything... don't be silly. But the amount of emotion that was delivered by both the actors and the writer hit me like a shock-wave. I cried twice in this movie, which says a lot for a 24 year old man.$LABEL$ 1
+A beautiful, magical, thought-provoking and heart-warming story. Excellent direction, perfect cast, marvellous script, excellent score, beautifully lit...... need I say more?If you love films that not only make you think but also warm your heart (some that spring to mind are 'Contact', 'Field of Dreams' and 'Groundhog Day') then you're sure to love K-PAX.Most highly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this for Gary Busey and Fred Williamson thinking they were buddy cops. They are but Busey is in the opening scene then doesn't show up again until like 40 minutes into the movie. Though every scene he's in is awesome. Especially when he disguises himself as a blind hobo.What's incredible about this movie is the plot. In the movie Fred Williamson is trying to find out who stalking and killing phone sex operators. At one point I think thats its Busey. But it turns out I'm only partly right. Busey is not the killer, but he is calling up and harassing the women over the phone. Why? I don't know. In no way is he connected to the killer, he just does it for kicks I guess.$LABEL$ 0
+There were many 'spooky' westerns made in the 30s and early 40s, and although this has a strong beginning, it isn't one. Randy Bowers (John Wayne) stopping at a 'Halfway House' saloon, finds it to be full of dead bodies, the bartender's corpse draped over the bar holding a gun, eyes watching Randy from behind holes cut through eyes in a picture, and a player piano playing "The Loveliest Night of the Year." It was the result of a robbery by the Marvin Black gang, to get Ed Rogers' $30,000. Randy is an investigator who "works alone," who wastes little time in getting arrested, escaping (with Ed's daughter Sally's help) and literally landing in the midst of the Black gang's hideout behind a waterfall. It all moves along fairly quickly. Only one too many chases after Randy slow it down.We even get George Hayes, clean shaven and playing two parts-- Marvin Black, the vilest villain, as well as the Good Citizen, Matt the Mute, who communicates via handwritten messages. Having him play two opposite roles was a good idea, but the writing down of messages thing gets old real fast, even for him, as he finally gives up doing it near the end saying to Sally, "Ah, I'm fed up with this!" You can find George playing a vile, vile, double crossing villain in the serial "The Lost City" (1934).I think this is the only 'Lone Star' film in which the title relates to, or is mentioned in the film! Sally offers her hand to Randy and says, "He's not alone anymore!" Then cut to their arms around each other as they look out facing a lake. Sally's running off with Randy seems too abrupt and not sufficiently prepared for. Too much time spent on horseback escaping the sheriff.Not that bad considering everything, but not that great either. I'd really give it a 4 and a half.$LABEL$ 0
+I first saw this when they showed this around easter time 1993/4 and didn't think much of it then, I bought this on DVD last summer when I started getting into Michael Jackson (I liked his music before) and enjoyed it more now I am older. It is a good film but it won't be this classic film like The Sound Of Music, West Side Story, The Wizard Of Oz etc. Michael Jackson as an actor was good and so were the other cast members. There were a disturbing scenes like the little girl Katie getting slapped by the gangster Frankie Lideo who was played by Joe Pesci. The scene that frightened me when I was younger was when Michael turns into a robot. My favourite song on the film was Smooth Criminal I think it was better than Thriller in my opinion.$LABEL$ 1
+Supposedly, director William Shatner had in mind a much 'darker' film when it came to 'Star Trek V: The Final Frontier' but the suits at Paramount, looking at the huge box-office receipts taken in by its humor-filled predecessor, insisted the new film have plenty of laughs too. So what we get is arguably the weakest and goofiest of the six Star Trek movies with the original cast. There are bad ideas aplenty, along with a few good ones, and if you're in a charitable mood, you could look at 'The Final Frontier' the same way you would a so-so episode of the TV series. On the plus side, Laurence Luckenbill is a fine actor and gives one of the best 'guest star' performances in any Star Trek, big or small screen, ranking right up there with William Windom's Commodore Decker. His portrayal of Sybok, Spock's half-brother, consistently lifts the film when it threatens to sink, which happens all too frequently. Charles Cooper is good too as the fat old Klingon General Korrd; too bad his role isn't as large as he is. If the story about Shatner's intentions is true, then I owe him an apology, because I was prepared to lay the blame for the incessant silliness and not-very-convincing action scenes squarely at his directorial feet. The reason is I've always felt that, of all the Trek regulars, Shatner was the least 'tuned-in' to everything that makes Star Trek work and what makes it special to its fans. Having read his Trek memoirs, it's very apparent to me that he considered the show another action-adventure series that just happened to have a science-fiction setting. He preferred the vision of Gene Coon over that of Gene Roddenberry; Coon was known for his work on the popular western series, 'The Wild Wild West.' Shatner also mentioned that a favorite Star Trek episode of his was 'A Piece of the Action,' a silly second-season episode co-written by Coon. So, finally given an opportunity to direct a Star Trek feature film, would not Shatner follow his instincts and produce an action-filled flick with lots of tongue-in-cheek humor? Well somebody did, because that's what 'The Final Frontier' ended up being. Shatner himself definitely returns to form as The Great Ham and, as Leonard Maltin points out, the film suffers from a bad case of 'the cutes.' In the opening scene at Yosemite National Park, it's hard to say which is worse, the super-cheesy special effects or the godawful dialogue. Running gags about equipment malfunctioning on the Enterprise have run all the way from 'Wrath of Khan' and by this, the fifth Trek movie, have run themselves into the ground. So has the idea of a 'skeleton crew'. One new development is an apparent romantic relationship between Scotty and Uhura and suffice it to say one does not exactly sense flames of passion burning between the two. It's a pointless subplot and adds nothing. The climactic scene where 'God' is encountered doesn't add much either; whether or not this was a good idea in the first place is debatable, but the scene itself doesn't make much sense. (The 'God' creature's abilities seem to vary according to what is needed at the moment.) Roughly half of this is a tired retread of the climax from 'The Search for Spock.' Leonard Nimoy manages to salvage Spock's integrity, even while spouting such un-Spock-like lines as "Get a grip on yourself, Doctor." And DeForest Kelley, as usual, outperforms both Shatner and Nimoy; he really came on as an actor in the final Trek films. So this Trek outing isn't terrible, it just isn't very good. There was to be one more original cast Trek movie before the baton was passed to the 'next generation,' and it was far better suited to the task than 'Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.'$LABEL$ 0
+Enormous fun for both adults and children, this film works on numerous levels: there is everything from car crashes and cake in the face to some very good (yet subtle) jokes for adults.Glenn Close is at her sublimely evil best as Cruella (`call me Ella') De Ville.After three years in Dr. Pavlov's Behaviour Modification Clinic she is cured of her desire for fur – even the puppy-skin fur she had so intensely desired. She even has all of her fur coats placed in the dungeon of the extraordinary castle she inhabits.But it wouldn't be a ‘Dalmatian' movie without the subterfuge and machinations of Cruella and you know that something will change her behaviour modification. And now she needs one extra puppy (hence 102 Dalmatians) to complete her nefarious scheme this time round.Ioan Gruffudd is instantly appealing as the hero of the film that runs the `Second Chance' dog shelter. Though he was in `Titanic' and in last year's television version (as Pip) of `Great Expectations' I didn't recognize him; well, he was ‘Fifth Officer Lowe' in `Titanic' and I didn't see `Great Expectations' so I am not terribly surprised.Gerard Depardieu does a delightful turn as the furrier-pawn of Cruella. He prances and postures in the most outlandish and outrageous of fur clothing you have ever seen – and does it well. His 'Wicked Witch of the West' homage is hilarious.Tim McInnerny is superb is Cruella's not-so-evil henchman – he was also ‘Alonzo,' Cruella's butler, in `101 Dalmatians' and you may also recognize him from all of the `Black Adder' Brit-Coms. He plays his usual bumbling, good-hearted, somewhat dim-witted character to great effect.Oscars for costuming are generally given for the entirety of the costuming in a film. This is unfortunate as the clothing worn by Glenn Close is amazing – it is incredibly detailed (note her handcuffs when she is being released from the Behaviour Modification Clinic) and worthy of such an over-the-top character. Her clothing alone deserves at least an Oscar nomination.Animation holds a special place in my heart – but comparing this film to the original animated film is like comparing apples to orangutans: it can't be done. Suffice it to say that `102 Dalmatians' is even better than the film version of `101 Dalmatians' that came out in 1996. There is a lot to like here: from the sight gags, the dialogue, and the costumes to the casting - it is a good film for the whole family.$LABEL$ 1
+I liked it better than House Party 2 & 3. The cast was hilarious and cool at the same time. Chris Stokes, who directed the film, has a very humorous cameo in it as a car repairman; look for his mom who plays the lead character, John John's grandmother. And you can hear her rap the title song "Down to the Last Minute" at the end of the film as the credits roll. She's very funny and a really good actress, as well. The young actors who star in it (the main trio), and who in reality are part of the music group IMx, did a superb job. Before this film I had not paid much attention to this r & b group. Now I'm a fan. The music number in the House Party scene alone is worth checking out the movie. I was pleasantly surprised. I loved it.$LABEL$ 1
+Welcome to Our Town, welcome to your town? As we are introduced into the worlds of its townsfolk of 1901 America, this three act play is opened before us with the help of "The Stage Manager", a visual narrator if you like. After his initial introductions, we are lead into the homes of two particular families; The Webb's and the Gibb's.This is most definitely middle America at the turn of the century, and the progressive way of life of the American Dream and its saccharine overtones that can seem a little biased in this dream town. Here we see the everyday lives of some of its 2642 populace of Grover's Corners, New Hampshire, even if there are, too, the migrant Polish workers that add another 500 to is numbers, they, never get a look-in.Once the daily lives of these families have been introduced; wives cooking, children home-working, fathers working, kids falling in love and the clean picket-fences painted white, the second act is started three years later, after young George (a young and unrecognisable William Holden, then aged 22) and Emily have fallen in love and intend to marry. Blossoming lovebirds reaching for the stars and reaching, too, a turning point in their own lives, from the nest they lived and now, into the anxieties and woes of young adulthood they nervously step. The third act is slightly more sour and foreboding, it is in this act that the movies intentions become apparent, here we see not life, not celebration but death, and it is in this predicament that the dead, as they return to revisit and reconcile their own life past, are here to remind us, to tell us, that life, and every last minute, every precious breath is not to be wasted and squandered.It is in this last third that the movies own political stance also seems more apparent too, feeling more of a propaganda stunt on the moral lecturing on, and by, middle America and how it should direct its home and how it should also put it in order. This isn't just about "Our" town, this is moral diction aimed at "Our" souls and how America can better itself if its peoples', (excluding the Poles, the Irish, the Native American and the freed ethnic minorities', and minorities' in general, plus the supporting backbone of the Americana's who, still, have not had a fair part in this narrative), such as the middle classes, can live up to the expectations of the American Dream through honest, decent living. The purveyors of the American Dream with special invitation only.I was entertained, slightly, by this movie too, but I felt that its narrative held a stronger impact than anything else that took part in it albeit the bland acting, the musical score or how well, or not, it was made. This was the movies intention to exclude other groups, and to only include the likes of the Webb's and the Gibb's, in the future of the developing country of the USA, a good movie, but also a slightly biased in its stance, I thought.Taken from the play by US' born Thornton Wilder (1897 - 1975) this Pulitzer Prize winning play, and six Academy Award nominated movie, was the focal point on the perpetual motion of life and its three main attributes; Life, love and death, the plays translation onto celluloid comes across as a slightly to the right blurb of social consciousness. Our Town starts off with what seems a lesson in pointlessness, like other towns, nothing too exciting ever happens here, if anything at all, this town only has the "right sort of people", you can still leave your back-door unlocked here, we are seeing the developing lives of these two families, but it is their moral and social stance that is more important than them themselves. Our Town may just have been "Any Town", just as long as you came from the right part of town that is.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie sucks big time. It reminded me of the movie Resurrection (Christopher Lambert), which i also found extremely boring. And "Semana Santa" is in every way an even poorer movie.Only fine one in the cast doing something for this movie is Alida Valli. Alida is one of the grand old ladies in european movie history. I loved her maniacal looks in "Suspiria" and "inferno" (Dario Argento). I will not spend more time dealing with this movie. I will say another good thing about this movie...use it if you want to fall asleep very quickly...$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this important intense film tonight. Its Richard Gere and Claire's Dane's most important and best work. Gere deserves an Oscar for his fine portrayal of a man being forced into early retirement as a sex offender registrar administrator. Claire Danes is riveting as the woman Gere handpicks to replace him - a woman he tries to teach all he can while investigating one final case in which Gere's character is convinced one of those he is charged to monitor may be holding a young girl hostage. The subject matter is shocking, sex offenders and those who monitor them, but this film will not soon be forgotten. I know I will be haunted by Gere's portrayal for a very long time. Not since Anthony Hopkins portrayal of a serial killer has a screen portrayal terrified and so engaged me. The film opens with a shocking statistic so don't miss the opening credits. Intense and memorable. Richard Gere's finest role proving the man can act. Danes can as well and both do extraordinarily well in this often challenging film.This is a gutsy film and Gere gives a multi-layered deeply felt performance. Just give him the Oscar now...he deserves it!$LABEL$ 1
+I started watching this one very tensed because I heard so many different things about it. Somewhere I read it was a drama about child abuse and rated PG-13 for violence. Another critic said it was a fantastic and nostalgic adventure of kids (and I thought it was also for kids to watch). Well, now I've seen it so many times and still don't know in which category to put it. It is extremely funny at times but terribly sad and depressing the next moment. Because of the nice relationship and the adventures I would like to recommend this film to all the youngsters I know but I fear the somber atmosphere is not suitable for children. Because of the perfect performances and the magic of the film I must say this nevertheless: Watch it, especially the kids! The last thing I have to say is that I hate the scriptwriter for letting poor Bobby never see his family again after having fled from The King (who didn't even return to terrorize the remained Mary and Mikey). It is very good for this film not to have a perfect happy ending with everybody being happy - and I didn't expect it to - but this solution left me very, very sad!$LABEL$ 1
+Parts: The Clonus Horror is a horror all right. There are of course the bad fashions of the late 70's. There's the really bad acting from Dick Sargent to Peter Graves. And then there's the clones themselves. Their days mostly consist of running, jumping, cycling, and wrestling with each other. When they're not doing that, they learn about America. Not the band America, or the song by Neil Diamond, but an America where they go on to become part of a greater society. But they're given some strange drug then they have all their bodily fluids drained(General Ripper was right!) and they are placed in the freezer and await Thanksgiving or Christmas when they will be thawed out and roasted at about 450 degrees or so. Oops, that's not what happens, but it would've been a lot more interesting than what's shown. Mario, of Super Mario Brothers fame, makes a delightful cameo as a doctor who bickers with Dick Sargent.$LABEL$ 0
+Susan Seidelman seems to have had a decent career with a few top notch credits under her belt. I'm certainly glad she bounced back from this film which seems to have its admirers. I'm not one of them.I've seen better acting in high school plays than I did in Smithereens. The plot such as it is involved young Susan Berman who is ambitious to make it in the world of music and is willing to do just about anything to get there. She even rejects the sincere advances of a young artist who is living out of his van off the East River played by Brad Rijn.Young Mr. Rijn contributes the worst performance in the film, in fact one of the worst acting jobs I've seen in a long time. No wonder he's not gone anywhere.I will say that Seidelman's eye for the camera is a good one in capturing the familiar East Village locations where the film was mostly shot. But her work with her live performers didn't measure up. I'm not sure she had that much raw material to work with.Look fast and you'll see a very young Christopher Noth before Law and Order and Sex in the City as a street hustler.If you like punk rock, you might sit through this for the soundtrack. I'll stick to Bing Crosby.$LABEL$ 0
+Unfortunately, I went to this movie for entertainment purposes based on the limited information I had seen on Fandango. Since I am a sci-fi buff the notion of a movie about UFOs interested me.Instead, this movie quickly revealed itself as an evangelical Christian propaganda flick. Appropriate for an audience of like-minded individuals but very un-Christian like to exploit the movie mall scene and preach to an unsuspecting audience, especially considering the costs of tickets and concessions. Shame on you! At least the Da Vinci Code did not hold back its wild-eyed craziness.So, this B-grade movie (and I am being kind) production will be appreciated in those churches with similar beliefs, probably shown to Wednesday and Sunday evening youth groups. But if you are a mainline Christian or non-Christian you will not be comfortable.$LABEL$ 0
+Wow! A Danish movie with this kind of content? I mean, the actors, the story, the pictures, the efx - everything was where it should be. And a Danish EFX house producing those VFX - Wow! This is like the 2nd or 3rd time a Danish FX has produces visual effects in that quality.*SPOILER AHEAD* The twist with the ghostly children in the submarine was quite good, but generally I did not feel the big chill which I would expect from a ghost-movie. *END OF SPOILER*But anyway, this is a Danish movie which I as a Dane can be proud of.The only "bad" about this, is that it wasn't a Danish director, but a Swedish...$LABEL$ 1
+I hated this movie so much I remember it vividly. It is not even funny. Any movie that relies on unfunny sex jokes and racism humor does not deserve the money it costs to make it. In the first half hour, Rob Schneider drinks a carton of rancid milk. All I could think was "he deserves it, for making such a bad movie". Don't waste your time or money on this one.$LABEL$ 0
+DANIEL DAY-LEWIS does a remarkable job of playing Christy Brown, the artist who grew up with cerebral palsy but managed to have a productive life, dealing successfully with his handicap and becoming a respected artist and writer.The film, however, is a very difficult one to review--or even watch. Fortunately, I had the caption feature on to catch every spoken word which would have been impossible if I saw the film in a theater. While I respect it as a brave piece of work dealing with difficult subject matter, I can't say it's the sort of film I'd want to view more than once.Nevertheless, my attention was held by the story-telling device, a flashback framed by the present, in which we see Christy being honored for his achievements before we see the flashback to his youth and his struggles to communicate with those around him, who certainly gave him loving care.DANIEL DAY-LEWIS certainly is remarkable as the troubled man who falls in love with a therapist (FIONA SHAW), much to his mother's fear that when the love is not reciprocated his heart will be broken. There's a painfully long scene in a restaurant where he confesses his love to her before others and then goes into a frenzied rage after drinking too much.BRENDA FRICKER does a brilliant job as the mother taking care of him, his father and a brood of siblings while struggling to keep a roof over their heads until Day-Lewis begins to have success with his work. She complements Day-Lewis' performance as the warm-hearted mother and shares many poignant moments with him.Richly detailed story of a family that stayed together under the most unusual of circumstances with attention to period detail in every frame of the film. Both Fricker and Day-Lewis won Oscars, but HUGH O'CONOR and RAY McANALLY are also excellent. O'Conor is Christy as a boy and McAnally is the father who spends too much time at the local pub but loves the boy.Summing up: Elmer Bernstein's music is an added plus factor. Well worthwhile, but definitely not a film for everyone.$LABEL$ 1
+I completely disagree with the other comments posted on this movie. For instance, the movie is based on the book and if the writer had a gay character in it then how could "Hollywood" just throw in a token gay character in the movie. And besides there was two gay characters and I thought they reflected each other great. One was normal and the other was more feminine but it wasn't over the top. And Diane Keaton gave a wonderful performance and if the other reviewer had the decency to actual watch the entire film they would have seen that her character developed through out the film by interacting with the other characters. For instance when she and Adam went to look at the car that Sara crashed in the junkyard you could see the maternal side of her come out and later in the film you saw that she too was invincible. But I guess if you're too worried about gay characters and characters that are flawed then this movie is bad. But if you're more open-minded and I don't know actually have some inkling of what is good then you'll enjoy this film.$LABEL$ 1
+Actually this movie was not so bad. It contains action, comedy and excitement. There are good actors in this film, for instance Doug Hutchison (Percy from "The Green Mile"), who plays Bristol. Another well known actor is Jamie Kennedy, from "Scream" and "Three Kings". The main characters are played by Jamie Foxx as Alvin, who was pretty good and also funny, but the one who most surprised me, was David Morse as Edgar Clenteen. He plays a different character than he usually does, because in other films like "The Green Mile", "Indian Runner", "The Negotiator" or "The Langoliers" he plays a very sympathetic person, and in "Bait" the plays almost the opposite, a man without any emotions, which was nice to see. The only really negative thing about this film, are the several pictures of the World Trade Center, which makes this film perhaps look a little dated. Overall I thought this was a pretty good little film!$LABEL$ 1
+Well, Killshot is not awful, but it comes close. Production values are decent and the main actors do a pretty good job (except for Rosario Dawson in a wasted role), but the story is just pathetic. I don't know if the Elmore Leonard book had such dumb characters,since I haven't read it, but I'm guessing that the book was supposed to be at least slightly humorous. The movie has no detectable humor. After the first twenty minutes, you'll be yelling at the screen, "Oh, come on! Nobody's THAT stupid!!" In a nutshell, and without any spoilers, everybody acts in a manner convenient to the plot, which makes no sense anyway. A very frustrating and unrealistic movie, which may account for it sitting on the shelf for as long as it did.$LABEL$ 0
+After witnessing his wife (Linda Hoffman) engaging in sexual acts with the pool boy, the already somewhat unstable dentist Dr. Feinstone (Corbin Bernsen) completely snaps which means deep trouble for his patients.This delightful semi-original and entertaining horror flick from director Brian Yuzna was a welcome change of pace from the usual horror twaddle that was passed out in the late Nineties. Although ‘The Dentist' is intended to be a cheesy, fun little film, Yuzna ensures that the movie delivers the shocks and thrills that many more serious movies attempt to dispense. Despite suffering somewhat from the lack of background on the central characters, and thus allowing events that should have been built up to take place over a couple of days, the movie is intriguing, generally well scripted and well paced which allows the viewer to maintain interest, even during the more ludicrous of moments. ‘The Dentist' suffers, on occasion, from dragging but unlike the much inferior 1998 sequel, there are only sporadic uninteresting moments, and in general the movie follows itself nicely.Corbin Bernsen was very convincing in the role of the sadistic, deranged and perfectionist Dr. Alan Feinstone. The way Bernsen is able to credibly recite his lines, especially with regards to the foulness and immorality of sex (particularly fellatio), is something short of marvellous. While many actors may have trouble portraying a cleanliness obsessed psycho without it coming off as too cheesy or ridiculous, Bernsen seems to truly fit the personality of the character he attempts to portray and thus makes the film all that more enjoyable. Had ‘The Dentist' not been intended to be a fun, almost comical, horror movie, Bernsen's performance would probably have been much more powerful. Sadly, the rest of the cast (including a pre-fame Mark Ruffalo) failed to put in very good performances and although the movie was not really damaged by this, stronger performances could have added more credibility to the flick.‘The Dentist' is not a horror film that is meant to be taken seriously but is certainly enjoyable, particularly (I would presume) for fans of cheesy horror. Those who became annoyed at the number of ‘Scream' (1996) clones from the late Nineties may very well find this a refreshing change, as I did. A seldom dull and generally well paced script as well as some proficient direction helps to make ‘The Dentist' one of the more pleasurable cheesy horrors from the 1990's. On top of this we are presented with some particularly grizly and (on the whole) realistic scenes of dental torture, which should keep most gorehounds happy. Far from perfect but far from bad as well, ‘The Dentist' is a flick that is easily worth watching at least once. My rating for ‘The Dentist' – 6.5/10.$LABEL$ 1
+. . . And that's a bad thing, because at least if this had been a Troma film, it would have had wanton violence and a greater sense of anarchic abandon that might have brought my rating up a bit.So what we have instead is a very tame (rated PG), barely lukewarm, low budget (Roger Corman produced it with an unknown director who has subsequently remained unknown) Gremlins (1984)/Critters (1986)-wannabe with almost exclusively flat humor, little of the logic that made Gremlins work so well--fantasy logic or not, no suspense, no sense of adventure, and no violence or nudity to make up for it.Although I'm sure some of the problems with the film are inherent in the script--let's face it, no one could deliver these jokes so that they would be funny--it seems like the biggest blame has to fall into the lap of the director, Bettina Hirsch. In more capable hands, Munchies could have been entertaining.After all, it starts out like many great adventure films. Simon Waterman (Harvey Korman) and his son Paul (Charles Stratton) are in Peru on an archaeological dig. Simon is a bit of a wacky archaeologist who is always floating theories about the connections between ancient sites and alien civilizations. For example, he thinks he sees evidence of laser-cutting on ancient stonework. So they're at Machu Picchu looking for more evidence of Simon's theories when they happen upon a secret chamber. Inside they quickly find the animal they later dub "Arnold", one of the titular munchies.They take Arnold back home to their small California desert town. Simon, who thinks that Arnold is probably an alien creature, has to go off to a colleague's lecture, and he plans on telling the colleague that he finally has an alien specimen. Paul and his extremely cute girlfriend, Cindy (Nadine Van der Velde), are left in charge of Arnold, but as they haven't seen each other in a long time, they leave Arnold unsupervised while they hop in the sack.Meanwhile, Simon's brother Cecil (played also by Korman in a dual role), owner of a successful snack foods company, is eager to buy off Simon's home and land--they're adjacent to his own. Simon doesn't want to sell, so Cecil hits upon a scheme to steal Arnold. Things gradually spiral out of control, and the munchies, who have a mean streak to go along with their cravings for junk food, begin to overrun the town.That reads better in a summary than it plays on the screen. The best shots in the film are those with natural landscapes in the background, such as when characters are driving on the outskirts of the desert town. Interiors, with the exception of Cecil's home, tend to look like poorly decorated, cheap sets, and more importantly, they tend to show that Hirsch is not very skilled at blocking and setting up shots. Oddly, given the paucity of the production design overall, Cecil's home is quite a gem, imbued as it is in overblown 1980s style down to the smallest details, and Cecil's stepson, Dude (Jon Stafford), was an amusing counterpoint. Too bad, then, that he's out of the film so quickly.At any rate, Korman is a fun actor, but he comes across much better here as Simon than as Cecil. Unfortunately, Simon ends up being absent for most of the film. Cecil, who is differentiated physically by a ridiculous wig and facial hair, is not only the "evil capitalist" of the film, he's one of Korman's classic inconsiderate, boorish characters--that was one of his specialties, frequently capitalized on in "Carol Burnett Show" (1967) skits. Unlike "The Carol Burnett Show", which tended to succeed because directors Clark Jones and Dave Powers had a studied way of pushing the skits just to the brink of chaos, Hirsch reins Korman in way too far, and the Cecil character just doesn't work the way it should.There are a lot of other director-related problems, not the least of which is wonky pacing and editing, which completely sap any possible suspense or compelling dramatic impact from the film. Even scenes that should have been shoe-ins for amping up the drama--such as when the munchies are harassing an old lady on the road--are put together far too awkwardly to have much affect.There are also serious logical problems with the story as it stands. Where did the munchie in the chamber at Machu Picchu come from? The film's trailer seems to show an answer to this, but it was edited out of the final cut. A more serious problem is that, unlike gremlins, there is no clear reason for munchies to go from cute, cuddly furballs to menacing monsters. It just happens. Further, because Munchies was kept PG, and the violence remains toned down, when the creatures are in their monster phase, they're never very threatening. They're also easily dispatched, at least temporarily.Admittedly, the gist of the film isn't suspense, horror, compelling drama or any of that other stuff, but humor. It's intended more as a spoof of Gremlins and the countless rip-offs in its wake. The only problem with that is that the film just isn't funny, even though I chuckled a couple times. A surprisingly high percentage of the jokes are bland clichés. Too much of the remaining material consists of non-sequiturs. Given bad timing from Hirsch, it all just falls flat. There was potential to make a film that while a spoof, was both funny and frightening, hilarious and disturbing, cheesy and suspenseful, all at the same time, ala Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1988). Too bad, then, that Munchies comes nowhere near that.$LABEL$ 0
+I can't knock this film too terribly, because it's obvious midway through the the watching of it that they were trying to make it bad, or 'campy' if you prefer. Anyway, many of the parts they tried to make funny actually are, but often simply for the cheese factor. Watch the 'space invaders' game, actually played as real-life! Scratch your head at the bumbling robots...oh, the wackyness! And watch the whole thing go way over the top near the end with the 'time warp'! And the sexual innuendoes just keep on flying...I'm actually surprised this got away with a PG. Oh well. A fun way to waste a couple hours, but Star Wars/Trek this ain't, folks. 3 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+I rented this TV movie version of 'Troilus and Cressida' out of my library last thursday, and simply could not believe my eyes. Where should I begin? no effort was made to make the play look remotely like it was about the Trojan war, all the actors were wearing Elizabethan dress. Moreover, most of the actors were too old and horribly miscast - Aeneas (with his white beard) looked older than Nestor, Troilus was at least 30, Hector looked like a Spanish pirate, Ajax was badly played anyway and Thersites was a transvestite.Likewise the action is poor, the duel between Ajax and Hector is short and amateurish, the camera angle focuses more on Nestor's face, so we can only see what is going on in the background which is frustrating in itself. Nor is the 'battle' at the end given it's due respect. We do not see Troilus and Diomedes fight, nor anyone else for that matter, Paris and Menelaus just seem to mud wrestle in front of Thersites. Even Patroclus death was omitted. All this was a major disappointment considering I waded through a very dull 2 and a half hours of BBC costume drama to get to that point.Nonetheless, it wasn't all bad. I thought the Incredible Orlando as Thersites and John Shrapnel as Hector were well played, even if they didn't look quite right. I'd say the same about Kenneth Haigh as Achilles, since he didn't have the striking countenance and was a bit dry at times. SPOILER: The climax at the end - the death of Hector - was perhaps the best part of the film, Achilles' dialogue here is excellent and sums up the attitude of a cold, seasoned murderer. However, the gruesomeness of the scene (when Achilles stamps on what was Hector's head)sets it apart anyway.Charles Gray as Pandarus was delightful as a sleazy old pervert and I thought the actress playing Cressida did an OK job. The war-mongering Troilus, however, was annoying and I think that the play would have been better perhaps if he had been murdered by Achilles instead of a peacenik like Hector.Conclusion? OK, but could have been better if it had had a younger cast and costumes that at least attempted to look Ancient Grecian, not to mention the lack of action. 5/10$LABEL$ 0
+As I was flipping through the channel I came to a channel 124. It is an urban channel. I saw this movie on and decided to give it a try. I almost became a mass murderer due to this film. I have done home movies and they are oscar quality compared to this huge mass of Dookie. The lighting was terrible and the acting was absolutely unrelentlessly bad. I would rather watch Star Crystal....... Holy cow maybe that is not a good example. The main question I have about this film is... Was it to be a morality film? the reason why I ask is because ther was one line where this lady in a wheelchair says " I would have been another gang statistic" Oh my head is starting to hurt. After hearing that line I went into the kitchen and pulled out a knife ready to stab anyone who dared watch this movie. But some sense kicked in and I just changed the channel to watch the man with the afro paint. Well that is all I have to say about this movie. If you want to endure this pain go ahead but not recommended for those with short fuses or a bad case of tourettes$LABEL$ 0
+total crap.I was kind of excited to see this as it is the only film version I have seen of Mansfield Park. I suffered through the first four episodes but when it came to the proposal scene between Henry and Fanny I snapped and had to turn it off. Whoever employs this Sylvestra Le Touzel lady has got to be both blind and deaf cause the woman is the worst actress I've ever seen in my life. The whole thing is just bad, bad, bad. I don't know. I just don't know why people who write Jane Austen screenplays seem to be incapable of giving her work the respect it deserves.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm not the biggest fan of westerns. My two personal favorites though are Unforgiven, and Tombstone. This movie though, I loved! It was great! The plot was well done, and it was a fun movie. Everybody who had a part in this movie did excellent! I even think it beat out both movies in someway. Well, not really Unforgiven because that was a superb movie that these two can't compare with in the long run. I do think it beat out Tombstone though. Both had its strong points. For instance, they both had excellent well known casts, very good plots, and very good filming. But Posse beat out Tombstone in four ways in my opinion. First, the characters were more unique in Posse. The music was better in Posse. The idea was original in Posse, unlike Wyatt Earp. And the biggest difference, the action sequences! Oh my gosh! Posse was a western with really good action sequences. I mean really good! The action was fast paced. Like modern day based shoot'em up movies. The action had big budget explosions too! The fistfights were pretty good also. Mario Van Pebbles was great in this movie! I suggest buying this excellent movie!$LABEL$ 1
+The Thumb idea isn't such a winner the second time round. ThumbTanic wasn't as good as Thumb Wars for a number of reasons. Primarily, I think, Mr Oedekerk had far less to work with in the Titanic send-up. Unlike Star Wars, the movie Titanic hasn't (yet?) become a cultural myth and there are far fewer references to be made which will resonate with the audience.In ThumbTanic, the holes are filled by one-off jokes which don't really seem related to anything. For example, the hero's insinuation that the heroine isn't clean during the "jump off end of ship" scene - it's not funny. Rather, you just think to yourself, "Did I miss something in the original movie?". There were too many of these type of baseless jokes (cf. arachnid).By contrast, the send-up of the smarmy ship's designer had meaning and was funny. Also very funny was the send up of the bloke in the movie who wanted to go "faster" as a maniac running around demanding *everything* be "faster" including the sinking of the ship and himself being the first to die. These sort of jokes meant something in the Titanic context and lent meaningful humour to Thumbtanic.The thumb "media", the faces and the voices, are still amusing. The props and sets and the CG animation are worthy of appreciation. Overall, although ThumbTanic proves that quirkiness alone won't work, this filmette still keeps you amused and chuckling to the end.$LABEL$ 0
+I loved this show. I think the first time I tried rocky road ice cream was due to this show. Wasn't the shop located like right on the beach or something? I actually wrote back and forth with Marci for several years. I lost touch and wish I could reconnect now as adults. Anyone know where she is now? I wish they would put it out on DVD. I seriously doubt that since I think there maybe like five or six people who even remember the show airing in the first place. They just don't make shows like this anymore, do they? I wonder if it would still hold up in this day and age. Do you guys know anyone that could burn DVD's of the show they taped on VHS? I'd be willing to pay(within reason).$LABEL$ 1
+I've tried to watch this so-called comedy, but it's very hard to bear. This is a bad, narrow-minded, cliché-ridden movie. Definitively not funny, but very much boring and annoying, indeed. Bad script, bad acting. It's a complete waste of time - and there remains nothing more to say, I'm afraid.1 out of 10 points.$LABEL$ 0
+If extreme activities (and I don't mean the Hollywood ones like UFC & X-Games) and the people who pursue them interest you then seek this doc out.This is one of those truth-is-stranger-than-fiction tales of Donald Crowhurts's obsession to prove himself against great odds. Those odds were stacked by Mother Nature, the media and his own mind. It is also about a time lost to us --although it was only 40 years ago.The filmmakers have done a great job in gathering a wide range of material to tell his story and the story of the great race that consumed him. I couldn't help but to think about Timothy Treadwell and the Apollo astronauts in the 2 great docs GRIZZLY MAN and IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON while experiencing --you don't simply "watch"-- this story.If you live in a big city buy it or rent it. It is worth the effort to find. I had to travel 100 miles to L.A. to buy it and I am glad I did.$LABEL$ 1
+Harold Pinter rewrites Anthony Schaeffer's classic play about a man going to visit the husband of his lover and having it all go sideways. The original film starred Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine. Caine has the Olivier role in this version and he's paired with Jude Law. Here the film is directed by Kenneth Branaugh.The acting is spectacular. Both Caine and Law are gangbusters in their respective roles. I really like the chemistry and the clashing of personalities. It's wonderful and enough of a reason to watch when the script's direction goes haywire.Harold Pinter's dialog is crisp and sharp and often very witty and I understand why he was chosen to rewrite the play (which is updated to make use of surveillance cameras and the like).The problem is that how the script moves the characters around is awful. Michale Caine walks Law through his odd modern house with sliding doors and panels for no really good reason. Conversations happen repeatedly in different locations. I know Pinter has done that in his plays, but in this case it becomes tedious. Why do we need to have the pair go over and over and over the fact that Law is sleeping with Caine's wife? It would be okay if at some point Law said enough we've done this, but he doesn't he acts as if each time is the first time. The script also doesn't move Caine through his manipulation of Law all that well. To begin with he's blindly angry to start so he has no chance to turn around and scare us.(Never mind a late in the game revelation that makes you wonder why he bothered) In the original we never suspected what was up. here we do and while it gives an edge it also somehow feels false since its so clear we are forced to wonder why Law's Milo doesn't see he's being set up. There are a few other instances but to say more would give away too much.Thinking about the film in retrospect I think its a film of missed opportunities and missteps. The opportunities squandered are the chance to have better fireworks between Caine and Law. Missteps in that the choice of a garish setting and odd shifts in plot take away from the creation of a tension and a believable thriller. Instead we get some smart dialog and great performances in a film that doesn't let them be real.despite some great performances and witty dialog this is only a 4 out of 10 because the rest of the script just doesn't work$LABEL$ 0
+I rank this the best of the Zorro chapterplays.The exciting musical score adds punch to an exciting screen play.There is an excellent supporting cast and mystery villain that will keep you guessing until the final chapter.Reed Hadley does a fine job as Don Diego and his alter ego Zorro.Last,but certainly not least,is the great directing team of Whitney and English.$LABEL$ 1
+First, this is a review of the two disc set that came together with the "Wonderland" DVD rental.The two movies included with the rental, "Wonderland" and the Johnny Wadd documentary, totally obliterate the myth created by "Boogie Nights". That myth being that the characters involved in the adult movie trade were considerably more than slimy lowlifes that would do anything for money, basically denying that they were anything other than detestable self-centered whores. This is amazingly similar to what the book "Wiseguy" and the movie "Goodfellas" did to "The Godfather" fable and most of the rest of the gangster romanticism lore.Now, what irritated me most while watching these movies, and will probably irk anyone who saw and liked "Boogie Nights", is how foolish and gullible supposedly educated and sophisticated people can be. "Dirk Diggler" in "Boogie Nights" is without a doubt John Holmes, who unlike "Dirk Diggler", had no redeeming quality. Holmes was a criminal sociopath who abused anyone close to him, was totally consumed by his quest for self-gratification, and was without a doubt a key participant in the brutal murders on Wonderland Avenue in Los Angeles in 1981. The movie lays bare the big lie that "Boogie Nights" was, and reinforces the Linda Lovelace description of the cruel and pathetic business that is known as the adult film entertainment industry. This should be required viewing, both features on the "Wonderland" DVD, for anyone who had any positive opinions on the story in the movie "Boogie Nights".$LABEL$ 1
+living in Romania, i was almost stunned by the very realistic setting for the scenes and the great care paid to local details by the director. The performance of Anthony Queen is absolutely great, and the rest of the cast does a great job supporting him. The movie does take a little knowledge of the east European context in order to be fully enjoyed, but it remains otherwise a great performance with some memorable lines. the ending is maybe a bit too melodramatic, but that's actually the way people are in this part of the world I believe the screenplay is great, because it presents the horrors of the 2nd WW in a most original manner - no blood, no battlefields. Still, lives are shattered, and the smiles you get every now and then throughout the movie are quickly killed by the war realities touching the characters.$LABEL$ 1
+Nina Foch insists that "My Name is Julia Ross" in this 1945 film noir also starring Dame May Witty and George Macready. It's short, and because it is, the film suffers. It could have stood to have been a good fifteen minutes to a half hour longer.When I was growing up, Foch was a fixture on television, playing a neurotic woman, the wife with the cheating husband, the nervous wreck. She became one of the great acting teachers in Los Angeles. Here, she's a pretty young ingenue playing the title role. Julia answers an ad for a secretary and is hired immediately by Mrs. Hughes and her son Ralph. Little does she know - though we learn immediately - that the employment agent is a front, set up to get just the right woman for this assignment, a woman with no family and no boyfriend.It's a live-in situation; once Julia gets to the house, she's drugged, and when she wakes up, she's told she's Mrs. Hughes and not allowed to leave.The acting is very good. Low budget but still entertaining - some things, particularly at the end, happen way too quickly, which is why I said the movie is too short. Nevertheless, I recommend it.$LABEL$ 1
+...may seem like an overstatement, but it is not.What is so hard to comprehend is - why didn't they make more musical shorts like this? Wasn't the beauty of it totally apparent to everybody involved? I guess not. So many shorts were made for commercial reasons only, and with some luck there may be some artistic value in there. This is one exception - the only one? - where it seems they were the director had a vision and clearly could appreciate the music as art. Why didn't anybody ever think to shoot Lester or Charlie Parker on a live date? Crazy, man.A pity there were no sequels. If you've seen anything of similar quality please share it!$LABEL$ 1
+As John Grierson pointed out: "The documentary genre can be defined like this: the creative interpretation of reality"This fabulous 180-minute documentary marks the first time a computer-generated project about dinosaurs respects the intelligence of the viewer.When I saw Jurassic Park, which I was expecting with great excitement, I was left extremely disappointed. Of course the dinosaurs were great, but the story-telling was unnecessary. I thought: "What if they made a documentary on dinosaurs, with no crying children or bad puns, just dinosaurs made as realistic as possible, to let us marvel at what was once reality."My dream came true. The BBC has produced an exhilarating documentary exploring the different eras of the dinosaurs.This part is to all the people that seem to disagree with the fact that they had to guess at many points concerning the behavior, skin patterns etc: Of course they have to. Nobody was there. I think it is fantastic that they could present something as realistic as that. The guessings are all based on the knowings of many paleontologists, and it allows the viewer to have a pretty good idea of what it was like. If you wanna stick to what we know for sure, then just go visit a dinosaur bones museum. That is why I incorporated the Grierson quote at the beginning of this comment.Anyway, hats off to the creators of it.$LABEL$ 1
+i went to see this movie with a bunch of friends one night. I didn't really hear much about it. So I wasn't expecting anything. But after I saw it, I really liked it. Nicolas Cage and the rest of the cast were very good. But I do have to say Giovanni Ribisi's acting performace did need a little perking up. But such a small flaw, it could be overrided. Gone In 60 Seconds is about a retired car thief who must boost 60 rare and exotic cars in one night to save his brother's life. The movie is in no way predictable. So the ending should be a suprise. Think it's just another, fast car driving movie? Well you are partially right. There is much more to it. Everyone should take a look at this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+I loved this movie! Chris Showerman did an amazing job! Not only is he an incredible actor, but he is gorgeous with an awesome physique! He did a great job on the delivery of his lines, plus transformed into George better than Fraser did. A great performance for his first major roll! This movie is full of hilarious scenes that every child will love. My kids have watched this movie numerous times since we purchased the DVD the day it came out. In addition to the movie, the extras on the DVD are just as hilarious. Two thumbs up on this one! I highly recommend it to everyone!$LABEL$ 1
+Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi made many films together, but on the whole (interestingly enough) Karloff usually is the better man of the two. The real exception is "The Black Cat" (1934) where Karloff is playing the evil head of a devil cult, and Lugosi is seeking revenge on him for destroying his life. But more usual is "Black Friday", where (whatever his motive) Karloff is trying to improve brain surgery while Lugosi is a murderous thug. In "The Raven" Lugosi is a sadistic surgeon, who blackmails Karloff to assist his evil plans until Karloff finally has had enough. Rarely are they both negative characters totally. In "The Body Snatcher", Karloff does kill Lugosi, but Lugosi is trying to blackmail him.The one exception where they are both extremely sympathetic but at cross purposes to each other is this 1936 film, which I feel has rarely had the audience acceptance of some of the other movies I have mentioned. In it Karloff's Dr. Janos Rukh is a hard driven scientific genius who has been sneered at by the "official scientific community" for his theory that a rare form of Radium is in Nigeria on a meteorite that landed centuries ago. He has finally gotten the support of a well financed expedition led by Sir Francis Stevens and his wife Lady Arabella Stevens (Walter Kingsford and Beulah Bondi), and has another scientist, a Frenchman named Dr. Felix Benet (Lugosi), Rukh's young wife Diane (Frances Drake) and a friend and protégée of the Stevenses named Ronald Drake (Frank Lawton).Before they leave, Rukh is warned by his mother (Violet Kemble Cooper) that he is possibly seeking wisdom that he shouldn't and it may end in tragedy. He tries to dismiss this, but he is worried by what she says, his scientific standing, and whether or not he is going to get his due credit.What he gets is a disaster. He finds the substance, but is infected by it's remarkable radioactivity. He finds that he is slowly burning up, and if he tries to touch people or animals they die. He's actually built up a friendship or understanding with Benet, who figures out a type of radioactive fighting cocktail for Rukh to use to counter the danger. But there are two things that are unbeatable here. The antidote can only last for a certain amount of time, and has to be replenished. And the radioactivity has affected Rukh's brain. He is increasingly jealous of Diane's friendship with Ronald (encouraged, unfortunately by Sir Francis and Lady Arabella), and he is equally upset that (due to his having to pretend to have died - the effects of the radioactivity are like that) Benet and several others are collecting the kudos of the wonders that "Radium X" is giving to man. Soon Rukh is on a murderous rampage that destroys many lives, ending with his own.The film certainly picked up on science to an extent. Madame Curie had died recently from cancer she got due to work with Radium. Few fully understood the dangers of radioactivity in 1936, but some idea of it was coming out. The wave of murders by Rukh cause the newspapers to talk about a "curse" on the expedition. Of course, with the idea of a "cursed" expedition (on the continent of Africa) for a hidden treasure buried centuries ago, financed by a titled Englishman, we have entered archeology not physics or geology (paging Howard Carter and Lord Carnaevon).On the other hand, Benet tries to settle the cause of the string of deaths, and reverts to an idea that was actually demolished in 1888 in England. During the Whitechapel Murders, Sir Charles Warren ordered the retinas of several of the dead victims to be photographed to see if the last image on the retinas was Jack the Ripper. It turned out he only got the photographs of the retinas of dead prostitutes. But the idea did not die. Jules Verne used it in his novel "The Brothers Kip" in 1899, and here Dr. Benet uses it. As this is a science fiction story, he finds the image of Rukh on the the plate, but Benet drops the plate accidentally and it shatters.The film is good on many grounds, the most interesting that for a change Karloff and Lugosi are not unsympathetic towards each other. There is a type of tragic fatalism in this story that is missing from their other films. The other performances are good as well, in particular Ms Kemble Cooper. She is best remembered as Basil Rathbone's frightening sister (Jane Murdstone) in "David Copperfield". Here her final act is the only way to bring this tragedy to an end, and who can say it did not hurt her more than her target.$LABEL$ 1
+If the ending hadn't been so fantastically unexpected, I don't think I could rate this movie so well.This movie has a lot of uncomfortable, distressing, "marriage falling apart" character interaction. That sort of thing is not my kind of drama, so the pace seemed to drag for me.In addition, the main characters are difficult to relate to and thus care much about -- the husband (Alan Rickman) is rather bitter and cranky and the wife (Polly Walker) is aloof and a little haughty. The acting was just fine (Norman Reedus was very alluring), but the characters themselves were perhaps a little TOO realistically flawed (for me).The setting was nice and appropriately isolated and a little spooky. The cinematography had something to it that seemed a little old-fashioned to me somehow.But the last 5-15 minutes of this movie are so ingenious that every uncomfortable scene, awkward conversation, and inexplicable character behavior absolutely worth it. I guessed every typical plot twist except the one that occurred.The ending definitely makes this movie worth watching. The intrigue and the drama, not quite as much.$LABEL$ 1
+The man who directed 'The Third Man' also directed the 'Who Will Buy' sequence in "Oliver!" Now that is talent.I raise my hat to Carol Reed.I know there are 'second units' involved, but still ...And he had to deal with Orson Welles and Oliver Reed ...I suppose quality will out.(It does show in the final scene with Nancy [ avoiding spoiler - everyone has to see Oliver! for the first time sometime ].) How many lines do I need to type.Encouraging people to type too much is not to be encouraged.I hope this counts as the "10th line".$LABEL$ 1
+Beverly garland was born in the wrong time. She was an actress ahead of her time, bringing power and grace to even such lame flicks as the Corman films she starred in. In Gunslinger, she's the town sheriff's wife. He gets offed, so she takes over his job to pursue his killers. She's better than the material she's working with, by far. The movie is gray, stilted, and mostly boring. There's some(unintentional)humor with the tire tracks everywhere, people running behind one building to emerge suddenly in front of another (I've heard of false fronts, but this is ridiculous!), and the truly stupid plot line of the newly widowed sheriff falling in love with the guy hired to kill her. Even if she hadn't loved her husband, it had only been something like a week or two since he'd died! And she ends up shooting the guy to death in the end, anyway. No luck with men, this one.The villain of the piece is another woman, the saloon owner. She's scheming to buy up a bunch of land just in case the railroad goes through and makes her rich. Her plan of action if it doesn't is pretty lame-she'll just steal as much from the town as she can and skedaddle. Hell, it's just her and her hired gun at the end against an entire town. Are you telling me these people aren't armed? Look what happened in real towns of the Old West when bank robbers came in to rob the bank, then were cut down in a hail of bullets by the armed and dangerous town folk.There'a a lot of pointless talking and riding around, interspersed with a few lame shoot outs. The ending is as grim as usual in a Corman flick, although thank goodness it lacks the moral proselytizing at the end that was in It Conquered the World. The sheriff turns over her badge to Sam Bass and rides off into the sunset, although the movie was so gray that you never saw the sun.$LABEL$ 0
+OK end of the story is - all the kills were a joke on the main character and no one is actually dead. Yes I know Cry Wolf did it and did it well, but this isn't "Cry Wolf", it's "Scream Crap"! Even though the "characters" don't apparently die, we SEE them get stabbed to death (and other ways they are killed) even though these "kills" do NOT take place as anyone can see them. Mr. Director, if you're gonna show people getting killed, someone needs to see it, if they're off camera and the character getting faked killed is alone it doesn't work - and until the end I liked a couple of scenes but your end ruined the whole thing.The acting is horrid (especially the kid at the beginning who really thinks he tricked his friends into believing they were playing with his dead grandmothers brains) the script is less-than half baked (though if you're half baked you might like the movie) the only reason I gave this movie a 3 is because a) they actually made something b) they got it released and c) they shot on film Yes you read right, they wasted (at least) $5,000 on film stock for this crap. Sad, if they'd shot DV they'd had some cash for a better cast and another writer to go through the script and make it good.I admire the fact that the director made something (as most don't) but HATWE the fact that he comes on IMDFB talking about how "original" the movie is.Avoid the movie if it means buying it to see, if a friend has it, it might be a funny movie to borrow.$LABEL$ 0
+On paper this looked like a great concept: Average guy on the rebound dates up tight bookish museum curator, who is really a hot Superhero who saves the world on a regular basis. However, director Ivan Reitman and writer Don Payne (of the "Simpson's") almost fatally miscalculate in having their hero G-Girl (played by striking Uma Thurman) come off as a total nut job as both Superhero and secret identity persona Jenny Johnson. The movie even cops to this in a conversation between Jenny and Matt Saunders (Luke Wilson) following his rescue by G-Girl from the Statue of Liberty. Jenny curiously asks Matt what was G-Girl like. Matt replies, "She's kind of nutty…" I think the intent was to have Jenny (Thurman) be this lonely young woman, who has no one in her life, isolated by her great physical powers. Thurman does the best she can, but her Jenny is a terrifying mood swing in dire need of Prozac. Luke Wilson is way too breezy in the role reversal of boyfriend and superhero girl friend."My Super Ex-Girlfriend" is also a victim of bad timing, coming on the tail end of "Superman Returns" which plays Superhero straight up, so to speak. With all its quirks and inconsistent writing I still thought "My Super Ex-Girlfriend" was funny and enjoyed the movie. Given that this is an Ivan Reitman movie, this could have been a lot better. Reitman starts with a great premise, and really squanders it. First off, we all love the hero. Here neither Jenny nor G-Girl is really all that likable. This is surprising for Uma Thurman, who is normally a charismatic and powerful presence. In the beginning her Jenny/ G-Girl is just plain weird. Shocking. Because if there is a woman who can play a Superhero, she is Thurman—she looks great. Only toward the end does her Jenny become more sympathetic, instead of caricature. Although "My Super Ex" is not a straight Superhero story, rather a romantic comedy of sorts, it does not provide what every Superhero mythology requires—a great super villain. Here we have Professor Bedlam aka Barry (Eddie Izzard) who really is evil lite. He is no Lex Luthor. No plans for Global domination. Bedlam rather Barry does hold a grudge against G-Girl, and expectedly it has to do with their shared past. What is bizarre you don't know who you would rather spend time with—Bedlam or G-Girl? Luke Wilson's Matt is just "some dude" who happens to hook up with the psycho superhero. One of the annoying things he does is that he confides in his repugnant loser friend Vaughn (Rainn Wilson doing a bad whacked out impersonation). Wilson sometimes plays it a little too dense, and this dilutes his likable charm. This does however work, in the comic sex scene with Jenny. Matt while dating Jenny/ G-Girl realizes that he is in love with his co-worker Hannah (perky Anna Faris). So how does Matt break up with G-Girl? Well, it's not pretty and for the most part hilarious.Dramatic Superhero movies work. Romantic comedies with chemistry work. What may be inherently difficult are Superhero satires disguised as romantic comedies. Everyone loves the hero. However, hero nut job? Maybe not. With all Uma Thurman's talent she is unable to accomplish this convincingly. And she does not get sufficient support from Reitman and Payne. Thurman and Wilson have enough charm and presence to survive their narrative failings. "My Super Ex-Girlfriend" is fun and funny. Though given all involved, the movie could have been super.$LABEL$ 1
+Ernst Lubitsch's contribution to the American cinema is enormous. His legacy is an outstanding group of movies that will live forever, as is the case with "The Shop Around the Corner". This film has been remade into other less distinguished movies and a musical play, without the charm or elegance of Mr. Lubitsch's own, and definite version.Margaret Sullavan and James Stewart worked in several films together. Their characters in this movie stand out as an example of how to be in a movie without almost appearing to be acting at all. Both stars are delightful as the pen pals that don't know of one another, but who fate had them working together in the same shop in Budapest.The reason why these classic films worked so well is the amazing supporting casts the studios put together in picture after picture. In here, we have the wonderful Frank Morgan, playing the owner of the shop. Also, we see Joseph Schildkraut, Felix Bressart, William Tracy and Charles Smith, among others, doing impressive work in making us believe that yes, they are in Budapest.That is why these films will live forever!$LABEL$ 1
+There is something in most of us, especially guys, that admires some really working class small town "real men" populist fare. And Sean Penn serves it up for us with a cherry on top. Hey, A lot of people use Penn as a political whipping boy, but I don't rate movies or actor/directors based on politics or personality. That is what right wing commentators like excretable faux movie reviewer Debbie Schlussel does. While acknowledging he is one of our best actors and a good director, I think this picture was a simplistic piece of aimless dreck that he has atoned for since. Okay, you have the gist of this there is this good cop, a small town trooper, Joe, played against type by David Morse, who in the opening scene chases some guy on a country farm road in big sixties cars. The bad guy stops, gets out, shoots at him so Joe has to blast him dead. There was no explanation what drove this man to do such a desperate violent thing and the dead man's parents do some redneck freak out at the police station while Joe feels real sad and guilty that he had to kill someone. So we know that Joe, the farmer forced off his land into a cop job, is a good basic sort of guy. Then his brother Frank shows up, he is a sadistic, amoral bully, fresh out of the Army and Nam where the war got his blood lust up. Some people here and in other reviews called him just an irresponsible hell raising younger brother and Sean was trying to make some point about what our John Wayne tough guy culture and war does to otherwise good people but what I saw was an amoral, sadistic bully who enjoys hurting and ripping people off. Then there is mom and dad, Marsha Mason and Charles Bronson, who do the requisite turn as old fashioned country couple, then die off; she by illness and he by shotgun suicide, to advance the story for us. Both times Frank the bad guy is away being a miserable SOB. But good Joe brings him back to Podunksville from jail so Frank can straighten his life out by welding bridges and living with his utterly stupid screaming trashy pregnant wife. But Joe has a nice wife, played by Italian actress Valeria Golina, who is Mexican and Sean uses this as an exercise in some affirmative action embellishment of goody Joe and his real soulfulness underneath his uniform and crew cut. For me, that was an utterly pointless affirmative action subplot that Sean uses to burnish his tough guy creds by sucking up to Mexicans because Mexicans are so tough and cool.But Frank is bad and we get the requisite events like stealing friend's car, robbing gas station by beating the clerk over the head then torching the car and all those cool things that hell raisers do. Then there are the mandatory 8mm film childhood flashbacks of young Joey dutifully moving the lawn and cowboy dressed Franky jumping on his back and wrestling him and yadda yadda so we all know what deep bond there is between the two of them.So the film meanders around with a lot of small town schlock to warm the heart of any red stater. Accompanying the film was a great soundtrack of good sixties songs like Jefferson Airplane and Janis Joplin which were totally inappropriate, except for the 60's era effect, to win the hearts of old hippies. The worst offense is that, since the movie was inspired by a Springsteen song, "The Highway Patrolman", that song was not included. So Joe's brain dead wife goes into labor and Joe runs off to the bar to get loaded and spout some populists drunken victim's spiel about how tough things are while good Joey comes to drag him back to his wife. The bartender is good Ole Ceasar, played by Dennis Hopper. So Viggo - Frank whigs out for no particular reason and beats his pal Ceasar to death after good Joe the Cop leaves.So Joe has chase his bad brother down and I was so hoping that he would do the right thing and blow that menace to society away. Instead we get a scene where his brother stops ahead of him in some old 50's junker on some lonely road at night, and little Franky in his cowboy suit and cap guns gets out of the car to face good Joe, the kid from the 8mm flashback home movie sequence. Oy, such dreck! Then to top off this drecky sap fest, there is some Zen crap about the Indian runner, who is a messenger, becomes the message, ala Marshall MacLuhen? See what I mean, Sean has done much better than this so don't be afraid to miss this one.$LABEL$ 0
+I LOVE this film. It was made JUST before the LA punk scene changed for the worse. It perfectly preserves the mood and attitude of that time and place. I feel really lucky to have been present at the filming of four of the bands at the Fleetwood that night. The only part that doesn't fit in too well is the sections with Catholic Disipline and their socio-political commentary. I didn't see too many people who were into that at all. The rest of the film shows attitudes that I witnessed a lot; people dealing with hard lives, or taking a swing at the music industry and/or lousy hippies. I don't think I've seen a documentary that captures so authentically and personally the subject matter being covered.$LABEL$ 1
+Sure, it seems like there is only about 17 minutes of actual content in each episode, but it is certainly fun to watch. You might find yourself cringing in your chair as buddy sticks his foot in his mouth and gets shot down, or chuckling and shaking your head when some ridiculous line actually works. The panel of hosts have more of a good-natured, friendly (dare I say Canadian) style of commentary compared with cutthroat US reality programming. I think the people who complain about this show don't get the joke. They are taking the show more seriously than the show takes itself. Keys to the VIP is a great caricature of reality shows, sports TV culture, and the club scene. I hope they do another season, and I'd be interested to see if a US version appears. It's certainly a fun, original premise.$LABEL$ 1
+CITY HALL is a somewhat mixed bag. Part vignettes of NYC political life, and part moralizing tale. Al Pacino, a Dukakis-esque Boss with Presidential dreams, gives an oft times sullen or subdued performance. There's a couple times when he chews the scenery, and in the case of CITY HALL, this is where he shines. John Cusack gives a subdued and generally flawless performance, without going into caricature of a New Orleans dialect, or sliding into melodrama during the films climax. Danny Aiello as a burrough political chief, is also very good. I love showtunes, too.The major problem with CITY HALL, and it is a good movie in many ways, is the general feeling of a lack of momentum. It comes off more like a documentary, than a motion picture. We see the action or follow the story from a detached perspective, and naturally, the viewer doesn't become involved. When the viewer doesn't get involved to a certain degree, they become apathetic towards the characters, and eventually, the plot.This tends to alienate, and what should have been a riveting, detail divulging finale, came off as a "Hmmm...uh...okay." They say you "Can't fight city hall," as the tread worn cliche goes. Yet, it still can't stop you from thinking what might have been, if they had just tightened up the screenplay and pacing of this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+The Kite Runner began as one of those "important" films that most people fawn over because they are told that they should if they want to be among the elite and quickly descended into an idiotic film of absurdly outlandish proportions.I've never read the book, and never felt the need because I honestly don't care. Sure I'm called uninformed for saying it but I truly have no interest whatsoever in just another "pull at your heartstrings, copy off of all other story lines to get emotion from the readers" novel, even if it is set in Afghanistan.That said, I watched the movie. I heard good things about its beauty, and how touching it was and decided why not? As it turns out, there was a very good reason why not. Not only was the so called main character completely unsympathetic (I get it, he was young and this is a film about redemption but honestly he was horrible. I hated him and not in that good 'Anti-hero' way, he was just a dull, idiotic, self-absorbed character that I felt nothing towards) but the rest of the story was so completely absurd that I couldn't believe how everyone else was fawning over how beautiful it was, and how they cried and it moved them. I'm sorry, but I only feel moved by something that feels realistic, Sci-Fi has been known to move me, fantasy as well...but this? Please. This surpassed many other movies for pure absurdity! My biggest peeve, Hassan was Amir's brother...really? You sure you didn't just rip that off from a thousand other stories? 1 that that particular tidbit wasn't just added in to try to pull more tears out of your audiences (y'know the type of people who look for reasons to cry during a movie)? I was rolling my eyes when that "twist" was revealed knowing that it could only go downhill from there (not to mention flashing back to Star Wars "Amir, Hassan is your brother" "NOOOoo, that's not true, that's IMPOSSIBLE!") Oh, and it certainly did. Filled to the brim with cliché's and just plan dumb storytelling. Like "good guy miraculously escapes bad guy against all odds with help from spunky kid who despite being viciously sodomized and having no clue who you are is willing to help out with a conveniently placed weapon that holds special meaning to you". Ooh and don't forget the oh so idiotic "finally getting vengeance on the kid who teased you when you were little who, surprise surprise, has turned into a psychopathic adult" (trust me guys, I understand you like to live vicariously through movies but that'll never happen. You know that kid who teased you in high school...he's no terrorist, he's probably an accountant.) Oh, and I must mention the CGI-tastic kites! I think those were on par with the "Matrix" movies and "Transformers" bravo you guys! BRAVO!It seems this movie was just made for western audiences who need to a reason to care about the Middle East (hey an overly emotional friendship story will work!) This is one of the most shallow movies I've had the misfortune of seeing, it poses as deep well...but when you get right down to it, it's nothing special.Unfortunately, the core of America's audience will do what they're told and follow the "It's about controversial material so it must be good!" way of thinking.$LABEL$ 0
+While the title "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" comes from an Irish proverb the film plays out like a Greek tragedy. It all starts with a botched robbery and continues to spiral out of control as two brothers attempt to escape the mess they've gotten themselves into.The cast is well-assembled with Philip Seymour Hoffman & Ethan Hawke playing the aforementioned brothers. Notable support includes Albert Finney as their father and Marisa Tomei as the wife of one brother and lover of the other. Beyond these principals the acting is unremarkable.The story is compelling and is told with a certain degree of verve. The narrative structure keeps things interesting by providing different points of view and frequent time shifts. That being said, the film's unpredictability is somewhat muted since it becomes apparent early on that this story is a tragedy, through and through. All in all, a pretty impressive debut for first-time screenwriter Kelly Masterson.Sidney Lumet's direction is well handled but I'm more impressed by the fact that he's still directing at over eighty years old. I was less impressed by the score by Carter Burwell but it isn't a major distraction.In the end, the film proves to be compelling viewing and while the story & presentation may have superficial similarities to other films this one remains a unique experience.$LABEL$ 1
+A good example of the differences between American and foreign cinema can be seen in a film I recently watched on television: Indecent Proposal.Indecent Proposal's two protagonists, David and Diane Murphy are played Woody Harrelson and Demi Moore. I'm not sure if it was their total lack of chemistry or that they were not acting well, but why we should care so much whether these two stay together was beyond me. Love, affection, playfulness, attraction – none of these materialized on screen in their interactions together.Since I knew that eventually Robert Redford would show up, it was clear from the beginning that the good part, the meat of the movie, would be the scenes between him and Demi Moore. Poor Woody Harrelson just could not muster any emotion at all for the film. He seemed to be holding back, preoccupied with his receding hairline.OK, so fast forward. What idiots these two (Diane and David) are for thinking they can win back the $50,000 they owe by gambling. No acting faux pas there, just hideously bad, lazy, unforgivable writing. Of course they lose all their money. Surprised? I know I wasn't. Enter Robert Redford (John Gage in the film) – a romantic, perhaps emotionally frigid man, an updated Gatsby. A very good role and though not a great, great actor, next to those two, Redford looks like Olivier. He immediately falls in love and lust with Diane and we the viewers for once FEEL it. This is how to love a woman! Not David's way, trading gum mouth to mouth with Diane on a slimy pier. (Did I see that right?) As Gage, Redford wears a suit and tie in every scene. Yes it's meant to instruct the seemingly brain dead audience that here is a Rich Man, but he also looks damn good and by this point the brain dead audience appreciates it! Other wardrobe symbolism includes David's now-ironed shirts at the end of the film, signifying resolve, getting it together after a long interlude of forlorn wrinkled shirt wearing.And what is it with California garden parties as depicted in Hollywood movies? Suddenly everyone appears British, complete with lacy dresses, three piece suits for the men, hats (HATS!) and of course the parasol. Yes Diane, her transformation to Rich Man's fiancée now complete, is there at the auction daintily twirling a parasol. Though she insisted that she couldn't be bought, she succumbed at last to the sexual tension. Here is where the film branches off into pure Americana. I mean, of course David and Diane will end up together, my question is: WHY? Diane was bored with David, why not let her ride the Robert Redford wave? And I mean for a good long while? How can she pull herself out of the sexual-romantic thrall of this sexy older man so easily just because Woody Harrelson brings his receding hairline to the garden party, sits himself down and looks Demi Moore in the eyes. That's just not how it goes. He was so WEAK.But we must have our happy ending. We have to swallow the Moral Lesson. We're not sophisticated enough yet to have it otherwise. Director Lyn tried to make a Fatal Attraction for the juvie set, the young'uns.In addition to garden parties in which there's nary an SUV, tee shirt, or baseball cap in sight, such films also feature a reliable public transportation system that connects far-flung California cities and municipalities. How else to symbolize the return to middle class or working class life?$LABEL$ 0
+I've just finished listening to the director's commentary for this film, and I think the one big thing I got from it that I agree with is that this film, like Mann's The Insider, is completely subjective. It's from Howard's POV. So, any review or attempt at contemplating a set of comments about it, as Ebert did, is really about Nolte's character actually. If you feel, as he did, that the film "does not work", then you're saying, I think, that Howard does not work. And, to be frank, you might be right. Howard's reasoning and personality really wouldn't stand up to professional mental treatments and analysis.But, hey, that's the nature of people.Andrew.$LABEL$ 1
+Famous movies are subject to Freudian analysis: Possessed, The Matrix, The Birds, Psycho, Vertigo, Duck Soup, Monkey Business, The Exorcist, The Testament of Dr Mabuse, Alien, Alien Resurrection, The Great Dictator, City Lights, The Tramp, Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz, Dr Strangelove, The Red Shoes, Fight Club, Dead of Night, The Conversation, Blue Velvet, Solaris, Stalker, Mulholland Drive, Lost Highway, Persona, In The Cut, Eyes Wide Shut, The Piano Teacher, Three Colours: Blue, Dogville, Frankenstein, The Ten Commandments, Saboteur, Rear Window, To Catch a Thief, North by Northwest, Star Wars, Dune, Kubanskie Kazaki, Ivan The Terrible, Pluto's Judgment Day (Walt Disney), Wild at Heart.You may wonder how the Marx Brothers come into play. According To Slavoj Zizek, the host and analyst of this intellectually tickling tour de force, Groucho is the superego, Chico the ego, and Harpo the id.Scenes from the above listed films are used to illustrate concepts: the role of fantasy in shaping reality and vice-versa, the father figure, male and female libido, death drive, etc. Here are some of Slavoj utterances (most as paraphrases): "desire is a wound on reality", "fantasy realized is a nightmare", "music is the opium of the people" (borrowing from K. Marx), "of all human emotions, anxiety is the only one that is not deceiving". The whole is bracketed by an intro that declares "you don't look for your desires in movies, instead cinema tells you what you should desire" and concludes with the cineaste view that "cinema is needed today so that we can understand our current reality" -- I say, as long as censorship doesn't derail it.The three part subdivision is merely mechanical, possibly with TV screening in mind. For the theater goer it is irrelevant.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is quite possibly one of the most horrible horror flicks I've seen. The length wasn't nearly long enough to include a good storyline. Also, the way the foster parents died was just plain ridiculous. The mother suddenly dies from falling through a shower after tripping over an action figure, and the dad is shot by a police officer? I can see where some originality might have been what they were going for, but it could have been better. Also, the cheesiness of it all made me want to press stop before it was over. After hearing all of Lucy's name and figuring out it was 'Lucifer', I wanted to gag. Yes, it's interesting that Lucifer was a woman, but look at the name. It's a male's name. It should be given to a male character. All in all, the movie was a bore, and could have used a better plot.$LABEL$ 0
+Paint by numbers story and mediocre acting saved by some authentic color - and a few moments that are really wonderful and deeply felt. It does effectively capture the delicate transition of a girl into adulthood, and deals very sensitively and inventively with the cultural conflict the main family experiences.Unfortunately this germ of a good movie is imprisoned in an aimless and extremely convoluted plot that manages to incorporate religious strife, a conflict over a road construction project, the sex life of secondary and even tertiary characters, a mysterious man who lives in the woods, a bunch of racist hooligans, at least three different carnivals, the intricacies of local church politics, and on and on and on. And all of that doesn't even include the actual central plot, which is only about the hopes, dreams, and frustrations of two girls (and their entire families) at the turning point of their lives. I was actually shocked when I realized the whole thing was supposed to take place over the course of one summer (and that so much movie got accomplished in 1.5 hours!) Ultimately the movie is melodramatic, every plot point is predictable, major life altering events happen and then are forgotten about 10 minutes later...and some of those events are extremely distasteful. Most shockingly the fact that one of the characters is involved in a horrible crime (in a totally predictable "twist") and then is completely forgiven and the entire incident forgotten about from then on. Similarly, a secondary character is introduced solely to die a couple minutes later and provide another "twist." It's all totally mechanical, right up to the ending that neatly ties up all the loose ends (well not all of them, just the ones the movie thinks you care about.)$LABEL$ 0
+It's really not worthy of a 'best picture' consideration, but as entertainment goes, it does the job! This is one that I've watched, with pulse quickening every time, at least a dozen times.Most of these actors were unknown at the time this was done, and we can recognize them from other work. Those that don't have current name recognition probably don't want it.This was a fun ADVENTURE. Sort of like The Little Rascals if they just had to be serious.$LABEL$ 1
+well, i may be bias as i grew up watching a VHS copy of this film that is now ready to snap and have just spent the last couple of hours tracking down a DVD copy as a birthday pressie for my Dad. The film is so harmless and inoffensive it suits all ages.... much better than anything Disney ever made in my opinion (and i used to work in the Disney Store!!!). The characters are enjoyable and the award for best scene is a tie between the disrupted wedding (especially the musical talents of Swat, the fly. and Smack the mosquito), and the amazing night club scene. The musical numbers still have me humming 20 years after i first watched it. there is no other film that i can better recommend whilst baby-sitting, and in fact every child i know (thanks to my Hoppity loving parents) have seen this film, many times. It will always get top marks for its fabulous love story, a brilliant baddy and over all originality.$LABEL$ 1
+Elvira, Mistress of The Dark, is a fun, camp horror comedy, in which the fourth wall is broken a couple of times and the jokes often stay below the navel. And the breasts of Cassandra Peterson become a character of their own.Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) is stacked horror show hostess, who learns, that she has inherited her aunt Morgana. So she goes to a little town of Fallwell, which is ruled by the most horrendous monster ever to embrace the earth: Morality comity. Elviras boobacious appearance is, of course, too much for the prunes, but the kids of the town get a kick out of her different kind of approach on life. And of course there is even more sinister evil, her uncle Vincent (William Morgan Sheppard), who is after Elvira's mothers book of spells. See, Elvira actually is a real witch, she just doesn't know it. Yet.For what it is, Elvira is quite funny film, even though the script does leave a lot of room for improvement. Most laughs come from the difference between Elvira and the people of good morals, but there are a couple of good visual gags as well. Over all direction is okay, but it never rises to be anything more than that. In all, a good, intentionally campy, comedy. If you like this kind of thing, that is.$LABEL$ 1
+AKA: Mondays In The SunI have no idea what I just watched. Three men wander aimlessly and drink, grousing about everything and at everyone in their path. This is supposed to be a drama, but what it is, is a total waste of film, without a single redeeming quality.I have read reviews touting the performances herein as "wonderful," "beautiful," and "heroic." I'm afraid I cannot agree, unless these men were supposed to come off as the dumbest most ignorant proto-humans who ever walked.All in all? This was not a movie. It wanders throughout and loses everyone but the audience. I've watched this three times, and cannot for the life of me see what anyone sees in this garbage. There is nothing profound here, whatsoever. It's crap.It rates a ZERO/10 from...the Fiend :.$LABEL$ 0
+So that´s what I called a bad, bad film... Poor acting, poor directing, terrible writing!!!! I just can´t stop laughing at some scenes, because the story is meaningless!!! Don´t waste your time watching this film... Well, I must recognize it has one or two good ideas but it´s sooooo badly writen...$LABEL$ 0
+The main reason to see this film is Warren William, who is in top form as the shyster campaign manager. He is electric, constantly finding ways to fool the public and defeat the opposing party in the midst of the biggest disasters. William is a great actor -- I feel he never got his due. Bette Davis as his girlfriend also shines in an under-written role. Personally, I found Guy Kibbee not quite right as the lame-brained candidate that William and the others are trying to foist on the public. He seemed more like an empty canvas than a person. I would have preferred to see a real character emerge rather than a non-character. The story itself is implausible, silly and clichéd. But Warren William and Bette Davis are well worth watching.$LABEL$ 1
+I really enjoyed "Candid camera" with Dom DeLuise and I was surprised to see that after the years Suzanne Somers have becomed the co-star of the show. But that was the only positive side of the show - the whole studio, the intro, the hosts - all that give the new meaning to the word "pompous".Well, that would be OK if the materials weren't so cr*ppy - I mean come on, the best you can do is show few men that have problem with getting ketchup out of the bottle, Suzanne Somers walking with Halloween basket in July, ice cream place that sells only vanilla...? I've seen few episodes and each time it was horrible. They were posing like it's the greatest show ever and then fill the time with scenes so dull that I really felt embarrassed to watch. Even the people in them looked bored and that just can't be good.$LABEL$ 0
+Like another poster mentioned Ch. 56 (a local Boston TV station) showed this multiple times over the years on Saturday afternoons. They paired it with the first sequel "Return of the Ginat Majin".Now I haven't seen it since then...but it never left me. Aside from the atrocious dubbing and faded color this was a pretty good fantasy. Technically it isn't horror...until the statue comes to life at the end. It's just about a village ruled over by an evil man. There's a giant stone statue there that the villagers keep praying to to help them...to no avail. But things go too far, the statute comes to life and destroys the bad guys...but then it starts going after the good guys too! Well-done with some cool special effects at the end (LOVED how he got rid of the main bad guy). Also there was an enchanted forest worked in which was kind of interesting too.No masterpiece but an unusual combo fantasy/horror film. Worth catching--but not if it's the dubbed print.$LABEL$ 1
+It's a male bashing bonanza. I saw this on Sci-Fi a while ago, and the idea seemed interesting. It could have been a good movie, and the plot itself I don't see as male bashing, but certain specific references to men get really annoying. I might still watch the movie again though because it does at least try to redeem itself by hinting that maybe the women in the movie aren't really as non-violent as they claim, but it still doesn't compensate for the really tiring male-bashing. I mean, I can understand a little, it's part of the movie's plot, but come on, it gets really tiring after awhile. Not only that, but to assume that the majority of women in the world would accept becoming homosexual that easily and that the few remaining heterosexuals would be such a minority as to go "in the closet". It's just too unbelievable. There are far too many women out there with cultural or religious restrictions that would balk at this it is totally implausible. I mean I know its sci-fi, and I love sci-fi, but the best sci-fi has at least a hint of it being possible, and this is too implausible. The phrase "Truth is stranger than fiction" came about because fiction has to at least seem plausible to be welcomed, but truth isn't always. This movie is not that. Other than that, the movie does have some good acting and the eventual morals of the story, that something like what happened was wrong, do redeem it a little, but not enough.$LABEL$ 0
+Well I'll start with the good points. The movie was only 86 minutes long, and some of it was so bad it was funny. Now for the low points. My first warning sign came with an actual "warning" on the film. When it started the following "warning" was displayed: "The film you are about to see contains graphic and disturbing images. Because contrary to popular belief being killed is neither fun, pretty or romantic." I should have saved myself the 86 minutes and turned it off then. The first words of the film were: "I'm at the glue factory." It was some guy talking on his phone, and he was referring to a nursing home as a glue factory. I don't know why. So the basis of the movie is some kid is obsessed with the Zodiac Killer and starts imitating him. The budget for this film was at least 50 bucks and they must have used the cheapest cameras they could find. The acting was worse than me reading straight from a script. That's what is looked like they were doing. The script was horrible, and the big "twist" was that this guy who wrote a biography on the Zodiac Killer was actually the Zodiac Killer. Of course they tried to show this subtly but made it totally obvious within the first 10 minutes. Without any more painful details of the plot, here were some horrible highlights of the movie. They try to make the Zodiac Killer compare himself to an "army of one" because soldiers are really just murderers. Then they tried to make an attempt at "Satanic Worship" by showing some guys in black hoods in a meeting. The great "computer hacker" was able to get this kid's address when someone gave him the kid's name and phone number. For some reason he had to hack into the FBI to get someone address. I'm not sure why he didn't just look it up in the phone book or use whitepages.com. There was also a random allusion to 9/11 for no reason. I also learned that no matter where you get shot, blood will come out of your mouth within seconds.So if you like really bad acting, sub-par scripts, bad camera work and an obvious plot, you'll love Zodiac Killer!$LABEL$ 0
+This was Eddie Robinson's 101st film and his last, and he died of cancer nine days after shooting was complete. All of which makes his key scene in the movie all the more poignant.Although some of the hair and clothing styles are a bit dated (also note the video game shown in the film), but the subject of the film is pretty much timeless. Heston said he had wanted to make the film for some time because he really believed in the dangers of overpopulation.Several things make this film a classic. The story is solid.The acting is top-notch, especially the interplay between Heston and Robinson, with nice performances also by Cotten and Peters.The music is absolutely perfect. The medley of Beethoven, Grieg, and Tchaikovsky combined with the pastoral visual elements make for some truly moving scenes. This was the icing on the cake for the film.And the theme (or the "point") of the film is a significant one. Yes, it's a film about overpopulation, but on a more important note it's a cautionary tale about what can go wrong with Man's stewardship of Earth. It's in the subtext that you find the real message of the film. Pay attention to what Sol says about the "old days" of the past (which is our present), and note how Thorn is incapable of comprehending what Sol is saying.This film is one of my top sci-fi films of all time.$LABEL$ 1
+I am fully aware there is no statistical data that readily supports the correlation between video games and real life violence. The movie is false and phony because it is in complete contradiction of itself, which is what I tried to emphasize in my original review. The movie fails, not necessarily because I really do think these kids were influenced by video games, but because the movie sets it up as "random" and doesn't follow through. Let me clarify. In Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer, you can see her claims about the police and being controlled by radio waves are ridiculous, yet she is so troubled, she really believes them to be true. The viewer can make the distinction however. In Zero Day, the 2 kids keep saying how they are not influenced by anything environmental, which is obviously false since everything they do contradicts this. Neo-nazism, talking about going on CNN with Wolf Blitzer (which is laughable not only because they know his name, but its a shameless attempt by the filmmaker to get coverage of his bad movie)..etc. This movie doesn't depict 'reality', it shows nothing but phoniness to prove a point. Unfortunately you fell for the bait and didn't see this, and you didn't pick up on it from my review either. The entire movie is just taking Michael Moore's hypothesis and applying it to something "real life" in hopes of validating and it fails, not necessarily because the hypothesis is wrong, but because the movie is wrong and doesn't support it. Of course I don't think kids that play video games are more likely to kill people, but if I'm not mistaken, didn't video tape exist of the Columbine kids (or some teen killers) shooting guns in the forest claiming how much they looked or acted like the weaponry in Doom? Hmmmmmmm, the distinction is kids are most likely aware of the media, influenced, but obviously balanced or intelligent enough that its not even an issue. Zero Day is a bad movie not because I really believe a correlation exists, but because the film maker doesn't know what hes trying to say, and the movie does more to disprove his point then support it. It's almost as if the new ratings given to video games made someone upset so they came up with 'Zero Day' in retaliation. If you want to see the 'mindless' teen killer theory pulled off right, go watch Bully.$LABEL$ 0
+This is the one movie to see if you are to wed or are a married couple. The movie portrais a couple in Italy and deals with such difficult topics as abortion, infidelity, juggling work and family.The so called "culture of death" that we are experiencing nowadays in the world is terrible and this movie will surely make you think.A must see. I hope it gets distributed as it should.Congratulations on the cast and director.Two thumbs up and a 10 star evaluation from me!$LABEL$ 1
+I absolutely adore the book written by Robin Klein, so I was very excited when I heard that a movie based on the book was in the making.But I was severely disappointed with the movie when I did see it because it didn't capture what I loved about the book - the absolutely ridiculously funny Erica and the interesting way in which she views the world.From the start of the movie, I realised that things weren't the same as I had imagined in the book. So, I just went along for the ride. It wasn't all that bad, I guess. Miss Belmont was totally different to what I had imagined her to be! I didn't think she would be one to smoke and drink - Jean Kittson, who plays her, is hilarious!On it's own, I thought the movie and it's actors/actresses in it did a good job, but alas, I'm such a fan of the book (one of my all time favourite books) that I couldn't help but feel disappointed =P$LABEL$ 0
+The biggest heroes, is one of the greatest movies ever. A good story, great actors and a brilliant ending is what makes this film the jumping start of the director Thomas Vinterberg's great carrier.$LABEL$ 1
+Sometimes a movie cannot easily be classified. Such a film is "Tank Girl", part cartoon, part comedy, and part action flick. I'm sure somewhere there is an audience for "Tank Girl', but it is extremely small, perhaps punk comic book readers. Most viewers will be looking for an early exit or living with the fast forward button. The only redeeming quality are short bursts of humor "find me a microscope and a pair of tweezers", but these tiny moments of comic relief are far outweighed by the sophomoric action sequences. There is no character development, which is not surprising, since the source is a comic book. Do yourself a favor and avoid, avoid, avoid. - MERK$LABEL$ 0
+I'm a huge fan of legendary director Elia Kazan . His movies often deal with people trying to overcome their weaknesses. Be it obsessive love in 'Splendor In the Grass, poverty in "A tree Grows in Brooklyn" or racism in "Gentlemen's Agreement." While looking for other movies made by Kazan, I stumbled across a movie that was based on a novel by Arthur Miller. The movie called "Focus" stars William H.Macy (who happens to be one of my favorite actors) and Laura Dern. It deals with anti-Semitism in a very realistic way. Macy's character seems to go along with the bigots in his neighborhood and on his job, until it affects him personally. That's the key here... the reason he acted wasn't because he knew it was wrong and he wanted to take a stand, he acted because he was now considered an outsider, and he began to experience the same looks, the same remarks, and the same brutally that Mr. Finklestein (David Pamyers)experienced .The movie is very well written and well acted. Meat Loaf does a awesome job of playing a dirt bag! Both Macy and Dern's performances are outstanding! It's easier in life to go along with, instead of going against. Sometimes in order for people to take a stand things have to impact their lives, or the lives of their loved ones...Only then will some find their moral compass.$LABEL$ 1
+It's a puzzle to me how this turd of a film ever got distribution.Sure, it's horror and there's a fair share of nudity, but by god, the production value is the lowest I've ever seen, the equipment used is worse than standard home equipment, everything is overlit, giving everything an amateurish look, bringing your thought to America's worst home video's or whatever that show was called..Please people, is it too much to ask that you actually do an effort when you expect to waste 90 minutes of peoples lives watching this? You really should have done some short projects first cause it's obvious you're a bunch of amateurs! 1/10$LABEL$ 0
+I have to admit that when I first heard about the Apocalypse film it was a worry.I mean, they have a lot to live up to, don't they? When they first did a stage show they won the Perrier award and when they did radio they won a Sony award. When they ventured onto our telly's they won a Bafta award, a Royal Television Society Award and the Golden Rose of Montreux.When the first series aired in January 1999 it was mind-blowing! A real breath of fresh air in British Comedy, and when the second series aired a year later it built on that foundation and sealed the shows cult status around the world, our web stats show that we have received visitors from every single country on the planet! The 'Local show for Local People' showcased the Gents talent for live performance and opened doors for the gents to do more live performing such as 'Art' in the west end.The fans favourite has always been the Christmas Special, less of a sketch show and more a tribute to classic horror films yet still wrapped up in the delicious League style.And then of course there was the 'difficult' third series, still a hit with the loyal hardcore fans of course, but maybe a little bit ahead of its time for a mainstream TV audience.As I say, a lot to live up to.So now we have the film and...Well a film is different isn't it? It will be seen by much larger numbers than the radio or TV shows and with the third series in mind I was worried.Well as you know I was lucky enough to get to see the film yesterday at a press screening in London and all my doubts were blown away (literally) in the first few minutes! I am not going to give plot lines away as some reviewers have done, nor am I going to tell you the catch phrases (although there is really only one) but I will try to tell you what they have managed to achieve with this film! Leaving the cinema on Monday night I could only imagine writing 'Oh my god, it's brilliant, its amazing, its the best thing they have ever done, better than the first, second and specials all rolled into one!' Of course I owe my visitors a much better explanation than that! So, why is it brilliant? This is a film for everyone, the casual fan, the obsessive fan the occasional fan and even for someone who is sat in the wrong cinema! You don't have to have watched the series to enjoy this film; it works on so many levels.This film reminded me why I am a League of Gentlemen Fan! You can tell that filming was a true labour of love too; the attention to detail is incredible. The sets for the TV show were always detailed but I am going to have to watch the film again just to look at the background! The story moves at a swift pace, the action carrying us from Royston Vasey to the real world where we meet the 'Creators' who are of course the League themselves! Along the way we manage to bump into favourite characters from the show but always within the central story unlike the TV sketch show.I was glad that the film was dark in places, a little scary and a little strange...only fitting for The League of Gentlemen. The Gents also managed to get their revenge on the BBC censors, not as much slipping in the word 'Mongoloid' as screaming it from the roof tops! Some may think the Gents portrayal of themselves a little indulgent but that's the joke and with that comes my only worry, the in jokes I mention below may puzzle some viewers and they might come over a little too clever...but I shouldn't worry, there is always a poo joke waiting just around the corner and speaking of jokes, they come thick and fast, and in a mixture of clever references, wig jokes, bum jokes, visual jokes and cock gags! I haven't laughed out loud in a cinema since...well, I can't remember! The fans that have been 'with' the League since the beginning are rewarded with loads of 'in' jokes, some that work on two levels, a mainstream audience may laugh at a reference to a compact disc for one reason whilst fans of the Local show will laugh for another reason altogether! The cameos are genius! Peter Kay and Simon Pegg form the strangest double act you have ever seen, Simon getting one of the films biggest laughs just by making a noise! I was a little worried about the 1690's aspect of the film when I first heard about it but as a story within a story I was just getting into it when...but that would be telling! All I need to say is that it fits wonderfully and adds to the overall feel of the film! I am not a professional reviewer of films, so I am finding it difficult to put into words how much I enjoyed this film but for now I will just say that if the supposed benchmark for British Comedy films in recent years was the excellent 'Shaun of the Dead' then I am sorry but a new benchmark has just been set by the inventive, hilarious and sometimes a little scary...The League of Gentlemen's Apocalypse.Jason Kenny 2005$LABEL$ 1
+I hate to throw out lines like this, but in this case I feel like I have to: the American remake of THE GRUDGE is by far the worst film I have seen in theaters in the last 5 years. There, I said it. And now that I have gotten that out of my system, please let me explain why."When someone dies in the grip of a powerful rage, a curse is born. The curse gathers in that place of death. Those who encounter it will be consumed by its fury." That is the premise of THE GRUDGE and I will admit it sounds intriguing. Unfortunately, the filmmakers take it no further. Those who encounter the "curse" are indeed consumed by its fury and that is all you get. You want more? Well too bad. Some critics and fans are pointing out that the sole purpose of THE GRUDGE is to scare you. The problem is that when there is no plot to speak of, creepy images and sounds can only go so far. Director Takashi Shimizu, pulling a George Sluizer and remaking his own original film(s), valiantly attempts to build atmosphere in the first hour – by repeating the same scene over and over and over and over. It pretty much unfolds like this:-person walks into house-something flashes by the camera and/or a strange sound is heard -person goes to investigate-sound starts to get loud-person sees a ghost-loud scream and/or cat screech-cut to blackBefore the audience is even given a hint of plot, this exact same scenario unfolds 5 times in the first hour. The first time was actually somewhat creepy. Each subsequent use became laughable as the film went on. By the time the end of the film rolled around, my friend and I were laughingly wondering if this scene would end "with a loud scream and a cut to black." We were never proved wrong.The film has no liner storyline, instead unfolding in a series of vignettes that leave the audience jumbled. I have no problem with non-linear storytelling when it is done right. The film jumps from time period to time period with no rhyme or reason. I haven't seen a movie in such a state since the opening of the theatrical version of HIGHLANDER 2. And this storytelling technique mars any sort of mystery that film could have possibly had. If you already know the ghosts have scared two characters to death, how is it shocking when their bodies are found in the attic? And why should we care when a detective tries to investigate the mysterious disappearances when we already know what happened to everyone?Obviously greenlit the second the American version of THE RING made $15 million its first weekend, THE GRUDGE is nothing but calculated imitation disguised as an actual movie. The scariest things about THE GRUDGE are that it made $40 million dollars its first weekend and some people consider it the "scariest movie ever made." I wonder what happens to those who get consumed by the fury of paying to see THE GRUDGE?$LABEL$ 0
+Vanaja (2006), written and directed by Rajnesh Domalpalli, is an extraordinary film from South India. Mamatha Bhukya plays 15-year-old Vanaja, who lives in a rural area with her loving but alcoholic father. If she is going to succeed in life, she will have to overcome the liabilities of low caste and poverty. I went to the film expecting the depiction of an wretched girl who is crushed by society. This isn't what "Vanaja" shows us. The young woman is attractive, intelligent, and ambitious. She won't accept her fate with tears or simple resignation. She wants to succeed, and it's never clear that she won't succeed, despite the odds. The acting that Mr. Domalpalli draws forth from his cast of amateurs is miraculous. Mamatha Bhukya is outstanding in the title role, and Urmila Dammannagari does an exceptional job as Mrs. Rama Devi, the wealthy landowner who is a formerly famous classical dancer.In the film Vanaja learns South Indian classical dance, as she did in real life. I couldn't tell how good Vanaja's dancing was by Indian standards, but the many dance scenes were spellbinding. (Don't think Bollywood--this is classical dance. It's also very different from ballet, because in ballet the dancer lifts her heels away from the floor. In Sound Indian dance, the heel is the primary contact point.)This is a movie that is not to be missed. It will work on DVD, but will be better on a theater screen because the dancing will be shown to better advantage. However, if DVD is your only option, then see it that way. Just be sure to see it.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a bad, bad movie. I'm an actual fencer: trust me when I say that this film's pretension of accuracy is just that. This is especially true during that vile little scene when the fencers are combining footwork with 80's pop. The ending is predictable, and the movie is a bore from start to finish. Horrible.$LABEL$ 0
+Even though he only made his debut film in Australia and left for Great Britain and then America to continue his career, Australians will tell you that the greatest film star they ever produced was Errol Flynn. I'm not sure he ever even went back to Australia after his breakout success in Captain Blood. Still I attribute this film to the well known Aussie irreverence for trashing the reputation of one of their own.Part of the problem in telling Errol Flynn's life story was that he told enough tall tales in his life right up to the very end in his memoir, My Wicked Wicked Ways. I could see that a lot of the film was based on that and upon reading between the lines of that book.His mother's infidelity to his father was not written, but could have been inferred in reading My Wicked Wicked Ways. He didn't particularly like the woman, that is clear from a few sources. I wish the film had dealt more with his New Guinea adventures, that to me was the most interesting part of My Wicked Wicked Ways. As for his street fighting in the Depression, I tend to disbelieve that. Even if he had been successful at it, I guarantee that enough of that would have ruined his looks and he would never have had a career as a leading man.Still the folks down under seem to think the atmosphere of Sydney during the Depression was captured well and Guy Pearce is a charismatic Errol Flynn. American audiences know him best as the uptight, but honest Lieutenant Exley in LA Confidential which came out the same year as Flynn.But LA Confidential was a far better film.$LABEL$ 0
+It has been a tradition since my first VHS recorder for me to collect several of the incarnations of the old chestnut by Charles Dickens, and I taped this one and "Karroll's Christmas" this year. Fortunately, when this one was run on the Hallmark Channel at the unGodly hour of 3 AM, I was spared having to edit commercials from it. This was, however, it's only saving grace. The writing was excruciatingly dull with almost no clever scenes to save it from being anything more than a teeny-bopper soaper like Beverly Hills 90210. In this one, a good man who was cast aside for her celebrity seems the only logical explanation for her transformation into a Scrooge-like TV talk show hostess. It wasted Dinah Manoff who just plays bitch goddess to the other bitch goddess Tori Spelling (who, by the way, had more coats of paint on her face than some colonial houses) and Bill Shatner is perhaps one of the few fun things in this otherwise dreary adaptation. Some of the best opportunities are wasted like the entrances of the ghosts. Aunt Marla's entrance could have been spectacularly funny in the hands of a decent writer, but this Christmas turkey didn't have one, evidently.Tori Spelling may be a lovely person, but she has all the acting skill of a mannequin, and that makes for a bad show all by itself. Yes, it was good to see Gary Coleman work again, but the script gives him nothing to do really except roll his eyes and spout truly lame dialogue.And what is most infuriating was that the transformation from Scroogedom to Tori "sweet and light" is as convincing as a passionate conservative. Now, if anyone wants to write the ultimate Scrooge tale of a George Bush and Karl Rove, we might have a refreshing change from the usual bad Christmas Carol Clones.I suppose if you're a fan of Ms. Spelling and/or 90210, this might be your cup of Christmas cheer. I'd prefer a stiff shot of scotch and a cold beer to wash it down myself. This one I just may cast away before it is with me here for a long long time.God save us everyone!$LABEL$ 0
+Clouzot followed Le Corbeau, where no one knew who was penning the poison thus everyone was suspected, with another masterpiece, Quai des Orfevres four years later in which we know from the outset (or think we do) whodunnit. Top-billed Louis Jouvet doesn't appear for forty minutes by which time Clouzot has established a rich milieu of Music Hall, music publishers, etc and a fine cast of colourful characters; Angela Lansbury lookalike (Lansbury appeared in Woman of Paris that same year) Suzy Delair scores as the chanteuse whose desire to improve her lot inspires the jealousy of her husband/accompanist Bernard Blier who follows her to the home of an elderly letch only to find he is already dead. From here things go seriously wrong, his car is stolen before he leaves the premises so his pre-arranged alibi is out the window whilst meanwhile, unknown to him, his wife confesses to the murder to the photographer neighbour, a closet lesbian in love with her, who volunteers to return to the crime scene and retrieve Delair's scarf and as long as she's there,thoughtfully wipes her prints of the murder weapon, a champagne bottle. At this point investigator Jouvet gets involved and from then on it's a case of keeping the plates spinning in the air. Clouzot's output was relatively small but virtually all of it was, as Spencer Tracey said in another context, 'cherce', with Le Salaire de peur and Les Diaboliques still to come. In short this is a must for French cinema buffs.$LABEL$ 1
+My reaction to this remake of "The Italian Job" is probably hopelessly mixed up with the events occurring in my life when I saw it; This is the first movie I saw after I had just landed a job after 8 months of unemployment and going back to school for retraining. Money was still tight, but I no longer had to choose between seeing a movie in the theaters and paying bills (or eating lunch), and the sense of relief and gratitude I was feeling at the time was enormous. In consequence, my enjoyment of "Italian Job" was probably far out of proportion to its actual worth. Still, I picked it up used on DVD a few weeks ago and watched it again, and I still enjoyed it immensely. I have never seen the original (though I have heard it is an absolute classic), but its modern day counterpart is eminently watchable if you have a taste for modern day production values applied to older films plots and themes. What initially won me over to this movie was the soundtrack - IMO Don Davis writes some of the most supple, textured and aurally pleasing soundtracks around. IJ opens with a sly, witty, pulsing arrangement that combines strings, guitar harmonics, brush work and quiet moments - it won me over completely from the opening seconds. And the whole movie is like this - I haven't heard this kind of ringing, chiming, pulsing soundtrack music since Stewart Copeland left the Police and started doing soundtracks for movies like "Rumble Fish". There are at least a dozen irresistibly scored motifs in here, along with some pop song remakes that range from "all right" to "inspired". For people to whom the soundtrack is important, this movie is a delight. On to the movie: I can take or leave Mark Wahlberg, but he's okay here as the leading man, and the movie doesn't ask him to do anything he can't do well. He's the weakest "major" actor in the film, but that's because the rest of supporting cast is so strong, especially Donald Sutherland in a bit part. Mos Def, Jason Steadham, Ed Norton, Seth Green and Charlize Theron all turn in solid, fat-free performances. Norton seems to mostly be phoning it in (rumor has it that he didn't really want to be in the film), but he's still a natural even at 1/2 power. My one quibble with the casting and acting is with the character "Wrench", who seems to be a male model pretending to be an actor. His part seems to be shoehorned into the movie, and he has little chemistry with the rest of the cast (although you can blame some of that on the size of the part and the "late walk on" nature of the character). If I were a cynical sort,I would wonder who the actor slept with to get put into this movie in such a supernumerary role? Nah, never happen...Production values, camera work, stunts, plot...everything cooks along quite nicely and Gray and his production crew pull things together pretty seamlessly (with the exception of the "Wrench" character, see above). The dialog has a nice, light touch that rewards your indulgence, and there are several satisfying major and minor plot payoffs along the way. (My favorite moment - when Norton's character tells Wahlberg's character that he's just lost the element of surprise. Wahlberg proceeds to cold cock Norton with a right cross, and then asks him, "Were you surprised??" Hmmm, maybe you had to be there...) Of course the movie requires a certain level of "suspension of disbelief" to work, but if you just relax and go along with it (and don't think too hard about the mechanics of cracking a safe underwater, or the likelihood of anyone being able to successfully hack and manipulate LA traffic via a laptop, etc), you'll have a fun ride. "The Italian Job": it's lightweight summer fluff, but it's very good for what it is, and it doesn't try to be anything else. It isn't good enough for an "8" but I'd give it a "7.5".$LABEL$ 1
+"On a Clear Day You Can See Forever" is nothing more than a New Age update of the "Pygmalion" / "My Fair Lady" story: A professor attempts to turn a common girl into an upper society woman. This time, however, instead of using language skills, the professor tries to do so by hypnotism and past life regression.You know a musical has problems when reviewers constantly mention the sets and the costumes before they mention the plot and the music. The songs are instantly forgettable. (No "Get Me to the Church on Time" here, I'm afraid.) And the plot goes nowhere. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there is no "there" here. The characters wander through the story without ever getting from point A to point B. Professor Chabot claims several times that he will get to the root of Daisy's troubles, but he never seems to do so.All meaningful conflict is avoided. For instance, there comes a time when Chabot's university demands he either stop his research into reincarnation or resign his position. Now there is conflict! Will he give up his career for Daisy? Alas! Nothing comes of this development. A scene or two later the university changes its mind and tells Chabot to continue on with his work. So much for conflict.The talent was certainly assembled for this movie: Directed by Vincente Minnelli. Written, in part, by Alan Jay Lerner. A cast of Yves Montand, Bob Newhart and Jack Nicholson. And, oh yes, starring Barabara Striesand who was nearly at the top of her game at this point in her career.But it all falls flat. Lerner's attempt to reincarnate his greatest success, the previously mentioned "My Fair Lady," is as doomed to failure as Daisy's attempt to revive the greatness of her own past.If you enjoy movie musicals, there are far better choices than this.$LABEL$ 0
+In the Universal series of modern Sherlock Holmes stories with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE SECRET WEOPON is not one of the top films - although it is entertaining. I think the problem with it is that much of the film's "dueling" between Holmes and his nemesis Moriarty (here played by Lionel Atwill) seems to delay the actual point of the Professor's work.Moriarty appears in three of the Holmes films with Rathbone. In THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES he was played by George Zucco, who gave real relish to the love of villainy for its own sake to the role. For my money Zucco's performance as the Professor was the best of the three (there is even a brief moment of comedy in his performance, when he's disguised as the "Sergeant of Police" towards the end - like he's preparing to sing "A Policeman's Lot" from Gilbert & Sullivan). Next comes Mr. Atwill's performance here - more of that later. Finally there is Henry Daniell's intellectual Moriarty in SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE LADY IN GREEN. It's a typically cool, classy performance by Mr. Daniell, but his confrontations with Holmes seem to be a tedious bore to him. They keep him from completing the main plan. In the stories that the Professor pops up in, he really senses Holmes is a nemesis who will remain a danger as long as he is alive. Yet, because of the intellectual tennis match between him and Rathbone, Rathbone (in his autobiography) actually felt Daniell was the best of the film Moriartys.If Zucco captured the love of evil in the Professor, and Daniell seemed to demonstrate the tired Oxford Don (in the stories the Professor is a well regarded mathematician, whose volume on the binomial theorem had a "European vogue", and who wrote an intriguing book, THE DYNAMICS OF THE ASTEROID), Atwill demonstrates the Professor as pragmatic businessman. First of all, he's sold his services (apparently) to Nazi Germany. This is never gone into, but one presumes (as this is before the Nazis began to really collapse) he figures they will win the war. Secondly, he is not a fool. When Dr. Tobel (William Post Jr.) has shown he is a state of near physical collapse due to the torturing of Moriarty's gang, the Professor decides to kidnap one of the other scientists who are assisting Tobel, because he's as good a scientist as Tobel and would be able to put together the bomb site. I somehow can't quite see Zucco making such a sensible decision on the spot, and if Daniell had to make it, he would seem annoyed that there is yet another delay to his plans.By the way, one trick used in all the Holmes series regarding the Professor is how to rid the film of him. If you read the Holmes stories, Moriarty appears as the villain three times: in THE MEMOIRS OF SHERLOCK HOLMES' last story ("THE ADVENTURE OF THE FINAL PROBLEM"), in THE RETURN OF SHERLOCK HOLMES' first story ("THE ADVENTURE OF THE EMPTY HOUSE") and the last of the four novels/novellas (THE VALLEY OF FEAR). It's amazing how much mileage the Professor got out of so few appearances (he is mentioned in two or three other stories as well - in passing). But because of his fate at the Reichenbach Falls in "THE FINAL PROBLEM" and "THE EMPTY HOUSE", we always see him fall to his death. Zucco falls off the White Tower on Tower Hill. Daniell (with more imagination) tries to flee Gregson and the police, but is shot as he jumps, and wounded fails to hold on to the wall of an adjacent building. Atwill (here it is not seen, but heard) seems to fall down a trap door he's planted in an escape tunnel). It is really tedious after awhile to see the Professor always fall in these films. One turns to the Gene Wilder comedy (admittedly a comedy) SHERLOCK HOLMES' SMARTER BROTHER, wherein Leo McKern is a wonderfully wacky and villainous Moriarty (complete, finally, with an Irish accent), who is not killed at the end, but just left mulling - in a rowboat - over how his careful schemes did not work out. I rather liked that better.The use of the "Dancing Men" code here, like the use of the "Devil's Foot Root" in DRESSED TO KILL, snags a part of a mystery from a short story. "THE ADVENTURE OF THE DANCING MEN" appeared in THE RETURN OF SHERLOCK HOLMES, and deals with a client of Holmes whose wife has been getting weird, blood-curdling messages in this code. Charles Higham, in his biography THE ADVENTURES OF CONAN DOYLE suggests Sir Arthur may have picked up the code from a magazine game in the 1870s, but we really don't know. The code is basically one of letter substitutions for the figures of the dancing men. The story in the short story is dramatic, but deals with a triangle. The only innovation in the film is that Tobel makes a slight change that confuses both Holmes and Moriarty. The film will entertain, but I still think THE HOUSE OF FEAR, THE SCARLET CLAW, and SHERLOCK HOLMES FACES DEATH are better films.$LABEL$ 1
+Night of the Twisters is a very good film that has a good cast which includes Devon Sawa, Amos Crawley, John Schneider, Lori Hallier, Laura Bertram, David Ferry, Helen Hughes, Jhene Erwin, Alex Lastewka, Thomas Lastewka, Megan Kitchen, and Graham McPherson. The acting by all of these actors is very good. The special effects and thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Devon Sawa, Amos Crawley, John Schneider, Lori Hallier, Laura Bertram, David Ferry, Helen Hughes, Jhene Erwin, the rest of the cast in the film, Action, Mystery, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!$LABEL$ 1
+Not only does this movie have a great title but quite simply is the greatest drama I have ever watched. The viewer is irrestiblely drawn into the movie involving 5 young men working together to try and overcome insumaintable odds, Sean Astin as Billy Tepper is brilliant along with great supporting roles from T.E.Russell, Wil Wheaton and Shawn Phelan, the guidance and leadership of Gosset's and Astins characters makes the movie so much better. As time goes on the movie keeps gathering momentum and its a dissapointment that none of the young actors made a name for themselves in the film industry after this wonderful movie.$LABEL$ 1
+This film's premise is so simple and obvious that only a Texas millionaire high on oil fumes and whiskey would have a problem understanding it if someone shouted it across the proverbial parking lot. In summary: the oil business is in cahoots with The Government (or Gummint if you prefer), the Gummint is in cahoots with Middle Eastern despots, and the CIA is a singular festering pool of double dealing sons-of-(insert word) willing to toe any line that comes their way. The only people that get done over are the good ones, like Mr Clooney ("Bob"). Oh, and terrorism is a result of the poverty which globalization creates when wicked multinationals stalk the world looking for a tasty takeover or three . That really fits to the profiles of the well-heeled 9/11 perpetrators.In Syriana this facile tissue of political half-truths and Hollywood holograms is stirred up in a repugnant vermicelli of story strands that twist, turn and whirl through the gloopy circumlocutions of their own insignificance until the poor viewer is left alone with the conclusion that: 1. the "director" (good joke) should never be let near a camera again 2. people like Clooney and Hurt might know how to act, but they sure don't know how to pick a script 3. if you want to see a film that deals with corruption in big business and the state, go and see Claude Chabrol's "L'ivresse du pouvoir", which is insightful, funny and brilliantly acted. Empty, doom-laden sententious piffle spun out to evening-ruining length.$LABEL$ 0
+A quick paced and entertaining noir set in Vienna just after W.W.11. Donald Buka is a refugee who can't find legal work because he does not have any papers. No papers means no work permit, which means no way to get a passport. He survives by driving a friend's cab at night. If he gets caught it means three months in jail. One night he picks up a fare at a big hotel and drives the man to an airline office. Buka takes the man's luggage in and returns to the car. There he finds his customer has acquired an unneeded hole in the back of his head. What to do? Call the police? Without a work permit they will put the grab on him real quick. No, he needs time to think this out. He drives to a secluded spot, empties the man's pockets and hides the body. He now has an American passport and plenty of cash! He drops by an underworld contact to have the passport photo changed. Now he just needs to go to the man's hotel and collect the man's plane ticket. His ticket to freedom! Needless to say that would be too simple. Waiting at the hotel is the dead man's mistress, Joan Camden. Camden is on the run from her rather nasty husband, Francis Lederer, Lederer is of course the swine who had bumped off the man in Buka's cab. Camden calls the police since she believes Buka has robbed her lover. Buka shows his new passport and manages to talk his way out of the mess. Camden breaks down when hubby Lederer shows up at the police station. Lederer convinces the police Camden has suffered a mental breakdown and she is released to him. She escapes again, finds Buka, and the two decide to flee the country together. Lederer again puts in an appearance and Buka must decide if helping Camden is worth his freedom. This film is much better than I'm making it sound. Buka is best known as the low-life cop killer in 1950's "Between Midnight and Dawn". The film was produced by actor Turhan Bey.$LABEL$ 1
+Eliza Dushku is a very talented and beautiful actress. She manages to be the rock-steady centre of "Tru Calling" but that's not enough to rescue her TV series from mediocrity. It's a real shame that a woman as attractive and talented as Dushku should go from a meaty supporting role in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to this clunker. Unoriginal and desperately trying to be hip, "Tru Calling" fails to excite on any level above hormonal. The eponymous heroine spends a lot of her time running hither and yon across what must be a very small city, in order to avert the deaths of good-looking corpses-to-be that she's already met in the mortuary where she works. Despite all the running she does, she always arrives looking like she's just stepped out of a portable air-conditioned dressing room. In every episode, Eliza Dushku and the rest of the cast struggle to breath life into the bland, characterless screenplays but it's a pointless exercise. "Tru Calling" just lies on the slab, gazing lifelessly at the ceiling.$LABEL$ 0
+Pieced (edited) together from dead body parts (deleted scenes) from corpses (Anchorman), the Frankenstein Monster (Wake Up, Ron Burgundy) is definitely not a sight for sore eyes (something you'd ever want to watch twice.....maybe even once for that matter.)More often than not -the relativity of the scenes in WURB are made relevant by a third person narrator. Even more troubling is that the characters in WURB are inconsistent with the versions of themselves that we had at the end of Anchorman (in opening narration we're told WURB takes place shortly after the original.) At the end of Anchorman, Burgundy had grown since the start of the film and embraced having a hybrid co-anchorwoman/lover. In this film, he's back to his immature antics with prank phone calls to Veronica (quite clearly these are the more of the same scenes from the original Anchorman spliced in to WURB.) The part that makes this a movie, a continually evolving story, involves a bank-robbing clan without a cause called the Alarm Clock. These scenes are almost painful to sit through. This part was scrapped from the original scripts for Anchorman.The majority of other scenes involving our Channel 4 news team are clearly alternate/deleted takes on scenes from Anchorman. They go to the same party as in the original, the same original "group bitching about having a woman on the team" scene, and the same cat fashion show segment that Veronica had objections to reporting.Burgundy re-creates their first date with the drive-in spot overlooking San Diego and dinner at his favorite club, Tinos. Neither character make mention that they've been to the drive-in spot before and when Burgundy walks into Tinos with Veronica, he introduces it to her as though they've never been before. Oh, and they're wearing the same clothes as on their original date.Still, I have to give some credit to the filmmakers - even if WURB is nothing more than a clever way of presenting deleted scenes tied together with narration. Between the two Ron Burgundy stories - this is the weaker one. Looking back on it, it's quite a feat for Anchorman to have risen from the ashes of WURB. You stay classy, IMDb. Thanks for stopping by.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this pilot when it was first shown, and I'm sure countless "Spirit" fans hate it, because, like Batman, the Green Hornet etc., it took the character in the direction of "camp". But I evidently never got enough of Batman, because I thought it was entertaining, in some of the same ways as that show. There are two parts that stay with me. First, when Denny's partner has been fatally wounded, and he makes a dramatic speech about how he always stood for the law, and obeying the exact letter of it. Then, he says something like, "Boy, was I stupid!" Which is his way of telling Denny to become a vigilante instead, which he does (though the TV Batman kind). Then, there's the scene where he tries to seduce the villainess into letting him go by kissing her, but she isn't fooled, because he's too honest to kiss her convincingly ! This was a great example of "camp", that was also "underplayed", by both the actor and actress.$LABEL$ 1
+In this horrible attempt at a Blair Witch mockumentary, a bunch of people go to Africa to investigate a creature called the Half-Caste. It's pretty obvious that there was no script to speak of, and that everything was improvised. That can work if you have good actors, which this film didn't. This movie tries to gain points for originality by exploring a more obscure myth and an exotic culture. As a result, there are a lot of scenes out in the bush where characters do "quirky African stuff" like eating elephant dung. There is also some pretty good footage of lions eating (from a National Geographic perspective) but there's not a single scare in the whole movie. If you've seen Cannibal Holocaust or the Blair Witch Project, this movie will hold no surprises for you, and you can probably watch better lion footage on the Discovery Channel.Definitely a Half- Aste effort. A note to the filmmakers: guys, do us all a favor and next time save the "How I spent my African Vacation" home movie for your family and close friends. Nobody else wants to see it.$LABEL$ 0
+Wow! I caught this on IFC recently after I watched But Im A Cheerleader. Id never heard of this movie but the description sounded remotely interesting. I went in with low expectations and now I must say this is one of the best love stories ever in film. Robin Tunney does an excellent job portraying a person with tourettes. The relationship between the two and just the slightest details in the film are so acurate and believable. I usually hate "romance" and love films but this movie truly touched me. I so recommend this movie to anyone with the ability of vision.$LABEL$ 1
+This has to be creepiest, most twisted holiday film that I've ever clapped eyes on, and that's saying something. I know that the Mexican people have some odd ideas about religion, mixing up ancient Aztec beliefs with traditional Christian theology. But their Day of the Dead isn't half as scary as their take on Santa Claus.So..Santa isn't some jolly, fat red-suited alcoholic(take a look at those rosy cheeks sometime!). Rather, he's a skinny sociopathic pedophile living in Heaven(or the heavens, whichever), with a bunch of kids who work harder than the one's in Kathy Lee Gifford's sweat shops. They sing oh-so-cute traditional songs of their homelands while wearing clothing so stereotypical that i was surprised there wasn't a little African-American boy in black face singing 'Mammy'. This Santa is a Peeping Tom pervert who watches and listens to everything that everybody does from his 'eye in the sky'. This is so he can tell who's been naughty or nice(with an emphasis on those who are naughty, I'd bet).There's no Mrs. Claus, no elves(what does he need elves for when he's got child labor?) and the reindeer are mechanical wind-up toys! This floating freak show hovers on a cloud, presumably held up by its silver lining.Santa's nemesis is...the Devil?! What is this, Santa our Lord and Savior? Weird. Anyhoo, Satan sends one of his minions, a mincing, prancing devil named Pitch, to try to screw up Christmas. Let me get this straight-the forces of purest evil are trying to ruin a completely commercial and greed driven holiday? Seems kind of redundant, doesn't it?Pitch is totally ineffectual. He tries to talk some children into being bad, but doesn't have much luck. I was strongly struck by the storyline of the saintly little girl Lupe, who's family is very poor. All that she wants is a doll for Christmas, but he parents can't afford to buy her one(they spent all of their money on the cardboard that they built their house out of). So Pitch tries to encourage her to steal a doll. In reality, that's the only way that a girl that poor would ever get a doll, because being saintly and praying to God and holy Santa doesn't really work. But Lupe resists temptation and tells Pitch to get thee behind her, and so is rewarded by being given a doll so creepy looking that you just know that it's Chucky's sister.Along the way Pitch manages to get Santa stuck in a tree(uh-huh) from whence he's rescued by Merlin! Merlin? You have got to be kidding me! Since when do mythical Druidic figures appear in Christmas tales, or have anything to do with a Christian religion? And doesn't God disapprove of magic? They'd have been burning Merlin at the stake a few hundred years ago, not asking him to come to the rescue of one of God's Aspects(or that's what I assume Santa must be, to be going up against Satan). This movie is one long HUH? from start to finish, and it'll make you wonder if that eggnog you drank wasn't spiked or something. Probably it was, since this movie is like one long giant DT.$LABEL$ 0
+Begins better than it ends. Funny that the russian submarine crew outperforms all other actors. It's like those scenes where documentary shots...--- SPOILER PART ---- The message dechifered was contrary to the whole story. It just does not mesh.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is suppose to be a mysterious, serious thriller about a man looking for a missing girl. However, 30 minutes into the movie, it turns into a funny, unrealistic story with annoying characters and random scenes. I can't imagine anyone not laughing when Cage randomly Karate kicks that blonde girl or when he "bear" punches that old lady. The lines, characters, and acting are all poorly done from the get-go. I've always liked Nicolas Cage as an actor, but he has made some terrible movies this year; this being by far the worst one (yet...).I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone who wants to watch an intense story-gripping thriller. If you really want to enjoy this story, go rent the original. However, if you intend on watching it, get ready to laugh at some of the lines and end scenes rather than taking them seriously; that's the only way you enjoy this film.$LABEL$ 0
+Whoever made this nonsense completely missed the point. Jane is a silly comic strip to titillate without being sleazy.This giant mess tries to be funny and exciting but is just a shambles. There is not one decent performance in it..even the usually reliable Jasper Carrott is painfully unfunny.The American bloke whose name escapes me is just as rubbiush as he was in flash gordon.Maud Adams tries as a villianess but she is a bit long in the tooth for this type of thing. All of these things would not matter if the girl was sexy or funny or likable.She is not. Kirsten Holmes faded into obscurity after this and so much the better.I've flushed more entertaining things than this down the toilet. Avoid$LABEL$ 0
+There's something wonderful about the fact that a movie made in 1934 can be head and shoulders above every Tarzan movie that followed it, including the bloated and boring 1980s piece Greystoke. Once the viewer gets past the first three scenes, which are admittedly dull, Tarzan and his Mate takes off like a shot, offering non-stop action, humor, and romance. Maureen O'Sullivan is charming and beautiful as Jane and walks off with the movie. Weismuller is solid as well. Highly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+I know that the original Psycho was a classic and remaking it was a mistake, ESPECIALLY a shot-by-shot remake. I think that that has been more or less proven by the rest of the comments here. But there's far more wrong with this movie than just that.The first problem is the color. The original film was shot in black and white but, what few people realize is, the original was shot AFTER color film had been invented. The choice of black and white film was partially a budget concern, but it was also a stylistic choice of Hitchcock's. Now, this is not to say that the remake should have been redone in black and white, but the colors of this movie are all too wrong. The most predominant colors in the film are orange and green, particularly on Marion who is not supposed to be a flashy character. The bright colors make it look like a happy movie and, when horrific events take place in these color schemes, it looks like a cartoon more than anything and the audience is inclined to laugh rather than scream.The second problem is the lighting. This is a dark dark tale which should be highlighted by dim lighting, but this remake seemed not only to fail in this but seemed to go in the OPPOSITE direction. Most of the scenes are very brightly lit, even at times when it is illogical to do so because it's at NIGHT!Another obvious problem is Vince Vaughn's performance. Yes, he does pull off Norman Bate's awkwardness and madness quite well, I don't deny him that. But there is one element to the character that he failed to show: the softness. There should be a certain deceptive friendliness to the character, at least at first, which then fades away once we realize the truth about him. Beyond being a character trait of Norman Bates, this is a recognized character trait of ALL PSYCHOPATHS!!!!There are a few good aspects of this film. Some of the performances are great. As I said, Vince Vaughn came very close to pulling off a decent portrayal of Norman Bates. Viggo Mortensen and Juliane Moore were great together and their chemistry was very different from the characters in the original, which was a welcome change. Anne Heche may have been atrocious but, unlike Janet Leigh who was untruthfully advertised as one of the biggest stars of the film, Anne Heche was given last billing in the opening credits.I read on the cover of a copy of the Psycho novel that Gus Van Sant claimed this was not a remake of the Hitchcock film but rather a new adaptation of the original novel. I now wish that I had bought that book and saved the comment because, after seeing this film, that comment is quite possibly the funniest thing I have ever seen. There was no attempt in this film to disguise the fact that it was a rip off of the original, and it would be far more believable if Van Sant had tried to tell us that he was really a three ton ape from the planet Zafroomulax. So many shots were copied exactly without any actual thought as to why Hitchcock had composed the original shot in that way. Such as the scene in which Sam and Lila are talking while their faces are entirely covered in shadow. Hitchcock covered these actors' faces in shadow because he thought they were bad actors and wanted to hide their faces so nobody could see their awful performances, not because of any artistic or stylistic purpose.In other words, my review is about as pointless as the movie itself in that it replicates something that's already been said. Like everyone else here, I reccommend you don't waste your time on this film and get the original.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a deliriously colossal vulgar silly all star extravaganza revue of all the early talkie stars that Warner Bros could afford. ...and like most other rarely seen films actually made during the late 20s, an unforgettable opportunity to see and hear the genuine roaring twenties' exuberance and youthfulness put to song and dance. THE SHOW OF SHOWS is pretty gigantic. Vaudeville act after soliloquy after tap dance after acrobat after comedian after fan-dance after ukulele lunacy after Rin Tin Tin who introduces 'an oriental number'...(!)... and on and on it lumbers, grinning and squeaking away in fabulous gramophone quality Vitaphone sound. It is far too long, but among it's delirious delights are the awesome "Singin in the Bathtub" number created on a scale of which The QE2 architects would be proud...Beatrice Lillie lounging by a grand piano with some happiness boys amusingly warbling a witty ditty, Nick Lucas, and the never-ending grand finale in two color color...which is all set to the song LADY LUCK. . So keen are the tubby chorus line and leaping teenagers to en-ter-tain us that they almost kick themselves repeatedly in their own faces with glee and effort. Row after row of "Doll" characters hop past and some even emerge from the floor. I kid you not, there are even girls strapped to the crystal chandeliers, mummified with shiny gauze and chained up with pearl ropes, unable to move (for days, I imagine, during production) whilst this katzenjammer of toy-box athleticism twitch and spasm below to the Ukulele orchestra. Of course I loved it and had to watch this color finale over and over and then invite friends and family to the screen for weeks on end just to horrify and terrify them each separately and to roll about on the lounge in shrieking in delight at each and every exclamation of their startled reactions. And so should you...and rejoice that there was an era when this was created simply to entertain and thrill. It is all so demented.$LABEL$ 1
+The movie opens up with a long single shot of aisles in factory crammed with workers. My, what we've done to the planet you might think. I hope we get to see other things like this.That's very rare. When you're not looking at a horribly filmed angle of the narrator at a lecture hall, you're watching him set up his camera to take pictures in different locations. It'd be nice if chose areas that were more fitting with his topic but he doesn't. So, then you'll hear some more narration, watch a few pictures go by and watch him set up his camera. Why not use the filming camera to show more of the landscapes instead? It really kills any sense of pacing and paints the guy as more of vain jerk.I could read tips on how someone set up their camera, fast forward through this whole movie and waste a lot less time.$LABEL$ 0
+A stunningly beautiful Charlotte Lewis stars as a woman who is terrorized by a ghosts who torment her on the phone.Driven to the edge in terror Charlotte is forced to confront this chilling mystery in order to save her sanity and her life.I can't believe that Ruggero Deodato,the director behind "Ultimo Mondo Cannibale","Cannibal Holocaust" and "House on the Edge of the Park" directed this absurd piece of trash.Admittedly the music by Goblin front man Claudio Simonetti is pretty good,but the story is painfully stupid.The script by Franco Ferrini is ridiculous and it makes no sense,the acting is bad and there is absolutely no suspense.The scene in which a prospective rapist of Charlotte Lewis is killed by coins ejected from a subway telephone is more than laughable.Don't waste your time with this piece of crap.There are far better Italian horror movies out there!$LABEL$ 0
+No bullets, no secret agents, a story that is entertaining, funny, and believable. Met some of the producers/actors in this film at the theater. They seemed as interesting in person as their characters on screen. You may not hear about this movie on TV with high-dollar ad spots, but it is definitely worth checking out. I have spent $8 for a movie ticket on a lot of other movies that weren't this entertaining. Looking forward to future projects by this production company.$LABEL$ 1
+I have read many comments on this site criticizing The Blob for being cheesy and or campy. The movie has been faulted for amateurish acting and weak special effects. What would you expect from a group of folks whose only experience has been in the production of low budget, locally produced (Valley Forge PA) Christian Shorts. Let me tell those overly critical reviewers that this film never took itself all that serious. That fact should be evident from the mismatched theme music complete with silly lyrics played over the opening credits. For what it was meant to be, this film is excellent. I have seen a few of the recent ultra low budget attempts, Blair Witch Project was one of them, that have absolutely no entertainment value or intelligent thought behind their plot. BWP was pure excrement. The Blob, on the other hand, was well thought out, well scripted, and thoroughly entertaining. The scene where the old man comes across the meteorite and pokes the mass contained within with a stick was excellently done and genuinely creepy. The scene in the doctor's office with the Blob slowly moving under the blanket on the gurney while it consumed the old man was a cinematic horror masterpiece. Bottom line is, I love this movie. I challenge anyone out there to take $120,000.00, inflated for today's dollar value, and make a film anywhere near as entertaining and or as successful as the Blob. It just can't be done. PERIOD! Thank you for taking time to read this review.$LABEL$ 1
+Poor Basil Rathbone, an egotistical composer who's lost his muse. He's been faking it for some time, buying his lyrics and his music from various sources. Trouble is that two of the sources (Bing Crosby music) and (Mary Martin words) happen to meet and fall in love. And then they discover what they've been doing. Complications ensue, but all is righted at the end.Crosby and Martin sing terrifically. Mary had signed a Paramount contract and also at the same time doubled as a regular on Crosby's Kraft Music Hall Radio Show. For reasons I don't understand, movie audiences didn't take to her, so she went back to Broadway and did One Touch of Venus in 1944 and stayed there.Basil Rathbone in one of the few times he played comedy does it very well. His ego is constantly being deflated by sidekick Oscar Levant and again I'm surprised they didn't do more films together.As in most of Crosby's Paramount vehicles, no big production numbers, but I agree with the previous reviewer about the title tune being done as an impromptu jam session in a pawn shop. Good job by all.A surprisingly original plot and great entertainment.$LABEL$ 1
+Naach A more detailed review can be obtained anywhere else in the web. This one is a good portrayal, although I do not agree with it entirely. Taran is a commercial guy and hence views from his angle only.Ram Gopal Varma (RGV, seems like a political party) has created a marvel in Rangeela, so this one seems like a pale reflection of that one in some parts... I'm not even going to compare Urmila and Anthara.. both are good! The former has better acting talent, although the latter is catching up nicely.Anyways, I like Anthara's character. She is true to her art, not touched by any unnecessary emotion and definitely not too practical. She is a dance scientist, actually she is so sure of her theories that even comparing her to a scientist would offend her. Hey.. Donald Trump.. maybe you gotta ditch Melania, here is Anthara and you've already built a Taj Mahal... ain't this easy? Abhishek on the other hand is a practical fellow, who wants money, power, fame, etc. Hence these two albeit were struggling to get a break into the film industry, cannot get along, given their different styles and approach to life. This is very typical, but what I like about the movie is that it says what an Abhimaan would say in its total runtime, in one scene! What's new? This movie takes a different angle to the film industry and how different people get into it. There is always something different about RGV's movies, this one is different too, it is way too slow for his standards. In parts, it drags one almost to sleep.Noticeable It is tough to notice anything other than Anthara in the first half of the movie. I think this skin show was necessary for the dance sequences involved :-) Also, looks like Anthara is a pro in Yoga, she is way too flexible, almost like a Prabhu Devi. Aby Baby is improving as an actor with every movie. I am sure his filmstar blood is paying off rich dividends. The title song was really good, the music overall was above average.$LABEL$ 0
+I had the chance to watch Blind Spot in Barcelona and I enjoyed it tremendously. I thought it to be one of the most captivating movies that I'd seen for a long time. One of the best points of the film was to meet new fresh faces and great actors behind them in unexpectedly and brilliantly filmed great locations. The three heroes share a chemistry on screen that runs all across the film making it so thrilling. They are set on outstanding landscapes spotted by such an original eye (the DOP's work is just great) that makes you feel like you are discovering them for the first time. The mood of the desert floods everywhere and even the scenes filmed in the streets of Los Angeles or San Francisaco seem to be a natural extension of it. The story rides you smoothly through all these beautiful settings to lead you to a bitter-sweet ending, being the perfect climax for this perfect journey. The construction of the film itself is a master craft. The skilled use of innovative resources (like stills stitching Danny's memories into the film) will compare to those hand-made pieces of work so rare and so enjoyable. Blind Spot achieves to capture the essence of the desert taking you to an universal common ground where anyone of us can feel being both discoverer and native.$LABEL$ 1
+On rare occasions a film comes along that has the power to expand the mind, warm the heart and touch the very soul. "LOU" is such a film. I got "LOU" from my wife who got it from a neighbor who is in the film business. She watched it for a second time with me. We were both enthralled. Her as if for the first time again."LOU" is a magical piece designed to send you back to the moment at which all of your dramas started taking place. It does this while being relentlessly entertaining. Bret Carr's acting and pacing as a director do not let you look away from the screen. He crafts a character which disarms with a bugs bunny like, stuttering innocence, but warmly carried with such underplayed sincerity that you forget you're watching a movie. When the epiphany hits during the brilliant climax, I saw my wife in tears for the second time.As a life coach, I facilitate individual growth and transformation, and this film is a "must see" for life coaches and anyone seeking their own personal growth and transformation. It is a brilliant, creative masterpiece with the power to change lives!$LABEL$ 1
+Absolutely the worst film yet by Burton, who seems to be getting worse with each film he directs. A miserable script loaded with cliches is only the first of many objectionable aspects to this film. This is the kind of movie where every time something happens, you'll be sure to hear someone shout out "he's lost his gun!" or whatever it is to let everybody know. Carter is really awful and so is Wahlberg, who can't play this straight and be convincing. Very nice effects and photography, but poor music in the John Williams mold by Burton's crony Elfman. Heston appears in a nonsensichal scene to spout out his most famous catch-phrases from the first movie. Very poor results.If anyone else out there also saw "Sleepy Hollow", they will probably have noticed, as I have, the declining quality of Burton's films. I've heard that this particular project was produced by others and that Burton was brought in as director, in which case his judgement should be questioned. But I think he has allowed any possible vision he might have had earlier in his career to slip; the evidence is there in the films. In "Sleepy Hollow", he couldn't decide what kind of movie he was making, whether it was a comedy or a real horror movie, and the population of british character actors (Chris Lee, etc.) made you also think it was kind of a monster rally film (those are never scary, as horror fans know). The movie couldn't succeed on either horror or comedy because it was so schizophrenic, and no style had been developed to smooth the two together. "Planet of the Apes" is much the same way, and the result comes off more like "Total Recall" or "Tango and Cash" than like sci-fi. He's also fallen into the rut of so many other "big" directors of trying to satisfy the entire possible audience. Word to Burton, if you're out there -- pick something and do it straight, or use some style to peice it all together (as in "Mars Attacks" or "Beetlejuice") or you might as well retire, because people like me that are fans of your movies will stop going.$LABEL$ 0
+...the opportunity it gave me to look at Ireland's past was invaluable.I had the benefit of seeing this with my Mother who hailed from Cork, and in watching, we talked and I learned a lot from her about how things were back then.Stuff like how Deasy and Co. was a Cork soft drinks company; how rain truly could destroy a harvest; how farmers used to have to collect the crop; how in dance halls the women and men did really have to stand along opposite walls before the men walked forward and asked the woman to dance; about the bellows that kept the fire going; how priests really did call out the list of church donators and their donations and a bit about the currency back then (which my Dad helped by showing me a case displaying the pence, shillings and crowns that were used back then (which were legal tender in England also)).I didn't pay that much attention to how good the movie was, but I was very grateful in having this opportunity to look back on a period of time that for some is Irish History, but for others including some of our parents and grandparents, is just their childhood.$LABEL$ 1
+Eight academy nominations? It's beyond belief. I can only think it was a very bad year - even by Hollywood standards. With Huston as director and Jack Nicholson and Kathleen Turner as leads I probably would have swallowed the bait and watched this anyway, but the Oscar nominations really sold it to me, and I feel distinctly cheated as a result.So it's a black comedy is it? Can anyone tell me where the humour is in Prizzi's Honor? It's certainly tasteless (the shooting in the head of a policeman's wife is but another supposedly comic interlude in this intended farce about mafia life) but with the exception of a joke about 'your favourite Mexican cigars' (which I imagine is an old joke for Americans who have been officially forbidden from buying anything Cuban for the last 50 years) I failed to spot anything of a comic nature - and I did try. There is a lot of Mafia cliché but cliché doesn't constitute humour in my book.Is it a romantic comedy of sorts? Never. The characters and their relationships are so completely incredible and shallow that they are on a par with Ben Afleck and Jennifer Lopez in Gigli.Is it a cleverly devised parody about the Mafia? Not in a million years. The plot is just pointlessly absurd rather than comically absurd, and it usually just has the feel of a really bad (and cheap) Mafia movie. It feels more like a homage than a parody.With one-dimensional characters and little in the way of humour written for them, the actors are left doing dodgy accents and pulling faces. Well it isn't enough; even when the face is being pulled by that master of the comic facial expression, Jack Nicholson (repleat with puffed up top lip ... now is that meant to be a parody of Brando's padded jowls in The Godfather?... Oh! Who cares?... all I know is, it isn't funny).Throw in some slow, plodding direction (this film drags on for 2 hours), some hopelessly daft and clichéd dialogue such as; "You remember the Camora? Well we're far bigger, we'll track you down wherever you go", and clichéd mannerisms and you'll be reaching for that fast forward button before you can say "capiche?". Prizzi's Honor is far from being Huston's "masterpiece" and is rather a very poor last work. It's definitely one work in the great director's canon that should be given a concrete overcoat and tossed into the Hudson River.$LABEL$ 0
+"Talk Radio" is my favorite Oliver Stone movie, though he has made many great ones including "Salvador", "JFK", "Natural Born Killers" and "Platoon". But I like the intimacy of "Talk Radio", a cinematic expansion of Eric Bogosian's searing stage play that was based on a real life account of a Dallas talk show host. Working with ace cinematographer Robert Richardson, Stone turns what could have been a very set-bound exercise into a visually arresting ideological battle that presents a radio station as an arena of war. Bogosian is devastating as tortured on-air spouter of abuse Barry Champlain and conveys the conflicted, destructive nature of his character with conviction and a generous dose of self-loathing. Alec Baldwin, as his Alpha male boss, strikes the perfect note as a man driven nuts by a guy whose monstrousness he helped nurture. Ellen Greene is fantastic as Barry's sweet ex-wife who ends up becoming another target of his vicious personal vitriol. Stone and Bogosian fill every frame with interest and every line of dialog with sweet poison and cutting ambiguity. John C. McGinley, as Barry's long-suffering screener/technical producer Stu, turns in a hilarious, sharp performance, as does the great Michael Wincott. The film is a flawless, underrated masterpiece of superb writing, awesome acting and brutal, uncompromising direction. The Stewart Copeland score is brilliant, too.$LABEL$ 1
+Maybe you shouldn't compare, but Wild Style and Style Wars are original Hip Hop. Beat Street does have a lot of the original artists of early Hip Hop, but they've been obviously made clear that this could be their big break, of course for some it was and that's nice. But if you view this as original Hip Hop Culture you're wrong. It's overproduced and has a Hollywood sauce. Rather look for the first two movies i mentioned. They have convey the grittiness that comes with life in the ghetto. Yes, the rating for this movie is low, but the reviews are mostly positive or even raving. This is probably because although the story, the acting, the dialogues and the direction all are dreadful, the music and dancing is what the people love about it. Me, i do love the dancing but at the time thought that electro was the death of Hip Hop (i was so glad when round '86 a new generation of now classic Hip Hop artists appeared, like Krs One, Public Enemy, Ultramagnetic Mc's, Jungle Brothers, Bizmarkie to name a few), and i still don't like most of the beats in this movie and that is why it doesn't work for me. I mean, Wild Style has not much of a story but the music there is great and authentic. Of course tastes differ and that's alright. But as far as i'm concerned, this movie is trash except for the break dancing and some of the music and so i can't rate it higher than a 4 out of ten.$LABEL$ 0
+Cypher is a clever, effective and eerie film that delivers. Its good premise is presented well and it has its content delivered in an effective manner but also in a way the genre demands. Although one could immediately label the film a science fiction, there is a little more to it. It has it's obvious science fiction traits but the film resembles more of a noir/detective feel than anything else which really adds to the story.The film, overall, plays out like it's some kind of nightmare; thus building and retaining a good atmosphere. We're never sure of what exactly is going on, we're never certain why certain things that are happening actually are and we're not entirely sure of certain people, similar to having a dream – the ambiguity reigns over us all – hero included and I haven't seen this pulled off in such a manner in a film before, bar Terry Gilliam's Brazil. Going with the eeriness stated earlier, Cypher presents itself with elements of horror as well as detective, noir and science fiction giving the feeling that there's something in there for everyone and it integrates its elements well.There is also an espionage feeling to the film that aids the detective side of the story. The mystery surrounding just about everyone is disturbing to say the least and I find the fact that the character of Rita Foster (Liu), who is supposed to resemble a femme fatale, can be seen as less of a threat to that of everything else happening around the hero: People whom appear as friends actually aren't, people who say they're helping are actually using and those that appear harmless enough are actually deadlier than they look. Despite a lot of switching things around, twisting the plot several times and following orders that are put across in a way to make them seem that the world will end if they're not carried out; the one thing that seems the most dangerous is any romantic link or connection with Lucy Liu's character – and she's trying to help out(!) The film maintains that feeling of two sides battling a war of espionage, spying and keeping one up on its employees and opponents. The whole thing plays out like some sort of mini-Cold war; something that resembles the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. in their war of word's heyday and it really pulls through given the black, bleak, often CGI littered screen that I was glued to. What was also rather interesting and was a nice added touch was the travel insert shot of certain American states made to resemble computer microchips as our hero flies to and from his stated destinations – significant then how the more he acts on his and Foster's own motivation this sequence disappears because he's breaking away from the computerised, repetitive, controlled life that he's being told to live and is branching out.Cyhper is very consistent in its content and has all the elements of a good film. To say it resembles the first Jason Bourne film, only set in the sci-fi genre, isn't cutting it enough slack but you can see the similarities; despite them both being released in the same year. Like I mentioned earlier, there feels like there is something in this film for everyone and if you can look past the rather disappointing ending that a few people may successfully predict, you will find yourself enjoying this film.$LABEL$ 1
+I believe they were telling the truth the whole time..U cant trust anything in the wild... They family went through hell.Those poor boys too young to understand what was going on around them. But still having to deal with the rumours. As well as dealing with the lose of their little sister. I cant believe this case went on for so long.seems like the jury couldn't see the truth, even if it bit them on the ass.I feel for this family, and if i could let them know i hate what has happened to them, i would.I have no idea what they went through, i cant even imagine it. After watching this movie, i was in tears, and had to check on my little girl in bed...I think everyone should watch this.$LABEL$ 1
+I clicked onto the Encore Mystery channel to wait for the movie I wanted to see, Island of Dr. Moreau. I caught only a few minutes of Shadow Conspiracy. An old man runs to meet Charlie and grabs him by the arm. Suddenly, an Assassin in a bright rain coat taps the old man in the head (with a side arm) from across the street. After waiting for "C" to turn around and look, the "A" tries to shoot "C" and clearly misses. "C" was a much easier target, the old man couldn't have run far. Duh! There is a chase and "C" is on an elevator "A" is on the roof, so he tries to shoot the cable, which is parallel to the "A". He hits and severs the cable, impossible. Later, this time with a specialized rifle, the "A" lines up on "C" from maybe 50 meters, but is to stupid to notice a motorcycle coming up and taps the rider instead. How does Charlie get his parts? Does Daddy go to the producers and say "Look, my kid needs work..." It reminds me of his stupid Sit - Com. All the actors are good except, yup ... you got it. I usually have to endue 2 or 3 minutes of that waiting for C.S.I. to come on. Let's see, what can I do for the next hour. I know, I'll trim my toenails! Much better use of my time.$LABEL$ 0
+Everyone who worked on this film did an AMAZING job. This is honestly one of the best lesbian films I've seen in a LONG time. The acting, writing, cinematography, music, visuals, everything was top notch. As an avid fan of the genre (both lesbian films and gymnastics), I was so unbelievably pleased by this film. It truly gave me so much more than I expected across the board. Hearing the Q&A with the cast and crew was great, the lead actress has so much positive energy and is so humble and gracious, it's a pleasure to see people who can be talented and not lose sight of what's really important. And the writer did a hell of a job, as well as directing and the editing was awesome. Thanks so much for making a great film! Thanks also for the line about 'if you're going to slap a label on yourself, it would be bisexual'. I'm so tired of movies where characters who have a relationship with both sexes get passed off as gay or straight, it's wonderful to see bisexuals getting recognition for existing and being part of the gay community, and it was nice that labels weren't even necessary at all in this film. What an ending! Just when I thought it couldn't give me more, it did. Beautiful work and my applauds to all. I will spread the word, this is definitely a film not to be missed!$LABEL$ 1
+It is clear this film's value far supersedes the cost with which the format (mini-dv) implies. In fact, the filmmaker embraces the format and incorporates it so craftily into the storyline that I forgot the fact that I was not seeing the typical 35 millimeter film. It has the core appeal of indie movies like Clerks & the work of Robert Rodriguez combined with a fantastic "new take" on the romantic comedy genre. "This Is Not A Film" is an honest film with honest portrayals and, it is a superbly paced narrative. There is not one point in this film where I felt a scene could have (or should have) been omitted. On the contrary, the director pulls amazing performances out of truly gifted actors and does so in extremely confining circumstances. From page to screen, this film is a worthy and relevant story that hits on so many levels (creative, technical or otherwise). I highly recommend it for all who enjoy cinema or those looking for a little charm in an otherwise devoid of charm medium.$LABEL$ 1
+Savage Guns (video title) is a dirt cheap, bottom of the barrel spaghetti western in which the survivor of a massacre hunts the bandits who killed his brother and left him for dead, catching up with them in a town controlled by their crooked boss.Despite plenty of violence, this manages to be both dull and colorless with bad characterizations and almost no imagination or humor.Lead actor Robert Woods lives up to his name with a wooden and uncharismatic performance that fails to generate any warmth or sympathy whatsoever. In other words, the viewer never really roots for him despite the fact that he's the protagonist.The worst scene (in my opinion) is the annoying dance hall scene where a woman sings in a heavy and terribly unsexy German accent. It was the worst scene in Blazing Saddles and the worst one here!$LABEL$ 0
+I saw Heartland when it was first released in 1980 and I have just seen it again. It improves with age. Heartland is not just for lovers of "indie" films. At a time when most American films are little more than cynical attempts to make money with CGI, pyrotechnics, and/or vulgarity, Heartland holds up as a slice of American history. It is also a reminder of how spoiled most of us modern, urbanized Americans are.Nothing in this film is overstated or stagey. No one declaims any Hollywood movie speeches. The actors really inhabit their roles. This really feels like a "small" film but really it is bigger than most multizillion-dollar Hollywood productions.The film is based on the lives of real people. In 1910, Elinore Randall (Conchata Ferrell, who has never done anything better than this), a widow with a 7-year-old daughter Jerrine (Megan Folsom), is living in Denver but wants more opportunities. She advertises for a position as housekeeper. The ad is answered by Clyde Stewart (Rip Torn, one of our most under-appreciated actors), a Scots-born rancher, himself a widower, with a homestead outside of Burnt Fork, Wyoming. Elinore accepts the position (seven dollars a week!) and moves up to Wyoming with her daughter. She and her daughter move into Stewart's tiny house on the property. It is rolling, treeless rangeland, a place of endless vistas where the silence is broken only by the sounds made by these people and their animals. It's guaranteed to make a person feel small. The three characters go for long periods without seeing another human soul. What is worse, Stewart turns out to be taciturn to the point of being almost silent. "I can't talk to the man," Elinore complains to Grandma Landauer. "You'd better learn before winter," replies Grandma. Grandma (Lilia Skala) is one of the only two other characters who are seen more than fleetingly. She came out to Wyoming from Germany with her husband many years before and runs her ranch alone now that she is also widowed. Grandma is their nearest neighbor (and the local midwife) and still she lives ten miles away! The other supporting character is Jack the hired hand (Barry Primus).Elinore's routine (and her employer's) is one of endless, backbreaking labor, where there are no modern conveniences and where everything must be made, fixed or done by hand. This is the real meat of the film: Watching the ordinary life of these ranchers as they struggle against nature to wrest a living from the land. But despite the constant toil and fatigue, Elinore is always looking for other opportunities. She learns that the tract adjacent to Stewart's is unclaimed. Impulsively, she files a claim on the property (twelve dollars, or almost two weeks' pay!), meaning that if she lives on it (and she must actually live there) and works it for ten years, she will get the deed to it. Naturally, Stewart learns what she has done. With merciless logic, he points out that with no money, no livestock, no credit, and no assets, she has no chance of succeeding. He then offers a solution: He proposes marriage. The stunned Elinore realizes that this is the only real alternative, and accepts.We think that Stewart's proposal is purely Machiavellian---he wants the land and the free labor---but we see that, in fact, he is genuinely fond of Elinore, and they grow together as a couple. She becomes pregnant; she goes into labor in the middle of a midwinter blizzard; Clyde travels for hours on horseback through the storm the ten miles to Grandma's and the ten miles back, only to announce that Grandma wasn't there. This is more like real life than is pleasant, folks. Elinore has the baby all by herself, with no help whatsoever. Their son is still an infant when he gets sick and dies. They lose half their livestock to the vicious winter. They struggle on. The last sequence in the film is supposed to be optimistic: The birth of a calf. Clyde calls Elinore urgently to help him deliver the calf. Instead of being head first, the calf is in a footling breech presentation. He and Elinore must physically pull the calf out of the birth canal. There is no CGI, animatronics, trickery, fakery or special effects: What you see is what happened, folks: A calf is born on a bed of straw in a wooden barn by lamplight. With that, the film does not so much end as simply stop, leaving the viewer unsatisfied, but after a while you appreciate the film as a whole, not just for its ending.This little gem rewards patience and thoughtfulness. It will be watchable long after most of the films of the last generation have long been forgotten.$LABEL$ 1
+If you like the excitement of a good submarine drama and the fun of a good comedy, then this film comes highly recommended. Kelsey Grammer gives an excellent performance here.The film also gives you something to think about the next time a serious sub movie asks for 'silent running'....$LABEL$ 1
+The murder of the Red Comyn in Grayfriars Abbey was a long way from one of the most horrendous things ever done in the Scottish War of Independence and fights (and killing) in churches wasn't unusual at all. Not that much later Robert Bruces wife, daughter, two of his sisters were captured during a fight in a church in which people were killed. And comparing it to the massacre of Berwick in which the English slaughtered at least 8000 non-combatants (some, yes, in churches) is ridiculous.That said this is not a well-made movie. It is slightly antidote to the absolutely RIDICULOUS sniveling representation of Robert Bruce in Braveheart. Whatever Bruce was, it wasn't a wuss.Too bad that they didn't do a better job of this because someone should make a really GOOD movie of a war that is so amazing that it sounds like something someone made up going from complete defeat at the Battle of Methven to a secret return from hiding to a long guerrilla war to Bannockburn. This isn't it though. Poorly made and to a large extent poorly written and acted. Too bad!$LABEL$ 0
+This weird movie from Texas is about Fallon, a dilettante rich boy in the late 1800s (although he looks like a 60s C&W singer with greasy hair and sideburns) whose ship wrecks on an island owned by Count DeSade (pronounced de-sayd) with his captain. The count is afraid of pirates and tortures a young girl who was once a pirate hostage and also tortures the captain. Meanwhile, creepy former nurse Cassandra tells Fallon the secrets of the castle. The Countess has leprosy and went mad! Fallon is trapped but brings supplies. The captain is killed by a racist-caricature slave. Fallon is thrown in the dungeon with the leper, who always thinks it's her wedding day. The leper bride is horny, bu Cassandra kills her. Fallon and Cassandra escape the castle, but the Count and his slave chase them with dogs. DeSade kills the slave and Fallon kills DeSade. Fallon and Cassandra fall in love over the course of the next year, but when the supply ship comes, the crew refuses to take our lovers because they're both lepers now. They live for years in the castle...Fallon's hair turns gray and Cassandra goes bonkers. Fallon puts her in the dungeon. Our tale of love and leprosy ends.So bizarre it's watchable, and you can smell the drive-in popcorn.$LABEL$ 0
+Busy is so amazing! I just loved every word she has ever done- freaks and geeks, Dawson's creek, white chicks, the smokers. after the first time i saw home room i went and got it the next day. i am a big fan of her and she has a lot of fans here in Israel. if someone hasn't saw is excellent movie than don't waist more time and go see it now. i recommend to all of you to see all of her movies. i saw busy in the late night show with Conan and she was so beautiful and cute i just love her! everybody who saw the movie- in home room she looks very scary but in real life she is so beautiful! you have to see all her half nude pictures for stuff magazine (maxim) she looks so good there! ~DANIELLE~$LABEL$ 1
+Sniper gives a true new meaning to war movies. I remember movies about Vietnam or WWII, lots of firing, everybody dies, bam bam. "Sniper" takes war to a new level or refinement. The movie certainly conveys all of the emotions it aims for - The helplessness of humans in the jungle, the hatred and eventual trust between Beckett and Miller, and the rush of the moment when they pull the trigger. A seemingly low-budget film makes up for every flaw with action, suspense, and thrill, because when it comes down to it, it's just one shot, one kill.$LABEL$ 1
+This is probably one of the worst movies ever made. Bad acting, bad special effects, bad plot, bad everything. In the last 15 minutes a cat suited-cyborg is introduced which muddles everything. Malcom MacDowell must have needed to make a house payment because otherwise he would have had to sell himself on Hollywood Blvd to pay the bill. I just don"t know how you can go from Clockwork Orange to this crap and be able to look yourself in the mirror each morning. I could have done better special effects in my bathtub. There's no continuity. The editor must have been asleep or on drugs its so bad. Acting. Do they have to smoke to be bad.? The gun either shoots blue flames or bullets, make up your mind. The bad girl and the other girl in the movie look so much alike that it is confusing. Whay is it called 2013 Seadly Wake. It has nothing to do with the movie$LABEL$ 0
+I thought Choke had potential, but I thought it could have been a much better film. It had some interesting twists and turns, but some of them seemed kind of pointless. When showing background on the two main characters, some of that really seemed to go awry. Most of it was sort of useless and didn't help the movie at all. This was also not Dennis Hopper's finest hour. However, the main saving grace of this movie for me was Michael Madsen. His performance was excellent. In this movie, he almost makes Mr. Blonde look like a nice guy. All in all, it was watchable. Still, I was left thinking some things could have been done differently. These things would have made the movie much better, in my opinion.$LABEL$ 0
+This film is great. As often heard, it is indeed very realistic and sometimes brutal, but unlike some other people I am clearly not of the opinion that it is depressing, negativistic or dismantling Austria as a proto-fascist society. Quite the contrary: While there are indeed some very heavy scenes in HUNDSTAGE and some characters are to be called very bad persons, at the same time you watch love, beauty and humor in Ulrich Seidls film. And that's exactly what distinguishes HUNDSTAGE for me from other films that try to show the lives of the 'ordinary people' in an intense, realistic way; their hustle, their wishes, their dark sides: Seidl clearly never tries to prove, that the lives of the working-class people are trash! In my opinion, viewers who come to this conclusion seem to be very afraid of admitting, that nearly nobody's live is as 'clean' and 'normal' as we would like other people to believe. And that every live has its dark and often depressing sides. The most beautiful scene: The old Viennese man, watching his old girl dancing 'the oriental way', as he is calling it. I think everybody who finds this scene ugly lacks a sense of beauty and should ask themselves what it is, that's proto-fascist: The characters in HUNDSTAGE or viewers, who are turned off by the body of a 70+ year old woman, dancing with all her charms for her lover.$LABEL$ 1
+Unlike the other spaghetti Westerns, this one has characters that almost make sense, and can be identified to some degree. It still has the goofy gunplay of other spaghettis Westerns. A spaghetti, by the way, is another word for a Western with no plot, no characters you can care about, and goofy gunplay that doesn't make a bit of sense for the era, and relying on great music to make audiences feel something. This one is more lighthearted, like the ones that Bud Spencer and Terence Hill made together. They, too, were superior to the junk made by Eastwood and others, which sado-masochists make their friends watch, if they get a chance. It looks like everyone had a lot of fun making the movie, too. It was good to see a giant actor like Gilbert Roland, who wasn't even mentioned on the movie rental box, yet who was clearly the biggest name. His character was very enjoyable. There is a three way standoff at the end, which is much superior to the one it spoofs (The Good the Bad and the Ugly), simply because the characters are at least a bit likable and a bit identifiable. Not a good movie, but has a bit of fun to it.$LABEL$ 0
+The people at ABC forgot to do their biographical research... so many scenes were just plain wrong! The actor playing JPII was very rigid, there was no personality there. It is very very obvious that this movie was on the bottom of the programming totem poll, the move is so low budget. The script is terrible. Conversations like: "You must follow the rules" "No, the people are starving." Lame. Plus, the movie was jumping like crazy from event to event in order to fit it into the two hours. Terrible! A better use of your time would be to watch a PBS documentary on JPII. Also, CBS put out a miniseries on JPII that is better than ABC by far. JPII was a wonderful man, and it bothers me to think that my grandkids might get a hold of this ABC movie and think that THAT is what he was really like!$LABEL$ 0
+It is hard to screw up this story. GREAT book / GOOD Film version from Fred Zinneman, yet this film is AWFUL! First the casting was terrible. Richard Gere should of played the Jackal himself as Edward Fox was a similar type of cypher and they didn't need to mess with the original script by adding so much worthless (expensive) fluff. This film reminded me of so many Bruce Willis films, as you see huge expense with NOTHING cinematic to show for it. (It is his "Conspiracy Theory") It takes some real doing to make a film this bad from such a fine original script. EVERY person from Michael Caton Jones down should be banned from making films for 10 years; such is the insult this film is to real filmmakers. Were Hollywood to go on trial for having no idea what they were doing, this film would be Exhibit A. Shame on you ALL!$LABEL$ 0
+This movie has some of the most awesome cars I've ever seen in a movie, and definitely the hottest women, but I would have to say it is still one of the worst movies I've ever seen.Here is the plot, and if you read it with a little inflection, you have the acting as well.Beginning, bring in characters, hot woman singing (obvious lip sync). Music agent or producer comes in, thinks that she is awesome asks her to race. She turns down, too many bad memories. Flash to war hero, back from war, has several fights, and becomes movie hero with attitude that he is better than everyone. Drive off in fast exotic car. Brother races, then dies. Hero to avenge death, cut away to getting weapons from friend. (You have never seen this friend before or after, but seems to really care about him) Are you sure you want to do this; Yes; I mean are you really sure; Yes, give me weapons; are you REALLY sure; Yes; OK, I guess I can't talk you out of it, be careful man, I love you.Now he goes to blow up his uncles house who owned the car his brother drove. Finds woman, decides to rescue her, She drives off, and he doesn't finish killing his uncle. Now there will be a race to finish the movie. Oh yeah, need to throw in one more scene with bad people coming in to beat up people that don't really matter, but maybe it adds a little plot. Race is not even that exciting, of course it ends with two cars racing, and one that should win throws in a surprise ending.OK, I just saved you $7.00. You can send all of your money to me, because I should have given you the same amount of enjoyment as this movie does. Don't get me wrong, the cars are awesome, and Nadija is beautiful, but it is truly an awful movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Okay... for the most part, and all its cheesiness, this movie was actually pretty good for an MST3K flick... but then they decided to ruin what little goodness it had about fifteen minutes before the ending. *SPOILER ALERT* The film is very basic... a rich mama's boy named Danny meets a bum named Bix, and the two of them travel to a small town, where Bix meets a pretty girl named Carrie (who is so very.) Now, this film's basic premise seemed promising enough. All they needed to do was follow the simple chemistry of any romance movie... Carrie loves Bix... Bix loves Carrie... a creepy guy in town lusts for Carrie... Now, I know what you're thinking... Bix fights the creep and ultimately decides to settle down with Carrie, and Danny returns home, and they all live happily ever after... right? WRONG!! Because Carrie gets murdered by the town creep, because Bix is too gay to commit. (There are so many homosexual undertones between Danny and Bix.) And then, the whole town decides to lynch Bix, even though the town creep would've easily been the prime suspect. Then, the town creep confesses to killing Carrie without much hesitation... (must've felt bad, the poor dope.) Then, Danny brings Bix home with him... that's the film's "happily ever after." Sad, huh? All I can say is, thank God for Joel and the Bots. Because they turned this horse hockey into one of my favorite MST3K episodes.$LABEL$ 0
+If you enjoy seeing what must have started as a 2 hour movie in unconnected bursts of unwatchability, you'll love this film. Otherwise, you'll just wonder how they could have made such a film from something so simple to translate to the big screen as Inspector Gadget.In the previews for the film, many scenes were shown which were not in the film, and within the film, some scenes just don't make sense. While the movie is slightly less than 1 hour and a half, I can only think of one truly memorable moment, and that is just before or during the credits!$LABEL$ 0
+This is a great compendium of interviews and excerpts form the films of the late sixties and early 70s that were a counter movement to the big Studio Films of the late sixties. Directed by Ted Demme, it is obviously a labor of love of the films of the period, but it gives short shrift to the masterpieces of the times.Many of the filmmakers of this period were influenced by Truffaut, Antonioni, Fellini, Bergman, and of course John Cassavetes. Unfortunately the documentary logging in at 138 minutes is too short! The film is rich with interviews and opinions of filmmakers. Some of the people interviewed are: Martin Scorsese, Francis Coppola, Robert Altman, Peter Bogdonovich, Ellen Burstyn, and Roger Corman, Bruce Dern, Sydney Pollack, Dennis Hopper, and Jon Voight.Bruce Dern has a moment of truth when he says that he and Jack Nicholson may not have been as good looking as the other stars that came before them but they were "interesting". This summarizes the other areas of this period of film-making in American history.The filmmakers were dealing with a lack of funding from the Studios because they were expressing unconventional attitudes about politics, sex, drugs, gender and race issues, and Americas involvement in overseas conflicts like the Vietnam War.There is a great interview with Francis Coppola saying that he got the chance to make "The Conversation" because the producers knew he had been trained by Roger Corman to make a movie with nothing so they bankrolled his film.Another interview is with Jon Voight who was directed by Hal Ashby in "Coming Home" a clear anti-war film about a crippled soldier immersing himself back into society after his facing battle. Voight talks about how his working methods helped him achieve an emotional telling point when Ashby said that they were doing a "rehearsal" take and it ended up being the take used in the film- it was better because it was so un-rehearsed and not drained of its freshness by being over-rehearsed.There are also many fine excerpts from Al Pacino's break-through film "The Panic in Needle Park", and interviews from Dennis Hopper on the making of "Easy Rider", and interviews from Sydney Pollack about making films.All in all the documentary is a fine jumping off point for any film lover who wants to see great examples of what the new voices in film were like in the Seventies. Many of the Sundance Folks, where this film made a big splash, are unaware of just how much the Independent Film Maker today owes to the films of John Cassavetes, Milos Foreman, William Friedkin, and Roger Corman.Rent it from your favorite shop. It will at least perk you up to some films you may not have seen before and can enjoy today. Amazon.com has it for as little as $11.50, if you want to buy right out.$LABEL$ 1
+I just do not see what is so bad about this movie. I loved this movie! I thought this movie was the best film in the series. Though part 3 is the best in the series,I still gave this film 10 out of 10 because it is great. I don't see what everyone hates this movie. Who would not want to see just a little bit of critter action. I wished that Brad Brown would of appeared in this one because it might of made it a little better. Those who like a little bit of drama because...wait I won't tell you,you will just have to watch it. This film also contains a few popular actors who are...(I won't tell you because I hate it when people give spoilers so I do not want to be one of those people). Well I guess that is all I have to say about this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is like "The Breakfast Club" meets "Mad City." It's got one plot twist after another with Justin Walker, Corey Feldman, and James Remar delivering really great performances. However, this movie is not for everyone. If you don't like movies that "go all the way" with regards to violence, then don't watch the last twenty minutes. My wife had to leave the room. Of course, I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. This is a really gritty, realistic teen drama. I can't believe it came from B-Movie king Roger Corman. This film is a must-see for those who are not faint of heart. Highly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+One used to say, concerning Nathaniel Hawthorne, that his failures were more interesting than his successes. I believe that the same remark could suit to McDonald-Eddy's pictures. And especially this one. It apparently possesses many characteristics of a failed movie: it's kitsch, the script, because of censorship, sounds inconsistent… Yet, this movie gets also some good points: good Rodgers-Hart's music ("I married an angel", "Tira tira tira la"), good acting with E.E.Horton and Reginald Owen. Anyway, if you may dislike it, you can't forget it. This strange movie actually leaves a very strong, dreamlike, impression, and you are very likely to keep it in mind for days, maybe for weeks. Why? In the thirties and the beginning of the forties, movies didn't have the same mean than today: it aimed, like a dream, to divert the public in order to make it forget a difficult reality. Of all the the dream-movies that was made, in that time, this one stands as particularly powerful.In short, let's say that the better way to appreciate this movie, is to watch it without wondering whether it's good or bad. To watch it, like you would watch a dream.$LABEL$ 1
+It sounds a bit awkward to call a film about war and holocaust shocking since many of us will know only too well of the horrors that war and violence brings. By using the adjective 'shocking' I do not intend to imply that I am surprised about the things told about in this film or that I was formerly unaware of them, it is just that I am very much impressed by the way in which this film shows how crazy and incomprehensibly horrific it is to kill each other off, either with or without a 'reason'.The first part of the film focuses on Hanna's successful participation in the Hungarian resistance. Maruschka Detmers would never have won an Oscar for this performance, due to inconsistent directing, but still her acting is solid enough and she has enormous charisma. She is cast very well as Hanna and immediately has our sympathy. Her very beautiful looks help, of course, but that has nothing to do with her being simply a good actress, playing a good part.Certain inconsistencies keep occurring in Hanna's War. I sometimes get the idea director Menahem Golan (often despised for The Gianni Versace Murder) was in a rush and should actually have allowed a few more takes per scene. On the other hand, I am very thankful he made this impressive and thought-provoking film and as I am very positive about it, I think he did a good job.The second half of the film is the most interesting and tragic one. It focuses on Hanna's suffering (beware of Donald Pleasence's scary portrayal of the cruel and sardonic captain Rosza) and intensely shows the injustice and horror that comes with hate and violence and war. I receive Hanna's War, especially the second half, as a strong anti-war film and for that alone Golan deserves credit. It is also this second half in which Maruschka Detmer's talent comes out, creating a character which goes into film history as one of the most speaking, strong and tragic ever portrayed. It is also great to see Ellen Burstyn, whose appearance and acting style always remind me of Romy Schneider, who -had she been alive and cast- would have made a similar effective contribution to Hanna's War.The tragic impact of the second half and the desperate tension which is sometimes replaced by hopeful prospects and good news lead to a number of final scenes which show something so unexpected, so moving and poetic in its tragedy that it hit me like a bomb and left me in tears. And when I realized once more it wasn't even fiction, it all actually happened, I found myself in even more tears. The image of Hanna portrayed by Maruschka Detmers will be in my mind forever.$LABEL$ 1
+I was fortunate to attend the London premier of this film. While I am not at all a fan of British drama, I did find myself deeply moved by the characters and the BAD CHOICES they made. I was in tears by the end of the film. Every scene was mesmerizing. The attention to detail and the excellent acting was quite impressive.I would have to agree with some of the other comments here which question why all these women were throwing themselves at such a despicable character.*******SPOLIER ALERT******** I was also hoping that Dylan would have been killed by William when he had the chance! ****END SPOILER*****Keira Knightley did a great job and radiate beauty and innocence from the screen, but it was Sienna Miller's performance that was truly Oscar worthy.I am sure this production will be nominated for other awards.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this film under the title of "Tied Up". In general I have enjoyed Dolph's movies, so gave this one a try. It wasn't worth it. I have read some of the previous comments about the box enticing viewers. Don't be fooled. This is a poor film at best. The acting is nonexistent. The plot, what little there is of one, is very predictable. The movie in places seems to be chopped together. This one just plain stinks the place up. Not even worth the price of a cheap night rental. As a bit of a Dolph fan, I kept waiting to see him in action. By the end of the movie, you will still be waiting. Best to avoid this film, and spend your time watching almost anything else.$LABEL$ 0
+This is an atrocious movie. Two demented young women seduce and torture a middle aged man. There's not much to give away in regards to a plot or a "spoiler". I would only comment that the ending is nearly the most preposterous part of the flick. Much of the film involves Locke and Camp cackling obnoxiously, all the while grinning psychotically at the camera. Add to this a soundtrack that repeats again and again, including a vaudevillian song about "dear old dad" that suggests an incestuous quality the viewer never really sees. The music is annoying at first, then ends up subjecting the viewer to a torture worse than that depicted on the screen. The theme here is of youth run amok, understandable as a reaction to the '60s, but done with little imagination or style. Avoid it!$LABEL$ 0
+I have read the book and I must say that this movie stays true to form. I think this is the beginning of the psychological thrillers in the same genre of Psycho. Cristina Raines gives an excellent performance as the lead, and Burgess Meredith gives an excellent supporting actor as the next-door neighbor. I have seen this movie at least twice and I think that I am going to buy both the book and the movie for my collection. The suspense just keeps building up to the climatic end, the twist you will never see coming. If you like movies like Signs and The Village, the Sentinel will be a classic prelude. Also, what is interesting is the actors in the movie-you would not recognize them if you did not read the credits. The late Jerry Orbach is great as the commercial director and Jeff Goldblum is excellent as the photographer. Also there is Beverly D'Angelo, who is underrated but great.$LABEL$ 1
+For a danish movie, I have to say, that this is very good movie.It's in a class of its own, yet it has an international potential.The movie has a big budget, and is starring famous danish actors, and a few newcomers, who play very well. It can be watched by anyone who like adventures, and a little bit of 'ghost' movie.Don't be afraid, be thrilled!$LABEL$ 1
+I figure the company that made this movie wanted people to think of the Conan movies, but unfortunately for the ones who made this one it does just that. You will be thinking, man the Conan movies were pretty cool...this one is totally boring and sucks. The story, who cares? It isn't going to help you like this movie more or less as it just seems like a really cheap film. Arnold, doesn't look like he belongs in this one, why he agreed to play the role is beyond me. Well probably for the money. I just love the monster in the water that turns out to be a machine. Lame! This movie is just plain and simply terrible.$LABEL$ 0
+Jonathan Demme's directorial debut for Roger Corman's legendary exploitation outfit New World Pictures rates highly as one of the finest chicks-in-chains 70's grindhouse classics to ever grace celluloid. Beauteous Russ Meyer starlet Eric ("Vixen," "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls") Gavin gives a robust, winning performance as a brassy, resilient new fish who does her best to persevere in a grimy, hellish penitentiary. The always fabulous Barbara Steele offers a deliciously wicked portrayal as the mean, crippled, sexually frustrated warden (her erotic dream about doing a slow, steamy striptease in front of the lady inmates is a real dilly). Longtime favorite 70's B-movie actress Roberta ("The Arousers," "Unholy Rollers") Collins delivers a hilariously raunchy and endearing turn as a cheerfully forward, foul-mouthed kleptomaniac felon who tells a gut-busting dirty joke about Pinnochio. Lynda Gold (a.k.a. Crystin Sinclaire of Tobe Hooper's "Eaten Alive" and Curtis Harrington's "Ruby") makes her lively film debut as uninhibited wildcat Crazy Alice. And the ever-cuddly Cheryl "Rainbeaux" Smith does a lovely, touching reprise of her fragile frightened innocent role from "Lemora: A Child's Tale of the Supernatural." Although this picture does deliver the expected ample amount of coarse language, nudity, rape and violence, it's still by no means a typically crass and sexist piece of lurid mindless filth; the movie very effectively explores the many ways in which men cruelly exploit women and strongly asserts the pro-feminist notion that women can overcome any obstacles if they band together into a group so they can bravely face their misogynistic oppressors as one mighty fighting force. Demme's zesty, confidant direction comes through with a glorious abundance of astutely observed incidental details and delightful moments of engagingly quirky human behavior. Furthermore, both Tak Fujimoto's vibrant cinematography and John Cale's marvelously dolorous oddball blues score are 100% on the money excellent. Patrick Wright (Sheriff Mack in the uproariously awful cheap-rubber-monster-suit creature feature howler "Track of the Moonbeast") has a sidesplitting bit as a jerky cop who has his car stolen by a trio of prison escapees when he stops at a gas station to use the bathroom. Lively, rousing and immensely enjoyable, "Caged Heat" qualifies as absolutely essential viewing for 70's drive-in movie fans.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm a Belgian and grew up in the sixties. Most of the US series were shown over here (original language with subtitles) and Batman was one of the first I was keen on. Unfortunately over here it caused a "panic hysteria" amongst the mothers because Batman was considered as too violent. Geez, compare the innocence of that series to the crap kids get to see nowadays. So because of my the over-protective mothers from the 60s I only got a chance to see maybe two or three episodes ! I got so frustrated I started to collect the comics and bubblegum cards (still got them !) to compensate. I even got the View Master slides... I had an urge to see the caped crusader. All kids need some kind of hero.Years later I finally got the chance to see the re-runs as an adolescent and I enjoyed it tremendously. The tongue-in-cheek acting would have escaped me when I would've watched it as a kid, but I understood it at the age of 17. Yeah, I've watched them all now and the occasional kind soul on the internet posts episodes because they haven't released the series on DVD (to my knowledge)This evening I enjoyed "Return to the bat cave"... it was a delight to watch because it was full of trivia and inside-jokes. To see Adam and Burt was a delight and this TV movie is simply fantastic in every aspect. They play themselves as they played their parts in the series.Congratulations to the people who produced this great nostalgic "feast"... I'm gonna watch it again. My advice to all Batman fans is: SEE IT !!! Rent it !!! Lend it from a friend !!! Buy it !!! I'd never expect myself to rate this as 9/10... Very well done !$LABEL$ 1
+I can understand those who dislike this movie cause of a lack of knowledge.First of all, those girls are not Geisha, but brothel tenants, and one that don't know the difference will not understand half of the movie, and certainly not the end. This is a complete art work about the women's life and needs in this era. Everything is important, and certainly the way they dress, all over the movie means more than words. To those who thought it was a boring geisha movie, I'll suggest you to read a bit about this society before making a conclusion that is so out of the reality. This is Kurosawa's work of is life, and I'm sure that the director understood the silent meaning of Kurosawa's piece to the right intellectual range.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is a masterpiece. It was exhilarating from beginning to end. Writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson's story about a porn star is told with style, grace, humor, even poignancy. The actors and the characters they play are all first-rate, including Mark Wahlberg in the lead, who proves himself a solid actor and can carry a film. Burt Reynolds gives perhaps his best performance ever as a porno director who discovers Wahlberg. The film recreates the late 70s and early 80s with dead-on accuracy, from the disco scene that begins the film to Wahlberg's Don Johnson "Miami Vice" outfit that he wears in the final scene. Most regular moviegoers who see this film will no doubt compare it to PULP FICTION, but it really has much more in common with the films of Robert Altman and Martin Scorsese. The film is a triumph in style. The opening tracking shot that begins the film is just as impressive as the ones in THE PLAYER and ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS. The editing by Dylan Tichenor is simply phenomenal. I couldn't believe the editing didn't receive an Oscar nomination (GOOD WILL HUNTING was a better edited film?!). The best scene in the film has to be the one with the firecrackers. I had butterflies in my stomach because the scene is incredibly intense. When I saw the film a second time, I had the exact same reaction to the scene. Unfortunately, it may not have the same impact on TV as it did in a theater with good stereo sound. It's a shame that many people didn't see this movie during its theatrical run, because it is the best way to watch it. Anderson's use of widescreen will suffer on TV (so get the DVD or a letterbox tape). It is amazing how easy Anderson makes it all look, because this is only his second film. The music, sets, costumes, photography, offbeat characters, sex, violence, happiness and heartbreak are captured by a guy who is clearly in love with filmmaking.$LABEL$ 1
+A brutally depressing script and some fine low-key performances by Peter Strauss and Pamela Reed and some good location shooting in Ohio power this fine TV movie about hard times in the rustbelt. As the mills close and the union jobs disappear, the blue-collar workers are threatened by everyone: management, owners, their wives and children. Strauss is completely believable in his role, and Pamela Reed is, as always, wonderful. See if you can recognize John Goodman before he put on weight.The heavy metal score -- was someone making a pun? -- is, at times, obtrusively annoying, but the cinematography by Frank Stanley is knockout, particularly the mill scenes.$LABEL$ 1
+The Old Mill Pond is more of a tribute to the African-American entertainers of the '30s than any denigration of the entire race (Stepin Fetchit caricature notwithstanding). Besides who I just mentioned, there's also frog or fish versions of Cab Calloway, Fats Waller, Joesphine Baker, Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, and Louis Armstrong. This Happy Harmonies cartoon from Hugh Harmon and Rudolf Ising is very entertaining musically with perfect characterizations all around. They all sound so much like the real thing that half of me thinks they could possibly be. If not, they're certainly very flattering impersonations. Even the lazy, shiftless Fetchit characterization gets an exciting workout here when he gets chased by a tiger as "Hold That Tiger" plays on the score. Highly recommended for fans of '30s animation and jazz music.$LABEL$ 1
+There are so many things wrong with this movie I don't even know where to begin. The story is not cohesive AT ALL. I guarantee that five minutes into the movie the average viewer will be scratching his/her head in confusion.Here's what I remember of the movie before I was bored into unconsciousness: A quasi-abusive dad chases some pre-teen sisters through a house but turns out to be not that abusive after all. In the next scene, the girls are about 15. They're driving with their parents and hit a deer. The deer must have been explosive because their car blows up, one sister drags the other from the burning wreckage. Then, the girls are drifting in a boat on a lake and make a huge plan to go to Kentucky (??) and start a new life. In the very next scene, the girls are hitchhiking toward a military base. And what a military base it is. Actually, it's more like a hog farm converted to look like a military base with plenty of confused extras playing "soldiers." The base commander's office is particularly awesome because there are random things like an AK-47 hanging on the wall and a drill sergeant hat mounted to a plaque (????) so the audience is sure to know that this is a military guy's office. Then some random dude pushing a motorcycle shows up and the base commander orders him to go "into town" to buy some porn mags, and to make sure the soldiers don't think that he's on the "pink team." So our character takes a pickup converted to look like an army truck "to town" and loads up a box from a nondescript "book store" with a blowup doll by the front door. The girls hide in the guy's truck when he stops to gas up, and look through the porn stash to find items inside like the "anal invader." I guess that's enough of the plot to scare most people away. Plot aside, the sound quality is terrible and the movie is full of cheesy attempts at symbolism, like a radio preacher talking about forbidden fruit during the scene where the "slutty" sister meets the main character for the first time, or how the camera lingers way too long on certain shots to try to convey a "message".If you ever see this for sale or rent or whatever, stay away. It's not worth the money in either case.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm not sure what intrigues me about this movie so. It is grainy, poorly written, bleached out, often ridiculous, and at many points mind numbingly dull (the person I was watching it with fell asleep twice.) And yet there is something in this film that fascinates me, though I am not sure what; perhaps the character of Sam, an enormous former patient who was lobotimized by the former head doctor and who is perpetually sucking on an ice pop), or the marvelously played head doctor (I forget her name).Anyway, watch it and form you're own opinion; it has one of the greatest endings I have seen in film.$LABEL$ 1
+Throughout watching "End of Days", I got the sense that the film makers were perhaps trying to make this unique to the average Hollywood action film. They failed, of course, but you have to give them credit for trying. Peter Hyams actually tried directing this time, instead of just churning out another flat action film. He attempted to inject atmosphere into the movie by darkening the lights and adding tons of blood. This method can work if used correctly (see "Se7en") but here it just feels like a cheap trick to try and scare us. Hyams is a decent action director, and offers nothing more here than basic shoot outs and fight scenes, except for the lackluster, sub par f/x end "battle". As a photographer, Hyams demonstrates actual ability, displaying some good frame work and movement, but it is nothing above solid work.Screenwriter Andrew Marlowe is the film's greatest enemy. At parts, the script actually shows the makings of good religious thriller, and at times it even shows some quasi-intellectual thought (the Temptation scene between Arnold and Gabriel Byrne), but these small pluses are choked out by a river of negatives. Generic dialogue/characters, gapping plot holes, and convenient plot points that just happen to point all the characters in the right direction are just a few of the standard Hollywood black holes Marlowe's screenplay falls into. The shadow of the good movie it could have been faded very quickly.The film surprisingly has a good cast. Arnold, still possessing that larger than life attitude, tries to play a depressed, on the edge cop with no more than average results. Stick to be the invincible hero Arnie, it's what your good at. Gabriel Byrne is the strong point of the ensemble, bringing a nice air of cynicism to the role of Satan. In a villainous role ripe for overacting, Byrne restrains himself and it adds a bit more menace to the character. Kevin Pollak, as normal, is able to bring at least a few chuckles to the movie, but he's done better. Also look for a stellar small role from Rod Steiger.Hyams looked like he was trying to separate this from the faceless mass of Hollywood action films. He was heading in the right direction, but had neither the script or originality to take it there.4/10$LABEL$ 0
+This is a really sad, and touching movie! It deals with the subject of child abuse. It's really sad, but mostly a true story, because it happens everyday. Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazzello play the two children or Lorraine Bracco, a single mother who just tries to make a home for them. While living with her parents, a man, who likes to be called "The King" comes into their life. He hits the youngest boy, Bobby, but the two brothers vow not to tell their mother. But finally she finds out, after the Bobby is hurt badly. The end kind of ruined it for me, because it is so totally unbelievable. But, except for that, I love the movie.$LABEL$ 1
+I was surprised at how fascinating this movie was. The performances were extremely good, especially by Rea as the compassionate no-nonsense detective.Despite a low budget, no big FX or flashy camerawork, Citizen X somehow manages to surpass the majority of similar big Hollywood films by just. Telling. The. Story.True stories tend to end with a whimper rather than a bang, and that's the case here, but apart from that, this is a highly recommended detective yarn.$LABEL$ 1
+I know that in this episode there's other stuff apart from what I am going to discuss, and in fact I think it has some virtues; for example, the fact, after we had been given a very negative opinion of Jin from seeing Sun's flashbacks in "House of the Rising Sun", we get to see Jin's side of things and get a new, more balanced understanding of his life.But there is an element in this story that made me so deeply uncomfortable that it greatly dampened my enjoyment of the whole episode. Before now, in the scene where Jin appeared with blood on his hands and shirt, it had been hinted that Sun's father was someone who was getting rich through shady, illegal methods. I thought maybe he was a mob boss, even; mobs operate in Korea, just like in almost every other country in the world, so it was a reasonable possibility. However, in this episode we learn that Sun's father is in fact the boss (or a top executive) of a Korean automotive company, and that what Jin had been doing was physically attacking a government official (who was actually going to be murdered) on his behalf.I may be especially touchy about this because I happen to work in the automotive industry, but I would say it is SPECTACULARLY offensive and racist to even suggest that this kind of thing goes on in Korea; that huge, serious companies like Hyundai or Kia (which must be the model for this fictitious car company, as they are the only ones that actually exist in reality) operate with these mafia-like methods, instead of like any normal automotive company of the West. it is just unbelievable to me that the writers would have the gall to write something like that into the story, and that there hasn't been an uproar in Korea over it. It feels like extraneous "Buy American!" propaganda, portraying foreign car companies as criminal, untrustworthy, third-world outfits.$LABEL$ 0
+Heya Denver fans! The animation is a cartoon's classic & one of my favorite too (and yes, it was broadcast in Europe as well. Including my tiny central-European country, Slovenia! =:) Oh, how I miss the 80's cartoons!! Honestly, they were way better than today's children shows. More imaginative, creative, full of fun with good morals, more substance, great storyline and excellent character voices. Computer animated shows of today lack all of these features. So all of you, who agree and want to bring back all the shows so that the kids of today's generation would see the entertainment that these cartoons brought to us, please log on the side posted bellow and sign a petition for a rerun of the 80's best cartoons! http://www.thepetitionsite.com /1/we-want-an-80s-child-cartoon-kids-show-channelCarpe Denver! =) Lejla$LABEL$ 1
+Recap: The morning after his bachelor party Paul is woken by his mother-in-law-to-be and discovers that there is a woman sleeping beside him. Unfortunately its a waitress from the bar, and not his fiancée. And suddenly she turns up everywhere... the toll booth at the freeway and at his parent-in-laws dinner. And it is hard to keep a secret when her jealous ex-boyfriend had him followed and photographed. It is not only about saving his wedding... it is about survival.Comments: Actually much better than expected. Not the sweet romantic comedy I expected, but something much funnier, something with a little edge. This movie wasn't afraid to take the jokes a little further. And Jason Lee does now how to deliver comedy, especially when his character is half-panicked and deep in trouble, as he is here. And he got nice support from beautiful ladies Julia Stiles and Selma Blair. And actually I thought Lochlyn Munro did a nice part as the ex.So, more emphasis on comedy than romance, and the end result was good. I enjoyed it very much.7/10$LABEL$ 1
+I was hoping this would be of the calibre of Das Boot and echo the stark realism created by acclaimed German Director Leni RiefenStahl in her documentaries, sadly I was monumentally disappointed. The story line is implausible and defies credulity. An RAF airman is shot down and somehow finds his way to a hospital in Dresden. Anna a nurse whose father runs the hospital and is about to become engaged to a doctor she works with falls in love with the airman and they make love. The next evening at a lavish engagement party the airman turns up disguised as a German officer and dances with Anna. Although well directed and acted, to me it is soap opera of the lowest order.$LABEL$ 0
+Avida is a game of words mingling life and eagerness, but I personally think this movie was overblown by its ambition and does not make justice to its title. It gathers a set of awkward characters united by unbelievable links. Furthermore, the way everything is connected at the end is, in my opinion, a bit pathetic. What remains of it was a set of images... an interesting one, but not enough to make this a good movie. I believe this film is supposed to be a comedy, but I surely didn't noticed! The nonsense and caricatural nature of the movie is actually the only good thing about it, but when it drags on an on and on it becomes no longer bearable. I have to say I fought hard to continue seeing it until the end, and I am still not sure it was worth it...$LABEL$ 0
+Back in 1985 I caught this thing (I can't even call it a movie) on cable. I was in college and I was with a high school friend whose hormones were raging out of control. I figured out early on that this was hopeless. Stupid script (a bunch of old guys hiring some young guys to show them how to score with women), bad acting (with one exception) and pathetic jokes. The plentiful female nudity here kept my friend happy for a while--but even he was bored after 30 minutes in. Remember--this was a HIGH SCHOOL BOY! This was back before nudity was so easy to get to by the Internet and such. We kept watching hoping for something interesting or funny but that never happened. The funniest thing about this was the original ad campaign in which the studio admitted this film was crap! (One poster had a fictional review that said, "This is the best movie I've seen this afternoon!"). Only Grant Cramer in the lead showed any talent and has actually gone on to a career in the business. No-budget and boring t&a. Skip it.$LABEL$ 0
+Grosse Pointe Blank was really quite a below average film. Its hit man theme is very dry and is more like a romantic comedy than a hit man thriller. The acting is very normal. The performances are extremely embarrassing at times with many characters seeming very 'eccentric' and that really annoyed me. The whole reunion and the 'Wow, I haven't seen you in 10 years!' element is extremely cheesy and many scenes just drag on, especially nearer the end when they are at the actual reunion party and the characters are going through each of their former classmates one by one greeting them. It just all seemed very tacky, pointless and was poorly executed. Dan Akroyd's role as a 'rival' assassin is very sparse. He only seems to appear once at the very beginning and right at the very end in a 'final show down' which is hugely hyped up but doesn't deliver at all.The soundtrack is also very mediocre. The bulk of the songs that are in this film are straight out of the 1980's and with the exception of two or three, are very bad. Hearing duff songs over quite a duff film just adds to the negativity that surrounds this film.I could go on and on about how little things were annoying and were just very bad such as the very few action sequences that came and went very quickly, the lack of character development and how poorly the whole thing was constructed in that department, the way that half the time you forget that Cusak's character is even a hit man at all as the element is so non-existent.Even the way the comedy thinks it's funny; but it isn't. I didn't laugh once during this movie. Sure, maybe I smirked now and again but my only REAL feel good point was when I realised the movie was nearly over!Please, don't waste your time with 'Grosse Pointe Blank' despite the relatively high (but badly incorrect) IMDb rating. I've seen films that are better than this film that have lower rating on this site which tells you that there ARE better films out there. Just don't bother with this one.$LABEL$ 0
+i guess its possible that I've seen worse movies, but this one is a real stinker! the plot is unremarkable but thats not the worst of it. the directing is no where close to what you would expect from andy ching. he's capable of good work but failed to pull this movie together.angie harmon, playing the female lead as a reporter dogging into who's behind the assassination of the president, truly butchered the role. there was no chemistry with gooding, her demeanor was flat and wooden, and the 5 inch spike heels she wore throughout the movie were absurd. this outing for harmon places her solidly at the bottom of the "b" list.and what was cuba gooding thinking??? he has to his credit a number of outstanding performances, but this was far beneath what we've come to expect from him.poor james woods and burt reynolds. poor poor poor poor poor.$LABEL$ 0
+What a gas of a movie! "Film Noir" has always been one of my favorite genres, but this one stands apart from the rest. Only "The Big Sleep", "Out of the Past", "Murder My Sweet", and "The Killers" can come close to this caper classic. I know these four American films I mentioned are not caper movies per se, but rather detective stories with complicated story lines, which still exude a "noirean", gritty quality about them, similar to "Rififi".What is different here is the way Jules Dassin sets into motion the total ambiance of the film, not only in the gritty realism of the principals, but also in the usage of the streets of Paris as a subliminal character and co-conspirator unto itself! The movie centers around "le Stephanois", a dark, moody and complicated ex-con getting pulled into one last shot at the hefty payoff. Even though he is an unsmiling and hard-nosed tough guy, one still senses in him a yearning for some kind of redemption by extricating himself from the demons of his past (hey, he saved little Toni!). Dassin picked the right guy (Jean Servais) for that role.That aside, the rest of the story development kind of falls into place as we journey through the famous "silent" caper scene to the the eventual demise of the principal "perps". Only their women survive, except for Ida, Mario's honey. They seemed to best understand the underlying futility of it all!$LABEL$ 1
+It's hard to say which comes out on top, James Cagney's charm and energy or the mouth- opening excesses of Busby Berkeley's three grand showstoppers at the close. I give it a tie, with Footlight Parade one of the funniest and quickest of the early Thirties musicals. Although the movie clearly belongs to Cagney, Joan Blondell adds immeasurably to the good-natured story line. And what's the story line? It's about Chester Kent (Cagney) who produces musicals, and who now is just about out of business as the talkies take over. He starts doing Prologues, live musical entertainment offered on stage before a movie starts. He gets the idea to do bigger ones and more of them, moving them around the country. He's a ball of fire and ideas, and he needs all the ideas he can get to keep relentlessly producing these things. But a rival is spying on him and stealing his ideas; Nan Prescott (Blondell), his wise-cracking secretary, loves him but he's too busy too notice; an office girl in black-rimmed, round glasses (Ruby Keeler) wants a chance to dance; his wife turns up saying she didn't divorce him after all; a blonde gold-digger is setting her hooks in him; his partners are cheating him...my gosh, what's next? This may all sound like a lot to digest, but everything happens fast, with Cagney bouncing, strutting, striding, finger-snapping, barking orders and occasionally - until the big last number when he goes all out singing and dancing -- doing a step or two just to show how it's done. Instead of "Let's put on a show, gang" we have "We need to build three shows in three days, so lock the doors and let's start rehearsing." These three super Prologues are going to feature 40 chorines, spectacular effects and will mean a rich contract, with forty Kent units in deluxe movie houses...the whole Apollo movie house circuit! Exhaustion threatens, feet ache, but all those unbilled chorines in skimpy costumes (which include Ann Sothern and Dorothy Lamour; you can quickly spot Sothern but Lamour is more generic) stay the course, dancing their hearts out, giggling and chattering and looking remarkably unsweaty. And then the curtains go up as each Prologue is presented in separate movie houses, one after the other on the same night, with the owner of the Apollo circuit going to determine that night whether he'll save Chester's skin or not. First up is "Honeymoon Hotel" with Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler in a 9 minute production number that features a lot of wholesome lasciviousness, with brides and grooms (some might even be married), bedrooms and beds, and doors with "Do not disturb" signs. Then on to the next theater and 11 minutes of "By a Waterfall" that probably had the Warner Brothers accountants worrying about bankruptcy. This number is so excessive -- dozens of swimming girls, trees, fountains, a huge grotto with waterslides, a giant pool -- you'd never think there was a Depression on. Berkeley pulls out all his tricks -- synchronization, human patterns, legs and arms doing all sorts of precision things -- and he does it in the water, with a lot of underwater photography looking up. The girls are sure game. They come up smiling with water in their eyes and still hit their marks. The whole thing must have been incredibly difficult and exhausting. Ruby Keeler, who has a couple of quick shots in the water, is the only one who looks a bit cautious. And finally, the smash finale...11 minutes of Cagney dancing and singing with Keeler to "Shanghai Lil," with all sorts of bar girls and their customers, unusual in that the races are mixed up. There's Cagney and Keeler dancing on the bar, dancing on a table, Cagney fighting. There are what looks like fifty or sixty marching marines, hupping back and forth, rifles tossed and caught. Then...this is true...a human picture forms of Franklin Roosevelt and the NRA eagle. This may be the only Hollywood musical production that has ever featured Roosevelt, a big federal agency and a bevy of sexy Chinese prostitutes. That's entertainment, folks. It's great! Of course, Chester's Prologues get the big contract and Nan gets Chester. The movie is full of juicy clichés that make us smile. Ruby Keeler is so endearing as she earnestly stomps out her taps with her arms flying that you want to help her along. Joan Blondell makes us forget about a lot of Hollywood females who might have been more beautiful but who had a lot less wit and personality. The movie, however, belongs to Cagney, who grabs and shakes it, and to Berkeley, a man for whom too much was never too much.$LABEL$ 1
+The story would never win awards, but that's not what it's about... the script was just entertaining and suspenseful enough to make room for the incredibly choreographed fight scenes. Who needs a story with fighting like that? Really, it's worth watching for that reason alone. IF you can handle the gore, of which there is a LOT... none of it done realistically enough to be tough to look at. I gave it a 7.$LABEL$ 1
+This ABC straight-to-TV failure does absolutely no justice to the brilliant fantasy novel that is A Wrinkle in Time. Ms. Madeleine L'Engle brought children and adults alike into a magical, fantastical and original world like no author before her. This novel, the first in her 'time quartet', is a beautiful take on life, the universe, and time itself. Yet it is easy for any child or adolescent to understand. Its unwavering morals are prevalent throughout the book. This film adaptation can be seen as nothing but a mockery of Ms. L'Engle's work of art. Honestly, what were they thinking? The effects look cheap and ridiculous, the plot is mushy and uneven, the dialogue is far-fetched and just about every magical characteristic of the novel has been lost. This was a horrible attempt at bringing this book to the screen. I sincerely hope that someday an intelligent, worthy director (Guillermo del Toro, David Yates, Alfonso Cuarón) makes another attempt at bringing this book to the screen and understands it for what it truly is: a masterpiece. This adaptation can only be compared to boring, fake and cheap motel-room art which holds no ground and makes absolutely no impact on its audience.$LABEL$ 0
+In 2006, the AMPAS awarded one of the most innovative documentaries depicting wildlife in the coldest place on Earth, that film was March of the Penguins narrated by Academy Award Winning Actor Morgan Freeman.Walt Disney Studios has had a monopoly on the animated circuit for decades now. They've taken their stabs at live action film making and it's been hit and miss all across the board. Disney then created a sub-division called Disneynature and release its first feature film titled Earth. This is absolutely one of the most touching and informative documentaries I've seen in quite sometime. Narrated by the great James Earl Jones, Earth doesn't offer anything new to anyone who has watched the Discovery Channel in the past five years or follows the Global Warming crisis very closely. Earth touches very deeply on the issue and takes a very liberal approach on the subject matter.It enables an emotional connection to nature that I haven't experienced before. It also shows not only the beauty and mystifying parts of our gorgeous planet, but the grunt and disturbing aspects that it often entails. It's one thing to watch "Mufasa" fall from a cliff in to a stampede or Bambi's mother be shot by a hunter in the middle of the woods. It's all good because at the end of the film we know it is, just that, a film. This shows penguins, polar bears, elephants, all types of families, from all walks of life, living and dying in their natural habitats. These real things make a real movie experience.Though a bit heavy-weight on the graphic nature of the film (which many people will disagree), Earth is a touching experience. There is stunning cinematography work here by a great camera team and an amazing score by George Fenton. In comparison to March of the Penguins or Grizzly Man, it doesn't really hold any measure but it stands great on its own. At the end of the day, you grow an appreciation of our planet and a bit of sadness as many of us will probably never get to visit these places we'll witness in the film. We live here yet it's like we never get to explore the planet for one reason or another. Earth is beautiful.***/****$LABEL$ 1
+Rawhide was a wonderful TV western series. Focusing on a band of trail drovers lead by the trail boss Gil Favor. Most episodes - especially from the first 3 seasons were really character studies of Favor and his men. Guest stars came and went but unlike Wagon Train they seldom dominated the episodes they appeared in. Rawhide was a true, gritty western and Gil Favor stood out as a memorable character never to be forgotten. Thanks to Eric Fleming's performance the show became a massive hit. Of course he was ably supported by a wonderful cast of good actors - Clint Eastwood, Sheb Wooley, Paul Brinegar, Steve Raines, James Murdoch, Rocky Shahan, Robert Cabal. All of these actors left their mark in a piece of television history. Rawhide captured the flavour of that time of the west that no other series has for me, as yet anyhow, managed to do so. Later seasons tended to split the leads and give them individual story lines. For me some of the time this didn't work - the cattle drive and the regulars provided the best stories. However there were still some classic stories and Rawhide remained top drawer affair. The black and white photography added to a bleak, realistic feel that other western series seldom managed to capture. Rustlers, Indians,Commancheroes, beautiful damsels in distress, serial killers, they all showed up to give our heroes problems. The end came for the series quietly when the final season was axed less than half way through. The reason - Eric Fleming had departed and Rawhide was now a head without a body - the gritty realism was gone, Gil Favor commanded respect and exuded authority - he was never infallible and this made him all the more interesting. We shall not see his like again. Watch an episode whenever you can, they seldom disappoint.$LABEL$ 1
+This isn't Masterpiece Theater. You shouldn't go into it expecting that. This is pure girl FUN with the most fantastic cast of female leads. Like someone else here said, this is the film Baby Mama was meant to be. And the only downside I see to this film is that Tina Fey was not in it- besides that it stars the smartest and brightest girls on the planet. The film is pure silliness on the surface, but if you really watch you will know it has a lot of messages and deep meaning to any of us who wish they could go back and do it all over again in life knowing then what we know now. PURE FUN and I recommend it to anyone looking for 84 minutes of great escape.$LABEL$ 1
+The movie was better than what i expected. I was working on the movie set for a short period of time when Damien was making this film.The gun fire, stunt and acting came out pretty good on the editing tip.All thou the the music wasn't all that great. Better music would have top this film.Some of the music sound like the hippie days. Damien remember you have gang violence gangster's some oldies or hip hop would have did it. It was more realistic than blood in blood out.The casting was picked real well.Suspectentertaint did a good job in this film.The movie brought back a fill of a life style i use to live. But than at the end you do not always win. And in my history thats how it was.I adapted to the movie the first time i watched it.Damien Congratulatoins on this film.$LABEL$ 1
+Mirror. Mirror (1990) is a flat out lame movie. Why did I watch movies like this when I was younger? Who knows? Maybe I was one for punishing myself by watching one terrible movie after another. I don't know, I guess I needed a hobby during my teen years. A teenage outcast (Rainbow Harvest) seeks solace in an old mirror. Soon she learns about the horrific power this antique mirror has and uses it to strike out against those who have wronged her. Movies like these, the power giver has a nasty side effect. This one changes her inside and out if she likes it or not.A mess of a movie that for some reason was restored on d.v.d. a few years back. I don't know why. They should have left it on the shelf and collect dust. People love this movie foe some reason. If you do I would like to know why. Until then I dislike this movie and I have no reason to ever watch it again.Not recommended at all.$LABEL$ 0
+Disney has now made straight-to-video sequels to a good bunch of their many animated features. Two of these were made for their 1991 classic, "Beauty and the Beast". Well, these ones aren't really sequels, as they are both set in between the events of the first film. The first of these two straight-to-video films was "Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas", which seems to be disliked by quite a few fans of its theatrical predecessor, but I think that can usually be expected with sequels. However, this second one, "Belle's Magical World", is definitely inferior.The film features three short stories, all of which take place while Belle is in the castle, and the place is under the spell of the enchantress. The first is "The Perfect Word", where a misunderstanding at the table between Belle and the Beast leads to trouble, and neither wants to be the first to apologize. The next story is "Fifi's Folly", where Fifi and Lumiere's fifth anniversary is coming up, and Lumiere is unprepared, so Belle helps him. However, Fifi sees Lumiere practicing romance with Belle, and thinks they're actually in love. The film ends with "The Broken Wing". In this story, Belle takes care of a bird with a broken wing, but a bird in the castle will probably mean trouble if the Beast finds out, as he hates birds! The plot description I gave is for the original VHS version of Disney's third "Beauty and the Beast" movie. Apparently, in the DVD version, there is another story added called "Mrs. Potts's Party", but I've only seen the original version. However, since I highly doubt that one story would stand out as a classic over the rest, I see no point in watching the special edition. Anyway, the first thing I will say about "Belle's Magical World" is that the animation is very 2-dimensional compared to what we're used to from Disney, which would obviously disappoint many people. I didn't like "Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas" that much, but you certainly can't say the same about its animation. I'm sure the stories in "Belle's Magical World" could entertain many kids (mostly younger ones, I think), and each story has a moral, so they could also teach them some valuable lessons. However, for adults, the film really doesn't have a lot. I personally didn't find any good humour in it, found that the constant conflict between Belle and the Beast got tiring, and the stories did not impress me too much at all in any way (they're not very well written). In "The Perfect Word", the way Belle says to the Beast, "You're acting rude... and foolish!" is a bit cheesy, and I think there are quite a few other cheesy moments in these stories.By the time this straight-to-video movie first came out, I was around eleven or twelve years old. I don't know what I would have thought of it at the time, as I had lost interest in Disney by then, and it would be years before I would gain any of that interest back. Even when this movie was first released, I think I was a bit past the age group it was aimed at. I never saw "Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas" until a couple months ago, but unlike that film, I never even heard of this one until recently, I think just after seeing the first sequel to Disney's 1991 hit. Well, as much as I like the theatrical original, I wouldn't have been missing much if I never became aware of this film's existence. For little kids, I'm sure "Belle's Magical World" can be highly entertaining, and probably somewhat educational with its morals, but I do not recommend it for adult Disney fans.$LABEL$ 0
+Carly Pope plays JJ, a newly promoted Food Critic whose flamboyant, overbearing mother moves in with her. JJ, aghast at this turn of events, then blackmails restaurant owner, Alex, to entertain her mother in exchange for "maybe" reviewing his dying restaurant. Alex predictably falls for the daughter while warming to the mother. There are numerous problems with this movie, the characters are universally 2-dimensional. JJ is a self-serving, hateful character, her mother superficial and shallow. JJ's colleagues at the magazine are bitchy and opportunistic. The underlying message of an over-50 woman unable to make it on her own, without male assistance is bad, bad, BAD. The acting is uniformly dull, the script uninspired. The films only saving grace is the setting of New York City. I would so NOT recommend this film.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie had an interesting cast, it mat not have had an a list cast but the actors that were in this film did a good job. Im glad we have b grade movies like this one, the story is basic the actors are basic and so is the way they execute it, you don't need a million dollar budget to make a film just a mix of b list ordinary actors and a basic plot. I like the way they had the street to themselves and that there was no one else around and also what i though was interesting is that they didn't close down a café to set there gear and that they did it all from a police station. Arnold vosloo and Michael madsen did a great job at portraying there roles in the hostage situation. This was a great film and i hope to see more like it in the near future.$LABEL$ 1
+When I saw this movie for the first time I didn't believe my own eyes. In front of me there was a great -and well done- parody of Valentino... see Stan Laurel bullfight that way is like to see an excellent fencer in action! It's a very good parody, rich of ideas, with a clever and charming Stan... old and good like whiskey. (or the booze-up after that)$LABEL$ 1
+I first watched this movie on its release in 1987 and was greatly affected emotionally, through a combination of guilt at what my fellow white human beings could do to innocent people and the reluctance of the outside world to really investigate these atrocities against man.Particularly moving was the Funeral of Steve Biko, made even more vivid and hard-hitting by the South African Anthem played at the time. I have long believed that this movie achieved what nobody else had managed - to open the eyes of the world to what was really happening in South Africa. I consider myself to be a normal right thinking person and I can attest to how this film changed my whole way of thinking about not just South Africa, but how we as white people perceive black people. I have never seen any difference between people of any colour or creed, but after viewing this film I physically changed my life and have spent the last 17 years living in a predominantly black country and helping many people rise above their present standard of living and achieve that which they would not have thought possible. The greatest reward I can honestly say I have received - to be able to say that in my own small way I have contributed and redressed the balance a little. But if more people thought like me and actually DID something to help black people without seeking reward then the entire black population of this planet would be a little better off.I challenge any right thinking person to watch Cry Freedom from beginning to end and not feel that emotion tugging at your heartstrings as you witness the 700 schoolchildren brutally shot dead in Sharpville for refusing to learn Afrikaans, the senseless murder of Steve Biko, such a champion for his own people's rights, and then, ultimately, to understand that all this is not merely a film, albeit a magnificent one, but that it all actually happened and less than 30 years ago.Yes, my friends, watch this movie and then see if you can go out afterwards and party hard. I couldn't. I was too upset at knowing the truth. That is the hallmark of a great film. It was obviously the intention of Sir Richard Attenborough to get this message over about South Africa. Of course he has achieved it. Unless you happen to support apartheid. God help you.$LABEL$ 1
+Just like everybody else have said, the acting is awful, no story or whatsoever, poor directing. About the SFX, the 360 degree, matrix style shooting, 1 shoot is stupid enough, but for each characters. I mean come on gimme a break. And what's up with all those video game scenes, just to remind us it's a "video game adaptation"? Jesus, they should have fired whoever think up this idea.0.00001/10$LABEL$ 0
+I really enjoyed this movie - I like prison movies in general (I'm not sure why -- I'm sure some shrink could make something out of it!) I spent one night in jail more than 20 years ago, and I knew then I would never go back - I got the individual version of "scared straight"! (I did get locked up in an isolation cell on Alcatraz for a couple of hours, compliments of a park ranger, but that's another story!) Anyway, the genre really interests me. The soundtrack, specifically "Sympathy for the Devil" by the Rolling Stones, was the perfect backdrop for the film. To this day, I think of "The Jericho Mile" every time I hear the song.$LABEL$ 1
+"Undercurrent" features a top-notch cast of wonderful actors who might've been assembled for the perfect drawing-room comedy. Alas, they are pretty much wasted on a 'woman's view' potboiler--and a paper-thin one at that. Katharine Hepburn is indeed radiant as a tomboy/old maid who finally marries, but her husband is deeply disturbed and harboring dark family secrets. Director Vincente Minnelli has absolutely no idea how to mount this outlandish plot, concocted by Edward Chodorov from a story by Thelma Strabel, and the friendly, first-rate cast (including Robert Taylor, Robert Mitchum and Edmund Gwenn) is left treading in murky waters. ** from ****$LABEL$ 0
+The ABC gears up it's repertory company for another unrealistic representation of rural Australia. Yes folks, it's all there Baca Bourke (Jeremy Sims,an actor of little talent) Fire hero , Lill (Libby Tanner plays Bronwyn Craig in the bush), Fifi (Nadia Townsend) town slut, preggers by Baca's brother Joe (I think). Then there's Uncle Geoff the, Big Daddy of Lost Springs. Uncle Geoff's scenes are like Tennessee Williams on speed. Only saving grace is Russian actress Natalia Novikova as Baca's loony missus. She is great. I can't understand why John Waters took the gig as Lilly's psychologist husband. Must have needed the money I expect! Still, he won't last long as Lill and Baca will be having it off toute suit. Just watch this lemon to see how bad an Aussie show can be. Frankly, I'm ashamed.$LABEL$ 0
+This could be looked at in many different ways. This movie sucks, its good or its just plain weird. The third one probably explains this movie best. It has strange themes and just has a strange plot. So who else but Christopher Walken would play in this no matter how bad, average or even how good it might be.The acting was what you would expect especially out of Ben Stiller. Jack Black I have always liked so you know what you will get out of him but this is not bad. Christopher Walken is always off the wall. He is always enjoyable to watch no matter how bad the movie is. Comedy wise it is somewhat funny. This of course meaning that it does have its moments (though very few) but can get a little over top here and there which makes me feel like the movie is just desperate for laughs but of course not in a good way.The directing was average as well. Barry Levinson is a slightly overrated director and really did not do a good job here. This movie seemed that it had a lot more potential and he did not do much to reach it. Just very average and did not seem like a lot of effort was put into making this film.The writing is the key to a good comedy. Obviously that means the writing here failed. At best it is below average. Considering it does have its moments it was not too horrible. That is never a good thing to say about a movie though. If not for Christopher Walken and it stupid ridiculous ending I would have given it a lower rating. He is always quite a character in his movies. Stil this is just a whacked out strange movie with strange characters that really don't go anywhere. Not completely horrible but I would not really recommend it though because it is a very forgettable movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Considering the lack of art with in African cinema (or Black American Cinema). The Idea offers a multidimensional look at a community assigned to hoods and dealers. But the funny thing is this is not at all the focus or even the subject of the short. But it is the unstated assertion of independence from these themes that is most sticking. The genre is unique and not the typical expectation. It is almost this departure which first catches the eye, so watching it twice is critical. The film has an aesthetic quality which lends its self to the true art of cinema.And it is this true art that with an African voice that is extremely rare. The film doesn't copy to attain its message, it innovates and provokes by pulling at subtle stereotypes (not racial but character based stereotypes), From a writers perspective the film is brilliant. It carries multiply messages which include a very rapid character development. It must be remember this film is less than 10 minutes and it manages to establish character very quickly. The usage of colour texture and music is also to be commended. But considering the director, Owen Alik Shahadah's last venture 500 Years Later, music is to be expected. But from a theme point-of view it seems like the idea is a departure but the satire eludes indirectly to a social problem—brilliant stuff!$LABEL$ 1
+I have to admit that i liked the first half of Sleepers. It looked good, the acting was even better, the story of childhood, pain and revenge was interesting and moving. A superior hollywood film. But...No one mentioned this so far (at least in the latest 20 comments), when it came to the courtroom scenes and Brat Pitt´s character followed his plan to rescue his two friends, who are rightly accused of murder, i felt cheated. This movie insulted my intelligence. Warning spoilers!!Why did anyone accept their false alibi, witnessed by the priest? If these two guys had been with him, why shouldn´t they tell this during the investigation? Amnesia? If you were the judge or member of the jury, would you believe it? Is it wise to give the motif of the murderers away?I am sorry, but in the end, the story is very weak, and this angers me. This movie had great potential. 4/10$LABEL$ 0
+I used to think that it couldn't get worse that "Army of the Dead" but this load of crap makes the afore mentioned movie look like "The Godfather"!! The special effects are HORRIBLE (Makes the original Nintendo graphics look like HDTV). When it comes the acting, put it this way, I went to a play with my 6 year old niece in it and she gave an Oscar worthy performance, when compared to these D-List (and that's being kind about it) actors and actresses. So basically, if I had a gun to my head and head to chose between watching this movie again or chopping my own arm off with a dull knife, that's a tough choice!! You know what, who needs two arms anyways??$LABEL$ 0
+When Exploiters become evangelist, they still exploit in the name of poverty! My first reaction after seeing the movie is – God Bless me that I am not eating fish or any non-vegetarian products! The documentary is about Lake Victoria of Tanzania where numerous varieties of lovely fishes used to live, and one day during 1960s somebody came and injected the mighty fish Perch, who became the exportable commodity for Tanzania to European and Japanese markets. The consequences were severe – firstly all local small and big fish were extinct; secondly the plane that came to take the fish could not travel empty because it does not make commercial/ business/ capitalist sense, so it is filled with arms and ammunition (that is what Europe can give this world); thirdly the pilots (as all migrants and traveling population like truck drivers) has to survive their sexual needs by flourishing cheap local African prostitutes for them; fourthly the brokers, dealers, middle men in the chain (mainly Indian origin business people) get richer and Tanzania's poverty remains the same; fifth poverty drives the children to crime, drugs etc.The premise to make this documentary was excellent. But has the Director Hubert Sauper succeeded in making a good documentary? It is a big NO. I say the reasons: Like in India, it requires a higher caste Brahmin to stand up and project to the world, Indian poverty and untouchables; similarly it requires an Austrain born European documentary maker to tell the world the story of Tanzania and its crumbling and ruining economy and poverty. It is the pathetic motive of unaware breeding of that rich class (who have never seen poverty or known poor), who survives, live, earn and fame like pest hanging on to projecting poverty to the world as soon as they see it. There is nothing more but despise by poor people in African and India who see such images of their.The intention and motives of the Hubert seems totally lop-sided. The images, characters, locales, interviews are too grave and murky, dark and disturbing. He uses exaggerated ignorance as a voice to present his case. What we feel in the end is pity and sadness for Africans. We also start considering the Tanzania government and people as villainous. May be some westerners sitting in their air-conditioned rooms would find time to discuss and debate about the pathetic living conditions of Africans, but there would be nothing more than that.The director restrains to show himself even once on the screen – so as not to be identified among the Europeans who exploit this poor country.This Director Hubert can only survive being exploiters themselves like today's CNN and BCC media giants. Hubert did not have guts or common sense to talk to any Europeans who eat or companies who import these fish products. A totally lop-sided flimsy effort! But I understand the reasons of the same – Hubert just wanted to rake his fame, sitting and smiling with awards in his European comfort.No more words to spare for this pathetic effort. I hesitantly give the documentary a higher rating 3.5 Stars out of 10, just because the theme was correct; but was pathetically exploited and blown away by amateurish ill conceived director made solely for un-intelligent western audiences! (Stars 3.5 out of 10)$LABEL$ 0
+WARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.When I first started to watch this movie my expectations were it was a vampire movie, that is going to be awesome considering how Rodriguez and Tarantino both helped make the film. I began about 15 minutes into it and already my hopes for this movie were down the drain, which shocked me. First, the story it was going with was not at all appealing in anyway possible, and just flat out boring and uncompelling to the point where I just wanted to turn it off. I was getting more frustrated with this movie as it dragged on, but I guess I had hopes that it would get better.... then when it finally showed vampires it BLEW MY MIND, in a VERY bad way. I thought,"Okay this movie started with some backwash horrible story about these two criminals, then VERY slowly turned into some vampire movie which I thought it was going to be from the beginning, in like, the last 30 minutes?" To add on to that, they try to make the main characters all cool and awesome and mean around the end when they're just not; A bunny would've been more intimidating than these characters! This movie is a horrible piece of crap!!! From Dusk Till dawn disgraced me and left a terrible taste in my mouth, disheartening thoughts in my head, and left my body unable to move from the horrible shock that I just wasted 108 minutes of my life away on a horrendous film. I do not understand how George Clooney, Quentin Tarintino, Cheech Marin and Danny Trejo, all being the good and honorable actors that they are, could take part in this useless filth. In my opinion, From Dusk Till Dawn is one of the worst movies ever made that I have suffered my eyes on. Do not see it, you'll be doing yourelf a GREAT favor...$LABEL$ 0
+Its difficult to be too tough on Brad Sykes, a hard-working guy doing what he loves, there is an honesty about him that seems often lacking with other microbudget directors. Check out the minuscule crew credits on Camp Blood, there is none of the usual thanking everyone down to the pizza joint they ate in, its Brad and his buddies and thats it, no pretentious rubbish. Jennifer Ritchkoff isn't your average horror flick heroine, but does well enough for you to hardly notice, Bethany Zolt looks like a star and Joseph Haggerty is so funny it hurts. The Clown is hardly an original horror film bad guy, but the design is good, Shemp Moseley does a decent job of bringing him to life and the image clashes nicely with the rural backdrop. Camp Blood is horror as blue collar and basic as it gets, not a good thing, not a bad thing, just a thing.$LABEL$ 0
+In the words of Charles Dance's character in this film, "Bollocks!" No plot, no character development, and utterly unbelievable.Full of stuff that just doesn't happen in the real world (since when were British police inspectors armed with handguns in shoulder holsters?). Full of mistakes (Bulgarian trains in London?). Full of dull and artificial dialogue. And the directing/editing is awful - wobbly hand-held camera shots that add nothing to the film except a vague feeling of seasickness; confusing jump-cuts; no structure.Wesley Snipes' character is totally unsympathetic - why should we care what happens to him? Direct to video? Direct to the dustbin!$LABEL$ 0
+"The bad dreams always come back again like unwanted friends," says Marion Fairlie, who with her half-sister, Laura, lives in a vast mid-Victorian country estate. "And last night I found myself in Limmeridge churchyard. Normally, people who are dead stay dead, just as normally it is the criminals who are locked up rather than the victims. But then, there was nothing normal about what happened to us..." And we're off on a first-class Gothic story of madness, deception and villainy, based on Wilkie Collins' great novel of Victorian mystery. It's a good idea to pay close attention, because there are plots within plots, yet they all center on a cunning and ruthless scheme which involves, what else, money, lots of money. Marion Fairlie (Tara Fitzgerald) and her sister, Laura Fairlie (Justine Wadell) are devoted to each other. Marion is fierce and protective; Laura is softer and much more romantic. Marion has no money of her own; Laura will inherit riches when she comes of age. Marion has no marriage prospects that we know of; Laura has been pledged sometime ago to Sir Percival Glyde (James Wilby), an altogether too charming aristocrat. They are the wards of their uncle, a fussy, condescending, immensely self-centered hypochondriac (Ian Richardson). All seems to be quite routine, but then a young artist, Walter Hartright (Andrew Lincoln), is engaged to teach them drawing and artistic appreciation. And when he arrives at night to the local train station, there is no carriage, so off he sets out on foot to the estate. In the dark woods he encounters a strange woman, dressed all in white, wandering about and speaking of things he does not understand, who then disappears. Are we uneasy? Yes, and so is he and the sisters when they come to realize the strange woman looks much like Laura. Later, does love emerge between Walter and Laura? Does a bud bloom? Is there a misunderstanding that sends Walter away and results in Laura marrying Sir Percival? Does a canker gnaw? And do secrets slowly come to light about the relationships among Laura, Marian and the woman in white...do we learn to be deeply suspicious of Sir Percival's intentions...do we come to enjoy the style and manners of Sir Percival's close friend, Count Fosco (Simon Callow)...and do we eventually realize the foul depths of depravity, as well as the power of honor and true love, that humanity is capable of? Do we visit Victorian insane asylums, see falls from high towers, dig open graves in the middle of the night and watch retribution arrive amidst the roaring flames of a locked church? Well, of course, and it's a grand journey for us. This BBC/Masterpiece Theater program features fine acting and outstanding production values. To fit Collins' 500-plus-page novel into a television show of less than 120 minutes means a good deal had to be cut or abridged, and some changes were made most likely to achieve greater impact in the little time available. Still, taken on its own terms, the production of The Woman in White in my opinion works very well as a moody, romantic, dark television tale. Tara Fitzgerald as Marion gives a commanding performance as a woman determined to protect and then save her sister. James Wilby as Sir Percival manages the clever feat of slowly letting us see the depraved slime beneath the skin, who still has charm amidst the villainy. Ian Richardson as the young women's uncle almost steals the show. He gives such a bossy and pungent performance it almost unbalances the story every time he appears. Perhaps the weakest of the main parts is Simon Callow as Count Fosco. The Count is simply a monster, yet a supremely civilized and charming one. Collins described him as being of immense girth. Callow does a fine, mannered job of it, but to me he lacks a little of the monstrosity of evil. At one point, Marian tells us, "My sister and I are so fond of Gothic novels, we sometimes act as if we were in them." Little did she know what was in store for herself and Laura.$LABEL$ 1
+I watched this film because I thought it would be a classic Amy Adams movie. Wow, this movie is so bad on so many levels it staggers the imagination. It is poorly constructed for one, also the script and the acting is just awful. But hey even Johnny Depp has a slew of bad films under his belt. The upside of this movie would be Amy singing, and even on that score I believe better songs could have been chosen. Amy is of course beautiful to see and if you are a die-hard fan of hers you will probably watch this title no matter what, just don't expect too much. I wish I could have found more to like but it was just painful to watch. I recommend Sunshine Cleaning or Doubt.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie last year in Media class and I have to say I really hated it. I was in year 10 (and aged 15) so that may have has something to do with it. But for English this year, year 11, we had to read Animal Farm, also by George Orwell. Aside from the fact that the book is based on the Revolution, my opinion is that it is a terrible book, and I also hated it.But 1984, I think it was the most disturbing movie I have ever seen, and I think that George Orwell is one of the most deranged people ever to live on this planet. I'm sorry to everyone who loved his work, but I unfortunately did not. The themes in the movie were well portrayed, but the way the whole movie was set and the events that took place within it were not to my standards. This is only my opinion, and I'm sure many many other people thoroughly enjoyed this film.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is funny if you're the gentleman who was sitting about three rows behind me (repeating every punchline, laughing when there were no gags on-screen, and issuing a gravelly "haaaa" at every scene involving a computer or mobile device).For everyone else, it's a mean-spirited, bungled "comedy." The movie strictly follows the formula of the later "Scary Movie" films, as well as "Epic Movie" and "Meet the Spartans," though without the flood of heartless pop culture references that made the latter two so irritating. Still, the lampooning of intellectual and peacemaking figures the world over makes it clear that the film knows its audience: people who envy brainpower. "Superhero Movie" is particularly and consistently nasty to Stephen Hawking, introducing him as a sex-starved druggie and using his disability as a vehicle for slapstick.The plot is based on "Spider-Man," with "Batman Begins" and "X-Men" thrown in just to deliver some physical comedy. Much of the movie is slapstick, but not in any invigorating or interesting way. The longest-running gag is a fart joke, and early on the scriptwriters seem to believe that having the main character get thrown in conspicuous piles of fake animal poo automatically enlivens an otherwise uninspired rehash of the spider bite scene from "Spider-Man." Perhaps the only redeeming feature of this feature is the energy in it, notably absent in other recent parodies. The filmmakers act as though they're doing something new, and the audience can feel the influence in the way the actors bounce around the screen. An extremely abbreviated length (about an hour and fifteen minutes) and the zest of the presentation makes "Superhero Movie" tolerable rather than horrifying.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a disappointing adaptation of the James Lee Burke novel "In the Electric Mist of the Confederate Dead". It is rather poorly acted mainly due to the miscasting of the principal players. Tommy Lee Jones, a normally fine actor, just doesn't capture Burke's "Dave Robicheaux". As Robicheaux's main nemesis, John Goodman does a sloppy job as the "heavy". The guy who plays Robicheaux's actor-buddy doesn't look like a former "A" lister leading man. The rest of the movie is mainly cast with no-name locals who just don't do justice to a big-time novel.The movie and Jones' performance is way too hurried for one thing. Robicheaux in Burke's series of novels, gives one the feeling that he fits well into his environment most of the time, being laid back and slow-moving. This is just like the deep south and southern Louisiana. Then at times Robicheaux is nearly manic in his exertions. Jones just moves at a fast pace through the whole movie. He doesn't vary. Ned Beatty is wasted. Mary Steenburgen is out of place. About the only good thing about this is the setting. On the whole the movie gives one the impression of a TV movie.$LABEL$ 0
+This is possibly the single worst film i have ever seen - it has no good features at all.It looked as if it was made in about 20 minutes with the other time filled with title graphics.The lead male transformed from deaths door to superman - eh you whatOther than that totally predictable and not at all interesting.I left the cinema feeling cheated.Needless to say i could not reccomend this film to anyone.$LABEL$ 0
+Perhaps because I was so young, innocent and BRAINWASHED when I saw it, this movie was the cause of many sleepless nights for me. I haven't seen it since I was in seventh grade at a Presbyterian school, so I am not sure what effect it would have on me now. However, I will say that it left an impression on me... and most of my friends. It did serve its purpose, at least until we were old enough and knowledgeable enough to analyze and create our own opinions. I was particularly terrified of what the newly-converted post-rapture Christians had to endure when not receiving the mark of the beast. I don't want to spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it so I will not mention details of the scenes, but I can still picture them in my head... and it's been 19 years.$LABEL$ 0
+I love just about everything the late Al Adamson directed in his long and varied career, but "The Possession of Nurse Sherri" stands head and shoulders above fun yet admittedly grade-Z schlockfests like "Horror of the Blood Monsters" and "Dracula Vs. Frankenstein". This film is actually scary! Am I saying that you're going to jump out of your seat when you watch "Nurse Sherri"? No, of course not. But this pastiche of elements from "The Exorcist", "Ruby", and "Carrie" is one of those nice, eerie little horror movies common to the seventies. You can't put your finger on what's so spooky about it, but the film drips with atmosphere. (And what an ending! Don't worry, I won't spoil it for you.) Adamson and producer Sam Sherman really nailed it with this one, and it doesn't matter whether "Nurse Sherri" was a calculated success or a happy accident. Jill Jacobson is likable but not outstanding as the hapless nurse who becomes possessed by the spirit of a recently deceased cult leader (Bill Roy, who shines in his brief role). Geoffrey Land is okay as her surly doctor boyfriend. There are some blaxploitative elements here (profit was the bottom line with these cheap drive-in flicks, after all) but they actually contribute to the plot rather than just being window dressing. "Nurse Sherri" was a Poverty Row production, and it shows at times (sets, special effects, etc.). Still, the film has heart, mostly decent acting and direction, and some genuine chills. Sam Sherman also saw fit to use Harry Lubin's theme music for the late '50s/early '60s television series "One Step Beyond" in this film, which certainly adds to the creepy atmosphere. The DVD contains two significantly different cuts of the movie (the early version features a lot of T&A that wound up on the cutting room floor to make way for more horrific stuff) as well as the theatrical trailer, the TV spot, and a great commentary by Sherman. Does anybody know whatever happened to Bill Roy, by the way? Next to John Carradine, he's the best actor I've ever seen in an Al Adamson film, and he plays the cult leader like he means it.$LABEL$ 1
+Love Jones cleverly portrays young African-American men and women in a clear, positive, realistic sense. I feel that all of the actors and actresses were magnificent and really did a great job at capturing the mood. Nia Long and Larenz Tate worked well together and I hope to see more work from the two of them. As a matter of fact all of the actors/actresses did such a fine job it would be great to see another romantic-comedy from them. This movie can be compared to most any well-written, romantic comedy. If you have not seen this movie already I strongly recommend that you do, it can definitely give you another perspective on life and love.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was really bad. First they didn't even follow the facts for it. Half of the movie was made up and it was more about the deputy whose mother was one of Ed Gein's victims. The acting was horrible, except for the guy playing Ed Gein, but its not hard to mess up playing a weird guy. though i think it was horrible i gave it a three because they started it off with actual crime photos. that was the best part of the movie. As soon as the introduction of the movie was finished the movie went downhill. The writer of this movie tried to spice it up, but it didn't need to be. The story of Ed Gein is interesting enough without falsifying information.$LABEL$ 0
+While it does crack the odd good joke, the humour is generally quite dry with members of the panel frequently pulling faces or resorting to coarse language and waiting on the crowd to applaud lame enough jokes.Unlike what an other comment says I don't think this is the best RTE have ever made, its really dry and sarcastic. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, there are few truly funny intelligent gags that would make you genuinely laugh out loud. People seem to be convinced by the comedians well known names rather than by judging the quality of the gags which aren't really that good. Overall its mediocre with some good laughs to be had but often it can be fairly mediocre. Its not as good as Jasper Carrot or Dave Allens stuff. I find Benny Hill funnier.$LABEL$ 0
+I could name plenty of funny movies. There are comedies that set out to be funny, and are. Some movies, like a Gymkata for example, try to be serious but end up funny. The Ladies Man is a film that is desperately trying to be funny, but could not be less funny if it was about a guy who got a lot of chicks in the middle of the wreckage of a nuclear holocaust. It's anti-funny.I don't think I laughed harder than a chuckle at anything in this movie. It's simply unfunny. It's boring, stupid, inane, annoying, mind-bogglingly bad, but not funny. I don't particularly care for Tim Meadows, or this character from SNL, but I expected better than this.The movie is completely lacking logic or common sense. It's like the script writer had a bag over his head while he was typing and he couldn't see which keys he was hitting. They tell the "origin" of the Ladies Man, but fail to include a motivation for his bizarre fascination with acting like it's still the seventies. The movie tries to get humor out of a man who appears to pleasuring himself to porn, shortly after he tried to hang himself. This is comedy? I like to consider myself having a pretty keen sense of humor (Spending a lot of time writing comedy as I do), but maybe I'm just not quite bright enough for this film.Lee Evans, so funny as Tucker in There's Something About Mary, is outrageously bad here. I was pleading with him in my head to shut up.By the end I was pounding on my chair, muttering under my breath, and had the film gone on any longer, would probably have attempted suicide. This film might not be as bad as Battlefield Earth, but it's the first movie I've seen that's come close.$LABEL$ 0
+Anyone familiar with horror films knows that most of them are not scary at all. Some people enjoy gorefests with subpar story lines and character development. I personally enjoy horror films that focus on atmosphere and interesting concepts (e.g., A Tale of Two Sisters, Kairo, etc.). Whatever the type of horror film one personally likes, there are only a select few that really scare you. Noroi is one of them.This is a documentary-style movie, which means that the entire film is a compilation of video clips that are linked by the legend of a demonic entity named Kagutaba. The premise is that a journalist filmed his own footage by interviewing people associated with the demonic rituals associated with Kagutaba, then compiled footage from other sources that link with his research. What results is a relentlessly chilling experience that feels very real and very disturbing, despite the fact that the story itself is fake.Some have compared Noroi with The Blair Witch Project, but the only similarity is the documentary style. One obvious difference between the films is that Noroi scares the viewer by linking events to one another using different sources. For example, the journalist records the exterior of a house that he is researching and sees something strange on the porch. Later in the film, a clip from another character's home video introduces that very same strange occurrence. The viewer's memory links the two incidents and chills start running down their spine. Another example involves a television show with a child psychic who answers every single question correctly except for one. In fact, her answer is so wrong that the viewer may wonder what the filmmakers were thinking. Later on, however, that wrong answer turns out to be linked to an extremely disturbing event. This is intelligent film-making indeed.Another difference between Noroi and Blair Witch is that Noroi provides not one, but two very long finales, the second of which is placed a minute after the credits start to roll and is the single greatest scare scene in the history of horror cinema. I do not say such things lightly. It totally wrecked me in a wonderous way.Other aspects of film-making are well done. The legend and ritualistic background of Kagutaba are very interesting and most of the actors did a good job. The only over-the-top performance comes from a guy who's supposed to be crazy anyway, so that's expected. The cinematography is intentionally gritty because all of the footage is supposed to represent videos shot on camcorders. Japanese films are not known for their special effects, but the effects used here were awesome. In some cases they create an other-worldly feel (e.g., the static interference or the first finale) but in other cases they are alarmingly realistic (e.g., the second finale).When all is said and done, Noroi goes down as the scariest film I've ever seen. I would go so far as to say that there is no film in existence that provides such sheer terror from beginning to end like Noroi does. See it now.$LABEL$ 1
+ALEXANDER NEVSKY is nothing short of a grand film on a grand scale. The film opens a window to a world and culture most Americans will never become acquainted with. And much has been said and written regarding the film's thinly veiled patriotism in the face of imminent war with the German Nazis.By US standards the acting is a bit stilted. The screenplay is short on words and big on visuals and action. And while the action can become tiresome, the visuals are often stunning. Direction is incredible.On another note, fans of Ralph Bakshi animation might notice that he stole a lot of his visuals for WIZARDS directly from a copy of ALEXANDER NEVSKY.$LABEL$ 1
+the mario series is back, and in my opinion, better than ever. Galaxy is the most creative mario yet; even more so than super mario 64. the controls are great; some of the best for the wii. beautiful graphical design as well. the levels are very big, and the good old bosses are back. there is tons to explore in this game; definitely a high level of replay value. I only have 2 complaints: 1: the story is a little to similar to mario 64. and 2: the difficulty isn't very high; though it does require some patience. mario fans: the game you've been waiting for. Casual gamers: this game is more than worth the buy. 9.8 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+I watched this on an 8 hour flight and (presumably because of the pressure and the altitude) I actually found it mildly entertaining (emphasis on the "mild").The actual idea behind the film was brilliant: a woman dies, her fiancé falls in love with someone else, she decided to make sure they don't get together, but eventually she lets them do it. Sadly the actual film wasn't as good. OK, there were a few laughs and the actors all worked well. But from the beginning the plot was about as predictable as the destination of the flight I was on. I think the whole gay-but-not-gay friend part of the story could have been worked a lot better. The talking parrot was a nice idea but to be honest: it wasn't really very funny.In summary the film was more interesting than staring at the seat in front of me, but it was a close call.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw The Greek Tycoon when it first came out in 1978. I found it extremely boring. I thought it was no better than a travelogue except for one thing: For the first time in my life I realized why it would be good to be rich. Seeing the scenery off Aristotle Onassis' yacht and getting my first real peek into the lifestyle of the rich and famous opened my eyes. To paraphrase Martha Stewart: It was a good thing. Funny, I don't remember the sex scene. I hadn't seen the movie since it was on the big screen and found the lovemaking session with the mistress memorable this time. Maybe because I was younger and single back then, it was no big deal.$LABEL$ 0
+I am a huge, huge fan of John Cusack, Samuel L. Jackson, and Tony Shalhoub. I'm slightly less fond of Stephen King, but I like some of his work.This said, I should have LOVED 1408.***POSSIBLE SPOILERS AFTER THIS POINT**** I walked in eager. I walked out disappointed.This is not the fault of the actors. Shalhoub and Jackson both have very small roles because the premise of the movie puts Cusack in the "guy in a locked room" scenario.This wasn't a BAD movie, but I can't call it a good one either. It was a muddied mess that had moments of "ouch, that's just WRONG," combined with moments of "ouch, that's just painful," and moments of "oh, now THAT'S just unfortunate" with very little continuity-connectivity between them. Eislin's father shows up once, and there's no seeming connection to the rest of Mike's personal life that we see displayed while he tries to survive the room. A previous commenter described the Olin/Enslin argument as worth watching, and I very much agree. But other than that, aside from some clever musical cues (the room almost playfully torments Enslin a little bit, and gives him one chance to get out before upping the ante...at which point it gives him the one-hour countdown clock and the titular line from the Carpenters "We've Only Just Begun.") it's mostly "stuff jumps out at you when you least expect it!" type horror that was fun when I was fourteen, and surrounded by friends my age, clutching each other in the summer while Jason stalked Camp Crystal Lake.The rest of the movie was "let's make him relive some of his most painful experiences" mindgaming, with "let's animate the paintings in creepy ways" cliché cheesiness.******END SPOILERS***** I expected better from this movie with Stephen King's name attached to it, as well as the actors I mentioned above.We never find out the origin of the evil. We never get to see the evil defeated, though we can presume maybe it was defeated.And the ending was just a jarring "What?!" moment.Wait for it to come on cable. I wouldn't have minded paying for it as a matinée, but I'm feeling a bit shortchanged for having paid opening night prices for it.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm surprised no-one has thought of doing a movie like this before. Horror is often most effective when it uses real life unpleasantness as a theme. And nobody (except for Steve Martin in The Little Shop of Horrors) likes going to the dentist. Tooth torture has been done before (see The Marathan Man for example), but this brings the terror into suburbia.The plot revolves around a dentist, Dr. Alan Feinstone (Corbin Bernsen), who descends into madness. Now our dear doctor wasn't playing with a full deck to begin with, but driven by jealousy and an obsessive-compulsive disorder he begins to reek havoc on those around him. The doctors spiraling mental condition is kinda close to what we see in Micheal Douglas's character in Falling Down, but with a horror edge.Written and directed by horror stalwarts Stuart Gordon and Brian Yuzna, its witty and has a great flow. Also featured playing a cop, is the ever welcome Ken Foree.Now I believe this movie would not work without the absolutely fantastic performance from Corbin Bernsen. Having really only seen him in LA Law before, I was blown away by his acting.The sequel The Dentist 2 is also worth watching, but slightly under par compared to the original.TTKK's Bottomline - A fun movie with some scenes that will make you cringe, capped (pun intended) by a great performance from Bernsen$LABEL$ 1
+This is the most recent addition to a new wave of educational documentaries like "The Corporation" and "Fahrenheit 9/11." Its commentary is clear and unwavering as is the breathtaking cinematic style of this well crafted feature. The film manages to impose a powerful sense of how unsteady our world is as we rush toward an environmentally unsustainable future at lightning speed - while showing us the terrifying beauty in our pursuit of progress. Truly a remarkable accomplishment which must be seen by all who care about the world we leave to our children. Bravo!NB - this is also the only film (of 8) at Varsity theaters (Toronto) boasting a stick-on tag which reads... "To arrange group viewings please contact...." ... a further testament to the popularity and importance of this gem.My bet... an academy award nomination for best documentary.OB101$LABEL$ 1
+This is a fine drama and a nice change of pace from today's more hectic and loud films. It is another solid based-on-a-true store, which still means much of it could be made up for dramatic purposes. Frankly, I don't know but I liked the story.The story is about a young man back in the Fifties who gets interested in rocketry and wants to enter that field instead of working in the coal mines as everyone else, including his father, does in this West Virginia town. The big problem is the conflict it causes between the boy and his father, which I think was overdone. I would like to have a little less tension between the two.The young man, still a boy, is played by Jake Gyllenhaal, one of his first staring assignments, I think. He's likable, as are his school buddies in here. It's nice to see nice kids in a modern-day film. The two other key actors in the movie are Chris Cooper (the dad) and Laura Dern (the kid's teacher who encourages him all the time.)The cinematography is decent the 1950s soundtrack is fun to hear. Once again: I wish there more of these kind of films made today.$LABEL$ 1
+This one will get reviews all over the map because it doesn't comfortably fit any mold. It's horror-- but not a splatterfest. It's equal part Suspense as well as Horror-- yet without the usual Hollywood screams and jerky camera. The feel of the movie is spare and lean with next to no special effects because I think you should listen and watch the faces of the characters.Forget that Brendan is a graduate of the Buffy universe. That's a red herring. He IS acting here. 'Camp' is a misreading of the tone of this story. Adrienne Barbeau is giving a rock solid performance-- so she must believe the script has something to say. We all know the sorry excuses where the actors plainly don't care anymore and are just waiting for the director to snap "Cut" and get their paychecks. This is Not the case, here.Forgive the fact that the bodies begin to fall with almost mondo-funny regularity. I don't think the intent was humorous-- but to keep you off balance. Think of it less of a Horror 'Movie' and more of a Horror 'Play' on a stage-- that decrepit whitewashed house. Then you might see it's really about paranoia, fear, and spiralling madness set in an isolated someplace, USA.And it is twisty. Time travel, Mind Control, secret experiments and Nazi's who may NOT be dead. . .yet.I say rent it and give it a try if you're in the mood for something a little cerebral. This would be a good choice for a Saturday Midnight sit down.$LABEL$ 1
+In Bridgeport, the deranged high school teacher Richard Fenton (Johnathon Schaech) is obsessed by the teenager student Donna Keppel (Brittany Snow); she witnesses him murder her family to stay with her, but Richard is arrested and sent to prison for life. Three years later, the traumatized Donna is feeling better but is still under psychological treatment and taking pills. On her prom night, she goes with her boyfriend Bobby (Scott Porter) and two couples of friends to the Pacific Grad Hotel for the party. But the psychopath Richard has escaped from prison and is lodged in the same floor in the hotel chasing Donna, stabbing her friends and staff of the hotel that cross his path.The forgettable slash "Prom Night" is a collection of clichés with a total lack of originality. The stupid story is shallow and silly, with a bad acting of Johnathon Schaech in the role of an insane killer. The predictable screenplay is amazing since it is possible to foresee what is going to happen in the next scenes. My vote is three.Title (Brazil): "A Morte Convida Para Dançar" ("The Death Invites to Dance")$LABEL$ 0
+We all know a movie never does complete justice to the book, but this is exceptional. Important characters were cut out, Blanca and Alba were essentially mushed into the same character, most of the subplots and major elements of the main plot were eliminated. Clara's clairvoyance was extremely downplayed, making her seem like a much more shallow character than the one I got to know in the book. In the book we learn more about her powers and the important effects she had on so many people, which in turn was a key element in the life of the family. In the movie she was no more than some special lady. The relationship between Esteban and Pedro Tercero (Tercero-third-, by the way, is the son and thus comes after Segundo-second-) and its connections to that between Esteban and his grandson from Pancha García (not son, who he also did recognize) is chopped in half and its importance downplayed.One of the most fundamental things about the book that the film is all but stripped of: this is called "The House of the Spirits." Where is the house? The story of 3-4 generations of a family is supposed to revolve around the "big house on the corner," a line stated so many times in the novel. The house in fundamental to the story, but the movie unjustly relegates it to a mere backdrop.If I hadn't read the book before, I would have never guessed that such a sappy, shallow movie could be based on such a rich and entertaining novel.$LABEL$ 0
+The largest crowd to ever see a wrestling event in the US took place at Wrestlemania 6. Over 93,000 people showed up to break the Rolling Stones indoor record, and this event didn't disappoint at all. Maybe the biggest match of all time took place as the Immortal Hulk defended his world title against the Ultimate Warrior. There are over 12 matches in all so you get tons of action$LABEL$ 1
+The second alternate Gundam universe tale (G-Gundam being the first), Gundam Wing is yet another different view into the Gundam verse. The familiar elements are found but Gundam Wing is actually different then its counterparts. The biggest being the Gundams are nothing more than terrorists combating one lone organization. In truth, the series doesn't really become a show about war until episode 7 but in truth the real conflict, the Eve Wars, don't happen until the later episodes. The greatest positives of this series are it's characters. All the main characters are fleshed out throughout the 49 episode run and you can really sympathize with each of the roles their put in. Another great plus is the fantastic character and mecha design of the series. The designs put some of it's other Gundam counterparts to shame. One of the biggest criticism of this series is how many die hard UC fans claim rip off of the original UC saga. Why Gundam Wing gets this rap when the more apparent UC clone of Gundam Seed is out there is beyond me. True there are many moments lifted but their told in new ways and there are distinct differences as well.Take for example, the usual comparison of Zechs Merquise and UC Icon Char Aznable. Throughout the series, Zechs is more the outcast in the Alliance and in ways OZ as well, while the Red Comet was shining symbol of Zeon. Another big difference is the fact Zechs loses a lot soldiers under his command hence the other nickname he's given in the early episodes: "Killer of his own men." Char isn't given this label. The problems with this series isn't the philosophy mumbo jumbo but two problems. The first is the reused animation footage of the Gundams attacks. Sure it's fun seeing Heavy Arms attack tanks, MS, and planes the first time. But on it's fourth re-use scenes like this do get old. The second problem is that the entire series is supposed to take place during an entire year. If you really think about all the events springing in the series, a lot happens in just one lone year. But I guess you can easily dismiss this fact when ignoring the intro's first lines every so often. As it ranks, this is probably the best of the Alternate universe Gundam tales and a great introduction into the Gundam world. After all, this was the very first Gundam anime to air in the US television.$LABEL$ 1
+What an embarassment...This doesnt do justice to the original with awful acting from everyone in this movie, Hitchcock must be spinning in his grave. The scence where Marion gets killed in the shower is just so uneffective and unoriginal. The only good bit is that they used the same music and its so obvious who kills her in the shower. I rate this movie 3/10$LABEL$ 0
+It's too kind to call this a "fictionalized" account of the Barker gang. They got the names right, but that's about it.Russell is still hot, I'll grant you that, but this is not the real Ma Barker, who basically took care of the boys by cooking and assisting when they moved around the country, not by planning or participating in the crimes. I think it would have been far more interesting to present the real story of a middle-aged woman caught up in the criminal activities of her children and their cronies.I also have to agree with those reviewers who found the shoot-out scenes to be totally unbelievable. The Barker/Karpis victims were a combination of the innocent and of the law-enforcement agents who pursued them, but they definitely did not mow down half-a-dozen FBI agents every time they were cornered. (On the other hand, as several recent books have related, the FBI of that era emphasized the idea of agents coming only from legal or accounting backgrounds to the extent that many agents had very little law enforcement or firearms experience. They were not the well-trained agents that we picture today.) But the worst sin of all is that the movie is basically a bore. Nobody changes, nobody grows. We know the end of the road is ahead, we just don't know which shoot-out it will be.Only for die-hard Russell fans.$LABEL$ 0
+The slasher sub-genre has been pretty much exhausted - in fact, even by 1979, just one year after the supposed 'first slasher', Halloween (which was released seven years after Bay of Blood), was released; the sub-genre wasn't far from being exhausted; but Tourist Trap represents one of the more original outings. The film follows the same basic formula as most slashers - i.e. madman murders a load of kids, but draws its originality from the fact that madman is shown from the beginning (as opposed to an unseen assailant or a man in a mask) and we actually get some insight into his character. The fact that this killer also has telekinetic abilities, including being able to control the wax dummies that fill his house, adds to the originality. We kick off with a great opening sequence, which sees a young man fall foul of having a flat tire after finding himself in a gas station of terror. The scene is amazingly creepy, as the wax dummies taunt him and things fly from the shelves - and it gives the audience a great insight into what is to come; namely, a very creepy horror film! The acting credibility is as non-existent as you would expect from a seventies slasher, but to be honest; it's not all that bad. The girls look hot, the boys don't really matter; and Chuck Connors is more than adequately creepy in the role of the psycho. He's not exactly Anthony Perkins; but still, good enough. It's not the acting that's the star of the show, however, and as you might expect - the creepy atmosphere takes that prize. Wax models, as proved by the likes of House of Wax (Vincent Price version...) are very creepy; and the film makes best use of that fact. There are very few things in cinema that can be frightening by simply being there - but wax statues are definitely one of those things. The killer's special ability could easy have gotten in the way of the atmosphere, but the film makes best use of this fact, even, by having various things fly off shelves and it goes well with the rest of the movie. On the whole, this is a very good film. While Tourist Trap might not be absolutely essential viewing; it's well worth seeing and I can recommend it.$LABEL$ 1
+A good idea, badly implemented. While that could summarize 99% of the SciFi channel's movies, it really applies here. I love movies where a good back story is slowly revealed, and I like action movies, and I like all of the main actors, so this could have been great. However, despite some good acting, this movie fails due to Bill Platt's bad writing and directing.Another review made the good point of needing to know where you're going so you can get there. This movie doesn't. It's put together in such a haphazard way that you know the words "second draft" are not in Bill Platt's vocabulary. There is one scene that is entirely unnecessary and could be removed without anyone noticing. This scene even begins and ends with them driving a car, so you could cut from one car scene to the other and never have missed the pointless scene in the middle.This movie also had a strange habit of under explaining some details while over explaining others, some to the point where you can guess the entire "plot" up front. It also had a habit of aborting a fight early, probably just because they couldn't afford it. There are also a few laughably bad scenes where the "plot" is revealed on a computer and the final battle involving conveniently placed "toxic adhesive" (seriously, what *is* that?).If you are a fan of Shiri Appleby, watch this movie because she's OK. She does manage to break out of her "Roswell" persona a few times and make for a good tough chick (but not always). John De Lancie plays the same character he plays in everything he's ever done since playing Q back in ST:TNG, so that's nothing new.In all, I gave this movie a 4/10 rating.$LABEL$ 0
+NYC, 2022: The Greenhouse effect, vanished oceans, grinding unemployment and scarcity of water, power and food.. and New York's population has topped 40 million. This is a little gem of a picture, not least because a resource-depleted future is a reality for us 21st Century citizens. The low-budget opening titles of this movie are great: set to music, a low-tech 'tape-slide' sequence composed entirely of archive stills from the dawn of photography right up to 1973, depicts an unspoiled American pastoral developing into a polluted and crowded Hell in less than 2 minutes. Succinct and unambiguous, it's truly memorable. Budget limitations are also behind rather unimaginative cinematography and other constraints, at odds with the story's brilliant premise. The police station sequences are like an episode of some 70's TV detective show, and the other interior sets look basic at best. The budget probably all went on trying to 'futurise' the Soylent Executive's 'Chelsea West' apartment with state-of-the art goodies, meaning the other costumes are perfunctory, some establishing shots are bizarrely underpopulated and the daytime exteriors seemingly all shot through a smoke filter.The memorable scene where Sol and Thorn (Charlton Heston) share a meal of expensive and rare food neatly summarises their society: They enjoy real bourbon, lettuce, celery, tomato, apple, and beef, and we really sense their lip-smacking appreciation of someone else's wealthy privileges.Robinson's pivotal death scene, in which his character is willingly euthenased at a place called 'Home', depicts him immersed in images of the world's once-beautiful flora and fauna as he remembered them, beautifully contrasted with the jaundiced Thorn's dawning realization that the future has been bankrupted, among other horrors.This is one smart film, and its core message is as pertinent today as it was in the early 70s. Yes, I know we're not eating the dead yet, but with our resource-sapping longevity, spiraling poverty gap, corporate global capitalism and unchecked habitat destruction leading to climate change, the lasting prediction of 'Soylent Green' may come to pass.$LABEL$ 1
+What a GREAT movie! This is so reminiscent of the wonderful Disney classic family movies of the 60's and the 70's. I was so pleasantly surprised, after the past 20 years of absolute detritus Disney's live productions crews have churned out.This movie is an absolute joy. The child stars were just that; professional, quality actors. I am most impressed with the quality of this movie.Sigourney Weaver was a total sycophantic *insert hyperbole here* running a prison camp for wayward boys. Siobhan Fallon was wonderful as the star's mother.I won't recant the story here as there is little point in doing that yet again, but the story is wonderful, the direction was extraordinary and the acting quality was superb! This work reminds you what it's like to be a child, without going all sugary or being too grim. The deleted scenes featured on the DVD version were truly best left deleted. They were too harsh for this movie and would have taken so much from it. While the abuse was hinted in the finished product, it was not outright shown beyond a certain extent. It was best that way.This was an absolutely delightful movie to watch.It gets a 9/10 from...the Fiend :.$LABEL$ 1
+DOUBLE EXPOSURE was a tremendous surprise. It contains outstanding acting (particularly from the underrated Callan), fine cinematography and a compelling storyline. In other words, it's one of the finest horror efforts to emerge from the 1980s.Callan plays a fashion photographer who experiences dreams of murdering his models, at a time when he is reunited with his psychologically volatile brother (who happens to be missing an arm and a leg). When the models Callan dreams about killing actually turn up dead, the photographer begins to doubt his own sanity... but there is more to the picture than he is seeing.This film never received the praise it deserves. Most critics and filmgoers lump it in with the horde of slasher films released at the same time, but it stands high above the bulk of that sorry lot. It's clever and unique, which isn't something one can comfortably say about most films of this genre, but it's also passionately crafted and performed. DOUBLE EXPOSURE is a gem of its kind.$LABEL$ 1
+No need to detail what others have written in other reviews - here goes the summary: * Much of the nested animation work is downright gorgeous - the colors are superb - would love to have it done in silk as a necktie* The story and execution is a total snooze - it was quite difficult to stay awake at timesIf you are a student of the fine arts, medieval calligraphy, early religion and so forth - have at it. This is a FILM for you.If you want an engaging, entertaining MOVIE - look elsewhere - this is a failure as anything other than an artistic statement.Vikings didn't have horns by the way...$LABEL$ 0
+this movie I saw some 10 years ago (maybe more), I took it in a rental and never found it to buy even in French sites. The end is very surprising and intelligent. I would like very much to watch it again because I think it's as surpring as the Sixth Sense althogh a completely different kind of movie.$LABEL$ 1
+A great cast, a fantastic CGI monster and a brilliant script. If this film had had any of those things then it might not have been amongst the worst films I've ever wasted an hour and a half on. Infinite chimpanzees with infinite typewriters have not yet written the complete works of Shakespeare but along the way this has appeared in their waste-paper bin and somehow it got made into a movie. You can tell the the actors regret signing those contracts with every word they mutter directly into camera. The CGI is amateurish in the extreme and they might have created more tension of the cast had been attacked with the Sinclair Spectrum it was created on. I wanted to like this film, it has nice cameo appearances by Gil Gerard and Walter Koenig so I expected a fun horror movie that didn't take itself too seriously. It actually does try to take itself seriously but is about as much fun as trip to the dentist. Do yourself a favour. Don't watch this movie, you'll only encourage them to make more.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of those films you can have on for a couple of hours on a Sunday morning -- able to do other things with no real complications in losing any understanding of the proceedings, and gaining some fascination in wondering why such mediocrities acquired the manpower and financial resources to be produced in the first place.Of course, with all the cable channels, as well as Lifetime's need to fill its time slots with 100 or so hours worth of movies per week (along with incessant "Golden Girls" reruns), this type of fare is now a t.v. staple. Also, it seems these flicks provide livelihood to the Canadian locales where most are made, as well as the host of Canadian actors appearing in them.Tori Spelling, like the ferret-face Paris Hilton, is somebody who - if not for family connections and resources - would likely be working at The Gap. But at least Tori has become, say, a C+-level thespian, appearing in occasional presentations appropriate to this level.This story is one which has been seen on Lifetime and similar venues God-knows-how-many times. Devious woman, a total sociopath, trying to screw-up everyone else's lives, operating during the initial parts of the story with more cleverness than a CIA operative could muster, committing murder when necessary, and out to wreck the life of the flick's "heroine."As usual, the male lead is a completely clueless dolt. And in these types of films, one finds, say, characters about whom one can really "care," about 10% of the time. This one is in the other 90%.$LABEL$ 0
+There's a spartan, unsentimental edge to this film that allows plenty of room for us to participate in the action without any stylistic encumbrance telling us HOW we're meant to be feeling; in 'Blue', everything was overtly sad (sure, powerful as hell, but still); in 'White', it was delightful whimsy. But there are no such emotional clues, or cues for that matter, in this one. It's as if he finally let the force of the tale work its own magic without razzle-dazzle embelishment. I think that's what makes it the most initially enigmatic of the three, but finally, the most transcendent and redemptive. Never has remorseless, unsparing honesty been quite so beautiful.$LABEL$ 1
+Sex is Comedy, though not driven by a fantastically imaginative plot, concentrates effectively on the relationship between film-director and crew during the process of film-making, whilst successfully addressing the dynamics of human relationships and more specifically the issues and problems encountered by actors involved in filming sex scenes. Director, 'Jeanne', features prominently throughout, for it is she who carries the plot forward, in the place of a narrator, and gives us numerous little pearls of wisdom to think about. She is a social commentator, relating to her assistant and others the problems she finds with her new male lead by way of associating him with a masculine stereotype. Their ambiguous relationship typifies something about human nature – the tendency to be fickle. On one hand, the two seem close; when he is not in sight, she claims to hate him. Jeanne also addresses his masculine pride perhaps in a feminist take on things.The taboo of what constitutes obscenity, is raised: the content of the sex scenes is not considered obscene but beautiful, because it is fakeness which constitutes obscenity - that is the director's justification. This is, however, doubly ironic, for the film we watch is in itself a construct within a construct.There's more to this film than just relationships, of course. Watching this film is not simply a question of analysing it for the sake of drawing out some sort of meaning. One can delight in the natural lighting which pervades the movie. This makes it realistic and believable. A static camera is sometimes used taking in a heavy composition and at times the camera appears shaky like a home movie. If you're looking for something fun to watch on a Sunday afternoon that isn't too heavy but still leaves you thinking: this is it.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this movie on the shelf at Blockbuster and thought it looked cool. The DVD case touted so many great actors and I wondered to myself, "Why have I never heard of this movie?" Then I turned over the case and saw the director, Lee Tamahori, and thus the answer began to explain itself. First of all I want to defeat the idea that a great cast equals a great movie, but more importantly, I think I should explain why this movie is so terrible. Okay, the script is awful and full of one dimensional characters. This is the worst role I've ever seen Chazz Palminteri play and I'm surprised he would do something this ridiculous. However, under-appreciated yet talented actors must earn their money. Palminteri plays a one dimensional police detective who comes off about as dumb as a C-movie mob henchman. Him, along with the lead detective (the poorly directed Nolte), the great but simple Michael Madsen, and the late Chris Penn (whose role along with Madsen's was completely thrown away) make up an elite squad of LA detectives tasked to rid the city of mobsters sometime in the late 30s or 40s. The movie introduces this squad as cops who will break every law to make sure those who think they're above the law don't operate in their city. At the beginning of the film the cops rough up a local restaurant, grab an alleged mobster (William Peterson) and take him to a place they call the Mulholland Falls. They toss him off one of the cliffs on Mullholland Drive and this is supposed to demonstrate how serious these guys are about ridding the city of crime. Whatever. This was nothing more than a cheap excuse to use a crappy title that's designed to make you think of LA and its famous sites. Somewhere later on they find the dead body of Jennifer Connelly and the plot begins. On to the direction which was nothing short of amateur and WEAK! Aside from the fact that the characters were B-movie quality, the overacting by those such as Treat Williams, the guy who plays the chief of police, and the awful Daniel Baldwin are just a few highlights that made this movie seem like it was Lee Tamhori's first film. There's not one good performance in the movie aside from maybe Melanie Griffith, who some might argue was the worst in the movie (she won a Razzie for this film). In the end, it was her character that was not that great and she really didn't have much to work with. As with any bad movie, it all begins with the writing, and this script was no gem. Plot is formulated simply on the basis of setting up the next scene and never takes into consideration characters' motivations. The way the characters behaved was unbelievable. Cops taking the law into their own hands is believable within the right circumstances (see LA CONFIDENTIAL) but in this case it looked like these guys could get away with anything, including murder, and never bat an eye about cleaning anything up. I guess we as an audience are just supposed to assume that no one saw anything and that people won't ask questions. Everything about the story is predictable and is spoon fed so well that we understand everything that's going to happen a good while before the characters do. However, it doesn't make us feel smart, but rather makes us angry at how stupid the hero is, despite the fact that there aren't any heroes in this movie. In the end, the best component of the movie was the great score by David Grusin. From the beginning, it invoked a since of CHINATOWN, which quickly faded when I realized how unbelievable just about everything in the film was. It didn't surprise me to learn that it made a whopping eleven million in the box office. What I will say is that this film is worth watching for a few laughs. Nick Nolte's acting is like an unsuccessfully domesticated junkyard dog and I laughed every time he tried to be serious. I also nearly fell on the floor at each of the slow motion shots used in the film (I think there are three with one during a key fight scene). When you have to use slow motion in the heat of a dramatic moment, you clearly have some problems. So, even with my negative criticism, I will recommend this movie solely for the purpose of enticing laughter, that is, if you appreciate the good movies like LA CONFIDENTIAL.$LABEL$ 0
+You know a movie will not go well when John Carradine narrates (a.k.a. reads the script & plot synopsis) over his character's funeral procession, a mere 5 minutes into the movie. The narration is his character's last will & testament. It stipulates that his estate be divided amongst his 4 children and servants. The children shall split $136 million equally, but if any should die then that share is split amongst the remainders. If all the children should die then it is divided amongst the servants. To be eligible, they must live in the family estate for a week. It sounds like the typical plot of a reality show.There is little subtext as to the nature of the Deans. They are a powerful and severely dysfunctional family, but the real trouble starts with the drowning of that dog. From the opening voice-over by John Carradine you expect this movie will lead to a Machiavellian cat and mouse game with a twist ending. That journey is painfully slow and pointless. We trudge through minutes of watching people sitting around, playing pool, throwing darts, the misuse of the "through the fish bowl" shot, dramatic conversations between silk cravat wearing men, constant bickering, misplaced circus music, bizarre flashbacks reminiscent of faux-German expressionism, the horror aesthetic of the 4th grade and heaps of dramatic overacting. This all inevitably leads to the expected & ungratifying ending. You will be happy to still be alive, but the pain might be too great to bear alone. Share children, share.-Celluloid Rehab$LABEL$ 0
+An art student in Rome is possessed...or something. She has dreams of being nailed to a cross and Satan himself raping her. He possesses her (I think) and turns her into a sex addict. That's about all I could take and I turned it off.A pointless "Exorcist" rip off. I caught this on cable back in the 80s and was horrified...and not in a good way! This movie is supposed to be a horror film but turns into nothing more than a sex film disguised as a horror movie. There's tons of pointless female nudity and the actress playing the lead has to degrade herself more than once. We see her being raped by Satan (a hot-looking guy), masturbating, coming on to her own father...Gotta give her points for bravery. Add to that bad dubbing, editing (the rape scene looks like it was cut a bit), lousy acting and a story that makes next to no sense. The one disturbing sequence (her being nailed to the cross) ALMOST works but the lousy "special" effects ruin it. This is one of the few horror film that was so bad I stopped watching. Skip it.$LABEL$ 0
+Ridiculous fluff, that compounds its error by trying to have meaning. Joan, this time as a congresswoman, Agatha Reed, chairwoman of a committee dedicated to "investigating the high cost of food." Says Congresswoman Reed, "The housewife has been getting it in the neck too long. I'm going to keep fighting long enough so that the American family can take a vacation once a year, see a movie every week and feed an occasional peanut to an elephant." She's all business, but becomes all gushy when she is awarded an honorary degree from Good Hope College, where she was expelled for the crime of having stayed out all night (the parallel to Joan's real life is unmistakable here, as it is in all Joan Movies). The degree causes much consternation on campus ("That would make it the most broad-minded institution in the history of education!") – but Joan is unaware of this as she arrives. The college president, Jim Merrill, played by Robert Young, at his handsomest, happens to be Joan's former teacher – and lover. It was with *him* that she spent the night out, all those years ago, but Joan felt it was better to just disappear rather than try and explain to the skeptical college that they were about to be married. Naturally, this high-profile event will be covered by *Life* magazine – and who does the photographer turn out to be? Yet another of Joan's old lovers – this one, she hung out with in China "during the war", and he thinks Joan might be headed for trouble with her old flame. Eve Arden, playing Joan's assistant, "Woodie," is at her butchest and most smart-alecky in this movie – with her flippant and unnecessary remarks that would make you dismiss her from her job, if you didn't like her so much. But you not only like Eve in this, as in all her roles, you adore her. She is so droll and no-nonsense, you'd like to pay her just to hang around and be one of the boys. When Joan cries upon arriving at her alma mater, Eve tells her it "looks fierce." But Joan says that maybe others only see a collection of buildings, she, Joan, sees youth – herself at 18 "eager, expectant – a little frightened, asking 'What is life? What am I?'" But, of course, if we actually go into depth about Joan at 18, the truth may be a little different. For me, this is the major problem in watching any Joan movie. You can call her characters whatever you want to, but it's always all Joan, all the time. So, since what we're always seeing is Joan being herself, it's easy to dispense with character's names. It's just that it gets confusing when Joan tries to tell us something patently untrue, like her description of herself at 18 – when we know that at 18, Joan had already been around the block several times. Many men would have described her as eager, and as far as being expectant, she had already had several abortions at this point. But that's a personal problem, and I digress, but I simply wanted to explain why I say things such as "…and then Joan does…" this or that, or "We see Joan as..." when we are not literally watching a home movie.There is an unintentionally hilarious moment in which Joan is given the Clara Bow doll that she left behind in college – quick arithmetic tells us that Joan and Clara were contemporaries and this is a transparent ploy to make us believe Joan is much younger than she actually looks. It fails. What also fails is an attempt at early-50s political correctness. In the story, Joan has written a book about free speech and made a film (no, not the one about the plumber), and she attracts the attention of an early 50s campus radical, Dr. Pitt, who is about to be fired for his views, which are shockingly similar to Joan's. This is where the movie mysteriously becomes a morality tale –a weak one, to be sure, but perhaps the only thing that keeps it from sliding into oblivion.$LABEL$ 0
+first, i'd like to say that, while i know my share about star wars, i am not a fanatic. i do not know how many chromosomes a Wamp Rat has or the extended family of TK427. what i know is this: Star wars, all the movies(less so with episode 2 though), captured something magical. it's hard to say what, what button Lucas has found and boldly pressed, but it works. Star Wars is more than a movie. it's an idea.How, may you ask? i shall explain. star wars touches on the most universal of stereotypes, good vs evil. it does this so obviously, so profoundly, that literally any person from any environment can understand. Episode VI does the very well, concluding the epic struggle between a son and his used and manipulated father, yet also, with the addition of the prequels, reveals even more to the hinted back story. suddenly, it's Darth Vader at the front, and viewers realize that it's the story about Anakin, not just Luke. but even before 1-3, there was amazing depth to it all. it felt real, as if capsule fell from the sky into Lucas's lap, detailing a historical account of a galaxy far, far away.Star Wars is definitely something far above the norm, and i must admit, whenever i see them, particularly this one, i feel very small. i feel as though i've been thrust into a world where good and evil are so clearly defined. i get a tingling feeling when i see them, a feeling that something, somehow, has touched me more than any physical thing could ever hope.$LABEL$ 1
+Like Margot in "Fear of Fear" falls victim of her ambitious husband, like Fox in "Fox and his friends" is driven into suicide by his boyfriend who took all his money away, like Xaverl Bolwieser in "The Stationsmaster's Wife" who goes to prison in order to give his cheating wife a chance to get rid of him, like Hermann Hermann who seeks refuge in insanity in order to flee his stupid wife and bankrupt company, so also Hans Epp is a victim of the German "Wirtschaftswunder"-Society after World War II in R.W. Fassbinder's "The Merchant of the Four Seasons". Simply from the fact that Fassbinder played through social abuse between men and women as well as between hetero- and homosexual couples, it should be clear that he does not favorize any sex.In Hans Epp's case there are the women who drive him into despair, illness and finally death. When he comes back from the Foreign Legion where he flew because he could not stand anymore the pressure of his mother, she complains that he is still alive while the good boy from her neighbor had been killed. Then Hans gets a job as a policeman, but is surprised by his foreman while he is seduced by a prostitute. After having lost his job, he works as a fruit-merchant with little income, going from backyard to backyard "crying out" his produce. His mother, one of his sisters and her husband are ashamed to have such a "street-worker" in their family. "The love of his life" (she has no name in the movie) refuses to marry him because his job does not fit together with her social status and origin. So he marries Irmgard whom he does not love and who does not love him. From her constant pressure on him he flees into drinking. One evening, after his wife was stalking him, he explodes and hits her. She flees to her family for which this event was just what they have been waiting for. When Irmgard is calling a lawyer for divorce, Hans suffers a heart attack. Imrgard decides to stay with him, but from now on, he is not allowed anymore to do heavy work and to drink alcohol. So he starts to feel more and more superfluous, gets quieter and quieter and more and more depressive. When he finds out that Irmgard cheats him, he chooses to end his life, but not like Hermann Hermann by having a trip into the light of madness, but he drinks himself to death in front of Imrgard, their little daughter and his boozing buddies. Fassbinder said in an interview that Hans knew what he was doing. The question, however is: Did Hans just kill himself because he could not stand anymore his miserable environment, or did he make self-justice?$LABEL$ 1
+Hari Om is about an impossible love between a French tourist and the auto-rickshaw driver who agrees to take her to a rendezvous with her indifferent boyfriend. A sort of third-world road movie, that careens from lush reverie to madcap comedy, it is distinguished by the stellar performance of Vijay Raaz, who has become one of India's busier actors after his appearance as the event planner in Mira Nair's Monsoon Wedding.In an interview, Raaz proves to be quite untouched by his success, responding rather carefully and pensively to questions. He discovered a love of acting and joined a major theatre troupe while in university, but for one with so much formal training is surprisingly inarticulate about his craft. He speaks of honesty and purity as the wellsprings of his approach, and the earnestness of his desire to communicate something authentic to the audience is clear. On screen, Raaz conveys an emotional integrity and dramatic assurance that lifts his characterization to an extraordinary level, and Director Bharatbala has cast and directed him perfectly. He has a wonderfully expressive face which the camera revels in; close-ups of that face are as compelling as shots of Camille Natta, who is gorgeous as the Frenchwoman Isa.$LABEL$ 1
+It must be the most corniest TV show on the air. This is probably a escape for Jim Belushi and all of his bad movies. His brother sucked all the talent out he younger brother. I hope this show is canceled and never spoken of again except in a negative use. Jim has got to retire or something. Please let them go of the air. If i here a joke from that show i will throw up and and wash my eyes out with a toothbrush. Id rather be taken from the devil himself than watch a full half hour that piece of programing. I still do not understand why the show is still in the air and running. We all know deep down that we want to shoot our TV screens when we see Jim's face. In conclusion, no more please.$LABEL$ 0
+This one's a doozy. Dating from 1949, Scene of the Crime often plays more like a Coen Bros. movie set in the 1940's and filmed in black and white, except that the writer's ear for pastiche here isn't quite so well-tuned -- maybe this can be seen instead as the forerunner to Oscar-baiting schlock like Road to Perdition. Frankly, it's a wonder that this film isn't considered a classic by film professors and critics everywhere, considering how much it offers in term of overly articulated mannerist thrills cloaked in false significance ( much like the grandaddy of all such "fake art" films, Citizen Kane, or anything by Murnau. ) MGM is usually a studio that can do no wrong in my eyes, and I think any story, any atmosphere, even "gritty realism," can only benefit from grotesque overaestheticization. You could say I'm a disciple of the Minnelli school. But it takes a certain light touch to write mannered tough-guy dialogue of the Dashiell Hammett stripe, a willingness, perhaps, to let maybe one or two scenes pass without a line like "Careful, Mr. Wiggly, or you'll have thirteen fish to fry and no little wormies to catch them with." I made most of that up -- "Mr. Wiggly," unfortunately, made the cut -- but believe me, the dialogue is just that loonily inflated and riddled with non sequiturs. Even the lead cop's wife played by Arlene Dahl speaks like she has a moon-shaped scar under one eye and the Christian name Rocco. By the time Van Johnson turns in his badge with the line, "I'm sick to death of death and homicide," you'll wonder how the writer's fixation with ornate literary devices -- in this case, zeugma -- could ever have been misconstrued as "street." For those who have outgrown The Naked Gun series, this is the funniest cops-n-robbers film going.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a haunting, powerful Italian adaptation of James M. Cain's novel The Postman Always Rings Twice directed by the great Luchino Visconti. What is so interesting about the film is that in every way it transcends it's source material to become something bolder and more original (interestingly Camus also credits Cain's novel as the key inspiration for his landmark novel The Stranger). The film has a greater power and intensity than the novel because Visconti is able to create the filmic equivalent of Cain's narrative structure but offer a more complex exploration of gender. Cain's very American novel is also uncritically fascinated with the construction of whiteness (the lead character Cora is obsessively afraid she will be identified as a Mexican and embarrassed that she married a Greek immigrant), which is not relevant to the Italian rural context that Visconti is working in. This allows the class antagonisms to take center stage and dance among the embers of the passionate, doomed love affair of the two main characters. This film is a complex, suspenseful, rewarding experience.$LABEL$ 1
+Mann photographs the Alberta Rocky Mountains in a superb fashion, and Jimmy Stewart and Walter Brennan give enjoyable performances as they always seem to do. But come on Hollywood - a Mountie telling the people of Dawson City, Yukon to elect themselves a marshal (yes a marshal!) and to enforce the law themselves, then gunfighters battling it out on the streets for control of the town? Nothing even remotely resembling that happened on the Canadian side of the border during the Klondike gold rush. Mr. Mann and company appear to have mistaken Dawson City for Deadwood, the Canadian North for the American Wild West.Canadian viewers be prepared for a Reefer Madness type of enjoyable howl with this ludicrous plot, or, to shake your head in disgust.$LABEL$ 0
+No, no, no, no, no, no, NO! This is not a film, this is an excuse to show people dancing. This is just not good. Even the dancing is slow and not half as entertaining as the mediocre 'Dirty Dancing', let alone any other good dance movie.Is it a love story? Is it a musical? Is it a drama? Is it a comedy? It's not that this movie is a bit of all, it's that this movie fails at everything it attempts to be. The film turns out to be even more meaningless as the film progresses.Acting is terrible from all sides, the screenplay is definitely trying to tell us something about relationship but fails miserably.WATCH FOR THE MOMENT - When Patrick Stewart enters the scene and you think the film might get better as he brightens up the dull atmosphere. For a second.$LABEL$ 0
+I have no idea what the producers of The Shield were trying to do, but the result speaks for itself: The Shield is practically unwatchable.Supposedly the performances on The Shield are great...In reality, the show is so badly put together that you can't even really see the performances. For instance, the editing cuts away from reaction shots before they've had their full impact.I don't know what intellectual rationale there is for that, but it robs the show of all emotional impact.I'll give The Shield one point for ambition in its subject matter, but that's pretty much all I can give it.It's a shame to see a number of talented performer waste their gift on something so strangely badly filmed.$LABEL$ 0
+I watched the first few episodes a short while back and felt I couldn't take it anymore. The horrible looking fight scenes are the worst I've ever scene in my life. About one-third of each episode is dedicated to Flash Gordon and his "mighty" fight moves. I know fight choreography from that era isn't exactly up to par with today's standards, but this is ridiculous. They don't even try to make it look realistic. Flash Gordon, who hardly resembles a fighter, uses his drunken slow moves and bare fist to knock out four or five guys with knives, guns, and other weapons. Give me a break! There's also a scene where he does some similar act while in the water. Basically every episode has scenes similar to that. As for the rest of the episode, there's not much else I remember. I basically viewed it out of curiosity on what science fiction looked like 70 years ago.$LABEL$ 0
+Swedish action movies have over the past few years evolved into something that imitate American hardened action movies like "Heat" but with a low budget. This movie follows the same prescription as "Noll Tolerans" and "Livvakterna". However, it is obvious that they are trying too hard to make a cool and tough movie.The story has been seen before, the dialogue feels artificial and the acting is very poor, especially from the main actress. The movie tries to paint a picture of hard-boiled military-like robbers with no remorse at all and a female investigator who has completely lost it with problems of the past but at the same time acts completely rational. It does not succeed very well.The bluish-cast photo style does not seem fresh anymore, and it is not even done well in this picture. Only a very few scenes actually look good. Also, the sound is quite weird and it sounds like a lot of the actual dialogue is recorded afterward.The main quality of this movie is Stefan Sauk, though not making a convincing portrait of a SWAT-team leader, has some really funny lines. Also, the music is quite well.$LABEL$ 0
+Every once in a while, a group of friends, with a minimal budget but bags of enthusiasm and talent, will create a low budget masterpiece that takes the world of horror by storm. Raimi and co. did it with The Evil Dead, Jackson and pals succeeded with Bad Taste; and Myrick and Sanchez made a mint with The Blair Witch Project.Director Todd Sheets and his chums, however, are destined to wallow forever in relative obscurity if Zombie Bloodbath is anything to go by. A lesson in how not to make a cheapo horror, this miserable effort (about a plague of flesh-eating zombies—natch) serves as a reminder that, whilst many people these days have access to a video camera, most shouldn't take that as their cue to try their hand at making a full-length movie.It's not that Sheets hasn't got an eye for a nicely framed shot (some of his camera angles and movements are actually pretty good), but rather that a) he has a lousy script b) he has a lousy cast, and c) he doesn't realise that he has a lousy script and cast. Which means that the final film is amateurish in the extreme, and unlikely to be watched in its entirety by anyone other than zombie film completists (like me) or members of the cast and crew (like those who have given the film favourable comments).Zombie Bloodbath is obviously aimed at undiscriminating gore-hounds, and Sheets (who currently has an incredible 34 titles under his belt as a director) certainly goes out of his way to please, with buckets of offal and blood thrown about at every opportunity. But whilst these moments are undeniably yucky, they aren't particularly convincing, and soon get rather tedious.So, to summarise, this is a really bad film, with almost no redeeming features. Except for two:Firstly, it features the single greatest mullet in the history of film, as sported by Jerry Angell, who plays Larry (as well as several zombies). The magnificence of his barnet (coupled with a fetching moustache) is reason alone to watch this film.Secondly, it has 'pathetic stealth zombies': flesh-eating corpses that lie in wait for unfortunate victims to wander by, before leaping from their hiding place to launch a feeble attack, which requires almost no effort to escape from. Best known for lurking behind a door for hours waiting for someone to open it, 'pathetic stealth zombies' also occasionally hide behind low walls, or sit in churches posing as members of the congregation.Normally a film this bad would get 1/10 for me, but, in celebration of Jerry Angell's flowing locks, I will generously raise my rating to 2/10.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Thank God I saw it for free. I would have hated to waste my money on it.First off, there isn't a character in the movie that is in any way likable. Michael Caine comes close, but even he is pretty flawed. The rest of the "commandos" are made up of disgusting ex-cons. There are the two gay Arabs, and three guys who try to rape a red cross nurse, and the "leader" who has no trouble sending his men off to get killed so he can escape.The "mission" is anything from suspenseful. They are to blow up a fuel dump. Sounds exciting, right? Well, the footage follows them through endless sandstorms and fixing flat tires. Yes, you read that right. The "suspense" is whether they will run out of spare tires. We actually WATCH them change something like 12 flats on the way. That's how incredibly exciting this movie is.They get to the fuel dump to find that it is a decoy. So, nothing to blow up. And at this time, for some very convoluted reason, the British army decides that they don't need these guys anymore, and radios their whereabouts to the Germans to kill them.So, now at least we'll have an exciting race to freedom? Nope, instead, they decide to blow up a different fuel dump, to create a diversion. But, when they get into the place, they set off a trip wire, and the Germans come to get them -- calling out their names over a loudspeaker.Really weird. If the Germans knew where they were and where they were going, why did they let them get all the way into the dump before springing the "trap?" Instead, they wait until they get into the fuel depot, and set all of their charges. Yeah. Right. That would happen.So, they blow the dump, the leader sells out all of his men -- except for Michael Caine, since he's been offered $2000 to bring him back alive.OK... so, the men are all betrayed and killed, and Michael Caine and Nigel Davenport survive. The British troops come in with tanks, and they decide to go get rescued. Since they are wearing German uniforms (they wore them to blow up the dump) they tie a white flag around a stick and walk out into the road.Some British guy walks up behinds them and machine guns them to death. Credits roll.Yep. The two "Heroes" of the movie die due to a random act of violence.It's almost like the movie suddenly ran out of budget and decided: "That's a wrap. Kill them off and we'll go home." I wasted 2 hours of my life watching this tired, unimaginative and totally unrealistic movie that ended with a gracefulness of a bomb.$LABEL$ 0
+When we were in junior high school, some of us boys would occasionally set off stinkbombs. It was considered funny then. But the producers, directors and cast of "Semana Santa" ("Angel of Death" in the DVD section of your local video rental) are adults and they are STILL setting them off.Like the previous reviewer who wondered if the cast were anxious to get off the set and home, I doubt more than one take was done for any of the scenes.Mira Sorvino, hot in "Mighty Aphrodite" and other top-rated films, seems to have undersold herself to this project. Her acting is non-existent, confined mostly to wistful stares that are supposed to indicate how "sensitive" she is to the plight of the film's various victims.But let me warn you--do not be the next victim! Step away from the DVD if you find it on the shelf. Tbere are not many good leg shots of Mira (the only high points I could find in the film) and the supporting cast is of inferior quality, delivering a mishmash of badly-done dialogue with embarrassing "Spanish" accents worthy of the best high school theatrical production.$LABEL$ 0
+I love the movie, it was a very interesting fantasy movie b/c of the real meaning of family in it, the history of our country, the fun-filled action displayed in the movie. I watch time @ the top about 4 X's a week and I just love it! I wish that a sequel had of been made to see more of Susan's dad in the past and watching how Susan delt with her new baby sister and having no telephone, computers, gameboys or anything of the 21st century. I hope everyone else enjoyed the movie as much as I did I guess you could say I'm a time at the top fanatic and I don't mind. The lil boy in the movie Robert Lincoln Walker was simply adorible I wonder who he is and how old he is today. Does anyone know if he's played in over movies or TV shows?$LABEL$ 1
+The story starts out with a soldier being transported to a desert town then goes back in time to tell the tale of how he came to this place. He started out as an officer in Napoleon's army fighting in Egypt but became separated from his unit. After nearly starving and/or dying of thirst he came upon a leopard which somehow became his bosom buddy. It brought him food and before long the soldier became almost totally wild so acute was his bonding with the animal. All things do end however and the man decided it was necessary for him to leave the critter. A very strange film, well written and portrayed. Beautiful scenery from Jordan and Utah which didn't always blend perfectly, but who cares.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a very well written movie full of suspense right up to the end! The setting is beautiful in contrast to the frightening action taking place there! It is not your typical suspense movie, but a movie well packed with interesting twists and surprises which leave you wanting and hoping for a sequel. I recommend this film to all suspense lovers!$LABEL$ 1
+"GI Samurai" sees Sonny Chiba and some other guys get transported back to civil war stricken feudal Japan for no particular reason, and much carnage ensues. It's a rather over the top essay of sword vs. machine gun that ultimately yields some interesting results.The plot essentially runs along the rails that you might expect from the title; initial fish-out-the-water antics ("what is this flying metal box?" etc etc), "aren't we better off here" discussions and ultimately a huge battle. The latter is proof that the film doesn't take itself seriously at all, the carnage taking up most of the second half as samurai army battles Chiba's platoon; a face off one would fully expect from the title but it still manages to overwhelm with its inventiveness and extravagance. It's certainly one of the most unique battle sequences of its time and doesn't drag despite its extended length.Chiba gives a gruff performance as Iba, initially a good leader but someone who finally finds himself questioning his own morals as the situation slowly has an effect on him. This is certainly one of his better vehicles from his terrific CV. By the final act the two worlds have had such an effect on each other you have to wonder if it was a bit of nihilism on the part of the writers, as they seem to be asking "weren't we better off back then?'. But this is maybe reading a bit much into was can generally be described as a hugely entertaining two hours of (almost) non stop action.$LABEL$ 1
+Pecker is a hilariously funny yet twisted film about a small town in Baltimore whose daily, humdrum routine is broken by Pecker, a young photographer who takes pictures of "real things." No pretty models, no gorgeous men, just hard living. This wonderful film pokes fun at the plasticness of the urban art chain. There is one particular scene when a homeless woman who shops at Pecker's mom's thrift shop buys the same exact coat as one of the Whitney art junkies for only 25 cents instead of five hundred dollars. This just goes to show you that no matter what kind of money you have, you might not always have taste. Yet again John Waters sends you into a never-ending spiral of laughter and raw reality. You can have your mainstream Hollywood movies with special affects and mountains of celebrities, but give me a "Pecker" or a "Hairspray" (another excellent John Waters film) over a "Titanic" or a "Godzilla" anyday!!$LABEL$ 1
+A must for any punk rocker, this is the movie that made The Ramones a household name back in the early 1980's (when it first appeared on premium cable stations). This was one of the first and best of the American Punk Rock movies, with a cult classic status up there with The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Originally the producers wanted Cheap Trick as the stars, but the release of the "Live At Budakon" album had just made them superstars and too hot an item to be in a low budget movie. Very good luck for the Ramones who were looking to break out of the underground punk rock world and into the mainstream market (which sadly never happened until after the bands demise). The band, Dee Dee especially, always disliked the movie through the 80's but the fans always loved and could recite most of the movie while waiting to get into Ramones shows. This movie, like most classics, is stupid fun with some classic Ramones footage in their heyday. Don't expect more, you won't find it. It's great fun, so enjoy it. Another Allan Arkush classic movie in a similar vein is Get Crazy, featuring Lee Ving from the legendary hardcore punk band Fear.$LABEL$ 1
+To be entirely frank, the popularity of this show saddens me. Inuyasha is certainly not terrible - it has a few good moments, the occasional flash of clever humour, and, unlike so many animes, dignity. However, it is utterly lacking in the essential elements of a worthwhile story. From the start, its premise dooms it to be stereotypical. The main plot centers around collecting the pieces of a shattered jewel before they can be possessed by evil, and is, as one would suspect, a totally generic epic fantasy affair. The story follows a familiar pattern of fighting off various enemies for pieces of the jewel, and is thus quite predictable, lacking in complexity, and easy to lose interest in. But as so many animes have shown, a poor premise can be rescued by deep, realistic characters. Sadly, no one rescues the story of Inuyasha. Kagome, the main character, is the stereotypical anime heroine (and far too reminiscent of Akane, the main character of the original comic author's previous work Ranma 1/2); she is kind to other females, but treats many males, especially her love interest, with unfair, unabashed, unjustifiable brutality. Inuyasha is a tough-on-the-outside-but-sweet-on-the-inside type, and Miroku is the lamentable stock character of "the pervert".The flaws continue with what happens to this plot and these characters - namely, nothing. Despite constant action, the story does not progress. Despite regular romantic moments, neither does the main relationship. Despite ample time, the characters never really change. And to add a cherry to the sundae of mediocrity, all this stagnation is stretched into approximately 150 episodes.My final criticism of this anime is the animation. While certainly not ugly, it displays almost disrespectful laziness on the part of the creators. The animators seem to take joy in long scenes of Inuyasha jumping through the air with wind whistling in which they have little to do but move a background.In short, with all the beautiful animations of the world at one's keyboard-perched fingertips, there is absolutely no reason to watch Inuyasha.$LABEL$ 0
+I rented this film because I enjoy watching things with Lauren Graham in them. Well, she was the highlight. Everyone else seemed complete separated from the picture. You kept looking around you at those watching the film with you going, what? However she provided some clarity, as she was the only normal character in the picture, which actually isn't saying much for the film. Personally it was too far fetched for me. However, I am glad I rented despite the fact I would never want to own it. I still feel that Lauren Graham proved to be a strong actress and even thought she was not the main character, she seemed to steal the movie. My husband and I were happier and cared more about her character ending up with Josh's character than we were about the two main characters.$LABEL$ 0
+Mighty Morphin Power Rangers has got to be the worst television show ever made. There is no plot, just a bunch of silly costumed kids using martial arts while dressed up in second class spandex outfits.The special effects look like they are from the '70's, the costumes look like something out of a bad comedy, and the show is just plain awful.The only thing worse than the television show are the toys, just second rate plastic garbage fed to our kids.There are far better shows for your kids to watch!Try giving your kids something like Nickelodean, those shows actually have some intelligence behind them, unlike power rangers.$LABEL$ 0
+By 1941 Columbia was a full-fledged major studio and could produce a movie with the same technical polish as MGM, Paramount or Warners. That's the best thing that could be said about "Adam Had Four Sons," a leaden soap opera with almost terminally bland performances by Ingrid Bergman (top-billed for the first time in an American film) and Warner Baxter. Bergman plays a Frenchwoman (this was the era in which Hollywood thought one foreign accent was as good as another) hired as governess to Baxter's four sons and staying on (with one interruption caused by the stock-market crash of 1907) until the boys are grown men serving in World War I. Just about everyone in the movie is so goody-good it's a relief when Susan Hayward as the villainess enters midway through — she's about the only watchable person in the movie even though she's clearly channeling Bette Davis and Vivien Leigh; it's also the first in her long succession of alcoholic roles — but the script remains saccharine and the ending is utterly preposterous. No wonder Bergman turned down the similarly plotted "The Valley of Decision" four years later.$LABEL$ 0
+The DEA agent's name, Anslinger, is a nice inside joke - this is the name of the former drug czar who almost single-handedly made marijuana illegal.Despite this bit of book knowledge, the writers go on to have the farmers harvesting and selling fresh undried leaf, rather than cured buds.Additionally, I always find it amusing that movie makers never seem to be able to find real marijuana plants for filming. You would think there would be a business that would make real looking fake ones for the movie business or maybe they could film a couple of scenes in Amsterdam or Switzerland. I suppose that's asking too much for the budget.Probably the most interesting thing about the film is the attempt to cover the notion of exactly what is right and what is wrong in society and how the law treads that line and yet tries to do justice in spite of it.$LABEL$ 0
+I like Armand Assante & my cable company's summary sounded interesting, so I watched it, twice already, and probably will again.The early part is difficult to follow, but later it clears up. I believe the screenwriter did a good job of tying up the loose ends.Some of the acting is unconvincing, but maybe that's because I was always expecting some kind of double-cross. In that case, the poor acting would be the insincerity of the characters interacting with each other, so it fits very well.The important theme is the carnival owner (Assante) is laundering money for a local casino & his snake-charmer wife (Dagmara Dominczyk) wants to steal it. She complains to "Archie" (Reedus) how terrible her life is, and how he could help her get out of it.There are 3 or 4 plot twists (which is probably the reason for all of those loose ends), and just when you think you have solved the mystery, something else will happen.My 8/10 score is mostly for the plot.I won't say any more - I don't like spoilers, so I don't want to be one, but I believe this film is worth your time.$LABEL$ 1
+A good film with strong performances (especially the two leads). The film is about two American girls who are caught with 6 kilo's heroin on an airport in Thailand. They're both thrown in prison and one of them signs a confession. Bill Pullman plays the lawyer who tries to get them out. All they have to do is find a Nick Parks who put the narcotics in the bag of one of the two girls. So far for the story which isn't that original (it has many resemblances with the better Return to Paradise).The acting and Newton Thomas Sigel's beautiful photography make this film worth to watch. A 7 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+Spanish director Luis Buñuel career spanned almost 50 years, from 1929 to 1977. Arguably, his best films were those he made during his exile in Mexico - from the late forties to the early 60s. There he had to deal with very cheap budgets, and work in an industry interested mainly in churning commercial movies to unsophisticated audiences, yet he somehow managed to make interesting, thought provoking movies that have stand the test of time. This movie is based on a novel by Spanish author Benito Perez Galdos - and the adaptation is quite faithful, even if the setting is now early 20th century Mexico instead of early 20th century Spain. The protagonist, Nazarin, is a priest who tries to live a life that is as faithful as it can be to the one prescribed by Christ. The question many would ask is whether such endeavor would be possible, without incurring in the hostility, incomprehension and mockery of your fellow human beings. As it happens, he suffers a lot of indignities, yet he remains stubborn (until the controversial final shot) to this objective. I think Buñuel wanted to show Nazarin as a somewhat ridiculous figure, but perhaps inadvertently, his stubbornness (at least to this viewer) comes out as admirable. In any case, a great film.$LABEL$ 1
+I wanted to like Magnolia. The plot reminded me of Grand Canyon (which I liked). 4 different lives/stories that come together at the end but Magnolia took a wrong turn halfway through the movie and I was lost. I almost turned it off right then and there but I felt I should hang in there until the end, little did I know it would be another torturous 1 1/2 hours. Thank god I rented instead of seeing it in the theatre. I almost screamed out in frustration after 2 hours. The biggest kick in the pants was the ending frog scene. My DVD player still hasn't forgiven me and I don't blame it one bit. It was a unique movie, but a bad, boring, and pointless movie.$LABEL$ 0
+I loves this movie,because it showed that they were not killing for fun but to save the ones they loved! Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom did a great job portraying Ned and Joe. It has a few quick inappropriate scenes but is all right other than that. The language is very mild and sometimes don't even know it is there. This movie shows that just because they are outlaws does not mean that they are vicious killers! I hope that people will watch this movie and learn about important times in history like this one. There is one thing that fascinates me about this movie is that they got their inspiration for their armor from a book Ned looked at! Also that that is how people remember them,from their armor. I hope that people will watch this movie and get interested as I have.$LABEL$ 1
+'Heaven's Gate' is not a masterpiece, which apparently was what it needed to be upon first release to justify its great cost, and, more importantly, the continued uneasy reliance of Hollywood on the Auteur model of film-making. Yet 'Heaven's Gate', seen today at last on DVD in a cut of 229 minutes, is a superb film. It is a touch lethargic in pace. But at least it is paced. Quite apart from the incompetence of construction that marks many films today, there have been many films which, deliberate in form, have been severely damaged by being hacked down with no care for rhythm so the films become shapeless and confusing. Beyond this, the criticisms leveled at the film have become in retrospect quite lame. If the good guys and bad guys are too obviously pronounced for a serious film, and yes Sam Waterston's mustachioed, fur-clad villain is comic-opera (and not in the multi-leveled manner of Bill The Butcher from 'Gangs of New York'), and yes, the townsfolk do seem a touch 'Fiddler On The Roof' on occasions, then a few dozen serious films made since then, including 'Titanic' and the graceless 'Cold Mountain' (which bears certain similarities and is a notable failure in convincing qualities compared to this film) can be castigated for exactly the same reason. Also despite accusations, the film has a plot, quite a well-essayed plot at that. It simply does not bow to standard-form 'epic' quality, by providing Titan heroes, rafts of sub-plots and confusion. It experiments with telling in a manner more like much smaller, modest films, by carefully-caught moments of character interaction, and well-textured pageant-like explosions of communal action, as with the opening at Harvard and, most specially, the wonderful scene where the Johnson County folk, following the lead of a brilliantly physical fiddler, make celebration on roller-skates.'The Deer Hunter' was a critical and commercial success but abandoned the first half's inspired, mosaic-like accumulation of detail, and I think in a manner similar to criticism of Robert Penn Warren's novel 'All The King's Men' and its dictionary of Jacobean stunts, if Cimino had not had such a strong grasp of the conventions of Hollywood epics, he might have made a special rare work of art based in honest visualisation of people within their milieu. In contrast, 'Heaven's Gate' succeeds in screwing its narrative momentum and tension upwards in a slowly expanding arc, until the finale explodes, whilst not abandoning the mosaic approach.The central romantic triangle, for instance, resists standard inflections; a decent, intelligent, but psychically defeated man, James Averill (Kris Kristofferson) competes with a hot-shot but identity-challenged young gunman Nate Champion (Christopher Walken) for the hand of a young Madame, Ella Watson (Isabelle Huppert); there is no self-conscious bed-hopping, no slaps in the face, recriminations, or typical sad-sack moments, but more a sad and distanced decision by Ella to choose the younger man whom she loves less because he is ready to make the commitment. Ella emerges as the film's true hero (Huppert's performance, though initially awkward, is really quite excellent, balancing a dewy emotionalism with a hard-hammered spirit), attempting first to rescue Nate and then mustering the resistance party of immigrants into an enterprising defence. Subsequently, Averill is stung into action as friends die. Indeed, in the process of overcoming so many traps of cliché and style, 'Heaven's Gate' successfully and willfully throws off the defeated outsider-heroes grace note of so many '70s Westerns and portrays an eventual, vigorous, cheer-the-heroes rallying to a compromised but still relished victory. The social conflict of so many '70s Westerns at last hardens into a fully-fledged war; where capital attempts a crushing final victory over the miscreants who stand in their way, suddenly they find a massed and more-powerful people's army, led by the man who played the thoroughly-destroyed Billy the Kid a decade before. This is what led the film to be described as the first Marxist Western, but really it simply deflowers a theme of the genre extant well before the '60s. Such various and classic old-school works as William Wyler's 'The Westerner', and even 'Shane', tell awfully similar stories. It is simply here that the romantic myth of the gunslinger has been replaced by the romantic myth of the people's revolt. In a spectacular, exiting, but realistic and thus chaotic finale, the marauding Cattlemen's encampment is attacked, ringed by dust clouds punctuated by fallen horses, writhing bodies, and gunfire. Averill puts his classical education to work finally by stealing a Roman trick and bringing the Cattlemen to the brink of annihilation before they are rescued by the Cavalry (another distinctly seditious touch, but surely not so offensive after 'Little Big Man's unrelenting depiction of Native American massacres). Really, it's hard to think of a more heroically American vision of grassroots resistance. The film's only real dead spot stands as an unnecessary coda indicating Averill's eventual relapse, a rather potted piece of tragedy. Despite then certain failings and a slow mid-section, 'Heaven's Gate' is a supreme piece of work, a genuine attempt to create a contemporary Western and a new kind of epic. If one has to still join the chorus that reckons Cimino was absurd in his behaviour on set and expenditure, it is regretfully. When, today, flops like 'The Adventures of Pluto Nash' and 'K-19 - The Widowmaker' see nearly a hundred million dollars sink down the drain, and yet a tag of infamy still hangs on this film, one ponders what exactly its grim death signified. The attempt at original style, the bawdy sexuality, the very hard-won sense of detail, the breathtaking rigor of the film-making and what is being filmed, all throw into contrast what is sorely lacking in so much contemporary Hollywood product.$LABEL$ 1
+I am currently on vacation in Israel for summer, and so was able to see this incredible film. A bit of a warning before I begin writing: I speak fluent Hebrew, and so the Hebrew parts were no problem; however, about a quarter (a bit less) of the film is in Arabic, and I was unable to understand a bit of this subtitled bit. This did not detract from my understanding of the film, but did cause me to miss a few jokes which evoked some strong laughs in the theater.After a year of American Cinema which many hailed as one of the greatest years for homosexual cinema and relationships, it takes something truly special to stand head and shoulders above the rest; yet, "The Bubble" surpasses all others with its blend of excellent acting, witty dialogue, and relevant political climate.The film opens on a checkpoint on the Israeli-Palestinian border; For the first few moments, we are unsure about the type of movie we have walked in on. Yet, this is an important element of this film's strength. The political situation, and the extreme tension in the air is constantly in the background. Most importantly, Tel Aviv serves as a character of its own in this film. It is constantly referenced. Street names and restaurant names are constantly exchanged. The skyline and city development is critiqued quite harshly, and ultimately the city evolves along with the film The film focuses on the love between Noam (Ohad Knoller) and a Palestinian immigrant, Ashraf(Yousef 'Joe' Sweid), with the societies of Tel Aviv and Palestine serving as a constant foil. We always know that their relationship is forbidden, and this creates a sense of urgency rarely present in cinema. The love is incredibly strong, and stands as the centerpiece of the film. The secondary relationships and friendships are equally strong: flamboyant restaurant owner Yelli's ( Yousef 'Joe' Sweid) relationship with the ultra-butch and grating golani solider, Golan (Zohar Liba), is particularly a source of amusement. The love scenes which abound in this film are all exquisite, fine crafted works of art, and the cinematography is astounding: In the first love scene of the film, the camera pans down as a male character gives oral sex to Lulu (Daniela Virtzer), and dissolves into a shot of Noam and Ashraf. This shot any many others lead the viewer to realize that all of these relationships are expressions of the very same form of love.To give away more of the storyline would be a tragedy, but know that there is a lot of political tension and tragedy which touches onto the current world political climate, so I will instead focus on the witty dialogue. Even when watching this movie in my second language, I could not stop laughing throughout. Lines of particular amusement include the question of whether gay suicide bombers receive virgin women or men in heaven, and an analogy of Sampson from the bible as the worlds first suicide bomber. This dialogue shows a particular sense of purity and reality which is rarely seen in Cinema. The music used in the film is also particularly powerful. Music is only used in times when characters legitimately could or should be listening to it, and in one scene the music weakens when a character removes one earphone and stops when he removes the other. Little elements like this truly elevate the film.I could not give greater recommendation to a film; this is a superb work of cinema which is catharthic as well as extremely well crafted.$LABEL$ 1
+Human Tornado (1976) is in many ways a better film than it's predecessor. The director knew what he had to work with and catered towards Rudy Ray Moore's limitations as an actor. It's a fun movie that's more technically sound and acted. The performers don't take themselves too seriously and it seems that this time around everyone is on the joke and goes with the flow. Rudy Ray Moore seems more relaxed in front of the camera and not as stiff like he was in Dolemite.I enjoyed the film very much and I highly recommend it. Just like his first film, it's catered towards a certain audience (I highly doubt that Mr. Moore was trying to broaden his audience at this point in his career). Check it out!Highjly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+I've watched almost all of the Gundam/Mech anime that have showed in the US and this by far has the best story. The way its plot twists and turns has u riveted. Gundam Wing is a series that mainly focuses on politics and war. The series follows a group of five 15 year old boys who have been trained to pilot state of the art mobile suits known as Gundams. The Gundam pilots were trained to battle a powerful insurgency known as Oz. As things begin to heat up between OZ and the Gundam pilots, new political groups will form and old ones will dissipate. Old conflicts will end and new ones will arise. To obtain peace the Gundam pilots must come to grips with the events taking place in their world and put an end to all the fighting. But, how far are people willing to go to obtain their goal. I recommend this anime to anyone who is looking for a show that has a deep plot.$LABEL$ 1
+"Stories of the Century" was a half hour series and appeared in first run syndication during the '54-'55 television season. It was also the first western TV series to win an Emmy award. Starring veteran western actor Jim Davis as railroad detective Matt Clark, the series set Clark and his fellow railroad detective partners (Mary Castle as Frankie Adams for the first half of the season and Kristine Miller as "Jonesy" during the second half)against historic western outlaws of various periods ranging from the mid-1860's to the early 1900's. The series was very satisfying, easy to watch, and fairly realistic due mainly to the easygoing charm of Jim Davis in the lead role. He seemed like an actual western character. One other note. When Matt Clark would arrive in town after a long ride he actually looked like he had been on a long horse ride as he would be covered in dust.A very good early adult western.$LABEL$ 1
+Prue and Piper bring Dr. Griffiths to their home to save him from the Sauce's assassin Shax. While Phoebe looks in the Book of Shadow how to vanquish the demon, Prue and Piper fight and chase Shax on the streets to destroy him. However, they are filmed and exposed live in the television news as witches. They become national sensation with a crowd in front of their house. Phoebe trusts on Cole and goes to the underworld with Leo to ask him to summon Tempus and revert time while a fanatic woman shots Piper, who dies. The source proposes Phoebe to stay with him and in return he would save her sister. Phoebe accepts the deal, and the time is reverted to the moment Shax is attacking Prue, Piper and Dr. Griffits."All Hell Breaks Loose" is a good but incoherent episode. With Piper dead and The Power of Three destroyed, why should The Source revert time to save her? But this dramatic show is certainly one of the best of the Third Season and let the viewers anxiously waiting for the next episode. My vote is nine.Title (Brazil): "Voltando no Tempo" ("Back in Time")$LABEL$ 1
+I've seen many horror, splatter, monster movies in my life. And of course also a lot of monster movies from the 50's and 60's. When I first stumbled over this one I thought this is from the 60's until I recognized it's from 2007.In fact the character of Jack Brook is interesting and the acting all in all is for a splatter movie quite good, but.... I expected a splatter movie and not a drama story about a aggressive plummer. The movie runs 80 Mminutes and I think the first kill is after 65 minutes. Although it takes hours to explain the story the reason where are the monsters come from takes at least 3 minutes... the we have another 20 minutes boring dialogue and finally a, in my opinion, not that well managed splatter sequence. Although we have Robert Englund starring here I only recommend this one to real hardcore horror fans.$LABEL$ 0
+A wonderful and gritty war film that focuses on the inner torment of blinded marine Al Schmid. Although it is tough and unpleasant it IS in the end heroic - Schmid's triumph over disability and depression. The battle scene was superb. But one bone to pick. No matter how many .50 bullets they fired I never saw any water or dirt being kicked up by the impacts! It hurt the realism, but I can live with it. Fine performance by Eleanor Parker, again, as his girl friend.$LABEL$ 1
+Bought this movie in the bargain bin at Rogers Video store for $2. I enjoy a good B movie now and then and figured this looked like a good one.The movie is quite cliche "1970's" and is quite groovy for that. Unfortunately the story line is hard to follow and not a lot happens in the movie. In fact, I turned it off after watching it for 45 minutes and figured a week later that I should watch the whole thing no matter how slow it was.The movie has good spots in it, but you have to wait and wait and wait.......for them.If you are into B movies, this might just be for you, just be warned that the movie is slow and not much really happens, and did I mention not much story line either...$LABEL$ 0
+I kind of like Bam Margera, so I was curious. But watching a home production with somebody elses friends and family, with a decent camera and a sound guy, just isn't good film-making. Writing, direction, acting and editing is abysmal at best. But I sat through half of it. And why?This film gives perfect examples of what not to do, it is a film student's dream of what to avoid at every stage of the process. Cram it into film school curiculums all over the joint!So thanx Bam! Now I know Jackass is for real - cause you ain't looking to win an Oscar, dude:)$LABEL$ 0
+This is the least scary film i have ever seen. How the blob manages to eat anyone is the biggest mystery of the film. The blob moves so slowly that an o.a.p in a zimmerframe could escape it. The blob has a large slice of luck coming across a typical horror film woman who instead of running away stands still for half an hour so that she can be eaten. If you havent seen this film i recommend you do, its far too funny to be taken seriously.$LABEL$ 0
+Mike Nichols' film "Charlie Wilson's War", set in the 1980's, tells the story of how the title character (played by Tom Hanks) managed to wage a covert war with the Russkies by way of aiding the Afghan forces. Of course, we know how well that turned out in the long run but, thankfully, the film does not gloss over the unpleasant after-effects.The cast is star-studded, with Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts being among the most bankable stars in Hollywood. As a bonus, you've got the versatile Philip Seymour Hoffman in a characteristically memorable supporting role, one for which he received a not unwarranted Oscar nomination. I'm not much of a fan of Roberts but Hanks is always dependable. Nevertheless, I can't quite buy into him as a drug-using womanizer, although the real Charlie Wilson seems just as eminently likable as Hanks. Apart from the big three, though, there's not much worth remarking on, even from a recognizable name like Amy Adams.The story is engaging and is bolstered by a fine script from Aaron Sorkin. The verbal interplay between the main characters is excellent and is chock full of memorable lines. The later events set into motion by the war are not ignored though the bookending scenes honoring Wilson seem to me to be too earnest to achieve the bittersweet feel which was likely intended. On the whole, Nichols' direction is workmanlike and follows the action of the script admirably.This is a film that, like Charlie Wilson himself, has flaws but is nevertheless disarmingly likable. Certainly recommended for fans of the three stars and for those looking for an engaging political drama with a light-hearted feel.$LABEL$ 1
+And that comes from someone that will withstand almost ANY viewing. The acting and sound is awful. This might qualify for a "so bad it's good" point of merit,,,for some. However I take my horror movies seriously and this is just crap-it's just soooo cheap, I think that's my major complaint. The dialogue is often hilarious-attention to how many times "you startled me" is used. The "child" actress is seriously god awful-I pray her acting career ended here..her line "DONUTS! I HATE DONUTS" is worth repeated viewing however.$LABEL$ 0
+What on earth has become of our dear Ramu? Is this the same man who made Sarkar, Satya, and Comapny? I refuse to believe so. If AAG was Ramu's most ambitious project, he has clearly jumped off the high cliff he has ascended by giving the industry some of the greatest works of all times. This movie is made to fall like a brick. I was cringing to leave the theater, but I was forced to sit because I wouldn't have been able to take my car out of the parking lot before others also left. Else, nothing would have made me sit beyond interval.This movie is nowhere close to Sholay. It doesn't even come near it within a mile. I believe Ramu surely loves The Godfather more than Sholay, since Sarkar was a classic piece of work. I read Ramu's interview a couple of days back, in which the interviewer said that Ramu doesn't sleep for more than 4 hours a day, that too not at a stretch. I completely agree with this now, as his lack of sleep has probably taken its toll on the movie.There is no power in the performance. Amitabh Bachchan doesn't even look scary. He looked more terrifying in the few posters and wallpapers I saw earlier. Ramu's favorite Nisha Kothari did a fantastic job in Sarkar because she didn't have many dialogs (in fact none if I remember clearly). She opened her mouth in this movie, and has found a place in history. The new guy playing Jai's role seems to have that brash look, but didn't manage Jai's role at all. I cant go on... Im sorry... my pain is too big for me to manage right now.I promised myself throughout the movie that I will watch the original Sholay once more just to see that it is still there.Bottom Line: Horrible movie. The media and critics are going to cook Ramu's goose. And just to remind all readers once more, I am one of the biggest Ramu fans, and even I cant spare him for this act.$LABEL$ 0
+Come on, what is the deal with this show, Power Rangers anyways? I always felt that the show, which was originally brought over from Japan in a better form, took what was great in Japan, and turned into one of the most ridiculous and pointless excuses in toy merchandising history! There is absolutely no point with this show whatsoever.The bad haircuts, bad costumes, earrings, etc, all show what was ridiculous back in the 1990s From the two idiots, Bulk and Skull, to the "duhs", of the main cast, Jason, Trini, Tommy, Kimberly, Billy and Zack, I just want to say one thing: GIVE ME A BREAK!Saban brought this from Japan, and then Disney bought the rights to this show around five years ago.Now the public has to endure reruns of this show on the Disney channel and such.All I can say once again is give me a break!$LABEL$ 0
+It is movie about love,violence,illegal affairs and romanian tycoons. A romanian story combined with an occidental adaption resulting in a modern international film that can be understood both by western audiences but as well by eastern European audiences that HAVE LONG forgotten about the conservative comunist regim over film-making.A film full of violent fight scenes that are very numerous and create more and more tensed situations as the movie goes on . A story that impresses because of its view over the hard life from the neighbourhood. Two young men do illegal car races. They work together as a team and prosper from their occupation ,but when they are asked by a local tycoon to lose one race things start to get messy and the fuse from the bomb lights up creating a very tensionated movie that will keep you close to the screen until the ending of it when you will still be asking yourself a lot of questions long after that.Brilliant acting both by Dragos Bucur and Dorina Chiriac along with high quality directing and screen writing by the young but talented director Radu Muntean also give a unique charm to Furia. All this and many other elements that can be noticed while watching have created a must see movie by all the filmlovers around the world and its message is clear to all not depending of race ,language we speak or country. It is a real hope for the Romanian cinema as it tries to keep up with the more advanced occidental cinema.I hope you enjoy watching it as I'm sure that all the people that have seen it liked it and understood it.$LABEL$ 1
+What an original piece of work. I've always enjoyed Liev Schreiber the "actor", but now one must appreciate the man on a multi-dimensional level . How did he get that field of sunflowers? Was it computerize, it sure looked real. And how do you audition a dog knowing you are going to get that kind of performance? Does the academy have a category for animals? I guess what I'm saying is that I really, really enjoyed this quirky, offbeat, little indie film. From the excellent cast (one would never know Eugene Hutz was not a pro actor) to the cinematographer (some beautiful shots) the music (bought the CD when exiting the theater) and of course the two "D's" (direction and the DOG). All in all a "10"./$LABEL$ 1
+What a moving film. I have a dear friend who is in her sixties and for the past 15 years has told me that people don't see her anymore, and she longs for companionship. Being in my late 40s I am beginning to see what she has been complaining about. You are no longer youthful, beautiful or touchable. When May says "...this lump of a body..." wow. How our bodies change and how we are told it is no longer beautiful. I love when she begins to change what she wears...the colorful scarf...no longer the frumpy wife.It is a sad and wonderful picture at the same time. Sad in that May betrays her daughter's trust...beautiful in that she finds herself through the difficulty of the affair, and chooses to move on and finally have her own life. I love the character's daring to even initiate the love affair.Mostly I love the movie because finally it is a picture that shows the intricate nature of relationships, be they familial or not. We see Paula's vulnerability, yet she will have what she wants at all costs...(when she tells her mum that she will have a baby for Darren whether he wants one or not after her mother asks if Darren even wants a child). The movie hits the mark on the how relationships can change, and yet reveals what has been there all along, dormant. May has stifled her own creativity to raise a family. A family that she didn't really want, but was "something you just did when she was young". I love the scene when Darren calls her an old tart, and she smiles and says "I was never called that before". It was truly a gem of a movie.And Daniel Craig. Well, i just love him. I was pleasantly surprised. Not only is he pleasant on the eyes, he is a real talent. What a neat role. He is much more than any 007 that is for sure and I look forward to seeing him in more roles of this nature. The scene where he is pleasuring May and the look he gives her is sort of a look of wonder that he has such control over this woman, and also one of pleasure of being able to give this to her. He is actually enjoying giving her pleasure. A wonderful scene. The contrast is the love scene with Bruce. Bruce is totally absorbed with his own pleasure...two completely different men.Alas...I wonder where is my Darren?$LABEL$ 1
+Ugh. Stephen Baldwin. I never noticed until I got the DVD home and saw his name in the credits. Double ugh. What's worse, HE'S the NAME in this low budget, mindless, wandering, wannabe shoot'em up. I mean, where did they find the guy to write this refuse? Driving a caterpillar in the LA City Dump, while hoping to break into the movie game? The whole plot is ridiculous situation piled on ridiculous premise. Baldwin is as convincing as a poster boy for American Gothic, sans pitchfork. His whole acting repertoire is looking like he needs the potty and then looking like he found it. So, there you have it folks: bad script, bad acting by no-name actors, low-budget setting and a hero that's about as convincing as a girl scout looking for a cookie customer as an action hero. It's too late for me to get my money back on the DVD, but you can spare yourself-- unless you're one of those who likes to look at the dogs for a laugh...frankly, this one is too boring to be funny.$LABEL$ 0
+My baby sitter was a fan so I saw many of the older episodes while growing up. I'm not a fan of Scooby Doo so I'm not sure why I left the TV on when this show premiered. To my surprise I found it enjoyable. To me Shaggy and Scooby were the only interesting characters *dodges tomatoes from fans of the others* so I like that they only focus on those two. However, this may cause fans of the original shows to hate it. I like the voice acting, especially Dr. Phinius Phibes. I liked listening to him even before I knew he was Jeff Bennett. And Jim Meskimen as Robi sounds to me like he's really enjoying his job as an actor. I also get a kick out of the techies with their slightly autistic personalities and their desires to play Dungeons and Dragons or act out scenes from Star Wars (not called by those names in the show, of course).$LABEL$ 1
+This film is hard to knock. It follows in the tradition of Pulp Fiction, yet succeeds further by stamping its own unique style. The cast is awesome, the script is great - and things like the odd (Pulp Fiction-esque) time-sequencing is done brilliantly. I particularly like how the images provided in flash back vary dramatically depending on who is telling the story at the time. When it is one of the indoctrinated criminals everything is flashy and cool, but when it is the hero's recollection everything is skanky and disgusting.This is an awesome film - and so I am extremely annoyed to find that I cant buy it anywhere!$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is weak ,The box-cover says East LA's toughest gang and it is really Santa Ana's , James Cahill acts like a closet queen taking down all the tough guys in the tough Chlo gang . It is fake , boring , senseless and whack , I tried to get my money back from the video store this movie was so bad . It was also on the homo-erotic tip far from what the video-box proclaims . James Cahill should act in Gay Porno .James is in every scene , he cannot act to save his life . The film features Eva Longoria who is hot but James can't even score with her !!!!!!!!! I felt at times I was watching Gay Porn and was turned - off by the whole film . James clearly want's to be with men but rather then submit to his gay desires he beats up gang members over and over and over again . His martial Arts skills are minimal at best , Some real gang members would take him and his weak skills and rip him a new one .$LABEL$ 0
+There wasn't much thought put into the story line on many fronts. This is a good action movie but that's about it.- The movie states that the lycans were kept to protect the vampires during the day. Yet they are kept in cages and have collars on their necks. So they can't turn into their wolf form or do anything any other slave can't do. How does this protect the vampires during the day? Who are they protecting the vampires from? The uncontrollable lycans? The slaves in human form are nothing more than peasants.- My understanding is that vampires are immortals and don't age. Yet Sonya ages from child to adult. Do they just stop aging at a certain age? I understand that Viktor is old because he was turned (as explained in the second movie). But vampire babies age? Strange.- I didn't realize that vampires needed torches to see at night. Yet we see them carrying torches throughout the movie.- Silver was the only thing that was supposedly able to harm lycan. Yet wooden steaks fired from the huge crossbows kill the lycan too.These are just some of the things that show just a lack of thought put into the story telling.$LABEL$ 0
+Why is this one no good when the first one rocked? Try the fact that they attempted to replace Rodney Dangerfield with Jackie Mason! Please! That's like replacing the Beatles with Wierd Al. Randy Quaid is the only one that saves this movie from a zero.However, don't let this stop you from watching the first movie which was outstanding.$LABEL$ 0
+I read the running man from Kings books as Bachman and I felt for the main character John and his family. This movie could have been SO much more. The trouble? It was set during the big action movie craze. I watched the movie and was in pain during the whole thing. I felt nothing for the character and less for his cause. Yes it had funny scenes (or laughable) though I think that it did not save the movie in my eyes. If you read the book you can feel the climax and the fire in the heart of John as he gets his final revenge.I give this movie a low number. It may not have been this low if I had not read the book.$LABEL$ 0
+In what could have been seen as a coup towards the sexual "revolution" (purposefully I use quotations for that word), Jean Eustache wrote and directed The Mother and the Whore as a poetic, damning critique of those who can't seem to get enough love. If there is a message to this film- and I'd hope that the message would come only after the fact of what else this Ben-Hur length feature has to offer- it's that in order to love, honestly, there has to be some level of happiness, of real truth. Is it possible to have two lovers? Some can try, but what is the outcome if no one can really have what they really want, or feel they can even express to say what they want? What is the truth in the relationships that Alexandre (Jean-Pierre Leaud) has with the women around him? He's a twenty-something pseudo-intellectual, not with any seeming job and he lives off of a woman, Marie (Bernadette Lafont) slightly older than him and is usually, if not always, his lover, his last possible love-of-his-life left him, and then right away he picks up a woman he sees on the street, Veronika (Françoise Lebrun), who perhaps reminds him of her. Soon what unfolds is the most subtly torrid love triangle ever put on film, where the psychological strings are pulled with the cruelest words and the slightest of gestures. At first we think it might be all about what will happen to Alexandre, but we're mistaken. The women are so essential to this question of love and sex that they have to be around, talking on and on, for something to sink in.We're told that part of the sexual revolution, in theory if not entirely in practice (perhaps it was, I can't say having not been alive in the period to see it first-hand), was that freedom led to a lack of inhibitions. But Eustache's point, if not entirely message, is that it's practically impossible to have it both ways: you can't have people love you and expect to get the satisfaction of ultimate companionship that arrives with "f***ing", as the characters refer over and over again. The Mother and the Whore's strengths as far as having the theme is expressing this dread beneath the promiscuity, the lack of monogamy, while also stimulating the intellect in the talkiest talk you've ever seen in a movie. At the same time we see a character like Alexandre, who probably loves to hear himself talk whether it's about some movie he saw or something bad from his past, Eustache makes it so that the film itself isn't pretentious- though it could appear to be- but that it's about pretentiousness, what lies beneath those who are covering up for their internal flaws, what they need to use when they're ultimately alone in the morning. If you thought films like Before Sunrise/Sunset were talky relationship flicks, you haven't met this. But as Eustache revels in the dialogs these characters have, sometimes trivial, or 'deep', or sexual, or frank, or occasionally extremely (or in a subdued manner) emotional, it's never, ever uninteresting or boring. On the contrary, for those who can't get enough of a *good* talky film, it's exceptional. While his style doesn't call out to the audaciousness that came with his forerunners in the nouvelle vague a dozen years beforehand, Eustache's new-wave touch is with the characters, and then reverberating on them.This is realism with a spike of attitude, with things at time scathing and sarcastic, crude and without shame in expression. All three of the actors are so glued to their characters that we can't ever perceive them as 'faking' an emotion or going at all into melodrama. It's almost TOO good in naturalistic/realism terms, but for Eustache's material there is no other way around it. Luckily Leaud delivers the crowning chip of his career of the period, and both ladies, particularly Labrun as the "whore" Veronika (a claim she staggeringly refutes in the film's climax of sorts in one unbroken shot). And, as another touch, every so often, the director will dip into a quiet moment of thought, of a character sitting by themselves, listening to a record, and in contemplation or quiet agony. This is probably the biggest influence on Jim Jarmusch, who dedicated his film Broken Flowers to Eustache and has one scene in particular that is lifted completely (and lovingly) in approach from the late Parisian.Sad to say, before I saw Broken Flowers, I never heard of Eustache or this film, and procuring it has become quite a challenge (not available on US DVD, and on VHS so rare it took many months of tracking at various libraries). Not a minute of that time was wasted; the Mother and the Whore is truly beautiful work, one of the best of French relationship dramas, maybe even just one of the most staggeringly lucid I've seen from the country in general. It's complex, it's sweet, it's cold, it's absorbing, and it's very long, perhaps too long. It's also satisfying on the kind of level that I'd compare to Scenes from a Marriage; true revelations about the human condition continue to arise 35 years after each film's release.$LABEL$ 1
+"Empire Strikes Back" director Irvin Kershner's "Never Say Never Again," a remake of the 1965 James Bond movie "Thunderball," doesn't surpasses the Terence Young original, but this non-Harry Saltzman & Albert R. Broccoli film is well worth watching if you call yourself a 007 aficionado. Nevertheless, despite its shortage of clever gadgets and the lack of a vibrant musical score, "Never Say Never Again" rates as an above-average, suspenseful doomsday thriller with top-flight performances by a seasoned cast including Sean Connery, Kim Basinger, Klaus Maria Brandauer, Max Von Sydow, Barbara Carrera, Edward Fox, Bernie Casey, Alec McCowen, and Rowan Atkinson. The film bristles with surprises galore from the invigorating title credits sequence throughout its generally exciting but lengthy 134 minutes. Unlike the franchise James Bond sagas with their breath-taking moments of spectacle, "Never Say Never Again" provides few of these scenes because of its prohibitive budget. Indeed, the film features only three gadgets: an explosive ball-point pen, a wristwatch with a laser, and a souped-up motorcycle. Aside from the flavorful Lani Hall opening theme song, "Ice Station Zebra" composer Michel Legrand's orchestral music score leaves much to be desired. Legrand replicates none of those snappy, jazz cues that made John Barry's music for the regular Bond franchise so memorable. All in all, "Never Say Never Again" seems to fit more into the first two Bond movies—"Dr. No" and "From Russia With Love"—and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" in terms of its more down to earth approach to the subject matter."Never Say Never Again" presents Sean Connery's James Bond as an older 007 who has seen his day and has been taken off active service to teach. Ironically, Roger Moore was a year older than Connery and Moore's Bond movies treated 007 as an active, young guy. Sean Connery seems to be responsible for making 007 a more mature secret agent and a number of changes take place in the Lorenzo Semple screenplay that emphasize Bond's age. Initially, Connery had lobbied to play Bond without a hairpiece, but mercifully wiser minds prevailed and Connery sports a hairpiece. He looks tanned and fit and appears in better condition than he did twelve years earlier when he was rushed into "Diamonds Are Forever" at the last moment to replace John Gavin. Connery had been working on another movie and had gained weight for the role that he was unable to remove in time for "Diamonds Are Forever." At 52, Connery still has a youthful vigor here despite the contrived demands of the script.The action unfolds with 007 single-handedly trying to rescue a kidnapped woman on a remote desert island. He dispatches several guards armed with machine guns and frees the woman, only to have her stab him with a knife in the side when he isn't looking. It seems that this entire sequence was an exercise designed by M (Edward Fox of "Day of the Jackal") to test Bond's ability. The new M doesn't share his predecessor's use of field agents. M decides that Bond needs to clean out his system of all 'free radicals' and has 007 packed off to Shrublands. While at the country clinic, Bond notices suspicious activity between a nurse and a patient and gets noticed watching them. The nurse is none other than SPECTRE assassin Fatima Blush (Barbara Carrera of "The Island of Dr. Moreau") and she is in charge of making sure that nobody sees USAF officer Jack Petachi (Gavan O'Herlihy of "Superman 3"). Petachi is part of a SPECTRE plan by millionaire businessman Maximilian Largo (Klaus Maria Brandauer of "Out of Africa") to black the world powers by stealing two nuclear warheads. The villains implant a duplicate eyeball into Captain Petachi who has access to the highly sophisticated computers and can order the arming of weapons. After he steals the weapons for SPECTRE, Fatima Blush runs him off the road by tossing her pet snake in his lap and then attaches an explosive to his wrecked car and blows him up. Indeed, the first part of "Never Say Never Again," apart from the SPECTRE planning conference, belong to Fatima as she supervises Petachi's stay at the clinic and then repeatedly tries to kill Bond, one at sea with sharks and later in a motel suite with an explosives device.Eventually, Bond meets the beautiful blond Domino (Kim Basinger of "Mother Lode") and sneaks into Largo's charity banquet at a Monte Carlo casino where the two face off in an elaborate video game called 'Domination' to see who will rule the world. Bond bests him and Largo hates him doubly now because 007 is his only rival to Domino and a thorn in his side that not even Fatima seems to be able to remove. Bond and Fatima have it out after a motorcycle chase when he returns the favor and blows her up. Their earlier encounter in the Bahamas when she attached a device to lure a shark after him is pretty lame. Like in the original "Thunderball," the villains recover the hijacked nuclear warheads at sea, but just the warheads themselves.Bond flies to the Bahamas where he meets his diplomatic liaison, Nigel Small-Fawcett (no lesser than Rowan Atkinson of "Mr. Bean" fame, who is worried that Bond may kill somebody and ruin the island paradise. Of course, Nigel Small-Fawcett serves as the film's source of comic relief. The C.I.A. sends Felix Leiter (Bernie Casey of "Guns of the Magnificent Seven") to back up Bond. This is the first time that an African-American portrayed Leiter. Bond encounters his share of problems, involving saving Domino from Arab slavers, while Leiter and he save the world. "Never Say Never Again" is a richly respectable James Bond thriller with many neat touches, but it never generates the air of danger that the franchise Bond films have. Indeed, "Never Say Never Again" looks like a dignified Masterpiece Theatre take on 007.$LABEL$ 1
+No-nonsense Inspector Hollaway (a solid turn by John Bennett) investigates the disappearance of a famous thespian and uncovers the wicked past history of a creepy old house. First and most mundane tale, "Method for Murder" - Successful author Charles Hillyer (nicely played by Denholm Elliott) is haunted by images of the murderous fiend he's writing about in his latest book. Although this particular outing is too obvious and predictable to be anything special, it does nonetheless build to a real dilly of a genuine surprise ending. Second and most poignant anecdote, "Waxworks" - Lonely Philip Grayson (the always outstanding Peter Cushing) and his equally lonesome friend Neville Rogers (the splendid Joss Ackland) both become infatuated with the beguiling wax statue of a beautiful, but lethal murderess. Third and most chilling vignette, "Sweets to the Sweet" - Quiet, reserved and secretive widower John Reid (a typically terrific Christopher Lee in a rare semi-sympathetic role) hires nanny Ann Norton (the fine Nyree Dawn Porter) to take care of his seemingly cute and harmless daughter Jane (a remarkably spooky and unnerving performance by the adorable Chloe Franks). This stand-out scary episode is given a substantial disturbing boost by the exceptional acting from gifted child actress Franks, who projects a truly unsettling sense of serene evil lurking just underneath a deceptively sweet and innocent angelic veneer. Fourth and most amusing yarn, "The Cloak" - Pompous horror movie star Paul Henderson (delightfully essayed to the haughty hilt by Jon Pertwee) purchases a mysterious cloak that causes him to transform into a vampire whenever he wears it. This item makes for good silly fun and further benefits from the awesomely pulchritudinous presence of the luscious Ingrid Pitt as enticing vampiress Carla. Director Peter Duffell, working from a deliciously macabre and witty script by noted horror scribe Robert Bloch, maintains a snappy pace throughout and does an ace job of creating a suitably eerie atmosphere. Kudos are also in order for Ray Parslow's crisp cinematography and the shuddery score by Michael Dress. Highly recommended to fans of omnibus fright fare.$LABEL$ 1
+"Murder Over New York" is an entertaining entry in the Charlie Chan series of films, but if you're paying attention, a lot of plot holes reveal themselves to the observant eye. While traveling to New York City for an annual police convention, Chan (Sidney Toler) meets former Scotland Yard investigator Hugh Drake (Frederick Worlock) on the same flight. Now employed by military intelligence, Drake is tracking Paul Narvo and his Hindu servant, suspected for acts of sabotage around the world. Drake believes that by contacting Narvo's elusive wife, he'll be able to pin down the whereabouts of the master criminal.When Drake winds up dead in the library of George Kirby, president of the Metropolitan Aircraft Corporation, Charlie theorizes that he was killed by a recently discovered poisonous gas called "tetrogene", administered via a glass pellet that releases the poison when broken. Summoning Kirby to bring all of his dinner party guests together, Chan and Police Inspector Vance (Donald MacBride) question those in attendance, as one of them may be the killer. Among them are Herbert Fenton (Melville Cooper), a fellow Oxford student of Drake's, actress June Preston (Joan Valerie), unknown to Drake but requested by him to attend, Ralph Percy (Kane Richmond), the chief designer at Kirby's aircraft company, and Keith Jeffrey (John Sutton), Kirby's stock broker. Kirby butler Boggs (Leyland Hodgson) is also a suspect, especially after Number #2 Son Jimmy (Victor Sen Yung) catches him steaming open a cablegram, the contents of which concern Boggs himself.There are some other cleverly planted characters in the proceedings as well. Mrs. Narvo turns up as Patricia West (Marjorie Weaver), and contrary to Drake's suspicion that she might lead him to Narvo, is actually on the run away from her former husband and a disastrous marriage. She's involved with David Elliott (Robert Lowery), principal of a chemical research firm, and thereby a suspect in the tetrogene angle.As with many Chan films, racial comments must be taken in stride with the proceedings. This one offers two glaring ones. When Kirby's black servant is brought in for questioning, he states that he doesn't know anything about Drake's murder, that he's completely "in the dark". Chan's response: "Condition appear contagious".Later, following Inspector Vance's order to round up all the Hindu's in New York, Jimmy Chan comments on their arrival with "They're all beginning to look alike to me." Actually, the scene provides one of the elements of comic relief in the movie, as Shemp Howard impersonates Hindu mystic "The Great Rashid", but is actually uncovered by the police to be con artist Shorty McCoy.Before the movie's over, two more victims fall to the clever Narvo - his confederate Ramullah, and aircraft magnate Kirby himself. To uncover the killer, Chan, in concert with Elliott, arranges for a test flight aboard a newly developed TR4 Bomber after discovering a poisoned capsule planted by mechanics on the plane the day before. Before it can release it's deadly poison, the Brit Fenton catches the falling capsule in mid-air, revealing that he knew about the plant. Arrested and brought in for questioning, Chan asserts that Fenton is not Narvo. The real Narvo reveals himself when he offers a poisoned cup of water to the nervous Fenton, anxious to maintain Narvo's secret. But Chan was clever enough to be wary of such an attempt, and reveals the real murderer - Narvo now in the guise of stock broker Jeffrey, having undergone reconstructive surgery following a car accident.Now for the plot holes. When first investigating Hugh Drake's murder, it was maintained by the police that fingerprints found in the library did not match those of any of the dinner guests. However Jeffrey/Narvo was present at the dinner party. It had already been established that Drake had one non party visitor in the library, chemist Elliott. If the fingerprints really did not belong to Narvo, then making them an issue was pointless.Also, at the end of the film when Narvo offers Fenton the poisoned water, how did he think he would get away with it with everyone there as a witness? But going even one better than that, how would a world traveling saboteur like Narvo have the time and wherewithal to establish himself as a New York City stockbroker, it just doesn't make sense. For trivia fans, a few more points bear mentioning. In the film, Number #2 Son Jimmy is a college student studying chemistry as he comes to "Pop's" aid to solve the case. In the prior Chan film - "Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum" - Jimmy was a law student.The poison gas formula would get reworked in a later Chan film, this time by Monogram with Roland Winters in the Chan role in "Docks of New Orleans". In that story, poison gas is released from shattered radio tubes in similar fashion to claim its' victims.$LABEL$ 1
+Very Slight Spoiler This movie (despite being only on TV) is absolutely excellent. I didn`t really pay attention to the differences in looks or accents, so I can`t really comment on that. The acting in this was so good I had to pinch myself and say "Remember, it`s only a movie, this DIDN`T REALLY HAPPEN". As I sat and listened to Harris and Quinn talk, I knew that it was exactly what John and Paul would be talking about had they actually had this meeting. The offhanded comments and burns from John were right on with his character(especially in the restaurant!), as was his depression while Paul was very easy going and laid back. Both actors did and excellent job and I was thrilled to have seen this movie. It`s a wicked experience for any Beatles fan. And prepare for a few surprises!$LABEL$ 1
+While there is a lot to recommend about Maetel Legend both in concept and finished product, it's ultimately a poor film. Plot wise it's a retelling of Maetel's early life, which is usually unclear; at the same time the writers take the opportunity to tell the story of the Machine Empire. And since Leiji Matsumoto has trouble not including his other work we get a starting point for Emeraldas her sister, Her mother: the Queen of La Metalle and a bit of Galaxy Express 999 to flesh out the film.In short Maetel is a princess on the planet La Metalle, a planet with an irregular orbit, thus meaning its cycle around the nearest sun is reaching a cold stage and it's artificial Sun is dying. The Planet grows increasingly colder throughout the story, thus increasing the sense of doom. In order to protect her subjects and family the Queen decides that mechanisation is the only way to ensure survival of La Metalle's people. Enter Lord Hardgear, a robot / cyborg who provides the means for the job. Through the film, the characters are left to question mechanisation, will they still be human? Can Hardgear be trusted? Do souls and hearts remain? So for a fan of Matsumoto's work, there's lots to enjoy, questions to be answered, themes continued, except it's obvious that the film is meant to be an introduction, as well as a fan curiosity. The negatives, foremost the animation, while Galaxy Express 999, a TV series from over 20 years ago has shoddy mouth animation and at times sketchy character design, Maetel Legend has all the worst traits of modern animation and thus earns an air of respectability to Galaxy Express 999. The design is well detailed but unfortunately the animation has suffered leaving well drawn characters that 'slide', as in the backgrounds move or the camera zooms, a quick way of animating. However the few, yes few well animated scenes are re used over and over in dream sequences, repetition and in extra scenes. Anyone who's seem the film will wonder how many times Lord Hardgear can drink the same glass of wine.Next the story, While in concept everything sounds great, the finished product is in fact a series of conversations of plot which are repeated over and over to little effect, the number of times the characters encounter the same problems and learn the same things is practically insulting to the audience and the characters, which are seemingly much more articulate in former incarnations. Add to all of that some terrible character design, that seem lifeless, over exaggerated, and the audience is left with a movie so miss handled it might as well have been rewritten as a different film, at least the newcomers wouldn't be left baffled.And yet, it really has its moments, the ending at least is surprising. The plight of the citizens of La Metalle was quite affecting and rightly disturbing; I guess I find that whole man-machine theme distressing. It's hard know who to recommend Maetel Legend to, since it's not well animated, written or executed, plus confusing once Leiji Matsumoto's mandatory cross-referencing is introduced. However I can't help but brighten up when the magnificent entrance of Three-Nine occurs, now that's good cinema.1/5 stars out of 5, 2 if you're a fan.$LABEL$ 0
+I took a chance on "Hardcastle and McCormick" by purchasing the first season's worth (Canadian release) from Amazon. When I got it, I started with the pilot, and I was instantly hooked after that. I rated it 5 stars on Amazon, and I am rating it 10 stars here. It is just that good. What I liked about it were the opening and closing themes, and of course Stephen J. Cannell's logo at the end of each episode, but most of all, the relationship between the Judge and Mark as they worked together to crack each case. I was so hooked that I also purchased the second season as a companion, and I enjoyed it equally. If you do not have this excellent series on disc, I believe that you should purchase it and put it in your collection.$LABEL$ 1
+When I first saw the Premiere Episode of Farscape, I had no idea what to expect. I was immensely impressed and satisfied with "Premiere". Subsequent re-watches, however, have made numerous flaws apparent to me that I missed initially. "Premiere" is not a great Farscape Episode, but it deserves credit for successfully and efficiently setting up the plot and giving the basic back stories to many of the regular characters.The episode begins with John Crichton (Ben Browder), an astronaut and scientist, preparing to launch into space in the Farscape Module, a small space ship perfected by Crichton and his friend DK. Crichton has a revealing conversation with his father, Jack Crichton, and then begins his test flight in space. Of course, everything goes wrong and Crichton is "shot through a wormhole" and winds up in "a distant part of the galaxy".After exiting the wormhole, Crichton's module is pulled on board a living space ship. From here, the characters and story line for the Farscape series are introduced in an entertaining albeit rushed manner.The regular characters are properly introduced during the first half of the episode. Of course, there is Crichton, played well by Ben Browder. He offers a the audience a sympathetic character to identify with. He's lost and has no idea how to do much of anything. In "Premiere", Crichton has to choose between joining the prisoners or the Peacekeepers. He knows nothing at all about either side, but in helping Aeryn (a captured Peacekeeper pilot) it becomes clear that he intends to help the Peacekeepers. He probably would not have ended up siding with the prisoners if it hadn't been for Crais, a Peacekeeper captain, declaring Crichton to be the murderer of his brother. This puts Crichton in an interesting situation: he's stuck with bizarre, violent escaped prisoners in a far-off galaxy about which he knows nothing at all. Crichton's total lack of knowledge of the Farsape world makes him a particularly interesting protagonist during Farscape's first season.The supporting cast is just as compelling. There's Zhaan, a blue Delvian and former prisoner. She's peaceful and reasonable, as opposed to fellow prisoner Ka D'Argo, a powerful and hard-headed warrior. Virginia Hey is totally covered in blue makeup, allowing her character of Zhaan to appear cool and convincing. D'Argo's mega-makeup, in contrast, is below-par. He looks kind of silly with his giant tentacles and strange nose, and there is something peculiar about his eyes. They look as if they have had some sort of allergic reaction to his makeup. Farscape would give some improvements to his makeup in Season 1, but the overall costume would, for me at least, remain as a problem until Season 2.The puppet/digital characters of Rygel and Pilot are, to put it simply, excellent. Rygel is a tiny Hynerian Dominar who floats around on some sort of hovercraft. In "Premiere" he is given some good dialogue but not much else. Pilot nearly steals the show as the liaison between the living ship, Moya, and Moya's passengers. Even in the first episode, Pilot gives off the appearance of being a real, living alien; he never once in the show seems to be a giant, expensive machine.The Peacekeeper characters introduced are quite interesting as well. The Peacekeepers are made up of a race called Sebaceans, who look just like humans. The chief antagonist is introduced in "Premiere" as Captian Crais, who believes that Crichton killed his brother. In reality, Crais's brother's death was merely an accident resulting from an accidental collision with Crichton's ship. Aeryn Sun, a pilot who Crichton helps escape, tries to explain that the death was an accident, but Crais just claims that she is "irreversiby contaminated" and refused to change his mind. Crais obsession for revenge, warranted or not (it should be clear to Crais that Crichton isn't responsible), is mysterious in "Premiere", but would be explained later in the season. Aeryn herself provides an extremely interesting character. By being forced to leave the Peacekeepers, she changes her whole way of life, and is in that regard in a similar (though less severe) situation as Crichton.The actual episode, as mentioned earlier, feels somewhat rushed and clunky. So much happens that not enough time is spent on anything. Also, D'Argo (for now) looks kind of silly running around in his mediocre costume trying to appear menacing. Still, "Premiere" is solid entertainment. The special effects (such as in the starburst sequences) are impressive. Most of the costumes and the sets on board Moya are original. Despite its flaws, "Premiere" is a must-see for Farscape fans. 3/4$LABEL$ 1
+OK its not the best film I've ever seen but at the same time I've been able to sit and watch it TWICE!!! story line was pretty awful and during the first part of the first short story i wondered what the hell i was watching but at the same time it was so awful i loved it cheap laughs all the way.And Jebidia deserves an Oscar for his role in this movie the only thing that let him down was half way through he stopped his silly name calling.overall the film was pretty perfetic but if your after cheap laughs and you see it in pound land go by it.$LABEL$ 0
+With a little dressing up, this movie could be served for Thanksgiving dinner. Not only is is boring, implausible, historically inaccurate and poorly directed, the best actors were the bit players (mainly because they had so few lines to say). A waste of time, even for war fanatics.$LABEL$ 0
+The movie is a riot - hilariously funny yet graphically violent. Just when you think you can't take any more it gives you more. Great thiller. The cast is excellent and the plot is very convincing. The past does indeed catch up with our hero, but right(?) prevails.$LABEL$ 1
+Zzzzzzzzzzzz. This one came directly from the "Jaws" cookie-cutter mold, with some other bizarre cliches thrown in for good measure. I was interested in seeing this after finding a still from it in a book about Italian horror films, and wow...I guess I got what I deserved!Very slow-moving and talky, much of this killer shark movie takes place on land, which isn't really that surprising. It seems like the only method they had of showing a shark is through shots of a shark in an aquarium. The shark is never in the same frame as any of the actors, and that's too bad...most of the characters are so annoying that you actually wish they would get eaten.The "plot" concerns a group of four kids who meet up with a mysterious Indian on the beach one day while roasting weenies. The Indian, for some reason, gives them an ancient artifact that will allow them to track an ancient evil that assumed the form of a monster shark to attack their tribe...supposedly because they were too good at fishing the ocean and the ocean god was worried they would take all the fish. Or something like that.It's a good thing too, because wouldn't ya know it...years later, a monster shark appears and starts gobbling up people in the sleepy seaside community. When one of the four guys are eaten by the shark, the remaining three are determined to kill the thing...especially since (big shocker here) the authorities have killed a shark and they think the threat is over. Yawn.The obligatory death scenes are unbelievably tedious, and you can see them coming a mile away (my favorite was the girl who has a fight with her boyfriend while they're sitting in a van, then jumps out and says "I'm going for a swim," immediately to be gobbled up by the waiting shark). They had a lot of nerve calling this film "Deep Blood" since you hardly see any, just cloudy water. The actors handle their cliched roles like they're all thumbs, and there is even a hilarious subplot involving a greasy rocker-type bad boy who threatens our goody-goody heroes, then turns good in the end to help kill the shark.It took me a really long time to find this film, it is rather obscure, so I don't think there's any danger of too many people wasting their time on this. However, if you should be lured into it...don't say you weren't warned!$LABEL$ 0
+The amount of hype and the huge success this film has encountered is evidence how desperate our people are towards a good independent Saudi film. In fact the huge success of "Tash ma Tash" is also an evidence.I'm not going to start of how important film making is, as it is obvious to those with half a brain how films have changed the world.And I'm not going to say how much our society needs a bunch of films to clear out a lot of issues we have in our country. Religion, politics, women's rights, education, general health, terrorism, Law and many many more.Along came news about the fist Saudi movie which should've been a remedy to some of the issues we have, especially towards the youth. Instead we experienced a bald movie for that matter.The ignorance and naivety of the script was obvious. It was as if a 13 year old had written it.Now I've heard that the budget for this film was huge. I would like to know where the money went, huh? The effects were really ugly, the editing was poor. The script was "kharabeet". You really don't know what the story is and what the director aims at from this film.A note on the actor who played the religious brother, his performance was good but with bad direction. Another thing with the role of the religious friends he had, that is not how religious guys act here in Saudi Arabia! They are not "Evil" as this film intends. In fact they are some of the nicest people you'll ever meet with some really uncommon way of living, and that is what should've appeared in the film.The youth are following the religious here because of a reason, and that is the youngsters are the most passionate and sentimental. And with the well formed principles the religious live on, the youngsters follow them. Again, this is what should've appeared.We need another "First Film" with a Saudi Writer, actor, director, composer, even cameraman. So that they all work with passion towards their experiment, not just for the money!And we should do what Shakespeare did hundreds of years ago, we should include phrases from the Qur'an in the script of the movie. As the people in our society still see art as a form of sin, the challenge a Saudi movie maker is facing is changing the mentality in that angle.$LABEL$ 0
+Oh, for crying out loud, this has got to be the LAMEST movie I've seen all year, and I'm sorry the normally awesome John Cusack was even involved in this brainless, twitty piece of Stupidity. Where Sleepless in Seattle delivered what amounts to be the same message, albeit on a more subtle, somewhat more mature level, Serendipity delivers it with a sledgehammer, and then proceeds to pound it into your psyche for the next tedious hour and a half or so (and that's an hour and a half of my life I'll never get back again, thank you very much!!). It's bad enough the main characters of this movie have the emotional maturity level of fourteen-year-olds (actually I've known better fourteen-year-olds...), except maybe for Jeremy Piven, who was enjoyable enough. Just the first 15 minutes or so of the movie where Kate Beckinsale's character plays that annoying silliness of a game about throwing all sensibility to the wind (literally) had my best friend and I irritated beyond belief. I told my husband Rockstar had more intelligence, and at least, the characters in Rockstar weren't half as dysfunctional as the idiots were in this "Serendipitous" mess. It's annoying to watch protagonists who seem to have no clue about choice in their lives, and feel they're nothing more than puppets to destiny and the whims of fate. How utterly tiresome. I'm sure this movie will be more likely enjoyed by those who'd rather not engage in the chaotic messiness of making more complex life choices and then responsibly living with the consequences. After all, here's a movie where our hero and heroine live happily ever after only after wreaking havoc and misery on two other people's lives (namely their respective fiancées), not to mention other relatives and friends, just to get there.$LABEL$ 0
+The Romanian cinema is little known out of Romania. No directors from Romania came out to the attention of the international public, as some from other countries from Eastern Europe like Hungary, Czekoslowakia, or Yugoslavia succeeded to do. One of the few great directors in Romanian cinema is Lucian Pintilie, who 35 ago directed a great movie 'Reconstituirea' - quickly taken out of the circuit by the communist censorship. After that film, still a reference for the Romanian cinema, Pintilie was not allowed to create freely in Romania until the Communist rule fell in 1989.'Furia' reminds me Pintilie's film 35 years ago. The title means 'The Rage' and I cannot imagine why the distributors chose to translate it differently. It is about a lost generation. While in the classic of Pintilie the root of evil is in the oppression and lies of the communist regime, here the young folks need to deal with the emergence of the sub-culture, and the moral filth that filled in the void left by the totalitarian rule. The end is tragic and painfully expected.The movie is well directed, and the acting is good. Without too much complexity, it succeeds to create an emotional link between the characters and the viewer. One would say that some situations seem similar to '8 Miles' or 'The Fast and the Furious' - but look at the date of the production! This film was made at the same time, if not before the Western peers. If this is indeed the first film of director Dan Munteanu, as IMDB says, it is an outstanding debut. In any case, a good movie, can compete and may sell well on the Western market.There is hope for a new generation of Romanian films that with some luck and good distribution will make its place in the international cinema scene.8/10 on my personal scale.$LABEL$ 1
+This film was really different from what I had imagined but exceeded my expectations nevertheless. This film has the exactly right mixture of comedy, drama, political criticism and satire (not necessarily in that order). Without being patronizing or wisenheimer it reveals the open and subtle problems of our capitalist democratic high technology society. It makes you laugh instantly and remain in thought afterwards. For those of you who liked "wag the dog" and wished to have humane and manlike politicians this film should definitely be the choice!"politicians are a lot like diapers: they should be changed frequently and for the same reasons."$LABEL$ 1
+I accidentally bumped into this film on Cinemax while channel surfing. I must admit that what attracted me was Christopher Walken. And the setting was the kind I would like, so I started to watch it. At first I expected a serious drama film, and it seemed like so for a while... until I started to giggle here and there, and before I know it I was laughing so hard all through the film. I really like how subtle and light-hearted it is, but still has a huge impact on the audience. The plot is very simple, and it's far from trying too hard to be funny like many Hollywood "comedies" are, yet it almost had me rolling on the floor. A must see for a nice evening rest, or any time in that case.$LABEL$ 1
+I enjoy watching Robert Forster. That was the main reason that I rented this movie. I also wanted to see a story take place out in the middle of nowhere where the characters could work off of each other really well with no distractions. Unfortunitaly I found the movie to be dull. I couldn't get interested in the characters. I couldn't get interested in the story which seemed to meander nowhere. After watching this movie for an hour I turned it off. I will rate the movie 4 out of 10. This falls well below the mandatory 7 rating that makes a movie worthwhile to watch.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm not really a t.v. watcher - except between the ages of 6 and 8 and "General Hospital" still had Luke and Laura - but there are a few exceptions and I definitely think that "King of Queens" is one of them. Every decade has it's classics and I think that this show will (or damn-well should) be amongst this decade's best. Its comedic timing is awesome and can, at times, be down right odd. On a more 'serious' note the actors more than succeed in conveying subtle - and not so subtle :)- complexities in their characters without getting too hokey. One commenter wrote that it may take a couple of episodes to get into it and I agree; it's definitely one that kind of grows on you but once you're in, you're pretty much hooked. And with good reason!$LABEL$ 1
+It makes one wonder how this show is still on the air. There's been one couple that has stayed together, married, and has children, but everyone else has broken up. What's the point of continuing this? The show can be entertaining at the beginning. You see all the girls swooning over one man, that almost all of them like instantly. It's just like in real life! The girls start to take sides, bitch one another out, and show their true selves (or so we think). But that one man is left to decide who to pick that he thinks he can marry and live happily ever after.What is true love exactly? How can you fall for someone when you're forced to pick them? This show is unbelievable. You thought dating online was bad, but people have to go on TV to find love? It's not realistic. How could a girl be with a man when he is going out with several others, making out with them? None of these questions are answered, and finally when the show ends, you know there won't be a happy ending in the future. For all we know, everything is scripted.$LABEL$ 0
+Matt Cvetic is a loyal communist in a Pittsburgh steel mill who works to recruit workers into the party, even though this isolates himself from his son, family, and neighbors. What makes this even more difficult is that Cvetic is actually an FBI agent posing as a Communist in order to obtain information about party activities. The party is trying to create a strike at the mill, whereby the pro-strike movement will lead the workers into a wave of propaganda. Cvetic also has to contend with beautiful Eve Merrick, a party member and teacher at his son's school who finds the fact that Cvetic is a double agent. When Eve learns the ugly truth about the party's real motives, the reds decide she must be liquidated and Cvetic must aid her without endangering himself. The film should have plenty of suspense and double crossing but there is very little in this film but (by today's standards) very cheesy propaganda and little action or thrills. Lovejoy is very good in the main role, but even he and the rest of the cast seem listless. Few surprises here and how did this film receive a Oscar nod for best documentary? Rating, 4.$LABEL$ 0
+this movie offers nothing but the dumbest conversations possible. as a matter of fact i most probably could not have imagined how meaningless a film, how synthetic the dialogs could be until an hour ago, but then again i saw this video. in a movie that does not depend on a powerful script, one expects to see at least good acting and tasty conversations and even some humor maybe, yet this movie lacks them all. you heard me it lacks them all. there is not a single point i like about this movie, none. i hate it. i'm sure anyone will do so too. the name is intended to give the target audience some thoughts of nudity and stuff, yet it fails even at the nudity. i don't know how but i beared to watch this thing for an hour or so, and i definitely recommend you don't do so. worst movie i've seen in my entire life. if someone offers you to watch it, ruuun awaaaaay saaaaaave your liiiiiiiiife$LABEL$ 0
+A family traveling for their daughter's softball league decide to take the 'scenic route' and end up in the middle of nowhere. The father is an avid photographer, and when he hears of an old abandoned side show in the town, he decides to take another detour to take some photographs.Of course, the side show is filled with inbred freaks, who promptly kidnap the women and leave the young son and father to fend for themselves.The only cool thing about this film is how the family actually fights back against their inbred captors. Other than that, there's nothing worthwhile about the film.$LABEL$ 0
+This show was appreciated by critics and those who realized that any similarities between "Pushing Daisies" style and anyone else's was not a steal. (Yes, I've seen "Amelie." "Pushing Daisies" is somewhat similar but still different enough to be original.) Rather, there are too few shows on TV that have this kind of quirky charm. The greatest similarity is to "Dead Like Me" but "P.D" comes by that similarity honestly: Bryan Fuller created both shows. (Both shows involve an "undead" young woman, For example.) This show never stopped being funny and charming, and it was always odd, yet was consistently humane.I must say a word about the conventions of on-going story lines. some people have complained that this show lacked a moral center because in the first (and several subsequent) episodes Ned seems to get away with causing the death of Chuck's father without consequences of any kind. First of all, this must be a new definition of "without consequences of any kind" because, in spite of the fact that Ned was only a boy and did not realize that he had caused the death of Chuck's father, he nevertheless felt guilty from the moment he realized what he had done. Further, about a dozen episodes into the series, Ned finally did confess to Chuck that he had caused her father's death with his gift. Now, there are no police to charge people with magically causing one person's death by bringing another person back to life, so the questions of absolution and restitution have to be taken up without societal guidance. In other words, it's between Ned and Chuck, who was not inclined to forgive Ned anytime soon.But this does point out a problem with continuing story lines in network dramas. I remember when David Caruso's character on "NYPD Blue" did something wrong and it seemed he got away with it--for a whole year--then he got caught and was forced to resign from the job (and left the show). The point is, viewers should learn by now and not assume that just because a regular character does something wrong in a single episode, and is not caught in that episode, that he has gotten away with it. There is always next week--and maybe even next year.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie makes Peter an elf in Robin Hood costume instead of a human boy in probably-not-Robin-Hood-costume and ignores all the persona features in him that really matter. This movie makes Wendy a babbling idiot. And poor Captain Hook a TOTAL clown. And of course as every Disney cartoon must have a character which has had too many hits in the head, they made one of the Lost Boys that one. The only character that has not been disgraced in this film is Tink. The only star is for her.The story itself then? The Darling parents don't even get the time to notice their kids are gone!!! Probably one of the most significant point in the original story and they ruined it! Also the famous nursery scene between Peter Pan and Wendy is a stunning piece of- There are no thimbles and no acorns - one of the little things that makes the original story such a unique one. It's a wonder he even had lost his shadow and she helped him stick it. (Even though to his shoes and it makes no sense to me.)Ruining a great story like this just to amuse children should be illegal. So know now if you haven't known it before - this Disney version does not have anything significant in common with the original story - which is not really a children's story but just a great, great story.This just annoys me to no end.$LABEL$ 0
+I wish that all the mockumentaries and horror spoofs would go away. If you are going to investigate loch ness..do it for real. Enough of the bull****. Same with horror and sci-fi..if you are going to make a movie and it is supposed to be scary..make it scary..not funny. I hate when watching a horror movie and the character is fighting for their life(or running or whatever..their life is at stake) and they are cracking jokes. This never happens..cmon where have all the good directors gone? I think horror and sci-fi have really gone down the tube since the 70's. I long for the days that a horror flick was scary..all this "scary movie" crap is for the birds. This film is also for the birds. If you really would like to see a good investigation or here serious talk...don't expect it in this video.$LABEL$ 0
+It's like a bad 80s TV show got loose and tried to become a soft-core porn movie. Oh my god was it bad. The plots of each character had little relevance. The plot itself wasn't anything to speak of. Something about a stalker, I guess. In the end he shoots himself? It's not really clear, but somehow there's a volleyball game involved. And the main character (Randy) sleeps around a lot. The only reason my friends rented this movie was because Casper Van Dien was in it, and they ended up wanting to fast forward to the scenes with him in it, which were barely watchable at that. Thank god I didn't spend any money on it, but I want that hour of my life back.$LABEL$ 0
+This crock of doodoo won a award? They must have been desperate for giving out an award for something. This movie reeks of teeny bopper stuff and it made me sick. Thankfully I watched it alongside MST3K's Mike and the bots so it made it bearable. Horrid acting, unsettling mother/daughter moment, silly premise, if you want a bad movie here it is. Be warned though watch it with Mike and the bots or you will suffer.1 out of 10. I still can't believe it won an award, and the director is defending this *&&^$$#$^&& piece of ^%^%$^$#%@$#@ movie!$LABEL$ 0
+Lou Gossett, Jr. is an excellent and captivating actor, but to have him take the role of a "president" and then have him act like he's James Bond, running around carrying a Gun and entering a warehouse to uncover a plot to kill Christians, and then being able to Escape the supposedly High Security Facility to live another day, does Not do him Justice - this movie has so many Unresolved IssuesI will attempt to list just a few: 1 - what was the purpose of "stockpiling" a Vaccine if no one is Vaccinated? - for example, the preacher could have been Vaccinated if the "tribulation force" already had Vaccine on hand - later, buck Williams' wife goes to be with the sick preacher and she herself becomes sick; so, was the Virus, therefore, Contagious? - IF it was Contagious, then why did Ray and his wife go into the church without Proper Protection? - why didn't they become Sick too? - and when Chloe drank the wine and was "cured", how did she suddenly know the wine was the "antidote"? - was it California wine, ordinary Red Table Wine? - could Red Grape Juice been adequate - and,if the preacher had received "communion" at least every time he preached, maybe he would have had anti-dote flowing through his body already? - buck and Chloe got a "heavy" box of vaccine that was never used - what mysterious message should we see in that? 2 - the presentation of "evil" forces who are working with the Anti-Christ Nicolai to destroy the world, as being Russian, Chinese, etc., is really a Relic of the 1950's and the early James Bond era, and shows an Ignorance of Modern Society and of Humanity - are we to believe that Russians and Chinese are perpetually trying to destroy this Planet? - and for what Purpose, mere Destruction? - this was such a Narrow-Minded view of this world and was so Cliché as to be Laughable3 - the main purpose of this movie was the scene near the very end where Kirk Cameron and Lou Gossett, Jr. are proselytizing the non-believers in the audience (by showing Kirk proselytizing Lou) - it was a movie with no meaningful storyline, too many disconnects with reality, and a completely inappropriate plot for a great actorI, therefore, rank this as a 1, since Zero is not available$LABEL$ 0
+gone in 60 sec. where do i began, it keeps you in the movie with some good action and some cool cars. people say its not a good movie i disagree sure it has some cheesy parts but what action movie doesn't. i gave it an 8 out of 10 cause of the action and the comic relief if you like the Rock or Face Off than this movie is right up your alley cage dose a good job along with one of the most under rated actors in my mind Del-Roy Lindo. i think sometimes people look to far into movies some times you need to sit back enjoy the movie and after words ask yourself did they achieve what they where showing. meaning if they where going for action was it action pact. if they where trying to make a movie to change how movies are made and trying to win every award out their well did they? i think they made the action movie they set out to make, give it a chance and you wont be sorry.$LABEL$ 1
+To start off, I love Steven Seagal, the man is a genius. But recent movies leave me to wonder, Is he trying anymore? His latest movies show almost no effort on Seagal's part. In Out of Reach, its too obvious that his lines are dubbed over. . What Seagal does in this movie is not only a slap on the face to his fans, but even more to Jean-Claude Van Damme and his fans. In the 2nd scene or so, when he prepares to zip-line into the drug dealers penthouse to steal the jewels and money, it shows him set-up the gun and hook it on a neon sign. Your might be saying to yourself, 'Yah, so what does this have to do with Van Damme?'. Well that scene was stolen from a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie called the Order. Rent both, watch both, compare both and you will lose respect for Seagal. Not only was Today You Die garbage, but it was, dare I say, an insult. Seagal's Aikido moves are still good, but why isn't he doing great movies like Marked for Death or Above the law, hes still got the moves and the attitude, I'm just left wondering 'Why Seagal, Why?'. There are such idiotic scenes in his newer movies that have nothing to do with the storyline, and such idiotic story lines on top of that. I hope the up-coming Black Dawn movie will be another Exit Wounds or Beyond Justice, because these last chain of movies he made, especially Today You Die, really made me wonder if he has the stuff to make more great action movies like Double Team. Please, don't watch this movie unless you hate Seagal, if you love his movies don't watch this, it WILL make you question his future in the action film genre.$LABEL$ 0
+Everyone in a while, Disney makes one of thoes movies that surprises everyone. One that keeps you wondering until the very end. In the tradition of Pirates of the Caribbean, this movie is sure to turn into a ghost, and kill and rape your village. It's terrible. If you want a mindless, senseless, predictable "action" movie, go right ahead. I believe that young kids might enjoy this, as they like it when Good ALWAYS wins. But me, I like movies where it's a toss up who's going to win. This movie never lets the Bad Guys have the upper hand. By the end, when th heroes are left in an "inescapeable" pit, you just KNOW that they can get out. Everything works out perfect for Cage and his friends, he never has to think over a riddle or clue for more than 10 seconds, no matter how complex it is. See this movie if you want to see some impressive set designs, not if you want to see good acting, or a good film. Go watch a superman movie, it would be much shorter, and the kids would like it more. For instance, the scene where Cage is fleeing from armed gunmen, and the bullets are all deflected by a the railing of a fire escape. (And I'm not talking about a fence or anything, just ONE LITTLE POLE) This movie shows the decay of films and the film industry to cheap gags and dull, unrealistic action, which this movie provides in huge quantities.$LABEL$ 0
+First of all, ignore the comment about how South Park should make fun of Republicans. Everyone is doing that now, why should South Park blindly follow what the rest of the media is doing? And what the Republicans are doing is more serious and less funny than Al Gore and his global warming hysteria.But all that aside, this episode is just plain funny. Al Gore's portrayal has to be one of the best caricatures of a politician I've ever seen, it was original, and it was based on peoples opinions of the man. I don't want to give anything away, but it had me rolling on the floor.There are also has some of the best Cartman/Kyle moments ever.All in all I'd say that this is one of the best episodes the show has ever had, and I would highly recommend it to anybody.$LABEL$ 1
+A delightful story about two evacuees, has been turned into a nice little film, by the BBC. Most children who like a good story will enjoy this. The characters are played really well by a very good cast. Not sure whether our American friends will appreciate it, but they do get a mention, as Aunty Lou runs off with a gorgeous American soldier.$LABEL$ 1
+Imagine Diane from Cheers, the self centered over intellectualizing character, now imagine she was trying to make a film moire movie. This would be it. If you just looked at some of the shots without any sound you would think Hmmm.. this could be a good film. Now if you turn on the sound and listen for anytime at all you quickly realize that the person that made the film knows nothing about films beyond what they read in a book. I was continually thinking is this thing a foreign film, it was that bad.If you don't remember Cheers, then think of Mr. Beans Holiday... remember the DeFoe character that made the horrible movie... well imagine that horrible movie without Mr. Bean saving it. That is what this movie is. I'm not saying anything about what the movie is other than it is an attempt to make a dark moody film about a hit-man going back home.... at least that's about all I could get out of it.$LABEL$ 0
+I noticed this movie was getting trashed well before it hit the theaters and I too didn't have high hopes for it. I figured it was another "You Got Served" type of movie with some nice dance moves and horrid acting. I was at the theater and deciding between this and Meet the Spartans and picked this. To my surprise the acting wasn't bad at all and the movie was actually pretty good. The fact that it has a lower rating than You Got Served is absolutely ridiculous. Instead of listening to the garbage posted on here I recommend going to see a matinée showing of this movie so you don't spend too much. I think you will be pleasantly surprised with how wrong everyone has been about it. When it comes to dance movies this is certainly one of the better ones with far superior acting than many of the other ones. Go see the movie and judge for yourself. Hopefully the rating will rise after it comes out on DVD and more people check the movie out instead of judging it based on comments before the movie released.edit The movie is now moving closer to its correct rating. Over 1000 people have given it a rating of 9, a bit too high but at least it is helping to offset the ridiculous votes of 1.$LABEL$ 1
+Americans have the attention span of a fruit fly and if something does not happen within the span of a typical commercial, we tend to lose interest really fast.I found out an exciting fact from this film: someone has to paint high tension utility poles and do it on a schedule! And guess what, they really would like to be doing something else (the viewer has similar feelings).Surprisingly, when I was bored watching late night infomercials and decided to actually watch this film, I found the characters to be interesting and highly engaging.I just don't usually watch that much late night TV, so I can't recommend this film, unless watching paint dry is your idea of an exciting two hours out of your life.$LABEL$ 0
+I think this movie was probably a lot more powerful when it first debuted in 1943, though nowadays it seems a bit too preachy and static to elevate it to greatness. The film is set in 1940--just before the entry of the US into the war. Paul Lukas plays the very earnest and decent head of his family. He's a German who has spent seven years fighting the Nazis and avoiding capture. Bette Davis is his very understanding and long-suffering wife who has managed to educate and raise the children without him from time to time. As the film begins, they are crossing the border from Mexico to the USA and for the first time in years, they are going to relax and stop running.The problem for me was that the family was too perfect and too decent--making them seem like obvious positive propaganda instead of a real family suffering through real problems. While this had a very noble goal at the time, it just seems phony today. In particular, the incredibly odd and extremely scripted dialog used by the children just didn't ring true. It sounded more like anti-Fascism speeches than the voices of real children. They were as a result extremely annoying--particularly the littlest one who came off, at times, as a brat. About the only ones who sounded real were Bette Davis and her extended American family as well as the scumbag Romanian living with them (though he had no discernible accent).It's really tough to believe that the ultra-famous Dashiel Hammett wrote this dialog, as it just doesn't sound true to life. The story was based on the play by his lover, Lillian Hellman. And, the basic story idea and plot is good,...but the dialog is just bad at times. Overall, an interesting curio and a film with some excellent moments,...but that's really about all.$LABEL$ 1
+1940's cartoon, banned nowadays probably because of the 'Black Beauty' gag, in which Daffy rides a black person as if it were a horse.The whole story takes place in a bookstore, where the characters of the books come to life every evening. So we have, among others, the Ugly Duck (Daffy) and the wolf of Wallstreet. They wind up in a chase after the wolf tricked Daffy with a phony duck (hence the title).And chase is all there is in this little cartoon, that doesn't have any real appeal nowadays. Only fun if you're a true fan of the Looney Tunes I guess...4/10.$LABEL$ 0
+I don't know what movie some of these other people watched, but they must have seen a different "Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration" than the one I saw.I think the movie was both well-done and inspiring. I think it's definitely worth watching. It's apparent from the outset that a lot of care went into the making of this film. The background scenery is beautiful.I think the film does a good job of portraying Joseph Smith both as a man and as a prophet. Joseph's spiritual experiences are portrayed with taste and reverence.I would definitely recommend watching this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Mockumentaries are proliferating lately so much that the approach therefore needs an injection of fresh and creative material each time it's used to maintain its vitality. This film does not deliver anything but worn out retreads of similar stories, an aimless script, weak ad-libs, uninspired acting, and unfunny self-gratifying humor. The premise would seem promising enough; the legend of the Loch Ness monster is made to order for one of these goofy mockumentary misadventures, with a vast array of history and legend waiting to be tapped for outrageous satire. The film makers totally waste this enormous potential, however. We get some fool inserting a fake Nessie into the water. Gee, that's original. Another scene has one obnoxious idiot threatening another obnoxious idiot with a gun. Sidesplitting. Some gratuitous shots of a pretty girl in a bikini. Annette did that 40 years ago (and far better, by the way). Throughout the movie, somebody always seems to be yelling: I suppose this is designed to wake up the audience who have nodded off by this point.Worst of all, though, is the relentless salvo of those reality show type "interview comments" made by the characters. Not only do they nuke you with this tired joke every five seconds, but apparently, the actors also improvised; that's the only explanation for how humorless the jokes are. If lines like, "I've never seen anyone write a book about non-evidence" were actually scripted, then the writer should be shot on sight and fed to Nessie.No wonder Nessie got violent; it obviously saw this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Lame. Lame. Lame. Ultralame. Shall I go on? There is one, I repeat *one* funny scene in this entire, drawn-out, anti-amusing Amateur Hour Special of a film: Fares Fares' fat father knocking someone over with his beer gut. That's it. The rest of this shockingly mediocre pile of nothingness consists of the usual trademark bored-looking Swedish "actors" delivering dialogue which goes into one ear and out of the other, a banal story, sloppy direction and, well, little else worth mentioning. Nepotistically cast Fares Fares is as charismatic as a chartered accountant and his nose rivals even that of Adrien Brody in terms of sheer ridiculous hugeness. Torkel Petersson should only work with Lasse Spang Olsen. The rest of the cast is, luckily, easily forgettable, whereas Fares' humongous, titanic nose will forever haunt me in my dreams.Josef Fares helps ruin Swedish cinema. Don't support him and his nonsense. Jalla Jalla is to comedies what Arnold Schwarzenegger is to character acting, Kopps would have been much more respectable if it had been a no-budget Youtube video, and Zozo was simply the most pretentious, pseudo-touching garbage ever unleashed by a Swedish director. Wake up and smell the roses: Swedish movies can be so much better than this, so stop pretending Fares' flicks are worth watching simply because they're "good to be Swedish". Please.$LABEL$ 0
+Although in my opinion this is one of the lesser musicals of stars Frank Sinatra, Gene Kelly, Kathryn Grayson and director George Sidney, a lesser musical featuring anyone from that line-up is nothing to sneeze at, and in conjunction, the line-up makes Anchors Aweigh a pretty good film despite its flaws.Sinatra and Kelly are Clarence Doolittle and Joseph Brady, respectively, two Navy men. As the film begins, they're just pulling in to the Los Angeles area for some much needed leave. Brady plans on visiting a girlfriend named Lola. Doolittle is still a bit wet behind the ears, appropriately enough, and seeks advice on women from Brady in private (publicly, scriptwriter Isobel Lennart and Sidney have all of the Navy men comically exaggerating their finesse with women to each other). Brady promises to help get Doolittle hooked up, but primarily because Doolittle won't leave him alone otherwise. A kink is put into their plans when local police basically force them to assist with a young boy who is obsessed with the Navy. He won't give the police any information about who he is or where he lives. Brady helps and he and Doolittle end up taking the boy back home. When the boy's guardian, Susan Abbott (Grayson), finally shows up, Doolittle goes gaga for her. Brady tries to convince him to forget about her; Brady just wants to get back to Lola. But they keep getting coaxed back to Abbott's home, and eventually something of a love triangle forms. Things become more complicated when Brady lies about Doolittle knowing a famous musician, Jose Iturbi, who is in residence at a film studio, and claims that Doolittle has set up an audition for Abbott, who is a singer and actress, in front of Iturbi.Because of the story, the music is a strange combination of militaristic music--because of the Navy premise, obviously, Broadway pop--what the stars tend to sing in more informal settings, opera--what Abbott's character excels at, Liberace-like popular classical--what Iturbi did, and Mexican music--because Abbott frequents a Mexican restaurant in a Mexican section of L.A. The combination doesn't work as well as it could. Plenty of the songs are good, and everyone involved is certainly talented as a singer or musician, but the genre hopping tends to lose coherence. Worse, there are a couple showcases for Iturbi, who was apparently a big star at the time, that effectively bring the plot to a halt and that seem more than a bit hokey at this point in time. I just watched another film that happened to have outstanding music, Robert Altman's Kansas City (1996), but that misguidedly stopped the plot to periodically turn into a concert film. Anchors Aweigh takes a similar tactic. Yes, this is a musical, but there's a difference between songs that propel and are integral to the plot and concert showcases that seem like contractual obligation material.There are also some plot problems. It's not very well established why Brady is so against Doolittle's pursuit of Abbott. We can guess that Brady thinks Doolittle shouldn't become involved with someone who has to take care of a kid, and who seems relatively "proper" and traditional, but on the other hand, Brady can tell that Doolittle doesn't have the same womanizing disposition that Brady admits of himself. Abbott seems like a good fit for Doolittle, and furthermore, Lennart works hard to establish that Brady just wants to get Doolittle out of his hair and get on with meeting Lola--it seems that Brady's character should be quickly pawning Doolittle off on any candidate, whether she's a good fit or not. This might seem like a minor detail, but it's actually the hinge for about a third to half of the plot. The story also seems a bit drawn out. Length is a problem. Anchors Aweigh, clocking in at roughly two hours and twenty minutes, should have been cut down by at least a half-hour.The above surely sounds like I'm complaining about the film too much to justify an 8. I just wanted to stress what I see as flaws, because the conventional wisdom on Anchors Aweigh is much closer to the idea that it has no flaws.Sinatra, Kelly and Grayson are certainly charismatic, separately and together. They turn in good, interesting performances. Sinatra looks and acts much younger than his actual age of 29 – 30 while shooting. He plays an unusually naïve, virginal character--completely different than most of the roles he would take later, and different than his public image as a crooner. For Kelly, this was his breakthrough film, and rightfully so. His choreography is varied and impressive, as is his acting. Grayson is charming, her performance is sophisticatedly understated, and she's simply gorgeous. All of this helps override the flaws with the script and the drawn out pacing.And there's even a very interesting element that probably only arises because Sidney was allowed to sprawl over a large variety of moods--the infamous Kelly dance with Jerry the Mouse (of "Tom and Jerry" fame) in an extended fantasy sequence. This is one of the earliest examples of combining live action and animation, and it is extremely well done and enjoyable as long as you're a fan of fantasy. The fantasy sequences tend to be the best of the film. Matched in excellence to the dance with Jerry the Mouse is a long song and dance number featuring Kelly and Grayson, where Brady is imagining Abbott in a scene from a period film while he woos her, having to resort to acrobatic stunts to reach her physically as she stands on a high balcony.As uneven and flawed as the film is, it is largely successful and entertaining to watch. Fans of classic musicals certainly shouldn't miss Anchors Aweigh, and neither should Sinatra fans, who'll get quite a kick out of his character.$LABEL$ 1
+Crash is overwrought, over-thought and over-baked. A great example of how to make a pompous and self-important film with a message. Haggis tries too hard to make his point and overreaches in just about every category of the film. It feels very much in love with its own sense of social relevance and has all the subtlety of a jackhammer to the skull. Sure, race relations affect everyone and there's a great deal of ambiguity to the issue, but the universe of 'Crash' operates to suggest that we are all victims to our own perceptions on race. It's a tiresome thread that repeats itself ad nauseum and wears out its welcome within the first 30 minutes. I found the outcomes of the characters unsurprising and forced and the film took forever to sputter out and die. The fact that this film is in the top 50 movies on IMDb is a testament to the public's willingness to get suckered by Hollywood malarkey.Indeed, if you want the real "Crash," go check out the one by David Cronenberg: dark, twisted and original. This film plays as preachy, tiresome, and masochistic.$LABEL$ 0
+Starts off with Fulci playing a version of himself, writing down some ideas for how people could die. Followed by a fake-looking cat eating what is presumably a brain. The copy I watched was dubbed in English, which I always hate, but I was particularly disappointed not to get to hear Fulci in his own voice.Fulci is in a sort of feverish state working on his latest horror movie. His stomach turns when he sees things that resemble effects from his movie, and he starts to hallucinate that he is witnessing acts of horror. He visits a psychiatrist, who hypnotizes him and unfortunately he does not have his improved mental health in mind. I was reminded of the psychiatrist played by David Cronenberg in Clive Barker's Nightbreed (1990). The shrink in this one is played by David L. Thompson, who is pretty bad. Probably a real life friend of Fulci's, he has a big toothy grin when he kills people, though this may be Fulci's black humor at work which I thought was pretty poor too.The movie is composed of a lot of clips from Fulci's movies, either as if Fulci is on the set directing them, watching recordings on TVs, or witnessing the acts. I've never been too much of a fan of clip shows in TV series, and I also think things like Charles Band's Full Moon Entertainment cutting their old films down and putting three such cuts together as new anthologies are pretty lame. I guess they need to make money?The shrink in Cat in the Brain makes reference to the theory that violence in movies begets violence in real life. One of Fulci's co-workers talks about having a documentary crew follow Fulci to see what his life is like. Lots of self-referential stuff like this.In the end, some of the characters sail away on a boat named "Perversion."$LABEL$ 0
+I liked this movie. Unlike other thrillers you learn to know the killers very well. You also get to know the two detectives hunting them. The killers are two high school kids. They are very intelligent and want to prove they are smarter than the police so they plan the "perfect crime". We all know this crime will not turn out perfect. What we don't know is if they will be caught, or may be just one of them, or even none. In a way I kind of hoped they both would get away with it, although I don't know if this was the movies intention.The story is told in a nice way. You are starting to get to know the people involved. The character of Sandra Bullock is likable but has her own secret, which works against her. Ben Chaplin is pretty good as Sam and the two kids are both great. The scenes between them are the better scenes in the movie.I think you can say the movie is pretty good and not as predictable you would think. For a nice evening with a movie, 'Murder by Numbers' is a good one.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is great I really enjoyed it.This movie is about a cat mom named Dutchess and her 3 kittens.T Dutchess and the kittens love music.They have to practice the piano everyday.But the butler named Edgar tries to kidnap Dutchess and her kittens he tries to make them sleep. But he fails. Them Dutchess meets a cat named Thomas O Maily. Thomas falls in love with Dutchess. The cats break into song. With the song everybody wants to be a cat. Thomas gets to love music like the other cats. Thomas and Dutchess really like each other.I loved this movie and i like the cats to!$LABEL$ 1
+There's little to get excited about "Dan in Real Life". First off, the whole setup is incredibly contrived. Did you really believe that during that very long first meeting conversation at the restaurant, Marie wouldn't have told Dan where she was going? And since Dan did all the talking during that conversation, why would she be so attracted to him? For that matter, I never figured out why Marie was so attracted to Dan throughout the movie. He's very narcissistic and does little to convince us that he's truly a good guy (for example he lies to Marie in the bookstore, ridicules his brother about his past girlfriends and tries to make Marie jealous with a 'blind date'). There's more contrivance such as that ridiculous scene at the bowling alley where Dan and Marie are caught making out by the whole family. Yeah like that could really happen. Dan in Real life is slow-paced, sappy and manipulative. Even chick flicks like The Jane Austen Book Club get higher marks than this predictable "tearjerker".$LABEL$ 0
+This new installment to the Child's Play series has not one scary scene but tons of hilarious jokes such as a stoner witnessing Chucky giveing him the finger and saying "rude f--king doll" and lots of references to the series: "you can kill me but I'll come back. I always come back". The movie's title was probably thought of before the script and was written around it. This is totally different from all other films in the series. It doesn't even have Andy, the central character for all the previous ones. Chucky seems to interfere with characters from another movie, a soap opera about two teens running off together to get married. There is one cool elaborate death scene involving broken glass and water spilling everywhere. The movie is very gory, very funny, and has pop culture references from Martha Stewert to Jerry Springer. DO NOT SEE THIS ONE BEFORE YOU SEE THE OTHER THREE,. It will really ruin the effect since the first one is truly scary. Lots of guilty pleasure fun and silliness. $LABEL$ 1
+I'm not sure if users ought to be allowed to review films after only sitting through half, but I'm afraid I just couldn't stand another minute.If this abject excuse for a film doesn't have the late, great GP spinning like a wheel in his grave, then I doubt anything will.The excellent review above 'Not a film for Parsons fans' sums up most of my feelings. How dare a (second rate) director and writer attempt something to which they're so clearly incapable of delivering. What were they thinking? Where to start?THE SCRIPT: I thought I'd be getting a slice of bittersweet Americana. What I got was poorly executed slapstick with no cliché left unturned. Stupid hippy? Check. Stupid fat cop? Check. Awful plot contrivances? Check. Embarrassingly written female characters? Double check. Total disregard for the story which you're trying to portray? Check.After a while, you realize that what you're watching is a soap and not a very well written one at that. Scene with Knoxville. Scene with Ex girlfriend. Scene with Knoxville which hasn't moved on much. Scene with Ex girlfriend which was a bit like the last one. And so on...THE DIRECTION: My friends and I decided, after some consideration, that watching this was like watching a bad episode of Quincy, or maybe a particularly poor Dukes of Hazzard. That's how bad the direction was. Terrible jump cuts, awful camera work, clunky ins and outs to scenes. God, it was cringeworthy. And then I discovered the director was an Irishman who's most noteworthy recent work is a really lousy BBC Sunday night drama called Monarch of the Glen (trust me, it's lowest common denominator TV). And then it all made sense...THE ACTING: Are we now so critical that when some random guy from the TV decides to give acting a go, if he's not so bad, he stinks, we applaud his efforts? Knoxville JUST ABOUT manages to get through every scene. Poor Christina A. has no such luck. Her performance is a car crash (though what you do with those lines, I don't know). The 'hippy' in the hearse: oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Have we not moved on since Cheech and Chong?I could go on, but I think you get my drift. What I would say is that, as other reviews have mentioned, no one on this film clearly gives a flying damn for The Byrds, The Flying Burrito Brothers or Gram's solo work. They knew nothing about the American road movie and they certainly give a damn about trying to do anything with an admittedly decent story from rock mythology. This film was shallow, failed to explore anything and was jaw droppingly unfunny from beginning to...oh wait, I didn't quite make the end. And I suggest you stay away too.$LABEL$ 0
+**Attention Spoilers**First of all, let me say that Rob Roy is one of the best films of the 90's. It was an amazing achievement for all those involved, especially the acting of Liam Neeson, Jessica Lange, John Hurt, Brian Cox, and Tim Roth. Michael Canton Jones painted a wonderful portrait of the honor and dishonor that men can represent in themselves. But alas...it constantly, and unfairly gets compared to "Braveheart". These are two entirely different films, probably only similar in the fact that they are both about Scots in historical Scotland. Yet, this comparison frequently bothers me because it seems to be almost assumed that "Braveheart" is a better film than "Rob Roy". I like "Braveheart" a lot, but the idea of comparing it to "Rob Roy" is a little insulting to me. To put quite simply, I love "Braveheart", but it is a pale shadow to how much I love "Rob Roy". Here are my particular reasons...-"Rob Roy" is about real people.Let's face it, the William Wallace in "Braveheart" is not a real person. He's a legend, a martyr, a larger than life figurehead. Because of this depiction, he is also a perfect person, never doing wrong, and basically showing his Scot countrymen to the promised land. When he finally does fail, it is not to his fault. Like Jesus, he is betrayed by the very people he trusted most. He even goes through the worst kind of torture because he wants freedom so much.The depiction of Wallace is very well done and effective. But it really doesn't inspire or intrigue me. I find human ambiguity far more facinating than human perfection. That is why "The Last Temptation of Christ" is a better film than "King of Kings", and that is also one of the reasons why I think "Rob Roy" is better than "Braveheart". Rob Roy may be heroic and brave, but he is far from perfect. He makes several mistakes that affected the lives of many of his loved ones. Now sure, not bearing false claim against the Duke of Argyll was an act of nobility and courage, but it was also an act of egoism and self centeredness. Let us not forget that the kinfolk that he had claimed to protect were driven homeless by the end of the film because of this act. But Rob did the best he could, and that was all you could ask of him.Rob's Wife Mary, is also a normal, ambigious person. Let us start though, with how she looks in this film. Sure, she's beautiful, but she doesn't wear makeup and she basically allows her natural beauty to show. Compare this with the two loves (or one, depending on your point of view) of William Wallace in "Braveheart". Now these two ladies are hot, but hardly indicitive of how women looked at the time (especially the lay persons). Maybe not a fair comparison, but just another example of how Rob Roy's attempts for accuracy are far more effective.Throughout "Rob Roy", Mary has to live with her vicious rape by the dastardly carrion, Cunningham. She feels compelled to tell Rob of her struggle, but doesn't because she knows that Rob must seek revenge for her rape. Such revenge would surely mean the death of Rob, and Mary is not prepared for such a sacrifice.The villains in "Rob Roy" are equally as compelling. Although the enemies in "Braveheart" are well written, they are hardly original. Robert the Bruce, a man both brave and cowardly, is plagued by moral decisions that are all to familar in the fictional realm. Should he take his claim as the king of Scotland, or should he betray Wallace in order to ensure the safety of his family name? Bruce is the most ambigious character in "Braveheart", but from Brutus in "Julius Ceasar" to Fredo in "The Godfather Part II", these types of characters are hardly original. Longshanks, although a compelling villain in his own right, is very one dimensional. He is the epidemy of evil, and his tyrant ways stand in direct contrast to Wallace's heroism."Rob Roy" has three villains that are wonderful in their chicanery. First of all, let's start with Marquis of Montrose. He is a man who is so obsessed with his self image, that he's willing to let an innocent man suffer because of it. "See to it that I am not mocked" are his favorite words to his "factor". He is a man obsessed with power, upset that a man of great noble bearing as the Duke of Argyll can be considered of greater providency then him. He is shamefully self obsessed and insecure. He is an evil aristocrat, but in ways that make him unique.Cunningham and Callarn are the conspirators in "Rob Roy", and are also Roy's direct assailants. Callarn is so cunning in his cowardace that he is almost comical. He will do anything to maintain the good will of the Marquis, which includes backstabbing and trickery. Cunningham is a compelling character in that he seems to have been raised to do whatever he can to obtain status and the affection of the Marquis. He needs a father, little does he know that the Marquis is his real father. Therefore, when the opportunity to obtain wealth comes from Callarn, he grabs it without even questioning it. He is very much like the evil of modern man, so self centered and vain that he cares not about the consequences of his actions on others.Many have criticized Tim Roth's performance in this film as overacting. Hogwash I say. It is clear that Cunningham is not simply evil but also psychopath throughout the film. In a world where a man and his stepson can go around shooting random people for amusement, is Cunningham too much of an unbelievable character? We live in a society where people seem to have decreased the value of human life. "Rob Roy" simply teaches us that only the circumstances of this decreased value has changed. It is a problem throughout human history that the vanity of the human heart will not allow for the capacity for compassion. Rob Roy and Mary give us hope that goodness will prevail, but snakes will always exist in our world.Another character that I find fascinating is the Duke of Argyll. He is a true nobleman, and his values of honesty and courtesy are in direct contrast to the Marquis. He appreciates the bravery of Rob Roy and Mary, and has a direct vexation for the Marquis and his factor. He gives the world hope for the people of power. Hopefully, people like the Marquis are an exception and not the rule.- The final duel in "Rob Roy" is more exciting then 10 of the battle scenes in "Braveheart".One thing I get tired of is people telling me that "Braveheart" is a better film because of the battle scenes. First of all, battle scenes are hardly original. From "Spartacus" to "Gladiator", Hollywood has had a long tradition of historical European battle scenes. "Braveheart" has some of the best battle scenes ever put on film, but they suffer from one important problem. These battle scenes have no context except for the fight for freedom.Now, don't get me wrong, duels are hardly original either. In fact, there are probably 10 times as many films with duels as there are with battle scenes. But the context of the duel between Cunningham and Rob Roy is a beauty to behold. It is one of the greatest scenes in film history. Let me explain why...First of all, the fighting style and the bearing of the two characters in this duel describe the characters perfectly. Cunningham is effette and dangerous, Rob Roy is strong and courageous. Cunningham uses a fencing sword while Rob uses a broadsword. Cunningham fights with quick tricky movements, while Roy's fighting style is more obvious.The whole film, from the deliberately slow first half to the exciting second half, is leading up to this moment. It is powerful stuff, and it is clear that Rob must exterminate this menacing evil that has plagued his whole world. When Rob finally gets the upper hand (literally and figuratively,) it is one of the greatest moments in film history. Rob wins because he has more to live for, and his honor is more powerful than 10 Cunningham's. The use of music is absolutely chilling in this scene. Good prevailing against a real evil is more powerful to me than seeing a dude get disemboweled just so he can yell "FREEDOM!". But hey, maybe that's just me.- "Rob Roy" is more realistic than "Braveheart"I don't know that people in the aristocracy or Scotsmen talked like the people in "Rob Roy", but I do feel that it clearly an attempt to capture their speech patterns. I feel that many people are bored by "Rob Roy" simply because they can't understand what the characters are saying. If this is the case, then read some Shakesphere, or put on the close-captioning. "Rob Roy" is actually one of the greatest written films of the 90's. Many of the dialogue in this film is clever, but maybe you have to watch the film a couple of times to understand it.By contrast, the dialogue in "Braveheart" is hardly very interesting. Of course, what do you expect when the main character is a Scotsman played by an Australian? This is a legend, and there was clearly not an attempt to capture the speech of the times. This film takes place several centuries before "Rob Roy", and yet they talk like the people today. Thus the reason that many people like it better. Audiences today have become increasingly lazy, and they don't want to take the time or patience to understand things that are complex. Therefore, as with many epic films, they expect to see the villians speak a recognizable English accent while the heroes speak in a vernacular not too far away from our American language. Sure, it is clear that the Wallace is Scotish, but other than sounding like Scotty from Star Trek and a couple of "Aye"s for acknowledgement, the Scots in this film fit into the Hollywood tradition of how we believe Scots should sound.So, do these descriptions prove that "Rob Roy" is a better film than "Braveheart"? Hardly. But if it proves one thing, it shows that it is hardly common knowledge that "Braveheart" is a better film than "Rob Roy". To put simply, "Rob Roy" is a film that has themes that are very apropos in today's world. "Braveheart" is a film about a legend that is inspiring but hardly realistic. You can make a decision on what you think is better...Grade - A Score - 9$LABEL$ 1
+THIS FILM IS LAME, LAME, LAME!!!!! It takes a lot to bring me to over-exaggeration about a movie, but this movie stunk up my house!! I haven't even finished the movie yet and I had to stop to comment on how bad this movie is. I'VE NEVER DONE THAT!! As a consumer, do not spend your money on this film. Wait until it comes out on a cable channel or something. It's barely TV worthy. I REALLY HATE TRASHING A MOVIE, BUT THIS MOVIE IS TRASH! Barely above porn. Should have and X rating! Good plot, some frontal nudity (if that floats your boat), but HORRIBLE high school level acting. Don't know how this movie received distribution. (Must have been a contractual thing.) Really, if you really like watching good movies, don't waste you time with this one. From one movie lover to another. YOU WILL BE MAD AT YOURSELF! Let me say this as well, if you've been through something like this perhaps you can relate and it will have some value for you. In that case I say watch it, you may take something away from it, if not just seeing something that's happened to you being acted out by someone else (has therapeutic value).$LABEL$ 0
+John Schlesinger's 'Midnight Cowboy' is perhaps most notable for being the only X-rated film in Academy history to receive the Oscar for Best Picture. This was certainly how I first came to hear of it, and, to be completely honest, I didn't really expect much of the film. This is not to say that I thought it would be horrible, but somehow I didn't consider it the sort of movie that I would enjoy watching. This is one reason why you should never trust your own instincts on such manners – a remarkable combination of stellar acting, ambitious directing and a memorable soundtrack ("Everybody's talking' at me, I don't hear a word they're sayin'") make this film one of the finest explorations of life, naivety and friendship ever released.Young Joe Buck (then-newcomer Jon Voight), dressed proudly as a rodeo cowboy, travels from Texas to New York to seek a new life as a hustler, a male prostitute. Women, however, do not seem to be willing to pay money for his services, and Joe faces living in extreme poverty as his supply of money begins to dry up. During these exploits, Joe comes to meet Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman), a sickly crippled swindler who initially tries to con Joe out of all his money. When they come to realise that they are both in the same predicament, Ratso offers Joe a place to stay, and, working together, they attempt to make (largely dishonest) lives for themselves in the cold, gritty metropolis of New York.Joe had convinced himself that New York women would be more than willing to pay for sex; however, his first such business venture ends with him guiltily paying the woman (Sylvia Miles) twenty dollars. Though he might consider himself to be somewhat intelligent, Ratso is just as naïve as Joe. Ratso, with his painful limp and hacking cough, is always assuring himself that, if only he could travel to the warmth of Miami, somehow everything would be all right. This misguided expectation that things will get better so easily is quite reminiscent of Lennie and George of John Steinbeck's classic novel, 'Of Mice and Men.'Shot largely on the streets of New York, 'Midnight Cowboy' is a grittily-realistic look at life in the slums. Watching the film, we can almost feel ourselves inside Ratso's squalid, unheated residence, our joints stiff from the aching winter cold. The acting certainly contributes to this ultra-realism, with both Voight and Hoffman masterfully portraying the two decadent dregs of modern society. Hoffman, in particular, is exceptional in his role (I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!"), managing to steer well clear of being typecast after his much-lauded debut in 1967's 'The Graduate.' Both stars were later nominated for Best Actor Oscars (also nominated for acting – bafflingly – was Sylvia Miles, for an appearance that can't have been for more than five minutes), though both ultimately lost out to John Wayne in 'True Grit.' 'Midnight Cowboy' eventually went on to win three Oscars from seven nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director for Schlesinger and Best Writing for Waldo Salt.'Midnight Cowboy' is told mainly in a linear fashion, though there are numerous flashbacks that hint at Joe's past. Rather than explicitly explaining what these brief snippets are actually about, the audience is invited to think about it for themselves, and how these circumstances could have led Joe onto the path he is now pursuing. The achingly-beautiful final scene leaves us with a glimmer of hope, but a large amount of uncertainty. Gritty, thought-provoking and intensely fascinating, 'Midnight Cowboy' is one for the ages.$LABEL$ 1
+Oh, the horror! I've seen A LOT of gore movies in my day, but this one just makes me gag with with laughter rather than repulsiveness. This is definitely a crazy movie and is very low-budget, I might add, but if you're able to look past the cheap audio, horrible dialogue, ugly girls, the obviously fake gore scenes, and overall cheeziness of the film, then you might find some of this film to be somewhat entertaining. The story is about a copy cat killer who goes on a killing spree every "5th day, of the 5th month, of the 5th year" (wow, how original), and it's up to two detectives (one of whom gave a valiant effort at trying to make the crapy dialogue good) to stop the killer's bloody rampage. The killing scenes (which are done with a plastic toy knife) are pretty brutal (which is a good thing), but very annoying due to the constant repetition of an obviously recorded scream (which is very ear piercing). As for the gore, there's plenty of it but it looks very fake; especially the blood - dude, c'mon, purple blood? But, if you're a fan of gore videos, like myself, then you'll find something in this video to cherish like I did (the crap-talking detective...he's the best thing going for this film). Other than that, all you're going to find is a bunch of senseless nudity (which is also a good thing, but too bad the girls are OOOGLY) and a very idiotic hippy necrophiliac serial killer. Sorry, but this one sucks.$LABEL$ 0
+i loved the great lighting and was warmed by this story of American working class society and seaport life in the first half of the 20th century. i was drawn in by the timeless watchability of this realistic performance. see and feel the star power. melancholic "greek" comedy. Anybody in the mood for a shot with a beer back?...or a little ginger? Hey, waterboy !!$LABEL$ 1
+'R Xmas is one of the only films I've seen where I can almost say that simply nothing happens.I felt as though I watched a drug dealing middle- class couple,with child,walk around,eat,smoke,converse(excuse me,swear)through most of the film.And I don't believe I'm missing the point.I think this film was well directed,well acted(although the husband's performance was rather wooden),and the constant feeling of impending doom around every corner certainly kept the viewer involved.But when the dust clears,your left with zero(just a boat-load of fade outs).I didn't want car chases,gun violence,beatings,etc.In fact,I'm sick of violence.But my goodness,let's at least get a bit deeper into all these characters(let's get to know each of these corrupt officers a little better-not just show glancing shots of them as street thugs).Why was the dialogue so juvenile? Everyone spoke as if they were in junior high.I believe even this side of our human race can say something other than fu_ _,sh_ _,etc.The pacing and the storyline of 'R Xmas I found quite interesting,but the execution was plain and simple-empty.4/10$LABEL$ 0
+It's a shame, really, that the script of this film had more holes than you could shake a stick at (mixed metaphor intentional), because Kinski and Coyote - both supremely talented performers who are capable of great subtlety and nuance - have wonderful chemistry together, and the always-provocative Fairuza Balk didn't hurt the mix either. Jeremy Piven would have been great here too, if his character (and all the other supporting characters) hadn't been written as a plot device. As for the main proceedings, the writers just didn't know how to create the suitable guilty-or-innocent tension for Kinski's character -- instead they gave us confusion, contradiction and, by the finale, downright let's-hope-the-viewers-don't-notice claptrap.$LABEL$ 0
+Why couldn't the end of the movie have been Sean Connery's men fighting the French instead of the Germans. Ever since the French had occupied Algeria in 1830, the tribes from Morocco and those of Algeria were making raids on the French military and civilian settlements. This movie could have been a continuous of that historical aspect where the French had seize the Rasuadli so his followers would not be raiding Algeria, and then his followers would have attacked the French to free him.The movie is still stereotypical of shootouts between the Germans and the Americans. When the Americans shoot the Germans, their guns (even the pistols) make loud noises, create large bloody bullet wounds, and their enemies are screaming after being shot. When Germans shoot at the Americans, their guns don't make large sounds, do not create bloody wounds, and their enemies make little or no sound after being shot.In real life, the American Krag rifle was the worst rifle America had ever produce until the early version of the M-16 came along. The Krag was hard to maintain, not reliable, and the rifle bolt was always jamming. The German Mauser was one of the world's finest rifles. We were so impress by it during Spanish American war, that we made a copy of it and call it the Springfield rifle.Finally, the people of Morocco must had a word for artillery since the French were using them in their raids against Morocco. I didn't like it when they made the Rasuldai feel stupid that there was no word for artillery in the Moorican vocabulary. Instead, the Rasuadli stated that the Europeans had guns on wheels that make the ground shake.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was really funny. The people that were expecting to see an Oscar worthy comedy, should get over themselves. This was a fun movie to see with interesting and funny characters, plot lines, dialog quotes and catch phrases. I rate a movie a 10 if I have bought the DVD, or in this case, the videotape, and have watched it many times, and in this case, still laugh out loud. I have about 12 movies in my collection with a rating of 10 and about half don't have anything do do with the Oscars. Again, this was just a fun, light-hearted movie. I hope this comes out on DVD. I highly suggest checking this movie out, if you are in the mood for a wacky comedy.$LABEL$ 1
+Of course, really experienced reviewers who like stuff like Star Wars and professional crap will definitely drag this movie and say really bad comments about it. But really, it is enjoyable teen comedy with an awesome story and good acting.Josie Gellar (played well by Drew Barrymore) is part of a news-reporting team and she has been offered a ('real') job - she has to go back to school and find out what teens are like these days. Well this goes alright, until Josie remembers her horrible time at High School and gets freaked out. But she's never been hip, never been cool, never been popular until now!Sit back relax and enjoy with Never Been Kissed!$LABEL$ 1
+Given the opposite circumstance of 2009 where the reality is we do have a black president, this movie takes on quite a powerful historical significance. For entertainment value I found this movie to be both engaging and repugnant. I was quite taken back of course by the blatant racism of the time, but also found the music and dancing incredible. Also it is quite cool to see Sammy Davis Jr as such a very young child actor. He plays Rufus Jones, a young boy who is being consoled by his Mammy. He is told 'Why some day you could be President'. This was so ridiculous in 1933 that it was mocked and thought to be endearing, charming and funny. The bulk of the movie is a fantasy sequence of what the government would be like if it was run by a black man. They depict the seats of government as being like a revivalist Baptist church.The fact was when I stumbled onto this movie one day it drew me in. It is really well done and very entertaining. I believe if we can look beyond the racism we can see this movie for all it brings us. In fact to realize that it is not only not ridiculous to have a black president, but that it is normal, just makes this movie that much more relevant. It clearly marks a moment in time for our collective consciousness.$LABEL$ 1
+In this send-up of horror films, 50's cold war paranoia, Reagan-era America, and high school films, Adam Arkin plays Tony, the star quarterback of Full Moon High in the 1950's. He and his father (Ed McMahon) travel to communist Romania and while he's lost in the streets one night, he is bitten by a werewolf. When he returns stateside, he cannot control his animalistic urges and goes on a killing spree. Frustrated, he flees town. Decades later, the immortal Tony returns to town and re-enrolls in highschool. He still can't control his transformations, and the townspeople, and his friends, realize he's not quite human. It all culminates during the schools big football game.I expected this to be one of those 'so bad it's good' films from the early 80's. But I was surprised that the film was actually, legitimately funny. The cast, including Kenneth Mars as a pervy coach, Roz Kelly as Tony's lusty former flame, Demond Wilson as a bus driver, and Alan Arkin as a oddball doctor, go all out, with hilarious results.While watching this film I was struck by how similar the writing and humor were to 'Family Guy.' 'Full Moon High' has that same anything goes attitude and never takes itself seriously.$LABEL$ 1
+Not only that the VHS and DVD cover(at least in Europe)show a scene that has nothing to do with the actual plot of the movie, the acting is so bad, that the movie is crying out for being made fun of. If you have nothing to do, you are with some good friends and you want to have some laughs about a movie, that is supposed to be serious, watch Tycus and Peter Onorati, a man who will teach you how to knock over bad guys with empty carton boxes! Shame on Dennis Hopper, following Travoltas example by starring in his very own "battlefield earth". For those who want to watch a good movie about the earth being destroyed by a terrible force, please do not choose Tycus, but do yourselves a favor and watch "Armageddon" for he 20th time!$LABEL$ 0
+When I first saw this movie, I thought it was the typical "love thy neighbour" stuff....The more the movie was going on, the more I got involved. Acting is magnificent from both actors, direction was great, the story unusual. Cried my eyes off, first time in my life for a movie. A real must have in any serious videoteque. 11 out of 10$LABEL$ 1
+Saturday Night Live, National Lampoon, and SCTV alumnus are all together in a sometimes funny sketch film.However, it is very interesting to watch now, at the start of 2005. Twenty years after this movie is supposed to take place, look at how many of their gags have become absolutely true: There is a mock movie trailer, that probably wasn't even clever at the time, for something called "The Pregnant Man" which came true with Arnold Schwarzenegger's dumb movie "Junior" There is a commercial spoof, that probably wasn't even clever at the time, for something featuring Sammy Davis Jr. and Jackie Onasis called "Celebrity Wrestling" which has now come true with a popular show called "Celebrity Boxing" There is a mock movie trailer, that probably wasn't even clever at the time, that features John Candy in a movie about a severed head. Watch this trailer and look how similar it's shots and plot are to Frank Hellenlotter's Basket Case!! And finally there is an ad for a late late show documentary about "a dead dream, the only two left ..." The name of the documentary is ... THE LAST HIPPIES! LOL.Four prophecies come true!$LABEL$ 0
+Is the Cannes controversy-meter remarkably esoteric, or is that we Americans are so callous and cynical that we never bother to read between the lines anymore? Be that as it may, with plenty of careful analyzing, "Falscher Bekenner" at no point seems to live up to the hyped controversy it supposedly brought to Cannes in 2005, a puzzlingly drab and aimless movie that rather lives up to it's glum American re-title ("Low Profile").Building on familiar themes of Bourgeoise angst and subsequent sexual liberation (kind of), admittedly it's a film not without it's surface-level interests. It starts out with a grabber, as a haunting shot of a desolate off-the-highway road focuses in on a teenage drifter, who ultimately walks by a totaled car, where supposedly a brutal hit-and-run has left the driver dead in a gory mess. Stunned, he does nothing but pick up a scrap of the remaining engine.Just out of school, the drifter turns out to be Armin Steebe, a product of the German suburbs with minimal ambition. Persisentily pressured by his caring but somewhat nagging parents to find a good job, he endures interview after interview with every haughty interviewer along with it, every one with the same fruitless outcome. Getting mighty sick of it, his aforementioned highway encounter soon provokes his first act of rebellion: claiming responsibility for the crime which he did not commit.Pretending to fill out more applications and going to more and more bizarre job interviews by sunrise, he partakes in roadside sexual fantasies and petty vandalism way after sundown. As the days get shorter and the nights get much hotter, as he goes on living in his suburban neighborhood as if he's doing nothing out of the ordinary.If you seem confused about what exactly is going on, don't worry about being the only one: this is about as far and coherent as the story gets. The plot seems simple enough, and perhaps due to it's seemingly direct purposes that's why "Falscher Bekenner" becomes pointlessly convoluted, becoming enamored with endless false conclusions, dreamlike situations and graphic sex scenes to try and enlighten a story lacking clear logic to an already vague argument (supposedly the soul-numbing effects of the modern suburban wasteland, or something about youth's fascination with crime. Hey, it could even be a coming-out movie.) at hand. It spends a lot of time creating numerous symbols, both tangible and surrealistically allegorical, but they don't seem to be really symbolizing anything of interest. The most fatal flaw, however, is how the filmmakers paint all it's characters in a rough shade of vanilla. There's hardly any distinguishable traits to help understand their purpose, and how the secondary characters (especially the confused relationship between Armin and his rather normal- perhaps too normal- family) catalyze the already under-developed lead character's "plight" never comes into focus. How are we supposed to identify with this young almost-adult's rebellion, with little sense of the world he's living in or the prominent figures around him that help comprise it? Many people drop in and out of the movie (including Armin's sort-of girlfriend Katja, and a strange, affluent visitor who for some reason finds pleasure in watching the protagonist eat brownies) and seem to exist for no reason whatsoever. They ultimately just seem like prolonged padding to an already thin story with pointless subplots that continue to prove the movie is drawing a total blank about where to go next.And even a movie that supposedly toys with reality (especially with Armin's nightly exploits), it ends with a literal, almost moralizing head-scratcher that seems to halt questions to a "story" that does little but put it's viewer in a state of pointlessly exhausted perplexion.Without any color, it's impossible to shade anything vital in.$LABEL$ 0
+OK, so she doesn't have caller ID. When you are being stalked, you GET IT! And no cell phone? When you are being stalked, you GET ONE if you are one of the few full time working parents that is the head of the household that doesn't own one already. This mom gets a big ZERO in the parenting department. So her mom is in the hospital and she decides a shopping trip will help her out. Just a stupid movie. Glad I have Tivo and a FF button on the remote.And what is with the 10 line minimum, I just don't have that much to say about such a bad movie. I guess I can ask why she keeps opening packages that she has no clue who they are from. The son really didn't add much to the movie either. The cops were a big ol zero too. Now get to the nearest Verizon and get the darn cell phone. @@$LABEL$ 0
+***1/2 Out of ***** While I am not concerned with the fact that this is an English dubbed version as some reviewers have mentioned, it should be noted, as it seems to reside in many Quebecois native hearts. However, this was a movie as a child that I was a fervent admirer of; keeping in mind now that it was made for children, I rate it on a relative basis. The story is of children on winter break building an awesome snow fort, and jostling back-'n-forth for control with weapons such as snowballs and other concoctions, as idle hands and free time equal winter break lessons. If I had children, this definitely is a film I would try and get them interested in, as the snow fort wowed me when I was young, and I think even children today would agree, albeit with Pixar and all the computer animation, maybe I am out of date and just don't realize it. In addition, the movie's message is wonderfully allegorical and a positive one at that, for children (and adults alike).$LABEL$ 1
+A CRY IN THE DARK A CRY IN THE DARK was a film that I anticipated would offer a phenomenal performance from Meryl Streep and a solid, if unremarkable film. This assumption came from the fact that aside from Streep's Best Actress nomination, the movie received little attention from major awards groups.Little did I anticipate that A CRY IN THE DARK would be such a riveting drama, well-constructed on every level. If you ask me, this is an under-appreciatted classic.The film opens rather slowly, letting the audience settle into the Chamberlain's at a relaxed pace and really notice that, at the core, they are an incredibly loving, simple family. Fred Schepisi (the director) selects random moments to capture of a family on vacation that give a looming sense of the oncoming tragedy, while also showing the attentive bliss with which Lindy (Streep) and Michael (Sam Neill) Chamberlain care for their children.While the famous line "A Dingo Took My Baby!" has become somewhat of a punchline these days, the movie never even comes close to laughable. The actual death of Azaria is horrifyingly captured. It is subtle and realistic, leaving the audience horrified and asking questions.The majority of the film takes place in courtrooms and focuses on the Chamberlain's continuous fight to prove their innocence to the press and the court, which suspects Lindy of murder.The fact that it is clear to us from the beginning that they are innocent makes the tense trials all the more gripping. As an audience member, I was fully invested in the Chamberlain's plight... and was genuinely angered and hurt and saddened when they were made to look so terrible by the media. But at the same, the media/public opinion is understandable. I loved the way the media was by no means made to be sympathetic, but they always had valid reasons to hold their views.The final line of the film is very profound and captures perfectly the central element that makes this film so much different from other courtroom dramas.In terms of performances, the only ones that really matter in this film are those of Streep and Neill... and they deliver in every way. For me, this ranks as one of (if not #1) Meryl Streep's best performances. For all her mastery of different accents (which of course are very impressive in their own right), Streep never loses the central heart and soul of her characters. I find this to be one of Streep's more subtle performances, and she hits it out of the park. And Neill, an actor who has never impressed me beyond being charismatic and appealing in JURASSIC PARK, is a perfect counterpoint to Streep's performance. From what I've seen, this is undoubtedly Neill's finest work to date. It's a shame he wasn't recognized by the Academy with a Leading Actor nomination to match Streep's... b/c the two of them play of each other brilliantly.More emotionally gripping than most films, and also incredibly suspenseful... A CRY IN THE DARK far exceeded my expectations. I highly recommend that people who only know of the movie as the flick where Meryl screams "The dingo took my baby!" watch the film and see just how much more there is to A CRY IN THE DARK then that one line.... A ...$LABEL$ 1
+Liv Tyler. Liv Tyler. Liv Tyler. Yeah it's hard to keep your mind off this fetching beauty (giving an radiantly picture-perfect performance), as she simply has tongues wagging. 'One Night at McCool's' is a dementedly quirky and raunchy black comedy with old-fashion shades tied in to its familiar, but smartly crafted and chaotic narrative which has three men lusting after the one women and she's milking it to her advantage. When you see Tyler, no wonder why they are infatuated and would do anything… that's anything to see 'her' happy and living 'her' dreams. Just like Tyler, there's something rather intoxicating about this feature in that we see the likes of Matt Dillon, John Goodman, Paul Reiser (who's great) and especially Michael Douglas (who plays the hired assassin with cool-ease, but a questionable hairdo) really having a good time with their roles. The consuming plot opens up with the main three characters (Dillon, Goodman and Reiser) telling their story of how they came to encounter this divine presence and the eventual affects that she's having on them to lead to an insane climax. There's an unpredictable chain of events (ranging from fruity to sensual), where everything would virtually tie in together with a certain ironic (snowball) twist of fate for the characters (that see them leaving their reserved comfort zone to fulfill this girl). Howard Zwart's direction is colorfully zippy balancing the script's quick-fire gags and frenetically fun, if complicated situations. One of the best under-the-radar comedies in the last decade, which will have you under Tyler's thumb.$LABEL$ 1
+I loved it. In fact, I watched it over and over and over, and I could watch it again. This movie doesn't get boring.The vampire concept is revolutionized in this movie. It's a job well done, great for today's generation.Wesley Snipes was born for this role. Stephen Dorff was an ideal vampire. Arly Jover, mmmm mmm, she can bite me any time she wants and what a sexy accent she has. Donal Logue provides great comical relief.This vampire movie is like no other. I can't wait for Blade 2.$LABEL$ 1
+As with that film we follow the implausible if always engaging adventures of the 2 lead characters. But whilst C + J eschew sex for a girly trip back into childhood, this pair revel in their carnality even to the point of exploring homoeroticism. Most of the sex they acquire from grudging or unwilling partners and yet, despite their deeply un-PC behaviour, everyone emerges smiling. Like C + G, through it all they remain innocents at heart, rebels against the quotidien, the bourgeois, the restrictive. As someone else has commented, I wouldn't want to know these 2 and it's a minor miracle that their trip brings scenes of mostly comedy and very little tragedy (and what there is of that cannot be laid at their door) and thus for that reason, it left me beguiled but with a sweet taste in the mouth. Dare I say that only the French can get away with films like this. And that is part of their genius.$LABEL$ 1
+I really love this movie. I remember one time when I was in 2nd >grade, my teacher showed it to us on a 16mm film reel. This movie, however, can be a little frightening for 2nd graders such as the scene where Bill murders Nancy and seeing Fagin's face for the first time on the screen. One of my relatives is sick of seeing this movie because she studied over it in music class. If I were a teacher and could grade the people who produced this wonderful film, I would give them an A+.$LABEL$ 1
+Upon The Straight Story release in 1999, it was praised for being David Lynch's first film that ignored his regular themes of the macabre and the surreal. Based on a true story of one man and his journey to visit his estranged brother on a John Deere '66 mower, at first glance its an odd story for Lynch to direct. Yet as the story develops you can see some of Lynch's trademark motifs coming through.Lynch's focus on small town America and its inhabitants is still as prevalent as in his previous efforts such as Blue Velvet or Twin Peaks, but the most notable difference is that the weirdness is curbed down. The restrictions imposed means that the film has the notable accolade of being one of the few live action films that I can think of that features a G rating. Incredibly significant, this films stands as evidence that beautiful and significant family films can be produced.The Straight Story was the first feature which Lynch directed where he had no hand at writing. For many Lynch devotees this was a huge negative point. Almost universally acclaimed, the only overly negative review by James Brundage of filmcritic.com focused on this very criticism, that it wasn't a typical Lynch film. "Lynch is struggling within the mold of a G-Rated story that isn't his own." Brundage claims, with his protagonist Alvin Straight "quoting lines directly from Confucious." He argues that the story is weak and the dialogue even worse. Yet this is about the only criticism that many will read for the film. Whilst it is true that it is not Lynch in the sense of Eraserhead, Lost Highway or Mulholland Drive - all films which I also adore, The Straight Story features a different side of Lynch that is by no means terrible. If you are a Lynch fan, it is most important to separate that side of Lynch with this feature.The narrative is slow and thoughtful, which gives you a real sense of the protagonist's thoughts as he travels to his destination. Alvin constantly is reminded about his past and his relationships with his wife, children and his brother. Yet particularly significant is that there are no flashbacks, which only adds to the effect, which reminded me of my conversations with my grandparents. The conclusion arrives like watching a boat being carried down a slow meandering river and it is beautiful to watch. The natural landscapes of the US are accentuated and together with the beautiful soundtrack by Angelo Badalamenti, makes me yearn to go to America. The performances are also excellent with every actor believable in their roles and Richard Farnsworth is particularly excellent. His Oscar nomination was greatly deserved and it was a shame that he didn't win. Regardless, however it is probably the finest swan-song for any actor. So whilst The Straight Story features none of Lynch's complex narratives or trademark dialogue, the film is a fascinating character study about getting old and comes highly recommended!$LABEL$ 1
+As a massive fan of the three TV series, I was very interested to learn that LoG were moving onto the big screen. In my more honest moments though, I had my doubts about the likely success of the concept, and whether the writers would be able to sustain the high level of wit, comedy and horror that infuse the original series.Unfortunately my fears were not unfounded, and the film was a huge disappointment. I struggle to understand the other comments on this site. Obviously people are entitled to their opinions, but the guys I watched it with, all agree with me, and they are just as big fans as I am.The acting lacked conviction, but they are so good that even when not at their best, they are still highly watchable. The main problem was the plot - and the script. There were a few laughs, but not enough, a few moments of disgust, but not enough. Worst of all was the feeling of emptiness after walking out of the cinema. So rarely have I felt so utterly uninspired by a film and so unmotivated to discuss it with others.I write this comment as a warning to other League fans - get a wide range of opinion on this film before going to see it. If you love League, you might be able to convince yourself that they didn't totally mess up their move to cinema. If you can't convince yourself of this, then you will have tarnished in your mind the otherwise spotless genius that exemplifies the TV series.LoG at the cinema? More like log. (or little brown fish).$LABEL$ 0
+In the veins of Jeepers Creepers and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Monster Man surprisingly well-made--though mindless--little horror. Throw in a little buddy-comedy, nice gore and intense scare. It's hard no to say that Monster Man is really entertaining. The low budget seem pretty obvious, but it doesn't effected the presentation of the movie in general and put more big budget horror movies in shame.Yes, the plot somewhat generic as possible. Pair of friend, Adam (Eric Jungman)and Harley (Justin Urich) are driving cross country to interrupt the wedding of a woman Adam has always loved. While Adam is more nerdy type, Harley is a self-proclaimed ladies man and very offensive loudmouth. Adding a bonus to the plot, then they picked up a sexy hitchhiker, Sarah (Aimee Brooks). Things turn into nightmare when a monster truck with scary face drive stalking them. When dead body starts counting, they must do the race against the time before their own life on risk.The plot is obviously reminiscent of many prior famous horror movies, but Michael Davis as the writer and director succeed in keeping the tension. The scare is build well enough, where characterization is never be the best, but fairly okay. The script also littered with comedies that works for the funny moments and they quite enjoyable rather than annoying and also wait for the twist in the finale. It's hilarious and shocking in the same time, which is pretty amusing.As conclusion, Monster Man surprisingly entertaining. It deserves more attention in the big screen. It proves that big budget doesn't make an effective horror movie, but skill does! Something that the director has shown and delivers.$LABEL$ 1
+Now don't get me wrong I love bad movies... no I adore bad movies, Troll 2.... ouch painful, Manos The Hands of Fate... just watch Torgo go, Guru the Mad Monk.. is that traffic noise in the medieval background? OK so that's clear, but this is one of those films that was quite obviously trying to be something better, but didn't make it. Why not? Well it would be easy to blame the plot, but heh we've seen worse, there weren't too many holes and heh I know there's not a lot of originality in it but then that needn't kill a film. The effects aren't bad (if you completely ignore the last scene), the monster is OK, the truck quite menacing so where did it go wrong? Well I'd love to blame it on the 'Chris Moyles' look-a-like Harley... so I will! Comedy and horror are difficult to mix well, bad comedy and horror even worse and there's the problem. I loathed this guy from the moment he stuck his head up (literally), the continual bating of the overly meek Adam becomes annoying, so annoying that you lose belief that the mildest of people wouldn't react by pushing him out of the moving car door... and I thought it was the monster bits that the director was meant to have trouble convincing us of. Why are bad movies fun? Well you have great fun poking holes in them, laughing at the script, all the howlers etc. This film doesn't make the coveted category of 'Worst Movies' because its just bad due to being annoying nuff said. Don't bother, go watch anything else and you'll be a better person for it... I promise! (Fade to chants of Torgo Torgo Torgo)$LABEL$ 0
+From the perspective of the hectic, contemporary world in which we live, the so called `good old days' always seem so much more serene and innocent; an idyllic era gone by of which we have only memories and shadows that linger on the silver screen, as with `Christmas In Connecticut,' a warm and endearing film directed by Peter Godfrey. Barbara Stanwyck stars as Elizabeth Lane, a popular `Martha Stewart' type magazine columnist who writes about life on her beloved farm in Connecticut, always with the latest recipe at the center of the story. One of her biggest fans is Alexander Yardley, played by Sidney Greenstreet, the publisher of the magazine for which she writes. Yardley has never visited her farm, and in response to an idea expressed to him in a letter from a nurse, Mary (Joyce Compton), he decides to spend an old fashioned Christmas with Elizabeth, her husband and child and, as a special guest, a certain Mr. Jefferson Jones (Dennis Morgan), a sailor just recovered from spending fifteen days at sea on a raft after his ship was torpedoed. Elizabeth of course cannot refuse her boss, but there are problems; not the least of which is the fact that she has no farm and writes her column from the comfort of a high-rise in the city. It makes for a precarious situation for her as well as her editor, Dudley Beecham (Robert Shayne), as the one thing Mr. Yardley demands from his employees is total honesty. What follows is a charming and delightfully romantic comedy that transports the audience back to a seemingly more simple time and place, to share a Christmas Past where a warm hearth, good food and kindness prevail.Barbara Stanwyck absolutely sparkles as Elizabeth, with a smile and presence warmer than anything the grandest hearth could provide, and totally convincing as a city girl entirely out of her element on the farm. Morgan also fares well as the somewhat naive sailor, whose trust in his fellow man is admirable. Even with the deceptions being played out around him, he's the kind of guy you know will somehow land on his feet, and in the end it's Elizabeth you really feel for. One of the true delights of this film, however, is Sidney Greenstreet. His Yardley has a gruff exterior, but beneath you know without a doubt that this is a man with a heart as big as Texas. It's a straightforward, honest portrayal, and it's a joy to watch him work; the most memorable scenes in the movie belong to him.The supporting cast includes Reginald Gardiner (John Sloan), the terrific Una O'Connor (Norah), Frank Jenks (Sinkewicz) and Dick Elliott (Judge Crothers). A feel-good movie that plays especially well during the Christmas Season (though it would work any time of the year), `Christmas In Connecticut' is a memorable film that never takes itself too seriously, is thoroughly uplifting and will leave you with a warm spot in your heart and a sense of peace that makes the world seem like a good place to be. It's a true classic, and one you do not want to miss. I rate this one 10/10.$LABEL$ 1
+Whenever people ask me to name the scariest movie I've ever seen, I invariably reply "Black Noon" and to this day nobody's ever heard of it.I watched it alone some 30 years ago at the tender age of 13 when my parents had gone out for the evening. As far as I know its only ever been shown once in the UK and sadly is unavailable on DVD or VHS.If anyone can trace a copy please let me know.If I watched it again now it would probably be a big disappointment but it has always stuck in my memory as a particularly disturbing little film!$LABEL$ 1
+Cowboys James Stewart and Walter Brennan take their herd from Seattle to Alaska and on into Canada to stake a claim. Once there, they have to contend with seductive, shifty businesswoman Ruth Roman and ice-cold, happy-go-lucky villain James McIntire.John Wayne may get talked about more, but his good pal Stewart made some excellent, hard-edged westerns too, some with the great director Anthony Mann. Frankly, I'd take this, with it's sturdy action sequences and fine melodrama, over North To Alaska any day!The Far Country features some breathtaking scenery and cinematography that should definitely have been shot in widescreen.Also, there's some strong support by the always reliable Brennan, Roman (who's great), the incredibly cute Corrine Calvet, and James McIntire, who plays one of my favorite types of bad guy, the kind that doesn't take himself too seriously.This would make a great double-bill with another highly recommended Mann/Stewart northwest-set western, Bend Of The River.$LABEL$ 1
+I remember the days in which Kim Basinger was nothing more than a pretty face who adorned movies with typical characters of dumb Blondie,romantic interest or damsel in danger.But,everything changed when she won an Academy Award as Best Supporting Actress for her role in the excellent movie L.A. Confidential,and I think I was not the only one who was surprised by her solid performance.However,after that moment,her career did not follow the ideal path.Sure,the prestige she won thanks to that movie made her to participate on moderately prestigious movies (like People I Know or The Door in the Floor),but we have never seen her again on a substantial character.The movie While She Was Out does nothing to put her on that situation; and it is not only that her character is not too tasty,but also that the movie is really crappy.The screenplay from this movie could not be more hollow and basic.However,Basinger brings some conviction to her character,and that makes this poor movie to win a few points.This movie is full of clichés and generic villains.The work of director Susan Montford is truly disastrous for many reasons but mainly,because the movie never gets a good rhythm and tone.The ending from this movie is extremely ridiculous.I do not recommend While She Was Out at all.This film commits the capital sin of being boring.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this film a while ago on a Video CD.I will 1st mention the good points.The movie, at first, at least tries to appear that it is not biased, like not showing one character as black and the other as white. Both main characters are friends and co-exist very well in an country and economy that is not booming while at the same time not failing. Their families get together and have parties and they practice their favorite sport, Sport Rifle shooting, as comrades not as competitors.But, after the 1st 15 minutes the plot runs into a fork in the road. The audience is expected to believe that for some unknown reason these friends must hate each other. That for some unknown reason Bosnia is now on a path to conflict. Sure, the script adds in TV footage which the characters appear to be watching live news programs in English, but the clips are from 1993 not 1992 when the war began.The history, the 1990 elections, the people who caused the war are not mentioned. The movie tries to place the blame with Karadzic, who had been a Presidential candidate and leader of the Bosnian Parliament's 2nd Largest Party(SDP). According to the Constitution of Bosnia, the SDP was to have the Presidency in 1992, but there was a Coup in January. The Bosnian Islamic Democratic Action Party seized total control and held a segregated referendum in March in which it declared itself the law in Bosnia and announced Secession.The history of the IDAP begins with Bosnian Muslim Alija Izetbegovic, a man suspiciously absent from "STtH". He was a student of Nazism in WW2. He even wrote his own "Mein Kampf" in which he stated: "It is not in fact possible for there to be any peace or coexistence between 'the Islamic Religion' and non-Islamic social and political institutions".In 1990 he lost the IDAP elections to "pro-Yugoslavia Moderate" Fikret Abdic, a Bosnian Muslim, that worked with Christian Serbs during the Civil War, and who treated his supporters like brothers. Abdic was prevented from taking power by Izetbegovic, who lost the elections but seized the seat of power.The events from above are missing from the movie, but they are the factual events that lead to the war.There were problems with props too. Serb soldiers in the movie were wearing Soviet WW2 helmets, which they did not use. Also the one soldier was holding an M-1944 WW2 rifle only used by USSR not Yugoslavia.The Director and Script Writers had a chance, but they chose to re-write history.$LABEL$ 0
+Another small piece of the vast picture puzzle of the Holocaust is turned face up in this docudrama about the Rosenstrasse Protest in Berlin, an event I had not known of, that began in late February, 1943. The details are given in an addendum that follows this review.The film narrative sets the story of this protest within another, contemporary story that begins in New York City, in the present. Here a well off, non-observant Jewish woman, whose husband has just died, shocks her children and others by insisting on an extremely orthodox mourning ritual. She goes even further, demanding that her daughter's non-Jewish fiancé leave the house.The distressed daughter, Hannah (Maria Schrader) then learns for the first time from an older cousin that during WWII, in Berlin, her mother, then 8 years old, had been taken in and protected by an Aryan woman. Hannah drops everything, goes to Berlin, and finds this woman, Lena Fischer, now 90. Hannah easily persuades the woman to tell her story. It all seems rather too pat.The film thereafter improves, focusing through long flashbacks primarily on the events of 1943 that surrounded the protest, in which the fictitious central character is the same Mrs. Fischer at 33 (played magnificently by Katja Riemann), a Baroness and accomplished pianist who is married to Fabian (Martin Feifel), a Jewish concert violinist, one of the men detained at the Rosenstrasse site.The narrative does briefly weave back to the present from time to time and also ends in New York City once again. While scenes in the present are color saturated, the 1943 scenes are washed out, strong on blue-gray tones.The quality of acting is generally quite good, what we might expect given the deep reservoir of talent in Germany and the direction of Margarethe von Trotta, New German Cinema's most prominent female filmmaker, herself a former actress.The story of the protest is told simply. Only one feature is lacking that would have helped: still-text notes at the end indicating the eventual outcome for those people taken into custody at Rosenstrasse, an outcome that was, as the addendum below makes clear, incredibly positive."Rosenstrasse" has not fared well in the opinions of most film critics. Overly long, needlessly layered, purveyor of gender stereotypes, manipulative with music: so go the usual raps. It is too long. But I found in this film an austere, powerful, spontaneous and entirely convincing voice of protest from the women who kept the vigil outside the place on Rosenstrasse where their Jewish relatives and others were detained. I found nothing flashy, contemporary or manipulative in this depiction.The very absence of extreme violence (no one is shot or otherwise physically brutalized) intensified my tension, which increased incrementally as the film progressed. You keep waiting for some vicious attack to begin any minute. The somberness of the film stayed with me afterward. I awoke often later in the night I saw the film, my mind filled with bleak, melancholic, chaotic images and feelings conjured by the film. For me, that happens rarely. (In German and English). My rating: 8/10 (B+). (Seen on 05/31/05). If you'd like to read more of my reviews, send me a message for directions to my websites.Add: The Rosenstrasse Protest: Swept up from their forced labor jobs in what was meant to be the Final Roundup in the national capital, 1700 to 2000 Jews, mostly men married to non-Jewish women, were herded into Rosenstrasse 2-4, a welfare office for the Jewish community in central Berlin.Because these Jews had German relatives, many of them highly connected, Adolf Eichmann hoped that segregating them from other prisoners would convince family members that their loved ones were being sent to labor camps rather than to more ominous destinations in occupied Poland.Normally, those arrested remained in custody for only two days before being loaded onto trains bound for the East. But before deportation of prisoners could occur in this case, wives and other relatives got wind of what was happening and appeared at the Rosenstrasse address, first in ones and twos, and then in ever-growing numbers.Perhaps as many as six thousand participated in the protest, although not all at the same time. Women demanded back their husbands, day after day, for a week. Unarmed, unorganized, and leaderless, they faced down the most brutal forces at the disposal of the Third Reich.Joseph Goebbels, the Gauleiter (governor or district leader) of Berlin, anxious to have that city racially cleansed, was also in charge of the nation's public morale. On both counts he was worried about the possible repercussions of the women's actions. Rather than inviting more open dissent by shooting the women down in the streets and fearful of jeopardizing the secrecy of the "Final Solution," Goebbels with Hitler's concurrence released the Rosenstrasse prisoners and even ordered the return of twenty-five of them who already had been sent to Auschwitz! To both Hitler and Goebbels, the decision was a mere postponement of the inevitable. But they were mistaken. Almost all of those released from Rosenstrasse survived the war. The women won an astonishing victory over the forces of destruction. (Adapted from an article posted at the University of South Florida website, "A Teacher's Guide to the Holocaust.")$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was borderline in crude humor....I utterly can not believe that these people can get away with this. Johnny Knoxville didn't cross the line...he was stomping all over it! This was better than the first...ALL THA WAY! The thing I found about the 1st movie was that the shenanigans were somewhat as if it was on the t.v. show. NOT THIS TIME!!! they completely made a 180 degree flip...the whole cast is so outstanding in what they do and not were the stunts crazy...but the music basically fit every situation...GOOD WORK!!!! When you go see this be sure to use the bathroom before going to the theater, maintain a strong stomach and rememba to not let your beverage spray out your nose....$LABEL$ 1
+THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE Written by Mary Harron & Guinevere Turner Directed by Mary HarronHow do you define a person who has always been between two worlds, one of presumed sin and one of supposed redemption? Especially when that person eventually succumbed to a split personality disorder in her latter years as if to demonstrate her own point. If you're director Mary Harron, you don't shy away from showing the push/pull nature of THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE. You allow the character to drift back and forth between the healing forgiveness of the power of God and the church and the seductive illusion of control and dominance afforded to Page during her years as a pinup model. By doing so, audiences are offered a complex character that is propelled forward by a desire to leave her difficult past with a naive enjoyment in others' lust for her and a struggle to reconcile her image in the eyes of God. Come the right time, it will no longer matter how many eyes are on her because there is only one pair that counts.Shot mostly in black and white (with some unnecessary bursts of color), THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE is at times a light, humorous comedy, making the film an enjoyable experience and also one that pokes fun at how seriously people believe in the corruption of pornography. But the delicate hand of the director is more palpably felt during Page's times of despair. Harron is a sensitive, considerate director who does not throw Page's numerous and devastating blows of abuse in the face of her viewer. Instead, she allows the surprisingly effective Gretchen Moll, who plays the title role, the chance to hammer the pain of her character into the viewer with fear in her eyes, exhaustion is her cries and shame on her skin. Whereas most directors, perhaps most male directors, would find it essential to show the heroine in painful positions in order to draw a link between the kinds of atrocities that were put upon her and where her life took her, Harron has too much compassion for her character, her actress and her audience. From fragility, Page learns to trust people again and as more and more photographers fall in love with her image, the more she falls in love with their admiration and the control she has over the gaze. By the time her poses cross over into the realm of soft-core S&M, she has found a way to combine her need to be respected with the objectification she has been accustomed to her whole life.Mary Harron's Bettie Page is a woman who yearns for control over her life and destiny, yet ultimately is always being told where to stand, how to smile and what to wear. When she finally realizes that none of her choices have been her own, she chooses to embrace God and preach his word to those who will listen. The true sadness behind this most important decision is that she is still letting someone else guide her blindly; she just has more faith that this direction will be better for her soul.$LABEL$ 1
+The trailer goes nowhere near and only scratches the surface of the film and rightly so too, not because it has that obligation to keep its real narrative under wraps, but because what actually transpires, will provoke entirely different lines of questioning, some of which are frustratingly not answered in the film, leaving you to your own devices to interpret the series of events. Which of course means plenty of material for an after-show discussion.Metaphorically, the box refers to how us humans tend to subconsciously hole ourselves into situations or things in everyday life, and how our enclosed thoughts tend to see things from a certain perspective, seldom out of the box. There's a speech made near the end by one of the characters that will leave you pondering over this fact, which governs the basis of the entire film, and even threading on existentialism, where our bodies are mere vessels for the soul, and from cradle to the grave we put ourselves in more boxes in a way of life fashion.What I disliked about the film, is how it tried to sound intelligent through the frequent name dropping of covert government agencies like the CIA and NSA, as though there's something overtly clandestine about these agencies that we should be aware of. They serve little purpose other than to put every action and every person under scrutiny, that nobody can be trusted, wrecking havoc in a sense to both the characters and the audience as we try to keep up with trust issues to aid in the interpretation of the narrative. Having it set in 1976, against a NASA backdrop of manned space missions, and in Langley, Virginia, also provided that heightened sense of wary that will sap your energies as you sit through it patiently.Based upon the short story Button, Button written by Richard Matheson and made into an episode of the Twilight Zone, the story follows the Lewis family, where husband Arthur (James Marsden) works at NASA and develops a prosthetic foot for his teacher wife Norma (Cameron Diaz), and you'd think it's all happy family with their son Walter (Sam Oz Stone), until one day a mysterious man called Arlington Steward (Frank Langella in a Two-Face inspired facial effect) whom we are preempted of in the opening, comes knocking and giving them a Deal or No Deal button in a box. Plunge the button and they'll get a million bucks (we're talking in dollar terms of the 70s here) although a stranger out there will die. If they don't, well the deal's got an expiry date.The story would dictate a deal be made, which of course sparks off a mysterious sequence of events that unfold, with even more shady characters (who nosebleed) appearing, some whom are inexplicably zombie like, apparently all under the influence, or employment, or Arlington Steward. Whether or not Steward is Death, a clandestine government employee, a messenger from God or a representative of Aliens after an anal probe, remains unanswered, so whichever way you look at it, it's as if he's delivering something expected, just begging that mankind will shake off its innate greed so that his work can be cut short and to return to wherever he came from.If you need a little distraction from the disparate scenes which make up the narrative, the production sets and art direction are gorgeous in recreating the 70s look, as you try to figure out the mystery of the consequences that stem from a result of not fully understanding the fine print. It's full circle this examination of human nature, of our greed for immediate gratification, manifesting its result in longer term pain, confusion and further choices that we'll make based on real sacrifices. Nifty special effects come into play as well, though it just leaves more room open as to the genre of the film.So is it horror, science fiction, or a mystery thriller? It's everything rolled into one actually, together with a sprinkling of the philosophical. Just don't go expecting a straight narrative film with clean and easy answers at the end – this is like an X-Files episode on steroids.$LABEL$ 1
+I admit to a secret admiration of the original Love Thy Neighbour TV shows - mostly because they exhibit the kind of exuberant brashness and bad taste synonymous with so many programmes of their era - but I'd be lying through my teeth (very uncomfortable position) if I pretended that this big-screen spin-off is anything other than an abomination. The opening scenes of wanton vandalism are not only pointless but baffling as well - it's never explained why the film opens with a tracking shot of people trashing each other's houses - and nothing improves from there. By the time the film unearths the oldest joke in the book - the horrible dragon of a mother-in-law turns up unexpectedly to stay - is followed by the crashingly obvious revelation that she's developing a soft spot for the black neighbour's father, moving her bigoted son to ever greater depths of self-righteous, ignorant rage, most discerning viewers will have switched off. Take that as a warning, unless you're keen on cheapskate spin-offs with terrible acting, static direction and the overall comic flair of a burning orphanage.$LABEL$ 0
+I supposed I was actually expecting a Bollywood remake of "The Fog", from the title, but this is actually more of a Bollywood remake of "I Know What You Did Last Summer", with some elements of "Scream", kind of, sort of, and not a very good one either. Apart from a couple very entertaining song & dance numbers, this is pretty terrible. It's obviously got a decent budget & yet it's wasted on reheated leftovers that weren't that tasty to begin with. A young woman is threatened by a creepy guy to not enter a beauty contest, because he wants his sister to win (she, thankfully, doesn't look as creepy as her brother), but she enters anyway and wins, and of course the creepy guy comes after her, and is killed, after which comes a rousing game of "hide the body". Of course, the body disappears and no one seems to know why, but someone knows, and they're waiting for the end to reveal a ridiculous plot twist. Interspersed with all this tired rehash are a few nifty dance numbers, especially the celebratory dance number at the party for Simran, the girl who won the beauty contest...it's highly colorful, it's well done & downright fun, and utterly wasted in this terrible film. I would much rather watch an old Ramsay brothers movie than this piece of crap, although someone has deemed that these don't need to be made available, for the most part, which is a crime in itself. But not as big of a crime as this film. I took one for the team watching this one, so take my advice, don't bother. 2 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+I don't know which was worse, the viewer's made dopes of, or the stars in this movie who look like dopes. Am I to believe that this woman raised this child for seven years, and never noticed the child was a bit dark ? Am I to believe her mother, her father, and her husband never once said, hmmm this child looks a bit dark ? Am I to believe when the courts ordered the mother to view the adopted parents records, that Lisa Hartman had this wow look on her face, when she told her mother, Christopher is half black ! What ! Was that for real,gee do you think so. So not only did the grandmother, and grandfather look dopey and stupid never once mentioning this, but i guess we were supposed to look surprised and say...hmmmmm omg he is half black ! Totally stupid movie, almost an embarrassment even to watch this !$LABEL$ 0
+I grew up (b. 1965) watching and loving the Thunderbirds. All my mates at school watched. We played "Thunderbirds" before school, during lunch and after school. We all wanted to be Virgil or Scott. No one wanted to be Alan. Counting down from 5 became an art form. I took my children to see the movie hoping they would get a glimpse of what I loved as a child. How bitterly disappointing. The only high point was the snappy theme tune. Not that it could compare with the original score of the Thunderbirds. Thankfully early Saturday mornings one television channel still plays reruns of the series Gerry Anderson and his wife created. Jonatha Frakes should hand in his directors chair, his version was completely hopeless. A waste of film. Utter rubbish. A CGI remake may be acceptable but replacing marionettes with Homo sapiens subsp. sapiens was a huge error of judgment.$LABEL$ 0
+The main character is a whiny, irresponsible study of how to throw yourself a pity party. She loses it at the drop of a hat, acts pathetic, is schizophrenic, and left me wondering why on Earth she doesn't understand why these 'friends' of hers haven't called her in three years. (Get a clue, sister - you're a juvenile mess!) I couldn't stand her or the friends. I never felt connected to any of the characters. To make the entire movie even more unbearable, someone went far out of their way to put the world's most hideous collection of crocheted and knitted hats in existence on film for all of eternity (this alone should warrant someone be put on wardrobe probation for a decade!)The acting wasn't awful, but not really believable either, and in the end the only thing that I DID care about was the two hours I'm never going to get back. Don't waste your time - go catch up on a dentist appointment instead!$LABEL$ 0
+Without going into any details of a good...if a somewhat provocative...TV movie, there seems to be a consensus among the users that there is "no one to blame here".I disagree. Yes, the young male lover of Beverly D'Angelo, played by Rob Estes may be young and horny (and good looking) because he's not getting as much as he wants from mom, that doesn't mean, he can climb in bed and have sex with daughter. OK, he can use the excuse he just wanted to watch TV with her, but I don't buy it. People have to take responsibility for their actions. Not only did he "cross the line" by having sex with a very vulnerable teen, when he was supposedly "the responsible adult",he said, "Your mom must never know about this." How responsible was he then? Yes, it's a good flick, but he got what was coming to him. Don't kid yourselves folks that what happened was "no one's fault".$LABEL$ 1
+Jim Varney's first real movie is quite a delight, but don't come in expecting to see Ernest P. Worrel any time soon. I felt the wide array of characters Varney depicted were great, but without being said, the rest of the movie should be put into a mulcher or something. A rather odd beginning for a movie icon.$LABEL$ 0
+This is the kind of film they used to make, amusing, heart-warming, troubling, authentic, with convincing performances by people without nose jobs, boob jobs, eye jobs, in other words real people. Shauna Macdonald plays the female love interest, and she is so real you want to give her a cuddle at the very least. Imagine that, a real girl in a movie, whatever next? Hollywood would hate her, because her freshness is a sharp rebuke to every false starlet in Tinseltown. This story has the same hilarious feel as Sandy Mackendrick's classic 'Whisky Galore', with the gnomic humour of remote Scottish islanders puncturing the pretensions of intruders from outside and enjoying a wee dram from time to time (the actual intervals between those times often being rather short). Director Stephen Whittaker displays a rare skill in pulling this off just right, and it is shocking to discover that he died before his film's release, aged only 56, which was clearly a substantial loss to the screen. Ulrich Thomsen does very well at playing a German rocket scientist who in the late 1930s goes to Scarp in the Isle of Harris to build a small rocket to carry postal packets between the islands. There he falls in love with the alluring Macdonald lass, and she reciprocates the affection. Some wonderfully colourful local characters decorate the tale, and the film is pure delight. There is of course the threat of imminent war with Hitler, and we learn that Hitler executed 1000 rocket scientists who refused to build weapons of war, which is a shocking statistic. Tragic love is never far from view, but lips must remain sealed in a review as to what happens in the end. This film is a magnificent example of just the kind of films which people in Britain should be making. But are they being properly released? In a nation whose tastes have been so corrupted by reality TV shows, where repulsive nonentities have become the national heroes, is there even a market anymore for a film like this? After all, there is no grunting sex, there are no close-ups of suppurating wounds or of anyone's genitals, there are no drugs taken, there are no mindless celebrities prancing around wanting to be looked at, and so one wonders whether there is anything to interest a public which has become so decadent and jaded that only the most extreme sensations can briefly alleviate the tedium of their pointless existence. Anyone who is looking for an antidote to the vacuity of contemporary Britain can take refuge in this refreshing and honest film.$LABEL$ 1
+The person's comment that said that Pat Robertson is evil and his program is evil has nothing to compare what evil and righteous is. His definition of evil is the opposite of evil. The Bible itself says that in the last days people will call good evil and evil good! He doesn't even know that he fulfilled Bible prophecy! If you don't know God and refuse to know him now, that's okay. He still loves you but when you do finally bow your knee to Him, and you will, it will be too late for you. God sends no one to hell, not even you! You will go there of your own decision and your spewing defines it! May God have mercy on you and give you a Damascus Road experience. The 700 Club and Pat Robertson's ministry is one of the reasons I'm still here. On the edge of alcoholism, adultery, and probably death, God reached through the TV screen and used Pat Robertson to do it, and thank God He did! You have a right to say what you said but you don't have a right to curse with your words. God have mercy on you.$LABEL$ 1
+Lois Weber's film "Hypocrites" was and still kind of is a very bold and daring film. I enjoyed it and was very impressed by the filming and story of it. The priest sees the hypocrisy of the people in his church and tries to show them the "naked" truth. The people are appalled when he reveals the naked statue portraying truth, after failing to lead them to it and the few that did, help along the way. The people do not want to face the truth that they are doing anything wrong, but it shows them putting things before God, going to beach parties acting inappropriate, their materialistic ways, and other things in which the people of our world do that tend to not be morally right. In the end, failing to gain any followers, he must enter into the gates of heaven alone. This film seems to me to be very bold, in the fact that a naked woman is shown throughout it, especially considering the time period in which this film was made. The imagery and symbolism portrayed in this movie I found incredible. The way they made the naked woman translucent and using a naked woman to symbolize the naked truth shows a lot of creativity and art. Showing the different sins of the people as they walked down the road and refused to follow along the path, each with different excuses, setbacks, and/or higher priorities, was a great way of representing the people of today. This film does a very good job of getting the moral message across to its audience. Lois Weber has a tremendous way of capturing her spectators' attention with her creativity, symbolism, visuals, and through auditory. Even the music of the piano throughout this film is very beautiful and fitting with the whole theme.$LABEL$ 0
+What a stupid idea. Ewoks should be enslaved and tortured. Utterly useless as a species... Fine you want ten lines of text regarding my unending hatred of Ewoks? Fine, here it is, fool. First of all, they are an inferior race that would be slaughtered en mass had Lucas not pussified the entire series with their foul presence. They're little bears with large asses, and they probably smell like donkey crotch. Yeah, I said it, donkey crotch. They have little to no technology whatsoever, resorting to using sticks as makeshift weapons. I'm surprised they even had access to fire. Their guttural language makes my skin crawl. Can't...suppress...anti-Ewok...RAGE! AHHH!!!$LABEL$ 0
+I give this piece of Hollywood trash 1 out 10! Seriously! I mean, I like comedy as much as the next guy. I also can take just plain stupid comedy and actually sit back and laugh with it. But this film had nothing to laugh at OR with.I like nearly all of the actors in this film. So I thought I'd overlook what many people told me about it (my fault for not listening). I was just mortified at how stupid this script was! Just ridiculous and not even in a funny way. The only funny scenes were in the previews that everyone saw in the theater when seeing other movies or on TV. I was very disappointed and I really would like to know why these otherwise relatively good actors would read this script and then still sign up to be in it! Bad decision on their parts...*********************MAJOR SPOILER************************Okay - here's my biggest question on this film.......If the characters are looking back on this story of Jewel (Liv Tyler) after the fact....then how can Paul Reiser have gone to a therapist remembering the past!?!?!?!? He dies in the last scene by being crushed by the dumpster!!!! Can anyone answer me that?!?!?!?!? Major goof on the part of the film makers.....Nobody noticed this?!?!?!?!?!?!$LABEL$ 0
+For some unknown reason, 7 years ago, I watched this movie with my mother and sister. I don't think I've ever laughed as hard with them before. This movie was sooooo bad. How sequels were produced is beyond me. Its been awhile since I last saw this "movie", but the one impression that it has stuck with me over the years has been, "They must have found the script in a dumpster in the backlot of a cheap movie studio, made into a "movie", and decided that it didn't suck enough, and made it worse. I'm pretty sure that they spent all the budget on camera work and the so called "special effects", and then had 13 cents left toward the script AND to pay the "actors".$LABEL$ 0
+So then... this is what passes as high art for the likes of SXSW Film Festival and Sundance, eh? Well, I suppose I can relate as long as story, script, dialog, acting (save for Ms. Aselton), cinematography and editing are completely irrelevant.I remember telling other film-making friends some years ago that the biggest problem with digital video was that we were now going to have to wade through a future sea of crap to get to anything worth watching now that anyone and his brother (or brothers in the case of the Duplass') could run out and make a movie. "The Puffy Chair." Need I say more?This feature length video is yet another chapter in the dismal, ever-expanding world of "dudeology" movies; young guns armed with a DVX100A, a few thousand dollars, a hastily written, shallow script, and some friends they call actors who decide one afternoon to make a movie and voilà!, instant feature video-makers. Don't get me wrong -- I'm all about independent cinema (i.e. Hollywierd sucks). But having said that, you can't argue with some of the realities of that system. If the Duplass Brothers would've had to have gone out and raised a real budget and bring on real producers, its clear a script like this would never have been green-lighted! And therein lies the problem. There is no longer such a thing as a vetting process for getting films (sorry... videos) ready for production. Just grab a DV/P2 camera and off you go! And what makes it worse is that high-profile festivals like the aforementioned actually embrace and encourage this kind of nonsense. And why? Precisely because its no-budget. I think its important, especially in todays climate of indie films, to quit allowing video-makers to high-jack the language by labeling themselves, "filmmakers." There is quite a difference in my book. When you have to go out and actually put your script on the line, asking friends and family or business people for real money to make a feature "film", knowing the potentially losses at stake, then you will know what it means to be a "filmmaker." But dropping a few hundred at Sam's Club for some DV tapes, some soda and chips doesn't cut it. Oh... and by the way... I have to mention how utterly annoying it was to listen to a female being addressed as "dude" throughout the entire movie. Even Mark Borchardt reserves that intensely-overused moniker for his male friends only where it is at least endearing where his buddy Mike is concerned!I think its high time the indie film community started to call out these shoddy, no-budget videos for what they are, and simultaneously scold prestigious festivals for giving such casual efforts, high praise. Either that or ask these festivals to at least have the courtesy to add a new category to their festival line ups... "Dude Films."$LABEL$ 0
+Some days ago, in Rome, a young Romanian man with criminal precedents assaulted and tortured to death a middle-age lady coming back home after an afternoon of shopping. A Romanian girl, who had seen everything, reported what happened.Therefore, it started a debate about the too much intense flow of immigrants from Romania, generalizing them as criminals, everyone, indiscriminately.I'm only 15, but I thought: what idea of affluence does Italy give to these poor people? How ever do they regard us as the Land of Plenty? Yesterday evening I finally saw NUOVOMONDO, and my question had an answer. When you have only a donkey and some goats, those propaganda postcards showing United States as a land with milk rivers and huge vegetables, makes such an impression.NUOVOMONDO is really a must-see film. It balances an ethereal symbolism (milk rivers, glances' play, hard and rocky mountains, the name and character Lucy/Luce) and a cruel realism (the mass of hopeful people on the ship, the procedures at Ellis Island). There's a mixed cast, going from the angelic Charlotte Gainsbourg to the realistic Vincenzo Amato, till a bitter and smashing Aurora Quattrocchi as the mother. But was it really so hard to enter in the New World?$LABEL$ 1
+1914 was an amazing year for Charlie Chaplin. It was his first year in films and he appeared in more than 30 films! While most of these films weren't particularly good, they did give him a chance to slowly evolve his screen persona. However, by this film, the familiar "Little Tramp" character was still in development. Sure Charlie looked the part, but his character still lacked the sweetness and decency that he later developed. Instead, Chaplin often hit, kicked or did other nasty things to people for seemingly no reason at all.As for this very slight film, it is interesting to watch for the cast. While they are not familiar today, Chaplin stars along with Mabel Normand, Chester Conklin and Mack Swain--all exceptionally popular stars with Keystone Films. The problem with this film is that while it has a few nice scenes, the plot seems very vague and improperly developed. Chester and Mabel got to the race track (a very common theme in Keystone productions--it must have been located near a race track). Charlie and Mack show up and sneak in. Mack is chased by the police for doing this while Charlie slaps Chester around and steals his girl. In the end, for no apparent reason, the cops take Chester and Mack away--leaving Charlie with Mabel (who, oddly, didn't seem put off by Charlie's boorish behaviors).Unless you are a huge silent comedy buff or film historian, this is a very forgettable film that is only important in the evolution of Chaplin. What he and the other actors actually do on stage, while not unusual for a Keystone film, isn't particularly funny when seen today.$LABEL$ 0
+Grave robber is sitting in his cell awaiting execution is visited by a monk wishing to take down his last words for posterity and as a warning to others about the horrible life he lead. At first reluctant, but with his tongue loosened up by drink the young grave robber is soon telling his story which is full of the dead, the undead and things that go bump in the night. New York lensed horror film (filmed in part on Staten Island which no doubt brought the spirit of Andy Milligan lurking about) is one of the better horror comedies to come around in a while. This is an often very funny film that just spins its story out in every which way. The cast is first rate. Dominic Monaghan plays Arthur Blake the grave robber telling his story. Ron Perlman is Father Duffy the monk taking the statement and perhaps getting too involved in the tale. Both men are clearly having a grand old time and it shows. The rest of the cast is equally as good. The music by Jeff Grace is excellent. The effects are perfect for this sort of ghoulish silliness. The film is a great deal of fun. If there is any trouble with the film its that perhaps it throws its net a little wide so as the result has way too much going on. I don't want to give too much away but I don't think we needed the alien body in the mix. Still this is a great deal of fun and its one I'm pretty sure I will revisit on the IFC in Theaters where I saw it the first time, and later on I'm sure I'll pick up the DVD.Worth a look.$LABEL$ 1
+Rex Reed once said of a movie ("Julia and Julia" to be specific) that it looked like it was shot through pomegranate juice. I was reminded of that as I snored through Purple Butterfly. This one appeared to be shot through gauze.The story was boring and it was not helped that for large portions of scenes actors' faces were literally out of focus or would only come into focus after extended periods of time. Also, everyone looked the same so it was hard to distinguish among the characters. I call this the "Dead Poets Society" syndrome.There was nobody to care about, nobody to become interested in dramatically, and the movie shed no historical light on a very interesting period of time and set of circumstances.A total disappointment.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie has to rank with "Welcome to the Jungle" and "The Hitcher" and "Dream Catcher" for sheer god-awfulness. You've got the most irritating heroine in gore history who spends most of her time sobbing and wailing and shrieking--all the time in the most horrendous rest stop toilet ever put on film. Why she spends so much time in this ghastly bathroom from hell is never explained. Even when the usual killer truck driver is trying to murder her, she refuses to leave the crapper. When a motorcycle cop comes to her rescue, the killer truck driver runs over the cop's legs while the heroine just looks on. Instead of grabbing his gun for protection, she drags the poor slob into the crapper and locks the door. Then the cop orders her to blow his brains out because of the pain. She does so--while wailing and sobbing and keening--and blows the back of his head off. Then--the cop, still alive, beg her to shoot him again because he's still in pain. He says this while the entire back of his head is all over the floor. The sobbing, wailing heroine shoots him again. The movie goes on and on like this, none of it making any sense. The heroine is so dislikable you really want the killer to off her early on. I saw this flick on the Sci-Fi channel so it didn't cost me anything to watch, but still I did watch, out of sheer fascination as to how a movie could end up so terribly bad.$LABEL$ 0
+Many Americans are lazy, and this has manifested itself even in our DVD-watching. Many of us don't like to take the time to read an hour-and-a-half (or more) of subtitles, so we choose not to see many foreign films. One film that is TOTALLY worth your time, no matter how mundane a task you might think the subtitle-reading is, however, is "The Green Butchers." It's by far the best foreign film I've ever seen, and tops many American films I've seen lately as well. It's a complex situation told in a remarkably simple and funny dialogue. The character depth derived in this film is AMAZING. The way Svend and Eigel (sorry if those are spelled wrong) feed off each other's contrasting personas is downright spectacular! The actors were well-cast, and I'm very much hoping that a sequel is in consideration...it needs very little of Bjorne and what's-her-face...just give me Svend and Eigel on some sort of journey with supporting characters and more amazing dialogue! To the author of this fine screenplay, I say: Write more! The story itself is rather twisted, but you'll find yourself rooting for the bad guy anyhow...with no remorse. PLEASE check this movie out!$LABEL$ 1
+I really can't understand how could someone give this disgusting film more than 1 star... How can you like such a retarded film, where all the animal abuse scenes are real? I don't even want to imagine the excruciating pain those innocent and defenseless living beings felt in those horrific moments... Jesus... What kind of ''human'' would torture them like that for no reason, or just for money? I tell you, that director is either mentally retarded, or he's just a monster with a ''heart'' of stone. Or both. He truly deserves to get his hands cut off and burn alive.It contains various horribly barbaric scenes that may cause shock, especially to sensitive persons and children: a real frog is skinned alive, fish are sadistically mutilated and thrown back into the water, a dog is beaten, birds are thrown into the water...This movie is more than awful; it has to be the worst and most retarded film ever made, along with another one, called ''Cannibal Holocaust'' or something like that. I'll never watch or buy any film directed by this heartless monster. No one should waste their time watching it, especially when there are a lot of TRULY great movies out there, in which all the animal abuse scenes are staged.Fortunately, only a few people liked this - which is natural, since it's the worst film ever -, so it wasn't successful. I hope this will make the retarded director realize that such unjustified barbaric acts of extreme cruelty and violence to REAL animals will NEVER be praised, and that he will stage all the animal abuse scenes in his following films. I truly believe that everyone receives but what they give! There will be a day when all the retarded and cruel ''humans'' will feel the same pain they once inflicted to others.This, however, is probably my only ''negative'' review. I usually don't comment on a movie if I dislike it, but this time I just couldn't shut up. I had to speak the truth, because animal abuse must stop!$LABEL$ 0
+I don't dislike Cary Grant but I've found his performances annoying in enough films to notice; this, Arsenic & Old Lace and Bringing up Baby. I don't dislike him in North by Northwest but I really find that movie unbearably silly. On top of that I find the endless raving about Grant's class tiresome. I don't have a clue what his class does for the viewers who herald it. It doesn't do a thing for me.In the behind-the-scenes feature included with this DVD Patrcia Hitchcock says that Grant was her fathers favorite leading man; I think he was wrong. Jimmy Stewart was a better leading man in a string of better Hitchcock movies.With it's ruined ending this is really half a movie and doesn't bear discussion, and can't support the high ratings it's getting. Even if the movie had it's ending intact there's not much to it. Fontaine is a completely unsympathetic sucker. She has to remain numb, inactive, and unwilling to contact anyone but Johnny for the whole movie, in either ending, for his ploys to work. That's not much to work with. Cary Grant begins every line with "Monkeyface..." until I wanted to strangle him. He says it about sixty times. It's positively grating. Hitch's technique here is shockingly shallow. An endless succession of rooms/sets have a phony skylight projected on the rear wall as a spiderweb effect. And a light-bulb in a glass of milk may make fans excited, but it can't save a movie this poorly made.Peter Bogdanovich should retire if he does one more Hitchcock/Cary Grant imitation on a DVD. I think that's his whole career now. As soon as I saw him, I thought, oh crap, here comes an imitation that only he's impressed with. Instead there were two! oh joy!$LABEL$ 0
+I watched this film in a very strange way -- I had put it on my Netflix list and couldn't remember why (other than that I knew Philip Seymour Hoffman was in it). Since the film has no opening credits, I couldn't even remember who had directed it.As my wife and I watched it, I turned to her about 45 minutes in and said, "You know, I keep wanting to decide that I hate this film, but something about it just won't let me stop watching it." Then there's a stretch of about half a dozen scenes in the middle of the movie that are truly electrifying in the actors' performances.It was only as the end credits rolled that I realized it was a Sidney Lumet film. And I thought -- wow. I'm surprised that Lumet took on what was really a dirty, petty little story about really mean, broken people. But it's a testament to his talent that I was so taken in when I didn't even realize it was him.Philip Seymour Hoffman is really, really good in this movie. Like scary good. Put this up against Capote and I would argue the Oscar should have been for this film instead.I also highly recommend the narrative special feature with Lumet, Hawke and Hoffman talking about making the movie -- it's entertaining and educational, with Hawke playing the student eager to learn at the master's feet. Lumet definitely teaches you the first rule of working with actors -- kiss their asses constantly!!There are a lot of violent, melodramatic movies out there that are empty ciphers when all is said and done. And there is an element of that in this film -- that the actors fill the air with sulphurous blasts of emotion, and when the smoke clears there's nothing left. Nothing resonates on a deeper level.But Lumet has given us Network and Twelve Angry Men -- films that, each in their own ways, have been elevated into the highest echelons of cinema.This movie isn't at that level. But there's something about it that lingers. And maybe that's enough.My final comment is about the comments -- if you look at the number of comments about this little movie here on IMDb -- and the depth and intelligence of the comments, pro and con -- it's a pretty good indication that something special is going on with this film.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm not sure what I can add that hasn't already been said in some of these other fine, and quite hilarious, comments, but Ill try.So you know the plot: there is a bed possessed by a demon that "absorbs" and selectively disintegrates the bodies of whoever (or whatever) lays on it with its orange soda-filled body. We have the man, in some scenes looking uncannily like Robert Smith of The Cure, hanging out inside the wall commenting on the goings-on, and we have our various victims that just cant resist the comfort of this mystical bed.This is no ordinary bed. No sirree Bob! Not only does it eat people, but it cleans up after itself, draws the covers back, and it even makes itself. Who wouldn't want a bed like that? It can even use its sheets as a rudimentary "lasso" to wrangle escaped victims back in (especially if they're taking up half the length of the film to try and escape).Our "main" story (if you can call it that), is about these three girls who go out to this remote area to house-sit(??). I don't recall exactly, but it doesn't really matter though as there are plenty of things that defy convention that you just have to give in and accept. The dialogue in the film is like no other; the characters talk to each other seemingly by telepathy as their mouths never seem to move and there is a constant echo. One of our girls believes she isn't liked by the rest of "the gang" and makes sure to tell us all her feelings on this matter through an echoey voice-over, but we don't care; character development was thrown out the window a LONG time before in this film so why start now? There are scenes when the bed laughs, snores, crunches, and makes various other noises that we assume judging by our cast's non-reaction to said noises, cant be heard. This and the telepathy makes the issue of diegesis very difficult to ascertain...but thats OK....this is Death Bed: The Bed That Eats and it defies all logic so its OK. It makes for a lush dreamy quality to this most bizarre film If you buy (hehe buy...did I say "buy"?) this DVD, make sure to check out the introduction by the director. He explains that the filming of this "flick" started in 1972, didn't wrap up until 1977, he shopped it for a few years with no luck, and then fast forward 26 years to 2003 it gets released on DVD. Supposedly someone somewhere had a print of this in some other country and made bootleg after bootleg of it and it was quite by chance, on a message board no less, that our director found evidence that people knew, and gasp! cared, about his little-known film. Its from there that he decided to give it a shot and release it. I'm glad he did. Once you've even so much as heard the title to this film, you MUST see it. I for one am going to buy this and I'm going to preach its gospel around the world...starting with this comment$LABEL$ 1
+This film could of been a hell of a lot better if they didn't use Brian Conley as a gangster and if they didn't start the film with Christopher Biggins.When I watched this film I had absolutely no idea what was going on. There were too many double crosses and plot twists to make the film believable. The film deserves a 0, but seeing as I there isn't a 0 I gave it a 1.I wouldn't recommend this film to my worst enemy, I would rather poke out my eyeballs with some rusty scissors than watch this film again. I'm telling you, that was an hour and a half of my life I won't get back.If you want to watch a gangster film, don't get this. Watch "Going Off Big Time" or "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" instead.$LABEL$ 0
+The storyline is absurd and lame,also sucking are performances and the dialogue, is hard to keep your Eyes open. I advise you to have a caffeine-propelled friend handy to wake you in time for a couple Gore-effects.Why they bring Alcatraz in?In this case,becomes increasingly difficult to swallow. All the while ,i wondered who this film aimed for?Chock full of lame subplots (such as the Cannibalism US Army-captain)This is low-grade in every aspect.BTW this Movie is banned in Germany!!$LABEL$ 0
+From today's point of view it is quite ridiculous to rate this film 18 (or X in the US). The film has a sexual, yet sublime erotic story to tell, but the pictures are rather innocent. Throughout the movie you feel and see the spirit of the late 60s and early 70s in the fashion, the dialogues and the typical experimental cinematography and lighting. And this is exactly the part that makes it worth seeing.$LABEL$ 1
+Daniel Day Lewis in My Left Foot gives us one of the best performances ever by an actor. He is brilliant as Christy Brown, a man who has cerebral palsy, who then learned to write and paint with his left foot. A well deserved Oscar for him and Brenda Fricker who plays his loving mother. Hugh O'Conner is terrific as the younger Christy Brown and Ray McAnally is great as the father. Worth watching for the outstanding performances.$LABEL$ 1
+Wow, umm this was a very, how to say it, different type of movie. It calls itself a comedy...but it wasnt really laught out loud funny at all. It was insane. If you are willing to accept that 3 people survive a calamity of a global scale, why not 4? or 5?.....and why did it suddenly end without anything happening??? They could have made this much better by simply having another element in the plot such as a dumpy female for the ugly dude or something.......zinc, riduculous....ahhi dunno..watch it...it wasnt that bad.....sorta funny at times....i guess...schneider$LABEL$ 0
+This movie has a few things going for it right off the bat. Having Dani Filth as a lead actor is automatically going to make some people like this movie. Admittedly, I love Cradle of Filth and listened to the soundtrack to this movie long before I watched it. Dani Filth is a very recognizable character and makes for a great lead. The independent filming style of the movie is great for the creepy factor. There are some GORGEOUS actresses in this movie. For being low budget, the special effects weren't bad either. The ways that people died were very creative and nightmarish.Now on to the cons. There is VERY little talking throughout this whole movie, thus making for very little as far as character development. It's hard to fear for the lives of limp, static characters. When there was a little talking, the F bomb was abundant, popping up in random places. Yes, I understand people swear but it seems like a preteen boy scripted this and thought himself cool for including all the language. The storyline, what I could make out of it, was pretty good although many parts are left dangling and the lack of conversation leaves one often wondering what's happening.In the end, Cradle of Fear is like a porno for people who love sex and violence, but like a porno trying to pull of a storyline, it just doesn't work too well. Rent it though, if you're a morbid person looking to sate your blood and flesh appetite.$LABEL$ 0
+"House Of Games" is definitely not without its flaws- plot holes, stiff acting, final scenes- but they do little to detract from the fun of watching a thriller that so methodically messes with your head. "House Of Games" does almost everything a good thriller is supposed to do. Of course, this is not a huge feat given the fact that we're dealing with the the world of confidence men and the cons they perpetrate. So it stands to reason that we never really know what's going on, even though we think that we do. But that's what makes the film worthwhile for those who are game; a film for which repeated viewings are indulgences instead if necessities.It has a definite Hitchcock slant to it. The film draws on some similar themes found his 1964 effort "Marnie", considered a misfire when released but now regarded as one of the Master's more thought-provoking works. One could easily consider the idea of Lindsay Crouse's character being the same as Tippi Hedrin's...ten year later perhaps. Both are strong-willed loners, both with compulsive behaviors which compel them to walk too close to the shark pool. As Crouse's repressed, up-tight character says, "What's life without adventure?" Put your Reality Check on a low setting and enjoy swimming with the sharks!$LABEL$ 1
+This film was seen by my wife and I when it came out in 1978. It was a revelation to us. We actually thought that we were the only gay and lesbian couple who had ever married and had children. Obviously we were wrong. Love may come from where you don't expect it and maybe don't want it. But we both chose that love anyway.And no, it never changed our sexual orientation. That kind of stuff is for the Christian wackos.When we were young we both had affairs, but never with the opposite sex. As we aged we stopped having extramarital affairs.This story is not far fetched. However, the suggestion that they became heterosexuals seems pretty unrealistic to me. My wife and I have been sleeping together for the last 40 years. We are still gay. End of story.$LABEL$ 1
+I just saw this movie and all I can say is, where are the drive in's these days. This seems like it would have been a great 2nd feature at a drive in in 1977 (maybe playing with one of those Joan Collins movies), but it's only worth watching now if you're feeling nostalgic for the 70's. Silly plot that is full of holes, but it does remind one of the era it was made in. Interesting to see Melanie Griffith so young and Anne Lockhart is quite attractive, though not much of an actress. In fact, there is not much acting going on in this movie at all. It's sort of a Dukes of Hazzard adventure without a twang or a 1969 Dodge charger jumping over stuff in the Woods. But there is a Mecrury Comet jumping over a garbage dump in this one!$LABEL$ 0
+An insult to both poker and cinema, this movie manages to make the most dynamic, brilliant, and fascinating figure in poker history into an utter bore. Still a fun film to make jokes about, from the lame gangster movie clichés of the first half to the incomprehensible nonsense of that second hour. Hilariously, Stu Ungar wins all three of his World Series titles without playing a single hand on screen. His infamous dealer abuse? 1 scene. His coke habit? 1 scene. His incredible memory? 0 scenes. They couldn't even get any real poker players. What did they cover? A lot of high angle shots from inside a house in the suburbs. Oh, and a montage of Stu waking up every day and shopping for meat which doesn't come anywhere close to making sense. Why do I care so much about this little Sopranos summer camp trying to cash in on the poker craze? Because I think there's still a great film to be made about Stu Ungar waiting for someone willing to do it right.$LABEL$ 0
+I didn't mind all the walking. People really did walk places back then. It loaned an air of authenticity to this period piece and some perspective on the technology of the Martians. I too was disappointed by the effects, in particular the "Thunderchild" scene, which I regard as one of the most exciting in the book. But I can't praise this film enough, for its faithfulness to Wells's story! It's about time. The actors are likable and the performances are charming. Also this film is very much worth seeing just to hear Jamie Hall's truly great musical score. It was interesting to see the same actor play both the writer and his brother in London.$LABEL$ 1
+Farrah Fawcett gives the best performance by an actress on film in this gritty real life attempted rape thriller where she turns the tables & gives James Russo a taste of his own medicine. A must see for any movie fan.$LABEL$ 1
+when fellini committed 8 1/2 to film many commented that it was the most personal vision ever to find its perfect expression. when dante cast betrice to the flames of his undying passion many were aghast at the honest brutality of his unrequited feelings for a younger woman. when onur tukel, and a merry band of wickedly talented and misfited filmmakers--from the mecca of movie-making insanity--band together, during the course of two chilly weeks in december 2000, many commented that nothing more sophmoric had ever been committed...much less on film.well, to the doubters out there, watch this original piece and find out why the ID is both a charming and powerful thing. and if that doesn't getchya, roll over and rub one out...it's probably time you did so.kudos onur on a great piece of art$LABEL$ 1
+I've read just about every major book about the Manhattan Project. Most people know what it was, but few people understand the depth and breadth of the project. Its scope was immeasurably massive -- rivaled in US history perhaps only by the space program of the 1960's.There were -- literally -- MILLIONS of people involved from all walks of life at numerous sites (most clandestine) around the country, each involved in a specific and different aspect of the project that they couldn't talk about to the person sitting in the cubicle next to them, much less their family. The logistics are overwhelming, particularly given the considerations of wartime communication, security and transportation in the 1940's.As an example -- my colleague's father was a carpenter who worked for one of the companies that had a contract with the federal government for the Manhattan Project. His job was to supervise a crew of about 30 other carpenters, who were responsible for manufacturing forms for the pouring of concrete for the massive research installations at Hanford, Washington. That's "all" he did, six days a week for nearly two years. These carpenters needed food, housing, sanitary facilities, hospitals and materials just as much as did Oppenheimer and his crowd at the top of the pyramid. Just think about it! That being said, it's simply impossible to do the subject justice in a 2-hour movie. In defense of Joffe, however, I would say that they had an impossible task, particularly since he chose to have a diverse screenplay with multiple plots, multiple angles, and multiple characters. What, exactly, was he thinking, and how could he be so arrogant to think that this would work? That's Hollywood, I guess.FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY has so many flaws that it would take a book to list them all. Horrible casting. Dreadful (and politically-motivated) writing. Bad science. The portrayals of Groves and Oppie are particularly inaccurate and downright galling. Notwithstanding the screenplay's all-too-obvious agenda, it is STILL incredibly bland and sloppy.These flaws have been listed elsewhere on IMDb, but I was particularly struck by the fact that the scientists had so much time on their hands -- softball, horseback riding, parties, semi-formal dinners, ballet, etc., not to mention romance, and of course circulating political petitions. According to FM&LB, if these great brains had gotten off their duffs and actually spent some time in the lab instead of seducing Laura Dern, we might have won the war before D-Day.One final gripe -- FM&LB mentions that "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" were the code names of the two atomic bombs, but it doesn't mention that these names were a semi-good-natured jab at Groves ("Fat Man", for heavy stature) and Oppenheimer ("Little Boy," for his slight stature). Another reason Paul Newman should not have been in this movie...$LABEL$ 0
+This is the best movie I have ever seen. It has it all tragedy and happiness love and hate. And a deep friendship that not even war can destroy.The most splendid casting I have ever seen. Patrick Swayze and James Read were top grade in this movie.If you see part 1 you will want to see it all. Some of my friends watched part of the movie at my home then went out and bought the movie.I am a civil war buff but this movie got my grandchildren interested in history. Any movie that can get children to learn history is great. I have Books I, II & III and when the girls come up from Florida each year they want to see North & South.$LABEL$ 1
+Greetings again from the darkness. Based on the mega-best seller from author Khaled Hosseini, the film provides us a peak at the ugliness of post-Russia invaded Afghanistan and the terror of the Taliban. Director Marc Foster adds a gem to his resume, which already includes "Monster's Ball", "Finding Neverland" and "Stranger Than Fiction".The story of young friends Amir and Hassan and the unknown bond they share into the next generation. This is a story of honor and courage and loyalty and is an unusual coming-of-age tale. Some great scenes of the boys when they are kids and then a couple of truly amazing scenes as Amir returns as an adult to find Hassan's imprisoned son.This is tight, compelling story telling with a message. The acting is solid throughout, with no one actor stealing the screen. Although not a pleasant story to watch unfold, it is certainly meaningful and heart felt. Plus a quick shot of Midnight Oil playing in the pool hall is a welcome gift.$LABEL$ 1
+I love this show!Every time i watch an episode i repeat that line and remind myself how good of a show this is. I am a huge sci-fi fan and this show has grounds to be the most important science (fiction?) show in the history of film/TV. There are so many theories in this show about the universe i could start a religion. Its amazing, season after season the show gets better and better.I've been a fan of MacGyver since i was 5 (19 now) and i find it so ironic that my 2 favorite TV shows of all time star Richard Dean Anderson. Its also interesting how each character is practically the opposite of the other.Back when i first saw Stargate the movie, i instantly liked it and considered it one of my favorite sci-fi flicks, then hearing a TV show would spin from it i got really excited, but didn't get showtime till the fifth season was almost over.Though, I'm disappointed to hear that Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin wanted to do a trilogy of movies but the studio optioned the series instead. Id say though that it turned out just fine. Maybe even better.This show is amazing, and i hope it never dies. Atlantis here we come!$LABEL$ 1
+Rosenstrasse is more an intimate film than one of epic proportions, which could have kept away many film goers looking for a Pianist similar plot. Fortunately, Von Trotta, a good screenwriter, opts for a feminist peep to an era too much illustrated on its colorful exterior, but too little analyzed in terms of intimacy and from the point of view of ordinary Aryan German rather from a Jewish standpoint. Rosentrasse finds its strength in these unsung burdens of people trapped within historical circumstances of which they emerge as victims. The pace of the film is introspective, poignantly slow, meditative. Besides, the characters are so vivid while transitions between generations and the passing of time has been deftly crafted. Rosenstrasse is not a masterpiece, and some narrative flaws are well discerned. Another fault lies on a trivial cinematography unable to capture the intensity of the internal drama lived by the characters. Nevertheless, this film is worth seeing. Finally, Rosenstrasse is part of the last trend in German films dealing with the ghosts of a nightmarish past,trend that includes such excellent films as Nowhere in Africa, and recently, the controversial Downfall. I would recommend this film to those who know how to read beyond the images.$LABEL$ 1
+I for one have shamelessly enjoyed every episode of Pushing Daisies this season, and hope that the writers' strike won't brutally end the beginnings of a very good show. Ned is a pie maker who owns a restaurant in the middle of town and has a secret talent. Emmerson is a private investigator with his own unique quirks like his love of knitting. Charlotte (Chuck) is the once-dead-but-not-anymore childhood friend and sunny spot of Ned's life. Olive is the jealous but good-hearted waitress. Oh, and add the dog. Jim Dale brings all the characters together with his wonderful narration of the show. Chuck, Ned, and Emmerson along with Olive and occasionally the dog solve multiple murder mysteries with the assistance of Ned's special gift of bringing dead people back to life. The show is funny, clean, and romantic in a very cute and good-hearted way, and I'd recommend it to anyone.$LABEL$ 1
+Our Family and friends enjoyed this movie very much. The theme was well handled by the Director with great performances from Shabana Azmi, Konkana Sen and well supported by good performances from the other cast. The climax was built well but for the ending which was a far from being called "Good". We are still trying to understand what was the Director trying to convey? Were they short of ideas or was the ending beyond the understanding of common movie lovers? A better ending would have created a lasting impression on the audience and increased the viewer-ship. This however should not take away credit that is due to Konkana and Shabana Azmi for relating so well with the characters!$LABEL$ 1
+I found Super Troopers only mildly amusing at best (seemed like a glorified Police Academy ripoff to me), and I rented this movie in hopes of it being better. It wasn't.The writing is absolutely horrible and the pacing of this film is even worse. It doesn't feel like a whole lot happens in this film, or that it really gives us a reason to give a damn about any of the characters.The actor who plays Felix is totally uninspired, though possibly due in part to the dialogue he had to work with. In short, this movie just went wrong in so many places.I get the impression that since films like Clerks, independent filmmakers seem to think that they can make movies like this with long, rambling scenes of dialogue where characters are trying to be funny. But, where dialogue in Clerks pushes the story forward, in this movie, it hopelessly weighs it down. Films are supposed to have a decent balance of action and dialogue, and as tempting as it is for filmmakers to try to have tons of snappy, funny dialogue, it just doesn't always work. Especially if they're not that good at writing dialogue. I hate to say it, but even "Extreme Heist" was more interesting than this movie- and that movie was so low-budget it was shot on video.$LABEL$ 0
+SPOILER: The young lover, Jed, is kicked out by the spinster, Kate (Andie McDowell), because she wrongly believes that Jed is having an affair with one of her two catty girlfriends. Kate thought she caught them en flagrante delicto. Kate throws Jed's shoes out the door. Jed reluctantly leaves, and then sits in the middle of the road to put his shoes on. Then he gets run over ("Crushed", one of the meaning of the title) by a truck. And dies."And then he gets run over by a truck." Can you imagine a screenwriter actually submitting a script with this plot element? Up to then, its a comedy that intends to be frothy, but lacks any real fizz. Everybody but Jed is just annoying. And then they kill Jed, and everybody's sad, until the end where the gals learn to love one another and be supportive, instead of destructive. I give it 2 ugh's.$LABEL$ 0
+My friends and I rented this movie simply to satisfy a friend who was very bent on renting it despite having no idea what it was about. We all thought it would be like "a Canadian American Pie" but when we watched it we were completely surprised, we were all silent throughout the movie and loved it! It was nothing like American Pie and had a plot that teenage girls are sure to adore (seeing as the guy gets the crap beaten out of him at the end), after that night it became my favorite movie for not only it's plot but the actors and the great writing. There wasn't a moment where i thought that it was unbelievable. Everything is very realistic and relate-able for anybody living in a small town with little prospects. I absolutely adore this movie and would recommend you to rent it next time you have a chance, it's worth it.$LABEL$ 1
+Most of Chaplin's most famous films are his full-length features. And, I assume most people have at most seen only a few clips of him from his pre-feature days when he starred in dozens and dozens of comedy shorts. This is really a shame, as some wonderful shorts are pretty much waiting to be discovered by the world in the 21st century.If someone watches this film they have an excellent chance to see some of Chaplin's better shorts because Chaplin himself chose these three shorts and strung them together with a bit of narration to make this 1959 feature film. This is great for several reasons. First, in Chaplin's earliest films from 1914-1915, his character of the Little Tramp is still in its earliest incarnations or is absent altogether. Plus, even when he is there, he was often mean-spirited and self-centered--something very alien from the Little Tramp we have grown to love. Second, because the shorts that were chosen were in great condition, if you watch this film you won't need to worry about watching scratchy film with gaps and lousy musical accompaniment that doesn't fit the action (a common problem).So, for a great look at Chaplin's shorts at their finest, give this film a chance. It's sure to provide you some excellent laughs.$LABEL$ 1
+Barney teaches kids nothing!!! Here are some 3 reasons why you shouldn't let you kids watch this show: 1. Barney teaches kids that we should think EXACTLY like each other to get along.2. Barney teaches kids that you shouldn't be sad, and if you feel sad, EAT LOTS OF ICE CREAM!!! 3. If you make people pity you they will give you what you want when you want it.Barney is just a Fat doll who told kids strangers are your friends. He should NOT be trusted. And he is high every day!!!, he constantly GIGGLES!!!! DO NOT WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!!!!!!! Your kids will thank you when there older$LABEL$ 0
+A wildly uneven film where the major problem is the uneasy mix of comedy and thriller. To me, the unusual premise is clearly a comedic one, and they should have gone for an all-out comedy. For example, Rock has some funny lines but occasionally he is too unlikable for a comedy. The scene where Betty's husband gets scalped is too nasty for what should have been a less violent comedy. An even better example is the Hollywood leftist writer preaching to us tritely through Freeman's character, early on, about the plight of the Indians; I mean - yawn! They should have given Freeman something funny to say in that segment, but that is of course much more difficult than to simply write him a boring PC speech.There is yet more New Age PC-ness in the form of the ending: the girl not only doesn't get the boy - she gets no boy at all; in fact, the message is that the girl needs no boy at all! Bit of a feminist statement there. The first half-hour is weak, but the movie gets better - ironically - once Zellweger gets to Kinnear. I say "ironically" because I'm not much of a fan of Kinnear's, though he's solid here. Zellweger is very cute, as usual; she has the sort of all-American cute looks which should appeal to almost every guy, and I have to wonder why more of such women aren't "represented" nowadays, instead of the dogs who inexplicably became stars, such as Diaz, Roberts, Aniston, Lopez, or Barrymore.Since the movie tries to be very serious at times, I have no choice but to criticize Freeman's character which is the gangster's equivalent of the movie world's hooker-with-the-heart-of-gold. There is also absolutely nothing in the relationship between Freeman and Rock to suggest even remotely that they were father and son.$LABEL$ 0
+The movie features another exceptional collaboration between director William Wyler and cinematographer Gregg Toland, the first after Toland worked on Citizen Kane. But the talent of both these men was focused on achieving a perfectly crafted movie, understood in the good old American sense as a great story. The technical aspects of the movie are covered so as the viewer gets absorbed into the action that takes place on the screen without submitting to the power of the image. Technique is seen as a vehicle of representation unlike in Citizen Kane where Welles' baroque style almost drew the attention from the story to the way the story was told. One of my favorite moves with deep focus in this film is the drama conveyed by the returning home welcoming of Homer and Al. If Homer's girl, Wilma comes towards him perfectly in focus, Al goes over to his wife also perfectly in focus. This is a brilliant move because it shows only through the use of the image the nature of these relationships as we will see them throughout the movie: Wilma loves Homer and she accepts him as he is, Al's wife loves him also but she feels unprepared to fully welcome him home. Also later in the film we find out that their marriage has not always been a bed of roses.Wyler is a director whose force lies in being true to his work without feeling the need to boast. He wanted to show his audience how hard it was for the American soldiers returning from the war to fit into a society that either didn't understand them or treated them with contempt. With a perfect cast and great dialogue Goldwin and Wyler produced a movie that will forever be the template for any other returning home movie. The three hours which coincide with the "rough cut" because the test audience back then never felt for a moment that the action was slow and indeed every scene from the film seems perfectly justified. The whole thing is constructed beautifully, every character gets a fair amount of exposure, nothing is left to chance and it is quite pitiful that Hollywood nowadays never manages to bring so much character conflict to the screen. TBYOOL explores the depth of the American way of life, of the American family and society to an extent that makes other movies look like "the children's hour".$LABEL$ 1
+This is a better adaptation of the book than the one with Paltrow (although I liked that one, too). It isn't so much that Beckinsale is better -- they are both very good -- but that the screenplay is better. Davies is a master at adapting Austen for filming, and the production values here are very good. It's not quite as glossy as the Hollywood treatment, but it's close, and I thought that the locations and the costumes actually worked better.$LABEL$ 1
+This show is totally worth watching. It has the best cast of talent I have seen in a very long time. The premise of the show is unique and fresh ( I guess the executives at ABC are not used too that, as it was not another reality show). However this show was believable with likable characters and marvelous story lines. I am probably not in the age group they expect to like the show, as I am in my forty's, but a lot of my friends also loved it (Late 30's - mid 40's) and are dying for quality shows with talented cast members. I do not think this show was given enough time to gain an audience. I believe that given more time this show would have done very well. Once again ABC is not giving a show with real potential a real chance. With so many shows given chance after chance and not nearly worth it! They need to give quality shows a real chance and the time to really click and gain an audience. I really loved the characters and looked forward to watching each episode. I have been watching the episodes on ABC videos and the show keeps getting better and better. Although I think they owe us one more episode (Number 13?). We want to watch what we can! Bombard ABC with emails and letters and see if its possible to save this show from extinction. It certainly worked for Jerico. Some things are just worth saving and this show is definitely one of them. SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION TO ABC AT: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/gh1215/petition.html$LABEL$ 1
+"Three Daring Daughters" is a sickly sweet, rose-colored look at divorce, remarriage, and single-parent living. Obviously, social issues and economic difficulty have no place in the picture perfect life of a single parent mother who feels exhausted, takes a cruise, and then dates and marries a band conductor. Even when the "its just a movie" phrase excuses the script from addressing real-life problems, 'Daughters' suffers from too many incoherent high-note songs, children whose personalities are not based on real children and band leader Hose Iturbi playing himself. Isn't it bizarre that any real person would star in a film in which their supposed real self gets married? Admittedly, this movie was released in the nineteen forties. Only a love for old style Hollywood romance and comedy could make 'Daughters' a tolerable film.$LABEL$ 0
+wow, how can I even discuss this movie without tears coming to my eyes? It was surely the highlight of my year--nay--my life. As if the raptor graphics weren't amazing enough, the award-winning editors continued to use the exact same shot throughout the entire movie, even when the background didn't actually match up with the setting of the scene. Wow, what genius. And while the movie is full of plot-holes (for instance, a few clips of a t-Rex type animal where a raptor should be and one key moment where Pappy finds a torture chamber, screams "Colin's a girl!" and runs out) I will never forget the brilliance that is Raptor Planet. Thank you Sci-Fi for another classic.$LABEL$ 1
+Though I saw this movie years ago, its impact has never left me. Stephen Rea's depiction of an invetigator is deep and moving. His anguish at not being able to stop the deaths is palpable. Everyone in the cast is amazing from Sutherland who tries to accommodate him and provide ways for the police to coordinate their efforts, to the troubled citizen x. Each day when we are bombarded with stories of mass murderers, I think of this film and the exhausting work the people do who try to find the killers.$LABEL$ 1
+Although the concept of a 32 year old woman portraying a 12 year old girl might be a stretch for today's sophisticated audiences,in the 1920's this was what the fans of Mary Pickford desired and expected from their favorite star. The opening scene displays Annie's tomboyish character as the apparent leader of a multi-ethnic street gang in comic "battle" with a rival group. The sight of a young girl being socked in the jaw and kicked may be a bit crude, but the scene is played in such an "Our Gang" fashion that it would be hard to take any of this seriously. Anyway, Annie can dish it out as well as take it. Once Annie returns to her tenement home and replaces her street duds with more girlish attire, it becomes more difficult (especially in close-ups) to imagine this beautiful young woman as a street urchin. However, for those who can muster the required suspension of disbelief, the rest of the movie has it's rewards. Vacillating between comedy (Annie's gang puts on a show) to sentiment (Annie plans a birthday surprise for her Irish policeman father) to tragedy (her father is killed on his birthday), the film gives Mary ample opportunity to display a range of emotions that would please her fans of any era. Of course the requisite "happy ending" is eventually achieved; the evildoers are apprehended with the help of Annie's friends and rivals and she is last seen in the company of her pals riding down a busy thoroughfare on a sunny day. Which is a good a way as any for a Mary Pickford movie to end. $LABEL$ 1
+This movie looked like it was going to be really funny. I was very excited to see it but was very disappointed. It was very unrealistic. The plot was also pretty weak. I was expecting it to be really funny but the jokes weren't even that good. I was also really disappointed with the ending. I would not recommend this movie to anyone.$LABEL$ 0
+Evil Breed is a very strange slasher flick that is unfortunately no good.The beginning of the film seems promising but overall it's a disaster.The dialogue is pretty bad but not near as bad as the acting.The acting is brutal and unbearable.Most of the characters deliver there lines horribly and even if that is on purpose the method doesn't work because the characters become annoying.Some of the kills are innovative but it took far too long to get to them.After about a half hour through the movie we get the first death (other than in the beginning)and then almost every other character is smoked within the next five minutes.The movie then turned into sort of a spoof with ridiculous looking characters,unrealistic karate like fights,and a scene in which a man gets his intestines pulled out of his a*sscrack.None of it is funny it's just plain ridiculous.The film then becomes ultra gory and ultra pointless.Most of the characters are clichéd even for slasher standards and are as solid as butter left on the counter for 5 days.Evil Breed isn't even laughably bad therefore it fails in it's main task.Watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre,Just Before Dawn,or See No Evil for a real slasher.$LABEL$ 0
+A woman's nightmares fuel her fear of being buried alive.The cheating husband wants her dead and decides to make good use of her phobia by sticking her in a coffin and leaving her in the basement.Of course B-horror movie queen Brinke Stevens transforms into hideous ghostly creature.The only reason to see this amateurish junk flick is Michael Berryman in a really small cameo and two sex scenes with Delia Sheppard.And the last twenty minutes of Brinke's bloody rampage are quite fun to watch.The special effects for example laughable decapitated head are truly awful.Better watch "Scalps" or "Alien Dead" again.Of course I ain't expecting classy entertainment from Fred Olen Ray,but "Haunting Fear" is too dull to be enjoyable.$LABEL$ 0
+First time I saw this movie was in the eighties, but reviewed now this thriller is still actual. Some newer movies focus on similar topics, but they do not match this french milestone.A president - obviously JF Kennedy - gets shot in an open car during a public appearance. The resulting huge investigation finds the "Lee Harvey Oswald" figure of this movie guilty, but one member of the jury insists in further inquiry. He reveals some surprising evidence ...Unlike Oliver Stone's JFK - a movie with the same plot - this one does not play with emotions, but concentrates in a exciting description of a conspiracy and how everything fits together, drawing a new picture of the assassination. Even a real psychological experiment is used for this explanation of the crime scene. Compared to JFK this movie is more reasonable, intelligent and thrilling. Parts of the plot can be found in a lot of newer movies, I had a kind of deja vu sometimes sitting in the cinema."I... comme Icare" is a "must see". Its unique and brilliant, and the music by Ennio Morricone is wonderful. This movie deserves a very good ranking, if it was a Hollywood production it would be famous for sure.$LABEL$ 1
+i couldn't help but think of behind the mask: the rise of leslie vernon (a massively more amazing film) when watching this because of the realistic feel to it as well as the great innovative idea. this could have been a GREAT film. the acting is...from some of the actors alright. from others...it's downright horrible.that aside the idea is great and the format is great. the story is pretty good as well, though suffering often from big blows to the logical mind.nevermind that though right? it IS a horror movie after all.i really want to see this remade...i really want it to be the fantastic film that it wants to be.however (and you can't really fault the minds behind the movie for this) this is obviously built upon a shoe string budget. and the fx really hurt the film overall.great movie. ...if you were to swap out for some better acting and slightly better fx.whoever wrote it should keep going though, great idea here.$LABEL$ 0
+The first episode set the bar quite high i thought. It starred William Hurt as a hit-man who is contracted to kill a toymaker. We are given very little information on his character or who is paying him to kill, indeed the episode is notable for having no dialogue at all. Returning to his modernist penthouse he is delivered a package containing toy soldiers, this gives him a smile but he dismisses it and goes about his business. But he is in for a night of hell, the soldiers are alive and are about to wage war, driving jeeps, shooting machine guns and bazookas and even flying helicopters!. The special effects are good for a TV show and it becomes quite tense as he dodges around the apartment using his wits to survive, sometimes getting the upper hand and other times not. I wont spoil the ending but suffice to say it was a clever little twist. This gave me hope for the rest of the series but i was in for a disappointment, the other episodes were all rubbish and i lost interest by the fourth one. Stephen King adaptations are always a mixed bag and these are no exception$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was bad but it was so bad that it may reach cult status in the distant future. A sort of film-noir meets Plan 9 From Outer Space. The story was, well, there wasn't actually a story. There is a place reserved for the Ed Woods and Russ Meyers of the world and this film proves it. "So bad it might be good" is the best way to describe it. I seriously doubt if this movie will be picked up by any legitimate distribution company therefore it is unlikely to see wide release.I will add that I expect to see more of actor Ron Carey. He made the best of what he had. The rest of the acting, if I can call it that, was quite forgettable. I have seen worse from big studios with vast budgets.$LABEL$ 0
+And I would have rated it higher than a 7 out of 10 if it wasn't for the seriously uneven Irish accent of Barbara Hershey in the leading role of Mother Madalyn. The accent came and went unfortunately which I found more than a little distracting. However, the performance of William L Petersen in the role of Joad was outstanding, he brought a warmth and depth to the character in spite of some periodic hokey dialogue. Captivating and genuine, I found him quite astonishing in the way he captured the character. The premise of the film is fairly simple, the building of a forgotten staircase in a church. It is based, rather loosely I believe, on a true story and I had heard of this staircase prior to seeing the movie. It was a phenomenal engineering feat for its time - a floating double helix made without nails or screws. It exists to this day although it is now in private ownership.**Minor Spoiler**Good supporting cast and Barbara does dying so well in all her movies and here she doesn't disappoint. Lots of special moments.7/10$LABEL$ 1
+Damon Runyon's world of Times Square, in New York, prior to its Disneyfication, is the basis for this musical. Joseph L. Mankiewicz, a man who knew about movies, directed this nostalgic tribute to the "crossroads of the world" that show us that underside of New York of the past. Frank Loesser's music sounds great. We watch a magnificent cast of characters that were typical of the area. People at the edges of society tended to gravitate toward that area because of the lights, the action, the possibilities in that part of town. This underbelly of the city made a living out of the street life that was so intense.Some of the songs from the original production were not included in the film. We don't know whether this makes sense, but this is not unusual for a Hollywood musical to change and alter what worked on the stage. That original cast included the wonderful Vivian Blaine and Stubby Kaye, and we wonder about the decision of not letting Robert Alda, Sam Levene, Isabel Bigley repeat their original roles. These were distinguished actors that could have made an amazing contribution.The film, visually, is amazing. The look follows closely the fashions of the times. As far as the casting of Marlon Brando, otherwise not known for his singing abilities, Frank Sinatra and Jean Simmons, seem to work in the film. Sky Masterson is, after all, a man's man, who would look otherwise sissy if he presented a different 'look'. Frank Sinatra is good as Nathan Detroit. Jean Simmons, as Sarah Brown, does a nice job portraying the woman from the Salvation Army who suddenly finds fulfillment with the same kind of man she is trying to save.Vivian Blaine is a delight. She never ceases to amaze as Miss Adelaide, a woman with a heart of gold who's Nathan Detroit's love interest. Ms. Blaine makes a fantastic impression as the show girl who is wiser than she lets out to be. Stubby Kaye makes a wonderful job out of reprising his Nicely Nicely Johnson.The wonderful production owes a lot to the talented Abe Burrows, who made the adaptation to the screen. The costumes by Irene Sharaff set the right tone.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw Grande Ecole at its world premiere on the Rotterdam Film Festival. I had no idea what I was entering and if I'd had any idea I wouldn't have entered. This is the most pretentious film I've seen for a long time. It tries to be provocative, yet deep, with its full frontal homosexual sex scenes - it doesn't succeed! It's nothing but another bad excuse of showing naked persons on the big screen. 4/10$LABEL$ 0
+What a crime...You forgot to brush your teeth...let's make a 30 minute show about it and have a couple of kids make some noise and then have the dad lecture them all because that's what he has to do.But, don't forget Uncle Joey has to make some weird noises and cooky faces, then Uncle Jesse has to show up with his black leather jacket and some jeans and look pretty for a few minutes while everybody discusses how Mother would have done things if she were around..Yep, full of zany little adventures about a whole bunch of nothing and an entire overlong story to build around it.Full House will not only bore you to tears, but it will make you age twenty times faster than you normally would.$LABEL$ 0
+OK, yes its bad, yes its complete fluff, yes it makes dobbin the mule look like an Oscar winner but look at it like i did i was 13, special effects were pretty much non exsistant in 90% of films, back in the good Ole days when films needed a story line.. OK so even the storyline is a bit dodgy.. but wow did i get into this film as a kid in the 80s. cheesy rock, bad special effects, but airplanes an aerial fights and it had queens one vision on the soundtrack.. see even the worst things have a silver lining.. all in all if you want a bad film to show a 12 year old who hates computer effects (if there is such a film) this is the ideal choice$LABEL$ 1
+The first of two Jim Thompson adaptations released in 1990 (the other being the more well-known GRIFTERS), AFTER DARK has all of Thompson's hallmarks: dangerous women, the confidence game, and characters that are either not as dim as others suspect them of being, or not as harmless.Jason Patric is superb as a former boxer disqualified from the sport for life due to an incident in the ring (director James Foley uses RAGING BULL-esquire sequences to flesh out the back story) and the too-little-seen Rachel Ward also delivers a great performance. But Bruce Dern is the film's secret weapon: his sweet-talking grifter Uncle Bud subtly commands each of his scenes.there's almost no comic relief in this film, so watch it prepared to be sucked into the void.$LABEL$ 1
+Love sublime says the title. Another blurb during the promotions of the film talked about inner vs external beauty. Well in this case the beauty - you decide inner or external - is provided by scantily clad (or is that scantily dressed/ undressed) Zeenat Aman who the director Raj Kapoor called "a volcano of talent" while the film was being made. One can't accuse him of sarcasm of course - after all he was promoting his own film.The paper thin plot is about a woman with a disfigured face who has a - er - well proportioned body , a great voice (thanks to Lata Mangeshkar) with whom the hero Shashi Kapoor falls in love. He doesn't want her face only her voice. The acting is desperate and even the 4 is because of the music with Lata Mangeshkar giving some good numbers. The rest is of course bunkum. Avoid - save your money. Inner beauty vs Outer beauty. !!! You need not be an Einstein to figure out which one the director was concentrating on$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the funniest movies I've ever saw. A 14-year old boy Jason Shepherd wrote an English paper called "Big Fat Liar". When his skateboard was taken, he had to use his sister's bike to get to the college on time and he hit a limo. When he went into the limo, he met a famous producer from Hollywood, Marty Wolf. When he left the limo, he forgot one thing: his paper! So Marty Wolf took it and he turned Jason's English paper into a movie! When Jason admitted that he left his paper in the limo and Marty took it, his parents and his English teacher didn't believe him! So Jason and his friend Kaylee had to fly to Los Angeles to go to Hollywood to make Marty admit he stole his story to Jason's parents. When Jason told Marty to call his dad that Marty stole that paper, Marty tricked him and burned his paper! Jason got so angry that Marty burned that paper so Marty called security to get Jason out of his site! Jason and Kaylee realized Marty isn't going to admit the truth. In order to take Marty down in Phase 2: The Takedown, Jason and Kaylee put permanent blue dye into the pool and when Marty jumps in, his body turns all blue and it wouldn't come off! Then they put permanent orange dye in Marty's shampoo and when he uses it, his hair turns all orange and it wouldn't come off too! Finally, they put lots of glue on Marty's earpiece to make him call Jason's father and when Marty uses it, it sticks to his ear! It was funny when Marty's hair and body turns all blue and orange and his headset is glued to his ear! After that, they tricked Marty by telling Monty, who is Marty's assistant, that Duncan moved to a house where there's a party going on. When Marty went in to see Duncan, he was at the wrong house and all the kids at the party beat him up! When Marty was in the house, Jason and Kaylee switched the controls of his car. When Marty drove his car, he knew all the controls were switched and he didn't know which button to push. He's stupid enough to fall for it. When Marty hit the rear end of the masher, the masher wrecked his car! It was so funny. So Marty starts to call Jason's dad and tricked him again! He was on the phone, but it wasn't his father, he called security! After the security got Jason and Kaylee out of Marty's site, they suggested them to go home. Monty was going to be on Jason and Kaylee's side cause she knew that Marty was a liar and a jerk so she told Rocco, who is one of the security guards that she will take care of the kids. Jason told his father the truth of what he's been up to for the past 2 days and had his parents come to L.A. When Monty came to the kids, she's going to help the kids move into Phase 4: The Payback. Jason splits the crew into 3 teams for Phase 4. One team will distract and trick Marty until Jason's parents get to the set. Marty first rode with Frank Jackson, but his car broke down so he rode with Jaleel, but he took him into the desert and leave him there. When Marty was in the desert, a helicopter came to rescue him. After that, one of the blades are jammed so Marty and the pilot got off the helicopter. After that, he was on the way to the set and when Jason saw him, Marty stopped and saw what Jason has: his monkey! So Marty went after Jason and Kaylee and when they saw Lester, he released the water and when the water came, it pushed Marty away. Marty was still after the kids and when Kaylee went the other way, Jason led Marty to the top of the apartment building. At the top, Jason was challenging Marty by making him admit the truth and Marty will never ever tell the truth. When the crew caught Marty in surprise, all the people including Jason's parents who were at the set knew what Marty did. Marty was going to kill Jason but the only way for Jason to escape is jump down from the top! After that, his parents believed him that Marty took his story. When the people who were on the set left, this is the end of Marty. At the end, Jason's story, Big Fat Liar was a movie. I cant get enough of it.$LABEL$ 1
+When this film was made, the hippie thing had gone mainstream. The ideas of the counter culture was well established, that is why such a big film could be made. Yet it has something to say, and it is said really beautifully. Apart from those who're only waiting for the wanking material, this film is given credit for its beautiful scenes(which in itself is more than enough reason to see the film) by the most. The soundtrack to this film, which actually became more popular than the film itself, is another plus. Pink Floyd's "Careful with that axe Eugene" suits really well with the explosions, the absence of music in other scenes gives the film a nice quiet mood. But. It seems as though the messages in this film have been overlooked by the most. If you didn't understand it, which seems to be the case for the most, I'll give you some hints: The man(tough guy, what ever his name is-Mark?) is a part of a "reality group". He leaves this group saying something like "I'm willing to die. But not of boredom" He later go for a joyride with a stolen plane, probably to seek some action. As he is in the air, Grateful Dead's Dark Star(from the Live/Dead album) is played(i think). This song contains the phrase "Shall we go you and I while we can", this is though not heard in the film.(Perhaps stretching it a bit too far meaning that quote is essential?) In the plane, he checks up a girl(Daria), who is driving in her car to a conference(about giving typical suburban families the opportunity to live in a super-relaxing place in the desert, where everything is so simple and nice. For the whole family!), by diving down, almost hitting the car. He lands the plane, and joins the girl on her way to Detroit. They stop at Zabriskie point, where they enjoy each other as living creatures and the nature. Later a family with a big car(of the type which you sleep in) and a speed boat is showed visiting Zabriskie Point, the father saying something like "what a waste driving all the way up here", and the kid sitting inside the car, grinning. I sensed a "this wasn't much better than on the telly"-attitude. Daria takes Mark back to the plane which now is painted in a psychedelic style, with the identity number changed to "no war" on one side and "no words" on the other. "Bucks Sucks" is also written on the plane. Mark takes the plane back to where he stole it from, saying to Daria before he leaves "I don't risk anything" or something, one of several hints about he not caring too much about his destiny. (This because he has the feeling that the environment that surrounds don't give him anything- "I wonder what happens in the real world") On the airport he is met by police officers who shoots him even though he just has returned the plane. Daria hears this on the radio, but decides to go to the conference in the fancy mansion. Here she feels alien after the adventures with her just killed friend. She enjoys fresh water running down a rock, more than the swimming pool. Inside the house the viewer is once again given a hint about anti-materialism -She looks out through a glass wall, holding her hands on the glass like she was trapped. The business men is seen arguing, the one side eager to make a big deal, the other afraid of losing money. Daria leaves the house and looks back at it, visualizing it blowing up. After the house, several other things blow up, for example a television. She smiles, happy she has inside herself destroyed what she after the meeting with Mark look upon as something negative.To summarize: Mark obviously experience the "reality group" as not very useful as they just sit and talk, taking no action. He clearly has bad feelings about things being as they are, and it seems like he feels that it's no use fighting against it. He wants to leave. He helps Daria, who is "in mind but not in action" seeing his point of view. Where his feeling of being misfitted turns out leading to his death, one can hope Daria uses the ideas in a way that will turn out more constructive. In the film you see how a town (LA) is being polluted by commercial (too bad you have to show the commercial to make the point), you see business men deciding what is the future, et cetera, and you see people being unhappy with these and other situations which is parts of the modern world.I have only seen the film once, so I have not caught all points, but I certainly got a feeling of what this film has to say, and I find it strange that this film can be called meaningless. If you say the points are being too obvious, I can see why, this film probably intended to appeal to the post-hippie radicals "digging" the thoughts of anti-establishment. Even though, it has a lot to say, and its message is still needed today, things pretty much evolving in the same direction as it did before the sixties. Zabriskie Point is a really great film, telling a story about quite normal young people (not far out hippies tripping around tip toe on acid, digging everything) seeking what they percept as real, dissatisfied with the conventional. And it is done in a truly beautiful way.$LABEL$ 1
+Cinderella In my opinion greatest love story ever told i loved it as a kid and i love it now a wonderful Disney masterpiece this is 1 of my favorite movies i love Disney. i could rave on and on about Cinderella and Disney all day but i wont i ll give you a brief outline of the story. When a young girl's father dies she has to live with her evil step mother and her equally ugly and nasty step sisters Drusilla and Anastasia. Made to do remedial house chores all day poor Cinderella has only the little mice who scurry around the house and her dog Bruno as friends. When one day a letter is sent to her house telling all available women to attend a royal ball. Cinderellas evil step mother and step sisters try to prevent her attendance Cinderella finally gets her dream and wish and is able to attend her captive beauty , Genorisity and beautiful nature help her win her prince.$LABEL$ 1
+Or at least you feel pretty high after this movie. It's the kind of film that the word "rollicking" really can be applied to, though it's rollicking in that entirely casual, intelligent, and open-minded way that belongs to the French.No, Catherine Deneuve does not spend the entire movie high (sorry to disappoint any puritans with an agenda).. but the one scene to which I refer involves all the members of a wedding party - AND it's a musical number! Anyway, everything fits pretty seamlessly together, and the unusual, bright, colorful family ( Deneuve's mother is a lesbian, Deneuve her bon vivant daughter) alternately entertain and annoy us as real families do..but since it's a movie they mostly entertain.Don't want to say too much about the ending, but Deneuve ends up marrying a man about twenty years younger. This is entirely believable as we see the relationship develop over time, and as the two are naturally drawn closer and closer together. The ending is a happy one; and like the rest of the movie, satisfyingly quirky as well as pitch-perfect.$LABEL$ 1
+I pity people calling kamal hassan 'ulaganaayakan' maybe for them ulagam is tollywood ! comeon guys..this movie is a thriller without thrill..come out of your ulagam and just watch some high class thrillers like The Usual Suspects or even The Silence of the Lambs.technically good but style over substance kamal doesn't look like a police officer, there is no thrill whatsoever dragging and boring till end you might be saving 3 valuable hrs of your life if u skip watching this movie.kamal at his best is the best in tollywood$LABEL$ 0
+The year 1995, when so many people talked about the great premiere of BRAVEHEART by Mel Gibson, also saw another very fine, yet underrated movie on Scottish history, ROB ROY. Although it is a very different film, especially due to the historical period the story is set in, ROB ROY has much in common not only with marvelous BRAVEHEART but also with the very spirit of epic movies.It is a film that discusses similar themes, like fight for dignity, courage, honor, revenge, family being a key to happiness. It also leads us to the very bliss of Scottish highlands where the human soul finds its rest being surrounded by all grandeur of nature. Robert Roy MacGregor (Liam Neeson), the main character is a true hero (so universal in epics), sort of "Scottish Robin Hood" who struggles to lead his people out of oppression imposed by cold hearted lords. Although he worsens his situation through the acts, has to suffer a lot, two things stay in his mind undeniably: HONOR that he is given by himself and LOVE to his woman, Mary MacGregor (Jessica Lange). That leads him to unexpected events...Except for the interesting content and quite vivid action, the movie is filled with truly stunning visuals. This factor has to do both with the sets and locations of the film as well as the wardrobe. Many memorable moments stay in the mind of any viewer who can allow themselves an insight into artistic images. For me, the most splendid scene was in the Highlands when Rob Roy tells his boys what honor really means. Then, he sends them away and beautifully makes love to his woman. The scene he escapes Marguis of Montrose (John Hurt) to the waterfall is also worth a look as a stunning visual. Of course, there is some graphic violence, like in the duel for instance, but I don't think that this violence would be as harmful as in many other modern films. Its justification is like any other epic's: bloodshed and cruelty of those times were really serious and there would be no point in hiding it. The most disturbing scene, for me, was the rape done on Rob Roy's wife by the villain of the story: Archibald Cunningham (Tim Roth). It's truly disgusting and kids should definitely stay away. However, all the rest is O.K. Yet, there is one aspect that made me really love this movie, the performances.All the cast do perfect jobs, from the leading Lian Neeson who fits very well to the role of tall, brave, strong Scottish man to the supporting cast of Brian Cox who portrays wicked Killearn, a silent witness of terrible acts who feels comfortable with the evil of war. Jessica Lange is very fine as Mary MacGregor and has some of the most beautiful moments in the film. There is chemistry between Ms Lange and Mr Neeson in many of their scenes. John Hurt, one of the best British actors, does a terrific job as Marguis of Montrose, a corrupted man for whom money is the aim in itself achieved by any means. I like that calmness of his portrayal. But the real villain is played by Tim Roth who truly depicts wretched side of his character, Archibald - a man who mocks love, who loves war and who finds true lust in rape and slaughter. But, like in any good epic, this exceptional evil must find its end...And one more aspect: the musical score: such memorable and sentimental tunes that are bound to sound in the ears for long. The final moment touched me to tears not only because of the beauty it conveys but because I deeply combined these blissful tunes with the grandeur of locations. Scotland remains in the heart of its visitor and this movie reminded me of that permanent effect. It was, as if, my second journey to Scotland.ROB ROY is a very nice movie, very well directed, photographed and acted. It perhaps does not equal BRAVEHEART with its spectacular sets and crowds of extras in battle scenes, but it is a fairly long film with much attention placed on one very significant feature a cinema should have: stunning entertainment combined with heartfelt education. I really enjoyed that film, do not hesitate to call it metaphorically "highlands of entertainment" and rate it 9/10$LABEL$ 1
+For any fan of Nickelodeon who used to watch the network in the 80s and 90s, there was always something good on. You had entertaining acts like You Can't Do That on Television. You had weird but good shows like Pete & Pete. You even had cartoons that taught morals like Doug. But just like Disney, Nickelodeon has fallen down the tubes, limiting their demographic to shallow preteens and giving us poor excuses to come up with new, innovative shows. As I tried watching Zoey 101, I just shook my head in disgust.The setting couldn't of been more fake than this one. Each character attends a boarding school called Pacific Coast Academy, boasting everything that a spoiled child wants. A sushi bar, laptops everywhere, flat screen TVs in every room, cool dorms to hang out, etc. The kids in this show are rarely seen in class and there doesn't seem to be any real teachers. It looks more like a place that you would spend on a nice summer vacation rather than to work and study while preparing for college.The characters were also a factor that turned me off. Every episode consists of boy problems, situations that they caused themselves, and troubles that should be solved. Each character is a stereotype. Zoey (Jamie Lynn) seems perfect in anything she does, and each of her friends ask her for help when they feel they are in grave danger. Only leading her to have no other side. I've been through school and I can tell you, nobody is like that. Chase is dumb. Logan plays the arrogant tough guy. Quinn plays a nerd who is highly unrealistic in what she does. Michael is an idiot. Lola is a clone of Nicole. Dana is just well, a tough person. Why not use some originality? Something that is unique for these characters, and different from other personalities? Is being stereotypical the best the creators of this show can come up with? Instead, these actors are dull personalities with the sense in that there is a lack of creativity involving their roles. There is nothing here to be amazed or surprised at.Not only that, but the show is clearly for the intent of aiming for kids of adolescence, facing a stage in that they must evolve from being a child to being an adult. Through that period they must learn to study on their own, make their own decisions, and do what's right for them. Zoey 101 contains nothing of those values. In this case, we are supposed to believe that looking good and having a stereotypical personality is all you need to succeed. I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. People can't expect things to be handed to them like the actors in this show are and just let those things sit there. If I expect things in Zoey 101 to happen in real life, then I would be living in a fantasy world locked away in a dream house. Nothing in this show relates to those who face health and money issues. Neither does it relate to kids wanting to learn something meaningful.So in conclusion, Zoey 101 is a show made by Nickelodeon that only falls flat on it's face. It displays a horrible message for kids and I highly think the show itself is simply inappropriate for them. Sure, it doesn't have morbid violence, but it teaches everything to make a kid act and look stupid. A horrible show, and should be forgotten with the rest of the garbage Nickelodeon has been making in recent years.1 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+I've got to say it. Gary Busey saved this film. If it were not for his fine acting talents this film would have been sub par. I recommend the film but just barely.The biggest difficulty with the film is its broad disregard for historical, geographical and physical accuracy. For example, why is Lubbock green and hilly? How come Buddy's producer Petty ignored? Where are the daily trips to the Clovis, New Mexico studio? Why is Nashville treated as a racist hate camp out to destroy the Holly sound? Why was Buddy's two week courtship to Maria treated as a complex, taboo, race mixing stereotype? Why are Buddy's tile boxes as light as feathers? Finally, why are the Crickets portrayed as trouble making roadblocks to Holly's talent?Taken on their face these inaccuracies should spell doom for any film proclaiming itself, "The Buddy Holly Story." However, Busey does deliver a stirring portrayal as the man whose death eventually led to the day the music died.$LABEL$ 1
+I liked this a lot. In fact, if I see it again(and I plan to) I just may love it. I'll echo other reviewers in saying that this movie really does grow on you as you watch. It starts kind of slowly but the way in enfolds is very natural and has a mood to it. You just get into it.I really liked the summery atmosphere to the movie and thought the movie was very touching as a whole. The characters have a strong element of realism and the movie very slowly and gently weaves a spell as you get involved in the various interactions between them all and want to know how it will ultimately turn out and what paths the characters will choose to take. I am very surprised that there are less then a dozen comments on this-there are obscure TV movies that have more comments then Rich In Love.One thing that I will say is I missed the ending which is driving me crazy and I HAVE to watch it again to see that. This is a movie that may not be for everybody but that I feel is strongly underrated(even some of my most film buff purist friends who have seen almost every movie there is haven't seen this) and it doesn't even seem to have much of a message board but I liked it a lot and to all those who like family dramas that are warm on scenery, atmosphere and an unhurried languid pace should probably take a look at this. Especially note worthy is that it takes place in South Carolina so for those (like me) who love the south, and movies that take place there, this is a gem. I'll add my vote to the woefully few comments and recommend this little known flick.$LABEL$ 1
+I caught this at a test screening. All I can say is: What...the...hell? This movie plays out about as smoothly as Mickey Mouse reading the script for "Scarface." It's bizarre beyond making the slightest bit of sense; and even if you do leave your brain in the car, the film is still so bizarre that it isn't even funny.The plot involves crocodile hunter Steve Irwin trying to "save" a crocodile which contains a CIA probe. The CIA comes after Irwin to get their probe back, Irwin mistakes them for poachers, and sets out to "stop" them.That's about all the story there is; the rest is over-the-top lampooning of Australian culture ("Didja see dat?" and "Crikey!") and strangely choreographed action sequences. At one point, Irwin mounts a speeding RV and knife fights with a CIA agent on top of it. Yes, that's right: Steve Irwin knife fights a guy on top of an RV. Let that be your guide for this ridiculously bad film.$LABEL$ 0
+I remember this movie in particular when I was a teenager, my best friend was telling me all about this movie and how it freaked her out as a kid. Of course being the blood thirsty gal that I am, I had to go out and find this movie. Now I don't know how to put this without loosing credibility, so I'm just going to say it, I actually had fun watching this movie! I know that it's stupid, not the best story and beyond bloody and gruesome, but that's what I was looking for and The Dentist delivers in the scares, blood, sex, and crazy psychopaths. Sometimes I just need a fun movie like this to just let loose and get grossed out by.Dr. Alan Feinstone is obsessed with order and cleanliness. On the day of his wedding anniversary, he spies his wife Brooke having sex with their filthy pool man, Matt. At his dental practice, Feinstone's first patient of the day is young Jody Saunders, there for his very first dental appointment. Feinstone begins to clean Jody's teeth. Everything goes smoothly at first, until he imagines that Jody's teeth are brown and rotten. His dental pick slips, stabbing Jody in the gums. Jody's mother picks up her crying, bleeding child and leaves angrily. Feinstone sees his second patient, beauty queen April Reign. Alone with April, Feinstone sedates her with nitrous oxide so that he can fill a cavity in one of her molars. As she drifts off into unconsciousness, Feinstone imagines that she has transformed into his wife. He begins kissing and fondling her on the dental chair, then begins to choke her. April starts to cough and half-wakes up from the gas. Feinstone snaps out of his trance and quickly re-buttons April's blouse. Feinstone decides to end the day early and sends his staff and patients home. Later that night, Brooke meets Feinstone at his practice. He reveals his new Italian opera-themed patient room. He encourages Brooke to try out the room's dental chair. When she does, Feinstone binds her to the chair and sedates her with nitrous oxide. With operatic music blaring in the background, he begins to pull out Brooke's teeth. Feinstone has gone off the deep end and is definitely not going to let anybody stand in his way of cleanliness.Honestly, as silly as this movie sounds, I did have a lot of fun watching The Dentist. The best scene without a doubt is when he teaches that nasty IRS agent a lesson in hygiene that I'm sure he'll never forget. Man, I don't think I've brushed my teeth so much after I watched The Dentist. Yeah, I am going to warn you, this movie is in no way for the faint of heart, it's very bloody. There's stabbing, gun shots and just these brutal dental torture scenes that will make your stomach turn. Yet somehow I just enjoyed this movie, if I ever want just a good gore movie that was made for true horror fans, I slip it in my DVD player, and that's the "tooth" LOL! I am so funny! Um, yeah, I try, give me a little credit.7/10$LABEL$ 1
+I would suggest that Only the Valiant is one of the most original and intriguing and in some ways weird movies that Peck ever did; daring , surprising and one of his few best westerns (--no, no, of course, not a western really, but a military chronicle, which sometimes is better--). It's quite low—budget, but, oh, very original and striking. It's one of those treats a true buff sometimes gets; movies that no one yet told you they exist. You say—'that sounds intriguing, or interesting'—and it surpasses your expectations.All in all, the script shows a level of maturity unusual for the westerns—and it somehow reminded me, obliquely, of ULZANA; it's also straight no—nonsense suspense.Peck looked dashing as a young and tough, somewhat gloomy and stoic officer; and there are many unexpected touches—like the blonde babe kissing and flirting with the one she's decided not to marry, perhaps a feeling of hers for justice and retribution ….Even genre—wise, ONLY … is so much more than a military tale—it is as well an action drama, a suspense movie, a commando/ action thriller—the weirdest combo imaginable; a bunch of soldiers in a special mission to counteract and stop a possible Native's attack …--the insane decision not to take all the available troops to the place where those Natives could be stopped—but only a handful of people …--and this plot never takes a crap route—as most would and did …. The interest for humans, for people and their reasons and actions never falters.A due word about Peck himself; he performs with brio, and though I usually find his famous movies to be rather insipid and boring, in such small outings I find intact all Peck's somber and even chilling glamor. He was an unusual star.I gladly recommend this extraordinary movie.$LABEL$ 1
+This is so blatantly a made-for-TV ripoff of Black Widow (1987) - even the insect titles are so similar.If you want a better "marrying for money" movie, check out Black Widow, starring Debra Winger & Theresa Russell.These movie is cheesiness at its best..! I just had to watch it entirely to see how it ended.$LABEL$ 0
+This would have to be by far the greatest series I have ever seen. I vividly watched every sunday night and purchased the box set as soon as it was available. this is a timeless play written by a fantastic Australian that people of all ages could relate to, whether they are Australian or not, however for those of us that are Australian it truly brings across the typical Australian icon. A must see 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+"North & South" the television mini-series is to the 80's what "Rich Man, Poor Man" (the first-ever TV mini-series) was to the 70's.It's a fabulous adaptation of the first classic novel in the trilogy from author John Jakes. The story itself covers the two decades leading up to the years of the election of President Abraham Lincoln and the imminent proclamation of the Civil War - North versus South. The intertwining stories evolve around the families of the Hazards (the 'North' in the title) and the Mains and their two central figures of George and Orry who form a friendship whilst embarking on their West Point training in 1842."North & South" is a wonderful historic timeline and as I have grown older (and wiser!) it very much interests me to learn about the contrasting attitudes to such controversial aspects as 'Slavery' and 'Abolitionists', and how these attitudes originated.The series also portrays some great characterisation development as we get to know about the friends and enemies in George and Orry's lives, and also the women that stole their hearts as young men. This aspect of the story also uncovers a romantic tale that is set to the turbulent backdrop of the American Civil War."North & South", along with "Rich Man, Poor Man" is overshadowed by 1977's "Roots" as the greatest mini-series of all-time. However, it does come a close second/third and also shares the same kind of timeline and themes as "Roots". But, don't let this one get away, even if it's just to see the great scenery, costumes, and brilliant all-star cast including Gene Kelly, Johnny Cash, Elizabeth Taylor, James Stewart, Olivia De Havilland, Lesley-Anne Down et al. The series is beautifully crafted and is firmly tied to actual historic events and it's a pity the Emmys and Golden Globes didn't honour a lot more of the actors and actresses for their portrayals. Patrick Swayze and James Read, the two virtual unknown lead actors at the time, turn in compelling performances as Orry Main and George Hazard respectively. However, it's Kirstie Alley's riveting performance as George's 'Abolitionist' sister Virgilia that steals the show many times. Plus, Terri Garber, David Carradine and Philip Casnoff as Elkanah Bent are the delicious villains of the piece you just love to hate."North & South" Books 1 & 2 are now available on two DVD sets.$LABEL$ 1
+As you may know, the subject here was to ask eleven directors from all over the world to make each a short movie of 11 minutes, 9 seconds and one frame. We have here : - Samira Makhmalbaf (Iran) : what afghan refugee kids can understand to the towers collapsing ? Well, nothing. A great lesson. - Claude Lelouch (France) : a weak plot with a great cinematography... Just imagine a deaf woman living by the WTC who sees without understanding it that her dog barks... Well just see it. - Youssef Chahine (Egypt) : the greatest oriental movie maker has compassion... For everyone : for an us soldier who died ten years ago, for the people in the Wtc but also for a palestinian suicide-terrorist. Maybe the less tender movie towards the us. - Danis Tanovic (bosnia hrzgovia) : good images, makes us travel, for sure... Not a very good plot. Idrissa Oudraogo (Burkina Faso) : from one of the poorest country in the world, a tender and funny story about five boys who want to capture Osama Bin Laden... And they could have done it but nobody believes them when they tell they know where he is. Ken Loach (uk) : September 11, 1973, The Chile entered in a twenty-years long bloody dictature. Thousands of death, tortures : all that was offered to Chile by Henry Kissinger and the CIA, and knowing this changes very much your point of view ! I guess that is because of that particular short that no american movie distribution company accepted to release the movie in us theaters ! Loach forgot to point that 1973 is also the year when the WTC was built ! - Alejandro Gonzalez inarritu (Mexico) : impressing images that we all know too well, and a lot of black screens. I didn't get this one very much, it is more an artist video (to show in an exhibition) than a movie. - Amos Gitaï (Israël) : an absurd ballet of policemen, journalists, etc., around a burning car in Jerusalem. Very well done. - Mira Nair (India) : about the anti-islamic feeling that followed september the 11th. Very good actualy. - Sean Penn (us) : a funny little story that reminds us a fact usualy forgotten, the WTC did have a huge shadow, and some places now have a daylight they never had. - Shohei Imamura (Japan) : a different one. Here there is not even one word about the WTC, and the action takes place at the end of WWII. It has only one message : no war is holy. This short movie gives very deep feelings, but the director aparently would have done better with more than 11 minutes. --- so --- A great movie, a great attempt to take the world's temperature. I love it.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw the description of the movie on TCM and only let it run because I like both Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith, so I was delightfully surprised to find that I really liked the movie and found it quite exceptional. Of course, it is seriously dated, but as a period piece it is well worth watching just for the subtle humour in insight into life and lifestyle almost forty years ago. Now the only problem is trying to find it on DVD so I can watch it more often. I also was quite taken with the performances of Smith and Ustinov as the leads, and of Karl Malden, Bob Newhart, and the cameo appearances by Robert Morley and Cesar Romero.$LABEL$ 1
+Should I have expected anything other than putrid from Carrot Top? This was on of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is by far the worst comedy I have ever seen. "Chairman of the Board" did not add humor to my attitude, rather it enraged me. That's right, Carrot Top is such a bad comedian that I became enraged that this man is making movies.$LABEL$ 0
+I had a recent spectator experience with The Perfect Witness (2007) because the NetFlix computer recommendation engine suggested I watch this film. Apparently, at some point, I told it how much I liked Michael Haneke's, Benny's Video. I don't know about you, but this parallel being drawn provoked in me a maelstrom of emotion and excitement over Thomas C. Dunn's film and made the allocation of my time toward it virtually impossible to refuse. Just this kind of recommendation from the NetFlix computer intelligence, for me, had the aesthetic/moral movie bar set to level so high that, upon reflection, it represented something pretty much unaccomplished in every film produced in the year 2007.Having prefaced my response to the film that way, I'm going to proceed in knocking this picture down as poorly executed and banal; and I really hate to do that because I think our boy, Wes Bentley, happens to be not only one of the most interesting young faces in contemporary cinema, but also one its most overlooked and underrated screenacting talents in the US. I'm more than moderately concerned that the poor guy's going to miss the fame ship if he keeps fiddling around with first time movie directors like this.The Perfect Witness is about Micky (Wes Bentley), who, about thirty, still lives with Mom ("You're not drinkin' again area ya's?"), but he's a "filmmaker" or at the very least some kind of street-level voyeur with a pension for shooting would-be Johns in the seedy back alleys of Philadelphia with his DVX 100B. Out there, doing his private investigator-like drills, Micky "inadvertently" video-tapes a brutal murder on a hapless early-twenty-ish coed with his hand held camcorder. Baring the notion in mind that snuff and movies as cultural currency can be his equated with his ticket out of the white urban ghetto (and not to the debts of his unwitting friends and relatives who put up the money for his atrocious films), Micky approaches the assailant, James LeMac (Mark Borkowski: also takes a writing credit) or "Mac the Knife" –whichever- and blackmails the killer into making a documentary about his murder impulses, holding this found footage over the attacker with threats of the police.The problem with this movie is not that no interesting ideas exist because they do. While both the writing and direction are amateurish, that alone doesn't make a film bad. It's that these guys commit a rather poor assumption that what they are presenting is shocking in the context of a culture in which just about any person in the free world with access to a private computer can log-on to the web and catch the veracity of the action of a beheading on their little Mac or PC. No film relies on shock value alone any more (unless of course, ironically, it's a film about torture on animals) and therefore cinematic images of violence (real or fake) have less and less cultural capital with each year that passes. Also, we've got this astounding actor-talent in the lead all styled-up, real hip guy: his two inch beard and skull cap with the little bill on it, backwards, just like the dork from high school who craved after the potential services of my primary love interest –same guy who just now calls himself a "poet."Spare me. "I'm an artist," "I'm a filmmaker." Okay. Please do, carry on with that shtick, Cronnie. Seems to have bought you a lot of expensive 35mm stock. And go ahead, you can wear all the accrutements of a "creative" but don't expect us top respond to you, to follow your below average character through your two hour movie while you take down Wes Bentley's career. Why don't we just let history speak to the merits of what you do, filmmaker guy. My guess is history will eventually have say something about that –like, probably that's in not is good as you think it is. And yeah, odds are you'll be laying the blame on your dear ole ma, end up like our man Micky here in The Perfect Witness; hooked on smack and covered in your buddy's blood with a video camera in your hand. Great.$LABEL$ 0
+I find Herzog's documentary work to be very uneven. Fata Morgana, a companion piece of sorts to Lessons of Darkness, lacks not only the harrowing spectacle but mostly the discerning eye of an author. It is by comparison amateur looking, aimless pans left and right across the desert the kind of which you would expect from any German tourist equipped with a handycam, the camera left running from the window of a car picking up all kinds of meaningless images, wire fences, derelict buildings and patches of dirt going through the lens in haphazard order, intercut with shots of sand dunes. At one point Herzog encounters a group of starved cattle rotting away in the sand, yet the image is presented much like you and me would, perhaps worse, the camera peering hand-held from one cattle to the next. For a documentary that attempts to be a visual feast, a hypnotic, surreal excursion in uncharted landscapes, it lacks the visual orchestration and conviction of a disciplined author. It's all over the place, half-hearted and tedious, Mayan creation myths recited in voice-over, then some other text Herzog fancied for literature. It's not until near the end that Fata Morgana jumps alive through a series of bizarre encounters. First with a man and a woman playing music in a room, the man singing in a distorted voice through a mic, both of them apathetic in their task. A man holding up a turtle. A group of old people trying to get out of some holes in the ground. Other than that, this one seems to have very little of substance to offer or visual splendor to offer.$LABEL$ 0
+It´s all my fault. They all told me I should avoid seeing this movie because I´m a huge fan of the old TV-series. They were right. While production values are good and the actors themselves (including "don´t look now") Julie Christie aren´t that bad, the whole film displays a cheekiness and self-conciousness that clearly is without any justification. A comparison between the Karloff "Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns 2000" comes to my mind. In fact Belphegore 2000 owes much more to the new Mummy films than to the old series. But then, scripting is terrible, speed there is none and sometimes the film is full of unintentional jokes (The first scene in the tomb looks plain stupid), with cats clearly being thrown when they´re supposed to jump (landing with their backfeet first). Belphegore moves around like a statue on wheels neither impressive nor scary and the psychological drama that unfolded in the old tv series when the heroine had to learn that she´s a villain is completely neglected. This movie is so WASTED (wasted money, wasted actors, wasted blueprint) that it hurts. It´s a below-par Mummy-rip off that´s only good for some laughs but has nothing at all to do with the Greco classic (She has a small role in this movie too - on the graveyard).$LABEL$ 0
+First, I must point out that the role Wendell Corey played was exceptional. Usually, Corey was relegated to supporting roles but here he is what helps carry this very limp film. Without him and the character he played, the film would have been a lot worse--hardly meriting a 2 or 3.So why did I hate the rest of the film so much? Well, one of my pet peeves is when characters act "too stupid to live". You can't base major plot points on the assumption that your major characters are completely stupid (unless having a brain injury is part of the plot, of course). But this is exactly what happens in this film. Wendell Corey is a crazed man who has murdered three innocent people and they know his next target is Joseph Cotten's wife. So what do they do? Yep, they provide really inadequate police protection and a plan that makes no sense at all (no marksman and guys with shotguns that are so far away they probably WON'T stop this madman). And if this isn't bad enough, the marked woman inexplicably runs away from her hiding place and walks right into the WORST possible place she could be! Is anyone THAT stupid?!?! Arrrggghhhh---I hate when movies have such dumb characters. In fact, I found myself rooting for Corey since I felt the idiots deserved to die for their behaviors! In addition to these clichéd characters, there was also a bit player who fainted. Sure, seeing your husband shot MIGHT cause someone to faint, however in real life this is a rare occurrence--people rarely faint unless there is a medical reason. So, combining this with the above character problems is a real nightmare for people who are looking for realism--something Film Noir movies MUST have.All these serious problems are even more infuriating since Wendell Corey's character is amazingly well-written and conceived. It was his chance to shine as an actor--too bad the rest of the movie was so limp that Corey and the basic plot idea are sunk. This is one film that could really use a remake--but this time without brainless characters.$LABEL$ 0
+'The Luzhin Defence' is a good film with fine central performances, but too much of the novel and not enough of the filmmaker's craft shines through. It felt through most of the film that the characters just helped to push the narrative along. Marlene Gorris could perhaps have examined the psyche of Luzhin, rather than depicting him as a tortured innocent victim torn apart by the cruel motives of others.Adapting literature for the screen is clearly a difficult task, especially a novel written in the early 20th century. This film does not go deeply enough into the relationship between Luzhin and Natalia. Natalia's rift with her mother comes across a churlish disagreement by the mother rather than a dramatic flashpoint in the film. I felt that I was put through Luzhin's torment and eventual tragic end, without being given the pleasure of having his unusual and complex personality unravelled. However, this was a moving and enjoyable film but certainly not a great one.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was excellent. A sad truth to how culture tends to clash with the sexes. This is just one big warm fuzzy type of movie. You have the master who is steeped in tradition and kind hearted in his own way, Doggie despite being a girl thing to win his affections and you top it off with one cute monkey with a thousand facial expressions. This equals on big happy movie in the end. This movie does a good job at showing how steeped in tradition one can be, so steeped that they are willing to die without sharing their secrets. You see sides to a culture never seen before which helps enhance the drama that unfolds near the end of the picture. The cinema-photography is excellent, in particular the opening parade sequence with all the sparkers. Bound to be in Oscar contention for best foreign film.$LABEL$ 1
+Like other movies from the worst director ever, Ed Wood, this movie is very bad but because of that it is also very funny. May be not for everyone, but I laughed a lot. It is a strange thing when you enjoy a bad movie. How do you rate it? As a movie very low, as entertainment at least a little higher.The movie tries to explain what a transvestite is and it does this through a scientist (Bela Lugosi) and an inspector (Lyle Talbot) who talks to a doctor (Timothy Farrell) who knows about these things. The doctor tells the detective two stories and that is what we, and apparently the scientist, see. The doctor tels these stories because a dead transvestite is found, suicide, and because of a headline in the news paper about a sex-change. The first and longest story is about Glen (Ed Wood himself) who is in love and about to marry Barbara (Dolores Fuller) but he has never told her he like to dress as a woman, when he is named Glenda. The movie tells the same thing over and over again, especially the fact that a transvestite is not necessarily a homosexual. The movie almost says that being a transvestite is not a bad thing, but being homosexual is, since it keeps telling us the fact that a transvestite is not a homosexual. The second story is about a transvestite who really wants a sex-change and not just wants to dress up as a woman, but it is much shorter and less interesting.A couple of things make this movie very bad, and therefore laughable. How the story is presented is the first thing, the way the same things are told over and over again and the conclusion of it all are others. This is not where it ends. The acting is very bad, especially Dolores Fuller seems to be reading her lines directly from a little screen somewhere. Every thing she says is funny. The whole dialogue actually gave me quite some laughs.There is also a sequence where someone walks into a room. The door stays half open and we see something hanging on the wall, not completely straight. Then the door, in what seems to be the same shot although we know it is not, is a little less open and suddenly the thing on the wall hangs straight. Ed Wood didn't mind to leave this kind of continuity errors in his movie. May be a good thing, because basically it is just another laugh for the modern audience. I think you understand that it is a bad movie and I think there is a good chance you will laugh at the ridiculous mistakes as well.$LABEL$ 0
+Ex-reporter Jacob Asch (Eric Roberts) is hired by an acquaintance (Raymond J. Barry) to find his ex-wife and son. Asch heads to Palm Springs and quickly locates the ex Laine (Beverly D'Angelo) with someone he believes to be the son (a young Johnny Depp). But things turn out to be a bit more complicated as Asch discovers former white trash Laine has definitely married up in the form of millionaire Simon Fleischer (Dan Hedaya) and her first son is nowhere to be seen.Director/writer Matthew Chapman is channeling BODY HEAT here and this mid-80s neo-noir is watchable enough thanks to an all-star cast and nice locations. D'Angelo was still looking good around this time, so she makes for a good femme fatale and isn't afraid to show some skin. However, the mystery isn't very compelling in the end. Co-starring Dennis Lipscomb, Emily Longstreth and Henry Gibson. Chapman made several thrillers in the 80s, but his "biggest" career achievement was co-authoring the screenplay for the infamous COLOR OF NIGHT.$LABEL$ 1
+This is the movie that epitomizes the D&D fear of the 80s (and even today). The fear being that people who play D&D (or any other role-playing game for that matter) will be "sucked in" and lose their ability to distinguish reality from fantasy (and go on killing sprees, child sacrifices, suicide, etc). Great movie for anyone who likes to blame the problems of society on inanimate objects, but anyone who has played a role-playing game, a video game, or even acted in a play will see this as an insult to their intelligence. It is to D&D what Wargames was to computers. Plus as a movie, it just kinda sucks.$LABEL$ 0
+Much worse than the original. It was actually *painful* to sit through, and it barely held my six year old's interest.Introduction of some new Pokemon is marginally interesting, but storyline is extra-thin, dialogue is still bad, and music is mediocre. Watch the television show instead - it's much better.$LABEL$ 0
+"Still Crazy" is without a doubt the greatest rock comedy of all-time. It has been erroneously compared to "This Is Spinal Tap", which it has no relation to. "Spinal Tap" is a satire (and, quite frankly, not a very good one, in spite of it's "outing" of many rock clichés). Unlike "Tap", "Still Crazy" is populated by great actors, great songs and great human situations. You CARE about the people in "Still Crazy". That's all that matters. Oh, yeah, the music's pretty damn good, too, written by Mick Jones of Foreigner and Chris Difford of Squeeze. American audiences were already familiar with Stephen Rea (The Crying Game), but would only later become familiar with Bill Nighy (Underworld, Love Actually, Pirates Of The Caribbean II) and Timothy Spall (the Harry Potter movies).$LABEL$ 1
+A movie like this makes me appreciate the work that professional actors do. I think movie-goers, in general, are a little too hard on professional actors and are ready to bash them for the most minuscule reasons. Just watch a couple minutes of "Cheerlader Massacre," and trust me, you'll change your views. A razzie would be almost a compliment for these no-talent actors. But then again, it's a Jim Wynorski film. Wynorski is a popular director of these ultra low-budget B-movies (having worked with Roger Corman on many an occasion). The problem with this movie is it actually tries to develop a plot. And when you have actors delivering lines like they're reading letters off an eye chart, how am I supposed to care? In Wynorski's "Bare Wench 2," he didn't try to develop a plot. He simply tried to make a softcore porn/goofy takeoff on the "Blair Witch Project." It was fun and it was titillating. "Cheerleader Masscare" is no fun. There are a couple obligatory female nude scenes, but they are few and far between. So it's not even worth enjoying on an erotic level. I must say, the worst scene is the one where Nikki Fritz walks across a bridge that's about to collapse. First of all, her character didn't have to walk across that bridge. Second of all, as the bridge starts creaking, rather than try her best to run across, she just stands there and acts helpless. And top it off, we don't actually see the bridge collapse because the filmmakers made this for a budget of 2 dollars!!! Unlike a lot of B-horror films, this one's actually boring. And that's what makes it the worst of all bad movies. One of the few bright spots was Lunk Johnson, who's probably the most natural actor in the film (though certainly no more than halfway decent). He was funny in "Bare Wench 2," and had some funny scenes in this movie too.$LABEL$ 0
+I couldn't believe that the Adult Swim guys came up with this character. I laughed for days just thinking about this show. Having finally seen the pilot I guess I will stick around for a few more episodes. Assy is pretty funny and the whole crew of police show characters are around, but Assy is hard to understand and that was a little frustrating. Most of the humor revolves around the fact that the title character is literally a walking ass with nothing else but legs that sport socks with garters and feet with traditional wing tips. Assy drinks too much and "plays by his own rules" as you might have guessed. The only other funny moments are Assy shooting many,many people and spending time at home - in the bathroom. It is not Squidbillies funny, but it is worth a look.$LABEL$ 1
+Okay, I agree with all the Barney haters on this site. I think Barney and his friends are all ugly looking and obnoxious and the show is very lop sided and unrealistic.But the thing that ticked me off the most is how Barney presented Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals on his show when talking about same sex parents and relatives. That wouldn't be so much of a problem if the creators of this show didn't use so many derogatory stereotypes of homosexuals. I mean, not all gay men wear mascara and love the colors purple and pink, and not all lesbians are ugly and manly looking with a bosom that sags to their abdomen. As a bisexual female, I just think this is terrible for a children's show. If this were South Park, I wouldn't mind it, because South Park is for people who can distinguish fantasy from reality. A lot of people who watch Barney are little kids or handicapped people who can't usually distinguish fantasy from reality.And now that I think about it, Barney sort of comes off as an ugly gay stereotype himself. Let's see, he doesn't have a girlfriend, he's pinkish colored and wears clothes with sequins (yes, it's true) on it. If you claim to be for the rights of gay and bisexual individuals, then stop making a mockery out of them in front of people who don't know any better. If Barney went black-face and ate fried chicken and watermelon at the same time, the show would be pulled off the air before you know it.I give this show a negative one out of five. Don't show your kids such hateful crap. There are children's shows out there that are so less insulting.$LABEL$ 0
+From the very beginning I was so excited to see this movie. The poster is possibly the funniest I've ever seen for a movie. I immediately bought one for my dorm this September.Every element came together in this movie so beautifully. It's not often you see a movie with so many penis, gay, and racial jokes so praised by critics. Carell and the rest of the cast deliver each raunchy joke sensationally. Carell remains sweet throughout the entire movie where by the end of the movie you're rooting for him to succeed in his relationship more than you are for him to get laid. The supporting cast is brutal, each of them having some problems with the ladies themselves.One of the things about this movie is the abundance of memorable scenes we're given. This is what makes a movie easy to remember fondly. This movie will often be brought up when the words "chest waxing" and "condoms" are mentioned in conversation.Watching it in the theater I was surprised how many older people were there to watch it. I saw a group of four mid-60s women come in. Despite an older audience, this movie still filled the entire theater with laughter.I think the type of people who will like this are the fans of the Office and Steve Carell. A lot of the jokes remind me of the type of jokes you'd see on Family Guy, too. The movie is shallow enough for adolescent boys and still sweet and clever enough for middle aged women.I don't recommend going to this movie if you aren't a fan of profanity or if you are easily offended. However, when you are at the movie, just remember this movie is all in good humor. The jokes aren't "gay jokes," they're just jokes. And they're funny.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm not sure what the director and editor were thinking when they were editing this poor excuse for a film, but whatever they thought of didn't help this movie, it only hurt it, and it hurt this film badly. The acting, for once, isn't the problem, it's the horrible editing, scenes will end for no apparent reason, while in the middle of an action sequence or people will be cut off in mid sentence. I'm not sure what the story was, but it didn't really matter, since what I did see was fairly uninteresting. Just bad all around, a huge "Jaws" rip-off and not a good one at that. The MST version was funny though. 7 for that, none for the film itself.$LABEL$ 0
+Ching Siu Tung's and Tsui Hark's A Chinese Ghost Story, aside from being one of the greatest wuxia pian films ever made, is a beautiful and romantic love story as well as an impressively choreographed martial arts film that should belong in every film lover's collection. The sorely missed Hong Kong superstar Leslie Cheung plays a traveling tax collector who spends the night at a haunted temple. While staying at the temple, he meets a colorful cast of characters that include the swordsmen Yin (Wu Ma) and Hsiao Hou, the Tree Devil, and the beautiful ghost Lit Sin Seen, played by the lovely Joey Wong.To free her from the clutches of the evil Tree Devil, he must reincarnate her body and travel to the underworld to defeat an even more powerful demon.Enough good things can't be said about this film. The pacing is perfect, with a great combination of romance, action, fantasy and humor, and the feverishly paced finale should leave you with little chance to breathe. The chemistry between the wonderfully tragic Joey Wong and Leslie Cheung (whose legendary career ended much too soon) really allows the viewer to feel for both of them. Indeed the acting on the whole is so vivacious and full of life, I would say this is one of the most fun viewing experiences I've ever had. Much of the credit goes to Wu Ma in his portrayal of the mysterious Swordsman Yin. His over-the-top persona of a disillusioned swordsman hell bent on vanquishing evil leads to some great moments of humor and traditional HK drama. A wonderful score, lush cinematography with eye popping colors, and frenetic action pieces courtesy of Ching Siu Tung round out this wonderful film. Find a copy anywhere you can. 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+You could have put the characters on the island for any reason at all and had the same movie. The first one had an original story, the second stole one from King Kong, and in the end (I hope) of this trilogy the story seemed to have been bypassed altogether. Drop some people on an island full of dinosaurs and watch them run for their lives. That was about all there was to it. The special effects were decent but not worth 8 dollars. If you have a discount theatre in your local area, wait and see it for a buck. I wouldn't even bother renting it. That would be too much money for this unthrilling thriller.$LABEL$ 0
+Some less than inspired opening string music notwithstanding, we somehow know that from the word go this is heading straight for the "big fun" drawer. By the time we observe Monica Dolan (in a truly genius bit of casting) delightfully goofing it up as Cora early on we're already hooked, but it is only later on when she reveals herself in her marvellous screen creation, that deranged, scheming, maleficent queen of murder and deceit posing in the guise of the uptight Miss Gilchrist, that she not only effortlessly steals the entire telemovie for herself but quite simply blows off screen anyone who comes near her, including the ever well measured David Suchet who himself seems to be somewhat bedazzled by her acting talents and, very gentlemanly, allows her to take centre stage. Dolan is the true engine of the film and her Miss Gilchrist a genuinely well rounded character in this Christie rendition, helped by a zesty script and the sprightly paced direction - and also by the rest of the cast led by Geraldine James and Dominic Jephcott, who all display signs of sympathy for the given material and play with relish accordingly.The production values are spot on as usual, and if there are any weaker links they might be located in the comparatively substandard music score to the majority of later Poirots, and also perhaps in the lacking of a genuine Italian-born actor for the role of Cora's husband. Other than that, this is an hour and a half of pure televisual delight which is as self indulgent and entertaining as it is lovingly put together.$LABEL$ 1
+There are many people in our lives that we meet only once in our lifetime, but for some reason or another we remember those persons for the rest of our lives. These once in a lifetime friendships occur between people with long distances between and there are always some natural reasons for why we don't meet these people anymore. We don't always even know their names, as we are never presented to each other, and sometimes we even forget to ask what their names are. It's funny how common humanity makes occasional friends and we like to keep it as such, because reuniting might spoil fond memories, or we don't know do they. We are too afraid to check that out.The movie 'Before Sunrise' just caught me watching it. I never had intention to watch it through, but because the discussion between the couple seemed interesting, I gave a look for the rest of the film. I didn't know what to expect from it, but nor did the young couple. They had time to discuss with each other until the sunrise and anything could happen before they had to separate. I believe this film has had good reviews because the situation is something that everybody on this planet has at least once or twice lived through. It makes us all think about all those people we have met only once in our lives.$LABEL$ 1
+11 Oscar nominations and zero win!!! Am yet to understand why - its not like the actors in the movie did any better thereafter that you can make it by giving them awards for trivial roles like it was done with Halle Berry and Denzel Washington - Whoopi, Oprah, Margaret Avery, Danny Glover etc- were all amazing - i am curious to get scripts of the discussions at the Oscars that year...... it should go into the Shoulda-woulda-coulda category for the judges.... Its an amazing book - but true to Alice Walker's style of writing she has a way of seeming like she is exaggerating her characters - so I am so glad that they screen adaptation took a few things out. The cinematography was amazing - the African scenes live much to be desired - the African part in the book is supposed to be set in Liberia - somewhere in West Africa - BUT oh no! Steven Spielberg thinks the world is so dumb that they cant think of Africa outside of the Safaris - so yes there had to be a complimentary Zebra and wildlife scene when we all know there are none West Africa ---- and most of all why get the people to speak Swahili --- who in West Africa speaks Swahili?? I just had to get that out of the way.......But as a story - amazing, film-making - out of this world - CLASSIC yes!!I own it and I watch it when my soul needs some rejuvenation.$LABEL$ 1
+This very funny British comedy shows what might happen if a section of London, in this case Pimlico, were to declare itself independent from the rest of the UK and its laws, taxes & post-war restrictions. Merry mayhem is what would happen.The explosion of a wartime bomb leads to the discovery of ancient documents which show that Pimlico was ceded to the Duchy of Burgundy centuries ago, a small historical footnote long since forgotten. To the new Burgundians, however, this is an unexpected opportunity to live as they please, free from any interference from Whitehall.Stanley Holloway is excellent as the minor city politician who suddenly finds himself leading one of the world's tiniest nations. Dame Margaret Rutherford is a delight as the history professor who sides with Pimlico. Others in the stand-out cast include Hermione Baddeley, Paul Duplis, Naughton Wayne, Basil Radford & Sir Michael Hordern.Welcome to Burgundy!$LABEL$ 1
+i did not expect to enjoy this. in truth i watched it because a friend knew a friend knew a friend who wrote the script but wasn't credited. knowing Dylan thomas, and really being appreciative of his poetry but aware and rather disconcerted by the man, i didn't feel i needed to see a twee adaption of his lame bohemian life laid bare. and this was not it. critical and yet appreciative it was. it made me cry. kiera knightley was superb, even with that slightly strained welsh accent,and it is a sad tale that they tell. Dylan thomas is not the hero as sadly he was not throughout his life and neither really are the so called 'feisty woman' of the pr spiel. it is cillian the william of the movie. a man that leaves the woman he loves to fight a war that they ignore. his challenge to reoonnect with that indifference is what is of real interest to this film and what a beautiful performance from that actor. i thiink this film is underrated because it was marketed so badly. Dylan thomas fans will expect something more from their so very flawed hero and get less, and well that is how it was marketed. it is not a film about Dylan thomas and it is much more interesting for it.$LABEL$ 1
+I've seen The Blob several times and is one of the better low budget alien invasion movies from the 1950's.A strange meteor lands just outside a small town and an elderly man goes to investigate this. A strange jelly like substance then attaches itself to one of his arms and a young couple who saw the meteor land arrive in time and take him to the local doctor's, where the old man then gets completely absorbed by the mass. The doctor and his nurse are the next victims and the mass is getting bigger. When these incidents are reported to the police, they don't believe the young couple and accuse them of making all this up. They finally believe them when the mass, now huge turns up in the town's cinema and everybody runs into the streets screaming. It then attaches itself on a diner with the young couple and some others inside. The Blob is stopped by spraying a load of fire extinguishers at it and it freezes, which is its weakness. It is then transported by plane to the frozen wastes of the Arctic and disposed of there. But it is only frozen, not dead...This movie has a typical setting for its period: teenagers and a small town. The Blob has a good rock and roll style theme song at the beginning and the movie is atmospheric throughout.The sequel, Beware! The Blob followed in 1972 and a remake came in 1988 but this is the best of The Blob movies.The cast is lead by Steve McQueen (The Great Escape)and is the movie that made him a star and Aneta Corsaut plays his girlfriend. I'm not familiar with any of the other stars.The Blob is a must see for all sci-fi fans. Fantastic.Rating: 4 stars out of 5.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw Anatomy years ago -- dubbed at a friends house I don't remember it much, and then I saw at the video store there is a second one -- not really related to the first one Franka Ponte makes a little cameo. And that one was okay not as good as the first one. I'm seeing the first one again tonight -- not dubbed collectors edition. I really like German movies like this one it's very interesting and people and cults like the one in the movie could exist i think, i dunno. But it's very grossly entertaining and scary. Anatomy 2 is a little different and the characters are not as good as the first. But if you really thought Anatomy was interesting and good you should see the second one.$LABEL$ 1
+Perhaps the most polished and accomplished of all Indian films - Pakeezah does not fall into any of the traps commonly associated with Bollywood film (ie tackiness, farce, wholesale and unsuccessful imitation of western film themes/genres). Pakeezah is indigenous to the Sub-Continent and authentic, almost Madam Butterfly-like in plot. Characters are well-developed, direction, although sometimes unrefined by today's standards, perceptive and convincing. The Urdu-speaking milieux at the time of Pakeezah were masters of understatement and how the dialogue conveys the subtleties of the age! The acting (particularly the 'looks' and the dynamic between characters) are a delight to behold although the nuances may be lost on contemporary viewers or those not acquainted with the mores and customs of Muslim India.Coupled, with a captivating screenplay is a beautiful musical score, enhanced by the protagonist displaying eminent command of classical Indian dance (kathak). As is the case with most romantic tragedies, the heroine must die, but she does not take her leave of the audience without the viewer feeling he/she has been party to a truly memorable cinema experience. Pakeezah is surely the pinnacle of what Indian cinema has produced and is unlikely to be paralleled.$LABEL$ 1
+Not for those adrenaline maniacs etc It's a good movie, looking at after war, psychical problem, from the other point of view. Emilio Estevez is great as a young man, haunted by the demons of Vietnam war, causing problem in family. Marin Sheen is also good as a conservative father.It all comes down to the problem how to deal with the past, with whomEmilion Estevez's character can't seem to deal, and Martin Sheen's character don't want do deal with.Protective mother looks at this problem with warm , and open heart but with her mind closed for the obvious reasons.$LABEL$ 1
+While it comes no closer to the Tarzan of Edgar Rice Burroughs than, say, the Johnny Wiesmuller flicks did it does have it's own peculiar, and entertaining, slant on the story. Its a well done Tarzan movie. Nice scenery, good photography, workable continuity, and a Tarzan yell that echos the one described by Burroughs. The players all perform well. The only bad points I found were, I think, related. It moves slow in places. That slow movement? Makes this picture to long. It could easily have been 15 to 20 minutes shorter, which I think would have helped with the natural flow of the plot line and the character development. But the rest of the film works well enough to carry it over these two rough spots and still leave the viewer satisfied with the flick. Short version of all the above ... Its a very GOOD Tarzan movie.$LABEL$ 1
+The initiation to the local sport team involves taking the newbies out to the corn fields and guess what? There is a scarecrow murdering people there. Only one of the newbies survive but falls into a coma due to diabetes. Meanwhile the scarecrow starts to kill all of the involved people, one by one. Whats the scarecrows secret? Will they find it out before the scarecrow gets them all? This is a low budget movie and it shows. Sound is OK but picture is really corny. The plot/script really sucks and is quite pathetic and non logical. The acting is really bad and sometimes just laughable. Cant really say much about the special effects cause there aren't that many but the few there is ranges from bad to OK(for a low budget that is). There is some nudity and thats probably the only thing worth to watch in the movie(that is if your a horny teenager, if not, skip the movie all together). Another complete waste of time and money so don't see it. Goes for hack'n'slash fans too.$LABEL$ 0
+Nicole Finn (Madonna) is just being released from prison. Although she is ordered to go by bus to Philadelphia, she wants to stick around the place she was arrested. This is because she claims she has information that would clear her record. Louden (Griffin Dunne) is assigned to escort her to the bus by his future father in law. Louden will be driving around the city anyway (in his future mother in law's Rolls Royce), picking up the wedding ring and a rare big, big cat for an eccentric collector. Nicki, however, starts the ensuing mayhem as soon as she jumps in the Rolls to take over the driving. Between big cats, taxi drivers, hit men, bridesmaids, and a wedding cake with guns, lawyer Louden knows he's not in Kansas anymore. Is there a way out of the madness? This film is a wild trip down comedy avenue. Madonna and Dunneare perfect foils to each other, making their connection uproarious, as they play out their roles as an ex-con and an uptight, button-down lawyer, respectively. The script is laudable in it's ability to send the viewer into fits of hysteria as one implausible scene gives way to the next one, and the next. Everything secondary, from the supporting actors to the scenery to the costumes, are also quite nice. If you know someone who is in need of a jolt of joy, rent this movie for them. You will both be cheerio pronto.$LABEL$ 1
+Usually I'm the one criticizing the twenty-something Neanderthals for not being able to appreciate a film unless it has plastic t*ts, gunfights and car chases. However, in this case the film might actually have been improved with a few of those additions. At least I wouldn't have gotten bored after an hour and changed channels.I don't mind surreal, and I certainly don't mind having to pay attention to find subtlety or hidden meaning, but there should be some point to the whole thing. I didn't get the feeling that even the writer or director really had a broad vision of anything but were, instead, just so self-absorbed in their own pretentious visions that they became deliberately scattered. Or perhaps they just got confused themselves. Either way, I don't care. It bored the crap out of me for just over an hour with no saving grace.Although a whole pack of other viewers have filled up this site with excited ravings about the alleged symbolism and masterful cinematography, I must respectfully disagree. Perhaps I didn't mince through enough film classes to appreciate some inspired techniques not visible to mere mortals ...Or perhaps this movie was just crap. I give it a "1" and file it next to "Ishtar."$LABEL$ 0
+Especially for a time when not much science fiction was being filmed (1973), this is a terrific vision of a future where everything has gone wrong. Too many people, and nothing works. The only people who can live in comfort are the rich. It's set in New York in 2022 (I think), and it reminds you of your worst vision of Calcutta.I got to appreciate Charlton Heston's acting after seeing him in Orson Welles' Touch of Evil. He was (maybe is) capable of portraying a range of heroic or semi-heroic people. Here, he is torn between being a cop who is just a little bit corrupt (taking rare food treats from the rich), and being totally corrupt (actively condoning evil). The movie all seems to take place at night, and sweat is dripping off everyone, except in one of the rare air-conditioned apartments. Even though I hadn't seen it before, I knew the famous ending (which will not here be revealed), but the ending is certainly foreshadowed.Great scenes with Edward G. Robinson: going to the council (made up of elderly Jews with heavy accents, so it seems), where the truth is revealed. And then going off to the Thanatopsis to check out.Gritty, pre-Star Wars dystopian science fiction.$LABEL$ 1
+A fairly typical Australian movie where the underdog saves the day inspite of himself. I guess there is no real reason to see this pic if you have seen "The Castle" or "The Dish". It still leaves you with a positive feeling at the end and it as good or better than most Hollywood stuff.$LABEL$ 1
+Sidney Young (Pegg) moves from England to New York to work for the popular magazine Sharpe's in a hope to live his dream lifestyle but struggles to make a lasting impression.Based on Toby Young's book about survival in American business, this comedy drama received mixed views from critiques. Labelled as inconsistently funny but with charm by the actors, how to lose friends seemed as a run of the mill fish out of the pond make fun at another culture comedy, but it isn't.This 2008 picture works on account of its actors and the simple yet sharp story. We start off in the past, then in the present and are working our way forwards to see how Young made his mark at one of America's top magazines.Pegg (Hot Fuzz) is too likable for words. Whether it's hitting zombies with a cricket bat or showing his sidekick the nature of the law the English actor brings a charm and light heartedness to every scene. Here, when the scripting is good but far from his own standards, he brings a great deal of energy to the picture and he alone is worth watching for. His antics with "Babe 3" are unforgivable, simply breathtaking stuff as is his over exuberant dancing, but he pulls it off splendidly.Bridges and Anderson do well at portraying the stereotypical magazine bosses where Dunst fits in nicely to the confused love interest. Megan Fox, who stole Transformers, reminds everyone she can act here with a funny hyperbole of a stereotype film star. The fact that her character Sophie Myles is starring in a picture about Mother Teresa is as laughable as her character's antics in the pool. To emphasize the point there is a dog, and Pegg rounds that off in true Brit style comedy, with a great little twist.Though a British film there is an adaptation of American lifestyle for Young as he tries to fit in and we can see the different approaches to story telling. Young wants the down right dirty contrasted with the American professionalism. The inclusion of modern day tabloid stars will soon make this film dated but the concept of exploitation of film star's gives this edge.Weide's first picture is not perfect. There are lapses in concentration as the plot becomes too soapy with an awkward obvious twist and there are too many characters to be necessary. The physical comedy can also be overdone. As a side note, the bloopers on the DVD are some of the finest you will ever see, which are almost half an hour long.This comedy drama has Simon Pegg on shining form again and with the collective approach to story telling and sharp comedy, it is worth watching.$LABEL$ 1
+First-time director Tom Kiesche turns in a winning film in the spirit of cutting, dark comedy. Shot on a shoestring budget, yet had the flavor of the early Coen brother's film Blood Simple ... and throw in some Monty Python flavorings to boot! Needs to seen more than once to appreciate all the elements that carry one scene to the next. Expect more good things to come from this writer-director-actor.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a case where the script plays with the audience in a manner that serves only in extending this story to 90 minutes. Story starts out in 1969 where a young girl named Faith (Cameron Diaz) travels to Europe with her boyfriend Wolf (Christopher Eccleston) but she dies under mysterious circumstances. Then in 1976 Faith's sister Phoebe (Jordana Brewster) decides to travel to Europe as well and try and find out what happened to her sister. In France she looks up Wolf who has stayed there and she wants him to help her retrace the steps her sister took and answer some questions. He is reluctant but decides to travel with her. Along the way he fills in the gaps of the occurrences and tells Phoebe that Faith had joined up with the Red Army who are an extremist group that is involved in terrorism. Phoebe and Wolf engage in a romance and this complicates the trip to Portugal where Faith died. Their is several things wrong with this film and it all has to do with the script. First, the romance between Wolf and Phoebe is all wrong and does nothing for the story. It rings completely false and comes across as forced. It seems weird that Wolf would engage in a romance with his dead girlfriends sister. Secondly, Wolf knows completely what happened to Faith but only lets out little chunks of information every 15 minutes or so. Wolf will look at Phoebe every 15 minutes and say, "There is something I didn't tell you"! Gee, thanks a lot Wolf! If Wolf had come clean the first time he talked to Phoebe then the film would have been over in about 30 minutes. Another thing that bothered me was that I don't think this film recreated the 1960's at all. Diaz wears hippie clothes but the time period just didn't ring true. I did enjoy a few things like the authentic locations where the film was shot. It is a very good looking film and the scenery is beautiful. The performances are all good especially by Brewster and Diaz. Besides "The Fast and the Furious" I had never really seen Brewster in anything. But after watching her performance in this film I came away very impressed. She's very good here and I hope better roles come her way. The script is told in a very contrived way and the film never comes across as believable.$LABEL$ 1
+In this follow up to The Naked Civil Servant we see the final years of Quentin Crisp's life in New York. John Hurt is again Crisp (come on who else could play the part?) and its a role he inhabits to the point of disappearing. For me Hurt is Crisp and I've always found it very hard to take the man himself because Hurt was more him than he was himself. Its masterful performance. His equal is Denis O'Hare as Phillip Steele, Crisp's long time friend and confidant.Unfortunately outside of the performances the film has little to recommend it. To be certain the film gets the details right. Filmed in and around New York the film the film looks and feels like New York and its environs, but dramatically its kind of inert. Its Crisp talking to people being witty,trying to come to terms with the world as it is (he ended up regretting some poorly chosen words concerning AIDS) and dealing with the infirmities that old aged thrust upon him. Quentin the man is always interesting, but his life as portrayed is really not.I am disappointed by the film. I've always admired the man and his unique point of view. I just wish he was better served by this film about his life.$LABEL$ 0
+For Native Mongolian speakers the film lacked emotion and emphasis. Used too many non Native speakers especially Jamukha. Too many diversions from the actual history. Terrible terrible subtitle!!! I wonder where and who did that subtitle. It was both in English and Thai. I wonder how bad the subtitle was in Thai if the English subtitle was soooo bad! Described the one of the greatest leader's life very uninteresting. There are better films made by Mongolian directors with very low budget from 1980's. Honestly, I'm wondering if the film critics of Academy award is that lenient or what? Only good thing was some good CGI in some fighting scenes only moderately... not over the top CGI$LABEL$ 0
+I must admit, when I read the description of the genre on Netflix as "Steamy Romance" I was a little bit skeptical. "Steamy"? In a movie from 1968?? I was prepared for disappointment. And when I realized it was shot entirely in black & white, I knew my erotic hopes were dashed.Boy, was I wrong! Not only does this film have all of the elements of a steamy romance -- the discovery of first love, fear of the secret being found out, a sudden unexpected end -- but at times this movie was downright erotic. You will soon forget that it is shot in black & white. The cinematography deserves every accolade it has received over the years. And the performances from the two stars (Essy Persson and Anna Gael) are intense and memorable. OK, so they're both in their mid twenties trying to play school girls. It's 1968. Do you really expect teenagers from the '60s to be able to effectively explore a lesbian love story like this? Many adult women were still trying to come to grips with their sexuality back then. Anyone looking for real teens here is expecting too much.I think this movie was way ahead of its time. The level of eroticism was an unexpected pleasure; yet it still managed to leave a lot to the imagination, opting instead to give us poetic descriptions to add to what we were shown.I have no doubt lesbians will identify with the characters here. As for you straight guys who love watching lesbians in action: Although it won't be all you expect, I don't think you'll be too, too disappointed.$LABEL$ 1
+I think it is saying something that the Bollywood "Bride and PRejudice" stayed more faithful to the source material than this 2005 Hollywood version did. I also laughed more at the Bollywood version. (Mr. Kholi? Priceless!) If you have read the book or seen the 1995 BBC version (and liked them), you will be in for a nasty surprise going in to this film then. My friend however, who had seen neither, was mildly amused by the film. If you are a JAne Austen purist though, or even a film-goer who dislikes historical inaccuracies, it will be painful to sit through this.Ugh, the script. The script was the biggest problem. I imagine the actors wouldn't have fared half so badly if they'd had a decent script, perhaps penned by somebody who actually loved Austen's work.What travesties were committed? Well, you'll be forced to endure such incredulous lines as "Don't you dare judge me, Lizzy!" and "Leave me alone for once in your lives!". Not only are such lines far from anything that could come from Jane Austen's eloquent pen, but can anyone honestly believe words like that spilling from the mouth of a genteel young lady from the Regency era? The usage of modern colloquialisms is one of the many irritating ways that the screenwriter butchers the book. The writer also decided to give characters lines that, in the book, were said by a completely different characters and all for no apparent purpose. Worse of all, when they do try to stick a bit closer to the book's writing, the screenwriter has a nasty and unnecessary habit of rearranging Austen's phrases and substituting awkward synonyms for her already perfect words. It was as if the screenwriter sat down with the book in one hand and a thesaurus in the other when writing the script. Stick to Austen's words; she did it better than you! I assume all of this was done in a "revisionist" spirit and in an effort to distance this film from the iconic 1995 BBC version. However, for me, it also made a travesty of the true spirit of Austen's most beloved work.The casting did have potential, though it was quickly dashed away once the script kicked in. But Keira, giggling excessively and baring your crooked teeth does not equal charm and vivacity! And I think Mr. McFayden, though I find him tolerably handsome enough, misread his script and was under the impression he was playing Heathcliff and not the formidable Mr. Darcy. I really did enjoy Brenda Blethyn, Kelly Reilly and the actor who played Mr. Collins. Their interpretations were really rather refreshing.Oh, but Donald Sutherland! Somebody described his performance as seeming like a hobo who had accidentally wandered onto the movie set and I must say it is an apt description. And can somebody tell me why they fashioned Wickham after Legolas? Though he was in the movie for under two minutes, I daresay, and without his impressive archery skills to perk up the movie.On a wardrobe note, I would kill for Miss Bingley's dresses because they were sumptuous and would fit in more with the modern century. (A sleeveless Regency evening gown? Please! More Versace than Austen, that is sure) And poor Keira, all of the budget went to her salary and not her wardrobe! Oh, and I'm sure they eventually caught the bastard who stole the one hairbrush from the movie set. Unfortunately, they didn't catch him soon enough to comb the actresses' tresses before filming rolled.In short, with this new Hollywood version, bid adieu to Austen's eloquence, subtlety and wit because you'll be getting the complete opposite.$LABEL$ 0
+I used to watch Pufnstuf every weekend when I was about 10. It was on right after Bay City Rollers. I saw it come on to Family Channel one day, and taped it for my then three-year old daughter. I'd forgotten all the things I'd loved as a child, the magic flute, the zoom broom, Witcheepoo's makeup.This show is decidedly low tech. The mayor is surely a precedent to Mayor McCheese, and everyone is a stuffed creature with annoying googly eyes. But kids love this stuff. They would way, way rather watch a guy work a sock puppet than sit in front of high-tech computer animation. There is (mild) slapstick, but no adult themes such as sex or people dying, and kids accept Jimmy's schemes. Kids think it would be neat to carry a bag of smoke around and convince someone their house was on fire, and I loved how every time my daughter saw a jet stream in the sky she thought Witchypoo was flying overhead. The music is old, but you really get used to it, and my daughter really loved it. She used to sing "different is hard, different is lonely" in the car. My daughter watched this show at least once a day for about 5 months, and it's still one of her favourites.I see that a new Pufnstuf 2000 is in the works. I really hope they try to keep the old flavour and don't do anything like computer-animating characters etc. I think a whole new generation would love Pufnstuf.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was an amazing tribute to whoever has gone through this type of pain and suffering. The acting wasn't the greatest, I'll admit that, but it was passionate about it's message, sending people into prisons without so much as an attorney or some type of trial is cruel and unusual. They even had a damn trial for Saddam, so why doesn't every suspected terrorist have some type of fair and justified trial or hearing as to why they were tagged in the first place? I'm getting off the movie, but I think it's worthy to note about this sick, twisted idea the government has. The movie's way of telling the story and the backstory was a great mystery. The whole movie, I was trying to connect the daughter with the plot and it's made very obvious in the end. There's no doubt that the directing was incredible, but the one thing I didn't care for was that there wasn't as much emphasis on Reese Witherspoon's character's interest and fight in the ideal she held, a lot of skipping. Otherwise it was actually quite entertaining, and most of all it kept my attention and interest for the two hours it played.$LABEL$ 1
+This self-important, confusing b+w "film" watches like an infant on a very bad acid trip. You're dealing with something that reminds you of a piece of rotting lettuce that accidentally fell out of the back of a garbage truck: no one cares to touch it because it will probably be washed away on its own down the storm drain. There's no room for plot when you've got "visceral imagery" and "subtle" allegory. To me, it seems like the director tries to make the next great art movie while begging for intellectual accolades. I didn't bring my beret either. Watching this, I felt almost insulted since the "film" does such an effective job of distancing itself from you.$LABEL$ 0
+Tough guys, sexy women, lots of swearing, and a most unconvincing monster that rises from the depths of a polluted lake. You'd think "Monster" would be fun...but it isn't, really. It does star Tony Eisley and John Carradine, however, and in my book that makes it worth viewing at least once. In an interview with "Fangoria" in 1987, Eisley recalled that Herbert Strock had directed the bulk of the film, but somehow Kenneth Hartford--who only directed the footage featuring his children Andrea and Glenn (portraying characters named Andrea and Glenn, in a particularly inventive turn)--received full credit. Considering how awful the end result was, Strock was probably glad that he hadn't been credited! "Monster" has the look and feel of a mid-to-late-seventies TV movie, which is why I like to leave it on in the background every so often. As entertainment it falls flat on its face, but as a reminder of another age and a vanished type of film-making, it's very effective. The only thing that's missing is a car chase.$LABEL$ 0
+This is really a new low in entertainment. Even though there are a lot worse movies out.In the Gangster / Drug scene genre it is hard to have a convincing storyline (this movies does not, i mean Sebastians motives for example couldn't be more far fetched and worn out cliché.) Then you would also need a setting of character relationships that is believable (this movie does not.) Sure Tristan is drawn away from his family but why was that again? what's the deal with his father again that he has to ask permission to go out at his age? interesting picture though to ask about the lack and need of rebellious behavior of kids in upper class family. But this movie does not go in this direction. Even though there would be the potential judging by the random Backflashes. Wasn't he already down and out, why does he do it again? So there are some interesting questions brought up here for a solid socially critic drama (but then again, this movie is just not, because of focusing on "cool" production techniques and special effects an not giving the characters a moment to reflect and most of all forcing the story along the path where they want it to be and not paying attention to let the story breath and naturally evolve.) It wants to be a drama to not glorify abuse of substances and violence (would be political incorrect these days, wouldn't it?) but on the other hand it is nothing more then a cheap action movie (like there are so so many out there) with an average set of actors and a Vinnie Jones who is managing to not totally ruin what's left of his reputation by doing what he always does.So all in all i .. just ... can't recommend it.1 for Vinnie and 2 for the editing.$LABEL$ 0
+i did not read the book. nor do i care to. the movie was a beautiful romance, and i think women will enjoy it. no, it was not a "10" film, but it was enjoyable. women, if your man is bored as mine was, then watch it yourself. hurt is wonderful as the philosophic doctor who delivers a thoughtful monologue on "in love" and "loving."also, if you like nick cage, he was terrific and funny. i enjoyed watching the developing romance. also, if you like Christian bale -- do see him in equilibrium. this is a "10" sci fi movie.do see this film. ignore the previous user's comments. one -- especially the ladies!! also do visit my website at my name as one word and a "dot" com.$LABEL$ 1
+Let me get this straight... "The Church" has a safety "lock-down" mechanism to keep the spirits from leaving but the ultimate solution is bringing it to the ground?! LOFL! Maybe I'm missing the plot. Maybe this guy is from the Ed Wood school of film-making or something. This movie is about as useless as the church itself. Hey... maybe that's the point. That whole Rosemary's Baby-esq segment was hilarity. I can go to my corner Halloween costume shop and get better drag than that. The entire film needs to be remade. Properly. There were so many things that were played down... so many things that could have made me jump out of my seat and through the ceiling. I'm not sure if the fault lies with the writing or editing but what I saw should not have this high of a rating.$LABEL$ 0
+Basically, take the concept of every Asian horror ghost movie and smash it into one and you get this movie. The story goes like this: a bunch of college kids get voice mails from their own phones that are foretelling their deaths. There's some s*** going on with ghosts, which if you've seen any Asian ghost movie, isn't scary by now. This movie was quite upsetting because it's very clichéd. It's the same bullcrap, different movie.The acting was pretty good. Unfortunately the actors are put into a very Ring-esquire situation, so it's nothing we haven't seen in the past. The two lead acts did a solid job though.As far as gore, there's not much going on. We get a cool sequence that includes an arm twisting a head off (I don't know how else to explain that), but it was cut away so you don't see anything except the final result. You see some blood at times, including decapitated arms and a zombie (that looked really cool I might add), but this movie isn't too bloody.The scares in the movie are few and spread out, and it's really not that scary. You'll get some creepy images at times, but it's not enough for me to consider scary. It's nothing different from Ringu, Ju-On, or Dark Water, and none of those scared me either. That's really the downfall of this (and most Asian horror movies) is that if it doesn't deliver the scares then it's just not that good.As far as directing, Takashi Miike still did a pretty good job. He seemed a little tamed in this movie compared to his past movies, but he still portrays a lot of his messed up style he's become famous for. A lot of images were a lot like Miike (including a scene with a bunch of jars of dead fetuses), and the last 15 - 20 minutes seemed far more Miike then the rest of the movie. Still, the movie is flawed by its unoriginality.I would recommend this only to people who are huge on Asian horror movies (even if you are, I can recommend much better) or big Miike fans. Warning to those who want to get into Miike, this is NOT his best work.I'm giving it a 4 because it's just mediocre. Perhaps if this was released 4 or 5 years ago it might be worth a higher rating.Also, I'd like to b**** about Asian horror movies real quick. How come if it's an Asian horror movie it's automatically suppose to be good over here (US)? A LOT of these movies are the equivalent in Japan to what Scream, Urban Legends, and I Know What You Did Last Summer were over here in the 90's. If you've seen one you've seen them all. And a lot of these movies rely way too much on scares and imagery that if it doesn't deliver the scares they set out to do then they're just not that good, and nothing would change that. More Asian horror films need to be more like Audition and A Tale of Two Sisters, two movies that if they don't frighten or scare you, at least they have great stories, acting, direction, cinematography, and much more to back them up. Two movies that aren't just great horror movies, but great movies in general. More Asian horror movies need to be like these instead of the cliché, "A ghost just wanted to be found so it went around killing people through their phone/video tape/house/electric appliance/water pipes/google search engine/vibrator/groceries/etc."$LABEL$ 0
+Yet again, early morning television proves an invaluable resource for films that I otherwise would never have been able to track down. At four o'clock in the morning, I stumbled out of bed to begin recording 'The Informer (1935),' my fourth film from prolific American director John Ford, and an excellent one at that. Set during the Irish Civil War in 1922, the screenplay was adapted by Dudley Nichols from the novel of the same name by Liam O'Flaherty. Though he was born in the United States, and is most renowned for his "Americana" pictures, both of Ford's parents were Irish, which explains the director's decision to direct the film. Victor McLaglen plays Gypo Nolan, a brutish but well-meaning ruffian who informs on an old friend, Frankie McPhillip (Wallace Ford), in order to claim the £20 reward for his girlfriend, Katie (Margot Grahame). When Frankie is killed during his attempted arrest, the Irish Republican Army, of which both Frankie and Gypo were members, begins to investigate the traitor behind the incident, every clue bringing them closer and closer to the real culprit.Meanwhile, Gypo is plagued with guilt for his friend's untimely death, and descends into a bout of heavy-drinking that rivals Don Birnam in 'The Lost Weekend (1945)' in its excessiveness. As Gypo drowns his sorrows in copious volumes of alcohol, trapped in a vicious little circle of depression, his extravagant spending captures the attention of the investigating IRA members. For the one time in his life, Gypo finds himself surrounded by admirers (including an amusing J.M. Kerrigan), who enthusiastically clap him on the back and christen him "King Gypo" for his physical might. However, it's obvious that these people feel no affection for the man, and are simple showing him attention to exploit him for money. The additional £20 brought by Frankie's death could never buy Gypo an assembly of friends – indeed, in a bitter twist of irony, the money was only made possible by the betrayal and loss of one of his only good companions. A relatively simple fellow, Gypo could not possibly have fully considered the consequences of his actions, and is eventually offered forgiveness on account of his "not knowing what he was doing," but his foolishness must not go unpunished.Criticism is occasionally levelled at Ford's film for its allegedly propagandistic support of a "terrorist" organisation. Though this stance obviously depends on one's personal views {I certainly don't know enough Irish history to pass judgement}, there's no doubt that the film portrays the Irish Republican Army as selfless, dedicated and impartial, a proud piece of Irish patriotism if I ever saw it. However, the main theme of the story is that of betrayal; driven by intense poverty, one ordinary man betrays the confidence of his good friend, and comes to deeply regret his actions. The tormented Gypo is played mainly for pity, and Victor McLaglen gives a powerful performance that betrays a lifetime of unsatisfying existence, culminating in one terrible decision that condemns him to an uneasy death. 'The Informer' was John Ford's first major Oscar success, winning a total of four awards (from six nominations), including Best Actor for McLaglen {who snatched the statue from the three-way favourites of 'Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)'}, Best Director and Best Screenplay for Dudley Nichols {who declined the award due to Union disagreements}.$LABEL$ 1
+I've been scolded and scorned by fellow Christians for stating my disappointment with this movie. I get hounded by statements like these: "I can't believe you didn't like it! It was made totally by Christians!" "Everyone donated their time and no one was paid for the movie! It was made by a church and not Hollywood. We should spend our money on movies like this! They only used $100,000 to make the film." "This is by a real church and Christian school in Georgia! A preacher wrote and directed it." So, apparently, the reason I should love this movie is simply because of the way it was made and the minimum amount of money used to make it and that is was made by Christians. That is all that is needed for me to love the movie.Look, I got the movie without knowing ANYTHING about the background of the film. I had never heard of it and had no idea - other than football - what it was about. I watched it like I watch any other movie and was disappointed. I was disappointed in the lousy editing and lame script. I was VERY disappointed on the resolution after the climax. Don't worry. There have been other cheap movies and other EXPENSIVELY made movies that have earned less respect from me. It isn't about the making of the movie. It is the end product.The writer acknowledges that God doesn't say "yes" to everything we pray for in the way we want, but he wanted to show by having faith, God changes our lives. That is true. However, God can change our lives and we're still infertile. God can change our lives and we don't get a raise from our job. God can change our lives and our car is still an old jalopy. God can change our lives and our house is still stinky. Why didn't he portray that in the movie? Others voiced their concern to the writer/director over the matter, but apparently, he was defensive.I did not think the acting was horrible nor many of the landscape shots. I like the idea of going to God and recognizing His awesome power and our weakness.The writing and directing were very weak. It is easy to distinguish this because many of the characters have no development. All we really get from the coach's wife is she is not pregnant (well, until the end of the movie). It seems as if there was only ball player that had the potential to have an interesting character and that was chopped to bits into "I have a cripple father and I can't play football well, but I'll kick the winning field goal even though I've never kicked a real field goal before." Another problem was the Christian school itself. Umm, I have worked for two Christian schools, went to one myself, and have had many nieces and nephews in other Christian schools. All in all, I've had some pretty close connections with about ten different ones. NONE of the problems that I have seen in ALL of these schools were addressed. I saw this as totally surreal in the movie about their school and wished they had shown the human factor. It would have been nice to see a dose of reality and how God can work.I will close by stating that every work - either written or drawn or played on an instrument - shares the artist's world view. The world view that was shown to me in this movie consists of "People who pray the right way win ball games, get new cars, conceive when they couldn't, get a raise, and get their house fixed - all within a short time span." I know. I should LOVE the movie simply due to the sincerity of the people who made it. I think I should love the movie because it was well done and for no other reason.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is up there with the all-time classics. The music, camera shots, and acting are excellent. Showing the movie in black and white gave it a much better appearance and complemented the music perfectly, like Psycho. Its surprising how so few people have commented on this movie. My guess is that its a hard movie to find. I gave the film a 9. See the movie and you'll know what I'm talking about.$LABEL$ 1
+Ever since I can remember and I'm only 18 my mother and I have been and continue to watch older movies because well I find them much more rewarding in the long run (but hey don't get me wrong I do love the movies we have today just not as much as I love movies of the 40s and 50s) Anyways, now I have to say the moment I started watching the movie my eyes were glued to the TV. Of course my favorite character was the Grandmother played by Lucile Watson. But I loved the way Betty Davis and her family was portrayed. The children...did not act like children in the slightest. But there is good reason for that, having had to hid and run most of your life, seeing the awful things children saw those days destroyed their innocence. So people saying "oooo i hated how the kids acted...blah blah blah" read between the lines and know they saw things children should not see.Paul Lukas...dear Paul did an amazing job!!! Now I know many people are mad that he go the Oscar and Bogie didn't but hey they both did amazing jobs so I think it could have gone either way. But Lukas' performance was so amazing that by the end of the movie I was reduced to tears. I loved this movie so much and recommend it to anyone!! :-D$LABEL$ 1
+what kind of sh*t is this? Power rangers vs Freddy? It was watchable and as good as the first film in the beginning but from the part where the protagonists get super powers in theirs dreams, it started to become childish. This sh*t should have been rated PG or PG-13 rather than R. I expected to see some very mature stuff but it was only for the 1/3 of the film. The rest are for little kids. Plus it's focused too much on Christianity. I know Freddy's a demon but there are many religions that have different ways to fight demons. Why does it always have to be Christianity? This is total Orientalism and filled with white men/westerner's superiority. Don't' watch this, show it to little kids who loves power rangers.$LABEL$ 0
+Guy de Maupassant was a novelist who wrote a novel about a man, a poor man, without any moral qualities. He only wanted to success in a society where all the people, the politic men, the businessmen, the journalists, the women are corrupt. The only king is MONEY. The Maupassant hero, Charles Forestier is going higher and higher in the society scale thanks to his seduction poser. He is in love with all the women who could help him in his action to climb the society stapes. At the end of the novel, he married himself with the biggest daily paper owner's daughter, in the greatest church of Paris : "La Madeleine". "Le Tout Paris" is there. He has a fortune and more, he will become a member of Parliament and later a Minister. The "useless" women are out of his view, but he is always keeping in touch with the pretty and the usefull women. The picture "THE PRIVATE AFFAIRS OF BEL AMI" is a story of MORALITY. It is everything, but not a story in the Maupassant idea. Why had they put "BEL AMI" in its title ?$LABEL$ 0
+I am shocked to see that this movie has been given more than two stars by some people. They must either be kidding or be totally blind for the art of acting, directing and other flaws of the movie.I must admit that I just could not force myself to sit through the whole movie, it was just too bad.The three first characters, not including the "digger" were just awful actors, and I mean AWFUL! Maybe the director didn't care, or may be he is a worse director. It was like watching a bad school play. The movie was of course filmed with a video camera (lowbudget - not real film), and the light settings were not very good either. In addition, the sound man (if they had one) must either have been a newbie or a drunk as the sound were amateurish. Even in one of the first scenes from the kitchen (AWFUL acting btw) the sound from the dialog was pretty bad. For example, when the woman moved her head while speaking, you could hear her voice disappear and come back. It sounded like they had tried to correct that in post-production by turning up the volume a bit when she turns her head. In addition, you had the ongoing irritating buzzing sound from either camera equipment or other sources in the kitchen. All these squeakers in the first 5 minutes or so. Need I say more?A good school project or fun project for friends to watch, but should never have been released for a real audience, especially not for a PAYING audience. THIS WAS A RIP OFF unless you have a very low standard regarding movies, or just bad taste. You are WARNED! SB.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm a big fan of H. P. Lovecraft's books, and the Mythos background spawned some rather good other stories and stuff like that. And in the last years there came along some boys who did movies about H. P.'s work, – for the bigger part low-budged flicks – and showed them to the public at places like the H. P. Lovecraft Film Festival. Now, like I said, most of them don't have a big budged, but they at least know the heart and "soul" of Lovecrafts work and films like "Cool Air" or "The Call of Cthulhu" - are what I would think - gifts for the fan base and other loonies that like H.P.'s creation. And then there are people like Ivan Zuccon, who just rip off the name and create a movie which would have been fun to watch if I had directed it myself and filmed with some friends down at the beach. That is what Mr. Zuccon did as it seems...but, while blokes like Aaron Vanek's or Bryan Moore's earlier movies might not have had more budged, they somehow still had more to offer , like a story, real characters and some connection to Lovecraft! Just blabbering out names like "Nyarlathotep" or "Necronomicon" makes a movie not a Lovecraft-adaption. Anyway, this flick will not only make fans of the Mythos shudder and hide, it will also not appeal to people who 1. like good movies, 2. laugh about bad movies, 3. like good C-grade splatter movies or 4. watch everything that has Horror written on the DVD-cover. I will not go into the "plott" of this waste of time, as it has already been discussed by others here on this page, but like I said, Unknown Beyond is like a movie I would have made up with some geeky friends.. Aside from that it lacks ideas for any storytelling and goes into ridiculous "moronic-nonsense-but-he-it's-art-stuff". Self-made flicks of this "quality" are fun to watch if you know all the blokes in it and ha-ha, see how XY is coughing out the fake blood we made from old tomato sauce and stuff – but hey, you don't put this in a DVD-casing, declare it an actual movie and want money for it…I give it 2/10 because of the I dunno – effort or something like that$LABEL$ 0
+Maybe it's just a personal affection for this screen version of the Mika Waltari novel, or a fondness for things Egyptian (I grew up loving to visit the mummies in Boston's Museum of Fine Arts) but I think Maltin is a tad tough on this rather good film. The production values are great regarding color and cinematography, and it appears some effort went into historical authenticity (much of it from the novel, I'm sure). Purdom is admittedly a bit stiff in the lead role, but one can accept this as part of Sinuhe's character. Victor Mature is, well, Victor Mature. Peter Ustinov is a delight to watch in this type of role, which he always did so well and so wittily. Bella Darvi's performance as Nefer is classically camp, and I find even Michael Wilding's rather dry portrayal of Akenaten to have its own appeal.The historical oddity of Akenaten's monotheism, a brief detour in ancient Egypt's theological history, is interesting, as is Akenaten himself, and well worth reading about; the religious wars portrayed here have a basis in fact.An interesting footnote regarding Darvi, whose birth name was Bayla Wegier: she was a Polish emigre who producer Darryl Zanuck and his wife Violet took under their wing (I believe they may even have adopted her). Her screen name Darvi is formed from Zannuck's and his wife's first names. She continued her acting career in France, but never achieved great success and, after a rather unhappy life, died at her own hand in 1971.Altogether this is an interesting film and enjoyable to watch for the visual values alone. American Movie Classics shows this occasionally in letterbox, which is essential to capturing the scope and sweep of the story.$LABEL$ 1
+This can hardly be called a good movie, actually it's not even close. But I have to say, that there was a few things that made me... not laugh, not giggle, but something like that. The Resovoir Dogs parody was one of them. The rest are not important enough to be remembered.To be honest, I was a little disappointed by this movie. The plot sounded like an idea, but it quickly fell to the ground. The whole thing was just to messy and the actors where not good for the characters; most of them simply overacted. There was also a whole lot of unessecary sequences, that was a total waste of film. I do realize that it would make the movie about 20 min shorter, but it would only make it better.Now, with the good and the bad things lined up, let's go to the conclusion: two out of six toilet seats up for this one.$LABEL$ 0
+Wow, well, you know those shock things they use in hospitals to get your heart pumping again? I needed one for my brain after watching this movie. It literally took me almost 4 hrs in total to watch because I had to take a break and restart my brain to semi-normal functionality every so often. I mean this movie goes soooooo slooooow its ridiculous, to say that the script had about 10 pages of dialogue would be generous. They just don't talk!! And while talking isnt everything, and i admit there were some scenes where only the music was necessary, and the music is great, that was probably the best part, but then go listen to a symphony or something and forget about the movie. So many people give this awesome reviews, and for its time, i'd say the special effects and filmography is quite good, but as for the acting, or lack thereof, it just needed a little something more, no shootem ups or sex etc., profanity isnt even required, but a little more emotion, these guys were like stones, just sitting there with long faces. All in all, if you need something to calm yourself down, just play the movie, dont even start at the beginning if you've seen it before, just start anywhere, lay down, and relax, it'll put you right to sleep.$LABEL$ 0
+Louise Brooks gives a wonderful performance in this well-made French melodrama. She plays a typist named Lucienne who, despite being in love with a man named Andre, dreams of rising above her position in life. She sees opportunity in a beauty contest for Miss Europe, but Andre is furious when he discovers that she's entered, then demands that she withdraw. She tries to take back her entry only to discover that she's already been chosen as Miss France and will now go on to the main pageant.This is a story of love, loss and decision played out to its passionate end. The movie is very energetically filmed by director Augusto Genina and cinema tographers Rudolf Mate and Louis Nee. The filming style is more like modern movies than the Hollywood flicks of the '30s, and shows the different style employed by Europeans. There are many fast cuts and traveling shots, mostly done with great skill and verve. The high energy of the movie's first third dwindles a bit in the middle but picks up again in the last 15 minutes.The performances were very good by all the principals, but that of Louise Brooks is especially memorable. Louise leans heavily on her silent screen skills even though this is a talkie, but because her silent style had a surprisingly contemporary, understated feel, she makes the transition to talkies very well. The long early scene at the fair was especially poignant as Louise used her remarkably expressive eyes to convey her growing sense of misery and alienation, of being trapped in a life she no longer wants. I doubt it's ever been done better.The film builds to a superb finale, artfully shot, powerful and stylish. This is really some of the best stuff of the early days of film. And the tragic storyline only underscores the greater tragedy that this is the final starring role for Louise Brooks. She wasn't just a great beauty who looked fantastic in a swimsuit, she really was a major acting talent who basically threw it all away. We are all the poorer for that.This movie is less well known than her German films with G.W. Pabst, but I think it's a better one. I think this crew is just better at storytelling than Pabst, and while Prix de Beaute may lack the deep moral complexity of the Pabst films, it's much easier to follow and is overall a more streamlined, focused piece of work. And it doesn't hurt that Louise's singing parts are done by Edith Piaf, either.Bottom line, this is a classic Louise Brooks film well worth looking for.$LABEL$ 1
+Terrible psychological thriller that is almost painful to sit through, every aspect being awful.The combined talents of top actors Kevin Bacon and Gary Oldman are totally wasted, and though they give good performances, one wonders why they bothered. The script from Mark Kasdan is a complete mess, and Martin Campbell has the narrative jumping all over the place, but if you're unable to follow it, take it as a blessing. There are far too many pointless, crazy scenes that just don't make sense. Jerry Goldsmith's music is not much help either.Even if there was potential in the plot, director Campbell's approach has utterly ruined it. Avoid at all costs!Monday, February 26, 1996 - Video$LABEL$ 0
+Isn't it strange how crap-movies always tend to be a little better when you start watching them with an attitude like: "boy, this is going to suck harder than few things have ever sucked before"? It's pretty much impossible for anyone to rent this movie with high – or even remotely positive - expectations, as "House of the Dead 2" is a sequel to something that is generally considered to be one of the absolute worst genre disasters ever to be released. The abysmal reputation of the original actually turned out to be a great advantage for director Michael Hurst, as it was really easy to surpass the quality level of its predecessor. And exactly how embarrassing must this be for Uwe Boll, huh? Having to acknowledge that a straight-to-video sequel without star power or promotional campaigns is MUCH better than his own pretentious video game interpretation? In case anyone still doubts: NO, "House of the Dead 2: Dead Aim" isn't a good horror movie at all but, YES: it's definitely better than the first and even worth renting in case you're looking for an undemanding splatter film with loads of gory butchering, sleaze and stupid humor. There's no real connection with the events in the first film (another advantage) and this part two opens like a typically rancid sex comedy set in a college campus. The male fraternity club plans to attack a sorority house, inhabited exclusively by blond coeds with enormous breasts, but the party gets interrupted when an insane professor (Sid Haig!) who runs his car over a girl and takes her back to his lab to turn her into a zombie. This is the beginning of a quickly spreading and deadly epidemic but, no worries, as the government is prepared and sends their best scientists & soldiers to the campus to search for survivors and to bring back blood samples for an antidote. Hunting down zombies seems like the most common thing in the world for this squadron, they even named them Hyper Sapiens, but their constantly increasing amount eventually endangers the lives of the most hardened soldiers. Director Hurst thankfully found his inspiration in the more eminent classics of the genre, like James Cameron's "Aliens" and – of course - George A. Romero's dead-trilogy, particularly "Day of the Dead". He luckily also didn't made the same mistakes as Uwe Boll, who inserted footage of the actual video game in his movie (why?!?) and *slightly* exaggerated with the use of CGI-techniques. HotD 2 contains heavy images of violence, like chopped up female corpses and detailed amputations, but it never really becomes nauseating or shocking. Naturally, there's isn't the slightest bit of suspense to enjoy and every dreadful horror cliché features here as well. The film is very enjoyable as long as story writer Mark Altman doesn't try to explain the origins of the zombie epidemics. They're walking corpses with their brains hanging out of their skulls, so we really don't need to know what caused their deaths. Especially not when the explanations are given by a blond sorority slut who clearly hasn't got a clue what all the medical terms mean. Just avoid getting bitten, sweetheart.$LABEL$ 0
+First and foremost I am a gay man, although do not live my life within the so called "Community", and it's because of films like this that Gay themed movies are not my favorite genre because 90% of them are crap. Like this one. f I could give this a zero I would. (I do not understand all the positive comments, unless they were all made by people who made this film) I actually stopped this at the 24 minute mark when the so called straight "Anthony" kissed Adam outside the restaurant for NO reason at all. And how is the son stealing from the diner if he doesn't even live in the town? Wire transfers? The acting was HORRENDOUS! The sound editing? (Listen to "Anthony" and Adam when they are sitting on the fence eating their lunch. Every time the camera switched between the two so called actors the sound changes, like there was not a filter on the microphone)Seriously do not rent, or god forbid, buy this movie.Horrible Horrible Horrible acting and just a stupid storyline.$LABEL$ 0
+Historically accurate? Hmm... Perhaps... if you squint, and light falls upon the subject just-so. But core accuracy is no compensation for a dismal, patchy and inconsistent plot, reams of cardboard dialogue and an unsatisfying conclusion. The principal characters are merely characterizations; embarrassing stereotypes that range from the 'enigmatic and noble' American Indians through to the 'stuffy but sadistic' British officers. A wretched and unworthy rendition of a fascinating period in American history. I want my money back.$LABEL$ 0
+Made with film stock left over from the production of Nana, 1927's Sur un Air de Charleston is described as a holiday film for all concerned, and that's the best way to view it. Jean Renoir seems never to have thought enough of it to even edit the footage together. The plot is a simple reversion of racial stereotypes – in 2028 a black explorer travels to a post-holocaust Paris where a white native girl teaches him the Charleston (naturally he assumes she's a savage whose dancing is a prelude to her eating him before giving in to the seductive beat of 'White Aborigine' music). There are plenty of surreal touches, be it the pet gorilla eating the flowers in Catherine Hessling's hair, the angels the girl telephones (Renoir and producer Pierre Braunberger among them) or the fact that black performer Johnny Huggins plays his part in minstrel blackface while Hessling's dancing ability is almost completely nonexistent, and there are some interesting occasional experiments with slow motion, but there's not really enough to sustain it for two reels. An additional air of surrealism is provided by the fact that this silent musical has absolutely no score at all on Lions Gate's new DVD…$LABEL$ 0
+I have to say the worst part of the movie was the first half hour. I was really confused about who was who. For example, Bill Paxson's character had long hair and was wearing a jacket. Then, when all the males arrived at camp, it turned out there was a character who looked like Bill Paxson, but wasn't. I said where's Bill Paxson? Then, there was a guy with his girlfriend. He said she was 21. This was supposed to be a 20-year reunion of the camp director's (Alan Arkin) most memorable. Later on, this same girl was interacting and talking about her camp experiences. That made no sense. She would have been one years old. That said, the movie turned out to be pretty good. Kevin Pollak was the nice guy who was always being teased. One guy was a complete narcissist, and ended up losing his beautiful girlfriend. Alan Arkin was interesting as an old-style camp director, who admits that he has grown out of touch with modern youth. The best part was that none of the grown-up campers were successes in life. None of them had very great careers. This seemed very real life. The movie was compared to The Big Chill. In some ways it wasn't as exciting as the Big Chill, but it was a lot more realistic. So, even though the beginning is not promising, the movie ended up turning into a pretty good one.$LABEL$ 1
+Scanners II: The New Order is just as good as David Cronenberg's classic Scanners, Scanners was made in 1980 and Scanners II in 1991 so their's an eleven year gap between the two movies. The film captures the style of Scanners which is a good thing, it wouldn't be Scanners without a head explosion so Scanners II has a head explosion scene that's just has gruesome as the first. Scanners II: The New Order has some other imaginative gory scenes that are done well. The plot to Scanners II: The New Order is a new take on the series since it has the Scanners being used as a vigilante force for a police chief and a group of scientists until a young Scanner named David Kellum discovers he's being used and decides to get revenge.Scanners II: The New Order is a great sequel to David Cronenberg's sci-fi classic Scanners and should be seen. Check this out. 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+I will never, ever forget watching this show around the age of 13. Even at the young age I remember thinking, "This is a Baywatch rip off show without the one thing that makes Baywatch tolerable. The girls in bathing suits." Nonetheless I was too small in those days to be the holder of the remote in my house. The high point of Pacific Blue was an episode in which a couple of thugged out gangsters are coming to whack someone with submachine guns ... on bikes!!! As a thirteen year old I never laughed so hard at something that was supposed to be taken seriously. Even I knew that the task of going out and acquiring Uzis (for murder) is a task that should never come before borrowing someones car for the day. That had been the defining moment of this show. Simple Crimes and situations tailor made by hack writing so they could be taken care of by the unsung hero of the crime fighting world The Bike Cop. Does not get much Dumber.$LABEL$ 0
+Well, I was excited at first to download an animated open source movie, only to be ruined by a demo reel. The animation is excellent, the lip syncing is awful, and you keep watching the movie hoping to understand what's going on, only to realize nothing is going on. You feel no emotion for the characters, only pity for the creators for wasting their time. I have seen short films with twice the emotion in half the time! This could of been an excellent short film, if they had just taken the time to hire a real director. I'm sure everyone over at Blender is excited to showcase their software and its rendering capabilities, but sorry guys-story telling is what makes a movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Along with In the Army!, this ranks as one of Pauly Shore's best movies, if there is such a thing. While the whole West Coast-meets- Midwest-culture-clash isn't anything new, this film proves to make the story a little more entertaining with the wild and unpredictable antics of a then fresh Shore. While the change in values probably would have gone in the other direction, the whole concept was rather entertaining. Not only was Shore's interaction with the family hilarious, it also had Carla Gugino and Tiffani- Amber Theissen (she'll always have the Amber in my book) in two ravishing and early roles. One of those films I have no problem watching when it is on TV.$LABEL$ 1
+Warning, spoilers ahead (even if I doubt that anybody hasn't seen this yet)The movie starts off rather well, but about halfway through it falls apart and becomes a corny, sugary sweet, predictable and unrealistic 'harmony romance' mess. I mean, it's very obvious that there are serious problems in the main characters' marriage, but these problems are never solved but just forgotten.Basically, as soon as she decides to have a baby behind his back (without even asking) all of their problems magically disappear without a trace or an explanation. Given what had happened up until that moment it would have been far more logical if the marriage fell apart rather than becoming the trite and cliche' 'having a baby will change everything' ending.The two main characters' families and neighbours are also extremely one-dimensional, and don't seem to serve really any purpose if not to irritate the viewer, and they also mysteriously disappear from the movie as soon as the 'harmony moments' start.I am sorry to be ripping this movie, but given the start I would have expected something more. 4/10 for me.$LABEL$ 0
+I don't know where to begin, so I'll begin with a snippet from the back of the cover of this movie. "Alive combines the tension of Vincenzo Natali's Cube with Kitamura's own Versus." I have not seen Versus, so I can't comment on that, but I think Cube was an excellent movie which I recommend to everyone. However, in this case someone has clearly confused "tension" with "boredom".I'll just go ahead and spoil the entire plot, because besides being one holy Swiss cheese of a plot, it's also moldy cheese, and the movie is not worth spending any time on even if you don't know the plot beforehand, so it doesn't matter. If I have misunderstood the plot, don't hit me - it's probably because I had to struggle to keep my eyelids open.So the American military in Nevada once lost a UFO i the Nambi desert. This apparently makes sense because they're both deserts so surely they're practically the same place. Different continents or not. A monkey broke into the UFO and acquired an alien something which was passed on to a Japanese researcher who had to eat the monkey to survive in the desert. What ever. The alien thing is now passed on to anyone who's "bloodthirsty" enough to kill the current host. The Japanese military wants to use it for military stuff, so they decide to make it pass from the current host (the researcher's daughter) to some other dude. But instead of just picking someone out of the military, which is full of people who are bloodthirsty AND already on the military's side, they decide that it's probably a good idea to pick some criminal out of death row instead. Oh, and the reason they pick this particular criminal from death row is because he was the first person in history to not die from the non-lethal electric shock which is the standard execution method, because everyone dies from the placebo effect when they get electrocuted. I don't know if they do this so they can giggle in the staff room at how everyone dies even though it's not deadly, or if they just want to cut down the electricity bill.Then the movie turns into what The Matrix would have been if it had been really lame, and superfluous fighting bores us to tears for what feels like an hour. And oh wait, now they remember that they already had a dude who was infected with the alien thing, so the entire movie up to this point was actually a totally waste of time and also human lives. Then everyone dies. The end.The only one moment in the movie where I didn't want to go away and sleep or eat a sandwich instead, was when a dude was pinned to a wall by a pipe through his chest, and he's hanging around up there and another dude walks by. The dude hanging on the wall says "I'm in pain, shoot me". And the living dude looks at him, and it's not like he's a mean dude or anything, so he really looks sorrowful and doesn't want the guy on the wall to suffer. So he shoots him.(Rhetorical pause.)In the stomach. "Gee THANKS A FREAKIN' HEAP."$LABEL$ 0
+Somebody owes Ang Lee an apology. Actually, a lot of people do. And I'll start. I was never interested in the Ang Lee film Hulk, because of the near unanimous bad reviews. Even the premium cable channels seemed to rarely show it. I finally decided to watch it yesterday on USA network and, wow....SPOILERS FOR ANG LEE'S HULK AND THE INCREDIBLE HULK Was it boring! I almost didn't make it through Ang Lee's Hulk. Eric Bana was expressionless, Nick Nolte was horrible, Sam Elliott was unlikeable (and that's no fun, he's usually a cool character). In fact, I honestly think they chose Eric Bana because his non-descript face was the easiest to mimic with computer graphics - and it was clear that the Ang Lee Hulk was meant to facially resemble Bruce Banner in his non-angry state. When Hulk fought a mutant poodle I was ready to concede Hulk as the worst superhero movie ever.But then something happened. About 3/4 of the way through this tedious movie, there was a genuinely exciting and - dare I say it - reasonably convincing - extended action scene that starts with Hulk breaking out of a containment chamber in a military base, fighting M1 tanks and Comanche helicopters in the desert, then riding an F22 Raptor into the stratosphere, only to be captured on the streets of San Francisco. This was one of the best action sequences ever made for a superhero movie. And I have to say, the CGI was quite good. That's not to say that the Hulk was totally convincing. But it didn't require much more suspension of disbelief than is required in a lot of non-superhero action movies. And that's quite a feat.Of course, the ending got really stupid with Bruce Banner's father turning into some sort of shape-shifting villain but the earlier long action sequence put any of Iron Man's brief heroics to shame. And overall, apart from the animated mutant dogs, it really did seem like the CGI in Hulk tried hard to convince you that he was real and really interacting with his environment. It was certainly better than I expected.OK, but what about The Incredible Hulk? Guess what... It's boring too! It has just a few appearances by the Hulk and here's the thing - the CGI in this movie is horrible. Maybe the Hulk in Ang Lee's version looked fake at times and cartoonish at others - but it had its convincing moments also. The Incredible Hulk looked positively ridiculous. It had skin tone and muscle tone that didn't even look like a living creature, just some sort of computer-generated texture. It was really preposterous. The lighting, environment and facial effects didn't look 5 years newer than Ang Lee's, they looked 10 years older. And there really is no excuse for that. We truly are living in an era where computer programmers can ruin a movie just as thoroughly as any director, actor or cinematographer ever could.Worse, the writer and director of this movie seemed to learn almost nothing from Ang Lee's "failure". All the same mistakes are made. Bruce Banner is practically emotionless. The general is so relentlessly, implausibly one-dimensional that he seems faker than the Hulk. The love interest is unconvincing (I have to give Liv Tyler credit for being more emotional than Jennifer Connelly, though both are quite easy on the eyes). Tim Blake Nelson overacts almost as much as Nick Nolte, even though he's only in the movie for a few minutes. The Hulk really doesn't do much in this movie, certainly not any more than in Ang Lee's version. The Incredible Hulk was slightly more fast-paced, but since nothing really happened anyway that's not worth much. Oh yeah, the villain is every bit as phony looking as the Hulk. He's actually much more interesting as a human than as a monster. This is how I can definitively say Ang Lee's version was better: if I ever have the chance to see Ang Lee's version again, I might be able to sit through it to see the good action sequences, or else to try to appreciate the dialogue a little more (more likely I'd just fast forward to the good parts). But there is absolutely not a single scene in The Incredible Hulk that is worth seeing once, let alone twice. It is truly at the bottom of the heap of superhero movies. The cartoonish CGI is an insult to the audience - at least in Ang Lee's version it seems like they were trying to make it realistic (except for the giant poodle, of course).It is absolutely mind-boggling how the filmmakers intended to erase the bad feelings associated with Ang Lee's Hulk by making almost exactly the same movie. It is to Edward Norton's credit that he seems to be distancing himself from this film.$LABEL$ 0
+I just watched this movie for the second time, and enjoyed it as much as the first time. It is a very emotional and beautiful movie, with good acting and great family values. Inspiring and touching!$LABEL$ 1
+i'm watching this horrid film as we speak. it is possibly one of the worst movies ever aired in my house. i'm sitting here with 3 friends and they agree. its not scary. its not funny. its not dramatic. it contains nothing appealing whatsoever. we are 49 minutes in the movie. we've only seen 2 critters. only one person has died. this movie is one big letdown. nothing about this horrible, horrible movie has made me want to watch the rest. i'm getting a movie hang over. i hope that everyone who had anything to do with making this movie dies. i don't just mean the actors. i mean the director, producers, the presidents from the studio that financed this movie. it is in full, the worst movie ever. it should make the IMDb worst 100 movies of all time. at number 1.$LABEL$ 0
+I am very thankful that the small college town of Abingdon, Va.- near Bristol, TN. and home of the famous Barter Theatre where Gregory Peck once acted- managed to get an art film festival togather and show this film there. Abingdon is two and a hour hours from where I live, but the trip was worth it in every sense of the word. UZAK/DISTANT is an amazing, brilliant, jarring, emotional, captivating film. As a Turkish-American, this film was not only a testimony as to what life in Turkey is like; but on a larger scale it tells the world of what it is like to be Turkish whether one lives in Istanbul, Berlin, Montreal, New York, or Omaha. It may be two hours in length as opposed to five minutes, but this is effectively our Bob Marley song. There are so many wonderful scenes in this film. It is very difficult to choose just a random few. But, for me, one telling scene takes place in a Beyoglu (downtown Istanbul) cinema. The title character, played by Mehmet Emin Toprak who sadly died in a car accident shortly after this film's completion, follows a very attractive young woman down a staircase to the cinema's main auditorium. She goes into see "Vanilla Sky." As the image of Tom Cruise is reflected from a glass, we sense that Turkish men are competing with Tom Cruise for their own women's affections even though Tom Cruise is nowhere to found in Beyoglu. The scenes shot across the Bosphorous shores are also quite revealing as they symbolize the beauty, yet desperate empty gulfs, which are a painful fact of life in Turkey. In this film, the gulf separates lovers and families. A simple, empty packet of Samsun (Turkish brand) cigarettes and a dying mouse jump off the screen the way seagulls did in the 1982 Serif Goren-Yilmaz Guney film "Yol." Many of Guney's films, including "Yol," "Suru- the Herd" (1978- completed by Zeki Okten) and "Baba-The Father" (1971) have been considered by many to be the best Turkish films ever made. Without Guney's sometimes overblown social-political anger (especially in his last film, the 1983 prison drama "Duvar-The Wall"), "Distance" captures the essence of Turkish life quite remarkably. This is a crowning achievement for a director who in my view can already be proclaimed as the Turkish equivalent to directors like Tarkovsky, Bresson, and Ozu. I can't wait to see his other films!$LABEL$ 1
+This is the worst adaption of a classic story I have ever seen. They needlessly modernize it and some points are actually just sick.The songs rarely move along the story. They seem to be thrown in at random. The flying scene with Marley is pointless and ludicrous.It's not only one of the worst movies I've seen, but it is definitely the worst musical I've ever seen.It's probably only considered a classic because "A Christmas Carol" is such a classic story. Just because the original story was a classic doesn't mean that some cheap adaption is.$LABEL$ 0
+There really are no redeeming factors about this show. To put it simply, its just terrible. Absolutely dreadful. It's just a dreadful "reality" show. Not only that, it's dreadful fiction.Imagine this: A bunch of overly-imaginative teenagers get together one night and go "Hey! Let's make a paranormal show just like "Ghost Hunters" and whatnot!" So they grab a camera, harass local residents and film random landscapes behind a painfully "trying-to-be-dramatic-yet-failing-misreably" monologue. This show is basically a bunch of teenagers running around with a home movie camera trying to make a really bad horror documentary. The only difference is this show actually has a budget and writers. A wasted budget and terrible writers.Oh, the problems, how do I count thee? Well, first off, let's talk about this from a personal level. I am not a total skeptic when it comes to the paranormal. I am willing to believe in whats paranormal and whats not, and I'm sure there are a lot of people who feel the same. So, if you're going to do a show about the paranormal, you have to do a good job convincing the viewer that what they're seeing is either paranormal or not, because the viewer can easily believe otherwise. I hate to compare, but I don't see why not at this point. Take "Ghost Hunters" for example. In "Ghost Hunters" you can tell that the cast is leveled with the audience. They're not totally skeptical, yet they're still willing to keep the possibility of any paranormal anomalies in mind. They have to look at something and be willing to say "this is possible that its simply nothing". And, with that in mind, they set out to try and prove themselves wrong. They use technology and several other gadgets along with constant moderation to determine what is paranormal along with bearing the fact that what they may be monitoring could be nothing in mind. Not only are they trying to convince themselves what is real and what is not, in the process they are trying to convince you. That element of doubt is not present in "Paranormal State". Strike one.In "Paranormal State", the cast simply says "there's this spooky place, and its HAUNTED, so we're going to find some SPIRITS!" And immediately you know and saying to yourself "Okay, convince me otherwise". The cast is not professional in their interviews. In fact, sometimes it seems like they're just harassing local residents of these so-called "haunted" areas. They have no real evidence to back up their claims besides assumptions and theories, and the best they can must up is somebody who "claims" they can contact the dead, with no one ever backing up who this person is and how valid they really are. They could have easily just picked some random person off the street and said "pretend you can contact spirits for our show" and went at it. In the "Mothman" episode, this just happens. Without any convincing evidence towards the end of the show, they bring this sort of individual out where he does a random, painfully scripted "reading" of a supposed area of how something is "haunted" in order to convince its audience. Very, very poor effort. I feel that one of the main problems with the show is that it feels scripted. During one of the episodes, the cast gets attacked by one of these "paranormal anomalies" at times in an attempt to be dramatic. These sort of dramatic sequences would make any skeptic laugh and even those who are on the fence realize what they're watching is just a bunch of tabloid-esquire trash. If the show's aim was to try and convince their audience that these "paranormal" events are real, they're doing a horrifically poor job at doing so. Strike two.However, there is always the counter. Just one last viewpoint to see if the show is actually worth something. What if the show isn't trying to convince you that these paranormal events are real and are simply trying to entertain you with good fiction? It even fails on that level as well. If the show's creators were trying to craft fiction to entertain its audience, the writing is too poor and even on a fictional level, it fails to convince the audience that its cast members are really experiencing the unknown in all its full, horrifying glory. The writing is simply not compelling and even, dare I say, boring. Strike three.So what remains of this show is simply a bunch of teenagers who are too willing or too gullible to believe in the paranormal simply because its simply much more amazing than reality who set out with a camera, a bad script and bad actors to generally just make a really bad horror documentary. Thats all the show is at this point. There is no reason to see it, not even for the entertainment factor, and there's no reason to care about it. To be blunt, its lame. There are absolutely no redeeming factors about this show.$LABEL$ 0
+Some of the posters seem less than gruntled because this is neither Mark Twain nor Rodgers and Hart but clearly it doesn't pretend to be either. You'll look a long time to find a greater Rodgers and Hart fan than me but Burke and Van Heusen weren't exactly chopped liver in addition to which they knew Der Bingle inside out and tailored some great songs - But Beautiful, Moonlight Becomes You, It's Always You, The Day After Forever, etc - to fit his highly personal style and here they come up with yet another fine - and unfairly neglected - ballad, Once And For Always, plus a couple of upbeat philosophy-lite entries in If You Stub Your Toe On The Moon and Busy Doing Nothing. The flimsy plot isn't meant to be taken seriously - why else make Merlin a heavy when in most, if not all, of the other versions he is more a friend/mentor to Arthur - so if you start wondering aloud why Sir Lancelot who has been sold to historians as the epitome of chivalry and uprightness metamorphoses into a schoolyard bully you're not going to get much fun out of what is essentially a fun movie. On balance it does what it sets out to do, entertain, so good luck to it.$LABEL$ 1
+This is the most human and humane of movies that I have seen in a long time. The ironies abound, Susan Sarandon as a nun, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon in a movie that doesn't preach but neither does it condemn. It is cinema verite at it's best, and yet the story is fictionalized from several real events.Which of the two is more amazing, Sarandon or Penn? It is easy to say who is more likeable, but it is hard to say who is more convincing. they are simply magnificent.You may think that all killers should be killed or you may argue that life without parole is no life and that death is more merciful. whatever your personal feeling, this movie gives you a chance to pause and reconsider.At the end one simply wants to sit in silence and reflect. That is what great drama does, it gives catharsis, it creates a moment in time, a shared memory that touches our humanity.$LABEL$ 1
+The Swedish filmmaker Roy Andersson's latest film You, the Living is not easy to review. One of the reasons is that in his own words he has broken with the Anglo-Saxon tradition of story-telling, in all essence the template of most Western film productions. Another reason might be that although Roy Andersson is somewhat heavy on symbolisms, his, unlike those of, say, Andrei Tarkovsky, are of a more elusive nature. It took him 3 years to complete this 86 minute long film and it wasn't because he was forced to have long breaks between shootings due to financial troubles or problems with the actors. The film consists of 57 vignettes shot mostly by a still camera, and it was the careful design of each of these scenes which required much time. The imagery of this film which is closely related to the director's previous film Songs from the Second Floor is of utmost importance to the story, thus this story is told to a great degree by the surroundings and the environment in which the characters of Andersson's universe dwell and interact. Before each scene was finally shot, there would have been no less than 10 different test shootings with different actors, colors, dialog etc. The result is a dreamlike version of the surrounding world which most of us would recognize and if the setting is like a dream, why not dream a little? Just like in Bunuel's The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, when somebody says "Last night I had a dream", you get to watch it. But then again, what is perceived as reality here is not very much different from the dreams.Despite the fact that the film lacks a plot in the traditional sense of the word and there are no main characters as such, the different characters who appear and reappear in different scenes still meet each other and their stories are inevitably intertwined. What most of these characters have in common is their apparent loneliness despite being surrounded by other people. The trailer trash chain smoking and binge drinking woman who dreams of having a motorbike so that she can get away from "all this crap", her corpulent and mostly silent boyfriend and his frail and seemingly gentle but rather absent-minded mother, members of a brass band whose skill improving efforts at home aren't getting a favorable reception neither from their families nor their neighbors, the depressed Middle Eastern hairdresser and his arrogant customer on his way to "a very important business meeting", an elderly man having a nightmare about bombers in the skies, a young girl dreaming about marrying the young rock star that she is so madly in love with. It's all about dreams and nightmares versus reality but it works as much as a statement in support of the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein's claims that "all human communication is miscommunication". People speak to each other but it is as if they speak past each other. They try to reach out to the others but shut the others out when those try to reach them.You, the Living is a poetic film set physically in Stockholm but yet universally applicable. The society it portrays is Sweden, its artistic language and the people displayed are generally unmistakably Nordic. Yet, the subject it deals with, namely, the misery of the humankind in a selfish world, reaches far beyond this hemisphere. Despite the seriousness of its theme, the film itself seems a lot more cheerful and laden with humor than one might have expected. But in the words of the director himself "living is so complicated to each one of us that the only thing that saves us is our sense of humor". Hence, this film is a tragic comedy or a comic tragedy, depending on your sensitivities, and not a depressing black reality tour of the human nature. It is unusual in its language and structure, but if you can think outside the box and enjoy it, you will certainly find this film both entertaining and meaningful at the same time. It was shown at this year's Cannes festival as part of the Un Certain Regard program which offers "original and different works" outside the competition. After the film was shown in the Salle Debussy, the 1,000 strong audience gave it a standing ovation for several minutes. Do I need to say more?$LABEL$ 1
+This film stars, among others, "SlapChop" Vince Offer (who also wrote, edited and directed) and Joey Buttafuoco--not exactly names that scream out "quality". And with such uplifting skits as "Supermodels taking a dump" (it's exactly what it sounds like), a guy who robs a sperm bank (the "Rhymer"), necrophilia with a rotting corpse, black market fetuses (featuring a guy scooping what are supposed to be them out of a jar), lots and lots of gay jokes, a skit about a giant phallus who is a superhero and forced abortions. The skits are painfully unfunny (such as "Batman and Rhymer"), the acting not good enough to be considered amateurish and the film is crude just for the sake of being crude...and stupid. I truly believe a group of 8 year-olds could have EASILY made a funnier film with the same budget.Apparently this film resulted in a lawsuit by "Slap Shot" Vince against the Scientologists. Frankly, I wouldn't know who to root for in this case!!! Apparently, he alleged that somehow Scientologists destroyed his reputation and sank this film. No matter that the film is repellent junk from start to finish and 99% unfunny (by comparison, Ebola is funnier)...and these are the nicest things I can say about the movie.By the way, that IS Bobby Lee (from "Mad TV") wearing a diaper and participating in the dumb fake porno film. It's amazing his career could overcome this.$LABEL$ 0
+"Tintin and I" first of all struck me as a masterpiece documentary. The photography and the editing are truly breath-taking (almost anti-Dogma).We follow the life of Tintin drawer Hergé through an open-hearted interview from 1971. The Tintin series was drawn on the background of the great ideological fights of the twentieth century. In the midst of these Hergé has his own demons to fight with, and much of his drawing activity seems like an attempt to tame these and to escape into a world of perfection.Even though there are spectacular photographic panoramas of drawings from Tintin albums and also some reconstructions and reading of passages from the albums, the story of Hergé is told entirely through interviews and archive material, and never through reconstructions.Hergé lived the turbulent life of a true, suffering artist. But the fantastic world that came of his imagination will continue to amaze readers again and again.$LABEL$ 1
+A famous conductor decides after a heart attack to go back to the village where he was born to live a quiet life. There, he comes in Dutch with the local church choir, that will change his life.I had no expectations when I saw this movie for the first time yesterday; I like watching foreign movies that are not English, and I've already seen a couple of Swedish movies in my life, but this one was the best so far.Where to start? In my opinion, this film is a jewel, thanks to many things, of which one is the outstanding acting. Michael Nyqvist is perfect as the thoughtful, almost shy and devoted conductor Daniel Daréus. Beautiful Frida Hallgren is enchanting with her pretty smile and her subtle acting. The choir members are all well-developed, interesting characters with their own story each.This movie tells a story, a beautiful story, about music, love, pain, memories, death, about a man who devoted his life to music, and who tries to create a calm existence in the village where he was born, while trying to make peace with the past and with the way his life has been till then. Kay Pollack shows us that the Swedish are outstanding movie creators. Go see Så som i himmelen, it's a movie that makes you think about life and love, and that's also comforting, in some way.$LABEL$ 1
+I am an avid fan of violent exploitation cinema, who would never attack a film for being violent or disturbing. I consider "Cannibal Holocaust" a masterpiece and will always defend controversial films like "Day Of The Woman" or "Last House on the Left" as genuine classics. Anyone who browses through my other user comments will notice that I am actually very pro-violence/gore when it comes to films. However, I do think that there should be at least some point to the violence. This piece of crap doesn't have any point whatsoever. The first film in the notorious "Guinea Pig" series, "The Devil's Experiment" (1985) is widely controversial, but, as opposed to many other controversial films, this stinker has nothing at all to be recommended for. I must say that, before seeing any of the Guniea-Pig films, I already had a feeling that I would hate this one, knowing what it was about. Due to its status as one of the most controversial films around, however, I decided I had to see it. I am very glad I didn't waste any money on this pile of crap, and I sure wish I hadn't wasted my time with it either.This thing's story (I don't even want to call it a 'film'): It doesn't have one. Three scumbags torture a woman to death for some excruciating 40 minutes. That's it. There is no artistic value, no 'shocking' story, no suspense; nothing. Simply the disbelief that a film that shows NOTHING except for a woman being tortured for no reason enjoys an enormous cult-following. It IS disturbing, I give it that. Of course it is disturbing to watch a torture video for 40 minutes. What is more disturbing, however, is the fact that many people actually seem to regard this pile of garbage as some kind of masterpiece. I really cannot figure why. The fact that the gore effects look realistic cannot be the reason, I hope. The girl who plays the victim isn't a very good actor, and reacts very calm to all the torture. That makes the film look less realistic, which is, in this single case, a good thing. This is a film that is sickening; not for its gore, but for its redundancy, its existence for the sole purpose of showing 40 minutes of torture.I strongly oppose any form of censorship. Since this is 100% fake and nobody got hurt during its production, it IS legitimate to make such a film. However, I cannot think of a single reason why anyone would like this, other than the morbid desire to watch suffering and the enjoyment of torture. This film's sequel "Flowers of Flesh and Blood" gained notoriety when actor Charlie Sheen mistook it for an actual snuff film and informed the FBI. Fortuneately, the film turned out to be fake. Overall, "The Devil's Experiment" is a fake torture/snuff film that seems to have the sole purpose of looking as close to a real snuff film as possible."The Devil's Experiment" is one of the worst films I have ever had the misfortune of sitting through. Don't torture yourself by giving this piece of crap a try for its controversial status. Do yourself a favor and avoid it. Zero stars out of 10, I wish there was a negative scale in order to appropriately rate this pile of crap.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is so irredeemably bad, NOTHING about it makes it worth seeing. NO effects, no suspense and poor dialogue poorly delivered. Oh, and neither a CAMP or any FEAR does it contain. Do yourself a favor and go see the original Friday the 13th or (preferably) Sleepaway Camp, but what ever you do, DO NOT see this movie. Even Michele Bauer's appearance at the very beginning can't save it. Usually, in these kinds of films you expect violence, suspense, and a little gore and some T&A. The violence was poorly executed, the "suspense" was laughable, there was NO gore, and the T&A is plentiful IN THE FIRST 5 MINUTES, then, NOTHING. At least one of these things, properly done would have at least made it watchable. To say at least one nice thing about it, Buck Flower is great, he seems to be the only one who understands they are making schlock and rightly hams it up. If everyone else had fit that tone it would have been campy fun, no pun intended.$LABEL$ 0
+I can't believe how many people hate Hal Sparks! He was my favorite host of the show, hands down. I hate celebrity gossip and generally dislike talk shows, but when Hal Sparks hosted Talk Soup, it was must see TV for me. I rarely missed an episode during his run, and was saddened when the guest hosts started pouring in (although most of the guests still did a fine job). Anyway, for all the people who dislike Hal Sparks, I imagine they must have never seen the weekend specials. They were hour long episodes of Talk Soup that comprised the best clips from the entire week, and were padded out by sketch comedy bits. The original bits that Hal Sparks did were hilarious. In one he got possessed by a bad comedy demon, and in an exorcist like scene his head spun as he told dated jokes about airline food. One episode was dedicated to making fun of Multiplicity, as a bunch of cloned Hal Sparks kept multiplying through out the episode, over-running the studio.OK, maybe these don't sound as funny when I describe them, but all I know is that besides Talk Soup, the only other two shows I watched consistently during those years was The Simpsons and Late Night with Conan O'Brian. So if you like the comedy stylings of those shows, then you'd probably like Talk Soup during the Sparks years.That said, Henson and Tyler were both great hosts as well. All three hosts brought something different to the table but they were all fine comedians in my opinion. Of course, throughout the Tyler and guest star years, my interest in this show began to wane, but every now and then I catch The Soup, the show's spiritual successor, and sure enough, the new host can bring some pretty unexpected laughs from time to time.OK, I've wasted enough time talking about a TV show that isn't on the air anymore and on a channel that I generally despise. Go watch something else!$LABEL$ 1
+I'm an opera buff, and operas are full of sex, blood and death. It may help to know the librettos of the operas the arias are from to really appreciate this film -- my mileage is very different than Tug-3. I am a classical music lover, and I liked this film.I loved Ken Russell's "Nessun Dorma" segment, and would actually like to see him produce Turandot, because opera is supposed to be overwhelming, truly multi-media experience , but then I loved Lisztomania. I love *Turandot* and knowing the libretto so well may be why I don't find this segment the travesty that Tug-3 did.The Buck Henry/ Rigoletto segment is probably the most approachable for the average viewer -- they are likely to recognize the tunes, and its a classic bedroom farce. I like bedroom farces, so the silliness didn't upset me.The "Liebestod" segment is so outstanding that I recommend people watch this for that piece alone. "Depuis la Jour" was, for me, beautifully spiritual. And the Caruso recording of "Vesti la Giubba" (aka I Pagliacci) with John Hurt as the clown was wonderful. But people just wanting naked women may feel there is too much music and not enough bare flesh and sex.$LABEL$ 1
+I have never seen a worse movie.It is possible to take a shootem up video game and make it into a decent movie.Mistake 1: absolutely no connection to any of the characters. In this movie you don't bond with any of the characters because... you don't get a chance.The only character that is sympathetic or even interesting is the Deck Hand: Salish as played by Clint Howard. Except for this unique character, the outcome of the movie is meaningless as all the characters were lifeless from the begining.Mistake 2: the worst gunfight scene ever. I love gunfights. I love when the heros open up on the badguys and clean house. heck I even like to watch a badguy clean house sometimes. But this gunfight was weird I guess that the best way to describe it is "Apathetic" I've seen people shoot with more feeling and emotion while PLAYING THE VIDEOGAME. In this movie it looked and felt like the "Actors" were simply walking through shooting everything that moved without emotion.Why? Where's the trash talking? where's the snarls of rage amongst the gunfire? These are supposed to be kids that got caught at a rave gone bad... but even real soldiers acting professionally and ruthlessly show their humanity.If you want a GOOD horror movie about a secluded house full of monsters, I recomend Sam Rami's Evil Dead series. DO NOT see the disaster that is house of the dead. I hope that they burn the master and all copies of this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+This story was never among my favourites in Christie's works so I was pleasantly surprised to quite enjoy this adaptation. The mouse motif was effective if a little overdone, the bones of the story are there although more emphasis is placed on the 'crime in the past' subplot. The students were all pretty much as I imagined them although its a pity they weren't a more cosmopolitan bunch - perhaps the revised thirties setting didn't allow for that! I thought some very daring risks were taken with the filming; perhaps its because I've not long re-read the book but it seemed pretty obvious to me who the murderer was from their appearance in some reveal shots quite early on.Humour was much more prevalent in these early Poirots. Sometimes it works but I found a lot of it rather heavy handed in this episode (though I did smile at the 'Lemon sole' throwaway line). Altogether though, a solid entry in the series though not one of the best.$LABEL$ 1
+It would require the beauty and eloquence of Shakespeare to do justice to this outstanding cinematic feat. Nevertheless, I'll give it a go.As far as adaptations of Hamlet go this one is already at a better starting point than all other versions since it encompasses the entire play. Still this is no guarantee for a first-rate movie, or even a good one. Usually I'm not much for movies that are overlong and the trend that seems to be prevalent in Hollywood today, namely that movies should be at least two hours long, preferably three, is one that hopefully won't last long. Few stories are strong enough to withstand such extensive exploration and could do with some cutting. Making a four-hour-long movie and keeping it interesting is no small undertaking, but Kenneth Branagh pulls it off with flying colours. He has managed to make a very long movie seem no more than any average movie. I was completely engrossed from start to finish.The cast is excellent with Kenneth Branagh himself as the tormented prince giving a strong and memorable performance. He manages to convey his feelings admirably through his voice and one does not have to be an expert on Shakespearean verse to catch the myriad of emotions that are waging inside him. Kate Winslet was a positive surprise, I must say. I didn't know what to expect really. I've always liked her well enough as an actor, but wasn't sure she could pull off playing Shakespeare. Well, she certainly eradicated all doubts with her performance. She is the best Ophelia I have seen and lent such depth to the character and was simply wonderful. Other brilliant performances are Derek Jacobi as Claudius, Richard Briers as Polonius and Nicholas Farrell as Horatio to name but a few. I liked the fact that Branagh used some internationally more famous stars to play in some of the minor roles; I especially enjoyed the sparring between Hamlet and the gravedigger played by Billy Crystal.The setting of the play in the 19th century gives a welcome change to the usually gloomier Gothic settings. It is overall much lighter than other versions I've seen, more colourful and lavish, but this does not distract from the tragedy of the play. It is exceptional, stylish and aesthetically pleasing, a definite delight to the eye and other senses as well. The music by Patrick Doyle is as always magical and thoroughly in tune with the movie. One can only feel a deep sense of satisfaction after having seen this. I am shocked and appalled that this exquisite work of art did not win an Academy award for best picture, even more so that it wasn't even nominated. There is no way there was a better movie made that year, or any other year for that matter. This is as close to perfection as you can hope to get.To sum up, a stunning work of pure genius and I cannot see how anyone could top this. My hat's off to you Mr. Branagh.$LABEL$ 1
+Okay, make no mistake - this is a pretty awful film, but I actually thought it had a couple of creepy scenes and overcame its pathetic budget every now and then. At the very least it's unintentionally funny in spots and has a definite air of creepiness and discomfort (a face burning scene, the part with the disfigured bride). This baby falls into the "so bad it's entertaining" category to me, and for that alone I would give it a star. The effects are terrible, the acting is abysmal, and the whole thing looks like it was shot in a day. You gotta love that toy ship at the beginning, too! It brought back childhood memories of seeing this on late night TV many years ago. While the Alpha DVD print looks weak and as though it was recorded directly off an old television broadcast or something, I actually liked that in this case!$LABEL$ 0
+To be fair, I didn't see a lot of this show. Probably because it wasn't as good as the original M*A*S*H, but I seem to recall them moving it around on the weekly schedule. Some shows just aren't worth the trouble of following around every week. But I really did try at first, so it wasn't all bad. Maybe I just kept expecting it to improve, but I can't give this show a 1. In all honesty, I can't give it any more than a 2 either.It wasn't MASH (I'm not going to type those stupid *'s every time). And it was trying to be MASH without putting forth any effort, like it would just magically happen. Well guess what? No magic. The best I can do here is to compare it to other shows.Trapper John, M.D. was a much better show by far. However, they should have called it B.J. Hunnicut, M.D. because Pernell Roberts looked exactly like an older BJ, but nothing at all like Trapper John. Keep everything else the same, just change his name and the name of the show. Presto! After MASH wasn't the only sequel to completely bomb and dishonor the original. Archie Bunker's Place was a lame follow-up to All In The Family. It had no heart, no conflict, no depth – all of the things that made All In the Family so memorable. Likewise, MASH was funny because the doctors were reacting to the impossible absurdity of war. Remove the war and you remove the drive for 99% of the humor. Potter can't yell at Klinger for wearing a dress, because Klinger isn't wearing a dress, because he's not trying to get kicked out of the Army, because he's already out of the Army, because the war is over. (breathe) All of the jokes became forced because there was no motivation for anything. The least motivated was the viewer, to stay around and watch the show.And from what I remember, the whole show seemed to be Potter, Klinger, and Mulcahy just standing there unnaturally, facing the audience like a trio of Vaudeville performers. It was reminiscent of Good Times, where they spent 90% of the show standing behind that couch and talking to the audience, trying to make it look like they were having natural conversation. They weren't. And it felt even less natural on After MASH.Another random tidbit I recall is that the people who made MASH never got any royalties from the spin-off. The studio used the absurd excuse that After MASH was really a spin-off of the movie MASH (which they owned) and not the TV series. Nice try, but Mulcahy was the only one of the three in the movie, and he was never deaf. I guess studio execs will do anything for a buck. Anything other than make a worthwhile sequel, that is.$LABEL$ 0
+I've always liked Johnny Concho and I wish this film were out on VHS and DVD. Frank Sinatra gives one of the most unusual performances in his career in this one.When we first meet Frank in the film's title role, he's the brother of a notorious gunfighter who's out of town at the moment. The brother strikes terror in the heart's of the town and Frank takes full advantage of that to bully the townspeople safe and secure in his shadow. Only Phyllis Kirk has any feeling for him. She's the daughter of storekeeper Wallace Ford and Dorothy Adams.Two other gunmen arrive William Conrad and Christopher Dark and it turns out Conrad has killed Sinatra's brother and he's coming to his town to take over. They humiliate Sinatra and run him out of town. Kirk follows him.Overnight Sinatra turns from punk into coward and becomes a man searching for some kind of backbone. It's a well acted performance, almost as good as his Oscar nominated role in The Man With a Golden Arm. Pity for some reason this has not been seen for years.Two other performances of note are Keenan Wynn as former gunfighter turned preacher who helps Sinatra find what he needs to stand up to Conrad and Dark. And then there is Conrad in what I believe was his career role on screen. He's a villain of incredible malevolence, pure evil incarnate walking and talking on the silver screen.However what I like about Johnny Concho is the climax an unforgettable one where Conrad and Dark are dealt with. Let's just say I believe Johnny Concho was MGM's answer to High Noon and a primer for what you do when evil causes a break down in all law and order.$LABEL$ 1
+First things first, this movie is achingly beautiful. A someone who works on 3D CG films as a lighter/compositor, the visuals blew me away. Every second I was stunned by what was on screen As for the story, well, it's okay. It's not going to set the world on fire, but if you like your futuristic Blade Runner-esquire tales (and who doesn't?) then you will be fine.I do have to say that I felt the voice acting was particularly bland and detracted from the movie as a whole. I saw it at the cinema in English, but I am hoping that there is a French version floating around somewhere.Definitely worth seeing.$LABEL$ 1
+Only once in a while do we get an R-rated comedy that gets everyone's time and attention. It's an even rarer case when the critics will like it. I just came back from The 40 Year-Old Virgin and I can honestly say, it was one of the biggest laughs of my life. I went to a 10:35 showing and every row was filled. Not only that, everyone laughed their ass off the whole time through. It's two hours of non-stop laughing. I dare you to see this film and to not laugh.The plot is simple. A man is forty years old and he is a virgin. Yet, behind this simple, five second joke, we are given a deep, complex story that is not only one of the funniest you'll ever witness, but has genuine lessons behind it. Steve Carell stars as Andy Stitzer, The 40 Year-Old Virgin. We have known Steve Carell, as, in my opinion, one of the best scene thieves of all time. Stealing hilarious scenes from Bruce Almighty and especially Anchorman, Steve Carell has come a long way, as finally, and proudly, is given his moment to shine as the star. No one will forget his name once they witness this pervasively funny, gut-busting, roll-in-the-aisle hilarious comedy.The beauty about the film is it isn't 100% stupid. The brilliant writing of Judd Apatow and Steve Carell genuinely has purpose and it's not just one hell of a story to tell. Behind the crudeness and vulgar non-stop ride of the film comes an important lesson to be learned. Although not presented in the best way possible, the film gives us more than a purely enjoyable time. Its gut-busting attitude will have you laughing the whole time through, while we simultaneously see the real life struggles of people like Andy and his fellow co-workers. The end couldn't have been better. Not only does it deliver what we are promised but it gives one of the most memorable finishing numbers a comedy has ever seen. It would have been perfect if there was Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson in there cameoing somehow, but you can't win 'em all, now can you.Finally, I think as Roger Ebert put it, Catherine Keener gives an unexplainable perfect performance as Trish, the one woman Andy has his heart truly for. Not only does she also give us laughs but it is crazy to see how brightly she fuels the story. She was cast perfected in the role and her and Carell have terrific, not to mention, hilarious chemistry on screen.Canadian ratings-wise, once again, Ontario slips away with a 14A, while British Columbia, Alberta, and Manitoba all slapped The 40 Year-Old Virgin with an 18A. The same thing happened with Four Brothers, in my opinion, the second best film of the year, and I can honestly say that I love Ontario more and more so for that. To all you fellow teenagers out there in the States: Good luck sneaking in! Overall, Steve Carell gives one of the funniest performances I've ever seen and just about everyone in the cast distributes to the non-stop laughter. Everyone will love the 40 Year-Old Virgin this summer and I encourage everyone to see it as fast as humanly possible. It is the best comedy of the year, hands down. It beats all over The Longest Yard, The Wedding Crashers, and of course Apatow and Carell's last memorable comedy, Anchorman.It is a comic masterpiece and deserves the remarkable amount of praise from the critics who have been loving it. Every single one of my favourite critics loved it and it deserves a spot on the IMDb Top 250 right away. Steve Carell is a huge star. Watch one of the brightest ones of the summer right now.My Rating: 9/10 Objectively – 9/10 Subjectively – 10/10 Eliason A.$LABEL$ 1
+Somewhere in his non-fiction book DANSE MACABRE, Stephen King suggests that one secret of writing scary stories is to avoid showing your readers exactly what horrible thing is waiting behind the door to get them. If at last the door bursts open and a bug ten feet tall lurches through, the reader may be a little scared, but he'll also think, "Well, I can deal with that. At least it wasn't a HUNDRED feet tall." There's nothing more frightening than what lurks, unseen and unknown, just on the other side of that tightly closed door, waiting to get you.THE HAUNTING is so completely misconceived that director Jan De Bont more or less starts off his movie by metaphorically throwing open that door himself and yelling: "Look, everybody, look! It's a ten-foot-tall bug! Isn't that SCARY?!" The law of diminishing returns immediately kicks in. By the end of the movie, the director is, so to speak, jumping up and down, banging his CGI pots and pans madly, and hoarsely screaming: "Look, everyone, look! Here come ten HUNDRED-foot-tall bugs! ... And now, here come a hundred THOUSAND-foot-tall bugs!" The filmmakers apparently believed that special effects alone could compensate for all the other shortcomings in this endeavor (and there are many). They can't and don't. In fact, impressive as they are, the special effects are so insistent and obtrusive that the distracted viewer winds up staring at them -- whether in admiration or annoyance -- instead of being immersed in a story.For me, the nadir of this film's sheer stupidity comes when a statue, with "blood" gushing from its mouth, tries to drown Liam Neeson (as Dr. Marrow) in a fountain. The filmmakers clearly didn't know what to do with this alleged idea once they had it, so they just have Neeson thrash around in the water a bit, flailing his arms and going glug-glug. By the next scene, the good doctor has apparently dried himself off and, ho hum, forgotten all about the annoying incident.Shirley Jackson's novel seems to have been dumbed-down into this ridiculous screenplay by a committee of low-IQ teenage stoners who thought the way to frighten people was to make every effect bigger and louder: "Okay, next, let's, uh, make the ceiling, you know, look like a creepy face, and, uh, come down on her ... and all these spiky things, like, trap her in the bed."The sole saving grace of THE HAUNTING is that it at last becomes so awful that it's actually funny. By the time Owen Wilson (as Luke Sanderson) fell on the floor and then went on his Magic-Carpet Ride O' Death, I just about fell on the floor myself, laughing.Badly constructed, witless, grotesquely heavy-handed, utterly unbelievable, and filled with clunky dialogue and pointless scenes, this vacuous HAUNTING is a textbook example of how NOT to make a horror movie.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie has a very hard-to-swallow premise, even by this genre's standards. We are asked to accept not only that a record played backwards can bring a dead man back to life, but that the record also contains hidden messages aimed SPECIFICALLY at one kid, when the singer had no connection to the boy when he was alive, and of course no way of knowing at whose hands the record would end up. Anyway, the film is fun for a while, but eventually the silliness and the pointlessness reign supreme. If they were really trying to create a new Freddy-like horror icon, they were way off: the villain here has no personality, no motivation, and no variety. (*1/2)$LABEL$ 0
+The original Thunderbirds earned a place in TV history. It was, and still is, much beloved - indeed, the entire first 10 minutes of the Wallace and Gromit movie (the Wererabbit) is a direct lift of Thunderbirds, down to a direct replay of the original Thunderbird 2 launching sequence (if you don't believe me, get the movie, and then get a copy of the original episode where Thunderbird 2 is launched).This movie was a crass attempt at making a kids' movie - when the original was loved and enjoyed by kids and adults alike! In the original, the Thunderbirds spent all of their time rescuing people who were often trapped when Mother Nature or Technology went horrible wrong (yes, there was also the occasional criminal act). The Thunderbirds put their own lives and resources at risk for no reward - the very essence of heroism and selflessness. There was little physical violence. The Thunderbirds challenged the imagination to a degree - how many of us would dream of someday building a Thunderbird 2? And don't underestimate the power of entertainment to do this - many Japanese attribute their fascination with humanoid robots to the old Astroboy cartoon.But this movie was a poor re-image of the original. This movie came across as a meld between Thunderbirds and Loony Tunes - I mean, we have Anthony Edwards as Brain imitating Porky Pig's stuttering????? Much of the action consists of Kung Fu/Power Rangers type fighting. Indeed, there were funny sound effects when someone got nailed on the head with a frying pan. The tech that fired our imagination was absent - instead we have these kids running around, using a plot device that was NEVER in the original series (having the entire team take off at once, leaving the base occupied by the kids and Brain). Then there was a dose of "Use the Force Luke" mysticism thrown in when TinTin would levitate something or another, coupled with the The Hood using aerodynamics that looked like they were lifted from "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". About the only thing missing was for The Hood to go "TinTin, I am your Uncle" with a breath mask voice. The heart that made Thunderbirds unique was GONE.The only bright point was Ron Cook's portrayal of Parker - he caught it perfectly. But the actress playing Lady Penelope came across as a child - HUH???? And this is why we hate this movie. When someone puts out something that was popular to a fan base, and expects the fans to shell out money to watch, and then delivers something than wasn't even close to what the fans expect - well, I am sorry, that is just plain WRONG! OK, so if they were making a kids' movie - fine - next time distribute it straight to video, where many of these belong. But don't package something up in a familiar wrapper and change the innards.$LABEL$ 0
+Now for sure, this is one of the lightest-hearted stories that Bruce Willis has been in to date and yet,-- it is still touching. I really like Bruce's style and persona, I haven't loved everything he has ever been in, but he brings it to the 'Big-time' for me in most all his film endeavors.The story begins..... He is power, confidence and style with a capitol 'S' . He drives a Porshe he lives well, in a palatial estate with a grand view of the fair city. That's Russell Duritz. He is an image consultant to those who are on the top or rising to it. His acclaim, he is Russell Duritz, he knows what it takes to make it. It just seems that as life is going along swiftly and foundation-ally set, there is a problem, an intruder at his home, the alarm has been activated! Russell can't seem to figure out (for the moment) what is happening to him. It's different and yet it is somehow familiar. A small boy, who looks exactly like....-- him. As their lives run smack dab into each other, there seems to be a reason that is screaming out to him, "You have unfinished business to take care of, now!"Amy the supporting young lady of the story is probably the best balance that he has seen and has in his life. She works with him, puts up with his 'ego' and yet, she is smitten with Russell. Very much so. With Rusty his past 'self' now in the picture and talking a mile a minute, singing too late at night, everything that was foundational is becoming like jelly! Willis is fun, egocentric and at times out of his head in this lovable Disney modern times classic 'The Kid' and to add his little heavy-duty side kick Spencer Breslin is a perfect addition to this sparkling story of childhood to adult and back to childhood adventure. Chi McBride is an inspirational supporting character, as he is the heavy-weight champ, teaching 'little' Rusty how to box to defend himself against the bullies on the playground. All in all this is a real winner of a movie with even Lillie Tomlin as the secretary and aide to Russell. I originally saw this back in 2000' and then again years later, with equal enjoyment. This is a shiny family comedy that has a super ending that will warm the hearts of any Disney fan Recommended highly (*****)$LABEL$ 1
+Anita and Me seems to be little more than an excuse for Meera Syal, the author of the novel and screenplay, to air her prejudices, grievances and general antipathy towards the English. The general sentiment of Indian superiority over the English in this film is foul.The English people in this film are portrayed as overweight, violent, foul-mouthed, promiscuous, engaging in child neglect, stupid, uneducated, racist, ugly, eating poor food, and dim-witted -- tellingly, only by turning to Indian culture can the local priest be "redeemed" at the end of the film.By contrast, the Indian family are beautiful, clever, educated, can speak many languages, are caring and loving parents, and grammar-school fodder. The film is so insidiously prejudicial that I am astonished the BBC funded it at all. Had it been the other way round, an English family in an Indian community depicted this way, the film would have been seen as racist.There were a few moments where my eyebrow shot so far up my forehead, I thought it would lodge in my hairline. First, the gossip scene between the women at the Divali celebration -- undertext: the English are dirty and promiscuous -- and the men -- undertext: English women are prostitutes. Second, the meal with Anita where Neema's family lie to her about cutlery -- undertext: the English are so stupid, you can make them do anything.But the underlying contempt towards anything English -- even English weddings are an object of scorn -- is evident all the way through the film. The character of Anita was drawn so appallingly -- almost the fallen woman trope -- that I finished the film feeling angry.This is not a "Bend it like Beckham" where the humour is focused on loving exaggerations of a community's behaviour and customs from somebody within that community, and is a film about two girls from different backgrounds coming together. Instead, Anita and Me seems to convey that a form of cultural apartheid is inevitable, as the English are almost an version of the Indian Untouchable caste, and this is underscored by a thinly-veiled series of attacks upon the film's "other" community: the English.I felt Anita and Me is a hate-filled, grievance-based piece of work. On that basis, the BBC should not have funded its production.$LABEL$ 0
+I suppose if you like endless dialogue that doesn't forward the story and flashy camera effects like the scene transitions in the television show _Angel_, you'll enjoy the film. Me? All I wanted was a nice, tight little story, and it wasn't there. The pacing was practically backward, plot points were buried under a sea of unneeded dialogue, and there was absolutely no sense of dread, or tension, or ANYTHING.Is it the redneck? Is it the Wendigo? No, it's a cameraman on speed. That's not scary. It doesn't generate a single note of tension or atmosphere unless you're scared by MTV. Like those reviewers before me, I too noticed that by the end the movie invokes derisive laughter from the audience.Terrible film.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie and its subsequent TV series followup has become the iconic stand-in for what is great about America. Fame is famous for its music and performances. There are several standouts including Irene Cara, Paul McCrae, Anne Meara*, and the superb Gene Anthony Ray. The latter who plays a walk-on dancer with no academic or other than "street" credentials is an amazing personality and is worth watching for what is essentially a portrayal of himself. A wonderment to behold, as one king was apt to say.The plot follows an interesting format - chronological at times, genre at other times, personalities in some cases ... but, it all really ends in a kind of mush.Where Parker succeeds is in pushing this movie into periodic overdrive - with the extremely poignant and sometimes beautiful and outright campy music score that matches the performers step for step.The climax of the film is a climax for all times. And this climatic complete cast of many many talented musicians and dancers and music is thankfully repeated throughout the credits. These are one set of credits that are well worth sitting through ... an achievement for the ages. The music by Christopher Gore is a gift to behold.$LABEL$ 1
+This may be the worst show I've ever seen. Aside from the tastelessness of having a sitcom about Hitler, it just isn't funny or entertaining in any way. It is very similar to a 1950's sitcom in its cornball humor and contrived situations, but while it can be well done like in I Love Lucy, it's just not funny here. I think the show was based around the novelty "look, it's Hitler as a bumbling sitcom figure" but it just fell flat in every regard. The guy playing Hitler is so hammy that its hard to sit through that alone. I wonder what could have possibly made the network think this was a good idea to air. I thought America had some tasteless show, but the Brits had us beat this time. America would never air a sitcom about Hitler, although we did have that show about Lincoln's slave, The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer. Chances are you'll probably never see this show, since it only aired one episode and will probably never be released on DVD.$LABEL$ 0
+I've never expected too much from a film by trashy B-movie director Jim Wynorski: a silly premise, some cheapo effects and a bit of nudity from some busty babes, and I'm usually fairly happy.Well, Cheerleader Massacre delivers on the former and definitely the latter, but unfortunately is a tad light when it comes to the splatter. And when a film has the word 'massacre' in the title, and scrimps on the gore, then Houston, we have a problem.Wynorski's movie centres on a group of cheerleaders who, along with their teacher, mini-bus driver and a couple of guys, become stranded in the mountains during a snowstorm. They make their way on foot to a deserted mountain retreat, where they find food and shelter. And a crazy killer who wants them all dead! From the outset, good old Jim ensures that his film features plenty of scenes loaded with T&A, and includes the obligatory shower scene, along with numerous other moments in which tasty women get nekkid (including a spot of raunchy softcore sex and a very gratuitous three-babes-in-a-hot-tub scene). None of the women look young enough to be cheerleaders (and are never even seen in their outfits), but who cares about such details when they're all too willing to strip off in the name of art?I do care, however, about the movie's numerous lacklustre deaths. With such an extremely lurid title, I had been hoping for some inventive bloodletting to go with all of the bums, bush, and boobs; instead, practically all of the killings occur off-screen or feature next to no gore. Only a silly post-decapitation scene (achieved with cheap-as-chips CGI) comes anywhere near to delivering the goods.Still, if you're feeling in the mood for some titillation, or a bit of slasher silliness minus the grue, then, at 82 minutes, at least Cheerleader Massacre won't be too much of a waste of your time.$LABEL$ 0
+who reads these comments may think we may have in hand a great movie. I am Portuguese and I'm ashamed that this film became a blockbuster in Portugal. It can't really call this cinema. The direction and "mise-en-scene" is basic (even Ron Howard does better!); the script is bad and pretentious (a really bad Tarantino); the cast is covered in TV stars, models and reality show stars that don't no nothing about acting. When you put in a movie this ingredients of course that the fans of this kind of TV shows will all go see. i am also surprised that people who make comments here in IMDb say that this movie is a masterpiece. I thought that this site was only for people who truly like cinema and understand a little bit of it. All the movies made to be blockbusters in Portgal always use the same ingredients and are always awful. if you think this movie is reasonable, please don't say your love movies and cinema.$LABEL$ 0
+Something somewhere must have terribly gone wrong right at the time when the director was perceiving this plot. The movie, that was supposed to be the remake of one of the most loved movies in cinema, fails to deliver in every aspect of movie making. The best of the artists could also not pick up the tuning, that simply goes on to show that the movie in itself was a grave mistake.The editing is poor. Direction is crap. Acting is out of this world(omg)! The characters who are supposed to look scary force people to laugh on the stupidity of their dialogues and costumes.I wouldn't watch the movie even if someone paid me the cost of the tickets or even gave me a free burger with it.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a classic animated film from the cartoon series! Most of the major characters get alot of screen time plus do extra characters aswell! The film`s focus is on the superstar characters vacation and each one has his/her very unique summer fun! Its very funny from beginning to end! It has excellent color, great music and believe it or not I have seen this more than any movie. Its that great and in MY opinion its perfect!$LABEL$ 1
+We have a character named Evie. Evie just wants to be a good person. She's nice, friendly, smiles often, but is strangely brutally honest. Evie also has a secret. Her idiot-savant sister has been reciting original poetry, which is getting the community excited about the sister writing. Unfortunately, it's Evie's poetry. While their mother starts being happy again and the boy next door shows his interest in Evie, Evie just tries to figure out what she really wants to do.What to keep in mind while watching this movie is who Evie really is. For such a brutally honest person who doesn't mind telling Ivy-league types that she doesn't respect them, it would seem odd that she would be able to pull off a lie. For someone so happy and cheerful, she's quite emotionless when it comes to certain issues. Those aren't character flaws, they're plot development, and they mean a lot more than they at first seem.Mostly this is something of a melodrama: a character lies, the other characters' personalities propel them through drama as relationships are held at risk. But in terms of the writing it's very fresh and bold. The acting helps the writing along very well (maybe the idiot-savant sister could have been played better), and it is a real joy to watch.The directing and the cinematography aren't quite as good. They're acceptable, and Evie's world is wreathed in color and light, which makes for some very beautiful images, but it's not very consistent. It's not really so much of a flaw as a result of a low production value, but within that same value is some genuine storytelling and a real care for the characters. So while it isn't a perfect movie, it's certainly an enjoyable one.--PolarisDiB$LABEL$ 1
+This was the next to last film appearance by Jill Ireland, who died of cancer in 1990 after four decades as a well-known actress and producer. Ireland made quite a few waves in the press when she dropped her then-husband David McCallum in 1967, beginning her long relationship with Charles Bronson. It is a great irony that Bronson, probably the all-time leader in number of deaths rendered on-screen, had one of the most enduring marriages in film history.'Assassination' seems to be a movie that was tucked into Cannon's production schedule for the sake of Bronson and Ireland. Ireland was already suffering from cancer-related illnesses in 1987 and you can almost picture the two actors wanting to do 'just one more, for old times' sake.' 'Assassination' is carelessly done as a whole, showing the lack of polish and dwindling funds that would tank Cannon by 1990. But there's a kind of nostalgia value in seeing the couple together one last time and the film makes you wonder what exactly helps a relationship to survive in the chaos that is Hollywood.Bronson plays Jay Killian, a high-ranking Secret Service agent who is assigned to protect the First Lady, Lara Craig (Ireland). The President's wife has a reputation for being difficult, bossing Service agents around and wanting to do things her own way. That all changes, however, when attempts are made on her life and she must journey with Killian by car, train, motorbike, and believe it or not, dune buggy to escape would-be assassins. There is little surprise here, as Killian believes the murderers are part of an inside job, perhaps arranged by the President himself. On the way, Killian and Mrs. Craig develop an unspoken affection for one another in scenes between Bronson and Ireland that are actually very funny.What really gets me is how this film was promoted upon its release and how it's still made to look as a DVD. The original trailer gives you the feeling that 'Assassination' is another cold-hearted Bronson shoot-'em-up. But a lot of this movie - which was rated PG-13, by the way - is in a comic vein, putting it along the lines of a romantic thriller like Bronson and Ireland's western 'From Noon Till Three.' Even the DVD case shows Bronson with a rocket launcher, ready to blow things up. Which he does, but to a lesser degree than his other '80s potboilers.On the whole, 'Assassination' is late Cannon slop work and doesn't really know what kind of film it wants to be. Besides drifting from actioner to romantic thriller and back again, there are serious mistakes in continuity, property values are bottom-of-the-barrel cheap, and the effects are dreadful; many of the explosions seem like matte work rather than being done on location. Robert Ragland, who had shown good composing skills in earlier films, teamed up with Valentine McCallum on a score that is mostly synthesized and better fit for television.Richard Sale's script has real lulus of dialogue, with the conversations between Bronson and Ireland the only bright spot. There is no explanation as to why the First Lady is called 'One Momma' all of a sudden, nor as to why Ireland is left with her British accent when the character is a Wyoming native. Jan Gan Boyd, playing Killian's main assistant, has a kitten-like personality and is badly miscast as a federal agent. Stephen Elliott (a former Tony Award nominee who died in May 2005), Randy Brooks, Erik Stern (as assassin Bracken), and Michael Ansara (Senator Bunsen) are acceptable in their supporting roles.Incidentally, this was the last film directing gig for Peter Hunt, who broke onto the scene with 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' in 1969 and collaborated with Bronson and Lee Marvin on 'Death Hunt' in 1981. 'Assassination' is available on DVD through MGM Home Entertainment; it is presented in dual widescreen and standard format with three-language subtitles and theatrical trailer.** out of 4$LABEL$ 0
+1st watched 10/28/2007, 8 out of 10(Dir-Jesus Ponce): Simple, sweet story of a homeless couple and their daily adventures surviving in the everyday world without a roof over their heads. The movie starts with the woman in the story(played by Isabel Ampudia)being released from prison but we don't know what she was in for or how long she was there. She runs across the anti-hero of the story and her boyfriend, played by Sebastian Haro, as he's parking cars for change. They shack-up together underneath an old dilapidated building with nothing but each other's warmth and a small mattress to their possession. He is a drug addict who just tries to make it from one fix to another, but she has a strange, obsessive attraction to him as a person, which we eventually accept. He also has some sort of sexually-transmitted disease, so sex for them is out of the question but this doesn't appear to be a problem for either of them. She loves this man as he is, without question, and without him having to change, which is a rare find anywhere. She earns her keep by carrying a bucket around and washing shop windows. They eat a bakery roll every day and consider it a feast. Isabel's character dreams of a normal life but doesn't expect it to happen and doesn't expect to fit into that role so doesn't think much of it. Both characters come from extremely broken homes and therefore the audience has sympathy for them despite their imperfections. Without giving up much of the story, Isabel's character continues to persevere while the man gets worse and worse in his drug obsession. There is a nice melodramatic conclusion to the story that lifts it up for the masses to enjoy, but overall this is a wonderful independent film about a relationship between un-worldly misfits that keeps you interested until the end.$LABEL$ 1
+Excellent film. Suzy Kendall will hold your interest throughout. Has not been shown on American TV for a decade. One scene that has always stayed with me is the German cavalry gas attack. You will find others. Hope they soon put it on tape.$LABEL$ 1
+Talking about competition features at the Split Film festival, we have titles from all over the world. China, Korea, Canada, USA and Australia and many of these stories are indicating that the world is really valley of tears. Modern love...thats for sure. In that movie by Alex Frayne, two younger married people and their boy are traveling from town to the coast to visit the grave and house of the man's uncle who raised him a long time ago and who died in mysterious circumstances. The coastal village seems like something in an American horror film where the village is bizarre and people are uncommon mutants. But episodes in Alex Frayne's pastorella can't be described as horror in the normal way. In fact this is an extreme interesting drama where we are seeing relationships and horror through flashbacks and much more. In this story and through obviously psychological facets of the actors we are shown a peep show of film some charmingly eccentric Australian film-making. Thus is the the case of Frayne. Always something new and fresh. Visual intelligence and unique sensibility of some Australian directors is astonishing good. Frayne's movie is super. There is something in the Australian landscape that shows their movies so special as we have see in FRAYNE's Modern Love and in RAY Lawrence movies Lantana and Jindabyne.It seems it will be the same in future titles of Alex Frayne.$LABEL$ 1
+I give this movie a 4 cause I'm a die hard fan of the video game series. the graphics and animation are excellent and its nice to see the whole gang in CG form Sephiroth's still coolnow the reasons it only got a 4 well the characters feel like planks of wood with some of the worst voice acting I've ever seen(I've watched epic movie)the movie just seems cloud orientated so much so that it make even the fans embarrassed with cloud this and cloud that. clouds mentioned so much that it make you not want to see him in this movie the villains have the award for the worst villains ever (i was more scared by the wicked witch of the west) all the other characters in this movie are simply put in the movie for a nod to the fans and doesn't take it further then thatwtf's with the chilly chally???summary: waited 9 years for this movie and this is what i get a large pointless and boring cut scene i beg the head of square cenix to shoot the man responsible for this burn every copy of the movie and any one involved in it and create a new movie from the ashes's (it would be nice to make the movie in live action and based on the original game)$LABEL$ 0
+Are we serious??? I mean wow ... just, wow. I think I saw this flick in an old issue of War Journal. This is pathetic, originality is completely dead, instead of trying to formulate a new idea what we receive is a bland re-do of an old plot line and to "switch it up" we just change the gender or race of the original character it's moronic and everyone should be sick and tired of seeing it ... but I guess this is just a rant and will most likely fall on deaf ears to engrossed with the sound of another turd hitting the toilet water like the best western since 3:10 to Yuma ... (wait for it)... 3:10 to Yuma! Thank You Hollywood for killing film as an art form and turning it into a commercial barrage of neo-pop junk and blatant retardation ... wonderful!!!$LABEL$ 0
+I have no respect for IMDb ratings anymore. I think a bunch of Mormons flooded the website and voted for this. This is not an artistic movie, it is Mormon propaganda. Nothing wrong with that, but the plot outline and the way it is described is totally misleading. If you are a bible thumping Christian or a Mormon, watch this movie, you'll love it and think it is truly amazing. For anyone else, don't bother, the story is so contrived, random stuff happens that really doesn't follow in a coherent way. This guy tries to commit suicide cause he sleeps with his neighbor. Are you kidding? What a pussy! Anyways, this is an awful movie.$LABEL$ 0
+As a huge fan of horror, I had given up on the vampire sub-genre due to the fact that in most vampire flicks the vampire has become feminine and non-threatening, benign and basically weak. This was the attitude I brought to a viewing of Soul's Midnight and I am happy to say that the vampires in this film at least have the hunger to kill old ladies and sacrifice babies! Armand Assante, one of my favorite actors of all time, was born to play the charming vampire with savage intensity. Another thing that interested me is that the central location is the Borgo Hotel. That is cool because (and I went back to my high school copy to look this up) in Dracula, the Borgo Pass is where Jonathan Harker must pass to get to Dracula's castle.Finally, my hats off to whoever made the decision to make the creature a real effect and not a darn CGI! That's the one thing great about many low-budget movies, they cannot afford the garbage computer effects that plague many Hollywood monstrosities.Bottom line...this is better than Underworld for sure, especially if you are a vampire purest. Cheers, JA$LABEL$ 1
+"Dragonlord" sees Chan returning to his role of "Dragon" from "The Young Master". Not much has carried over from the first film though. "Tiger", his older brother, is nowhere to be seen; neither is the Marshall, his daughter or his son played superbly by Yuen Biao in the original film. Dragon does have the same master though - presumably all the other students have moved on to other things. (Dragon's laziness at training is portrayed heavily in this film, so maybe he's still studying!) Originally titled "Young Master In Love", this film sees Dragon (for the first sixty minutes at least) pursuing a villager girl in various idiotic and slapstick ways. His rival for her affection is his friend (inappropriately named "Cowboy") played comically by the longtime Chan Stunt-team member Mars. We see various scenes where their silly schemes backfire. It is one of these scenes that we (thankfully) find "Dragon" in over his head.This film is notorious in that it failed expectations at the box office. That said, I'm sure the expectations were pretty high, and I feel that this film has never had a fair judgment based on it's own merits. But even when I try to do this, I still feel that there is a problem with the film. It seems quite unfocused, sometimes rushed, and I think the action is too sporadic and not as brilliant as Chan's other work from this period.The thing that really saves the film is the ending sequence. As in "The Young Master", there is a fantastic final reel that it full of incredibly exhausting action - you really feel every blow. And again, Chan goes up against the same rival from "The Young Master" (is it the same character?), and the timing and energy here is brilliant. Chan's style of using every last bit of his environment to help defeat his opponent - not just relying on pure physical ability - is as apparent here as anywhere else. The barn they fight in is full of clever little prop gags and improvisations. This is an absolute highlight of the film and one of Chan's incredible career.It's not necessary to see the prequel before seeing "Dragonlord", in fact, it might even raise more questions than what it hopes to answer. But it must be said that the original film is the superior film, and "Dragonlord", with it's focus on girl-chasing and team-sports does seem baffling. Luckily, the few fight scenes it offers (plus a fantastic shuttle-cock scene) push it over the line as a must-see film in this genre.$LABEL$ 1
+Watching Floored by Love one thought comes almost immediately to mind, "My god this looks like a really bad sitcom." Sure enough, it turns out that FBL is a pilot for a series that may start this fall in Canada, poor poor Canada.Cara (Shirley Ng) and Janet (Natalie Sky) are a lesbian couple living in Vancouver. Janet has come out to her mother already but Cara's parents are still in the dark about their daughter's homosexuality. The pressure is on to out herself though when the parents come from Malaysia for her younger brother's wedding. That same week British Columbia legalizes gay marriage. With Janet wanting to wed, Cara has to decide whether or not to tell her conservative Chinese parents that's she's gay. Will she? Would she? Could she? Cara's situation is contrasted with that of Jesse (Trent Millar). Jesse has just declared his homosexuality to the world at the age of fourteen. His biological father Daniel (Andrew McIlroy) is coming for a visit soon. His stepfather Norman (Michael Robinson) fears that his chances of finally being fully accepted by Jesse are harmed by the fact that Daniel is gay and he is not. Will dialing 1-800-Makeover help?The dialogue and delivery come straight out of a lesser 1950's program along with the overdone physical emoting. The Full House-style melodrama is enough to make you wince from time to time and the attempts at comedy largely fail. McIlroy, Millar & Sky are the only performers that approach competency in this miscalculation but given the material they have to work with, it's no surprise that none impress. It's possible that the campiness was purposeful. It often seems like there is no way the performers are really that bad, that they must be trying to mimic the inferior sitcoms of days yore. If this is indeed the case than this review should probably be rewritten. The rewrite would focus on Floored by Love being a poor and ineffective send-up of old sitcoms.Writer/director Desiree Lim has put together a by-the-numbers bland-fest that's entirely forgettable. There was a time when merely having an openly homosexual protagonist was enough to make a mark on the screen. That time is gone. In this day we need quality as well.$LABEL$ 0
+Masters of Horror: Right to Die starts late one night as married couple Abby (Julia Anderson) & Ciff Addison (Martin Donovan) are driving home, however while talking Cliff is distracted & crashes into a tree that has fallen across the road. Cliff's airbag works OK & he walks away with minor injuries, unfortunately for Abby hers didn't & she ended up as toast when she was thrown from the car & doused in petrol which set alight burning her entire body. Abby's life is saved, just. She is taken to hospital where she is on life support seriously injured & horribly disfigured from the burns. Cliff decides that she should die, his selfish lawyer Ira (Corbin Bersen) thinks they should let Abby die, sue the car manufacturer & get rich while Abby's mum Pam (Linda Sorenson) wants to blame Cliff, get rich & save Abby. However Abby has other plans of her own...This American Canadian co-production was directed by Rob Schmidt (whose only horror film previously was Wrong Turn (2003) which on it's own hardly qualifies him to direct a Masters of Horror episode) & was episode 9 from season 2 of the Masters of Horror TV series, while I didn't think Right to Die was the best Masters of Horror episode I've seen I thought it was a decent enough effort all the same & still doesn't come close to being as bad as The Screwfly Solution (2006). The script by John Esposito has a neat central idea that isn't anything new but it uses it effectively enough although I'd say it's a bit uneven, the first 15 minutes of this focuses on the horror element of the story but then it goes into a lull for 20 odd minutes as it becomes a drama as the legal wrangling over Abby's life & the affair Cliff is having take center stage before it gets back on track it a deliciously gory & twisted climax that may not be for the faint of heart. The character's are a bit clichéd, the weak man, the bent lawyer, the protective mum & the young tart who has sex to get what she wants but they all serve their purpose well enough, the dialogue is OK, the story moves along at a nice pace & overall I liked Right to Die apart from a few minutes here & there where it loses it's focus a bit & I wasn't that keen on the ambiguous ending.Director Schmidt does a good job & there are some effective scenes, this tries to alternate between low key spooky atmosphere & out-and-out blood & gore. There are some fantastic special make-up effects as usual, there's shots of Abby where she has had all of the skin burned off her body & the image of her bandaged head with her teeth showing because she has no lips left is pretty gross (images & make-up effects that reminded me of similar scenes in Hellraiser (1987) & it's sequels), then there's the main course at the end where Cliff literally skins someone complete with close-ups of scalpels slicing skin open & him peeling it off the muscle & putting it into a cooler box! Very messy. There are also various assorted body parts. There's some nudity here as well with at least a couple of pretty ladies getting naked...Technically Right to Die is excellent, the special effects are brilliant & as most Masters of Horror episodes it doesn't look like a cheap made-for-TV show which basically if the truth be told it is. The acting was fine but there's no big 'names' in this one.Right to Die is another enjoyable & somewhat twisted Masters of Horror episode that most horror fans should definitely check out if not just for the terrific skinning scene! Well worth a watch... for those with the stomach.$LABEL$ 1
+As the summary says you just made the most ignorant comment i have ever heard on an RPG. You seriously thought they were gay? Are you retarded? If you went to go save your best friend and someone decides out of the goodness of his heart to help you then you are in a serious debt to that man. Lavitz was a good person and each time they helped each other it made them closer as friends. They weren't gay lovers like your bitching about. And to let you know the game is set in a medieval time period. Back then, women did just prepare meals while the men fought. Do you even know your history? Do you know how long it took for women to be accepted in the army in present day? This game contains a lot of realism even though your too damn slow obviously to catch it, and you really need to spit out some solid proof instead of ignorant assumptions based off your misguided act to interpret the story.$LABEL$ 0
+Why? Why did they make this movie? If Timothy Olyphant wasn't shirtless in it several times, there would be ABSOLUTELY no reason to watch this movie, ever. Um...Plot? Nope. Well-defined characters? nope. The only time I laughed was when my boyfriend made fun of the whole she-bang. P.S. Andy Dick? Nope.$LABEL$ 0
+As a semi-film buff, I had heard of this infamous movie a long time ago. I had heard that it was basically a 15 million dollar film about the tyrannical rule of the Roman emperor Caligula, complete with hard-core pornography. What struck me was that it was a porno movie yet it had great thespians like Peter O'Toole, John Geilgud, Malcolm McDowell and Hellen Mirren in it!!?? A week ago I saw a documentary about Caligula on the History channel and this film came back into my head and finally my curiousity got the best of me, I foolishly rented the DVD and even more foolishly watched it.Within the first 30 minutes I was seeing acts of sex and especially violence that would earn an NC-17 even by todays standards. Was it really necessary to have a scene of a man having his urinary track closed and then have gallons of wine poured into him and then have his stomach cut with a sword (all in very graphic detail). And a scene where a guy gets his d*** cut off and fed to dogs (again in very graphic detail)....and this just scratches the surface. The argument for this movie from those who like it seems that it is the only film that honestly portrays pagan Rome and it's excesses. When in fact what this movie really is, is sheer exploitation. From beginning to end you see nothing but endless torture, and decapitations and every kind of violence and crude behavior imaginable (sadomasochism, rape, necrophelia, it just never stopped). There is no insight into Caligula himself, what might have propelled him to go mad, the horrible childhood he had that molded him into a sadist as an adult. This is not a historic film, it is sleaze. Even the porn in this movie stinks, and through much of this when I wasn't gagging I was just incredibly bored. By the time it was over I was depressed, didn't feel much like eating and this movie does the impossible, it actually can turn you off of sex.What were these great actors thinking when they got into this. I did read that the porn segments were filmed after the principal shooting was completed (which explains why none of the main actors are in any of these scenes and why the quality of these scenes is so poor). But still and all these actors must have known what they were getting into. Right at the opening credits it says "Penthouse Magazine and Bob Gucionne Presents". And the scenes that the famous actors actually take part in are completely repulsive in and of themselves. Apparently director Tinto Brass wanted his name removed from the completed film entirely, as did the screenwriter (Gore Vidal of all people). Even John Geilgud and Peter O'toole were begging people not to see this when it opened at the Cannes film festival.For the amount of money the producers spent on this, the movie's quality is terrible. Everything is underlit and murky as if the film was dropped in a swamp prior to being developed, and that's when you're lucky enough to view a scene that's actually in-focus. The sound is poorly dubbed, much of the music is awkward and the editing is god awful.Anyway, I brought this movie on myself. My advice...don't watch this, don't watch this, don't watch this......as for myself tomorrow night I am going to watch something lighter....like DAWN OF THE DEAD!$LABEL$ 0
+So, I'm wondering while watching this film, did the producers of this movie get to save money on Sandra Bullock's wardrobe by dragging out her "before" clothes from Miss Congeniality? Did Ms. Bullock also get to sleepwalk through the role by channeling the "before" Gracie Hart? As many reviewers have noted before, the film is very formulaic. Add to that the deja vu viewer experiences with the character of Cassie Maywether as a somewhat darker Gracie Hart with more back story and it rapidly become a snooze fest.The two bad boy serial killers have been done before (and better) in other films. As has the "good guy partner trying to protect his partner despite the evidence" character been seen before. In fact none of the characters in the film ever get beyond two dimensions or try to be anything but trite stereotypes.One last peeve - using the term serial killer is false advertising. Murdering one person - even if it's a premeditated murder - does not make you a serial killer. You may have the potential to become a serial killer but you are not a serial killer or even a spree killer.$LABEL$ 0
+There is no way to describe how really, really, really bad this movie is. It's a shame that I actually sat through this movie, this very tiresome and predictable movie. What's wrong with it? Acting: There is not one performance that is even remotely close to even being sub-par (atleast they are all very pretty). Soundtrack (songs): "If we get Orgy on the soundtrack then everyone will know that they are watching a horror film!"; Soundtrack (score): Okay, but anyone with a keyboard can make an okay soundtrack these days. Don't even get me started on the "What the hell?" moments, here are a few: Killer can move at the speed of light--door opens actress turns, no one is there, turns back, there is something sitting in front of her.; Out of now where The killer shows up with a power drill, a really big one! The filmmakers get points for at least plugging it in, but can I really believe that the killer took the time to find the power outlet to plug it in. I feel like one of the guards at the beginning of Holy Grail and want to say "Where'd you get the power drill?". I could go on and on about how bad this film is but I only have 1000 words. I will give this 2 out of ten stars. One star for making me laugh and another star for all the cleavage. Seriously, do not waste your time with this one.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this film at the Rotterdam International Film Festival 2002. This seemed to be one of the less popular films on the festival, however, as it turned out, all the more interesting.The story, of an actor trying to come to grips with himself and his environment after withdrawing from a drug addiction, is based on actual facts. Moreover, the characters playing in the film are the real people living this experience over again, this time for the film, which is partly set up as a stage play. Not only do they all happen to be good actors, Jia Hongsheng's parents are actors in real life as well, the methods used in highlighting their relationship towards Jia are very effective.Jia Hongsheng is the actor of some Chinese action films late eighties start nineties. Later you can see him in great films such as Frozen and Suzhou River. In between these two career paths Jia becomes a drug addict and looses all drive to act or even do anything productive, except for making somewhat futile attempts at becoming a guitar virtuoso.I like the way the writer of the scenario choose to emphasize on his behavior after withdrawal more than on the horror of drugs. We really feel the pain and struggle Jia is in. At the same time we hate him for the way he treats those around him.The film draws the viewer into a tiring pattern Jia seems to be caught in, dragging with him his parents and sister who try to take care of him. Because there are personal 'interviews' with the characters we feel like we are getting to know Jia not only through himself but through others as well.The film has a heavy feel, but scenes of Jia cycling through Bejing and partying with his friends lighten the tone. So does the bitter humor in a lot of events throughout the film. The music is beautiful and stayed with me for a while after. This is a film that might not easily appeal to many people but for those interested in the more serious and modern Chinese film this is a strong recommendation.$LABEL$ 1
+John Waters owes me 2 hours of my life back. I saw a sneak-preview screening of this way back in 1990, and I'm still in pain. Not before or since have I seen such a terrible piece of filmic waste spewed upon the screen. There is nothing positive I can say about this film. Acting--awful; plot--ridiculous; music--atrocious. Following the movie, my friends and I demanded our money back from the manager of the theater. He explained that, since it was a free screening, he couldn't give us anything in return, no matter how much agony we were suffering through. How Johnny Depp's career survived this trainwreck of a movie is anyone's guess.$LABEL$ 0
+I remember this bomb coming out in the early 80's. At first it sounded like a great idea. A retelling of an American classic with the help of modern movie techniques of the day. There was a bit a of a back lash over the treatment of the original "Lone ranger", Clayton Moore. The movie studio had threatened legal action if Moore continued portraying him self as the real lone ranger. (Moore was performing at children's hospitals as the Lone ranger for sick kids.) To many Americans Clayton Moore was just that the; the one and only lone ranger. I had always felt that the studio could have done justice to both the fans and legacy of the lone ranger if Moore had been treated better. Maybe even a cameo in the new movie. How ever this was not the case, and many of the viewing public stayed away in droves. Also the story and acting were weak. All this added up to a big box office bomb, and rightly so. I personally I'm glad the studio lost big money after the way the real Lone ranger was treated. You don't treat an American icon that way.$LABEL$ 0
+Sex is a most noteworthy aspect of existence. It is perhaps the most interesting activity there is between birth and death. LE DECLIN DE L'EMPIRE AMERICAIN studies human sexuality in a dry and boring manner. Actually, worse than being simply boring, seeing nude 40-year-olds is, well, unpleasant.I guess there is some shock value in having adults as old as our parents talk about sex, but after twenty minutes, this stops being interesting. Perhaps if the characters were all 20 years younger, the film would be more visually captivating.LE DECLIN DE L'EMPIRE AMERICAIN is not worth the time.$LABEL$ 0
+Okay, when it comes to plots, this film is far from believable and also a bit silly. Yet despite its many deficiencies, the film manages to work--provided you turn off your brain and just let yourself enjoy the zaniness of it all. If you can't, then you probably won't like this film very much at all.In one of the oddest plots of the 1930s, Robert Montgomery plays a guy living near the Arctic Circle at a wireless station. How exactly he came to such a remote outpost is uncertain but into this very, very lonely and isolated existence come a steady string of guests--even though it had been years since he'd seen anyone but Eskimos.First, Reginald Owen and Myrna Loy arrive when their plane crashes. They are supposedly on their way to Montreal--how they got THAT far off course is beyond belief! Reginald is a stuffy and dull fellow who is really worried about Montgomery, since Robert hasn't seen a woman in a very long time and Owen seems in constant dread that Montgomery is out to steal Loy for himself. As for Montgomery, that's EXACTLY what his plans are! For the longest time, you never really understand why Loy is engaged to Owen--since he is about as appealing as soggy bread.Soon, Loy and Montgomery fall in love but this is all for naught when, out of the blue AGAIN, Montgomery's old fiancée arrives to announce she's there to marry him!! Considering that for over two years she never wrote and refused to follow him, Montgomery naturally assumed the relationship was over--but the chipper and annoying fiancée's sudden arrival is enough to destroy the plans Loy and Montgomery were making.How all this is resolved is something you can just see for yourself. As for the film, that the plot is very silly and contrived--I can't defend this. BUT, it also is pretty funny and charming and I see this film as a kooky comedy that is just a step or two below contemporary films like BRINGING UP BABY. Silly, slight but also very charming. It's worth seeing despite not being especially believable.$LABEL$ 1
+I love basketball and this seemed like an intriguing movie. However, in the first ten minutes of the movie I knew that it was going to be lousy. It was poorly acted and much too slow. On top of that it was very, very racist, sexist, antisemitic and homophobic. Sometimes putting in racial, ethnic and other types of slurs has a point, illustrating the bigotry that exists. In this movie there was no point to the horrible bigotry and no one learned from what was being said. Part of the problem is that it was an adaption of a play and a remake of a 1982 movie that dealt with a basketball team from the 1950's. Having this movie take place earlier in time would have made a little bit more sense. It didn't translate well to modern times and the writing was horrible. I don't know how the play was originally written but I can't believe that any movie as bad and as hateful as this one has made it to television and video in 1999. It was disgusting. Don't waste your precious time on this one.$LABEL$ 0
+Contrary to most other commentators, I deeply hate this series.It starts out looking interesting, with mysterious aliens and giant robots, and I kept my hopes up until the very last episode. At the end of it, I still didn't understand what the alien attacks were all about (maybe I missed something, who knows?), and realized that I had sat through 26 episodes consisting mainly of the characters' own self-hating, selfishness and self-pitying. It actually flips between alien/robot fights and these dark, depressing blinking-on-and-off scenes where one or more characters can just say or shout "I hate me/you/it" 10-12 times in a row.I can't really see either Shinji or Asuka (two of the main characters) showing growth or change. (Nor can I see any of the other characters learning or growing either, for that matter.) I wanted to kick them and tell them to get a bloody life during the first episodes, and the feeling didn't change during the last ones. Shinji truly possesses the kind of helpless hopelessness that makes people angry rather than charitable, and Asuka is such an infuriating know-it-all that I wanted to smash the TV screen every time she came into view. Oh, and more than anyone else, these two hate everything, and say it veeeeeeeery often.I'm otherwise a big fan of animé and manga, and never before have I disliked one so much. I read that the series creator/writer wrote this while suffering from a depression, and I can believe that; it made me depressed to watch it. Is that the aim of this series? I'm honestly asking. Is it designed to make the viewer confused and annoyed? And if suffering from a depression, why just not write a book or biography about it, instead of mixing it up with aliens and mecha's? This alien war plot, as far as I could tell, lead to absolutely nowhere.Finally, since I'm truly fascinated by how many people claim to love this patchwork of dead-end plots, I can't help but wonder how many of them actually find it good, and how many say they do because they've been told it is.$LABEL$ 0
+Even though some unrealistic things happen at the end (i.e. a cop shooting a gun into a crowded merry-go-round where any number of innocent could be killed), this still was an intense, enjoyable thriller, one of Alfred Hitchcock's better films. Robert Walker is excellent as the chilling nutcase, really convincing giving a fascinating performance that is almost too creepy at times. His co-star in here, Farley Granger, is okay but is no match for Walker, either in acting or in the characters they play. It's the typical Hitchcock film with some strange camera angles, immoral themes, innocent man gets in trouble, etc. Unlike a lot of his other films, I thought this one was a fast-moving story with a very few dull spots. Being an ex-tennis player, I enjoyed his footage of some excellent old net matches that featured some good rallies. Hitchcock's real-life daughter Patricia has an interesting and unique minor character role in here. She didn't just get the job because of her dad; she can act. Also of note: the DVD has both the British and American versions and there were some differences in the story. This is a classic film that is still referred to in modern-day films, even comedies such as "Throw Momma Off The Train."$LABEL$ 1
+THE MAN IN THE WHITE SUIT, like I'M ALL RIGHT JACK, takes a dim view of both labor and capital. Alec Guinness is a scientific genius - but an eccentric one (he has never gotten his university degree due to an...err...accident in a college laboratory). He manages to push himself into various industrial labs in the textile industry. When the film begins he is in Michael Gough's company, and Gough (in a memorable moment) is trying to impress his would-be father-in-law (Cecil Parker) by showing him the ship-shape firm he runs. While having lunch with Parker and Parker's daughter (Joan Greenwood), Gough gets a message regarding some problems about the lab's unexpectedly large budget problems. He reads the huge expenditures (due to Guinness's experiments), and chokes on his coffee.Guinness goes on to work at Parker's firm, and repeats the same tricks he did with Gough - but Parker discovers it too. Greenwood has discovered what Guinness is working on, and convinces Parker to continue the experiments (but now legally). The result: Guinness and his assistant has apparently figured out how to make an artificial fiber that can constantly change the electronic bonds within it's molecular structure so that (for all intents and purposes) the fiber will remain in tact for good. Any textile made from it will never fade, get dirty, or wear out - it will last forever.Guinness has support from a female shop steward, but not her chief. He sees Guinness as selling out to the rich. But when he explains to them what he's done, they turn against him. If everyone has clothes that will last forever then they will not need new clothes! Soon Parkers' fellow textile tycoons (led by Gough, Ernest Theisinger - in a wonderful performance, and Howard Marion-Crawford) are equally panic stricken by what may end their businesses. They seek to suppress the invention. With only Greenwood in his corner (although Parker sort of sympathizes with him), Guinness tries to get the news of his discovery to the public.In the end, Guinness is defeated by science as well as greed. But he ends the film seeing the error in his calculations, and we guess that one day he may still pull off his discovery after all.It's a brilliant comedy. But is the argument for suppression valid? At one point the difficulties of making the textile are shown (you have to heat the threads to a high temperature to actually enable the ends of the material to be united. There is nothing that shows the cloth will stretch if the owner gets fat (or contract if the owner gets thin). Are we to believe that people only would want one set of clothing for ever? What happened to fashion changes and new styles? And the cloth is only made in the color white (making Guinness look like a white knight). We are told that color dye would have to be added earlier in the process. Wouldn't that have an effect on the chemical reactions that maintain the structure of the textile? Alas this is not a science paper, but a film about the hypocrisies of labor and capital in modern industry. As such it is brilliant. But those questions I mention keep bothering me about the validity of suppressing Guinness' invention$LABEL$ 1
+"Stargate SG-1" follows the intergalactic explorations of a team named SG-1 through a device called the Stargate and all the surprises awaiting on the other side of the wormhole.Having seen this series sporadically for it's first few seasons when it first came out, I didn't know how good this series would really be, 10 years after I had last seen an episode. My old impression was that the series was great, but my impression was far from the truth. "Stargate SG-1" is more than just a simple sci-fi series, it is one of the most well made, interesting, long running, exciting sci-fi ever produced. And why? Because it runs on an amazing premise.This series value far surpasses that of the movie it was based on and I think it is a very good example that television, as a medium, with a suitable premise, is able to provide something that doesn't work on the time restriction of film. The sense of familiarity created by a long running series, watching the characters and their circumstances progressing with time is stunning and just adds to the ability to suspend disbelief, and it's all a result of terrific writing and a lot of dedication by the all crew to the show."Stargate SG-1" kept offering great adventures throughout the 10 years, but was never afraid of the challenge of moving the plot and it gave way for some very different time periods of the show: - The first few seasons, perhaps up to the 4th/5th, focused a lot more on the exploration of planets and different situations, keeping the episodes fairly unrelated to each other if it were not for the always impending Goaul'd threat. - From the 5th to the 7th there was increasingly more episodes focusing on fighting the Goaul'd and preventing attacks on Earth. After this seasons exploration of the planets was almost only an excuse for putting sg-1 in a place of Goaul'd/replicator/ori conflicts- The 8th season is probably the most mixed one. It has a stream of episodes that includes minor earth matters in which the stargate is hardly even mentioned, but the last episodes feature some great replicator moments. - The 9th and 10th travel together because they have the same new enemy and no Jack O'Neil. They are both good continuations, although the first few episodes of the 10th season are a little weak, because they seem to be about little more than SG-1 and human/Jaffa losing battle after battle to the Ori.Basically, after season 7, exploration was pushed to the background, which in many ways was a shame, because of the potential and mystery each planet(episode) presented; on the other hand, it made for so many great episodes of the ongoing conflicts that the change of nature of the show still worked and shows how great and bold the writers were.Even tough I believe the series have a high quality ending that nicely puts it to rest, the feeling I have is that it could go on; the people involved were all great professionals and the series narrative had plenty to offer. A last season returning to the beginning nature of the series was very doable and would have been most welcome, but ultimately things are as they are.In the end, because of the fact that I enjoyed everything, it's a little hard to find that it ends. The big picture, however, the one drawn by the work of hundreds of people over the course of 10 years, is a sight of beauty and a true testament to the dedication of the crew, those outstanding actors and the characters the we will always remember as a collective by the name of SG-1.$LABEL$ 1
+Perhaps it's because I am so in love with the William Holden - Kim Novak version, or because I'm not a Gen-X'er, but this was absolutely the worst remake I have ever seen. Without the original's soundtrack, it just seemed like another typical TV movie...yes, about as bland as Kraft cheese.$LABEL$ 0
+Good Lord... How this ended up in our DVD player I'll never know...my wife thought it was a new release she'd missed somehow...Nevermind it's a couple of years old and in Danish ( I think)... She kept looking for the English soundtrack...All in all...the film wasn't bad... Good production values,better performances, and a clever story that doesn't get too far away from itself make for tidy, dark-humored fare from across the sea! The ending will make you chuckle...in fact, the whole film will. Incredibly strange characters that we grow genuinely interested in make a film that might be worth your while...Without spoiling the plot, the film's title and DVD jacket give you a good idea where this thing is going!$LABEL$ 1
+Documentaries about fans are always mishmashes, and never worth seeing through, but I found this one, made by some of the fans themselves, more than usually unenlightening. As a veteran of the original Tolkien craze, forty years ago, I'd hoped for more than the obvious--which doesn't always equate to the true. If there's anyone living who doesn't already know the nature of a fandom, any fandom, from having been or known a fan, he won't discover it here. Between irrelevancies, platitudes (to which the actors from the films are particularly prone), and acting out (by fans making the most--if not the best--of their one shot at fame), I could glean little of the special appeal of LOTR, the special emotional responses it evokes, and the range of the special creative forms those responses can take. In addition, the film is rather lazy: it slights some facts that could have been got across with little effort, e.g. what the exact legal loophole was (the wording of a copyright notice) that permitted the books' unauthorized publication in the U.S. (Speaking of which: I take strong exception to the film's dismissal of the covers on that edition as "irrelevant" and "psychedelic," which they were not. They were the work of Jack Gaughan, a very able sf illustrator of the period, and some fans, including me, found them more apt, and more attractive, than the covers on the rival set.)$LABEL$ 0
+****SPOILER ALERT**** My boyfriend, some friends, and I rented this movie as part of a marathon of really bad movies. We sort of knew what we were getting into. But the lack of plot, direction, and special effects actually left us hoping for a great (or passable) fight scene between the two main characters... the badly rendered swimming cobra and the super violent giant komodo (that ate people like scooping ice cream)... we sort of get this in the end, but had to be cut short due to possibly budget or time constraints? Its one redeeming quality is that its laughably bad, with many salient details pointed out by other readers. I recommend this movie if your into cutting onions to make yourself cry.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a 1972 Disney movie. For the time, I was eleven years old and I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Feeling nostalgic, I purchased the three series DVD's of the Dexter Riley movies and even now, at age 46, I still enjoyed them. It was all about fantasy, magic, and clean fun. And it still is! I wasn't sure which of the three movies came first then second and last. So now I have the official dates. On December 31, 1969 The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes--On July 12, 1972 Now You See Him Now You Don't--On February 6, 1975 The Strongest Man In The World. I still think the middle movie was the best. The special effects were amazing back in 1972 to us kids. I definitely recommend it to all ages.$LABEL$ 1
+Jack Frost 2, is probably the most cheesiest movie I have ever seen in my life. The complete title of the film, is Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman. Horror movie fans that have a taste for campy story lines, will be delighted to watch this. This film was straight to video, and for good reasons. Here's why: The acting, was so atrocious, and so terrible, that it could cause one to cry. The main character had no personality, and the actor's bad acting made it all worse. The screenplay was, was also atrocious. Each character always says a cheesy line, and add the cheesy lines to the bad choreography, then you have something bad. Second, the story line isn't really all that impressive, but since this movie was straight to video, it is forgiven. The director, and writer could have turned the idea of a killer snowman, into something cool, but they didn't. They story has lots of plot holes in it. In the beginning, a cup of coffee gets knocked into the fish tank, with the melted Jack Frost. Scientists try to restore his life, but they couldn't. Once the cup of coffee fell into the tank, Jack Frost was completely restored. Now he is immune to anti-freeze. In Jack Frost part 1, the main character's DNA got mixed up with the Anti-freeze that was used to kill Jack Frost. Since the main character is allergic to bananas, Jack Frost is too. Hence, here's my point. They say that Sam's DNA combined with Jack Frost's. But, one of the scientists had some saliva on the cup, so when it fell into the tank, the scientists DNA would have been combined with Jack Frosts. Another thing, the special effects weren't very good either. Here's the good points: Jack Frost 2 has lots of blood, that looks pretty realistic. Even though this movie is flawed to hell, it is still entertaining. Overall, Jack Frost 2 is an enjoyable horror movie. The first one was better though. 7 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+I am a VERY big fan of Jenna Jameson, but this movie is horrible. At the time Jenna Jameson was married to Brad Armstrong and he was the director of this film and Jenna was the hottest porn star ever. So, of course, Brad tried to make as much money as he could off her by making this big budget porn film. Now I know why they don't make big budget porn movies anymore. In a fantasy world, porn stars could act, but this is the real world and they can't act. That's why there porn stars, if a women as beautiful as Jenna could act, then she would have tried to go into mainstream movies instead of porn. Just because your beautiful doesn't make you a movie star. A fine example of this is Traci Lords, when she was a teen thru her 20's she was one of the most beautiful, sexy women on earth. She made her move into low budget mainstream films and couldn't act. Where is she now? I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 rating just because Jenna is so hot, but there are better movies she has made then "Dream Quest". Come on Jenna, we don't want to hear you talk, as much as we want to see you have sex. Also, you Jenna, would have a lot more fans and more money in your bank account if you would have done anal on film.$LABEL$ 0
+Casting unknown Michelle Rodriguez as Diana was a stroke of genius. She's perfect. Her acting inexperience actually works in her favor. We've never seen her before so it really feels like her story. She also brings across genuine toughness. This works against her though, because we never doubt her. You never have to cheer for her to win because she never goes up against any fighter we don't think she can beat. So as a boxing movie, it fails.Then again, this isn't really a boxing movie. How do you make a movie about a girl who wants to be a boxer that isn't a boxing movie? You don't. But Karyn Kusama has anyway. Like many indie films, "Girlfight" defies classification or genre and stands on its own as folklore that could darn near happen in real life.Diana is doing poorly in school. She beats up people she doesn't like (all the other girls in her school for example). She doesn't fit in. Her father is forcing her kid brother Tiny to learn to box so he can defend himself when things get tough. He gives Tiny money for his boxing sessions and gives Diana nothing, as if she has no need to defend herself, nor anything worthwhile to make of her life. Tiny wants to go to art school (cliche', yuck), so he gives up his boxing allowance to Diana, who actually wants to box. Things get complicated when Diana falls for another boxer, Adrian (Santiago Douglas), who's looking to turn pro. From there the story winds down toward the inevitable...the two meet in the amateur title fight.What left me cold was that I never found any of this all that interesting. It's all just a bit too believable. Kids with tough lives growing up in rough urban areas fall back on sports. A lot of professional boxers have risen from these circumstances. The mental and physical toughness this upbringing requires lends itself to a game like boxing, where anger is your friend. So this time it's a girl. Big deal.Or there's another position to take: finally, a boxing movie about a girl. Women's boxing has been around a long time. The brutality we usually see in boxing films is replaced here by discussions of people's their lives and their feelings. The whole fighting thing is used as a platform from which to paint a larger picture. Respect. Overcoming adversity. Self-discovery.I recommend "Girlfight" because it has a good spirit and is an example of some great work by a first time director. The dialogue never rises above soap opera quality, but the story itself actually changed my view on some things. Yes, the world now seems like a better place. A film did that.Grade: B-$LABEL$ 1
+Oh my gosh!! I love this movie sooooooooooooooooooooo much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is so incredible......I loved it as a wee babe and still love it as an adult. It is my favorite Disney movie of allllllllllllllllllllllllllllll time! You should watch it, watch it and love it. My friends and I watch it a ton.....It is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo good. I recommend it to anyone who is a child or a child at heart. My favorite part is the song and dance number with all of the strays and Thomas O'Malley. The writers/producers/director completely nailed this one.....yeah, nailed it to the wall.xoxo~Wolly~xoxo$LABEL$ 1
+This if the first movie I've given a 10 to in years. If there was ever a movie that needed word-of-mouth to promote, this is it. A $4 Mil box is a disgrace. People don't know what it's about. If you have any appreciation for the Blues, or just a good use of excellent music, that alone is reason to go see it. How many people knew Jackson could sing, and damn fine too. You hear books and movies taunting that they're about salvation. After seeing this, you'll never be able to forgive such trivial use of the word. Yes, it's gritty, sexy, down home truth, bizarre and in-your-face real. Isn't that the best reason to see a movie? Those that get my meaning won't stay away from seeing this another week.$LABEL$ 1
+This was incredible, meaning that it was hard to believe, that the "forgotten tribe" would make this astounding migration twice a year, and that the filmmakers, Cooper and Schoedsack, didn't stage some of the scenes and shots. But what shots they are! The cinematography, under mostly extreme conditions, is brilliant, and the score of Iranian music added to the video release give this memorable documentary an added richness.I had the pleasure of seeing this and "Kon Tiki" on the same weekend, which was a thrill and certainly made me see how tough and hardy and brave people can be, whether for primitive survival or the need for adventure or in the name of science.$LABEL$ 1
+Progeny is about a husband and wife who experience time loss while making love. Completely unaware of what this bizarre experience means they try to go on with their lives. The hubby begins questioning the bizarre event and gets help through a very annoying psychiatrist. He comes to believe that aliens are responsible for this lapse in time and that the unborn baby he once thought was his and his wife's actually belongs to the aliens.If ya ask me, this is a great scifi/horror story. Taking a highly questionable real-life scenario involving alien abduction and hybrid breeding is definite thumbs up from this guy. I love all things related to aliens and this story definitely delivered some good ideas. So if you also share an interest in things extraterrestrial, you should be pretty happy with Progeny. At least story-wise anyways.Unfortunately the movie overall is pretty average. With average acting by all actors. Yep, even by the consistently awesome Mr. Dourif, who still does deliver the best performance. Though the black head doctor, delivers his lines really well. There are a few points in the flick where some of the delivery is cringe or laugh worthy, which is fine in my book. I like them cheesy and this had a little bit of some nice stinky cheese, and I mean that in a good way.Anyways, with a less than stellar script you can't really blame all the actors. I especially didn't care for the Mother Hysteria the film went for. She wanted a baby so badly that she'd neglect and dismiss everything her loving husband (who's a doctor!!) said to her. It almost reached a point where you actually didn't care what happened to her.The Progeny is another flick by Brian Yuzna from the icky-sticky film, Society. Again he delivers some slimy effects, and again he delivers a pretty unique tale of horror. If you're into scifi/horror or are a fan of Dourif and or Yuzna films, there's no real reason not to check out this flick if you get the chance. A generous 7 outta 10.$LABEL$ 1
+I have seen a lot of movies...this is the first one I ever walked out of the theater on. Don't even bother renting it. This is about as boring a soap opera as one can see...at least you don't have to pay to watch a soap opera, though.$LABEL$ 0
+I grew up in New York City and every afternoon ABC would show the 4:30 movie- Saratoga Trunk was one of the first movies I remember watching as a kid. I loved this movie and it has stayed with me for years. I recently watched it again and still thought it was great - maybe I am just a romantic - but I thought it was well done. I do not want to say this movie was good only because of the main actors - I really did not know who they were when I first saw this movie - I guess I just knew quality acting as a child. Both Bergman and Cooper were excellent. I especially loved seeing old New Orleans during the time period of this movie . If you ever get a chance to visit New Orleans - you should watch movies that show the city during that time period - when you get to see some of the old homes in the French Quarter(not just Bourbon Street) or uptown, you can truly imagine life as it was 100 years ago. I love old movies - this one to me is a good flick!!$LABEL$ 1
+I really don't have anything new to add but I just felt like I had to comment on this sack. So here goes:Atrocious. I'm running through my MST3K DVD collection again and I just watched Hobgoblins for about the 10th time. It's really, really painful but it was next on the list... You can see that there is a tiny kernel of an actual movie buried under all the crap that is "Hobgoblins" but it just couldn't get out. Everything about this movie is 4th rate. The story, the acting, the effects, the women, the "action scenes", the... ahhhh forget it. I can watch a piece of crap like "The Bloodwaters of Dr. Z" (aka "Zaat") over and over and over with hardly any ill effects (I like it in fact- btw, it will be on TCM later this month- October, 2009) but "Hobgoblins" is a whole 'nother ballgame.The worst part of it all may be that it's now about 12 hours after the movie ended, I had a good night's sleep, some coffee and some dry toast, my medications, and yet the ersatz "New Wave" dance music that Amy, Red Shorts, and Laraine Newman were frolicking to in the living room is STILL RUNNING THROUGH MY HEAD. This torment will last for days. Good luck, won't you?$LABEL$ 0
+Maybe it is unfair for me to review this movie because I walked out well before the end. That's odd, because I usually like Shakespeare on the screen and I enjoyed Midsummers Night's Dream once, many years ago, when I saw it on the stage. I think that two things did me in: that squeaky twerp with the Shakespearian name, Calista Flockhart, and Michelle Feiffer sitting in a giant clamshell. Well, I suppose you could say it supposed to be a comedy -- but when the scenery is funny and the actors aren't, I'd say we have a bad movie on our hands....$LABEL$ 0
+If you want a complete waste of time, because pulling lint out of your belly button or cleaning the wax out of your ears or grouting your tile is your idea of a carnival thrill ride, then you'll not want to miss this one.For one thing, forget the VHS cover. NO body in this movie looks that attractive (ie, the Indian girl). Someone else commented that whoever posed for the cover is not the same girl and I agree. The cover is THE most exciting thing about this movie.To put this in perspective, I bought this VHS for 99 cents at K-Mart and three minutes, no, 40 seconds into the movie, I knew I had been ripped off.I finished watching it because 1) I did pay 99 cents after all and, 2)there might possibly, conceivably been a hair of chance some scene in this turkey was worth more than a pinched loaf.There wasn't.Good grief, Fonda. I know you were hard up for roles when you did this, but this is beneath you.$LABEL$ 0
+This show started out okay, but then it turned into a nightmare. The worst part about it was the contestants. Most of them were weirdos. They did stupid things for a living and they also did strange hobbies. In the second season, one guy said he that he talked to his pants. That is sick and repulsive. Also, no one cared about winning money. All they ever wanted to do was make alliances like it was "Survivor" or something. The men were always afraid that the women were going to team up together. The women were the same also. I just couldn't take it anymore. I had to stop watching it. It was truly one of the worst shows ever.$LABEL$ 0
+In this "critically acclaimed psychological thriller based on true events, Gabriel (Robin Williams), a celebrated writer and late-night talk show host, becomes captivated by the harrowing story of a young listener and his adoptive mother (Toni Collette). When troubling questions arise about this boy's (story), however, Gabriel finds himself drawn into a widening mystery that hides a deadly secret…" according to film's official synopsis.You really should STOP reading these comments, and watch the film NOW...The "How did he lose his leg?" ending, with Ms. Collette planning her new life, should be chopped off, and sent to "deleted scenes" land. It's overkill. The true nature of her physical and mental ailments should be obvious, by the time Mr. Williams returns to New York. Possibly, her blindness could be in question - but a revelation could have be made certain in either the "highway" or "video tape" scenes. The film would benefit from a re-editing - how about a "director's cut"? Williams and Bobby Cannavale (as Jess) don't seem, initially, believable as a couple. A scene or two establishing their relationship might have helped set the stage. Otherwise, the cast is exemplary. Williams offers an exceptionally strong characterization, and not a "gay impersonation". Sandra Oh (as Anna), Joe Morton (as Ashe), and Rory Culkin (Pete Logand) are all perfect.Best of all, Collette's "Donna" belongs in the creepy hall of fame. Ms. Oh is correct in saying Collette might be, "you know, like that guy from 'Psycho'." There have been several years when organizations giving acting awards seemed to reach for women, due to a slighter dispersion of roles; certainly, they could have noticed Collette with some award consideration. She is that good. And, director Patrick Stettner definitely evokes Hitchcock - he even makes getting a sandwich from a vending machine suspenseful.Finally, writers Stettner, Armistead Maupin, and Terry Anderson deserve gratitude from flight attendants everywhere.******* The Night Listener (1/21/06) Patrick Stettner ~ Robin Williams, Toni Collette, Sandra Oh, Rory Culkin$LABEL$ 1
+Having read the books and seen the 1982 Anthony Andrews/JaneSeymour version, I have to say that this is not good at all.According to the books, Percy is supposed to be a seeminglyfoppish aristocrat when he's being Percy, and witty and cleverwhen he's being the Pimpernel, but here he just looks bored asPercy and mean as the Pimpernel. Marguerite is supposed to bethe most beautiful woman in Europe, not a tired and frumpy-looking matron (she looks middle-aged, probably due tobad make-up). Richard E. Grant has done much better things, andElizabeth McGovern's acting is uninspired and flat. The wit anddash of the books and the Andrews/Seymour film is here replacedby brawn and flashy editing that just don't make the cut.  I might add that to a person who hasn't seen any previous versionor read the book, it would probably look ok.$LABEL$ 0
+I had the distinct displeasure of seeing this movie at the 2006 Vancouver International Film Festival. I have been attending this festival for over 5 years, and I have certainly seen some poor movies on occasion. However, 'First Bite' has reached a brand new low in film. In spite of being shot in beautiful locations, with the occasional, exquisite close up of fabulous food, the movie contorts an excessive number of plot twists and stilted characters until I was practically begging for it to end.The lead actor, David La Haye, completely failed to show any character development throughout the movie, portraying a pompous chef from beginning to end. Additional sub-plots, such as eating disorders, were developed so poorly and completely did not fit within any context that the movie had shown up to that point.A theme of mysticism was used as a poor attempt to conceal a movie that achieves nothing, goes nowhere, and completely disappoints.$LABEL$ 0
+I work with children from 0 – 6 years old and they all love the Doodlebops. The Doodlebops are energetic, vibrant and appealing. Once they start singing, ''We're the Doodlebops We're the Doodlebops We're the Doodlebops Oh yeah Come and join the fun because we're laughing and we're singing all day" it is almost impossible not to join them in song. The Doodlebops brings the viewer into a world of color and fun. Each show is an adventure, the Doodlebops do not try to change the world with preachy messages all they do is have fun while sorting out everyday life challenges that the young child may relate to. The Doodlebops is an refreshing, high action alternative to regular children's television programs.$LABEL$ 1
+On the surface, "Show Me The Money" should have at least finished a full season. You had the always entertaining William Shatner as your host, surrounded by a baker's dozen of beautiful leggy models collectively called "The Million Dollar Dancers." You had knowledgeable contestants who had interesting stories to tell of their lives and who presumably knew a lot of pop culture trivia. And you had big money! So, what went wrong? The format of this game was the failure. A good game show needs at least two of three things: very simple rules, exciting pacing and the ability for the viewer to play along at home. The best, most enduring ones have all three.Unfortunately, SMTM had none.The rules for this game were among the most complex of any prime time game show in history. Let me try to explain how the game worked, as briefly as possible.A contestant began with a single word or short phrase followed by the choice letters A, B, C (subtle plug for the network?). Each letter was connected to a separate question, all starting with that word or phrase. Once a contestant chose one of the letters, they could either answer that question or pass and select a second letter. If they passed, they got to view the next question, and had the same option. However, if they passed the second question, they were required to answer the third option.After they answered and before they found out if their answer was correct, they then had to select one of the 13 dancers on stage, each with a different amount of money in a scroll by their side. They revealed their dollar amount (ranging from $20,000 to $250,000) and depending on if the contestant answered right... or answered wrong... that amount would be added to or subtracted from their pot.Still with me so far? In addition, there was one dancer who held something known as "The Killer Card." If you selected the dancer with the Killer Card and you had gotten your question right, you were safe, and the game continued. If, however, you were incorrect, you had one final question to answer. If you got that final question wrong, you were out of the game. If you got it right, then, the game continued.There was no quitting, no walking away with the money earned until you either answered six questions correctly or got six questions wrong or you were so far in the hole you couldn't earn enough money to get back out. Got it? Okay! The biggest problem, as I saw it, was a complete lack of tension, because of the design of the game. A contestant could pass questions they knew they didn't know, and answer many questions they did know, making the pressure even less. Then, they could still find a low dollar amount, even after knowingly missing a question, which meant there still wasn't any "drama." And the fact that they could answer five questions wrong and still have a chance to win was a big mistake. And the pacing of the questions was deadly slow: often the questions were so obvious, it was ridiculous to try to create tension, as if there was any doubt about some of the most common answers.The pacing, the lack of any real tension at any point during the show and those very complicated rules prevented this program from working, despite Shatner's terpsichorean talents.$LABEL$ 0
+Bela Lugosi as God? Transvestites discussed in a movie in the straight-laced 1950s? By golly, this must be an Ed Wood film.Watching this movie, I felt a combination of guilt, pleasure, and nausea all at the same time. The story is about Glen (Ed Wood himself) and his cross-dressing alter-ego Glenda. Somehow, if this movie were made now, I could see Kevin Kline playing Glen/Glenda. Notice how all the cross-dressers' alter egos are versions of their male name (Glen/Glenda, Robert/Roberta, etc.). It attempts to sympathetically portray it as the mental disorder that it is, rather than as a graphic perversion. Somehow, Wood manages to sneak in bondage and S&M sequences into his initial story of Glen/Glenda. Along with these racy scenes, Satan himself shows up, obviously having a bad hair day. The dialog and pace are nonexistent, but the film is enjoyable in its context -- the weird world of Ed Wood.Sterno says put on your favorite lace panties for this one.$LABEL$ 0
+1st watched 4/30/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-John Waters): Corny Waters-like comedy musical with some funny scenes and good parts but it didn't make a whole worthwhile experience. John Waters directed this music-filled spoof of the fifties scene with Johnny Depp playing the title role. This movie is very similar with what he did with the 60's spoof entitled "Hairspray" but this one is not as effective. Some of the tunes are catchy, some of the characters are interesting in their quirky Waters-like way, and the portrayals are fine although sometimes overdone. The storyline is similar to the movie "Grease", where there is a good group and a bad group. The guy from the bad group, Cry Baby, wow's a girl from the good group. The good girl then joins the bad group but once Cry Baby hurts her -- she falls back to the good group. This just sets up the ending where Cry Baby tries to win her back. Now, one difference that is expected in Water's movies is that the bad group doesn't appear all that bad all the time and the good group acts like they have a pole up their you-know-what. I definitely saw this in Hairspray, as well. The wacky and goofiness isn't really all that much fun in this movie, though and it just leaves us with a feeling like the movie could have been much better. The prime appeal of the Johnny Depp character is that he's able to make one tear roll down his cheek(thus his namesake) at various times and makes the women fall all over the place for him. This is overused and the basic bottom line is that the movie is OK, but not that great.$LABEL$ 0
+Classic, highly influential low budget thriller that gave birth to a horror icon and launched the careers of both director Carpenter and star Curtis.Seemingly unstoppable murderer escapes from mental institution and returns to his hometown where he begins to stalk a local babysitter on Halloween.Halloween is a film that never fails to live up to its reputation as a horror masterpiece! Carpenter's frightening story and clever direction give this film such chillingly good life that it must be seen to really be felt! The direction often consists of such simple elements, shadows, dark streets, creaking doors, that it makes even the everyday setting of a small town neighborhood truly creepy. Carpenter well-times his suspense and his jolting shocks to make them the most effectively startling, that in itself is a feat few horror filmmakers ever manage! Plus, he is wise enough to give us some truly likable young characters and a very scary villain to keep the tension all the more strong. Highest kudos also go to Carpenter's simple, yet frighteningly unnerving music score. In a sense, Halloween is a fine example of a perfect horror film!The cast is excellent. Young Jamie Lee Curtis does a very nice turn as lovable babysitter Laurie Strode, she's so good that she would go on to be in a number of other horror films before breaking into bigger films. The great Donald Pleasants does a perfect performance as a Myer's doctor, who's desperate to capture him again. Supporting cast Loomis, Soles, Castle, and others are good too.So like its own villain, Halloween is an unstoppable force that never fails to thrill and chill. It is a MUST for all genre fans!**** out of ****$LABEL$ 1
+I expected a lot more out of this film. The preview looked interesting so I decided to check it out. Bottom line is that "The Adventures of Sebastian Cole" only had one decent thing: Adrian Grenier.I really like Grenier and found his performance to be very pleasing. The character is designed well, but everything else sort of just drifts along through the duration of the movie. Clark Gregg is really good, but I don't think that his character was explained too well. I mean there's not too much to explain; he wants to become a woman. Still, something was missing. The obvious low budget of the film was nice to see. I enjoyed that the movie was filmed on just a script (a bad one at that) and just a few actors. It was a nice change.While the main idea of the film was actually okay, it became disappointing to see a lot of scenes that had nothing to do with it just thrown in here and there. Like I said, the script looked promising and I must say that I was interested where director Tod Williams was headed, but it was basically a very slow movie with not too good of dialogue."Sebastian" started to look good towards the end, but again, it fell right back down into a hole. The acting was mostly good, the writing is in need of some work, yet the budget of the film helped it out in the long run.I would recommend this to someone if they wanted to watch a quiet movie with a strong lead character, but other than that I would stay away. Personally, I wouldn't watch it twice.$LABEL$ 0
+This was the first movie I ever saw Ashley Judd in and the first film of Victor Nunez' that I ever say, and boy am I glad I did. Its' quiet tone, its' relaxed pace, its' realistic depiction of a young woman just starting out in life, its' fine depiction of the struggles she has to go through to make her mark in life, the decisions she makes based on real things, the people she meets - there is nothing wrong with this movie. It is as close to movie magic as I have ever seen outside of the " Star Wars " movies, and, given what those films are like, that means this film deserves a high rating indeed. Ashley Judds' acting, Mr. Nunez'writing, and its' great simple worthwhile story make this a fine coming-of-age story and a wonderful movie.$LABEL$ 1
+I just recently saw this movie in hopes of seeing an accurate portrayal of the bloodiest battle of the 20th Century. I got what I had expected and so much more. Just to think I came across this movie by luck, before I had never even heard of it. It's a German film made in 1993 so I suppose I can't be surprised that it's almost completely unknown to the modern American audience. It's a shame cause this really is a remarkable film, I dare say that its as good if not better then Platoon, Full metal jacket, Apocalypse now, and All quiet on the western front; all of which are iconic war movies.1942: World War II is in full swing. Nazi Germany has over run Mainland Europe and parts of North Africa, then Adolf Hitler orders the full scale invasion of the Soviet Union. A fateful move that ultimately dooms Nazi Germany to defeat. In the early stages the invasion goes well and the German Armies conquer large sections of Soviet territory, but a critical battle ensues at Stalingrad, A city that hold great symbolic & strategic value. The battle soon turns into a blood bath of epic proportions, a nightmare for both the German & Russian soldiers fighting. On the verge of taking the city the Germans are suddenly counter attacked by the Russians who end up cutting off the entire German 6th Army inside Stalingrad. To make matters worse, the Russian winter arrives causing incredible suffering for the Germans. This entire battle is seen through the eyes of a few young German soldiers fighting for survival not only against the Russians and the harsh winter conditions but also against their own Sadistic officers who care only about medals & glory and the generals who have little regard for the average foot soldier.This film is going to haunt me for a while. The German Soldiers the film concentrates on are so young and naive, then their humanity & sanity are stripped from them and you really do feel sorry for them cause their not the demonic Nazi's often portrayed in film. Everything they were fighting for is no longer important, and everything they believed in was shattered, and after fighting a gruesome battle against the Russians inside Stalingrad we see them further deteriorate with the onset of Winter causing many to freeze to death. The Battle & Winter scenes were like a horrible nightmare but it also felt so real. It's amazing, in the beginning we see strapping young men in the prime of their life, and at the end they a shells of their former selves stripped of everything. After witnessing so much carnage these men just loose their will to live on, it was really sad. When there is finally a moment of hope they are betrayed by Hitler who ultimately abandons these men to a horrible death, which is just another one of Hitler's crimes abandoning the men who fought for him to be slaughtered by the Russians. A good Anti-War film depicts the horrors of war and that's what this movie does. The battle for the tractor factory sequence Is the closest thing that comes to hell on earth, but that's really what The Battle for Stalingrad was like. The German & Russian soldiers were depicted with humanity, it was only the bad apples (specifically on the German side) that doomed the men. Bottom line is this film is amazing cause we see how men breakdown physically & emotionally during war. We all have our limits and these men were pushed far beyond their limits in the most deadly battle of our time. What the average foot soldier endured at Stalingrad was beyond imagination. Even if they had survived everything they had seen & done would have scarred them for life.Stalingrad shows us why War is Hell, and what exactly hell looks like.$LABEL$ 1
+I remember watching this movie when I was young, but could not recall the title to it then going through horror movies I find it and think to myself "that is the title?" This movie is a kind of combination disaster film/insect attack film with fewer notable stars in it. It is also somewhat boring too, as it has that television vibe to it where you can see the movie fade out for commercials and such. The plot has this sort of resort being invaded by ants. I think they were a bit disturbed by construction or something going on nearby, but do not quote me on that. The most memorable ant attack for me in the whole flick was the first one involving the kid who falls into the swimming pool after being swarmed and of course Summers attack scene too. What else stands out in this one is the very goofy ending where the survivors use cardboard tubes to breath through. In the end though like most television movies this movie is very tame and not very scary in the least unless you panic at the sight of ants.$LABEL$ 0
+Annie's wig does not look good. she is not cute and pretty enough to play Annie. Annie sticks out in the movie, as her outfits look like Halloween costumes. terrible acting and terrible plots. This movie is such a change from the 1982 version. I think that a younger and smaller girl should have had the lead role. Ashley Johnson portrays a very boyish Annie. Not appealing at all. At least the casting director got it right with Daddy Warbucks. Ms. Hannigan was also miscast. Camilla Belle played Molly alright. "Warning" this movie might insult your IQ so you might just want to only show it to very young children. 8 and younger. Some of the plots are too fictional and could hardly take place in the real world.$LABEL$ 0
+Few movies can be viewed almost 60 years later, yet remain as engrossing as this one. Technological advances have not dated this classic love story. Special effects used are remarkable for a 1946 movie. The acting is superb. David Niven, Kim Hunter and especially Roger Livesey do an outstanding job. The use of Black and White / Color adds to the creative nature of the movie. It hasn't been seen on television for 20 years so few people are even aware of its existence. It is my favorite movie of all time. Waiting and hoping for the DVD release of this movie for so many years is, in itself, "A Matter of Life and Death".$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was an embarrassment. Ulma Thurman looked like she had some kind of disease and John Travolta looked like he was walking in his sleep. I was expecting this to be a so-so sequel to Get Shorty not a half-baked remake of the exact same movie (except that some of the character's have different names and clothes)I would not recommend this to movie to my worst enemy. I feel like I was ripped off and Hollywood has once again tricked me into seeing another horrible sequel ( I also suffered through Alien Vs. Predator).The best thing that I can say about this movie is that it has my vote for the worst movie of 2005!$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I saw it at the premiere at SXSW and was extremely disappointed. The director knew little about John Lennon and even said as much at the premiere. This is a drama, but people were laughing throughout at how cheesy the film was. That's never a good sign. The only saving graces were Dominic Monaghan and Jason Leonard as Livien's roommates/bandmates. They were funny while the rest of the movie took itself waaay too seriously. The cheesy dropping of Beatles lyrics was just absurd. The soundtrack was excellent, however, and was probably the best part of the movie. Unless you're one of those crazy, rabid Dominic Monaghan fans, don't bother with this one.$LABEL$ 0
+There is no doubt that Alfred Hitchcock was a seriously talented director. Many of his films are undeniable classics that have stood the test of time and are highly watchable to this day. This list could include The 39 Steps, Rear Window, North by Northwest, Dial M for Murder, Vertigo, The Birds, Shadow of a Doubt, and a few other films.However, "Suspicion" is not aging well at all and is really so unwatchable that it seems to me that it was probably a bad film even by 1941 standards. The list of scenes that work well could be listed on a matchbook with a crayon. The script is loose and ridiculous most of the time, but the acting seems so forced and wooden and borderline amateurish throughout, that it is almost unbelievable. Joan Fontaine tries to shore things up but she is on a slippery slope and Cary Grant doesn't provide much assistance. His acting is so bad at times that I have seen better performances in high school plays or college Theatre Experience classes where a Chemical Engineer is acting for the first time with no formal training.After about 30 minutes of watching this film you may find yourself reaching for the DVD sleeve in the dark to see if you accidentally picked up some kind of special edition version that was cobbled together without any editing.The subject matter is serious, yet the film has a silly and trite feel to it that just seems so out of place you become numb with perplexity."Suspicion" is basically unwatchable and another very very very overrated BAD movie.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the best thrillers I've seen. It's intelligently made and brilliantly filmed, and is one of the few thrillers that creates complex, interesting characters and makes the movie about them, not the action. I would recommend it to just about anyone, especially people who like movies with both style and substance.$LABEL$ 1
+My daughter, her friends and I have watched this movie literally dozens of times. I bought it twice and some little girlfriends absconded with it. Subsequently, I rented it so very many times. It just never gets old!!! Blockbuster doesn't even have it in their listings anymore and I have tried to buy, find, rent it for over 5 years. Without a doubt, this was and is my most favourite movie of my daughter's childhood...it has it all! We laughed, we cried, we discussed real life and how hard some children have it in the world. There was nothing pretend about this movie. We related to every second and every line Bill! Thanks a million for restoring our faith in human nature. Sincerely, Shelleen and Kailin Vandermey. Craven, Saskatchewan. CANADA,eh!!! :-)August '07 update:Who are we to judge if a rich woman falls in love with a poor man; or a man who has love chooses to raise a child who is not his own. It may not be my or your life. It is not only believable, it happens every day. Thank God! Keeps my faith in human nature alive!!! celebrate!!!!$LABEL$ 1
+Pretty.Pretty actresses and actors. Pretty bad script. Pretty frequent "let's strip to our undies" scenes. Pretty fair F/X. Pretty jarring location decisions (the college dorm room looks like a high-end hotel room - probably because it was shot at a hotel). Pretty bland storyline. Pretty awful dialog. Pretty locations. Pretty annoying editing, unless you like the music video flash-cut style.This one isn't a guilty pleasure - this is more an embarrassing one. If you must watch this, pick a good dance/techno album and turn the sound off on the movie - you'll see the pretty people in their pretty black undies, and probably follow the story just fine.The cast may be able to act - I doubt that anyone could look skilled given the lines/plot that they had to deal with.$LABEL$ 0
+After gorging myself on a variety of seemingly immature movies purchased on ex-rental DVDs, I figured that the time was right for a little serious drama and who better to provide it than Sam Mendes? For a number of reasons, "American Beauty" doesn't appeal to me as much as this film which is easily the darkest thing that Tom Hanks has ever done and probably one of the most underrated films of the last decade. For this is not a simple gangster tale lifted from its graphic novel origins, and is simply wonderful to watch because of it. And despite my usual allergy to any film with Tom Hanks' name on it (still can't watch "Big" without wanting a cat to kick), I'm glad I gave this a try because this is one of those movies that you'll kick yourself for if you miss it.Normally squeaky-clean Hanks plays Michael Sullivan, a devoted family man and father of two sons growing up during Prohibition in the early 1930's. He is also a professional hit-man to mob boss John Rooney (Paul Newman) but has managed to keep his job a secret from his sons. But after his eldest (Tyler Hoechlin) witnesses his dad involved in a mob killing, the pair are forced to go on the run as John seeks to tidy the matter up. Soon, father and son are pursued to Chicago where a fellow hit-man (a menacing Jude Law) is waiting for them.On the face of it, it reads like a pretty standard gangster film but as I've said, this isn't really about gangsters at all. It's about the relationship between a father and son thrown together in the most tragic of circumstances. Hanks is (*grits teeth*) superb as the tortured man who finds out that everything has its price and little Hoechlin is also good as Sullivan's son. In all honesty, there is not a single performance that I could single out as weaker than the others - the cast is pretty much faultless. As is the cinematography and costumes (and it's not often I praise costumes!) which recreates the 30's with stunning effect. There has been so much effort to get everything right and it pays off in spades. This could easily have looked rubbish - they admit that the early 30's look was difficult to put down - but it doesn't and that deserves every bit of credit. Chicago especially looks fantastic, lined with hundreds of rickety cars from the era and filled with people in monochrome suits and hats. True time-travel, even if a little CGI is needed.The story is also a winner, offering a human face to what is often seen as a stereotypical genre of movie villain. Law is surprisingly menacing as the almost mechanical killer Maguire and proves that you don't have to be Cagney or De Niro or Brando to play a gangster. The film is decidedly noir-ish, driving rain and ill-lit warehouses predominate but at least violence and killing are (finally) seen to have an emotional and psychological impact on those who perpetrate and those who merely witness such acts. The whole thing is evocative of a previous age and previous movies but it sweeps away the old and refreshes with a modern tale of redemption amid the Tommy-Gun shootouts and extortion rackets. It can feel a little slow in places, especially if you're used to masses of gun-play in movies like most modern audiences (like yours truly) but sometimes, words can speak louder than actions. Mendes has delivered a fine follow-up to his Oscar-winning debut, a film which is as intelligent as it is beautiful to watch. "Road To Perdition" may not be to everyone's tastes but this is one DVD I shall not be exchanging anytime soon.$LABEL$ 1
+There is an interesting discussion in this movie. Is being a moral person good enough, or do you need something more?The movie preaches that without the guidance of God, being a morally good person is not enough. There is a line early in the movie, "You and I can look at a person who is morally good, but both know he is going to go to hell."While I am not a Christian, the discussions about this throughout the course of the movie were fascinating, but not in the way the movie intended. I left the movie with a stronger feeling that being morally good *is* enough. The arguments and discussions presented were heavily biased, so much so that they crush themselves in the weight of their own ignorance. Fanaticism can be a powerful thing, especially when inferenced in the minds of the ignorant and uneducated. As George Carlin's character in Dogma said: "hook em while they're young".The basic premise is a very interesting one also. A Bible Scholar from the 1890s is attempting to publish a book that says that morality without God is OK, as long as the morality is meaningful. Do you only tell a child not to steal? Or do you tell him not to steal because God tells you not to? (not bothering bringing up that telling the child not to steal because, well, how would he feel if it was his marbles that were stolen?)The author, Carlisle, wants the recommendation of his school to help sell the book (to spread the world). However, it needs unanimous consent, and one of the scholars opposes it. He brings up, in a very interesting discussion early in the film about the morality for morality's sake vs God's words argument. To prove his point, he produces a time machine (put in the movie solely to make the plot work, which I'm fine with), and sends Carlisle to the year 2002 to see where teaching morality without God will lead us.As should be obvious, he has his opinion, and is changed by what he sees, and has reversed himself by the time of his return (for he does return, that's not really a spoiler, this is a bible movie after all).As for the movie as a movie itself, it's pretty slow and pretty poorly acted. Something that was *not* needed in this movie, is that it produces two "bad guys" who want to try to figure out who Carlisle is, even tho he hasn't hurt anyone, committed a crime, or anything. What's wrong with the movie just showing Carlisle's opinion, showing his view of this "sinful world", and returning him with a new viewpoint? Also, there a few points in the movie which affirm to me that I'm happy I'm not a Christian, or at least someone who says "It's God or nothing". Three near the end of the movie rather disturbed me.. first, when the two "bad guys" corner Carlisle right before he jumps, Carlisle does his *only* truly despicable act.. he fakes like his time-jump is the coming of Jesus, and makes it so the "bad guys" (who are also Christians btw, oddly enough), think they just missed the rapture. Secondly, after Carlisle returns, he finds a boy in which he scolded at the beginning of the movie about not stealing (but not mentioning God, kid kept the marbles and ran away), and tells him this time that stealing is wrong because God commands it. Like the Carlin quote above, scaring kids into religion is a faux-pas in my book.And lastly, the epilogue. Another scare tactic. Carlisle asks the inventor how far into the future they could go, and he says he doesn't know.. the epilogue shows him trying to warp a bible into the distant future (starts at 2100), and it fails.. he keeps decrementing the years by 10, and trying again, and by the fade-out, he's at like 2030 or so. Throughout the movie, Carlise mentions that he felt the end of the world coming, because the world was rife with sin and the loss of the name of God.. scare tactics have been in use for thousands of years.. you would think in these enlightened times, the church would have enlightened as well.I'm glad I saw this movie. While I was fairly certain before that being morally good was enough, now I know it for a fact. Worth watching if you are not a Christian, to affirm how happy you are to not be as ignorant as the folks in this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+... ever! (I always wanted to write that:) Many years ago (in 1993 as I recall it) one of my former classmates persuaded me to watch what he called "a epic masterpiece". To this day it stands out to me as the worst movie I have ever seen. The acting, the story, the effects - everything is bad. Unless you are one of these people who just loves to appreciate trash, you should pass on this. However chances are that since you are reading this, you've already seen it.Out of almost 500 movies this is the only non-short I've given a 1/10.I haven't seen any other low-budget Asian warrior flicks, so I guess there's even worse things out there! Scary... :P$LABEL$ 0
+"A death at a college campus appears to be a suicide but is actually a cover for murder. The dead man's roommate finds himself embroiled in a mystery as he tries to uncover the truth behind the young man's murder. Twists and turns, as well as some false leads, makes this a tough case for our collegiate hero to solve, let alone (keep) out of the clutches of the killer," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.The stars may be bigger than the movie. Handsome Charles Starrett (as Ken Harris), who has a small "lingerie" scene, became one of the top western stars of the forties, peaking in "The Return of the Durango Kid" (1945). The man playing his father, Robert Warwick (as Joseph Harris), was one of the most respected actors of the teens, beginning with his performance in "Alias Jimmy Valentine" (1915). Watch out for red herrings. **** A Shot in the Dark (2/1/35) Charles Lamont ~ Charles Starrett, Robert Warwick, James Bush$LABEL$ 0
+Faithful adaptation of witty and interesting French novel about a cynical and depressed middle-aged software engineer (or something), relying heavily on first-person narration but none the worse for that. Downbeat (in a petit-bourgeois sort of way), philosophical and blackly humorous, the best way I could describe both the film and the novel is that it is something like a more intellectual Charles Bukowski (no disrespect to CB intended). Mordantly funny, but also a bleak analysis of social and sexual relations, the film's great achievement is that it reflects real life in such a recognisable way as to make you ask: why aren't other films like this? One of the rare examples of a good book making an equally good film.$LABEL$ 1
+I have seen Maslin Beach a couple of times - both on free to air TV in Brisbane. I won't go into whether it is good, bad or otherwise as others have well and truly covered this.I will say that it is so Australian. Only in Australia can we have a film about relationships among people spending the day as naked as the day they were born, and to view it on free commercial television.I have a friend from the US who is constantly amazed at what we put on our free TV compared to her home country. Sex and the CIty and Huff are just too examples.Despite our Government trying to turn us into the 51st US State, it is good to know at least some things remain truly Aussie$LABEL$ 1
+i like Jane Austin novels. I love Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility books and movies, and I'm half way through Mansfield Park. But i couldn't stand Emma. I gave up on the book after 2 chapters, and by the end of the movie i couldn't care less about Emma. She didn't seem to change at all. Maybe it was Paltrows acting (which as excellent in Se7en) or my lack of interest for the movie. Dunno. The costumes are nice, but the dancing was clumsy compared to Pride and Prejudice dancing by Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle.I gave it a 2 basically for the fact Knightly is bloody gorgeous, and although it as a rather patchy performance for Ewan McGregor, i liked his singing.$LABEL$ 0
+I bought "Rocketship X-M" on DVD in a two-pack with "Destination Moon." Now I see why the distributors did that: no one who had ever seen this movie would buy it on its own.I cannot fathom what school system turned out the reviewer who claimed that RXM is "great in its predictions of how space travel would take place..." Launch straight up, and then do a 90-degree right turn and circle faster and faster until you reach escape velocity... I don't think I recall that from the Apollo program. Never mind that the astronauts should be weightless once they shut off the engines, gravity changes directions every time they pass through the hatch to the engine room. Going to the moon, but "missed" it? No problem, it's just a hop-skip-and-a-jump (with a helping hand from divine providence) and you'll be at Mars! And OK, if you want to put life on Mars, given the state of planetary knowledge in 1950, it was a forgivable convention for the sake of the storytelling, but can you make them look at least a LITTLE alien? These Martians looked like extras from the cast of "10,000 B.C." I can accept some scientific mistakes, but this wouldn't pass muster with an above-average second-grader.And that's aside from the screaming plot holes: 12 minutes before launch (as you're reminded of constantly by the nagging P.A. voice saying "X minus so many minutes") the astronauts are giving a press conference! I guess the time crunch is why Dr. Eckstrom didn't change out of his coat and tie before launching into space. And how handy that, even though they were planning to go to the moon and had pressure suits for that, they brought hiking gear (and rifles!) just in case they ended up at Mars. They're lucky they landed anywhere, since apparently the method they had developed for landing was to have Dr.E look out the window and tell the "pilot" (Lloyd Bridges) to tweak down the throttles every now and then. Note to the designers of the XM-2: how about giving the pilot a window seat? Ditto the previous comments on the casual sexism that had eye-candy Dr. Lisa (Osa Massen) doom them all by repeatedly screwing up her fuel calculations, but hey that was the early '50s. She was there to fill her sweater, not a useful function."Rocketship X-M" is notable for being one of the first of the first films to say "ohmigod we're all going to blow ourselves up with these here A-bombs", but one can note that about it without wasting 77 minutes watching such dreck. By the way, that message might have had a bit more impact had there been some money in the budget for actual sets of the Martian city ruins, rather than just matte paintings.I can appreciate "good" bad sci-fi, for the unique way the "future" used to look, and for the inherent (if condescending) humor you can find when when we look back on the naivety of audiences 60 years ago, but this film must have been insulting even then. "Rocketship X-M" isn't even suitable for an MST3K-style lampooning. Sometimes, bad is just... bad.Anybody want to buy a DVD? Used only once, I swear.$LABEL$ 0
+Fantastic Chaplin movie with many memorable moments as Charlie joins the army to fight in WW 1.At first he goes to boot camp, where he has to learn how to handle his rifle and how to walk in line. That's a really funny scene as the tramp is not used to keeping his feet straight!Next thing you know he's in France in a trench. Hilarious scenes here include a starving Charlie eating the cheese of a mousetrap and reading a letter from home over someone's shoulder.When Charlie goes to sleep he finds his bunker all flooded and his roommate snoring. This is such a funny part! I can't really describe it, just watch the movie. When Charlie wakes up his legs feel numb so he tries to 'wake them up'. It had me rolling on the floor when it turns out his second leg still feels numb... while Charlie actually rubs his roommate's foot!The movie then turns a bit grim, as Charlie shoots a couple of Germans from his trench (although it's done in a very funny way) and him personating as a tree to get close to the enemy, saving a friend of his from a death squad.Last part is him getting a french girl in trouble by hiding in her house. He then has to save her and while doing so he captures the german kaiser as well. To do so he impersonates a german kolonel or something. I love it when Charlie is asked something in german and he's like nein nein nein. The soldier looks at him in a funny way so Charlie changes his mind: ja ja ja! The kaiser gets captured and Charlie is the hero... but then he wakes up again in bootcamp, it was just a sweet dream!Charlie did one of those 'dream-sequences' before (The Bank comes to mind) but who cares, this movie was so funny it had me laughing all the way. Chaplin also has something to say with this movie (as his later work became more of a social comment to several mishaps in the world) and is explained best in the last sentence of the movie: 'Peace on earth, good will to all mankind.'In short: a Charlie classic, very funny, timeless. 9/10.$LABEL$ 1
+The odd thing about Galaxina is not that it is supremely bad, although it is. The odd thing is that in spite of being supremely bad, it is not funny. Supremely bad movies have their own particular brand of unintended humor--the secret of their success, you might say. But Galaxina is quite uniquely different--it is MST3K's worst nightmare, a bad movie in which the intentional *and* the unintentional humor alike fall flat.It is easy enough to figure out why the intentional jokes fail--and the reasons are quite varied. Sometimes it's a timing question; sometimes it's a good idea badly worked out (the human restaurant *could* have been hilarious, but it wasn't); sometimes it feels like there was some mixup in the cutting room, with the punchline ending up on the floor; and sometimes the jokes are just bad jokes. Bad movies get their laughs from such unintentional snafus. It's harder to figure out why Galaxina doesn't get any laughs on that count. Something is subtly wrong with the unintentional humor in this movie, just as something is wrong (not at all subtly) with the intentional humor. It is a supremely bad movie whose very badness is not the redeeming quality it usually is. It's absolutely unique in my experience.$LABEL$ 0
+I've been strangely attracted to this film since I saw it on Showtime sometime in the early 80's. I say strangely because it is rather a ludicrous bit of soft-core fluff, a genre I'm not particularly interested in. The dialogue is pompously and nonsensically philosophical (making sense, no doubt, only to it's Franco-Italian producers)and the plot completely extraneous. What it does achieve is a wonderfully hypnotic and thoroughly pleasant mood. The scenery (the beautiful Philippines), soft-focus nudity and wonderful score all contribute to a strange and extremely watchable exercise in a sort of film making seldom seen today. It is truly one of my great "guilty pleasures". I was fortunate enough to find it on an old laserdisc and have watched it more times than I think is healthy. A worthwhile moodpiece.$LABEL$ 1
+A typical Goth chick (Rainbow Harvest looking like a cross between Winona Ryder in Beetlejuice and Boy George) gets even with people she feels have wronged her with the help of an old haunted mirror that she finds in the new house she and her mom (horror mainstay, Karen Black, the only remotely good thing about this travesty) buy. The acting's pretty laughably bad (especially when Rainbow interacts with the aforementioned mirror) and there are no scares or suspense to be had. This film inexplicably spawned thus for 3 sequels each slightly more atrocious than the last. People looking for a similarly themed, but far superior cinematic endeavor would be well advised to just search out the episode of "Friday the 13th: the Series" where a geeky girl finds an old cursed compact mirror. That packs more chills in it's scant 40 minutes than this whole franchise has provided across it's 4 films.My Grade: D Eye Candy: Charlie Spradling provides the obligatory T&A$LABEL$ 0
+This is an almost action-less film following Jack, an insomniac, as he goes through hallucinations, is visited by dead friends, throws himself off a building, and, for a lot of the time, can't tell reality from hallucination.Dominic Monaghan, as Jack, is truly believable. Confused, and scared but lethargic and, at times blankly accepting of what he sees, we follow him trying to sort out what he's seeing and find a way to sleep.Introduce a talking dog (another hallucination) and children that suddenly appear in Jack's bathroom and bedroom without any explanation as to how they got there (more hallucination) and you have an interesting, mind boggling, 43 minutes And the shower scene is enough to get any Dom fan coming back for more.$LABEL$ 1
+This is another great movie I had the good fortune to see for the first time on the big screen (thanks to Rick Baker et al). Back in the late 80's I was a relative newcomer to the genre and only really new about the big three JC, SH & YB. I wasn't sure what to expect when I payed my hard earned money to see this in a "Triple bill of Classics" at the old Scala. I need not have worried, I was left breathless by this movie. If you're a fan of Hong Kong Action / Kung Fu movies and haven't seen this movie, do so NOW!$LABEL$ 1
+... so I thought I'd throw in a few words about William McNamara. Not a bad way to spend a couple of hours if you want to see him in his tighty-whities -- it's obvious he pumped up for this role and he looks pretty darn good in them -- or less. There's an extended sequence in a cave where he has to strip down to his undies. There's a nice bit where he has to chase after Miss Eleniak in the buff, with only his hands cupped over his groin. William McNamara is naturally a little on the skinny side, but he has a nice, generous handful of a booty. Also, there's a moment when he's getting out of bed that if you pause the action at just the right moment you can see the whole enchilada. If you're inclined to do so, and come on, half of the people who choose to watch a movie about Navy men on a "road trip" are. I'd just like thank Dennis Hopper for his equal opportunity gratuitous nudity. Can William McNamara act? Heck if I know.$LABEL$ 0
+Am I the only person who saw and remembers Amadeus. Every scene in "Copying" has its counterpart in the Milos Forman, Amadeus - from the galloping carriages accompanied by frenzied strings, to the entrance of Anna through the dark hallway preceded by the man with the key, to the very dialog of the conclusion with Anna at Beethoven's feet a la Salieri before the dying Mozart. Does no one else recall the dialog in that script: Salieri "Time?" , Mozart "Common time". ....."We begin with the strings..." and so it "copies".Remember Cynthia Nixon leaning against a door jamb, tears falling down her freckled face - same scene, just replace her with Beethoven's nephew. Even the scatological humor (fart jokes) are the same. We even have a cardinal followed around by a plate of sweet cookies which recalls Salieri in the banquet hall. Does no one else remember? !!!!And the scene where Anna cries to God "Why did you give me this gift?"... Salieri said the same thing!And beyond all that we have a juvenile script with an opening exposition that reads like the character identifications you'd find in a children's story. "I am Mr. Beethoven. I am the composer...."And what, after all, is the purpose of the bridge builder? Other than to juxtapose the technical against the artistic... a comparison that is not at all developed - probably because it has no meaning, especially when it comes to Beethove who was a master of the technical.There's only one great scene - the playing of the ninth. First, the music, which of itself takes you to tears. But then, there is the highly erotic interaction of Anna the copyist keeping time and Beethoven conducting which surpasses the most explicit sexual intimacy. So intense, it's almost embarrassing.But, please - the rest of the film - Where is the world's collective memory? You have seen this all before .... and better!$LABEL$ 0
+Slow but beautifully-mounted story of the American revolution. Griffith's story-telling seems a lot less heavy-handed than in his earlier historical epics and his tableaux work is fully integrated into the action. Lionel Barrymore is an utter swine, Neil Hamilton is poor but dashing and Carol Dempster is.... well, Carol Dempster is most of what is wrong with Griffith in this period, but she doesn't show up often enough to slow the pace and drama.Note that the trivia for this movie says it came in originally at slightly more than 2 hours when first released, but that no cut exists that runs longer than 90 minutes. However, the dvd release has been presented at a slower fps rate that increases the tension and brings it back to a bit over two hours.Far better in terms of story-telling than sound versions, such as THE PATRIOT. While not quite in the league of Griffith's best, such as WAY DOWN EAST and BROKEN BLOSSOMS, an excellent way to spend a couple of hours.$LABEL$ 1
+This film has a very simple but somehow very bad plot. The entire movie is about a girl getting sucked through a gate to another dimension then years later it gets opened again by a witch while a group of friends (including the lead actor who is having trouble getting over his ex girlfriend who is one of the other campers along with her new partner... another girl... that's right they're lesbians and there is some nudity of course for no particular reason). Unfortunately demon follows the now adult girl back through. Also unfortunately, none of this is ever explained. Where exactly were they? Where did the demon come from? How did she survive as a child in a place full of evil demons? Who the hell trained her and made her a gladiator type outfit? The acting is terrible I think but it's hard to tell because the writing is so bad maybe there was just nothing they could do with it. I give it a three because the wrestler was pretty good and the effects were pretty fun even though they were very cheap. I would not recommend it, it wasn't quite bad enough to be funny.$LABEL$ 0
+I am a great fan of the Batman comics and I became disappointed when I could no longer find Batman: The Animated Series on TV anymore. I was excited to learn that there was going to be a new Batman cartoon on TV. I watched the first episode the day it premiered and I was very disappointed.First of all, the animation is very poor. It looks like a cheap, crappy Japanese anime. Then again, just about every modern-day cartoon is like that.The character designs are even worse. Batman looks more like Birdman, Catwoman looks more like Chihuahuawoman, Bane looks more like a red version of the Hulk, the Penguin is a Kung-Fu master, Mr. Freeze is some undead thing with an iceberg on his head, and the Riddler is a Gothic Marilyn Manson look-alike (which is funny because I don't expect people who are obsessed with riddles and puzzles to be Gothic).The worst character design is that of the Joker. They turned him into a monkey/demented Bob Marley/Kung-Fu fighter! The Joker is supposed to be Batman's deadliest enemy, but in this show he hardly poses a threat because his crimes are so stupid and pointless. In one episode his plan was to put his Joker venom in dog food! Oh, how evil! Batman is a fascinating and complex character because he is haunted by the deaths of his parents, which is why he fights crime. This version of Batman doesn't seem haunted by his parents' deaths and is not interesting at all. He's also not a detective, just a fighter. If there's an enemy he can't defeat, he won't study the enemy to find out their weak points like a detective would, he'll just build a giant fighting robot to defeat them. A lot of times this show doesn't even feel like a Batman show, just another brainless anime that's nothing but pointless fighting.What I hate the most about this show is what they did to the villains. They've taken away everything that makes them likable and relatable and turned them into stereotypical evil bad guys. Man-Bat is the biggest example. In the comics, he's a tragic scientist who studies bats to find a cure for his deafness. When experimenting on himself, he accidentally transforms himself into a giant bat creature. In this show, he's a mad scientist who wants to purposely transform himself into a giant bat creature for no apparent reason. Just about all the villains are like that; none of them, with the exception of about one or two, have an actual motive for their crimes.The worst characterization is that of Mr. Freeze. In the comics, Freeze was a just a mad scientist until the genius writer Paul Dini wrote the BTAS episode "Heart of Ice", which gave Freeze a new origin that made him a more tragic, three-dimensional, and likable villain. The episode was so popular that fans accepted it as his actual origin and it was even used in the comics as his origin. Even that crappy movie Batman & Robin used it as his origin. In this show, he's a petty jewel thief before becoming Mr. Freeze. After becoming Mr. Freeze, guess what? He's STILL a petty jewel thief! Great origin. No wonder they used it over the one Dini created.As a Batman fan, I don't dislike this show just because it isn't like the comics because I also liked BTAS, the Batman cartoons that came after it, Tim Burton's Batman films, and obviously, the superb Christopher Nolan Batman films. None of them were 100% loyal to the comics, but they were still very good. The problem with this show is not that it's not exactly like the comics or BTAS, it's that it lacks any sort of depth that makes other Batman media so popular.I've given this show so many chances, but the more I watch, the more I find that disappoints me. I miss the good old days back when Batman cartoons were something everyone could enjoy.$LABEL$ 0
+I had read many good things about this adaptation of my favorite novel...so invariably my expectations were crushed. But they were crushed more than should be expected. The movie would have been a decent movie if I had not read the novel beforehand, which perhaps ruined it for me.In any event, for some reason they changed the labor camp at Toulon to a ship full of galley slaves. The scene at Bishop Myriel's was fine. In fact, other than the galleys, things survived up until the dismissal of Fantine. Because we do not want to have bad things happen to a good woman, she does not cut her hair, sell her teeth, or become a prostitute. The worst she does is run into the mayor's office and spit on his face. Bamatabois is entirely eliminated. Because having children out of wedlock should also not be talked about, Tholomyes is Fantine's dead husband, rather than an irresponsible dandy. Valjean is able to fetch Cosette for Fantine before the Champmathieu affair, so they reunite happily, yet another change. Then comes the convent, which is a pretty difficult scene to screw up. Thankfully, it was saved. After this three minutes of accuracy, however, the movie again begins to hurtle towards Classic Novel Butchering.As Cosette and Valjean are riding through the park, they come across Marius giving a speech at a meeting. About prison reform. When he comes to hand out fliers to Valjean and Cosette, he says the one line in the movie that set me screaming at the TV set. "We aren't revolutionaries." I could hear Victor Hugo thrashing in his grave. OF COURSE THEY ARE REVOLUTIONARIES! They want to revolt against the pseudo-monarchy that is in place in favor of another republic, you dumb screenwriters! It's a historical FACT that there was an insurrection against the government in 1832. At one point Cosette goes to give Marius a donation from her father for the reform movement and meets Eponine. Except...not Eponine. Or at least not the Eponine of the book. This Eponine appears to be a well-to-do secretary girl working for the prison reformers (who are working out of the Cafe Universal as opposed to the Cafe Musain). Not to mention the audience is already made to dislike her thanks to her not-period, low-cut, tight-fitting dress and her snooty mannerisms.The prison reformers (Lead by the most poorly cast Enjolras that I have EVER seen) decide that handing out pamphlets isn't good enough anymore. So they're going to build barricades. I don't know about you, but I have never heard of reform movements tearing up the streets and building barricades and attacking government troops. About three hundred people (it was not supposed to be so many) start attacking the National Guard and building a bunch of barricades, etc. Eponine does die for Marius, thankfully. The rest of the movie is sort of accurate, except that Javert's suicide again seems hard to understand thanks to his minuscule screen time and odd character interpretation. The movie ends with Valjean watching Javert jump into the river. This is again inaccurate because Valjean would never have let Javert drown. He saved the man's life earlier, why let him die now? Then there's the whole skipping of Valjean's confession to Marius, his deterioration, and his redemption on his deathbed with Marius and Cosette by his side.Overall, I can blame the script mostly for the problems. While I am glad Enjolras and Eponine were at least present in the film, they were terribly misinterpreted, as was the entire barricade scene. The elimination of Fantine's suffering prevents us from feeling too much pity for her. That Cosette knows Valjean's past from the start messes with the plot a good deal. I did not even see Thenardier, and Mme. Thenardier only had a few seconds of screen time. The same with Gavroche. I did like Frederich March's interpretation of Valjean a lot, however, which was one of the redeeming features of the movie. On the other hand, Charles Laughton, for all his great acting in other movies, seems to have missed the mark with Javert. The lip tremble, the unnecessary shouting, and his acting in general all just felt very wrong. He also, like many Javerts I have seen, did not appear at all menacing, something required of the character.Again, this film would probably feel much better if I had not read the book. I would not recommend it to book purists, though. I would also say that the movie would have been a good adaptation for the time had not the infamously accurate French version come out the year before.$LABEL$ 0
+This film seems to get bad critiscism for some reason. Probably just by the mass populace. Anyhow, this is actually a very interesting movie. The film is an under-budget sci-fi movie which actually works, due to an interesting storyline and well done scenes. This movie may not be for everyone though. If there are any Sci-Fi fans reading this, I truly recommend this movie if you like good ole science fiction. The film has crazy ideas. The setting includes nations going to war with GIGANTIC machines which the entire countries invest all it's money in! The world has been divied up into territories. Anyone can challenge anyone else to a war, or rather, a 'robot-duel'. The method of warfare is cleaner than nuclear war, since now everyone is wearing those breath masks. Definetly a movie that makes you think. Intelligent, well written, and good effects for the measly budget.I tend to like movies which have small budgets and actually work.$LABEL$ 1
+Crush provides a combination of drama, humor and such irony that I find the English establish very well when it concerns matters of the heart. Mostly known for directing John McKay wrote this wonderful screenplay about three forty-something friends in a small town in England. All three professional women down-out of luck with men formed a ritual ladies night gathering with gin, fags and sweets intake included with endless chatter of their dates erroneous behavior or the needs of their libidos. Andie MacDowell once again thrown by the surrounds of the British (which is where I find she exudes the most) is absolutely charming as the head mistress of a prestigious school who becomes involved with a younger man. Small town gossip and the disapproving jealous friends (great supporting cast) conflicts with her relationship. Unfolding a series of brutal unfortunate events and showing us the many difficulties when one is in pursuit of true happiness. Keep in mind the main premise of this film is friendships and the ending shows us exactly that. This is the type of film you either love or hate, which is why I believe a lot of mix reviews and not that greatest success resulted when this film was released. As I'm sure most are just unearthing the film now. I very much enjoyed this film and highly recommend for those in the likes of such films as "Love Actually", and "Three Weddings and a funeral". Not to mention the soundtrack is extraordinary perfectly capturing those crucial moments.$LABEL$ 1
+For those that are great fans and collectors of dinosaurs like I am, it is not only a very informative series but also puts our imagination to fly. Colors, composition, great models and camera angles. Fantastic photography and filming presentation. Superb. Thanks.$LABEL$ 1
+It was considered to be the "Swiss answer to the Lord of the Rings", but it is much more than that. It isn't an answer to anything, it's in itself something new, something funny and sometimes it's downright stupid and silly - but was Monty Python any different than silly?The beginning immediately makes the statement that this film is low budget and not meant to be taken entirely seriously. Cardboard clouds on strings knock into the airplane in which the main character is seated. But, to compensate the missing special effects, the landscape does the trick. It is absolutely beautiful and stunning - who needs New Zealand, Switzerland has it all. What I liked about the film was the simple approach and the obvious passion and energy that went into it. It isn't brilliant; yet it's got some good humorous parts. Edward Piccin as Friedo is absolutely convincing, it would be enough to go and see the film because of him!There are some good jokes, some of them are very lame, some of them won't be understood by people outside of Switzerland. I liked the idea of having "Urucows" instead of Uruk Hai; I loved the scene where Friedo decides to take "Pupsi", a telehobbie, with him on the journey. Also very funny is the scene when Rackaroll, the sword-fighting knight, decides to show off with his sword - and subsequently smashes it into a wall, breaking it. And there is this one scene where the "nazgul-ish" characters do a wonderfully comic scene that includes a toilet brush... I didn't approve of the idea of the Ring being used by Schleimli, the "Gollum" character, in order to "seduce" the ladies. That was a bit far fetched. The idea of Lord Sauraus wanting to cover the lands with fondue wasn't that brilliant either. Original, certainly, but not brilliant. But most of all did I dislike the idea of a gay dragon, that really wasn't necessary. All in all I recommend to see the film simply because it is so crazy and totally trashy. Don't expect a LotR parody like "Spaceballs" was for Star Wars. But if you go to the flicks thinking that this is going to be an amusing evening out, with absolutely no ambitions, then you'll enjoy. I am not sure if it works in other languages, because it does live from the Swiss dialects as well as from the jokes and actors.All in all: hat off to the courage of the Swiss crew who did that!$LABEL$ 1
+My evaluation: 8/10I like a lot this movie. Compare to today brainless movie (just action and special effet and nothing new about ideas), "Soylent Green" ask to something that today doesn't exist anymore: To Think.Well it would not a big surprise a day human eat "cookies" which are create with body of human. With all what happen on this planet, and to see how people are so indifferent to all, this kind of future is possible.Sure this movie take some age but the idea behind the movie is actual again. Rich at Paradise, other in the hell. Well a luck today they are TV and idiocy like "Reality Show".TV is a good wash brain. It's pity to see that intelligence of human have not progress like technologies. Since writing all stop.If you like reality show this movie is not for you. If you believe all politician same too. If you don't like ask yourself question about now and future well never look this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+I was told it was one of those "either you love it or you hate it" movies. Well, I loved it. Obvious hippie-era, dated and easy symbolism and all. So, I probably have no taste at all when it comes to Antonioni, but this and La Notte (made exactly a decade earlier) are my favourites among his movies so far. Made two years before I was born, Zabriskie Point was supposed to have been Michelangelo's great American epic. But apparently, it turned out to be a flop. I really can't see why. Before watching it I'd read that it was rather boring, so I braced myself for a very slow movie - though I love me a slow movie. For my taste, Zabriskie didn't have a tedious minute in it. While watching it, I made a mental note of how European it was on the director's part to make such frequent use of advertisement billboards in almost every urban scene, enormous billboards dwarfing any human form in sight. This recurrent visual element is obviously there to underline the way that consumerism crushes the individual in American society. But then I watched L'Eclisse straight afterwards, which is set in Rome in the early 60s, and noticed that Antonioni often included billboards in it as well. After all, the masterful use of landscapes, architecture and inanimate objects in each frame with or without human beings is an Antonioni trademark – this is precisely the way that he evokes his characters' psychological states, with more or less understated power and great visual impact. He is virtually unsurpassed in this skill.Zabriskie Point starred two very appealing leads that should have become big stars of the 70s, but never did. Mark Frechette, whom I'd already seen in Francesco Rosi's fine WWI-set movie Uomini Contro, had a very tragic life and died aged just 27. According to his biography page, he donated his $60,000 earnings from Zabriskie to a commune. Mark's co-star Daria Halprin, apparently also Dennis Hopper's wife later on, has the stunning, natural beauty and appeal of a young Ornella Muti – one of those luminous beauties that don't need a shred of make-up to turn heads. Like Frechette, she has only graced a couple of obscure movies and has never become a star, but at least she didn't die tragically. Most notably, Zabriskie Point contains one of the most original sex scenes ever filmed - one that brings home a sense of youthful playfulness like few I've seen - as well as a powerfully cathartic ending. It may be the most banal sequence ever filmed as far as its symbolism goes, but I can't see how anyone can deny its beauty and wonderful sense of emotional release. Never has an explosion looked so good, and so poetic. It seems to be an explosion that restores order rather than bringing chaos.$LABEL$ 1
+"Disappointing" is the best word I could think for this film, especially considering the glowing reviews it receives from some other users.One thing that really spoils the film is that it is unabashedly partial(in both senses of the word). Not only does it present a very selective description of the games (focussing as it does on the US athletics team) but it also contains several inaccuracies, most of which serve to exaggerate the difficulties the US team faced.What is even more disturbing is that all the omissions and mistakes (?), appear to glorify US sportsmanship to the exclusion of other athletes (with a few celebrated exceptions). For example, the viewer is led to believe that the US won the majority of medals in the Games, when in fact they won only one out of four gold medals and one out of 6 total. Similarly, many athletes are portrayed as caricatures of their respective countrymen (thus we have an arrogant Brit, and a wine-swilling French). This attitude does very little service to the Olympic ideals that the film is supposed to celebrate.In conclusion, I believe that this film would appeal to that part of the US audience that is looking for a quick boost of national self-esteem. Those looking for a detailed and historically correct description of the games are advised to look elsewhere.$LABEL$ 0
+Rented the movie as a joke. My friends and I had so much fun laughing at it that I went and found a used copy and bought it for myself. Now when all my friends are looking for a funny movie I give them Sasquatch Hunters. It needs to be said though there is a rule that was made that made the movie that much better. No talking is allowed while the movie is on unless the words are Sasquatch repeated in a chant. I loved the credit at the end of the movie as well. "Thanks for the Jeep, Tom!" Whoever Tom is I say thank you because without your Jeep the movie may not have been made. In short a great movie if you are looking for something to laugh at. If you want a good movie maybe look for something else but if you don't mind a laugh at the expense of a man in a monkey suit grab yourself a copy.$LABEL$ 1
+Creepshow 2 had a lot of potential, they just didn't put enough time in perfecting it. The stories were pretty cool and creepy enough, but it was lacking. It's a good movie, but after you've seen it once, you might want to see it again. This movie could of been better.$LABEL$ 0
+MARY, MARY, BLOODY MARY is an OK time killer. It has a uniformly attractive cast, the action is rarely dull. There are a lot of killings. And the production values are not bad. But in the end, it plays like a standard TV episode from the 1970s with some nudity thrown in. The film is the end product of an "author" trying to make a purely commercial film. There's very little depth here and the film spends too much time with chases and action scenes. Except for the scene on the beach with the old man, MMBM is almost devoid of any scares or suspense or dread. The director has very little understanding of the horror genre.It's watchable even though it doesn't leave a lasting impression.$LABEL$ 0
+First of all, I'm upset there's no choice of a "0" out of 10. I was bored tonight, and while flipping through the channels, I see Dr. Chopper. With there being nothing else on, I decide to watch it, expecting it to be just another crappy horror movie, with a similar plot to Cabin Fever. Man was I wrong...Dr. Chopper made Cabin Fever look like it should have won numerous Academy Awards. May I remind you, Cabin Fever contains a scene of a little hick boy doing roundhouse kicks off of a porch screaming, "pancakes!!", characters who leave their dying friend in a tiny shack to bleed to death, and Shawn from Boy Meets World mistakenly fingering a hole in a girl's thigh.So needless to say, Dr. Chopper was a big, smelly pile-o-crap. It wasn't even funny crap. It reminded me of a horror movie I had to make in 8th grade, called "The Campout". Except for the fact that "The Campout" had a better script (we wrote it about an hour before filming), better actors, plots, bloody scenes, and camera work. I was hoping to get some laughs out of a poorly-made horror film, but instead I could only watch in astonishment as I thought to myself, "Was this made by 8th graders?". The acting was horrible, the events and different little subplots were thrown together and didn't make sense, and the gore and violence was very minimal. I liked how that from a small stab wound, people died instantly, and the only weapons the killers had were small pocket knives...if you're going to make a horror movie, at least give the killer(s) an insane killing device.Also, what the hell was the point of the sorority girls hazing their pledges? Good way to bring in some scenes of girls running around in their bras, even if they have no relevance to the story whatsoever. And I must say, my favorite line was when the blonde says to Dr. Chopper, "I'd like to introduce you to someone....my inner bitch." Her "inner bitch" then proceeds to grab a garbage can, throw it at Dr. Chopper, miss, and back up in terror of the killer.Wheww....well that was a long one, but I felt that I needed to express my feelings on how absolutely horrible this "movie" was. I know that everyone has their own opinions, but if anyone rates this movie higher than a 2, they should be shot to Hell......seriously.$LABEL$ 0
+Unspeakable starts in Los Angeles with Jim (Roger Cline) & his wife Alice Fhelleps (Tamera Noll) arguing as they drive along in the pouring rain, unfortunately Jim crashes the car & his daughter Heather (Leigh Silver) ends up dead while Alice is turned into a wheelchair bound vegetable. Devastated by the death of his daughter Jim starts visiting prostitutes, he then kills them because of voices in his head. Erm, that's it really.Written, produced & directed by Chad Ferrin I hate Unspeakable as a film. There are some films you occasionally see that move the 'goal posts' as it were in regard to everything you watch thereafter, some films are so brilliant that all other's will be judged by it while other's like Unspeakable for example are so bad that it sets a new cinematic low. This is truly one of the worst films I've ever seen & I am seriously surprised by the largely positive comments on the IMDb although I'm not surprised the the low overall rating on the main page, I not sure if I missed something but for a start Unspeakable has no plot, it has no story & a lot of it seems almost random. There was nothing in Unspeakable to maintain my interest or entertain & as a result became a test of endurance to get through to the end. The film tries to be shocking with some limp scenes of sexual abuse of a rent boy by a priest, there is a scene in which a disabled person craps herself, it splats on the floor & her dodgy male nurse starts feeling her soiled genitals, legs & underwear. If anyone can find such crap entertaining then I'll just cut my wrists now, the character's are some of the worst I've had the misfortune to know, the dialogue is hilariously bad with some it sounding like it came straight from some dirty faggot porno of the worst kind. It doesn't work as a horror as it's not scary in the slightest, it's absolutely hilarious & frankly insulting to claim that it is trying to be a serious drama about someone suffering a great loss & attempting to cope with it & overall I just think it's a pointless, rubbishy, badly made piece of crap from Troma.Director Ferrin films like some badly made documentary, the special effects are terrible & are of the 'let's pour tomato ketchup on our actor's face & the audience will be convinced that they died a gory death' variety, there is no graphic violence at all apart from a suicide where someone sticks a knife in their own mouth. Considering the amount of prostitutes in Unspeakable the nudity levels are kept to an absolute minimum...Apparently Unspeakable had a budget of about $20,000 & all I can say is where did all the money go? Oh, a quick note to the filmmakers, if your going to record sound live make sure you don't have your actor's deliver their lines next to a main road that half of Los Angeles seem to be driving up... The acting sucks, period.Unspeakable is, in my opinion, total crap. It's probably not the worst I've ever seen but it's right down there & I can't remember seeing such a awful film recently. One to avoid unless your a masochist or insomniac.$LABEL$ 0
+I first seen this movie in the early 80s and we used to have it on betamax. As we all know, betamax went the way of the 8-trak tape, sigh, it really had nice picture quality too. Anyways, I'm glad I found this movie again, I've been searching for it for more than 10 years! This movie falls into the category of movies like Airplane: continuous jokes, oneliners, funny actions (bodylanguage). Mark Blankfield is absolutely hilarious. His transformation from the shy Dr. Daniel Jekyll into the sex-crazed partyanimal Mr. Hyde is unforgettable, complete with goldtooth, chesthair and goldchains. The part I loved best was when he hijacked the car from this poor guy and then drove to Madam Woo Woo's. Totally psychedelic experience without the drugs! If you need laugh therapy this is the movie to do it. When I first seen it, I had tears in my eyes and my belly was hurting from constantly laughing. This is a movie I could watch over and over again. I highly recommend it.$LABEL$ 1
+I think this is the best Norwegian movie I've ever seen. It's about 40-year old Andreas who gets hit by a subway-train, and suddenly finds himself in a strange city, however, everything here has been made ready for him. He has got a job, a house and clothes. At first, this city seems perfect, no death, no pain and no problems. Everywhere there are men in gray suits who cleans up and fixes everything that doesn't fit into their definition of perfect. However Andreas can't really seem to fit in and starts to long back to his old world, and tries with all means to get back. The thing that impresses my the most in this movie is how they way of making the city seem so surrealistic, even though I have seen a lot of these places in real life they seem so distant. Another thing that contributes greatly to the is the performance from the actors. Trond Fausa Aurvaag is just the perfect guy to play the confused and bothersome Andreas. And all the other characters are also doing a great job by playing apathetic (sounds like a hard job, doesn't it?). The strong difference between Andreas and the others leads to very amusing situations as well. All in all, this is a fabulous movie. The plot may be a little confusing, but the movie has such a great atmosphere I would recommend that everyone should go see it. And I wouldn't recommend listening to "ccscd212", as it seems he has seen too many commercial American movies and seems to have became too used to just getting served the moral on a silver plate. The way I see it there is not much in this film that tries to tell us about suicide being right or wrong. I consider it more of a warning of a direction our society seems to be taking. But sure, everyone can see a film in their own way.$LABEL$ 1
+I came across this movie back in the mid eighties as a teenager and it immediately became one of my favorite holiday and non-holiday films. As you can tell from the other reviews this movie has a very good story line and great actors signed on for it. Stanwyck is great as bride to be that is having second thoughts. Dennis Morgan's acting is strong also. He goes unnoticed in most films but was a very capable actor, check out KITTY FOYLE. In this film he plays the visiting sailor that woos Stanwyck away from her husband to be. This is a Christmas classic. The settings and the story make for a great Christmas romance$LABEL$ 1
+Possibly the worst film within the genre in existence. It was announced as a comedy, but is simply tragically pathetic. I don't think anyone could have achieved anything more terrible and irritating if they were specifically requested to. It is toilet humour at its very poorest, I would avoid even watching the trailer. I only went to see it because it was announced that if you like Monty Python, you are bound to love this. Whoever wrote that was either biased or seriously deranged. I am still bewildered how one can honestly believe such a statement. Rarely do I leave the cinema, really it takes a lot of effort for a film to have that effect on me: this one did it in just 30 minutes.$LABEL$ 0
+In the hands of a more skilled director, this film would have been considered a horror masterpiece. Despite Michael "Death Wish" Winner's merely passable direction, the movie is interesting, original and more than a little scary.The script bucks more than one horror cliché off its back (several it can't shake) including Chris Sarandon as the heroine's boyfriend who actually listens to her as she insists that eerie things are going down. Burgess Meredith is delightful as the lovably insane neighbor. Eva Gardner is haunting with a young Beverly D'Angelo as her mute and disturbed lesbian lover. John Carradine does a heck-of-a job sitting in a chair. And watch out for a brief cameo from an unknown-at-the-time Chris Walken! This movie is creepy and creative. The plot twists are lovely, if a tad predictable. The climax, of which I will give no detail, is disturbing and quite impressive. Again a better director could have done more with it, nonetheless it is quite satisfying - at least to those with the sensibilities of seventies horror.If you like modern overproduced body-counting torture-fantasy, you won't like this. There is almost no gore. The direction is quite spartan. The effects are few, although there's some delightful makeup near the end - most of which actually isn't makeup...but perhaps I've said too much already.I've rated this a little higher than its quality may justify, but I enjoyed it as much as any "8" film that I've seen.$LABEL$ 1
+I have seen this movie, just once, and I'm looking forward to see it again and again. Dear David (from Beligium), why did you bother to write a comment on this movie? I only think we can think about you (after reading you comment), is that you're provably a non-sexual person (like Erika in the movie), and you are not ready for the new cinema that is coming up. I guess you are a bit old, and sexual expression is not part of your "visage". The Cannes Film Festival is by far the best movie festival, and I'm is my pleasure to say, that this film was awarded with: Best Actress, Best Actor and Grand Prix. Isabelle Huppert is magnificent, as always, who would do this movie like her? One of her best performances ever. The music is fantastic, and once more Michael Haneke puts reality in the big screen. It's like a Dogma95 kind of movie, because of the topic. Try to see it.$LABEL$ 1
+We loved this movie because it was so entertaining and off beat-- Not your usual Hollywood drivel.My husband had a Blockbuster coupon and passed on a string of new releases of violent Hollywood stuff. He was about to walk out when he saw this and decided to take a chance. There was only one copy -- and with some glitches in the DVD that we finally had to flip to wide screen version and then back to the full screen version to make it stop stalling. But it was worth it. Cathy Bates is so good and she was so perfect for the role. And she can sing too! If only Hollywood would learn from Independent film makers! Maybe we would go back to the real movies. But for now, we're sticking with off beat and really entertaining films like this one! Other examples we've enjoyed include: A Box Full of Moonlight, Pieces of April, Delivering Milo, The Celestine Prophesy. Most of the ones by Christopher Guest such as: Best in Show, For your Consideration, A Mighty Wind, and Waiting for Guffman$LABEL$ 1
+This show had pretty good stories, but bad dialog. The main character was especially annoying. It's quite obvious why this show was canceled, although, like most UPN shows, I never knew it even existed until it was in syndicated re-runs.Most of it's plots seemed to be copied from other shows and movies, leading me to think the producers didn't have an original idea in their heads. I haven't commented enough. You've got to have at least ten lines of text. The special effect were not bad for a 2001 show.The gnome was a nice character.$LABEL$ 0
+I thought this movie was too absurd for me to finish watching it. The premise was too silly and predictable. I didn't make it far into the movie.Let me see. She is obviously older than the cabbie (unless she is a lot younger than she looks). He is black and she is white. She makes more money than him (he is only a cabbie). That's 3 of society's most statistically failed unions all rolled up in one and we are supposed to pretend they have a chance in hell. She would be better off marrying the guy she doesn't love.I only watched it partially because I love MJW as an actor. His acting was superb. Hers, meh! It was OK but the premise is too silly. Didn't see the end. Couldn't make it there so I don't know if it ended differently from the way I predicted the ending would be. I can't imagine any black woman liking this movie. There is something sickening about watching a black man catering to a white woman like that. And an old one at that. PLEASE! Not in the real world!$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie today at the Haifa Film Festival in Israel after hearing rave reviews, but I guess the critics were just sucking up to Willem Defoe and his wife (the director) who were present at the festival. It is definitely the slowest movie I have ever seen with numerous pointless, ridiculously long scenes of nothing. Besides Defoe who was decent, the acting of the two and a half other people in the movie, Defoe's wife Giada included, was ridiculously awful (how they cast the part of the salesgirl at the bakery is beyond me). This movie is pretty much plot less with a lame attempt to be abstract and off the wall. The only scene that stirred any kind of reaction in the crowd was vulgar and came from nowhere as if just to add some kind of shock value to the dullness that is this movie. Sorry for being so harsh, but really this movie is a precious waste of time and money. I appreciate good indie cinema, but this movie is not worthy of moviegoers' time.$LABEL$ 0
+Had this movie been made a few years later, I would have given it a lower score. However, for 1909, this was a dandy little movie and still stands up pretty well today. Just don't try to compare this silent film to later silents--the industry changed so radically that the shorts of the first decade of the 20th century don't look at all like movies made in the 1910s and beyond.This movie is 11 minutes long (about average for most films back then) and is a variation of the Edgar Allen Poe story, THE CASK OF AMONTILLADO. While many are familiar with the story, I won't elaborate further as I don't want to ruin the film. Just suffice to say that it's very creepy!!$LABEL$ 1
+What is contained on this disk is a first rate show by a first rate band. This disc is NOT for the faint of heart...the music is incredibly intense, and VERY cool. What you will learn when you watch this movie is just why the Who was so huge for so long. It is true that their records were great, but their shows were the top of the heap. In 1969 when this concert was shot, the screaming teenie boppers that threw jelly beans at the Beatles were gone and bands (and audiences) had settled down to long and often amazing displays of musical virtuosity--something that few audiences have the intellectual curiosity to pursue in the age of canned music by Britney and Christina. What you especially learn here are the amazing things that can happen when gifted musicians are encouraged to improvise. Try the concert out, it really is amazing.$LABEL$ 1
+Abhay Deol's second film, written by Imtiaz Ali, maiden directorial effort by Shivam Nair. Soha probably has her first (?) meaty role as Megha, a girl who has run away from home and is waiting at the Delhi marriage registrar's office for her boyfriend Dheeraj (Shayan Munshi) to meet her. She waits and waits and finally is spotted as a damsel in distress by Ankush (Abhay Deol). They spend many days together as he extricates her from one distressing situation after another and finally falls in love with her. Then the boyfriend returns! Aage pardey par dekhiye! Sound familiar? This is yet another adaptation of Dostoyevsky's White Nights with a tiny bit of borrowing from Le Notti Bianchi (very tiny though - Ankush keeps the lovers apart by telling the boyfriend she is dead!). But this is an earthier and more realistic (duh) adaptation than the much hyped and overblown Saawariya. I wonder why no one brought this little gem up when we were all discussing Saawariya like crazy a few months ago.The Delhi settings are wonderful - there is the obligatory run through old Delhi, shots of Jama Masjid from a roof top, Connaught Circus, streets with rickshaws (What? How?). The colorful light fixtures in the hotel are enough to tell you this is a seedy joint with rooms for hire by the hour! The more I see of Abhay the more I like this young man. In this second film he is quite good as the for hire witness who is given a purpose in life by a beautiful woman. Soha looks beautiful, and when she smiles she fits the role, but I found her unconvincing in the more serious moments. I am not quite sure that she has it in her to be a great actress, or maybe she will blossom late like the brother. The music by Himesh Reshammiya is not that great and in fact the movie falters at the songs, they kind of interrupt the narrative and do not sit well with the characters trying to sing them. The supporting cast is excellent and I give this White Nights adaptation a thumbs up. BTW - the fact that I love Abhay Deol's cute dimples has NOTHING to do with my rating.$LABEL$ 1
+This utterly dull, senseless, pointless, spiritless, and dumb movie isn't the final proof that the world can forget about Danny Boyle and his post-"Trainspotting" movies: "The Beach" already took care of that. What this low-budget oddity does is merely to secure his place among those who started very well but got completely lost in drugs, booze, ego, self-delusion, bad management or whatever it was that lead to this once-promising director's quick demise.The premise is absurd: two losers (Ecclestone and some bimbo Jenna G - a rapper, likely) meet by chance and spontaneously start singing with fervour more akin to lunatic asylum inhabitants than a potential hit-making duo - which they become. A friend of theirs - an even bigger illiterate loser - becomes their manager by smashing a store window and stealing a video-camera by which he films them in "action", and then shows the tape to some music people who actually show interest in this garbage. Now, I know that the UK in recent years has put out incredible junk, but this is ridiculous; the music makes Oasis seem like The Beatles. During the studio recordings, the duo - Strumpet - change lyrics in every take and Ecclestone quite arrogantly tells the music biz guys to take it or leave it, and quite absurdly they do take it. Not only is the music total and utter trash, but its "performers" are anti-social; these NEWCOMERS are supposed to be calling the shots. It's just too dumb. It's plain awful.The dialog is unfunny and goes nowhere, and this rags-to-bitches story has no point and makes no sense. It often feels improvised - under the influence of drugs. Danny Boyle is a complete idiot. This little piece of trash is so bad it's embarrassing to watch. Ecclestone's I.Q. also has to be questioned for agreeing to be part of this nonsense. Whoever financed this £1000 joke should leave the movie business before they end up selling their own underwear on street corners.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a fine, under-rated film and Rip Torn, well-known as he is, is a seriously under-rated actor. I read Howard Frank Mosher's novel many years ago. How well Craven captures the book and the beauty of Vermont's Northeast Kingdom! I had the good fortune to grow up in VT in the 40s and 50s and was still living there when the "Irasburg Incident" took place. I've not seen _Stranger in the Kingdom_, the Craven/Mosher collaboration based on the incident(and another Mosher novel), but this film has inspired me to track it down.$LABEL$ 1
+This film has special effects which for it's time are very impressive. Some if it is easily explainable with the scenes played backwards but the overlay of moving images on an object on film is surprisingly well done given that this film was made more than 94 years ago.$LABEL$ 1
+This 1925 film narrates the story of the mutiny on board battleship Potemkin at the port of Odessa. The movie celebrated the 20th anniversary of the uprising of 1905, which was seen as a direct precursor to the October Revolution of 1917. Following his montage theory, Eisenstein plays with scenes, their duration and the way they combine to emphasize his message, besides he uses different camera shot angles and revolutionary illumination techniques. The "Odessa Steps" sequence in Potemkin is one of the most famous in the history of cinema. The baby carriage coming loose down the steps after its mother has been shot was later recreated in Brian d' Palma's The Untouchables. It is clear that the film is one of the best ever made considering its time and how innovative it was though you need a little bit of patience and to be a real movie enthusiast to go through its 70 minutes.$LABEL$ 1
+I enjoyed this movie a lot. I thought that the plot of the movie was realistic and relevant to anytime period in American history. There is always that woman that does what she needs to do to climb the class system. I feel that the character of Lilly was portrayed correctly and could of not been done better. What I enjoyed most was when she realized what love really was. Throughout the movie all of the men that fell for her were in love with her, had given her everything, even lost their careers for her. Until she had met Cortland, she did not understand why these men gave up everything for happiness. The way her life had ended up was far from what she expected to be possible. I'd recommend this movie to anyone of a mature audience so you are able to understand the content and the under-laying meaning of the movie and plot.$LABEL$ 1
+Aside from the gunfight scene, I felt the movie was a waste of celluloid. Robert Duvall, Kevin Costner, and Annette Bening could have played those roles in their sleep. The dialog was marginally tolerable (and there was plenty of it--no one sat together quietly in this movie), the plot was all over the map as if they could not decide how many themes to cram into the story, there was no subtlety at all--foreshadowing hit you between the eyes and they led you by the nose through most of the story (I think they added all the dialog to make sure you didn't miss anything), and the editing really needed tightening up (each actor's screen time was more quantity than quality--again, too much dialog).The entire story took place over the course of a few days, but everything that happened took on epic proportions, much like how day-to-day happenings seemed HUGE to you in high school, but in the grand scheme really weren't THAT important. Yes, the bad guys beat up and killed Mose, they beat up Button, they killed the dog--all things which would get Boss and Charley's blood up. But the importance was diluted by all of the "deep, meaningful" conversations which dominated most of the movie. These guys worked together for 10 years and they're just now talking about this stuff? The only time there wasn't much dialog was in the gunfight scene--which is probably why I liked it.Finally, someone give Annette Bening a hairbrush! The wispy strands of hair around her face that were (I suppose) to make her look a bit more romantic actually made her look a little deranged. If she worked outside the home, it would have made more sense. Plus, why WASN'T she married already? There seemed to be several "kind and gentle" (her words) single men in town aside from the marshal and his cronies. In fact, none of the bad guys seemed to want her either (a usual plot device in other movies). She stayed cooped up in the house most of the time and really didn't seem to have much connection to the people in town. Makes you wonder......In all, the movie was entirely too long, too chatty, and too contrived for me. It felt like a star vehicle with lots of screen time for the big stars, but not enough character depth to interest me, despite all of the dialog.$LABEL$ 0
+Mainly a biography of a lustful doctor, "Robert Merivel ," (Robert Downey) who has his way in the king's palace for the first half of the film and then helps out the downtrodden in the second half, mainly "Katharine" (Meg Ryan).The GOOD - Fantastic set decoration (i.e. the lush king's palace) and costuming make this a visual treat. The language is also very tame. Ian McKellen and Hugh Grant provide interesting support.The BAD - After 50-60 minutes, this movie simply gets too boring. It desperately needed to be given some spark after an hour but it does the opposite: it drags on and on. The script certainly needed some badly-needed "restoration," shall we say? The film may look nice but it's a long two hours to sit through.....too long.$LABEL$ 0
+If there were two parts that the physically towering, ugly-charismatic actor Gérard Depardieu was born, as a Frenchman, to play, it must surely have been Cyrano de Bergerac and the orator Georges Danton. Here he dominates the film both through the breadth of his shoulders and the power of his voice; his charisma carries the part despite the fact that it is made clear that the character has as much blood on his hands as any of the rest of them. Danton feasts while the people of Paris starve... but he is the one man who can challenge the tyranny imposed by the dreaded Committee of Public Safety in the name of 'freedom', and he is presented as the hero of the film -- despite the fact that the source play practically idolises his opponent Robespierre!For those who know the characters from history, there is interest to be had in identifying the minor parts: the frog-faced Tallien, Couthon the cripple, Fouquier-Tinville the tribunal's prosecutor, the dashing fop St-Just, the epic painter David. But the script cuts little slack in this respect; names are often late in coming if minor characters are identified at all, and there is no Hollywood-style 'info-dump' to make sure that the audience can place events in their historical context. The film takes it for granted that you know what has gone before, and what will happen after -- sometimes it takes too much for granted, as when it relies on a close knowledge of dates to provide the sting to its tail in the fact that Robespierre followed Danton shortly to the scaffold.Considered as a film, it's not entirely satisfactory in that it ebbs away towards the end. The structure of the story leads up to some great confrontation between the protagonists in the courtroom or some dramatic climax to the trial, which, thanks to history, never actually happens. Things just fizzle out: there is no revolt, there is no overthrow of tyranny, there is no assumption of power by the victor, there is no triumph on either side. It may be historically accurate, but it's not entirely satisfying as the outcome of a screen scenario -- it seems an odd place to stop. As others have commented, it might have been more logical to take events up to the end of the Terror and show in apposition the fall of Robespierre.$LABEL$ 1
+Seeing this movie in previews I thought it would be witty and in good spirits. Unfortunately it was a standard case of "the funny bits were in the preview", not to say it was all bad. But "the good bits were in the preview".If you are looking for an adolescent movie that will put you to sleep then Watch this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Action, horror, sci-fi, exploitation director Fred Olen Ray shows he has some talent as a director. Character actor William Smith is one of the best tough/bad guys in the industry. He treats the viewer with the best acting performance of his career. As for Randy Travis he gives his best Lee Van Cleef impression. He's not bad in the film. Smith and Travis make the movie. As for the rest of the cast none of them really stand out. Ray did a great job directing this flick, Smith and Travis were good, I'd give this B western on a scale of one to ten(ten being the best) a seven.$LABEL$ 1
+VIVAH in my opinion is the best movie of 2006, coming from a director that has proved successful throughout his career. I am not too keen in romantic movies these days, because i see them as "old wine in a new bottle" and so predictable. However, i have watched this movie three times now...and believe me it's an awesome movie.VIVAH goes back to the traditional route, displaying simple characters into a sensible and realistic story of the journey between engagement and marriage. The movie entertains in all manners as it can be reflected to what we do (or would do) when it comes to marriage. In that sense Sooraj R. Barjatya has done his homework well and has depicted a very realistic story into a well-made highly entertaining movie.Several sequences in this movie catch your interest immediately: * When Shahid Kapoor comes to see the bride (Amrita Rao) - the way he tries to look at her without making it too obvious in front of his and her family. The song 'Do Anjaane Ajnabi' goes well with the mood of this scene.* The first conversation between Shahid and Amrita, when he comes to see her - i.e. a shy Shahid not knowing exactly what to talk about but pulling of a decent conversation. Also Amrita's naive nature, limited eye-contact, shy characteristics and answering softly to Shahid's questions.* The emotional breakdown of Amrita and her uncle (Alok Nath) when she feeds him at Shahid's party in the form of another's daughter-in-law rather than her uncle's beloved niece.Clearly the movie belongs to Amrita Rao all the way. The actress portrays the role of Poonam with such conviction that you cannot imagine anybody else replacing her. She looks beautiful throughout the whole movie, and portrays an innocent and shy traditional girl perfectly.Shahid Kapoor performs brilliantly too. He delivers a promising performance and shows that he is no less than Salman Khan when it comes to acting in a Sooraj R. Barjatya film. In fact Shahid and Amrita make a cute on-screen couple, without a shadow of doubt. Other characters - Alok Nath (Excellent), Anupam Kher (Brilliant), Mohan Joshi (Very good).On the whole, VIVAH delivers what it promised, a well made and realistic story of two families. The movie has top-notch performances, excellent story and great music to suit the film, as well as being directed by the fabulous Sooraj R. Barjatya. It's a must see!$LABEL$ 1
+I'm sorry, but I just can't help it, I love watching Iron Eagle. Now, do not misunderstand me, I am not saying that this is a great movie. No, rather, I would put it that this is an endlessly entertaining movie. For people who cut this movie to pieces for not being realistic are kinda missing the point. Of course Iron Eagle's plot was ridiculous. But I believe its target audience was kids, and I sure remember finding this cool when I was little. Now I just find it amusing as a guilty pleasure, kinda like Road House. This movie is part of the great pantheon of 80's, kids-taking-on-the-stodgy-adult-power-structure movies. You must remember D.A.R.Y.L, Real Genius, E.T., etc. If you ask me, just watching Doug and Knotcher "Ride the Snake" in the beginning is worth the cost of the DVD. That whole sequence was so STUPID! But, at the same time, it was hilarious, funny, totally 80's, all that good stuff. So bottom line, Iron Eagle is a great 80's guilty pleasure. The hairstyles, the dancing, the music, the dialogue, its all funny as hell. I have Iron Eagle on DVD and to me it was totally worth $9.99 at Best Buy. If you love laughing at dated, unrealistic action movies, this one is a must-see. Oh yeah, and I think its plot was only marginally stupider than 1986's other fighter pilot action pic, Top Gun.$LABEL$ 1
+It utterly defeats me why Godard is taken so seriously - and One Plus One is a great example of his ineptitude as both a filmmaker and an 'intellectual' polemicist. It's hard to credit that Godard actually believed all that Marxist and Maoist kant. Anyone with half a brain could work out the bankruptcy of those 'isms' and how many people they had destroyed and were continuing to destroy even as Godard was making his films supporting them. As a filmmaker, ask yourself: would you have boring voice-overs reading tedious political diatribes at your audience, and then, when you couldn't think of anything else to do, layer another voice-over to the first voice-over, which had lost its listeners after the first 100 words in any case? Brilliant, Jean-Luc! As for Godard insisting on making a film with the Rolling Stones: of course he did; wouldn't you? It was the only guarantee of getting such mindless rubbish seen in the first place: the genius of the Stones eclipsing a talentless and babbling political idiot set loose with a camera. The bookshop scene wasn't worthy of even the worst fringe theatre, and was an insult to the intelligence of even the young children who were used to play in it - as could be readily seen. Copping-out by allowing friendly critics to claim that all this artless crap was a satire on mainstream film-making is no more than a safe get-out to offer those who clearly see Godard's poverty of intellect and arrogant contempt for his audience. Ironic that Godard's one-time great friend, Truffaut, with Nuit Americain, made the best film about film-making ever, and Godard made the worst with Le Mepris! Incidentally, Godard didn't choose the Stones' track of Sympathy With the Devil. It just happened to be the track they were working on when the 'film' started shooting at Barnes Olympic Studios.$LABEL$ 0
+Ok, let me say that I didn't expect a film starring Jerry Springer to be cinematic gold, all I asked for was it to be cinematic...and it wasn't even that. It looked like someone's bad home movies. Poorly acted, scripted, and filled to the brim with nudity of the most unnattractive people I've ever seen.The film's "plot" focuses on a low-class family who decide to go on the "Jerry Farrelly Show" to discuss multiple affairs between a mother, daughter, stepfather and the daughter's fiancee. From there, the movie fizzles and develops into a unique experience: white-trash pornography. There's redneck sex, interacial sex, even sex between Jerry and his wife? (Yuk!) This film encouraged me to want to run out of the theater and get a second circumcision. At least it was mercifully short. Disgusting and degrading. African-Americans and working class America should be offended. (Howard Stern should be pleased however, he didn't squander his attempt for film stardom. His was smart, funny and entertaining)MY GRADE: F+ (the daughter was hot)$LABEL$ 0
+I thought i could see something good but... I am tired after seeing this movie, i don't know what i hated the most: the script, the acting, the FX or the music. Try to picture the worst Power Rangers episode and would still be to kind. I've seen better FX in FPS Games( The touch with the bone sword or his breath that is making the people disappear in a green smoke is touch of genius) and the music seems to come from a spaghetti western. I did liked how the women in the car was screaming, when the "monster" was walking around the car (even if she's looking in the wrong way). So give your self a break and don't watch this thing, at least call somebody up to see a horror movie with you, trust me you will end up playing monopoly for some kicks.$LABEL$ 0
+I remember seeing this film when I was fairly young & being quite disturbed by it. I found the storyline very distressing and can still remember the various bullying techniques used. One in particular was when the other school children spat in his soup before he could even taste a spoonful. They also bound him and shaved his private parts. This was all because he was unpopular. Why was he unpopular? Because he was bad at games. I have a feeling though that even if he was good at games he would have been bullied because it's hard to decide what makes someone popular. To me, he is the type of person who would always be picked on because that's how children operate. Popular children are popular because they are in some way 'cool'. Popularity is a hard thing to define. So, even at the end when he is successful in his career it makes no difference & he is still left feeling tormented. I found the ending quite distressing as there was no resolution.$LABEL$ 1
+Excellent film. The whole picture was filmed in Budapest, so I feel proud. My little problem was that the trains in the film belonged to the Hungarian State Railways (MÁV), and it is plain to see that they were used in big train, not in the local railway - according to the story Chikatilo picked up his victims in local railway stations. Apart from this, the film is superb.$LABEL$ 1
+Hmm, Hip Hop music to a period western. Modern phrases like "cool" and too many others to keep track of. "The sistahs are in tha house"!?French manicured nails on hard riding girls. Microphone packs CLEARLY visible on Li'l Kim's back. I just can't go on with the litany of errors made by the director and editors.The acting isn't as bad as I've ever seen. The women did well enough with a poor script.It was weird hearing Louis Mandylor speaking in his native accent.The girls are beautiful. The costumes fabulous albeit completely incorrect. I just can't believe they would dumb down what could have been a great story. I would feel offended to believe that this movie was loaded with such trappings that it would play well in the inner city.$LABEL$ 0
+The movie starts with a Spiderman spoof which is your introduction to Rick Riker (played by Drake Bell of "Drake & Josh" fame, personally I'd have given the movie to Josh who is much funnier) and the "Rick Punchers" joke is lifted right out of Airplane so the writers were obviously already scraping the barrel for ideas for this film. Rick's class is on a science trip to The Amalgamated Genetics lab and this is where we get to meet the 1st star name in the film, Brent Spiner (Data in Star Trek TNG) playing Dr Strom. Rick is bitten by a genetically modified dragonfly which is where his powers come from.We meet our next big star names at Rick's home, his Aunt Lucille (Marion Ross of Happy Days fame) & Uncle Albert (Leslie Nielson of Airplane, Police Squad & Naked Gun fame). And we're introduced to Carlson on the Amalgamated Board of Directors (Dan Castellaneta from The Simpsons) who is then very promptly killed. We're told Rick has slept for 5 days & get some cheap, crappy sexually orientated scenes designed to get the teen male audience paying attention. The Stephen Hawking lookalike's scene is painful to watch and is really a bad idea that doesn't work and isn't remotely funny.We get another Spiderman spoof (Rick catching the girl and all the planets) but the movie should end right there as Jill was hit in the head by a falling bowling ball which would have broken her skull and killed her stone dead. You get to see Rick's 1st powers emerge (gripping ability & speed) then his 1st rescue which goes very wrong. We also get an incest reference which is in very poor taste indeed. We get a flashback and a Batman spoof in which we discover Rick is solely responsible for the death of his parents. Spoofing Spiderman again Ricks Uncle is shot with Jeffrey Tambor (from Hellboy) playing the Hospital Doctor. We then get an X-men spoof (done very badly as Patrick Stewart is about as white as they come), Barry Bonds is played by yet another lookalike.We meet Invisible Girl (played by Pamela Anderson looking stunning in her costume!). Ricks 1st outing in his costume (once he fixes his ability to see & breath through it) is another Batman spoof. The Tom Cruise Youtube interview clip is played by yet another lookalike (and not a very good one at that). There are lots of modern references like Youtube, Facebook & Wikipedia all showing that the movie is set in modern day. There's a very weak gay joke (never a good idea to do those either) when Jill is helping Aunt Lucille make Thanksgiving dinner and the pissing scene isn't very funny, just infantile.The Aunt farting scene isn't particularly funny, just incredibly childish. Anyone finding it funny must have a mental age of about 12. She's killed and then we have a really bad necrophilia joke (is there no topic these people won't try to use to get a cheap laugh out of?) at her funeral, and the even worse cremation joke.We get the 2 worst lookalikes in the whole movie (Prince Charles & Nelson Mandela) at the awards ceremony and if you didn't already know how infantile or stupidly lowbrow this movie is Landers wins the "Douchebag Of The Year" award. Landers is revealed as The Hourglass (in a really bad scene where the same girl manages to run past Jill twice in the same direction).Obviously The Hourglass is foiled, Jill is rescued from certain death and the only funny scene in the whole movie is the final one.$LABEL$ 0
+Well, for starters, this actually was THE most elegant Clausen film to this date.The man's always got a sense for characters with a slice of humor to them, but I think that he in this movie adds a dimension unparrallel to anything he's made earlier. His work has - in very black n' white words - been accepted by the broad but not that critical audience, and we've always appreciated his sense of humor and his ability to mix it with human problems and a distinct way of letting the audience know what he needs to say.In "Villa Paranoia, however, for the first time, he surprises with an unseen wisdom and a respect for the minorities. Not only the ethnic but also the normal people you tend to forget. Set in Jutland - in 'the country' - it deals with the everlasting issue of lack of love, but in a close and at times brutal way that keeps you looking and keeps you focused. And on top of that, he himself manages to play a b******d! A true b*****d, who wants the right thing but has no clue how to get there, and people therefore suffer. Bitterly. I'd have to say it's one of the best movies I've seen this year and I'm greatly anticipating his next.$LABEL$ 1
+I thought this was an excellent and very honest portrayal of paralysis and racism. This movie never panders to the audience and never gets predictable. The acting was top-notch and the movie reminded me of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest".$LABEL$ 1
+For those curious, this episode is based in theme upon Pirandello's play, "Six Characters in Search of an Author" and Jean-Paul Sartre's play, "No Exit" (as indicated most obviously by its title), but, of course, with a Sterling twist. Five very different individuals find themselves in a round room with no idea who they are other than the indication of their attire. A bell intermittently rings (perhaps also a Hemmingway allusion?), increasing the agony of their incarceration. The newcomer to the group, a Major, is determined to escape, while the others are resigned to their fate. Unlike Pirandello, these characters don't even have a story. They have nothing other than the experience of the room in their consciousness, and no one to author their nonexistent story, so their position is even more hopeless than the characters in Pirandello's piece. Unlike both Pirandello and Sartre, there is no relationship involved between the characters and therefore no real conflict between them, though the theme of personal responsibility versus apathy is prominent in this story. Though this diverges significantly from the storyline of the authors alluded to in the title, themes of Sartre and Pirandello (and many other authors of the twentieth century) come through with absolute clarity. This is very obviously a piece which addresses post-modernist perspective in the context of the Cold War era. There is also an emphasis upon issues of personal insignificance. This is easily one of the best episodes I've seen, and still exceptionally relevant to current experience (as are Sartre and Pirandello). Exactly what makes a good piece of writing into a classic.$LABEL$ 1
+Ram Gopal Verma usually makes so-so cookie cutter formula fare, lifted from some Hollywood flick. His every film after Shiva is in the cookie-cutter genre. Occasionally, he makes a truly horrible movie like this one. For the first 55 minutes, we are introduced to the only 2 characters, a struggling gymnast masquerading as a skilled dancer (go figure!) and a wannabe actor trying to strike it rich in Bollywood. They fall in love, zero becomes hero, dancer/gymnast gets no break, gymnastics, angst, the usual heartbreak, more gymnastics, angst, song, dance, angst, some more gymnastics, more ridiculous gymnastics and before you know it, you're fast asleep. And this despite the HOT SEXY HOT HOT SEXY HOT bod of the leading lady-cum-gymnast-cum-dancer.But hey, you're not alone!! The editor, director, photographer, in fact the whole cast and crew are asleep thru-out the entire production. Only difference being they got paid to snooze while you paid money for this crap, so you lose. Ha, joke's on you. Don't feel sorry for yourself but for our poor broke gal as she tones up daily in her high-rise penthouse in the sexiest of leotards and exercise-wear. Puh-leese, when will the poor thang get a break, she's STARR-VINNNG?!Antara Mali cannot act. RGV's lost his marbles. Abhishek tried hard but failed. No plot. No story. Nothing. She must've paid RGV handsomely to make this all-nonsense stuff in addition to free gymnastics lessons on his casting couch. What a super deal. No need for an acting career.Such absolute rubbish can only be "Made in Bollywood" of course!$LABEL$ 0
+Sweet and charming, funny and poignant, plot less but meaningful, "Before Sunrise" (1995), the third movie of Richard Linklater, is dedicated to everyone who ever been in love, is in love, or never been in love but still dreams of it and hopes to find it. It is one of the very rare movies that is/should/will be equally interesting to teenagers, their parents and even grandparents. It seems a very simple little movie with no spectacular visual effects, car chases, or long and steamy sex scenes. Two young people in their early 20s, two college students (American tourist Ethan Hawke who is returning home after the summer in Europe and the French student Julie Delpy who goes to Paris to attend the classes in Sorbonne) meet on a train. They are attracted to each other instantly even before they start talking, they hop off the train in Vienna where they walk around exploring the city all night. They talk and fall in love. That's it, that's the movie. It could've been boring and silly but instead, it is a lovely, believable, clever, and moving romance that only gets better with each viewing (at least, for this viewer). High praise and my sincere gratitude go to the director and writers for delivering two charming characters, superb writing, always interesting and witty dialogs, two awesome performances, and the atmosphere of magic that falling in love is. Julie Delpy, who looks like a Botticelli's angel, is great in portraying smart, independent, and incredibly attractive young woman.$LABEL$ 1
+Firstly I would like to point out that I only know of the show due to my younger sister always watching it. I find it the most annoying program on TV. There is nothing funny about any of the 'jokes' and the canned laughter is unbearable. The show would work much better if filmed in front of a live audience. That way the laughter would show just how 'unfunny' the show is. However I give credit to the acting talents of the young cast. It sickens me however to think that they'll look back on the show in the future and see how bad their first TV show was. The show links in well with the overall annoying voices and style of the CBBC presenters. Why the youth of today need to be shouted at so much is beyond me. That is all.$LABEL$ 0
+An obvious b-grade effort to cash in on the Hostel/Saw buzz, my expectations for this film were low (really low!) and yet it still managed to disappoint on every level. The acting is so bad it's not even funny, the plot-line is non-existent and the only scare was realizing that I had wasted 1hour 21 minutes watching it! I'm surprised to note that 34 people gave it a 10 star rating. I can only suspect that 33 of these are Cast and Crew. The 34th is possibly the directors mother? - although I'm sure even she would find it hard to go higher than a 2! DVD extras include an hour long "making of" feature. Which raises the question, "Why?" (although perhaps it serves to demonstrate what not to do!). Avoid at all costs.$LABEL$ 0
+File this one in the `How do movies like this get made?' column. A seventies-drag indie version of `Macbeth,' adapted fairly faithfully (but pointlessly) in a conventionally unconventional black-comic style. The cast gives it a shot, with Christopher Walken phoning in the eccentricity as McDuff, and with Maura Tierney rising above the dull script as Pat McBeth. The other actors are wasted, as is the audience's time. Knee-jerk fans of this brand of quirk may like it, though. 4 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+I can sum this movie up using 20 words or less. Way too predictable of a story line with potential to be funny but instead falls flat on its face. See, 19 words, however, I didn't completely pan this flick with just one star but instead decided to bump it up to two stars due to the fact that Julie Bowen is smoking hot and provided just enough eye candy to keep me from ripping the DVD right out from the machine and blowing it up with an M80. My advice, take the $4.00 rental fee you would have paid to see this movie and just send it right to me as an advance thank you for saving you the time and frustration of having to sit through this train wreck, or you may want to send me the $50.00 replacement fee you would have been charged from taking out your twelve gage to use this piece of garbage as skeet shooting practice.$LABEL$ 0
+It was in 1988, when I saw "The Ronnie and Nancy Show" for the first time (on Austrian television). At that time, I was already a very big fan of Spitting Image (since when it won the bronze rose of the Montreux Film Festival in 1986). Of course I recorded every show on tape and watched it again and again - especially "The Ronnie and Nancy Show". I remember that scene when Ronnie stood in front of a painting of Abraham Lincoln (thinking it was a mirror) and said to himself "I need a shave". Or most amusing of all, when he played ball with his dog - but vice-versa!It's such a shame, that Spitting Image seems to fall into oblivion; it was one of the most fantastic and most intelligent made TV-shows ever. Compared to other satirical broadcasts it was definitely the best of all. Well, almost 20 years have passed since then, and I wish I could see the show again. Is it possible to purchase it from someone... somewhere?$LABEL$ 1
+The opening night for the 'South Asian International Film Festival' (SAIFF) in New York was an event a lot of us were waiting for.I would finally get to watch 'Hari Om' – I was tired of watching the "promo" on a loop and the lingering taste of the song Angel by Nitin Sawhney in the promo, left me begging to hear the rest of it. I was impressed by the visuals… and tremendously curious about how the rugged looking auto rickshaw driver would win the hearts of the stunning sophisticated looking French tourist! I remember being rather intrigued by the theme, when I'd read a line or two about it in the papers, ages ago! Especially so, since I'd personally been very fascinated a few years ago, by how flamboyant the rickshaws in Jodhpur were! The snow and the crowds outside the theater only set my anxiety rising.Once inside the theater, I found that the SAIFF organizers only presented disaster. I was uncomfortable and embarrassed by how poorly the event was organized and found myself in a difficult spot, trying to explain and offer excuses to my friends (of mixed nationalities) whom I'd invited on the VIP guest list. I was hoping to prove to them that Indian cinema was not always about Bollywood… Eventually and FINALLY, the movie began sending some fresh air our way. Or so I thought… Hari Om … started with chaos and noise. Autorickshaws honking, traffic and a whole lot of chaos. I found myself smiling as I felt a sense of "home" filling up inside me.Thus began the journey of Hari Om… an auto rickshaw driver in Jaipur – The director couldn't have made a better casting call with this character. From Monsoon Wedding to Hari Om – Vijay Raaz, despite his non-hero looks, carries this movie solely on his acting skills and his take on the character, replete with all the nuances of a rickshaw driver in Rajasthan. He's a winner all the way. But how and where he learnt to speak English even that fluently, is the question! However, his character portrays beautiful shades of humor and sensitivity. I love his innocent portrayal of a simple guy from a village– who has big aspirations of being famous some day… and yet knows when to cut away to reality.Camille, on the other hand enters the movie wearing clothes that ANYONE wouldn't dare to wear in a place like that. It's funny however, that no one seems to really care too much about her dressed like that. She looks very very dazzling though! Especially in the latter half of the movie, when she changes to Indian attire. Her relationship with her boyfriend however seems very vague. It probably adds to the touch of reality of certain kinds of relationships.The movie takes us through the most beautiful parts of Rajasthan … The surprising part is that none of the places have been portrayed anything other than what they REALLY are. You see the dirt, you see the primitive houses… you see Rajasthan exactly the way it is!! Yet – there's only one adjective that it leaves you with – 'beautiful'.This is the first director who probably knows how to portray India exactly the way it is- with the dirt and the noise and all the negatives that India is attached to!– Yet making it look like one of the most beautiful places to be in.Kudos! to him for that.The only downside of the movie that I could possibly see, is the pace… I found it rather slow at certain parts – but rest assured that you will never be bored.Nitin Sawhney's background scores add a classy international, yet very Indian flavor to the movie. The song "Angel" which plays at a very crucial time in the movie, blends beautifully with the visuals.I've also heard that besides the main characters, all the other actors are actually just normal people who'd never ever faced a camera before!! That's commendable considering, most of our so called established actors – still can't portray realistic characters on screen.All in all, watching this movie was a beautiful experience – It is a pot pourri of emotions. It's got romance, humour… realism… beautiful visuals and locations... , great music, a great cast – A PACKAGE DEAL! When I walked out of the theater - I felt proud to be Indian… A few days later, I asked one of my Bulgarian friends who had watched the movie with me, if he'd want to watch another Indian Movie – and his response was – " Is it better than Hari Om? If it is, then I'll go… if not, I think I'll pass. From now on, Hari Om will be the benchmark for every Indian Movie that I see." Mr. Bala, are you reading?$LABEL$ 1
+The contemporary chapter of the U.S. Navy's elite underwater demolition team is called to do.... whatever they want, apparently.Charlie Sheen was made an officer. Already the storyline is unbelievable. Michael Biehn is his immediate C.O., but he keeps Charlie on a rather long leash and one of the guys pays for it early on by getting killed thanks to Charlie's patented stupidity. The rest of the team spends their spare time committing courts-martial offenses. Mostly an exercise in random gunfire and paper-thin ethics, these particular Seals might be better suited to serving as crash-test dummies.Some good action scenes counter the goofy proceedings.$LABEL$ 0
+The worst movie I have seen in quite a while. Interesting first half with some engaging, terse dialogue among dubious characters in a late-night bar. The movie then degenerates into a shapeless succession of scenes aiming for visual shock (read disgust) without any redeeming observations or lessons in humanity or anything else.I wanted to walk out, but the director was present at this showing and my politeness preventing me from showing him disrespect. Still, time is precious (as the director himself observed in his intro) and I really begrudge the time I wasted on the second half of this one.Saving graces were the three main characters in the first half of the movie, especially the female lead.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is Great! It touched my stone cold heart. I couldn't relate about the racial discrimination that Antwone has experienced because I'm living in my own country. I guess it is really hard to be discriminated.We watched this film in our sociology class in New Era University,and I didn't knew that It was a true story, I thought it was just created by an intellectual who want to bring a fresh air in the industry. It is very good.The part that shocked me was when Nadine abused Antwone (who was just six) sexually. If I were on his shoes, I could have jumped a ten-story high building. I salute him for he being so strong!The scene that touched me here is when Antwone finally saw his mother Eva face to face. He did not bitched her or whatever,instead he told her about the achievements that he got within the long years that they have been separated. (I think I'll do that when I get the chance of tracing my roots.)$LABEL$ 1
+I went to see this film with fairly low expectations, figuring it would be a nice piece of fluff. Sadly, it wasn't even that. I could barely sit through the film without wanting to walk out. I went with my two kids (ages 10 and 13) and even they kept asking, "How much longer?" After lasting until the end, I just kept wondering who would approve this script. Even the reliable Fred Willard couldn't save the trite dialogue, the state jokes, and the banal plot. I'd suggest that whoever wrote and directed this movie (I use the term loosely) should take an online screen writing class or drop by their local community college for a film class. At the least, there are many books on directing, screen writing, and producing movies that would teach them something about structure, plot, dialogue and pacing.$LABEL$ 0
+Absolutely, I agree with my previous commentator in describing this as a riveting,fascinating and certainly beautiful film. It's not necessary to see all the episodes,since the first ones are the best,while the last ones are a-bit tiresome,but for any person who likes German's and their good-natured ways,all episodes are worth seeing.In typical german fashion, values are constantly questioned,even it's murderous Nazi past is confronted in the last episodes, the rich dialogues are particularly interesting. These episodes are recommended for anyone who is about to live or travel in Germany,preferably in original language!!$LABEL$ 1
+As one who loves films that appeal to intellectual sorties as well as those that simply tell stories, this film should have been appealing. But as written and directed by Catherine Breillat who seems to be playing out her own conundrums in film-making experiences, this tedious and talky film fails to arouse interest.The main character Jeanne (Anne Parillaud) is the screen form of Breillat, a director frustrated in her attempts to film a convincing sex scene with two difficult actors (Grégoire Colin is The Actor and Roxane Mesquida is The Actress). The one 'comic' bit is Jeanne's imposing the use of a dildo strapped onto the Actor in order for her to drive the sex scene to fruition, but even this sight gag wears thin quickly and we are left with a film within a film that feels more like a 'Deleted Scenes' featurette on a DVD than a solid French comedy with class. Grady Harp, August 05$LABEL$ 0
+Despite what its critics ensue, I enjoyed immensely for precisely what it is. Eyecandy for both sides of the gender spectrum. Soderberg has done the artsy hard edge stuff before, won Oscars, is at the top of his game. Ocean's 12 is light, commercial, fluffy, Steve's day at the Midway if you will. I am generally not a fan of Zeta-Jones but even I must admit that Kate is STUNNING in this movie. It's ending screams of an upcoming trequel and I will be one of the millions who flock to see 120 minutes of George and Brad and Matt parlay through Clooney's digs in Lago di Como as they swindle some rich bad guy again and again. If we tolerated 3 installments of the Lord of the Rings, I ask if we can drool over Clooney's salt and pepper lid just one more time?$LABEL$ 1
+Rain or shine outside, you enter a movie house. It makes you happy. (If not, come right out.) Lights go off. You settle down with a bar of ice cream. Moving pictures begin to flicker on the screen. You feel content. In the dark, you are back in the beginning of time. Sitting around the campfire...looking at the modern version of the flickering flames 24 times per second and sharing the joy of discovering the unknown turns and twists of the scenario with rest of your clan/spectators.Those who are not happy with themselves, should not write comments. (Long live romantic comedies...)$LABEL$ 1
+Hello people,I cannot believe that "Shades" from That Thing You Do took this role. I don't think Cory Feldman would have taken this role. This movie was a fuming pile of dung. Save your money and time, and see every one of the top 250. I swear I wanted to slap the lady at Blockbuster silly for permitting me to rent this. Stay away!!!!!!Mr. Hipp$LABEL$ 0
+TRICK OR TREAT is a fine example of Hollywood jumping on the "backwards messages in metal music" bandwagon that Tipper Gore and her Washington Wives kick-started in the mid-'80s (other, less successful entries in this mini-genre include the awful BLACK ROSES and silly THE GATE). I was a sophomore in high school when TRICK OR TREAT came out and couldn't wait to see it. It seemed to disappear from video stores by the end of the '80s, but I finally picked up a budget-priced DVD copy a short while ago and it brought back many pleasant metal memories from back in the day. Any teenage metal nerd could relate to the trials of Eddie "Ragman" Weinbauer (Marc Price of "Family Ties")in this film as he is persecuted by the preppie "beautiful" people in his high school for his heavy metal fashions and musical taste. Eddie's favorite rock star is Sammi Curr (who looks a lot like Tommy Lee of Motley Crue), who is killed in a hotel fire early in the movie. Eddie is inconsolable till he receives a test pressing of Sammi's final, unreleased album from a radio DJ (Gene Simmons of Kiss in a brief cameo). Eddie soon discovers that this LP, when played backwards, allows him to communicate with the undead spirit of Sammi Curr himself! Soon Sammi is giving Eddie advice on how to get even with his preppie torturers but when the messages escalate in scariness ("Waste'em ALL... no false metal!") Eddie tries to destroy the album, which results in Sammi coming back to life via Eddie's stereo speakers. Sammi rampages to the big dance at Eddie's high school and takes the stage to rock the crowd and disintegrate a few unlucky "false metallers" before Eddie arrives to save the day and the girl of his dreams. (SIGH) No, it's not terribly scary in 2006, it wasn't even scary in 1986, but TRICK OR TREAT is a movie that will bring a smile to the face of any 1980s metaller and has a kick-ass soundtrack courtesy of the cult band Fastway. Well worth seeking out if you've ever banged your head or have a taste for B-grade horror movies (or both, like me).$LABEL$ 1
+iv been a fan of Rik Mayall and Ade Edmednson ever since i can remember weather its young ones or bottom. and i just have to say i have never laughed so much in all my life!!! guest house paradiso is bloody brilliant! i know its not going to be everyones cup of tea (with the vomiting,slapstick comedy, violence and foul language) but then just don't watch it if it ain't yours. its not like no one knows what sick and twisted things Rik and Ade come up with when they're working with one another!! i think its unfair that this film received such a slatting from critics because,and i don't think I'm the only one to think this, this film is 10 out of 10! : )$LABEL$ 1
+There are exactly 2 good things to be said about "Fantasies" (both mentioned by a previous reviewer as well): a) Bo Derek's extraordinary, poetry-inspiring beauty. She has shots in this movie where she gives even Catherine Zeta-Jones a run for her money, and that's a high compliment indeed. Her nudity is brief and discreet, but just looking at her face is enough.b) The Greek island setting, with its sun and crystal-clear blue waters.Other than that, there is no story, the dialogue is abysmal and at times unintentionally funny ("He touched you where you're a woman!"), and Peter Hooten's character is a slimy jerk. Bo overplays the naivete of her character, but then again when you have to work with dialogue this bad it's unfair to blame the actors (the fact that she kept saying the name "Damir" in almost every sentence is a major irritation). Oh, and although the film is set on a Greek island, there is hardly a Greek word to be heard - apparently everyone there, from kids to old people, speaks English the whole time. (*)$LABEL$ 0
+This one started excellently. The photography and audio are the best I've experienced in years (okay, months). Especially the use of 'warm' and 'cold' colours in single sequences is astonishing. Also, making Jennifer Lopez whisper most of her lines is an idea in itself, but I'm not sure what Singh wants to accomplish with that.Now for the minuses. The screenplay was awful. Lopez's part turned out to be irrelevant or totally worthless to the plot. She seemed to star the movie only to sell herself and the pic. The three beds seemed just too obvious. The baptizing of the child Carl was a psychologically too underlined way to embark the motive which Carl 'worked' under. And so on..Anyway, the movie had great way of showing where Singh comes from. Why is it that the most talented directors seem to emerge from India nowadays?$LABEL$ 1
+Sri Lanka... not a country I've ever given much thought to, I have to admit. I didn't even know it was near India, let alone that there has been a bloody civil war going on there since 1983. It seems that the rebels of the Tamil minority have been in an ongoing conflict with the military regime that runs the country for many years, causing many deaths and widespread suffering on the island.Mani Ratman's latest film, A PECK ON THE CHEEK, tells the story of a young girl named Amudha, who is separated from her Sri Lankan parents by the war and raised by a young Indian couple. Amudha is a bright and mischievous girl, whose life is turned upside down when her parents tell her that she was adopted as a child. Although her adopted parents love her as much as could be, and have raised her without prejudice along with their biological children, Amudha cannot help but want to learn more about her biological family.Mani Ratman is probably best known for his 1998 film DIL SE, which hides a story about terrorism and politics inside a love story (or is it the other way around?). A PECK ON THE CHEEK inhabits similar territory, but is perhaps more ambitious in the ground it covers. The central theme that binds the movie is of love between all the various members of a family, and especially that between a child and her adopted parents. It's a pretty honest and open look at feelings, that can be extremely touching and heartwarming at some times and quite painful at others. It's an emotionally complex film, with characters that are somewhat idealised but still behave in a very human way.The film revolves around 9 year old Amudha, played with charm and vivaciousness by young actress P.S. Keerthana in her first and only acting role. She's a princess and a monster, always getting into trouble but so disarmingly charming nobody can stay mad at her for long. The young actress is perfectly cast for the role, and does a tremendous job in the various and often difficult emotional scenes required of her.A PECK ON THE CHEEK has such an innocent name I was quite unprepared for the intensity of the experience. Never has such a small act come with such an enormous emotional impact, I dare say. The film is a bold and artistic effort to explore issues that are not frequently covered on the silver screen.Mani Ratman's direction is superb, very confident and mature - the most sophisticated work I've seen from this director yet. The film is visually very stylish, with some excellent camerawork and imagery. A.R. Rahman provides the film's soundtrack, which is not as good as his classic DIL SE or BOMBAY music (based on first impressions at least) but still shows his great musical talent.I'm not aware of a DVD release for the film yet - I saw it in Tamil with English subtitles thanks to the San Francisco International Film Festival, of which the film was undoubtedly the highlight. The production is a truly world class effort, and I am sure it will be popular with western audiences as it begins to receive wider exposure.Recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+As with all the other reviewers, this movie has been a constant in my mind after 30 years. I recall going to the library researching all that I could on this story. I even wrote to the PBS station for more information. Despite all this, all I was able to find out was that it was a story printed in a newspaper in the early part of the 1900s.Fastward to 2002, after years of searching ebay for on a weekly basis and there it was, a VHS copy of the movie. There was one other bidder but I was determined to win this movie. The losing bidder wrote me asking for a copy which I gave her. Despite owning a copy, I still searched and searched finally finding a site that sold a DVD copy of the movie. You can find it at: http://www.johntopping.com/Harvey%20Perr/War%20Widow/war_widow.html$LABEL$ 1
+Keys to the VIP is just another one of the horrible T.V. shows that you can and will see on this station. The show is terrible with guys claiming to be real players competing against each other (there are two of them competing in each episode) in stupid games where they try to get girls at a bar to talk to them, get girls numbers, and so on. The judges are four other guys who also claim to be expert pick up artists but they also seem like just huge d-bags just like the contestants. The show is not funny at all and not even interesting, it is just boring watching these guys desperately try to convince us what awesome players they are (talking even more about the four judges than I am about the contestants). Nothing funny has even happened in the shows I have watched and the shows are obviously rigged. Do you really think they have invited all these people to the club, got them to sign releases, and get them on tape while these guys carry out the same stupid games with them? It's not reality at all it is just stupid, it probably even tapes in the day time. Somebody else on here wrote how they knew somebody on the show and it was all fake well yeah that is obvious, it's a fake show and even with actors it's still not funny. One of the worst shows I have ever seen.$LABEL$ 0
+I have to say, Seventeen & Missing is much better than I expected. The perception I took from the previews was that it would be just humdrum but I was pleasantly surprised with this impressive mystery.Dedee Pfeiffer is Emilie, a mom who insists her daughter, Lori (Tegan Moss), not attend a so-called graduation party one weeknight, but Lori ignores her mother's wishes and takes off for the party anyway. When Lori does not come home, Emilie knows something is wrong and she begins to have visions of her daughter and the events that led to her disappearance.Seventeen & Missing is better than so many other TV movies of this type, as it is not so predictable. Pfeiffer is the reason to see this movie, and most of it comes off as believable. This LMN Original Movie premiered last night. 10/10$LABEL$ 1
+In Mississippi, the former blues man Lazarus (Samuel L. Jackson) is in crisis, missing his wife that has just left him. He finds the town slut and nymphomaniac Rae (Chritina Ricci) dumped on the road nearby his little farm, drugged, beaten and almost dead. Lazarus brings her home, giving medicine and nursing and nourishing her like a father, keeping her chained to control her heat. When her boyfriend Ronnie (Justin Timberlake) is discharged from the army due to his anxiety issue, he misunderstands the relationship of Lazarus and Rae, and tries to kill him."Black Snake Moan" is a weird tale of faith, hope, love and blues. The gifted Christina Ricci has an impressive performance in the role of a young tramp abused since her childhood by her father and having had sex with the whole town where she lives. It is amazing the versatility of this actress, and probably this is the most mature work that I have seen Christina Ricci perform. Samuel L. Jackson has also a fantastic performance in the role of Lazarus. The soundtrack is one of the most beautiful I have ever heard in a movie, with wonderful blues. My vote is eight.Title (Brazil): "Entre o Céu e o Inferno" ("Between the Heaven and the Hell")$LABEL$ 1
+I don't know why this has the fans it does and I don't know why I have even given it the score I have. This is preposterous. There are many a giallo where one has to suspend disbelief, let the picture roll and catch up with it somewhere before it becomes delirious and some poor police officer has to eventually explain what we have seen. But, this has very little going for it and has overlong sequences where nothing happens and have no relevance to anything while we have to listen to a most repetitive soundtrack, even by Italian standards. Not a giallo, this is a complete mish mash of horror ideas featuring Klaus Kinski in one his most blatant 'phoned in' performances. I reckon he turned up, did a day's work and cleared off leaving Mr D'Amato to get others to fill in. Ewa is of course pretty but no it is not enough, and in the end we have seen far too much of her popping up all over the place, long after we have completely lost interest in this mindless and pretentious twaddle. Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood!$LABEL$ 0
+As much as I like big epic pictures - I'll spare you the namedropping - it's great to kick back with a few beers and a simple action flick sometimes. Films where the plot takes a backseat to the set-pieces. Films where the dialogue isn't so cleverly written that it ties itself in endless knots of purple prose. There are HUNDREDS of films that fit the bill... but in my opinion Gone In Sixty Seconds is one of the better ones.It's an update of the movie that shares its name. It also shares that picture's ethos, but not quite it's execution. Whatever was great about the original has been streamlined. Whatever was streamlined was also amped up thanks to a bigger budget. Often these kinds of endeavours are recipes for complete disaster - see the pug-ugly remake of The Italian Job for one that blew it - but here, thanks to a cast of mostly excellent actors, Sixty succeeds.The plot and much of the dialogue isn't much to write IMDb about. Often you'll have scenes where the same line of dialogue goes back and forth between the actors, each of whom will voice it with different inflections. A lot of people found this annoying; I find it raises a smile. Each actor gets a chance to show off his or her definition of style here, with Cage, Jolie and Duvall leading the pack of course (and it should be noted that it's also amusing to see Mrs Pitt not given first billing here). The chemistry between good ol' Saint Nick the stalwart (see date of review) and Angelina leads to a couple of nice moments.The villain is not even a little scary - I've seen Chris Eccleston play tough-guy roles before so I know he can handle them, but I think he was deliberately directed to make his role inconsequential as not to distract from the action. We know the heroes are going to succeed, somehow; we're just sitting in the car with them, enjoying the ride. I think a lot of these scenes were played with tongue so far in-cheek that it went over the heads of a lot of people giving this a poor rating. In fact, I wouldn't have minded some fourth-wall breaking winks at the camera: it's just that kind of movie.All this style and not so much substance - something that often exhausts my patience if not executed *just* so - would be worthless if the action wasn't there. And for the most part, it is. Wonderfully so. I've noticed that it seems to be a common trend to be using fast-cut extreme close-up shots to direct action these days. I personally find this kind of thing exhausting. I prefer movies like this where the stunts are impressive enough to not need artificial tension ramping by raping tight shots all the time. I've been told that Cage actually did as many of the car stunts as he could get away with without losing his insurance (in real life I mean - his character clearly doesn't care) and it shows. The man can really move a vehicle and this is put to good use in the slow-burning climatic finale where he drives a Mustang into the ground in the most outlandish - and FUN - way possible.So yes, this movie isn't an "epic, life-affirming post-9/11 picture with obligatory social commentary" effort. The pacing is uneven, some of the scenes could have been cut and not all the actors tow the line. But car movies rarely come better than this. So if you hate cars... why are you even reading these comments?!I'd take it over the numerous iterations of "The Flaccid And The Tedious" (guess the franchise) any day. 7/10$LABEL$ 1
+The movie "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" is a shining gem in the rubble of films produced by the Disney Studios recently. Parents who have had to sit through "The Jungle Book 2" or even a Pokemon movie will surely appreciate this one.The film is one of few to attempt at an original story; previous feature films were merely re tellings of existing stories. Films such as "Toy Story", "Finding Nemo", and "Monsters Inc." all do the same, but it must be noted that all were made by Pixar and only distributed by Disney. Recent films from the Disney Studios are mostly released direct to video, and are sequels to an existing successful film. The quality of those films is given way to the profitability. A new era started with "Atlantis" following it were "Mulan", "Lilo & Stitch", and most recently "Open Range". The writers have created all original story lines instead of the fairy tales of the past.A good portion of the movie is devoted to the quest to find Atlantis, a task that has captured the imagination of many for hundreds of years. Including that of young Milo Thatch, voiced by Michael J. Fox. Milo is employed by a museum in Washington D.C.. His grandfather was a renowned archaeologist, who had devoted his life to discovering Atlantis. This was seen as a waste by his peers, and they wish Milo to not follow in his footsteps. After failing to convince the museum board of directors to sponsor his expedition, Milo comes home to find a woman in his darkened apartment. She takes him to her employer, a Mr. Whitmore. Whitmore was a close friend of Milo's grandfather, and wishes to send Milo with a team to locate Atlantis. Mr. Whitmore is very wealth and has paid for the best of everything. The crew that is to accompany him is the same as his grandfathers. The journey is filled with many great obstacles to overcome and is great fun to watch. The viewer finds themselves caught up in if they will reach Atlantis. The plot takes an unexpected turn after the discovery Atlantis, not just the discovery of people. It is enough to keep the interest of the older audience.The animators have done a wonderful job in then depth of the animation. The movie is very successful in blending traditional animation with Computer Generated Images. A feat not easily achieved, most audiences are quick to notice the difference in the two. The characters are believably human. There are some nice chase type scenes, with lots of action going on. A few lulls are filled with jokes that the children just may not get.The creativity of the writers really shines through. The culture of Atlantis is richly developed, including an entire language. The film uses references to Atlantis from historical sources, such as Plato. The disappearance of Atlantis from the world is explained. Believable, if by a younger audience, that magic really does exist. The powers of the people of Atlantis are not exactly presented as magic, but can best be described in this way.Although set in 1914 the level of technology used is unrealistic. The voyage is in a submarine very reminiscent of Captain Nemo's nautilus, complete with sub pods that fire torpedoes. The giant diggers are driven by steam boilers so they did try for some era technology. The female characters are empowered in a way that women of the age would not have been, even holding roles in leadership. This is not a bad thing. It gives a good role model for my daughter to look to, rather than an all male cast.One reason this film is a favorite of mine over other Disney films is that there is not one single song, ever. A tradition that began with the first feature film, "Snow White", and carried on through to "The Lion King", almost every Disney film is full of upbeat songs. This is great and all, what would the Seven Dwarfs be without "Hi HO!"? After the millionth time through it'd almost be better without, but this one spares the parent. Not once does every single person on the screen suddenly know the words to a song that no one has ever heard before and break out in song. I for one am grateful.The storyline and depth of animation is sure to keep the attention of both parent and child alike. It is a film I am willing to watch again and again with my children.$LABEL$ 1
+Lets face it, Australian TV is for the most part terrible, but this is a real diamond in the rough that not enough people are watching. The Chaser crew who do the satirical newspaper and CNNN try something new by mixing live comedy, pre-recorded skits and political satire into one show filmed in front of a live audience, sorta like Rove, but funny. They love causing controversy and this causes some of the shows funniest moments, especially Chris telling his wife to "f-- off" live on breakfast television and Julian handing a novelty cheque signed by Saddam Heusein to the head of the AWB. It has to be one of the funniest Aussie shows since the Micallef Program.$LABEL$ 1
+"Cut" is a full-tilt spoof of the slasher genre and in the main it achieves what it sets out to do. Most of the standard slasher cliches are there; the old creepy house, the woods, the anonymous indestructible serial killer, buckets of gore, and of course the couple interrupted by the killer while they're having sex (that's hardly a spoiler).The set-up is simplicity itself: film-school nerds set out to complete an unfinished slasher "masterpiece", unfinished because of the murders of a couple of the cast. This also neatly - okay, messily - disposes of Kylie Minogue in the first reel. They are joined by one of the survivors of the original film, played by Molly Ringwald who absolutely steals the film because she gets all the best lines. The rest of the cast fit their roles well, especially the lovely Jessica Napier, who plays it straight while the mayhem and gore erupt around her.There are plenty of red herrings and fake suspenseful moments, and there is very little time to try to work out who the killer is because the film moves at such a fast pace. It also has an appropriate low budget look, including some clumsy editing which is probably deliberate. Good soundtrack, too. If there is a difficulty with this film it is deciding whether it is a send-up of or a homage to the slasher genre. Probably a bit of both.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this movie on a show that was showing bad B-movies and trying to get you to buy them. It basically was just a long trailer but gave you a really good idea of what the movie was about. After viewing the trailer, I thought I would rent this movie because it looked stupid and generic, but could still be entertaining in a perverse sense. IT'S NOT ENTERTAINING in any sense of the word. The film has two (or should I say four) things going for it and it's not the number of deaths, it's the women. They are hot and naked a lot and Ms. Lovell could be a legit actress, but not in a movie where the emphasis is on T&A and corny dialogs. This isn't even a horror movie or scary, unless you are talking about watching the actors try to act. The production value is pathetic, the acting is worse and the writing is the worst. What was the point in making this movie? To scare people? To rip off "Texas Chainsaw Massacre"? To try and be funny? To show off the women's breasts? To put some guy's head into a retarded outfit, with fake hands and legs? To have a character just say the word "Snow" over and over? To not have any real violence but have enough nudity in an attempt to cover up the fact there is no real plot? To be able to make a sequel to a movie no one has seen or will ever watch? I made a mistake in picking up this movie, don't make this mistake too.STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$LABEL$ 0
+As an amateur historian of WW2/Nazi Germany, I couldn't wait for this to come out on DVD. I missed it when it was first on in 2003. I don't want to repeat what's already been said in the previous 8 pages of comments about the historical inaccuracies. A better job could've been done portraying the "charming" Hitler. I also had a small problem with some of the casting choices, not so much for their acting, but for their appearances. Peter Stormare doesn't look much like Rohm, why didn't they make Babson as Hess wear a wig? And my biggest complaint..so much has always been made of Hitler's striking blue eyes, why didn't they make Carlyle wear blue contacts? On the plus side, I thought the actors who played Goring and Drexler looked pretty good. Again, as long as people watching this understand that this is supposed to be entertainment 1st, history 2nd I don't think a lot of harm will be done.$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of the best films I have seen in years! I am not a Gwyneth Paltrow fan, but she is excellent as Emma Woodhouse. Alan Cumming is superb as Reverand Elton, and Emma Thompson's sister, Sophie, is hysterical as Miss Bates. And check out the gorgeous Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley; what a gentleman! Whoever said you need sex and violence in a movie to make it good has never seen Emma. I think that is what separates it from so many others--it's classy.If you're looking for a film that you can watch with the whole family, or looking for a romance for yourself, look no further. Emma is that movie. With a beautiful setting, wonderful costumes, and an outstanding cast (have I mentioned the gorgeous Jeremy Northam?), Emma is a perfect ten!$LABEL$ 1
+The plot of this film is not complicated. A very attractive young girl goes to Europe in search of the reasons for her older sister's suicide ten years earlier. There she meets up with her sister's former boyfriend and together they travel to all the places her sister went, and gradually the reasons become clear.But what makes this film so special, and soar above the limited plot, are the beautiful portrayals of the characters. Although the older sister's boyfriend is a drop-out hippie, he has noble ideals, moral standards and incredible strengths. And although the older sister, who we see in flashbacks, shares these ideals, she doesn't have a sense of limitation or balance, of how much is too much. And although the younger girl is fiercely loyal to her sister's memory, she gradually finds the strength to face the fact that her sister was only a normal girl, after all.The most special moment in the film is when the young girl and the sister's boyfriend finally stop fighting their attraction to each other. I can't recall ever seeing more beautiful, touching, romantic tenderness in lovemaking in a film!In all these ways this is a truly beautiful film, a film to be treasured, and to be seen again and again. 9 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+this was the most pointless film i have ever seen as there was no plot and the actors did not seem to care. 90% of the film had absolutely no plot whatsoever, i laughed so much my ribs began to ache. the bit where the old men when to capture Robert Duvall was ludicrous. on a directorial level making a noir film does not involve lots of raining sequences and pointless closeups on the main character. this is a failed attempt to create a noir thriller and instead alienates the viewer with incoherent scenes. seeing as this was based on a 'manuscript' by john Grisham i do not count this as one of his book to film adaptations as it displays none of the suspense and engaging storyline as films such as 'the firm' or 'the rainmaker'.$LABEL$ 0
+i though this film was okay.i din't think it was great.it was a bit too slow for my taste.lots of drama,but not very much action until close to the end of the film.this movie was basically a dramatic film,with the payoff,if you can call it that,not until near the end.to me,the scenes of the dam bursting and the water flooding the town,were okay,but much too brief.the film itself is done okay,the acting is decent,but it just didn't do it for me,in the long run.think it had something to do with the fact that there was very little suspense or tension built through the whole movie.at least that's what i think.the other factor is that i had just recently watched '10.5' and its sequel '10.5:Apocalypse'.these are 2 big budget "event movies,which,in my opinion, are a very hard act to follow,in terms of special effects and scenes of destruction.as a result,i have to rate Killer Flood:the Day the Damn Broke at 4/10$LABEL$ 0
+This film is hardly good, not great at all. A few memorable scenes and the unlucky choice of pairing Norma Jean with an actual actress. Jane Russell has it all working for her, Marilyn's lesser woman and/or actress. One can only wonder why this is considered being one of the highlights of her lame career. 3/10$LABEL$ 0
+The digital effects were done on the cheap and the action sequences lack suspense. This was essentially made for TV and it shows. David Suchet looks bored and Nigel Planer looks down right embarrassed! and as for Robert Carlyle's Dick Van Dyke London accent, no comment! If you want to pass away an hour or two when you've nothing on then it will do. If your going to buy the DVD wait a few weeks and pick it up in the bargain bin at Asda, cos thats where its heading! If the budget was bigger and Richard Doyle's book followed more closely, then it could have been something special, but as it stands its a bit poor. Watch the trailer instead! Or read the book and see what could have been.$LABEL$ 0
+With the plethora of repetitive and derivative sitcoms jamming fall, summer, winter and spring line-ups, it's nice to see a show that sets itself from the lot in more than one area. 'Earl' takes an unusual approach. It's not about the "daily musings of an eccentric family" (zzzz..) nor about the other boring stuff you see everywhere in sitcoms. The show is about this small-time white trash thief (Earl) who scratches off a lottery card and scores big time. Right at that moment, 'Karma' took it away from him. Overtime, he learns that that unusual incident was probably because of all the bad things he's been doing, so he sets off on a mission to right every wrong he ever did and he's got all his deeds on a paper.This is a brilliant premise for a sitcom. Thankfully, it landed in the right hands. The execution of the show produces extremely satisfactory results: you get an innovative comedy that is genuinely funny and really touching at many times. You can't help but fall in love with Earl's sincerity and steadfastness, Randy's simple mind, good heart and observations on life, Joy's wild, flamboyant personality and Darnell's mellow, chillin' demeanor that really endears him to you very easily.When you combine the show's innovation with its genuine humor, good heart, interesting characters and well-written dialogue, you really have a keeper. With shows like this (and the incomparable "The Office"), NBC is obviously on to something. Did they finally free a cubicle or two for quality assurance? Let's hope so. And let's hope for more quality shows like these will occupy the line-ups; shows that'll make both us TV viewers and NBC executives stop crying over the long gone days of NBC's golden days (Frasier, Seinfeld, Friends)$LABEL$ 0
+The production quality, cast, premise, authentic New England (Waterbury, CT?) locale and lush John Williams score should have resulted in a 3-4 star collectors item. Unfortunately, all we got was a passable 2 star "decent" flick, mostly memorable for what it tried to do.........bring an art house style film mainstream. The small town locale and story of ordinary people is a genre to itself, and if well done, will satisfy most grownups. Jane Fonda was unable to hide her braininess enough to make her character believable. I wondered why she wasn't doing a post doctorate at Yale instead of working in a dead end factory job in Waterbury. Robert DiNiro's character was just a bit too contrived. An illiterate, nice guy loser who turns out to actually be, with a little help from Jane's character, a 1990 version of Henry Ford or Thomas Edison.This genre has been more successfully handled by "Nobody's Fool" in the mid 90s and this year's (2003) "About Schmidt." I wish that the main stream studios would try more stuff for post adolescents and reserve a couple of screens at the multi cinema complexes for those efforts.I'll give it an "A" for effort.$LABEL$ 1
+I don't believe they made this film. Completely unnecessary. The first film was okay. But there was no need for a sequel, certainly not after a television series that was already a sequel to the first film. This film feels like a soap-opera. The writing is so bad, it's utterly simple. The jokes don't come across, the acting is flat, it's shot like a soap, it lacks any direction. The first film had a good emotional spine behind it. Every character had a little arc. It was very simple then but somehow it worked and I could see the merit of that film. But this time around, there is no cohesive story-line. The characters are dull stereotypes and nothing interesting happens. One good thing: the Brazilian boy who plays Axel Daeseleire's son is pretty well cast. That was their one moment of creative success on this film. I hear they already shot a second television series as a sequel to 'Team Spirit 2' but please God, don't let them make a third feature installment...$LABEL$ 0
+This movie has been done before. It is basically a unoriginal combo of "Napoleon Dynamite" and "Sordid Lives." There are some funny bits, but otherwise it is a cliché bore. It is a good first film attempt and the director (who also stars in and wrote the feature) shows a lot of promise. But the writing was kind of choppy and the story was not very original. I swear I had heard some of the lines in other films. However, the acting was very good and the film was shot in an interesting way. It is also refreshing to see gay-themed movies not be so bogged down with political correctness and tired stories of angst. The main character seemed fairly well adjusted for a gay teen in rural Texas so no saccharine, coming out drama here!$LABEL$ 0
+Here is a much lesser known 50's sci-fi with a little different twist. An atomic researchers son is kidnapped and held for a ransom of the the Father's atomic secrets.This is a tightly knit atomic sci-fi thriller with great production values and above average acting, even from the kid. The Atomic City actually has a movie feel to it unlike a lot of other 50's sci-fi of this time which which came off more like an episode of a TV show.The Atomic City was also actually nominated for an Academy Award for Best Screenplay - how many other 50's sci-fi can tout an Academy Award Nomination?Great pacing, tight direction and some superb location filming in the 'real' Atomic City of Los Alamos, New Mexico make this one worth hunting down. The collectors print in circulation is an above average transfer and makes for a great double feature with the Atomic Man!! Recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+I love cheesy horror flicks. I don't care if the acting is sub-par or whether the monsters look corny. I liked this movie except for the bewildered feeling all the way from the beginning of the film to the very end. Look, I don't need a 10 page dissertation or a sign with big letters explaining a plot to me. But Dark Floors takes the "what is this movie about?" thing to a whole new (annoying) level. What IS this movie about?This isn't exceptionally scary or thrilling but if you have an hour and a half to kill and/or you want to end up feeling frustrated and confused, rent this winner.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie actually almost made me cry.For starters the fake teeth. Then you spot a nice plastic or drawn set. To make it even more boring all the action is followed by a bright light flash. Then the talking: sound levels are so different, sometimes too hard, then too soft, never exactly good like in good movies. Also, it echoes so much that i think they had one microphone on the entire set. And to make matters worse, EVER heard of stereo? If the camera switches, the sound always stays centered. The actors talk like they are reading from a board staged behind the camera. And the zooming into another scene, how terrible childish.The music is so badly chosen that it never adds something. It only destroys any accidentally created excitement.To finish it up, the fighting scenes... my 3 year old niece would make a better fighting scene.This movie is not even good for a laugh, it's just that bad...$LABEL$ 0
+"Roman Troy Moronie" is my comment on the movie. What else is there to say?This character really brings out the moron in Moronie. A tough gangster with an inability to pronounce profane words, well, it seems that it would have been frustrating to be tough and yet not be able to express oneself intelligently. Roman Moronie will go down in the annals of movie history as one of the greatest of all morons.There is of course great comedy among the other characters. Michael Keaton is F.A.H. and so is Joe Piscipo.I just like the fact that Moronie kept the movie from an "R" rating because he could not pronounce profanity.$LABEL$ 1
+Most of this film is an alternately hilarious and brutal satire on Nazism and Fascism, made at the height of those movements' success.Sadly, in the final moments of the film, Chaplin abandons all pretense of making art (not to mention comedy) and switches completely to propaganda. And not anti-Nazi propaganda, either, but some of the most mawkish and idiotic "progressive" propaganda ever to ooze out of Hollywood.Never mind that nothing we have seen so far indicates that the barber is even capable of giving the speech we see him give (delivered, ironically, with a disturbing wild-eyed fanaticism); such trivialities must not be permitted to interfere with The Message.$LABEL$ 1
+I love this movie. My only disappointment was that some of the original songs were changed.It's true that Frank Sinatra does not get a chance to sing as much in this movie but it's also nice that it's not just another Frank Sinatra movie where it's mostly him doing the singing.I actually thought it was better to use Marlon Brando's own voice as he has the voice that fits and I could not see someone with this great voice pulling off the gangster feel of his voice.Stubby Kaye's "Sit Down, You're Rockin' the Boat" is a foot-tappin', sing-a-long that I just love. He is a hard act to follow with his version and I still like his the best.Vivian Blaine is just excellent in this part and "Adelaide's Lament" is my favorite of her songs.I really thought Jean Simmons was perfect for this part. Maybe I would not have first considered her but after seeing her in the part, it made sense.Michael Kidd's choreography is timeless. If it were being re staged in the year 2008, I would not change a thing.I find that many times something is lost from the stage version to the movie version but this kept the feel of the stage, even though it was on film.I thought the movie was well cast. I performed in regional versions of this and it's one of my favorites of that period.$LABEL$ 1
+I honestly expected more from this movie. That may have been the problem. There was not one time when the camera was still - ever. On close ups, the camera shakes, the subjects move, and I get a headache. The cuts are so often and so fast, that the viewer often finds himself/herself wondering what just happened. (LOOK OUT, SPOILER ALERT) And at the end of the movie, when you expect to have a happy ending after being put through so much useless thought to comprehend what is going on, they end up losing. To me, this was a basically terrible movie, wrecked by a camera man with ADHD, and lack of a meaningful meaningful plot.$LABEL$ 0
+And when I watch Sarah Silverman, I get the same results. I love quirky, irreverent humor. BUT this woman is so darned B-O-R-I-N-G, annoying, and yawn-worthy. She's also totally lacking in anything whatsoever humorous. The deadpan way she tries to deliver her lines is just dead on arrival because she's just not funny. I watched two segments of her program and was ready for Novocaine.Geez, my kid (age 19) saw her promos on Comedy Central and said she was a "dumb chick." I thought that was a compliment. The one where she says "Watch my show or I'll kill my dog," is actually believable. I know she's a wanna be comedienne. She just comes across as a warped nut-case. I just don't ever want to see her around MY dog.$LABEL$ 0
+A concept with potential, and it was fun to see these two holiday icons together, but...Rudolph's glowing nose didn't require the "explanation" offered in this film - much like The Force in the Star Wars films didn't need the explanation of "medichlorians in the bloodstream." But mainly, the film left me cold because of Winterbolt's over-complicated plot to destroy Santa. He's got the power to put suggestions into people's minds, so why does he do things in such a roundabout way? Breaking the magic of Rudolph's nose, framing Rudolph, threatening to melt the Frosty family...The comedically exaggerated plots of Pinky and the Brain and "Phineas and Ferb's" Dr. Doofenshmirtz (which are done that way on purpose and played for laughs) seem simple and straightforward compared to Winterbolt's, which we're expected to take somewhat seriously.There is a particularly (and amusingly) strange moment when a character throws her two guns at the bad guy, like boomerangs. I understand if they don't want to have guns being shot in a family film, but then why have guns in the first place?$LABEL$ 0
+I'd give it a 2/10.I was really, really disappointed.The storyline was poorly developed, for instance, the incidents were too short and brief, hence the moral was not clearly brought out. I thought Brenda Song did a fine job, but Shin Koyamada seemed to have a difficult time handling his role. I could see the need to put in western elements in the show, however, there are certain parts, where Chinese elements were needed too! The villain for example. His physical appearance resembled a robot, instead of something out of the Chinese culture. The final and the worst flaw, were the incorrect, and distorted facts placed in the show.Others may point out that this is a 'Kid's show' and hence, there is no need for the such high standards. However, there are other Disney shows, such as Mu Lan, which have been much better in terms of story development and presentation.In conclusion, I feel that Disney movies should be better researched and better planned. A good show is not enough with just a series of martial arts moves to depend on.$LABEL$ 0
+I expected this movie was originally supposed to show before the election. CBS's last shot at throwing a dig at Bush. This movie was just awful yet I'm still watching it. **Minor Spoiler** I think CBS got the same people who "provided" the memo's to do the semi cut in half sequence. What is with the bad boyfriend storyline? Can the acting be more contrived or the dialog more like a Ed Wood movie. Who ever came up with this script please do us a favor stop writing. If you want to see decent B grade disaster movies then see Earthquake, Flood etc. Avoid this mess of a movie. Hint to CBS avoid showing us this crap. Give us re-runs of CSI instead. Better acting and more believable.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a very good movie. Do you want to know the real reasons why so many here are knocking this movie? I will tell you. In this movie, you have a black criminal who outwits a white professor. A black cop who tells the white professor he is wrong for defending the black criminal and the black cop turns out to be right, thus. …making the white professor look stupid. It always comes down to race. This is an excellent movie. Pay no attention to the racist. If you can get over that there are characters who are played by blacks in this movie who outsmart the white characters, then you shouldn't have any problems enjoying this movie. I recommended everyone to go see this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of the most daring and important of the so-called "Pre-Code" films made in Hollywood during the 1930s. Unlike some Pre-Code films that occasionally dabbled in subjects that would have never been allowed after 1934-5, this film fully immersed itself in a very sordid yet entertaining plot from start to finish. The conventional morality of the late 30s and 40s was definitely NOT evident in this film, as the film is essentially about a conniving woman who sleeps her way to the top--and with no apologies along the way. This "broad" both enjoyed sex and used it on every man who could help her get rich--something you just never would have seen in films made just two or three years later.The film begins with Barbara Stanwyck working in her father's speakeasy. In addition to being her boss, he is also her pimp and encourages her to sleep with a local government official so that he'll allow the illegal bar to operate with impunity. While not especially clear here, it appears as if Daddy has been "renting" his daughter's body out for a long time.However, after nearly being raped and attacking this man by breaking a bottle of beer over his skull, Barbara has had enough and heads to the big city. It doesn't hurt that the still blew up and killed her father, but her feeling that she was whoring herself out and had nothing to show for it appeared to be the impetus to move.Despite the Depression, Barbara uses sex to get a job at a huge mega-bank. She starts out at a pretty menial job as a file clerk, but in the space of what seems like just a few weeks, she sleeps her way from one job to another to yet another--until she is sleeping with the head of the bank and his future son-in-law!!! This all ends in tragedy, but Babs doesn't seem too shook up over the deaths of these two men. In fact, some time later, she is able to insinuate herself into the life of the NEW CEO and once again she's on top (perhaps in more way than one).Now so far, this is a wonderful movie because it was so gritty and unrepentant. Barbara played a 100% sociopath--a woman with no morality and no conscience--just a desire to squeeze as much out of life as she could no matter who she hurt in the process. However, the brave writers and producer "chickened out" and thought it important to tack on a redemptive ending. Considering that this woman was so evil and conniving, her change of heart at the end was a major disappointment and strongly detracted from the film. In many ways, this reminded me of the ending of JEZEBEL--as once again, a wicked person somehow "sees the light" and changes at the not-too-convincing conclusion.My advice is to try watching RED-HEADED WOMAN and DOWNSTAIRS. RED-HEADED WOMAN is much like BABY FACE but features no magical transformation at the end--the leading lady really is a skunk down deep! In DOWNSTAIRS, a film very much like RED-HEADED WOMAN, the roles are reversed and a man (John Gilbert) plays a similar conniving character. Both are classics and a bit better than this film.This film is an amazing curio of a brief period of often ultra-sleazy Hollywood films and in this light it's well worth seeing for Cinephiles. Also, fans of The Duke take note--John Wayne plays a very small part in the film and it's very unusual to see a very young Wayne playing such a conventional role.$LABEL$ 1
+Technically speaking, this movie sucks...lol. However, it's also hilarious. Whether or not it's intentionally funny I don't know. Horrible in every aspect, it also is the only movie I know of that has 1) a fat kid being played by a slim actor in a (very obvious) fat suit, 2) an attractive 30-something actress playing a character who's supposed to be in her late 60's, and 3) the most compliments for plastic yard daisies ever. Don't take this film seriously, just watch it for laughs....a great party movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Overall the film is OK. I think it's better than Sepet and much better than Gubra in term of its story, its sentimental value.There are a few scenes that makes me touched. Yes I agree that the boy (Mukhsin) did his acting very good. Brilliant. I can say that his acting is almost natural.However, the song 'Ne Me Quitte Pas' by Nina Simone really "'menaikkan' my 'bulu' 'roma' ".I love the song. Both the song. "Ne Me Quitte Pas" and "Hujan". I just downloaded the song. Beautiful.And salute to Yasmin. The movie's ending credit makes me touched again. We can see how Yasmin really appreciated her parents in an unique way.I think the movie deserves that Grand Prix Of International Jury at Berlin Film Festival.I give 8.5 out of 1o stars.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw Chomps during the - approximately - 2 days of its theatrical release. It is a delightfully cute and funny movie in the spirit of 'Benji' though much improved and focused more on the actors than the dogs. The simple portrayal of life difficulties in a humorous way, followed by the bullies and villains getting their just deserts, is both sympathetic and heartwarming. It is also thought provoking. With deft subtleness this movie affects ones awareness of cruelty, personal behavior, and bullying. Movies have different genera's and different purposes. This movie, which is delightful to all ages, offers an interesting humorous look into our own experiences. Everyone will recognize personality and behaviors types of themselves and others. Everyone will see the humor. The humor makes the move enjoyable and brings understanding of life situations to a new level. For lighthearted laughter and a 'feel good' movie Chomps is an excellent choice. Memorable.$LABEL$ 1
+I couldn't wait to see this movie. About half way through the movie, I couldn't wait for it to end. All of the (white) actors were delivering their lines like Woody Allen had just said, "Say it like this..." Then they said their lines on screen like they were trying to imitate Woody Allen. It was so annoying. We all know how Will Ferrell really talks, and he doesn't stumble over his words like Mr. Allen. The comedy portion of this film was just as boring as the tragedy and definitely never funny or even entertaining. I must admit that I have never been a major Woody Allen fan, and this movie definitely has not converted me. I think that his writing was just as bad as his direction. This movie will go down as one of the worst 10 movies I have ever seen.$LABEL$ 0
+It's literally the Three Stooges all over again, without the charm. This show's nothing more than the worst slapstick. I'm surprised they actually have writers. The so-called jokes are completely haphazard, and 'controversial' for no other point than trying very (very) hard to be controversial. And people think this is 'edgy'?? Get a clue: this show takes absolutely no thought, time, effort, money, or creativity/originality to produce. Any references present are geared toward anyone between the ages of 6 and 16 who would occasionally browse People magazine. But I suppose this is only what all the kiddies want, like and need today.$LABEL$ 0
+Hailing from 1988, Touch Of Death is probably the most frustrating Fulci film I've seen to date, prompting me to join the chorus of horror fans who generalise that his films get worse as you get later into his career. Considering the plot synopsis, I was expecting some bloody bad-natured fun with this one, but for all its bizarre flourishes, it feels tedious even at a running time of just 80 minutes, and suffers from nauseatingly shabby production values and film-making craft (or lack thereof).El Story: A gambling addict widower wines and dines rich (and strange) women he finds via lonely hearts columns before offing them in gruesome fashion - sometimes eating them or feeding them to animals - and stealing their money to keep his debtors at bay. Sure, it's unlikely that just one man would be the host for so much screwed-up pathology all at once (addict, psycho/sociopath, cannibal), but this is Fulci!Touch is actually the cheapest and sparsest looking Fulci film I've seen. There's almost nobody in it, even in the background of shots out on the street, for instance. A newsreader who keeps appearing on the film's televisions to warn the non-existent cast about the maniac's latest doings operates out of the most pathetic TV studio on the planet. He never even gets to look at the camera because has to read all the headlines off misaligned sheets of paper.Some scenes just go on and on with the protagonist muttering to himself about what he's done or what he's about to do, but the acting is nowhere near good enough to sustain this kind of thing, so the main outcome is viewer boredom. The film also looks bland and ugly in general. I've read that it was intended to be an Italian telemovie (did it ever screen in that venue? With the amount of gore involved, it seems unlikely), and it does reek of crappy old telemovie production values.This is also Fulci's first foray into outright black humour, but he's just too graceless a director to make it work. Sometimes conspicuously cheerful or 'wacky' music is used to play against a gruesome scene, for instance while the hero/villain is carving up a dead body in his basement. The effect isn't really chilling or funny or ironic anything that you'd like it to be - it's mostly just hamfisted and crappy.There are of course some redeeming moments of gore (that you'll be waiting for while trying to stay awake), including the eventual murder by oven(!) of a woman who just won't quit life, even after her face has been totally bashed apart with a bloody great club, and a homeless guy who gets a car run back and forth over him about five times. The most outrageous element of Touch, however, is all the physical deformation on the widows courted by the crazy guy. Beards, hairy moles, messy harelips - it's not like he sought out women with these features, it's just the way all lonely hearts widows are, apparently. There are plenty of shots of Mr Crazy secretly grimacing while he's smooching up these women. The black humour of such garish misogyny might have some staying power or resonance if the film wasn't so poorly executed in general. In the end, Touch Of Death just seems like a really lazy, inarticulate mess.$LABEL$ 0
+Chop Shop, the second feature from Ramin Bahrani, is a rare breed. It is an American film that tells a story not usually found in American cinema, the story of the of a minority living in poverty. It is a work of simple beauty. Shot on location in Queens, New York in the shadows of Shea Stadium, Chop Shop is neo-realism to the core. Featuring a cast of non-actors, it has more in common with Vittorio De Sica's classic Bicycle Thieves than anything made in the United States. There is no score or soundtrack, all the music and sounds are diagetic. Watching it feels like watching a great foreign film, it takes us to another world because it is so uncommon to see. However this other world is not post-World War II Rome or Istanbul or New Delhi, it is contemporary New York City.Bahrani tells the story of Alejandro (Alejandro Polanco), better known as Ale. He is a 12-year-old Latin-American kid with no parents or family unit to watch after him. He lives in a tiny room upstairs in the auto shop that he also works at. He shares the same bed with his teenage sister Isamar (Isamar Gonzales). Neither of them have made it passed second grade. Ale, though young, is tough and mature. He acts as the head of the small family. He hooks his sister up with a job, and he himself does anything he can to make a buck when not working at the chop shop. He sells bootleg DVDs on the streets and candy in subways. He searches for scrap auto parts and sells them to the many auto shops lining the street where he lives.Alejandro is heartbroken when he learns his sister is working nights as a prostitute. He himself becomes progressively disinterested in abiding by the law. He begins to steal, first car parts and later wallets. Like Antonio, the desperate protagonist in Bicycle Thieves, we cannot blame Ale for becoming a thief. It is merely survival. Ale and Isamar save up in hopes of buying a food vending van for $4,500. They see the van as their way out, and there is much optimism. However, as is usually the case in neo-realism, we know this will only lead to disappointment.Polanco's riveting performance is what gives legitimacy to Chop Shop's realism. Here is a 12-year-old character that needs to be believably independent and vulnerably naive. Whether he is directing cars to the shop, selling movies and Snickers bars or playing with his sister in their scanty room, it is authentic.Chop Shop is a sobering reminder that not all American children grow up in a land of opportunity. Ale's lifestyle is what many in middle-class white America consider 'third world'. They act cognizant the poverty and deprivation in foreign lands while sipping their coffee and reading the New York Times on Sunday morning, but make themselves blind to it on their own streets. Once you watch Chop Shop, you will think differently of the kids peddling candy on the subway.more reviews at www.mediasickness.com$LABEL$ 1
+An OUR GANG Comedy Short.The Gang coerces Spanky into watching their younger siblings. Caring for these FORGOTTEN BABIES turns out to be quite a chore, leaving the little nipper with no choice but to come up with some ingenious solutions to the baby-sitting problem...Spanky is in his glory in this hilarious little film, arguably his best. Highlight: Spanky's retelling the plot of the TARZAN movie he's recently seen to the audience of infants. Movie mavens will recognize Billy Gilbert's voice in the radio drama.$LABEL$ 1
+If this is the author's and director's idea of a slice of life, they are clinically manic depressives. A sad, moody film at best, with ubiquitously aimless and unhappy characters who negatively interact with disastrous results. This film is billed as a comedy. What was so funny about losing your home to an allegedly premeditated arson or the drug induced, forcible rape of one of the main characters. Is this art imitating life? Jack Black was mildly amusing as the mountain man, weed farmer. However, even this segment of the film was rife with pathos. What was the point of living in the middle of nowhere with an entourage. If Black's character was so paranoid, why was he doing acid with a group of people right out of Woodstock? Is there no end to disconnected relationships, a plot less script, and scene transitions lacking any cohesiveness or logical chronology.$LABEL$ 0
+For those who appreciate the intersection of silent cinema and social commentary, this is a unique film. Part homage to German expressionism, part allegory, the film is replete with visual symbolism and an artistic style that rivals anything seen since the 1920's. Moreover, the attention to period detail and the visual composition of the scenes as an instrument for advancing the story is stunning. Aside from this, the plot offers an interesting commentary on the role of the media in society and its effect on social voice, perception, and opinion. In truth, it's not so much the silence that permeates the film as it is the loss of voice and the loss of words to communicate and express thought that inevitably follows. In sum, this film is something not often seen and, as the producer of the film said in the Q&A that followed, will leave you thinking about its meaning well into the next day.$LABEL$ 1
+While rehearing Carmen of Bizet, the middle-aged choreographer Antonio (Antonio Gades) brings the sexy Carmen (Laura del Sol) to perform the lead role. Antonio falls in love for Carmen, who is an independent and seductive woman incapable to accept a possessive love. When Carmen has an affair with another dancer, Antonio is consumed by his jealousy like D. José in the original opera, entwining fiction with reality."Carmen" is another great movie of Carlos Saura's trilogy dedicated to the Flamenco dance. The dramatic love story is developed with the lives of the artists entwined with the characters they are rehearsing, and many times is not absolutely clear whether what is happening is reality (with the dancers) or fiction (of the play). Paco de Lucia is another attraction of this original version of the famous Bizet's opera, which is based on the novel of Prosper Mérimée. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "Carmen"$LABEL$ 1
+What made the original Killer Tomatoes fun was it was made by people with no budget who were just being wacky for a couple of days...This was something with a budget, but it just wasn't as much fun. John Astin of Adams Family fame is actually making an effort here to be comedic, but he is supported by lame actors, cheap special effects and unfunny gags.The plot. Dr. Gangrene (Astin) escapes from a French prison and decides he is going to put a pretender on the throne of France... The hero, his French girlfriend and the Gizmo-like "Fuzzy Tomato" decide they are going to stop him...Forgettable Direct to Video nonsense...$LABEL$ 0
+The Kite Runner was beautiful, poignant and very moving. I particularly loved the two child actors in the film as well as the actor portraying the father. It really made me want to go back and read the book again.The music was a wonderful part of the fabric of the movie. If there is a soundtrack coming out for the film, I will buy it to accompany my second reading of the book. It is also a visually stunning film. The cinematography was gorgeous and really added to experience.The Brazilian word 'saudades' is very descriptive of how I felt at the end of the film..."it is a deep feeling of longing for someone or someplace, which is very sweet but also tinged with an inescapable sadness" (definition provided years ago by Antonio Carlos Jobim).Saw it at a small cinema here for an advance screening. I would love to see it again on a really large screen with a tricked out sound system.Can't wait for the formal release. I will definitely recommend the film to friends.$LABEL$ 1
+Despite this production having received a number of poor reviews, it actually holds up quite well for its age. Note also that it is not a BBC programme, it was simply licensed to them by Granada Ventures when the Jane Austen collection was released on DVD.So how does it compare with other adaptations of the same novel? The most well-known version these days is the 1995 film with Amanda Root as Anne Elliott and Ciaran Hinds as Captain Frederick Wentworth. That film was of course shorter but a good snapshot of the story - the earlier version, with Ann Firbank and Bryan Marshall in the same roles, had four hours to tell the story and moved at a more leisurely pace.Firbank is a good ten years too old for her role, but she is very good - Marshall is excellent as Wentworth, a man disappointed in love, and bitter about interference. And hidden in the cast are people who also contribute - Michael Culver, later seen in Cadfael, as Harvill; Richard Vernon, later seen in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, as Admiral Croft; Noel Dyson, earlier in Coronation Street, as Mrs Musgrove.One criticism I do have is that the hairstyles are a bit distracting, and that the costumes are awful! Still, this shouldn't detract from a hugely enjoyable Austen adaptation.$LABEL$ 1
+Yes I have rated this film as one star awful. Yet, it will be in my rotation of Christmas movies henceforth. This truly is so bad it's good. This is another K.Gordon Murray production (read: buys a really cheap/bad Mexican movie, spends zero money getting it dubbed into English and releases it at kiddie matinées in the mid 1960's.) It's a shame I stumbled on this so late in life as I'm sure some "mood enhancers" would make this an even better experience. I'm not going to rehash what so many of the other reviewers have already said, a Christmas movie with Merlin, the Devil, mechanical wind-up reindeer and some of the most pathetic child actors I have ever seen bar none. I plan on running this over the holidays back to back with Kelsey Grammar's "A Christmas Carol". Truly a holiday experience made in Hell. Now if I can only find "To All A Goodnight (aka Slayride)" on DVD I'll have a triple feature that can't be beat. You have to see this movie. It moves so slowly that I defy you not to touch the fast forward button-especially on the two dance routines! This thing reeks like an expensive bleu cheese-guess you have to get past the stink to enjoy the experience. Feliz Navidad amigos!$LABEL$ 0
+So Seagal plays a DEA detective named John Hatcher who lost his partner on a drug investigation into, surprise surprise, Colombia! Not to brag or anything, but my father was born and raised in Colombia (hence my last name), and now he's a doctor in California, so no matter what the movies would have you believe, there are some things other than drug dealers and cocaine that come out of Colombia!At any rate, in a drug bust gone bad, Hatcher loses his partner and accidentally kills a naked Colombian prostitute, inspiring him to go to confession, somewhere that I have never seen him go before in any of his movies, before or since. It was actually pretty interesting. Seagal has a tendency to come off as almost asexual the way he never gets much involved with women other than as a plot device and the way the occasional seduction attempt, whether by a stripper or by a lover, never piques the slightest bit of interest from him. He's all get-the- bad-guys all the time. But in the confession booth, he confesses to having lied, sold drugs, falsified evidence, and even slept with informants in order to get the information he needed to put the bad guys behind bars (I hope I'm not getting in trouble with God by telling you this…). The priest tells him to go to his family, so he decides it's time to retire from the force. The next third of the movie is an exercise in the paper-thin characterization characteristic of Seagal's films. Marked For Death is the story of Seagal against a band of mystic Jamaican drug dealers, and these guys have no discretions about pushing their products in broad daylight.Hatcher goes back to visit his old high school coach, Max (a minimal effort by Keith David), and right in the middle of practice there are some of these dread-locked crackheads sitting right there in the bleachers peddling crack to some bookworm-looking high school girls.Maybe I just had a sheltered experience in high school, but I didn't know crack dealers and crackheads hung out AT SCHOOL in the MIDDLE OF THE DAY. At any rate, it's not long before Hatcher learns how evil these guys are. They're not just peddling crack to high school kids, but the coach has been losing football players regularly to their drugs, they engage in smartass stare-downs with Max, and since that's not enough, his 13-year-old niece died in their crackhouse.Ah, OK. We get the picture. I'm sure they also torture puppies and beat up old women, and maybe steal candy from children too, just for good measure. Is it really this hard to establish who the bad guys are? 13-year-old niece died in their crackhouse. Wow.Anyway. Not only does the movie not know how to develop villains without resorting to what basically boils down to movie name-calling, where evil deeds are shallowly assigned to them through dialogue, but they also don't know how they should act. The leader of the drug dealers, is named Screwface, and I suppose that alone should tell you something about the kind of movie this is. Screwface is a cartoonish Jamaican man with these bright, bizarrely green eyes, which I am guess must be an important part of his character because he spends a good majority of his screen time with his eyes half bulging out of his head. His favorite means of intimidation is to scream really loud in his wildly overblown Jamaican accent with his face quite literally less than an inch away from whoever he's yelling at. This guy likes to get so into guys' faces that he has to turn his head to the side so their noses don't touch. All I could think about was how the poor guys would deal with his breath.Man, they do not want you to forget that these guys are Jamaican, by the way. Their accents are so exaggerated and overblown that for most of the movie it's nearly impossible to understand them. Not that it matters. It doesn't matter what they're saying, all you need to know is that everything that comes out of their mouths is some kind of evil drug-related thing, they're just the psychos that peddle drugs and kill people. The movie must have been a huge hit in Jamaica!My biggest problem with the movie is that the theatrics, particularly of the bad guys, as I've described, are spectacularly goofy, even for a Seagal film. They are so cartoonish and weird that it's impossible to take them as anything other than a goofball b-movie creation, something slapped together to provide fodder to whom Seagal can distribute his characteristic brand of smack-down retribution. But there is also a bizarre kind of mysticism in the movie that just makes it all come off as weird. For example, a mystic, I guess you would call her, at one point puts some kind of curse on Screwface by (if I remember correctly) spitting mouthfuls of Bacardi onto a live rooster that's hanging upside down before beheading it and dripping its blood onto a picture of Screwface. Hmm. Interesting. Sadly, it's this same woman that warns Hatcher that his family has been "marked for death" by these people, meaning they've got some voodoo hex on them. Not to belittle anyone, but if I was told that my family had been cursed by people like that, I would just laugh at it. Hatcher doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to take much stock in freaky voodoo curses! But the set-up, as you can see, is pretty standard for a Seagal film. Unique villains, I guess you could say, although not very impressive. Definitely the weirdest film of Seagal's early career…$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was a big disappointment. The plot sounded great, about a half-human, half-leopard creature in Africa that becomes the subject of a documentary by young American adults. When many of the crew members are found dead, the 2 survivors are taken into questioning. I wouldn't even call this a horror movie, since most of the movie is actually about the (mis)adventures of the aforementioned, narcissistic 20-somethings, which include sex and smoking animal dung to get high (isn't as entertaining as it sounds--trust me). You rarely get to see the creature, and the main actor (who also happens to be the director, screen writer, editor, and producer!) is incredibly annoying.I was finally so annoyed by the never-ending dialogue that I fast-forwarded to the end. I had guessed the ending in less than 10 minutes into the movie...and I was right. Thus, this awful movie is utterly predictable, too--as if it wasn't bad enough. Moral of the story: avoid movies that are acted, directed, edited, produced and written by the same nobody. And avoid this movie, unless held at gunpoint.$LABEL$ 0
+*SPOILERS!* When I first saw the preview for this, it looked like a good old fashioned hallmark movie. I love bluegrass music, so I couldn't wait to see it. When we rented the movie, we read the back and it sounded even better. The film was pretty boring for the first half, every now and then a song would be played. Then (i'm embarrassed typing this)a lesbian love seen came in. I that ther was something more then friendship between the teachers but I certainly didn't expect nudity and prolonged make out sessions. I was watching this with my mother and I was quite embarrassed, because I picked this movie. But besides that, it was an okay movie. The acting was fine, the actress who played Deladis was great. To be honest, the soundtrack was the best part of the movie. I don't care to see the movie again but i bought the soundtrack the day after I saw the movie. And there are continuation discs that follow. If I were you, I would skip the movie and just get the music.$LABEL$ 0
+This film has it's heart in the right place, but unfortunately, it isn't much of a film. It is more of a documentary under the guise of a narrative. Bamako is basically a newspaper op-ed piece put on celluloid. However, your average well-researched op-ed piece is far more cogent and concise than anything presented here. The filmmaker is trying to relay to the viewer the hardships of African life, in particular the country of Mali, due to the unethical practices of the IMF, G8, and World Bank, by using the setting of a mock trial against the aforementioned. There is an extra 10 minutes dispersed throughout the film that makes a half-hearted attempt at a narrative plot, and a bizarre Hollywood Western-style shootout scene, where the director seems quite pleased with his own cleverness (hence, the frequent Godard comparisons).Of course, as the film begins, what and who is on trial is never explained, but as we know by now, the French refuse to spoon-feed their audience.There are many impassioned arguments made, but they are often long-winded, delivered in a shrill monotone (one that becomes quite easy to tune out after awhile), and very light on specifics. The last point is the most frustrating of all since there is a very well-reasoned specific case to be made against the institutions on trial here. Unfortunately, all we get in 2 hours is that the IMF and G8 are evil oppressors and should forgive 3rd-World debt. We are given no more than the occasional hint to the specific reasons why the organizations on trial are guilty, but never a clear case. The mock-trial arguments and the footage of the surrounding village makes the suffering of these African residents clear, but one wonders why we must sit through 2 hours of it, when a far more precise picture could be painted in a 20-minute Newsweek article, or Bill Moyers episode. In the end, there is something very important to be said on this issue, it simply isn't presented very well, or very clearly, in this pretentious, indulgent piece.$LABEL$ 0
+What a wonderful, fanciful movie "Stardust" is.I could easily end it with that one statement and suffice to say, one could take it as a very strong recommendation to go see it.At a time when Hollywood seems bent on forcing remakes and sequels down our throats, "Stardust" makes us remember why we go to the movies in the first place - to escape reality for a couple of hours and explore other lives, other times, or other planets. Ironically, "Stardust" takes us to all three places effortlessly and with a childlike glee we all long for."Stardust" is full of all the characters we remember as children: princes, witches, pirates, ghosts and scoundrels. It has the damsel in distress, the hero, the rogues, the obstacles, spells, antidotes, charms, and even a touch of light-speed to make it quasi modern."Stardust" is about a man from the town of Wall, which is conveniently situated next to a wall that separates their town from a magical kingdom. The only way past the wall is through a breech that is diligently guarded by a scruffy old codger (played wonderfully by David Kelly). One day a young man from Wall named Ben Barnes out maneuvers the old guard and escapes through the breech. He happens upon an enchanted kingdom called Stormhold where he meets a chained (and very sexy) young lady named Una. She is held captive by a witch and leashed by an unbreakable chain. While the witch is away, Una seduces Ben and sends him on his way. Ben returns to Wall without incident and continues his life. But nine months later he is summoned to the wall breech where the old guard hands him what you might expect - a baby boy.The boy, named Tristan grows up to be a rather hapless young man (Charlie Cox) who is smitten with a girl way out of his league and also betrothed to another. Nevertheless, the young lady (named Victoria and played Sienna Miller) goes out once with Tristain and he confesses his love to her. After they espy a falling star, she tells him he can have her if he retrieves the star and brings it back to her. He agrees and sets out on his quest, which will take him to the other side of the wall.Meanwhile in the kingdom of Stormhold, the old king (perfectly played by Peter O'Toole) is dying. He calls his remaining living sons to tell them who shall succeed him to the throne. His sons' names are Primus, Secondus, Sextmus, and Septimus. The other sons where killed by the other brothers in a humorous competition to see who lives to get the throne.Anyway, he tosses his ruby charm to the sky and Voila, that what brings the star to earth.The star crashes in the form of a beautiful woman named Yvaine (Clare Danes) and she, of course, is wearing the charm. But little does she know she is now being persuaded by Tristain, the Princes, and also an aging witch named Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer) who wants to cut out the stars heart to regain her own youth.Complicated? Yes. But it all comes together as the adventure unfolds.Tristain is the first to find Yvaine but is so blinded by his devotion to Victoria he doesn't recognize the growing bond between he and Yvaine. His initial interest lie only in returning Yvaine to Victoria as proof of his love. But he must get past the princes and Lamia first. The princes aren't that big an issue as they are constantly trying to kill each other - and just as in "Pirates of the Caribbean" - never has death been so funny. But Tristain also encounters the witch who enslaved his mother (though he doesn't know it's his mother) and a band of flying pirates led by Robert DeNiro.His is the most important character in the movie and DeNiro plays it to a tee. He steals the movie with his toughness and soon we learn an undercover secret that will leave audiences on the floor with laughter. Though his role is small in length, DeNiro is extraordinary!Michelle Pfeiffer is wonderful as Lamia - a sexy evil witch. Claire Danes is most appropriate as the confused and distressed Yvaine. She makes a perfect damsel. Jason Flemyng, Adam Buston, Rupert Everett, and Mark Strong add the perfect dose of levity as the fighting princes whom, as they die return as ghosts ala "Blithe Spirit" and "High Spirits".Moreover director Matthew Vaughn, whose only other directing experience was "Layer Cake", weaves an enchanting tale that everyone will enjoy."Stardust" may be too complex for young children, but anyone over the age of 13 will want to see this movie multiple times. It's that good. "Stardust" is what movies are supposed to be. Perfectly written, perfectly cast, perfectly directed, and perfectly acted. In other words...perfect.$LABEL$ 1
+For starters, it's a very funny movie with a few crazy characters running around that are bound to make laugh (check out the two Russian bugs).A Bug's Life has a classical Disney storyline, but that's one of the good things about the movie. Family values are praised and the main characters of the film undergo some evolution in order to stand up against the grasshoppers in the end. And it also has a couple of great voice-overs by Dave Foley, Julia-Louise Dreyfus, Kevin Spacey (of course),... But actually, the most amazing thing about this movie is the animation. It's just wonderful. All the details, great colors, every ant looks different, beautiful backgrounds... And the guys and girls at Pixar made it all look so realistic. All in all, a very nice piece of work. This is the best animation by Disney since Aladdin.$LABEL$ 1
+It's a mystery to me as to why I haven't caught up to this masterful 50s caper film – turned brooding noir until now, but I'm certainly glad to report that it didn't disappoint. I haven't seen any of Jules Dassin's American films for several years but based on this I'll probably be going back and re-watching "Brute Force" and "Night and the City" quite soon.Jean Servais, a name unknown to me but a face rather familiar in its world-weariness and coldness, has recently completed a lengthy stay in prison and as is the way in these films (hey, there wouldn't be a story otherwise) isn't coping well with the straight life. An opportunity presents itself: an easy multi-million-dollar jewel heist that can be done at night with no fear of discovery by a few men. The taut filming of the robbery, half an hour of total silence, is what people most remember about the film of course, and indeed it's pretty remarkable; but I liked the half-completed location of the final shootout, once the robbery has gone sour thanks to the big mouth of one of the thieves; the excellent portrayal gritty sides of Paris in stark black and white; and Servais' channeling of both Eddie Constantine and Humphrey Bogart in his spare but brutal performance.Perhaps it's a bit too sentimental in the end, but this is one of those classics that really does live up to its reputation just as pure entertainment even if what it has to say about the human condition isn't exactly deep or thought-provoking; George Auric's at turns modernist, romantic, and jazzy score is another highlight.$LABEL$ 1
+I had a lot of expectations from this movie and more so since it was a Yashraj Film.Jimmy operates a call centre and one day he is invited by Pooja Singh to teach her boss, Lakhan Singh, English. The two fall in love and decide to run away but Pooja tells Jimmy that she can't do this as she owes a debt to Lakhan Singh, who is also known as Bhaiyyaji. But they decide and steal money from him and its only then that Jimmy finds out that Bhaiyyaji / Lakhan Singh is a Don. In the meantime, Bhaiyyaji hires a man, Bachchan Pandey, to track down Jimmy and Pooja.Starring Saif Ali Khan, Kareena Kapoor, Anil Kapoor and Akshaye Kumar, the movie is directed by first time director Viay Krishna Acharya and is produced by both Aditya Chopra and Yash Chopra."Tashan" has to be one of the worse films that I have ever watched. Yes! The scenery is good and Kareena Kapoor (and her much publicised weight loss) looks good. But plot is extremely thin on story and at times makes no sense from one scene to the other - hence why I have said at the beginning that I had expected more from this film as it was a Yashraj Production. With reference to songs, unfortunately, there is not one song that I can remember now.There are moments where one can laugh and that is mainly thanks to Akshaye Kumar and Saif could have definitely done better while Kareena Kapoor played her part well. But this cannot be said for Anil Kapoor - it did not suit him at all as a villain. Lastly,never mind Aditya Chopra, who in the past has produced and directed good films such as "Mohabbatein," what was Yash Chopra doing by producing such a trash movie? Conclusion: Bad movie, not worth wasting your time and that is my first and last impression.$LABEL$ 0
+*SPOILERS INCLUDED*With a title like "Bleed", you know the creative juices weren't running on high when this puppy was conceived. The movie is your basic run-of-the-mill low-budget slasher movie. Oh sure, it tries to be creative with the premise of the "murder club", but we learn that was just a joke anyways. Okay, for those who really care about these things, the basic plot is that new girl in town starts dating her co-worker. He invites her into his circle of friends, and at a party, they tell her how they have a "murder club" and they murder people, blah blah blah. Well, we learn that it was all a joke, but not before our heroine kills a lady in a parking garage. Now, the "members" of the Murder Club are being killed one by one. Oh, and the bad guys wins and the movie ends on a downer. By that time, you won't really care though.In retrospect, the first 10 or so minutes of this movie make no sense. The motivation for the killings in the beginning of the movie is never explained. I would say that it was a way for the director to pad out the film, but on the DVD there are deleted scenes! I'm not sure why anyone would want to see more than the feature length version of "Bleed", but apparently the people behind the DVD thought the viewers would be clamoring for more. On the box, it says there are Easter Eggs, but why the hell I would want to waste my time looking for extras on this movie is beyond me. I was expecting a bad movie, and "Bleed" delivered on that front. It wasn't a fun bad movie though. Everyone looks good in the movie, and there's plenty of nudity, but the acting is just awful. My least favorite character is the guy who ends up being the killer...I think he's supposed to be funny and amusing, but he just ends up coming off as a tool. I think the funniest moment of the movie is when our heroine kills the lady in the parking garage, in a hilariously unconvincing death. Heroine shoves the women into the parking garage cement pole, and the woman looks like she barely hits the thing, and she spits out a mouthful of blood, and "dies". For those who think that movie making is an intricate, creative process done by professionals, check out "Bleed". It will change your mind, and you'll realize any hack get can a movie made. Otherwise, don't waste your time or money on this.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of my favorite films for many reasons. To begin, there are standout performances from lovely Debra Paget as a princess/dancing girl, from Michael Rennie as the villain, handsome young Jeffrey Hunter investigating crime in her city/state and others. The film is an unusually colorful adventure, and we even see the princess rehearsing the dance she later performs (for once). She manages to skewer Hunter before she learns he is on her side; also the photography, the costumes by Travilla, Lionel Newman's music and the film's style are unusually fine. Add to this rousing action, intelligent characterization and fine direction by veteran Harmon Jones of a Gerald Drayson Adams' script set in 1249 AD, and you have the ingredients of an enjoyable Grecianized Near-Eastern. But there is much to praise about the unusual and well--developed storyline here, as there is much more to praise other than the film's swift pace, well-managed physical action sequences and superior technical aspects. Classically-trained actors such as Michael Ansara, Edgar Barrier, Wally Cassell, Jack Elam and Dona Drake are not commonly found in one "B" film together; nor are there fascinating sets, a variety of locales and a mystery of the quality that is supplied here. One way of assessing a film is, "If I were guaranteed to live through the experience, would I choose to undergo these events and perform these actions?" Since my answer is a resounding "yes" in this case, this film remains one of my choices as a favorite and very-underrated cinematic work. Could it be that US critics' all-too-frequent disdain for females as warriors and thinkers that as in so many other cases has caused closed minds to misprize this estimable film's obvious anti-tyranny and pro-entertainment qualities?$LABEL$ 1
+THE TEMP (1993) didn't do much theatrical business, but here's the direct-to-video rip-off you didn't want, anyway! Ellen Bradford (Mel Harris) is the new woman at Millennium Investments, a high scale brokerage firm, who starts getting helpful hints from wide-eyed secretary Deidre (Sheila Kelley). Deidre turns out to be an ambitious daddy's girl who will stop at nothing to move up the corporate ladder, including screwing a top broker she can't stand and murdering anyone who gets on her bad side. She digs up skeletons in Ellen's closet, tries to cause problems with her husband (Barry Bostwick), kills while making it look like she is responsible, kidnaps her daughter and tries to get her to embezzle money from the company.Harris and Kelley deliver competent performances, the supporting cast is alright and it's reasonably well put-together, but that doesn't fully compensate for a script that travels down a well-worn path and offers few surprises.$LABEL$ 0
+The real problem with this story is that there's not much story to the story. There's hardly any plot to speak of. Widower buys an electric grandma for his kids. One kid resists electric grandma. Then finally accepts her. Then the kids grow up and grandma leaves. Really, very little happens. It's much more of a premise than a story.Moreover, strip it of it's schmaltz, and you have a story that had already done before, and better: The Lonely. Same basic idea: person initially can't accept the love of a robot, because it's just-a-machine, then eventually yields and comes to love the robot. The biggest difference is that The Lonely is much more powerful, as both the protagonist and we, the audience, are shocked abruptly back to reality and forced to remember that in the end the robot really is just a mechanism.I also find the story highly flawed in that the electric grandmother is just *too* perfect. She's not only "human", she's *super-human*. She's *wiser* than a real person, she has no traces of mechanicalness to her at all, and she makes marbles appear out of thin air. It frankly really chafes at credulity to think that she's a machine.$LABEL$ 0
+I watched this show until my puberty but still I found it to reflex many situations that worry us when we're teenagers although it was a family oriented show. Until the mid 90's it focused more on the young adults and their situations.That's why I loved "Step By Step". I mean, it offered situations for every age and unlike many shows of it's kind, it delivered expectations.Let's be honest; this wasn't an extremely funny show, no, but it had some situations that you could feel related to but only funnier.There was an extremely good charm between Patrick Duffy and Susan Sommers. Duffy rocked! Sommers was tender and actually funny. I was in love with Stacy Keegan because she was extremely sexy (loved her legs) and witty. But Sasha Mitchell stole the show with his Cody character. He was the man back in the day! Oh, the memories. Nowadays, this show wasn't been able to adequate correctly on the new generations and that's why it should be kept in the vault of memories. That's it, only memories.Thank you Step By Step for making my puberty funnier.$LABEL$ 1
+As far as I know, this show was never repeated on UK television after its original run in the late '60s / early '70s, and most episodes are now sadly "missing presumed wiped".Series 6 from 1971 however still exists in its entirety, and I recently got the chance to watch it all, the best part of 4 decades on.After rushing home from school, Freewheelers was essential viewing for me and many of my contemporaries back in those halcyon days of flared trousers, Slade and Chicory Tip. And watching it again brought a nostalgic lump to the throat.Never mind the bad / hammy acting, the unintentionally amusing fight scenes, plot holes wide enough to pilot a large ocean-going yacht through and the "frightfully, frightfully" RADA accents of the lead players.No - forget all that. Because Freewheelers harks back to a bygone (dare I say "golden") age of kids' TV drama, when the shows were simply about rip-roaring fun and didn't take themselves so seriously. Before they became obsessed with all the angst-laden "ishoos" that today's screenwriters have their young protagonists fret over, such as relationships, pregnancy, drugs, STIs etc.No doubt if it were "remade for a modern audience" in these days of all-pervasive political correctness, the boss figure would be a black female, one of the young male heroes would be a Muslim, the other would be a white lad confused about his sexuality and the girl would be an all-action go-getter with an IQ off the scale, who'd be forever getting the lads out of scrapes and making them look foolish - in other words a million miles removed from Wendy Padbury's deferential, ankle-spraining washer-upper.It's a show that's very much "of its time". But is that a bad thing? I for one don't think so.$LABEL$ 1
+'The Big Snit' came into my life complete by accident and has left an indelible mark on my soul. A scar of love, destruction and pointlessness that will forever be a part of my life. This is tale of beautiful futility. We are helpless without each other. We are helpless against governmental wrong-doings. We are helpless as to the choices we all try to make when in love. Deaf to the mutterings and goings on of an world outside the window. Blind to an inevitable apocalypse. Dumb of the hatred and greedy opinions of an over-indulgent society. This is a tale of personal commitment and triumphant love defeating the ideologies of war. Their petty bickering is a sublime observation of human nature and of how love comes with it's pains and darkness Everyone has some irritating aspect to their personality and this is observed by the makers in the most simplistic and fantastic way. We travel only a short distance with the two main characters but are left wanting to complete our own journeys with a some of their simple,loving, honest philosophy in tow. I am so very glad that i exist in this 'our time'. Another 20 years either side of my birth date, and i would not have seen and felt.... ....The Big Snit. William White. Sheffield.$LABEL$ 1
+Whatever Committee of PC Enforcers is responsible for this movie has achieved something that I never thought possible: to take some truly gifted actors (Davis, Hardin and Taylor) and make you want to insure you never encounter them in an enclosed space, ever. The sentiments that underlie the screenplay are so jejeune and idiotic that it is impossible to understand or imagine what audience would find this picture appealing, much less funny. Architecture students perhaps?Only one scene is visually clever: Marcia Gay Hardin sashaying, all wriggles and rhythm, into a bar manages to exude more style and energy in ten seconds than the whole of the rest of the film added up and multiplied to the tenth power. As for the other members of the cast, they probably won't want to put this one on their resumes.$LABEL$ 0
+I didn't see this movie until it appeared on television because I was doubtful about comic flicks. Ever since the "Batman" series, "Spawn," "Judge Dredd," and many other pitiful p.g.-13 bombs, I dodged everything at all cost. I would question in my mind, "why can't someone make a movie that is rated R and stays true to the story, how difficult is that?" And finally my prayers have been answered with Blade. This movie pops right out of the pages onto the screen with sheer violence, blood, martial arts, weapons, fire, the good against evil, etc. Yeah sure a lot of action flicks contain all these goodies, and most of them have bombed. But not Blade, the movie was filmed just right, not going overboard, delivering a good length and never a dull moment. Blade II is cool, but not as cool as the first. Blade is indeed one of the best real comic flicks I've seen in a long time.$LABEL$ 1
+The movie Angels of the Universe is a pure masterpiece and it proves once again that you can make a brilliant movie on a low budget, e.g American Beauty and Blair Witch Project. The Director Fridrik Thór Fridriksson gives the novel Englar alheimsins a new life on the white screen. The movie is a breakthrough in Icelandic film making because it's the biggest and the greatest movie that has been done in Iceland.The music in the film, played by Sigurrós, is very symbolic for the film, it is absolutely brilliant. I recommend everybody who are able to think to go and see this film as soon as possible, you won't be disappointed. I would bet on this film to win the best foreign film award next year – all over the globe!$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this at the theater in the early 1970's. The most memorable and scary scene is when the German army attacks with yellow cross mustard gas for the first time. The Germans and their horses are covered from head to toe (or hoof) with eerie protective suits. The experienced British soldiers don gas masks (only) and once again await the clouds of gas and the German attackers. The gas clouds move ever closer, finally enveloping the British defenders. The Germans move forward slowly menacingly in their scary looking garb. Suddenly a scream from the defenders... This gas is like no other that they have experienced before.... Now you will know why I have remembered this scene for the last 30+ years and still shiver, I think that you will too!$LABEL$ 1
+Pakeezah has a very interesting history (which is well documented in the 'Trivia' section) about how it came to be. It seems as if destiny conspired to test Kamal Amrohi (the director) while at the same time secretly desiring to see him complete his masterpiece.Pakeezah rides on metaphors, poetry and visual elocution. As a result the intensity with which emotions come out achieve a dimension which may not be very real but are very effective and leave an impact on the viewer.Meena Kumari lives the tragedy of Nargis and Sahib Jaan like her own. The other stars of the film, besides her, are Ghulam Mohammed (the music director), Lata Mangeshkar, Naushad (background score) and Joseph Wirsching (the d.o.p). Their music and cinematography leaves you spell bound.Pakeezah is a classic in world cinema. It reveals new layers to you every time you watch it again. Kamal Amrohi is one of the rare poets of cinema and he left us all a gift.$LABEL$ 1
+The finale of the Weissmuller Tarzan movies is a rather weak one. There are a few things that derail this film.First, Tarzan spends much of the film wearing floppy sandals. In my opinion, any footwear on Tarzan, whether it be sandals or boots as sometimes portrayed, takes away from the character, which is supposed to be anti-civilization and pro-jungle.Second, the character of Benji, as mentioned in a previous post, totally derails the movie as the comic foil. To me, his character is unnecessary to the film's plot.Also, while Weissmuller still cuts a commanding figure as Tarzan, it's apparent that he was not in his best shape. Although in his later Jungle Jim movies, his physique had improved somewhat from this film.The octopus battle is a terrific idea, but I think it should have been done in an earlier Weissmuller film when he was at his physical peak. Likewise, the battle, which takes only 30 seconds tops, would be much more thrilling if it was drawn out to 90 seconds to 2 minutes like the classic giant crocodile battle in Tarzan and His Mate.And while Brenda Joyce as Jane and Linda Christian as Mara are overwhelmingly pleasing to the eye, it doesn't manage to salvage this last Weissmuller film - a disappointing ending to a great character run.$LABEL$ 0
+I recently attended Sundance as I have often done in years past and was treated to the small pleasures of the edgy little indies, the glut of dark comedies and the now predictable portraits of dysfunction. But then I saw Mark and Michael Polish's 'Northfork' and I remembered why I so fell in love with the movies in the first place. 'Northfork' sweeps across the screen with visionary daring and harkens back to the seminal early work of Terence Malick and the existential landscapes of Antonioni. It's an impossible film to easily explain which is one of its many strengths. Suffice it to say it's an adult fairy tale with many carefully layered levels of meaning. It reawakened my imagination and cast an imposing shadow over all the other films I saw this year. It is a work of meticulous craftsmanship and a sophistication of writing not seen in most American movies. I plan to revisit this film several times when it comes to my neighberhood theater. For it is a beguiling piece of magic and mystery, a haunting work where one can roam the plains of Montana in search of angels and the very nature of heaven and earth. The cast performs this luminiscent piece with striking conviction particularly James Woods and Nick Nolte who remind us of the nerve and daring displayed throughout the course of their careers. Maybe 'Northfork' will help us find a new wave of American cinema where excellence in craft and writing become more the norm than the exception. See it when it comes your way and take your friends for the questions will be many and the thoughts and feelings spurred by seeing 'Northfork' will awaken memories of great movie once seen in your past and now hopefully may be returning with the advent of the Polish Brothers.$LABEL$ 1
+Going into a movie like I this, I was expecting absolutely nothing entertaining except for a whorde of kills.....what I got was even less.Christmas eve 1947 a kid witnesses his parents doing it while daddy is in a santa suit. Horrified, he runs up the stairs and cuts himself. The story begins 33 years later and Harry Stalling is your normal everyday joe.....cept for the fact he's obsessed with Santa. After his boss makes fun of him he goes insane, dressing up like santa and starts killing non-santa believing patrons and his boss. An unruly neighborhood catches up to him and just as they're about to torch him, he drives his van off a cliff.....into the moon. Not the best ending I've seen but it was original.It was a slow paced, boring movie that really had no redeeming quality except when Harry went apeshyt on the church goers. There was hardly any gore and even the "sex" scenes were toned down.Too boring......4 out of 10$LABEL$ 0
+It is a superb Swedish film .. it was the first Swedish film I've seen .. it is simple & deep .. what a great combination!.Michael Nyqvist did a great performance as a famous conductor who seeks peace in his hometown.Frida Hallgren was great as his inspirational girlfriend to help him to carry on & never give up.The fight between the conductor and the hypocrite priest who loses his battle with Michael when his wife confronts him And defends Michael's noble cause to help his hometown people finding their own peace in music.The only thing that I didn't like was the ending .. it wasn't that good but it has some deep meaning.$LABEL$ 1
+I remember watching this movie several times as a very young kid, and there were parts of it (many in fact) that I did not understand. I think I have seen it once as an adult, and I then understood those parts. The only problem with viewing it as an adult was that it was not entertaining to me at all. So what kind of movie is this? Is it a "kids movie"? Not hardly. It contains language and subject matter not suitable for kids. Is it a hyperbole of what every parent feels like they are going through with their own children? Maybe, but then why wouldn't it focus more on John Ritter's character instead of Junior? When a film has a 7-year-old as its main character, in order to do well with it's audience, it should be a movie for the seven and under crowd, otherwise people older than that will have no way to relate (even 8-year-olds wouldn't want to see a movie about a kid who is whole year younger than them). I'm pretty sure this film did not do well in the box office, and the reason has to be because it was unable to find a niche in the market.$LABEL$ 0
+From the creators of Shrek………….. OK, that grabbed my attention.Well the creators of Shrek also made Madagascar. Madagascar was half as good as Shrek.And now Flushed Away is half as good as Madagascar.That means Flushed Away isn't good. The animation and all that special effects were extremely good but the movie wasn't.The story of this movie was only meant for kids. It's seriously not possible for adults to actually love this flick.But there were many jokes meant for adults. I bet kids dint understand the jokes.Despite that I dint like this flick.I am completely disappointed. 4/10$LABEL$ 0
+Watching this movie brings several words to mind: "sophomoric", "ridiculous", "improbable", "self-indulgent" and finally (and fatally), "boring". Badly directed, badly photographed and badly acted, the film is a confusing mess with plot lines (if one can call them that) veering in all directions. Someone may have used a five-year old's finger painting as a template. As punishment for this childish crime of a movie, this cast of "stars" should be spanked soundly and sent to their respective beds without dinner. . All in all, it seems like George needed an excuse to get together with his little buddies for a paid summer vacation and we're the suckers paying for it. Bad George! Bad!$LABEL$ 0
+"Chupacabra Terror" is saved from a '1" by the presence of Canadian cutie Chelan Simmons as the heroine. She is a delight to watch, from the front, back and side. Otherwise, what you have here is your standard monster movie, playing like a low-budget, shipboard version of THE RELIC. John Rhys-Davies plays the captain of the ship on which the monster is being transported. And the very nonscary monster is simply a man in a suit. He does commit about 100 senseless, gory killings, at least, so the body count in this one is pretty awesome. Formulaic, to say the least. I love the moment when Simmons ominously tells someone what chupacabra stands for: Goat eater! Oooohhh...scary!$LABEL$ 0
+If your expecting Jackass look somewhere else this an actual movie and for the budget well done the acting isnt top noth neither is the writing but the directing was there and so was the story definetly worth the rent and possibly the buy if you really enjoy it like i did. But for the person who just likes jackass rent it first.$LABEL$ 1
+Leslie Sands' stilted play "Deadlock" becomes a poor-choice vehicle for Bette Davis and Gary Merrill, just after their joint-success in "All About Eve". After killing her spouse, a scheming woman is visited by her husband's best friend, who passes himself off as her husband once others begin stopping by the house. Irving Rapper, one of Bette's best directors from her peak years, is sadly unable to elevate this ridiculous material, in which Davis is curiously aloof and restrained until the outrageous finale (where she thankfully pulls out all the stops). Production and supporting cast strictly second-rate; only for Bette Davis completists. *1/2 from ****$LABEL$ 0
+I really enjoyed this movie. The acting by the adult actors was great, although I did find the main kid a little stiff. But he carried himself very well for being a new talent. The humor is very sublime and not in your face like most Hollywood comedy junk. I.e. The Nutty Professor. If you have a short attention span and are used to the typical Hollywood stuff you probably wouldn't like this as it is a bit slower paced. I picked it up on Blu-ray and I have to say the image quality is top notch. Probably one of the better looking Blu-rays I've seen so far. The extras were cool too. They deleted quite a bit, but that's probably a good thing as most of the deleted scenes didn't really add anything.$LABEL$ 1
+Mr. Bean has always been my favorite. No matte how many times you watch the same thing, the show never gets monotonous or repetitive. Mr. Bean is one of the greatest comedians in the world who doesn't need to even speak to make people laugh. His gestures, his facial expressions and his face itself is so funny to watch. The situations which he faces on the show is simply hilarious and the way he handles them is even greater. There is simply no reason why this show shouldn't receive a 10 because it is fabulous. Its something that would even make the most serious or sad person in the universe laugh. Some of my all time favorites episodes from the show are: 1) When Mr. Bean lodges at a hotel 2) The one where he watches the scary film 3) Mind the baby ( The diaper scene especially). In fact, all the episodes are so good that it is really difficult to criticize the show. Mr.Bean can go to any heights to prove that he is funny, including completely stripping himself in one of the episodes. the way he handled that situation was simply mind blowing. 10 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+A woman borough a boy to this world and was alone. They both were alone because a boy had a gift and a curse in one package - he was capable of withdrawing sword from his arm. There was always a wound on his wrist in the cause of this "gift" - the wound of the deadliest weapon inside of his body. First he kills his constantly drunk stepfather who hurts his mom every time. Then he grows up and decides to find his real father. Just as simple as all the time for a superhero - he reaches the justice....but the society decides this justice is not necessary and dangerous which is indeed right 'cause it is not like in Hollywood movies that the character does not try to kill anyone - Sasha (he is the main hero acted by Artem Tkachenko) kills if the person who in his opinion deserves to die but gets blames from authorities and runs. In such a runaway from authorities and Mafia he meets a girl (acted by Chulpan Hamatova) and falls in love with her. Everything else is to be watched...not told. Be aware that this film is more about feelings and emotions but not about actions. This film is full of pain of the main character full of him and his vision of life.$LABEL$ 1
+Forget some the whiny (and pointless) comments left here by some. This series is well acted, well shot, and makes a refreshing change to most of the pap on TV.Any fool can nitpick anything. However, in this show the characters are believable, the story lines intriguing and compelling (but do require some intelligence on the part of the viewer), overall it's enjoyable, and it's British !! (We do occasionally come up with some gems, and this is one of them).The shows are an hour long each and i think there are four of them all together (at least I've only seen four of them). The show clearly impressed some U.S. TV station/director who made a longer series which was nowhere near as compelling in spite of the bigger budget.If like soaps and reality shows you won't like or understand Eleventh Hour.$LABEL$ 1
+Usually when a television biopic is released on a celebrity, its, at the very least, campy (i.e. Cybill Shepherd as Martha Stewart, Lauren BaCall as Doris Duke), this is the most horrendous, cheap, and BORING television movie ever made. If VH-1 is going to make a television film, they have GOT to spend a little more money on them. Flex Alexander--though gifted with the Michael voice--is not a great dancer, does not resemble Michael one bit, and does not even have his mannerisms down. VH-1 would have done better by hiring an actual impersonator, that way when see Michael go into get plastic surgery, he doesn't actually come out looking EXACTLY the same. Why should we be taken aback at the shrinking of Michael's nose when its exactly the same size as in the beginning of the film? The woman playing Elizabeth Taylor cannot act and looks nothing like her, and don't even get me started on the woman as Janet Jackson. Terrible script and a severe case of miscasting needs to keep VH-1 from producing any more movies. Flex Alexander would have made a much better JERMAINE JACKSON rather than Michael. Costumes? Trashy ripoffs. Neverland? Spliced together footage from news docs. Don't bother with this one....its not even remotely worth it. The one good piece of casting--the actor portraying Joseph Jackson and MAYBE the actress as Lisa Marie Presley, though she should have been more tomboy than girlie girl.$LABEL$ 0
+It's amazing that actress P.J. Soles didn't become a big star after playing Riff Randall, #1 fan of the punk rock group the Ramones, in "Rock 'n' Roll High School". Soles is so exuberant, you don't mind she's obviously too old to still be in high school (that fact is leveled out by having all the kids look 24). The movie is a fast-paced frolic that doesn't cop-out; everything gets blown to smithereens at the end, and that's just as it should be. Mary Woronov, an innately kinky and funny presence as the Nazi-like principal, gets a great, one-of-a-kind bit at the beginning where Frisbees fly dangerously close to her head (how many takes did they use on that, or was it a fluke?) and Dey Young is very appealing as Soles' best, Kate Rambeau. The weakest link, ironically enough, in this "High School" chain-gang is the Ramones. They can't act, they're not funny, and their concert segment goes on too long. One Ramones song, "I Want You Around", is treated as a fantasy and is well captured; other incidental songs are good, particularly a rare Paul McCartney ballad heard near the beginning ("Did We Meet Somewhere Before?"). Great fun! *** from ****$LABEL$ 1
+Camp with a capital C. Think of Mask and the Ace Ventura movies -- then multiply by 100. This laugh-a-minute entertainer takes schlock to the level of high art. David Dhawan is a genius and Govinda is beyond description. See it over and over again. I insist.$LABEL$ 1
+This is absolutely one of the best movies I've ever seen. It takes me on a a roller-coaster of emotions. I laugh and cry and get disgusted and happy and in love! All this in a little over two hours of time! The actors are all brilliant! I have to mention the leading actor of course, Michael Nyquist. He does a remarkable job!! I also admire the actor who plays Tore, who plays this mentally-challenged young man in such a convincing way! He sort of reminded me of Leonardo di Caprios roll in Gilbert Grape! And then there is the most beautiful song in the world: Gabriella's sång.I recommend this for everyone to see and enjoy!$LABEL$ 1
+"That '70s Show" is definitely the funniest show currently on TV. I started watching it about two and a half years ago, and as soon as I saw it I could tell it was a great show. I like all the characters, but my personal favorites are Fez and Kelso. Leo was also an awesome character while he was there, I really hope he comes back because he's hilarious. It's classic when Fez goes "you son of a bitch!", and when Kelso yells "burn!", that always makes me laugh. They are both great characters and always have something funny to say. Jackie being hot is just another reason to watch the show; she started out being really good looking but damn, somewhere around season 5-6 she just got Really hot. I've seen most of the episodes more than once, some like 10 times, and there still hilarious. This is one of the few shows that I can watch over and over and still laugh at just as much as I did the first time I saw it. The cast is classic; almost everyone is funny, where with many shows there are only a few funny characters. I will be sad to see this show end next year, but it will be going off the air as one of the best shows ever.$LABEL$ 1
+That's what t.v. should be. And Pushing Daisies lives up to those expectations. A beautifully crafted and well-designed show, Pushing Daisies is one of the few shows left on prime-time that has integrity, is good for the entire family and sparks your imagination. It's not about the normal action, sex, money or murder angles of every other show on t.v. It's a show that makes you think and laugh, but although the basic plot may seem impossible, the concepts are real to us all. Wanting something you can't have, hoping for someone to want us, running away from your past and searching for family, even in the most unlikely of places, etc...I realize that ABC has basically canceled this wonderful show at this point, and will most likely replace it with some show beyond the point of integrity. I suppose everything does come back to money... it's too bad that there are now no other shows on ABC that actually make you feel good after watching.$LABEL$ 1
+As I am a teenager, I have about one hundred years of movies to catch up on. I try to see a mixture of classics, mainstream, art-house, and other movies. The 70's is one of the most important decades for films: it's when the average, common, classical films changed into full of messages and anti-social behavior. It became like nothing anyone had ever seen before. What A Decade Under the Influence basically shows is how important all of the movies from around The Graduate to about Star Wars.Richard LaGravenese and the late Ted Demme are the primary interviewers in this documentary, which interviews such people as Dennis Hopper, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Robert Altman, and Jon Voight, among others about how those few years changed cinema forever. It's a very professional, polished documentary, and it's even financed by IFC films. However, as this is a very professional one, I would think that they would at least edit out the noise of someone behind the camera laughing. To me, that took out a lot of how neat and clean the whole thing was.On the other hand, it's a very interesting documentary, about film by the people who make it. Of course, they aren't bashing their own films or anything of the like, but they're portraying honesty on what they thought of the films and what they meant. I don't know much about film (but I want to be involved around it when I become an adult), so I feel like to someone like me this movie is a huge asset. I have seen a good number of movies that they mentioned, like Chinatown and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, but a little more insight into those movies were very informative.The main reason, however, I didn't love Influence is, as slickly as it was edited, it seemed to take its time in the beginning and be quite relaxed, therefore not having enough time to get to everything that they wanted to show. They crammed in Star Wars and Jaws in the last few minutes, when they were two of the most important. It seemed like they tried too hard to show lots of clips, and that's fine, but some of them were unimportant, such as an extended one from Network.Overall, though, Influence is a very enthralling, informative documentary that helped me, at least, learn more about a second `golden age' in American cinema.My rating: 7/10Rated R for language, and images of sexuality, violence and drug use.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is sort of a Carrie meets Heavy Metal. It's about a highschool guy who gets picked on alot and he totally gets revenge with the help of a Heavy Metal ghost. it is such a classic. The soundtrack is A++++. You've got living legends of Metal in it. And Marc Price was great in this film. This is a must have for metal fans.$LABEL$ 1
+"Descent." Yeah. Boy... I haven't seen anything this powerful and scintillating since Bruno Dumont's, "Twentynine Palms" (2003). (By the way this film is not to be confused with another fairly recent pic about the topic of "female empowerment," "THE Descent" (2005), directed by our Splat Pack friend, Neil Marshall, who also happens to be a major talent his own right.) But getting back to this "Descent," the NC-17 rated (uh-oh) effort on which the lovely Ms. Dawson takes a producer's credit (congratulations) and directed by Talia Lugacy (strong chance that's not a real name), as good as it is (in moments), it will not be appreciated by most lay people out there because the script is pretty flawed. As a producer, you really have to tighten up that script. Of course, in the premise alone, you have the promise of rising conflict, but there still lies the task therein of accomplishing rising conflict.At times, this thing plays like an interesting piece of experimental theater and, well, I guess I'll let the others who've already commented here speak to the boringness of it, namely that which occurs in the second act -but find me a second act that isn't boring? There's also this Catch 22 that goes along with these quasi-independent films like "Descent" in which Rosario happens to be attaching herself to and leveraging her "fame-identity" to get a script into production that would, under usual circumstances, not get made at all while at the same time she is basically a miscast in the film's leading role. Rosario Dawson is gorgeous and, apparently, you can shoot this girl from just about any angle all day long, but, oh, wow-wee, how fast the time just slips away: Rosy ain't no undergraduate no more. That's part of the confusion about the screenplay: "Is she a graduate student? A TA? No, graduate students don't really have these type of qualms with football players, do they?" Again, if you are Rosario Dawson, Executive Producer, that's the one of many, many aspects to the professional film process you'll have to think about as you embark on this wonderful new role in your film career. And if you don't have the answer to why you're movie isn't convincing, let me tell you: there is a boatload and a bevy of vivacious, well-qualified, undergraduate aged talents, pining to get involved in the business, who might have nailed that lead character down, all the while, looking just as darn good as you know who; but unfortunately without Ms. Dawson -no Honey, NO money. I have to say, the camera department did an outstanding job, however, because this film is really well shot (i.e. lit) in all its dreary/dreamy darkness. The nightclub scenes look wonderful; one can tell all those music videos are starting to pay off and the play with time... The shooting/framing is all quite excellent which makes the picture a rewarding watch."Descent" is good not great. However, I have a feeling, thanks to NetFlix, this movie will find a life of its own. I hope this group continues making films. If you're into experimental American film-making, cinematographic imagery of implausibly well formed college studs (or male model drop-outs) in their early twenties, or if you're an undergraduate, just plain angry at the hormonally aggressive young men that comprise less than half of your American university, "Rosario Dawson's Descent" might be your flavor of RockaRoll.$LABEL$ 1
+This movies had to be the funniest movie i have ever seen in my entire life. I laughed so hard i almost puked. After the movie was done i laughed for about an hour just thinking about the very last seen in the movie. Its is definitely 100 times better than the first Jackass movie. I loved seeing all of them back together again. If you are squeamish or don't like raunchy childish humour you will not like this movie. If you can go in with an open mind and not take it so seriously then you will laugh your ass off. Its amazing no one was killed in this movie. Every seen in this movie is so original and so different from the next you will not know what to expect. Mike Webber$LABEL$ 1
+It's made in 2007 and the CG is bad for a movie made in 1998. At one part in the movie there is a stop motion shot of a dinosaur that actually looks good, but this just makes the extremely amateur work on the CG stuff look even worse.The writing, acting, directing and everything else in this movie is just terrible. This is as bad as, if not worse than Raptor Island and 100 million BC... pure crap! Again, as with the other movies, the only scary part about this movie is that it actually got made and is now being aired on the sci-fi channel.I still can't understand how they somehow get people who do have some acting skills to act in these movies and then somehow get them to act as terrible as everyone else in the movie.For those of you who are unsure, the other poster is obviously being sarcastic in his review... or he is one of the people who worked on this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+no redeeming qualities can possibly be expressed. i wish i could get my time back. nice skull face broad really smiles, bright at the camera when the disease has already wreaked enough havoc on the ill informed script. i was ((spoiler)) happy to see all the characters dead or severely incapacitated by the end, especially the party poopers that drink the tainted juice on their way to the alleged sunset. Eli Roth does shine for moments of maybe ten, putting forth the theory on how well weed smokes in the woods when others really fiend on top of beer consumption. overall, i found most of it pointless, though not without gratuitous violence and not enough nudity, happy to witness the demise of cast, in a way though, wishing that journey never happened (probably should've been getting laid instead of watching TBS late night, ugh).$LABEL$ 0
+So it starts with a beautiful old house in the country. You have a group of people who get asked to come to this house and (not surprisingly) the caretakers always lock the gates at night for no apparent reason. Anywhoo, the people laugh, joke etc. This Dr tells them a spooky story of this woman and some kids. They get scared, they start to feel stuff. Oh no, a girl see's s ghost. Some more talking then this huge ghost comes and etc etc. This girl finds out that this ghost killed little kids and that she must free their souls, yeah yeah, blah blah. She does but, oh no, she dies as she does. And goes to heaven whilst this evil ghost goes to hell. Two people survive and escape the house. The script is terrible because a guy gets his head chopped off and Elanor (the one who dies saving the kids) says "oh no". The acting is wooden, the effects are crap and the set is a couple off rooms used over and over again. Basically if you like laughing at badly made films watch it, but if your looking for a scare then definitely give this film a miss. I was extremely disappointed when I watched this. A very big let down. My sister (who gets sacred very easily) got bored in this film it is appalling.$LABEL$ 0
+Lots of flames, thousands of extras in battle scenes, lots of beautiful sets. I don't think the plot supported such a vast expenditure. The story could have been told far more effectively and have been more valid, psychologically if there weren't so much macho bombast in the production. Chinese movies tend to be this way, in my experience. and I think this detracts from the film.$LABEL$ 0
+Sondra Locke stinks in this film, but then she was an awful 'actress' anyway. Unfortunately, she drags everyone else (including then =real life boyfriend Clint Eastwood down the drain with her. But what was Clint Eastwood thinking when he agreed to star in this one? One read of the script should have told him that this one was going to be a real snorer. It's an exceptionally weak story, basically no story or plot at all. Add in bored, poor acting, even from the normally good Eastwood. There's absolutely no action except a couple arguments and as far as I was concerned, this film ranks up at the top of the heap of natural sleep enhancers. Wow! Could a film BE any more boring? I think watching paint dry or the grass grow might be more fun. A real stinker. Don't bother with this one.$LABEL$ 0
+Although the story is fictional, it draws from the reality of not only the history of latin american countries but all the third world. This is the true, pure and raw recent history of these countries summarized concisely in this novel / film. The offbeat supranatural stuff, lightens up the intensity of historical events presented in this movie. After all the supranatural stuff is a part of the culture in the third world. Although is not critically acclaimed (probably because of the supranatural stuff), This is an excellent movie, with a great story and great acting.$LABEL$ 1
+Horror-genius Dario Argento is one of my personal favorite directors, and his films "Suspiria", "Phenomena" and "Profondo Rosso" range high on my personal all-time favorite list. "Opera" of 1987 is yet another tantalizing and brilliant film that no Horror lover can afford to miss, and that will keep you on the edge of your chair from the beginning to the end. This stunning and ultra-violent Giallo could well be described as the master's nastiest film, which is quite something considering that Argento's films are not exactly known for the tameness of their violence. The violence is extreme and very stylized in a brilliant way that makes Opera a film censor's nightmare.- Warning! SPOILERS ahead! - Just when Betty (Christina Marsillach), a young opera singer, is becoming successful, a murderous and incredibly sadistic psychopath starts stalking her... The murders are truly brutal, and of particularly sadistic nature. The killer attaches needles to the tied up Betty's eyelids, so she has to keep them open and watch while he brutally murders people close to her in abhorrent ways. When done with the butchering, the killer releases Betty and leaves, just to come back for other friends of hers...As usual for Argento's films, the violence is extremely graphic and very stylized. "Opera" truly is a brutal film, and what a stylish and atmospheric film it is. This film is absolutely tantalizing and pure suspense from the beginning to the end. The performances are entirely very good, especially Christina Marsillach is brilliant in the lead. A stunning beauty and great actress alike, Marsillach fits perfectly in her role of the talented singer, whose fear and horrid experiences are slowly making her crazy. Other great performances include those of Ian Charleston as a Horror film director who is directing an Opera, and director Argento's real-life girlfriend Daria Nicolodi, who has a role in many of his movies. The camera work is excellent as in all Argento films and The huge Opera House is an excellent setting that contributes a lot both to the film's beauty and its permanently creepy atmosphere. The score, which is partly classical music and partly heavy metal is great too, even though I slightly missed Goblin's brilliant Progressive Rock Soundtracks that are such a distinguishing element of most other Argento movies. "Opera" truly is a terrifying and absolutely breathtaking Giallo experience. This is an absolute must-see for any Horror lover, and I highly recommend it to any other film-fan who is not too sensitive when it comes to extreme violence. Excellent and absolutely tantalizing!$LABEL$ 1
+I really enjoyed this movie... In My DVD collection of baseball movies... Reminded me how great the sport truly is... Whether it's here in America or Japan.$LABEL$ 1
+This season lacked real oomf, but, as far as setting up stories to get us in the mood again, season 6 is without highlights and spontaneity.This season lacked its usual Sopranos style, and if you cut out all the garbage that was filled in each and every episode this season, you probably would have had 6 episodes worth of real stories.Side stories like Pauly's mom, is she or isn't she? was boring and had no purpose other than further exploration of his character. I would have like to have seen Bobby express his anger more at Pauly in that carnival episode, but to no avail.And that's just it! These side stories had no real purpose, and lack finishing. If they are going to finish off these stories in the next 6 episodes, I'd rather not watch it, because, its not really worth seeing.Disappointing is to nice a word to say about this season and its finale.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was a major bait and switch. I rented it because of Rebecca St. James, a popular Christian singer. I have met her and wondered what she would be doing in a UFO movie. Well.......I think that she starred in this movie to help out a friend, or a friend of a friend. My first clue that this movie wasn't what it was supposed to be was when I witnessed the special effects of the UFO encounters. Cheesy! As the movie progressed, I noticed how plastic the actors were. It was funny how almost everyone in the movie wore solid colors. (There are a few exceptions).Rebecca was verrryyy disappointing. She is always found in the house and doesn't show the realistic facial expressions of one whose husband has return to the fold. Doesn't she ever leave the house? I had to turn off the movie several times in order to finish it. I hope that Rebecca doesn't believe the message of this movie - believe in what we believe or suffer and go to hell. Jesus spread a message of love and hope. His message inspired others to change OUT OF LOVE, NOT FEAR.$LABEL$ 0
+First off, this is an excellent series, though we have sort of a James Bond effect. What I mean is that while the new Casino Royale takes place in 2006, it is chronologically the first adventure of 007, Dr. No (1962) being the second, while in Golden Eye, the first film with Pierce Brosnan, Judi Dench is referred to as the new replacement for the male "M" so how could she have been in place in the beginning before Bond became a double-0, aside from the fact that she is obviously 14 years older? This is more or less a "poetic" license to thrill. We need to turn our heads aside a bit if we wish to be entertained. No, the new Star Trek movie does not have any of the primitive electronics of the original series from nearly half a century ago. In the 1960's communicators were fantasy. (now we call them cell phones) and there were sliding levers instead of buttons. OMG, do you think 400 years from now, they would have perfected Rogaine for Jean-Luc Picard? So, please, let's give the producers some leeway.But to try and make things a bit consistent, let us just ponder about the Cylons creation just 60 years prior to the end of Battlestar Galactica. If that is the case, where did all the Cylons that populated the original earth come from? We know that the technology exists for spontaneous jumps through space. Well, what happened if one of the Cyclon ships at war with the Caprica fleet was fired upon or there was a sunspot or whatever and one ship, loaded with human-looking Cylons, wound up not only jumping through space, but through time, back a thousand or ten thousand years with a crippled ship near Earth One. They colonized it, found out they could repopulate it and eventually destroyed themselves, but not before they themselves sent out a "ragtag" fleet to search for the legendary Caprica, only to find a habitable but unpopulated planet, which they colonized to become the humans, who eventually invented the Cylons. Time paradox? Of course. Which came first, the chicken or the road? Who cares? It's fraking entertaining!$LABEL$ 1
+One of the very best Three Stooges shorts ever. A spooky house full of evil guys and "The Goon" challenge the Alert Detective Agency's best men. Shemp is in top form in the famous in-the-dark scene. Emil Sitka provides excellent support in his Mr. Goodrich role, as the target of a murder plot. Before it's over, Shemp's "trusty little shovel" is employed to great effect. This 16 minute gem moves about as fast as any Stooge's short and packs twice the wallop. Highly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+Think you've seen the worst movie in the world? Think again. The person who designed the cover of this box should be accused of false advertising. The cover makes it look like a good, scary horror suspense thriller. But, no. What we have instead is NIGHTSCREAM. A movie that makes a "sweeeoooowww!!" noise every time a credit flashes across the screen. The biggest name in the entire film is probably Casper Van Dien who hardly has a part.I voted a one for this one only because I couldn't vote any lower. If I could vote something like negative five-thousand, trust me, I would have. So, for now, I'm going to give NIGHTSCREAM 1/2* out of 5 just because it ended.$LABEL$ 0
+Any time a movie feature a dwarf or a midget in a prominent role, the odds are 10-to-1 that the director threw him in because he didn't know what else to do to keep the movie interesting. In this case, the featured little guy isn't all that bad - he manages to keep his dignity for most of his scenes (except the part where he drags the leading man down the stairs of the dungeon), but the movie itself uses him like a doggie chew toy. The problem here is a common one with low budget exploitation movies - there's a germ of a decent idea in here, but the director and the screenwriter don't know how to develop it. A good director would take the various story elements - brain transplants, mad doctors with secret labs and a dungeon, car chases, fist fights, dim-witted monstrous Frankenstein style assistant, mind control, betrayal and conspiracy, etc...and make an exciting, involving film full of cheap thrills and fun. Instead, what we get here is a bunch of people stumbling around and arguing in the doctor's lab, then a cheesy operation where the patient bleeds tempura paint, followed by some of the same people stumbling around and arguing in the doctor's lab some more, followed by another subgroup of the initial group driving around and having an accident, followed by a dungeon escape scene that is mostly about a woman putting her shoes back on, followed by a rooftop chase (the actual high point of the movie), followed by a confusing series of events where everyone in the movie apparently escapes from everyone else, followed by a lovely stroll in the countryside where everyone either chases, bumps into, attacks or escapes from everyone else AGAIN, followed by, well, not much else. Somewhere in here is a scary peroxide blonde dressed in white, a well meaning heroic type who is sort of blandly good looking, a three foot lab assistant, a big lunk with a mass of melted rubber pasted to one side of his face, a kid who wonders into the middle of the movie to provide more of the "frankenstein factor", a brunette who sort of falls in love with the hero for no apparent reason, and the mad doctor himself,who must be the luckiest man in the history of evil super-villains, because nothing goes according to his plan, but things work out for him anyway... and all because he remembered to stick an electrode into the transplanted brain at one point in the operation. This was by no means the worst movie I've seen, or even the worst exploitation movie I've seen, or even the worst badly made exploitation movie I've seen, but it just lies there, oozing cheapness and inattention to detail at every point, and there is no real reason for even bad movie enthusiasts to watch it.$LABEL$ 0
+Geologist realizes a big earthquake is coming but no one will listen. Whats worse is his father in law had predicted the 1923 Tokyo disaster and he's been called unworthy to be his successor. Of course the big one comes and Tokyo is knocked flat.A poorly dubbed Japanese film that is pure soap opera for the first half. The second half- after the earthquake destroys a model city its an escape drama. There are some nice moments but the film wastes them either by undercutting the action by too many poor miniatures or by having people do unreal things. Hokey and not very good it has an ending you won't believe...$LABEL$ 0
+Not a bad movie but could have been done without the full frontal nudity of a 10 year old boy in one of the opening scenes. This movie has excellent dialog; which is certainly common among foreign films. Foreign actors still know how to act as opposed to American actors who let the CGI, stunts, and special effects do all the work for them. This film is just good old fashion acting. Gerarde DePardieux did an excellent job as always. The costumes and scenery are accurate with the time. My only complaint is that they should have dubbed the English words over the french instead of using subtitles; this could just be because I hate reading subtitles.$LABEL$ 1
+this may not be War & Peace, but the two Academy noms wouldn't have been forthcoming if it weren't for the genius of James Wong Howe...this is one of the few films I've fallen in love with as a child and gone back to without dissatisfaction. whether you have any interest in what it offers fictively or not, BB&C is a visual feast.I'm not saying it's his best work, I'm no expert there for sure. but the look of this movie is amazing. I love everything about it; Elsa Lanchester, the cat, the crazy hoo-doo, the retro-downtown-ness; but the way it was put on film is breathtaking.I even like the inconsistencies pointed out on this page above, and the "special effects" that seem backward now. it all creates a really consistent world.$LABEL$ 1
+I dont know why people think this is such a bad movie. Its got a pretty good plot, some good action, and the change of location for Harry does not hurt either. Sure some of its offensive and gratuitous but this is not the only movie like that. Eastwood is in good form as Dirty Harry, and I liked Pat Hingle in this movie as the small town cop. If you liked DIRTY HARRY, then you should see this one, its a lot better than THE DEAD POOL. 4/5$LABEL$ 1
+this is one of my favorite movies ever! along with casablanca and cannibal holocaust, this is near perfect cinema. rex allen narrates this wonderful tale of a cougar who just needs a little loving. contains action, adventure, suspense, comedy, and riverbed chaos! SEE THIS MOVIE IF YOU HAVE TO KILL TO DO IT!!! you will not find a better cat picture anywhere, with "cat from outer space" coming in as a not so close second. charlie's performance is magnificent. even includes animal cruelty and intense logging! gotta love disney, for all moral failures!$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of those star-filled over-the-top comedies that could a) be hysterical, or b) wish that you had gone to the dentist to have all your teeth pulled instead. Unfortunately, One Night at McCool's is a classic "b."Goldie Hawn recently commented about "Town and Country" that it's a big problem in Hollywood that they start with hiring the actors and putting together a deal before a script is completed. You have to figure that not only did they go into this picture without a complete script, they also mangled it daily. Maybe we need to send cards and letters to the heads of all the studio that say, "It's the script, stupid." This is also one of those movies where you find yourself feeling sorry for the actors most of the way through. They're working their asses off trying to make all this seem hysterical, but they know most of it is going to be accompanied not by belly laughs but by the sounds of the crickets you can hear inside the silent theatre.Is it an unmitigated disaster? Not entirely. There are some smiles along the way, mostly due to the efforts of the actors. I probably would have gone out of the theatre thinking, "Eh. It was okay." So why the undeniably hostile tone in my review? The ending. If, as it's been noted, the rest of the movie is just all a setup for the ending, then it misses spectacularly. I really wish I could speak specifically about it, but I hate people who give too much away (even in warning). Suffice it to say that as soon as you see John Goodman behind a bent-over Paul Reiser (nothing given away here. It's in the trailer), get the hell out of the theatre and go out thinking, "Eh. It was okay." The rest of the movie is tacked-on and creatively bankrupt. And you'll be appalled that there will actually be people laughing at this mess. If you loved "There's Something About Mary" or "Meet The Parents" (both GREAT movies), then don't bother to see this movie. Go have those teeth taken care of instead.$LABEL$ 0
+This is the kind of picture John Lassiter would be making today, if it weren't for advances in CGI. And that's just to say that he'd be forgotten, too, if technology hadn't made things sexy and kewl since 1983. _Twice..._ has got the same wit, imagination, and sense of real excitement that you'd find in a Pixar flick, only executed under the restrictions of the medium c. 1983. Innovative animation techniques combine with a great script and excellent voicing to produce a movie that appeals on lots of levels. It should be spoken of in the same breath with _Spiritited Away_ and _Toy Story_.$LABEL$ 1
+LIFEFORCE is an extremely schizophrenic movie, based on Colin Wilson`s novel The Space Vampires the script ignores most of the novel`s concepts and structure ( Indeed it owes more to the QUATERMASS serials than the novel ) but the scenes it does leave in from the novel are nearly identical to those in the film . And talking of the script it must be one of the most uneven in cinema history , it`s though it was written in chapters by several different people. Take for instance Carlson , he disappears after the early shuttle scenes which led me to believe he was dead then he turns up again halfway through the film in order to explain the plot to the beleaguered Brits and it`s this lack of attention by the screenwriters that spoils the film . And there`s plenty of other clumsy scripting such as the heroes returning to London in a helicopter and not realising it has been over run by zombies untill they`re flying over it .I could go on at great length about these plot holes but LIFEFORCE is actually enjoyable to watch as long as you don`t use your brain . It`s good to see a sci-fi horror film from an era when aliens were portrayed as being cute creatures that children hid in their bedrooms so that nasty human adults wouldn`t get their hands on them . The special effects and pyrotechnics are very very good , there`s lots of action and stunts and LIFEFORCE features one of the most memorable aliens in the form of the space girl . When mentioning LIFEFORCE in conversation with males it`s always a race to say " Seen the alien in LIFEFORCE? She can suck the lifeforce out of me anytime " Hardly surprising looking at the demographics of the votes that this film is more popular with males than females" Don`t worry . A naked girl can`t escape from here " Can`t she ? Pity$LABEL$ 1
+Having enjoyed Neil Gaiman's writing (especially his collaboration with Yoshitaka Amano in "The Dream Hunters") in the past, I figured Mirrormask to be a sure thing and was very disappointed. The beginning, live-action section of the movie was intriguing enough. The relationships between the characters was believable and easy to empathize with, and I loved the sets, the costuming, and Helena's artwork. The subsequent computer-generated scenes, however, were excruciating. The dialogue was awkward and pretentious, the interaction between the live actors and the CGI horrifying. Events occurred for the flimsiest reasons, and most events seemed superfluous to whatever plot may have existed. I only watched the first twenty or thirty minutes of the movie, so I'm not exactly an authority, but I strongly recommend that you don't watch any of it at all and stick with Gaiman's strong written work.$LABEL$ 0
+The first thing I noticed about this movie was how well everything was set up. A quality movie all round. I suppose you could love this film just for its action, but I liked it for more than that.This is a pure thriller/horror movie. It offers a more fully-fleshed script than most horror films do. I thought, at least the U.S. version, ended brilliantly, and was great throughout. The story felt honest and brutal.The film has an excellent, tight script that keeps the action moving, with believable characters in largely believable situations.$LABEL$ 1
+A collection of Deleted scenes and alternative takes, edited together and with added voice-over to make it appear to take place after the events of the first. Pretty cool idea, but deleted scenes are left on the cutting room floor for a reason and this is further proof. As it's just not as funny as "Anchorman", and really let's face it THAT film wasn't exactly comedy gold either, so you get a 'movie' worse than one that was moderately funny. In my eyes that STILL puts it one or two notches above "Kicking and Screaming", or "Bewitched". Chross your fingers that "The Wedding Crashers" is a return to old school form (no pun intended) My Grade: D$LABEL$ 0
+This was one of the worst Columbo episodes that I have seen, However, I am only in the second season.The typical Columbo activities are both amusing and irritating. His cigar ashes causing him trouble have been seen before, And the bit where he always identifies in some way with the murderer--in this case cooking ,Tho the scene on the TV cooking show distracted from the main theme.Also not explained was why the brother at the beginning of the show was cutting part of the wires of the mixer. The reason was never explained ,nor did it serve any purpose. But the part I disliked the most was the death of the bride to be . This was never explained and it is the main reason why I give this episode such a low grade.$LABEL$ 1
+I never heard of the book, nor care to read it, but the movie I will probably see many times.This film is unforgettable with perhaps the richest imagery I have ever seen in a movie. It was as if I was looking at paintings many times, which I think was the idea.Terrific movie, story, actors, and cinematography. Full of profound emotions from every angle. Although I am not particularly fond of romance movies, I loved this and was deeply moved by Winona Ryder's plea to her father toward the end.Mr. Irons deserved an award for his performance and Close was never better.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is very silly and very funny. You can't ever criticize it for taking itself seriously. If you've heard their previous album or seen their HBO videos from the album, you can imagine the extremely foul-mouthed, rocking good time that is this movie which tells the fable of how the group Tenacious D came to be formed.Full of cameos, it not only gives a fictional account of Tenacious D but is a send-up of musical history as well. The humor reminds one of Something About Mary in that they often "go places you'd thought they wouldn't," but it lacks the scatological humor of South Park. This movie contains no nudity, except for mooning.$LABEL$ 1
+SLIGHT SPOILERS (but it doesn't matter anyway).An exercise in gobblygook of catastrophic proportions not even worthy of the l0 lines I need to put these remarks on the netwaves. This is the single worst episode of the Masters series to date and the first that qualifies for the defunct Mystery Science Theatre treatment. Even if it took me a full half hour to realize the intended ironic angle, it was still a very lame mess. Its sole value lies in the perspective that forces one to realize that in addition to gore and ugly masks the genre only succeeds when the classic cinematic notions of photography and lighting, dialogue and acting, editing and timing are put to use. Here they are absent and John Carpenter is no master. Period. And no trite analysis of the easy social comment herein will change that. Oddly, Carpenter never has been anything more than a B director, but at least such films as 'Fog' and 'The Thing' had terrific atmosphere (the latter is one of my cult favorites).Abominable acting. Camera angles stuck in cement. Tensionless rhythm. Yet perhaps the single most obnoxious element of the episode is the storyline which of course JC cannot really be blamed for (unless the writers were buddies of Cody.) The initial two minute slo-mo of a girl running through a forest only to be nearly run over by a would be Scully-Mulder duo is the first and last thing that works in the film. But come on, a girl hurtling through a deserted woods to nowhere in particular in desperate need of an abortion fortuitously rendez-vous with the fender of a pair of 'women's rights' MDs whose clinic just happens to be at the end of the road around the corner. Oh, and I won't even nitpick about how the doc whips the accidentee into the car and speeds away at 0 to 60 in six seconds. Does wonders for possible broken ribs or concussion.Then things fall apart real quick. The vacuous dialogue "I just want to help you", the interminably sluggish back and forth at the gate, grandiose battle tactics like cutting the telephone line (in the age of cell phones?) followed by the the shoot-out: a born-again Ramboesque clinic director vs Ron Perlman and the high school bullpen out for a few kicks at Easter break. Another lovely line: "So what are we going to do?" from the kid who had just been sitting on a pile of assault rifles in the back of the van. Er, no it isn't yet pheasant season. So who needs those teen boys anyway. What about the good old tried and true method of the lone lunatic who bashes his way through the gate with his all-American SUV?As for the exchange of bullets scenes themselves, the cuts here were as stiff as the staccato of a DC comics strip. All that was lacking were the Wham, Bam, and Whiz of the balloon titles. And all to the tune of a soundtrack worthy of an old Mannix episode.At one point we learn that Daddy isn't really the daddy, but at this point we haven't been led to care much any more either. This story's single source of drama is the conflict between the pro-life father and his pregnant daughter who is only thankful she's not having twins. Yet there is not a single scene, flashback or not, where they are actually ever found together. They remain mere abstractions to each other throughout.With the exception of the gatekeeper every single one of the characters is absolutely dislikeable. Bland, hysterical, dull-headed, macho. As perfectly flat as human wallpaper can be. None of the doctors seem to have anything medical about them. And there's that bickering Dad who rails at his pregnant daughter as though he himself were the stressed out boyfriend. He fortunately got his. There are two great MST-worthy comic moments: the gusher when Angelica's plumbing goes out and later the new-born lobster with a glued on baby's head. Also cute was Angelica's rugby ball belly before she finally popped the right-to-life little monster from Hell. As for that audacious male abortion scene...well, they should have retained Miike's episode and banned this one instead.In short, a 3rd rate Rosemary's Baby meets Alien set on the turf of a M.A.S.H. episode. This stinker alone, appreciable only to today's permissive under-16 generation, will assure as someone else said here, that this series will not be renewed for a third season. A real shame, since there have been a number of brilliant productions, including such really decent spoofs as Dante's 'Homecoming' or McKee's deliciously quirky 'Sick Girl'. Not to mention the superb imagery of Malone's 'Fairhaired Child'.Sorry John Carpenter, I believe your directing days are over. It's time to run for President.$LABEL$ 0
+So this ugly guy with long, nasty hair and his girlfriend end up in this house and they argue and argue about his old girlfriend. There was suppose to be something scary in it but I didn't see anything scary at all. There is some mention of a demon from the sea but that doesn't go anywhere at all. I wish it did because then it would've taken the tension away from the jealous love triangle. The title of the movie makes it look like it would be a scary and exciting movie but it is so far from it that I couldn't believe it. I waited and waited for it to end and was so happy when it did. It did not live up to the title like it should have so boo hoo hoo. The cover had a cool picture but I shouldn't judge a cheesy movie by its cover.$LABEL$ 0
+Although I recently put this on my 10 worst films list, I have to say it's probably no worse than Burt Reynolds in "The Maddening" or any of the "Look Who's Talking" sequels. Still, it's pretty nauseating, even with sexy Drew Barrymore playing something of a horror-movie answer to Holly Golightly, relocating from New York City to Los Angeles but finding out she's being stalked by a murderous look-alike. Poor Sally Kellerman, a quirky actress of great acclaim in the '70s, is reduced here to a paltry supporting role, and Barrymore's leading man George Newbern is the worst type of sitcom actor, always pausing for a laugh after every line. The picture is swill, but Drew's bloody shower scene boasts showmanship, and the identity of the psycho (although right out of a "Scooby Doo" episode) is interesting. But as for the finale...get real! Who had to clean up THAT mess? * from ****$LABEL$ 0
+This is certainly a good film, beautifully photographed and evocatively acted. Yet one should certainly criticize it, and Mizoguchi, for it is not without flaws and weaknesses. Mizoguchi really cared for women, and wanted to make statements on man's lack of sympathy and total cruelty, yet he sometimes gets ahead of himself in trying to make this statement by adopting the wrong means. This is certainly a case in 'the Crucified Lovers', 'Princess Yang Kwei Fei' and 'Zankiku monogatari'. He sets the scenario in feudal Japan, which leaves the viewer at the end with the partially right exclamation: "boy, does feudalism suck, I'm glad that it is over...". And true, some of the scenarios such weaker films of Mizoguchi present would be literary impossible today. Also, his women characters sometimes become archetypes of unrealistic self-sacrifice, which also simplifies the scenario less appealing. Saying that, "Crucified Lovers" is a good film, with such few relative weaknesses, though the sometimes chilly, cynical prose by Ueda, the screenwriter helps this film allot. I still highly prefer and recommend Mizoguchi's 'realistic, 'contemprary' films of 1936: 'Osaka Elegy' and 'Sisters of the Gion', as well as his late masterpieces, in which he showed more restraint and subtlety: 'Ugetsu', 'Sansho Dayu', and 'The Life of Oharu'.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a great movie. Some will disagree with me but , if you know anything about the bible you know it is. I think everyone should see it!! I agree a new updated version like be nice but the message is still right on. If you can see this movie. Is not a "scare the hell of you movie",it is truthful with the Bible. I think the U. N. will play a major role in the world government to come. The last days are lining up with the Bible. Look at what has happened with the chip for dogs and cats that now has come to light to protect on children from being kidnapped. It's the size of a grain of rice. This I feel is the fore runner of the mark of the beast spoken of in the Bible. Without the mark you can't sell or buy, with this chip that small in the future there is no telling how much info can be put on it.$LABEL$ 1
+Having just finished Cronicles of the Heroic Knight mere minutes ago I find myself extremely please but questions still loom over me. While it would appear that the first 7 episodes or so are actually a retelling of the events of the first Record of Lodoss War the truth is that they really aren't. It would appear that the creator of CotHK had a different vision as to how the original ended (and that may be the reason that the first 7 episodes occur) but I do not find that to be the case. CotHK does say it starts 5 years after the War of Heros which Parn was a part of. I think the director made the first 5 episodes seem so much like a recap of the original just to give the viewer a small reminder and an introduction to characters and their deeds done because they appear much less after the series kicks into Spark's story. Now, once the series does kick into Spark's portion we find ourselves kicked up another 10 years (15 years now since the War of Heros). Spark and his crew do, in some cases, resemble Parn and his crew once the journey kicks into gear, especially the love story that brews between Spark and Neese. I also thought several times throughout CotHK that I threw in the original series and if it wasn't for Spark's long blue hair I know I would've pressed stop more than once to make sure the right disc was in. By no means do I consider these major set backs however, the writers did a fine job in crafting believable characters and a remarkable storyline. The only thing that makes me hurt is that Ashram and Wagnard return. Ummmm... how??? Don't get me wrong both are great villains even though Ashram's only villainous trait is that he supports the Marmo. Perhaps I missed something during the coarse of the series that explained that part. As far as sequels go though, I highly recommend CotHK. I place both CotHK and, even more so, the original Record of Lodoss War far above the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Both of these are more epic than anything I've ever seen or read. I highly recommend this.$LABEL$ 1
+While I rather enjoyed this movie, I'll tell you right now that my mother wouldn't. It's out there. Really warped little dark comedy that reads like a fairy tale gone awry. >Neat treat with all the cameos too. If you want something "different", look no further.$LABEL$ 1
+Way to go ace! You just made a chilling, grossly intriguing story of a necrophiliac cannibal into a soft, mellow, drama. Obviously a movie called Dahmer would be one of two kinds: Horror, or documentary right? This was neither. It wasn't close to any detailed facts, (in fact it barely had any substance at all) It wasn't really morbid or scary or didn't even try to be very disturbing.(as if you would've had to try!!) What the hell was this writer/director thinking?? Here's one of the most REAL examples of sick serial killers ever and we get badly shot, poorly acted gay bar roofie rapes and lengthy droning flashbacks to alone time in his old parent's house. I think Jacobson was actually trying to present (or invent) 'the soft side' of j.Dahmer.$LABEL$ 0
+Philistines beware, especially American ones! This has all the elements you'll hate - a langorous approach to film language, a painterly sense of composition, an intense homoerotic focus to its elegant narrative, a wonderful and unusual use of music and, even worse, it's based on a story you'd probably hate as well... If, however, you do feel that films don't to have derivative plotlines, be full of action and crappy dialogue, don't need the visual grammar of MTV/TV Commercials, then watch this. It's one of my favourite films, and is perhaps Visconti's most perfectly formed piece of work. It's sublime, like the movement of Mahler he uses insistently throughout the film.$LABEL$ 1
+Wow. Who ever said that Edward D. Wood Jr. never influenced anybody? This steaming pile of donkey excrement is a perfect case in point; it makes "The Violent Years" look like "Casablanca"! "Santa Claus" also makes Keith Richards' worst flashbacks look like my first nocturnal emission. I've had nightmares, you know, waking up and sweating bullets, that will never come close to the visceral terror that Santa Claus unearthed from the seemingly pure soil of my very being. However, I can think of some parties where this film might actually go over well. Also, if you're looking for the perfect example of a Santa-Satan dichotomy on VHS tape, look no further. Don't check out this movie, as I've been notified the MST3K version is now available. Move over Satan, here's "Santa Claus".$LABEL$ 0
+I think this movie actually has a lot of nice things to say about a lot of people (Johnny Carson, Ted Koppel), and it shows that Letterman and Leno actually liked and respected each other a lot. Treat Williams as the half-Kung Fu Master, half-Godfather-like Mike Ovitz is terrific.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie sucked! The first one was way better. No one from the first has returned in this dumb sequel and in some way that is a good thing because of the bad acting but the characters in this film are not even better. Killjoy in the woods? Come on! Give me a break! I'm suprised killjoy's friend the Blair Witch didn't show up to make a cameo. Bad acting, bad story and just plain out silly and boring. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME!$LABEL$ 0
+Rented this tonite from my local video store. It was titled "Black Horizon." I guess someone felt this was good enough for a 2004 re-release...Micheal Dudikoff is unfortunetly not a ninja in this movie, one of the major flaws of this film right off the bat. Another major flaw would be that Ice-t's action scenes are stolen from other movies, particularly the first scene of his rescue, which is directly from the Wesley Snipes movie "The Art of War," with Ice-T edited in. I hope they paid for that footage.The plot is awful, the special effects had little effort put into them (love those wires holding them in space), the acting is wooden (also love those New York/Russian accents). Ice-T being in the movie is pointless. These guys also forgot the fact that there is no gravity in space, but I guess they weren't worried about it.Micheal Dudikoff should go back to doing what he's "good" at and make American Ninja 6.$LABEL$ 0
+Okay, so the introduction, with its hokey offer of a free coffin to anyone who dies of fright during the film, is so lame it's funny. And so the first "skull scene" is so drawn out and un-suspenseful it's funny. The actual plot of the movie is somewhat decent, there's at least a little bit of genuine food for thought in the behavior of the characters, and the plot twist is decent as horror flicks go. The acting is average, not truly bad. Altogether, this movie doesn't quite fall flat in the way a 1/10 movie would. It's not terrible enough to get the lowest rating or even second lowest. If I just read the screenplay, I'd say there was potential for this to be a decent movie. It's just that the horrid direction and production that ruin the movie. So it's a bad movie, but there are much worse ones out there.$LABEL$ 0
+Jumpin' Butterballs, this movie stinks! It's a dull and listless drag that never lets up. It's a wonder anyone even bothered to make Groucho up in his bizarre trademark eyebrows and mustache, as he has nothing witty or outrageous to do or say throughout this bore. Chico must have been so disinterested that he forgot to use his Italian accent.Only Harpo provides a grin or two, and there's precious little of that to go around here anyway. Figure in a loudmouthed hotel manager and another obnoxious co-comic in Frank Albertson, and the road gets even bumpier. A real misfire.$LABEL$ 0
+Caught this flick as one of a five-for-$5 deal from a local video store, and it was a most pleasant surprise. It's a collection of four interrelated tales built around four kids who've just had a car wreck and are waiting for someone to pick them up. They tell each other these stories to kill time, and are occasionally startled by flashing lights and funny noises which all come together in an O. Henry-esque ending that left me gleeful. A real discovery. Blood (and plenty of it), breasts and beasts round it all out rather nicely...Jacinda Barrett is worth the price of admission alone. This one is a keeper--Jim Bob says check it out.Oddly enough, "Pumpkinhead" was one of our five choices too, and IMDB recommends that for anyone who likes "Campfire Tales". I'll followup as soon as I get a chance to sit down and watch that one. Joyeux Samhain!$LABEL$ 1
+I have seen many of Shahrukh's movies and this is a very good role for him. He has such versatility, but he mainly stays in positive roles. As Rahul, he is very dark and disturbing, yet I found myself sympathizing with him much of the movie. If for nothing else, watch this movie for Shahrukh. He plays a very complex and real character very convincingly. The story is very typical and has been done before, but the character development is very strong and entertaining. The opening is a little confusing, but by the end, it doesn't matter. The songs I found very likable and give insight to what characters are thinking. Very clever. I think this movie was very good and recommend it to all Shahrukh Khan fans. It is a must see!$LABEL$ 1
+One would think that with the incredible backdrop of WWII Stalingrad that the writers would come up with a script. Nope. There is NO story here! It's like porn, vignettes of violence interrupted by pathetic, rote, and meaningless dialogue.A bunch of Germans march around shooting and getting shot. Slowly there are fewer Germans to march around, shoot, and get shot. Then there are no Germans to march around, shoot, and get shot.Pretty bad.Chilcoot$LABEL$ 0
+While I agree with the previous post that the cinematography is good, I totally disagree with the rest: This is nothing more than a porno movie disguised as an artsy film. Showing little boys naked is not art and amounts to child porn. Steer clear of this dud. Stupid is what this film is.$LABEL$ 0
+In Arlington Heights, IL we never had a cafeteria in any of the elementary schools (1961) so I rode my bike home from school for lunch and always watched this game. True, I was 11, but I thought it was the greatest thing on! I'd draw hidden pictures on my blackboard and see if my family or friends could find it. I also remember winning wonderful cars (Pontiac or Oldsmobile) if the contestant got the final hidden picture game. I even had the home version!I wonder why this game lasted so briefly. I enjoyed the music and the hidden pictures - the only one I could ever get was the lemon hidden as part of a bridge over a garden stream.Really good memories are connected with Camouflage.$LABEL$ 1
+One of the most important artistic movements in the history of cinema was without a doubt German expressionism, the highly atmospheric style of film-making developed during the 20s in Berlin. Classic movies like "Das Cabinet Des Dr. Caligari." (1920) and "Nosferatu, Eine Symphonie Des Grauens" (1922) were the most famous direct results of this movement, and while the movement didn't have a long life, its enormous influence over cinema can still be felt today, specially in the horror genre. One of the key figures of this style would be director Paul Wegener, director of 1920's "Der Golem, Wie Er in die Welt Kam", as in his debut as a filmmaker, seven years before the making of that classic, he was already making experiments with expressionism in film. That early prototype of German expressionism was incidentally, another horror film: "Der Student Von Prag"."Der Student Von Prag" ("The Student of Prague"), is the story of Balduin (Paul Wegener), a student with the reputation of being the best fencer in Prague, but who always find himself with financial troubles. One day, Balduin rescues the beautiful countess Margit (Grete Berger) from drowning in a lake after her horse drop her by accident. Balduin falls immediately in love with her and tries to see her again, but soon he discovers that he'll have to compete with her rich cousin, Graf Von Schwarzenberg (Lothar Körner), who also wants to marry her. Knowing that he can't offer her much, Balduin wishes to be wealthy, and this is where a sorcerer named Scapinelli (John Gottowt) enters the scene. Scapinelli offers Balduin infinite wealth in exchange of whatever he finds in his room. Balduin accepts the proposal, only to discover in horror that what Scapinelli wants is his reflection in the mirror.Loosely inspired by Edgar Allan Poe's short story "William Wilson" and the classic legend of "Faust", the story of "Der Student Von Prag" was conceived by German writer Hanns Heinz Ewers, a master of horror literature and one of the first writers to consider scriptwriting as valid as any other form of literature. Written at a time where cinema in Germany was still being developed as an art form, "Der Student Von Prag" shows a real willingness to actually use cinema to tell a fully developed story beyond a camera trick or a series of scenes. Like most of the scriptwriters of his time, Ewers screenplay is still very influenced by theater, although "Der Student Von Prag" begins to move away from that style. While a bit poor on its character development (specially on the supporting characters), Ewers manages to create an interesting and complex protagonist in the person of Balduin.While "Der Student Von Prag" was Paul Wegener's directorial debut and Stellan Rye's second film as a filmmaker, it's very clear that these two pioneers had a very good idea of what cinema could do when done properly. Giving great use to Guido Seeber's cinematography, the two young filmmakers create a powerful Gothic atmosphere that forecasts what the German filmmakers of the following decade would do. Wegener would learn many of the techniques he would employ in his "Golem" series from Seeber and Rye. Despite having very limited resources, Rye and Wegener manage to create an amazing and very convincing (for its time) visual effect for the scenes with Balduin's reflection (played by Wegener too). Already an experienced stage actor at the time of making this film, Wegener directs the cast with great talent and also attempts to move away from the stagy style of previous filmmakers.As Balduin, Paul Wegener is very effective and probably the best in the movie. It certainly helps that his character is the only one fully developed by the writer, but one can't deny that Wegener was very good in his role as the poor student who loses more than his mirror reflection in that contract. John Gottowt plays the sinister Scapinelli with mysterious aura that suits the character like a glove. Few is said about Scapinelli in the film, but Gottowt makes sure to let us know that he is a force to be feared. The rest of the main cast is less lucky, with Grete Berger being pretty much average as countess Margit, and Lothar Körner making a poor Graf Von Schwarzenberg. However, it must be said that Lyda Salmonova was pretty good in her expressive character and Fritz Weidemann made an excellent Baron Waldis-Schwarzenberg, showing the dignity that Lörner's character should have had.Considering the movies that were being done in those years in other countries and the fact that its remake (made 13 years after this film) is superior in every possible way, it's not difficult to understand why "Der Student Von Prag" hasn't stood the test of time as well as other early films. The movie's main problem is definitely its extremely low budget, as it resulted in the film being considerably shorter than what Ewers' story needed to be fully developed. This makes the plot feel a bit too vague at times, or even incomplete, as if there was something missing in the narrative (of course, there's also the possibility that the existing print is really incomplete). However, "Der Student Von Prag" is a very interesting early attempt at a complex tale of horror and suspense in film that, while inferior to what other filmmakers were doing at the time, left a powerful impression in history.As the direct predecessor of the German expressionist movement, it's hard to deny the enormous importance that "Der Student Von Prag" has in the history of German cinema, probably in the history of cinema in general. It may look dated even for its time, but considering the limited resources its director had, it's truly better than most films from that era. As the movie that started Paul Wegener's career, and with that German expressionism, "Der Student Von Prag" is a must see for everyone interested in this slice of film history. 7/10$LABEL$ 1
+I really didn't expect much from this film seeing as it has people from Parkersburg WV, which is were I live, acting in it. This town is dull and so is this film. There were a few decent scened in the movie but I was distracted by all the crappy landmarks they made a point to show. This movie may have been good if there was actual acting in it but there wasn't any. Unless you are from Parkersburg and are interested in seeing what you see everyday, then stay away from this movie. The dialog will put you to sleep, the acting will bore you to tears and Steven Soderberg should lose some credibility after shooting crap like this. Its a predictable movie with no surprises. What you see is what you get and that is a 73 minute tour of Parkersburg West Virginia and Belpre Ohio without a narrator.$LABEL$ 0
+tell you what that was excellent. Dylan Moran is simply the funniest actor on screen( and on stage) and with Micheal Caine as your partner ain't to bad either, both are great to watch in a really funny film. true, not all the gags come off but its worth sticking around for the ones that do, but come on its got Micheal Caine in a dress in it( the whole admission fees worth that) and every time Dylan Moran's on screen its more like Bernard blacks movie. the story is two actors(Moran and Caine) who decide to steal money from a group of gangsters by acting out different persona's to fool them all but getting away with it's a different matter. basically "the actors" is a great British comedy that was somehow missed by many, seriously if your a Moran fan(or want to see Micheal Caine in a dress) definitely see this$LABEL$ 1
+Man, I went to this movie because of the great preview. It looked like it had a great story and nice special effects.Boy was I wrong. I wanted to walk out of the theater because of those horrible special effects. A cartoon dino, of cart board would do even a better job then this. The story was fine, if it would have been taken on by a big movie producer. Who would trow in some more money to make the effect more life like. The only thing I liked about this movie where the plants that pop up everywhere.Even worse where the cars, in one scene 2 characters walk along the street. If you watch those cars you'll see the following: Taxi, car, motorcycle, tri-pod, big bus. And about 4x in a row!And then there is the "butterfly death" that would set the whole "evolution changes" in to progress. If that guy didn't step on the butterfly, the next dino would have eaten it anyway! So that's absolute bull. Then, if you change something in the past, the future will be different in the same instant. Not in those "time waves" they made. But hey, if the future changed in a split second, the movie would be even worse, but more realistic though. This is just one of those movies you should see when you want to have a great laugh. I spend way to much money on this movie in the theater. And then they tell me this movie had $80 million dollar budget. WHERE DID ALL THAT MONEY GO????$LABEL$ 0
+This film had some very funny moments. The aforementioned feeb sketch for starters. The parts where Rik tries to act dignified in front of his guests, looking down at them through his nose. Very subtly done, especially as the guest was a toffee nosed adulterer himself.The scene where Rik finds out that Gina has a fiancé, "Ahhh. She was stringing me along all the time, the brazen hussy." with his 2 candle eyes. Like as if she really fancied him. But he believed it. That's why it was so funny. Great moment. Gino was also excellent. He should have been used more as the bad man. "Where are the whores I ordered!" he bellows. Brilliant stuff.$LABEL$ 1
+Let's summarize how dumb this movie is with two details : Arnold to Antichrist : "Let's see who is meanest" said with a straight face. And you can tell they were not trying to be funny.How do you think Arnold will battle the evil of all evils?Blessed Water, A crucifix, a priest..nooo! with a bazooka, yes not even Satan expected it they're so clever.After an engaging beginning (which reminds you of Devil's Advocate) it goes nowhere. Somebody get me those two hours of my life back. Don't ever watch it, rent it, lest buy it.$LABEL$ 0
+Wow, the plot for this film is all over the place! There is so much plot and so many things that happen that it practically made my head spin!! And, as a result, none of it seemed particularly believable.The movie starts with Kay Francis as a housewife living in a small town. She's had some experience with local theater and has ambitions of going to Broadway. When a big-time actor arrives in town, she pursues him in hopes that he can give her a career boost. But, her husband is worried about shenanigans--as this actor is a cad. So, the hubby bursts in on them and hits the actor--and the actor dies! As a result, he's convicted of First Degree Murder!!! Not Manslaughter, but Murder 1! Now, pregnant and in need of funds, Kay goes to New York. But Broadway jobs aren't to be found, so she's forced to take any job--even Burlesque. Unable to adequately care for her young daughter, she gives it to another woman to raise. However, eventually she does find a job in a real Broadway play and everything looks rosy. But, the jealous diva starring in the play hates her for some inexplicable reason and forces her to be thrown off the play. Despondent, she makes her way to England and becomes a real star. Years later, she returns to New York to get her kid--but the child is older and thinks the woman caring for her is her real mother. At the same time, her husband's lawyer now thinks that if he gets $10,000 he can get the man out of prison. As another reviewer wrote, is this to bribe people?! How can $10,000 get him out otherwise--maybe it will buy a helicopter so they can fly into the prison yard and scoop him up!! Wow--this is enough for 2 or 3 films! And, all this occurs by the 45 minute mark!!! Believe it or not, there's quite a bit more to it. If you really care, see it yourself to find out how it all unfolds.This is sort of like 'kitchen sink writing'--throwing in practically everything and hoping, somehow, it will all work. Unfortunately, the film turns out to be hopelessly unbelievable and mushy despite Ms. Francis' best efforts. It's the sort of film no one could really have saved thanks to a 2nd-rate plot. It's almost as if someone just took a few dozen plot elements, threw them into a box and then began randomly picking them in order to make a movie!! Overall, unless you are a die-hard Kay Francis fan or love anything Hollywood made in the 1930s, this one is one you can easily skip. Not terrible but certainly not good.By the way, the child who plays Francis' daughter upon her return to New York (Sybil Jason) really was terrible. I think she was supposed to be...I think.$LABEL$ 0
+I might have given this movie a higher rating before Peter Jackson's trilogy came out, but seeing the two of them side by side there is simply no comparison. The pace of this movie is rushed, many important scenes from the book are left out, and there is little character development. The animation is a strange mixture of traditional cartoon drawings and live action scenes that were painted over, which I found distracting. And the most disappointing thing about this movie is that it breaks off in the middle of the story and was never finished. There are some good points- the battle scenes are exciting to watch, and the dialogue follows the book pretty much to the letter. Watch this one if you're in a hurry and can't spend 10 hours watching the new trilogy. But if you haven't read the book you'll probably be confused, because there is a lot missing from this version. 4 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+While possibly the stupidest, most tasteless, and violent slapstick comedy ever made, Guest House is also a very funny one. Don't listen to the critics, they have no sense of humour. While the climax runs out of steam (but not vomit), it's still a funny party movie. Seven candles in the eye out of ten.$LABEL$ 1
+So it's a little dated now, it's almost 30 yrs old. Amazingly enough I have this on BETA tape and it still plays just fine. If it came to DVD I'd snap it up in a heartbeat.The drug humor is not appreciated nowadays as it was back then. Then it wasn't as 'harmful'. Much like driving without airbags, seat belts and child seats. I can remember my father crying he was laughing so hard watching this. I had coworkers in the 90's who'd seen it and I could bust them up by getting on the intercom and saying "Iiiiiiiivvvvyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy".Great lines, great spoof of the original, and funny to me anyway even three decades later!$LABEL$ 1
+A series of painfully unfunny skits that seem to go on forever and a day. Not as mind-numbingly awful as say "Freddy Got Fingered" or "Lost Reality", but that in NO way is an endorsement in ANY way, sense or form. Features the worst rhyming clown ever. Any most if it isn't offensive to anybody but the most prudish or politically correct. It also has the worst song parody EVER put on film, the WORST Arnold impersonation EVER (not just the worst put on film, literally the worst EVER). I have NO clue why Karen Black, Micheal Clarke Duncan, or Slash would star in this (the reasons I watched this in the first place) The only thing mildly amusing was Dickman. In conclusion I would't recommend this film to ANYONE, but the people who are making it their mission in life to get this in the Bottom 250 on this site are pathetic. Do something notable with you lives people. Plus if it's true the Church of Scientalogy hates him, he can't be ALL bad.My Grade: D$LABEL$ 0
+I cant explain what a load of rubbish this film is. Like really i cant. its just that bad.plot=crap acting=crap budget=so low its laughableJesus, its like the only good thing in this movie is the fact the main character was fairly hot.The only people i feel, that think this movie is good are the ones who took part in the film. I'm sure they are not the ones who funded it because there was no money put into this. (HAHAhaha to the bit where there heads get shaved)This movie has already wasted too much of my life so i am not going to waste anymore time writing my review for it.$LABEL$ 0
+Unlike endemol USA's two other current game shows (Deal Or No Deal and 1 vs. 100), the pacing in this show is way too slow for what is happening on the screen.DOND and 1 vs. 100 can get away with slow pacing because the games can change pace--or end--at any moment. There is risk involved in every action the player takes, the rewards are wildly variable, and it is difficult for the players to leave with a significant amount of money. Suspense is usually put to good use.Show Me The Money, on the other hand, is just too slow-paced. When a question is revealed and it is obvious that the player knows the correct answer, you can rest assured that absolutely nothing exciting will happen in the next few minutes. It would greatly help the pace of this show to reveal the correct answer FIRST, and THEN have the player select a dancer, instead of Shat wasting time talking about what will happen if the player gets an answer wrong when we all know they're right. The random dancing is filler that actually feels like filler. Too much time is wasted while not enough is happening... and the fact that players cannot choose to quit the game early guarantees that there WILL be a lot of time wasted.Oh, and I have NO interest in watching Shat shake his groove thang, especially right after I've eaten dinner.I am a lifelong game show fan, but even I had a lot of trouble sitting through an hour of this. It either needs major changes or early retirement.$LABEL$ 0
+I first encountered this show when I was staying in Japan for six months last year. I found it in the internet when I was looking for sub-titled dramas to help me with my Japanese. My host mother warned me to stay away from it because she thought it was weird, but I found it delightful! Koyuki showed such conflicting character traits and Matsujun's spirit made my day every time I tuned in! I first saw him on "Hana Yori Dango", but I liked him much better in this!Although the characters are interesting and well-developed, I was disappointed to find that they didn't change very much throughout the show. Their relationship grew, but they didn't really. Still, a fun time had by all (Even for Fukushima!).$LABEL$ 1
+Art-house horror tries to use unconventional aesthetics to cover the fact that this is just another serial killer chiller which ultimately relies on pornographic combinations of teen sexuality and violent gore. The suburbs come across about as well as they do in every piece of Australian writing (book or film) since 1960 - surprise surprise, the suburbs have a dark underbelly - and the plot is as contrived as any you've seen. "The neighbours would never know about this guy," one of the filmmakers says about Joel Edgerton's character. "But he was completely plausible as to what he was. Serial killers don't all have patches over their eyes and scars down their cheeks. They look like the guy next door." Another trader in pornographic violence who sees a serial killer in every street. But the real insignificance of this film is in the fact that it's a genre film that nobody saw. Backed by substantial funds (including some from Film Finance - that's government), this got a run at the Underground Film Festival in Melbourne and had to rely on ACMI kindness for a *very* short release season. Q1: What is the FFC doing funding genre flicks, even if they are 'arty' and aesthetically unconventional? Q2: Why are these nasty movies (ACOLYTES; BEAUTIFUL; PUNISHMENT; NO THROUGH ROAD) being made in the first place? Richard Wolstencroft & co encourage their creators to believe they're giving the masses what they really want, as opposed to what the culture elite in government funding think they want. The truth is that these brutal and forgettable nasties earn far more critical acclaim - and win far more obscure awards - than they're due.$LABEL$ 0
+Since watching the trailer in "The Little Mermaid II: Return To The Sea" DVD, I had a feeling that this movie is gonna be great 'cause I am a huge Disney fan. And guess what? I'm right! This movie is a very worthy successor to the original classic "Lady and the Tramp".It tells the story of Scamp, Lady and Tramp's mischievious son Scamp, who wants to be wild and free instead of living a housedog life. Though the movie might not be as good as the first one, it has a great moral that you couldn't find anywhere else until you watch it.I admit that the movie isn't for everyone, but those of you who hate it, all I can say is that you don't have a spirit for this and I suggest that you shouldn't go see it again. But hey! It's really an awesome story, packed with brilliant animation, music, and star-studded voice talents featuring Scott Wolf(Party of Five) and Alyssa Milano(Charmed). So if you haven't seen the movie, why standing there? Go and grab the copy!!!$LABEL$ 1
+This is a pretty pointless remake. Starting with the opening title shots of the original was a real mistake as it reminds the viewer of what a great little period piece chiller that was. The new version that follows is an exercise in redundancy.Brian Kerwin plays a 'city boy' photographer who returns to a semi-abandoned desert town populated by a scattering of underdeveloped clichéd stock characters: the lollipop sucking Daby-Doll Lolita, the 'ornery old coot prospector, the crippled vet and his Asian wife, etc...Kerwin's character witnesses the crashing of 'something' into a hillside and shortly after strange things start to happen as pieces of weird blue rock are scattered around. The temperature starts to rise, all the water in the area vanishes, people start to act weirdly, things explode. Kerwin's character gets in and out of his car more often than is humanly possible in one movie. The film develops no sense of place, no character development, no humour, no tension. Everything that made the Jack Arnold's original a creepy little Cold-war paranoia classic has been abandoned. It just runs through its minimal hoops and then just ends.The special effects aren't very special - the interior of the ship looks like bits of cling film wrapped round some ropes which were then dangled in front of the camera to frame some of the most uninspired and clumsy wire-work ever put onto the screen. The script is repetitive - everyone says everything at least twice, Kerwin gets to say "let's get out of here" at least three times during the movie, twice in one scene. Loads of things are left unexplained at the end - why do the aliens need all the heat and water for example? - not that anyone watching would care; if the film makers didn't care why should we?The acting is adequate - better than the script, which at times, has an under-rehearsed improvisational quality, deserves. Though often the actors look like they just want to get the thing over with as quickly as possible - a notable example of this is when Elizabeth Peña registers the briefest, token moment of "frustrated despair hands to face gesture" before following sulking son Stevie outside to watch him do "angry sulky teenager smashing something off a table" gesture. Continuity errors include the (GB) sticker on the back of Kerwin's jeep appearing and disappearing, a double action of the gas in the exploding car, a towns-person being in two places simultaneously - once in the Alien Stevie's POV shot then immediately afterwards in a reaction shot, Elizabeth Peña appearing to shut a car door twice... you can tell I was gripped can't you? The movie commits that greatest of errors. It's boring.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie frequently extrapolates quantum mechanics to justify nonsensical ideas, capped by such statements like "we all create our own reality".Sorry, folks, reality is what true for all of us, not just the credulous.The idea that "anything's possible" doesn't hold water on closer examination: if anything's possible, contrary things are thus possible and so nothing's possible. This leads to postmodernistic nonsense, which is nothing less than an attempt to denigrate established truths so that all ideas, well-founded and stupid, are equal.To quote sci-fi writer Philip K. Dick, who put it so well, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."$LABEL$ 0
+Years ago, when I was a poor teenager, my best friend and my brother both had a policy that the person picking the movie should pay. And, while I would never pay to see some of the crap they took me to, I couldn't resist a free trip to the movies! That's how I came to see crap like the second Conan movie and NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN! Now, despite this being a wretched movie, it is in places entertaining to watch--in a brain dead sort of way. And, technically the stunts and camera-work are good, so this elevates my rating all the way to a 2! So why is the movie so bad? Well, unlike the first Rambo movie, this one has virtually no plot, Rambo himself only says about 3 words (other than grunts and yells), there is a needless and completely irrelevant and undeveloped "romance" and the movie is one giant (and stupid) special effect. And what STUPIFYINGLY AWFUL special effects. While 12383499143743701 bullets and rockets are shot at Rambo, none have any effect on him and almost every bullet or arrow Rambo shoots hits its mark! And, while the bad guys are using AK-47s, helicopters and rockets, in some scenes all Rambo had is a bow and arrows with what seem like nuclear-powered tips!! The scene where the one bad guy is shooting at him as he slowly and calmly launches one of these exploding arrows is particularly made for dumb viewers! It was wonderfully parodied in UHF starring Weird Al. Plus, HOT SHOTS, PART DEUX also does a funny parody of the genre--not just this stupid scene.All-in-all, a movie so dumb and pointless, it's almost like self-parody!$LABEL$ 0
+Having sat and watched this film I can only wonder at the reasons for creating the film. This was without a doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen and had no redeeming features.If it was supposed to be funny then it might have managed to be a very weak comedy but as an action thriller it was dire.Slow, no plot, no real action, nothing approaching good dialogue and I've no idea about the characters. What else can I say. Avoid.$LABEL$ 0
+Race car drivers say that 100 mph seems fast till you've driven 150, and 150 mph seems fast till you've driven 250.OK.Andalusian Dog seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen Eraserhead, and Eraserhead seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen Begotten.And Begotten seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen the works of C. Frederic Hobbs. Race fans, there is NOTHING in all the world of film like the works of C. Frederic Hobbs.Alabama's Ghost comes as close as any of his films to having a coherent plot, and it only involves hippies, rock concerts, voodoo, ghosts, vampires, robots, magicians, corrupt multinational corporations, elephants and Mystery Gas. And the Fabulous Woodmobile, cruising the Sunset District in San Francisco, of course.What's really startling is that somebody gave him a LOT of money to make Alabama's Ghost. There's sets, lighting, hundreds of extras, costumes, lots and lots of effects. Somehow that makes Alabama's Ghost SO WRONG. You watch some awful cheeseball like Night of Horror or Plutonium Baby, and at least some part of the weirdness is excusable on the basis that they were obviously making the film off the headroom on their Discover cards. But Alabama's Ghost was made with an actual budget, and that's EVIL. I mean, I've got a script about a tribe of cannibals living in Thunder Bay, Ontario, building a secret temple in the woods out of Twizzlers, and nobody's beating down MY door waving a checkbook - how did this guy get the funds for FOUR of the flakiest movies ever made?$LABEL$ 0
+Imagery controls this film. The characters, although interesting, ultimately take a back seat. The first scene I remember is a framed black and white shot of the ocean, that then opens to full screen and color. The bubbling of the water gives way to a small coffin that breaks the surface. The theme of the movie here, being that death can be accepted and brought into the realm of the living.Water as an ultimate consciousness, as a tool of God, is used to here to force people to get their "houses" in order (Judgment Day). The dead have to be accounted for and lifted to a better place. Whatever one has left unresolved or unsettled, will be washed away. There's no clinging on to the past, to a buried memory of what was.This movie has been compared to O, Brother Where Art Thou, and the threat of water and its use as a cleansing force is similar to that film. What's different in this movie is that the coming of the water is knowable and so, again, the emphasis is on what needs to be done with the here and now.I agree that the some of the scenes are reminiscent of a David Lynch work. Take, for example, the dinner segment with the deep-voiced and androgynous waitress. One gets the same surreal feel from the setting and odd character as one does with the backwards talker in the scene from Fire Starter. The difference is that Lynch attacks us with the image to express the psychological processes of a troubled character, whereas this film seems to use surreal elements to create a moral message. The men in black suits can't have anything they want-they must be patient and accept what is available.$LABEL$ 1
+A masterful performance by Jamie Foxx is just one of the highlights of "Ray," a 2004 film also starring Kerry Washington, Regina King, Curtis Armstrong, Richard Schiff, Sharon Warren, Patrick Bachau, and many others, all giving excellent support to the film.The film has several main focuses: the first is Charles' childhood - the drowning of his brother George which haunted him for years, the glaucoma that blinded him, and the strength taught him by his mother - don't bend, don't break, don't ever be a cripple. She eventually sends him to a special school where Charles' gift of music is discovered. The next focus is Charles' artistic evolution as a Nat King Cole-like singer, to his arrangements of gospel music, his foray into country music, and the unique sound that became Ray Charles. The third focus is Charles' personal life - his marriage to Bea, his many affairs, his heroin addiction and eventual rehabilitation.Because Charles lived a packed 74 years, there's a lot skipped. Though Charles was orphaned while in his teens, the death of his beloved mother, his rock, isn't in the film. While he is shown on the chitlin circuit and refusing to play in segregated clubs, his near-starvation as a musician isn't covered. At one point, he found a jar of jelly and attempted to eat it, but the jar broke. He was that down and out. Bea is shown with him when the State of Georgia, which banned him, adopts "Georgia on My Mind" as their theme song in 1979 and welcomes Charles back to his native state, yet he and Bea were divorced in 1977 which isn't mentioned. She probably was there, however. Also, she wasn't his only wife - he was married once before he met her; that marriage isn't covered. In the movie, we're told of one illegitimate child - there were 12. It would have been impossible to get all of that and more into a film.What isn't skipped is his glorious music, which seems to go on constantly throughout the film, continually reinforcing his genius and artistry.Charles' story is compelling and holds the audience's interest throughout. Those who scoff at it as a made-for-TV movie don't give it the credit it deserves. Taylor Hackford's direction gives "Ray" a good pace, and the movie has a lot of atmosphere and evokes the various decades beautifully.As Ray, Jamie Foxx inhabits the character and makes one forget he's a comedian playing a part. Foxx wore prosthetics, did his own piano playing, and spent a great deal of time with Charles preparing for the role. He nails him, but it's not an impersonation - he's a flesh and blood man with hallucinations of standing in water and finding his brother's body; a man full of denial about his addiction, hating the word junkie and believing he's not hooked; and he's in denial about his home life, thinking that his wife doesn't know about his various affairs and illegitimate children (in the movie, child); and a man taken terrible advantage of early in his career because of his blindness who refuses to be walked on later on. He demands to be paid in $1 bills so they can be counted; when he discovers he's a gravy train for a club owner and her partner and was nearly cheated out of a record deal, he makes his own deal and leaves his job.One doesn't so much marvel at Foxx's performance as accept him as Ray from the first time he appears on camera.This is an excellent biography, which, like "Walk the Line" is punctuated with the fantastic music of the artist. Whether or not you're a Ray Charles fan, "Ray" is something to experience.$LABEL$ 1
+I read all these reviews on here about how this is a such a good movie. Jeez, this movie was predictable and pretty boring. The acting was below average most of the time, especially by Mckenna. I haven't seen a more pathetic attempt at making someone "badass" in a movie. Oh man, this movie was a letdown. I also read somewhere this might be a cult classic. I know there are followers of the director, but this movie was just a average piece of film.The script was lame, for the most part the acting was lame, this movie was lame.Oh and pray for the guy that used to be in Cheers. He looks really bad. The best actor in this movie was probably the guy in Office Space, and he was only in this movie for about 8 minutes.4/10$LABEL$ 0
+OMG! The only reason I'm giving this movie a 2 instead of a 1 is because Tom Hanks is funny as an Elvis-in-the-box. Apart from that, how did this halfway decent cast sign on to do such a lame movie?? Maybe it seemed like a good idea at the time... There are no laughs to mention, the stereotypes are pathetic, the cast is wasted, the direction is amateurish. Now that I think about it, most of the blame probably lies with the director, Joel Zwick. He brings out nothing but flat performances from all involved. Don't waste your time like I did; but then, I enjoy a good train wreck. Geez, now the system is telling me I need more lines-- here ya go: This movie should be called Return to Sender. Okay, now THAT was funnier than anything in the movie...$LABEL$ 0
+Sad... really sad. This movie has nothing (hmmm, well maybe Sybil Danning) to keep you watching. It also hurt my eyes to see Linda Blair in this exploitation flick. She certainly deserves better.So what's the story about? Let's see... Warden John Vernon tapes the inmates in rather inspiring positions, while prisoner Sybil actually runs the prison and little Linda must fight to survive... Sounds like a B-movie, huh? It is.$LABEL$ 0
+It's just when a band tours, and only has one original member. It's not the same as the classic line up. All new actors playing the main roles of Rag, Scotty, etc, with Ashby as virtually the only returning face from the first movie. And he was of only minor note of the first flick, serving as the only redeemable group of the three guys that Scotty was trying to assist in meeting females. The film is poorly written, featuring the dumbest dialog this side of Armageddon. Even for a T&A movie, this one is a turkey. Not even die hard low budget 80's films fans would want to sit through this movie, which has no plot, and plenty of bad acting. This film would have been better off never being released. Just plain bad.$LABEL$ 0
+Yes 1939/Robert Donat-Greer Garson version was the best...Perfection..Donat won the Oscar in a very tough year..Gable in GWTW & James Stewart as Mr. Smith. were 2 of his competitors. .wow was that a rough year.. Most critics in NY hated this version. so.didnt see in theatre! Finally saw this A.M. on TCM & enjoyed..Peter O'Toole was excellent & glad he was Oscar nominated for this,,& esp pleased Oscar finally gave him a special award this past year... Petula Clark was good as Mrs. Chips but her character,i feel was poorly written...Some good songs esp. You & I... sung by Ms.Clark & later recorded by many others including T.Bennett/S. Bassey & Carmen MacRae.... the b&w version was more authentic.. but this is a good film beautifully photographed in color & panavision... enjoyable worth seeing & Bravo, again, Mr. O'Toole!$LABEL$ 1
+"Before Sunrise" is a wonderful love story and has to be among my Top 5 favorite movies ever. Dialog and acting are great. I love the characters and their ideas and thoughts. Of course, the romantic Vienna, introduced in the movie does not exist (you won't find a poet sitting by the river in the middle of the night) and it isn't possible to get to all the places in only one night, either (especially if you're a stranger and it's your first night in Vienna). But that's not the point. The relationship of the two characters is much more important and this part of the story is not at all unrealistic. Although, nothing ever really happens, the movie never gets boring. The ending is genuinely sad without being "Titanic" or something. Even if you don't like love stories you should watch this film! I'm a little skeptic about the sequel that is going to be released in summer. The first part is perfect as it is, in my opinion.$LABEL$ 1
+Why on earth does five US keep repeating this one? the title actually says it all: the plot is as clear as a book read in a language you never heard of and that resembles to nothing.You'll see ninety minutes of changing locations, most of them will be blown up later on in the movie. Right in the beginning you see a nice little farm typical for the Berry, which is in the movie moved close to Paris but then it does not survive the "transport" to the Isle de France very well: it explodes 1 minute later. there are also two gangster who have no tongues, as if that would make sense in the world of SMS and internet, let alone pencil and paper.It just goes on like that, nothing makes sense in this story. my only credit goes to the cameraman, the camera is excellent.$LABEL$ 0
+I may be getting ahead of myself here, but although the film itself was a technical masterpiece for its time, I watched it piece-by-piece on TCM last night, the question arises to me: Why did they do that? putting their lives in jeopardy, many of them died on the trek, why would they undertake such a life-endangering journey, just to find food for their animals (!) once they reached the "land of milk and honey", why didn't they just stay there? Would you endanger your life, and that of your entire community, just to find food for a herd of cattle? As dangerous as it was, to do it for that purpose alone, shows the inbred simplicity of these types of people. Risk death for a cow?? Better them than I!$LABEL$ 1
+I don't know why critics cal it bizarre and macabre. I really don't. Dark -yes, bizarre - no. It i s sad and with lots of emotions, specially with the Pinguin's story. They say it has elements of S&M but I really don't find anything of that sort except for Catwoman's whip.This movie is deeper than its genre and villains aren't just some crazy freaks dressed like on a masquerade. They have strong motives with strong feelings involved. Catwoman (a great performance by Michelle Pfeifer!) isn't just a sexy chick who likes steeling jewels - she's on her personal crusade and Pinguin... well, by the end of the movie you really feel sorry for him (strong performance by Danny DeVito). Again, I think Michael Keaton is the best Batman and he carries his costume well.You can totally see that it is a Tim Burton movie, because he has an unusual style and is a very talented guy. But also the music is fantastic and fits the emotions.$LABEL$ 1
+Why was this movie made? Are producers so easily fooled by sadists that they'll give them money to create torture methods such as this so called "film"? I love a bad movie as much as the next masochist, but "Cave Dwellers" is pushing it. It's seriously physically painful to watch. The plot is something about a dude name Ator - a buffed-up numbnuts whom I will refer to as Private Snowball for the rest of this review - who has to fight invisible warriors and rescue a princess in order to beat the bad guy who needs to find a better hair stylist. I might have gotten the plot wrong since it's been a while since I watched this excrement, but really, do you care that much? Oh yeah, Private Snowball also has a mute Asian sidekick (who hasn't?). Who's not funny.Anyway, Private Snowball fights invisible people, visits some caves, all in the name of a good king so personality-free he makes Al Gore look like Jim Carrey. Then Private Snowball builds a hang-glider (yes, I'm serious) and gets the girl. Yippie-kee-yay. It's cheap, unintentionally silly, and mind-numbingly dull. Why am I not surprised that the director ended up making porn?Bottom line: AVOID. Ator will steal a part of your life and you will have no funny "so-bad-they're-good" catchphrases to take with you from the experience. Bad Ator! BAD! Aak! *gags*$LABEL$ 0
+Roger Corman is undeniably one of the most versatile and unpredictable directors/producers in history. He was single-handedly responsible for some of my favorite horror films ever (like the Edgar Allen Poe adaptations "Masque of the Red Death" and "Pit and the Pendulum") as well as some insufferably cheap and tacky rubbish quickies (like "Creature from the Haunted Sea" and "She Gods of the Shark Reef"). Corman also made a couple of movies that are simply unclassifiable and – simply put – nearly impossible to judge properly. "The Trip", for example, as well as this imaginatively titled "Gas-s-s-s" can somewhat be labeled as psychedelic exploitation. In other words, they're incredibly strange hippie-culture influenced movies. Half of the time you haven't got the slightest idea what's going on, who these characters are that walk back and forth through the screen and where the hell this whole thing is going. The plot is simply and yet highly effective: a strange but deadly nerve gas is accidentally unleashed and promptly annihilates that the entire world population over the age of 25. This *could* be the basic premise of an atmospheric, gritty and nail-bitingly suspenseful post-apocalyptic Sci-Fi landmark, but writer George Armitage and Roger Corman decided to turn it into a "trippy" road-movie comedy. None of the characters is even trying to prevent their inevitable upcoming deaths; they just party out in the streets and found little juvenile crime syndicates. "Gas-s-s-s" is a disappointingly boring and tries overly hard to be bizarre. The entire script appears to be improvised at the spot and not at all funny. Definitely not my cup of tea, but the film does have a loyal fan base and many admirers, so who am I to say that it's not worth your time or money?$LABEL$ 0
+So Udo Kier earned like nine bucks and free food for this so that is a victory in and of itself. More importantly this movie tells a very interesting tale about a group of salvage guys coming across the broken down Demeter. I should warn you, i'm gunna bounce around through this review real quick so buckle up. First thing's first. Coolio plays a guy named 187. 187 likes drugs. 187 finds a bunch of caskets on board and... now i don't know anything about the future but maybe they smuggle drugs in caskets. Not gunna say that was the craziest thing in this movie. Later on the vampire gets out of his mist filled coffin and then the real hilarity begins. First, although this movie has the word Dracula in it he is actually not in this movie. I have a theory though. Out of the blue you see the salvage crew's ship leave without them. My theory is that Dracula was on board with his retarded brother Orlock. Dracula told Orlock he'll be right back. Dracula got the hell out of this movie before he could be seen leaving Orlock to play the vampire for the six or so minutes he is in the movie. The best part of this film, and for those of you that have seen this you know what i'm gunna say, is after 187 gets sired, embraced whatever. He has this huge monologue about ejaculating on various parts of erika Elaniak's body and... other super cool stuff. Coolio, seriously you are the best thing EVER. Some other stuff happens in this movie too. Like Casper Van Dean gets some work. Orlock screams a lot and loses his arm and then we kinda lose track of him FOR THE REST OF THE MOVIE. And thank god really. We find out Erika's character is a police bot. As the movie comes to a close we find out that the ship is on a course to ram into the sun. The police bot and one other surviving character are doomed. Rather then avoid certain death Erika's police bot reveals she's also a whore bot and they decide to screw each other and die. Before they die in the sun they die for no reason, yep that's right... their ship blows up for no real reason. This movie got the amazing rating for one reason, Coolio. My god, if they gave academy awards to black rappers then he'd be the first to get one. The only reason this didn't get a perfect ten is because there was not a drop of nudity. Now i know what your thinking, how can you judge a film by whether ladies show their goods or not. Well easy. A movie like this pretty much requires it. Its part of the process. Gore, gore, monsters, nudity, gore, end of movie final shock at the end. Its the formula. This had some gore, the monster was awesome because he sucked so hard he actually did us the favor of staying off camera. That was considerate of him and i respect that. Nudity, not a drop even though there was a length conversation about... well see the above statement and as for the shock/twist... i certainly didn't see the end coming. That counts. I hope Hollywood doesn't think Coolio gave this film his all and has nothing left. He deserves more work. Well, until Dracula 4000, i'm out.$LABEL$ 1
+A surprisingly great cartoon in the same league as Batman:TAS and its ilk, I enjoyed it in my youth and recently had been able to watch them all again, great voice acting from Tim Curry, Richard Moll, Tony Jay, and Maurice LaMarche in various roles. The only qualm I had was Rob Paulsons voice seemed a little too old for the title character, but that wasn't a big deal as the stories were great, and the fact that the whole thing has a great time loop twist ending. Some people say it was a cop-out, but I found it refreshing compared to many series that just leave things hanging. Hopefully one day they put this series out on DVD, unfortunately it came out at a time when DVD's weren't yet prevalent and the cartoon probably only served to sell a particular type of toy, which I never found appealing despite the entertaining cartoon.$LABEL$ 1
+Now, I'm no film critic, but I truly hated "September 11". This film was, on a general basis, bad. With the exception of Alejandro González Iñárritu's segment, which was the most effective and direct about the subject matter, the short films were at best boring, and at worst offensive. The worst in my mind was Youssef Chahine's pretentious segment in which he compared Palestinian suicide bombers to American soldiers, even going so far as to suggest the suicide bombers were fighting for a greater cause. The segment was completely off topic and, considering Chahine's seeming lack of any decency whatsoever, a waste of my time and patience. The idea of getting eleven different directors from different countries to make a movie featuring their views on a tragedy was good on paper, but in practice, it was tasteless.$LABEL$ 0
+This film is amazing and I would recommend to child and adult alike. The animation is beautiful, the characters are rich and interesting, and the story is captivating; far better than anything the American studios were producing at the time. However, there is a couple of caveats to this statement. It's a shame that Disney bought the Studio Ghibli back-catalogue and then proceeded to butcher it. My main point being, Disney re-dubbed the film, despite the original English version being very impressive. The new cast with Van Der Beek et al ruined it and took away much of the attractiveness of the characters e.g. Pazu and Sheeta went from adventurous companions to whiny teenagers. The Original music score is also far better than the Disney remix. It begs the question why did Disney make such changes? It seems to me is that by having Van Der Beek et al being cast then Disney can draw in more money, which is fair enough, but in the process they tainted they film. It is still a beautiful film and I would still recommend it to anyone. My main beef is that Disney ruined a film from childhood which I loved and still love. I am lucky enough to have an original Japanese import with the original English dub which I am now going to guard with my life!$LABEL$ 1
+If you go see this movie you'll be holding a grudge against the movie theatre, the director, the producer, the actors and the person that told you to go see it! Shame on you, Sarah Michelle Geller, for putting your name and face to this poor excuse of a movie. It may have been more scary if the Japanese actors would have just spoken in Japanese instead of attempting to 'act' in English. I wanted to boo when the movie ended...a true disappointment after all of the hype on TV and movie trailers promoting this lame money maker. Sarah Michelle really didn't have to act at all to make this movie...she just practiced her frowning skills. Don't waste your time or money on this film.$LABEL$ 0
+The Cheesiest movie I've ever seen, Not scary, just bad. 1st movie made by the WWE, and trust me,the only person this movie might appeal to is wrestling fans. It has terrible acting and The worst directing I've seen yet.I Found myself laughing at the storyline, and bad actors. I saw that the WWE people tried really hard to Put a lot of the wrestling moves in the kills, and Several camera effects. I think they copied a lot from silent Hill. This movie's not engaging either, so If you do see it, you're gonna find yourself tuning out because of it's lack of Suspense. The ending's the worst, No matter what, you'll come out wanting your money back$LABEL$ 0
+I love this movie and I recommend it to anybody.Damian Chapa and Jennifer Tilly played their roles perfectly.Just the characters alone pull you in to the movie.The directing was also magnificent.The most creative shots I've ever seen.I was stuck to the screen throughout the whole movie,not one scene was slow.The movie also has a lot of action packed scenes,cars blowing up,etc.The movie is just an all around masterpiece. If you like real entertaining movies then watch this because you'll be on the edge of your seat the whole time.I put this movie on my top ten all time list,because there is never a dull moment in the movie,and that is my type of movie.2 thumbs up,all the way up!!!!!!!!!$LABEL$ 1
+Thought I just might get a few laughs from this long drawn out film, but was sadly disappointed. This film is all about losers who spend most of their time trying to get a passing grade with out even trying to open a book or accomplish anything. The film also portrayed teachers and the principal, Mary Tyler Moore (Mrs. Stark),"Labor Pains",2000 as complete idiots. I know this was suppose to be a comedy, but it never made me laugh and I thought the entire film was a COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME! However, all the actors gave excellent performances and had the hard task of trying to make this film an enjoyable and entertaining FILM! Just plain studying and getting good grades for college is the only way to GO!$LABEL$ 0
+Danny Boyle was not the first person to realise that zombies can run like the clappers. That honour belongs to Lifeforce, which is, of course, the greatest naked space vampire zombies from Halley's Comet running amok in London end-of-the-world movie ever made. Tobe Hooper may have made a lot of crap, but for this deliriously demented epic sci-fi horror he deserves a place among the immortals. Plus it offers space vampire Mathilda May, the best thing to come out of France since Simone Simon, spending the entire movie naked. Which she does very, very well. Just bear in mind that while she is the most overwhelmingly feminine presence anyone on Earth has ever encountered, she's also "totally alien to this planet and our life form and totally dangerous." It's a pitch meeting I'd have loved to have sat in on: Astronauts from the British space program find three naked humanoid alien life forms inside a giant 150-mile long artichoke/umbrella shaped spaceship hidden in the tail of Halley's Comet filled with giant desiccated bats and bring them back to Earth with near apocalyptic results as they proceed to drain the population of London of their lifeforce amid much nudity, whirlpools of thunder and spit your coffee across the room direlogue ("I've been in space for six months, and she looks perfect to me." "Assume we know nothing, which is understating the matter." "Don't worry, a naked woman is not going to get out of this complex."). Oh, and we'll get the writers of Alien and Blue Thunder to write it with uncredited rewrites by the writer of Mark of the Devil, The Sex Thief and Eskimo Nell and the director of The Jonestown Monster. Sounds like a winner, here's $22m – have fun. And they do, they do.True, there's enough promise in the raw material to have made something genuinely creepy and thought-provoking (at a time when AIDS hysteria was approaching its height, a sexually transmitted 'plague' offers ample opportunity for allegory), but in the hands of the Go-Go boys at Cannon, what could have been another Quatermass and the Pit quickly turns instead to be more Plan 10 From Outer Space. It's full-to-bursting with delirious inanity, be it Frank Finlay's hilarious death scene ("Here I go!"), Peter Firth's grand entrance ("I'm Colonel Caine." "From the SAS?" discreetly shouts Michael Gothard across a room full of reporters: "Gentlemen, that last remark was not for publication. This is a D-Notice situation" he replies to the surprisingly obliging pressmen), the security guards offering Mathilda May's naked space vampire a nice biscuit to stop her escaping, reanimated bodies exploding into dust all over people, the sweaty Prime Minister sucking the life out of his secretary and London filling up with zombie nuns, stockbrokers and joggers as the city gets its most comprehensive on screen trashing since Mrs Gorgo lost junior at Battersea Funfair and went on the rampage. And that's not mentioning the "This woman is a masochist! An extreme masochist!" scene or the great stereophonic echo effect on the male vampire's "It'll be a lot less terrifying if you just come to me" line while a lead-stake wielding Peter Firth adopts his best Action Man voice to reply "I'll do just that!" In one scene alone you have a possessed Patrick Stewart embodying the female in our deeply confused astronaut hero's mind, Steve "I-never-got-over-playing-Charlie-Manson" Railsback and his amazing dancing eyebrows in full-on "Helta-Skelta!" mode trying to resist the temptation to kiss him, the inimitable Aubrey Morris (the only man who makes Freddie Jones look restrained) playing the Home Secretary Sir Percy Heseltine as a kind of demented Brian Rix, Peter Firth (one of those actors who always looks like he must have been a Doctor Who around the time no-one was watching it anymore) hamming up the blasé public school macho in the hope that no-one will ever see it and the peerless reaction shots of John Hallam as the male nurse who keeps on opening the door mid-psychic-tornado to bring in more drugs. As if they needed any more in this film. It's just a shame that Frank Finlay's mad-haired scientist who isn't qualified to certify death on alien life forms (a role originally intended for Klaus Kinski) missed out on the action in that one.No matter how mad you think the film is, it still manages to get madder still, whether it be a zombie pathologist ("He too needs feeding") exploding all over the Home secretary's suit, Patrick Stewart's blood and entrails forming a naked Mathilda May or the space vampires turning St Paul's Cathedral into the world's biggest laser-show to transport human souls from the London Underground to their geostationary mother ship. I loved every gloriously insane moment. In it's own truly unique way, this might be the greatest film ever made.The DVD offers the original 116-minute version that opened in the UK rather than the heavily edited 101-minute US version, which not only offers much more hilarity for your dollar, but also fully restores Henry Mancini's score to its original glory (the US version covered a lot of the gaps with additional cues by Michael Kamen and James Guthrie). Although a somewhat surprising choice at first sight, Mancini cut his teeth on many of the classic Universal sci-fi horrors of the 50s and his score is quite superb, with a terrific driving main title that offers a rare reminder of just how interesting he could be away from Blake Edwards. Sadly there's no more than a trailer by way of extras, though it would be nice to hope some day for a special edition with some of the deleted scenes from Hooper's originally intended 128-minute cut: from what's on display here, these might just offer even more comedy gold!$LABEL$ 1
+can someone please help me i missed the last view moments and i don't want to pay money to see the whole film again. i got to just where they are in the train carriage and she says 'what about that drink now?' and smiles. what happens after that? is there anymore dialogue or action? surely it doesn't just end there? i was a bit bored in the film and kept hoping it would get better. i love Kristen Scott Thomas does anyone remember the UK TV series she was in about some nuns? i am wanting to know the name. Sean Penn was brilliant Madonna eat your heart out! everybody else in fact the film a bit predictable, it was a 'spot a star cast'. the ending took me by surprise i really thought she had burnt her boats.....if you are a fan of any of the stars its worth watching.$LABEL$ 0
+The movie eXistenZ is about a futuristic video game on a "pod" system that is almost like virtual reality. The only copy of the video game is damaged when an assassination attempt is made on the designer (Jennifer Jason Leigh). Unless it can be repaired, the many years and 38 million dollars spent on the development will all go to waste. The only way to repair the game however, is to actually go in the game with the only person she feels she can trust(Jude Law). This movie was pretty good, but doesn't really pick up until very late in the film. The best thing about this film were the twists toward the end. Definitely worth seeing. 7/10$LABEL$ 1
+OK, let's start with the good: nice scenery, Channing Tatum is easy to look at, Amanda Seyfried has nice hair, that's about it. How much of this movie went on the editing room floor? Probably the plot, action, good dialogue, and point. Terrible acting, horrible choppy dialogue. Let me tell you how bad it is: my friend who always cries at movies got to the part that was meant to evoke tears, and she laughed so hard we thought she was crying! The movie seems to want to take a stab at too many issues- war, loss, autism, cancer, but fails so miserably to cover any one topic satisfactorily. Make sure you have something to munch on and your cell phone to return text messages!$LABEL$ 0
+I enjoyed two of the three movies in the "Sarah, Plain & Tall" trilogy. This, the final of the three, was definitely one of the "good ones. " It is an excellent family film with wonderful acting by the three adult stars: Christopher Walken, Glenn Close and Jack Palance. The storyline is simple but well-told. The only sub-par performance was by one of the kids. It was interesting to see how the kids had grown since that first movie. Of the three, that initial "Sarah," was the best- filmed with some beautiful cinematography. This movie didn't have that, but it had the best story. It had some genuinely-tearful sentimental moments and a very nice ending. Highly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+Elizabeth Ashley is receiving phone calls from her nephew Michael--he's crying, screaming and asking for help. The problem is Michael died 15 years ago. This film scared me silly back in 1972 when it aired on ABC. Seeing it again, years later, it STILL works.The movie is a little slow and predictable, the deaths are very tame and there's a tacked-on happy ending, but this IS a TV movie so you have to give it room. Elizabeth Ashley is excellent, Ben Gazzara is OK and it's fun to see Michael Douglas so young. And those telephone calls still scare the living daylights out of me. I actually had to turn a light on during one of them!A creepy little TV movie. Worth seeing.$LABEL$ 1
+The storyline has too many flaws and illogical sequences to be worthwhile. Jolie's acting is pretty flat and poor, Washington's is OK, the rest of the cast are cardboard cutouts. Somehow almost everything about this film oozes mediocrity. The plot is lame. The only thing I liked more or less about this film are the fairly original methods the perpetrator uses to end his victims. Technical details are worse than the most far-stretched CSI 'knowledge' and gizmos and halfway the movie one wonders if the director even cared about detail credibility. (Some Spoilers hereafter!) I mean, an EKG machine with a pure sinus wave reflecting a man's heartbeat, a quadriplegic with full body muscle spasms and one working index finger, sure. A killer gutting a man's bowels whilst keeping him alive to allow the rats to feast on him followed by a rat aiming for the guy's FACE! What's with all that stupidity? Then there are quite a few continuity goofs, but you can find those elsewhere here on IMDb Honestly I found it a bit of an insult even to my limited intelligence.Waste of time. Still 4 out of 10 to keep my girlfriend from kicking me.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is such a fine example of the greatness that is 80's entertainment. Oh don't get me wrong, most of the music back then sucked. I only ever liked the metal bands from the 80s. Bands that had some balls. Forget that whiny keyboard crap and all that 'life is horrible and I want to die' garbage. But the movies from the 80's are the best. They were all about nonsense and just having a good time. This movie exemplifies that! Party! Get naked! Get laid! WOOOOOOHOOOOO!$LABEL$ 1
+I just finished viewing this finely conceived, and beautifully acted/directed movie. It was nip and tuck as to whether I was going to waste my time viewing a movie on the Lifetime Movie Network because of the horribly distracting commercials. Reading the earlier comments persuaded me to give it a shot. After all the worst that could happen would be that I might fall asleep during one of the boring yet lengthy bug spray ads. So why did I watch it? mainly because when IMDB gives a movie a "WEIGHTED AVERAGE" OF 5.8 WHO'S STATISTICAL AVERAGE was 7.3 It must be a sure hit.I was totally delighted to have taken the time to view this movie, commercial pox and all. Helen Hunt continues to amaze me with her ability to take on tough roles adapting her core persona to fit each role.The portrait she painted in this film of the tough yet perceptively human police officer was beautifully executed. When the scene calls for quick witted, timely delivered verbal intercourse, she can stand toe to toe with any actor. Yet she is adept at the delivery of volumes of emotional response without uttering a word relying only on facial expression and body language. Without the commercials, which by design kill the continuity of any good film, This would have been a real edge-of-the-seat nail-biter. I gave it a 9.0$LABEL$ 1
+I have to be honest, i was expecting a failure so bad, because it really did sound like they were trying to milk the original movie to get money. But that wasn't the case with this pretty funny (sometimes odd) movie. I loved how they told the story of Timon and Pumba, the story with Simba and him having trouble sleeping was funny. The jacuzzi bubble, and when Pumba leaves, the bubbles stop. It's all harmless fun, good for kids and some adults. I think this movie will last for a while because it is rather good for a straight to Video and DVD movie. While the movie does seem a little odd and kind of trails off toward the end, it works. 8 out of 10$LABEL$ 1
+I am ashamed to have this movie in my collection. The most redeeming factor to owning the DVD is the short film in the bonus features. My vote for this movie is a big fat ZERO. Don't misunderstand, I'm a horror girl. but i want some meat behind the story, not to mention i prefer the evil to happen to humans, not to be tricked in to watching, what seemed like forever, clips of animal snuff. Acts of brutality interrupt achingly long silence and poor acting. If i was forced to make a comparison to another film, the only one that comes to mind is Cannibal Holocaust. Bad, boring, pointless and a wholly uncomfortable watch.$LABEL$ 0
+Goof: Factual errorWhen Charlie walks out of the room to commit suicide he takes his gun with a silencer. After a few seconds we hear a loud bang from the same gun being fired.$LABEL$ 1
+David Dhawan copied HITCH and such an unofficial copy The film isn't even 1/2 as funny or amusing as the original it's boring with forced stories like the Lara track of having a child and no hubby Plus there is an unwanted stupid Chota DON and David tries to choke drama too but the film looks disjointed, boringSongs just pop in, so does romance and everything barring some funny Govinda scenes, the dance before interval nothing else is worth mentioning The last few scenes are quite funny but there tend to get too longDavid's direction is as bad as MAINE PYAAR KYUN KIYAA, he needs to change his style or attempt something good Music is saving grace, some songs are good but the situations seem forcedGovinda looks overweight and seems too loud and screams his lines in initial reels but he gets into the groove and gives his best in the office and the scene with Salman in his cabin and towards the endSalman just plays himself and his nasal tone plus his fake style of acting is a headacheLara is avoidable, Katrina is fake as usualThe kid overacts$LABEL$ 0
+Don't be fooled by the plot out-line as it is described on the cover (at least the Swedish version). The story on this seems rather interesting, with speculative hints. Nothing can be further from the truth. This is the absolute most sad movie experience I've ever had... It is plain and right AWFUL and should not be sold or rented to anyone. If you still think the plot seems intriguing, reflect on this: telephones can move, run and kill people as can also any other electric appliance. It can throw things at you, haunt you and run after you. PLEASE DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE it is a disgrace for the horror genre...$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this on Mystery Science Theater 3000, and even that show couldn't really make this movie bearable. I could make a better movie with a broken camcorder and action figures. Of course, you expect terrible special effects with a movie this old, but I've seen silents that were better. The storyline has enormous gaps that leave you trying to figure out why they are even at certain scenes. The cameraman apparently doesn't know what a tripod is, and had too much coffee, or something harder maybe, because the camera is ALWAYS shaking around. I couldn't even follow the plot, but suffice it to say, this is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen in my life.UPDATE: I saw "Epic Movie" a while back and have decided to give this movie a 2. It's NOT the worst movie I've ever seen anymore!$LABEL$ 0
+An art teacher comes across an antique wooden bed made from gingko trees and puts it in his apartment, but it has a terrible history and he becomes hunted by a ancient spirit who sustains his human form by ripping the hearts out of people.This beautifully crafted horror… well, actually it's more fantasy/romance than anything else does raise some chills and provide some stunning visuals, but the plot was hardly interesting enough and the formulaic script lacked any sort of life. Problem was that I spent most of the time trying to keep my finger away from the fast forward button. It sure would have sped up the film's slow pacing, but then again I wouldn't know about too much that was going on, which was reasonably hard to figure out or keep interest in the first place. The performances ranged from too melodramatic or just plain dull, and that's probably because these characters are unconvincing, stale and coma inducing. The actual back-story of the old bed and the spirits is incredibly boring and messily put together, with too much focus on a flimsy romance, being laughable when it shouldn't be and overall it's constructed in an ordinary manner that just lacks the oomph or conviction to carry the film. What compensates for the story's shortcomings are really arty images, which looked grand, but the use of some images had me somewhat dumbfounded to what they actually mean towards the film. What catches your eye is the faded colour scheme, but sometimes the actual screen would look real grainy, or snowy. Although, from that it shows the raw intensity of the production valves, but also add some nice polished effects that goes well with the soothing but sometimes edgy score. The camera work was pretty diverse (although it didn't add too much to the feature), but during some of the more upbeat scenes there were too many close ups or dark lighting which made it hard to understand what you are seeing. Also on show are some nice moments of blood and gore, but not overtly grand or distinguishable from most other films.Lethargically odd film, with luminous images that look like something out of a painting, but still it isn't particularly enticing. Watch out, it might put you in a deep trance!$LABEL$ 0
+If you watched this movie you know why I said "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus". Hehehe!!! Every time they said "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus"... I laughed thinking "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, why did I rent this movie"? I cannot believe how Oscar winners like Freeman and Spacey appeared here in the background while Timberlake and LL Cool J grabbed the screen. WTF is Timberlake? Dreaful acting! I think someone like Joshua Jackson could have done a much better job! This job was perfect for Joshua Jackson and believe me I am not a big fun of him... but I really prefer an actor, not this android called Timberlake. And his girlfriend was shallow, hollow and annoying as hell. I was happy when they both were popped in the street.The story was OK and I think Dylan Mc Dermott did his bad guy role very well. The movie was entertaining but I think Timberlake ruined it all. It would have been much enjoyable without him.By the way, the music was OK, but suddenly every time the music appeared the movie turned into a MTV video clip with flashes, low motion and things like that. Something misplaced for this cops movie I thought. Maybe they wanted to make a MTV video clip for Timberlake.$LABEL$ 0
+I want to start my review by thanking the makers of this documentary, it is obviously a labor of love and I think they did a pretty good job of putting together an enjoyable documentary about a person who has had so such little info available about him. It definitely has a fan worship feel about it, which is a good thing.I had heard of Bruce Haack but didn't know much about him, and I found the start of this documentary frustrating because I could hear other musicians talk about him, but Bruce Haack himself was kept way too far off in the distance. I wanted to see this Bruce Haack guy!! I felt as though the makers assumed I already knew him as well as these musicians on the screen which I didn't, so I felt a bit left in the dark.When Bruce was finally shown in action it was great and gave me a taste of who Bruce Haack was, but it was only a taste. We got treated to more musicians and I felt as though I was being told "Look - all these cool musicians are into him, so he must be cool!" I didn't really care much for the musician's commentary on Bruce.I wanted to see Bruce, as a person. You know, the important stuff - more interviews with people who worked with him or knew him. More about his life, and yes, his use of drugs and other issues. I would of liked to know so much more about his "Hackula" project. I wanted to get inside his mind. Even if they did this via some "voice of god" commentary and photos it would of been OK.The animations were good, but again I felt these were used as filler, they didn't really do anything other than allow me to hear his music and see some imagery based on the Dimension 5 records. I did think it was clever and creative, but again... I wanted to learn more about Bruce! Maybe Bruce Haack was this elusive in real life?Anyway - in the end I enjoyed this documentary and felt a sort of sadness that such amazing pioneers and geniuses such as Mr. Haack get forgotten as the march of time stamps ever onwards. I am glad that this film is around to educate people about Bruce Haack, even with its flaws.$LABEL$ 1
+Words cannot begin to describe how blandly terrible this movie is. I wish it were "so bad it's good," but it's not. It's just dull, lifeless, and boring. It's so bad I couldn't even laugh at it.In response to other posters, Anne-Marie Frigon is not the highlight of the movie. The only person less charismatic is the director Brett Kelly, who as a true statement on vanity, cast himself as the male lead. They both look like inbreeds, sister and brother.The gal, Sherry Thurig, is a looker. The complete opposite of Anne-Marie - attractive. This girl is tall and willowy, and can act. Although you can tell she's holding back.All the actors seem to be holding back, especially the supporting male, Mark. I've seen less wood in a rain forest, but he's still better than Kelly. Why would Kelly keep his actors from acting? Is he really that bad a director? Everyone else has summed the story up perfectly - there isn't one. Kids are kidnapped and Kelly steps in poo to solve the crime. I know how he felt stepping in the poo, it's how I felt after watching his movie.Yes, I tried to get my money back from the rental store. This is a home movie best left to be seen by the friends of the director (and if you search them out, you'll see those same friends were the one who gave the movie positive marks).$LABEL$ 0
+I read the book and the book was fascinating.This movie, it's direction, the screenplay, and the acting were totally insufferable. I cringed at the lack of a screenplay that could not follow the novel, a novel that has all the action, simplicity, and courage to illustrate a temerity of a great possibly fact based story.I can see why this movie was not released to the general public in most cities. Would not ever recommend this film to anyone I know. Simply, one of he worst adaptations I have seen transformed into a plot less exploration of heaven on earth.The cinematography was indeed the only highlight. But, how could that fail when filmed in an beautiful country such as Peru. To prospective viewers, do not waste your time or energy on this flop.$LABEL$ 0
+The pace of the film is ponderously slow in parts, but if you can tune into its languid speed and lengthy silences then it is a satisfying piece of courtly intrigue. The story of the first Emperor of China, his childhood sweetheart and the personal cost of power. The film is very atmospheric, the extremely mannered and polite courtly ceremony and ritual contrasted with sudden brutal violence. Filmed in a way that evokes shadows and cold spaces. Battle scenes are rare and short, the focus is on the battle within the individual on what is right to do and whether the ends justify the means. The emperor's journey from idealistic peacemaker to ruthless tyrant is aiming to be subtle, but gives little background or convincing insight into the motivation of the Emperor, indeed his actions and aims do not really change throughout, only Gong Li's attitudes to him are altered. The most interesting performances are Gong Li's and the titular Assassin as they reassess when to fight, when to retreat, when to kill. The most expensive film ever made in China at the time, the Emperor and the Assassin does not rely on hysteric emotion or big battles, but rather a brooding atmosphere of menace and inevitability. Gong Li fans will be unsurprised to hear she is as stunningly beautiful as ever, giving an understated performance.$LABEL$ 1
+i would have to say that this is the first quality romantic-comedy i have ever seen. it had depth and although you knew from the beginning who was going to end up together there was still longing and anticipation. the thought that maybe they won't get together... it is an indie film after all. this movie was well written, directed and acted. the dancing on the side of the road scene was magnificent.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm glad Cage changed his name from Coppolla and got this part on his own. Light-hearted, no deep thought needed, but a cute piece about opposites attracting- though her parents are still hippies.... Captures the voice of the early 80's- the whine of the valley and the funk of the other side. One can see the beginning of Cage's talent.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie comes down like a square peg in a square hole. A poorly made peg. A peg so cheap it couldn't even be produced in a sweatshop assembly line in Chinatown, Mexico. In fact, when you try to press the peg into the hole for which it is obviously designed, it crumbles into sticky, disgusting pieces that smell like rotting fruit and won't wash off. Quigly is such a peg.This movie is so mind-bendingly awful, it couldn't have even been created. A movie like this must have been the result of some accident of nature; some freakish entity that congealed in the corner of a dank office somewhere and festered and grew until it was too big and terrifying to look at. Only science would be interested in such a thing; anyone not bent on studying it would exhume it from this world.What it comes down to is this: if you're the kind to enjoy first year violin recitals, racism, or Coke Zero, it might just be your birthday.$LABEL$ 0
+Come on. Anyone who doesn't understand the greatness of this here cartoon should be kicked off any critic's panel. They should not be allowed to be heard, because they obviously have no sense of humor whatsoever. Anyone who does not love this here animated cartoon directed by Tex Avery should be chained to a chair and forced to watch "Huckleberry Hound" episodes for 20 years straight! The takes and double-takes by the Wolf in this cartoon are the finest examples of this important past of comedy that have ever been captured on film. Tex Avery should receive a posthumous Academy Award for this cartoon. It's the best.$LABEL$ 1
+First off, I just watched a movie on SHOWTIME called Survival Island. It says it was a 2006 movie with Billy Zane and since I like him and couldn't sleep I thought I would check it out. Looked interesting. Watched it, and decided to look up on the IMDb who was this new face Juan Pablo Di Pace and OMG I could not believe it, this movie has been renamed THREE and will be a new movie?? It is playing again in 1 hr and 30 mins on Showtime Channel again and this date is May 28 and EDT or Florida time. You can check your showtime listings by title and see it. I wont get into details so you can see the movie but at one point there is a lady in a white bikini that goes into the water taking it all off, you see her naked body.... when she runs back out of the water you see her bottoms on. Funny, there are a lot of other mess ups too. I can't believe by coincidence I decided to look up this movie... Go figure! Wonder if the people renaming it sold it to some movie studio to put out but it is already playing on Showtime, ha ha. Good laugh. I give it 1-1/2 stars. C-, D+ movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Let's face it, a truly awful movie, no...I mean a "truly" awful movie, is a rare, strange, and beautiful thing to behold. I admite that there is a special place in my heart for films like Plan 9 From Outer Space, Half Caste, Species, etc. And although I'm giving this film a 1, I highly urge anyone who enjoys a bad film for what it truly is (a bad film) to find a friend, snacks, something to drink, and make the special occasion it deserves out of: Aussie Park Boyz. From the very first moments of the lead actor's side to side eye-rolling performance as he attempts to inject intensity directly into the film without ever looking at a camera (a slice of ham straight out of silent pictures--eat your heart out Rudolph Valentino) to the sudden hey-we're-out-of-film conclusion, you...will...not...stop...laughing. To sum the film up, its a poor man's Warriors down under, complete--and that description alone should be enough, but then comes the wonders of "the spaghetti eating scene", "the 'We've got their tickets; they won't be leaving town now' scene", "It's the Asians! Run!!" and more. The only truly objectionable part is a gratuitously filmed rape. Outside of this, I dare you to watch this film. And I dare you to find evidence of acting, or lines, or direction, or any of those other boring and superfluous elements that so-called critics say a film needs to be judged as good. If this movie doesn't cause fits of uncontrollable laughter before it ends, all I can do is roll my eyes menacingly from side to side at you and shout, "You dog! You dog! You dog!"$LABEL$ 0
+This is an excellent film for female body-builder & female action fans! I think that Sue Price did a great job in this film series (Nemesis 2,3,4) and proved to be a great fighter. She has a very striking appearance and a will of iron to resist the powerful Nebula (Nemesis 2). Though not a film of great value and Sue Price's acting skills not the best to have met in my life, the movie itself was something awesome, a priceless gem for fans of female body-builder action! Well, some parts of Nemesis 2 have been copied by other famous sci-fi films, such as Terminator or Predator, but that's not the point. The point is that A.Puyn casted in that film a very talented body-builder who put all of her energy and body talent to show us the best she can do. I really enjoyed that film and watched with the same enthusiasm Nemesis 3 (a rather boring sequel) and Nemesis 4 (a much more interesting sequel than 3). What a pity it hasn't shown yet on DVD :-($LABEL$ 1
+The first of the official Ghibli films, Laputa is most similar to its predecessor Nausicaa, but whereas Nausicaa was a SF epic, this is more of an action comedy-adventure with a fairly weak SF premise.For the first half hour of the movie I thought I was going to love it. Once again you find yourself in awe of Miyazaki's attention to detail, and his ability to conjure up an imaginary world in meticulous, beautiful perfection. The animation, though still not in the league of the later Ghibli films, is a little better than in Nausicaa.I mentioned in my review of Nausicaa that one character is drawn in a more 'Lupinesque' anime style. Here there are a whole bunch of them: the pirates. They provide the comic element in the film, though quite why it needs a comic element I'm not sure. There was nothing funny about Nausicaa, and I think it was better off for it. Still. having said that, Dola, the pirate leader, is easily the most memorable character in the film (even if she's basically a female Long John Silver. Don't be surprised if you're reminded of 'Treasure Planet' at times) and is well voiced by Cloris Leachman in the American dub.The English voice cast acquit themselves well for the most part, actually. However something started going pear-shaped for me about this movie by about the halfway mark. I think the best way that I could describe it is that the characters get swallowed up by the vast scope of the story. I'll come back to that later.There is so much to admire about Laputa, and so many people obviously love it, that I almost feel mean for only giving it 8 out of 10, but for me the operative word here is 'admire'. It was more impressive than personally affecting, and at over two hours it just started to drag.The crucial thing for me was this: I really found that I didn't care much about any of the characters. Disney would have taken the care to develop the characters, make you really fall for them, rather than leave them as relatively two-dimensional pieces to be moved around while you gawked at the amazing vistas in the movie. Even that would have been tolerable if there was some hard SF in the story to make up for it, but it was basically a lot of gobledegook about Princesses and magic crystals. That's where Laputa falls down as far as I'm concerned, and that's what holds it back from being a potential 10 out of 10 movie. Having said that, it must be admitted that Miyazaki was leagues ahead of Disney in general in 1986, when you consider that their movie of the same year was the pretty dire 'Great Mouse Detective'.Laputa is a good film in some ways an amazing film, and you should definitely see it, but I do feel it's over-rated. I definitely prefer the earlier 'Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind'.BTW, if you manage to watch them in chronological order, watch for the fox-squirrel from Nausicaa popping up briefly in Laputa.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie reminded me that some old Black & White movies are definitely worth the look.Initially I had some reservations, however from the beginning of the movie until the end I was captivated. I was VERY impressed with the mixture of drama, suspense & comedy.Arthur Askey (Tommy Gander) is HILARIOUS and had me in stitches the whole time.Definitely add this movie to your movie-night for some light relief from the sometimes depressing and "too" powerful or overly "funny" movies of today.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm totally agree with GarryJohal from Singapore's comments about this film. Quotation: 'Yes non-Singaporean's can't see what's the big deal about this film. Some of the references in this film fly right over the head of foreign viewers and mostly Singaporeans are the ones who would actually 'get' it.' It's still not quite the truth and as a Malaysian-Chinese, i do 'get it' although i don't speak Hokkien because we do have the similar 'problems' in Malaysia too. I know that it's really hard to understand and to accept this as a REALITY but it is definitely NOT a 'no real story'. I was pleased to see this film outside Malaysia because it will and definitely be banned in Malaysia too. Which means either you get it in 'illegal copied VCDs or DVDs' or hope that someone to be kind enough to 'share' it in the internet. This is not an 'another violent teen drama.......' because it portrays the reality which exists in Singapore (and in Malaysia too) in an interesting way (sad+humour). I was just a little sad to know that this film got about 20 cuts in censorship. What a waste!$LABEL$ 1
+This film brought me to tears. I have to say, that if I did not have a beautiful husband at home, I would ask this beautiful piece of art to marry me. Aaron Carter gives a masterful performance as a confused young pop star, while Timothy Barton writes quick and witty dialogue that only furthers the genius of Carter's performance. Kyle is pretty gay, but his performance was nothing less than spectacular. He is also very handsome and cute. I'm thinking about asking him out on a date and giving him a very sweet goodnight gift.;)If you would like to discuss this film in the future, please contact me.Nick Burrell Vassar Class of 2012 Malibu, California Malibu West 310 924 0126$LABEL$ 1
+"Opera" is a great film with some wonderful,imaginative imagery.An opera singer(Cristina Marsillach)is being stalked by a killer who forces her to watch him murder everyone she knows by tying her up and taping needles under her eyes.This idea of the needles comes from the fact that Argento doesn't like it when people cover their eyes while watching his movies."For years I've been annoyed by people covering their eyes during the gorier moments in my films.I film these images because I want people to see them and not avoid the positive confrontation of their fears by looking away.So I thought to myself 'How would it be possible to achieve this and force someone to watch most gruesome murder and make sure they can't avert their eyes?'The answer I came up with is the core of what "Opera" is about."-says Argento.Plenty of suspense,wonderful cinematography and brutal,gory murders.One guy is stabbed in the throat with a knife causing a gushing wound,Daria Nicolodi gets shot in the eye while looking through the peephole,etc.For anyone who hasn't caught this one yet,give it a try.Highly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+this show is the best it is full of laughs and Kevin James is the best so if you want a good show i recommend the king of queens and its a letdown that they canceled it so in the end this show will make you forget your worries and troubles cause if you have a cast with Kevin James and jerry stiller you cant go wrong. so i don't know why the canceled the show if any one knows please tell me.now a days you cant find a lot of shows that fulfill your needs as an audience.after Seinfeld and king of queens the only show worth watching is prison break and if that stops i don't know what to do. in the end if i had to recommend a show it will be king of queens.$LABEL$ 1
+OK, look at the title of this film.the title says it all right? the title is great... i mean, a lot of things should come into your head after readin it. in fact, you might be extremely anxious to see it.well, sadly, you won't see any of that.just a bunch of bad actors, some blood spilling, some hot chicks, and some lesbo action.oh, well, i think there are about 5-10 minutes of zombies and vampires indeed...get away from this if you want to see a good movie. else get it.$LABEL$ 0
+Having lived in Ontario my whole life, in the same town that Marlene Moore grew up in, I've heard stories of her from my parents, grandparents and family members. So when I found out that they would be filming a movie about her, and that the beginning would be shot on my street, and her house quite close to mine I was excited.If you read the book Rock a Bye Baby, which is about Marlene Moore you get quite the different image of her as a person, she was considered awkwardly beautiful by people who really had the chance to know her with the exception of her own family who frequently abused her as a child, with the exception of one of her brothers. Also, if you live in my area and are intelligent enough to listen to those around you who knew her from school you'd find out that she was truly wounded before she even set foot in an institution, she was always defensive and what would seem like an unwillingness to learn in a school environment was actually embarrassment over the fact that she was unable to.Marlene did not deserve the life she was given, with the lack of help she desperately needed to receive. It was the government and the people around her that aided further in her death by not attempting to understand her needs and why she did what she did. I still find myself angered that she was put in jail for self-defense from a man who tried to rape her. As her brother once said, "They didn't know what to do with her so they locked her away and it killed her." I believe in that with all my heart.Rest in peace Marlene, you deserve it so much.$LABEL$ 1
+I don't like Sean Penn's directing very much, and this early work, The Indian Runner, is no exception. The movie has no core, it's colored with a kind of redneck, anti-authoritarian tweeness that in all honesty taints most of Penn's work, his latest work even more so than the earlier. Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez, Clint Eastwood, Sean Penn, the whole lot seem to produce such fundamentally banal product, ostensibly in some allegiance to honesty, but ending up being, for the most part, glorified pro wrestling matches, and moralistic, almost as if Hallmark cards had developed a line of Hell's Angels greetings, and make me long for the days of Deliverance, which is a fine movie. Viggo Mortensen's acting is much, much more believable here than that ridiculous Eastern Promises thing he did with Cronenberg, and that's about it. The movie is dead meaningless, and seems to be an exercise, a series of techniques, more than a story. Kudos for Charles Bronson, however, who proves he can act. And I wanted more of Sandy Dennis' character. A lousy 3 out of 10 for this The Indian Runner crap.$LABEL$ 0
+While browsing the internet for previous sale prices, I ran across these comments. Why are they all so serious? It's just a movie and it's not pornographic. I acquired this short film from my parents 30 years ago and have always been totally delighted with it. I've shown it to many of my friends & they all loved it too. I feel privileged to own this original 1932 8mm black and white silent film of Shirley before she became popular or well known. After reading the other comments, I agree that the film is "racy". Big deal! I only wish it was longer. It seems that I must be the only person who owns one of these originals, for sale at least, so I wonder how much it's worth?$LABEL$ 1
+This movie probably isn't the funniest I've ever seen, and it CERTAINLY doesn't have much redeeming value. In fact, it is really nothing more than a collection of vignettes tied together by a loose plot. However, this "make-it-up-as-I-go-along" attitude actually works to the film's advantage. "Tommy Boy" succeeds as a comedy for the same reasons that the SNL skits Farley and Spade starred in succeeded: their well-timed extemporaneous silliness and mayhem makes them humorous despite their immaturity.$LABEL$ 1
+Okay, now I know where all those boring cop/homicide TV shows came from. I do believe they can be traced back to this movie. "Scene Of The Crime" feels more like a TV episode, or an episode of a serial. Complete with stock characters and situations - the hotshot cop who clashes with his superiors... the aging cop who doesn't want a desk job, despite failing eyesight... the reckless rookie... the double-crossing dame, etc.I like many of the actors here, and they do a good job, but overall I found this movie dull as I'm not a fan of the genre. I kept tuning out when they were discussing the case ...something about bookies and informers. And oh yeah, there was a stripper, played by the previously wholesome Gloria DeHaven. What I want to know is: Why did she keep calling Van Johnson "Uncle Wiggly"? Wasn't Uncle Wiggly a rabbit? A character from a children's book? What the heck does that have to do with anything? I guess I just don't get tough-guy Film Noir-ish kinda jargon.In fact, much of the dialogue made me mutter "nobody talks like that!" However, I could relate to one scene where the cop's wife (Arlene Dahl), who worries every time he goes to work, realizes that maybe she shouldn't have made her husband the center of her life. Yeah, I know that feeling of loving someone so much, being so dependent on them, that there's a constant fear for their safety. So there are moments of truth in this film, underneath the stylized dialogue and atmosphere which is trying so self-consciously to be gritty and REAL, that it actually seems unreal to me.A little background: this movie was made when Dore Schary took over MGM from Louis B. Mayer, and began to put an end to the wholesome musicals that made MGM so great. Dore Schary was determined to bring more "realism" to movies. I kinda hate Dore Schary. Maybe we can blame him for all the pretentious, bleak movies being made today, wallowing in the ugly "truths" about life, focusing on (and, in my opinion, helping to perpetuate) the worst of humanity rather than the best. No longer uplifting us the way classic movies were designed to do - providing a necessary distraction during the Great Depression and World War II.Well, damn it, we still need that kind of distraction today! There's still plenty of depression and plenty of war. And what are people turning to nowadays when they want to escape? Trashy, brain-deadening Reality TV. Thanks a lot, Dore!$LABEL$ 0
+Story goes like this, Netflix was late sending me my dvds so I went on down to the the analog rental place known as "Blockbuster Video" They suck you know. Real bad, They have 150 copies of the latest lame movies for your viewing pleasure yet I never want to see any of those. So I saw BTK Killer there on the shelf, all by its lonesome self. I like seeing films based on serial killers. Its just a part of humanity that I will never understand, therefore I wanna see that kind of stuff. Anyways I put this DVD in and all the sudden from the very first second, it sucks. I'm sitting there with my b.f. and we are like, "what is this kind of crap?" Unsteady camera operation, horrible acting,- the first scene in which a woman gets killed you wonder if she would rather just calmly gab instead, Then a rat gets stuffed down her throat. I really wonder if the director has a hard-on for this crap. There is nothing decent about this "film". All I have to say to the director is "do you own a freakin' tripod?" Every shot was brutally unstable. The music was awful. It was like they just decided one day to make a movie. They were probably gathering people from WalMart to show up and "act" for them. Just plain awful. If you make a movie like this then directing is your hobby-NOT what you should be doing for a living- SHould not make it to the DVD renal outlets for movie buffs like myself. Better left at home for your friends when you are having a party and run out of interesting things to entertain them with.... Then you break out your BTK KIller film and say, "Wanna see this crappy movie I did once?"$LABEL$ 0
+Yes, I am ashamed to admit it, but this show is positively DEVINE!!!It's so entertaining, and I have the absolute greatest time watching it.Ever since Cycle 1 it's been great, and I haven't noticed a downfall in it's glory AT ALL.Tyra Banks as you know is the host, and as fabulous as she is, there's also the other judges and co-hosts such as J. Alexander, Jay Manuel, Nigel Barker, and Twiggy.The main point of the show is for every girl invited to become America's Next Top Model, has to work their way up to the top by completing and winning photo shoot competitions.It sounds great already doesn't it, and let me tell you IT IS GREAT!!!!!It's awesome watching all the different kinds of photo shoots the girls take, and each one is different, cool, and daring.Anybody who hates this show, doesn't have a clue, and I will tell you that this show will be on for a LONG time, so DEAL WITH IT!!!$LABEL$ 1
+There must have been a sale on this storyline back in the 40's. An epidemic threatens New York (it's always New York) and nobody takes it seriously. Some might say that Richard Widmark and Jack Palance did it better in Panic in the Streets, but I disagree.There is always something about these Poverty Row productions that really touch a nerve. The production values are never that polished and the acting is a little rough around the edges, but that is the very reason I think this movie and those like it are effective. Rough, grainy, edgy. And the cast. All 2nd stringers or A list actors past their prime. No egos here. These folks were happy to get the work. Whit Bissell, Carl Benton Reid, Jim Backus, Arthur Space, Charles Korvin, and the melodious voice of Reed Hadley flowing in the background like crude oil. By the way, I've been in the hospital a couple of times; how come my nurses never looked like Dorothy Malone? In these kind of movies they don't bother much with make-up and hair, but they really managed to turn Evelyn Keyes into a hag. Or maybe they just skipped the make-up and hair altogether. Anyway, it was pretty effective. She plays a lovesick jewel smuggler who picks up a case of Small Pox in Cuba while smuggling jewels back for ultra-villain Charles Korvin (who is boffing her sister in the meantime). You got the Customs Agents looking for her because of the jewels, and the Health Department looking for her because she's about to de-populate New York. No 4th Amendment rights here. Everybody gets hassled.You gotta have the right attitude to enjoy a movie like this. I have a brother who scrutinizes movies to death. If they don't hold up to his Orson Wellian standards, he bombs them unmercifully. They must have the directorial excellence of a David Lean movie, the score of Wolfgang von Korngold, the Sound and Art of Douglas Shearer and Cedric Gibbons respectively. This ain't it.But I have the right attitude, and if you do as well, you'll love this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+This is my favorite movie that portrays African Americans in whole different light. because it shows a different side of African Americans that it is not shown in the movies. its not the gang bang, urban ghetto setting or having to deal with deep racial issues, it captivates the whole essence of being young and trying to be successful and having problems with letting your guard down and letting someone into your life, and the whole bohemian atmosphere gives that great touch that makes all that great, its a great script great dialoge that captivates you and you just get involved with the character. perfect casting with a lot of chemistry and very good acting and i still haven't seen any other movie with black characters that are portrayed in this format the only one that get close is "Sprung" but since its a comedy it looses it very quickly I give this movie 9 out of 10 and i wish they would keep making movies with this type of attitude about African Americans$LABEL$ 1
+A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away (sound familiar), water has become the most precious commodity (this has got to sound familiar) and a small minority control its distribution (what a surprise, just have a heart attack and die from that surprise). A group of ice pirates (water renegades?…wet bandits?...oh wait, that last one's been used) try to discover the route to a fabled unlimited supply of water with a lovely but spoiled (Druish?) princess en tow and a group of idiots…er…despicable villains in pursuit.This movie has the potential to be a really great comedic parody ("Star Wars," David Lynch's "Dune") but was just not handled correctly. It goes for, I believe the term is, "low brow" humor. It doesn't really succeed in being all that funny which is a shame since it has Angelica Houston, Ron Perlman and Robert Urich, (hence the three stars) who aren't exactly slackers in the acting department.Definitely a rental and definitely have a drink straight up.$LABEL$ 0
+What can I say??? This movie was so Dumb & Stupid I thought it was a Psychotic DRAG Comedy - They should rename it "Bitching Pregnant Cat Fight!" What a stupid waste of time , if you want to see(DIE DIE!!! "I WANT YOUR BABY DRAG QUEEN) Jennifer Tilly being her Freaky self then just rent out one Of the "Chucky" movie, oh ya , "The Bride Of Chucky." It's more fun watching the Two Ugly Plastic dolls (one of them Jennifer Tilly turned into the UGLY Female version of Chucky) having Squeaky plastic rubber sex then watching Daryl Hannah being pregnant , Dumb & stupid; & Jennifer Tilly Grinding up her Husbang in a Food Processor reminded me of my Mother trying to do House Work! OK it's just BAD!!!$LABEL$ 0
+This film holds 7.0 rating on IMDb, so even I sensed something rotten in it's synopsis I decided to try it out. What a waste of 100 minutes. First of all, the 80's were not a good decade for crime and thriller genre. Most of these, in those days were badly done with silly plot (if they had any), so there are very few that can stand out, and even if they were good they are still not very good. The Hit, however suffers from everything that made silly crime pictures silly. It has poor character development, improbable plot and wasn't written or directed in a decent manner, and when you have such shortcomings the acting doesn't help. Stephen Frears often tried to emulate French new wave in English style film making and the two don't match.First of all Terence Stamp is 10 years in hiding because he testified against some of his former partners in crime. He hides in Spain, of all places. He is finally caught up with, and than first kidnapped by a group of silly looking Spanish thugs, just do be driven away some distance to the two hit man that are supposed to deal with him. These two are John Hurt, who is supposed to be hard boiled, stone cold killer, and Tim Roth (in his first role) as the devil's apprentice. They don't kill Stamp right away, they first dispose of the "three Amigos", they shouldn't have hired in the first place, and then, they are driving Stamp to Paris, because one of the buddies he testified against wants to confront him. OK that's possible. But even with Stamp being such a dangerous figure that they had to hire four guys to overpower him, they don't tie him down, don't incapacitate him in any way, and drive around with him, like he's one of the buddies. Stamp doesn't object and is happily going to Paris to be shot, not using any of a half a dozen chances, these "professionals" offer for him to escape. Than it appears that Tim Roth is just a school boy bully, making the idea of big crime boss teaming him up with a hard core hit man like John Hurt, even more improbable, especially on an important job like that. But than John Hurt is not so hard core himself, he spends twenty minutes of the movie, killing or not killing the totally surplus Australian, played by Bill Hunter, whose only purpose in this film is to introduce the lovely Laura Del Sol, his mistress (who he says is 15, but she looks more like 25), and whose role in the story and acting capabilities suggest that she was offered the role, solely on the basis of being the director's or producer's mistress at the time. After much deliberation, Hurt kills the Australian but takes along his mistress for no apparent reason. Than he wants to kill her but Roth with his "subtle ways" convince him not to, so even she kicks him, bites him and scratches him through the entire movie, he stays true to that deeply buried human side of him.Than you have plain idiotic scenes, like when Hurt and Roth lock the car from the outside, trying to prevent the people inside from getting out?!?! Anyway the movie drags on. Tim Roth falls asleep, guarding Terence Stamp with his gun on his chest, and Stamp just waits there watching the waterfall. Than the whole shamble of a plot comes to the point where everything we've seen in the last hour and 20 minutes just goes out through the window. Let's recapitulate, the whole point in not killing Stamp right away (except for having a movie) is to take him to Paris, so his former partner is to have a last word with him. And the whole point in him not running away is that he is prepared to die, saying "It's just a moment. We're here. Then we're not here. We're somewhere else... maybe. And it's as natural as breathing. Why should we be scared?" But my friends, here is where the plot twists, Hurt kills the man while still in Spain, and we ask why bother and drive around for days, he could have done it in the first 15 minutes, and than contrary to his philosophy Stamp is very afraid of being killed, so we ask again why didn't he run, and he had plenty chance. Roth gets killed too, but he shouldn't be in the movie at all, and Del Sol, well she's promised a role in this film purely for romantic (read sexual) reasons, so she stays alive again, even she attacked Hurt for the 15th time in the movie. He killed all the others, but not her, she must have maximum screen appearance. The movie was made on a shoe string budget and it shows, but when you have no story and card board characterizations, it shows even more.And yes Fernando Ray appears and goes through the movie as the guest star, having a single audible line of dialog. Awful$LABEL$ 0
+Yes, Giorgio, is a feel good movie. A little romance, great music, beautiful scenery, comedy, (a great food fight), and a little taste of bittersweet are the ingredients of Yes, Giorgio. Any movie buff would enjoy this film. Those who require massive special effects, should look elsewhere. Most of us need a little escape now and then, and how better to do this, than with a feast for the eyes, ears, and heart? A must see!$LABEL$ 1
+Pilot Mitch MacAfee (Jeff Morrow) sees a UFO while test flying a plane--but nothing shows up on radar. Then planes and ships start disappearing and reports of a UFO increase. It turns out it's a giant monster bird that is attacking and killing. But what is it and why is it here? This has all the right elements for a classic. It has an actually pretty entertaining script--I was never really bored. The acting is good (for a 1950s monster movie). Morrow doesn't overdo the macho hero act and Mara Corday is quite good as the requisite female love interest. She's also strong and takes care of herself--even though she IS off getting food and coffee for everyone all during the movie. The problem here is the monster. Dear God--it's TERRIBLE! It looks like a deranged turkey! It has a long neck, a hilariously stupid BEAK, some teeth, a few strands of hair on its head and claws. And--oh yes--it squawks! Not roaring--squawking! The actors had no idea what it looked like--it was added after production. Actors Morrow and Corday were horrified when they finally saw it in a theatre. Morrow said his audience burst out laughing and he left the theatre quickly before the movie ended! Producer Sam Katzman was responsible for this. He wanted to save money and gave the world the stupidest monster ever. And you can SEE the wires moving it too! This gets 4 stars only because Morrow and Corday are so good and the script is well done. It gets no stars for the pathetic monster--wait till you see it attack what is obviously a toy train! Worth a look if you're a horror fan to see what has to be the stupidest monster ever.$LABEL$ 0
+Back when musicals weren't showcases for choreographers, we had wonderful movies such as this one.Being a big fan of both Wodehouse and Fred Astaire I was delighted to finally see this movie. Not quite a blend of Wodehouse and Hollywood, but close enough. Some of the American vaudeville humour, the slapstick not the witty banter, clash with Wodehouse's British sense of humour. But on the whole, the American style banter makes the American characters seem real rather than cardboard caricatures.Some inventive staging for the dance numbers, including the wonderful fairground with revolving floors and funhouse mirrors, more than make up for the lack of a Busby Berkley over the top dance number. They seem a lot more realistic, if you could ever imagine people starting to sing and dance as realistic.The lack of Ginger Rogers and Eric Blore don't hurt the movie, instead they allow different character dynamics to emerge. It's also nice not to have a wise cracking, headstrong love interest. Instead we have a gentle headstrong love interest, far more in keeping with Wodehouses' young aristocratic females.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie couldn't decide what it wanted to be. There were a couple of sub-plots that for awhile made you think these items would all come together in the end... but they didn't. If you want a "alien in the frozen waste" story, stick with the 1950's version of THE THING (not the abomination that was remade in gore-o-vision 20+ years later).I couldn't get over the fact that the "alien" looked pretty much recycled from INDEPENDENCE DAY. The "bare minimum" sets would have been more effective if they had hired actors who could actually act and carry off the intended mood.Lots of scenery chewing with little payoff.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie, no correction, this THING, this abysmal abomination from the burning pits of hell should have been killed before it even left the writer's head. I could not possibly come up with enough adjectives to describe this movie. But let's try anyway. Horrible, bad, nauseating, tasteless, crap, vomit inducing, gut wrenchingly bad, hideous, nasty, putrid, there just aren't enough words in the English language! The "plot" involves a serial killer who becomes a snow man. Don't ask how, not important. The killer snowman runs about killing people. How, you may ask, can a snowman kill someone? In tasteless ways that make you want to remove your eyes if only so you don't have to endure that Styrofoam snowman anymore. In ways that make you want to fill your ears with hot wax so you do not have to endure his snow puns anymore. Don't watch this movie! Destroy it on sight! For the sake of your very soul don't watch it!$LABEL$ 0
+Very reliable entertainment, as Las Vegas amuses as well as intrigues, very light hearted and very much bolstered by Josh Duhanel!! I like this television show and I think that many people watch it as a form of escapist voyeurism...Voyeurism in this case is very positive, and many females in this series are very nice to look at...This show incorporates Las Vegas legends such as Wayne Newton as intermittent characters to authenticate the Las Vegas genre!! There have been copious depictions of sin city, this is one of the better efforts...The producers and directors are lucky to have James Caan in the show, as he is very much a totally accomplished actor!!! By and large, I like the T.V. Show Las Vegas and I watch it on Fridays, I watched it on Mondays as well, but with Monday Night Football, I could see why NBC switched it to Fridays...Nonetheless, I like Las Vegas a lot!!$LABEL$ 1
+It's nice to see a film with real people with honest feelings. Sissy Spacek is so absolutely convincing as a simple, yet nice, daughter to Robert Farnsworth,who finally, in his last role, gets to show what a fine actor he was. It is hard to believe that this is a David Lynch film. It is slow and even, sweet and moving. One of the best unless you like car chases, sex scenes, and violence.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was the worst movie ever made on the planet, I like BARNEY more than this movie. The graphics suck, half the movie is animated, the deaths suck, and over all, I was ready to SUE the people that made this movie!PLEASE DO NOT WASTE HOURS OF YOUR LIFE WATCHING THIS MOVIE. The only good part was when the movie ******* ended! This movie is 50 percent Jurassic park, .1 percent Sabretooth, and 49.9 percent DUMB! Please do not waste your time watching this movie, you will regret it.You want to know why this movie sucks? Well, the cover sucked, the graphics sucked, the blood looked ( I mean is) ketchup, the people tried to blow themselves up, the college students think there all that and can stand up to the animal. I mean, there was a 5 ft. tiger running straight at a woman, she throws a spear at it from 100 ft away! WAIT TILL YOU CAN Actually HIT IT! The acting was horrible too. Jurrasic Park is actually a good movie, and this just had to go and ruin it.$LABEL$ 0
+Maybe the subject was good, but put down to a script it fails in pace. Maybe the author was trying to obtain something slow-paced like Alien, but instead of being haunting, this movie turned out just boring. Technically good, anyway, a pity for the lack of tension.$LABEL$ 0
+Burt Reynolds stars as an undercover cop who is after a crime boss.. Rachel Ward as the high price call girl he falls for..Burt does well in this role and I think he would've done well in more roles like this..Rachel Ward is beautiful and sexy in her part..good pacing and story but something is missing in the equation.. on a scale of one to ten..7$LABEL$ 1
+The first feature-length adventure of Jim Henson's beloved muppet characters is a very competent musical comedy vehicle as Kermit The Frog leaves his carefree, swampy surroundings for the bright lights (egged on by stranded Hollywood agent Dom DeLuise who overheard him singing); on the way, he meets Fozzie Bear (a pitiful stand-up comedian at James Coburn's El Sleazo Café who has Telly Savalas for a bouncer and Madeline Kahn a patron!), the piano-playing dog Rowlf, bestial drummer Animal and his laid-back, funky band, egomaniacal beauty queen Miss Piggy (in a ceremony presided over by Elliott Gould and Edgar Bergen), etc. All the while, Kermit et al are pursued by frogleg burger magnate Charles Durning and reluctant acolyte Austin Pendleton, sold cars, ice cream and balloons to by, respectively, Milton Berle, Bob Hope and Richard Pryor, served food by insolent waiter Steve Martin, nearly brainwashed by mad German scientist Mel Brooks and, finally, land an audition in the offices of movie mogul Orson Welles (who has Cloris Leachman for a secretary)! The pleasant song score comes courtesy of Paul Williams who also makes an appearance as the resident pianist at El Sleazo's. For the record, I have recently acquired four of the subsequent Muppet movies and should be watching them in the weeks to come when their turn falls due.$LABEL$ 1
+Well,i'm not a movie critic or something like that.But I have my opinion for this movie.I think that the best in this movie was Amanda Bynes,she played her roll for my look very well,i have watched many her movies,this I liked most!When you are watching this movie,you just can relax,come down,and watch it.You don't have to try to look for subtext or something like that.You just watch it. Movie is really great. Maybe I liked it for actress,maybe for all the scenery,but i liked it.The whole atmosphere that was created.In one moment I just felt like I was in that university,in that room.It is not another drama movie that is made to win Oscar,it is just nice movie to watch in your free time.$LABEL$ 1
+yes, i have noticed that there are 347 other comments, i think that is a good sign for a movie, even if some are negative. i have seen this movie 2 and a half times. i adore it and would watch it again. it is very smart, but i can understand why some people would hate it. they don't get it's appeal. yes, i have a weird taste in movies, but this is a great movie. some of the lines are just so quick, like the whole scene in the chinese restaurant. i started dying laughing. that and when he was in the assembly line talking to the contact. jude law was wonderful, though it was humorous, him trying to cover up his wonderful accent. anyways, i do not consider myself the movie goddess as some critics of this movie and if you have nothing better to do than write pseudo-intellectual movie commentaries about films you hate online, i feel sorry for you. why don't you write about movies you like, like me. i just love how everything ties together, it keeps you guessing, even though you guess wrong. the ending was interesting, and not overdone. it was purely clever. i would not compare it to the matrix, because i think people then get the wrong idea. i went into this movie expecting nothing except jude law and a sci-fi. i was blown away. i have no clue about any other of cronenburg's films, but love this on its own merit. another clever thing was the foreshadowing with the dog. definitely watch this movie.$LABEL$ 1
+I can't understand why so many peoples praised this show. Twin peaks is one of the most boring titles I have ever seen in my life.Now I have seen all season 1 episodes, and seeing season 2 episode 1. Simply I can't take this show anymore.1) Where is the proper induction in criminal investigation?In season 1, there was a scene that agent Cooper throws stones to a bottle. Can you guess why he did that? He just want to identify murderer by doing this 'joke' while mentioning supernatural ability given by Tibet dream. Wow!!!2) There are too many unnecessary scenes in this show.For example, season 2 started with a 'funny' scene that a dumb old man serves agent Cooper with a cup of milk while Cooper are laying down on the floor.( He got the gun shoots in his belly already. ) This old man is doing nothing but saying some dumb comments. That's all.This scene is really boring and even long ( 3 min 30 sec.... It's like Hell. )I would read some comic books rather than see this show anymore.$LABEL$ 0
+Before "Miracle on 34th Street," Maureen O'Hara and John Payne made this, this, this film. I was going to describe it, but can't find words for how badly this film turned out. The subject matter of adopting a child and Maureen's illness are both very serious and sensitive issues, but that notwithstanding, this could have been done a whole lot better than it was. It was so extreme in its portrayal that it didn't come across as real at all. Probably its problem started with a weak script.Another example of a screenwriter taking a novel and writing a weak movie. (See my review of "A Stranger in My Arms.") The beautiful O'Hara was often saddled with clunkers like this, another being Forbidden Street (Britannica Mews,) which I may review eventually.If you have any emotional ties to this from childhood, you'll be kinder to this rather lifeless, colorless, and lackluster film. But for something along the lines of this, maybe you can find its TV-movie remake. It has to be better. It has to be.$LABEL$ 0
+"Panic in the Streets" was a decent thriller, but I felt a bit disappointed by it. The central theme of a city being attacked by a plague in modern times is fascinating, but the film never really explores or develops it. Its well made and entertaining, but its not as interesting as it should have been. The screenplay for this one is really weak and brings the whole film down. None of the central characters are really compelling or believable.Fortunately, the film is very well made so it compensates for the weak scripting. The direction by Elia Kazan keeps the film suspenseful and moving at a lightning quick pace. There are some standout sequences, particularly the memorable chase climax. When his direction was combined with better screenplays several years later, the man could mostly do no wrong.The acting is also very good. Richard Widmark was always a watchable leading man and does what he can with an underwritten character. Paul Douglas spends his time yelling a bit too much but does a decent job as well. The standouts in the cast are the two villains. Zero Mostel, known primarily for his comic roles, is effectively slimy as one of cinema's ultimate toady characters. Jack Palance is, unsurprisingly, a chilling villain. "Panic in the Streets" is disappointing but still worth watching. (7/10)$LABEL$ 1
+Why can't this type of compact, entertaining mystery be filmed in the new century? It keeps the viewer thinking and guessing all the way. The cast is a great ensemble. William Powell exhibits true star quality. Who knows--perhaps he was rehearsing for his future as Nick Charles. He is a joy to watch. One also can see why Eugene Pallette made more than 200 films. He is a great supporting character actor and his excellent chemistry with Powell is fun to watch. Mary Astor does above average work in a not very meaty role. All other hands chip in to make this a thoroughly enjoyable way to spend 73 minutes. I suspect Michael Curtiz had a ball directing his one. Bravo!$LABEL$ 1
+(WARNING: minor spoilers)I ran into this one partway through and watched from there, not knowing what it was or what the plot was. It certainly held my attention; I didn't know until the ending that it was based on a true story! The guy she used to do the dirty deed came out looking like a seriously nice guy who just got his head twisted around by a devious girl; I have to question how true to life that portrayal is. Anyone who would murder a husband and wife as they slept just can't be entirely nice. Still, I did have some sympathy for him, as he had been set up and taken advantage of; that much was made clear.My main complaint is with the ending (here comes the biggest spoiler! skip this paragraph if you don't want to learn it). A few minutes before it ended, there seemed no way for the truth to be discovered. The way it got discovered was in a "sting" operation, but my question is: how did the police get convinced to go along with it? The movie didn't show us that, and it seemed a bit too convenient absent the explanation of how they were persuaded to do it.I think the way they handled that was done for dramatic purposes, as the omission of the explanation lent an aura of suspense to the crucial scene which otherwise wouldn't have been there (we would already have known what the scene was about, and what was going on with Brad in it).Otherwise, this is a pretty good film; I give it 7/10. It made me think. Now I'm interested to find out the facts of the real case.One more thing: the movie was done in 1996. Some of the reviews here seem to be treating it as a more recent movie.P.S. Meadow Sisto is lovely. I hadn't seen her before. She can act a little, too (always a plus in her line of work, LOL).$LABEL$ 1
+Woaww Is it only now that you notice the links between all the characters ?? Of course it's Libby ! And for the guy in the hatch with Desmond, any deja vu ??? Yeah !! He was the "same" guy that gave money to Sayid after he's killed or tortured the other soldier in the episode 14th of the 2nd season : One of Them. Well actually it's not completely the same guy, he's named Joe in the 14th episode and Kelvin in the last 2 episodes. Twins ?? :) Who knows ?? JJ Abrams ... mmmm I'm not even sure of that :) There are hundreds of links like this one between all the characters.But that was just in response to the Libby comment.I found those 2 episodes far more interesting than the whole season 2. During all that season I felt that there was lots of things I've missed and very few things I've learned. Especially at the very beginning, the 1st episode of the 2nd season is excellent, and then the 2nd one is a kind of flash back of the 1st one ... I found that disappointing even if I'm pretty sure that everything in Lost tend to have a meaning. That was just an example of how I was frustrated watching those episodes.Let's go back to the last 2 episodes. I think we've learned more new things in those 2 episodes than in the entire season. But all we learn are little pieces for the next puzzle, like the involvement of Desmond's "relatives" (sorry if I spoil too much, believe me or not I'm trying not to) for example. So lots of things evoked in the past 2 seasons are still unclear or have been developed once then nothing. And still, there's new material as if all the holes in the picture were not enough. We all want to see the big picture of all of it of course, but I think we'll have to be very very patient. I hope there will be only 3 seasons. I'm not sure I will watch more than 3 seasons anyway. There was also lots of actions in the very last episode. And a good cliffhanger at the very end.So basically, yes I loved that last episode ... and yes I want to see the third season.$LABEL$ 1
+If you like mech war games it's pretty good. Some of it is cheap but the robot fights is worth seeing. I've enjoyed the mech war field for some time and this is pretty much the only movie I've ever seen that come close to that feeling of what it would be like to pilot one of those huge mechs. If you like the genera then games you like are Mech Warrior Three and four and if you have an Xbox and $350 to spare Steel Battalion. The movie is worth seeing at least once. There really needs to be some more movies on the same theme out there. Less remakes and more original works. Enjoy$LABEL$ 1
+I won't mention any of the plot, because, although it would be highly predictable anyway, the one notable plot twist is given away everywhere, in the movie comments, in the plot summary here, and even in the synopsis on my Netflix envelope. I might have enjoyed it more if I hadn't known that. Maybe. This film has a deceptively good cast, most of whom did creditable acting with the rather limited material at hand, including Donald Sutherland, Lesley Ann Warren, and Tia Carrere and Rosemary Dunsmore in smaller parts. It was impossible to like William McNamara, but that was clearly by design. And there were a couple of quick nude scenes by the callipygian Lenore Zann. But none of this brings the slightest recommendation from me. Don't any of these fine actors actually read these scripts before signing on?$LABEL$ 0
+This is definitely the worst vampire flicks of all times. I started to watch this right after Interview With the vampire and I was thoroughly disappointed. Not only did this movie's script have craters as big as the grand canyon, the movie seemed to jump from one scene to another leaving the viewers thoroughly puzzled. The vampire Lestat played by Stuart Townsend was terrible-having a good body does not make you an actor! The end of the queen was too easy and sudden, insulting the viewers intelligence. I'll give this one star because Aaliyah actually tried her best in this movie and the soundtrack is pretty good. Other than that I would advice Anne Rice to take an ax and start hacking those who destroyed her brilliant story.$LABEL$ 0
+Although flawed in it's view of homosexuals, this movie will shed light for the viewer about the myths and inaccuracies concerning AIDS. Despite the depressing subject matter, this film depicts a warm friendship between two boys, and will make you laugh as well as cry. Very well-acted by all, especially Joseph Mazzello and Brad Renfro. The language is a little strong, though appropriate, and it's an entertaining and intelligent film for the whole family. But remember to have the Kleenex ready!$LABEL$ 1
+I think this movie would be more enjoyable if everyone thought of it as a picture of colonial Africa in the 50's and 60's rather than as a story. Because there is no real story here. Just one vignette on top of another like little points of light that don't mean much until you have enough to paint a picture. The first time I saw Chocolat I didn't really "get it" until having thought about it for a few days. Then I realized there were lots of things to "get", including the end of colonialism which was but around the corner, just no plot. Anyway, it's one of my all-time favorite movies. The scene at the airport with the brief shower and beautiful music was sheer poetry. If you like "exciting" movies, don't watch this--you'll be bored to tears. But, for some of you..., you can thank me later for recommending it to you.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a movie about animal cruelty. Under the guise of a marathon race, we see depictions of extreme animal abuse, including literally running a horse to death IN SLOW MOTION. The guy who did this then has his conscience spiritually cleansed by the flames from the burial/burning of the horse, which of course is still dead, having been tortured to death. This is one of the sickest, slimiest movies I've ever had the displeasure of viewing. As Gene Hackman and James Coburn near the finish line on their DYING animals, we're supposed to admire their spirit for finishing the race. I'd like to put the producers and director in a marathon race; I'll decide when they're finished, probably about 20 minutes after they stop breathing.$LABEL$ 0
+The reason why I say this is because I wrote the screenplay and knew very little about it being made until I was asked to see the film. I wrote it for some producers who sold it on without telling me. Because Alan Dobie was a friend of mine, I got to hear about it. I had only written a first draft so I was understandably worried when I heard that it was on the floor. I asked Peter Collinson, through my agent, whether he might like me to do another draft. I also asked if I could I see my original script because I had lost it. I was told, too late. So I did the only thing I could do under the circumstances and took my name off. I had no idea what they might have done to my screenplay. Then I was invited to see the finished film. I was so impressed that I very quickly asked to have my name put back on. It's a beautifully made piece, from a hurriedly written first draft, I expected to be asked to do much more work on it; perhaps if I had it wouldn't be so good. I would love to see my original script again if anybody knows where it is? I would also love to see the film again, I only saw it once in a little viewing theatre in Soho.$LABEL$ 1
+How much can you really say about a condom with teeth? The plot was really out there, but it was something campy to see on a Friday night. The story has a lot of unexpected twists, and it's a great way to offend all you're conservative friends!$LABEL$ 0
+If you liked the Grinch movie... go watch that again, because this was no where near as good a Seussian movie translation. Mike Myers' Cat is probably the most annoying character to "grace" the screen in recent times. His voice/accent is terrible and he laughs at his own jokes with an awful weasing sound, which is about the only laughing I heard at the theater. Not even the kids liked this one folks, and kids laugh at anything now. Save your money and go see Looney Tunes: Back in Action if you're really looking for a fun holiday family movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Great period piece that shows how attitudes have changed in 40 years. Great production design, appealing stars, great lines ("Miss Bender, I don't care if you beat it out on a native drum!", says Joan Crawford's Amanda Farrow to Hope Lange when Lange incredulously asks how she is expected to read a summarize a large amount of manuscripts in a very short time). If you've seen this movie panned and scanned on TV and not in the letterboxed version on pay-TV or AMC (American Movie Classics) you haven't really seen it. Hopefully, this guilty pleasure of a film will be made available soon on DVD in a letterboxed version and with it's original 4-track stereophonic soundtrack. Great opening title sequence that really catches the mood of 1959 New York while Johnny Mathis sings the "Best of Everything" theme song in an echo chamber surrounded by a chorus of violins and another chorus of background screamers. Miscarriages! Insanity! Office romance! Bitchy cold-hearted bosses! Thwarted love! It's all here to enjoy.$LABEL$ 1
+Bugsy Siegel was 31 when he went out to the West Coast. In addition to his dreams about Las Vegas, he toyed with the idea of acting. He was a good looking guy and about 7 years younger than his pal George Raft, so it wasn't such a crazy idea.Warren Beatty was 54 when he made this movie and despite the hair dye, he's too old for this part. Beatty was miscast; Bugsy should have been played by someone like Alec Baldwin. Bugsy was a tough guy feared by his contemporaries; Beatty just doesn't radiate menace.This was a vanity project for Beatty, who hasn't come to terms with the fact that he's no longer a leading man.The other big annoying miscast is Mantegna as George Raft. Raft had a distinctive voice and mannerisms, none of which Mantegna even attempts to match. You never once believe that Mantegna came from the streets.Warren Beatty and Robert Redford have both been pretending to be younger for years by massive use of hair dye, and now it;ll be a shock to suddenly go gray and play character parts.$LABEL$ 0
+Without wishing to be a killjoy, Brad Sykes is responsible for at least two of the most dull and clichéd films i've ever seen - this being one of them, and Camp Blood being another. The acting is terrible, the print is shoddy, and everything about this film screams "seriously, you could do better yourself". Maybe this is a challenge to everyone to saturate youtube with our own zombie related crap?I bought this for £1, but remember, you can't put a price on 71 minutes of your life. You'd do well to avoid this turkey, even at a bargain basement price.$LABEL$ 0
+Who doesn't know Largo Winch in the France-Belgium-Luxemburg trio (the three countries where the French "BD" or "Bandes Dessinées" are massively published) ? 18 years after the publication of the first comic book, which is itself an adaptation of a series of novels, it HAD to be adapted on screens. After a first - and failed- attempt with a TV show, the real thing begins.First of all, and that's what most of the fans didn't get, the goal of this movie is not strictly to adapt the comic book series. Some essential parts, characters and actions of the original are missing. The movie itself offers an alternative and more modern version of the series. As a 1st class-fan of the comic book, I must confess I was nicely surprised. The actors are good, so is the scenario, though it might seem too fast. I thus recommend this movie to all those interested by financial/political thrillers, but it is clearly not an alternative to James Bond or Jason Bourne series as I could read over the internet.$LABEL$ 1
+I have to admit that this "re-imagining" of the original 1968 film was a huge disappointment. Specially when taken into consideration that this is a Tim Burton film. He is defenetly one of the most original and, might I say, cool directors Hollywood has produced.I am personally a great fan of his work, but something obviously went wrong with his latest flick, The Planet of the Apes. I really enjoyed the original film. When it first came out people expected just another cheezie 70's science fiction film, but a very surprise anding totally proved that theory wrong. It had indeed a clear cut message. An obvious anti-war message. Fear of the cold war, where it was taking the world and fear of the use of nuclear weapons played a big role in the mind of the film-makers. Those reasons made the film rise above all expectations and it became a instant classic. Although, the new film, the "re-making" or whatever, leaves us with nothing. No message, no ideals behind it. It is just another money-minded summer blockbuster.Visually Tim Burton does not let you down. The dark and creepy settings were excellent and of course the make up was terrific.Obviously that is not enough to keep people intrested in a film. There has to be an exciting plot or storyline. In this movie the plot is highly uninteresting and it is extremely badly thought out. The script is very lame and it is full of gaps. It looks like this film had been written in a big hurry. The explanation for why the apes where there, and why the ruled the planet was indeed very stupid and proved the script-writers ignorance.It raised a lot of questions, which had no reasonable answers to.For example; Why did the apes speak English?, why were there other ape-species than chimps on the planet (given that there were only chimps in the space ship that crash-landed on the planet) Where the hell did all of those humans come from? How were a few chimps able to evolve into a huge raise of all kinds of monkeys in only a few thousands years. (I mean it took a few million years for us to evolve from monkey to man!)And finally, the bad surprise ending was just plane dumb. It was probably just thrown in because the original film had such an end, then they felt that the audience were expecting the same kind of ending. The ending also raises a lot of questions, which I KNOW, don´t have intelligent answears. Did Theid learn to work the space ship?, which was power-less, and learnt to fly back in time and take over the earth single hand?, and, what did he do, breed with all the women? And lets say that that would happen, I higly doubt that history would stay the same, like Washington would be built exactly like it is today! (I mean wouln't there be a huge banana instead of the memorial?)Well, just to say something posative about the film. Some of the cast was great. Helen Bonham Carter's character was interesting and well-acted, as for Tim Roth as Theid. He was very good, a little exaturated at some points of the film. Michael Clark Duncan was also fine. I was not happy with Marc Whalberg. He is not much of an actor, and plays here a very macho colour-less character. Very unbielevable and is nothing compared to Hestons character in the original. And the main female character had no reason or place in the film. She was just casted for the looks. Hardly said a word throughout the entire film.Well, I think that in the future when people think about the Planet of the apes, they will think about the original one. The latest will soon be forgotten.$LABEL$ 0
+A very enjoyable film, providing you know how to watch old musicals / mysteries. It may not come close to Agatha Christie or even Thin Man mysteries as a film noir, but it's much more interesting than your typical "boy meets girl" or "let's put on a show" backstage musical. As a musical, it's no Busby Berkley or Freed unit, but it can boost the classic "Coctails for two" and the weird "Sweet Marijuana". The film runs in real time during a stage show, opening night of the "Vanities", where a murder - and soon another - is discovered backstage. Is the murderer found out before the curtain falls? Sure, but the search is fun, even though somewhat predictable and marred by outbursts of comic relief (luckily in the shape of the shapely goddess of the chorus girls, Toby Wing). The stupid cop is just a bit too stupid, the leading hero is just a bit too likable, the leading lady a bit too gracious, the bitchy prima donna bit too bitchy, and the enamoured waif a bit too self-sacrificing, but as stereotypes go, they are pretty stylish. There's a bevy of really gorgeous chorus girls, who are chosen even better than the girls for a Busby Berkley musical of the same period, who sometimes tend to be a bit on the plump side. Yes, this film could have been much better than it is, and the Duke Ellington number is an embarrassment, but if you enjoy diving into old movies, this will prove to be a tremendously tantalizing trip.$LABEL$ 1
+I had high hopes for this film, since it has Charlton Heston and Jack Palance. But those hopes came crashing to earth in the first 20 minutes or so. Palance was ridiculous. Not even Heston's acting or Annabel Schofield's beauty (or brief nude scenes) could save this film. Some of the space effects were quite good, but others were cheesy. The plot was ludicrous. Even sci-fi fans should skip this one. Grade F$LABEL$ 0
+Typical formula action film: a good cop gets entangled in a mess of crooked cops and Japanese gangsters.The okay result has decent performances, a few fleeting snicker-inducing moments, and some fair action sequences--plus a chance to check out the gorgeous Danielle Harris--who makes the most of her perpetual typecasting as a rebellious teen daughter.** out of ****.$LABEL$ 0
+William Petersen (that C.S.I guy) has a small uncredited role but it's the best part of the movie. His character comes across smart ass and tough, and it's a fun surprise to see him in this. He has a range that allows him to play just about anything. After his 5 minutes, it goes from looking cool to just nothing much. It leaves you hoping that his character will reappear in the movie but after 20 minutes you give up hope. The movie itself is pretty poor. Worth a watch on TMN or a pick up at the library but not much more. Too much of it reminds you of L.A Confidential except that where that movie starts to get complicated upon itself, this one is so loose, it steers everywhere but where it should. 2 out of 5 stars$LABEL$ 0
+I don't really post comments, but wanted to make sure to warn people off this film. It's an unfinished student film with no redeeming features whatsoever. On a technical level, it's completely amateur - constant unintentional jump edits within scenes, dubbing wildly off, etc. The plot is completely clichéd, the structure is laughable, and the acting is embarrassing. I don't want to be too harsh: I've made my share of student films, and they were all awful, but there's no reason for this film to be out in the world where innocent fans will have to see it.Safe assumption that - much like the cast - positive comments are filmmakers, friends, and family.$LABEL$ 0
+I have never seen a movie so bad. It's not even entertaining enough to be a drinking game.It's SO bad, I don't even want to talk about it... and that's the whole point of this, isn't it? PLEASE. Don't bother to see this movie. 'Nuf said.$LABEL$ 0
+As incredible as it may seem, Gojoe is an anime- and Hong Kong-inspired samurai action flick with a pacifistic message. This ankle of the film is effectively portrayed through the protagonist (a great acting job done by Daisuke Ryu), a killer-turned-to-boddhist-monk Benkei. Benkei has sworn never to kill again, but he still takes up the sword to fight what he thinks is a demon invasion...Gojoe is a film difficult to rate. It's visual imagery is stunningly crafted and beautiful, but it uses too much trickery (circling camera and high speed drives, expressionistic shots, leeched colors, digital effects etc.), so the end result is somewhat tiring. That said, the beginning and the ending of the film are nevertheless both elegant and powerful. If only the director Sogo Ishii would have been wise enough not to overuse his bag of tricks.Other problem with Gojoe is the amount of violence. For a film with such an anti-violent message Gojoe wastes way too much energy and screen time to depict the endless battle scenes. Also, the way the violence is shown is always on the edge of being self-indulgent; in fact, a blood shower against the night sky seems to be one of the films signature images. Luckily, Ishii is wise enough to show the ugly, tragic side of violence as well. Still, it seems that Ishii is not sure whether he's making a traditional action film or a deeply moral allegory. The audience can't be sure of this, either, until the very end of the film. The powerful (albeit cynical) ending is what saves Gojoe; it clearly emphasizes that this film is something more than a mere gore-fest.$LABEL$ 1
+Hood of the Living Dead had a lot to live up to even before the opening credits began. First, any play on "...of the living dead" invokes His Holiness Mr. Romero and instantly sets up a high standard to which many movies cannot afford to aspire. And second, my movie-watching companion professed doubt that any urban horror film would surpass the seminal Leprechaun In the Hood. Skeptical, we settled in to watch. We were rewarded with a surprisingly sincere and good-hearted zombie film. Oh, certainly the budget is low, and of course the directors' amateurs friends populate the cast, but Hood of the Living Dead loves zombie cinema. Cheap? Yeah. But when it's this cheap, you can clearly see where LOVE holds it together. Ricky works in a lab during the day and as a surrogate parent to his younger brother at night. He dreams of moving out of Oakland. Before this planned escape, however, his brother is shot to death in a drive-by. Ricky's keen scientific mind presents an option superior to CPR or 911: injections of his lab's experimental regenerative formula. Sadly, little bro wakes up in an ambulance as a bloodthirsty Oakland zombie! Chaos and mayhem! I think it's more economical to eat your enemies than take vengeance in a drive-by, but then again, I'm a poor judge of the complexities of urban life. (How poor a judge? In response to a gory scene involving four men, I opined "Ah-ha! White t-shirts on everyone so the blood shows up. Economical! I used the same technique in my own low-budget horror film." Jordan replied, "No, that's gang dress. White t-shirts were banned from New Orleans bars for a time as a result." Oh.)A lot of the movie is set in someone's living room, so there's a great deal of hanging out and waiting for the zombies. But the characters are sympathetic and the movie is sincere-- it surpasses its budget in spirit. Zombie explanation: When man plays God, zombies arise! Or, perhaps: Follow FDA-approved testing rules before human experimentation! Contribution to the zombie canon: This is the first zombie movie I've seen with a drive-by shooting. As far as the actual zombies go, infection is spread with a bite as usual, but quite unusually head shots don't work-- it's heart shots that kill. Zombies have pulses, the absence of which proves true death. And these zombies make pretty cool jaguar-growl noises. Gratuitous zombie movie in-joke: A mercenary named Romero. Groan. Favorite zombie: Jaguar-noise little brother zombie, of course!$LABEL$ 1
+Anyone who has read my review for Uwe Boll's "Alone In The Dark" will remember that I compared the unenviable task of sitting through that piece of human waste to having each and every hair on your arm pulled out. Well, take that analogy a step further with this irredeemable gutter trash and try to imagine the pain of getting your teeth extracted without novacaine. Do that, and you'll have a general idea of what Eli Roth's "Cabin Fever" is all about.I never believed any one film was capable of topping the sheer agonizing dreck that Uwe Boll cranks out as the "worst film ever made." But, in all honesty, I have to say "Cabin Fever" comes very close. This is yet another sad excuse for a motion picture that had absolutely no valid reason to meet with any form of theatrical release. For somebody who claims to love the horror genre as much as Eli Roth does, he has created the single most annoying and convoluted patchwork of a movie I think I have ever seen in my entire life. How do you screw up a story like this? Think of the potential this plot would have had without the poorly written characters, without the bad writing, and without all that unnecessary and unfunny comedy. A movie dealing with a grotesque flesh-eating virus could and should have been so much better than what Roth dished out for us here. This script failed on so many levels with me. And, while I do not doubt the evident talent this director possesses, I do know that he fumbled the ball big time on an idea that could very well have redefined the horror genre.To say this was a production of missed opportunities would indeed be a gross play on words. A generous amount of blood and unsettling special effects can't even save it, and that is one element I normally go for. There really was nothing about "Cabin Fever" that I could easily recommend to anybody. When three quarters of the crowd walks out of the theater halfway through, you know the movie is sinking fast. My best advice to those reading this would be to simply rent before purchasing. One viewing was more than enough for me to know that I will most likely never bother with it again.$LABEL$ 0
+This film was a huge surprise to me while i watched it at Cinequest in the big California Theatre in San Jose. It's a musical, which normally I don't like, but I have to say this one was different. Robert Peters, who directed the film and stared in it, did such a wonderful job. During his Q & A he told the audience that he only had two other people for his crew! Most of the dialouge was made up on the fly and he actually made the film while attending another film festival in Germany! I can't say enough great things about this movie, the only bad thing is that you really tend to notice the camera work and it shakes a bit. If you happen to come across this film- check it out!$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of the greatest 80s movies!!! It sticks out like a "turd in a punchbowl"!! I can't believe Mad Magazine denounced it or whatever. And yet, they proudly put their name on a show with "Stuart", "I-speak-a-no-enlish Chinese lady" and "UPS guy on speed". What's up with that? And, I LOVE Ron Leibman-he's foxy!! Wonder why he had his name removed from the credits? It was his funniest role that I know of. Of course, he's not nearly as foxy as he was in Norma Rae. But, in my opinion, this movie is right up there with National Lampoon's Vacation. If you liked movies such as Porky's, Fast Times, Last American Virgin, or any of the other 80s teen-focused movies, you'll love this one!! Rent it and you'll see what I mean!!$LABEL$ 1
+Remember that friend in college who always insisted you rent the weirdest movie possible? This is the movie he would have made if he'd had the chance.I wish I could tell you exactly what Sea of Dust was about. It pretends to be the story of a doctor who gets sucked into weird goings on in the "Black Forest." He goes there to help, but ends up being caught between two young women, both of whom he seems to have a thing for. But that's just scratching the surface. This is the kind of movie where things just randomly happen...and not nice thing. People are constantly being whipped and stabbed. There's a pair of creepy little girls who appear to have walked out of The Shining. Tom Savini is some kind of imaginary religious figure who decides he doesn't want to be imaginary anymore. He's got a plan to take over the world by sharing Jesus suffering.On some level, this is a movie about sex. It's one without nudity, which was a disappointment, but there's no mistaking the intent. On another whole level, it's a stoner's paradise. Unexpected stuff happens so often that it stops being unexpected. By the time the doctor travels through his girlfriend's birth canal to be reborn, you'll just chalk it up to the crazy nature of the flick.On the down side, the film is pretty wordy. Some of the points are hammered home over and over. If you're watching it with a bunch of stoned friends, this might prove an asset.$LABEL$ 1
+The movie was excellent, save for some of the scenes with Esposito. I enjoyed how it brought together every detective on the series, and wrapped up some plotlines that were never resolved during the series (thanks to NBC...). It was great to see Pembleton and Bayliss together at their most human, and most basic persons. Braugher and Secor did a great job, but as usual will get overlooked. It hurt to see that this was the end of Homicide. Memories, tapes, and reruns on CourtTV just aren't the same as watching it come on every Friday. But the movie did its job and did it very well, presenting a great depiction of life after Al retired, and the family relationship that existed between the unit. I enjoyed this a lot.$LABEL$ 1
+Most of Wayne's B westerns are kind of fun in a naive way, but this one really stinks. The editing is terrible, and the direction and pacing is completely lethargic. Most of the cast stands around waiting for the mute guy to write down his thoughts on a pad of paper, and I was bored. Sorry, Duke, but this gets a 1.$LABEL$ 0
+This was on SciFi this past weekend, and I had to check it out. After all... it was science fiction, with vampires and Erika Eleniak. What could go wrong with this B-movie?A lot.To start with: It can't even be classified as a "B-movie," because that would put it in the same league as Roger Corman... and this movie doesn't even meet his expectations. The most money they spent was on the contact lenses for the vampires.Secondly: The casting was horrible. Yes, casting Udo Kier as the captain of the Demeter was a smart move... but the director clearly couldn't even get Kier to memorize his lines. Casting Eleniak, in a vampire movie, is also a smart move because it means a bunch of horny guys are going to buy/rent/record this flick to watch her get seduced by a vampire. But, the director, writer and producer screwed that one, too. Granted, they got some money out of the poor, unfortuate souls who enjoy watching vampire movies with hot women in them... but no one is going to remember this movie in another two or three years.Thirdly: Little things that just emphasize the laziness in this movie. For example, Van Helsing calls a cross a "crucifix," and, when Mina is staked in the coffin, the viewer can clearly see the fact that her "chest" is nothing more than pillows.Oh, and one other thing: Why did they go for the George Hamiltion-type Dracula instead of something that would look decently scary? Does George Hamilton have an overwhelming hold on our future? Why didn't everyone who saw Dracula just laugh at him for his get-up?A waste of time. Even with a TiVo remote in your hand.$LABEL$ 0
+I first saw this movie when I was about 12 years old. It has been one of my favorites since... It's so perfect in all it's glory complete with awesome soundtrack, cheesy dialog, and it was both hilarious and terribly sad. The first movie I really just had a fit about at the end... I won't ruin it for you guys but boy is it a tear jerker... I just remember feeling SO sad for Gary! What a bunch of cool characters in this movie it's genius!!! They are all so great even the nerdy girl Gary doesn't like...(she had a nice little body though). I can't believe all the girls go for Rick he is such a sleaze ball with his handkerchief tied around his neck!!! ha ha ha... When watching this movie be prepared for lots of sex jokes complete with sexually transmitted diseases(almost). But a love story at heart with real problems, dealing from insecurity to life altering decisions that make you think and feel genuine sorrow for the cast. I love this movie !!! If you like Valley Girl another all time classic you will too!$LABEL$ 1
+Trawling through the Sci Fi weeklies section of the local Video Rentals store I was losing hope of finding any good movies I hadn't yet seen. Renting Cypher was like a punt on a possibly very lame horse. My son is so jaded with current "B" Science Fiction that he hasn't bothered seeing this yet.It must be noted I didn't see anything about Cypher when it was released in Australia. It must have been very quiet or I just missed it.Well this WAS a really pleasant surprise! This is also no B movie. It's not a "blockbuster" of the epic variety and doesn't try to be - more a quiet movie that needs to be seen several times for it's plot to be fully savoured.The special effects are powerfully presented when they are used - my only complaint is the super helo is a leetle obviously CGI at first view, but they get it right at it's 2nd appearance, & that aside everything else is top notch. In any case the affects are secondary.I won't give anything away about the plot. The plot structure has a Russian Doll aspect a little reminiscent of Basic Instinct (though with very different content).Just I will say that Choosing Jeremy Northam for the lead was a master stroke. The actor was born in Cambridge ENGLAND, and his accent for this film hits the ear as a sort of extremely forced New England dialect, it's a tad off key. See the final twist of the plot and you'll see why that is such a brilliant choice! And Lucy Liu is also just right with her "will she kiss me - will she shoot me" edge.I rarely watch movies several times within days - this is one of them.$LABEL$ 1
+So funny is the perfect way to describe this 12 minutes spoof of the original Star Wars. Hardware Wars is incredibly funny. It is presented as the trailer of the space epic Hardware Wars. The joke is this: imagine Star Wars played by bad actors and incredibly bad special effects. The characters include the "intergalactic boy-wonder" Fluke Starbucker, the "ace mercenary and intergalactic wise guy" Ham Salad, Darph Nader, "villain" and a host of other fantastic characters. It is impossible not to laugh as you watch this 12 minutes treasure. It's stupid but it's fun. You will laugh from the start to the end, and you will feel the need to watch it again, and again, and again, and again... And you will laugh every time you see it!!!10 out of 10. The funniest 12 minutes ever made. You will believe it lasted a minute!$LABEL$ 1
+A truly adorable heroine who, at turns, is surprised and terrified by giblets, wrestles with mattresses, runs full-on into closed doors ... just a few of the moments that sparkle in my memory of 'The Naked Truth'. I LOVED what I caught of this show: enjoyably daft plots and some good supporting characters provided the setting for the diamond of the show - Tea Leoni as, 'Nora Wilde'; cute, clownish, and wonderfully accident-prone - How refreshing to see an actress who can clown - it's no wonder Hollyood doesn't seem to know how to cast her. But where-oh-WHERE are the DVD releases? The amount of (bleep) they release, it's incredible me that this little gem continues to remain buried. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.)$LABEL$ 1
+This insipid mini operetta featuring a Eddy-McDonald prototype in a Valentino scenario is so bad it becomes an endurance exercise after five minutes. It's silly from the get go as this brevity opens two military men discussing the lack of manliness in the son of one of the officers. In under a minute he is packed off to Morrocco where he lives a double life as the Red Shadow; the leader of an Arab tribe that would rather sing than fight.Alexander Gray and Bernice Clare possess fine light opera voices (with little acting ability) and there's a decent bass in there as well but the acting is so haphazard scenes so ill prepared you get the feeling they are making things up as they go along.This two reeler was part of a larger stage production that lists six writers. With more room to spoof and warble the show may have had some entertainment values but this rushed quickie is little more than an insult to an audience waiting for the feature presentation.$LABEL$ 0
+Like the great classic Bugs Bunny cartoons, this movie has humor at different levels. I just introduced this to my 10 year old daughter and 11 year old son. Both enjoyed the movie - busting out laughing quite a few times... and my daughter is not much of a sci-fi fan. The movie kept me laughing despite having seen a few times... the adult-level humor (that is, humor that adults will get simply because of greater life experiences, no baudy or R-rated stuff to be found here) keeps the movie equally enjoyable for adults. For example of the adult level humor, the Martian voices are based on characters of different movies/actors. The Martian pilot, Blaznee, has the voice and mannerisms of Jack Nicholson; the scientist, that of Peter Seller's Dr. Strangelove. The special effects are surprisingly good for this film. The lack of top 10 actors actually works in the movie's favor, and the actors/actresses play their part well - in fact I would say the producers picked out actors and their skills for the roles' needs over box-office draw power (an excellent example is Wayne Alexander's "Vern" character). I had to write this review... the kids are playing this for the 3rd time in 4 days over dinner right now. Good for a rainy day or a late night weekend there's-nothing-on-and-I'm-bored movie.$LABEL$ 1
+This is another one of those fundamentalist Christian movies that hit you over the head with religion like a sledgehammer. You know you are in trouble when the setup of the story is completely ridiculous. Three men are flying to Mexico to deliver Bibles. This makes no sense since the church is Protestant and most Mexicans are Catholic. Protestant and Catholic bibles are not the same. The Catholic bible has books in it that are not in the Protestant bible. I also find it difficult to believe that churches in Mexico would not distribute bibles to them. I can understand if they were going to a place where Christianity is in the minority. But Mexico is far fetched. If you cannot believe the setup of a story, then you don't the rest of the story either. A movie about religion can be entertaining, but not this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a typical 70's soft core sex romp in the Russ Meyer genre, though perhaps less outlandish than some of Meyer's work. This film has higher 'production values' than many of it's contemporaries, suggesting a larger budget. It's plot, writing and acting are straight out the B zone, though. Of late, this film has become a mainstay of B movie channels (such as "Drive In Classics") in the 500 channel universe. If soft core is what you are in the mood for, this is as "good" as anything else in the B range. Don't expect Polanski though, Sarno is just Sarno. Nothing more, nothing less. Jennifer Welles performance as the "mother" is perhaps the best of the cast. None of the actors in the film went on to greater fame, unsurprisingly. Confessions of a Young American Housewife is far from the worst example of it's kind. It is watchable, if this is your type of film. 30 years ago, this would have been an avant garde and riske film. You can see more or less the same kind of thing on Showtime/HBO series these days, and in prime time.$LABEL$ 0
+I totally hated the movie. It was so retarded. They need to get some acting lessons....no, wait, that won't help because the Naked Brothers Band people a retards. You know why I am here even though I am a Naked Brothers Band hater? To warn people before they watch the dumb movie so that the NBB doesn't get any money from it so then they can't make any more amateur stupid songs that are so retarded that any old guy could go and write it in 10 seconds. Not only are the song lyrics retarded, they sing badly. Okay, I'm kinda getting off the movie here.....anyways, it was boring and they acted horribly. It was NOT funny at all even though they tried really hard for it to be. I guess they deserve some credit for that...well, the movie isn't worth your time. Just look at its rating. The movie (and the series) is very painful to watch for anyone who has even half a brain. Seriously, if you liked it, you need to go watch movies where the actors actually act, not babbling their lines in a monotone. I am on the drama club at my school and some people there are actually BETTER than those Nat and Alex guys. Hurry before it's too late! I seriously thought that Herbie Fully Loaded was better than this piece of poopie. I don't even know why I went through even HALF of that film. I don't think it even deserves to be called a film...$LABEL$ 0
+The movie starts in spring 2001. A soldier named John Tyree (Channing Tatum) falls in love with college student Savannah Cutis (Amanda Seyfried) while on break. Within the space of two weeks they fall madly in love with each other (!). But he has to go off to war and she has to go to college. They do but keep in touch by writing to each other. Then 9/11 happens. He wants to reenlist--she wants him to stay home. What will they do? Hysterically bad romantic drama. The leads ARE attractive--Tatum is certainly a handsome man with beautiful green eyes and a hot body (he's introduced walking shirtless out of the water after surfing)...but he can't act. Seyfried is a beautiful woman and she tries...but the dialogue here is horrible. When I saw it me and a friend of mine were fighting hard NOT to laugh out loud at some of the "romantic" dialogue at the beginning. It was just HORRIBLE. For the first hour or so I was either bored by the ridiculously predictable drama or amused by the horrendous "romance". Then, after that first hour, tragedy kicks in and, I must admit, had me in tears. However the filmmakers go out of their way to make sure that you're crying with death, funerals and meetings with people breaking down in tears. How can you NOT cry? This would have worked if the acting were better. Tatum's face never changes expression--not ONCE! He always had a blank look on his face. Seyfried was a LITTLE better but not much. To make it worse Tatum and Seyfried had no sexual chemistry on screen at all! They barely looked like they liked each other let alone love each other. There was some beautiful photography of the Carolinas but this is a boring and stupid romantic "drama". A 1 all the way...and I usually love silly romantic dramas like this!$LABEL$ 0
+'Thursday' is a good movie but we recognize too much from other movies in its genre and therefor it lacks originality. If you have seen 'Goodfellas', 'Reservoir Dogs', 'Pulp Fiction' and a bunch of other movies that were inspired by that last one you have seen almost every part from 'Thursday'. There is a scene that involves torturing that has even the same dialogue as in Tarantino's 'Reservoir Dogs'.Still, it is a good movie. Because not every part is taken from the same movie the complete thing has some new ideas and some nice touches. The opening sequence to begin with, is quite impressive. We meet Nick (Aaron Eckhart), Dallas (Paulina Porizkova) and Billy Hill (James Le Gros). They get into a fight with a clerk in a gas station over a cup of coffee and it ends with the death of that clerk and the arrival of a cop. We've already glimpsed at a suitcase with a lot of money in it.Then we meet Casey (Thomas Jane) in Houston. He is married to Christine (Paula Marshall) but used to be working with Nick. She doesn't know a thing. Then Nick gives him a call and says that he is coming. We learn that he has screwed his friends over and the problems are about to start.What happens exactly is not for me to reveal but we meet some other characters, all interested in the money or the drugs Nick also had with him. Casey has flushed those down the drain.Very funny moments, a lot of blood, a very funny sub-plot involving actor Michael Jeter and some surprises (although if you really think about it you see them coming) this is a good movie with some very fine performances, nicely directed by Skip Woods.$LABEL$ 1
+Paul Rudnick (Jeffrey, Addams Family Values) wrote this frothy tale of a mild mannered school teacher (Kevin Kline) who is outted on the Academy Awards by a former student-turned-actor (Matt Dillon). The rest of the film deals with the absurdities revolving around this setup -the effect on the town, his fiancee (Joan Cusack), himself- and climaxes with an everybody-loves-everybody finale. If you're an angry gay rights activist or a naive youth looking for an accurate portrayal of a man's struggle to come out or a 'true' depiction of gay life, then save yourself the trouble and rent something else (maybe Beautiful Thing) or read a book (Giovanni's Room). If you are able to understand that this film was inspired by the piousness of Tom Hanks's speech on the Academy Awards when he won for Philadelphia and pokes fun at Hollywood culture and small town ignorance and you have a fondness for '30's screwball comedy (Bringing Up Baby, Holiday, The Palm Beach Story) then enjoy! Far from being a biting satire, the film tries for the exuberance of a Preston Sturges farce and comes damn close. No, it's not 'deep' or 'powerful' -neither were Romy & Michelle, 9 to 5, or Young Frankenstein- and it doesn't pretend to be; it keeps it's tongue-firmly-in-cheek. It gets too preachy and maudlin for its own good toward the end and sure some of the jokes are a bit stale (there's also a locker room scene that could have been cut) but after sitting through countless comedies that misfire, it's like a breath of fresh air. Kevin Kline and Tom Selleck are wonderfully game while Debbie Reynolds and Wilford Brimley add fine support. The excellent Joan Cusack's award winning performance is stellar and the great Bob Newhart is, well, Bob Newhart.  The fact that many have been offended by In & Out is as absurd as the mentality of the townsfolk it pokes fun at; personally, I was more offended by Philadelphia. I'll take harmless fluff over sanctimoniousness anytime.$LABEL$ 1
+This was so bad I can't even review it. So I'll jot some sentences about what I witnessed, and it'll be up to you to decide. Captain Kirk, with toupee and tubby gut, is rock climbing Yosemete's El Capitan. Spock meets him halfway riding on a floating skateboard-like hovercraft. Kirk falls. Spock flies down, catches him inches before Kirk hits the ground head- first. Later, that night, Spock, Kirk and McCoy are eating beans around a campfire. Spock likes the beans. Then, Kirk and McCoy sing "Row Row Row Your Boat", and want Spock to join in on the three-way harmony. Spock doesn't want to sing. And later that night, he disagrees. "But life isn't but a dream, Captain". Should I go on? Okay... A renegade Vulcan, who happens to be Spock's half brother, leads a revolt on a sandy planet - taking hostages. The crew of the enterprise land on the planet, and Uhura, pushing fifty-five and weighing two-hundred some-odd pounds, lures the natives with her bare legs. But they can't trick the brother, who claims he can find God. He kidnaps the crew and the Enterprise. They go to a planet where a big bearded apparition, claiming to be God, spits fire at Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Spock's sibling, realizing it isn't God - but is really a form of himself - or something - joins with the apparition in order to destroy it and... sparks fly. Then, after stuff happens too complicated to explain involving Klingons who resemble Lorenzo Lamas... The Three Amigos - Kirk, Spock and McCoy - return to Yosemite (did I mention, Kirk was wearing a GO CLIMB A ROCK T-shirt?). With Spock playing some kind of funky Vulcan guitar, they sing "Row Row Row Your Boat", this time all three harmonizing as the credits roll.$LABEL$ 0
+Wow. Saw this last night and I'm still reeling from how good it was. Every character felt so real (although most of them petty, selfish a**holes) and the bizarre story - middle aged widow starts shagging her daughter's feckless boyfriend - felt utterly convincing. Top performances all round but hats off to Anne Reid and Our Friends in the North's Daniel Craig (the latter coming across as the next David Thewlis).And director Roger Michell? This is as far from Notting Hill as it's possible to be. Thank God.Watch this movie!!!$LABEL$ 1
+Casper Van Dien... what can I say? I enjoy the guy! His movies bring a certain flair to them that is actually not brought on by the director or producer, but by him! Recycled plots... check. Rip-offs of better movies... check. Wooden acting... check. It's not that Van Dien is a bad actor (he has been effective in Hollywood gloss as Starship Troopers and Sleepy Hollow) he just really has not been offered a script worthy of his talents; and yes, he does have acting talent other than being eye-candy. This movie offers a slight hint of what Van Dien can offer but is bogged down by the production of it all. The script can be better developed (see Oliver Stone's U-Turn). The directing can be better utilized (see Robert Rodriguez's From Dusk Til Dawn). The DP could've made the desert more exotic (see Russ Meyer's Faster Pussycat Faster Kill!). This script is weak because this is something we have seen before many other times so the double/triple-crosses are expected. The direction is weak because it is not offering anything new and telegraphs many of the weak script moments. The cinematography at times paints a lovely autumn desert flavor to it, but at other times it doesn't take advantage of the scorching light and the beginning sequence is horrible in cornflower blue.Now to the acting... Van Dien shows some grace and charisma to his Jake. He neither gets too methodical nor too campy in his role. A nice balance especially since the rest of the cast seems too distracted as to how they should be acting in this film (bad script or bad direction... you make your opinion). The only other person worth mentioning is Bryan Brown's villain as it provides the only real credit for acting in this film... aspiring actors forget trying to learn how to act in green screen, try learning how to act in a horrendous script and take notes on Bryan Brown in this film. He adds extra depth to his role and is a nice counter part to Van Dien's character. Jake always seem to either be one step ahead or control of any situation whether if it is out of his control. The femme fatale is weak (this is a desert noir after all) and is another nail in this film's coffin (you decide... script or direction). The Rosalita character should've been thrusted forward in the movie instead of being pushed into the back ground later on to make room for the real femme fatale. So watch the film for Van Dien and Brown; and for fun, try to skip a rock across the plot holes laced within the film.$LABEL$ 0
+Simply one of the greatest films ever made. Worthy of sitting alongside such European masterworks as THE RULES OF THE GAME, GRAND ILLUSION, NOSTALGHIA, ANDREI ROUBLEV, 8 1/2, WINGS OF DESIRE, VIRIDIANA, THE NIGHT OF THE SHOOTING STARS, LA STRADA, ORDET,THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC, THE FOUR HUNDRED BLOWS and MADAME DE... Both a blessing...and an almost perfect work of art.$LABEL$ 1
+First of all, Jon Bon Jovi doesn't seem to be in place in a vampire movie. Together with the other not so interesting characters and the poor storyline the whole movie becomes predictable. If you keep that in mind and you're a total vampire movie fan, you can have some fun with a few of the scenes. Don't expect any Tarantino-style chapters here and neither an Anne Rice storyline. (I expect to have have forgotten the whole movie by tomorrow ;)$LABEL$ 0
+Above-average film and acting partly spoiled by its completely predictable story line. Even the music is chosen so that the words fit the action every time. A scent of "Pleasantville" camp hangs around this flick. As a period piece, it's more accurate than not. Its depiction of the tragedy of company towns and lack of upward mobility is sketchy but moving. Chris Cooper turns in a first-class performance as Howard's coal-miner daddy.$LABEL$ 1
+Based upon the novel The Dismissal by Ermanno Rea, in essence the story's about the slow friendship that develops between an Italian maintenance technician Vincenzo Buonavolonta (Sergio Castellitto, who can be seen as the villainous King in Prince Caspian, and was the lead in Bella Martha) and a Chinese translator Liu Hua (Ling Tai). They set off actually on the wrong foot, with the former chastising the latter for her inaccurate, and slow translations of what he wanted to tell a Chinese delegate who had bought equipment that is faulty. Vincenzo wants to do the right thing, which is rare in these days, and that is to tell the prospective buyers upfront the faults as well as the intricacies that their purchase would bring, and given that he's disturbed by the fact that the deal still went ahead, he takes time off to craft a component that would set things right.But that also means to travel to China in search of the elusive machine, which proves to be well hidden, and seemingly having vanished without a trace. With the initial reluctant help of Liu Hua, they set off in this treasure hunt from city to city, which brings us to lesser seen sights of China, away from the Beijings and the Shanghais, to cities like Wuhan, with industrial like backdrops such as steel mills and nuclear plants with their smoke stacks dotting the scenery. The mighty Yangtze River also makes an appearance. Along the way, the usual trappings of such travelogue styled movies come into play, such as the learning of culture, ideals, food, and basically, the understanding that the world is without strangers, if only one makes an effort to try and connect. While hints of some romance between the two leads are suggested, it rarely made itself to be a moot point, until perhaps late in the movie (hey, opposites attract, no?)Besides the major industrial plants and factories, We get to see various cottage industry, like seamstresses working in sweat shop like environments, and I believe Cotton too, along with noodle making. As a film, it provided me the travelling opportunity without leaving my seat to observe, and credit to it for not passing judgement from a moral high ground on exploitation and the likes. And kudos too for the movie to engage in dialogue based on the characters' native tongues, rather than (and I shall not name names here) some other movie / cross-cultural collaborations where dialogue is forced-dubbed and came off unnatural, and truly irksome. Some might deem the supporting characters to be too kind too, always opening their arms and doors to a foreigner, but I would like to imagine that maybe in the more rural areas, people in general tend to be more sincere, friendly and basically not get caught up in the rat race to trample on others, or be trampled upon.If there's a message to take away from the movie, besides the fact that I mentioned that the world is without strangers, is a reminder to myself that some of the stuff I deem important, may not be so to others. Importance is something one places upon something else, and its basis really depends on how we define the boundaries we set. So given our finite lifetime, I think I should lighten up a bit more, live and let live, and sometimes bask in the illusion that ignorance could be bliss.$LABEL$ 1
+The acting was horrible and they got both of the sports wrongggg.......not only did they get the figure skating rules wrong, but also they rules of GIRLS Ice Hockey. In GIRLS ice hockey you cannot check. You also don't BLOCK for someone. Not all they girls are disgusting gross mean and big. I play hockey and I'm only 4'11 and have been asked to go to schools like the one in the movie. Also not all hockey players hate figure skaters. A lot of current girls hockey players were once figure skaters themselves. Also we skate A LOT faster then the ones in the movie. I was embarrassed by the movie it gave people the idea that we suck.......although i must mention that it is difficult to transition between the sports because of the toe pick on the figure skates.....also some of those twirly moves KAtelin was doing on the ice you couldn't do in a regular hockey game. She basically tripped the person, which is illigal. Its also unrealistic that she would get a HOCKEY scholarship when she figure skates. That really made me angry that scholarship would normally be used to someone who could benefit the team.$LABEL$ 0
+The plot is about a female nurse, named Anna, is caught in the middle of a world-wide chaos as flesh-eating zombies begin rising up and taking over the world and attacking the living. She escapes into the streets and is rescued by a black police officer. So far, so good! I usually enjoy horror movies, but this piece of film doesn't deserve to be called horror. It's not even thrilling, just ridiculous.Even "the Flintstones" or "Kukla, Fran and Ollie" will give you more excitement. It's like watching a bunch of bloodthirsty drunkards not being able to get into a shopping mall to by more liquor. The heroes who has locked themselves in, inside the shopping-mall to avoid being eaten by the hoodlums outside, are not better either. Even though they doesn't seem to be drunk, they give the impression of being mentally disabled. Save your money instead of spending it on this!$LABEL$ 0
+The statistics in this movie were well researched. There is no doubt about it! Al Gore certainly presents his case very well and it is no wonder that this movie got the praise that it got. Al Gore is certainly quite an actor. He sounds so concerned. But actions speak louder than words! Throughout this movie, there are political tidbits and references to his political career sprinkled throughout the movie.Jimmy Carter, unlike Al Gore, is a man of integrity who not only talks the talk, but walks the walk as well. When Carter thought we needed to conserve energy, he turned down the thermostat in the White House and got warm by wearing a sweater.Al Gore tells us that we have to conserve energy and claims that we are creating global warming while he travels around in his own private jet. How much energy does his jet use and how much more pollution does his jet create? How much energy does it take to heat Gore's swimming pool behind his mansion? It would be nice if we could conserve electricity by using smaller appliances and making it a point to turn off anything that is not being used. But if we did, the power company would react to a 50% reduction of energy by calling it a "50% loss in revenue" and recouping their losses by raising the rates by 50%. So "just turning it off" would not be a very good idea.This movie is a veiled appeal to allow Big Goivernment to take control of everything, in the name of saving planet earth, that is.$LABEL$ 0
+I love watching steven seagal movies not because of the action of the great plot holes but just because it makes me laughoh it makes me laugh so hard this movie totally got no point and is ridiculous compared to this movie Pearl harbor rocks!!! and Ben affleck need no acting school at all just to give a impression how bad it isfirst off all there so many goofs and bad acting its just getting worse like when steven is try to get out of jail a chopper lands at first the security notice and they led them land when they fly away all of the sudden a guard start shootingor when he killed that guy in the car he and treach both walk away you can't see no oil on the ground behind him steven notice that there is oil without even watching treach trows a lighter and the car blows upand there are plenty of more goofs Steven uses his basic action when someone is pointing a gun at him he grabs it and shoot him totally bullshit!!! like some gangster would let that ever happen.the acting is also very worse at the fight scene in the jail outdoor place you can see steven clearly wait to come in action just rewind it a couple of time and you notice the bad actingits just makes me laugh i hope one day it comes to the cinema's here in Holland then i'll go there with as many friends as possible just to laugh my self to death$LABEL$ 0
+The producers of this film offer to pay funeral expenses for anyone who dies of fright while watching this movie. They should have offered intensive psychotherapy for anyone who really enjoyed this stinker. A young couple moves into a house, where a woman who looks like the woman from the couple lived. Extremely boring, and very predictable. In the end I ended up not caring about anyone in this movie.Avoid this one at all costs.$LABEL$ 0
+1 out of 10.This is the kind of movie that you cant believe you just wasted 2 hours of your life as you see the credits role. I honestly think I could make a better Vampire movie.... and I know nothing. The only thing that does not just suck (harder than a Vampire) is Jason Scott Lee.... his character is at least a little bit cool, has some mystery, and kicks a little butt.$LABEL$ 0
+George Hilton never really grabs me like Franco Nero or Clint Eastwood, but this is a great outing for him. Basically rippin off the Django/man With No Name and doing a damn good job. The opening sequence of this gem is a classic, and the cat n mouse games that follow are a delight to watch. Fans of the genre will be in heaven.$LABEL$ 1
+There are many adaptations of Charlotte Brontë's classic novel "Jane Eyre", and taking into consideration the numerous reviews written about them there is also a lively discussion on which of them is the best. The short film adaptations all suffer from the fact that it is simply not possible to cram the whole plot of the novel into a movie of about a 100 min. length, consequently these movies only show few parts of the novel. The TV series have proved to be a more suitable format to render all the different episodes of the heroine's life.There are three TV mini series, released in '73, '83 and 2006. The 2006 version is not only the worst of these three, but the worst of all Jane Eyre adaptations and a striking example of a completely overrated film. The novel's beautiful lines are substituted by insipid and trivial ones, and crucial scenes are either deleted or replaced by scenes which have nothing whatever to do with the novel. What it all leads to then is that the characters portrayed have not only nothing in common with the Rochester and Jane of the novel and behave in exactly the opposite way as described in the book, but that also their behaviour and language is absolutely not consistent with the behaviour of the period in which the novel is set. It is a silly soap opera, in which the actors look and act as if they had been put in the costumes of the 1850ies by mistake. This "Jane Eyre" (as it dares to call itself) is indeed a slap in the face of Charlotte Brontë.The 1973 version is very faithful to the novel in that the long dialogues between Mr. Rochester and Jane are rendered in nearly their full length. But what works beautifully in the novel does not necessarily work beautifully on the screen. At times the language of the novel is too complex and convoluted as to appear natural when spoken on screen, and the constant interruptions of the dialogues by Jane's voice-overs add to the impression of artificiality and staginess. And despite the faithfulness to the novel the essence of the scenes is not captured. Another problem is the casting of the main characters. Sorcha Cusack's portrayal of Jane as a bold, self-confident, worldly-wise young woman is totally at odds with the literary model, and Michael Jayston, although a good actor, does simply not possess the commanding physical presence nor the charisma necessary to play Rochester. Although a decent adaptation it simply fails to convey the passion and intensity of the novel and never really captivates the audience.All the faults of the '73 version stand corrected in the TV mini series of '83 with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. Although from a purist's point of view Timothy Dalton is too handsome, tall and lean to be Rochester, he possesses the essential qualities for the role: He has an imposing physical presence, great magnetism and an air of self-assurance and authority. And despite his undeniable handsomeness he looks grim and stern enough to play the gloomy master of Thornfield convincingly. But the excellence of his performance lies in the way he renders all the facets of Rochester's character. Of all the actors who have played Rochester he is the only one to capture them all: Rochester's harshness, nearly insolence, his moodiness and abruptness, as well as his humorous side, his tenderness, his solicitude and deep, frantic love. Dalton's handling of Charlotte Brontë's language is equally superb. Even Rochester's most far-fetched and complicated thoughts ring absolutely true and natural when Dalton delivers them. He is the definitive Rochester, unsurpassed and unsurpassable, and after watching him in this role it is impossible to imagine Rochester to be played in any other way or by any other actor.Zelah Clarke delivers an equally excellent performance in a role that is possibly even more difficult to play well than the one of Rochester. She portrays exactly the Jane of the novel, an outwardly shy, reserved and guarded young woman, but who possesses a great depth of feeling and an equally great strength of will. She catches beautifully the duality in Jane's character: her modesty and respectfulness on the one hand, and her fire and passion on the other, her seeming frailty and her indomitable sense of right and wrong. She and Dalton have wonderful chemistry and their scenes together are pure delight.As regards faithfulness to the literary model this version also quotes verbatim from the novel as does the '73 version, but with one important difference: The dialogues are shortened in this version, but the core lines which are essential for the characterisation of the protagonists and the development of the plot are rendered unchanged. Thus the scriptwriter avoided any artificiality of speech, while still fully preserving the beauty and originality of Charlotte Brontë's language. And in contrast to the earlier BBC version the essence of each scene is perfectly captured.The plot of the novel is followed with even greater accuracy than in the '73 series. It is nearly a scene for scene enactment of the novel, where equal time and emphasis is given to each episode of Jane's life. It is the only Jane Eyre adaptation that has a gypsy scene worthy of the novel, and the only one which does full justice to the novel's pivotal and most heartrending scene when Jane and Rochester meet after the aborted wedding. Timothy Dalton in particular plays that scene with superb skill. He renders with almost painful intensity Rochester's anguish as he realizes Jane's resolution to leave him, his frantic attempts to make her stay and his final despair as she indeed leaves him. It is a heartbreaking, almost devastating, scene, which will stay with the viewer for a long time.With even the smaller roles perfectly cast, an excellent script and two ideal leading actors this is the definitive and only true "Jane Eyre".$LABEL$ 1
+HANA-BI has many quiet moments and fairly slow pacing. Unfortunately, during the many thoughtful interludes the viewer is left to ponder about the recent scenes just watched and many questions surface and annoy.For example, why didn't the wheelchair guy drown in the ocean when he was stuck in the sand and the tide came up around him? There was no rescue seen or hinted at.Can it be true that Japanese police are so inept and unskilled at arrest procedures as to not first remove the suspect's ability to reach for a weapon? These detective-level Japanese police seemed to have no experience dealing with a suspect.Why doesn't the right eye of the lead character blink? Having one eye blinking was distracting and it went unexplained.What exactly was the lead character spending all his money on to have to borrow so much from loan sharks? He was not seen gambling. Being a non entry-level government employee his wife must have had full health insurance.What was the single man doing all by himself in the middle of nowhere in the nature park? What was his reason for being there?How in the world could the gangsters find the lead character and his wife up in the far off nature reserve? It made no sense.And again, how could the gangsters later find the lead character and his wife up in the remote Mt. Fuji resort? There were absolutely no clues available for these gangsters to even know which country the lead character and his wife were in, let alone the correct specific location at the correct specific time!And a third same question, how could the junior detectives know which few feet of the Japanese coast line to find the lead character and his wife? The Japanese coast line must be vast. Were all of these characters supposed to have psychic powers?Two final questions: The cute girl trying to fly a kite on the beach -- WHERE did she come from? She seemed to have no transportation or companions with her. And why in the world did she still keep attempting to fly what was left of her kite after it was ripped in pieces?! This was weird. Unintentionally Python-esque.On the positive side, I loved the background music. It was dramatic and flowing and added much to this movie. The photography, imagery and art were pleasing to the eye.One final point, the wife was overly pleasing to the eye. Not once did she ever come close to looking like a dying sick person. She looked very healthy. If anything, these people seemed depressed and mentally ill and not physically sick. The husband treated his wife as perhaps a newly outed gay man would treat a respected wife... a love of friendship, but not close tenderness.A mixed movie for sure.$LABEL$ 0
+So glad I have HBO right now. I didn't plan on watching a movie today, but when I got home and saw that the next movie on HBO was this one I decided (based on the description) to at least give it a shot. I'm so glad I decided to watch this movie! Maybe this movie just caught me at a vulnerable moment (I'm a little stressed out, got a huge test to be studying for), but it definitely gave me quite the perspective on friendship not to mention taught me a valuable lesson on empathy. I'm currently one year away from graduating from pharmacy school and the whole scene involving the doctor and the nurse was definitely a learning point for me!Anyhow, I just wanted to post up letting the world know this is an amazing movie and not to be missed. There is definitely something for everyone in this movie!$LABEL$ 1
+I have seen romantic comedies and this is one of the easiest/worst attempts at one. A lot of the scenes work in a plug-and-play manner inserted strictly to conform to the romantic-comedy genre. Usually this is okay because we're dealing with a genre, but the challenge generally resides in making it original, new and inventive. This movie fails to do so.There is no sense of who the characters really are, apart from Sylvie Moreau's (who is the real star of this movie, not Isabelle Blais). They fit into this one-dimensional cliché and they become nothing more than simple puppets serving the purpose of a very light narrative.The pacing of the movie can become annoying, rhythm lacks, and the editing is filled with unnecessary close-ups. I should also mention the overly stylized decors making some scenes devoid of any naturally, or rather, making the attempt at naturally seem too obvious. Of course, along with that, you have the right-on-cue sappy music which unfortunately often sounds mismatched.I can't believe that a movie who makes obvious Woody Allen allusions ends up being this deceptive. If you expect a good light-hearted romantic comedy, this is not it. Or rather, this a poor attempt at it. You will only leave the theater wondering why this film has been getting such praise when cinema is now more than 100 years old and there are far superior Quebecois directors making better flicks.Les Aimants is a good movie for what it is. But it's a bad one if you regard cinema as an art and directors as auteur's.$LABEL$ 0
+**SPOILERS** With the title of the film having the name of the killer fish twice not once you would expect to see them in action attack biting ripping and eating up almost everyone in the cast of characters. Instead you have to wait until the movie is almost over for you to get as much as a glimpse of the Piranahs. Even then all you see is the water bubbling and stirring around as a poor individual disappears under it assuming that he's being eaten, whole and alive, by the fish.The movie "Piranha Piranha" starts with this scary looking Piranha on the screen as the credits start rolling down but****SPOILER****that's the only time in the movie that you ever get to see the killer fish or fishes you never get to see a Piranha is the movie again. What you do see is a travelogue of Venezuela and it's people and the Venezuelan jungle along the Amazon River basin. Together with a lot of nice and breathtaking photography of the landscape as well as the people and wildlife but that's about all.There is some kind of a story that has to do with this great White Hunter Caribe, William Smith, which ironically means Piranha in the native language spoken there, is this what the title of the film "Piranha Piranha" really meant? "Caribe Caribe"! The person Caribe is played by legendary Hollywood Hell's Angles biker and all around tough guy William Smith.At the beginning of the movie this trio of American tourists Jim Pendrake and his sister Terry, Peter Bown & Ahna Capri, and their American guide Art Green, Tom Simcox, are on their way into the Venezuelan jungles to go sight-seeing with Terry taking photos to send back home. Terry is terrified of guns as we learn that as a young girl saw her father get his head blown off by a gun. Even when Art saves her life using one when see's attack by a six foot long diamondback rattlesnake Terry almost belts him for having a gun; which he promised her he wouldn't take along with him on the trip.At a jungle rest stop, or bar, the three run into Caribe who we first saw catching monkey's in the jungle at the start of the movie. Caribe makes himself more then welcomed by the three with his knowledge of the jungle and his half-baked philosophy about life and death as well as his ability to get them where their going to the local diamond mines deep in the Amazon basin.Even though a bit strange at first, the guy is so in to himself that he doesn't seem to notice that there are any people around him, Caribe turns out to be a swell and likable guy engaging in a long and friendly motorcycle race through the swamps and jungle with Art. Caribe even shows Terry, who at one time in the movie almost knocked his teeth out, the fine points of hunting and shooting wild game that he believes don't really die but become a part of him after he kills them! A bit crazy but you have to admit this guy's got imagination. It's much later in the movie that for some strange reason, maybe it was the cheap booze that he was drinking, Caribe suddenly goes insane and become homicidal attacking and raping Terry and then murdering her enraged brother and feeding him to the deadly Piranha's. Trying to escape from the rampaging lunatic and then being forced to have to fight it out with him Art gets beaten up so savagely by the dirty-fighting Caribe that he's almost left unconscious. Just when Caribe's about to finally kill Art he's shot to death by Terry who after experiencing what this insane nut-job is all about finally decided that guns are indeed very necessary and should be used to kill on very rare but life-saving occasions.Worth watching, if worth watching at all, only for the scenery and nothing else. It's just a shame that the movie has to advertise as a killer fish, or Piranha, horror movie when if it was honest about itself it could have been a more or less average jungle adventure flick with Smith, he does have the build for it, playing Tarzan of the Venezuelan, not African, Jungle$LABEL$ 0
+Boasting an all-star cast so impressive that it almost seems like the "Mad Mad Mad Mad World" of horror pictures, "The Sentinel" (1977) is nevertheless an effectively creepy film centering on the relatively unknown actress Cristina Raines. In this one, she plays a fashion model, Alison Parker, who moves into a Brooklyn Heights brownstone that is (and I don't think I'm giving away too much at this late date) very close to the gateway of Hell. And as a tenant in this building, she suffers far worse conditions than leaky plumbing and the occasional water bug, to put it mildly! Indeed, the scene in which Alison encounters her noisy upstairs neighbor is truly terrifying, and should certainly send the ice water coursing down the spines of most viewers. Despite many critics' complaints regarding Raines' acting ability, I thought she was just fine, more than ably holding her own in scenes with Ava Gardner, Burgess Meredith, Arthur Kennedy, Chris Sarandon and Eli Wallach. The picture builds to an effectively eerie conclusion, and although some plot points go unexplained, I was left feeling more than satisfied. As the book "DVD Delirium" puts it, "any movie with Beverly D'Angelo and Sylvia Miles as topless cannibal lesbians in leotards can't be all bad"! On a side note, yesterday I walked over to 10 Montague Terrace in Brooklyn Heights to take a look at the Sentinel House. Yes, it's still there, and although shorn of its heavy coat of ivy and lacking a blind priest/nun at the top-floor window, looks much the same as it did in this picture. If this house really does sit atop the entrance to Hell, I take it that Hell is...the Brooklyn Queens Expressway. But we New Yorkers have known THAT for some time!$LABEL$ 1
+If you want to remember MJ, this is a good place to start. This movie features sweet tunes, MJ as robot, and a crazy, messed-up plot. I recall, many a night, passing out to this fine feature film in college, and pondering the sheer awesomenes of whoever decided to green light this ridiculous piece of .There is lots of singing. Lots of dancing. There is lots of singing while dancing. MJ slays it as you would expect when it comes to this stuff. But there is much more to this movie. There is claymation. There are fat children (clay). There is an anthropomorphic rabbit that michael jackson has to battle in a dance off (obviously clay too). There is Joe Pesci as well (not made of clay).RIP- we love you Michael! It is a sad day for all of us.$LABEL$ 1
+This was a movie that I hoped I could suggest to my American friends. But after 4 attempts to watch the movie to finish, I knew I couldn't even watch the damn thing to close. You are almost convinced the actual war didn't even last that long. Other's will try to question my patriotism for criticizing a movie like this. But flat out, you can't go from watching Saving Private Ryan to LOC. Forget about the movie budget difference or the audience - those don't preclude a director from making an intelligent movie. The length of the movie is not so bad and the fact that it is repetitive - they keep attacking the same hill but give it different names. I thought the LOC was a terrible terrain - this hill looked like my backyard. The character development sequences (the soilders' flashbacks, looking back to their last moments, before being deployed) should have been throughout the movie and not just clumped into one long memory. To this day, I have yet to watch the ending. But there was a much better movie (not saying much) called Border.$LABEL$ 0
+To put it simply, this was a pompous piece of canine poopie. Overly stagey and everyone being the total melodramatic drama queen at every single moment. After a while, i was starting to wish that every character in the movie wasn't such a stuffed-up anal retentive.And, this movie has another one of those truly annoying things that has recently come into vogue and shouldn't have: all the scenes are in a sort of washed-out, blue-steel-greyishness. Hmmm, the last time i checked, candles and torches are quite capable of putting a fairly wide spectrum of colors. In fact, the light they put out tends to be more in the warmish, yellowish-orange range of the spectrum. So where's all the blue-steel-grey light coming from?This movie has fancy sets and glitzy cgi fx, but it's still dreck. It's pathetic junk put out for today's movie-goers who are easily placated by pathetic junk.I very much enjoy vampires and werewolves as movie plot devices, but this was a total hack job.Universal Studios' 1941 "The Wolfman" is infinitely superior to this even though its fx is pretty primitive compared to what could be done nowadays.I'm done with this franchise. The first movie was reasonably decent. The second still somewhat entertaining. But this one i couldn't even finish all the way to the end because it was so boring.$LABEL$ 0
+I've been watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer and really didn't begin to love the show until Season 4 started. This episode "Hush" was view by me alone in the dark just after Midnight with my windows open and the wind blowing through furiously by an after storm. The writers of this episode did an excellent job scaring the heck out of me. I was in awe the entire episode which I just finished 2 minutes ago. Amazing doesn't touch the surface of what this episode accomplishes with almost no dialogue. If you've never given this show much thought at least watch this episode. If this doesn't impress you then no episode probably will.BTW My Heart is still racing...$LABEL$ 1
+I simply cannot understand how any Who fan, or just plain anyone could find this awful, lazy, poorly written abomination even remotely funny. It is so embarrassingly below par that it qualifies as a genuine tragedy. The potential for this was huge, it could have been great. What a shame that all that acting talent, the sets, the props, the goodwill of everyone involved was so pathetically wasted by a script that should have been burned.There is an obvious lack of any rigorous production and quality control here. Like those hammy Hollywood movies (mad mad mad world, casino royale) where the stars are just mugging for each other and 'having a great time' which basically means picking up a cheque for doing nothing.I could have written a better Who send-up in my sleep. In fact I have, while awake though. I did it in Year 10 in high school and performed it with a bunch of classmates. It was better, I look at it now and the gags are funnier. Steven Moffat YOU ARE A NO TALENT BUM! What a waste, what a wasted opportunity. Makes me want to cry....$LABEL$ 0
+From the dire special effects onwards I was absolutely gob smacked at how bad anyone can make a film. Lets put it this way, I have absolutely no directing experience whatsoever and for the first time ever when watching a film I thought 'I can do better than that! whilst sat watching this pap. The acting in this film was terrible, I suppose the best actor was the guy from Lawnmower Man but the French guy from Aliens3 was so wooden I wondered how he got the former job in the first place. The storyline was mediocre and I suppose, like most films, If the rest had been done well it would have stood up. I don't usually write reviews here but after seeing a couple of people gave this film a good rating (must be cast/crew) I felt I had to say my piece to save anyone from accidentally hiring it or wasting their money on buying this cack.$LABEL$ 0
+So, not being a poet myself, I have no real way to convey the beauty and simplicity of this documentary. The effortless motion of Goldsworthy, as he molds natures beauty into his own work is captivating. Watch him stick reeds together in a web hanging from a tree in a close up for a few minutes while he speaks of his work, and then receive the payoff when the camera cuts to the wide shot. Be amazed by the ease with which he operates and then realize the futility when a slight breeze knocks down the entire web.The genius of Goldsworthy seemingly knows no bounds as his inspiration is nature itself. It is in the essential change of nature where his work, though complete in its own sphere, is made whole.$LABEL$ 1
+Wizards of the Lost Kingdom is a movie about a young prince (Simon) who is banished from his kingdom due to his father (the king) being killed by the cliche "evil adviser". This movie's about Simon's adventures. The special effects, plot, acting, and generally everything about this movie is BAD. However, it's so bad that it's funny. You will keep watching this movie simply because it's so bad it's funny, and, like the other reviewer of the movie said, it's so bad it's good.$LABEL$ 1
+After reading the book, which had a lot of meaning for me, the movie didn't give me any of the feeling which the book conveyed. This makes me wonder if Kaufman even liked this book for he successfully made it into something else.Either that or he is simply bad. Most importantly where is the lightness?! From the very first scene, music drownes out most of the dialogue and feeling, and this continues right through the movie. I think the makers thought that by having upbeat music playing right through the movie, this would make the story feel light- however they have completely failed here. Instead the music manages to give everything that 'movie feel', in a way dramatising events so that we linger on them, so that everything actually feels heavy.Another example of the how this adaptation fails is by embellishing the story line making it more dramatic. In the movie we see Franz passing Tomas on the street, who is on his way to see Sabina. The introduction of this chance meeting/passing, which im sure didn't happen in the book, gives Tomas' story more significance than it does make it light.There are many other examples where the continuity of the story has been changed, imo for the worst, however this might have been done because the book simply doesn't convert well into a movie, such is Kundera's style. This makes we wonder if all the generous reviewers on this site were writing with their book AND movie experience in mind rather than writing about just the film. A film which is as long as it is uncompelling. For those who haven't read the book yet I recommend just reading that. For those who have, I have to say you will just be wasting your time and probably end up here writing similar stay-clear warnings.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is really stupid and very boring most of the time. There are almost no "ghoulies" in it at all. There is nothing good about this movie on any level. Just more bad actors pathetically attempting to make a movie so they can get enough money to eat. Avoid at all costs.$LABEL$ 0
+So bad as good - not only the script is obvious, but the acting is not just poor, but pathetic. The worst of all is the definition of the characters: unrealistic ingenuity, affected reactions, camera forcing to watch superficial aspects, which are introduced as keys to the plot.Can't prevent laughing when, at the end, main character says to second something like 'your daughter plays no soccer and knows no cooking'. Such offense to female intelligence defines the level of this film.Is the film about the psychological behaviour of the second character?, about its impact on the main character?, or just a sequence of events set in order to heat for the obvious ending? Pls, make more of these - I had a good time guessing what next would go wrong...$LABEL$ 0
+Let me first state that I REALLY REALLY wanted to like this film. For the most part the actors and actresses looked their parts, and did fairly well in their roles, but the movie lacked any real plot. It seemed so wraped up in seeming 'wacky' that no interesting story ever shone through. Also, the camera work was often sloppy, attempting snatchlike camera work and failing miserably. Most of the time, shots meant to look cool ended up being confusing. Perhaps something was lost during translation, but some of the characters were just... stupid. The crazy pretty boy who sniffs people like a dog? Uhhhhhhh. OK. Overall, a fat stinking 1/10. Not worth your time.$LABEL$ 0
+SAIMIN (USA: The Hypnotist /UK: Hypnosis) Aspect ratio: 1.85:1Sound format: Dolby Stereo SRFollowing a series of bizarre and apparently unrelated 'suicides', an experienced Tokyo detective (Ken Utsui) enlists the help of a young psychoanalyst (Goro Inagaki) who believes the victims were acting on a post-hypnotic suggestion. But their subsequent investigations reveal an even darker force at work, linked to a young girl (Miho Kanno) whose life has been blighted by sadistic abuse...Based on a novel by Keisuke Matsuoka, this densely-plotted mystery takes inspiration from a variety of sources (Italian gialli, traditional Japanese ghost stories, etc.), though some of the images in the climactic showdown reveal a more immediate influence: The recent commercial success of Hideo Nakata's RING (1998). For all its ambition, however, SAIMIN is a routine potboiler which stumbles badly after a powerhouse opening (the 'suicides' are particularly impressive, despite some feeble CGI effects), though director Masayuki Ochiai - who co-wrote the script with Yasushi Fukuda - rallies proceedings for an extended finale in which the narrative's startling secrets are finally revealed. Ochiai is best known for his film adaptation of novel-turned-video-game PARASITE EVE (1997) - which also starred leading man Inagaki (a member of Japanese pop group SMAP) - and while SAIMIN echoes that movie's strong visual sense, it falls short as drama, and most of the characters are mere ciphers, undermining the storyline's emotional pay-off. Which is a shame, because the final half hour is galvanized by a series of dynamic set-pieces - most notably, a concert hall sequence in which Dvorak's 'New World' symphony is transformed into an instrument of murder! - and Ochiai is well-served by an excellent production team. However, those lured by the promise of gory carnage may be disappointed - the film is long on atmospherics and short on splatter.Performances are varied, due to the script's limitations, but Kanno (TOMIE) is outstanding as a young woman suffering from multiple personality disorder - which, the subtitles on the print under review assures us, isn't recognized as a viable medical condition in Japan! - who falls prey to a sleazy TV hypnotist (Takeshi Masu), a prime suspect in the murders. Inagaki is bland in a one-dimensional role, and he's constantly upstaged by Utsui, a veteran performer whose career stretches back to the "Sûpâ Jaiantsu" series of the 1950's.(Japanese dialogue)$LABEL$ 0
+...Our the grandpa's hour.More than the gangsters ,it's a detailed depiction of an American family circa 1930:the father,proud of his job who worries about his son who's given up high school,the mum everyone would like to have ,the daughter who forgets dinner time in his squeeze's arms,and the twins who are absolutely lovable ("Don't go to sleep first ,please!").And there's the grandfather ,playing the Yankee doodle on his flute .Have you noticed that this tune plays the same role as Doris Day's "Que Sera Sera" in Hitchcock's "The man who knew too much" (1956)?And there's this grandpa who is finally the most courageous person of the family .So old he does not even tell you his age ,but proud of his country and resisting to the gangster's hateful blackmail.A good film by Wellman.$LABEL$ 1
+Pretty good movie about a man and his wife who get caught up in murder and the police officer investigating the case. It starts off marvelously, but kind of hits a wall at a certain point. We're sure we know what happened, then a tiny plot thread that seems at first like a red herring pops back up and disappoints. Still, Clouzot's direction is great, and the acting is quite good. Louis Jouvet, who also co-starred in Marcel Carné's Drôle de Drame, gives the best performance as the clever detective. I wonder if the Coen brothers were influenced by this film when they wrote Fargo. Much like that film, the police officer doesn't appear until nearly halfway through, and then he becomes almost the focus of the film. There's also a lot of droll comedy surrounding him (although sometimes his methods seem sort of fascist).$LABEL$ 1
+Unless you're twelve, this movie really isn't worth it. It's obviously a low-budget film with B actors, and with a genre like fantasy that sometimes requires intense CGI work that's not good. I knew it would be bad when I rented it. I enjoy laughing at bad movies. I didn't know how bad though. It's bearable, until after hour 2, then it really starts to burn. Fighting styles go between normal fighting that obey the laws of physics, and wire-fighting. There's no real explanation for the transitions. It has a plot, but once again, it's obviously a kid's movie. It seems like there are explicit moral lessons of the day that are being conveyed, like Sesame Street or something. It's bearable. But much better if you're, say, nine.$LABEL$ 0
+This show really is the Broadway American Idol. It has singing, the British Guy, A guy who's sometimes nice, and a super-nice woman.Of course it is different because there is a sing-off, and there's dancing and some acting (we just don't see some of the acting). I gave this show a 7 because there are a couple tweaks that I know a lot of people (including me)would make if they were working for the show. The first thing that really needs to be changed is the judges deciding who goes home. I know they want to find the right Danny and Sandy, but America should have the power to decide who does home. There's really no point to the sing-off. The person with the lowest number of votes usually goes home anyway. Another things I'd change is to see them actually act on the show. What's Broadway without the acting? The last thing that need to be changed is the song the eliminated people sing at the end. The eliminated Danny always sings the same song and the eliminated Sandy always sings the same song as they exit. Since they sing it every week those songs eventually get annoying.I admit to not being a fan of the movie, Grease, but for some reason I am hooked. This show is very underrated. It has so many memorable performances and moments.$LABEL$ 1
+Who did the research for this film? It's set in Baghdad in 2004, however all the Soldiers are wearing ACUs and have all Universal Camouflage Pattern gear. No one was wearing that stuff in 04. I just saw this film while deployed overseas and I can say that the overwhelming feeling from the audience was WTF? This movie made no sense, had characters come and go with no explanation, and people doing ridiculous things that would NEVER happen in real life. I realize that it's a movie, but it's obviously trying to portray something realistic. It fails miserably, but it's trying. It's like someone came up with a bunch of random ideas, chewed them up and swallowed, then vomited out a film. I would not recommend this film to anyone. I'm still not sure why I sat through the whole thing. GI Joe was one that really made you think compared to this. STAY AWAY!$LABEL$ 0
+Fleet was released in 1936 during the middle of the depression when people were having a tough time worldwide finding jobs or even finding food to put on the table. In Europe Hitler was on the rise, along with other nationalist/ socialist whackjobs. In the United States seeds of the Cartel sown with the Federal Reserve Act and the income tax amendment (16) were beginning to bear fruit for connected finance capitalists and their dominating secret societies. For the average guy and girl, times were tough. Enter Hollywood with at least some hopeful images—I don't think we can properly call them propaganda at this point, even though this particular movie revolves around war-preparatory naval exercises. The real issue for boys and girls then, as now, was how to hook up with the right one, lead a decent life, have wonderful children, with a modicum of grace and elegance. The odds were long. ...For my complete review of this movie and for other movie and book reviews, please visit my site TheCoffeeCoaster.com.Brian Wright Copyright 2007$LABEL$ 1
+this was the most costly film, when produced. Sir Alexander Korda and H.G. Wells were both distressed by its poor ratings---for good reason. it was and remains far ahead of its time. aside from the seemingly poor direction, probably editing, at the very beginning, the work moves along to a stunning conclusion.whether its Sir Ralph Richardson's 'Boss' role, or even better, his wife's, Sir Cedric's, as adversary to space-faring, Raymond Massey's 'John Cabal' center role---all deliver mind-boggling performances.the scene with mr. Korda's incomparable set, of the small girl-child, running out to an absolutely 'never-to-be-matched' scene, commenting 'Life just keeps getting lovelier and lovelier'? that swiftly brings tears to any parent/grandparent. this is not a film for the young--unless 'experienced' and rather those who have seen 'the horror' it opposes.sure, the 'phony-parachuting', looks hokey---while using a 'magnetic-cannon', now termed 'mass-driver' may be viewed as ridiculous, vs. rockets---give Sir Korda a break--Mr. Wells made that choice. and at +/- $8 million, this film went way beyond 'over-budget'---so he concentrated on what he could manage.the true power of this Greatest of cinema rests in 'John Cabal's' final statement of human destiny---his friend 'Passworthy' doubts the wisdom of space-faring, saying, 'We're such little animals.' John Cabal's proper response is,(paraphrased) 'Yes, little animals, and if that is all we are, we must live and die as such.' they are standing under a large astronomical telescope. he sweeps his hand over the night sky. 'Yet we may have all the Universe, or nothing.'---then the final chorus breaks in---'Which shall it be?'---this is not 'Star Wars', 'Blade Runner'---anything you may consider 'Great'---this is the Real Thing.i remind all of Steven Hawking's most recent address, upon his latest 'Medal of Honor'---'Humanity must leave Earth, or die.'---the very core of this work---i love 'standard entertainment'---yet this 'relic', for the wise viewer, offers far more. 'Which Shall It Be?' be in the proper 'mood'---whatever that takes---this will take your breath away---i 'guarontee'---overall, for humanity? the most significant of cinema. since posting, i note many have commented on the poor 'media-quality' of 'surviving' examples. in the 80's i developed a 'proprietary' 'colorization' process which required a 'clean' original. this led me to Michael Korda, who sadly noted all were gone---so we must relish what remains---'sad but true?'$LABEL$ 1
+Virtual Sexuality proves that Britain can produce romantic comedies as vapid as those from America. The only differences are an ending that ties up the loose bits differently than an American film would and a cameo by Ram John Holder, which is always welcome. That's enough to make this a watcher on a cold winter's night.$LABEL$ 0
+I usually try to construct reasonably well-argued critiques of films, but I can not believe this got past the script stage. The dialogue is appalling, the acting very dodgy, the accents just awful, and the direction and pacing is scrappy at best.I don't remember the last time I saw a film quite this bad. Joseph Fiennes, pretty as he is, might just have killed his career as quickly as it started.The Island of Doctor Moreau was no worse than this garbage.$LABEL$ 0
+I loved all the other Don Knotts movies, but I never heard much about "How To Frame A Fig" and now I know why: I can't think of anyone who would find it enjoyable. This movie seems to appeal to 9 or 10 year olds, but even most of them would give this a thumbs down. At best there are brief moments of mild amusement, mostly from Don Knotts playing the same nervous, underdog persona that made him famous.After the movie finally finished I was curious if my teenager could pick up on this movie's fatal flaw. We were in complete agreement: the Prentiss Gates sidekick character was even dumber than the Don Knotts character.Be happy that Mr. Limpet, Reluctant Astronaut, Shakiest Gun and Mr. Chicken movies are around to enjoy.$LABEL$ 0
+The movie has very much the feel of a play right from the start - I think it would make a better play than a movie because the set and dramatization make a movie version seem a bit too artificial. But, still, it's carried out fairly well, and the story & especially the dialogue are interesting. They've taken the dialogue pretty much exactly as is from the actual play. Perhaps it's a good introduction to Shaw's plays.The main character Raina has her head in the clouds & and a flair for the dramatic, and Helena Bonham Carter's acting does a good job here. Her fiancé, Serges, is a bit too cartoonish when he is really supposed to be an extremely handsome dashing figure. Her parents are entertaining enough.$LABEL$ 1
+Everything about this movie is perfect. The set design, the acting, the camera movement, the mood, the colors - everything. You'll be hard pressed to find a better movie. Easily, the best film generated in the last 35 years. Keep an eye on Michael Almereydas!!$LABEL$ 1
+I thought this movie was fantastic. It was hilarious. Kinda reminded me of Spinal Tap. This is a must see for any fan of 70's rock. (I hope me and my friends aren't like that in twenty years!)Bill Nighy gives an excellent performance as the off kilter lead singer trying to recapture that old spirit,Stephen Rea fits perfectly into the movie as the glue trying to hold the band together, but not succeeding well.If you love music, and were ever in a band, this movie is definitely for you. You won't regret seeing this movie. I know I don't. Even my family found it funny, and that's saying something.$LABEL$ 1
+What is wrong with CURACAO ( Also known as DEADLY CURRENTS though what the reasonn for the name change is I have no idea ) can probably be summed up where a woman says to her lover :" Keep it down baby , I'm trying to sleep " It's not the dialogue that's the problem or the way it's delivered , it's the fact the actress has has a Central European accent . Nothing wrong with that until it's revealed her character is from Philidelphia in the United States ! This what struck me about this thriller while watching it - The way accents don't match their characters . Apart from the Philly woman with a German accent we see a South African with an English accent , a local police chief who sounds like he's an Irishman impersonating a Gestapo officer and worst of all George C Scott playing someone who's either Dutch or British with an accent that sounds like it might be American tinged with South African . You soon give up following what's on screen and end up concentrating on what nationality a character might be due to the strange way they speak . It's interesting to note that this site hasn't given this movie a country of origin . With so many different actors from different countries you do feel that this was produced by the United Nations Even if you're not curious about accents or dialects you'll probably have to give up following the action anyway because CURACAO is plot less . Things happen like a boat exploding , and a hostage situation and the hero being recruited as an agent for South African intelligence but you're left scratching your head wondering what the heck this is all leading to . I was lost$LABEL$ 0
+While exploring some caves with his wife, a doctor is bitten by a bat which causes some alarming side effects...Occasionally creepy atmosphere and some decent (though under used) makeup effects don't save this B horror flick from being a sub-par tale of man-becomes-creature. The Bat People aka It Lives By Night suffers from its senseless story that's awkwardly plotted and lackluster in pacing. The plot never seems to go anywhere much and the movie never offers an explanation for what happens, or even a satisfying conclusion for it all. The cast is fairly mediocre in their performances.Still I give the film some points for its haunting theme song and nice filming locations. The makeup work of the late Stan Winston is pretty good too, but it doesn't get much of a showcase here. A missed opportunity for sure. Definitely one of the lesser man-creature flicks out there.* 1/2 out of ****$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is about two guys who made up a sport on the spot trying to get 2 get the hot chick. BASEketball becomes a nationwide sport. Joe Cooper (Trey Parker) is the beloved captain, but is hated when he loses the NBA to some other rival team. He meets the girl of his dreams Yasmine Bleeth, and in the end they kiss. the first time i saw this movie i wet my pants it was so funny. a definite must see for all comedy fans. If you love south park you'll love this! Maybe don't watch with kids it is bit inappropriate for little dudes. some duds give it 6 1/2 out of ten, i give it 11 out of ten. i like coop he rocks i gotta go bye bye thanks for reading this$LABEL$ 1
+Pointless short about a bunch of half naked men slapping and punching each other. That's it. For about 5 minutes we see this. It's shot in black and white with tons of half-naked men running around slapping each other to the tune of dreadful music. It LOOKS interesting but there's no plot and really--the violence inherent in this got disturbing. Also the homo eroticism in this is played up but mixing it with violence was not a good idea. Some people who like avant garde material might like this but I found it incomprehensible, boring, stupid and (ocassionally) disturbing. Really--what is the point in all this? I saw it as part of a festival of gay shorts and the audience sat there in stunned silence. I really wish I could go lower than 1.$LABEL$ 0
+This is without question the worst screen adaptation of a Stephen King work, if not the WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME! This is an unbelievably horrible movie. I fell asleep on this stinker several times and I wasn't tired! I would rather shoot myself than sit through it again!$LABEL$ 0
+I've read countless of posts about this game being so similar to Max Payne, when i played it the first time i thought it was a bit weird arcade-like game with a desire to rip-off the Max Payne style (not just bullet-time). So when i played it for a couple of hours i realized how much fun it is! and how different from "Max Payne", yeah the bullet time is a bit similar but i think it fits differently to the game-style. This game is non-stop action - a mix between a shoot'em up and a fight'em up, so much fun, as a big fan of Max Payne i must say that the storyline of DTR is not near to the greatness of Max Payne, the graphics are a bit average and some of the levels look the same, but if you want a bit more of that "bullet-time" you should definitely own this game.$LABEL$ 1
+Another decent offering from the pen of Vince Gilligan.A pre-"Malcolm in the Middle" Bryan Cranston plays Patrick Crump, a deranged guy who eventually hijacks Mulder via gunpoint and has him driving west at high speeds. It has something to do with his severe head ringing (& possible deadly combustion--his wife just experienced it), and the pressure only seems to be relieved by heading towards the left coast. Only Mulder could relate to this guy's plight, and actually bond with his captor before the all night ride is completed. Meanwhile, Scully seems to have solved the case with a possible remedy for Mr. Crump, and will meet them at the ocean. Check it out to see if our Dynamic Duo can hook up at the Pacific and somehow rectify Mr. Crump's big problem.$LABEL$ 1
+A very addictive series.I had not seen an exact combination among drama, action, suspense and Sci-fi never before. I am impressed every chapter. The screenplay is very intelligent, i don't know how the creators invent all this amazing stories, every character have a strange past, troubles, stormy relationships, it gives to the show the human sense needed for creating intimate characters.The most incredible is the fact that all the characters are related among them: The numbers, they have met before without knowing it, and so on. The others, enigmatic security system and the Darma initiative are elements that don't let us lose a chapter.Mr. JJ Abrams, what did you think to create this amazing story?$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this at the Toronto Inter. Film Festival in Sept. 2005. The description seemed intriguing--how wrong I was! This could easily be the worst movie I have ever seen--in 50 years! I see the director is my age (b. 1948) and lived with Nico of the Velvet Underground, which leads us to Andy Warhol, which coincidently is the one I thought of while watching this--Warhol's 24+ hour movies of nothing much happening. This is not art, this is boredom.Specifically: black & white. OK, maybe...but what is the purpose here? Surely they had color in 1968! And there is no contrast with the present. And yes, the subtitles were in white, naturally. I don't think I missed much, but that made about 20% of them illegible.Next, it's pure chronological order, but with seemingly random events thrown in. What's the purpose of the conversation with the old man at the dinner table? It adds nothing to the movie. There were many similar scenes--almost like someone took a camcorder and filmed random people and spliced them together to make a movie.Plot? None. The "riot" consists of some figures in the distance occasionally heaving a rock off screen. Mostly it's an excruciating length of time watching people (in the distance!) stand around. The repetitive opium smoking is just as boring. When the main character got a cute girlfriend, I perked up, but no, she was boring too! This is perhaps the only French film I've seen where no one takes off their clothes. Probably they were too bored to bother.Romance? None. The girl seems totally indifferent to everything--maybe her sculpture holds some interest, but if it does, we're not shown that. We are completely indifferent to the fate of the characters because they are all unappealing. Maybe that's the point of all this?$LABEL$ 0
+Have to admit, this version disgraces Shakespeare upfront! None can act except the nurse who was my fav! Juliet had good skills as a teen but she can't give emotional depth to her lines and we really can never connect to her. She's worse doing the scene when she is contemplating drinking the sleeping potion...god stop whining! I would have poured it in her mouth to shut her up! Anthony Andrews...yikes! Considering his other great movies (Brideshead Revisited, Ivanhoe, Scarlet Pimpernel), he's quite a shocker in this one. And don't get me started on Romeo...puhleasssssee! It's still good to see if you're on the hunt to see every Romeo and Juliet ever made in the history of film. Olivia and Leonard's version is still the best, followed by Leslie Howard's version and then the current Leo and Clare!$LABEL$ 0
+Richard Condie is a Canadian marvel, and one that should be shared with the world. Be it for gut-busting early work such as "Getting Started" and the Oscar-nominated "Snit" through "The Apprentice" and the digitally made "La Salla", Condie is a treasured local hero. But no singular piece of work puts a stamp on his career quite like "The Big Snit". And did I mention it was nominated for an Academy Award? Darn tootin'."The Big Snit", although clearly a dated message-bearer from the 1980s (the short revolves around Cold War-esquire nuclear annihilation, but don't worry – it's hilarious as hell), carries with it a larger meaning, as is most of Condie's work in an understated sort of way. While the planet scurries for cover from Armageddon, a couple bickers over each others' annoying habits (in true Condie fashion, he hacksaws the furniture while she shakes her eyes – literally). And don't forget to watch it again and again, 'cuz there's always something to look at. Condie loads this fella up with countless visual gags and memorable catch-phrases.I strongly encourage this incredible piece of animation be tracked down. In Canada it's usually spotted in a National Film Board video that includes other stellar shorts (including fellow Winnipegger Cordell Barker's equally funny "The Cat Came Back"). Americans will just have to dig a little deeper, but keep at it – the reward is worth the toil.$LABEL$ 1
+I've only seen most of the series since I leave the TV on as background noise in my dorm.I've been a fan of Mencia but this show really doesn't do much for me. Occasionally he'll say or do something to pull a chuckle out, but he has this aura of smugness that completely ruins it.I've always thought he was funny because of his raging angry-man routine that's not terribly prevalent in this TV series. Instead, he's just smug. I guess that just reflects how funny his comedy is: stale and uninteresting when he isn't in the proper mode of delivery. I've seen him get into it sometimes on his show, but for the most part, he just sits there smiling and looking smug, and it doesn't suit him well.Just my opinion though.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the films that killed the "spaghetti" western. It not only loses something in the translation, it is a total chaotic mess of editing as well. Either chunks of it have been edited out and or re-edited for an English language version. In any case, it makes little or no sense, period. It makes the "Trinity" and the Eastwood "Man With No Name" films look like John Ford/John Wayne by comparison. Nothing in this film is original. Somewhere in there is a beginning, a middle, and (finally)an end. Except for the end, not everything is exactly in that order. Robert Wood seems personable enough. The rest of the cast, especially the women, should have made better career choices.$LABEL$ 0
+A shame that even a talented director, Desplechin, could not muster a decent performance out of a bleakly-talented actress, Phoenix, Esther Kahn lacks the substance to convey a very concise and clear plot. In an attempt to fulfill the concentric circle of an actor's plight, the performance and presentation is too contrived and poorly executed to draw any compassion from the viewer. In an overly long running time, the redundancy of Esther's struggle is too melodramatic to be effective and reduces the storyline into a frail frame of a disastrous display. The content is incoherent and gratuitous as Phoenix struggles to carry out Desplechin's instruction, just as Esther is supposedly trying to do the same. Never feeling a convincing victory over Esther's pain, we never feel a victory in Phoenix's talent.$LABEL$ 0
+This should be a great film... Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson co-starring as two newspaper writers. Mike Nichols directing. Uh uh. It's dull dull dull! Pointless and predictable! Slow and unfocused!It's a cookie cutter 'boy meets girl, boy marries girl, boy has affair, girl leaves boy' story. Now theres an original concept! After squirming through two hours (was it only two? It felt like six.)I wasn't sure whether it was a comedy, a romance, a tragedy or a soap opera. It was done in 1986. I'm sure all of us did things sixteen years ago that we rather would forget. I hope the damage to the reputations of Streep et al is beginning to heal and that the emulsion on the master is beginning to fade. It's not that it's such a bad picture. It's just that it's such an un-good one.$LABEL$ 0
+An Eko-centric episode the "?" explores the aftermath of the tragic events that rocked the castaways in the previous one. As the main characters John, Locke, Sawyer, Kate and Hurley come to terms with the incident in the hatch, Locke and Eko set out to find out where Henry took off to. As it turns out Eko is on a mission of his own trying to figure out the symbol ? which Locke had drawn on his sketch. We see flashes of Eko's life in Sydney as a priest who comes in contact with his brother through a stranger. We also witness the tragedy that struck the hatch boil down to a room temperature as Michael continues to remain a mystery.An excellent LOST episode with many interesting turns.$LABEL$ 1
+RUMORS is a memorable entry in the wartime series of instructional cartoons starring "Private Snafu." The films were aimed at servicemen and were directed, animated and scored by some of the top talent from Warner Bros.' Termite Terrace, including Friz Freleng, Chuck Jones, and Carl Stalling. The invaluable Mel Blanc supplied the voice for Snafu, and the stories and rhyming narration for many of the films was supplied by Theodor Geisel, i.e. Dr. Seuss. The idea was to convey basic concepts with humor and vivid imagery, using the character of Snafu as a perfect negative example: he was the dope, the little twerp who would do everything you're NOT supposed to do. According to Chuck Jones the scripts had to be approved by Pentagon officials, but Army brass also permitted the animators an unusual amount of freedom concerning language and bawdy jokes, certainly more than theatrical censorship of the time would allow-- all for the greater good, of course.As the title would indicate, this cartoon is an illustration of the damaging power of rumors. The setting is an Army camp. Private Snafu sits next to another soldier in the latrine (something you won't see in any other Hollywood films of the era) and their casual conversation starts the ball rolling. We observe as an offhand remark about a bombing is misinterpreted, then exaggerated, then turned into an increasingly frightening rumor that sweeps the camp. The imagery is indeed vivid: the brain of one anxious soldier is depicted as a percolating pot, while the fevered speech of another is rendered as steamy hot air, i.e "balloon juice." A soldier "shoots his mouth off," cannon-style, and before you know it actual baloney is flying in every direction. Winged baloney, at that. Panicked soldiers tell each other that the Brooklyn Bridge has been pulverized, Coney Island wiped out, enemy troops have landed on the White House lawn, and the Japanese are in California. The visuals become ever more surreal and nightmarish until at last the camp is quarantined for "Rumor-itis" and Private Snafu has been locked up in a padded cell.This is a highly effective piece of work. The filmmakers dramatized their theme with wit and startling energy, and the message is still a valid one. In recent years we've seen that catastrophic events (real or imagined) can breed all kinds of wild rumors that spread more rapidly than ever thanks to communication advances. Because the technology has improved, the Private Snafus of our time are able to broadcast their own balloon juice via e-mail, cellphones and blogging. Consequently, RUMORS is a rare example of a wartime educational film whose essential message doesn't feel at all dated; in fact it may be more timely than ever.$LABEL$ 1
+Finally we get a TV series where we get to see the acting talent! Episode one was excellent! The script gave us a little more than usual, yeah, there was still the "i'm not your father -i'm your father and omigod you cheated on me!" rubbish but the script allowed the actors to actually feel and live those real moments rather than show us what it would feel like if -like so many TV soaps do. The camera work also gave us a little more than usual, there were no boring shots of repeated angles for hours yet there was no unnecessary 'shots inside shots or hand-held camera crap' to add an "artistic" edge it gave us what we needed to see and also some beautiful scenery pictures as well! Nothing was over-dramatised or melodramatic they were real people in a real place dealing with real situations, the show lacked nothing in drama and was completely relevant. It was SUCH a relief to be exposed to real acting and so nice to let our country see just how talented our actors can be when given a real script, a real opportunity! Thank you Tony Tilse, Sam Miller, channel ten and all cast and crew -wonderful work!! please continue what you are doing, your efforts are much appreciated and do not go unnoticed!$LABEL$ 1
+I wasn't going to watch this show. But, I'm glad I did. The critics of this just don't get it! It's one of the funniest and most entertaining thing on T.V at the present moment! Though, when the interviews were done with common folks they probably seemed useless; but, put them in the mouth of animals and insects, and it's a laugh riot. I laughed so hard, I had tears in my eyes. The pig with the babies suckling and her mother is priceless. The husband and wife birds talking about health problems, and the male bird taking a crap after the wife said she was constipated completely broke me up! Creature Comforts is the most imaginative show I've ever seen in awhile! Hopefully, it will be back next summer when this run is over.$LABEL$ 1
+This programme bugs me! There is no humour to it and is far too serious to be called "fun"! It's just far too educational for my liking! The characters are very stereotyped and unappealing. The plots are redundant and the morals are just repeated over and over again. Where's the fun in it? Also I feel this has been on the BBC for far too long and is broadcast way too much. Does it really need to have a slot on T.V every 2 or 3 months when a brand new show runs out of episodes? I think it's time that the BBC starting bringing back some of their older shows like: Inspector Gadget, Bananaman, The Smurfs, Snorks, Moomins, the Raccoons and Count Duckula other than continually giving contracts to these newer shows! I thought the BBC where bring back Danger Mouse, so what's going on with that?! 3/10$LABEL$ 0
+I think it is very interesting this movie is called a thriller. It is anything but thrilling.Most of the time you hear piano sounds. Then you hear piano sounds. Then some people talk about facts which do not concern anybody.Then again piano sounds.To be honest, this movie was the reason for me to register at IMDb, because I think this movie is one of those which humankind has to be warned of.Spoiler: By the way, the most action-like part happens when a can of hot chocolate is spilled.Also very interesting: The "actors". Yes, the quotes are intentional, as you can think, because they do not act. They play piano and do smalltalk, but it's not acting they do.I think before this movie I never left a cinema and felt angry. Really, this film made me angry. Angry for the time and money I spent on it.$LABEL$ 0
+The film is a remake of a 1956 BBC serial called'My Friend Charles',& as such gallops thru the material in a relatively short time.I found it fast moving,enjoyable & unpretentious.Did anyone else notice the scenes,towards the end,where John Mills was being gassed?-the producers obviously decided to omit the scenes-maybe censorship?,but notice when he's sat by the window of the flat,deep breathing closely followed by similar scenes with the car window open. The Francis Durbridge serials all seemed to inhabit the same universe,that of unexplained happenings,people being not what they seem & the villain being someone close to the hero/victim.A predictable universe in some ways,but one with its own rules & regulations.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is so different to anything you would have seen before. It's an honest and chilling account of an entire family's battle with a terminal illness. 'The Closer She Gets' is shot in a very unique style. Craig Oulette films in a very different way.... using different angles and viewpoints, in what i find is a very eye catching manner (perhaps due to his experience with photographic works). His style gives such a clear picture of not only what the patient herself is facing, but what loved ones close to her also have to deal with. A very sad, but extremely interesting and unique film. One I would definitely suggest watching.$LABEL$ 1
+Viva Variety was a unique hybrid program that was both a parody of and a tribute to the programs it represented. It was most directly a mock up of the classic 1970s favorite, "The Sonny & Cher Show," With Thomas Lennon and Kerri Kenney playing a divorced show biz couple who were somehow forced to host this program together, the female of the pair towering over the male, and the constant barrage of "insult humor" the couple tossed at each other, plus sketch comedy bits and performances from what are most kindly described as "specialty" acts! The "hybrid" was the mix of fact and fantasy. Of course, there was no "Mr. and Former Mrs. Laupin," and the program's announcer, Johnny Bluejeans, was likewise equally fictional. But all the acts that performed were certainly real, and some were even entertaining! But there were also some acts that would have clearly been better suited for the old Chuck Barris "Gong Show." The show itself was really more like an extended sketch from "SCTV" (it was borne from the MTV series, "The State," after all), and some would suggest that it would have been better as a five minute bit in the mix of a program like that one, rather than a stand alone series. But "Viva Variety" certainly should get high marks for original concepts, and even though it was often more odd than funny, it was certainly worthwhile, especially when they road tripped to Las Vegas and brought in even glitzier acts to perform. It's unlikely we'll ever see anything like this on television again.$LABEL$ 1
+The Cure is one of the few movies I rated 10 out of 10. I mean, everything is flawless for me in this motion picture. I saw it almost a year ago, and yet I remember many of the scenes, especially the final touching scene that comes with the credits.The two boy actors clearly gave everything they could and this greatly contributes the excellent storyline, making the film perfect.The message is clear - friendship, and it's displayed throughout the whole thing.I have nothing more to say here. Simplicity is one of the things I love so much about this film. And of course, it's fun and moving at the same time, suiting people of any age.10/10, nicely done!$LABEL$ 1
+The movie starts out a bit interested with the son interested in a teenage girl his own age. Clayburgh's timid-appearing husband is killed in car crash as she is getting ready to go to Rome and sing as a diva. Matthew objects but comes along. He connects with the young girl again but this time, Matt is on cocaine. His superb voice, lovely, impetuous mother is in the limelight. She doesn't know how to handle Matt's addiction. The movie drags on in search of a plot. Clayburgh is in the wrong role and Bertolucci may have had his head in the moon while directing the picture. The Moon has great symbolism.Save your time. I am perhaps overly generous with 4*.$LABEL$ 0
+Just watched this one again. I wanted to show it to one of my friends and we had the best time. This is why these kind of movies are made, to entertain people and Zombie Bloodbath 2 does that for me and for everyone I have showed it to.The story concerns a group of teenagers in a van that run into a group of escaped convicts who have taken over an old farmhouse. When a scarecrow (that is actually a demon I think) gets disturbed, it comes to life and re-animates dead bodies from the local cemeteries. This leads our heroes to escape only to land in the arms of two insane killers that are in the process of torturing some people in a deli in a small town. Pretty soon it's a showdown with humans fighting zombies.I loved this movie! From it's different formats (black and white film, video and digital cameras) to the very fast pace and great music, there was always something going on and it NEVER bores you! Sure, it's cheap, but you can tell that a great deal of care and hard work went into this film. I have read other reviews and all I can say is that these people have missed the point. If you want 35mm Full Moon fluff, or if you are into modern stuff like Urban Legend, then I say pass on this. If you like low budget stuff like Gates Of Hell and Evil Dead, I say buy this now.The make-up and gore is very good, the acting is uneven at times, but over-all it is pretty good and the editing is very impressive. There is enough going on in this one to fill two more films! It is actually one of the better b-movies I have seen in ages.$LABEL$ 1
+i think that's this is awful produced and directed movie. Benicio Del Toro shouldn't work in production of movies, he should put accent on his acting and that's it. Steven Soderbergh missed the whole point of the idea about revolution, about it's ideals, and most important about life of Che Guevara and so on. Camera is awful, like someone with 2 day working experience is shooting with it, music is ...i don't know..is there some music in the movie???? i will not recommended this piece of sh.. to no one. It's just wasting about 4 hours in front of the TV or whatever.... I can't figure out how can someone rate this movie more than 3 stars. DISASTER....DISASTER....DISASTER....DISASTER Don't watch please. Save yourself from this misery of "movie"$LABEL$ 0
+OK, when I say "wow," I mean, "Jesus, please help me." I have an old VHS copy that was printed before Troma got a copy of the title. The movie is about an alien crash landing on Earth to terrorize us with a gun that blasts people into oblivion. WATCH OUT!!! And by that, I mean watch out for those special effects. There is an amazing number of mistakes. The acting is terrible, but I'd say the only one putting forth any effort would be the Sheriff. The film itself is really grainy and poorly lighted. In one particular scene, it is day outside and then the shot shows the Night Beast shooting his gun with night behind him. Then it shows day again. *Shakes head* I usually like low-budget horror films, but I had to force myself to finish it because I never watch a movie without finishing it. The only accomplishment this film achieved was an alien that wasn't stereotypical. So for that, and ONLY for that... I give it a 3 out of 10.Don't watch this movie if you've had a bad day. You'll be even more depressed at the failed attempt this movie makes.$LABEL$ 0
+One hundred and seventy five million dollars is a hell of a lot of money to spend on even the biggest summer blockbuster. Not even Michael Bay had a budget that big for Transformers, so exactly how Universal Pictures spent that much cash making Evan Almighty is a mystery. They certainly didn't spend it on the script for one thing as the film is not so much a classic comedy as it is Christian flag waving and bar one or two quiet chuckles, you're most likely to spend the duration wondering where the budget went or why Steve Carrell felt the need to slum it in a decidedly average movie at the exact moment when his star profile has begun to rise.A sequel to the Jim Carrey comedy Bruce Almighty, this film sees former supporting character Evan Baxter (Carrell) moving up the ladder into the main player slot. The story opens with him leaving the news desk to become a public official and moving to Washington with his wife and three generic sons (slightly weird primary school moppet, spirited middle schooler and sulky teenager). Evan's bid to change the world through politics however gets a spanner in the works when God (Morgan Freeman) appears and asks him to build an Ark.In other words, it's an updating of the old Genesis story, with Evan fighting off cynicism and naysayers to build the immense boat. Unfortunately, while the premise is reasonably promising, it sadly does not provide many laughs. There's a bit of fun to be had in the early going where Evan's straight-laced MP tries to juggle the demands of public service with the unwelcome packs of animals that follow him around and a beard that resists all attempts to shave it, but as soon as he accepts his divine mission, the film takes a nosedive.From this point on, it turns into a message movie. Evan begins preaching with alarming regularity and Morgan Freeman keeps turning up to offer kind wisdom, while gently prodding his chosen in the right direction. Without Evan's resistance though, the only trace of comedy left comes in the form of a few rubbish animal-feces jokes and John Michael Higgin's role as Evan's exasperated right-hand man. Higgins may show the same rich comic potential that he did previously in Arrested Development, but his enthusiasm cannot save the sinking vessel, especially seeing as Carrell has all but placed his formidable improv skills on the back-burner.In some respects, it's slightly similar to the Passion of the Christ, but unlike Mel Gibson's movie which encouraged everyone to believe in God through blood letting and guilt tripping, Evan Almighty tries a more gentle approach. The movie simply tells us that we should have faith in God, because He has faith in us. Unfortunately, this movie is just as likely to make you laugh as the Passion is. Carrell is on autopilot, the jokes don't exist and Wanda Sykes makes a bid to become the most annoying person on the planet. It might be sweet, but somebody just tossed $175 000 000 overboard.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm sort of between the gushy review and the hate review. I've been a fan of Lovecraft (and a Lovecraft 'purist') for a long time, and while this little amateur film was of poor quality it had a number of redeeming qualities. I went into viewing expecting the worst thing I've ever seen, and wondering if Lovecraft would turn in his grave over it, but I was shocked to find that I actually kind of liked it.I don't want to catalog the movie's faults, so I'll only mention a few that keep this movie from being a 'stellar amateur effort'.It's very low budget and shot on a video cam, so it has the look of some soap operas, but once you get used to the idea then it ceases to be a big deal. The direction is pretty amateur and the shot framing and use of distance in the shots is rather clumsy. STILL, this film was actually kind of creepy and it stayed more faithful to Lovecraftian intent than nearly all the Stuart Gordan and Brian Yuzna travesties (my main exception to those films being Re-Animator and Dagon) put together. The idea of being impregnated by some Old One is reminiscent of Dunwich Horror and Shadow over Innsmouth (which isn't to say this movie is as good as those stories!!), so the overall plot is quite faithful to Lovecraft's ideas. One thing that annoyed me was that words out of the bible seemed to make a zombie prisoner upset and afraid. I'm not sure if this was meant to indicate that 'God's' words upset the Old Ones or just this particular zombie. There was no real answer to that. The rest of the Christian symbolism in it reminds me of August Derleth's take on the mythos. So in a way this was a Derleth style take on the mythos.I would recommend this film only as a curiosity. It shows how a fairly atmospheric movie can be made with nearly zero budget. I liked the setting of the wine cellars. The outdoor shots were sad, though. Using the same stretch of beach and trees (and nearly the same damn shot) to convey 3 characters' long journey was really sad. The director needs whack upside the head for that. The acting was standard for an amateur film, with the blonde zombie girl getting a personal award for "Best Impersonation of Gollum by an Italian Actress". Actually I think this film was done prior to the Lord of the Rings movies. Maybe Andy Sedaris watched her and thought "Dang, she'd make a great Gollum!" One little kudo to the director, though. The makeup on the zombies was like bad goth kids. I was upset seeing this and nearly stopped watching. I was like "Oh so that's how we know she's evil and possessed", but later on in the movie you see a girl painting makeup like that on the face of an older woman (both living). So it wasn't an attempt to say 'goth makeup = zombie' but rather, 'goth makeup was left on after zombification'. However, possessed/zombie does equal 'blue contact lenses'...heh.On the whole, I still liked this movie better than the Yuzna and Gordan films (barring the aforementioned exceptions). Yuzna and Gordan had much better budgets, but this film did a better job at filming a Lovecraft-like story than they did, and on a tiny budget.One quick word to the the make-up artist: I know you wanted 'claws' or something on Zariah's fingers, but long, black press-on nails looked really silly.A quick word to the writer of the score: I know you couldn't resist, and apparently neither could the director who okayed it, but when the two characters square off with guns for a 'duel', playing that little whistle from "The Good, the bad, and the ugly" killed any mood that scene had accumulated. It was cute, but cute wasn't appropriate.The filmmakers of this movie have read Lovecraft and had a great deal of respect for him. I enjoyed the little nods here and there: the character Carter with the bad dreams, and the character Pickman who becomes a ghoulish zombie.$LABEL$ 0
+Ingrid Bergman is a temporarily impoverished Polish countess in 1900s Paris who finds herself pursued by France's most popular general and a glamorous count -- and that's on top of being engaged to a shoe magnate. Such is the failproof premise that entrains one of the most delirious plots in movie history. There are backroom political machinations by the general's handlers, a downed balloonist and ecstatic Bastille Day throngs, but the heart of this gorgeously photographed film is the frantic upstairs/downstairs intrigues involving randy servants and only slightly more restrained aristocrats. Yes, it's Rules of the Game redux. Before it's all over even Gaston Modot, the jealous gamekeeper in Rules, puts in an appearance -- as a gypsy capo, no less! Things happen a little too thick and fast toward the end, resulting in some confusion for this non-French speaker, but what the heck -- Elena and Her Men is another deeply humane Renoir masterpiece.$LABEL$ 1
+Although DiG! was being hailed as being closest to what the music industry is like it is highly fabricated. The director has misled the audience into believing the Brian Jonestown Massacre disappeared off the face of the earth post-'98. And the rivalry between the Dandy Warhols and Jonestown has been milked. The truth of the matter is not really exposed in this film.That said this film is endlessly quotable and is an interesting watch as we get a look at two groups of very talented musicians creating their art. One of the best things this film has going for it is a unique perspective between the indie music scene and the larger corporate scene.Recommended mostly for the music and the two fantastic bands.$LABEL$ 1
+I've already seen spin-offs of cartoons such as The Flintstones, Scooby Doo, Tom and Jerry and Looney Tunes and most of them are great.When I saw the All Grown Up pilot in 2001, I thought it was interesting to see how the Rugrats would look in their pre-teens/teens and it contained things that would usually happen during that time of life such as going to a concert, going to school and being grounded.The actual TV show is better because the Rugrats seem to wear different clothes in each episode and Angelica doesn't get punished as much as she did in the original Rugrats series. Tommy and Susie get punished in this series.I've also noticed references to Rugrats in this show and even flashbacks of how the Rugrats looked in the original series. They actually talk to the adults in this show because they're 10 years older.This show is aimed at a slightly older audience than the original Rugrats. Viewers of the original show may like this.$LABEL$ 1
+This musical has a deep meaning which is appreciated by only a few. The wise can see the wisdom contained in what most call folly.This music may well regain popularity as world consciousness rises. It is about a land "far away from it all" where "living things have room to grow." Its people are "living and growing together" mentally and spiritually faster than in biological age.The lyrics help us recognize the relativity of this "world that is spinning around" and to "look inside yourself; that is where the Truth always lies." The absolute level of consciousness is more real than the ever changing world of the senses.I have been searching for the video for years . When I find it, or it comes out in DVD, it will help "share the joy" of being in "Shangri-la" again. Burt Bacharach's music and Hal David's lyrics made a masterpiece in turbulent times that is just now ready to be fully appreciated.May this CD inspire you to find your own "Lost Horizon" or recognize it when "peace of mind" has found you. - LostHorizon.org$LABEL$ 1
+Just finished this impressively nutty affair and whilst I can't say as it was as good as I had hyped it up to be in my mind it was still an effective and at time pretty nasty piece of brain warped and misogyny fuelled J-trash. Its story tells of a poor gal searching for her sister who winds up getting raped and drugged by Yakuza scumbags, and the helpful lady doctor who sets out to avenge her, doing so in bizarrely gruesome fashion after a similar bout of rape and drugging. Oh yeah and there's a bit of straightforward sex in there as well, sadly its all soft core, as per the Japanese disapproval of below the belt nudity, but pixelation is minimal, in fact only really noticeable in a hilarious blow-job scene. Although writer/director Kazuo "Gaira" Komizu fails in creating an especially compelling tale this is at least pretty scuzzy stuff, diving early on into the well of filth with a pretty unsettling rape (made worse by the fact that the gal looks kinda young, though I'm pretty sure she was of age). Also, for the most part this is pretty professional looking stuff, maybe not stylish but it has a certain flair and the content is handled reasonably well, with particular kudos for largely avoiding having to employ much pixellation. Things are mostly sex/rape based for about two thirds of the sharp runtime and its pretty watchable if you groove to such fare, it gets a bit numbing after a while but the ladies are easy on the eye and it is reasonably harsh at times. The music, from Yôichi Takahashi is occasionally effective, though hardly a key part of the show it does in a few spots complement the action neatly, at any rate enough for me to notice it. More important are the effects, by Nobuaki Koga, which pack an impressively splattery punch when they appear, helped out by the lunatic nature of the climactic shenanigans. Things even pull to a curiously affecting ending, sure it ain't a weepy or anything, but for a film so gutter level for most of its runtime it is relatively poignant. Altogether this is a pretty entertaining diversion for mean spirited trash fans, especially those with a taste for Japanese rapey adventures. I could really have done with a longer revenge section and more gore, also perhaps more of a point/brains, but hey, it kept me watching and it is pretty nicely stocked with memorably wtf moments. So if you dig this sort of degenerate junk, probably worth your while, just maybe don't expect the second coming.$LABEL$ 1
+Life is crazy. You're crazy, I'm crazy, we're all crazy. We're all a little bit Minnie, and a little bit Moskowitz. Sometimes it does seem best to be sensible...but then what might you be missing out on?You gotta be you. You don't have to park cars and semi-randomly yell at people, but you can't hide yourself behind a veil (or dark sunglasses) and pretend and act like everything is okay. And sometimes, you really do have to throw caution to the wind, because why else are you alive?I'm not going to 'rate' this love compared to Cassavetes' other movies, because they are all absolutely 100% unique works and each their own individual act of expression and exploration of our lives. In that sense they are all great, and comparisons are odious. For sure, this movie has that one crazy, sometimes maddening, but ultimately wonderful and freeing quality that all his movies have- you never know what's going to happen next, and you never know what the characters are going to think, do, or feel next. Neither do the characters themselves- and do we really want to live our lives any other way? Unlike Moskowitz, you can have a great job and judiciously sock away money into your IRA, but still live the life of an adventurer inside- in your feelings, your spirit, and your very experience of life. Yeah, we can have it both ways, that's what Cassavetes shows us. Thank God somebody did.$LABEL$ 1
+Final Draft - A screenwriter (James Van Der Beek) locks himself into his apartment and succumbs to psychosis in an attempt to write a horror script. Not a terrible premise, but the execution is awful. This feels like a first year direction and writing job, and probably is. The director jump cuts the hell out of everything. It's meant to be disorienting. What it IS is annoying. So much so that small chunks of film are incoherent. The writing is predictable, and doesn't use follow through on most of the ideas it offers (bag of oranges). It's like they ran out of time and slap-dashed it together for the Toronto Film Festival.This film is not jaw-droppingly "oh my god it's so bad it's good" bad. It's boring bad, and irritates you for a long time afterward. James Van Der Beek is not a terrible actor, and keeps the ship barely above water. But he's too normal for the kind of psychosis the film tries to offer. He is merely a withdrawn guy who one day sees people and hallucinates things, then decides to act mildly deranged. Cause follows effect. Maybe there's something in the water. Now Darryn Lucio, who plays his "friend", is a terrible actor. He shares the likeness of Chris O'Donald and is even more annoying, a superhuman achievement.The atmosphere the film provides is good (dull gray and somber), but as it's the only thing the film achieves it means nothing. This film wants to be Jacob's Ladder or The Machinist. It isn't even Secret Window. It's the preppy girl in class deciding to turn goth.Not irksomely terrible, but the sheer stupidity of it will ebb at you. I've already put more thought into this critique than the filmmakers did for this.D$LABEL$ 0
+"Best In Show" tracks the stories of a handful of human contestants as they prepare for one of the biggest dog shows in the calendar. Any amateur psychologist would say that an unconditional love and obsession with a pet is a sign of something missing in someone's life, and each of the characters in some way fills this cliche. There's the former High School Hottie who's now married to a geeky man, the childless, label-obsessed yuppie couple, the solitary outdoorsman, the young wife of a wealthy old codger (along with her short-haired dog trainer), and the gay couple.What makes this film so funny though is the way it portray's these stereotypes in a completely believable way - almost affectionate, in many cases. Every ridiculous thing one of the characters does or says - with their dog as an innocent onlooker - seems like the kind of behaviour you'd totally expect to see at a dog show.The biggest laughs come from the commentary team of an all-american style sports announcer, comparing moments in a dog show to parts of a baseball game, and his English, canine academic, foil.The trials of the geeky husband as his blonde wife meets an astonishing number of men from her past is also always good for a chuckle, as is the demented behaviour of the yuppie couple as the pressure builds, while their hound stays completely unflustered.Well worth watching - even if cats are more your bag.$LABEL$ 1
+In my never-ending quest to see as many quality movies as possible in my lifetime, i stumbled upon this film on cable. I tried Hitchcock three times before this, and never have i felt that the man's work lived up to the praise he had received. I always felt he was good, not great (from what I've seen) This was the best of his films I've seen thusfar. Robert Walker is absolutely chilling, his performance takes the film where Hitchcock wanted it to go. Even an average performance here damages the overall product. My favorite scene was his obsession about getting the lighter from the drain (how exactly does he get his arm down there though?) Bruno is quite a compelling character, but i also loved the performance by Patricia Hitchcock as Barbara. The rest of the Morton family as well as Guy were a bit dry and boring, but she added some flare to the movie, as well as having some of the better lines in the script.Lastly, in any suspense movie, you're going to live and die by your ending. This one holds water, unlike a couple other Hitchcock films I've seen. I truly was unsure of how it would end, which kept me on the edge while i watched and waited.$LABEL$ 1
+The film's title makes it sound like a porno but it's not even a sex comedy. Instead, Hot Summer in Barefoot County is about an official sent from a southern state to a small town to locate and arrest moonshiners. The moonshine though is coming from the farm of an old woman with three beautiful daughters. Almost anyone can guess what happens next but oddly, the film is very tame. It hardly even qualifies for a PG rating. What's more, the low budget is obvious in pretty much every shot and the acting is sooooo amateurish. This film was probably intended for the drive-in crowd but it's unlikely that it satisfied them, even in 1974.$LABEL$ 0
+I watch tons of movies and had no idea this would be as good as it was. I was looking forward to it after reading the plot (even though I find Nirvana overrated). It sounded like it would be tons of fun but it was more than that. Jansen puts in little touches like the books (Kubrick book among others), movie posters, etc. I like when I see a director takes his time and put his heart into a film. And you can really feel that in this. There are tons of scenes and moments that I love, I am trying to think now of some other films that are like this and I would say the only thing I can think of are Cameron Crowe films. Takes little moments and makes them stand out and special. The soundtrack is amazing and each song works perfectly with the scenes and feel of the film. This film is amazingly shot, and the editing is outstanding. I could really go on and on about the film. I cannot recommend this enough really. If you want a fun story with great tunes from a director who clearly put his heart into his work then check this out.$LABEL$ 1
+If you only read a synopsis of the plot, this movie would sound like quite a typical one of the 1930's. The story would seem quite contrived, the subject matter maudlin. The strength and beauty of this film is in the direct, earthy performances of the cast.I have seldom seen Jean Harlow display such a range of feeling, rich and subtle nuances float over her face. If you watch their faces during the wedding ceremony in the chapel, there is such an obvious depth of feeling between the principal characters. The raw emotions are so sincerely portrayed, so true. The final sequence is almost unbearably poignant: when Clark Gable looks down with such joy and surprise at his son, lifts him up and proudly says, "My kid!", I couldn't help remember that Mr. Gable's own son was born to him posthumously. This is one of the finest examples of Depression era cinema.$LABEL$ 1
+Directed by the younger brother of great director Leo McCarey this is a pretty good short from the Three Stooges, nominated for an Academy Award. Here the stooges are doctors named doctor Howard, doctor Fine and doctor Howard. They are not the brightest doctors but they get the benefit of the doubt as long as they handle for duty and humanity.I liked this short. It is not one of their best but some moments are hilarious though. One joke that is repeated more than once works every time. The part where they must operate the hospital's boss is terrific. To say more would spoil some of the jokes, so you must see it for yourself. Just another fine short from the Three Stooges.$LABEL$ 1
+THE BRAIN THAT WOULDN'T DIE was considered so distasteful in 1959 that several cuts and the passage of three years was required before it was released in 1962. Today it is difficult to imagine how anyone could have taken the thing seriously even in 1959; the thing is both lurid and lewd, but it is also incredibly ludicrous in a profoundly bumptious sort of way.The story, of course, concerns a doctor who is an eager experimenter in transplanting limbs--and when his girl friend is killed in a car crash he rushes her head to his secret lab. With the aid of a few telephone cords, a couple of clamps, and what looks very like a shallow baking pan, he brings her head back to life. But is she grateful? Not hardly. In fact, she seems mightily ticked off about the whole thing, particularly when it transpires that the doctor plans to attach her head to another body.As it happens, the doctor is picky about this new body: he wants one built for speed, and he takes to cruising disconcerted women on city sidewalks, haunting strip joints, visiting body beautiful contests, and hunting down cheesecake models in search of endowments that will raise his eyebrow. But back at the lab, the head has developed a chemically-induced psychic link with another one of the doctor's experiments, this one so hideous that it is kept locked out of sight in a handy laboratory closet. Can they work together to get rid of the bitter and malicious lab assistance, wreck revenge upon the doctor, and save the woman whose body he hankers for? Could be! Leading man Jason Evers plays the roguish doctor as if he's been given a massive dose of Spanish fly; Virginia Leith, the unhappy head, screeches and cackles in spite of the fact that she has no lungs and maybe not even any vocal chords. Busty babes gyrate to incredibly tawdry music, actors make irrational character changes from line to line, the dialogue is even more nonsensical than the plot, and you'll need a calculator to add up the continuity goofs. On the whole THE BRAIN THAT WOULDN'T DIE comes off as even more unintentionally funny than an Ed Wood movie.Director Joseph Green actually manages to keep the whole thing moving at pretty good clip, and looking at the film today it is easy to pick out scenes that influenced later directors, who no doubt saw the thing when they were young and impressionable and never quite got over it. The cuts made before the film went into release are forever lost, but the cuts made for television have been restored in the Alpha release, and while the film and sound quality aren't particularly great it's just as well to recall that they probably weren't all that good to begin with.Now, this is one of those movies that you'll either find incredibly dull or wildly hilarious, depending on your point of view, so it is very hard to give a recommendation. But I'll say this: if your tastes run to the likes of Ed Wood or Russ Meyers, you need to snap this one up and now! Four stars for its cheesy-bizarreness alone! GFT, Amazon Reviewer$LABEL$ 1
+Great screenplay and some of the best actors the world has ever produced. Montand gives the concept of the 'lone wolf' police detective a whole new dimension of intensity and, most importantly, credibility.When a typical Hollywood cop-heroe loses family, friends and pets to murder he is usually given his minute of grief. But when the sixty seconds are over, he pulls himself together, packs his gun and goes gleefully shooting up his enemies one by one.Montand's Marc Ferrot, however, is really devastated - by his girlfriends murder, of course, but also by finding out that she had another lover.In his confusion and wrath he does not seek revenge but needs to keep going to find the real perpetrator of a crime where his fingerprints are all over the scene. Thus all his actions become unescapably logical. This is the main reason why this movie glues us to our seats but definetely not the only one.$LABEL$ 1
+The best martial arts movie ever made. This one movie is better than anything Bruce Lee ever did. A classic with a thoroughly entertaining and brutal climax. Jackie Chan is the king of martial arts movies and the true king of kung fu.It's a great pity that whilst Bruce Lee had been so overrated, it took Jackie Chan an eternity to become popular in Europe and America. Jackie rules!!!!$LABEL$ 1
+Paris, JE T'AIME is a wondrous cinematic homage to the city of light and the city of love, a film so complex that it almost defies summarization and reviewing. Ask a large group of people their impressions of life in Paris and the result would be something akin to this film. Tied together by each of the sectors or Arrondissement of the city, the film examines love in all forms, native folk in their Parisian modes, and tourists interacting with the great city. Approximately twenty writers and directors, each with about five minutes of screen time, include Olivier Assayas, the Coen Brothers, Sylvain Chomet, Isabel Coixet, Wes Craven, ALfonso Cuarón, Gérard Depardieu, Christopher Doyle, Vincenzo Natali, Alexander Payne, Walter Salles, Nobuhiro Suwa, and Gus Van Sant among others less well known. The stories vary from hilarious, to humorous, to touching, to tragic, to banal, to tender.In one story a young Frenchman (Gaspard Ulliel) is attracted to a young lithographer (Elias McConnell), pouring out his heart in French to a lad who speaks only English. In another a separated husband and wife (Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara) meet in the Latin Quarter to finalize divorce proceedings while another couple in Père-Lachaise (Emily Mortimer and Rufus Sewell) approach marriage without connection until the spirit of departed Oscar Wilde intervenes. Steve Buscemi in Tuileries confronts superstition in a subway with his bag of tourist collections, in Bastille Sergio Castellitto (in love with mistress Leonor Watling) is ready to divorce his wife Miranda Richardson until she confides she has terminal leukemia, Juliette Binouche confronts agony about her son's fantasies and loss in Place des Victoires with the help of a mythical cowboy Willem Defoe, Sara Martins and Nick Nolte and Ludivine Sagnier display a keen tale of mistaken ideas in Parc Monceau, Fanny Ardant and Bob Hoskins 'play out' a strange relationship in Pigalle, Melchior Beslon plays a young blind man to actress Natalie Portman in learning how to see in Faubourg Saint-Denis, vampire love between Elijah Wood and Olga Kurylenko in Quartier de la Madeleine, Maggie Gyllenhaal is an ex-patriot actress stung out on drugs in Quartier des Enfants Rouges, and Margo Martindale is a visiting tourist letter carrier trying desperately to speak the French she has studied for her life's trip in a tenderly hilarious 14ème Arrondissement.The final few minutes of the film tries to tie together as many of the stories as feasible, but this only works on superficial levels. The film is long and there are no bridges between the many stories, a factor that can tire the audience due to lack of time to assimilate all of the action. But it is in the end a richly detailed homage to a great city and supplies the viewer with many vignettes to re-visit like a scrapbook of a time in Paris. It is a film worth seeing multiple times! Grady Harp$LABEL$ 1
+I want very much to believe that the above quote (specifically, the English subtitle translation), which was actually written, not spoken, in a rejection letter a publisher sends to the protagonist, was meant to be self-referential in a tongue-in-cheek manner. But if so, director Leos Carax apparently neglected to inform the actors of the true nature of the film. They are all so dreadfully earnest in their portrayals that I have to conclude Carax actually takes himself seriously here, or else has so much disdain for everyone, especially the viewing audience, that he can't be bothered letting anyone in on the joke.Some auteurs are able to get away with making oblique, bizarre films because they do so with élan and unique personal style (e.g., David Lynch and Alejandro Jodorowsky). Others use a subtler approach while still weaving surreal elements into the fabric of the story (e.g., Krzysztof Kieslowski, and David Cronenberg's later, less bizarre works). In Pola X, Carax throws a disjointed mess at the viewer and then dares him to find fault with it. Well, here it is: the pacing is erratic and choppy, in particular continuity is often dispensed with; superfluous characters abound (e.g., the Gypsy mother and child); most of the performances are overwrought; the lighting is often poor, particularly in the oft-discussed sex scene; unconnected scenes are thrust into the film for no discernible reason; and the list goes on.Not to be completely negative, it should be noted that there were some uplifting exceptions. I liked the musical score, even the cacophonous industrial-techno music being played in the sprawling, abandoned complex to which the main characters retreat in the second half of the film (perhaps a reference to Andy Warhol's 'Factory' of the '60s?). Much of the photography of the countryside was beautiful, an obvious attempt at contrast with the grimy city settings. And, even well into middle-age, Cathering Deneuve shows that she still has 'it'. Her performance was also the only one among the major characters that didn't sink into bathos.There was an earlier time when I would regard such films as "Pola X" more charitably. Experimentation is admirable, even when the experiment doesn't work. But Carax tries nothing new here; the film is a pastiche of elements borrowed from countless earlier films, and after several decades of movie-viewing and literally thousands of films later, I simply no longer have the patience for this kind of unoriginal, poorly crafted tripe. At this early moment in the 21st century, one is left asking: With the exception of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, are there *any* directors in France who know how to make a watchable movie anymore? Rating: 3/10.$LABEL$ 0
+It seems to be a perfect day for swimming. A normal family wants to gain advantage from it and takes a trip to the beach. Unfortunately it happens that the father is trapped under a pier and neither his wife nor the small son is able to help him out of this - whereas the tide is rising. The woman (Barbara Stanwyck) takes the car and searches for help.John Sturges' short movie (69 minutes) is powerful because of unanswered questions. Stanwyck finds a guy who could help, but there is a price she has to pay for this. There is a double question the movie poses. How far would you go to help the man that you love, and on the other hand - observing Stanwyck's behaviors towards the stranger - does she really love her husband? Like a good short story this movie leaves the viewer to himself with questions he can only answer himself.$LABEL$ 1
+I'd passed this title 15 or 20 times while in Blockbuster, looking for something halfway decent to watch. All I can say is that they were all out halfway decent films the night I chose to rent this.I will give it credit for being leaps and bounds better than "Dracula 3000", but in actuality that's pretty easy to say since this one DIDN'T have Caper Van Dien in it. The other things it lacked in spades were: an interesting cast, interesting story, good dialog and originality, but I suppose you can't have everything.***SPOILERS AHEAD*** The misfit crew of vampire hunters (one of which was a vampire... go figure) flew around from mining colony to mining colony trying to wipe out all the vampires it could find. The crew consists of: the cocky, ne'er-do-well captain (who dies early on), his by-the-book, yet inexperienced first mate, the aforementioned vampire vampire hunter (not a typo), a wannabe cowboy and a REALLY, REALLY butch Asian commando, "tough guy" female... it almost sounds like the cast for MTV's 'The Real World'. After the captain dies in a violent confrontation with a mob of bloodsuckers (and as it turns out, lovers of the finer parts of human anatomy) his first mate takes over... blah, blah, blah... everyone hates him... blah, blah, blah... I could go on, but as I said it's the same storyline used in about a hundred other 'films' of the genre.The effects were cheese and why Michael Ironside was in this movie is beyond me. The vampire vampire hunter (still not a typo) was pretty hot, but of course if you're waiting for her to expose more than just her cleavage, look elsewhere.I can't say that it was the worst film I've seen, as I actually rented 'Starship Troopers 2', but wait for this one to come on the Sci-Fi Channel.$LABEL$ 0
+If you are looking for a movie that doesn't take itself seriously... than Haggard is for you. I must say before i write anything more, that if you have not seen any of the CKY (Camp Kill Yourself) videos than the movie most likely won't be AS funny. My advice is to watch a few clips of those videos that Bam and his friends made. Haggard does not take itself seriously AT all, and that was never the purpose. Throughout the movie you will have random moments that have nothing to do with the plot, which may get annoying but its nothing that is out of control. Even through all that the plot does stay focused and the story of Ryan Dunn's character does unfold quite nicely. This plot i have been told is based off a true story (for the most part)of Ryan Dunn's ex-girlfriend. Brandon Dicamillo is by far the best character in the movie. He has a lot of talent and knows how to make people laugh. He stole the movie if you ask me. Overall I love this movie for its simplicity and straight up weirdness. Its a Bam movie people, its not going to be normal. Haggard is filled with hilarious quotes that my friends and I constantly used since the first time we saw it. I've seen the movie 6-7 times and still find new things every time. The soundtrack is just as good. Everything from Gnar Kill to New Order and some techno. Just don't go into the movie with high expectations, let it all unfold and then judge it for what it is.$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of those movies that appears on cable at like two in the afternoon to entertain bored housewives while they iron. The acting is second rate. Poor Mathew Modine seems to sleepwalk through the whole film. And god help Gina Gershon. Her accent is too over the top. It sounds nothing like an true English woman. It sounds forced and phony, much like her acting. She should stick to what she does best, lesbian showgirl con-artist who plays in a rock & roll band and has a drug problem. The other characters are no better. They are two dimensional. empty, vapid and silly. How are we to supposed to care about these people. At one point Christy Scott Cashman get's lost in Central Park. Really? It's not that hard to navigate Central Park. Just follow any path out. Not only did I not care about ANY of the characters,I downright hated them. The only reason I even stayed with this train-wreck of a film was Fisher Stevens. Even his brilliant humor couldn't save this dying Fish. Each scene is typical romantic comedy fare and nothing is left to surprise us. The script was awful as was the acting. If you catch this Fish throw it back!$LABEL$ 0
+This short was director Del Lord's last and only Shemp short. The problem: It was quite weak and the cafe scene was pretty much a carbon copy of a Curly short "Busy Buddies" (1944). The interrogation scene was pretty funny, and the beginning part of the cafe part. But there are a lot of plotholes in this short. For example, why are the stooges hiding in the garbage can when the police come? In the remake, "Of Cash And Hash"(1955), director Jules White fixes this and the reason for the stooges hiding in the garbage can is because there is a gunfight between the police and the armored car robbers. The scene in which Moe is having trouble with the oyster was done before with Curly in "Dutiful But Dumb" (1941). The spooky house part wasn't all that great except for the hilarious scene on the outside of the spooky house. To top it off, the ending had no sting to it. Rating: C-$LABEL$ 0
+You can't watch this film for a history lesson. This was the first I had heard of the Ma Barker saga, but I could tell almost immediately that the facts were way off. And with a little internet research I realized I was of course right. Ma Barker sure as hell isn't the sexy, calculating woman the movie portrays her as, and apparently did not orchestrate all the bank robbing schemes, kiddnappings, and murders that her criminal boys carried out.But don't expect a brilliant crime drama. The script and the acting are adequate, the gunfights are excessive and mostly unrealistic, and there is a very laughable slow motion death scene. So why did I give it a 7 out of 10?Because it was damn entertaining. The gunfights are fun to watch but there are some deeper themes that emerge between them. The movie has a strong sense of ego intimidation among it's cast of alpha males, each of whom has his own agenda. And I appreciate the minimal use of swears for the period. The set pieces are great, reproducing a convincing 1930s era.So watch this film like you would a cult film, and take the excessive bloodiness and ruthlessness in stride with the cheesy ultra serious comments from the FBI man who wants to take the Barkers down at any cost. Inotherwords, don't take it too seriously, just have fun with it. And if you like this, you'll love Serial Mom.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was just as good as some of the other westerns made by Anthony Mann and James Stewart like Winchester '73 and The Naked Spur, and much better than Thunder Bay and Bend Of The River. This film starts out like a run of the mill western but gets more complex as it goes along. It starts out with Jimmy Stewart and Walter Brennan arriving in Seattle and Stewart is charged with murder. He is found innocent but is cattle is stolen by a corrupt judge. Stewart then agrees to lead something but i forget what it is but Stewart only cares about getting his cattle back. As the movie goes along it's like Stewart only cares about himself just like his character in the Naked Spur. It gets much better at the halfway point after they arrive in Alaska. This is one of Stewart's better westerns.$LABEL$ 1
+NOBODY (1999) is a fantastic piece of Japanese noir. It's about three salarymen who get in way over their heads when their innocent, drunken cheapshots p*** off three OTHER guys one night in a bar. When these three mysterious strangers, who are up to much more deviant no-goodness than even the film allows us to know, beat the living daylights out of one of our "heroes", the trio decides to return the favour in kind - only they accidentally KILL one of the other guys! The remaining two baddies then begin the systematic destruction of everything these poor schmoes hold dear, including their fast-dwindling sanity. Phaedra Video's DVD sleeve features a critic quote calling the film "A paranoid street crime freakout!" or some such, and the term more than applies here. Brooding, tense, very violent and low-key (but still pretty slick), shot largely at night with many deliberately vague moments and character motivations that keep the audience guessing right along with the besieged protagonists (who, to some degree, deserve everything they get!). I give it a 10.$LABEL$ 1
+Ah, Batman Returns, is it possible to have a sequel to be almost as good as the original? With Batman Returns, it came pretty close! We have terrific actors and a great plot with the dark knight and two new villains, Catwoman and The Penguin. We have Michael Keaton back as Batman and he's still awesome than ever. Michelle Pfieffer, the perfect choice for Catwoman and was perfectly cast into place. As much as I love and is such an incredible actress Annette Benning, she couldn't have been Catwoman, she doesn't really have the look. Danny DeVito, who could have imagined him as The Penguin? He was just great and terrifying! Batman returns with a more loving community of Gotham City, they are celebrating Christmas time with, Max Shrek played by a creepy Christopher Walken. The perfect villain who mistreats his lovely secretary, Selina who happens to hear too much at his office causing him to push her out the window in hopes that she dies and will never reveal the information of knowing the Penguin and the attempt to make him loved in Gotham. When she survives and is awakened by cats, she wants revenge and is ready to go at it with her cats! But there is also another active villain, The Penguin who is in search of his parents that abandoned him and now he is looking to be the new mayor of Gotham City! Can Batman be able to stop both super villains from creating their hanous acts and stop the mayor from destroying the city as well?You'll have to see! Batman Returns is just as good as the original Batman, despite the first one remaining the true classic, this one still takes you for a ride. And come on, I mean we've got Michelle in leather! Her classic moment of just meeting Batman and The Penguin "Meow" is classic! There are memorable characters, lines, and sets! You'll have a blast! Trust me! 9/10$LABEL$ 1
+Set mostly in the back streets of Toronto NG is a dark , mysterious journey that takes the viewer into the minds of a young man and woman ( Vern and Sarah ) , each of whom has a fascination with riddles and a disastrous incident in their past . Fine dialogue and first-rate casting propel this low key, noirish journey into the girl's search for the meaning behind the word puzzles that keep appearing in her life. Aided by her , anything but enthusiastic, male friend, the two of them reach the end of their quest , but with a price to be paid. The film never intends to answer all of its mysteries , but does an excellent job in the exposition of several plot twists$LABEL$ 1
+"Four Daughters," a sentimental story of a solid middle class family with four sisters, was notable in one respect: into this romantic, idealized milieu enters Mickey Borden… Carelessly dressed, with an uncompromising attitude to all bourgeois values, he really sets the hearts of the sisters aglow… His criticisms are not only directed towards those about him but also towards himself… One day Ann (Priscilla Lane) discovers him passionately playing the piano… "That's beautiful," she says… "It stinks," he replies… He falls in love with – and marries – Ann but eventually, realizing that their basic incompatibility is leading their marriage into disaster, he takes the equally uncompromising step of causing his fall… The role was superbly played by John Garfield, and it brought him not only stardom but also, and perhaps more important, won for him his place in cinema history as the screen's first rebel hero… Garfield was born in New York's East side of Russian immigrant parents, and spent his adolescence as a delinquent, a real life role that he only relinquished when he began to portray the rebel on screen… He continued, however, throughout his life to question and reject certain traditional values… He was occasionally suspended by the studio and maintained a cynical view of Hollywood…Finally he ended his career and his life as one of the victims of McCarthy's witchhunt… He was blacklisted by Hollywood because of his suspected left wing sympathies and friends claimed that being banned from working contributed to the heart attack' that killed him at the early age of 39…$LABEL$ 1
+A hilarious Neil Simon comedy that evokes laughs from beginning to end. The late Walter Matthau is the grouchy ex-comedian who is persuaded to join together with his ex-partner (the late Oscar-winner George Burns) for a final reunion show on stage.Benjamin Martin is Matthau's agent and nephew, and the two have just as much chemistry as Matthau and Burns. I love Matthau's grumpy character--he's just the same as he always is, and yet also very different.Burns, as the absent-minded old man, is just as funny as Matthau.Matthau: Want some crackers? I've got coconut, pineapple and graham.Burns: How about a plain cracker?Matthau: I don't got plain. I got coconut, pineapple and graham.Burns: OkayMatthau: They're in the cupboard in the kitchen.Burns: Maybe later.Or how about this:Matthau: When I did black, the whites knew what I was saying!You've got to see it in the movie to understand it!All in all, a refreshingly hilarious, sweet, heartfelt, warm, belivable character comedy with a heart and some of the most memorable quotes of all time. They just don't make them like this anymore! In a time when all the newest comedies are crude, juvenile and stupid, this leans back towards the tender core of what comedy really is--funny characters, smart and funny dialogue, and grand entertainment.One of the best buddy comedies of all time, right up there with "Planes, Trains and Automobiles," "Lethal Weapon," and "The Hard Way."You may have a hard time finding this for rent or on TV, but trust me, it will be worth your time!4.5/5 stars.- John Ulmer$LABEL$ 1
+I just watched this movie on Showtime. Quite by accident actually. If I wouldn't have only had 6 hrs of sleep for the past two days then I wouldn't have came home early from work. If I hadn't came home early from work I wouldn't have seen this movie. I wouldn't have known what I was missing, but I would've missed a lot.That's the way this movie is. It's almost playing on the Kevin Bacon effect. That and causality (hence my verbiage above). Ever character is intertwined in some way or another. Action, reaction, interaction, non-interaction. This movie is just wonderful. I'm going to have to find a copy to buy.$LABEL$ 1
+Steven Seagal, Mr. Personality himself, this time is the United States' greatest Stealth pilot who is promised a pardon from the military(..who attempted to swipe his memory at the beginning of the movie for which he escaped base, later caught after interrupting a gang of robbers in a shootout at a gas station)if he is able to successfully infiltrate a Northern Afghanistan terrorist base operated by a group called Black Sunday, who have commandeered an Air Force stealth fighter thanks to an American traitor. Along with a fellow pilot who admired the traitor, Jannick(Mark Bazeley), John Sands(Seagal)will fly into enemy territory, receiving help from his Arab lover, Jessica(Ciera Payton)and a freedom fighter, Rojar(Alki David) once they are on ground. Jannick is kidnapped by Black Sunday leaders, Stone(Vincenzo Nicoli)and his female enforcer, Eliana(Katie Jones), and Sands must figure out how to not only re-take command of the kidnapped stealth fighter, but rescue him as well. And, maybe, Sands can get revenge on the traitor he trained, Rather(Steve Toussaint)in the process. Sands has 72 hours until a General's Navy pilots bomb the entire area. On board the stealth, Black Sunday equipped a biochemical bomb, hoping to detonate it on the United States.Seagal gets a chance to shoot Afghans when he isn't slicing their throats with knives. The film is mostly machine guns firing and bodies dropping dead. The setting of Afghanistan doesn't hold up to scrutiny(..nor does how easily Seagal and co. are able to move about the area undetected so easily) and the plot itself is nothing to write home about. The movie is edited fast, the camera a bit too jerky. Seagal isn't as active a hero as he once was and his action scenes are tightly edited where we have a hard time seeing him taking out his foes, unlike the good old days. One of Seagal's poorest efforts, and he's as understated as ever(..not a compliment). Even more disappointing is the fact that Seagal never fights in hand to hand combat with the film's chief villains, tis a shame. He doesn't even snap a wrist or crack a neck in any visible way(..sure we see a slight resemblance of some tool getting tossed around, but it's not as clear a picture as I enjoy because the filmmakers have such fast edits and dizzying close-ups).$LABEL$ 0
+I am new at this, so bear with me please. I am a big fan of Surface. I thought the script and the computer graphics were exceptional, as good as any Sci Fi flick I've seen at the theater. In February the TV guide said Season Finale, the announcer for the show said something to the effect of, "...and now for the season finale of Surface." Season Finale, not series finale! I couldn't wait for fall to get here, to see was going to happen next. So fall gets here and it's nowhere to be found! If NBC isn't going to pick it up, what about Sci Fi or USA? It seems to me that Bay Watch didn't last long on ABC & then USA picked it up, and it went gang busters! (I bet ABC was chocking) Ha! If not a series, then at least a mini series, to give all us loyal fans closure. What happened to our guy's trapped in the church steeple? Was the creature in the chaple Nim? Did he have a grouth spert? Does the cloned guy come over to our side? There are so many unanswered questions. Thank's for listening to me babble!$LABEL$ 1
+The essential message - one which Miller would have surely intended after seeing Vichy war crimes trials - is that hatred of somebody without rational basis is a waste of life. Meat Loaf's character, Fred, has known Lawrence for many years, and yet when the time comes, at the bidding of his fanatical supporters, he allows them to attack a man who is not part of their "target" group. For me, this is the crucial message - it doesn't matter what Lawrence and his wife do from this point onwards - they are marked, and have chance to save themselves by using reason. Animal aggression and anger have blinded Fred's Union thugs to reality.A friend of mine suggested I should see "The Wave" to study how irrational hatred and evil ideology can take over people without them realising it. I once conducted an experiment in a role-playing game, and was shocked to see how normal and level-headed people welcomed the creation of an oppressive police state - which would ultimate threaten them all - because it crept in in stages.Fred is the start, his LA friends and preacher idol are the catalyst which pushes his neighbours over the edge into violence without stopping to think that what they are doing in wrong.The relationship between Lawrence and Finkelstein, the Jewish shopkeeper is a fascinating one, because Lawrence misses the point almost until the end: if the bigots force Finkelstein out, where is he to go? If his family have fled the Nazis, what an irony to be tormented again in the land of "freedom".That big poster (it's a fairly famous propaganda piece) about American families enjoying the highest standard of living in the world is a very important detail. When you see this film, watch for the grafitti on the subway train, and all the little posters. The message lurks there too.This movie should be on the curriculum of every school, especially in our time when baseless hatred is being promoted so widely by "reasonable" people who are just extremists in thin disguises.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is tremendous for uplifting the Spirits.Every time I watch it, I see & hear funny little things that I missed before.The soundtrack is unbelievable. Mick Jones (Foreigner) and Chris Difford (Squeeze) penned the songs, making Strange Fruit the best thing that ever hit today's music scene.Unfortunately, Strange Fruit are a strictly fictitional washed up '60's to 70's band that were never good to begin with, due to drug use and inner fighting. One wonders what might have been, while listening to their fanatstic soundtrack.The Fruit draw inspiration from The Rolling Stones, Deep Purple, David Bowie, and The Who.Each member of Fruit are quite memorable. Stephen Rea stars as down-and-dead-broke Tony Costello, who is asked by a festival promoter to reunite his band for a reunion tour, with hopes of reaping monetary benefits. Costello haply approaches ex-roadie Karen Knowles, played by Juliet Aubrey, to help him rekindle the flame of a dream long past.Juliet gathers up the bitter Jimmy Nail (Les Wickes), blundering Timothy Spall (David 'Beano' Baggot), and extravagantly glamouresque Ray Simms (Bill Nighy). Tumbling in is another ex-roadie, the hippy-toker-jokester Hughie (Billy Connolly), who never let the flame burn out.As Juliet searches for the last member of their motley band, the elusive guitarist-songwriter Brian Lovell (played by the brooding Bruce Robinson), the reunited members squabble, just like old times, fighting over each others' rusty talent.The band is then given the chance to do a small Dutch tour, to prepare for the festival. With young Hendrix-like Luke Shand (Hans Matheson) taking the place of Lovell, the crew hits the road. The sparks fly as their memories flame forward, threatening to burn their unfinished goals...Be prepared to laugh, sing, cheer, and cry, as these memorable characters etch themselves back into your hearts...$LABEL$ 1
+I think this movie is different apart from most films I've seen. It was exciting in a way, and no matter what others say, I say, I was surprised about the final solution. Certainly didn't see it coming!! Although it's sad, it's worth watching.. I can't think of any movie that would be like this! Actors knew what they were doing. If you say this movie sucks, you say probably what most people would say. But, if someone says that this movie is ordinary, I absolutely don't agree. And Norman Reedus should be more noticed.Maybe I'm freak but I liked this very much. It was kind of mess, but who cares? I'm tired of boring and ordinary movies.$LABEL$ 1
+Brit director Chrstopher Nolan now has a career in America, and a reputation for making movies both popular and critically acclaimed; but this small film was where he started. And it certainly showcased his talent, with its striking black-and-white cinematography and achronological storytelling that prefigures his later 'Momento', albeit in a less extreme way. Thematically and mechanistically, the plot reminded me of David Mamet's 'House of Games', but the film still feels fresh and sharp, right up to the final twist of the ending whose flavour was expected, but whose pointedness is unexpectedly delicious. The acting, on the other hand, is not quite in the same class - the film has a stylised quality, and possibly to a greater extent than the director intended. But it's still a fine debut, simultaneously claustrophobic and beguiling.$LABEL$ 1
+The Salena Incident is set in Arizona where six death row inmates are being transfered from the state prison for reasons never explained, while driving along the heavily armed prison bus gets a flat & the driver is forced to pull off the road. Then two blonde birds turn up & after seducing the incompetent prison guards manage to get the better of them, the six prisoners are released but in a shoot-out their getaway car is damaged leaving them all stranded in the middle of the Arizona desert. They decide to head to the nearest town, Salena several miles away & take the cops with them as hostage. Once they reach Salena they find it odd that the place is completely deserted with not one single other person in sight. They soon discover that the entire town has been killed by flesh eating aliens & they are firmly placed on the menu...Also known as Alien Invasion Arizona in the US on DVD & apparently having the working title Terror Town this rubbishy low budget sci-fi horror flick was co-written, co-produced & directed by Dustin Rikert & has no real redeeming features at all, to be frank The Salena Incident is the sort of film which gives films a bad name. The film could roughly be divided into two parts, the opening forty or fifty odd minutes focuses on the prisoners in a thriller feeling opening, the guards & the escape although it's pretty poorly written & staged stuff. The dialogue between the two blonde birds & the prison guards is so bad it's unintentionally funny as the two fit birds chat up the two not so fit prison guards. Funny stuff actually, unfortunately The Salena Incident is supposed to be a sci-fi horror film not a comedy. Then once the escaped cons & their prison guard hostages arrive at Salena it goes into sci-fi horror mode as the aliens turn up & start killing our clichéd character's off which is good because they are annoying. Look, the whole film sucks as it's badly written, thought out & made. I can't really be bothered to go into why but trust me The Salena Incident is awful on every level.As well as being just a bad, boring & stupid film The Salena Incident is also poorly made. The action set-piece scenes are awful, the aliens looks terrible & are never shown on screen at the same time as the human character's & as such it's sometimes difficult to tell what's happening. The special effects are poor too, the aliens look rubbish & the CGI computer effects are absolutely terrible as well. The editing is poor, the cinematography is poor, the sets are cheap & the whole thing is just an eyesore really. There's a bit of gore, there's some gunshot wounds, someone is ripped in half & a severed hand is seen.Obviously shot on a low budget The Salena Incident has low production values & looks cheap from start to finish. Filmed in Superior in Arizona. The acting is terrible from no-one I have ever heard of although the actress who plays the female doctor is pretty good looking.The Salena Incident is a rubbish sci-fi horror film that is terrible in just about every way, not worth 90 minutes of yours, mine or anyone else's time.$LABEL$ 0
+Set in a California detention camp in an indistinct future, an English film crew capture proceedings as young students and political dissidents are put on trial under a fictional 'Insurrection Act' that allows the United States government to suspend civil liberties for its own citizens in cases of emergency without the right to bail or the necessity of evidence. In such cases the government is authorised to apprehend and detain anyone they believe may engage in future activities of sabotage. The group on trial includes a feminist, a black panther and a folk singer.Those convicted by the a Conservative tribunal have the choice of a lengthy prison sentence or three days in Punishment Park, in which they can attain their freedom by reaching an American flag in the desert. They must accomplish this without food or water. They are also to be pursued by armed National Guards and police who can return them to the camp if captured to face the penal sentence attributed to each person convicted. The reality is different; those that choose Punishment Park are hunted and killed or brutalised with no hope of gaining their freedom after a policeman is found dead in the park. The park seems to be a training ground for the police and guards who need to master these acts of suppression so they can be put to use in open American society.Shot on 16mm and in the documentary style developed by Watkins, in his celebrated Culloden and the controversial The War Game for the BBC; he interacts with the prisoners and guards and observes the unconstitutional trial, inter cutting between them to create a totally convincing political movie that still remains vital and relevant. Using his knowledge of the medium, Watkins has produced a driving, relentless and ultimately frightening film portrayal of an entirely fictional American political detention camp that would not convince if it wasn't for his flawless construction. Many of the actors are amateurs improvising with broad characters. The sparks fly in the trial scenes in which each case is heard, in part to the fact that Watkins kept those on trial away from the jury until the filming of those scenes. Watkins also claims that the actors are often expressing their own opinions which certainly explain the ferocity as well as the believability of their performances.The film has been heavily criticised for polarising the opinions of those that see it. It has been claimed that the film is reactionary and unequivocally represents that conservatism and war are the root of America's social problems. While these criticisms may be valid it is important to consider that the film is working on a fictional, metaphorical level and it is perhaps the realism that the film so cleverly constructs that encourages such a heated opinion on its content. In fact the films most important theme is the problem of polarisation itself. The 'conservative' judges and brutal law officers are on one side and the 'liberal' convicts are clearly on the other with no concessions made on either side. This seems to be what the movie is really about. The new law and the park itself is the outgrowth of a situation where mediation between the two political positions has been lost.Made during and in protest to the Vietnam War and the treatment of those who opposed the war in America the films main themes of Governmental persecution of its own citizens and Conservatism impinging on civil liberties still strike the same chord in the era of the Patriot act and the identity card. It also strikes a disturbing chord with news footage of Guantanamo Bay and the treatment of Iraqi prisoners at the hands of Allied forces.The threat of internal 'terrorism' is such a volatile issue that the film cannot fail to connect with current attitudes to the subject. Not surprisingly the film has had a checkered distribution history, being marginalised to an extreme due to its content but the disturbing fact that this movie is that can still remain so relevant today suggests that the wait has not been for nothing. Punishment Park is a film that has had to fight to be seen anywhere and it demands your attention.$LABEL$ 1
+Okay. As you can see this is one of my favorite if not favorite films. This is a character drama which is absolutely hilarious. The main character is a business man who is stuck in a "same thing, different day" mentality. He sees a woman looking melancholy out a window of a dance studio from his train everyday and wonders about her and decides to find out more about her. He decides to join the dance class only to find out she is not the instructor. From there he bonds with four other dancers and learns to enjoy dancing as well as finding out about the mysterious woman.There is no gratuitous (or any) sex involved, just how a small group of people learn how friendships are formed and developed.This film was remade with Richard Gere and Jennifer Lopez and the new one while appealing is nowhere as enjoyable as the original. The movie never made it big in America because it was not eligible for the Oscars since it was broadcast on television in Japan (movies cannot be released on TV or they are disqualified for Oscar nominations). It did win numerous awards in Japan for best film, cast, director etc for their "Oscar" awards.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is an all-time favorite of mine. I'm sorry that IMDb is not more positive about it. I hope that doesn't keep those who have not experienced it from watching it.I've always loved this movie. I watch it about once a year and am always pleased anew with the film and especially the stellar performances by entire cast.I've always wondered whether Jean Stapleton actually did the ending dance with Travolta???? If anyone knows this piece of trivia, please leave a comment.Thanks and ENJOY!$LABEL$ 1
+Absolutely hilarious. John Waters' tribute to the people he loves most (Baltimoreans) is a twisted little ditty with plenty to look at and laugh at. It's like being turned loose in a museum of kitsch! I haven't laughed so much in a theater since Serial Mom. I loved seeing old friends from the Dreamland days, Sharon Nisep and Susan Lowe, back in front of Waters' camera. The cast is simply wonderful (especially Edward Furlong and Martha Plimpton). Uses the best elements of past Waters atrocities (especially the underrated Polyester) and plenty of new surprises. Made me sick, in a wonderful way. Thanks, John!$LABEL$ 1
+When I think 'Women in Prison', my mind often goes to sleazy Italian/Spanish productions by directors such as Jess Franco and Bruno Mattei; and while these films are often very sleazy, they're also very samey and once you've seen one; you might as well have seen them all. I have to admit that these types of films generally aren't my favourites; but in fact the idea of women behind bars has been done very well on several occasions outside of Italy and Spain; and Roger Corman's New World Pictures is responsible for some of the best of them. Caged Heat is the directorial debut of Oscar-winning director Jonathan Demme, and it's a well done little flick with plenty of entertainment value! Naturally, the film centres on the story of a girl who is caught committing crime and sent to a women's' prison where she is introduced to a host of violent inmates. This prison is ruled over by the stuff wheelchair bound Superintendent McQueen; and she takes offence to a play put on by the girls; leading them to plot an escape.This film is much lighter on the sleaze than I'm used to in a women in prison flick; but this is more than compensated for by some great action scenes and dialogue and that's what ensures Caged Heat entertains throughout. It does have to be said that the plot is not particularly original or ambitious and basically follows a structure similar to many other women in prison films that came before it; but that's not such a big problem. The film never gets boring and is peppered with standout scenes; including an escape attempt while out working in a field and a bank robbery. The film is helped along by assured direction from the man who would go on to helm the masterpiece The Silence of the Lambs and a great cast with plenty of standouts; including best of all the legendary Barbara Steele in the role of the head prison warden. Overall, Caged Heat may not leave the viewer with much to think about by the end; but it's a brilliantly entertaining little grindhouse flick and anyone that enjoys this type of film will surely want to track it down.$LABEL$ 1
+This film was made in Saskatchewan and Manitoba Parks and returned the world eye again to what little of the "Wild Western Canada" is left. When Archie began to write his stories for the papers; the thought of the day was to tame the wilderness and convert/absorb the First Nation Peoples.The film puts forward and asks the question; why would a well-educated, obviously talented Englishman become an Indian? Archie, as an English boy dreams about becoming something but grasping the full meaning of that dream is unique and priceless - no mater what it is. Sounds like a famous puppet story doesn't it. In my opinion, I saw Archie become my living image of the "Cigar store Indian" a very wooden character and not real at all - very well done acting on the part of Mr. Brosnan. He also portrayed the wild Indian in the dance scene for the tourist. The fullness and or reality of it weren't realized till he met and married his wife, Annie. Annie pushed Archie in a direction that would bring him to the forefront of the Englishman's world stage, not as himself but Grey Owl -an Canadian Native of the wilderness frontier. This is the closest Archie get to becoming the noble savage prototype. Mr. Brosnan's interpretation as well as the directors is both well done. I have watched documentaries on Grey Owl and I think this is a good big screen movie to add to my collection.Spoiler - I thought the final scenes with Archie going to meet the Grand Council of Chiefs was a great a great moment in the film. Very beautiful Canadian lake scenery and real "Grey Owl" locations.$LABEL$ 0
+I enjoyed the previous Ittenbach movie that I'd seen, "Burning Moon". But while that movie was rather grim and nasty, "Premutos" seems to mostly play it for laughs. While its admirable how Ittenbach made this movie with no money in his spare time (and the DVD documentary is worthwhile to see this), I found myself constantly battling not to fast-forward to the next gore scene. Sure, there's gore, and if that's all you want then go ahead and enjoy. But be warned: there's an inordinate amount of lame comedy and tedious story exposition. Many are comparing this to Peter Jackson's movies, especially "Braindead". But looking at what Jackson did on a similar budget in "Bad Taste", it's clear Ittenbach is lacking one thing that Jackson has - talent. 3/10 (for pretty good and plentiful gore effects, and for getting the most out of limited resources - but not worth the money I paid for it)$LABEL$ 0
+Pure Orson Welles genius makes this one of the greatest of movies. Welles is drawn into a murder conspiracy only to be set up as the fall guy, which is what he refers to with the sarcastic comment "big dummy that I am." Plot is so complex that I still don't know whether the victim knew that his life was about to be lost. The shootout scene in the carnival hall of mirrors is one of the most amazing ever filmed. That scene alone is worth the price of admission. This is the only time that Rita Hayworth ever played a complex yet believable character. No one but Welles would have had the nerve to cut her hair and dye it brassy blond. No one should miss this picture.$LABEL$ 1
+I concur with everyone above who said anything that will convince you to not waste even a briefest of moments watching this amazingly amateurish movie. Very poor acting, offhand production values, utterly pedestrian direction, and a script so inept and inane it should never have been written, let alone produced. Even Hollywood "professionals" apparently go to work just for a paycheck, although no one should have been paid for this bad work. Careers should instead have ENDED over this inconsequential drivel.OTH, there is something fascinating about watching something so jaw-droppingly bad. And Chad Lowe is terrifically and consistently bad.$LABEL$ 0
+The action was episodic and there was no narrative thread to tie the episodes together and move the story forward. The plot plods along. With few exceptions (e.g., Graham Greene) the acting was uninspired, and pedestrian at best. The actors seemed to have something on their minds, other than the scene they were in. It is boring to observe a man driving a car through the semi- desert country of this movie's setting, whether he drives poorly or well. Such scenes are typical of the level of tension in the video. So there was nothing about this video to engage or draw the observer in, to make him or her care about the characters and the out comes. I am doubly disappointed because I rented this movie based on the reputations of the executive producer (Redford) and the writer of the novel on which it was based (Hillerman). I note that the jewel box reports that funding is provided by PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as well as Carlton International. I would hope that this video was as disappointing to them as it was to me and my wife, to the point that they will not fund any more disasters coming from the same source.$LABEL$ 0
+"Fido" is to be commended for taking a tired genre, zombies, and turning it into a most original film experience. The early 50s atmosphere is stunning, the acting terrific, and the entire production shows a lot of careful planning. Suddenly the viewer is immersed in a world of beautiful classic cars, "Eisenhower era" dress, art deco furniture, and zombie servants. It would be very easy to dismiss "Fido" as cartoon-like fluff, similar to "Tank Girl", but the two movies are vastly different. "Fido has structure, a script that tells a story, and acting that is superior. Make no mistake, this is a daring black comedy that succeeds where so many others have failed. Highly recommended. - MERK$LABEL$ 1
+This production of Oliver is masterful in showing layers of evil in the human soul. What makes the story remarkable is a brilliantly bright Unseen Character, who pierces this darkness as he leads an innocent boy through the gravest dangers safely into the hands of his own relative. Yea, though Oliver walks through the valley of the shadow of death, he fears no evil. A rod and staff are there to comfort him. In the end, he is saved from the dregs of humanity. At the bottom is Fagin, the most wicked of the lot. Fagin contemplates repenting of his ways not once, but twice, yet declines because he is unwilling to pay the price. Fagin is worse than Bill Sikes, because he raises little pickpockets who become murderers. In the middle is Oliver. His innocence is unsullied, but untried as well. The best is Nancy. Lacking in judgment, she ignores Bill Sikes' violent nature out of her deep need for love. Yet unlike Fagin, at the probable cost of her own life, she does repent of her sins by saving Oliver from Bill. Things are not as they seem. In my opinion, this quality is what makes art worthwhile - unpredictability. I would give this film a "10," but its '70's made-for-TV soundtrack and ambiance were distracting. Overall, a fine parable and a thoroughly appropriate story for all audiences.$LABEL$ 1
+The Hindi remake of Mrs Doubtfire starring and directed by Kamal Hassan is a somewhat shoddy version, and not as good as expected.Kamal Hassan clearly struggles with Hindi dialogs, even after all these years, and cannot handle even one scene effortlessly. The guy has aged and should give it a rest. Hassan doesn't bring anything new to the role or to the character as say, Dustin Hoffman does to Tootsie, or Marathi actor Macchindranath Kambli does to Mavshi's (aunt's) character in "Moruchi Mavshi" (Moru's Auntie, comedy play).What was the kid doing playing with firecrackers when it wasn't Diwali? Most of Chachi's romantic 'cross-connections' -- Vs Amrish, Paresh and then Johny Walker, seem redundant to the main storyline. Tabu's bathing scene was unnecessary. The family is North Indian but must be reminded of Karva Chauth night by a 'Maharashtrian' Chachi. Yeah, right.The fine acting skills of not one but four actors namely Tabu, Om Puri, the late Amrish Puri and Paresh Rawal have been wasted in this film.Watch the original Mrs Doubtfire -- clean, crisp and crackling with fun, quite unlike Chachi 420.$LABEL$ 0
+I was hoping to like this movie, to settle in for an evening of goofy fun. I like Judy Davis and Juliette Lewis, and the premise seemed off the wall enough to be entertaining.Unfortunately, I found myself dozing over and over again. Judy Davis gave a fine performance, but had very little to work with. Juliette Lewis was fabulous as expected, but had very little to do. The plot was full of "twists" that were just plain silly, and as so often happens in movies of this type, nobody acted the way a real human being would act. And, personally, I thought Marcia Gay Harden was totally miscast.The movie also seemed to shift about midway from a black comedy with touches of farce to a total farce with touches of black comedy. One reviewer here notes that other reviews seem to want this movie to be something different, and therefore decried it. All I can say is that I would have settled for the movie being *something* and sticking with it. This one feels like the director had some grandiose ideas but wasn't able to pull them all off. I give it a 4 out of 10.$LABEL$ 0
+A bit slow (somehow like a Sofia Coppola movie) but still a very captivating film about the discovery of sexuality by three teenage girls. The magic of the movie lies in its capacity to bring back many memories to how it felt like to be their age. The confusion and the insecurities are portrayed in a very simple way but so true to life. The music is perfect and the acting is amazing. The camera works beautifully also. I highly recommend it for those who are not afraid to look back at this particular period of life when we discover our sexual impulses and our desires. I would also say that it is a fine film for young people going through that period. So many movies have been made about adolescence but this really captures the true essence of discovering the adult world of romance and its complexities.$LABEL$ 1
+I find it remarkable that so little was actually done with the story of the a-bomb and it's development for decades after the Manhattan Project was completed. My suspicion is that this was due to serious fears in the movie and entertainment industries (in the 1950s through the 1970s) with "McCarthyism" and related national security phobias (including the Hollywood blacklist). There was one film in the 1950s (with Robert Taylor) about Col. Paul Tibbits who flew the Enola Gay in the Hiroshima bombing, but otherwise nothing else. One could glance at a side issue tragedy (the sinking of the U.S.S. Indianapolis soon after the delivery of the bombs to Tinian) in Robert Shaw's description of the shark attacks on the survivors in JAWS. But the actual trials and tribulations of Groves, Oppenheimer, and their team was not considered film-able.And then in 1989 two films appeared. I have reviewed one already (DAY ONE) which I feel is the better of the two in discussing the lengthy technical and emotional and political problems in the Manhattan Project. The acting of Brian Dennehy as General Groves and David Strahairn as Oppenheimer was first rate and neatly balanced. Small side vignettes concerning the anti-bomb crusade of Szilard (Michael Tucker) help fill out the story well.That's the problem here. Paul Newman is a great actor (as is Mr. Dennehy) but Newman approached Groves in a different way that while not dreadful is lesser than Dennehy's intelligent but soft spoken military brass. Newman seems too popped eyed about the possibility of the weapon as the biggest stick to confront the other boys in the after-school yard with. Yes it certainly was, but the real Groves would have been more like Dennehy keeping his mind not on that great toy of the future but on the business of creating that great toy. Dwight Schultz's performance as Oppeheimer helps maintain the film's basically interesting and good production, aided by Bonnie Bedelia as his wife. But the most interesting aspect of this film is in the upgrading of the two tragedies of Daghlian and Slotin, in particular the latter, in the character of John Cusack's Merriman. Inevitably in all technological advances people are killed. It's just that these two tragedies (on top of the tens of thousands that were lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) brought home the dangers of the new unleashed power even in a so-called peaceful, controlled experiment. The two tragedies (particularly Louis Slotin's slow, agonizing death by radiation poisoning) showed how much care was needed in using atomic power - and how the barest of chances could still cause disaster. The only really different thing I saw in Cusack's performance (and the script) and the actual incident with Slotin was that Slotin actually took some time after the accident to figure out where all his fellow research scientists were when they were hit by the radiation from the accident (he was able to show that only he got the full effect of the accidental blast, so that only relatively minor treatment would be needed by the others). Perhaps the full story of Slotin's actions was too technical for the screen, but given the humongous pain he suffered in the end that he took time off to think of the others shows what a first rate person he really was.$LABEL$ 1
+the hills have eyes is not a great film by any stretch of the imagination.for one the villains look almost normal,not what you would expect deranged lunatics to look like.for another the pacing is very slow at times and there are many scenes of the characters repeating themselves.by that,i mean there is a lot of filler in the movie, with a lot of running around aimlessly.the film didn't have a clear direction.the plot of the movie is hardly original,even for its time.the Texas chainsaw massacre came out a few year earlier and is a much more effective film, as far as horror goes.the film has little in the way of scares, and the pounding soundtrack just served to be both grating and distracting all at once.i suppose the music was used to cover up the fact that not much happens through much of the movie, though it failed in its intended purpose.i basically kept looking at the time every few seconds hoping something would happen or it would end .when something finally did happen any promise the film had was ruined by mere chaos and loud noise.i sat through it because i like to give a film the benefit of the doubt.yes, there is some loud screaming,and yes people die,but who cares.much too slow getting to any sort of pay off,if you can call it that.my buddy enjoyed it, so at least one of us got something out of it.the hills have eyes isn't the worst film we could have watched, but i doubt i will watch it again.this film was remade in 2006 and i will also have review of that version.anyway, this movie was painfully slow at times, while other times was chaotic and repetitive.unless you like watching paint dry, occasionally interspersed with someone running around your block, screaming their head off, stay away from this movie.a better bet would be the original Texas chainsaw massacre(1973)1.5* out of 10* which is being generous$LABEL$ 0
+After the return of "horror movies" (come on Scream isn't scary!) i didn't have very high hopes for this low-budget three story horror movie. But i was positively surprised! Man this is scary!!! The first 2 stories are simply brilliant. The first one about a new wed couple driving in a dark forest with their RV, When they bump into a fierce........(watch the movie)! The second story is about a disgusting man who is obsessed with a little girl, who is home alone for one night.... I know it doesn't sound any special but it is Scary. I promise you. The last story isn't scary but atleast not bad. It's about a biker and a ghosthouse. In fact the stories are based on real urban legends(i guess kevin williamson can steal ideas too).Rent this movie it is Good!!! i'd say i'ts the scariest three-short-story-horror-movie ever made!$LABEL$ 1
+Once again the same familiar story about a man (writer here) who sell his soul to the devil in order to have his most desired ambition in life: success. Unfunny script (we should "go home and write better"), ridiculous lines in order to understand the "strong" "Christmanish" message (our only aspiration in life is to find love, respect and a good friendship) and a very long trial scene at the end where the agent Hopkins beat the devil (Jennifer Love Hewitt is no sexy or evil at all) for all the bad things she made to this unlikable character. Not bad efforts from the actors (Baldwin also as a director, Cattrall in a "Sex and the City" role again, Aykroyd with some funny lines in his limited role). P.S. Try also a not so popular film from Greece called "Alloimono stous neous", a brilliant adaptation of this myth (an old man give his soul to the devil to get back his youth)$LABEL$ 0
+Sistas in da hood. Looking for revenge and bling bling. Except da hood is a wild west town in the late 1800s. I do not remember any westerns like this when I was growing up. What would Randolph Scott say? If he saw Lil' Kim, he might say, "Alright! I have to admit that I tuned into this just to see her. Bare midriffs and low cut blouses are not the staple of the usual cowboy flick, but these are the cowgirls, and they are fine.Now, don't go looking for any major story here, and the usual stuff of ghetto crime drama are here in a different setting. And, when's the last time you heard John Wayne call someone, "Dawg"? And, I don't remember the Earp brothers hugging and kissing before they marched to the OK Corral.I watch this on BET, so I missed the action that got it an R rating, but I doubt if I will buy the DVD to see it unless I can be assured it was Lil' Kim in that action.$LABEL$ 0
+...that maybe someday people will wake up to. People who can resist the urge to separate each and everything, and who see the 60s for what they were. People who can see that it was the individuals who made those times; not the other way around.The "Forrest Gump" comparison is a good one. Both films look at the 60s, but "Four Friends" is about human beings, as opposed to caricatures. FF delves deeply into the very thing that FG (quite successfully!) tries to condense and classify as nothing more than a backdrop. But while "Gump" files the 60s away in an attic like old toys in a box, "Four Friends" picks up and embraces each toy, thus blurring the lines between what you hold dearly and what you are.If you associate romance with shoe polish, you'll hate this film.$LABEL$ 1
+"Kaabee" depicts the hardship of a woman in pre and during WWII, raising her kids alone after her husband imprisoned for "thought crime". This movie was directed by Yamada Youji, and as expected the atmosphere of this movie is really wonderful. Although the historical correctness of some scenes, most notably the beach scene, is a suspect.The acting in this movie is absolutely incredible. I am baffled at how they managed to gather this all-star cast for a 2008 film. Yoshinaga Sayuri, possibly the most decorated still-active actress in Japan, will undoubtedly win more individual awards for her performance in this film. Shoufukutei Tsurube in a supporting role was really nice as well. It was Asano Tadanobu though, who delivered the most impressive performance, perfectly portraying the wittiness of his character and the difficult situation he was in.Films with pre-war setting is not my thing, but thanks to wonderful directing and acting, I was totally absorbed by the story. Also, it wasn't a far-left nonsense like "Yuunagi no Machi, Sakura no Kuni", and examines the controversial and sensitive issue of government oppression and brainwashing that occurred in that period in Japan. Excellent film, highly recommended for all viewers.$LABEL$ 1
+I have to say although I despise these kind of shows, shock horror, I'm a girl, I feel I have to express my opinion. I had seen Dirty Sanchez before I saw Jackass and think it way surpasses Jackass in terms of programme making. Story lines and interviews are inter weaved to create a more interesting show. I saw a few minutes of Jackass movie the other night and couldn't believe how poorly put together it was, everything just put in a line joke after joke with no relation between anything. It must have been the quickest easiest show to edit ever, shockingly amateur. While drinking puke isn't really my thing, as far as a substantial entertainment show goes, Dirty Sanchez is way out of Jackass's league.$LABEL$ 1
+The movie seems disjointed and overall, poorly written. The screenplay moves along as if 10 different people wrote it, and none of them were communicating with each other. Apparently they wanted to take a page from a Miracle on 34th Street (the original) type film, but it is done in such a poor way that the movie falls apart. This film is for only the very young, and even THEY will see the fact that whoever scripted it knows little to nothing about baseball. Such as: • When the Angels are in dead last place, the owner doesn't seem to care, nor is he bothered by the fact his manager just got into a fight with his pitcher – ON THE MOUND – or that he PUNCHED the team's play by play announcer on live TV. However, when the team is one game from winning the Division, he gets bent out of shape over a story (sourced by a 6 year old) that the manager is getting help from a kid who claims to see real angels. What sounds worse? A losing violent out of control manager whose team has lost 15 in a row? Or a winning coach on the verge of the playoffs that is acting a bit eccentric and is helping foster kids? The owner's reaction makes no sense. And he's moved to change his mind by Maggie and her 'straight out of cliché land' speech during a news conference.• The Angels are supposed to be playing for the Division in the final weekend series against the White Sox, however at the end of the game the announcer's keep saying the Angels 'won the pennant". The pennant is not decided until someone wins the LEAGUE championship, not the regular season division title.• Whitt Bass, the goofball pitcher is the starting pitcher and wins the game that breaks the Angels losing streak – then is the starting pitcher – THE VERY NEXT DAY.• Mel Clark (Tony Danza) is said in the ninth inning to have thrown 156 pitches, in a low-scoring ballgame. Typically in low scoring games, the pitch count is MUCH lower than this, usually around 80-90 pitches.• "AL" the angel says at the end "Championships have to be won on their own", even though he and his angels have been manipulating and fixing games throughout the whole second half of the season.I could go on and on, as there are MANY other examples where the story is poorly written.For younger kids (under 10), this movie may be entertaining. It's too bad – done right this could have been a classic. Done wrong like this and it's a forgettable mess that will forever live as a UHF/cable Saturday Morning washout.$LABEL$ 0
+My first exposure to "Whale Music" was the Rheostatics album of the same name, that I bought around 1993. I was reading the liner notes and the band said the album, which remains in a prominent place in my collection, was inspired by Canadian author Paul Quarrington's book.I picked up the book a few months later and devoured it! An amazing read! I have since re-read the book numerous times, each time finding some new element to Desmond and his desire to complete the Whale Music.I found the film in 1996, on video. I haven't had a lot of good experiences with Canadian film, but this one worked for me. The role of Claire could have been cast differently, but overall I think that Paul Quarrington's vision was transfered nicely from the book to the screen.Maury Chaykin gives a moving performance as the isolated genius. The movie deals with family relationships, love, and finding someone who understands. I would strongly recommend "Whale Music" to not only music fans, but anyone who has ever lost something or someone, and tried to find their way back to the world.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie can be labeled as a study case. It's not just the fact that it denotes an unhealthy and non-artistic lust for anything that might be termed as caco-imagery. The author lives with the impression that his sanctimonious revolt against some generic and childishly termed social ills ("Moldavia is the most pauper region of Europe", "I don't believe one iota in the birds flu", "Romanian people steal because they are poor; Europeans steal because they are thieves") are more or less close to a responsible moral and artistic attitude - but he is sorely off-target! What Daneliuc doesn't know, is that it's not enough to pose as a righteous person - you also need a modicum of professionalism, talent and intelligence to transpose this stance into an artistic product. Fatefully, "The Foreign Legion" shows as much acumen as a family video with Uncle Gogu drunkenly wetting himself in front of the guests. The script is chaotic and incoherent, randomly bustling together sundry half-subjects, in an illiterate attempt to suggest some kind of a story. The direction is pathetically dilettante - the so-called "director" is unable to build up at least a mediocre mise-en-scene, his shots are annoyingly awkward, and any sense of storytelling shines by total absence. (Of course, any comment is forced to stop at this level; it would be ridiculous to mention concepts as "cinematographic language", "means of expression" or "style"). The acting is positively "Cântarea României" ("Romania's Chant") level, with the exception of... paradoxically, the soccer goal-keeper Necula Raducanu, who is very natural, and Nicodim Ungureanu. Oana Piecnita seems to have a genuine freshness, but she is compromised by the amateurish directions given by Daneliuc.The most serious side of this offense to decent cinema is the fact that the production received a hefty financing from the national budget, via C.N.C. (the National Cinematography Council). The fact that long-time-dead old dinosaurs like Daneliuc are still thirsty for the government udder is understandable (in a market-driven economy, they would be instantly eliminated through natural selection). But the corruption of the so-called "jury" that squanders the country's money on such ridiculously scabrous non-art, non-cinema and non-culture belongs to the criminal field.$LABEL$ 0
+My wife and I find this movie to be a wonderful pick-me-up when we need to have a good laugh - the conflict between some characters and the repore between others make this a sure fire comedy relief. I am so looking forward to this movie coming on DVD so I can replace my well watched VHS.$LABEL$ 1
+A powerfully wonderful movie. You are held in a death-grip once you let yourself get involved with the story. A successful dentist, Alan Johnson(Don Cheadle), is torn in a life crisis of balancing his career with his family. He notices his former college roommate Charlie Fineman(Adam Sandler)and wants to touch base. He finds that Charlie, who lost his wife and family in the 9-11 attack on America, is no longer in touch with reality...choosing to involve his mind with his favorite music from the past and video games. The former roommates rekindle their friendship and strengthen their former bond. Johnson has his friend Angela Oakhurts(Liv Tyler), a psychiatrist, to try and bring Charlie out of his grief...but it is Alan that accomplishes in getting his friend to emerge from his deep darkness. Jada Pinkett Smith plays Johnson's wife. Writer and director Mike Binder plays the role of Charlie's attorney/guardian. Also in the cast: Saffron Burrows, Donald Sutherland, Adell Modell and Robert Klein. Outstanding soundtrack featuring the likes of Bruce Springsteen, Graham Nash, Pear Jam and The Pretenders.NOTE: I have never been a Sandler fan; but I found him outstanding in this role. In some of the scenes, I thought out loud...why has he never been approached to play singer/songwriter Bob Dylan in a biopic.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is a knockout, Fires on the plain referred to is, (the burning off at the end of harvest time) A happy memory for Tamura, He relives this in his mind many time's,and at the end of this bleak film, Like a man dying of thirst, he believe's he is home and this last illusion is all he has left. Billy Wilder's The Big Carnival (Ace in the hole) is the only film (that comes to mind)that is as bleak as this little masterpiece by Kon Ichikawa. While I think the whole film is brilliant Two scenes that come to mind are when a platoon of Japanese soldiers trying to escape (Crawling on there belly's)are ambushed by Americans and massacred,True Horror, And as an American soldier and a pretty Philippine Girl soldier are having a cigarette on the side on the road, she smiles as she flits with the yank,then her face Changes to rage as she see's two Japanese soldiers trying to surrrender, she grabs a gun and kills them with joy, The American soldier attempts to stop her but has no chance , to me this speaks volumes at the atrocity's committed by the Japanese in the Philippines, all in all a great film if you have the stomach for it.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is a quite entertaining horror anthology film (along the lines of Tales from the Crypt) written by Robert Bloch (author of Psycho). It's good fun for horror fans and has an excellent cast. The movie should also be required viewing for Doctor Who fans since Jon Pertwee (the third Doctor) has an amusing role as a rude and obnoxious horror star!$LABEL$ 1
+Black Rain is a superb film, but watch out for the DVDs currently being sold for as much as $300 apiece. I have the DVD, and it's terrible. Very tiny non-anamorphic image that has to be blown up to resolution-killing size. Acceptable sound. This is a primitive DVD that absolutely *has* to be rereleased.BTW, I also own the laserdisc and the VHS of Black Rain. The VHS is a huge step upward from the DVD! And the laserdisc has far and away the best picture of them all—subtitles in the black, sharp, big picture, simple but very good soundtrack. Buy the VHS and avoid the preposterous prices these scam artists are demanding!$LABEL$ 1
+I would purchase this and "Thirty Seconds Over Toyko" today if available. I also saw this movie after seeing large billboards of Jack Webb in his Dress Blues on the highway at the age of 12.Always admired Jack Weeb as a John Wayne type and American all the way. Almost became a Marine just because of this movie but served instead in the Air Force, Air Force Reserve and Army Reserve for 32 years. Have not seen this movie on TV at all and would love to own it on DVD. At least if it was on TV I would copy it to VHS and use it until available on DVD. I also have a large collection of WWII and Korean War movies and always look for new releases on DVD.$LABEL$ 1
+I like a lot of the actors/actresses involved in this project so being insulted by the movie felt even worse than if they used a unknowns .The main problem was this movie was clearly just a concept created to appeal to baby boomers .In 20 or 30 years Nbc will probably do a movie just like this about the early 90's . I can see it now a black family where the kids are involved with the la riot's and the white family has the kids rebel and listen to grunge rock music .The soundtrack will feature bands like Nirvana , N.W.A , Public Enemy , Soundgarden etc .The movie like this will be just as cheesy as The 60's and I gurantee you NBC will do it .See the biggest problem with period pieces when done buy networks is that when you are living in a certain time period you aren't thinking i am living in the 60's or whatever decade is trendy retro at the time .Next time someone does something like this they should put more weight into there project$LABEL$ 0
+This is the most stupid movie ever made. The story is laughable. His wife and kid think he's insane. Then they don't. Then it turns out he is and I think they knew it all along. There is a dog named Ned that causes some problems and I think it's all his fault...so does Jim Carey. God only knows why Virginia Madsen took this role...this is a career sinker. I think the target audience for this is 11 and 12 year olds. And that adds up to 23. Or maybe it's for 8 and 10 years olds which also adds up to 23. Or maybe it's for really dumb 23 year olds. Or maybe really dumb 32 year olds because that's 23 in reverse. Or maybe 46 year olds would enjoy it because half of that is 23. I think looking up things on the internet about the number 23 would be more entertaining than this movie, unless you wanted to see a comedy.$LABEL$ 0
+Norma had spent most of the 20s playing beautiful ingenues but her first talkie cast her as a brassy showgirl in "The Trial of Mary Dugan" and she came through with flying colours. From then on her sweet and lovely ingenues were cast aside and she sizzled in parts that cast her as sophisticated women of the world or society girls out for thrills. "Let Us Be Gay" was made before but released after "The Divorcée" and was an unusual twist on the upper crust dramas that Shearer made her own.Norma first appears without make-up as frumpish Kitty Brown, who's main purpose in life is to pander to her very unappreciative husband Bob (Rod La Rocque). She is hurrying to get him off to his golf game - but in reality he is going to see his mistress. When Helen, the mistress, comes to the house for a showdown, Kitty faces the situation with civility but behind closed doors she is a mass of emotions and Bob leaves for good.Three years later Mrs. Courtland Brown (Kitty) comes to stay as a house guest of the eccentric Mrs. Bouccicoult ("Bouccy")(Marie Dressler). Kitty is now a knockout and "Bouccy" has a job for her. She wants Kitty to romance a house guest, who in his turn is romancing her grand-daughter Diane (beautiful Sally Eilers). Shock!! Horror!! - the man is none other than Bob, her ex husband!!! Kitty carries off the meeting with sophistication and witty repartee - "there seems to be something strangely familiar about that man"!!! - and no one is the wiser.The film then settles down into one of those early very "talkie", boring "drawing room" comedies. Kitty casts a spell over all the men and Bob is desperate to start again. The women have all the strong roles in this film - men are just puppets. Raymond Hackett seems to be in the film as an extra butler - "pass me a cushion", "get me a drink", "move this chair" instead of Diane's harassed fiancé. Norma Shearer is of course the whole show, Marie Dressler adds "Bouccy" to her list of eccentric portrayals and Sally Eilers is a real eyeful as the gorgeous Diane.$LABEL$ 1
+William Castle is notorious among horror fans as the B-grade director of the 1950s and 60s. His gimmicks, his cost-cutting techniques and his unique vision are legendary. It comes as no surprise, then, that someone (Jeffrey Schwarz, who's made countless documentaries) would finally take the time to devote a documentary to his greatness. Such is "Spine Tingler: The William Castle Story".I had a general understanding of who Castle was, having seen some of his films over the years. I knew nothing about her personal life, his goals and ambitions. This film really fleshed out the man and gave me a fuller appreciation for the devotion he had for the craft of film-making and his contributions to the horror genre. The movie depicts Castle as rival to Alfred Hitchcock, with Hitch being the artist who wins praise while Castle is the carnival barker who gains cult notoriety, but much less respect. He is an icon to all second-rate directors out there, which is why it's not surprising that John Waters is featured prominently in here. (Joe Dante and Stuart Gordon also have sizable roles.) His gimmicks were what drove his fame, and the documentary takes great pains to explain them, which is crucial for those who are too young to remember. The rudimentary 3-D of "13 Ghosts" (see separate review), the buzzer in the seat for "The Tingler" (see separate review), money back guarantees for "Homicidal"... watching these films now outside the theater, we can judge them for their content (which, personally, I still enjoy) but we cannot fully appreciate what audiences once felt.The climax of the film is when Castle goes from cult director to Hollywood producer. Having bought the rights to "Rosemary's Baby", he is put in a very special place for negotiating its film release. Hoping to direct, he is sidelined to producer in order to make way for new director Roman Polanski. While at first disappointed, this proves to be one of the best opportunities of his lifetime -- a hugely successful film, and a job he excels at. Who better to control the purse of wild artist Polanski than a penny-pinching Castle? This was to be his crowning achievement, though sadly the film is more often connected to Polanski than Castle.The remainder of his years are played out, and we are given personal reflections by his daughter and niece. Across the board, everyone seems to have nothing but praise for the man. Somewhere along the way, he surely upset one or two people, but you would never know it from this film. And I find that find -- this is a celebration of Bill Castle's life, not "E! True Hollywood Story". Fans of the genre would do well to pick up a copy of this work.I would personally recommend picking up the William Castle Collection, which has not only this but eight of Castle's films in it, with plenty of special features. Even this documentary comes with an audio commentary so you can hear how Schwarz was personally affected by Castle, and have Castle's daughter Terry giving a running reflection of her experiences with the different films and remakes. It's almost a whole new film.$LABEL$ 1
+This show was so exhausting to watch and there's only two numbers Drowned World (Substitute For Love) and Paradise (Not For Me) were you can sit down and just contemplate it all. The opening of this show will go down in history as the most visually thrilling, as Madonna enters the stage via a gigantic Swarovski crystal ball that comes down from the ceiling and the huge screens from behind it show images of horses galloping. Horses play a role in this show due to Madonna falling off one. The infamous scene of Madonna on the crucifix is in this show as a huge screen counts to 12 million, the number of how many African children are orphaned due to Aids. At the end a website address comes up for anyone interested in donating. We then go into the theme of the environment and again images of politics and religion are shown. There's an interlude and then the show starts again to the music of I Love New York and Ray of Light this part of the show is one of my favorites with the dancers doing there funny hand movements. Towards the end there's the Music number with the song Disco Inferno mixed in with the song and the dancers make more of there presence known. The ending again is full of energy as the show wraps up to the tunes of Lucky Star and Hung Up and hundreds of golden balloons fall from the ceiling at the end the message "Have you confessed?" comes up. The DVD is worth buying and when it came out the soundtrack for the show was added as a bonus. Jonas Akerlund did a great job with the footage for this show keeping it consistent with the style of the tour.$LABEL$ 1
+...and boy is the collision deafening. A female telephone lineman is taken over by the spirit of a recently-deceased ninja, strips down to her undies, pours tomato juice on her body so her boyfriend can lick it off, performs a seductive dance, then goes off to kill the policemen who killed the ninja she's possessed by. Only to be hunted down by a one-eyed ninja master. Just like in real life, eh? Enlivened only by Sho Kosugi's martial arts choreography (and his declining to put his obnoxious kids in this one), you really have to see this to believe it. It's the ultimate mix of totally at-odds genres.$LABEL$ 0
+I caught this flick on the trail end of a tape I had used to capture a movie I truly wanted to wanted to see again. When I saw Raquel Welch's name in the opening credits, I decided to watch it. It was actually mildly entertaining, and took me back "in the wayback machine" to the farcical movies that Hollywood churned out during the sixties, much in the same genre as the current Austin Powers stuff. Oh the acting was not superb, nor was the plot, but it was worth watching. There was some delightful scenery, although Ms. Welch provided the most pleasant of such. Tape it if you get the chance and watch it when you have absolutely nothing else to do. It is not a snoozer, but it won't have you rolling in the aisles wanting more, either.$LABEL$ 1
+I researched this film a little and discovered a web site that claims it was actually an inside joke about the Post WWII Greenwich Village world of gays and lesbians. With the exception of Stewart and Novak, the warlocks and witches represented that alternative lifestyle. John Van Druten who wrote the stage play was apparently gay and very familiar with this Greenwich Village. I thought this was ironic because I first saw Bell, Book and Candle in the theater when I was in 5th or 6th grade just because my parents took me. It was hard to get me to a movie that didn't include horses, machine guns, or alien monsters and I planned on being bored. But, I remember the moment when Jimmy Stewart embraced Kim Novak on the top of the Flatiron building and flung his hat away while the camera followed it fluttering to the ground. As the glorious George Duning love theme soared, I suddenly got a sense of what it felt like to fall in love. The first stirrings of romantic/sexual love left me dazed as I left the theater. I am sure I'm not the only pre-adolescent boy who was seduced by Kim Novak's startling, direct gaze. It's ironic that a gay parable was able to jump-start heterosexual puberty in so many of us. I am in my late 50's now and re-watched the film yesterday evening and those same feelings stirred as I watched that hat touch down fifty years later . . .$LABEL$ 1
+A hot-headed cop accidentally kills a murder suspect and then covers up the crime, but must deal with a guilty conscience while he tries to solve a murder case. Andrews and Tierney are reunited with director Preminger in a film noir that is as effective as "Laura," their earlier collaboration. Andrews is perfectly cast as the earnest cop, a good guy caught up in unfortunate circumstances. The acting is fine all around, including Malden as a tough police captain and Tully as Tierney's protective father. The screenplay by Hecht, a great and prolific screenwriter, is taut and suspenseful, and Preminger creates a great atmosphere.$LABEL$ 1
+Well, the artyfartyrati of Cannes may have liked this film but not me I am afraid. If you like the type of film where shots linger for so long that you wonder whether the actor has fallen asleep or the cameraman gone for lunch then it may be for you. A large part of it is like this with short sojourns into the realm of unpleasantness. I did not find it shocking nor disturbing as some other reviewers have - simply a little distasteful and pointless. The only reason I did not give this one star is that the acting is commendable ans the film is fairly well shot. The plot, however, has little to recommend. A large part of the film just shows a grumpy woman teaching or listening to piano, which might appeal to some people. But lest you think this is harmless enough be prepared for some snatches of pornography and sexual violence just to wake you up with a bad taste in your mouth. Not recommended.$LABEL$ 0
+Any one who writes that this is any good there kid may have worked on it or put money in to this god-awful college experiment. It was lousy, slow, and painful to watch. Running time of only about 84 minutes, it felt like three and half hours. The only person to blame is the director, who knows nothing on how to direct a scene, where to place the camera! 95% of this dreadful movie was shoot by long master shots. Two or three people in the frame talking or yelling forever( or what seems like forever), No close-ups!! No medium shots!!. There are two so-called fight scenes that any filmmaker with a brain would have shoot some close-ups or medium shoots for them. They looked very amateurish. The scenes with the father and son screaming at each other would have worked better if there was a cut away of just the father or just the son acting,or reacting. Tri-C must be very mortified to show this any where. I have seen a bunch of bad movies in my time some of them are fun because they so bad, this is not one of them.$LABEL$ 0
+I've read reviews of Kerching on IMDb, and frankly,I've not seen one positive review, until now. I actually like Kerching. Kerching is about a teenage boy named Taj Lewis, in order to make £1,000,000 for his mother, he sets up a website called rudeboy. The website offers a lot of interesting things, if only Taj, and his 2 friends - Danny and Seymour can stop Taj from getting exposed. I find this show quite funny and I enjoy watching it. The acting is O.K., but it can definitely be better, the characters are funny, especially Danny Spooner, Taj's friend , his stupidity is what makes him funny. and Taj's other friend Seymour. Also Carlton, the owner of the café'e called "The Chill." We never see him, we only hear him. Taj's younger brother Omar, and his older sister Missy is funny too. And Missy's best friend Kareesha. So many times Taj's has almost got exposed, almost. As well as the comedy, the drama in Kerching such as love life and the loss of loved ones makes this programme great.$LABEL$ 1
+The Secret of Kells is an independent, animated feature that gives us one of the fabled stories surrounding the Book of Kells, an illuminated manuscript from the Middle Ages featuring the four Gospels of the New Testament. I didn't know that this book actually exists, but knowing it now makes my interpretation and analysis much a lot easier. There are a few stories and ideas floating around about how the book came to be, who wrote it, and how it has survived over 1,000 years. This is one of them.We are introduced to Brendan, an orphan who lives at the Abbey of Kells in Ireland with his uncle, Abbot Cellach (voiced by Brendan Gleeson). Abbot Cellach is constructing a massive wall around the abbey to protect the villagers and monks. Brendan is not fond of the wall and neither are the other monks. They are more focused on reading and writing, something Abbot Cellach does not have time for anymore. He fears the "Northmen," those who plunder and leave towns and villages empty and burnt to the ground.One day a traveler comes from the island of Iona near Scotland. It is Brother Aidan, a very wise man who carries with him a special book that is not yet finished. Abbot Cellach grants him permission to stay and Brendan buddies up with him. Aidan has special plans for Brendan. First he needs ink for the book, but he requires specific berries. The only way to get them is to venture outside the walls and into the forest, an area off limits to Brendan. Seeing that he is the only chance for Aidan to continue his work, he decides to sneak out and return with the berries before his uncle notices his absence.In the forest Brendan meets Ashley, the protector of the forest. She allows Brendan passage to the berries and along the way becomes akin to his company. She warns him of the looming danger in the dark and not to foil with it. There are things worse than Vikings out there. From there Brendan is met with more challenges with the book and the looming certainty of invasion.I like the story a lot more now that I know what it is about. Knowing now what the Book of Kells is and what it contains, the animation makes perfect sense. I'm sure you have seen pictures or copies of old texts from hundreds of years ago, with frilly borders, colorful pictures, and extravagant patterns, creatures, and writings adorning the pages. Much like the opening frames of Disney's The Sword in the Stone. The animation here contains a lot of similar designs and patterns. It creates a very unique viewing experience where the story and the animation almost try to outdo each other.I couldn't take my eyes off of the incredible detail. This is some of the finest 2D animation I have seen in years. It's vibrant, stimulating, and full of life. The characters are constantly surrounded by designs, doodles, and patterns in trees, on the walls, and in the air just floating around. It enhances the film.The story is satisfactory, although I think the ending could have been strung out a little more. With a runtime of only 75 minutes I think there could have been something special in the final act. It doesn't give a lot of information nor does it allude to the significance of the book. We are reminded of it's importance but never fully understand. We are told that it gives hope, but never why or how. That was really the only lacking portion of the film. Otherwise I thought the story was interesting though completely outdone by the animation.I guess that's okay to a certain degree. The animation can carry a film so far before it falls short. The story lacks a few parts, but it is an interesting take on a fascinating piece of history. I would recommend looking up briefly the Book of Kells just to get an idea of what myself and this film are talking about. I think it will help your viewing experience a lot more. This a very impressive and beautifully illustrated film that should definitely not be missed.$LABEL$ 1
+This is a cleaver film featuring love through the ages. The film consists of Keaton seeking out a lady love in the stone age, in ancient Rome and in the present (1920s). In all three cases, he is the usual wimpy Buster and he battles against Wallace Beery for his lady love. Of the three time periods, I think I liked the Roman one best even though I admit it might have also been the cheesiest. I actually liked the scenes with the lion that was obviously a guy in a costume as well as the weird chariot race in the snow--but what I really enjoyed the most was seeing all of Keaton's amazing acrobatics. However, all three time periods were good old fashioned fun and the film, while not his best, is still an exceptional and enjoyable film. Check it out!$LABEL$ 1
+All the boys seem to be sexually aroused by Mandy Lane. All the girls seem to be jealous of Mandy Lane. But, nothing seems to become of it, and this viewer wonders why? Mandy is beautiful and a magnet to every boy she meets, but we never get to know Mandy or any of the characters in the film. Mandy accepts an invitation, from her student friends, to go to a secluded ranch. Three boys and three girls drink and drug. In the film, the teenagers drink booze like its water, and take drugs to experience a psychedelic trip. And, there is absolutely no sex. In the meantime, the teenagers disappear one by one. But, the others are all drunk and high. Nobody, including those watching the film, cares or is at all concerned. Nobody, including the audience, seems to give a damn. Emmet, a fellow student, is the instigator of the entire event. There is a security guard, Garth (dashingly and handsomely played by Anson Mount), who guards and protects the ranch. Midway through the film, the killer is revealed, the tension is suddenly released like air let out of a balloon. The events are completely predictable, and the film just completely fizzles out. Mandy meets her match, but we don't ever know why--and, at the end of the film, there is still no sex. Does Mandy hypnotize the boys, or does she simply bore all of the boys and girls to their deaths? This absolutely-confused viewer can only conclude that Mandy wishes to get rid of the female and male competition--by killing off the manipulative girls and the nasty boys.Is Mandy worth all of the attention? The director (Jonathan Levine) seems to think so, but this viewer does not. The able cinematographer (Darren Genet) provides some stunning images but, in fact, his focus seems to be on Garth, who is quite the stud. Not all of the boys love Mandy, or do they? If you want to be bored enough to find out how this film winds up, my advice is to sleep midway through film, until you see the temptress Mandy and Garth's bulging crotch. But, don't wait for anything to happen. Yep, you guessed it. Mandy remains a virgin, and there's still no sex. I rank this film a 3 out of 10, but not because of Mandy. Why? Because all of the girls love Garth, and all voyeuristic eyes seem to be on Garth in a compromising position. But unfortunately, girls and boys, this film never seems to get beyond a disappointing and incomplete sexual fantasy. Mandy goes to a secluded ranch, and nothing sexual ever happens. The audience is led to horror on a ranch--and cannot help, but wonder why?$LABEL$ 0
+I rented this movie on 20 June 2001, and watched it for about 45 minutes. I concluded that watching a blank screen would be delightful by comparison. There was not a single person in the cast for whom I would have shed a tear if hell itself had opened up and swallowed the whole bunch of them.So, I e-mailed all of my friends and relatives warning them, and I am taking the time to urge everyone who may see this note to avoid this movie like the plague! I have seen some really bad movies in my time, but NEVER one as bad as this.$LABEL$ 0
+The best thing about this movie for me was that Bryan Dick played Rafe and made me -melt-. Rafe and all his gorgeousness made the movie worth sitting through, even though I itched to get up and scream. I have never seen a hotter man. -ahem- But that's not the point.The title? That is indeed what it is. They took the beautiful story written by Annette Curtis Klause and threw it out. I will, in all my anal-retentive glory, point out what was missing, what has changed, and all else wrong with the movie.Sit tight and here goes:-Apparently, RAFE is son of ASTRID and GABRIEL, and apparently, ULF is no longer ASTRID'S child, like in the book. AND, as I recall from the book, RAFE and ASTRID were LOVERS.-ASTRID is apparently BLOND, as opposed to the notably RED HAIR described in the book. I believe the book said that she looked more like a FOX than a WOLF. And the movie also shows that ASTRID is VIVIAN'S aunt.-WHERE DID AXEL GO? -VIVIAN is 19. In the book she was 16. -VIVIAN and AIDEN meet IN HIGH SCHOOL which they both attend in the book. VIVIAN goes to see AIDEN because of his poem 'Wolf Change'. But, according to the movie, AIDEN beat up his dad, escaped, and now lives in Romania, and draws Graphic Novels. This made me go 'What the F**K.' -There is no 'Kelly' in the movie. WHERE WAS THE KELLY IN THE MOVIE. The KELLY in the book, however, hated VIVIAN. And she also dated AIDEN after they broke up. Vivian even gets tipsy in the book and trashed her room.-GABRIEL bears a striking resemblance to a Columbian Drug Lord in the movie. And he sort of sounds like one too. His acting was very good, but his appearance threw me off.-VIVIAN had NO parents in the movie. Her father and mother and 2 other siblings died in the movie. Yet in the book, when she comes home one night, her MOTHER, ESME is sitting on the couch, after fighting with ASTRID over GABRIEL. And VIVIAN has no siblings. Only her father died in the book.-AIDEN accepts VIVAN for what she is. This REALLY got me. He kills RAFE in the creepy church, confronts VIVIAN, and she saves him from the others wolves, except AIDEN shoots her, so they saunter off to find medicine, and then they try to leave the city together. WTF?! In the book, AIDEN freaks out when she turns into a wolf, and cries like a chick, throws stuff at her, and so she panics, and jumps out the window. Then he makes up a story that he tried to break up with her, and she threw a chair out of the window. That doesn't sound accepting to me.-AIDEN wants her to runaway with him. In the book, he wants nothing to do with VIVAN after she turns for him. Nor does he lovingly hold her face and say she can control it. He cries like a woman because he is SCARED of her. And the final indignation...the one that nearly gave my three best friends and I HEART ATTACKS IN OUR SEATS:-In the movie, AIDEN and VIVIAN run away together, and VIVAN has killed GABRIEL. As in she SHOOTS him. GABRIEL dies. In the *BOOK* not only does VIVIAN not kill GABRIEL, I do believe they END UP TOGETHER. As in, she doesn't end up with AIDEN, she ends up with GABRIEL. WHAT THE HELL.Small things were noticed too: Ulf's red hair which he gets from Astrid has been changed to brown in the movie, and Vivian works at a chocolate shop. A horrible shock; I am ashamed. The book really wasn't hard to follow. If Disney can use a random H!School, why couldn't the directer have found a random H!School? *sigh* I was really looking forward to this movie, I loved the book, it's sad that it didn't follow it one bit. I give it a 2, only because (as the top of this review states) Rafe (played by Bryan Dick) was dead sexy, and Agnes Bruckner did a wonderful job. AND, they kept the poem from Steppenwolf With love,Caitlin$LABEL$ 0
+A very good start. I was a bit surprised to find the machinery not quite so advanced: It should have been cruder, to match we saw in the original series. The cast is interesting, although the Vulkan lady comes across as a little too human. She needs to school on Spock who, after all, is the model for this race. Too bad they couldn't have picked Jeri Ryan. I like Ms. Park, the Korean(?)lady. The doctor has possibilities. Haven't sorted out the other males, except for the black guy. He's a really likeable. Bakula needs to find his niche--In QL his strong point was his sense of humor and his willingness to try anything. He is, of course, big and strong enough for the heroics. The heavies were OK, although I didn't like their make-up.$LABEL$ 1
+My kids enjoyed the movie, but I was bored. There were a few good lines and a handful of funny parts, but the plot was pretty lame and relied on the special effects and gadgets to pull it through. Still, it hit the center of the bullseye that it was aiming for: it was good for the kids.$LABEL$ 0
+Andaz Apna Apna is by far my second favorite comedy of all time, first being Namak Halal (even though that was technically a drama). Story is nothing groundbreaking, but the complications that are added to it make it awesome. Aamir Khan is a total cartoon. Just watch his expressions in the song Yeh Raat aur yeh doori. He is amazingly good at comedy, I never knew. Salman Khan was also good as the somewhat dimmer of the two characters. The noises he makes are almost as funny as Aamir's faces. Raveena and karisma serve their purpose but are nothing amazing. The real pick of the lot is Paresh Rawal as usual.The plot is rather simple, Amar (Aamir) and Prem (Salman) are useless sons of poor fathers. They don't believe in hard work and just want to get rich the easy way. So both their brains come across an idea to woo a rich man's (Paresh Rawal) daughter (Raveena Tandon) who comes to India to look for a husband. So Amar and Prem meet on the trip and join hands to drive off the hundreds of other men trying to marry this girl. When they succeed, they now have to get rid of each other. Somehow both of them get into Raveena's house, Amar as an injured guy and Prem as his doctor. From here on they try to oust each other. But things are complicated as Raveena's friend (Karisma Kapoor) falls for Prem and pursues him. And rich man's evil twin brother (Rawal also) tries to get rid of the heiress and her father so he will inherit the money and sends in his two most trusted but bumbling fools to do the dirty work.This is a movie you do not want to miss. Watch it! It will be worth it. I even own the DVD, its that good. And if you like this movie, I'd also recommend Gol Maal if you haven't already watched it. Other good comedies are Namak Halal and Hera Pheri (new).$LABEL$ 1
+When it comes to creating a universe George Lucas is the undisputed master and his final Star Wars film is very, very good (and more appropriately rated in comparison to the two previous films in the original saga). Having recently seen Revenge of the Sith really puts this movie in perspective. The final battle seems even more climactic knowing what Anakin Skywalker went through at the manipulative hands of the Emperor. It also makes the final battle between Luke and Vader more bitter considering the love he felt for Padmé and the love she felt for her children. Actually while the new films (especially Episode II) are inferior to the original films they are good for one reason only. They make the old films seem even better.Mark Hamill does an exceptional job in this movie. He really brings the changes Luke has gone through seem real. In all fairness I believe that he should have become a big actor based on these films because he really does a great job. Harrison Ford is still good. However, you can feel that he has done Raiders and Blade Runner in between the two final chapters of Star Wars because he seems to have grown quite a bit. He adds more comedy (obviously inspired from Raiders) to the character which works brilliantly. In short Han Solo is better than ever. Carrie Fisher was never really a good actress but she does a decent job and is certainly passable. Ian McDiarmid appears in this film and having seen Episode III I can safely say that he is one of the most accomplished villains ever. James Earl Jones still provides the voice for Vader and he is still very, very good.In terms of how the movie looks its pretty safe to say that the Star Wars universe looks better than in either of the previous (two) movies but this was always Lucas' forté so that is really to be expected. The final battle over Endor is very well made both in terms of the general effects and tension wise. It was also a nice touch that Lucas decided to have three battles take place at the same time as it added to the overall tension of the climax. The only thing I feel is dragging the movie down from an otherwise deserved 9 are the Ewoks. These little creatures are so annoying they almost ruin every scene they are in. Besides I find it to be a little to kiddy when a group of teddy bears with bows and arrows can defeat a squadron of Storm Troopers with laser guns and mighty machinery.All in all Return of the Jedi is a very good movie but the fact that Richard Marquand is a less accomplished director than Irvin Kershner does that the overall feel of the movie is less than brilliant. Also George Lucas' stupid decision to add the Ewoks to the universe does that the film falls short of brilliance.8/10$LABEL$ 1
+The Thief of Baghdad is one of my ten all-time favorite movies. It is exciting without gore, it is beautifully filmed and the art direction is flawless. The casting couldn't have been better. Rex Ingram made me believe in genies. And the epitome of evil is certainly captured by Conrad Veight as Jafar. He set the bar very high...I watch this movie at least twice a year...and never tire of it. This film is an adventure for all ages..no-one too old to enjoy it. The Thief of Bahgdad jogs my memories to a more innocent time...I was ten years old the first time I saw it and the U.S. was just about to enter WWII. Conrad Vieght was such a great actor that he was able to continue this underlying "evilness" a few years later in "Casablanca." And Korda teamed up,I believe, with Justin and Dupree again in "The Four Feathers"....great film-making!$LABEL$ 1
+The reviews I read for this movie were pretty decent so I decided to check it out. BAD IDEA! This is another movie about a ghost out for revenge against a group friends. The story is stupid, mix two parts Ringu with one part Prom Night, a sprinkle of I Know what you did Last Summer, and add a tiny dash of Single White Female - now blend until completely nonsensical. There is nothing new to this plot, and revisiting the clichés I've grown so fond of wasn't even entertaining this time. This movie jumps to and from the past too much, and once I made sense of it all I realized it still didn't make much sense. Characters go from sane to psycho killer in the blink of an eye. Speaking of characters, they are all your stereotypical favorites - the greedy selfish lawyer, the egocentric actress, the has-been baseball star, the video voyeur, the bitter girl, the spooky quiet chick, the 'nicer-than-nice' nice girl, a freakin' black cat... and I didn't care about any of them. Perhaps a better writer could have made the movie work, there were some decent scenes in it, but overall this movie was a mess. I should also mention a certain 'video tape' that would have been IMPOSSIBLE to shoot. This movie isn't the worst Asian horror has to offer by far, but it is still pretty bad. If you just want to see some creepy images in the dark, or just want to laugh out loud at some over the top acting, or just want to yell "you're stupid!" at a movie screen, or just want to have another Asian horror flick up your sleeve when someone asks you how many you've seen - this movie is for you. Those seeking a decent plot look elsewhere.$LABEL$ 0
+Well, I bought the Zombie Bloodbath trilogy thinking it would be mindless gory fun. That's what it is, without the fun. This film truly is mindless, it is absent of any plot or character development, or any sort of storyline. The basic problem with this movie is the kills and gore. Basically, every kill looks EXACTLY the same. ZOmbies ripping someone apart. Yeah, that's okay, but you need some original kills too. I mean it got really lame, every kill looked exactly the same, filmed exactly the same way. Thats what killed me. I love gore, and the gore in this film did nothing for me. It was just boring. No storyline, just the same lame scene over and over again with a different person. I wanted to like this movie, too. I love shot on video gore movies...like Redneck Zombies. But I couldn't kid myself. This film has it's good points, but none of those are in the film. I understand that many of the "zombies" helped out with the flood and there were like over 100 zombies, which is pretty cool how they got so many people involved and helped out in the world. But overall, this is a terrible film.$LABEL$ 0
+I have wanted to see this for the longest time, James Merendino is a great director. SLC Punk is one of my favorite movies, and in the first ten minutes of this film I thought that it was a great follow up after that though, it begins to drag. The acting and direction were terrific. In fact everything in the film seemed to flow except for the script. At times, the only thing keeping my attention was the fact that in the cast was the most beautiful woman in the world, Claire Forlani. This film was good, but I expected more.P.S. Look for great cameos by Chi McBride, and Chris McDonald.$LABEL$ 1
+I like the concept of CSI, but the show is spoiled by some seriously wooden acting. The Medical Examiner has the best lines and delivers them in an arch, offhand manner that livens up the story. Unfortunately he has little screen time.Also, why does Jorja Fox always look and act so utterly unhappy? I know that forensic investigation is a very serious business, but the characters, for the most part, seem to confuse seriousness with humorlessness and a complete lack of personality. I can't imagine dating either Sarah Sidle or Catherine Willows; what would you talk to either one about? I'm waiting for the episode when, at the end of a shift, Catherine picks up a remote control, points it at Grissom, shuts him down, and wheels him into a closet until the next day.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is a disaster within a disaster film. It is full of great action scenes, which are only meaningful if you throw away all sense of reality. Let's see, word to the wise, lava burns you; steam burns you. You can't stand next to lava. Diverting a minor lava flow is difficult, let alone a significant one. Scares me to think that some might actually believe what they saw in this movie.Even worse is the significant amount of talent that went into making this film. I mean the acting is actually very good. The effects are above average. Hard to believe somebody read the scripts for this and allowed all this talent to be wasted. I guess my suggestion would be that if this movie is about to start on TV ... look away! It is like a train wreck: it is so awful that once you know what is coming, you just have to watch. Look away and spend your time on more meaningful content.$LABEL$ 0
+This appalling film somehow saw the light of day in 1988. It looks and sounds as if it had been produced 20 or 30 years earlier, and features some of the worst songs ever included in a major motion picture. I weep for the parents and children who paid top dollar to see this.$LABEL$ 0
+I remember Parker Posey on "As The World Turns" before she became the Queen of the Independent movies. In this film, Posey shows her potential as a top fledged actress. In this film with supporting cast that includes Omar Townsend as Moustafa, a Lebanese immigrant who works as a falafel salesman on the street, who aspires to become a teacher. The supporting cast features a wonderful actress who plays her godmother and only family relative as Judy, the librarian who is old fashioned, dedicated and menopausal. Posey as Mary learns that she has to grow up and mature. Losing her librarian clerk position makes her realize how much she misses it as a place in her life. Mary's life is surrounded by friends in the Lower East Side Village of New York City before it became gentrified with yuppies. This film is quite good for an independent and I have come to enjoy Parker Posey as Mary as well as other characters in other films.$LABEL$ 1
+I really hate this retarded show, it SUCKS! big time, and personally I think it is insulting to fairy kind (if you believe in fairies that is); I mean the people who had come up with such crap 'ought to have their heads examine huh? and also there is a LOT of craziness (the evil school teacher, which I think is getting really old) and also stupidity (the boy's parents and fairy godfather) in this show - two of the things that I dispised and loathe in the WHOLE world (especially stupidity).Overall, I say that this show is so f*****' annoying and should not be seen by prying eyes at ALL (it would make'em bleed to death)!$LABEL$ 0
+I saw the long day's dying when it first came out at the cinema, I thought the film gave a good soldiers point of view, it gave a realistic account, of men at war. The storyline moves at a nice pace, showing a group of men behind enemy lines, and trying to return back to their own lines with an enemy prisoner. The characters are well developed, and believable.David Hemmings is a good actor and plays the leading role with conviction, as does Alan Dobie (as German Helmut) I was surprised, that i have been unable to find this film on VHS or DVD, and I feel it has become the forgotten film, which is sad , as it is superior to many other war films I have seen.$LABEL$ 1
+I really liked the first part of this film in Africa for about an hour or so until the animal cruelty by civilized humans in Scotland got to me in the second half and made me so sad I couldn't watch some of it. However, this was done by the filmmaker to make a point that early natural scientists ruined everything alive they didn't understand by "studying" it literally to death without considering the rights and comfort of the animals studied, which we know now shouldn't be studied anywhere but in the natural world they inhabit, and as unobtrusively as possible. I do recommend this film as it was a mostly serious and honest story of Tarzan and made a point of showing the gross animal cruelty that was rampant in the 19th century scientific world as well as the pure and simple, beautifully primitive life Tarzan lived as a young man who was found as a baby and raised by chimps after the violent death of his parents in the African jungle.Christopher Lambert was wonderful and very soulful in his life of Tarzan role, as was Ralph Richardson in his last film role as Tarzan's ultra-rich, nobility-reeking gramps in Scotland. Andy MacDowell was pretty and pretty good as Tarzan's gussied-up and civilized "Jane" in her first movie role. From his charismatic work in this film and his very haunting eyes, I cannot understand why Lambert did not later become a big star, but his really bad movie choices later may have done him in. The terrific Ian Holm, as a wounded Frenchman in Africa helped by Tarzan and who then escorted Tarzan back to his previously unknown, ancestral home in Scotland, was great as always.I am so glad Tarzan got sick of and didn't stay in the animal-cruel civilized world at that time and went home to Africa in the end to live out his life with his gentle and loving ape "relatives" who raised him instead of staying in Scotland and living like royalty, which would have ruined him if it didn't kill him first.$LABEL$ 1
+The only thing good about this movie is the artwork on the promotion poster by H. R. Geiger. Anti-nuke protesters who all looked like punk rockers of the late 1970s, and somehow became non-violent, (except for their leader, "Splatter") occupy the cities. Fraternity boys descend on the punkers to do some violence on them and turn them into victims. Bad acting and bad plot then descends on the real victim, you, the viewer. I gave this a "2" because a few sexual scenes at least give it MST3K potential.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this today with little background on what to expect of the storyline. I go to the movies as an escape, to leave everything behind and enjoy a "story". I found this to be a good movie, not great, but good. It was worth my money and my tears :)Diane Lane was wonderful as always, Richard Gere isn't an over-actor. He held his own and has a certain presence that we always come to expect. He brings his own style to the movie.I think it was the kind of love story that doesn't always get told. It was messy and they had other priorities, but they wanted to be together and wanted to wait for each other.I'd definitely recommend it!$LABEL$ 1
+Hey guy, this movies is everything about choices. All the times in your life you must pick something or it just pass away... And this movie prove that! Of course, life in fact is not like a beautiful picture as this movie shows... it not shows indeed but some may figure that. I'm trying to say it's full of pain, love and deep lessons of live. Aaron, the Mormon missionary is the real shepherd digging out the thing beautiful deep inside Chisthian, the skin feeling guy...It's a great end and you do always believe in fate because it will surprise you in a turn or in other of your live like Latter Days...Big deal watch it!!!$LABEL$ 1
+I've always liked Sean Connery, but as James Bond I've always favored Roger Moore. Still it was Connery who set the Bond standard and while he had by 1983 established himself as something other than James Bond, the money must have been irresistible for him to make one more appearance as 007 and save the world from the evil designs of Spectre.And what designs they are in Never Say Never Again. SPECTRE with the help of a foolish young Air Force officer who happens to be Kim Bassinger's brother stole two nuclear missiles during a war games exercise and now SPECTRE headed by Blofeld, played here by Max Von Sydow is threatening blackmail of the world.Von Sydow's operations guy is Klaus Maria Brandauer who is also courting Bassinger and is a bit on the crazy side. And he's got a female assassin working for him in Barbara Carrera who makes Angelina Jolie as Nora Croft look like Mrs. Butterworth.But before Sean Connery can even get started he's got to deal with a new 'M' running things at British Intelligence. Edward Fox thinks Connery is old fashioned in his methods and costs the British taxpayers too much money with his violent ways. I really did enjoy Fox's performance, he's like the great grandson of Colonel Blimp.I also enjoyed Carrera, she's something to look at and quite resourceful in her methods. When she's scuba diving with Connery in the Bahamas, note how she puts Mr. Shark on 007's case.Will Connery do James Bond again? He was widely quoted as saying who would they cast him as at this point, Roger Moore's father? But I think Connery would still be formidable in a wheelchair.$LABEL$ 1
+For many months I was looking forward to this release. The previews looked good, early reports on the net were encouraging, and golden eye and Timesplitters were excellent shooters (by the same people). It turns out I was greatly misled! Haze had the potential to be up there with Call of Duty 4 and other next gen shooters, however it looks, plays and feels like something from 5 years or so ago. I played Haze on a 1080 TV and was initially disappointed that the game's developers had limited the graphics to 720. The Haze universe lacks detail and atmosphere, the feeling of "they must have really rushed to finish this" is always there.The controls are sluggish and cumbersome, and i have yet to find an adjustment for x/y axis sensitivity . There are many parts of the single player game that are very dark (visually), to the point where you can't actually see where you are going. Why not add a torch function like in Halo? or even better, night vision? The use of the performance enhancing drug "nectar" is interesting, however just as you get used to it you switch sides and don't use it again! why bother? I could go on with many more Haze faults, but instead i'll just say Don't BOTHER! wait for killzone 2 or play call of duty 4 and try to unlock the gold AK!$LABEL$ 0
+I heard that after the first Oceans movie, the sequels begin to go downhill. I believe that this is not the case(at least not for this film). This movie is even better than the first film! The original crew returns three years after they successfully robbed Terry Benedict's casinos. Now, Benedict is visiting each one of them personally telling them to get the money back within two weeks. To do that, they must do a couple heists in Europe to get the money.The acting is very good. The all-star cast exceeded expectations. Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, and Catherine Zeta-Jones were probably the best in this film.There are some confusing moments in this film. But that does not matter because there are only a few confusing moments. Anyway, this movie is only made for harmless fun.Overall, this is a great heist movie. I rate this movie 9/10.$LABEL$ 1
+Emilio is a successful business man, a perfect father and a good husband. Or that is what everybody think. The perfect storyline he has carefully built all along these years will start closing around him all of a sudden. Will he be able to keep up with his own lies?This is a very well laid out drama, with great acting and steady direction. Even though the plot is pushed up to the limit to increase the tension, the movie explores some of our worst fears... Do we really know the people we deal with? Can we be so sure?The story develops at an increasingly faster pace as it reaches the point where Emilio is not in control of his lies anymore. A good deal of Spanish movies have interesting stories but are far from technical proficiency. The perfect rhythm and well shot scenes make the actors so credible, we get inside Emilio, and hate him, and suffer for him, as his situation gets more and more desperate. There is no need for any Spanish folklore, nor is this an attempt to create a Hollywood style flick. This is real Spain, 2002, and regardless the obvious unlikeliness of Emilio's life existing in reality, there are good chances somebody we know is not quite like the person he claims to be. Not just a great commercial product, it will let you wondering where lies can get us to. Can we keep up?Well done.$LABEL$ 1
+I first saw this film by chance when I was visiting my uncle in Arizona about 3 and 1/2 years ago. The VHS print was a little faded looking, but I was very haunted by what I had watched. Did it all make sense? Well, honestly, no it didn't. However, this is a film that requires more than one viewing to understand all of its aspects. The beautifully tragic score haunted me and the bizarre images made quiet an impression.Well, when I found out that Anchor Bay had released this oddity on DVD, I picked it up immediately. I was very pleased by the transfer, though I felt the extras rather lacking. Though the film concerns the "O" and Sir Stephen characters, it really has nothing to do with Pauline Reage's original novel or the 1974 film The Story of O. However, the film does pay attention to artistic detail and symbolism of an almost mystic kind. "O" decides to prostitute herself for Sir Stephen in violent 1920s Hong Kong. Her mission is to prove her unending devotion and love for her master through giving her body to other men. Naturally, Sir Stephen enjoys watching her during her unpleasant sexual escapades and even finds himself a mistress. However, the tables are turned when "O" actually finds a kind of love with a young male admirer. Suddenly, Sir Stephen feels the threat...I feel that the deep meaning behind the film (including the tragic score and artistic direction) really make this film a classic. The viewer is introduced not only to the lives and pasts of "O"'s fellow brothel mates, but the turmoil of 1920s Hong Kong is also explored. Like the political setting, the prostitutes all find themselves in need of belonging. No one is happy in the film, even if they believe that they are. (However, "O" does find a sense of happiness with her young admirer). One prostitute tearfully remembers how her father used to act like a dog when she was drunk, naturally leading to a fetish for having her customers act like a dog. Another older prostitute is obsessed with her past as an actress. She cannot let that vision go. She treats her clients as co-stars and even swears she hears a piano in the river. As for "O", she has a flashback about her father leaving her in a chalk circle. When he leaves, she feels a sense of abandonment. Of course, in that same flashback Kinski suddenly becomes her father. I was very, very disturbed by this image. I truly felt for "O" at this point in the film. She hardly ever smiles and this scene really explains why. Her fear of abandonment is so great that she sees Sir Stephen as her father and caters to his every obscene demand in hopes of proving her love. Another curious aspect of the film is the young child (that ages at the end) that sells fortune in a box. It is a very random character, but somehow it just adds to the sense of loss and emptiness in the film. At one point, the director even uses painted cardboard figures to represent people. Now, if that isn't symbolism for you! (Laugh) All in all, I really love this film. I feel that it is a very deep and somewhat moving experience. It has erotic scenes, but the scenes aren't really meant to arouse. Like the lives of the characters, the sex acts are empty. They are motions, but lack feeling and tenderness. (Once again, the only tender scene is between "O" and the young man). "O" believes she is in love and that lowering herself is an honor, however, she finds in the end that she has choices. She too can be her own person and pursue her own happiness, however, she also has the option to stay in that circle that her father drew. The director leaves a lot of unanswered questions, however, some things don't need answers. The viewer will make the judgment that works for them. I must say that I wish a special edition of this DVD would be released that had director commentary. I think it would be fascinating to hear his opinion of the film and its message years later. It is a shame that the soundtrack was never released. This film has a truly haunting and heart breaking score. There is something about the lingering vocals that send a chill up my spine. I can truly feel the sense of loneliness in the film by just listening to the music.$LABEL$ 1
+There are so many positive reviews on Return to Me that my opinion is not necessary to encourage you to watch this movie. However, I feel the need to express my admiration for this unique movie. Bonnie Hunt has proved that she is not only an exceptional actress but also a marvelous director and script writer. This movie has everything and is full of humanity, tenderness, sense of humor ... Don't miss it, don't wait any longer. And, regarding the poor reviews don't pay any attention. Some viewers forget that this type of movies have to be watched with your heart, not only with your eyes. If some viewers prefer Notting Hill or You've got Mail that's their mistake. For me, Return to Me is a true gem, an unforgettable movie.$LABEL$ 1
+I've seen the original non-dubbed German version and I was surprised how bad this movie actually is. Thinking I had seen my share of bad movies like Ghoulies 2, Rabid Grannies, Zombie Lake and such, nothing could've prepared me for this! It really was a pain to sit through this flick, as there's no plot, no good acting and even the special effects aren't convincing, especially the so-called zombies, wearing nothing more than white make-up and their old clothes, so their good set wouldn't be ruined by ketchup and marmalade stains. If you really want to waste 90 minutes of your life, then watch it, for all the others, don't do it, because you WILL regret it!$LABEL$ 0
+Luis Bunuel's "Nazarin" will always be remembered as a great film because it is absolutely honest in its presentation of comical assault on religion.It is one of those outstanding films which must be shown to all people especially young children in order to familiarize them with the notions of good and bad,sacred and evil.The toughest question asked by "Nazarin" is about the strengths and weaknesses of organized religion.It has been tackled by involving numerous ordinary people who are not at all above petty affairs in their mundane lives especially sins.Bunuel scores tremendously by showing us that various questions related to class differences deserve frank,honest and reliable answers. Nazarin appears credible as it has been made in a light,comical vein.This is the sole reason why it can be said that the story of an ordinary priest appears absolutely true to life to all audiences.It is amazing how Bunuel approaches quest for true love issue in his film. This black & white gem was shot marvelously by Gabriel Figueroa,one of Luis Bunuel's favorite cameraman.Film critic Lalit Rao saw "Nazarin" at Trivandrum,India during 13th International Film Festival of Kerala 2009."Nazarin" was introduced by eminent Indian cinema personality Mr.P.K.Nair as part of a special package called "50 years ago".This is a film which should be with any discerning DVD collector.$LABEL$ 1
+When I saw the trailers I just HAD to see the film. And when I had, I kinda had a feeling that felt like unsatisfied. It was a great movie, don't get me wrong, but I think the great parts where already in the trailers, if you catch my drift. It went very fast and it rolled on, so I was never bored, and I enjoyed watching it. The humor was absolutely great. My first contact with a sloth (..or something like it).$LABEL$ 1
+"Godzilla vs King Ghidorah" is a perfect example how a great idea can be ruined by pathetic topics like pseudo-patriotism. Here, travellers from the future try to ruin Japan, replacing the local hero Godzilla with their puppy monster, the three-headed golden dragon King Ghidorah. They fail, however and in the end Godzilla fights Ghidorah. The battles between the two behemoths are very cool, but the plot of the movie is full with holes and the all thing about "Japan is great" is really stupid. The creators of this movie didn't even threat with respect the enemies of Japan, making them stupid big blond guys, who are easily outsmarted by the clever Japanese. The good thing is that in the end Godzilla and king Ghidorah nearly destroyed the both Japan and it's ridiculous enemies in one (actually two) spectacular combats. But till this battle royale, the film was really dull and pathetic.$LABEL$ 0
+I am a big fan of Stephen King. I loved The Running Man. So obviously I was very excited that someone had made a film of it. And when a local network showed the film, I was in heaven. I was all ready for a night of fun!The first indicator that something was wrong was when I noticed that someone had cast Arnold Schwarzenegger. I could simply not believe that a man who got famous for films filled with runnin' an' shootin' could play a more cunning part, as was described in the book. I still was convinced that this would be a good film, however. Who knows, maybe Arnold had some hidden talents?Well, he didn't. I soon found out that the only reason he was even cast was because someone had re-written the entire story to MAKE it about fightin' an' shootin'. Yup, it was a standard Arnold-film: hero is done wrong, hero solves problems by flexing his mighty muscles and scaring everyone away and hero gets the girl.I was stunned. This is NOT what the book said at all. I know that books can't be put on screen literally, but this didn't even have ties to the book. Stephen King should have openly denounced any affiliation with the film and he should have forbidden using the title The Running Man for this shameless waste of film. I don't say it often, but this film was BAD. If I weren't at home watching, I'd have tossed rotten tomatoes at the screen. Once again: bad.(Note that I used 'someone' a lot. I did this because I'm sure a lot of people are ashamed to have worked on this and I don't want to embarrass them even further by naming them here)$LABEL$ 0
+I disagree with the imdb.com synopsis that this is about a bisexual guy preparing to get married. It's more about all the crap we go through - self-induced and because of our parents - that we have to "get over" when we grow up. Like the Linda McCarriston poem says, "Childhood is the barrel they throw you over the falls in." This movie is much more like a narrative poem. It's about life and the mistakes we make and hurt we inflict and experience over the years, and how in the end, it's all about love (I'm not trying to be hyper-sensitive or schmoopy) and finding and being with one special person.$LABEL$ 1
+What a dreadful movie! For some reason, scientific laboratories and outposts always have a staff of grubby, dirty, mean-spirited, misanthropes living inside. These folks who presumably work together on complicated scientific projects cannot seem to agree on how to survive death at the hands of a CGI Dragon. Spoilers: An extra-nasty scientist whose main acting skill is "leering" and "the sinister stare" has cloned a Dragon. While the lab was supposed to work on this kind of thing, the other scientists are shocked, because apparently they were all way behind in their experiments and got caught with their pants down. The rest of the story is like THE THING, or Ten Little Indians, where the staff is hunted and killed off as they try to formulate a way to escape and/or defeat the "Dragon." The CGI Dragon creature is dark gray, which seems to be the popular color for most of the cheap CGI special effects. It hardly looks better than a cartoon, and the dark gray tones make it difficult to see any interesting details in the body of the Dragon. All it looks like is a gray blob. The acting is less than horrible. These scientists act like a bunch of children who cannot agree on anything, and this makes it easier for the Dragon to kill them off in various attempts to escape, hide, etc. Dean Cain is hardly better than any of the cast of unknown actors in this movie. He seems to sink to the level of his supporting cast. This movie is really, really atrocious. The acting is bad. The story is dumb. The CGI is very very cheap and amateurish. There is nothing commendable about this movie, it is not even a good time-killer to glance at while doing chores or other work.$LABEL$ 0
+Wicked Little Things has an excellent synopsis: empty house beside abandoned mine in woods with tragic past; family moves into house and strange things begin to happen; little creepy children begin to pop up here and there doing creepy-little-children-things. But that is where the cleverness and potential fun ends. This group of kids was sealed in the mine many decades earlier, and now appear roving the woods (poor make-up) with weapons looking for flesh to eat. Oh I get it, this is a ghost-zombie movie. Hmmm....while I can appreciate someone trying something new with this genre, this just didn't work. What was the children's motivation in seeking to devour flesh? Why did they need weapons? Did anyone else imagine the filmmakers all gathered around the daily footage giggling because they felt this was going to be a cool/scary movie? I found that after thirty minutes I felt the familiar resignation that I had just wasted my time on another modern crap-fest. While the acting was good, and the setting/cinematography of good quality as well, the script itself suffered from what seems to be a lack of knowledge about the supernatural horror genre altogether. A bunch of kids walking down the mall is scarier than this pack of poorly disguised rodents.This movie is not scary, and while I can appreciate the story, perhaps have even enjoyed it if I had read it instead of watched it, I still have to say that Wicked Little Things is more accurately called Wicked Little Turd.$LABEL$ 0
+I disagree with Dante portraying the Democrat-supporting zombies as creatures with an average IQ of 23. I do believe their behaviour should reflect a lower IQ than that, something in the order of a Pelosi IQ... A single-digit figure, please.The MOH series is quite uneven, and this is the very worst episode. Dante, yet another mindless Hollywood liberal (or an apolitical nerd who sucks up to the Leftist establishment in order to re-kindle his pitiful career?), must have finally realized that his directorial pursuits had been stuck in a low gear for nearly two decades now, hence came up with this cringe-inducing, unsubtle, left-wing "satire" of the Bush administration, Republicans, and capitalism. Perhaps he felt he hadn't been overtly political before. He wouldn't exactly be the first no-talent to use asinine political propaganda to further his career, when all else fails. The maker of turds such as "Piranha", "The Howling", and "Matinee", Dante has been as useful a contributor to the horror genre as Adolf Hitler had been to world peace.TH uses lowest-common-denominator humour, cheap and predictable gags which even the bluest of all blue-collar union members wouldn't have trouble understanding. Or have you ever seen a clever, subtle, intelligent liberal satire? Populist manure has the basest of all messages, hence the language and manner in which this message is communicated has to be as simple and basic as Sean Penn's name. And what better people to send this message to the popcorn-munching sheep than a couple of cocaine-sniffing Tinseltown losers who've all fallen so low that they're forced to write for TV...I don't want political propaganda, either Left or Right, in any type of movie. But placing it in horror - of all genres - is a testament to the endless stupidity that reigns so supreme among Hollywood's anti-intelligentsia. So vapid was Dante that he even failed to notice the hilarious suggestion that zombies would vote Democrat... (That's what you get for finishing a movie school: not a source of wisdom or useful knowledge by any stretch of the imagination.)$LABEL$ 0
+I really liked Tom Barman's AWTWB. You just have to let it come over you and enjoy it while it lasts, and don't expect anything. It's like sitting on a café-terrace with a beer, in the summer sun, and watching the people go by. It definitely won't keep you pondering afterwards, that's true, but that's not a prerequisite for a good film. It's just the experience during the movie that's great.I felt there were a few strands that could have been worked out a little more, but being a Lynch fan I don't care that much anymore :)And I *loved* the style, or flair of this movie. It's slick, but fresh, and the soundtrack is a beauty. Any music-lover will get his kicks out of AWTWB, I can assure you.I'll give it 8 out 10.(music-wise 10 out of 10)$LABEL$ 1
+I'm proud to say I'm a student at UW-Milwaukee, where parts of the film were shot. Yep, I recognize Mitchell Hall, where I took a film class, possibly the same course as fellow student Smith.That's where I learned about "American Movie." Our professor told us about it shortly before its release. To be sure, I was intrigued, but for some reason, I put off seeing it for several months(it must've done pretty well if it was still playing, at least in Milwaukee).When I finally got around to seeing it, I thought it was an entertaining documentary. It's not a masterpiece-it goes on a bit too long-but I find Mark's passion and commitment inspiring. I hope this film signals the beginnings of bigger and better things him. Maybe his forthcoming "Northwestern" will propel him to fortune. Who knows?Rating: *** (out of ****)108 min/Released by Sony Pictures Classics$LABEL$ 1
+This film is another of director Tim Burton's attempts to capitalize on a familiar title to bring his `vision' to the screen. He has done it with `Batman', `Sleepy Hollow' and now this. This is not a remake. The only thing it has in common with the original is that it has simians that can speak (and Charleton Heston makes a cameo). Burton has reconstituted the entire story, watering it down for today's mass viewership.The original Planet of the Apes was a product of its time. During the 1960's America was struggling to redefine its civilization. It was a turbulent time of soul searching and rethinking social norms. It was the civil rights era where groups long considered inferior demanded to be treated as equal. In that context, POTA was allegorical, reflecting the philosophical turmoil confronting the audiences of the day. POTA was an extremely intelligent film that broached difficult questions and elegantly held the oppressions of American society up to scrutiny by making the white guy justify his intelligence to a species he considered inferior. The dialectic between Colonel Taylor (Charleton Heston), Dr. Cornelius (Roddy McDowall) and Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter) was thought provoking and intelligent with ironies both subtle and obvious.Burton's version is as much a product of today's times as POTA was of the sixties. This is Apes for Dummies. It is superficial and jejune, substituting politically correct platitudes for intelligent dialogue and focusing more on form than substance. The `surprise' ending is utterly incongruous and contributes nothing to the film except a cliffhanger that sets up the sequel. While the ending of the original POTA gracefully tied everything together in a single powerful scene, Burton's ending simply mocks the audience, taunting, `I know something you don't know, and you are going to have to wait for the sequel to find out.'From a technical perspective, as is always the case with Burton's film, the film is excellent. The makeup is fantastic and Burton's camerawork is outstanding (though I continue to dislike his dark look). However, thirty-three years of advancements in prosthetic makeup can not compensate for the insultingly vacuous script.The story has been reduced to a monster movie. The humans band together behind Captain Davidson (Mark Wahlberg) to fight the monstrous Apes, aided and abetted by a few turncoats (notably Helena Bonham Carter as Ari). The presentation is formulaic and simplistic with plenty of violence, perfect for today's fast food mentality.The acting is mixed. Mark Wahlberg is a fine actor who is simply miscast in this role. Walberg is excellent at playing dark, sullen characters that are tormented but strong. This part requires an inspirational hero, a profile not in Wahlberg's repertoire. Helena Bonham Carter is a brilliant actor whose character is so far beneath her ability that the disconnect is laughable. She tries desperately to do something with the flimsy character, but her interpretation presents like a cross between a college peace demonstrator and love sick teenager.Then there is Tim Roth. His is a virtuoso performance, single-handedly saving the film from total ruin. Roth is diabolically hateful as the malevolent General Thade. He creates one of the most villainous and despicable bad guys I can remember in some time. Additionally, his physical acting is superlative, rendering a chimp-man that is such a perfect meld that one can almost believe that the species exists.This film is a great disappointment. It is decent entertainment, as long as you check your brain at the door. I rated it a 3/10. From a technical perspective it is much better than that, perhaps a 9/10. However the story is an insult to the original franchise. It is simply another attempt by Burton at self adulation, using a familiar title to attract throngs to the box office so lots of people can see what a genius he is. Of course it's true, but it would be great if he used that talent to produce substantial films, instead of simple minded pap formulated for mass consumption.$LABEL$ 0
+I did have a good time the first 45 min. or so, but then suddenly it was all down hill. The suspense somewhat started to get thin and the jokes somewhat the same all over. What kept it going were the good actors.But the problem with this film is that it is trying to be cleverly funny,like Tarantino and god is that outdated stuff. Tarantino being a bit overrated sometimes, this movie comes ten years too late. At best it is for teenagers, and I am sure many of them find the character of Johann funny, which he is for the first 30 min. The other problem I have with it is that the story fades away towards the end more and more, thou I tried to find a recovery point. Maybe it didn't recover because the lack of passion comes with the effort of trying to be cleverly funny. Also, like in many movies, sure, good actors who can afford it don't seem to demand a better dialogue, or just turn down the script.$LABEL$ 0
+Dahl seems to have been under the influence of Wenders' The American Friend. Innocent Nick Cage gets recruited for a hit. Dennis Hopper plays a real Hit Man. Lara Flynn Boyle is dangerous. The Hero gets more entangled the more he tries to extricate hisself. And small town America does not seem all that safer than the Big City. Like it's predecessor mentioned above, this movie has lots of plot twists and turns that seem improbable, but all lead to the cathartic self discovery.$LABEL$ 1
+"The Long Kiss Goodnight" is an enjoyable and very cool action thriller, and a career breakthrough for Geena Davis. The plot is very familiar to that of The Bourne Identity but so what. The fight scenes are a real treat for the eyes and the plotline is strong enough to keep you engaged for the 2 hours.It's directed with a slick sense of style and avoids most action cliches. Geena Davis is great as an action chick and gets past her usual "good wife" role. Samuel L. Jackson is good as usual as the supporting player. The film's baddie is overly cheesy though and you can tell what's going to happen to him. It breaks away from the usual run-of-the-mill actioners such as Commando and On Deadly Ground and is definetly one of the best actioners in years. Good fun and good popcorn entertainment. 7.4/10.$LABEL$ 1
+The Bourne Ultimatum is the third and final outing for super-spy Jason Bourne, a man who is out to kill the people who made him into a killer. The Bourne series is one of the highest regarded trilogies by critics (Ultimatum has an 85/100 on metacritic.com, meaning it's status is "universal acclaim) and for good reason- the fighting is choreographed very well and the deep story can be very engrossing.First, I highly advise you watch The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy, the two fancy-titled prequels to Ultimatum. There may be three different movies, but in reality they are all a continuance of one another: missing one leaves you stranded and confused, just like I was. You will still be about to enjoy the action and fight scenes of Ultimatum if you missed the first two, but then the story will definitely lead to some confusion.If you were lucky enough to view the prequels to this movie, you probably had a treat watching Bourne take down his enemies and track down the man who screwed him from Supremacy. Jason Bourne is played very well by Matt…Damon. Damon does nothing to deserve an Oscar nod, but his work here is good enough to hold it's own. Bourne's adventures take place in many different cities; the cities are all varied enough to keep the movie from becoming bland at times. The agency tracking Bourne takes advantage of every technological tool known to mankind to track him down.I won't go into detail on the characters because they are continuations off of the first two movies. However, it wouldn't hurt the movie to spell a few things out for the audience- not every viewer is a die-hard movie watcher who can pick up on every little hint about story development. Ultimatum wouldn't have been harmed at all if the story was a little more up front.It seems most people agree that Ultimatum was a success of a film: the movie opened to $69 million, and -box office total now is up to $216 mil- is currently still going very strongly for a movie that has been in theatres since August 3. It's the best action movie I've seen since Live Free or Die Hard.Good) Damon is solid but not spectacular, very smart movie Bad) Story is like many others$LABEL$ 1
+As I am a fan of hospital and medical shows, I have found this one gripping and sometimes humorous (especially the scenes with Dr Whitman) which brings a bit la light relief. However, I was looking forward to the last episode because I expected that the bad ones would be punished and the good ones reinstated. Instead of that, the hospital management are making even more fools of themselves in an unbelievable manner and it's getting worse and worse for the good ones. You can't help wondering what the unions are doing or doesn't Rob, Donna and Maria know what unions are there for ? Besides, never seeing the outside, trees, grass, sunlight is a bit oppressive. Anyone understood what the last words were ? i.e. the answer Rob Lake gave to Mrs Strawberry's children question "Why are you telling us all that?" It was very frustrating not to be able to understand it.$LABEL$ 0
+There is nothing good to say about this movie. Read Revolution For the Hell of It or any of his other writings. Abbie was often dismissed as the clown-prince of the '60's, but he was a man of ideas who used his cleverness, his sense of humor and pop culture, and his flamboyant personality to get attention to his ideas. The media too often concentrated on the man, not the ideas, and that's the problem with this movie, too. Later in his life he did suffer from depression. But this flick is like a National Enquirer version of Abbie. He deserves better. If you don't know Abbie or his times, this movie won't help. This film lies. I give it a zero. $LABEL$ 0
+Christine Lahti (Sandy Dunlap) and Mary Tyler Moore (Holly Davis) worked well with soapish material, Ted Danson did his best with a thankless role of Chip Davis The premise of this that the two ladies' friendship, one a seemingly happily married woman and the other a career woman who is aware of her biological clock ticking. I found the relationship that Ted Danson's character had with the single woman played by Christine Lahti's rather sordid. He behaved in a caddish way, yet he left two "widows" pining over him, bawling. I found it revolting when when Sandy told him she wanted to break it off after meeting his wife, he calls her saying he misses her (did he call his wife? There was no sign of that). He behaved like a heel. It perhaps would have made a more interesting film had he not been killed off. Perhaps both ladies would have wised up and dumped him. I liked the friendship between the two ladies but it was spoiled by what they had in common: The Cad of a husband.$LABEL$ 1
+I watched this movie at 3'o clock in the morning, a time in the day where I am usually very open when it comes to movies. But still I think it wasn't good, this movie wasn't good at all. The reasons why are many.The acting isn't all that good, and time after time situations occurring in it reminded me of a poor 90's Chevy Chase comedy. I mean, come on, like the handcuff situation, and the poker situation amongst the servants... This movie was so obviously based very much on the first one, and thats OK. But if I hadn't seen the first one before seeing this, it would have sucked even worse. Like the ending, it came very suddenly, and I felt like I got no closure what so ever... Sebastian changed very suddenly, and this This movie seems like it was made solely to explain nr 1, and like no time or effort was used on making anything else good. The score is the same as in the first one, and it didn't feel like a movie at all...They should have handled the situations with more style and class, but they didn't, and therefore, this movie turned out bad...$LABEL$ 0
+Oh boy.. This movie is so mediocre I don't really know what exactly to write about it. I think it's easier to write what it's not: It's not very entertaining. It's not original. And there's not one character in the whole movie I cared about.Kind of reminds me of a certain reality TV show on MTV, but without any interesting people. It just drags on and on and I could hardly wait for it to end. The only thing that kept me from switching it off was Jennifer Lyons (c:I thought a long time about this movie to find one good thing to say about it. What I liked was the reminder not to judge a person by the first impression you get (as Holly did when she accused Nicole) which earns it a score of 2 out of 10 instead of a 1.$LABEL$ 0
+This film is underrated. I loved it. It was truly sweet and heartfelt. A family who struggles but isn't made into a dysfunctional family which is so typical of films today. The film didn't make it an issue that they have little money or are Dominican Republican the way Hollywood have.Instead the issue is Victor is immature and needs to grow up. He does, slowly, by the film's end. He has a ways to go, but it was a heartfelt attempt to move forward. His grandmother is very cute and the scene where the little boy throws up had me laughing for the longest time. A truly heartfelt indie$LABEL$ 1
+I don't remember too much about this movie except that there was a distinctly gratuitous destruction of luminaires (lamps). Almost every fight scene included the unnecessary and wanton destruction of useful light fixtures, even if outfitted with cheesy, '70's-style, cylindrical shades to keep with the time setting of the story. On one occasion, raucous lamp destruction takes place in a domestic fight scene between the brothers in both the living and dining rooms of their mother's house, with fixtures in both rooms being taken out. Yet, the most malicious destruction occurs moments later in a bookie's office and includes, but is not limited to, the toppling of a fixture with a ceramic horse-head base, which is consequently disintegrated, and the severe denting of a cylindrical shade as a guy falls back into it during another fisticuffs fight. Later, that lamp is toppled as well when the guy is shot, incurring further damage to the plastic-coated shade.While this movie encourages a particularly wasteful attitude toward lamps, one should keep in mind that lamps, regardless of their cheap construction or gauche, top-heavy appearance, are still valuable for the illumination that they provide. However, if you ever feel the need to vicariously smash a lamp, I would highly recommend this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+I don't think this can legally qualify as "film." The plot was so flimsy, the dialogue so shallow, and the lines so terrible that I couldn't believe that someone actually wrote the lines down, said, "Holy sh*t! This is a masterpiece" and then actually pitched it to a producer. I, for one, am still dumbfounded and will forever remember this film as the mark of the degeneracy of intelligence in America -- that, and "Crossroads," of course.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm a huge comedy show fan. Racial humor is always a little risky but the greats like George Lopez, Dave Chapelle, Lisa Lampanelli etc. pull it off perfectly.They don't go overboard, make the audience uncomfortable or *cough cough* STEAL JOKES! But I won't harp upon that.Carlos makes racial humor totally unenjoyable. His jokes continually scream racial humor to the point were it's not funny or clever, but it's insulting. I'm not one to turn cold towards racial humor. But his execution of these jokes is sloppy that cause people to recoil at his comedy.His humor is only surpassed by his stage presence in annoyance. I feel as though he's SCREAMING at me constantly! And he runs around the stage like a maniac. It only comes off as annoying!$LABEL$ 0
+Woman (Miriam Hopkins as Virginia) chases Man (Joel McCrea as Kenneth) for father (Charles Winninger as B.J.). Woman wants to get Man to invest some of deceased mother's money in father's business venture; but, father is notorious for losing money on hair-brained schemes. Little does anyone know, but real evil schemers are posing as Man's best friends in order to steal his fortune...The production looks engaging, but the story fails to engage. The players don't play drunk well. Notable as Broderick Crawford's first appearance - as gopher "Hunk"; other than running errands, Mr. Crawford gets pinned to the floor by Mr. McCrea. *** Woman Chases Man (4/28/37) John G. Blystone ~ Miriam Hopkins, Joel McCrea, Charles Winninger, Broderick Crawford$LABEL$ 0
+A young boy sees his mother getting killed and his father hanging himself. 20 years later he gets a bunch of friends together to perform an exorcism on himself so he won't turn out like his father. All the stock characters are in place: the nice couple; the "funny" guy; the tough (but sensitive) hood; the smart girl (she wears glasses--that's how we know); the nerd and two no-personality blondes. It all involves some stupid wooden statue that comes to life (don't ask) and kills people. I knew I was in trouble when, after a great opening scene, we jump to 20 years later--ALL bad horror movies do that!The dialogue is atrocious, the acting is bad (except for Betsy Palmer--why Betsy?) and the killings are stupid and/or unimaginative. My favorite scene is when two people are supposedly having sex and the statue knocks the guy off the bed to show he's fully dressed! A real bad, stupid incoherent horror film. Avoid at all costs.$LABEL$ 0
+Interesting mix of comments that it would be hard to add anything constructive to. However, i'll try. This was a very good action film with some great set pieces. You'll note I specified the genre. I didn't snipe about the lack of characterisation, and I didn't berate the acting. Enjoy if for what it is people, a well above average action film. I could go on but I've made my comment.$LABEL$ 1
+The plot is so manipulative, counting completely on the most uncredible and unthinkable decisions of the adults in each and every parenting decision. The children are super as far as charm and delivery of the lines but as I say, the whole plot depends on each and every adult being complete idiots, and therefore in THAT case, making more sense out of their actions (and at the same time being the only way to explain the boys actions of total mistrust). Why would sweey charming little boys take a baby from the shore? How did the baby get to the shore and at the same time account for it being the LAST place to be searched? Why would the 2 boys NEVER be informed an instead at the same time a baby is missing nobody gives a fig about them running around with food and diapers with all that commotion going on and literally every other place it searched? There is just no possible justification to ask the audience to believe this. Asking to believe it would then do to trial (even the informal setting) is too insulting to bare.$LABEL$ 0
+George and Mildred is a truly unfunny film. This attempt to translate the successful TV series to the big screen was a dismal failure, as is so often the case.The wit and clever one-liners from the TV shows have gone missing. The plot is a typical English farce of confused characters and mistaken identities, which is neither funny enough nor weird enough to provoke many decent laughs.Die-hard George and Mildred fans might want to see this final episode of the pair's output (Mildred died of hepatitis before the film was released), but others should invest their time more wisely.$LABEL$ 0
+Romance is in the air and love is in bloom in Victorian era England, in this light-hearted story set against a society in a time in which manners were still in vogue, the ladies were charming and elegant, and the gentlemen dashing. `Emma,' based on the novel by Jane Austen and written for the screen and directed by Douglas McGrath, stars the lovely Gwyneth Paltrow in the title role. A self-appointed matchmaker, Emma takes great delight in the romantic notion of playing Cupid and attempting to pair up those she feels are suited to one another. Coming off a successful matching that ended in marriage, she next sets her sights on finding a mate for her friend, Harriet (Toni Collette), but the outcome of her initial attempt proves to be less than satisfying. Meanwhile, her endeavors are tempered by by the handsome Mr. Knightley (Jeremy Northam), whose insights into matters of the heart often seem to be a bit more astute than Emma's, and lend some needed balance to the proceedings. And Emma, so concerned with what is right for others, neglects the heart that is actually the most important of all: Her own. The world goes ‘round and love abounds, but Emma is about to miss the boat. Luckily for her, however, the is someone just right for her waiting in the wings. Now, if she can but stop long enough to realize it. But as everyone who has known true love knows, matters of the heart can go right or wrong in an instant, depending upon the slightest thing; and while romance is at hand for Emma, she must first recognize it, and seize the moment.	McGrath has crafted and delivered a delightful, feel-good film that is like a breath of fresh air in our often turbulent world. There may be an air of frivolity about it, but in retrospect, this story deals with something that is perhaps the most important thing there is-- in all honesty-- to just about anyone: Love. And with McGrath's impeccable sense of pace and timing, it all plays out here in a way that is entirely entertaining and enjoyable. It's a pleasant, affecting film, with a wonderful cast, that successfully transports the viewer to another time and another place. It's light fare, but absorbing; and the picturesque settings and proceedings offer a sense of well-being and calm that allows you to immerse yourself in it and simply go with the flow.	The winsome Paltrow, who won the Oscar for best actress for `Shakespeare In Love' two years after making this one, seems comfortable and right at home in this genre. She personifies all things British, and does it with such naturalness and facility that it's the kind of performance that is easily taken for granted or overlooked altogether. She's simply so good at what she does and makes it look so easy. She has a charismatic screen presence and an endearing manner, very reminiscent of Audrey Hepburn. Yet Paltrow is unique. As an actor, she has a wide range and style and has demonstrated-- with such films as `Hard Eight,' `Hush' and `A Perfect Murder'-- that she can play just about any part effectively, and with that personal touch that makes any role she plays her own. But it's with characters like Emma that she really shines. She is so expressive and open, and her personality is so engaging, that she is someone to whom it is easy to relate and just a joy to watch, regardless of the part she is playing. And for Emma, she is absolutely perfect.	Jeremy Northam also acquits himself extremely well in the role of Knightley, and like Paltrow, seems suited to the genre-- in the right role, that is; his performance in the more recent `The Golden Bowl,' in which he played an Italian Prince, was less than satisfying. Here, however, he is perfect; he is handsome, and carries himself in such a way that makes Knightley believable and very real. Like Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy in the miniseries `Pride and Prejudice,' Northam has created a memorable character with his own Mr. Knightley.	Also excellent in supporting roles and worthy of mention are Toni Collette, as Emma's friend Harriet Smith; and Alan Cumming, as the Reverend Elton. Respectively, Collette and Cumming create characters who are very real people, and as such become a vital asset to the overall success of this film. And it demonstrates just how invaluable the supporting players are in the world of the cinema, and to films of any genre.	The supporting cast includes Greta Scacchi (Mrs. Weston), Denys Hawthorne (Mr. Woodhouse), Sophie Thompson (Miss Bates), Kathleen Byron (Mrs. Goddard), Phyllida Law (Mrs. Bates), Polly Walker (Jane Fairfax) and Ewan McGregor (Frank Churchill). An uplifting, elegant film, `Emma' is a reminder of civilized behavior and the value of gentleness and grace in a world too often beset with unpleasantness. And even if it's only through the magic of the silver screen, it's nice to be able to escape to such a world as this, if only for a couple of hours, as it fulfills the need for that renewal of faith in the human spirit. And that's the magic of the movies. I rate this one 9/10.  $LABEL$ 1
+How his charter evolved as both man and ape was outstanding. Not to mention the scenery of the film. Christopher lambert was astonishing as lord of Greystoke. Christopher is the soul to this masterpiece. I became so enthrawled with his performance i could feel my heart pounding. The entireity of the movie still moves me to this day. His portrayal of John was Oscar worthy; as he should have been nominated for it.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm astonished how a filmmaker notorious for his political left-wing fervor could make such a subtle, non-sanctimonious picture. If you're for capital punishment, you'll still be for it after seeing this. If you're against capital punishment, you'll still be against it. But whatever your stance is, this movie will, at the very least, make you reflect on why you feel the way you do. There's not one false note in the film.$LABEL$ 1
+Gino Costa (Massimo Girotti) is a young and handsome drifter who arrives in a road bar. He meets the young, beautiful and unsatisfied wife Giovanna Bragana (Clara Calamai) and her old and fat husband Giuseppe Bragana (Juan de Landa), owners of the bar. He trades his mechanical skills by some food and lodging, and has an affair with Giovanna. They both decide to kill Giuseppe, forging a car accident. The relationship of them become affect by the feeling of guilty and the investigation of the police. This masterpiece ends in a tragic way. The noir and neo-realistic movie of Luchino Visconti is outstanding. This is the first time that I watch this version of `The Postman Always Rings Twice'. I loved the 1946 version with Lana Turner, and the 1981 version, where Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange have one of the hottest sex scene in the history of the cinema, but this one is certainly the best. My vote is ten.$LABEL$ 1
+Yes, thats that i felt after i completed watching this movie. The acting is below-average and the special effects are horrible. In fact, the worst i have ever seen. It is a very low budget movie. There is no way this movie will can scare you, it has no creepy or scary moments. Mr. bone eater was more of a funny creature for me. It could have been much better but oh well they didn't had a big budget. The movie fails to convince you that you are watching a horror movie, lol. I would name this movie The Time Eater (waster). I am sure you would have a lot of better movies/etc to watch. Still watch it if: 1. you have nothing else to watch. 2. you get to watch it for free. Not worth renting at all.$LABEL$ 0
+I cannot believe someone gave this movie a 1 rating!!! and it is only a 3. average... What is not to love about this film? It is original, it has lots of scare scenes that actually made me jump out of my seat, and it has some great special effects. The story is fresh, there is some nudity, and it is very campy. The killer was scary in his own demented way and the end is very unexpected. I must admit that I really love this film, one of Spain's best horror films ever. If you consider yourself a true horror fan you need to get out there and try to find this film. You will be pleasantly surprised to do so.$LABEL$ 1
+i actually thought this is a comedy and sat watching it expecting to laugh my ass off. pretty soon in became clear this is no comedy, or at least not a 'Jim Carrey type' one. what kept we watching was the characters - the movie starts with some pretty grim, troubled people, gathered together to try and fight one of their basic fears - fear of water, fear of swimming. we start to get bit by bit into their lives, witness their troubles, guess of their thoughts.actually i made it look much darker than it actually is, and besides the chain of events soon brings some light and hope to their lives.i probably wouldn't have watched the movie had i known its not a comedy but rather a drama, but i had good time, enjoyed the story and don't mind i spent about 90 minutes with it.many films treat the alienation between people in the western world, this movie shows how people can get together and help each other"and if in the light of dying day you meet her, don't let her pass you by and leave, don't loose her, she is your gift from the sun..."9/10peace and love$LABEL$ 1
+Over the last few months, I have seen a lot of reviews for The Italian Job, many of them negative. The gist of almost all of these pessimistic criticisms is that, for all its modernistic bravado and high-budget technology, the film doesn't have much substance where it counts. Look, people, it's just a fun movie. This is the type of picture where you're supposed to sit back, relax, and just enjoy the steady-moving pace of the film. Like Ocean's Eleven (2001), you can concentrate on the characters and the plot at the same time without having to do much thinking (lucky for some of us). Granted, "Ocean" is a better movie, but who cares? The plot may have some holes (there's a huge one about 3/4 of the way through), the action may not be as gratifyingly gratuitous as the trailers made it out to be, and some of the dialogue may seem pointless and cheesy, but again, who really cares? Cool characters, Mini Coopers, big explosions, Charlize Theron. What more do you want? I think it's time to drop the fake Roger Ebert meets Gene Shalit act and enjoy yourself for once! Oh, and another thing, whatever you do, don't compare it to the original because, to reiterate what F. Gary Gray has told the press a million times, THIS IS NOT A REMAKE!! My advice- if you're interested in nit-picking your way through a good-humored, fun flick, don't even bother seeing The Italian Job. But, if you don't have a severe inferiority complex and/or want to see Ed Norton get jacked by a bunch of Ukranians, go ahead. The Bottom Line, my fellow moviegoers, is: Lighten Up and Have Fun, Dammit.$LABEL$ 1
+I became more emotionally attached to this movie than any other I have ever watched. That may be because I can see the characters as my own grandparents, attempting to make sense of a world at war. The ending and use of Pachabel's Cannon are both amazing.$LABEL$ 1
+I can't imagine a director whose thirst for blood and violence is greater than Quentin Tarantino's. (At least in his films) Inglourious Basterds is no different. We all know Tarantino, the guy who exploded on the scene in the early 90s with cult classics, such as Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Since, he has been a disappointment for some. Well, I am relieved to say, Tarantino has not lost his touch. He brings us his best since Pulp Fiction and thankfully so.We know the story, a WWII tale told only as Tarantino can. (Fictional of course) A war film hasn't been done like this before. Brad Pitt as Lt. Aldo Raine leads the Basterds in Nazi occupied France. Their goal - killin' Nazi's. Christoph Waltz as Colonel Hans Landa plays a similar role on the other side. He's know as the "Jew Hunter" and goes about his business as ruthless as no other. The third sub story consists of a young Jewish refugee, Shosanna Dreyfus, who witnesses the slaughter of her family. And she, of course, wishes to plot revenge on the Germans for her devastating lose. There actually is three stories here intertwining and connecting with each other. If you know anything about Tarantino or his films, this is nothing new for him.War has never been been so fun. The Basterds, are haunting, but at the same time, very funny, at times even hilarious. The dark comedy aspect play a big aspect in this as in many other Tarantino films. The entertainment and hilarity is led by Brad Pitt. I found him extremely funny and entertaining. I couldn't wait to see him on screen again. Even with his crazy accent, he works in this type of film. Also making great impressions were Mélanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz, who were tremendous. The film was filled with noteworthy performances.The story itself, has so many historical inaccuracies to even count, but so what? It isn't meant to be a documentary. Tarantino wanted to have fun with, as should we. The cinematography department deserves big props with beautiful vibrant colors highlighting the film. You've really got to love the last line in the film... but Pulp Fiction remains his masterpiece.Quentin Tarantino among all other things, is an entertainer. WWII, is one of the most tragic events in history, but Tarantino some how manages to make it fun. Inglourious Basterds is a fun film, it's tremendously entertaining, shocking, dramatic, suspenseful, and funny at the same time. Jam packed with everything you look for in a movie, done with that certain Tarantino style, it's worth being checked out. It's time to experience for yourself what war is like through the eyes of Quentin Tarantino.$LABEL$ 1
+Surface was one of the few truly unique shows on TV last season. I can honestly say I modified my schedule so I could be home to watch every episode. Tons of action, suspense, science fiction, etc.Story was of a boy who found an egg that hatched into a sea creature. The same sea creature that had killed the main character's brother and the woman character (oceanographer) had seen. Most people think it is a deadly killing machine but the one raised from the egg was very friendly.Only problem is NBC canceled it so now we'll never know what happens... Hopefully Sci-Fi or some other channel will pick it up.$LABEL$ 1
+Great CGI effects & a truly Oscar-worthy performance by Gary Sinise as Lt. Dan. Tom Hanks is a one-trick pony in this movie, how he got the Best Actor Oscar that year over Morgan Freeman was a crime. This movie is a pandering treacly love letter to the baby boom generation, with a barely concealed right-wing prejudice, beginning from Forrest's service in Vietnam all the way through to the "resolution" with Jenny at the end.With that said, though, it is hugely entertaining and an American movie through and through. I found certain parts of this film exceedingly offensive, Zemeckis dumbs down this movie almost to the level of Gump himself . . .maybe that was the point he was trying to make.Watch this film and ask yourself "What is Robert Zemeckis saying about what makes a good American?" Forrest seems to have made the "right" choices and been at the "right place at the right time" for the last 45 years. Those who are wrong according to the director's vision seem to pay a heavy price. So is Zemeckis saying that idiocy disguised as innocence and naivety is a patriotic, even AMERICAN quality?$LABEL$ 0
+"The Merchant of Venice" was one of Shakespeare's most popular plays during his own lifetime, but it has fallen on hard times during the 20th century because of its undeniably anti-Semitic content. The play has also been called schizoid in its careening from comedic scenes to tragic ones, leading some to say it is two plays trying to coexist as one. Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes, who played William Shakespeare in "Shakespeare in Love") is in love with Portia (Lynn Collins, superb), but needs to borrow a considerable sum of money to woo her. He goes to his sometime gay lover Antonio (Jeremy Irons), who hasn't the funds on his person, but takes out a loan from the Jewish usurer Shylock (Al Pacino). Shylock is amused and offended that Antonio, who insults him for his religion, now comes to him for money, but he offers it, on the condition that the penalty for defaulting on the loan will be a pound of Antonio's flesh. Which is, of course, what happens. Bassanio and Portia offer Shylock considerably more then the original loan instead of the pound of flesh, but Shylock, distraught after his daughter leaves him and marries a Christian, refuses to take it. Portia, in a scene where the audience is never quite sure where to place its sympathies, deprives Shylock of what should be legally his, and then strips him of his wealth and religion. Shylock was originally essayed as a cartoonish villain, but modern actors and directors have turned him into a tragic figure, railing against the injustices of 16th century Venice. Al Pacino does an excellent job as Shylock, and Jeremy Irons is good as Antonio, but I think that Lynn Collins' work as Portia is the best part of the play. Portia is one of the few notable female roles in Shakespeare's canon, and Collins is wonderful in the part. Joseph Fiennes is more than a bit dull, however; I've never particularly enjoyed his often overwrought acting style. I give "The Merchant of Venice" an 8/10.$LABEL$ 1
+This was an abysmal show. In short it was about this kid called Doug who guilt-tripped a lot. Seriously he could feel guilty over killing a fly then feeling guilty over feeling guilty for killing the fly and so forth. The animation was grating and unpleasant and the jokes cheap. It aired here in Sweden as a part of the "Disney time" show and i remember liking it some what but then i turned 13.I never got why some of the characters were green and purple too. What was up with that? Truly a horrible show. Appareantly it spawned a movie which i've never seen but i don't have any great expectations for that one either.$LABEL$ 0
+This beautiful story of an elder son coming home, and learning to love and be a part of all those things that he left home to get away from, is poignant and moving. It shows a society that is perhaps strange to us in the Western world, with a sense of family that we have lost. The story is beautiful, sad, and at times funny and comic. It has a feeling of realism that we don't seem to see any longer in our western movies.The acting is unusual, in that as the movie progresses, it almost gives the impression that it is not acting, but a documentary of ordinary people. This is brilliant directing and movie making.Would love to see more movies by this director.$LABEL$ 1
+Atlantis: The Lost Empire is a better movie than I thought. I never thought this movie would lead to my expectations. True, this movie started slow, but as the movie wore on it became more to my liking. The story takes place in 1914 and is about a guy named Milo. Milo believes in the fabled Atlantis. Along with friends of his grandfather, he embarks on an amazing adventure of his own. Along the way, he must endear friendship, betrayal, trust, and more. The voice cast is great. They surely know how to carry movies with only their voice talent. The music is nothing special but likable anyway. The animation is not the best, but it is still good enough. Overall, this is a good family movie for all ages. I rate this movie 9/10.$LABEL$ 1
+All the people who voted a meager 1 on this movie, this is all I have to say: You guys have not matured enough to enjoy cinema of this kind. It takes a certain amount of dedication to reach that level of appreciation. And that is the segment of people this movie was aimed at. Not you average movie-goers by any chance! . Back to the movie. This one was a gem all right and definitely an inclusion in the Bollywood hall of fame. I'd give it an all time rank of no # 2, surpassed only by Kanti Shah's legendary Gunda. This movie had an impeccable story line and created a beautiful blend between a fantasy and sci-fi. Pan's Labyrinth would have in fact been ashamed of the balance created between the parallel stories. And now do i really need to mention the stellar cast and even stellar-er (that is a word from NOW) performances from them (a special mention goes to Mr. Nigam for the best debut ever in any movie on this earth). Every actor in this movie had been very carefully chosen and the role were tailor made for them (and for their age too, I must add). Manisha Koirala still looks like she's 18 and wow man, with that figure I would have raped her too. Are you wondering where did this rape thing come in suddenly? Yes, a rape is what the premises of this movie is based on. And that is so not like your average Bollywood type movies. If you are an atheist or an agnostic by any chance, this movie is again a must for you. Because this movie can heal your faith. I don't think it'd even be going too far saying that this movie can cure cancer. Only the people who need it the most fail to appreciate its power, charm and undying beauty. Tchch, so unfortunate!Only flaw in this movie: In your dreams, baby! This was flawless.Only minor complain: The director failed to star Mithun Da as well. I won't ruin it for you any further. Just go and watch it. TODAY. And if you like it, here are some more recommendation from me. Gunda, Desh Drohi, Aparichit, the old Ramsay Brothers horror movies, Loha, Indra the tiger and Sivaji.$LABEL$ 1
+Greetings again from the darkness. Much anticipated, twisted comedy from writer/director Richard Shepard is a coming out party for Pierce Brosnan the actor. That Bond guy is gone. This new guy is something else entirely!! Have read that Shepard thought Brosnan was too much the pretty boy for this plum role, but Brosnan proves to be the perfect Julian Noble, "Facilitator" ... and is anything but pretty! Do not underestimate how twisted the humor is in this one. If you go, expect punch lines and sight gags regarding all types of sex, killing, religion, sports, business and anything else you might deem politically incorrect. Brosnan takes an excellent script to another level with his marvelous facial gestures and physical movements. Even sitting on a hotel bed (with or without a sombrero) is a joy to behold.Greg Kinnear is the straight guy to Brosnan's comic and has plenty of depth and comic timing to make this partnership click. Hope Davis has a small, but subtly effective supporting role as Kinnear's wife (what's with her name "Bean"?) who happens to get a little excited when she has a facilitator in her living room.The visuals and settings are perfect - including a bullfight, racetrack and Denver suburb. And how often do we get The Killers and Xavier Cugat on the same soundtrack? This one is definitely not for everyone, but if your sense of humor is a bit off center and you enjoy risky film-making, it could be for you.$LABEL$ 1
+Let's put political correctness aside and just look at this in terms of the numerous sex comedies that came out in the 1980's because I for one don't think this is any better or any worse than the others. Unless your some religious kook or an uptight female you can probably view a silly film such as this without getting all worked up about the content and I personally had a totally innocuous feeling towards this before and after watching it. Story is set in Albuquerque, New Mexico where a rich 15 year old boy named Phillip "Philly" Fillmore (Eric Brown) is naturally horny as hell and starts spying on the attractive maid that has just started working for his father.*****SPOILER ALERT***** Nicole Mallow (Sylvia Kristel) is friendly to Philly but things heat up when his father goes out of town on business and she starts to flirt with him to the point where she invites him into her bedroom to watch her undress. Philly is awkward and doesn't know how to react at first but soon he goes for it and has sex but than to his horror it seems that Nicole has died from a heart attack! With the help from the sleazy chauffeur Lester Lewis (Howard Hesseman) they seemingly have buried her body but a note from a blackmailer shows up and Philly must get $10,000 out of his father's safe. Philly is shocked when Nicole shows up and he learns that the whole thing was an extortion plan set up by Lester and that she only went along with it because she's an illegal alien and if she didn't do what she was told Lester would have called the immigration office. Together they try to get his father's money back before he returns home and they enlist the help from Jack (Ed Begley Jr.) who is a tennis instructor but pretends to be a cop to scare Lester.This little comedy was made for less than $3 million but it grossed over $50 million worldwide and made it one of the least likely films during that time to be so successful which prompts me to wonder why this was a hit and not any of the others in the genre. Director Alan Myerson can boast that he made a hit film but the truth is that he never really had a career in films although he did go on to be very successful in television. So...why did this become so successful? I have a thought that it just may be because of Kristel and before you decide that I'm crazy listen to my reasoning. Kristel was an international star because of her soft core films so that reason alone made many free thinking adults curious about viewing her in an American film that was getting a wide release. With that, the same adults would also be nostalgic about their own youth and the fantasy of being taught the ways of lovemaking by an attractive older woman which brings in the much younger audience members who are probably still very inexperienced and curious about the film. Anyway, that's my thought and if anyone has another reason I would love to hear it but back to the film itself it's apparent (and very sad) that a film like this could probably never get made again (except in Europe) because of the religious right and the other prudish freaks who just can't come to terms with the fact that a teenage boy getting laid will not do him any harm. In fact, it's a valuable service that ALL BOYS pray will happen to them! The film itself is clumsy and Kristel's body double is all too evident in certain scenes especially if you take careful note of the difference in their nipples. The story (although intriguing in it's basic form) is neither very funny or revealing so were left ogling the nude scenes that are really the norm for the genre.$LABEL$ 0
+I have rented this film out about 6 times! it is very well directed and the story is unique and grabs your attention from the beginning. Big up to Jason Donovan whose acting in this film was wicked and i loved the guy with the st fighter moves - goood!$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this movie at the Philadelphia Film Festival today and enjoyed it overall. It is an interesting and adept analysis of the all-too-common revelation that our parent's marriage was more flawed and difficult than we originally imagined. In addition, this movie is an excellent example of process of discovering truths about our parent's lives after their death and the issues associated with that. However, i found the sound quality (recording and editing) to be relatively poor and annoying. *** It may very well have been related to the specific theater and projection conditions *** i am not a film maker / student or anything and claim no real understanding of the sound production process, but as a consumer, i found the audio portion of the movie distracting. Specifically, i heard very unpleasant lip smacking noises through out (especially one long interview with the younger sister) the film, and often the background noise level was higher in volume than people's voices (for example the scene when a small group was sorting through the mothers papers). has anyone else seen this movie, noticed anything about the sound... thanks$LABEL$ 1
+"One True Thing" is a very quiet film, that opened in the fall of 1998 to glowing reviews but mild box-office. It tells the crippled story of Ellen (Renee Zellweger), a workaholic who is forced to move back home to take care of her terminally ill mother (Meryl Streep), so that her aloof father (William Hurt) can run his academic department. These terms are only general. The strength of "One True Thing" lies in the way the actors elevate their characters above Hollywood cliché territory.Streep is Kate, the perfect homemaker whose ability to light up a room with her charm is evident in her opening scenes at a costume party celebrating Hurt's birthday. But Ellen has never been close to her mother, and since she graduated from Harvard University, has a certain destain about her- Ellen almost thinks her mother is a simplistic air-head. While on the other hand, she admires her father- who shares a special passion: Writing. Ellen writes for an aggressive New York firm, and is almost heartbroken when her latest piece is torn down by Hurt, who seems to be a very lonely figure.To get to the point, as Kate gets sicker, Ellen's perspectives change and she grows closer to her mother and more distant to her father. Hurt keeps making excuses not to be there when the family needs him most, and Ellen assumes he's having an affair. Meanwhile she's given up her desk at work to spend time doing craft activities with her mother's "cult" group The Minnies, and also learning that her mother isn't as weak as she first assumed.Without giving too much away, "One True Thing" is a masterpiece in character study. Streep once again turns in a beautiful performance, this time working on a subtle level that starts slow but ends with a brilliant speech on the vows of marriage. Streep earned her eleventh Oscar nomination for this performance. Hurt is also convincing as the father who carries a secret that isn't revealed until the closing moments. But it is Renee Zellweger who steals this movie. Forget "Chicago", "Cold Mountain", "Bridget Jones's Diary" or whatever else you've seen her do and rent this movie. She is remarkable in it. Working within her character's bitter resentment at understanding her parents, Zellweger manages a realistic portrayal of a young woman fighting to keep her lip up while she's screaming inside.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm a horror movie freak, and this has got to be one of the most phenomenal horror flicks I've ever seen. The plotline is totally original (who else would think up a town who gets totally obsessed with a certain symbol to the point of death and insanity?), the special effects are amazing, and the cinematography couldn't be better. Some may find it disturbing, but that doesn't mean it's a bad movie. It also makes a good point. The spiral symbol is kinda ubiquitous. The spiral notebook, spiral seashells, spirals on cakes. Of all the shapes they could have used (square, triangle, trapezoid, rectangle) this was one of the best choices. If you can find this movie, definitely see it. It's certainly unique, and quite unforgettable.$LABEL$ 1
+I picked up a DVD at the 1€ discount, having no idea what it's about (but at that price I can't resist..) In brief: I was positively surprised.So much that I did quite some research. On the German DVD (part 2 of a series of 3), episodes were recombined into two 85 minute parts, and out of order. Here are my results, based on Wikipedia's episode list:"Doomsday" is In My Boots + The Voice (final episode). "War of the Machines" is Hel & High Water (1, 2) + Pod Listener + Juggernaut Down.Well, what can I say. Underdressed girlies are of course interesting for older men. I never watched Charlie's Angels so much, so I can't compare, but the more I watched, the less I looked out for bikini tops and their fillings. Instead, the characters (both m and f) became more interesting. I can imagine feminists have their fun with this, too. All in all, maybe a guilty pleasure, but a pleasure it was :^)$LABEL$ 1
+Italian horror/suspense film about a wealthy English lord who cruises pubs and taverns for girls with red hair just like his recently deceased wife Evelyn. You know he must have really loved his wife, because he brings them to his home - a huge, rotting castle - and makes them disrobe and then tortures them, whips them, and kills them. The most bizarre aspect of this film for me was that somehow by the film's end, we see this guy played by Antonio De Teffe as the HERO of the film. Anyway, soon, under the advice of his playboy uncle Roberto Maldera, De Teffe settles down with a girl he meets at his uncle's party. She moves in and strange things begin to happen to De Teffe's fragile state of mind. He begins to see and hear his dead wife and finally, well, just look at the title if you are still curious. Also, family members and friends begin to die in the most brutal fashions. Poor Aunt Agatha(she looks like she might even be younger than De Teffe and they have her in a wheelchair and trying to look old) meets her fate in a foxy fashion. Another man is injected and then buried alive. And of course, there is a whole explanation as to why/how Evelyn did what she did. Director Emilio Miraglia does do some things fairly well: the settings in the film are well-suited for this film though trying to make us believe it is England is ludicrous at best. None of the actors look English. Many having dark black hair and Mediterranean complexions and wearing clothes an Englishman wouldn't be caught dead in. The cars drive on their wrong side of the road. But all that notwithstanding, the crypt scene was effectively shot and I liked the cheesy resolution too. And of course any film with the sultry, red-headed Erika Blanc is always a plus. There is a streak of sexual perversion; however, which I found somewhat appalling with the idea that torturing women was quite alright and healthy in order to relieve one of his mental demons. C'mon.$LABEL$ 0
+Since I was just finishing the book, `Mrs. Dalloway' by Virginia Woolf, I was excited to see that it was on one of the movie channels last weekend. What I encountered, however, is a film that was boring, incomprehensible and non-sensical. One cannot entirely blame the film, it tried the best it could with the material it had, but when the source material is Virginia Woolf, and is almost entirely written in stream-of-conscience style with extended periods of internalizing and little actual dialogue, one would certainly think that there shouldn't be a film made from it just because a film can be made from it. Vanessa Redgrave, who plays the title character, does not deserve any blame for the failure of this film, nor do any of the other actors. It is just simply a film that could not intelligibly be made from the story that Woolfe wrote, and should not have even been attempted. Don't watch the movie, read the book. --Shelly$LABEL$ 0
+H.O.T.S. is proof that at one time, the movie industry said "F-OFF" to the censors, and made movies with whatever they wanted! In today's world, this movie would be too "over the top" and "extreme" for it to be anywhere than behind a velvet curtain. Although, BestBuy had several copies on their $5.99 rack (in case anyone wanted to get a copy)! The movie was brilliant in its own way, in that it blended humor into a T&A movie loaded with Playboy Playmates! Unlike most skin flicks, it did have a plot. That, however, is not exactly why you would watch H.O.T.S.H.O.T.S. is a college movie that reminds me of the Revenge of the Nerds movies, in that it takes a group of "average people" and puts them against the elite rich preppies that most people can't stand! The only difference is that the "Nerds" in this movie have a much better shot at getting laid! I notice that there are some people who would rate this movie low, and to me that is ignorant! Obviously this is not intended to win Oscars or break barriers in film. If you are looking for that, then go watch what ever the critics pick for you! You have to appreciate the fact that this movie actually had a funny plot, decent acting (for the most part given the genre), and plenty of girls getting naked! H.O.T.S. is one of those movies you watch to get your mind off of modern day problems and daily stress, and instead, laugh and have a good time! If you are looking for a funny college-based movie that has enough skin to turn a pink Miata straight, then you should really check out H.O.T.S.!$LABEL$ 1
+Not as bad as "Billy Bathgate" but close. Try as he might, Warren Beatty just could not be believed as Bugsy. Whenever he flipped out, instead of being shocked by the violence, I found it pretty embarrassing because it was so phony. The other actors don't fare as well either. Annette Bening just doesn't have what it takes to play seductive women, she is better off with safe characters. As many have noted, Joe Mantegna would have fared better if the script had him as a more believable George Raft. Only Harvey Keitel emerged unscathed, but then again this guy can do these movies in his sleep. And Robert Beltran, with just one line, steals one of the big Beatty, Bening scenes. With these films, I'm never sure if the director is intent on making the mobsters seem like normal businessmen or if it just comes out that way. Either way, I don't like it. These guys were killers and no matter how much Las Vegas is indebted to Bugsy Siegel, I don't think that a movie should be made glorifying the guy, especially one with a big studio backing.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is truly boring. It was banned in Chinese cinema and i can see why. It's not because it's critical of the communist regime but simply because the movie is of such low quality. I would never want to pay money to watch this. I love movies from Chen Kaige and Zhang Yimou and i am disappointed such a poor movie could come out of China. It totally seems to ignore the audience and the director seems to have made the movie for himself. The shots of a person standing there doing nothing for up to a minute are hilarious and there's plenty of them. The cinematography and video quality are unbelievably bad. I looked this film up on the Net and it seems like people actually like this film. The only explanation i have for this is that some film buffs think that if a film is not in English it is automatically good. I can't see any reason why people would like this. this is not an art film it's of waste of celluloid.(That's if they actually shot it on film , which they didn't)$LABEL$ 0
+If there is a movie to be called perfect then this is it. So bad it wasn't intended to be that way. But superb anyway... Go find it somewhere. Whatever you do... Do not miss it!!!$LABEL$ 1
+Dark Harbor is a moody little excursion into murky emotional waters that run extremely deep. It's basically a 3-character piece, featuring a finely-layered performance by the always-great Rickman, with Polly Walker and Norman Reedus (also excellent) forming the other two sides of this strange triangle. A perfect late-night cable film, with a surprise ending to boot.$LABEL$ 1
+This show is unbelievable in that . . . what it represents and what it focuses on and . . . words cannot describe how insane ET is. They will report anything. If a celebrity is even remotely indirectly connected to the story ET will report on it. If a dog poop in the Tom Cruise's yard they will report on it. If a celebrity dies . . . they will talk about it for weeks on end to the point where the public envy that celebrity. If a celebrity is on trial . . . ET will report it for MONTHS on end. There is no end to what this show will reports and no time frame that dictates how long they will focus on a story. Is it even considered legitimates reporting? The reports are so dang annoying too, with harsh rambling voices and end with an unnecessary pause to convey a sense of important. I cannot watch this show without questioning humanity's existence. ET is one big reason I avoid pre-evening shows in general. I regret that IMDb can only allow a minimum of one star rating and not zero or even in the negatives. For this show deserve -10 Stars.$LABEL$ 0
+Ever since I heard of the Ralph Bakshi version of "The Lord of the Rings" I wondered: What the hell is 'rotoscope' animation?!!! Well... I finally found out... I saw this movie about three years ago not having any idea who Ralph Bakshi is... And I liked it... a lot... Very good story line... it even has a little character development which is great for a cartoon... See it if you get bored with contemporary animation.... Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying it's just a nice cartoon... It's a pretty good movie too...$LABEL$ 1
+I walked out of this movie and I did this only one time before with the Australian movie Sweetie close to 20 years ago. After about three minutes I felt like killing the camera man and just couldn't believe that this film actually showed anywhere and- guess what - was nominated for two independent Spirit Awards. What???? Regardsless how realistic the dialog might be (I will NEVER use the word "dude" again!) -who wants to listen to these conversations? I don't go to the movies to be annoyed but that's all I got. The only good thing I came away with was the realization that if this movie can make it to Sundance and other festivals, anybody can. Well, wait, that might not be a good thing after all...$LABEL$ 0
+Once in a while, you come upon a movie that defines your values and shows you the true depth of human emotions leaving you drained. Vivah is just that – maybe more. After watching DDLJ, Saajan, and Lamhey, I really thought that Bollywood has reached its pinnacle and will never come up with anything like that - EVER. Boy was I wrong! I went to the store to buy some groceries and decided to pick this movie up along with the new "DON" (just so I can compare The Great AB with ShahRukh – although the decision is already made in my mind). After debating whether I should waste almost 3 hours on a meaningless movie I decided to watch it realizing I had nothing else to do. When I saw the rating of U instead of an A, I was happy that at least it is something where I don't have to watch scantily clad women with bad acting skills doing nothing but dancing on every opportunity they get and making out with every guy to show that they have more skills in bed than a Hollywood B actress. For the first 5 minutes or so I thought I would again be subjected to meaningless story with bad acting. After all everyone who has seen Shahid Kapor know that he as never gained his fame as an accomplished actor. Boy – was I wrong about this movie. This movie grabbed my interest after the first 5 minutes and would never let it go. It was a great movie with a good storyline about the vanishing traditions of our society. I liked not only that the director was brave enough to make a movie where younger generation might not relate to the concept (of arranged marriage), but also that he did it with a conviction (that it is the right thing to do). I have no idea why some people think that the acting was not good. I felt that the acting was great and even though the music score might not be considered the best ever, it was still very very good. The good thing is this music will grow on people with time like it did with me after the I watched that movie a second time. The other good thing is that thee songs are not pushed into the script as we have all seen in so many movies. These songs actually tell a big part of the story and are certainly a welcome addition. Just like Ajay Devgan went from being a joke to a great actor (after Company), and Salman found his groove after "Hum Aapkey Hain Kaun"; this movie will help Shahid Kappor jump to being of the better actors and entertainers in Bollywood. This is the first movie of his in which I like him and his role. He acted well and adjusted to being the nice good looking young rich kid. Yes you will not find him playing basketball and scoring every point on a dunk like you saw ShahRukh in DDLJ (even though he is shown to be an Indian in England – both countries not big on Basketball by the way), he does come across as very believable as a person who holds true to his values. Amrita Rao, for the first time came across as someone to be remembered. In all her other movies she was competing with big faces which was actually hindering her. No one knew how good of an actress she really is until they watch this movie. Some of the scenes in which she has to cry especially towards the end really shows her knowledge and depth of acting. Although she has been in another movies she is most memorable in this one. I think this movie will and should do wonders for her. Move over Rani – there is finally another girl who if given a decent chance to work with good directors can grab the torch from you. She is beautiful with a great voice and has a face that exudes complete innocence. Oh having almost 0% body fat does not hurt either (yes people I will challenge you find even 0.1% fat on her and unlike so many others like Sonali she can actually act too). I thought I will never be enamored by anyone's beauty after Madhuri and early Kajol, but she completely changed that. Shahid and Amrita worked very well together and their relationship fitted their characters and they both did an excellent job (although I was waiting for Shahid to turn into a girl like Salman did every time he uttered "Hum aapkey Hain Kaun"). When I finished watching this movie, it left me so emotionally drained that I decided to watch this movie again (right away). Yes right away. I have never ever done that. Not even with DDLJ, but this movie just had something that had to be understood again and again. I will probably watch this movie a third time over the weekend just so I can watch and relive the traditions we all grew up with. I miss those times where families sat down and had fun. When parents had time for their kids and where kids respected what their parents believed in. I know a lot of people think that movie does not portray real life but deep down don't we all want it to happen. The families, thee tradition, the love and respect. This is what this movie will remind all of us of. I can assure you it is an extremely well made movie which you will enjoy. I am sure some young people will not like this movie but if you are over 28 I doubt that you will be one of them.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw this film at the Toronto International Film Festival. Not as salacious as it sounds, this is a three-part documentary (each episode is 50 minutes) featuring Slovenian superstar philosopher/psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek. Zizek takes us on a journey through many classic films, exploring themes of sexuality, fantasy, morality and mortality. It was directed by Sophie Fiennes, of the multi-talented Fiennes clan (she's sister to actors Ralph and Joseph).I enjoyed this quite a bit, although I think it will be even more enjoyable on DVD, since there is such a stew of ideas to be digested. Freudian and Lacanian analysis can be pretty heavy going and seeing the whole series all at once became a bit disorienting by the end of two and a half hours. It didn't help that an ill-advised coffee and possession of a bladder led me to some discomfort for the last hour or so.My only real issue with this is that Zizek picked films that were quite obviously filled with Freudian themes. He spends quite a bit of time on the films of Hitchcock and David Lynch, not exactly masters of subtlety. I would have liked to see him try to support his theories by using a wider range of films, although that's really just me saying I'd like to see part four and five and six.Zizek is very funny, and part of the humour was watching him present what amounted to a lecture while inserting himself into the actual scenes from some of the films he's discussing. So, for instance, we see him in a motorboat on his way to Bodega Bay (from Hitchcock's The Birds) or sitting in the basement of the Bates Motel (from Psycho). Which is not to say that his theories are not provocative. Even when I found myself disagreeing with him, it definitely made me think a little more deeply about the films. Which is exactly what he's trying to accomplish.$LABEL$ 1
+When I first watched Robotboy, I found it fresh and interesting, but then I noticed, that with each episode this show is trying to teach you how to behave yourself, what is good/bad. Episodes became predictable. And main characters are not interesting. Again we see a hyper-smart boy, beaten by his older brother, parents who don't understand their kid, and his friends: girl and fat boy. Also this show has no logic. A super-modern robot who works on two AA-size batteries, and can use a lot of weapons. But the biggest problem is the difference between activated and super-activated modes. We see two different robots, and it declines main idea of the show: "Robot must learn how to behave himself in human society"$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is great. 80's sleazy slasher movie about three kids born during an eclipse, so they kill everyone they see. The reason they kill makes practically no sense, but it just adds to the charm of this movie. And dang, these kids are crazy, especially Curtis. If you've seen the movie, you know who I am talking about. That kid's vicous! Although the movie doesn't have much gore, it is entertaining, and for some reason you kind of care about the characters. It also has some nice nudity. Has some decent acting as well, really a decent 80's slasher movie, it's worth a look if you ever get the chance to see it. You'll have nightmares about those darn kids though, I guarantee you!$LABEL$ 1
+hi, im scott (A.K.A woody7739) i Love the film Twisted Desire, And i love watching Melissa Joan Hart on the t.v as i think she is fine. I am a real fan of sabrina the teenage witch too, so this helped my watch it (don't ask). i love the way that nicole plans out her parents murder very carfully, as she makes sure that someone else pulls the trigger and practices on the bottles, so she wont give away her fingerprints (a very well planned out idea), back i guess it all backfired on nicole as she got caught as her old boyfriend comes along and puts a hidden camera under his shirt. i give this film a nine out of ten, and put it in MY top 10 films list. And last but not least if anyone see's this film in the shops please tell me as i seen it on tv and didn't record it. bye$LABEL$ 1
+First off, anyone who thinks this sequel to William Friedkin's "The French Connection", is superior is most definitely completely insane or moronic or both. The problem with reviewing this film is that, a.) it's a sequel to a brilliant movie, which always makes watching it objectively difficult, and b.) it's directed by John Frankenhimer, one of the best American directors ever, so I wanted to like it. William Friendkin was the perfect person to direct a film about drug traffic in decaying new York city, because of his documentary-like approach to the action and story, Frankenhimer on the other hand is one of the most stylish directors ever, i.e. "The Manchurian Candidate" and "Seconds", and with his "French Connection 2" it feels like someone trying to be gritty and not having the true understanding to pull it off. That fact that Frankenhimer was chosen to direct the sequel by Gene Hackman himself really tells a lot about Hackman's understanding about the original film too. It's well known Hackman hated Friedkin on the set and vowed to never work with him again, it's also known he envisioned the character to be more one dimensional, loosing weight and trying to play him like a straight character. it shows you Hackman, despite being a great actor, had no idea who to make the movie and the story great. The plot point of Doyle becoming an addict is interesting, but doesn't warrant the rest of the film. An unfortunate low point in Frankenhimer's filmography.$LABEL$ 0
+With its companion piece MASTERS OF HORROR, NIGHTMARES AND DREAMSCAPES can only be seen as the absolute nadir of the genre that began so auspiciously with THE TWILIGHT ZONE and THE OUTER LIMITS.Of course, part of the problem is that it does nothing to be of any interest to a comparatively adult audience, instead aiming at TEN-YEAR-OLDS, who are only able to count body-bags, and scarcely that. And so grossness is king, and King is grossness.Stephen King is simply illiterate – in general he has the aptitude for storytelling of Bart Simpson. Since he cannot read his sole inspiration is the movies.True, the cinema is not such a bad place to start, since it has generally escaped the onslaught of "Realism". But these films are only the rumor, not the thing, and if you want to WRITE, you have to dig deeper.Of course, only PICKMAN had monsters as close acquaintances. But even so, it should be clear to any undergraduate that vampires are not Dracula and Lugosi.At least AUTOPSY ROOM FOUR is a clear indication of what is wrong. One can almost imagine this pathetic dolt sitting as his desk trying to come up with something SCARY.Not, mind you, trying to describe accurately the horror of the system of which he is an integral part, making the stupid stupider, but trying to come up with a scary story for his little nephew. Suppose, you were paralyzed, and people thought you were dead and started to cut you open like they do at those autopsy things! Wouldn't that be gross? And that, boys and girls, is the story.What about characterization? Oh yes, he's one of these suits, who never really appreciated life, you know, and now it's too late, right? And he's shouting – well, they can't actually hear him, you know – he's saying that he's going to sue the hospital, but he's not such a big shot anymore, you see, lying there (or is it laying, I can never remember) and all. And he's thinking: Oh no please, please don't cut me and this is terrible, lying (or laying) like that – now, wouldn't that be a great story? You know I read somewhere that a snake bite can do that, I think it was that great medical authority Agatha Christie. What was the name of that snake again, oh yeah, a BOOMSLANG – has quite a ring to it, doesn't it.Let's make it a PERUVIAN BOOMSLANG! Sure, Steve, that's great – except that BOOMSLANG is Afrikaans, you moron! But how can you really tell that the target audience is children, and not simply mental defects? It's easy: There's no sex.Well, there is, but it's the kind glimpsed through a crack in the door to our parent's bedroom. Modern filmmakers are really big on the erotic aspects of the genre, the monster, the female victim, the chase.But unlike UNIVERSAL and LEWTON they have no idea what's going on. All that's really left is the giggling outside the SM club and the Fascist credo that people with sexual preferences are intrinsically evil.In spite of a certain discrepancy in size, King Kong knew exactly what to do with Fay Wray. Freddy Krueger can only kill her.And since there's no real titillation in that, he has to torture her first – not in any way that might excite her, you understand, since that would upset our puritan sentiments. And so, horror and romanticism become simply unpleasantness and the grooming of psychopaths.Our hero, you see, is a rubber fetishist, and can only get a boner if someone touches him you know down there with you know – rubber gloves (giggle). And that's what they use in autopsies, and that's how they discover that he is, in fact, you know.Obviously, this is the author at the height of his inspirational powers. Too bad, they cut it out, since it might have upset the FIVE-YEAR-OLDS watching the show!$LABEL$ 0
+What we have here is a damn good little nineties thriller that, while perhaps lacking in substance, still provides great entertainment throughout it's running time and overall does everything you could possibly want a film of this nature to do. I saw this film principally because it was directed by John Dahl - a highly underrated director behind great thrillers such as The Last Seduction, Rounders and Roadkill. I figured that if this film was up to standard of what I've already seen from the director, it would be well worth watching - and Red Rock West is certainly a film that Dahl can be proud of. The plot focuses on the overly moral Michael; a man travelling across America looking for work. He ends up finding it one day when he stumbles upon a bar in Red Rock County - only catch is that the job is to murder a man's wife. He's been mistaken for a killer named Lyle, but instead of doing the job; he plays both sides against each other and eventually plans to make a getaway. However, his attempts to escape are unsuccessful and he finds himself in a bad situation when the real Lyle turns up...John Dahl appears to enjoy setting thrillers on the road; he did it three years earlier with Kill Me Again, and again almost a decade on from this film with Roadkill. It's not hard to see why Dahl chooses this sort of location, as it provides a fabulous atmosphere for a thriller the likes of this one. Dahl also provides his film with a 'film noir' like atmosphere, as the plot mainly focuses on the central character and the word he is plunged into is full of dark and mysterious characters. The acting is largely very good, with Nicholas Cage doing an excellent job in the lead role, and getting A-class support from Lara Flynn Boyle, J.T. Walsh and, of course, Dennis Hopper; who once again commands the screen with his over the top performance. It has to be said that the second half of the film isn't as gripping as the first, but Red Rock West certainly is never boring and the way that Dahl orchestrates the grand finale is excellent in that all the central characters get to be a part of it. Overall, Red Rock West is a film that you're unlikely to regret watching. It's thrilling throughout, and you can't ask for much more than that!$LABEL$ 1
+One of the worst movies I saw in the 90s. I'd often use it as a benchmark when viewing other films; "At least it wasn't as bad as Caro Diario." Three absolutely pointless segments, all featuring the director playing himself -- and he's not that interesting. A whole segment about this hypochondriac going to the doctor. Another that features him riding around the countryside on his scooter. For three interesting minutes and another fifteen torturous ones.The only redeeming factor was that the scooter scene was set to Keith Jarrett's 'Koln Concert'. Prompted me to go home and rediscover that marvelous album. The best thing you can say about the director/actor/egotist is that he's got great taste in music.$LABEL$ 0
+A remarkable example of cinematic alchemy at work, with a trite'n'turgid lump of lead script (penned by numbingly mediocre Hollywood hack nonpareil Jole Schumacher, no less) being magically converted into a choice chunk of exquisitely gleaming 24-carat musical drama gold thanks to brisk direction, fresh, engaging performances, spot-on production values, a flavorsome recreation of 50's era New York, an infectiously effervescent roll-with-the-punches tone, and a truly wondrous rhythm and blues score by the great Curtis Mayfield.The story, loosely based on the real life exploits of the Supremes, prosaically documents the arduous rags-to-riches climb of three bright-eyed, impoverished black teenage girl singers who desperately yearn to escape their ratty, unrewarding ghetto plight and make it big in the razzle-dazzle world of commercial R&B music. All the obvious pratfalls of instant wealth and success -- egos run destructively amok, drugs, corruption, fighting to retain your integrity, and so on -- are predictably paraded forth, but luckily the uniformly excellent work evident in the film's other departments almost completely cancels out Schumacher's flat, uninspired plotting. The first-rate acting helps out a lot. Irene Cara, Lonette McKee, and Dwan Smith are sensationally sexy, vibrant and appealing leads -- and great singers to boot. Comparably fine performances are also turned in by a charmingly boyish pre-"Miami Vice" Philip Michael Thomas as the group's patient, gentlemanly manager, Dorian Harewood as McKee's venal, aggressively amorous hound dog boyfriend, and perennial blaxploitation baddie Tony ("Hell Up in Harlem," "Bucktown") King as a dangerously seductive, smooth operating, stone cold nasty gangster. The tone dips and dovetails from funny and poignant to melancholy and blithesome without ever skipping a beat, deftly evolving into a glowing, uplifting ode to the human spirit's extraordinary ability to effectively surmount extremely difficult and intimidating odds.Veteran editor Sam O'Stern acquits himself superbly in his directorial debut. Bruce Surtees' luminescent cinematography and Gordon Scott's expert editing are both flawless. O'Stern's firm grasp of period atmosphere, keen eye for tiny, but telling little details, and unerring sense of busy, unbroken pace are just as impressive. No fooling about Curtis Mayfield's impeccable soundtrack contributions, either. "Jump," "What Can I Do With This Feeling," "Givin' Up," "Take My Hand Precious Lord," "Lovin' You Baby," and "Look Into Your Heart" are all terrifically tuneful, soulful, almost unbelievably fantastic songs, with the sweetly sultry love jones number "Something He Can Feel," which was later covered by both Aretha Franklin and En Vogue, clearly copping top musical honors as the best-ever song in the entire movie. The net result of all these above cited outstanding attributes persuasively illustrates that sometimes it's not the screenplay so much as what's done with said script which in turn determines a film's overall sterling quality.$LABEL$ 1
+Men of Honor stars Cuba Gooding Jr., as real life Navy Diver Carl Brashear who defied a man's Navy to become the first African American Navy Diver. Sometimes by his side and sometimes his adversary there was one man who Carl Brashear really admired. His name was Master Chief Billy Sunday (Robert DeNiro). Sunday in a lot of ways pushed, aggravated and helped Carl become the man he wanted to be. I loved Cuba in this film. His portrayal here is as liberating and as powerful as Denzel Washington was in The Hurricane. Through every scene we can see his passion, motivation and stubbornness to achieve his dream. We can see the struggle within in him as he embarks to make his father proud. I also loved how the director created and brought forth a lot of tension in some of the key diving scenes. Brashear's encounter with a submarine during a salvage mission is heart-stopping and brilliant. The only fault I could see would have to lie in the supporting cast. Cuba and DeNiro's characters are very intricate and exciting to watch. Which does make you a little sad when they have to butt heads with such two-dimensional supporting characters. The evil Lt. Cmdr. Hanks, Sunday's wife (Charlize Theron), the eccentric diving school colonel (Hal Holbrook) and Cuba's love interest are the characters I found to not have very much depth. What could have made these characters more substantial and more effective was a little more time to develop them. Why was that colonel always in his tower? How come Sunday's wife was so bitter and always drunk?Another curious question has to be this. What happened to Carl Brashear's wedding? I mean if this film is chronicling this man's life wouldn't his wedding be an important event? Maybe it's just me. Men of Honor, however, is a perfect example of the triumph and faith that the human spirit envelops. This film will inspire and make you feel for this man's struggle. Which I do believe was the reason this powerful story was told. My hat goes off to you Carl Brashear. I really admire your strength.$LABEL$ 1
+I watched this movie which I really thought had a promising beginning but then it just led me to feel disappointed in the end. The problem I think with this film was that the director was trying a bit to hard to make this film weird and original. There were too many flashbacks and too many bad "effects" which got me annoyed through the film. I love Debbie Harry and Isaac Hayes but they disappointed me in this film, they could of done much better. This film seemed promising in the beginning, dragging in the middle and then disappointing in the end. The film could never beat Stanley Kubrick's geniousness when it comes to controversial matters, weirdness and originality in movies.$LABEL$ 0
+When I saw this movie for the first time I was both surprised and a little shocked by the blatant vibrance of the story. It is a very artistic drama with incredible special effects, spectacular acting, not to mention a very excellent job in the makeup department. Jennifer Lopez has pulled herself out of past roles that dug into her career with this movie, portraying a very sensitive child psychologist who works with a team of engineers to enter the minds of comatose patients to treat them. Vincent D'onofrio played amazingly well. His portrayal of a sadist serial killer was perfect to a T. The sheer emotion conveyed by his performance is astounding. Vince Vaughn isn't my favorite, but still performed exceptionally well. The symbolism and artistry was intriguing and titillating, sometimes surprising, and other times shocking. Overall, I say this is a wonderful movie, with excellent acting and beautiful artwork.$LABEL$ 1
+Douglas Sirk directs this over-acted drama about the unhappy affluent. Kyle Hadley(Robert Stack)and Mitch Wayne(Rock Hudson) are boyhood friends with different looks on life. Kyle is the womanizing son of an oil tycoon; Mitch works for the Hadley Oil Company. Both fall in love with the same woman, Lucy Moore; but it is Kyle that has the means to wow her off her feet and marry her. Sister Marylee(Dorothy Malone)seems to be the town's nymphomaniac and carrying a torch for Mitch, who always seems to be the one to clean up the Hadley's messes. Ambitious with pretension; a little over the top, but the stars make it a movie to see. I was most impressed with Malone. Rounding out the cast: Robert Keith, Edward Platt, John Lurch and Robert J. Wilke.$LABEL$ 1
+I expect the same excitement as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE but I was let down by just junk how can you even call this a movie ( its kinda of a mini porno) . It made my sick when the guy was made to eat his own business. There is no story line to it at all it jumps to quickly from each murder. If you like seeing a women naked or even mens parts then there's spots in the movie for and there's even a masturbation spot in the movie which makes it a porno and not a movie at all. I have seen some dumb movies in my time but this is number 1 . I want be watching it again at all. The actors even look bored during the movie to me so they probably were in need of money badly to make this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+If you want to see women's breasts, get a porno. There is no plot, but the last 45 minutes of this movie focus on resolving some sort of dangerous plan. The only value this movie has is that sometimes its so bad its funny, and, yes, boobs are boobs.$LABEL$ 0
+Though a fan of shock and gore, I found this movie disappointing to say the very least. The effects and puppet work were impressive, yes, and the humor was well-timed, but... something was missing. See, the first act of the film is spent establishing nuances of Jack Brooks' character, despite the fact that everything we need to know about his aggression is delivered within minutes of the first title cards. As for the narration and many of the flashbacks: needless.The pacing during the second act was tedious. Most of it is focused on Freddy Krueger eating, then vomiting, then eating some more, then flailing his arms and saying something snappy or rude. All the while, the schlock is punctuated with brief scenes of Jack discussing his rage problems with a therapist. (Definitely the entertaining scenes in the film -- excellent dialog worth plenty of laughs.) Then, without warning, Jack decides to kill a few monsters. And then it's over.All in all, as a throwback to 1980s horror movies, Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer has loads of potential but is purposeless and plods on without conflict or adequate resolution.Hopefully, these issues will be addressed before Jack Brooks VII: Jack Goes to Hell or Jack vs. Ash go into production.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie for the first time on NBC Friday 11-29-02. It was a pretty good movie, but I don't think it would be the kind of Muppet movie Jim Henson would make. I mean first of all, Pepe' using the word "sexy" every now and then, and Pepe saying "it would suck?" And I defenitly know Jim Henson wouldn't allow Kermit yelling "I WISH I'D NEVER BEEN BORN!" thirteen time a minute. This movie just isn't like a classic Muppet movie. Sure I can understand Nicky Holiday stealing the baseball diamond from "The Great Muppet Caper," but a business lady cheating the Muppets in a contract for their theater to turn it into a smoker's nightclub. If Jim Henson was here today, he would HATE this movie!$LABEL$ 0
+If i could have rated this movie by 0 i would have ! I see some ppl at IMDb says that this is the funniest movie of the year , etc etc excuse me ? are you ppl snorting LSD or ........? There is absolutely NOTHING funny about this movie N O T H I N G ! I actually want my 27 minutes back of my life that i spent watching this piece of crap. I read someone sitting on an airplane watching this movie stopped watching after 30 minutes , i totally understand that , i actually would have watched snakes on a plane for 2 times over instead of watching this movie once ! DO NOT watch this movie , do something else useful with your life do the dishes , walk the dog , hell... anything is better than spending time in front of the TV watching hot rod.$LABEL$ 0
+Perhaps the worst of the "Nemesis" films (and that says A LOT!), this mess features so many flashbacks to part 2 that you might as well say that you've seen them both, even if you've only endured this entry. Making matters worse are two wisecracking cyborgs who have absolutely no entertainment value. In other words, they are a perfect fit for this endlessly boring cinematic mistake.$LABEL$ 0
+I don't think most people give this movie as much credit as it deserves. I love low budget horror movies and this takes the cake, especially for originality. Yes the Scarecrow is a Kung-Fu fighting frightner, but why not? No one else is willing to go that far. I really haven't had this much fun watching a movie since Candyman. So the town picks on this one kid calling him scarecrow, even his mom doesn't care about him. Then he gets killed and the spirit is infused with in the Scarecrow, who then goes on a Killing spree. His demise is relatively easy to assume once the movie gets going. The dedications at the end go straight to a bunch of horror directors, but with most dedication towards Dario Argento really struck me as cool, these folks who wanna make movies of a newer genre. Over the movie has a lot of Arnold rip offs, with one liners you'll definitely laugh at like stick around and he kills the sheriff with a stick. I would say, grab a pizza some friends an laugh your A$$ off with this movie. I love it for its originality, most fun.$LABEL$ 1
+No awards show can please all the people. Clearly if your favorite movies didn't win, you will say the show wasn't very good. That's understandable.However, the 74th Annual Academy Awards will be remembered for one magical moment of Hollywood history:Woody Allen's first appearance ever at the Academy Awards.Allen has often shunned the awards as being self-aggrandizing and pointless, and has never attended -- even though he has won several of the coveted awards.When the 74th Academy Awards were held, the nation was still mourning the loss of life in the collapse of the World Trade Centers in New York. When it came time to pay tribute to the city of New York, they decided to show a video of the great movie moments form the city of cities. Then the announcer simply said:"Ladies and gentleman, Oscar Award winning Director Woody Allen."The place erupted in an extremely long standing ovation. The entertainment industry finally got to give their applause to the Man from New York who usually avoids the Hollywood scene. As the applause died down, Woody applied some of his legendary wit to the situation.SOME HIGHLIGHTS:"Thank you very much - that makes up for the strip search.""I thought they wanted their Oscars back," he joked. "I panicked because the pawn shop has been out of business for ages and I had no way of retrieving anything. ""But that wasn't it. I couldn't work it out because my movie wasn't nominated for anything this year. Then it hit me - maybe they were calling to apologise."Allen also disclosed why he had overlooked his lifelong Oscar-aversion for this one special night."For New York City, I'd do anything. So I got my tux on and came down here," said Allen."It's a great, great movie town. It's been a great, moving and exciting backdrop for movies and it remains a great, great city."$LABEL$ 1
+The film did not do well at the box office.I saw it in a sneak preview.I have always enjoyed the film.I live in 1 of the cities mentioned in the film where past players moved to.Not the best film ever put to screen, but enjoyable.Robin did well with his role.Best line of the film at the beginning, by Robin's character Jack: "I was that SOB!" Cleaned up here as not to offend anyone.Was glad when it came to DVD a few years back in the wide screen/letter box format.I am not a football fan or a real sports fan. But, you do not need to be one to like this film.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is a good companion to Blair Witch, because it does so much wrong that BW did right. Like BW, this one pretends to be a documentary of ghostly events, with each member of the team manning his/her own camera. The sense of reality is never there, however. The participants are poorly written clichéd characters and the events that take place are equally clichéd (the cat jumping out of a closet, falling chandelier, etc). Also the stilted dialog and inept improv work by the overly-attractive cast detracts from the docu feel. AND, worst of all, the supposedly participant-held cameras record too many events too perfectly to be even remotely believable. Actually, with some re-editing, this thing could have been a Blair Witch parody. In fact, there is a scene in which the blond historian is eating a sandwich with a huge roach on it that is actually pretty funny as is, reminding me of a similar gross out scene from "Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me." But in the end the event is played straight, with no punchline. It's hard to tell what the intent was with The St Francisville Experiment other than to glom a few stray BW bucks. But it's pretty sad when the only real interest I could find in it was whether the blond historian was going to have her t-shirt tied up off her belly in a particular shot or not.$LABEL$ 0
+Or if you've seen the "Evil Dead" trilogy and/or "Bubba Ho-Tep", then you should know that his movies are total farces. With "Man with the Screaming Brain", he goes all out again. In this case, he plays smarmy American businessman William Cole visiting Bulgaria - when do we ever get to see that country? - when a woman kills him. So, strange scientist Ivan Ivanov (Stacy Keach) replaces half of Cole's brain with the brain of a former KGB agent, leaving him acting sort of like Steve Martin in "All of Me".Yes, the whole movie is pretty much an excuse for pure nonsense. Much of the real humor comes from "Evil Dead" director Sam Raimi's brother Ted as Ivanov's nearly brain-dead assistant Pavel. The two men have a relationship more like Laurel and Hardy or Gilligan and the Skipper.So just understand that this is a totally silly movie, and you won't be a bit disappointed. I liked it, anyway.$LABEL$ 1
+For anyone who liked the series this movie will be something to watch. However, it also leaves you wanting more. I loved the way that every character (detective)made an appearance. Least with the ending of who is the fourth chair for they leave a reason for another movie. My guess is Bayless of course. This like the series was a very well put together series of scenes. This is a series I wish had lived on. Thanks to the cast for some wonderful TV.$LABEL$ 1
+Ernst Lubitsch gave us wonderful films like Design for Living, Ninotchka, The Shop around the Corner, To be or not to be, and other wonderful films. But People usually put Bluebeard's eighth wife as one of Lubitsch's weakest films.But I consider this film as an important film. This film began the collaboration of Charles Brackett and Billy Wilder. Charles Brackett, Billy Wilder, and Walter Reisch wrote the screenplay for Ernst Lubitsch's Ninotchka. Of Course, Lubitsch worked with writers in the scripting process. After that, Charles Brackett and Billy Wilder worked together. They together wrote the screenplay for famous films like The Lost Weekend and Sunset Blvd.There are lots of funny moments in the film. I thought "The Taming of the Shrew" was very funny. There is a famous expression called "Films are slices of Life." And Here is a great example from Bluebeard's eighth wife (1938).At the first session of the scripting process, Lubitsch posed this question: how do the boy and girl get together? Billy Wilder promptly suggested that the opening scene should be the men's shop of a department store. "The boy is trying to buy a pajama," he extemporized glibly. "But he sleeps only in the tops. He is thrifty so he insists on buying only the tops. The clerk says he must buy the pants too. It looks like a catastrophe. Then the girl comes into the shop and buys the pants because she sleeps only in the pants." Ernst Lubitsch and Charles Brackett were enchanted. It wasn't till months later they discovered that Billy Wilder himself is a tops-only sleeper and that he had been nursing the idea for months waiting for a chance to use it.I got this information from a book. I think this film can be considered as the return of Ernst Lubitsch. Right after this film, he made wonderful films like Ninotchka, The Shop around the Corner, and To be or not to be.I thought Gary Cooper's performance was good. I think Lubitsch casted Gary Cooper probably because Gary Cooper played Long Fellow Deeds who inherited the fortune in Frank Capra's Mr. Deeds goes to town. But this is just my opinion.As for me, I highly enjoyed the film. I rate this film 9 out of 10. Lubitsch films are different, because his films are slices of life.$LABEL$ 1
+The relationship between the Lone Ranger and Tonto was always good for a snicker, but to take the joke out of the joke by building a movie around the gay appeal of the legend... oh the horror, the horror...$LABEL$ 0
+10 out of 10, this brilliant, super documentary is a must see, with film clips from the war which people did not seen for years, untill this was screened in 1974. The film clips in this documentary from the war doesn't miss out anything, some of the clips left me dumbstuck. The whole series is over 20 episodes long, and Sir Lawrence Olivier is the narrator and tells a stunning story of war. Simply this is still probably the best documentary of war still, and now over 25 years old still is able to pack a tremendous punch. You must watch this at some time, even if it's a few episodes, even at that you will still be blown away at the impact this documentary means to those who have been there suffered and died in the name of WAR, in a WORLD AT WAR..$LABEL$ 1
+I must admit that I was very sceptical about this documentary. I was expecting it to be the kind of All American Propaganda that we here in Europe dislike so much. I was wrong. This is NOT propaganda, in fact it is hardly political at all.It depicts the events of 9/11 through the eyes of the firefighters called to the scene just after the planes crashed. It is an amazing coinsidence that this documentary was filmed at all! This film was initially shot as a documnetary about a rookie NY firefighter becoming "a man". We can only thank the film makers that they continued their work during the terrible ordeal that faced them.A great piece of work. Absolutely stunning material. Highly recommended.Regards,$LABEL$ 1
+... but watch Mary McDonnell's performance closely. Her body language. Her fine body movements. Her subtle, but powerfully effective, reactions. This is an accomplished artist at the top of her craft. And the rest of the cast were pretty damned good, too! ;o)This is perhaps the 3rd or 4th viewing for me, and I see more in it each time. What /IS/ this world coming to, anyway? -R.$LABEL$ 1
+Are you familiar with concept of children's artwork? While it is not the greatest Picasso any three-year-old has ever accomplished with their fingers, you encourage them to do more. If painting is what makes them happy, there should be no reason a parent should hold that back on a child. Typically, if a child loves to paint or draw, you will immediately see the groundwork of their future style. You will begin to see their true form in these very primitive doodles. Well, this concept of children's artwork is how I felt about Fuqua's depressingly cheap and uncreative film Bait. While on all accounts it was a horrid film, it was impressive to see Fuqua's style begin emerging through even the messiest of moments. If you have seen either Training Day or King Arthur, you will be impressed with the birth of this director in his second film Bait. While Foxx gives a horrid, unchained performance, there are certain scenes, which define Fuqua and demonstrate his brilliance behind the camera. Sadly it only emerged in the final thirty minutes of the film, but if you focus just on those scenes, you will see why Fuqua's name appears on so many "Best Of…" film lists.I will never disagree with someone that Fuqua's eye behind the camera is refreshing and unique. His ability to place a camera in the strangest of places to convey the simplest of emotions is shocking. I am surprised that more of Hollywood hasn't jumped aboard this bandwagon. Even in the silly feature Bait, you are witness to Fuqua's greatness. Two scenes that come directly to mind are the explosion scene near the middle of the film and the horse scene close to the end. In both of these scenes I saw the director Fuqua at work. Alas, in the rest of this film, all I saw was a combination of nearly every action film created. The likable hero down on his luck that suddenly finds his life turned around by some unknown force is a classic structure that just needs to die in Hollywood. We have seen this two often, and no matter who you are (unless you are Charlie Kaufmann), you cannot recreate the wheel. It is just impossible with this genre, and it is proved with Bait. I was annoyed with Fuqua for just sitting back and allowing this to happen, which could explain why it took me three viewings to finish this film. I was just tired of the structure, and while I hoped that Fuqua would redefine it, he did not.Then, there was the acting. While Jamie Foxx has never impressed me as an actor, I was willing to give this helmed vehicle a try. I wanted to see if he could pull off another dramatic role similar to Collateral. I was under the impression that perhaps this was the film chosen to show producers that Foxx could handle the role in Collateral. Again, I was disappointed. Foxx was annoying. Not in the sense that it was the way that his character was to be, but in the sense that it felt as if neither Fuqua nor Foxx took the time to fully train Foxx on what should be ad-libed and what should be used to further the plot. Instead, we are downtrodden with scene over scene of Foxx just trying to make the audience laugh. Adding second long quips and culture statements just to keep his audience understanding that he was a comedian first, an actor second. Fuqua should have stopped this immediately. Foxx's jokes destroyed his character, which in turn left me with nothing solid to grasp ahold of. Instead of character development, he would crack a joke. Neither style worked, no joke was funny. The rest of the cast was average. By this I mean I have seen them all in similar roles. They were brining nothing new to the table, nothing solid to the story, and nothing substantial to the overall themes of the film. They were pawns filling in dead air space. Fuqua had no control over this mess, and the final verdict only supports that accusation.Overall, this was a sad film. With no creativity in sight and unmanaged actors just trying to upstage themselves, what originally started as a decent story eventually sunk faster into the cinematic quicksand. Foxx was annoying, without character lines, and a complete bag of cheese. In each scene I saw no emotion, and when emotion was needed to convey a message, he chose to take his shirt off rather than tackle the issues. Are my words harsh? I don't think so. When you watch any movie you want to see some creativity, some edible characters, and themes that seem to hit close to home. Bait contained none of these. While I will give Fuqua some credit for two of the scenes in this film, the remaining five hundred were disastrous. Apparently, I took the bait when renting this film, but now having seen it, hopefully I can stop others from taking that curious nibble.Grade: ** out of ***** (for his two scenes that were fun to watch)$LABEL$ 0
+After mistaking a Halloween re-broadcast of Orson Welles' classic radio adaptation of WAR OF THE WORLDS for a real Martian invasion, a group of moronic Martians shows up on Earth looking to conquer only their plans go awry as they find themselves truly out of their element and in reality all alone.This really is often quite good and funny, with some decent lines (just check the memorable quotes) to boot. It will most likely appeal to Sci-Fi fans. This has passed the test of time for me as seeing it again recently it proved much better than I expected it to be. Despite a cast made up of no-name stars, this may just be the funniest Martian invasion ever put to film. Interestingly enough, the Martians themselves seem to represent almost every classic Action Hero/Sci-Fi Hero stereotype there is (cool 50s teen, fighter pilot, fearless astronaut, brave soldier and kooky scientist). Fun for the whole family. "Prepare to DIE! Earth Scum!"$LABEL$ 1
+For a good half hour or so, I remember myself thinking: "Hey, this could very well be Bill Rebane's best achievement ever!". The opening sequences are atmospheric, there immediately are some scary moments to enjoy and our director even refers to his own notorious stinker "The Giant Spider Invasion" in a playful way. The concept is shamelessly stolen from William Castle's "House on Haunted Hill", with three old and extremely bored millionaires luring nine losers to an isolated mansion to win $1,000,000 in an elimination game. Naturally, the participants start vanishing quickly and one by one, and it takes the remaining greedy boneheads too much time before they realize either the old folks are sadists...or there's another murderer amongst them. The film begins & ends with an odd narrator telling a lot of senseless stuff that isn't relevant or even interesting to the plot, but there's some nice T&A to admire in the first ten minutes and that dumb bimbo (Shelly, I believe she's called) is really hilarious to observe. After the first half hour, naturally the inevitable happens and "The Cold" turns into a textbook Rebane-production with retarded plot twists, the dumbest dialogs ever and a total lack of excitement. There wasn't any budget for bloody murder sequences but our multi-talented director (?) tries to compensate this with endless footage of disco dancing girls and an amateur rock band. The film also has four or even five different climaxes and none of them are a slight bit satisfying. Maybe it was an inspiration for LOTR: Return of the King? Avoid this film, you'll live longer and happier.$LABEL$ 0
+While watching the film, I'm not sure what direstion it was to take. There's a reason a writer shouldn't direct his work and even act in it as well, you can't do it all. I felt the story really suffered in this film due to the director wearing so many hats. Ms. McTeer is the film. To add to her amazing talents, her portrayal of this woman was why I was engaged. Here is a British actress who can do anything. In my view, conflict is what makes drama and a great story. I felt this film didn't have that. Everything was somewhat easy for the characters, there were no real obstacles preventing the chahracters from getting what they wanted. Watch the film for the sweetness, but most of all for Ms. McTeer's brilliant performance.$LABEL$ 0
+Sigh. I'm baffled when I see a short like this get attention and assignments and whatnot. I saw this film at a festival before the filmmaker got any attention and forgot about it immediately afterwards. It was mildly annoying to see it swiping the Grinch Who Stole Christmas heart gag along with the narration, the set design seen many times before, the whole weak Tim Burton-ish style, and the story that goes nowhere. And we got the "joke" about shooting the crows with the 45 the first time, alright?But I guess what's really unacceptable is that it even swipes its basic concept from a comic book circa 1999 called LENORE, THE CUTE LITTLE DEAD GIRL by Roman Dirge! As any quick internet search will reveal. I mean, what is this? This is what they base a Hollywood contract on and opens doors in Canada for a filmmaker? "Give your head a shake" as Don Cherry might say.$LABEL$ 0
+The Dukes of Hazzard is quite an achievement – a $53m film that's worse than any given episode of a downmarket 25-year old TV show. The plot is serviceable enough but the mindless fun is rarely to be found and the casting is pretty atrocious: Johnny Knoxville is more passenger than protagonist, M.C. Gainey's Sheriff Roscoe is a bland thug, Michael Weston's Enos tiresome, a seemingly ideally-cast Willie Nelson just seems to be waiting for the check to clear and Burt Reynolds, stuck in some purgatory where he's doomed to relive his old movies as a bit player, is a curious choice for Boss Hogg to say the least but does have one good moment with a heckler and a hundred dollar bill. You know a film is in trouble when Seann William Scott and Jessica Simpson are the most charismatic screen presences… But worse than the script or the casting is Jay Chandrasekhar's hopeless direction: seemingly born with no conception of comic timing, unable to do much more than basic two-shots and seemingly clueless as to how to shoot a car chase let alone the couple of decent stunts in the film, he seems determined to sap the film of any signs of life before they materialise. There are a couple of neat post-modern moments revolving around the Confederate Flag and Daisy's stereotypical role in every episode, but no film that makes you pine for the days when Hal Needham was directing this sort of thing (and badly) can be a good thing.$LABEL$ 0
+Excellent cast, story line, performances. Totally believable. I realize the close knit group that exemplifies the Marine Corps. But this movie brought fear to my heart. The marines let principles be damned. It seems that this film was based on real life incidents. It shows how difficult it is to go up against the establishment. Anne Heche was utterly convincing. Sam Shepard's portrayal of a gung ho Marine was sobering. And Eric Stoltz as her attorney was so deft balancing his loyalty to the Corp but also his loyalty to his client, while high above on his tightrope. He knew what his true course of action had to be. But he was pulled apart by his immersion in the Marine tradition, loyalty to the Corps above all else. I sat riveted to the TV screen. All in all I give this one a resounding 9 out of 10.$LABEL$ 1
+A longtime fan of Bette Midler, I must say her recorded live concerts are my favorites. Bette thrills us with her jokes and brings us to tears with her ballads. A literal rainbow of emotion and talent, Bette shows us her best from her solid repertoire, as well as new songs from the "Bette of Roses" album. Spanning generations of people she offers something for everyone. The one and only Divine Diva proves here that she is the most intensely talented performer around.$LABEL$ 1
+Maybe my rating should have been a 9, but the film absolutely stunned me when viewing it first time and my latest viewing confirmed my initial belief. Stylish yes, every scene has crafted scoped views, terrific angles with a perfect sound side accompanying them.Put on top great acting from especially Toni Servillo, garner it with one of the most beautiful and charming women in Olivia Magnani, and a fine plot and you will end up seeing this small masterpiece over and over.Paulo Sorrentinos next movie "L'Amico De Famiglia", which is in competition in this years Cannes Festival, will be eagerly awaited.$LABEL$ 1
+First off... I never considered myself an Uwe Boll Hater since I think I never even saw one of his movies but after seeing this cheap excuse for a movie named "Seed" (which is the name of the serial killer this movie is about) I am close to joining the hate club. This movie makes absolutely no sense at all... the plot is a joke and although Boll clearly tries to get attention by shocking people 90% of this movie is just plain boredom. You can sum up this movie like this: 1. Hooded killer watches clips of animals getting tortured on TV. This is real life footage from pelt farms and the movie opens with the ridiculous reason of "making a statement about humanity" and giving a Peta address. Since this movie has no message at all and is the worst piece of torture porn-exploitation you already have a reason to hate the movie from the beginning onward.2. Death by electrocution with a pretext that gives away what happens later in this movie printed on screen so every retard gets it.3. Cops watch videos of animals, babies and women starved to death and decomposing in Seeds basement, having stupid nightmares and crying into their whiskey because Seed is such an evil bad mofo. Although the acting is OK the movie takes a dive every time it tries to incorporate any emotions... 4. Cops bust Seed in his house, act stupid and get slashed in the dark. This sequence reminds me of a video game, you barely see anything except flashlights. Seed is a super killer that is everywhere at once and all cops act stupid enough to be killed... except for one who busts him.5. Seed gets the chair and we see his electrocution as lengthy as everything else in this "movie"... he won't die and we are reminded of the opening statement that he must be set free if he survives 3 electric jolts. Guess what... they just bury him alive to solve the problem.6. Seed comes out of his grave, kills everyone off in another slashing part and then seeks the main cop to take revenge on.7. A woman gets her head bashed in with a hammer in an endless sequence from one point of view just for the fun and shock value of it. 8. Seed captures the cops family, lures him to his house, threatens to kill his wife and daughter. After killing his wife with a nail gun the cop shoots himself in the head considering thats whats Seed wants (its hard to get into that guys head since he not just wears his mask even in prison but also never utters a word ... the movie has barely any dialog anyway so don't mind).9. Boll goes for a nihilistic shocker end where Seed locks the daughter in with her dead dad to rot like the persons we saw on video on sequence 3.This is it... no message, no plot, no reason, no face behind the mask, no background except a stupid story that Seed was burnt as a child.This movie relies purely on few key scenes and their shock value. I hardly remember a movie this empty of any emotion or message or entertainment. Its like watching August Underground ... thats fine with me, some people will enjoy this brainless snuff. But what is really hard to stand about it is the pseudo-message in the beginning and the fact that the movie is well made considering camera-work, effects and even the acting is too good for this waste of celluloid. So how does Boll get money to make such "movies" when thousands of talented directors work on shoestring budgets?? "Seed" is not just the essence of ridiculous, its living proof that the free market is flawed ... lucky Uwe that the German taxpayer is paying for a lot of this waste to get deductments.$LABEL$ 0
+STAR RATING: ***** Jodie Marsh **** Michelle Marsh *** Kym Marsh ** Rodney Marsh * Hackney Marsh Harlan Banks (Steven Seagal- not quite as bad an actor as Kevin Costner but.......aaaaahhhh, you get it) is a modern day Robin Hood (listen close, you can hear Brian Adams music playing in the background...no, not really), the kind of guy who steals ill-gotten blood money from drug dealers and uses it to keep run-down orphanages open. But now he's been approached to drive a getaway van in a heist from Las Vegas in one of those last things before retirement type jobs. But, of course, it all goes wrong and he winds up the patsy for the big guys at the top and in jail. Here he meets a guy named (although you wouldn't know it from paying attention to the movie) Ice Cool (Treach), who he forms a friendship with and ends up breaking out of jail with. Once free, he's out to prove his innocence, locate the missing money and, naturally, get even with those who framed him!Of all Seagal's recent straight to video films, Today You Die has that look about it most of all that it belongs in a cinema, even with a rap star as his co-star like his previous cinema films Half Past Dead and Exit Wounds. Yes, it seems when he's not making films about looking after the environment he's pretending to be black and co-starring with rappers. But TYD is not a cinema film and that's a luxury The Great One is never going to be enjoying again until Under Siege 3 materializes (if ever!) The film opens with a slick, polished look that commands attention but it all quickly goes down hill from there. Once Seagal hits prison, the plot quickly loses it's coherence. Indeed Treach's character just seems to pop up out of nowhere without any introduction as his sidekick and from there you quickly lose interest in it.That's it. I know I've said it before but I think I mean it this time. I don't think I'm going to be giving any more of these straight to video Seagal films any time. I honestly have no enthusiasm to watching Shadow Man at all. In fact, I can honestly say that I've not really enjoyed ANY of his STV films up to this point, and Today You Die is certainly no exception, an apathetic, boring effort all round best avoided by all. *$LABEL$ 0
+Christopher Nolan had his goals set on Following in a very narrow direction, and in that direction he pulled off something that reminded me of the kind of great little 'poverty-row' movies the likes of Ullmer directed back in the 40s. Only this time, he's able to implement touches of homage- things like black and white photography (a given due to the shoe-string budget but also essential to the dark crevices these characters inhabit) and casting of the actors (the John Doe lead, the slick male counterpart, and the beautiful-in-a-gritty way femme fatale)- while keeping it in the realm of the 90s underground indie where for several thousand dollars and specific choices in locations and music and such anything could be possible. That, and as well in the film-noir mood Nolan also puts together a cunning web of a plot, maybe even more so than Memento. Where the latter was a work of a psychology unfolding by way of a plot enriched by looking to the past inch by inch, here the non-linear structure serves the purpose of showing how far someone like Bill can go through as dark a path as Cobb, only in an environment where keeping on your toes is not for someone who's not really twisted and into the deeper mind games Cobb is.Of course, the whole act of following someone becomes the main thrust of the story, and going into it I wasn't even sure where it would lead, if it might be some kind of stream of consciousness ala Slacker where Nolan would lead his character along to one urban British person to another. But the establishment of the ties of Bill to Cobb are done in a quick and excellent way, as we see right when Cobb approaches Bill at the café to ask what he's doing following him tells almost all we need to know about both- that, and the first robbery he brings him along for. What seems to soon be a good score on the horizon is really all one big set-up by Cobb and his lady (just called 'The Blonde', maybe a too-obvious homage to noir, but why carp). But this is revealed in a way that actually truly had me guessing, as the manipulation of the narrative worked all the more to arouse questions not so much of why but of how. The density is brought out all the greater due to the actors understanding of their essential points as characters, with Alex Haw being brilliant as a true sociopath who can barely mask his 'deep' ideas about what it is to really take pleasure in a burglary, and Theobald with that demeanor of someone who can never be as smart as he is in what he really does, but is more intelligent in that naive way that stands no chance in the dank environment such as this; Russell almost makes it too easy, even with a face that would send Ana Savage shaking her head.Meanwhile, Nolan is also on the ball with his style as a cameraman, keeping nothing in that doesn't add to ambiance and suspense, with the fade-in/fade-outs not too quick to leave a lasting impression, but enough to add to the 'this-could-lead-anywhere' logic of the script. He follows it in hand-held form as if he knows where his limitations lie, and yet is fantastic at keeping the essentials: close-ups when need be (one I loved is Russell's face in a small mirror), and a fairly simple techno track that never detracts. Sometimes, as mentioned, the line between seeing something in 'present-day' and seeing something that is as everlasting as a solid pulp story of low-level criminals with mind-games and moral ambiguity is always never totally clear, which for me is practically irresistible in its dark way. Simply put, this is one of the great calling cards I've seen from a filmmaker in recent years, and should hopefully be something that future fans of Nolan's other work can look forward to to discovering. Or even to those who think that noir has gone to the rapid-editing and big-gun-firing dogs of the mainstream (even in independent films) it's a bright little 71 minutes.$LABEL$ 1
+"Freddy's Dead" did the smartest thing it could've done after the disappointment of the fifth film. It started from scratch. Sure, this "final" film in the saga is silly but at least it's original. Some of the visuals are even a bit breath-taking. And the story of Freddy's kid (Lisa Zane) returning to town to face her evil father is unique.Overall, the movie is nothing but another cartoon made to get kids in the theater. It has a bunch of good actors (Zane, Yaphet Kotto, and Lezlie Deane) who basically look dumb and wander around like sheep ready for slaughter. It's one-sided, it's a magic-trick, and, in the end, it's nothing but goofy, childish entertainment.$LABEL$ 0
+Wow, this movie really sucked down below the normal scale of dull, boring, and unimaginative films I've seen recently. The acting was poor and robotic. The story was so bland you could have summed it up with a simple 5-minute short. Audio was so poor and dirty it was hard to even listen to; perhaps it was unedited from the camera it was shot off of? I'm not sure which movie the 3 glowing reviewers were commenting on, but it wasn't this one. Perhaps the director had his hand in seeing that his film received a good review, at least before the real reviews started to show up.Save your time or you'll just be wasting your time and money on this film. Absolute suckage!$LABEL$ 0
+This is a very good black comedy, with a great view on how different people have a different perception of the same situations. The three main characters each met a girl named Jewel, played by Liv Tyler, who is a different male fantasy for each of the three men. Each of the three men go through the same situations, but when they tell of them to other people, their perception of the situation is very different from what the other two say. That is a very good concept, probably not entirely original but it works very well in the movie. The plot is very good, very bizarre and extreme, which makes it a good black comedy. The acting is equally good, not one of the actors seemed out of place or out of their league. The comedy is very black, pitch black in some scenes, and a lot of people will definitely be offended by it, but fans of black comedy will probably enjoy it. Overall, this movie is not for everyone's taste, but most people who like black comedy will probably love it, as it is definitely one of the better black comedies. 7/10$LABEL$ 1
+Definition of documentary: A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration. The key word here is informative. I love They Might Be Giants, and barely learned a thing about them.The interviews with all the celebrities were pretty much worthless. I don't care what Sarah Vowel thinks of anybody and Syd Straw was downright irritating. And is listening to people recite TMBG lyrics like they were supposed to be funny/interesting? It was neither. I think that was the problem: the movie spends time discussing TMBG's love for coffee. So what?? Millions of people love coffee. Was the presentation of the material funny? No! There were hints that both men are married, yet it was never discussed. And what about the solo material they did? What motivated them to do it? These type of questions are not addressed nor answered.I could go on and on with the negatives. I did find the segment on Dial-a-Song very interesting. If you want to learn about They Might Be Giants, just buy a few CD's and listen. Seriously. This movie is a gigantic disappointment. I can't believe so many folks gave it a 10. Incredible.$LABEL$ 0
+I really like Harrison Ford so I eagerly rented this movie only to be disappointed minute after minute. Mr. Ford seemed to be walking through very warm water looking for a place to urinate. His co-star was very good and had the better lines. The story intrigued me but the mistake - BIG MISTAKE - as everyone is identified via driver's license or passport before they board any american commercial aircraft left numerous plot questions in my mind. I could have cared less about these people. In fact, the sub-plot of the Internal Affairs investigation was more interesting than the two lovers killed while flying first class to Miami.I am disappointed in the director, Sydney Pollack who gave us the classic Tootsie and other films. This one is a waste of time and energy.$LABEL$ 0
+I tuned into this by accident on the independent film channel and was riveted. I'm a professional actor and I was flabbergasted by the performances. They felt totally improvisatory, absolutely without affectation. I could not tell if it was scripted or how it was shot and waited until the very end to see credits and then spent a half an hour on the IMDb to find this film. Do not miss it. I see that the writer-director also did a very fine film called Everyday People which I enjoyed a lot. The shame of the film business is that projects this excellent do not get the distribution and advertising that they deserve and live under the radar. This film deserves to be flown high and proudly. I urge people to look it up and watch it.$LABEL$ 1
+Easily 9 out of 10 for a film by director we will continue to grow to admire. But don't watch this movie expecting to be "entertained." Ang Lee takes an objective look at a relatively unexplored aspect of the Civil War. What is beautiful about the movie, like all of Lee's films, is that he doesn't "side" with his characters. He creates characters, embodies them with life, problems, and ambiguity ... and endows them with a reality that often hits far closer to home than with which many are comfortable. This film has action, but it is not for the action lover since the violence is deeply disturbing and far from gratuitous ... i.e. like the characters, it is real. And as you would expect about one of mankind's most horrific wars, the violence is horrific.But as an exploration of the greater human ambiguity that surely dwelt within the Civil War, it is a masterpiece. Was the war about slavery and an abolitionism? Lee seems quite willing to blur that line made so popular in depictions like the Blue and the Grey. Neither is about idealism, though, as seen in Gone with the Wind. It is about freedom, about the desire to have something which is yours and to fight for it. As you watch the characters, you will ask yourself "how can they be fighting to preserve slavery?" The fact is, I don't think they really are, and in that the film shows the problem of why so many were caught up in the maelstrom of the Civil War.The fact seems clear that many of the characters we learn about are fighting out of senses of loyalty to "home" though they may never have examined what home represents or whether they truly espouse its values. The letter scenes are very moving and yet subtle. Jake and Daniel are other examples of loyalty stretched to the limits. And when the tension finally snaps, and these characters find themselves suddenly "free" ... we see the birth of new men.All this mixed in with Lee's beautiful incorporation of humankind's environment with breathtaking vistas and frames. Lee has a style which is his, somehow European in its "art" (a slow camera, unrushed), Asian in its epic-ness and development of story, and yet somehow familiar and easily accessible to so many in North Americans.Relax, let go of your preconceptions about what the Civil War is, what the "western" as a genre is, what a war movie should be ... and let Ang Lee take you into a world so fragile, so hard, so real that few of us can comfortably see it.In this, Lee continues what he wrought in Ice Storm. Again, the movie is slow paced and without apparent "direction" ... a sure sign of Lee's ability to direct without "imposing" himself on the story or screen. His direction is amplified by what he brings out of Jewel (yes, the singer), a hitherto unproven actress who puts in an amazing performance.A movie for those who love film and are not lovers of the standard Hollywood epic.$LABEL$ 1
+On one level, Hari Om is a film using a familiar genre - the road movie - to tell a familiar story: curious Westerner explores the mysterious East. But at its heart, the film is about two people, a young French beauty (Isa) bent on experiencing life to the fullest and a motorized rickshaw driver (Hari Om) with Bollywood aspirations, from vastly different cultures, their slowly growing attraction for each other, and the beautiful mad chaos that is India today. The gap between them can never be bridged, but the director succeeds in bringing the two as close to the brink of an affair as possible without damaging the story's plausibility. India and its people are essential ingredients of the narrative, and except for the main characters, the roles are played beautifully and persuasively by locals recruited during the film's production while on the road between the Indian towns and villages that form the film's setting. One major negative for this viewer: a Keystone Kops chase near the film's conclusion as Hari flees mobsters bent on collecting a gambling debt. But the closing scenes where Isa and Hari bid farewell are poignant and unforgettable.$LABEL$ 1
+... to not live in Montana and especially not to live there at the end of the 19th century."A river runs through it" certainly is a well made movie from a cineastic stand-point. Great landscapes, Redford acting well.Unfortunately, the story is bad (if there is a story at all).I felt sorry for the narrator / author, who is as dry, narrow-minded a character as his father, a preacher. Being driven, not driving his own life, he is left to watch his brother, who is also caged in the small town environment, losing his life. The author never even comes close to undestand his brother's motivations, but at least realizes, that he is lacking the slightest amount of homour / fun. All there is, is fly-fishing, where he follows even as an old man the style of his father.The end is not surprising, it is forseeable from the very beginning.Definitely NOT a must-see (3 / 10)$LABEL$ 0
+The only thing of interest about this movie is its subject matter. Taking a look at the Manson "family" from the point of view of the family members themselves is a great idea. However, trying to make sense of the uncomprehensible is something that can really only be accomplished in a masterwork -- and this ain't it.Presumably because there was so much information to squeeze into a screenplay, this film was done in a faux documentary style, with reenactments thrown in. Trouble is, the writing and directing make it impossible to establish those things that make a movie watchable, like character, story, theme and so on.Worse, there's an incredibly weak sub-plot thrown in that follows a little band of latter-day Mansonites as they go after a reporter who's working on a story on the anniversary of the killings. It's dumb and pointless, and a complete waste of time.All in all, this movie is one big wasted opportunity. The one ray of sunshine is the acting of Marc Pitman, who plays Tex, who in real life did most of the actual killing. Whereas the female characters come off as giggly airheads in the 60s flashbacks, Pitman manages to convey real feeling.In short, don't bother with this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Billy and Jade had a very close relationship that went to far one evening even though Billy was sleeping with Jade's mother. Jade has to deal with the fact that her mother may never know and that it will never happen again. Billy is played by Rob Estes who couldn't have looked better. Lifetime tv has made another movie that everyone is bound to like.$LABEL$ 1
+Looking through the other comments, I'm amazed that there aren't any warnings to potential viewers of what they have to look forward to when renting this garbage. First off, I rented this thing with the understanding that it was a competently rendered Indiana Jones knock-off. What I got was one of the most offensive movies I can remember trying to sit through, made all the more shocking by the movie's comparatively high production values.I don't think this is a spoiler, but if it is, be warned...If your idea of entertainment is watching Bimbo getting raped from behind by Fearsome Tribal Chief, while she is staring into the dead eyes of her significant other's severed head, by all means, rent this flick. If not, I'd advise you to look elsewhere for entertainment.Come to think of it, that scene so succinctly sums up the movie that there's nothing else I really need to say about it.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is great.Now, I do tend to like my films heavy on the story and dialogue, but now and then, something like Moonwalker comes along, and it's watchable, despite numerous flaws.This film is no more than a highly entertaining Michael Jackson advertisement. Beginning with sickly video set to 'Man in the Mirror' a montage listing his achievements, and bits and bobs from his career, it goes through all the highs of his life, then crashes down into a really, really entertaining segment which acts as a funny music video for 'Bad' and 'Speed Demon', following the adventures of MJ as he runs from manic stop-motion fans, and finally dancing against a rabbit costume. The stop motion isn't that bad as some would have you believe. It's passable.Then we see the great video for 'Leave me alone', and straight into the main feature.Yes, the plot is laughable. Very laughable. We see Michael walk out of a building, then get shot at by thousands of troops. Then we hit flashback, showing MJ and three children stumbling upon an underground lair. 'Mr Big' (Joe Pesci) is the nefarious villain who has a plan to get every child in the world hooked on 'drugs' (no specifics are mentioned) at an early age. MJ and the little girl he is with get caught, then chased... yada yada yada. The plot isn't really the important part. We get two very cool sequences where MJ turns into a car, then a robot-spaceship thing, and of course, the amazing 'Smooth Criminal' sequence.It's a so-so film, but it is fantastic for anyone who likes MJ. It has most of his greatest hits, and some cool little bits, and some quite good special effects (the Robot/Spaceship sequence in particular) Worth it, especially seen as though you can pick it up for about a quid on ebay. It'll keep the kids quiet for a couple of hours, as well as most 20 somethings who were kids when it was first released.$LABEL$ 1
+This film caught me by surprise. My friend told me that this movie was a "chick flick." Boy, was he wrong! This movie has a great family appeal, with no sex scenes like _other_ movies. Jake Gyllenhaal does an excellent job in Homer Hickam's shoes. The supporting cast is great, as well.Science, coming-of-age, family quarrels, a great train scene... This film has it all. The soundtrack is good, although the score is presented quite choppily. The 50s music kicks the movie over the edge of greatness.The DVD is definitely worth its weigh in coal. Replay value is great - I've seen it quite a few times already.$LABEL$ 1
+I managed to avoid reading Hemingway in college. From what I could tell, along with his reductivist verbiage, he offered reductivist story lines. This film-transfiguration of AF2A into a simplistic, hoary, belabored narrative, does not disabuse me of my suspicions: A guy who barely sees action on the European battlefield (Hudson) falls in with a nurse (Jones), and they conspire to spend time together. Hemingway's big contribution to narrative was the romantic travelogue? Who knows what these two lovers have in common? They're so utterly generic. The movie never even brings up the utter irresponsibility it takes to abandon the front in favor of a lovers' adventure. The two have a season on the Alps, straight out of a J. Crew catalog. A number of better scenes are undermined by corny, conventional melodrama elsewhere. The movie keeps piling on tiny, improbable, unspecific details that fight the epic treatment. The cavernous hospital that Miss Barkley works in is virtually empty, so that no secondary plot line can possibly distract from the flimsy main story. Complicated, it is not. The camera work is better than average, with some amazing location photography. Director Charles Vidor (or maybe Huston?) does striking things in the first hour with an on-location, wide-screen camera... there are no second unit cop-outs. Vidor shows massive, panoramic tableaux, pans over a line of hundreds of soldiers trooping through the mountains; and then with a 90 degree swivel of his camera catches up with Hudson's ambulance barreling down on him. Hudson looks great. He's a better actor than he gets credit for, but with unshaped material like this, he can become very mechanical. Mercedes McCambridge plays a one-dimensional shrew. Jennifer Jones is puffy and miscast in the lackluster female lead. The movie is best when she's off screen. The love scenes are about as affecting as a coffee commercial.$LABEL$ 0
+Anyone who doesn't think Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey is one of the greatest movies of all time needs their head checked. It somehow manages to be both completely inane and no-brainer, but also terrifying knowing and clever at the same time. One of those rare films that actually improves upon it predecessor, Bogus Journey can be enjoyed again and again. Notable highlights include the duel with Death and the ending, which is highly "emotional". Keanu wants to forget all that Matrix rubbish and get down to doing what he does best, Ted Theodore Logan in Bill and Ted: The Return.$LABEL$ 1
+As stated by others, this is a ludicrously horrible movie (NOT A FILM!). It is not bad in a funny way, just painful to try to endure. Don't waste your time.Erika Eleniak is pretty hot, but there is one scene where she is in a bathtub, and you can see the wrap covering her breasts under the bubbles. Also, she's getting fat.The fight scenes are so bad as to be unwatchable, if you know or care anything about martial arts, or even decent choreography, and the editing/effects are abysmal.There is no payoff, it goes nowhere, and sucks getting there.$LABEL$ 0
+Barbara Stanwyck probably didn't think of it, but it is a relief to see her in a more becoming dark hairstyle (if it wasn't a wig) than the one she had to wear in "Double Indemnity" the year before. That film, while the premiere "film noir" and an all-around great film, gave her a great role, but oh, that hair. Here, she is more chic and certainly no femme fatal, but she is certainly a 40's woman. She has gotten used to life without men since most of them are off at war, and as a successful Martha Stewart like columnist, she writes a homey column in which she describes her country home as the camera pans over what it really is. We meet her boss, Sydney Greenstreet, who has no idea that she is living a lie, and when he pushes his way in for a Christmas away at her supposed Connecticut home, she has to come up with a husband (Reginald Gardiner) and baby before we can say "Jingle Bells". Hungarian chef S.Z. Sakall steps in to help and ends up in a cutsey pie one-on-one with Irish Una O'Connor. "It's not Goulash, It's Irish Stew". Sakall simply takes the paprika, pours most of it in, and says, "Now it's goulash", totally changing what she has prepared for lunch. Then, when it comes to the flapjacks, he flips and she scoops. For years, a few friends of mine and I will use that line every time pancakes come up in a conversation. "I don't flip. I scoop!". She won't even flip just one for Greenstreet, saying "I've never flipped in me life." O'Connor can get on the nerves when she screeches over and over in some films, but here, she is delightfully lovable, and her pairing with Sakall is very charming.It is obvious in the romance department that Reginald Gardiner is not Barbara Stanwyck's cup of tea, especially when she meets handsome Dennis Morgan, who is a bit dimwitted when bathing the baby, which eats soap, causing Stanwyck to get a bit alarmed. He should suspect something instantly, but doesn't. But it doesn't matter. The film is so charming with the country setting filled with snow, an abundance of rocking chairs, and a dog running towards them as the sleigh comes up. Living in New York City after 25 years in Los Angeles after growing up in a small town on the western side of New York State made me miss this kind of Christmas. While Central Park is beautiful after a first snow and the Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center is exsquisit too, there is something about looking out at a snow-covered field of trees, and catch an occasional glimpse of deer, rabbits, or other wild life.This is a great holiday film that can also bring on the Christmas spirit out of season, and makes a great pairing with another Barbara Stanwyck country Christmas film, "Remember the Night", an underrated gem. Add on the big city Christmas of "Meet John Doe", and you've found perhaps one of the busiest stars of holiday films around.$LABEL$ 1
+To start off, I didn't bother seeing The Grudge. The previews for that movie didn't make me jump, didn't scare me, and didn't entertain me. But when a group of friends asked me to go see The Grudge 2, I accepted the invite, a little curious as to how this movie would be. I mainly went because of my friends. Not even 5 minutes into this movie, I realized I threw away $7.50. The acting from the get-go is horrible. The schoolgirls in the beginning look as if they have never acted in their entire lives. Then, the movie plot takes over. Let me tell you, I could not stop laughing this entire movie. It is just so stupid. I'm pretty sure they tried to not make it scary. They don't make anything jump out or anything. It shows the kids, then shows them "attacking". It builds up to it, it's not an "all-of-a-sudden" thing. And even in the middle of the movie, the core of the movie, the acting is still horrible. It leaves so much time in-between the dialog for someone to add in their own comments. This movie is honestly one of the funniest "horror" movies I have ever seen. Poorly written, horrible acting, horrible script, horrible "unable to act" cast, and a horrible concept. The movie blacks out and changes situations more times than you can count. Each part eventually plays out and then ties up at the end of the movie. I would never again pay to see this movie. I wouldn't even watch it on cable, for free. This movie is a joke. Please DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON THIS MOVIE!!$LABEL$ 0
+Before I watched this tv movie I did not know much about one of my favorite actresses. After watching it, I realized how sad Lucille Ball's life really was. It had it's great moments too, but I didn't realize how sad it was. This movie was very good and told the story of the beloved Lucille Ball very well. I highly reccommend it.$LABEL$ 1
+I like this movie above all others. It is "multi-layered"; there is so much to see and appreciate. Every viewing brings a new appreciation of the story-line, the plot and the characters. Faultlessly acted and extremely enjoyable if you take the time to watch it and appreciate it. I love the interaction between the players; the subtle relationships; the period atmosphere. Ralph Fiennes is perfectly cast as the brooding lover and Geoffrey the wronged husband is beautifully underplayed by Colin Firth. The scene in the sand storm where Catherine & El-masy are discussing the different types of sand storms is one of the high-lights of the film and where the affair really starts. The other relationship between Hanna & El-masy is yet another "layer" of the movie which is totally enchanting (and heart-rending). A worthy winner of so many awards.$LABEL$ 1
+A have a female friend who is currently being drawn into a relationship with an SOB who has a long term girlfriend. Of course the SOB is very good-looking, charming, etc and my friend is a very intelligent woman. Watching Jean Pierre Leaud's character at work is exactly like watching what goes on in real life when guys like that destroy the lives of our female friends. It's tragic, and you know she's going to end up very hurt, but there's nothing you can do. Leaud is brilliant. Totally empty. A blank throughout, he pulls the faces and tells the stories he thinks will get the reaction he wants.The scene two hours in when Leaud and Lebrun have made love, and the next morning he puts on a record and, very sweetly and charmingly, sings along to amuse her is brilliant. The "What the hell am I doing here with this idiot" expression that flickers back and forth across her face will be in my memory for a long time to come.It's a long film, but see it in one go, preferably in a cinema. Takes a while to get into, but then the time just disappears.$LABEL$ 1
+First of all, let me underline, that Im not a great fan of political correctness. In fact I like satire or dark humor, even if it makes jokes out of minorities. The reason, why Im pretty sure, that this racist piece of work is not worth a look, is that it doesn't make fun of minorities to demonstrate their condition of living, their social circumstances or the way they are treated by society. Moreover it uses every stupid stereotype and prejudice to strengthen xenophobic feelings and reservations. Its really a pity, but not a surprise, that the other comments didn't get that point, cause we all had a cheap laugh. Congratulations.$LABEL$ 0
+A lot people get hung up on this films tag as a "children's film", and that it certainly is, though it is one made for adults. Takashi Miike uses the fantasy genre, particularly, the children's fantasy genre, as a springboard into the wild territory that is the Great Yokai War.The setup is simple a boy is selected to play the "hero" in this years annual festival, only to discover his role is much more real than he could have imagined. What follows is a hallucinatory, grotesque, whimsical, and often funny journey through the world of Japanese folklore, but wait there's also an evil Villain on the lose who wants to destroy the world. However, the villain here, is not a mere demon, it is the demon-spirit of the accumulated resentment of those things which humans "use" and "discard". Usuing a chamber made out of pure liquid hate/resentment, the villain transforms the vibrant colorful Yokai spirits into soulless ten foot tall makeshift robots which chainsaw for arms and eyes like burning coals(those whove played the video game, Sonic The Hedghog, might remember a certain Dr. Robotnik performing similar procedures to the cute and cuddly's who Sonic had to then "liberate").The hero in this film is actually the least interesting character, essentially playing the straight man, in a world gone suddenly mad. Though he does go through the typical heroes trials he more often than not cowers, as do many of the Yokia themselves, who seem truly defenseless against the murderous robots, some spirits being umbrellas with eyes, talking walls, or creatures whose soul purpose in life is to count beans...of course in this magical world of Miike's Yokai war even beans take a magical power when one believes in them.In several ways this film subverts the normal conventions of children's fantasy, as few, if any, of the characters are heroic, their victory being a combination of happenstance, almost arbitrary faith, and a desire to party. The Yokai spirits, only rally together and lay siege the villains hideout, after they mistake the end of the world invasion of Earth for a great Yokai festival, and even then only to dance and party. Also the film ends not with the usual celebratory all's well that ends well fantasy ending, but with a final scene, showing our hero years older, with an adult job, now unable to see the Yokai spirits of his youth, who then despondently turn to the villain, who being a spirit can never really die. This ending, with it's Yokai spirit who is the spitting image of Pokemon's Pikachu, warns us not just of leaving behind our childhood selves, but of the horrors of over-consumption. The villain is resentment caused when humans no longer have reverence for the world and the objects around them(in Japanese folklore nearly every object has some kind of spirit), and so when they are used and discarded as we in consumer societies do without reverence, they become soulless vengeful machines, not unlike those seen in modern video games, suggesting that though our imaginations and myths do not ever really die, but can become deformed.This is one of the first scripts Miike has contributed to, and I believe it shows, as there's a tightness conceptually that sometimes gets swept under the rug by his exuberance for visual playfulness. Though I've focused mostly on the story (since lots of users here seem to write it off), I do want to say that visually it's a kaleidescope of CGI, stop animation, costume, and live puppetry, that works remarkably well. There's a dreamlike quality to a lot of the film, and the Miyazaki comparisons are warranted, as are the NeverEnding Story and Labrynth comparisons, though this film is sharper and more adult than either. The Yokai are beaten, brutalized, and turned into machines of living hate, who I believe even kill a few humans, a deformed aborted calf with a mans face is born and dies in the films grotesque opening, while a sexual undercurrent, the women with the long neck licking the face of our boy hero, or another characters persistent memory of touching the thigh of a young scantily clad water spirit as a boy, seem to linger a bit too long for most western tastes, especially when considering this is a "children's film". However these are slight enough to catch adult attentions while minor enough, not to traumatize any children to bad. Grims fairy tales, before revisions, did much worse, far more often.All and all this is one of Miikes most accessible and engaging ventures yet, with enough visual drama and great performances(the Yokai spirits have a humanism and an absurd humor to them, thats laugh out loud funny at times) to appeal to audiences of all ages, and a steady conceptual undercurrent strong enough to draw in an adult audience who have presumably brought their children or else come out of a sense of nostalgia for the long lost fantasy films of their youth. The latter group the film seems to address the most fervently asking that they not just continue passive consumption of the world around them, but show reverence to those spirits within them which seemed so much closer to reality in childhood. Another beautiful, funny, and truly original film from a thrilling director who hasn't come close to his apex. Instant classic.$LABEL$ 1
+I'd like to start off by saying that I am NOT an anime fan (with a few notable exceptions), and I generally have a low opinion of so-called otakus, as they are so in love with their particular brand of cartooning that they label every movie starring spiky-haired, big-eyed characters as a work of art without even considering other more vital factors, such as the plot. And no anime movie better represents this division between otakus and people with actual taste than this elegant piece of trash, Fatal Fury: the Motion Picture. As seen through the glassy, witless eyes of an otaku, there's little to find fault with in Fatal Fury-- there's plenty of quirky Japanese-y humor, one-on-one duels, some "dramatic" moments, and everything is beautifully drawn. But everyone else will be turned off by the cliched, predictable plot with cliched, predictable characters, culminating in a cliched, predictable ending. The love scenes are hilariously overblown-- the scene in which Sulia "heals" Terry is obviously intended to be a tender moment, but it's virtually impossible to not be thrown into spirals of giddy laughter by the sheer ludicrousness of it. And of course, Fatal Fury is not without the obligatory cartoon T&A-- this is supplied gratuitously by the huge-breasted Mai Shiranui. And since Fatal Fury IS based off the video game series of the same name (oh boy), we're treated to numerous pointless cameo appearances by popular characters with little or no relevance to the plot whatsoever (they go through all the trouble of introducing Kim early on, only for him to disappear from the movie totally after that point). This mess of a movie reaches its climax with the unintentionally farcical final battle, in which all the main characters engage the all-powerful main villain in one-on-one combat in turn. That's some thing that's always amused me... even when battles in animes AREN'T taking place in a tournament, they always happen as if they were, regardless of the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever! Otakus always rave about how anime movies should be treated as MOVIES as opposed to merely cartoons, and a disturbing portion of those same people love Fatal Fury. So would Fatal Fury have been good if it wasn't an anime? The answer is an emphatic "no"-- all of this movie's charm, what little of it there is, resides in the actual drawings. Had Fatal Fury not been an anime, it would have been worthy of an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, if the show was still on the air. That's the key-- this is nothing more than a laughably bad B-movie in the guise of an anime epic. If you're a fan of movies so bad that they're actually entertaining, consider renting Fatal Fury (or catch it on the Sci-Fi channel), as it is definitely one of those. If you're an otaku, please WAKE UP and realize that a good 90% of the stuff you're watching is garbage. As for everyone else, buy a Dreamcast and Fatal Fury: Mark of the Wolves, but don't even consider seeing this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+"Spielberg loves the smell of sentiment in the morning. But sentiment at the expense of narrative honesty? Nobody should love that." - Lucius Shepard"The Color Purple" takes place in the Deep South during the early 1900s, and tells the story of Celie and Nettie, two African American sisters. The film opens with the girls playing in a field of purple flowers, an idyllic haven which is promptly shattered by the appearance of their stepfather. This motif – innocence interrupted by men – permeates the entire film.The film then launches into a series of short sequences. Celie is revealed to have been twice impregnated by her stepfather, gives birth in a dirty barn, has her newborn child taken away and is forced to marry a local widow named Albert Johnson, a violent oaf who rapes her repeatedly, forcing her to cook, clean and look after his children.All these horrific scenes are given little screen time, and are instead surrounded by moments of pixie-dust cinematography, a meddlesome symphonic score, incongruous comedy and overly exuberant camera work. The cumulative effect is like the merging of a Disney cartoon and a rape movie, a jarring aesthetic which caused Stanley Kubrick to remark that "The Color Purple" made him so nauseated that he had to turn it off after ten minutes. Ten minutes? He lasted a long time.The film is often said to deal which "racism", "sexism" and "black culture", but this is not true. Alice Walker, the author of the novel upon which the film is based, claims to be a bisexual but is actually a closet lesbian. Her book is a lesbian fantasy, a story of female liberation and self-discovery, which paints men as violent brutes who stymie women. For Walker, the only way out of this maze is for women to bond together in a kind of lesbian utopia, black sisterhood and female independence celebrated.Spielberg's film, however, re-frames Walker's story through the lens of comforting American mythologies. This is a film in which the salvific power of Christianity overcomes the natural cruelty of men. A film in which Albert finds himself in various ridiculous situations, moments of misplaced comedy inserted to make him look like a bumbling fool. A film in which all the characters are derived from racist minstrel shows, the cast comprised of lecherous men (always beaming with devilish smiles and toothy grins), stereotypical fat mammies, jazz bands and gospel choirs. This is a film in which black people are naturally childlike, readily and happily accepting their social conditions. A film in which black people are over-sexed, carnal sensualists dominated by violent passions. A film in which poverty and class issues are entirely invisible (Albert lives in a huge house) and black men are completely inept. This is not the Old South, this is the Old South as derived from "Gone With The Wind", MGM Muscals, "Song of the South", Warner Cartoons, "Halleluha!" and banned Disney movies. In other words, it's the South as seen by a child raised on 50s TV. It's all so cartoonish, so racist in the way it reduces these human beings to one dimensional ethnic stereotypes, that black novelist Ishmael Reed famously likened it to a Nazi conspiracy.Of course, in typical Spielberg fashion the film ends with family bonds being healed. This reconciliation was in Walker's novel, but Spielberg goes further by having every character in the story reconcile with their kin.Beyond Walker's hate letter to black men and Spielberg's bizarre caricaturing of black life, we are shown nothing of the black community. We have only the vaguest ideas as to how any of these characters make a living and no insight into how they interact with others in their community. Instead, Spielberg's camera jumps about, desperately fighting for our attention (one of Celie's kitchen contraptions seems like it belongs in a "Home Alone" movie), every emotion over played, the director never stopping to just observe something or to allow a little bit of life to simply pass by. Couple this with Quincy Jones' ridiculously "white" music, and you have one of the strangest films in cinema history: an angry feminist tract filmed by a white Jew in the style of Disney and Griffith, scored by a black man trying to emulate John Williams.Problematic too is the lack of white characters. Consider this: the men in this film aren't portrayed as being rough to each other, nor do they dominate women because they are brutalised by a racist society which reduces their manhood. No, they are cruel by nature. And the women, whether quietly suffering like Celie or rebellious and tough like her sister, persevere and survive only because the men are too stupid to destroy them. A better film would not have focused solely on the oppression of women as it occurs among the oppressed, rather, it would have shown that it is societal abuse which has led to spousal abuse, that enslaved black women are forced to perform the very same tasks as their male counterparts (whilst still fulfilling traditional female roles) and that African American domestic violence occurs largely because of economic factors, women unable to support themselves and their children alone.And so there's a hidden ideology at work here. Late in the film one character tells another that since he didn't respect his wife, she wound up getting severely beaten and imprisoned by whites. The implication is that blacks need to return to their African roots to restore their own dignity and that it is their fault that whites unjustly crush them. ie- Respect one another in your poor minority community and you won't run afoul of the dominant white culture. 3/10 - A failure to confront sex and lesbianism, inappropriate musical numbers, countless sequence loaded with extraneous visual pizazz, incongruous comic business, emphatic music cues, and wildly hyped emotionality, all contribute to rendering "The Color Purple" worthless.$LABEL$ 0
+There is really but one thing to say about this sorry movie. It should never have been made. The first one, one of my favourites, An American Werewolf in London, is a great movie, with a good plot, good actors and good FX. But this one? It stinks to heaven with a cry of helplessness.$LABEL$ 0
+This is one of the worst movies i have ever seen it's EXTREMELY boring with lots of boring dialog and has some VERY annoying characters and a laughable looking creature. The only reason i watched this piece of garbage is because it was on that 8 disc horror set i got. The plot is preposterous and totally stupid as is the finale. No blood what so ever except a few bloody marks on the creature, and a couple of bloody gunshot wounds. The acting is TERRIBLE!!. Richard Cardella is terrible as the sheriff and was quite laughable plus his character is annoying. Glen Roberts is the comic relief and was not funny at all!. Mark Siegel is extremely annoying and was also NOT FUNNY!. Bob Hyman is decent but not much more then that. Richard Garrison is annoying and had no chemistry with Kacey Cobb what so ever. Kacey Cobb is so so here and had no chemistry with Richard. Overall Avoid this piece of garbage at all costs! BOMB out of 5.$LABEL$ 0
+Isn't it depressing how the most violent cartoon on Cartoon Network is aimed at girls? While I'm not watching soldiers getting shot and blown up on Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, it would be nice if there was a cartoon or at least something on TV I could watch to satisfy my violent urges. And something that I would not get made fun of for watching. I did see some episodes (I should really be shot for this) and had to sit through the movie (now, where do I find a gun?), and it is quite clear that this lost its spark after the first few episodes. If you like seeing 500-foot monsters that can destroy huge cities in seconds getting slaughtered by toddlers about one foot tall, this is a must-see. But it does get very boring after a while, and with a show like this, even original ideas become chiefly dull. The movie just felt like one overlong episode (I can't remember any of it), and the villain should have been far more intimidating than a green monkey. This show is a laughing stock. It churns out the same basic premise episode after episode after episode, and though it may try to have some mystery and intrigue once in a while, the ending will always be the same - "The Powerpuff Girls save the day!" All is good and nice, but all is very, very repetitive... I give it 3 out of 10 for being the only danged cartoon on CN to revolve around violence, although it is aimed at girls, so I won't be tuning in for it ever. I've established myself as a fan of war and violence films and I won't have that reputation destroyed... 3/10$LABEL$ 0
+Pickup On South Street is one of the most brilliant movies ever made. An example of the directing: When Candy (Jean Peters) starts going through her purse and notices her wallet is missing, an alarm goes off in the background in the building she's in -- as if it's an alarm going off in her head. It's not cartoon-like -- it's subtly woven into the background in a way that strikes you on a subconscious level until you've seen the film a few times and it just "clicks" that there's an alarm bell going off when she starts frantically going through her bag.Richard Widmark is way on top of his game as a smart-alec -- he's really great -- but the highlight performance of the film was the first scene for "Moe," the street peddler/informer, played by Thelma Ritter. Later, in her apartment, you are not seeing a movie -- you're seeing a real person. I've never seen anyone "act" so real I felt like I was looking into a real room until Ritter's performance -- right down to the way her hair stuck out a bit when she removed her hat. About a million other things just *worked,* from the way Lightning Louie picks up money with his chopsticks to the way Candy's jewelry clicks when she flicks Moe's hand away from her brooch, to the way Moe gets the dollars and change from the police captain across the FBI guy's chest -- and even the way the captain opens his filing cabinet, like he's been doing it in that way in that room for many years. "Pickup On South Street" is detailed moves (directing) with consummate performances (acting) and superb now-nostalgic visuals of the day, such as the panel truck, the boards leading to the shack out on the water, the dumbwaiter, -- and the unforgettable place Skip stashes his pocket pickings. Wonderful stuff."Pickup On South Street" is also one of the few movies where, even though the characters aren't perfect, you do care about them -- perhaps because they have been somewhat branded by their pasts in ways that are hard to escape: Skip as a "three-time loser" and Candy as a youngish woman who has "knocked around" a lot. When these people behave a little more badly than you'd expect, it's in sort of novel ways that make it seem you're looking in at people you'd never otherwise imagine -- and yet you know that they are possible because the actors make them so recognizably human.$LABEL$ 1
+I found Darkness to be just too DARK. It had a kind of cool idea and some ambitious ideas, not bad action scenes and a few splashy moments to make you go UGH! BUT, it was underlit to the point of confusion. You don't really know what is always going on in the dark scenes and for a film that is shot on Super 8 Film, you already have all that nasty grain to deal with. As with Nathan Schiff movies, it's just too much. Director Leif Jonker seems to want to make an original film, but he lacks the know-how to do it. The camera is never pointed in the right place, lack of fundamentals such as how to shoot simple dialogue scenes and how to light a movie hurt as well. The actors are all pretty uneven and hammy. But despite these negatives, the music is good, the gore is plenty and ranges from silly putty to really good appliances. Is this a classic like it says? Is it worthy of the two discs worth of praise? NO. But it is a good first try. Now if these guys would stop patting themselves on the back about this movie (from what I understand here the only one they have ever finished) for a while and try again, they may do better.$LABEL$ 0
+The first music video I ever saw, Thriller, my mom told me that she took me home from the hospital and when we arrived, my sister had MTV on the TV and Thriller was playing, my mom said that I smiled. Silly I know, but I have loved Michael Jackson since that day, the music video Thriller inspired me to dance, still I have the dance memorized to this day. I even performed it for an audience 3 times! Words cannot describe the power of this song that makes you wanna sing and dance, but Michael of course had to raise the bar for MTV at the time by signing on American Werewolf in London director John Landis and directing the one, the only, Thriller.Michael and his date, Ola Ray, run out of gas in a dark, wooded area. They walk off into the forest, and Michael asks her if she would like to go steady. She accepts and he gives her a ring. He warns her, however, that he is not like other guys, no really, not like the other guys. A full moon appears, and Michael begins convulsing in agony – transforming into a horrifying werewolf! His date shrieks and runs away, but the werewolf catches up, knocking her down and begins lunging at her with its claws. The scene cuts away to a movie theater where Michael and his date are actually watching this scene unfold in a movie called Thriller. Michael smiles but his date is frightened, and tells him she's leaving. Michael catches up to her, and says that it's only a movie, but she doesn't like his jokes on her and she starts walking away. Michael and his date then walk down a foggy street, and he teases her with the opening verses of Thriller. They pass a graveyard, where corpses suddenly begin to rise from their graves as Vincent Price performs his rap. Michael and his date then find themselves surrounded by the zombies, and suddenly, Michael becomes a zombie himself. Michael and the undead perform an elaborate song and dance number together, followed by the chorus of Thriller.Thriller is arguably the best music video of all time, funny thing is people who wanna argue that is with other Michael Jackson videos, but what makes Thriller so special is the dance, the story, the effects, this at the time was the most expensive music video of it's day. Michael of course rose that bar again with his famous music video Scream and then again with Ghosts. But say what you will, Michael was the star of the 1980's, there was no celebrity like him, he loved the life, he lived it, breathed it and embraced it. Thriller is proof that he was willing to work to make the best and that's what we got with the legend that is Thriller.10/10$LABEL$ 1
+Films like this infuriate me simply because they don't deserve the funding that enables them to end up in my DVD player. This movie is ambiguous in its jacket blurb and even more impenetrable in its casting choices (why is Ms. Song a romantic interest? Did they just want an Asian woman in there, or does her unconvincingly wise character actually lend this "message" movie's story a fresh perspective)? One has very little to go on in approaching this film, and even less as the story unfolds. But a good hour into the proceedings, I realized the dull casting is all the casting agent could dredge up, the unconvincing character studies are the result of writers' brain-fart, and the story is amorphous and plagued by unsubtle references to the woes of capitalism, materialism, and getting ahead in the postmodern world. Towards the end of this film, just before I nodded off and missed the last two minutes, I got the sense that "Everything's Gone Green" is a product of "connections" in the world of film - someone with very little talent knew someone with very little directorial skill, knew someone with absolutely no marketing sense (but plenty of disposable ego) and out popped this dull and inefficient attempt at whimsy and humor-with-a-conscience nonsense. And this is what is most maddening - how many infinitely better scripts were passed over in favor of this almost unwatchable tripe? Skip this film, and feel good about yourself for doing so.$LABEL$ 0
+I've been waiting for a superhero movie like this for a long time. "Mystery Men" takes its place among the classic comic-strip spoofs on TV like "Batman" and "Captain Nice" and cartoons like "Underdog" and "Super Chicken." The same spirit lives in all of them: the comic tongue-in-cheek tone; the courage to aim for the heroic in life at the risk of looking ridiculous; the not-so-sure-footed way that these characters manage to prevail over their adversaries. It's the misfired spark of nobility igniting in the weak and the ordinary, and it's wonderful to see it glow so high and bright here."Mystery Men" opens on a party at a nursing home. I wish Kinka Usher had had the sense to give more energy and life to the old people in the scene. As it is, it looks like something George Romero might have devised. We need to get the feeling that these old people are as sharp as everyone else, or it feels patronizing. By the time the Red Eyes crash the festivities, you half expect Tom Waits who plays a weapons inventor with a penchant for ladies in their eighties to stand up and shout: "Just what this party needs--a little excitement!" If writer Neil Cuthbert had any sense, he would have had Waits mixing it up with the intruders and egging on the partiers to do the same. It would have made for a rousing beginning, and a better introduction of the troublesome trio: the Shoveler (William Macy); the Blue Raja (Hank Azaria); and Mr. Furious (Ben Stiller), who seem to come out of nowhere to save the day. There are many other problems to "Mystery Men" than I care to go into; among them that the villain Casanova Frankenstein needs to have as cultivated a sense of the absurd as the rest of the people in this movie, and he doesn't. Geoffrey Rush is the wrong actor for the part; he needs to be way over the top to make the conflict between good and evil a galvanic one. And Rush has never exhibited a talent for the outre. You hope for the ripe theatrics of a John Lithgow in "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai" or the dry, debonair diffidence of a Paul Freeman in "Raiders of the Lost Ark." Instead what we get is pastiche; something half-baked and not fully realized.There are too many ideas running through "Mystery Men" for anyone to tie them neatly together, and that may be its deepest problem. But whatever kind of a mess it is is the kind of mess I love. Ben Stiller has always seemed to be slumming in the roles he takes. This one is no exception, but he goes at it with such conviction that you come away feeling that he'd learned something about comedy growing up in a household run by Jerry Stiller and Anne Meara. His Roy is related to all the put-upon, overly sensitive, chronically defensive types that Woody Allen made popular. And whether it's wheedling his way into the affections of the waitress at his favorite hangout (the sleek Claire Forslani), or questioning the wisdom of a fellow superhero (Wes Studi as the Sphinx), or giving a new member of their "elite" group (Jeaneane Garofalo in what are possibly her funniest moments on screen) a hard time, he makes it always fun to watch. I couldn't exactly say that about him in "There's Something About Mary."Jeaneane Garofalo proves with this performance that she should have been the star of "One True Thing," not Renee Zellweger. I don't think I have ever seen funnier exchanges between a daughter and father (okay, so he's dead and his skull is in a bowling ball, so sue me) in the movies. And the funny part about this role is that it feels like a screwball reprise of Emily Watson's spellbinding talks with God in "Breaking the Waves." And in this version, the girl doesn't die, and bells don't ring in your head.William H. Macy does something very difficult; he makes stolid magnetic. You understand right away what's attracted Jenifer Lewis' Lucille to Eddie. You can also understand her exasperation. The barbecue alone would be enough to drive me over the edge, but when Eddie's adorable, half-breed son looks up at his father and says "I believe in you, Daddy." to which Lucille sighs and exclaims, "Roland, don't encourage your father," you feel like standing and hailing Neil Cuthbert as a first-rate wit. With Hank Azaria (whose only moment of note in film up to this point was his bare behind in "The Birdcage") and Louise Lasser (Has it been more than two decades since we first took note of her in "Bananas" and "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman?") as son and mother who share a fondness for silverware; Greg Kinnear as Captain Amazing and Ricky Jay as his publicist; Kel Mitchell as "Invisible Boy"; Paul Reubens as "The Spleen;" and Lena Olin who, if she didn't have the few lines in this movie that she has, would seem to be visiting the set.$LABEL$ 1
+"Grey Matter" AKA "The Brain Machine" but the video people thought better of that; the screen says 1972 but IMDb says 1977; it's that kind of movie. The government has some kind of overriding interest in this 'brain machine' project that has drafted four people - who turn out to be, roughly, a philosopher, a horny priest, a crackpot veteran and a patriot who got an abortion - to sit in a shrinking room with a computer that can read their horrendous secret thoughts. In the end the government takes over the lab by force and everybody dies. Here is a movie that is incompetent in every important way; MY s*** has better production values than this. It held my interest, though, just to see what exactly these exploitation filmmakers thought they were doing, dabbling in four-guys-in-a-room character drama. The answer: a tract about how science is inferior to God. Thanks a lot. It's like opening a Kinder egg and getting your 30th goddam jigsaw puzzle. The priest is played by James "Roscoe P. Coltrane" Best, the philosopher by Gerald "the Republican Simon" McRaney. Also featuring very, very, very long establishing and transition shots in great quantity, this moves almost as slow as the Liberal convention.$LABEL$ 0
+What makes for Best Picture material? The Oscars have come in for a lot of stick for rewarding overblown spectacles that have aged poorly, and ignoring the "auteurs" who would be deified in decades to come. It wasn't because Hollywood was against art or creativity. The Academy Awards are the selections made by the industry itself, and that is why, at least in the classic era, they tended to reward the greatest collaborations, the most sensational meetings of creative minds.The Arthur Freed unit at MGM had been bound for Oscar-winning glory for several years by this point; it was only a matter of time before Freed, aided by his strongest director Vincente Minnelli and some the finest musical stars in the business, would land a Best Picture. Freed had arguably done more to raise the status of the musical than anyone else, crafting pictures which wove story and song together without losing the dynamic spectacle of the 30s musicals. The point about Freed musicals, is that the lyrics of the songs, unlike those of Hammerstein or Lerner, don't have to tell or even relate to the stories. What's important is that the tone of the song and the way it is presented fit into the structure of the film.An American in Paris was the first of three Freed musicals (the other two being Singin' in the Rain and The Band Wagon) which took existing classic numbers out of their original context and made them work in a completely unrelated story. The words don't fit the plot, but the routines fit the show. So, when Gene Kelly sings I Got Rhythm, he hasn't even got a girl yet, but the way it's done with the French kids joining in is a great bit of characterisation, and the upbeat tune and dance gives the movie the little lift it needs at this point. An American in Paris also uses the rule-breaking allowed in the genre to add little unconventional flights of fancy to tell the story, such as the series of dances which accompany the description of Leslie Caron's character.And what better director for this project than Minnelli, himself a painter and a pianist? At this time there wasn't really anyone who had a better feel for Technicolor. While some directors would saturate each scene in one colour or fill the screen with clashing shades, Minnelli's colour schemes are tightly controlled but never look forced. In the opening scenes the tones are fairly muted, but not drab, and in particular there is an absence of red. During Oscar Levant and Georges Guetary's meeting in the café, a few more vibrant shades are introduced. Then, during the first musical number, "By Strauss" Minnelli gradually brings in splashes of red – a table cloth, a bunch of roses – until it eventually dominates, as if the song has awoken the picture's colour scheme. For most of the songs, the colours are choreographed as intricately as the people. However, in some numbers, such as "Tra-la-la" he keeps the shades the same and instead opens out the space as the song swells up and the characters become more animated.The Achilles' heel of An American in Paris is its story. I personally find the romantic angle particularly unpalatable, playing as it does like a last hurrah for the misogynistic love stories that reigned supreme in the 30s; the headstrong, independent woman gets rejected while the meek, delicate girl is harassed into loving the hero. Even if you don't mind that, it is difficult to connect emotionally with the story because it is constantly overshadowed by the songs and dances. Compare this to Singin' in the Rain, which doesn't really have as many great routines or memorable set-pieces as An American in Paris, but it has a winning storyline. Singin' in the Rain was overlooked at the 1952 Oscars, yet it is regarded as a classic of the genre today. But I think people sometimes forget that cinema is an all-encompassing form of visual entertainment, not just a means of telling a story. An American in Paris is not deep or engaging or tear-jerking but, like a certain DeMille picture that won the top award the following year, it certainly is a great show.$LABEL$ 1
+'Flight Of Fury' is a shockingly dire but worst of all boring Action Film - I don't expect a lot from a Seagal Film, all I expect is to be moderately entertained for 90 or so minutes with some mindless action -unfortunately this doesn't even achieve that low expectation, The action scenes are few and far between, the plot (which is totally irrelevant in these Films) is needlessly complicated and confusing with huge plot holes throughout, The acting is truly abysmal - bordering on embarrassing with Seagal and his whispering One expression performance being the best among the sorry lot of 3rd raters - I find it hard to believe that anything close to $12M was spent on this dire mess unless $11M of that 12 was Seagal's Salary - I somehow doubt it! The one moment of any interest to Straight guys or gay girls is that out of seemingly nowhere two hot chicks end up in a lesbian sex scene of sorts complete with huge baps on display other than that - It's mediocre stuff which is no different to many of the Michael Dudikoff B-Movies I've endured1/10$LABEL$ 0
+I hate to comment on something I didn't finish, but if I spare one person what I sat through for almost an hour before turning it off in disgust, it will be worth it. I decided to watch this with an open mind, knowing it was on the bottom 100.Bad idea. I usually love crude humor, or can at least tolerate it. I love so-called "black" comedies. I'm not easily offended, either. It started off okay and quickly went downhill. I laughed a few times (for example, when the main character got stuck in the airplane toilet), but that was it and didn't compensate for the strong disgust I felt.I didn't laugh when the dog got sucked into a jet engine. I usually can't see the humor in animals dying (except in Animal House). I didn't laugh at much else of the nastiness, either. I turned it off after an incident involving a blind man and a baked potato that I don't care to repeat the details of, only that the wave of nausea still hasn't passed over me. Simply put, it was smut-filled and simply not funny with barely any plot. This is one of the times when if you don't have something nice to say, you should get the word out.Don't say I didn't warn you.$LABEL$ 0
+Yet another film about a tortured self-centered, arrogant, unfeeling hateful, self-destructive lead character we are supposed to care about.Don't get me wrong I am very open to all kinds of off the wall movies that have as the lead character a strongly self-destructive character. What I object to about this one is that there is so little background to this guy. Why did this guy hate himself and the world? Had the script dealt with this more they might have managed to elicit some sympathy for him. As it is he just comes off as an unpleasant hateful character, not tragic, just hateful.After taking great pains to make this guy as crazy and anti-social as possible and making his fate as dark as possible the writer then has the nerve to make a happy ending....This is not the worst film I have ever seen but it is in there putting up a good fight! Man! Don't waste your time.$LABEL$ 0
+A wonderful story...so beautiful told..so intense so whit no keyboard to describe I think...,go see it feel it...,it tell's a story about love ,romance ,war,and be trail so wonderful so full of romance if you love romance see it ,if you don't love romance ,drama well skip it that's all I can I vote 10 out of 10 stars wonderful...$LABEL$ 1
+It is the best movie released in Bollywood upto date. The best comedy, the best acting and the best direction till now! Rajkumar Santoshi's writing and direction proved that he is one of the best directors in the industry. Aamir Khan was absolutely amazing, Salman Khan looked good the way he acted. Shakti Kapoor was good, but Jagdeep over acted as usual! This comedy is still copied by people and no other writers and directors have been able to make this thing again! Even Rajkumar Santoshi hasn't been able to make this cult classic again! This movie was a flop when it released but it has been a cult classic since it released and loved by all kinds of people.STAR.ACTING 10/10.DIALOGUES 10/10.SCREENPLAY 10/10.DIRECTION 10/10.MUSIC 9/10.LYRICS 9/10.Overall, This movie is strongly recommended. If you didn't watch it till now, you missed something big! It is a laugh riot and the best comedy i have seen till date! Classic Films like Hera Pheri, Golmaal and Jaane Bhi Do Jaaro are not even half as funny as this.GREAT MOVIE, HATS OFF!!!!$LABEL$ 1
+An American in Paris is a wonderful musical about an American painter living in Paris for inspiration. He meets a rich woman who admires his paintings on the street and she believes she can get his work to be even more popular to the public, e.g. in a museum. Golden Globe nominated Gene Kelly as the artist Jerry Mulligan is just perfect at both singing and especially dancing. He also meets the main girl Lise Bouvier (Leslie Caron) who is engaged to his best friend. He can't help his feelings for this girl, even after he finds out who she is engaged to. Filled with nice romance and wonderful song and dance, this is a very good musical film. It may drag slightly with his dancing dream sequence, i.e. The American in Paris ballet, but there is a good happy ending. It won the Oscars for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Music, Scoring of a Musical Picture, Best Writing, Story and Screenplay and Best Picture, and it was nominated for Best Director for Vincente Minnelli and Best Film Editing, it was nominated the BAFTA for Best Film from any Source, and it won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical/Comedy, and it was nominated for Best Director for Vincente Millenni (Liza's father). Gene Kelly was number 66 on The 100 Movie Stars, and he was number 15 on 100 Years, 100 Stars - Men, "I Got Rhythm" was number 32 on 100 Years, 100 Songs, the film was number 9 on 100 Years of Musicals, it was number 39 on 100 Years, 100 Passions, it was number 68 on 100 Years, 100 Movies, and it was number 58 on The 100 Greatest Musicals. Very good!$LABEL$ 1
+Making the film as dark and visually fuzzy as possible in order to cover up the budget deficiencies is an often-used strategy in low-budget horror films, but this one takes it too far. It is SO poorly lit and murky (and it takes place almost entirely at night, to boot) that you often end up virtually looking at a black screen (although perhaps the bad video transfer may also have had something to do with that). Alas, "murky" is also the best word to describe the movie's plot. The filmmakers throw in diverse (and unoriginal) horror ideas without any semblance of logic, and halfway through you get the feeling that they just about abandoned the effort to make a good horror film; you know it when you see characters who are supposed to be in mortal danger (or, in some occasions, even dead) making small talk....(*1/2)$LABEL$ 0
+Solomon and Sheba has come down in Hollywood lore not for the quality of the film, but for the fact that Tyrone Power died while making it. I was in the 5th grade and well remember the huge news for days when that tragedy happened. I didn't know who Tyrone Power was then, but I learned and learned to appreciate the body of his work.I often wonder if Ty had a sense about this film and what a dud it proved. He was the unnamed producer of this as well. Maybe he just didn't want to face the critics. Good thing Power actually went out with Witness for the Prosecution although you can see him in long shots if you look close. What we have here is a biblical stew that probably would baffle the great Solomon himself. Several incidents described in the Bible that the Bible treats separately are woven together into one plot with a few additions tossed in by Hollywood. The actual story about the Queen of Sheba is that she went on a trade mission to the Kingdom of Israel, chatted Solomon up a bit, came back with a lot of trade goods and that was that. The story of a romance between her and Solomon is of legend. The ancient kingdom of Sheba is about where Yemen is now and her people purportedly moved to the African continent which is how Ethiopia was founded.The Queen never witnessed Solomon's famous case involving the two women with separate claims for a baby, nor was she involved with the building of the First Temple. Nor was she around for the destruction of same. For that matter neither was Solomon.And she was not involved in the dispute over the succession when Solomon's brother Adonijah put in a counterclaim. That is the heart of this film. Adonijah upon hearing the news that King David is dying declares himself king. Of course David rallies temporarily and says that God came to him and said Solomon should succeed him. When David hears about what Adonijah did, he says that's what got God all bent out of shape, Adonijah being greedy. After that Adonijah gets to plotting.Things seem to come full circle in that Ty Power collapsed on the set while dueling with George Sanders as Adonijah. Sanders and Power were rivals in many films, most particularly in Lloyds of London which was Power's breakthrough role. If Sanders is not quite the jaded sophisticate he was in Samson and Delilah, he's still Sanders the biblical cad.When Power died Yul Brynner was brought in to play Solomon and given a wig so that existing footage of Power in long shot could be salvaged. Brynner invests the dialog with the proper dignity, but I think he probably regretted doing the pinch hitting.Gina Lollobrigida is the Queen of Sheba and she is alluring as a biblical temptress in the Cecil B. DeMille tradition. She seems not to have any real conviction and my guess is she was shocked at Power's sudden demise and having to do it all over again. Marisa Pavan as Abishag may give the best performance in the film.The real story with Adonijah is not as elaborate as this film. He disputed with Solomon for the succession and gathered around a group of some of King David's court as supporters. Solomon pardoned them once and then Adonijah asked for Abishag in marriage. Abishag in the Bible and here was an adopted daughter of King David in his old age. When Solomon hears that, he decides Adonijah is getting greedy again and has him killed. The Bible mentions someone named Berniah who was going around basically doing contract hits on Adonijah's supporters.What we have in the film is a spectacular climax involving a miracle that I searched for and couldn't find. It came from the fertile imagination of director King Vidor who ended a long and distinguished career on a sour note. It was a question of Vidor trying to out do Cecil B. DeMille in biblical spectacle. He didn't make it.$LABEL$ 0
+What can I say? I got up this morning and turned on sci-fi and watched half of the first season and figured it all out. Strange, unusual, and brilliant. It gives all potential, and to think at first I said this looks stupid. This has got to be the next best thing since X-Files, but as always nothing will ever take down that show in my opinion. I am telling you, it's scary and then suspenseful and then mellow. Towards the end you have Miles as a love puppy with a weird pet that is a new species. You have two people on the run from authorities. And a killer tsunami about to strike! Wow! And did I mention Miles pet is a potential killer(well the rest of his species is). Surface is a brilliant show with spins and twists that delivers it all.$LABEL$ 1
+Overall, I enjoyed this film and would recommend it to indie film lovers.However, I really want to note the similarities between parts of this film and Nichols' Closer. One scene especially where Adrian Grenier's character is questioning Rosario Dawson's about her sex life while he was away is remarkably similar to the scene in Closer where Clive Owen's character is questioning Julia Roberts, although it is acted with less harshness and intensity in "Love." Also note that "Anna" is the name of both Dawson's and Roberts' character. Can't be coincidence. Now Closer is based on Patrick Marber's play and supposedly this film is loosely based on Arthur Schnitzler's "Reigen" so I'm not sure how this connection formed.Anyone have an idea?$LABEL$ 1
+I have seen several Yul Brynner films--yet this is his best performance as the camera captures his emotions in close up as he snarls, smiles, and laughs. Brynner might have been equally arresting in Ten Commandments, Taras Bulba, The Magnificent Seven, The Brother Karamazov and the Mad Woman of Chaillot but none of these films have captured his range of talent in close ups as in this one. He is arresting and tantalizing to watch in every shot.Equally fascinating and sexy, without removing her clothes, is Deborah Kerr. The script allows her to exude a sensuality that is not visual but suggestive--she reprised this sort of role years later in The Night of Iguana. The film does not suggest that she slept with anyone to help with the release of the group from the clutches of the Russians in fact she is shown as running away from the Russian Major (in contrast to the Maupassant story or the Isak Denisen story). Yet the film bursts with suggested but real physical allure of the Kerr character.Kerr can never be classified as a beautiful actress in my view, but she is a superb actress. She puts her soul into dignifying the characters that she portrays, which often clashes with the spirit of the character. It is this contradiction that makes her roles in The journey, Quo Vadis, and The Night of Iguana memorable.Why is this an unusual film? It is not easy in Hollywood to see Russian characters portrayed as good people--Dr Zhivago was an exception. Brynner's Romance of a Horse Thief was again great cinema by Abraham Polonsky but never acknowledged as such because of the intolerance towards Leftists in the post-McCarthy era.The film is also unusual in its casting--great French actors Gerard Oury and Anouk Aimee--rub shoulders with Jason Robards Jr and British actor Robert Morley. In many ways the film is international than American. All four are great actors and add to the entertainment.Those who have read Maupassant and Denisen's works will find the film is not true to either work. Yet the film can stand on its own as its sanitized (censored?) version has a dignified charm of its own--provided by the reality of the night that led to the release of the group. I think Litvak deserves to have the last laugh in providing an interesting and plausible twist to the tales that led to the making of the film, while entwining bits of both written tales (e.g. the last bus ride and the final kiss)But I do have one grouse--why do Hollywood never acknowledge the sources that inspire the stories? Only recently (e.g., Insomnia) have the original works begun to be mentioned prominently in the credits.$LABEL$ 1
+Episode two of season one is a delightful holiday tale of love, betrayal,...and a homicidal, escaped lunatic dressed as Father Christmas.A woman (Mary Ellen-Trainor)has just murdered her hubby on Christmas Eve for his life insurance. What begins as a perfect crime begins a struggle to survive as a deranged, Santa Clause suit wearing psychopath (Larry Drake, perfectly over the top) threatens her life...as well as her precious young daughters.This episode is warmly remembered by even those casually acquainted with the program. By the way,this particular reviewer watches it every Christmas on routine. Most notable for it's escalating suspense and narrative twists, And All Through The Houst is among Tales From The Crypt's best.$LABEL$ 1
+Not all films made in 1931 are this creaky, and the fact that this was "Best Picture" must have given even greater impetus to the development of television.Typical of all Ferber novels, it isn't possible to bring the entire story to the screen, to say nothing of developing character. Dix -- so stolid in the first third of the movie -- does an about face, but no one knows why and it makes no sense. And what is there about Dunne that makes makes her so stoical? Edna May Oliver's scenes are priceless, as usual.This film has a role to play in the history of cinema, but it is long and boring.$LABEL$ 0
+I am very open minded. I watch all kinds of programs to the end...good or bad...just to give them a chance and learn from the good aspects and bad ones. This show had potential to be good. But my god, what were the writers, casting director, and director thinking? The cast of actors are terrible...with the slightest exception of Meryl (Mimi Rogers), and Darcy (Joy Osmanski) being given occasional good lines with the best execution of the lot.The rest of the cast kill the show. It is the same story line in every episode. Sam has plans to do something. His boss disrupts these plans by assigning him ridiculous work projects. Then the foolish ways Sam tries to accommodate both in a manner that is primarily stupid and lacks any real intelligent humor. This is EVERY episode. It gets very tiring.Season 2, they ditch the eye candy. The 2 "hot" girls in the show get written out (yet the brother stays? explain that casting cut to me please). I can see why they wrote them out...they had no substantial role...but they didn't add anyone better to replace them.The cocky Derek Tricolli character is given a continuous appearance in season 2. His acting (along with everyone else's) resembles many poor sitcoms from the 80's...might have been funny then...but painful now.the show could have been so much better with a few good writers and some people who had any talent to execute them. This show lacks everything. Production quality is the only good aspect of the show. It is great in that regard...unfortunately the content is painfully sad.My god. FOX, was there really nothing better to choose from? I'm sticking with shows like "It's always Sunny in Philadelphia" or "30 Rock" for now. The bar should be set by programs like these that actually assume the audience are intelligent and aren't continually drooling on themselves using all their brain power on continuing to breathe.$LABEL$ 0
+This is an excellent Anderson production worth comparing with the best episodes of UFO or SPACE 1999 (first series). Of course it isn't some SFX extravaganza or Star Wars pseudo-mystic tripe fest, but a subtle movie that has a slow pace, yet it conveys the creepy, eerie and uncanny atmosphere of the best Anderson productions: for lovers of 'cerebral' sci-fi. Lynn Loring's voice is ABSOLUTELY AWFUL. SFX are good for this kind of product and acting is good as well. Two astronauts visit a planet on the opposite side of the sun but crash land home instead...or do they? Ah, videophones! Every now and then peddled as the next 'everyone's gadget next decade' but still to happen 40 years later. The device of Earth's twin planet on the opposite side of the sun also returns in Gamera tai daiakuju Giron (1969), so who copied whom?$LABEL$ 1
+I got subjected to this pile one Wednesday afternoon when my mother-in-law was watching it. I can't get over someone basically doing a remake of a crappy high budget Hollywood flop ("the CORE" with washed up actors like Luke Perry). If the HIGH budget one flopped, what makes people think doing the SAME movie 2 years later with NO budget would go anywhere? I was laughing through most of the movie because of how insanely similar it was (in fact I am shocked it's not held up in Legal rather than airing on TV), and how it was basically the script of the CORE just redone badly, which if you have seen "the Core", you know why doing it worse is funny, since the CORE was ALREADY so bad it was funny.If you enjoy getting a laugh out of REALLY bad movies, this one will be right up your alley. The only thing I can say, is that I wish Luke Perry was able to have a career, because he isn't a horrible actor.. he just lands horrible roles. Crappy made for TV movies that will only run on daytime television is pretty much one step closer to the end for him, if it wasn't for 90210 he would have a career.$LABEL$ 0
+This show is so full of action, and everything needed to make an awsome show.. but best of all... it actually has a plot (unlike some of those new reality shows...). It is about a transgenic girl who escapes from her military holding base.. I totally suggest bying the DVDs, i've already preordered them... i suggest you do to...$LABEL$ 1
+The inspiration for this film was the fact that American Gangsters are well dresses, but the Aussies, well when you might kill a guy as soon as look at the blighter, then you can dress as badly as you want and people won't criticize you.Jimmy is fighter, an illegal boxer, sometimes bouncer and is offered work by Pando, the local gangster boss in the cross (That is, Australia's notorious Kings Cross District, not the Cross of London fame as many a British backpacker finds out the hard way).Due to feelings of love he stuffs up a job, loses a lot of money and has to get it to Pando before Pando and his heavies can kill him.Lots of dark humour, interesting action, revelations about the Australia's underside and human nature. It is very centred in the Australian nature and explores the nature of Australian criminals (versus the American and British ones).One problem is that each of the elements of the story don't have enough substance and depth, but it is a painting with broad strokes that covers a lot of area not covered previously, so as an overall package it is worthwhile.Team it up with "Chopper" and "Dirty Deeds" for your Aussie Crime fest or "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" and "Miller's Crossing" for an International falling short of the criminal gangs fest.By the way, Bryan Brown is a great actor who has just done a huge number of really bad movies. Here is one of his great movies.$LABEL$ 1
+I have to say that Grand Canyon is one of the most affecting films I've ever seen. I've watched it several times now and I still feel as I did the first time; that this film, by itself, could make up the entire curriculum of a post-graduate course in film direction. A long time ago film trailers used to promise, "It'll make you laugh, it'll make you cry." That's a very trite and shorthand method of describing what Grand Canyon does. It takes you to the best places in human experience and the next moment takes you to the gates of hell. Much of the film is paced to cycle back and forth between people being close to happiness and the same people being close to horror. It's always a short step, too. Just to manage that swing with grace and without making it look false or exaggerated is directorial genius.Spoiler (of sorts) coming up. After getting the audience used to rocking back and forth through the emotional spectrum, the film throws a curve with a sequence that doesn't go from good to bad and back but instead escalates from an ordinary marital spat, through an accidental self-inflicted knife wound that may or may not require stitches, to an earthquake that has the characters run from the house. In the moment of their relief, argument forgotten, cut finger forgotten, the earthquake survived, a neighbor woman calls out that her elderly husband has collapsed. The couple rushes to his aid. I cried when I saw this sequence. I cried every time I saw it. I'm crying now. It isn't sadness that does this to me. It's not a particularly sad sequence. What tears me up is that this few minutes of film was PERFECT. That's PERFECT! Astounding. (end of spoiler)There's so much to say about Grand Canyon. It portrays relatively ordinary people experiencing epiphanies and it lets the viewer experience them vicariously. They aren't showy or overblown and there's no long pause to examine the moment carefully. The film moves on at the pace of life. Even when the characters do try to make sense of what has happened, they are uncertain of what to derive from their experience. Grand Canyon is a very human film.$LABEL$ 1
+CQ is incredibly slow, and I'm a David Mamet fan. The movie follows around a young filmmaker who is making a very Barbarella-esque film. After that the movie started to lose me. Deep and profound? Not really. The movie "Dragonfly" being made in CQ has the problem of having no ending. This greatly parallels CQ, which also lacks an ending (in my opinion).I was lucky enough to catch this movie at the SxSW film festival. I had fairly high expectations having just watched Y Tu Mama Tambien and several other great movies. I was also looking forward to Jason Schwartzman's performance. But it was not an easy film to get into. If you're not into 60's sci-fi or slow movies that go no where, skip it.CQ feels like a student film. If you want a recent sci-fi-esque indie film rent Donnie Darko, it won't put you to sleep.$LABEL$ 0
+Follow-up to 1965's "My Name Is Barbra", and shot in brilliant color, "Color Me Barbra" has La Streisand alternating nostalgia, clowning comedy, feminine romantic angst, and beguiling seriousness for a crazy-quilt hour of show-biz razzle dazzle. She's a cut-up and a femme fatale, a sprite and an enigma. With her Egyptian eye make-up and ever-changing hairstyles, she's also a chameleon. Her voice is rich and moving, even if a few of her songs are not ("One Kiss", "Yesterdays"). The circus sequence isn't as intriguing as the museum trip (with the conceit of Barbra becoming the images in the paintings, an idea which works better than you may think). The circus-medley (built around songs featuring the word "face"!) is girlishly cute without ever really becoming enchanting. Still, this is a lively, jazzy special--not quite as emotionally tantalizing as "My Name Is Barbra", but certainly a sterling sophomore effort.$LABEL$ 1
+hello there; i would just like to say how much i enjoyed your review and comments about that excellent film 'intruder in the dust'. i believe that the points you made were insightful, intelligent and totally valid. it's also a shame that this film is hardly ever shown on TV these days and that it isn't available on DVD region 2 - i live in england. once again, many thanks for your review. the actor juano hernandez was in another brilliant film, 'young man with a horn', which also starred kirk douglas and lauren bacall. that was a very evocative and stylish film with some superb music. i wish that someone with influence could release the entire back catalogues of films like 'johnny belinda', 'i remember mama', and 'the yearling' on DVD region 2, we love these movies in great Britain. i'm not of pensionable age, i'm still reasonably young and my family and i love classic films!!films like these were so beautifully made and they bring back wonderful memories. anyway...! many thanks for your comments!$LABEL$ 1
+If this is the best Commander Hamilton movie, I have no curiosity about the others.A movie actor's greatest tools are his eyes, but when Peter Stormare wants to show great emotion, he closes his, so for five or six seconds we get to admire his eyelids while his feelings remain unknown behind them. Lousy acting technique.Stormare also flinches sometimes when he fires a gun, turning his head away and clamping his eyes shut. Watch carefully. James Bond can rest easy with competition like this.There are some interesting supporting performances from other actors, but not enough to hang a whole movie on. The cinematography is good-looking, doing a fine job of capturing the Nordic cold. Even the Sahara winds up looking cold. Perhaps Hamilton carries his own climate with him.There are some individual good action sequences here. Unfortunately, the only sense of humor on screen belongs to the villain, which turns the hero into a big pill. James Bond's jokes may not be particularly good, but at least he doesn't look constipated all the time.One positive point in the movie's favor is that the psychotic, contorted, vicious hatred of Israel in Guillou's books has been left out. What has been kept in is worship of a noble, heroic PLO, that he shows us functioning in Libya without the dictator Khaddafi's knowledge or supervision. This fantasy is hard to believe, since Khaddafi actually threw the PLO out of Libya for four years at a time. And at the end of the film, Hamilton gives the PLO a very disturbing gift. Where will they use that gift? Hamilton doesn't care.We're a long, long way away from "For Whom the Bell Tolls" here.Commander Hamilton will remain a local phenomenon. While Henning Mankell's books sell well around the world, Jan Guillou will never have the same success.As for this film, bleeeeaaahhhhh.$LABEL$ 0
+Yeah, I know his character was supposed to be a drunk, and he may have been just acting goofy. But something tells this critic that Mr. Pleasence really was drinking a lot and was intoxicated during his scenes in the film. Basically everything he says is slurred and often unintelligible. Or maybe it was just the poor productions values... hard to say.Anyway, The Race for the Yankee Zephyr is a film that just doesn't work. That's a shame, too, since the film has a terrific opening and a generally interesting plot. Ultimitely the production values are just too low and the action just too sparse for this New Zealand adventure to deliver the goods. The story deals with a US war plane which is filled with gold, money, and medals, which crashes into a lake in New Zealand during WWII. The plane remains lost for about forty years or so until it somehow washes ashore and a drunk (Pleasence) literally stumbles onto it. At first he gathers up all the purple heart medals and tries to sell them in town, actually getting $75 apiece for them! Little does he know that once he sells them, the local jeweler gets on the phone and starts trying to track down info about the plane. Before you can blink, all of the attention brings a wealthy scumbag (Peppard) and his henchmen into town and they quickly try to force the old guy to give up the location of the plane since they know there is much more on it than just medals. The old drunk's business partner (Wahl) and his daughter (Warren) then race out to try and claim the fortune before the bad guys can get to it. The resulting action just isn't as fun as you'd hope it would be.The acting is rather awful, save for Pleasence. George Peppard tries to do some kind of (I guess) Austrailian accent, but it is hardly convincing. Lesley Ann Warren isn't too bad, but Ken Wahl is really bad. He's basically doing his best impression of Michael Pare on his worst day. And that's saying something. Hopefully he made enough money on this film to fix his front teeth which looked a bit crooked. I don't recall if he'd had them straightened by the time he was in Wiseguy. The rest of the cast are pretty untalented. Probably mostly locals who never did much else. I guess the biggest problems for me were the lack of action for much of the film, and the lack of danger. The villains are just too nice and goofy to be taken seriously. And honestly, there are NO helicopters in the film that look like the ones on the DVD cover. And none of the boats in the film have teeth painted on them, either.The film does have its strengths, though. The beginning which starts off as a newsreel and then becomes part of the story was a nice touch. Brian May's score sounds a little too much like the one in Mad Max 2, but he included a nice little march they play for Pleasence in some scenes. Sounds just like the one in the Great Escape! There are some neat helicopter stunts and a great boat chase that apparently killed three stunt men during filming. The scenery, despite the grainy look of the picture, is still quite beautiful. The thing you'll remember most is the drunken antics of Donald Pleasence, though. He was almost enough to save this film. Almost. 4 of 10 stars.The Hound.$LABEL$ 0
+'In The Line Of Fire' tells the story of the game between an old presidential bodyguard and a former-government assassin turned psycho. The secret service agent/bodyguard (Eastwood) is on defense and the assassin (Malkovich)is on offense. The stakes? The president's live.I really like this movie...I've seen it numerous times on TV and have recently bought it on DVD. Yet, it's not an excellent movie. The plot is way too thin and the attempts to thicken it are downright ridiculous. The whole love-story isn't very plausible and the way they brought an extra character into the story, just to be able to kill it off is kind of insulting to the more or less intelligent viewer. Though I feel these mistakes can't be forgiven, I can easily look past them to Mr. Malkovich exquisite performance. I've always deemed him to be a great actor but in this movie he's really on fire. There's a reason why he got an Academy Award nomination. Rene Russo and Clint Eastwood were okay, but I don't deem their performance to be memorable. They're never at the best of their abilities.If you don't expect too much, you'll certainly like this movie. It's no masterpiece but John Malkovich is really extraordinary and I don't think anyone can't enjoy his performance. Really worth the watch...$LABEL$ 1
+During the War for Southern Independence, GENERAL SPANKY mobilizes his forces to defend the local women & children against a Yankee invasion.In 1936, Hal Roach decided it was time for his popular OUR GANG kids to branch out into occasional feature-length films. With the big success of Shirley Temple in two Civil War period movies in 1935 (THE LITTLE COLONEL, THE LITTLEST REBEL), it was only natural that Roach would look in that same direction for his GANG. Although given a rather lavish production and distributed by MGM, GENERAL SPANKY was not a critical or box-office success. The little GANGsters would henceforth stick to short subjects.Although he's given top billing & the title role, George ‘Spanky' McFarland is rivaled throughout the film's first half by little Billie ‘Buckwheat' Thomas. Here were two of the finest young actors to ever appear in American movies. With all the experience of old, seasoned pros, these two gamin could steal scenes & hearts with equal bravado. A constant joy, without a false note between them, they provide the essential reason for watching the film today.Phillips Holmes gives a quiet, gentlemanly performance as Spanky's adult protector. Nearly forgotten now, Holmes was a fine actor who died much too soon, during World War Two. Genial Ralph Morgan is especially good as a sympathetic Union general - his scenes with Spanky are quite amusing.Other OUR GANGers appear midpoint into the movie, most notably Carl ‘Alfalfa' Switzer; he gets to warble ‘Just Before The Battle, Mother.' Even pretty Rosina Lawrence (the GANG's schoolmarm) shows up to play Holmes' beloved.Irving Pichel is particularly slimy as a cowardly cardsharp turned vindictive Yankee captain. Bumbling Willie Best & feisty Louise Beavers play Miss Lawrence's slaves.It should be noted that there is racism in the film, not unusual for Hollywood of that era - but almost completely missing in the original series of OUR GANG shorts.Fans of 19th Century music will enjoy paying attention to the soundtrack, which is a long succession of ancient tunes.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was a suprise for me while I was surfing from channel to channel... I don't know why but it filled in me with warmth and happiness. This is what a high budget movie can not do mostly. I liked it, this is "a must see" one...$LABEL$ 1
+Heaven, Mary and all the Saints above! A young man has got super sperm, it's miracle bejesus, call the Pope, all you ladies out their desperate to get preggers, line up out side his door and drop your marks and sparks finest! Risible retro ealing comedy type comedy, trying to bring you a bit of the auld Irish charm. Has an effect like placing two fingers down your own throat, voamitus maximus! One out of ten!$LABEL$ 0
+If you are going to watch this film because Michael Caine or Michael Gambon are in it then don't bother, it's not their typical role although I found Gambon fantastic. Instead watch it for Dylan Moran I am a fan of everything I have seen him in and this is no exception, I didn't even realise he could act but even the characters which he has to pass himself off as I found completely believable, which is impressive considering the audience knows they are fake.The plot is genius and although it is not constant laughs all the way through it has plenty of other charms. A great film for people with a sense of humour.$LABEL$ 1
+i strongly recommend it to anybody who likes good plots, good actors (even if not well known)(often, it's just better that way), science and/or science fiction presented in an intelligent way on the (small) screen, good special effects even if they did not have billions of dollars to produce it... much better than any war in the stars...there was only one comment which was not necessary: talking about the comet, the commentator says that LIFE was maybe brought on earth through a comet... that's fun, there must be always a chance for a magic way, huh?! That's what's great about LIFE, can come anywhere, no need of extern force$LABEL$ 1
+I happened to rent this movie with my sister in hopes of watching a great entertaining movie, that was humorous, however my expectations were let down. This movie was beyond disgusting and revolting for a PG-13 movie, this should have been rated R for the many mature references that went on in this movie. I wouldn't recommend allowing a 13 year old teen see this.Even if no one under the age of 17 is watching this movie, beware of a truly stupid movie, there's no humor in the movie, just a bunch of disgusting sexual references including a small touch of pedophilia, something that shouldn't even be joked about. I would like to know what happened to PG-13 movies, that were actually safe for actual a 13 year old? This is beyond a deplorable movie and should be re-rated.$LABEL$ 0
+With movies like this you know you are going to get the usual jokes concerning ghosts. Eva as a ghost is pretty funny. And the other actors also do a good job. It is the direction and the story that is lacking. That could have been overlooked had the jokes worked better. The problem only is that there aren't many jokes. Sure I laughed a couple of times. Apart from the talking parrot there wasn't an ounce of creativity to be noticed in the movie. I blame the director not using the premise to it's full potential. Eva certainly has the comedic skill to show more but did not get the opportunity to do so. Overall this movie is ideal for a Sunday afternoon. Other than that it can be skipped completely.$LABEL$ 0
+Haunted by a secret, Ben Thomas (Will Smith) looks for redemption by radically transforming the lives of seven people he doesn't know. Once his plan is set, nothing will be able to stop him. At least that's what he thinks. But Ben hadn't planned on falling in love with one of these people and she's the one who will end up transforming him. Will Smith is back again with Director Gabriele Muccino, after the life inspiring movie "The Pursuit of Happiness". "Seven Pounds" is yet another life changing movie experience, which not only does reminds you of their previous collaboration, tearful, but inspires you joyfully in the end. Will Smith, also is the producer again with some of the others. These movies are very realistic, which depicts a common man's life & his struggles through life. Seven Pounds might have took some time to gain it's actual momentum, but just after half an hour of the movie, the movie is all set to rule your heart. Also, this movie has some twists revolving around, which lets the viewers keep guessing. Director Gabriele Muccino once again is the winner all the way, with his emotional yet inspiring message. He makes all the characters of the movie very real, that the people would actually find themselves in somewhere of the movie. Along with the director, Will Smith is yet another winner, with his superb acting skills. Once again, the duo of the director & the actor works as a charm. Also, there are other talented actors in the movie who did their part pretty well. Rosario Dawson, beauty with brains, that's what she can be called. She looks beautiful & does her part extremely well. Barry Pepper, gives a great support to the movie & Woody Harrelson does the same, although Woody did not had much screen timing(would have been good if he had more). You won't forget this movie easily. Watch this movie & change your life. Top class cinema!$LABEL$ 1
+Omen IV: The Awakening starts at the 'St. Frances Orphanage' where husband & wife Karen (Faye Grant) & Gene York (Michael Woods) are given a baby girl by Sister Yvonne (Megan Leitch) who they have adopted, they name her Delia. At first things go well but as the years pass & Delia (Asia Vieria) grows up Karen becomes suspicious of her as death & disaster follows her, Karen is convinced that she is evil itself. Karen then finds out that she is pregnant but discovers a sinister plot to use her as a surrogate mother for th next Antichrist & gets a shock when she finds out who Delia's real father was...Originally to be directed by Dominique Othenin-Girard who either quit or was sacked & was replaced by Jorge Montesi who completed the film although why he bothered is anyone's guess as Omen IV: The Awakening is absolutely terrible & a disgrace when compared to it illustrious predecessors. The script by Brian Taggert is hilariously bad, I'm not sure whether this nonsense actually looked good as the written word on a piece of paper but there are so many things wrong with it that I find even that hard to believe. As a serious film Omen IV: The AWakening falls flat on it's face & it really does work better if you look at it as a comedy spoof, I mean the scene towards the end when the Detective comes face-to-face with a bunch of zombie carol singers who are singing an ominous Gothic song has to be seen to be believed & I thought it was absolutely hilarious & ridiculous in equal measure. Then there's the pointless difference between this & the other Omen films in that this time it's a young girl, the question I ask here is why? Seriously, why? There's no reason at all & isn't used to any effect at all anyway. Then of course there's the stupid twist at the end which claims Delia has been keeping her brother's embryo inside herself & that in a sinister conspiracy involving a group of Satan worshippers it has been implanted in Karen so she can give birth to the Antichrist is moronic & comes across as just plain daft. At first it has a certain entertainment value in how bad it is but the unintentional hilarity gives way to complete boredom sooner rather than later.It's obviously impossible to know how much of Omen IV: The Awakening was directed by Girard & Montesi but you can sort of tell all was not well behind the camera as it's a shabby, cheap looking poorly made film which was actually made-for-TV & it shows with the bland, flat & unimaginative cinematography & production design. Then there's the total lack of scares, atmosphere, tension & gore which are the main elements that made the previous Omen films so effective.The budget must have been pretty low & the film looks like it was. The best most stylish thing about Omen IV: The Awakening is the final shot in which the camera rises up in the air as Delia walks away into the distance to reveal a crucifix shaped cross made by two overlapping path's but this is the very last shot before the end credits roll which says just about everything. I have to mention the music which sounds awful, more suited to a comedy & is very inappropriate sounding. The acting is alright at best but as usual the kid annoys.Omen IV: The Awakening is rubbish, it's a totally ridiculous film that tries to be serious & just ends up coming across as stupid. The change of director's probably didn't help either, that's still not a excuse though. The last Omen film to date following the original The Omen (1976), Damien: Omen II (1978) & The Final Conflict (1981) all of which are far superior to this.$LABEL$ 0
+Why bother to see this movie? It probably rates an award for being the worst career move of a major movie star since Clark Gable's laughable playing of an Irish patriot in Parnell.It's inconceivable that Bergman would choose both this movie and its director over a lucrative Hollywood career where she could choose among the finest scripts and directors being offered at that time. To begin with, there was no script to work with except a few notes. Then we are supposed to believe the polished Bergman as a poor refugee willing to do anything to be released from a refugee camp, including marriage to a poor Italian fisherman she doesn't even love. I read where Anna Magnani was the original choice for this part. If so, that made a lot more sense than to cast the luminous Bergman in such a proletarian part. But since she was in love with her director, common sense flew out the window.So she goes to live in this poor village where the men must toil to extract a meager living from the sea. A place she obviously hates to be and where she doesn't fit in.Her only friend is the village priest who knows she's not suited to the life of a poor fisherman's bride, but tells her that for the sake of love she must repress her true feelings of revulsion, and accept the poverty and despair she encounters each day. On top of all of this, there's this volcano always on the brink of erupting and drowning them all in hot lava. But like a true heroine, Bergman revolts against her misery by declaring war on just about everyone else in this dreary film. She even goes as far as trying to seduce the village priest, in a scene that would generate laughter if it were not so pathetic. Since her poor slob of a husband must lock her in a room to keep her from running away, she's forced to use her body to bribe a married man to take her off the island. To her, no sacrifice is too great; no man unapproachable if he is willing to help her to escape the island and her misery. I won't bother to tell you how this all ends. The no-script movie ending is as plausible as the rest of STROMBOLI. I even remember (from seeing it on late night TV) that it had two different endings! So be warned if you should feel brave enough to sit through this king-size turkey and catch the miscast Bergman. It led to her downfall in Hollywood for the next seven years and she was condemned for sleeping with her director while still married to Peter Lindstrom. None of the movies she made with this director(whom she later married) are noteworthy except as proof of a career gone berserk. I kid you not. It's pretty embarrassing.- - SoundTrack$LABEL$ 0
+For this review,a list of good points and bad points.I'll start with the bad.Bad points:The casting choices(especially Burt Reynolds as Boss Hogg),the acting of said badly chosen cast,the storyline,the idea of setting the film in the modern day,the direction,the editing,the soundtrack,and above all,the whole idea of making a feature film out of a television series that wasn't that great to start with,despite it's popularity.Good points:Jessica Simpson in a red bikini............that's it!One might make an analogy here.In the scene where Jessica Simpson as Daisy Duke struts her way up to Michael Weston as Enos,and asks the question,"Enos,where's Boss Hogg and Roscoe?",in his clouded judgment, tells her where they are.She might just as well have asked,"Enos,is this a good movie?",the red bikini would have clouded his judgment into saying yes,even though in his right mind he would have said,"No, not really."As good as she looked in the bikini,she could have been stark naked,and even that would not have saved this horrible piece of film-making.Stay out of Hazzard!$LABEL$ 0
+As is the case with many films of this ilk, my non Catholicism got in the way of my understanding it. The church has this mass of rules which have been put together over centuries. We have a short time to learn them and have to accept them at face value. Then, throw in some bad guys getting revenge for a long distant act against them, working under these rules and attempting to circumvent them, and you have this book and movie. I found myself thinking, "That's pretty cool. Why did they do that?" There's this casual thing in the Robert Langdon character where no matter what the issue, he seems to always make the right first move. I suppose it's like watching CSI where they solve incredibly complex cases in a matter of days. They know the lay of the land. In this film, there is so much land and so little time to really understand everything that is going on. But if you create Robert Langdon, you need to set him to work. That's OK because heroic nerds like him have been saving the day forever. I thought the film was fun. I thought the Da Vinci Code was fun too. Interesting and not as bad as people seemed to think. This is a marvel to look at and never stops for a second.$LABEL$ 1
+Lance Henriksen got paid something to appear in this. I hope it was a lot.Former US National Champion gymnast, Kristie Phillips starts as Charlie Case, a gymnast-turn-secret-agent (because it's very common that munchkin gymnasts become government spies...)There's a truly hysterical opening scene where Charlie's uneven bars routine is sabotaged by an eastern-bloc competitor. What follows is one of the most ridiculous stunt scenes I've ever witnessed....and they want you to take it seriously! Don't worry...she sticks her dismount.Everything after that is just a messy, dreck of a spy movie. Watch the first fifteen minutes for the campy-gymnastics stuff, then run for cover.$LABEL$ 0
+It didn't feel like a movie, and was thankfully short (under 90minutes), it felt more like a commercial of possibilties in computer graphics: Most of the special effects are great, to be sure. But that cerainly don't a great or even a good movie make. Not saying it's absolutely worthless viewing, since it's possible to see what are the possibilities in CGI or GCI, or what ever it's called.As I read somewhere, "You can't fix it in the cutting room", a bad story and non-directed actors, can't be fixed in the cutting room or even with the most magnificent special effects! Things can be improved in the cutting room if they have a real director and material to work from.However they thought this could be sold in USA is anyones idea, since USA is the crooks.And isn't it sooo typical of low budget stories, they have to create an imaginative country south of Mexico??Well Well I gace it 2! Just because of the special effects, the rest is absolute trash!$LABEL$ 0
+First of all, let me say that this is not the movie for people looking to watch something spirited and joyous for the holidays. This movie is cold, brutal, and just downright depressing. Mary Steenburgen plays a grinchy mom who is down on Christmas because her husband has lost his job, they are losing their house, can't buy Christmas presents for the kids, etc. You get the idea, happy stuff for the holidays. So along comes Harry Dean Stanton as Gideon the Christmas angel, who in his dark hat and long overcoat comes off more like a pedophile who hangs around children all day observing them. What better way to instill the spirit of Christmas in Mary Steenburgen than to kill off her family and then offer to bring them back if she believes in Christmas again. Santa Claus is a blackmailer and his Christmas workshop looks more like a haven for refugee Nazis on the lam. The movie lays everything on so thick that you don't care about the happy ending when it comes because the rest of the movie is so bitter and unbelievable. I'm sure this film wanted to be something Capra-like, but it left out the joy and sentiment on what a holiday film should be.$LABEL$ 0
+I rented this movie with very low expectations, but was pleasantly surprised. This movie is extremely good stuff. And one would never guess it was low budget.EIGHTEEN, directed by 'Richard Bell' centers around an 18 year old named Pip, played by the superb 'Paul Anthony' who leaves his home because of the circumstances surrounding the way his older brother died. He is overcome with guilt by this event and falls into a hard life of a runaway teen on drugs and alcohol. On his 18th birthday, his father tracks Pip down and gives him a tape left for him by his grandfather, of which he was to listen to on his 18th birthday.The way the whole film is told is with two simultaneous stories unfolding at the same time. The present life of Pip and the past life of his grandfather during WW11 of which Pip listens to on the tape.The three outstanding performances in this movie are the ones from 'Paul Anthony' as Pip and 'Brenden Fletcher' playing Jason, the young 18 year WW11 soldier, his grandfather. Also, the role of the WW11 wounded medic 'Macauley' played by 'Mark Hildreth.' All putting in fine performances.A couple of concerns and scenes that didn't sit too well with me...the priest, Father Chris played by 'Alan Cumming' who is gay and in broad daylight pick's up the local street hustler the whole neighborhood knows about. And then we have the local store clerk named Jeff, a sweetheart played by the attractive 'David Beaszely' who just wants to be loved, and for some unknown reason is attracted to the very unattractive and sleaze ball street hustler, Clerk, who sleeps with just about anyone and in all likelihood is a walking toxic time bomb. On top of all that he's not a very likable person. This part just didn't ring true.The parts I really like the most was the flashbacks to the War. They were so well acted and very touching. There is a scene at the end where the one soldier is dying and the other soldier, 'Jason' is there for him to comfort and show him love as he lays badly injured and dying. This is such a wonderful and touching scene it left me in tears. Beautifully acted.I highly recommend this movie. It is one of love, redemption and the power of the human spirit to survive.$LABEL$ 1
+OK, so I don't watch too many horror movies - and the reason is films like 'Dark Remains'. I caught this on (a surprisingly feature-filled) DVD and it scared me silly. In fact the only extra I think the DVD was missing was a pair of new pants.However, the next day I was telling someone about it when I realised I'd only really seen about 10% of it. The rest of the time I'd been watching the pizza on my coffee table - nervous that my girlfriend would catch me if I actually covered my eyes. The few times I DID brave watching the screen I jumped so hard that I decided not to look up again.The film-making is solid and the characters' situation was really compelling. The simplicity of the film is what really captured my jump-button - it's merely a woodland, a cabin and a disused jail - and a LOT of darkness. Most surprising to me was the fact that while this was clearly not a multi-million dollar production, the make-up effects really looked like it was! Also, it's obvious this is a film made by someone with a great love of film-making. The sound design and the music really made use of my surround system like many Hollywood movies have never done. I noticed on-line that this film won the LA Shriekfest - a really major achievement, and I guess that the festival had seen the filmmakers' clear talent - and probably a great deal more of this movie than I managed to.Turn up the sound, turn off the lights, and, if you want to keep your girlfriend - order a pizza.$LABEL$ 1
+I collect films on Super-8, and managed to snag a full length print of this one last week on E-bay. It looks like at least for the moment, this is the only way to see this film in a country having NTSC video. I have seen it available on Region 2 DVD many times, but never Region 1. I just finished watching it a few minutes ago and I am amazed by it. It's a powerful testament to freedom and finding your own place in the world. The photography and music were wonderful, and I really felt empathy for some of the characters.I kind of like the idea that I was probably the only one in the USA watching "When the North Wind Blows" tonight! Long Live Avakum!!$LABEL$ 1
+I'm sorry, ELO fans, but I was disappointed with this concert at the CBS Television City in Los Angeles. It's decent music-wise, but the presentation is simply boring - big-time. Most of the songs sound the same and lead singer-writer Jeff Lynne is about as animated as a store mannequin. He has a pleasant voice, but he isn't much to watch. He just stands in one spot and sings for an hour and 40 minutes. The songs all sound like 1970s-1980s bubblegum stuff: pleasant but not exciting.Lynn is accompanied by a very pretty woman, Rosie Vela, but she isn't too animated, either. The only song - out of 23 - that creates any excitement is the last one: "Roll Over Beethoven." Now if only some of the other 22 songs had that excitement to them, this could have been a much better concert DVD.$LABEL$ 0
+I though this would be an okay movie, since i like zombies and horror movies in general. But i did not think it would be such a piece of sh!t like it was. The only zombie in the movie is at the beginning and he gets ran over by a god damn car!!! The movie looks to be written by a porn director and filled by porn actors, i wouldn't ever call them actors! The costumes seems to be stolen from a local school play. Its seems like a road movie with almost no monsters. There is no fun at all in this piece of sh!t, only horror, but not in the way the director intended. I would rather be raped by a pedophile than see this movie ever again!!! ugh!$LABEL$ 0
+A film to divide its viewers. Just criticism points at its funereal pace, over-used snap zooms and persistent, lingering gazes between the protagonists. Advocates point to Dirk Bogarde's mighty performance and Pasqualino De Santis' benchmark photography of Venice.Taken altogether, this might suggest an indulgent, romanticised elegy for the nobility of homosexual love (at a time, 1971, when it was becoming consensually legal). In fact Visconti has succeeded in making a richer, more complex film than such a single-issue vehicle. He has knit his ideas - foibles and all - into a meticulously paced arc.Inside this does indeed sit the central performance of Bogarde's Aschenbach. Rather than a simpering, Johnny-come-lately gay, he manages to give a pathetic composer beaten by tragedy and misunderstood integrity who sees salvation in Tadzio. His mesmerised staggering around an increasingly hellish Venice after the boy is a straight metaphor for the artist's tenacity for truth in the teeth of the dilettante mob (and it is explicitly cut with such a flashback).Mahler's music is possibly a little over-used although it is well appropriated. The Italian overdub is a wearing anachronism but thankfully the acting doesn't suffer too much. 7/10$LABEL$ 1
+To bad for this fine film that it had to be released the same year as Braveheart. Though it is a very different kind of film, the conflict between Scottish commoners and English nobility is front and center here as well. Roughly 400 years had passed between the time Braveheart took place and Rob Roy was set, but some things never seemed to change. Scottland is still run by English nobles, and the highlanders never can seem to catch a break when dealing with them. Rob Roy is handsomely done, but not the grand epic that Braveheart was. There are no large-scale battles, and the conflict here is more between individuals. And helpfully so not all Englishmen are portrayed as evil this time. Rob Roy is simply a film about those with honor, and those who are truly evil.Liam Neeson plays the title character Rob Roy MacGregor. He is the leader of the MacGregor clan and his basic function is to tend to and protect the cattle of the local nobleman of record known as the Marquis of Montrose (John Hurt). Things look pretty rough for the MacGregor clan as winter is approaching, and there seems to be a lack of food for everyone. Rob Roy puts together a plan to borrow 1000 pounds from the Marquis and purchase some cattle of his own. He would then sell them off for a higher price and use the money to improve the general well-being of his community. Sounds fair enough, doesn't it? Problems arise when two cronies of the Marquis steal the money for themselves. One of them, known as Archibald Cunningham, is perhaps the most evil character ever put on film. Played wonderfully by Tim Roth, this man is a penniless would-be noble who has been sent to live with the Marquis by his mother. This man is disgustingly effeminate, rude, heartless, and very dangerous with a sword. He fathers a child with a hand maiden and refuses to own up to the responsibility. He rapes Macgregor's wife and burns him out of his home. This guy is truly as rotten as movie characters come. Along with another crony of the Marquis (Brian Cox) Cunningham steals the money and uses it to settle his own debts. Though it is painfully obvious to most people what happened, the Marquis still holds MacGregor to the debt. This sets up conflict that will take many lives and challenge the strengths of a man simply fighting to hold on to his dignity.Spoilers ahead!!!!!Luckily for the MacGregor's, a Duke who is no friend to the Marquis sets up a final duel between Rob Roy and Cunningham to resolve the conflict one and for all. This sword fight has been considered by many to be one of the best ever filmed. Cunningham is thought by many to be a sure winner with his speed and grace. And for most of the fight, it looks like these attributes will win out. Just when it looks like Rob Roy is finished, he turns the tables in a shockingly grotesque manner. The first time you see what happens, you will probably be as shocked as Cunningham! Rob Roy is beautifully filmed, wonderfully acted, and perfectly paced. The score is quite memorable, too. The casting choices seem to have worked out as Jessica Lange, who might seem to be out of her element, actually turns in one of the strongest performances as Mary MacGregor. The film is violent, but there isn't too much gore. It is a lusty picture full of deviant behavior, however. The nobility are largely played as being amoral and sleazy. The film has no obvious flaws, thus it gets 10 of 10 stars.The Hound.$LABEL$ 1
+Now, i hired this movie because Brad Dourif was in it. He is an excellent actor, BRILLIANT in everything...except this movie. And i think that was only because he realized how stupid this movie was, and didn't bother with a good performance. This movie is a unintentional-comedy. Some of the lines just crack me up. And them there are some lines that make no sense, and it seems like Tobe Hooper just throw lines in without thinking about the plot. Oh! BTW the plot is BAD! But it one of those films that is TAHT BAD that its actually PAINFUL to watch. I recommend this only for BIG Brad Dourif fans, or fans of any of the other actors, because the plot is pathetic.$LABEL$ 0
+After the mysterious death of an old friend,a group of teenagers find themselves in the possession of Stay Alive,a horror survival video game based on the gruesome story of Erzebet Bathory known as The Blood Countess.The group begins to play the grisly game and soon they are murdered one by one in the same method as the character they played in the game.As the line between the game world and the reality disappears,our heroes must find a way to defeat vicious Blood Countess. "Stay Alive" is an incredibly poor teen slasher flick without any iota of suspense.Writer-director William Brent Bell doesn't have the damn clue how to make a watchable horror movie.The jump scares are irritating,the blood/gore level is almost non-existent and the story doesn't make sense.The dialogue is utterly bad and the acting of all involved is embarrassing."Stay Alive" is easily one of the worst mainstream horror flicks of 2006.Stay away from this stinking turd.$LABEL$ 0
+I bought Jack-O a number of months ago at a Blockbuster video sale, and at the time I wasn't expecting anything outstanding from it. Upon watching it, I realized I not only got less than I could have ever bargained for, but a whole lot more as well. It seems, strange, I know. And it is. But it's perfectly fitting when you consider that the utter weirdness that is "Jack-O"The movie follows a young boy named Shawn Kelly. Somehow, thru ancestral ties, he is marked for death at the hands of a demented, scythe wielding Pumpkin man. This pumpkin man was killed by Shawn's Great-grandfather-uncle-cousin-etc, and now that the villain has been resurrected, Shawn's death is apparently crucial to his hell-bred mission of vengeance. Anyway, much "horror" ensues as Jack-O hacks his way thru various neighbors before battling Shawn to the finish.I'm not so much here to discuss the plot as I am to determine who may find any worth in this movie. I can honestly tell you that Jack-O is one of the most poorly made movies in the history of time. The acting is deadpan (except when it should be), the script is apparently a 1st grade group project, and the production budget must not have exceeded $150. Some of the most laughable death scenes are carried out in this anti-thriller, and they're all the more humorous when you realize director Steve Latshaw actually seems serious in his movie-making.And yet I heartily enjoyed the film. I can call it a terrible horror movie, yes. But I can also say I had a great time watching it with my friends, and have watched it several times since that fateful first viewing. Many people (including some of my friends) will find this movie intolerable and needlessly time-consuming, and that's understandable. If you're like me and enjoy ridiculously bad horror movies that take themselves seriously, you'll find Jack-O an instant classic, which is also understandable.That's why it's so hard to rate this movie. If I were rating Jack-O's quality as a film, I wouldn't give it anything. In fact, the studio would owe me stars. Yet if I were rating it's on the basis of pure enjoyment, I'd give it an 8 or a 9. I'll give it a 4, so to be somewhere in the middle. I recommend everyone go out, rent this, and form their own conclusion.$LABEL$ 0
+My 10-year-old daughter, Alexandra, writes:I thought it was very boring, and I thought it was just a repeat of stuff from "101 Dalmatians." I couldn't wait for the movie to end. The best part was the credits at the beginning - they were cute and well done. The rest of the film is not worth watching. Thank you.$LABEL$ 0
+It's as if the Stay-Puffed Marshmallow Man from Ghostbusters had been reincarnated in Rutger Hauer's body and is taking revenge upon a rival's pregnant wife! If seeing an obese Hauer chase a very pregnant Isabel Glaser (imagine the spine-tingling thrills in that contest) sounds good to you, see this film! Seriously, if Hauer is what an Iraqi POW looks like after six years in prison, then hungry people everywhere should make a bee line to a jail in Baghdad. Overall "Tactical Assault" rates 2 stars instead of 1 because Mike Mitchell as Hawk is terrific. Mitchell burns up the screen as a NATO pilot until his plane is burned up itself (by an enemy missle), whereupon the film loses what little verve it had to begin with.$LABEL$ 0
+Kazuo Komizu strikes again with "Entrails of a Beautiful Woman", the sequel to "Entrails of a Virgin". This time around the story is based around a psychologist (Megumi Ozawa) who decides to take on the Yakuza to avenge the suicide of a doped-up and raped patient that winds up on her doorstep one day. When she gets over her head and the Yakuza capture her, she learns their insidious plat of doping up girls and selling them into slavery. It apparently ends badly when she overdoses from the cocaine. But she soon melds with another body to be disposed of to become…dum, dum, dum – "Super Slime Hermaphrodite Zord"! This he, she = it makes mince meat out of the yakuza and saves the day…not really.Well it is better than "Entrails of a Virgin", but not by much. Most of the film (a whopping 67 minutes) consists of rape and sex with fogging and the usual ho-hum stuff. Almost towards the end we finally get our gore groove on with a few cool sequence (like an Alien-inspired penis-monster through the stomach scene and a gooey asphyxiation) but it still suffers from a hyper low budget feel that makes it fun but can't elevate it from z-grade soft horror-core fare.$LABEL$ 1
+After all the hype I had heard about the Jane Austin novel and different film versions of the book I found myself very disappointed with the movie. I had expected a classic drama but that was not the case. First of all let me preface my review with the fact that I love old movies, particularly mysteries and dramas, but not female oriented movies. This probably makes a huge difference, so take my review with a large grain of salt. I thought the acting was a bit over the top, but that is very common in movies of this era. June Allyson was good as Jo but I found every sister to be stereotypical and form driven. There were no surprises or overly dramatic moments. I hate writing negative reviews, but the movie left me very cold. It has always been my intention to read the book, but after this that seem unlikely. The only warming story line was between the old gentlemen and the youngest sister, that was a very welcome bright spot in an otherwise disappointing viewing experience. Again there are others who love this movie, I'm just not one of them.$LABEL$ 0
+Roy Anderssons "Du Levande" is not totally original as it is counter piece to Anderssons previous movie "Sånger från andra våningen". Still the movie has aura of total originality. Some conventions of movie making are still thrown away: most of the actors look nothing like what you would expect in movie and the shots take long time. Most of the time camera doesn't move but people move around it. The shots start from somewhere and many times the scenery builds up in amazing proportions. W.G. Sebald comes to mind in literature with same technique. Because of the time invested in every shot the suspension is really high in many of the scenes. There is a story and isn't - it is left for viewer to build up in his or her own mind. This movie is positive. It is determined not to see this all in negative way and at the same time will not pass the social injustices. One of the messages I got from it was that maybe all failures and accidents are not fatal after all. Great movie.$LABEL$ 1
+Just another example of why Stepehn King's books should not be made into movies. (Even Carrie, one of the best, is ruined in the adaptation from book to screen.) The premise of the story revolves around a fat lawyer, always on a diet, who "accidentally" kills an old gypsy woman. In court, with the help of the judge and the local police chief, he gets off, even though the accident was sort of his fault as he was not paying attention as he was driving. The father of the dead gypsy woman places a curse on the 3, with our main character, Billy (the lawyer) getting thinner and thinner by the day. Though the movie kept with the book, for the most part, and has your typical King ending, the acting was stilted and felt forced. We went from one scene to the next without much of anything in between, sort of like reading acts in a play. King himself made a cameo in the movie (sort of like Dave Barry), which reinforces my belief that authors should stay just that: authors. Leave the acting to actors. Not that anyone in this movie was that great. I've seen the major characters in movies where they were much better.$LABEL$ 0
+I first saw this movie when I was in elementary school, back in the 1960s. I was fascinated with the character played by Ingrid Bergman and it was my introduction to the French Quarter of New Orleans. The first part of the movie is the best as she comes back to exact some revenge on her father's wife and daughter (her mother had been driven out in disgrace). During this time she meets the wonderful Clint Maroon, played by Gary Cooper. The chemistry between the two is great. The second half of the movie takes place in Saratoga, NY (the Saratoga of the title) and I never enjoy it as much as the New Orleans setting but it's still very good. I give this movie a ten - partly out of nostalgia but mostly because it's just a darn good movie and the characters besides those of Bergman and Cooper are equally wonderful (Flora Robson comes close to stealing the scenes from Bergman). It used to be shown on TV periodically but it's shown rarely if ever - it would be a good one for one of the classic movie stations to pick up and put into their programming cycles.$LABEL$ 1
+This was a strange kind of film about a low-lifes in New York City and centering around a main character (the title name, played by Brad Pitt) who thinks he''s a Ricky Nelson-type musician, except he has no real talent. It's kind of fun to watch until a profane tough New York City-type woman with horrible accent enters the picture and takes over. That ruined the film for me. It must have been Catherine Keener, who usually plays tough and garbage-mouthed women. The hairdo on Pitt - an exaggerated Pompadour - was fun to look at. I can picture Johnny Depp playing this role better. One last note: it odd to hear a film made in 1992 (other than Woody Allen's) with just mono sound.$LABEL$ 0
+I wasn't really going to comment, but then I figured I had something to say. I saw this film two days ago and, although I think it's not a complete waste of time (it might have been of money though, for the producers), it's obvious it has serious problems. It's got really good cinematography and (little but) nice music. A lot has been said about Ana Cristina Oliveira but, let's be honest, over what? She is not really an actress an she balances permanently between over-acting and preposterous under-acting. Her performance passes for good because there has never been anyone like Odete in any other film: crazy? sad? childlike? an impostor? no one knows, fellows. So she's kinda sorta dictating the rules here.I thought this film was also a good example of the problem most Portuguese films suffer from: soundtrack. There is a permanent NO to dubbing and the result is this usual mass of noise that comes out of the blue. People in other countries may think Portugal is the noisiest of places. What thrilled me though, was that some of the dialog was dubbed but it didn't necessarily solve the syndrome. Bad dubbing too, I must say. It's strange to watch a film in which the first thing that strikes my mind on the first scene, when the first character speaks is: it's dubbed. And all this to say that the film has technical problems.It also has script problems. It tries to be classical from the first to the last scene. There was a desperate fear of leaving things suspended and that shows. The writer was obviously trying to get everything straight and he does but... it shows!! All dialog is too expositive and there isn't one single piece of talk that sounds like a line from a film. It's all a little raw and slightly unpleasant.Not that the film is a total mess, I must stress. I just think the good parts are so obvious that I prefer to concentrate on the bad ones.Direction brings little to the weak screenplay. All shots are classical and un-innovative, but their beautiful. Great work from Rui Poças, by the way.Now, what I think was THE problem, the one that keeps people from believing this story and laugh throughout the film instead of taking it seriously: The guy who plays the guy who DIES is obviously not an actor. Actually, It's a rather important role and I can't see why non-actors are cast for such parts. This guy is neither an actor nor a good-looking man. Which means the whole film rolls down the mountain, since we never believe for one second that this gorgeous woman is obsessed with him even though he's gone, and that his hunky lover who survives is actually having a bad time getting over the loss, when all we see of this character is apathy. Too bad. The world is full of beautiful people who even happen to be nice seductive lovers. The world is full of good actors who are also cute boys and capable of causing obsessions on people after they's gone. The world is full of great films and also of not that great films. C'est la vie!$LABEL$ 0
+[ as a new resolution for this year 2005, i decide to write a comment for each movie I saw in theater (10%) or in DVD (90%). I must admit that DVD have revolutionized this habit. For instance, i can hear the true voice of the cast, which is an essential trait of the personality. In my country, non french movies are dubbed and we end up with aberrations: french voice is terrible, very far away of its original tone ! the same voice for different people or a same people with different voices !!!! And well, if everybody found my comments unuseful, well, in 2006, I will stop my reviews... Ah,AH.... So, enjoy them now !!!! ]My summary means that the story, locations, cast is not very enjoyable...Only....Sandra bullock is there.. She is a talented actress, able to get the viewer to catch on the movie....It reminds of a feminine "the fugitive".... So if you look for a moment of escaping your life, watching this movie makes it worse because Sandra's life is a mess....She got nothing left to hold on to, only her poor mother (Who is Alzheimer ill: again the touch for depression)....In fact, she has a sad life in the beginning of the movie, has a sadder life throughout it, to finally get back to it at the end.... what a happy ending !!!!maybe the writers wanted to make a point about a nerd's life....very far away from the best computer movie of all time: *WARGAMES*$LABEL$ 0
+Remarkable, disturbing film about the true-life, senseless, brutal murder of a small-town family, along with the aftermath, and examination of the lives of the killers, Dick Hickok and Perry Smith.No matter how much time goes by, or how dated this film may look, it still resonates the utter incomprehensibility of criminal acts such as this.This really traces multiple tragedies: The tragedy, brutality and senselessness of the murder of the Clutter family, a decent farm family in small-town Holcomb, Kansas; and the wasted, brutal and sad lives of Hickok and Smith.An interesting point is made in the film: that neither of these two immature, scared, petty criminals would have ever contemplated going through with something like this alone. But, together, they created a dangerous, murderous collective personality; one that fed the needs and pathology of each of them. They push each other along a road of "proving" something to each other. That they were man enough to do it, to carry it out; neither wants to be seen as too cowardly to complete their big "score"; an unfortunate and dangerous residue of the desolate lives they led. These were two grown-up children, who live in a criminal's world of not backing down from dares; who constantly need to prove manhood and toughness. in this instance, these needs carried right through to the murder of the Clutters.The film contains a somewhat sentimentalized look at the Clutter family, but the point is made. These were respected, law-abiding, small-town people, who didn't deserve this terrifying fate. The movie also gives us a sense of the young lives of Hickok and Smith. Perry Smith, whose early life was filled with security and love, but watched in horror as alcohol took his family down a tragic path. Hickok, poor and left pretty much to his own devices, not able to see how he fit in, using his intelligence and charm to con everyone he came into contact with.An interesting, and maybe the first, look at capital punishment, and what ends we hope to achieve. Is this nothing more than revenge killing for a murder that rocked a nation at a time when we had not yet had to fully face that there might be such predators among us, or does putting these guys at the end of a rope truly provide a deterent to the childish and brutal posturing of men like these? Is it possible to deter men who live lives of deceit, operating under the radar, believing they fool everyone they come into contact with? To be deterred, you must believe it's possible you will be caught. Is it possible to deter these men who believe they are too clever to be caught?; who have committed hundreds of petty crimes, and got away with them? This was supposed to be a "cinch", "no witnesses".When caught, Hickok finds he can't charm and con the agents the way he had department store clerks. Smith, who believes he deserves such a fate anyway, who seemed to be the only one who truly grasped the gravity of what they had done, willingly tells the story when he learns that Hickok has cowardly caved in. Hickok blinked first. A silly game of chicken between two immature, emotionally damaged, dangerous men.Fascinating psychological thriller, telling a story of a horrendous crime in this nation's history. Stunning portrayals by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson. These roles made their careers.$LABEL$ 1
+Saw this used DVD cheap, and got it for a chuckle. I had recently also found "The Octagon" on DVD and bought that one to reminisce, having seen it in the theatre as a pre-teen, and loving it at the time. The problem now with "going back" to these American karate films, is that I've since then seen so many Hong Kong and Thai action films, in which the fight scenes are long, fast and jaw-dropping. I'm thinking particularly of fights like Jackie and Benny "The Jet" at the end of "Dragons Forever", or Tony Jaa's circular-stairwell fight from "The Protector". The Hollywood kung-fu offerings are just not "filmed right", and even make someone of certified skill, such as Chuck, look awkward at times. And what's worse than a fight going into slow motion? Then you know it looked crappy at normal speed, so they slowed it down for effect. It really highlights how ridiculous an opponent looks as they stand and just WAIT to get kicked in the chest.Poor Chuck, he just has no intensity in this film, nor does he project any righteous menace. Compare that to his former co-star Bruce Lee, who had charm and attitude to burn. When Bruce would square off against some opponent(s) you could nearly see the air around him crackling with what was about to happen. In "Breaker, Breaker" Chuck seemed to accidentally be kicking people, with complete nonchalance. When the judge comes to see him in jail, and sentence him to death, Chuck is staring off with a sad look, and I thought "OK...he's doing that 'third eye' focus thing and is going to grab the judge by the throat and get out of this", but he does nothing except look up with a doe-eyed stare. Terrible. And while the DVD case gives you hope, listing a run time of 1 hour, 5 minutes, it's actually 1 hour, 25 minutes, so there's 20 more minutes of viewing pain. For great fight action, go watch Jackie Chan in the first "Police Story"....the fight in the shopping mall at the end is pure gold......$LABEL$ 0
+Small SPOILERS alert !!!Good movie...VERY good movie. And I'm surprised to say that myself, because I'm not a big fan of vampires and the sound of the director's name Deran Serafian usually means bad news. Most of his films are below average action movies like Death Warrant and Gunmen. This was one of his first films and maybe he should have continued making horror movies instead of action. This movie really fascinated me. Good accomplishment, seeing no famous actors or big budget was involved. It really is the story that keeps you focused. Especially fans of the original Dracula myth will be satisfied. Sarafian lights up another aspect of the famous Bram Stoker story and remains rather loyal and true to the truth. It explains the life of the Roemenian Count Dracula and how he scared the Turkish army away by spearing dead corpses in front of his castle. Of course, that's where the reality and the "based on a true story" stops. The blood drinking and stuff all was invented by Bram Stoker.In this movie, the count ( Vlad Teppish) emigrates to the USA and seduces tons of woman. And they're all pretty girls, I'll give him that. Overall, good acting by unknown faces, enough blood and gore to satisfy the more morbid horror fans and an interesting storyline. This film is really unknown and it was hidden on the darkest shelf at my local videostore. But it certainly is worth cleaning up the dust on the cover and put it in the VCR. Heck, it's a lot better than the famous Nicole Kidman movie with the same title. These two films have nothing else in common, but I blame that movie for stealing the attention away from this nice little picture. Check it out...my humble opinion on To Die For = 8.5/10$LABEL$ 1
+I have to say that this film was excellently produced and tops the ratings as a typical sci fi film! I enjoyed it.. its a sci fi film, if you want a thriller watch another channel.. This is what the scifi lovers want. Excellently produced by one of Sci-fi's best producers Scot Vandiver ! OK the special effects weren't excellent, but what a great cast! Some more money could have been used for effects but then again what sci fi has high budgeted effects. Stop complaining and change the channel if you don't like these type of films.. Films like Mission Impossible and Braveheart are great but these aren't Sci fi films.. Sci fi produces excellent films like Sabretooth , Alien Hunters etc .. Well done .. keep them churning out!$LABEL$ 1
+What can I say? I'm a secret fan of 'over the top' action and horror films. Especially when it comes with a lot of lots of humour and innuendo, but I'm not a fan of Snake on a Plane.There are three potential draws to this film: • The comedy of the situation; • The horror; and • The novelty of hundreds of snakes being of a plane. Firstly, this film isn't written as a tongue-in-cheek horror or a comedy, and there are only 1 or 2 points in the film where you'll smile to yourself. If you want to get the feel of the film, the trailer genuinely represents the movie, a horror.Secondly, if you're expecting a film full of action and shocks, you won't be disappointed. It doesn't stand out above other movies, but it always keeps your attention.Thirdly, Although the novelty of Snakes of a Plane doesn't wear off, but you'll leave the cinema thinking "what was all the fuss about".I know this movie has a high rating, but it doesn't add up. A) Many of the reviews where written before the film was released and, B) The breakdown of user ratings has a lot less variation than normal 77% of people rating the movie 10/10, with only 7% of people giving it 9/10 - Why such an enormous gap?$LABEL$ 0
+Absolutely unwatchable, lowest quality film making. This film makes "Show Girls" look good. The acting is insufferable. The cinematography gives a bad name to amateurism. No wonder it went right to video and bypassed the theaters. This film wasn't released...it escaped.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a little film with a big heart. Excellent acting throughout and directed with love. If you missed it in theatres (and who didn't?), catch it with someone you love. Frankly, I cried! And I'm a guy, for cryin' out loud!$LABEL$ 1
+The show is average. It doesn't make me laugh particularly. However, I think Courtney really brings it down. She doesn't look natural. She has these three ways to talk, all robotic. She talks quietly (with no intonation), she talks normally (with no intonation), or she does that thing where she starts talking normally, and starts yelling gradually. However, her yelling is like "let's pretend I'm yelling because I shouldn't be too loud on the set". She is constantly aware of herself being this cute actress doing this funny thing. It's annoying. You can't really get her personality, because she doesn't really produce emotion, and doesn't get upset. She has this husband, who's doing all these stupid things, and there is no reaction from her. Very dry and plain acting.$LABEL$ 0
+If you have trouble dreaming you may give this movie a low rating. But you just have to realize this movie was not made to please everyone,just people with a sense of humor.For those people the movie is great! It plays on old Science fiction movies and radio shows long gone, most of witch where B-rated themselves. Along the lines of Spaceballs and Airplane 2, you may need to stretch your imagination a little bit to get the jokes, but it is well worth it.$LABEL$ 1
+Along with South Pacific, Guys and Dolls is for grown-ups - - it is sassy, sexy, and full of men being men and women being strung along.There is an energy and drive that makes this stand out from the pack - the strength of Jean Simmond's performance, and the charm of a young Brando, and an already masterful Sinatra add much to the overall feel and look of the piece.Guys and Dolls wins as it is unashamedly what it is: an MGM musical.Still good to look at and listen too with great tunes and dance numbers - it will remain one of the classics of 20th Century cinema and be watched with pleasure for years to come.Warmly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+An art house maven's dream. Overrated, overpraised, overdone; a pretentious melange that not only did not deserve Best Picture of 1951 on its own merits, it was dwarfed by the competition from the start. Place in the Sun, Detective Story, Streetcar Named Desire, Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man; you name it, if it came out in '51, it's better than this arthouse crapola. The closing ballet is claptrap for the intellectual crowd, out of place and in the wrong movie. Few actors in their time were less capable (at acting) or less charismatic than Kelly and Caron. My #12 Worst of '51 (I saw 201 movies), and among the 5 worst Best Picture Oscar winners.$LABEL$ 0
+Exciting, action-packed, and interesting film telling the tale of a group of men stationed at a naval base in Italy and their adventures aboard a Navy submarine during WWI. Tommy and Brick (played by Robert Montgomery and Robert Young) are two pals, and make for a couple of very handsome officers, I must say. A new Captain arrives on-board, already known by a few as "Dead Pan" Toler (Walter Huston) and he's a real stickler for following the rule book and a "code of honor". Soon Tommy and Brick are chasing after an attractive blonde at an officer's dance, Tommy insults the Captain - and, of course, the blonde is actually the Captain's daughter. But Tommy wins out anyway as he and the daughter sneak away from the dance to a street carnival outside, and soon bond during an air raid - unfortunately for him, she reveals she is married. Later Tommy gets himself into some real trouble when he disobeys orders in an effort save his buddy.This film is quite entertaining with an absorbing plot line that held my interest and top-notch performances by all. A climactic death scene featuring Sterling Holloway is haunting indeed - the most memorable scene in this film, I thought. Eugene Palette and Jimmy Durante add some humor here playing a couple of goofballs - Durante's character is actually studying to be a dentist via mail-order and continually has onshore run-ins with a British man who makes fun of his nose. Okay - if you're looking for a movie showing a man boxing a kangaroo, this would be the one.$LABEL$ 1
+Those individuals familiar with Asian cinema, as a whole, are aware that Japan is renowned, or notorious, for it's hyper-violent films and Korea is now garnering a reputation for viciously brutal films. Dog Bites Dog, while not necessarily getting as hyper-violent as the craziest Miike film, nor is it as unapologetically brutal as some Koreas more ambitious efforts, it is a perfect in between with its own brand of brutality all it's own. The greatest strength this film has though, like the greatest of the Japanese or Korean efforts, is that the brutality, rather than detracting from the film, actually develops the characters, if not, pushing the story forward. The two main characters are both incredibly vicious individuals with their own motivations and emotional underpinning for being as such. Sam Lee's character, for instance, is on the edge from the very start and slowly and surely, amidst various encounters with Chang's character, it is revealed why he is. Without spoiling this part of the story too much, it involves the morally ambiguous nature of his father. Chang's character, on the other hand, has his most primal instincts honed to, if not perfection, brutal efficiency. Surprisingly, Chang's story arch, while not necessarily revealing a more human side, actually reveals a side to our animal nature which many forget about which is the natural ability to recognize a fellow broken animal (and no I am not talking about Sam Lee, rather Pei Pei's garbage dump girl character). Ultimately however, for the first 80 minutes or so, it is a, more or less, straight forward cat and mouse, or Dog chase Dog, film in which every encounter ends in at least one death (seriously, once Sam Lee and Chang Square off, some one will die) and the fun part of movie is you never know who hands will commit the act. Which brings us to the film's one weakness. Unforunatley to delve into it would be yet another spoiler but, to put it simply, it is guilty of pushing one of the main points of the film since, rather then letting the point be made as is 80 minutes into the film, the film goes on for another 20 minutes or so to further emphasize it. Don't get me wrong, if transitioned better from the 80 minute mark to the climax and if the final act wasn't filled with sweet music (in fact if it, like the majority of the film, kept the music to the barest minimum and let the disturbing sound effects do their job), it still could have worked and not detract from the film. As it is though, despite the third act having the most vicious and bloody of the encounters, the way it was handled made it feel tacked on, and almost, insults the viewers intelligence since it felt it had to go this far to get it across. Nevertheless, it is still a breath of fresh air from Hong Kong cinema since even the most bloody of the martial arts films never reaches the level of viciousness and brutality while keeping the the character archs in tact.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was featured on a very early episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, but when I see this film, I don't think about that wonderful TV series. I believe this was a surprisingly good early 40's horror flick, with very surprisingly good sound and picture for a 67 year old public domain horror movie. I actually enjoyed watching Bela Lugosi and his bizarre staff, including his wife who requires fluid from the glands of young would-be brides, an old hag, and her two bizarre sons, one a giant idiot, the other a comical dwarf(Angelo Rossitto from 1932's Freaks). I also enjoyed the plucky young female reporter, who is kind of a stereotype, but still fun to watch. My only problem with this otherwise decent film is it's plot, even ridiculous and unbelievable for a movie. I don't want to spoil any of this film, so go out and rent it, or, better yet, buy it for a couple of bucks.$LABEL$ 1
+People don't seem to be giving Lensman enough credit where its due. A few issues have been overlooked which are key to understanding the Lensman experience.The Year: For the year it was made in (1984) Lensman features some of the most stunning effects I've ever seen. As a person who watches a lot of early 80's animation Lensman is unique in it's use of what appears to be computer-generated imagery at a time when computers were extremely primitive. Kim's battle against the geometric cutter pods in the laser maze can be taken as an excellent example of this. Every time I watch that I have to keep repeating to myself that it was 1984 when it was made.The Soundtrack: Lensman has one of the most insane soundtracks that I've heard, and this mad hysterical beat permeates every corner of the film. Lensman borrowed heavily on two western mistakes and managed to somewhat deal with the first one - the need to fill in every second of silence in a film with music and the need for a heroine. While the music is attuned well and galvanizes scenes such as the motorcycle battle in the Thionite Factory on Radelyx, the heroine theme fails due to the sheer annoyance value of Chris. It's interesting to note that the constant music thwarted my attempts at noise removal when I was archiving lensman over from analog tape to digital format - since there wasn't a single second of silence available to use as a reference point.Western Influences: Helmut - sounds like "helmet" and has roughly the same voice as Darth Vader. Clarissa Fairborn - has the same hairstyle as the princess of SW and her name sounds suspiciously similar to Marissa Fairborn of Transformers. Takes over Han Solos role by flying the ship and having some technical expertise. Buzzkirk - a definite improvement on Chewbaka. The lens - a nice concrete copy of the force that comes across less as a chance to preach Christianity at the audience than in the original SW. While the force relied on belief far more than concentration, the lens is a pure concentration tool. Theoretically, anyone could wield the lens. The lens is far more limited than the Force - being purely a defensive/offensive weapon.Technology: The boskone alliance have interesting meatball sponge ships. They look like stormtroopers only with red uniforms instead of white. The idea of a DNA weapon was nice if only it had been developed. The Galactic Alliance looked like Starblazers (or whatever it was called - that 60's series where they were battling the Xylons). There weren't enough ship to ship battles for me - this is much improved upon in the second Lensman film.Finally a note on Worzel. This character is a unique and very interesting character-design who fortunately continues on to the second film.$LABEL$ 1
+To be honest, I didn't like that much this movie when I saw it for the first time. But I guess the trouble is that I haven't seen it in a theater. Big Mistake ! Because the #1 thing to see in Cliffhanger is the settings and #2 is the cinematography. Try to see this movie on the largest TV possible and a great sound system. The music is good and puts the movie to a higher level (and a commercial potential). The more I see it, the more I like it.It's definitely one of Renny Harlin's best movie. THis guy knows about action. Die Hard 2, The long kiss good bye, etc. And it's particularly good in this movie. The special effect are great and spectacular. Stallone really needed that movie get back with success. Still good to see him !$LABEL$ 1
+I guess this is in the public domain as its out on DVD. First off, this is a feel good propaganda movie to be shown to a wartime Aussie audience, so its not to be considered a serious retelling of Tobruk. The first half to 3/4 is very dry stuff set in Australia, I guess like many American war films where the recruits are getting together, oh man its soooo long. Than we get to Africa and Tobruk, pretty bad, low budget stuff. The battle scenes on the DVD copy I watched were almost completely black. See it if you must, but be prepared to use the fast forward as I doubt you can take it after a few minutes. I enjoyed the cheesy Italian "Battle of El Alamien" a whole lot more, also Richard Burton did an African theater war flick that was good "The Desert Rats", this movie is just a real period piece and should have stayed in that time, does not hold up well today (I doubt it was highly regarded back then either). I say the same thing about my American counterpart war flicks so don't take it personally Aussies (I love Australia, been there twice!).$LABEL$ 0
+Even when I saw this movie at a teenager, I wondered just how ironic it was that Pia Zadora starred in a movie about an artist who slept her way to the top. As beautiful and sexy as Ms. Zadora is, even she couldn't keep this sorry-ass excuse of a movie from tanking. Not even her photoshoot for Penthouse, in which "The Lonely Lady" was promoted "back in the day," could keep this movie from tanking. The only thing that could have saved this movie? A completely different script. Give this one a miss.$LABEL$ 0
+I probably have to blame myself…but I sure as hell expected more from a movie that goes by the title "Black Dragons" and revolves on secret WWII conspiracies, Nazi plastic surgeons and revenge. This film is a dull failure with an incomprehensible structure. The actual plot (which basically is rather ingenious and intriguing) only becomes clear during an explication near the end, but the problem is that you stop caring a long time before. We see how horror icon Bela Lugosi infiltrates in a society of prominent American politicians and kills them one by one. The story is timed right before WWII and – especially after witnessing the ending – it surely is a premise with lots of potential, so it's quite a shame it isn't elaborated more proper. There is however one great dialogue that I can't resist sharing! Man towards woman: "Do you want to marry me?" "Why?" "So I can beat you up…it's the only way you'll leave this place!" It's the only highlight in an overall very boring movie. Bela Lugosi is lovely – as usual – but his spooky performance alone is hardly worth purchasing this film. If you're interested in seeing other ghoulish performances of his (in movies with decent screenplays), check out "Invisible Ghost", "The Corpse Vanishes", "White Zombie" and of course the 1931 Dracula version.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was probably the worst movie I have ever seen. Here are the things that immediately jump out at me: 1. The woods were more like hills in Los Angeles with a couple trees and brush. Not scary whatsoever. News flash, if you are filming in the Southern California area, big bear is only an hour away. They actually have trees there.2. The writing was absolutely without a doubt the worst dialogue I have ever experienced. Every possible line in the movie was unoriginal, cliché, or just plain stupid. For instance the name of the camp is "camp blood" (lame), the name of the clown is "the killer clown" (lame). What is a clown doing in a forest anyway? Was that the only mask they could find? 3. The last but certainly the least was the acting. Absolutely the worst group of actors and actresses ever assembled. A virtual cornucopia of shitty lines and poor acting. Worst part by far was when then randomly flash back to this fat foreign girl getting naked for a a photograph. It's a really long scene and I guess she was supposed to be sexy, but she was NOT. Also, and this was one of the few enjoyable parts of the movie for me, was this tool who is supposed to be "athletic." For instance when he is bored in the movie he grabs a couple rocks and starts doing curls with them. Then later on he is supposed to be running for the clown and it is immediately clear with his very "girl like" run, that he is quite far from athletic. Oh and to the girl who played Kat, good Lord stop singing. That song you sang for the credits makes me want to kill myself.If for some reason you do see this movie, I would at least recommend watching the special features. The group of jackasses who made this film talk about it as if it is this really original story. In fact one of the girls actually says that she let some of her friends read the screenplay and none of them could predict the ending. Apparently she hangs out with special kids.$LABEL$ 0
+"Prime Suspect 4" continues the exploits of the inscrutable and dogged seeker of truth and justice, Detective Superintendent Jane Tennison; the first of three miniseries (PS4, PS5, & PS6) with the notable absence of founding writer Lynda La Plante from the credits. Imbued with the same gritty reality of the first three series, the second three series pit Tennison against the forces of evil while coping with middle age, loneliness, indiscretions, a host of personal and professional problems, and resolutions which are sometimes less than ideal. PS4 conjures two stories while PS5 & PS6 are single episodes each which find Tennison seeking justice on behalf of the brutally wronged while waging war against institutions which are willing to sacrifice the interests of her victims for those of a greater good. In other words, to prevail, Tennison must overcome both evil and good forces, something which makes the always gray scenarios of the PS series yet grayer and the Tennison wars as much a matter of principle as of finding murderers. Very good stuff which only gets better from series to series. (B+)$LABEL$ 1
+Yaitate!! Japan is a really fun show and I really like it! It was shown in our country just recently in Hero TV and ABS-CBN every 5:30. It is about Azuma Kazuma who is trying to fulfill his dream to make Japanese bread that will represent his country. He is working in the Southern Toyo branch of Pantasia and he is also helping his friend (Tsukino Azusagawa) along with other bakers (like Kawachi Kyousuke and Kanmuri Shigeru) to beat St. Pierre and take control of Pantasia. They fight other skillful bakers from many other countries and not only learn to make different kinds of bread but also learn to cook other food. It is a really funny and unique anime because they also mimic characters from other anime(like Naruto, Detective Conan and One Piece)and famous people from real life. It is one of the best works of Takashi Haschiguchi and is really a must-see for people of different ages.$LABEL$ 1
+Yes.A real stinker. I saw this movie on the advice of my "sweet" friends who told me that this is a great "psychological" movie. This film makes every effort not to be understandable. I was aware that I was in for a stinker after seeing the first 20 minutes.I waited since I expected to see something valuable, and most important of all, I PAID for this film. The wait was unbearable. After seeing the film, I talked with my friends and learned that in the intellectual environments ( They call themselves under this title ) of Turkey this "movie" had recognised as a masterpiece. Yes, a masterpiece, but in the category of stinkers.I think that a movie must be self-explanatory. This film is just the opposite. Keep away from this thing which calls itself a "movie". Burn your money instead of paying for this "phenomenon". Rate: 1 out of 10$LABEL$ 0
+This was a good film with a powerful message of love and redemption. I loved the transformation of the brother and the repercussions of the horrible disease on the family. Well-acted and well-directed. If there were any flaws, I'd have to say that the story showed the typical suburban family and their difficulties again. What about all people of all cultural backgrounds? I would love to see a movie where all of these cultures are shown - like in real life. Nevertheless, the film soared in terms of its values and its understanding of the how a disease can bring someone closer to his or her maker. Loved the film and it brought tears to my eyes$LABEL$ 1
+Panned by critics at the time but loved by the fans, this film has now become a classic. Mixing supposedly 'surreal' footage shot at John Lennon's home among other places with live footage of Marc Bolan & T.Rex at their very best, this film is not just a must for everyone who's liked Marc Bolan but gives a fascinating insight into the era.These were the times when Marc was hobnobbing with the likes of Ringo Starr of the Beatles [who directed it] and you can even find a brief spot from one Reg Dwight [Elton John to you] bashing the ivories in an amazing [and never officially released] version of Tutti Frutti and rocking and ballad versions of Children Of The Revolution.There's also wonderful scenes featuring Chelita Secunda [said to have 'created glam rock' with her use of glitter etc], Mickey Finn and even the actor from Catweazle!!The best scene for me is in the garden when Marc leaves the dining table, sits down cross-legged in front of a string section and knocks out acoustic versions of classics such as Get It On and The Slider.Highly, highly recommended!! FIVE stars [out of five].Rory$LABEL$ 1
+After reading the original play I thought it would have been much more difficult to adapt to screen than it turned out to be. Donal McCann puts in a once-off great performance as Public Gar, the repressed antagonist who is manifested openly on screen by his extroverted (but unseen to others) alterego- Private Gar. Eamonn Kelly also plays an excellent "screwballs" whose inability to communicate his feelings is matched only by Gar.Definitely worth renting out if you can find it. (Probably unavailable outside Ireland & UK)$LABEL$ 1
+If we really want to get serious and find Osama Bin Laden, then we should take this stinker down to Gitmo and force the detainees to watch it. They'll be singing within minutes. Of course, I'm sure that making them watch this god-awful dreck violates the Geneva Convention in several ways. Look, my 5 year old daughter isn't allowed to watch TV at home. So take her to her grandparents or cousins and she's a little TV zombie. She got up and walked away after about ten minutes. That's how bad this is. You know, when the person responsible for this garbage was a young writer, I bet he or she had dreams of the great American novel. Now they have to look in the mirror every morning with the realization that they wrote what is possibly the worst hour of television in the history of the medium.And we wonder why the rest of the world hates us...$LABEL$ 0
+Ed (coincidentally an editor) is hired to cut horror films down to be favorable in Europe (where standards are much more rigorous). But he finds the films very mind-destroying and starts going a little bit mad. Okay, "a little bit" might be an understatement.Let me just say this first of all: best. opening. scene. ever. A man in an office who blows up his head with a grenade. His boss then says -- with a straight face -- "you're fired". The entire film does not keep up this level of intensity, but it certainly tries.Take the shotgun scenes, the decapitation, the clips from "Lost Limbs" (which my friend Jason wishes were a real film). The writer of this film thought up the idea of a woman who gets raped by a beaver and then immediately after gets shot in the face with a bazooka. That is something you won't find in any other movie (at least, I'm pretty doubtful you will).This film's biggest flaw is the quality. The picture isn't as crisp as a 1997 film should be, and the sound could be touched up (though it's not bad). I thought I was watching a 1980s film. Although, that gave it a bit of a boost in my mind -- the film also had the 1980s style of writing and directing in it: a sense of fun and giving the audience a little something extra over the top. I do miss those days.I wish I had more to say, though at the moment I cannot think of anything strong enough to praise this film. I do think you ought to see this. You've seen the box in your video store with the ax splitting the head... maybe you've passed it up a few times. Maybe you thought it would be cheesy. Pick it up. Savor it.$LABEL$ 1
+This episode has just aired in the UK.What a disappointment. The heavy-handed touches of humour were ill-judged, childish and detracted from what could have been a pretty good storyline. I cannot believe that Jerry Bruckheimer allowed this episode to take place. I have seen every previous episode of this show, and even the episode where Jack played his own older self was way ahead of this episode. The lesbian kiss was pathetic sensationalism.There was also no continuity from the previous episode. There was nothing in the storyline investigating Martin's dangerous behaviour or possible drug addiction. There was similarly nothing explicitly written about Jack's burgeoning relationship with Ann. Usually Without A Trace is pretty good at this sort of continuity.The next episode needs to be a considerable improvement.$LABEL$ 0
+I think it unfortunate that the leading comments on this movie include the words "Clueless and appalling nonsense." I think it is a very funny movie and excellent entertainment. One has to suspend one's disbelief that a homosexual man and a lesbian woman could fall in love, have a child and live together happily ever after. But it is always wonderful to see it played out in a movie and have one's heart warmed. Is it so impossible? There are far more implausible events described in other movies. The acting is good, the script is funny. The only negative comment is that the story could well have ended when the family drives away from its initial house instead of extending on to explore whether the man retains any residual homosexuality.$LABEL$ 1
+Looking for something shocking? Okay fine... the imagery is that. That's about it. This film attempts to make deep connections with the audience through various symbolism and just ends up being annoying. I am not quite sure if the director's purpose was to truly portray some sort of deep message to his audience, or if he just sought to shock the hell out of them with gore, sex and violence. I am thinking that it was probably the first...but in the failed attempt..it simply ended up to be a piece of artsy garbage with lots of blood, some obnoxious characters, and an over reliance on religious symbolism. If you're looking for some independent film to critique for its attempted use of metaphor...have at it. If you are looking for a gore flick that will make you queasy and uncomfortable... here you go... If you are looking for a film that will irritate you to no end because you realize that in the end, the message was stupid...the movie was stupid... and you will never get those minutes of your life back..this is surely the film for you!$LABEL$ 0
+Valentine is a horrible movie. This is what I thought of it:Acting: Very bad. Katherine Heigl can not act. The other's weren't much better.Story: The story was okay, but it could have been more developed. This movie had the potential to be a great movie, but it failed.Music: Yes, some of the music was pretty cool.Originality: Not very original. The name `Paige Prescott' Recognize Prescott?Bottom Line: Don't see Valentine. It's a really stupid movie.1/10$LABEL$ 0
+Alexander Nevsky (1938) is a brilliant piece of cinematic propaganda. The people of Russia are threatened by two major enemies, the Mongols and the Teutonic Knights of the Holy Roman Empire. In ordered to unite the warring, rival Princes in the Russian Realm, Nevsky takes charge and fights the lesser of two evils (The Teutonics). This influential film was copied many times over and it still holds up to this day. The soundtrack by composer Prokiev and Eisentstein's direction are a sight and sound to behold Many years later, John Milius used many of the movies scenes, set pieces and costumes from this film and incorporated them into Conan.One of my favorite lines from Conan was taken from this movie. "It's not the strength of the iron in a weapon but the strength of the person that wields it is what matters." The comparisons are unmistakable. The armor that James Earl Jones and the Leader of the Teutonic Knights wear are virtually identical. A true tribute paid from one director to another.I give Alexander Nevsky one of my highest recommendations. The movie plays like the final Act of Richard III. The presence of Prince Alexander on the screen is truly amazing.$LABEL$ 1
+In one instant when it seemed to be getting interesting, it never got there.The people are going from one point to another point, with really no point (if there was one it was very dull). There was no action, suspense or any horror and the characters were pretty heartless, so there was no caring what happened to them.All together the movie was pretty boring.I give it a 3/10.I like that it wasn't shaky choppy camera-work and if there was music it didn't annoy me like some really bad movies and the acting was not horrendous.$LABEL$ 0
+Once upon a time there was a director by the name of James. He brought us wonderfully, thrilling science-fiction such as Terminator and Aliens. These movies were the stuff blockbusters were made of and he looked to have a fantastic future ahead of him as the dawn of computer generated special effects landed upon the film industry. Terminator 2 showed gave us glimpses of what was possible in this new era........and then it happened...................1997........countless awards..........obscene amounts of money............outlandish barrage of advertising............maximum profit margin........Titanic was here!I have never (ever) been one to jump on the bandwagon and be overly critical for the sake of it, in fact I have often taken the opposite stance from the majority just to get an argument going. Titanic however was a film I only took one single positive out of - that of Kate Winslett being absolutely gorgeous throughout!Quickly - the dialogue was like something out of Beverly Hills 90210, the acting was more wooden than my nephew's tree house, images meant to terrify were actually comical (man falling from ship and hitting propeller), historically false (don't even get me started because there's too much), it had dire theme music (up there with the bodyguard for cheese) and the pointless love story was so tedious, self absorbing and pathetic that it disrespected the plight of everyone else involved (I was glad when he died and disappointed when she did not).It was plainly obvious from the word go that this picture was designed to appeal to MTV watching, bubblegum chewing, boy-with-car chasing, teenage girls (DeCaprio himself resembled something less heroic than the weedy member of a boy band) who would drag their sex-starved boyfriends out for a three and a half hour chick-flick hoping to get lucky later! The worst aspect was that it did not stop at that point. Millions of dumbed down, culture vultures went to see this expensive waste of celluloid because "it cost so much to produce it must be great" and "Steve and Barbara said it was good and they know their movies". The crowning glory arrived when Titanic swept the boards at the Academy Awards. King James of Hollywood had a serious moment of silence for the victims of the fatal evening on which his three and a half hour farce was based. It looked to me as if he was praying for forgiveness after making a fortune off inaccurately portraying the circumstances that lead to the death of a lot of people. However, if people are stupid and sentimental enough to buy into this kind of rubbish they deserve to get ripped off. Good luck to Hollywood if that is how they want to make money, I'd do it if I had those kind of chances in life!It is right up there on my all time worst movies list with other silly, historically false/human interest tripe like "The Patriot" and "Pearl Harbor".$LABEL$ 0
+Bart The Genius Whilst not the first Simpsons episode, Bart he Genius more or less is the first typical episode. There's no gimmickry or theme it's just your typical Simpsons episode in set-up. It always seems to me that it's an episode that grows on you. There are certain elements I don't care for, largely the blotchy animation which can be forgiven. But over time I take a liking to this story of it's uniqueness.For example, it'd be very hard for a live-action sit-com on a standard budget to do this episode due to the various different sets that show in this episode, the computer bays in Ms. Melon's class, the opera and so on. My point is with that, The Simpsons realises one of the biggest strengths in animation. The sheer lack of visual limitations when compared to live-action.On a writing stand-point it's also highly intelligent and fresh. The concept is pretty unique, and particularly the problems faced. Instead of the ol' fail-safe that work was too hard, it was simply Bart's social isolation from his classmates that failed him (although the exploding science experiment may prove otherwise...which I also think is one of the best visual gags of the series.) The ending seems a little unoriginal, largely because the Bart running naked into his room to avoid Homer was already done in the shorts, but still funny for Marge and Lisa's short back-and-forth if for nothing else.Ultimately it's a very good episode, with lots of interesting new point in the series, though not exactly perfect.Oh, and the now iconic name Kwijybo was of course unleashed onto the world.$LABEL$ 1
+Tyra & the rest of the modeling world needs to know that real women like myself and my daughter don't care to see all the ridiculous modeling to sell something. Weird locations, too much makeup & too much skin is not necessary. Sex does not always sell when you are selling to women. The same goes for the horse stomping runway walk that looks unnatural. People come in all shapes & sizes & they need to have that on the show. My daughter has a 36" inseam, is tall & slender & a size 5, I am more average at a size 12. We would like to see both- I can not picture how something would look on me when a size 2 is wearing it, it will not fit the same way on me. I do not buy magazines anymore because they are one sided on this matter. We would really love the show to consider women of all sizes. Thank you.$LABEL$ 0
+This is your only spoiler warning. What a sad state of our cinema when unprofessional junk like this is considered "Oscar worthy".I divide material into three levels. The first is the stage theatre. Here the viewer is stagnant and the power rests in the presentation of the actor and, most importantly, in the power of the writer. A good playwright is better than a good screenwriter because he or she knows the ways of words better. The best playwrights know how to create imagery that the barren stage cannot show.The second level is film. In this medium, a weaker writer can be used, but the viewer is not sitting in one spot the entire time. With film, the context can take the qualities of visual poetry and meaning in addition to strong writing. Furthermore, film can manipulate everday elements like sound and color in ways that are almost surreal.The final level is literature. In this context, everything is imagined by the author, translated onto paper, and then re-imagined by the reader. Far more detail can go into a novel than is conceivable for a film studio.This is why adaptations can go up, but never down. Novelizations are never better than the base film (see the dime-per-dozen ones at your local book store), whereas the film cannot convey the same power as the original book (Catch-22 and LotR). Movies can rarely be made into plays and plays can always be made into movies.As for 'The Last Picture Show', it fails. It is a film that should stick to the stage because the director is too stupid to shoot anything right. The characters talk the same and act the same, it's pure futility. Add to that an obnoxious soundtrack and you have an entirely unwatchable film.I saw this in my high school drama class with about 20 other wannabe thespians. The instructor raved about how sad the movie was. What is sad is how such stagnant work is considered depressing when the material itself is hilarious. Had this been in color the scenes of impotence, the pool party, and the old hooker would be considered great comedy. Look what Lucas did with 'American Graffiti' a few years later.The American secondary education system needs to start teaching ABOUT film rather than trying to teach WITH film. Two visually powerful downbeat films: Apocalypse Now and Barry Lyndon. Rely on them, not this. It's the 'Last' I want to see of it. 1 out of 5.$LABEL$ 0
+Carla is a secretary who is essentially deaf without her hearing aids. When she finds herself overloaded at work, she is able to hire Paul to help her out. Paul is just out of jail, and his past is not entirely behind him. To say too much more about the story, which has many twists, would be a mistake.The most interesting thing about this film for me is how sound is used to indicate when Carla can hear and when she can't -- a sort of "point of hear" (like point of view). The early scenes that set this up, as well as the early character development of Carla and Paul, was more interesting to me than the twists and turns later on, some of which were hard to follow and/or stretched credibility a bit. There is also some unpleasant violence. Back to the positive side, the cinematography was very good.The film is worth seeing, but perhaps not seeking out. Seen at the San Francisco International Film Festival on 4/28/2002.$LABEL$ 1
+Well, I saw that yesterday and It was much better than the other making-off from VH1, too bad than this one it's pretty outdated but you get to see all the staff who makes south park, very interesting stuff.It's also funny than this documentary portrays Trey and Matt like selfish greedy snobs creators who doesn't work and spend all the time having fun or relaxing (which is kinda ironic because they work pretty hard on the show).It also shows all the animation process to make a south park episode, interview with the actors who brings character's voices and much more.If you're a fan of south park I highly recommend you this.$LABEL$ 1
+some people think that the second series was where scooby was ruined..i disagree totally.the shows quality did not go up or down and scrappy ,win my opinion,as a very good chrecter.i looked at a poll on jumpedtheshark.com and 72% of people said scrappys second series was scoobys downfall.OK so loads said yes but 28%still cant be wrong.I do like the way most of the episodes focused on comedy.i believe the show would have gone rubbish if it was the same 5 people/dog solving mystery in same formula.scrappy was a breath of fresh air to the show.sure,some people tuned out but when scrappy was introduced viewing figures DOUBLED.Back to the show.All the episodes and segments were very funny.i was Intriguded by the yabba shorts and .But at the end of the day its a matter of opinion if you like scrappy or not is a matter of opinion,there is certainly no fact involved.But in my OPINION this was a superb series that gave a beginning to tire show a new formula and lease of life.Nuff said.$LABEL$ 1
+Reading all of the comments Are very exciting. but can someone please tell me the name of the real artist that painted the pictures for the good times broadcast. I realize that everyone refers to j.j. as the artist in the family but, there was a real family that has the real artist, and he hasn't gotten any credit in this sight yet. So if you don't mind if someone can tell the name of the real artist I would also like to tell him "job well done". I know this Sight is for the GOOD TIMES cast but, wouldn't you agree that he has also touched the hearts of us all. I would like to know if he still paints or, if he is still alive. I would like to have some of his work displayed in my home.$LABEL$ 1
+In one of the better movies of the year, Tom Hanks stars as Congressman Charlie Wilson in this sardonically funny and extremely relevant (given reasonably current events) historical comedy-drama surrounding the 1980s Afghan/Soviet fiasco. The Soviets were attacking Afghanistan killing hundreds of people. Why should anyone care? People are dying, right? No, the reason the United States got involved through Charlie Wilson was because the Afghans, in fear they would get blown to sh_t, started illegally coming into Pakistan which in turn p_ssed Pakistani President Mohammad Zia ul-Haq off. Charlie Wilson in an effort to fix this situation teamed up with the sixth richest woman and religious fanatic in Texas, Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts) and a amusing and robust American spy for the CIA, Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) to help supply Afghans with high-tech weapons to destroy Soviet fight air-craft that would try and attack their land.Although certainly not a serious Oscar contender for Best Picture, 'Charlie Wilson's War' is probably one of the best of the many political films of the year. Academy Award Winner Mike Nichols provides solid directing as to be expected while Emmy Award Winner Aaron Sorkin (Sport's Night, The West Wing) provides a remarkable screenplay that near-flawlessly balances comedy and drama. The acting is great for the most part as well. Tom Hanks delivers his best and most enjoyable performance since his 2000 Oscar-nominated turn as a FedEx worker stranded on a tropical island in 'Cast Away'. Hanks takes a slimy character like Wilson and with his trademark charm turns him into a likable guy. Amy Adams and Ned Beatty are reliable as always, but the real stand-out performance of the film is from Philip Seymour Hoffman. Arguably the finest actor working in the film industry today, Hoffman takes a small supporting role and upstages everyone around him. From his first scene where he's screaming at his boss before violently breaking his window, Hoffman sucks you in. The only disappointing cast member is unsurprisingly overrated Hollywood starlet Julia Roberts. Hamming her way through yet another movie, Roberts' overbearing and over-the-top portrayal of a rich Texas oil woman hits all the wrong notes and is at most times flat-out annoying. At 97 minutes, the movie is short and sweet, and that isn't to say it doesn't drag at some points but when it does drag it's for a very brief amount of time.In conclusion, 'Charlie Wilson's War' is not a perfect film by any means, but it's certainly worth a look. Grade: B+$LABEL$ 1
+If you make it through the opening credits, this may be your type of movie. From the first screen image of a woman holding her hands up to her face with white sheets blowing in the background one recalls a pretentious perfume commercial. It's all downhill from there.The lead actress is basically a block of wood who uses her computer to reach into the past, and reconstruct the memories of photographs, to talk history's overlooked genius, Ada, who conceived the first computer language in the 1800s.The low budget graphics would be forgivable if they were interesting, or even somewhat integral to the script.Poor Tilda Swinton is wasted.$LABEL$ 0
+Am I the only one to notice that the "realism" of the 19th century ship is erroneous. Actually it's a 15th century, right around 1620 if memory serves me, because the "realistic" ship in the movie is the Mayflower, now as far as I know the Mayflower NEVER went to Australia or even attempted a voyage to Australia. I don't know who handled R&D for this film, but using the Mayflower and hoping that no one will notice is a poor job indeed.They even printed it on the cover art and the DVD. I wonder how may other people noticed this little blunder? Not to mention that the movie itself was just plain awful, I would have expected better from Sam Neill.$LABEL$ 0
+Timberlake's performance almost made attack the screen. It wasn't all bad, I just think the reporters role was wrong for him.LL Cool J played the typical rapper role, toughest,baddest guy around. I don't think the cracked a smile in the whole movie, not even when proposed to his girlfriend.Morgan Freeman pretty much carried the whole movie. He was has some funny scenes which are the high point of the movie.Kevin Spacey wasn't good or bad he was just "there".Overall it's a Dull movie. bad plot. a lot of bad acting or wrong roles for actors.$LABEL$ 0
+*THIS COMMENT WILL PROBABLY HAVE SPOILERS!! I CHECKED THE SPOILERS BOX JUST IN CASE BUT IT MIGHT NOT HAVE SPOILERS, BUT BE AWARE ANYWAYS IF I SAY SOMETHING THAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER A SPOILER AND I DON'T!* Wow...best game since Super Mario 64. I got this game the first day it came out, and before I got it, I went on some gaming websites to look at its ratings (yes, they already reviewed it before it came out), and I was shocked. I was expecting something like Sunshine because lately all the Mario games have kind of been getting worse and worse. But this one totally beat the other games. The scores on this game even beat Halo 3! It's simply amazing.STORY: Not the best, Mario games are never known for their plots, and this one isn't really much of a difference. Bowser once again kidnaps Peach but this time invades the Mushroom Kingdom on a festival celebrated once every century and gets a flying saucer and it shoots lasers on the ground and then they put anchors inside the ground and rip off the castle and its foundation into outer space.GRAPHICS: Absolutely gorgeous, the best graphics on Wii so far. The water effects are really nice too, if you ever see the water, it looks so real because the effects they put in it.MUSIC: Simply amazing, the music in this game is orchestrated. Not all of it, but even the ones that aren't orchestrated still sound very nice.GAMEPLAY: Very entertaining, keeps you wanting to play more and more, and for me, since usually I tend to be very frustrated with games if I die a lot, I mean, I'm definitely not the only one, but this game for me didn't have that a lot. Now it still kind of did, but not to the point like Mario 64 where I totally go crazy and end up turning off the game because it made me mad, this one never did that.DIFFICULTY: There are two types of difficulty, because you can just technically beat the game with just 60 stars, which I think is kind of easy, but to beat the game 100%, you have to get 120, like always, and that quest is way harder, but at the same time still very fun.LENGTH: Good length, definitely not too short. It took me around 15-16 hours to beat it with just 60 stars, but 120 took me more like 45-50 hours. Now I didn't play it constantly that much, I played first a lot one day, then the next couple of days just a couple hours each day, then the next two days I played it all day. To me though, I think the quest for 60 stars was a tiny bit short, so if you want a long game, I suggest getting all of them.PRESENTATION: Now, the cinematic scenes in this movie are superb. The way they are, it just looks so much like something I would see in the theaters. They are hands down the best cinematic scenes on any Mario game so far.OVERALL: This game is definitely a great game, and I advise you to not wait until Christmas, get it as soon as possible. This game also is a good mixture of old and new, you'll have some sidescroller levels where you move just side to side, or up and down because they'll change on gravity, but even the music has some old classics in it. So this game seems to be like a masterpiece. To me, it's my favorite Mario game of all time, but others may disagree. But it's still a great game. I recommend every gamer who wants to have fun in a game to get this.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie is a waste of time. Though it has actors who have the potential to do something decent, the acting in the movie is sub-par, and has a cliché point. "You never know what's going to happen tomorrow, so live your life to the fullest and do what makes you happy." That sentence saves you from wasting hours of your life on this movie. People who like this movie are the same people who would enjoy sitting for two hours before finding that the entire movie was a dream sequence. If the most important part of the movie isn't even going to happen, at least make it enjoyable to watch and captivating. There's a reason this project didn't make a theatrical release, and though indy films can turn out very good, this one does not even come close.$LABEL$ 0
+Eight teen convicts are brought to the abandoned Blackwell Hotel to clean it out as community service. They soon discover that it's the residence of a hulking psychopath (Kane) who has a thing for pulling out and collecting eyeballs. It doesn't help that the guard watching over them (Steven Vidler) has had a previous run-in with the beast four years earlier. A guilty pleasure of mine are slasher films. Most of them are poorly directed and acted but they still hold some appeal and entertainment value. See No Evil is a good example of this. It features atrocious writing and acting but the death scenes are pretty good and the movie proves to be entertaining. The premise sounds like a mixture between Friday the 13th, Saw 2 and Halloween: Resurrection. I really liked the idea but it didn't work out too well. It was really just a bunch of clichés and everything was predictable. Screenwriter Dan Madigan just focused on the death scenes and nothing else apparently. The death scenes themselves are pretty good and gruesome. Director Gregory Dark did a good job with them and he came up with some creative kills. The acting is pretty bland and unremarkable. This is because all of the characters are one dimensional and we don't know much about them. It was hard to feel for these people because they were pretty unlikable. Kane is surprisingly mediocre. I was expecting his on screen presence to be scarier but he didn't do that good of a job. A second rate Jason Voorhees, if you will. The rest of the actors are relatively unknown and this film will probably neither help nor hurt their careers. While the death scenes are gory, they aren't necessary scary. There's really no suspense just some gory death scenes. Because of this, the movie doesn't hold much of a repeat value. Also, if you don't like slasher films then don't waste your time with this one. It will do little to change your opinion. In the end, See No Evil is a decent slasher film but it is generic and forgettable so it's not exactly worth watching. Rating 6/10$LABEL$ 0
+I love this movie because every single element of it is nothing less than excellent. I will quickly praise a few of them. Peter O'Toole gives us one of his great performances as he becomes the definitive Mr. Chips. Petula Clark, has a beautiful voice and is perfect as Katharine. The director was able to bring the story to the screen in a fresh new way. Combine that with the fantastic and creative cinematography, editing, writing, etc., and you have a film that shows the fine quality of its production. I can't praise the well-planned camera work enough, it moves us up and around, zooming in and out, giving us the best views of, and letting the locations become part of the scene. Petula Clark's last song 'YOU AND I' is just 3 beautifully composed long takes, and in this era of 2 second takes, I can appreciate the extra care that everyone involved had to give to get those long scenes perfect. The music is great, and the songs move the story along just as they should. Leslie Bricusse is one of my favorite composers. Listen to these songs, how could anyone not like them? This is a very romantic story between two people nearing middle age that find each other, bring out the best in each other, and it lasts till the end of their lives. Excellent production values, acting, camera work, and music, make this movie well worth watching.$LABEL$ 1
+Add to the list of caricatures: a Southern preacher and "congregation," a torch singer (Sophie Tucker?), a dancing chorus, and The Mills Brothers -- it only makes it worse.Contemptible burlesques of "Negro" performers, who themselves often appear in films to be parodying themselves and their race. Though the "Negro comedy" may have been accepted in its day, it's extremely offensive today, and I doubt that it was ever funny. Though I wouldn't have been offended, I don't think that I'd have laughed at the feeble attempts at humor. As an 11-year-old white boy, however, I might not have understood some of it.$LABEL$ 0
+Ironically, what makes John Carpenter's "The Thing" such an entertaining sci-fi film are its genre-defying elements of mystery, suspense, and tight plot structure. It puts to shame such films as "Aliens" or "Armageddon" that are content to inundate the viewer with special effects while their plots revolve around stunts that butcher the laws of physics, testosterone-laden one-liners, heroes equipped with enough artillery to conquer Iraq, and pathetic attempts to inject "meaning" into the barrage on screen with "emotional sequences" that only serve to further insult the intelligence of the audience. The supreme tragedy, of course, is that these kind of lobotomized movies are also the most popular. I think that there is a cause for this, although it isn't very comforting. There is an increasing trend in our culture to passively "surrender" to the media -- to immerse oneself in the images we see without dedicating a single brain cell to comprehending the statement the work is trying to make. This mindset is becoming increasingly dominant in all arenas; even the once-hallowed print medium is being diluted, thanks to the abominable "reader response" theory that pervades our schools and the "tabloid brigade" that lines our magazine racks whose mentality appears to be infiltrating the once-venerable mainstream press. Nowadays, we just flip the switch and put our minds on "pause." Is "The Thing" a "good" movie? For the rare individual who still values his faculty of reason, a more appropriate term would be "entertaining." Its plot keeps one guessing, its ending is uncompromising, and it has some redeeming statements to make about human paranoia. Upon subsequent viewings, one begins to note a conspicuous lack of depth in the acting, but the taut storyline remains compelling. Of course, "Citizen Kane" it's not, but then again sci-fi never was a thinking-man's genre...$LABEL$ 1
+I found this film extremely disturbing. Treadwell is delusional and disturbed, to the point of probably suffering from a mental illness. The footage shown is him and not an actor, but yet it is showing behaviour that ended in death. Is it appropriate to show actual footage of a suicide? Let's not mince words. The film shows footage of behaviour that directly led to his death.For those who think that Treadwell is some kind of hero, think again. The footage he shot is about him and not about the bears and foxes he claimed to be helping. He did no meaningful research into their habits or numbers and did nothing to actually protect them. All he did was run around in the bush and convince himself that he was better than everyone else. Reality is, by helping to desensitize the animals to humans, he exposed them to great risk. His self indulgent behaviour not caused his own death, but also the death of his companion Amy plus exposed his beloved bears and foxes to greater harm.But I'm also concerned about Werner Herzog's actions in compiling this film the way he did.A friend and I have had a long argument about this film who loved this film. He believes that seriously disturbed people make for interesting subjects and he cites the movie Downfall as an example. But in Downfall they use actors. We didn't see the real Madga Goebells put cyanide capsules into her own children's mouths.There was something about using the real footage in Grizzly Man which reminded me of that horrible football stadium tragedy where people were being crushed to death and the photographers who could have helped, elected to simply keep recording the horror.Herzog's film shows us that Treadwell's footage is more about Treadwell. But Herzog has done the same. His own personality and opinions are aired in this documentary, which is supposedly about someone else. Scenes such as the one where he listens to the tape are not necessary. We already knew what was on the tape because the coroner had told us. We didn't need Herzog shedding a tear with one of Treadwell's former girlfriends. It didn't add to the film.The film showed us that Treadwell was very self-indulgent, but it also showed us that Herzog is as well.$LABEL$ 0
+I got this movie as a buy one get one deal at troma.com with The Ruining (which isn't much better). The main reason I wanted it was to see Star Worms II: Attack of the Pleasure Pods, the DVD is a double feature with that movie. I really didn't know what Actium Maximus was at the time, and when I saw the trailer I got scared. It looked awful. But hey, what can you tell from the trailer? Well, apparently I could tell a lot. This movie honestly made no sens to me. The special effects were so terrible you cannot tell what in God's name is going on. I understand Mark HIcks had a extremely low budget, but come on. And it is sad, because in the interview he sounded like this was to be an epic film and meant more than you could see. But sadly, watching the film is one of the most boring hour and 15 minutes of anyone's life. It is so utterly painful to sit through. I really can't even explain the plot to you because I didn't understand it at all and I have sadly seen this film two times! Apparently they used some type of puppets for the "alien dinosaurs" like they did in Star Wars. But these special effects are awful, I can't stress it enough. And most of the time bad special effects are okay but this film needed them badly. It takes place on some futuristic planet where alien dinosaurs battle each other and bad actors in hooded sweatshirts run around, and they look like they are in the kkk. And some box with a blue light on it is the president. I know in the interview Mark Hicks said something about making this a television pilot, well, I can see why this didn't make it to CBS or NBC. There are two good things about this film. 1. the music is actually pretty good, it has an epic score that sticks in your head for days. And 2. Lloyd Kaufman's introduction is as always hilarious. Overall, don't waste your time but check out Star Worms II: Attack of the Pleasure Pods!$LABEL$ 0
+New York has never looked so good! And neither has anyone in this movie. While the script is a bit lightweight you can't help but like this movie or any of the characters in it. You almost wish people like this really existed. The appeal of the actors are what really put it over(John Ritter, Colleen Camp and the late Dorothy Stratten are particularly good.) Go ahead and rent or buy this movie you'll be glad you did.$LABEL$ 1
+I actually found out about Favela Rising via the IMDb website. I have a particular interest in Afro-Brazilian culture and films. Favela Rising is one of those gems that gives a new meaning to human transformation. Beautifully documented and filmed by Jeff Zimbalist and Matt Mochary its the story Anderson Sa, a former Rio De Janeiro drug trafficker who after the deaths of family members and friends becomes a Christ-like, Malcolm X, and Ghandi all rolled into one. Sa formed AfroReggae, a grassroots cultural movement that uses Afro-Brazilian hiphop, capoeira(Afro-Brazilian Martial Arts)drumming, and other artforms to transform the hopeless and most times angry youth into vibrant, viable, caring community loving individuals.A few years ago I remember going to a screening of City Of God (Cidade De Deus) and walked out of the theatre completely numb. The images were grim yet stunning and you couldn't take your eyes off the screen. I remember how hopeless some situations were in the Favelas and how decadent the society was due to the governments neglect. How drug trafficking was a way of life, how indifferent the citizens of the slums were because death was an every day occurrence. Like City Of God Anderson Sa talks about how the people of the favelas were also desensitized. He talks about the police corruption, and how the communities were so immobilized by drugs and gangs that you couldn't visit family members in other Favelas you had to meet in a neutral location. Unlike City of God Anderson Sa's grassroots movement AfroReggae provides solutions to the anger, the hopelessness.There was one part in the documentary where Anderson, in the spirit of a preacher approached some youth and asked them to join AfroReggae. These jaded youth were so scarred by everyday survival and violence. Their role models were drug dealers and this is what they aspired to be. Anderson told then that drug dealers don't live very long. There was reluctance of course but five months later he was able to get some of the youth to join AfroReggae.The visuals in Favela Rising are beyond amazing. Its clear to me that Jeff Zimbalist and Matt Mochary are not only great story tellers but visual artist as well. This is a must see documentary! There are some really magical and transforming moments in this documentary. I don't want to spoil them for you. I want you see it for yourself. Please tell your friends, academics, youth counselors, family members about this wonderful film. It will make you care about the world and our children.I would give it eleven stars!$LABEL$ 1
+This gawd-awful piece of tripe is all over the place. The script is bad, the plot is bad, the acting is bad. There are a couple of decent actors in it (Charles Durning, eg.), but the director got nothing out of them. The plot line has Santa, feeling dejected and thinking no one needs him any more, taking a little girl across country to try to get her father back together with her mother. It includes a con-man in a Santa suit with a stuffed parrot on his shoulder (played by "Isaac" from The Love Boat), the world's largest elf (played by Bruce Vilnach - a very funny man, but no actor), a hardened factory owner who works his employees overtime on Christmas eve, and a sleigh race where someone cuts one of Santa's skis trying to win. If the plot sounds bad, it's worse on the little screen. If you see this movie coming up next, run, do not walk, to your television and unplug it. You may want to boil your television to remove any remaining infection. If you accidentally watch more than 10 minutes of this, you may have to burn your television, and have the cable company install entirely new lines.$LABEL$ 0
+The title for this review about sums up how I feel about this movie. I can't imagine what audience there would be for this thing, if not for the die-hard fan of 1980s slasher films who simply has to see -everything- from that era. Otherwise, don't even waste your time on this.The story is similar to most films of its type: something awful happens to one of the characters in the opening scene, which inspires a bloodthirsty killer to go on a murderous rampage. Been there, done that. Truth be told, none of these '80s slashers were known for their originality, so I can't see the point in harping on the film simply for this.But where the film fails is in its suspense and murder sequences. I've seen some pretty scary slasher movies from the 1980s that had far lower budgets than this. This one just fails to create any real suspense. The director throws in some nice camera angles and some semi-professional directorial touches here and there, but they mean nothing if you're not frightened. The gore is pretty tame as well, so anyone who watches these things with the intention of seeing some cool 1980s makeup effects will be sadly disappointed.The movie manages to clunk along rather dully. Honestly, the key ingredient to almost any slasher is the tight pacing--you have to keep things moving along swiftly and keep the murder set pieces staged at regular intervals, because, let's face it, we don't watch these things for the great characterization and stellar plots. But the pacing, whether due to the script or the editor, is all off. The murders are spaced out at odd intervals, leaving us with some long-winded scenes (no doubt meant to build "character") that serve only to bore you and leave you praying for the next kill (which, as I've said, usually isn't executed all that well anyway).As for the killer, don't expect anything original or even remotely frightening. He (or she?) wears a jogging suit, a fencing mask, and his (or her?) primary weapon is a sword. I bet the writer just wet himself over thinking he came up with an original, "cool" murder weapon, but the idea just comes off as impractical and silly. There's also not much emphasis placed on the "whodunnit' nature of the film, as if they either forgot or don't care to place any red herrings in the mix to throw us off.I have the sense that the people behind this were trying to make something decent and respectable, and at times, it shows their intentions were probably a bit more genuine in regards to making a quality film as opposed to countless other knockoff slashers from the era. But alas, the attempt fails for the most part. There is, however, some pretty good acting (at least, for this type of film). There is attempt at characterization, but none of it ends up meaning anything in the end, so...what a waste. Here, all it manages to do is bog down the plot and make the murder sequences feel like they can't come soon enough.In the end, if you're really into these old '80s slashers, by all means, check it out, if only to say you've seen it. There's a completest in all of us. But don't expect to be blown away or anything. What we have here is a very mildly entertaining slasher movie that leaves no real impression at all.$LABEL$ 0
+I am watching this movie right now on WTN because that was the channel that the TV was turned to when I turned it on. It is a not very credible and fairly boring story about a minister's wife (Alexandra Paul) falling in lust with a young stud/drifter (with washboard abs) played by Corey Sevier. There may or may not be a plot. Corey whips his shirt off a lot and Alexandra swoons. I'm getting the feeling he's supposed to be up to no good, and that's why he's messing with skinny Alexandra Paul. It's not really important because as I said he takes his shirt off a lot and I just caught a glimpse of butt cleavage. There's a lot of sax on the soundtrack, which is just painful.$LABEL$ 0
+If rich people are different from us because they have more money, then film makers are different from us because they think the world cares about their every thought.This self-indulgent piece of tripe seems to have been made just because the director felt it was time to make another movie, and someone would finance it. Not every trivial idea or reflection is worthy of a movie (unless you are a college film student trying to complete a course). When you don't have anything to say, sometimes it is best to remain quiet.The visuals are not breath-taking. They are quite ordinary. The dialog is inane and unbelievable. They speak words no one would every sequence together in situations that are beyond imagination. Germaine Greer's zipless f**k is finally brought to the screen. Even if you believe in love at first sight, no one falls into bed as easily as these characters. They screw before they talk. Even more unbelievable is an aging, balding director finding instant sex with the most beautiful chick in town, though gravity is already getting to Miss Marceau at a youthful age.$LABEL$ 0
+TART is the worst movie I've seen this year, and that includes both the Affleck/J.Lo bomb GIGLI and the Rob Zombie borefest HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES. I don't know if that's a fair comparison seeing that TART was made two years earlier and probably has a budget half that of even the low-budget 1000 CORPSES. Regardless, all three movies suffer from the same shortcomings: horrible script, horrible acting, horrible direction.*** SPOILERS *** (although I honestly don't think there's anything to spoil)TART is about a group of super-spoiled private school kids. Most of them reside in super-sized apartments along New York's hyper-expensive Park Avenue, thanks to the finances of their neglectful parents. The film showcases the aimless life of one of the students (Cat) as she discards her only true friend (as frivolous a person as she was) in the pursuit of the "good life" with the in-crowd. That, of course, leads to sex, drugs, and music that is substantially worse than rock & roll. Everything is overly dramaticized in the way that truly bad movies usually are. Cat's first sexual experience leads to her being branded a tramp and ostracized by her newly acquired circle of friends; her first encounter with drugs leads to her nearly being dumped down a garbage chute after her cohorts believe her to be dead from an overdose. No heavy-handed messages there, he said sarcastically.That's mainly what the "seen it before 100 times" plot entails. Other minor, and even less interesting, plot details include one friend who steals jewelry and trinkets from all the others, a wild child who lives life on the edge (and finally falls off of it one night in the EAST Hamptons), an anti-Semitic British chick who ends her close friendship with Cat the moment she finds out Cat has a Jewish father, and Cat's strained relationship with her single mother who tries unsuccessfully to get Cat to appreciate the privileged life she has. The thief turns out to be an irredeemable lowlife. The "wild child" is played as a toned down version of one of the Hilton sisters. The British girl disappears from the film after the break-up. The mother/daughter relationship is seen as totally inconsequential until the film's final schmaltzy scene, where she and her beleaguered mother have a reconciliation of sorts. *yawn**** END SPOILERS ***About the cast and crew.... Dominique Swain came on the scene strong with her role as the underaged seductress in 1997's highly watchable LOLITA and FACE/OFF. Her performances were strong enough to land her on quite a few "ones-to-watch" lists at the time. She was 17 at the time and I hope that they will not be the best roles of her career. If she takes a few more roles like the one she takes in TART, it very well may be.I've only seen Bijou Phillips in one other film (BULLY) and I swear her performance in that one was nearly identical to the one she gave here. I'm not sure if she's incapable of giving varied performances or if it was just a coincidence her roles in the two were so very similar. My guess is that the former is true. I sense this woman possesses very little talent as far as acting is concerned. Here, she is the actress tapped to portray the watered-down Hilton sister. That she gives such a weak performance is amazing considering that she grew up with, and remains friends with, the real-life Hilton sisters. She's essentially playing a version of herself in this film, and doing a damn poor job of it.As for writer/director Christina Wayne... I know nothing of her other than TART was her first, and only, film project to date. With a first effort like this it is no wonder her career in show business was short-lived.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is AWESOME. I watched it the other day with my cousin Jay-Jay. He said it was alright, but i think it RULEZZZ! I mean, it's so cool. Ted V. Mikels is so brave and smart. He made a movie totally unlike those terrible Hollywood films, like the Matrix and STop or my Mom will Shoot. It could have been better, though. I like ninjas and pirates. I also like that big talon that the funny man wears. I think he's the coolest guy since that Domino Pizza claymation guy. Not only does this movie look really cool, like those out-of-focus movies my dad made of my birthday when I turned 6. BUt it tells a complex tale with dozens of characters that seem to be totally unrelated, but they all meet up in the end. It's genius how this web is woven to make everything meet up. I wish Ted V. Mikels would make a sequel. But it needs more aliens. And a pirate.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie appears to have made for the sole purpose of annoying me. Everything I hate about films is present: fake sentimentality, extreme corniness, bad child actors and more feature abundantly. That's ignoring the fact that it depicts the extreme ignorance of American sports fans, with many of the cast professing that a football is shaped like a lemon. What?! That's a Rugby ball. The story follows a group of no hopers that get a new teacher that they like (who, coincidently, teaches the class in a short skirt) and gets them interested in football. Naturally, they're all rubbish (don't forget, they're no hopers) except for one kid who has moved from El Paso. Blah Blah, etc etc and the kids still don't become good footballers, but good heart ensues and the no hopers are turned into a bunch of well-rounded kids. Hell, even the adults start to come round; drunks are turned into caring parents, illegal immigrants are let off the hook...groan.This movie stars Steve Guttenberg. Now, before you go rushing off down your local video store to grab yourself a copy, hold up a minute. Guttenberg is rubbish. No, no; come on let's face it, how did this guy ever get to be in a movie? I have absolutely no idea, and there is nothing in this movie to give me an idea. Olivia d'Abo stars along side Steve and doesn't impress either. She merely seems to be going through the motions and looking nice while doing it. Although I have no problems with the latter part; her performance does the movie no credit. The child actors that make up the rest of the cast are just as bad as you would expect from a movie like this. Most of them are disgusting and/or annoying and it doesn't make for pleasant viewing at all. There's a goat in the film who plays the mascot and he does a good job; but you wouldn't see a movie for a goat, so don't bother seeing this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm afraid I must disagree with Mr. Radcliffe, as although he is correct in saying this isn't a comedy, it has many other merits. The plot is a little mad at parts, but I believe it it all fits together nicely, creating a satisfying, enjoyable film. The last scene was rather abysmal compared to the rest of the film, but the actual ending of the plot a few scenes previously is very interesting, showing just what someone will do under stressful circumstances.I would recommend this film to fans of thrillers and action movies, but if you're a fan of gangster movies then as long as you don't expect expect something as deep as Goodfellas then you should still find it enjoyable.$LABEL$ 1
+"Nero" as the title of the movie is in Germany is a another attempt to show one of the most interesting Roman emperors, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, better known as Nero. Although this attempt at least tried to show a more historic accurate Nero than the amusing but completely fictitious Nero Peter Ustinov played in "Quo Vadis!" it still is a major failure. And to those IMDb-commentators who still believe that Sueton and Tacitus propaganda is true, please read a book about Nero that was published less than 20 years ago. Nero did NOT burn Rome, this is proved! He did not murder Britannicus. He did not torture, kill and maim for pleasure, he was the first emperor who BANNED the gladiator fights. The movie still shows a lot of mistakes, errors and is by the way made in a really cheap style, especially the sets were cheap and unconvincing, the palace looking like some villa, the city itself looked like..well like a cheap set. The acting was between good and sub-par, the music nearly insignificant and the movie soon deteriorated after Nero became emperor to a rushed, bad edited mess without any clear narrative structure. So there still is the potential for an epic biography of Nero that shows the true Nero, who was one of the best emperors who ruled Rome, despite the lies of Sueton et al.$LABEL$ 0
+I saw this movie a few days ago and gamely jumped during the scary parts. I must admit, I found it pretty decent...until I started to THINK about what the characters were saying. Logical problems:1. Her boyfriend, who seems to be a pretty fit dude, makes no sound while being killed. Don't you think that he might have at least tried to take the killer? 2. When the remark is made that the gym teacher is "SOOOO in love with Lisa," I almost screamed at the screen. When your best friend's family HAS BEEN KILLED BY A TEACHER WHO WAS IN LOVE WITH HER, you don't make comments like that if you have half of a heart.3. As soon as Nash asks the uncle how many exits they have in the house and the uncle catches on that there may be danger ahead, wouldn't the smart thing to do be to get Donna, boyfriend, aunt, and uncle into a car and drive far, far away, then bait the house with the HRT and police force so that the killer has no way to get out?I could go on. And on. And on. Basically, the plot was decent, the characters weren't profiled enough for you to actually feel any empathy when they were slaughtered and there were way too many errors.HOWEVER.This movie might be good for teenagers, or young couples just looking for a fun night out. If you don't consider all the goofs, it's a mediocre film.$LABEL$ 0
+Danny Lee's performance as a wisecracking cop is the only spot of interest in this film, even though it has an excellent cast including Chow Yun-Fat, Carina Lau, Andy Lau, Shing Fui-On and Alex Man. CYF plays a triad boss who wants to settle down to a life of peace and plenty but Alex Man, a total psycho who has a big grudge against CYF, won't let him. CYF tries to escape to Malacca but to no avail. After his family is blown to bits, his cronies dead or turncoat, wounded and broke, CYF returns to Hong Kong to get into some serious revenge.It sounds a lot better than it is. CYF is well-dressed and handsome, looks pained, grimaces and cries on cue, but somehow or another you just don't care. Andy Lau looks great, but that's about it. Carina Lau has a tiny, tiny little part which was nice, but she gets a bullet in the head early on so that ends that. Alex Man is a cartoon villain he's so over-the-top which at times can be intriguing but the writing here is so flat that he just comes across as a garden-variety nut.Danny Lee is great though - too bad he's only a small blip on the screen of this dark (literally) and essentially boring movie.Rent it, don't buy it. Or just skip it altogether.This is the sequel to "Rich And Famous", even though it apparently was filmed simultaneously; it was released first because of CYF's boxoffice power.$LABEL$ 0
+this movie is ok if you like mindless action ,corny acting, and a very small plot !The special effects are decent considering this movie is from the director of"Event Horizon". The costumes are like something from a mad max movie .None of the soldiers talk ,so others tell them what to do.It eventually end up as a big shoot'em up movie with explosions all the place. I personally liked Russell better in "tango and cash""escape from la/new york" and "executive decision". It must see this movie leave your mind at the door for a no brainer action science fiction movie!!$LABEL$ 1
+Besides the fact that it was one of the few movies that I ever shed a tear over (bye-bye manhood), this is one of the most beautifully crafted Indian films that has ever been made. From the finely crafted sets, to those haunting looks Meena Kumari gives, no one can ever forget it. The music of Pakeezah is amazing, all the more if you can understand the sublime poetry, and is definitely one of those "OMG, 5 minutes another song" movies. You get the feeling of how trapped Sahibjaan is in among all the amazing jewelery she wears and fountained court yard she casually walks past.A parody of all the dreams you've ever had..........$LABEL$ 1
+Quite possibly one of the greatest wastes of celluloid of the past 100 years. Not only does it suffer from a painfully (and enormously predictable) disjointed script, but it's clearly a carbon-copy of Alien II. Within five minutes I had correctly predicted who would die and who wouldn't (and in which order). The special effects are laughable; there is a scene where one crew member is mauled (unconvincingly) by two Krites that look like a pair of teddy-bears, and the sparse humor is misplaced and dire. There are better things to do with a VCR remote than use it to watch this movie.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie was made on a relatively small budget (10-20 million dollars?) with almost no promotion at all from its distributors. I only knew about it because I am a long time Jean-Claude Van Damme fan and I always check out his latest films in hope that they will be at least watchable and aside from some real turkeys (Derailed, Second In Command), they are. This movie has an easy enough plot to follow and Van Damme gives a good, humorous performance through out but the movie owes all of its credit to the fight scenes involving Van Damme, Scott Adkins and the final one of them together. The editing and camera work for most of the film is pretty terrible but Isaac Florentine can definitely film a good fight scene. I too am happy that Van Damme has been acting better lately (In Hell, Wake of Death, Until Death) but with the good acting came less martial arts. In The Shepherd, Van Damme proves that he still has it.$LABEL$ 1
+The only reason any of the hundred or so users watched this movie was because they belong to the crew, were friends to the crew, or were obsessive fans of either Lance Henriksen or Lorenzo Lamas. I personally follow the "cult of Lance", so I was disappointed to see that despite being the headliner, it's in name only. Playing rich criminal Newcastle, Lance is a joy to watch but all of his screen time is relegated to the beginning of the movie. Newcastle sets up a 747 heist which includes Ketchum (Lamas) and a bunch of forgettable characters. The biggest shock to this viewer was that the pre-heist scenes were not all that bad. With the exception of somewhat obnoxious and rather confused looking Aviva Gale, who times every line with the finesse of a grade school play actress, acting was decent all around, and none of the lines really made me cringe.But once the heist occurs, the movie falls asleep. Not only is their plan the most ridiculous thing ever captured on film, but it's dragged out for far too long. This isn't a very deep movie, and you have to fill out your 90 minutes, but these scenes are so boring I nearly nodded off at two in the afternoon. One particular sequence in which we watch each and every one of the characters perform the same task over and over again is especially difficult to get through. The movie's name is "Rapid Exchange", but the exchange is far from rapid - it's overlong and bloated to extremes. Perhaps it would have worked if any of the characters had real personalities, but come on, there's only so much you can ask out of a straight-to-video movie airing of Showtime Extreme.Thankfully, there are several laughs, intentional and unintentional (Lorenzo Lamas is seemingly a master of disguise, which makes for a couple of incredibly bizarre scenarios), and Lance returns in the film's end, albeit for a brief period of time. It's a bad movie, and I probably didn't have to tell you that myself, but it's far from the worst thing I've ever seen. I wouldn't put it too high on the list of Henriksen films, since he's been in some real gems with greater screen time, and either way the movie loses a lot of steam once the heist begins, but the best thing I can say for Rapid Exchange is that the last two films I watched before it were the mainstream Hostage and the overrated, pretentious Crash - and this was better than both.$LABEL$ 0
+A kid with ideals who tries to change things around him. A boy who is forced to become a man, because of the system. A system who hides the truth, and who is violating the rights of existence. A boy who, inspired by Martin Luther King, stands up, and tells the truth. A family who is falling apart, and fighting against it. A movie you can't hide from. You see things, and you hear things, and you feel things, that you till the day you die will hope have never happened for real. Violence, frustration, abuse of power, parents who can't do anything, and a boy with, I am sorry, balls, a boy who will not accept things, who will not let anything happen to him, a kid with power, and a kid who acts like a pro, like he has never done anything else, he caries this movie to the end, and anyone who wants to see how abuse found place back in the 60'ies.$LABEL$ 1
+The opening credits make for a brilliant, atmospheric piece of escapist entertainment that's full of little nods to the comic strip. All the good guys are good, all the bad guys are bad, and the film is jam-packed with familiar character actors covered in gruesom make-up to hi-lite their characteristics.Warren Beatty, as Dick Tracy, is the ultimate tough guy straight man, incorruptable, calm usually, always a better fighter than the other guy, and rarely one to push the limit on legality. Al Pacino, as "Big Boy" Caprice steals every scene he's in as a hunch-backed gangster in some unnamed metropolis of 1930s gangsters. Maddonna plays the kind of person she'd probably play best, Breathless Mahoney, a nightclub singer and femme fatale with her own little agenda going. Gleanne Headly is Tracy's tough-talking, fiercely independent long-time girlfrined. And then there's The Kid, a funny little street urchin Tracy takes in, who models himself after his surrogate father, and saves Tracy when the detective has accepted his fate of being blown up.The supporting players are a Who's Who of character actors. Charles Durning is the chief of police. Dick Van Dyke is the District Attorney, who's bribed by Big Boy's goons to keep him on the streets. Dustin Hoffman has a humorous turn as Mumbles, the snitch whose dialect is so indecipherable the cops can't make head nor tail of what he has to say. R.G. Armstrong is Pruneface, one of the rival gangsters Big Boy forms a special allegiance to in order to create a network of crime spreading throughout the whole city. Mandy Patinkin is 88 Keys, the piano player for Breathless's show. Paul Sorvino plays Lips Manlis, Breathless's former benefactor until Big Boy gives him "the Bath." James Caan wears relatively little make-up in his performance as the only gangster who won't go along with Big Boy's grand plan. William Forsythe and Ed O'Ross are Big Boy's enforcers, Flattop and Itchy.This movie retains all of the corn of the comic strip, plus it is full of vibrant colors. Almost all the suits are elaborate in blues and greens and yellows and reds. All the colors of the rainbow are found in this movie--and then some! The matte paintings that are used truly realize this world as two-dimensional, only acted in three-dimensional sets. The humor is plentiful. Al Pacino fills the shoes of his character like no other character he's played before or since. Big Boy is kind of crazy, and kind of self-pitying. He's an eccentric little man who takes pride in quoting our Founding Fathers and likening himself to great political leaders. The man with the plan, always looking for the smartest way to do business.$LABEL$ 1
+This film could have been a silent movie; it certainly has the feel of one. I was extremely, extremely lucky to see this very rare version of this film. Extase, is a 'symphony of love', and transcends all language versions. French, which is the ultimate romantic language, seems quite suitable for this very sensual and lyrical version.A young Hedy Lamarr lights up the screen, in this film which, in a way is almost like a sex fantasy; but definitely far from being pornographic.Tech qualities may have been a little crude; but that does not detract from the magical spell this film exudes.Many lovers of early cinema, would absolutely adore this film.$LABEL$ 1
+Some movies want to make us think, some want to excite us, some want to exhilarate us. But sometimes, a movie wants only to make us laugh, and "In & Out" certainly succeeds in this department.Indiana high-school teacher Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) is going to be married to fellow teacher Emily Montgomery (Joan Cusack) in three days, but the whole town is more excited about the Oscar nomination of former resident Cameron Drake (Matt Dillon). But when Cameron wins an Oscar for playing a gay soldier, he thanks his gay teacher, Howard, for inspiration. What follows is Howard denying it in an hilarious set of mishaps in a truly screwball fashion.Kevin Kline is great, exuding gay stereotypes. Joan Cusack really has a knack for screwball antics. Debbie Reynolds is utterly hilarious as Howard's mother. And Bob Newhart is also a hoot as the homophobic principal.Gay screenwriter Paul Rudnick really achieves a delicate balance here. He knows the stereotypes and exploits them in a way that's mostly tolerable to conservative Midwesterners and yet mostly inoffensive to the gay audience. It's not exactly progressive, but it's funny and inoffensive, and definitely a step up from the previous year's "The Birdcage."$LABEL$ 1
+this is horrible film. it is past dumb. first, the only thing the twins care about is how they look and what boys like them. they are in 7th grade. not to say i am a prude or anything but it sends the wrong message to girls of all ages. being pretty and popular is not everything. but that is what the twins make it out to be. The plot is even worse. the girl's grandpa just happens to be the ambasitor(sp?) to France. He has a co-worker take the girls around paris and they meet two "cute french boys" with motorcycles. they sneek out to meet the boys start to really like them ETC.....they meet a supermodel in process and go around paris with total strangers they think are cute. need i say more? this movie may be cute to 8&9 year olds. the twins play ditsy losers that want boyfriends. it makes sends the wrong idea to girls. the film itself is not great either. i don't recomend this to anyone. i give passport to paris 2/10$LABEL$ 0
+Although this is "better" than the first Mulva (which doesn't say much anyways, I would rather watch paint dry) it still sucks. Do yourself a favor and avoid anything from these Low Budget Pictures guys. I was suckered into buying a few dvds to support some indy filmmakers and boy did I regret it. Some haven't even been officially "released" yet (not bootlegs-bought from the filmmakers themselves) and I can't even list how bad they all are. Avoid anything with Teen Ape or Bonejack in them as they do pop up in other small indy films that they are friends with. If you are friends of these guys, chances are you were in their movies and had fun making them. But for those that had to watch them? No way. Bad video, bad audio, bad acting, bad plot...etc etc. These aren't even funny. I gave this one a 2 only because Debbie Rochon is in it and that is about it. Maybe it doesn't even deserve the 2. About a 1 1/16th star to show it was slightly better than the first (which I wish I could have rated in the negatives). If you want a decent no budget film, go pick up something from LBP's "friends" over at Freak Productions like Marty Jenkins or even Raising the Stakes. Those are actually decent.$LABEL$ 0
+Prince stars as 'the Kid' in this semi-autobiographical film of a talented, but narcissistic young musician who has a less then stellar home life. True the acting leaves a tad to be desired (barring Morris Day and especially Clarence Williams who are both pitch perfect), but the movie is still great and among the best to come out of the 1980s. It has the best soundtrack of ANY movie of the last 50 years at least, highly quotable lines, and the dumpster scene is HILARIOUS!! Plus Apollonia is just simply STUNNING. On an unrelated not, when I saw Prince in concert in 2004 he blew down the stadium. He is an expert showman and it was one of the best concerts that I've experienced.My Grade: A DVD Extras: Disc 1) Commentary with Director Albert Magnoli, Producer Robert Cavallo, & Director of Photography Donald Thorin; Theatrical Trailer; Trailers for "Under the Cherry Moon" and "Grafitti Bridge" Disc 2) A 12 minute featurette on the First Avenue Club; "Purple Rain: Bachstage Pass (a half hour featurette on the movie which i'll review later on it's page); "Riffs, Raffs, and Revolution: the Impact and Influence of Purple Rain" 10 minute featurette; 30 minutes of MTV's Premiere Footage (when MTV didn't suck donkey balls); 5 Prince music videos (Let's Go Crazy, Take Me With You, When Doves Cry, I Would Die 4 U/ Baby I'm a Star, and Purple Rain); 2 Videos by The Time (Jungle Love and The Bird); and a music video for "Sex Shooter" by Apollonia 6Eye Candy: Apollonia shows her fine ass titties$LABEL$ 1
+Of course, seeing a few boom mikes doesn't mean anything, does it? Lord, Rudy Ray Moore and D'Urville Martin really put this one together didn't they? I laughed a lot, as often happens in these types of movies, but I don't know what I was supposed to laugh at because I laughed at so many other things. I am not saying the movie was bad, but I will say that a little more editing would have done wonders. I am a huge fan of Blaxploitation, so I don't think that it was horrid, but I know that "The Human Tornado" was several times better than this. I think that those who can make it through this movie might need a Colt 45 or two afterward. I mean, it really helps you to not notice the boom mikes when you watch it again.$LABEL$ 1
+Miraculously, this is actually quite watchable. I mean, it's bad. It's really bad. But whereas the original was so-bad-it's-ruining-my-life bad, this is so-bad-it's-mildly-entertaining bad. Right, that's enough faint praise. Production values are rotten across the board, the acting is excruciating and the Romero-wannabe satire can't make its mind up which side of the ecology fence it's mocking. Internal logic takes a back seat to heads propelling themselves out of fridges, virus incubation times fluctuating as the 'plot' requires, bullets working against the zombies or not, zombies having the power of speech or not. Gore is the draw, obviously, but the framework is so slapdash it's annoying. The dialogue sounds like it's been translated by the same computers that mangle instruction manuals, and the scale of the zombie infestation is implied with none of the ingenuity of Romero's films. It's all topped off with a horrendous synth score. Absolute rubbish.$LABEL$ 0
+As well as being a portrayal of a lesbian love story, FIRE is also a comic satire of middle-class (?) Indian culture. I find this is a quality which is little appreciated about the movie. These two genres (i.e. deep meaningful alternative-love story and comic satire) usually mix together just as well as oil and water do, but Mehta (somehow) manages to achieve the balance to near perfection. The servant Jatin's behaviour, the family's treatment of him, the bedridden grandmother's constant inescapable presence, Ashok's obsession with a swami's teachings: coming from a culture much like India's, these are things I can immediately identify as being typical. They have been crying out to be pointed out and ridiculed. While developing her primary subject matter, Mehta manages to achieve this secondary theme skillfully. In fact, much of the humour in the film which provides essential relief from the heavy subjects of taboo lesbian love and gender issues, stem from this satire of the seemingly ordinary. The film flows from the comic to the serious with great subtelty.All in all, brilliant use of symbolic devices (Radha compared to Sita of legend and coming out of Fire unscathed and, therefore pure; the lifelong desire of the young Radha to see the ocean finally achieved when she gains freedom). Kudos to Shabana Azmi(Radha), the lighting crew and Deepa Mehta; their very un-Hollywood-like (and un-Bollywood-like!) talents made this movie special. One criticism: the first scenes seemed rather disjointed to me in that they did not flow into each other very well.The verdict: 9 on 10. Nothing less for a movie with scenes so burned on my mind.$LABEL$ 1
+I somehow missed this movie when it came out and have discovered it as late as last week thanks to a friend's recommendation. I can honestly say that I cannot remember another intimate dramatic film, which does so many things so well. The writing is crisp, realistic, nuanced, and even restrained. The cinematography and editing are understated but inspired, enabling the visual storytelling to dominate through marvelous close-ups and framing of images, capturing loneliness and alienation in most memorable ways. The acting is also wonderful, with all of the characters becoming painfully real and vulnerable in the most compelling ways that a film can offer. They reveal their innermost weaknesses with unprotected, raw vulnerability. A real triumph for Roger Michell and Hanif Kureishi, and the rest of the team. A must see for serious film lovers.$LABEL$ 1
+Wow, Stella Shorts are great! Lots of patrons from The State and Stella, the TV show. I never knew that Stella could have gotten any better then they were on the TV show Stella or even Comedy Central Presents: Stella. I also never knew short comedies could be any good. My favorite ones were Pizza, Racking Leaves, The Woods and David arranges to a meeting with his long lost cousin Greg. I think over all that David was the funniest one. Its funny when he doesn't make sense. I like the music in the shorts. Thats something I pay attention to a lot. They always had good taste in music. I wish they still made shorts, either that or bring back there sitcom. I hope they continue making good and funny comedy.$LABEL$ 1
+What happened in the making of this movie so that it ended up as the total mess it is? Just one year after "The Breakfast Club", a brilliant movie with many of the same actors as in "St. Elmo's Fire" (who by the way looked and acted in the latter more like they were still the high school misfits from the former but without the grip or discipline in portraying their roles.Was it the directing or the writing. Since it was the same person (Joel Schumacher) it must be both. But then Schumacher has since given us "The Phantom of the Opera", "Phone Booth", "A Time to Kill", and two Batman movies, "Batman and Robin" and "Batman Forever" which range from good to great directing. Something went wrong on "StEF" because it has no genius whatsoever, no comedy worth anything, and is very far off the mark on what is truly valuable in life. Example: The character Wendy (a rich little girl with a heart to do good and help the less fortunate played by Mare Winningham ) reveals to Billy (an unruly slob who cheats on his wife and on his girlfriends, drinks far too much and has no sense of order in his life appropriately played by Rob Lowe) that she is still a virgin. Billy truly see a challenge and possible conquest but Wendy "is not ready". Wendy, in fact is so not ready it is hard to believe she is in this clique of friends. Later in the story, when Billy whose wife has left him taken his child and married another has somehow drawn some of the strings of his life together. Billy is leaving for New York, deserting and abandoning all parental responsibility for his baby daughter, he convinces Wendy that her virginity would be the perfect "going away gift" from her to him. And Wendy, who works as a social worker helping broken families, seems not to be phased at all by this despot. Give me a break. The one thing she can only give once, she gives to a loser who is leaving his family and friends? Schumacher frames this scene as a wonderful and touching moment.Many more example exist where there is a complete disconnect between what is real and of value being tossed overboard and the acts are made to look like virtue.I suppose some may say that "that was the 80's" but I remember it was in the "80's" that men began to be held responsible for the children they fathered whether in a marriage or out.I think this movie is so bad because it is so out of sync with what it really valuable and right.As for the technique (not the story), it was terrible as well. It is disjointed and feels like a 3 hour movie that has been edited to 1 hour and 40 minutes. Transitions and jumps in time simply do not make sense. Pick up what is on the editing room floor, put it back in and the movie would probably flow much better...but it still is a horrible movie.Maybe Schumacher has become a better and stronger director since 1986 (he must have) or maybe he was over his head when it came to writing the screenplay for St Elmo's Fire or maybe this group of actors took over the set and went their own way - that is what I really think happened.$LABEL$ 0
+I gave this movie 2 instead of 1 just just because I am a polite person. This movie made me loose 90 minutes of my life in which I could have done something useful for the human kind or just me. The dialog is poor, the actors never look scared! Even if it's supposed to be a horror movie. For example the scene in which Kurt collects the bones of his former colleague. He should be frightened, but he looks quite normal. The chick of the movie is such a cliché. The one thing I liked about her is the dress she wore in the final scene.And, by the way, the end was extremely predictable with the cocoon blinking pinkly in the box. As a matter of fact, I was thinking more of an ant walking around on the back seat of the car. But it still didn't surprise me.$LABEL$ 0
+I have no idea how to describe this movie, and also would love to provide others the same opportunity I had - seeing it with no prior knowledge of what to expect. I enjoyed it immensely but can also say I barely understood what was going on, if in fact there was anything to understand in the first place. Fans of David Lynch (tangentially) or especially Guy Maddin films should particularly enjoy this, and any fans of the comic book EIGHTBALL will probably be beside themselves with joy and wonder (it came as close as any film I've seen to the tone and mood Dan Clowes creates so effectively).One slight note just to warn anyone easily offended - this movie, if rated, would be NC-17 for sure. Fans of male full-frontal nudity, however...hmm, well...yes. This is weird wild stuff.$LABEL$ 1
+I went into this movie determined to like it. I usually enjoy dramas like Wall Street, Glen Gary Glen Ross, Boiler Room, etc...I went into this movie thinking I would be on the edge of my seat. Plus, I am a big Pacino fan.What a piece of garbage. Quite possibly the worst movie I have seen in five years. This makes Pacino's debacle in Any Given Sunday actually look good. First, half the movie is watching Matthew McConaughey lift weights. OK, we get it. You are in shape Matt. We don't need to see every other scene with you pumping iron, shirtless.Secondly, how many plot holes are in this movie? Why introduce the phone call from Brandon's long lost Dad and never address it again? What was the point of his Mom hanging up on him - why even have her call to say he is sending her too much money - what was the point of that? The guy from Puerto Rico who lost 30 million? Also, since sports betting is illegal in NY, and its acknowledged its illegal, how can they possibly guarantee everyone's bet at the end? This was simply a very poorly written script. It had potential, but it was devoid of a coherent plot. I thought Pacino learned his lesson about script selection after Any Given Sunday, but apparently not. My Gosh, this is the same actor that starred in the Godfather! Don't waste your money.$LABEL$ 0
+Personally, I think the movie is pretty good. It almost rates an 8. I liked the ethnography aspect as well as the gorgeous photography. Colin Firth's character isn't the most likable but he does a better than decent job with the role. The heroine, played by the beautiful Nia Long, is a familiar film heroine in that she's trying to do what she thinks is the best for her child -- marrying a respected member of her expatriate community -- while fighting her attraction for the "bad" man -- one who's not a member of her community (the "outsider"). Most of the film is about this mother's struggle: should she do what's expected of her, what she thinks is best for her son or should she follow her heart? I don't want to give away the ending. Let me just say that it's a feel-good movie with gorgeous location shots, exquisite African dress (it's worth seeing the film just for the women's brilliantly colored African clothing and headdresses), and likable characters overall. The actor who plays Nia Long's son is bright and adorable. The plot is a bit formulaic, but I liked the movie nonetheless. If you're a Colin Firth fan you MUST see this film. If you like chic flicks, see it. I think I'll watch it again tonight!$LABEL$ 1
+"Lifeforce" is a truly bizarre adaptation of the novel "The Space Vampires" by Colin Wilson, scripted by Dan O'Bannon & Don Jakoby. A joint American-British space exploration team makes a mind-boggling discovery: an alien spacecraft resting inside Halleys' Comet, containing three entities that look like people, one of them a female beauty (the oh-so-alluring Mathilda May).They take these discoveries back on board their own spacecraft. Big mistake.It turns out that these creatures drain the life out of human beings, and as American colonel Carlsen (an intense, edgy, and committed Steve Railsback) and British S.A.S. colonel Caine (a solid Peter Firth) watch in horror, an infestation of vampirism overtakes London, with the fate of Earth in the balance.This picture certainly is not lacking in imagination. It moves a little slowly at times but offers so many strange and fanciful ideas and eye-popping visuals that it's hard not to be amused. The first of director Tobe Hoopers' three-picture deal with Cannon Films (he followed it up with "Texas Chainsaw Massacre II" and the "Invaders from Mars" remake), he makes it something truly unique. Incorporating elements of sci-fi, vampire films, zombie films, and end-of-the-world sagas, it's like nothing that I've seen before.Railsback and Firth are ably supported by such strong Brit actors as Frank Finlay, Patrick Stewart, Michael Gothard, Aubrey Morris, and John Hallam. Mathilda May is very memorable as the bewitching, enigmatic villainess; it certainly doesn't hurt that she performs a great deal of her scenes in the nude. Also worth noting is a stirring music score from none other than "Pink Panther" composer Henry Mancini.Ridiculous it may be, but I found it to be fun as well. It's flamboyant and spirited entertainment.8/10$LABEL$ 1
+This is definitely an outstanding 1944 musical with great young stars and famous veteran actors under the direction of Charles Vidor. Rita Hayworth, (Rusty Parker),"Charlie Chan in Egypt", sang and danced with Gene Kelly,(Danny McGuire), "Anchors Away", Danny McGuire owned a night club in Brooklyn, N.Y. and was in love with Rusty Parker who was a dancer in his club along with Phil Silvers,(Genius),"Coney Island", who was the comedian in this picture and also worked and dance together with Danny, Rusty. Otto Kruger, (John Coudair),"Duel in the Sun" played the role as a promoter of a cover girl magazine and decided Rusty Parker was going to be his top model. Jerome Kern's music is heard through out the entire picture and the song, "Long Ago & Far Away" is the theme music for this musical. This film was nominated for many awards and was a big hit at the box office during WW II which kept peoples minds off of the war that was going on at the time. Rita Hayworth and Gene Kelly were instant hits and their career's exploded on the silver screen for many many years. Great Musical and a film you will not want to miss, this is truly a great Classic Film. Enjoy$LABEL$ 1
+I have only managed to see this classic for the first time a few weeks ago. Being made almost 30 years ago I thought the scary moments would be rather tame. Boy was I wrong. There are some great moments that sent shivers down my spine. Even the acting was great, Jamie Lee Curtis was fantastic and Donald Pleasance was superb.On the downside it can be rather slow to start but once it gets going there is no stopping it. It makes all the copycats, e.g. Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream look very tame. I can't really say it is Carpenter's best because I have not seen many of his, the only one I can remember of his is Starman (I think he made it). Halloween is the crowning achievement of the horror genre.$LABEL$ 1
+I saw the movie at the Nashville film festival on May 1, 2003! It was amazing! All the things that I had read about Stuey were portrayed incredibly well by Tony Vidmer (writer, director, producer, editor), Michael Imperioli (incredible job as Stuey), and all the others involved in this. I'm glad he (Vidmer) didn't go down the "Leaving Las Vegas" routine with Stuey's bad habits, but instead put us inside his life, family, and his gift. Tying the whole story from the motel room where he died was a great vehicle and showed his screenwriting skill. A big "thumbs up" on this one!$LABEL$ 1
+Probably the worst movie I have ever seen. It is so cheesily filmed, the focus is not even on this supposed "real half-caste", it is more on the crew coming from Hollywood to make the movie. No cinematic significance whatsoever, and if I could take back the almost 1 1/2 hours that I spent watching this film, I would feel much better.At first, it starts out giving you the impression it will be filmed somewhat generically, like an actual Hollywood production. However, then they go into the narration of the story, and it's filmed so f***ing terribly. It's supposed to be a take on "Blair Witch Project" really, since they pretty much use what you would think is 'real camera footage', it's not, don't be fooled.Worst movie I have ever seen . . . on the positive side, it has like one semi-scary scene in it, and the visuals of the half-caste weren't too bad looking at all. DON'T RENT$LABEL$ 0
+Daraar got off to a pretty good start. The first scene really left me at the edge of my seat wondering what would happen next. Other than that, the first half of the movie is a total BORE. All the first half of the movie is about is Rishi Kapoor falling head over heels in love with Juhi Chawla. By the way, don't you think he's a little old for her???Things finally start to spice up towards the middle of the film when Juhi tells us about her previous husband; and wow what a lunatic is he! He was an over-protective, neat-freak with a really HOT TEMPER! He used to beat up poor Juhi for no good reason! One of the reasons I really don't like this movie is because I can't stand to see Juhi (my favorite actress) get so abused. This film in general has WAY too much abuse and bloodshed; I find it so sickening!!!Anyway, all I'm trying to say is if you're thinking about renting Daraar, you should put it right back on the shelf where you found it and pick something else!$LABEL$ 0
+Whatever happened to British TV drama? From John Major through Tony Blair, the focus of the genre appears to have shifted from social realism to smugly normative women-focused tales about the piddling domestic problems of nice middle class professionals.(Or perhaps TVNZ doesn't buy the good stuff? Please let that be what it is...)The writer's long career in soaps probably explains why the dialogue is made up mostly of stale clichés. Niamh Cusack's performance is strong on meaningful looks, each held by the director for at least half a dozen beats longer than they deserve. Baleful looks, however, are a poor substitute for depth of character, if the writer has failed to provide such material for actors to work with. Of course this is theoretically a thriller, about a murder investigation; but that's not as important as the central character's failing marriage and its attendant problems. Is Cusack's character's husband a complete bastard? Will her son be utterly traumatized by the marriage break up? Making these the central issues isn't a sign of insight -- it indicates a profoundly narcissistic identification by the writer and director with a character who should be getting on with her job.Lynda La Plante knows how to write this stuff so that it feels as if it matters and involves viewers other than housebound neurotics ; evidently Paula Milne isn't up to the task.$LABEL$ 0
+Since the last horrid Astérix film and the fact that we only get the Swiss German version in cinemas, here, I went to watch it with quite a bit of trepidation... Unfounded, as I was happy to discover ^____^The film is funny and modern, has good gags, a good animation, an amusing character interaction, a good voice cast (Note: I can only speak for the Swiss German one!) except for the Viking chief's daughter Abba (her name is great, despite the not very inspired voice actress)...I especially liked the character Justforkix (Goudurix in French, Grautvornix in German. He's the young man who is supposed to be put in shape...). He's a very amusing portrayal of a mollycoddled, urban teenager; but he's very likable, despite the teenage mannerisms... XD The interaction between Astérix & Obélix and their young charge is fantastic and thoroughly entertaining.It shouldn't be compared to the old films, since this one is quite different... Which surprisingly doesn't make it bad. On the contrary. When they tried to modernize the last film (twelve years ago), they completely blew it. This film, however, proved that it can be done just fine... ^-^I came out of the theater cheerful... Always a good sign ^_~$LABEL$ 1
+A modern scare film? Yep it is..The hippies, peaceniks and environmentalists got together to deliver us a fear film.. I didn't recognize it when watching it only 2 years ago that it was a fear film but that's exactly what it is..There's no difference between this film and films the nazi made about us in ww2 and the same films we made about them.. this is pure propaganda and speaks only to those.. that believe in aliens, 9/11 conspiracy plots, faked moon landings, peak oil and major environmentalism What I can say is this film does push buttons, make you ask questions and ultimately just forget about it.. It's a scare film.. so if your scarred get in your houses, lock your doors and stock up for that nuclear winter we all know is coming when bush provokes the Chinese into nuclear war..$LABEL$ 0
+I wouldn't normally write a comment on-line, but this is the worst movie I've ever seen. Not only that it's filmed just like a soap series ("The young and the restless" is really filmed by professionals compared to this), but it also has awful cuts. It has no action. It is full of useless garbage.Here's an example: a guy wants to kill the main character as he got fired because of him. So (after loads of crap) here they are: the guy puts a knife at his throat and says something like "You're dead now". Then the main character says: "If you kill me you're dead. I've told the police you're threatening me". So the (killer) guy goes like (just about to cry): "Oh no... the cops are following me!?!! Oh... my God".Remember: this is just an example. I really cannot believe this movie actually exists. So: IF you want to see the WORST movie ever... go ahead, I recommend it :)$LABEL$ 0
+I was really looking forward to this show given the quality of the actors and the fact that The Scott brothers were involved. Unfortunately my hopes were dashed! Yet again we are led to believe that the KGB are a group of inept morons who don't have a clue what they are doing. At one point there is a laughable scene where 4 KGB agents couldn't handle one CIA agent. I grow weary of these biased, one sided and completely inaccurate portrayals of the Spy game that went on during the cold war. I find it laughable that the US is incapable of making objective movies about their involvement in WW2 and beyond. Just like the pathetic U-571, where we are led to believe that the US obtained the Enigma machine, again, utterly false.To its credit, "The Company" is very well filmed and acted. The locales are also exceptionally well realised. Alfred Molina puts in a great performance as does Keaton (The conflict between them is very well done). I really wanted to like this show and no doubt I will end up watching the other 2 episodes but I really wish that US productions would stop trying to portray their Spies, servicemen etc as supermen who are vastly intellectually and physically superior to anyone else on the planet. It gets old fast and seriously detracts from the plausibility of what could have been a 10/10.S$LABEL$ 0
+Green Eyes is a great movie. In todays context of supporting our troops, it is interesting this movie showed the lack of respect soldiers received from doing their duty, during this period. From a historical view, the end of the Vietnam war left all of us with something to remember and learn from. Gene was very proud of this movie, and he deserved the credits he received from writing "Green Eyes". I agree, I do not understand why this movie is not shown more often, or at all. This movie is the kind of movie that should be shown on TV every year, much like the Wizard of Oz. The dedication of one man towards his lost son is entirely moving. I was a friend of Gene Logans and I was proud to know him. Rocky$LABEL$ 1
+It is a pity that you cannot vote zero stars on IMDb, because I would not have hesitated! In fact I would go so far as to say that this film was in the negative stars. I, like many others, bought this film thinking that because it has Michael Madsen in it, it could be good... No chance! This film was shocking! Imagine a movie length 'The Bold and the Beautiful', well, Primal Instinct did not even come close to that good, and I had previously thought that there would be nothing worse than a movie length 'The Bold and the Beautiful'. Michael Madsen, how could you do this to us? The worst part is, I didn't fast forward a bit, I was hoping that at the end they would reveal that it was all some sort of sick joke, that they thought it would be funny to make us watch such a horribly bad film.Where do I start...? Directing - Zero Stars, Screenplay - Zero Stars, Acting - Zero Stars, Cinematography - Zero Stars, Digital Effects - Zero Stars, Production Design - Zero Stars, Make-up - Zero Stars, Casting - Zero Stars, Editing - Zero Stars, Trailer - Half a Star, Graphic Design - Half a Star, DVD Menu - Half a Star.However I think that it is very important to have seen bad films just so that you know what a really bad film is, so for that reason I am happy that I saw this film, just so that I have a bad film to put at the bottom of my list.$LABEL$ 0
+OK - I gave it a "3" just because they obviously had no money to make this film, but I feel it might deserve the "2.3" rating it had when I got here. I'm actually helping to raise it's rating, despite being bored for the last hour and a half. I will save the "1's" and the "2's" for the higher budget pieces of crap. At least the makers of "Rise of the Undead" didn't waste that much money. They did manage to waste 90 minutes of my life.The movie is too claustrophobic for me. The entire movie takes place in the same building, in dark rooms and hallways. With a setting like this, there should have been more action or character development, but there is just a lot of meaningless talk. I didn't get to know any of the characters. There is a schoolgirl and a Goth chick but we never find out much more about them. None of the characters seem really likable.Terrible movie made on zero budget. No scary special effects. No suspense. Really nothing interesting at all here, folks. I admit I downloaded this from the net. It was free but I am throwing it away.Sorry to the filmmakers. Better luck next time. This one is more like a soap opera than a zombie movie.$LABEL$ 0
+There were only two redeeming features about this movie; the beauty of Bucharest and its architecture, and the way they depicted the transformation from human form to wolf form. Forget about the plot or storyline from the book - they're completely absent from this movie. In fact, about the only things carried over from the book are the names of the main players. Even then you'll barely recognize the characterizations. If the film makers had made a good movie, even though unrelated to the book, I wouldn't have been so disappointed. Unfortunately, they did not. The plot and storyline are typical of low budget horror flicks, the acting is wooden, and the directorial efforts mundane. Oh yes, the way the loup garou bow to their leader is pure hoke. I suppose a nod of recognition is due for the animal handlers. The wolves were beautiful animals and well managed in their roles.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie is a story of a Catholic nun as an advisor of convicted killer on death row. The movie describes what she does as a nun, who does not have any productive role. She might have had doubt in her actual role. But eventually she does the role only a nun could do, who has nothing but faith in Christ. In America, there are so many movies that describe condemned criminals or jails. Those scenes, especially execution, are too much different from Japan.$LABEL$ 1
+Sadly this film lives up to about 1% of the hype that the game created in 2004 and leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. For video game enthusiasts, book worms and movie fans alike there is nothing more disappointing then a film that is based on an original concept (whether on paper or gaming console) that does not deliver. And not only that, goes well under the mark. Far Cry the video game released in 2004 created such a cult following that making a movie from the content should have been easy and scores of gamers would have flocked to watch the film. If you are a gamer that has played Far Cry; do not watch this film. Anyone else who hasn't played the game; it'll still seem like a B grade acted / B grade directed movie. Uwe Boll, hang your head in shame...this should've been easy to make into a blockbuster. The storyline of the game was incredible (think Jurassic Park meets Alien) and yet you still managed to take it and mould it into your own terrible recreation of an instant classic. Video game companies be warned - if Uwe Boll comes a knockin', lock the door. Oh & Til Schweiger...I look forward to seeing you make up for yourself in Inglourious Basterds. What were you thinking taking this one on? Sigh.$LABEL$ 0
+Of the three titles from Jess Franco to find their way onto the Official DPP Video Nasty list (Devil Hunter, Bloody Moon and Women Behind Bars) this is perhaps the least deserving of notoriety, being a dreadfully dull jungle clunker enlivened only very slightly by a little inept gore, a gratuitous rape scene, and loads of nudity.Gorgeous blonde Ursula Buchfellner plays movie star Laura Crawford who is abducted by a gang of ruthless kidnappers and taken to a remote tropical island inhabited by a savage tribe who worship the 'devil god' that lurks in the jungle (a big, naked, bulging-eyed native who likes to eat the hearts of nubile female sacrifices).Employed by Laura's agent to deliver a $6million ransom, brave mercenary Peter Weston (Al Cliver) and his Vietnam vet pilot pal travel to the island, but encounter trouble when the bad guys attempt a double-cross. During the confusion, Laura escapes into the jungle, but runs straight into the arms of the island's natives, who offer her up to their god.Franco directs in his usual torpid style and loads this laughable effort with his usual dreadful trademarks: crap gore, murky cinematography, rapid zooms, numerous crotch shots, out of focus imagery, awful sound effects, and ham-fisted editing. The result is a dire mess that is a real struggle to sit through from start to finish (It took me a couple of sittings to finish the thing), and even the sight of the luscious Buchfellner in all of her natural glory ain't enough to make me revisit this film in a hurry.$LABEL$ 0
+Well, it wasn't a complete waste. Armand was as usual very good in the movie,,,the whole turks vs German thing was kind of strange because I remember seeing Bulgaria at the beginning of the movie...dint' bother to go back and check...the central theme is about the serial killings with the whole gang warfare loosely woven in. Never saw a movie where the characters looked Italian, supposed to be Turk, taking English(American accent and euphemisms) with German words. The climax was the most intriguing part and there are parts of it that still did not make sense to me. In any case, if you have nothing else better to do, you can watch this movie..$LABEL$ 0
+I would love to comment on this film. Alas , my search has always endeth in vain. If any good citizen could help a desperate inhabitant of this ailing planet and restore his confidence in humanity by offering the whereabouts of either a UK VHS or loan him a DVD copy of the VHS; he would, without reservation, be eternally grateful..... Blake wrote "The road to excess is the path to wisdom", one hopes my weary road of excess will offer the path to fruition .... If not, I will have to replay the excellent Mr Russel's Gothic in the knowledge that those who have seen Haunted Summer (for better or for worse) have enriched their viewing pleasure of the events of July 1816 whilst I, a fellow member of this melodious plot, rests his lonely case in solitude ...$LABEL$ 1
+What can I say? After having read Herbert's books and loving Lynch's movie version, I was extremely disappointed. I felt I was watching a reject version of Buck Rogers. The sets looked like left overs from a Star Wars TV special! I felt the acting was a bit amateurish by most. The costumes were garish and over done which gave it a '60s Flash Gordon, pulp feel. The worms! They're supposed to be Sand Worms and yet they appeared to "big stalagtites" with a mouth at the blunt end. The effects in general were pretty second rate. I won't even start about the disgraceful "Navigator" effect.This so-called "Frank Herbert's Dune" wasn't even faithfull to his books! It should have been called "Frank Herbert's Dune - For Dummies". Key plot elements were left out, names were changed and the entire "feel" of the story was "sanitised". I didn't even recognise the Harkonnens! In fact most of the characters appeared nothing like Herbert's descriptions had depicted them. I'm starting to get upset just remembering what a tragedy it was. I'm glad I couldn't stomach the second installment....$LABEL$ 0
+In Iran, the Islamic Revolution has shaped all parts of life, including everyday things. But people still go on living their lives, generally just doing the things you'd expect, like go to soccer matches to cheer on the national team as it's in the running to qualify for the World Cup. Except women aren't allowed to go to the soccer stadium to watch the game.A frequently funny little film follows the small group of women that were caught sneaking into the soccer stadium and the little group of bored soldiers assigned to guard them in a holding pen just outside the stadium. The absurdity of the situation, the simple wish of these women to cheer on the team (nothing subversive there), and little human touches about the lives of everyone adds up to quite a fine comment on humanity versus the ideology.Amateurish acting, good script and dialogue, a really enjoyable film. Bend It Like Beckham, sort of - a warm heart and a joy in the daily interests and pleasures of people.$LABEL$ 1
+I, like many people, saw this film in the theatre when it first came out in '97. It was a below average film at best, defiantly not the "masterpiece" that all these "Titanic" fanboys like to make it out as. First off, DiCaprio is a terrible actor no matter which way you look at it. People just like him because of his looks. His acting "skills" essentially consist of saying a lot of cheesy lines and trying to act sexy. Second, the film itself had a rather boring and simple plot: girl falls in love with guy, ship they're on sinks, lots of crappy love scenes thereafter. Anyone with an IQ above 50 will realize this isn't ingenious in any way whatsoever. Nor is it original. Plus the director felt the need to drag it out for 3+ hours. I could compress it into a 1 hour block without losing any of the plot. In conclusion, "Titanic" is the most overrated movie to date. Why it got so much attention and money is beyond me.$LABEL$ 0
+Truly a great leap forward in the perfection of painful cinema.Everything about this film is bad. Acting (if it can be called that), lighting, sound, script (if there was one), editing, direction, camera work, it is all atrocious. There is not a single element that is done well. If I thought that this was intentional then I might give the film some credit but I can not believe people would set out to make such a horendous film.This film is worth buying and screening to your worst enemies.$LABEL$ 0
+A nicely done thriller with plenty of sex in it. I saw it on late night TV. There are two hardcore stars in it, Lauen Montgomery and Venus. Thankfully, Gabriella Hall has just a small part.$LABEL$ 1
+Vidor shines as Judith, the only truly strong and compassionate member of a strictly patriarchal family. Her brother, David, is so downtrodden by their father that it's a surprise he's able even to tie his shoes, rather than asking Dad to do it for him.Other reviewers have already outlined the plot, so I won't rehash it; I will, however, point out that Nan, who is pregnant by David, is also married to him. This is not an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, which would have been horrific by 1921 standards. The two are secretly married, but Nan's father, having been paid by David's father, tears up their marriage certificate.Nan's death scene, with Judith in attendance, is a truly heart-rending experience, and highly charged with emotion. This scene alone is worth watching the movie for, but there's far more to the plot than that; why on earth aren't modern movies made with the same attention to the story?$LABEL$ 1
+Deeply emotional. It can't leave you neutral.Yes it's a love story between 2 18 years old boys. But it's only the body of this movie. And it's been removed. You only feel what happened with these boys. You feel the soul of the movie. With of course some action, some sex, but this is no pornography, too many feelings.It was only a summer "story", and it became, from love to hate, almost to death, the most important time of their lives. I loved it, you will too, whatever your feelings are.$LABEL$ 1
+I have to preface this by saying that I LOVE watching bad movies that are entertaining. This movie delivers 100%. It is hands down the worst movie I have ever seen. It is full of crappy stock footage of random stuff in a city (people walking, traffic, the skyline, etc.) that doesn't tie into anything. Then there are the overly long 'sex scenes.' These involve lots of petting and frequent rubbing of socks on each other's bodies. These are in no way erotic and are the closest thing to horror you will find in this movie. This is especially true for the shower scene where two of the so called 'barely legal' girls who couldn't be a day over 40 are spraying each other with blood but there is also a crew member squirting blood in the from the outside while one of the girls keeps smiling at him. No one had to memorize any lines for this movie, if they aren't clearly reading cards then they have a magazine in front of them they keep glancing at while they struggle through awkward dialogue. Then there's Mr Creepo. He throws Ed Wood's name around like he can somehow compare, but he is far far from anything of that quality. He walks around a cemetery babbling about random things that went wrong in the movie which really helps the complete lack of flow the movie already had going on. We couldn't stop laughing during this movie (except during the sex scenes where we were grossed out and occasionally horrified)I give this movie a 1/10 for going so far above and beyond all my expectations for a horrible movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Deliriously romantic comedy with intertwining subplots that mesh beautifully and actors who bounce lines off each other with precise comic timing, a feat that is beautiful to behold. When Cher's spineless fiancé asks her to help him make peace with his estranged, moody younger brother, no one could dream the consequences which follow. Operatic symbolism, Catholic church confessions, love bites and falling snow..."Moonstruck" is timeless and smooth. It takes about 15 minutes for the picture's rhythm to kick in (there's an early sequence with the grandfather and his dogs at the cemetery that's a little rough, and a following scene with Cosmo and the elderly man at the gate that seems obtuse), but the patchwork of the plot is interwoven with nimble skill, and the movie's wobbly tone and kooky spirit are both infectious. ***1/2 from ****$LABEL$ 1
+This particular film was one that I wanted to see in theaters, but never got around to it. When I finally rented it in the summer of 2001 I enjoyed it so much that I went out and bought the DVD soon after. Bonnie Hunt and Don Lake did a wonderful job with the screenplay and are wonderful to listen to on the audio commentary that is included on the DVD. They did a great job in creating characters that you really care about. I really felt a whirlwind of emotions watching this film including sadness, anxiety and joy. The film also does a great job in showing the importance of family (a rarity in film today), which is a reflection of the director, Bonnie Hunt, based on the comments she made on the DVD. David Duchovny showed me here that there is life beyond Fox Mulder giving a wonderful performance with some pretty poignant scenes. I highly recommend that you give this movie a viewing. I am really thankful to the creators of this film. They have given me a wonderful piece of cinematic viewing that I will recommend to all my friends. I have seen a lot of movies over the years and it is very rare that I come away with such a feeling of satisfaction after watching a film. I will watch this time and time again for years to come. Return to Me reminds me that there are still moviemakers out there that know how to sincerely please their movie audiences. Thanks!!$LABEL$ 1
+So much is wrong with this abysmal little wet fart of a movie that it's hard to know where to begin.First of all, it's a remarkably un-scary scary movie, even by Amercian standards. The dialogue is cliché, the characters are two-dimensional, the writing is ho-hum, and what little story there is is neither coherent nor remotely interesting.We meet the following stereotypes in order: Balding Loser Guy (probably divorced, but who knows? This movie doesn't tell us) with a brave heart, the Young Hero (who doesn't do anything heroic at all), Brave Little Kid (with a homicidal streak a mile wide) and Black Bad-Ass Bitch (with more brawn than brains). These guys take up an ongoing fight with the Tall Scary Reaper Man and his evil Ewoks.Oh, and the film is full of wicked little metal orbs whoosing around menacing people. Given a chance, they perform impromptu brain surgery on those who doen't have the mental acuity to duck when they come at them. Booh! Actually, one of them is haunted by a good ghost (but then again, it might be a deceitful spectre) who seems intent on helping our Brave Contagonists retrieve their young kidnapped friend.There is no character background or even an introduction to any of the characters. It starts with some kind of recap of the ending of the previous movie, but this doesn't explain a lot. If you've seen the first two movies, fine. Otherwise you don't know who these people are, how they are related, why they aren't in school or at work, or why you should care whether they live or die. Consequently, you don't. The only point of interest becomes any splatter effects. And there aren't enough of those to keep you awake.Of potenial interest/amusement are the three Raider Punks, as stupid as they are evil, who menace Our Heroes. But they don't get much screen time. They are offed almost immediately. Then they are buried (why anybody should take the time is beyond me), then they appear again as Evil Raider Punk Zombies. Only to be offed again, literally within a minute.The rest of the movie mainly seems to consist of Caspar the Friendly Ghost appearing and disappearing, driving around looking for places, and Balding Loser trying to score som Bad Black Bitch Booty, using pickup lines that would embarrass a mentally retarded teenager. No dice there; not even some gratuitous sex could have saved this movie, so good thing there never is any.The head baddie, called the Tall Man, doesn't manage to scare anyone older than 3 years; howling "Booooy!" every five minutes isn't enough. Why he, with his amazing telekinetic powers and uncanny upper-body strength, doesn't simply squash our heroes like bugs isn't explained. Instead, he delegates the job to his inept retarded little minions, who never manage to kill anyone before being shot to hell.Filmgoers who like masterpieces like "Friday 13th part XXXXVIII: Jason goes to college" might find some entertainment. The rest of us, who have developed pubic hair, will be bored out of our skulls.$LABEL$ 0
+Despite the famous cast this animated version of Dickens tale is the borest I've seen. Enough that I zapped away in he first commercial break. The characters didn't appeal to me at all and the animation is looking cheap.I'll give this movie a very low rating. Give me the Disney version anytime.$LABEL$ 0
+This is an very good movie. This is one that I would rent over and over again. It is not like your normal superhero movie. This movie blends comedy, action and great special effects. It even has a person in it that does a lot of voices on The Simpsons. William H. Macy is the bomb.$LABEL$ 1
+This film is worth seeing since it is a classic in the sense of being the very first full length film released in the process of three demention. It was not very good in its acting or story plot, but can be a great movie quiz question from an historical standpoint. It should be seen in the 3 D process with polarized lenses.$LABEL$ 0
+movie goers - avoid watching this movie. if you are faint hearted, you might want to commit suicide. if you are a short tempered, you would want to kill the lead performer of the movie.Though he does not have any talent in acting, he is the mass hero for all the rickshaw pullers,auto rickshaw drivers, rowdies, thugs and immature and ignorant literates.he proves - you do not need neither talent nor knowledge to be successfully.He is the highest paid actor in India. That shows the taste of movie going public in India. 90% of movie goers in tamil nadu are definitely attracted to his kind of nonsense movies.$LABEL$ 0
+Dolemite may not have been the first black exploitation flick to come along but it certainly is one of the best. It is a pivotal film in the Black Exploitation genre as where it caused a dramatic shift between the films that came before it in contrast to the films that came after it. It wasn't necessarily a poignant or moving film about black culture and it's fight to overcome issues like racism or anything as important as that, but it was the story of one bad-assed dude fighting "whitey" with his army of hot kung-fu mama's. It was a guilty pleasure, great fun and best to watch it with friends. (10 out of 10)$LABEL$ 1
+Last night I decided to watch the prequel or shall I say the so called prequel to Carlito's Way - "Carlito's Way: Rise to Power (2005)" which went straight to DVD...no wonder .....it completely ...and I mean completely S%&KS !!! waist of time watching it and I think it would be a pure waist of time writing about it.... I don't understand how De Palma agreed on producing this sh#t-fest of a movie....except for only one fact that I tip my hat to... Jay Hernandez who plays the young Brigante.... reminded me how De Niro got into the shoes of Brando to portray the young Don Corleone in Godfather II ...but the difference De Niro was amazing and even got an Oscar for it !!! Jay Hernandez well he has guts for trying to be a young Pacino.... too bad for him I don't think he will be playing in film anymore and by the way after I watched this sh#$%ty movie, I sat down and watched the original Carlitos way to get the bad taste out of my mouth.$LABEL$ 0
+Can you say "Boring" with a capital B! It's slower than watching grass grow! It's more boring than watching paint dry! You'll sleep right through it.....we all did.....don't do it...you'll regret it!$LABEL$ 0
+I watched this movie because I like Nicolas Cage and well, I found it strange and completely pointless... so I decided to poke around a little bit and got my hands on the 70s copy of it. Wow. what a difference. The original one was way better. I'd like you all to know it did originally actually make a statement, it's existence did have a purpose. It was really the Christian public expressing their fear of paganism. If you dig deeper into it it also makes comments on life but I don't want to go into details, just, simply put, if you were disappointed and you'd like to know what it SHOULD look like, feel free to watch the 70s version, a little dated, but A lot better.$LABEL$ 0
+"Gargle with old razor blades. Can I help it if I'm not cousin Basil? I think the piano's out of tune. Ginger Grey. This is your little snookums." Laughs throughout the entire 20 minute short as the boys spoof gold diggers and opera singers. They even manage to show us how to properly demonstrate to some attractive ladies how to handle both a rifle and a bear trap. Wonder how many times they rehearsed the scene with the phone booth. Adding Christine McIntyre and Emil Sitka, 2 frequent collaborators, to the mix makes it even better. Only Vernon Dent is missing. The Stooges did some great individual scenes, but this was their best overall.$LABEL$ 1
+Film dominated by raven-haired Barbara Steele, it was seen when I was seven or eight and created permanent images of pallid vampiric men and women stalking a castle, seeking blood. Steele is an icon of horror films and an otherworldly beauty, and the views of the walking dead pre-date Romero's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD shamblers, unifying them in my mind.I don't see the connection between this film and THE HAUNTING, which is clever but ambiguous about the forces present. LA DANZA MACABRE is a b-movie without pretention, daring you to fall in love with Barbara Steele and suffer the consequences. There's no such draw to HAUNTING's overwrought Claire Bloom. The comparisons to the HAUNTING are superficial.And no, this movie does NOT need to be remade. Not only is it a product of the Sixties, but the large percentage of talentless cretins in Hollywood cannot fathom MACABRE's formula for terror. That formula is based on one overriding factor: GOOD WRITING. Low-grade classics like CASTLE and Corman's Poe films with R. Matheson and Tourneur's OUT OF THE PAST share a commonality of strong writing. It's simple. Get a real writer like Richard Matheson or Steve McQuarrie and let them put a plot into today's cinematic mess. Besides that, let Hollywood attempt some original material for a change, and stop exploiting the obviously superior product of the past.$LABEL$ 1
+I knew it would be, but I gave it a rent for some laughs and maybe some mindless fun. Anyone whose read a few of my reviews can see that I'm pretty easy to please. I really didn't think I'd end up feeling this negatively towards it.The plot is about an ancient army of dragons lead by a huge serpent that will destroy the world unless some chosen heroes who inherited the responsibility can… become one with… a good dragon… or something… I don't know. It was so stupid, I didn't bother to put much effort into retaining it.It features a really dumb story full of ridiculous moments and goofy concepts. So many of the events just felt totally random and sudden.I assume there was studio interference or something because the biggest problem I have with the movie is the fact that the story seems like it's trying to be so grand and epic, yet everything happens so fast and goes by so quickly. I feel like I've just been hit with a million plot points and action sequences in one big ball. The film is like a punch in the face. It doesn't take much time at all to establish characters or drama. Imagine the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy in 90 minutes… You could have most of the epic battle sequences, but there would be absolutely no buildup and you'd hardly care about the outcome of those battles. That was the case with Dragon Wars… 90 minutes of me not giving a crap, waiting for it to be over.Fantastic CGI with some okay directing, but horrible acting, speedy pacing, and dumb story made this very hard to enjoy on any grounds. I probably would have loved it when I was 6.$LABEL$ 0
+This was bad enough. I really hope that there is no sequel. Maybe that is giving away part of the plot to let you know that it is open to the possibility, but no, it really isn't.There is really not at all special about this movie. Well, the special effect were fairly good, but nothing to write home about.There were some hot babes in her, especially Elina Madison and Alexandra Ford, but nothing to see folks. PG-13, definitely not an R. That also tells you the slasher aspects were less than spectacular. The shovel to the head was the only thing that was unusual.Tame scare fare.$LABEL$ 0
+I must admit, this is one of my favorite horror films of all time. The unique way that John Carpenter has directed this picture, opening the door to so many mock-genres, it will chill you to the bone whether it is your first time watching it or your fiftieth. The sound, the menacing horror of Michael Meyers and the infamous scream of Jamie Lee Curtis gives this film instant cult status and a great start for the independent era. I love the music, I love the characters, the familiar yet spooky setting, the simplistic nature of the villain, and the random chaos of it all. There is no really rhyme or reason to the killing in this first film, giving us a taste of Michael's true nature. Is he insane, or in some way just a very brilliant beast? That question may never be truly answered, but Carpenter gives us his 100% and more devotion to this amazing masterpiece.John Carpenter is the master of horror. While lately his films have not been the caliber that they once were (see Ghosts of Mars), Halloween began his powerhouse of a career. This is his ultimate film. While he did release other greats, I will always remember this one as the film that caused me to turn on all the lights, beware when babysitting, and check behind closed doors, because you never knew where the evil would appear next. Carpenter has this amazing ability to bring you into the world in which he weaves. With the power of his camera, he places these images of Meyers in places you least expected while giving you the perception as if the murderer is right next to you. I loved every scene in which we panned back and there was Michael, watching from the distance, without anyone the wiser. That was scary, yet utterly brilliant. I loved the scenes in which Carpenter pulled your fright from nearly thin air. There you would be, minding your own business, when suddenly that horrid mask would appear out of nowhere. Like the characters, you too thought it was just a trick of the eye, but that is where Carpenter gets you, it isn't. Michael isn't a ghost, he is a human being (or at least we think), yet he has a stronger mental ability than most of the main characters. This leads into some really dark themes and unexplored symbolism, but even without that, this is a spooky film.Then, if you just didn't have enough of Michael just vaporizing in the windows of your house, Carpenter adds that chilling theme music. I still have that tapping of the piano keys in my mind, constantly wondering if Meyers is looking at me through the window. Carpenter has found the perfect combination of visual frights and chilling sounds to foreshadow what may happen to our unsuspecting victims next. It is lethal, and it is done with refreshing originality and more unique thrills than anything released by today's Horror Hollywood could muster. Carpenter's Halloween is a breath of fresh air in the midst of what could be a rough horror year, with actual scares being replaced by Paris Hilton, you know that the quality isn't quite the same.Finally, I would like to say that even the simplistic nature of the opening murder in this film is terrifying and chilling. The use of the "clown" mask sent shivers up my spine. The way that it was filmed with that elongated one shot using the child's mask as if it were our own eyes is still one of the best horror openings ever! It completely sets the tone for the remainder of that film. You have the babysitter theme, you have the childish behavior which carries with Michael throughout the film, and you have the art talent of Carpenter all rolled into one. I could literally speak for hours upon hours about this film, but instead I would rather go watch it again. It is worth the repeat visit many times! Overall, I think this is one of the most outstanding films in cinematic history. Skip all those foreign films that think that they are going to chance the face of movies leave it to a budget tight Carpenter and the slasher film genre. This singular movie redefined a whole generation of horror films, and still continues to be an influence on modern-day horror treats. The lethal combination of a genuinely spooky murderer, the powerful cinematography of the events (which normally doesn't amount to much in horror films), and the beauty of Jamie Lee Curtis is exactly what makes Halloween that film above the rest. Sure, Freddy is cool and you feel sympathetic for Jason, but Michael is real, he is troubled, and he is on the loose lusting for the blood of babysitters. What can be better? Grade: ***** out of *****$LABEL$ 1
+With a simplistic story and an engaging heroine, this was the horror movie that started it all. John Carpenter brings to life a nail-biting nightmare on Halloween night, when Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis in her debut, career defining role) and her mischievous friends plan a night of sneaky fun- only to cross paths with a relentless psychopath from hell. Michael Myers has escaped from a nearby insane aslyum...having slaughtered his sister fifteen years earlier, he is now back in Haddonfield, the sleepy Illinois town where his murder took place. Once he sets his eyes on Laurie after she drops off a package to the abandoned house where he lived, he begins to stalk and terrorize her, turning her night of fun into terror as he picks off anyone in his path to get to her.Beautiful cinematography and lighting really make this moody horror flick scary... with the long gloomy shots it constantly feels as if you're being stalked by the maniacal serial killer himself. Myers is hidden well until fully revealed at the exciting conclusion.Although "Halloween" is certainly outdated, it is by no means less chilling. The idea alone is goose bump inducing, and this little shocker is one of the most famous and memorable horror movies ever made to this day... it spawned seven sequels and eventually Rob Zombie's equally scary remake, and it set a new standard for horror that still exists today.$LABEL$ 1
+A lot of 'alternative' comedy in Britain in the 1980s was insular, misguided, overly-political, and unfunny, and the worst of the Comic Strip Presents... stuff fell into this category. But this is at the other end - a remarkable film that works on different intellectual levels. Is Dennis a criminal mastermind or is he lying? Is he telling the truth, bluffing, double-bluffing, counter-doubly-bubbly-bluffingwhatever? I've probably watched Supergrass 20 or 30 times, and I still can't decide 100%. That's the wonderful thing. As well as Ade Edmonson, there are big roles for other early Comic Strip mainstays - French & Saunders, Pete Richardson, Alexei Sayle, Keith Allen, Nigel Planer and Robbie Coltrane, though curiously enough not Rik Mayall. All of the Comic Strip cast - however much I disliked the hidden agenda of some of their members - are convincing actors, and turn in superb performances in this big-screen outing, while the Richardson-Richens writing team's work is so often pure genius, with nice little touches of detail throughout. Ultimately this is a study of crime, criminology and human nature, in all it's wondrous complexity. And very funny with it. You will not be disappointed.$LABEL$ 1
+The only people i would recommend this film to are both blind and deaf, although i'm sure a sadomasochist would get a kick out of it. This film had nothing; no acting, terrible music, awful script- only the power to suck any happiness from your soul. You may be wondering by now why or even how i managed to sit through the full hour and a half of sheer inanity, and it is honestly a difficult concept for even myself. Firstly, i had to pace up and down as the film progressed as i found it extremely hard to get comfortable. Secondly, i only made it without gnawing off my own arm in order to have something to beat myself to death with by phoning friends for moral support when the plot became particularly slow. The problem was it became a matter of pride for me to finish it after the opening thirty minutes, and that was a fatal error on my behalf. I normally like films to leave you with something by the end, but all this did was take..... For the sake of your sanity do not watch this film.$LABEL$ 0
+Diane Keaton gave an outstanding performance in this rather sad but funny story which involved quite a few young people and their deep dark secrets. Diane Keaton,(Natalie),"The Family Stone",'05, who had an only daughter and loved her beyond words can describe. She always called her and told her, "Surrender Dorothy", which was an expression used in the 'Wizard of Oz',1939. A sudden car accident occurs and Natalie gets herself deeply involved with her daughter's friends and lovers. As Natalie investigates, the more truths she finds out about herself and her real relationship with her daughter. Great film to view and enjoy, especially all the good acting from all the supporting actors.$LABEL$ 1
+Shamefully, before I saw this film, I was unfamiliar with Helena Bonham Carter.I had to do some research, in order to assure myself she wasn't actually afflicted, as was her character, with (well?), what she was afflicted with. I was in absolute awe of this beautiful lady. She pulled it of flawlessly.Who would have thought that sexually explicit circumstances involving the final wants, and needs, of a unique young lady, could be interpreted as tender, and romantic? Well, they can be, when the right performers present them in the proper manner, as they did in this wonderful movie. I forgot to mention how dynamically beautiful Miss Carter looked in this movie. I have often said she was the most beautiful creature to have ever graced the face of our earth, but she seemed to have out done herself in this particular movie.I hope any of you who watch this movie enjoy it as much as I did. Thank you for letting me express my opinion.$LABEL$ 1
+Evidently when you offer a actor enough money they will do anything. I am not sure how much John Rys-Daves got, but most of the money he made should go to his fans as an apology for even being associated with such a ROTTEN movie. The special effects were worse then effects from the 1950's B movies and the acting of the rest of the cast was even worse. As to how bad the acting was a child gave the second best performance in my opinion. The English was terribly accented and I think no one could really even speak English they just memorized how the words should sound instead of memorizing the script and trying to make their character both "life-like" and real.$LABEL$ 0
+I am a huge Amy Adams fan and have been for many years. I am also a big fan of musicals. With that said this is not a good movie on any level. It is quite dull and the acting overall is very very poor. Amy Adams is awkward to watch act with Scott G. Anderson due to the fact that she is in another league when it comes to acting. All the performances come off as very amateur. The music performances are pleasant, but nothing special. Scott G. Anderson is just an bad actor! I assumed he was put in this movie because he has a great voice, but it's just not the case. He has an average voice and sings on key, but that's about it.I guess I can see why Amy Adams did this movie with the singing element I just wish she had not. I could rant about other poor elements of this movie, but I'll leave it at that.$LABEL$ 0
+Don`t be fooled into thinking that this is a remake as in this years remake of THE TIME MACHINE is based on an earlier film . It`s not because this is a pointless re- film . That is the director has used the original camera script shot for shot similar to the " remake " of THE GET AWAY from a few years ago . The scenes are identical to the original , the dialogue is identical to the original , the camera angles are identical , no attempt whatsoever is made to embellish or restructure the original script ,( But with a director like Van Sant at the helm we should be thankful . He sure ain`t no Hitchcock ) in fact I might even be correct in saying the costumes might be the same because the private eye wears a pork pie hat. Didn`t they go out of fashion in the late 1960s ? Bottom line:Avoid$LABEL$ 0
+Wow, a movie about NYC politics seemingly written by someone who has never set foot in NYC. You know there's a problem when at one moment you expect the credits to roll and the movie continues on for another half hour. The characters are boring, John Cusack's accent is laughable, and the plotline teeters between boring and laughable. A horrible movie.$LABEL$ 0
+I hope whoever coached these losers on their accents was fired. The only high points are a few of the supporting characters, 3 of 5 of my favourites were killed off by the end of the season (and one of them was a cat, to put that into perspective).The whole storyline is centered around sex, and nothing else. Sex with vampires, gay sex with gay vampires, gay sex with straight vampires, sex to score vampire blood, sex after drinking vampire blood, sex in front of vampires, vampire sex, non-vampire sex, sex because we're scared of vampires, sex because we're mad at vampires, sex because we just became a vampire, etc.Nothing against sex, it would just be nice if it were a little more subtle with being peppered into the storyline. Perhaps HAVE a storyline and then shoehorn some sex into it. But they didn't even bother to do that... and Anna Paquin is a dizzy gap-tooth bitch. Either she sucks or her character sucks, I can't figure out which.Another part of the storyline that I find highly implausible is why 150 year old vampire Bill who seems to have his things together would be interested in someone like Sookie. She's constantly flying off the handle at him for things he can't control. He leaves for two days and she already decides that he's "not coming back" and suddenly has feelings for dog-man? Give me a break. She's supposed to be a 25 year old woman, not a 14 year old girl. People close to her are dying all over, and she's got the brightest smile on her face because she just gave away her V-card to some dude because she can't read his mind? As the main character of the story, I would've hoped the show would do a little more to make her understandable and someone to invest your interest in, not someone you keep secretly hoping gets killed off or put into a coma. I can't find anything about her character that I like and even the fact that she can read minds is impressively uninspiring and not the least bit interesting.I will not be wasting my time with watching Season 2 come June.$LABEL$ 0
+Right this may be the wine talking but this could be the best movie I've seen in a very long time. Granted I spent much of the first half an hour wondering what the hell was going on but once I had accepted that I would never understand everything from the subtitles I was able to enjoy the film.Can you really hate a film where a staff turns into a flock of birds that defecate over the enemy? What does character development matter when faced with a lesbian alien princess whose people built the pyramids? Why does Buddha wear seriously blinging diamond earrings? Does any of this matter when faced with the sheer sumptuousness of the visuals and the sly humour of the characters. Any battle for my heart was won once I saw the main protagonist dressed as spider-man - awesome! Many people will complain about a lack of story cohesion but for a fun movie to laugh about with a bunch of mates you can't do better, especially if you do an alcoholic shot every time someone says "I will love you 10,000 years".$LABEL$ 1
+So many educational films are nothing more than mind-numbing drudgery, saved only by the fact that "MST3K" mocks them ("Why Study Industrial Arts?" comes to mind). "Hemo the Magnificent" is actually quite well done. It's all about blood, the heart, and the circulatory system. I admit that I don't remember everything from it, but it does a good job explaining everything, keeping it serious but entertaining. I guess that you can always count on June Foray (most famously the voice of Rocky the Squirrel, she plays a deer here).Since "Hemo the Magnificent" itself may be hard to find, probably the best place to see it is in "Gremlins": a class is watching it while a gremlin is forming.$LABEL$ 1
+Micro-phonies is a classic Stooge short. The guys are inept repairmen working at a radio station, and during some horsing around in a broadcast booth, Curly's perfect mimic of a recording of "Voices of Spring" is mistaken for the real thing, leading to a radio contract and a zany musical party. The trio's mock rendition of the quintet from "Lucia de L'Amamore" is especially entertaining. No doubt this is essential viewing for Stooge fans.Although the evidence of Curly's failing health is visible in his face and voice, his performance is amazing, and it is probably the last glimpse of the old Curly. Some fans think that "A Bird in the Hand" is the last great Curly short, but his coarse voice and slow movement are just too difficult to watch.$LABEL$ 1
+Superb silent version of the story of Francois Villon. Although remade in the thirties as IF I WERE KING, with Frank Lloyd directing, Preston Sturges scripting and Ronald Colman starring, this version is even better. Barrymore, with a cohort of comedians, plays the comic fool and the wine-depressed Villon with a verve that Colman could not match. The photography is startling in its beauty and innovation and the supporting cast, particularly Conrad Veidt in his American premiere, the incredibly beautiful Marceline Day, and the supporting comics, Slim Summerville and Hank Mann, steal every scene they are in.It is a shame that Barrymore did so few first-rate comedies. Among his sound films, only his lead in TWENTIETH CENTURY and his supporting role in MIDNIGHT can compare to this, and those stand up only because of his superb voice. In this silent movie, Barrymore must tell his tale without benefit of words, and he does so, alternately hilariously unrecognizable as the King of the Fools and tenderly as Villon in love. He even gets to leap around in the swashbuckling style of Fairbanks, most convincingly. He also lets his supporting cast have their share of glory, capering in this ensemble work like any talented comic of the era.Finally, a brief word about Alan Crosland, a director known today only for directing the first talking feature, THE JAZZ SINGER in the same year this was released. Crosland was a careful, innovative, delightfully original director, and it is a shame that more of his works are not known. Perhaps this movie, far more interesting as a movie than his best-known work, will be your introduction to his other talents. If so, you could do far worse.$LABEL$ 1
+First, let me say that although I generally appreciate Mike Judge's work, I've been merely tepid in my response to Office Space, King of the Hill, and Beavis and Butthead. I generally prefer more intelligent comedy, and therein lies the irony with respect to Idiocracy.In a future world where the embodiment of Beavis and Butthead's views, basest instincts, and intellectual capacities are the framework of a chaotic, messy, semi-Mad Max semi-Blade Runner society, where every trailer-trash guy's fantasy becomes reality, a man with even average intelligence is threatening and accused of talking gay, and the mob mentality takes over. And this world is also incredibly funny.Yes, it's obvious that Carl's Jr., Starbucks, Costco and Fuddruckers executives will be horrified at the twisted values given their products in the year 2505.There were some missed opportunities with the film, and the relationship between the time travelers - the other being an average intelligence woman who's worried about her boyfriend's (pimp's) retribution - could have been stronger; the chemistry is there. And there don't seem to be too many women in the future.I did leave with a grin on my face, but the experience is a bit better than the memories. Thus, it's my kind of popcorn film, and it will be fun to revisit on video. Recommended! FYI stay through the credits for an extra scene.$LABEL$ 1
+I watched Hurlyburly as a second choice after Affliction was sold out. I have never seen so many people walk out of a movie. Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey, and Chazz Palminteri can do nothing to save this coke-snorting, endlessly pedantic, bad Mamet-wannabe.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie has become an iconic stand-in for what is great about America. Fame is famous for its music and performances. There are several standout actors, singers, and dancers, including Irene Cara, Paul McCrae, Anne Meara*, and the superb Gene Anthony Ray. The plot is not the movie. It follows an interesting format ... but, it all really ends in a kind of mush.Where Parker succeeds is in pushing this movie into periodic overdrive - with the extremely poignant, sometimes beautiful and outright campy music score & performances.The film's climax is a song-dance fest of musicians,dancers, & score by Christopher Gore. A wonderment to behold. * An interesting note about the magnificent and superbly talented Anne Meara ... sometimes talent must reside in the genes ... Ms. Meara is married to one Jerry Stiller and is the mother of Ben Stiller ...$LABEL$ 1
+Like most comments I saw this film under the name of The Witching which is the reissue title. Apparently Necromancy which is the original is better but I doubt it.Most scenes of the witching still include most necromancy scenes and these are still bad. In many ways I think the added nudity of the witching at least added some entertainment value! But don't be fooled -there's only 3 scenes with nudity and it's of the people standing around variety. No diabolique rumpy pumpy involved!This movie is so inherently awful it's difficult to know what to criticise first. The dialogue is awful and straight out of the Troma locker. At least Troma is tongue in cheek though. This is straight-faced boredom personified. The acting is variable with Pamela Franklin (Flora the possessed kid in The Innocents would you believe!) the worst with her high-pitched screechy voice. Welles seems merely waiting for his pay cheque. The other female lead has a creepy face so I don't know why Pamela thought she could trust her in the film! And the doctor is pretty bad too. He also looks worringly like Gene Wilder.It is ineptly filmed with scenes changing for no reason and editing is choppy. This is because the witching is a copy and paste job and not a subtle one at that. Only the lighting is OK. The sound is also dreadful and it's difficult to hear with the appalling new soundtrack which never shuts up. The 'ghost' mother is also equally rubbish but the actress is so hilariously bad at acting that at least it provides some unintentional laughs.Really this film (the witching at least) is only for the unwary. It can't have many sane fans as it's pretty unwatchable and I actually found it mind-numbingly dull! The best bit was when the credits rolled - enough said so simply better to this poor excuse for a movie LIKE THE PLAGUE!$LABEL$ 0
+THEIR PURPLE MOMENT Aspect ratio: 1.33:1Sound format: Silent(Black and white - Short film)Two luckless nightclub revellers (Laurel and Hardy) are unable to pay their bill, provoking violent retribution from a hot-tempered waiter (Tiny Sandford).Typical L&H scenario, less substantial than some of their best work from this period, but worth a look nonetheless. Stan takes center-stage this time round, caught up in a financial dilemma after holding back part of his wages to fund a night on the town, only to find out - too late! - that his aggrieved wife (Fay Holderness) has replaced his stash with worthless coupons. Some of the prolonged closeups of Laurel as he slowly becomes aware of the unfolding disaster reveal his genius for characterization and mime. 1920's morality is represented by Patsy O'Byrne, playing a hatchet-faced busy-body who takes great joy in alerting L&H's respective spouses (Holderness and Lyle Taho) to their husbands' bad behavior. The ending fizzles, but the movie still has much to recommend it. Directed by James Parrott.$LABEL$ 0
+On the surface, "Written on the Wind" is a lurid, glossy soap opera about the sexual dysfunctions of a Texas oil family. But underneath it all is a deep, social commentary on 1950's life. Director Douglas Sirk scores again with another Univeral sudser. Robert Stack falls in love with Lauren Bacall. The problem is that Stack's best pal, Rock Hudson, loves her too. When Stack finds out he's sterile and Bacall ends up pregnant, the fireworks fly. And, the all-too-good Dorothy Malone won an Oscar for her portrayl of Texas' biggest nympho who is shunned by Hudson. Good epic soap opera.$LABEL$ 1
+Renowned cinematographer Freddie Francis (Glory, The Elephant Man) directs this pretty bad horror/drama film. 19th Century England has a different view of how the practice of medicine should be handled than Dr. Thomas Rock, the law stating that only the bodies of hung criminals can be studied and experimented on. But the stockpile of these bodies is a small one, and Rock needs more - and he prefers them fresher. Being a maverick within his circle, he begins to pay people to find bodies for him to study and test on. Desperate sleazebags Robert Fallon and Timothy Broom get wind of this job opportunity and begin to murder people and sell these bodies to Rock. Naturally, this kind of action has even worse consequences than practicing on the dead bodies of non-criminals, and leads to trouble for everyone. While the overall story sounds intriguing on paper, almost everything about The Doctor And The Devils is laughably bad.After the first fifteen minutes of the film you are already beginning to question your decision of sitting down to watch the film. The entire look of the film is just ugly. Seeing as how the film takes place in the slums of England during the 19th Century, the filmmakers were probably going for an "ugly" look, but they don't do it in an artful way. Everything from the sets to the cinematography just look cheap, feeble, and disgusting. Also, just about everything scene is filled with something that you simply cannot take seriously, and most of the time this has to do with someone (both in the small and large roles) doing something that looks or sounds completely ridiculous. Francis sure didn't help out his actors much.Jonathan Pryce and Stephen Rea play the twisted buddies of the film, Fallon and Broom respectively, and are very bombastic but very bad. Their characters are by nature crazy, but Pryce and Rea overact the parts to death. They especially have trouble keeping the same accent from shot to shot - Pryce in particular goes from Cockney to Irish to Long John Silver to some kind of lagoon creature and so on and so forth. It's also a humor riot to see Twiggy in this film at all, let alone playing an in-demand street whore, since she can't act to save her life (though her song during the final credits isn't so funny). Boy she sure came a long way: from "flower power" to "I'll take mee clothes off for a shillin'!" As bad as those three actors are in this film, Julian Sands takes home the award for the worst performance of the film. He is just as lame as it gets, giving one laugh-out-loud attempt after another at portraying anger, love, happiness, anxiety - pick an emotion, any emotion! There's only one good thing about The Doctor And The Devils: Timothy Dalton's performance of Dr. Rock. Despite being surrounded by cinematic sewage, Dalton is quite excellent; giving an electric portrayal of an overly driven yet good natured man. Too bad the rest of the film could not have been as good as Mr. Dalton....$LABEL$ 0
+This isn't another searing look at the Holocaust but rather an intimate story about the events that took place on a small street in Berlin and some of the people that were involved. This film starts in the present time in New York City where Ruth Weinstein (Jutta Lampe) is in mourning over the death of her husband and family members have all gathered to her side. Ruth's daughter Hannah (Maria Schrader) slowly learns that her mother was raised by an Aryan woman named Lena Fischer (Doris Schade) and so she travels to Germany and locates the 90 year old who tells her about the events on Rosenstrasse.*****SPOILER ALERT*****Lena talks about Berlin in 1943 where the Gestapo would hold all the Jewish spouses in a building on Rosenstrasse Street even though they are supposed to have immunity for being married to Aryans and for nine days a group of women would wait outside and shout for their release. Eight year old Ruth (Svea Lohde) awaits for her mother to come out and has nowhere to go but she meets 33 year old Lena (Katja Riemann) who takes her in. Lena's husband Fabian (Martin Feifel) is also inside and eventually she tries to socialize with Nazi Officers to get them to do something.This film is directed by Margarethe von Trotta who is making her first feature film in almost 10 years after working in television and while this is clearly not one of her more provocative efforts she remains one of the most revered directors in Europe. This is not one of those Nazi films where we view horrible acts of inhumanity to Jews although we do see some severe treatment being issued out but instead this is more of a retelling of a small event that meant life and death to the people involved. This film isn't trying to shock anyone or open the door to debates on the circumstances but what it simply wants to do is just shed a light on a small but true life event that occurred during an historical period. Part of the films strength comes from its actors and there are some good performances that shine through especially by Riemann and young Lohde and it's always good to see Schrader (Aimee & Jaguar) in a pivotal role. This isn't a great film or something that's going to change your perspective on WWII but considering that innocent lives were put to death because of the events that took place I think that reason alone is important enough to retell this true story.$LABEL$ 1
+I bought this movie a few days ago, and thought that it would be a pretty shitty film. But when i popped it into the DVD-player, it surprised me in a very good way. James Belushi plays very well as Bill "The Mouth" Manuccie. But especially Timothy Dalton plays a very good roll as the Sheriff. The 'end' scene, in the house of Bill is very excellent, good camera-work, nice dialogues and very good acting. Bill "The Mouth" Manuccie has stolen 12 Million Dollars from the Mafia. Together with his wife he lives in South-Carolina in a witness protection program. But the Mafia tracks him down, and wants the 12 Million Dollar. Bill can only trust the only person he knows inside out, himself.$LABEL$ 1
+This version of "The Lost Horizon" is actually not a bad film at all. I think the problem is people like to pick on musicals, especially those made in the 70s. I saw the film upon its original release in 1973 (I was ten) and really enjoyed it, the music especially. (Burt Bacharach has always been a favorite.) The story is fun, the acting is good, and technically it's excellent. Sure, there are one or two rather silly dance numbers, but hey, you can't win 'em all. I have this film on video and watch it every so often...and I enjoy it each and every time!$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of those movies that's difficult to review without giving away the plot. Suffice to say there are weird things and unexpected twists going on, beyond the initial superficial "Tom Cruise screws around with multiple women" plot.The quality cast elevate this movie above the norm, and all the cast are well suited to their parts: Cruise as the irritatingly smug playboy who has it all - and then loses it all, Diaz as the attractive but slightly deranged jilted lover, Cruz as the exotic new girl on the scene and Russell as the fatherly psychologist. The story involves elements of romance, morality, murder-mystery, suspense and sci-fi and is generally an entertaining trip.I should add that the photography is also uniformly excellent and the insertion of various visual metaphors is beautiful once you realize what's going on.If you enjoy well-acted movies with twists and suspense, and are prepared to accept a slightly fantastic Philip K Dick style resolution, then this is a must-see. 9/10$LABEL$ 1
+A man kicks a dog 2' in the air.A woman kicks a cow out of her bed.A man kicks a violin down the sidewalk.A woman sucks on a statue's toe for 15 seconds.A man kicks a blind man in the stomach.Jesus rapes a young girl.There you have it. I just saved you an hour of your life. Surely there are those to whom this "shocking vanguard of cinematic expression" would appeal. But I found it no different from the puerile, disconnected videos I used to shoot with my friends in the 9th grade. Except we never had a real cow.Having heard endless sermons from beard-stroking art connaisseurs of how this is such an important film, I thought it would be worth my time. Make no mistake, this is crap. If I hear one more person call Buñuel the "father of cinematic Surrealism", I think I'm going to punch someone. If anything, he issued a major step backward from the Surrealist beginnings pioneered by his seniors Fritz Lang (Metropolis), F.W. Murnau (Faust) and Robert Weine (Caligari) 10 years earlier. This made a joke out of the whole thing, as if Buñuel didn't have the confidence to truly embrace the art sans sarcasm, sans l'absurdité. It would take Buñuel another 40 years before he would refine his style into something admirable. Skip the early stuff and hop straight to 1970 if you want to be more impressed by his work.I'm sure he would agree. In 1977, Buñuel himself stated that he would happily burn all the prints of his old movies. In this case I would be happy to pour the lighter fluid.$LABEL$ 0
+One of the worst films I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through, Killer Tongue is a horrible melange of the worst elements of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Brain Damage, and Pulp Fiction. Designed primarily to offend, apparently, but so inane that only the most hidebound conservatives would be taken in by it.$LABEL$ 0
+This movie down-shifts from 4th into 1st without bothering with 3rd or 2nd, grinding gears all the way to the sappy, b-movie finish-line. The con at the beginning is easily the best and cleverest part of the movie. That is worth seeing. The scene with Harlow in the bathtub occurs so fast, you may miss it. Definitely not worth all the ballyhoo provided by Robert Osborne in his TCM intro to this bad-to-mediocre confusion. There is no real conflict, and all of the characters in this supposed fringe society turn out to be saints - especially the unbelievable character, Al. I wonder if he's got a job for me in Cincinnati?$LABEL$ 0
+I rented domino on a whim, not even knowing it was inspired by a true story, and even though it's the least likely and true biopic you'll probably see. i found it to be rather awesome.With Richard Kelly writing he crams together a mass of plots and narratives into 2 hours of pure entertainment. And once you've seen it more than once you get it and appreciate it. Domino is a model turned bounty hunter who leaves the perfect Hollywood life to pursue a not so subtle or perfect career. It has an edgy acid trip style provided by director Tony Scott. And with fast paced music and editing, it provides the visual flare to keep your attention, with slick performances and unexpected comedy, the movie is well made and enjoyable and should have reached a wider audience. I suggest it to anyone who wants to think and be entertained at the same time for 2 hours.$LABEL$ 1
+4 out of 10A somewhat unbelievable storyline with some haunted-house type "shocks" that really don't fit in.Gary Oldham's performance is very erratic...not so much the quality of the performance but the consistency. His character does not behave in a consistent manner. Sometimes calm/relaxed/methodical/thoughtful, sometimes violent/loud/almost crazed. It's just not believable. Have many 80s movies dated badly? Will they be more enjoyable 20 years from now?$LABEL$ 0
+Teenager Eddie spends his life being bullied and humiliated due to his obsession with heavy metal music. One day he finds out his hero Sammi Curr has died, supposedly burned by the establishment which wanted to put a stop to his music. But Eddie has his last record, never released, and when he plays it he starts receiving messages telling him how to deal with his tormentors. Before long Sammi has revealed he intends to return to life at the local Halloween party to exact revenge on the town which once mocked him.Filled with humour and in-jokes, this is a highly entertaining film. Sammi himself is an original horror movie villain, plays on the 'evils of rock music' obsessions of the 80's. Well worth watching.$LABEL$ 1
+Back in 1993 Sega released a dull, lackluster video game of one of the biggest films of all time. Quickly realizing their mistake they hashed out a different version of the game, claiming it would be bigger, tougher and better.Neither were. Both were slow, boring games.You can choose to be either Dr. Alan Grant or...a Raptor. Both have their problems. Why would Dr. Grant go around killing all those army guys (just what are they doing in the game)? And why a Raptor be killing other Raptors? Weird.Obviously not learning from their first mistake Sega really dropped the ball on the original release and the so-called Rampage Edition. One of the slowest, sluggish and dullest platformers I have ever played.$LABEL$ 0
+If you overlook the fact that the plot has been done many times, this is a hilarious and gleefully enjoyable Looney Tunes cartoon. The animation is wonderful, the backgrounds so detailed and a lot of audacious colouring too. The writing is razor sharp, and the sight gags especially Daffy constantly getting his head blown off are brilliantly timed. I really did love the arguments between Daffy and Bugs, and that Bugs wins every time. I also love it that Daffy is really greedy and nasty while being uproariously funny. I do prefer him when he's manic but he is great fun here too. Bugs is still his charming and rascally self, and Elmer is funny if rather dumb too. In short, this is absolutely brilliant, and actually my personal favourite of the Hunting Trilogy for sheer entertainment value. 10/10 Bethany Cox$LABEL$ 1
+This movie was probably about as silly as The Naked Gun (which was supposed to be). Case in point:1. In order to fake her drowning Roberts is secretly taking swimming lessons at the YWCA. After her "death" the YWCA calls her husband at work to give their condolences. HELLO how did they get his work number?2. Before she leaves town she drops her wedding ring in the toilet. Days or even weeks later her hubby finds it in the John. Does this mean the toilet was never flushed?3. No explanation is given on how she is paying for her mothers care in the retirement home (since she did it behind her RICH husbands back).4. Towards the end of this tiresome film Roberts suspects her husband is in the house. Instead of running for her life she runs to the kitchen instead to see if the cans are stacked neatly.$LABEL$ 0
+My comments may be a bit of a spoiler, for what it's worth. Stop now if you care enough....Saving Grace should have been titled "A Paper-Thin Excuse for Old British Women to Get High On-Screen." This film is dumb. The incidental music is an annoyance as are the obvious, hackneyed tunes that sporadically pop up to comment on the narrative ("Spirit in the Sky," for example - Oh, I get it!) This is basically a Cheech and Chong movie made credible by its stodgy English setting and Brenda Blethyn's overwhelming power to inflict emotion on an audience using her voice alone. I could literally hear the folks over at High Times magazine receiving their jollies over the enormous "buds" that litter this picture. Worst scene? Easy. Brenda attempts to peddle her illicit wares on the street of London in a blaring white dress-suit. Not funny. Not original. Not interesting. Not a good movie. The 7.2 rating is the result of zealots over-voting. Don't waste your time...$LABEL$ 0
+Interesting way of looking at how we as humans so often behave we are sometimes blinded by our desire to achieve perfection that we some times destroy the foundation of what we are trying to achieve. It also addresses the issue how we tend to ignore those among us who are not as outspoken and by doing this may miss out on a great opportunity. The injection of comedy also makes watching the film an enjoyable experience..A must see for anyone who is interested in a reflective yet comical look at life. I am eagerly looking forward to your next product.Hope that you will continue to provide us with quality entertainment. Excellent work ......Joanne$LABEL$ 1
+I have watched anime but I'm not a die hard fan; and I don't read manga. I say this because many of the reviewers who are waxing lyrical about this film seem to have that background. I have seen "St. John's Wort," and although it isn't a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, it made me pick up "Shinobi," especially since everyone seems to love it.Well, I watched it this afternoon, and fought very hard to keep watching. Yes, it's very beautiful - the slow motion water scenes, the autumn leaves on the trees, even the CGI eye flicker - majestic. I liked the hawk, the costumes, even some of the fight scenes, but overall this was dull as dirt.It seemed as if someone took "Romeo and Juliet" - the translation even mentions that they are star crossed lovers - and threw in some "X-Men" for good measure. Two of the characters split Wolverine's powers - the guy dressed in a bear costume had his claws and the grey-haired guy had his ability to heal himself. Then you have the girl who has a poison kiss - that's Poison Ivy (from Batman). Why do they give these women such dumb powers? Poison girl shows her leg then kisses you to death. Man, that's some great power for you. And the other girl, can create bugs from this yellow dust that she rubs on her hands. The other woman, one of the star crossed lovers, has the power of a hypnotic stare. Wow.I sort of made it to the end of the film, by fast forwarding it, and did see a bit more tragedy than I expected. Some people are comparing this to "House of Flying Daggers" and "Hero." Don't make that mistake. They may share similar endings, but that's where the similarities end. "Shinobi" is made by an amateur - the other films are made by an experienced filmmaker.I would say avoid this film unless you're 12 to 18 years old.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm trying to find something of value here. The best I can muster is that Truffaut wanted to make a movie as tedious, painful, puerile, annoying, illogical, and brainless as the experience of being in love. If that was his goal, then he succeeded, but the solution to his exercise is really a drag to watch.There is one scene that screams for a spoof: Belmondo compares the features of Deneuve's face to the features in a landscape . All I could think the whole time was "glacier," "ice floe," "two lonely fishermen wearing Army surplus on a frozen lake in Minnesota."The only other point of interest was the resurrection of Buffoon's theory of climatic determinism. The tropics are presented as paradise, and things get progressively worse as they get colder, hell being Calvinist French Switzerland. That was kind of funny.$LABEL$ 0
+If I could have given this film 0/10 I would, and this is the first film I have wanted to rate so low. Its worse than awful. If I went to see it in the cinema I would want the cinema to pay ME for watching it (at least minimum wage). Some of the camera shots were quite effective, but a lot were rubbish eg. villains reflection in a mirror that separates his head and shoulders side-ways from his body (seeing is believing). Several totally pointless killings of innocent civilians. 2 murders that made me laugh out loud due to the victims actions/facial expressions when they were shot. I only watched it to the end (fast forwarding about 10 mins of the boring pointless dialogue) hoping to see Seagal in some decent hand to hand combat, but there was almost none of that (should have known that when at the beginning he threw someone while going down an elevator and it was shown in slow motion with music - end of 'action' scene). In one scene we see Seagal hand chop someones neck in slow motion which makes it obvious that his hand never even made contact). The chief villain keeps coming back to life. He gets shot in the chest on 2 separate occasions. The 1st time its with a shotgun which blows him out the 2nd/3rd floor onto the street. To sum up, this film is a total waste of time and a total joke. It looks very low budget (even for Seagal). The colour is dull and grey. I could go on and on....just like this film, but I wont. Watch this film if you've got insomnia. Its guaranteed to put you to sleep.$LABEL$ 0
+William Shakespeare probably didn't envision Stephanos as a gay doctor, Antonio as a faithless wife, or Caliban as a goatherd with a Trinitron, but the Bard's had worse done to his good work over time, and might even enjoy the sumptuous pageant of life that is his "Tempest" as re-configured by Paul Mazursky and co-writer Leon Capetanos.This time, Prospero is Philip Dimitrius (John Cassevetes), a Manhattan-based architect tired of designing Atlantic City casinos for the amiable Mafioso Alonso (Vittorio Gassman), especially after discovering Alonso is carrying on an affair with Philip's wife Antonia (Gena Rowlands). Along with daughter Miranda (Molly Ringwald), Philip escapes to a remote Greek island with Miranda and his new mistress Aretha (Susan Sarandon), a nice Catholic girl who struggles with Philip's celibate lifestyle. Will a sudden storm bring all right in the end?Here's a thought on the career of Cassevetes: How many other actors could make a film so confused into something so riveting? A darling of film critics for his earlier work, often with his real-life wife Rowlands, he presents a central character who really suffers for his art here, but seems to enjoy himself and makes us enjoy him, too. It's not Prospero, but something rich and strange that makes for a terrific sea change all his own."It's all here," he tells one of his faithful companions, Aretha's dog Nino. "Beauty, magic, inspiration, and serenity." That it is. "Tempest" transfers 1611 London to 1982 Manhattan and finds some nice resonances in Philip's displaced life. "Show me the magic", he calls out to a storm-tossed city skyscape, and Mazursky's version, augmented by Donald McAlpine's sterling cinematography of purple seascapes and naturally sun-burnished Greek landscapes, does just that.It's not a perfect movie, by any means. In fact, the big finale, which is the only part of the movie that follows Shakespeare's storyline to any faithful extent, is a mess. Rowland's character is hard to care much for in this film, and after meeting Sarandon in all her braless glory, it's hard to understand Philip's continuing concern for his wife, let alone his left-field desire to make an unhappy "sacrifice" in order to restore the natural order of things.But there's a lot to love about "Tempest". In addition to Cassavetes, there's Ringwald's film debut as his loyal but restless daughter, here as in the play an object of desire for the primitive rustic "Kalibanos" (Raul Julia). Ringwald here is very much the same teenaged muse of privileged adolescence that would inspire John Hughes, but with an emotional depth those later Hughes films didn't delve into. Ringwald and Julia never got any Oscar attention, but they both would win Golden Globes for their playful work here. He tries to woo her in her island isolation with his TV reruns of "Gunsmoke" in Greek, tempted by her 15-year-old body."I want to balonga you with my bonny johnny," Kalibanos declares, getting shoved aside but winning our sympathy anyway, especially after performing "New York, New York" with a chorus of goats. (When "Tempest" hit the screens, Julia was the toast of Broadway as the lead in "Nine".)It's Mazursky's show, even if it feels at times that Cassavetes is running things with improvisational line readings and emotional breakdowns galore. (Philip introduces himself to Aretha by telling her "I'm right in the middle of a nervous breakdown".) He plays his character as an amiable obsessive, seeking to crystallize his happiness by building an theater in his otherwise uninhabited island.Adding to the enjoyment is Gassman's rich performance as the other man, who is as completely amiable as Julia while telling a youth-obsessed Philip: "Boys don't have half as much fund as we have. They're nervous...and they make love in the back of an old sports car." Despite being overlong and pretentious in spots, like so many art films, "Tempest" is entertaining in its excesses and a trip very much like Shakespeare intended, even if his dreams didn't involve smoking pot backstage at a Go-Gos concert.$LABEL$ 1
+First off, consider that this film is nearly fifty years old! Yet, it still stands up as one of the great films of all time. I wonder how many of todays throwaway celluloid productions will still be talked about in 2050?The story is simple, yet solid enough and the effects are nothing short of phenomenal for the day. I can still recall the first time I watched this, as a kid, when the monster enters the force-field protecting the ship and you got to see its outline for the first (and only) time. Had me shivering in fear, I can tell you. Looks dated today, but still more than effective enough.The scenes with the tiger show their age now. You can see the outline where the tiger was matted into the shots with Altaira, but they are only just visible.Likewise, the effect whereby the creature melts its way through the Krell doors are wonderfully done.It's also amazing to see Leslie Nielsen (better remembered for the Airplane and Naked Gun movies) as a young, but still mature man. He was 30 when this film came out! Nearly 80 now!All in all a good movie that is sure to continue being a favourite for years to come. Timeless.$LABEL$ 1
+This adaptation, like 1949's *The Heiress*, is based on the Henry James novel. *The Heiress*, starring Olivia de Havilland, remains as a well-respected piece of work, though less true to James' original story than this new remake, which retains James' original title. It is the story of a awkward, yet loving daughter (Leigh), devoted to her father (Finney) after her mother dies during childbirth. The arrogant father holds his daughter in no esteem whatsoever, and considers her, as well as all women, simpleminded. When a young man (Chaplin) of good family and little fortune comes courting, the Father is naturally suspicious, but feeling so sure that his daughter could hold no interest for any man, is convinced that the young man is a fortune hunter and forbids her to see him. Leigh is a controversial actress – most either love her or hate her – and she always has a particular edginess and tenseness to her style, like she's acting through gritted teeth. She's not bad in this, and she handles her role relatively deftly – it's just an awkward role for any actress, making the audience want to grab the character by her shoulders and shake her until she comes to her senses. While the character garners a lot of sympathy, she's not particularly likable. The very handsome and immensely appealing Ben Chaplin (previously seen in *The Truth About Cats and Dogs*) plays his role with the exact amount of mystery required to keep the audience guessing whether he is after her fortune, or is really in love with her. Maggie Smith is one of the finest actresses alive and raises the level of the movie considerably with her portrayal of the well-meaning aunt. Finney is marvelous, of course, as the father who threatens to disinherit his daughter for her disobedience, but the daughter is willing to risk that for the man she loves. But does her ardent suitor still want her without her fortune? This is only one instance where *Washington Square* differs from *The Heiress*. Another instance is the ability to stick with it. It is a handsome movie that is as tedious as a dripping faucet, offering too little story in too long of a movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Track Listing: 1. Spiderbait - Outta My Head 2. Lash - Take Me Away 3.Lavaland - Everwonder 4. Machine Gun Fellatio - The Girl Of My Dreams(Is Giving Me Nightmares) 5. Butterfly 9 - Growing Pains 6. Grace -Good Thing 7. Katchafire - Giddy Up 8. James - Lick A Lounge 9. K-lee -1+1+1 10. The International Noise Conspiracy - Smash It Up 11. Cartman- Shock (Living With You) 12. Pollyanna - Rebound Girl 13. Filler - Machines Don't Sleep 14. Giants Of Science - Complete This Progression 15. Rocket Science - Hyperspace 16. The Cruel Sea - Three Legged Dog 17. Lazaro's Dog - Home Entertainment System 18. Drag - Secret Design 19. Grinspoon - Chemical Heart (Acoustic Mix) 20. Subware - Come On (Jp Mix) Loved this movie, sure it wasn't Hollywood material (some people complained about the script/acting) but thats the beauty in Australian movies.$LABEL$ 1
+Bob Clampett's 'Porky's Poor Fish' is a so-so cartoon populated by appalling puns and one or two nice moments. Set in Porky's Fish Shoppe, 'Porky's Poor Fish' occupies an uncomfortable area between a standard black 'n' white Porky cartoon and one of the books-come-to-life Merrie Melodies that were popular at that time. Typically of many of the early Porky cartoons, Porky is far from the star, appearing only in a rather stilted opening musical number and the climax of the film. For the rest of the time the star is a scraggly cat who sees the fish shop as an opportunity for a free meal but gets more than he bargained for. Unfortunately, the audience gets far less than they bargained for. As was sometimes the case in the books-come-to-life series, the spotlight is thrown on punning signs which could have worked just as well in a non-animated medium. Laughs are scarce and, while the cartoon is just about saved by Clampett's energetic direction, there is very little at all to recommend 'Porky's Poor Fish' over any of the other below-par early Porky cartoons.$LABEL$ 0
+My observations: Postwar hilarity. Tom Drake and Grandpa from "Meet Me in St. Louis" two years later (the year I was born). Donna Reed charming and pretty. Margaret Hamilton good as always; smaller part than in "Wizard of Oz". Spring Byington way prettier, also with the prerequisite perky small nose lacked by Hamilton. Tent scene at end with former boy next door was hilarious. As a two year veteran of Army tents, he looked pretty youthful and inexperienced when I looked into his eyes.I used to work in a department store, and it was just as elegant as this one. Sadly, it has disappeared and faded into obscurity. We were famous for those great show windows that were used to lure passersby into the store, to get them to buy all of that wonderful merchandise.10/10$LABEL$ 1
+Brilliant actors and brilliant picture!! I love the chopper scene with the music in the beginning, it is just SO touching and at the same time real but at the same time surrealistic! The Vietnam War was far from human and I believe this movie kind of shows have terrible human beings can act under certain circumstances. Modern war movies are spending so much money on effects. This is just a straight forward smart movie that takes you beyond your imagination. A movie that really pictures evil and hate mixed in fearness and fate. How insane the world is and the power of will and friendship, love and passion. A must seen movie and without any doubts the best war movie ever! Many tried to copy but still there are no movie even close as good as this!!$LABEL$ 1
+I'm not a big fan of movie musicals. "Annie" was a stage show I loved but the movie was a flop. The "Phantom Of The Opera movies" (and I believe there were three) failed to match the Weber staging. But I LOVED this. The DVD will take a place of honour among my "keepers." Even though it's a movie adaptation, it somehow captures the flavour and the atmosphere of live theatre. Bette Midler, always a treat, is just exceptional in this role. There's great music, lots of laughs and even a tear or two. I've seen most of the big musicals of the eighties and nineties. Somehow I missed this one so there's no comparison to make. But if it gets revived I shall be first in line for tickets! But this movie is so good, I'll be in the odd position of wondering if the stage production will measure up to the movie.$LABEL$ 1
+I watched this movie thinking it was going to be absolutely horrible and was ready for all the corniness, bad special effects, etc. But, I was pleasantly surprised. Not to say that it's the best vampire movie I have ever seen, but it certainly isn't the worst. I liked the whole alternate reality/dream state that played into the movie. The graphics were quite well for a straight to DVD movie and I liked the overall look of the film. I enjoyed the main character Sai. I usually end up hating the female leads but there was something about her that kept me interested. Yes, she does make some bad decisions, but that was to be expected. Yes, the other characters were stereotypical, but I was expecting that too. I don't know if I'd highly recommend this movie, but give it a chance and you might be pleasantly surprised. I'm putting this one on my guilty pleasures list.$LABEL$ 1
+Critics are falling over themselves within the Weinstein's Sphere of Influence to praise this ugly, misguided and repellent adaptation of the lyrical novel on which it's based. Minghella's ham-fisted direction of the egregiously gory and shrill overly-episodic odyssey is one of the many missteps of this "civil-war love story". Are they kidding? After Ms. Kidman and Mr. Law meet cute with zero screen chemistry in a small North Carolina town and steal a kiss before its off to war for Jude and his photo souvenir of the girl he left behind, it's a two hour test to the kidneys as to whether he will survive a myriad of near-death experiences to reunite with his soulmate. Who cares? Philip S. Hoffman's amateurish scene chewing in a disgusting and unfunny role pales to Renee Zelweger's appearance as a corn-fed dynamo who bursts miraculously upon the scene of Kidman's lonely farm to save the day. Rarely has a performance screamed of "look at me, I'm acting" smugness. Her sheer deafening nerve wakes up the longuers for a couple of minutes until the bluster wears painfully thin. Released by Miramax strategically for Oscar and Golden Globe (what a farce) consideration, the Weinsteins apparently own, along with Dick Clark, the critical community and won 8 Globe nominations for their overblown failure. The resultant crime is that awards have become meaningless and small, less powerful PR-driven films become obscure. Cold Mountain is a concept film and an empty, bitter waste of time. Cold indeed!!!$LABEL$ 0
+Although I bought the DVD when it first came out, and have watched it several times, I never wrote a review.I loved it when I first saw it and I love it still.Sadly, it seems it never made enough money to motivate anyone to do a follow-up. I have to assume QT still controls the rights, but after Kill Bill if he does a film that is as true to the comics and books as My Name is Modesty, with another tough female lead, anyone not familiar with the character will see this as a let-down.Peter O'Donnell wrote his stories to focus more on psychological suspense rather than action thrillers.The tug of wills between Modesty and Miklos is very true to the source material and is tense, suspenseful and fascinating to anyone who doesn't have to have gore and explosions. Alexandra did a great job in playing how O'Donnell's character would have taken control of the situation.I find this particularly ahead of the curve following the sorely needed reboots of Batman and James Bond. After 2 dismal earlier efforts, although not nearly as well known to the public, this is really a reboot of the Modesty character, and it is really sad that probably no more films about her will be made.$LABEL$ 1
+Yes, I sat through the whole thing, God knows why.It was a long afternoon, I had nothing to do, it was bitterly cold outside, okay, those are all lame excuses but they're the only ones I have.I gave The Darkling 4 stars out of a possible 10 - I have seen worse films, but this one definitely is right there in the old trash bin of bad filmdom--poor script, poor acting, bad lighting, and cheesy special effects.The storyline, which never completely makes sense, revolves around this simple little family, Daddy, Mommy, and little girl--that I assume the viewer is supposed to be "identifying" with, all three of them were tedious and annoying. You just want the dark side to get every one of them.Daddy is a cook whose hobby is cars. Daddy meets a rich man named Rubin who collects cars and who is also in possession of a being he purchased in the "mysterious" Orient. Rubin keeps it in a birdcage and refers to it as "The Darkling". During the course of the film, the Darkling is explained as being about 3 or 4 different things: a shadow without a person, the inner darkness that exists in all of us, and the Devil. So take your pick of whichever one of those explanations suits your fancy--because trust me, it doesn't really matter.The Darkling's main problem seems to be that it craves having a companion--it gets a human companion--and then eventually is dissatisfied with the human being. This, of course, leads to immense wealth, followed by disaster, for the human who hooks up with The Darkling.And for the rest of us -- it just leads to a very long, tedious movie.$LABEL$ 0
+Granny, directed by Boris Pavlovsky (who?), sees eight friends experiencing a night of terror when a psycho-killer dressed in a old hag rubber mask and a nightdress interrupts their party.They say you can't judge a book by its cover, but it appears that the same is not true of DVDs: I was in the mood for a REALLY bad horror film last night, and since the cover of Granny featured a shoddily photo-shopped image of the titular killer swinging an axe, terrible typography (they even use the system font Sand, a definite design no-no!), and credits featuring absolutely no-one I had heard of, I reckoned it would be pretty lousy.It was!When a film clocks in at just under an hour long, it really shouldn't waste too much time before getting to the action; Granny, however, spends the first 20 minutes or so with its unlikable group of friends indulging in pointless games and extremely banal conversation. Anyone who actually stays with the film long enough for the killing to begin (and I doubt most sane people would bother) will be treated to several dreadful death scenes featuring amateurish gore, loads of awful acting, and a surprise ending that comes as no surprise (if you've seen April Fool's Day, then you'll guess what the twist is way before it is revealed).Granny is uninspired, unexciting, and almost unwatchable. Avoid.$LABEL$ 0
+This is a very fine and poetic story. Beautiful scenery. Magnificent music score. I've been twice in Japan last year and the movie gave me this typical Japanese feeling. The movement of the camera is superb, as well as the actors. It goes deep into your feelings without becoming melodramatic. Japanese people are very sensitive and kind and it's all very well brought onto the screen here. The director is playing superb with light an colors and shows the audience that it is also possible to let them enjoy a movie with subtle and fine details. Once you've seen this movie you will want to see more from the same director. It's a real feel good movie and I can only recommend it to everybody.$LABEL$ 1
+This "film," and I use that term loosely, reminds me of the first joke my daughter wrote, at eighteen months: "P.U., stinky poopies!" Like that joke, this movie can only appeal to the very young, the very immature, or the very stupid. That said, there are a few bright spots. The effects, where the majority of the reputed $100 million went, are kinetic and convincing -- I mean, as convincing as those kind of kinetic CGI effects can be. The CGI baby effects are not great, but I imagine those are very hard to do well... although for a hundred-million bucks, they could have been better!Moose, the dog from "Frasier," phoned in his usual exemplary performance. Steven Wright did well with a small part. Alan Cummings was, well, Alan Cummings-as-villain, which we've seen before, and Bob Hoskins as Odin was unrecognizable, but enjoyable. The actress playing Mrs. Avery was cute-as-a-button, as you'd expect, and Jamie Kennedy stunk, as you'd expect. His best role so far was in the Scream trilogy (not to be confused with the Lord of the Rings trilogy), and in Three Kings. He should stick, perhaps, to more subtle forms of comedy. Jim Carrey, he ain't.The writing and direction were, if anything, worse than Kennedy's performance. I semi-remember one clever (though seven-year-old clever) line that I wish someone would quote accurately for the "Memorable Quotes" section. Something about Avery's proposed costume being the "crappiest crap in Craptown," it was a second-grade joke, but sort of funny in context.Over all, since there's nothing lower than a "one," I give this film a "one."$LABEL$ 0
+I'm a Petty Officer 1st Class (E-6) and have been in the USCG for 6 years and feel that this movie strongly represents the Coast Guard. There were only a few scenes that were far fetched. The most far-fetched was when PO Fischer (Kutcher) went down inside of the sinking vessel to pull the vessel's captain out of the engine room... that would never happen. Swimmers are not allowed to go inside of any vessel no matter the circumstances. Second, the Command Center (supposedly in Kodiak), it looked more like a NASA command center... we don't have any gear that hi-tech. Third, the Captain of the Airstation would not be running the search & rescue cases with like 10 people on watch. In reality it would be an E-6 or E-7 as the SAR Controller and maybe 2 other support personnel like an assist SAR Controller & a Radio Watchstander. Otherwise the movie was dead on, I think they should have incorporated more of the other rates in the CG and their roles in search & rescue instead of just Aviation based rates. Some of the scenes from "A" school reminded me of my days their and the dumb stuff I did and got in trouble for in my younger days.$LABEL$ 1
+This movie has got to be the biggest disappointment I've ever experienced with a film. The acting is horrific, the suspense build up minimal, and the plot overall is ridiculous. I found myself rooting for the victim to just hurry up and become a victim, because she obviously needed to be put out of her misery. Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of how the world works will immediately be disgusted at the leaps we're asked to make in logic, and the so-called suspenseful buildup would be lucky to get a 3 year old to be mildly worried. I'm dismayed that a sequel is planned, because it means they'll be asking us to once again swallow a sub par plot line. If this is an example of Raw Feed's work, I think I'll be avoiding any and all future films by them.$LABEL$ 0
+"Sky Captain" may be considered an homage to comic books, pulp adventures and movie serials but it contains little of the magic of some of the best from those genres. One contributor says that enjoyment of the film depends on whether or not one recognizes the films influences. I don't think this is at all true. One's expectations of the films,fiction and serials that "Captain" pays tribute to were entirely different. Especially so for those who experienced those entertainments when they were children. This film is almost completely devoid of the charm and magnetic attraction of those. Of course we know the leads will get into and out of scrapes but there has to be some tension and drama. Toward the climax of "Captain" Law and Paltrow have ten minutes to prevent catastrophe and by the time they get down to five minutes they are walking not running toward their goal. They take time out for long looks and unnecessary conversation and the contemplation of a fallen foe with 30 seconds left to tragedy. Of course one expects certain conventions to be included but a good director would have kept up some sense of urgency.One doesn't expect films like this to necessarily "make sense". One does expect them to be fun, thrilling and to have some sense of interior logic. "Captain" has almost none. Remember when Law and Paltrow are being pursued by the winged creatures and they reach a huge chasm which they cross via a log bridge? Well how come they are perfectly safe from those creatures when they reach the other side? They can FLY!!! The chasm itself means nothing to them. The bridge is unnecessary for them so where is the escape? If the land across the chasm is 'forbidden' to the flying creatures the film made no effort to let us know how or why or even if.I know that Paltrow and Law (both of whom have given fine performances in the past) were playing "types" but both were pretty flat. Only Giovanni Ribisi (who showed himself capable of great nuance here) and Angelina Jolie seemed to give any "oomph" to their roles although Omid Djalili seemed like he could have handled a little more if he'd only been given the chance. He did a pretty good job anyway considering how he was basically wasted.The film had a great 'look' but there are so many ways in which CGI distracts. CGI works best when it is used for the fantastical, when it is used to create creatures who don't exist in nature or for scientific or magical spectacular. When it is used to substitute for natural locations it disappoints. There is no real sense of wonder. A CGI mountain doesn't have any of the stateliness or sense of awe and foreboding that a real mountain does. I know that the design of this film was quite deliberate and it wasn't necessarily supposed to LOOK real but shouldn't it FEEL that way? It just didn't. As for the weak and clichéd script...homage is no excuse. Even so, had the movie had some thrills and dramatic tension it might still have been enjoyable. "The Last Samurai" was as predictable as the days of the week and I am no fan of Tom Cruise but it had everything that "Captain" didn't most notably it drew the viewer into its world and made us accept its rules and way of being in a way that "Sky Captain" most definitely did not.I'd like to see a similar approach taken for films about comic book heroes of the 30's and 40's. The original (Jay Garrick) Flash or Green Lantern (Alan Scott) come to mind as being ripe for such treatment. Maybe the better, more well known and fully realized characters that those character are would make for a much better film. It would be hard to be worse.$LABEL$ 0
+This film is shoddily-made, unoriginal garbage. I like romantic comedies sometimes. Watching a good one is like eating ice cream for dinner. It's not something you are going to do all the time, but the experience is so pleasurable that you can ignore how unwise you are being. This movie made me think about how stupid I was for continuing to remain seated for its entire running time. Everything about it screamed made on the cheap. It actually looks like they overexposed the film at certain points it is so washed out. It boasts cheesy CGI and lame sets, too.The writing was clunky. I know that you can usually expect some plot problems in a screwball comedy, but you usually don't really care because you are laughing. This movie is so unfunny that you actually sit there and wonder about the unlikely series of coincidences and completely unbelievable behavior involved. Events were placed in the film just to move the characters from one scene to the next or to provide exposition. Sure, this is how all movies work, but you shouldn't notice that it's happening. Inelegant. That's the term I should use.There was almost no one in the movie who was really likable. I didn't care who ended up with whom, as long as they all stayed the hell away from me, and I didn't have to listen to them talk about it anymore. Why would the only really cool character in the movie, the Paul Rudd character, want to have anything to do with the completely bitchy, condescending, control freak played by Eva Longoria? Also, almost all of the characters involved consistently picked the sleaziest solution to any situation. A straight man pretends to be gay for five years just to hang out (and bathe with) with a woman he is attracted to? The best feel-good moment they could come up with was to tack on a happy ending for the same schmoe where he gets together with Rudd's equally annoying lying, kleptomaniac sister? Lake Bell and Eva Longoria are very attractive, appealing women. Maybe they will find something better to appear in down the road.$LABEL$ 0
+Whoever plays the part of J. Douglas Williamson in the strip poker scene does a wonderful job. He apparently received no credits. Too bad.All the Dead End Kids do their jobs beautifully in this 1939 entry. It is odd to watch them in a Western setting with their Brooklyn accents ( I guess that should be Bowery ). They even show some swimming abilities.I think there are many special scenes that can stay with the viewer of this boxing/love/crime story. My favorite right now is in the fight scene near the end of the film. Busby Berkeley shows his dance movie expertise when John Garfield shifts his feet and as we watch that move, the camera moves up to his face. I will not give away why or when, but the look on his face at that point probably brought the 1939 audience to its feet in the theaters.Some will think John Garfield looks a lot like Frank Sinatra in many scenes. Just his face. Actually Frank was not yet making movies so maybe Frank looked like John. The boxer named Smith in the movie looks like a clone of Ed Begley, Jr.Now I must tell you something that is not a spoiler, but if you watch the movie, watch Grandma's hands. May Robson does her part well. She seems to have hands that wander a bit. In a scene where she and a crowd go into the boxer's (John Garfield) dressing room, watch where she touches the reclining John Garfield while he is wearing only his trunks.A great ending. Lots of wonderful characters.Best line might be at the gas station, "...eight gallons, that's a dollar twenty-eight..." Tom Willett$LABEL$ 1
+This isn't among my favorite Hitchcock films, though I must admit it's still pretty good. Among the things I really liked were the presence of Jimmy Stewart (he always improves even the most mediocre material) and the incredibly scary looking assassin (who looks like a skeleton with just a thin layer of skin stretched over him). Although it cost the studio a lot of money, I didn't particularly care for Doris Day in the film--she seemed to weep a lot and belts out "Que Sera" like a fullback. Yes, I know that she was supposed to sing in that manner, but this forever made me hate this song. Sorry.The other complaint, though minor, I had about the movie was that it was a little "too polished" and "Hollywood-esque". The original version (also done by Hitchcock) just seemed a lot grittier and seedier--and this added to the scary ambiance.$LABEL$ 1
+The subject matter was good, direction was OK. Mohanlal was efficient in his role as a Major. The acting of the supporting actors was amateurish at best. The casting director and director should be held responsible for this debacle. Hawaldar Jai was terrible, he stood out like a sore thumb with his poor histrionics. He did not look the part nor did he move like a soldier. There was a scene where a satellite feed was required of the skirmish with the militants and they were showing it from a camera angle. Satellite is located hundred of miles in the sky so the only angle is from above.It was quite an embarrassing moment. Audience these days are matured and they recognize when one is trying to pull wool over their eyes. The Director is a Major so the story could be out of his personal experiences. No problem there, but the movie is only as good as its actors and Director. So if Major Ravi is going for any other projects he should pay more attention to the casting.$LABEL$ 0
+You know the story of "Sweeney Todd" now, most likely thanks to Tim Burton's recent movie. You probably don't know it though, from this take on the old tale from Andy Milligan-that notorious sleaze merchant that gave Al Adamson and Ted V. Mikels a run for their money.It had to happen eventually. In my years of watching horror and exploitation from the 60's to the 80's, I'm finally reviewing an Andy Milligan movie. You see, from 1964 to 1990, Andy gave us many an exploitation and horror movie-none of which was any good, and barely watchable. "The Bloodthirsty Butchers" is no exception.There is dialog and well, there is talk, and that's one of the things you will find here-lots and lots of talk. The movie reaches almost "Manos The Hands of Fate" levels at times, as you wait tirelessly for something to happen. While I love cheap looking gore effects, the violence is too few and far between, and in spite of it's reputation, the "breast" scene isn't that shocking. I love cheap and sleazy exploitation as much as the next trash cinema devotee, but "Bloodthirsty Butchers" is the kind of bad that MST3K would tear apart mercilessly. Sadly, Milligan would die of AIDS in 1991, and if there is any movie of his I'd say I sort of like, it would be the delirious "The Ghastly Ones." This is no "Ghastly Ones" though-it's just bad.$LABEL$ 0
+I'm a big fan of Kevin Spacey's work, but this is a sub-standard film. If you think it looks interesting, or you saw it and liked it, go and check out John Boorman's "The General". It is basically about the same guy, but is far superior in every way (and doesn't suffer from the Hollywood glorifications).$LABEL$ 0
+How any of you gave this more than 2 stars amazes me. I made an account on IMDb just to comment on this cr@p film. The acting is cr@p and the plot is cr@p. It would deserve no stars at all if it weren't for the descent soundtrack (and yet there are still some outrageously clownish tracks in there too, most notably the ones featuring the oboe and sound like black and white cartoon comedy background music and in no way fit the intended mood of the scenes that they haunt) and quality cinematography. The dialog and plot are about as complex as that of a Dr. Sues book. These actors are horrible. I am actually watching this movie right now and, with every word, am stunned you all swallowed this shitte. The only reason I didn't turn the movie off was because I have gotten wrapped up in creating an account on IMDb and posting this review. I dig mainstream films, I dig silly stupid films, I dig retro indie films, and nearly any other type/genre if carried out well. My brother convinced me to rent this because he said he heard it was good and he generally has great taste in movies; from the moment he told me the title I looked at him like he was crazy. I'm having a tough time ending this rant because there is just so much badness to talk about. The only way I can rationalize the good ratings on here is that you guys were paid to give this movie high ratings. It is so poorly done and no where close to dramatic, artsy, complex, well written, well preformed, or even bearable. If this was the final product of my hard directorial work, I would be to embarrassed to release it to the public, so I don't even feel sorry for the director if he reads this -- what the hell were you thinking guy?$LABEL$ 0
+Ed Harris's work in this film is up to his usual standard of excellence, that is, he steals the screen away from anyone with whom he shares it, and that includes the formidable Sean Connery. The movie, which is more than a bit sanctimonious, comes alive only in the scenes when Harris is interrogated by the attorney for another convict. It is breathtaking, a master class in artistic control.The other cast members are all adept and Connery is reliable, as is Fishbourne, but the story itself packs no wallop. The plot depends largely on the premise that a black prisoner always will be mistreated and coerced by white law enforcement officers. This is the engine which drives the story, right or wrong, and makes one feel a tad cheated at the end.Still, worth watching to see Harris in action.$LABEL$ 1
+Notorious for more than a quarter century (and often banned), it's obscurity was its greatest asset it seems. Hey, it's often better to be talked about, rather than actually seen when you can't back the "legend" up with substance.The film has played in Los Angeles a couple of times recently, and is available on home video, so that veil is slowly being lifted. While there is still plenty to offend the masses, it is more likely to bore them, than arouse much real passion. Except for a gratuitous and protracted XXX sex scene between a pair of horses ("Nature Documentary" anyone?), there follows nearly an hour of a dull arranged marriage melodrama. Once the sex and nudity begins, it is a nonstop sequence involving masturbation, a looooooooong flashback to an alleged 'beauty and the beast' encounter, and a naked woman running around the mansion (nobody, even her supposedly protective Aunt, seems to even think of putting some clothes on her!). On video, I guess you can fast-forward thru the banality, but it's not really worth the effort. The nudity doesn't go beyond what is seen in something much more substantive such as Bertolucci's THE DREAMERS.Try as one might to find some 'moral' or 'symbolism' in the carnality, I doubt it's worthy of anyone's effort. Unfortunately, for LA BETE, now that you can more easily see the film, the notoriety of something once 'forbidden' has been lifted. And this beast has been tamed.$LABEL$ 0
+Towards the end of the movie, I felt it was too technical. I felt like I was in a classroom watching how our Navy performs rescues at sea. I liked seeing that the engines have fire extinguishers. I guess I should have figured that out before, but I never thought about it. Using a 747 to transport valuable old paintings with very little security is odd and not realistic. The acting was pretty good, since they're mostly seasoned professionals, but if you're going to stretch so far from what would most likely happen, it should be more like a fantasy, comical, etc. Everything was taken too seriously. At least the movie had Felix Ungar as pilot, with Buck Rogers, the night stalker, and Dracula also on board. The movie was filled with well known faces. I understand that Hollywood has to exaggerate a bit for drama, but it does hurt the quality of a movie when a serious subject is made into a caricature. That's why I said it should have been more comical. My pet peeve with movies about airline travel is that everybody just casually moves about. They walk around with drinks, setting them down and picking them up 5 minutes later, just as if they're in a building or something, and acting as if turbulence just doesn't exist. Also, I know it's a disaster movie, but suspense doesn't have to include a 30 second crash after hitting something. Anyway, the skilled actors and actresses keep this weak script from having been made into a movie that got canned after it's first screening. I like Lee Grant, but it was fun to watch a psychotic person get decked...:)$LABEL$ 0
+Pandro S. Berman was "In Charge of Production" but that made him the so-called Line Producer. But who produced this epic, filmed not in Arizona but in California's Mohave Desert where scavengers have made off with all of the remnants of the "gold temple", the Thuggee huts, the British outpost at Muri, the village of Tantrapur, etc. The minor technical faults can and must be forgiven. What's unforgivable is the lack of an Oscar for best music, although maybe the Academy didn't offer such at the time. A single theme was played in various tempos including waltz, march and sweet, mood-setting. Brilliant! One of the curious aspects of the production was the widow Kipling's demands. An actor playing Kipling appears briefly before and after the battle scenes. In the initial release his scenes were cut, per Mrs. Kipling's demands. Later they were included and lent a "connection" of Kipling's immortal poem to Ben Hecht's screenplay. Interestingly, this very typically and pro-British story was by a great screenwriter who himself hated the British.$LABEL$ 1
+This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It's supposed to be a remake or update of "The One-armed Swordsman", by Chang Cheh. The ham-fisted direction and crappy fight choreography mean that the fight scenes aren't even worth watching. The script tries desperately hard to seem serious, but is full of cliches like, "And I knew then that nothing would ever be the same again..." or "If only I'd known what a heavy price I would have to pay." Ugh! And who is that girl who plays Sing? Someone find her and have her eliminated!! She's awful. If you like Chinese martial arts movies, you'd be better off with Lau Gar Leung. This stinks.$LABEL$ 0
+'Ray' lives onRay Dir- Taylor Hackford Cast- Jamie Foxx, Kerry Washington, Regina King, Clifton Powell, Curtis Armstrong and Sharon Warren. Written by- Taylor Hackford and James L. White. Rating- ***"Hit the road Jack, and don't come back…no more, no more, no more, NO MORE!" Who would've thought that this immortal line that has almost become a remedial mantra for broken relationships in popular culture was conceived over a lovers' brawl! Ray Charles was a genius. And if there was one thing that he knew, breathed and lived for; it was music. So in a lifetime that comprised acute poverty, a desperate struggle with darkness, guilt, drugs and painful affairs; Ray still found moments when inspiration hit him out of nowhere and words and notes took their own shape to form an instant eternal classic! There are some lives that deserve to be transformed on the silver screen. Ray Charles's life was one of them. It almost comes as a shock to learn that this project had no studio-backing until it was completed! And that backing probably came after the initial screenings where Jamie Foxx's performance was lauded and predicted as a surefire Oscar winner in hushed voices. Jamie Foxx as Ray almost convinces us that it is indeed Ray Charles performing on screen and not an actor impersonating! From the crooked all-knowing smile to the bent gait of not so much a handicapped but a man dancing through his demons, Foxx captures every essence of the actual Ray Charles. Ray was a complicated man. He never demanded sympathy and very rarely showed it himself. An astute businessman, he ensured his success at any cost, sometimes at the price of losing his loved ones. He never apologized for his philandering ways and always maintained that he loved his family, which we are convinced he did. He liked sex; it was as simple as that! But beneath all, there also existed a Ray that was afraid of darkness. Imagine the horrors of a blind man afraid of darkness! His fear was because of his guilt. Ray was convinced that he was the reason for his brother's death, and his whole life was spent trying to redeem himself. Ray was a maverick who fused gospel with jazz, an unheard blasphemous practice in the 50's. But his intentions weren't to instigate. He was simply practicing the only way he knew of getting close to God!It is hard to capture such an eventful life as that of Ray, and that is perhaps where the movie fails. We are never really allowed to get close to Ray as a person. We know him only as much as we see him. His relationships, especially with Margie Hendricks(Regina King), aren't explored in detail. And the script barely passes over Della Bea(Kerry Washington), Ray's wife, who everyone knows was a rock by his side. And the biggest blunder of all is the rushed, almost abrupt climax. It's as if the director suddenly realized he was out of stock and called for a pack-up! Nonetheless, 'Ray' is definitely recommended for a flawless performance from Jamie Foxx and an able stellar ensemble. The songs and age create a sense of nostalgia, and we get a genuine feeling that the film is made with sincerity. - Abhishek BandekarNote- 'Ray' is nominated in six categories at this year's Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor(Jamie Foxx).Rating- **** Poor ** Average *** Good **** Very Good ***** Excellent19th February, 2005$LABEL$ 1
+This is a pretty silly film, including what may well be the least erotic come-on ever to make it to the big screen (the heroine pours V-8 all over herself and invites the hero to lick it off -- yuck!). And yet it also features the resplendent Lucinda Dickey in what is far and away her most erotic performance. In those long ago days, women -- even action heroines -- with real muscles were a rarity, and I can still remember the way my jaw dropped when Dickey took off her shirt, revealing the most powerfully built female back and biceps I'd ever seen. Dickey's beauty and vitality carry the film: she could have been a female Schwarzenegger if anybody had had the vision to promote her.$LABEL$ 1
+A very, very, very slow-moving, aimless movie about a distressed, drifting young man. Not sure who was more lost - the flat characters or the audience, nearly half of whom walked out. Attempting artiness with black & white and clever camera angles, the movie disappointed - became even more ridiculous - as the acting was poor and the plot and lines almost non-existent. Very little music or anything to speak of. The best scene in the movie was when Gerardo is trying to find a song that keeps running through his head. He goes to a used record store to buy it for his lover and has to sing the song for two sales clerks before they find the album. Cute scene gave promise, but it went downhill from there. The rest of the movie lacks art, charm, meaning... If it's about emptiness, it works I guess because it's empty. Wasted two hours.$LABEL$ 0
+Modern viewers know this little film primarily as the model for the remake, "The Money Pit." Older viewers today watch it with wisps of nostalgia: Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas were all "superstars" in an easier, less complicated era. Or was it? Time, of course, has a way of modifying perspectives, and with so many films today verily ulcerating with social and political commentary, there is a natural curiosity to wonder about controversy in older, seemingly less provocative films. In "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House," there may, therefore, be more than what audiences were looking for in 1948. There is political commentary, however subtle. Finding a house in the late 40s was a truly exasperating experience, only lightly softened by the coming of Levittowns and the like. Politics in the movie? The Blandings children always seem to be talking about progressive ideas being taught to them in school (which in real life would get teachers accused of communism). In real life, too, Myrna Loy was a housing activist, a Democrat, and a feminist. Melvyn Douglas was no less a Democratic firebrand: he was married to congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas, whom young Richard Nixon accused of being soft on communism (and which ruined her). Jason Robards, sr., has a small role in the film, but his political activism was no less noticeable. More importantly, his son, Jason Robards, jr., would be for many years a very active liberal Democrat. Almost the odd fellow out was Cary Grant, whose strident conservatism reflected a majority political sentiment in Hollywood that was already slipping. But this was 1948: Communism was a real perceived threat and the blacklist was just around the corner. It would be another decade before political activism would reappear in mainstream films, and then not so subtly.$LABEL$ 1
+...because 99 out of 100 times, the producers lied through their teeth (or someone else's) to get you to rent or buy their *mercifully censored*.Shock-O-Rama Cinema proves the truth of this yet one more time with the release of "Feeding the Masses," a possibly well-intentioned but utterly inept and dismal entry into the zombie genre. Folks, this is not only low-budget film-making, this is VERY low-budget film-making by a bunch of people who--I'm sorry, I know they have families who love them--will never, ever be in Variety in any significant fashion. This is one baaaaaaaaaad mooin' pitcher, folks, and not just because it's cheap.The acting is mediocre, but I don't blame the actors; they had no direction. They had no direction because the script was a half-baked zombie fantasy with no sense of real cinematic storytelling. Characterization is thin at best, no thanks to weak dialogue and soporific direction. Have I mentioned yet that the script and the direction are pretty lame? They are. There's no drama, no tension, no great character moments, nothing. The whole premise of government suppression of the media is squandered on sophomoric "commercial breaks" and an undramatic storyline that defies rational analysis and awkwardly shambles to its ridiculous finish. Syd Fields would not be pleased.How could the government suppress the truth of a virulent zombie epidemic when the reality of it would be apparent everywhere? Why would they give it more than a cursory try? In this day and age of cellphone cameras with wireless access, what could they possibly hope to accomplish for more than a day or so at best? Now, if they were covering something up, like their own culpability....but "Feeding the Masses" never explores such possibilities. Instead, it dwells on absurdity and poorly staged events to dig for laughs and/or significance, praying its audience won't notice the near total lack of production value beyond basic film-making equipment. Did anyone in this film get paid? I hope the actors did, if only for their time wasted on career blind alleys like this one; at least the techies got to rack up some legitimate work experience.Even zombie fans will find little to gain from "Feeding the Masses." The gore is remarkably tame for no-budgeters of its rank, and there are no distinctive set pieces or memorable effects. They're all eminently forgettable, in fact. KNB has nothing to fear.Even junk like the Aussie stillbirth "Undead" was miles ahead of "Feeding the Masses." Sorry, guys, back to the drawing boards, and take your deceptive marketing with you.$LABEL$ 0
+Jacknife is a war movie that is just about as far removed from the war as war movies get. It can hardly be classified as a war film, because the only way that any war has an effect on the story or the characters is in their memories of it, and even these we are hardly ever shown. It poses very interesting questions about life, especially in the way that the movie's tagline says that only one of them is really alive (and by the way, even though the tagline refers only to Dave (Ed Harris) and Megs (Robert DeNiro), it is talking about all three of the characters in the film). Dave and Megs were friends in the Vietnam war, and Megs has returned to take Dave out on a fishing trip that they have been planning for a lot longer than you might have guessed. DeNiro provides a perfect performance of the character of Megs, who we are not really sure if we should like or if he really is as nuts as Martha thinks he is. Dave reminds Martha several times that Megs is not his friend, just someone he knows. There is a great scene early in the film where Megs has gone out to grab a six pack of beer from his car for breakfast, and he is just around the corner of the room when Dave says this. Megs pauses for a moment and then proceeds into the room with a smile and a huge greeting. It isn't until later that you realize how Megs must have felt when he heard that, having been the one to remember what they had planned to do on this day. It reminds me of the fakeness of the old, `Sure, let's do that,' thing that people so often say to each other, never having any plans to do any such thing.Ed Harris delivers a wonderful performance as Dave, who never got over the effects that the war had on him. Even so many years later he has not managed to get over the death of a friend during the war, blaming himself to this day for it and thus drowning his life in alcohol, cigarettes, and loneliness. All he wants, he says, is for people to leave him alone. This is not a man who is living his life the way he wants, whether people actually leave him alone or not, he is a man trying to forget that he's alive, to detach himself from the world of the living as much as possible.His sister Martha reminds me of myself, at least in terms of my roommates. I have two roommates who are 21 and 24 years old, and both act like they still live with their mothers, expecting their messes to just go away when they leave the room for a while. One on particular (the older one, sadly enough), has absolutely no clue how to care for himself, I'm surprised I don't have to wipe his chin while he eats. Martha has to do much the same for her brother, who she waits on hand and foot while he staggers through life from one hangover to the next. Martha and Dave are stuck in a stagnant life and neither of them can get out of it until something major changes, and Dave is the one that needs to do the changing. I tend to complain about romance in movies where it just doesn't belong about as much as Roger Ebert complains about those pathetic little tension devices, the red digital readout. But in this case, I don't think that the romance that develops between Megs and Martha had any adverse affect on the rest of the movie. On the contrary, it made it that much more interesting, because it was not predictable. The problem with the romantic subplots in Bruckheimer movies and whatnot is that they are so predictable that you just wait for the obvious end to come and hope that something interesting happens along the way. In this case, however, it's not as obvious that something is going to happen between Megs and Martha because we don't know enough about Megs. Martha could be right about him, that he's one of Dave's crazy war buddies and that he's not the kind of man that she should be dating. Dave certainly encourages this idea.(spoilers) A couple years after this movie, DeNiro did Cape Fear, where he plays a deranged criminal out for revenge against the lawyer that landed him in prison, a character that, in retrospect, makes it pretty easy to think that maybe at the end of Jacknife Martha realizes her mistake, gets rid of Megs, and she and Dave make up because he saved her from a horrible relationship and then he decides to clean up his act because he has done something good for her. I was half expecting this to happen, so I was pleasantly surprised when Martha and Megs wound up together and even more pleasantly surprised when Megs asks Dave all the questions about what they had planned to do after the war was over. At times this is a slow moving drama, but Jacknife is entertaining along the way and has a huge payoff at the end, which amazingly manages to be sappy without being cheesy. There is an almost excess of emotion at the end of the film that scarcely fits with the rest of the movie, but it is so good that it doesn't dumb down anything that the movie has accomplished up to that point. Everyone involved gives a wonderful performance, and it is one of those rare films that just about makes you want to stand up and shake your fists victoriously in the air.$LABEL$ 1
+I thought the movie started out a bit slow and disjointed for the first hour. However, it became more absorbing, fascinating, and surprising in its last two hours. So, while it starts out like a cheap horror film, it evolves into a beautiful and wonderful fantasy film.Bridget Fonda stands out as the Snow Queen. This was her best performance and it is sad that this apparently was her last performance, as she has not acted in the last 7 years. She absolutely personifies both the beauty and coldness of Winter.My daughter, age 14, found the film a bit frightening, so if you are showing it as family entertainment, please stay with your child and reassure her or him that it is just a fairy tale fantasy and not to take it too seriously.It is really one of the best fantasy films that I have seen in a long time, slightly better than "Eragon" or any of the "Lord of the Rings." It is about as good as "The Golden Compass".$LABEL$ 1
+Let's see where to begin... bad acting; I'm not sure if I'd even call it that, as it more along the lines of a no-effort script read. The actors didn't even seem to be into their parts and seemed quite lifeless and listless. Sure there was a scene or two with nudity, but that couldn't save this movie from it's lifeless characters.To call the main character a rapper is an insult to the people who actually do. The lyrics had no rhythm or flow and seemed more along the lines of senseless rants.Budget? Did this movie even have a budget? It seemed like they used less money than I've seen in a home-shot YouTube video. Bad lighting, props, poor sound post production. Bad special effects, if you want to go so far as to call them that. Story could have been good if the people actually seemed interested in making it so, but there was no life to this flick; I don't care who directed it.I've seen some really bad flicks in the past year and this one is definitely at the very bottom. Don't waste your time or you'll be wishing you listened to this unbiased review. Check the ratings, you'll see the 1's are rapidly outpacing the fluffed 10's with hardly anything in between. Wish I would have looked a little closer before wasting my time. What a suck-fest!$LABEL$ 0
+The Last American Virgin (1982) was one of the few teenage comedies that I really enjoyed. The subject matter and the acting was well above the usual tripe that Hollywood was (and still is) cranking out these days. But for awhile, the smaller studios were producing movies about teenagers that wasn't toned downed or soften for the kiddies. The men pulling the strings behind this production were from your friends from Cannon.Three teenage buddies are trying to lose their virginity whilst still in high school. They'll do anyone or anything to achieve their dream goal. The sensitive one of the group (Andrew Monsoon) what's to find the right girl while his two best friends will take whatever they can get. One day, the kid finds his perfect girl (Diane Franklin). But fate would play one of their foul tricks. His best friend moves on in and sweeps her off of her feet. After knocking her up, the sensitive kid helps the girl get back on her feet and pays for her abortion. He still has feelings for her and tries to win her heart. Meanwhile his best friend has a very violent falling out over getting her dream girl preggers. Still, he tries his best to get her to love him. The night comes when he pops the question to her. But his heart is shattered when he sees her dancing with his former best friend. In tears, the kid leaves the party.What I enjoyed about this movie was that it pulled no punches. Instead of being filled with phony situations, it was very realistic, honest and brutal. The movie's filled with it's share of funny moments and hysteria. I have to recommend this film for fans of teenage comedies.Highly recommended.$LABEL$ 1
+What's written on the poster is: "At birth he was given 6 years to live... At 34 he takes the journey of a lifetime." Ami is an American-born Israeli who was diagnosed with Muscular Dystrophy disease at the age of one. At age of 34, after the love toward his 22 years old care-giver didn't go well, he decided to come to the US to face the doctor who said that he would have only 6 years to live. He wanted to show the doctor that he is still alive, and weights 39 pounds. Why? Your guess is as good as mine, even I have seen this film.Obviously it's courageous to live when all he can move is his left index finger, but why does he have so much anger toward the doctor who diagnosed his disease 34 years ago? His doctor just told his mom that based on the medical history, people with his disease won't live long. What's the point of him showing up at old doctor's door for? Why is tracking down this old doctor in the US is a journey of his lifetime? There are so many things we might be interested in Ami's life: how can he make those animations with the movement of only one finger? How can he go through daily lives while totally depending on others? How did he out lived his doctor's prediction? How does he deal emotionally when other people look at him like looking at a strange creature? The movie told us none of that. Instead, the filmmaker got a van and set up a trip to let Ami to show up at his old doctor's door in order to show him that he is still alive. I thought it was a joke.$LABEL$ 0
+Darkman 3: Die Darkman Die is directed by Bradford May, the same guy who made the first Darkman sequel too. Darkman 3 is worse than Darkman 2, and is nothing special, in my opinion. Larry Drake is no more as a main villain, who is now played by great Jeff Fahey, whose character once again wants to get Darkman's work and create this time some ultra strong humans in order to get the leadership of the whole city. The film is pretty much the same in plot and execution as Darkman 2, but I was mostly irritated by the presence of many scenes from Darkman 2. These sequels were made in short time and with little money, so these kind of decisions had to be made. Couple of scenes are pretty stylish and exiting, but still this is pretty tired film and often irritatingly stupid, too. The characters scream and laugh too much and it is very annoying. There is no any philosophical depth in the film, and this is like a remake of Darkman 2 which it still cannot equal. Darkman 2 had many great scenes and stylish camera work, and Larry Drake's ability to play great villain. Darkman 3 offers only some nice scenes and moments, but mostly this film is tired and full of cliches. The few positive things in this movie are flashback edits (Westlake's nightmares) and couple of truly surprising plot turns and tricks. And worth mentioning is also pretty nasty death scene of the main villain which was pretty comic book like and inventive without any gore. Far more interesting than the death of main villain in part two. Darkman 3 is worst in the whole series, and we must remember that these two sequels were made directly to video and they don't come even close to Raimi's original Darkman with Liam Neeson. Darkman 2 was okay actioner with plenty of great scenes and suspense, but this last (?) entry is tired and often stupid and boring piece of sequel. It has some merits as mentioned, but overall feeling is that this should not been made in the first place. May is talented director so hopefully he can get some more noteworthy projects in the future.3/10$LABEL$ 0
+This stirring western spins the tale of the famous rifle of the early west that was coveted by one and all. James Stewart is the cowboy who wins the prized Winchester in a shootout, only to lose it in a robbery. The story details Stewart's pursuit of the rifle and a certain man through the film. The rifle changes hands time after time, as though the owner is fated to lose it through violence. The picture has plenty of action and suspense as Stewart closes in on his quarry. A great cast supports Stewart here, namely Stephen McNally, Dan Duryea, Millard Mitchell, John McIntire and Jay C. Flippen. Shelley Winters seems miscast here and the purpose of her role is rather obscure. Tony Curtis and Rock Hudson, teen heartthrobs in later years, have brief but good roles.$LABEL$ 1
+Being an Israeli Jew of naturally sarcastic nature as well as a lover of different and independent cinema, it always gives me pleasure to see a film that takes a view on the holocaust that's sensitive and respectful while also being original and unusual. While I haven't read the book – or, for that matter, heard of its existence prior to watching the film – and therefore cannot, like some other reviewers, comment on how they stack up in comparison, Everything Is Illuminated gave me great pleasure, and I can certainly comment on that.To label Everything Is Illuminated a holocaust film would be to do it great injustice, even though it is undeniably about the holocaust. So would labeling it as a comedy or a travel film, although it's about a journey and is as exceptionally funny as it is moving. Everything Is Illuminated is about Jonathan Safran Foer – played to minimalist perfection by Elijah Wood, in the most impressive dramatic performance I've seen him in yet, with a poker face that shows nothing and reveals all – a young American Jew, and an obsessive collector of family heirlooms and historical artifacts, who travels to the Ukraine on a journey to find the woman who saved his grandfather from the Nazis. It's also about Alex, his tour guide through the Ukraine, and Alex's grandfather. What's fascinating about these characters is that in the beginning of the film they look like comic relief to balance out the melancholy nature of Wood's character; but both Alex and his grandfather go through fascinating changes throughout the film, and turn out to be at least as important as Jonathan. In fact, Boris Leskin's as the grumpy, self-declared blind grandfather turns out to be the finest dramatic performance in the film.Aside from the surreal nature of the film and the characters, the beautiful mix of original acoustic music and Russian folk music, the sensitive cinematography and the chilling contrast between the beauty of the landscapes and the horrors of history, what made Everything Is Illuminated a powerful and moving experience for me was the fact that from Alex and his grandfather we get a very different and original viewpoint on this painful subject; several excellent films, such as The Grey Zone and Downfall, have already given us the point of view of the lower-rank Nazis who are presented as human beings who aren't necessarily fully aware of the moral implications of their actions but are caught up in the reality of the war. Everything Is Illuminated presents a point of view rarely treated before: Alex's point of view is that of a young man who was born many years after the war, who sees it as hardly more than cold historical fact, who finds himself having to face up to the horrors his own people – and maybe his own family as well – were capable of. The change in Alex's attitude – and his grandfather's – towards Jonathan, towards the Holocaust, and towards the Jewish people in general, makes the film a fascinating and original study in character development.Everything Is Illuminated is a terrific directorial debut for actor Liev Schreiber, and one of the most original and unique films of 2005. It's a highly recommended viewing experience, especially or anyone interested in the holocaust and World War II.$LABEL$ 1
+I don't even know where to start. I did not like it. It did not behave like a story and so much was injected into the movie (the pot brownies, the son was gay (?) the murder was justified, what possible reason could there be in the script for Linda aka Penelope to exist) that was never explained. It was all fluid spilled on a table and left dripping off the counter until it all made a big mess on the floor.Why did Vanessa Redgrave make a five second cameo? Why did Diane Wiest use her Bullets over Broadway character without the camp-fun? Why was Jane Birkin in the storyline to begin with. The list is endless. The movie ended and we all looked at each other -- like -- did you understand any of this??I tell ya one thing, if I watched my long lost Dad get murdered I certainly wouldn't be hugging the murderer. Tell ya another thing, if "Bob" broke up with "Bob" what purpose did hiding the son in the closet have? Was Bob going to have sex with Bob in front of the son? How did the murderer contact the son so easily? If this review sounds confused, it is because this was a waste of film, talent and time. What the heck did the dead shrink have to do with anything!!Jezz, this is one of the worst films I have ever seen because it should have/could have been better, stronger and it should have made some kind of sense. Any sense. Instead we are given a watered down "Diva" (the film from the 70s complete with a murder) and tired performances reading boring words from a script that is completely insane.By pass it folks. Or maybe me and the rest of the people who reviewed this film are too stupid to understand it all -- I mean after all it is a french film.$LABEL$ 0
+First of all, around the time I wrote this comment, I had already read what kittiwake-1 had written about this game and was confused. This is a video game and not an actual movie. I mean, I myself would choose a good Deniro movie or playing a video game any day. But, dude, what are you talking about? Now that I have that out of the way, let's move on, shall we? The video game adaption of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is, as you may have guessed, based on the movie of the same name. What's stranger is that this was released three years after the film was released. Whether that's due to a slow development time or just plain laziness, no one really knows. At least, I don't.The game allows the player to play as the four main characters of the movie: Jen, Shu Lien, Li-Mu-Bi, and Dark Cloud (Whose story is a secret bonus that is unlocked for separate gameplay.) All four of these characters have fighting styles based on how they fought in the movie. However, the real eye candy is the evasion moves that allow each character to avoid the blows of an enemy's attack in the most impossible and gravity defying ways that were first showcased in the movie.The story is obviously based on the story told in the movie. The story in the game is told using CG movies and spoken in a subtitled Mandarin language (A nice little touch, considering I preferred the foreign language track of the film over the dubbed one.) The story goes to expand on what might've happened to the other characters during the film and even (No real surprise since pretty much all video game movie adaptions have done this) alters what officially happened in the movie to make the game have more action. I never thought Jade Fox would go so far as to actually go and get hired goons.The real bonus for the story is the ability to decide how the game ends. What if Jen had all the ingredients to cure Li-Mu-Bi in her possession? What if Jen had not gotten back her comb? What if Li-Mu-Bi had not gotten the green destiny back for the second time? Your actions will decide the outcome of these scenarios and the destiny of the characters in this game. This is truly the best feature of the game.Yet, for all it's strengths, it also showcases some flaws. The enemies often tend to become a nuisance after a while and the camera angle tends to be fixed on the most unhelpful of spots. Not even the special features (Which are unlocked after beating the game) are good enough to even forgive such hardships that are forced upon the player.If you loved the movie, you may enjoy the game. However, this game is the only way you're going to be able to immerse yourself into a playable version of such a beautiful and amazing movie.Of course, you could have just picked a Deniro movie instead.$LABEL$ 1
+What? You were not aware that Scooby-Doo battled zombies? Well, you might also not be aware of this little film that was directed by Victor Halperin, who had also directed White Zombie four years earlier. That would probably make it the second zombie film made.No, don't go looking for Dorothy Stone to expose her breasts as you would expect in most zombie films, and don't even look for any brains being eaten. This is 1936, you know.So, what you will see is typical of the period - lots of talking.You do get to see Dean Jagger (Twelve O'Clock High ) and Bela Lugosi's eyes, but that is about it. Zombies in Cambodia, indeed!$LABEL$ 0
+This was my second experience of the Monkey Island series, the full seven years after I had been shown the first game. What was my response? "Oh, great, we're playing a cartoon." I'm glad my brother shut me up then and played on, because the jokes caught my attention once again, as well as Armato's wonderful voice-acting of Guybrush - not to mention everyone else done well (I still think CMI's Elaine sounds better than EMI's). The cutscenes do well to illustrate something happening, and the art of both the game and cutscenes are excellent. When we found the CD with the originals, Secret and LeChuck's Revenge, we were both ecstatic and spent hours working through Revenge - one such moment was where we just sat down and blew half a day on it. However, CMI has to be the Monkey Island game I've played the most, especially for the return of swordfighting and combat on the high seas. That moment when you encounter Kenny and he tells you he's gone straight and then, "I'm running guns!" had both my brother and I in tears from laughter. And that's not the best part of the game, not by far.$LABEL$ 1
+I rented this obscure aussie relic a few years ago to show at a friend`s place and it was an instant success.The classic tale of the wizard of oz with a decidedly cornball 70`s australian twist.The acting isn`t exactly shakespeare society stuff here,but later ,"Mad max"star Bruce Spence is a beautifully understated surfie/scarecrow and there are some wonderfull comic turns by Gary Wadell and Robin Ramsay as a deliciously 70`s camp fairy godmother/father character.Also note the musical contribution from ex-Daddy Cool frontman Ross Wilson on the title song.In a similar vein to later-day aussie comedies such as "Priscilla queen of the desert".Good fun.$LABEL$ 1
+Okay - I'll confess. This is the movie that made me love what Michael Keaton could do. He does a beautiful parody of someone doing a parody of James Cagney, with charm to spare.The supporting cast are solid workers all, and will step right up and do a fine job in this '80s comedy. A spoof of the '30s-'40s gangster movies, it breaks new ground constantly, with remarkably original material. (Well, yeah - some of it has been copied since - but when this movie was made, it was original, and much of it has _not_ been copied elsewhere.) Watch Joe Piscopo warn people to not do ______, with one of the great taglines of spoofs. Watch Roman Moronie do things with English profanity that would make your spinster grammar teacher laugh. Watch amazing sight gags, such as pet-store owner Johnny Kelly using the price-tag gun on his puppies and dusting his kittens. Watch the greatest "warning against sex" educational film ever made. Watch the most amazing misrepresentation of church Latin done, while a guy who never took shop class assembles a Thompson machine gun from parts. Watch lines you'll be using in casual conversation for the next decade. Watch Maureen Stapleton do the perfect antithesis to the hard-working mom, with surprise gags that you'll never see coming.If you see a gag that doesn't hit your funny bone, be patient - another will come along in 30 seconds or less, and the odds are, you'll need to pause until you're done rolling on the floor several times. Duckies and Bunnies? Them, too. Watch for the subtle stuff - some of the sight gags can go by unnoticed the first few viewings.There are a few minor flaws - but it's probably the best of the spoofs. Some come close, but none of them are quite this good.$LABEL$ 1
+I'm probably one of the biggest Nancy Drew fans out there. I've read every book three times over and I've played a lot of the Nancy drew games. I Loved this movie. It kept you entertained the whole time you watched it. I went with about 10 of my friends and everyone LOVED it. There were three woman sitting behind us who appeared to be in their late 30's to early 40's and I asked them how they liked it, they said they loved it! So you see it will be an entertainment to all ages. You just have to give it a chance. And it teaches a lesson too, just be yourself even if everyone around you is exactly alike. So overall, this move was great. I'm going to see it a second time now! So stop bashing it please. Its a really good movie!$LABEL$ 1
+The movie began well enough. It had a fellow get hit by a glowing green meteorite, getting superpowers (telekinesis, x-ray vision, invulnerability, flight, the ability to speak to dogs, superspeed, heat vision, and the ability to make plants grow large and quickly), and fighting crime. From there on it's all downhill.Meteor Man gets a costume from his mom, fights with the resident gangs, and has many aborted encounters with the gang leaders which serves to set you up for the disappointing, overlong, and stupefying ending.It wouldn't be so remarkably bad if it weren't like watching a boxing match where the two fighters pretend to hit each other while the audience stands looking onward while the fighters just continue to dance.Despite all of this nonsense the movie has good points. It states clearly that if you try to take on a gang alone then they'll come back to your home and hurt you. It states that gangs & communities need to see their real enemies (the big bosses that use them for their own ends to crush honest people into a ghetto existence). It also states that people do not need superheroes if they are willing to work as a community do destroy the predators that harm them. The only message it really lacks is that the voters should ensure their elected officials (Rudolph Giuliani, Marion Barry, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, & George H.W. Bush) aren't crooks too.$LABEL$ 0
+I watched the Unrated version of this film and realised about 30 minutes into it that I was never getting my time back. I persevered to the end hoping that the dialogue would improve, the martial arts would look realistic eventually, the special FX would actually look special. I was so wrong. I love Horror, I am a complete gore hound. I number some of the eighties splatter flicks amongst the greats of the film world. This however was not made in the eighties, if this film had come out in the early eighties the fax could be forgiven for looking so bad. It wasn't so it hasn't got that defence. The dialogue is terrible with so many bad lines I was wincing at the writing rather than squirming at torture. I don't like Hostel, never have, I thought it was over rated, over hyped and I felt nothing for the protagonists, however it shines as a beacon to greatness next to this garbage. The back of the cover for Live Feed promised a twist you would never see coming, I'm still waiting for the twist that was promised.$LABEL$ 0